5 ms·

I get the impression from reading stuff like this, there have been several I have read, that for some people start ups are a fashion or a "thing to do". I find

I get the impression from reading stuff like this, there have been several I have read, that for some people start ups are a fashion or a "thing to do". I find this very strange as though some people have money and time to burn without the stresses of daily life of things like a demanding job or children. To me a startup makes amazing sense when you have an original disruptive idea and the passion to unload all your time and energy into the spirit of that idea knowing you will probably fail. That is the anti-thesis of a fashion.

brudgers 7y ago
It is as if some people have money and time to burn because some people have money and time to burn. There are also people who operate at lower levels of abstraction than "original disruptive ideas and the passion." I'm probably not either. But my experience is only my experience.
tnolet 7y ago
OP here. Fair enough, but I’m 100% all in. I’m as far away from a startup fashionista as they get: trust me. I just like sharing this stuff for catharsis reasons and because I genuinely think it’s interesting to read for some. On the disruption part, I disagree. There are markets that are just old or aging. Fairly small improvements and a rethink of the market can already make a new product viable.
- sillysaurusx 7y ago
  A startup is fundamentally disruptive. That's what a startup is: something that grows until it can't be ignored. I just tried to think of a single successful startup that wouldn't be classified as "disruptive" and couldn't do it.
  - HatchedLake721 7y ago
    I think you’re confusing a startup with a startup unicorn. You can start tomorrow a niche SaaS, e.g. a debt collection CRM for French market, and become a startup. Are you successful startup? Yes (e.g. you turnover $20k a month solo). Are you disruptive? No. Truly disruptive startups are in two digits range. Successful startups that “made it”, whether it’s revenue, money raised, or profit, are in the hundreds of thousands/millions.
    - sfjailbird 7y ago
      According to YC (at least Paul Graham's classic definition) a startup is something that grows very fast.
    - MCneill27 7y ago
      It might be a startup in the colloquial sense of the word, to friends, family, etc., but I and many others here would argue that it's a small business rather than a startup.
wpietri 7y ago
I didn't get that feeling from this article, but I share your feelings about doing a startup as a fashion. It's definitely real. I used to coach at a bunch of startup events, and many people were definitely drawn to the hype. E.g., the fresh college graduate who was trying to decide between going to grad school or doing a startup. The people who were sure they had the "next Facebook". [1] The people who want to be the next Steve Jobs, or whoever the press is lionizing these days. And really, I think a lot of the "Uber for X" wave was of that style. How many of those really had plausible unit economics? Versus just being a bunch of people playing disruption dress-up with a tide of VC money behind them? It is my fervent hope that WeWork's the peak of that bubble. That with less hype and froth, we'll see more companies focused on serving users and creating long-term value. [1] In my view, there will be no "next Facebook": https://www.quora.com/Is-it-foolish-to-go-to-Startup-Weekend-like-events-and-widely-pitch-my-next-Facebook-idea-in-search-of-co-founders/answer/William-Pietri https://www.quora.com/Is-it-foolish-to-go-to-Startup-Weekend...
jaxn 7y ago
There are a lot of people who dream of being a musician, or an actor, or an artist, or an athlete, or some other prestigious and fun profession. It's the same thing with startups. There is virtually zero chance they will be successful. It's not that they have time and money to burn. It's just that they are living a dream/fantasy.
austhrow743 7y ago
Tons of people have non-demanding jobs and no children. In fact you start out life with neither of them! I'm a university drop out who works non-technical jobs that earn less than most first year programmers would be on and whenever I'm employed full time I work 40-45 hour weeks and save over half my income without really trying. Dependents come with enormous opportunity cost. So does a high standard of living.
rolltiide 7y ago
No, this is not the reality for everyone. You do not have to get married to an idea to make money or require capital to make a return for shareholders. Many people have the luxury of trying multiple ideas without needing to top up their personal balance sheet by exchanging time for money. This allows them to rapidly iterate towards a market hit, and solidify the survivorship bias. Many other founders do only get one chance to blow all their savings and then go back to work for the next decade, increasing the likelihood that they encumber themselves with more life circumstances that prevent them from ever having the flexibility to not exchange time for food and shelter.
codesushi42 7y ago
that for some people start ups are a fashion or a "thing to do" This is true, and I was expecting the same sentiment from the post but it was not there. And as far as startups being a "thing to do". As opposed to doing what else? Working for a big company? What pray tell would be better and more meaningful? It probably wouldn't be in tech.
- scarface74 7y ago
  What’s “meaningful” working for a VC backed startup? Once you take enough VC funds, you are working for multiple “big companies” who decide your fate. It’s an illusion that you are working for a small company.
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    No one said working for startups is meaningful.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      From the post I replied to. “What pray tell would be better and more meaningful? ”
      - codesushi42 7y ago
        That doesn't mean startups are meaningful.
cmdshiftf4 7y ago
>that for some people start ups are a fashion or a "thing to do" There could be a vast array of underlying reasons for them simply wanting to try doing a startup. Maybe working for someone else 40 hours a week isn't giving them sufficient purpose, and they want to try something that will? How many of us feel this but never act on it? Maybe they believe that their skills and work ethic can gain them significantly more income than what they can get grinding 40 hours in other people's businesses, and grinding interviews every couple of years to get meaningful salary increases, and are willing to take on the risk to see if they can make that happen for themselves? Maybe they see life as being short and want to try something different for themselves to escape the expected timeline of school -> university -> job(s) at compan(y)(ies) -> retirement -> death? Some people seem to simply want to do it for the sake of it, but there could be many underlying motivators than making some sort of vacuous fashion statement which you're implying. >some people have money and time to burn without the stresses of daily life of things like a demanding job or children. Some people inherit money. Some people save like savants. Others may have got a payout from a previous company going public or being acquired. Some are money orientated and have built careers around it, and have a partner with similar traits who'll carry the income if they believe in the other's idea. The main thing is that it's not your money, so why would you care? >To me a startup makes amazing sense when you have an original disruptive idea and the passion to unload all your time and energy into the spirit of that idea knowing you will probably fail. To you, maybe, and thankfully you're part of a tiny minority with such opinions. Stay-in-line, continue grinding at other's businesses and therefore lining other's pockets unless you've something "disruptive" to produce? Businesses should only emerge if they've a niche offering? Really? The free market, and well-being of the consumer, relies on competition. Competition does not happen in a market comprised only of companies "disrupting" one thing or another. Starting a company on the basis of having identified something a product, or service, does already but you believe can be done better, is as legitimate as bringing something "disruptive" to the market. The chains you've bound yourself in with in regards to the life choices you've made and the tolerance to risk produced by them shouldn't be the basis on which you judge the activities or choices of others.

brudgers 7y ago

It is as if some people have money and time to burn because some people have money and time to burn. There are also people who operate at lower levels of abstraction than "original disruptive ideas and the passion." I'm probably not either. But my experience is only my experience.

tnolet 7y ago

OP here. Fair enough, but I’m 100% all in. I’m as far away from a startup fashionista as they get: trust me. I just like sharing this stuff for catharsis reasons and because I genuinely think it’s interesting to read for some. On the disruption part, I disagree. There are markets that are just old or aging. Fairly small improvements and a rethink of the market can already make a new product viable.

sillysaurusx 7y ago
A startup is fundamentally disruptive. That's what a startup is: something that grows until it can't be ignored. I just tried to think of a single successful startup that wouldn't be classified as "disruptive" and couldn't do it.
- HatchedLake721 7y ago
  I think you’re confusing a startup with a startup unicorn. You can start tomorrow a niche SaaS, e.g. a debt collection CRM for French market, and become a startup. Are you successful startup? Yes (e.g. you turnover $20k a month solo). Are you disruptive? No. Truly disruptive startups are in two digits range. Successful startups that “made it”, whether it’s revenue, money raised, or profit, are in the hundreds of thousands/millions.
  - sfjailbird 7y ago
    According to YC (at least Paul Graham's classic definition) a startup is something that grows very fast.
  - MCneill27 7y ago
    It might be a startup in the colloquial sense of the word, to friends, family, etc., but I and many others here would argue that it's a small business rather than a startup.

wpietri 7y ago

I didn't get that feeling from this article, but I share your feelings about doing a startup as a fashion. It's definitely real. I used to coach at a bunch of startup events, and many people were definitely drawn to the hype. E.g., the fresh college graduate who was trying to decide between going to grad school or doing a startup. The people who were sure they had the "next Facebook". [1] The people who want to be the next Steve Jobs, or whoever the press is lionizing these days. And really, I think a lot of the "Uber for X" wave was of that style. How many of those really had plausible unit economics? Versus just being a bunch of people playing disruption dress-up with a tide of VC money behind them? It is my fervent hope that WeWork's the peak of that bubble. That with less hype and froth, we'll see more companies focused on serving users and creating long-term value. [1] In my view, there will be no "next Facebook": https://www.quora.com/Is-it-foolish-to-go-to-Startup-Weekend-like-events-and-widely-pitch-my-next-Facebook-idea-in-search-of-co-founders/answer/William-Pietri https://www.quora.com/Is-it-foolish-to-go-to-Startup-Weekend...

jaxn 7y ago

There are a lot of people who dream of being a musician, or an actor, or an artist, or an athlete, or some other prestigious and fun profession. It's the same thing with startups. There is virtually zero chance they will be successful. It's not that they have time and money to burn. It's just that they are living a dream/fantasy.

austhrow743 7y ago

Tons of people have non-demanding jobs and no children. In fact you start out life with neither of them! I'm a university drop out who works non-technical jobs that earn less than most first year programmers would be on and whenever I'm employed full time I work 40-45 hour weeks and save over half my income without really trying. Dependents come with enormous opportunity cost. So does a high standard of living.

rolltiide 7y ago

No, this is not the reality for everyone. You do not have to get married to an idea to make money or require capital to make a return for shareholders. Many people have the luxury of trying multiple ideas without needing to top up their personal balance sheet by exchanging time for money. This allows them to rapidly iterate towards a market hit, and solidify the survivorship bias. Many other founders do only get one chance to blow all their savings and then go back to work for the next decade, increasing the likelihood that they encumber themselves with more life circumstances that prevent them from ever having the flexibility to not exchange time for food and shelter.

codesushi42 7y ago

that for some people start ups are a fashion or a "thing to do" This is true, and I was expecting the same sentiment from the post but it was not there. And as far as startups being a "thing to do". As opposed to doing what else? Working for a big company? What pray tell would be better and more meaningful? It probably wouldn't be in tech.

scarface74 7y ago
What’s “meaningful” working for a VC backed startup? Once you take enough VC funds, you are working for multiple “big companies” who decide your fate. It’s an illusion that you are working for a small company.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  No one said working for startups is meaningful.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    From the post I replied to. “What pray tell would be better and more meaningful? ”
    - codesushi42 7y ago
      That doesn't mean startups are meaningful.

cmdshiftf4 7y ago

>that for some people start ups are a fashion or a "thing to do" There could be a vast array of underlying reasons for them simply wanting to try doing a startup. Maybe working for someone else 40 hours a week isn't giving them sufficient purpose, and they want to try something that will? How many of us feel this but never act on it? Maybe they believe that their skills and work ethic can gain them significantly more income than what they can get grinding 40 hours in other people's businesses, and grinding interviews every couple of years to get meaningful salary increases, and are willing to take on the risk to see if they can make that happen for themselves? Maybe they see life as being short and want to try something different for themselves to escape the expected timeline of school -> university -> job(s) at compan(y)(ies) -> retirement -> death? Some people seem to simply want to do it for the sake of it, but there could be many underlying motivators than making some sort of vacuous fashion statement which you're implying. >some people have money and time to burn without the stresses of daily life of things like a demanding job or children. Some people inherit money. Some people save like savants. Others may have got a payout from a previous company going public or being acquired. Some are money orientated and have built careers around it, and have a partner with similar traits who'll carry the income if they believe in the other's idea. The main thing is that it's not your money, so why would you care? >To me a startup makes amazing sense when you have an original disruptive idea and the passion to unload all your time and energy into the spirit of that idea knowing you will probably fail. To you, maybe, and thankfully you're part of a tiny minority with such opinions. Stay-in-line, continue grinding at other's businesses and therefore lining other's pockets unless you've something "disruptive" to produce? Businesses should only emerge if they've a niche offering? Really? The free market, and well-being of the consumer, relies on competition. Competition does not happen in a market comprised only of companies "disrupting" one thing or another. Starting a company on the basis of having identified something a product, or service, does already but you believe can be done better, is as legitimate as bringing something "disruptive" to the market. The chains you've bound yourself in with in regards to the life choices you've made and the tolerance to risk produced by them shouldn't be the basis on which you judge the activities or choices of others.