Isn't that another way of saying that the company has not been growing?
Or, perhaps, that you can't sink any lower?

It was said better by someone else:

"Being unafraid to do something unpopular or refusing to do something just because everyone else is pressuring you to is admirable-- if you're in high school and we're talking about smoking or dating the ugly girl. When we're talking about running a business and producing a commodity, ignoring what people want is just colossally dumb." ---Scott Sharkey, 1Up.com, "Memoirs of an Urban Vigilante"

"In Avengers, characters would act dramatically different than they did from, say, two-three issues earlier. In Action Comics, Lana Lang would be trying to break up Clark and Lois’ marriage out of nowhere, and Lois would be acting like an astonishing bitch to make such a separation seem possible"

I must admit, this drove me mad and I can only say that I think of this as poor writing. The reason I think this is because a good writer will create great stories without sacrificing all that has gone before. When Bendis 'created' the New Avengers he was a little more clever, basing his stories on what HAD happened in the past (although, arguably, with a different slant on things) and built upon those changes he made. Austen just made changes whenever he felt like it regardless of what even he had writen before! That's why Marvel and DC had to clamp down on him and eventually Austen left. I don't think Austen led the way - I think he was a 'cautionary tale' of what not to do.
As for comic book sales - I think the majority of comic book readers just buy comics no matter how bad they get. They need their 'fix' of adventure. Prankster got it right when he said:

"Too many people are treating comics like newspapers: “I don’t like what’s happening, but I need to stay informed!”

But, back to the point - I think that although Austen wasn't the first to use this "Algebraic approach" he probably WAS the first to be widely noticed (but not necessarily liked!) by fans of the comic book media whose tastes, over time, have changed dramatically. Also, the fact that we have the Internet now means that we are talking (and 'publicising') our views and drawing peoples attention to writers as never before. And, let's face it, Austen certainly got a lot people taliking about him, whether he wanted to or not! Because of this change in taste, Millar and Bendis have risen to the challenge and run with it.

So, I wouldn't give Austen too much credit - it had all been done before but Chuck just happened to be in the right place at the right time, as tastes were changing. I would say the Bendis has done more to develop this "Algebraic approach" than most writers - so, what will happen next? Are people becoming bored with this approach? Is there scope to keep it fresh and develop it in different ways? How many times can you twist things just to fit a plot? I really don't know. Time will tell I suppose!

Heck, of the three, Millar and Bendis have written many good comics.

The piece merely states that Chuck Austen was the first writer to do what Bendis and Millar (and others) later did - which is the whole "I want C (plot) to happen, and I want B (inciting incident) to be the cause, and I will change A (character) however I have to to make that happen" thing.

For the record, I liked your X-men just fine and thought your Jimmy Olsen mini was VERY solid.

Austen was notable in that he took the stars of the book and did the whole Algebraic approach with them. That was a rarity, and it was something that was picked up immediately by the rest of Marvel and DC, hence Austen being singled out as the harbinger of what Bendis and Millar LATER did.

Holy cow, I loved that...that's the same Chuck Austen?

What the heck happened to him?!?

Both companies are so invested in Big Events, and their flash-in-the-pan sales boosts, that they'll destroy any character to make it happen.

Did Civil War make any sense? Nope. Did it treat characters or readers with any respect? Nope. Was it a concept that they could hype and market? Oh yeah.

Even the plots of Big Events are screwed up and all over the place, trying to keep the Event chugging along. As much as we bemoan the various character assasinations, even plots and stoytelling engines are being sacrificed to the gods of marketing.

His work was flawed, and never as good on the series he did later. But I liked it better than Morrison’s New X-Men. Seemed to me Morrison was just rehashing old stories in a new style. Left me cold. Least Austen was taking risks.

There's so much evil and wrong in that quote, I can't believe the universe allowed it to come into existence. I'm surprised a black hole didn't open up and suck the letters right off the screen.

Angel was most certainly NOT a hardass in his original incarnation: he was a millionaire, and his time in the original X-men series, as well as the Defenders, and into X-factor, showed him as more of a softie than, say, Cyclops. You could make an argument that he had been turned into a hardass by the ArcAngel transformation, perhaps, but that's not an "always were" sort of thing.

Never really saw it as "Chuck Austen Style" but it does fit.

His work was flawed, and never as good on the series he did later. But I liked it better than Morrison's New X-Men. Seemed to me Morrison was just rehashing old stories in a new style. Left me cold. Least Austen was taking risks.

And if your head hasn't exploded yet, I also liked "Worldwatch", his very short-lived self-published series with Norm Rapmund about amoral superheroes who eventually destroyed themselves. And walked around naked.

See for example any 70's Cary Bates comic.

I want C (plot) to happen, and I want B (inciting incident) to be the cause, and I will change A (character) however I have to to make that happen.

"And I'll call it a 'secondary mutation,' so I can put Emma Frost into the Colossus role."

Oh, wait...