To summarize: a company is genetically either an innovating "Breakthrough"(Intel, Texas Instruments, Google) or a sexy and shallow "Best-Of-Show" (Zynga, Facebo

To summarize: a company is genetically either an innovating "Breakthrough"(Intel, Texas Instruments, Google) or a sexy and shallow "Best-Of-Show" (Zynga, Facebook, YouTube). As others have pointed out, false dichotomy is false on several levels. 1) Even Breakthrough companies go through cycles of stagnation and innovation, especially in the tech industry. Best-Of-Show Apple in the 90s compared to Breakthrough Apple in the 21st century. Breakthrough HP in the middle of the 20th century versus Best-of-Show HP today. The list goes on and on. 2) Best-Of-Show companies often are innovating within their own domain. Facebook today is simply in a different ballpark than 2003 Myspace with sharing, groups, pages, etc. 3) Best-Of-Show companies can cause massive disruption in adjacent verticles. Try finding a news station (online or offline) that will not reference discussions on Facebook/Twitter. The author repeatedly claims he is not making "a moral judgment", but that is exactly what he is doing. His opinion is that innovation in hardware/algorithms is more important than innovation in social/games. I am not sure why he is afraid of speaking directly, but hiding arguments in false dichotomies isn't helping anyone.