Is it me, or is the author confusing incumbent and enterprise? Office is not 'enterprise' in my book, nor is Yahoo. MS Exchange, maybe. SAP and Salesforce defin

Is it me, or is the author confusing incumbent and enterprise? Office is not 'enterprise' in my book, nor is Yahoo. MS Exchange, maybe. SAP and Salesforce definitely. I'm not sure I see any toys entering that space. Mint is what I can think of that comes closest. I'm also not convinced by the whole scripting language thing. There is certainly a healthy debate to be had between static and dynamic languages but I'm not sure that too many people poo-poo'd Python or Ruby (unlike PHP). Also to suggest that those have "won" vis-a-vis Java or .Net is jumping the gun somewhat IMO. Other than that, the central argument is essentially disruption theory, but as gaius points out the idea there is that you start off as a "toy" with a particular advantage which, despite the limitations, allows you to carve out a niche. Then you take over the entire market by growing capacity without losing the initial advantage and pushing the incumbent into an increasingly small niche at the high end. However, by that time the product is fully featured, becomes the incumbent and ceases to be a "toy".