Little guys compete with each other to start a niche SaaS app for passive income.
Only CEOs of huge corporations are able to build electric cars and smartphones or process financial transactions.
Is that true? Isn't Stripe a counterexample to this?
Many see this shift itself as a bad thing. Instead of having career options in stable companies, most people (who necessarily can't all be founders or early employees in the places you allege are still sources of entrepreneurship) are forced to accept unsatisfactory compensation, benefits, and employment stability -- in return for foosball tables and dog-friendly offices.
I interpret the comments about barrier to entry in exactly this way. If it's easier to "enter" low-status entrepreneurship (e.g. start-ups), but this easiness is offset by a disproportional lessening of the potential upside (especially the stability and security upsides), then it could still be a net loss overall.
It is a means of restructuring the process by which the deployment of capital is used to extract productivity -- a restructuring that transforms the process into even more of a transfer of wealth from poor to rich.
[1] http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TIMELY_BDS_ISIC...
I don't think either of you understand what those words mean.
However, the barriers to entry to be an entrepreneur are far far lower. Corporations still compete with each other on innovation but now more than ever this is through buying small and medium sized companies said entrepreneurs have created :)
So, this is neither good nor bad, just a shift in where the competitive opportunities are. Hint, it's getting easier for the little guys to compete.