[ardell]

I'd wager that YC companies are statistically more fund-able or exit-able than other similar stage startups out there. They've been through a round of screening, chosen and mentored by successful entrepreneurs who do it for a living--it's certainly a leg up.

[okeumeni]

"They've been through a round of screening, chosen and mentored by successful entrepreneurs who do it for a living", so do TechStars companies and others.

[ardell]

Correct. I think we're comparing two different things. I was talking about YC-style seed-stage funding vs other startups. You were talking about YC vs TechStars. Apples and oranges. No disrespect to TechStars, that's just not what I was talking about.

[okeumeni]

“You were talking about YC vs TechStars. Apples and oranges.” Ah, That is disrespectful to TechStars they are in the same business and it is exactly what we have been talking about, read the thread again.

I’m one founder who has great admiration for YC, but I just don’t think they have the key to startup success. I think this should be clear in all HN readers mind despite the hype around here. Ultimately it will serve the startup world very well that YC get competitors, because no matter their commitment they will not spot all future success.

[anamax]

> I just don’t think they have the key to startup success.

Nobody said that YC had "the key".

They said that YC involvement (1) correlates with startup success and (2) recognized as such.

YC is too small a factor in the market to say that lack of YC involvement has any meaning and no one has said that it does.

[noname23012]

You must have misread the comment. He said the two different comparisons were apples and oranges, not YC and TechStars.