Agreed, though this is going to vary by country and region.

The parent displays the standard classic misunderstanding of Apple. The vast majority of people who buy Apple products don't buy Apple because they "want to be hip" or for reasons of image. Most of us left that kind of juvenile peer pressure behind in high school.

The problem is the pundits are simply unable to look beyond the surface details. It would kill them to admit that there are actual reasons to use Apple that go beyond the superficial "skin deep" shininess. But because the pundits bang that drum so often and so loudly (any that don't are dismissed out of hand as "cool-aid drinking fanboys"), other people (e.g. the parent poster) think it must be true. That (for instance) OS X is "just the same as Windows only prettier".

It almost becomes a grunge aesthetic. They reason that the non-Apple and Apple products are functionally the same (or turing equivalent, or use the same hardware (intel chips, A5) as their competitors), so that the only difference is prettiness and price tag, and on that basis they reject Apple. They're trying to show how manly they are by not being swayed by 'base emotions' and superficiality.

Personally, I think the burden of proof should be on the other side. Given that Microsoft has spent the last 15-20 years dishing out shit-soup and their marketing mostly consists of "stick with us because the next bowl won't be so bad", how in blue blazes are they still so popular?

The burden of proof shouldn't be on the Mac-heads to prove that they're not superficial and shallow, the burden of proof should be on anyone that supports the Windows eco-system to prove that they're not clinically insane! ;-)