←back to thread

2101 points jamesjyu | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ilamont ◴[] No.19108337[source]
I was basically alone. I didn’t have a team, nor an office. And San Francisco was full of startups raising gobs more money, building amazing teams, and shipping great products. Some of my friends became billionaires. Meanwhile, I had to run a “measly” lifestyle business. It wasn’t what I wanted to do, but I had to keep the ship from sinking.

There's that term again, "lifestyle business." Uttered like a dirty word, when in fact Sahil has an actual product that many thousands of people use and pay for. I'm one of them.

Meanwhile, many startups aren’t true businesses – they book no revenue, and they may not even have a sellable product. That’s fine, because almost all businesses start with an idea or a dream or a need or pure desperation, and it’s up to the founders to make it work. They may even need investment, too – sometimes a lot of it. And that’s fine, too.

But when people from the startup world use the term “lifestyle business” to describe real businesses that aren’t pure tech, have solo founders, don’t take VC money, don’t intend to scale to a billion users, or whatever other qualities are not worthy of investor consideration, I find it condescending and misguided. Some startups could actually learn a thing or two from the vendor who sells hot dogs in the park, the person who starts up a specialist marketing agency, the partnership that builds a ceramics factory, or the solo founder running a media distribution and sales platform. They have products or services to sell. They have customers. They book revenue, pay their employees and suppliers, and if they do things right, may even become really successful.

In short, people who run small businesses are not hobbyists or dilettantes. They’re entrepreneurs doing real business selling something, often with limited capital and without the glamor or hype.

Kudos to Sahil for what he's accomplished. But for the love of Pete, please stop using the term "lifestyle business."

replies(11): >>19108393 #>>19108591 #>>19108939 #>>19108946 #>>19109066 #>>19109252 #>>19109543 #>>19109582 #>>19109648 #>>19109830 #>>19111040 #
Justsignedup ◴[] No.19108393[source]
"lifestyle business" is really just a small business that works, is self-sustaining, and not overly bloated to attempt to make obscene amounts of $$$.

I feel like this is exactly what most companies should strive for. They'll make better decisions that way.

replies(6): >>19108460 #>>19108491 #>>19108495 #>>19108517 #>>19108996 #>>19109821 #
ilamont ◴[] No.19108495[source]
Most businesses should strive to be self-sustaining. And if they make obscene amounts of money, all the power to them.

What I dislike is A) the view from startup land that there are only two types of new businesses, "startups" and everything else ("lifestyle") B) and the "everything else" category is somehow inferior or even some sort of hobby or vanity project. Sahil used the term to describe his own company, and at one point felt shame about it, even though he had a real business with real customers and real revenue.

That's how twisted the mindset in startup land has become, where real business owners are supposed to feel shame, and "success" is based on as-yet unfulfilled promises and raising a round?

replies(4): >>19108803 #>>19108968 #>>19109380 #>>19109484 #
Zanni ◴[] No.19109380[source]
There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. [0] That doesn't mean they're better, but you have to know the difference or you're going to get yourself in trouble. Is a quarter-horse better than a camel? Yes, if you're trying to win a quarter-mile race; not so much if you're trying to survive in the desert.

I think some of the disdain comes from legit growth startups trying to distance themselves from one-man "startups" that could be better categorized as micro-ISVs or side projects.

But there's definitely no shame to running a successful lifestyle business. The 37signals guys have been great at shifting that perspective.

[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

replies(4): >>19109591 #>>19109637 #>>19109669 #>>19111553 #
1. mindcrime ◴[] No.19109637{4}[source]
There's a legit distinction, though, between startups and other businesses - startups are designed to grow fast. [0]

I respect and admire pg as much as probably anybody on this board, but I still reject the idea that he has any particular standing to declare his subjective definition of "startup" to be "the" definition by fiat.

I would argue that "startup" actually refers to "businesses that are designed to grow big", where the speed at which you do so is mostly irrelevant. If one wants to raise VC money and tie themselves to that particular time-boxed constraint, that's great. But you can just as well do it "slow and steady" by focusing on early profitability and continually and incrementally reinvesting profits back into the company for growth.

Neither is "better" or "worse" than the other, except in context, just as with the quarter-horse/camel example.

replies(1): >>19109931 #
2. marcus_holmes ◴[] No.19109931[source]
the definition I've used for years is "a startup is a business creating a new business model or service over the internet". Because there were so many people around me who were/are part of the startup scene, building businesses that were/are definitely "startups" and yet not focused exclusively on growth.