We shouldn't, it's the exact opposite. As the network grows, the ecosystem of high quality advisors goes up, not just because better people join, but people are learning to become better advisors through being a part of the network. Not only that, but as the network grows so does the YC economy of potential partners. Instead of YC companies purchasing goods and services from outside the network (and thus bleeding valuation of the network) keeping money flowing in the YC economy only accelerates the value of the entire network. As this monetary flow through the network grows and accelerates so does the quality of the people managing the companies in the networks and thus potential future advisors to new companies joining the network.
Granted YC is probably more aware of these downfalls than most companies, and are trying to mitigate them, but to act like YC can only get better as it expands is really short sighted.
I'm sure every person on this board can think of dozens of companies that failed because they got too big and could no longer deliver value as well as smaller companies. The tech space is littered with them every year.
>I'm sure every person on this board can think of dozens of companies that failed because they got too big and could no longer deliver value as well as smaller companies. The tech space is littered with them every year.
Yes to both points. And so is the business (management) consulting and literature space littered with stuff, a.k.a. work and talks and books and confs about all that. Throwing out a few words that give a flavor:
Disruption (ha!), Clayton Christensen, Tom Peters, reengineering, innovator's dilemma, the HP way, Lou Gerstner, Teaching Elephants to Dance, Jack Welch, the HP Way, the IBM Way, the Toyota Way, Made in America, Made in Japan, etc. Tip of the iceberg.
Really?