Does the fact that other companies have started imitating Y Combinator bother you? In one sense, I know this will make it harder for you to get people with the best ideas (but I wouldn't worry about that for at least a few years - you're way too far ahead of anyone else). But for the community, having the ability to get a little funding for a larger number of startups could turn out to be a good thing.
Even if you can work with 30 startups in each session, that is still a tiny fraction of all the applications you're getting. There must be projects beyond the ones you will accept that still have a shot at becoming successful. If other people are willing to give funding/advice, couldn't that be a Good Thing?
I hope that despite the competition you will still be able to discuss some trends in the applications you get -- as much as YC is a serious business now, I suspect it's been an interesting sociological experiment for some people.
Regarding the larger number of groups you might accept, I can't help but wonder how YC will scale in the near future. You recently said that the number of unsuccessful startups in the first batch was very low, and it seems that you are getting an extremely self-selected pool of applicants to start with. If you can manage funding more people at once (I suspect time is the bottleneck), I'd venture a guess that you'll keep a 'success' rate way above the standard VC level.
And if you get to work with a few groups from overseas, I'd be keen to learn if you noticed any (cultural?) differences in their approach, or whether hackers are just hackers, regardless of their location...
This is a question to PG and other people involved in looking at startup applications.
Can you reveal anything about the number of applications you've received this time, as compared to other funding sessions? I suspect that it's much higher than the number of proposals for WFP, but have you seen a large increase in the number of apps compared to last summer, because of all the publicity you're getting?
Also, if this is something you're inclined to share -- on average, how many ideas would you consider `serious', in the sense that you suspect that even without your funding the idea will be developed, as opposed to just being forgotten. I suspect some people will just take a shot at getting the funding, and go on to do other things if it doesn't work out.
And one more thing -- due to Reddit's success, are you planning to take more risks than in the past, and maybe fund younger people or more extravagant ideas?
Or are you satisfied with your current methodology?
If you could let us know, maybe after parsing the current batch of apps, I think many people would consider the results quite interesting.
I saw your short demo at BarCamp and I must say Dropbox looks great! Are you planning on having a Linux port as well, or is too early to talk about that?
Also, as another SFP applicant I have to tell you that I really hope you get the funding - you deserve it.
Even if you can work with 30 startups in each session, that is still a tiny fraction of all the applications you're getting. There must be projects beyond the ones you will accept that still have a shot at becoming successful. If other people are willing to give funding/advice, couldn't that be a Good Thing?