> Apple can execute well but a lot of their success comes
> from their brand.
It's the other way around. The big part of the brand was created very recently. Starting with iPod and then exploding with iPhone and iPad.
It's only the four years since the first iPhone appeared.
Do yourself a favor, find that 1997 WWDC Jobs' talk and watch it. He knew what he was doing 14 years ago.
It goes both ways. Apple builds their brand via successful execution and then they extract value from their brand in the form of higher profit margins, faster selling curves, etc.
I think you may be proving my point for me though. Apple has always relied heavily on their brand, but while Jobs was away their brand took some major hits, even while they had many sound examples of solid execution. It wasn't until Jobs returned and began reinvigorating Apple (with iMac, OSX, MacBooks, iPod, iTunes, etc.) that the damage began to be repaired and the modern Apple brand began to take hold. Even so, it's taken a long time for that brand to translate into the degree of customer loyalty and trust that exists today. Apple could quite easily tarnish their brand with a few key missteps (such as foisting low-quality software on the top tier professionals in a high visibility industry) and thus reduce their profits by far more than what they would gain in sales on a shoddy product.
More than that, they tarnish the Apple brand.
That brand is one of the most valuable in the industry today. Apple can execute well but a lot of their success comes from their brand.