4 ms·

There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. [0] That doesn't mean they're better, but you h

by Zanni 8y ago

There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. [0] That doesn't mean they're better, but you have to know the difference or you're going to get yourself in trouble. Is a quarter-horse better than a camel? Yes, if you're trying to win a quarter-mile race; not so much if you're trying to survive in the desert. I think some of the disdain comes from legit growth startups trying to distance themselves from one-man "startups" that could be better categorized as micro-ISVs or side projects. But there's definitely no shame to running a successful lifestyle business. The 37signals guys have been great at shifting that perspective. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

markdown 8y ago
> There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. Perhaps in the US, and probably in just a small part of the US. Everywhere else, a startup is just a new business.
- csa 8y ago
  So I think the point that many folks would make is that maybe we should call a new business a “new business” or a “small business” rather than a “startup”. While I realize people don’t always like to use constraining labels, limiting the word “startup” to businesses that are aggressively seeking a rocket-ship trajectory actually strikes me as a useful convention.
mindcrime 8y ago
There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. [0] I respect and admire pg as much as probably anybody on this board, but I still reject the idea that he has any particular standing to declare his subjective definition of "startup" to be "the" definition by fiat. I would argue that "startup" actually refers to "businesses that are designed to grow big", where the speed at which you do so is mostly irrelevant. If one wants to raise VC money and tie themselves to that particular time-boxed constraint, that's great. But you can just as well do it "slow and steady" by focusing on early profitability and continually and incrementally reinvesting profits back into the company for growth. Neither is "better" or "worse" than the other, except in context, just as with the quarter-horse/camel example.
- marcus_holmes 8y ago
  the definition I've used for years is "a startup is a business creating a new business model or service over the internet". Because there were so many people around me who were/are part of the startup scene, building businesses that were/are definitely "startups" and yet not focused exclusively on growth.
ilamont 8y ago
There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. Are they, though? I have looked at the incoming classes of various startup accelerators over the years and see lots of niche-focused products and services that can never grow to anything more than a niche-focused product or service as described in their pitch decks. I'm not putting down those types of businesses (or proto-businesses). I'm just pointing out that they don't have a high-growth profile or potential, the primary dividing line between "startups" and everything else dubbed "lifestyle" in investor circles.
- robryan 8y ago
  As far as YC goes, it seems that they are investing in companies they think might be able to dominate a niche in the hope that a few of them use that as a springboard to a much larger market.
- taneq 8y ago
  This seems to be a HN thing. Most places, a 'startup' is just someone trying to bootstrap a business into profitability so that, well, they have a profitable business. If you end up with a business that pays your wages, you win. If you end up with a business that pays your wages without you having to work full time (or at all) then you really win. On HN, a "startup" is a moonshot backed by venture capital, and is seen as a failure if it doesn't achieve a massive valuation and take over the world. You read about businesses with "mere" million-dollar-plus revenues being shut down because they're "unsuccessful". It's insane.
fyfy18 8y ago
Although 37signals are often touted as being the poster child for building a lifestyle business, many people forgot they raised ~$10mm in private equity from Bezos in 2006. There are much better examples out there, but as with the nature of lifestyle businesses you aren't going to hear about them as they are rather boring to the media.

by Zanni 8y ago

markdown 8y ago

> There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. Perhaps in the US, and probably in just a small part of the US. Everywhere else, a startup is just a new business.

csa 8y ago
So I think the point that many folks would make is that maybe we should call a new business a “new business” or a “small business” rather than a “startup”. While I realize people don’t always like to use constraining labels, limiting the word “startup” to businesses that are aggressively seeking a rocket-ship trajectory actually strikes me as a useful convention.

mindcrime 8y ago

There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. [0] I respect and admire pg as much as probably anybody on this board, but I still reject the idea that he has any particular standing to declare his subjective definition of "startup" to be "the" definition by fiat. I would argue that "startup" actually refers to "businesses that are designed to grow big", where the speed at which you do so is mostly irrelevant. If one wants to raise VC money and tie themselves to that particular time-boxed constraint, that's great. But you can just as well do it "slow and steady" by focusing on early profitability and continually and incrementally reinvesting profits back into the company for growth. Neither is "better" or "worse" than the other, except in context, just as with the quarter-horse/camel example.

marcus_holmes 8y ago
the definition I've used for years is "a startup is a business creating a new business model or service over the internet". Because there were so many people around me who were/are part of the startup scene, building businesses that were/are definitely "startups" and yet not focused exclusively on growth.

ilamont 8y ago

There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. Are they, though? I have looked at the incoming classes of various startup accelerators over the years and see lots of niche-focused products and services that can never grow to anything more than a niche-focused product or service as described in their pitch decks. I'm not putting down those types of businesses (or proto-businesses). I'm just pointing out that they don't have a high-growth profile or potential, the primary dividing line between "startups" and everything else dubbed "lifestyle" in investor circles.

robryan 8y ago
As far as YC goes, it seems that they are investing in companies they think might be able to dominate a niche in the hope that a few of them use that as a springboard to a much larger market.
taneq 8y ago
This seems to be a HN thing. Most places, a 'startup' is just someone trying to bootstrap a business into profitability so that, well, they have a profitable business. If you end up with a business that pays your wages, you win. If you end up with a business that pays your wages without you having to work full time (or at all) then you really win. On HN, a "startup" is a moonshot backed by venture capital, and is seen as a failure if it doesn't achieve a massive valuation and take over the world. You read about businesses with "mere" million-dollar-plus revenues being shut down because they're "unsuccessful". It's insane.

fyfy18 8y ago

Although 37signals are often touted as being the poster child for building a lifestyle business, many people forgot they raised ~$10mm in private equity from Bezos in 2006. There are much better examples out there, but as with the nature of lifestyle businesses you aren't going to hear about them as they are rather boring to the media.