I read it more as "I'd totally build X but I have no idea how to do it legally or even how to learn what the legal requirements are." Much easier to work for a big company that can afford full-time lawyers.
Sometimes it's bad: Aereo Sometimes it's controversial: Uber / Lyft
But for the most part I think people act and then find out after the fact they did something wrong or not in alignment with expectations.
For example, is Soylent worried about somebody dying? Probably but that didn't stop them from doing what they are doing.
It seems like you're pooling together a bunch of companies that are seeing misfortune for a variety of reasons and assuming they have all been "disrupted". Further, the context of the comment implies they were disrupted by startups, which I don't think is true at all.
I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can give more evidence, but this comment seems a bit misguided.
Flickr definitely contributed to Kodak failing as much as the market for digital cameras. Kodak actually had digital technology but failed to capitalize on it.
Borders may have bad management but so do startups that fail which maybe says startups need better management too? Seems like a common denominator versus differentiator?
Radio Shack closed a ton of stores and is still losing money. IBM stopped selling computers because Dell and others did it better and cheaper (Dell was a startup at one time...) and Microsoft keeps fighting for relevancy in software on all fronts.
But yeah, some of my comments weren't exactly on point. I just think that to say companies aren't disrupted is a broad paint stroke that the article didn't fully support.
I actually like what Microsoft is doing to try to adapt to the new world but they are losing money on Xbox One (it appears Sony may win this round) and Surface is a great product but overpriced and costing Microsoft profit as well.
I wish they did more hardware as that division makes some really cool stuff but Microsoft is starting to fall on the Windows 8 debacle.
It's hard to buy a surface for $1000 when a comparable laptop is $300 (not as light or small but spec wise comparable)
The irony there is a lot of them started out as disruptors themselves!
The corporations below have faced massive disruption:
Kodak, HP, GM, Ford, JC Penney, Sears, McDonalds, Radio Shack, Circuit City, Best Buy, Borders, Barnes&Noble, IBM, Microsoft, Xerox, and Target have all been disrupted.
But most of them have adapted as the market changed because they had the resources to do so.
A small company has fewer resources so when adversity hits (housing crash in 2008) or the market shifts (Digital music versus record stores), those business are less likely to be able to shift.
Regarding the comments in the article on Entrepreneurs:
I think the article is using too much of the 2000's data to make a correlation to today. 2001 - 2010 was the dot com bubble, 9/11, unemployment at 9%, and the housing / financial crisis. Banks weren't lending money and people had little capital to borrow.
Compared to today: Banks are lending again, unemployment is 6.2%, people are spending and earning more, and everywhere you read about startups and entrepreneurs.
One last thing: I find it humorous when articles say that government regulations, licensure, or taxes prevent innovation and entrepreneurial activity. I have never heard somebody say "I'd totally build X but the tax incentives just aren't high enough".