If you're applying this cycle: How to Apply to Y Combinator
ycombinator.com
ycombinator.com
Is that something you select for (or against)?
I am currently trying to get a first working prototype of my site ready in time for the 20th with the explicit aim of selling my idea via the demo, given that you guys will no doubt be flooded with applications on that date would you advise submitting my information and the concept now anyhow?. Other than a working demo no other factors are likely to change.
We look at online demos only for the most promising
applications, so don't skimp on the application because
you're relying on a good demo.I'm not applying, but I'd love any insight into how the process of reviewing applications has changed in the last few cycles.
1) I know you have Harj on the west-coast, and Alexis on the East coast.. Has that made a difference in the way you review applications?
I know in the past, you've said that Harj was acting more as a back-end catchall, than a front-end filter. Is that still the process?
Are you having more pre-meetings on the east coast, now that Alexis is available to help screen people before their official interview?
2) Do you expect (or have you seen) any change due to the Yuri Milner announcement?
2a) Do you suspect this will encourage people to apply who might not have applied otherwise, due to needing more runway?
2b) I know(suspect?) that a lot of the core assumptions of the YC application process are based around "you have to get things done in 3 months.." This might lead you to reject projects that would take 6 months of work, even at YC-speed, to complete.
Does the Yuri Milner announcement affect this?
3) There's been a large growth in "YC-like" incubators/foundries/angel firms (TechStars being perhaps the most well known). How (if at all) have your procedures or operating assumptions changed, now that the world of funding is so different than it was in 2007?
BTW, Harj acts as a catch-all only for the late applications. He reads on-time applications just like the rest of us.
I don't know yet what effect the Ronco/Yuri announcement will have. It probably won't change how we rank applications.
All the other new YC-like organizations don't currently affect what we do at all, that I can think of. A while ago we complained because some of them were giving people exploding termsheets that expired before the recipients had a chance to come to their YC interview, but that practice seems to have stopped. Now everyone seems to coexist peacefully.
What's your view on a founder of startup that's relatively young (6-12 months) but with some traction applying to YC with an idea for a completely different startup?
Would you consider it a negative that they're quitting on their earlier startup?
If you can talk intelligently about why your previous project isn't working, that's actually a point in your favor.
Getting fired from a job hardly looks good on a resume, but having a failed startup under your belt is almost seen as a badge of honor.
Luckily, I think a community that makes it okay to fail encourages people to not be defensive. They know they won't be labeled a "loser", that they still have a chance to make it.
Well, I know that the odds aren't good for single founders...But the problem here in Russia (where I'am from) is that it's virtually impossible to find an entrepreneurial-minded hacker who's ready to put efforts and passion into a such risky thing as startup. We don't have such startups culture you have in US. It's very tempting for smart ppl here to just get a day job with a nice salary and relax. Or they already have girlfriend/family and thus will not move anywhere.
But I'm pretty sure I'll find a co-founder when I'm in the Bay area. But looks like it's chicken-and-egg problem. Actually I think the problem with single founders is exaggerated a bit. If it's all about people then great ppl eventually will find a great co-founder if you give'em a chance.
The trouble with the plan of finding a cofounder when you get to the Bay Area is that you'll then have a cofounder you've only just met. Empirically that doesn't work well. Cofounders should have known one another for a while.
You must have friends of friends who'd start a startup with you.
Time to go revisit the application, anyways.
I used to try to do some projects in russian internet. 2 years ago built http://www.moivizitki.ru (social business networking), a big Moscow based web company wanted to buy it (mostly hire us), but i decided to spend my life to build own startup (you can find job any way if needed). Built several e-com affiliate projects for english speaking world. Now my friend and i apply to YC.
I wonder if any person from post Soviet Union was excepted to YC (I don't say even a team, at list person :).
Have you ever said 'we like you, and we think the idea has potential... put the team together and we'll back ya'?
And now that I know I might meet Ashton Kutcher, I'm definitely going for it.
We didn't get in. They advised us that you can send a much stronger signal if you've already committed. The best indicator of future commitment to a startup is past commitment.
Should I apply to attend alone or really scour my list of talented acquaintances? How often do you take teams with only one member on-site?
http://www.quora.com/Would-Y-Combinator-invest-in-a-company-...
We are down in San Luis Obispo, 3.5 hours south ... is working from here and commuting up for meetings out of the question?
I have since removed my original co-founder from the application and I plan to update the application with my new co-founders information. I wanted to know if there was a particular way I should handle such an update to the application? I guess I am also curious to know how this might affect our application, and whether this has occurred before? Thanks for any help in advance.
This makes me curious about the process.
I assume this means that an application is at least initially seen by only one partner. I see the advantage in parallel processing, but what if one person rejects something the other five would have gone for?
What puts founders on the "let's interview" pile? Is it the choice of one reviewer, or are promising applications then reviewed by the remaining five (or maybe just pg) to see if there's an agreement?
In the past it was hard for anyone to unilaterally reject an application. Nearly all were seen by at least two of us. That will probably no longer be the case with this batch though, because we expect a lot of applications.
Just curious.
These seem like conflicting statements: on the one hand you're looking for a groundbreaking, original idea. On the other you seem to advise comparisons to existing products, which immediately appears to dilute the value of the product and pigeonholes the mission of the team.
Could you comment on the balance you are looking for between these two? Would you rather someone describe their business as "Like [big website] for [target market]" or distinguish themselves for its inherent value?
To make my point clearer... Originally we were saying we wanted to do X. To do X you need Y and Z but especially Y. After re-scoping we are now saying we will put all our focus on Y (which is a product in itself), see how things play out, then see about everything else.
What if the startup (single founder) is already passed the building stage and is now looking to scale.
Would it make more sense to start hiring a team instead of finding a co-founder?
In this specific scenario (obviously an exception), would the single founder issue still be that much of a problem, or is it diluted down now that they company is established somewhat.
What I meant to ask was at a certain point in a single founder startup would it be more beneficial to start hiring people rather than looking for a co-founder?
Or should a co-founder be brought on no matter where the company is at, but at a lower equity stake then if they were there from the beginning?
"We look at online demos only for the most promising applications, so don't skimp on the application because you're relying on a good demo."
That leads me to believe so, but thought I'd ask!
Footnote 2 sounds a little stale.
Another question that kind of sticks out as a wild card is:
Please tell us something surprising or amusing that one of you has discovered. (The answer need not be related to your project.)
Unfortunately, you don't really talk about it in the how-to. Is this not that important of a question for you? Is it just an opportunity to get a sense of the applicants personality? In general what are you trying to evaluate with this question?
Would evidence of some random (yet to be done) side project help? Good chemistry in the video? Anecdotal evidence that we've built up trust and a good relationship? Good legal framework?
We are still actively building a larger team of course but these things take time. This is the only part of the application that worries me. =)
We are actively working on building a relationship that can survive the startup process and if not, we're trying to find that out sooner rather than later. I guess we'll just have to do our best to explain that in the application/video.
We don't if we don't invite you to interviews. This explains why: http://ycombinator.com/whynot.html
"Please tell us about the time you, ONE FOUNDER NAME, most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage."
We are three founders. Do you want just one founder to answer or is this a mistake(probably mine)?
When we fund single founders, we usually suggest they try to find cofounders if they can. But we can't force them to, and not all do.
Thank you for responding.
If one of the founders is under aged, is there any kind of additional step to take?
(I'm aware that there are differing theories out there on the merit of shrouding a startup idea in secrecy, and my own personal opinion on the matter is that it totally depends on the idea. But the question still holds.)
Ideas are worth less than a dime a dozen. Being successful comes down to execution. In my experience, if an idea is really good, a number of people will come up with it at around the same time.
Incubators like ycombinator have seen thousands of start-up ideas over the years. Most likely some of them overlapped, and there has probably been a good amount of duplication (deal of the day site--only for food!). If there was an NDA for every single one of these, any successful company that might have duplicated an idea unintentionally (ie, they came to the same idea themselves) might get in trouble later down the road when another entrepreneur says "hey, that was my idea, they must have stolen it!"
EDIT: seems like me and iqster had the same basic comment :)
No, we won't sign an NDA. No venture firm would at this stage. The informal commitment to secrecy on our application form is more than any VC would make.
In this connection you may want to read the first section of How to Start a Startup on the value of mere ideas."
Thanks, I missed this. The "informal commitment" is what I was looking for.
I've noticed a lot of push-back from people. It's very discouraging, especially when phrased as well-meaning and matter-of-fact.
If would be nice if there was more time between knowing you've been invited for an interview (April 7th) and traveling for the interview (April 23-28th). Since that's less than a month's notice, it means that airfare will be at it's highest.
Also, I'd say "people" rather than "person," because we care not just about the founders but about the strength of their relationship.
It seems like all three (those two and HN) are communities where the type of people you like to fund would spend a lot of time.