I read the article as being unnecessarily harsh towards picplz to bolster the 'fumble' that was Andreesen Horowitz's 4,000% return on instagram. This article is definitely a non-article and could easily be changed around to say "Andreesen Horowitz has done it again!".

You're missing an obvious implication of the article, which paints a stark picture of winners vs. losers. Even when talking about Imeem it described it as being "buried" by MySpace - a word you usually use to describe a loser, not a winning sale.

Journalists, especially those writing for the NY Times, choose their words very carefully and are 100% deliberate in their conclusions, even if only implied through artful diction and innuendo.

This is techcrunch-style gossip writ large and it names names. You think NYT isn't doing this on purpose? We all read it didn't we?