Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Then why make the point at all?


The article makes the point that being in the valley improves your odds, not that it's impossible to start a successful company outside the valley.


The article makes the point that being in the valley improves your odds

Or, in other words, the bar is lower.


Who says? Where's the scientific study?

For example, we can't launch Foursquare both in Silicon Valley and in New York City and see which has the better outcome.


we can't launch Foursquare both in Silicon Valley and in New York City and see which has the better outcome.

Well, I think the OP's point is that you aren't as likely to get as far as launch in, say, Houston than you are in SV.

The problem is that it's hard to get a quantifiable handle on the question, not only because it is hard to count startups that never got off the ground, but also because it doesn't have to be true; people just have to believe it to be true.

In other words, if everybody who wants to launch a startup moves to SV because they think they have to, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, irrespective of whether it was originally true.


The author of the origin post says - that's who. Should every view that anyone makes about anything have to be backed by a scientific study?


It seems like the main advantage to SV is finding a cofounder. If you already have one then a big part of it is gone.


I thought Foursquare did exactly that?


The negation of "you can do a startup from anywhere" is not "you can only do a startup in Silicon Valley".


It's just a tiresome argument that really doesn't need making. Find your team, build your product, and start marketing it.


Finding your team is a lot easier in the valley than anywhere else in the world.

I live in Europe and I've never met anyone who I think would make a half-decent co-founder.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: