I agree that Apple, as the case is at every brick-and-mortar store that I'm loyal to (B&H Photo has often talked me out of expensive purchases), has a great incentive to not oversell an unneeded product.
However, I think we need more data on recommendations before we can argue that the intent is entirely altruistic. As others have said, the low-end model is also the same model as the "Vanilla" build, i.e. the model that Apple has plenty of in stock...and a purchase in-store (with the possibility of upselling on other accessories) is more valuable than a purchase from the web. If it's the case that Apple sells a disproportionate amount of its Vanilla stock in-store, then is it coincidence that the Vanilla stock happens to be the perfect fit for so many customers? How many slightly-upgraded (but not in-stock) models are customers convinced to buy...because there has to be at least a few customers for whom the MBP is not ideal, but a slightly upgraded MBA is needed.
And if you want to be totally cynical, you could argue that Apple is ensuring that the customer returns in the nearer future by selling them a less future-proof model. Yes, customers have loyalty based on the reliability of the brand...but if the compassionate-sales-job is so effective, then that alone may be good enough of a memory for the customer to overlook that he/she is replacing a new laptop a year earlier than expected.
This is a beautiful case of win/win. Apple wins by having a lower cost of good (on the "vanilla") and the customer wins by spending just enough to get what they need (not more).
The more we can find these win/win situations, the better our economy will be. The closer we can match consumer costs to the the economic costs of their consumption, the more accurately the existing "Free" market will match the ideal market.
However, I think we need more data on recommendations before we can argue that the intent is entirely altruistic. As others have said, the low-end model is also the same model as the "Vanilla" build, i.e. the model that Apple has plenty of in stock...and a purchase in-store (with the possibility of upselling on other accessories) is more valuable than a purchase from the web. If it's the case that Apple sells a disproportionate amount of its Vanilla stock in-store, then is it coincidence that the Vanilla stock happens to be the perfect fit for so many customers? How many slightly-upgraded (but not in-stock) models are customers convinced to buy...because there has to be at least a few customers for whom the MBP is not ideal, but a slightly upgraded MBA is needed.
And if you want to be totally cynical, you could argue that Apple is ensuring that the customer returns in the nearer future by selling them a less future-proof model. Yes, customers have loyalty based on the reliability of the brand...but if the compassionate-sales-job is so effective, then that alone may be good enough of a memory for the customer to overlook that he/she is replacing a new laptop a year earlier than expected.