The problem is, not everybody agrees with you. I've done both kinds of companies and don't think growth trajectory is the defining feature of a "startup". I'm also not particularly interested in debating the point, since it has very little to do with the story we're commenting on. (I also understand your rebuttal to that point, that the problem this person had was not understanding the distinction you're making, but I also disagree with that argument and find it a little mean-spirited.)
I think creating a business can be one of the most rewarding things a person can do, and I want as many people to find success in that as possible.
It is possible to create a business with a very ambitious growth trajectory regardless of whether you have taken VC or angel funding or whether you are bootstrapping. It's just a lot easier to do this if you've taken funding.
In the valley, most plausible ambitious growth trajectory businesses are VC-funded of course; this is not necessarily true elsewhere. As someone who has lived in the valley for many years and before starting a startup outside of the valley, it's easy to understand why: not all funding climates are created equal.
The thing is, your comments come off as extremely dismissive: the implication is that anything not-funded is a "small business", which is the equivalent of a pat on the head and "nice lemonade stand, son" (or, Italian restaurant, if you're DHH).
Finally: say a startup has a high growth trajectory and closes a Series A round. Was it a startup before it closed the round? I'd argue the investors thought so...
I found your comment(s) very insightful. Thanks a lot for posting.
If you're starting up you should be questioning the ROI on everything--and trying to figure out what it may be for a VC is part of that.
There's no free l(a)unch.
As I understand it, that's the startup game. If you want to call the shots and build your own dream, don't take the money.
Makes perfect sense to me.
The startups where the VCs end up calling the shots are the ones that are on bootstrapped revenue and user-acquisition trajectories but with VC funding. You have no leverage in that situation, because they provided all the money and you're providing...nothing useful at the moment. If you're careful about taking VC funding only once you've validated the market and your ability to execute against that market, the investors don't even want to call the shots, because if they just let you be they'll make a whole lot of money for zero effort.