4 ms·

You do realize, of course, that YC depends on the idea that certain people will adjust as necessary to become unicorns. They're fairly explicit about it. And

You do realize, of course, that YC depends on the idea that certain people will adjust as necessary to become unicorns. They're fairly explicit about it. And their track record is pretty positive about the concept.

seiji 11y ago
I'll give you a billion dollars if you stop saying "unicorn" like it actually means something.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  Great. You've decided to focus on terminology. Congratulations. Am I wrong about YC's central operating principle? Are they not explicit about it? Does their track record prove them wrong?
  - 001sky 11y ago
    This has nothing to do with YC. The math just doesnt agree with your argument.
  - pswilson14 11y ago
    95% of YC-backed startups fail. A few go on to have decent success, and maybe 2 or 3 YC ventures actually went on to billion-dollar valuations (Dropbox and Airbnb). And that's considered a really good success rate. Since we're talking here about what you call 'unicorns' (I hate that word), then we're talking about the odds of building a billion-dollar company. YC is made up of hundreds of incredibly talented entrepreneurs, and even then, it's pretty evident that building a billion dollar company is as much about luck and circumstance as it is about talent and determination. EDIT: Correction - I was very wrong about YC stats, as it turns out [1]. My mistake. I stand by the original point, though. 8 billion-dollar companies out of ~940 YC companies demonstrate clearly that building a billion dollar company isn't easy, and takes a whole lot of luck. [1] http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-stats http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-stats
    - mattmanser 11y ago
      Where did you pluck the 95% figure from? 50% of yc startups are still going. http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-stats http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-stats
      - pswilson14 11y ago
        I guess I was looking at some very out-of-date or possibly incorrect figures. My mistake. Updated my comment accordingly.
      - seiji 11y ago
        95% could be accurate. I'd consider every "acqi-hire" an overt failure. Your business failed, but you personally got to fail upwards. acqui-hires are generally VC-engineere soft landings (everybody has friends they can ask for $50 million in a pinch, right?). Just because money changes hands in the end doesn't make it a success. You fail upwards until you become a creature of pure thought leadership (i.e. a VC whose only job is to 'have an opinion' on stuff and can never be proven wrong because, hey, it's all an opinion or luck or the market or some unforeseeable outside force you failed to consider when failures continually happen).
        mattmanser 11y ago
        You didn't read those figures did you.
sp332 11y ago
Looks like most YC companies fail. Maybe slightly fewer than average startups, but still a track record of people not magically adjusting.
cookiecaper 11y ago
VCs consider the entire context around their would-be unicorns. They don't invest solely on the founder's determination. They also consider the plausibility of the idea, the market conditions around the proposed business, the estimated amount of resources needed to compete, etc. It is NOT solely based on one's determination to be "a unicorn", though it's nice to have a determined founder. People who believe that will is everything are generally pretty naive. Successful people know that if external conditions were even slightly different, their path wouldn't have turned out the way it did, and no one can guarantee it would've been as prosperous. For example, I make an OK living as a software developer. My interest in computers started when my dad brought home a Packard-Bell in the early 90s. He bought it through a discount program that his workplace offered to increase computer ownership amongst their employees. If he had worked for a different company, or if his company had not made it affordable for him to buy a computer when they were still relatively uncommon in homes, it's very possible that I would be out there bagging groceries somewhere. If MySpace had been a little wiser, there would've been no room for Facebook. Did the people at MySpace feel the sheer force of Zuckerberg's unicorn-desire and decide to just back off? I don't think so. He was in the right place (at least half-random) at the right time (80%-ish random) and had the right skillset (probably 10% random). There are many thousands of kids like him that didn't have "the stars align" when they had their shot. It doesn't mean Z. wanted it harder and it doesn't mean that these no-names didn't do a good job. The world is not a meritocracy.

seiji 11y ago

I'll give you a billion dollars if you stop saying "unicorn" like it actually means something.

waterlesscloud 11y ago
Great. You've decided to focus on terminology. Congratulations. Am I wrong about YC's central operating principle? Are they not explicit about it? Does their track record prove them wrong?
- 001sky 11y ago
  This has nothing to do with YC. The math just doesnt agree with your argument.
- pswilson14 11y ago
  95% of YC-backed startups fail. A few go on to have decent success, and maybe 2 or 3 YC ventures actually went on to billion-dollar valuations (Dropbox and Airbnb). And that's considered a really good success rate. Since we're talking here about what you call 'unicorns' (I hate that word), then we're talking about the odds of building a billion-dollar company. YC is made up of hundreds of incredibly talented entrepreneurs, and even then, it's pretty evident that building a billion dollar company is as much about luck and circumstance as it is about talent and determination. EDIT: Correction - I was very wrong about YC stats, as it turns out [1]. My mistake. I stand by the original point, though. 8 billion-dollar companies out of ~940 YC companies demonstrate clearly that building a billion dollar company isn't easy, and takes a whole lot of luck. [1] http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-stats http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-stats
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    Where did you pluck the 95% figure from? 50% of yc startups are still going. http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-stats http://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-stats
    - pswilson14 11y ago
      I guess I was looking at some very out-of-date or possibly incorrect figures. My mistake. Updated my comment accordingly.
    - seiji 11y ago
      95% could be accurate. I'd consider every "acqi-hire" an overt failure. Your business failed, but you personally got to fail upwards. acqui-hires are generally VC-engineere soft landings (everybody has friends they can ask for $50 million in a pinch, right?). Just because money changes hands in the end doesn't make it a success. You fail upwards until you become a creature of pure thought leadership (i.e. a VC whose only job is to 'have an opinion' on stuff and can never be proven wrong because, hey, it's all an opinion or luck or the market or some unforeseeable outside force you failed to consider when failures continually happen).
      - mattmanser 11y ago
        You didn't read those figures did you.

sp332 11y ago

Looks like most YC companies fail. Maybe slightly fewer than average startups, but still a track record of people not magically adjusting.

cookiecaper 11y ago

VCs consider the entire context around their would-be unicorns. They don't invest solely on the founder's determination. They also consider the plausibility of the idea, the market conditions around the proposed business, the estimated amount of resources needed to compete, etc. It is NOT solely based on one's determination to be "a unicorn", though it's nice to have a determined founder. People who believe that will is everything are generally pretty naive. Successful people know that if external conditions were even slightly different, their path wouldn't have turned out the way it did, and no one can guarantee it would've been as prosperous. For example, I make an OK living as a software developer. My interest in computers started when my dad brought home a Packard-Bell in the early 90s. He bought it through a discount program that his workplace offered to increase computer ownership amongst their employees. If he had worked for a different company, or if his company had not made it affordable for him to buy a computer when they were still relatively uncommon in homes, it's very possible that I would be out there bagging groceries somewhere. If MySpace had been a little wiser, there would've been no room for Facebook. Did the people at MySpace feel the sheer force of Zuckerberg's unicorn-desire and decide to just back off? I don't think so. He was in the right place (at least half-random) at the right time (80%-ish random) and had the right skillset (probably 10% random). There are many thousands of kids like him that didn't have "the stars align" when they had their shot. It doesn't mean Z. wanted it harder and it doesn't mean that these no-names didn't do a good job. The world is not a meritocracy.