Are you a YC finalist who got accepted into Techstars and find yourself in a position to make a decision before the 25./26./27.?
Feel like TS is trying to skim away YC finalists?
If so, we'd like to talk to you.
We'd like to talk to you too. Though we're a bit busy preparing for startup school today, we're happy to talk to anyone who feels like they're having undue pressure applied to them. We may be able to help.
I'm a few years older than YC's audience. But for those of you contemplating this decision, hear me out. My few years out in the real world are more valuable than you think.
First, approach choosing between startup schools much the way you approached choosing between universities (or colleges... I'm Canadian). When I was choosing a university to attend, I had a choice between the top computer science school in Canada, the University of Waterloo and the top rated overall school in Canada -- a misnomer as this was simply determined by a well-read publication in Canada, Maclean's -- the University of Toronto. The U of T's program was not bad; far from it. The curriculum, insofar as I could tell, mimicked Waterloo's. I was accepted into both co-op programs, though Waterloo had the edge here as it seemed to have the better reputation. Socially, I had a girlfriend and going to the U of T would mean I could continue a relationship with her (being a dumb teenager geek I gave much more importance to this factor than I should have). Financially, I pretty much would have to work my way through university. My parents are not well-off and while they had saved up some money to get me through 1st year, subsequent ones were financially up-in-the-air. When the U of T gave me a generous first-year scholarship and Waterloo didn't -- I had messed up Algebra and had earned an average score on Waterloo's math contest -- my decision was essentially made. Both schools, in my check-point analysis were neck-and-neck. Academically speaking they were both good, although Waterloo was probably better for my subject. In terms of co-op, Waterloo was better but U of T was not far behind either. So, knowing that I was essentially settling for second-place, I went to U of T.
That turned out to be the biggest mistake of my life. I don't regret a lot of mistakes I have made, but this decision is one. You see, the difference between first place and second place, while it might appear to be miniscule, is actually immense. Don't get me wrong. I was very much correct in my analysis. Academically, I was learning the same stuff that my friends over at Waterloo were. We were both kept busy working on projects, learning the same algorithms, and pulling our hair out over the tough math courses. For a while, I was quite happy with my decision. But there was an unsettling feeling. I didn't seem to have as many interesting peers for one. I was hard pressed to find somebody that was genuinely interested in programming or computing theory. I gave up asking people why they had chosen to study CS because I was tired of hearing "because that's where the jobs were" (we're talking just before the dot com bubble burst folks). I was further disappointed when it came time to do my co-op term. My co-op facilitator just didn't seem to get it. I had been courted by a startup (of 7 Waterloo grads ironically) and I wanted to work there. But she wanted me to go work at a "major company" like IBM and actually laughed at me when I said I'd already signed the papers in January with this startup to work for them in May. The big problem was that I had found this position on my own, not via the school. They had agreements with a bunch of companies, but mostly B players like IBM and ones that I just was not interested in. Waterloo had skimmed the better companies like Microsoft (back then guys!) and RIM for its students and left the U of T to settle for seconds.
So, my peers didn't seem to be as focussed on CS as the ones my friends told me about at Waterloo, and my co-op experience had turned out to be second-rate. The reality of my decision was beginning to set in. But what really convinced me I had made a catastrophic mistake was what happened one day after being really impressed with a 2nd year computer architecture (i.e. let's all learn assembler) lecture. While everybody dashed out of the lecture as soon as it was done having been bored silly, I rushed to the front and caught the prof while he was shutting down his laptop. "This is really interesting, the only problem is I can't actually program anything on my computer with it because, well, it's in imaginary ISA. I've heard x86 is ugly but can you recommend me some good x86 tutorials?". I had anticipated that he might say "Not off the top of my head, but I'll email you some good book titles/websites" or "uggh x86, why not learn PowerPC it is so much more elegant". I had NOT anticipated what he actually responded with, which was "Sorry, I don't know x86...actually the ISA in the textbook is the only one I'm fluent in". I was absolutely shocked. The only ISA he was familiar with was an imaginary one that served no practical purposes. Gutted, I left. You see, those are the sort of professors that can get along perfectly well at a 2nd place school.
Ok, so if you're still reading, you're probably wondering what the moral of the story is. Well, first off, ignore financials. Those ended up being the least of my problems. They'll be the least of your problems too. The most important things you can get out of startup school are:
-being introduced to the most interesting and intriguing peers
-having access to top-notch business opportunities
-and being mentored by passionate people
Being in my mid-20s I can call this one from the gut. You need to go with the original startup school, the #1. It's the only one that will get you all 3 of those. Sure, you will meet interesting people at other startup schools, but not THE most interesting ones, the cream of the crop. Similarly, you're just not going to have access to as good of a business opportunity in a tier 2 startup school (e.g., just pickup Founders at Work and look at all those RECOGNIZABLE leaders). And finally, you're just not going to have access to as passionate a set of mentors as you would have with YC. Again, proof of this is in the pudding: Founders at Work, PG's essays, this website (for crying out loud, another school used a freaking blogger hosted solution for their site and ripped off YC's application form). Just trust me guys. Don't let my mistake be in vain :-) There is nothing worse than wondering where you could have been if you had been able to maximize your potential by running with the lead pack. Miniscule differences are magnified over time, so don't settle.
Wow. I was in the exact situation you were in. U of T gave me a generous offer. Waterloo gave me bupkis, except admission. U of T was close to home so I would be able live at home, and be able to afford it. With Waterloo I would have had to work for 6 months to save money for first year, and then work part time during school to afford the rest.
I was an arrogant little bastard and didn't want to settle for U of T. So I picked Waterloo.
It was tough, but I still think it was one of the best decisions I've ever made.
Keep being an arrogant little bastard when it comes to getting the best for yourself and never settle. Never ever settle!
I think one of the tragedies of post-Waterloo culture is that it is not entrepreneurial enough. This is ironic given RIM is such a Canadian success story; but remember Lazaridis technically dropped out! I have far too many friends that graduated from Waterloo and are allowing large (albeit successful) employers to milk the best years of their lives. Consequently, I highly expect them to all be just another employee for the rest of their lives.
On the other hand, you have the U of T with MaRS (http://www.marsdd.com) situated across the street from it helping smart people commercialize their work.
Well YC would have been great for me the first time I tried starting up a company and failed badly. Ohhhh you have to try to make money....I totally forgot about that part at 22 :-)
Second time around is going better but I have a healthy network in place from having sat on the sidelines of entrepreneurship by working in a company for a couple of years (small ~50 people but not a startup). From a business standpoint, they are partnered with some big names in the industry that I would not have had access to doing things on my own (and never thought I would have access to working in Canada period).
Interestingly enough, working alongside the big boys boosted my self-confidence which was sorely lacking after failing at entrepreneurship the first time around. I had really tied my self-worth to that endeavour and I'm not used to failing, but had been managing to do so quite a bit around that point in my life. I really blossomed given this work opportunity even if it meant I had to follow orders. I hope I don't ever have to work at a salaried job again, but if I do I don't think I will ever match the efficiency with which I climbed up that ladder. In my first year I got 3 unsolicited large raises, leap-frogged from a position of working on the smallest, most insignificant portions of their code to being in a benevolent dictator position over the entire repository (not as easy/nice as you would think). And, I was happy, or I thought I was. With all that money they were throwing at me I kept buying crap and partying with friends to try to feel fulfilled. For you younger 20-somethings, you will quickly realize that North American culture is built upon keeping up with the Jones' and if you have even a hint of a social network, most of your friends will be drinking/partying/shopping away the best years of their lives as they come to grips with the disappointment of their crappy cubicle jobs. So, I came to the realization I was falling into that trap, and promptly wrote up a resignation letter. Although I was so entrenched in that company and it was so unexpected that we eventually negotiated a long transition period of about 6 weeks and I continue to consult for them to this day.
There are a couple of reasons YCombinator is not attractive to me. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be attractive to many of you. But for me, I have been lucky. And I really mean lucky. I'm a geek, but early on my parents strongly suggested (e.g., forced :-) ) me to be well-rounded. So while they'd send me to science camp at 12 years of age to the U of T or to a week-long engineering trip at 15 at Queen's University, they would also force me off the computer after I'd sat there for 8 hours straight on a summer day :-) So I play sports, hang out with artists, go (and enjoy going) to dance clubs, meeting girls/women, doing a whole bunch of social stuff that makes business networking much easier and is traditionally not something associated with being a good programmer. Don't frown upon doing this or just accept that you suck at it as a geek because it initially feels awkward doing it. The way I think about it, there are dyslexics that have learned to read. My geek tendency to be socially awkward is my learning disability, and I need to overcome it to reach my potential. Hell, nothing will prepare you for life as a businessman quite like approaching beautiful women at a club and being totally and utterly shot down (hint: it will happen less often than you think, and increasingly less often the more experience you have doing it).
Anyways, I am approaching a point here. The point is that I'm at a stage in life where I can call up business mentors and have them totally shoot my ideas/strategies to pieces. I'm at a point where I'd much rather draw say $20 K from one of my credit lines than bring onboard an investor for such a small sum. I have definitely not made it, but I have made it beyond the point of YC's focus, to where I could call up a more traditional VC to help with funding. That's not a shot against YC, I'm simply not their target market any longer, and I imagine other folks in my age bracket are probably not either if they have had preparedness meet opportunity (e.g. luck). Still, some things do intrigue me about startup school. I imagine YC and its competitors will at some point be forced to explore the equivalent of graduate startup school (with the current setup being undergrad startup school in this analogy). So who knows, I might be interested and pursue something like that.
It's telling that further08 hasn't responded. It's even more telling that further08's account on News.YC was created just minutes before making this post.
They seem to be legit, actually. After reading http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=167497 I got paranoid and grepped in the logs for the IP address. This is from genuine founders.
While I've defended folks emulating YC in the last few threads, I do have to say that this is rather disingenuous -- not because I don't think that business-wise that it's fair game, but because since variations on the YC theme are so new there's a huge amount of space for differentiation.
For instance, the Seattle guys seem to be doing something pretty different and I think that's wonderful. They want people in Seattle and they want them to stay there. It seems that they're more interested in building a community than giving startups a jump-start.
YC, really is pretty narrow in scope. You could change the amount of money, the time, the industry focus (YC seems pretty media-ish-web focused), the country ... and I think you could still snap up a good chunk of smart startups with the core of the YC philosophy.
I recently read Blue Ocean Strategy -- the crux of the book is to find a way to redefine your market and dominate your segment, rather than ending up in a race to the bottom. In other words, don't play to win: change the rules.
I think something like YC for films would be really cool, obviously it would have to be more than 20k but I bet some great work would come out of it. The hardest part would be finding a forward-looking person in that industry to start it.
This is a funny property of the US film scene though. Low budget in the US is a whole lot higher than for instance here in Germany. There are a lot of films produced here that make it into festivals that are produced on grants of under €20k. If it were done in connection with a rethinking of the way that films are distributed and was done all digital rather than using real film stock, I think you could produce some interesting results for relatively cheap.
They are headed by the crazy genius Lars Von Trier and an even more crazy guy called Peter Aalbæk. They do a lot of diversification, and have a lot of 50/50 ownerships. I'm sure that they would hear you out. They have a strong track record as well - they've won the golden palms in Cannes among other things.
They've done this with previous groups of founders.
Luckily, the choice right now isn't too hard. TechStars hasn't yet proven they can provide significantly better outcomes for their startups...they might, but they haven't done it yet. YC has definitely proven they provide better outcomes, and Silicon Valley and Boston are both better places to start a tech company than Colorado (though Boulder is lovely--too cold for me, but many folks like it). Of course, having neither backing you is probably an even worse likely outcome...so maybe it's not such an easy choice, after all.
But, if you make it to the interview with YC your odds of getting in are quite high (greater than 30%, certainly, and probably closer to 50%).
Perhaps it is a secret reporter from valleywag who is preparing a scathing article about the fight between YC and TS, looking for a few victimized startups they can quote out of context.
I think there is a "equity of 1st offering" here, which ever selected you first should have at least a small advantage over the other; simply because they 'believed first'.
