
Ask YC: Is the Bay Area Much Better than Seattle for Startups? - arooni
Long time reader, first time poster. Thanks in advance for reading this post and extra thanks if you can reply with your thoughts. <p>I'm working full time in a software company in Seattle area and will be leaving soon to work full-time on my startup.  (I already have already released a prototype of my product).  I'm tempted to stay in Seattle as I love it here... but my startup is my first priority, and I'm prepared to move anywhere in the world if it means I'll have a significantly higher probability of success.  Finally, I'm a single founder and potentially looking for a technical co-founder... so <i>where</i> I can find this person factors in to the decision as well.  <p>Questions for you: 
1) For those of you who have lived in Seattle &#38; San Francisco, how much better is SF for startups than Seattle?  How do you quantify this? 
2) I have a quick list of pros/cons to Seattle vs. SF below... can folks provide feedback on whether this analysis makes sense?  
3) Any other thoughts on whether I should make the move or not?  
4) Where is better for finding like minded entrepreneurial hackers?  <p>Pro/Con for Seattle vs. SF
Seattle Pros: lower cost of living, closer access to outdoors &#38; mountains etc..., lower cost of rent for offices, lower legal costs, less competition for top quality talent than SF (there are fewer startups in Seattle so people who want to work at them have fewer choices on where to go), monthly startup events have on the order of ~50 people or so, rains often so you're more likely to sit inside coding than going outside
Cons: rains a lot :P<p>SF Pros: epicenter of startups, monthly startup events (SFBeta etc..) have on the order of ~100 people, huge talent pool of highly skilled engineers, more likely to find technical co-founder, more startup events, more access to capital, closer to family
SF Cons: higher cost of living, higher cost of rent, higher cost of services (leagal etc..), harder to get top quality talent (you're competing with hundreds of startups), more competition for capital<p>PS: 
I have already read PG's essays and read the YCNews forums on where to be for a tech startup.  I've also recently read Marc Andreessen's post on where your startup should be (he reccomends moving to the Valley).  Finally, I have a friend who recently quit Google to work on his startup full time in the Bay Area and he extols the advantages of the location.
======
webwright
Noooooo, don't leave Seattle! <grin>

Why exactly wouldn't you apply for YC funding? Would get you rice and beans
money and 3 month trip to startup school in CA... If you get selected, of
course.

It sounds like your core unmet need is a technical co-founder.

If finding a technical co-founder is your highest priority, you should be able
to find one in Seattle. Every event I go to I meet scads of "I work at
Amazon/MS ad I'm just seeing what's out there" type of coders. How many of
those have you talked to? Why aren't they jumping on board?

Like any other marketing, if you aren't getting a ton of nibbles with smaller
audience (Seattle), expanding to a larger audience might not be the answer. It
might be smart to address your idea or how you're pitching it.

All that being said, SF looks pretty cool. :-)

------
iamelgringo
I moved to the Bay area for my Day job (ER nurse) while I complete my CS
degree. Even as an ER nurse, 2-3 nurses that I work with are married to either
VC's or angel investors.

One of our volunteers at the ER where I work is an executive assistant for a
VC. Several other nurses are married to engineers who work for Yahoo, Google,
etc... She's offered to put me into contact with whoever I want to in the VC
world. I'm not ready for it yet, but I can imagine that she could arrange an
introduction or two.

It's hard to avoid networking opportunities here. And, there is an acceptance
even among the non-tech people that Startups are the place to be. It's the
cultural norm to start a business here.

I've lived in Minneapolis, Chicago, outside of Boston, LA and now the Bay
area. Every city is good at certain things. Tech and startups are what the Bay
does, and we do it well.

------
dzohrob
i can't say whether you should move to SF or not, but i can tell you my
experiences.

i've lived in both seattle and san francisco, and currently live in SF. though
i was more involved with the corporate scene than the startup scene in
seattle, the vibe is entirely different down here. startups live here. you
meet tons of smart people working on cool stuff. it's a great place to be.

competition ends up being a good thing -- as LA is to many of the best (and
wannabe-best) people in the entertainment industry, so SF is to the nerd
industry.

even though it can be a bummer sometimes to be coding when the weather is
beautiful outside (as it is now), i find the overall environment more
stimulating -- intellectually, culturally, geek-ally. there are also plenty of
outdoorsy things to do very nearby in marin and the east bay, though not quite
as close as the options in seattle. the only thing i miss is a lower rent and
the seattle music scene.

though i can't tell you whether moving will make or break your startup, SF can
be a very wonderful place to live (and work).

------
falsestprophet
In short, no.

As far as I can tell the Silicon Valley offers value most to a very specific
sort of start up. If you don't need to raise a lot of capital or require a
large team of very gifted engineers (which probably requires a great deal of
capital anyway), then I don't think the Valley is as valuable to you. That
said, I think being connected to the important people in the industry may help
your cause immensely. Perhaps spending the winter with YCombinator would
accomplish that (as far as I can tell Mr. Graham is pretty important).

You also need to consider how much you value your home against the value you
would bring your career. For me, moving away for a decade or two is a big
deal.

No worries, I think there are a lot of good businesses that can be established
by a few smart developers hacking away for a while, then launching and picking
up angel funding as or if needed. I have a myriad schemes and I found that
those criteria helped me cull the ten thousand to ten I am comfortable with
and confident in.

It is easier to make a million dollars after a hundred thousand and a billion
after a million. Don't get ahead of yourself.

~~~
thomasptacek
My perception, from experience, is that it's actually harder to hire in the
Bay Area than, well, anywhere else. Anyone with a modicum of talent that you
interview in Sunnyvale can pull a $130k/yr job out of their back pocket, and
the BigCo alternatives in the valley are actually pretty spectacular.

If you need a large team of very gifted engineers, start in a college town
that isn't Palo Alto or Berkeley.

~~~
anamax
I don't understand why lucrative alternatives are an obstacle.

That $130k/year makes trying a startup less risky. It gave them an opportunity
to save so they can live off savings. It also means that they can recover
quickly from any debt they incur.

It also establishes a benchmark for a startup's value creation. If early
employees can't reasonably believe that they're going to get significantly
more than $130k for their efforts, either the idea/execution is too small or
the founders may not play well with others, which causes other problems
leading to failure.

~~~
thomasptacek
You're making a lot of sense; I'm just saying, my experience was that it was
harder to hire in the Bay Area than it has been for me to hire in NYC or
Chicago, where I hire now.

It's also obvious that developers are more expensive to hire anybody in San
Francisco than in Des Moines or Minneapolis.

Also, please note the bias towards founders in these discussions. A tiny team
of founders is a good start, but you eventually need actual employees.

~~~
anamax
There are lots of places where it's very easy to hire but that hiring ease
comes from factors that reduce the success rate.

Does harder hiring in the SF Bay Area hurt or does it merely help weed out
things that don't have a chance for some other reason?

As far as later stage employees go, successful silicon valley companies go
elsewhere for what they can get elsewhere.

I think that you should start where you think that you have the best chance of
success. I don't think that "harder to hire" or "more expensive" captures
sufficient detail, but it's your company, so that's your call.

~~~
thomasptacek
I think you should ask questions of the conventional wisdom. The conventional
wisdom says one of the reasons to move a company to the Bay Area is that it's
easier to hire developers. You should question whether that's really true. I
gave some reasons why I think it might not be, and cited my experience. I
don't think it's true. But you make the call.

Also, careful with words like "later stage". You're "later stage" as soon as
you hire the first person who isn't getting a founder's stake in the company.
For us, that was weeks, not months, after the birth of our company.

~~~
anamax
That's odd. I see founders, early, and maybe another round of folks before
"later".

To me, "later" isn't until the biz is well beyond self-sustaining, when
there's very little risk of failure.

~~~
thomasptacek
I understand, and am not arguing with you. Whatever you want to call them,
that "second round of folks before later" is harder to hire than the founders.
They're employees, not principals, and you can't bullshit them.

~~~
anamax
"Can't bullshit" sounds like a good thing.

I'm not disputing harder to hire, I'm asking whether harder to hire is a
negative or a useful indicator.

~~~
thomasptacek
If, holding talent constant, a developer costs $100k in the bay and $65k in
Ann Arbor, Michigan, then Ann Arbor startups have a pronounced recruitment
advantage. That's all I'm saying.

The conventional wisdom is, "go to the Bay Area, it'll be much easier to find
smart developers." It is, in fact, very easy to find smart developers in the
Bay Area. Unfortunately, they work for Google.

------
myoung8
I'm assuming you attend Seattle Tech Startups at the library every month (if
you don't, you should, you've got a pretty good chance of finding a co-founder
there).

Having lived in both places, I would personally rather start a company in the
Bay Area all things considered.

~~~
arooni
Yes I do attend the event most months. It's a great group... many thanks to
Gaurav setting it up, and folks like Tony for coming and speaking.

------
dedalus
there's a good reason for bay area to be that expensive (quoting your stuff,
higher rent,higher competition,etc) and if you are in doubt simply follow the
money.

not that you cannot do what you wanna do in seattle, I have lived in SF and
now in Cambridge. I can simply tell you the vibe is far far better and you get
stimulated to take risk when you see people around you taking far more risks
(in seattle you are more likely to encounter people who say job is fine, buy
house,have kids,etc). So yeah! my vote, move to the bay and be pleasantly
surprised by what it offers

------
indie01
There was an article in Business 2.0 Magazine awhile ago titled: "Escape from
Silicon Valley". OK, I just found it for you:

[http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2...](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2004/12/01/8192509/index.htm)

Although it discusses the pros and cons of big city vs. little towns for
start-ups, it also touches upon a variety of factors which seem to be relevant
to your question.

I started my startup in a tiny place (Flagstaff, AZ) thinking I could make it
work there. It almost did, but the reality is that there are numerous benefits
to be had not necessarily from _living_ here (SF), but from having the
contacts and network of people in this area; living here just happens to be
one of the best ways to get it.

I lived in Portland, OR for awhile, and visited Seattle a few times. I seem to
remember something about abnormally high depression and suicide rates being
cited for residents of Seattle . . . also, isn't Seattle one of the few places
that has had cost of living increasing significantly / deviating from the
norm? Not to knock Seattle (hey, hey -- no income tax in WA state), but the
success of a startup I imagine would be correlated to happiness of its
founders/employees.

Anyway. One of the things that I think makes this area such a hub of
successful startups is that people here truly believe they're going to change
the world. And, a lot of them end up doing just that. :)

------
dohsinbebe
more SEA PROs: 1) No state income tax 2) Very Green/Environmentally Friendly
(until Seattle gets overcrowded) 3) Perfect Summers (beats anywhere in the
country)

more SEA CONs: 1) It does not RAIN a lot. It drizzles a lot, but recent
studies in the last decade have shown that Seattle's average rainfall in the
given year is ranks like 46th outta 50 US states. So if you don't mind daily
drizzle, then ya fine. 2) SEATAC airport is not a major hub, so expect
inconvenience and pricier tickets if flying to most major cities around the
continental US.

Although you can make arguments on the pro's/con's of any given city. Seattle
makes more sense in that its lower overheard for your startup. When you hit it
mega-big, then you can live in both areas and fly daily for lunch in SF and
dinner in SEA.

------
pg
The "less competition for talent" argument doesn't seem to matter in practice,
probably because the first 10 people you hire always (or always should) come
through personal connections.

------
nextmoveone
Why not develop a prototype or beta at home, then after you've got something
working go to the Bay and start from there!

~~~
arooni
Great call... I actually already have a prototype of the product built... now
it's about improving it and selling/marketing it.

~~~
gibsonf1
Ahh, then its time to move to San Francisco :) I lived in Seattle in 1995
starting in August and was able to survive there only until February - the
lack of sunshine was far too depressing for me to cope with. At the time, I
helped start an architecture office (HOK) specifically to build part of the
expanding Microsoft Campus (I was completely impressed with the MS real estate
management pros). So I can only answer based on quality of life, and San
Francisco (for me) wins hands down. We also have nature here just a short bike
ride away (crossing the GG bridge) and we have world-class skiing about 3
hours away. The cultural scene here is extremely rich compared to Seattle.
There are also deals to be had in office space (I pay $1 per s.f. per month)
but you have to look (I found mine on Craigs List).

------
mynameishere
If you _love_ it, then of course stay there. Geez, stupid question.

------
steveplace
Well, if I were to get fully involved in a startup, I'd love to stay south of
the Mason-Dixon (Florida). It's nice to be able to not wear a coat from March
to November.

------
iamyoohoo
you've listed pros and cons - but you have to prioritize yourself. So what's
more important to you - a co-founder or less rent and so on... are you certain
you cannot find those things you think are important in seattle ?

