I personally would not use this term, just as I would not use e.g. "to beg the question". I wonder if this phenomenon has a name, along the lines of "euphemistic treadmill".
I intentionally use "beg the question" with the new meaning to do my part in cycling out the old meaning as quickly as possible. The "old" meaning is a waste of precious linguistic bandwidth, spent on a concept that is very rarely invoked (and could be just as easily invoked with something like "presupposes the facts", which is more intuitive).
If language is dynamic, then braindead vestigials should be bulldozed out with prejudice, especially when they tie up prime real estate.
I use it to mean that despite demonstrated technological viability by multiple vendors, and despite the devices providing a solution to the issue of actual portability beyond closed rooms, the market has failed to make these devices accessible.
IIRC one of the problems is that the benefit doesn't become obvious in "good" lighting conditions like a walmart building. In that way I'm putting much of the blame in this on the buying side of the market for making shallow, lazy buying decisions. But the producers are equally to blame here. Nobody made a serious first move, so no competition evolved, despite the availability of transflectives being technically governed by market forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
The way black_puppydog used it fits the term quite well.
> A market failure occurs whenever the individuals in a group end up worse off than if they had not acted in perfectly rational self-interest. Such a group either incurs too many costs or receives too few benefits.
> Even though the concept seems simple, it can be misleading and easy to misidentify.
> Contrary to what the name implies, market failure does not describe inherent imperfections in the market economy
> Additionally, not every bad outcome from market activity counts as a market failure.
As I say, I think he's using it in a very much more colloquial manner: "I don't like the outcome of the market process", which is fine.
I still find it worthwhile to point out when somebody uses a jargon term from an academic discipline, so they maybe can leave the battlefield and its senseless slaughter and instead and chose some other formulation.