[fencepost]

it's tough to declare later that you have made nothing of value and will close shop.

It's not that you've made nothing of value or that there was no need, it's simply that you weren't able to build a viable business from what you were doing. It doesn't even mean that nobody could build a viable business, it may be that your definition of viable is different from someone else's (e.g. minimum required growth numbers, desire for an acquisition, etc.).

[dyarosla]

I think the definition of viable isn’t really up for debate. But I do agree with your sentiment:

There may have been a need and you may have created value but perhaps the need/value wasn’t viable at the target size set for the business by the founders and investors.

[wpietri]

I think the definition of viable depends a lot on how you started the business. For a bootstrapper the definition is totally different than if you have taken millions (or tens or hundreds of millions) in VC money. In general, VCs not only aren't interested in small-but-steady earners, they will be happy to destroy one if they think it gets them a chance at a big payout.

[ehnto]

It kind of is though. Maybe a founder is happy making 90k a year off a small band of loyal customers. By all means, that's a viable business.

Maybe the business wouldn't be able to run profitably with anything less than 1000 users and one founder can't make it happen in their budget while another can, or another yet decides to raise money.