3 ms·
FWIW, I wasn't suggesting a limit on the number of startups, so much as a practical limit on the amount of speculation that they can support. I'd imagine that
by thaumaturgy 17y ago
FWIW, I wasn't suggesting a limit on the number of startups, so much as a practical limit on the amount of speculation that they can support.
I'd imagine that one of the things that works in YC's favor is its relative scarcity: I don't have a YC-type business in my town, let alone one with YC's community or reputation. That gives you a certain amount of leverage; you can afford to offer terms that will probably work out in your favor in the long run, and you get a nice field of applicants to cherry-pick from.
But, if the YC model starts to really take off, then at some point it's probably going to change things for you, and probably not for the better. It would be really awesome for would-be startups for a while, until investors start getting soaked and stop pouring money into it -- then we get the "Dot-com-2-point-oh" bust.
- maxwell 17y agoOnly if they aren't profitable. Given the economic efficiency and execution speed of startups relative to freelancers/consultants and big organizations, it seems more likely they'll be the business class emerging victorious from the information revolution. It's what happened last time: those who built industrial tech that scaled beat both the cottage workers and the monarchs. Some of the industrial giants might survive the wake of the computer, but it will probably be the same way the crowns did the engine: in name (and static, material wealth) only. Eventually the most valuable asset of the New York Times will probably be the brand and real estate.