The $12 Startup(seanpercival.com)
seanpercival.com
The $12 Startup
http://www.seanpercival.com/blog/2009/07/29/the-12-startup/
17 comments
small business: a small business that intends to stay small e.g. a hamburger shop
startup: a small business that intends to get big. example: a chain of hamburger shops (of course a chain is only one way to "get big").
Note that because they are distinguished by intention, you could have two factually identical hamburger shops, with one being a small business, and the other being a startup run by a deluded nutter, who crazily envisioned a chain of hamburger shops, when every sensible right-thinking person knew that was silly. But I would call it a startup, because of the intention.
pg thinks that it's rare for a startup to succeed (read: "get big") without funding (I'm not so sure, but I can't think of any counter-examples: google, yahoo etc all had funding).
37 signals advocates organic growth, and this works really well for a small business, such as "just a website that sells license plates". 37 signals themselves seem to have grown significantly, but I'm not sure they would be classed a "big company", but seem on the small end of "medium/small business" - therefore they are not (yet) an example of a startup getting big without funding (I'm not sure of their intention - it could be that they don't want this; i.e. that they aren't a "startup" at all). Joel's Fog Creek software is also small at the moment - I don't know whether he intends to become big, and so whether his company is a startup or a small business.
startup: a small business that intends to get big. example: a chain of hamburger shops (of course a chain is only one way to "get big").
Note that because they are distinguished by intention, you could have two factually identical hamburger shops, with one being a small business, and the other being a startup run by a deluded nutter, who crazily envisioned a chain of hamburger shops, when every sensible right-thinking person knew that was silly. But I would call it a startup, because of the intention.
pg thinks that it's rare for a startup to succeed (read: "get big") without funding (I'm not so sure, but I can't think of any counter-examples: google, yahoo etc all had funding).
37 signals advocates organic growth, and this works really well for a small business, such as "just a website that sells license plates". 37 signals themselves seem to have grown significantly, but I'm not sure they would be classed a "big company", but seem on the small end of "medium/small business" - therefore they are not (yet) an example of a startup getting big without funding (I'm not sure of their intention - it could be that they don't want this; i.e. that they aren't a "startup" at all). Joel's Fog Creek software is also small at the moment - I don't know whether he intends to become big, and so whether his company is a startup or a small business.
I do not agree at all with your definition of startup. I would just put it under small bussiness too. Yes, they have the intention of getting big, but everybody has that hope.
pg puts it well in one of his essayes: a startup is a company that solves a hard technical problem. The techical part is essential, not an afterthought. A fast-food chain would use tech, but it would not advance the art.
pg puts it well in one of his essayes: a startup is a company that solves a hard technical problem. The techical part is essential, not an afterthought. A fast-food chain would use tech, but it would not advance the art.
Not everybody has the hope to get big, e.g. my favourite cafe doesn't.
I would say that someone who wishes to get big, but doesn't take appropriate action, will still have a startup, albeit likely unsuccessful. You might define someone's company as not being a startup because you don't think they will be successful - but how do you know they won't be? Hence my ironic use of "delusional" etc. Many startups were doubted before they became successful.
http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html references the example to which I alluded: McDonald's.
I would say that someone who wishes to get big, but doesn't take appropriate action, will still have a startup, albeit likely unsuccessful. You might define someone's company as not being a startup because you don't think they will be successful - but how do you know they won't be? Hence my ironic use of "delusional" etc. Many startups were doubted before they became successful.
http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html references the example to which I alluded: McDonald's.
I really like Eric Ries definition of a startup:
A startup is a human institution designed to deliver a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty.
http://startuplessonslearned.blogspot.com/2009/05/lean-start...
If I was to add anything to it, it would be something about 'ability to scale'.
A startup is a human institution designed to deliver a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty.
http://startuplessonslearned.blogspot.com/2009/05/lean-start...
If I was to add anything to it, it would be something about 'ability to scale'.
A business is a business, even if it has a simple obvious business model - you still have to put a value on your time, do paperwork for it if you make any money (or not, I guess the domain registration is deductible) and buy some keywords or whatever.
Of course, it's not the sort of startup we love on HN because there's no new technology or functionality involved, and it has no potential as a tool in and of itself. But I'd say it's still a startup, banality and all. I look forward to hearing more about it; I'd love to have a side project bringing in a few grand a year on a one-day-a-week basis.
Of course, it's not the sort of startup we love on HN because there's no new technology or functionality involved, and it has no potential as a tool in and of itself. But I'd say it's still a startup, banality and all. I look forward to hearing more about it; I'd love to have a side project bringing in a few grand a year on a one-day-a-week basis.
A startup is just a venture where the goal is to make a company that can manufacture masses of license plates cheaply.
Google manufactures search, Microsoft operating systems, etc.
Once you make the switch from developing better and cheaper license plates to churning them out at a high rate you're no longer a startup but just another company.
Google manufactures search, Microsoft operating systems, etc.
Once you make the switch from developing better and cheaper license plates to churning them out at a high rate you're no longer a startup but just another company.
That only works if your time is worth $0.
I'm not sure I understand how that doesn't apply to every startup. If you insist on valuing your time fairly from day one, you can never start anything new. You must work for someone else, who can pay you a fair wage. The trade is in the payoff one, two, or seven years down the road.
The payoff for this guy was $100,000, and he seems content with that payoff. For me, just the fact that I don't have to answer to a boss, be in the office at a certain time each day, or have to deal with constant meetings or corporate culture, is enough incentive for me to voluntarily value my time lower than I would working for someone else. Add in the potential for a very large payoff in the future (either an acquisition, an IPO, or just building a multi-million dollar business) and the trade is more than fair. I'd actually do it all for much less than I'm currently paid and less than I expect to be paid in the long run.
The payoff for this guy was $100,000, and he seems content with that payoff. For me, just the fact that I don't have to answer to a boss, be in the office at a certain time each day, or have to deal with constant meetings or corporate culture, is enough incentive for me to voluntarily value my time lower than I would working for someone else. Add in the potential for a very large payoff in the future (either an acquisition, an IPO, or just building a multi-million dollar business) and the trade is more than fair. I'd actually do it all for much less than I'm currently paid and less than I expect to be paid in the long run.
I don't insist on valuing time fairly from day one. I'm saying that it's intellectually dishonest to say that he turned a $12 domain registration into a $100,000 payday as though there was nothing in between.
The fact of the matter is that making $100,000 from starting up is significantly harder and costlier than it would be to make $100,000 holding down a day job. I know the audience here knows that especially well, and I know that you specifically know that very well. I just feel like it devalues what startups do when people just hand-wave away the fact that being successful necessitates blood, sweat and tears.
The fact of the matter is that making $100,000 from starting up is significantly harder and costlier than it would be to make $100,000 holding down a day job. I know the audience here knows that especially well, and I know that you specifically know that very well. I just feel like it devalues what startups do when people just hand-wave away the fact that being successful necessitates blood, sweat and tears.
being successful necessitates blood, sweat and tears
This is one of those Real Scotsman pieces of lore which I think we repeat to flatter ourselves. I bleed a lot less for my startup than my day job, let me tell you.
This is one of those Real Scotsman pieces of lore which I think we repeat to flatter ourselves. I bleed a lot less for my startup than my day job, let me tell you.
There is work involved in everything.
That's a straw man argument.
Patrick didn't say there wasn't work involved.
Patrick didn't say there wasn't work involved.
Even inheritance?
It is a state of mind. I just don't like the idea that people write off things to luck, talent, miracles, and gifts from God.
Please note I don't discount these things, and those metaphysical wonders surely do exist (imo), but rather, it is a better builder of character to believe that everything is the result of personal decision and action.
As an aside, this is why I always stay away from the Tim Ferris bickering. Everyone wants to believe he's a fraud. Whether he is or not is not important to me or you. Tim Ferris does things. That's it.
Probably a bit too romantic, but I like movie script endings.
Please note I don't discount these things, and those metaphysical wonders surely do exist (imo), but rather, it is a better builder of character to believe that everything is the result of personal decision and action.
As an aside, this is why I always stay away from the Tim Ferris bickering. Everyone wants to believe he's a fraud. Whether he is or not is not important to me or you. Tim Ferris does things. That's it.
Probably a bit too romantic, but I like movie script endings.
Domain Name: CUSTOMEUROPEANPLATES.COM
Created on: 16-APR-05
I don't think this is a legitimate indicator. I, at least, often register domains when I have a reasonable idea, which can often be a year or more before I do anything with them -- if I ever get around to it at all.
People use the term startup, around here especially, a whole bunch but it feels to me like there should be some kind of clear distinction between a company founded as a startup and a single website.
I have a handful of websites that make some money but I would never call any of them a startup on an individual basis. I might call the all encompassing enterprise of building and maintaining those sites a startup but I think calling each individual site that is a bit of a stretch.