3 ms·

>"Then it's not a startup. A startup is designed to grow quickly. Everything we associate with startups stems from the fact that the successful ones do make mil

>"Then it's not a startup. A startup is designed to grow quickly. Everything we associate with startups stems from the fact that the successful ones do make millions within a decade. For it to be a startup, you have to have a large target market." I am sorry but where is that criteria codified? This is nonsense. Here is an article with 14 founders being asked what defines a "startup" and only one of them mentions market size: https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2013/12/16/what-is-a-startup/#2d40de954044 https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2013/12/16/what... >"Everything we associate with startups stems from the fact that the successful ones do make millions within a decade." No, that's the sensational media coverage that associates that. Further what is meant by "make millions"? Millions in revenue when you are losing millions is not really an indicator of success is it? Also Uber, Spotify at 8 and 11 years old respectively both have millions in revenue but lose money. Are they "successful"?

sillysaurus3 9y ago
I am sorry but where is that criteria codified? http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
- bogomipz 9y ago
  Exactly, that article was written by a VC. That does not make it a universal definition.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    If an ad hominem is the best criticism you can come up with, it seems correct to me.
    - bogomipz 9y ago
      You might want to look up the meaning of ad hominem. There is nothing in my comment that is even remotely attacking either you personally or your character.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        that article was written by a VC
        bogomipz 9y ago
        Saying that an article skews to the orientation and outlook of the author(in this case a venture capitalist) is no way an attack on that author. The context of the entire comment was that this definition was not universal.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        Then what's your response to this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14887245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14887245 An ad hominem doesn't need to be an attack to be an ad hominem. It's just an argument against the person instead of an argument against their argument.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

I am sorry but where is that criteria codified? http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

bogomipz 9y ago
Exactly, that article was written by a VC. That does not make it a universal definition.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  If an ad hominem is the best criticism you can come up with, it seems correct to me.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    You might want to look up the meaning of ad hominem. There is nothing in my comment that is even remotely attacking either you personally or your character.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      that article was written by a VC
      - bogomipz 9y ago
        Saying that an article skews to the orientation and outlook of the author(in this case a venture capitalist) is no way an attack on that author. The context of the entire comment was that this definition was not universal.
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        Then what's your response to this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14887245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14887245 An ad hominem doesn't need to be an attack to be an ad hominem. It's just an argument against the person instead of an argument against their argument.