3 ms·
One of the points of the article was that entrepreneurs don't need VC since it's become so much cheaper to do startups. Thus Sand Hill Road isn't as important a
by mixmax 16y ago
One of the points of the article was that entrepreneurs don't need VC since it's become so much cheaper to do startups. Thus Sand Hill Road isn't as important as it was.
- mikeryan 16y agoNo he said its easier to get to market without VC it removes VC's from "early rounds". The need for VC to grow is still going to be needed for the vast majority of new businesses. "This effectively removes VC’s from the equation at these early rounds and turns things over to angel investors" Even then the point still stands even angel money is still easier to get in Silicon Valley.
- enjo 16y agoThose angels and Sand Hill VC's frequently invest outside of the valley tho.
- hga 16y agoUnfortunately, this is only true if you rather narrowly limit the domain(s) of startups. I'm hope we haven't seen the end of e.g. neat foundational hardware tricks. Where's the next thing like the FPGA going to come from in a VC free world? (Heck, how about fast FPGAs (one company that I know of is working on them with an async core).)
- mkramlich 16y agoI don't think you need Sand Hill VC if you're making a web SaaS startup. But big money is still useful and often necessary to get other types of startups off the ground or scale up, in areas like green tech, transportation, biomed, etc. For these, it prob still helps to be near high concentrations of VC. For a web SaaS, sure you can be in the middle of Idaho or Kansas.