8 ms·

Five Days in the Valley: An East Coaster's Take on Silicon Valley vs. NYC

72 points by besvinick 15y ago

bane 15y ago
As a life-long East Coaster I'd also add this: There's an optimism that permeates and reinforces the entrepreneurial spirit in the bay area that the East doesn't have anymore. It's a kind of frontier, the world is my oyster, I can do anything kind of thinking, that's needed in this kind of highly speculative industry. On the downside, coming from the East Coast, it feels weird at times, interacting with SV folks. Bringing up obvious concerns or problems is met more with a "why are you poo pooing my optimism buzz?" more often than valid concerns taken as a serious consideration. The hyper-optimism is socially reinforced, I have my head in the clouds, you have yours, it's rude to bring anyone down. As an outsider, it seems to explain certain bizarre behaviors I'd encountered when dealing with West Coast firms, usually centered on outrageous and unjustifiable expenditures of their VC money before the company has made any sort of sniffs at being profitable.
- CPlatypus 15y ago
  Well put, although I'm not quite sure "optimism" is the right term. Is it optimistic or egotistical for every SV engineer to believe that they are capable of creating a company worth a nine-figure IPO or acquisition - or, alternatively, that they can personally increase an established company's bottom line by a million a year? Somewhere in between, I'd guess. Partly it's overestimation of the market, partly it's overestimation of the self. Either way, it does seem to be a difference between SV and elsewhere. SV entrepreneurs believe they can succeed because it never even occurred to them to believe otherwise and of course nobody else would suggest such a thing. Entrepreneurs elsewhere are generally more aware of doubts and concerns, but consciously intend to prove the nay-sayers wrong. Is one approach or mindset better than the other? It's tempting to say that the financial success of SV validates that approach, but I don't think that success occurs in a vacuum. Could those SV companies get where they are without past contributions from MIT or Bell Labs, current ones from Austin or Seattle? I don't think so. An army needs more than one kind of soldier, an industry needs more than one kind of company, and just because SV seems to hog all the glamour doesn't mean other places are somehow lacking.
  - mgkimsal 15y ago
    "SV entrepreneurs believe they can succeed because it never even occurred to them to believe otherwise and of course nobody else would suggest such a thing. " And many of them would be the first to also trot out the old cannards of "90% of all startups fail" and so on, they just don't really believe it, or don't believe their project will fail, regardless of the evidence.
    - wisty 15y ago
      And every WWI soldier believed he'd make it through the barbed wire and machine gun bullets, otherwise none of them would stick around. I guess the difference is, finding out the hard way that you burnt through all your funding and have to look for another job is hardly comparable to getting shot. And some of them (at least, enough to make the VC firms stick around) do succeed.
  - socratic 15y ago
    Apple, Google, and Facebook all make around $1m revenue/employee and employ around 100,000 people. (Profit/employee is about $300-400k, incidentally.) While the average SV engineer isn't working at one of these companies, doesn't this mean that there are perhaps tens of thousands of engineers who are on average producing $1m/year in revenue? (If not, it seems like you need to argue for an extremely skewed distribution of the value that individual engineers are adding based on quality or area of expertise.) If one of these $1m revenue/year ("1MRPY") engineers starts a company with n 1MRPY engineer friends, is it so crazy to suggest that they might produce $x * n million worth of value over x years? (Even if they just build infrastructure and never turn a profit?) Or that they might be worth $4 * n million in revenue over a four year earn-out to an acquiring company?
    - CPlatypus 15y ago
      "doesn't this mean that there are perhaps tens of thousands of engineers who are on average producing $1m/year in revenue?" No. Just because total revenue divided by total headcount comes out to a million doesn't mean every engineer is contributing a million. For one thing, a lot of that revenue is return on investment - in the code, in customer relationships, in the "brand" generally - in previous years, nothing to do with current headcount. For another, the distribution is exponential. A few people contribute many times that million, while the majority contribute less, and many of those at the high end aren't engineers. So yes, engineers who contribute a million dollars to the bottom line do exist, but they're a very small minority. I've even been one myself, but not every year. Everyone in SV seems to think they're firmly established in that elite category. 99% of them are wrong. "If one of these $1m revenue/year ("1MRPY") engineers starts a company with n 1MRPY engineer friends, is it so crazy to suggest that they might produce $x * n million worth of value over x years?" It's not totally crazy, but it's very unlikely. Such engineers are rare enough, and in such high demand, and self-directed enough, that you're unlikely to get more than a couple of them to follow one vision even if you're friends. Then you have to find people with non-engineering skill sets who are as good in their respective fields, and convince them to join you. Then you'll probably still fail due to factors other than the quality of your personnel. What we're facing here is the compounding of two errors. Everyone thinks they're in the top 1%, and that being in the top 1% for one skill set is enough to ensure success. In reality, most startups have average teams and many non-technical obstacles to overcome. I've been in nine startups myself. I'd hardly discourage anyone from trying, but overconfidence can prevent people from doing what they really need to, and overconfidence seems to be California's most abundant crop.
- danbmil99 15y ago
  > Bringing up obvious concerns or problems is met more with a "why are you poo pooing my optimism buzz?" Haha, I had to learn this bigtime coming from NYC. East Coast culture is kind of 'half-empty-cup-first' thinking, then the other party is expected to prove their point. Out here it's more like 'my cup runneth over!' then you say 'yeah dude, that is totally awesome'. (pause) 'BTW, have you thought about this little issue? I'm sure it's nothing, but you should have a good response in case some wanker VC brings it up..' then you gently drop da bomb that their idea is wildly unworkable. Very different cultures -- not just in hi-tech, this is a deep east coast/northern CA differential.
kemiller 15y ago
I'm not sure what he's talking about wrt density of startups in NYC versus SF/SV. San Francisco is positively bursting with startups.
- toyg 15y ago
  I think he means there's SF, and there's SV, both high-density hubs, and inbetween there's a long commute of low-density areas (San Mateo? Don't know anything about it). Which is kinda true if you define Silicon Valley as the S.Clara / Mountain View / Cupertino area, they're about one hour apart from downtown SF and in rush-hour it will be more than that. Apparently he feels that NYC has an overall higher density over a larger area, i.e. they're more equally distributed.
  - ww520 15y ago
    There might not be hardware companies but San Mateo has lots of software companies and startups. Oracle is right in the area.
- untog 15y ago
  I think he means the area as a whole- that is, if you were an investor visiting various startups, you'd be bouncing between SV and SF, and in between. In NYC almost all startups are based in Lower Manhattan- you could walk from office to office.
  - saalweachter 15y ago
    That is definitely true. A one mile radius around Union Square probably hits a substantial fraction of the tech in NYC.
itmag 15y ago
I saw that movie "Friends with benefits", which made the East-West divide out to be a big deal. Is it, though?
- bh42222 15y ago
  I'm guessing you are being dowvoted because people think you are joking? I am going to assume you are not American and that this is an honest question. There is real culture difference between the large areas of America, north vs south, east vs west, etc. Now speaking as someone form the old world, America's cultural differences are still very small compared to differences between old world neighbors. Never the less, cultural differences in America do exist. I'd say north/south is a bigger deal than east/west. And when ever I hear east coast Americans talk about California, it sounds a lot like how Europeans talk about Americans in general - optimistic, the world is my oyster, etc.
  - itmag 15y ago
    I am going to assume you are not American and that this is an honest question. Yup, you guessed right. The Americans I've met here in Sweden have been pretty homogenous as a whole, didn't matter if they were from SF or Kansas or Boston. They all seemed like liberal-minded europhile people. Then again, heavy selection bias.
    - bh42222 15y ago
      Ah yes, I had very same experience with Americans when I was still living in Europe. You are right, heavy selection bias it is, any American who gets on a plane and happily visit a foreign country, especially an expensive one, is not exactly representing the majority of Americans. You'd be surprised how many solidly middle class Americans have never been abroad, or only to Mexico and Canada.
      - mdda 15y ago
        30% of Americans have passports [1]. And : "Despite the climbing number of American passports in circulation, 30% is still low compared to Canada's 60% and the United Kingdom's 75%." [1] : http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-04/travel/americans.travel.domestically_1_western-hemisphere-travel-initiative-passports-tourism-industries http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-04/travel/americans.travel.d...
djb_hackernews 15y ago
I'm a software guy in DC with friends in different industries, and I don't find myself talking politics any more frequently than when I lived in Boston. Something tells me that would be different if I was a staffer/intern on the hill though. The author is a bit over confident in his opinions for me, but a summer schmoozing in SV sure sounds nice.
- funkah 15y ago
  I lived in DC for about 6 years, never worked in politics, and his statement rings true to me. Even if you're not involved in politics, pretty much everyone else around you is, and it tends to just permeate everyone's life. One of the main reasons I left, actually.
  - Game_Ender 15y ago
    Traffic and housing prices is another good reason, but if you left for the Valley, you did not really escape that.
    - funkah 15y ago
      My feeling is, at least in California you're getting something for your money. DC rents are high because the average income there is so high, but you don't get very much "city" for your money, culturally at least. In SF it's just the opposite. I didn't move there though, I live in Oregon now.
      - danbmil99 15y ago
        > at least in California you're getting something for your money. DC Not in Palo Alto or any of the desirable bay suburbs. You get what would in any other part of the country be a starter 3-bed with 1/10 acre plot for upwards of $2M. It's insane and unsustainable.
      - potatolicious 15y ago
        > "but you don't get very much "city" for your money" It's typical in SF to pay $2K+ for a 1BR overlooking a back alley where homeless and drunks fight every night, where your neighborhood is contested by gang wars, your building is a creaky little Victorian built at the turn of the century, where a favorite topic of conversation are routes you can take to get from point A to point B in the city that maximizes personal safety, and only-half-joking comments about getting mugged on the bus. It's not the worst city in the USA to live in, but having lived here for six months now, and many major cities in two continents before that, I honestly think SF is completely overblown. It strikes me as a city where a bunch of suburban folk come after college and are blown away by all the Big City(tm) things, and every negative point simply becomes "how cities are", despite many other cities not suffering the same crime, housing, or other social ills. If it weren't for the booming and incredibly professionally satisfying tech scene, I'd have high-tailed it to a city where rents are halved, crime is quartered, and transportation not so sucktastic.
asmithmd1 15y ago
"even soccer moms in Starbucks with their toddlers were talking about the latest apps on their iPhones." This is happening everywhere. My 64 year old mother in law from Florida loads apps on her iPhone.
- bobf 15y ago
  My observation has been that "the latest apps" being discussed are pretty different in SV and Florida.
  - gamechangr 15y ago
    I agree! There is a point of critical mass where apps are loaded everywhere. It would be interesting to know more specifics.
PaulHoule 15y ago
If you want to get out of the echo chamber your best choice might be "none of the above". Both NYC and the bay area are fishtanks. You see ads for location-based services and you always see a map centered on SF. Well, I can say I never felt dumber than the day a friend and I were using a "smartphone" to look for lunch in SF and it kept sending us to places that were closed and we kept walking past places that were open.
- untog 15y ago
  If you want to get out of the echo chamber your best choice might be "none of the above". Both NYC and the bay area are fishtanks. But if you want to get funding you're better off in the fish tank.
  - hga 15y ago
    And perhaps talent; the unenforceability of non-competes seems to be a game changer. It's clearly a unique advantage for California.
    - untog 15y ago
      There is a flip side to that- talent has a habit of leaving companies very quickly in SV. I have read (but can't remember where, which is annoying) that NYC hasn't quite reached those levels yet.
      - hga 15y ago
        Which of course suggests that since the traditional IPO is dead (except for the occasional impossible to predict ahead of time massive success), that companies need to treat their talent well. If you require legal handcuffs to keep them, something's very wrong, something that stands a good chance of killing your company anyway. For America as a whole, the industry, pushing forward the state of the art, etc. etc. this liquid talent market is very good. Overall talent moves from companies with poor to good (or at least better) prospects; overall especially in the long term this is how the capital markets work. Bad if your name is Kodak, good otherwise.
jsavimbi 15y ago
I'm sorry, but I immediately qualified the post with: > I'm a first-year student at Harvard Business School
skrebbel 15y ago
Offtopic, I know, but in fact I'm most interested how this guy becomes a VC 2 years out of university after being a telecom banker, and "advices startups". Does this mean he's nonsense (e.g. no startup experience), or am I missing something fundamental? Needless to say, deep inside I'm just jealous.
- jpdoctor 15y ago
  > but in fact I'm most interested how this guy becomes a VC 2 years out of university after being a telecom banker, That should tell you everything you need to know about becoming a VC.
- barry-cotter 15y ago
  Venture Capital is one of the standard exit opportunities for I-Banking analysts along with Private Equity, Hedge Funds and Corporate Finance. VC is in large part a sales job (selling potentail limited partners on your future returns) and anyone who can survive two years as an analyst is both intelligent, conscientious, has a prodigous capacity for work and is likely personable. All of these are helpful for being an entry level VC, who acts as coffe boy, secretary, research assistant etc. But that's not the prize, the prize is impressing somene enough to actually make partner, for which the roadmap goes Here Be Dragons. And remember, over 90% of VC funds lose money. I would be mildly surprised if the prestige (and return) funds didn't have more diverse backgrounds than the money bonfires.
robterrell 15y ago
He had me until "Cameron Indoor". Come on: Dean Dome FTW, Cameron's a dumpy high school gym. Anyway, as someone who has spent ten years on each coast, it's impossible to disagree with his overall sentiment. There's an energy and vitality in the bay area that is completely lacking in other places. People love to talk about their local tech community, and I've found myself talking up Raleigh and Durham and the American Tobacco Campus and whatnot, but I know it's just a pale imitation. Take some meetings with VCs in each location; the difference is eye-opening.
- gamechangr 15y ago
  It's great to have you posting, or rather anyone who has actually spent more than a year in both (East and West). It's better than the shameless plugs for local communities that abound of the web. That's helpful...thanks for the comparison!
- soemoea 15y ago
  I second this thought. I grew up in the Bay Area and worked for a few years as a programmer at a startup there. I've also been going to school in the Raleigh area (Chapel Hill) for almost 2 years now. I've heard the media reports saying how the Raleigh Triangle area is a growing tech hub but I honestly don't see it. It pales so much in comparison to the Bay Area. There are some people interested in entrepreneurship and technology but it's still really hard to find them. It's hard not to run into these kinds of people in the Bay Area. One point of evidence is in looking at how many meetup groups and members are focused on technology and entrepreneurship in each area, and there is a stark difference. Also, the Dean Dome is amazing. I'd rate it better than Oracle Arena.
  - ericboggs 15y ago
    Hey there! I'm a 2x Tar Heel and the Founder/CEO at http://argylesocial.com http://argylesocial.com in Durham. Shoot me a note via @ericboggs or http://ericboggs.com http://ericboggs.com - I'd love to meet up.
Jun8 15y ago
I'm not familiar with the NYC or Boston startup scene, but I think that arguing that any city is going to overtake SV anytime soon is naive (as the OP found out himself). SV or, more correctly the greater Bay Area, is to tech entrepreneurship as LA is to movies. Sure, you can become a star in NYC or somewhere else but everybody just knows that if you want to increase your chances, you've gotta go to LA. As Shawn Mullins says in Lullaby for LA: it's hard to play a gig in this town and keep a straight face seems like everyone here's got a plan it's kind of like Nashville with a tan Well, SV is "kind of like LA with a pwn" (I'm trying to rhyme, too). Just as any waiter or waitress and everybody's neighbor in LA wants to make it big in the movies, so it is in SV. The buzz of ambition in the air can be unsettling to many people. Interestingly, the movie industry started in NYC, then moved to LA in the 1910s and 20s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_States#Origins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_States#Ori...). Read that part of the Wikipedia article carefully, as many of the reasons for SV's dominance are pretty much the same.
- saalweachter 15y ago
  Yeah, it's kind of hilarious that California's biggest selling point was that it's really far from New Jersey. (Well, that and its somewhat corrupt (or at least, California-biased) judges a century ago.) If only New York City could be as far from New Jersey as California is--
  - bitops 15y ago
    Also interesting is the fact that Hollywood was about an hour's travel from the Mexican border. This mattered in the early days of movies, when Edison's patent enforcers would show up to demand payment for people using cameras. The early filmmakers didn't want to pay and skipping to Mexico while the goons were in town was a good way to avoid those "expenditures".
- untog 15y ago
  As an NYC techie, I think talk of NYC (or anywhere) overtaking SV is nonsense. But that doesn't matter- different places have different strengths. I'd imagine that startups in a few industries (fashion and media are two that come to mind) would benefit greatly from a New York location.
seanmccann 15y ago
The author wrote a post about how NYC will overtake SV after only visiting SV for job interviews. They are an "aspiring VC" and think Sand Hill Road is underwhelming. I am still blown away by SHR, and the density of power. It's also a lot different when you're going for crucial meetings on SHR, and not just driving through.
rockarage 15y ago
As an East Coasters I get the feeling there are two distinct groups in Silicon Alley (NYC). One group is represented by people like the author of this article, who has a limited knowledge of Silicon Alley, and write articles based on their limited experience. The other group are highly involved in SA activities like these : http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/30/the-best-tech-events-this-week-aarrr-edition/ http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/30/the-best-tech-events-this... http://generalassemb.ly/events-page http://generalassemb.ly/events-page http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/29/art-hack-day-brooklyn-319-scholes/ http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/29/art-hack-day-brooklyn-319... http://www.wixlounge.com/#!calender http://www.wixlounge.com/#!calender There are plenty of smart people who spend think about tech night and day, and disagree that the best and brightest are primarily in fiance. To many people fiance are causing more harm to the country then good.
danielharan 15y ago
~ "I thought my city would win over Silicon Valley, and then I visited the place. Ooops" A plea: next time you hear someone comparing their city to SV, take them aside privately and tell them to book a ticket on the next plane going to the Valley.
Yhippa 15y ago
FTA: "The commute between SV and SF is absolutely brutal. If the West Coast had NYC’s density of startups and investors, I don’t think NYC would ever have a chance of catching and passing SV." I thought it was one of the most beautiful commutes in the world personally.
- rdoherty 15y ago
  He was referring to the amount of traffic (mostly likely on highway 101). I've done that commute a few times and if you're driving during rush hour (7am-10am or 4pm-7pm) it can take 2x-3x times longer than normal.
  - bitops 15y ago
    101 is pretty bad. When I worked on the peninsula I'd always take 280 and cut over on 92. It'd take a little bit longer, but it was way better in terms of my mental health.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

72 points by besvinick 15y ago

bane 15y ago

As a life-long East Coaster I'd also add this: There's an optimism that permeates and reinforces the entrepreneurial spirit in the bay area that the East doesn't have anymore. It's a kind of frontier, the world is my oyster, I can do anything kind of thinking, that's needed in this kind of highly speculative industry. On the downside, coming from the East Coast, it feels weird at times, interacting with SV folks. Bringing up obvious concerns or problems is met more with a "why are you poo pooing my optimism buzz?" more often than valid concerns taken as a serious consideration. The hyper-optimism is socially reinforced, I have my head in the clouds, you have yours, it's rude to bring anyone down. As an outsider, it seems to explain certain bizarre behaviors I'd encountered when dealing with West Coast firms, usually centered on outrageous and unjustifiable expenditures of their VC money before the company has made any sort of sniffs at being profitable.

CPlatypus 15y ago
Well put, although I'm not quite sure "optimism" is the right term. Is it optimistic or egotistical for every SV engineer to believe that they are capable of creating a company worth a nine-figure IPO or acquisition - or, alternatively, that they can personally increase an established company's bottom line by a million a year? Somewhere in between, I'd guess. Partly it's overestimation of the market, partly it's overestimation of the self. Either way, it does seem to be a difference between SV and elsewhere. SV entrepreneurs believe they can succeed because it never even occurred to them to believe otherwise and of course nobody else would suggest such a thing. Entrepreneurs elsewhere are generally more aware of doubts and concerns, but consciously intend to prove the nay-sayers wrong. Is one approach or mindset better than the other? It's tempting to say that the financial success of SV validates that approach, but I don't think that success occurs in a vacuum. Could those SV companies get where they are without past contributions from MIT or Bell Labs, current ones from Austin or Seattle? I don't think so. An army needs more than one kind of soldier, an industry needs more than one kind of company, and just because SV seems to hog all the glamour doesn't mean other places are somehow lacking.
- mgkimsal 15y ago
  "SV entrepreneurs believe they can succeed because it never even occurred to them to believe otherwise and of course nobody else would suggest such a thing. " And many of them would be the first to also trot out the old cannards of "90% of all startups fail" and so on, they just don't really believe it, or don't believe their project will fail, regardless of the evidence.
  - wisty 15y ago
    And every WWI soldier believed he'd make it through the barbed wire and machine gun bullets, otherwise none of them would stick around. I guess the difference is, finding out the hard way that you burnt through all your funding and have to look for another job is hardly comparable to getting shot. And some of them (at least, enough to make the VC firms stick around) do succeed.
- socratic 15y ago
  Apple, Google, and Facebook all make around $1m revenue/employee and employ around 100,000 people. (Profit/employee is about $300-400k, incidentally.) While the average SV engineer isn't working at one of these companies, doesn't this mean that there are perhaps tens of thousands of engineers who are on average producing $1m/year in revenue? (If not, it seems like you need to argue for an extremely skewed distribution of the value that individual engineers are adding based on quality or area of expertise.) If one of these $1m revenue/year ("1MRPY") engineers starts a company with n 1MRPY engineer friends, is it so crazy to suggest that they might produce $x * n million worth of value over x years? (Even if they just build infrastructure and never turn a profit?) Or that they might be worth $4 * n million in revenue over a four year earn-out to an acquiring company?
  - CPlatypus 15y ago
    "doesn't this mean that there are perhaps tens of thousands of engineers who are on average producing $1m/year in revenue?" No. Just because total revenue divided by total headcount comes out to a million doesn't mean every engineer is contributing a million. For one thing, a lot of that revenue is return on investment - in the code, in customer relationships, in the "brand" generally - in previous years, nothing to do with current headcount. For another, the distribution is exponential. A few people contribute many times that million, while the majority contribute less, and many of those at the high end aren't engineers. So yes, engineers who contribute a million dollars to the bottom line do exist, but they're a very small minority. I've even been one myself, but not every year. Everyone in SV seems to think they're firmly established in that elite category. 99% of them are wrong. "If one of these $1m revenue/year ("1MRPY") engineers starts a company with n 1MRPY engineer friends, is it so crazy to suggest that they might produce $x * n million worth of value over x years?" It's not totally crazy, but it's very unlikely. Such engineers are rare enough, and in such high demand, and self-directed enough, that you're unlikely to get more than a couple of them to follow one vision even if you're friends. Then you have to find people with non-engineering skill sets who are as good in their respective fields, and convince them to join you. Then you'll probably still fail due to factors other than the quality of your personnel. What we're facing here is the compounding of two errors. Everyone thinks they're in the top 1%, and that being in the top 1% for one skill set is enough to ensure success. In reality, most startups have average teams and many non-technical obstacles to overcome. I've been in nine startups myself. I'd hardly discourage anyone from trying, but overconfidence can prevent people from doing what they really need to, and overconfidence seems to be California's most abundant crop.
danbmil99 15y ago
> Bringing up obvious concerns or problems is met more with a "why are you poo pooing my optimism buzz?" Haha, I had to learn this bigtime coming from NYC. East Coast culture is kind of 'half-empty-cup-first' thinking, then the other party is expected to prove their point. Out here it's more like 'my cup runneth over!' then you say 'yeah dude, that is totally awesome'. (pause) 'BTW, have you thought about this little issue? I'm sure it's nothing, but you should have a good response in case some wanker VC brings it up..' then you gently drop da bomb that their idea is wildly unworkable. Very different cultures -- not just in hi-tech, this is a deep east coast/northern CA differential.

kemiller 15y ago

I'm not sure what he's talking about wrt density of startups in NYC versus SF/SV. San Francisco is positively bursting with startups.

toyg 15y ago
I think he means there's SF, and there's SV, both high-density hubs, and inbetween there's a long commute of low-density areas (San Mateo? Don't know anything about it). Which is kinda true if you define Silicon Valley as the S.Clara / Mountain View / Cupertino area, they're about one hour apart from downtown SF and in rush-hour it will be more than that. Apparently he feels that NYC has an overall higher density over a larger area, i.e. they're more equally distributed.
- ww520 15y ago
  There might not be hardware companies but San Mateo has lots of software companies and startups. Oracle is right in the area.
untog 15y ago
I think he means the area as a whole- that is, if you were an investor visiting various startups, you'd be bouncing between SV and SF, and in between. In NYC almost all startups are based in Lower Manhattan- you could walk from office to office.
- saalweachter 15y ago
  That is definitely true. A one mile radius around Union Square probably hits a substantial fraction of the tech in NYC.

itmag 15y ago

I saw that movie "Friends with benefits", which made the East-West divide out to be a big deal. Is it, though?

bh42222 15y ago
I'm guessing you are being dowvoted because people think you are joking? I am going to assume you are not American and that this is an honest question. There is real culture difference between the large areas of America, north vs south, east vs west, etc. Now speaking as someone form the old world, America's cultural differences are still very small compared to differences between old world neighbors. Never the less, cultural differences in America do exist. I'd say north/south is a bigger deal than east/west. And when ever I hear east coast Americans talk about California, it sounds a lot like how Europeans talk about Americans in general - optimistic, the world is my oyster, etc.
- itmag 15y ago
  I am going to assume you are not American and that this is an honest question. Yup, you guessed right. The Americans I've met here in Sweden have been pretty homogenous as a whole, didn't matter if they were from SF or Kansas or Boston. They all seemed like liberal-minded europhile people. Then again, heavy selection bias.
  - bh42222 15y ago
    Ah yes, I had very same experience with Americans when I was still living in Europe. You are right, heavy selection bias it is, any American who gets on a plane and happily visit a foreign country, especially an expensive one, is not exactly representing the majority of Americans. You'd be surprised how many solidly middle class Americans have never been abroad, or only to Mexico and Canada.
    - mdda 15y ago
      30% of Americans have passports [1]. And : "Despite the climbing number of American passports in circulation, 30% is still low compared to Canada's 60% and the United Kingdom's 75%." [1] : http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-04/travel/americans.travel.domestically_1_western-hemisphere-travel-initiative-passports-tourism-industries http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-04/travel/americans.travel.d...

djb_hackernews 15y ago

I'm a software guy in DC with friends in different industries, and I don't find myself talking politics any more frequently than when I lived in Boston. Something tells me that would be different if I was a staffer/intern on the hill though. The author is a bit over confident in his opinions for me, but a summer schmoozing in SV sure sounds nice.

funkah 15y ago
I lived in DC for about 6 years, never worked in politics, and his statement rings true to me. Even if you're not involved in politics, pretty much everyone else around you is, and it tends to just permeate everyone's life. One of the main reasons I left, actually.
- Game_Ender 15y ago
  Traffic and housing prices is another good reason, but if you left for the Valley, you did not really escape that.
  - funkah 15y ago
    My feeling is, at least in California you're getting something for your money. DC rents are high because the average income there is so high, but you don't get very much "city" for your money, culturally at least. In SF it's just the opposite. I didn't move there though, I live in Oregon now.
    - danbmil99 15y ago
      > at least in California you're getting something for your money. DC Not in Palo Alto or any of the desirable bay suburbs. You get what would in any other part of the country be a starter 3-bed with 1/10 acre plot for upwards of $2M. It's insane and unsustainable.
    - potatolicious 15y ago
      > "but you don't get very much "city" for your money" It's typical in SF to pay $2K+ for a 1BR overlooking a back alley where homeless and drunks fight every night, where your neighborhood is contested by gang wars, your building is a creaky little Victorian built at the turn of the century, where a favorite topic of conversation are routes you can take to get from point A to point B in the city that maximizes personal safety, and only-half-joking comments about getting mugged on the bus. It's not the worst city in the USA to live in, but having lived here for six months now, and many major cities in two continents before that, I honestly think SF is completely overblown. It strikes me as a city where a bunch of suburban folk come after college and are blown away by all the Big City(tm) things, and every negative point simply becomes "how cities are", despite many other cities not suffering the same crime, housing, or other social ills. If it weren't for the booming and incredibly professionally satisfying tech scene, I'd have high-tailed it to a city where rents are halved, crime is quartered, and transportation not so sucktastic.

asmithmd1 15y ago

"even soccer moms in Starbucks with their toddlers were talking about the latest apps on their iPhones." This is happening everywhere. My 64 year old mother in law from Florida loads apps on her iPhone.

bobf 15y ago
My observation has been that "the latest apps" being discussed are pretty different in SV and Florida.
- gamechangr 15y ago
  I agree! There is a point of critical mass where apps are loaded everywhere. It would be interesting to know more specifics.

PaulHoule 15y ago

If you want to get out of the echo chamber your best choice might be "none of the above". Both NYC and the bay area are fishtanks. You see ads for location-based services and you always see a map centered on SF. Well, I can say I never felt dumber than the day a friend and I were using a "smartphone" to look for lunch in SF and it kept sending us to places that were closed and we kept walking past places that were open.

untog 15y ago
If you want to get out of the echo chamber your best choice might be "none of the above". Both NYC and the bay area are fishtanks. But if you want to get funding you're better off in the fish tank.
- hga 15y ago
  And perhaps talent; the unenforceability of non-competes seems to be a game changer. It's clearly a unique advantage for California.
  - untog 15y ago
    There is a flip side to that- talent has a habit of leaving companies very quickly in SV. I have read (but can't remember where, which is annoying) that NYC hasn't quite reached those levels yet.
    - hga 15y ago
      Which of course suggests that since the traditional IPO is dead (except for the occasional impossible to predict ahead of time massive success), that companies need to treat their talent well. If you require legal handcuffs to keep them, something's very wrong, something that stands a good chance of killing your company anyway. For America as a whole, the industry, pushing forward the state of the art, etc. etc. this liquid talent market is very good. Overall talent moves from companies with poor to good (or at least better) prospects; overall especially in the long term this is how the capital markets work. Bad if your name is Kodak, good otherwise.

jsavimbi 15y ago

I'm sorry, but I immediately qualified the post with: > I'm a first-year student at Harvard Business School

skrebbel 15y ago

Offtopic, I know, but in fact I'm most interested how this guy becomes a VC 2 years out of university after being a telecom banker, and "advices startups". Does this mean he's nonsense (e.g. no startup experience), or am I missing something fundamental? Needless to say, deep inside I'm just jealous.

jpdoctor 15y ago
> but in fact I'm most interested how this guy becomes a VC 2 years out of university after being a telecom banker, That should tell you everything you need to know about becoming a VC.
barry-cotter 15y ago
Venture Capital is one of the standard exit opportunities for I-Banking analysts along with Private Equity, Hedge Funds and Corporate Finance. VC is in large part a sales job (selling potentail limited partners on your future returns) and anyone who can survive two years as an analyst is both intelligent, conscientious, has a prodigous capacity for work and is likely personable. All of these are helpful for being an entry level VC, who acts as coffe boy, secretary, research assistant etc. But that's not the prize, the prize is impressing somene enough to actually make partner, for which the roadmap goes Here Be Dragons. And remember, over 90% of VC funds lose money. I would be mildly surprised if the prestige (and return) funds didn't have more diverse backgrounds than the money bonfires.

robterrell 15y ago

He had me until "Cameron Indoor". Come on: Dean Dome FTW, Cameron's a dumpy high school gym. Anyway, as someone who has spent ten years on each coast, it's impossible to disagree with his overall sentiment. There's an energy and vitality in the bay area that is completely lacking in other places. People love to talk about their local tech community, and I've found myself talking up Raleigh and Durham and the American Tobacco Campus and whatnot, but I know it's just a pale imitation. Take some meetings with VCs in each location; the difference is eye-opening.

gamechangr 15y ago
It's great to have you posting, or rather anyone who has actually spent more than a year in both (East and West). It's better than the shameless plugs for local communities that abound of the web. That's helpful...thanks for the comparison!
soemoea 15y ago
I second this thought. I grew up in the Bay Area and worked for a few years as a programmer at a startup there. I've also been going to school in the Raleigh area (Chapel Hill) for almost 2 years now. I've heard the media reports saying how the Raleigh Triangle area is a growing tech hub but I honestly don't see it. It pales so much in comparison to the Bay Area. There are some people interested in entrepreneurship and technology but it's still really hard to find them. It's hard not to run into these kinds of people in the Bay Area. One point of evidence is in looking at how many meetup groups and members are focused on technology and entrepreneurship in each area, and there is a stark difference. Also, the Dean Dome is amazing. I'd rate it better than Oracle Arena.
- ericboggs 15y ago
  Hey there! I'm a 2x Tar Heel and the Founder/CEO at http://argylesocial.com http://argylesocial.com in Durham. Shoot me a note via @ericboggs or http://ericboggs.com http://ericboggs.com - I'd love to meet up.

Jun8 15y ago

I'm not familiar with the NYC or Boston startup scene, but I think that arguing that any city is going to overtake SV anytime soon is naive (as the OP found out himself). SV or, more correctly the greater Bay Area, is to tech entrepreneurship as LA is to movies. Sure, you can become a star in NYC or somewhere else but everybody just knows that if you want to increase your chances, you've gotta go to LA. As Shawn Mullins says in Lullaby for LA: it's hard to play a gig in this town and keep a straight face seems like everyone here's got a plan it's kind of like Nashville with a tan Well, SV is "kind of like LA with a pwn" (I'm trying to rhyme, too). Just as any waiter or waitress and everybody's neighbor in LA wants to make it big in the movies, so it is in SV. The buzz of ambition in the air can be unsettling to many people. Interestingly, the movie industry started in NYC, then moved to LA in the 1910s and 20s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_States#Origins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_States#Ori...). Read that part of the Wikipedia article carefully, as many of the reasons for SV's dominance are pretty much the same.

saalweachter 15y ago
Yeah, it's kind of hilarious that California's biggest selling point was that it's really far from New Jersey. (Well, that and its somewhat corrupt (or at least, California-biased) judges a century ago.) If only New York City could be as far from New Jersey as California is--
- bitops 15y ago
  Also interesting is the fact that Hollywood was about an hour's travel from the Mexican border. This mattered in the early days of movies, when Edison's patent enforcers would show up to demand payment for people using cameras. The early filmmakers didn't want to pay and skipping to Mexico while the goons were in town was a good way to avoid those "expenditures".
untog 15y ago
As an NYC techie, I think talk of NYC (or anywhere) overtaking SV is nonsense. But that doesn't matter- different places have different strengths. I'd imagine that startups in a few industries (fashion and media are two that come to mind) would benefit greatly from a New York location.

seanmccann 15y ago

The author wrote a post about how NYC will overtake SV after only visiting SV for job interviews. They are an "aspiring VC" and think Sand Hill Road is underwhelming. I am still blown away by SHR, and the density of power. It's also a lot different when you're going for crucial meetings on SHR, and not just driving through.

rockarage 15y ago

As an East Coasters I get the feeling there are two distinct groups in Silicon Alley (NYC). One group is represented by people like the author of this article, who has a limited knowledge of Silicon Alley, and write articles based on their limited experience. The other group are highly involved in SA activities like these : http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/30/the-best-tech-events-this-week-aarrr-edition/ http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/30/the-best-tech-events-this... http://generalassemb.ly/events-page http://generalassemb.ly/events-page http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/29/art-hack-day-brooklyn-319-scholes/ http://www.betabeat.com/2012/01/29/art-hack-day-brooklyn-319... http://www.wixlounge.com/#!calender http://www.wixlounge.com/#!calender There are plenty of smart people who spend think about tech night and day, and disagree that the best and brightest are primarily in fiance. To many people fiance are causing more harm to the country then good.

danielharan 15y ago

~ "I thought my city would win over Silicon Valley, and then I visited the place. Ooops" A plea: next time you hear someone comparing their city to SV, take them aside privately and tell them to book a ticket on the next plane going to the Valley.

Yhippa 15y ago

FTA: "The commute between SV and SF is absolutely brutal. If the West Coast had NYC’s density of startups and investors, I don’t think NYC would ever have a chance of catching and passing SV." I thought it was one of the most beautiful commutes in the world personally.

rdoherty 15y ago
He was referring to the amount of traffic (mostly likely on highway 101). I've done that commute a few times and if you're driving during rush hour (7am-10am or 4pm-7pm) it can take 2x-3x times longer than normal.
- bitops 15y ago
  101 is pretty bad. When I worked on the peninsula I'd always take 280 and cut over on 92. It'd take a little bit longer, but it was way better in terms of my mental health.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]