Joel Spolsky: A new business is like a shortwave radio.
inc.com
inc.com
You can draw a straight line from the abandonment of Artix (pg's first startup, making online art galleries), through Viaweb (startup #2, acquired by Yahoo!), to the founding of Y Combinator and the creation of Hacker News. And, as his recent keynote (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=487686) reminded us, Chris Wanstrath's decision to abandon FamSpam helped bring GitHub to the world.
It's hard to imagine any amount of 'tuning' leading Artix or FamSpam to fame and glory; in both cases, the way forward was to start anew. In startups, rapid iteration is a key to success---and sometimes you have to iterate at a higher level of abstraction than a single startup.
I think, anyone who wants to start a business should look at things on higher level. They shouldn't limit themselves on idea-level. Instead, they should look at business and life as one. That way, probably the advice of "never give up" sounds more relevant.
If having your own business is one of the goals in life, then, probably the only time you are pronounced failed (and should give up) is when you die (end of your runway). Otherwise, running out of cash, work on failed idea and things like that, for me, is just a temporary obstacles and you still have chances to keep playing with the knobs. Probably this link below illustrate the point better. http://tinyurl.com/bjh8wd
When we start looking at things in this high-level, i think the case of FamSpam to GitHub sounds more like another dial on the knob.
Just my 2c. :)
There's a legend about the Intel shipping clerk who single-handedly destroyed a sizeable percentage of his fab's output by being too diligent. He wanted to make sure the company wasn't being shortchanged, so when a box of wafers arrived from the silicon supplier he would open the box, carefully count out the wafers into a pile on his dusty desk, then put them back in the box and send them on into the fab.
Human environments are filled with dust, salt, and oils. When I was trying to finish my Ph.D. -- which required me to build some semiconductor lasers that were reliable enough to be tested more than once -- I eventually reached a mental state where I was so focused on cleanliness that I felt vaguely uncomfortable touching anything, including objects in my own home, without wearing gloves.
I'm much better now.
* Reduce your menu to simple, accessible dishes with a restaurant "specialty".
* Reduce price.
* Source fresh ingredients.
* Redecorate.
What annoys me most about the show (even the BBC version) is that personnel changes never seem to be on the docket --- you have people that clearly shouldn't running a kitchen, and at the end of the episode there they are, plating Ramsay's sauteed skate wing.
I think you fail to consider that the places he goes into are usually owned by a family or a clueless person. He can't go in and say "well, honestly since you asked to be on my show, it's clear that YOU are the problem. You'd be better off if you just closed."
More importantly, the fact that Ramsay is willing to yell and bare his chest for the camera does not change the fact that he does not seem willing to stick to his guns and demand that they fire the old guy in the kitchen and hire a talented Ecuadorian to take his place.
You can have all the morale in the world, but if you run out of money and you need to pay your rent, you have to move into something else.
"I am willing to do whatever it takes to get what I want."
(If anyone is interested, I can point you to the source.)
AFAIC, that statement = "all the morale in the world".
Do you really think that someone who says and truly believes that statement would ever run out of money?