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

We Make Mistakes

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 206 posts

Re: We Make Mistakes

#71

Post by flipside »

aliakhtar wrote: post #56
flipside wrote: post #14

7th rejection, doesn't even phase me anymore. :P For those with less experience, the disappointment will pass. Take a day if you need to reflect on what you're doing, why you're doing it and how you could do it better. Rejection is fuel for the fire, use it to burn brighter going forward. Next time, be so good they can't ignore you, simple as that.

7 times is a lot. Has it always been with the same product, or different ideas?

Team has changed, name has changed, product has changed, vision has been refined.

10/30 marks my 4 year anniversary for coming up with the core ideas behind Tinj. We're building dramatically better ways for people to share information starting with video ratings.

More than anything, I've grown enormously as an entrepreneur, as a developer and as a person.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#72

Post by [deleted] »

paul wrote: post #46
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #19

> Don’t let funding take your eye off the goal: making something people want. Everything else, including going through Y Combinator, is there to support that goal but is not the goal itself. It would be interesting to see a chart plotting over time the number of applicants in each batch who have applied to YC multiple times. Based on the number of folks here on HN who have apparently applied multiple times, and for d…

The best way to get into YC is to build a great business :)

[deleted]

Re: We Make Mistakes

#73

Post by danieltillett »

qazawy1001 wrote: post #68
paul wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best way to get into YC is to build a great business :)

honest question because I hear this line from YC partners, then at that point why as founders would we need YC at all?

You don't, but if you are dumb enough to give them a share of your business they are happy to take it.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#75

Post by danieltillett »

paul wrote: post #46
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #19

> Don’t let funding take your eye off the goal: making something people want. Everything else, including going through Y Combinator, is there to support that goal but is not the goal itself. It would be interesting to see a chart plotting over time the number of applicants in each batch who have applied to YC multiple times. Based on the number of folks here on HN who have apparently applied multiple times, and for d…

The best way to get into YC is to build a great business :)

I don't doubt this is true, but this shouldn't be what an incubator is about. It should be about taking a great idea and a talented team and helping them buid a great business when the founders are inexperienced in running a business.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#76

Post by rdlecler1 »

taytus wrote: post #53

First rejection but I have a smile in my face. I did it, I had the courage to apply. So... yeah I'm happy.

Good work. We were invited for an interview, but I can tell you that I've failed to get an opportunity so many times in my life that I've lost count. I've had a handful of wins, but have thrown the dice tens of thousands of times. Opportunity is a fickle beast. There have been dark dark days (and months). My ego and pride is covered with calluses. It's depressing and it makes your humble, but it's not a sign of defeat. Push through if only because the alternative is to concede defeat.

A couple of my biggest regrets are not applying to Google in 2000 when I was graduating from CPSC: "Search engine? Well that sounds boring. And they don't even have a business model!".. Opps....

The other was not applying to YC in November 2009. "Oh the next class is too far away." I had a killer prototype, and since then the whatifs always haunted me.

Better to try, and be overlooked, than to never try at all.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#77

Post by AustinPythonFTW »

I'm definitely speaking at least a little bit out of bitterness (our team just got rejected), so with that caveat it feels like YC is becoming more like traditional VC (venture capital): - extremely low probability of success just due to volume of applications - no feedback (again, due to volume of applications, and they posted a nice blog post about this, but just stating a fact) - it seems (I don't have any factual evidence to back this up, would love to be proven wrong through factual evidence) that you need to know someone - tendency to fund those who need it the least (already-proven user traction or revenue)

YC is a for-profit, private enterprise that can do whatever it wants, and it is in the business of maximizing income, so it would be foolish for the organization not to act in a self-interested way, but just calling it like I see it (and again, it'd be great if there were any stats the organization could release to disprove any of the points above, but I understand that it has no obligation to do so).

Re: We Make Mistakes

#78

Post by michaelchisari »

First application, got rejected. Honestly happy it happened now instead of after the interview. It gives me more time to think about what's next.

My startup is movie industry related, so maybe Los Angeles would be a better place to be. I'll post the startup site here when we launch.

Re: We Make Mistakes

#79

Post by MCRed »

aliakhtar wrote: post #28
MCRed wrote: post #21

One of the things that I've found so challenging about applying for accelerators is that it's difficult to find examples of companies that got in or that didn't get in, and what they did for their applications. Every time I have come across one, I've learned a bit - like "that didn't work" or "that was a great idea" - around how they apply, pitch themselves or their product, etc. Anyone who was rejected want to share…

I'll share a bit. I'm a solo, international founder. I applied with a barely usable, very limited prototype, of a technically challenging project (involving A.I and machine learning). My video was viewed twice, and my demo was viewed, but no other action was taken within it. I was rejected. I expected that, given that my prototype was pretty bad, and I have a lot going against me. It definitely lit a fire under me ju…

I was a "solo founder" type for awhile. If you're an engineer I think you can have your pick of co-founders.

My suggestion, after working on and for startups for a couple decades is that you should be the CEO, find business people to be co-founders, and hire a VP of engineering, or CTO.

It's almost a cliche that there are business guys "starting companies" who "just need an engineer"... but I think the best chances for success - on a high tech startup - are for the engineer to be the CEO, and eventually bring on a CTO.

One advantage of this- the CEO is focused on product while the business guys (COO, CMO, whatever) are out doing the legwork for raising money. I've seen too many companies flounder because the CEO was focused on raising money.

You can learn business, they can't learn engineering. (well, they can, but not to your level in the time available.)

Re: We Make Mistakes

#80

Post by michaelchisari »

lnanek2 wrote: post #40
aliakhtar wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll share a bit. I'm a solo, international founder. I applied with a barely usable, very limited prototype, of a technically challenging project (involving A.I and machine learning). My video was viewed twice, and my demo was viewed, but no other action was taken within it. I was rejected. I expected that, given that my prototype was pretty bad, and I have a lot going against me. It definitely lit a fire under me ju…

I don't think you stand much chance as a solo founder either. It's very rare.

It's too bad, I just found a stellar co-founder two days ago. :)

But that's okay, she's going to help out immensely, and it'll only strengthen our application in the Spring.

Post reply on HN