3 ms·
You're casting a really wide net, which is not accurate. I will only speak to my own experience, but Techstars is not what you're talking about and of the frien
by ixmatus 13y ago
You're casting a really wide net, which is not accurate. I will only speak to my own experience, but Techstars is not what you're talking about and of the friends that went through YC and 500, they seem to say similar things (that it was good, amazing, edifying).
Disruptive innovations is created by all types of people - meek and quiet people, some people that have a lot of great energy but little focus, some people with great focus but no programming skill, women, men, and even small ideas can be innovative (to a lucrative degree).
If you've been through each program then the size of your brush stroke is "just a little bit" more justified: diversity is a good thing, incubators aren't hurting anyone, and there are people making amazing stuff happen from every possible angle (bootstrap? incubator? wealthy family money? friends and family? payday loan investment? SBA loan? government grants? on-the side while working full-time? champion angel investor?).
- djyaz1200 13y agoI really don't mean to offend people running or participating in good incubators. I stipulate that YC, 500 and Techstars and others are run by people who know what they are doing and work to contribute to the success of their members. They are not the problem.
- ixmatus 13y agoThere is no offense, I just think it's important to characterize accurately and you can only do that with good data - I'm providing one (I think) good data point on the accelerator / incubator experience that I've had. I also think people that dish out a lot of exaggerated commentary on a wide and diverse subject are speaking about something they don't know very well (such is the case with the article's author). I do agree though that some incubators can be a problem - but really, the onus to select carefully is on the entrepreneur just as it is in selecting your board or investors.