[brothe2000]

True... I guess the point is that the claim that startups haven't disrupted corporations is true in bulk but when you pick each company it is easy to see an impact a startup has had in changing how they operate.

Flickr definitely contributed to Kodak failing as much as the market for digital cameras. Kodak actually had digital technology but failed to capitalize on it.

Borders may have bad management but so do startups that fail which maybe says startups need better management too? Seems like a common denominator versus differentiator?

Radio Shack closed a ton of stores and is still losing money. IBM stopped selling computers because Dell and others did it better and cheaper (Dell was a startup at one time...) and Microsoft keeps fighting for relevancy in software on all fronts.

But yeah, some of my comments weren't exactly on point. I just think that to say companies aren't disrupted is a broad paint stroke that the article didn't fully support.

[JoeAltmaier]

Microsoft fighting? Their revenue continues to climb. Its maybe cool to dis them, but they continue to make big bucks and grow.

[brothe2000]

Revenue is increasing but their cost of revenue is increasing while their earnings per share stays stagnant.

I actually like what Microsoft is doing to try to adapt to the new world but they are losing money on Xbox One (it appears Sony may win this round) and Surface is a great product but overpriced and costing Microsoft profit as well.

I wish they did more hardware as that division makes some really cool stuff but Microsoft is starting to fall on the Windows 8 debacle.

It's hard to buy a surface for $1000 when a comparable laptop is $300 (not as light or small but spec wise comparable)