My argument is that Apple is not above copying the ideas of others, or if you insist, basing their ideas on the work of others.
Is this the argument you say has no merit? Is Linux a byte for byte copy of Unix, of course not ( despite what SCO say's). But its basic structure is based on Unix, just as OS X is based on Unix. Was I being a bit snide in saying OS X is a Unix copy, yes I was, and you are quite correct that 'based on' is a is much nicer and more correct then saying copied. But if we use this logic then surely Michael Dell's ideas are based on those of Apple, not copied. Can Apple inovate, they have proven time and time again that they can. If they could't inovate MS would have crushed them long ago. But I believe that Apples (Steve Jobs) true inovation is not so much in his products, but in his ability to market those products. The iPod and iTunes are an excelent example, of dominating the market. Is the iPod really that much better then other media players, no its not, but by seeing the opertunities early Apple has dominated this market. I do own an iPod by the way and love it. My point was Apple is not the spring of all technical inovation.