Just trying to understand your argument: So, you are saying that neither Google nor Apple has really changed the world because their achievements were much more inevitable in a short period of years (<5) compared to potentially stopping starvation? (Which I think we'd all admit is not inevitable at all.)
I can see the logic in that if that was entirely true. But I don't know if I can agree that either Google or Apple's particular takes on various high achievements were actually inevitable at all (search in various forms, and maybe not the PC, but the iPhone, certainly).
Okay I'll try to make an example: these companies are based usually on other peoples invention.
The originality most people see in Apple's products doesn't lie exactly there. The big thing about the iPhone was the battery life and the hard disk. Not the touch screen interface. A touch screen interface was easy to make and copy for Google, that's why he did so quickly.
Indexing large amount of information (what google does) was or would be a requirement in the years to come. A solution that would be begging for an answer. At the time, no one could foresee how a good indexing vs bad indexing will shape the internet. But a few years later it was clear that we're heading towards big data.
Now, I firmly believe that stopping starvation all over the world, with today's technology is entirely possible. I also believe that this would change the world for the better in a much more meaningful sense. Technology today allows to create abundance, but our society chooses to create virtual demand, where possible.
I can see the logic in that if that was entirely true. But I don't know if I can agree that either Google or Apple's particular takes on various high achievements were actually inevitable at all (search in various forms, and maybe not the PC, but the iPhone, certainly).