Good execution on a weak idea can rapidly be redirected to a better idea. If you can't execute, the ideas don't really matter.
I guess it depends a bit on what you mean by "unpromising". One person might see the product idea and think "those guys are gone is 6 mo", while another might see the team coming together well and think "that team is going to do something interesting"
Also, in my experience most people are bad at evaluating these things early on.
It's a good question. From what I've seen a lot of it has to do with their network and the founder's ability to sell the narrative that what they're building is something no one else can build and/or execute. In those early days of a startup investors look at the team more closely than the product. If you're able to show that you're focused on revenue from day one it tends to shift the leverage. Very few investors are funding ideas anymore.
Promising/unpromising is a judgement call here. If you thought something was a great idea but you were wrong, there's a potential failure mode for a promising startup. And the reverse would give you a successful one that you found unpromising.
That's what the poster you're replying to is saying - it's hard to be consistently correct on if an idea is good or bad.
Depends on what you mean by inferior. If you mean inferior as in quality, then your link doesn't support you:
> It refers to the argument that software quality does not necessarily increase with functionality: that there is a point where less functionality ("worse") is a preferable option ("better") in terms of practicality and usability.
It's a rephrasing of KISS. This isn't about getting something quicker out the door.
It’s really not obvious that an unpromising startup could succeed, though.
What were the main factors in those unpromising startups doing well?