YC is failing in the same way that so many once-great startups fail. They're not innovating or reinventing themselves, at all.
And YC really does need to change with the times. Paul Graham was the big reason people wanted so badly to get into YC and he's essentially gone now
It's now obvious to everyone that YC can't grant success to founders, it can "only" grant opportunity.
So why not admit that YC needs good founders more than good founders need YC? It's always been true but now it should be obvious to all.
So, drop all the fake eliteness, secret panels of "experts", and insider-club mentality. Just straight up tell founders what the requirements are for YC funding and then fund them!
For example say that all YC startups need:
1. One competent programmer willing to dedicate years.
2. At least one other person willing to dedicate years.
3. A Launched and usable prototype software.
What else do you need to know, whether they went to the right school? Whether they're attractive??? How good their spoken English is???
Honestly - it would make our jobs so much easier if there was a simple guide on how to figure out what makes a good startup. The problem is that a successful startup is the exception. It is hard to design a process to find outliers.
Here are some questions I ask myself when reading applications:
Can they build their own MVP?
Is there a massively unequal equity split?
Do the founders have pre-exisiting relationships?
Do they have a non-obvious/controversial insight on their space
Is the problem being solved significant (problem a lot of people have or people pay money for)?
Am I impressed with the progress they have made since starting?
If they don't get into YC - will the continue working on this company?
If they don't get into YC - will the continue working on this company?
I applied last batch with ICanPriceIt.com, have a functional MVP but no traction and didn't get an invite.
Since then I've spent more time working on my Amazon reselling business- I'm a lot more passionate about the startup ideas I have, but not confident enough to shut down my profitable business to work on those. In other words, I'll very likely only work on this company if funded, or it might take a year or two before I'm comfortable enough to self-fund.
My understanding is that that hurts my chances of getting into YC significantly. Is that correct?
Is there any chance of YC funding a regular boring reselling company? There's little chance of being worth $1 billion ever, but there are several ones in the $100 million range (etailz sold a few months ago for $75 million, pharmapacks is selling over $100 million a year). Should I try applying for that business?
I would love YC to open satellite offices in Seattle and Vancouver. Both have great talent pools. YC should at least do an experiment. Same time zones and not too far from SF.
Comments
YC is failing in the same way that so many once-great startups fail. They're not innovating or reinventing themselves, at all.
And YC really does need to change with the times. Paul Graham was the big reason people wanted so badly to get into YC and he's essentially gone now
It's now obvious to everyone that YC can't grant success to founders, it can "only" grant opportunity.
So why not admit that YC needs good founders more than good founders need YC? It's always been true but now it should be obvious to all.
So, drop all the fake eliteness, secret panels of "experts", and insider-club mentality. Just straight up tell founders what the requirements are for YC funding and then fund them!
For example say that all YC startups need:
1. One competent programmer willing to dedicate years. 2. At least one other person willing to dedicate years. 3. A Launched and usable prototype software.
What else do you need to know, whether they went to the right school? Whether they're attractive??? How good their spoken English is???
Honestly - it would make our jobs so much easier if there was a simple guide on how to figure out what makes a good startup. The problem is that a successful startup is the exception. It is hard to design a process to find outliers.
Here are some links to guidance we provide:
http://www.ycombinator.com/howtoapply/
http://www.ycombinator.com/faq/
http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
Here are some questions I ask myself when reading applications:
Can they build their own MVP? Is there a massively unequal equity split? Do the founders have pre-exisiting relationships? Do they have a non-obvious/controversial insight on their space Is the problem being solved significant (problem a lot of people have or people pay money for)? Am I impressed with the progress they have made since starting? If they don't get into YC - will the continue working on this company?
I applied last batch with ICanPriceIt.com, have a functional MVP but no traction and didn't get an invite.
Since then I've spent more time working on my Amazon reselling business- I'm a lot more passionate about the startup ideas I have, but not confident enough to shut down my profitable business to work on those. In other words, I'll very likely only work on this company if funded, or it might take a year or two before I'm comfortable enough to self-fund.
My understanding is that that hurts my chances of getting into YC significantly. Is that correct?
Is there any chance of YC funding a regular boring reselling company? There's little chance of being worth $1 billion ever, but there are several ones in the $100 million range (etailz sold a few months ago for $75 million, pharmapacks is selling over $100 million a year). Should I try applying for that business?
I would love YC to open satellite offices in Seattle and Vancouver. Both have great talent pools. YC should at least do an experiment. Same time zones and not too far from SF.