By that token, though, the court did specify what they wanted: a link, 11pt text. So they'd not afraid of specificity. If they're wanted something more attention-grabbing, they could've said it must include, e.g. "a graphic at least x pixels by y pixels."
They don't have to also specify that the text should be in a color different than the background and is not covered by a black rectangle.
There are rules for contempt of court. They include jail time. They should be applied for such repeat contempt.
What would that achieve? The people making the decisions are in the US, outside of the UK's jurisdiction. So the court would have to go after some minion in the UK office, punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone rather than for the sake of justice.
That wouldn't be a case of the Nuremberg defense, which is the excuse that "I was just following orders". It's entirely possible that none of the Apple employees in the UK were involved in the decision or implementation of how to post their court-mandated apology. In that case, the only employees in the UK's jurisdiction would be guilty only of working for the guilty corporation.
From the link: One of the most noted uses of this plea, or "defense," was by the accused in the 1945–46 Nuremberg Trials, such that it is also called the "Nuremberg defense". The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the main victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany.
You don't get it. The phrase "Nuremberg defense" is not a reference to the trials, it's a reference to the type of defense. So, if you here that in conversation, they aren't equating the situation to the holocaust, but rather the type of defense used (I was just following orders).
The only person equating anything to the holocaust was you.