Importance of YC

[rajeshamara]

Lately I am seeing more and more articles about getting YC interview and tips to ace it. I really don't understand why you guys are giving huge importance in getting through YC. I understand it would be good, Its not like you are finished if you don't get through. I think if your product is good, your startup will become something even if you don't get through YC. Applying to YC should be one of the steps and not the only step. I have seen articles, if they are rejected by YC, you guys behave as though you are at the bottom pit.

R

[dasht]

I don't have that sense, rajeshamara.

YC seems important to me for a few reasons:

One, they do a better job than many investment firms at teaching some basics about start-ups. In that way, I think they encourage a lot of people to try who might not otherwise have tried. People often like to impress their teachers.

Two, as angel / early-stage investors go, YC is the closest thing there is to a top-tier firm. We don't know much about their financials but we do know their first big raise came from Sequoia, itself a top-tier firm. Top-tier funding comes with perks. You get YC's participation and connections. You get to say you got money from YC. $N from YC is worth a lot more than $N from your uncle.

Finally, for many, a YC interview will be their first big pitch and so there is a damaged goods concern: if YC turns you down, your odds with others are diminished. (That's not exclusive to YC: if X turns you down your future odds are diminished, for many values of X.)

Being turned down by YC doesn't mean that you are at the bottom of the pit. I'm sure there are many good firms they would pass on for reasons that say nothing bad at all about the firm. It is, however, a big obstacle you'll need to get around.

-t

[rajeshamara → dasht]

Raising money especially from VC works in a strange fashion. As in medical practice a doctor believes other doctor. Similary VC firms believer or trust previous entreprenuers whether its a good idea or bad idea. I am not saying YC idea is bad. PG is a very smart individual who succesfully sold his company to Yahoo (I have lot of respect for him). I am talking in general. If you see all the CEO's get shuffled around even if they are bad. Similary all the previous succesfull founders and enterprenuers get their funding from VC's easily. You cannot pin on a single point that they got 2 million funding from a top notch VC firm, it should be good idea. Rather I will say Sequoia trusted PG easily then you or me because he already proved himself.

[dasht → rajeshamara]

Heh. Suppose a CEO pretty much single-handedly runs a company into the ground and ensures its failure shortly after he leaves - but he also wins the investors a tidy exit. Is he a good CEO? :-)

-t

[jacquesm]

I think it's a natural thing, after all HN is also the 'breedingground' for a lot of YC startups, and some of the emotions around applying for, acceptance and rejection are expected to spill over into the forum.

The tips by those that 'got in' serve mainly to reassure those that are about to make their pitch, which, if you've never done it before can be absolutely terrifying.

Whether or not you get in, you always learn something.

I think because the barrier to entry is so low at YC that you'll see a lot more of this emotion than you'd expect in a more seasoned environment, for many people this is the first time ever they apply anywhere, and given the number of applications vs the number of available slots it's logical that a bunch of people with an excellent plan and team are not going to be funded.

That can be quite frustrating. Give it a few days everybody will have picked up the pieces and moved on, and they'll start realizing (if they haven't already) that not being accepted by YC is not the end of the world.