[jameszol]

I don't understand this ranty article...

Aren't startups called startups for a reason? Some aren't going to thrive, some really suck, others can't pivot their talent and drive toward something grandiose and earth shattering for their next round of investment but all should be better because of the experience, investors and entrepreneurs alike.

The failure rate of startups has always been high, especially over time, right?

"There are also different definitions of failure. If failure means liquidating all assets, with investors losing all their money, an estimated 30% to 40% of high potential U.S. start-ups fail, he says. If failure is defined as failing to see the projected return on investment—say, a specific revenue growth rate or date to break even on cash flow—then more than 95% of start-ups fail, based on Mr. Ghosh's research." via Shikhar Ghosh, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044372020457800...