4 ms·

Interesting. I've heard about many of these startups before today (Convore, Earbits, etc.) A few possible explanations, I wonder which is right: 1. I'm on HN

by edanm 16y ago

Interesting. I've heard about many of these startups before today (Convore, Earbits, etc.) A few possible explanations, I wonder which is right: 1. I'm on HN more and I pay attention to YC companies more. 2. YC companies are launching sooner and sooner. 3. YC companies are getting more press attention sooner. 4. YC is funding companies that have more product "in place' before going to YC.

citizenkeys 16y ago
Here's my theory based on my own experience: YC has been going on long enough that most of the start-ups have applied to YC before, been rejected, and kept on working on their start-up. So by the time the start-up is accepted into YC, they have a more complete product.
petercooper 16y ago
I also wondered this. Perhaps my memory is poor but I seem to recall that in previous years most YC entrants were small teams of people who really needed ramen money to get a prototype out of the door.. whereas a lot of these seem to be a lot more mature development wise and are, perhaps, needing the money to specifically work toward a VC round.
- iamwil 16y ago
  There is that, but it's a mix. Convore was built mostly in the three months of YC, and they launched early too.
  - sbisker 16y ago
    Given her track record, I doubt Leah Culver's new company is the best example of a team who "really needed ramen money to get out the door." But that's besides the point. The point is, YC used to be a program that was 'taking a chance,' by its very existence. Now that it's established, I feel like the world expects them to keep taking more chances - both on the types of people it invests in, and in the process of investing. It's definitely doing that in a number of ways (the Yuri thing, scaling, taking on more partners) - but the aspiring applicants here who haven't yet seen traction (or learned what traction is) see themselves as what YC should be taking more chances on. This may just an extension of the scaling question - with 1,000 applicants, how do you pick out the teams that just need time to prove themselves, and how do you make room for them in a crowded program to give them the mentorship they need?
revorad 16y ago
5. All of the above.

by edanm 16y ago

citizenkeys 16y ago

Here's my theory based on my own experience: YC has been going on long enough that most of the start-ups have applied to YC before, been rejected, and kept on working on their start-up. So by the time the start-up is accepted into YC, they have a more complete product.

petercooper 16y ago

I also wondered this. Perhaps my memory is poor but I seem to recall that in previous years most YC entrants were small teams of people who really needed ramen money to get a prototype out of the door.. whereas a lot of these seem to be a lot more mature development wise and are, perhaps, needing the money to specifically work toward a VC round.

iamwil 16y ago
There is that, but it's a mix. Convore was built mostly in the three months of YC, and they launched early too.
- sbisker 16y ago
  Given her track record, I doubt Leah Culver's new company is the best example of a team who "really needed ramen money to get out the door." But that's besides the point. The point is, YC used to be a program that was 'taking a chance,' by its very existence. Now that it's established, I feel like the world expects them to keep taking more chances - both on the types of people it invests in, and in the process of investing. It's definitely doing that in a number of ways (the Yuri thing, scaling, taking on more partners) - but the aspiring applicants here who haven't yet seen traction (or learned what traction is) see themselves as what YC should be taking more chances on. This may just an extension of the scaling question - with 1,000 applicants, how do you pick out the teams that just need time to prove themselves, and how do you make room for them in a crowded program to give them the mentorship they need?

revorad 16y ago

5. All of the above.