It's trivially easy to disprove. Just read some vintage issues of Byte to see an impressive number of not entirely crazy novel ideas from established domain experts which crashed and burned.
Of course some of these ideas - a minority - turned out to be successful. But a little digging shows success was not about the quality of the tech, and more the quality of the marketing, with some occasional monopolist strong-arming.
In fact this is very much the US model. Take an okay to good idea, hype it into the stratosphere with a massive marketing and brand recognition campaign, and sell it at an inflated price.
If you're lucky you can pitch it as a B2C Veblen lifestyle good or a B2B strategic corporate necessity. Win.
That's very different to debating the tech itself purely on intrinsic technical merits.
In a very literal sense it's a different argument happening in a different space. It's neither helpful nor clarifying to imply it isn't.
I still have the AI issue of Byte[0] and there still aren’t any robots that can draw for shit. /s
That encompasses the idea and how to get it executed and what resources are needed to get it to be sustainable, over what timescale.
This applies to business but also charity, non profit, political efforts etc.
Notice I didn’t mention profit or even revenue. These days ideas can go a long time being supported by investors who see the strategy.
For example I am thinking of YouTube, Tesla etc.
But there needs to be a strategy. Like a rocket launch or starting a campfire there might need to be different stages where the idea to the uninitiated looks very different at each stage, but it’s all part of the same master plan.
For example. Uber was a taxi firm + app at first. Peer to peer came later.
Even by your own math this is a bad idea, with 1 in 100 leading to a 10x improvement we'd be better to stick with what we've got.