[prpon]

The quote from the article The reality is that there seems to be a significant deficit of modern, high quality, software solutions in many, if not most, markets and furthermore, there is also a deficit of talented developers and designers to capitalize on and satisfy these markets.

You could have said that about the dotcom bubble and be correct at that time. But the gold rush analogy fits very well for that scenario with the benefit of hindsight.

Any scenario including the current startup rush could be made to fit into either one of the options presented.

The reality is: a) currently we are not in an economic slump wrt startup funding b) there will be companies which will make it out of the gold rush looking like visionaries (ala Levis Jeans). c) there will be companies that have attracted significant capital which will go bust.

That is market economics with nothing unusual. The determining factor would be the % of the companies funded which will survive and thrive. I would bet towards a high percentage of busts than winners. And that doesn't make me a genius, i am just stating the obvious.

[lucisferre]

With the benefit of hindsight, though without looking up any numbers to back up this claim, I'd be willing to bet that during the dot.com era the real demand for software and web development was, in fact, much lower than it is today, but the hype around the potential to 'strike it rich' just as great (perhaps greater).

I'm sure there will be a high percentage of busts, that is for the most part true for any entrepreneurial ventures. I will say though that today's situation isn't the same as the past. During the dot.com days one of the RIM founders stated at a conference I attended, that many companies were being funded almost purely on the number of comp sci. and engineering graduates they had hired.

Sure, it's still a rush. There is more hype than realism in the air, but certainly not nearly as much, and the opportunities are far more tangible this time. Make no mistake, gold rush or land rush, hard work is typically a necessary condition to succeed, but my argument is that success is a realistic achievement, given willingness, talent and drive. No amount of that will manage to squeeze gold from a tapped vein.

[angelbob]

Sure. But what's the relative busts-to-winners proportion here versus before or after the startup rush? Do you think the number of busts will be higher than, say, just post-dot-com-boom?