3 ms·

There is a lack of specific information as to why YC companies die. Your generalizations are extremely helpful, but is there some repository of stories as to wh

There is a lack of specific information as to why YC companies die. Your generalizations are extremely helpful, but is there some repository of stories as to what happened in each case? A ping out to all companies to report on their status might be the best way to go. Then you'd hear from those still living, which is how not to die, right? :)

SwellJoe 19y ago
He's talked about this before (mostly here at News.YC and in his the "How not to die" essay, which you've alluded to). But, I've noticed that most go back to what they were doing before because the raising of additional funds proved difficult or boring. I think the rejection process can also be really hard on folks, and very few startups get funded on their first try, so there's a lot of rejection. I believe that's the case with three of the companies that "died" from WFP07 (which are the only ones I know well enough to say anything about). One went back to contracting and building cool websites for indie rock bands and related companies, and another company sort of split off into different things...2/3 of them ended up working for other YC companies (one of which has since exited), while the third went back to writing (I think). The third company that "died" went back to school to do research, and presumably the grants needed to continue the work are easier to obtain for PhD students than investment for research-stage ideas that don't quite have a market and won't for another few years.
- ivankirigin 19y ago
  Context is everything. I'm looking to better understand why a company might succeed or fail - something beyond a meaningless percentage. It seems like a very useful skill. A company that can't raise money for an idea or implementation I judge to be bad shouldn't weight down my perception of raising money on a good idea. Thanks for the info though. A fuller picture would also involve the personalities of the founders. Judging potential future performance from an initial meeting is invaluable. I've been thinking a lot about this in preparation to start hiring.
pg 19y ago
Usually the way startups die is that they launch something, users ignore it, investors are lukewarm, and they get demoralized and give up. Sometimes there are other forces encouraging them to give up, like the pull of school, or the push of founder conflicts. It's normal for users not to like what you first launch with, and for investors to be lukewarm. (Investors are basically permanently lukewarm.) So the groups who give up usually are looking at about the same information as other groups who keep going and succeed. Most of the time it comes down to whether they see the glass as half full or half empty.

SwellJoe 19y ago

He's talked about this before (mostly here at News.YC and in his the "How not to die" essay, which you've alluded to). But, I've noticed that most go back to what they were doing before because the raising of additional funds proved difficult or boring. I think the rejection process can also be really hard on folks, and very few startups get funded on their first try, so there's a lot of rejection. I believe that's the case with three of the companies that "died" from WFP07 (which are the only ones I know well enough to say anything about). One went back to contracting and building cool websites for indie rock bands and related companies, and another company sort of split off into different things...2/3 of them ended up working for other YC companies (one of which has since exited), while the third went back to writing (I think). The third company that "died" went back to school to do research, and presumably the grants needed to continue the work are easier to obtain for PhD students than investment for research-stage ideas that don't quite have a market and won't for another few years.

ivankirigin 19y ago
Context is everything. I'm looking to better understand why a company might succeed or fail - something beyond a meaningless percentage. It seems like a very useful skill. A company that can't raise money for an idea or implementation I judge to be bad shouldn't weight down my perception of raising money on a good idea. Thanks for the info though. A fuller picture would also involve the personalities of the founders. Judging potential future performance from an initial meeting is invaluable. I've been thinking a lot about this in preparation to start hiring.

pg 19y ago

Usually the way startups die is that they launch something, users ignore it, investors are lukewarm, and they get demoralized and give up. Sometimes there are other forces encouraging them to give up, like the pull of school, or the push of founder conflicts. It's normal for users not to like what you first launch with, and for investors to be lukewarm. (Investors are basically permanently lukewarm.) So the groups who give up usually are looking at about the same information as other groups who keep going and succeed. Most of the time it comes down to whether they see the glass as half full or half empty.