5 ms·

This sounds terrific, but it doesn't seem self-consistent between wanting companies with the scale of ambition of SpaceX and Tesla, but insisting on early momen

by bfe 13y ago

This sounds terrific, but it doesn't seem self-consistent between wanting companies with the scale of ambition of SpaceX and Tesla, but insisting on early momentum being critical and avoiding a big and expensive initial project. Tesla took four years to introduce their first product, the Roadster. When they went public two years later, they had gone through a net loss of around 300 million dollars, and were still two years away from introducing the Model S. Even then, it had a few near-death experiences. SpaceX took 200 million dollars of investment, and took four years to launch their first flight, which failed. Over the next two years, their second and third flights also failed. Neither company really showed momentum until seven to nine years after founding. It would be nice to see a clear path from a three-month-to-demo-day minimum viable product to a breakthrough company that overturns a capital-intensive industry, but it's hard to think of good examples of this so far. At the least, it would probably require substantial development before applying to YC, and/or starting with a very limited prototype.

garry 13y ago
Both Thalmic Labs and the Meta project are examples of longer term projects that raise money through YC. There are a bunch more in the current batch that have a much longer time frame. While the three month demo is a constraint, it is not one that kills ambitious projects at YC.
- kyro 13y ago
  Given that these more visionary, long-term, scientific startups will often require founders of a different demographic than what we're used to seeing (eg. older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids), will you guys modify your approach to evaluating applications, more specifically the founding teams?
  - cbhl 13y ago
    > older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids I'm not convinced that this describes the Thalmic guys at all.
    - kyro 13y ago
      Sure, there is a subset of science-oriented startups that don't require founders who fit that description, but for many of the industries listed in the article to be disrupted, you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers -- ie. seasoned experts who understand the intricacies and harsh realities of their fields -- and many of them would certainly fit my description. I'm assuming that the type of startups they're looking to fund include those that try to "fix" these industries, instead of building a product that sits on the periphery -- eg. a healthcare solution to help streamline the claims process vs. an app for patients to record bowel movements.
      - argumentum 13y ago
        > you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers There are lots of these types of people in every recent YC batch.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - throwaway1982 13y ago
    Really great question...I'm hoping someone chimes in here.
  - argonaut 13y ago
    This presupposes YC discriminated against older founders in the first place.
  - tdaltonc 13y ago
    This isn't like normal tech-transfer. Most of the teams that would be looking for funding on a break-through idea, and can't get it from NIH/NSF aren't going to be seasoned tenured faculty. They're going to be senior graduate students and young post-doc's. They'll know the field, but they will have radical ideas and won't fit in to the academic funding heterodoxy. They'll probably be 25-35.
- srlake 13y ago
  D-wave is a great example of a company in the class described. Founded in 1999, they didn't ship their first quantum computer until 2011. However, they were able to show progress along the way, solving sub-challenges and as a result were able to raise many rounds of funding before ever shipping a product. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
  - rjbwork 13y ago
    They still don't actually have a quantum computer in the vein of the accepted model of one though.
cottonseed 13y ago
I'd like to think my last startup was a breakthrough technology startup. We were building software, not sending things into space, so weren't nearly so capital intensive, but went through several iterations (discovering breakthroughs is research, and research takes time!), had some near-death experiences, and didn't have a compelling product for 5 or so years. However, fundamental advances are incredibly valuable, and things changed quickly once we got there. I think this is a great model for startups, esp. if you have propensity for technology development. However, it can be hard to fund. I agree, the OP seems unrealistic.
pg 13y ago
http://boostedboards.com http://boostedboards.com
- foobarqux 13y ago
  That looks like a great company with a great product but it's only capital intensive relative to web software.
  - bfe 13y ago
    But it's plausible as a fast, minimal entry point to electric vehicles in general, potentially attracting more capital to expand a proven product line, instead of trying to start with a car. I hope they're planning something like that.
    - pg 13y ago
      Bingo.
    - Jack000 13y ago
      I think another company ate their lunch, unfortunately. Came out with a similar product for 1/2 the price and 2x the range. That company also makes other EVs..
      - thefreeman 13y ago
        have a link or a name? sounds interesting.
        Jack000 13y ago
        I didn't want to link it since it's a pretty uncanny clone and I'm not sure how I feel about it, but here it is: http://e-go.com/ http://e-go.com/ They're for sale now, whereas boosted is still a month away from the 2nd batch preorder that I made. On the weight-range-performance triangle, boosted picked weight and performance, where as this company picked weight and range. This board seems like a better setup for commuting, whereas boosted might be better for the "sport" of longboarding with its 2kw dual-motors.
nl 13y ago
One could imagine a company building high-altitude autonomous drones and/or non-orbital rocketry as a step towards full orbital capacity like SpaceX. ScaledComposites followed a somewhat similar model: it took them 3 years to build SpaceShipOne[1] and win the X-Prize. That attracted enough investment for them to begin work on the VirginGalactic stuff. 3 years may be a lot longer than the typical 3 months YC development cycle, but it's easy to imagine building a scaled down drone version in 3 months (After all: "it's just a remote control plane"). SpaceShipOne took 18 months to get to first (unmanned) flight. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipOne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipOne
malandrew 13y ago
What these all had in common AFAICT is one or more über rich individuals that see it as their personal goal to make this happen. In a way, these are more than just companies. They are also one of the many hobbies the über rich can partake in. Had they not also been the hobby of one or more rich individuals, they probably would have never gotten as far as they have.

by bfe 13y ago

garry 13y ago

Both Thalmic Labs and the Meta project are examples of longer term projects that raise money through YC. There are a bunch more in the current batch that have a much longer time frame. While the three month demo is a constraint, it is not one that kills ambitious projects at YC.

kyro 13y ago
Given that these more visionary, long-term, scientific startups will often require founders of a different demographic than what we're used to seeing (eg. older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids), will you guys modify your approach to evaluating applications, more specifically the founding teams?
- cbhl 13y ago
  > older, more experienced in a given field, maybe with obligations like a spouse and kids I'm not convinced that this describes the Thalmic guys at all.
  - kyro 13y ago
    Sure, there is a subset of science-oriented startups that don't require founders who fit that description, but for many of the industries listed in the article to be disrupted, you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers -- ie. seasoned experts who understand the intricacies and harsh realities of their fields -- and many of them would certainly fit my description. I'm assuming that the type of startups they're looking to fund include those that try to "fix" these industries, instead of building a product that sits on the periphery -- eg. a healthcare solution to help streamline the claims process vs. an app for patients to record bowel movements.
    - argumentum 13y ago
      > you'd need doctors, lawyers, researchers, biotech engineers There are lots of these types of people in every recent YC batch.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- throwaway1982 13y ago
  Really great question...I'm hoping someone chimes in here.
- argonaut 13y ago
  This presupposes YC discriminated against older founders in the first place.
- tdaltonc 13y ago
  This isn't like normal tech-transfer. Most of the teams that would be looking for funding on a break-through idea, and can't get it from NIH/NSF aren't going to be seasoned tenured faculty. They're going to be senior graduate students and young post-doc's. They'll know the field, but they will have radical ideas and won't fit in to the academic funding heterodoxy. They'll probably be 25-35.
srlake 13y ago
D-wave is a great example of a company in the class described. Founded in 1999, they didn't ship their first quantum computer until 2011. However, they were able to show progress along the way, solving sub-challenges and as a result were able to raise many rounds of funding before ever shipping a product. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems
- rjbwork 13y ago
  They still don't actually have a quantum computer in the vein of the accepted model of one though.

cottonseed 13y ago

I'd like to think my last startup was a breakthrough technology startup. We were building software, not sending things into space, so weren't nearly so capital intensive, but went through several iterations (discovering breakthroughs is research, and research takes time!), had some near-death experiences, and didn't have a compelling product for 5 or so years. However, fundamental advances are incredibly valuable, and things changed quickly once we got there. I think this is a great model for startups, esp. if you have propensity for technology development. However, it can be hard to fund. I agree, the OP seems unrealistic.

pg 13y ago

http://boostedboards.com http://boostedboards.com

foobarqux 13y ago
That looks like a great company with a great product but it's only capital intensive relative to web software.
- bfe 13y ago
  But it's plausible as a fast, minimal entry point to electric vehicles in general, potentially attracting more capital to expand a proven product line, instead of trying to start with a car. I hope they're planning something like that.
  - pg 13y ago
    Bingo.
  - Jack000 13y ago
    I think another company ate their lunch, unfortunately. Came out with a similar product for 1/2 the price and 2x the range. That company also makes other EVs..
    - thefreeman 13y ago
      have a link or a name? sounds interesting.
      - Jack000 13y ago
        I didn't want to link it since it's a pretty uncanny clone and I'm not sure how I feel about it, but here it is: http://e-go.com/ http://e-go.com/ They're for sale now, whereas boosted is still a month away from the 2nd batch preorder that I made. On the weight-range-performance triangle, boosted picked weight and performance, where as this company picked weight and range. This board seems like a better setup for commuting, whereas boosted might be better for the "sport" of longboarding with its 2kw dual-motors.

nl 13y ago

One could imagine a company building high-altitude autonomous drones and/or non-orbital rocketry as a step towards full orbital capacity like SpaceX. ScaledComposites followed a somewhat similar model: it took them 3 years to build SpaceShipOne[1] and win the X-Prize. That attracted enough investment for them to begin work on the VirginGalactic stuff. 3 years may be a lot longer than the typical 3 months YC development cycle, but it's easy to imagine building a scaled down drone version in 3 months (After all: "it's just a remote control plane"). SpaceShipOne took 18 months to get to first (unmanned) flight. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipOne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipOne

malandrew 13y ago

What these all had in common AFAICT is one or more über rich individuals that see it as their personal goal to make this happen. In a way, these are more than just companies. They are also one of the many hobbies the über rich can partake in. Had they not also been the hobby of one or more rich individuals, they probably would have never gotten as far as they have.