Comments on: What history teaches us about startup incubators

By: casey allen

casey allen — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 20:54:23 +0000

Which U of M are you referring to?

By: Ricardo dos Santos

Ricardo dos Santos — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:46:38 +0000

Hi Om. Think you’re definitively humorous but a little too harsh on the poor ol’ incubators…and especially the younger sibling, the accelerator. The ‘batch style’ accelerator can provide value in three forms. First, the ‘artificial’ timeline to get a better plan ‘A’ on the table just seems to work for most people. Second, if it’s established a high likelihood of a decent exit, e.g. $150K convertible note or something, then it ‘signals’ value just to get in, and thirdly, unless we’re all completely cynical about our capacity to learn anything new past the age of 13, it is a good way to pick up a few tricks of the trade for the current or future venture, aided by the peer environment (and competitive pressure)…thus, reality learning. Now this could mean that crap coming in just gets done quicker, has a better chance of a zombie life with a little funding and erroneous cause and effect gets propagated…but no one said this was easy or perfect :-)
Yours, Ricardo dos Santos

By: Saul Klein

Saul Klein — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:47:41 +0000

have always believed with seedcamp that:

(1) you need to take a long long view
(2) you need to build something that fits the needs of its market (in the case of europe – ours – it was about bringing a network together where there had been fragmentation)

its all about the people – and as Andrew Shaffer says – the network behind and around them

i agree there will be a lot more before there are less – like most innovation cycles ;)

BTW _ my view in 2009 – http://localglobe.blogspot.com/2009/11/seedcamp-thoughts-on-evolution-of.html

“I know people say that long-term thinking is unfashionable in our industry, but I agree with Fred Wilson and my dad that great things take time. In my mind, helping to bring some cohesion to our region’s distributed network of talent, capital and advisors is a 15-20 year project.

No single organization can achieve this. Even if Seedcamp is not ultimately a success – as measured by the success of the entrepreneurs who have been funded by it or experienced its programs – hopefully it will have helped to inspire some of the right thinking.”

happy new year man

By: Pascal Finette

Pascal Finette — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:15:19 +0000

Om -

Great read. And as much as I agree with Dave on the fundamental differences between 2000 and 2012 I also see a ton of incubators simply not offering enough of real, actual support for their portfolio. Their networks are weak, their differentiation is negligible and the money they offer is too little to make a difference.

At the same time – let them be. The worst they can do is pour (some) money and resources into companies which might not be fundable. But hey – that’s okay. Consider it a free real-world MBA course for the founders. And if all we get out of this a couple more people who are bitten by the entrepreneur bug – that’s an awesome outcome!

On the other hand you do have the amazing work YC, TC, Seedcamp, 500 Startups and many more are doing – and they clearly inspired some amazing offsprings in very different markets such as The Unreasonable Institute who incubates social change ventures or The Designer Fund incubating strong, designer-lead solutions.

So – life comes and goes in waves. It’s all good.

By: Harry Lin

Harry Lin — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:15:42 +0000

An interesting piece, Om – thanks for writing it.

At the risk of initiating a semantics debate: an “incubator” isn’t the same as an “accelerator”. I don’t think that’s a distinction without a difference.

The financial and organizational structure and the business philosophy at Idealab (15 years and still going strong! here in Pasadena Calif.!) are fundamentally different than Y Combinator or any of the other accelerators. Not necessarily *better* – just different, in both theory and practice. (We love the YCs of the world and want them to succeed.)

I can’t speak officially for Idealab but if you wanted to see what’s different here, you’d probably get a good reception by asking.

By: Kirsten Osolind

Kirsten Osolind — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:36:55 +0000

Yup. I worked with Cyberstarts, an Atlanta incubator, in 2000. And I now live in Chicago, where Healthbox has recently sprouted (although they call themselves an “accelerator.” Also served on the Springboard Enterprises Midwest Venture Forum Committee (Springboard is a not-for-profit accelerator for women entrepreneurs). The #1 reason incubators fail? People. #2? Funding. If there is no link to funding, incubators have a hard time creating sustainable businesses. Sadly, university tech transfer efforts outside of Silicon Valley and Boston don’t work much better. Take for instance, U of M.

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:26:32 +0000

Next time when I am in London. See you then for sure. (OR when you are in SF.)

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:25:25 +0000

Lol! Thanks for doing that while I pivot while doing a pivot and get back to incubating…

By: James Haft

James Haft — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:02:02 +0000

This is just a tempest in a tea pot. Incubating is just another industry. The 80/20 rule will apply here, as elsewhere.

James Haft
Co-founder
NXTPLabs.com

By: dave mcclure

dave mcclure — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:48:50 +0000

well of course… “90% of everything is crap.”

but still, in previous times they DID all flame out (altho Idealab still had it’s share of multiple-hundred million dollar successes)… and that WILL NOT be the case here.

no effing way YC goes away, unless PG gets tired & retires. I don’t think TechStars disappears, and damn certain I’m doing my best to make sure 500 Startups not fade away.

There will be some attrition for sure, but we ain’t all going quietly into that dark night good sir…