Both the iPod and iPhone so dramatically outclassed and outsold the existing devices in their respective categories that it seems fair to say they "created" those markets. The iPod achieved a measure of market dominance that's almost unheard of. The "MP3 player market" ceased to be something people talked about anymore, because there wasn't really a market. It was mostly just iPods. And Apple's only real competition in the smartphone market is a platform that didn't exist in the earlier market, and was specifically redesigned from the ground up before its release to copy the iPhone's most important features as closely as it could. Which is to say, the market that presently exists is a market for devices that didn't exist before Apple introduced them and which doesn't include substantial numbers of the sort of devices that previously constituted the smartphone market.

It is rare to see such a large amount of incorrect information conveyed so compactly. Kudos for your brevity, but pretty much everything here is wrong.

The Apple ][ continued to sell well even after the introduction and subsequent success of the Mac, which itself began development before the IBM PC even existed. The original Mac wasn't really a response to IBM, famous Super Bowl commercials notwithstanding, and the Apple ]['s eventual decline was more due to success of the Mac than the PC.

Also, Mac clones didn't kill the Mac market. The Mac was already in free fall when the OS licensing program began. Licensing Mac OS was an ill-conceived, last-ditch effort to rescue an already failing platform. This failure did precede a bona fide comeback--the only one, actually, in Apple's history.

Finally, neither the iPod nor the iPhone is a good example of Apple coming from behind. Their first entries in each market were both immediately successful, and the previous market leaders eventually became irrelevant. Apple entered markets in which they had never competed and completely took them over.