A business makes money. You see them all around you. Restaurants, companies that sell products (online and offline), web design firms, etc.
These businesses impact the rest of society. Real, everyday people buy from these businesses and often rely on them. Your family interacts with them, understands them, knows them.
A startup is a game. You play by the rules of the game. You (traditionally) spend a lot of time seeking VC money, get enough VC money to spend the next few years working on whatever you want, regardless of the results, and then either sell the startup, get acquired, or shutdown (exit).
The players of the game are often the only ones involved. They're the founders, the customers, the VCs. The game has very little impact on the rest of society.
But it's not a game. When people's businesses (even startups) fail, there's real harm done, maybe harm that will take years to repair. I guess when it's OPM who cares... but that attitude can be a precursor to irresponsible spending/investment and there seems to be a bit of that going around these days.
Not really. Having been a low-level employee on several of these sinking ships in the past few years, the pattern is despicably predictable. Everyone who works for a startup knows the game they are playing. Many of the experienced ones will even see the writing on the wall and bail early. The laid off employees have no trouble finding their next job. Just like in Vegas, there's always another game starting up in Silicon Valley.
The VPs plan for failure going in. They may lose some money, but they'll cover the loses with some of their other investments. They play the odds.
I think the only real harm is to the state of California when hundreds of people are suddenly on unemployment for a month or two between jobs.
http://www.brighthub.com/office/entrepreneurs/articles/78553...
i heard people say that the Valley beats other places of the world in creating Suns, Googles and Facebooks because [one of the reasons] it risks more and considers failure as experience
(harm too, but not that deadly)
If a VC puts money and a startup doesn't get acquired, or goes to an IPO, but becomes profitable, the VC doesn't get anything, right (assuming no dividends)?
So making profit in that sense is still not considered success. So there's some validity to the idea that startups are a game. You're betting on a bigger fool acquiring it, whether it's another company, or the public market. Sort of like buying stocks.
To not be a failure you business must be a HUGE success, grow and profit like only startups like Google and Facebook have.
Customers pay you money, they are what you need to build a business. Having millions of users who don't provide any revenue is only useful if your goal is just to be bought by someone else.
I personally think that it's a sad state of affairs that most startups don't seem to be interested in building businesses, but instead just want to play the acquisition lottery instead.
So either Facebook/google etc. were never start-up or they are making imaginary money(in billions, I must say) from imaginary customers.
But Facebook does impact the rest of society. Families are sharing photos with loved ones, important news with those far away, etc.
Facebook's situation doesn't change my opinion though. It's an exception, not the rule.
There are however plenty of companies that are just starting up, being bootstrapped from the beginning, and are happily putting food on the founders' table, but these are the startups you never hear about.
And if "startup" is indeed the correct abstraction for your project, why not use it?
Finally, consider your audience when picking your words. Your family is likely to be more interested in what you're doing than the fact that you're doing it in a startup. You wouldn't tell them "I work in a company" either, you'd say "I am a software developer on product X that does Y for Z. I especially like that I get to do W".
Maybe I own a cat. It's a great cat. But this morning, I decided that it is actually a fish, and as such, is a failed fish, because it can't breathe underwater. Or maybe it can breathe underwater, because it was a fish all along.
In any case, expecting a change in behaviour just because I changed the name... bewildering.
Some innovative Fortune 500 companies are more of a startup or engage in more startup-like behavior than some self-proclaimed "startups" that have no idea about customers, market, and the discovery thereof.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Calling it a startup is avoiding facing the fact that you are trying to start a business, which needs to be profitable to ultimately put food on the table.
But calling it 'dung' kinda derails the conversation.
http://themodernprogrammer.com/post/ditch-the-term-startups/
If I have to depend on the service, let it better be provided by a business that is struggling to make money on it for as long as possible.
The historical tendency seems to be towards consolidation. The web has been a beautiful chaos for us, but we are already seeing the changes. To name two, SOPA seeks to more rigidly defend intellectual property rights; Google has started charging for excess use of its maps. In other words...people are looking to make money.
And that is reasonable.
The low hanging fruit of the internet will disappear shortly. Like the land rushes of the railroad era, where pamphlets proclaiming the glories of midwest farming were distributed all around the world, it is important to remember those pamphlets were printed by the railroad companies themselves.
Are you speculating? Claiming 160 acres of land in Nebraska in the hopes the town booms? Or are you selling train tickets leaving New York?
One of my favorite WTF? phrases is "start a startup", particularly when uttered with the "gummy" California speech pattern of a 17-year-old.
Hmmm. "Start a Business", that's what you want to do. What the hell is "start a startup"? Some kind of a recursive call? Does it imply that you are in that mode forever?
When are you done "starting a startup"?
I can see someone saying "We are going to launch an experimental business to test an idea" or "We are going to test an idea for a business" or "We launched a business to test a few ideas". Now that make sense. The term "startup" is amorphous and "start a startup" sounds even dumber.
Oh, yes, then there's "do a startup".
And reading some of the comments here, it seems many people have the same idea. I am surprised at this. I thought we had all learned this lesson back in the last Tech Crash in 2001. A startup is a business. A business needs to make money to survive. The purpose of a startup is to get the point of making money as quickly as possible. Simple as that.
Historically you wouldn't be a startup if you bought three ships and sailed around the map to collect spices from India, but we might consider Christopher to have been a startup which collected VC funds from Spain before three ships came sailing.
We call them startups because our clan (two guys one VC) inherited the name from the businesses before us (Amazon, Apple, Microsoft). If you want to go and change the name you will have resistance, because that's what the name for our culture is. We're filled with names that don't truthfully reflect who we are, for instance, American is often thought of as the nationality of people from the USA, but that's silly because the Americas contain many more nations. Why aren't Mexicans considered Americans, yet Germans are considered Europeans? Everyone understands that Americans are from the USA, and Europeans are from Europe.
Everyone understands that tech companies are from the land of two guys who are trying to start a business with some funding. I like the idea of changing the name to something with great synergy for a new cloud-based webospher3.0 on the extranet, but to be totally honest it's simple re-branding of something most people involved with startups and VC understand. If your company is stuck starting up, I have a hard time believing it's simply because you called yourselves a startup. Many "businesses" are also in the same "startup" phase, and it's not because they call themselves businesses. I like the re-branding only because the name "startup" is a silly name, just like I wish we didn't call people from the USA a word that represents the population of two continents.
I think you know this, but that's just a quirk of the language, that there's no euphonious way to say "United Statesan" since "States" isn't really a proper noun as a place name. "American" is a least-bad option.
Also, there could be other "United States" entities in the world. The USA isn't the only example of that construct. The demonym for a resident of the Federated States of Micronesia is "Micronesian".
Besides, "American" would be a bit too broad in applying to two whole continents. Nobody lumps Germans and Japanese together under "Eurasians". A Mexican is a "North American", which along with "South American" is a perfectly serviceable term and carries just about the same amount of specificity and meaning as "European".
Yes, naming is important, but it's also important to go along with established convention for meaningful communication. "Startup" conveys the potential of shoot-to-the-moon growth and profit that isn't possible in an established large company, and your listeners will lose some of that connotation if you switch to simply "business".
Likewise, a New Yorker can be someone from the state of New York, or someone from the City of New York.
Besides. Geologically/geographically there isn't one huge American Continent. There are two land masses. The North American continent in which North Americans live and the South American continent where South Americans live.
In that respect it's like the Eurasian continent. No one from the European and Asian continents call themselves Eurasian. There is a term 'Eurasian' but that's for people of mixed heritage.
Basically, the parent poster is tilting at windmills.
It's not a traditional business where you sell gadget A to person B and make the difference in buy/sell.
If you want to do the latter, go ahead, if the former, go ahead. But don't let labels hold you back from either.
wasn't it her job to make a business from the technology her partner was making?
However, the term "startup" took his focus away from thinking of it like a business. Once he realized that it actually was a business (which needs profits) he knew that it was a bad one and shut it down.
That said, I agree that there is some basic, foundational knowledge that it sounds like the author of this piece was missing. That's not uncommon among technologists though, in my experience. Myself, I was in this field a long time before I got around to reading "The Art of the Start" and "The Four Steps to the Epiphany" and that's when I really started to understand more about this "startup thing."
So yeah, I agree there is some stuff the OP might want to read / research / study... but I would suggest ditching the snarkiness in communicating that point.
I think the picture painted here is the larger problem. Someone who gets out of school and immediately sees client work as "just another client" is an issue. When someone sees self-employment as an easier option to the daily grind we have an issue. When someone thinks that their untested idea is worth devoting two years to, when everyone in their life has solid questions, it is an issue. And then to blame semantics for why you thought all of the above...terrifying.
When someone introduces themselves as an entrepreneur it is a symptom of an ego. Some people love being an entrepreneur more than they love being a great business.
Nowadays, I usually call myself an entrepreneur because being an entrepreneur in most cases indeed is fundamentally different from being employed, even if you're employed in the very same industry.
I find it easier to liken my 'job' to that of other business owners (including even something entirely different such as pubs) than to that of a software developer working for a Fortune 500 company (and I've been working for those, too).
I do take pride in being an entrepreneur. Does that have something to do with ego? It sure does but it isn't the only aspect.
I'd say though that society as a whole does have issues with the assumed default mode of being an employee. For starters, 9-5 sucks. Why do I have to sit 8+ hours at a desk to prove that I'm actually 'working'. Our whole idea of work organization is still so centred around the concept of personal presence and fixed working hours that it simply doesn't fit any more. Yet most companies still insist on these ideas. So you can't blame anyone for thinking that corporate working environments are ridiculous and not worth pursuing.
To think that you are above this time investment, or that you can achieve great success without equally great risk, is to believe that you are entitled to more needlessly. This entitlement (not you, just generally) is a mental disease which guarantees failure. Entrepreneur has this same tone. All pomp, without the blood, sweat, and tears to make it mean something.
