Corporate America Hasn’t Been Disrupted

I think big music labels are another example of corporations that have been disrupted less than folks here on HN might think.

Yes, iTunes changed the music industry, but who got killed? CD retailers, primarily. The bulk of music sold through iTunes is still licensed from big labels. Spotify licenses music from the big labels. Ads, TV shows, and movies license music from big labels. Heck even the most popular videos on YouTube are almost all the official Vevo versions of big-label songs.

Piracy is harming album sales, but because big labels have so much financial leverage over new artists, they have simply started requiring "360" deals for a lot of new contracts, which give them a cut of all revenue streams: not just albums, but also tour revenues, merchandise, media appearances, sync licences (ads and movies), even publishing in some cases.

Private sector wages are quite high in places like San Francisco. Large successful corporations are great at incentivizing would-be startup owners into staying. Large companies are making money, the employees are creating value, and they're realizing some of the value as personal wealth.

People launch businesses when they have no better opportunity in front of them. In a rising economy with a record stock market, even the most capable people are finding significant upside within the companies they're employed by.

I think the author of the article went looking for stats to support a title. Corporate America has been disrupted however I think this article was looking for financial failure versus adapting to the market pressures.

The corporations below have faced massive disruption:

Kodak, HP, GM, Ford, JC Penney, Sears, McDonalds, Radio Shack, Circuit City, Best Buy, Borders, Barnes&Noble, IBM, Microsoft, Xerox, and Target have all been disrupted.

But most of them have adapted as the market changed because they had the resources to do so.

A small company has fewer resources so when adversity hits (housing crash in 2008) or the market shifts (Digital music versus record stores), those business are less likely to be able to shift.

Regarding the comments in the article on Entrepreneurs:

I think the article is using too much of the 2000's data to make a correlation to today. 2001 - 2010 was the dot com bubble, 9/11, unemployment at 9%, and the housing / financial crisis. Banks weren't lending money and people had little capital to borrow.

Compared to today: Banks are lending again, unemployment is 6.2%, people are spending and earning more, and everywhere you read about startups and entrepreneurs.

One last thing: I find it humorous when articles say that government regulations, licensure, or taxes prevent innovation and entrepreneurial activity. I have never heard somebody say "I'd totally build X but the tax incentives just aren't high enough".

The author is looking at the economy broadly, not just tech and not just Silicon Valley.

I agree with everything in OP, and this admittedly makes me sound like a dreamer, but I think there's a good chance that computer-aided radical decentralization is going to have a major effect on these numbers in the next few years.

The possibilities of blockchain technology (and other technology inspired by it) has barely even begun to percolate through society, and in theory it allows free agents to fill roles previously only viable inside of corporations.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Rad_Decentralization/