You'd be amazed at the number of "uninteresting" entrepreneurs out there. Just because he's not in SV and his latest funding round wasn't featured in TechCrunch doesn't mean he's any less entrepreneur than any other business owner.

Besides, doing something because other people find it interesting is a terrible way to make life choices.

We're debating the relative importance of connotations of entrepreneurship; there's, say, a discrete (maybe multivariate) probability distribution of connotations, dictionary definitions are supposed to capture its peaks, and the debate is over where the "true" peaks are. I doubt most people would call the subway vendor a Steve Jobsian entrepreneur. But if he hired others to sell for him, took out loans to increase his inventory, and attached Sodoku puzzles and small pencils to his candy to give bored passengers something to do, more people would likely agree he can be called an entrepreneur. Nevertheless, I believe a high bar for innovation is not an essential component of entrepreneurship -- and the more interesting entrepreneurs are not necessarily more innovative. So the subway vendor's living between the cracks, he's breaking the law. Maybe that makes him more interesting! What types of people tend to strike up conversations with him? How often do policemen confront him? Which foods are more popular after a Yankees game? Interesting entrepreneurs may be engaged in very ordinary activities that afford them unique perspectives.

Incidentally, I love the NY subway for all its various distractions -- the breakdancers, the flashmobbers, and yes, even the panhandlers, because it's always interesting to observe how passengers react to them.

At least he makes a profit unlike 90% of SV's startups.

Well, fair enough. I do agree there.