9GAG? Really? I don't want to live on a planet where 9GAG gets into YC. The others look pretty innovative. It would be nice to see some more robotics stuff. And work place collaborative stuff. But internet curated memes? sigh
Are you against the funding because you think 9gag will fail and YC will lose money on the deal, or because you think 9gag will be successful but you wish it weren't?
I don't think my answer falls into the two options you presented. Also, I'm not sure how we even measure success/failure anymore. A site can be a huge success and still be a bad investment. Ask anyone holding Facebook stock. (yes... horrible, horrible example... I know... but you can see where I'm coming from... right?) I'm not sure what about 9GAG stands out among all the many, many other lame sites just like it. I find most of those sites to be trash, but to each their own. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I don't know how any of them make any money. But I guess the people who pick the winners see something here.
By success, I mean "make money for the investors". That seems like a reasonable criteria for judging the success of an investment.
I don't think I see where you're coming from, actually. Do you object to YC investing in 9gag because:
It won't be a successful investment, aka make money for its investors
OR: It might be a successful investment, but if so it's only because they bamboozled someone. It won't ever make much money, though someone might acquire it (or it might IPO).
OR: It will be a successful investment, but it's trash as a product.
OR: It will be a successful investment, and it's OK as a product for some people, but it's not innovative enough
OR: something else? You mention a lot of things, but what's the core reason you object?
If we are measuring success solely on making money for investors (which I guess makes sense in this context)... then the closest option would be: It will be a successful investment, but it's trash as a product.
Or more closely: It might be a successful investment, but I think it's trash as a product and it's not innovative. I am not convinced it will make money legitimately. I'm not saying anyone will get bamboozled, but I could see a momentum-fueled, top-arc sale that makes someone some money at the expense of someone else being left holding yesterdays news.
Also, the part about "you see where I'm coming from" was strictly relating to Facebook being a massively successful product, yet horrible for stock holders... considering the stock is basically in the toilet. In the "make money for investors" category, Facebook is hardly a success.
1) I disagree with your assessment of 9gag. It's similar to previous social news sites, but different in a couple key ways.[1] Reddit was originally called a "del.icio.us clone" but now we call things reddit clones. There's some ick-factor from the way that content is copied from reddit and elsewhere, but that really goes both ways.
2) It's pretty clear how 9gag makes money: paid placements. Unlike reddit it doesn't appear to have a strong anti-commercial taboo. If it can grow big enough, it will make money. Remember: Facebook is already quite profitable (by the billions!) just not profitable enough to justify at $100 billion valuation yet. So this objection makes no sense to me.
3) Facebook was a HUGE success from the point of view of pretty much every investor except people who bought for the "pop" right after the IPO. Every VC investor in Facebook did great. Maybe they IPO'd above their true value, but it's still a $40 billion company. That's larger than 99.99% of all companies that get started. So I really don't get where you're coming from here at all.
[1] Specifically, it is image-only, presents the images inline, and uses Facebook likes and comments instead of native ones.
I was surprised to see 9GAG in there as well but the reality is it's probably going to make a good amount of money. It's a magnification of all the worst parts of reddit which are also extremely popular.
The ones I'm most exited about are BufferBox and Double.
BufferBox solves a real pain point for me (to the point I was thinking about setting up something similar here in Uruguay, but I don't have the cash).
And Double would be great for everybody who can't afford to travel constantly for meetings (both time AND money), though face-to-face meetings aren't going away anytime soon (too much off-band communication, relationship building, etc..).
I like Kippt. I just wish their was a service like it where I didn't have to worry about any of my saved content becoming public. Or that it might be acquired and then I have to start over (I'm looking at you, Spool). For now, I suppose I will continue to use Kippt. Their search needs some work, though.
I was thinking the same thing. I'd love it if they grew like Dropbox, charging users who extract more value from their service so that they can stay independent. The pro offering for $25 is a good sign in that direction. Still a tiny bit worried about them getting acqui-hired though.
What's the time horizon on something like FundersClub being open to non-accredited investors due to the recent law being passed that takes away some investment restrictions?
It seems in the ideas pond, people are combing up dry or Y Combinator have set their standards at a new low. Seriously, 9GAG, Imgfave and Kippt are the most unoriginal ideas for websites I have ever seen. I hate to be negative and cynical but am I the only one that sees no true value in these particular "startups"?
For starters any startup that pens itself as "A Pinterest for..." or "A Reddit for..." I wonder what is going through the minds of any investor or person who thinks these are legitimate ideas for websites trying to mirror the success of other sites by doing nothing new.
One of the startups that almost didn't make it into YC, "Bufferbox" is probably the best startup by far YC have opted to support. As for the others, most will fail because they're nothing exciting.
