Well.. to be honest, I don't understand why you would apply as an individual (for a second time)!
Getting a team together is no easy task, it requires discipline amongst other things. YC has been pretty vocal about favoring teams than individuals. Put a solid team together and people will notice, not just YC.
Sorry if my comment came out as harsh. there's no sugar coating it.
You're absolutely right about that trait. I don't disagree.
What I'm really saying is that just because applying is so quick and easy, it should not be taken lightly. In fact I think the application process should be made a lot more difficult to attract a higher concentration.
Am I the only one feeling like this? I hold Pg and his team to a high regard. A No from him is different than any other No. So of course I would want the highest probability of acceptance when I send my pitch.
I disagree that the application process should be harder (noting that I am not, nor ever will be, an application) since it shouldn't require people to set aside time to fill out an application.
What it requires is people to take time to think their plans through very carefully and summarise them effectively. If you have this summary in your head at all times then the important part of applying will always be easy; any additional requirements would just be makework.
How did you come to the conclusion that the application was done lightly? That's a big assumption.
I also respect PG and YC crew but I don't take a "no" as being so definitive as you do, I guess. There could be many reasons as he states in whynot. Maybe you don't have the right team. Maybe they couldn't see the vision in your answers. Maybe they didn't see the market.
All 3 of those maybes are subject to change imo. In between applications, your team could've changed. The vision might have become more clear with new news from the industry. Perhaps the market is becoming more apparent due to players entering the market.
I think the "one and done" attitude is more likely to be detrimental. Just because you try more than once doesn't mean you're doing it lightly.
If you'd be willing to accept the YC terms, and it's going to take you less time to fill out the YC application than it would to write 2-3 of your typical HN comments, what's one good reason not to apply? Of course you apply.
Not harsh at all -- I upvoted you -- but your comment was easily made and not very insightful.
I already know I don't have a team. I already know the YC deadline. I already know that time stands still for nobody.
Is it better not to apply at all? Did YC say they wouldn't fund any single-founder teams at all?
Do you make do with what you have and move forward, or keep trying to find a founder instead of trying to find a business model? At some point you have to make a decision and run with it, and I'm happy with applying solo.
Personally I would want to have the highest probability of being accepted when/if I ever apply to YC. Frankly speaking, I don't have the time to wait around for another term if I got rejected. I would dramatically shift my product/process or pitch.
YC is not a late stage venture fund who brings cash to the table. These guys are making a big bet by validating your idea/business. A rejection from YC should make you rethink your business/people/idea.
If you only try things you think have a high probability of success, then you're probably not going to embark on being an entrepreneur period. The percentages of success are very low.
Applying to YC was fairly easy and didn't take much time. There's really only upside to it. The only downside is your ego when you're rejected and the remote chance that your idea/startup would be undervalued.
I also disagree with your final notion that YC is THE yardstick for success. If you read their "whynot" post, it's obvious they go through very many applications and really your idea could be skimmed and rejected quite easily. Also, the companies that have come out of YC haven't ALL been successful (no discredit to those that have been).
Lastly, at such an early stage I think entrepreneurs are always thinking through changes in business/people/idea. That's just the nature of the beast whether YC accepted you or not.
I don't think a rejection means anything at all other than you don't fit what YC is looking for. By itself it's not a compelling argument that "you're doing it wrong".
I met with MTV the other day, they can't wait to use my service. And they're just one of the awesome companies that are very excited about what I'm doing ... YC is a missed opportunity but it's just one of many you can find or make for yourself.
> A rejection from YC should make you rethink your business/people/idea.
disagree. it should push you to get market validation so that you don't rely on investors to determine whether you go forward with your business. instead, you decide whether to go forward and how to change by relying on input from paying customers.
Hell if I'd wait until I had everything perfect. It's an imperfect world, I'm an imperfect person and we're going to make this thing work anyway, brother. YC or no YC. People still trade eyeballs and money for value, and single founder guys still come up with successful ways to trade that. A cofounder might be a critical success factor -- and you still might not have one. Guess what? Keep looking and keep moving forward. Waiting for a cofounder and not working on your plan is as stupid as getting a cofounder and waiting for the perfect plan. It's an imperfect world. We get judged on how well we deal with these imperfections and yet still make progress.
keep trying to find a founder instead of trying to find a business model
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. YET, if you want to go through the YC route, I think finding a cofounder would be more important than finding a business model.
You are correct. And yet you have completely missed the point.
They are not mutually exclusive. And yes, the cofounder is more important.
Today's the deadline and you have a beta product and no cofounder. Do you apply or not? More seriously than this YC stuff, do you stop working on a business idea and execution because you don't have a cofounder? Or do you continue forward, constantly looking for a chance to find one?
EDIT: I see you've edited your comment to include a YET. At this point, seems like you are the one imposing a false choice here: the YC route and all other ways. There are many options and paths and most of them don't require you to pick one or the other.
Getting a team together is no easy task, it requires discipline amongst other things. YC has been pretty vocal about favoring teams than individuals. Put a solid team together and people will notice, not just YC.
Sorry if my comment came out as harsh. there's no sugar coating it.