[onassar]

Rarely comment, but definitely identify with this. Given HN's general focus on growth and funding, I think it's great/important for an article/concept like this to be given some reach.

I find that there isn't enough critical thought given to why one ought to pursue an aggressive growth strategy. And that generally, staying small is seen as a failure to grow, rather than a conscious effort to grow in line with ones own life. Going from 3 to 100 employees in a (relatively) short period will naturally have a large impact on one's personal life and mental/emotional state. I think it's important to ask, before one ventures into that kind of adventure, whether or not you're okay risking mental/emotional (and arguably physical) stability in place of the adventure, and the potential financial windfall.

There's nothing wrong with saying no to that risk. This is a short life we have, and spending it chasing growth to keep up w/ the momentum of the extremes of capitalism doesn't need to be your game ;)

[edit] Prefer my last paragraph be written as: There's nothing wrong with saying no to that risk. This is a short life we have, and if you're spending it chasing growth to keep up w/ the momentum of the extremes of capitalism, it doesn't need to be your game ;)

[jasode]

>Given HN's general focus on growth and funding, I think it's great/important for an article/concept like this to be given some reach. [...] , it's refreshing to see an article like this

It's interesting how people get this inaccurate perspective. It's an interesting phenomenon where the majority (incorrectly) believes they are the suppressed minority. (I feel there must be a name to describe that phenomenon but I don't know what it is.)

The HN community actually is heavily tilted towards no-growth or low-growth bootstrapped companies. (I use "HN" to mean the HN discussion forum and not the YC fund.) Spending any time on HN and noticing what type of business articles are popular would make that obvious. Also, a relevant quote from dang: "Far more HN commenters (and voters) identify against VC than with it.": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13931617

Examples of this are the very popular David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH) articles that make a case for staying small and avoiding VC money that pressures you to grow fast:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14694434

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13668746

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13929398

Those get upvoted to the front page and commenters pile on in violent agreement. There's no need to be "refreshed" by the advice to stay small -- it's basically the default sentiment on HN.

[npgatech]

I found your comment a bit abrasive, yet you’re lacking the grit to support it besides just anecdotal evidence (just as the parent comment).

I have yet another opinion - I’ve seen a wide variety of articles on HN from how to grow fast to how to stay small. We’re not going to stay productive by arguing without data.

[jasode]

>support it besides just anecdotal evidence

If it isn't clear, "dang" is one of the longtime moderators and I'm confident he's seen enough quantity of posts over the years to have an accurate pulse of the HN readership.

There are virtually zero articles giving the advice to "take VC money and grow grow grow" that made it to the front page. (If you have examples, please post them.) The YC fund emphasizes exponential growth startups but in contrast, the HN discussions downgrade it.

This thread's article from Antoine Finkelstein and the DHH posts that I cited are much more popular with the HN crowd. I'm not complaining about it; it's just an interesting observation.

[npgatech]

I couldn't disagree with you more. Everyday, I read articles about VC. How to pitch, how to prepare, how to strategize a startup to ensure future growth, scalability, etc.

Let's just take an article from our own backyard: https://blog.ycombinator.com/ycs-essential-startup-advice/

Almost 800 points on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15331016

Quoting the article, "Growth is always a focus for startups, since a startup without growth is usually a failure." This is article doesn't apply to folks who want to stay small (the discussion of this topic ~ 3 people company).

You could have approached your argument a little less strongly - simply stating your opinions. Authoritative didactic statements require data to back it up otherwise it just sounds abrasive and completely unproductive.

[jasode]

>Everyday, I read articles about VC. How to pitch, how to prepare,

Ok, I see the misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about the existence of any VC startup related articles. Yes those do show up on HN. I wasn't talking about those.

I was talking about a very specific type of startup article that would advise you that "staying small is suboptimal and won't make you happy. Instead, if you want to be happy, you must get big by getting VC firms to invest in you." It's the the type of advice that's the opposite of what this article and DHH's articles are about. There are no such articles giving that type of growth-for-happiness advice on HN's front pages.

The "YC’s Essential Startup Advice" that you cited is meant for people who've already bought into the "startup" mindset and is mostly "build product fit" advice and not "growth=happy" advice. It's not a counterpoint to this article's advice nor counterpoint to the popular DHH articles.

(I see that you participated in that previous thread's discussion so it may seem like YC startup advice dominates here. You wanted tactical advice on starting a small business that wasn't AirBnb or Uber and that article didn't cater to that scenario.)

>Quoting the article, "Growth is always a focus for startups, since a startup without growth is usually a failure."

Yes, that quote about "startup=growth" is relevant to YC's and Paul Graham's definition of "startup" so it's their tautological statement in the context of their blog post. It's not advising that entrepreneurs of small businesses will find happiness by chasing growth. Yes, a small bootstrapped business that stays small is another definition of "startup" but that's not the "startup" YC/PG are talking about.

To restate the context of my comment, the gp (onassar) wrote, "I think it's great/important for an article/concept like this to be given some reach."

... which he is agreeing with the advice of the article to avoid VC money to stay "happy". He framed it as if that "happy=small" idea was some "lone voice in the woods" that everybody on HN needs to be reminded of. My point is that onassar must have some false impression because that's already the overwhelming sentiment on HN.

>it just sounds abrasive

Did you also find Daniel Gackle's (dang) comment abrasive?

[v_lisivka]

Startup is aimed at growth, to become next unicorn. If your business is not aimed at growth, then it is just regular business.

YCombinator is incubator for startups, hence their HN site is aimed at startups too.

[paganel]

I first registered on HN many years ago because reddit had started to become more “mainstream”, so to speak, i.e. the programming-related posts had become the exception rather than the rule. As such I was never interested in start-ups, no matter how the HN founders relate to the start-up world. I think I’m not the only one in this boat. I’m also not obsessing that much over money, other than having enough funds for decent rent, a low-middle-class vacation per year and for gas and insurance for my small 1.4l hatchback. Paying (sometimes) too much money for books is my only guilty pleasure, but you don’t need to own a business in order to do that.

[combatentropy]

> What to Submit:

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

--- https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[onassar]

Interesting view; I suppose if you look at HN as an extension of YC, then you're right: it would make sense that HN tends to focus/cater more to the growth/funding points of view.

For me, HN has become a source of news/ideas related to innovation (with an obvious leaning towards digital/technological innovation).

I guess, given how I see this community (and use it for access), it's refreshing to see an article like this :)

[wslh]

You missed an important point: a startup can pursue growth in a healthy way which is not frantically scaling. It can take a decade or more to convert/pivot your company into a valuable one. The typical VC fund structure limits this approach.

[jchw]

I can see why YCombinator would be biased toward startups that raise funding, HOWEVER: I've always understood the word 'startup' to simply mean any new business.

[baxtr]

It very much depends on how you define a startup

[tablet]

Exactly. Startup = Growth http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

[neltnerb]

I mean, Steve Blank's definition is equally valid.

https://steveblank.com/2010/01/25/whats-a-startup-first-prin...

"A startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model."

Maybe you see "scalable" and think "to a billion users". I see "scalable" and think "sustainable over the long term".

I think a small business is when you know the business model can work and have moved on to long-term execution. Until then you are a startup.

[vonmoltke]

> I think a small business is when you know the business model can work and have moved on to long-term execution. Until then you are a startup.

I disagree slightly. A small business is one where the founders have a particular business model in mind, regardless if it's feasibility. If the business model is wrong, the business folds; it doesn't pivot. Until I was introduced to the startup community this was my sole understanding of "starting a business".

[combatentropy]

This reminds me of the story of the fisherman and businessman, https://www.becomingminimalist.com/recognizing-happiness/