Thousands of groups applied for S13. Only 255 groups were selected for interviews. Only 53 companies ended up getting funded.
My advice: Stop worrying about perfecting your application or trying to game it. Stop worrying about trying to get into YC. Submit it, forget it. Go build a company. You don't need their validation, and you certainly don't need their permission.
As a 21 year old, "stopout/dropout" computer programmer that is living in Boston, competing with new grads with cs degrees and such, this advice is my exact mentality. Im not going to try to game my resume and cover letter, Im going to submit the application and make myself a better engineer day by day, I dont need a company's validation or permission to do so.
Definitely. I like your mentality. At the same time thought I actually like reading these articles. Not entirely for their content but I like seeing 1) the kinds of people going through YC at the moment, 2) their company, 3) how their company is doing at the moment. Also I think these articles are helpful in showing people that the YC application process is a no bullshit process. PG is pretty open about the process but it is nice to hear it described from someone other than the big dog himself.
This. There is certainly going to be a lot of noise when they read applications and watch peoples' pitches, and they definitely have far from having 0 false negatives --- that goes for both the selection and interview round. Just push forward even if YC doesn't pan out.
> don’t say “if we capture 10% of this 100 billion dollar market, we’ll be making 10 billion dollars!”
> From this, based on the volume of repairs in San Francisco...we could be operating at about $70k per day in just SF.
A bottom-up story can just be a top-down one in disguise. Capturing 10% of a market doesn't sound too hard until the word "billion" appears. Instead, we can capture 114% of one region. And $20 million per year is too big, so let's give it per day.
Just saying "the average dishwasher needs a $200 repair once every two years" tells me more than that entire paragraph.
Personally, I think one of the best ways to prepare is to look for common trends in other successful applications. I helped write a VentureBeat article on this very subject [1]. As part of that article, we (Lollipuff, YC W13) released our entire application [2], and of course YC provides plenty of application advice too [3].
I thoroughly enjoyed reading through some of the old applications. Here's Drew Houston's app for Dropbox back in 2007 - everything is plain and concise.
> Although, they also want to see how quickly you can execute. 2 years to build an iPhone app is too long.
Why would they care about how quickly you can build something? If you took 2 years to build an iPhone app in your spare time, but that iPhone app ended up being Candy Crush, wouldn't that make that metric pretty meaningless?
Apps like candy crush are edge cases that make general comparisons meaningless.
Given most successful apps aren't anywhere near as popular as candy crush you're not comparing apples to apples.
The chances of building a successful anything are low. Even lower for the first attempt. So if you take 2 years to build something...you've stacked the odds so high against yourself you might as well not even try. And if you're the one paying the bills, 2 years is a long time to wait for a failure.
But we also know overnight successes don't really happen overnight. So I imagine you also don't want to be the person creating new apps every month because you're misguided about how hard it is to achieve success. So again, it doesn't seem like a useful metric.
It's never that simple - and making the product awesome and launching at 95% can introduce way more rewards than launching at 75 or 80%. I think the concept of an MVP is regarded as the word of law around here, and sometimes an MVP looks like shit and nobody will use it afterwards, so spend the extra two weeks making it absolutely awesome. I know that's not really what you were talking about, but I think people shouldn't shy away from taking a step back and just thinking about what you're building without being stupid-productive all of the time. It's all about balance.
Respectfully disagree. The key phrase in your response is: "all else being equal"
When it comes to marketing what you've made, you do get the first-mover advantage but that's about all you get.
I've made many a useful, problem-solving prototype in my spare time (and even 'launched' a few of them among close friends and family) only to see the same thing going big a month later. Except, it is someone else who happens to have made the same thing a; they just manage to push it a lot better that I ever could. It also doesn't help that I'm really bad at the business side of things.
I really need to find someone who can do that for me and my ideas/prototypes... :(
The metric is important in the sense that you can't iterate quickly and figure out what does and doesn't work if you spend 2 years per version. Successful companies tend to be ones that iterate on new ideas quickly and double down on the ones that stick.
If this is the true intention of the question, then why don't they just ask "Tell us about a time when you iterated quickly." I'm still not convinced code velocity is a good metric.
I think you're looking at it backwards. To me it seems reasonable to apply to YC with an app you have been building in your spare time with the intention of working on it full-time provided the metrics are favorable, growth is apparent, market exists, etc.
It seems like lots of YC app advice posts think it's super important to have a .com. I always thought a .com wasn't that important, especially if you have to pay money for it that you could use towards development. Am I missing something?
My advice: Stop worrying about perfecting your application or trying to game it. Stop worrying about trying to get into YC. Submit it, forget it. Go build a company. You don't need their validation, and you certainly don't need their permission.
Just go freaking make something people want.