I've seen two quasi-startups go down the tubes from the inside.
One company had some very clever ideas, but were chronically incapable of making reliable hardware, or
of making software that worked. They had no internal procedures to track what they were making, what it
was supposed to do, or how they knew it worked. Too many releases were "we have to ship something
to keep from losing what little credibility we still have".
Another company tried to reinvent itself after its prime business peaked and then started to implode.
The idea we tried to develop wasn't commercially uninteresting, but we had major focus issues. What, exactly, do we
want to do? Who is going to buy it? For how much? Having owned our old industry
we weren't very good at competing with others in our new industry.
Both companies had issues with ineffectual leadership, flavour-of-the-month development, and business
decisions made to help friends rather than make money. Both were broadsided by external developments
that eventually rendered their products commercially irrelevant.