PG says "We don't know ourselves yet, because it takes so long for startups to exit. But we have a decent idea how many are successful at the next stage after YC-- the number who are either able to raise more after YC, or don't need to because they're profitable (or in very rare cases acquired). I think for the winter 2010 batch the percentage was in the low to mid 80s."
I'd like to narrow the question down to which companies are profitable.
Successful and "make it big" are subjective. Profitable isn't. You either are or you aren't.
I don't work there or know anyone at the company personally, but I'll start the list with one that I remember reading was profitable pretty much right out of the gate: GazeHawk
I don't think YC cares a lot about which companies are profitable. YC ideally wants homeruns. And homerun companies are rarely profitable because they are too busy growing. Take YouTube, Facebook etc. They all sacrificed profitability for growth. I bet there are YC companies in a similar position.
That's not true. Sitting in the Boston meetup recently they spoke directly to people who wanted a BIG exit and those who wanted a lifestyle company. They will fund either. Only VCs need the homeruns constantly to earn their risk/reward profile returns.
That's interesting, in his interview on Mixergy, PG was asked about investing in lifestyle businesses and he did not seem enthused - "there’s got to be an exit for it, equity holders to get any money. I mean, maybe — maybe in the future there is some model where companies pay dividends instead of an exit that like we’ve never tried to get anybody to do that, and we don’t have any real hopes about it. So, no."
Wonder if there's a change in outlook or something else we're missing?
You're probably right. Most VCs want a liquidity event. I don't see why YC would be different --- except that they are more like a seed stage incubator than a traditional VC firm. Either way, they want a return, I'd think.
To me, startups that actually make profit are much more interesting primarily because so many just want to create some buzz then sell out.
There was a really nice google spreadsheet on HN once that showed all the startups in more than just YC. If I remember correctly, it's purpose was to show which startups in each incubator were dead/still active/got acquired. You could go off of that list and actually do it for more than just YC. I've been looking for the OP but I can't seem to find it.
PG says "We don't know ourselves yet, because it takes so long for startups to exit. But we have a decent idea how many are successful at the next stage after YC-- the number who are either able to raise more after YC, or don't need to because they're profitable (or in very rare cases acquired). I think for the winter 2010 batch the percentage was in the low to mid 80s."
VIA - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1694832
PG previously said "According to our data, 98/145 or 67.6% of companies we funded in s2009 or before are funded and/or profitable and/or acquired."
VIA - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1185345
More resources:
Current list of HN startups and spin-offs?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1825396
What percentage of YC startups make it and what percentage fail?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1276356
Spreadsheet listing all YC-Startups, exits etc:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkkhSN3vaY4jdF90b1l...