That's your definition of a startup. Most people (myself included) think of a startup simply as a new, fledgling business. Every business starts with nothing. Your aspirations, whether they are to become billion-dollar or just side income are irrelevant. They can lead to some bone-headed decisions along the way though.
I don't think he's arguing about semantics of startup vs. small business. I believe he's trying to explain that new businesses fall into a path where they think they are a "startup" thus must take VC funding. He's trying to explain that there's also the "small business" route where you just bootstrap and fund your business from customer revenue.
He's trying to explain that there's also the "small business" route where you just bootstrap and fund your business from customer revenue.
But funding from customer revenue does not automatically imply "small business". If you manage to generate a reasonable margin off that revenue, but you reinvest the profit back into the company, you can grow that way, as opposed to growing by taking outside money.
Again, it's not about semantics. Replace small business with whatever term you want. The point is that the blog writer built a certain type of business then tried to take it onto a different track that put pressure on faster growth and got in over his/her head.
And why isn't a barber shop a startup? Great Clips and Super Cuts were once new, fledgling businesses.
Not charging money, taking VC investment, joining an incubator, and creating a stupid name that ends in "fy" or "ly" a startup does not make.
BTW, I've read the essay. I like most of what he writes, but I have a fundamental disagreement on this one and just because it comes from the hands of PG does not make it gospel.
What does this mean, "designed to grow fast?" Only technology businesses can achieve overnight billion dollar valuations, so are we saying that anything that is not in the field of tech is not a startup? If you are aiming to become the next Google, Facebook, or Twitter, good luck to you but you're going to fail. Most businesses that drive our economy were not overnight success stories. Starbucks, Wal-Mart, and Macy's were once single store fronts whose founders were not aiming for "hocky-stick" growth out of the gate.
Ask John Paul DeJoria about what a startup is. The guy started by selling fucking shampoo to salons out of his car in Los Angeles when he was 36 and now owns Patron. Yes, the Tequila company. Watch this video for some perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hndfUwPpzyQ
I completely agree with this. Web/Tech are not the only industries that have startups. However, I do believe the "gotta have it right NOW" consumer attitude that the tech industry creates also creates the same kind of tech-focused venture capitalist.
You are free to disagree with PG. Doing so doesn't change the fact that he is the sort of authority who gets cited in Wikipedia articles on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company
The term "startup" originated during the dot-com bubble. The very origin of the term means it is supposed to apply primarily to new tech companies who are designed to grow fast.
A barber shop is not a startup. It is a small business. This doesn't make it any less legitimate as a venture. It just distinguishes it in terms of the nature of its business and industry.
edit: if you're going to downvote, at least have the courage to voice your disagreement as a reply.
Webster says "a fledgling business enterprise," and sites as its first use 1845. [1]
Unless there's another dot-com bubble that happened 150 years earlier than the one I know about, I think you're pretty well wrong about the etymology.
Within the HN-bubble, people may define "startup" to be "VC-backed-startup, but the term does have a meaning outside of that bubble. I call my own company a "startup", and I have no plans to seek out a slot in an incubator or investment from VC.
Let me try this again. When I said "Wow, you ..." I was really saying: "If all you're contributing is rephrased sections of wikipedia, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to sound like an authority"
Eh, I think you're dead wrong in every way, but I upvoted you nonetheless, since your post is a legitimate part of the discussion. I just don't agree with any of it.
It definitely pre-dates the dotcom bubble. I think I first heard the word in Inc Magazine in the early nineties.
Edit: Also, it was only during the bubble that you saw startups go from zero to IPO in two years, and moonshot IPOs were unheard of prior to Netscape. The conventional wisdom pre-Netscape is that you had to be profitable and growing for 6-8 quarters before the IPO. A "moonshot" IPO was one that bumped 10-15% on the first day. When Boston Chicken went public their stock was up something like 50% on the first day and it was major news.
We're talking about startups in the Silicon Valley Business vernacular,
Are we? I'm not in Silicon Valley, and what happens there is of little consequence to me. I, for one, only care what startup means in my vernacular.
For what it's worth, I consider a "startup" any business that's intended to grow into a very large business, where the definition of "very large" is somewhat fuzzy. But I don't think you have to have intent to achieve that in any certain period of time, in order to qualify as a startup.
(Not the OP) I've read PG's article, and it makes sense, but it narrowly fits YC's model and leaves out lean, bootstrapped companies. For that reason, I prefer Steve Blank's definition: "An organization in search of a repeatable, scalable business model". There's a good discussion here: http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-a-startup
You're far too concerned with a (buzz)word that loosely fits many, many businesses and definitions and isn't as exclusive or elite or prestigious as you may feel.
PG isn't the only author on the topic, nor is he the most tenured. He presents one point of view from someone with interest in seeing his viewpoint prevail.
