I don't quite agree with User. We've mostly seen the pre-game show so far. The revolution proper is just getting started. The intellectual foundations haven't been laid completely yet. To understand the missing pieces, you need to first review the history of the story so far, and draw some inferences.

I'll choose 10 major defining events to sketch the developments around the process of entrepreneurship rather than the content. Of course you cannot completely separate medium from message, and to some extent that the developments started in the IT sector during a period when the content was mainly around things like "Web 2.0," cloud computing and mobile technology, the process reflects its birth domain, but when it diffuses to other sectors, we'll see its abstract features more clearly.

The Top 10 Milestones in the Pre-Game Phase

1. The Agile Manifesto was published in 2001, in the wake of the first Internet bubble burst
2. Between 2001-2005, all the major costs associated with Web products started crashing, from bandwidth to hosting to cost of talent. The last was particularly important, because 2001 was around the time the first of the so-called Baby-Boomlet generation started entering college and enjoying the benefits of a CS education informed by the lessons of the first crash.
3. In 2004, Jason Fried of 37Signals started developing the core of what is now known as the lifestyle business model, along with a product philosophy based on very early revenues. This is one of the 2 major threads of development.
4. In 2005, Paul Graham founded Y-Combinator, betting on the possibilities of very low cost startups and the first Boomlet cohorts entering the workforce with the right skills and attitude. This started the other major thread of development.
5. Also in 2005, Steve Blank published "Four Steps to the Epiphany," the main catalyst that triggered the entrepreneurship model known as the Lean Startup Movement. In the 6 years since, the ideas have started to go mainstream in their still-incomplete form (another lean startups thought leader, Eric Ries, now blogs at Harvard Business Review, and the movement has even made it to the slow-and-steady last-adopter in journalism, The Economist).
6. Also in 2005, Version 1.0 of Ruby on Rails was released, radically lowering product development costs.
7. In 2007, the "Investors vs. Founders" balance of power conversation that had been brewing restlessly since 2001 came to a head with the founding of what was effectively the labor movement for founders, designed to protect their interests in the face of predatory practices by investors. The defining event was the founding of TheFunded by Adeo Ressi. This thread of action also had other subplots like standardized term sheets, the creation of Angel List (founded around the same time, I can't find the exact date), Kickstartr, etc.
8. Around late 2009, it became clear that all was not well with the pre-game show. The conversation stayed underground for a bit, until Paul Kedrosky moved it into the open with his now-famous post, "The Coming Super-Seed Crash." This conversation led to a spate of developments and introspection in the capital markets, the creation of a new "Super Angel" class of investors.
9. There were key environmental factors that weren't really about changes in innovation models, like the decline in IPOs until recently, big companies being flush with acquisition cash, and what the takeover of the big company scene by what somebody eloquently called the new set of four horsemen (Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook).
10. FINALLY, a series of issues like the Scamville story broken by Techcrunch had two effects: the community woke up to the great possibilities for abuse hidden within the opaque illegibility of modern Web technology. Other developments in this bucket include WikiLeaks, the emergence of extremely advanced security threats like the Conficker worm, the growth of what is effectively digital slavery in the practices around content farming by companies like AOL. It's not the content of these developments that I want to highlight so much as the development of an ethics conversation that is integral to entrepreneurship in a way that it never was before. Sure, there were ethics debates around nuclear power and genetics research before, but they usually happened in the political sphere, not within the innovation community itself.

Taking Stock

Now let's take stock. Does the story told in the 10 bullets above constitute an entrepreneurial revolution? Yes and No. It is like the Copernicus/Kepler/Tycho Brahe parts of the revolution in classical physics. Mostly empirical advances rather than conceptual ones. The revolution is lacking a Galileo and a Newton. Without contributions compared to what those figures made, this will remain merely an empirically interesting period of history in IT, rather than a huge new paradigm.

And it CAN be a huge new paradigm. The elements of a Newton-level revolution are there. So if I come across as minimizing the contributions to date, it's not because I don't think they are great. It's because I think we'll see 10x greater things happening before we are done.

In the context of the history of business, corporations and entrepreneurship, these developments are maybe a Magnitude 6 on a Richter-like scale, but have the potential to be a Magnitude 7 (equivalent to the post WW II leap) or even a Magnitude 8 (the Industrial Revolution, ~1800 or the start of the Age of Exploration, 1492). For some historical calibration of what "revolution in entrepreneurship" can look like at the largest scales, try a recent blog post of mine:

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/0...

It is hard to claim that even Facebook has had an impact yet comparable to the steam engine. At best it is exciting like Trevithick's steam engine of 1804. Between that and the hammering in of the Golden Spike (1869) a whole new entrepreneurial model was invented, whose peak came soon after, in the Robber Baron era.

And even with our speeded-up times it is going to take at least another decade.

The unresolved problems (like point 8, among others) -- analogous to Copernicus' epicycles, Tycho Brahe's screwed-up geo-helio-centrism and Kepler's correct but unexplained ellipses -- are evidence that we've got stuff on the to-do list.

The Missing Pieces

Here are just a few of the major missing foundational pieces. I am still thinking through all this data to blog about my personal predictions of how the revolution will shape up.

1. The models haven't been effectively ported to the non-IT entrepreneurial sector. Yet. Some believe they don't port. I believe they do.
2. A variety of new corporate forms that work fluidly across all size and time scales, and a first-candidate macroeconomic understanding of the markets that emerge as a result (a solution to the equation, Keynes: Adam Smith as X is to Ronald Coase)
3. EVERY previous entrepreneurial revolution above Magnitude 7 has DRASTICALLY revolutionized education. This one hasn't. Yet (the industrial revolution eventually led to universal high school education in America by the early 1900s, the post-WW II revolution did the same for college and created the modern research university).
4. Ditto capital markets. We've seen the first signs (super angel bubble, aspects of the broader subprime crisis). The age of exploration created the Mercantilist corporation and stock markets. The industrial revolution created the Schumpeterian corporation that could innovate, and by 1980, the deification of shareholder value as the Metric of the Gods. This one will cause an equally big change.
5. Ditto new modes of work. A few lifehacking types on the margins does not constitute a revolution in the labor economy. The Age of Exploration created the entrepreneur. The Industrial Revolution created the bourgeoisie and the unionized laborer. The post WW II one created the modern middle class worker.

It may even be appropriate to say, "This revolution will not be Twittered" because by the time it peaks, a different medium may be king.

I am reading Pankaj Ghemawat's fascinating new book, "World 3.0" which puts numbers on many of these arguments, regarding how little of what can happen has actually happened. I'll be reviewing it soon on my blog.