By the time I went to reply you took out my favorite quip of what you wrote—"That's the kind of line a politician would say."
The article was about entrepreneurs. It was not about your idea of startups. Your comment was defending a concept not present in the article.
I've never liked the word "startup". Ontologically it means that something's begun. I don't feel comfortable assigning more meaning to the word than that, though the connotations have been assigned.
The article was about entrepreneurs. It was not about your idea of startups.
Imagine an article on a web site about the NFL that began "When you think of a football player, you probably imagine someone six foot five who weighs 250 pounds. But a new study shows the average football player is actually four foot eight and weights 80 pounds." Because the average football player is actually a little league player.
So yes, the study described in the article is about founders of small businesses rather than startups (in what you call my sense, meaning the generally accepted sense of the word). But what makes it misleading is that it appears on a site about startups, begins by talking about examples of startups, and then claims it's surprising that people starting small businesses have different characteristics. It's not surprising at all that the average person opening a gas station or starting his own landscaping company is 40.
This is a more effective explanation. It will be interesting to see how stats evolve for "IT startups".
On one hand, we have loads of unemployed well educated young people right now that can afford to risk their time. These may be more likely to seek seed capital? Go big or go home models?
On the other, we have loads of seasoned industry vets with stable lives and cash in the bank to make a go of a new IT business. These may be more likely to start with one or two paying clients? Steady growth models?
That's a good example and shows the crux of the problem. In your example, the article should have said "the average NFL player", which offers a clear category of football player. The term "startup" is not as clearly delineated as "NFL player", hence the confusion.
Now, I will at least know what pg is referencing. I still won't know what other commenters mean by a 'startup' unless they are synced up on this too. I wonder how you can fix that?
Semantics on the word "startup": In my view to qualify as a startup the idea or business process must be novel in some way. Otherwise it is simply "self-started" as you mentioned.
