

Interesting stats on tech startups &ndash; only 16% fail? - bouncingsoul
http://robbieallen.com/blog/mit-sdm/2005/10/ed-roberts-author-entrepreneur.html

======
portLAN
_Data is clear, individuals don't succeed. The larger the founding team, the
higher the chance of success \- Solo entrepreneurs seldom succeed, 2 are more
likely to succeed, 3 are even more likely, 4 are even more likely, and 5 are
even more likely (don't have enough data after 5)_

I think the main factor behind this is not work division, but social
stimulation. Just being around other people is stimulating. Plus, we are wired
to assign importance to what other people are doing; if nobody else is doing
it, it doesn't _seem_ important. By contrast, look how hard two friends will
compete to outdo each other in meaningless contests of trivia, gross-outs, and
even hazardous stunts.

------
kkim
... of the 769 companies in his study.

------
daniel-cussen
That 90% failure percentage is still true. You just have to not die for a
grand total of 18 months, and the odds go from 85% to much less.

~~~
bouncingsoul
The author of the linked article talks about the 90% failure stat in a blog
post (<http://robbieallen.com/2007/05/against-the-wrong-odds/>):

> An often cited statistic (presumably from the Small Business Administration)
> is that 90% of businesses fail within the first 12-18 months. ...
> Fortunately, the stat is a load of crap.

He talks about how the average outcome of widely differing situations isn't
useful. The average entrepreneur has _less than a high school diploma._ If
you've graduated highschool than the 90% failure rate already doesn't apply to
you.

