This is tangential to the main point of the article, but this concluding sentence annoyed me greatly: > Governments are generally better at supporting companie

This is tangential to the main point of the article, but this concluding sentence annoyed me greatly: > Governments are generally better at supporting companies in established markets where innovation takes place slowly and incrementally. This is likely why state-backed efforts have found it easier to be competitive against aerospace companies than Silicon Valley giants working at breakneck pace I always finds it fascinating that companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon or Microsoft (granted the later isn't a “silicon valley giant” proper) managed to build a narrative portraying themselves as “innovative companies” when they are the opposite of that: they are, and have been for almost two decades now or even more for Microsoft, very close to the complacent and short-term-profit-maximizer Boeing portrayed in this article. They just happen to benefit from a much stronger network effect than Boeing, and work in a business where economies of scale are insane.