Ask HN: Who got rejected in earlier cycles of YC application and made it anyway?
Daniel just wrote he got rejected and someone else chimed in they had been too, but were definitely not going to let it make a difference.
So, my question is what is the biggest success that YC missed out on, some group that pitched during one of the cycles and that was rejected, manned up and made it without the YC funding and the access to the network?
71 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadAnd, of course, several teams have been rejected once or twice and then gotten in later. A few have even blogged about it; notably wheels of Directed Edge.
funny how TC called it "stealth mode". i don't recall the couchdb guys ever being very secretive about it. they are too relaxed for that :)
There is a company that makes iPhone software that was rejected by YC, and they recently turned down a buyout offer of 10M. I can't really give more details than that since obviously it's not public.
Edit: I should note that Paul Graham mentioned in his interview on Mixergy that picking companies is one area where they are weak. That may be true, but I'd wager the YC batting average would be higher than typical Angels/VCs.
That just simply isn't true. Early stage is much quicker. The only time a VC needs 'months' to do dd is when there is a substantial company already, so when you're doing a late-stage investment, usually in the millions.
I suspect for most investors passing on someone who goes on to be wildly successful hurts a lot more than investing in multiple failed ventures. Given that, having a longer more thorough process may not be beneficial. At best a long process can reduce the number of failures by refusing to invest in them but it will never increase the number of successes which is limited by the number of people who ask you funding.
I'm kind of surprised that no well funded VC funds have come up with the idea of just handing out 5-10k to every single not obviously doomed startup they come across in exchange for a few percent of each company. They could call it shotgun investing.
We just buckled down, and launched anyways (ahead of schedule!). Once you get users and have some promising data, raising money is definitely doable.
That should really help to put a YC rejection in to perspective for those who receive 'bad news' in the mail in the next couple of days.
There were some significant problems with the company/idea when we applied. Hopefully, we're fixing things quickly enough to win in the end (I think we are!) :-D And thanks to PG's advice, I have a new-found appreciation for some aspects of the business that I'd overlooked before.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1191553
I wish you much good luck with this, one reason why I'm really happy someone is looking in to this is because coal causes more radioactivity released in to the atmosphere than nuclear plants even would.
I would never have said anything publicly about the matter, but I can't stand to hear it described in this misleading way.
Has YC changed its contractual agreements with new YC companies to avoid such treachery in the future ?
Oddly enough I actually know (well, actually met) Siqi back in the day when he was at Powerset. It's interesting to hear this kind of story.
Go figure. :\",
Anyway, I saw Siqi's response and it seems pretty legit.
I know that it's popular to compare picking a cofounder to picking a spouse, but they're not the same thing, and if you start a company with someone who later decides to move on, that's just how it goes. Am I way off?
I don't know this story beyond what two people have just said. But, I know that if I commit to something, I expect my co-founder to also be committed to it (within the bounds of what we've agreed upon). Working on other projects now and then is fine and normal...it's what hackers do. But, if you've committed to build a business with someone, it's not really the idea that makes the business. It's the combined effort and execution of the team. So, splitting your time between building your "private business" and your "co-founded business", and then taking off when the private business has some bit of success, is probably not what an honest business person would do. If you don't believe in the co-founded business idea, anymore, you talk it over with your co-founder, and you try to fix the problem.
But, shit happens. If you give up your equity in the co-founded startup, apologize for flaking, etc. then I guess you've done the best you can. I wouldn't expect the co-founder to ever be willing to do business with you again, but it's probably not what I would call "treacherous", either. I think the story of Evan Williams and Blogger (and Odeo/Twitter, for that matter, maybe even moreso) would sound kind of similar when told by different involved parties, and we don't consider Evan treacherous.
Then again, we are talking about one week later. He had to know that he had other irons in the fire and probably wouldn't be involved in the company much longer. So, yeah, this actually does sound kinda nasty.
Maybe what happened was that he didn't know whether they'd get in YC or not so was OK with being part of the application.
Then they found out they got in and he realized he had to make a decision between the two projects and it took him one week to make that decision.
The side project was a Facebook application. It grew from about 10,000 users to more than a million from interview time to the week the season started (about a month). By the time the season started I had my doubts (along with my cofounders), but I thought I could tough it out and do both. I was wrong and made the hard choice to leave.
A) pg was simply pointing out what the guy had failed to mention in his post.
B) The manner in which you leave a partner to pursue your own thing can vary. It wasn't that he left, from pg's comment I get a feeling the issue is HOW the founder ended his affairs with YC and co-founder.
So relax, keep your side projects. all though I highly recommend that you focus one at a time. put all you can in one idea before you leave and potentially put your team mates in jeopardy to pursue another.
I've talked to other potential founders who like my idea and would want to participate as a side project. But I've been loathe to do that. Initially I thought more help would be better but as I started working on it, it just seemed like it would be a logistical nightmare. Also, PG has some words with people working part time which mostly were not good and I totally agreed with his points.
It's a double-edged sword though. It's infinitely easier to find someone who will work part time on your idea than be committed to it.
Given the stakes involved, most co-founders would expect more of a solid commitment than that.
And you shouldn't have, it's unprofessional from someone holding your position.
> I can't stand to hear it described in this misleading way
How is it misleading? He didn't say we in reference to his YC history. He omitted any concept of more than one person, thus the assumption should be that he was speaking about himself. Which is fine.
Paul, I agree I should have said "we got in the second time, but I dropped out a week later". I apologize for not being clear but I don't accept that there was anything wrong with what I said.
To be clear, the side project of mine which took off was co-owned 50% by my another founder who was not involved in YC and didn't want to join, so it wasn't mine to simply share with my YC team.
There were 3 cofounders who went to the YC interview - there were 2 cofounders remaining after I left. I was transparent with both of my cofounders and we remain friends to this day - they had zero involvement in the side project from beginning to end. I specifically asked each of them if they felt I was behaving unethically - they responded that they don't believe so and would have done the same in my shoes.
Out of the 2 cofounders in YC, one I later hired to run network operations at my company and the other I am very close friends with and regularly have beers. We left on good terms. Why don't you ask the two of them what they think of me?
You're the reason why I'm an entrepreneur today and I respect you immensely. To hear you describe what I did as treachery is hurtful but worse it's just factually wrong. It was an incredibly difficult ethical decision for me at the time, but I truly believe that I behaved in a transparent and above the board way.
I take responsibility for not talking to you before or after I left - I didn't realize you felt this way about it and I'm happy to have the chance to bring this out into the open.
Reputation saved.
However, I don't feel the same way about your original response. The side project wasn't mine to share, and calling it "treacherous" takes it way too far.
Siqi is correct; we didn't believe he was being unethical. The 3 of us agonized over the situation for quite a while, and understood his decision to leave, especially given that the side project wasn't completely his to share. It was a really tough spot for all of us, and I know he didnt make the decision lightly.
IIRC PG/YC fund the team and not a specific idea. If you are on shaky idea, they would want you to persist and figure out a better idea as a team. This is clear to anyone who follows HN. So it does make sense that PG/YC don't like it if the founder(s) quits when something else interesting (like great job offer or another idea) comes along.
And your POV, that it is something you did outside of YC and don't want to share, makes sense too.
I don't know what I would have done if I was in the same situation.
Evan Miller (emiller) and I applied for Summer 06. Evan had to do most of the work on our application because I had deadlines with my publisher on my Ruby book. I was proud that I was writing a book, so I mentioned it in my bio.
In retrospect, I wonder if that doomed us. Sorry, Evan. If I was reading applications, I'd have been like, "This guy thinks he's writing a book and starting a company? Fuggedaboutit."
But another one of my friends got into Winter 07 and he's very persuasive. A year after their session ended he convinced me to leave the corporate world and join him and his cofounder.
Wish I could finish the story by saying we're insanely profitable already, but hey, we're still alive, we've got a great product, and that's awesome.
There are a ton of ways to get a business off the ground, so one rejection from one incubator is really just the beginning. To everyone in that situation, don't give up. And if this one doesn't pan out, maybe you'll go even further with the next one!
Good to see you're still going!
How do you handle situations where the idea is (in your opinion) great but the person is perhaps lacking for whatever reason?
Is this a situation where you pass or do you take a proverbial punt? Have you done so in the past (don't need to name names to save someone's ego)
If you are thinking about applying, or re-applying, keep your idea simple and concise. Let PG and all the amazing YC contacts help you figure out what the killer feature is of your app that will turn it into the multi-million dollar idea.
Here are a couple things I have learned about funding in my last 2 years building my startup:
1. Funding is mostly a security blanket. An expensive and usually unnecessary one. I think most startups do worse with funding because they lose that fight or flight mechanism that drives entrepreneurs to do mind-blowing things. I don't think most ideas require funding exceeding the seed stage, which is usually a lot cheaper if you can find it elsewhere. For example, I launched my company to profitability with just 3 laptops + servers, which you can usually dump onto credit cards if you're growing way faster than your cash-flow (which makes your startup cost almost $0 to start).
2. You cannot base your startup's success on whether or not one person (pg) believes you can make it. If nothing else, pg cannot possibly be an expert in every field.
3. Money is EVERYWHERE in the valley. It is absurd how many different VCs there are, and how much money they're obligated to deploy in behalf of their LPs. There are definitely less opportunities than the money out there to fund them. Getting funding is pretty easy. It's all about building models that you can plug a # into and get a bigger # out, which if anyone needs help with please feel free to email me.
4. Lastly, if you believe you can make it, no one can stop you. Go be a tiger.