4 ms·

While I personally don't have a problem with this, I can fathom how some would. What about (1) announcing who is reading and (2) allowing applicants to specify

While I personally don't have a problem with this, I can fathom how some would. What about (1) announcing who is reading and (2) allowing applicants to specify who should NOT read their application. Just a thought, there should probably be some more thought on this kind of privacy/conflict since they will not be investors and I'm assuming you will make this standard procedure.

pg 17y ago
I'd rather make the system based on trusting people. Also, paranoia about secrecy is one of our selection criteria. E.g. every cycle there are a few applications that say they won't tell us any details about what they're doing without an NDA. We thereupon instantly hit "next." People who think their startup's success is going to follow from their immensely valuable secret idea are disproportionately likely to have bad ideas. I'm guessing it will be similar in this case, and that anyone who would be freaked out by YC alumni reading their application is probably someone we wouldn't have funded anyway.
- rokhayakebe 17y ago
  It shouldn't be a problem as long as you select fairly successful YC entrepreneurs who are too busy running their own startup. On the other end if you select someone who has sold out and is relaxing, or someone who's startup is not doing well and is ready to jump ship, then it will create a conflict. EDIT: Either ways you guys review mine. If someone finds it good enough, they would want to work with and not against.
- SwellJoe 17y ago
  Not to mention that the ability to raise additional money after YC would be significantly impeded by being cagey about the ideas behind the company. Almost every investor I've ever heard speak on the subject has said they simply do not sign NDAs. If someone expects YC to sign an NDA, they would likely expect every other potential investor to sign an NDA...and that's not going to happen. I suspect that investors not being willing to sign NDAs is at least as much attributable to the fact that people who want random people to sign NDAs have too much confidence that their idea alone has value, and thus won't understand that execution is vital, and likely will not be willing to evolve their idea as the market demands. Well, that, and "idea" people are just generally useless and annoying. So, asking for an NDA is a sign that you're a useless non-starter who won't be able to build a company or compete in the market (because your idea has to be public before you can do anything with it; if you're concerned that your only advantage is secrecy, then it seems likely to me that failure is imminent).
- jpwagner 17y ago
  Well you are ignoring half of the potential problem. Even smart people have different opinions: what if an applicant thinks someone you chose to read their application is naive (or worse, an idiot)? Also seems just plain fair that applicants be aware of their audience.
  - abossy 17y ago
    Do you honestly feel PG and co. are incapable of selecting people that aren't naive nor idiots?
    - jpwagner 17y ago
      Not sure if you did it on purpose, but your double negative is the converse of my sentiment. Do I think YC is capable of making poor selections?...Absolutely.
      - swombat 17y ago
        Capable? sure. Likely? no. YC makes funding decisions after a few short interviews and an application, and they seem to do pretty well with those. I would imagine that after working with some founders for months, they have zero likelihood of selecting a naive idiot.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- neurotech1 17y ago
  Not to mention that most successful do not have the the time to segway off on someone else vague but 'brilliant' idea. I know electrical engineers who have zero interest in Schematics/PCB files etc -ready to manufacture - because the time to complete a project is excessive for something that is not their core focus.
vaksel 17y ago
agreed, investors reading something is no big deal, since they aren't going to go out and use your ideas. A possible competitor reading it is a whole other story all together.
- abstractbill 17y ago
  Actually it's really not. At justin.tv we already have a list as long as my arm of great ideas that we don't have time to implement. Seeing a few more great ideas from a potential competitor wouldn't make much difference to us in my opinion.
  - vaksel 17y ago
    that's probably true, hell Yahoo told Google to go screw themselves when they offered to sell them their tech. But the things asked in the application make you get pretty specific. Most people have trouble doing that for investors, let alone potential competitors. + it's not like they were told this before hand. They wrote the applications, thinking that pg and his team would review them.
    - abstractbill 17y ago
      Most people have trouble doing that for investors, let alone potential competitors. That's because most people don't understand just how unimportant ideas are. Seriously, even if pg & co decided that the next application process would be completely public, I still wouldn't consider it a big deal. Anyone can say "I have an idea, I'm going to build X". Fewer can actually do it. Fewer still have the drive (masochism?) to keep trying and trying to get people to actually use it for months and months when it looks like nobody cares at all.
    - jwhitlark 17y ago
      pg and his team ARE going to review them. They state elsewhere that they are looking for a second set of eyes to make sure they don't miss things, (both for good and bad). Remember, by applying, you are saying you trust the judgment of the YC team. If you don't trust their judgment, including when/when not to delegate, you are probably applying for the wrong reasons. I mean, jeeze, you're asking them for money. They have been upfront about the change in the process, gave everyone a way to back out, said they'll be reading all applications themselves anyway... If you can't deal with changing and uncomfortable circumstances, why are you thinking about a startup in the first place? (This is not just to the parent post, it is directed at the critics in this thread in general).
thetrumanshow 17y ago
But, wait a sec... aren't the people who are against potential competitors hearing about their ideas EXACTLY the kind of people who shouldn't apply? I mean, they have to demo their product to the rest of the group at some point, right? That's part of the package. More disturbing is the idea that they will toss any idea that competes with existing startups. That is unsettling to me for some reason, and I would love to hear more reasoning behind this.
- sgk284 17y ago
  I believe he means that if they come across a potential competitor, they'll respect their application and stop reading. This implies that someone else would then be tasked with reading it. Someone without a conflict of interest.
- SwellJoe 17y ago
  More disturbing is the idea that they will toss any idea that competes with existing startups. You've imagined this idea. pg has explicitly said on several occasions that they will fund startups that compete with other YC companies, and nothing in this statement contradicts that.
  - thetrumanshow 17y ago
    Thank you, I read that wrong. "Immediately stop reading" read like "Immediately toss". Sorry.

pg 17y ago

I'd rather make the system based on trusting people. Also, paranoia about secrecy is one of our selection criteria. E.g. every cycle there are a few applications that say they won't tell us any details about what they're doing without an NDA. We thereupon instantly hit "next." People who think their startup's success is going to follow from their immensely valuable secret idea are disproportionately likely to have bad ideas. I'm guessing it will be similar in this case, and that anyone who would be freaked out by YC alumni reading their application is probably someone we wouldn't have funded anyway.

rokhayakebe 17y ago
It shouldn't be a problem as long as you select fairly successful YC entrepreneurs who are too busy running their own startup. On the other end if you select someone who has sold out and is relaxing, or someone who's startup is not doing well and is ready to jump ship, then it will create a conflict. EDIT: Either ways you guys review mine. If someone finds it good enough, they would want to work with and not against.
SwellJoe 17y ago
Not to mention that the ability to raise additional money after YC would be significantly impeded by being cagey about the ideas behind the company. Almost every investor I've ever heard speak on the subject has said they simply do not sign NDAs. If someone expects YC to sign an NDA, they would likely expect every other potential investor to sign an NDA...and that's not going to happen. I suspect that investors not being willing to sign NDAs is at least as much attributable to the fact that people who want random people to sign NDAs have too much confidence that their idea alone has value, and thus won't understand that execution is vital, and likely will not be willing to evolve their idea as the market demands. Well, that, and "idea" people are just generally useless and annoying. So, asking for an NDA is a sign that you're a useless non-starter who won't be able to build a company or compete in the market (because your idea has to be public before you can do anything with it; if you're concerned that your only advantage is secrecy, then it seems likely to me that failure is imminent).
jpwagner 17y ago
Well you are ignoring half of the potential problem. Even smart people have different opinions: what if an applicant thinks someone you chose to read their application is naive (or worse, an idiot)? Also seems just plain fair that applicants be aware of their audience.
- abossy 17y ago
  Do you honestly feel PG and co. are incapable of selecting people that aren't naive nor idiots?
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    Not sure if you did it on purpose, but your double negative is the converse of my sentiment. Do I think YC is capable of making poor selections?...Absolutely.
    - swombat 17y ago
      Capable? sure. Likely? no. YC makes funding decisions after a few short interviews and an application, and they seem to do pretty well with those. I would imagine that after working with some founders for months, they have zero likelihood of selecting a naive idiot.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
neurotech1 17y ago
Not to mention that most successful do not have the the time to segway off on someone else vague but 'brilliant' idea. I know electrical engineers who have zero interest in Schematics/PCB files etc -ready to manufacture - because the time to complete a project is excessive for something that is not their core focus.

vaksel 17y ago

agreed, investors reading something is no big deal, since they aren't going to go out and use your ideas. A possible competitor reading it is a whole other story all together.

abstractbill 17y ago
Actually it's really not. At justin.tv we already have a list as long as my arm of great ideas that we don't have time to implement. Seeing a few more great ideas from a potential competitor wouldn't make much difference to us in my opinion.
- vaksel 17y ago
  that's probably true, hell Yahoo told Google to go screw themselves when they offered to sell them their tech. But the things asked in the application make you get pretty specific. Most people have trouble doing that for investors, let alone potential competitors. + it's not like they were told this before hand. They wrote the applications, thinking that pg and his team would review them.
  - abstractbill 17y ago
    Most people have trouble doing that for investors, let alone potential competitors. That's because most people don't understand just how unimportant ideas are. Seriously, even if pg & co decided that the next application process would be completely public, I still wouldn't consider it a big deal. Anyone can say "I have an idea, I'm going to build X". Fewer can actually do it. Fewer still have the drive (masochism?) to keep trying and trying to get people to actually use it for months and months when it looks like nobody cares at all.
  - jwhitlark 17y ago
    pg and his team ARE going to review them. They state elsewhere that they are looking for a second set of eyes to make sure they don't miss things, (both for good and bad). Remember, by applying, you are saying you trust the judgment of the YC team. If you don't trust their judgment, including when/when not to delegate, you are probably applying for the wrong reasons. I mean, jeeze, you're asking them for money. They have been upfront about the change in the process, gave everyone a way to back out, said they'll be reading all applications themselves anyway... If you can't deal with changing and uncomfortable circumstances, why are you thinking about a startup in the first place? (This is not just to the parent post, it is directed at the critics in this thread in general).

thetrumanshow 17y ago

But, wait a sec... aren't the people who are against potential competitors hearing about their ideas EXACTLY the kind of people who shouldn't apply? I mean, they have to demo their product to the rest of the group at some point, right? That's part of the package. More disturbing is the idea that they will toss any idea that competes with existing startups. That is unsettling to me for some reason, and I would love to hear more reasoning behind this.

sgk284 17y ago
I believe he means that if they come across a potential competitor, they'll respect their application and stop reading. This implies that someone else would then be tasked with reading it. Someone without a conflict of interest.
SwellJoe 17y ago
More disturbing is the idea that they will toss any idea that competes with existing startups. You've imagined this idea. pg has explicitly said on several occasions that they will fund startups that compete with other YC companies, and nothing in this statement contradicts that.
- thetrumanshow 17y ago
  Thank you, I read that wrong. "Immediately stop reading" read like "Immediately toss". Sorry.