4 ms·

>But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of "startups" I think startups, as far as Hacker News is concerned, are "go big or g

>But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of "startups" I think startups, as far as Hacker News is concerned, are "go big or go home" businesses. Quoth Paul Graham: A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows from growth. http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

meesterdude 11y ago
I'm glad you bring this up. That's according to Paul Graham, and I respectfully (and strongly) disagree with that definition; nor do i believe it to be the hacker news definition, as that is subject to the collective opinion despite whatever official stances may be taken. But I recognize that ycombinator is certainly focused on that type of startup, and that they obviously have influence on HN. But it is silly, and unhealthy, to solely focus on this narrow definition; which is why i often find myself highlighting it when it presents itself in a HN link.
- dozzie 11y ago
  > But it is silly, and unhealthy, to solely focus on this narrow definition So what defines this "startup" thing? How "startup" is different from a "small company"? Because, you know, not everyone opening a business needs to be "startup", and that's OK.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Quite often 'small companies' hit a vein that suddenly causes them to scale beyond their wildest dreams (I know this happens, because it happened to me). Paul is super smart and wildly successful (as is YC) but he doesn't have a monopoly on what certain words in the English language mean. Defining a start-up in such a way that it benefits the YC narrative should be seen as a marketing ploy rather than a statement of fact or an extremely insightful realization. It's not as if the word 'start-up' originated with Ycombinator, or with Paul Graham. By other definitions a start-up is a company that is more potential than realization of that potential, an idea packaged in a company that might one day be successful or it might not. The success element is often still up for grabs long before a start-up fits the PG description of what a start-up is. It's a useful definition within a certain context but don't be surprised if outside of the 'YC bubble' (or more properly the SV bubble) the word has subtly or even widely different interpretations that are just as valid. I note this trend to creative redefinition or claiming ownership of terms a lot with successful SV entities. It's a 'partial reality distortion field' and I'm sure it is useful to them otherwise it wouldn't be such an often repeating pattern but you should be aware of the fact that the world is a lot bigger than that.

meesterdude 11y ago

I'm glad you bring this up. That's according to Paul Graham, and I respectfully (and strongly) disagree with that definition; nor do i believe it to be the hacker news definition, as that is subject to the collective opinion despite whatever official stances may be taken. But I recognize that ycombinator is certainly focused on that type of startup, and that they obviously have influence on HN. But it is silly, and unhealthy, to solely focus on this narrow definition; which is why i often find myself highlighting it when it presents itself in a HN link.

dozzie 11y ago
> But it is silly, and unhealthy, to solely focus on this narrow definition So what defines this "startup" thing? How "startup" is different from a "small company"? Because, you know, not everyone opening a business needs to be "startup", and that's OK.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Quite often 'small companies' hit a vein that suddenly causes them to scale beyond their wildest dreams (I know this happens, because it happened to me). Paul is super smart and wildly successful (as is YC) but he doesn't have a monopoly on what certain words in the English language mean. Defining a start-up in such a way that it benefits the YC narrative should be seen as a marketing ploy rather than a statement of fact or an extremely insightful realization. It's not as if the word 'start-up' originated with Ycombinator, or with Paul Graham. By other definitions a start-up is a company that is more potential than realization of that potential, an idea packaged in a company that might one day be successful or it might not. The success element is often still up for grabs long before a start-up fits the PG description of what a start-up is. It's a useful definition within a certain context but don't be surprised if outside of the 'YC bubble' (or more properly the SV bubble) the word has subtly or even widely different interpretations that are just as valid. I note this trend to creative redefinition or claiming ownership of terms a lot with successful SV entities. It's a 'partial reality distortion field' and I'm sure it is useful to them otherwise it wouldn't be such an often repeating pattern but you should be aware of the fact that the world is a lot bigger than that.