

Why Startups Fail: An Analysis of Post-Mortems (2011) - ColinWright
http://foundersblock.com/anecdotes/why-startups-fail-an-analysis-of-failure-post-mortems/

======
codex
This could be more accurately titled, "why entrepreneurs thought they failed."
Personally, I'm not sure failed entrepreneurs are qualified to make that
diagnosis.

~~~
jamesaguilar
Seems unnecessarily cynical. For many categories of mistakes, it is not hard
to see the mistake in hindsight.

~~~
hayksaakian
specifically relationships between founders and investors would only be known
from the parties themselves.

an objective third party analysis miss personal problems between founders 1
and 2

------
DorintheFlora
Quote: _#2 – Built a Solution Without A Problem (i.e. No “Market Need”)

Choosing to tackle problems that are interesting to solve rather than those
that serve a market need was often cited as a reason for failure. Sure, you
can build an app and see if it will stick, but knowing there is a market need
upfront is a good thing. “Companies should tackle market problems not
technical problems_

I am trying to figure out how to think more clearly about this type thing and
write about it. I am sorry to see so little discussion here on HN for this
submission.

~~~
ma2rten
Since the beginning of hacker news this has been one of the most discussed
topics here. Paul Graham's essays are a good place to start.

~~~
DorintheFlora
I am aware of his essays. I am trying to think and talk about something
specific, let's call it Memology for the moment. I am not talking about start-
ups per se but more about he architecture of ideas and how we separate the
wheat from the chafe. I have explored that in terms of human psychology for
myself. I would like to explore it for the business space. I hope it will be
of interest to other people at some point.

Thanks.

------
sheetjs
Original discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7244605](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7244605)
(incidentally, submitted by the same person)

~~~
ColinWright
Yes. Having come across it I submitted that, and then someone pointed out the
original source, so I submitted that instead (here). Now that original
submission is dead.

For completeness, the one comment on that first submission was by compare[0]
saying:

    
    
        The list sounds more predictive
        than descriptive.
    

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=compare](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=compare)

~~~
mindcrime
_Having come across it I submitted that, and then someone pointed out the
original source, so I submitted that instead_

Why?

~~~
ColinWright
Not sure I understand your question. The guidelines[0] say:

    
    
        Please submit the original source. If a blog post
        reports on something they found on another site,
        submit the latter.
    

Having realized that what I'd submitted wasn't the original source I attempted
to correct that oversight. Just seemed the right thing to do.

[0]
[http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
mindcrime
Personally, I don't really care about the guidelines all the time. If you take
that overly literally, then nobody could submit anything that referred to
something else via a link. I get the need to eliminate outright "blogspam" but
not everything that comments on "something else" is blogspam.

If somebody reports on something and adds useful commentary, insight,
whatever, I don't see the point in insisting on some arbitrary standard of
"only link to most upstream source". It's not like people aren't capable of
following links.

------
asanwal
Copy of post. Original here -

[http://www.chubbybrain.com/blog/top-reasons-startups-fail-
an...](http://www.chubbybrain.com/blog/top-reasons-startups-fail-analyzing-
startup-failure-post-mortem/)

------
adamzerner
What about not being able to raise that first round?

