Hacker News Reader

Comment by apendleton | Hacker News Reader

Not to nitpick, but at least some of these arguably haven't gotten far enough along yet that they can reasonably claim to be "successful." Thalmic is just getting early products to market, Helion hasn't yet built a commercial fusion reactor, etc.

View on HN

I'll just point out that going into the 3rd or 4th year of YC's existence, everyone was asking this about the software companies they were funding.

And I'll just point out that blind extrapolation from one vertical to a completely different one is usually a poor predictive strategy.

It doesn't follow from YC's success with software companies that the model will be similarly successful for hardware companies. It's still very much an experiment at this point, and "it was once an unknown for software companies" doesn't imply that hardware companies will achieve similar success with the YC model.

Sure, but it does mean that "few successful companies so far" shouldn't be taken as a death knell for YC's forays into hardware. By fairly direct analogy, the majority of startups not making a profit in their first month will fail, but the majority of successful startups weren't making a profit in their first month.

Sure, that's a fair statement. I'm not saying that the lack of success so far is a knock against YC for hardware startups. Rather, the similar lack of success for software startups in YC at the same stage of development, and the subsequent success they did enjoy, is not a point in favour of YC's suitability for hardware startups.

Hardware and Software startups are sufficiently different in their needs and life cycles that it would be specious to use the success of a particular program for the one as indicative of its suitability for the other. Similarly, the sorts of b2c startups that YC typically funds are sufficiently different from b2g startups like Palantir that I don't think you could claim Palantir would have benefitted from YC based solely on the experiences of b2c startups.

"... It doesn't follow from YC's success with software companies that the model will be similarly successful for hardware companies. ..."

That is true. A better way to think of it, might be as an experiment. Do you remember when YC was started funding startups? The tech group-thought at the time: a toy, a joke, nothing serious, never to gain traction.

And not to be overly negative but this announcement would appear to be recognition that HW startups in YC are struggling with a range of issues that required these steps to be taken thus making it even more challenging to assume success in SW will equate to success in HW.

I think you're right. YC was lacking all of the resources that other HW accelerators provide (it's highly specialized). But looks like they now know what HW startups need, so look for YC to be a force in HW.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in sales doesn't count as success? Which non-yc hardware companies started in the last several years would you count as successful?

Thalmic has hundred of millions in sales!? or were you referring to another one from the list?

It might. But profitability is important as well. Not a comment on any particular company but the idea that a company that has millions in revenue but no profits (and is floated by investors) is successful is not absolute.

>> Helion hasn't yet built a commercial fusion reactor I agree with your point, but at the same time it is somewhat amazing that we live in a world where a company can get VC funding to even make an attempt on something as ambitious as fusion.

Or perhaps it will be remembered as wasteful during the next bust.

>at least

>some

>arguably

>far enough along

>yet

I don't mean to insult you or criticize your post in any way, partly because I agree with you, but that is a lot of qualifiers for one short sentence. Diplomatic tones require them though, I suppose.

I thought the goal of a startup was funding. Who needs commercial products?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com