Not really, A380 is nowhere near as big a risk technically as Concorde was, it is a step up from 747, but nowhere near as big a step from 707/DC-8 to 747.
With Concorde BAC and SUD were not only undertaking a huge technical challenge, but were learning the hard way about multi-national co-operation, had this part been done better, Concorde's costs could have been reduced by up to 25%
In fact, Concorde was a step on the way to Airbus, the early fly by wire on Concorde was just one of the technical innovations that were realized with Airbus.
One thing though, Pan-Am and TWA (the only 2 US carriers with really suitable routes for Concorde) cancelled their options for Concorde before the fuel crisis, because they were both in financial trouble, the recession of the early 70's was bad, also PA and TWA both had ordered too many 747s which they were struggling to fill, the last thing they needed was another advanced type to introduce, the early months of 747 service were plagued with problems, in particular with the early JT9D engines.
A380, like all airliners, will be offered in a range of versions, with Concorde you had a 3500 mile range aircraft certified to seat up to 128 pax.
Concorde B, a study for some improvements, was too late, had it been in the running sooner a few more (but only a few) airlines might have ordered as the economic situation improved, for example LH
, Concorde B could do Frankfurt to New York non stop, with Concorde you needed two cities that were major financial centres for plenty of business traffic, mostly separated by ocean.
Hong Kong or Tokyo to Singapore is another example.
The A380 is a much more flexible machine.
made Concorde into a money maker by the mid 1980's, after they took over all responsibility for it and got imaginative and aggressive with marketing.