I really like that they provide an option to sign up as a "Hacker" and provide the opportunity to be matched with a startup that could benefit from one's coding skills.
This year is more about building successful teams and matching them with promising concepts. They seem to have gained a lot from the feedback provided by the first batch of ventures and from the Hacker News community.
This seems like a smart approach. I'd guess that there are a lot of people who might want to participate in a startup but don't necessarily have a new idea or concept to bring to the table.
I'm not so sure. I've seen a couple of set ups like that and I'm always a little skeptical.
There are some barriers that you don't want to remove because they're predictive of other situations that you'll hit down the line. It feels like getting people you know to buy into your concept would be one of those.
Perhaps I'm just overly maniacal in the way I work, but it'd be hard for me to put the amount of work that I'm doing into an idea that I picked from a list with people that I didn't know.
There's no mention of equity for people applying as "Hackers". That position is a whole lot less meaningful (financially and otherwise) if you're not a stakeholder.
Looking at the FAQ, it seem to imply that "Hackers" position are non-equity members.
"You will be working your butt off for very little money, and there is no guarantee that even if you are a great programmer that the company you are working with will succeed, or that if it does that there will be a long-term opportunity for you."
However, I do think that its definitely a great opportunity for a student who is looking for a more than usual summer internship.
I was a founder in last year's program. Even though the web site does not mention it, the DreamIt founders encourage founders to give the hackers some equity as part of the compensation.
As an "Innovator" applicant that was not my interpretation: if you don't have a full team they're willing to assist you in rounding it out; discussion of fair equity would be between the original founder and the new members.
Part of the reason I got out of working in companies is that I got the sense that there's a separate caste for technical people... where it's impossible to be taken seriously as someone who can do anything but implement what other people think up.
On a slight tangent, the reason I slightly regret putting myself into a technical career path in school is that, for technical people, it's harder to move up in an organization and almost impossible to move laterally. Because even if you have multiple talents, you'll never get a chance to prove them.
There are non-technical, businessesy people that I have immense respect for. But it bugs me when I'm speaking to new, young entrepreneurs that have this attitude of entitlement, like they should be commanding other people and driving the vision.
I applaud them for extending the YC model outside of YC. And I love the idea of matching founders up. But their attitude seems to give a nod to this notion that technical ability and business skills are mutually exclusive. I find it insulting that if you're in any way technical, you're only supposed to apply for the proletariat slot.
Well, I didn't read into it the way you did. Perhaps, I'm being naive but I see it more as an opportunity to match people with different talents (or at least talents focused in varying areas).
I agree that to be treated as a "proletariat" that was being used as an inexpensive means to an end would be a bad situation. I hope that is not the case here. I suppose it might depend on the specific venture and the people you would be working with.
13 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 37.5 ms ] threadThere are some barriers that you don't want to remove because they're predictive of other situations that you'll hit down the line. It feels like getting people you know to buy into your concept would be one of those.
Perhaps I'm just overly maniacal in the way I work, but it'd be hard for me to put the amount of work that I'm doing into an idea that I picked from a list with people that I didn't know.
"You will be working your butt off for very little money, and there is no guarantee that even if you are a great programmer that the company you are working with will succeed, or that if it does that there will be a long-term opportunity for you."
However, I do think that its definitely a great opportunity for a student who is looking for a more than usual summer internship.
Part of the reason I got out of working in companies is that I got the sense that there's a separate caste for technical people... where it's impossible to be taken seriously as someone who can do anything but implement what other people think up.
On a slight tangent, the reason I slightly regret putting myself into a technical career path in school is that, for technical people, it's harder to move up in an organization and almost impossible to move laterally. Because even if you have multiple talents, you'll never get a chance to prove them.
There are non-technical, businessesy people that I have immense respect for. But it bugs me when I'm speaking to new, young entrepreneurs that have this attitude of entitlement, like they should be commanding other people and driving the vision.
I applaud them for extending the YC model outside of YC. And I love the idea of matching founders up. But their attitude seems to give a nod to this notion that technical ability and business skills are mutually exclusive. I find it insulting that if you're in any way technical, you're only supposed to apply for the proletariat slot.
I agree that to be treated as a "proletariat" that was being used as an inexpensive means to an end would be a bad situation. I hope that is not the case here. I suppose it might depend on the specific venture and the people you would be working with.