pb

If a start up fails then the equity is worthless. That's how equity is _supposed_ to work.

As for Facebook and Google, you heard wrong. I worked at both companies and know quite a bit about how much equity employees got.

Most startups aren't successful period. If you're the 100th employee at a startup that sells for $30M, then no, you're not going to make a lot from that exit.

The economics of startups are such that the vast majority of the returns for both investors and employees are from the big successes, so if you're looking for $$, that's where you need to be.

I know that "employees get screwed" is the hn conventional wisdom, but it's generally false. If a startup is huge success, there will be many wealthy employees. Companies like Google and Facebook created thousands of millionaires. Uber and Airbnb will likely do the same. Of course if the company exits for less than money raised, then yes, common will likely not be worth much, but that's the risk of startup equity.

Many of the most successful founders are introverts. Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Bill Gates, none of them are very extroverted, but they've started some of the most valuable companies in the world.

Of course if you are so introverted that you are unable to make eye contact or talk to people it will be a problem, but most of us are not that extreme.

It's very difficult to truly evaluate a business without talking to the founders. Sometimes a bad sounding business (such as air mattress rentals) will turn out to be a really great business (such as AirBnb).

That said, I'm sorry you had a bad experience. We're working on better ways to pre-screen startups before interviews so we can hopefully avoid as much unnecessary travel as possible.

I agree it would be good to have more blog posts with that message -- I worry that good founders won't apply due to the mistaken impression that alumni connections are required.

Here's one for you: https://twitter.com/joseluisnuno/status/770711984543244288

Thanks. I'm definitely still involved, and if anything should have more time to spend with the startups :)

Yes, many fellowship companies have gone on to raise money or join the core YC program. Our hope is that the same will be true of the MOOC.

The handful of blog posts you see here on HN are not representative of the whole batch. The majority of companies that we fund have zero alumni connections.

To me, this is actually one of the most important features of YC: the application process is completely open and we fund people from around the world regardless of background. Having graduated from college in Ohio in the 90s I moved here with zero connections and really wished for something like YC.

Fellowship worked really well for the most part, but our real goal is to 10x or 100x the number of startups that we help, and Fellowship in it's current form couldn't easily do that. The MOOC is essentially Fellowship 2.0 -- we're taking what we learned from Fellowship and then opening it up to the whole world so that anyone can participate.

Yes, that's the goal :)

I like working with startups and advancing our program, but do not generally enjoy administrative work. This change enables me to do more of what I like and less of what I don't.

It's not like they are going to suddenly lose their ability to manufacture products. The key is that their differentiation and survival will depend more on software and soft systems (such as bus lines) than it does on manufacturing prowess (where they are all quite good at this point).

It's also worth noting that Apple makes some impressively complex (and profitable!) hardware.

In ten years, all auto makers will either be tech companies, or they will be out of business. I'm impressed that GM and Ford have the foresight to understand this.

Obviously the rest of the team is likely to be very talented as well. Also, he's the founder, which includes a responsibility to act in the best interest of the company (plus $20M/yr would be much less money).

The right person is. How much was Steve Jobs worth to Apple?

Bret is one of the most outrageously talented and productive people I've ever worked with. In a high-leverage position, such a person can be extremely valuable.

That's actually true of almost every good business -- there is always a worse version already available, even if only through the "abuse" of an existing system.