This is cool, are there any other programs like this out there except Y Combinator and Capital Factory? I would have thought that the success of Y Combinator would launch a lot of copycats
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2009/01/05/daily9...
"If we don’t understand the idea or the space, Cummings said, we’re not going to [invest in it.]"
Look forward to a lot of mediocre ideas, then. I'm glad early investors didn't say this about things like the gasoline engine. But of course that effort was probably bootstrapped.
Why is it called Shotput?
However, YC still has the brand and the experience with this format.
I’m one founder who has great admiration for YC, but I just don’t think they have the key to startup success. I think this should be clear in all HN readers mind despite the hype around here. Ultimately it will serve the startup world very well that YC get competitors, because no matter their commitment they will not spot all future success.
Nobody said that YC had "the key".
They said that YC involvement (1) correlates with startup success and (2) recognized as such.
YC is too small a factor in the market to say that lack of YC involvement has any meaning and no one has said that it does.
ycom also seems to be more consumer focused, which is what most of the techblogs cover because it brings eyeballs. consumer exits are often big pay days, but more importantly to me at least — the most fun to work on. B2B is often a drab. lol
i think some of these incubators should not forget the enterprise play either. Austin Ventures had A/V Labs awhile back, but I don't recall much about its success.
Brand in this case means that YC:
A) Attracts the best startups. If you're going to gun for one of these, YC is at the top of your list. B) Attracts the best investors. It's in the Valley and historically has actually made some investors a pile of money already. C) Attracts acquisitions.
Past performance doesn't not guarantee future returns, however. It'll be a slow change in brand perception, much like an elite school slowly falling out of favor in favor of a newer school.
Not only that, but these companies are becoming regionally specific, which means you'll go to the one in your city first before you apply somewhere else, or that's what I would do anyways.
pg has an active role in the local universities (which are world class btw), and is more philanthropical in his approach with nurturing talent and intelligence. lots of people admire him because of he's genuine. and imo, a lot of these other incubators popping up have alternative intentions. i'm not saying that it's wrong for there to be capital motives, but I think pg's approach is what separates him from a lot of the others.
my suggestion is if you're considering any of these programs, then study their boards, compare the application process, and pick the one that fits you best.
I'm certainly guessing here, but it seems pretty common sense. Ask 100 embryonic startups who are considering this path which investment entity would be their first choice and what do you think you'd learn? I think you'd learn that (if they'd done their homework) they'd pick the one with the longest track record, the best PR, the biggest demo day, the most competitive program (as measured by application-to-acceptance) and the most founders who got rich. YC wins on all of those fronts.
Even if your regional theory holds (it probably does for a meaningful percentage of startup, but plenty are willing to relocate), wouldn't you assume that the bay area has WAY more qualifying software startups who'd be interest in such things and thus (mathematically) would attract more good ones?