I love cranky old guy columns, especially when the author is self-aware enough to point it out. Very nicely done.
Having said that, the problem we have with startups is stated rather simply: startups do not succeed or fail based on somebody's ability to argue whether they make sense or not. That's why these beauty contests masquerading as business plan competitions or swimming with the sharks or whatever are such bullshit. It's not about whether you can make a reasoned argument one way or the other. It's about market traction. That's it.
Now everybody and their brother wants to play armchair epidemiologist. What are the "risk" factors associated with startups? Do the youth really play out? What should team sizes be? And so on. And no doubt some of these tidbits of data are actually showing promise.
But arguments like this always fall flat, which, incidentally, is one of the reasons that HN "rate my startup" comments need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. You don't reason your way to success. You test your way there.
Having said that, the problem we have with startups is stated rather simply: startups do not succeed or fail based on somebody's ability to argue whether they make sense or not. That's why these beauty contests masquerading as business plan competitions or swimming with the sharks or whatever are such bullshit. It's not about whether you can make a reasoned argument one way or the other. It's about market traction. That's it.
Now everybody and their brother wants to play armchair epidemiologist. What are the "risk" factors associated with startups? Do the youth really play out? What should team sizes be? And so on. And no doubt some of these tidbits of data are actually showing promise.
But arguments like this always fall flat, which, incidentally, is one of the reasons that HN "rate my startup" comments need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. You don't reason your way to success. You test your way there.