4 ms·

> The reason there aren't more Googles is not that investors encourage innovative startups to sell out, but that they won't even fund them. This goes for YC as

by freax 18y ago

> The reason there aren't more Googles is not that investors encourage innovative startups to sell out, but that they won't even fund them. This goes for YC as well. Surely there are some technically innovative applicants that don't fit the mould of web sites to make quizzes or 10-second cartoons or other such dubious acceptees. Google itself would have been rejected on at least a couple of grounds: project being too big to make much progress in 3 months (crawling the entire web!), and needing too much money ($15k ought to be enough for anybody!). IIRC they got not only the $100k from Bechtolsheim but also a similar amount from Cheriton. > And yet it's the bold ideas that generate the biggest returns. Yet YC sticks with smaller ideas... > It's remarkable how wedded they are to their standard m.o. This also seems to apply to YC. Small idea, $15k, 3 months, move your ass to Boston (then move again to SV, where you should have been in the first place), standard terms, no negotiation of the offer if YC accepts you.

pg 18y ago
You're wrong. We care mostly about the founders. And we have funded projects so ambitious that they've taken 2 years to build.
- freax 18y ago
  From your previous letter: "We rejected a lot of proposals [...] because the project seemed too big to start on only three months of funding." All your non-defunct fundees are still "building", but that's not the same as accepting groups you know are going to take two years and a lot more funding right at the outset. As for caring about the founders/investing in people instead of ideas, that doesn't hold up for several reasons: 1) If you really end up changing the idea so often anyway, as often claimed, the idea proposed wouldn't be grounds for rejection if the founders were otherwise good; 2) Many founders don't have track records, thus you have nothing to judge them on; 3) Some applicants do have track records, but you reject them without reviewing the stuff they've done due to lack of time or other reasons.
  - pg 18y ago
    That sentence isn't in the most recent emails. I took it out precisely because it's no longer true. It was in the rejection email we sent the first summer, and as often happens with text you rarely look at, it stayed around after it had become false. And by building, I meant two years to launch. There's a startup we funded two years ago that's launching in late spring or early summer.
    - freax 18y ago
      It still doesn't make sense. You say two years ago you had this max-timeframe criteria; but there's a startup you funded two years ago that has yet to launch. Well, you can't use them as an example of your foresight if they accidentally slipped through your filter, or if they accidentally ended up taking much longer than expected. Fo' shizzle, G. It's kind of amusing the rejectees not only got a form letter, but a recycled one, which wasn't even accurate!
      - pg 18y ago
        You say two years ago you had this max-timeframe criteria The first batch was in the summer of 2005.
        freax 18y ago
        I forgot it was 2008. Cripes, I'm getting old.
        brlewis 18y ago
        Probably not. I turned 40 last month. I find that I'm much less likely to write the wrong year on my checks than I was 10 years ago. When you're younger, what year it is seems permanent, hard to change. Later you're no more likely to forget what year it is than you are to forget what month it is.
        Xichekolas 18y ago
- cperciva 18y ago
  I'm curious: Where does the $15k number fit into that? At one point it was explained as "this should be enough money for you to live off for three months" -- if you're funding groups which take 2 years to launch, how are they supporting themselves for the remaining 21 months?
  - lg 18y ago
    you'd figure they can get more money (from angels/vc's) before they launch if what they've got so far is impressive.
    - cperciva 18y ago
      yeah, that's one possibility -- I was hoping to find out if that was what happened or not. :-)
  - pg 18y ago
    See the third paragraph: http://ycombinator.com/about.html http://ycombinator.com/about.html

by freax 18y ago

pg 18y ago

You're wrong. We care mostly about the founders. And we have funded projects so ambitious that they've taken 2 years to build.

freax 18y ago
From your previous letter: "We rejected a lot of proposals [...] because the project seemed too big to start on only three months of funding." All your non-defunct fundees are still "building", but that's not the same as accepting groups you know are going to take two years and a lot more funding right at the outset. As for caring about the founders/investing in people instead of ideas, that doesn't hold up for several reasons: 1) If you really end up changing the idea so often anyway, as often claimed, the idea proposed wouldn't be grounds for rejection if the founders were otherwise good; 2) Many founders don't have track records, thus you have nothing to judge them on; 3) Some applicants do have track records, but you reject them without reviewing the stuff they've done due to lack of time or other reasons.
- pg 18y ago
  That sentence isn't in the most recent emails. I took it out precisely because it's no longer true. It was in the rejection email we sent the first summer, and as often happens with text you rarely look at, it stayed around after it had become false. And by building, I meant two years to launch. There's a startup we funded two years ago that's launching in late spring or early summer.
  - freax 18y ago
    It still doesn't make sense. You say two years ago you had this max-timeframe criteria; but there's a startup you funded two years ago that has yet to launch. Well, you can't use them as an example of your foresight if they accidentally slipped through your filter, or if they accidentally ended up taking much longer than expected. Fo' shizzle, G. It's kind of amusing the rejectees not only got a form letter, but a recycled one, which wasn't even accurate!
    - pg 18y ago
      You say two years ago you had this max-timeframe criteria The first batch was in the summer of 2005.
      - freax 18y ago
        I forgot it was 2008. Cripes, I'm getting old.
        brlewis 18y ago
        Probably not. I turned 40 last month. I find that I'm much less likely to write the wrong year on my checks than I was 10 years ago. When you're younger, what year it is seems permanent, hard to change. Later you're no more likely to forget what year it is than you are to forget what month it is.
        Xichekolas 18y ago
cperciva 18y ago
I'm curious: Where does the $15k number fit into that? At one point it was explained as "this should be enough money for you to live off for three months" -- if you're funding groups which take 2 years to launch, how are they supporting themselves for the remaining 21 months?
- lg 18y ago
  you'd figure they can get more money (from angels/vc's) before they launch if what they've got so far is impressive.
  - cperciva 18y ago
    yeah, that's one possibility -- I was hoping to find out if that was what happened or not. :-)
- pg 18y ago
  See the third paragraph: http://ycombinator.com/about.html http://ycombinator.com/about.html