I am skeptical, but willing to be convinced by evidence, that access to capital contributes more to success of software companies than talent.
One reason that the contrary belief is so persistent is that 'talent' is defined after the fact as that which was successful. If someone is talented but unsuccessful, you'll never hear of them. It's the dog that didn't bark. I believe that capital is a much better predictor of success than talent, as it is a much simpler, mathematically proven explanation for financial success and doesn't rely on a highly subjective judgment. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but so far no one has produced any.
One reason that the contrary belief is so persistent is that 'talent' is defined after the fact as that which was successful. If someone is talented but unsuccessful, you'll never hear of them. It's the dog that didn't bark. I believe that capital is a much better predictor of success than talent, as it is a much simpler, mathematically proven explanation for financial success and doesn't rely on a highly subjective judgment. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but so far no one has produced any.