
Paul Graham Gets Vague when Boston needs analysis - dshah
http://buzzboston.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/paul-graham-gets-vague-when-boston-needs-analysis/
======
kansando
I think PG and this group are too focused on Web 2.0 companies. So all his
talk of superiority of the valley ecosystem is probably right in the consumer-
web space. Boston stills kicks ass for enterprise software and
biotech.Unfortunately you can't build those with college dropouts.

~~~
davidw
What hacker wants to touch "enterprise" software with a 10 foot pole?

Beyond that, "enterprise" and "startup" - at least to my mind - don't have a
large intersection. If I want something enterprisey, I want it from a big,
established IBM type company who will be there 10 years from now, and still be
interested in my business.

~~~
kansando
And you think the people who started VMWare, ITA software, Akamai & Ab Initio
were dumb, stupid, second-rate hackers? Obviously by your definition these
were never a startup because people would have bought stuff from IBM anyway.

Like a lot of other people in this group you are confusing web startups with
startups.

Here is a list of Boston area Enterprise startups that went public this year:
Airvana, Starent Networks, Bladelogic, Netezza, AcmePacket . They could not
have done so without real customers and real revenue (not traffic, not unique
visitors).

~~~
davidw
I think we have slightly different concepts of what "enterprise" is, actually,
which is ok, since it's hardly a term with a precise definition. I'd tend to
think of companies like VMWare as something else, though. Enterprise to me
means SAP, Oracle, IBM, and that kind of thing.

Do you think the people who run IBM or GE are stupid? Probably not... What
they are not, however, is "hackers". That's a vague term too, so I guess
debating it is meaningless, but please don't put words in my mouth with
regards to "stupid people". There are plenty of smart people whose footsteps I
wouldn't wish to tread.

As to why PG is focused on web companies, I think it's pretty natural, given
his background and what YC does in terms of investment (15K doesn't get you a
lot if you're building something capital intensive). Lots of us are also
interested in this idea of startups becoming more widely possible, which also
means we're interested, once again, in low capital requirements.

So, yeah, there's other stuff out there, but for most of us, the web is where
the action is at.

------
natrius
_"I would like to caveat this section myself and ask the readers a question of
even Paul himself should he notice this article, does the more aggressive
investor demand a larger percentage of the business for the same amount of
investment dollars offered by a less aggressive investor?"_

In Silicon Valley, you'll get more offers from investors for funding since the
investors are more aggressive, and as a result, you're more likely to get a
fair market price for equity in your company. More importantly, the quality of
the investors in Silicon Valley is likely higher since they have more
experience with them and have more connections that could help your company in
the future.

I don't think there's any way to compare investors in Silicon Valley with
those in other areas without the Silicon Valley investors coming out on top.

~~~
anamax
I think that "aggressive" is being misinterpreted. SV VCs have a greater
tolerance for risk, at least technology risk.

It seems quite reasonable that riskier investments should have greater
potential reward. (Otherwise, why take on the additional risk?)

~~~
natrius
That's what I mean by "aggressive" as well. Since they're more likely to make
risky investments, you'll get more offers from VCs.

------
gibsonf1
It sounds like he is asking PG to do his own homework for him.

~~~
theremora
Or maybe I know my limits and minute level of influence compared to PG,

------
jamescoops
great link bait

