I don't know about Apple, but I know lots of companies that will avoid using the registered logos of others whenever possible, as it opens up the possibility for being bound by another legal string. By avoiding the issue entirely -- not even using the registered logo -- this completely avoids the question of fair-use vs. being sued and/or paying fees.

Now, what they will do is explicitly write the company that has the registered logo -- requesting written approval for a particular context/usage. If they get that, then they will use the registered logo. But as the default case, "avoid as much as possible" is standard policy. Some are more afraid of legal matters than others. Whether this fear is justified is not as immediately relevant in this particular context, as is the existence of the fear itself and the consequences thus.

Cf. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/t...

"Poking fun" would be something along the lines of using the blue-screen-of-death screen as seen with previous networked computer icons in OS X. Whereas, in this instance, the visual representation is a very simple, generic "window" that is still distinctly different from any previously registered Microsoft Windows logos. To me, this instance appears to just be simply avoiding unnecessary use of a registered logo.

I could also get into it further, elaborating why textual registered trademarks may be considered easier to use for fair-use (used for informational purposes) versus registered graphical elements (i.e., logos), but I have no such desire.

This article is merely clickbait.