You can master your choice of ideas, technology, location. But stuff up the soft side of tech-startups (founder commitment) and you are doomed. The article has an interesting take on working out the dividing line between founders that are *involved* VS those who are *committed*. But is this a good enough test?
I found out recently the distinction between 'involved' & 'committed' when a co-founder ditched out prefering to do a Phd (in the exact same area of the product) rather go the hard yards, build a product then sell it. Why? I can only guess. The Phd route could be perceived as less risky, higher prestige over the entrepreneurial route. Maybe because all the "chicks dig Phd's in CompSci" ?
Using the above test the co-founder would pass. So how do you, "evaluate if a co-founder is committed over the entire product development timeline before any perceived payback" ?
The article fails to answer this question.
Sometimes it's not extremely expensive to get started, but it very time consuming. Does that mean youre more/less committed than another entrepreneur who has spent a ton of money getting a company rolling? I think a persons answer to these questions can tell what they value more. Additionally, I always have a hard time considering someone to be uncommitted to a startup if they are working a separate full time job to support their family. Whenever I come across that argument, I cant help but think: Just imagine what Ill be able to do when Im working 100 hours/week for my company rather than 60 for my company and 40 for another
Good article and informative comments. They underline my own current concerns - working on a startup while working full-time to support a family... I know chances for success are slim because most would say I'm not "committed". But I have faith in my idea, and I keep working toward my goals. I get discouraged when I see other startups with similar ideas, but that also shows me that I'm on the right track and the market is ripe.
