6 ms·
And thats why SF is no longer relevant for startups. I work for db startup, and most of stuff is happening outside of California (Europe, Texas...).
by qwerta 13y ago
And thats why SF is no longer relevant for startups. I work for db startup, and most of stuff is happening outside of California (Europe, Texas...).
- changdizzle 13y agoReally? I get that there are multiple thriving startup communities elsewhere, but SF (and the greater bay area) is still the mecca[1] of startups. [1] http://qz.com/94939/san-francisco-not-silicon-valley-is-the-hub-for-us-venture-capital/ http://qz.com/94939/san-francisco-not-silicon-valley-is-the-...
- qwerta 13y agoStartups in SF (and LA) do usually web related stuff. They also want to be acquired by larger company such as Facebook or Google. In that case SF makes sense. But that is just tiny part of startup ecosystem. I started company with my own savings. In SF it would not last 2 months, here I have 1+year runway.
- changdizzle 13y agoFair enough, thanks for your insight! Where is your company located?
- qwerta 13y agoWest coast of Ireland, we will be moving to Greece in a few weeks.
- ericabiz 13y agoPerhaps not true any more. I came across this article yesterday: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227436 http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227436 "Austin ranks as the No. 1 place to launch your business, according to a new ranking by GoodApril, a San Francisco-based tax-planning startup. The ranking compares the seven hottest startup scenes in the U.S. across measures that matter most to new entrepreneurs: median tech-employee earnings, maximum personal income tax, property tax, the cost of housing and the cost of office space. Perhaps surprisingly, San Francisco, the longtime Silicon Valley startup mecca, ranks as the worst place to launch, due to high costs and taxes."
- muzz 13y ago"the way things should be" (according to low taxes, etc) is not the same as "the way things are" It is instructive to understand the difference, i.e. why entrepreneurs start businesses that thrive and succeed in San Francisco when the pundit's supposed "climate for business" is better in other places.
- mikeash 13y agoIt's hard to imagine the stereotypical tech startup caring about any of those measures very much. I mean, cost of office space? I don't get the impression that VC-funded "IPO or bust" startups care about that at all.
- muzz 13y agoI think the distinction is not about "VC-funded IPO-or-bust" startups, but rather whether the startup creates significant value add Low-value-add businesses are affected strongly by those factors. If value add is high, those factors matter much less.
- johnrob 13y agoWell, it's still relevant but high rent could easily send it on a downward trend. High cost of living is a dangerous thing for startups; I doubt silicon valley would have formed and prospered if rent prices (relatively speaking) were then what they are now.
- muzz 13y agoYou are basically doubting the current reality. Was San Francisco cheap when Twitter, AirBNB, Yammer, etc started?
- bodyfour 13y agoPeople have been declaring that California is too expensive for startups for decades.
- muzz 13y agoAgreed, and sadly the lack of that coming to fruition has not stopped them.
- qwerta 13y agoI actually blame California cost of living for stagnation of database industry. I know many smart people in SF and LA, who created great open-source projects as a hobby. After a few years this project matures, and it would be great time to turn hobby into business. But they have to keep working for large company, to support family. Some stuff (such as DBs) is just bellow VCs radar. I guess it is good for me. My startup is all about collecting abandoned ideas and adding nice wrapping.
- muzz 13y agoThat's essentially claiming that somehow market forces don't apply to the database industry.
- rpedela 13y agoI am one of those people who left the Bay Area because of the high cost of starting and maintaining a business there. I am now in Denver/Boulder area. The Bay Area is definitely one of the most expensive places to have a business which is especially tricky when you don't have revenue like most startups. For example, rent for housing has increased dramatically over the last 5 years to point where people with decent jobs need housing assistance. As a business, you need to raise salaries so your employees can keep their standard of living. And employee salaries are the largest expense for software companies. What I think keeps it going is the fact that a lot of rich people live there now and are willing to invest in companies. That investment allows the company to pay its bills while it is building its product. However even with investment, the money still goes quicker than if you were somewhere else. In essence, it looks like an angel investment bubble to me. The question is, will the bubble burst and when?
- nostrademons 13y agoThe interesting stuff has always happened outside of SF. Before Google and before startups, I was interested in a bunch of programming-language theory and systems programming research. The hotbeds of that were places like Rice, Yale, INRIA, Seattle, the UK, eastern europe, etc. What SF offers you is a combination of money, risk-taking, technical expertise, legal expertise, openness to new ideas, and experience taking ideas and turning them mass-market. Bay Area startups are built to scale, and scale fast. A lot of the interesting fundamental research happens elsewhere, but when it comes to taking a basically good idea and convincing millions of people to adopt it, there's nothing quite like the infrastructure in Silicon Valley.