Yes, there _are_ reasons, just because you think those companies could have worked around them doesn't mean they were not valid reasons. More than half of the

Yes, there _are_ reasons, just because you think those companies could have worked around them doesn't mean they were not valid reasons. More than half of the companies on that list is either gone or is irrelevant nowadays, which shows the vision being displayed on this thread completely out of sync with reality. It's sooo easy to come here and say that Company X should have done such and such to survive. But most of them did not. So there are reasons, and they are good reasons, and I wrote some of them. I've made no comments about startups or disruption or whatever. I just disagreed with matrix saying "there are no excuses". And we still have to go into the "real" reasons, which are fossilized business process and a reliance on cash cows, lack of innovation, etc... This is a classic case of people reaching the correct conclusion based on false premises and theories. It'll always be possible to overcome the stablished players, or opportunities for startups, but to keep saying there are "no reasons" for the old players to have failed is wrong.