- Looking over the examples from the blog post, those aren't really from 'first principles'. They are assuming cars and an internet and other huge innovations. I think the real message should be 'double check your assumptions'.
I think the point is that you should view cars as a physical object composed of engineered subsystems instead of as a cultural phenomenon.
See: the example given of "Foursquare for hikers". Break down the needs of hikers from a social perspective, and start from there.
Similarly, break down the power needs of a car. Perhaps a battery isn't even the best way to proceed. Really, you just need power. Thinking a battery is the way to go is already making an assumption that other devices' success with battery power translates to "all problems requiring mobile power work best with batteries". That may not be the case.
"Standing on the shoulders of giants" refers to the idea that we owe much of our knowledge to those who came before us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_gi...
That is, however, not the case. You need to work from the needs of A, and find solutions to those problems regardless of how the giants did things. The giants likely weren't wrong. It's just that your problem is different than theirs, and so their solutions, no matter how great they are, may not be appropriate.
The weight of history (I just made it up) is used more negatively, though much that ties us down is indeed valuable. But when trying to do something new you will be constrained by the structures history has left us. This is both good and bad.
Given the English connotation of giants from the existing quote, I'd avoid using it in the sense you meant.