Microsoft's sentence is a compromise written by a committee. Apple's identity statement is beautiful (even if you don't agree with it) and I would be shocked if there were more than 3 people involved in the whole process of its creation.
Each sentence starts by drawing focus to an ideal of the company, and then mentions products Apple makes according to that ideal.
1. "Designs" instead of "makes" shifts the emphasis immediately to the abstract, away from the mechanical process of assembly. There's a contrast drawn between the "personal" computers and the "professional" software. "Personal" describes what the computer is, all the time. "Professional" is just what the computer might do, and it goes away when you're done with it.
2. "Leads" would be a weasel word when relating to some market segment, but not when it's paired with "revolution." Apple styles itself as a moral leader, not a business leader. "iPods" and "iTunes" are mentioned separately, maintaining the being/doing dichotomy.
3a. Abstract "reinventing" is the goal here, even though physical phones are the medium. The author realized that claiming to also lead this revolution would sound redundant, but couldn't resist using the word "revolution". So he used the adjective form "revolutionary". This is someone whose aesthetic sensibilities, acute though they are, can only minutely deflect his drive to get the word out about these revolutions.
3b. All the verbs so far have been ongoing (present progressive). The past and future are relegated to the last half of the last sentence. "Has... introduced" is technically past perfect but the adverb "recently" pulls it back toward the present. Even "the future" in this sentence is merely a noun, preceded by the present progressive verb "is defining." "The future of mobile media and computing devices" is the only category of product hanging without an Apple product to exemplify it. In this statement of identity, the distant past does not exist and the future is not fixed.
I typed all this at midnight, so it isn't very good or very thorough. But you get the idea :-)
In the spirit of picking things apart (because it is fun and edifying), let's talk about Microsoft's attempt.
> Founded in 1975, Microsoft
Nobody cares when you were founded. Now I think your company is old and out of date.
> (Nasdaq “MSFT”)
Nobody cares. If they did, they'd use Google Finance to find out.
> is the worldwide leader
Brrraaap. Worldwide and leader are both banned words. Also, are you really a world-wide leader if your market cap is trailing your biggest competitor? I guess that depends how you define it . . .
> in software, services and solutions
Oh, God, not solutions. Services is almost as bad.
> that help people and businesses realize their full potential.
This is sufficiently abstract that it could not possibly offend nor inspire anyone. I've never bought something because it helped me "realize my potential." I've bought things to smash noobs, yes, or to hack on sweet projects, or to write the next great American novel. But never to realize my full potential. This phrase belongs on the back of a self-help book.
You don't think that the iPhone single handedly redefined what the modern mobile experience is all about? (You certainly don't have to, but I assumed that was a reasonably uncontentious viewpoint now.)
To me, though, those two opinions seem no sillier than Microsoft's claim that their software helps people "realize their full potential."