The article misinterprets the Gurley/Andreessen warning call - high overall burn INDUSTRY WIDE is a fair cause for concern and indicator of sub-optimal investing/operating, both for individual companies and for the VC industry as a whole.
On this article's own terms, if everyone is burning like crazy, then it likely that companies in all four quadrants of the high/low execution/efficiency, which means there is bad burn going on.
If you are a company, this means time for self-reflection: (if you want to take the article’s framework seriously) which quadrant are you in? are you burning cash smartly or dumbly? Do you have framework for determining this? do you really believe your revenue can grow faster than your costs? are there places you can reduce cost? how much are you paying for growth in each of your channels, and which are actually worth it short and long term?
If you are a VC, it is time for portfolio-reflection and (if your portfolio companies are lucky) some hands-on portfolio-company coaching: is a company you funded raising again 6 months later (and was this planned…)? have you asked for a burn report and/or a path to profitability? does the board deck summarize the company’s return on spending and tie results to spending (not necessarily in $$ to $$ numbers, but to users, engagement, etc.)? do your CEOs know their main costs, both fixed and variable?
When $$ floods the early-stage market, both companies and VCs do not ask themselves these types of questions enough, and I think Gurley/Andreessen are trying to signal the industry to get more mindful.