[dkrich]

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

[thatinstant]

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.

[greghinch]

There's nothing to say a bootstrapped company can't become a a startup. When they start going for growth

Edit: See below, I was referring to accelerated growth

[coolsunglasses]

Self-fulfilling stereotype.

PG doesn't exclusively define the startup world.

Is there really any point in Github's development that anyone would've doubted it was a startup?

[eclipxe]

Please, just re-read what you wrote and tell me you're saying this with a straight face.

[greghinch]

I should have prefaced it as "accelerated" growth.

But I stand by that.

[danmaz74]

I'm glad you changed your mind. Maybe you could make an amendment to your first post, if you really mean this. bootstrapped != not built to grow

[31reasons]

Couldn't agree more.

[enraged_camel]

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.

[SomeCallMeTim]

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.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/start-up

[trotsky]

The term "startup" originated during the dot-com bubble.

Wow, you get some bullshit ideas about business if you get your mba at wikipedia.

[enraged_camel]

I may have quoted it wrong. Wikipedia says it became popular during the dotcom bubble.

[trotsky]

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"

[mindcrime]

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.

[drumdance]

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.