I've applied to TechStars about 4-5 times, maybe more. Each time I applied I made more and more progress, and got as far as being a TechStars finalist [Top ~30], but no further. Despite each time being "nonselected" rather than "rejected", I still felt pretty discouraged (especially after not even being a finalist the final time).
When I looked back however, I changed my mind. While I may not have gotten into TechStars, that didn't mean they didn't have lessons to teach me. I learned a ton about entrepreneurship, learning to code, building a product and userbase, and networking, that I might not have ever learned had I not been striving to get into the program. I can't stop the entrepreneurial fire in me now, and I have David Cohen, Brad Feld, David Tisch, and more to thank for that.
The wording of this blog post is very silly, but I think there's a valid point in here, and that is: the right full-time job can still enable you to work on your startup.
That job probably isn't at Google though. There are lots of software engineering positions where hours are 9-5, the problems you solve aren't very hard and thus leave you with lots of mental energy, and there isn't much in terms of "extracurriculars" (conferences, etc) to occupy your time. These are terrible jobs if they're your only path for professional development, but they can be good for a 3-12 month stint while you try and get your startup off the ground. Low commitment, low stress, just enough to pay the bills and get you some health insurance.
I can't imagine a software position at Google ever matching that description though.
Do you or have you worked there? Neither have I, but friends attest that 9-to-5 is possible there. All depends on the person, their focus and the project they are working on.
I worked at Google for 5 years. 9-5 is possible, though most people work extra hours. The more important issue is the mental energy. 8 hours at Google is different from 8 hours at a low-key tech gig.
So, if you didn't make it into a program that gets 600 requests and accepts 2%(1) go ahead and apply to a company that four years ago got 1,000,000 applications a year and only accepted 0.05%. (2)
I get what he's saying but Step 1 being simply "get a job at google" is just baffling.
Getting into to either isn't based on ratios and stats. Excellent, top-notch engineers that can get jobs at Google might find it harder to get into TechStars if they lack a viable team + idea. There are a LOT of positions open at Google right now. Not many spots at TechStars. Orders of magnitude difference.
About #1... can you work 9-5 at a tech company? Is this guy a developer?
There are non-competes too so you can't build something Google is thinking on building or have you working on, also, and more importantly, most of the "successful" startup guys wont just "get a job at Google", I know many people here would, but it's hard for a lot of people that start businesses to:
1. Just get a 9-5 job
2. Be so deep into computer science that Google requires
For many of these guys to get to Google it would be easier to build something and then sell it to them.
Consult a lawyer. State laws vary. Generally, the USA is a very worker-friendly place. Employers can't own what you do on your own time, and provided it is not competitive, you are likely okay. Granted with a company of Google's scope that may be hard.
Well, I'd say if you need someone to tell you to get a 9 to 5 job in order to pay the bills and save a floundering startup that can't get VC, you may have bigger problems.
The thing is.. You know that TechStars and YC are a bunch of VERY smart VCs and entrepreneurs. You have a huge respect and read everything from them. You're passionate about software engineering and had job offers from great companies but said "No, I want to start my business".
And then, those great guys just refuse you. Whatever the way they say it (Awesome other participants, not enough $ to fund everyone), it still mean that they had the opportunity to take you, and they said no. It talks for itself.. Why the fuck would you continue your startup if these extremely smart guys didn't want/trust you?
This is kind of like saying "If I didn't get into Harvard, why should you still go to college?" No matter how big YC gets, they will still be rejecting the vast majority of applicants. Its simply not possible for them to fund every startup that comes their way.
Furthermore, think of companies like instagram, angry birds, quora, github, groupon, and a huge list of others that are not YC companies, but kicking ass. Should these people have given up because they weren't in YC? YC is one of the greatest opportunities in Silicon Valley, but by no means is it the only game in town.
The vast majority of companies don't take VC money. Many great companies had ideas that were quickly dismissed by these "VERY smart VCs and entrepreneurs".
Of course, there's also the argument that the 4-5 YC partners just can't take on every potentially successful startup. Harvard can't accept every qualified candidate; there's not enough seats. But to then tell one of those rejected (or in this case, waitlisted!) to simply forget continuing on with their education elsewhere is just preposterous.
"The vast majority of companies don't take VC money. Many great companies had ideas that were quickly dismissed by these "VERY smart VCs and entrepreneurs"."
It's not for the money. It's for the experience that you get, the day to day conversation with all the teams, the contacts that you can get, the incredible feedback and criticism from highly experienced mentor AND the money (Which is really not that much, but just enough to get started and focus without stressing about how you will eat). And note here, I'm talking about first time entrepreneurs; Not someone who's got 5 startups already sold or a google/facebook/whatever CTO.
And yeah, you can argue that you don't need it and sometime startups were wrongly dismissed by good VCs; but it's rare. It's their job to spot great startups/revolutionary ideas/extraordinary teams.
The fact that you are not chosen means something. You can't only dismiss it.. It's important to know why you weren't chosen. And "The teams were awesome this year" is not a reason. I mean, if your idea is awesome and you are great but they didn't accept you, there must be a reason. Is it because they didn't "get" it? Or felt that the market wasn't ready for it? Or that even though you think you're awesome, you're not?
"Of course, there's also the argument that the 4-5 YC partners just can't take on every potentially successful startup. Harvard can't accept every qualified candidate; there's not enough seats. But to then tell one of those rejected (or in this case, waitlisted!) to simply forget continuing on with their education elsewhere is just preposterous."
Again, the problem is not to be refused, but to know why you are. If you were refused because of your grades, it's perfectly understandable. If it's because you can't speak the language of the university, it's understandable. But if you're among the best with a great personality and awesome grades, why would they refuse you?
And then, school is really different in the way they accept you. It's more about your dossier and your grade.. not about your potential. Whereas, with an incubator, they don't care about your past, they look at you. Your idea. Your personality. Your enthusiast. The fact that they refuse you means a lot more; PG really looked at you, talked with you and thought: "No. You're not in."
YC or techstars see you as a point in time. Fixed and whether you are right for their model or not.
However, you are not fixed. you evolve, grow, talk to customers, pivot, refine business model, etc.
They don't see all of that. Or probably see your past as an indicator of future. May be you may not have the potential for another google or youtube but you might be successful.
Successful by your own measure not someone else's yardstick.
Why would you pin everything on being accepted... you're not automatically 'wrong' just because you're not in the small group of of startups 'most right' for them at a particular time. If you have the mentality that you need to have them to succeed then you are sabotaging yourself and selling yourself short.
"VERY smart VCs and entrepreneurs" are still human. I don't think they believe they can predict the future you might not want to limit yourself by assuming they can.
Do other people consider you to be an expert at something? If so, do you not still experience "Ah ha!" or "Oh shit!" moments?
Failing to get agreement from YC/TS is the result of a myriad of reasons and doesn't mean you should stop. That seems just silly. If I'm trying to teach you how to play Chess and you can't figure out how the Knight works, should I just give up on trying to teach you? The Knight does move, other people do understand it so sooner or later I should be able to figure out how to teach you to play Chess. Other people do get into YC/TS and they do start tech companies just like mine. I see no reason to give up because I/you haven't been able to get them to agree with you yet.
When I looked back however, I changed my mind. While I may not have gotten into TechStars, that didn't mean they didn't have lessons to teach me. I learned a ton about entrepreneurship, learning to code, building a product and userbase, and networking, that I might not have ever learned had I not been striving to get into the program. I can't stop the entrepreneurial fire in me now, and I have David Cohen, Brad Feld, David Tisch, and more to thank for that.