smartbear

That's very fair. Indeed, my personal favorite version is Indian, and predates Pythagoras.

I was also trying to name something that most people would at least find familiar... maybe there's a different one, similarly universal, that would be more accurate?

(Author of article)

Sorry, that was supposed to be +, not * !

You're right. Just a typo! Now fixed.

(Author of the article)

I agree with your counter-point. The finiteness and lock-step are interesting characteristics; I wonder what the set of characteristics are, for when this "rule" is especially applicable.

And then we could ask: Is a startup like that? Are some kinds of businesses like that, but some are not? (e.g. a one-person accounting service vs a "change the world" startup?)

I do agree that often with startups it's whether you find the 1-2 things that REALLY matter, and execute those REALLY well.

As the author of the article, I really like your counter-point here.

Because I do agree -- in all startups most "stuff" is being executed poorly (if at all), with issues everywhere, and yet when you get the right 1-2 things _really_ right, that can overwhelm all those problems.

So, perhaps the charitable view is that this piece is a fun way of getting at the usual ideas of things which derisk a startup -- e.g. talking to customers rather than coding in a hole -- and indeed many of these things will surely be a net-positive.

And yet, the "80% of winning" might indeed be correct for amateur chess and amateur tennis, yet it's not "80%" for startups, and that bit is rhetorical.

Thanks so much!

And I agree with your push-back on that. Indeed, perhaps when a startup is able to say "ahh, but HERE Disruption CAN work because...", that's where a good strategy can emerge.

What about Uber, Lyft, Instacart, and the many other companies that (arguably) were only possible because of smart phones?

Mobile _phones_ did not go to startups. Making money off mobile -- whether apps that were impossible before, or features which advantaged certain companies who were able to be mobile-early or mobile-first, advantaged startups.

You bet! I didn't read it as a dunk at all, and again I agree with the critique!

As the author of the article, I agree with you.

I also agree that trying to force "problem" into the discussion isn't useful, and in fact is counter-productive because you're verbally moving further away from what the business is really doing.

So perhaps the whole thing should be qualified as: In the case that a business is solving a problem, which _is_ typically the case in B2B (notice all your examples were B2C), _then_ this is a useful way of breaking down the typical questions you should be posing yourself.

Maybe; all have large target markets and the last two have unique things.

That said, let's say you're 100% correct. I went back and forth on whether to even include the rubric, because I myself (the author) think it's a little silly to pretend there's a formula.

I found in early feedback of the article, however, that it forced people to really ask themselves good questions, which they might not have done if they read only the rest.

Therefore, I felt like it was useful for that reason -- posing good questions that folks should answer -- but I agree with you that it does have the problem of being a "formula" that cannot really be accurate.

Hey! :-)

Many thanks!

You are right about that, and the article doesn't address it.

I think the general idea is still correct. For example, even if the next 200 leads are 50% or even 100% more expensive, that's often still considered a win.

I actually did add this as another prompt. Thanks again for the great idea.

Ha, I love it, thank you! I'll consider adding that. (Already added one new section thanks to other great ideas from others.)