So you're saying that when the Economist says "But the Valley’s influence over the future of consumers and capitalism is here to stay. It has become a nexus of dealmaking and fortune-seeking, a realm of creativity and wild ideas, and it will remain so.", it is wrong?
(I wonder if the first comenters actually read the article...)
A prior wrong doesn't immediately disprove any future points.
I also remember when the Economist boldly predicted that the PS3 would outsell the Xbox 360 and the Wii, and this was months after the consoles were released.