What I think Comprex is talking about is *perceived* premium brand value, i.e. how to get folks to pay $9 for a can of nuts everyone else is selling for $3.50.
While there are still major consumer commodities where pricing tracks strongly with quality (e.g. cars, audiophile equipment), for most other mainstream goods, consumers can readily be convinced to pay a premium largely for the perceived added value of bragging rights, cachet, or "gotta have it" factor, albeit only as long as the hype machine keeps rolling, and paid celebrity endorsers & the PR dept can keep a product seeming "cool."
Apple makes really pretty products, and does a better job making them intuitive and functional than much of their competition, but with iPods & iPhones in particular, the "secret engine" driving Apple sales is the ability to plant in the mind of the impressionable consumer the sense that they will be significantly less cool than their peers if they don't have that little white apple on their silver gizmo and a set of white headphones to go with it.
As for how you could create a sustainable brand image a la Apple in the ski world for which a maximum number of consumers would make the emotional decision to pay a maximum premium, two major barriers come to mind: numbers and informed/skilled consumers.
Numbers: bottom line is we're in such a tiny, niche market: you're not going to get tens of millions of folks scrambling to buy the "hottest" new skiing doodad just because their favorite celeb showed up wearing / toting it on Oprah. This is the reason why Adidas is no longer in the ski business. They don't want to sell tens of thousands of units of Salomon & Arcteryx product when the snow is good, and half that number if the season sucks. They want to sell millions of NBA endorsed sneakers to kids all around the globe 365 days a year, rain or shine.
Then there is the matter of how ski gear actually gets used. For the consumer of "premium denim", there is no performance / lack of performance feedback that will drive home the point that a consumer has over-paid by 400-1000% for jeans made of fabric produced in the exact same denim mills as your average Levis or Wranglers. On the contrary, the primary feedback they get in terms of product value will largely be in the form of their friends recognizing the labels on their jeans and saying "I love your new _____s, they're so hot!" The feedback primarily is symbolic, not empirical.
With skiing, the market for high-end skis is largely populated by performance-driven consumers, who (once we get done subtracting the oil sheiks, nouveau riche poseurs, etc.) are largely going to be able to distinguish crap from the real deal as soon as the skis hit the snow. A nifty top skin may go a long way in selling teen park skis, but aesthetics isn't going to get you all the way to Apple-premium pricing if your skis don't ride any better than the competition.
Can a ski company create an emotional value-added proposition that wins them the instant envy & recognition of their peers, and has the person next to them on the airplane asking "so how do you like the new iPhone 5?"
It's hard to imagine how.
Maybe Kastle is on the path to creating this sort of aura around their product. I'd go so far as to state that their dogged efforts to maintain premium pricing on their product has been just as important as performance in creating their own brand's halo effect. I really dig the aesthetic of their skis but never found anywhere I could demo a pair, and wound up buying something else.
Which seems to bring us full circle back to numbers / ubiquity. Everyone, including those who can't afford an iPad or iPhone, knows where to get an Apple product, but I can neither think of a ski shop within a 75 mile radius of my home, nor recall a resort demo shop I've visited that actually carries Kastle.