One particular item that may have gotten overlooked in the deluge of coverage on Steve Jobs is the impact he’s had on technology investors. Not so much the market as a whole, but pertaining more to the overwhelmingly devastating effect Apple has had on some of its rivals.

In “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy“, the author, Joseph Schumpeter, coined the term “creative destruction“, meaning a “process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” And that’s the way Steve Jobs operated, steering by his own lights and remaking whole industries in that creative destructive process. Music, film, mobile phones, media publishing, and computing all have felt the the enormous impact of his vision.

And now the rumors are flying as to Apple’s next conquest, transforming traditional television into an entirely new media vehicle. Apple 1.0 changed the way we perceive the PC user experience, but it wasn’t the world shaker that Apple 2.0 became. The PC manufacturer in Cupertino actually made very little from its innovations.  At the time, Apple was “small potatoes” with hardly any market share.

True, the original Mac was very influential, but was in large part exploited by Microsoft. In fact, what kept it alive was Microsoft’s 1997 investment of $150 million. It worked out great for Bill Gates at the time. He was able to hold on to a weakened rival, and deny Microsoft was an operating system monopoly.

And therein lies the irony. Who could have dreamed at the time how that relatively small boost by today’s business standards would enable a competitor to not only recover, but to eventually become a major business threat? By his actions, Bill Gates didn’t just help create that threat to Microsoft and other PC makers, he unwittingly helped a rival company to grow in strength to the point it was able to formulate a three-pronged attack. Its weapons: the iPod, iPhone and iPad which, together, have revolutionized communications, social networking, the news and entertainment media, and completely changed the way we relate to using a PC. It has also left failed business models and managements trampled in its wake, as well as investors who simply bet on the wrong horse in the race.

And now we look more specifically at some of those hurt, and helped, by Cupertino’s perfectionist.

Hewlett-Packard: Though it’s still supplying ink cartridges for lots of printers, its PC business is pretty much a shambles, caused in large part by iPad sales. The company is currently considering selling off its $40 billion division and leaving the PC industry. The $499 TouchPad, HP’s tablet, was a monumental flop, leaving Best Buy stuck with more than 200,000 units until the price was slashed by 80 percent, selling at $99.

Dell: Michael Dell, the founder, talking about Apple, once made the now famous statement: “What would I do? I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.”

In 2006 when Apple’s market cap passed Dell’s, Steve Jobs reminded employees of Michael Dell’s dig via e-mail. Presently, Apple’s $29 billion profit alone is larger than than Dell’s total market value of all its outstanding shares. And so far Dell seems unable to come up with any answers to help it overcome the huge challenges Apple has thrown at it, consequently hurting its traditional made-to-order PC business model.

Research in Motion: RIM is a prime example of how an innovative competitor can cast a major business leader down from the heights. Using its “crackberry“, the enterprise market for mobile e-mail and text messaging was long RIM’s strong suit, with its price per share topping out at $144 in 2008. It now trades somewhere between the upper $20s to lower $30s and has no real competitive answer to the iPhone.

Nokia: Not all that long ago, Nokia had more than a 50 percent market share of the mobile phone market. Now? Just 15 percent, and its been forced to scrap its own operating system, instead using Windows Mobile, Microsoft’s rather unimpressive phone OS runner-up.

Microsoft: Damaged? Certainly, to some extent, for sure. Once hated as a cold-blooded monopolist, “Mister Softee” currently has Steve Ballmer at the helm, and has become vulnerable in many aspects. Over the past ten years or so, Microsoft has missed nearly every major technology trend, with the Kinect standing out as the lone exception. Ballmer is known for once saying he wouldn’t let his kids use an iPod or Google, completely missing a major paradigm shift in the world of computing. Even as recently as two years ago, he made the claim that Linux was more competition to Microsoft than Apple was.

The fact that Ballmer sold 49.3 million shares of his Microsoft stock in late 2010, approximately $1.3 billion in cash, seems to speak volumes more as to his confidence, or lack of,  in the company, than his former bluster did.

Luckily for Microsoft, it still has its two golden geese, Windows and Office, but over the next decade their current predominance could also begin to erode.

Sony: Once ruler of the portable music realm, its Walkman was ousted by the iPod, and its long generally admired Vaio laptops are getting replaced with iPads. Its enormous consumer electronics, film and television business is being attacked, too, by the Korean manufacturers and, again, by Apple.

Intel: Perhaps a slightly better mix than all the aforementioned companies. It powers Macs and has some chipsets in other Apple products too, possibly making it less vulnerable than some, but its PC business still appears to be at risk.

: A massive inexorable force in its own right, Google acquired Android, turning it into an actual competitor to the iPhone. But it gives the OS away for free, retaining only the search rights, the real bread and butter. It was a wise move, expanding into mobile so as not to be left behind in that area, but it caused problems, too, in regards to patent exposure.

Not only does Apple dominate the space, but by acquiring a huge treasure trove of Nortel patents, it effectively shielded itself and is able to take on all comers. Another result of the acquisition was Google being forced to pony up for a comparable portfolio, latching onto Apple’s former partner, Motorola, for $12.5 billion. The jury is still deliberating as to whether this will protect some of the clearly Apple-inspired technology on the Android.

AT&T: Was desperate enough to allow Apple to dictate its own terms for the iPhone, subsequently transforming the industry. When iPhone calls got dropped in large numbers, Apple very well may have saved it from a disgraceful end.

Verizon: It could be debated whether the phone giant could be seen as challenged, benefited, or perhaps some of each. It’s fairly certain, though, AT&T’s initial years of iPhone sales stole some of the market share from its competitors.

However, one result was that Verizon’s reputation for delivering reliable network coverage was enhanced, and its intelligent advertising also helped in providing damage control. And as soon as AT&T’s exclusive dominance came to an end, Verizon was ready and waiting to begin selling the iPhone 4 and the iPad 2.

The company had no problem selling the devices, putting them in a good negotiating position with Apple for contracts, in light of their successful sales record. That, indeed, is something other mobile phone companies wish they could claim.

Samsung: Samsung benefits from having Apple as a major supplier, much in the same way as Verizon and Foxconn do, but is also competitive in its own right. Recently, the Economist reported that Samsung makes 26 percent of the iPhone’s component cost. True, currently there is legal wrangling between the two companies, but Samsung still looks like net winner in the new Apple “econosphere.”

Sharp: To ensure a steady supply of LCD screens, Apple invested a billion dollars in Sharp, and their continued relationship appears to be working beneficially for the multinational Japanese company.

(Via: GN)