

Only 6 of the 20 largest software companies are in Silicon Valley - wheels
http://scotchi.net/2009/07/only-6-of-the-20-largest-software-companies-are-in-silicon-valley/

======
btw0
Eliminating the word "Only" in the title, you get "6 of the 20 largest
software companies are in Silicon Valley!"

~~~
hko
And no other metro area has more than 1.

~~~
endtime
Maybe not on that list...but the Seattle area does have Microsoft, Amazon, and
Nintendo...all very large companies.

~~~
billswift
Also Boeing which doesn't sell software but has more programmers and software
engineers than most companies that do.

------
sachinag
This list is shit.

CSC, Capgemini, TCS, Infosys, Wipro, and ACS don't sell software. They sell
consulting, of which actual software coding is but a part.

~~~
diego
The same could be said about Google. For the most part, it sells advertising.

~~~
sachinag
Google's fascinating when it comes to categorization. I think it's pretty
clear that they make software. What's awesome is that they, as you say, don't
monetize that s/w by selling it (like 37signals or whatever other internet
company); they do so through the sale of advertising space. They're the
biggest dichotomy between core competencies (software engineering) and
monetization (ads) that I can think of, perhaps in history.

~~~
nostrademons
GE: Core competency = training middle management. Monetization = jet engines,
locomotives, formerly household appliances, etc.

Berkshire Hathaway: Core competencies = Warren Buffett, AAA credit rating,
willingness to keep former owners on as managers. Monetization = insurance,
furniture, candy.

WalMart: Core competency: Logistics management, supplier bargaining power.
Monetization: every household good imaginable.

Nike: Core competency = advertising. Monetization = sneakers & sportswear.

Actually, seems like companies with wildly disparate core competencies and
monetization schemes tend to do pretty well. Or maybe it's selection bias, and
the ones that do well do _really_ well but the rest fail miserably. Either
way, I'm waiting for some company to close the Google -> Nike loop by
leveraging their expertise in sneakers and sportswear to sell lots of
software.

~~~
stilist
Looking at it in a slightly different way, Nike+ uses expertise with shoes and
expertise with interaction design to sell a decent amount of hardware.

------
rjurney
Silicon Valley is not the best place to have an enormous software company. Its
the best place to have a startup.

~~~
sachinag
But it's no worse than any other place. Meaning that if you had to pick
anywhere, you'd pick the Valley.

~~~
fizx
Well, a large software company has varying needs, some of which may not be met
well in the Valley. For example, Zappos started in SF, but moved to Las Vegas
for the lower cost of living.

~~~
sachinag
No, sir, they moved to Vegas to avoid sales tax on shipping to CA residents.
They no longer have a CA nexus.

------
mkyc
This list is incorrect. The author asks "just where have most of the great
software companies been started?", and proceeds to list headquarters. Three
corrections, for US companies (yes, I checked the entire list):

    
    
      2. Microsoft: Albuquerque, New Mexico
      6. First Data: Omaha, Nebraska
      11. Computer Sciences Corporation: El Segundo, California
    

So make that 7, for what it's worth. The list really isn't worth looking at,
though. The other problems mentioned here are trivial, compared to the problem
of a sample size of 20 being _too damn small to have any meaning_.

I hate lists like this, and the stupid conclusions drawn from them. Exercise
for the reader my ass.

------
dakellog
I should restate. Most of these companies have a presence in the Valley.
Here's where they are.

1\. IBM, Almaden 2\. Microsoft, 85 and 101 3\. Oracle, Redwood Shores 4\.
Google, next to Microsoft 5\. Softbank, partner with Yahoo 6\. SAP, Palo Alto
7\. Accenture, San Jose, next to Adobe 8\. Computer Sciences Corporation,
haven't seen them 9\. Yahoo, next to Moffet Field 10\. Capgemini, Cupertino

------
cema
What's a "location"? I have friends who work in: Intel, Haifa, Israel; Google,
New York, NY; IBM, Gaithersburg, MD; etc.

This "location" is, apparently, the location of the headquarters. Who works at
the headquarters? Top management? Or is it about where the company started? A
startup is normally a small company, and a small company is unlikely to spread
wide (although these days it is far from unusual to find a company with
management and the sales department in the US and development in the Ukraine).
But when one deliberately selects a large company, I would expect them to
explain how they define the location and for what purpose. I did not get it
from the article.

(Aside: "one selects... them explain": modern English?)

~~~
nazgulnarsil
as location becomes ever less important for running a business governments
will hopefully be forced into competing more strongly for business with
sensible tax structures.

~~~
cema
Can we have a distributed government outsourced to India to reduce costs?

~~~
nostrademons
Sure. It's called exile.

------
Gibbon
I'm not sure that the "largest" companies are even relevant in a discussion
about the valley since the larger companies all tend to be outliers in one way
or another.

About 10% of the INC 500 are based in California. Higher than anywhere else?
Maybe, I don't know.. but not exatly earth shattering.

------
lionheart
Except that, I notice, aside from IBM, Microsoft and SAP, I've only ever heard
of the companies on that list that are from California.

------
JMiao
he's missing a few, notably electronic arts.

------
bounce
The money is in the valley.

------
tlrobinson
Alternatively, "30% of the 20 largest software companies are in SV".

