Being a stable bootstrapped small business is more worthy of respect than being an unstable underfunded startup, in my opinion.
The defining characteristic of a startup - as the word is used in the real world - is being unprofitable and funded by investors. That literally means one doesn't have control over their company, because they've sold ownership to investors.
What you have is a sustainable, bootstrapped small business. It may not sound sexy, as 'dfcowell points out, but IMO, it should - it suggests that the company is actually doing something useful, unlike many startups, which exist only as long as they can keep the growth up to solicit more investments.
Can I ask how you had time? And what was your source of income and funding while you were doing that?
And engineering degree alone is a huge workload, no?
>I define startups as companies that don’t have control of their own destiny because they rely on investor cash infusions to operate. When asked, “How’s business?”, I always replied “I don’t have a business yet, we’re still a startup.”
I despise this definition. I have grown my hardware startup sustainably while pursuing an engineering degree and maintaining full control of the company. I may soon look for VC funding, I may continue to use revenues and personal savings, but nothing will change my responsibility for my business' future.
The fact that you've had money invested into your startup means you have increased control of your destiny, not the opposite. Use that money shrewdly and build a product people want, and you will succeed. That Otto was able to burn through $45 Million in funding without shipping a product makes me believe that poor management and product strategy is behind their failure, not bad luck as the article would ask you to believe.