For the purposes of this discussion we should dispense with the word "startups" and replace it with "new businesses". Since 1970 the rate of new businesses has been falling. Gee, can anyone else think of reasons why that might be besides immigration and housing rates in the bay area? What a bunch of navel gazing. Perhaps there is a causal connection with population age? What about other factors? What if we zoom out a bit and look at general workplace productivity factors and the impact of technology? Yes, that old crusty stuff they are currently using which you don't consider technology. It's actually a lot better than how things were done before, and before that, and before that too.
And what about the rising number of old companies? Look at different industries such as air travel, raw materials, and manufacturing. What I see is Standard Oil all over again, consolidation, incremental optimizations, with a little anti-competitive behavior thrown in to boot.
That's sometimes the problem with us programmers, especially the more naive amongst us. We often believe that File > New is the answer to the world's problems when incremental optimization often is more pragmatic (and as the market shows us, more effective). It isn't sexy but it "works".
I don't know much about Home Depot but I'm going to guess that they got as big as they did (mostly) by introducing optimizations into the marketplace for home improvement products. They are not a monopoly (such as taxi services) that was created by and protected through legislation and can dissolve rather quickly (like it did in Houston this week) with a change in public support.
The tech "startup" community should stop looking at companies like Wal-Mart as evil and start to respect and marvel at the massive amounts of muda they have been able to eliminate from product supply chains. Just because they don't use Node.js doesn't make them disruptable (yes, I'm aware Wal-Mart actually does use Node).
A similar thought occurred to me when I read this article. By not making a clear distinction between innovative, true "startup" enterprises and new small businesses following established business models, it's easy to make a grave error when looking at the data. Yes, there may be fewer small businesses starting. But I think a lot of that has to do with consolidation in industries such as retail, hospitality, and food services.
Back in the 1970s, there were thousands of small, independently owned grocery and retail stores that have been pushed out by large chains. I don't fault people for preferring to buy their food and clothing from large, brightly lit, lavishly appointed and stocked stores with low prices. Personally, I wouldn't choose to buy my groceries at a rinky-dinky corner store that was common in this country forth years ago when I had the option of shopping at a modern Super Target. But that means that people aren't opening small stores and small restaurants, and small inns like they used to.
But the loss of those businesses as entrepreneurship opportunities may have drained a little bit of the color out of our country's culture, it hasn't affected our innovation engine very much. If anything, the demands that larger scale enterprises like Target and Kroger and Chipotle and Holiday Inn Express for efficiency and logistics have spurred American innovation on, and the expansion of these companies have made the average US consumer's life better by bringing them a better selection of higher-quality products and services at lower prices, increasing everyone's standard of living. (Admittedly, at the cost of a degree of homogeneity).
So we could have fewer opportunities for entrepreneurs to start successful new businesses, but still have expanding opportunity for a certain type of entrepreneur to start truly innovative companies opening up brand new markets and doing that "disruption" thing. We'd have to take a closer look, and separate out new dry cleaners and dentists offices from technological innovators.
I agree with your overall sentiment. BUT, regarding Wal-mart, Home Depot and other large corporations; they certainly have benefited by lobbying for a better economic playing field for very large corporations. They also have attained their success and market share through innovations, optimizations and seized opportunities. I see it as a lot more complex than Wal-mart is "evil" or not. My position is that it just isn't that simple.
And what about the rising number of old companies? Look at different industries such as air travel, raw materials, and manufacturing. What I see is Standard Oil all over again, consolidation, incremental optimizations, with a little anti-competitive behavior thrown in to boot.
That's sometimes the problem with us programmers, especially the more naive amongst us. We often believe that File > New is the answer to the world's problems when incremental optimization often is more pragmatic (and as the market shows us, more effective). It isn't sexy but it "works".
I don't know much about Home Depot but I'm going to guess that they got as big as they did (mostly) by introducing optimizations into the marketplace for home improvement products. They are not a monopoly (such as taxi services) that was created by and protected through legislation and can dissolve rather quickly (like it did in Houston this week) with a change in public support.
The tech "startup" community should stop looking at companies like Wal-Mart as evil and start to respect and marvel at the massive amounts of muda they have been able to eliminate from product supply chains. Just because they don't use Node.js doesn't make them disruptable (yes, I'm aware Wal-Mart actually does use Node).
</rant>