You like to define it as a new, for-profit business. Seems reasonable. However, I found that many others use the term to specifically refer to the kind of high risk, high growth company that meet the investment profile of typical venture capitalists.
It seems obvious that the good people of startup school are using the word startup in the latter sense. And honestly that sense of the word seems more common. Most people refer to what you do as bootstrapping, not a startup.
But is it really that interesting to have an argument over the definition of startup?
I don't think anyone at startup school is against bootstrapping. They're probably not against enterprises either. The event just has a focus.
The definition is pretty well agreed on. The version I like best is that a startup is a new business that's designed to arbitrage a temporary disequilibrium to produce extraordinary returns.
Other people phrase it differently, but claiming that, for example, your typical restaurant is a startup is unequivocally wrong.
I really enjoy a lot of what YC puts out, especially the philosophy that growth is the ultimate no-BS filter. That was eye opening for my when u heard Jessica Livingston talk about it.
All-in-all, my initial comment is likely misplaced given the nature of startup school.
But I do believe that most businesses should aim for, and be happy, with linear growth.
http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
> A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows from growth.
I'm more of a linear growth type of person but that's likely a product of my end market.
