The word is used to put size in perspective relative to goals: if their goal is to replace AT&T and Verizon, by that measure Skype is still a startup. I've even heard people refer to Google as a startup within the past couple of years.
Sometimes companies apply this label to themselves, seemingly to attempt to excuse issues like lack of profitability or shoddy organization ("we're new and still learning, started in my living room" etc.). The claim is that if the business is still taking VC funding, it is a startup, regardless of profitability or establishment in the market. My belief is that when a company has been around for more than 3 years, has a multitude of customers, well over 10-20 employees and collects corporate-sized (millions in) revenues, it's a regular business and the startup label should not be used. The line used for 'small businesses' in the US is something like 100 employees, which seems huge compared to the businesses I've worked in with 1-5. If the company isn't even a small business by those standards, it's a stretch to say it's a startup. But it can still feel like one compared to IBM.
Not in the sense that it was started recently. But it was a high growth tech company aiming to IPO. What would you call it? And do you think this voids the controversy?
>"But it was a high growth tech company aiming to IPO"
It was a high growth company. Given Skype's European and post bubble heritage, an intent to seek an IPO is pure speculation. The evidence is that they were seeking to be acquired, which they were in 2005 by eBay. The $7-8 billion involved in Microsoft's acquisition would make Skype a large Midcap or a small Largecap company.
At this point, the main thing it has in common with startups is that it is in the tech-industry. Then again, so is Pittney-Bowles.
