5 ms·
I hear this often, but I don't buy it. The implications [seems] to be that most startups either succeed or fail within 3 years. Does anyone have proof of this?
by latch 16y ago
I hear this often, but I don't buy it. The implications [seems] to be that most startups either succeed or fail within 3 years.
Does anyone have proof of this?
My personal observation is that most companies will still be around and they'll neither be millionaires nor broke. In such a situation, the bizspark bait-n-switch can be significant.
Picking technology today on the basis that you'll either crash and burn or be hugely successful in 3 years seems like the sales pitch of a man who lends you free software for 3 years.
- jimbobimbo 16y agoMy point is: if you're doing a startup, you want to have a business, not a hacking hobby. If three years down the road your business isn't generating enough profit one way or another, it's a "busyness" and you seriously should consider doing something else.
- regularfry 16y agoThere's a lot of room in the gap between marginally profitable and exponential growth. Not every startup is necessarily going to end up making millions - not within 3 years, 10 years, maybe ever. That doesn't make it a "busyness," nor does it make it not worth doing.
- bad_user 16y ago> if you're doing a startup, you want to have a business, not a hacking hobby That's funny, because I know at least 2 businesses that started out as hacking hobbies ... Apple and Google. You also don't know when your business will reach the "tipping point", going from barely profitable to hugely profitable ... it could be 3 years from now, it could be 7. ... and until then spending thousands of dollars on software for a single server is just plain stupid from a business perspective, when you could be investing in something else or just give those money away as bonuses if you've got nothing else to do with it.