4 ms·
It is totally fair. People (especially in the valley) tend to think small is better/more efficient than big. But what are the statistics on actual failure rates
by jisaacstone 14y ago
It is totally fair. People (especially in the valley) tend to think small is better/more efficient than big. But what are the statistics on actual failure rates?
Start-ups that 'succeed' (buyouts, etc) for their founders can still fail before making any real difference in the actual marketplace.
Nothing against Instacart, but that first picture must become like the second before history will call them 'successful'
- gottagetmac 14y agoI think the point of the image is more that starting small makes them less likely to fail SPECTACULARLY. There is zero chance that Instacart will lose $830 million before it sees traction, which is what happened to Webvan. If Webvan had just been a small grocery startup, nobody would have cared if it failed. Also, "historically notable" is a pretty high bar you're setting. Finally, I'm sure Instacart hopes to reach that kind of scale eventually. But they don't want to start there because again, that's how you fail spectacularly and lose tons of money without giving people something they want.