He also hints that his customers might have more power to push back on changes. That's certainly the case for smaller software houses that sell to big enterprise customers.
Facebook, Google, etc, are somewhat beholden to end users, but not in a way that impedes them from rolling out what they want, when they want to.
Good point. The worst-performing companies I've worked for had one thing in common: they were small and unable or unwilling to push back on toxic customers.
Pushing back doesn't always work. A good example...support for IE6, way past the time when that was a good idea.
Your contact at "big mega corp" that pays for your software may have no ability to change their internal policy that they've stuck with IE6 for years after it was sunset. So, if you want the sale or renewal, you have to support it.
It's not a lame excuse, unfortunately, there is a very real barrier of trust when you talk to a coworker (even from another group) and when you talk to a customer. At the very least, you can agree on a common schedule.
IMHO it's not a coincidence that the blog listed those companies as more "nimble".