3 ms·

I think you missed the point, it is not about me, otherwise the "mole" would not be very anonymous and be self-defeating...yes I put that in a prior comment dir

I think you missed the point, it is not about me, otherwise the "mole" would not be very anonymous and be self-defeating...yes I put that in a prior comment directly to PG's comment, but this is a separate post and I do not suggest me. Separately, " OP admits no one wants" I do not know where you got that, in fact I picked up users from HN who have posted they think geotagged videos could be very useful in many different industries, but yes I applied to Google Ventures and YouTube created a similar product a few months later - did I say they ripped me off? No I just said it sucks...As to the plug-in you are correct my product would be better if it did not require a plug-in, but I can not just demand Google release an API for Google Earth that does not require a plug-in. Now...if I can smoothly transition your post about me back to my OP, I did not require PG to take a position that Founders have more power with Investors than any other time, I just disagree. I never said YC guarantees success, but it does guarantee funding, and as you will note my post is about PG's take on investment not success as you seem to read into my post. If you believe you as a Founder have more power today with investors than any other time, that is fine, you do not need to attack me personally because you disagree, maybe it is a fair characterization to say I called PG out, but I am not attacking PG personally just offering a way to prove his statement. Others have already commented my "challenge" would not prove anything, but admit my hypothesis is correct. I agree there is an inherent problem with YC putting someone they rejected in front of investors, unbeknownst to investors, but "ruin YC's credibility" that is a joke. However, I think your position proves my point as to PG's statement that the power does not rest with Founders otherwise if a investor liked a start-up they should not care whether they were a YC company or not, ie. if you invest after a demo at YC only to revoke your investment upon learning that Company was not accepted into YC, then my point is proven. So I guess a alternative challenge could be informing investors that a YC company that received investment is not really a YC company and see if the investors revoke their "hand-shake deal".

itsprofitbaron 14y ago
To address your comment, I respectfully disagree with the majority of it. Especially "attacking you personally" I didn't do that as highlighted by the fact that I clearly stated "this may come across as harsh but, it's useful feedback" Moreover, your comment came across (alongside this response) that Google "stole" your idea after you reached out to Google Ventures. The idea has been around for a while for instance, Virtual Video Map launched in 2006 (their domain is a parked page) which used Google Maps + YouTube - http://googlesystem.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/google-maps-youtube-video-map.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/google-maps-youtu... - and that is something you should probably look at using their maps product instead of Google Earth would remove user friction considerably. Similarly, the idea of a mole does ruin YC's credibility and it does not benefit YC - they are producing 2 Demo Day's per year who they have told the press and other investors that this batch of founders are ones who they believed are the most resourceful with potentially great ideas. Having a mole company goes against that ideology because, YC does not believe that this "mole" company is what they are saying but more importantly, YC are a company and they don't owe anyone anything trying to prove a point which is true. Founders do have more power today - the cost of starting up a company has fallen drastically and more investors have realised that whilst they can provide help/ideas they have also realised/accepted that a founder may have more domain knowledge into the company then they do which is why, they let them run with their ideas. A classic example of this is with Fred Wilson / Tumblr - Fred wanted comments on Tumblr although David (Tumblrs founder) didn't and pushed back on the idea of not having comments on there - Fred agrees and covers it here: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/05/great-entrepreneurs-will-listen-to-you-but-will-follow-their-own-instincts.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/05/great-entrepreneurs-will-lis... Finally, regarding "YC guarantees you funding" they invest $11k + $3000 per founder (as well as YC VC) but after that, you are on your own - being in YC attracts some investor interest but it does not guarantee they will hand you a check.
- will_brown 14y ago
  Related to your feedback on my start-up, I do not think it was harsh and think it is spot on. Again to transition - unless I am mistaken YC does guarantee I believe in the form of a convertible note in the amount of $80,000 which was reduced from $150,000 from past batches. Though any automatic funding is irrelevant to my point. I even agree and say in my 1st reply that there is an inherent problem with YC permitting a company who was rejected, to present at demo day unbeknownst to the investors. I just do not think such a move would injure YC, they could disclose that 1 of the companies is non-YC but their identity will remain unknown until after demo day - I even believe investors would be very interested in learning who that 1 company was if only to justify their own bias towards YC companies especially if it is determined that the non-YC company attracted more investor attention than the average YC company - and in such a case you are correct YC may lose credibility. As an investor if your going to skip YC demo day because they are experimenting with their own program, that is your loss as the investor. Keep in mind YC is an experiment to begin with, they just have been very successful at what they set out to do...disrupt the start-up industry.

itsprofitbaron 14y ago

To address your comment, I respectfully disagree with the majority of it. Especially "attacking you personally" I didn't do that as highlighted by the fact that I clearly stated "this may come across as harsh but, it's useful feedback" Moreover, your comment came across (alongside this response) that Google "stole" your idea after you reached out to Google Ventures. The idea has been around for a while for instance, Virtual Video Map launched in 2006 (their domain is a parked page) which used Google Maps + YouTube - http://googlesystem.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/google-maps-youtube-video-map.html http://googlesystem.blogspot.co.uk/2006/06/google-maps-youtu... - and that is something you should probably look at using their maps product instead of Google Earth would remove user friction considerably. Similarly, the idea of a mole does ruin YC's credibility and it does not benefit YC - they are producing 2 Demo Day's per year who they have told the press and other investors that this batch of founders are ones who they believed are the most resourceful with potentially great ideas. Having a mole company goes against that ideology because, YC does not believe that this "mole" company is what they are saying but more importantly, YC are a company and they don't owe anyone anything trying to prove a point which is true. Founders do have more power today - the cost of starting up a company has fallen drastically and more investors have realised that whilst they can provide help/ideas they have also realised/accepted that a founder may have more domain knowledge into the company then they do which is why, they let them run with their ideas. A classic example of this is with Fred Wilson / Tumblr - Fred wanted comments on Tumblr although David (Tumblrs founder) didn't and pushed back on the idea of not having comments on there - Fred agrees and covers it here: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/05/great-entrepreneurs-will-listen-to-you-but-will-follow-their-own-instincts.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/05/great-entrepreneurs-will-lis... Finally, regarding "YC guarantees you funding" they invest $11k + $3000 per founder (as well as YC VC) but after that, you are on your own - being in YC attracts some investor interest but it does not guarantee they will hand you a check.

will_brown 14y ago
Related to your feedback on my start-up, I do not think it was harsh and think it is spot on. Again to transition - unless I am mistaken YC does guarantee I believe in the form of a convertible note in the amount of $80,000 which was reduced from $150,000 from past batches. Though any automatic funding is irrelevant to my point. I even agree and say in my 1st reply that there is an inherent problem with YC permitting a company who was rejected, to present at demo day unbeknownst to the investors. I just do not think such a move would injure YC, they could disclose that 1 of the companies is non-YC but their identity will remain unknown until after demo day - I even believe investors would be very interested in learning who that 1 company was if only to justify their own bias towards YC companies especially if it is determined that the non-YC company attracted more investor attention than the average YC company - and in such a case you are correct YC may lose credibility. As an investor if your going to skip YC demo day because they are experimenting with their own program, that is your loss as the investor. Keep in mind YC is an experiment to begin with, they just have been very successful at what they set out to do...disrupt the start-up industry.