"But the iPhone (a) included new technology (touch-screen) that revolutionized user interaction with phones (does that make it a new category?); (b) it wasn't r

"But the iPhone (a) included new technology (touch-screen) that revolutionized user interaction with phones (does that make it a new category?); (b) it wasn't really a phone, nor really a smart-phone, but a platform for apps - like a PC; (c) the innovation of the appstore, to facilitate that platform." a) Touchscreens had been available on smart phones for QUITE some time. They just were designed for styluses. They WERE pretty awesome, though. b) The original iPhone was most certainly not a platform for apps. Yet, it was still very popular. But really, why bring up Apple at all? For a company, Apple is weird and opaque. Trying to use their actions or success to justify your start-up is foolish, since you don't really understand how and why Apple got to where they are. No, really. You don't. (Not nearly well enough to duplicate or otherwise replicate it) Bringing them up is an unnecessary and unhelpful complication. EDIT: Yeesh, I guess I skimmed right over the part of the article where this is brought up, for my last paragraph.