4 ms·

The History of Silicon Valley: Birth of Computers and the Internet

2 points by js7745 9y ago

js7745 9y ago
I'm working on part 3 for everything that was built on top of the PC and internet revolution. I'm thinking web browsers, early internet startups / bubble, social & web 2.0 and the sharing economy. Any suggestions?
eesmith 9y ago
For those who want more than the standard Silicon Valley history given here, I suggest https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ . The topics covered are: Part 1: The Vietnam War; Part 2: B-52’s and the Soviet Air Defense System; Part 3: Bill Perry/ESL and the Cold War; Part 4: Undisclosed Locations; Part 5: Silicon Valley, the 2nd 100 years; Part 6a: The Endless Frontier: U.S. Science and National Industrial Policy; Part 6b: Stanford, Terman and WWII; Part 7: Stanford, Terman and the Cold War; Part 8: Stanford and the rise of Cold War Entrepreneurship; Part 9: Stanford and Electronic Intelligence; Part 10: Stanford and Weapons Systems; Part 11: The Rise of Venture Capital; Part 12: The First Valley IPO’s; Part 13: Startups with Nuclear Missiles; Part 14: Spy Satellites in Silicon Valley; Part 15: Lockheed – Silicon Valley largest employer; Part 16: Balloon Wars. For example, why was Steve Wozniak in Silicon Valley in the first place? Answer: his father worked as an engineer at Lockheed Martin with a top secret job involving electronics. Which leads to the question, why was Lockheed Martin working on electronics in what came to be Silicon Valley? Now, part of the problem is that history is complex, and you might not want to track down all of these different threads. And that's okay! But in doing so you find curious things, like this Medium essay by Founder Playbook which says at https://medium.com/founder-playbook/the-history-of-silicon-valley-transistors-stanford-and-venture-capital-6a761f171e9d https://medium.com/founder-playbook/the-history-of-silicon-v... : > Arthur Rock, now known as the father of Venture Capital, was the principal investor in Fairchild Semiconductor in 1961. His firm, Davis & Rock, is considered the first Venture Capital firm ever. While https://steveblank.com/2009/10/26/the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley-11-the-rise-of-%E2%80%9Crisk-capital%E2%80%9D-part-1/ https://steveblank.com/2009/10/26/the-secret-history-of-sili... writes: > In 1946, George Doriot, founded what is considered the first “venture capital firm” – American Research & Development (ARD). ARD funded DEC, and "Some of the very early VC’s got their venture capital education at Harvard as Doriot’s students", including Arthur Rock. Indeed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Doriot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Doriot says "In 1946, he founded American Research and Development Corporation, the world's first publicly owned venture capital firm, earning him the sobriquet "father of venture capitalism"." Now, this is a minor point, but it makes me wonder if there is a built-in bias towards the standard (and insular) SV view of history. And then there's: > In the 1950s and 60s the semiconductor industry was just getting going out in Silicon Valley. William Shockley’s transistors were many times smaller and much more cost effective than vacuum tubes (part 1). Because of this, the idea of computers moved away from top secret government laboratories, and out west, where the parts it needed were becoming commercialized. I can't make that fit into my understanding of the history. Univac was an east coast company, not a top secret government lab. As I pointed out DEC was also an east coast company. Jack Kilby was at Texas Instruments Instruments, in Texas. While on the other hand, Lockheed-Martin was working on top secret government projects in what became SV.
- js7745 9y ago
  Yeah I loved that video. The radio tower image in that other article you referenced is because this was the technology worked on in the war that lead to all of these ideas. And you do have a fair point. There were many factors that lead to the settlement of Silicon Valley and why all the talent wound up there. However for me I what I really wanted to know about in silicon valley is less lead-up, and more the development and the technical innovation. I fixed that statement you mentioned about Arthur Rock to specify it was the first private firm. Definitely a good distinction. Super interesting that Arthur Rock was a student of George Doriot. George Doriot was the first person to take advantage of SBICs (government funded small business investment companies) that was created by the SBA to encourage more entrepreneurship. Where I think Arthur Rock was particularly innovative was that he raised all of this money from wealthy individuals looking to do private investing. While I agree the VC industry wouldn't have been started if it wasn't for Doriot, I think private money being used to fund startups is really the inflection point in the industry. Government money can't last forever.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    "what I really wanted to know about in silicon valley is less lead-up, and more the development and the technical innovation." I think a way to help understand the success of SV is to understand the differences between there and Route 128, ""America's Technology Highway". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_128#.22America.27s_Technology_Highway.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_128#.22Ame... ): > In 1955, Business Week ran an article titled "New England Highway Upsets Old Way of Life" and referred to Route 128 as "the Magic Semicircle". By 1958, it needed to be widened from six to eight lanes, and business growth continued, often driven by technology out of Harvard University and MIT.[15] In 1957, there were 99 companies employing 17,000 workers along 128; in 1965, 574; in 1973, 1,212. In the 1980s, the area was often compared to California's Silicon valley,[16][17] and the positive effects of this growth on the Massachusetts economy were dubbed the "Massachusetts Miracle". It had many of the same ingredients as SV, but it's no longer the powerhouse of technology that it once was. Personally, I don't have an answer for why one succeeded and the other failed.

2 points by js7745 9y ago

I'm working on part 3 for everything that was built on top of the PC and internet revolution. I'm thinking web browsers, early internet startups / bubble, social & web 2.0 and the sharing economy. Any suggestions?

eesmith 9y ago

For those who want more than the standard Silicon Valley history given here, I suggest https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ . The topics covered are: Part 1: The Vietnam War; Part 2: B-52’s and the Soviet Air Defense System; Part 3: Bill Perry/ESL and the Cold War; Part 4: Undisclosed Locations; Part 5: Silicon Valley, the 2nd 100 years; Part 6a: The Endless Frontier: U.S. Science and National Industrial Policy; Part 6b: Stanford, Terman and WWII; Part 7: Stanford, Terman and the Cold War; Part 8: Stanford and the rise of Cold War Entrepreneurship; Part 9: Stanford and Electronic Intelligence; Part 10: Stanford and Weapons Systems; Part 11: The Rise of Venture Capital; Part 12: The First Valley IPO’s; Part 13: Startups with Nuclear Missiles; Part 14: Spy Satellites in Silicon Valley; Part 15: Lockheed – Silicon Valley largest employer; Part 16: Balloon Wars. For example, why was Steve Wozniak in Silicon Valley in the first place? Answer: his father worked as an engineer at Lockheed Martin with a top secret job involving electronics. Which leads to the question, why was Lockheed Martin working on electronics in what came to be Silicon Valley? Now, part of the problem is that history is complex, and you might not want to track down all of these different threads. And that's okay! But in doing so you find curious things, like this Medium essay by Founder Playbook which says at https://medium.com/founder-playbook/the-history-of-silicon-valley-transistors-stanford-and-venture-capital-6a761f171e9d https://medium.com/founder-playbook/the-history-of-silicon-v... : > Arthur Rock, now known as the father of Venture Capital, was the principal investor in Fairchild Semiconductor in 1961. His firm, Davis & Rock, is considered the first Venture Capital firm ever. While https://steveblank.com/2009/10/26/the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley-11-the-rise-of-%E2%80%9Crisk-capital%E2%80%9D-part-1/ https://steveblank.com/2009/10/26/the-secret-history-of-sili... writes: > In 1946, George Doriot, founded what is considered the first “venture capital firm” – American Research & Development (ARD). ARD funded DEC, and "Some of the very early VC’s got their venture capital education at Harvard as Doriot’s students", including Arthur Rock. Indeed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Doriot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Doriot says "In 1946, he founded American Research and Development Corporation, the world's first publicly owned venture capital firm, earning him the sobriquet "father of venture capitalism"." Now, this is a minor point, but it makes me wonder if there is a built-in bias towards the standard (and insular) SV view of history. And then there's: > In the 1950s and 60s the semiconductor industry was just getting going out in Silicon Valley. William Shockley’s transistors were many times smaller and much more cost effective than vacuum tubes (part 1). Because of this, the idea of computers moved away from top secret government laboratories, and out west, where the parts it needed were becoming commercialized. I can't make that fit into my understanding of the history. Univac was an east coast company, not a top secret government lab. As I pointed out DEC was also an east coast company. Jack Kilby was at Texas Instruments Instruments, in Texas. While on the other hand, Lockheed-Martin was working on top secret government projects in what became SV.

js7745 9y ago
Yeah I loved that video. The radio tower image in that other article you referenced is because this was the technology worked on in the war that lead to all of these ideas. And you do have a fair point. There were many factors that lead to the settlement of Silicon Valley and why all the talent wound up there. However for me I what I really wanted to know about in silicon valley is less lead-up, and more the development and the technical innovation. I fixed that statement you mentioned about Arthur Rock to specify it was the first private firm. Definitely a good distinction. Super interesting that Arthur Rock was a student of George Doriot. George Doriot was the first person to take advantage of SBICs (government funded small business investment companies) that was created by the SBA to encourage more entrepreneurship. Where I think Arthur Rock was particularly innovative was that he raised all of this money from wealthy individuals looking to do private investing. While I agree the VC industry wouldn't have been started if it wasn't for Doriot, I think private money being used to fund startups is really the inflection point in the industry. Government money can't last forever.
- eesmith 9y ago
  "what I really wanted to know about in silicon valley is less lead-up, and more the development and the technical innovation." I think a way to help understand the success of SV is to understand the differences between there and Route 128, ""America's Technology Highway". Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_128#.22America.27s_Technology_Highway.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Route_128#.22Ame... ): > In 1955, Business Week ran an article titled "New England Highway Upsets Old Way of Life" and referred to Route 128 as "the Magic Semicircle". By 1958, it needed to be widened from six to eight lanes, and business growth continued, often driven by technology out of Harvard University and MIT.[15] In 1957, there were 99 companies employing 17,000 workers along 128; in 1965, 574; in 1973, 1,212. In the 1980s, the area was often compared to California's Silicon valley,[16][17] and the positive effects of this growth on the Massachusetts economy were dubbed the "Massachusetts Miracle". It had many of the same ingredients as SV, but it's no longer the powerhouse of technology that it once was. Personally, I don't have an answer for why one succeeded and the other failed.