Not sure how you're missing it. He's making a distinction between the concept of a Project and a Product. I agree with the distinction and he seems to be saying that the author has the wrong concept of what a product is but to answer your parent comment is saying that there's no difference between a vibe coded thing and a 'real' product so long as there has been some satisfactory transfer of agency and an exchange between user and product creator at any scale. So he's essentially saying that the author may be conflating vibe coded PROJECT (with a vibe coded PRODUCT) and that if so comparing a vibe coded PROJECT with any 'real' (whatever that means) product is an unfair comparison and on the flip side if they're comparing vive coded PRODUCT with a real PRODUCT then they're one and the same thing from the perspective that there was an transfer of agency and utility has been exchanged between user and product creator. I happen to agree with parent comment. It's an airtight argument that it doesn't matter how yu made it. The distinction between vibe coded and 'real' product is fuzzy at best. The real distinction lies between a PROJECT and a PRODUCT.

It doesn’t matter one bit how you made it, as long as you’ve got someone who is willing to exchange with you, for it. That is the only factor in determining whether something is a product or not.

Nobody wants to know how the sausage is made. Vibe coding is just sausage-making.