5 ms·

Tarsnap and BCC are pretty awful by the metrics by which startups are judged. They've take. Many years to produce a very modest return. That doesn't mean they'

by swombat 13y ago

Tarsnap and BCC are pretty awful by the metrics by which startups are judged. They've take. Many years to produce a very modest return. That doesn't mean they're not worthwhile projects, but make no mistake: they are very lousy startups - so bad that the only reason to invest time or money in them is love or learning. The financial return is pretty close to zero compared to other ways Colin and Patrick could have spent their time. Startups are high growth businesses. If there's no high growth potential, it's not a startup. The list is pretty clearly about startups, not pet projects.

dylangs1030 13y ago
With respect, I think everything you said here is opinion. Slava responded to my comment arguing for the merits of Tarsnap augmenting the human condition instead of saying it's not a startup. That's not to say your rebuttal isn't valid, but that I think there's confusion of what really constitutes a startup. Was Instapaper a startup? It sold for an exit, but on the face of it I don't see how it inherently scales differently from something like Tarsnap. I would define any budding tech company as a startup, though it might not be accepted by VC's or Y-Combinator because it couldn't scale. That's my own opinion.
- tg3 13y ago
  There definitely is confusion over what constitutes a startup. But I think we can all agree that it's not just any small business. Some people use the definition of small tech company (as you have), but that doesn't meaningfully differentiate a company like BCC from Dropbox, which have very different economics. PG defined it in his essay on growth [1] and it seems to work pretty well. It also makes the OP's points about working on something that augments the human condition make a lot more sense. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
davidw 13y ago
> If there's no high growth potential, it's not a startup. I mostly agree. We need a good term for stuff like BCC: * Does not have huge growth prospects. * Does have very good prospects for automation so that, once launched, the ratio of time dedicated to it / revenue is a good one. * Is not a "small business" where the owner is also the primary worker, like a small restaurant, or software consultant, or something like that (Hey, DHH, how many owners of small trattorias can afford super expensive cars?) Not being in SV, and being a bit older than the average, I'm very sold on this approach. I don't need to get rich, or make a "dent in the universe", I just want to be mostly free to do the things I want without worrying about money.
- Ecio78 13y ago
  Relevant Twitter stream between patio11 and others people in the same "market" about how to find a "good term" for stuff like BCC https://twitter.com/patio11/status/360236486307749888 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/360236486307749888
  - davidw 13y ago
    Interesting discussion, if a bit inconclusive. It also very much highlights the limitations of twitter as a means to discuss things.
- ig1 13y ago
  Lifestyle business is the term commonly used outside the software industry.
  - davidw 13y ago
    That's not a great term as it's both a bit vague as well as a bit condescending in some circles.
- zeckalpha 13y ago
  Passive Income Generators. PIGs.
- toumhi 13y ago
  What about freedom business? Or freedom-focused online business?
jt2190 13y ago
> If there's no high growth potential, it's not a startup. How would we determine that a company has high growth potential without actually starting the company and trying to find out? Does this definition mean that a company isn't a startup until it finds this huge growth potential? (That would mean that almost all companies that have received angel investment are not startups, since so many will fail to find high growth.) (edit: I should have said: "many companies that have received angel investment are not startups, since so many have no obvious high growth potential." I sort of get it that as a founder I'd want to be conservative, and launch into a large and well understood market if I'm taking outside money, but that seems to run against the spirit of what VCs are trying to do, that is fund companies that are trying to discover new, untapped markets, in order to reap larger rewards.)

by swombat 13y ago

dylangs1030 13y ago

With respect, I think everything you said here is opinion. Slava responded to my comment arguing for the merits of Tarsnap augmenting the human condition instead of saying it's not a startup. That's not to say your rebuttal isn't valid, but that I think there's confusion of what really constitutes a startup. Was Instapaper a startup? It sold for an exit, but on the face of it I don't see how it inherently scales differently from something like Tarsnap. I would define any budding tech company as a startup, though it might not be accepted by VC's or Y-Combinator because it couldn't scale. That's my own opinion.

tg3 13y ago
There definitely is confusion over what constitutes a startup. But I think we can all agree that it's not just any small business. Some people use the definition of small tech company (as you have), but that doesn't meaningfully differentiate a company like BCC from Dropbox, which have very different economics. PG defined it in his essay on growth [1] and it seems to work pretty well. It also makes the OP's points about working on something that augments the human condition make a lot more sense. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

davidw 13y ago

> If there's no high growth potential, it's not a startup. I mostly agree. We need a good term for stuff like BCC: * Does not have huge growth prospects. * Does have very good prospects for automation so that, once launched, the ratio of time dedicated to it / revenue is a good one. * Is not a "small business" where the owner is also the primary worker, like a small restaurant, or software consultant, or something like that (Hey, DHH, how many owners of small trattorias can afford super expensive cars?) Not being in SV, and being a bit older than the average, I'm very sold on this approach. I don't need to get rich, or make a "dent in the universe", I just want to be mostly free to do the things I want without worrying about money.

Ecio78 13y ago
Relevant Twitter stream between patio11 and others people in the same "market" about how to find a "good term" for stuff like BCC https://twitter.com/patio11/status/360236486307749888 https://twitter.com/patio11/status/360236486307749888
- davidw 13y ago
  Interesting discussion, if a bit inconclusive. It also very much highlights the limitations of twitter as a means to discuss things.
ig1 13y ago
Lifestyle business is the term commonly used outside the software industry.
- davidw 13y ago
  That's not a great term as it's both a bit vague as well as a bit condescending in some circles.
zeckalpha 13y ago
Passive Income Generators. PIGs.
toumhi 13y ago
What about freedom business? Or freedom-focused online business?

jt2190 13y ago

> If there's no high growth potential, it's not a startup. How would we determine that a company has high growth potential without actually starting the company and trying to find out? Does this definition mean that a company isn't a startup until it finds this huge growth potential? (That would mean that almost all companies that have received angel investment are not startups, since so many will fail to find high growth.) (edit: I should have said: "many companies that have received angel investment are not startups, since so many have no obvious high growth potential." I sort of get it that as a founder I'd want to be conservative, and launch into a large and well understood market if I'm taking outside money, but that seems to run against the spirit of what VCs are trying to do, that is fund companies that are trying to discover new, untapped markets, in order to reap larger rewards.)