3 ms·
The thing is that people didn't lose interest in startups. Startups lost interest in people. I am still interested startups that do things differently, accelera
by miskid 5y ago
The thing is that people didn't lose interest in startups. Startups lost interest in people. I am still interested startups that do things differently, accelerators that enables startup that otherwise wouldn't happen or other things that are, well, interesting. But those are few and far between these days.
I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that you have to like something because of its process even if you dislike the outcome. Ironically I think that was what put YC apart in the first place. Every other incubator would talk about their fancy offices, lawyers and contacts but then wouldn't produce many notable startups. And by that measure YC probably never would have happened, or at least didn't deserve support.
It's something I think about whenever there is a development with some really popular company. That if the company had adopted the mindset of those rooting for it it probably wouldn't have been successful in the first place.
- zt 5y agoOn the first line what do you mean by "The thing is that people didn't lose interest in startups. Startups lost interest in people." Or what, differently, do you want startups to do? (I"m genuinely asking, I'm curious!). I'm all for things like longer exercise windows, insourcing, etc, but I also think that startups, generally, have a much more inclusive brand of capitalism than most normal companies. As for the rest, I'm not sure I follow the argument. I do not agree with the notion that every company that succeeds but has gone through YC would have succeeded without YC. I also don't agree with the notion that only companies that are going to succeed either way go through YC either. Empirically the latter is more easily falsifiable but I think both are false.