
JL: Why I Do YC - theoneill
http://www.foundersatwork.com/1/post/2008/07/why-i-do-yc.html
======
danielha
And you can really feel all of that sentiment when working with Jessica and
the rest of Y Combinator. They're not just doing it because it's the next-
generation, paradigm-shifting, game-changing micro-investment model (I call
that buzzword-dashing).

It's also one of the reasons why, with all these similar funds cropping up, YC
cannot be completely duplicated.

~~~
gruseom
It could be duplicated a lot better if people didn't drop the most important
thing, which to my mind is the part about helping creative people make better
lives for themselves than the default paths through the soulless wasteland
usually afford.

I wondered for a bit if this was unfair. Motivation isn't something you can
turn on or off, so it's not within the duplicators' control to duplicate that.
But it is within their control to observe better. If I were going to make a YC
clone and I didn't have that piece, I'd think twice about bothering.

Incidentally, I'm just basing this on what I've read. I haven't met any of the
people involved.

------
edw519
_In a startup, you choose to work with people you think are talented. At a big
company, you're stuck working with whoever else they've hired._

What a great observation. So obvious, yet hardly ever mentioned.

I'd add...

In a startup, you choose to work on what you want, how you want. At a big
company, you're stuck working on whatever they want, however they want it.

~~~
tx
With all due respect, I am growing a bit tired of deliberate avoiding startup
pitfalls, when we talk about them here on HN.

Yes, I much prefer working in a small company for all these glorified (and
popular here) reasons but it doesn't mean startups are good for everybody. In
fact I believe startups do not appeal to real hackers, guys who we quote and
admire. My limited personal experience confirms this too: smart people I know
work at IBM, Motorola, Google and Microsoft and they're HAPPY.

And this is why:

Let's face it: in a startup, most often than not you're working on something
trivial, technically simple, something that can be "released often, released
early". Some minor "incremental improvement", and you've got PG books saying
"it's OK". At a startup you (most probably) will be working on something that
most of your friends will call "stupid shit" behind your back. Let's not
pretend this elephant isn't there. There are exceptions to every rule, but
it's a rule nevertheless.

And this is something I miss the most: an opportunity to work on _hard_
problems, not necessarily even succeeding: this is why startups almost never
try. And this is why my ideal "exit strategy" is to cash out (some day) and
spend my days in academia.

Wow... This was very sudden (even for me) and perhaps misplaced rant.

~~~
pg
There seems a bit of a contradiction here. You say that real hackers wouldn't
work on startups-- that the really smart people are in academia. And yet a
large percentage of the CS faculty at MIT and Stanford have done or are doing
startups. There's a joke that you can't get tenure at Stanford without having
done a startup.

You're also confusing exploratory programming with doing trivial work. Making
a quick version 1 and then iterating works for both big and small problems. It
just depends how long you keep iterating.

It's true that a lot of the work you do in startups is crap work, and that a
lot of startups only take on trivial problems. But this is also true in
research.

~~~
tx
Perhaps I haven't framed my confusion into a proper verbal frame, but there
were quite a few books in my life screaming "try this!", and I was unable to
find time/application for them in this crazy-fast pace of startup life.
Startups I worked in were all hungry, fast and aggressive predators, consuming
other people's code (open source), other people's research, algorithms and
even ideas for products. I haven't been inside of something genuinely new, let
alone doing my own, truly mine, thing.

What I've done, and companies I was a part of, was just that - a bunch of
incremental improvements based on 4-6 months release cycle. How can I be not
sad about that?

~~~
timr
Nearly every scientist I know is doing "a bunch of incremental improvements
based on a 4-6 month release cycle".

They just call the results of the releases "publications".

------
gruseom
_I spent 13 years in corporate America, mostly because I didn't understand
what my other options were. I was hypnotized..._

 _I don't want young people to endure corporate America like I did if they
don't want to._

I find these statements very moving. Perhaps it's because they speak simply
from deep experience.

~~~
hello_moto
The same can be said to "startup in America".

"I spent x years working for various [failed] startups, mostly because I hoped
to get rich and to avoid corporate Americas. I was hypnotized... I don't want
young people to endure [working for 80 hours and eating ramen] at startups
like I did if they don't want to".

~~~
gruseom
It can be said, but I disagree that the statement has the same significance
either way. Of course you can hypnotize yourself about startup environments
too - I was just commenting on this
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=237891>). But nearly all the enormous
pressure of social conformity is on the other side, so the hypnotic pull of
the corporate mainstream has no counterpart here. Many people believe they
have no choice but to work at a corporate job. Far fewer believe they have no
choice but to work at a startup.

Also, we're not talking about having a startup _job_. We're talking about
_founding_ a startup around something you yourself find creatively fulfilling,
something that is worth eating ramen for. That's a big difference. Eating
ramen to fulfill somebody else's dream (and I've done that) doesn't feel very
good. We're talking about being free to do work of one's own - and to own
one's work.

~~~
hello_moto
I have to disagree with your statement that many believes they have no choice.
I thought the whole startups, small business, one-man business stuffs have
been published like mad lately by the like of Fast Company, Entrepreneur,
Inc., Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post, TechCrunch, etc.

------
echamussy
I come from a country where there is very little investment in technology and
almost no innovation happening. I hope one day I will have the financial
freedom to do something similar to YC there because I strongly believe there
are many talented people waiting for opportunities and so many places where
technology and innovation could be extremely helpful.

So I just want to say thanks for what YC does. It changes people's lives and
inspires others which I believe is something extremely satisfying and
something to feel immensely proud of.

------
wumi
JL: are there any specific people or companies (that have come through the YC
pipeline) that you are most proud of? (or maybe this is too much like picking
favorites)

~~~
jl
I don't think I should pick favorites. But it would be difficult even if I
wanted to, since I've seen so many of the founders overcome big challenges.

------
rguzman
_I felt a little sanctimonious afterward (since I definitely hope YC doesn't
turn out to be a non-profit)_

I realize that this is sensitive information and you guys may not want to
share, but I'll ask anyway. Has YC broken even, yet? Is it close? Nowhere
near?

~~~
SwellJoe
The general vibe I've always gotten is that it roughly breaks even, so far.
Jessica and pg have both asserted this in the past, in articles or in
conversation.

But, that was a year ago...and with Loopt still iterating and signing on new
providers and creating new services, Xobni still growing and getting pretty
monstrous press, and at least two or three other potential IPOs (or at least
>$50 million acquisitions) in the making, it's definitely too early to say
what kind of money YC will make. If I were an investor, there are several
former YC companies that I would like a stake in, even at a valuation much
higher than what YC bought in at. The average exit in the valley, according to
one of the speakers at Startup School this year, happens _seven years_ after
founding. On that timescale, all of the YC companies are still very young.

~~~
hello_moto
Only time will tell if these young-ins have the patience to wait that long (7
years).

~~~
SwellJoe
Who says they're "waiting"? I would think "work that long" would be a more
appropriate way to put it, as merely waiting won't get a company to an exit no
matter how long you wait.

Anyway, the ones that wanted a quick exit have generally already had them, or
given up and gone to work for someone else. There have been five or six YC
exits, so far, and all of them count as "early cheap" exits (though most of
them are now "rich" by some definition of rich, they were still merely high
six to low eight figure exits)...the companies that are still in business and
haven't been acquired after two or three years obviously have bigger plans. In
the past couple of months, I've talked to three YC companies that have had
acquisition offers but have turned them down.

