This conversation seems to take place toward the end of every "wave of innovation" I've seen in the bay area and I'm sure it took place long before I got here in '97. There's nothing to suggest to me that things are any different this time around. I'll be looking forward to the next one.
Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
91–100 of 263 posts
Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
#92I see a bright future for products and services focused on remote team management
We're building a fully remote team at Flyreel ( https://www.flyreel.co ) for AI and computer vision. It helps to have access to talent anywhere in the US. So far investors have responded positively to our distributed setup.
FYI the word "test" is in your footer
Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
#93One of the biggest reasons so many startups moved (or started) in the Bay Area was because VCs didn't bother traveling and funded mostly local companies. Has that changed?
If the VCs are that lazy, and assuming they still seek for the most profit, wouldn't VCs move to the bay area to find the unicorns? Wouldn't it create a virtuous (or vicious depending on the perspective) cycle of formibg a cluster of the companies and VCs in the area?
Eventually too much of such cycle would give way to the increased cost of living. But I see a tendency of more moderation in employee compensation by big companies, which would favor small startups again around the area.
Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why dont they? Or are there 2 people willing to take the place of every person leaving?
I think for many people it comes down to go exactly where and do exactly what there. Once lived in Bay Area for while, you have certain expectations on compensation, services, things to do, career growth etc. If you are used to a city like SF and enjoy the level of things in there, in the world and US there only few cities similar. Like nyc, la, London, Tokyo etc. Portland, Seattle, Austin, Berlin are all good but no…
It’s not just cost of living but taxes. Living in a state with no income tax is an automatic 10-12% bump in take home pay.
Agree though if you’re single your living situation is more flexible and you can find a place for less than market rate here pretty easily. It’s once you get married and want kids that SF makes no sense for most people.
Someone making 200k in Austin has a much much better quality of life than someone making 300k in SF. No question.
Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the point of being a startup not looking at being a unicorn? I genuinely do not understand how somebody can cap off their ambitions like so.
Because not everything is dollars and cents in the end to everyone? Some people value the autonomy a small business gives you along with the work life balance.
You don't take VC money if you want to build a lifestyle business.
Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
#96> I still expect a significant % of the $10B+ startups will get created here, so it makes sense for investors to still focus here. But I bet a lot of the ~$100M startups will happen elsewhere. > There are still some things—e.g great startup executive talent, particular kinds of engineering talent—that are much harder to find outside the bay area. This is spot on and it becomes a real bottle neck if you want to scale…
> by dealing with all kinds of things that shouldn’t matter. Can you give some examples?
The line below that seems like a hint:
> We’ve run into serious talent recruiting issues when we reached this stage
Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
He sort of shows the bay area bias with the bit about how “$100M” startups will be created elsewhere. There have been some much larger startups outside of the Bay Area and I suspect that trend to continue. Unicorns aren’t just a bay area phenomenon anymore
The Bay Area has less than 1/30th the US population and yet the majority of US unicorns and decacorns have hailed from here. It's wildly disproportionate.
Is this attributable to the quality of the startups or the easy access to capital?
Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
#98I think it’s important for anyone getting to this page to read his whole thread, which is more nuanced than suggested by the sensational title. The point he seems to be making is that it’s better for startups that aren’t looking at being unicorns to look at other locations where they might have a better chance of success.
What's the point of being a startup not looking at being a unicorn? I genuinely do not understand how somebody can cap off their ambitions like so.
Entrepreneurs are more likely to do better on an early exit than to try and build a unicorn. Less dilution and lower probability of failure.
Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
#99I suspect the VC industry itself will be disrupted at some point (the irony of the VC industry is that the biz model has remained basically the same for 50 years when everything else has changed). It will become incrementally easier to raise money from non-traditional sources at better terms as "accredited investor" laws are relaxed e.g. through a Security Token Offering.
I'm not sure I see the general public wanting to invest in startups, the success rate is just too low.
The success probability for one startup is too low, but if you invest in a lot of them you still have a very good chance of making money
Re: Sam Altman: Bay Area is no longer the obvious place for startups
#100I wonder if Y/C will relocate? Y/C HQ2?
YC HQ2 exists. It is the China program. https://blog.ycombinator.com/yc-china-qi-lu/