Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmjordan | Hacker News Reader

Should Google release a calendar along the lines of Gmail, they would be the competitor we would fear most by far.

Wow, that was prescient.

I'm curious whether this kind of application would stand a chance these days. It's hard to say obviously, as you'd have to ignore the product-specific answers.

View on HN

We'd definitely invite this group to interviews today, if they were working on whatever was the equivalent idea for 2010. The answers are very thoughtful and concise.

If there's one thing applicants don't get, it's the value of being concise in the answers. Not brief, concise. Notice how concise Drew Houston's answers are too:

http://files.dropbox.com/u/2/app.html

This is the first time I've looked at our app since we sent it in (that I can recall), and I was extremely surprised about how prescient we were on some things. Not only Google Calendar, but who would be potential acquirers (we were talking to them during Kiko and actually had a verbal offer that fell through, although that is a different story to tell), that social networking features would be important in all web applications, that javascript client applications would be actually a good thing to do.

The only thing we weren't good a predicting was our release schedule :)

The social/personalised advertising remark struck me as very forward-thinking too. It took Facebook a couple of years to get that one right, and now it's making them stacks of money (they may have been ignoring it deliberately to focus on expanding; I have no idea).

If you are to redo it all over, I sure hope you won't reinvent the custom ad solution bit again.

You can thank the plethora of open RESTful APIs for that :)

I've just finished implementing the Trafficspaces ad server API and oh boy does it create all sorts of new possibilities.

that social networking features would be important in all web applications

Just an FYI, social networking isn't even close to being important in "all" web applications.

I'm curious whether this kind of application would stand a chance these days.

Many of the applicants I've talked with or heard about lately already have actual paying customers. I wouldn't be surprised if that raises the bar a little ;)

You raise an interesting point.

PG: Do you find that you're encountering 'stage' creep in YC applications? Are the groups that you're funding (or even just interviewing) steadily becoming more fully developed businesses, or are lots (most?) still in the early/conceptual stages?

There's certainly stage creep, or more generally "legit creep." We get a lot more applications from startups with eminent founders, who are profitable or have already raised money, etc. But we are very wary of becoming conservative, so we make a conscious effort to make some risky bets too. The result is that batches end up becoming more and more diverse.

In what way are the 'legit' applicants conservative? Normally that term would imply less risk combined with less reward, but I would think these applications merely offer less risk.

True. If notable founders are willing to do Y-Combinator even though they could secure financing elsewhere without giving up a percentage, then there are many cases in which YC should accept (HipMunk, for example). That also speaks volumes of YC, if established entrepreneurs will come back to YC for a second time.

When people ask why they should do YC, I always come back to this example: if Steve (of reddit and now hipmunk) took Y Combinator funding -- with his wealth, connections, and experience -- why wouldn't you?

The danger is that they might offer less variability, in both directions.

I'm struggling to think of an incentive for these more developed startups to apply to YC beyond association with the group in pursuit of larger investments. Have you identified any deeper motivators?

You mentioned receiving more applications from this pool. In terms of the application, do you weight in favor of these qualities?

I feel a bit awkward being the one to bring this up, but the idea is that we're supposed to give the startups useful advice. The need for that doesn't necessarily go away when e.g. you raise series A. I often give advice to post series A YC startups that they seem to think is useful.

You had to bring it up because everyone was waiting for someone more qualified than themselves to answer the question.

My impressions are made from afar, but it is that YC is a high intensity immersion/sprint for founders to catapult themselves to the next level while having the support of experienced advisors and colleagues in the same situation around them. In other words, help shape and catalyze founders to become great with anything they touch (and recognize what to avoid). Strictly in the context of YC (or TechStars, Excelerate, etc.) it seems like that becomes lost when working with founders at a higher experience level.

There are a variety of "next levels" one can catapult oneself to. In the last batch we had one pair of founders who'd previously been CTO and VP of engineering at a public company, and another pair who were 19.

It's an interesting question where the limit of our utility is. As I said in another thread recently, I'm pretty sure we don't bump up against it in practice, because once startups raise sufficient money, their investors wouldn't let them do YC even if it would be a net win for them.

Do you think you'll have to choose at some point between the two types?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com