I live in Australia and I have an idea for a startup (which, oddly enough, has to do with internet dating which I was delighted to see is mentioned in one of the library articles) but I will readily admit the neither I nor my co-founder have any idea where to start. I am due to finish my Engineering degree in November and currently work 4 days a week for a local Engineering firm. As you can imagine this doesn't leave a lot of time for development of my idea or research of how to go about a startup.
Given such circumstances, a program like Y Combinator seems like the knight in shinning amour to me and I'm sure to the "kids" you are talking about. Its not so much the cash they inject, its the guidance and readily available support they offer which to me seems almost invaluable.
I can therefore see why there are people preaching that Y Combinator is "The One True Way To Do A Tech Startup". While I myself am not quite ready to make that claim I can clearly see where the logic behind these remarks resides. Judging by your comments BitGeek, you clearly aren't a "kid" but someone who has some experience in this field. I envy you and have a lot of time for any alternate routes for a startup like mine you care to suggest. But for now, from a 22 year old kids perspective that has done only a little bit of research, Y Combinator definitely seems like the best road traveled for my startup to be a success.
All I have to do now is apply, fly to the USA and be accepted, simple huh?
Hey, I'm from Australia, went for an interview, and didn't get in. Its not that simple because of VISA issues...
The real point of this post is to get you email me, because you're in Australia :)
You're also taking the role of the experienced startup guy setting the "kids" straight. But people who are clearly more experienced and successful than you seem to disagree. Look at the list of speakers YC has attracted, many of them are not easy to influence with money -- and yet they seem to think YC is an amazing opportunity that they would have loved to have when starting out.
Ironically, I don't find much that I dislike about Paul Graham. But the cult of PG is another matter.
If you read my posts you will find that I always provide an alternative solution and generally argue for why it is a better solution. Dont' get VC funding- you don't need it, you can lease the infrastrcture you need, and use open source tools. I even quoted PG saying essentialyl the same thing-- yet this position is the number one thing that people argue with me about here.
I do find it curious that the primary argument made against me is the fallacy of authority: "But people who are clearly more experienced and successful than you seem to disagree."
I am not making any arguments based on my success, and you certainly don't know my level of success or lack of it. But you sure seem to think you do.
":and yet they seem to think YC is an amazing opportunity that they would have loved to have when starting out."
The thing that most makes this community cult-like is the constant reliance of repeated ideology. The third time you hear the same "Argument" you start to wonder if everyone isn't reading from the same textbook. (And this text book seems to be full of appeals to authority.)
And the worst thing is that there's an ideology here!
Why does it have to be combative? Why does anyone who provies a different opinion need to be attacked or percieved as attacking?
You start off by impunging my motives... but I am more tame than Paul Graham is. Do you question the motives of his essays simply because he's not tame? Again, colored perception.
"clearly more experienced and successful than you"
You know, I think that's the core of it-- Paul had a mild success, and he's written a lot of opinionated articles. The cult of personality is therefore one that worships success... I haven't bragged about my success, I've argued without appeal to authority. But that carries less weight, doesn't it?
You did try to list your credentials in the Reddit thread IIRC. And I'm not judging your success and experience against Paul Graham's -- I'm judging it against Paul Graham, Joe Kraus, Evan Williams, Mitch Kapor, Mark Fletcher, Joshua Schacter, Paul Buchheit, etc. All of these people have practically endorsed YC as a Good Thing(TM) and have supported it by meeting with the founders and giving them advice.
You're asking why it feels "combative" and yet your posts basically say that anyone who thinks YC is a good deal is an inexperience make-money-fast cult zombie kid. Surprised?
You'd get a lot more positive response if you went a bit easier on the insulting language and condescension. I don't think that's what you're after though. I think you're enjoying being the outspoken contrarian too much. Enjoy.
You are still trying to make a fallacious argument from authority, and are attempting to insult me for not doing the same?
I'm making my points, and if you will notice, I'm generally rather generous with the person I'm disagreeing with. Unfortunately this is not sufficient, as simply having a differnet opinion is the problem here, and the result is that people make insinuations on the persons character because they have a differnet opinion-- as I called you on and as you have not yet withdrawn, despite being more conciliatory in this message.
Or put another way- the problem is people are offended at someone having a differnet opinion.
If I told you I was Tony Robbins and I was a multi-millionaire., would that sway you? I doubt it because, despite being someone who has been successful at business, he's likely not going to garner respect.
You should evaluated arguments-- technological or not-- on their logic, reason and scientific basis. And this is why those are the only kind of arguments I will make.
The counter arguments, however, tend to be naming "Authorities"... rathre than making logical or reasoned arguments.
Anybody who build their business on nights and weekends while working a fulltime job is someone who has shown a great deal of commitment. I've done this, its damn hard... its hard not to let the startup wither away because you're too busy with your day job, and its hard not to loose interest after even 3 months of spending all your time on your job or your other job with little time for anything else.
Show me someone who built thier company that way, and I'll be interested in putting money in.
YC seems to attract and be geared for, kids in college who want a summer job with the prospect of glamorous VC money afterwards. It doesn't matter to them that they might get a raw deal-- cause they don't have much invested in it in the first place. And ther's nothing wrong with that.
The problem is that these kids are so adamant and smug that this is The One True Way To Do A Tech Startup-- that making these foolish short term choices in pursuit of a billion dollar dream is obviously right... and building a net worth of $10M by building a $3M/a year real buisiness is a "lifestyle" business-- a failure in their eyes. They are naieve and strident and there is no getting thru to them because Paul Graham has them mezmerized by the tune he's playing.
YC is a great summer camp for entreprenurial college students. But all the bashing of other ways of going about it that they do are so misguided... and the focus on only high risk, low probability business models seems misguided.