Trip Adler (another creator) also posted content from PNAS, another journal. My guess is that Friedman and Adler might have had permission to download the content through their academic institution (Harvard???) which spends a lot of money to have access to journal content, but that they don’t have permission to redistribute the content on a public website. I’m pretty sure Nature did not authorize the posting of the document (why would they?)

While PNAS allows authors to redistribute content on their own personal websites, and the PNAS article in question is authored by John Adler III, it’s not at all clear that Trip Adler can post it to a public website.

I’m waiting to see what happens, especially given the struggle in the publishing industry over open access and the fact that they have a lot to lose.

You’ve hit on another issue. The arrogance that engineers are the only people needed to make a successful business. I’ve started a new blog to address some of these issues. Let me know your thoughts.

I don’t know if that will minimize the list of Y-Bombs because the fundamental problem is that Y-Combinator is churning out products, not businesses. Maybe the suits can fix that, but I doubt Paul Graham will give anyone else much consideration. His essays are quite closed minded.

But…

Jay 2.0: You’re right–the YC juice only goes so far. Reddit is the only one of their projects worth mention as a “success”. The rest are bombs or eeking out a meager existence.

This might be a bit of a threadjack, but I believe the problem with YC, or more specifically PG, is that they (he) thinks that developers are capable of running a successful business simply because they can code and have good ideas about what to code. My experience is that assumption is often not the case–I know a lot of top-notch developers with great ideas who haven’t a clue about marketing or business strategy. Heck, Even Larry and Sergey needed a CEO.

Once PG realizes that he needs to start seeking out those entrepeneurs who actually know how to put the YC juice to good use, that list of “Y-bombs” is going to be minimal.

Google has encountered issues with advertiser when it comes to click though rate and those who actual purchase something (product/service).

Are companies like Digg, Flickr, Youtube, Facebook and PhotoBucket really making a healthy profit???

Or is everyone expecting to get bought out and take their google/yahoo/ebay check to the bank?

I have been working on a new web service which should be ready by June (Hint it has to do with video, but is not a youtube clone). I am concern which all the money that is being toward around at services which are either crappy, poorly designed or just another clone. What happen to creativity and quality??? OK it looks like I am ranting now. All and all it is going to be hard for those who are working on services which could give a benefit/impact to the web a hard time to get the exposure and opportunity they deserved.

1. Kiko – sold on eBay after realizing Google was going to destroy them (founders now run Justin.tv – traffic has slipped significantly and press has died down with no idea of how to make money, sponsors find it delivers little value)

2. TextPayMe – still in beta since 2005? No traction. Site looks like it was built for $500 in Bangalore. Copyright doesn’t even extend till 2007? Is it defunct?

3. ClickFacts – domain belongs to some other company, seems defunct. Again, same issue with copyrights as above.

4. WuFoo – still around, okay traffic, but what’s the revenue model? Who would even buy this? It sounds like a cross between a bad rapper and a new Southeast Asian fusion food.

5. YouOS – still in alpha, copyright still not updated for 2007. I guess Y-Combinator companies don’t need intellectual property since ones like Scribd rip it off blatantly with even the foundres posting copyrighted materials. There can’t be Safe Harbor protections for that kind of foolishness.

6. Flipt – no site, dead. The name is the goal of Y-Combinator.

7. Flagr – traffic below the average suburban mother’s blog. No real value proposition and no revenue model.

8. AudioBeta – strangely enough…. still in beta.

9. Snipshot – mildly useful photo editing tool with low traffic to site. Easy to replicate, on revenue model, no exit opportunities.

So 9 bombs, 1 exit, and 1 potential exit (Inkling). Sounds like a regular VC portfolio to me except this one is way over-hyped and this is last year’s cohort.

Even Borat wouldn’t call this “great success!”

@ arn – Ask enough people in the Valley and outside and they will tell you that a lot of people have negative associations with Y-Combinator. There is a ton of talk of “Y-Bombs”. Pay a bit more attention and you’ll realize that hype isn’t always enough. It got Reddit somewhere but it’s not working for others.

Obviously we’ll never know if they would have attracted VC funding or gotten this high valuation if they had gone on their own.

But you can’t discount the publicity that this site got from being a ycombinator site. Whether you like it or not, ycombinator carries a lot of mindshare on this blog and others like it. There is some value to that, and it’s more than $0.

Scribd might be creating some buzz in the blog world and growth in usage might be impressive, but when it comes to determining whether or not this “company” has become a $10+ million asset in under two months, I think you only need to ask three questions:

1. How much money has been made and what is the business model? I doubt that this has generated any revenue of note. It appears that you can have documents on Scribd printed using a service called Print(fu), and I’m sure Scribd gets a commission on this. It’s a smart way to make some money, but ironically will help lay the groundwork for an infringement lawsuit. I also suspect that the Web 2.0 favorite business model (advertising) is also in the works. The proposition: imagine being able to display advertisting that is relevant to the content within a document! What a brilliant idea.

2. What’s been done to address the significant copyright issues that exist? Scribd obviously knows about them as TechCrunch reported that the law firm that represents YouTube was retained by the company. When I loaded the Scribd homepage just now, an article from Nature magazine was the featured document. It would be interesting to find out if Nature has authorized this, especially since Jared Friedman, apparently one of the creators of Scribd, posted the document. If I remember correctly, one of the facts noted in the Napster lawsuit was that some of the Napster management had “illegal” MP3s on their computers (obstensibly downloaded from the Napster service).

3. Is there anything truly proprietary or defensible about the Scribd technology? Given the limited resources it was built on, the answer is apparently no.

So let’s break down what Scribd is: a fairly simple online document respository where anybody can upload any document (regardless of whether or not the uploader owns the rights to that document) and where that content can be searched for and viewed within a web browser. Revenue is generated by allowing users to print documents they find on the service (apparently regardless of whether the copyright holder has authorized it) and will also be generated through advertising.

What has Scribd accomplished in under two months? It’s launched a service that apparently has nice growth in usage. But let’s be honest: that really isn’t saying much because it’s not incredibly challenging to do when you create a service where protecting the rights of copyright holders is not the priority and content that might otherwise have to be paid for is available for free.

What hasn’t Scribd accomplished? It almost certainly hasn’t developed a viable “business.” I would be amazed if the revenues generated provided any justification for a $10+ million valuation at this stage of the game.

At the end of the day, any investor has to ask himself whether he wants to invest in hype or a real business. While Silicon Valley venture capitalists are typically investing in technology-related businesses only and the risk of investing in companies before a real business model has been validated often creates the greatest upside potential, some perspective can’t hurt. There are a significant number of very solid businesses in numerous industries with proven track records that deliver consistent cashflow and growth which would not be valued at $10+ million. Maybe they don’t have the potential to become the “YouTube of documents” and get acquired by Google (ha!) but I think any sane investor has to question the wisdom of placing a $10+ million valuation on something so young when the true business potential is questionable, the company has little to no defensible technology and is likely to become a legal target. If this is one of the hottest things out there in the Web 2.0 space and is worth $10 million to venture capitalists, I don’t see how it bodes well for Web 2.0.

That’s the same as asking why people chose to upload videos to youtube rather than Google Videos (before the GooTube days).

“Y combinator is about the connections you make; not the money they give you.”

this is a vc sales pitch, folks. don’t believe the hype.

you guys seem to think that scribd would never have attracted vc funding or reached this high valuation without the help of y combinator. what i’m saying is that they could have found the same help from somebody else for a smaller slice of the pie.

Answer my last question and I shall bow down to thee.

You sound really sophisticated. Did you try to counter any of my points? No. Anyone can make ad hominem attacks. That’s easy. I’m happy to eat crow if you can refute my points. Prove me wrong but please grow up.