I'm anticipating that some people will misunderstand Brin's advice which is caused by 2 factors:
(1) Page and Brin started Google Inc successfully in SV so it seems contradictory to advise others not to start a company there
(2) the meaning of the word "start" as Brin is using it
As for (1), Larry and Sergey had the luxury of building Google (the product -- not the formalized "incorporated" Google Inc) inside of Stanford and therefore using the university's computers and bandwidth for free. Piggybacking on Stanford's resources to create an "mvp" was like getting "AWS" for free. A lot of startups don't have that situation. Therefore, a founder may be better off working out the parents' garage in Kansas to keep expenses low. The free room & board is money that would have been spent on a crappy apartment in SV. Instead take those savings and use it to pay for the AWS hosting costs, or a 2nd programmer.
For (2), I think Brin is talking about "start" as in start from zero with an idea on a paper napkin, before an MVP, and before traction from others (users and investors). Zuckerberg started Facebook in Boston and after Sean Parker got interested, he moved Facebook to the more expensive SV. Bill Gates started Microsoft in Albuquerque, New Mexico and made profits before he moved the company to the more expensive Seattle. In other words, you can have a "low profile startup" in your local town that's under the radar which lets you keep expenses very low. You can later have a "high profile startup" in Silicon Valley where the very high costs are worth it to hire from the talent pool and network with other entrepreneurs and investors. That delayed move to SV is what Brin called "that second step".
Brin's advice rings true to me. Silicon Valley has changed since Google started. It has become a tough place to bootstrap a company from scratch especially if you are focussed on getting to profitability at an early stage.
Expenses in Silicon Valley are high and show no sign of declining. Even more important it is hard to find qualified staff in SV who are interested in working on start-ups that don't have strong funding. Most companies therefore look for a somewhat lower cost place with qualified engineers and have done this for a while now. At some point you have to ask why not just put the whole company somewhere else.
I've always wondered how much of the money YC seeds to its founders eventually ends up in a landlord's pocket? $3000/month on a studio apartment. That's crazy burnout for a startup.
People have taken your example and run with it, but as someone from Kansas, I implore you not to start a business in Kansas. The governor has run what little infrastructure existed into the ground. There is nothing for you there. I'd suggest somewhere like Austin, where taxes are sufficiently low, the city has a supply of tech workers, and the city has working infrastructure.
From a Machiavellian perspective, Google competes in hundreds of market niches with competitors constantly nipping at its heels. It certainly doesn't want more competition. Brin doesn't need a 5 man startup hurting Google, so he's politically motivated to give advice that benefits him best. That Kansas startup with zero dollars isn't a threat to Google, and makes for a cheap acquisition if they do develop something interesting or threatening. It certainly is a threat when its backed by SV money, can scale quickly, and isn't available to buy for peanuts.
I've always been skeptical of the whole "advice from billionaires" format. Brin isn't motivated to help startups the same way Warren Buffet isn't giving away hot stock tips or how Gates never gave the FOSS community an easy way to reverse-engineer the doc format. These people know how their bread gets buttered. Or simply have internalized protectionist attitudes and give away just enough to not be dangerous to themselves.
edit: I'm not necessarily projecting malice, but there are other reasons why "advice from billionares" is kinda a bullshit format. Brin may be out of touch or, if you read the source of the article, made an off-hand comment he probably doesn't worry about all night and is blown out of proportion by the 'give us the latest hot investing tip' crowd.
You don't speak to this exactly, but Brin might as well just suggest to not start a company in California, which demands a lot of legal and tax paperwork to be done right from a business's beginning.
I'm sure free access to 1998 Stanford servers and bandwidth was nothing like getting AWS for free. And a lot of startups these days do actually get AWS for free -- or at least the first $100K.
There's a lot of talk about investors not being as easily available outside SV, but having worked for startups outside the valley most of my career my experience is that it's actually the rich customer bases you're missing by not being in the valley. I think it's easier to evangelise a product where there's a huge receptive audience, and doing it in person is much more effective. Trying to sell people on some new tech in a 1 million person or less city is hard, even when that city has decent official support for startups.
Businesses are more cautious and there are harder to cross barriers to word of mouth spread for consumer oriented businesses. For example, I worked for a social network started before Facebook that was used by nearly every teenager in a large region, but we could not break out of that region no matter what we tried. The kids in the schools in our region just didn't interact outside the region much, so there were no network effects.
In the valley, though, nearly everyone you meet is excited about tech somehow. Many people are from somewhere else in the world and are still in some way connected to where they're from, both in terms of businesses and people. It's just fertile ground for network effects.
This is the kind of thing that's relevant when it's relevant. If you are making twilio or stripe, it is probably important to be in SV. If you're making tinder, you should probably live in a big college town. Facebook? You can live anywhere. Twitter? LA might be a good idea.
If you're making an ebay killer, you can live anywhere.
The folks who disagree seem to be aligning with the reasoning that it's easier to raise capital and be closer to investors in SF.
But raising money != starting a company. Sure, it's important at some point, but this is the growing problem with the industry as a whole, no? People show up with just a pitch deck and want a million bucks.
Most responsible (and technically-capable) founders are trying to save as much money as possible and get on the investing boat as late as possible.
I have wondered this for a few years now. It seems to me the best way to start a company is to actually build your idea somewhere cheap and fly to where the investors are. I don't see how someone moving to San Fran to start a company is a good idea when a large amount of your angel investment is spent on rent.
I think a better idea would be to move to a college town. I think the guys at id did this when they first started though they moved to somewhere in the midwest, but cheap nonetheless.
My take would be to move to college town with a large student population and good science programs. Somewhere like pittsburgh or even state college, PA
I'm in a state whose economy is mostly manufacturing-based and I've wondered why there aren't more startups here because it would be so much cheaper even if you were in the state capital.
I have decided it is kind of like the saying "Why did I rob banks? Because that's where the money is." SF is where the money is. Where the networking possibilities are. Where it is easier to get coverage in the tech press because that's where so many of the tech reporters are.
All of those can be overcome if you aren't in SF but that means you are spending time overcoming those things - time that could be spent on making your product. You may spend tons on rent and have to pay your employees a lot more but it is easier to get more funding than it is to get more time.
Depends a lot on the type of company you start I suppose. If in doubt start it where the initial customers are going to be. Even if you intend to build the next network-effect based super customer product....maybe pick one specific niche first and be around those people for feedback (FB/Harvard etc.).
My gut would say that location (close to key customers) is very important for B2B for example. For some startups I can't help but think that some of their (scaling) problems are directly related to being started in SV (food delivery or cleaning services started in SV for example).
I also think you should double check your mindset if your reasoning revolves around getting financing and thus moving to the place that optimizes for that. Solve problem, ignore capital (software isn't very capital intensive) >> think about funding first.
Lots of top valley folks say this, but then the VCs still want someone to be nearby. Anyone know if Brin is investing his own money more broadly (geographically)?
What Brin actually said was to start somewhere cheap, then move to Silicon Valley when you need VC funds. So he isn't dismissing the need for proximity when raising funds.
I'm not sure that conflicts with Brin's statement here; he seems to be encouraging people to start outside the Valley when they're pre-funding. A lot of VCs (for instance, Y Combinator) are happy to fund non-Valley founders as long as they use the money to move to SF.
Question out of interest - is it likely he is talking about companies moving from a location from within the US to SV?
Lots of young programmers/entrepreneurs in Europe seem to dream of going to SV as soon as possible. At the same time there are lots of great cities for startups around over here - London, Stockholm and Helsinki to just name a few... SV might be the best/a great choice later on in the process but I'm quite sure Europe has lots to offer as well (not even considering potential visa issues here, which obviously restrict many or most Europeans from joining startups over in the US).
As someone who has only visited SV, I wonder: In order to avoid the crazy living expenses in SV and SF, why don't more people start companies within 100 miles of SV, in cheaper places like San Ramon/Castro Valley, Livermore, Sacramento, Pleasanton, Modesto, etc.? That way you have reasonable proximity without having to suffer the living quality issues associated with SV and SF.
> In order to avoid the crazy living expenses in SV and SF, why don't more people start companies within 100 miles of SV, in cheaper places like San Ramon/Castro Valley, Livermore, Sacramento, Pleasanton, Modesto, etc.? That way you have reasonable proximity without having to suffer the living quality issues associated with SV and SF.
No, instead, you have the much greater living quality issues associated with the places you mention, which is why SF/SV are more expensive places to live -- people are willing to pay a lot more to live in SF/SV than in, e.g., the Central Valley.
How about people just start building your idea, wherever you are. Rather than worrying about where you are when doing it? If the thing has merit, the rest should fall in line.
Why would Sergey Brin advocate startups being founded where all the action and high valuations are?
He knows that it's hard to move your company once you've settled in somewhere. Much more economical for Google if you stay on the fringe outskirts and let them acquire your baby for pennies on the dollar.
He literally is. The whole point of the article was that SV is great when you need VC money, but if you are just trying to create a product it's expensive and unnecessary. Create your product, develop a user base and THEN when you start to need cash, move to SV.
Being headquartered in San Francisco, CA is "negatively correlated" (standard deviation when pooled with all cities: -0.5261) with having a successful exit.
Best cities/towns/etc (most correlated with experiencing an exit, rather than failing/floundering (shut down, or founded before 2004 + no exit/acquisition/IPO)) to create a startup:
stddev Exits Total City
8.4678 143 207 Mountain View, CA USA
6.4855 130 356 London, H9 GBR
5.7360 15 25 Berlin, 16 DEU
4.5423 23 56 Tokyo, 40 JPN
4.5105 17 32 Richardson, TX USA
4.3559 56 159 Paris, A8 FRA
4.2118 44 99 Vancouver, BC CAN
4.1381 28 62 Montreal, QC CAN
4.0152 60 99 Waltham, MA USA
3.9462 57 138 Atlanta, GA USA
3.9414 14 21 Arlington, VA USA
3.8747 15 20 Foster City, CA USA
3.8528 14 41 Copenhagen, 17 DNK
3.7484 32 42 South San Francisco, CA USA
3.7131 14 31 Baltimore, MD USA
3.6728 39 79 Fremont, CA USA
3.4364 9 17 Irving, TX USA
3.3919 8 11 Chelmsford, MA USA
3.3833 5 7 Surry Hills, 2 AUS
3.3637 19 59 Bangalore, 19 IND
3.3335 11 24 Hamburg, 4 DEU
3.2568 19 36 Morrisville, NC USA
3.2101 10 29 Seoul, 11 KOR
3.1476 17 32 Bethesda, MD USA
3.1191 17 42 Cambridge, C3 GBR
2.9591 7 18 Zurich, 25 CHE
2.9566 7 7 Chapel Hill, NC USA
2.8746 11 32 St Louis, MO USA
2.8625 39 83 Boulder, CO USA
2.8225 35 69 Portland, OR USA
2.8000 45 128 Beijing, 22 CHN
2.7117 15 23 Aliso Viejo, CA USA
2.6170 13 19 Los Gatos, CA USA
2.4679 12 30 Helsinki, 13 FIN
2.4569 4 12 Istanbul, 34 TUR
2.4385 22 49 Minneapolis, MN USA
2.3187 21 72 Dublin, 7 IRL
2.3046 5 6 Burlington, ON CAN
2.2251 4 6 Kennesaw, GA USA
2.1569 8 12 Sterling, VA USA
2.1564 111 206 San Jose, CA USA
2.0461 37 58 Cupertino, CA USA
2.0432 20 36 Pasadena, CA USA
2.0180 7 8 Itasca, IL USA
1.9883 23 51 Ottawa, ON CAN
1.9772 5 6 Oak Brook, IL USA
1.9468 7 8 Westford, MA USA
1.9386 3 3 Gent, 8 BEL
1.9285 4 7 Delft, 11 NLD
1.9251 9 16 Beverly Hills, CA USA
1.8902 8 18 Oslo, 12 NOR
1.8785 4 7 Costa Mesa, CA USA
1.8746 13 37 Tampa, FL USA
1.8346 9 21 Jacksonville, FL USA
1.8340 13 18 San Bruno, CA USA
1.8246 7 10 Venice, CA USA
1.8117 16 50 Stockholm, 26 SWE
1.8010 8 15 Wilmington, DE USA
1.7720 7 19 Burnaby, BC CAN
1.7050 5 7 Kitchener, ON CAN
1.6856 6 16 Gurgaon, 10 IND
1.6729 398 807 New York, NY USA
1.6474 3 3 Fuzhou Shi, 3 CHN
1.6362 15 41 Madrid, 29 ESP
1.6145 2 5 Utrecht, 9 NLD
1.6135 5 11 Minnetonka, MN USA
1.5937 21 35 Milpitas, CA USA
1.5785 14 28 Mclean, VA USA
1.5671 6 11 Orem, UT USA
1.5587 3 8 Prague, 52 CZE
1.5505 3 3 Lake Forest, IL USA
1.5461 9 12 Alameda, CA USA
1.5459 4 14 Rio De Janeiro, 21 BRA
1.5402 9 14 El Segundo, CA USA
1.5240 8 17 West Hollywood, CA USA
1.5223 4 5 Doylestown, PA USA
1.5127 9 38 Sao Paulo, 2 BRA
1.4928 4 6 Arlington Heights, IL USA
1.4881 15 27 Marlborough, MA USA
1.4800 4 10 Stuttgart, 1 DEU
1.4516 7 11 Kfar Saba, 2 ISR
1.4352 5 13 Dubai, 3 ARE
1.4241 2 3 Blackrock, 7 IRL
1.4220 3 5 Roncade, 20 ITA
1.4157 3 8 Espoo, 13 FIN
1.3833 7 24 Vienna, 9 AUT
1.3667 5 6 Solana Beach, CA USA
1.3442 7 14 Mississauga, ON CAN
1.3139 7 10 Belmont, CA USA
1.3073 13 29 San Antonio, TX USA
1.2982 6 14 Buffalo, NY USA
1.2742 4 5 Ames, IA USA
1.2476 5 11 Abingdon, K2 GBR
1.2381 19 50 Washington, DC USA
1.2296 102 171 Cambridge, MA USA
1.2282 7 13 Westminster, CO USA
1.2127 5 12 Annapolis, MD USA
1.2056 2 2 Odense, 21 DNK
1.1670 2 2 West Des Moines, IA USA
1.1492 2 2 Notting Hill, 7 AUS
1.1480 3 7 Schaumburg, IL USA
1.1403 13 35 Plano, TX USA
1.1257 3 3 Sunrise, FL USA
1.1201 13 31 Ann Arbor, MI USA
1.0986 4 9 Halifax, NS CAN
1.0967 2 3 San Marcos, TX USA
1.0963 2 2 Mi Wuk Village, CA USA
1.0841 4 7 Newtown, PA USA
1.0752 3 4 Zug, 24 CHE
1.0658 37 74 Tel Aviv, 5 ISR
1.0643 10 34 Shenzhen, 30 CHN
1.0558 5 10 Munchen, 2 DEU
1.0379 5 5 Branford, CT USA
1.0283 3 3 Fredericton, NS CAN
1.0099 2 3 Pune, 16 IND
1.0033 4 8 Charleston, SC USA
Worst:
-9.2963 55 178 Los Angeles, CA USA
-5.8472 13 135 Moscow, 48 RUS
-4.2334 2 16 Quebec, QC CAN
-4.1071 9 24 Berkeley, CA USA
-3.9312 4 15 Lucerne Valley, CA USA
-3.7260 63 124 Redwood City, CA USA
-3.5625 2 10 Netanya, 2 ISR
-3.3962 8 20 Newton, MA USA
-3.3100 10 20 Princeton, NJ USA
-3.2994 9 21 La Jolla, CA USA
-2.8129 6 13 Petaluma, CA USA
-2.5981 12 42 Raleigh, NC USA
-2.3986 14 41 Brooklyn, NY USA
-2.3916 4 10 Addison, TX USA
-2.3777 59 155 Toronto, ON CAN
-2.3297 2 6 Allentown, PA USA
-2.2695 2 9 Edison, NJ USA
-2.1975 1 5 Champaign, IL USA
-2.1557 114 240 Austin, TX USA
-2.0160 0 7 Livermore, CA USA
-2.0154 127 244 Palo Alto, CA USA
-1.9803 1 5 Blacksburg, VA USA
-1.9321 4 20 Melbourne, 7 AUS
-1.9214 13 34 Charlotte, NC USA
-1.8469 0 4 City Of Industry, CA USA
-1.8068 5 19 Rochester, NY USA
-1.7758 1 4 Lod, 2 ISR
-1.7431 0 3 Eatontown, NJ USA
-1.7269 4 12 Wilmington, MA USA
-1.7250 0 5 Owings Mills, MD USA
-1.6628 5 13 New Haven, CT USA
-1.6467 1 5 Golden, CO USA
-1.6458 2 16 Memphis, TN USA
-1.6433 0 5 Cedar Park, TX USA
-1.6354 3 15 Santa Ana, CA USA
-1.6351 9 17 Gaithersburg, MD USA
-1.6102 35 99 Houston, TX USA
-1.6033 0 3 Superior, WI USA
-1.5757 0 10 Saint Petersburg, 66 RUS
-1.5656 0 4 Tacoma, WA USA
-1.5626 8 25 Orlando, FL USA
-1.5451 0 9 Little Rock, AR USA
-1.5421 1 7 Galway, 10 IRL
-1.5226 9 41 Cleveland, OH USA
-1.5176 1 6 Liverpool, H8 GBR
-1.5007 5 30 Columbus, OH USA
-1.4983 19 48 Philadelphia, PA USA
-1.4838 0 4 Toledo, OH USA
-1.4825 0 6 Newark, NJ USA
-1.4783 26 83 Pittsburgh, PA USA
-1.4602 15 35 Oakland, CA USA
-1.4537 0 6 Sausalito, CA USA
-1.4369 1 8 Kista, 26 SWE
-1.4364 0 5 New Orleans, LA USA
-1.3845 6 20 Newport Beach, CA USA
-1.3755 1 8 Manchester, I2 GBR
-1.3457 29 84 Dallas, TX USA
-1.3180 0 8 Centennial, CO USA
-1.2865 3 13 Charlottesville, VA USA
-1.2839 0 5 Morgan Hill, CA USA
-1.2704 1 4 Lawrenceville, GA USA
-1.2478 1 6 Burbank, CA USA
-1.2446 0 8 Tallinn, 1 EST
-1.2440 87 157 San Mateo, CA USA
-1.2188 4 13 Plymouth, MN USA
-1.1966 0 3 Laguna Beach, CA USA
-1.1938 26 64 Salt Lake City, UT USA
-1.1711 0 9 Jakarta, 4 IDN
-1.1672 43 106 Irvine, CA USA
-1.1634 1 5 Guangdong, 5 CHN
-1.1536 0 2 Orsay, A8 FRA
-1.1421 0 2 Cherry Hill, NJ USA
-1.1222 4 13 Longmont, CO USA
-1.1221 0 3 Columbia, SC USA
-1.1055 0 4 Laval, QC CAN
-1.0837 0 2 Mountain, WI USA
-1.0790 0 3 Gilbert, AZ USA
-1.0743 4 7 Boxborough, MA USA
-1.0369 0 2 Pittsburg, CA USA
-1.0302 0 4 Napa, CA USA
-1.0275 2 7 Clearwater, FL USA
-1.0176 9 30 Indianapolis, IN USA
-1.0122 0 9 Porto Alegre, 23 BRA
I think there's a lot of factors at play when you're founding a company and what Brin is hopefully saying is that given the current conditions SV is difficult for early stage (bootstrapping or seeding), which seems to be true.
In 1998 things were very different so of course they could afford to be in the menlo park area and reap the rewards of the VC network. Now, to stay in the area you need to fund heavily up front which leaves you less time to build that awesome product before funding dries up (or worse, you have to sell too much of your company in order to survive).
The reality though is you can try to start up a company in a place like Boca Raton and unless you have some previous connections and major capital you're not going have the funding network and excess of high tech workers your company needs to really take off. Magic Leap basically went this route and seem to be doing fine but most companies aren't that high profile (and well funded).
This is fine advice if you're talented enough to startup without a co-founder. It's also fine advice if you're lucky enough to find a co-founder in your local talent pool.
However, if you find that starting up is beyond your individual skill set, and the people you enlist to help you come over to your garage and spend 10 mins programming and the rest of the time on YouTube and Reddit, you may want to move to a better startup ecosystem to find a more ambitious co-founder.
I don't think there is universal answer. It depends a lot on your personal situation (connections/resources available/citizenship/lifestyle preferences).
I think a remote, distributed company is by far the best option. There are drawbacks, but the increased size of the labor pool, opportunity to hire talented folks with lower salary requirements, lower overhead costs, and (arguably) higher productivity/ work life balance just to name a few.
Atlanta maybe? the south east has a disproportionately low number of tech companies relative to number of people (whether that's equivalent to talent, who knows?)
If you're itching to start a company out of a garage, then you shouldn't pick up and move to Silicon Valley, says Russian immigrant Sergey Brin, who cofounded Google at Stanford University, after immigrating to the United States with his family at the age of 6. With help from an advisor who put him in touch with Larry Page while they were studying at Stanford, they implemented a new algorithm, called Page Rank, on top of a data mining system Brin was already developing. With further help from the Stanford community's network, they soon received a check for US$100,000 from Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, written to a company that did not yet exist. About a year later, they announced closing a $25 million round from Sequoia Capital, who suggested hiring an external CEO in the form of Eric Schmidt. Within 4 years Microsoft started making bids for the company, though Google eventually went public instead. Today Sergey Brin is one of three people listed as 11th richest in the world, with a net worth of US$39.2 billion.
Recently speaking at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, he said onstage, "It's easier to start a company outside the Valley than in it."
In a follow-up interview, he was asked to reflect on the $100,000 check he received from Andy Bechtolsheim of Sun Microsystems, before Google existed. Now that he himself was worth billions, would he write a similar check based on a pitch from someone living in Kansas, the interviewer asked. Sergey Brin laughed.
"That would sort of contradict what I've been saying here," he said with a laugh. "Maybe try kickstarter? But if you ever do move to Silicon Valley definitely reach out."
He then got very serious:"Seriously though. We live in a connected world. It doesn't matter where you live. It matters what you build."
He then apologized saying he had to run, and drove off in a pre-production Tesla Model 3 in fiery red, produced by South African immigrant Elon Musk, who made his fortune at PayPal, based in San José, and now runs Tesla Motors based in Palo Alto. An odd choice for Brin to be driving, as Google is said to be developing its own driverless vehicle.
That is, if a few startup kids in Detroit don't beat them to the punch. You can read about the extraordinary results of the Detroit startup company (find link) . One thing's for sure: just as Brin eloquently stated, there's nothing stopping them.
That's great and all but access to capital, even angel capital, is much easier in the Valley than anywhere else in the world. You come here and live threadbare, but you still derisk your startup.
[+] [-] jasode|9 years ago|reply
(1) Page and Brin started Google Inc successfully in SV so it seems contradictory to advise others not to start a company there
(2) the meaning of the word "start" as Brin is using it
As for (1), Larry and Sergey had the luxury of building Google (the product -- not the formalized "incorporated" Google Inc) inside of Stanford and therefore using the university's computers and bandwidth for free. Piggybacking on Stanford's resources to create an "mvp" was like getting "AWS" for free. A lot of startups don't have that situation. Therefore, a founder may be better off working out the parents' garage in Kansas to keep expenses low. The free room & board is money that would have been spent on a crappy apartment in SV. Instead take those savings and use it to pay for the AWS hosting costs, or a 2nd programmer.
For (2), I think Brin is talking about "start" as in start from zero with an idea on a paper napkin, before an MVP, and before traction from others (users and investors). Zuckerberg started Facebook in Boston and after Sean Parker got interested, he moved Facebook to the more expensive SV. Bill Gates started Microsoft in Albuquerque, New Mexico and made profits before he moved the company to the more expensive Seattle. In other words, you can have a "low profile startup" in your local town that's under the radar which lets you keep expenses very low. You can later have a "high profile startup" in Silicon Valley where the very high costs are worth it to hire from the talent pool and network with other entrepreneurs and investors. That delayed move to SV is what Brin called "that second step".
[+] [-] hodgesrm|9 years ago|reply
Expenses in Silicon Valley are high and show no sign of declining. Even more important it is hard to find qualified staff in SV who are interested in working on start-ups that don't have strong funding. Most companies therefore look for a somewhat lower cost place with qualified engineers and have done this for a while now. At some point you have to ask why not just put the whole company somewhere else.
[+] [-] nojvek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madengr|9 years ago|reply
Not to mention you can get Google Fiber in parts of KS, but stuck on dial-up or DSL in areas of SV.
[+] [-] fapjacks|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|9 years ago|reply
I've always been skeptical of the whole "advice from billionaires" format. Brin isn't motivated to help startups the same way Warren Buffet isn't giving away hot stock tips or how Gates never gave the FOSS community an easy way to reverse-engineer the doc format. These people know how their bread gets buttered. Or simply have internalized protectionist attitudes and give away just enough to not be dangerous to themselves.
edit: I'm not necessarily projecting malice, but there are other reasons why "advice from billionares" is kinda a bullshit format. Brin may be out of touch or, if you read the source of the article, made an off-hand comment he probably doesn't worry about all night and is blown out of proportion by the 'give us the latest hot investing tip' crowd.
[+] [-] bthallplz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lafay|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stormbrew|9 years ago|reply
Businesses are more cautious and there are harder to cross barriers to word of mouth spread for consumer oriented businesses. For example, I worked for a social network started before Facebook that was used by nearly every teenager in a large region, but we could not break out of that region no matter what we tried. The kids in the schools in our region just didn't interact outside the region much, so there were no network effects.
In the valley, though, nearly everyone you meet is excited about tech somehow. Many people are from somewhere else in the world and are still in some way connected to where they're from, both in terms of businesses and people. It's just fertile ground for network effects.
[+] [-] pascalxus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netcan|9 years ago|reply
If you're making an ebay killer, you can live anywhere.
[+] [-] christinecha|9 years ago|reply
But raising money != starting a company. Sure, it's important at some point, but this is the growing problem with the industry as a whole, no? People show up with just a pitch deck and want a million bucks.
Most responsible (and technically-capable) founders are trying to save as much money as possible and get on the investing boat as late as possible.
[+] [-] ipunchghosts|9 years ago|reply
I think a better idea would be to move to a college town. I think the guys at id did this when they first started though they moved to somewhere in the midwest, but cheap nonetheless.
My take would be to move to college town with a large student population and good science programs. Somewhere like pittsburgh or even state college, PA
[+] [-] chrishacken|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jccalhoun|9 years ago|reply
I have decided it is kind of like the saying "Why did I rob banks? Because that's where the money is." SF is where the money is. Where the networking possibilities are. Where it is easier to get coverage in the tech press because that's where so many of the tech reporters are.
All of those can be overcome if you aren't in SF but that means you are spending time overcoming those things - time that could be spent on making your product. You may spend tons on rent and have to pay your employees a lot more but it is easier to get more funding than it is to get more time.
[+] [-] skybrian|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobsil1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kriro|9 years ago|reply
My gut would say that location (close to key customers) is very important for B2B for example. For some startups I can't help but think that some of their (scaling) problems are directly related to being started in SV (food delivery or cleaning services started in SV for example).
I also think you should double check your mindset if your reasoning revolves around getting financing and thus moving to the place that optimizes for that. Solve problem, ignore capital (software isn't very capital intensive) >> think about funding first.
[+] [-] brianbreslin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheCoelacanth|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fuddh|9 years ago|reply
Lots of young programmers/entrepreneurs in Europe seem to dream of going to SV as soon as possible. At the same time there are lots of great cities for startups around over here - London, Stockholm and Helsinki to just name a few... SV might be the best/a great choice later on in the process but I'm quite sure Europe has lots to offer as well (not even considering potential visa issues here, which obviously restrict many or most Europeans from joining startups over in the US).
[+] [-] shas3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|9 years ago|reply
No, instead, you have the much greater living quality issues associated with the places you mention, which is why SF/SV are more expensive places to live -- people are willing to pay a lot more to live in SF/SV than in, e.g., the Central Valley.
[+] [-] jpatokal|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] overcast|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sshykes|9 years ago|reply
He knows that it's hard to move your company once you've settled in somewhere. Much more economical for Google if you stay on the fringe outskirts and let them acquire your baby for pennies on the dollar.
[+] [-] ingenieros|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhall1468|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delinka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baccheion|9 years ago|reply
Best cities/towns/etc (most correlated with experiencing an exit, rather than failing/floundering (shut down, or founded before 2004 + no exit/acquisition/IPO)) to create a startup:
Worst:[+] [-] Negative1|9 years ago|reply
In 1998 things were very different so of course they could afford to be in the menlo park area and reap the rewards of the VC network. Now, to stay in the area you need to fund heavily up front which leaves you less time to build that awesome product before funding dries up (or worse, you have to sell too much of your company in order to survive).
The reality though is you can try to start up a company in a place like Boca Raton and unless you have some previous connections and major capital you're not going have the funding network and excess of high tech workers your company needs to really take off. Magic Leap basically went this route and seem to be doing fine but most companies aren't that high profile (and well funded).
[+] [-] padobson|9 years ago|reply
However, if you find that starting up is beyond your individual skill set, and the people you enlist to help you come over to your garage and spend 10 mins programming and the rest of the time on YouTube and Reddit, you may want to move to a better startup ecosystem to find a more ambitious co-founder.
[+] [-] dynofuz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakozaur|9 years ago|reply
I don't think there is universal answer. It depends a lot on your personal situation (connections/resources available/citizenship/lifestyle preferences).
[+] [-] joeguilmette|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godzillabrennus|9 years ago|reply
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20160609/BLOGS11/1606...
[+] [-] BjoernKW|9 years ago|reply
Moving somewhere just to found a company is a waste of resources. You can always move later if another location is more appropriate for some reason.
[+] [-] dynofuz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amyjess|9 years ago|reply
Actually, Richardson is a pretty good place for other industries, too, but our specialty is telecom.
[+] [-] antidaily|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] logicallee|9 years ago|reply
Recently speaking at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, he said onstage, "It's easier to start a company outside the Valley than in it."
In a follow-up interview, he was asked to reflect on the $100,000 check he received from Andy Bechtolsheim of Sun Microsystems, before Google existed. Now that he himself was worth billions, would he write a similar check based on a pitch from someone living in Kansas, the interviewer asked. Sergey Brin laughed.
"That would sort of contradict what I've been saying here," he said with a laugh. "Maybe try kickstarter? But if you ever do move to Silicon Valley definitely reach out."
He then got very serious:"Seriously though. We live in a connected world. It doesn't matter where you live. It matters what you build."
He then apologized saying he had to run, and drove off in a pre-production Tesla Model 3 in fiery red, produced by South African immigrant Elon Musk, who made his fortune at PayPal, based in San José, and now runs Tesla Motors based in Palo Alto. An odd choice for Brin to be driving, as Google is said to be developing its own driverless vehicle.
That is, if a few startup kids in Detroit don't beat them to the punch. You can read about the extraordinary results of the Detroit startup company (find link) . One thing's for sure: just as Brin eloquently stated, there's nothing stopping them.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rdlecler1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ferver777|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] safetytrick|9 years ago|reply