I Am Sam Altman, President of YC Group. AMA
457 comments
Could you outline the exact reasoning why YC still believes SV is the place to be for a startup. I've never heard any explanation that went deeper than "well investors are there and network duh"
It seems very broken that IT specifically should be bound to a physical place. Are there any plans to innovate in this regard or any research YC is doing?
It seems very broken that IT specifically should be bound to a physical place. Are there any plans to innovate in this regard or any research YC is doing?
This is discussed in the book "The Industries of the Future" by Alec Ross. He asks a question: Why can not other countries replicate SV?
The short version is accumulation of know-how in that geographic region. For years, most of the brilliant minds in the tech domain from all over the world have gone to SV to collaborate together. So even if another country creates a replication of SV in terms of infrastructure (or even gives tax breaks and other incentives), it's hard to recreate the huge pool of bright professionals who have years of know-how to tackle startup related challenges.
The short version is accumulation of know-how in that geographic region. For years, most of the brilliant minds in the tech domain from all over the world have gone to SV to collaborate together. So even if another country creates a replication of SV in terms of infrastructure (or even gives tax breaks and other incentives), it's hard to recreate the huge pool of bright professionals who have years of know-how to tackle startup related challenges.
I didn't read the book but that is entirely too simplistic and comes across as american exceptionalism to me. Not to mention the author has a well defined political agenda to sell I don't necessarily agree with.
I've lived all over the country and all over the world and between countries I'd say it is 100% cultural.
In "europe" employee protection laws make it difficult to quickly hire and fire employees, making it difficult to scale.
In Chile failure was shameful. A stable bureaucratic government job was the most coveted job.
In Japan you are a social outcast if you aren't a company man.
I found quite a bit of entrepreneurial effort in west Africa, however I think that area lacks the required infrastructure to support large scale innovation.
I don't buy the concentration argument within the US borders. The bay area has a population of 7M, the greater NYC area has a population of 20M. Purely based on population numbers it is difficult to believe the bay area has a higher concentration of educated people.
I've lived all over the country and all over the world and between countries I'd say it is 100% cultural.
In "europe" employee protection laws make it difficult to quickly hire and fire employees, making it difficult to scale.
In Chile failure was shameful. A stable bureaucratic government job was the most coveted job.
In Japan you are a social outcast if you aren't a company man.
I found quite a bit of entrepreneurial effort in west Africa, however I think that area lacks the required infrastructure to support large scale innovation.
I don't buy the concentration argument within the US borders. The bay area has a population of 7M, the greater NYC area has a population of 20M. Purely based on population numbers it is difficult to believe the bay area has a higher concentration of educated people.
>In "europe" employee protection laws make it difficult to quickly hire and fire employees, making it difficult to scale.
And IMO US anti-discrimination laws are also flawed. I think a good compromise is to only include certain kinds of jobs like manual labor under employment anti-discrimination laws.
And IMO US anti-discrimination laws are also flawed. I think a good compromise is to only include certain kinds of jobs like manual labor under employment anti-discrimination laws.
How do you believe they are flawed? I hear this most often from people who have heard rumor or trash news from America and they think American companies have Affirmative Action "quotas" where they have to hire a certain number of people of each ethnic background. This is false.
Though quotas have been outlawed in the United States, the European Union has had a recent push to punish companies whose boards aren't composed of at least 40% women. And India, Brazil and Malaysia, among other countries, have laws and policies that address affirmative action in schools and throughout society.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/business/global/18iht-boar...
There are lots of anti-discrimination laws in the US. While affirmative action is usually spoken of in general terms, there is no singular policy or implementation of the ways in which affirmative action take shape in government organizations, colleges and corporations. It varies.
Court cases continue to refine interpretations of how race is used at the university level. Some schools have experimented with a variety of ways of non-race-based models, like the Top 10 model that the University of Texas employs, to ensure the racial diversity of students.
A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):
Whites (non-recruited athlete/non-legacy status): 0 (control group) Blacks: +230 Hispanics: +185 Asians: –50 Recruited athletes: +200 Legacies (children of alumni): +160
In 2009, Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and researcher Alexandria Walton Radford, in their book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, examined data on students applying to college in 1997 and calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African Americans who got 1100.
While the data and legal interpretation of Affirmative Action and anti-discrimination laws in the US are constantly changing today it has the largest real impact on Universities and Government.
Though quotas have been outlawed in the United States, the European Union has had a recent push to punish companies whose boards aren't composed of at least 40% women. And India, Brazil and Malaysia, among other countries, have laws and policies that address affirmative action in schools and throughout society.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/business/global/18iht-boar...
There are lots of anti-discrimination laws in the US. While affirmative action is usually spoken of in general terms, there is no singular policy or implementation of the ways in which affirmative action take shape in government organizations, colleges and corporations. It varies.
Court cases continue to refine interpretations of how race is used at the university level. Some schools have experimented with a variety of ways of non-race-based models, like the Top 10 model that the University of Texas employs, to ensure the racial diversity of students.
A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):
Whites (non-recruited athlete/non-legacy status): 0 (control group) Blacks: +230 Hispanics: +185 Asians: –50 Recruited athletes: +200 Legacies (children of alumni): +160
In 2009, Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and researcher Alexandria Walton Radford, in their book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, examined data on students applying to college in 1997 and calculated that Asian-Americans needed nearly perfect SAT scores of 1550 to have the same chance of being accepted at a top private university as whites who scored 1410 and African Americans who got 1100.
While the data and legal interpretation of Affirmative Action and anti-discrimination laws in the US are constantly changing today it has the largest real impact on Universities and Government.
The problem is how these laws are enforced. For example, statistics and performance reviews are often used, which probably do work fine for manual labor jobs where employees are treated as a commodity (and for which these laws were probably originally designed for). Affirmative action BTW is not a good idea either, but not bad enough to outlaw IMO.
You mean expensive lawsuits? That is true. Everyone in America is filing expensive lawsuits all the time especially if you own a business the first hire you must make is a good lawyer.
I don't see how this is related to discrimination specifically?
If your problem is too many lawsuits why don't you mention hot coffee at McDonalds? Or the problem with drivers causing accidents and suing in China?
http://www.ibtimes.com/china-arrests-7-faking-car-crashes-cl...
I don't see how this is related to discrimination specifically?
If your problem is too many lawsuits why don't you mention hot coffee at McDonalds? Or the problem with drivers causing accidents and suing in China?
http://www.ibtimes.com/china-arrests-7-faking-car-crashes-cl...
Things like car crashes for example leave evidence by definition. There are many ways discrimination can occur, not all of which leave evidence.
> Purely based on population numbers it is difficult to believe the bay area has a higher concentration of educated people.
At this point, I don't think it's arguing that. There's a critical mass of domain specific professionals in SV, pure and simple.
The argument is that if anyone wants to create a competitor to SV, they'd be playing catch up because there is already an established core in SV. You'd need to peel away a large number of folks already established there before that concentration is no longer as strong as it currently is.
There's a limited number of experts in the world. Wherever has the highest concentration is going to have an innate advantage in terms of appeal, regardless of cost, etc. Creating an affordable alternative elsewhere can't compete on that level.
At this point, I don't think it's arguing that. There's a critical mass of domain specific professionals in SV, pure and simple.
The argument is that if anyone wants to create a competitor to SV, they'd be playing catch up because there is already an established core in SV. You'd need to peel away a large number of folks already established there before that concentration is no longer as strong as it currently is.
There's a limited number of experts in the world. Wherever has the highest concentration is going to have an innate advantage in terms of appeal, regardless of cost, etc. Creating an affordable alternative elsewhere can't compete on that level.
SV seems to have a much higher rate of startups, but a lower rate of long term success than several other locations. The attraction seems to become part of the VC investment scam where SV has lower investment standards. Making running a startup easier even if to makes running as successful startup harder.
They used to be in both Cambridge and California, when they moved to CA only PG wrote this:
http://old.ycombinator.com/ycca.html
http://old.ycombinator.com/ycca.html
I'm a little surprised at the mentions of it being a better place to raise kids. Admittedly, I'm not as familiar with Palo Alto, but I think of the suburbs of Boston as an extraordinarily good place to raise children.
That's the article I had in the back of my head. I think it might be a good time to reassess some of the ideas from the article (it is 5 years old after all).
"""being in a place where startups are the cool thing to do, and chance meetings with people who can help you"""
I think "the cool thing to do" isn't as relevant as it was 5 years ago due to some well publicized success stories and things like the shark tank etc. Startups are generally considered a more viable career option these days so that need (and thus the competitive advantage of SV) is quite a bit less than 5 years ago (imo)
Chance meetings...yeah I get it. It's also lessened to some degree due to social media and random chance on the internet (someone reading a tweet of yours and knowing how to help, help on HN/reddit etc.) but that's still a great point in favor of SV. It's also self-reenforcing.
So for arguments sake I'll offer the counter position to "move to a startup hub" namely "move to a place where you expect the highest density of your customers" (which should help with chance meetings as well)
The second alternative I'll suggest is...stay at a place you feel comfortable at especially if it has low living cost until you are ramen profitable given SV cost structures...then move.
[there's a lot of it depends here but those are just suggestions to kickstart a hopefully interesting discussion]
"""being in a place where startups are the cool thing to do, and chance meetings with people who can help you"""
I think "the cool thing to do" isn't as relevant as it was 5 years ago due to some well publicized success stories and things like the shark tank etc. Startups are generally considered a more viable career option these days so that need (and thus the competitive advantage of SV) is quite a bit less than 5 years ago (imo)
Chance meetings...yeah I get it. It's also lessened to some degree due to social media and random chance on the internet (someone reading a tweet of yours and knowing how to help, help on HN/reddit etc.) but that's still a great point in favor of SV. It's also self-reenforcing.
So for arguments sake I'll offer the counter position to "move to a startup hub" namely "move to a place where you expect the highest density of your customers" (which should help with chance meetings as well)
The second alternative I'll suggest is...stay at a place you feel comfortable at especially if it has low living cost until you are ramen profitable given SV cost structures...then move.
[there's a lot of it depends here but those are just suggestions to kickstart a hopefully interesting discussion]
>I'll offer the counter position to "move to a startup hub" namely "move to a place where you expect the highest density of your customers" (which should help with chance meetings as well)
Based on empirical history of how successful startups have turned into $1 billion companies, it looks like the density & quantity of the hiring pool and investors are higher priorities than location of customers. In SV, you get a pipeline of fresh Stanford grads and also the ex-employees from Apple/Google/Facebook/etc. For investors, you have a bunch of them clustered on Sand Hill Rd. For B2C consumer facing internet businesses, there are no geographically concentrated customers to move to.
The prioritization of proximity close to the customers may make more sense for a lifestyle business[1]. E.g. you're developing a SaaS cloud service for surfing shops to manage their inventory of surfboard gear. In that case, it might make more sense to locate the headquarters in San Diego and it's a calculated tradeoff to rely on the smaller pool of programmers in that area. The startup CEO physically visits each surfing shop to see how the software is used and gets real feedback for new features. Investors would also be less of an issue because a lot of lifestyle businesses are bootstrapped to profitability. That said, YC and VCs don't invest in lifestyle businesses so their bias towards SV wouldn't apply.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_business
Based on empirical history of how successful startups have turned into $1 billion companies, it looks like the density & quantity of the hiring pool and investors are higher priorities than location of customers. In SV, you get a pipeline of fresh Stanford grads and also the ex-employees from Apple/Google/Facebook/etc. For investors, you have a bunch of them clustered on Sand Hill Rd. For B2C consumer facing internet businesses, there are no geographically concentrated customers to move to.
The prioritization of proximity close to the customers may make more sense for a lifestyle business[1]. E.g. you're developing a SaaS cloud service for surfing shops to manage their inventory of surfboard gear. In that case, it might make more sense to locate the headquarters in San Diego and it's a calculated tradeoff to rely on the smaller pool of programmers in that area. The startup CEO physically visits each surfing shop to see how the software is used and gets real feedback for new features. Investors would also be less of an issue because a lot of lifestyle businesses are bootstrapped to profitability. That said, YC and VCs don't invest in lifestyle businesses so their bias towards SV wouldn't apply.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_business
I've been running an east-coast-but-middle-of-nowhere startup, primarily implemented by myself, and self-funded, with the occasional with help of random one-off contractors in the hospitality/IoT space for two years now. Basically during off-hours from a (pretty successful) day job in a non-tech company I started years ago.
My choke point has always been finding another technical-minded parter that gets the industry. Every time I've seen the YC application season roll around, I've thought it'd be a perfect fit for applying to YC, with the connections and clout that come with it. What's stopped me, even at my half-assed pace, was the chance of the huge ego/momentum hit of getting rejected, considering it's still a labor of love (although profitable).
I have a handful of customers that are already paying monthly for "The Vision Lite" at discounted prices: just enough for me to continue development. But larger competitors are sure to move more aggressively into the area over the next year or so, before my current trajectory can deliver on the "this is Star Trek-level shit" experience I've got planned. I'm sure I can grow my customer base at a moderate rate, but I'm not sure I can keep up once the field gets serious against better-funded competitors.
Where do you think the tipping point is between the Basecamp-style "Just get profitable, stay profitable, and move forward" model vs. "Take VC money and turn a two-year schedule into a six months, and get entrenched while you can?" (Fred Brooks notwithstanding)
My choke point has always been finding another technical-minded parter that gets the industry. Every time I've seen the YC application season roll around, I've thought it'd be a perfect fit for applying to YC, with the connections and clout that come with it. What's stopped me, even at my half-assed pace, was the chance of the huge ego/momentum hit of getting rejected, considering it's still a labor of love (although profitable).
I have a handful of customers that are already paying monthly for "The Vision Lite" at discounted prices: just enough for me to continue development. But larger competitors are sure to move more aggressively into the area over the next year or so, before my current trajectory can deliver on the "this is Star Trek-level shit" experience I've got planned. I'm sure I can grow my customer base at a moderate rate, but I'm not sure I can keep up once the field gets serious against better-funded competitors.
Where do you think the tipping point is between the Basecamp-style "Just get profitable, stay profitable, and move forward" model vs. "Take VC money and turn a two-year schedule into a six months, and get entrenched while you can?" (Fred Brooks notwithstanding)
One of the most important life skills is to get good at taking rejection and failure and then picking yourself back up and continuing.
If you are going to run a big company, far, far worse things will come your way than a YC rejection. Try again. And again. And again.
Giving up too early is one of the biggest causes of failure I know.
In terms of the two models--it really depends on your company and market, and what you want to do.
If you are going to run a big company, far, far worse things will come your way than a YC rejection. Try again. And again. And again.
Giving up too early is one of the biggest causes of failure I know.
In terms of the two models--it really depends on your company and market, and what you want to do.
Hey Sam,
What's the difference between being persistent and wasting time? I'm curious as to where you draw the line.
What's the difference between being persistent and wasting time? I'm curious as to where you draw the line.
Seth Godin wrote a book on the subject https://www.amazon.com/Dip-Little-Book-Teaches-Stick/dp/1591...
Have you read this book? If so, how good is it?
The most important book I've ever read.
Thanks to having read that book before I started my startup, that startup has now become two thriving companies in a highly challenging market, and I've figured out some methods of overcoming major personal challenges, that could turn out to be hugely valuable to many other people, once I'm ready share them.
I'm still working through my own dip, but had I not read that book I'd have quit very early on and would likely be living a pretty mundane existence.
It's a short book, but an invaluable one.
Thanks to having read that book before I started my startup, that startup has now become two thriving companies in a highly challenging market, and I've figured out some methods of overcoming major personal challenges, that could turn out to be hugely valuable to many other people, once I'm ready share them.
I'm still working through my own dip, but had I not read that book I'd have quit very early on and would likely be living a pretty mundane existence.
It's a short book, but an invaluable one.
I've read a couple of Seth's books couple years ago. I felt they are all like a great blog posts inflated to size a short book. But maybe going on about one idea for two hundred pages makes some sense, it made it really sink in for me.
wasting time is being persistent for bad reasons
You have little to lose with applying to YC and getting rejected, nor do you have with investors.
If you fail to get a seed-round going after meeting with maybe 1/2 dozen VC's you will be significantly 'more ready' for the next time you meet. Once you've made more progress and reached more milestones, you can probably even circle back with investors who said 'no'. You might have more cred with them.
If you fail to get a seed-round going after meeting with maybe 1/2 dozen VC's you will be significantly 'more ready' for the next time you meet. Once you've made more progress and reached more milestones, you can probably even circle back with investors who said 'no'. You might have more cred with them.
The ego hit risk is only an issue because you have mentally internalized them as being on a pedestal.
Don't do that. They are not final arbiters of either talent or success.
Don't do that. They are not final arbiters of either talent or success.
It seems half these questions are from Single Founders. Considering YC's interest in experimenting with who and what they fund...
Has YC ever considered a class of only single founders and trying to solve the problems YC anticipates with single founder startups (i.e. emotional support, etc...)
It seems to me that the demand is there, and the potential for single founders to succeed is certainly possible... why not experiment putting together a track that "fills in the blanks" for singe founders much the way YC does with legal and accounting for startups to get started.
Edit: I recognize the signaling issue of not being able to convince a cofounder to join, etc... but sometimes signals are just noise.
Has YC ever considered a class of only single founders and trying to solve the problems YC anticipates with single founder startups (i.e. emotional support, etc...)
It seems to me that the demand is there, and the potential for single founders to succeed is certainly possible... why not experiment putting together a track that "fills in the blanks" for singe founders much the way YC does with legal and accounting for startups to get started.
Edit: I recognize the signaling issue of not being able to convince a cofounder to join, etc... but sometimes signals are just noise.
What we've thought about the most is creating a better way for potential cofounders to meet each other.
I spend more time with my cofounder than with my wife. I cannot imagine co-founding with anyone I havent known closely for 1yr+, ideally much longer. This is especially for non-technical co-founders who would provide value after i've put in the work to technically de-risk the company. I dont think this is about gauging technical skills, it is about gauging long-term aspirations, motivations, behavior under pressure, and response to ethically challenging situations. You can ask about these in a simple interview, but people can easily be dishonest.
Exactly this. I would compare choosing a cofounder to getting married. It's not a decision that should be taken lightly, and it's better to stay single than try to settle with the wrong person or someone you don't know very well. Founder disputes are one of the biggest causes of company failure.
There are more single founder successes[1] than VCs would lead you to believe. Maybe not so many in the unicorn category which is all VCs really care about - but you're not a VC, it's not unicorn or broke for you. I think most of us would still consider it a success if you only managed to replace your income, but got to work on something you enjoy and to be your own boss. But you'll need to bootstrap rather than secure VC funding if your company doesn't have unicorn potential.
That said, being a single founder is HARD. You need someone else to talk to, to bounce ideas off, to offer emotional support during the dark days where you doubt yourself and can't see a path to success. But you can get those things from other people, you don't have to have a cofounder.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/26/co-founders-optional/
There are more single founder successes[1] than VCs would lead you to believe. Maybe not so many in the unicorn category which is all VCs really care about - but you're not a VC, it's not unicorn or broke for you. I think most of us would still consider it a success if you only managed to replace your income, but got to work on something you enjoy and to be your own boss. But you'll need to bootstrap rather than secure VC funding if your company doesn't have unicorn potential.
That said, being a single founder is HARD. You need someone else to talk to, to bounce ideas off, to offer emotional support during the dark days where you doubt yourself and can't see a path to success. But you can get those things from other people, you don't have to have a cofounder.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/26/co-founders-optional/
If there was a YC/HN supported cofounder matching program, I'm guessing it would have a lot more success than other attempts that have popped up. However, some important qualities of a good cofounder match are hard to quantify and require serious (and often confrontational) interaction.
Perhaps if YC let individuals apply without an idea to a loosely structured hackathon/conference, some good relationships would form. YC could fund the whole thing, and take a small stake in any resulting companies. Though, that's a little bit legally murky, so some consideration would need to be put into the means by which YC would benefit.
Perhaps if YC let individuals apply without an idea to a loosely structured hackathon/conference, some good relationships would form. YC could fund the whole thing, and take a small stake in any resulting companies. Though, that's a little bit legally murky, so some consideration would need to be put into the means by which YC would benefit.
I did apply for the YC summer batch 2016, and for the YC fellowship through "Apply HN". I wasn't selected but someone saw my application and contacted me to become my cofounder. It didn't end up working out but I can see how public applications can be a way to meet cofounders.
Do you think it's usually possible for two potential cofounders who don't already know one another to sufficiently evaluate one another quickly enough to start a company together in the short term (say, less than 3 months)?
There seem to be similar challenges to creating a scalable solution for finding an SO/spouse (another unsolved problem).
There seem to be similar challenges to creating a scalable solution for finding an SO/spouse (another unsolved problem).
There are precedents for quickly building trust among people who don't know each other.
For example a mountaineering class at the National Outdoor Leadership School puts students who don't know each other, and might not know anything about climbing, into serious high-mountain situations for a month. At the end of the class, groups of students head off on "small group expeditions" for a few days without instructors. NOLS has an excellent safety record and students often form strong friendships.
The military is another institution that takes people who don't know each other and quickly forms bonds of trust and mutual understanding to perform under very serious conditions.
Granted--those are carefully managed situations where the people are facing shared challenges. But maybe that's what YC would need to create in order to foster an environment in which founders can build strong enough relationships to feel comfortable building companies together.
For example a mountaineering class at the National Outdoor Leadership School puts students who don't know each other, and might not know anything about climbing, into serious high-mountain situations for a month. At the end of the class, groups of students head off on "small group expeditions" for a few days without instructors. NOLS has an excellent safety record and students often form strong friendships.
The military is another institution that takes people who don't know each other and quickly forms bonds of trust and mutual understanding to perform under very serious conditions.
Granted--those are carefully managed situations where the people are facing shared challenges. But maybe that's what YC would need to create in order to foster an environment in which founders can build strong enough relationships to feel comfortable building companies together.
Building trust is one component, but it's equally important to explore whether you're compatible with your cofounder (or SO) across a wide range of emotions and circumstances. There are people I personally know pretty well who I trust but don't think I'm very compatible with. They might be great advisors or board members, but I wouldn't want them as a cofounder.
Like you said, in a constrained environment like the military, it might be possible to achieve this in a short period of time through deliberate actions. I'm not sure how much that approach would prepare potential cofounders, since they're going to be operating in a much more ambiguous and freeform environment.
Like you said, in a constrained environment like the military, it might be possible to achieve this in a short period of time through deliberate actions. I'm not sure how much that approach would prepare potential cofounders, since they're going to be operating in a much more ambiguous and freeform environment.
NOLS is probably a better model than the military.
This sounds very similar to a programme in London called Entrepreneur First where they recruit individuals based on their technical skills and then form ideas and teams during the programme.
Perhaps YC could pay people to take a 4-12 week startup school, in which group projects were heavily encouraged. If a company was formed out of the school, YC would get the right to invest at the standard investment terms.
YC actually has a new MOOC lined up. Maybe encourage group work in it?
https://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-changes
https://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-changes
Thanks for answering.
Prehaps a batch of single founders is a great way to do this. (i.e. they all work on their own ideas, and at the end of the batch, they consolidate based on relationships they hit off, success of individual ideas, etc...)
I think YC would agree that people in the same YC class make some outstandingly strong friendships.
I think YC would agree that people in the same YC class make some outstandingly strong friendships.
Yes, maybe suggest single founders live in the same house/apartment complex...
I think one simple way we're all staring at that's right in our face. Allow HN profiles to optionally have city,state, country attached to it. Add a map. Allow people to follow each other. add some kind of messaging or emails forwarding service. add interests, skills and projects to profiles.
I agree this is a great idea. I'm sure there are other folks in my city who frequent HN but no idea how I'd find them.
As the former organizer of the silicon co-founders meetup, I can tell you that there already such a way for co-founders to meet: it's called startup school. One of the top reasons to attend is to chat with other people, hear their ideas, and maybe hit it off.
Do you plan to allow future YC teams to attend the program remotely, or with a greatly reduced expectation of spending time in Mountain View?
I get that SV is a great place to start a startup, all things being equal. But there are a lot of great opportunities that are 8-12 time zones away. And leaving your customers alone for 3 months -- especially if you are trying to grow rapidly during those 3 months -- sounds very risky. Additionally, the money spent living in SV for three months could otherwise be spent on working capital; this is extra true in developing markets where costs are lower.
In the absence of a formal policy change re: moving to SV for 3 months, would you be willing to extend a bit more leeway for founders who really want to get their companies into YC but don't want to spend too much time away from the customers they're trying to please?
I get that SV is a great place to start a startup, all things being equal. But there are a lot of great opportunities that are 8-12 time zones away. And leaving your customers alone for 3 months -- especially if you are trying to grow rapidly during those 3 months -- sounds very risky. Additionally, the money spent living in SV for three months could otherwise be spent on working capital; this is extra true in developing markets where costs are lower.
In the absence of a formal policy change re: moving to SV for 3 months, would you be willing to extend a bit more leeway for founders who really want to get their companies into YC but don't want to spend too much time away from the customers they're trying to please?
We have discussed trying a remote group through the YC batch. Although we're all varying degrees of skeptical, I think it's worth a try.
As you point out, there are (some) good reasons that MV doesn't make sense, like your customers being very far away. That said, it's only three months.
As you point out, there are (some) good reasons that MV doesn't make sense, like your customers being very far away. That said, it's only three months.
I think it can be tough to move to SV for someone who is married with kids. That is what has stopped me from applying, and I have definitely thought about creative ways I could make it work logistically. :)
I honestly believe that YC is looking for a particular sort of founder: someone who will put their company 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in their life in order to create explosive growth and maybe change the world.
Just running a profitable business is not enough for them. They only want startups that have a chance to be grand-slam home runs. Paul Graham has written about this before.
The requirement to live there for 3 months is a useful filter for finding that type of founder. It eliminates people who might want to have something else (like their kids) in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd slot.
I don't expect YC to ever say that out loud though.
Just running a profitable business is not enough for them. They only want startups that have a chance to be grand-slam home runs. Paul Graham has written about this before.
The requirement to live there for 3 months is a useful filter for finding that type of founder. It eliminates people who might want to have something else (like their kids) in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd slot.
I don't expect YC to ever say that out loud though.
People with families can certainly be successful entrepreneurs and create companies with "explosive growth that maybe change the world". (It kinda came across like you were implying that founders with families were mostly only interested in "lifestyle businesses".)
There are so many factors that contribute to success, and they are never all equal, so any sort of up-front filtering based on some factor you think is correlated with success is going to miss out on people. And besides, I would strongly dispute any arguments that having a family is like some sort of handicap that must be overcome. In a lot of ways, I think having a family is a BETTER situation for starting a company!
My impression from reading YC's stuff is more that folks feel the value of the program comes to a large degree from the in-person interactions people have, so it makes sense to require people to be there in person.
Related, there's this scene from Moneyball, [1] that I love. They're all sitting around, discussing all this stuff that is at best tangentially related to _the actual things that matter_ for success of the team. It's very tempting and natural bias to latch on to this or that factor which you've become convinced makes a difference "all else being equal". But all else is never equal, and the question that is actually important is more the one Billy Beane keeps asking: "Yeah, but can he hit?"
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWgyy_rlmag
There are so many factors that contribute to success, and they are never all equal, so any sort of up-front filtering based on some factor you think is correlated with success is going to miss out on people. And besides, I would strongly dispute any arguments that having a family is like some sort of handicap that must be overcome. In a lot of ways, I think having a family is a BETTER situation for starting a company!
My impression from reading YC's stuff is more that folks feel the value of the program comes to a large degree from the in-person interactions people have, so it makes sense to require people to be there in person.
Related, there's this scene from Moneyball, [1] that I love. They're all sitting around, discussing all this stuff that is at best tangentially related to _the actual things that matter_ for success of the team. It's very tempting and natural bias to latch on to this or that factor which you've become convinced makes a difference "all else being equal". But all else is never equal, and the question that is actually important is more the one Billy Beane keeps asking: "Yeah, but can he hit?"
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWgyy_rlmag
I don't think it's families specifically, it's just commitment in general.
It's certainly possible that a parent could find a way to be away from their kids for 3 months, if they are sufficiently committed. Happens in the military all the time.
My guess is that if a person is not willing or able to figure that out, YC is not interested in them. It's not like it is hard for them to find applicants, and they don't need to be fair or accommodating.
To be clear, this is just my speculation, and I don't think it's the sole reason.
It's certainly possible that a parent could find a way to be away from their kids for 3 months, if they are sufficiently committed. Happens in the military all the time.
My guess is that if a person is not willing or able to figure that out, YC is not interested in them. It's not like it is hard for them to find applicants, and they don't need to be fair or accommodating.
To be clear, this is just my speculation, and I don't think it's the sole reason.
No particular point to this comment other than I noticed at the time of this comment,the AMA started 6 hours ago, the question was asked an hour ago and you replied 9 minutes ago.
Good on you for checking back and updating things, not doing an hour long hit and run like so many do on reddit. It reinforces that you care about keeping people informed and not just getting some visibility to your business.
Thanks!
Good on you for checking back and updating things, not doing an hour long hit and run like so many do on reddit. It reinforces that you care about keeping people informed and not just getting some visibility to your business.
Thanks!
A related question: have you considered re-trying the "branch office" concept?
I know Boston was tried, but that was 6 years ago? Considering your increased scope + larger overall size of YC now, it seems doable to have a retry on that front.
I know Boston was tried, but that was 6 years ago? Considering your increased scope + larger overall size of YC now, it seems doable to have a retry on that front.
Sam, thanks for taking the time to talk with us. I hope it's ok, but I've got a few questions about something not directly related to YC applications.
As a middle-aged developer, I've seen a lot in my lifetime, but I believe that right now, even though in some ways I'm much more hopeful for the future than I've ever been, I feel like there are many huge time-bombs out there in the world that make focusing on a startup just to have a chance to become financially successful a petty and, for some, a possibly futile ordeal.
For example: political divisiveness/change/chaos, scary world leaders and potential world leaders discussing/threatening/testing nuclear weapons, wars for and against religions involving terror, causing mass death, spawning racism and restricted freedoms, other random shootings/acts of violence, discord and violence between people that are racially targeted and those who want to serve the public to protect people regardless of their race, terrible diseases/epidemics some without cures or growing resistance to cures that we've long depended on, weather related natural disasters, economic troubles, etc. The list goes on and on.
Given the climate of the world today and all of our problems, what things do you want to see- not just in the startups that you and/or YC as a whole want to help, but across the board? And what do you say to those that think that just don't feel safe enough to invest the time, money, and effort on a startup which has a greater chance of failure than success when they could just be working a stable job to try to save enough to survive what is ahead?
As a middle-aged developer, I've seen a lot in my lifetime, but I believe that right now, even though in some ways I'm much more hopeful for the future than I've ever been, I feel like there are many huge time-bombs out there in the world that make focusing on a startup just to have a chance to become financially successful a petty and, for some, a possibly futile ordeal.
For example: political divisiveness/change/chaos, scary world leaders and potential world leaders discussing/threatening/testing nuclear weapons, wars for and against religions involving terror, causing mass death, spawning racism and restricted freedoms, other random shootings/acts of violence, discord and violence between people that are racially targeted and those who want to serve the public to protect people regardless of their race, terrible diseases/epidemics some without cures or growing resistance to cures that we've long depended on, weather related natural disasters, economic troubles, etc. The list goes on and on.
Given the climate of the world today and all of our problems, what things do you want to see- not just in the startups that you and/or YC as a whole want to help, but across the board? And what do you say to those that think that just don't feel safe enough to invest the time, money, and effort on a startup which has a greater chance of failure than success when they could just be working a stable job to try to save enough to survive what is ahead?
You raise very good points.
The future will either be great or terrible--I think an intermediate outcome is unlikely. I think it's a super exciting time to be alive, but I feel the shared sense of responsibility most others do to do everything I can to get safely through the other side.
I understand the desire to save enough for a scary world ahead, and I think it's prudent to do that. Beyond, that, if you're nervous about these things, probably the most satisfying and reassuring thing you could do is figure out how to use your talents to maximize the chance of the a good outcome.
The future will either be great or terrible--I think an intermediate outcome is unlikely. I think it's a super exciting time to be alive, but I feel the shared sense of responsibility most others do to do everything I can to get safely through the other side.
I understand the desire to save enough for a scary world ahead, and I think it's prudent to do that. Beyond, that, if you're nervous about these things, probably the most satisfying and reassuring thing you could do is figure out how to use your talents to maximize the chance of the a good outcome.
Absolutely that last sentence. I'm 27 but only in the past 12 months have I figured out what I'm supposed to be doing. So keep asking the question: what is something I can I do that is helpful to people, I enjoy doing, and am good at? If you're fortunate enough to come up with a reasonable answer, the pursuit of that thing in and of itself is enough.
[deleted]
There's always been bad stuff in the world but on average it's much better than it was. It's easy to be mislead by the media that profits from focusing on the bad. For a counter view see Pinker's stuff and this kind of thing:
war - https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b...
democracy - https://ourworldindata.org/democratisation/
war - https://medium.com/@angushervey/the-decline-of-war-8760f9a5b...
democracy - https://ourworldindata.org/democratisation/
You (and by extension YC) always seem to mostly focus on the success stories of the alumni/group. Have you or will you consider talking about the failures? If you can't do it, is there a reason why?
We do try to talk about this but should talk about it more.
It turns out that most people (and certainly most journalists) want to talk about/write about the success cases.
I'll think about how to best do this.
It turns out that most people (and certainly most journalists) want to talk about/write about the success cases.
I'll think about how to best do this.
A homejoy post mortem would be a good place to start given it was used a positive case study in a bunch of talks etc
Yes I've been fascinated by their story for some reason, especially since Handy has far worse ratings and seems to still be eeking along.
I'd especially like to see this in the form of lessons learned. Some of my favorite startup pieces are where a founder sat down, told their story, and said, "Next time, here's what I'm doing different."
In the startup world we have to be comfortable making mistakes, but I really want those to be new, interesting mistakes.
In the startup world we have to be comfortable making mistakes, but I really want those to be new, interesting mistakes.
Even better, usually, is the second/third-time founder actually operating differently after making those mistakes the first time around. That way it's less "here's how I messed up" and more "here's how I messed up, and I know because what I'm doing now is working a lot better."
Two & Three trick pony's are very rare, usually a guy gets over confident after his first win, put's it all in the pot, and assumes he's going to win the house. Just like poker, its a losers play.
Better for recursive 'winning entrepreneurs' to play it like sam, and dole out their money to 100 different excellent candidates, and then manage the winners, and try to cull the losers early.
...
Harvard spends a lot of time on case history, and a lot of time on losers. But in general once you have been an entrepreneur its pretty quick to spot a loser or a winner.
For first time young guys with a good idea, and the right experience '25 years' is about right, 2 or 3 founders is right, backed by a good CPA and law-firm is rarely mentioned but this can be more key than TECH, as fighting the legal hassles and avoiding taxation are more important than how much money you make, its all about much money you walk away with when the game is over.
Very few people play second rounds, I think most lose their health, and of course most fail, and you don't hear about them. These few people who continue to play VC, are in the game for the love of it, the connections of SV and such, for most people the dream is to get out and grow wine grapes, or just get far from the rat race.
I think most 'winners' end up like the WOZ, they just retire early and spend their lives doing as they wish, very few become like Jobs and try be a control freak until death. I think a normal person gets very bored with managing people after a certain point. Even fewer 'winners' become VC enablers, again we only hear about the winner's. Most 'winners' are smart enough to know that making money is easy, keeping it is hard, so said Carnegie of steel in the 1800's.
Better for recursive 'winning entrepreneurs' to play it like sam, and dole out their money to 100 different excellent candidates, and then manage the winners, and try to cull the losers early.
...
Harvard spends a lot of time on case history, and a lot of time on losers. But in general once you have been an entrepreneur its pretty quick to spot a loser or a winner.
For first time young guys with a good idea, and the right experience '25 years' is about right, 2 or 3 founders is right, backed by a good CPA and law-firm is rarely mentioned but this can be more key than TECH, as fighting the legal hassles and avoiding taxation are more important than how much money you make, its all about much money you walk away with when the game is over.
Very few people play second rounds, I think most lose their health, and of course most fail, and you don't hear about them. These few people who continue to play VC, are in the game for the love of it, the connections of SV and such, for most people the dream is to get out and grow wine grapes, or just get far from the rat race.
I think most 'winners' end up like the WOZ, they just retire early and spend their lives doing as they wish, very few become like Jobs and try be a control freak until death. I think a normal person gets very bored with managing people after a certain point. Even fewer 'winners' become VC enablers, again we only hear about the winner's. Most 'winners' are smart enough to know that making money is easy, keeping it is hard, so said Carnegie of steel in the 1800's.
Lots of bad data there. Sometimes a company just doesn't work (timing / bad market) and founders learn the wrong lessons.
Speaking from experience.
Speaking from experience.
I'd like to know about this too.
With all the startups you see, what are the common patterns to failing? A missing skill, lack of belief, timing, weak message etc?
If appropriate, how to recognise the warning signs to correct and avoid being the next failure.
With all the startups you see, what are the common patterns to failing? A missing skill, lack of belief, timing, weak message etc?
If appropriate, how to recognise the warning signs to correct and avoid being the next failure.
A common failure young start-ups is arrogance, & waste.
Andy Grove (Intel) used to say "Only the paranoid survive", so true,
I used to be amazed that the first thing startup's did was try to imitate the god's with furniture and building's, and the trappings's of wealth. I think your first $10M gross you need to stay lean&mean, complacency is the opposite of paranoia.
In a interview with B-Gate he said his recurrent fear early on was making payroll, cash-flow is a real problem. Keeping the expenses low, and keeping lots of cash on hand to make that payroll in good & bad times is a key often missed, of course a few times the VC's may step in to make that payroll, but that's not really a startup, its more of a parent paying the bill's.
I think a key is getting all the employees to understand that their 24/7 task is to do activity's that bring in the money, when this is done the money flows. Money is the blood of politics and business, if you see a 'failed' biz, its because their revenue came to a halt.
Andy Grove (Intel) used to say "Only the paranoid survive", so true,
I used to be amazed that the first thing startup's did was try to imitate the god's with furniture and building's, and the trappings's of wealth. I think your first $10M gross you need to stay lean&mean, complacency is the opposite of paranoia.
In a interview with B-Gate he said his recurrent fear early on was making payroll, cash-flow is a real problem. Keeping the expenses low, and keeping lots of cash on hand to make that payroll in good & bad times is a key often missed, of course a few times the VC's may step in to make that payroll, but that's not really a startup, its more of a parent paying the bill's.
I think a key is getting all the employees to understand that their 24/7 task is to do activity's that bring in the money, when this is done the money flows. Money is the blood of politics and business, if you see a 'failed' biz, its because their revenue came to a halt.
Is this an anonymous account for someone at YC?
This is a good resource that is just waiting for a website refresh: http://autopsy.io/?ref=producthunt . Homejoy is #3
Actually, you could reply to that commenter with a link to the interview you recently did with Livingston where you asked what successful ones have in common. Her answer was focus but she mentioned all kinds of bad habits that led to actual failures. It's a nice start on the list.
I'd do it myself but lost some bookmarks in a recent crash/restore cycle.
I'd do it myself but lost some bookmarks in a recent crash/restore cycle.
The beauty of Silicon Valley is (as put by an interviewer) "You can't succeed without a little road rash."
I think it will help to talk about folks whose initial companies went under, and then succeeded later. Or failed later and kept on going.
I think it will help to talk about folks whose initial companies went under, and then succeeded later. Or failed later and kept on going.
failures are at least as important a dataset as successes. Most technical entrepreneurs i know are very pattern oriented people. And in a way Reducing the datasets to successes will invitably bias their patterns one way.
If the goal of writing about startups is to encourage more entrepreneurs to take the plunge, writing about success is certainly a good way. However, if the goal is to help entrepreneurs make better decisions, and hopefully lead to a higher success rate, then sharing failure stories becomes necessary.
[deleted]
I'm obviously not sama but it does seem like the ones who are not successful often do not want to talk about what happened, and HN also does not seem to upvote stories about them. For example, I was intensely curious about a YC smartbike company called Vanhawks and have submitted a couple variants on this story: https://techvibes.com/2016/06/05/vanhawks-2016-06-03, and none got many upvotes.
(That being said I do agree with the implication of the question, that learning from failure is important and may need greater discussion.)
(That being said I do agree with the implication of the question, that learning from failure is important and may need greater discussion.)
[deleted]
Hi Sam, in interview with Elon Musk, you asked him 'Do you think people that want to be useful today should get PhDs?' Elon: Mostly not.
Here are my questions:
1. Do you think people need to get a PhD degree to become useful research scientist in AI industry?
2. Do you think people need to get a PhD degree to become Member of Technical Staff (Machine Learning) in Open AI?
Thank you.
Here are my questions:
1. Do you think people need to get a PhD degree to become useful research scientist in AI industry?
2. Do you think people need to get a PhD degree to become Member of Technical Staff (Machine Learning) in Open AI?
Thank you.
A personal data point: I have a PhD and looking back at it from 10+ years later I would say that it was a good thing for me because: A) I enjoyed it (most of the time) and B) I learned a lot.
As far as formally completing a degree (i.e. getting a printed piece of paper that says Ph.D. next to my name) I find it practically irrelevant for either getting hired in the industry or being useful once hired. My 2c.
As far as formally completing a degree (i.e. getting a printed piece of paper that says Ph.D. next to my name) I find it practically irrelevant for either getting hired in the industry or being useful once hired. My 2c.
I know this is addressed at sama, but as someone doing AI without a PhD:
1. Not at all. You need to develop a consistent work schedule that will consist of researching papers, applying the knowledge, and writing your own. There is a lot of theory and practice. Very exciting time to be in AI.
What you need is time and the interest in doing it. Feel free to email me if you have questions (not a sales pitch, just being friendly).
1. Not at all. You need to develop a consistent work schedule that will consist of researching papers, applying the knowledge, and writing your own. There is a lot of theory and practice. Very exciting time to be in AI.
What you need is time and the interest in doing it. Feel free to email me if you have questions (not a sales pitch, just being friendly).
@asimuvPR thank you for your decent reply! I will.
It's arguable that AI as a research discipline is in its childhood, thus, there are still plenty of low-hanging fruit to be plucked by intelligent, dedicated people.
This is similar to the state of physics in the 18th century. Significant discoveries were made by gentlemen researchers.
Today it is very difficult to advance the boundaries of older, more well-established scientific disciplines like physics or biology without a high level of training--if not a doctorate specifically, its equivalent in education and training. AI will get there eventually as well.
IMO software in general is in its infancy. We still build important computer programs the same way gunsmiths made guns in the 18th century--by hand, using intuition and art as much as science.
This is similar to the state of physics in the 18th century. Significant discoveries were made by gentlemen researchers.
Today it is very difficult to advance the boundaries of older, more well-established scientific disciplines like physics or biology without a high level of training--if not a doctorate specifically, its equivalent in education and training. AI will get there eventually as well.
IMO software in general is in its infancy. We still build important computer programs the same way gunsmiths made guns in the 18th century--by hand, using intuition and art as much as science.
1. No
2. Definitely not!
2. Definitely not!
How much advantage (if any) you estimate a person holding this degree will have over other that doesn't? In short, although you said it's not necessary, do you think it's worthy?
Thanks Sam!
IMO PhD is useful as a proxy for people who are intellectually curious and are able to dig into a problem until they reach the bottom of the rabbit hole.
I personally think these same skills can be found outside of PhDs.
I personally think these same skills can be found outside of PhDs.
Have founders successfully applied to YC with just an idea? A "hey I think this would be cool, here's some data with respect to the market but I don't have a product"?
If not, what would you need to see from an application with no product to be accepted into YC?
If so, what was about that application that made you believe in them so much?
If not, what would you need to see from an application with no product to be accepted into YC?
If so, what was about that application that made you believe in them so much?
My hardest decision in the past has often been when to decide a startup has failed and its time to move on. Having seen many startups both succeed and fail you're in a unique position to perhaps give some strong opinions on this. Do you have any sort of timelines/guidelines you like to look at as a gauge of success and when it's time to double down or dump it off the side and try again?
You should give up when no one loves what you're building and you're out of ideas about how to make it better.
Two related questions.
It's known YC prefers teams. Do you have a preferred shape or size for the team (2 tech, 1 marketing, or 1 tech, 1 web, 1 marketing and business etc); is any combination shown to be more likely to succeed within YC?
How do you view teams too heavy on tech? It's common for a group of tech people to have the idea, but as a team have some gaps on say the marketing side, and probably other areas.
A startup I was involved in, years ago, lacked much depth in sales and marketing. Filling that gap was a nightmare. Candidates would happily talk out of their hat, claim allsorts they didn't have, and those we trialled failed hard then invent no end of "reasons" why it's working perfectly. Suddenly recruiting programmers was easy!
Even people we've known in this area suffered from at least some of these habits, sometimes meaning it's a case of "nice guy, don't trust him as co founder". Made it hard to resolve, so the least worst techie got stuck with site copy etc.
No surprise, I've learnt much more about online marketing since those days. :)
It's known YC prefers teams. Do you have a preferred shape or size for the team (2 tech, 1 marketing, or 1 tech, 1 web, 1 marketing and business etc); is any combination shown to be more likely to succeed within YC?
How do you view teams too heavy on tech? It's common for a group of tech people to have the idea, but as a team have some gaps on say the marketing side, and probably other areas.
A startup I was involved in, years ago, lacked much depth in sales and marketing. Filling that gap was a nightmare. Candidates would happily talk out of their hat, claim allsorts they didn't have, and those we trialled failed hard then invent no end of "reasons" why it's working perfectly. Suddenly recruiting programmers was easy!
Even people we've known in this area suffered from at least some of these habits, sometimes meaning it's a case of "nice guy, don't trust him as co founder". Made it hard to resolve, so the least worst techie got stuck with site copy etc.
No surprise, I've learnt much more about online marketing since those days. :)
No particular shape, but in general we'd rather see it be overweight tech.
If no one on the team is good or is willing to get good at sales and 'business', that's a problem.
If no one on the team is good or is willing to get good at sales and 'business', that's a problem.
Have you seen a startup team that is "overweight" non-tech actually be successful?
eg. 3 sales and business, one tech/developer
eg. 3 sales and business, one tech/developer
AirBnB
What's the largest team YC has accepted?
Some tips I've found for finding/actuating a good marketer;
1) Dig into exact contributions to campaigns for past roles. Ask for the logic around decisions. Often marketers talk about their campaigns results but really they were a body in a room with little input. Dig for detail and motivations to decisions and you will find out who is who.
2) Look for initiative. Many marketeers repeat what is always done optimising here and there. Especially for dynamic businesses i'd look for people that see the world independently of their enviroment, have the initiative to shift how things are done. This is someone that will deliver results vs turn wheels for the sake of it.
3) Look for someone that has experience working big and small companies. The big brands will train comms, project management and procedure. Small brands should give the 'getting it done' skills, generalist experience and show they can get technical/dirty hands. Larger brand experience can look impressive but often the work is more project management for agencies and doesnt suit hand on. Likewise if you're business is big enough to run agencies if someone has always been hands on they can be weak project managers and communicate needs ineffectively.
4) Find someone that can analyse data vs report it. There's a big difference in the 2 and the former is surprisingly rare.
5) Avoid anyone that shows narcissistic tendency or is generally 'me' focused. This personality tends to be bad comms people (especially with social) as they see the world from their POV, not the customers.
6) Give marketers product input. They should have their finger on the customer pulse and valuable views on what sell/motivates users. Dont let tech side shut out marketing.
7) Don't go cheap. I often see startups advertising low paid roles a couple years experience, while they pay for experienced developers. Half the price sounds great but they will bring a fraction of the value.
8) Make sure they have a budget. This goes well with the above point. Generally I'd say a 10-20x marketing salary would be a good rule of what you should be looking to spend if bringing a permanent marketing role in.
9) Sales and marketing are not the same thing. Know what you need. They dont often come all-in-one.
10) While not an absolute I usually check linkedin contacts to skill endorsements ratio. Typically this ratio is higher for the people I know are good marketers. I wouldn't make my decision by this but is seems one of those soft indicators.
11) When you interview give a 10min exercise before to discuss and cover up real-time actual skills. E.g. show them some relevant to role campaign materials (e.g. landing pages/EDM's) and ask them how they would improve. Ask them what they would do with $50k. Typically I add in some spelling/grammar mistakes to also look for attention to detail as it tends to be a 'you have it or you dont' skill (like initiative) and not something you can train up.
...hope that's useful...not a rant :)
1) Dig into exact contributions to campaigns for past roles. Ask for the logic around decisions. Often marketers talk about their campaigns results but really they were a body in a room with little input. Dig for detail and motivations to decisions and you will find out who is who.
2) Look for initiative. Many marketeers repeat what is always done optimising here and there. Especially for dynamic businesses i'd look for people that see the world independently of their enviroment, have the initiative to shift how things are done. This is someone that will deliver results vs turn wheels for the sake of it.
3) Look for someone that has experience working big and small companies. The big brands will train comms, project management and procedure. Small brands should give the 'getting it done' skills, generalist experience and show they can get technical/dirty hands. Larger brand experience can look impressive but often the work is more project management for agencies and doesnt suit hand on. Likewise if you're business is big enough to run agencies if someone has always been hands on they can be weak project managers and communicate needs ineffectively.
4) Find someone that can analyse data vs report it. There's a big difference in the 2 and the former is surprisingly rare.
5) Avoid anyone that shows narcissistic tendency or is generally 'me' focused. This personality tends to be bad comms people (especially with social) as they see the world from their POV, not the customers.
6) Give marketers product input. They should have their finger on the customer pulse and valuable views on what sell/motivates users. Dont let tech side shut out marketing.
7) Don't go cheap. I often see startups advertising low paid roles a couple years experience, while they pay for experienced developers. Half the price sounds great but they will bring a fraction of the value.
8) Make sure they have a budget. This goes well with the above point. Generally I'd say a 10-20x marketing salary would be a good rule of what you should be looking to spend if bringing a permanent marketing role in.
9) Sales and marketing are not the same thing. Know what you need. They dont often come all-in-one.
10) While not an absolute I usually check linkedin contacts to skill endorsements ratio. Typically this ratio is higher for the people I know are good marketers. I wouldn't make my decision by this but is seems one of those soft indicators.
11) When you interview give a 10min exercise before to discuss and cover up real-time actual skills. E.g. show them some relevant to role campaign materials (e.g. landing pages/EDM's) and ask them how they would improve. Ask them what they would do with $50k. Typically I add in some spelling/grammar mistakes to also look for attention to detail as it tends to be a 'you have it or you dont' skill (like initiative) and not something you can train up.
...hope that's useful...not a rant :)
This is great.
Definitely matches some of the fun we had trying to figure it out in the dark.
Definitely matches some of the fun we had trying to figure it out in the dark.
As the spouse of a marketer, I think this is great advice! I only have three things to add:
> 11) When you interview give a 10min exercise before to discuss and cover up real-time actual skills. E.g. show them some relevant to role campaign materials (e.g. landing pages/EDM's) and ask them how they would improve.
Be very careful to keep an open mind when judging this one! If you are a non-marketer trying to hire a Director of Marketing, you are not going to be able to answer this question better than a qualified candidate. If their answer seems wrong to you, be sure to dig into their reasoning, past experiences, etc. to see why they answered the way they did.
If they omitted something that you thought was important, it's probably worth saying, "What about that big, ugly, magenta call-to-action button? Shouldn't it be green and fit with the rest of the design, perhaps?" You might be wrong! At least give them a chance to say, "I noticed that (how could I not?), but I've been surprised in several A/B campaigns to find that call-to-action buttons that stand out trump aesthetics in terms of conversion rates. If the design team wants to change it, I would certainly work with them to come up with a solution that looks good and converts. Otherwise, I have much more certainty that initiatives X, Y, and Z will have a real, measurable impact on discoverability and conversion."
=====
Secondly:
> 5) Avoid anyone that shows narcissistic tendency or is generally 'me' focused.
I totally agree here (but I'm biased because my spouse is not at all a narcissist). Be sure that your hiring process doesn't select against these people! If you're hiring for qualities like (over-)confidence, where you favor candidates who seem certain of themselves, you're doing it wrong.
In general, before writing off a candidate, try to dig into what you perceive to be their weaknesses. They may be stronger than you think in those areas. Again, if you think they're wrong about something, investigate that, too, as you may be the one who is wrong.
=====
Thirdly and finally, do NOT make the mistake of selecting for familiarity with your market. This is akin to hiring a senior developer based on what technologies they know. It is the job of a marketer to dive into a market with little-to-no prior knowledge and understand it quickly. A good marketer will join all the relevant forums, follow influencers on social media, etc. and understand your market better than you do within a few weeks.
If you see a marketing candidate with experience in several sectors, none of which include your own, that's an excellent sign, not a negative one.
Good luck!
> 11) When you interview give a 10min exercise before to discuss and cover up real-time actual skills. E.g. show them some relevant to role campaign materials (e.g. landing pages/EDM's) and ask them how they would improve.
Be very careful to keep an open mind when judging this one! If you are a non-marketer trying to hire a Director of Marketing, you are not going to be able to answer this question better than a qualified candidate. If their answer seems wrong to you, be sure to dig into their reasoning, past experiences, etc. to see why they answered the way they did.
If they omitted something that you thought was important, it's probably worth saying, "What about that big, ugly, magenta call-to-action button? Shouldn't it be green and fit with the rest of the design, perhaps?" You might be wrong! At least give them a chance to say, "I noticed that (how could I not?), but I've been surprised in several A/B campaigns to find that call-to-action buttons that stand out trump aesthetics in terms of conversion rates. If the design team wants to change it, I would certainly work with them to come up with a solution that looks good and converts. Otherwise, I have much more certainty that initiatives X, Y, and Z will have a real, measurable impact on discoverability and conversion."
=====
Secondly:
> 5) Avoid anyone that shows narcissistic tendency or is generally 'me' focused.
I totally agree here (but I'm biased because my spouse is not at all a narcissist). Be sure that your hiring process doesn't select against these people! If you're hiring for qualities like (over-)confidence, where you favor candidates who seem certain of themselves, you're doing it wrong.
In general, before writing off a candidate, try to dig into what you perceive to be their weaknesses. They may be stronger than you think in those areas. Again, if you think they're wrong about something, investigate that, too, as you may be the one who is wrong.
=====
Thirdly and finally, do NOT make the mistake of selecting for familiarity with your market. This is akin to hiring a senior developer based on what technologies they know. It is the job of a marketer to dive into a market with little-to-no prior knowledge and understand it quickly. A good marketer will join all the relevant forums, follow influencers on social media, etc. and understand your market better than you do within a few weeks.
If you see a marketing candidate with experience in several sectors, none of which include your own, that's an excellent sign, not a negative one.
Good luck!
Most recent startups from India backed by YC seem to be solving problems within the country. Examples - Razorpay - Stripe for India, Kisan Network - Online Agriculture marketplace in India, Innov8 - Co-working spaces for Indian startups. Is that relevant when YC looks at an application that comes from an Indian startup / co-founders? We could generalise the question by replacing India with developing economies with good infrastructural problems to solve.
How would an Indian startup trying to build a global product primarily for the U.S / Europe market fit into the scheme of things?
How would an Indian startup trying to build a global product primarily for the U.S / Europe market fit into the scheme of things?
We'd be delighted to fund an Indian company trying to build something for the entire world.
My general criticism of non-US startups (this is very general and there are important exceptions) is that too many are building the <<US Company>> for <<home country>>.
I think it's more exciting to build something brand new that someone in the US will copy.
My general criticism of non-US startups (this is very general and there are important exceptions) is that too many are building the <<US Company>> for <<home country>>.
I think it's more exciting to build something brand new that someone in the US will copy.
If you are a billion dollars business, they would love to talk - geographies don't matter.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts sama and mkagenius.
[deleted]
What is your view on income inequality?
Do you think the start-up structure of running a business could increase or decrease income inequality (and what do you consider beneficial?)
Do you think the start-up structure of running a business could increase or decrease income inequality (and what do you consider beneficial?)
I think it's a consequence of technology but a real challenge for society. I think the right goal is probably to eliminate poverty--conceptually, I like the idea of a guaranteed floor but no ceiling.
I'm very interested in basic income and we're running a large experiment on it. If that doesn't work we have some other ideas.
I'm very interested in basic income and we're running a large experiment on it. If that doesn't work we have some other ideas.
Out of curiosity (realizing how early current experiments are) do you expect there to be any correlation between providing basic income and people engaging in entrepreneurial activity?
I'd expect the YC volume has to have given you some sense of how much "mouths to feed" affects ability and inclination to jump off the startup cliff in a wingsuit.
I'd expect the YC volume has to have given you some sense of how much "mouths to feed" affects ability and inclination to jump off the startup cliff in a wingsuit.
> I like the idea of a guaranteed floor but no ceiling
Raising that floor seems like it would simply devalue the dollar. I'm not sure how having no ceiling helps the situation.
Raising that floor seems like it would simply devalue the dollar. I'm not sure how having no ceiling helps the situation.
Raising the floor logically implies redistributing real wealth to the poor from the non-poor, but implies nothing about the value of a dollar.
It seems to me that prices and wages would rise as a result of raising the floor. The important question is where the money comes from to raise the floor. If it is not from the top end, the gap between rich and poor doesn't change in terms of actual buying power. It may just widen the gap.
It doesn't have to be strictly money, but services -- ie a guaranteed level of basic food, housing, education and medical care for all.
We applied many times in the last 5 years, since launching our company (Qbix). Every time we go through the application process, it seems we've grown. Our main app is now about to break 4 million downloads and we've tripled our revenue this year and talking to VCs.
Does it make sense to keep applying to YC, given our size now? From what I understand, we got rejected every time because our equity split is around 80-20, which makes us more like a single-founder company. We would have liked to be part of YC but if YC strongly prefers not to consider single-founder companies then we would save time and not apply.
Does it make sense to keep applying to YC, given our size now? From what I understand, we got rejected every time because our equity split is around 80-20, which makes us more like a single-founder company. We would have liked to be part of YC but if YC strongly prefers not to consider single-founder companies then we would save time and not apply.
What visa do international founders apply for when they are selected to join YC?
And those who decide to stay in the US and establish their startup here after the 3-month time period, what immigration options do they have?
It depends on the particular situation for each founder--people we fund apply for lots of different visas.
We try to help as much as we can.
We try to help as much as we can.
I'm a solo founder, technical but my prototype website was built by someone else. The main part of my idea isn't technical (in the sense that Amazon wasn't technical when it first started).
What should I know about applying based on that?
Also, for the competitors question, should I put a list of 15-20 names I made, or choose the top 3 or so?
Finally: I may be able to launch within the next few days. Should I try to launch and wait to apply until I have launch data, or should I apply now? (The nature of the startup is consumer facing and I think I can gain some traction within the first week.)
What should I know about applying based on that?
Also, for the competitors question, should I put a list of 15-20 names I made, or choose the top 3 or so?
Finally: I may be able to launch within the next few days. Should I try to launch and wait to apply until I have launch data, or should I apply now? (The nature of the startup is consumer facing and I think I can gain some traction within the first week.)
That's ok--at least you're taking action. We'll probably have some questions about how you'll develop the in-house technical talent you'll eventually need.
Top 3.
Wait to apply until you have launch data if you think it will be significant (but still apply before the deadline, the bar for late apps is definitely higher).
Top 3.
Wait to apply until you have launch data if you think it will be significant (but still apply before the deadline, the bar for late apps is definitely higher).
What is the oldest age for a founder that you have accepted for YC?
Early 70s.
Can you tell us how it went (or is going)?
Genuinely curious. It's a very interesting data point.
Genuinely curious. It's a very interesting data point.
That's awesome! :)
That's awesome! Male or female?
As an older(40+) female single founder in EdTech, I find it very difficult to attract investment and so have others with the same profile as me. How should we approach fund raising?
I'm guessing it's John Slough of Helion http://www.helionenergy.com/?page_id=704
Does the YC Group provide any psychological counseling/guidance/referals for attendees? Does it feel any responsibility to?
yep, i do this for yc!
just like the rest of yc, taking care of yourself and your cofounder relationship is DIY but we offers resources to help. i'm an executive coach (with a specialty in startup founders) and our founders book office hours with me when they need support around managing stress/anxiety, troubleshooting conflict in difficult relationships (with cofounders, investors, loved ones, etc), communicating effectively, and generally thriving on the roller coaster of startup founderdom.
i also provide referrals to therapists and coaches when necessary. it depends on what the founder's looking for and what they need.
i'm happy to answer any other questions you have about this.
just like the rest of yc, taking care of yourself and your cofounder relationship is DIY but we offers resources to help. i'm an executive coach (with a specialty in startup founders) and our founders book office hours with me when they need support around managing stress/anxiety, troubleshooting conflict in difficult relationships (with cofounders, investors, loved ones, etc), communicating effectively, and generally thriving on the roller coaster of startup founderdom.
i also provide referrals to therapists and coaches when necessary. it depends on what the founder's looking for and what they need.
i'm happy to answer any other questions you have about this.
Hi, I am so incredibly interested in this. I always liked the idea of being an executive coach, it seems so fascinating. And the idea of doing that for YC founders sounds awesome!
My first thought after reading this was that it may be kind of like being a resident advisor. I was an RA for Freshman in undergrad, and found it very rewarding helping students make the transition to a college lifestyle. Although this has a bit higher stakes, working with young founders likely isn't very fundamentally different.
How do I get your job?
My first thought after reading this was that it may be kind of like being a resident advisor. I was an RA for Freshman in undergrad, and found it very rewarding helping students make the transition to a college lifestyle. Although this has a bit higher stakes, working with young founders likely isn't very fundamentally different.
How do I get your job?
[deleted]
Yes, mostly via referrals, but some internally.
I'm actually working on a startup to provide medical/mental health benefit for startups, but I think we might be too early to apply to YC...we're doing a private beta right now...interesting to see this come up.
Why are you primarily looking for >billion dollars startups?
I would wager that if you take a look at an accurate distribution of markets according to potential you would find a magnitude more small/average markets (that are untapped) than billion dollars ones. And similarly, I suspect that the success rate for those "boring" ventures is much higher than the exciting shiny rising stars.
Question: Why not optimize for companies that are certainly not going to become Airbnbs but will capture the full value of an averagely sized market (say between 50 and 300 millions)? And if my guess is correct and they end-up eating a lot less resources than the soon-to-be-unicorns, you could even optimise for volume.
Is the pay-off (wrt. to the energy spent and success rate) for unicorns really worth it?
I would wager that if you take a look at an accurate distribution of markets according to potential you would find a magnitude more small/average markets (that are untapped) than billion dollars ones. And similarly, I suspect that the success rate for those "boring" ventures is much higher than the exciting shiny rising stars.
Question: Why not optimize for companies that are certainly not going to become Airbnbs but will capture the full value of an averagely sized market (say between 50 and 300 millions)? And if my guess is correct and they end-up eating a lot less resources than the soon-to-be-unicorns, you could even optimise for volume.
Is the pay-off (wrt. to the energy spent and success rate) for unicorns really worth it?
1) This is where effectively all of our returns come from.
2) These companies are the most fun to work with.
3) It turns out that it's harder than it sounds to capture the full value of a smaller market for a bunch of reasons, and so the failure rate is much higher than expected.
I think the payoff, at least in our case, is well worth it.
2) These companies are the most fun to work with.
3) It turns out that it's harder than it sounds to capture the full value of a smaller market for a bunch of reasons, and so the failure rate is much higher than expected.
I think the payoff, at least in our case, is well worth it.
>3) It turns out that it's harder than it sounds to capture the full value of a smaller market for a bunch of reasons, and so the failure rate is much higher than expected.
What kind of reasons? Direct me to some resources if there are too many to enumerate
What kind of reasons? Direct me to some resources if there are too many to enumerate
Primarily because it's hard to pivot in a small market.
When you are in a massive market there are lots of adjacent places to pivot. When you're in a small market, if you miss on the first try, you probably miss completely.
When you are in a massive market there are lots of adjacent places to pivot. When you're in a small market, if you miss on the first try, you probably miss completely.
Things go wrong in business regardless of market size -team issues, tech issues, funding issues, operational issues etc.
Your probability of success in a small market is going to be marginally better than it is in a bigger market. So if you look at it in terms of expected value, the bigger market is more valuable given the probability of failure.
Your probability of success in a small market is going to be marginally better than it is in a bigger market. So if you look at it in terms of expected value, the bigger market is more valuable given the probability of failure.
I'm interested in this as well. Doesn't this go against Rob Walling's advice in "Start Small Stay Small" as well as Peter Thiel's advice in "Zero to One"?
I read Peter Thiel's advice as being more along the lines of finding a small beachhead that you can conquer to get started, then using that as a base to push into a big market.
[deleted]
Any tips/examples on trying to sell a product that provides ethical/moral benefits but very little/nothing financially?
Some friends and I were throwing around ideas on how to eliminate scalping, a practice we get bitten by. We came up with some solutions that might work, but they don't provide any financial gain for event organisers so I couldn't see them going for it.
Some friends and I were throwing around ideas on how to eliminate scalping, a practice we get bitten by. We came up with some solutions that might work, but they don't provide any financial gain for event organisers so I couldn't see them going for it.
That's really a tough one. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this without a good answer.
Sorry :(
Sorry :(
You eliminate scalping by charging market prices, so there's no opportunity. Charging less is just a gift to the middlemen. (If you want to give that gift to the people who actually come, charge more and give a rebate inside the event, so scalpers can't collect it.)
Not sure how you're conceptualizing this that makes scalpers harmful, could you elaborate?
Not sure how you're conceptualizing this that makes scalpers harmful, could you elaborate?
I understand that this is an economics problem; the ($5b?) market exists because there is significantly more demand than supply and ticket prices are not adjusted to accommodate this imbalance. Why that's the case I'm not sure. Perhaps that's another avenue to investigate for solving the problem but not what I had in mind (partly because I like affordable tickets).
Seeing scalpers as harmful is definitely an emotional response. Popular events go on sale at a set time and set price, with "equal" opportunity for any fan to get a ticket. Scalpers claim significant amounts of the tickets and resell them at 200-1000% of the face value. My friends and I often miss out on tickets only to see hundreds available on third party resale sites. It also enables ticket scammers which are a huge problem as well. Many music artists and sports teams are very outspoken about their disappointment with the industry, die hard fans waiting at the gate miss out while the person with the most cash gets in. While I can appreciate the scalpers are taking advantage of an economic opportunity, I can't help but view them as the scum of the earth and would have no issue with eliminating their practice.
Seeing scalpers as harmful is definitely an emotional response. Popular events go on sale at a set time and set price, with "equal" opportunity for any fan to get a ticket. Scalpers claim significant amounts of the tickets and resell them at 200-1000% of the face value. My friends and I often miss out on tickets only to see hundreds available on third party resale sites. It also enables ticket scammers which are a huge problem as well. Many music artists and sports teams are very outspoken about their disappointment with the industry, die hard fans waiting at the gate miss out while the person with the most cash gets in. While I can appreciate the scalpers are taking advantage of an economic opportunity, I can't help but view them as the scum of the earth and would have no issue with eliminating their practice.
The scheme I described above leads to affordable tickets, it's basically a way of enforcing nontransferability.
But at its core, disgust with scalpers implies preference for a non Kaldor Hicks optimal world.
If someone is willing to pay $X for a ticket, and you're only willing to pay $Y<$X, it is non optimal for you to get a ticket if you'd sell your ticket for less than $X.
There's no way around that fundamental fact. At some point, if there are more people who want tickets than tickets, some process needs to determine who gets them, and wishful thinking doesn't help anyone.
But at its core, disgust with scalpers implies preference for a non Kaldor Hicks optimal world.
If someone is willing to pay $X for a ticket, and you're only willing to pay $Y<$X, it is non optimal for you to get a ticket if you'd sell your ticket for less than $X.
There's no way around that fundamental fact. At some point, if there are more people who want tickets than tickets, some process needs to determine who gets them, and wishful thinking doesn't help anyone.
I don't understand how your suggestion enforces non-transferability. If the scalper pay $100 for a ticket and the ticket holder receives a $50 rebate at the event, the scalper just adds $50 to the price they resell at.
Like I said, I understand the problem exists because of the economics. But there's nothing to stop us from building a system that enforces non-transferability (through identification), and preventing resale of tickets at increased prices by third parties. It just doesn't add any value for event organisers to use this new system.
Like I said, I understand the problem exists because of the economics. But there's nothing to stop us from building a system that enforces non-transferability (through identification), and preventing resale of tickets at increased prices by third parties. It just doesn't add any value for event organisers to use this new system.
You need to show id to redeem the rebate, but not to get in. Effectively enforcing a fee for transferring that's equal to the subsidy.
Couldn't you also eliminate scalping by imposing per-transaction limits (probably already done) and checking ID at entry, like airlines?
Planet Money had a good episode about this: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/06/25/195641030/episo...
What do you think about bootstrapped startups like Basecamp, Wildbit and Campaign Monitor?
How important is for YC founders to be ethical in a world that cares mostly about financial success, profit margins, exponential growth, etc? Think Theranos, Zenefits et al.
So the answer is not that much - as long as it doesn't damage the image of YC it's okay.
And the points listed seemed to be about maintaining productive working relationships among colleagues - not ethics.
Funny choice of topic for an ethics page.
Funny choice of topic for an ethics page.
I don't think that's a fair assessment (I'm not affiliated with YC in any way). I think that:
> Not using misleading, illegal or dishonest sales tactics.
> Keeping your word...
and:
> Generally behaving in a professional and upstanding way.
cover more ground than you imply. While it might not hurt for them to take a few more stands (e.g., "ensure the integrity of customer data", "don't be a net drain on public resources"), I think it would be a bit difficult to add a lot more ethical requirements without getting overly industry-specific and excessively lengthy.
> Not using misleading, illegal or dishonest sales tactics.
> Keeping your word...
and:
> Generally behaving in a professional and upstanding way.
cover more ground than you imply. While it might not hurt for them to take a few more stands (e.g., "ensure the integrity of customer data", "don't be a net drain on public resources"), I think it would be a bit difficult to add a lot more ethical requirements without getting overly industry-specific and excessively lengthy.
Let's say someone is a fresh college dropout and wants to focus on learning programming and start a startup, and apply to YC Summer 2017 in March. What advice do you have on how to go about that?
Well, my biggest piece advice is not to do a startup unless you have a particular idea you really think needs to happen.
But if you want an answer other than that:
Start learning programming tonight. There are a lot of tools online, and it takes awhile. While you're doing that, start making an active effort to notice problems in the world.
But if you want an answer other than that:
Start learning programming tonight. There are a lot of tools online, and it takes awhile. While you're doing that, start making an active effort to notice problems in the world.
Given YC's increasing more social and larger-world problem solving focus, is being Silicon Valley-centric still a core goal of YC? Are you planning on coming back to the East Coast?
The East Coast is not the first place I'd go to find more people who want to focus on solving larger problems. If anything, I think I'd probably go further west...
YC Hawaii? Now we're talking ...
interesting ellipsis. is there a yc china coming soon?
I'd say India, but either would be exciting.
What order do you look at an application -- is the video last?
Video first, then the questions about the founders, then the idea, then the traction/revenue, then everything else.
Does the likelihood of getting into YC increases after you have been rejected five times consecutively?
serious question
serious question
I don't think it increases or decreases. We've had companies get in after 5 rejections and sometimes do badly and sometimes do really well.
The negative signal for us is you apply 5 times in a row without anything improving or changing.
The negative signal for us is you apply 5 times in a row without anything improving or changing.
How much investment money is simply "transferred" to local landlords in the bay area?
Any ideas how your 'YC cities' thing is going to look?
Any ideas how your 'YC cities' thing is going to look?
I shudder to imagine. It's a real problem with the system.
Not yet.
Not yet.
This is also why retail is such a bad investment. As soon as an area is hot, the landlords capture all the value. (And why Kmart became a real estate play rather than retail)
Is YC still looking for contributions towards its New Cities project?
What do you look for/like to see in a solo founder application? What makes you believe that someone could be successful as a solo founder?
For solo founders, I look for extra evidence that the person is really effective, ideally on this particular startup but if not then previously in their career.
It's harder to be effective as a solo founder, so the burden of proof is higher.
It's harder to be effective as a solo founder, so the burden of proof is higher.
I see a lot of companies being advised to focus exclusively on user growth, but many have no business model and must eventually make serious compromises, often at their users' expense, to succeed. How often would you say companies are able to tack on a profitable business model after the fact without making such compromises?
Twitter seems to be the example du jou, but there are many.
Twitter seems to be the example du jou, but there are many.
How important is technical defensibility? On one extreme I could have a technically sophisticated product with a poor user experience. On the other, an off the shelf software catalog with great user experience. Ideally you have both... Realistically it is difficult given time constraints. Where does one settle for success?
What's important to us is business defensibility.
Sometimes the way to get that is with a user experience. Sometimes with technology. Often it's something else entirely. It really depends on the company.
Sometimes the way to get that is with a user experience. Sometimes with technology. Often it's something else entirely. It really depends on the company.
What is your opinion today on cryptocurrencies and how big was the decline in Bitcoin/Ethereum startup applications?
Do you feel the YC partners are mainly bullish or bearish irt cryptocurrencies?
Do you feel the YC partners are mainly bullish or bearish irt cryptocurrencies?
The decline has been pretty precipitous.
I'm still fairly bullish myself and hold a lot of bitcoin. I think this is a far, far better time to go long bitcoin or start a bitcoin company than 2014, for many reasons including that the hype is gone.
I'm still fairly bullish myself and hold a lot of bitcoin. I think this is a far, far better time to go long bitcoin or start a bitcoin company than 2014, for many reasons including that the hype is gone.
Do individuals have the opportunity to participate in funding start-ups via YC? If so, what type of minimum requirements exist for getting started?
If not then how quickly can the [unrelated] problem below be solved, algorithmically
Unrelated Problem: Given a set of numbers of length n, find a single rule that can map each item x to the corresponding item x+1
If not then how quickly can the [unrelated] problem below be solved, algorithmically
Unrelated Problem: Given a set of numbers of length n, find a single rule that can map each item x to the corresponding item x+1
You can come to Demo Day and invest in YC startups there! Or did you mean invest in YC itself?
Hi Sam,
Do you need to be an accredited investor to invest?
Do you take funding from the public through A+ for any YC startups?
Do you need to be an accredited investor to invest?
Do you take funding from the public through A+ for any YC startups?
Is it possible to invest in YC itself?
Not yet but that would be interesting to offer some day.
Please please please do this. I have invested in over 100 YC companies but my only way to do so has been FundersClub, Angel.co, and WeFunder. I love those guys but I would rather invest directly through YC. I am giving 20% to them for no good reason (other than access).
Awesome! I didn't realize it was an open event
Are they held on a regular basis?
Are they held on a regular basis?
Redomestication. We're based in spain with some public help in form of soft-debt (very common in spanish startups). That makes slower the process of redomestication, typically around 4 months. If chosen for YC, Is it possible to create a parent company in US to give the x% for the YC investment? Tnx!
Do you plan to release more details about common visa/immigration issues and how Y Combinator helps with them?
Without mentioning what was actually discussed, do you think the Bilderberg conference results in significant actions/effects in the real world?
I enjoyed attending and I thought many of the conversations were interesting.
The format is just discussions. Some of them changed my mind about things, many didn't. No direct actions come out of it, but hopefully there are some benefits to smart people sharing ideas.
The format is just discussions. Some of them changed my mind about things, many didn't. No direct actions come out of it, but hopefully there are some benefits to smart people sharing ideas.
I don't want to sound too arrogant but why should I apply if I think I can succeed on my own?
You should apply if you think the company will be worth ~7% more if you do YC that it would be worth if you do it on your own.
If you could make a $10B company on your own, but doing YC could make it be a $20B company, then it would obviously be well worth it.
If you could make a $10B company on your own, but doing YC could make it be a $20B company, then it would obviously be well worth it.
[deleted]
This is a (sadly) very commonly misunderstood concept.
Sam,
are the odds stacked against us if we have 5 founders? (EE, ME, EE, SW, Sales/Business)
Also does a startup that can help reduce carbon emissions/move from something that generates lots of emission classify under the energy section of request for startup?
are the odds stacked against us if we have 5 founders? (EE, ME, EE, SW, Sales/Business)
Also does a startup that can help reduce carbon emissions/move from something that generates lots of emission classify under the energy section of request for startup?
Slightly against--we're not sure why it is, but 5 or 6 founder companies have (with some notable exceptions) significantly underperformed our average.
I've volunteered with 3 Day Startup in the past, which is more about teaching students that entrepreneurship is an option, as well as highlighting the importance of talking to users, but one of the things that consistently came up was that teams greater than 5 were nearly always the team with the most problems. My guess has always been that it's somewhat related to the design by committee or too many cooks problem, but we also never totally figured it out.
What are your guesses about this?
Thanks!
I want to be a farmer.
Is there a place for me in YCombinator?
(p.s. I have several other follow up questions I'd love to ask if you entertain me with a response)
Is there a place for me in YCombinator?
(p.s. I have several other follow up questions I'd love to ask if you entertain me with a response)
If you want to be a farmer, why do you want to be in YC?
We are the best in the world at helping people be some things, but probably not that :(
We are the best in the world at helping people be some things, but probably not that :(
Not sure if rhetorical, so I appreciate the thought exercise and your approach to a simple question.
If you were genuinely interested -- there's quite a few reasons why YC is appealing but ultimately one thing sticks out.
Farming has a lot of potential for control and subsequently, abuse. You said in a recent blog post -- if I can grow the product either better or cheaper (talking about food/produce), I'll win. With current technologies and my background and experience it seems very likely I will be successful.
YC is one of very few organizations that I trust to assist and embrace the humanitarian responsibility of being a potential global leader.
In a nutshell.
If you were genuinely interested -- there's quite a few reasons why YC is appealing but ultimately one thing sticks out.
Farming has a lot of potential for control and subsequently, abuse. You said in a recent blog post -- if I can grow the product either better or cheaper (talking about food/produce), I'll win. With current technologies and my background and experience it seems very likely I will be successful.
YC is one of very few organizations that I trust to assist and embrace the humanitarian responsibility of being a potential global leader.
In a nutshell.
fwiw we've funded Iron Ox (http://ironox.com/) -- they're basically farmers
Hey, I applied to YC with a web platform for farmers. Are you strictly wanting to be a farmer or are you primarily interested in helping farmers?
Whats your product and use case?
Right now I'm only interested in being a farmer, but I'm a technologist at heart and would love to hear about your product.
Right now I'm only interested in being a farmer, but I'm a technologist at heart and would love to hear about your product.
I spent several months farming in Oregon this year I definitely see the appeal of making it a career. This product is a web platform for allocating and measuring resources in local food systems. It's aimed at any farmer on < 50 hectares, but especially entrepreneur farmers who have limited resources.
Hey. We received an email saying to reapply because we were in the top 10% for the last cycle. In this case, what order do you look at the application? How useful are alumni recommendations?
The first thing I look at for people reapplying is still the video, but the second is what has changed since the last application.
Alumni recommendations are useful if they're strong, but neutral or slightly negative if they're weak. If someone isn't excited enough to give you an independent recommendation with you asking, it's probably not worth requesting.
Alumni recommendations are useful if they're strong, but neutral or slightly negative if they're weak. If someone isn't excited enough to give you an independent recommendation with you asking, it's probably not worth requesting.
Thanks Sama.
PS: if it's helpful to know. The diversity office hours convinced us to apply last time. I hope you continue to do more!
PS: if it's helpful to know. The diversity office hours convinced us to apply last time. I hope you continue to do more!
Are you planning on another project to fill the void left by the YC Fellowship? Especially on the "a little funding" part, and the "remote" part.
I understand you have limited resources and that YC's core is focused on fast growing companies, but some early-stage ideas/prototypes need a little help before becoming something YC would accept (and, it looks to me, the bar is higher every year).
The MOOC fills one part of the gap, but, will it enable promising students to get some sort of funding?
I understand you have limited resources and that YC's core is focused on fast growing companies, but some early-stage ideas/prototypes need a little help before becoming something YC would accept (and, it looks to me, the bar is higher every year).
The MOOC fills one part of the gap, but, will it enable promising students to get some sort of funding?
I think in future versions of the MOOC we will explore ways to give some funding.
Though I think the answer to this is just to apply to YC. We fund lots of very, very early companies all the time.
Though I think the answer to this is just to apply to YC. We fund lots of very, very early companies all the time.
Could you give examples of such companies that have stood out?
A recent one that is top of mind because Chad just spoke at Startup School is Rigetti Quantum Computing. He had nothing but an idea when YC funded him in Summer 2014, and now is one of the leading QC companies in the world.
I'd love to see a How to Build the Future episode about this and how Chad got his start!
Awesome talk, BTW!
Hi Sam,
My cofounder and I don't live in the same country so we're each recording half the video separately and then editing the pieces together. Does this affect us negatively in any way?
My cofounder and I don't live in the same country so we're each recording half the video separately and then editing the pieces together. Does this affect us negatively in any way?
No, that's fine.
If you haven't spent significant time together in person, that's a red flag for us, as we've found those teams often (usually, even) fall apart.
If you haven't spent significant time together in person, that's a red flag for us, as we've found those teams often (usually, even) fall apart.
How do you evaluate more technical startups like the one you mentioned: Rigetti Quantum Computing. I assume one needs some theoretical quantum physics knowledge to evaluate it.
I generally have very broad but very shallow knowledge. It's helpful because I can screen a lot of different kinds of companies very quickly. If I feel out of my depth I usually know a smart person I can ask to go deep.
But one of the advantages of our model is mistakes of inclusion are cheap.
But one of the advantages of our model is mistakes of inclusion are cheap.
Sam, thank you for working on a new online course. I think it will have a huge impact.
For how many companies per batch, YC is a second accelerator? How many companies have raised Seed round?
For how many companies per batch, YC is a second accelerator? How many companies have raised Seed round?
Thanks!
I'd guess less than 10% are pre-accelerated.
A much larger percentage have raised some (usually a small amount, but not always) capital.
I'd guess less than 10% are pre-accelerated.
A much larger percentage have raised some (usually a small amount, but not always) capital.
How does a college freshman get into startup culture without technical skills learned in upper division classes?
Is working at a start up a viable path for college graduates or is it recommended starting at a more established company?
Do you see Silicon Valley maintaining its dominance as a tech capital in future decades or will there be better entrepreneur ecosystems?
Which industries are ripe for entrepreneurship? Like the automobile industry at the moment has innovations of self-driving and electric energy source.
Thanks!
Is working at a start up a viable path for college graduates or is it recommended starting at a more established company?
Do you see Silicon Valley maintaining its dominance as a tech capital in future decades or will there be better entrepreneur ecosystems?
Which industries are ripe for entrepreneurship? Like the automobile industry at the moment has innovations of self-driving and electric energy source.
Thanks!
Working at a startup is the right answer to your first question, and it's definitely a viable path!
I expect the rest of the world will trend towards Silicon Valley. But I'm biased.
To find industries ripe for new companies, look for places where technology is causing a high rate of change.
I expect the rest of the world will trend towards Silicon Valley. But I'm biased.
To find industries ripe for new companies, look for places where technology is causing a high rate of change.
I really appreciate your answers as it solidifies my goals -- now if only I can convince my mom to stop asking to go to medical school.
Do you really think that financially incentivizing voting will create good downstream effects? Almost all ideas of civic duty are historically drawn from non-financial incentives and the idea of attaching some financial incentive to them potentially seems to further exacerbate a "pay to play" atmosphere that is one of the reasons people (like myself) don't find it particularly stimulating to participate in the present political climate.
Here in Australia we get a fine if we don’t turn up at the polling place and have our name crossed off the list on election day. Of course this creates a pool of voters (5-10%) who really don’t want to participate (these people typically spoil their ballot by doing things like drawing a penis on the ballot), but what this does do is keep a much larger section of the population engaged in the political process.
What happens is that many people who don’t really care about politics most of the time take notice in the last few weeks of an election campaign because they know they will be voting. While not perfect, I think the good of “compulsory voting” outweighs the negative.
What happens is that many people who don’t really care about politics most of the time take notice in the last few weeks of an election campaign because they know they will be voting. While not perfect, I think the good of “compulsory voting” outweighs the negative.
I tend to agree. The UK has had big drops in turnout recently, due to inscreasing distrust of politics, and the most recent government was elected by less than a quarter of the electorate.
It's led to some claims that our democracy is becoming dysfunctional and growing calls for PR or electoral reform.
At least with compulsion you have to be positive in your apathy!
It's led to some claims that our democracy is becoming dysfunctional and growing calls for PR or electoral reform.
At least with compulsion you have to be positive in your apathy!
Do you think the penalty works better than a positive incentive? i.e. if you got $5 to vote or a 1 in 100 chance of $1000? Also, was the penalty introduced in order to increase turnout? Is there any data on how it affected it, including among which demographics?
Normally people give a higher weight to a loss than the equivalent positive gain so I think fines should work better than a cash payment.
We have had the fine system since the 1920s so it is really hard to know how it affects the political process. One thing it does do is get the turn out to >95% (we also get a fine if we don’t register too).
One of the big positives is it takes away the decision of voting or not - it is just one of those things like paying your taxes that you have to do.
We have had the fine system since the 1920s so it is really hard to know how it affects the political process. One thing it does do is get the turn out to >95% (we also get a fine if we don’t register too).
One of the big positives is it takes away the decision of voting or not - it is just one of those things like paying your taxes that you have to do.
There's a few factors at play here though.
Preferential voting means it's harder to shift the mean anyway, because parties have to appeal to other parties/interest groups to get preference deals etc (of course no one has to follow a preference voting card!).
Secondly, having 98% polling day turnout means you don't have to build outrage to get people to vote (as they do in the us/uk). I remember hearing that if polling day was rainy in the UK the conservatives could usually count on a 10% boost because their constituency have cars and the working class don't - not sure how true this is these days
Preferential voting means it's harder to shift the mean anyway, because parties have to appeal to other parties/interest groups to get preference deals etc (of course no one has to follow a preference voting card!).
Secondly, having 98% polling day turnout means you don't have to build outrage to get people to vote (as they do in the us/uk). I remember hearing that if polling day was rainy in the UK the conservatives could usually count on a 10% boost because their constituency have cars and the working class don't - not sure how true this is these days
Yes the combination of compulsory and preferential voting has a great calming influence on the political system. Our two major parties (labor and liberal) are very similar in practice as they are competing for the middle ground, not the exciting the extreme wings to the polls. The only downside is it tends to make for boring politics, but overall boring is good if you have to live in the country.
pity it's such a shitstorm of conservative religious interest group pandering with a touch of racism, xenophobia and homophobia at present :(
Yes, but this actually a side effect of the how close our elections are. A few nut jobs on the far right of the Liberal party are able to cause mayhem due the slim majority the liberal party holds in parliament.
The good thing is it is mostly just noise - what actually gets through the parliament is much more benign.
The good thing is it is mostly just noise - what actually gets through the parliament is much more benign.
Incidentally, I think the AEC said prior to the last election that you could effectively draw a cock and balls on your ballot, but if the intention of otherwise marking candidate preference was clear, the vote could count.
This happened in the last general election in the UK. Someone drew a penis next to the conservative candidate's name on the ballot paper and it was counted as a vote.
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-05-08/angry-voter-...
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-05-08/angry-voter-...
I like compulsory voting. It means candidates don't need to run to the left/right extremes to 'energise' the base or encourage those voters to show up. Instead they can focus time and airtime on more reasonable policies for the centre majority in the knowledge that those on the periphery will have to show up anyway.
If you don't care enough to vote, or are just tuning in for a couple of weeks before voting, then maybe it's better that you don't.
1. Where do you think the jobs in the software field will be after 10 years?
Currently, we can say that the jobs are in the web developer and mobile app developers categories.
Like that what would be the major category in software?
And what would be the future of web and mobile app developers if they know nothing about machine learning now.
2. In the competition of web vs mobile? What would be their state after 10 years? Will there be more native mobile apps or websites?
Thanks!
2. In the competition of web vs mobile? What would be their state after 10 years? Will there be more native mobile apps or websites?
Thanks!
Hey Sam. I'm considering applying with my nonprofit edtech startup (a new crowdsourced education system that's peer-to-peer and mobile -- built around software, like Watsi). I'm a solo-founder still currently building the MVP.
Quick question 1: Is there a "Delaware C Corp" equivalent for the incorporation process/legal structures of nonprofits by state, or does it not matter?
Real question: Is there something to be said about founders waiting until they have users and initial growth to then use the YC opportunity to transition towards growing their company? In other words, if a startup is only getting one shot to go through YC, generally is finding initial product-market fit harder, or is growing the company?
Granted, the latter can't happen without the former happening first. But it would seem that for some founders that have genuine insights into real big problems, it would suck to waste the opportuniy of YC just "checking the boxes" of building their MVP, which they could know how to do already from PG's essays/YC's blog/Startup Class -- whereas they could be getting genuine advice on problems unique to their specific domain problem if they just waited and applied later.
Quick question 1: Is there a "Delaware C Corp" equivalent for the incorporation process/legal structures of nonprofits by state, or does it not matter?
Real question: Is there something to be said about founders waiting until they have users and initial growth to then use the YC opportunity to transition towards growing their company? In other words, if a startup is only getting one shot to go through YC, generally is finding initial product-market fit harder, or is growing the company?
Granted, the latter can't happen without the former happening first. But it would seem that for some founders that have genuine insights into real big problems, it would suck to waste the opportuniy of YC just "checking the boxes" of building their MVP, which they could know how to do already from PG's essays/YC's blog/Startup Class -- whereas they could be getting genuine advice on problems unique to their specific domain problem if they just waited and applied later.
QQ1: It does not matter.
RQ: In general I think waiting is a mistake, except that you should wait long enough to have a good idea about what you're going to do.
RQ: In general I think waiting is a mistake, except that you should wait long enough to have a good idea about what you're going to do.
what is YC's stance on cannabis related startups that take the plant?
We've funded several cannabis companies. Some YC partners are customers.
I'm working on a startup that provides live remote video assistant as a service and we piggy backs off of existing technology platforms (FaceTime, Hangouts, Skype) rather than building the tech ourselves for the meantime.
Do you prefer that companies have their own technology or is it okay that a company utilizes existing platforms in the beginning?
My team consist of CS and ME/EE.
It's PokeBin.com if you wanted more information.
Do you prefer that companies have their own technology or is it okay that a company utilizes existing platforms in the beginning?
My team consist of CS and ME/EE.
It's PokeBin.com if you wanted more information.
It's usually a good idea to leverage other platforms, at least as the start, as long as you're not entirely dependent on one.
I'm 27 and I've cofounded only one company in a lifestyle industry (video games). Despite being nearish the top of my particular field, I don't have a PhD in a relevant field like AI. Games are hard in that they are very competitive, but we're not exactly curing cancer.
How behind am I, assuming my primary goal is maximizing positive impact on the world?
How behind am I, assuming my primary goal is maximizing positive impact on the world?
You are 27. Hard to imagine you'd be behind in anything.
But no reason to delay in making the impact you want.
But no reason to delay in making the impact you want.
Your game/GPU programming experience can be very relevant to AI.
Take a look at these projects
https://unrealcv.github.io https://gym.openai.com https://m.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/54p6zq/16090...
Take a look at these projects
https://unrealcv.github.io https://gym.openai.com https://m.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/54p6zq/16090...
What do you think about younger people under 18 applying to YCombinator?
At least one founder has to be 18 or older, otherwise no one can sign the legal documents. But we've funded teams with 15, 16, or 17 year olds on them before.
Sam... Do you think bootstrapped companies, where founders want to build a "lifestyle" business and not raise capital can compete and be successful in SF and the valley?
Put in another way, would there ever be a case where you'd recommend a bootstrapped company not take investment (assuming the terms were good) in the bay area?
Put in another way, would there ever be a case where you'd recommend a bootstrapped company not take investment (assuming the terms were good) in the bay area?
[deleted]
Hi Sam. Can you explain the process for considering a Non-Profit a little bit more? A friend and I naturally think that we have a significant value proposition in the non-profit sector with everything other than the technical part flushed out thus far.
EDIT: Particularly if there is potential synergy with a business component as well?
EDIT: Particularly if there is potential synergy with a business component as well?
For non-profits, we're looking for large impacts on the world. A lot of the evaluation criteria--how good the founders are, how good the idea is--are the same.
Thanks Sam. I appreciate it.
How many applications are you guys expecting this year and what percentage do you expect to invite to interview?
As a very rough guess I'd say around 6000. I expect we will interview around 450 in person and video interviews with more.
Thanks, good to know.
If you were in early 20's, what 5 things would you deem most important to work on to help the world?
What matters here is what _you_ deem most important--don't live someone else's life.
But for fun, here is my list:
•AI
•Biotechnology, especially anti-ID and anti-aging.
•Energy
•Better governance
•Education
But for fun, here is my list:
•AI
•Biotechnology, especially anti-ID and anti-aging.
•Energy
•Better governance
•Education
> anti-ID
I didn't know what this was, and I was idly hoping that this was somehow about making biometrics not work. :-)
It turns out to be an idea in immunology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiotopes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-idiotypic_vaccine
(in case other people weren't familiar with the concept)
I didn't know what this was, and I was idly hoping that this was somehow about making biometrics not work. :-)
It turns out to be an idea in immunology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiotopes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-idiotypic_vaccine
(in case other people weren't familiar with the concept)
Pretty sure he means anti-infectious disease
That's a simpler interpretation, but search engines seem to strongly favor the idiotype interpretation, and it also seems to be the most common in medical research
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=anti-id
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=anti-id
What is an ideal stage for a company to apply to YC?
We've gotten together an excellent team and partners, and are just starting to build out the value prop. However, we don't have any customers / traction yet. Should we wait to apply, or apply right now?
Apply, you lose nothing. And apply again once you get more progress.
There is no ideal stage, but they'll fund the most promissing of them. The more your startup grows and the more times you apply (= persistance and staying alive), the more interesting your startups gets, hence better the odds.
At Quero we applied 3 times before being invited for an inverview and approved.
There is no ideal stage, but they'll fund the most promissing of them. The more your startup grows and the more times you apply (= persistance and staying alive), the more interesting your startups gets, hence better the odds.
At Quero we applied 3 times before being invited for an inverview and approved.
Thanks for the advice, I think we'll fill out an application and see what happens :)
I have applied many times . I now have a patent for a technology that I believe is a disruptor of enormous proportion. I have asked repeatedly to get a few minutes with someone to discuss this technology, because your application process doesn't seem to work for this.
What doesn't work about our process for this?
I have applied again and again and have been rejected each time. I honestly don't mean to be vague but have found that it is very difficult to convey in words. It's a graphical technology that takes just a very brief chat for people to understand. It's a large horizontal departure with wide possibilities. That makes it difficult to explain as a single targeted product
I would say that if you cannot explain it simply then you cannot sell it simply. You also sound like you 'deserve' to be heard while in fact nobody owes you a meeting.
I'm not saying I deserve a meeting, I'm saying the process doesn't work for me.
I don't agree with your simply conclusion. People didn't know what Twitter was for. And Gordon Moore didn't know why someone would want a home computer just to keep recipes. But those that understood it knew what the possibilities were.
I don't agree with your simply conclusion. People didn't know what Twitter was for. And Gordon Moore didn't know why someone would want a home computer just to keep recipes. But those that understood it knew what the possibilities were.
People did know what it was for, but they knew what it was. Because it could be explained simply.
The patent has been granted? What's the patent number? It would be public record. Eyeballs on the idea can only increase support if you already have the patent!
It sounds like you could benefit from technical friends in the space who have more experience with technical writing/documentation, etc. Another option would be to try and attend some of the office hours YC and other VCs hold. Ofc, they tend to be localized in the SF Bay Area.
If I can make a recommendation, you should try making a video instead.
Why don't you share your idea right here to try to catch someone's attention? Being vague isn't going to help.
Do you have a patent or just a patent application? If you have a patent post the patent number so we can all look at it.
If I were in their shoes, I would avoid conversations with someone who boasted a patented technology. It's just begging for legal trouble.
If the patent is actually issued then it is only benefit in the form of legal protection.
Hi Sam — seems like 'Science' was removed as a category in RFS. Can you comment on this?
People never really understood what we meant by it. Will try to break out into several more descriptive RFSs in the future.
A delegation from YC was recently in Lagos, Nigeria. What data and/or considerations did you take into account that kindled your interest in Africa (instead of say, Brazil ?)
Do you have any particular industries in mind to invest in? where do you see the most potential?
Do you have any particular industries in mind to invest in? where do you see the most potential?
How can an engineer become employee #1 or #2 of a fast-growing YC startup? How important is networking (knowing the right people) vs simply having the right credentials/experience?
What sort of advice does YC offer founders when it comes to hiring early employees?
What sort of advice does YC offer founders when it comes to hiring early employees?
Many YC companies post job ads for engineers on HN. That's a great way to start. Nearly all are constrained in how quickly they can hire great engineers, so you can also probably just email the CEO directly.
Our advice is: Hire slowly Be very generous with equity *Have a very high bar for early employees
Our advice is: Hire slowly Be very generous with equity *Have a very high bar for early employees
How do teams deal with families? I'm curious how many founders can uproot their entire families for 3 months to relocate, or do they just try to make long distance work for the 3 months while the spouses/kids stay back home?
The application for YC has recently changed. You no longer ask the question about what is a person's greatest achievement, which was previously said to be the most telling question on the app. Where are you now getting that info on the new app?
We do still ask that, and it's still one of the questions I read first. It's on the individual section (each person has to fill it out after the submitter enters their email address).
What do you like to see when reading the answer to that? What are your indicators for success?
Do you stand by your statements calling for government supervision and control of machine learning research? Is it likely that machine learning will become a highly regulated industry roughly on par with nuclear power plant development?
I noticed you guys added Food and Farming to the RFS. How did that decision come about?
The same way every other item on the RFS got there--a partner was passionate about it and chose to add it.
What is a company (other than SpaceX) with a super long-term goal that you are excited about?
Here are 5 out of ~200 that fit this category:
Helion Oklo Rigetti OpenAI Gingko Bioworks
Helion Oklo Rigetti OpenAI Gingko Bioworks
Thanks Sam -- OpenAI is the only one I'm familiar with, and Ginko Bioworks looks awesome.
Are there any other companies that come to mind who are doing things now that will be critical to Mars colonial ventures?
Which of the partners is passionate about financial services?(#16 on the old list at http://www.ycombinator.com/rfs/ )
How well suited is YC for a company that only expect to have YC itself as investor?
i.e. might have no interest in presenting at demo day or pursue any further fundraising, but instead look for profitability and self-investment as the path to growth.
i.e. might have no interest in presenting at demo day or pursue any further fundraising, but instead look for profitability and self-investment as the path to growth.
We care that a company might eventually be huge. Usually that requires raising more money, but if it doesn't, that would be ok with us.
What do you think of the women in tech movement, and other diversity initiatives?
I'm supportive, obviously.
I think in some ways diversity in tech is very bad (e.g. very many, or perhaps nearly all, of the CEOs of 'unicorns' are white men).
I think YC has made good but not great progress here. I don't pretend to know all the answers. About 11% of the founders that apply to YC are women, and I've heard that's a fair bit higher than what other investors see.
We fund women (and Black and Latino founders) at very nearly the rate they apply. In addition to a pipeline problem, I think there are further problems once women and underrepresented minorities start companies that make it unwelcoming.
I also think the conversation has become so polarized by the extremes on both sides that I feel uneasy participating, and I know other people feel the same way. But I'll certainly keep doing whatever I can do to get YC to help.
We're always open to advice about what to do here.
I think in some ways diversity in tech is very bad (e.g. very many, or perhaps nearly all, of the CEOs of 'unicorns' are white men).
I think YC has made good but not great progress here. I don't pretend to know all the answers. About 11% of the founders that apply to YC are women, and I've heard that's a fair bit higher than what other investors see.
We fund women (and Black and Latino founders) at very nearly the rate they apply. In addition to a pipeline problem, I think there are further problems once women and underrepresented minorities start companies that make it unwelcoming.
I also think the conversation has become so polarized by the extremes on both sides that I feel uneasy participating, and I know other people feel the same way. But I'll certainly keep doing whatever I can do to get YC to help.
We're always open to advice about what to do here.
Could you elaborate on the further problems you're alluding to here?
Thanks for doing this AMA, a quick question...
1. What's the possibility of YC companies doing biz dev with LargeCorp during the 3 month bootcamp? Is this something that YC can help with due to it's large network etc.
1. What's the possibility of YC companies doing biz dev with LargeCorp during the 3 month bootcamp? Is this something that YC can help with due to it's large network etc.
It happens but big companies are often slow. We can usually but not always help with it.
Hi Sam, I would like to apply for Winter 2017. If we are not accepted for this batch, would it hurt our future chances (i.e. could we apply again for the next batch without being negatively affected).
No, it doesn't hurt future chances!
Do you prefer international companies that don't have U.S as a market?
No preference here.
If you went back in time and did Loopt again, what would you differently?
What do you look for in a single founder (non-tech) when they apply with their company being very early stage. What helps you determine they'll be a good company even if they are early?
Honestly, that's a tough combination.
We'd look for evidence that he or she could execute and make stuff happen.
We'd look for evidence that he or she could execute and make stuff happen.
To clarify - are single founder, early stage applications unlikely to be invited to interview at YC?
At what point does 'early stage' no longer matter?
At what point does 'early stage' no longer matter?
I think the tough combination is 'single founder' and 'non-tech', I have heard him in an interview recommend finding a tech side cofounder in those cases.
Can you make the application autosave?
You've been very outspoken about AI, but tangentially related to AI are intelligent chatbots and more general conversational interfaces. What are your thoughts on chatbots?
I think that's a great application of AI. It's a very crowded market at this point, so my biggest question would be "why will this one win?"
Sam, I greatly respect the positive impact YC and you are having on society.
This question is unrelated to YC. How often do you go with your gut in decision making, and how well does it turn out?
This question is unrelated to YC. How often do you go with your gut in decision making, and how well does it turn out?
If there is data, I try to decide with data.
If there is not data, I am very happy (probably too happy) to make the best guess I can.
If there is not data, I am very happy (probably too happy) to make the best guess I can.
Hi, I know you started accepting hardware startups recently, I also realize you value teams that can iterate quickly. Having spent 18 months working to show that what the complex hardware product is feasible, my worry is that we would be seen as "slow" because in the software world , where I came from, 18 months is a lifetime. So my question is, do you treat hardware and software startups the same in terms of iteration speed?
Cheers!
My partner and I think search engines will look and feel completely different in the future, thus we're working on this next generation.
Do you agree with this? How do see these evolving?
Do you agree with this? How do see these evolving?
It would be surprising if they don't change, but I haven't thought enough about it to have any strong belief about where they're going.
What direction are you predicting they'll go? I've got the same sentiment.
Sam, thank you so much for taking the time to add so much value to all of the applicants of YC. I have learned so much.
For emerging industries like our's in the virtual reality space, there is so much money driving the industry into gaming and the desires of the bigger players like Facebook and Oculus. Is it more valuable to align with these bigger players and play along with their game, or disrupt the industry but risk being outcasted?
Thanks! Stan Sedberry Vidi VR
For emerging industries like our's in the virtual reality space, there is so much money driving the industry into gaming and the desires of the bigger players like Facebook and Oculus. Is it more valuable to align with these bigger players and play along with their game, or disrupt the industry but risk being outcasted?
Thanks! Stan Sedberry Vidi VR
* And I want to throw a personal question that I haven't seen anyone ask. If ELon asked you to be the president of his Mars colony, would you take the role and if so, what would be your first action as ruler lol
If we edit our application after we submit it, then are you notified? Or is there a chance you read our application before we edit it and you miss our edits?
What are your thoughts on Zcash[1] (either the product OR the company behind it)?
1. https://z.cash/
1. https://z.cash/
Is someone's creds on 'getting things done' largely based on visible projects? Or are other things considered?
For example becoming a self taught programmer? Quadrupling one's income? Doing all that while starting a new family? I feel like I'm becoming significantly more formidable. But the side project that pulled me into becoming a programmer, itself, is still lacking clearly visible progress.
For example becoming a self taught programmer? Quadrupling one's income? Doing all that while starting a new family? I feel like I'm becoming significantly more formidable. But the side project that pulled me into becoming a programmer, itself, is still lacking clearly visible progress.
Sam, you started Loopt when you were 19 and figured things out very quickly along the way.
Could you give us some insights on how to increase the speed at which we learn stuff? Many people here(myself included) rely on books to learn about something or solve their
problems, and that doesn't seem to be the case with you and other top founders(Collison brothers, Drew Houston, etc.)
Sam, what would you say to a bootstrapped fast-food delivery startup, cash positive, little overhead and 10,000's of customers applying to YC?
Can you be clearer about minimum requirements? I have an incomplete prototype but I get the impression you want more? It'll probably have a few security issues right now that I need to iron out too.
When to put this on the Internet to show you guys and how much should I have.
Working on this in my spare time is very difficult to get to a point I'm happy with. Maybe I should quit my job?
Be good to be super clear on this...
When to put this on the Internet to show you guys and how much should I have.
Working on this in my spare time is very difficult to get to a point I'm happy with. Maybe I should quit my job?
Be good to be super clear on this...
An incomplete prototype is ok. Obviously more is better, but we've funded companies with no prototype at all. You have little to lose by applying.
I want to transform the way we use checkins and turn them into awesome real world experiences.
I have the idea, a v1 design, portion of the API, and incomplete web app prototype... all built by me. I lack the business plan in paper however have pretty cool ideas on how I can eventually generate income.
Is this enough to be considered? Have companies come to you with less while still being accepted?
I have the idea, a v1 design, portion of the API, and incomplete web app prototype... all built by me. I lack the business plan in paper however have pretty cool ideas on how I can eventually generate income.
Is this enough to be considered? Have companies come to you with less while still being accepted?
[deleted]
You've said it's important for founders to be able to communicate and persuade, both in public and one on one. I think in that same talk you claimed to not be a very good public speaker but that you were much better in person. There are lots of examples for learning better public communication. How do you learn to be better one on one?
Would you consider negotiating the equity percentage for startups that stand out in terms of team/traction? If not, why not?
We do this in exceptional circumstances, but maybe only once per batch (as far as I know, we didn't do it at all last batch).
I think YC adds far more than 7% of value to companies we fund. And I hate negotiating/conflict.
I think YC adds far more than 7% of value to companies we fund. And I hate negotiating/conflict.
Inventors and innovators in Africa have a really hard time getting access to international markets and funding. Can you help?
Have you seen any patterns in terms of idea generation, do successful startups come up with the idea for the business in the same way, or is it basically extremely diverse, I'm wondering if people are tending to use any analytic methods to find low hanging fruit to get started or whether its largely "scratching an itch."
Sam, I have several pet projects, but I know YC loves teams severely committed to a single project. Is there a reasonable chance not just to get the interview, but to join the batch if I send multiple applications but most of them won't have this "three months of growth of KPI" kind of traction?
With so many companies like General Assembly offering part time bootcamps without one leaving the job can't YC follow the same approach where one can work on a startup without having to leave the job. This will bring in more ideas and products by people who don't want to quit their day-to-day job.
I think it's good that different people try different approaches, but also good that we do what we're good at what we believe in.
If it turns out it's better to offer part-time startup accelerators, then the market will speak.
If it turns out it's better to offer part-time startup accelerators, then the market will speak.
You know .. this is a quirky but interesting idea. PG started YC because of his experiences/challenges as a tech founder. Maybe someone can address this niche. Obviously, the funding terms would be different. There are legal issues having to do with existing employer contracts .. this could be a rathole. I am not sure doing a startup as a side project is at all useful .. but I might be wrong.
One comment I have to make .. risk is the name of the start up game. Maybe business in general. You cannot completely de-risk it and still call it a business.
One comment I have to make .. risk is the name of the start up game. Maybe business in general. You cannot completely de-risk it and still call it a business.
Why is that? If a majority of businesses fail, then finding new ways to minimize that risk should be the priority.
In the context of a side project, can go both ways. The founder is minimizing their monetary/opportunity risks by maintaining their current job. YC should be minimizing their investment and/or offering the basics (the network, office hours, and invites to guest speaker engagements).
In the context of a side project, can go both ways. The founder is minimizing their monetary/opportunity risks by maintaining their current job. YC should be minimizing their investment and/or offering the basics (the network, office hours, and invites to guest speaker engagements).
[deleted]
What are some examples of adding value to a company that's already raised a good seed round ($2-4M)?
Has there been any graphic designer co-founders accepted into YC? If so, has there been anything noticeably different about that dynamic compared to usual co-founder teams of hackers? If not, are applicants that include graphic designer co-founders at all desirable at YC?
Not sure how much overlap there is with your particular skill set, but Brian Chesky had a Product Design background before starting Airbnb. Paul Graham even recommends attending design school over b-school in his How to Start a Startup lecture.
Q: Do you see any value in business school for people who want to pursue entrepreneurship?
A: Basically no, it sounds undiplomatic, but business school was designed to teach people management. Management is a problem that you only have in a startup if you are sufficiently successful. So really what you need to know early on to make a start up successful is developing products. You would be better off going to design school if you would want to go to some sort of school. Although frankly the way to learn how to do it is just to do it. One of the things I got wrong early on is that I advised people who were interested in starting a startup to go work for some other company for a few years before starting their own. Honestly the best way to learn on how to start a startup is just to just try to start it.
Q: Do you see any value in business school for people who want to pursue entrepreneurship?
A: Basically no, it sounds undiplomatic, but business school was designed to teach people management. Management is a problem that you only have in a startup if you are sufficiently successful. So really what you need to know early on to make a start up successful is developing products. You would be better off going to design school if you would want to go to some sort of school. Although frankly the way to learn how to do it is just to do it. One of the things I got wrong early on is that I advised people who were interested in starting a startup to go work for some other company for a few years before starting their own. Honestly the best way to learn on how to start a startup is just to just try to start it.
Joe Gebbia (cofounder of Airbnb) studied graphic design prior to founding Airbnb.
What are the chances of a Subsidiary in getting accepted to YC? Have you had any case like this previously?
P.S.: I'm talking about a case where only the subsidiary has applied for YC and that subsidiary is making a different product than what the parent company is making.
P.S.: I'm talking about a case where only the subsidiary has applied for YC and that subsidiary is making a different product than what the parent company is making.
I guess I'm not opposed, but I'm not sure we've done it before. Generally we don't like complexity though, so we'd want to be sure you're truly an independent subsidiary.
What do you think of South America?
Two Questions:
1. Would YC consider a media/publishing company that is not really a tech startup short of leveraging tech to reach a broader audience. (it's more like investigative journalism to arm buyers with info. needed to negotiate better deals.)
2. The info. in these reports can capture value by being sold right away, but giving the info. away for free is more in line with the mission of eliminating information asymmetry (by selling we are just replacing one inbalance, with another)...so is it better to capture initial value...or try to build trust to the point of people going straight to you to research purchases...and monetize later on or with add-ons (i.e. outsourced negotiation.) or eventually becoming the defacto source for consumer research (which is bound to be monetizable one way or another)?
1. Would YC consider a media/publishing company that is not really a tech startup short of leveraging tech to reach a broader audience. (it's more like investigative journalism to arm buyers with info. needed to negotiate better deals.)
2. The info. in these reports can capture value by being sold right away, but giving the info. away for free is more in line with the mission of eliminating information asymmetry (by selling we are just replacing one inbalance, with another)...so is it better to capture initial value...or try to build trust to the point of people going straight to you to research purchases...and monetize later on or with add-ons (i.e. outsourced negotiation.) or eventually becoming the defacto source for consumer research (which is bound to be monetizable one way or another)?
Do you prefer startups from a certain level on Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
Are applications confidential?
They are read by some alumni and YC staff. We try hard to keep things confidential but the group of readers is large--I wouldn't put nuclear launch codes in them, just because of the risk of accidental breach.
You have said that the best founders believe their success is inevitable, yet YC (understandably) has a really high failure rate.
Do you think it helps, as a founder and in life, to be optimistic rather than realistic?
Do you think it helps, as a founder and in life, to be optimistic rather than realistic?
Can you be too far along? We already raised from billionaires Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce. Is this still okay to apply? And how much does being a solo founder reduce chances of getting in?
I'm not from YC, but I think that's actually a big plus for them. I've seen many companies for the last few batches that already had substantial investment.
What are the best ways for hardware startups to show traction pre-launch? We feel like we have a compelling prototype, but are worried that a lack of pre-sales/press/etc. will be a red flag.
Launch:) Short of this, get your cardboard-box-level prototype into users' hands.
No matter how early and rough, show your product to potential customers and listen to what they say. You'll learn more from an hour doing this than a month of brainstorming with your team about what features you should someday maybe add to make your product compelling.
Over many cycles of sharing many prototypes with customers, you'll figure out what your future users actually want your product to do. This will almost always be way different than your original vision.
And stop worrying about whether you're too early: many of our best startups get rejected before applying again with progress and getting accepted. Pretty much everybody thinks they're too early or late for YC, and they're all wrong;)
(Disclaimer: I work for YC advising hardware startups.)
No matter how early and rough, show your product to potential customers and listen to what they say. You'll learn more from an hour doing this than a month of brainstorming with your team about what features you should someday maybe add to make your product compelling.
Over many cycles of sharing many prototypes with customers, you'll figure out what your future users actually want your product to do. This will almost always be way different than your original vision.
And stop worrying about whether you're too early: many of our best startups get rejected before applying again with progress and getting accepted. Pretty much everybody thinks they're too early or late for YC, and they're all wrong;)
(Disclaimer: I work for YC advising hardware startups.)
Thanks for following up on this, that's helpful advice.
Disclaimer: I'm just a random person.
Rigetti computing was accepted with no traction but the founder had significant market expertise.
That said, keen to hear what kind of milestones are expected of early stage hardware startups.
Rigetti computing was accepted with no traction but the founder had significant market expertise.
That said, keen to hear what kind of milestones are expected of early stage hardware startups.
What is the minimum stage the product should be in to be selected in yc ?
I'd guess its probably something on order of:
$10K revenue per month
100,000 monthly users (or 100 recurring enterprise customers)
10% monthly growth
$10K revenue per month
100,000 monthly users (or 100 recurring enterprise customers)
10% monthly growth
There are no minimums. We assess each application on its individual merits.
Hi, Sam, how do you think about the opportunity of technology in China, do you think China a good place for investing and developing? What the difference between the China market and USA market?
I think China is probably the second most interesting startup market to me in the world right now (after Silicon Valley).
Great, it's really inspiring for you to say so, haha, I am an English Literature major with epilepsy in China, now I am learning technology to make a living remotely, hoping someday I will be able to apply to YCombinator with my friends. I am also translating some articles on Hacker News that I love into Chinese, I love the site, it's precious on the Internet.
Anywhere in particular in China?
[deleted]
What do you think is the biggest blind spot or most limiting aspect of YC Group and how do you plan to fix it? Asked another way, what are YC's weaknesses, in your opinion?
We're spending a lot of time right now thinking about where we should add new groups (i.e. where we're limited and where the biggest opportunities are).
Hopefully will be ready to talk about it early 2017.
Hopefully will be ready to talk about it early 2017.
How do you identify small but fast-growing markets?
Is it a good/bad idea to found a startup in a market that is no longer saturated but also has big players (such as social media?
Is it a good/bad idea to found a startup in a market that is no longer saturated but also has big players (such as social media?
Predicting the future is hard. I don't have a great general answer for this, other than to look for highly engaged users. IE, when the iPhone came out, users loved it and used it all the time. Even though the market was small in absolute size, you could be confident it was going to grow quickly.
It could be good or bad depending on details, but it's certainly not always bad.
It could be good or bad depending on details, but it's certainly not always bad.
When interviewing, what key points are you looking for?
Determination
Effectiveness
Clarity of vision
Clarity of communication
Intelligence
Quality of the idea
*Potential to be huge
I've seen you try to use the markdown list syntax enough times on HN now that you might consider patching it in.
Are there any books on Start-Up Market-Research a.k.a Talking to users?
If not, what are the top mistakes startups make when talking to users?
What companies have you seen/interacted with lately that have a good chance of taking IoT to mass adoption that are worth watching for?
What are your thoughts on quantum computing?
How important do you think blog posts/videos/other forms of content are for startups coming out of YC?
a question about anything else:
what's you opinion on product managers and when/do you think a startup should hire one?
what's you opinion on product managers and when/do you think a startup should hire one?
Bunch of folks in the city world keep asking me how your city stuff is going. How's the city stuff going?
Are there ways to apply to HARC, or demo at HARC for people who have ideas that might fit within its remit?
I watched your startup course that was done at Stanford.
Have you ever considered writing a startup book?
Have you ever considered writing a startup book?
He compiled a list of recommended readings for the class here (http://startupclass.samaltman.com/lists/readings/), and in the morning macro it was stated that "We’re going to replace the Fellowship with a much larger MOOC launching next year.".
I know that's not what you're looking for, but at least it gets us close!
I know that's not what you're looking for, but at least it gets us close!
[deleted]
How do you assess the "quality" of founders that have no startup track record?
Have you ever invested in a band or music production company or considered doing that?
I'm not sure if he has, but why would he ever do that? Unless it was not only production but also engineering/innovating in some sense.
Yep, well that would be interesting in the sense of how you could disrupt the music business by "manufacturing" beats. We've seen some similar progress around machine generated art (e.g. deep dreaming and the like).
I'd sooner expect strong AI than an AI that can actually produce good music purely autonomously.
Who knows what you mean by purely autonomously since even people can't help but learn from their experiences.
Nevertheless, here's a novel composition made by an NLP algorithm trained on classical music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjdiE0AoCU
Nevertheless, here's a novel composition made by an NLP algorithm trained on classical music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEjdiE0AoCU
I stand corrected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcGYEXJqun8 also changed my mind a bit.
sama, a big picture question, what is your take on the Stagnation Hypothesis?
I know you know a bunch of people who are concerned about technological stagnation and I was curious about your personal take on it.
Thanks
I know you know a bunch of people who are concerned about technological stagnation and I was curious about your personal take on it.
Thanks
On average, how much time will you spend on handling 1 application ?
[deleted]
Why didn't I see this earlier :(
Will you come to China? When?
[deleted]
[deleted]
When you want to start a startup and you don't have any kind of job experience in tech industry, do you think that is necessary to be intern in some tech company, or just to focus first on coding skills, and to build stuff?
How do you make a product that is profitable while serving an underserved poor market? i.e. if a market is massive but has no money to spend - is the business model different?
[deleted]
Sam whst mean the word hustling to you??
I'm also happy to answer questions about anything else!
EDIT: Going to bed; thanks everyone!