As others have pointed out, some of your examples are very bad, because they're the opposite of hype - they're companies that innovated and created a better pro

As others have pointed out, some of your examples are very bad, because they're the opposite of hype - they're companies that innovated and created a better product by leveraging new technology. This gave actual consumers a better, cheaper option, as judged by the consumers themselves (who are the judges that matter). You express a lot of concern that these are just "VC pumped up companies" or something, as if that negates the technology. But it doesn't! The technology has already been developed because of these VC investments, and much of it is public. Moreover, even if these companies go out of business tomorrow and aren't replaced, having years of consumers paying less money and getting a better product is a good unto itself. Yes, a company that made something inferior went out of business in the process - but if, after the big companies are shut down, there really is somehow no alternative - a new company based on the old method can always start again. I just don't understand how you can spin as bad the idea that VCs are spending billions on unprofitable companies, meaning that they are spending billions that go straight into either innovation, or consumer's pockets. Who loses out here except for the VCs? And while I have empathy and respect for people who lose their jobs, companies going out of business is an everyday occurrence. We should wish it only happened because better-for-consumers solutions came along.