Personally I think YC benefits from clearer leadership and vision. Its simplicity is what makes it so strong. It is easier for people to conceptualise and understand the model and the benefits they get.<p>People I speak to, even those who initially know nothing about YC or Seedcamp, seem to understand how YC is led and works and its preference towards making product-focused companies. They also appreciate how being on YC gets insight/advice from many influential experienced people, such as pg and the guest speakers, and (easier) access to funding at later stages.<p>The message Seedcamp sends is not as clear and most people I have spoken to have a harder time understanding the model and the benefits Seedcamp offers and compare it to traditional VC. I am usually asked about the funding model, what they give, what they want, what are the benefits other than money, the people behind it (as there seems to be a lot of them) etc. If there was more transparency and a simpler message, it would be easier for them?<p>However, most of this can be attributed to awareness, and promotion as Seedcamp certainly does not have the same awareness and hence profile as YC, even in London, especially among the tech entrepreneurs and startups (or want to be) I know. Hopefully, in the next few cycles Seedcamp will address some of these issues.
The major problem with Seedcamp is they don't have a product-focused, developer-loving guy like PG. Its too much about the business/marketing/lawyers etc. That's important, but they need to find a PG equivalent who will get his/her hands dirty in the product and technology aspects. I've given this feedback to some of the VCs who are involved with the program.<p>BTW, the people behind the program, especially some of the VCs, are great. So with a few tweaks, I think they are in good shape.