Don't know why this an "Apple Story", but ignoring that part, the article suggests an interesting premise; are startups better bets? More likely to innovate? Sure, I can buy that, startups are often founded around one or two ideas that none of the established companies are currently offering. Safer? Probably not, if one is thinking of investing, while there are exceptions established companies are more likely to play it conservative and far less likely to go belly up. Thing is as someone who is currently working at in a startup company working on a, imo anyway, potentially revolutionary product, the end goal of the vast majority of technology startups is simply to develop a product to the stage were you can get your patent portfolio purchased by a large established company. Who would then go on to taught the innovation as there own and develop it for mass market. If we could leave aside the Apple aspect. What does Slashdot actually think. Are small flexible startups better able to truly innovate? Or are large companies with, huge R&D budgets those pushing the boundaries? I can think of examples to support both sides.