Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#51

Post by larrys »

pg wrote: post #40
adambenayoun wrote: post #11

What's interesting is that if 2-3 years ago, ycombinator had the ability to identify and pick winners. I have the impression that in the past year it became the other way around. Y combinator by picking companies are in fact the kingmakers and are creating the winners.

I wish. That would be very convenient. But in startups everything depends on the founders. All we can hope to do is smooth the way for them.

In 1999 I sold a domain name to a KPCB company. I remember very distinctively the team members throwing in my face how they were a KCPB company and that they could just buy my entire company if they wanted the domain name. It was one of Vinod Khoslas hand picks apparently. Founder was a Stanford Grad [1] This was probably at the top of the KCPB hype I haven't seen it like that since back in that time period. Anyway, they bought the domain and folded within a few years failing spectacularly.

[1] Out of curiosity I just checked and the founder is a VP at Vmware.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#52

Post by vidar »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #49
pg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're not so much dense as bitter. There's a subset of HN readers who regard startups as a whole as a sort of con game, and are angry that the participants get so much attention. There may not be that many of them, but their anger makes them disproportionately active as commenters and voters.

I probably belong to that subset. "Bitter" is an uncomfortable term, but probably accurate. Personally, it's not that I think startups are a con game (and certainly not YC); it's that YC represents a tremendous amount of support and resources and influence that aren't available to people like me who are working just as hard, and are just as skilled, but aren't a good fit for YC. It's tough in practice to not get a li…

Definitely good manners to keep the jealousy to oneself, but more important to get rid of the jealousy altogether. Resenting others for their success/progress is a huge energy waste (been there, done that).

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#53

Post by thaumaturgy »

vidar wrote: post #52
thaumaturgy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I probably belong to that subset. "Bitter" is an uncomfortable term, but probably accurate. Personally, it's not that I think startups are a con game (and certainly not YC); it's that YC represents a tremendous amount of support and resources and influence that aren't available to people like me who are working just as hard, and are just as skilled, but aren't a good fit for YC. It's tough in practice to not get a li…

Definitely good manners to keep the jealousy to oneself, but more important to get rid of the jealousy altogether. Resenting others for their success/progress is a huge energy waste (been there, done that).

I don't resent anybody for their success or progress. That's not what I said, and I'd hate for anybody to misinterpret me that way.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#54

Post by austenallred »

skrebbel wrote: post #5

How very Silicon Valley of the author to treat these numbers almost like they're profits, or any reasonable sort of "income" at all. The real question is: how much of that money has already been multiplied tenfold, through exits, IPOs or exorbitant profits?

Can't knock TC for releasing recently-updated numbers. Do they put too much emphasis on funding? Perhaps, but this post is not evidence of that.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#55

Post by earbitscom »

teyc wrote: post #47

That's amazing. Assuming the valuation of $5B, YC is now worth $250m.

More amazing, given that over half of the companies are from last year and this year, and it is mostly agreed that they have only gotten better and better by Demo Day.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#56

Post by nitrogen »

pg wrote: post #42
harel wrote: post #14

And how much money have they generated to date?

Quite a lot, actually. While some startups (e.g. Twitter) take a while to generate significant revenues, it happens that the most successful startups we've funded were not of that type.

I'm curious what proportion of YC's success has come through very public, consumer-facing companies like Reddit, vs. companies the outside world never hears of, that quietly make tons of money behind the scenes selling to businesses and/or governments.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#57

Post by pg »

larrys wrote: post #50
pg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're not so much dense as bitter. There's a subset of HN readers who regard startups as a whole as a sort of con game, and are angry that the participants get so much attention. There may not be that many of them, but their anger makes them disproportionately active as commenters and voters.

You went to Harvard. While it would be nice to think that the people accepted at Harvard are the most and only qualified people to go to Harvard we all know that is not the case. Harvard can only accept so many people and many people who could do well there, and aren't accepted, will fail to get in because the decision process isn't perfect in who gets accepted and who doesn't (and I am not even speaking of people wh…

I don't disagree with you about college admissions (http://paulgraham.com/colleges.html). But in my experience investors try a lot harder than undergrad admissions officers, partly because they suffer fairly immediate consequences when they make mistakes in either direction. In that respect investment is more like graduate admissions, which is done by professors instead of admissions officers, and the professors get whoever they select as grad students. (And incidentally, I went to grad school at Harvard, not to Harvard College.)

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#58

Post by pbreit »

brazzy wrote: post #43
pbreit wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are HNers so dense when it comes to fundraising? No, the treatment doesn't come off at all sounding like profits or income. Yes, fundraising is definitely a point of success. Why do HNers have such a hard time with this? Money is an important resource for growing companies! Sheesh.

If anyone is dense, it's you. It is certainly odd that the number of HN postings that follow the pattern "Company X raised $Y" far exceeds that of postings about revenue or profits, which are undeniably more important metrics for success. To some degree that can be explained by the fact that many incubated startups are legitimately in a phase where raising capital is important and revenue/profits not yet achievable.…

For startups, to which HN is oriented, actual revenue is in fact not that important and profits are actually to be avoided.

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#59

Post by pbreit »

mehulkar wrote: post #12
skrebbel wrote: post #5

How very Silicon Valley of the author to treat these numbers almost like they're profits, or any reasonable sort of "income" at all. The real question is: how much of that money has already been multiplied tenfold, through exits, IPOs or exorbitant profits?

Also would like to see how much of that money went to the same founders. I hear that after the getting funding after the first "success" gets easier.

The distinct minority since there are so few repeats and none that I can think of among the big fundraisers (Dropbox, airbnb).

Re: Paul Graham: Y Combinator Companies Have Raised Over $1 Billion

#60

Post by brazzy »

pbreit wrote: post #58
brazzy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone is dense, it's you. It is certainly odd that the number of HN postings that follow the pattern "Company X raised $Y" far exceeds that of postings about revenue or profits, which are undeniably more important metrics for success. To some degree that can be explained by the fact that many incubated startups are legitimately in a phase where raising capital is important and revenue/profits not yet achievable.…

For startups, to which HN is oriented, actual revenue is in fact not that important and profits are actually to be avoided.

If you think that the goal of a startup is to get the highest possible hype-based acquisition valuation, sure. Call me naive, but I still believe that building an actual profitable business is a much better goal. It may not lead to crazy payouts, but it is also more honest and does not depend as much on timing a boom phase. I gather that this kind of thing is derisively called a "lifestyle business" in startup circles. I submit that at least it is actually a business, rather than a hand of hype poker.
Post reply on HN