I don't know. It seems common sense that "non geeks" (hear, common people) like glossy things. After all, the Miss Universe thing has some success and is pure gloss. But I think it can also be an observation bias, or the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing.
For instance, we check what people like to watch on TV, but what the people are fed with on the TV is already the result of some presupposition over what they like.
Some counter example exist, showing that people do not always like preformatted content, or glossy interface. Two different cases come to mind:
In France, there was a movie called Etre et Avoir, about a teacher in a remote countryside village. No professional actors, no story, just some shots in a school. Who would have bet on it? Is it not obvious that spectators want action, glamour, movie stars? Well in this case it was not true: the movie has been widely successful.
Another case, closer to HN interest: Is not Wikipedia the most successful (rich) content website ever? Who could say without laughing that Wikipedia has a glossy interface?
So I think one need to avoid clichés and presuppositions about "non geeks". They may or may not like Unity. If they do, it could be because it looks "glossy", yes, maybe, but it could also be because it just works, or because it is cheap, or because it is fast, or for some other reason.