> By that definition many unicorns that are seen as prototypes of successful startups would never have been startups.
I don't think that's true? Which unicorns are not companies that were pursuing high-growth, or that were trying to build a unique product<>business model?
> I think you have been tricked by YC and other VCs to accept this definition of 'built from the start for hyper-growth'.
I haven't been tricked into anything. We are commenting on an article written by Steve Blank, one of the "founders" of the lean startup movement. His definition of a startup is "a startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model." [1]
Of course this is all just semantics, so feel free to use the word in a different way. Where I disagree with you is this:
> To me and most people I know, a startup is a project or company in the growth phase.
I simply don't think that's true. I think most people would not consider e.g. a new law office to be a startup, definitely not in the context of talking about things like the "lean startup" movement.
That's why I love Steve Blank's definition - I think it does what every good definition does - it gives more understanding. It helps give a simple answer to "when does a company stop being a 'startup' and become a regular company". The answer is - when it has found a scalable business model, and is now executing on that.
For the record, I'm a big fan of bootstrapping, I ran a successful bootstrapped development agency in the past (which was acquired), and am now back to running a (bootstrapped) consultancy. I just don't think that people would include my company when thinking of startups - and that's fine! Entrepreneurship takes many forms.
Silicon Valley holds very dear the romantic Jobsian definition of "startup" - two individuals bootstrapping a company from their garage (though Woz has stated "We did no designs there, no breadboarding, no prototyping, no planning of products. We did no manufacturing there.”).
English being what it is, it is fine for "lean startup" to have a different definition of startup from the word "startup", confusing as that may be.
> Apple? HP? Pretty much every Silicon Valley company that started with one or two guys in in a garage?
I mean, Steve Blank's definition as semi-quoted by me included "or were trying to build a unique product <> business model". I think it's safe to say that Apple was trying to build a unique product <> business model, as was HP.
In any case, a new law firm is a new company. So were Apple and Facebook. I think it makes sense to differentiate between them, and Steve Blank's definition seems to be the best to me (it focuses on what actually makes all the difference - the amount of foreknowledge you have on the market fit of your product).
> The definitions of "startup" and "unicorn" seem to be forever evolving.
Unicorn is actually a pretty well-defined term in this context. And it's really new, too, something like 5-8 years old if I remember correctly. A private company with a valuation of more than 1 billion dollars..
I think you both are arguing two different things.
You seem to be saying that there are a lot of businesses, which will never be startups.
While that's true, they seem to be saying that being a startup is not an immutable trait of a company, but rather a phase, and that any side project or solo business could enter the startup phase at any time.
Sure, most people wouldn't consider a law office to be a startup. Most people also wouldn't consider a consultancy like 37Signals a startup. Most people wouldn't consider a novel URL-ranking algorithm like Google's a startup, or any number of other projects or businesses that didn't begin as startups.
That's not to say that a restaurant is likely to turn into a bootstrapped startup or anything. I think their main point was that not all startups started out with intentions of high growth. Your initial response was that "Solo entrepreneurs are not starting a startup, not as I (and most people) understand the term." To that, I think what they are saying is, "they could be."
You could then argue that startups which aren't yet startups are outside the scope of the OP's original statement that, "For every Startup raising $X million in funding there are probably a thousand solo entrepreneurs bootstrapping their way into profitability." Because, when they do become a startup, then they'll be raising money just like everyone else.
However, even that rebuttal would ignore all the startups that became startups aimed at high growth driven by profitability instead of raising millions at the outset. [1]
Honestly, I think the reason funded startups get more media coverage than bootstrapped startups comes down to simple numbers. There is a large but finite amount of demand for news on successful startups. There aren't enough successful acquisitions, IPOs, or openly successful companies to fill the demand, so we have to dip into indicators of future success, such as funding, to satisfy the demand for news on interesting new businesses. However, as many startups as there are getting funding, there are even more side projects and small businesses being started. Most aren't successful yet, and if they are, they're too busy being successful to proactively reach out to the media with an interesting story.
In other words, I think funding rounds are just an easy source/filter for journalists to publish on, and which require little effort editorializing to be considered interesting by the masses.
> While that's true, they seem to be saying that being a startup is not an immutable trait of a company, but rather a phase, and that any side project or solo business could enter the startup phase at any time.
I mostly agree with you, but I don't really agree with this idea. I mean, theoretically, yes, it's true - but I still think it makes sense to differentiate between a new restaurant, and someone trying to create a new technology product/company with billion dollar potential.
And this is what investors are looking for, too, which is why only this kind of startup gets VC money.
Agreed, but I don't think we're arguing that small businesses, like restaurants, want VC money and don't get it. I also don't think we're necessarily talking about the fact that small businesses don't get media attention. Instead, we're just talking about the fact that the media focuses on the companies taking VC money, while the growth-oriented, profitable startups (i.e. not restaurants) build companies with much less attention from the media.
I don't think that's true? Which unicorns are not companies that were pursuing high-growth, or that were trying to build a unique product<>business model?
> I think you have been tricked by YC and other VCs to accept this definition of 'built from the start for hyper-growth'.
I haven't been tricked into anything. We are commenting on an article written by Steve Blank, one of the "founders" of the lean startup movement. His definition of a startup is "a startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model." [1]
Of course this is all just semantics, so feel free to use the word in a different way. Where I disagree with you is this:
> To me and most people I know, a startup is a project or company in the growth phase.
I simply don't think that's true. I think most people would not consider e.g. a new law office to be a startup, definitely not in the context of talking about things like the "lean startup" movement.
That's why I love Steve Blank's definition - I think it does what every good definition does - it gives more understanding. It helps give a simple answer to "when does a company stop being a 'startup' and become a regular company". The answer is - when it has found a scalable business model, and is now executing on that.
For the record, I'm a big fan of bootstrapping, I ran a successful bootstrapped development agency in the past (which was acquired), and am now back to running a (bootstrapped) consultancy. I just don't think that people would include my company when thinking of startups - and that's fine! Entrepreneurship takes many forms.
[1] https://steveblank.com/2010/01/25/whats-a-startup-first-prin...