为什么搬到创业中心

Paul Graham 2007-10-01

为什么搬到创业中心

2007年10月

在我上次演讲后,其中一个组织者走上台进行即兴反驳。这从未发生过。我只听到了前几句话,但这足以告诉我说了什么让他不高兴的话:创业公司如果搬到硅谷会做得更好。

这次会议在伦敦举行,大多数观众似乎来自英国。所以说创业公司应该搬到硅谷似乎像是一种民族主义的言论:一个讨厌的美国人告诉他们,如果他们想把事情做好,他们都应该搬到美国去。

实际上我不像看起来那么美国化。我没有说,但我出生时是英国人。就像犹太人当然可以讲犹太笑话一样,我觉得我不必费心对英国观众保持外交辞令。

创业公司搬到硅谷会做得更好的想法甚至不是民族主义的。[1] 我对美国创业公司也是这么说的。Y Combinator每6个月在东西海岸之间交替。每隔一轮融资在波士顿。尽管波士顿是美国(和世界)第二大创业中心,但我们告诉那些轮次的创业公司,他们最好的选择是搬到硅谷。如果这对波士顿来说是正确的,那么对其他每个城市来说更是如此。

这是关于城市,而不是国家。

我认为我可以证明我是对的。你可以轻易地将反对的 argument reduced ad absurdum,大多数人都会同意这是荒谬的。很少有人会愿意声称创业公司的位置根本不重要——在小型农业城镇运营的创业公司不会从搬到创业中心中受益。大多数人能看到在一个有创业基础设施、关于如何使创业公司运作的积累知识以及其他人在尝试做的地方可能会有所帮助。然而,无论你用什么论据来证明创业公司不需要从伦敦搬到硅谷,都可以同样用来证明创业公司不需要从小镇搬到伦敦。

城市之间的差异是程度问题。而且,如果几乎所有知情的人都同意,创业公司在硅谷比在波士顿更好,那么他们在硅谷比在其他任何地方都更好。

我意识到我可能在这个结论中有既得利益,因为搬到美国的创业公司可能通过Y Combinator进行。但我们资助的美国创业公司会证明我也对他们说了同样的话。

我当然不是说每个创业公司都必须去硅谷才能成功。只是说在其他条件相同的情况下,一个地方越是创业中心,创业公司在那里就做得越好。但其他考虑可能超过搬迁的优势。我不是说有家庭的创始人应该连根拔起搬到世界的另一边;那可能太分散注意力了。

移民困难可能是留在原地的另一个原因。处理移民问题就像筹集资金:出于某种原因,它似乎消耗你所有的注意力。创业公司负担不起太多这样的注意力。我们资助的一家加拿大创业公司花了大约6个月时间努力搬到美国。最终他们只是放弃了,因为他们负担不起花那么多时间离开他们的软件工作。

(如果另一个国家想建立硅谷的竞争对手,他们能做的最好的事情可能是为创始人创建特殊签证。美国的移民政策是硅谷最大的弱点之一。)

如果你的创业公司与特定行业相关,你可能最好在其中心之一。做与娱乐相关事情的创业公司可能想在纽约或洛杉矶。

最后,如果一个好投资者承诺如果你留在原地就资助你,你可能应该留下。找到投资者很难。你通常不应该放弃确定的融资机会来搬迁。[2]

事实上,投资者的质量可能是创业中心的主要优势。硅谷投资者明显比波士顿投资者更具侵略性。一次又一次,我看到我们资助的创业公司被西海岸投资者从波士顿投资者的鼻子底下抢走,波士顿投资者先看到他们但行动太慢。在今年的波士顿Demo Day上,我告诉观众这每年都会发生,所以如果他们看到他们喜欢的创业公司,他们应该向他们提供要约。然而不到一个月又发生了:一个激进的西海岸风险投资人在一周前见过YC资助的创业公司的创始人,击败了认识他多年的波士顿风险投资人。到波士顿风险投资人意识到发生了什么时,交易已经消失了。

波士顿投资者会承认他们更保守。一些人想相信这来自城市审慎的扬基性格。但奥卡姆剃刀表明真相不太令人恭维。波士顿投资者可能比硅谷投资者更保守,原因与芝加哥投资者比波士顿投资者更保守相同。他们不太了解创业公司。

西海岸投资者更大胆不是因为他们是不负责任的牛仔,也不是因为好天气让他们乐观。他们更大胆是因为他们知道自己在做什么。他们是在钻石斜坡上滑雪的滑雪者。大胆是风险投资的本质。你获得大回报的方式不是试图避免损失,而是试图确保你获得一些大成功。而大成功最初看起来往往有风险。

就像Facebook。Facebook是在波士顿创办的。波士顿风险投资公司有第一个机会。但他们说不,所以Facebook搬到了硅谷并在那里筹集资金。拒绝他们的合伙人现在说”这可能被证明是一个错误。”

从经验上看,大胆获胜。如果西海岸投资者的侵略性方式会反过来咬他们,那已经是很长时间了。自1970年代以来,硅谷一直领先于波士顿。如果西海岸投资者要受到惩罚,泡沫的破裂就是了。但自那时以来,西海岸只是进一步领先。

西海岸投资者对自己的判断足够自信以大胆行动;东海岸投资者则不那么自信;但任何认为东海岸投资者出于谨慎而那样行事的人,应该看看东海岸风险投资人在输给西海岸的风险投资过程中的疯狂反应。

除了专业化带来的集中化,创业中心也是市场。而市场通常是集中的。即使现在,当交易员可以在任何地方时,他们聚集在少数几个城市。很难说面对面接触究竟有什么让交易发生的魔力,但无论是什么,技术还没有复制它。

在合适的时间沿着大学大道走,你可能会偷听到五个不同的人在电话上谈论交易。事实上,这是Y Combinator一半时间在波士顿的部分原因:全年都难以忍受。但尽管被只思考一件事的人包围有时可能很烦人,但如果那一件事正是你想要做的,那就是你应该在的地方。

我最近和一个在谷歌从事搜索工作的人交谈。他在雅虎认识很多人,所以他处于比较两家公司的有利位置。我问他为什么谷歌在搜索方面更好。他说这不是谷歌做的任何特定事情,而是因为他们对搜索的理解要好得多。

这就是为什么创业公司在硅谷这样的创业中心蓬勃发展。创业公司是非常专业的业务,像钻石切割一样专业。在创业中心,他们理解这一点。

注意事项

[1] 民族主义想法是相反的:创业公司应该因为所在国家而留在某个城市。如果你真的有”一个世界”的观点,决定从伦敦搬到硅谷与决定从芝加哥搬到硅谷没有什么不同。

[2] 然而,对于仅仅似乎会资助你的投资者,你可以忽略。似乎有一天会资助你是投资者说No的方式。

感谢Sam Altman、Jessica Livingston、Harjeet Taggar和Kulveer Taggar阅读本文草稿。评论本文。

日语翻译

Why to Move to a Startup Hub

October 2007

After the last talk I gave, one of the organizers got up on the stage to deliver an impromptu rebuttal. That never happened before. I only heard the first few sentences, but that was enough to tell what I said that upset him: that startups would do better if they moved to Silicon Valley.

This conference was in London, and most of the audience seemed to be from the UK. So saying startups should move to Silicon Valley seemed like a nationalistic remark: an obnoxious American telling them that if they wanted to do things right they should all just move to America.

Actually I’m less American than I seem. I didn’t say so, but I’m British by birth. And just as Jews are ex officio allowed to tell Jewish jokes, I don’t feel like I have to bother being diplomatic with a British audience.

The idea that startups would do better to move to Silicon Valley is not even a nationalistic one. [1] It’s the same thing I say to startups in the US. Y Combinator alternates between coasts every 6 months. Every other funding cycle is in Boston. And even though Boston is the second biggest startup hub in the US (and the world), we tell the startups from those cycles that their best bet is to move to Silicon Valley. If that’s true of Boston, it’s even more true of every other city.

This is about cities, not countries.

And I think I can prove I’m right. You can easily reduce the opposing argument ad absurdum—to what most people would agree was absurdum. Few would be willing to claim that it doesn’t matter at all where a startup is—that a startup operating out of a small agricultural town wouldn’t benefit from moving to a startup hub. Most people could see how it might be helpful to be in a place where there was infrastructure for startups, accumulated knowledge about how to make them work, and other people trying to do it. And yet whatever argument you use to prove that startups don’t need to move from London to Silicon Valley could equally well be used to prove startups don’t need to move from smaller towns to London.

The difference between cities is a matter of degree. And if, as nearly everyone who knows agrees, startups are better off in Silicon Valley than Boston, then they’re better off in Silicon Valley than everywhere else too.

I realize I might seem to have a vested interest in this conclusion, because startups that move to the US might do it through Y Combinator. But the American startups we’ve funded will attest that I say the same thing to them.

I’m not claiming of course that every startup has to go to Silicon Valley to succeed. Just that all other things being equal, the more of a startup hub a place is, the better startups will do there. But other considerations can outweigh the advantages of moving. I’m not saying founders with families should uproot them to move halfway around the world; that might be too much of a distraction.

Immigration difficulties might be another reason to stay put. Dealing with immigration problems is like raising money: for some reason it seems to consume all your attention. A startup can’t afford much of that. One Canadian startup we funded spent about 6 months working on moving to the US. Eventually they just gave up, because they couldn’t afford to take so much time away from working on their software.

(If another country wanted to establish a rival to Silicon Valley, the single best thing they could do might be to create a special visa for startup founders. US immigration policy is one of Silicon Valley’s biggest weaknesses.)

If your startup is connected to a specific industry, you may be better off in one of its centers. A startup doing something related to entertainment might want to be in New York or LA.

And finally, if a good investor has committed to fund you if you stay where you are, you should probably stay. Finding investors is hard. You generally shouldn’t pass up a definite funding offer to move. [2]

In fact, the quality of the investors may be the main advantage of startup hubs. Silicon Valley investors are noticeably more aggressive than Boston ones. Over and over, I’ve seen startups we’ve funded snatched by west coast investors out from under the noses of Boston investors who saw them first but acted too slowly. At this year’s Boston Demo Day, I told the audience that this happened every year, so if they saw a startup they liked, they should make them an offer. And yet within a month it had happened again: an aggressive west coast VC who had met the founder of a YC-funded startup a week before beat out a Boston VC who had known him for years. By the time the Boston VC grasped what was happening, the deal was already gone.

Boston investors will admit they’re more conservative. Some want to believe this comes from the city’s prudent Yankee character. But Occam’s razor suggests the truth is less flattering. Boston investors are probably more conservative than Silicon Valley investors for the same reason Chicago investors are more conservative than Boston ones. They don’t understand startups as well.

West coast investors aren’t bolder because they’re irresponsible cowboys, or because the good weather makes them optimistic. They’re bolder because they know what they’re doing. They’re the skiers who ski on the diamond slopes. Boldness is the essence of venture investing. The way you get big returns is not by trying to avoid losses, but by trying to ensure you get some of the big hits. And the big hits often look risky at first.

Like Facebook. Facebook was started in Boston. Boston VCs had the first shot at them. But they said no, so Facebook moved to Silicon Valley and raised money there. The partner who turned them down now says that “may turn out to have been a mistake.”

Empirically, boldness wins. If the aggressive ways of west coast investors are going to come back to bite them, it has been a long time coming. Silicon Valley has been pulling ahead of Boston since the 1970s. If there was going to be a comeuppance for the west coast investors, the bursting of the Bubble would have been it. But since then the west coast has just pulled further ahead.

West coast investors are confident enough of their judgement to act boldly; east coast investors, not so much; but anyone who thinks east coast investors act that way out of prudence should see the frantic reactions of an east coast VC in the process of losing a deal to a west coast one.

In addition to the concentration that comes from specialization, startup hubs are also markets. And markets are usually centralized. Even now, when traders could be anywhere, they cluster in a few cities. It’s hard to say exactly what it is about face to face contact that makes deals happen, but whatever it is, it hasn’t yet been duplicated by technology.

Walk down University Ave at the right time, and you might overhear five different people talking on the phone about deals. In fact, this is part of the reason Y Combinator is in Boston half the time: it’s hard to stand that year round. But though it can sometimes be annoying to be surrounded by people who only think about one thing, it’s the place to be if that one thing is what you’re trying to do.

I was talking recently to someone who works on search at Google. He knew a lot of people at Yahoo, so he was in a good position to compare the two companies. I asked him why Google was better at search. He said it wasn’t anything specific Google did, but simply that they understood search so much better.

And that’s why startups thrive in startup hubs like Silicon Valley. Startups are a very specialized business, as specialized as diamond cutting. And in startup hubs they understand it.

Notes

[1] The nationalistic idea is the converse: that startups should stay in a certain city because of the country it’s in. If you really have a “one world” viewpoint, deciding to move from London to Silicon Valley is no different from deciding to move from Chicago to Silicon Valley.

[2] An investor who merely seems like he will fund you, however, you can ignore. Seeming like they will fund you one day is the way investors say No.

Thanks to Sam Altman, Jessica Livingston, Harjeet Taggar, and Kulveer Taggar for reading drafts of this. Comment on this essay.

Japanese Translation