
So you didn’t get a YC invite, what next? - actraub
I think its fair to say that YC only wants founders and businesses that will succeed without YC. With thousands of applications, hundreds of invites and tens of acceptances they can’t invite everyone. Not getting an invite does not mean you won’t succeed, anymore than getting an invite means you will.<p>For those that are soul searching, ask yourself a few questions.<p>Is our team credible; can we really execute?  Do we have enough people with the right skills. Engineers are just more appropriate than english majors.<p>Will we see the project through… there will be lots of rough spots, will we give up?<p>If no, fix the problem and apply again.<p>Am I more than one founder? Solo founders are a risk. Something happens and YC’s effort and money is wasted. But probably more important, being a team is an effort multiplier and a barrier against stupid mistakes.<p>Find a cofounder or realize that you are probably not right for YC.<p>Is our idea unique? If yes, is it really something people want? If no, is it sufficiently better than what&#x27;s out there. 10X improvement?<p>If you don’t have a good idea, get one.<p>So you have a good idea and you can build it. Can you get users? Where is the evidence? Passion for your project can blind reason.<p>Can it make money?<p>There are plenty of companies out there that are perfectly viable who received rejections. Who knows why - you didn&#x27;t fit the YC mold, you didn&#x27;t submit your application early enough, you’re a solo founder, you were too busy programming to correct your grammar mistakes…<p>if you were rejected because you can’t execute, have a bad idea, can’t get users or won’t make money, then you should really rethink your startup.
======
dazbradbury
We were rejected 3.5 years ago after interview stage.

We built, we launched, we hustled and we grew. 12 months ago we launched a
nationwide TV campaign. OpenRent[1] is now the largest letting agent in the UK
(bigger than Foxtons for example), established, and well on the way to fully
disrupting one of the oldest industries in the world.

YC rejection was tough, but we believed in the idea and whilst I'm sure YC
could have helped us make fewer mistakes, it didn't stop us wanting to solve
the problem we all believed in. So we went and did what it took to succeed.

Chin up to anyone facing rejection - use the information learnt from the
application process, and go prove them wrong!

[1] - [https://www.openrent.co.uk](https://www.openrent.co.uk)

~~~
mcintyre1994
FYI, I'm getting an infinite loader signing in with Gmail (Safari/OSX), error
console has some info:

TypeError: null is not an object (evaluating 'a[qa]')

In a script called OriginalFromGoogle, line 2378, shows as:

ca(a[qa], Jc), i.setTimeout(function () {

in the writeMesssageToPopup_ function.

~~~
dazbradbury
Unable to reproduce in Safari 8.0.2 (10600.2.5).

Is it still happening?

Thanks for helping!

~~~
mcintyre1994
Hi, Sorry - I missed this reply. Still getting this issue on Safari Version
8.0.4 (10600.4.10.7), OS X version 10.10.2 (14C2513)

To give a little more info, when I visit the site in this browser clicking
sign in brings up a dialog with the gmail email I was using - but it asks for
a password. I never got to a point where I was asked for a password after the
attempted login, but your system seems to have my email and some password. I'm
resetting that password since I have no idea what it is or how secure it is.

On a private Safari window though, I get the same issue as before trying to
log in.

(FYI I've also emailed you, probably better to discuss there instead of in
this old thread)

EDIT: Probably mistaken about the password, sorry for the confusion - I think
I did sign up with a different browser.

------
mpdehaan2
I never even thought to apply.

Why? The San Francisco requirement was against my ideals that tech exists
everywhere, and that's not how I wanted to build a company.

More so, the stake they required relative to funding was pretty huge.

I would now, to a degree, put YCombinator kind of in the same vein as Shark
Tank in outside perceptions - allegedly that show takes 3% of your company
whether you get a deal or not. Clearly, advice is offered for either winner,
but the deals given out are often not as valuable as the "press" or label in
that case.

While a lot of interesting companies have come out of that particular
incubator (thanks for the forum, BTW), there's also a lot of business models
that I consider on the edge of a bubble, and without the weird investment
ecosystem that does exist in the bay area, I don't think many of them would
exist. I say this in terms of valuations of what service the business provides
to society, and how niche is is, versus "valuations" in the typical investment
sense. What is valued is, I don't know, skewed in strange ways.

By all means, if you want to try to create a startup (which I do believe is
not for everyone, or even most people), build things your own way if you
really believe in the idea. If you can bootstrap things and avoid venture
capital entirely, and be your own boss, even better. I'd advise thinking of it
as a company from day one, rather than a startup, and don't think of funding
as a way to get profitable. That means you'll be free of the venture capitol
addiction at a much earlier time, and be in more control of your own destiny.

~~~
evook
> without the weird investment ecosystem that does exist in the bay area, I
> don't think many of them would exist

Probably the wisest words spoken regarding the startup business on HN for
months. If you are not able to launch a company without external money, there
are two possible reasons behind that. Either you aren't ready to build a
company, or your idea is not worth your efforts and there was never an
expectable RoI to begin with.

~~~
tyang
A third possibility is investors are lemmings and are too stupid to understand
the unique insight you have into a big market.

As an investor who thought Instacart, Uber and BufferBox were really stupid
ideas and missed a chance to invest in them (Uber through AngelList), I know
this possibility is all too real. :)

------
crdb
We were rejected last year after doing a very late application and probably
because we hadn't quit our jobs nor built a prototype, or even lived in the
same city (I hired my co-founder on a remote team before, and took him with me
when I left). We probably ticked all the reject boxes.

We kept pitching other investors for a while, then quit and bootstrapped the
prototype by taking on consulting work. Pitching was hard and most APAC
investors just wanted too much control for our comfort. Bootstrapping was
actually easier than we thought, so when we got term sheets from local
investors, we turned them down and kept getting consulting gigs (mostly data
warehousing work - boring but necessary).

5 months later, and I think the product has gone into much more interesting
directions without time and investor pressure than it might have otherwise,
whilst we are closer as co-founders having worked together on the gigs and
been through a few "client bumps". Some of the work actually helped clarify
our own data model and understand our target market better.

It's quite freeing not to have a boss at last; I'd say that was the main
factor in not taking money (the banker who thought he might "quit the bank and
join you guys to help out with management" was particularly scary). But YC's
terms - even excluding all the advantages that come with the network,
coaching, reputation etc. - were by far the most generous and founder
friendly, especially in their lack of protective provisions.

Not sure what this thread is for, but throwing the story in there since there
are so few tales of bootstrapping and it's discouraged by PG in one of his
money essays (he argues that it delays the launch). I think our story is most
relevant for non-US-based founders who cannot as easily tap into the Valley
money, and for more experienced founders who can command a high enough market
value to make part time work.

~~~
tyang
Exactly. $1.7M premoney valuation and a chance to get advice from PG and
others who have helped 6 unicorns come about and, per @sama, 22 others who can
get there is pretty darn good, IMO.

~~~
crdb
On top of that:

\- the brand is enormous. All my funding discussions have been warm intros or
a network I built myself, slowly (same for client work with one exception).
Saying "we're YC" enables cold emails to actually get read. Same as having
candidates to a job ad from MIT, Stanford, Harvard... it gets them a phone
call and some attention. It helps not just with funding, but with hiring and
even B2B sales (I personally looked at Heap's product for a client and talked
to their sales team, only because I heard it was YC funded).

\- valuation, according to a better connected and experienced friend, jumps
around 4x post-acceptance on any future funding rounds. Related to first
point. If our valuation had gone up that much, the maths wouldn't work out in
favour of bootstrapping.

But what makes it really special is the lack of control. For example, I went
into the final stages (10+ meetings, legal docs being drafted) of a $400k
round... for 30%, with veto rights on practically everything and someone
injected into management. It was tempting, especially pre-launch, but would
have guaranteed no further rounds and misaligned incentives between us and
investors.

Even the <10% offers wanted things like vetos and RFR on any further funding
round, that removed virtually all control we had, and would make it a lot
harder to raise an A round when the time came.

This, I think, was the major innovation brought about by YC. We're far from
the days of Georges Doriot and DEC...

(As an aside Terrence, since you're reading this - you American angels should
pop over to other countries some time, valuations are much friendlier!)

~~~
tyang
Great points, thank you.

------
lettergram
My recommendation is that you should start with a problem you are passionate
about. Quite literally, I keep a notebook of stuff that annoys me. Then, every
night I review it and try to coalesce it down to the essence of a problem.
Youll find that youre probably passionate about 5 or 6 of the problems you
come accross.

Fix one of these problems for yourself and 99 times out of 100 someone will be
willing to pay for it.

~~~
tyang
Sometimes I wonder if "Make something people want" could be even better if it
were "Make something you and other people want".

------
qaiserhabib
we didnt' get an invite from YC. We have a great idea, an excellent team of 5
(1 hustler 4 engineers) and a great "plan". What are the effects of this
rejection on us?

None. We never took YC seriously. We believe in our idea and we are very close
to alpha launch and we don't need YC to succeed. We only applied to YC so we
could have that media boost or the YC title attached to us. We understand why
we got rejected, we had alot of plans and zero traction (because of how we
built our strategy to get product market fit).

My advice to other founders: YC is just an incubator, they can only give you
advice and introduce you to other founders and investors and give you ~100k in
seed funding. You can get all of these things without YC. Infact, it's much
easier outside. YC won't make you magically succeed if you don't have a great
team or a great product, there's only so much they can fix about you in 3
months. So don't ever let that rejection get to you and keep focused on what
you're building and keep evolving until you have product market fit!

------
neonbat
A lot of the rejected companies are confused as to why they didn't get into YC
or are behaving as if it's some great mystery. Looking at some of their
websites though it kind of seems like they just didn't read Paul's essays. If
I can't visit your website and immediately understand your business that is a
red flag. People are always fancy-fying and abstracting the descriptions of
their businesses. Most of the businesses websites I see applying to YC are
less of "We sell apples. Use our product. Get you some apples." and more of
"We create high level fruit distribution mechanisms. Currently we are
supporting Apples in our network. We plan to support other fruits in the
future. We're gonna REVOLUTIONIZE the way you acquire fruit." If I was at YC I
would be looking for people who physically described what their company does;
I see a lack of that in the rejected companies.

~~~
richardbrevig
I love your apple/fruit example. This is a major problem I see in many
startups, their unique value proposition is absolutely confusing. It's hard to
get right, but is a very important step for a web business these days.

------
sibmike
Have not noticed this one so started my own:(, but i'll comment here too:)

So you got rejected? Good!

1\. Now you know you KNOW you're on your own! 2\. Next time you apply you will
know that accelarator is not THE CHANCE to get to where you wonna be. Its just
a SHORTCUT that you can take, or NOT.

Lately I have that feeling that people tend to approach accelerators like they
approach Santa: "Dear Santa, I have been a flibustier all my life, and I have
a bright idea, and I am really really smart. So please help me get my dreams
come true..." Does not work.

If you THINK your idea is something that has to be done. Just go for it. Make
it your mission and do whatever it takes to accomplish it. Once I met those
guys from UK in Siberia riding their bikes. I asked em WTF? Well, they told
me, they are on a mission to go around the globe on bikes.. Why? They had no
clue, I had no idea, but they have done it. (find em "tough miles") Thats what
a start up is, it may be even tougher.

(thats actually SCARY. Coz you will NOT have support from your friends,
family, spouse and any reasonable person.)

IF you do it anyway, sometime you'll KNOW it works (coz you have clients and
revenue and the growth). then YOU decide if you want to take the SHORTCUT or
not.

Hope that helps. Listen to Iron Maiden - The Trooper There is always a chance.

Sincerely, Mike

PS: I will just go on painting Cathedrals to get the funding. Incorporte in
HK. And launch my app for the HardHeads in July 2015:)

------
juniorexplorers
As someone who didn't get invited either, I feel like this is a great
opportunity to look at the business objectively and check off the boxes that
as a founder sometimes you don't think much about. Doing the application
started it for me and already we are making changes and decisions we probably
would not have focused on since we have been focused on execution.

Markets are dynamic so ideas need to be dynamic as well in how we adapt to
stay within the framework of the vision but be able to optimize the
probability of success. Taking a step back and evaluating team, technology,
opportunity and current execution plan takes a lot of time and effort which
this process forced us to do.

It all starts with confirming that the idea is good and there is a real
problem here to solve but once that is checked off, there are so many
variables that come into play. My approach is to try and not dwell as much on
why YC did not invite me but focus on what else I can do to fulfill the
potential of the idea.

If we get this right, we might not need to apply again and should be on our
way. If not we either come back bigger and better or will have decided that
this is not the business we want to be in. All good outcomes right?

------
joelrunyon
Build it yourself anyways.

Very interesting that so many entrepreneurs - who by definition are bypassing
gatekeepers - still tend to look at something like YC as a litmus for whether
or not they can move forward or are a "success."

Obviously, there are some company models that need venture money behind them,
but it's not an excuse for not doing your idea.

~~~
mathattack
This is very true. If someone won't chase an idea because it wasn't validated
by YC in the first place, they seem to be on very weak footing to begin with.
(Similar to the people who only want a high brand name school.)

------
Alex3917
A lot of the startups YC doesn't fund aren't necessary bad, just too early.
And while not getting into YC will never destroy your company, getting in too
early actually will -- if you start the clock on your company while you are
still missing some basic skills, if your founder and you later break up, if
there are still too many technical/product uncertainties, etc.

If your idea isn't inherently bad then just peel away away some layers of risk
and try again.

------
benerd
Am Benerd From Kenya and my start up dint get an invitation into YC this
summer.. I have a great team n awesome prototype but Since I really follow
what YC start up school teaches about start ups,They had a reason of Not
inviting us for the next batch ,this has made us go back to the drawing board
and rethink what we haven't got right yet..infact we have started seeing flaws
in our prototype that we didn't see before If a team was invited from Africa
,that is great and it was my dream to have at least an African team in
YC.Thanks you guys for the great efforts you are making to see start ups
through the emotional roller coaster.

------
tonysuper
I'm 18, and my co-founder is just turning 18 in a week.

So we never really expected to get in. We are both completely broke, so we're
going to launch a kickstarter campaign to see if we can get the funding for
more hosting (and the ability to work full-time over the summer). From there,
well, I guess we try to grow and take over the world.

~~~
humanarity
Sounds like a workable attitude, best of luck to you! My bet's on you.

------
amerf1
YC is not perfect and they have admitted so in several occasions. Plus they
can only fund so many startups, so getting rejected doesn't mean you have to
rethink your startup.

The way I see it, continue with your startup and apply again.

------
jrwmiv
Just got rejected. Most likely because we are so early on, haven't launched
and are hardware and software. Too many red flags for YC in an application
pool with thousands of established companies. Doesn't mean that this means
there is anything wrong with what we are doing. Never give up due to
rejection, it takes rejection to succeed. Time to hustle and show YC why they
should take a closer look at the underdogs.

------
benerd
Most successful tech companies in the world have atleast 2 co-founders,Look
even at the company in the World that most founders draw inspiration
from(Facebook)..It had technically 5 Co-Founders..A start up is too much work
for a single founder,you need to Find people who complement

------
tomjen3
Or just be honest about it - YCs filter isn't that great and then become the
next AirBnB anyway.

------
humanarity
Disclaimer: I applied S15 and they declined to invite me.

How do you know what you were rejected for? It doesn't matter. Either you were
rejected because the assessment was it will not work, or you were rejected for
a content free reason: 300 others were stellar, you weren't in the 300.

You don't want to know because you want to run the experiment. Any assessment
pre-run is fortune telling, which adds zero content. Run the experiment,
because the results, +ve or -ve, are valuable.

You don't need YC's or anyone's "approval" to become an oustanding success, or
to believe in your idea.

The unfortunate truth I realized today is this: I believed "YC is the best."
If they sometimes fail to select the best, that means they actually can't be.

If you believe in yourself, and your idea, as I do, then when someone says,
"you and your idea are not as good as theirs", you choose to have a lower
opinion of their judgement. And because you have a lower opinion of their
judgement the image of YC becomes less than it was, which is unfortunate.

So getting a rejection is unfortunate, because it's a compelling idea that
there's really a place that "gets" all the great ideas, and where all the
quality founders can mingle.

The thing I realized is this is a fantasy. As good as YC is, if they decline
your proposal and you and your idea work, it's not what you're looking for.
That's tough, because it's nice and comfortable to think there's a
"destination", beside your business, where you can go and meta-discuss all the
things about your business around people who embody the traits you respect,
and who are creating the successes you admire.

Maybe my idea and me really don't work, and I'm just blind to the ways in
which they don't because I don't have the perspective YC has. That's a
possibility. I don't believe that's likely, and I choose to believe in myself
and my idea.

Even so, feeling like an outsider to this "magical world" of YC is tough.
Especially when you spend 40 days through the application period mentally
aligning yourself, and convincing yourself that this is really somewhere you
and your idea belong. The adjustment period when they say, "no it isn't" takes
some getting used to.

But more shocking than this personal readjustment is realizing that actually,
no, there is no special place out there that is made just for me and my
startup. That's tough, because it's nice to think there is that. Tho for every
person for whom that is now a reality, 98 others it's not -- and that's a lot
of pain.

My conclusion is really that YC is not that important. It can't be, because
there's still so much talent outside it. It's just an image of importance that
emerges when any concentration of talent occurs. It's nice to think there's a
"leader" there's someone to "guide you", and yet in reality, it works to guide
yourself. As people making things, we're the ones who are creating something
new that didn't exist before.

That's pretty much the definition of there not being a "destination" or a
"point man" for us. We're out the front, ourselves.

To all my other people now 7% (and in numerous other ways) richer, onward!

To everyone who's getting in, I feel a little sorry for you -- because they
can't be as good as we imagined because there's so much talent still left on
the track.

For my part, I'm happy to be in the bigger, wider world, than in a narrower
one. As I read my mail this morning, a strange sense of relief washed over me.
Now I can do this thing my way, at my own pace, and not worry about tracking
it through a 3-month hot house, which I'm sure feels like a great opportunity,
and it is, tho as for that, I'm happy on the road I'm on.

This came to mind:

 _two roads diverged in a yellow wood

and sorry I could not travel them both

and be one traveller long I stood

and looked down one as far as I could

to where it bent in the undergrowth

.

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

.

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference._

.

Robert Frost -- not of YC ;)

------
chichutschang
Apply to bootcamp.mit.edu :)

------
robertandy
Here is a great sum of your post in one line:

“If you’re absent during my struggle, don’t expect to be present during my
success.” - Will Smith

In my view the way YC has been openly crushing morale of solo-founders for
years is simply pathetic. Is it a crime to be a solo-founder? Despite equal
number of successful startups from solo-ists, they continue to snub the
potential and rather host even those who would easily rip-off ideas and
interface from others.

Given that they are almost a monopoly and monopsony "middleman" of all things
startups and nearly control other movements (media/VCs/other stakeholders) I
see this as a dangerous precedent for startups in general.

Last thing we want is an Amazon-like agent that controls our destiny.

~~~
logicallee
Robertandy, YC is incredibly encouraging at stages that nobody else is. They
have open lectures on how to start a startup. You can watch them for free
right now.

I feel your frustration that they don't fund certain things, but this should
not be called crushing morale.

Please remember one thing: the reason YCombinator is a monopoly is that others
are cowardly, don't know how to invest at the seed stage and help founders
build huge, scalable businesses with a community of awesome people around
them. This community is a hallmark of YC, and one of the obvious things that
must be true about any founding group that has at least 2 members is that by
definition they are social enough to keep a group of at least 2 cofounders
together.

If you feel YCombinator is a monopoly you have to please by having a
cofounder, why don't you get a cofounder?

~~~
robertandy
Disagree!

The entire process is rigged against solo-founders and you CANNOT deny that
fact. Even your own last sentence in the end contradicts you.

> why don't you get a cofounder.

Dude what about this: I don't want to marry. I do not want to own a house. I
do not want a co-founder.

~~~
riteshpatel
The reason single co-founder companies are less likely to be accepted is that,
once you start to get to a certain scale, there's just FAR too much work for
one person to do.

We're already experiencing this. There are two of us and we need an extra 24
hours in the day to get everything done.

Get a co-founder if at all possible, it'll save your sanity.

~~~
BSousa
The idea is to hire as you grow. You can be one founder or 10, at a point, you
hire for what you need.

I do agree with GP a bit on the solo founder. Here is the thing, I have enough
contacts in the industry that if I wanted, I could form a very good team if I
had the money to pay them (thus, the idea of getting investment money as a
solo founder), but none of those people would agree to be co-founders as they
know the chance of striking it big are very very small and they can clear very
very good salaries as employees. Sure, if you are 22 and have a few friends
just graduating at the same age, you will find co-founders, but if you are
35+, have 15 or more years under your belt, and most of your network as well,
they won't leave very high paid jobs to be co-founders, and honestly, after
working with them and knowing what they are capable, I wouldn't want a 22
fresh graduate as a co-founder either (unless he was truly exceptional)

~~~
BatFastard
Everyone over 30 had been thru this cycle before. I brought a number of great
co-founders in when I started my first virtual reality start-up in 2000. Then
of course we all got burned when the markets crashed in 2001. I even managed
to convince some of them to return in 2004 when we got a large contract. We
built the company into one of the best in the world in virtual reality product
in the world. Only to be screwed by a partner with a much much larger legal
budget. I have come to realize the contract disputes are usually won by the
party with the larger legal budget. At this point they all just want to ride
their companies into retirement.

