Comment by shalmanese | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shalmanese | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Jesus Christ, this is not even close to being true and a paltry 5 minutes of research could have confirmed it. Starting from: http://techcrunch.com/page/311/, looking at stories from September 29th, we have:

  SocialBakers: Still around
  SweetLabs: Still around
  Networked Insights: Still around
  Hipmunk: Still around
  Fameron: Still around
  Vostu: Still around
  Storydesk: Still around
  Shazam: Still around
  Kred: Still around
  TechCompanyPay: Still around
  GetComparisons: Still around

In short, this article isn't just wrong, it's dangerously wrong. 100% of the startups in this sample still exist.

I do think the 90% figure comes with a bit of hyperbole, but I also think there are more startups that “fail” than people realize. Most of these companies have such a low maintenance cost that the service continues even after the founders called it quits a long time ago. I personally know one of these companies.

By the way, the point of the article wasn't really about the 90% figure, but more about how people are seeing an article on TechCrunch as a means to an end, rather than a beginning.

So, you literally went back EXACTLY 6 months, right? Well, natural language writing is not code. It has this things called "figures of speech".

The title means: "hellofalot of TC companies don't go anywhere and/or close quit soon after featured".

So, try 1 year and adjust the scale to > 70%. How will that go?

Also the "disappear" thing -- take it to mean, "are in dire situation, while the may still keep up a website and make desperate attempts for VC".

If he were within an order of magnitude of being correct, then we could nitpick about methodology but he's not. Even with his revised interpretation he is wrong, just plain wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com