The original iPhone did have a niche, more than just did a beautiful elegant implementation. The touchscreen prior to iPhone sucks, and no body used the multi-touch screen yet. With your analogy, iPhone created a rather complex solution (in implementation perspective) to a non-problem (they can use keyboard, touchscreen is a non-problem!). It feels to me to be ignorant to say what original iPhone have done is what everybody else had already done.
Touchscreen phones existed before the iPhone (my first such phone was from 2003) but, as you said, they all sucked. The other thing that sucked on all these phones was mobile browsing. Those were the very real problems that Apple solved.
The concept of a mobile web browser or a touch screen phone wasn't new -- everyone had already done that. Apple just did it better. Multi-touch is most unique feature of the original iPhone, but that was hardly a risky move.
It seems you've forgotten Visual Voicemail. Prior to the iPhone, every phone I ever saw required playing through messages sequentially instead of jumping to what I wanted to hear. That's a huge improvement in usability.
I guess entering a new market with a higher priced product and many established competitors doesn't count as risky if the product is really good? That's hardly a failing.
I guess when man first used fire to cook, you might argue that eating something warm wasn't a new concept. After all, some animals had eaten fresh kill or each others droppings before they cooled off.
The idea of Apple having retail stores wasn't a new concept.
Risk there?
Add visual voicemail to the mix -- another solved problem. The point is, Apple didn't develop a completely new device that nobody had ever seen before. It's all incremental improvements.
Apple was very careful entering the new phone market -- they heavily leveraged their existing iPod market and technology.
However, if you go back far enough Apple was one of the pioneers of touch screen portable computers with the Newton. Apple invented the term PDA. In terms of invention, that was something very different. They got a long of things wrong with that device that was corrected by competitors doing it much simpler.
I'm not saying that Apple doesn't take risks -- your other post was filled with good examples. It's just that their most successful products tend to be low-risk slow-burn affairs.
