Also, often capitals are moved outside of major cities due to population and infrastructure, as sometimes larger cities can't sustain any more growth (which is what happened to Malaysia).
San Francisco has interestingly never been a contender for the capital, as before Sacramento it was Monterey (and Benicia and Vallejo but those were just stints). And if it were, the odds of the State focusing on the Bay Area before anywhere else could indeed become an issue.
If people in upstate NY and NYC have conflicting interests, wouldn't it be better for both parties to separate NYC as as state in its own right, rather than maintain the compromise solution of Albany?
I don't think this is entirely correct as it's a misconception about what it means to incorporate in Delaware. Foreign companies operating in California (and other states) pay taxes there.
There are ways to use Delaware and Nevada to pay less in state taxes, but simply being incorporated there is not one of them, and they are still definitely paying state taxes to Georgia.
The state has a long history. Perhaps this article is a good way to break the deadlock. But realistically, corporations are already acting as if this were a city state (funding their nearby cities much more than the state, etc.).
So I don't know. If anything, I think they should move the capital to San Francisco, so that there is better dialogue and involvement with businesses. Similarly, I don't quite understand what the point of Springfield, Illinois, or Albany, New York are. Maybe there's a reason though...