31–40 of 78 posts
I think it's hard for people to understand today how much less the ideas like lean startups, Paul Graham essays, customer validation, etc had penetrated software engineering mindset in early 2010's, at least outside of SFBA.
The article names its archetypes not entirely fairly, based on my experience at three MIT startups. Two were novel-tech academic spinoffs, and the third was alumni applying/integrating COTS tech driven by customer problem domain. Of those three, two were business-thinking much like the article's "Stanford" archetype. The other had, like the article's "MIT" archetype, a period to develop tech from the lab, and a chall…
Some programs are specifically designed for commercialization and want to see a product available at the end. There was a big shift to that post 9/11 (sometimes called "little 'r', big 'D'": less research, more development.
As an east coaster the MIT startup hypothesis tracks very well. It's not just MIT but most startups out here i've been involved with. They're generally moonshots of tech, "guaranteed" to sell bc you have to buy bc the tech is superior. :) Since following HN years back i've been trying to speak up at these companies with ideas like building a brand, market test-fit, etc and been given the cold stare. Thanks to this ar…
Probably the best thing to do would be, at the university level, to give engineers more business experience and marketing/sales types more concrete-problem experience. But that would be vocational, and I think universities systematically dislike seeing their work as vocational training.
Also prior to the mid 1990s it seems like the Stanford startup thing really hadn't begun yet. You look at the old guard of SV companies and they operated much more like east coast culture. To me it seems like the modern "Stanford startup" culture arose from VC money from the investors who made tons of money in the first .com boom.
As someone who has spent my entire career in the Boston area (but have worked for SFBA HQed companies too) my perception has been that the MIT influence and the general cultural difference has some of the following elements:
- East coast is much more conservative in business approach
- Fake it till you make it is far less common here
- For a long time it was unheard of for a Boston area company to try and go public or seek an exit without showing a sustainable, profitable business model
- Companies here are basically never founded on breaking the law and hoping you become too big to fail and the law has to be changed
- Way less focus on consumer tech here
- Way less adtech influence (but that has grown)
- Way less tech businesses based on trying to ruin traditional jobs and way less focus on trying to convert people to gig jobs.
Some of the sports betting tech is here which is a black eye on the area IMO.
There is some stuff in the Theranos vein that just seems like it would be very hard for it to have happened on the east coast.
But over time now the east coast is being influenced by the Stanford culture and things are getting a little less conservative and a little more likely to be get-rich-quick and/or shady.
Wow so finance school startups and engineering school startups are different?
Finance is an East Coast and Chicago thing placement wise, because West Coast High Finance collapsed in 2008.
The article strikes me as somewhat OK but overly critical of the MIT startup and overly forgiving of the Stanford startup. Also prior to the mid 1990s it seems like the Stanford startup thing really hadn't begun yet. You look at the old guard of SV companies and they operated much more like east coast culture. To me it seems like the modern "Stanford startup" culture arose from VC money from the investors who made to…
West Coast is also enterprise or business tech driven, but those founders aren't as media friendly or sexy despite being the majority (hence the Musks and increasingly Altmans hogging the limelight).
Boston has potential, but it honestly isn't leveraging it. The elitism is rife to a level unlike in California. A NU, BU, or UMass Amherst founder isn't going to be in the same circles as the Harvard and MIT founders who can leverage the I-Lab or Engine and HBS+Sloan resources, but in the Bay Area, a UCB, UCSC, SJSU, and Stanford kid will all be in the same professional circles. CIC tried, but they are trash. At one point, most startups in Greater Boston were basically Israeli companies using it as a US HQ because of the El Al direct and the large Israeli diaspora (throw a rock and you'll hit a Cafe Landwer).
Everything is tied up to elitism and old structure institutions out East (where did you study) while out West it's much more output driven (where do you work).
Works well for it's biotech innovation space though, which Boston is known for.
(ironically, I liked DC except the humidity - way less stick up their butt, but they also have a bohemian streak)
I remember this article was extremely eye opening for me as a recent grad in 2013 Boston. I think it's hard for people to understand today how much less the ideas like lean startups, Paul Graham essays, customer validation, etc had penetrated software engineering mindset in early 2010's, at least outside of SFBA.
I remember this article was extremely eye opening for me as a recent grad in 2013 Boston. I think it's hard for people to understand today how much less the ideas like lean startups, Paul Graham essays, customer validation, etc had penetrated software engineering mindset in early 2010's, at least outside of SFBA.
And here we are 11 years later with people cargo-culting all those things. I once overheard someone seriously suggest building a MVP for a game in an established genre.