217 karma · joined March 4, 2011
Don't sell yourselves short because your "old". Sell the fact that your mature, disciplined and responsible enough to commit to this company and bring tremendous experiences along with you.
I'm sure that I'm a little biased living in Silicon Valley but here being a geek and being sexy is not mutually exclusive. Being a "programmer" is respectable but being a tech entrepreneur is respected much more.
I think the smart thing to do is to take precautions. Host your content and auto-post it to Facebook, Twitter, etc. You should also have some way to contact your users/fans directly so that if things like this happen you can notify them.
I don't really have an opinion either way as my JS skills are minimal and I know almost nothing about CS.
I'm curious how you're defining YC's success compared to other angel groups. YC is a pretty amazing group, no doubt, but being great at publicizing and helping storm up investor interest in a startup can't be the only measure. Not that I'm trying to insinuate that's all YC is good at because I'm not.
arr[index] == arr + (n * size_of(type)) == (n * size_of(type)) + *arr
YC has a tremendous amount of experience and their intuition and insight I'm sure leads to better decisions regarding startups, but they're in no way infallible.
I suppose my main point is that there are plenty of good companies that are fund worthy that don't get into YC for various reasons. One of those reasons being that YC doesn't have the time or resources to take them in. The YC model has been successful but there is still an underserved market here and that is why others are popping up, not that there is a bubble necessarily as the author suggests. There's no reason why angels wouldn't "invest in companies that are not vetted by Y Combinator?".
So the investor's knowledge about your project determines the founder or teams quality? YC applicants disclose more than that they want to do a startup, does that the automatically improve the odds that they're good? What specifically makes them "good" anyhow? YC Rejects would be disclosing more than they want to do a startup and in fact it's been noted that the angel would review applicants and determine who gets in.
The problem is that the prior probability that you're good is already low, not that the conditional probability that you're good given that you're rejected by YC is any lower.
Based on what exactly? Why is it more likely that your not good to begin with?
So the real question here is, can these people learn to first evaluate their applicants, and then support the ones they fund, anywhere near as well as YC does? I think the YC formula is nit going to be anywhere near as easy to duplicate as they seem to think.
It doesn't have to duplicate the YC formula in order to be successful as even YC proves that their formula doesn't automatically lead to successful startups. I do think that the YC staff and alumni network is a huge asset but that doesn't preclude others from providing valuable resources. The rest remains to be seen.
While I personally think YC is a great program with a lot to offer, which is why I applied, they don't have the resources to take on every group that applies. It also wouldn't be in their best interest. I was skeptical about YC Reject at first and wasn't sure about applying or looking for work and working on my startup part-time but I'm considering it more and more now.