To get even more pedantic, they are building apps, not launching them.
Not that I want to dismiss the efforts - a group of people all challenging themselves to build out a side project in 24 hours is commendable. But building an idea into an MVP on a Saturday is not the same thing as launching a company.
Then we wouldn't need the word "startup" at all. But since people intuitively see a difference between opening up a deli and starting a social network, I think the word has a use.
I think people associcate startups with technology, high risk (compared to a proven business model that has worked a thousand times for other people), and potential for fast growth (with regards to the investment).
I think that's a post appstore or post web definition. I'm all for unsexy startups if they can turn the entire city into a customer and yet not be relevant outside of the city
Quite some irony in the fact that while some people are trying to build products quickly, Hacker News (run by startup incubator YCombinator) has a 20-comment thread debating what 'startup' means.
That's not what I'm advocating. Just arguing against the parent who said some equivalent of "while others are building products, you wannabe entrepreneurs are all talks here on HN".
How do you propose anyone will have a MVP within a day? Which is the purpose of this event. I mentioned giving them a month to develop and build some level of product and anticipation for what it is they're proposing. Nothing about calling them a 'start-up' based on any level of randomness. Or perhaps you don't understand the word 'maybe'.
We should take back the word 'startup' from people who want to make us think it is reserved for something that involves a business plan and raising money.
Having been interested in business since before the dot-com book, I've seen "Startup" transform from "New business, dealing with new business problems" to the very SV-driven notion that it's a new business expressly designed to scale quickly.
Words might need to mean something, but there's already been a lot of drift here.
That's of course not just happening now, it has always been a problem with the term. There has never been wide industry agreement as to what it means, going back decades.
That's how you end up with the media referring to 10 year old type companies that have thousands of employees as start-ups. I don't think a definition for it is going to get narrowed now, it will probably always be a broad/loose term.
In trying to “take back the word
startup” and redefine it to fit your own preferred meaning. I expect you will find, most on HN will take a more conservative position in it’s definition.
I agree that the term "startup" is not strictly defined. But often the nuances are "can we only call a quickly growing company a startup" (a la Paul Graham) or "can we call any young company a startup".
What the definitions agree on is that a startup is company, a business. Making a business involves a lot more than creating a product and is a much more complex undertaking.
Not that I want to dismiss the efforts - a group of people all challenging themselves to build out a side project in 24 hours is commendable. But building an idea into an MVP on a Saturday is not the same thing as launching a company.