But funding from customer revenue does not automatically imply "small business". If you manage to generate a reasonable margin off that revenue, but you reinvest the profit back into the company, you can grow that way, as opposed to growing by taking outside money.
The word 'startup' is at least a few hundreds years old, most likely from the word 'upstart' - the action of starting up.
Startup as defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary: A fledgling business enterprise.
Startup as defined in the Oxford dictionary: A newly established business.
Are we? I'm not in Silicon Valley, and what happens there is of little consequence to me. I, for one, only care what startup means in my vernacular.
For what it's worth, I consider a "startup" any business that's intended to grow into a very large business, where the definition of "very large" is somewhat fuzzy. But I don't think you have to have intent to achieve that in any certain period of time, in order to qualify as a startup.
Not charging money, taking VC investment, joining an incubator, and creating a stupid name that ends in "fy" or "ly" a startup does not make.
BTW, I've read the essay. I like most of what he writes, but I have a fundamental disagreement on this one and just because it comes from the hands of PG does not make it gospel.
What does this mean, "designed to grow fast?" Only technology businesses can achieve overnight billion dollar valuations, so are we saying that anything that is not in the field of tech is not a startup? If you are aiming to become the next Google, Facebook, or Twitter, good luck to you but you're going to fail. Most businesses that drive our economy were not overnight success stories. Starbucks, Wal-Mart, and Macy's were once single store fronts whose founders were not aiming for "hocky-stick" growth out of the gate.
Ask John Paul DeJoria about what a startup is. The guy started by selling fucking shampoo to salons out of his car in Los Angeles when he was 36 and now owns Patron. Yes, the Tequila company. Watch this video for some perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hndfUwPpzyQ
Edit: See below, I was referring to accelerated growth
But I stand by that.
PG doesn't exclusively define the startup world.
Is there really any point in Github's development that anyone would've doubted it was a startup?
The term "startup" originated during the dot-com bubble. The very origin of the term means it is supposed to apply primarily to new tech companies who are designed to grow fast.
A barber shop is not a startup. It is a small business. This doesn't make it any less legitimate as a venture. It just distinguishes it in terms of the nature of its business and industry.
edit: if you're going to downvote, at least have the courage to voice your disagreement as a reply.
Wow, you get some bullshit ideas about business if you get your mba at wikipedia.
Edit: Also, it was only during the bubble that you saw startups go from zero to IPO in two years, and moonshot IPOs were unheard of prior to Netscape. The conventional wisdom pre-Netscape is that you had to be profitable and growing for 6-8 quarters before the IPO. A "moonshot" IPO was one that bumped 10-15% on the first day. When Boston Chicken went public their stock was up something like 50% on the first day and it was major news.
Unless there's another dot-com bubble that happened 150 years earlier than the one I know about, I think you're pretty well wrong about the etymology.
Within the HN-bubble, people may define "startup" to be "VC-backed-startup, but the term does have a meaning outside of that bubble. I call my own company a "startup", and I have no plans to seek out a slot in an incubator or investment from VC.