So he was wrong, no doubt about that. But I'd be interested in an analysis on why he was wrong? What assumptions he made to reach his conclusion proved out to be untrue?
Sometimes I think there are more anti-Krugman people than actual economists...
disclaimer: I only read a small part of the article
After thinking about it a bit, I'd suggest it was technological naivety - he didn't see ecommerce coming (!?) or thought that there was some reason it would fail.
I suspect he was deliberately being contrarian and pessimistic too.