But adapt to what: some of us remember Steve Jobs on stage showing the leading smart phones. He said he would make one that's smarter than all of them. And easier to use than all of them.

Then he put the leading blackberries up. He said that half of it was plastic buttons. But plastic buttons don't adapt to the context: they have something printed on them. So how do you solve this?

Then he said, it turns out we did solve this, in software: with soft buttons. Button text changes dynamically.

So, he would make one giant screen. Then he said, well, how do you interact with it?

Then he derided styluses as something you lose.

Then he showed off multitouch.

And that was the start of the fal of BlackBerry.

People reduce the value of ideas to 0. But look at this luminary: the single idea, that we want something smarter than any phone (as powerful as a computer ,which is what they shrank down) and easier to use than any phone.

Then, if you want something easier to use you can't have plastic keys with stuff printed on them.

Then, a giant screen.

Then, finger interaction.

So much complexity drilled down in such a high-level way. That is what separate(s/d) a $400B company from yours. Or from BlackBerry, which failed to adapt.

Pure idea.