Folding Table Theory of Start-Ups Is Shite
Michael Malone, a “celebrity business journalist” provided this convenient pat analysis of start-ups:
This “theory” has virtually no real predictive value. It’s just a fable, a nice, morally affirmative tale to tell around the camp fire. I’ve seen plenty of glitzy start-ups that succeeded. I’ve also seen plenty of dirt-poor, cheap-arse start-ups that failed. Classic example of glitzy start-up that prospered: Google. It *never* spared any expense in super-expensive office furniture or expensive employee toys and perks. And I also saw lots of excellent, spunky, bare-bones start-ups in San Francisco with wonderful products, clever marketing, driven people, and who patched their servers together with duct tape but that just couldn’t get a nod from fad-obsessed VCs.
Hey Mike– It took me a couple of days to respond to your “Maeve” question, so in case you missed it, here’s the link: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/39414#851500
No problem, my email is on the root page. I suppose I should add it to the blog site as well. Thanks for the preview MeFi tip!
Quoting “theory” is just stupid, as theory is something that’s pretty much “unproven” and we can quote “things” all day and be “smug”.
Regarding the content, it could be that there is some correlation between a startup’s miserliness and success. A few counter-point examples do not disprove a correlation.
A correlation proves nothing. Therefore it does not require disproof.
hes right this thoery is anything butg. shite alright
theory — a belief that can guide behavior.
No, that’s a hypothesis. Or a hunch.
Theory, isnt this the new basis on the ID people, saying that a theory is a theory until its proven.
Moo Moo Moo Mooo