The article names its archetypes not entirely fairly, based on my experience at three MIT startups

The article names its archetypes not entirely fairly, based on my experience at three MIT startups. Two were novel-tech academic spinoffs, and the third was alumni applying/integrating COTS tech driven by customer problem domain. Of those three, two were business-thinking much like the article's "Stanford" archetype. The other had, like the article's "MIT" archetype, a period to develop tech from the lab, and a challenging changing of gears to be cutting-edge product-driven. Also, a fourth MIT startup, which I recently almost co-founded, even before I joined the nascent team, the inventor-CEO had already done impressive customer-oriented legwork, and found Bay Area advisors, more like "Stanford" in the article. > The team has 9 PhDs and just hired an MBA to start finding customers. This is a problem, if none of the PhDs happen to have non-academic strong experience in product, nor in industry team engineering. An academic environment will tend to make people think they know more than they do, about things academia doesn't know. …