We could start with a simple, broad statement: I mostly disagree with what most people mostly say about Apple.
That being said, I won't go into the details. Many of these details are ultimately subjective, if something is a 50/50 call, and I'm 60/40, and a pundit|fanboy|hater is 99/1, there still isn't a "right".
I'm just taking a moment to lay out the case for "my side".
The underlying cause is fundamental. I think of Apple very differently than most people, possibly including many Apple employees. Here's my thesis.
If you look at the long history of Apple, including the years where it wasn't going to survive and the years it could do no wrong, you can tamp down subjective noise, and look more objectively.
Hint: There was probably only one era when Apple was actually going to go out of business.
(If you think there as more than one, you are a cynic. If you think there were a lot more, you are hater).
Hint 2: There as probably on one era when Apple had true absolute dominance of its self-defined market.
(If you think there is more than one, you are probably a fan-boy/girl).
Here's the history of Apple in a few piles.
Apple (I), Apple ][, Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch
These are really long-lived product families. And this isn't to diminish the value of non-flagship products. (Whine: Apple, please don't kill of Time Capsule, even though you already said you would.)
The first of each product family launched a fundamental and consequential idea that was not only viable, but was a successful business model in its own right.
Take each of these and ask: what would happen if Apple hadn't launched?
Apple (I) - There would be no Apple Computer. No rainbow logo, and everything else.
Apple ][ - A *personal* computer means: you have your own keyboard, display, CPU and storage. That is relatively affordable.
Macintosh - Computer interaction should extend beyond text (and keyboard input). To do that you need graphics and gestural input methods.
iPod - mobile computing should not only be pervasive (Blackberry and Palm had this working), but hands-free yet interactive.
iPhone - a mobile computing platform should be built on intimacy (a "touch" OS)
iPad - tablet computing is more viable without a pen than with a pen.
Apple Watch - pervasive services make sense if they provide less, but better information.
This isn't to say Apple has a perfect record. (Heck, I worked on Newton. Or maybe Newton worked on me?)
But I think this is a good starting point. For example, Apple has worked on car projects for years. If you take this perspective, the critical question isn't: Should Apple make an iPod Touch with 4 wheels?
It would be: what's the hardware product that can Apple's available tech-tree, to solve the "distance is really time" problems of our modern life?