> "So I've made a new rule: unless you've raised money, are bringing in substantial revenue, or have a sizable active user base, don't call whatever you're building a startup."
So... bootstrapped companies can't be startups? What about a funded, B2B service that is bringing in millions in revenue, but only has two clients signed up?
> "Every time you introduce your product to someone as a startup, you set an expectation for where the conversation is going next: your funding, revenue, user base, that sort of talk."
No it doesn't. It only does if you interact solely with people in a very specific subset of entrepreneurs. You know the type - the people who are always at "startup parties" and hanging out in incubators and coworking spaces all day. There is a large, large world out there where the word "startup" doesn't automatically lead a conversation someplace.
And even within that scene, I have rarely run into situations where "startup" automatically steers the conversation towards funding, userbase, and revenue. Methinks the author hangs out with the wrong people.
> "someone tells you they're doing a startup, you ask for details, and it turns out to be pretty nascent. Kind of a let down, right?"
No, because I haven't pigeonholed the word "startup" into something incredibly, and to be blunt, absurdly specific.
> "The more we throw around the word "startup", the less of an impact it has when we actually want it to matter."
Because it doesn't matter. The word "startup" is a general descriptor for the nature and state of your business. If you are throwing that word around for "impact", you are no better than these other people you complain about.
> So... bootstrapped companies can't be startups? What about a funded, B2B service that is bringing in millions in revenue, but only has two clients signed up?
I think the missed the "or" in "raised money, are bringing in substantial revenue, /or/ have a sizable active user base". Your B2B example is perfectly fine. And I think some of your other points are based on this misunderstanding, too.
So, I quit my job and decide to bootstrap a company. I've launched my product and it's in its very early stages of gaining traction.
I'm not allowed to say "I'm working on a startup?" - even though my cofounder(s) and I have poured tens of thousands of our own money into it and have been full-timing it for months?
Forgive me for being blunt: but this reads like whining. You want the your use of the word "startup" to automatically grant you some credibility, and are complaining about people who are trying to do the same.
You will find this in any community. You're not a real painter unless you [blank], you're not a real photographer unless you [blank], you're not a real writer unless you [blank], you're not a real programmer unless you [blank]. And now, you're not a real startup unless you [blank].
@10char: If you're saying that you meant any of 3 paths(funding/revenue/users), then you might want to rephrase more explicitly, i.e. "either of a, b or c" OR "a or b or c", because it currently reads as a+b or c.
When I talk with somebody who is working on a real business, they usually are most excited to talk about "what they do" rather than spitting out labels. I see so many people (especially on HN) say "startup(s)", when they are just referring to a 1/4 done side project with no users.
I feel the word "startup" has been dragged through the mud by wantrepreneurs. I have mostly removed it from my vocabulary.
I tell everyone that I'm working on "a web page". Seriously. It's funny, and it starts the conversation off with a good, playful tone that makes it clear that I don't take myself too seriously.
I don't think this is a particularly good standard. If anything, I find startups at the very early stages (well before serious funding) the most interesting ones to consider. What am I to call a company like this? The whole point is that it's a start--that's why it's a startup!
I think the term should move in the opposite direction: consider even the most nascent of companies "startups", but stop calling large, well-funded and well-staffed companies like Twitter startups. There is far more difference between Twitter and a funded 10-person company than there is between that same 10-person company and a brand new two-person venture.
Maybe it's a function of whom you talk to, but I've found the conversation about a startup does not proceed to "your funding, revenue, user base, that sort of talk". It proceeds to talking about your product, your idea and your technology. Sure, after that, people might ask about users and revenue, but they understand if that's in the future. On the other hand, if your idea or technology is sufficiently interesting, the topic often just stays on that.
Now, if you're just writing an iPhone app with no real plans to grow it into a company, or you just started a project for fun, maybe you shouldn't call it a startup. But if you plan to grow and get significant funding or revenue, you are a startup--just maybe a temporarily inconvenienced one :).
I think the key question is really "are you basically ready to turn this into a registered company?" If you aren't, then it's not a startup.
More importantly, you don't "work on a startup". You work on a project, a product, a service, an idea. If you're working on a startup, you're hopefully a consultant of some kind: legal, HR, whatnot.
It's okay to say "I work at a startup." But that's really less than useful information for both you and the person you're talking to. It's about the same value as "I'm an Asian-American." Congrats, you qualify for a scholarship. Cookie? At least say "I'm an engineering major." or "I'm doing mobile."
Calling your little side project a startup makes you look naive. That's why I prefer using "project" in most of these cases. When the OP says I'm working on my own thing right now, I'd replace thing with project.
A startup, legally, is a business that is starting up. There is no requirement to actually incorporate or form a company as long as the intent to start a business is present. The startup period is generally defined as a business's first year (possibly first two years) during which it is still engaged in the processing of beginning its business operations. Once it has begun its normal business operations, it is no longer a startup.
A business with substantial revenue, traction, activities, _or_ funding, is legally by definition not a startup. It is simply a company. Twitter and Facebook are not startups, and they haven't been for years. Stripe is not a startup. Kickstarter is not a startup. BingoCardCreator is not a startup.
But note that it is possible to have startups within an existing company. Tax-wise, at least, a business is distinct from a company. A business is a money-generating venture (or a venture intended to generate money); a company is a legal vehicle for housing one or more businesses. So long as the business activity is new, it may be a startup.
> "So I've made a new rule: unless you've raised money, are bringing in substantial revenue, or have a sizable active user base, don't call whatever you're building a startup."
So... bootstrapped companies can't be startups? What about a funded, B2B service that is bringing in millions in revenue, but only has two clients signed up?
> "Every time you introduce your product to someone as a startup, you set an expectation for where the conversation is going next: your funding, revenue, user base, that sort of talk."
No it doesn't. It only does if you interact solely with people in a very specific subset of entrepreneurs. You know the type - the people who are always at "startup parties" and hanging out in incubators and coworking spaces all day. There is a large, large world out there where the word "startup" doesn't automatically lead a conversation someplace.
And even within that scene, I have rarely run into situations where "startup" automatically steers the conversation towards funding, userbase, and revenue. Methinks the author hangs out with the wrong people.
> "someone tells you they're doing a startup, you ask for details, and it turns out to be pretty nascent. Kind of a let down, right?"
No, because I haven't pigeonholed the word "startup" into something incredibly, and to be blunt, absurdly specific.
> "The more we throw around the word "startup", the less of an impact it has when we actually want it to matter."
Because it doesn't matter. The word "startup" is a general descriptor for the nature and state of your business. If you are throwing that word around for "impact", you are no better than these other people you complain about.