Apple is specifically hard to reason about because some aspect of their value is based on their products being a status symbol, and some value is based on their functionality (this is true to a degree for most products, but is skewed quite high in the status symbol ratio for a tech product for Apple).
On the one hand, Apple has been fairly straightforward in their communication and not lied often, and also has a business model that has less conflicting interests when it comes to consumer privacy, but at the same time they could conceivably get away with more because of their position as a status symbol.
What this means for me is that I take Apple's claims about consumer protection fairly seriously in most cases, but for anything important I would not rely on them. They've banked a lot of good will, and at some point they might see it as worthwhile to make a withdrawal on it (if they hopefully haven't already), and I would rather not be in a poor position if/when that happens.
Indeed, that's why customer protection laws exist.
> So if I purchase a product from a company that's been around for a while, I can have a reasonable expectation - a trust - that that product will be of some quality.
That's pretty naive. Companies that used to produce quality products often switch to producing garbage once they have established a brand people trust.
For-profit companies kinda work when they are being watched and it's easy to judge the quality of their products – i.e. when you don't need to trust them.