> if your company is … not seeking rapid growth, … then it isn't a real "startup"
Isn't that the definition of a "startup"? If you're not seeking/expecting rapid growth, isn't it just a "small business". There's nothing wrong with that, not everything has to be a "startup".
(Wiktionary tells me "A new company or organization or business venture designed for rapid growth", but Merriam-Webster Collegiate 11th ed tells me "a fledgling business enterprise". Of course, the Merriam-Webster only recognizes "start-up" not "startup", so how much could they know?)
Just because it's the official definition of a start-up doesn't mean it's a good definition.
There's been a steady stream of bootstrapped companies providing legally and morally uncontroversial, high quality products to satisfied customers, and growing steadily until they become much bigger than "small businesses".
IMO there's something deranged about the need to operate on the basis of explosive growth from day zero. Not only does it create pointless stress and drama, but it isn't even a particularly reliable way to grow a business - never mind an uncontroversial one with satisfied customers.
I would distinguish between growth-at-all-costs and a scalable business. Both are startups, but VCs only invest in the former. Jetbrains is a good example of the latter.
Isn't that the definition of a "startup"? If you're not seeking/expecting rapid growth, isn't it just a "small business". There's nothing wrong with that, not everything has to be a "startup".
(Wiktionary tells me "A new company or organization or business venture designed for rapid growth", but Merriam-Webster Collegiate 11th ed tells me "a fledgling business enterprise". Of course, the Merriam-Webster only recognizes "start-up" not "startup", so how much could they know?)