That's a fair point, and one I don't disagree with. Where I do disagree is the idea that failure is a measure of success or even the potential for success. I

That's a fair point, and one I don't disagree with. Where I do disagree is the idea that failure is a measure of success or even the potential for success. It's a potential indicator of either the difficulty of the task, the abilities of the people performing the task, or both[1]. It's also an indicator that no matter how many things were done right, one or more things were done wrong. I feel that your original post and subsequent reply reflect the pervasive perception that failure is a requirement for doing something big successfully. I think that's a misconception that's running rampant in the startup community. Failure can happen and it can be learned from, but success is possible without it. 1. In this case I'm going with 'difficult' and 'some things not done right'. Strongly suspect incompetence was not a factor :)