> Startups are a form of volatile research projects that could be done better in a corporate environment.

Check out "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Christensen. Innovation doesn't come from established corporations. It comes from startups.

In "The Innovator's Dilemma" Christensen makes a compelling argument why startups can eat an established company's lunch, but it doesn't go so far as say innovation cannot come from established corporations or only comes from startups. There are examples where established companies have innovated. Three off the top of my head: Bell Labs as part of Bell Telephone made many critical innovations; Apple has also continued to innovate over the years. IBM isn't always thought of as innovating nowadays, but they've had a long history of not only patenting new ideas but also bringing them to market.

The top companies in the US are all new ones (except for GE). AT&T is irrelevant today, as is IBM after it got disrupted by startups Microsoft and Compaq.

Sure, there's turnover. And there will likely always be cycles like that. That only means that companies don't last or innovate forever, not that they can't innovate.

Out of curiosity, what criteria are you using for "top companies"? Looking at the top 10 of the Fortune 500 (http://fortune.com/fortune500/) and their founding years:

1. Walmart (1945)

2. Berkshire Hathaway (1889)

3. Apple (1977)

4. Exxon Mobil (1870)

5. McKesson (1883)

6. UnitedHealth Group (1974)

7. CVS Health (1964)

8. General Motors (1908)

9. AT&T (1983 as AT&T, 1877 as Bell Telephone)

10. Ford Motor (1903)

By market cap (2017, first quarter) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...)

1. Apple (1977)

2. Alphabet (1988)

3. Microsoft (1975)

4. Amazon.com (1994)

5. Berkshire Hathaway (1889)

6. Exxon Mobil (1870)

7. Johnson & Johnson (1886)

8. Facebook (2004)

9. JPMorgan Chase (1871 as J.P. Morgan & Co)

10. Wells Fargo (1852)

I'm not listing these as counterfactual, but only as an example. I know there are different ways of measuring "top" companies, and these are two. It's also arguable that these don't capture the idea of "top innovators". I'm interested in knowing what you're using. I'm probably missing something obvious.

By market cap. I'm a bit curious of your founding dates. Alphabet was formed from a restructuring of Google. Google was founded in 1998, not 1988.

I looked them up on Wikipedia. Good catch! Typo. And if I were consistent, I would have made a note on the restructuring as I did in a couple of other cases. The commenter apologizes for the error. ;)

I also checked Berkshire Hathaway (1889). It actually goes back to 1839. But does a series of mergers and acquisitions actually count here? The modern form came from Warren Buffett buying shares in it in 1962, and eventually buying them out years later. Buffett's version of the company has pretty much no resemblance to the company he bought out, they aren't at all in the same business, and he mentioned in 2010 that BH was more of a hindrance than a help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway#History

Notably absent from the list are behemoths of the past, like RCA, Kodak, Sears, IBM, Ford, GM, US Steel, Union Pacific, etc.

My point (which I'll repeat once and then I'm done) is not that established companies never get disrupted or innovate forever, but to push back against the idea that established companies can't innovate (and that The Innovator's Dilemma contends that disruption is the only way innovation happens), which I took from "Innovation doesn't come from established corporations." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16665304) I don't see anything you've added that contradicts that.

Yea I'd disagree. Like the process of evolution, I believe that ideas and the mutation and the proliferation of those ideas are what leads to progress. More seeds.

Hey, I'm all in favor of you working on new ideas, but only within an existing corporate environment. But there's plenty of proof that that's a terrible way to advance society at large.

If a number of people(experienced/experts in a field) are willing to volunteer their time and/or capital in exchange for equity/patents/stock, then it's all good. My problem lies with externalizing the cost and risk to employees.

If they need something done and they can't guarantee long-term employment, they can buy commercial services for what they need. Engineering firms and temp offices will be happy to send you a secretary, a software solution or a CAD file with what you asked.

> My problem lies with externalizing the cost and risk to employees.

It's really not your business what other people freely choose to do with their time. Nobody makes anyone work at a startup.