YC's goals haven't changed. The conventional wisdom on what startups make sense to fund is changing though - the whole "software is eating the world" logic suggests that many traditionally non-software businesses are ripe for disruption as well. Think Dollar Shave Club.
That's not quite my question. I'm not referring to the divide between "pure software" businesses and, well, everything else. I'm referring to the divide between $10MM/year gross profit and $1B exit.
Dollar Shave Club had a $1B exit. Is YC willing to fund the former?
It's not just that they're "non-software" business. They're not really even technology businesses, in the traditional Silicon Valley (HP, Intel, Apple, Atari, Synopsys, Netscape, Google, Facebook, Snapchat) sense. Both DSC and Casper are innovative companies, but (as far as I can tell) they don't innovate in technology, they instead use technology to leverage innovation in other areas.
Casper could have been founded 30 years ago. But would NEA and Norwest have invested in 1986 in a version of Casper that used late-night TV ads and a 1-800 number? My guess is probably not. So what does it mean that they do now? Does this mean that the current fashion in VC is shifting away from technology innovation? If so, does this mean that pure technology ventures may soon find it hard to find funding?
