So the iPad finally hit UK stores at the end of last month, with the predictable queues, fainting and mass hysteria from early adopters, trend junkies and Apple fans across the country.

If you haven’t come across media coverage of Apple’s iPad yet, you’ve probably been off holidaying in the depths of the Amazon – and I’m not talking the .com version. Frankly, it’s reminiscent of nothing so much as… well, the arrival of the iPhone, now that you mention it.

With all the hype around the iPhone and the iPad – most, to be fair, coming from owners and would-be owners rather than Apple itself – it’s sometimes hard to believe that there are competing products on the market. All credit to Apple, as they’ve once again taken first-mover advantage in the new technology game with the iPad, leaving other manufacturers to follow sheepishly. Having said that, it’s interesting to note the growing prevalence of media headlines along the lines of “Here come the iPad killers” or “Android now outselling iPhone“.

While some of these can be attributed to wishful thinking from an industry desperate to jolt Steve Jobs’ pedestal, others perhaps reflect a fledgling consumer disenchantment with Apple and its push for global domination. The reason? Apple’s dependence on the iTunes platform.

Recently, a friend of mine upgraded to an iPhone, after months (years?) of coveting it from afar. On its arrival, he eagerly set about getting it up and running. All went well – until he discovered that the phone was unusable until synced with the latest version of iTunes. Disaster had struck. Not only did he now have to acquire iTunes, he also had to find a non-work PC on which to install it.

Go onto the net, and you’ll find a rash of comments from bloggers complaining about both the iPhone and the iPad’s dependency on iTunes. It’s not surprising – after all, surely one of the USPs of such next-generation mobile technologies was supposed to be that they would free us from the chains of our PCs? In this day and age, can you really sell people something that won’t work straight out of the box?

For Apple, the answer is of course a resounding ‘Yes’ – at least for now. From a brand perspective, though, one wonders whether they’ve fallen victim to their heritage. If you anchor your brand in innovation, imagination and design, as Apple has done so successfully, you must be prepared to build your products and services to suit. In this case, however, the company’s product strategy has always revolved around a ‘digital hub’, with consumers intended to use an Apple Mac as a single nerve center for a variety of devices.

It seems Apple has forgotten one key tenet of branding: it doesn’t matter how good your product is, if your brand creates expectations that you can’t or don’t meet, you’re storing up trouble. And with players such as Google snatching at your coattails, that’s a dangerous situation to be in.

He’s known as the Ronald McDonald of Apple by industry bods. Steve Jobs, Apple’s enigmatic boss and co-founder, made his long awaited public return on Tuesday, following a six-month break recovering from a liver transplant. His appearance on stage at last week’s new product launch provoked rapturous applause and a standing ovation from those present. Away from the clamour, however, we should not forget the nasty Apple truth that has been exposed by Jobs’ recent ill health; over-reliance.

There exists a fusion between Apple’s brand and its co-founder. Steve Jobs is now an inherent part of the software company’s appeal. It has been his ideas, his innovation, and his vision that have driven the company forward since its inception in 1976. The question his recent health scare posed, therefore, was how would Apple cope without him? The immediate response was not encouraging; the morning Jobs announced his planned six-month break Apple stocks fell a whopping 4.8%.

Ultimately, Apple will outlast Steve Jobs. The spreading of power that will inevitably follow in the next decade, Microsoft style, will help ensure this happens. What is so interesting about this case in point, however, is its relevance to the world of branding. There are a host of examples where the individual behind a business has become central to its brand image. Richard Branson, popping up everywhere from James Bond films to in flight adverts to promote Virgin, and Dyson, whose recent ads simply feature designer James Dyson talking to the camera, are two that spring to mind. Here the business brand’s core values have been so heavily personified that it’s hard to imagine success without each inspired individual.

There appears to be a rising trend in willingness to employ this ‘maker marketing’. Perhaps it is an offshoot of the emerging ‘Age of Celebrity’, where being known takes priority above all else. Or maybe it’s a reflection of the post-Blair British political scene, where the appeal of a leader is increasingly more important to voters than the policies they hold. Whatever the cause, we are at a stage where Reggae-Reggae Sauce can woo the Dragons Den and take the supermarkets by storm not for its taste per se but thanks to the saleability of its guitar-strumming Jamaican creator Levi Roots. If the Steve Jobs episode highlights anything then it is the importance of widening a brand’s appeal beyond this one-man marketing if it is to achieve long term success.

Spotify announced success yesterday in launching their first application for Apple’s iPhone and iPod Touch.

For those who don’t know, Spotify is a service allowing its users to stream any song ever recorded over the internet and play them on an easy to use platform. Users can create and save their own playlists – all you need is an internet connection. The service operates on three levels:

Basic, which allows users to stream music for free with an advertising break every seven minutes.

Daily, allowing users to pay a £0.99 fee for a day of uninterrupted music.

Premium, a cost of £9.99 per month for completely uninterrupted streaming of any song you fancy at any time.

Obviously this kind of service provides the likes of Apple with direct competition for its own music purchase platform iTunes. So why is it then that Apple have seemingly put their bottom line at risk in such an avoidable way?

One answer is that they probably haven’t. The decision from Apple to only allow Spotify to create an application accessible by its Premium users will undoubtedly work against the applications popularity. This is because Spotify application users will effectively be paying £10 per month to simply rent music, in no ownable form. At least with iTunes the sense of ownership is retained by the user.

By allowing Spotify to create such an application on their own terms Apple have avoided coming across as a monopolising industry giant, thus not damaging the brands reputation. Remember, not long ago Apple themselves were the challenger brand revolting against the PC – so they clearly know the rules to this game very well! By giving with one hand and taking away with the other Apple have protected both brand credibility and their bottom line, an often difficult task.