If I have a known reason why apple A is made in a more responsible way than apple B, I have no real incentive other than guilt to guy A over B. Under hypercapitalism you would favor A.

Only to the extend that you define "responsible" as likely doing business in a way that makes a profit in the future. Not if you define it in ways about producing little negative externalizes.

Animal products might be a better example. If "responsible" means that the animal suffers less than there no element in your hyercapitalism that encourages a buyer to buy from the more responsible person. If raising animals in a way where the suffer less is bad for business hyercapitalism encourages people to buy from farmers who's animals suffer more.

I'm not sure that it's worthwhile to discourage people from buying from companies that are in financial trouble. Do you think extra pressure to kill weak companies is good?

I make an assumption that if you had the chance to buy a gallon of milk and get nothing in the future vs buy a gallon of milk and get some of your money back in the future that you will almost always choose the second.

Only if the have the same price. Otherwise you calculate the value of money that you are likely to get back by comparing it to how much a similar investment costs and see whether the price difference warrants it.