3 ms·

I loved TechStars but the WSJ analysis seems flawed. Primarily because I think that data is stale (there are definitely zombie/dead companies counted as "active

I loved TechStars but the WSJ analysis seems flawed. Primarily because I think that data is stale (there are definitely zombie/dead companies counted as "active") and a category like "acquired" it too vague. The way it reads it seems like that was a good outcome (and for companies like Gradcad it was!) but many others it is basically acquihire. There was a good conversation between Dave McClure and Sam Altman about value of the grand slams vs singles/doubles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=489JA4ERzUY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=489JA4ERzUY

ojbyrne 12y ago
I don't think its flawed as much as limited by the availability of hard data about acquisitions, or the profitability of existing companies, and they addressed those issues to some extent. So basically I see it as interesting, and better than nothing at all.
- tarr11 12y ago
  This data isn't as hard to collect as it seems. Contact each company, and ask then. There are less than 1000 data points here.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    Companies are under no obligation to co-operate. I also think you're mis-under-estimating how news stories are written. Maybe this is an opportunity for people who specialize in telephone surveys? As boss or an employee question is about good use of company time. Not to mention the p/r and confidentiality considerations.
  - ojbyrne 12y ago
    Even if companies were willing to be forthcoming about profitability and the terms of acquisitions, there are probably fiduciary and other legal requirements that would preclude that.