In contrast, for a company that can't be started by a single app developer - getting out of the building won't help. Nobody in the space worth talking to will talk to you, for starters.

For me, this is where it breaks. There are two assumptions that the author must be challenged on.

1. Enough people know about these methods

2. Of those people enough use the methods properly

Judging from my own experience I can’t confirm neither of these. Even those people that know the approach rarely have the rigor to treat startups as a series of experiments. Ego plays a large part.

I don't think this article is very good, at all.

The most important thing I got from Feyerabend, Graeber and Sylvia Ashton-Warner was the invitation to colour outside the lines (though few but my mother would suspect Ashton-Warner of anarchic thought...)

I just finished reading Lowey's autobiography "Never Leave Well Enough Alone." A ripping yarn if you're hip to mid-century descriptions of design, martinis and trains. Lowey's most famous slogan (repeated in design schools everywhere) is MAYA : Most Advanced Yet Accessible. In other words... as a designer, you have to make something the client can recognize as a solution to their problems but advanced enough to justify the expense of upgrading.

I bring it up because I fear we have confused the two... being accessible and being advanced. While I'm happy to point out some of the advantages of AI, I should also mention we're letting the tail wag the dog. We've spent fourty-fifty years with a model of technology growth requiring increasingly greater returns on falling marginal real returns.

The difference between the benefit of technology between 1940 and 1950 was immense. Similar for the increased benefit brought about by the increase from 1950 through 1960. But the benefits between 2016 and 2026 are less about productivity improvements and more about finding more people to borrow money from.

What if we have eaten all the low-hanging worker-productivity fruit?

What if every increase in worker productivity requires increasingly greater capital investment and that investment yields increasingly smaller margins?

Is it time to reconsider Schumacher's argument in "Small is Beautiful" ? Is it time to work smarter rather than invest bigger?

All these thoughts are offered without evidence, but also without a foregone conclusion of their outcome.

I will be at the library, BLS website and local startup office collecting data.

Marketing is especially the key element here, and there is and never will be a permanent science of effective marketing. Culture is always changing and what gets attention today is blasé tomorrow.

Most businesses fail because they solve for the easier bit (product) and then have no idea about the rest.

The crux of the issue for me is what Dr Iain McGilchrist highlighted — we attend to the world in two very different ways. One mode of attention is a broad, open awareness to what's 'out there' and the other mode is a much more narrow focus on the parts and pieces.

For startups, when you look at the actual cases, many successful founders, almost by definition, had to stumble across their insight in some emergent fashion. They either experience some pain and set about solving it (Dropbox); see some opportunity on the horizon (OpenAI); or stumble onto some idea while working on something else (Slack).

If you want to do a startup, or your current idea isn't working, and you don't have that vision of emergent opportunity, then what do you do? "Just look for some emergent opportunity" isn't very compelling advice (even if it's probably the most accurate).

This is where the punditry emerges. You have to use your other mode of attention in an attempt to brute force some insight through narrow-focused analysis, and that analysis is inherently constrained to your (by definition) barren environment. That gives you the Lean Startup, customer development, etc etc. This far more analytical approach requires (a) intense discipline; (b) a lot of luck because you're starting from a point of no opportunity; (c) enough volume to actually do the interrogation of reality.

And it may not work because it's simply using the wrong mode of attention, anyway!

Nevertheless, frameworks that exist in this realm all sound reasonable because, on one level, they are: what else can you do but interrogate reality in some methodical way? But the question TFA raises (in my mind) is whether shaking the tree like this — IF you even can with appropriate discipline — reveals emergent opportunity for startups at a scale that's reflected in the broad outcome data, and the answer appears to be no.

Interestingly, the book The Heart of Innovation[1] tries to tackle this by going to the extreme. It's not about finding some clues in fast iteration or mapping out a canvas with a nice value prop, it's about finding 'authentic' demand that's so compelling it's something users can't not do. (The 'not not' concept is hard to explain but creates a much more rigorous bar for innovation IMO.)

That's their backward-looking observation for innovations that stick (and reflects most of the cases in the book), but they're still faced with the same dilemma of what to do if you aren't blessed with emergent opportunity.

In that case, their solution is to ramp up the analysis even harder, with 150-200 "Documented Primary Interactions" observations. I.e., brute force observations even harder. Some of the authors are part of a startup accelerator with an (apparently) high hit rate, so it's not just speculation.

All told, it's amazing that billions and billions of dollars are allocated to startups and so little is invested in studying innovation itself, especially given how slight the predominant frameworks are. Yet new ways of thinking exist (like McGilchrist, or the Heart of Innovation approach), so I wonder if frameworks for innovation are still in their absolute infancy, really, where the ones that succeed suffer the memetic curse: simple enough to travel; too simple to be effective.

[1] Excellent overview here: https://commoncog.com/the-heart-of-innovation-why-startups-f...

> no change in survival rates

> less series A

would this not imply that companies got more efficient at using their seed funding?

(But then again: The real dip in series A funding starts in 2018; so we might still see a dip in 10y survivability starting 2028)