Startups are still far more than just their teams. This is different - the author seems to be arguing for something broader as if they create a shared contract technical organization underneath each of the 3+ ventures that may go in wildly different directions.
A few problems come immediately to mind - people and personality conflicts. Can you imagine 3 CEO typess competing for resources/timing on various projects? It might sound ideally initially but conflicts in time and resources are bound to happen.
The second is trying to convince each startup founder that their idea is equivalent to the other two and the timing/stage of development is the same. I doubt it's an impossible idea, but certainly not an easy one to execute. A lot of (contractual) planning for "worst case scenarios" would be especially important here.
I could imagine three CEO types competing for resources & timing on various projects, but I can't imagine skilled developers or designers working for them for long.
We've been ironing out this process over the last year. We inject a venture with need resources up front and then taper them off. That way we don't continuously struggle with conflicts. Details at http://sproutbox.com/what.
The best teams are 2 or more people, including at least one technical founder. The idea that startups would "would share the resources of the most talented web developers and designers" doesn't make sense--these people should be founders.
The USA basketball analogy is apt, because the team failed to perform until they started to "field complete teams instead of piecing together rosters of NBA All-Stars at the last minute." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_men%27s_national_...)
There's certainly something here--sharing office space, legal resources, unsuccessful teams folding into more successful ones--but I think the best success will come with teams whose focus isn't split.
At the very early stages of a business, I think the CEOs should focus 80% of their time on marketing and growing their business (getting new customers, building community, etc), and 20% of their time developing the actual product. The dev team should launch just enough of the website to see if it sticks, and picks up traction. If it does, it should receive more time and lovin’
This is reminds me of how SproutBox came to be. The 3 founders were all considering starting their own ventures and decided to pool resources. Things have evolved a lot since then, but that (and us wanting to also be 'active' angels ) played a big part in the birth of our investment model.
A few problems come immediately to mind - people and personality conflicts. Can you imagine 3 CEO typess competing for resources/timing on various projects? It might sound ideally initially but conflicts in time and resources are bound to happen.
The second is trying to convince each startup founder that their idea is equivalent to the other two and the timing/stage of development is the same. I doubt it's an impossible idea, but certainly not an easy one to execute. A lot of (contractual) planning for "worst case scenarios" would be especially important here.