3 ms·

"A startup based in Silicon Valley has a 6.9% chance of being acquired. New York startups come in second with a 4.9% acquisition rate." Then how do they explai

"A startup based in Silicon Valley has a 6.9% chance of being acquired. New York startups come in second with a 4.9% acquisition rate." Then how do they explain Washington's higher 8.2% rate?

axod 17y ago
They conveniently ignore it since it doesn't fit in well with their agenda/propaganda? Either that or Mike isn't very good with numbers. I like this comment though: >> The data could also get interpreted that startups in >> the valley have a lower revenue success rate and fewer >> working business models and the only strategy remaining >> is an acquisition before landing in the deadpool. >> Since when is the primary goal of startup to get >> acquired? I thought companies are about finding a >> business model. Oh wait, that might just be my “out >> of valley” thinking model…
- drusenko 17y ago
  to be honest, it looks like he assumed the table was sorted by acquisition rate... would have made a lot more sense that way, instead of sorting it by # of startups
  - axod 17y ago
    Yeah you'd have to be a rocket scientist to be able to look down the list and find the biggest numbers... Off topic, but very funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
froo 17y ago
Then how do they explain Washington's higher 8.2% rate? You should read the comment in the original post (http://www.tonywright.com/2009/should-you-move-your-startup-to-the-valley-depends-on-where-you-are-data-included/ http://www.tonywright.com/2009/should-you-move-your-startup-...) by user abscondment. He contends that the data that Tony wrote is uncertain because there is less data available on Washington than California, so he propses using a confidence interval of at least 97.5%, which puts California in the lead. Lowering the confidence interval even more would give California an even greater lead.
- gwc 17y ago
  That's just silly. A confidence interval by definition is a range; the commenter is arbitrarily choosing to post only the low end of that range. If the high end were posted instead, Washington's lead would look that much more impressive. That's not to say the math is useless; a better statement (which could have been supported by the data) would have been "The difference between CA and WA is less than the measurement margin of error given WA's small sample size".

"A startup based in Silicon Valley has a 6.9% chance of being acquired. New York startups come in second with a 4.9% acquisition rate." Then how do they explain Washington's higher 8.2% rate?

axod 17y ago

They conveniently ignore it since it doesn't fit in well with their agenda/propaganda? Either that or Mike isn't very good with numbers. I like this comment though: >> The data could also get interpreted that startups in >> the valley have a lower revenue success rate and fewer >> working business models and the only strategy remaining >> is an acquisition before landing in the deadpool. >> Since when is the primary goal of startup to get >> acquired? I thought companies are about finding a >> business model. Oh wait, that might just be my “out >> of valley” thinking model…

drusenko 17y ago
to be honest, it looks like he assumed the table was sorted by acquisition rate... would have made a lot more sense that way, instead of sorting it by # of startups
- axod 17y ago
  Yeah you'd have to be a rocket scientist to be able to look down the list and find the biggest numbers... Off topic, but very funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I

froo 17y ago

Then how do they explain Washington's higher 8.2% rate? You should read the comment in the original post (http://www.tonywright.com/2009/should-you-move-your-startup-to-the-valley-depends-on-where-you-are-data-included/ http://www.tonywright.com/2009/should-you-move-your-startup-...) by user abscondment. He contends that the data that Tony wrote is uncertain because there is less data available on Washington than California, so he propses using a confidence interval of at least 97.5%, which puts California in the lead. Lowering the confidence interval even more would give California an even greater lead.

gwc 17y ago
That's just silly. A confidence interval by definition is a range; the commenter is arbitrarily choosing to post only the low end of that range. If the high end were posted instead, Washington's lead would look that much more impressive. That's not to say the math is useless; a better statement (which could have been supported by the data) would have been "The difference between CA and WA is less than the measurement margin of error given WA's small sample size".