It keeps me busy, this kind of thinking. In a good way - something to mull over. These massive companies that epically fail to adjust, is it primarily a manage

It keeps me busy, this kind of thinking. In a good way - something to mull over. These massive companies that epically fail to adjust, is it primarily a management style (cliché representation: Private equity takeovers – focus on 'management is a job unto itself, I do not need to know much or care much about what this company actually produces', and perhaps as a consequence, cost cutting over care about the product, and considering the general opinion about your company and products as a 'brand thing that I do not need to care about; I have a marketing department for that who can fix this by tossing some ad euros at something')... or is it more fundamental, that even with pretty good management, companies inevitably turn into a giant rusty smattering of cogs that generally keeps running but is nearly impossible to reconfigure? That we should e.g. study what Apple is doing with its odd corporate management structure: That it is _exceptional_ for a larger company to be able to pivot quickly regardless of market, circumstance, or management team? Or is software development just uniquely difficult and therefore it is highly likely that a company that starts with a better-than-average grip on that and worse-than-average everything else still wins over a company that needs to 'buy in' to software? Not enough data to really know, and the answer probably a convoluted mess of 'a little bit of everything'.