What happened to you after you were rejected?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45619

by palish • 19 years ago

22 33 19 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

Has anyone applied to YCombinator, been rejected, then built something popular?

There was a line from the rejection email:

"We realize this process is fraught with error. It's practically certain that groups we rejected will go on to create successful startups. If you do, we'd appreciate it if you'd send us an email making fun of us; we want to learn from our mistakes."

Has anyone done that? If not, YCombinator picks the winners pretty well.

brlewis• 19 years ago

I don't think any of the applicants, accepted or rejected, are ready to rest on their laurels just yet.

I've gained users in the past few months, but am nowhere near popularity.

blored• 19 years ago

We've just released our 'News Feed' www.clutterme.com/public

ivankirigin• 19 years ago

YC folks describe the accelerator effect of getting into the program. I think that makes sense. People expect non-failure from an openly declared intention to start a company. Founders respond to the fear of failure by working hard.

Many of those rejected probably don't consider themselves startups, just working on side projects. No build-up of expectation.

I have every intention to continue if not accepted into the next YC round.

palish3• 19 years ago

If most people succeed because they openly declare their intentions, the reverse seems true too:

You're more likely to succeed if you openly declare your intentions to succeed.

And it's true. I'm not sure we'd be able to launch tomorrow if we hadn't posted our intention to. Now we have all your expectations to live up to, and it motivates us.

Keios• 19 years ago

From my experience - likelihood of succeeding because you tell people and all the other variations of this are just hoopla.

You will succeed if

1. You have a market

2. You service that market better than most or better

3. You can do what you are doing for years at a length. And then keep doing it some more without even thinking about it.

ratsbane2• 19 years ago

That line you quoted from the rejection email is just perfect. It also shows quite the opposite attitude of the average big company. Reforming corporate America seems like a lost cause. It's time to start taking over.

SwellJoe2• 19 years ago

"It's time to start taking over."

Y Combinator tends to fund companies that will be acquired, rather than become companies that displace existing huge corporations. Just a rule of thumb, of course, and there are a few that could run to IPO in three to five years if they don't get acquired (and a very few for whom that's actually the pretty firmly held goal).

Nonetheless, corporate America is a hundred+ years in the making. We're not going to take over with Web 2.0 features. You'd better start thinking bigger, much bigger, if that's your aspiration.

ratsbane2• 19 years ago

Right-O!

"Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part."

wensing• 19 years ago

I'm very happy with the way things are going. I wouldn't call us a 'winner' (yet), but I don't think YCombinator's "rejection" is going to be the reason we fail, if we do.

Plenty of successful technology companies have been started outside of YCombinator. In retrospect, it's kind of a funny question.

chaostheory2• 19 years ago

I like your site man - very useful (I have family in FL)

rokhayakebe• 19 years ago

Well, first you get to rethink your idea and ask yourself" WTF is wrong here?" Then you start tweaking it here and there, making it simpler (but better) and a few months later you find that maybe the original idea wasn't all that, and the current one is more solid. Now you have been working hard to make the necessary changes and you are going to launch this Fall. BTW the letter hurts.

rrival• 19 years ago

I'm sure it all varies by degrees, situation by situation, but the idea isn't the point - ideas, as has been repeated ad nauseam, are everywhere. Recognizing opportunities (the factors that make a team predisposed to excel where others with the same idea would not) is much more valuable. A large (possibly larger?) part of the equation should (must?) be team-specific. From everything I've read, the idea will change in the YC process (as it should), the team could drop the original plan entirely and should still be strong enough to do something else better suited to their strengths.

It's hard to read "it's not the idea, it's the team" or "I don't invest in ideas, I invest in teams" and not want to prove someone wrong out of ego or passion/drive. It's difficult to appreciate the truth there without having realized it on your own, no matter how many times you hear that.

awt3• 19 years ago

We got rejected, then started a site that got Techcrunched a few months later (thought it didn't end up taking off). Now we're working on another company that is funded and has a growing user base on Facebook.

palish3• 19 years ago

Just curious, how'd you attract TechCrunch's attention?

SwellJoe2• 19 years ago

Presumably they made something interesting with nice design. The bar isn't that high--TechCrunch covers very early Web 2.0 startups. If you write to them, and your site is worth a crap and in an interesting space for them, they'll probably cover it. It does help to be in the Valley and actually run into a TC writer in person (they're all really nice folks, in my limited experience), but it's obviously not mandatory.

awt3• 19 years ago

We submitted to eHub first. Then Techcrunch picked us up from there.

christefano2• 19 years ago

One startup I joined was rejected by YC, and when we got the news the founder bought a car. This made it hard for me to take him seriously (and get paid) and I quit.

This was a while ago and the startup still hasn't launched. I hope he succeeds at some point. The founder's idea is brilliantly disruptive and democratizes a multi-billion dollar industry we all take for granted.

Laurentvw• 19 years ago

Since you quit, do you mind telling us the idea or their website?

christefano2• 19 years ago

I signed an NDA so I can't talk about his project, but we nixed the non-compete clause (it was so broad it was unbelievable) so if he fails and closes up shop, I might look into running with the idea.

portLAN• 19 years ago

> If not, YCombinator picks the winners pretty well.

Impossible to say without knowing what the selectees would've done on their own. A lot of the winners might have opted to stay in college, for example, if they hadn't been picked. Simply being selected is automatically going to influence the result -- having all that support behind you makes it more likely that you'll succeed.

There's a certain amount of being made, not born, so to speak; you might think of it as being a bit like the Spice Girls.

    *Cough*

rms5• 19 years ago

My idea for YC was a very large project... one of the many reasons we were rejected was that I didn't agree with PG during the interview as far as making a smaller subset of the idea. I of course recognize his point as valid but we really didn't have time to talk about it.

We didn't get in, everyone stayed in college, and no one devoted themselves to the project in the way that YC hackers do.

uuilly3• 19 years ago

If you apply and get rejected and don't go after your idea anyways then they were right to reject you. I know that sounds harsh but failure and rejection are common-place in startups, YC or not. If your idea can't sustain rejection from a program as competitive as YC then it is the wrong idea or you are the wrong person to make it happen. It's like saying, "I didn't get into MIT so I'm not going to engineering school."

rms5• 19 years ago

College students are an exception. There's a lot of social pressure to not drop out of college to start a company and YC provides a socially acceptable excuse for postponing college. This made PG and co increasingly uncomfortable over time which is why they started preferring college graduates. I realize that someone truly dedicated could still work an idea full time while in college. But this is hard, and it's even harder to get a team to hack with you.

uuilly3• 19 years ago

Agreed. You bring up an interesting point about social pressures b/c they are the driving force behind this whole thing. I'd like to run w/ this for a sec...

It is NOT socially acceptable to not attend college. It IS socially acceptable to not get funding for your startup. So what happens when someone wants to go to college but they don't have the money? They get loans, they work two jobs, they do what they have to do to make it happen b/c they will be socially rejected if they fail. The same is not the case for funding. If you are committed to your idea, treat funding like a college loan: Not optional. Once you get in this mindset you'll figure it out. You may not get a full ride at MIT (YC) but in state tuition + a TA job at U Mich isn't so bad either.

As of now nobody has commented on a sucessful YC reject. I think that is b/c YC applicants tend to be straight A students (blind generalization based on instinct.) Straight A students have other options that involve less social risk. I know of a number of successful entrepreneurs who were thrown out of / barely made it through college. Since they didn't have other options, they HAD to make it work. And since they had been failing their whole lives they've realized that failure is just someone else's or some organizations opionion about them. For good or for bad, they tuned those opionions out.

People need to realize that the currency of "failure" is just a bit of social rejection. Running your startup into the ground will not give you cancer. And a big fat 'F' on life's report card is just a sign that at least once, you weren't afraid to push the limits...

Goladus• 19 years ago

It only sounds harsh because of the language used, and then only to people who associate failure and rejection with finality and personal worth. Often, it is easier to simply use different language than it is try to rewrite a person's internal grammar.

When I applied to Y Combinator, and was not accepted, I considered it an objective not met. I didn't think of it as failure, I didn't think of it as rejection. I simply made a decision about what I was going to do next.

If you think in terms of rejection and failure, it will be difficult to pick yourself up and try again, unless the semantics you attach to those words do not include notions of finality and personal worth.

What happened to you after you were rejected?

Related Stories