4 ms·

certainly the ycombinator clones are interesting and may even begin to make a difference. But, if the value proposition of ycombinator is essentially PGs talent

certainly the ycombinator clones are interesting and may even begin to make a difference. But, if the value proposition of ycombinator is essentially PGs talent, help, and networking, how much can the knockoffs really give you. That being said, as with the author, it is even more clear to me ycombinator itself is the best deal out there

ig1 17y ago
There are plenty of other talented and well connected angels out there. You have to remember that before yc PG was just another dot-com millionaire (well he had the essays + lisp fame + anti-spam fame but in business terms not that much). It wouldn't make much sense to go to YC if for example you were building b2b enterprise apps or targeting non-english speaking market where YC lacks expertise, but other YC-style programs might be much more suitable.
- gruseom 17y ago
  It wouldn't make much sense to go to YC if for example you were building b2b enterprise apps On the contrary, I'm pretty sure YC are not only interested in such startups, they've funded some.
  - jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
    viaweb made software for businesses to setup shop online. though it was not a b2b app, it was not not a cutesy consumer app.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- SwellJoe 17y ago
  It wouldn't make much sense to go to YC if for example you were building b2b enterprise apps or targeting non-english speaking market where YC lacks expertise, but other YC-style programs might be much more suitable. While that was possibly true of b2b+YC in the earlier days, they have since funded a number of those kinds of companies. Ours was among the early examples in 2007, and we certainly have no complaints about their contributions to our business. pg has said on several occasions that the reason they fund the kinds of companies they do (leaning heavily towards web 2.0 consumer businesses) is because that's who applies. Viaweb was b2b at its core, so one can't really say they don't know that kind of business.
  - ig1 17y ago
    Viaweb was targeted at small businesses which is a completely different market from large enterprise sales. I'm not talking about off the shelf business products that solve a standard problem, but if you're bringing a new unique solution to the market you really need a dedicated sales force. Things like industry contacts can be critical (it can often be impossible to even get in to a company to pitch without an inside contact), lead times are very long, etc. The challenges you face are often vastly different to most web 2.0 apps. Crossing the Chasm is a good book on the sort of challenge. In those sort of circumstances you may well be better off finding a consortium of angels who are from your industry than joining a generic incubator style scheme (although obviously they have their own value).
    - SwellJoe 17y ago
      Ah, yes. YC has never (to my knowledge) funded an enterprise service-oriented company, as you've described, and probably wouldn't. pg has also disclaimed having much good insight on enterprise businesses of this sort. So, yes, if you're building that kind of company, YC is probably not the right choice of investor. The scale of investment is also too low...enterprise sales guys with specific industry experience cost more per-month than YC invests. So unless they're also a founder and not drawing much of a salary, the math isn't going to work out.
    - webwright 17y ago
      Just because YC doesn't fund companies like that doesn't mean that they don't fund companies that BECOME that. Listen: You don't launch an enterprise product in 3 months. You launch a consumer product. MAYBE you launch a product for SMB, because that's what you are ( http://blog.asmartbear.com/blog/youre-a-little-company-now-act-like-one.html http://blog.asmartbear.com/blog/youre-a-little-company-now-a... ). In a few years, eventually you have enough market smarts and momentum to confidently sell stuff to big companies. YC funds companies that can reach ramen profitability OR reach the point where they are worth investing in (angel or Series A). The B2B path is a longer (but maybe safer?) one. Eventually, you'll either get profitable, stall out and/or prove that it's worth spinning up a sales team (which may well require add'l funding). Note: we are a 1.75 year-old YC company and we have lots of 5 and 6-figure deals in the sales pipeline. 12 months ago, I NEVER used the phrase "sales pipeline". b2b YC companies include (off the top of my head): RescueTime, Frogmetrics, Xobni, Virtualmin, Snaptalent (deceased), etc.
- ig1 17y ago
  Has HN really turned into somewhere where people down-vote on-topic comments they disagree with ? Great way to encourage reasoned discussion as opposed to groupthink. (feel free to downvote this one though; as meta-discussions are off-topic unlike my previous comment)
fredwilson 17y ago
i think you make a great point. you can evaluate the "knockoffs" by who is engaged and actively helping the companies. saul and reshma at seedcamp are very good. brad, david, shawn at techstars are also quite good. i don't know all the programs well enough to do this for all of them. but that is critical to the success of the program. and Paul and Jessica (and Trevor who i've not met yet) are the model for sure
- dangoldin 17y ago
  You are also getting the experience and knowledge of the other startups' founders. You're also a member of a tight knit group that will probably tend to help each other and keep each other focused when things go off track. You just get a different set of benefits from having a strong group of mentors.
  - fredwilson 17y ago
    great point. that is a huge part of why YC works so well

ig1 17y ago

There are plenty of other talented and well connected angels out there. You have to remember that before yc PG was just another dot-com millionaire (well he had the essays + lisp fame + anti-spam fame but in business terms not that much). It wouldn't make much sense to go to YC if for example you were building b2b enterprise apps or targeting non-english speaking market where YC lacks expertise, but other YC-style programs might be much more suitable.

gruseom 17y ago
It wouldn't make much sense to go to YC if for example you were building b2b enterprise apps On the contrary, I'm pretty sure YC are not only interested in such startups, they've funded some.
- jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
  viaweb made software for businesses to setup shop online. though it was not a b2b app, it was not not a cutesy consumer app.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
SwellJoe 17y ago
It wouldn't make much sense to go to YC if for example you were building b2b enterprise apps or targeting non-english speaking market where YC lacks expertise, but other YC-style programs might be much more suitable. While that was possibly true of b2b+YC in the earlier days, they have since funded a number of those kinds of companies. Ours was among the early examples in 2007, and we certainly have no complaints about their contributions to our business. pg has said on several occasions that the reason they fund the kinds of companies they do (leaning heavily towards web 2.0 consumer businesses) is because that's who applies. Viaweb was b2b at its core, so one can't really say they don't know that kind of business.
- ig1 17y ago
  Viaweb was targeted at small businesses which is a completely different market from large enterprise sales. I'm not talking about off the shelf business products that solve a standard problem, but if you're bringing a new unique solution to the market you really need a dedicated sales force. Things like industry contacts can be critical (it can often be impossible to even get in to a company to pitch without an inside contact), lead times are very long, etc. The challenges you face are often vastly different to most web 2.0 apps. Crossing the Chasm is a good book on the sort of challenge. In those sort of circumstances you may well be better off finding a consortium of angels who are from your industry than joining a generic incubator style scheme (although obviously they have their own value).
  - SwellJoe 17y ago
    Ah, yes. YC has never (to my knowledge) funded an enterprise service-oriented company, as you've described, and probably wouldn't. pg has also disclaimed having much good insight on enterprise businesses of this sort. So, yes, if you're building that kind of company, YC is probably not the right choice of investor. The scale of investment is also too low...enterprise sales guys with specific industry experience cost more per-month than YC invests. So unless they're also a founder and not drawing much of a salary, the math isn't going to work out.
  - webwright 17y ago
    Just because YC doesn't fund companies like that doesn't mean that they don't fund companies that BECOME that. Listen: You don't launch an enterprise product in 3 months. You launch a consumer product. MAYBE you launch a product for SMB, because that's what you are ( http://blog.asmartbear.com/blog/youre-a-little-company-now-act-like-one.html http://blog.asmartbear.com/blog/youre-a-little-company-now-a... ). In a few years, eventually you have enough market smarts and momentum to confidently sell stuff to big companies. YC funds companies that can reach ramen profitability OR reach the point where they are worth investing in (angel or Series A). The B2B path is a longer (but maybe safer?) one. Eventually, you'll either get profitable, stall out and/or prove that it's worth spinning up a sales team (which may well require add'l funding). Note: we are a 1.75 year-old YC company and we have lots of 5 and 6-figure deals in the sales pipeline. 12 months ago, I NEVER used the phrase "sales pipeline". b2b YC companies include (off the top of my head): RescueTime, Frogmetrics, Xobni, Virtualmin, Snaptalent (deceased), etc.
ig1 17y ago
Has HN really turned into somewhere where people down-vote on-topic comments they disagree with ? Great way to encourage reasoned discussion as opposed to groupthink. (feel free to downvote this one though; as meta-discussions are off-topic unlike my previous comment)

fredwilson 17y ago

i think you make a great point. you can evaluate the "knockoffs" by who is engaged and actively helping the companies. saul and reshma at seedcamp are very good. brad, david, shawn at techstars are also quite good. i don't know all the programs well enough to do this for all of them. but that is critical to the success of the program. and Paul and Jessica (and Trevor who i've not met yet) are the model for sure

dangoldin 17y ago
You are also getting the experience and knowledge of the other startups' founders. You're also a member of a tight knit group that will probably tend to help each other and keep each other focused when things go off track. You just get a different set of benefits from having a strong group of mentors.
- fredwilson 17y ago
  great point. that is a huge part of why YC works so well