4 ms·
The article makes the point that being in the valley improves your odds, not that it's impossible to start a successful company outside the valley.
by sgman 16y ago
The article makes the point that being in the valley improves your odds, not that it's impossible to start a successful company outside the valley.
- spencerfry 16y agoWho says? Where's the scientific study? For example, we can't launch Foursquare both in Silicon Valley and in New York City and see which has the better outcome.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- frossie 16y agowe can't launch Foursquare both in Silicon Valley and in New York City and see which has the better outcome. Well, I think the OP's point is that you aren't as likely to get as far as launch in, say, Houston than you are in SV. The problem is that it's hard to get a quantifiable handle on the question, not only because it is hard to count startups that never got off the ground, but also because it doesn't have to be true; people just have to believe it to be true. In other words, if everybody who wants to launch a startup moves to SV because they think they have to, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, irrespective of whether it was originally true.
- starkfist 16y agoI thought Foursquare did exactly that?
- dejb 16y agoThe author of the origin post says - that's who. Should every view that anyone makes about anything have to be backed by a scientific study?
- elai 16y agoIt seems like the main advantage to SV is finding a cofounder. If you already have one then a big part of it is gone.
- petercooper 16y agoThe article makes the point that being in the valley improves your odds Or, in other words, the bar is lower.