3 ms·
in my head (a totally unscientific read of the zeitgeist), it's 1. SF/SV (by a very wide margin) 2. LA, NYC, boston (3-way tie) 3. seattle, austin (2-way
by clairity 9y ago
in my head (a totally unscientific read of the zeitgeist), it's
1. SF/SV (by a very wide margin)
2. LA, NYC, boston (3-way tie)
3. seattle, austin (2-way tie)
4. atlanta, chicago, and everywhere else
obviously this is US-only since i don't know much about the international startup scene other than china in general has been exploding with competitive startups (although that seems to have cooled a bit?).
- replicatorblog 9y agoI'd move Boston into tier 3. It's actually an incredibly rich ecosystem, I'd put it #3 just behind SF/Seattle in terms of real-world impact, market cap of tech co's, etc. But no one really moves to Boston to start a company, they tend to be the folks who hung around after Harvard/MIT.
- Apocryphon 9y agoI feel like 2. and 3. are switched. LA/NY are tech cities because they are huge population areas with a lot of wealth, and so support almost every type of industry. Seattle and Austin both sound more like tech cultural cities, as they are smaller but more defined by tech, with both local giants (maybe ATX less so) and startups.
- dmode 9y agoAustin belongs to Tier 4. It is no way close to Seattle in terms of tech jobs and growing tech scenes