We keep seeing impressive names come on board as YC partners. This might sound strange to you guys, but I'd love to read about some no-name partners come on board as well. I've found that a lot of the most helpful people out there are mostly unknown and under-appreciated (think: corporate version of "guy on couch" in Half-Baked).
Maybe those people are just so stealthy that I don't notice that you're staffing up in that area as well. Just a thought!
YC is no longer a quaint little outsider experiment. They are now The Man, The Establishment, The Gatekeepers.
What will rise up and be the new YC for unconnected 18 year olds? YC probably wouldn't even talk to Steve and Alexis under the current expanded growth model. pg grew their idea and seeded their initial user base from his personal website readership.
I think Sergey once mentioned (jokingly) he's not smart enough to be hired at Google anymore. That's kinda the YC situation, isn't it? The original people of YC created something bigger than themselves, and maintaining+growing the behemoth machine is the focus now. The people who "grew up" inside YC run it now because they helped create it. But, as an outsider, you can't just be hired into the machine. You can't grow the same way the originators did—you have to prove your worth elsewhere (this parking spot is already taken).
There's always space for new scrappy teams to out maneuver established organizations. What would a new "the next YC" look like? You probably can't start it as a tech industry outsider. You'll need to have had your VC connections and an exit or two already under your belt. The easiest route would probably be to round up a team of traitorous YC partners who say "this has grown too big and crazy, we need to reset our roots back to the original problem space again."
I suspect that most of those who were accepted were highly credentialed (either via brand name schools or former employers). It would be wonderful to be wrong about that, though.
We just hire whoever we think will be best at advising startups. When they are too well known people complain. When they are not well-known enough people complain.
But as long as the startups get good advice I'm happy.
Had similar thoughts regarding Anne. I'm working in a boomed field the potentials for startups in biotech will be expanding rapidly. Otherwise I've been unsure about the goals/strategies of YC regarding non-app based startups.
"""Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."""
I'm actually curious about the effect faith and upbringing might have on an entrepreneurial mindset.
Does someone who is brought up being taught David vs Goliath and "an eye for an eye" for instance end up having greater capacity for confidence or competition than a Christian who is (in addition) taught to turn the other cheek? What about Islam or Buddhism, what unique effects could they have on a person's psychology?
It's a touchy subject, but religion certainly could be a meaningful factor.
I see these announcements from time to time and not knowing that much about how YC operates, have no idea what something like this means for the companies accepted into YC.
Can someone shine a light on what these three people (and the other partners) will do in a practical sense?
Ah understood. Is it something like the company feels like it needs some help in the area of design and sets up a meeting with a design-minded partner? Or does YC look from outside and say, "you could use some help in the area of design, so maybe talking to so-and-so is a good idea". Or a little of both?
Wow, very impressive additions. Given the size of their existing companies, will it be difficult to dedicate time to YC? Not only for the new partners but for all existing partners that maintain an executive level position.
> I think it's been long enough to conclude: the pg -> sama transition has been a clear success.
Yeah, I can't think of a leadership handoff that's gone this smoothly - no loss in continuity, while at the same time launching new ventures[0], partnerships, and programs as well.
Wow, you're jumping to that conclusion already? As much as I'm sure the three of them are great additions in a lot of ways, none of them has led a product to a meaningful exit just yet (Pinterest, 123andme and Airbnb have yet to exit).
Now their valuations are sky-high, and they've raised an incredible amount of money, but it seems like a big chunk of YC people (people working for YC, not in the program) haven't really successfully led a company to a big exit (IPO or $100m+ cash buyout).
PG: Sold Viaweb for ~$50m
Sam Altman: Sold Loopt for ~$43.4m after raising ~$30m
Anne Wojcicki: Raised $191m, no exit
Ben Silbermann: Raised $1.3bn, no exit
Joe Gebbia: Raised $2.3bn, no exit
I'm sure they're all very bright people, but at the end of the day, these aren't companies that have been profitable or really been sustainable. They're great resources for how to raise lots of money, sure, but are they people who can speak at any great lengths about building a long-standing business?
I don't mean to sound incredibly negative about YC; I want to keep a level head when looking at them and what they offer.
I'm talking about YC, not the companies of these specific YC partners. YC has done well through the transition. The best measurement for that is not "have YC partners exited their own firms at huge profits", but "do they provide meaningful help to people joining YC, do they bring great companies into YC, and do they make the tech industry overall better". I think the answer to that is pretty clearly yes.
YC open office hours, the YC fellowship (which hugely benefits remote people), expanding the partnership, expanding YC into new areas (hardware, bio, real science), etc. are more relevant than that Loopt was 3 years too early :)
Obviously it's still a work in progress. Would be interesting to look back in 10y.
Also, I'll just jump in here and say that not declaring any of Airbnb, Pinterest and 23andMe to be a success is farcical. You don't have to have exited to have a successful company.
The first part of your post complains about how few YC partners have led a product to a meaningful exit, but the last part complains about how they lack experience building a long-standing business. The two of them are to some extent mutually exclusive: once you exit, you are no longer building a long-standing business. (There are some exceptions where a company is acquired and then continues growing under the acquirer, like YouTube, Instagram, Twitch, and Reddit...and founders of the latter two happen to be YC partners.) Which do you care more about?
For building a long-standing product or business, I would argue that Pinterest, AirBnB, 23andMe, GMail, and Yahoo Mail all qualify, as does YC itself. That's why they haven't exited: Ben/Joe/Anne are all still building their businesses.
For exiting: PG/TLB/RTM (Viaweb), Kevin Hale (Wufoo), Justin Kan (Twitch), Michael Siebel (SocialCam), Paul Buchheit (FriendFeed) and Alexis Ohanian (Reddit) all exited for F-U amounts of money. Sam Altman (Loopt), Dalton Caldwell (iMeem), Garry Tan (Posterous), Qasar Younis (Talkbin), and Geoff Ralston (Lala) may have, but it's unclear from public documents whether the acquisitions of their companies resulted in a significant payoff to them after the liquidation preferences of their investors are taken into account.
It's sort of interesting that the inescapable conclusion is that VC funds power tech. What I mean is, if a business isn't sustainable, and the fact that they're sustainable doesn't matter, then it's thanks to the VC funds.
If you want to affect the world through business, the type of business you'll start is a startup. Counter-intuitively, it may be true that sustainability doesn't necessarily matter for a startup. If so, then sustainability in business doesn't matter for affecting the world.
That seems like dangerous thinking, and I've been trying to escape the conclusion. But since the home runs are how VCs make their returns, why is it a bad thing if 9 out of 10 startups eventually fail? And if it's not a bad thing, then why decry companies for being unsustainable, or the valley for funding them?
The part about Ben being a two-time YC alum caught my eye. In practice, what does that mean?
I was under the impression that even once YC technically ends, founders are still allowed to schedule office hours if it suites them. If so, what does that person receive from returning to YC?
I presume (1) the opportunity to have the advice geared towards a new company, not the old one (2) access to the dinners for that session, and (3) the ability to bring in new partners to YC.
42 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 88.3 ms ] threadMaybe those people are just so stealthy that I don't notice that you're staffing up in that area as well. Just a thought!
What will rise up and be the new YC for unconnected 18 year olds? YC probably wouldn't even talk to Steve and Alexis under the current expanded growth model. pg grew their idea and seeded their initial user base from his personal website readership.
I think Sergey once mentioned (jokingly) he's not smart enough to be hired at Google anymore. That's kinda the YC situation, isn't it? The original people of YC created something bigger than themselves, and maintaining+growing the behemoth machine is the focus now. The people who "grew up" inside YC run it now because they helped create it. But, as an outsider, you can't just be hired into the machine. You can't grow the same way the originators did—you have to prove your worth elsewhere (this parking spot is already taken).
There's always space for new scrappy teams to out maneuver established organizations. What would a new "the next YC" look like? You probably can't start it as a tech industry outsider. You'll need to have had your VC connections and an exit or two already under your belt. The easiest route would probably be to round up a team of traitorous YC partners who say "this has grown too big and crazy, we need to reset our roots back to the original problem space again."
[1] http://www.thielfellowship.org/apply/
But as long as the startups get good advice I'm happy.
???
Does someone who is brought up being taught David vs Goliath and "an eye for an eye" for instance end up having greater capacity for confidence or competition than a Christian who is (in addition) taught to turn the other cheek? What about Islam or Buddhism, what unique effects could they have on a person's psychology?
It's a touchy subject, but religion certainly could be a meaningful factor.
Can someone shine a light on what these three people (and the other partners) will do in a practical sense?
YC has innovated in a lot of really promising ways, expanding the partnership, expanding access, scaling successfully, and doing some new things.
Succession is one of the biggest challenges in organizations, and navigating it successfully is a big win.
Yeah, I can't think of a leadership handoff that's gone this smoothly - no loss in continuity, while at the same time launching new ventures[0], partnerships, and programs as well.
[0] pun intended :)
Now their valuations are sky-high, and they've raised an incredible amount of money, but it seems like a big chunk of YC people (people working for YC, not in the program) haven't really successfully led a company to a big exit (IPO or $100m+ cash buyout).
PG: Sold Viaweb for ~$50m
Sam Altman: Sold Loopt for ~$43.4m after raising ~$30m
Anne Wojcicki: Raised $191m, no exit
Ben Silbermann: Raised $1.3bn, no exit
Joe Gebbia: Raised $2.3bn, no exit
I'm sure they're all very bright people, but at the end of the day, these aren't companies that have been profitable or really been sustainable. They're great resources for how to raise lots of money, sure, but are they people who can speak at any great lengths about building a long-standing business?
I don't mean to sound incredibly negative about YC; I want to keep a level head when looking at them and what they offer.
I'm talking about YC, not the companies of these specific YC partners. YC has done well through the transition. The best measurement for that is not "have YC partners exited their own firms at huge profits", but "do they provide meaningful help to people joining YC, do they bring great companies into YC, and do they make the tech industry overall better". I think the answer to that is pretty clearly yes.
YC open office hours, the YC fellowship (which hugely benefits remote people), expanding the partnership, expanding YC into new areas (hardware, bio, real science), etc. are more relevant than that Loopt was 3 years too early :)
Obviously it's still a work in progress. Would be interesting to look back in 10y.
For building a long-standing product or business, I would argue that Pinterest, AirBnB, 23andMe, GMail, and Yahoo Mail all qualify, as does YC itself. That's why they haven't exited: Ben/Joe/Anne are all still building their businesses.
For exiting: PG/TLB/RTM (Viaweb), Kevin Hale (Wufoo), Justin Kan (Twitch), Michael Siebel (SocialCam), Paul Buchheit (FriendFeed) and Alexis Ohanian (Reddit) all exited for F-U amounts of money. Sam Altman (Loopt), Dalton Caldwell (iMeem), Garry Tan (Posterous), Qasar Younis (Talkbin), and Geoff Ralston (Lala) may have, but it's unclear from public documents whether the acquisitions of their companies resulted in a significant payoff to them after the liquidation preferences of their investors are taken into account.
If you want to affect the world through business, the type of business you'll start is a startup. Counter-intuitively, it may be true that sustainability doesn't necessarily matter for a startup. If so, then sustainability in business doesn't matter for affecting the world.
That seems like dangerous thinking, and I've been trying to escape the conclusion. But since the home runs are how VCs make their returns, why is it a bad thing if 9 out of 10 startups eventually fail? And if it's not a bad thing, then why decry companies for being unsustainable, or the valley for funding them?
Chief People Officer, an executive who oversees human resource management and industrial relations operations for an organization
Chief Privacy Officer, an executive responsible for managing issues of privacy laws and policies
Chief Process Officer, an executive responsible for defining processes rules and guidelines for an organization to follow
Chief Procurement Officer, an executive responsible for supply management
Chief Product Officer, an executive responsible for product management and development
https://twitter.com/jgebbia
I was under the impression that even once YC technically ends, founders are still allowed to schedule office hours if it suites them. If so, what does that person receive from returning to YC?
I presume (1) the opportunity to have the advice geared towards a new company, not the old one (2) access to the dinners for that session, and (3) the ability to bring in new partners to YC.
Roughly accurate?
Shouldn't it read instead "[...] and a two-time YC alumnus"? Just saying!