Startups that launched at Y Combinator’s W19 Demo Day 1(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Startups that launched at Y Combinator’s W19 Demo Day 1
https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/18/here-are-the-85-startups-that-launched-today-at-y-combinators-w19-demo-day-1/
85 comments
Ah how did I miss putting Loonify in the next-gen transport category!? Incredible idea
Wishing them and everyone else the best of luck over the coming months, rounds, and decades
Wishing them and everyone else the best of luck over the coming months, rounds, and decades
I'm intrigued by the CO2 transformation companies. Would love to know more about the byproducts and energy efficiency of the processes, but I can't find much info about them. I guess we'll find out as they progress
I want to put a plug in for Boundary Layer Technologies. Their crazy Demo Day goal was to build a freaking hydrofoil ship during YC.
The founders I know who worked with them before said "They may actually be able to pull this off."
And there it was, right out front on Demo Day.
The founders I know who worked with them before said "They may actually be able to pull this off."
And there it was, right out front on Demo Day.
First, congrats to everyone launching.
Second, existential crisis time.
I clicked the link and saw "Here are the 85+ startups that launched at YC’s W19 Demo Day 1" and closed the tab.
These used to be some of my favorite articles every six months, kind of a view into what's coming next. But they felt digestible, with a few dozen startups featured each time.
Now it feels like a fire hose.
I'm not convinced there's going to be a YC circa 2007-2012 ever again, but I miss that. Probably not how the ecosystem works anymore.
As a disclaimer, I do take full responsibility for my turning 30 a few years ago and going through a darker, cynical period of burnout that has likely permanently affected my outlook on startups.
Second, existential crisis time.
I clicked the link and saw "Here are the 85+ startups that launched at YC’s W19 Demo Day 1" and closed the tab.
These used to be some of my favorite articles every six months, kind of a view into what's coming next. But they felt digestible, with a few dozen startups featured each time.
Now it feels like a fire hose.
I'm not convinced there's going to be a YC circa 2007-2012 ever again, but I miss that. Probably not how the ecosystem works anymore.
As a disclaimer, I do take full responsibility for my turning 30 a few years ago and going through a darker, cynical period of burnout that has likely permanently affected my outlook on startups.
For what it's worth, there shouldn't be any less signal in these batches than earlier ones. The acceptance rate this batch was the lowest ever. It's just that startups are now global and in every industry.
This is more like your favorite author writing books on a lot more subjects, than just putting out a longer more rambling book.
This is more like your favorite author writing books on a lot more subjects, than just putting out a longer more rambling book.
I don’t think the issue here is “signal”, so much as it is that the arbitrage is gone.
For a brief, golden period, startups were new and innovative. You could stand out from the crowd by taking some risk and working hard. Early YC reflected this ethos.
Now, “startups” are so common as to trigger cynicism, and merely starting a company no longer offers differentiation. Every angle that can be explored is being explored, usually by multiple scrappy, identically hustling teams of millenials, and to differentiate, you need to take risks that feel increasingly long-shot to stand out (e.g. nuclear fusion! electric planes! revolutionizing drug discovery!) Even the seed-stage “accelerators” are systematized, large-scale success-mining machines for fairly well-developed companies.
Which is not to say that there won’t be successes; there will almost certainly be “unicorns” from 2019, as there have been in just about every year. But the frontier is closed, the game is clear, and it’s the same as it ever was.
For a brief, golden period, startups were new and innovative. You could stand out from the crowd by taking some risk and working hard. Early YC reflected this ethos.
Now, “startups” are so common as to trigger cynicism, and merely starting a company no longer offers differentiation. Every angle that can be explored is being explored, usually by multiple scrappy, identically hustling teams of millenials, and to differentiate, you need to take risks that feel increasingly long-shot to stand out (e.g. nuclear fusion! electric planes! revolutionizing drug discovery!) Even the seed-stage “accelerators” are systematized, large-scale success-mining machines for fairly well-developed companies.
Which is not to say that there won’t be successes; there will almost certainly be “unicorns” from 2019, as there have been in just about every year. But the frontier is closed, the game is clear, and it’s the same as it ever was.
I think it's fair to say that Silicon Valley is dead. Cheap venture capital,
minimal startup cost, access to university researchers, and good inter
business communications fueled an engine which turned ideas into products.
You can now find venture capital elsewhere, with the discount rate being
what it is. The cost of housing and office space has spiraled out of
control, thanks to the environmentalists and Prop 13. The trade secrets
and intellectual property mania have pretty much destroyed open cooperation.
The universities remain, but aren't the driving force they used to be.
The place has a much different, more ossified feel to it than it did seven years ago.
[Note: The words above aren't mine; they were written in 1993 by the co-founder of AltaVista.]
The place has a much different, more ossified feel to it than it did seven years ago.
[Note: The words above aren't mine; they were written in 1993 by the co-founder of AltaVista.]
People like to claim that arguments like mine are cynical, but what’s actually cynical is reaching far into the past for a quote, snipping it out of context, and then extrapolating to pretend that the quote is just as relevant today.
Or said more simply: past results do not imply future performance.
Is it possible that we’re about to turn a technological corner and it’ll be like the rise of the web - a revolutionary new media platform - all over again? Sure. Maybe I’m wrong. But I’m pretty informed, and I don’t see a web-like technology where everything is done and working, and just needs to be explored. There’s no green-field tech on the horizon where simple refinement is going to open up new industries. We’re back to waiting.
Today we’re increasingly focused on stuff that might not even work at all (e.g. fusion), or that has huge technological or societal barriers that are unsolved (e.g. robots, electric cars) It’s a different world, and even if something revolutionary comes around the corner next week, right now the playing field is fairly competitive.
Or said more simply: past results do not imply future performance.
Is it possible that we’re about to turn a technological corner and it’ll be like the rise of the web - a revolutionary new media platform - all over again? Sure. Maybe I’m wrong. But I’m pretty informed, and I don’t see a web-like technology where everything is done and working, and just needs to be explored. There’s no green-field tech on the horizon where simple refinement is going to open up new industries. We’re back to waiting.
Today we’re increasingly focused on stuff that might not even work at all (e.g. fusion), or that has huge technological or societal barriers that are unsolved (e.g. robots, electric cars) It’s a different world, and even if something revolutionary comes around the corner next week, right now the playing field is fairly competitive.
perhaps you may look into cryptocurrencies and virtual reality as two places where simple refinement will open up new industries.
And AI.
>Every angle that can be explored is being explored, usually by multiple scrappy, identically hustling teams
a) I'm not sure that's true - things like "Keynua you record a short video to verbally agree" for Latin America for example - are there lots of people doing that?
b) AirBnb say wasn't that novel - holiday lettings site existed. They just did it better. There's probably other stuff like that.
a) I'm not sure that's true - things like "Keynua you record a short video to verbally agree" for Latin America for example - are there lots of people doing that?
b) AirBnb say wasn't that novel - holiday lettings site existed. They just did it better. There's probably other stuff like that.
The only reason they had 12k applications this time was because they incentivized every Startup School company to apply in order to potentially get $10k. I would be pretty shocked if there won't be significantly less applications for S19.
Not sure why they did that to be honest, giving someone $10k to apply is probably the best way to decrease application quality and have more work to sort through. Maybe for more data?
Not sure why they did that to be honest, giving someone $10k to apply is probably the best way to decrease application quality and have more work to sort through. Maybe for more data?
What did folks have to do to get the $10k?
I didn't participate at Startup School this time, so not sure. But I think they said they give out $10k each to the top 10 participants IF they applied to YC.
It might be true that productivity is not booming these days, but it may also mean fulltime jobs are declining.
What are you saying? YC should fund fewer companies so that the TechCrunch summary of demo day is shorter?
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think parent is commenting at the fact that everybody is just doing a startup just because they can. I somewhat agree, because I don’t see as many startups launching that provide a societal and economical utility like those in 2007-2012.
Like the u/giarc commented. What makes bento so different than all the food delivery services that came before it? There’s nothing unique about it.
Like the u/giarc commented. What makes bento so different than all the food delivery services that came before it? There’s nothing unique about it.
Nope, not in the least! YC should do whatever is best for them.
I'm saying (poorly) that I miss getting excited about new startups launching. This is probably more of a reflection of my own shift in perception than it is a statement on YC or incubators as a whole.
I'm saying (poorly) that I miss getting excited about new startups launching. This is probably more of a reflection of my own shift in perception than it is a statement on YC or incubators as a whole.
could you elaborate on your outlook on startups? specifically "darker and more cynical"?
I haven't gone through anything that has resembled dark burnout, but I also share a similar sentiment.
Years ago, I would be amazed at all the cool startups and tools people were building. Now, my reaction is more.. "OK, so what? You build AirBnb for X... so what?"
Years ago, I would be amazed at all the cool startups and tools people were building. Now, my reaction is more.. "OK, so what? You build AirBnb for X... so what?"
Off the record, your comment reminded me of this Douglas Adams quote:
1) everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal;
2) anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it;
3) anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.
1) everything that’s already in the world when you’re born is just normal;
2) anything that gets invented between then and before you turn thirty is incredibly exciting and creative and with any luck you can make a career out of it;
3) anything that gets invented after you’re thirty is against the natural order of things and the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it until it’s been around for about ten years when it gradually turns out to be alright really.
>You build AirBnb for X... so what?
I can't stand this template anymore. There's probably a natural cycle/rise-and-fall for these things.
1) Problem identified, "how do i quickly and efficiently describe the purpose of what we're doing"
2) "[existing popular company everyone knows] for [different market that it can be applied to]" is passed on to others to solve that problem. Phrase becomes popular, more people start using it.
3) Everyone starts using it, phrase becomes overused.
4) People begin questioning whether it still has the same meaning or if it's changed contexts since it was originally suggested.
5) People despise hearing it.
I'm right around step 4 there at the moment, heading towards 5. All I keep thinking is "so you're using the same phrase everyone uses, yet you're telling me you're revolutionary, and groundbreaking."
I get that it's just one phrase, and I'm starting to make assumptions here, but I think at some point it becomes more formulaic. And it's hard for me to believe you're hacking, innovating, and revolutionizing when you're following a formula. It's just more "I'm in-the-club" language now.
I can't stand this template anymore. There's probably a natural cycle/rise-and-fall for these things.
1) Problem identified, "how do i quickly and efficiently describe the purpose of what we're doing"
2) "[existing popular company everyone knows] for [different market that it can be applied to]" is passed on to others to solve that problem. Phrase becomes popular, more people start using it.
3) Everyone starts using it, phrase becomes overused.
4) People begin questioning whether it still has the same meaning or if it's changed contexts since it was originally suggested.
5) People despise hearing it.
I'm right around step 4 there at the moment, heading towards 5. All I keep thinking is "so you're using the same phrase everyone uses, yet you're telling me you're revolutionary, and groundbreaking."
I get that it's just one phrase, and I'm starting to make assumptions here, but I think at some point it becomes more formulaic. And it's hard for me to believe you're hacking, innovating, and revolutionizing when you're following a formula. It's just more "I'm in-the-club" language now.
The good startups use this formula as a shorthand to communicate an idea quickly, but don't religiously pin their real strategy on this. Once you dive in one layer deep, these analogies break down pretty quickly.
I think this is more of a failure of the initial reporting than an existential crisis for YC.
Imagine if the article broke things down by industry and/or tech category and you could expend just the ones you're most interested in and see 3-5 companies in each group.
Imagine if the article broke things down by industry and/or tech category and you could expend just the ones you're most interested in and see 3-5 companies in each group.
Sorry, I don't think I mean to imply YC is having an existential crisis, but rather that I am having the existential crisis.
I worded my original comment poorly.
I worded my original comment poorly.
"VanGo: An on-demand ride service for getting your kids and teens around. The founders say that, because “moms trust other moms,” 85 percent of drivers on their service are moms and all of them are women."
Is that legal?
Is that legal?
It appears so, because I remember thinking the same thing when https://www.gosafr.com/ launched (uber for women).
I recognize there are different safety concerns for men and women, but I do have a problem with companies like these. At least with safr, their advertised safety benefits for women come down to:
1) App/Tech features that would be beneficial for either gender (like extra monitoring by safr through the phone app, and "thorough" vetting/background checks of drivers).
2) Marketing relies heavily on "It's safer because your driver is a woman." which seems to be part of van go's pitch as well, and as a man i find particularly offensive that i'm being deemed unsafe around children/women simply because i'm a man.
That being said, I'm obviously not the target audience. And I believe it's legal because they don't discriminate against men who apply to be drivers/riders, they simply only target women in their marketing, so the people end up being almost entirely women. I would guess this is what vango will end up doing/saying about the gender split as well.
I recognize there are different safety concerns for men and women, but I do have a problem with companies like these. At least with safr, their advertised safety benefits for women come down to:
1) App/Tech features that would be beneficial for either gender (like extra monitoring by safr through the phone app, and "thorough" vetting/background checks of drivers).
2) Marketing relies heavily on "It's safer because your driver is a woman." which seems to be part of van go's pitch as well, and as a man i find particularly offensive that i'm being deemed unsafe around children/women simply because i'm a man.
That being said, I'm obviously not the target audience. And I believe it's legal because they don't discriminate against men who apply to be drivers/riders, they simply only target women in their marketing, so the people end up being almost entirely women. I would guess this is what vango will end up doing/saying about the gender split as well.
In some circumstances it is legal to hire based on sex/gender. Say changing room assistant. Proving a job can only realistically be done by 1 gender is a high bar though.
I doubt VanGo can do that. But they are not big enough to get sued yet. Also as another poster pointed out they cater to women but don't specifically screen out male drivers?
I doubt VanGo can do that. But they are not big enough to get sued yet. Also as another poster pointed out they cater to women but don't specifically screen out male drivers?
> Is that legal?
It's probably not legal for them to use sex as a hiring criteria, but it's legal for “all women” to be the outcome if the actual criteria are both facially neutral and sufficiently narrowly linked to job functions. Judging from VanGo’s website, they require 3+ years of childcare experience, with references and clean background check; the childcare experience filter alone, given how female-dominated that field is, is likely to result in an overwhelmingly female potential employer pool, a d their may be further bias in who chooses to apply to VanGo.
Pushing the 85% moms thing (which VanGo does, unlike the all women thing, on their webpage) is potentially problematic ; if they are advertising it, they are likely inclined to favor it, which is illegal (even if it was parents, not “moms").
It's probably not legal for them to use sex as a hiring criteria, but it's legal for “all women” to be the outcome if the actual criteria are both facially neutral and sufficiently narrowly linked to job functions. Judging from VanGo’s website, they require 3+ years of childcare experience, with references and clean background check; the childcare experience filter alone, given how female-dominated that field is, is likely to result in an overwhelmingly female potential employer pool, a d their may be further bias in who chooses to apply to VanGo.
Pushing the 85% moms thing (which VanGo does, unlike the all women thing, on their webpage) is potentially problematic ; if they are advertising it, they are likely inclined to favor it, which is illegal (even if it was parents, not “moms").
Uber #101: Everything is 'legal' until it's been tested in court and found not to be.
I don't share the cynicism in this thread. Some personal favorites:
- Lumos
- Basement
- Ravn
- YourChoice
- Prometheus
- Loonify Space
- Dockup
- Glide
Is anybody from Prometheus here? Very curious about the tech and the unit economics. Is $3 a goal, or the price today?
This seemed like the most interesting startup in the batch to me. For those who didn't want to comb through 85 startup descriptions, Prometheus claims that they can "remove CO2 from the air and turn it into gasoline" for about $3.00/gallon. If that's a number they can eventually get closer to the current cost of manufacturing gasoline, well then this is gonna be a $500 billion company.
"If that's a number they can eventually get closer to the current cost of manufacturing gasoline, well then this is gonna be a $500 billion company."
It's a $5 Trillion dollar company.
This, and the 'male contraceptive with no side-effects' are 'magic claims' style companies, where if their claims are true, they immediately massive companies.
Usually, the devil is in the details. A few little things here and there contextualize the claims.
Think of how many smart people we have working on big problems and how few real breakthroughs we have.
These things will mostly be evolutionary. Like 'male contraceptive' but it actually does have the side effect of long-term problems. Or takes a year to wear off. Or is $20 a pop and last for 1 hour. Or is only 95% effective. Etc. etc..
It's a $5 Trillion dollar company.
This, and the 'male contraceptive with no side-effects' are 'magic claims' style companies, where if their claims are true, they immediately massive companies.
Usually, the devil is in the details. A few little things here and there contextualize the claims.
Think of how many smart people we have working on big problems and how few real breakthroughs we have.
These things will mostly be evolutionary. Like 'male contraceptive' but it actually does have the side effect of long-term problems. Or takes a year to wear off. Or is $20 a pop and last for 1 hour. Or is only 95% effective. Etc. etc..
Prometheus definitely stood out.
If they can do what they advertise, states could start implementing carbon taxes per gallon on the current gasoline to make the 'CO2 neutral' gas the same price or less.
Hi! Rob here (founder). $3 is the break even retail price we estimate for when we start selling next year.
Its two different technologies, right? Carbon capture & processing?
Does the $3/gallon include both?
Does the $3/gallon include both?
Had a look through the patents. Their IP seems to be around a forward-osmosis separation process. They use CO2 in ammonia on the dilute side of the osmosis process.
So my complete seat-of-the-pants, duffer-on-the-bench guess is that they have a CO2 capture process (or use CO2 from a nearby industrial combustion process), use the CO2 in their process to separate gasoline in place of a traditional distillation process, then remove the CO2 from the gasoline by precipitating it as ammonium carbonate, which can be sequestered somehow.
So my complete seat-of-the-pants, duffer-on-the-bench guess is that they have a CO2 capture process (or use CO2 from a nearby industrial combustion process), use the CO2 in their process to separate gasoline in place of a traditional distillation process, then remove the CO2 from the gasoline by precipitating it as ammonium carbonate, which can be sequestered somehow.
>Basement: A social network for your close friends
Seems like this would impose some serious limits on ad revenue generation (assuming that's how they plan to monetize). With only close friends the volume of friend-generated content would presumably be much lower than that of Facebook or Instagram (even if those individuals are generating more content), meaning you have a much lower threshold beyond which you start pissing off users with ads due to relative volume.
Seems like this would impose some serious limits on ad revenue generation (assuming that's how they plan to monetize). With only close friends the volume of friend-generated content would presumably be much lower than that of Facebook or Instagram (even if those individuals are generating more content), meaning you have a much lower threshold beyond which you start pissing off users with ads due to relative volume.
Google tried exactly this with Google+, and it failed. Facebook is optimized for network effects, and every feature / acquisition is decided upon that 1 criteria whether it increases network effects or not.
World has changed in last five years.
How would this be different from whatsapp group?
But also, possibly, you'd have a lot more and a lot deeper interaction. This could be the kind of app Facebook was originally, where you added your friend and shared basically anything random without a focus on getting likes. Dumb inside jokes, unfiltered photos, etc.
Kinda like the texting groups friends often have these days. That's market that could potentially use some optimizaiton as texting isn't a great format to communicate with ~5-10 people.
Kinda like the texting groups friends often have these days. That's market that could potentially use some optimizaiton as texting isn't a great format to communicate with ~5-10 people.
Fernando here from Basement. This is pretty spot on. The greater level of intimacy leads to far more interaction since you're pretty free to be yourself and post content that is meant for your actual friends to see instead of random people viewing your perfect life. The intuition is naturally that fewer friends would limit usage, but in fact, it's responsible for the high levels of interaction.
As for the revenue – there are certainly cool opportunities to run relevant ads when you have high levels of attention from someone and their close friends (think group experiences, people buying things at the same time that their friends, etc). That said, we don't like what ads have done to current social platforms. They misalign incentives where the more money the product makes, the worse the product tends to get for users. Snapchat was pretty fun until it went from only seeing friends to seeing celebrity gossip and repetitive ads. Because of that, we're planning on doing a subscription model down the road, similar to what WhatsApp tried out before it got acquired (first year free, then a small fee.) Certainly a new model for a social app, but we think it's the best direction for us long-term.
As for the revenue – there are certainly cool opportunities to run relevant ads when you have high levels of attention from someone and their close friends (think group experiences, people buying things at the same time that their friends, etc). That said, we don't like what ads have done to current social platforms. They misalign incentives where the more money the product makes, the worse the product tends to get for users. Snapchat was pretty fun until it went from only seeing friends to seeing celebrity gossip and repetitive ads. Because of that, we're planning on doing a subscription model down the road, similar to what WhatsApp tried out before it got acquired (first year free, then a small fee.) Certainly a new model for a social app, but we think it's the best direction for us long-term.
Thanks for jumping into the thread.
I took your app for a spin and was expecting to be asked to give it access to all my contacts, but was planning to click the fine-print option for "No thanks, I'll just invite people manually one at a time" .. but then there was no option, just a mandatory Enable Contacts button with no explanation other than, "Your parents are not on Basement".
I'm not gonna tell you how to keep your gate, and maybe I'm not the target demographic, but it would be nice for the app to explain what it was planning to do with that permission before requesting it.
I took your app for a spin and was expecting to be asked to give it access to all my contacts, but was planning to click the fine-print option for "No thanks, I'll just invite people manually one at a time" .. but then there was no option, just a mandatory Enable Contacts button with no explanation other than, "Your parents are not on Basement".
I'm not gonna tell you how to keep your gate, and maybe I'm not the target demographic, but it would be nice for the app to explain what it was planning to do with that permission before requesting it.
Asked the same question above also. How would this be different from whatsapp group?
For what it's worth, I'd love to pay for something like this. I hope you guys win the internet, as long as privacy is at your core.
Completely agree with your perspective on existing social platforms and think it's awesome that you guys are trying to break from ad-generated revenue. Any chance you'd go with a freemium model vs. free trial?
Jeremy from Basement here. We're considering a freemium model, maybe turning the font of people who don't pay to comic sans :)
Cruel but brilliant.
I completely get the appeal from a user perspective. From a revenue perspective, are you saying deeper interactions could be used to justify more expensive ad buys to counter lower volume?
> VanGo: ... “moms trust other moms,” ... all of them are women.
Straight sexism. Cause a Dad driving his kids to school has gotta be a creep or terrible driver or something?
>Bento Club:
Cheaper than what is already there? Food is a losing business and these guys are going to race harder to the bottom.
> Slapdash:
Is just https://www.appdirect.com/products/appwise/features
Straight sexism. Cause a Dad driving his kids to school has gotta be a creep or terrible driver or something?
>Bento Club:
Cheaper than what is already there? Food is a losing business and these guys are going to race harder to the bottom.
> Slapdash:
Is just https://www.appdirect.com/products/appwise/features
VanGo will succeed DUE to the sexism involved. Think about the moms weighing up their options when sending their kids to school:
1) Uber - random dude (most likely)
2) Another mom or at least a pre-screened woman
Not many moms will choose the uber for fear of appearing sexist.
1) Uber - random dude (most likely)
2) Another mom or at least a pre-screened woman
Not many moms will choose the uber for fear of appearing sexist.
In addition to your presented options:
3) Bus
4) Kid Walks/cycles themself
5) Mom drives them herself
With these already being available options, I don't understand why anyone would be trying to solve what appears to me to be a solved problem, getting kids to school.
3) Bus
4) Kid Walks/cycles themself
5) Mom drives them herself
With these already being available options, I don't understand why anyone would be trying to solve what appears to me to be a solved problem, getting kids to school.
> > VanGo: ... “moms trust other moms,” ... all of them are women.
> Straight sexism.
Oddly, while the TC page has the “85% are moms” and the “all of them are women”, VanGo itself has the same “85% are moms” but “all of them are...prescreened with 3+ years childcare experience, reference checked, fingerprinted & clean background check”.
> Straight sexism.
Oddly, while the TC page has the “85% are moms” and the “all of them are women”, VanGo itself has the same “85% are moms” but “all of them are...prescreened with 3+ years childcare experience, reference checked, fingerprinted & clean background check”.
The most exciting company here to me is Prometheus, who is mentioned in several threads here.
It bugs me though, that the TC blurb, and the comments here, and the Prometheus website, all say the company is turning CO2 into gasoline. That strikes me as alchemy. I think the company is more likely using CO2 in a separation process that is an alternative to the traditional distillation tower used in oil refineries.
There's a difference between "turning CO2 into gasoline" and "using CO2 to refine gasoline from crude oil".
It bugs me though, that the TC blurb, and the comments here, and the Prometheus website, all say the company is turning CO2 into gasoline. That strikes me as alchemy. I think the company is more likely using CO2 in a separation process that is an alternative to the traditional distillation tower used in oil refineries.
There's a difference between "turning CO2 into gasoline" and "using CO2 to refine gasoline from crude oil".
> Bento Club: Customers pre-order food from a select set of restaurants, and Bento picks it up and brings all orders to a shared pickup spot within one block of the customer’s office.
Unless it's 10x cheaper, I don't see how this is any better than Uber eats, Doordash etc (that actually bring food to your door).
Unless it's 10x cheaper, I don't see how this is any better than Uber eats, Doordash etc (that actually bring food to your door).
This one might seem like a minor shift for the consumer experience, but a key difference with other services is that it's actually a sustainable business model. Because they do batched deliveries with hub-and-spoke distribution, the cost for deliveries is lower, so they'll have way higher profit margins than something like Postmates. Uber eats will be able to hold out since profits realistically don't matter to them, but I think the main stronghold something like Bento Club could have is the fact that the current courier model doesn't really work in the long-run.
I thought we’d been through this?
https://sf.eater.com/2017/1/10/14231188/bento-closed-san-fra...
https://sf.eater.com/2017/1/10/14231188/bento-closed-san-fra...
Weren't they on the Gimlet Startup podcast too? [1] Looks to be a different company/founder though.
The other bento started out trying to make the meals themselves but couldnt make them cheap enough. They were losing money on every one sold. Eventually, if I remember right, they tried to pivot to a service like this that got meals from restaurants, but didnt fair much better. They were doing last mile delivery though if I recall.
[1] https://www.gimletmedia.com/startup/kitchen-confidential-sea...
The other bento started out trying to make the meals themselves but couldnt make them cheap enough. They were losing money on every one sold. Eventually, if I remember right, they tried to pivot to a service like this that got meals from restaurants, but didnt fair much better. They were doing last mile delivery though if I recall.
[1] https://www.gimletmedia.com/startup/kitchen-confidential-sea...
I think the competition is Eat Club, not any of those individual delivery services.
Seems like they're trying to squeeze somewhere between pickup services (e.g. MealPal) and delivery services (e.g. Uber Eats). Cheaper than delivery thanks to reduced labor and logistics costs, more expensive than pickup services because those costs still exist. I guess they're banking on people being willing to pay a little more than pickup service rates in exchange for more options.
Yeah that was my read too. Taking the MealPal offering (cheaper lunches in exchange for pre-ordering and limiting your selection) and adding group delivery to it (adding a bit of cost in exchange for convenience).
If they essentially do "MealPal, but delivered," then I could see it working. Noticeable price point difference from other delivery options, but maintaining a range of restaurant meal options for people to choose from.
But yeah, they look like sink or swim based largely on what price they can offer consumers
If they essentially do "MealPal, but delivered," then I could see it working. Noticeable price point difference from other delivery options, but maintaining a range of restaurant meal options for people to choose from.
But yeah, they look like sink or swim based largely on what price they can offer consumers
>Unicorn: Scooter companies that rent by the minute lose 2 percent of their fleet per day to damage and theft, and that means customers don’t have a safe scooter available when they want one.
Is this really offering an attractive alternative to Bird, Lime, etc. from a customer perspective? It seems like they're solving more of a scooter company problem than a customer problem. As a customer I can't imagine a case where I'd prefer to rent for weeks at a time vs. single-use or buying my own scooter.
Is this really offering an attractive alternative to Bird, Lime, etc. from a customer perspective? It seems like they're solving more of a scooter company problem than a customer problem. As a customer I can't imagine a case where I'd prefer to rent for weeks at a time vs. single-use or buying my own scooter.
This one stood out to me (next to the Bento box thing that’s a catering company dressed up as a startup) as the strangest. If you’re renting a $350 scooter for $50 a month does that really make sense?
It's an angle into the scooter craze.
If scooters really do become a thing, then this is basically a kind of financing plan for them. They might tweak and pivot to the point wherein the price makes sense.
It's also an option on the 'right' financing model for scooters, as maybe the 'daily/hourly' thing actually doesn't make sense at all, i.e. scooters left all around.
It's possible the daily/hourly scooter businesses may be losing money and so will fall flat.
It's risky but it's a finger in the pie of a big craze, and new trends tend to be where the money is.
So it's not entirely irrational. If scooters become a thing, it will be a big market, room for all sorts of players.
If scooters really do become a thing, then this is basically a kind of financing plan for them. They might tweak and pivot to the point wherein the price makes sense.
It's also an option on the 'right' financing model for scooters, as maybe the 'daily/hourly' thing actually doesn't make sense at all, i.e. scooters left all around.
It's possible the daily/hourly scooter businesses may be losing money and so will fall flat.
It's risky but it's a finger in the pie of a big craze, and new trends tend to be where the money is.
So it's not entirely irrational. If scooters become a thing, it will be a big market, room for all sorts of players.
There are a lot of exciting YC companies this batch, but wouldn't a product like Omni be better positioned for tackling a slightly longer-term scooter rental?
The only use case I can think of is if I'm traveling and staying some time in the same city.
Yeah, that settles the Unicorn vs. buy comparison but is Unicorn better than Bird/Lime in that case?
https://instapathbio.com/
Hopefully this isn't a repeat Theranos
Had the same idea as Keynua. I quickly (foolishly?) dismissed it because of Deep Fake.
How would they ensure trust in the video?
There are a couple methods to detect "liveness" including depth perception of stereo-capable cameras, measuring reflection of IR emitter, eyeball movement, etc.
Source: work at an FR startup
Source: work at an FR startup
Does it require specialized equipment? If yes, what’s the value of video vs fingerprint reader that’s more ubiquitous?
I don't think it was foolish. Its definitely going to be a challenge to identify fake videos in the near future
Perhaps 2FA through facial recognition + voice authentication?
Check this https://modulate.ai/
JetPack Aviation making a real-life speeder from Star Wars is one of the more audacious companies I've seen from YC in a while. Simultaneously impressed and terrified if this ever goes anywhere.
Wow, these are really creative and fun. Damn, impressed. Makes me jealous of future generations that will have access to so many more cool things than I grew up with.
Is there an algorithm that would predict which of these startups would result in a very generous earn-out?
Cong!
Just too many...
We need a top 10 list...
Just too many...
We need a top 10 list...
In particular, a lot of super cool next-gen transportation: electric planes (Heart Aerospace), jetpacks/bikes (Jetpack Aviation), hydrofoil cargo ships (Boundary Layer Technologies). Also seems to be a big focus on India, China and Africa, and a big increase in the proportion of bio/med-tech companies. There are even two (2) companies turning CO2 into cool stuff (Prometheus turning it into gasoline and Saratoga Energy converting it into nanotubes).
Feeling very optimistic about the future and looking forward to reading what Day 2 has in store.
Bonus: seems to be a handful of Harry Potter themed company names (not counting Centaur of course).