5 ms·

One of the biggest lessons I've taken from New York's approach is not to try and be the next Silicon Valley (as every community is trying to be). You can't beat

One of the biggest lessons I've taken from New York's approach is not to try and be the next Silicon Valley (as every community is trying to be). You can't beat the Valley at its own game. That's foolish. Instead, look to what industries your community has long been successful in, and develop the tech to disrupt those industries before the Valley does. NYC's example was to focus tech on advertising, finance, and media -- the industries it has long dominated. I'm from a small mining city in Canada (Sudbury, Ontario). I see the same desperate hope to become a tech center. But the best startups are the ones focused on areas where our community has traditionally held a significant leadership position: mining. One such startup, and arguable our most successful one, is Minalytix. They develop software for analyzing mining and exploration data. Another is Symboticware, which creates hardware and software to gather real-time data from machines on the ground and analyzing it back at the office. Jannatec is focused on solving the challenges of getting quality wireless data in and out of complex underground mines (those many kilometers of hardrock don't exactly make it easy). TesMan is focused on mine safety. Dura21 works on better pipes. Hard-Line is tackling robotics. ClickMox does lidar. There are many others. These are small but thriving startups. They're not sexy. They're not likely to be the next Facebook or Google. But they're solving problems our community has long established itself as being experts at solving. It's also transforming our economy from one being tied to a dwindling resource (easily accessible ore), to one that leads in mining operations around the world. A lot of towns want to be the next SV. It's not going to happen. Trying to be SV is to live in denial about what made SV successful in the first place. But tackling a smaller niche in the wider tech space? Building on the resources, expertise, and reputation you already have? That's a very doable approach and the field is wide open.

gammateam 8y ago
Your whole post missed the important part about what can get funded and where. NYC is coming up, but the graveyard of quirky disruptors would still only be pursued in Silicon Valley. These non revenue generating companies acting as developer daycare need to be flipped from one portfolio to the next until you have a deal size big enough to matter, swap out the board and executive team and shop it to the public markets, ka-ching. New York VCs and other markets cant and wont chase developer daycare companies on a broad enough scale to grow these into deals.
- noxToken 8y ago
  Maybe I'm missing something, but why are you talking only in terms of massive funding and growth. The GP stated that they're seeing success in smaller (I don't actually know the size) companies due to capitalizing on a local or hyperlocal need. That's far from disrupt, fund, flip, and retire, and it's a perfectly viable way to start, grow and maintain a business. Again, I could be missing the entire point of your comment.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    The point is that disrupting local industries gives only a narrow field of what can get funded The graveyard of seemingly pointless portfolio pieces is a key component which nyc cant replicate
- nickelcitymario 8y ago
  I more or less responded to this in response to "etblg", but you'd be amazed at the amount of funding available from angels, local governments, provincial governments, and federal governments. No, we probably won't be building the next Facebook up in Sudbury. We don't need to. But we can do extremely well being "big fish in a small pond", as the saying goes. Our strength is mining. Very few communities have the concentrated resources and expertise that we do in this very specific sector. I think your point of view is a little VC centric. If you're a community leader in any city like ours, your ambition isn't to attract billions of dollars of investment to build the next unicorn. I mean, sure, we wouldn't say no to it. But the actual challenge we're trying to solve is job creation. To create jobs faster than they can disappear. If we throw all our money willy-nilly at any tech startup, we're not going to get a good return on that investment. Startups notoriously fail at a ridiculously high rate. But we can look at our strengths, and build upon them. You know, like any sane business person would.
- pastor_elm 8y ago
  Huh? Tell that to companies like Blue Apron, Etsy, and We Work which are about as destined for failure as any Silicon Valley daycare company.
etblg 8y ago
I think the most critical flaw in Sudbury's plan, is that people would have to live in Sudbury (no offense) It's a small, cold, somewhat-remote city known for mining, and particularly for having an incredibly tall smokestack visible everywhere in town. You can fund startups, but who is going to move from other places to Sudbury?
- iguy 8y ago
  Would be interesting to know how they grow, and whether they open another office elsewhere, for this reason? It often sounds like what SV lacks is good ideas for what to spend all the money and talent on. Maybe the residents of Sudbury have an edge there -- presumably everybody knows a dozen people in the mining business, and is well sited to figure out what their pain points are. You just need a few of those people also know enough about tech to see how to help... and then hire a dozen coders elsewhere once they are needed.
- nickelcitymario 8y ago
  LOL It's not a critical flaw. It's a reality to be contended with. The flaw would be pretending this isn't the case, and trying to be just like Silicon Valley and competing with them on their terms at their own game. Sudbury is a real city in a real place. It can't relocate. It can't choose a better climate. So community leaders have to contend with reality. Like any competitive landscape, you have to look at your strengths and weaknesses. Our weaknesses are obvious (it's fucking cold). But our strengths? How about having two of the largest and longest running mining companies in the world operating here? How about having an entire class of engineers who have specialized on mining and have already chosen to live here? How about having two colleges and a university supplying fresh talent every year? How about a radically lower cost of living? And an abundance of funding from local, provincial, and federal governments who are hungry to see real progress in this space? How about a far more open immigration policy attracting top talent from countries your president is afraid of? I'm sorry but this Valley-centric mentality is just weird. It may surprise you to learn that not everyone thinks the Bay Area is awesome. (I've been. I loved visiting. Wouldn't want to live there.) Alot of brilliant mathematicians, scientists, and engineers want nothing to do with it. We also have universal health care, radically lower crime rates, an abundance of nature, low population density, comparatively cheap real estate, and hockey. So much hockey. That smoke stack has long been roughly 98% water vapor because we long ago cleaned up our smelting process to not need it, and the steam was needed to push the other 2% to the top. It's also being decommissioned in the next few years. So who's moving here? The people who love it. Don't believe me? Check out #WeLiveUpHere for a hint of the passion locals have for this community. Anyway, that was all an aside. This wasn't about "hey, look how great Sudbury is, you should all be like Sudbury." It's 100% fine if you don't like it, but it's delusional to think that everyone feels the same way. My point was that every community has to contend with tech disruption. The desperate ones will throw their money behind anything tech and hope it sticks. The smart ones will focus on the areas where they're already strong.
Scoundreller 8y ago
> I'm from a small mining city in Canada (Sudbury, Ontario). Yet you got fibre optic to the home (with phone and tv) years before those of us in the south.
- nickelcitymario 8y ago
  Yup, it's great.
swoongoonz 8y ago
100% agree. The thing nobody also remembers is that Silicon Valley was called SV because of it's hardware/manufacturing not really it's software development. The software side of things flourished because of the existing hardware work that had already existed (semiconductors, parc lab arpanet, apple, oracle, atari).
ticmasta 8y ago
I'm in Calgary and totally agree with your strategy. After a decade-plus of crazy-good economic times the city and province have had a tough couple of years due to macro (lower demand, increased US production) and micro (no market access) events. They keep talking about diversifying the economy through dramatic shifts in the focus of our start-ups, but (a) we have an entire generation of relatively young, super-educated people who know how to build real companies (from financing through execution) and (b) we have a non-O&G ecosystem of companies that has always been overshadowed by the energy sector. We don't need to radically shift to something new, we need to double down on the companies that are already showing traction in new areas and, more importantly, the people who have already shown they can build something valuable the last time around. In my mind this is defined primarily by what governments (municipal through federal) don't due vs. becoming activist partners. They need to focus on the ecosystem by removing barriers not picking winners. This will also likely require them to trim the fat that's accumulated over the past decade like every private company has been forced to do...
closeparen 8y ago
Most towns don’t have anything like that. What local economic activity there is fulfills inherently local needs: healthcare, education, construction trades, retail, etc. Maybe a handful of “legacy” players on the national/international stage still holding on from back when those things were less geographically centralized, with layoffs looming. Places desperate to become “the next Silicon Valley” aren’t anything to outsiders, as far as I can tell. That’s why they’re desperate.
- nickelcitymario 8y ago
  I'm a little late to reply, but most towns formed around some type of localized economic activity: mining, forestry, shipping, hunting... something. Towns generally don't form for no reason at all. That's not to say that EVERY town has such an opportunity. But it strikes me as the place to start.

gammateam 8y ago

Your whole post missed the important part about what can get funded and where. NYC is coming up, but the graveyard of quirky disruptors would still only be pursued in Silicon Valley. These non revenue generating companies acting as developer daycare need to be flipped from one portfolio to the next until you have a deal size big enough to matter, swap out the board and executive team and shop it to the public markets, ka-ching. New York VCs and other markets cant and wont chase developer daycare companies on a broad enough scale to grow these into deals.

noxToken 8y ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but why are you talking only in terms of massive funding and growth. The GP stated that they're seeing success in smaller (I don't actually know the size) companies due to capitalizing on a local or hyperlocal need. That's far from disrupt, fund, flip, and retire, and it's a perfectly viable way to start, grow and maintain a business. Again, I could be missing the entire point of your comment.
- gammateam 8y ago
  The point is that disrupting local industries gives only a narrow field of what can get funded The graveyard of seemingly pointless portfolio pieces is a key component which nyc cant replicate
nickelcitymario 8y ago
I more or less responded to this in response to "etblg", but you'd be amazed at the amount of funding available from angels, local governments, provincial governments, and federal governments. No, we probably won't be building the next Facebook up in Sudbury. We don't need to. But we can do extremely well being "big fish in a small pond", as the saying goes. Our strength is mining. Very few communities have the concentrated resources and expertise that we do in this very specific sector. I think your point of view is a little VC centric. If you're a community leader in any city like ours, your ambition isn't to attract billions of dollars of investment to build the next unicorn. I mean, sure, we wouldn't say no to it. But the actual challenge we're trying to solve is job creation. To create jobs faster than they can disappear. If we throw all our money willy-nilly at any tech startup, we're not going to get a good return on that investment. Startups notoriously fail at a ridiculously high rate. But we can look at our strengths, and build upon them. You know, like any sane business person would.
pastor_elm 8y ago
Huh? Tell that to companies like Blue Apron, Etsy, and We Work which are about as destined for failure as any Silicon Valley daycare company.

etblg 8y ago

I think the most critical flaw in Sudbury's plan, is that people would have to live in Sudbury (no offense) It's a small, cold, somewhat-remote city known for mining, and particularly for having an incredibly tall smokestack visible everywhere in town. You can fund startups, but who is going to move from other places to Sudbury?

iguy 8y ago
Would be interesting to know how they grow, and whether they open another office elsewhere, for this reason? It often sounds like what SV lacks is good ideas for what to spend all the money and talent on. Maybe the residents of Sudbury have an edge there -- presumably everybody knows a dozen people in the mining business, and is well sited to figure out what their pain points are. You just need a few of those people also know enough about tech to see how to help... and then hire a dozen coders elsewhere once they are needed.
nickelcitymario 8y ago
LOL It's not a critical flaw. It's a reality to be contended with. The flaw would be pretending this isn't the case, and trying to be just like Silicon Valley and competing with them on their terms at their own game. Sudbury is a real city in a real place. It can't relocate. It can't choose a better climate. So community leaders have to contend with reality. Like any competitive landscape, you have to look at your strengths and weaknesses. Our weaknesses are obvious (it's fucking cold). But our strengths? How about having two of the largest and longest running mining companies in the world operating here? How about having an entire class of engineers who have specialized on mining and have already chosen to live here? How about having two colleges and a university supplying fresh talent every year? How about a radically lower cost of living? And an abundance of funding from local, provincial, and federal governments who are hungry to see real progress in this space? How about a far more open immigration policy attracting top talent from countries your president is afraid of? I'm sorry but this Valley-centric mentality is just weird. It may surprise you to learn that not everyone thinks the Bay Area is awesome. (I've been. I loved visiting. Wouldn't want to live there.) Alot of brilliant mathematicians, scientists, and engineers want nothing to do with it. We also have universal health care, radically lower crime rates, an abundance of nature, low population density, comparatively cheap real estate, and hockey. So much hockey. That smoke stack has long been roughly 98% water vapor because we long ago cleaned up our smelting process to not need it, and the steam was needed to push the other 2% to the top. It's also being decommissioned in the next few years. So who's moving here? The people who love it. Don't believe me? Check out #WeLiveUpHere for a hint of the passion locals have for this community. Anyway, that was all an aside. This wasn't about "hey, look how great Sudbury is, you should all be like Sudbury." It's 100% fine if you don't like it, but it's delusional to think that everyone feels the same way. My point was that every community has to contend with tech disruption. The desperate ones will throw their money behind anything tech and hope it sticks. The smart ones will focus on the areas where they're already strong.

Scoundreller 8y ago

> I'm from a small mining city in Canada (Sudbury, Ontario). Yet you got fibre optic to the home (with phone and tv) years before those of us in the south.

nickelcitymario 8y ago
Yup, it's great.

swoongoonz 8y ago

100% agree. The thing nobody also remembers is that Silicon Valley was called SV because of it's hardware/manufacturing not really it's software development. The software side of things flourished because of the existing hardware work that had already existed (semiconductors, parc lab arpanet, apple, oracle, atari).

ticmasta 8y ago

I'm in Calgary and totally agree with your strategy. After a decade-plus of crazy-good economic times the city and province have had a tough couple of years due to macro (lower demand, increased US production) and micro (no market access) events. They keep talking about diversifying the economy through dramatic shifts in the focus of our start-ups, but (a) we have an entire generation of relatively young, super-educated people who know how to build real companies (from financing through execution) and (b) we have a non-O&G ecosystem of companies that has always been overshadowed by the energy sector. We don't need to radically shift to something new, we need to double down on the companies that are already showing traction in new areas and, more importantly, the people who have already shown they can build something valuable the last time around. In my mind this is defined primarily by what governments (municipal through federal) don't due vs. becoming activist partners. They need to focus on the ecosystem by removing barriers not picking winners. This will also likely require them to trim the fat that's accumulated over the past decade like every private company has been forced to do...

closeparen 8y ago

Most towns don’t have anything like that. What local economic activity there is fulfills inherently local needs: healthcare, education, construction trades, retail, etc. Maybe a handful of “legacy” players on the national/international stage still holding on from back when those things were less geographically centralized, with layoffs looming. Places desperate to become “the next Silicon Valley” aren’t anything to outsiders, as far as I can tell. That’s why they’re desperate.

nickelcitymario 8y ago
I'm a little late to reply, but most towns formed around some type of localized economic activity: mining, forestry, shipping, hunting... something. Towns generally don't form for no reason at all. That's not to say that EVERY town has such an opportunity. But it strikes me as the place to start.