5 ms·
Most startups fail. You need to be good to succeed.
by koheripbal 3y ago
Most startups fail.
You need to be good to succeed.
- ysavir 3y agoYou need to be good enough to succeed. People needn't go beyond that to maintain a status quo.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago> to maintain a status quo Startups are explicitly disrupting the status quo. Yeah, one needs to be good enough to do that but it’s nothing to downplay. That is hard in a world of established actors.
- 411111111111111 3y agoLeadership matters, Apples history is a prime example of this as shown by first faltering without Steve Jobs and then becoming the most profitable company after he rejoined. Nonetheless, you're still attributing way too much to the ability of the leadership. After all, that story is so remarkable precisely because it's pretty much the only well known example of this.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoEven Steve failed with Next, and had to sell it to Apple.
- smallerfish 3y ago> You need to be good to succeed. You need to be good, somewhat lucky, and have product/market fit to succeed.
- simonswords82 3y agoBeing good creates the luck. I'm not saying it does not happen the other way around but it's fantastically rare to just "luck out" your way in to success. Product/market fit doesn't fall out of the sky either. It's created by being good.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- quickthrower2 3y agoMost companies are not startups. There are plenty of bumbling people running million dollar (and thats it forever..) businesses. And they are the boss.
- marcinzm 3y agoI've been mostly in startups for the last 10+ years. Until recently the main thing you needed to be good at is getting more VC money. That is correlated to certain measures of success but having a ton of free money means you can patch a lot of failures over that would bankrupt most companies. Then either sell or IPO before the house of cards came down. It's been interesting watching over the last year as that strategy started to no longer work.
- lmeyerov 3y agoThat is only something like 1% of businesses: money-burning VC-funded companies who have to advertise enough to get more VC money or die.
- marcinzm 3y agoBut the vast majority of companies referred to as "startups" versus "small businesses" fall into that category. We can discuss the other case but the person I replied to explicitly said "startups."
- lmeyerov 3y agoMost new and growing tech startups are not in fact VC funded. My point is it's an amazing marketing win by financiers. And here we are now, with what the weird minority do sounding like the expectation for startup business practices vs what most actually do.
- pc86 3y ago"Startup" by definition is companies that need large-scale growth to succeed. Uber, DoorDash, those kinds of businesses are start-ups. It doesn't need to be VC investment necessarily, but it needs a lot of capital to get going and there's a certain amount of network effects. That's not marketing, that's what the word means. > Most new and growing tech startups are not in fact VC funded. Then they're probably not startups, but just tech businesses. Nothing wrong with that - they're objectively better in my opinion - but let's not call them something they're not just because we like the word or we want the cachet of being associated with something we're not.
- maxk42 3y agoOn the contrary: I've seen more companies succeed despite their management than because of it.