3 ms·

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

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 13y 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.

will_brown 13y 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.