I suppose that's true, but startups generally take VC funding, and VCs want the company to either IPO or get bought.
There are bootstrapped "startups", but if you're not taking VC funding and trying to go big, then it's less obvious what the difference is between a "startup" and a "company".
I think the criterion I like best is that if you're actively sacrificing profitability for growth, you're a startup.
Obviously there are exceptions in both directions, and other factors to consider, but this seems to be a pretty good starting point for discussion to me.
When you have a repeatable business model. Uber has repeat customers but is a long way from having figured out how to make the profits required by their business and funding history.
Unfortunately, declaring your company a start up is sexy. My last company was about 130 employees, made some profit but mostly enough to keep the business afloat, been around for a little over 10 years, and was reluctant to call itself a start up.
The company I'm currently at has close to 1,200 employees, been around for close to 10 years, its own free cafeteria, profitable enough to fund several high-risk initiatives, but easily calls itself a start up..
My personal opinion: you're no longer a start up if you're able to afford your own "free food cafeteria". ;-)
It's funny watching the public perception of uber changing over time. At first it seemed like it was just techies that didn't like them, then this whole PR mess started happening and now I am seeing non techie friends getting on the anti uber band wagon. Out in public the default expression for a ride is let's grab a lyft now, and even the drivers that talk about driving say they drive for lyft now rather than uber (in reality they almost all drive for both). As if saying they drive for uber will cause them to be judged. It's amazing how fast it happened.
I don't think anyone has to care, except for those who have made major investments. The concept has proven itself. Moreover, it has shown a path to scaling taxi service and confirmed that a taxi service - or whatever title one might use to avoid calling uber a taxi service - isn't a bunch of cars and drivers, but a way of connecting riders to rides. Taxis are in the information business! (May Xenu forgive my trite statement.)
I'm probably being dense but I don't understand the claim that "Uber is imploding".
From the article: "the company doubled its gross bookings to $20 billion in 2016, and its net revenue (excluding China) was $6.8 billion"
The company had $2.8 billion in losses in 2016 and it puts the company's long term prospects for financial viability into question which might mean a down round on the next funding but the company is hardly about to go under.
The article title should be "Uber got a bunch of bad press and a few execs left" but I guess that doesn't drive impressions.
Amazon has continually reinvested for growth rather than profit. They are able to turn a profit any time they want, Bezos is simply managing the company for growth. Uber is a long way from ever being able to turn a profit.
This is The Verge. It's not a site known for rigor. It's a pop culture rag, a mish mash of Maximum PC, Game Informer, and Men's Health for meme followers
Not to say Uber is or isn't imploding. No clue either way
On one hand, toxic company, we all know about it, they don't even pay as much taxes as they should. On the other hand, in Rome taxi drivers have been up in arms because they feel threatened by them, with violent protests in which people were beaten up and fascist salutes filmed. In my book, anyone who will put Roman taxi drivers out of business is a hero.
Toxic company or violent fascist taxi drivers. What a choice.
22 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 56.9 ms ] threadThere are bootstrapped "startups", but if you're not taking VC funding and trying to go big, then it's less obvious what the difference is between a "startup" and a "company".
Obviously there are exceptions in both directions, and other factors to consider, but this seems to be a pretty good starting point for discussion to me.
The company I'm currently at has close to 1,200 employees, been around for close to 10 years, its own free cafeteria, profitable enough to fund several high-risk initiatives, but easily calls itself a start up..
My personal opinion: you're no longer a start up if you're able to afford your own "free food cafeteria". ;-)
From the article: "the company doubled its gross bookings to $20 billion in 2016, and its net revenue (excluding China) was $6.8 billion"
The company had $2.8 billion in losses in 2016 and it puts the company's long term prospects for financial viability into question which might mean a down round on the next funding but the company is hardly about to go under.
The article title should be "Uber got a bunch of bad press and a few execs left" but I guess that doesn't drive impressions.
Not to say Uber is or isn't imploding. No clue either way
On one hand, toxic company, we all know about it, they don't even pay as much taxes as they should. On the other hand, in Rome taxi drivers have been up in arms because they feel threatened by them, with violent protests in which people were beaten up and fascist salutes filmed. In my book, anyone who will put Roman taxi drivers out of business is a hero.
Toxic company or violent fascist taxi drivers. What a choice.