2 ms·

This is pedantics. Their definition of "startup" vs. yours is completely irrelevant to the point they are trying to make.

• sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Actually, it's central to the conversation. This isn't some semantic quibbling. They were arguing the startup model is broken and then giving an example of an alternative (themselves) without meeting any of the criteria of actually being a startup. I'm convinced that the startup scene is now filled with posers who call themselves startups for prestige. This probably isn't a new phenomenon, but it's relatively new on HN.
  • ryanbrunner 9y ago
    What difference does it make whether he can call himself a startup? Saying "the startup model is broken, I'm happier running my business, which is small and bootstrapped but profitable" doesn't change anything just because he can't use the word "startup".
    • sillysaurus3 9y ago
      It's the distinction of outsider vs insider. Someone who actually runs a startup is better positioned to criticize the model. More than that, if everyone who started a startup were to follow his model, no one would care about startups because they wouldn't matter. But they do matter, and the reason why they matter is that they grow quickly.