bobhoward

"Certainly they are much better than the average unfunded or microfunded startup."

If you aren't saying what I've asserted you're saying, please explain the above. Also, did you edit your original comment? Perhaps I misread it.

In any event, it remains awfully convenient to chalk up the evident YC fetish at TechCrunch to mere editor laziness: I've seen plenty of seed-funded or non-funded startups in the past months-- heck, TC pays folks to sort through the mountains of press releases that arrive every day; I'm sure that there is no dearth of interesting, upstarting startups to profile.

I've always gotten the impression that TechCrunch serves up a fairly decent mixed bag-- except when they seem to exclusively cover YC-funded startups. Hence, my prior remarks.

Well, I'd have to disagree. The only difference between a YC startup and a non-YC startup is (1) access to advising resources, and (2) a bit of pre-filtering due to the selection process. Of course, there is also the $15k of funding-- but for many entrepreneurs, getting 10-20k of seed money is really not too hard (you could probably drum up that much "dumb" money from family and friends-- after all, how many jobless or underpaid teenagers do you know who were able to persuade their folks to buy them cars?).

For your statement to be true, it seems that either the advice dispensed by YC advisors is sufficient to transform a bad idea into a good idea or alternatively, that the YC selection committee only selects ideas destined for success. While these points do hold /some/ water (good advice never hurts, and pg et. al. clearly know a thing or two about entrepreneurship), it is still important to note that YC makes mistakes from time to time and that (participated in YC) -> (good startup) does not imply that (NOT participated in YC) -> (NOT good startup). Heck, even the first implication is a fallacy.

Regardless, at the end of the day, you're asking me to assume that founders who either don't make the cut for YC or whom didn't apply in the first place are either inferior entrepreneurs or are pushing a bad idea. This is simply not true.

Entrepreneurship has been around for a LONG time and plenty of people are working their butts off for a shot at launching a successful, growing startup. For some, YC provides the perfect opportunity to actually sit down and execute an idea; for most, YC is either not an option or is simply not necessary.

In the past couple of weeks, TechCrunch has reported on YC startups with surprising frequency. Given that it is fairly difficult to get TC to profile one's startup, it seems a little suspicious that whenever a YC app launches, it gets a (typically positive) write-up. In light of this, my conclusion that YC and Arrington have some sort of friendly or financial relationship leading to a lowered-barrier-to-article for YC-funded startups is sound if not altogether true.

If you ask me, TC's proclivity toward reviewing very early stage YC startups is a bit questionable; what about those startups that are just as interesting, yet didn't have the good fortune of being part of the YC lineup? I guess that's what your 2-10% buys you, beyond the seed money.

I couldn't agree more. However, I'm certainly not saying "We just need a designer"-- I'm saying "HOLY CRAP WE NEED A DESIGNER".

I absolutely respect web design and realize that it's a big deal which is why I'd love to involve someone with that particular talent in my startup and do so in a significant way.

Hi Matt,

I've already read a few books on CSS and I definitely know my way around JavaScript, XHTML, etc. The point is that I'm no artist and I'd rather focus on what I do best: hacking. I want a person to assume the position of "artistic director" whose specific forte is web design and who will focus exclusively on UI, accessibility, and user experience.

Additionally, I wrote the above because I've been quite surprised to have not really met many folks through school or day-to-day life who are no-nonsense web designers.