[Aurornis]

A few early companies failing to find product-market fit before the money runs out doesn't prove anything, other than that early stage startup investing is hard.

Webvan and Pets.com were held up as proof that e-commerce couldn't work at all because nobody wanted it. What really happened is that we now have e-commerce at a scale that WebVan and Pets.com couldn't even dream of.

Pets.com now goes to PetSmart.com which does basically what Pets.com was trying to do and has a successful business out of it.

If your point is "some early investors will lose their money" then I agree wholeheartedly. That's not a novel claim, though. It's also not what the blog post is arguing.

[Juliate]

Right, but PetSmart was an existing retailer that added e-commerce, not a startup burning VC money on an unproven model: the tech worked, the hype-driven bet didn't.

GenAI has its uses. That it will transform everything for everyone, and that this justifies to dump laws and people, that's the part that deserves hard-earned scrutiny.

[ThrowawayR2]

Calling the catastrophic dotcom bust that imploded ~50% of internet companies and caused a ~90% drop in combined market valuation for the remainder and nearly wiped out market leaders like Sun Microsystems and Cisco merely as side effects "A few early companies failing to find product-market fit before the money runs out..." is a very peculiar take.

[Aurornis]

Nothing peculiar about it. You’re making the same category error as the blog: Trying to equate the failure of a few companies with the failure of a technology.

You’re also trying to include companies which did not fail in your argument about the dot com bubble. Cisco is a very large and thriving company today and networking equipment is everywhere. Why would you use that as an example?