If software falls too far, is the market betting against software company logos while forgetting the people inside?

Feel free to correct me, but for established software companies to be left behind, I was thinking to myself along these lines:

- AI stories of disruption need to work out, and not be exaggerated in the near-term.

- These companies with proven histories and large customer relationships need to be unable to pivot in the years it takes to replace them.

- Many of them used to sell physical boxes on shelves but transitioned to the cloud and subscriptions. Microsoft lost with smartphones, etc. Many of them have pivoted before.

- AI does not sell itself, it still requires the boring parts of the businesses these "old tech" incumbents have proven themselves to excel at.

- After what they've already achieved, it is hard to imagine them gaining market share with their own AIs over time?

Isn't AI itself software? Software which requires capable businessmen, corporate product demos, fundraising pitches, and top developer talent?

So in many ways, they've already proven themselves.

Now I'm just wondering if many are betting against the current company name, and not considering enough the people who were responsible for their successes.

The exact products might be changing, but all of their other skills and advantages remain, don't they?

At some point, are we betting against a ticker symbol, and ignoring the people inside who've won the last several tech cycles?