I suppose it may be that technical excellence
has never been economically viable
Probably more like:1. It's generally orthogonal to economic viability
2. ...unless you have such a lack of technical excellence that it actively sinks the company because you can't execute at all
I think Google search would like to have a word with you.
You can have the best product on the market and fail, and you can have a terrible one, yet succeed. Google has as much business acumen as they do technical chops, and that's why they are such a success. Same with MS and Apple.
Edit: I guess if we want to limit it to cool technologies that are directly monetizable, the ford motor company of the early 20th century (or maybe Tesla) is a better example? It's just as silly a statement either way.
There is a ton of shit software out there that makes buckets of money, and lots of well designed, well executed products never make it off the ground. So you can't just focus on good engineering and expect clients to line up out there door.
Thanks for sharing though!
I suppose it may be that technical excellence has never been economically viable, and NeXT survived as long as it did only by fluke.