Any bad experiences with Y combinator?
Seems like everyone I talked to or post I read loves it. Is there no negative experience? If there is, please share.
1. There aren't enough social events, especially early in the cycle. So we're adding more.
2. Founders were surprised how harsh our feedback was at times. We may be able to be more diplomatic. But I think the fundamental problem is that this is a domain where, so far at least, many participants fail. So if you're truthful, you're often going to be delivering bad news.
3. The speakers got swarmed after talks, because there were some founders who schmoozed with all the speakers as a matter of course, instead of giving priority to others with specific reasons to talk to that speaker. We have a plan to fix this.
4. The acoustics in the orange room are a disaster. When the room's full of people talking you have to yell to be heard. Kate is having a huge sound-absorbing curtain made to fix this.
5. It's too inflexible that office hour slots are exactly 25 minutes. Different problems need varying amounts of time. So we'll make the slots adjustable.
6. Founders wanted a more organized way of getting and sharing feedback about specific investors, so we're going to build something for that.
7. We have to start teaching founders about fundraising earlier in the cycle, because investors are approaching them earlier.
Disclaimer: I don't have YC experience.
In school, my classmates and I too often experienced the opposite kind of feedback: pat on the back, great job, I thought it was fantastic, etc. What little criticism was given usually came in the format of a "compliment sandwich."
Although praise is nice, in general I find that being nice to avoid confrontation or to prevent hurt feelings only promotes complacency and lack of (personal) growth. Not to mention if you tell me something was great when I know it sucks, you've lost all credibility with me.
Don't sugar coat it - I have a pretty good general idea of what's working. I find honest feedback more helpful.
The problem is that a lot of techies default to doing this to other people, without understanding the others' conventions. Hence the stereotype of the insensitive hacker.
There are many instances where I could have done with someone calling me out on something instead of fence sitting or bland agreement masked as praise.
The other problem is praise inflation : if everyone gets a 'good job' then it's difficult to know whether you're ahead of the pack or just middling.
As long it's not bullying, vindictive or just plain mean, negative criticism is worth 10x positive. It's also better to be drip fed negative feedback from trusted people, so when you get out into the real world, chances are you've heard any negative feedback before and are prepared for it.
In a strong individual hurt feelings are going to produce better outcomes. I'm sure that's why the military has boot camp.
pg's brutally honest feedback was actually one of my favorite parts of YC. It's wonderfully refreshing.
I have seen some mixed reviews of YCombinator on http://thefunded.com. Or you can search for other sites that compare various funds and accelerator programs. Each have their pros and cons, and you shouldn't expect any one program to be perfect for all startups.
A recent email sent out by them to Alumni of the program claimed over a 192 companies world wide. You should also know that it's a different model and you pay to be in the program.
Personally I believe in the YC model and think they have a much better network.
First off, I want to just say thatI think YC is a very good program for younger developers and/or those who know the problem space they want to develop in but haven't quite worked out the firm business model.
However, my negative experience with the program is that I think the funding for the equity you give away is a very poor deal for founders. $20k/$6k a founder doesn't last long and it seems to me that you could raise similar/more money on much better terms elsewhere.
Sure, you get the incubator program as the 'meat' of the investment but it's like saying working at Google is best because you get the wonderful free lunches... I can get better job + pay elsewhere and sort out the lunches on my own (read: where 'lunch' is the network, connections, feedback on my startup, that YC offers... others can provide that too etc).
I'm expecting this will get down voted because most people here are very pro YC. I am too, I even went to Startup School last weekend. I just wouldn't want to take funding at YC over other angel and seed routes at a better valuation (or even better, delay valuation entirely and take a note instead).
to me is seems that the ~7% the founders give, yields them more then ~30k + events + coaching + incorporation.
in my view: YC'inng makes the startup (and even any of your future startups) so much more attractive and exposed to potential investors, that this alone justifies the ~7%.
but i have no metrics for this :-) someone?
(i leave out the 3 months that founders "have to" invest as that is something the "have to" invest in order to starup anyway)
Getting the network, connections, feedback, and exposure is more difficult for most founders than getting lunch is for most Googlers.
It may be that you have the connections problem sorted out and not the money problem. I have money sorted out but I need more connections and feedback, which I think is more the type of founder seed programs are built for.
1) Contacts - we can sit down with just about anyone we can think of.
2) Alumni - the YC alumni network is pretty huge and the alums have been super helpful. We've gotten advice, design feedback, encouragement when we were having darker days, and we've used them as product guinea pigs.
3) Brand name - being able to say "We're a YC company" makes people instantly pay attention to you.
4) Advice - yc has seen a whole bunch of startups. They were able to to save us from going down a bunch of bad paths, even when we didn't want their advice. It's hard to quantify, but I feel like I have a better understanding of how to build something that people will actually use because of yc.
4) A support structure - Office hours with pg, jl, harj, et al are indispensable. These are now available to us forever.
Before getting accepted into yc, my cofounder and I had a bunch of discussions about how much of the company we were willing to give up. We were nervous and thought the upper bound (around 10%) seemed really high. In retrospect 10% would have been a totally reasonable price to pay for what we've gotten in return.
Do you think that translates to "YC is more optimal if you are not currently located in the Valley"?
BTW: what is your startup, it's not in your profile!
Our startup is HireHive. Totally forgot to put it in the profile.
As for your job/lunch comparison, I'd argue that YC's network, connections, feedback, advising, alumni network, speakers, etc. are the "job" and the money they give you is the "lunch" rather than the other way around.
Lastly, YC is an accelerator, not an incubator, which I think is an important distinction for anyone reading this thread and considering applying. You don't work on-site at YC. You work in your proverbial garage.
I mention these things because they might help friends, acquaintances, and others who are still considering applying.
I know many founders of YC companies that ended up not being successful but I've never heard serious complaints from any of them. Some of them have even gone on to do YC again.
We had a great experience with no regrets. Apply now if you're on the fence. Having said that, my criticism is that, like any startup, YC has some growing pains while it scales.
In particular, our experience (S2010, 36 companies) wasn't as intimate as I had hoped it would be. But they're working to address that, which was a learning experience in itself. You get to see how smart people try to scale an operation while preserving what makes it special.
Relatedly, I also didn't expect YC to feel internally competitive at times. Resources can become limited, from the basics like seating and food, to the important stuff like the time and attention of speakers, investors, and PG himself. With that many companies, there's also inevitably some overlap among product ideas.
However, overall it was much more cooperative than competitive, and I welcomed a little friendly competition. The resulting "coopetition" is a balance I think they'll need to watch as they scale.
YC was/is certainly an amazing experience for us.
That said, I've gotten to talk to a lot of people who have done YC now, and everyone I've talked to --- against pointed questions from me! --- has been thrilled with it.
I could be off so feel free to correct those numbers
I think Y Combinator is over-rated- atleast now (I am attracting downvotes-Go ahead)
Their startups havent had really big exits, so far.Once they do,things might change.
(NB: and I'm a YC skeptic).
The fact that I didn't build the company I was pitching is prima facie evidence that I agreed with their assessment. (and in retrospect, I wasn't the right person to do that company and you could hear it in my voice)