4 ms·
When you interpret Paul's "startup" as a "newborn Internet media company" the essay makes a lot of sense, especially the comparison to movie business. But if y
by old-gregg 18y ago
When you interpret Paul's "startup" as a "newborn Internet media company" the essay makes a lot of sense, especially the comparison to movie business.
But if you interpret "startup" as "newborn consumer electronics company" or a "newborn software company" or anything else more generic not squeezed into a web page it falls short: first, the percentage of GDP generated by internet media is miniscule, the whole thing isn't that big, it's a sizable niche in a software development world but not more. For instance, when measuring life in "robotic startups" one may conclude the SV is not relevant, but Boston very much is, and Japan is taking over the world, I'm sure Trevor would agree with some of this.
- dbul 18y agoRobotics other than military, industrial, and medical is really nonexistent at this point. Japan's robotics are cosmetic and hardly taking over anything. With something like robotics it is difficult to weigh who will end up funding you. The answer today is probably the government, not VCs, so location is irrelevant.
- emmett 18y agoThe kind of companies Paul is talking about appear to be software companies, in general. More new software companies originate in Silicon Valley than anywhere else in the world by a wide margin. Most new software companies (Google, for example) tend to be internet companies, but that's just because the internet is the most sensible way to distribute most software now.