I wonder if Boston is doomed to be a cautionary tale about what happens when a culture of B2B startups (Digital, Wang, etc.) produces VCs who don't have enough vision to fund companies like Facebook or TaskRabbit.
I wonder if Boston is doomed to be a cautionary tale about what happens when a culture of B2B startups (Digital, Wang, etc.) produces VCs who don't have enough vision to fund companies like Facebook or TaskRabbit.
I'll assume for the sake of my sanity that this is sarcasm.
In my opinion, Boston is just fine the way it is. It's a mecca for people developing new technologies, anchored by Harvard and MIT. Not everything needs to be a consumer-facing, internet-delivered solution to ordinary problems. There's a lot of money in that, no doubt, but it's not the be-all, end-all of the tech scene.
Boston is fine...for now. Companies from the first dotcom boom produced enough investors to sustain most of the ecosystem. But in the future, if there aren't the kind of IPOs that lead to huge amounts of money being thrown at startups, the high cost of living will take its toll.
Even now, the VC pool is small enough that the loss of Fred Destin in the shakeup at Atlas is widely mourned. Can you imagine the loss of a single early stage investor (not involved with YC) being noticed in the Bay area?
If the only early stage investors left are groups of lawyers (Beacon Angels, I'm looking at you), and the Series A climate remains as tough here as it's been, will Boston still be in good shape?
That's why I say that Boston has a bit of a PR problem. Even now, as an advisor for those companies "developing new technologies" at the Harvard Innovation Lab, I've seen first-hand that there's just not enough "smart money" to go around.
Maybe the HubSpot and Wayfair IPOs will change all of that. Maybe Paul English's Blade will provide the PR, even if it just produces consumer companies. It's an open question.
Unfortunately, my experience with Boston companies (I've interviewed with a few, and had the misfortune of being reverse-acquired by one) is that they're not progressive. One hiring manager told me (this was a couple years ago, I think I was 27 or 28 at the time) that I was too old to be a programmer (wat?) but too young to be a manager. Another tried to give me a position with "junior" in the title-- this was in mid-2013, so I had 7 years of experience. (I know that titles are bullshit, but if they're going to exist, I'll take an inflated one rather than a deflated one.)
Boston is a beautiful, under-appreciated place. Its climate is ideal (cold, snowy winters, perfect springs and falls, mild summers). I like the people a lot. But I see a culture where there is too much deference to authority and too little "fuck it, let's do it anyway". While the Valley is too youth-obsessed and flighty and sociopathic, New England seems to take the other extreme: too seniority-bound and stodgy and prone to following rules. The ideal, for tech, is somewhere between the two.
I do know exactly what you mean by deference to authority, but outside of the MIT professor-run startup bubble, I think it's mostly dead (well, I can't speak for biotech...). I just hope it isn't replaced by ageism, as you suggest.
Doing a startup in Boston is definitely no fun. That's true.
>(cold, snowy winters,
as an ideal climate. My Dad's side of my family is from Boston, so while I've never lived there, I have been there from time to time (usually in the summer) and they didn't seem that mild to me. Must like the Summers I was used to in the Midwest (which is [just] one reason I left the Midwest).