Does anyone have examples of start-ups that didn't get into YC but have gone on to do 'well' by some definition(e.g top 100,000 on compete.com or ramen profitable or acquired)?
My startup was rejected for YC summer '07. I launched it while working full-time for another company, built it to profitability over the course of a year and a half, and quit my day job in February of this year.
My business became profitable this month, but it's not the same as the idea I applied to YC with. Not sure whether that counts or not, since apparently half of YC folks change their idea anyway. To be fair though I don't think I could have done it without going through Seth's MBA program, which was a lot more hands on than YC. (In terms of more contact hours, more formal instruction, more varied curriculum, more opportunity to find a diverse set of mentors, etc.) Also not the same co-founder, but the co-founder I applied with wasn't the problem.
I won't list names, but there's one team that was rejected from this batch that had raised a series A (from a good VC) before any of the teams from the batch did.
The fundamental thing is that you've got to want to start a startup, rather than to be in YC -- if you want to start a startup YC can be something along that path, but far and away most of the startups that have succeeded have done so without YC, so that's obviously a well-worn path to success.
Being accepted or not by YC has very little bearing on whether a startup can be successful or not, I do not expect there to be any significant correlation between YC rejected companies and accepted ones (in terms of success).
They simply have a limited amount of time.
What I do think you will find is that those that are bitter about a rejection tend to cluster around the failure point, mostly because they will be looking to externalize their reason for failure. That may come in many different guises, such as 'we would have succeeded if we had been accepted' or 'we will prove they should have accepted us'.
Just take it as an opportunity to accelerate do not worry too much about who gets accepted and who does not.
YC likely got it wrong a number of times, as long as they use objective criteria (only known to themselves) and gut calls on who they choose to work with (which can just be a personal feelings issue) they are totally free to make their decisions.
> I do not expect there to be any significant correlation between YC rejected companies and accepted ones
That's a pretty bizarre statement. You mean to imply that the YC folks have exactly zero predictive power in the success of a startup? That seems pretty crazy.
I agree that being rejected by YC doesn't by any means block one from future success, but the selection process is better than, say, random sampling. If nothing else, there have to be a fair percentage of just plain dumb ideas that get filtered out or patterns that emerge for people who aren't likely to pull something off that they can predict with some degree of accuracy (no matter how small).
I feel like this question is irrelevant. If YC looks at 1000 ideas, and thinks 100 are good - they still can't take all 100 (because they don't have the space/funding).
Therefore a company being rejected from YC may have nothing to do with whether or not YC wanted them. Sometimes its just about logistics.
Alas, I'm sure YC has rejected companies it knew would be successful, but accepted companies which were either more innovative/bigger market opportunity, or which they hoped would become even more successful.
But if a proportion of the other 900 companies are more successful that the 100 accepted companies, it provides some insight into the ability of YC to pick 'winners'. Particularly if a company that is turned down out perfoms a YC company in the same space/field.
I would say that the operative questions is more about founders who become successful after they were not accepted into a YC "class." YC themselves are good at pointing out that most start-ups have to change direction/pivot multiple times before being successful. That's why it's about the people/founders imho.
I also suspect that there is little correlation in terms of success or not for companies accepted/not accepted into YC. The one exception worth exploring is that moving to SV for 90 days for non SV companies and working in one living room might increase focus and hence chances of success. That would be interesting to know.
I'd be willing to bet the most important metric is the startup's response to yc rejection. Is it, "Oh well, back to the drawing board." or "They're wrong and we'll show them."?
I don't know. If I had the money to invest, either response would be good although I would prefer the last one (you know in your gut that you are right and they are wrong, and you know you don't get anything from going back to the drawing board).
[+] [-] tkiley|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hbien|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billbarhydt|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wheels|16 years ago|reply
The fundamental thing is that you've got to want to start a startup, rather than to be in YC -- if you want to start a startup YC can be something along that path, but far and away most of the startups that have succeeded have done so without YC, so that's obviously a well-worn path to success.
[+] [-] jacquesm|16 years ago|reply
They simply have a limited amount of time.
What I do think you will find is that those that are bitter about a rejection tend to cluster around the failure point, mostly because they will be looking to externalize their reason for failure. That may come in many different guises, such as 'we would have succeeded if we had been accepted' or 'we will prove they should have accepted us'.
Just take it as an opportunity to accelerate do not worry too much about who gets accepted and who does not.
YC likely got it wrong a number of times, as long as they use objective criteria (only known to themselves) and gut calls on who they choose to work with (which can just be a personal feelings issue) they are totally free to make their decisions.
It's their time and money after all.
[+] [-] wheels|16 years ago|reply
That's a pretty bizarre statement. You mean to imply that the YC folks have exactly zero predictive power in the success of a startup? That seems pretty crazy.
I agree that being rejected by YC doesn't by any means block one from future success, but the selection process is better than, say, random sampling. If nothing else, there have to be a fair percentage of just plain dumb ideas that get filtered out or patterns that emerge for people who aren't likely to pull something off that they can predict with some degree of accuracy (no matter how small).
[+] [-] pg|16 years ago|reply
Did you mean variation rather than correlation?
[+] [-] bgnm2000|16 years ago|reply
Therefore a company being rejected from YC may have nothing to do with whether or not YC wanted them. Sometimes its just about logistics.
Alas, I'm sure YC has rejected companies it knew would be successful, but accepted companies which were either more innovative/bigger market opportunity, or which they hoped would become even more successful.
[+] [-] FreeRadical|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billbarhydt|16 years ago|reply
I also suspect that there is little correlation in terms of success or not for companies accepted/not accepted into YC. The one exception worth exploring is that moving to SV for 90 days for non SV companies and working in one living room might increase focus and hence chances of success. That would be interesting to know.
[+] [-] jack7890|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pclark|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rgr23|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanScorpio|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veemjeem|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tdm911|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edw519|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen2|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rw|16 years ago|reply
YC is a drop in the bucket. It's a cool and potentially game-changing one, but a drop nonetheless.
Edit: To be less snarky about it, this will probably interest you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=550351
[+] [-] Zak|16 years ago|reply