Hacker News Reader

Comment by timewarrior | Hacker News Reader

I have been involved with Swissnex and been advising Swiss startups for some time. I also go to Switzerland every other year if not every year and meet with startups there.

Things I noticed:

1. Incredibly smart people.

2. Behind Silicon Valley on best technology and product building practices by at least 2 years.

3. Great work ethic and social responsibility.

4. Do not have world conquering ambitions - which kinda works against them. One of the founders was talking about an idea and was being very conservative with market size estimates. So I suggested to him - Think about how you can conquer the world. And his reply was - We are Swiss, we don't conquer the world.

I think one of the biggest challenge for Switzerland tech scene is that there is no viable immigration path for a non-EU citizen. Even after decades, you might not get a citizenship [1]. It makes it difficult for them to attract talent from outside, especially those with Silicon Valley experience.

Not that US is any better for Indians. Based on current estimates, if someone from India applies for an employment based Green Card now, they might get it in 70 years. And life is a pain because you have to do a lot of paperwork throughout.

If there was a viable immigration path in Switzerland, I would move there tomorrow!

1. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/naturalisation-controversy_amer...

View on HN

Oh HN, how is this the top comment on this fantastic blog post about the huge lifestyle drawbacks from living in SV?

>> 2. Behind Silicon Valley on best technology and product building practices by at least 2 years.

This was clearly written in earnest, but works better as a satirical joke about the inward-facing nature of bay area tech. Please explain what "best technology and product building practices" means here, and how you can quantify that over time. What were the best practices of early 2016 which are just now being implemented in Zurich-base startups?

How much experience do you personally have with Switzerland based start-ups? Serious question.

The parent's comment is valuable because they actually have direct experience with the topic. It's being upvoted accordingly. Very few people on HN are likely to have direct experience with Swiss start-ups, further amplifying the value of the parent's input.

The parent's comment is valuable overall, but nextstep is quite correctly pointing out that that particular observation is phrased in absurd terms. You know how people joking referly to something that was a recent fad as being "so 2016"? That was two years ago. Are Swiss startups hopeless because they're still focused on "millennial engagement" (so 2016) instead of "viral learning" or "augmented reality talent management"? (Yes, this apparently is a thing.)

Nowhere did I say that Swiss startups are hopeless, either due to this reason or overall. This was a conclusion driven by nextstep and few others. And I think it was largely due to my mistake. I should have used "latest" where as I used "best". What I really meant was:

>> 2. Behind Silicon Valley on latest technology and product building practices by at least 2 years.

In fact I said that if it weren't for immigration uncertainty, I would move there tomorrow. Last year, I moved to Seattle from SF to experience a change of pace. So it's not that I have blind love for all things SF.

SF has a lot more startups trying out things in a small geography. They are trying a lot more things and failing a lot more and consequently learning a lot more.

There are benefits and drawbacks of not being the first mover. Many a times you do not waste time, effort and money going after dead end ideas (remember HomeJoy). Sometime it leads to missing out on things like AirBnb (especially relevant to as tourist driven economy as Switzerland).

With lesser startups being formed, comparatively lesser capital available - Swiss ecosystem is trying to find it equilibrium. And as I originally mentioned - they are really smart people. They will figure out what is best for them.

This thread was also a good learning for me. Every word matters. Sometimes, you try to sneak a post in between other work and things slip!

This is ad hominem. You claim that nobody who didn't live in Switzerland can argue about subjects related to the startup scene over there.

> Do not have world conquering ambitions - which kinda works against them.

Works against them towards what? Not wanting to conquer the world is legitimate, I don't see why everyone should absolutely want to become the next Bezos.

Sure, but if nobody in your country wants to conquer the world then the others will never reap the benefits of someone having conquered a piece of it.

No, but they'll reap the benefits of being decent people.

I don't follow. So if your company "conquers" the world, everyone associated with it is an "indecent" person?

Statistically yes. Though, not "everyone associated with it", mostly the top dogs.

How they'd reap the benefits if big corps and rich individuals do not pay their share of taxes?

SF locals that are priced out of their city would have likely different opinion.

You have to strike a balance. If there's no personal ambition then there's no wealth to redistribute. If there's no fairness then one person takes everything and the whole thing stops. To that end, why shouldn't people fully invest themselves in their role? Expecting CEOs to manage social fairness would be a massive conflict of interest - so we should probably expect other people to keep tabs on that.

CEO's already manage social fairness. Just look at lobbying efforts.

It also means that they have trouble acquiring certain types of talent (reputation is free talent advertising).

In addition, having a few world conquerers around helps bring talent and money which is then turned into startups - there are a lot of great companies and non-profits that make SV what it is because some founder or early employee exited with retirement money and decided they wanted to apply their skills to helping society.

Not that's the norm, mind you, or that world-conquerers are amazing. Just, why having the occasional "big vision" around helps out.

Good point :)

Based on the other context from the comment, probably something like "[...] works against them [when they are looking to fundraise from SV VCs]."

Imagine you build an AirBnb like solution limited to Switzerland market. AirBnb will eventually come and eat your lunch.

In today's globalized world - if you are not one of the bigger players and do not have moat (govt contract, some other kind of exclusivity) - other bigger players will come after you.

Yeah plus the Y-combinators of this world won't want to throw cash at a 10-1 chance of making a few million, when they can do the same on a 100-1 chance of making a few billion.

This is a great observation: we need better accelerators to incubate startups that are more realistic and not willing to salt the earth to win at all costs [1].

[1] I'm not referring to YC specifically, but investors and incubators who are comfortable with Uber-esq behavior.

Not all global mega corps need to salt the earth. To some extent disruption will have side effects. Some like Uber are deliberately evil and others like Apple, Salesforce etc might not.

My original point was that people were attempting ideas which were in the realm of potential global mega corps. If you don't grow to be one, you get eaten up!

> "This is a great observation: we need better accelerators to incubate startups that are more realistic and not willing to salt the earth to win at all costs [1]."

We already have that. They're called banks.

There's a huge gap between investments banks consider too risky and the kinds of things SV investors in particular want to fund.

Depends on your growth strategy. If you're prepared to start lean and can demonstrate early signs of revenue then I'd imagine you'd find banks willing to cut a business loan.

You can't build a product company like this. Products require lots of development before any revenue arrives. Underdeveloped capital markets (VCs, stock exchanges etc.) is why Europe's software industry is mostly services. The difference between SV and anywhere else is access to risk-tolerant money. SV is not primarily an IT cluster, it's a VC cluster.

> "You can't build a product company like this."

Sure you can, you just bootstrap through monetising the ground work. For example, if you want a product company you can start out as a freelance design agency. The bulk of the initial design work will be for clients, but you can be involved with low volume manufacturing on the side. As the company grows, not only do you have the funds to take on progressively more ambitious product manufacturing projects, you've also built up a team of designers that can help push these projects forward. You're going to need designers right? Why not get them making you money from day one.

To give an alternative example, let's say you want to manufacture mobile phones. A good way to start small would be to manufacture accessories for existing phones. This is within the grasp of anyone within the Western world, given enough drive to do it. The revenue and knowledge you can gain doing so allows for increasingly sophisticated accessories to be built until the point where you have your own manufacturing premises (or have access to one at low rates, due to the volume of products you're pushing). The step from this point to manufacturing mobile phones is not that great.

Does this require more patience than burning through VC money? Sure, but it's also lower risk. Building a company gradually from the ground up means you get a better sense of what it takes to run a successful business (or in other words, experience is the best teacher).

No, because you're making a service company. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. The org chart you need for product and the one you need for services are different. The necessary mindset of the employees are different.

Not only that, but the buyers of product and services are often different as well.

Sure, building up a huge services company lets you squirrel off some funds for product development, but how often do you see this in practice? The only example I can think of is IBM, and they're moving in the other direction.

To counter your hypothetical "can't be done", here's a real example of a product company that's grown a single person selling electronics kits from their college dorm room to a product company making $33 million in revenue less than 10 years later:

https://www.adafruit.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adafruit_Industries#History

A similar example being this product company, which started out in 2012 with two people and a laser cutter, growing to a product company that employs 30+ people within the space of 5 years:

https://shop.pimoroni.com/

https://shop.pimoroni.com/pages/about-us

So they started out as hardware product companies.. and remained hardware product companies. I don't see any examples of software services companies transitioning to product.

Who said anything about software service companies? I said design agency, which is not the same thing as a software service company. Sure, they use software to do their job, but that's not the most important part of what they do.

As for examples of design consultancies morphing into manufacturing companies, Cambridge Audio is one such example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Audio

thanks @ZenoArrow ... additionally, it's over $42m and we have a free and paid for service, http://www.adafruit.io and a subscription service, ADABOX, with thousands of customers, http://www.adabox.com ... no loans, no VC, 114+ people, USA manufacturer of open-source hardware in NYC, USA.

You're welcome ptorrone, it's a great success story.

As a side note, thank you for founding Hackaday also, it's one of my favourite websites.

oh wow, thank you! 13 years ago! time is zooming by :)

> You can't build a product company like this

Except for every company that came before the current dot-com cycle.

Very, very few banks lend in that scenario, which are typically zero or near-zero collateral.

Yes, if you have plenty of receivables, and they're diversified, you can find banks to fund some working capital. But not operating expenses.

> "But not operating expenses."

I'm not referring to operating expenses. I'm referring to investment in growth. The idea is to prove you have a business that can turn a profit by bootstrapping it yourself, then get a small business loan from a bank to take it to the next level.

There are also other sources of business loans. Here's one example:

https://www.fundingcircle.com/uk/businesses/

Here's another:

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/small-business/3-potential-b...

The idea that VC money is needed to grow a certain type of business simply isn't true. If you're prepared to be patient, you can avoid any VC involvement.

I think this is how many franchises grow. But most highly educated people aren't interested in starting a restaurant or mini-mart.

> "But most highly educated people aren't interested in starting a restaurant or mini-mart."

What a bizarre statement. So highly educated people can't be passionate about food?

Also, what I suggested is not limited to expansion through a franchise model. Let's go back to product manufacturing to explore why. Imagine you have just received an initial order of 100,000 units of Product X. You can meet this order with your current supply chain, but in order to cut costs in future orders you'd like to manufacture a greater proportion of the finished product in-house. Let's say for the sake of argument that you've identified potential savings if you can create injection molded cases for Product X. If you go to the bank with a low-risk plan to grow the business, including an analysis of the current health of the company and forecasts of future profits, you can reasonably expect that you can find a bank (or other business loan lender) willing to lend you the money to invest in your company to help it grow.

> "So highly educated people can't be passionate about food?"

What a bizarre deduction. I'm passionate about food, I have no interest in starting my own restaurant.

It was a generalization based on my own observations, most banks lend to safe well-established models, university graduates tend to gravitate towards newer things.

> "I have no interest in starting my own restaurant."

That's your choice of course, but why do you think that is?

> "university graduates tend to gravitate towards newer things."

I don't think that's an accurate generalisation. For people who have STEM degrees, I'd agree, but there are a large proportion of people who followed other degrees (English majors, History majors, Philosophy majors, etc...) where I'd suggest that bias towards the new is not as prominent.

If you're talking about morality, when a VC is funding a company they don't know if it's going to act like Uber or like Lyft.

The post you're responding to is about economics, though, and VC math doesn't work for funding modest successes.

A VC can fund 10 businesses and have 9 of them fail (high risk) as long as the remaining one provides 100x+ return (high reward).

If you don't fund that one blockbuster then you can't fund the failures.

If you want to be in low-risk and low-reward business, then you're a bank and you're providing loans, not giving out no-strings-attached cash.

This seems a bit simplistic. I mean, it's not the case that all markets are dominated by huge mega corps. There are thriving businesses that are not on the scale of Google, AirBnB, Microsoft, etc. If a startup in Switzerland gets traction and it's a space that can scale globally then it seems like it naturally will scale. I doubt anyone would not want to grow if it can.

I agree. But my point was that there was a natural resistance to scaling to global levels. Which is detrimental if you are in a market which has a potential to be dominated by a global mega corp.

Tech and software tend to be more dominated by large players though because of economies of scale - launching new companies in every country would be wildly expensive and inefficient compared to AirBnB's trivial costs for adding a new country.

So don't build an AirBnB-like solution.

This means you will never build anything with zero marginal cost. That cuts out a lot of opportunities - and with software eating the world, more and more opportunities over time.

Only few companies can "win the world" by definition -- and besides work, it takes tons of luck, relinquishing control to VCs and stock markets, and boards, and all the right stars aligned. Plus the personal toll.

One is better off building something smaller, where work and talent is enough to maintain it.

There are more opportunities in those companies (e.g. a $1 to $50 million dollar business) of which there are tens of thousands, than to build the 1 in 100 behemoth.

You'll have more chances of success, and you'll live and sleep better. Because money, above a certain amount, also has a marginal utility curve and diminishing returns.

I agree the costs are high, but if you don't pay them, someone else will.

$1..50 million dollar businesses: I agree, great stuff. I'm just not sure that such businesses have realistic long-term moats against the Amazons of the world.

Software will never truly eat the world until there is a way to move matter and collect energy and resources through software alone, without having to create new infrastructure. Until that is solved there is plenty of opportunity everywhere.

You say that, but there are cases even in small countries where this didn't happen. Like trademe in New Zealand which was just like ebay. Ebay still hasn't become the major place to do auctions in new zealand.

In Switzerland, ricardo.ch is much bigger than Ebay.

Bigger a part of your business software is, faster the growth happens.

Ebay like marketplaces still have a big physical world component present. Even if it isn't ebay, it might be some other company in Australia. Or maybe trademe becomes the company which tries to take over in Austrlia. It's inevitable and just a matter of time!

Australia's eBay is Gumtree.com.au, which was purchased by eBay quite some time ago.

On the other hand, Trademe has never managed to penetrate markets outside New Zealand with any of its products, which limits its value.

Xero, however, has massive potential for growth, because it's international.

> On the other hand, Trademe has never managed to penetrate markets outside New Zealand with any of its products, which limits its value.

I don't understand why that is necessarily a bad thing. If someone is looking to make a shit ton of money, have a chance to monopolize or dominate the international market, then yes, that makes sense. But if you're happy and content serving nationally, and so are your customers, I really don't see why someone would want to expand internationally.

If a product earns money, then hopefully it is providing value to users. If the number of users increase, more value is provided. If the number of users is arbitrarily limited, then people miss value they should get.

1) Why "should" them? Just because some people built a service doesn't mean they owe it to everyone.

2) The internet may scale worldwide, by that doesn't mean any service can do so while maintaining that value per user. Hell, it may not scale beyond a neighborhood, let alone a country.

eBay in the USA has largely abandoned its original private party auction market. The vast majority of items are now fixed-price general commercial crap from overseas manufacturers. Note that their advertising campaigns of the last few years have featured only fixed-price items and target whim buyers ("If you're ready, come and get it") complete with bogus representations of the capabilities of their mobile interface.

I think you just defined a moat. A tiny low population country that is one of the most hard to reach major countries in the world kind of proves that point, does it not?

Basically no one is competing in NZ because no one cares about the NZ market. It's simply not large enough. Until it is.

I do think there is a lot to be said about not trying to build these giant world-eating companies that require you selling your soul to the devil. Companies like Craigslist I have a ton of respect for. A lifestyle company should be the dream of most, not the crazy disconnected-from-reality VC world we're seeing today.

I simply think anyone betting on their market being small enough to fly under the radar is making a very tenuous bargain.

So software is eating the world, except you know, where there are moats?

In Poland eBay didn't make a single dent because Allegro is such a huge beast(and in my opinion is actually better than Ebay is many many ways), and that's in a country of 40+ million people. Even facebook struggled at the beginning because everyone had a profile on nk.pl so why bother with a new service. Even Amazon still doesn't have a presence, because again, Allegro is the best destination for online shopping.

These are exceptions to the rule.

Living in Poland, I see so many good ideas and good teams, that go absolutely nowhere because they begin with the local market, and struggle to achieve ramen profitability, while their global counterparts achieve scale and funding to ultimately take over the market.

There is a small niche of successful copycats that grabbed the local niche, and maintained the lead over the years due to strong network effects - like a local reddit clone (wykop.pl), or a local ebay clone (allegro.pl), but that's almost it.

All the other projects either failed to get off the ground, or got killed when globally oriented startups entered our country.

I should think they would come and buy your lunch.

> Imagine you build an AirBnb like solution limited to Switzerland market. AirBnb will eventually come and eat your lunch.

I don't think this is born out by the evidence. There are many social reasons that smaller markets prefer a local solution--both because of network effects and just because of branding.

In the Swiss case, Swiss people (often) don't use Google; they use Search.ch. They don't use Amazon (which is mostly unavailable in Switzerland); they use Galaxus. They don't use OkCupid; they use Parship. They don't use Zappos; they use Zalando (which is European, not Swiss, admittedly). They don't use eBay; they use Ricardo.

Many larger examples do involve the kinds of moats you describe--the Chinese Internet is a key example of that (where censorship and government backing contribute to the superiority of local alternatives)--but I think the phenomenon of Swiss startups having what an American might consider to be reduced ambitions has to be viewed in the context of Swiss _consumers_ also often preferring local options.

I would also add a subtler point here: to an American observer, the often-American-centric perspective of American startups--which are often slow to expand to foreign markets, but for whom "America" and "the world" are often near-synonyms--is less glaring than the Swiss-centric perspective of a Swiss startup. Americans--both entrepreneurs and their observers--are just less likely to realize the extent to which American companies equate national and international markets; it's far more obvious when observing a foreign company, especially one with as small a national market to dominate as Switzerland's.

IIRC Amazon Germany will soon service Switzerland as well.

It does already and did for a long time, but customs are a hassle.

https://ecommercenews.eu/amazon-launches-switzerland/

    [Amazon] has signed a cooperation agreement with Swiss Post, which means the postal agency will carry out customs clearance for Amazon in the near future.

    Customs clearance is said to take a maximum of three hours, which makes 24-hour delivery from abroad possible. Amazon offers this delivery method as part of its Prime offer in Germany

> Imagine you build an AirBnb like solution limited to Switzerland market. AirBnb will eventually come and eat your lunch.

Not true. Domestic alternatives are often preferred over foreign competition. Two examples that leap to mind are eBay and Uber. Both failed in Japan because people preferred Yahoo! Japan auctions, and the Japanese taxi system. eBay and Uber can't compete there.

To take it down to the niche level, the big national real estate blogs all failed in Houston because they can't compete against HAIF or Swamplot.

Look at the example of Taxi apps. There are many in the European market, Germany alone has half a dozen local to the country.

Yet, while uber operated in Germany, they could get basically 100% of the customers – simply by throwing billions of VC money at the task to subsidize rides.

If competitors use such methods, there’s little you, as smaller company, can do.

Not just that. This happened when a Uber like model doesn't have any inherent global market place advantages. Most users in a city take a cab in their own city most of the time.

If even having this in their favor, small players are finding it difficult to survive - imagine if a bigger player comes in a space where there is a play for global level market place.

where there is a play for global level marketplace you will see real competition (smart phones seem to be a good example here) ... Uber is basically alone at the global level because of the local advantage as suggested and also the unwillingness of other big players to lose hundreds of millions of dollars each year or ignore local laws.

While Uber operated in Germany... shall we recount the reasons why they do not do so any more?

There are two sides to a coin: while Uber has world-dominating ambition, that also means they aren't anywhere near as flexible to local market conditions as a local startup is. And I wouldn't consider Uber an unmitigated success yet - they still depend on VC cash to keep going, we'll see what happens when it runs out.

> While Uber operated in Germany... shall we recount the reasons why they do not do so any more?

They refused to pay insurance for their drivers? That's the reason why Uber stopped. Because they didn't want to pay for the time between the driver leaving their home and entering the car, and the time that the driver picked up the first customer.

Which meant that during this time the driver was entirely uninsured, which in turn is illegal.

they could get basically 100% of the customers – simply by throwing billions of VC money at the task to subsidize rides.

They could get a large market share, while they're heavily subsidizing their rides. The tricky part is keeping hold of the customers. Certainly where I live Uber made a pretty big push a couple of years ago, offering ridiculously cheap rides. During that period lots of people I know used Uber a lot. Once they stopped offering the subsidies and the prices rose back to 'normal' levels everybody went back to using taxis and public transport.

Agreed. The world is saturated with wannabe empires. Stop trying to take over the world!

>"I think one of the biggest challenge for Switzerland tech scene is that there is no viable immigration path for a non-EU citizen"

This is not true. It's up to the local canton to grant citizenship[1]. It has noting to do with EU vs non-EU either. Switzerland itself is not actually part of the EU[2]. For someone who visits so often, it seems odd that you don't know that. In fact even in the video in your link says that the same committee that rejected this person's citizenship awarded it to a Turkish individual and Turkey is not part of the EU.

>"Do not have world conquering ambitions"

Yes in the majority of the world this is actually considered quite normal and acceptable. Many would even say "preferable."

[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/becoming-a-citizen/29288376

[2] https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-c...

Probably I used the wrong word. Maybe a better word is no definitive path after getting permanent residency. It depends on the whim and fancy of the local canton. Most countries have a definitive path after getting permanent residency.

> It has noting to do with EU vs non-EU either.

Switzerland has a treaty with the EU that gives EU citizens the right to live and work in Switzerland (and vice versa). For non-EU citizens, the situation is far less clear cut.

Yes understood, but the OPs claim was about citizenship no working and living in Switzerland. And Swiss citizenship has nothig to do with whether you are from an EU country or not.

> Behind Silicon Valley on best technology and product building practices by at least 2 years.

Can you elaborate on that? Are these "best practices" around technology or process? Are they found in books, or are the books out of date and you just have to 'be there' to discover them?

I used to be in SF and in South Bay. Recently moved to Seattle , closely associated to the India and Swiss tech ecosystem.

In my experience further away you are from SF, less cutting edge you are. In my experience even South Bay is 6 months behind SF.

SF is a big melting pot, where a huge amount of talent are trying out new things and they are open to sharing their experiences - be it about latest technologies or latest customer acquisition strategies. Because of this, you find out about the latest strategies and associate advantages and disadvantages much earlier. By the time these strategies turn in blog posts and capture popular mind share - it takes months and years.

Of course there are exceptions everywhere and some companies outside SF are great at being at cutting edge. However on an amortized basis, further away from SF you are, more likely you are to be behind the cutting edge.

There is also a lot of hot air generated by SF that may be advantageous to ignore.

Maybe choosing own network and use of own time wisely would help. Filter might be better vs ignore.

If would rather be in a position where I can get potentially useful and useless information so that I can filter vs not having much information.

What does "cutting edge" mean? They don't use modern deployment startegies? They don't use recently popular web frameworks? "Cutting edge" is so vague it's not clear whether SV just cargo cults more or whether it's actually more technically innvovative.

Maybe bleeding edge is a better word.

They just try a lot more things and find out faster what is working and what isn't working. Most of them turn out to be useless but the ones that work give them an early start.

For example while kubernetes is all the rage in Silicon Valley and every startup is using it, most companies further away from SV take longer to adopt these new technologies. They are just evaluating and experimenting with k8s and in few years might move more significant loads into it. Similar with other tech as well. I think that’s just one example but you could look at programming languages, different automation and deployment tools etc and Silicon Valley is on the cutting edge.

I'd argue that something like k8s is a huge investment for startups and is more of a time waster than anything else. I have a friend that worked at a startup that used Terraform to deploy their stuff, and the whole thing was overkill given that they literally just compiled a binary and put it on a single host. Instead, the friend just wrestled with the Terraform based build process and complained about learning the tool instead of getting stuff done.

This is satire, right? You're suggesting that ideas don't make it from SF to mountain view in less than 6 months with thousands of people commuting between the two each day and cross pollination of meetups on both sides.

Containerization and its orchestration all started in the south bay. Pray tell, what was in use in SF for 6 months before it hit the startups based in MV, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, etc.

No, this isn't satire. Please check my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16218591

There are always exceptions (like your containerization example), which can be attributed to serious tech players like Yahoo, Google and FB in South Bay. However holistically, SF has had much more unicorns and near unicorns. The contrast between SF and rest of the world has been more pronounced in recent year vs pre-2010 (except China of course - due to the growing economy and closed nature making it difficult for outside companies to operate).

You seem to be conflating valuation with innovation.

And the most valuable company in the word is in the South Bay — worth more than every San Fran unicorn — combined.

Valuation has zero to do with innovation and using unicorns as a measure of bleeding edge tech is nonsense. Some of the very beat tech doesn’t necessarily turn into the best businesses.

And don’t forget, the South Bay has one of the most innovative middle-out compression innovators in history: Pied Piper.

This whole website is satire, mate.

I don't read the bit about the South Bay but that's absurd.

gRPC - Mountain View

Cgroups - Mountain View

Golang, Rust - Mountain View

Protobufs - Mountain View

Blaze - Mountain View

React - Menlo Park

Buck - Menlo Park

Thrift - Menlo Park

And this is only a fraction of it. Do you even work in tech? You sound like a talking head...

Quite a few of these were produced out of Google and FB, so it makes sense they would be based out of MV/Meno Park.

However most of the unicorns or near unicorns since 2010 have been based in SF. Dropbox, AirBnb, Uber, Lyft, Stripe, Zenefits, SoFi, Credit Karma, CloudFlare, DocuSign, Wish, Slack, Github, Instacart, Prosper, Automattic, Eventbrite, Okta, Docker, Gusto, Nextdoor.

Let list could go on and on. I stand by my statement that more talent in concentrated in a smaller area vs South Bay and they are trying out a lot more things and also faster. Dynamics of an urban area also play some role where, where you can quickly walk to, use public transport or get an Uber, vs driving to another place in South Bay. All this leads to SF being ahead of South Bay in terms of learnings and trying out things.

And name calling doesn't get us anywhere!

That's lots of names of companies and no examples of "best technology building best practices".

You're naming products or companies and not technologies or processes. Moreover many of these companies are privately traded and their balance sheet is unknown. These companies could be healthy or they could be struggling and we have no idea.

So what is your metric of "cutting edge"? It sounds like you're optimizing for small business strategy? Seems honestly like VC funding is the biggest indicator here.

I’d argue SV does so well because SV is fundamentally extractive in how it uses tech. It uses tech as a way to strip mine a particular domain, often bypassing incumbents in the process. There is nothing innovative about this process. It is not ‘high’ tech so much as applied tech. Another take on this: look at the type of people that SV idolizes by and large. Are they mostly hackers? Or business people?

SV is a colony of capital B business, and they keep the makers around because they have to.

> It uses tech as a way to strip mine a particular domain, often bypassing incumbents in the process.

The term strip mine is a loaded term. In the classical sense, it devastates the ecosystem while extracting resources that are impossible to replace.

In fact, Silicon Valley does not do that. People aren't going to stop needing transportation because Uber used up all the transportation, and it won't stop needing places to stay because AirBnB lets you rent out your apartment.

> SV is a colony of capital B business

What is a capital B business as opposed to a lower case b business?

Strip mining is a loaded term, and a touch unfair, perhaps. But I'd argue that tech itself is a resource of sorts, and needs periodic re-investment in order to continue to sustain high growth. I do think SV strip mines tech itself. (I got these thoughts from Alan Kay, they aren't my own, but I keep thinking about them.)

Where is the Xerox PARC of 2018? Why isn't there one? We have more computing power and are economically (as a whole) better off than at any other point in history.

At some point, you have to start aiming for the moon again.

Edit: capital-B business to me is the ultra-aggressive dominate-everything mindset that seems to corrupt a lot of people.

> I do think SV strip mines tech itself.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth now. Strip mining usually means something that destroys a natural resource.

You were originally talking about how Silicon Valley "strip mines a particular domain." That implies that it's strip mining other industries, such as hire for ride, etc etc. You could almost argue that they strip mined animation and movie special effects because they took profits from manual animators and movie prop creators.

I fail to see how Silicon Valley is "strip mining" tech. (Btw, something different from what you previously implied) They're grabbing low hanging fruit, but they're not ruining the resource for everybody else.

Also, to address your last point, the economies of scale are such that at this point, if you don't dominate a market, at least locally, you're dogmeat.

Nobody who works on Rust is in Mountain View. There was one person once, for a while.

There are even only a few people in the SF/Oakland area at this point. Most are from outside of California.

Are those technologies all legitimately the best, or is the Matthew Effect part of it?

The recent notion that the only good tech is popular tech is, quite frankly, aesthetically repulsive.

Swift - Cupertino ARKit - Cupertino Multitouch - Cupertino iOS - Cupertino Android - Mountain View Netflix and all of their innovation: Los Gatos Haven’t touched San Jose even..

I agree with you completely, suggesting San Fran is more cutting edge than the South Bay is a bit ridiculous.

You've just described serialization five times. BBN had all that decades ago, who knows what they have now, and that's in Newton MA.

The notion that SF somehow is the place to look for best practices is also a bit disturbing. It simply just makes the most noise.

> We are Swiss, we don't conquer the world.

I am curious what such Swiss people think of Nestlé, then. Or other companies and industries where Switzerland has a prominent global reputation?

I would just chalk it up to personal preferences and motivations, but the statement as written suggests it's a Swiss thing in general.

You know, it's most likely said with a cheeky smile and a play on ones own stereotypes.

I can't edit my previous comment anymore.

The point 2 should have been: >> 2. Behind Silicon Valley on latest technology and product building practices by at least 2 years.

I instead used the word "best" which doesn't really capture what I had meant. This thread also helped me develop a better understanding of my learnings.

> Not that US is any better for Indians. Based on current estimates, if someone from India applies for an employment based Green Card now, they might get it in 70 years. And life is a pain because you have to do a lot of paperwork throughout.

I thought that is because so many Indians applying for green cards but there is a limit by country so it takes a long time?

Yes, that is one of the main factors. And the ground reality is that right now a new employment based Green Card petitioner from India would need to wait 70 years.

Need to get this fixed. A bipartisan bill cosponsered by 340 house representatives is there but Paul Ryan is not allowing the vote on it. Perhaps not the limit fixed, but the backlog that's currently there for H1bs. It will be extremely beneficial for the country, for the H1bs and family, and would drive up tech wages. Literally no negatives.

Their cause is even more sympathetic than DACA. I sincerely believe if they were protesting and more politically involved, they'd easily pass it through but no noise is being made. That's a good thing personally in my opinion since I'm turned off by protests and think that it divides us, and most protesters are very aggressive and bluntly not very bright. However, protests are very effective in American History in order to make change and if I were in their position I'd say that's the best bet. Some protests seem politically manufactured and arguments easily refuted, but movements like the civil rights movements and the American Disability Act would not have been possible without protests.

> Their cause is even more sympathetic than DACA.

I wouldn't go that far. DACA recipients were brought to the country as children and literally know nothing else, often including the language of their "home" country. H1Bs might be more beneficial economically, but I'm not convinced they are more sympathetic.

> DACA recipients were brought to the country as children and literally know nothing else, often including the language of their "home" country.

Not the country's problem. If you expose children to the consequences of your wrongdoing and mistakes, they suffer as well as you. Otherwise, that incentivizes wrongdoing.

Another example - if you rob a bank, and pay for your kid's private school tuition is it "wrong" to take away the money you stole because the kid is just accustomed to attending private school?

The laws are fairly clear. Most illegal immigrants know full well they're breaking the law by entering illegally. If they get caught, everybody involved suffers the consequences.

> Not the country's problem.

The country decides what the country's problems are and are not. DACA has widespread public support - 83% of voters support a pathway to citizenship, according a to a poll by Fox News (of all places):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/28/fox-news-poll-83-...

So it's safe to say the country considers it a problem, and a solvable one at that. You don't need to use wholly inaccurate analogies when people already understand the issue.

> The country decides what the country's problems are and are not.

Odd, the people who are in charge of creating laws, the House and the Senate, are still in office after getting nothing done. Right now this is not the country's problem because laws on the books should be enforced, as they were passed by the legislature.

Why not vote legislators into office who can pass the laws? It would be the legislative branch's problem, most definitely not the executive branch - I applaud Trump for upholding the law as passed.

The executive branch enforces the law, the legislative branch creates laws, and the judicial branch interprets the law.

Using executive orders to selectively enforce or not enforce laws does an end run around the will of the people and laws. If enough people cared enough, vote legislators in who will change the laws to what you want. Just saying that at this current moment a majority of people want this solved but have no concrete solutions on what the exact pathway to citizenship is short-sighted, naive, and dangerous.

> Odd, the people who are in charge of creating laws, the House and the Senate, are still in office after getting nothing done.

For one, there hasn't been an election since this latest change to DACA status happened. Secondly, very few people decide their vote on a single decision like this, and especially one that doesn't directly affect them. That doesn't mean they don't support it, though.

DACA was created by Obama as an end run around the legislative process. It was recently removed by another executive order. And Trump was not shy about expressing his opinions about immigration, and was voted in.

If people don't care enough to campaign/have their votes influenced for this issue, it means their preference isn't strong enough.

The fewer executive orders the better. Any executive order changing the laws as they are in the books should be immediately reversed, as it subverts all separation of powers in our government.

Right, because no single country can take more than 5% of the resident visa in a given year.

That's a good thing no? Diversity of immigrants? Otherwise 80%+ of all immigrants would be Indian/Chinese.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Gives other countries a chance to immigrate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com