An important factor between Web 2.0 startups and "change the world" startups is the size of investment required. Web 2.0 startups are very cheap. Starting Tesla Motors on Y Combinator funding would be impossible. Apple was also started on a very small budget at a time when electronics was in a similar position cost-wise as the web is now.
What is different between most web 2.0 startups and Apple, though, is that Apple expanded an existing enterprise market to the general public. Cloud computing is having similar effects, but otherwise I don't see many similarities.
While Apple as Jobs and Woz hocking Apple I kits was started on almost no budget is true, Apple as an actual company was started with a $250K loan from Mike Markkula. Hardly a small budget when you consider those were 1976 dollars. Steve wanted to do big things, and he understood it took big dollars to do so.
I think the point of the OP boils down to: Steve (like Zuck now) wanted to build a company that changed the world, not build a company that he could flip.
What is different between most web 2.0 startups and Apple, though, is that Apple expanded an existing enterprise market to the general public. Cloud computing is having similar effects, but otherwise I don't see many similarities.