It’s fascinating that you are at the very same time not understanding what he is saying, absolutely illustrating exactly what he is saying.

No, he's saying that Silicon Valley was originally about extreme innovation and cool tech, not multi-trillion dollar companies

That sounds like the kind of thing someone wearing rose-tinted glasses would say. The author even mentions William Shockley but fails to note that the man was authoritarian and divisive to the point that his best employees left him to form their own company.

The Silicon Valley of the 20th century had its share of politics and backstabbing, and certainly money was a big deal; Shockley's former employees enlisted the help of a businessman and investor to found their new company, Fairchild Semiconductor (named after the investor, not after any of the engineers!).

I'll absolutely agree that many of the big names in SV software businesses are greedy outfits that are actively making the world worse, but it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest that's all it is, and ignorant of history to suggest this is anything new.

The piece should be titled "How I Was Naive About Life and Finally Realized It's Not All Roses".

I’m referring to their claims that that not innovating means not standing the test of time. Facebook very well could exist and stay profitable for the next 50 years without a single new product or feature.

Dubious. They're doing all they can to kill it with censorship. It takes more than just new tech to keep something afloat - you also have to treat your userbase well.