[csallen]

I have to disagree, unless you're talking about black swan events, which are different than the conversation at hand: They're instances of bad luck ruining otherwise-certain success, rather than success being created via good luck.

What's an example of a company that had great execution, great product-market fit, and also had solid pricing and distribution strategies, but ultimately failed?

[ThomPete]

MySpace just as one example.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

That begs the question of what definition of "success" do we use. Most would agree that in its heyday, MySpace was definitely successful. However, the market changed and now it's been eclipsed by other social media. No one stays on top forever and perhaps by the definition of its founders, MySpace was wildly successful for what it tried to be.

[ThomPete]

Would Facebook exist if Zuckerberg wasn't asked by the Winklevoss to develop for him?

The bottom line is that luck is a big part of your success whether direct or indirect. Also there is a world of difference between building a successful coffee shop and a software company let alone a consumer software company.

It's not the same. Some is more relying on luck, timing and chance than others. Ignorning that especially in our field is simply not in tune with reality (not saying you are saying that)

[csallen]

It's hard to say MySpace wasn't successful. They grew rapidly, became the largest social network in the world, and sold for $600M within a few years of being founded. That'd be a success for almost every founder.

[ThomPete]

Yes just like other companies will be successful but ultimately fail because whatever was needed to make them become the biggest and most successful wasn't there.

When it comes to digital products especially things with network effects winner normally takes all.