I remember similar things being said about the 747 around 1970.
Yeah, the 747 barely survived that period. But the 747 was the only airplane in that market niche. The A380 shares its market niche with other aircraft, making survival in the maketplace more difficult.
There were also a handful of years later a lot of A300 white tails stored in TLS. Airbus ended up giving away those airplanes for (almost) free to Eastern. Both stories had a happy end.
Building airplanes at government expense and then giving them away to a foreign nation was doable in the 70s. It's not doable today.
The 380 is not a bad airplane as such.
I personally think the A380 is a great machine with some superb engineering. But the market place does not care about that and the market place seems to be going a different direction. Similarly, the Concorde was an eye watering machine with some brilliant engineering. But the marketplace rejected it.
It just had the bad fortune to enter service right in one of the modern world's most severe crises. Give her another decade and perhaps the NEO.
But can it survive another decade? There have been zero sales for around three years, and it takes a 30 airframe per year rate to break even at current prices. Reducing rate ups the cost and holding price while increasing cost means losing money. Since Airbus can no longer count on government largesse to keep the line afloat, can A380 survive another decade? And is it remotely likely that management can justify developing a new model when the old model has not made any money? This is after all about making money, not making an engineering statement or national prestige, like it was in the 70s.