It's not really about being a general case example.
It's about this statement: "You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements." - do you think that restaurant deserves to be profitable?
You seem to be treating a generalization as an absolute. I don't think that's what the original author meant and if it were, I don't know that I'd agree. Did you have a point beyond picking a very small nit?
I don't think it's small. Unfortunately, neither you nor I can tell that the original author meant anything other than what they said, and I am not in the habit of assuming people mean something different than what they post; it's demeaning.
So if they said "You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements." Then that is what they meant. They didn't say "You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements or if your product is good or if you serve a genuine need or if...etc."
In fact, the OP said "The constant need for improvements is why we use capitalism at all." Which leads me to believe that they meant exactly what they said. It happens to be false, but totally conforms with their absolutism about profitability.
I obviously don't agree. There are many companies that make good products and are profitable and I believe should remain profitable without the need to change the products they make. You seem to agree. That is good, because "You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements" is a ridiculous statement.
That's my point. I don't know what's bold about it or why anyone would agree with it generally and I think logically it's easy to counter.
It's about this statement: "You should only be profitable if you make constant improvements." - do you think that restaurant deserves to be profitable?