"My personal opinion is that if you're starting off from a position of weakness (i.e. you're poor and not famous), and especially if you're not in a startup hub like Silicon Valley, it makes a lot more sense to go down the entrepreneurial route than to go via the startup route."<p>I think this is particularly good advice if you're not a developer or aren't able to make the time available to really dig into learning how to code. Odds are you aren't Steve Jobs and won't be able to recruit the technical partner you want to work with to build your uber brilliant idea for reasons articulated here many times before.<p>There's nothing defeatist about building a viable, cash-generating business in lieu of standing around waiting for the magical technical co-founder of your dreams to fall into your lap. Plus, if you create something of value (be it content or otherwise) in the field you're looking to get involved in, you're much more likely to put yourself in a position to be able to recruit the kind of person you want to work with anyway.
The author's point about "entrepreneurs" not being exclusive to the world of startups is exactly what I hope to show with my book this fall. It's a dangerous mindset because in this internet age, we need <i>more</i> people to be thinking about themselves as entrepreneurs.
Excellent point that I try to make to people who come to me with ideas. They all believe that they can raise money for an app and then sell it before they ever need to test their business model. There is nothing wrong with starting small, taking it slowly and growing a business on profit reinvestment.<p>Having said that, we've taken VC as we had no choice. So, when you want to start a capital intensive business then taking money is often the only option - just make sure your business model is solid.
As someone who has been both, I don't think the distinction is that important. Either route carries enormous pressures and the associated stress that comes along for the ride. Plenty of lifestyle businesses have taken the same toll on their founders' marriages, families, net worth and more. In fact, probably more entrepreneurs have offed themselves due to business failures than startup founders.<p>The actual question for would be business owners is: does the intensity of your passion drive you towards accepting this risk? If you are unsure, then either title is probably the wrong one for you.
<i>You can be an entrepreneur today and a startup founder tomorrow, or both at the same time, or just a startup founder.</i><p>I don't exactly agree with this distinction between "startup founder" and "entrepreneur". What I mean is, I think "startup founders" are a subset of "entrepreneurs". So while you can clearly be an entrepreneur without being a startup founder, I don't see how you can be a startup founder and not be an entrepreneur.<p>That said, I think I agree with the overall point that I think swombat was making, regarding the different "paths" a business can take: take VC money, plan on being scalable, go for the moonshot, etc., versus looking for profitability early on, and choosing organic growth, and a slow, steady progression.<p>That bit is definitely an important distinction, and founders (of all ilks) should think about it. But I don't quite think it maps to "entrepreneur" versus "startup founder" from a terminology point of view. But that's just me and my biases.<p>It also strikes me that you aren't committed to one "path" forever. A company could, theoretically, start with the "slow and steady" approach, self-fund / bootstrap, grow slowly <i>while seeking product /market fit, business model validation, etc</i>. and then, once the foundation is laid, go out and look to raise VC money or private equity money to accelerate growth to the "big time".
One of the main reasons there are many startup founders who dont really care about being entrepreneurs (making money or closing value/profit loop as Daniel says) is a great desire by VC community to profit on the tech startup boom.
Look at the majority of new startup accelerators out there and the message they are transmiting.. The fact is that all these groups are funded by clever investor money to play the numbers game. Simple as that. And in this numbers game majority of scalable startup founders are being left hanging in the air. This creates virtual reality of some sort..
Check out this interview with Steve Blank, he wraps it up nicely <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYCE3980kPA" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYCE3980kPA</a>
Daniel defines "entrepreneur" as something that doesn't include startup founders, and then argues why startup founders aren't entrepreneurs. Err.. duh?<p>That's great, if, and it's a very big if, you agree with the initial and very limited definition of "entrepreneur". The fact is "entrepreneur" doesn't mean "someone who sets out to start a business in order to make money", which is Daniel's definition. An entrepreneur is someone who starts a business. It's that simple. Startup founders <i>are</i> entrepreneurs. They are often aiming very high, sometimes a bit naive, and occasionally downright delusional, but they definitely fit the entrepreneur mould. To suggest otherwise is wrong.
Great article which really needs to be "stickied" at the top of places like HN and Techcrunch and the like. Semantics aside, the general point about there being business success and life outside the Silicon-Valley-raise-VC bubble is so important, and one that so many new and promising potential business-people completely miss.