I would still argue yes. As a rule, a software company that knows what it's doing doesn't allow marketers to take control of development in the way the article describes. Ergo, by the time the marketers are invited into the "hive," the company is already in a bad state because it is the sort of company that now makes such decisions and puts such structures in place.
Furthermore, clueless marketing types don't even learn about most hot software companies when they're still hot. They only even discover the company after it's already old news or has become mainstream. If anything, this was more true 15 years ago than it is today.
The article confuses cause and effect.
It's not that the suits can't still do a lot of damage, because they can and they do. But they are not the driving factor behind a company's decline. They are symptoms thereof.
Furthermore, clueless marketing types don't even learn about most hot software companies when they're still hot. They only even discover the company after it's already old news or has become mainstream. If anything, this was more true 15 years ago than it is today.
The article confuses cause and effect.
It's not that the suits can't still do a lot of damage, because they can and they do. But they are not the driving factor behind a company's decline. They are symptoms thereof.