4 ms·

The point is that anyone can apply to YC from anywhere. If you're accepted, you'll still be required to move to where ever YC is that session, but it's still o

by drm237 19y ago

The point is that anyone can apply to YC from anywhere. If you're accepted, you'll still be required to move to where ever YC is that session, but it's still open to you. There's a reason they ask you to move to the bay area or Cambridge. You can't just duplicate the atmosphere in a non-startup epicenter. This is probably the best reason not to have YC programs everywhere. And what good would a YC franchise be without the 4 partners? Unless the franchise owner can attract the same kind of speakers, the experience would be significantly less worthwhile.

rms 19y ago
> Unless the franchise owner can attract the same kind of speakers, the experience would be significantly less worthwhile. But as long as the franchise owner is of better caliber than the Y Europe guy, it's a lot better than nothing. YC only funds 50 startups a year, there is a lot of unmet demand for similar services.
- drm237 19y ago
  Is it better? I read something from PG saying most people don't actually need to the money; they come to YC for the learning experience and the relationships develop. So if that portion can't be duplicated, having a second-rate franchise is only marginally better then just using angel investors.
  - shawndrost 19y ago
    Here's a list of what people get from yc, roughly in order of how important I think they are: 1) pg/yc's advice and connections 2) other smart hackers' advice and connections 3) a complex package I'll call moral support. This includes the validation of their plans, committment to working full-time, and some other less important factors. 4) being able to say "I am funded by yc" 5) publicity 6) money 1), 4), and 5) are hard to replicate well, but I don't think it'd be hard to do them better than an angel (depending on the angel). Angels are also useless at 2, and they take more equity. I think there's a lot of value in even mediocre yc knockoffs, and that we'll see a lot more of them in the coming years.

by drm237 19y ago

rms 19y ago

> Unless the franchise owner can attract the same kind of speakers, the experience would be significantly less worthwhile. But as long as the franchise owner is of better caliber than the Y Europe guy, it's a lot better than nothing. YC only funds 50 startups a year, there is a lot of unmet demand for similar services.

drm237 19y ago
Is it better? I read something from PG saying most people don't actually need to the money; they come to YC for the learning experience and the relationships develop. So if that portion can't be duplicated, having a second-rate franchise is only marginally better then just using angel investors.
- shawndrost 19y ago
  Here's a list of what people get from yc, roughly in order of how important I think they are: 1) pg/yc's advice and connections 2) other smart hackers' advice and connections 3) a complex package I'll call moral support. This includes the validation of their plans, committment to working full-time, and some other less important factors. 4) being able to say "I am funded by yc" 5) publicity 6) money 1), 4), and 5) are hard to replicate well, but I don't think it'd be hard to do them better than an angel (depending on the angel). Angels are also useless at 2, and they take more equity. I think there's a lot of value in even mediocre yc knockoffs, and that we'll see a lot more of them in the coming years.