Would have liked to read why in person is better.
I imagine the biggest reason is it raises the sense of commitment for everyone involved.
I imagine the biggest reason is it raises the sense of commitment for everyone involved.
I participated in YC S15.
We all quit our jobs, and my co-founders moved to from Atlanta to SF for the summer, we rented a big house as a live/work space, and drove together to Mountain View the required few times a week. We went to a lot of optional things together like additional office hours, parties, meetups, together and in person.
That level of commitment and pretty much daily face to face working time is powerful.
It's not possible for everyone given circumstances, and its not sustainable forever. But that means that the teams that can and do opt into a summer like this are very committed to their idea.
So it's not hard to imagine it's "better" to relocate for a stretch of something hard like getting a business off the ground than doing it all fully distributed.
So yeah, it isn’t possible for many, if not most people. I’m not a fan of the model.
Comparing “move to another city (or country) for three months” with “there is a limited amount of time in everyone’s day” is a rather disingenuous way to frame the discussion. You make it sound like it _must_ be a zero-sum game when it doesn’t have to be.
The YC (and by extension, all YC-like) model comes across more as a system of selection and control for a specific demographic that has little to do with potential for success.
Have people tried remote accelerators? If they're viable and competitive then they should have no problem flourishing, especially given the apparent number of WFH diehards. Honestly I wouldn't bet on it.
What if you want to be an actor, or a comic, or a filmmaker? You basically have to move to LA or NY. There are lots of opportunities that require very large commitments. You can think of your commitments, hobbies, routines, each on average occupying a certain percentage of your day. Having a kid is a huge one. Doing a hustle growth startup is another. Is it really reasonable to try and do both at the same time? One or both will suffer.
Thats not what I said.
> it's hard to argue that they haven't hit on something that works better than the known alternatives.
Does it work better though? Barring some statistical outliers such as unicorns, VC backed startups from accelerators don’t measurably do better at all for the founders.
> What if you want to be an actor, or a comic, or a filmmaker? You basically have to move to LA or NY.
So, actors only work in […checks notes…] LA or NY?
This kind of egregious reductionism as support for the idea that a startup can only be successful if you dedicate your entire life to it to the exclusion of literally everything else (family, hobbies, “routines” - whatever that may mean) is not giving me the feeling that you are interested in a meaningful discussion, this is more like reddit point-scoring, which is not interesting, so I’m leaving it at this.
Does it work better though? Barring some statistical outliers such as unicorns, VC backed startups from accelerators don’t measurably do better at all for the founders.
Ok, then what's the problem? Just don't do it, easy. You started this off by lamenting that they ask for too much of a commitment, now you're saying that they don't really add value. I'm not sure what argument you're driving at.
"Egregious reductionism"? Who's point-scoring again? That sentiment about e.g. Hollywood is pretty widespread conventional wisdom. Can you make it elsewhere, sure, but that's beside the point. My point is that there are certain jobs and opportunities that require a lot of commitment and giving up of other things, and that closes them off to a lot of people, but that's ok. You've avoided making any argument against that by nitpicking and shifting your argument.
Nobody is stopping anybody from living a family life in the suburbs and starting a VC backed startup in their spare time. Be a rebel, buck the trend, prove 'em wrong! But maybe understand that there may be some truth to the idea that you're putting yourself at a disadvantage in an already tough environment, and that getting a bunch of people together in the same room and grinding actually does have value, it's not just toxic YC bro culture or whatever.
exclusion of literally everything else (family, hobbies, “routines” - whatever that may mean)
Routines are things like brushing your teeth, showering, sleeping; eating may even be considered a routine. You have a very real time budget you have to balance. You seem unwilling to accept this. Go ahead, do it all, I wish you luck!
The core hypothesis is that the startup team should be working in person to be more effective. If one doesn't agree with that, they have a great market opportunity - start "YC, but fully remote". YC is not going to compete there it seems.
Networking is fundamentally an in-person thing. The remote-only people can whine all they want, but that is simply an immutable fact.
Building a startup requires most of your time on non-coding tasks.
It’s harder to do because we aren’t used to it but I attended a really well done Zoom mixer in 2021 that was absolutely amazing and didn’t great job. It almost felt like I was in person honestly.
People aren’t used to changing their norms so quickly. This is what the real issue is
I do wonder what percent of YC companies force moves to SF. If a bunch of those people are moving anyways, running a batch in some other city (hell, Seattle or NY is surely filled with decent stuff) would be interesting. And on the YC-side, moving out somewhere for 3 months might give them their own novelty bonus as well.