Ah, fair enough. I knew we (Google) had one there, but I didn't know all of the others did as well. I'm not surprised, though. That said, I think my point stil

Ah, fair enough. I knew we (Google) had one there, but I didn't know all of the others did as well. I'm not surprised, though. That said, I think my point still stands: Seattle (and apparently New York) have good representation from the other what I'll (I suppose somewhat arrogantly) call 'tier one' tech companies. Most cities, even those with strong tech employment, don't have remote offices for the other large players. One could argue that this is simply because they haven't gotten around to it yet, but it's also a point in favor of the notion that there isn't a sufficient concentration of developers who are both (a) at the level the companies are looking for and at least as importantly (b) are willing to work for one of the big players. Elsewhere someone pointed out that there are smart people everywhere. I don't dispute that in the slightest. I also expect there are people who want to work for Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. everywhere (and who are unwilling to move to the places where those companies are). I'm not certain that the intersection has a high enough density in, say, Atlanta (which has rather a lot of software engineering) to justify a remote office there. NY and Seattle have already demonstrated that they have a sufficiently high density in the intersection via an existence proof: a half dozen other tier one tech companies operate large successful remote offices in these cities.