Their growth was positive. The second derivative (growth of their growth) was likely negative, and that's what this article is about.

Right, but a comparison is always one more implicit derivative. If you look at revenue itself, it's growing or shrinking, that's first derivative. So there's one more derivative here than usual?

I guess the interesting thing would be to look at actual company assets/value rather than revenue; revenue already in itself is a derivative. I.e., contrast their revenue against expenses. Last I heard those numbers are deep red, aren't they?