> Fewer than 1 percent of start-ups end up as $1 billion companies.

Is that the goal for society, to have more $1 companies (vs. having that value rolled into a larger, pre-existing organization)? Is there an assumption that more $1 billion companies will somehow mitigate the power of the Big Five? Are the Big Five stifling innovation?

Feels like it's only a problem if the big boys enter into non-complete agreements (like the hiring issue a few years ago).

To put it another way: do we need/want to spread the value from the "Frightful Five" to something like 7, 8, or more companies? Is a "Terrible Ten" better/worse than five?