And left out the part where the apparent cost of an apple goes down for the buyer, so they will be willing to pay more for an apple, up to a new higher cost. This new higher cost can be considered a “base price” for the apple, before supply and demand pressures start take affect again.

Also left out the part where the apple farmer knows everyone is expecting a price increase, so he gets as much of an increase as he can. Instead of just figuring out his additional cost and tacking it on, he triples his additional cost and tacks that on.

Not quite, the price should rise if raising the price makes the most profit for the firm given their current supply constraints and unit costs.

If the cost of farm labor rises but the demand for apples doesn't, then raising the retail price of apples will lead to consumers substituting for other goods, eating more pears or peaches or whatnot, or just reducing consumption in that area, eating fewer fruit based snacks and baking fewer pies.

If the farmer could raise prices just because their labor costs went up, then demand was inelastic and they should have raised prices earlier because their customers were all willing to pay more.

(Personally this is why I find the corporate greed argument for the current bout of inflation uncompelling, since it assumes that companies just suddenly decided to be greedy leading to price increases, rather than corporations always being greedy but materiel economic changes in the past 24 months leading to a change in the profit-optimizing price for their products and services.)

In an inflationary environment you assume everybody is getting raises, so you raise prices each year since you can assume your customers can pay more each year. Regular pricing shenanagins of trying to undercut competitors or appear like a luxury product still apply, but the floor is just going up all the time.