Agreed. It's actually a worse version of the Thiel/Weinstein framing, because the author posits the divide between "connection driven" and "applied science" inn

Agreed. It's actually a worse version of the Thiel/Weinstein framing, because the author posits the divide between "connection driven" and "applied science" innovation, which is a less useful distinction than the "bits" v "atoms" distinction. The "bits" v "atoms" distinction is better because software as a whole has seen dramatic innovation that is not confined to "networks". Feels like a marketing piece for the author's company TBH.