"On-premises file sync and share and collaboration is yesterday's story." What the bloody hell Chris? Did you talk to ANY enterprise customers before writing this? This article is COMPLETELY wrong about how enterprises want to use enterprise file sync-n-share. There are also no enterprise customer references here. It's as if you re-wrote a data sheet.
First: Enterprises want ON SITE (or hosted off site, not public cloud) content management so they have full and complete control of the data and how it is being accessed. This is VERY different from public cloud application hosting. This is not anti-public cloud, this about using the right tool for the right job. If you look at Box's revenue numbers and disclosures, they clearly are not grabbing enterprise customers. The biggest reason is corporate compliance and regulation (although many small companies have fewer issues with compliance).
Secondly: Most enterprises want transparency and visibility into how their data is being managed. File and content is particularly sensitive as it can be subject to secret court orders. The host (Box, Dropbox or any of them) are not permitted to disclose those orders to the content owners. As a consequence of this alone, most enterprises do not want to use public cloud to host file content. While encryption can mitigate some of the concern, it is not fool proof. Enterprises want to know if their content is potentially exposed to court orders and will only know if they are hosting the content.
Finally, there are numerous data sovereignty issues which makes it very difficult for multi-national orgs to use Box or Dropbox. This is a well known concern.
I think if you would have interviewed a few large enterprise users about how they manage file content you would have some clarity about these tools.