> when something goes extinct I'd say that's evidence that it isn't viable.

It depends on the thing, but in general I don't think that assumption is terribly valid. The problem is that "viable" and "maximally profitable" are two different things. Companies have decided to chase the latter exclusively -- but that's a choice to satisfy short-term greed, it's not a reflection on what a viable business has to look like.

I think it's more reflective of how much the exercise of capitalism has degraded since those times.