Hell yeah the more the merrier. There's no way tiny yc can support the huge number of capable people out there who's talents are going to waste. That's becoming more obvious every cycle.
Edit: unless they really screw it up and scare away investors. Still, I am impatient to see angel funding to less well-connected people expand at a higher rate. Even risks considered, I welcome the yc clones.
That's not true so far. We've never rejected a group because we didn't have room. If we keep getting more good applicants each cycle, we'll keep accepting more, till something breaks. Then we'll fix that and keep going.
(This m.o. freaks out Jessica, but Rtm and Trevor and I
keep assuring her that this is how
you scale systems.)
There could be people who belong to the set "talents are going to waste" and who might make a go of it that, however, don't belong to the set that you consider "really good". At least logically it makes sense that, being human, your judgment is not infallible and that some good ones might have slipped between the cracks. Having some other places to go, even if they're not as good as the original is good, and validates the original idea. I think the only thing to worry about might be that if there were so many really bad ones out there that it taints the whole lot by association, but that doesn't seem highly likely to me.
I was replying specifically to "There's no way tiny yc can support the huge number of capable people." I'm not saying there are no advantages to having multiple sources of seed funding, just that our inability to scale isn't one of them.
On one hand, I can't help but think that these YC "clones" are lesser versions of YC. Maybe I'm biased because of what I have learned here.
OTOH, so what if they're just as good (or almost as good)? If others find success some other way, so much the better for everyone. As anyone who has found success can tell you, there's plenty to go around.
Washington DC!!!! I was reading along, a little worried by the judicial fire power of the lead founder (they could have some strange fine-print that you sign that gives away something you didn't realize at some future time.) and then say that "you must move to Washington DC for 12 weeks! Wow.
Ah, then the key to acceptance is to name your company "General" something.
It does bring up a key point, though. The contacts that you make there are going to be generally government affiliated, which is fine if that's the kind of interest you're going for. Personally, even though I left a lot of friends behind around BWI, I have no desire to go back.
One thing that YC has that no other's can get, Paul Graham. It only makes sense that the seed funding companies are headed by people who've created products in the same area that their potential applicants are in.
PG made a web application, which is why I think the majority of successful companies out of YC (from what I've seen) are web application companies. The leaders of YC know how to encourage the growth and profitability of web applications.
This "YC Clone" has quite a bit of business big wigs, but only a few technical types (AOL and Xfire come to mind). It seems like these would be the people who recommend that you hire a "businessman" CEO asap, accept millions more than you need in funding, and sell enterprise-oriented products only.
14 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 33.6 ms ] threadEdit: unless they really screw it up and scare away investors. Still, I am impatient to see angel funding to less well-connected people expand at a higher rate. Even risks considered, I welcome the yc clones.
OTOH, so what if they're just as good (or almost as good)? If others find success some other way, so much the better for everyone. As anyone who has found success can tell you, there's plenty to go around.
YC: 30 Questions
LaunchBox: 42 Questions
It does bring up a key point, though. The contacts that you make there are going to be generally government affiliated, which is fine if that's the kind of interest you're going for. Personally, even though I left a lot of friends behind around BWI, I have no desire to go back.
PG made a web application, which is why I think the majority of successful companies out of YC (from what I've seen) are web application companies. The leaders of YC know how to encourage the growth and profitability of web applications.
This "YC Clone" has quite a bit of business big wigs, but only a few technical types (AOL and Xfire come to mind). It seems like these would be the people who recommend that you hire a "businessman" CEO asap, accept millions more than you need in funding, and sell enterprise-oriented products only.
Really, who wants to make another AOL?