5 ms·

The post is biz-dev, not friendly advice. Look, it benefits YC if you apply. They are trying to reduce the probability that you don't apply. It takes a lot of

The post is biz-dev, not friendly advice. Look, it benefits YC if you apply. They are trying to reduce the probability that you don't apply. It takes a lot of time and effort from you to put together a high quality pitch and very little for them to evaluate it. They lose nothing turning you down. They lose a lot if you are successful but didn't bother to apply. The numbers are kind of a crock of shit for reasons others have articulated in this thread. YC is a business, this is a press release. Don't be shocked that it's transparent biz-dev bullshit. (But do be offended, and do let it reduce the probability that you do business with YC, because if they can't treat you like an intelligent customer, they're probably peddling snake oil.) Edit: I'm not trying to discourage startups from seeking funding. I just hate pre-21st-century marketing hype. Developers live in a post-Cluetrain-manifesto universe, we expect intelligence, authenticity, and depth. Our currency is trust, you build trust by being correct, thorough, and sincere. The blog post was correct but shallow and insincere. That loses trust; lost trust means lost business.

Iv 10y ago
After reading it, I totally disagree. They provide numbers, they assume the reader is intelligent and hope they will learn new things and unlearn wrong assumptions. Yes, their interest is in more people applying, but I don't see them being misleading. For me, they are actually really assuming intelligence from their readers. They don't say "We love foreign companies! Apply if you are foreigner!" They say "29% [of W16] were from outside the US". Which I read as "we are pretty US-centric but you still have a chance". They don't say "Apply even if you are solo!" They say that some solo project were funded but that they are a small minority and that they do not recommend this path. Of course this is self-interested, but I fail to see where it is dishonest.
- venkynarayanan 10y ago
  YC encourages founders to be concise and get to the point, so if they wanted to say "we are pretty US-centric but you still have a chance", they could have and should have just said in plain language. > They provide numbers, they assume the reader is intelligent and hope they will learn new things and unlearn wrong assumptions. This exactly is the issue people here are intelligent and that is why they can see the glaring gaps in the way the data is presented. I think people are little pissed because the article chose to go the data route and dint provide the complete information for people to infer from.
  - Iv 10y ago
    You seem to complain that they did not dumb it down enough and that did dumb it down too much. They provided a number, explaining what this number was. Assuming the reader is actually educated in statistics 101, that is not misleading at all. Yes, they could publish all their data, but you also said you want concision. You can't have it both ways!

Iv 10y ago

After reading it, I totally disagree. They provide numbers, they assume the reader is intelligent and hope they will learn new things and unlearn wrong assumptions. Yes, their interest is in more people applying, but I don't see them being misleading. For me, they are actually really assuming intelligence from their readers. They don't say "We love foreign companies! Apply if you are foreigner!" They say "29% [of W16] were from outside the US". Which I read as "we are pretty US-centric but you still have a chance". They don't say "Apply even if you are solo!" They say that some solo project were funded but that they are a small minority and that they do not recommend this path. Of course this is self-interested, but I fail to see where it is dishonest.

venkynarayanan 10y ago
YC encourages founders to be concise and get to the point, so if they wanted to say "we are pretty US-centric but you still have a chance", they could have and should have just said in plain language. > They provide numbers, they assume the reader is intelligent and hope they will learn new things and unlearn wrong assumptions. This exactly is the issue people here are intelligent and that is why they can see the glaring gaps in the way the data is presented. I think people are little pissed because the article chose to go the data route and dint provide the complete information for people to infer from.
- Iv 10y ago
  You seem to complain that they did not dumb it down enough and that did dumb it down too much. They provided a number, explaining what this number was. Assuming the reader is actually educated in statistics 101, that is not misleading at all. Yes, they could publish all their data, but you also said you want concision. You can't have it both ways!