The point of the article is that Apple's profits (and, indirectly, market cap) could be even higher (at least in the short term) if they decided to focus only on this instead of great products. (That would be the wrong thing to do, of course, since a more innovative company would disrupt Apple.)
Apple's strategy, the strategy to solve the Innovator's Dilemma, shows that creating disruptive products leads to profits that are large enough to be considered a successful company, even if profits are not your primary goal.
It's really just an abuse of language. When the financial press (or, worse, the general press) writes of "profits", they often implicitly mean "short-term profits", but that's not the same thing. In particular, Apple doesn't ignore profit; they just recognize that maximizing profit is not the same as maximizing short-term profit.
The market cap of a company reflects the market's opinion on the discounted value of future cashflow. This means that a company can't generally boost its market cap any way other than increasing its profits.
Apple's strategy, the strategy to solve the Innovator's Dilemma, shows that creating disruptive products leads to profits that are large enough to be considered a successful company, even if profits are not your primary goal.