undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjordigg10y ago0 comments

Last week I saw this from Sam.

> If we don’t invest in these companies, they don’t happen… The thing about Y Combinator that’s cool is that most companies won’t happen if we don’t fund them.[1]

I thought YC was always looking to fund those that would exist with or without YC. I have seen less and less "crazy bets" every batch, but I have to say there's more diversity of founders and topics (biotech, energy, farming). Companies generate revenue before DemoDay and many are startups that work for other startups. It's not a bad thing but would love to see more Airbnbs or Reddits around. Those are the ones that can generate a true impact on society and can only exist thanks to YC giving them a chance. The fellowship can be a great starting point for those.

[1] http://venturebeat.com/2015/08/23/sam-altman-and-jessica-liv...

0 comments

staunch10y ago

YC has said that Airbnb would have failed without their help. How could they not update their thinking? Being determined to succeed is necessary but insufficient. Every successful startup received a big helping hand early in its life. YC's business is to provide that opportunity to founders that otherwise wouldn't have it, such as Airbnb, which no other investor would back.

ryanSrich10y ago

What's more intriguing is how was YC able to see through what the other investors saw as an issue?

Even to this day I'm astonished that AirBnB exists and yet YC was able to see something in them years ago.

HelloHN10y ago

My understanding of the story was that YC was going to pass on Airbnb but then one of the cofounders mentioned the cereal box story and that changed PG's mind

staunch10y ago

YC also despised the idea, but invested because they liked the founders. But they also presumably liked the 600+ YC founders that failed, so you can see how much investors can really predict.

1 more reply

sydneyliu10y ago

I think Sam is saying that without YC, there are some companies that may not end up succeeding or being able to raise and continue on (without YC's network, advice, speed, focus etc. to help them)

The distinction is that they want to fund companies who would continue working on it even if they didn't get into YC. They are so passionate about the problem that they will try to make it succeed no matter what.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsjordigg10y ago0 comments

Last week I saw this from Sam.

> If we don’t invest in these companies, they don’t happen… The thing about Y Combinator that’s cool is that most companies won’t happen if we don’t fund them.[1]

[1] http://venturebeat.com/2015/08/23/sam-altman-and-jessica-liv...

0 comments

staunch10y ago

ryanSrich10y ago

What's more intriguing is how was YC able to see through what the other investors saw as an issue?

Even to this day I'm astonished that AirBnB exists and yet YC was able to see something in them years ago.

HelloHN10y ago

My understanding of the story was that YC was going to pass on Airbnb but then one of the cofounders mentioned the cereal box story and that changed PG's mind

staunch10y ago

YC also despised the idea, but invested because they liked the founders. But they also presumably liked the 600+ YC founders that failed, so you can see how much investors can really predict.

1 more reply

sydneyliu10y ago

I think Sam is saying that without YC, there are some companies that may not end up succeeding or being able to raise and continue on (without YC's network, advice, speed, focus etc. to help them)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse