5 ms·

I'm sorry, but can we stop calling these startups? Companies like Twitter, eBay, GitHub, Mozilla, Netflix and Atlassian are past the startup stage by now. Many

by sspiff 13y ago

I'm sorry, but can we stop calling these startups? Companies like Twitter, eBay, GitHub, Mozilla, Netflix and Atlassian are past the startup stage by now. Many of them have been market leaders for years. Calling Intuit a startup isn't even stretching it anymore. They're 30 years old and have a revenue of over $4B. I realize HN thinks startups are sexy, but these have no business being labeled startups. If Intuit is a startup, what does it take to be a called a mature company?

capex 13y ago
these companies may not be startups, but they provide a useful info: what large tech companies are paying for.
- sspiff 13y ago
  I'm not disputing that this information may be useful. I'm just saying it's poorly labeled to look more attractive to certain types of visitors. Replacing "startups" in the title with "(technology) companies" would be more accurate, but probably reduce traffic.
  - Amygaz 13y ago
    Another proof of the disconnect.
- ankitml 13y ago
  the title is still misleading.
onedev 13y ago
I came in here just to say this. I'm sorry but on what planet is eBay a startup?
detst 13y ago
[Meta-comment warning] This comment is in the same category as the one PG talks about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4693920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4693920 I don't want to pick on you because there might be a place for your comment but it's not at the top; we need to stop voting these to that position (I'm not encouraging down-votes).
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Firstly, sspiff isn't dismissing the article. sspiff is making a meta-comment about the article's choices in presenting itself. Secondly, if it shouldn't be at the top, what should be? I think you are looking at spiff's comment in a vacuum and saying, "This is not platinum-quality comment material!". But there isn't any platinum-quality comment in this page of comments yet. You can't upvote the rightful comment to the top if it doesn't exist yet.
  - detst 13y ago
    I'll concede that this wasn't the best place to make the point (I'll make it again, along with others, including PG). Perhaps I did look at spiff's comment in a vacuum and took advantage of this post being near the top of HN, but this is something that bothers me and clearly does PG, too. Yes, there are not any "platinum-quality comments" but let's remember that this is a recurring problem and that I'm not trying to pick on sspiff. While it is not outright dismissal, it is dismissive in nature, and again, my primary issue is with voting, not necessarily the comment. I think we could still ask, quoting PG, "Yeah, we know that [Intuit isn't a startup]. But is that the most interesting thing one can say about this article?" [and now it's getting down-votes after your comment despite PG making it clear time and time again that this is a major problem for HN]
    - mgkimsal 13y ago
      I think we could still ask, quoting PG, "Yeah, we know that [Intuit isn't a startup]. But is that the most interesting thing one can say about this article?" ----------- For the time being, yes, it is. And given that it wasn't an article being linked to, but a site that included ebay and intuit under the banner of "startups", yes, this might be the most interesting point of the site people want to discuss.
      - detst 13y ago
        > For the time being, yes, it is. It's a hypothetical not a question of the present state of things but either way, I disagree. Rachel's comment [1] (I understand it wasn't present when I made my first comment), while terse, is more interesting, more likely to foster interesting discussion and doesn't have the dreaded HN "middlebrow dismissal". And I have no doubt HN can come up with much, much better. The point being, it became a "magnet for upvotes" and nothing better ever had a chance to reach the top to encourage more interesting discussion. > but a site that included ebay and intuit under the banner of "startups", yes, this might be the most interesting point of the site people want to discuss. That's unfortunate; I've found HN to be a place to find great tangentially related discussion to otherwise uninteresting posts. That doesn't happen by accident; we need to foster it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5736869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5736869
mgkimsal 13y ago
I realize HN thinks startups are sexy, but these have no business being labeled startups. If Intuit is a startup, what does it take to be a called a mature company? ------- 2 decades after the IPO should be the cutoff point. After that, you're "mature"; before that, you're still considered a 'scrappy startup' which might fold at any moment without the day to day pivoting of the charismatic founders in their garage. ;)
lazugod 13y ago
Whichever company realizes it can brand itself as "newer than startups" will have a marketing boon.
fuzzywalrus 13y ago
Here here! I visited the above link and my immediate reaction was, "These aren't startups..."
SiVal 13y ago
I think that sometime in the mid- to late 90s, when there was an explosive land grab on the Web and every Web-based company was a new startup because the Web itself was a new startup, the word startup ended up meaning Web-based company to a lot of people.

by sspiff 13y ago

capex 13y ago

these companies may not be startups, but they provide a useful info: what large tech companies are paying for.

sspiff 13y ago
I'm not disputing that this information may be useful. I'm just saying it's poorly labeled to look more attractive to certain types of visitors. Replacing "startups" in the title with "(technology) companies" would be more accurate, but probably reduce traffic.
- Amygaz 13y ago
  Another proof of the disconnect.
ankitml 13y ago
the title is still misleading.

onedev 13y ago

I came in here just to say this. I'm sorry but on what planet is eBay a startup?

detst 13y ago

[Meta-comment warning] This comment is in the same category as the one PG talks about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4693920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4693920 I don't want to pick on you because there might be a place for your comment but it's not at the top; we need to stop voting these to that position (I'm not encouraging down-votes).

sliverstorm 13y ago
Firstly, sspiff isn't dismissing the article. sspiff is making a meta-comment about the article's choices in presenting itself. Secondly, if it shouldn't be at the top, what should be? I think you are looking at spiff's comment in a vacuum and saying, "This is not platinum-quality comment material!". But there isn't any platinum-quality comment in this page of comments yet. You can't upvote the rightful comment to the top if it doesn't exist yet.
- detst 13y ago
  I'll concede that this wasn't the best place to make the point (I'll make it again, along with others, including PG). Perhaps I did look at spiff's comment in a vacuum and took advantage of this post being near the top of HN, but this is something that bothers me and clearly does PG, too. Yes, there are not any "platinum-quality comments" but let's remember that this is a recurring problem and that I'm not trying to pick on sspiff. While it is not outright dismissal, it is dismissive in nature, and again, my primary issue is with voting, not necessarily the comment. I think we could still ask, quoting PG, "Yeah, we know that [Intuit isn't a startup]. But is that the most interesting thing one can say about this article?" [and now it's getting down-votes after your comment despite PG making it clear time and time again that this is a major problem for HN]
  - mgkimsal 13y ago
    I think we could still ask, quoting PG, "Yeah, we know that [Intuit isn't a startup]. But is that the most interesting thing one can say about this article?" ----------- For the time being, yes, it is. And given that it wasn't an article being linked to, but a site that included ebay and intuit under the banner of "startups", yes, this might be the most interesting point of the site people want to discuss.
    - detst 13y ago
      > For the time being, yes, it is. It's a hypothetical not a question of the present state of things but either way, I disagree. Rachel's comment [1] (I understand it wasn't present when I made my first comment), while terse, is more interesting, more likely to foster interesting discussion and doesn't have the dreaded HN "middlebrow dismissal". And I have no doubt HN can come up with much, much better. The point being, it became a "magnet for upvotes" and nothing better ever had a chance to reach the top to encourage more interesting discussion. > but a site that included ebay and intuit under the banner of "startups", yes, this might be the most interesting point of the site people want to discuss. That's unfortunate; I've found HN to be a place to find great tangentially related discussion to otherwise uninteresting posts. That doesn't happen by accident; we need to foster it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5736869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5736869

mgkimsal 13y ago

I realize HN thinks startups are sexy, but these have no business being labeled startups. If Intuit is a startup, what does it take to be a called a mature company? ------- 2 decades after the IPO should be the cutoff point. After that, you're "mature"; before that, you're still considered a 'scrappy startup' which might fold at any moment without the day to day pivoting of the charismatic founders in their garage. ;)

lazugod 13y ago

Whichever company realizes it can brand itself as "newer than startups" will have a marketing boon.

fuzzywalrus 13y ago

Here here! I visited the above link and my immediate reaction was, "These aren't startups..."

SiVal 13y ago

I think that sometime in the mid- to late 90s, when there was an explosive land grab on the Web and every Web-based company was a new startup because the Web itself was a new startup, the word startup ended up meaning Web-based company to a lot of people.