I would agree with you but recently I have really started to like the TechStars program. Why? Because of the impression given to me from their recent videos about the start-ups and the program that have appeared this time. The videos show how the program works, the openness, the mentoring, the city (Boulder not Boston), the community/spirit there, what the founders are like. When TechStars first started, I was thinking 'they have no chance, YC is the only place to be'; but now, I really respect what they have going on there, and wouldn't mind going there.

YC seems a bit more closed. Outsiders can't gage what it is really like except from a few vids here and there and the comments on HackerNews. Plus, with the increased popularity of HackerNews, it is quite difficult to track the comments from YC company founders. Of course, when someone gets in then they probably don't care any more, but it's always nice to be open and show people what you're all about. The same goes for all the other programs.

The point: if you're starting a new program, especially in a traditionally non-tech area, it is best to be open and show what the program (including location) is all about. It's just good marketing.

"the only thing separating Y-Combinator from the others you mentioned are Hackernews and PG's essays. Both of which are of such excellent quality that I would apply here before anywhere else"

I agree, with a minor shading of my own.

In my opinion the only thing that separates Y Combinator from the others is PG (and his (extended) team - Jessica, Trevor, rtm , YC alumni.. ). Yes most of us know them primarily through their writings (PG's essays and comments here, jessica's book and so on) and their public appearances (in startup school for example) but they engender a trust that I don't feel with the more "professional VC"/investor/banker led groups that attemp to duplicate YC's model. Partly this trust happens because PG is a programmer who also groks startups. But also, we've seen PG's thinking evolve over the years and that engenders a great amount of trust and comfort. You feel like you know these people, and know that they are good people. Some random guys with money to spare who put up equal amounts of money and even duplicates the same deal structure as YC doesn't begin to match up (imo).

With a random non hacker type (which is what these clones are, from a potential founders view point) I always have to keep my guard up because I don't know that they aren't trying to rip me off, pack my company board and so on. I feel I always need to keep a background thread running to see what they REALLY want at a given point of time as contrasted to my believing PG and team will be up front. Yes this is a subjective and possibly irrational decision on my part, but that is hard for some random vc type to duplicate.

Many many people tried to similair things here in Bangalore. None really got off the ground. Everyone I know who wants YC type funding thinks about travelling to California for 3 months, vs taking equivalent funding here.

As in programming, you can clone the company structure, you can't clone the people. When other groups are led by hackers of similar calibre who have had success with their own startups, and invoke the same feelings of admiration and trust, then they become viable alternatives to YC in my mind.

Just my 2 cents, but it may help the OP with his thesis!

Otherwise these clones , at best, provide a regional advantage (you don't have to travel to California, you can stay where you are / travel less ).

And pg's experiences from the 1.0 .COM era, and his connections.