Charlie O'Donell makes the point, among others, that because starting up is easier now than it's ever been (as I've argued before), the bar for success is also higher. In other words, if it's easier to start, you have more competition and the competition is more aggressive, and fewer valid excuses for why things aren't working out. So basically, you need to be on top of the game to be worth investing into.
It's a good point, but really depends on your definition of success. Certainly, as far as the classical startup model (what some would call the startup lottery) is concerned, yes, you need to be on top of things and the bar is higher for any such venture.
But if we take a slightly wider look, not just at business success, but also at personal success, the bar has never been lower.
Many people who start online businesses do so because they want to create a lifestyle that enables them to be personally free, not because they want to rush through a firestorm of work and come out of the other end with a few millions in the bank. Both approaches are valid - it's a matter of personal preference. For the micropreneur approach, the bar is not higher - it's lower than it's ever been, with those multiple supporting services enabling a single founder to try many different niches, with relatively little risk, before settling on a profitable one.
If you're going for the lifestyle business route, the bar is indeed lower than ever, and continuing to fall. This lower bar to success means that many niches which were previously not worth exploiting are now worthwhile. This may not be where larger business opportunity lies, but it is, I believe, where personal opportunities will be found for the next ten years.
If you read this far, you should follow me on twitter here.