[apsurd]

I'll take a shot. In his post there is not one word about revenue, cashflow, plan for monetization , etc. It's the typical "Let's get more users" gauge of success.

Businesses make money.

Just look at exactly what he is saying. He is talking about his lack of user traction as a reason for why his startup fail. i.e. "my startup failed because i don't have enough users".

Businesses fail for one reason and one reason only. They spend more money than they make.

How is this a business?

[laut]

The word "startup" wasn't used by the author of the post.

[benhoyt]

In the blog post he didn't, though it looks like the HN user (intregus) who submitted the link is the author of the post.

[ironkeith]

While I can understand your values (and agree with them) your definition would make YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and dozens more "not start-ups". Or businesses.

[jlangenauer]

That might be closer to the truth than you think - Facebook being the exception, as it's actually pulling in decent revenues at the moment.

Imagine if every business was operated on the same principles as these magic-beans business model start-ups.....

[apsurd]

And even in facebook's case: Revenue is one thing, profit is another...

[webwright]

"Businesses fail for one reason and one reason only. They spend more money than they make."

True, but that's not the definition of a business. Facebook and Twitter are certainly businesses. The "get users, figure out monetization" path is a real-business path (though I happen to think it's riskier).