It is nonsense. The Internet is slowly, but firmly diminishing the mysterious enterprise market, not the other way around. It is the same analogy why middleman (brokers) slowly eroded by the same force.
I will start from the middleman market. Middlemen are all about information asymmetry. i.e. someone knows something that others don't. The knowledge freedom that the Internet provides largely destroyed the asymmetry (knowledge gap). It is no secret that now you don't need a middleman to "brand" your music/film/video game. Instead, the leverage of social network (Twitter, Facebook, reddit etc.) enable one to market himself directly or at lower cost. That's why currently music/movie industry is under attack from two sides, both the production and the consumption. They can control neither. And this is the death of middleman market.
The same analogy can apply to enterprise market. Traditionally, it requires a long cycle to negotiating and shipping product to selected few big corps. At that case, the leverage is "information asymmetry" as well. That's why you cannot find a price quote on IBM's supercomputers, or any enterprise software/hardware. But, it is transforming too. The ubiquitous openness and flatness provided by the Internet making such man-made "information asymmetry" useless. And traditionally "consumer-facing hardware/software can penetrate enterprise market as well. That's why RIM is losing in enterprise market to Apple, and that's why Intuit is taking over accounting software market.
P.S. I am considering product for small businesses as consumer-facing product as well since it serves sufficient many customers comparing to traditionally-defined "enterprise market".
One of the main reasons why middlemen exist is trust.
When two parties have to deal with each other but cannot trust each other, then you need a "neutral" middleman that can be trusted by both. The internet will only force middle men to move there too, but the function of a middleman, not the way he works, will be needed as long as you have problems to trust someone else.
Don't worry about your English. The downvote was probably because of the "It is nonsense", which is slightly harsher than convention here is willing to tolerate (rightly so, IMO, lest threads turn into shouting matches). Please don't comment about being downvoted. It goes against http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and earns an automatic downvote from many of us. Also, downvoting to express disagreement is common on HN, because one may disagree without having the time and/or anything substantive that is worth posting a comment to say.
"Also, downvoting to express disagreement is common on HN, because one may disagree without having the time and/or anything substantive that is worth posting a comment to say."
Really? I don't think that's its purpose though. I think it's meant to be used for comments that detract from the discussion or otherwise don't follow guidelines. Downvoting because you disagree just leads to a form of groupthink (imho).
Case in point: I'd disagree with the quoted comment above but I'm certainly not going to downvote your post because of it.
I don't think it's the most common case. Most common is when you find something obnoxious about a post. But it's common enough and (as pg has said several times) legitimate enough that the people (not you!) who indignantly protest "That's not what downvoting is FOR!!" really have no basis for doing so.
A certain amount of groupthink is probably inevitable in a community, but is there evidence of it being a big problem here? For example, are there many (any?) heavily downvoted comments that don't fairly obviously deserve it? People call "groupthink" sometimes when they don't want to see how they were being rude.
A far worse problem in my view is the huge area under the curve at the tepid mean. It's hard to downvote a comment just for being bland and pointless. It would be nice if HN could solve the problem God solves in the Book of Revelation: "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth."
I will start from the middleman market. Middlemen are all about information asymmetry. i.e. someone knows something that others don't. The knowledge freedom that the Internet provides largely destroyed the asymmetry (knowledge gap). It is no secret that now you don't need a middleman to "brand" your music/film/video game. Instead, the leverage of social network (Twitter, Facebook, reddit etc.) enable one to market himself directly or at lower cost. That's why currently music/movie industry is under attack from two sides, both the production and the consumption. They can control neither. And this is the death of middleman market.
The same analogy can apply to enterprise market. Traditionally, it requires a long cycle to negotiating and shipping product to selected few big corps. At that case, the leverage is "information asymmetry" as well. That's why you cannot find a price quote on IBM's supercomputers, or any enterprise software/hardware. But, it is transforming too. The ubiquitous openness and flatness provided by the Internet making such man-made "information asymmetry" useless. And traditionally "consumer-facing hardware/software can penetrate enterprise market as well. That's why RIM is losing in enterprise market to Apple, and that's why Intuit is taking over accounting software market.
P.S. I am considering product for small businesses as consumer-facing product as well since it serves sufficient many customers comparing to traditionally-defined "enterprise market".