There are a few gems in there that I'd like to see more of (etacts for instance), but overall I'm dismayed by the sheer volume of SV navel-gazing produced twitter junk.
I'd love to see more ideas around PG's list of things he'd like to fund being presented instead of yet another "social collaboration because what else is there?" startup.
"How will this software get my users laid" should be on the minds of anyone writing social software (and these days, almost all software is social software).
They're not using "social" as a buzzword indicating a passing fad. They're using it because, as JWZ points out, that's part of what software is today.
Software has been 'social' for 10-15 years at least though. We just didn't call it 'social' until the last couple of years. I think that's why it's an irritating buzzword. It suggests there's something new and revolutionary, when it's actually just more of the same.
If it makes you feel better, you can pretend they said "We make the games our customers want to play rather than the games we think they should want to play." Because that is what they said.
In so many words. I trust their second sentence is relevant and makes more sense to investors, but I imagined it being their slogan. "Gamador: We launch faster, iterate faster, and use metrics better" just sounds humorous (hence the giggling). To me, as a Joe-average user, it sounds more like That Guy from Futurama than "we make a lot of really addicting games".
You know nothing more about most of these startups than a few sentences written for investors. That you dismiss them so summarily and so nastily says more about you than them.
I'll admit re-reading my comment it is a little harsh and has an insulting tone, which wasn't my intent.
I'm more disappointed; I don't really feel twitter and like applications really add any value in the long term. Their sphere of influence barely extends outside of a very vocal and visible extended SV community.
I respect and value both YC and all your applicants. Everything I've seen highlights the enormous amount of intelligence, creativity, and 'shutzpah' that you all have.
Because of that, I find it very disturbing that a lot of your collective effort goes into problems that are 1) barely issues for 90% of computer users and 2) are insular to SV and the particularities of that community.
There are a whole host of areas where YC and those it funds can make huge inroads. I just find it disappointing that I see one or two offerings to 80% of the market while the majority of funded focus on the 20% - albeit a very investor friendly 20%, perhaps making my disappointed grow - that an insular community has dictated to be the "trend".
ADDED: I'm your typical customer. It's views like mine you should be listening to, not discarding. If I say "Meh, no value add" your response should not be "You simply don't understand how wonderful we are". That's a failure in your message delivery.
How valuable in the long term do you think a classified mailing list for San Francisco is to the world? Or an online bookstore? Or a social network for a school? Yet Craigslist, Amazon, and Facebook morphed into amazing things. YC companies do things that are tractable and fundable within 3 months, which is the first test. Then, with some focused success, they grow/expand. At this point, it takes some vision to imagine what these companies COULD be in 7-8 years (which is the average time to liquidity for venture investments).
Three outliers does not a trend make. I'm surprised you didn't throw google in there as well, since that one instance is all everyone ever talks about.
In 2000, everyone thought they were an Amazon. A boatload of people were wrong about that.
I'd love to see more ideas around PG's list of things he'd like to fund being presented instead of yet another "social collaboration because what else is there?" startup.