The inherent flaw in both arguments: citing exceptions.
Facebook, Google, Amazon et al succeeded _despite_ being bad/unknown quantities on paper. They specifically should _not_ be used as examples of "how to do it right."
Look at smaller sustainable startups that are flying under the radar to unearth proven, repeatable best practices. You can't establish patterns in methodology by citing exceptions.
For a $10mm company to become a $1bn company, know what you need? Luck.
EDIT: To those below, you're both validating my point. Luck isn't the sole driver of success, but it's the difference between a modestly successful company and an insanely successful company. The other skills the founders have to exploit opportunities are already there. The x-factor is luck. Nobody says "okay, all we need is 500 million users and we're successful!"
I also would like to hear some investigations about serial startups. For example the Samwer brothers are doing it successfully again and again. The recipe: copy successful US-only startups/companies in europe. Another example: Richard Branson aka Virgin Group. I cannot get his recipe nailed down, but his biographical book is called "Screw It, Let's do It".
> For a $10mm company to become a $1bn company, know what you need? Luck.
Luck is necessary but not sufficient. You also need to be in a position to disproportionately benefit from luck. I think PG's latest essay outlines what a venture in such a position looks like.
There are qualitative differences between startups that are going for $10m and those going after $1bn. The biggest is variance, which luck is a multiplier for.
That's just wrong. Even if luck is involved or even significantly responsible, successful people and companies create their own luck, put themselves in a position to be lucky and relentlessly pursue luck.
I'll grant you that limiting your comparisons to Google, Facebook and Amazon is not extremely helpful, but expanding the list might still get you similar learnings (PayPal, Ebay, Yahoo, Square, Dropbox, Airbnb, Fab, Etsy, Eventbrite, Box, Yammer, etc).
Facebook, Google, Amazon et al succeeded _despite_ being bad/unknown quantities on paper. They specifically should _not_ be used as examples of "how to do it right."
Look at smaller sustainable startups that are flying under the radar to unearth proven, repeatable best practices. You can't establish patterns in methodology by citing exceptions.
For a $10mm company to become a $1bn company, know what you need? Luck.
EDIT: To those below, you're both validating my point. Luck isn't the sole driver of success, but it's the difference between a modestly successful company and an insanely successful company. The other skills the founders have to exploit opportunities are already there. The x-factor is luck. Nobody says "okay, all we need is 500 million users and we're successful!"