Apple is easily the single most successful exercise in branding in modern corporate history, right up there with Nike and Coca-Cola.

To play devil's advocate, Apple products tend to live or die based on how good they are, not the brand. Apple has produced plenty of duds over the years.

Whereas for Nike they could make the ugliest shoe in the world and people would still buy it.

They're "duds" by Apple's own standards. Their margins and sheer volume means that virtually every Apple product in the Steve Jobs era has been financially successful - excluding maybe the things like the G4 Cube

And "Fibre Tiger" /s !

I guess the point you're trying to make is that the products themselves are doing most of the marketing job. I don't know how much input marketing has on product though.

> I don't know how much input marketing has on product though.

From what I've been told, Marketing owns product management at Apple, so it's very much a marketing-first organization.

If Apple/Phil Schiller are not that good in marketing, who is good for you personally?

Apple/Schiller are good, maybe even the best. That doesn't mean they anticipated, planned, or engineered individual conversations between two people.

I think OP was being poetic

Thank you.

With a user name like that it's hard to tell