Josh Cockrell Strobel

YC has quietly built a parallel tech ecosystem. Not just a network - an entire operating system for startups. Think about it: A YC founder can build their entire stack using only YC companies. Infrastructure, analytics, payment processing, marketing tools - it's all there. At friend-and-family prices. When you launch a product to the YC network, you get something priceless: A group of technical founders who actually understand what you're building. They become your first users, your debuggers, your evangelists. This is why PostHog is now used by 65% of new YC companies. This is why Brex dominated fintech... and why each YC batch makes the next one stronger. A true compounding advantage.

385

47 Comments

Ok, time for a rant. 90% of "AI Startups" aren't even AI. I've seen founders that use LLMs or have a chatbot somewhere on their site and call it an "AI startup". I've seen people who vibe code or use Cursor/Lovable and then say they have an "AI startup". I've seen people continue to build ChatGPT/Claude/Llama wrappers and call it an "AI startup". If you haven't build a custom model or used meaningful proprietary data then you aren't an AI startup, you're AI Enabled. AND THAT'S FINE. You don't have to be an AI company to solve a problem. So many companies and VCs are going to have poor performance because they have little differentiation and have claimed to build/invest in "AI Companies" and we will soon learn they are not really "AI".

128

66 Comments

Product-market fit genuinely feels different...and it'll show up in the data Demo to close rates are the easiest thing to look at for product-market fit right now. Vertical AI startups in our portfolio are seeing 50%+ demo to close rates, even with brand new account executives selling the product. It's happening in every market from AI takeoffs to AI CSR/Voice software to AI procurement solutions. When you see a demo to close rate over 50% chances are you have a jaw dropping customer experience and you should put your foot on the gas. If you're seeing something dramatically lower in mid-market or SMB ACV categories, it's worth revisiting your product and/or your pitch.

61

14 Comments

Zynga sold for $12.7 billion. Its founder says startups fail due to this: They try to innovate too early (unless its deep tech). Mark Pincus calls it the “All new fails” rule: 1/ Don’t start with “new”: Start with what’s already proven to work. Copy it legally, study it deeply. 2/ Proven means 10 out of 10 users say: “Yeah, that works.” If they don’t, it’s not proven. 3/ Founders fail because they skip the proven phase: They chase novelty before they’ve earned the right to innovate. 4/ The Zynga story began with poker: Same table, same felt, same gameplay, nothing original. 5/ Then they made it better: No downloads. Just click and play. Friction cut in half. 6/ “Better” means 10 out of 10 users agree: Not your team, not your investors, real users. 7/ Only after proven and better do you earn “new”: That spark that surprises and delights users emotionally. 8/ Zynga’s “new” was showing your friends’ faces: It made games social, not solitary. 9/ Forget MVP, build a minimum viable idea: A concept that hits emotional resonance before metrics. 10/ Seek true signal: You’ll feel it viscerally before you can measure it. 11/ Silicon Valley worships originality: But originality without resonance is noise. 12/ Better founders are great students first: They copy what works before they try to change it. 13/ Most products die from founder ego: They’re “new” before they’re useful. 14/ Users don’t care about novelty: They care about ease, trust, and delight. 15/ “Proven → Better → New just works. And it built a $12.7B company. 📩 Get ai + vc intel in your inbox via my newsletter Startup Riders, link under my name ☝️ 📌 Source: Mark Pincus on Why Most Startups Fail a16z #ai #llms #agent #startups #founder #vc

40

4 Comments

NOT-SO-HOT TAKE: if you’re a VC, and you’ve *never* been a founder, I’m not going to take your advice on how to be a great founder. This might sound obvious when put this way… But almost every founder in the VC ecosystem does the opposite. I’d definitely take advice from VCs on what needs to be true to get an investment from VC… But in terms of strategy or company culture or ops or GTM, there are too many better sources of insight to count. (If youre a VC who has operator experience, disregard this post, and kudos for getting to know those you’re investing in so much more deeply than your colleagues have.) For career VCs - I don’t know your business super well, as I’ve never been a full time VC yet like you have. Would you take advice from me on how to run your fund? Probably not… I’m not sure how the VC influencers who have NEVER been founders have built up such a huge audience giving advice to founders… Is it the money they’re empowered to invest? Founders - remember that this is not their money. They raised it from other sources just like you, and they’re running a night-and-day different business than you are. The BEST career VCs (hands down) are those who attempt to provide value to founders by introducing other founders who solved the same problem. They know the limits of their knowledge, and they don’t waste their influence on things that they aren’t certain of. Not by giving a random opinion that they’ve never actually developed through actual reps in the trenches. For you sports fans out there, this would be like an NFL QB taking advice from an analyst who never played organized football. Tell me I’m wrong 👇🏼

109

66 Comments

The smartest YC founders I know are NOT raising VC money. Here are FIVE unique things they're doing instead: 1) Firing their least technical co-founder. 2) Importing/exporting used Herman Miller chairs. 3) Selling their YC office hours on Craigslist. 4) Auctioning screenshots of their Stripe dashboard as art. 5) Using Central to eliminate nonsense HR/finance work and focusing on profitability - centralhq.com What else am I missing?

173

39 Comments

Samsara, ServiceTitan, and Procore Technologies have a combined valuation of $40B+ —and founders with wildly different industry experience. Yet VCs still debate whether it's needed to build great vertical software. As always, my stance is: It depends. The better question is: What type of founder are you, and what's your path to understanding your customers deeply? Some investors are adamant that you must have deep industry experience to build successful vertical software. Others claim outsiders have the advantage. Both camps love to cherry-pick examples that prove their point. But I've been advising and investing in vertical software companies for over two decades, and I think that's enough exposure to confidently conclude that founders of all backgrounds can be successful. Take these 3 examples (Samsara, ServiceTitan, Procore). They're some of the most successful vertical SaaS companies today. Some of the founders come from deep industry experience, but others have a background that would surprise you. → Procore's founders came from construction backgrounds and built a $10B+ company selling to their former industry. They'd lived the pain points they were solving for. → On the opposite end of the spectrum, Samsara's founders had zero experience in trucking or heavy industries. These MIT grads had just sold Meraki to Cisco for a billion dollars and were looking for their next challenge. They picked fleet management and transportation—two industries they knew nothing about. Today, Samsara is worth more than $20B. → Then there's Service Titan, which charted a middle path. The Stanford-educated founders didn't work in the trades themselves, but they grew up watching their parents run HVAC and painting businesses in Southern California. They bonded over their shared background and built a $10B+ company serving those same trades. So it's unreasonable to say that a founder's experience is the determining variable of success. Instead, what all 3 of these stories have in common is founders who deeply understood customer problems and built exceptional products to solve them. Industry outsiders often bring fresh perspectives and aren't constrained by "how things have always been done." Industry insiders have instant credibility and know which problems matter most. Those with adjacent experience can bridge both worlds. As an investor, I back founders regardless of their industry background. What matters most to me is their ability to build, learn rapidly, and maintain fanatical customer obsession. Where do you stand on the industry experience debate? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

35

10 Comments

Yes, I’ve read the Culper short report on AppLovin. My thoughts: No, it’s not revelatory. Pre-loads and one-click installs on Android are common practice. Digital Turbine and ironSource offer similar products. App developers pay on app open. In fact, there’s no way to confirm the install absent an open. AppLovin also offers ROAS bidding. The notion that Google Play would be unaware of any malicious activity by AppLovin, the largest in-app broker ad network, is not credible. AppLovin is more than a decade old. Just because you’ve never heard of it doesn’t mean it’s a young company. Regarding front-running Meta spend: given the scale of AppLovin’s eCommerce advertisers’ Meta spend, they can necessarily measure incrementality. They wouldn’t scale on AppLovin if they didn’t see incrementality. I also don’t see how genuine front-running would be possible in an auction for in-app inventory. Further, it’s obvious why performance across the channels would be correlated. Full disclosure: I have a small, long-dated call position on AppLovin that amounts to <5% of my PA (notional). I have no commercial relationship with the company.

296

31 Comments