Oh, you didn't know? Old Steve marketed a product that enabled free long-distance calling, actively profiting from piracy and theft. The usual defence in this case is that "ma bell" can afford to take a hit and he was just a rebellious college kid long before he ever started Apple. There's plenty of college kids these days that are being sued or sent to jail for just as rebellious acts of "social liberation" from the corporations (GeoHotz anyone?). As for the righteous take down of "big business"? Yeah, well, that money went into Apple in some form and now they have enough money to buy New Zealand, it's not like they'd scramble to shrug off the theft of a phone from one of their stores (even though we all know "they can afford to take the hit").

Don't get me wrong, Microsoft definitely has a shady side in an anti-trusty type of way – but somehow that gets publicized, whereas Apple can come out squeaky clean because they're the devices the reporters use and trust (and I doubt anyone would actively admit their own stupidity if they didn't trust the company who supplies their precious glass porn portal).

From an innovation standpoint though – Microsoft has always thrown everything it has into developing weird and wonderful new concepts, remember Ultra-mobiles? (no not the Spectre or Mac Book Air you can get now), the full x86 PC crammed into a case not much bigger than a phone today. I would almost be willing to bet decent money on the idea that, if someone other than Microsoft did that now, it would take off and become a success (something like the GPD Win or Pocket - except made for mass-market).

First to make things easy to use
The next argument for the supposed "innovation" of a company is that they've taken something difficult to manage and made it easy for the average user. While so far these seems to have come out as a dump on Apple, the argument is used for Google and other large corporations.

Following the theme thus far: this is nothing more than iteration.