How to Apply to Y Combinator | Hacker News Reader

How to Apply to Y Combinator

ycombinator.com

201 pointspg131 comments

> Whereas if we can see obstacles to your idea that you don't seem to have considered, that's a bad sign.

If I listed the top 10 actual obstacles for a given project I'd bet half of them would seem totally unintuitive. I'm skeptical of anyone (even other hackers) trying to judge the specific technical or business obstacles of something they don't know much about.

Yes, and in fact we look for that. We love it when people tell us things that are non-obvious. That's a sign they really understand the problem.

The funny thing is that given the space allocated to cover all those scenarios, the applicant ends up in a situation very similar to game theory (a post yesterday on HN pops to mind).

You, as the applicant, have to figure out what PG will consider non-obvious so you cover those, but keeping in mind that if there is anything obvious that PG would have thought you should cover, then you should cover those as well, but don't cover stuff that PG considers truly obvious and not worth covering...

Just like game theory implies, winning at this game pretty much means that both you and PG are on the same wavelength (from a though-process point of view).

Which sounds kind of obvious(), once I reach that conclusion.

() extra credit will be given to people who cover the question of whether this post was useful from a game-theory standpoint. Was this post obvious in a useful way, or just plain obvious, or...?

Actually there is a standard for non-obviousness: what's not obvious to your competitors. We have a question specifically about that.

    What do you understand about your business 
    that other companies in it just don't get?

The amusing thing is, this question turned out to be an instance of itself. Many of the YC clones who copied our application form cut this one, because its purpose wasn't obvious.

I had thought that question was clearly about competitive advantage through new and unique perspectives, as part of evaluating the business/technical idea. As such I'd expect the clones to include it. I'm twice mistaken.

I now see it's also about noticing non-obvious things, as a way to evaluate the founders; and that this better fits YC's philosophy of funding people not products.

PG, please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage.

http://ycombinator.com?

YC is pretty recent and he did it in his forties.

I was thinking about what he did when he was younger, just like the situation of someone that would apply to YC.

I think that would count as a computer system.

It's not the website. It's hacking the startup eco-system.

One day in grad school my advisor unexpectedly said something along the lines of "so, are you nearly done with your dissertation?" I was nowhere near done. But, keeping calm, I replied that yes, while I had a few things to finish up, I thought I should be done in time to graduate that June. Then I went back to my office and started writing as fast as I could. I finished about a day before the deadline. The result was not particularly good, but it got me out of grad school, which was all I wanted at the time.

If anyone has any questions I didn't answer, please ask them on this thread. I still consider this essay a draft; if anything important comes up here, I'll incorporate it in the next version.

It seems to me that to have people make videos and then discard a lot of them without ever looking at them (which the text suggests is the case) would be a lot of wasted effort ?

It scales better than only requesting videos from teams that are interesting. The latency involved with doing that would make the application selection process take a lot longer than it does to just ask everyone to send in a video to begin with.

If I applied, I would definitely make a video, even if noone looks at. PG has mentioned multiple times that it's statistically helpful. If it comes down to you and some other guy who didn't make a video, I'm sure the extra effort is noticed.

Sounds like a good risk/reward profile for my effort to me.

The amount of effort that gets "wasted" per unwatched video is probably relatively small. Per the video instructions (http://ycombinator.com/video.html), producing the video really shouldn't take much time at all (my guess is less than five minutes for a group that a) already has well defined goals and b) has a macbook, where there's almost no overhead to record a video). Additionally, the very act of making the video is likely beneficial to the groups, by forcing them to solidify their ideas enough to be comfortable talking about them and by having them practice giving an elevator pitch about their idea.

I see you are subscribing to philosophy of no planning required and only one take. I once spent about 3 hours to do a 1 minute pitch.

I agree that it take lots of time to make a "professional" looking pitch, but based on the instructions, it looks like pg wants as much spontaneity as is practical.

Try recording yourself doing a one minute pitch. You'll be amazed at how short (to explain what you're doing) and how long (to not blow it) a one minute pitch can be. Now try coordinating 2-3 people doing that.

We're doing a little 1-2 minute video explaining our stuff at the moment and staying rather lo-fi and plan at least 10 hours of work on it.

producing a half decent video, even if it is only 5 minutes worth of production is a lot of work.

If that's so, my skills at setting up lighting, choosing angles, and editing, learned on a A-level equivalent Media Studies course, would be more useful than my entire Software Development degree!

It should be even less work than that. We don't care about the pitch in the video. That's already in the application. We just want to see what the founders are like as people.

Trying too hard to pitch in the video is actually a mistake, because it makes the video stilted.

When we applied during the last cycle, we made videos for each of the founders individually and edited them together. Didn't take much time at all, but it did lead to an interesting thought process about "how do I come across well in a short 'hello' video? what do I want to project?" and of course "what will grab their attention?"

In the end I shot my video with a cell phone camera. Took two takes and about 5 minutes. Finding the right location for it took a little longer, but fortunately the place just popped up one day while walking around town.

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is completely relevant, but we have a product that we're going to launch soon, and I was wondering whether you would prefer your applicants have products/demos not yet launched as that might be better for PR purposes, etc.

Yeah, I'd definitely be interested in hearing how much a demo matters when it comes to choosing. I felt like that was a major weakness my group had the one time we applied in the past.

A good demo helps a lot, especially in the final stages.

Definitely launch, if it's what you'd do otherwise.

Announcing YC funding is newsworthy, and you'll get a press hit for it any time you want.

It might be worth discussing the "are any of these the case" (sole founder, keeping an existing job, can't move, etc.) question a bit -- the form says that these are not automatically disqualifying, but if you can give an example in each case of when they would or would not be disqualifying (and thus give people some idea of where the grey area is) it would probably help some people.

The point of this question is just to alert us to go back and check the application for problems. Before we added it, we often used to miss these things.

Here's how the question is used in practice. We vote on applications without necessarily checking it. Then at the end when we have a ranked list, we go back and check to see whether any of the top ranked ones have any signs of breakage. (That's when we check the answer to this question.) If they do we dig deeper, maybe asking the founders questions. What we decide depends on that digging.

So it's not as if we have some kind of rule that if a startup answers this question yes, 30% gets subtracted from their score, or anything like that. This question acts more as a warning light.

Here's how the question is used in practice...

Well, yes. I more or less understood all of that based on comments you've made in the past and what happened last time I submitted a "I can't move to the bay area" application -- my point was that it might be a useful thing to explain in your essay.

A question that is not directly related:

You said

My initial goal is to figure out what kind of group I'm dealing with. Three friends about to graduate from college? Two colleagues who work together at a big company and want to jump ship? Are they all programmers? A mix of programmers and business people? There are maybe 20 or 30 different configurations of founders, most of which I've probably seen by this point.

Is there a subset of these group types that work(s) better than others in your experience? If so, founders might be able to choose cofounders that increase their chance of succeeding.

Also, having worked as a member of a couple of types of groups (startup with room mate / recruiting talented programmers with a similar outlook and goals), I have found that there seem to be problems common to each type.

Since you have a much larger dataset, you might be able to outline the common pitfalls each type of group runs into. Could you do that, at least for the common types of groups?

Seconded -- very good question!

Not really. It matters much more how good the people are than what type of group they are.

The reason I want to know the type of group is that it helps me to interpret the answers to the other questions. E.g. if the founders are undergrads, I shouldn't have as high standards for what they've achieved; if they're colleagues who worked together, I'm curious about whether the idea grew out of some need they had at work; etc.

If you want to know who to pick as cofounders, pick people who are smart and energetic and that you can work well with. Also try to pick people you've known for a while. You need more holding you together than the startup, because there will probably be some point when you dip below the x axis and the startup seems worthless.

Thanks, that makes sense.

I have also found that wanting similar (or at least compatible) things from the startup is also essential.

I tried to start my first real startup (one where we started writing code) with a friend from gradschool. We had known each other for a while, but it didn't work because we had different goals and approaches at the time. He wanted to build a world changing product and focus on that from the get go. I would have loved to do that but wanted to start with building something small that was useful and build up on that. Thankfully we realized this fast and parted amicably.

I was incredibly lucky the second time. I found and recruited someone who is attending the same school I did, but who I didn't know, mainly because he is a great programmer and a frank person. In our first meeting he was direct about everything ranging from his motivation to his weaknesses as a coworker and he expected the same of me. We have now become good friends but in the interim this transparency served as an effective substitute.

In the past year there have been multiple occasions where one of us has felt like the startup is below the X axis. When that happens, having an enthusiastic, frank and committed colleague who believes in the startup and can boost your optimism is a big boon.

All of the things discussed in this essay are problems I see with product design as well.

Lots of people ask me for advice, and the first thing I always tell them is to change the first sentence a user sees on the homepage from "Abstract technologies to help people live better." to "We make a database with a Wiki UI."

This sort of thing fascinates me because the people I talk with who are clear and concise in the beginning are the same people who tend to succeed in the end. It is an amazingly good litmus test for finding good entrepreneurs.

I remember reading about a study which showed that, at least for certain companies, judging from first-decade performance, hiring based on interviews was less intelligent than hiring based purely on GPA [1]. The reasoning was that judgment during interviews is suceptible to various human biases to which GPA's are not.

At least part of PG's reasoning seems susceptible to similar biases: for example, whether or not he recognizes a username might have a lot to do with how memorable the username is. I wonder if sorting users by a subset of their upvotes - say, those received from news.YC alumni - would make more sense in "highlighting" intelligent applicants.

1. Would appreciate if anyone who recognizes this links it for me.

We have lots of biases, but I don't think we're much influenced by how memorable usernames are. It's the comments that make a username memorable, not the name.

I don't think we're much influenced by how memorable usernames are

Well, by definition, biases aren't intuitively obvious. But I'd love to hear explicit introspection about this in the essay: what are your biases, and how do you eliminate their affecting your decisions?

That's a question we think about a lot, because bias basically equals things we judge wrong. I like energetic founders, for example, but one wouldn't call that a "bias," because energetic founders are good. So what you're really asking is what makes us pick wrong, which is something we're constantly thinking about.

When I pick wrong, it's often because the founders seem really nice. That's probably my biggest weakness. The other YC partners have it too. It's much harder to get funded by YC if you're an asshole. But who knows, maybe this is actually an advantage. It means the atmos within YC is really good. Everyone tends to trust one another. So maybe it's a win overall, even if it decreases returns in individual cases.

It's a complicated problem.

It's a complicated problem.

Understated.

The more eyes you have on it, the more varied the views, the weaker the bias becomes but also the more watered down the perspective. You have a solid "review board" size at 4-5. You guys & gal will minimize cognitive biases. I'm only commenting because I spent a few hours recently reading and writing about the topic, it's all new to me though (blog links are in HN).

Great info. Thanks a lot for this, pg. You've pretty much told us exactly what you are and are not looking for in the application.

It will be great info for everyone who decides to read it and pay attention. I bet you that over 80% of the applications will still be garbage.

Of course, I see this as a good thing for everyone who applies who has some clue as to what they're doing.

Are you privy to the applications ? 80% would seem to be a fairly high number.

I think that there is a nice benefit from applying to YC for many small start-up companies, which is that for the first time (on that level of funding I'm assuming it's the first time) you have to get precise about stuff. So even if you do not get selected you're still going to be a big step further.

I'm not privy to anything, as the only thing I have to do with YC is posting here.

However, I acted as a technical adviser to some investors during the first dotcom boom in the 90s. Even in the face of specific requests, there were a shocking number of people who started their responses clearly intending to go into detail, and ending up with a heavy dose of hand-waving.

Having since moved on, I still do hiring and see similar problems with people being unable to read and comprehend simple instructions. There is a shocking amount of _bad_ out there; it just gets worse when people are looking for money.

As an aside, I was being generous with the 80% guess. Anywhere else I would have figured the garbage submissions to have crossed the 90% barrier.

A friend of mine was a sound, power, and lighting technician for some pretty prestigious concert venues. According to him, the "green m&m clauses" of certain bands' touring agreements were a test specifically to see if someone from each venue had actually read the band's technical specification requirements. If you got to the concert location and the green m&ms were not ready, it was time to panic and start finding out where the power was going to cut out when you turned on all the kit...

It would be great to see previous successful applications, if they don't mind. (Unsuccessful ones would be interesting too but that might be weird for them.)

I agree this would be very helpful, but I imagine they're would be a lot of effort on censoring things like personal info, other ideas. I think for example I would like to read just how the successful ones described they're accepted ideas.

great for applicants, but not for the process overall. I imagine if you told people exactly what you're looking for, you'd only just get that from applicants. In essence, you'd have just diluted the power of your discriminator.

What pg's doing here seemed mostly to tell applicants what not to do. He's trying to make his application process scale better, and to increase the signal to noise ratio on the good, but not obviously great teams.

Hopefully I won't feel stupid posting this, but I wished someone had done the same thing when I applied. (pg -- if you'd rather I not share this, feel free to delete)

Original Dropbox YC app: http://files.getdropbox.com/u/2/app.html

Had to remove some names and one sensitive thing but otherwise unedited

You had applied earlier (SFP05?) and been rejected, right? If you don't mind, it'd be really interesting to see the earlier app too and compare what changed between them?

Even though I don't intend on reapplying, this was thought provoking; thanks.

Why would your project be hard for someone else to duplicate? I think this is a critical question.

Several weeks ago I was at a coffee shop and some girl was complaining to her friend about saving her data as they were leaving. Her friend said, "I just use DropBox." Had to smile as it was the first time I saw a (presumably) lay person mention a YC-funded company. It was nice to see an indication of such a breadth of success.

Wow, that is a great application. This is exactly what I meant about being clear and concise. I linked to it from the essay.

Here's the real gem:

"Prototype - done in Feb. Version I can charge for: 8 weeks maybe? (ed: hahaha)"

Ah, founders' optimism.

The document was very informative. A repository of YC apps would definitely be a tremendously useful collection, not just for future YC applications, but for general startup community as well.

That is awesome. Great application.

I wish more people would post their applications.

You seem to be already doing well at the time of the application, why were you applying to YCombinator? Was it the money, the networking, or something else?

This is exactly what I want to know. Must be the networking to sharp folks and help building the business from concept to concrete.

If you were applying as a single founder, how and when did you meet Arash (or at what point did you get him to be cofounder)?

Nice pitch Drew. And of course, I use and love dropbox.

I read this, and I like your thinking about the types of people you are looking for.

But I have to say: You're asking for clarity, want applicants to avoid unnecessary or confusing language, etc. Why not practice what you preach? Why not include some of the "read between the lines" bits in your essay ("If this wasn't already clear, we're not looking for the sort of obedient, middle-of-the-road people that big companies tend to hire. We're looking for people who like to beat the system") and copy and paste them directly into the application form? It will make your life easier, and it will make it easier for YC applicants who are struggling with the process. Judging by the fact that you had to write this essay, people obviously don't know what you want.

How many repeat applications do you see? I am interested in applying and, likely, re-applying while I work on the idea.

Is this common? Does it clutter the application process to see previously rejected applications again and again?

Quite a lot, and we sometimes fund them.

It's only a problem to see an application again if it doesn't change.

Would YC consider accepting founders who can't work full time on their idea? We have been working part time on our product for the last few months and will launch later this year. We don't expect to clear immigration hurdles till sometime in 2010. Does it make sense to apply?

Yes. There ought to be at least one person who will work on it full time in the fairly near future. You sound close enough.

It seems to me that there is some very useful advice here for someone trying to write a resume, even if that wasn't the intended purpose of the posting.

How about someone who needs guidance more than money. Like, someone who is currently employed and wants to do something on the side till it makes sense to go solo and maybe would need funding at that point. Would YC be interested/willing to consider this model and engage with such founder(s) to help review ideas, business models etc.?

What would have to change for it to make sense to go solo?

Since the OP hasn't replied yet, I'll chime in with an example: Suppose his is the sole income supporting a family of 5, and he needs financial resources to feed, clothe, house, educate, and entertain 5x as many people as the typical YC founder. What would have to change would be the availability of said resources.

brlewis is close, I will add mortgage :).

I can live on a Ramen-diet (I prefer cereal though), but not everyone is in(or just out of) college.

The process I'm envisioning is:

1) YC helps founders in this situation vet their ideas, possibly get in touch with others in similar situation and form teams (if needed).

2) YC obviously takes a small stake, but not necessarily puts any real money (or puts just some money).

3) Teams build whatever they are building. Yes, these teams will take longer than dedicated teams.

4) YC helps along with guidance.

5) Once the product is beginning to take shape, founders quit their jobs and try to get funding and launch venture.

I know it will be argued that in this case I'm just trying to have my cake and eat it too, but I don't think what I'm suggesting is totally unreasonable.

Check out the program run by The Funded. I think they are probably the only program out there for very early stage companies that really lets you keep your day job. http://www.founderinstitute.com/

This is my preferred model as well. Is it too conservative to to build a product that users will like first before seeking outside investment?

Thanks pg! I was worried that entering too many secondary ideas would almost appear as a drawback. As if the team wasn't truly dedicated to the idea they were submitting the application for. Its nice to know the team itself is more important.

Also, I'd love to know what percentage of teams have business people, rather than 100% hackers

Off the top of my head, I'd say 10-20% of groups have someone who's a pure business person, in the sense of not being able to program. More commonly there's one programmer who's more outgoing than the rest, and he or she does sales initially.

That's an interesting definition of a pure business person.

It's interesting that YCombinator, which values hackers so highly, included one pure business person (Jessica) among its four partners. Could you explain the reasoning behind that decision? What expertise did Jessica bring that Paul, Robert, and Trevor lack? More generally, when should founders consider bringing on a non-hacker as a co-founder?

Jessica came from an investment bank. She deals with all the legal documents, gets startups incorporated, and so on. She also organizes all the events; we have a lot of those.

At least, that's what we thought we were getting. She also turns out to be an extremely good judge of character, better than any of us. One of her nicknames is "the social radar."

Some folks don't know how lucky they are at meeting the right people at the right time, but you don't sound like one of them Paul. It's hard finding folks to cover all the needs of an early business. I've written about coupling social media with relevant ads for months, so far I've only discovered one business type interested. I gave up and started coding it myself (very limited web programming, desktop c++ for a little under 14 years).

"The first thing I notice when I look at an application is the username it was submitted under. If it's one I recognize for making thoughtful comments on Hacker News, I give the application extra attention."

I was actually surprised by this. In retrospect, it makes perfect sense, but I would never have even thought of this.

Would you consider a competitor to an already YC-backed startup?

Probably. We're going to have to face this eventually. Plus any sufficiently rich market probably has room for several permutations.

Like photos?

Or words, or anything else that can be used in a variety of ways. See real-user discussion here: http://friendfeed.com/seemsartless/d4728c4a/saturday-june-27...

One thing that's confused me about the "Please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage." question is the parenthesis. My guess is that they're included because you'll accept either a computer, or non-computer related example.

If it's confused me, chances are it may confuse others as well.

The reason for "(non-computer)" is that we wanted to distinguish between hacking in the sense of programming, and hacking in the sense of beating the system.

When i saw this question this is what i thought also. I was a tad unsure but when i put my application through in the next month or so i was going to discuss a general system known to everyone and how I was able to conduct myself to ensure that the system worked towards my advantage.

I guess with your comments above paul, it is something along those lines that you are looking for.

Thanks for clarification, oh and the initial question for that matter :)

"Beating the system" makes me think of rebellion. Is this really what you looking for in applicants? Does non-conformism really matter that much?

I think what pg means by this question is: "how resourceful are you in getting want you want/need?" I believe Entrepreneurs need to be creative and relentless in finding exactly what they need to succeed.

The "non-computer" wording is still confusing.

That seems to exclude hacks to computerized systems such as "Profited from eTrade being slow to patch the mutual fund market timing loopholes" or "Flipped laptops on eBay when lots of people used to spell it labtop."

Isn't this also an admission that the application process is a bit broken?

I think a lot of people would be open to submitting their application to others first, to help flesh out the weakpoints. On the menu bar, can we have "new", "threads", ..., and "YC applications"?

Yes, of course. All application processes are. But we're working hard to improve it. We tweak the process in some way almost every cycle.

The idea of having everyone look at one another's application sounds like a minefield, though. Plus I don't want to clutter up HN with YC stuff. Only a minority of the users of this site are even interested in startups.

I realized after I wrote that about twenty reasons why it's a bad idea. But I think some sort of Q&A could be invaluable, especially given the brevity the answers have to conform to and that knowing the right words is something that comes after a lot of baking with the idea. Without it, preference goes to ideas that can be conveyed clearly and simply at the expense of more complex ones.

Would it be possible for the applicant to chose those HN users and YC alumni who have requested to view it? (With full comment threads and voting.)

On the other hand, maybe you don't want to help people submit better applications, because you can still only select a few of them. As the overall quality increases, it becomes more difficult to select between poor and high quality work. At least in the case of my intro bio students, essay 1 is always terrible and therefore easy to grade. I give them lots of tips, etc., for essay 2. The essays all improve, but I still have to assign the same mean grade so all their grades are the same. Basically it just makes my life harder.

I think you analogy with grading papers is flawed. Sure, it's easier to grade bad things than good things, because you don't have to look too deeply, but YC does not have to assign mean grades. They are reading in order to find useful information. If all applications become more concise and useful, that is a net gain, even if it makes the choice of who to interview less obvious.

It's not the analogy that's flawed at all. You admit that this might make that choice of who to interview less obvious, which is exactly my point.

However, if the goal of teaching is to teach students, then obviously one should try to improve their writing! Similarly, as you point out, if the goal of YC is to find useful information, then of course they should provide this additional help.

tl;dr:

Of course, most intelligent people I know would have found everything in this link perfectly obvious. In this case, you'll fail to separate people with good projects and reading comprehension from people with good projects AND good business sense.

It reminds me of applicants to our dorm (residents reviewed applications and rated them, which decided admission). It was easy to get into the dorm if you had any idea what the dorm was about. But some people just "didn't get it" and they were easy to pick out and rate poorly. (Bad application: I want to live here because I'm an architect and the architecture building) (Good application: I want to live here because I like getting naked in a kiddie pool in the middle of winter.)

OT: was this that crazy dorm at Cornell?

Yes :). Ah, college. I miss it.

pg himself said in his essay that they end up passing on a lot of founders who seem qualified, but didn't make themselves clear enough. I bet having to choose between too many well written applications submitted by qualified people would be a great problem for yc to have. =)

Re: describing your product matter-of-factly instead of grandiosely.

At a Startup School, Greg McAdoo of Sequoia described how they wanted each company to have a one-sentence masterplan and described how they made Cisco change their self-description from "We make boxen that do X,Y,Z" to "Cisco Systems networks networks".

If you're applying to be the next Google and most importantly if you guys look for the next Google, I think that sort of implies that the founders have some grand vision for the future of the company and that's the thing they'd want to put forward -- and that you'd want to see put forward so that you're confident they can be the next Google.

I guess what I'm asking is, would it have been better for 1976 Apple to apply saying "We sell a neat microcomputer kit for $666" or "We want usher in a technological revolution by making computers so darn pretty and easy to use that everyone will buy one"?

The former is more accurate, but it's the latter that really represents what the company is about and what its potential is.

I like how PG coralled applicants. They shouldn't puff up their idea as they are the actual investment, but they shouldn't directly puff up themselves because that they should assume the investors will do it. All that is left to do is make an objective, consise description of their idea, its flaws, and their actions.

Simple thoughts.

As someone who interviews developer candidates, this is not just good advice for applying to YC, but to tech jobs in general. Putting bullshit on your resume in any form is the same thing as putting shit on your resume. As with all useful communication, you're limited. Cut to the essence.

Maybe because I'm a little older I'm confused on this one Paul. Why so much competition for 20k? Why are young founders racing to give away up to 10% of their business for such a small amount of capital? I can see the value of the YC network and that's worth a lot to me right now. But rent and fast food money for 3 months seems a little low of a reward on "winning" applications. Is the success rate of YC founders low? (success measured as sustainable/viable business in 5 years or a liquidity event)

I found a good answer on this nest of a comment page: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=715530

Please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-computer) system to your advantage.

What if it was potentially criminal? Would you still want to know:)?

You get what you measure. The application selects for the ability to communicate in pithy statements. Fortunately, this is likely to be somewhat correlated with intelligence. Unfortunately, there are no obviously better methodologies.

I never know what to write about unfair advantages or "why can only you guys do this"

Suggestion: Add a word counter to the application to help people keep it under 120. (Or tell me how to use it if it is there already. :-) )

So let me get this straight--if you make it through the gauntlet of rather arbitrary, hype-driven judgements, you get a whopping $10k and you have to move to the Bay, which has among the highest real estate and cost of living in the country?

How is this not a complete waste of time since it's so exploitive of developers? Oh, that's right, being part of the startup-hype bubble machine entitles you to a magic wand that allows you to step beyond economic reality. Wave the wand, voila! we're so awesome, we're the next Google, we might as well print our own money!

If you're a good developer, you'd probably do better soliciting micro-loans through paypal and Prosper. I suspect any developer who has another option takes it. I myself have several modest software ideas I've been kicking around for two years that might have a small chance for making a good startup. But being paid a subsistence wage, even as an alpha-stage startup, is worse than just keeping the ol'day job and pushing the prototypes as a hobby. Y-Combinator seems to be more for high school and college kids along the lines of Google's annual summer of code.

Most of the value in YC comes from meeting interesting (read: influential) people, learning a thing or two, and, seeing how important it is to know people to get a job, networking - surely it can't hurt to know people if you're running your own business, I'd even go as far and say it's more important than if you were just on the lookout for a regular job.

It's not really about the money.

This has been covered before, but maybe you didn't see it: YC is about the advice, not the money. And originally it was targeted at college kids, for whom the restrictions aren't that restrictive.

I don't understand this approach to criticism. You are saying that the cost/benefit equation doesn't makes sense. OK. This has been discussed before and you can expect get the same responses you have heard before and found unconvincing. If you do not think that doing these things (full time startup, moving, taking investment, etc.) are a good idea generally, it can easily follow that YC is a bad idea.

Then you seem to take this in a silly direction. You imply that everyone else (or at least most other competent people) will agree with you. That is evidently not true. People apply. Out of those, some are competent and ultimately successful. Obviously the cost/benefit equation made sense to them.

I would be interested hearing about the cost/benefit analysis from YC funded groups after they have been funded and/or moved on.

The only way to move beyond subjective and hypothetical judgements like we're making is (obviously) to measure tangible success. Just like how various scientific fields are painfully aware of 'survivor bias' and maintain journals devoted solely to the topic.

It is likely not in the economic interest of these groups to say anything negative about YC, even if they have moved on.

That would still be subjective anecdote. The only non subjective you have to go by is this. Many people have decided that YC good for them.

How is it that you'd had an account here for 179 days, a small bit of karma accumulated, and yet it seems that this is your first exposure to the concept of YC and the sorts of folks who are attracted to this particular startup launch path?

YC for us was much more about the connections than the money. It makes getting in the door a lot of places much easier, VCs/Angels are big on referrals and YC is kind of an insta-referral to anyone you want to talk to.

The value of YC also depends largely on what kind of company you want to start. If you're looking to start a small shop making $500k-$2M (max) a year in revenue with 2-3 people than YC probably isn't for you because that type of business is not venture fundable and thus the venture connections that YC can get you aren't really worth much. However, if you're looking at something that has the potential to be VC backed scale ($10M/yr+ at some point in the future) then the introductions and connections are necessary and the value of YC is clear.

Also, I would add that I think the YC alumni network has become one of the most valuable parts of YC. There are enough alums now that basically someone has had experience with what you are going through and can offer good advice, imho that is the hardest thing about YC to duplicate.

How would one determine which category they likely fall in ($2M max or $10M+ potential)?

You can ask yourself: Can your startup make 500M in 10 years time?

If the answer is YES, then, you're in that group.

I don't know if that's a useful answer for me. There is currently about $3B/year being spent on something I have a cheaper, better solution for. The problem is everyone thinks I'm crazy. There is a huge gap between current thinking on the problem and my thinking on the problem. So most sources of revenue currently available to pay that $3B/year bill would be unlikely to be available to pay for any product I put out there. Also, since my solution drastically shrinks costs, it wouldn't be a $3B/year market. $3B is grossly inefficient. I can't begin to guesstimate what the market would be worth for my solutions.

If its a $3B/yr market your company, if it delivers what you say, could almost certainly make $50M a year even accounting for the market shrinking drastically, couldn't it?

Roflol.

Short, probably flippant-sounding description: I have discovered The Cure for cystic fibrosis. And it is a videogame!

(Actually it's a lifestyle. But mere words have so far proven wholly unable to convey the necessary paradigm shift. So I need a simulation -- aka a computer game. Probably web-based, in part so that advertising can generate revenue since the only viable price point is probably "Free". But also in hopes of generating an online community...etc.)

The roughly $3B is medical expenses spent on roughly 30,000 people. Getting well doesn't happen overnight. It's taken me over eight years to get off all medication. (I am currently drug free for the first time in nearly 9 years, as of early June.) So I have zero reason to believe that I can tap directly into the billions spent annually on drugs, doctors and hospitalizations. Insurance won't pay for the supplements or dietary and lifestyle changes that have allowed me to get well (and they certainly won't pay for a "game").

And the list of issues goes on.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming. Thanks for the feedback. :-D (Sincere thanks. Scout's honor...so to speak.)

Sounds like a market risk company with your marketing machine going up against that of hundred billion dollar market cap companies. Not fun.

However, big congrats on conquering your own situation.

Thanks (for the congrats).:-) So far, my efforts have been very grass-roots. It's only since getting "clean and sober" ;-) that it occurred to me the issue is the information gap and the solution is a simulation.

No offense, but I am curious about the number of YC startups who are currently doing (or done in the past) "$500k-$2M (max) a year in revenue with 2-3 people"?

I only know one, which is exactly my point. You won't find many of them because that isn't the type of company YC was designed to fund. You will find more than a few companies that have raised multiple rounds of VC and are in growth mode (Justin.tv, Xobni, Scribd, Songkick, Dropbox, Loopt, etc) because those companies better match the type of company that YC naturally fits.

This is a great sales pitch for YC, wish it was on their application sheet Jamie :).

I've been wanting to move out to San Jose anyway...

http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html

Huh, somehow missed this one previously. Thanks rms

reading y-combinator startup competition rules. they pay you a mere 10k to be their slave & you have to move to the bay? f'ing rip off!

Tell that to someone who has been a real slave.

And ask around founders at YC about their time during YC. Vast majority wouldn't trade it for anything.

So if the applicant is completely open about their idea and tells you everything, projected data, perhaps past or present data also, fully lay out the idea, how it would work, marketing, everything basically, what is there stopping you from simply executing this idea yourself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com