2. Asked too many questions (i.e. what does it mean to be an entrepreneur?)
3. Deadline too soon.
They should've kept the deadline for applications at April 12th since by that time, all YC applicants will know if they have been accepted/rejected. The rejected ones could then apply at TechStars. This is not necessarily a bad thing since YC only picks 15 teams, while leaving a big pool of other great startup ideas and founders behind.
I have had phone conversations with numerous entrepreneurs on news.yc, and almost all of them plan on applying to TechStars while keeping YC as their first option.
TechStars could have, for marketing purposes, used aikido strategy and turn Y-Combinator's strength into weakness: since TechStars is new, they could've claimed that they place greater focus on the startups they fund as a way to prove their model superior to YC. A lot of people would've bought into that argument.
Having competition actually validates Y-Combinator's business model. While two similar programs may not be good for either parties, it is definitely good for the prospective founders.
It's great that support for young entrepreneurs is expanding. The entrepreneurial world is a brutal one and you want as many people on your side as possible.
Because I live in Colorado (but go to college in Austin), I'm surprised I hadn't heard about this before -- despite it launching about 4 months ago. Boulder is an awesome town, and you have the Rocky Mountains all around.
Regardless of the detrimental effect the attraction of nearby ski resorts could have on a startup (which also makes it a great place to live), I feel that Denver's/Boulder's weakness is that there aren't universities with better computer science programs. All the major startup hubs have excellent universities nearby whose talent they can feed off of:
Cambridge: MIT, Harvard
Silicon Valley: Stanford, Berkeley
Seattle: University of Washington
Austin: University of Texas
(Darn -- After visiting PG's website, I realize I am re-iterating what he says this in his essay, "How To Be Silicon Valley.")
I can see this first-hand, attending the University of Texas. I've interviewed with many startups, and you can see how they're student quality is evident in the company's work.
I would imagine this is true even moreso in the better CS programs like MIT and Stanford, and double that with towns that have two great programs.
From their point of view, it makes sense that they don't position themselves as a second choice. Why would they want to defer to YC instead of at least having a crack at the applicants accepted to YC, perhaps offering them better terms?
RWW refers to Read/WriteWeb (Richard's blog). I haven't read the article BitGeek is referring to but I am guessing, like most posts on R/WW, it was written by a guest author.
I found Wozniak's interview, in Jessica's book, as one of the most entertaining [1]. Many of the lessons learned from his early days have a global appeal to other startups as well: starting out with a great team, being young, not having money, adaptability, etc.
"Entrepreneurs have to keep adjusting to... everything's changing, everything's dynamic, and you get this idea and you get another idea and this doesn't work out and you have to replace it with something else. Time is always critical because somebody might beat you to the punch.
It's better to be young because you can spend a lot more nights, very very late. Because you have to get things done, and there's almost no other way to get around that. When the times come, they are critical." - Woz
"If you do have to leave grad school, in the worst case it won't be for too long. If a startup fails, it will probably fail quickly enough that you can return to academic life. And if it succeeds, you may find you no longer have such a burning desire to be an assistant professor." - How to Start a Startup
That article basically made me question the premise of continuing on with my Electrical Engineering degree. During school, I was fascinated by social networks and dividents of collective capability and genius; so I dropped out of school to learn new web programming languages, marketing and business. Then, a few months ago, I finally let my social network out to the public. It was, and continues to be, a thrilling experience.
At this age, we have less responsibilities and a more flexible timetable than we may ever have again. I say leave college; if your startup fails, you can always go back.
Social networks, such as MySpace and Friendster, outsource graphic designing to the users by letting them alter the source code. A user who spends two hours customizing their profile is likely to become more loyal than he or she would've been two hours earlier.
Of course, the side effect is that the site turns out to be chaotic; though, it does leave the user with a more personalized experience. Humans have a tendency to prefer choice when given the freedom to do so. And as it turns out, they are not very good at it.
I live about 15 mins away from Pearson Airport, Toronto. Just curious, what do you think about the startup environment in Toronto? Where is all the action at?
I think it depends on what you want to do. This is a great place for film / video. It's getting better for games, and of course there's financial services. There also seem to be a bunch of mobile companies here, too.
There's a very healthy ecology of small software companies, and a lot of web companies. There's a bit of defence and aerospace around the airport, but I think Montreal and Ottawa are bigger than Toronto, for that.
Kitchener's not too far away, and they're a major powerhouse with U of Waterloo, and RIM.
ATI just got acquired by AMD, and Alias by Autodesk, so there should be some newly minted angel investors around.
I haven't sought financing, so I don't know what that's like. Having been through some private-equity as an employee, the funding definitely seems to be out there.
I think we're building a pretty good tradition, but it's going to take time. The seeds are there though, looking back over the last 20 years (god, I'm getting old!). There's nothing like the unholy Stanford-VC-startup triad yet.
So, I'm not really sure what to say. It's probably harder to get funded here than in CA, and you obviously won't get the same buzz as being YC-funded. On the other hand, if you want to work at a startup or small, hip shop then there're lots of places here.
EDIT If I ever move out of my home-office, I'm going to try to set up next to the U of T comp sci and engineering buildings. That's the nice thing about a down-town campus.
1. Low publicity.
2. Asked too many questions (i.e. what does it mean to be an entrepreneur?)
3. Deadline too soon.
They should've kept the deadline for applications at April 12th since by that time, all YC applicants will know if they have been accepted/rejected. The rejected ones could then apply at TechStars. This is not necessarily a bad thing since YC only picks 15 teams, while leaving a big pool of other great startup ideas and founders behind.
I have had phone conversations with numerous entrepreneurs on news.yc, and almost all of them plan on applying to TechStars while keeping YC as their first option.
TechStars could have, for marketing purposes, used aikido strategy and turn Y-Combinator's strength into weakness: since TechStars is new, they could've claimed that they place greater focus on the startups they fund as a way to prove their model superior to YC. A lot of people would've bought into that argument.
Having competition actually validates Y-Combinator's business model. While two similar programs may not be good for either parties, it is definitely good for the prospective founders.