> We have the opposite view on this: you seem to think that the bulk of what the startup scene does is disruptive, with a few idiotic startups giving the rest a

> We have the opposite view on this: you seem to think that the bulk of what the startup scene does is disruptive, with a few idiotic startups giving the rest a bad name. I believe the balance is in fact the opposite: a few truly disruptive companies and boatloads of "silly little startups like 'Yo'". If you count "bulk" by "number of companies", sure. But that's not really a relevant metric. There's a power law here: the bulk of what actually gets done is mostly done by a tiny slice of companies at the biggest end of the spectrum. > So... why are the 99% working on things they know will amount to nothing? Because we can only tell which 1% is good in retrospect. Almost all the good ideas also sounded idiotic to many people at their earliest stage.