I think this article is looking at markets from the wrong perspective. First of all the author discusses Silicon Valley innovation vs. the steam engine and the

I think this article is looking at markets from the wrong perspective. First of all the author discusses Silicon Valley innovation vs. the steam engine and the automobile. Assuming 'Silicon Valley' is being used to equal 'technology', the author is comparing a market to a product. Now, if the author had compared innovation in transportation (automobile) to innovation in energy (steam power), to innovation in technology, they'd be on to something. Except that the thesis falls down when making this comparison. Sure the automobile was a massive shift in transportation technology, but that was followed up by the airplane, high-speed trains, massive public rail systems, etc. etc. There is still constant innovation in all of these fields, but could you imagine what the world would be like if we had a new form of transportation created every 10 years? I don't think the world would be able to keep up.