Hacker News Reader

Comment by simulate-me | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure many of these companies will be successful, but I'm underwhelmed by most companies on the list. The AI and biology-based companies seem the most interesting in that they're attempting to push the envelope forward. The rest seem to be some combination of:

1) Do X slightly better

2) Do X in new region Y

3) Do X using NFTs

4) Be a bank to those underserved by existing banks

Obviously the point of these companies is to make money, not necessarily to push the technological boundary of human progress, but I miss being inspired by what YC was encouraging people to build.

View on HN

I disagree here. I think this batch is actually extremely interesting for a few reasons.

The B2B companies all seem to be providing non-incremental changes to industries.

Seeing CX prioritized is something that makes me happy -- a large number of B2B companies have to build out undifferentiated CX tooling to help support large business teams that need to interact with their APIs.

Cloud architecture management is also something that seems to have gotten some love. Existing tooling works on IAC to try to derive insights, but often these are artifacts created after a visual representation of the infrastructure. Skipping this hop and avoiding disconnects here is very interesting, and there are a lot of ways to extend the functionality of this tech.

Further, there's some real-estate tech that has a chance to eat away at a large and unmodernized industry.

Beyond B2B, expanding YC's footprint in Africa is something that has the potential to bring a lot of customer impact in an area that often functions differently than the rest of the world. Africa has been siloed off and developed tech in a radically different direction than the rest of the world. Just looking at the payments infrastructure in places like Nigeria, you can see why a barrage of companies would come out that seem similar but require completely different tech solutions. I'm excited to see how this moves forward, and happy that YC is going to help foster the tech ecosystem in places like Lagos.

I do agree with you on Web3 investment though. I think it's mainly a waste.

This is actually the main reason I haven't applied to YC. I can think of things that would be awesome if they were 10x better, but I feel they are either too ambitious (drone delivery), already being done (ai robot that packs boxes arbitrarily), or too difficult (general AI, jetpacks)

YC has funded a company building supersonic passenger jets (https://boomsupersonic.com/) and underwater mining robots (https://impossiblemining.com/), I don't think “too ambitious” is a problem for them if you can convince them that you're capable of delivering.

Serious question, let's say that I have delivered or proven some prototype to users, but I am not already famous or rich or powerful.

How would I convince YC that though I am technically gifted and people like my prototype, there is probably a founder out there elsewhere who has the ability to make the legal/manufacturing side of things work?

Airbnb and Uber essentially disregarded local regulations and let things fall as they may. If you do that with the FCC or DOE I imagine things are a bit more serious?

Most of the problems out there that need solving are not data ones anymore, they're physical/manufacturing related in my opinion.

FROM THE ARTICLE: > We strive to be a bridge for everyone – no matter who they are, where they live, or what demographic they belong to – to enter the startup world.

That was the situation for me and many other I know. YC explicitly looks for overlooked founders and companies. They'll take risks other won't. They discount credentialism more than any other S-tier VC I know.

FROM THE ABOVE: > let's say that I have delivered or proven some prototype to users, but I am not already famous or rich or powerful. How would I convince YC that though I am technically gifted and people like my prototype, there is probably a founder out there elsewhere who has the ability to make the legal/manufacturing side of things work?

Keep demonstrating traction, and find that founder out there who can make it work.

FROM THE ABOVE: > Airbnb and Uber essentially disregarded local regulations and let things fall as they may. If you do that with the FCC or DOE I imagine things are a bit more serious?

That's after they had initial traction. YC accepted ABNB off of literal airbeds on people's floors.

> Airbnb and Uber essentially disregarded local regulations

Not really. There were almost no AirBnB regulations before AirBnB because no one was doing anything like that at scale.

Uber/lyft got started as a "town car" service, which is legally very different from a taxi. The essential difference is that "town cars" can't do "street hail" - they can only do rides when they're specifically called (or messaged). "Street hail" is where you flag down a ride.

Confusing this is that most taxi companies also offer town-car services, but even pre-Uber/Lyft, most town car providers were not taxis.

No one thought that town car services could compete with taxis before Uber/Lyft. Plus, all previous town car services were "call us for our cars", not two-sided market places/aggregators.

That's why there were very few town-car regulations.

> There were almost no AirBnB regulations before AirBnB because no one was doing anything like that at scale.

You mean unlike the piles of settled law governing the hospitality industry?

> Uber/lyft got started as a "town car" service, which is legally very different from a taxi.

Which is exactly like a taxi. It is a vehicle that you do not own that some else is driving to take you places, where you will pay per ride.

> You mean unlike the piles of settled law governing the hospitality industry?

Short-term rentals are/were not part of the hospitality industry.

>>> Uber/lyft got started as a "town car" service, which is legally very different from a taxi.

> Which is exactly like a taxi. It is a vehicle that you do not own that some else is driving to take you places, where you will pay per ride.

You mean buses? Trains? Airlines?

Taxi services are services that can legally accept riders via "street hail". There are "rides for rent" that are not done via street hail and they are regulated differently. This LEGAL distinction predates Uber/Lyft by decades.

It's a bit confusing because most taxi companies provide both street hail and arranged-ride services. However, most "rides for rent" companies do not have street hail privileges.

Uber/Lyft did "call for a ride" on a scale that no one had imagined and via a two-sided marketplace. Previous companies didn't work that way.

> Short-term rentals are/were not part of the hospitality industry.

Tricks with words won't work. AirBNB competes with hotels who are very much in the 'short term rental' business: you can rent their rooms for a short period.

> You mean buses? Trains? Airlines?

If you want to stretch the definition to those cases where the vehicle does not drive you door-to-door that's fine by me but it looks as if you are just - again - playing word games.

AirBNB competes with hotels by using private property as hotels, Uber competes with taxis by breaking the law. Whether you want to see it like that or not isn't really my problem but redefinition of terms does not change the law.

I don't care if the scale is different, though them operating at scale is part of what makes them problematic.

> AirBNB competes with hotels

So what? So does staying with friends/family. So does using an RV. As does camping.

Lots of things "compete with hotels" but that doesn't mean that they're subject to hotel regulations.

Hint: the law is words that have meaning.

> Uber competes with taxis by breaking the law.

No. Uber/Lyft competes with taxis by offering transportation with the "town car" model, which is legally distinct from the "street hail" model.

Prior to Uber/Lyft, no one thought that the town car model could scale. Street hail obviously scaled and there were tons of regulations/laws around it. There are different regulations for town car.

Uber/Lyft doesn't do street hail so it isn't subject to regulations specific to street hail.

The fact that Uber/Lyft figured out how to scale town car does not "redefine" them into the street hail business.

If your 'prototype' does something materially useful wherein there's some kind of clear revenue opportunity, then it doesn't hurt to apply. And you can always apply again.

YC has funded multiple companies drone delivery companies - Volansi, Pyka, Flirtey, etc., and they've also funded a jetpack company (Jetpack Aviation). Being too ambitious or too difficult is not an issue, and if you want to apply to YC you should

Thanks so much for the reply, could you check out my message to the other user? Genuinely curious as I feel like I have good ideas, have delivered in the past, and can apply with working prototypes for my ideas.

My main concerns are applying without solutions for legal/physical scalability.

One of the things YC gets you is access to lawyers. And if their lawyers don't have the expertise you need, they can send you to one who does and you can use the money you get to pay said lawyers.

The fact that you know you need lawyers you can't currently afford is a good start because it shows you're at least thinking about the problem.

YC is one of the best ways to get funding and access to the highest tiers of investor and advisers. It's startup funding on easy mode, if you can get in. The rest of your batch doesn't really matter.

> Do X in new region Y

This one was always puzzling to me, and maybe I'm underestimating the lift to move into new regions, but why is this a thing? Why doesn't the main big player move into Africa, or India, or LatAm? Why can't Stripe be the Stripe for Africa as an example? Why does there need to be another company that's specific to that geo.

Understand that and you understand a lot about how the world works.

'Everything is Different'.

Imagine in Spain 25 years ago people didn't use debit/credit for much at all, that buying a car with consumer credit was a big deal, and home ownership is new. Getting credit scores is hard. Opening bank accounts might be difficult. In Indonesia perhaps most people are 'unbanked' in the way we understand it. Maybe there were/are few proper internet connections to do transactions. The major local banks are controlled by a cabal that you need to bribe. Or it's an oligarchy that will not let you in. Or there's a custom 'national system' i.e. 'Carte Bleue' in France that everyone uses and it's pointless to do anything around that. Privacy regulations, localized data, risk, banking regulations, ambiguity, lawyers, fiduciary requirements, reporting requirements.

Or literally 'employees don't show up' or 'electricity is not constant' or 'the Local Magistrate takes 10% cut' or 'The local warlord wants a cut' or 'nobody is qualified to do anything' or 'the employees got upset and shot/beat a manager' or 'sanctions shut down a key component'.

And that's the short list.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com