Which was not a clever idea, because Apple already owned the tech-as-fashion brand just by being themselves.
In fact the fashion market is all about ridiculous virtue signalling at absolutely ridiculous prices - like the Vertu range, which takes an average phone and wraps it in some leather and chrome bling, dresses up the marketing copy with "craftsmanship" "exclusive" etc etc etc and charges five figures for it.
The key point is ridiculous pricing. Not just the very high end of affordable, like Apple. But the kind of ridiculous that only works for the 0.1%.
So Apple was never going to be Gucci-of-tech, or LV, or H. Or even Vertu. Because Apple is never going to charge $20k for its main iPhone range. And unless it does, it can't be a serious fashion brand.
In fact Apple's strong point was always its appeal to the exclusivity of the creative market - talent, intelligence, inventiveness, and art. It's a completely different exclusivity - more accessible but also sexier - than the mass market appeal of the expensive-but-trying-too-hard mid-market brands that Apple has ended up in.
Cook has done an excellent job of destroying that creative entrepreneurial foundation. This has made a lot of money for Apple in the medium term, but at the cost of the good will and loyalty of its core fans.
That won't seem like a problem if you're a bean counter, but it's a huge vulnerability for the brand. It means Apple has shaved off more and more of its USP, and now it's vulnerable to imitators in some of its key territories.