Even if you multiple this amount by 2. Dividing this into the number of companies makes one wonder about the exposure rate in hte media for YC startups. Seems like are getting headlines and cover stories more than others.
Saying, for that only, it is worth to join YC. Let alone the weekly meetings (dinners, etc.).
Just for instance, let's just take a look at the following two CrunchBase entries:
While the first have sold his first startup (XIV) to IBM for $300M, Three year later, he sold his second startup (diligent) to IBM (again) for $165M, ($465M in total), the knowledge of TC about him is nearly zero. All they can tell is that for his new startup (third) he raised $9M.
On the other hand, if you'll wake up Mike arrington in the middle of his deep sleeps and ask him to name 18 YC startups he will do that right away, without even opening his second eye, wouldn't he?
A few years ago, YC would have maintained portfolio data in a spreadsheet or database. But in today's world, it's probably in a wiki.
It might be surprising that an uberhacker like PG doesn't have a custom database of YC startups (which would, by definition, make it trivial to export the "non-secret" stuff). That's why I think this comment speaks volumes about how -- even amongst supernerds who think in a systematic, structured way -- a loose affiliation of hypertext documents is the preferred way to capture and record institutional knowledge.
Or maybe it is in a spreadsheet and PG is just lazy. But I doubt it.
Follow-on rounds, exits, and current status can all be provided by the community. But there seems to be no authoritative dataset that shows which startups participated in YC.
But from your comments, I'm guessing that some companies prefer that their mere involvement with YC not be disclosed at all, which makes this a harder task then just periodically exporting the name and URL of every portfolio company.
"Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated." - Structured Data
Although with a bit of thinking I'm sure most people can figure out where to get it from.
He wasn't calling using a spreadsheet lazy; he was calling using one and still being unwilling to compile a list of YC startups lazy. Of course, PG is busy enough that I wouldn't blame him anyway (but he does have people working for him to do things like that).
Although I think at this point it's pretty indisputable that YC has a substantial lead on any of it's competitors.
This list is a good start, but far from up to date; just see, this (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&...) for YC 10.
And I would absolutely appreciate any/all corrections. I know the early years of YC data aren't as accurate as the last few.
Looks like he wrote a thesis on "seed accelerators" using YC as a model.
The data is pulled from the spreadsheet, but unfortunately it's not all accurate. The estimated aquisition price is estimated by the author of the original spreadsheet. Also, a number of domains are defunct, but the startups aren't listed as dead or exited. And as pg points out, some names are also wrong.
There are several other bugs I'm aware of too. I just wanted to get something functional out to see if anyone was actually interested. I'll fix things up and add more features when I have time (who the acquirer was, link to a press release).
I was thinking of making this into an open wiki, as there's no one reliable source to pull data from. It'd also be much easier to maintain.
Thanks for the feedback, everyone!
Heres the summary according to the post,
* YC S05 - 1 Active /3 Failed / 2 Acquired / 2 Other
* YC W06 - 5 Active /1 Failed / 2 Acquired
* YC S06 - 3 Active /6 Failed / 1 Unknown
* YC W07 - 5 Active /4 Failed / 4 Acquired / 2 Unknown
* YC S07 - 12 Active /4 Failed / 3 Acquired
* YC W08 - 9 Active /10 Failed / 1 Acquired / 1 Unknown
* YC S08 - 17 Active /3 Failed / 1 Acquired / 1 Unknown
* YC W09 - 14 Active /1 Failed / 1 Stealth
* YC S09 - 16 Active /1 Acquired /9 Stealth
Toolbar PR updates are done on a rolling basis, so you never know when it will update. Don't worry about it, the number means nothing.
But personally I think your product is more important than your page rank. :D
Still, good work. It's great to have a list like this. Would you consider adding in who the acquirer was?
- link the word "exited" to a press release about the exit, or something similar.
- If the exit was in the form of being absorbed into a larger company, something like "Exited - [company name]" would be nice (for example, Divvyshot should say Exited - Facebook).
buxfer might or might not fit into this category, the site is still up and functional, but it doesn't seem like it's actively maintained:
a simple yes/no from one of the founders would be simple enough.
Also, the "date" column doesn't sort properly. It sorta alphanumerically instead of chronologically.