5 ms·

So he has one data point, therefore generalizes for everyone. That takes away credibility from the article. Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. All yo

by diego 14y ago

So he has one data point, therefore generalizes for everyone. That takes away credibility from the article. Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. All you need is luck :) I've seen many startups benefit greatly from moving to Silicon Valley (including my own). Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. However, it does help tremendously for many types of companies.

intellegacy 14y ago
How has your startup benefited from being in SV? And how much more benefit has that been over your old location?
mindcrime 14y ago
So he has one data point, therefore generalizes for everyone. That takes away credibility from the article. Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. All you need is luck Are you saying you don't need luck if you locate to Silicon Valley??? Anyway, as for the "generalizing to everyone" bit... IF the opposing argument was actually that you must be in Silicon Valley to be successful, then even one opposing datapoint invalidates that argument. I'm not sure that actually is pg's argument though, but nonetheless, every successful startup that exists outside of SV serves to demonstrate that you certainly can be successful starting in other places. Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. However, it does help tremendously for many types of companies. I'm guessing it can also hurt for some types as well. If you're doing something fashion related, for example, you might be better served to be in NYC, London or even LA. Beyond that, the higher cost of living, increased competition for technical talent, etc., could be reasons a given startup would be better off not being in the valley.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  Come on, you're getting pedantic. Hacker News and its participants should be better than that. > Are you saying you don't need luck if you locate to Silicon Valley??? He's saying you're less dependent on luck for success if you're in SV. The mean of the "success" probability distribution is shifted towards the right. > IF the opposing argument was actually that you must be in Silicon Valley to be successful, then even one opposing datapoint invalidates that argument. Nobody reasonable is saying you MUST be in the Valley. They're saying it makes it considerably easier than being anywhere else on the planet. > If you're doing something fashion related, for example, you might be better served to be in NYC, London or even LA. Again, we're speaking about all tech startups in general. Nobody is saying there aren't occasional exceptions. > Beyond that, the higher cost of living, increased competition for technical talent, etc., could be reasons a given startup would be better off not being in the valley. The higher cost of living is not a reason to definitely not be in the Valley (though it can be a factor). You can learn to live frugally if being an entrepreneur is that important to you. And the Valley is the best place for technical talent (among other things important to startups).
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    The higher cost of living is not a reason to definitely not be in the Valley (though it can be a factor). You can learn to live frugally if being an entrepreneur is that important to you. And the Valley is the best place for technical talent (among other things important to startups). Sure, although there is a (very big) open question about "how much" being in the valley shifts the probability distribution towards "success". It would also be interesting to understand more about exactly which types of startups benefit most from being in the valley, versus being somewhere else. Actually, the bigger issue might not be any of this... it might be "assuming I don't want to live in CA, what are my chances of success in $WHEREVER and how do I optimize them?"

by diego 14y ago

intellegacy 14y ago

How has your startup benefited from being in SV? And how much more benefit has that been over your old location?

mindcrime 14y ago

So he has one data point, therefore generalizes for everyone. That takes away credibility from the article. Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. All you need is luck Are you saying you don't need luck if you locate to Silicon Valley??? Anyway, as for the "generalizing to everyone" bit... IF the opposing argument was actually that you must be in Silicon Valley to be successful, then even one opposing datapoint invalidates that argument. I'm not sure that actually is pg's argument though, but nonetheless, every successful startup that exists outside of SV serves to demonstrate that you certainly can be successful starting in other places. Sure, you don't need to be in Silicon Valley. However, it does help tremendously for many types of companies. I'm guessing it can also hurt for some types as well. If you're doing something fashion related, for example, you might be better served to be in NYC, London or even LA. Beyond that, the higher cost of living, increased competition for technical talent, etc., could be reasons a given startup would be better off not being in the valley.

w1ntermute 14y ago
Come on, you're getting pedantic. Hacker News and its participants should be better than that. > Are you saying you don't need luck if you locate to Silicon Valley??? He's saying you're less dependent on luck for success if you're in SV. The mean of the "success" probability distribution is shifted towards the right. > IF the opposing argument was actually that you must be in Silicon Valley to be successful, then even one opposing datapoint invalidates that argument. Nobody reasonable is saying you MUST be in the Valley. They're saying it makes it considerably easier than being anywhere else on the planet. > If you're doing something fashion related, for example, you might be better served to be in NYC, London or even LA. Again, we're speaking about all tech startups in general. Nobody is saying there aren't occasional exceptions. > Beyond that, the higher cost of living, increased competition for technical talent, etc., could be reasons a given startup would be better off not being in the valley. The higher cost of living is not a reason to definitely not be in the Valley (though it can be a factor). You can learn to live frugally if being an entrepreneur is that important to you. And the Valley is the best place for technical talent (among other things important to startups).
- mindcrime 14y ago
  The higher cost of living is not a reason to definitely not be in the Valley (though it can be a factor). You can learn to live frugally if being an entrepreneur is that important to you. And the Valley is the best place for technical talent (among other things important to startups). Sure, although there is a (very big) open question about "how much" being in the valley shifts the probability distribution towards "success". It would also be interesting to understand more about exactly which types of startups benefit most from being in the valley, versus being somewhere else. Actually, the bigger issue might not be any of this... it might be "assuming I don't want to live in CA, what are my chances of success in $WHEREVER and how do I optimize them?"