4 ms·

Not disagreeing with you in the slightest, but how about just calling them all "businesses" and adding the qualifier "VC-funded" if they've taken funding? It ma

by w4 11y ago

Not disagreeing with you in the slightest, but how about just calling them all "businesses" and adding the qualifier "VC-funded" if they've taken funding? It makes more sense to qualify based on VC funding, rather than lack there of, since taking venture capital is the exception in business, not the norm. Terminology aside, Silicon Valley's argument that this is a what a real business looks like, not that, is ridiculous. They're all businesses. And if you really want to play that game, it's often the VC-funded startups that aren't "real" businesses (no profits, revenue, etc), not the derisively labeled "lifestyle" businesses.

danieltillett 11y ago
I agree that having to preface the term business is stupid, but since this is the current terminology it is hard to get people to change back to just using business. Even the term startup is redundant as a startup is just a new business. The problem is if you don’t preface then someone else will do it for you. Letting the VC industry choose the preface is not ideal - I don’t run a lifestyle business, I run a serious and highly profitable technology business with the aim of maximising my returns as the founder. The fact that I don’t have outside investors is irrelevant to what my business does or the value it offers my customers.
- w4 11y ago
  > Letting the VC industry choose the preface is not ideal This actually touches on an important point. The whole reason that, "No no, that's not a real business," gets bandied around is because it benefits VCs. If founders think that they need to take VC money to assuage their insecurities about being a "real" business, that doesn't help the founders. It helps the VCs' deal flow.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    The is exactly why I hate the term lifestyle business - it make it sound like you are running a beach bar on some tropical island. With technological change the need for VC money is much less than the past. With a relatively small amount of money these days you can start and build a very serious tech business (assuming you have the skill and drive) all on your own. I am not running a lifestyle business - I am running a business 100% focused on hitting my end value target and providing my customers with the best product possible.

by w4 11y ago

danieltillett 11y ago

I agree that having to preface the term business is stupid, but since this is the current terminology it is hard to get people to change back to just using business. Even the term startup is redundant as a startup is just a new business. The problem is if you don’t preface then someone else will do it for you. Letting the VC industry choose the preface is not ideal - I don’t run a lifestyle business, I run a serious and highly profitable technology business with the aim of maximising my returns as the founder. The fact that I don’t have outside investors is irrelevant to what my business does or the value it offers my customers.

w4 11y ago
> Letting the VC industry choose the preface is not ideal This actually touches on an important point. The whole reason that, "No no, that's not a real business," gets bandied around is because it benefits VCs. If founders think that they need to take VC money to assuage their insecurities about being a "real" business, that doesn't help the founders. It helps the VCs' deal flow.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  The is exactly why I hate the term lifestyle business - it make it sound like you are running a beach bar on some tropical island. With technological change the need for VC money is much less than the past. With a relatively small amount of money these days you can start and build a very serious tech business (assuming you have the skill and drive) all on your own. I am not running a lifestyle business - I am running a business 100% focused on hitting my end value target and providing my customers with the best product possible.