He's applying labels which is never good. Startups have a huge range and aren't necessarily just people who are living on ramen hoping to strike it big. I think this is a huge misconception in fact. While there are people out there who are experimenting with new trends, there are also many people (from what I've noticed) who have found a target market and are able to pull in some money. I would be interested to see some statistics on sv startups vs. general entrepreneurs across the US.
What I find deeply offensive about this article is that he doesn't acknowledge that many, maybe most people who fail at creating "real" companies, fail not because they set out to create "just startups" or because they incompetent or because they lack the secret source, but because they face serious competition.
A minor league play or second string player can look bad compared to the very top of the professional leagues. But they aren't really bad, just not as good. Lots of people who only get to startup level are great, just not great enough to get all the way to successful company level.
And, again like sports, the pressure-cooker, the competition, is what makes the ultimately successful companies so good.
This guy is like the most offensive kind of little-league coach, the one who says "I don't want to hear any excuses for you coming in second" - someone who doesn't credit effort, who doesn't see that not everyone can win and who doesn't see that game itself is worthwhile.