Incubators are Bullshit

Even among people who run accelerators, incubators, and other types of programs, there is a lot of debate over where the lines begin, end, etc.

Instead of saying "incubators are bullshit" why not just saying "Doing bullshit is bullshit" since that seems to be the actual point of this post. Don't do unproductive stuff that doesn't actually advance your startup. Great. That advice is just as appropriate for outside of incubator people as those within an incubator.

For example, while reading this article I just kept getting distracted from the actual main point - many incubators just provide low cost office space. Is that bullshit? Many incubators aren't actually accelerators like the author seems to confuse the term with. Is that bullshit?

I remember reading an article from the New Yorker where they talked about making fun of wannabe authors who just sit around and do everything that authors are supposed to do except write. They called this "writering" and it seems like the author is trying to say the same thing about "startuping". Good. But that problem will always exist, regardless of whatever incubator you're in or not in.

So maybe we should focus on the actual problem instead of just blasting a straw man, hoping for clicks?

When the Airbnbs came to speak at the last dinner, Brian Chesky said that the 3 months of YC had been the most productive time in their lives.

Successful startup outcomes and solvency in the incubator world are not correlated well. The companies that are selected are carefully directed through a maze of expensive professional services controlled by the program directors. The bargain becomes... if you use this lawyer, this PR consultant and this accounting firm we will support you. What this means is that every failed startup isn't really a failure because in the end that company spends all their money paying off the incubator's network. It's an engine of corruption that takes advantage of people and companies that can least afford it. Whether they create any real startup success is not especially relevant to their continued survival, it's just a bonus.

Many incubator programs also tends to select for people who are very well behaved, polite and have simple A to B ideas. True disruptive innovation is usually created by disruptive people who have very big ideas.

I don't think incubators really intend to hurt founders or the market, but they do.

The overall feeling is: build, get customers, experiment and verify, and build.

The problem is that most accelerators (500 included) have a TON of opportunity for distraction, and undisciplined founders get distracted. For us, 500 was immensely useful because it gave us a network of people to reach out to that didn't exist in our world before 500. For finding customers, verifying assumptions, user testing, raising funding, and all that other stuff that startups have to do, this was incredibly important.

tl;dr: incubators are what you make of them. you can waste your time, or it can be the most productive time you'll ever have, and it all depends on your discipline. you'll have more opportunity than you would otherwise, but you have to be disciplined about what avenues you pursue and which you don't. the same is true of college, incidentally.

EDIT: It's important to note that I made this mistake freshman year at MIT, and learned from it. There was so much opportunity for learning, initially, that I squandered it and tried to do too much. I was incredibly busy, but never really got anything done. I learned to focus on what's important, but the resources I had at MIT meant that focus was better utilized than it would have been at a smaller school with fewer opportunities. The same is true for incubators/accelerators; we saw undisciplined founders have this problem, but we took full advantage of all the resources 500s gave us, and ignored the meetings/events we didn't care about and that weren't useful to us.

It's inevitable that folks would try to copy a model tactically without understanding the strategy. However I've seen European old money enchanted by people that are adept at playing the valley game. For example, one promising approach might be to solve some timely pain-points: what arent startups usually good at? global localized replication post-traction, customer service and backoffice. This is shit that usually gets built "organically" and falls (or fails) over, until real professionals are brought in to make it look more like a real business. That could work since it reduces risk on the investor side (by funding things later) at the risk of accepting higher valuations. They seem to have the ca$h but don't know what else to do with it.

But coming at founders with only a wooly wish and demanding equity is only going to rope in people too desperate to know the difference. Wantrepreneur incubator : not gonna try to portmanteau that. Thankfully, there's an app for that: http://portmanteaur.com/?words=Wantrepreneur+incubator

Honestly, when will sites like this learn?

Focus and learning how to say "no" is a critical skill for any founder to master, whether they're a part of an incubator or not.

Yelp was technically incubated by Max Levchin's incubator (although I'm blanking on what they called it).

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oL0JfmR...

I serious doubt mentor contribution in the startups. Every problem is unique, I exactly don't know what mentors brings to the team and table in such a short meeting (1-2 hrs) on weekly basis.

What if you have additional inventory? What if you need to purchase forwarding commodity price? What if your idea is simply new enough that you don't have any precedents? Incubators can help with that, especially if they have a lawyer and accountant at hand.

There's also a third factor, which is that if you're an international/immigrant or someone from a state unfamiliar with tech industry, then the connections are helpful. The idea of low fidelity networks being worse off is absolute bullshit though, it's been proven over and over again that a large network of weak ties generates a stronger overall response than a small network of strong ties. Weak ties is what builds communities and gives people jobs (which tbh, is exactly what Linkedin managed to do so well technologically)

I also have a pretty high opinion of 500 Startups as an outsider. It seems like 500 goes for singles and doubles more than YC does, and ranges farther afield in trying to get new applicants from underserved areas (although YC has stepped up on this in the past 9 months). I don't have as much data about 500 Startups, but I'd probably say it's a net-accretive thing for participants and a solid #2.

Every other choice I would very closely judge before participating. The problem is most of the people entering are in the least capable position to judge the value of a specific program.

Apply to YC -- Summer 2014 apps close in a couple weeks.

https://apps.co/inscripciones/convocatoria/ideacion-prototip...

To be there, the contract say the founder MUST spend 50%/week of the time in the incubator (hearing lectures, have somebody tell him how make a business plan, "networking", etc).

I have been there, and get out. I have talked with the people that manage that asking "why not copy y-combinator" (with specific points, btw). But the problem is that that "50%" is billable. The get money for each startup wasting time there...

We are applying for incubators now, because it will give us the opportunity to continue doing business and will help us grow our business. We think it will be a good fit, because we are heavy on the engineering side and are looking for some investors to get on board and back our passion with real dollars. Runway + opportunity to focus is the reason you want to get investment or into an incubator.

Anyway, nice work on getting people to your site through a clever title.

Barring few in US and India, you can put the rest in the above two categories. Most of the people running these incubators/accelerators are there for Kicks, Greed, Ego and Entertainment only and themselves don't understand the challenges of building a business. Unfortunately most of the startup founders are too naive and in hyper state of mind so get sucked into these.

Can you clarify whether you actually know that, or is that just, like, your opinion, man?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oL0JfmR...

I saw lots of "bullshit" words and other emotional words spewed around Carlson's post, so I think I'll go with the Wikipedia article on this one.

This is it. And what matters. The people I meet at incubators are, in general, not impressive. YC is somewhat of an exception. About half of YC founders impress me (some highly) and half are in that "really?" category. For other incubators, it's closer to 10/90. It's not that they're young and inexperienced; there are plenty of young people with potential whom I'd hire and mentor in a heartbeat. It's the talent level. Most incubators have a "no one good would be, or stay, here" feel. They're not the big leagues.

The "cool" startup scene is a halfway house for immature 22-32 year-olds that looks sorta like college, enough to prevent the reality shock of becoming an adult and having to show up somewhere in a single-digit morning hour.

At some point, you start to realize that you don't give a shit about "free dinner" (you'd rather eat with family or friends) or nerf guns. What matters are personal success, interesting work, reputation and compensation. These are all highly correlated with joining a good company, not a "fun" one staffed and run by boys.