Hacker News Reader

Comment by DenisM | Hacker News Reader

[...] Let me mention some things not to do. The number one thing not to do is other things. If you find yourself saying a sentence that ends with "but we're going to keep working on the startup," you are in big trouble. Bob's going to grad school, but we're going to keep working on the startup. We're moving back to Minnesota, but we're going to keep working on the startup. We're taking on some consulting projects, but we're going to keep working on the startup. You may as well just translate these to "we're giving up on the startup, but we're not willing to admit that to ourselves," because that's what it means most of the time. A startup is so hard that working on it can't be preceded by "but." [...]

http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html

View on HN

> We're moving back to Minnesota, but we're going to keep working on the startup.

See, it's points like that that irk me. As though somehow leaving SV is abandoning your business!

Amazing how much people will pay lip-service to remote work and to the importance of other startup communities and then balk at people pursuing their ideas in "flyover country".

I suspect that the phrasing conveys a lot of the intent here. "We are moving to Minnesota to work on our startup because ..." Or "We are relocating our startup to Minnesota" don't sound bad.

If you are moving back for other reasons and the startup continuing is a secondary thing then it sounds bad. Moving in itself doesn't sound bad.

I think the problem isn't "Minnesota", it's "back to Minnesota". Back to the place where things were before they started the startup. Where they had other projects going on. Where they don't focus as singularly on their company.

Moving to Minnesota is fine. By if you moved to SV to start a company, what changed that made you realize SV wasn't a good idea? The declaration has "but" in the middle; what are you running away from?

Perhaps it has to do with the parts of life OUTSIDE of work. Family connections "back" where you used to live. Other friends and connections "back" in your hometown.

> what are you running away from?

Rent maybe? There are lots of good reasons to run a startup in SV, NYC, etc. Direct access to capital, certain types of talent, and so on. There are also reasons to not run a startup in places like that. Cost of living as it relates to runway length being the biggest one. Some startups simply need a place to sit and a reliable internet connection.

If you've come to the realization that you don't need any of the things big cities have to offer as it relates to your business, moving back to Minnesota or wherever is exactly the right call.

"Rent maybe? There are lots of good reasons to run a startup in SV, NYC, etc. "

Early on, I thought about doing one fairly close to MIT to get talent from over there. Many businesses come outbof that school. So, I figured a bunch of other people are doing it already.

"People" may pay lip service to remote work, but YC as far as I can tell were never ambiguous in their belief that being physically in SV is important for success.

I used to be skeptical of that idea, but the data seems incontrovertible, at least in terms of web startups.

I would suggest, just based on my intuition and no data (if you want to provide the data you're referencing, that'd be great), that this may be conflating correlation with causation.

Successful web startups are based in SV because to be a successful web startup, you need LOTS of money to burn on marketing and promotion. To get lots of money to burn, you must get investors with the appetite for watching their money burn up. Those investors have built out SV as their nexus not due to any magical qualities of the place, but primarily for personal convenience (traveling sucks, etc.).

The VCs in not-SV do not allow startups to run anywhere near the same way as the SV guys do, despite their attempts to imitate the YC model (most of which are, IMO, outright fleeces on naive locals). Non-SV VCs are just used to doing much more traditional deals, not seed-stage tech financing.

The people who want to start VC-backed companies thus have to trek out to SV, and then once they're established, they stick around because that's convenient for them too.

If you can decouple from the VC ecosystem, or if you can find good local VCs that know the field (and you probably can't), there is every reason to NOT start in SV.

YC has YC Fellowship, which doesn't require startups to be located in SV. YC also used to maintain an official program in Cambridge, but they shut it down after a few years IIRC.

Everything YC does should be viewed through the reality that YC is an investor. Their interests are not necessarily aligned with the interests of founders, and as the party with the leverage, they can mandate that people move to SV solely based on their personal convenience.

I personally see starting in SV as more of a detriment than a benefit, but then, I'm not trying to start a company that depends on venture capital. In non-SV locations where I know some startup people, VC-backed startups would routinely fly out to SV for pitches and the like, and many had an easy time finding investors after being roundly rejected by the VCs in their particular area.

Investors really don't seem to realize the treasure trove that could be available to them if they broadened their horizons a little bit, but maybe that's because there's really no incentive for them to disrupt what they have going on now. Everything is quite convenient for them with SV as the nexus.

They folded YC Fellowship last year. In some sense they replaced it with the MOOC but the programs look pretty different.

Also, there are plenty of investors that realize this, you just have to look for them. For example, Drive Capital in Columbus, OH was founded by ex-Sequoia in 2013 and has raised over $500M since.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com