You say lots of signs point to it not being an Apple ad, but then say another company advertised an Apple product. Which is it? Clearly not an Apple product, or seemingly one because another company wasted money on making me think it was an Apple product? There’s not much logic in that thought process right there.This assumes it's an Apple ad in the first place. Lots of signs point to it not being one. And if it's not then a random company has just advertised a non-existant Apple product to you. Not a great use of money IMO.
And if it is, again, Apple doesn't even need to tease stuff. Every news outlet on the planet is going to publicise whatever they announce on the 12th anyway, so this would be a complete waste of money for them. It conveys almost no message and has nothing for viewers to do based on what they've seen.
It's ineffective no matter how you look at it.
To argue it’s not an Apple product because Apple doesn’t need to tease stuff is highly reductive. Apple thrives on generating hype and anticipation toward their products, which you know to be the case every year during Apple events. Along side the hype, they’re building engagement from their audiences for a new line of products that are much different from previous products. By releasing green products, theyre entering a whole new genre. Of course they’re going to advertise this - it’s completely new. It’s effective in every manner you look at it, and to say otherwise is completely ignoring the sense of wonder(lust) (ha!) Apple brings to their products (yes even new ones, imagine that).