or:
Ever since the first web browsers, way back in the early 1990s, it has been commonplace to leave out the port number. The web browser adds it automatically.
Similar logic would lead us to leave off the "http". And similar logic would lead us to leave off the "www". The trend has been to simplify the URL as much as possible.
apple.com
It should lead to where the user wants to go.
However, there are good reasons for using the www subdomain as the canonical URL, and it is also worth noting that some users will habitually type in www anyway.
If you don't want to include the subdomain in marketing material, then there's nothing stopping you from leaving it out, just as there's nothing stopping you from leaving out the protocol.
apple
Should lead to where they want to go.
Should I redirect no-www to www?
Yes.
Redirection ensures that visitors who type in your URL reach you regardless of which form they use, and also ensures that search engines index your canonical URLs properly.
So I don't think you're advocating anything they don't.
If you really have trouble, you can tell your firewall to route ports 80 and 443 to another machine and everything else to the device you need. (I've run a hackier version of this that used netcat inside inetd: we didn't want a web server on the machine that owned the domain name, but there was another nearby web server cluster that we added a virtual host to. And we were fine running inetd and netcat on the machine.)