
WSJ on YC: Incubator Coaxes Start-Ups Out of Their Shells - Towle_
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467962318678570.html
======
Towle_
Bloggers and journalists seem intent on labelling YC an 'incubator,' despite
YC's insistence to the contrary.

I wonder how much PG and the others actually dislike the term. Are they
against it on technicality grounds and nothing more? Or do they mean to make a
statement about what exactly YC is and does by avoiding the 'incubator' label?

~~~
amirmc
from: <http://ycombinator.com/faq.html>

_"Is Y Combinator an incubator? -- No. The defining quality of incubators
seems to be that companies work out of the investor's space. We think that's a
bad idea; it makes founders feel like employees."_

In addition, the term 'incubator' has been around for a while and is an easily
understood concept (esp to the lay person). Things like YC et. al. are not
incubators as such but there hasn't been any particular term that has caught
on outside the tech crowd. 'Seed Accelerator' is the term I usually use but
even then it requires more exposition than 'incubator'. Given the difference
is relatively minor (office space vs sort-yourself-out), I can see why people
still use 'incubator'.

~~~
Harj
YC is an investor in startups. the best term for describing us would be
investors. the reason this label feels strange is because we do so much more
for startups than what investors have typically done. as competition for
investing in the best startups continues to grow, i find it hard to believe
this will still be the case five years from now. people will look back and
wonder how anyone was able to invest in good startups without doing (some but
not all) the kinds of things we do for them.

~~~
amirmc
Harj, the point I was trying to make is why people sometimes refer to YC as an
incubator. I think PG (above) is right that what people interpret to mean by
'incubator' is changing (for the better IMHO).

Responses to a couple of your points:

 _> the best term for describing us would be investors_

This doesn't differentiate YC from Angels, VCs or even friends/family/fools
(at some level). All it says is 'we put money in'. Clearly there are major
differences between each category of investor so to say that 'investor' is the
_best_ description is a bit of a disservice to the package YC offers. I don't
have any suggestions as to what _would_ be better, but it's obvious to me that
YC is more than just an investor.

 _> because we do so much more for startups than what investors have typically
done_

I think I understand where this is coming from but I'm pretty sure there are
(or have been) some great investors who do a lot for their investee companies,
on par with elements of YC. However, what YC has done, is to repeat the best
elements at a scale not achieved before.

