My biggest gripe with this, though it seems sensible on the surface, is that these numbers are often simply pulled out of someone's ass to argue their stance. Often a manager or a front-end person who just wants to work with the new hotness. How do we know 20%(or whatever the number is) is at all a relevant estimation? Who are the demographics that this number makes up? Why is it important to isolate them or exclude them? Furthermore, at best this number often only accounts for the known people that the product is already not serving or poorly serving. Not the people who bail immediately upon realizing that this service isn't for them because they opted against an inclusive strategy.
The efforts of the companies mentioned in this article look promising and I wish them all the best in the coming years. I can't imagine what it takes to get something like that into testing on patients in the ICU. My grandmother is currently, or was, enduring dialysis but is now refusing treatment in part because of it's long term impact on mobility and general quality of life. I don't imagine that is a complete unique circumstance and if efforts in the near future help to improve that, even a just a little, it could mean a great deal with regard to sustaining human life in an all too common life-threatening health condition.
It may stretch to fit, but has a higher likelihood of shrinking back down during sex. Furthermore, a less comfortable condom due to it's size will increase pressure on the penis and reduce sensation even further. If you have a big cock, get an appropriate size condom.