Originally Posted by Obakemono
You could say that about Robert Oppenheimer as well......
Same with Lee DeForest... Or the kings of electronics - Volta and Ampere...
What Jobs did was to make the application paramount, first with VisiCalc, and later, with other packages that made computers indispensible. Then to come back and put Apple back into profitability (after a long number of years where Apple wasn't even a real consideration).
He didn't invent modern computing, but rather, made it modern by getting rid of the ancient, and going with useful, modern ideas like USB interfaces that could do it all. PCs had USB, but no one really used them. Same with CDs, PCs had them but they were an add on for power users. Jobs made these things the norm. He also did this while making the products look good - getting rid of the old beige boxes with the gaggle of cables.
He didn't reheat MP3 players - he scrapped the whole paradigm and made a portable digital player that had the ability to play real, full quality music - something his competitors failed at because they were fixated on the flawed, low quality MP3 format. He didn't invent music players, but put out a usable product that just worked. He shook up other markets, like the moribund tablet market that had never made it out of the blocks, and the cell phone market, which had no real vision or drive until iOS. And so on.
But he was never the first on the block, but rather, other companies simply chose not to take opportunities, and allowed Jobs to drive the market. If it wasn't for Jobs, computers would probably still be in the gross looking grey boxes, with oddball proprietary connectors for everything, with clunky low performance laptops that would not even have WiFi if Jobs hadn't put it in his machines first. It's all about profits. Jobs sees profit in coming out with new things that people will buy; other companies see profit in regurgitating the same old tired products that differ little from their predecessors.