But that's again off topic. I do agree that the startup term is most frequently associated with technology companies, but you do hear about startups within a fair number of other lines of business too.
But that's again off topic. I do agree that the startup term is most frequently associated with technology companies, but you do hear about startups within a fair number of other lines of business too.
Sometimes the chain guys will take a restaurant that's successful and turn it into a chain, but when they do this they usually keep nothing more than the name and a few recipes. McDonald's was a burger place started by the McDonald brothers, but it only became the McDonald's we know after Ray Kroc bought it and transformed it into a chain.
I agree that startups don't have to be doing technology. I don't remember saying otherwise.
You're right; restaurants conceived as chains dominate the top of the list, with some very notable exceptions, including KFC, Starbucks, and Subway.
Something else that the top of that list shares in common is that they were lucrative for their investors.
Something else that they share is that they are all crappy. Look how far down that list you have to go before you hit something you'd actually choose freely? In-N-Out is #89.
Basically, the difference between a small business and a startup is like the difference between a shrub and a redwood seedling.
The metaphor isn't perfect, because occasionally companies are transformed from one to the other. But this is extraordinarily rare.
How many YC companies fit this definition? I thought the goal was to make the founders rich, which so far hasn't included growing into a big company.
Amer. Heritage: A business or an undertaking that has recently begun operation: grew from a tiny start-up to a multimillion-dollar corporation.
Note that's just example usage; startup doesn't denote a design to become a big company.
I thought the goal was to make the founders rich, which so far hasn't
included growing into a big company.
I think it's a bit early to pass judgement on this point..how many big, sound companies have been built in three years?Also, with only minimal snark intended: you're saying 37Signals is a "shrub"?
In the Apple/Microsoft initial period, there were plenty of smaller competitors who wanted to slowly sell stuff to hobbyists and "expand naturally" and none of those companies exist anymore.
There were no desktops when Microsoft started. There was the Altair, and they started by writing a basic for it. The market was not planetary as it is now.
Apple was started by a guy who wanted to make the best personal computers
Woz was making computers for himself and to show off at homebrew. From his own words, the Apple I was a PC board they sold to hobbyists for $40 apiece after manufacturing them for $20, per Jobs's egging. You're probably right about Yahoo, but MSFT and APPL did not start out as global reach companies. They started out as local restaurants.
If that happens to lead to a billion-dollar company, awesome. But the odds of business tells us that's probably not overly likely, so we're making sure we'll be happy even if that doesn't happen.
(Who knew merely being satisfied with millions -- single, tens, or even hundreds -- would sound like a humble goal in this context.)
You've assumed that 37Signals refusal to staff up and take speculative VC rounds means they're steering the ship away from being "a billion dollar mammoth". But 37Signals is more successful than most of the companies (yes, most) that take VC rounds, and has enviable revenue growth.
I think you're seeing a business model that doesn't fit the YC get-rich-quick mold --- and that's what it is, read the essays --- and pushing it into a "small business" bucket. The real world doesn't bucket like you want it to.
We now return to your regular program...
Some times they will simply develop concepts (often 4 or 5 at a time) start one of each, and see what sticks.
I've studied the restaurant industry quite a bit and can only think of a few chains that stumbled into it.