The title would be more accurate if he included something like - YC excluded. I bet a lot of people on HN are going to be irritated by this until they read the link.
We did 500 Startups and while some startups obviously don't make it - I think that if you ask the founders on the whole there will be overwhelming consensus that it was extremely helpful. Any good entrepreneur needs to develop a filter and learn how to cut through the noise. If they fail for that reason at an accelerator, they would have failed regardless.
It's still a great mashup of talent, timing, and LUCK. A lot of companies will take years to hit their stride (500S is only 3 years old).
This article reads a bit like it was written by somebody who is unable to speak from first hand experience.
Question: if you just started writing, you might not have many if any readers. How do you give people the opportunity to read your writing without self submissions?
I like how the graphic at the top lists the top 15 accelerator programs, with YC first, and then the author goes on to explain how conveniently he doesn't count YC as an accelerator. Not off to a great start on presenting the article.
The author provided no great support for the idea that YC is not an accelerator. YC is clearly an accelerator, in my opinion. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The author had to leave YC out because it would have blown his premise apart. As far and away the most successful accelerator, it has had countless hits. It's not surprising that a few accelerators would dominate when it comes to producing homeruns, it tends to happen in most things (including VC). I think a similarly flawed argument would be to say that Andreessen Horowitz isn't a venture capital company, because they're just too different from the pack and too good.
The companies listed might not have attended accelerator programs, but they did everything companies on accelerators do - build an MVP, raise a small amount of finance off the back of it, iterate, iterate, iterate, get a mentor or several, iterate, network like crazy, etc, etc. Oh, and iterate. The idea, execution, timing, and luck necessary to build a company are the most critical factors regardless of where you take your first steps, but having those other things certainly helps. Accelerators put them on a plate. The founders still have to take them.
However...
<small rant>
Defining success for a business as "being a billion dollar company" is ludicrous. Those aren't the "best" companies, merely the biggest. The majority of companies aren't that size and never will be. The delusion that your new cat photo sharing app is going to propel you to startup stardom is useful at the beginning, it drives you forwards, but pragmatism is equally useful. Building a $5m company is just as much a success if it changes lives. Billionaire worship, where a company isn't a success if they don't have the potential to scale to the size of Facebook, is a dangerous thing that will, frankly, hold humanity back in the long term if accelerators take hold too much. Not every important idea is a huge world-changing event. Sometimes building a small company that makes a big difference to a small number of people is more important.
"Not every important idea is a huge world-changing event. Sometimes building a small company that makes a big difference to a small number of people is more important."
13 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 41.7 ms ] thread"Now before I continue, I should note that I don’t believe YCombinator falls into this category."
We did 500 Startups and while some startups obviously don't make it - I think that if you ask the founders on the whole there will be overwhelming consensus that it was extremely helpful. Any good entrepreneur needs to develop a filter and learn how to cut through the noise. If they fail for that reason at an accelerator, they would have failed regardless.
It's still a great mashup of talent, timing, and LUCK. A lot of companies will take years to hit their stride (500S is only 3 years old).
This article reads a bit like it was written by somebody who is unable to speak from first hand experience.
If people like it, they'll submit it for you.
The author provided no great support for the idea that YC is not an accelerator. YC is clearly an accelerator, in my opinion. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The author had to leave YC out because it would have blown his premise apart. As far and away the most successful accelerator, it has had countless hits. It's not surprising that a few accelerators would dominate when it comes to producing homeruns, it tends to happen in most things (including VC). I think a similarly flawed argument would be to say that Andreessen Horowitz isn't a venture capital company, because they're just too different from the pack and too good.
However...
<small rant>
Defining success for a business as "being a billion dollar company" is ludicrous. Those aren't the "best" companies, merely the biggest. The majority of companies aren't that size and never will be. The delusion that your new cat photo sharing app is going to propel you to startup stardom is useful at the beginning, it drives you forwards, but pragmatism is equally useful. Building a $5m company is just as much a success if it changes lives. Billionaire worship, where a company isn't a success if they don't have the potential to scale to the size of Facebook, is a dangerous thing that will, frankly, hold humanity back in the long term if accelerators take hold too much. Not every important idea is a huge world-changing event. Sometimes building a small company that makes a big difference to a small number of people is more important.
</small rant>
Totally agree. DHH actually gave a talk about this subject at Start-Up School back in 2008. Definitely worth watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDXJ6bMkMY