[edj]

I'm always deeply suspicious of "statistics" that claim startups only have a 1 in 10 chance of success. From the article: "if 90% of startups fail, it simply can’t be the case that all of the startups they know are succeeding."

But it looks like that may not be so far from the truth: "About three-quarters of venture-backed firms in the U.S. don't return investors' capital, according to recent research by Shikhar Ghosh, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School."[1]

1: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2014/04/21/the-most-ex...

[riggins]

The thing these aggregate statistic ignore are the quality of the founders.

Let me put it concretely.

When Sebastian Thrun decided to launch Udacity I suspect the chance of failure was less then 90%. OTOH, I have 2 non-technical friends who managed to raise money to develop 2 more social networking app. I think the chance of failure there is easily 90%.

So maybe another way to put it is 'don't fool yourself'.

If you have Thrun-esque talent, start a company. If you don't, think twice, then think a third time for good measure before starting a company.

[dalai]

And how many fail before they get any backing but after sucking a lot of money? The 1 in 10 chance of success could actually be optimistic.

Anyway I think the 90% failure rate might be based on this: http://www.wamda.com/2013/02/90-percent-of-tech-startups-fai...

[Twirrim]

Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures has blogged that even with their impressive track record, it loosely correlates to a 1/3rd rule for them. Of their investments: 1/3rd lose money, 1/3rd (mostly) break even, 1/3rd make profit.