4 ms·

Greylock’s Henry McCance On Why Firm Moved to CA and How Boston Needs Its Google

3 points by robertbud1 16y ago

jleyank 16y ago
I would think the non-compete enforceability is the big killer here. If MA wants to compete against Austin (TX) or the Triangle (NC), they have to make it safer to work for small companies. The weather's an issue, but Cambridge is walkable while other possible sites are not.
- hga 16y ago
  Indeed; I too believe this is not a small thing. Based on my knowledge of the cultures and decline and fall of Route 128 and the mini-computer companies it could well have been a critical factor there. See this which I just dug up today: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/12/30/why_noncompete_means_dont_thrive_/ http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/12/30/why_nonco... As far as Boston vs. Austin and the Triangle, Boston is much stronger academically and has some history and what goes with that (like this VC firm). Has Austin produced any really big companies besides Dell? As for the Triangle, I was under the impression that it was largely a "company town" for big companies to place R&D units, with all that that implies. Bottom line WRT to Silicon Valley and your first point is that the non-compete issue zapps all of them pretty much equally. It would be very interesting to see one other state that has potential to adopt the California policy and to then see what happens (the above link refers to a study based on a period in which a legislative oversight resulted in that policy for Michigan). I wouldn't expect it out of Massachusetts, that's a state where the political establishment seems to be very strong, entrenched and comfortable with the existing economic and business order.
dougb 16y ago
I can't believe that he failed to mention Akamai. How can you ignore a company with 890M in revenue ?
- hga 16y ago
  I suspect that what he is implicitly saying is that at 14 billion dollars EMC is in the league of the top 25 Silicon Valley firms whereas much smaller success stories like Akamai just aren't in that league.

3 points by robertbud1 16y ago

I would think the non-compete enforceability is the big killer here. If MA wants to compete against Austin (TX) or the Triangle (NC), they have to make it safer to work for small companies. The weather's an issue, but Cambridge is walkable while other possible sites are not.

hga 16y ago
Indeed; I too believe this is not a small thing. Based on my knowledge of the cultures and decline and fall of Route 128 and the mini-computer companies it could well have been a critical factor there. See this which I just dug up today: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/12/30/why_noncompete_means_dont_thrive_/ http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/12/30/why_nonco... As far as Boston vs. Austin and the Triangle, Boston is much stronger academically and has some history and what goes with that (like this VC firm). Has Austin produced any really big companies besides Dell? As for the Triangle, I was under the impression that it was largely a "company town" for big companies to place R&D units, with all that that implies. Bottom line WRT to Silicon Valley and your first point is that the non-compete issue zapps all of them pretty much equally. It would be very interesting to see one other state that has potential to adopt the California policy and to then see what happens (the above link refers to a study based on a period in which a legislative oversight resulted in that policy for Michigan). I wouldn't expect it out of Massachusetts, that's a state where the political establishment seems to be very strong, entrenched and comfortable with the existing economic and business order.

dougb 16y ago

I can't believe that he failed to mention Akamai. How can you ignore a company with 890M in revenue ?

hga 16y ago
I suspect that what he is implicitly saying is that at 14 billion dollars EMC is in the league of the top 25 Silicon Valley firms whereas much smaller success stories like Akamai just aren't in that league.