Dave McClure’s incubator launched back in February 2011 after 500 Startups had already invested in about 100 companies, and the group is set to hit its namesake number of investments this year, between the incubator and outside companies. This summer group will be the sixth batch of companies to go through the incubator.

The full list of the 28 companies can be found on AngelList, which is now required for companies applying to the program, beginning on Tuesday.

Apart from the list of companies, here are a few facts about the latest bunch:

• Eight of the 28 companies, or about 28 percent, has a female co-founder, and two of those women are CTOs for their companies.
• Two-thirds of the companies, or 20 of the 28, are international, continuing a longstanding 500 Startups penchant for investing overseas. The companies come from a variety of countries including Brazil, Chile, China, Ghana, India, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, and Vietnam. 500 Startups recently added a partner in China.
• One of the companies called Dropifi is the group’s first investment in an African companies, and two of them, Dakwak and Tamatem, are the first Middle Eastern accelerator companies.

Our coverage of the fifth batch that launched in February can be found here, and we’ll be covering the demo day for this batch in July.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• GigaOM Research highs and lows from CES 2013
• How HR can make the case for workforce analytics
• The 2013 task management tools market

“More than just an “incubator” or “accelerator”, tbd. is assembling an elite team of engineers to create a one-of-a-kind company. Their goal is to build, launch and commercialize the hottest new products we can dream up, all with an eye towards reusable code and buttressed by a best-in-class infrastructure.”

It’s unclear what the eventual name of the company will be. However, we do know that the new company will be headed by Todd Berman, who was employee number one at Rdio, the Friis-backed digital music service that is joined at the hip with Vdio. Berman served as Rdio’s CTO until last month. Via email, he told me:

“We are not an incubator or an accelerator. We are however looking to hire great engineers who are interested in joining a startup that is trying to change the industry standard model of how startups are created.”

The idea to re-use code for launching new products may also at least in part be informed by Friis’ experience with Rdio and Vdio. Friis initially hired a separate team of designers and engineers to build Vdio. But those efforts were eventually scrapped, and Vdio was rebuilt from scratch on top of Rdio’s architecture, with most of original team being let go in the process.

So what will Tbd. build? The job posting offers no details, but it does mention that the eventual goal is to spin out the products it builds into separate companies. It goes on to offer prospective hires “the (highest) compensation in the Valley,” something that Friis can easily afford: In 2001, Friis and his co-founder Niklas Zennstroem made an estimated $1.19 billion by selling Skype to Microsoft.

This story was updated at 4:30 pm with a comment from Todd Berman as well as further details on the name of the company.

Image courtesy of Flickr user  Marcin Wichary.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How social discovery is transforming entertainment
• Startup growth and the new recruiting ecosystem
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis

The changes scale back how much money startup founders will receive with the YC program — $80,000, down from $150,000 — but YC said it would organize network connections with notable local investors, which is arguably what YC is all about — building connections and networking while getting critical feedback as your company gets off the ground. Sure, it’s less cash, but it seems unlikely the changes will halt the flow of applications that come to the incubator each year from startups desperate to join. And the group hopes it will decrease founder disputes without hurting any of the successful startups.

In a post, Y Combinator explained that the decision shouldn’t hurt successful startups — who can still go out and fundraise after Y Combinator — and will cut down on founder disagreements for the companies who go bust, since there will be less to fight over. The decrease in initial funding could prove tough for some hardware companies, who tend to need more cash upfront, or international founders looking to secure visas and relocate, but otherwise should be an improvement, said YC partner Harj Taggar.

“It just made the disputes more heated becasuse there’s more at stake,” he said.

Initially, all companies selected as part of a Y Combinator class were offered a convertible note for $150,000 from investors Yuri Milner and Ron Conway. While Y Combinator wasn’t directly making that investment, it explained in a blog post that it ended up taking part in the complicated process. So, YC decided to create its own investment to simply the process:

“Although we didn’t organize this program, over the years we ended up de facto managing it, and it was awkward to manage something we hadn’t started. So we decided to take control of the situation and replace it with something of our own design.”

Now, YC startups will still receive a convertible note, but only for $80,000, and it will come from $20,000 each from Milner, Andreessen Horowitz, General Catalyst, and Maverick Capital. Conway is notably absent from the list.

While upcoming classes of YC startups will likely be disappointed in the funding changes (who wouldn’t prefer twice as much money when starting a company?), the incubator has never been about making the most money possible in a few months. It’s about building connections with Silicon Valley investors, access to later funding rounds, and an alumni connection that can help with everything from finding office space to hiring programmers.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications
• GigaOM Euro 20: the European startups to watch
• What the VC Industry Upheaval Means For Startups

So what have I seen?

The fact is that accelerators and early-stage investment programs, particularly in Europe, are not really very differentiated yet. As the market matures we’ll see more vertically-focused programs. In fact, this is already starting. The U.K.’s Springboard, for example, just launched Springboard Mobile. There’s also GameFounders in Central and Eastern Europe, which focuses on the games industry.

But there’s still a long way to go

Where is the advertising technology accelerator, for example?

We’re going to see more and more of this, and it’s a good thing.

Why? Well, in having a tight vertical focus, an accelerator has clear positioning — which helps it immensely in marketing. It’s also likelier that the contacts and mentors on a vertical program have are directly relevant to the startups in the program. Same goes for potential business partners, VCs and acquirers. Finally, there’s a lot more potential for synergy in the portfolio. Take our adtech accelerator, for example: a startup creating an advertising network could benefit from the other startups on the program that are creating analytics, retargeting or creative management services.

And if the products don’t work out, there’s a higher chance of targeted talent acquisitions — potentially a good result for entrepreneurs, and a slight hedge to an investor’s risk.

Contrast this to a non-vertical program.

While getting in early-stage startups guarantees that they will run into a lot of similar problems, there is a lot of slack too.

Let’s assume that 10 startups meets 20 mentors from all over the industry: smart, experienced people who have great input for many ideas but don’t know everything. In most cases, a mentor who doesn’t know your business inside out will still give advice — but it will come from the perspective of an imaginary user, instead of from an industry expert, potential client or business partner.

That’s a real waste for everyone. Startups should be doing user testing and customer development all the time, not wasting precious mentorship time and relations for that.

And even if they really want to help, a mentor who doesn’t know anything about the games industry and doesn’t play games will get frustrated by talking to games startups. Equally, a B2B SaaS expert will mostly give input from their perspective, even if the startup in question is a social B2C product: I’ve seen more than one ‘white-labelled B2B version’ idea thrown around semi-reluctantly in meetings like this.

Having been to quite a few demo days and looked at various programs closely, sometimes it seems like the only common problem for the startups in an accelerator is getting follow-on funding. This, in turn, means that a lot of the participants are all-too clearly engineered for their demo day as an investment opportunity — a single make-or-break moment. But for investors looking for future stars, this can be frustrating as they need to cut through the pitch-clutter of different startups who are all aiming for the same end result.

Instead, a ‘lean accelerator’ should focus vertically to eliminate waste and shorten the iterations. Granted, from an investor’s perspective this decreases the diversity of a portfolio, but hey, you’re investing in early-stage startups: there are more important ways to manage risk than portfolio diversification.

For this reason, I’ve been watching the development of corporate accelerators — like Telefonica’s Wayra, Deutsche Telekom’s hub:raum, or even the BBC Worldwide Labs — with interest. While it seems in some regard that they’re just me-too programs, their deep vertical expertise and contact base can make them very appealing for startups that fit the profile.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Google and the Ghost of Silicon Valley Past
• Crowdfunding’s rapid growth and future opportunity
• Opportunities with Communications-as-a-Service

The group, which claims to be the first of its kind in Europe, had been due to close its doors to applicants on Tuesday. But in an email, co-founder Paul Bragiel told me that the decision to extend the deadline was not because they had not had enough high quality submissions.

“[We] had a big uptake in applications starting yesterday, so just want to make sure we can accommodate,” said Bragiel, who is also a partner at early stage program I/O Ventures in San Francisco.

“I have been quite happy with the applications. Honestly I was wary they would be weak compared to the ones I see with I/O Ventures [where he is also a partner] … but I have been pleasantly surprised.”

The projects submitted so far, he says, include a great deal of mobile and location-based gaming projects, as well as gamification services. There was also some social gaming “but that is considerably less than I saw a year or two ago.”

The program, which is based in Estonia, aims to bring together teams to develop their existing game-related products — which should already be in beta at least — over three months. A range of mentors will arrive from around the Central, Eastern and Baltic regions come together to work with a maximum of 10 companies, with a program that starts in September.

While it is a little unusual to extend deadlines for positive reasons, Bragiel’s co-founder Sven Illing told me that it was not uncommon — and pointed to the example of Startupbootcamp Berlin, which recently extended its deadline after a surge in attention.

“It seems a good idea to use the momentum,” he said. “You can never have too many good applications.”

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The evolution of the virtual goods market
• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout
• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout

Tandem began in 2007 in Silicon Valley as a capital fund for mobile startups, taking a particularly hands-on approach with its portfolio companies. Most of the startups in Tandem’s first portfolio either graduated to later-stage funding rounds or have been acquired.

ZumoDrive was bought by Motorola in 2010, becoming MotoCast, the handset maker’s media and storage service. Email management and collaboration software developer Attassa wound up as part of YouSendIt (see disclosure). PlayHaven, which offers up a real-time marketing platform to game developers, hasn’t been acquired yet, but it’s is scaling rapidly, supporting 1500 titles with a combined 500 million game sessions each month.

Last summer, Tandem took its hands-on approach further, launching an accelerator hosting a small number of startups each year. Tandem provides those companies with an initial $200,000 investment and free workspace along with its expertise.

“Tandem’s accelerator program is highly selective and focuses on only a small group of truly exceptional teams,” Tandem co-founder Doug Renert said in a statement. “This way, we can give founders what they need most: time and attention from our team and our entire network. Think of our accelerator like a small liberal arts college where you get to know your professors, as opposed to the large public university where you’re taking each course along with 300 other students.”

The current class includes four companies: mobile gaming rewards platform provider GimmieWorld, social game developer BitRhymes, local event discovery portal UpOut and cross-store shopping tool developer Flit. Tandem is accepting applications for its next accelerator class until July 1.

Disclosure: YouSendIt is backed by Alloy Ventures, a venture capital firm that is an investor in the parent company of this blog, Giga Omni Media.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• What the Google-Motorola deal means for Android, Microsoft and the mobile industry
• Analyzing the wearable computing market

German media has reported that the site, which was launched by the brothers’ Rocket Internet incubator and operated across a number of European countries, will be shutting down immediately as the investors switch their focus. It’s a swift execution for the site, which caused Fab.com founder Jason Goldberg to angrily label it a “complete rip-off” when it appeared in January — copying not just Fab’s business model, but also the site’s design.

But even though Bamarang is being shut down, it won’t be going away exactly.

According to conversations reported by Deutsche Startups, the energy that went into Bamarang is now being transferred to WestWing, another Rocket-funded entity focused on home decor sales that recently took $50 million in funding.

“We have decided to concentrate on WestWing’s business model, where we have established clear No1 positions in key markets like Germany, Brazil, Italy and Russia,” said WestWing founder Stefan Smalla.

“As a consequence we will phase out Bamarang and focus 100 percent of our resources on WestWing, which we see as the stronger of the two business models. This will allow us to build unassailable market positions in the emerging home and living e-commerce market, and deploy our substantial new funding on the largest growth opportunities.”

German startup site Gruenderszene reports that most of the staff of Bamarang are expected to move to WestWing, with many staff taking part in interviews on Monday to help decide their fate.

Anyone thinking this says anything about the death of cloning should beware, however — not least because WestWing is a copycat of the flash sales site OneKingsLane. Ultimately, it looks like a hard-headed business decision from one of the most hard-headed investing teams around: Bamarang faced too much competition, but WestWing is having an easier ride of it, so they decided to follow the money.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Google and the Ghost of Silicon Valley Past
• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout

Fred Hoch and Terry Howerton (left), cofounders of TechNexus.

When you’re young, it’s natural to think of grown ups as party-spoiling bores. But wait a few years until you’re a fellow adult and that uncool elder brother or once sedate seeming older cousin suddenly becomes fascinating and fun loving. Adults generally aren’t stodgy to other adults.

What has this got to do with tech and collaboration? A lot, according to Terry Howerton, co-founder of Chicago-area collaboration space and incubator TechNexus, which Forbes recently ranked as one of the top ten incubators in the country. In an interview with GigaOM, Howerton argues that rather than view big corporations as innovation killing, community destroying infiltrators into the startup or coworking playroom, it’s time for some segments of the tech industry to leave the garage and dorm room mentality behind and recognize that they’ve grown into big time players that can benefit from closer ties to large corporations.

What’s the history of TechNexus?

We created TechNexus as a collaboration center in 2007. The idea originally was not an incubator. We didn’t like that word.

What was your objection?

Five years ago many incubators were government subsidized or attached to an academic institution. Our feeling was that any time that government or academia funds an incubator, the success metrics of the incubator get really fungible really fast. What we were creating wasn’t going to be dependent on any kind of government money. It wasn’t going to be overly identified with any one academic institution, so that word incubator just didn’t resonate. We liked collaboration center and clubhouse.

Do you have an open door policy or do you actively curate the community?

There is an open door policy to an extent. We host lots of events and partner with 75 different community organizations and groups like the Illinois Technology Association, The Clean Energy Trust. It brings a lot of different people through. But the special sauce is curating that collaboration. It’s knowing who’s on the floor, how they create value for other people and connecting them up in meaningful ways.

So how did you end up becoming an incubator if that wasn’t what you set out to do?

Early on when we set out to build the collaboration center, we had startups who came in and said: ‘This is like ground zero for what I’m trying to do. All the right people are already coming through here. Would you mind if I had a desk here?’ And we said: ‘Sure, take a desk.’ Then we started providing a lot more mentorship and direct value for those companies that were resident. Today, to jump ahead, we’ve had 167 startups that have launched from the floor and they’ve raised about $80 million in capital and had about 500 employees. We didn’t set out to create an incubator, but we ended up creating the most successful incubator that Chicago has yet seen, and we did it by focusing on building the quality and the diversity of the community.

Who’s involved in TechNexus today?

Almost 3,000 people a month flow through TechNexus – entrepreneurs, engineers, executives, students, faculty. On average we have people who represent 900 different companies coming through every month.

What does the participation of corporations in the space add for the startups?

To me, one of the limitations of a lot of the accelerator and traditional incubator models is that the people in those programs tend to be very homogenous. They tend to look the same. They tend to be at the same stage. They tend to have the same background, the same experience levels.

We wanted to have a really heterogeneous community. If you wander around the floor at TechNexus on any given day, you’re just as likely to run into members of the Advanced Research Team at Motorola Mobility as you are to run into the founding team of a company called Open Kernel Labs, which has built software that is now in over a billion mobile devices worldwide but started on our floor four and a half years ago, as you are to run into a 17-year-old kid doing a startup for the first time. Having those three different people – the big corporate research team, the well established startup and the young, just-getting-off-the-ground mobile app developer — hanging out at the water cooler and working out in the gym and having us facilitating that collaboration, that’s a key part of our success.

Are you just focused on that informal interaction, or do you also have formal programs to catalyze collaboration between these groups?

There are workshops, roundtables and programs, and then with relation to specific startups, we get involved and, because of our position in the community, we connect them with the exact mentors that they need to talk to. We say, listen, we’re here for you. We’ll be in front of the white board with you. We’re going to go find people with experience of your specific problem because we can leverage our relationships and bring them in. Or we’re going to connect you up with the corporation who can help take you to market. So there are formal, structured events and then there is a more personalized program with mentorship and traditional incubation.

Do you think your approach is due in part to your location – does it reflect the fact that Chicago has such a diverse business scene as opposed to, say, Silicon Valley?

We’re very strong in financial services, in manufacturing, in real estate. A company like Archipelago, who thought of themselves as a financial services company, ended up merging with the New York Stock Exchange. But if we look at their history, we consider them to be a software company, a technology platform that transformed the way stocks are traded. Leveraging those kinds of verticals is something I think we can almost uniquely do here. Certainly you’re not doing that in Silicon Valley.

That also shapes the kind of companies that we tend to welcome into the incubator. I’m not necessarily a big fan of the social web, get as many consumer eyeballs as we can, try to figure out some business model somewhere down the road sort of thing. That capital efficient, digital startup model sounds attractive, but it’s tough for us to understand where the real value is in many of those companies. I am much more interested in working with companies that are going to transform industries and that can leverage those strong, diverse industries that exist here in Chicago to do that.

Do you have any examples of this type of synergy between startups and corporations at TechNexus?

The very first company that moved into our facility was a startup with three employees, one of those employees was the former CIO of Credit Suisse, another one was the former CTO of Borland Software. It’s a company called CohesiveFT. They make a server virtualization tool and have benefited through IBM’s participation in our ecosystem and going to market together with IBM.

Within the broader startup and coworking communities, there’s sometimes a feeling that corporations kill the mojo or squash community spirit. Is that a fear you’ve encountered before and, if so, what’s your reaction to it?

The front half of our floor is a coworking space. There is, however, a big difference between what we call coworking and what the majority of coworking facilities out there are. Most coworking facilities are not focused on making sure the individuals there are building something that can become a growth stage business. That’s all we want, so you’re not going to find the freelancers, the consultants. Our coworking facility is very startup centric.

Now to answer your question, we actually leverage corporations. We’re not talking about IBM or Motorola coming in dressed in their button down suits. This is the advanced research team, the cutting edgiest part of the corporation. And also we’re talking about the tech industry, so even if we’re dealing with a $50-75 million company, the vibe is still there. They still depend on innovation.

If you look at our space, we’re on the 15^th floor of 200 South Wacker, right across the street from the Sears Tower. This is big time corporate real estate. This is not the loft in the outer reaches of the business district where people can bring their dogs to work. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but when you talk to people not in tech, that’s their image of everybody in the tech industry. Our place is a little funky, but it’s still a floor in a high rise because we want to portray that this is an industry that has arrived. The technology industry – and I’m no longer just talking about capital efficient digital startups, I’m talking about some very large technology businesses – is one of the leading industries in Chicago and it’s time we recognized that. Why the hell shouldn’t we be downtown in the middle of the corporate world?

That reminds me of Marc Andreesen’s comment that software is eating the world and nearly every company is becoming a software company.

That brings us full circle back to why involve corporations. Technology is, at a rapidly increasing pace, driving all innovation. You can say JP Morgan Chase is a bank. You could also say JP Morgan Chase is an information company, a technology company.

Let’s talk about the value of TechNexus from a corporation’s perspective. Why would a corporation want to be involved?

The pace of innovation, of bringing products to market that are truly disruptive to existing industries, is faster today than ever before. Banking, insurance, stock trading, even real estate, most of the innovation that’s happening in those industries is being driven by tech. So big corporations are facing the need to innovate faster. And fast, agile and entrepreneurial are not words you generally associate this big corporations, right? That’s reason number one why corporations are now reaching out to TechNexus. They need access to our innovators. They don’t have enough of that in their DNA anymore.

Does participating in TechNexus offer corporations other benefits?

The traditional venture capital model, in my mind, is dead. If you look at institutional VCs for the last several years that money has been moving later stage and higher dollar. Institutional VCs have moved up market. At the same time, angels and angel networks have gotten way more sophisticated, certainly in Chicago. Introduce crowdfunding into the mix in a couple of years and it’s going to continue to transform the traditional VC industry in ways that put pressure on corporate venture.

If you had a small venture group inside of your corporation and you were tasked with trying to keep your eye out for the latest, greatest early stage technology for the company to maybe acquire or invest into, you no longer find yourself competing with institutional VCs but with angels, accelerators, incubators, maybe ultimately with 30 million Americans doing crowdfunding. That’s driving corporations into our ecosystem.

How are your relationships with your corporate partners structured – are they putting in money to support startups or paying for desk space or something else?

All of the above. They’re paying a program fee. For example, one of the things that we’ve done is establish relationships with young engineering talent coming out of university. We’ve spent the last several years buying kids pizza at Notre Dame, University of Illinois, University of Chicago, Purdue and others. We’ve got corporate partners who have said: ‘How do we get access to that talent?’

Take someone like Walgreens. Most people don’t think of them as a tech company, but Walgreens does $1.5 billion a year in ecommerce. How do they tell rock star development talent that they’re one of the biggest ecommerce companies and have one of the best mobile apps in the world?  It’s a sexier proposition to say: ‘Hey kids, come hang out at TechNexus and build technology that would be of interest to Walgreens.’ And, as a result, create a pipeline relationship.

What’s next for TechNexus?

We’ve done tons of mentorship and facilitated lots of different things. One of the things we’ve not done is played a significant role in investing our own capital, or even capital that we’re directing. We haven’t had a fund that’s attached to the incubator. That’s now happening. We’re seeing these corporations come forward and say, ‘help us direct our capital investments,’ so capital is become more and more available to us to put in to some of these startups.

Image courtesy of Terry Howerton. 

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• What the VC Industry Upheaval Means For Startups
• Social 2013: The enterprise strikes back

Catapult doesn’t bill itself as an incubator. Rather it calls itself a collaborative community, and it definitely gives off commune-type vibe. It’s a not-for-profit entity that rents 12,000 square feet of building space in Chicago’s downtown River North neighborhood. The incubator is investor agnostic, and new startup residents are selected democratically. The founders of current Catapult companies vote on whom to accept and whom to deny.

That sort of peer-selection process produced Tuesday’s latest round of new entrants. The five initial tenants VLinks Media, MentorMob, Style Seek, Tech.li and 5Degrees voted on the seven new companies joining them at 321 N. Clark Street. Here is a brief description of the new tenants:

• Dabble runs an online marketplace for classes, ranging for sausage making to getting started with Word Press. The company launched in Chicago this month last year but is expanding to other markets.
• Buzz Referrals is in the business of digital referrals, providing a platform that allows Websites to promote themselves through social coupons on other rewards programs.
• Shiftgig is developing a LinkedIn for people in the restaurant, nightlife, hotel and hospitality industries. It’s networking everyone from busboys to nightclub managers in Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles and Miami.
• Tempo stores and analyzes for companies massive times-series datasets – for example thermostat temperatures, network latencies, heart rates – that would normally break traditional databases.   
• Procured Health produces a Web-based application that advises hospitals on what new medical device and health technology to buy how to implement it.
• Kula has developed a peer-to-peer, mobile marketplace app that allows user to share, buy, and sell almost any good imaginable based on their current locations.
• BucketFeet makes fancy sneakers. The company hooks up with artists looking to expand their craft to shoes, and then provides the distribution, e-commerce, and social media tools to allow those artists to connect to consumers.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Facebook’s IPO filing: ideas and implications
• Social 2013: The enterprise strikes back
• Crowdfunding’s rapid growth and future opportunity

Telekom’s German startup play (which is more of an accelerator, despite the ‘incubator’ designation) came hot on the heels of rival Telefónica’s Wayra. The Wayra proposition is pretty straightforward: seed funding of up to €50,000 ($66,000) per selected startup, with Telefónica getting 10 percent equity and first rights to future funding and marketing.

At hub:raum’s launch, the press release didn’t even mention equity. The website makes one reference to the telco getting a “minority stake.” And I’ve been hearing local players in Berlin saying that they understood Telekom’s not after equity at all.

But the idea that Telekom doesn’t want anything in return for its up-to-€300k seed investment never seemed plausible — and it highlights the confusing nature of the offer.

What’s the truth? One industry source told me that while Telekom “doesn’t take equity per se”, the mentor that you get assigned does get a fixed single-digit stake. What’s more, the startup only gets five to 10 hours a week from its mentor — anything more than that will require a further negotiation.

And that’s not all. It seems there’s a second chunk of equity involved here too:

“You get into the program and you have to choose a mentor, and that mentor does take equity,” the source said. “And you get an investment from T-Venture and you negotiate how much equity they take from that, based on what stage the company is at.”

I’ve asked Telekom what’s going on here, and I’ve not had a reply yet. Depending on the terms that finally get agreed between the startups and hub:raum, the deal may not be so bad. But startups will have to look hard into this gift horse’s mouth — because things seem a lot less clear-cut here than they are with Wayra.

Bad rep?

My source also pointed out that “people don’t like Telekom much,” as the telco can be “very painful” to deal with. No kidding.

The hub:raum launch at NEXT Berlin 2012 certainly generated a fair bit of low-level grumbling. When the show’s pitch contest winners, Squadmail, went onstage to collect their €10,000 prize, they were informed that they had to claim it through the hub:raum program — the existence of which, remember, was only announced at the show.

I don’t know what investment strategy Squadmail’s been working on in the background, but chances are that twist came as quite a surprise.

But hey, suddenly finding yourself in bed with Telekom can’t be all bad — the firm’s a giant in its field with the marketing nous to match, right? Right? Try googling “hub:raum”. Perhaps someone so smart could have chosen a better name…

Update: A spokesperson for hub:raum responded to our request for more clarity.

When startups are admitted to the hub:raum incubation program they are being offered an integrated set of contributions. This set consists of services (e.g., office space and access to corporate resources), funding and mentoring. All three elements constitute the hub:raum incubation program and are not being offered separately.

Services and funding will be provided by hub:raum/Deutsche Telekom with T-Venture having the role of the investment vehicle. Any equity stake hub:raum will get for the combination of services and funding will be held by T-Venture.

Valuation and respective minority stake holding comply with market standards in the pre-seed and seed phase. The mentoring part will be provided by seasoned entrepreneurs. They will get a decent equity stake in return for establishing and maintaining an intense working relationship with the startup company. Equity will not depend on the hours spend with the company, however the mentor may want to increase his or her share by injecting some extra money into the startup.

Well, that clears it up then.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Opportunities with Communications-as-a-Service
• Key technologies for the smart city
• Will cloud computing push the BRIC market to the front?