5 ms·
Pretty interesting how much argument there is against this view on HN. I guess most people coming here now are not familiar with Paul Graham's essay (maybe mos
by mason55 8y ago
Pretty interesting how much argument there is against this view on HN. I guess most people coming here now are not familiar with Paul Graham's essay (maybe most HN posters don't even know who Paul Graham is any more)
http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
> 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.
- brazzy 8y agoInteresting how you assume that because Paul Graham wrote that, it is true, and that everyone who thinks differently must not be familiar with what he wrote because surely nobody could disagree with him!
- v_lisivka 8y agoWhat wrong with that? Are you think that random reporter in random journal you read is way better expert on startups?
- skrebbel 8y agoHe's not assuming that. He's assuming a large fraction of the HN community agrees with Graham's definition. This certainly used to be the case a few years ago, hence his point.
- icedchai 8y agoIt's possible for a solo entrepreneur company to have significant growth.
- dragonwriter 8y agoThe term “startup” was in wide use long before the PG essay, and not consistently restricted to the use PG makes of it either before or after. Aside from stating what PG means when he uses the term (which is important!), that part of the essay has no real weight.