This is the best definition of the term 'start-up' I have yet seen:
startups are a temporary organization designed to search for a scalable and repeatable business model
This definition explains why funding is the single best predictor of startup success: it permits the startup to survive until it can hit upon a successful product. Because most products fail. Even a product that succeeds depends as much or more on market context beyond the perception of its creators as it does on its intrinsic value. People are important, but they can only stick around as long as there is funding. (Of course, funding depends heavily on social networks, so in that sense the people are important.) But as the author acknowledges in the article, the fact that VCs generally don't understand why one startup succeeds and another fails does not change the fact that they control the single greatest differentiator: money.
I'm going to suggest you read more of Steve Blank's writings if you've never heard this definition before. Maybe try " Four Steps to the Epiphany" or the like. (Or, if you can't handle that, try the Entreprenuer's Guide to Customer Development.)
An interesting read, but I disagree with his take.
First of all the idea that tech startups should be started by tech people goes back a lot farther than Silicon Valley. For example take a look at the history of the early automobile industry in Detroit. The founders of the early car companies were for the most part people like Henry Ford - engineers, mechanics, and other people who knew the technology rather than management types. Silicon Valley fits the mold of previous startup hubs.
The more major mistake is that Genetech's IPO in 1980 is cited for getting researchers involved in commercialization. However most observers cite the Bayh-Dole act in the same year as being the critical factor. It gave organizations such as universities the right to intellectual property (such as patents) arising out of research funded by the US government. This created a tremendous number of opportunities for commercializing research that simply had not existed previously.
Steve Blank's got more than enough bandwidth and ever since optimized web servers (e.g., Nginx), you really have to try to kill a webserver with static content these days. I wouldn't worry about it.
Unnecessary... but not meaningless. It changes the cadence of the title in a way that doesn't alter the denotation, but does shift some connotations a bit.
EDIT: Oops, somehow I misread apostrophe as comma.
[+] [-] vannevar|14 years ago|reply
startups are a temporary organization designed to search for a scalable and repeatable business model
This definition explains why funding is the single best predictor of startup success: it permits the startup to survive until it can hit upon a successful product. Because most products fail. Even a product that succeeds depends as much or more on market context beyond the perception of its creators as it does on its intrinsic value. People are important, but they can only stick around as long as there is funding. (Of course, funding depends heavily on social networks, so in that sense the people are important.) But as the author acknowledges in the article, the fact that VCs generally don't understand why one startup succeeds and another fails does not change the fact that they control the single greatest differentiator: money.
[+] [-] seats|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randall|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|14 years ago|reply
First of all the idea that tech startups should be started by tech people goes back a lot farther than Silicon Valley. For example take a look at the history of the early automobile industry in Detroit. The founders of the early car companies were for the most part people like Henry Ford - engineers, mechanics, and other people who knew the technology rather than management types. Silicon Valley fits the mold of previous startup hubs.
The more major mistake is that Genetech's IPO in 1980 is cited for getting researchers involved in commercialization. However most observers cite the Bayh-Dole act in the same year as being the critical factor. It gave organizations such as universities the right to intellectual property (such as patents) arising out of research funded by the US government. This created a tremendous number of opportunities for commercializing research that simply had not existed previously.
[+] [-] Ronkdar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wisty|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StavrosK|14 years ago|reply
Although, it's hosted on wordpress.com, isn't it...
[+] [-] Locke1689|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bchjam|14 years ago|reply
http://measuringmeasures.com/blog/2010/7/2/research-driven-s...
[+] [-] hung|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] katieben|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Symmetry|14 years ago|reply
EDIT: Oops, somehow I misread apostrophe as comma.