Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lifestyle Startups Stigma

appicurious.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#41

Post by pg »

kbutler wrote: post #40
pg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In current usage, a startup means a new business that is designed to scale rapidly. (Most don't actually manage to, but they're at least intended to.) It would be inconvenient if people started using the word to describe new businesses generally, because then we'd need to invent a new word for the subset designed to scale rapidly.

Merriam-Webster disagrees: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/startup 1: the act or an instance of setting in operation or motion 2: a fledgling business enterprise Fledgling also lacks any connotation of scaling. Perhaps the VC/angel community has adopted "startup" to imply design for rapid scaling, but the broader community uses startup to mean "new business."

That's about as precise as most dictionary definitions. It doesn't mean the actual meaning of the word is that broad, just that dictionaries don't go into excessive detail.

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#42

Post by wanorris »

JoelSutherland wrote: post #26
pg wrote: post #13

There's already a word for a lifestyle startup: a business.

The author says: "There is a stigma against running a lifestyle startup (business)" PG Says: "Please don't even use the word startup when describing what you do."

A lifestyle business is a particular type of business, and a startup is another distinct type. They each have different requirements and business models, just as either one is different from a large public corporation.

Most of the Silicon Valley startup infrastructure is basically extraneous to a lifestyle business. Incubators, angel investors, VCs, all the other support pieces built for rapid growth -- all of that is geared toward businesses that have a chance of getting huge and IPOing and giving back a huge return to everyone who helped it along.

With a lifestyle business, by contrast, you tend to self-finance, you shepherd your cash and investments carefully, and if you need to expand, you might go talk to your bank about a line of credit and show them your cash flow and consistent returns to date in order to help secure it.

Lifestyle businesses can be great. My dad has a successful retail store, a low-stress environment, a great house, and plenty of time to enjoy it all. We should all be so lucky. They're just not the same thing as startups.

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#43

Post by potatolicious »

viscanti wrote: post #36
dmor wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

some businesses are just businesses, not startups, and thats ok.

I suppose our definition of "startup" differs. It seems a startup can only be a startup if it's attempting to solve a problem that requires significant upfront capital and scaling. I disagree with that view. For me, a startup is a company exploring the solution to a problem. That can be a BIG problem and that requires significant scaling, or it can be a smaller problem. Once that solution is found, and can be replica…

Reading this thread, I can't help but have the thought:

We're really arguing about semantics. This is the definition "startup" in the Silicon Valley echo chamber vs. the definition of "startup" everywhere else in the world.

Sometimes I rather dislike the term - it seems to, at least in a small way, justify the bubblicious way many companies in our field are run, particularly in the Valley. Can you imagine saying to someone "I run my own business" and then be unable to answer "so what do you drive revenue from"?

It seems to me in this community there's a tendency to believe that "startup" businesses (as SV likes to define it) somehow transcend the traditional rules of business, and this quibbling over nomenclature doesn't help at all. By believing that you're "not just like those antiquated 'businesses'", you're more liable to, well, do things like run a company without a plan for revenue.

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#44

Post by rooshdi »

pg wrote: post #41
kbutler wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merriam-Webster disagrees: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/startup 1: the act or an instance of setting in operation or motion 2: a fledgling business enterprise Fledgling also lacks any connotation of scaling. Perhaps the VC/angel community has adopted "startup" to imply design for rapid scaling, but the broader community uses startup to mean "new business."

That's about as precise as most dictionary definitions. It doesn't mean the actual meaning of the word is that broad, just that dictionaries don't go into excessive detail.

There seems to be varying opinions on what a startup actually is. Some definitions focus on the ability to rapidly scale, while others emphasize the fragility of startups. For instance, Eric Ries, author of The Lean Startup, defines a startup as "a human institution designed to deliver a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty." This definition would tend to include almost every new business, while your definition of a startup would only include those which are structured for rapid growth. Maybe I'm being a bit too pedantic, but it seems the word "startup" is being used so inconsistently nowadays that it has lost a bit of its meaning.

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#45

Post by DanielRibeiro »

rooshdi wrote: post #44
pg wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's about as precise as most dictionary definitions. It doesn't mean the actual meaning of the word is that broad, just that dictionaries don't go into excessive detail.

There seems to be varying opinions on what a startup actually is. Some definitions focus on the ability to rapidly scale, while others emphasize the fragility of startups. For instance, Eric Ries, author of The Lean Startup , defines a startup as "a human institution designed to deliver a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty." This definition would tend to include almost every new business,…

The problem lies in the definition of "new" and "extreme". Both are very loose.

In the standard Techcrunch definition of "new", and "extreme", "new" is "new" and hasn't been done successfully before (or at least in the reach of the startup in question).

And "extreme uncertanty" usually means: you have a burn rate which forces you to rapidly achieve product-market fit, pivot, get more money, or give up. The above definition of "new" adds up to the "extreme uncertanty", as you are not sure what you are currently doing is something people want, and even if you pivot into something else, you will not be sure about it as well.

Therefore, a new old' fashioned bakery is a new business, but it is not doing something "new", neither has "extreme uncertainty" attached to it.

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#46

Post by rooshdi »

DanielRibeiro wrote: post #45
rooshdi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be varying opinions on what a startup actually is. Some definitions focus on the ability to rapidly scale, while others emphasize the fragility of startups. For instance, Eric Ries, author of The Lean Startup , defines a startup as "a human institution designed to deliver a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty." This definition would tend to include almost every new business,…

The problem lies in the definition of "new" and "extreme". Both are very loose. In the standard Techcrunch definition of "new", and "extreme", "new" is "new" and hasn't been done successfully before (or at least in the reach of the startup in question). And "extreme uncertanty" usually means: you have a burn rate which forces you to rapidly achieve product-market fit, pivot, get more money, or give up. The above defi…

Yes, but won't that new old' fashion bakery still have "extreme uncertainty" in its successful outlook, especially in today's dire economic conditions?

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#47

Post by rhizome »

kbutler wrote: post #40
pg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In current usage, a startup means a new business that is designed to scale rapidly. (Most don't actually manage to, but they're at least intended to.) It would be inconvenient if people started using the word to describe new businesses generally, because then we'd need to invent a new word for the subset designed to scale rapidly.

Merriam-Webster disagrees: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/startup 1: the act or an instance of setting in operation or motion 2: a fledgling business enterprise Fledgling also lacks any connotation of scaling. Perhaps the VC/angel community has adopted "startup" to imply design for rapid scaling, but the broader community uses startup to mean "new business."

If a "baby bird" metaphor doesn't connote growth and scaling I'll eat my hat.

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#48

Post by DanielRibeiro »

rooshdi wrote: post #46
DanielRibeiro wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem lies in the definition of "new" and "extreme". Both are very loose. In the standard Techcrunch definition of "new", and "extreme", "new" is "new" and hasn't been done successfully before (or at least in the reach of the startup in question). And "extreme uncertanty" usually means: you have a burn rate which forces you to rapidly achieve product-market fit, pivot, get more money, or give up. The above defi…

Yes, but won't that new old' fashion bakery still have "extreme uncertainty" in its successful outlook, especially in today's dire economic conditions?

The old' fashioned is not creating anything "new", by definition. If it is delivering it in some way like Zappos delivers shoes, or Uber send cabs, it is another story.

The "extreme" part usually conceives that you don't know if what you are doing is something people want. We know old fashioned bakeries is something people want. This can be seen on how much Eric Ries talk about "pivots". A bakery pivoting will not be an old' fashioned bakery.

Again, the definition is loose. Eric Ries' mentor Steven Blank has a more precise definition[1] which removes these cases:

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

I don't think these definitions are made to replace one another, they are made to give different views of the same object. The same way an elephant is not a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan or rope[2].

Edit: Swombat recently argued[3] that the difference between a startup a and a lifestyle business is that a "lifestyle business" lacks vision.

[1] http://steveblank.com/2010/01/25/whats-a-startup-first-princ...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#John_...

[3] http://swombat.com/2011/10/19/startup-vision

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#49

Post by 6ren »

pg wrote: post #13

There's already a word for a lifestyle startup: a business.

Is YC a startup?

(My searches didn't reveal this question asked previously - though it must have been. IIRC, YC was more broadly as a company that makes companies, rather than a startup that makes startups.)

Re: Lifestyle Startups Stigma

#50

Post by kbutler »

rhizome wrote: post #47
kbutler wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merriam-Webster disagrees: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/startup 1: the act or an instance of setting in operation or motion 2: a fledgling business enterprise Fledgling also lacks any connotation of scaling. Perhaps the VC/angel community has adopted "startup" to imply design for rapid scaling, but the broader community uses startup to mean "new business."

If a "baby bird" metaphor doesn't connote growth and scaling I'll eat my hat.

Moderate growth, yes. Scaling, no. There is a very definite limit on the size of a baby bird.

A scaling metaphor from nature would be something like a tree seed becoming a forest.

Hope that hat's tasty.

Post reply on HN