> He runs a small business that makes good money, and it
  > happens to use technology. Not the same thing.

As opposed to what? Having no business (making no money), hyping everything out of proportion and having technology for technology's sake?

  > if by "great" we mean innovative

Any justification for this lame definition? I call the service great if it is really useful for customers and make money for the owners. Sure, inventing a way to put pants on over your head may be innovative, but how it is great and what's the point?

I got pretty tired of all that useless social hypeware with no purpose (other than burn VC's money) and business model.

I think you're missing the point.

> He's not in "our" industry. He runs a small business that makes good money, and it happens to use technology. Not the same thing.

I presume you're defining "our" industry as consumer focused Internet services that plan to IPO or get acquired? Not sure everyone would agree with you, I don't.

Your comment actually reiterates what he's talking about. The mentality of what a "startup" is and how you go about building it is (in his opinion) a bit toxic.

To tell you the truth, the longer I live in Silicon Valley the more I agree with his point of view.

I have to agree. I read your parent comment, and I just realized what bothers me about "startups", and how they operate.

I guess I had naively been assuming that a "startup" was effectively a phase in business, where you are working hard to build a product early in the businesses life. You are "starting up." However, I assumed that the end goal is to make sure that product grows and supports a viable business that enriches customers lives and provides a stable business for the people involved to do what they love.

Reading Sabats comment though, it sounds like his definition of a startup doesn't involve starting a small business. If it doesn't, then what are you doing? I have some things in mind, but I leave the question open to others to fill in.

I've been thinking about this for a while.

The biggest problem in Silicon Valley is that people don't think about what they're building. There are so many stories of founders receiving millions in funding and startups being acquired for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that it creates a really unique subculture.

That subculture is what Jason Fried is referring to. I don't have a problem with it per se but I do wish everyone here would stop and ask "is this the best way to create value for customers?".

There's a lot of talk here about changing the world and delighting customers but if you look deep into most of these venture backed companies it is strictly about big exits. It's what the VCs want, what the media hypes and what founders (blindly?) follow.

I hate to be pedantic, and I don't want to take this thread off topic, but IPO is a noun, not a verb. It stands for initial public offering, and I'd prefer if people claiming to be in the know could use it properly. Please don't misuse simple terminology, as it promotes misuse by the younger people who would like to create companies.

IPO has been verbed for at least 15 years in Silicon Valley. Probably longer.

Your statement is both pedantic and incorrect.

I simply disagree that because some people decided to misuse a term, it is now appropriate. I think the use of IPO as a verb was done to sound sophisticated (and legitimate) and exciting, without understanding what SOX compliance involves. It seems to me that the only reason one would say "IPO" as a verb rather than "go public" would be to demonstrate some familiarity with jargon and gain some credibility among amateurs.

I may be a bit off, or poor in my ability to communicate my point, but it it seems you are appealing to authority in your argument for the use of IPO as a verb.

That's just how language works.

My anecdotal evidence dates back to Netscape, so 1995. Shortly thereafter, the Valley was deluged by people with limited knowledge of financial markets who might have been reaching for the faux sophistication you describe, but this was before all that (and long before SOX). Bankers still usually got it right back then, but they didn't do most of the talking.

Anyway, I'm all for pedantry. I do take issue with your assertion that inappropriately verbing the acronym will hold younger entrepreneurs back in some way. I do not believe it.

It seems to me that you might have some special reverence for the term. Fair enough. Surely you've seen this happen before though, to lesser words?

I agree with you in principle but pragmatically disagree. For better or worse the cultural usage of words and terms define what's appropriate.

Similar to Google which is commonly used as a verb.

>I think his cocky attitude has a lot to do with the constant feedback loop in the town he lives in.

Pot, meet kettle.