
Why Not To Do A Startup - rms
http://mattmaroon.com/?p=340
======
pg
While this is mostly true, it's really the case against doing anything
especially ambitious, not just starting startups. You could make an almost
identical case against trying to write a great novel. The novelists you hear
about in the press are the successful ones. Most people who try fail. It sucks
up huge amounts of time regardless. The community is littered with sad, failed
novelists. And are the ones who succeed satisfied? No; they just start another
novel.

~~~
Mistone
ever been to LA? a few big stars and producers up in the hills, every other
person in the "biz" scattered across miles and miles of flatlands.

~~~
jedberg
There are plenty of middle class folks in the "biz". These are the makeup
artists, sound designers, animators, model makers and so on. They all make a
good living pursuing their dream.

~~~
nickb
The point he's making is that not that many actors make their living through
acting. Also, not many people go to Hollywood with a dream of being a gaffer.
When you get a union job, you usually live month-to-month since living in Cali
can be expensive.

Like with many other "scalable jobs", you have few winners and many, many
losers. Acting, singing, startups, CEOs, traders... they all fall into this
category.

------
dood
_Startups tend to be fairly binary, with you making either a very large amount
off of them or nothing at all._

Recently re-reading pg's How To Make Wealth [1] made me wonder if this will
soon become an outdated view of startups. The factors leading to the current
and predicted rise in the number of startups (free software, cheap hardware,
less personnel) should also lead to a large broading of the spectrum of
failure <-> success.

The startup world has until recently been determined by its capital-intensive,
high-risk nature - big money chasing big rewards. But the new dynamics may
leave room for a lot of diversity in between, and consequently a lot more
working on some kind of startup. 37 signals can be seen as exemplary of the
other extreme to a go-big-or-die startup: founders and employees accept less
risk, less pressure and more life for a higher chance of reward, though a
lower expected reward. I think there will be a lot of middle ground: a lot of
investors willing to accept less risk for lower return, and a whole lot more
people will choose lower rewards for a more comfortable life, and better
chance of success.

[1] [<http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html>] "The all-or-nothing aspect of
startups was not something we wanted. Viaweb's hackers were all extremely
risk-averse. If there had been some way just to work super hard and get paid
for it, without having a lottery mixed in, we would have been delighted. We
would have much preferred a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10
million, even though theoretically the second is worth twice as much.
Unfortunately, there is not currently any space in the business world where
you can get the first deal."

~~~
mattmaroon
I think this is already happening somewhat thanks to Google's penchant for
making a lot of small acquisitions, and other companies following their lead.

The problem still largely remains though. A venture backed company still has a
lot more money than a bootstrapped one, and that still translates into a big
advantage, even though database software is now free rather than $100k.

~~~
dood
I suspect there is a massive, unexploited gap in the current venture model
(with YC and Google leading the way in exploiting it), which will soon start
to rapidly close as the opportunities become clear, and a new set of
investment skills is developed.

The current economic turmoil may even help speed the process up somewhat, as
investors seek to minimize risk.

------
timr
While I was reading this, I kept making a mental translation of the word
"startup" into "grad school" (especially the bit about being 30 and single,
due to the seven previous years of 80-hour weeks). It held together just as
well.

I'm no defender of the blind optimism that goes along with the startup
universe, but there are certainly less lucrative ways to waste the best years
of your life.

~~~
tim2
My perception was that it's much harder to fail at grad school.

~~~
rms
It depends on your major... it's really tough to make it as a Biology PhD.
There are just so many of them.

------
iamelgringo
Good article, Matt. Thanks. I like the way you think.

I think that part of the confusion of people when they get into the startup
scene, is that they loose sight of what a successful exit does for you: solves
the money problem. That's it. Nothing else. Nada.

A successful exit will not buy you love. It will not make you instantly happy.
An exit will not provide you with meaning and purpose in life. It will not
make you immortal. It will not fix all the other problems in your life. It
solves one and only one problem: the money problem.

If you talk to people in the valley who were sudden millionaires in the first
dot.com gold rush, I think that you'll find that sudden wealth brings its own
set of problems which you touched on in your article. I actually remember
reading a number of articles about the struggles of the nouveau-rich after
their dot com went public.

These things are worth keeping in mind when you're thinking about that
startup, or in dealing with relationships while you're in a startup. Be
careful burning bridges with family and friends when you're working 100 hours
a week with your startup. They might not be there when you find your exit.

------
jraines
Matt Maroon : Hacker News 2008 :: Aaron Swartz : Hacker News 2007

Don't get me wrong, though -- they're both good writers, so the above isn't a
swipe at either guy or Hacker News.

However: "trailer-dweller" seems a little mean-spirited (and inaccurate) when
it's clear who you are referring to with that example.

~~~
Spyckie
Can someone kindly provide some history of this to those of us that weren't
here in 2007?

~~~
jraines
To spell out the analogy, they both:

1) Are young and have started or been part of successful startups

2) Have blogs where they exhibit a strong personality through their writings,
which are sometimes controversial but always tinged with elitism.*

3) Were/are darlings of Hacker News, with a high percentage of their blog
posts making it high on the front page

*Not that there's anything wrong with that

------
Readmore
There are some really good points in his article. It doesn't deter me from
continuing to work on my startup but a lot of it hit pretty close to home.

I had a high paying job, which I hated, and quit to do a startup last year.
The problem was that while I was motivated and working night and day, the
other 'founders' weren't nearly as devoted to it. As I went months and months
without a paycheck, living off credit cards mostly, my new wife and I got
further and further into debt (I quit my job 2 weeks before our wedding, that
went over REAL well with the in-laws). After about 6 months I realized I was
working all hours of the day for no money on a project that had a single digit
chance of working out. At that point even if we did get the funding we were
looking for I was still going to be paying off my credit card debt for years
just to get back to the place I was before I started. So what could I do?

I got a real job, high paying enough that money isn't a problem anymore. We
are still paying on the credit cards but we should have them taken care of in
about 6 more months. The failure didn't stop me from working on startups
though, I've seen what I'm capable of when I work for myself and after that I
can't stand to spend my days working for someone else. In fact I'm already
deep into a new startup, something that I'll hopefully be able to share with
all of you in the next month or so.

Hopefully this time will turn out better than the last.

------
Prrometheus
Wow. Life sucks and then you die.

Now that we’ve identified the worst case scenario, let's try to improve on it.

------
andreyf
_Those happen, and your odds of that are probably far better than winning the
lottery, but it’s still highly unlikely [...] and just like the lottery,
everyone thinks their chances are better than they really are._

I hate this comparison - building a successful startup may have some element
of luck, but like with everything in life, the amount of luck your success is
based on is inversely proportional to the amount of understanding you have of
your environment.

If you don't know the currents, getting to the other side does seems to take a
lot of luck.

The 37signals folks could write a scathing counter-example to your post. Sure,
they might be a rare exceptions, but I never understood why people feel there
is fate in statistics... it's possible! It doesn't matter what "the most
common startup life" is like, because again, the way your life works out isn't
decided by pigeonholing you into fated roles, but by your own choosing.

~~~
mattmaroon
In poker world there's a famous aphorism that says tournaments are a lottery,
but the good players get more tickets. (If you want to be technical, the
average player gets 1 ticket, the best players get 5-10, the worst get some
tiny fraction approaching 0).

Startups work much the same way. Those who win at anything (startups, lottery,
poker) always underestimate the amount of luck involved, so if you ask them,
they will of course denigrate its role.

------
thinkcomp
I enjoyed the article.

I have to say, though, and this is totally unrelated to the article itself,
that this is one of those pieces where I've thought--hey, I'd like to get in
touch with this guy--and yet there's no way to do it directly. I may be the
only one who still prefers to communicate specifically with one person
directly from time to time, rather than via public comments, blog posts,
walls, and the like, but I do. And there's no e-mail address or general
contact information I could find on the site, no WHOIS information, no
information in the Y Combinator profile on this board, etc. There's probably
information somewhere on Facebook, but I can't access Facebook, and even if I
could, I'm probably not in the right network to see it.

Oh, well! Still a good article.

~~~
mattmaroon
oh sorry. just send it to matt@.

------
petenixey
Matt,

Good post. Having both done a startup that didn't go big and now one that
looks like it will turn into something big I thing your points are very well
made.

As you say, history is written by the winners and about the outliers and
totally glosses over the truth for the average majority (and the destructive
lows of the minority).

As all of us know who've done it though, doing a business is something that's
just in your blood. Most of us who do it didn't do it because we chose to,
only because we had to.

I once asked Marc Hedlund a little about the failure of the startup he did
before Wesabe. He said it was bad but on balance he didn't feel he came out
too badly since he didn't lose his wife or go bankrupt. Enough said.

The highs are insanely high but it's worth writing about the lows too because
there's a whole lot of cult around the startup scene that lures people into
decisions that can be destructive.

~~~
mattmaroon
I agree. I don't think I've really experienced the lows enough to comment on
them. My past startup still returns passive income to this day, and my current
one is still running and doesn't seem to be in danger of stopping any time
soon.

------
Tichy
It takes really long to make 2 millions as a regular employee, though. Even
freelancing, making much more than my employed friends, it would probably take
me >= 15 years to make one million EUR (bloody taxes get in the way). And that
estimate is without a family. One million really is not a lot of money, if I
consider having to live off savings for maybe 30 years or more, in a future
time by which money will probably have been devaluated a lot, too (though now
I can't imagine life without work, maybe eventually due to aging one has no
other choice?).

OK, so maybe betting on a startup to succeed is a dumb plan, some hedging
might be in order (occasional consulting gigs to ensure a minimum income - any
other ideas?).

Btw., I wonder what is the average savings rate for employees? I am 35 now,
and I recently realised that I am probably way behind on my savings compared
to my peers... I think maybe to save about 10000€ per year is realistic?

Still, in my first year of work after getting my degree, according to some
statistics I was already in the top 10% of earners of my country. Nevertheless
I felt that without inheriting some money from parents (which I won't), I
would never have been able to even afford to buy a flat. That is kind of sick,
I think. Maybe life as an employee is not so easy, after all. A friend of mine
is also an I worker in the top 10% range, and he said he couldn't support his
family without help from his parents.

~~~
fendale
The price of houses in the UK for one has gotten ridiculous in the last couple
of years - I was lucky and got a place a few years back, but if I hadn't, I
wouldn't be able to afford it now - I think its becoming more and more common.
The only way around it is to:

* buy a place with one of your mates and share it * Meet a girlfriend/wife that earns a similar amount to yourself

The important thing seems to be to get onto the property ladder as quickly as
possible.

As for savings, save as much as you can afford - I probably save 10 - 15% of
my salary at the moment (no family to worry about) and it leaves me with
enough beer money too!

~~~
pmjordan
The UK situation is extreme, particularly in London. My girlfriend and I got
jobs straight out of university, and we could forget buying a place, and even
renting was using up so much of our income that it was just a treadmill.

We left, basically. We've moved to Vienna (Austria) and living relatively
cheaply in my late grandmother's place. I'm trying to get a startup off the
ground, she's slowly figuring out what she wants to do.

And yeah, we're super-lucky to even have that opportunity.

I honestly don't know how London is staying as populous as it is. As far as I
can see you're completely stuck with graduate salaries. (except in banking)

~~~
fendale
Yea, London is a total joke, as is Dublin - I have a few friends who rent in
Dublin, and they live in a shoe box for a lot of rent (don't really know
anyone in London)!

I am in Belfast, where the property prices only ballooned about 2 years ago,
so I got lucky. Only a year or so after I got my house, friends were buying
similar sized places that are less central for twice what I paid, not good!

------
davidw
Good one. Being the pessimist I am, I enjoy thinking about the flip side of
things.

Really good programmers also need to consider other opportunity costs. Linus
and the world are better off because he has pretty much stuck with Linux
through thick and thin, and never got heavily involved in running a startup.
Tcl started going downhill when Ousterhout did Scriptics (although he did make
lots of money). Some people are better off focusing 100% on tech, in other
words.

------
ciscoriordan
Definitely a lot of truth in this article, but Matt barely acknowledges the
advantages to doing startups. I also think that he's way too pessimistic about
things like maintaining friendships and finding things to do after cashing out
-- both of those are probably a lot easier than he describes.

~~~
mattmaroon
That was the point of my article. The advantages are well-covered. The
disadvantages aren't.

------
hollerith
It seems to me that a startup can reduce its risk by swapping stock with
another startup. That way, if either startup has a liquidity event, then the
founders of both startups get approximately half as rich as they would have
without the swap. Of course, more than just two startups can participate in a
stock-pooling arrangement, reducing the participant's risk further.

Of course a startup does not want to swap stock share-for-share with just any
other startup, and there are startups whose prospects are so dim that even if
they offer 5 or 10 shares for every share of yours, you would not want to swap
stock with them. And learning enough about another startup to judge their
expected earnings is a lot of work. But sometimes the work has already been
done for you, by YC for example.

There exists what economists call a "moral hazard" here: namely, once a
startup has swapped stock with more than one or two other startups, its
optimal strategy is for its founders not to put themselves out (that is, to
coast, to relax) and rely on the possibility that one of the other startups
will make a lot of money. But this is the same concern any individual founder
has when he takes on any co-founder, and the solution is the same: you have
(or someone you can trust has) to watch the other startups with whom you have
swapped stock closely enough to verify that they are working as hard as you
are. (YC's requirement that the startups it invests in must all move to the
same city makes it easier for YC startups to watch each other in this way.)
Along with that you will want to give yourself a time frame (1 year seems
about right) during which time you can back out of the stock swap deal if you
believe the startup you are swapping stock with is not putting themselves out
(or has misrepresented themselves in negotiations with you).

I can think of several way to refine this strategy to deal fairly for example
with the situation in which one startup gives up after 18 months while another
works hard for four years, but I will stop here for now.

~~~
pchristensen
That's a very interesting idea! This sounds like something that could be
brokered more efficiently by YC or something similar - create an option pool
for all the companies in a season (maybe 1% or 0.5% of each). 1% split 6 (8?
how many companies per season?) ways isn't a ton, even in a big liquidity
event, but's a nice hedge that would reduce risk for all the founders and make
YC even more attractive.

For instance, 1% of a $10 mil acquisition would be $100K. If there are 8
companies that round, each would get $12.5K, which for 2-3 founders is like
another infusion of YC cash and a few more months of runway.

Hardly enough to cause a moral hazard but still a significant benefit.

------
ciscoriordan
This article can also be used to support Y Combinator's policy of preferring
startups that aren't one person operations.

The problem of being lonely at the top is pretty much eliminated if you found
your startup with some buddies who are also smart, creative, and motivated. If
your startup is successful, you'll have some good friends who are in the same
position as you and who have just gone through the entire startup experience
with you.

------
Alex3917
@Matt, You might enjoy Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton. A lot of the
criticisms you attribute to startups could just as well be directed toward the
entire system that ties social status to money and success. If startups are
more blameworthy than other things, I suspect it's mostly because they move
the locus of responsibility for success/failure closer to oneself, thus having
a multiplier effect on social status.

~~~
Alex3917
s/multiplier effect on social status/multiplier effect on your anxiety over
your social status/

------
cmos
It is good to see a contradicting post here from time to time, as there are a
lot of downsides to starting a company.

I found myself at the age of 30 many years into a company I started at 23, and
it consumed my entire 20's. Every aspect of my life suffered.

Are people aware of the strange things stress can do to one's body? Look up
'IBS' in google. Try not eating for a year. That's just the stuff I can post.

I missed weddings and funerals. I did things I'm so extremely proud of, and
things I'm ashamed of.

Here is the real rub: Once you hire employees, you have an obligation to give
them a consistent paycheck. It just happens. This increases 10x when the
employees aren't kids in their early twenties working for stock options making
peanuts who get 10 job offers a week.

When you have employees who have families that depend on your company, depend
on your health plan, your dental plan, your 401k matching funds, the pressure
to maintain even when times are tough is huge.

The game can change quickly. Having employees will make it harder to throw up
your arms when things get tough and say 'perhaps I don't have a winner here'.
You will dig in, and continue the battle, and you are committed until it can
survive on it's own. And sometimes that takes a couple years.

Or five.

Or ten.

So a word of caution. Keeping a company alive is tough. Closing down a company
is tougher. A fairy tale ending is a pipe dream. Last time I checked, there
are a very small number of Mark Cuban's, and this sure ain't 1998. And guess
what Jerry Yang is doing: working his ass off to save the soul of his baby.
His hugely successful baby.

He doesn't have to be there.

He made his billions. But things aren't right, and he can't sleep at night.

Success is hitting payroll every month. Never ever miss payroll. Any goodness
above that is gravy. Anything worse than that is hell.

Would I change it all, and to have just gotten a job out of college, reporting
to someone every day of my life? Hell no!! I love it. I could think of no
better way to live my life. :)

------
parker
I think this article is a great read... but just as he calls success in
startups binary, so is the definition of what a startup actually is. Some
aren't looking for that payoff in the end, and the lear jet. Some people
simply just want to work for themselves, and can lead a simple lifestyle.

The idea that you have to 'go big or go home' in tech is getting more outdated
I'd say. If I have to choose between being a corporate toad or a work-enslaved
zombie, I choose neither. We live in a free-market economy, which gives us the
flexiblity to make what we want with it. Isn't that what entrepreneurism is
all about?

------
1gor
Staying employed and slowly building your wealth is not a riskless
proposition. Past 20 years have been very nice to the tech sector and to
equities in general. What are you going to say when your employer suddenly
collapses and takes your pension/stock wealth with it (Enron, Bear Stearns
etc)?

Even more extreme -- what if the whole economic cycle reverses, the currency
devalues and inflation eats up your savings? Hard to imagine, but economic
systems have this capacity for extreme events. I know the whole generation of
honest engineers in Soviet Union who have not built a capital to retire on
(obviously) and who were left desolate in their 50s-60s without pensions or
jobs when their state companies/research labs collapsed.

Startup offers an option to strike it rich. If you hit the sweet spot of some
business 'fitness function' - then you're set for life. If not, the most
obvious strategy is to try as many startups as possible in your lifetime. This
is like having a venture fund spread in time. One of your holdings should make
it, the rest of them you expect to fail. It's nice if the winner comes when
you're in your 20s :) But not necessary.

However, focusing on a single make-or-brake business idea and betting your
farm (life) on it is a stupid idea. It is sad that many engineers are actually
one-idea phenomena simply because of their specialization. Venture capitalists
are in the best position, as they sit on the portfolio of options (startups).

~~~
mattmaroon
Of course nothing is riskless, but it's pretty close if done properly. Plowing
all of your retirement savings into the stock of your employer is something
that anyone who spends ten minutes Googling "how to manage my money" knows is
retarded.

I'm sure it's possible to instead put your 401k and IRA money into a
diversified collection of ETFs and bonds and such and still end up broke, but
it hasn't happened yet, and if it does, our entire country is in a very bad
place.

------
prakash
Nice article.

If you can answer the question "What you would like to do with your life?",
the macro decisions, then decisions such as doing a startup or not, where to
buy a house, etc. seem pale in comparison.

------
revorad
This is like saying living is dangerous because you might die.

------
sosuke
Maybe I missed the scary part of the article. It made me want to succeed even
more.

------
nazgulnarsil
this is a more articulate version of what i've been saying. do a startup if it
will make you happy. Some people are only truly happy when they're challenged
as thoroughly as only running your own business can be. But don't just assume
it's for you based on how cool it seems.

------
pyro
A finely written article, and he almost had me going there for a while. The
most frustrating thing for me, though, is how he implies that a default life
of "ballgames," "ballet recitals," and working for someone else is superior by
its very nature. Not everyone wants to not live up to their full potential and
trade freedom for some veneer of security. Ultimately, this kind of thing is
just more inspiring because it makes me want to prove him wrong (no offense to
the author, of course).

~~~
mattmaroon
None taken, you just didn't understand it. I'm not saying it is superior, just
that a lot of people would find it to be, and those people may not belong in
startups.

~~~
pyro
Ah, I do see your point. Basically, you were saying people should make sure
they _really_ know what they want out of life before blowing their best years,
yeah?

------
rms
My apologies to JRM's karma. I'd give you some points if I could.

~~~
mattmaroon
bahaha. If I could somehow give you +10 for that comment I would.

~~~
rms
You could mod up 10 of my other comments, but Paul Graham would have to remove
your voting rights for abusing the system.

I think allowing arbitrary karma transfer on here would be an interesting
experiment in reputational economies.

~~~
llimllib
give each player a "karma budget" and have them earn more if other people give
karma similarly, and you've basically made a news.yc futures market.

------
sonink
This article is very well written - might not reflect the truth of how
everything HAS to be in a startup but definitely reflects how most startups
end up being. Also, and as I have been lately figuring out, the reason most
startups end up being like this is because most startups have a misplaced
understanding on how things are supposed to work.

A lot of them try to do too much or try to compete when they should be ideally
figuring out the business.

Good mentorship goes a long way of making the startup work the right
way.Getting good mentors who have done startups is really the harder part.

Startups are good for society and hopefully good for the individuals who do
them - but they need to be done the right way. Matts article serves as a
cautionary tale to every startup entrepreneur. If he describes your startup
really well, you are probably doing it the wrong way.

------
ca
While it's good to mentally prepare one's self with the knowledge that
startups are (usually) a long hard road, and success is far from guaranteed,
this article seemed a bit too negative for negativity's own sake. For my
tastes anyway.

It's important to try to do great things, and it's noble to encourage others
to do the same. ("Yay YC," you know?)

Seth Godin has an old post on this that I think serves as a good reminder, and
still rings very true to me. A key quote:

"The thing is, we still live in a world that's filled with opportunity. In
fact, we have more than an opportunity -- we have an obligation. An obligation
to spend our time doing great things. To find ideas that matter and to share
them."

\--[http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/12/only-two-
yea...](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/12/only-two-years.html)

~~~
mattmaroon
I totally disagree with the assertion that it's important to try to do great
things, or at all noble to encourage others to do so. For some of us it is,
for some of us it is not, and it isn't universal. I don't think it's safe to
assume that it's what is is best for everyone and try to encourage them to do
it. It clearly is not the best course through life for most people.

It's incredibly selfish to try to convince others to sacrifice their own
happiness to make the world a better place for you and to do what you think is
important. If someone is happier working at Wal-Mart, and it means they won't
author the next web-based [insert MS Office product here] why try to convince
them otherwise? Because you want that social network for [insert hobbyist or
demographic here]?

~~~
ca
"I totally disagree with the assertion that it's important to try to do great
things (...)"

I must admit, I respect your difference of opinion, but I find it very hard to
relate to your point of view. Your statement seems to be contrary to a basic
aspect of the human condition; that is, the desire to improve our lots in
life.

Greatness does not mean "startups for everyone". Perhaps the use of "our
obligation" in my quote from Seth Godin meant "completely everyone's
obligation" in your interpretation? For me, it meant the obligation of Seth's
audience; that is, many of the same types with dreams of entrepreneurship who
read YC news. In any case, my belief, which I believe to be the common one, is
that greatness has a definition in many different situations.

Personal experience and my readings on the science of happiness (see "Flow:
the Psychology of Optimal Experience" by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi) lead me to
believe that the happy Wal-Mart employee is probably happy because they are
able to regularly accomplish things that are meaningful to them in an
environment they find suitably challenging. To say it simply, the happiness
the employee finds in their work means they are likely a great Wal-Mart
employee!

I think your interpretation of my statement on the nobility of encouragement
alters the meaning very dramatically from the plain contextual meanings of my
words. Perhaps I am not cynical enough, but to me, 'encouraging' another
implies having their best interests at heart, not one's own.

For some of the readers here at YC News, we find ourselves with a startup
dream inside of us that we are nearly dying to express externally. Indeed, I
agree with you that those who plan to undertake a startup should take pause
and not do so lightly. I believe that most of the startup bloggers you speak
of at least suggest this. Encouraging people who have taken this look at the
strength of their desire and their capability -- that is, freely helping this
self-prepared group to reach the happiness they seek -- seems quite noble to
me.

I feel I also ought to say something about the strength of your apparent
disillusionment with the concept of startups. Life as a entrepreneurial
success doesn't have to mean that all of one's old friends and new
acquaintances turn manipulative. If it is a fear, one could simply give money
beyond living allowance away to worthy causes and step back from the power
game (see Woz). It's true there are relationship strengthening opportunities
to be missed in starting a company, but there are also some to be gained. Co-
founders may become best friends. Compatible significant others may be easier
to attract when one is doing what one is passionate about.

------
kingnothing
What a downer of an article.

------
wave
What is the percentage of success for YC startups?

~~~
pg
It's too early to tell, because it takes 4-5 years to say for sure if a
startup has succeeded, and YC is only 3 years old.

I'd be happy if it was a third, and delighted if it was as high as 50%.

~~~
mattmaroon
What I'd like to know is, what % need to succeed for you guys to turn a
profit. I'm sure it's too early to tell that too, but do you have any guesses?

~~~
pg
Depends on the definition of succeed. IPO or HR acquisition? If the former,
1%. If the latter, more like 20-30%.

~~~
mattmaroon
Right, I'd be interested to see 10 years down the line how many successes fit
into each category (and in between). Still, if you can remain in the black
with just 30% ending in an HR acquisition that's pretty strong. Seems like you
should easily accomplish profitablity.

------
simplegeek
Honestly, I'm not sure what was the point. How powerful this statement by a
smoker is "Please, quite smoking" or something like "Don't try climbing
mountains. It's dangerous." by Sir Everest. Bad example, may be. But then may
be I'm not the target audience.

------
Mistone
a decent article that sparked great comments makes this an excellent article.
startups for me = an opportunity to pursue things you are passionate about -
an opportunity to make a name for oneself - and most importantly an overcome
great odds and obstacles, which unlike the lottery you actually have some
control over. that is why startups are great.

------
edw519
I would have entitled this article, "Don't Let This Happen to You, Now Get
Back to Work."

------
monkkbfr
Gotta say: Bullshit point of view.

------
sabat
He should have started the article by defining what he means by "success".

Me, I don't need plentyoffish money to be successful. Just give me some hope
and some extra cash and I'll call it a small win.

------
eusman
startup (a) do, to not (ask)why (did not)!

~~~
jauco
?

~~~
eusman
by changing the order of the words from the title, and creating a new phrase
to remind you that you should do a startup because you may regret of not doing
so.

this also shows that the startup world is so fluid as much a title can be.
everything has a different intepretation by different people.

a startup is a personal experience and the reasons for someone who choses not
to pursue a startup should not be the excuse or affect anyone's choice to make
their attempt.

