I get the point but trying to redefine "profitable" as "viable" instead of changing the words used seems silly.
A more straightforward critique would be that "profitable" can be a wide range of situations, including lots (as the article points out) that aren't self sustaining and therefore "profitable" isn't a useful metric. Then suggest one that is more useful, like the implied "self sustaining at market rates" one.
I agree that profitable is only one metric but I do think it is viable and I do think "we have a paying customer with positive margin" is a useful part of the story and is actually an important signal (my company, for example, has not even reached this level). I don't agree that a brand new company needs to be able to pay industry leading salaries in order to be considered "profitable"; that seems like an arbitrarily high bar for no reason that is more aimed at an unrelated discussion of "is it better for me to start a business or work for someone else".
I totally agree. This post feels like gatekeeping to me, which is why I originally posted it -- I wanted to see if I was alone in those feelings or if it really is gatekeeping.
A more straightforward critique would be that "profitable" can be a wide range of situations, including lots (as the article points out) that aren't self sustaining and therefore "profitable" isn't a useful metric. Then suggest one that is more useful, like the implied "self sustaining at market rates" one.
I agree that profitable is only one metric but I do think it is viable and I do think "we have a paying customer with positive margin" is a useful part of the story and is actually an important signal (my company, for example, has not even reached this level). I don't agree that a brand new company needs to be able to pay industry leading salaries in order to be considered "profitable"; that seems like an arbitrarily high bar for no reason that is more aimed at an unrelated discussion of "is it better for me to start a business or work for someone else".