Great little read. Uniquely portrays the cultural differences between the two schools but more importantly, shows just how different the West vs. East Coast mentality is when it comes to technology startups, products, innovations, etc.

Not saying there isn't much "pure technology" coming out of Stanford (there most certainly is) but you get the feeling that Boston-area startups are wired to find, as Peter Thiel would say, the 0 to 1 markets vs. the 1 to n markets of globalization (the West Coast).

In Boston, there appears to be a bigger emphasis on hi-tech vs. the latest subscription service or cloud provider coming from SV. But the SV culture encourages that, VC's cut checks for products with "traction" and more often than not, skip pure technology (be it medical devices, therapeutics, chemicals, hardware, and hard/expensive/timely ventures).

This is rather unfortunate since we are in need of better startup companies and technologies, and they are in need of funding. There are many reasons for this (one being the "easy way out biz model replication" phenomenon used in the ammonia subscription model example in the post). And another is the lack of talent, particularly great talent going to well-funded SnapChat #4 and other similar, non-groundbreaking companies.

Unfortunately, I don't see the face of venture capital changing much with regards to funding innovative and risky technologies. They of course are wired to big returns on 1/100 social company exits (most at least) and "technology" doesn't really matter (again, to most).

Can you imagine SV putting money into Fairchild Semiconductor or Intel today? Won't happen.

Don't let the excuses of "we infested in Barracuda and Cisco" fool you - the focus is on "how many users do you have for the latest hype driven app on the App Store."

I think the major problem is the lack of risk being taken on great technology vs. the easy way out. AKA, some VCs should grow some balls and invest in the future vs. the very-near future. Being an MBA out of a top-10 school and having check writing power to fund "startups" is also a negative since a lot of these guys know the spreadsheets - NOT the silicon.

But I digress.

Both schools are unique in their culture but share similarities in brilliance. The best outcome is too see great business as marketing intersect with powerful technology. Then we can have real great companies on the horizon again. As a West Coast founder myself, it's actually an honor and a humbling experience to be working with people from both schools and it's clear as day just how different the mindset is.