Sadly, we did not make it either. Since I don't have a blog, I'll just say a few things here...
Basically, we did everything we could on our end:
-Had a pretty good demo. We spent a few months working on it part-time and we had the entire thing up and running with enough features for it to be roughly usable and we had some nice mock-ups of the future stuff we wanted to put in. I even showed them that TechCrunch featured one of the UI components (that was released as a standalone widget) done by our UI guy.
-we prepared very well. We met with a few people from the local startup community (organizers of DemoCamp, a CEO and CTO of a local startup, etc) and had them pick apart our pitch. They did a very good job and brought up a lot of concerns which we worked out. People I emailed beforehand said to expect a lot of questions at the interview and to think on your feet, but because we had already gone through this 3 times with the local people, none of the questions during the interview were new to us and we had decent answers.
So why didn't we get accepted? Well, there were simply better teams around that day. The email from pg did give two reasons, but to be honest, they were pretty flaky. The first was the community aspect (ie, it depended on user generated content) and the second our planned revenue stream. We had good answers to these ready since we expected they'd be raised during the interview and plenty of previous YC startups had overcome the same problems. The way I see it, if pg's philosophy is "build something nice people want to use, then worry about the money" and he rejects you because of revenue concerns, then it's basically a nice way of saying "Sorry, I just liked the other teams better"
Of course this illustrates a one of the downsides of the whole startup thing. A lot of the things you do in life are pretty deterministic: if you spend 1hr/day learning Spanish, you'll know it well sooner or later, if you spend 1hr/day working out, you'll increase your stamina or muscles or whatever you're working on. If you work 1hr/day on a startup up.. well, its probabilistic, so all you're doing is tilting the odds in your favour, but you're never guaranteed anything - be it progress or success or whatever. So all the work on the app and all of the preparation for the demo/interview was for naught.
Anyway... it'd be a shame to throw so much work away, so we'll probably work on it a bit more, then release it as a side project or something. At least have a decent project to put on future resumes or whatever.
We were also among the group that were invited for a interview - but received at the end a rejection e-mail. As graduating college seniors, we had banked a lot on pursuing our startup idea. I spurned a offer to work at a blue chip company that would offer full-rides and time off for grad school in CS; my partner for the YCombinator application decided to skip his final presentation in a major class taught by his thesis advisor (effectively garnering an incomplete mark on his transcript and less-than-favorable reception for his future grad school recommendations) for our presentation.
We certainly do not blame Paul Graham for our setbacks. Our motto had always been, "you win some, and you lose some." We won some when we received an invitation to Mountain View. We lost some when we received a rejection e-mail from PG afterwards. But then, we won some more, when we decided to take the free advice offered by PG (think bona fide corporate consulting) and go ahead with our startup idea anyways. Thanks to YCombinator, we have learned a lot from our trip to Cali and our first presentation to VC's, that we are going to take away and put to use,
- The Silicon Valley is just a place. Coming from a sleepy college town on the East Coast, we relished the idea of coming to the tech mecca where everything came together. But driving down San Jose/Pal Alto on $4/gallon reminded me of the suburban sprawl/commercial park/new development of Washington D.C/Boston/Philly; riding the $12/one way VTA light rail and BART and witnessing scores of IT workers getting off at Cisco Way reminded me of the scenes of my arriving for work at BigCo, back in Connecticut. But I was reminded that unlike those around me, I didn't have a ID badge, all I had was my idea and the thrill of following through or failing with my idea. Being Silicon Valley did not dazzle me with its "glitz," but my idea was still exciting to me.
- Doing startup's sucks, in the "conventional sense". As a college student, you can't help but compare yourself with your peers; I secretly maintained a secretive competitive streak with my friends, who will be going to med school/law school/wall street firms. While I have been outwardly conceding that they will be obscenely rich soon in comparison to my "poor" startup-wanabe self, I was hoping that getting accepted into YCombinator would put me ahead of my lame corporate-sellout friends. As an result, I poured a lot of time in writing the application and preparing our presentation. Now that we have been rejected, I relish of having the opportunity to once again, sit in my school's computer lab - late at night, coding away.
- How little rejections matter. We were heartbroken when we initially read the e-mail from PG on Saturday evening. But the next day when we woke up, I and my partner went our respective way's for more startup job interview's we had lined up for our trip to California. On our flight back home, we discussed how we could address on our own, the valid concerns that PG had brought up regarding our startup. When we got back to Connecticut, I fired off a e-mail to my mentor for Google Summer of Code (GSoC) that my plans for VC funding fell through, and that I will be able to work on my GSoC project full time during the summer (Any GSoC people here?). During the course of my writing this, my partner in crime caught up with me in the computer lab and showed me some of his plans for the back-end of next iteration for our startup website.
I've just realized how lucky I am, and how much the trip to Mountain View was worth all the time and troubles I went through.
We got rejected last year too. It would be nice to be with YC but, over the last year, we found ways of funding ourselves and changed our business plan. We continue to look for great advice - which is often forth coming in videos, forums etc and networking opportunities.
YC gives -
1. Advice/guidance
2. A little money
3. Networking Opportunities
4. A high pressure environment to get the best out - quick.
Except for #3, we have substitutes for all others. And #3 is picking up too.
What were you planning on doing when the first VC you pitched to rejected you? Seriously, take the rejection, and channel that into drive. Prove them wrong. Drop them a politely smug mail when you do your IPO. :-)
As YC grows it's invevitable that they, like every investment group, are going to pass on something big, and I think the good folks running YC would be the first to admit that.
Thanks for posting. But on your probabilistic/deterministic thought, you did get something out of the startup experience. After all, working out one hour per day can make you more fit, but doesn't guarantee you'll make the team on the first tryout.
Your last paragraph strongly suggests to me that you were rightly rejected.
Here's the last paragraph:
Anyway... it'd be a shame to throw so much work away, so we'll probably work on it a bit more, then release it as a side project or something. At least have a decent project to put on future resumes or whatever.
Translation: "Because one VC firm rejected us, I...suppose...I can still use the incipient startup as resume filler. Or whatever""
That's a loser attitude if there ever was one, and I'm going to guess that VCs look for it.
I should have reposted my old YC interview advice comment... I'll write a new set for the next round.
One of the main tips and a reason we didn't get in is that if PG and co suggest some kind of change to you, you should agree with whatever they say. One thing they're testing for is flexibility. Don't waste time defending yourself against them because you can't win.
Whatever they told you, think about it, run with it, and reapply in 5 months. If you can actually make progress towards solving online dating they'll accept you in a heartbeat. If YC was a VC that had a model for the types of companies they were going to invest in, online dating would be at the very top of the list.
As someone who was also turned down, my advice is actually the opposite: Do not reapply in 5 months.
It's a mental thing. If you always keep the dream of YC on a golden pedestal in your mind (one that must be reached in order to be successful), you could be setting yourself up for further disappointment and wasting valuable time. I'm not saying that YC is not worth aspiring for (I still think its a tremendous opportunity), just that dwelling on it rather than your product will kill you.
5 months is a long time in startup world. You need to put your defeat behind you as quickly as possible and focus on building your product. Remember, that is what is really the most important.
Hopefully you learned some useful things about your idea and team from your interview. We certainly did, and for that I'm thankful. Its a little disappointing to hear that they no longer talk things over with you on the phone, but at least you got to meet some smart people and got some critical advice during the interview.
if PG and co suggest some kind of change to you, you should agree with whatever they say
A lot of people disagree with things we suggest and we fund them anyway. What we care about in this situation is how they respond. Plain yes is as bad a sign as plain no.
That's not just YC interview advice, that's advice for life. The ability to recognize good ideas in others is a far rarer skill than being able to come up with good ideas yourself. And, since there are far more others than selfs in the world, it tends to be a more useful skill as well. Even if you disagree with advice being offered, showing respect for the ideas of the person offering the advice by at least pondering it will make the advice-giver feel good about themselves and therefore like you.
just going through the process of failing already puts you ahead. after school, most people don't put themselves in positions where they can fail at something. it's not human nature. so congrats.
you're putting waaaay too much weight on this silly idea of startup success. seriously man, put things in perspective. what exactly were you expecting to get? life comes with its own sets of problems regardless of where you are.
if you have any savings go and travel the world. if you don't, work for a year, and then do it. my guess would be that 3 months from now you'll be laughing at yourself.
If you are downmodding this, quickly read some craigslist person seeking person posts.
I would guess the majority are just looking for random sexual hookups. Some sort of eHarmony matching for sexual partners would probably be an overwhelming success.
Bah. Getting rejected by YC is not the end of the world; and getting accepted by YC is no guarantee of success. At the end of the day, if you don't truly believe in your startup, then why are you doing it?
Just like OP, one thing I didn't like about the interviews was the instant and final yes-or-no answer. In our case, YC said they were worried about a problem we did not think would be a serious issue. We did come up with a solution, but only a few hours later, which, apparently, was too late.
one thing I didn't like about the interviews was the instant and final yes-or-no answer
Yes, that is a problem for us too. We'd like to be able to spend longer with each group. But we want to give the maximum number of groups a chance to interview. If we spent more time on each interview, we'd have to interview fewer groups.
Speaking of investing, now that your startup's been acquired have you thought about becoming an angel investor?
Everyone's always saying there's a need for more startup investors who were formerly startup founders themselves. Checking your profile on Fleaflicker, I see you're in NYC; there are bound to be angel investor groups that you could join if you didn't want to do it alone.
If you have an idea you really believe in and you quit because YC didn't buy into it then you're fooling yourself.
You really need to follow through with your ideas whether or not other people believe after they heard your pitch for 10 minutes.
YC is indeed a great opportunity, but it's definitely not the only one. Keep working at your idea, go out to conferences and meet-ups -- you can network on your own. Be yourself and be your product.
I believe something that is important to YC is that you are not banking on their funding to fulfill your idea. You need to have the mentality that you are going to finish your product with or without them. You need to make them want to get on your boat rather than you praying to be on theirs.
We came across the application and decided to fill out as an exercise for solidifying our idea. Whether or not YC was going to fund us, we still had a plan of action, which is essentially still the same. I feel that our mentality is what gave us the confidence to interview the way we did.
Try again next time, don't be so bitter. Give value before you get value. If you make your product and it is good, word will spread, and you will succeed, just keep at it. Please.
Sounds like you have some good takeaways from the experience. Next time, it won't be pg making comments but customers. You'll have to work harder to read between the lines, but you'll do fine if you give their suggestions, hints, and concerns the same weight you should have given pg's.
YC is not the be all and end all. We all have rough rides at time and fall down. Pick yourself up, learn from the experience and keep moving forward, don't stop.
I have been following Paul Graham for some time and attended Startup School a couple years ago. At that time pg was somewhat adamant that they were not be interested in funding companies innovating in the 'online dating' space. Of course they ended up funding iminlikewithyou. But the initial negativity led me to decide against applying to YC. But it hasnt stopped our team from following our dream.
We have been working very hard on modernizing (in fact revolutionizing) 'online dating'. When I tell people this they are generally unbelieving and point out all the terrible shortcomings of current sites. To me, that signals opportunity. We are really going to change things for the better.
Although our site is still under wraps, if you are interested in finding out more then visit http://www.jumbledate.com and put your name on the list.
Yeah dating is interesting -- if you can solve two problems and get people to know you've solved it (or at least made the situation better) -- you probably have something viable.
First is supply -- just having lots of available people on there. It's a classic network that derives its value from the connections. So you could break down barriers like cost (plenty of fish) or complexity in getting a profile up.
Second is quality. This is where barriers are important -- Christian dating becomes a prefilter that reduces the population but increases quality. eharmony.com actually actively tries to increase quality by returning NO matches for people who 'fail' their personality tests. As controversial as that is (e.g. if a user is a depressed Atheist, then they probably will get 0 matches) -- it serves the community by making the dating pool better for their targeted audience.
The two existing ways in which sites attack these problems is that they specialize for a specific niche and make it awesome for a particular type of person, or just go for pure quantity (which makes sense for an adwords play).
[+] [-] martythemaniak|18 years ago|reply
Basically, we did everything we could on our end:
-Had a pretty good demo. We spent a few months working on it part-time and we had the entire thing up and running with enough features for it to be roughly usable and we had some nice mock-ups of the future stuff we wanted to put in. I even showed them that TechCrunch featured one of the UI components (that was released as a standalone widget) done by our UI guy.
-we prepared very well. We met with a few people from the local startup community (organizers of DemoCamp, a CEO and CTO of a local startup, etc) and had them pick apart our pitch. They did a very good job and brought up a lot of concerns which we worked out. People I emailed beforehand said to expect a lot of questions at the interview and to think on your feet, but because we had already gone through this 3 times with the local people, none of the questions during the interview were new to us and we had decent answers.
So why didn't we get accepted? Well, there were simply better teams around that day. The email from pg did give two reasons, but to be honest, they were pretty flaky. The first was the community aspect (ie, it depended on user generated content) and the second our planned revenue stream. We had good answers to these ready since we expected they'd be raised during the interview and plenty of previous YC startups had overcome the same problems. The way I see it, if pg's philosophy is "build something nice people want to use, then worry about the money" and he rejects you because of revenue concerns, then it's basically a nice way of saying "Sorry, I just liked the other teams better"
Of course this illustrates a one of the downsides of the whole startup thing. A lot of the things you do in life are pretty deterministic: if you spend 1hr/day learning Spanish, you'll know it well sooner or later, if you spend 1hr/day working out, you'll increase your stamina or muscles or whatever you're working on. If you work 1hr/day on a startup up.. well, its probabilistic, so all you're doing is tilting the odds in your favour, but you're never guaranteed anything - be it progress or success or whatever. So all the work on the app and all of the preparation for the demo/interview was for naught.
Anyway... it'd be a shame to throw so much work away, so we'll probably work on it a bit more, then release it as a side project or something. At least have a decent project to put on future resumes or whatever.
[+] [-] cowmoo|18 years ago|reply
We certainly do not blame Paul Graham for our setbacks. Our motto had always been, "you win some, and you lose some." We won some when we received an invitation to Mountain View. We lost some when we received a rejection e-mail from PG afterwards. But then, we won some more, when we decided to take the free advice offered by PG (think bona fide corporate consulting) and go ahead with our startup idea anyways. Thanks to YCombinator, we have learned a lot from our trip to Cali and our first presentation to VC's, that we are going to take away and put to use,
- The Silicon Valley is just a place. Coming from a sleepy college town on the East Coast, we relished the idea of coming to the tech mecca where everything came together. But driving down San Jose/Pal Alto on $4/gallon reminded me of the suburban sprawl/commercial park/new development of Washington D.C/Boston/Philly; riding the $12/one way VTA light rail and BART and witnessing scores of IT workers getting off at Cisco Way reminded me of the scenes of my arriving for work at BigCo, back in Connecticut. But I was reminded that unlike those around me, I didn't have a ID badge, all I had was my idea and the thrill of following through or failing with my idea. Being Silicon Valley did not dazzle me with its "glitz," but my idea was still exciting to me.
- Doing startup's sucks, in the "conventional sense". As a college student, you can't help but compare yourself with your peers; I secretly maintained a secretive competitive streak with my friends, who will be going to med school/law school/wall street firms. While I have been outwardly conceding that they will be obscenely rich soon in comparison to my "poor" startup-wanabe self, I was hoping that getting accepted into YCombinator would put me ahead of my lame corporate-sellout friends. As an result, I poured a lot of time in writing the application and preparing our presentation. Now that we have been rejected, I relish of having the opportunity to once again, sit in my school's computer lab - late at night, coding away.
- How little rejections matter. We were heartbroken when we initially read the e-mail from PG on Saturday evening. But the next day when we woke up, I and my partner went our respective way's for more startup job interview's we had lined up for our trip to California. On our flight back home, we discussed how we could address on our own, the valid concerns that PG had brought up regarding our startup. When we got back to Connecticut, I fired off a e-mail to my mentor for Google Summer of Code (GSoC) that my plans for VC funding fell through, and that I will be able to work on my GSoC project full time during the summer (Any GSoC people here?). During the course of my writing this, my partner in crime caught up with me in the computer lab and showed me some of his plans for the back-end of next iteration for our startup website.
I've just realized how lucky I am, and how much the trip to Mountain View was worth all the time and troubles I went through.
[+] [-] kashif|18 years ago|reply
YC gives -
1. Advice/guidance
2. A little money
3. Networking Opportunities
4. A high pressure environment to get the best out - quick.
Except for #3, we have substitutes for all others. And #3 is picking up too.
So I say, "Go be your on YC!"
[+] [-] wheels|18 years ago|reply
As YC grows it's invevitable that they, like every investment group, are going to pass on something big, and I think the good folks running YC would be the first to admit that.
[+] [-] dhimes|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mynameishere|18 years ago|reply
Here's the last paragraph:
Anyway... it'd be a shame to throw so much work away, so we'll probably work on it a bit more, then release it as a side project or something. At least have a decent project to put on future resumes or whatever.
Translation: "Because one VC firm rejected us, I...suppose...I can still use the incipient startup as resume filler. Or whatever""
That's a loser attitude if there ever was one, and I'm going to guess that VCs look for it.
[+] [-] fallentimes|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rms|18 years ago|reply
One of the main tips and a reason we didn't get in is that if PG and co suggest some kind of change to you, you should agree with whatever they say. One thing they're testing for is flexibility. Don't waste time defending yourself against them because you can't win.
Whatever they told you, think about it, run with it, and reapply in 5 months. If you can actually make progress towards solving online dating they'll accept you in a heartbeat. If YC was a VC that had a model for the types of companies they were going to invest in, online dating would be at the very top of the list.
[+] [-] jsjenkins168|18 years ago|reply
It's a mental thing. If you always keep the dream of YC on a golden pedestal in your mind (one that must be reached in order to be successful), you could be setting yourself up for further disappointment and wasting valuable time. I'm not saying that YC is not worth aspiring for (I still think its a tremendous opportunity), just that dwelling on it rather than your product will kill you.
5 months is a long time in startup world. You need to put your defeat behind you as quickly as possible and focus on building your product. Remember, that is what is really the most important.
Hopefully you learned some useful things about your idea and team from your interview. We certainly did, and for that I'm thankful. Its a little disappointing to hear that they no longer talk things over with you on the phone, but at least you got to meet some smart people and got some critical advice during the interview.
[+] [-] pg|18 years ago|reply
A lot of people disagree with things we suggest and we fund them anyway. What we care about in this situation is how they respond. Plain yes is as bad a sign as plain no.
[+] [-] Prrometheus|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suboptimal|18 years ago|reply
Fifty years from now will you remember that day spent coding, or will you remember your adventure in California?
[+] [-] unknown|18 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Harj|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] utx00|18 years ago|reply
if you have any savings go and travel the world. if you don't, work for a year, and then do it. my guess would be that 3 months from now you'll be laughing at yourself.
good luck.
[+] [-] signa11|18 years ago|reply
getting laid with online dating ?
[+] [-] mrtron|18 years ago|reply
I would guess the majority are just looking for random sexual hookups. Some sort of eHarmony matching for sexual partners would probably be an overwhelming success.
[+] [-] LostInTheWoods|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andr|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg|18 years ago|reply
Yes, that is a problem for us too. We'd like to be able to spend longer with each group. But we want to give the maximum number of groups a chance to interview. If we spent more time on each interview, we'd have to interview fewer groups.
[+] [-] unknown|18 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fleaflicker|18 years ago|reply
I would not invest in founders that aren't passionate about what they are doing.
Find something that makes you excited.
[+] [-] JayNeely|18 years ago|reply
Everyone's always saying there's a need for more startup investors who were formerly startup founders themselves. Checking your profile on Fleaflicker, I see you're in NYC; there are bound to be angel investor groups that you could join if you didn't want to do it alone.
[+] [-] chrysb|18 years ago|reply
You really need to follow through with your ideas whether or not other people believe after they heard your pitch for 10 minutes.
YC is indeed a great opportunity, but it's definitely not the only one. Keep working at your idea, go out to conferences and meet-ups -- you can network on your own. Be yourself and be your product.
I believe something that is important to YC is that you are not banking on their funding to fulfill your idea. You need to have the mentality that you are going to finish your product with or without them. You need to make them want to get on your boat rather than you praying to be on theirs.
We came across the application and decided to fill out as an exercise for solidifying our idea. Whether or not YC was going to fund us, we still had a plan of action, which is essentially still the same. I feel that our mentality is what gave us the confidence to interview the way we did.
Try again next time, don't be so bitter. Give value before you get value. If you make your product and it is good, word will spread, and you will succeed, just keep at it. Please.
[+] [-] dhimes|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alex_c|18 years ago|reply
(and eventual success)
[+] [-] babul|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgrahamc|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iloveyouocean|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rantfoil|18 years ago|reply
First is supply -- just having lots of available people on there. It's a classic network that derives its value from the connections. So you could break down barriers like cost (plenty of fish) or complexity in getting a profile up.
Second is quality. This is where barriers are important -- Christian dating becomes a prefilter that reduces the population but increases quality. eharmony.com actually actively tries to increase quality by returning NO matches for people who 'fail' their personality tests. As controversial as that is (e.g. if a user is a depressed Atheist, then they probably will get 0 matches) -- it serves the community by making the dating pool better for their targeted audience.
The two existing ways in which sites attack these problems is that they specialize for a specific niche and make it awesome for a particular type of person, or just go for pure quantity (which makes sense for an adwords play).
Are there others?
[+] [-] utx00|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wumi|18 years ago|reply