What they had was a strong guy in charge who could make absolutely sure the development of the company's idea followed the vision. They are highly successful becasue of it.
Bitcoin does not have it.
There is a large group of different people all with different ideas on how to carry out the vision, and no-one to ensure a consistent focus. Running a large-scale operation does not work using consensus. Instead it always leads to disagreement and a failure of the project. So it will be with Bitcoin where the recent civil wars with alt coins is only the beginning.
Based on what you have expounded, its true that there are advantages of having on authority driving the direction of innovations and pushing the dream to an achievable length just like the examples of people you mentioned. But what you need to understand is, what is the motive and objectives of those two categories you are making comparison about.
I have read about a guy who was sacked from his job in Apple because he used the new launched Iphone X for recording with his daughter before the release to the public but for bitcoin, the code was even release to the public from the beginning.
I just imagine what will happen if bitcoin success is attached to one person, how powerful that individual will be, even Roger Ver that was lucky to be an early investor still gets credit for the direction of price how much more if someone is running things. I still feel the decentralization of the entire blockchain is all for the better and the dream can still be achieved by everyone collectively.