4 ms·

From the article it seems more like "go somewhat bigger but still tiny" then "go huge". Government aid programs have failed to generate startup scene basically

From the article it seems more like "go somewhat bigger but still tiny" then "go huge". Government aid programs have failed to generate startup scene basically everywhere they were used. I think buulding a real startup scene is a long process, starting with a few companies that breakout, a good culture and the willingness of private capital to invest. It is layers and layers that build upon eachother until a critical mass is reached.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
audunw 10y ago
Didn't Silicon Valley grow out of a collection of companies doing defense contracts and research grants? Regardless, you're right that it does take a lot of time. For Silicon Valley it took multiple decades. But it does seem to me that the nordic startup communities are growing very rapidly. There's cause to be optimistic. For Norway one of the problems is that the vast majority of new investment is still in oil and gas. And I suspect that community of engineers and investors are more likely to grow into a community centered around subsea and other marine activities even after oil becomes unprofitable. What nobody has mentioned yet is that Norway has a healthy semiconductor and electronics design industry. There are some exiting startups there that people often forget about.
- collyw 10y ago
  One thing I always wonder is why startup cities always seem to be so bloody expensive. SF is the classic case looking at Europe, London is probably the biggest center, and the wages / costs there are close to twice of many parts of the UK. Norway ain't cheap either. I suppose Berlin is relatively cheap and has a big startup scene. All those costs must make it far more expensive to build something.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    A number of the factors that make startups more likely also contribute to high cost of living. Areas with top-flight schools and significant amounts of money available for high-risk investment are rarely places you can rent 2000 square feet for $200/mo.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    From what i understand, Norway turned expensive because the international oil companies came in and started a massive wage hike that was draining other sectors. The added cash then flowed through the domestic economy, driving up prices across the board. Then finance was let loose in the property market in the 80s, and things have been rising ever since. Effectively things just snowball once it hits some kind of threshold. In particular once finance gets involved, and loans gets stacked on top of loans.
  - sotojuan 10y ago
    Startups go where most people want to live (to get talent) and where the most investors live. Those usually are big urban centers that are increasingly expensive because in the past two or three decades people decided they want to live in cities again.
    - collyw 10y ago
      Not sure everyone that lives in places like London wants to be there, but its where the well paid jobs are. I would be quite happy in the mountains, but there aren't any tech related jobs there..
  - uola 10y ago
    Because they aren't really "startup cities". They are just popular cities that feel the need to market themselves to justify their high cost of living. It's how every big city now has a "fashion week" were rich people drink drinks and come up with plans how to convert ateliers for designers into luxury condos.
- pm90 10y ago
  Hrm, I wonder if the oil and gas industry can act as the bootstrap to create enough skilled tech workers to kickstart the startup engine. They would have competition from Houston/Texas where we have many companies doing the same though and I personally don't see that happening (unless its for Norwegian clients only).
- SilasX 10y ago
  >>Government aid programs have failed to generate startup scene basically everywhere they were used. >Didn't Silicon Valley grow out of a collection of companies doing defense contracts and research grants? I think you're talking past each other. The parent was referring (AIUI) to government programs specifically intended to promote a "startup scene". So you may be right that government spending was responsible for making SV what it is now; however, that spending was not in the form of "hey, we want to jumpstart a specific kind of business environment by filtering for companies that meet that mold and heavily subsidizing them in their early stages", which is the kind of aid program the parent meant. The SV funding you're referring to, by contrast, was contracts for stuff the government had wanted for (and was optimizing for) completely unrelated reasons, and which (over a long time) created a startup scene as a side-effect.
  - vram22 10y ago
    Right (as I've read). E.g. The Secret History of Silicon Valley - a video and blog post series by Steve Blank - gives good though long info on how SV evolved over decades.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

audunw 10y ago

Didn't Silicon Valley grow out of a collection of companies doing defense contracts and research grants? Regardless, you're right that it does take a lot of time. For Silicon Valley it took multiple decades. But it does seem to me that the nordic startup communities are growing very rapidly. There's cause to be optimistic. For Norway one of the problems is that the vast majority of new investment is still in oil and gas. And I suspect that community of engineers and investors are more likely to grow into a community centered around subsea and other marine activities even after oil becomes unprofitable. What nobody has mentioned yet is that Norway has a healthy semiconductor and electronics design industry. There are some exiting startups there that people often forget about.

collyw 10y ago
One thing I always wonder is why startup cities always seem to be so bloody expensive. SF is the classic case looking at Europe, London is probably the biggest center, and the wages / costs there are close to twice of many parts of the UK. Norway ain't cheap either. I suppose Berlin is relatively cheap and has a big startup scene. All those costs must make it far more expensive to build something.
- Kalium 10y ago
  A number of the factors that make startups more likely also contribute to high cost of living. Areas with top-flight schools and significant amounts of money available for high-risk investment are rarely places you can rent 2000 square feet for $200/mo.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  From what i understand, Norway turned expensive because the international oil companies came in and started a massive wage hike that was draining other sectors. The added cash then flowed through the domestic economy, driving up prices across the board. Then finance was let loose in the property market in the 80s, and things have been rising ever since. Effectively things just snowball once it hits some kind of threshold. In particular once finance gets involved, and loans gets stacked on top of loans.
- sotojuan 10y ago
  Startups go where most people want to live (to get talent) and where the most investors live. Those usually are big urban centers that are increasingly expensive because in the past two or three decades people decided they want to live in cities again.
  - collyw 10y ago
    Not sure everyone that lives in places like London wants to be there, but its where the well paid jobs are. I would be quite happy in the mountains, but there aren't any tech related jobs there..
- uola 10y ago
  Because they aren't really "startup cities". They are just popular cities that feel the need to market themselves to justify their high cost of living. It's how every big city now has a "fashion week" were rich people drink drinks and come up with plans how to convert ateliers for designers into luxury condos.
pm90 10y ago
Hrm, I wonder if the oil and gas industry can act as the bootstrap to create enough skilled tech workers to kickstart the startup engine. They would have competition from Houston/Texas where we have many companies doing the same though and I personally don't see that happening (unless its for Norwegian clients only).
SilasX 10y ago
>>Government aid programs have failed to generate startup scene basically everywhere they were used. >Didn't Silicon Valley grow out of a collection of companies doing defense contracts and research grants? I think you're talking past each other. The parent was referring (AIUI) to government programs specifically intended to promote a "startup scene". So you may be right that government spending was responsible for making SV what it is now; however, that spending was not in the form of "hey, we want to jumpstart a specific kind of business environment by filtering for companies that meet that mold and heavily subsidizing them in their early stages", which is the kind of aid program the parent meant. The SV funding you're referring to, by contrast, was contracts for stuff the government had wanted for (and was optimizing for) completely unrelated reasons, and which (over a long time) created a startup scene as a side-effect.
- vram22 10y ago
  Right (as I've read). E.g. The Secret History of Silicon Valley - a video and blog post series by Steve Blank - gives good though long info on how SV evolved over decades.