What a great comment. It's worth more than most of what is currently ranked on the homepage, and likely the best thing I've read today. Reality checks like these are sorely needed to offset the glorious stories of the few that made it which are vastly outnumbered by the untold stories of the many that did not.
> Get fucking lucky.
That is the most important factor in business success, and nobody, not even YC with all their algorithms has been able to consistently increase this factor.
All other factors will have some impact on your chances but without luck you're stranded.
YC has become a proxy for luck, if you get into YC that in itself counts as you being lucky and your chances for a future success go up enormously. Not because YC has some kind of magic sauce but because others see it as you having been vetted.
But with that in mind, what I really find shocking is that there are quite a few stories of people that did get lucky and managed to throw it all away.
So another factor in failure is quite probably the extent to which people are able to recognize and capitalize on their luck. There is probably no life without opportunities but they're few and far between.
If you're asleep at the switch when luck passes right in front of your nose then all your execution skills and connections will amount to nothing.
While "luck" (especially the sort that leaves you relatively healthy) may be considered a factor in any business endeavour, I think it's worth pointing out that most levels of business success require several orders of magnitude less luck than a successful startup (of the "enormous growth" variety) does. That may be obvious (and in fact it follows pretty directly from most definitions of what constitutes a startup IMO) but it's an important distinction; many of the people reading this could create a "lifestyle business" with an excellent chance of "success" by the normal definition.
That's absolutely true, but the discussion here centers on home-run style start-ups, which tend to be all or nothing affairs.
One of the reasons for that is that very few start-ups are sustainable in the longer term without acquisition by a larger partner. And if they are they are by definition home-runs, but only very very few (< 1%?) manage to get that far under their own power based on only the initial investment at the time of founding.
And as soon as additional investment is accept the conditions around the company change substantially.
'lifestyle businesses' (which I'm a huge fan of) usually do not require big capital outlays, have a significant chance of staying afloat compared to what is referred to as start-ups on HN and can make more than enough money to make the start-up risk look like it isn't worth it for most players.
Comments
What a great comment. It's worth more than most of what is currently ranked on the homepage, and likely the best thing I've read today. Reality checks like these are sorely needed to offset the glorious stories of the few that made it which are vastly outnumbered by the untold stories of the many that did not.
> Get fucking lucky.
That is the most important factor in business success, and nobody, not even YC with all their algorithms has been able to consistently increase this factor.
All other factors will have some impact on your chances but without luck you're stranded.
YC has become a proxy for luck, if you get into YC that in itself counts as you being lucky and your chances for a future success go up enormously. Not because YC has some kind of magic sauce but because others see it as you having been vetted.
But with that in mind, what I really find shocking is that there are quite a few stories of people that did get lucky and managed to throw it all away.
So another factor in failure is quite probably the extent to which people are able to recognize and capitalize on their luck. There is probably no life without opportunities but they're few and far between.
If you're asleep at the switch when luck passes right in front of your nose then all your execution skills and connections will amount to nothing.
Thanks. Here's my tool for visualizing the effect of luck. Replace it with "being alive". Or "not being born in Afghanistan". Or even consider this.
How many sperm cells were present during one's conception?
Answer: 200-500 million.
Compound this with the fact that over 125 billion people have lived on this planet since we first evolved. Only 7 billion are alive today.
That's pretty darn lucky. Or more humorously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvpbzRf99-8
Being rich does wonders for your chances of success, as does being alive. Sadly it does the same with one's ego.
While "luck" (especially the sort that leaves you relatively healthy) may be considered a factor in any business endeavour, I think it's worth pointing out that most levels of business success require several orders of magnitude less luck than a successful startup (of the "enormous growth" variety) does. That may be obvious (and in fact it follows pretty directly from most definitions of what constitutes a startup IMO) but it's an important distinction; many of the people reading this could create a "lifestyle business" with an excellent chance of "success" by the normal definition.
That's absolutely true, but the discussion here centers on home-run style start-ups, which tend to be all or nothing affairs.
One of the reasons for that is that very few start-ups are sustainable in the longer term without acquisition by a larger partner. And if they are they are by definition home-runs, but only very very few (< 1%?) manage to get that far under their own power based on only the initial investment at the time of founding.
And as soon as additional investment is accept the conditions around the company change substantially.
'lifestyle businesses' (which I'm a huge fan of) usually do not require big capital outlays, have a significant chance of staying afloat compared to what is referred to as start-ups on HN and can make more than enough money to make the start-up risk look like it isn't worth it for most players.