26 ms·

I don't see the subtext that connects mass production and comfort with failure. In fact, I see mass production as a way to reduce failure rates. The idea behind

I don't see the subtext that connects mass production and comfort with failure. In fact, I see mass production as a way to reduce failure rates. The idea behind mass production is to take a process that's done in a low-volume, idiosyncratic way and replace it with a process that can be reliably repeated at scale. With Y Combinator, that means replacing the rocky solo founder journey with a community full of of advisors and partners who can advise on topics like incorporation, financial planning, customer testing, investor relations, hiring, etc. There's no reason for a new founder to re-invent the wheel when the Y Combinator collective has already manufactured 1,000 wheels and gotten it down to a science. Founders should focus on their customers and their product - everything else should be 'mass produced' to the extent possible. (An example of this sort of mass production is pg's advice to incorporate as a Delaware C corp. Advice like this can save your fledgling startup from a week of legal research. Having 'mass-produced' shortcuts to these sorts of managerial microdecisions can make or break a startup.)

abstractbeliefs 9y ago
I guess mostly because you're spending less on them in overheads. When you can share the same overhead costs over 10 startups and expect 9 of them to fail, that's more palatable than spending the overhead 10 times for each individual company. And it's not just monetary costs: you can get more done when you have all the companies demo day together, simply by having to arrange fewer meetings individually, and less time travelling/setting up etc.
vonnik 9y ago
The subtext may not be in Jessica's piece, but YC's strategy implies that only a few of their investments need to go big for them to win. While certain aspects of YC do standardize startup growth, a lot of parts of the process can't be standardized. What you have left is a numbers game. If all YC startups succeeded, that would be a sign of failure, because it would indicate that YC itself was not taking sufficient risk.

abstractbeliefs 9y ago

I guess mostly because you're spending less on them in overheads. When you can share the same overhead costs over 10 startups and expect 9 of them to fail, that's more palatable than spending the overhead 10 times for each individual company. And it's not just monetary costs: you can get more done when you have all the companies demo day together, simply by having to arrange fewer meetings individually, and less time travelling/setting up etc.

vonnik 9y ago

The subtext may not be in Jessica's piece, but YC's strategy implies that only a few of their investments need to go big for them to win. While certain aspects of YC do standardize startup growth, a lot of parts of the process can't be standardized. What you have left is a numbers game. If all YC startups succeeded, that would be a sign of failure, because it would indicate that YC itself was not taking sufficient risk.