I actually genuinely think they are slightly delusional internally.
They really think they invented multitouch, rounded corners, that popularisation = invention, that their inventions are worth $30 per handset while everybody elses are worth $1, and that they occupy a special place in the world that exempts them from rules others must follow. Thus I don't actually see them in the "spoilt toddler" mode, rather more like an autistic adult person behaving rationally in a world that constantly baffles them because they have a different internal model of its rules. And I even see this as possibly essential to their success - you can't create products that defy conventional expectations unless you are slightly crazy - "the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that actually do" truly fits. Of course, this doesn't absolve them of anything, now that they occupy such a position of power in the world they need to grow up and live in reality.
I'm not sure I agree with your analogies, but I think you're right that Apple really does think they're responsible for the spread of those technologies. There's no denying that they were a game-changer: all consumer electronics can now defined as "pre-Apple" or "post-Apple" just by looking at them.
The problem is that people disagree to the extent Apple should be compensated (or their ideas protected). More technology-minded people can see the roots of Apple's devices, and so think it's inevitable and all Apple did was "popularise" it, while others think that Apple's innovations were/are a stroke of genius, and without them we'd be floundering in a world of Windows CE and Symbian for the next decade.
The trouble is, no one's wrong. It's just a difference of opinion. And that's the patent system in a nutshell. People spend so much time arguing Android v. Apple that it's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that we're really arguing "how far can a company have a monopoly on an idea? and even if they did invent something, is it fair that they can impede the progress of an entire industry to protect that invention?" Because I can assure you, even if Apple was responsible for every chip and every bit in the iPhone, from concept to execution, people would still want Android, and people would still resent Apple for wanting a monopoly.
There is a big difference between being inspired by a design, and blatantly ripping it off.
Indeed. Apple is now famous for both (Inspiration: LE1 speaker->iMac; Ripoff: Swiss Railway clock->iPhone clock). If the iPod design is "inspired by" the T3 radio design, and not a blatant ripoff, then current Samsung phones are definitely not ripoffs of the iPhone design.
This whole deal is about design patents (or registered designs, depending on jurisdiction), basically the look of the box that the electronics are housed in; the content ot the box is immaterial in this respect.
Osmium made the claim (which I quoted) that Apple's rise to power marks a dividing line in history, with consumer electronics from before and after that line recognizably different. My reference to two decades-old products that look far more similar to Apple hardware than a Samsung phone does to an iPhone is meant to address that specific claim.
Also, seconding what pbhjpbhj said, design is all that matters in the context of a design patent/registered design.
What can you expect? They've been rewriting history for the last 20 years.
Just look at the hatchet job they done to Commodore. Anyone who remembers the mid-80s should remember that they were the driving force behing "Consumer Computing", not the expensive and underpowered Apple machines of the time.
My first computer was a C64 bought with my first Deutsche Mark money after reunification of Germany. What a great investment - it cost a couple hundred bucks but set me on the path to a carreer in computing. You would seldom see Apple computers in these days - I believe they were mostly available at universities and perhaps some select schools with money to spend.
It's funny, this kind of mentality is exactly what Marco Arment was saying about MS recently on his podcast, with reference to Surface. That it's in a Redmond bubble and thinks it's several notches cooler than everyone else does. Maybe it's just an inevitable trajectory for successful platform companies, or at least something its leaders need to be vigilant about.
This is the same problem that afflicts online communities, where you end up with a bunch of people standing around agreeing with each other[1]. If you spend too much time with like-minded people, you lose perspective.
They really think they invented multitouch, rounded corners, that popularisation = invention, that their inventions are worth $30 per handset while everybody elses are worth $1, and that they occupy a special place in the world that exempts them from rules others must follow. Thus I don't actually see them in the "spoilt toddler" mode, rather more like an autistic adult person behaving rationally in a world that constantly baffles them because they have a different internal model of its rules. And I even see this as possibly essential to their success - you can't create products that defy conventional expectations unless you are slightly crazy - "the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that actually do" truly fits. Of course, this doesn't absolve them of anything, now that they occupy such a position of power in the world they need to grow up and live in reality.