That's understandable, but doesn't sound like what a native-speaker would say (at least in the area I'm from).
EDIT: Another moderator has since seen fit to accept this :)
"Why do you have no apples?" or, "Why have you no apples?" are really common where I'm from in the UK. Perhaps it's more of a British English specific way of phrasing such a sentence.
"why do you not have apples" makes more sense to me ..and than its the same as "Why don't you have apples?"..isn't it?
'Why have you no apples?' was marked wrong when it is clearly correct. The 'correction' offered was 'Why have you not apples?' which is clearly ungrammatical.
The first one is now accepted. The second one is still accepted, but I agree it doesn't sound great.
Why do you have no apples?
Should definitely be accepted.
Think of the Phrase "Leave no stone unturned". Meaning be thorough.
The phase theoretically should be “Do not leave any stone unturned”. This is perfectly acceptable grammatically and is theoretically more technically correct. But sounds strange to a native speaker because that is not the idiom.
There are no more trains coming, until morning. (sounds better than to me than) There are not any more trains coming, until morning.
As others have said this is very common way of speaking in certain areas of the UK.
The choice over the usage is therefore down to the writer. Both ways are correct translations.
I think because the a in Äpfel is capitalised with the umlaut. This makes it plural.