My criticism is based on being at start-ups that failed. That’s quite valid according to most people. I’m a critic of poor business models. I love the internet and think it’s a great thing.

You’re leaving the discussion because you have no logical arguments to present. I’m busy too so I don’t have all day to argue back and forth, but at least have an argument.

It’s not just with me, either. It’s just in general. In general, you’re an ass. I do not mean that as an insult, I mean it as a genuine statement.

I’m going to stop talking to you now. The reason why I’ve posted this, is because I knew that if I didn’t respond, you’d smugly go off thinking you’d beaten me or something! In fact, you probably think that now — just because you think you’re above me. (Evidently, you have social issues.)

You answered my question. You’re not an entrepreneur, and certainly not a serial entrepreneur. Your criticism is simply a viewpoint, and is not based on any real experience as an entrepreneur. In response to what I’ve been “harping”, what have you done? - nothing. You’re an internet critic. Good luck with that.

I have been reading the discussion here and at GigaOM, and its been fun for the second straight day. As much as it is fun, most parties have a point. I do have to side with Jay on few points:

1. Most companies in the web 2.0 scene do NOT have a viable business model that is supposed to take them to long-term profitability. What they DO have however, are pretty web sites and narrow functionalities. They also have 10s of competitors with same pretty web sites and exactly the same functionalities. During the past year I have personally screened over a 1000 Web 2.0 companies (at least those that call themselves 2.0), and out of all I noticed just probably below 10 that really stunned me with interesting technology and unique offer proposition. You can even see how they intend to make money off their technology. In other words, not all Web 2.0 companies are losers. Those that stand out have well thought through applications that are innovative and useful. In fact, most of the companies that really impressed me did not receive multi-million dollar funding rounds. You do not need a million dollars to build an Ajax-based blog application. You need $10-15k at most. Throw it on the market, see what happens. If people don’t like it, they won’t tell their friends about it - millions of dollars are not going to save you there.

2. Entrepreneurs that go through hell to receive $5k in funding sounds like a rip-off. Go to friends, family, get a part time job to finance your new site - but why give away equity for this much is beyond me.

3. When building a company, unless the technology doesn’t exist, first do your research to see if there is a need/demand for the functionality you are going for. Do not build a site (Gaga, Hlickr or Stratnewy) and then try to convince us there is a need for it. Press headlines are not going to help the case either.

4. Please, don’t stay in “Beta” for years. That only shows that you are not making it on user subscription rates or have no idea how to “sell/develop” your company further.

Best of luck, everyone.

I am not truly an entrepreneur - I’ve worked at a number of start-ups and most of them did poorly because they followed the typical “get eyeballs” model. The only reason I rail against other start-ups doing the same is that I see how destructive and counter-productive it can be.

You learn as much from failure as you do from success. As for my “little blog”, I only launched it because people on GigaOm asked me to start one to collect my thoughts. You may not appreciate my viewpoint and that’s your choice. I still don’t see an argument using logic from you though. You continue to harp on “what have you done?” If you want to continue this discussion, please move over to my blog.

And you sure think a lot of yourself!

I wonder if you can see just how cliche you are. A self-absorbed internet critic. Look how hard you try in your replies. I bet you go over your words at least a few times, to make sure you’re sounding as intelligent as you possibly can.

You’re a very sad man. I’m not sure if that’s an insult in itself, it’s just what I believe, and have gathered. You’ve not a single project you can mention, I bet, that has earned you the title of “serial entrepreneur”.

And your blog — geez. It’s rambling repetitive garbage. New company? No exit strategy. How are they going to monetize? They suck.

How would you know? Name me just one, just one, of your successes.

Guys like you go nowhere, because you create nothing. And all the while you’re trying to put me down! Incredible. Good luck in all your…

Whatever it is you think you do.

Good luck with your little blog. People really care what you have to say.

How would you respond if everytime someone criticized President Bush he said “You’re a nobody. You’ve never been President so shut up.” That’s a pathetic debating strategy that you yourself are employing.

I’m providing a viewpoint. You can disagree with it. I provide facts and logic. You provide nothing. I’m happy to debate, but debate requires two intelligent parties - not me vs. a block of wood.

You’re nothing but a critic. You haven’t made anything. You’re a nobody. I am just some guy, yes, as I said myself. Whereas you, well, you think you’re some kind of a business genius the way you’re dishing out insults to companies that are getting somewhere.

You’re a loser, dude. You’re no “serial entrepreneur”, you’re just a faceless critic. The only reason I’m responding to you is because you’re amusingly pathetic. It’s funny, it really is. You sit behind your keyboard insulting and criticizing other companies, as if you’re even in authority to do so!

You’re a complete wannabe.

You and your fellow Y-Combinator sycophants may want to learn some logic in addition to learning grammar, diction, and eloquence. Most of you never present a single example or contradiction to my arguments. You just resort to ad hominem attacks. Your maturity shines through above your great debating abilities.

Come back to reality. You’re embarrassing. Your opinion is worth nothing, as you’ve nothing to show for it. Pathetic, dude.

ChandraB was referring to this post - http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2007.....n-revenue/

No Y-Combinator business has anywhere close to that number of Page Views.

Why does it matter? Because a bubble is building and at the end of the day, that’s bad for most of us in the internet industry. The arrogance of so many Y-Combinator founders is quite disgusting.

Maybe I care because I see young entrepreneurs falling for the chicanery over at Y-Combinator. Paul Graham is a wannabe-Karl Marx with his latest essay on unions. He needs to stick to things he knows and not pontificate on everything. His ego is larger than Mr. Broadcast.com’s.

@ bdb - angel money from friends and family is far cheaper. Furthermore, the free press on TechCrunch and GigaOm probably still don’t justify the insane valuation Y-Combinator gets.

@ Robby - Agreed.

Jay, it’s probably best to spell “statistical” correctly when you make fun of someone for saying “at worse”.

My critique of YC is that most (not all) of their companies are features and not stand alone viable businesses….and a majority of them seem to be advertising supported. Jeremery Liew of LightSpeed Venture Partners have a great blog on how many page views a ad supported company needs to generate in order to be succesful…the numbers are huge…will any of the YC companies generate those types of number? I think not…but I would like to be proved wrong!

Further, as D2.0 said, “…we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that entrepreneurs in that demographic don’t come with significant risks related to their lack of experience, occasional naivety, etc.” [spelling error corrected]

So, considering the risk they’re taking it makes sense. It is not for everyone, and I’ve never considered it (angel money comes best from friends/ family).

Thanks for the condescension though.

Saying you are sick of the hype some companies receive still does not explain your incredible concern.

Why do you care about Weebly and YC so much? Why do you insist that companies must have a readily apparent biz model? Did you ever think some companies don’t make their business models readily available on purpose!? ***gasp***. Im sure Weebly has great ideas for their future and the investors who funded them understand the risk. So, just let it go. Let other people make their own mistakes and take their own risks. Either way, they will be better entrepreneurs because of it.

@ Zaid, congrats on the funding, when did this happen?

@ Drama - can you post on my blog so we can get in touch somehow? I’d love to have you be a contributor.

I also have a pet theory that Y Combinator have stocks in power companies… my laptop is going into meltdown rendering all these excessive lines of JS code that YC seem to love so much! AARGH! Stop with the superfluous battery-eating effects please! Since when did crippling the user experience become a mark of a professional site?

bdb: YC’s investment approach makes sense from an investor’s standpoint in theory, however I think the biggest problem is that more experienced and savvy entrepeneurs are not going to have any interest in giving up 2-10% of their company for a low five-figure amount. From what I’ve seen, most of YC’s portfolio companies are founded by college students or recent college graduates with little operating experience and little financial resources of their own. While there’s nothing inherently bad with that, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that entrepreneurs in that demographic don’t come with significant risks related to their lack of experience, occassional naivety, etc. While none of this ever precludes success, experienced, savvy entrepreneurs almost always provide the best investment opportunities.

In a market like the current one where there is too much money chasing too few ideas, and institutional investors would rather invest in less-than-compelling companies rather than return money to their limited partners, it’s easy to get the impression that YC is having success creating a crop of viable businesses. YC had the Reddit sale and a number of its portfolio companies, like Weebly, have gone on to secure larger rounds of funding, but the true test of the YC model will come when we hit a down cycle in the market. When investors realize that the number of significant acquisitions is very small compared to the total number of funded startups, and the focus shifts again to companies that have clear revenue models and management teams capable of executing on them, we’ll see if something like YC will be able to lure entrepreneurs that aren’t just capable of building nifty Web 2.0 products (or functionality), but that are capable of building real businesses.

As for media coverage, most of us probably find coverage of any web-based app or service interesting whether or not there is a unique business model or significant differentiator (for the me-2,3,4,n). Discussions of those topics within the coverage is desirable, but if you continually cover start-ups in a harsh manner, what do you think the likelihood of getting inside info would be?