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.