[lettergram]

I've actually applied at least 6 times. Interviewed twice. Rejected every time, yet don't regret it at all.

Both times I was interviewed, I've continued the projects and they are actually both still going strong. Ones being funded by various grants (related to EEG research). The other, which I interviewed for W18, just launched and is already self-sustaining with profits off investing + subscriptions:

https://projectpiglet.com/

The process of interviewing helps to clarify business values, and honestly - I'll be applying again with a clearer vision. The main thing they appear to look for is viable business, future vision, then team. I highly recommend applying.

Finally, and the primary reason I suggest applying is the people you meet! Just from my trip for the interview(s) I met several different teams, some of them I ended up introducing to other people to get them business. Other startups ended up helping me. It's worth the trip.

[LearnerHerzog]

>"The main thing they appear to look for is viable business, future vision, then team. I highly recommend applying."

It seems to me — based on YC's resources I've read — the passion, personality, and relationships of the company founders come first— including how willing they are to be flexible with their idea.

Jessica Livingston on what they look for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPd5vgXJ-R4

They also often say how ideas are a dime a dozen, mentioning time and again that most businesses who join YC end up changing their idea completely. They even went as far as to accept founders without an idea at all one year:

http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html

"In a sense, it's not a problem if you don't have a good idea, because most startups change their idea anyway. In the average Y Combinator startup, I'd guess 70% of the idea is new at the end of the first three months. Sometimes it's 100%. In fact, we're so sure the founders are more important than the initial idea that we're going to try something new this funding cycle. We're going to let people apply with no idea at all. If you want, you can answer the question on the application form that asks what you're going to do with "We have no idea." If you seem really good we'll accept you anyway. We're confident we can sit down with you and cook up some promising project."

more related articles from the Paul Graham:

http://paulgraham.com/start.html

http://paulgraham.com/bronze.html

http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html

http://paulgraham.com/ds.html

On the other hand, Sam Altman discusses, in the Stanford YC Startup School videos, how the overall idea certainly does matter and that thinking "the idea doesn't matter" has become a myth in silicon valley. He says the most successful companies have been an idea first, and a startup second.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoqgAy3h4OM#t=22m52s

I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, leaning in one direction depending on the founders' mindsets and knowledge. I wish they would be a bit more clear about this since both opposing arguments are being advised through their resources.

Either way, I look forward to start applying to batches when I feel ready. Perhaps I'll apply without being ready to help gain some clarity as you suggested.

[lettergram]

I also highly recommend Startup School, also provided by YC:

https://www.startupschool.org/

That's what helped me get my most recent project ready:

https://projectpiglet.com/

I'd describe it almost as a "startups anonymous" group, where you have a mentor who's went through a startup, weekly talks, and a group to help you get off the ground.

In regards to the resource you've read, I can only tell you what I have seen. To some extent, the viability of your business comes from the team and future vision. You have to vet with customers, know the space, be excited etc.

[forgotmysn]

Agreed. I worked for a YC company who's founders went through YC before they even had a company. In fact, they still hadn't landed on one by the time they came out. But they were Stanford and MIT grads, and insanely well-connected.

[gt_]

When I hear that founders are more important than ideas, I wonder how much of “founders” refers to the founders’ upper-class culture sync and connections. Of course, it never represents all of that, but, could founders with only intelligence, teamwork and ingenuity skills suffice on their own?

[forgotmysn]

It's definitely complex. A strong network doesn't necessarily signify wealthy background, although it is likely. Rather, it demonstrates an ability to connect with people who can aid in your success, and that ability is a necessary component of being a successful founder.

[gt_]

That makes sense. I wouldn't want to underrate the importance of ability to connect with the right people, which is a pretty complicated thing as it is, and there are only so many ways by which to evaluate it.

[blhack]

I'm curious about your EEG research. I remember getting one of the original emotiv epocs but being really disappointed in it.

[lettergram]

Lol that's actually what we used initially (still do). We rolled our own way of processing the EEG signals (which are notoriously noisy), then we used a technique to remove movement.

Now typically those type of analysis are done post run. However,I worked on it for a while and now in real-time we can do error correction based on movement. This enables those EEGs to be within spitting distance of medical grade EEGs.

[blhack]

Published any info anywhere on it?

[lettergram]

Not the completely up-to-date method(s), however we have our initial research from a few years ago:

http://synaptitude.me/blog/using-computer-vision-to-improve-...

Most of the current research has gone to a more academic route.

[neurotech1]

Its cool to see a startup with EEG technology.

My email is in my profile, if you'd like discuss further.