Working for a company like Google, FB or even Airbnb or a questionable 'startup' is still much different than working for any other type of company. It's even markedly different than working for tech companies that would never be referred to as startups, such as Samsung, AMD or even HP.
These large companies (FB, Google, etc) may no longer be bootstrapped and employees may no longer have versatile roles, but they still resemble what we'd call 'startup culture.' It seems reasonable to define a startup based on culture rather than size, though it's not so etymologically sound.
edit: If you disagree, please comment why rather than downvote!
This is a question I've heard people discuss extensively and would appreciate input or an opposing perspective.
Then we'd have to group in rather standard, traditional Samsung-like companies though, which seem to be just as different work experiences from FB or Google as FB or Google is different from newer, smaller startups.
Samsung is not a Tech company, it's a multi-national conglomerate.
It comprises numerous affiliated businesses,[1] most of them united under the Samsung brand, and is the largest South Korean chaebol (business conglomerate)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung
Microsoft/Google are multinational companies but their core business has remained. Samsung on the other hand did food processing, textiles, insurance, securities and retail and only got into the electronics industry after close to 30 years.
What do you even mean by "startup culture" in an ad-tech company with thousands of employees that has been doing the same thing for years? Open office plans with skateboards? Free food? Making the world a better place?
I don't mean this rudely -- is what I said offensive to people on HN? You're the first person to comment vs downvote as a reply and you seem to dislike FB quite a bit (and the idea of working for them).
Although Facebook as an individual product isn't creating any more value than it already has, the company includes Oculus VR and an AI lab which seem like they'd be fascinating places to work. Additionally, it just seems like an interesting, fun place to be where one could network with interesting people.
I'm not defending its dependence on ad-tech, but the experience (yes, including working conditions + benefits as you noted) seems closer to what I've found in small, new startups than companies like Samsung.
FB and GOOG are both large, stable surveillance/ad-tech companies with various money-losing side-bets. Their compensation is structured differently than what you would find at MSFT, IBM, etc. (more workplace perks), but it seems strange to relate that compensation structure to a "startup." People who work there get fat salaries, reliable employment, and perks, not a high-risk bet on a new idea.
That makes sense. I was just thinking of the look and feel of the workplace and people you're surrounded by more so than the company's purpose or risk of employment. Having come from a very non-tech background, I saw a lot of striking similarities in those aspects compared to what I had known.
Many large companies — including some that you wouldn't think of as "tech companies" — have changed or are in the process of changing their corporate cultures to be more "startup" like. So I don't think culture is a useful discriminator any more.
It might be more useful to differentiate based on target or expected future growth. Real startups are intended to be scalable. A company can only reasonably be described as a startup if it expects to grow >10× in revenue or employee count over the next few years.
These large companies (FB, Google, etc) may no longer be bootstrapped and employees may no longer have versatile roles, but they still resemble what we'd call 'startup culture.' It seems reasonable to define a startup based on culture rather than size, though it's not so etymologically sound.
edit: If you disagree, please comment why rather than downvote! This is a question I've heard people discuss extensively and would appreciate input or an opposing perspective.