Similar startups that have emerged from the YCombinator and TechStars stables
codeth.com
codeth.com
YC lists about 70 startups, and TechStars about 20. I think with that many companies coincidence is more or less guaranteed -- a sort of weird permutation on the birthday paradox. Or, put another way, there's 1400 "pairs" of startups between these two first, and 3 coincidences. Hardly damning evidence in my book.
Further, the startups in question seem like fairly obvious given the current tech climate. Geolocation is an increasingly big deal these days, as is local, high-quality food. And who doesn't want better comments on their blogs?
Remember: all else being equal, the simplest explanation is probably correct.
If anyone saw the applications we get, they'd be more inclined to assume coincidence as the default explanation. It's not unusual to get 5 applications proposing basically the same idea.
Incidentally, we've funded 118 startups, not 70. The FAQ only lists the ones that are launched.
Anyway, I think likely these are coincidence more than anything. A good rule of thumb: If you have a good idea, someone else has it as well. Right now. And they're working on it, too.
Anecdote: My biz partner and I started work on what we think is a great idea beginning of last December almost immediately after a late-night brainstorming session on IM. By mid-January we'd identified two similar competitors that had launched in the past couple of months. By February we found another that seems similar (but is unlaunched). And two weeks ago a fourth competitor came out of nowhere and launched.
All that means is that other people think our idea is good, too. We think that's probably a good sign (and so hope to launch in the next couple of weeks).
What I wanted to highlight is - there are several seed stage venture funds around now, and one must be a tad careful lest they disclose to too many entities.
I did edit the title as one member found it inflammatory and called it linkbait.
Other YC-like organizations have done various moderately dubious things over the years, but there's no evidence any of them have done anything so serious as stealing applicants' ideas.
I've written clearly that both venture funds under discussion are too big to bother about a team that goes to another fund.
The fact that these companies are similar and graduated at similar times from their respective funds prompted me to think about confidentiality irrespective of what really transpired between them.
My stream of thought led me wonder how disclosure to an irresponsible fund (there are hundreds of funds all over the world now and you might have a black sheep - i'm sure you could allow me that assumption) might mean that a startup will have a clone to contend with when it graduates,and felt like sharing my thoughts.
I'm not trying to implicate anyone (I could never gather the evidence for it, and even if I managed to, it would be an exercise in futility) and quite obviously none of these companies owe anyone explanations - they're quite wonderful. In fact over the course of compiling the article, I've read a fair bit about them and appreciate the effort each has put in into identifying differentiators and competing with a rival/rivals.
one must be a tad careful lest they disclose to too many entities
But I'm afraid your comment will reinforce a bad idea in many who read it. A better mantra, though not exactly true either, is "your idea isn't worth anything".
Completely agree, I think I've discussed my idea/startup with many people, I don't think I've been secretive with it at all. In my case though it's not so easy to steal - as it actually requires serious effort to implement and it's not a one winner takes all kind of market.
But I've found discussing my idea with many people has helped mould what was a concept into a series of hurdles, which has made it clearer in my mind what I need to do.
This has also helped me come up with several possibilities for shortcuts to get it to market earlier.
I personally think that unless you're trailblazing something very new or producing something that can be easily copied, you probably shouldn't be trying to keep quiet about it.
That's just my opinion though.
EDIT - just an addendum.
If you are going to discuss your idea with people, I find its best to NOT talk it over with your friends. The bias usually leans towards you getting overly positive feedback. Good for the ego, bad for the idea process.... you may end up wasting your time (which is your most valuable asset) on something not worthwhile.
And I'll surprise you by saying I subscribe to the school of thought that believes ideas are cheap. I honestly do.
However, over time, i'm assuming you develop an ability to subject your idea to fairly rigorous evaluation based on experience; and confidentiality might then mean much more to you.
It's really amazing though, the feedback and the varied points of view.
I must compile a list of disclaimers to be prepended to the article. 'Don't be naive about your idea' definitely will be one of them!
Occam's Razor.
The explanation for this is pretty simple: the groups we like, we fund.
In this case, what incentive do you have to keep the idea to yourself, and not tell/hint at it to a funded startup?
That we promised to. And in actual fact it is very rare to hear a good idea from a group we don't want to fund. I can only remember being constrained by our policy once, when a group we interviewed had an idea I thought would be useful to Bountii (I think it was).
This looks like your blog's first post, and you've been on HN for less than a month? You're not off to a good start.
When I'd written the article it never occured to me that the title might come across as inflammatory. I think an edit is due.
However, I do feel the underlying issue is well worthy of discussion. What I personally feel is if you believe you have the next big idea, you must limit disclosure to a handful. There's a fear of rejection that might compel many to disclose their concept at several fora. That might eventually hurt them.
And finally, please don't get personal. I'm expressing personal opinion, and I'm ready to edit bits if they seem insinuous/inflammatory. But nobody likes getting flamed after having put in a fair amount of effort into compiling something they feel might be insightful to others.
I think you missed my point. You're trying to have it both ways: you're not willing to stand behind an actual accusation, so instead you hide behind weasel language and only insinuate.
When I'd written the article it never occured to me that the title might come across as inflammatory.
You didn't think insinuating that these incubators are stealing ideas and passing them to their own people would be inflammatory? Please.
What I personally feel is if you believe you have the next big idea, you must limit disclosure to a handful.
Fine, then say that. You have no evidence that it's actually happened, though. Your little list is not evidence.
And finally, please don't get personal.
What did I say that was personal? Everything I've said has been directly about the article, except for the bit that you weren't off to a good start.
But nobody likes getting flamed after having put in a fair amount of effort into compiling something they feel might be insightful to others.
I have a really hard time believing you had no clue this would be seen negatively by some people. The whole point of the article is to insinuate, without any real evidence, that these companies are doing something unethical. Honestly, what did you expect in return?
Well, how else do you present negative or inconclusive results? I would say the correct method is to ask a question: "will my startup have to compete with a clone if I seek VC?" That's pretty much what he did. He presented the evidence, and frankly, it's not very strong. That doesn't make it a disingenuous post, just a boring one.
"In 2003, MySpace launched. Then in 2004, Facebook launched. Conspiracy? You decide."
YC's obviously seminal in that, and it's understandable the community around it is suss of the other players, and doesn't want to see the expansion accompanied by activities that could damage everyone, and that's clear in the posts the last few days.
But we should all be cheering on the rise of this as a class of activity bigger than any one program (no matter how innovative or great any one program like YC is).
The frenzy of new activity feels to me like a pointer to a coming boom in new ideas and investment and the creation of a new generation of great companies out of a dark period.
At the same time, YC has obviously set the bar high, and it would damage the class if other players get it wrong.
But having talked with guys who have been through both YC and TechStars, it seems pretty clear to me that the folks going through them have had massively overwhelmingly positive experiences, and there is no malevolent behaviour going on here.
You're going to get coincidences, you're going to get competition over good companies and jockeying over them, and you're going to get some experiments with new stuff that do or don't work.
And all of this is awesome for startups.