5 ms·

Depends on the definition of startup and what definition is most meaningful to the user. I find the definition of startup: "A business in the early stages" ver

by s_dev 8y ago

Depends on the definition of startup and what definition is most meaningful to the user. I find the definition of startup: "A business in the early stages" very limited and not that useful. Lots of old school business folk and baby boomer use startup with this in mind. Paul Graham's definition is one where the number one priority is growth. A business in contrast the number one priority is the bottom line. Priorities are a good way to differentiate between companies because they're trade offs and are specific/measurable. Companies will make decisions that reveal their priorities even if they profess to adhering to other priorities.

inerte 8y ago
I like “an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model” If you’re selling water and expect to grow a lot, unless you’re selling water in a completely new way, are you really a startup?
- jonbarker 8y ago
  There are three subcategories of innovation: product, process, and financial innovation. So you could be a water startup if your water is not differentiated but you have either some new way of financing the production of water or some new process for producing said water.
eanzenberg 8y ago
PG definition is a shitty definition. Many public and private businesses you ask will tell you their number one priority is growth. Startup by the literal name being used means a relatively new company. If you want to differentiate among the general public use "tech startup" instead.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Agreed. If your company is 9 years old and making billions in revenue, it's not a startup. If it's still very growth-oriented, call it a growth-oriented corporation.
  - s_dev 8y ago
    People seem quick to provide criticism of definitions without presenting their own definition for reciprocated criticism. So far your definition so far is limited to just precluding anything greater or equal in age to 9 years or anything above 2 Billion in revenue. Typically what happens as companies scale is they switch priorities from being growth oriented to being a profit oriented one -- the reason being is not looking after bottom line is simply not sustainable. Focusing on growth at the expense of profitability is sustainable for early stage companies as a someone will pay to see if the growth can be realized.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >People seem quick to provide criticism of definitions without presenting their own definition for reciprocated criticism. So far your definition so far is limited to just precluding anything greater or equal in age to 9 years or anything above 2 Billion in revenue. Small, less than 4 years of age, under 100 people, aspiring and trying to find its way. Could be VC backed eyeballs-oriented, or regular slower-growth company. Stripe is nothing like that today.
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      PG's definition is but one bastardization of the word "startup" and it is by far the most useless one. A startup is a company that hasn't identified a profitable business model. Legally, the definition is further restricted to a company which hasn't begun revenue-generating activities. It's okay to be a startup for a few months while you're getting everything together and launching. Once you've launched, if you're still a startup, that's an embarrassment--it means your product (or products) isn't generating sufficient revenue to be a real business.
      - civilitty 8y ago
        > A startup is a company that hasn't identified a profitable business model. That seems like an equally useless definition. The profitability of many business models, especially ones in tech and manufacturing, is dependent on their scale so there's a circular dependency. More importantly, the meaning of "identifying a profitable business" is itself unclear. If I open up a new coffee shop in town, is my business model selling beverages, selling coffee, or selling coffee to the ~20k people who walk through my main street location (I'm using a small business example for simplicity's sake)? That's why I often hear the term "product-market fit" as a way to describe startups. A coffee shop's market is set based on location and the product is a combination of the coffee and atmosphere but the area might be too competitive or too low volume to be profitable. In my opinion, even a coffee shop can be considered a startup until it is in the black and a small business afterwards because there is little opportunity to grow. > Legally, the definition is further restricted to a company which hasn't begun revenue-generating activities. This is better but then what is "revenue generating" activities? Putting up a Stripe form? Sending out sales people? Doing some marketing? Several of my previous startups had early stage partnerships which paid out a decent amount of money in exploratory contracts before we pivoted to the final iteration of the product. We may have even been profitable for a short while but I'd find it hard to argue that we weren't a startup or that we were a small business/established corporation.
jryan49 8y ago
The entire economy's goal is growth, seems pretty catch all.
earenndil 8y ago
In that case, amazon, which is near the top of the s&p 500, and makes hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, is a startup.

by s_dev 8y ago

inerte 8y ago

I like “an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model” If you’re selling water and expect to grow a lot, unless you’re selling water in a completely new way, are you really a startup?

jonbarker 8y ago
There are three subcategories of innovation: product, process, and financial innovation. So you could be a water startup if your water is not differentiated but you have either some new way of financing the production of water or some new process for producing said water.

eanzenberg 8y ago

PG definition is a shitty definition. Many public and private businesses you ask will tell you their number one priority is growth. Startup by the literal name being used means a relatively new company. If you want to differentiate among the general public use "tech startup" instead.

ams6110 8y ago
Agreed. If your company is 9 years old and making billions in revenue, it's not a startup. If it's still very growth-oriented, call it a growth-oriented corporation.
- s_dev 8y ago
  People seem quick to provide criticism of definitions without presenting their own definition for reciprocated criticism. So far your definition so far is limited to just precluding anything greater or equal in age to 9 years or anything above 2 Billion in revenue. Typically what happens as companies scale is they switch priorities from being growth oriented to being a profit oriented one -- the reason being is not looking after bottom line is simply not sustainable. Focusing on growth at the expense of profitability is sustainable for early stage companies as a someone will pay to see if the growth can be realized.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >People seem quick to provide criticism of definitions without presenting their own definition for reciprocated criticism. So far your definition so far is limited to just precluding anything greater or equal in age to 9 years or anything above 2 Billion in revenue. Small, less than 4 years of age, under 100 people, aspiring and trying to find its way. Could be VC backed eyeballs-oriented, or regular slower-growth company. Stripe is nothing like that today.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    PG's definition is but one bastardization of the word "startup" and it is by far the most useless one. A startup is a company that hasn't identified a profitable business model. Legally, the definition is further restricted to a company which hasn't begun revenue-generating activities. It's okay to be a startup for a few months while you're getting everything together and launching. Once you've launched, if you're still a startup, that's an embarrassment--it means your product (or products) isn't generating sufficient revenue to be a real business.
    - civilitty 8y ago
      > A startup is a company that hasn't identified a profitable business model. That seems like an equally useless definition. The profitability of many business models, especially ones in tech and manufacturing, is dependent on their scale so there's a circular dependency. More importantly, the meaning of "identifying a profitable business" is itself unclear. If I open up a new coffee shop in town, is my business model selling beverages, selling coffee, or selling coffee to the ~20k people who walk through my main street location (I'm using a small business example for simplicity's sake)? That's why I often hear the term "product-market fit" as a way to describe startups. A coffee shop's market is set based on location and the product is a combination of the coffee and atmosphere but the area might be too competitive or too low volume to be profitable. In my opinion, even a coffee shop can be considered a startup until it is in the black and a small business afterwards because there is little opportunity to grow. > Legally, the definition is further restricted to a company which hasn't begun revenue-generating activities. This is better but then what is "revenue generating" activities? Putting up a Stripe form? Sending out sales people? Doing some marketing? Several of my previous startups had early stage partnerships which paid out a decent amount of money in exploratory contracts before we pivoted to the final iteration of the product. We may have even been profitable for a short while but I'd find it hard to argue that we weren't a startup or that we were a small business/established corporation.

jryan49 8y ago

The entire economy's goal is growth, seems pretty catch all.

earenndil 8y ago

In that case, amazon, which is near the top of the s&p 500, and makes hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue, is a startup.