This is a really insightful writeup. Thanks.<p>I just wanted to mention that a lot of things that you did bad, look so only in hindsight. Not that they are not bad, in the sense that you could have done better, but the very same things that now look bad could be construed to be actually 'good' had your startup gone right. Even the startups which do end up successfull do not become so by doing everything right.<p>For example:<p>1. Your co-founder was not committed due to mortgage or family, however he was a great tech guy. And there is a chance that hte startup might have done better, without him spending as much time, in which case you would have duly thanked his technical chops which contributed to startup success.<p>2. If you would have been stricter with the goals your co-founder might have bailed early. Had the startup done better, being less strict could have been construed as a good management decision which helped accomodate your co-founders competing personal commitments.<p>3. Similarly for setting a deadline - sometimes things just take longer, and your startup might have turned over a good leaf by just trying hard enough. There is really no easy way to know when you have to stop.<p>Essentially, the point that I am trying to make is that it is extremely hard to figure out what is the real reason for failure, and most such analysis misses the woods for the trees.<p>However, being able to distinguish correlation from causation is extremely critical as it is the basis on which startups should pivot (or shut down).