3 ms·

Incidentally, I wouldn't want it to be much higher. If it was 100%, it would mean we were picking too conservatively. You've mentioned that the classes are get

by byoung2 16y ago

Incidentally, I wouldn't want it to be much higher. If it was 100%, it would mean we were picking too conservatively. You've mentioned that the classes are getting larger and there are more companies who are applying to YC when they're already profitable. Won't there be a time when this number has to hit 100% because there are more profitable companies coming in than you can accommodate in a class?

wheels 16y ago
In very early stages, profitability is not the best predictor of a future large liquidity event (i.e. the thing YC wants to optimize for). Facebook and Google would been thusly rejected.
- byoung2 16y ago
  I was referring to PG's post above. He said that YC has a good idea of who is successful at the next stage after YC (the number who are either able to raise more after YC, or don't need to because they're profitable). If more and more YC applicants are profitable on the way in, the number who are profitable as they exit YC (one of PG's definitions of success as described above) will necessarily trend up.
- _delirium 16y ago
  I'm curious what the months-to-profitability was at Google. They were incorporated in September 1998, and turned a $7m annual profit in 2001. Were they profitable in 2000? 1999? They don't give data going back before 2001 in their own reports (http://investor.google.com/financial/2003/tables.html http://investor.google.com/financial/2003/tables.html has 2001-2003).
  - erik 16y ago
    I remember a gap between when I started using Google and when ads appeared on the site. Also, it's somewhat relevant that Brin started working towards what would become Google in 1996.
pg 16y ago
We don't feel obliged to fund every profitable company that applies. I'm sure we've turned down some.
- johnrob 16y ago
  While there are always extreme exceptions (asshole founders), would YC really turn down a profitable company that had an upstanding & scalable business model (i.e. not a service business, local business, or something porn/vice related)? A VC may balk because the company can't absorb a million or more in capital, but YC is only invests roughly 20K. EDIT: To answer my own question, I suppose if there were enough other applicants that were for whatever reason more promising, this could easily happen.
  - byoung2 16y ago
    would YC really turn down a profitable company that had an upstanding & scalable business model I think there's your answer...there are likely quite a few applicants with profitable companies (ramen or otherwise) but that aren't scalable, likely to attract outside investment, or suitable for acquisition.

by byoung2 16y ago

wheels 16y ago

In very early stages, profitability is not the best predictor of a future large liquidity event (i.e. the thing YC wants to optimize for). Facebook and Google would been thusly rejected.

byoung2 16y ago
I was referring to PG's post above. He said that YC has a good idea of who is successful at the next stage after YC (the number who are either able to raise more after YC, or don't need to because they're profitable). If more and more YC applicants are profitable on the way in, the number who are profitable as they exit YC (one of PG's definitions of success as described above) will necessarily trend up.
_delirium 16y ago
I'm curious what the months-to-profitability was at Google. They were incorporated in September 1998, and turned a $7m annual profit in 2001. Were they profitable in 2000? 1999? They don't give data going back before 2001 in their own reports (http://investor.google.com/financial/2003/tables.html http://investor.google.com/financial/2003/tables.html has 2001-2003).
- erik 16y ago
  I remember a gap between when I started using Google and when ads appeared on the site. Also, it's somewhat relevant that Brin started working towards what would become Google in 1996.

pg 16y ago

We don't feel obliged to fund every profitable company that applies. I'm sure we've turned down some.

johnrob 16y ago
While there are always extreme exceptions (asshole founders), would YC really turn down a profitable company that had an upstanding & scalable business model (i.e. not a service business, local business, or something porn/vice related)? A VC may balk because the company can't absorb a million or more in capital, but YC is only invests roughly 20K. EDIT: To answer my own question, I suppose if there were enough other applicants that were for whatever reason more promising, this could easily happen.
- byoung2 16y ago
  would YC really turn down a profitable company that had an upstanding & scalable business model I think there's your answer...there are likely quite a few applicants with profitable companies (ramen or otherwise) but that aren't scalable, likely to attract outside investment, or suitable for acquisition.