You have a 1 in 20 chance of being chosen by YC. Pretty good odds!
63 comments
Actually, if you're reading this, you probably have better odds than that. A good fraction of the people who apply clearly have no idea how YC works or what we look for. If you're reading this comment you're probably over that threshold, at least.
Either we have better odds, or we know exactly the reasons why we're unlikely to be accepted.
You make a surprisingly random assumption (500 apps) and then base your entire post around statistical interpretations of that assumption.
Bravo!
You should become an economist.
Bravo!
You should become an economist.
Ok. There were 435 applications for this summer. I assume that YCombinator's traffic has been growing steadily and that more hackers have been captivated by YC, so therefore more will apply. 65 more probably isn't too far off the mark.
As for the other assumption that YC will accept more than they did last time, I'm basing that off of Paul's words.
Can I still become an economist?
As for the other assumption that YC will accept more than they did last time, I'm basing that off of Paul's words.
Can I still become an economist?
Some recommendations for intro to econ books :)
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/08/for_introductor_...
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/08/for_introductor_...
Hey, the great economists are the ones who get really good at just making shit up.
Check out Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. http://books.google.com/books?id=nJFFrLX-924C
Isohunt also shows me the book and audio book is available free online.
Check out Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. http://books.google.com/books?id=nJFFrLX-924C
Isohunt also shows me the book and audio book is available free online.
It's doesn't seem that far off. It would be surprising if the ratio was as high as 1:10 or as low as 1:30.
Why wait for someone else's approval? Don't leave your fate up to someone else's whim.
And don't forget there are many, many other investors.
[Edit: Also don't forget you can set up Google ads on your own; or have actual paying customers. You may not need any investment at all.]
And don't forget there are many, many other investors.
[Edit: Also don't forget you can set up Google ads on your own; or have actual paying customers. You may not need any investment at all.]
We work hard enough evaluating applications that we can probably claim our choices are more than whims.
All personal evaluations are subject to whims. An investor does or doesn't like the idea; does or doesn't like the people. Cisco was turned down by 70 or 80 VCs. Nobody has a crystal ball, and at the end of the day, you guess; the dealmaker or breaker is frequently some arbitrary factor.
Are you intentionally using the phrase "subject to" to obscure your logic? It could mean "likely to be affected by", or it could mean "dependent on". The meaning changes completely.
You're asking me to resolve ambiguity by presenting more ambiguous choices. I think you intend "solely dependent on" when you say "dependent on".
A decision is both likely to be affected by, and dependent on, multiple factors. In YC's particular case of selecting among many young, first-time, unproven, possible entrepreneurs, there likely isn't much of a track record to go by so the decision has a very large subjective component. Not only can they not predict the market performance of what you're building, but they want you to be "flexible" with the idea, even to the point of throwing it away and switching to something completely different. In those cases it means they can't possibly objectively evaluate your plan, because you don't have one yet.
The greater the lack of objective data, the more subjective preference comes into play.
A decision is both likely to be affected by, and dependent on, multiple factors. In YC's particular case of selecting among many young, first-time, unproven, possible entrepreneurs, there likely isn't much of a track record to go by so the decision has a very large subjective component. Not only can they not predict the market performance of what you're building, but they want you to be "flexible" with the idea, even to the point of throwing it away and switching to something completely different. In those cases it means they can't possibly objectively evaluate your plan, because you don't have one yet.
The greater the lack of objective data, the more subjective preference comes into play.
"Subjective preference" and "whim" are two completely different things. Let's look at the post that started all of this: "Don't leave your fate up to someone else's whim". If you replace that with "Don't leave your fate up to someone else's subjective preference", that doesn't sound quite so undeniably prudent anymore, does it? Especially considering that the "someone else" in question is highly authoritative on the subject.
You might find it helpful to check the definition. Amer. Heritage: whim: "Arbitrary thought or impulse". Arbitrary: "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference".
> that doesn't sound quite so undeniably prudent anymore, does it?
Good thing it's definitionally equivalent and I used the form that would provoke a stronger visceral response, in order to get the idea across more forcefully.
YC should just be one possible tool you can use. Keep in mind that if you do actually have something valuable, you're doing them quite a favor by letting them get a percentage for such a tiny investment.
> Especially considering that the "someone else" in question is highly authoritative on the subject.
You're a bit mixed-up there. Starting your own investment company doesn't make you an expert on people and ideas any more than starting your own record label makes you an expert on music.
It's also fairly apparent that no one person is going to be a good filter for all ideas or people. We've all been surprised by various start-up successes.
> that doesn't sound quite so undeniably prudent anymore, does it?
Good thing it's definitionally equivalent and I used the form that would provoke a stronger visceral response, in order to get the idea across more forcefully.
YC should just be one possible tool you can use. Keep in mind that if you do actually have something valuable, you're doing them quite a favor by letting them get a percentage for such a tiny investment.
> Especially considering that the "someone else" in question is highly authoritative on the subject.
You're a bit mixed-up there. Starting your own investment company doesn't make you an expert on people and ideas any more than starting your own record label makes you an expert on music.
It's also fairly apparent that no one person is going to be a good filter for all ideas or people. We've all been surprised by various start-up successes.
> Starting your own investment company doesn't make you an expert on people and ideas
True, but advising dozens of startups, some of which became highly successful, does. Especially when your investment money came from the sale of your own successful startup.
"Whim" and "arbitrary" have a connotation of carelessness; I don't think they fit here.
Still, there's truth in what you're saying: The large number of applications necessitates that they use heuristics and gut feelings to choose whom to interview. Their rejection letter admits that the process isn't perfect, and it would be unwise to give up on an idea on the basis of a YC rejection.
True, but advising dozens of startups, some of which became highly successful, does. Especially when your investment money came from the sale of your own successful startup.
"Whim" and "arbitrary" have a connotation of carelessness; I don't think they fit here.
Still, there's truth in what you're saying: The large number of applications necessitates that they use heuristics and gut feelings to choose whom to interview. Their rejection letter admits that the process isn't perfect, and it would be unwise to give up on an idea on the basis of a YC rejection.
> True, but advising dozens of startups, some of which became highly successful, does.
I would be surprised if anyone on YC news couldn't get a few successes out of 60 start-ups.
YC's had its share of duds as well. And various times we've heard they're not far in the black; considering the micro-investments they're making, that doesn't strongly support the notion that they are especially successful.
> "Whim" and "arbitrary" have a connotation of carelessness; I don't think they fit here.
I'm sure they are careful in certain ways but there's only so much to be gleaned from a brief application, which may not include the follow-up 10-minute interview. Three people can't advise 60 existing start-ups and do due diligence on 500 more. Not to mention, a substantial number of people haven't even built anything, which means they really have no choice but to judge the book by its cover. There are always snap judgements and rush decisions in any big application process.
Hence, whim.
I would be surprised if anyone on YC news couldn't get a few successes out of 60 start-ups.
YC's had its share of duds as well. And various times we've heard they're not far in the black; considering the micro-investments they're making, that doesn't strongly support the notion that they are especially successful.
> "Whim" and "arbitrary" have a connotation of carelessness; I don't think they fit here.
I'm sure they are careful in certain ways but there's only so much to be gleaned from a brief application, which may not include the follow-up 10-minute interview. Three people can't advise 60 existing start-ups and do due diligence on 500 more. Not to mention, a substantial number of people haven't even built anything, which means they really have no choice but to judge the book by its cover. There are always snap judgements and rush decisions in any big application process.
Hence, whim.
> Amer. Heritage: whim: "Arbitrary thought or impulse". Arbitrary: "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference".
What you're doing here is a lot like the game telephone. If you follow a long enough chain of definitions in this way you can prove white = black.
Every native English speaker knows "whim" does not have the same meaning as "decision," which is what your argument implies.
I assume you're not deliberately trolling, but I have the same feeling of having to explain things I shouldn't have to explain that I do when I'm tricked into arguing with a troll.
What you're doing here is a lot like the game telephone. If you follow a long enough chain of definitions in this way you can prove white = black.
Every native English speaker knows "whim" does not have the same meaning as "decision," which is what your argument implies.
I assume you're not deliberately trolling, but I have the same feeling of having to explain things I shouldn't have to explain that I do when I'm tricked into arguing with a troll.
> If you follow a long enough chain of definitions in this way you can prove white = black.
That's pretty amusing. Whim -> arbitrary doesn't exactly constitute a long chain. Might want to start employing your proofreading team for your comments ;)
I'll refer you to one of my other responses:
"Not to mention, a substantial number of people haven't even built anything, which means they really have no choice but to judge the book by its cover. There are always snap judgements and rush decisions in any big application process."
YC's process reminds me of the Feynman story about choosing schoolbooks.
You have a bunch of young would-be founders who don't have a track record. How else are you going to choose? You just don't have enough evidence to go by in many cases.
Assuming a large portion of the applications come in near the deadline, you're in the position of having to review hundreds in the space of a week. It's like going through stacks of resumes, your eyes glaze over.
Making the observation is no slight to YC. You give people a chance despite them not having much of anything to show. I also know whim is a big factor even when there is a lot of supporting evidence because it's just human nature. That's why Cisco was turned down by 80 VCs despite having great numbers and committed people already.
Accusing someone of trolling because they had the audacity to bust out the dictionary to prove you wrong? Classic! "Every native English speaker [...]" -- too funny!
"Where the dictionary and I disagree, the dictionary is wrong." That should clear things up around here!
That's pretty amusing. Whim -> arbitrary doesn't exactly constitute a long chain. Might want to start employing your proofreading team for your comments ;)
I'll refer you to one of my other responses:
"Not to mention, a substantial number of people haven't even built anything, which means they really have no choice but to judge the book by its cover. There are always snap judgements and rush decisions in any big application process."
YC's process reminds me of the Feynman story about choosing schoolbooks.
You have a bunch of young would-be founders who don't have a track record. How else are you going to choose? You just don't have enough evidence to go by in many cases.
Assuming a large portion of the applications come in near the deadline, you're in the position of having to review hundreds in the space of a week. It's like going through stacks of resumes, your eyes glaze over.
Making the observation is no slight to YC. You give people a chance despite them not having much of anything to show. I also know whim is a big factor even when there is a lot of supporting evidence because it's just human nature. That's why Cisco was turned down by 80 VCs despite having great numbers and committed people already.
Accusing someone of trolling because they had the audacity to bust out the dictionary to prove you wrong? Classic! "Every native English speaker [...]" -- too funny!
"Where the dictionary and I disagree, the dictionary is wrong." That should clear things up around here!
Taking two days to reply makes you automatically lose the debate. Sorry.
> Taking two days to reply makes you automatically lose the debate. Sorry.
It might occur to you that some people are busy working on their start-ups rather than spending all their time debating points of little consequence on YC news. I haven't posted at all in two days, not just on that thread.
It's also pretty hilarious you think you need to "award" Paul the "win", on his own site, based on a made-up technicality.
I can tell you don't really believe what he said, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to score brownie points! You want the whim in your favor.
It might occur to you that some people are busy working on their start-ups rather than spending all their time debating points of little consequence on YC news. I haven't posted at all in two days, not just on that thread.
It's also pretty hilarious you think you need to "award" Paul the "win", on his own site, based on a made-up technicality.
I can tell you don't really believe what he said, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to score brownie points! You want the whim in your favor.
You are debating nothing here. "Perfectly calculated and optimal decision" versus "whim" falls on a continuum. They try to evaluate the applications and interviewees very quickly. This results in some less than optimal decisions. Still, it's too much to call their decision making progress a whim, because there is much more to it than completely arbitrary choice.
I wish they devoted more time to the decision making process, because I remain convinced that our outcome with YC would have been much different with a 1 hour interview instead of a 15 minute interview. The seedcamp interview process is orders of magnitude better and more fair from a founder's perspective.
I wish they devoted more time to the decision making process, because I remain convinced that our outcome with YC would have been much different with a 1 hour interview instead of a 15 minute interview. The seedcamp interview process is orders of magnitude better and more fair from a founder's perspective.
The word "arbitrary" has several meanings, but for each instance of its use, there is only one meaning, and the context determines which one it is. In the definition of "whim", the meaning of "arbitrary" is not one you mentioned, but this one: "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle". Unfortunately, that makes it a bit circular. Let's try another dictionary. Webster gives "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will", which I think is suitable in that context.
Of course, your judgment of what is suitable in the context may be different from mine, but there is at least one thing that speaks in my favor: your very own claim that your version "would provoke stronger visceral response". Why would it, if its meaning was the same?
Of course, your judgment of what is suitable in the context may be different from mine, but there is at least one thing that speaks in my favor: your very own claim that your version "would provoke stronger visceral response". Why would it, if its meaning was the same?
> In the definition of "whim", the meaning of "arbitrary" is not one you mentioned
It most certainly is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whim
> Why would it, if its meaning was the same?
You may as well ask, "Why do words matter?"
You're unsuccessfully trying to argue an academic point while ignoring the basic gist of the decision, which is de facto one of considerable extrapolation. There simply isn't enough data in many cases to make a decision based on reason; that leaves whim. Even in cases where the data is obvious, whim comes into play, which is why Cisco had to go to 70 or 80 venture capitalists despite doing hundreds of thousands a month in business already without outside investment. Other VCs' stories of "the one that got away" involve a long-haired Steve Jobs.
This is merely human nature. It's no particular indictment of YC, everyone does it. I'm advocating for not leaving your decision of what to do with your life up to any single investor, or indeed, a series of 70 or 80 of them.
It most certainly is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whim
> Why would it, if its meaning was the same?
You may as well ask, "Why do words matter?"
You're unsuccessfully trying to argue an academic point while ignoring the basic gist of the decision, which is de facto one of considerable extrapolation. There simply isn't enough data in many cases to make a decision based on reason; that leaves whim. Even in cases where the data is obvious, whim comes into play, which is why Cisco had to go to 70 or 80 venture capitalists despite doing hundreds of thousands a month in business already without outside investment. Other VCs' stories of "the one that got away" involve a long-haired Steve Jobs.
This is merely human nature. It's no particular indictment of YC, everyone does it. I'm advocating for not leaving your decision of what to do with your life up to any single investor, or indeed, a series of 70 or 80 of them.
Bzzzt. Bad use of statistics, because it's not a matter of chance. The ideas that fit best with YC's ideas of what a Y Combinator startup should look like and look like they have the best shot at succeeding win.
This is not a matter of chance. If your idea lines up perfectly with YC's vision, you get in, no matter how many other people apply. If your idea is completely unworkable for YC's goals (such as: you have a single founder, you're planning to run the startup indefinitely rather than sell it ), you may as well not apply, because even if there are 25 slots and 20 applicants you'll probably be rejected.
This is not a matter of chance. If your idea lines up perfectly with YC's vision, you get in, no matter how many other people apply. If your idea is completely unworkable for YC's goals (such as: you have a single founder, you're planning to run the startup indefinitely rather than sell it ), you may as well not apply, because even if there are 25 slots and 20 applicants you'll probably be rejected.
You don't know what you're talking about. We've funded several single founders, and we actually prefer people who want to run the company indefinitely. We make very little from early acquisitions.
Where'd you get the "accepting 25" number? Just curious. It seemed like 19 was a bit overwhelming for them this time. But since the CA office is bigger, and there are more former founders out here that would be able to relieve some of the advisory role pressure, they might be willing to bump the number up again, assuming enough of the applications are good.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47372
Certainly not hard evidence but the limiting factor seems to be good applications, not how many they're able to accept. That's a great sign.
Certainly not hard evidence but the limiting factor seems to be good applications, not how many they're able to accept. That's a great sign.
Maybe even more than 500. [link eludes me] But somewhere it was written that the Cambridge session was the unpopular session. And since May 2007 YC has been featured in Newsweek, in addition to getting a groundswell press from each individual company (eg. Weebly in Time).
I'd bank on about 700-800 applications.
I'd bank on about 700-800 applications.
Yeah, great. That just made me feel worse.
Thanks for your advice; I just submitted 20 applications. :)
On a serious note, can one apply as a single hacker who doesn't care about which project he takes on?
On a serious note, can one apply as a single hacker who doesn't care about which project he takes on?
> Can we apply as single hackers who don't care about which project we take on?
Not to be YC specific, but just in general, who would want to invest in someone who doesn't care?
Not to be YC specific, but just in general, who would want to invest in someone who doesn't care?
Great question. I'm a hacker, so I'd be useful from day one. Secondly, I've stuck with one idea for about four years, selling the product for 3 and a half years, so I have no problem adding features or maintaining code.
Here is what matters to me more than a specific idea:
1) I'd like to have lawyers and accountants from the beginning, versus doing it myself.
2) I'd like to start with an investment from the beginning, versus doing it with nothing, therefore being undercapitalized the entire time.
3) On a daily basis, I'd like to work with smart people, versus working with nobody else. It'd be great to have an even ownership split, and to start with each other from day one.
4) I want to afford to live (by live, I mean sustain, nothing special) in a place with other technology folks, so I never feel bored or get an ego, versus living in the middle-of-nowhere.
The reason I'm asking here is because I've considered visiting big universities or even furthering my college career just to meet people for a future project, but it would be logically crazy to do so. The problem is that a lot of CS majors aren't entrepreneurial, and sometimes even immature. News.YC is the best place to find other hackers who want to do a startup. Period. Even better than attending a great computer science school.
I originally followed pg's correct advice to leave school and release "early."
The problem is that after I released "early", I had a small userbase that I gradually grew, and while they helped me find bugs, I got stuck to a small income stream and could never find the time to expand to bigger sources of revenue considering I was fixing bugs, adding features, doing market research, and tech support.
Releasing early is good if you have the means (money, people, contacts, knowledge) to not get distracted, so it's nice that YCombinators and TechStars exist now to take advantage of your highs and give you advice.
However, creating a product while being undercapitalized is futile. From not having health insurance and getting injured for a while, to having to progressively go from a $2/mo host, to a $20/m host, getting tons of visitors to my site from my specific, paying audience--except my site used up the 15GB of bandwidth in half a day. I've also had to make a lot of 'transitional' ideas to keep it all working, all so I could have this experience on a low budget for many years. Another problem was that I was tied to an income stream and keeping up with it for the $500 or $600/mo just to keep the business expenses, keeping me away from doing 2 important things that I planned my first year, because otherwise, I'd have to fold. It's definitely been worth it for everything except money, of course.
For example, I got dozens of great reviews from different paying customers all over the world, and that was the #1 most important thing to me all those years. So I spent this summer making it run on auto-pilot, this time with my own custom software, and a better self-service (another problem is that before, I preferred to have a simple interface and have users e-mail me with questions to avoid being too public, but now, I will add tons of Q&A's so I don't have to answer questions about what the program can do and what I'm planning on adding to it.)
So, I proved to myself that I can make people happy with no investment. Now I want to do it the right way.
In fact, maybe I should do something for people my age while I can still relate--another reason I don't care about the idea is because mine currently targets adults, and having been Student Body President, founding a newspaper club, a chess club, and being in many different unrelated after-school activities when I was in high school, I found I enjoyed it all. But, there is no reason that while you're spending all your time on a project, that you have to do it underfunded, since even for a realistic web service you'd have to be able to support servers costing hundreds of dollars and not annoy users with ads until you can figure out the best way to make it work, and more importantly, start with good resources (teammates, investors, advisors, money).
Here is what matters to me more than a specific idea:
1) I'd like to have lawyers and accountants from the beginning, versus doing it myself.
2) I'd like to start with an investment from the beginning, versus doing it with nothing, therefore being undercapitalized the entire time.
3) On a daily basis, I'd like to work with smart people, versus working with nobody else. It'd be great to have an even ownership split, and to start with each other from day one.
4) I want to afford to live (by live, I mean sustain, nothing special) in a place with other technology folks, so I never feel bored or get an ego, versus living in the middle-of-nowhere.
The reason I'm asking here is because I've considered visiting big universities or even furthering my college career just to meet people for a future project, but it would be logically crazy to do so. The problem is that a lot of CS majors aren't entrepreneurial, and sometimes even immature. News.YC is the best place to find other hackers who want to do a startup. Period. Even better than attending a great computer science school.
I originally followed pg's correct advice to leave school and release "early."
The problem is that after I released "early", I had a small userbase that I gradually grew, and while they helped me find bugs, I got stuck to a small income stream and could never find the time to expand to bigger sources of revenue considering I was fixing bugs, adding features, doing market research, and tech support.
Releasing early is good if you have the means (money, people, contacts, knowledge) to not get distracted, so it's nice that YCombinators and TechStars exist now to take advantage of your highs and give you advice.
However, creating a product while being undercapitalized is futile. From not having health insurance and getting injured for a while, to having to progressively go from a $2/mo host, to a $20/m host, getting tons of visitors to my site from my specific, paying audience--except my site used up the 15GB of bandwidth in half a day. I've also had to make a lot of 'transitional' ideas to keep it all working, all so I could have this experience on a low budget for many years. Another problem was that I was tied to an income stream and keeping up with it for the $500 or $600/mo just to keep the business expenses, keeping me away from doing 2 important things that I planned my first year, because otherwise, I'd have to fold. It's definitely been worth it for everything except money, of course.
For example, I got dozens of great reviews from different paying customers all over the world, and that was the #1 most important thing to me all those years. So I spent this summer making it run on auto-pilot, this time with my own custom software, and a better self-service (another problem is that before, I preferred to have a simple interface and have users e-mail me with questions to avoid being too public, but now, I will add tons of Q&A's so I don't have to answer questions about what the program can do and what I'm planning on adding to it.)
So, I proved to myself that I can make people happy with no investment. Now I want to do it the right way.
In fact, maybe I should do something for people my age while I can still relate--another reason I don't care about the idea is because mine currently targets adults, and having been Student Body President, founding a newspaper club, a chess club, and being in many different unrelated after-school activities when I was in high school, I found I enjoyed it all. But, there is no reason that while you're spending all your time on a project, that you have to do it underfunded, since even for a realistic web service you'd have to be able to support servers costing hundreds of dollars and not annoy users with ads until you can figure out the best way to make it work, and more importantly, start with good resources (teammates, investors, advisors, money).
"I should do something for people my age while I can still relate. You can't do something like that without an investment, since you have to be able to support servers costing hundreds of dollars and not annoy users with ads until you can figure out the best way to make it work."
You can do something for people your age, see if they relate, and then take investment when you need to scale. Apparently, it's not hard to get investors if you're so snowed under with traffic that your servers are busting at the seams.
You can do something for people your age, see if they relate, and then take investment when you need to scale. Apparently, it's not hard to get investors if you're so snowed under with traffic that your servers are busting at the seams.
" Apparently, it's not hard to get investors if you're so snowed under with traffic that your servers are busting at the seams."
Yes, I know the hypothetical. However, I'm talking about reality. If YCombinator is an option, I'm going to take it.
1) I'm leaving my desktop app available so my current customers, 93% of whom of 153 survey respondents say they love it, can access it. I already know I can deliver software that makes people happy enough to pay money for it. I'm just creating a free version and getting it up to distributors to see if it can make even more people happy than I can imagine.
2) Finding cofounders on News.YC for a web-based app the team agrees on.
3) Applying to YCombinator.
4) Working as long as it takes to make a lot of users happy.
PG, Max Levchin, and other investors favor teams who are dedicated and flexible versus one specific idea.
Yes, I know the hypothetical. However, I'm talking about reality. If YCombinator is an option, I'm going to take it.
1) I'm leaving my desktop app available so my current customers, 93% of whom of 153 survey respondents say they love it, can access it. I already know I can deliver software that makes people happy enough to pay money for it. I'm just creating a free version and getting it up to distributors to see if it can make even more people happy than I can imagine.
2) Finding cofounders on News.YC for a web-based app the team agrees on.
3) Applying to YCombinator.
4) Working as long as it takes to make a lot of users happy.
PG, Max Levchin, and other investors favor teams who are dedicated and flexible versus one specific idea.
I liked the previous (~4-5 minutes in) version of your comment better. ;-)
Anyway, I also think you're right in doing all of the above. And it looks like you'll find your cofounders, judging from other responses to your comment. Good luck with that.
I'm just saying that even if the investors (including YC) say no, you can still build something, see if people want it, and then get investment. You don't really need investors to start something, nowadays, and when you do need them they'll usually be there.
Anyway, I also think you're right in doing all of the above. And it looks like you'll find your cofounders, judging from other responses to your comment. Good luck with that.
I'm just saying that even if the investors (including YC) say no, you can still build something, see if people want it, and then get investment. You don't really need investors to start something, nowadays, and when you do need them they'll usually be there.
[deleted]
"You don't really need investors to start something, nowadays, and when you do need them they'll usually be there."
Thanks, but like I said in my post, I would rather get an exciting team together, get the legal and accounting stuff out of the way, and build a trusted relationship with an investor, and put to use what I've learned over the past 4 years. And none of those people work for free.
If it's possible to take care of all that stuff right away, it makes life very easy.
Thanks, but like I said in my post, I would rather get an exciting team together, get the legal and accounting stuff out of the way, and build a trusted relationship with an investor, and put to use what I've learned over the past 4 years. And none of those people work for free.
If it's possible to take care of all that stuff right away, it makes life very easy.
I agree with nostrademons. Make YC a sideline, not a destination or starting point. There's great power in taking charge for yourself.
If you don't feel compelled, it's because your goals aren't inspiring you. You need bigger goals. Possibly getting accepted to possibly work with unknown people on an unknown web app is not interesting enough to capture your imagination.
You have to think of something you really want, something that grabs you, especially if you don't know if you could do it or if it's even possible at all.
As for 5), have you heard of Pollground?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Combinator
That said, some great ideas seemed stupid to "experts" at the time; just trust your own gut feeling, not anyone else's. If you don't have a gut feeling, then you probably don't understand what people want in that area and should switch to another one (or steep yourself in the original a lot more).
If you don't feel compelled, it's because your goals aren't inspiring you. You need bigger goals. Possibly getting accepted to possibly work with unknown people on an unknown web app is not interesting enough to capture your imagination.
You have to think of something you really want, something that grabs you, especially if you don't know if you could do it or if it's even possible at all.
As for 5), have you heard of Pollground?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Combinator
That said, some great ideas seemed stupid to "experts" at the time; just trust your own gut feeling, not anyone else's. If you don't have a gut feeling, then you probably don't understand what people want in that area and should switch to another one (or steep yourself in the original a lot more).
Respectfully, I have no idea what you're talking about.
"What I'd like" isn't the same as, "here's how I can make money for you". That's what it boils down to with almost all investors; minus ones who are okay with sinking in money regardless of profit to scratch a personal itch (of course they're probably going to micromanage in that case).
> it is more important to have a good team, than a specific idea or a specific market
Ideas are certainly easier to come by; executing is the hard part. But there's no such thing as a generic "good team". If they don't have a feel for the particular idea then they are not going to execute as well.
If there is a lack in passion there is a lack in results.
> it is more important to have a good team, than a specific idea or a specific market
Ideas are certainly easier to come by; executing is the hard part. But there's no such thing as a generic "good team". If they don't have a feel for the particular idea then they are not going to execute as well.
If there is a lack in passion there is a lack in results.
I'm sorry you've experienced lack of passion in the past and want to share it, but I can't help you here. I have no idea what that must be like. I'm looking to take my 4-year-old lone adventure with one product, to a great team effort on something even bigger, always forging ahead without waiting for a perfect opportunity.
No matter how many times you post, the team means more than an idea. Ideas can be changed a million times once you're incorporated, invested, have a prototype, and user feedback. PG, Max Levchin, and others prefer a team versus an idea.
Again, thanks for sharing your experience.
No matter how many times you post, the team means more than an idea. Ideas can be changed a million times once you're incorporated, invested, have a prototype, and user feedback. PG, Max Levchin, and others prefer a team versus an idea.
Again, thanks for sharing your experience.
I'm not sure what you mean by "sharing" in this context but I did note your mini-autobiography above:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47588
Here's an example of what I mean by there being no generic "good" team:
Give me the top 5 athletes in the world. Maybe you pick Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Wayne Gretzky. Or maybe you pick Barry Bonds; or a top marathoner or sprinter or a boxer. Then I tell you we're playing basketball. And you get beaten by Venezuela.
> Again, thanks for sharing your experience.
I think you're taking what I'm saying the wrong way.
I'm pointing out that if you don't care what you work on, your results won't be as good. Thus, you should figure out what you do care about, and work on that.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47588
Here's an example of what I mean by there being no generic "good" team:
Give me the top 5 athletes in the world. Maybe you pick Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Wayne Gretzky. Or maybe you pick Barry Bonds; or a top marathoner or sprinter or a boxer. Then I tell you we're playing basketball. And you get beaten by Venezuela.
> Again, thanks for sharing your experience.
I think you're taking what I'm saying the wrong way.
I'm pointing out that if you don't care what you work on, your results won't be as good. Thus, you should figure out what you do care about, and work on that.
I said I don't care what project I take on as long as I'm with a great group of people, but you quoted me saying that I don't care (careless). That's a big difference.
That's a misinterpretation. Maybe this quote will explain it better:
"I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle." -- Steve Jobs
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-06150...
(You can also find it on Google Video)
> as long as I'm with a great group of people
Except how are you going to know that until they do great work? Which is very unlikely if you're not all working on what you love. If you don't care what you work on, then you haven't found what you love -- otherwise you'd work on that.
Merely being "great" without reference to a particular context isn't very useful. Take your favorite 5 entrepreneurs, stick them in a room, and probably nothing gets done. PG and Max Levchin we know; maybe Marc Andreessen; take your pick. They probably couldn't even agree on a language, and they're all used to being the one in charge.
"I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle." -- Steve Jobs
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-06150...
(You can also find it on Google Video)
> as long as I'm with a great group of people
Except how are you going to know that until they do great work? Which is very unlikely if you're not all working on what you love. If you don't care what you work on, then you haven't found what you love -- otherwise you'd work on that.
Merely being "great" without reference to a particular context isn't very useful. Take your favorite 5 entrepreneurs, stick them in a room, and probably nothing gets done. PG and Max Levchin we know; maybe Marc Andreessen; take your pick. They probably couldn't even agree on a language, and they're all used to being the one in charge.
No, there's no "misinterpretation." I hope you respect that I choose to follow more credible sources. It's very hard to take somebody's advice who we don't know. Maybe you care to share your background? Thanks for the discussion!
I DO want to work on what I want to work on, but with investment and other people (which might not be exactly what I or my team envisioned, of course.)
I DO want to work on what I want to work on, but with investment and other people (which might not be exactly what I or my team envisioned, of course.)
> I DO want to work on what I want to work on
That's funny, you just spent several messages reiterating that you didn't care what project you worked on.
To me, "please give me money and great people to work with" is not a convincing pitch. Plus, if I already have a group of great people working on something, why would I want to burden them with an additional person who had no particular interest in what they were working on?
On the other hand, if you were really interested in a particular problem domain and had expertise or at least enthusiasm for it specifically, then you're giving investors a more compelling reason to put their money behind you. Remember that investors aren't only the VCs and angels, they're the people you're working with. They have a lot invested, too.
That's funny, you just spent several messages reiterating that you didn't care what project you worked on.
To me, "please give me money and great people to work with" is not a convincing pitch. Plus, if I already have a group of great people working on something, why would I want to burden them with an additional person who had no particular interest in what they were working on?
On the other hand, if you were really interested in a particular problem domain and had expertise or at least enthusiasm for it specifically, then you're giving investors a more compelling reason to put their money behind you. Remember that investors aren't only the VCs and angels, they're the people you're working with. They have a lot invested, too.
[deleted]
I don't think that's what you said in the other posts. I find it very hard to follow your posts because you've made about 30 different points. At this time, there are more credible resources than yourself I choose to follow. I hope you respect that. If you would like to share your credentials and background like I have, then by all means.
I wish you well, and thanks for the discussion.
I wish you well, and thanks for the discussion.
Well Vlad you certainly know how to hijack a thread and turn it into your own subject matter. Well done boy. Waiting for the death rattle. Although our averaging and estimates on the numbers may be fair the numbers may be skewed by the fact that numbers alone mean nothing in the face of quality. As YComb gets more 'popular' the quality of applicants will improve and so I would suggest the chances have actually reduced in real terms not increased.
P.S. I am looking for co-founders with amazing hacking skills to join our application team. Any Hackers without an idea or team are welcome to contact me: [email protected]. I have strong ideas to discuss and am keen to organise a team together or discuss other ideas we, as a TEAM, may propose.
P.S. I am looking for co-founders with amazing hacking skills to join our application team. Any Hackers without an idea or team are welcome to contact me: [email protected]. I have strong ideas to discuss and am keen to organise a team together or discuss other ideas we, as a TEAM, may propose.
Don't believe that your chances are worse this season. You will learn a lot regardless of what happens.
The question is, did my post help people? I've never mentioned my project here before, and I hope it did help. Best of luck to you!
The question is, did my post help people? I've never mentioned my project here before, and I hope it did help. Best of luck to you!
I'm certain that's a bad idea. They were overwhelmed by the 400+ apps they got last time...I don't think they'd take kindly to someone gaming the system and forcing them to read an extra 20 apps (I'm pretty sure the round file would be the only one seeing all of your applications).
I went back and made it more obvious I was kidding. But is there any hacker serious about being an entrepreneur and working on a project during the Winter session and beyond?
I am interested, please contact me at [email protected]
Contact me.
[deleted]
Does anyone know if you get some feedback when you apply early?
In the last round, we got an e-mail from PG back within hours. It said, basically, "Too many uncommitted founders. Ditch some and hire them back as employees when you have money." We had submitted one day before the deadline (I'd thought it was half an hour actually...I misunderstood the deadline), and he encouraged us to resubmit if we could deal with the founder issue.
We ended up getting rejected anyway, but he turned out to be right. Basically, if there's an obvious problem with the application, he'll point it out to you. Don't expect him to write volumes or fix something that's so far out in left field that it's hopeless, though. Maybe a paragraph or so.
I also got back a long response from Trevor when I applied to SFP05. In retrospect it had a lot of good points, though I wasn't ready to hear them at the time. I doubt they have time to do that sort of detailed fixes/clarifications now, though.
We ended up getting rejected anyway, but he turned out to be right. Basically, if there's an obvious problem with the application, he'll point it out to you. Don't expect him to write volumes or fix something that's so far out in left field that it's hopeless, though. Maybe a paragraph or so.
I also got back a long response from Trevor when I applied to SFP05. In retrospect it had a lot of good points, though I wasn't ready to hear them at the time. I doubt they have time to do that sort of detailed fixes/clarifications now, though.
Wow, I remember when this was brought up before in other threads, everybody who answered said they just received a standard rejection notice.
I got an email from Paul and a call from Jessica, both asking why we were doing this now as undergraduates. I think it's a very good sign if you get some interaction with them before the deadline, but it's not a bad sign if you don't get any feedback.
Throw in the fact some applications, maybe as many as half, are broken (thirteen year old founders, clones of existing ideas, etc) and you've got a great shot.
Anyone that still has cold feet, get in there and apply!