My Y Combinator experience

I'm also reading some cultural clash between American and Europeans/Mediterranean mentalities. Prioritizing your business model over your product and answering amiably to annoying questions are decidedly "American" behaviors. That's not to say these aren't great practices for aspiring entrepreneurs. When you're ready to apply again, maybe you should consider hiring an Italian guy with an American MBA who can bridge the two cultures?

(I think your idea is cool. If no one went for the long-shot projects Silicon Valley would be full of copy-cat boring App companies. Imagine how that would be like)

Guys, I just wanted to describe my experience, I really didn't want to criticize YC or the interview process. YC was our first pitch and we were surely not prepared enough. As I clearly wrote in my post I started with the wrong assumption that our product and our technology could make the difference. I was wrong.

Website is more a landing page that a real site. Product is not yet released to the general public. We plan to launch a public beta and a brand new website with more useful information in about a month.

You seem to think that fast product iteration and testing with customers is the only way to go. It isn’t. The most ambitious projects sometimes need bold commitment. For instance if you want to create a space travel company, you will need funding way before you've finished your proof of concept. Now, maybe Y Combinator is simply not their market.

This is a great story, but perhaps not for the reasons intended by the author.

I applied once to YC. As I recall, my solo founder video included a puppet, so fair warning: I'm an idiot when it comes to startups. I only repeat what I've heard and read.

When they asked you guys all those questions, the proper answer wasn't to reply technically, it was to reply with something akin to "social proof"

So, for instance, when they asked "Why are you spending so much time developing this application?"

One good answer might be something like "Because we've talked to 50 people, and 10 of them tell us that if we can finish in the next six months, they want to use it. In fact, here's the money they deposited so they would be first in line"

The takeaway that YC is only interested in money may be at the same time true and misleading. As I understand those guys, they simply want proof from other humans that you are capable of doing something folks will like. Either you already have those humans and proof -- or they believe that you're the kind of guys that can go get them and then they'll take a flier on your ability. In either case, to say it's money is missing the point.

A lot of technical folks confuse the kinds of questions they are getting. When the question is along the lines of "Why don't I do X?", they're not asking you to argue that X is better than all other choices. Hell, X may be worse. They're asking you to explain to them how by talking to other people, you've learned that a significant percentage of them like X better, even if it sounds stupid. (In fact, if it sounds stupid and looks like something other people would not do, yet real people want it? That's a plus!)

I liked this. Thank you for posting. Sorry about the negative feedback.

ADD: There's nothing wrong with building something complex with a grand vision that might take months to put together. The trick is to do it in smaller chunks that get customer validation each step of the way. [Insert long discussion here about how it's easy to get emotionally attached to a codebase and solution that nobody else in the world would ever want]

In addition to the issues others have pointed out, I think there was a bit of a language and culture barrier. The author says, "We entered the room and facing us there were 3 young boys in their early twenties." I get the impression he felt insulted, but it's not like the interviewers can choose their age. The statement is also odd because I don't think any YC partners are that young. Maybe his estimate was thrown off by their casual attire and demeanor.

The author was annoyed by interviewers asking questions answered in their application. That's a natural reaction, but there are good reasons for this practice. Maybe some of your answers have changed since you applied. Maybe the interviewers want to get an idea of how much thought you've put into these questions. Maybe they're not satisfied with some of the answers in the application, and want you to flesh them out in person. My point is: the interviewers aren't trying to annoy you or waste your time. They want to understand you and your idea. Responding to their questioning with annoyance won't help them.

I found it very unusual that the author ignored the post-interview e-mail. Those e-mails typically contain tailored advice, or at least reasons why the partners passed. That information is extremely valuable. YC's reason for passing will probably be similar to many other potential investors. Even if you don't think it's a good reason, it's worth crafting a solid response to.

One more thing: If you have a demo, show it as early as possible! A demo can obviate the need for many "What are you making?" questions, since it shows the answer. That leaves more time to discuss your product or idea, instead of trying to explain it to the interviewers.

With that feedback out of the way: I wish Creo success and I'm glad they plan to apply again. Good luck!