This is not quite correct in any company I've seen besides companies that were literally about to go under (and to try to save money to pay off creditors more o

This is not quite correct in any company I've seen besides companies that were literally about to go under (and to try to save money to pay off creditors more or less) - companies that are struggling to grow cut spending in order to free up revenue to pivot into more lucrative revenue streams. The usual innovators' dilemma problems historically happened on much longer timelines prior to modern software and even still plenty of businesses are basically coasting on reputation alone (it's taken McDonald's how long to really embrace technology? Now take a look at Chik Fil-A and how they've built their brand and user engagement combined with a solid, distinct product suite). Most companies find a business model and fail to grow I've noticed because their leadership is simply... not very innovative. Everyone and their dog knows to cut costs and to acquire companies to get into new customerbases / markets when you've got the means, but it takes a bit of guts / risk-taking by leaders to focus and execute on established companies on key initiatives such as Apple with the iPod in the early 2000s. Most companies (especially b2b ones that are the typical company IMO) are basically lifestyle companies that exist to give leaders a cushy living and a great deal of them will simply sell their companies instead of working their tail off to try to make things work. For those companies, by the time business starts to turn bad it's basically over and you're just fighting against the inertia that has already built against you (see: Sears, K-Mart). This isn't to say that running companies is easy, but many, many businesses are pretty darn low-risk (public storage facilities is a great example) and the industry is very safe from disruption by technology either through past rent-seeking or by intrinsic factors.