←back to thread

2101 points jamesjyu | 4 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 #
inuhj ◴[] No.19109484[source]
Gumroad took 10.35MM in investment to build a company that does 780k/yr (65k/mo*12mo) in profit. The numbers don't work out to call that a success.

If he bootstrapped and reached 780k/mo after 8 years of work that would be a successful lifestyle business and he should be absolutely proud.

I'm absolutely not trying to be judgmental as I've succeeded and failed at businesses myself.

replies(3): >>19109816 #>>19109820 #>>19110701 #
eanzenberg ◴[] No.19109816[source]
That's actually not a bad return on investment (7.5% yearly)
replies(4): >>19110013 #>>19110047 #>>19110061 #>>19110127 #
1. nostrademons ◴[] No.19110127[source]
There's a time value on that money. If you'd put $10M into an S&P 500 index fund in 2011, it'd be worth about $22M now, which first of all is a fair bit more than 7.5% and secondly is the denominator you're looking for to figure out percentage returns on capital now. The company wasn't making $780K/year in profit in 2011, it took 7 years to get there.
replies(1): >>19110337 #
2. eanzenberg ◴[] No.19110337[source]
That's timing though, historically I believe s&p yields 7% per year on average.
replies(2): >>19110551 #>>19110942 #
3. umeshunni ◴[] No.19110551[source]
And the return on venture capital during those slow periods are also presumably lower (due to recessions etc)
4. cecilpl2 ◴[] No.19110942[source]
Assuming reinvested dividends, the S&P has returned 7% real, or 10% nominal over its lifetime.