3 ms·

I was hoping this would open a debate because from outside the US it just seems like we're missing something especially on the money aspect. You mentioned that

I was hoping this would open a debate because from outside the US it just seems like we're missing something especially on the money aspect. You mentioned that you've always worked with "employees" and "investors", but nobody that ever started a company anywhere from nothing has "investors" from the outset. so either you can only have joined "post investment" which is not really a start-up, or after the company's founders had already created a viable business. Ie you were not working for a start-up. Let me put it another way; is the US like some fantasy dreamland where money gets given to anyone who starts a company? In Europe, starting a "start-up" generally means you start from scratch. Sure you' could get loans against your house, but the way the media and to a certain extent HN portrays start-ups as being founded by teenagers and graduates, most will not have this to offer. That surely is the purpose of seed funding, but seed funding is not enough to start hiring, because it will get you two months down the line at most, and it does not make a viable business. So again, it's just not clear what is really going on, what are start-ups and whart are real established businesses calling themselves start-ups because its fashionable.

brk 15y ago
Ie you were not working for a start-up. Only by what appears to be your unique and limited definition. I have never heard of anyone that considers "taking money == no longer a startup". Also, it is not uncommon to startup a company with immediate investment. In fact, some companies don't officially exist until the investment is secured (they are an "idea" during the pitch stage, and the formal legal incorporation paperwork is only filed after securing initial investment). This is of course all based on common usage of the term in the US, but since you were also referencing US companies this seems appropriate. Much like a "boot" is a piece of footwear here and a part of an automobile there.
- chris_dcosta 15y ago
  You seem to be confirming my point. You seem to be saying that anybody with an idea in the US can get money invested into their business without having to do anything other than produce a business plan, and an idea, if they search hard enough. Doesn't that sound rather odd? Let me tell you where I'm coming from: I've started 8 companies in the last 25 years and not one has had external funding. I've built them from scratch and earned every penny, but you seem to be suggesting that money grows on trees. I don't think this has anything to do with language differences, I think if you've ever started a company you know what it takes, you know the risks, and so do investors. It is not credible that the sort of sums of money that are required to employ people run offices and pay taxes are available without a running busines already in place. And US or English or not, the fact remains you are no longer starting something at that point in the life cycle of a business. The label therefore is just that - a fashionable label, not a meaningful title.

brk 15y ago

Ie you were not working for a start-up. Only by what appears to be your unique and limited definition. I have never heard of anyone that considers "taking money == no longer a startup". Also, it is not uncommon to startup a company with immediate investment. In fact, some companies don't officially exist until the investment is secured (they are an "idea" during the pitch stage, and the formal legal incorporation paperwork is only filed after securing initial investment). This is of course all based on common usage of the term in the US, but since you were also referencing US companies this seems appropriate. Much like a "boot" is a piece of footwear here and a part of an automobile there.

chris_dcosta 15y ago
You seem to be confirming my point. You seem to be saying that anybody with an idea in the US can get money invested into their business without having to do anything other than produce a business plan, and an idea, if they search hard enough. Doesn't that sound rather odd? Let me tell you where I'm coming from: I've started 8 companies in the last 25 years and not one has had external funding. I've built them from scratch and earned every penny, but you seem to be suggesting that money grows on trees. I don't think this has anything to do with language differences, I think if you've ever started a company you know what it takes, you know the risks, and so do investors. It is not credible that the sort of sums of money that are required to employ people run offices and pay taxes are available without a running busines already in place. And US or English or not, the fact remains you are no longer starting something at that point in the life cycle of a business. The label therefore is just that - a fashionable label, not a meaningful title.