SpaceX is not a traditional VC funded tech/ software business.

Snapchat has a negative P/E ratio. In other words they are hemorraging money.

I can't speak as much to Spotify and Lyft, but I don't remember them being very profitable either. Or at least profitable enough to warrant their valuations.

Neither are any of the shining examples cited above.

Snap can't be both! :D

Give any company enough time. If you want to describe four strategies a company has used to become a shining success, your list could be Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft. If you want to describe four ways a company has really screwed up and was punished by the market and/or the government, your list could also be Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft.

You can probably replace Microsoft with Apple or Google without much trouble too (but it's trivial for Microsoft).

Sure, but companies like Snap or Twitter are much easier to poke holes at. They both tried their best to screw over a legit co-founder. Sadly Twitter succeeded.

Both already had some toxic people near the beginning of their time. I'd say that makes them a toxic company from the get go too. You can't say the same thing for a ton of other companies. In these cases we didn't need to give much time at all. I think that's an important distinction.