Finally, someone weighs in on this debate with a genuinely intelligent perspective grounded in history and solid critical thinking instead of bravado and linkbait. The deep roots of the entrepreneurial spirit in the Bay Area (and, really, California as a whole if you extend this argument down to Hollywood) is hugely underestimated in thinking about what has made SV, SV. It really is woven into the thread of what it means to live there, work there, and thrive there. (And this is coming from someone who's an SF transplant in NYC.)<p>Well done, guys. Bravo.
Wow, usually the title of articles like this turns me off. It's not yet another "can my town be the valley!" posts. It's a good in-depth look at SV itself and an analytical insight into why SV is what it is/where the next one might pop up for the same reasons.
"Efforts to duplicate silicon valley tend to fail because they attempt to follow the valley by looking at where it is now. They don't look at the century of history."<p>The problem is that the solution isn't to endeavor to duplicate Silicon Valley. The solution is to start small, foster communication and collaboration between existing entrepreneurs, encourage and support a research-based creative education from the youngest ages, and to cross-pollinate interested parties with each other. Essentially, to take the lessons learned from SV's history and start cultivating them at the micro level.<p>There are a plethora of options, but in every case the various problem solvers are not self-organized to the extent that is required to make real progress. Consider PG with YC (or any of the other tech incubators). They specialize in matching entrepreneurs with each other and with VCs. That's great. Now consider companies like 3M, IBM, and HP, that all have significant R&D branches. Woohoo, but they're often isolated from the broader community due to IP-loss risks. What about research universities, business schools, or NPO research institutes? They certainly provide value and do great work, but there is often a barrier locking out the business world (except in a few cases, where researchers and professors (and their schools) actively look for entrepreneurs to support in founding either spin-offs or private companies). Finally, what about the -- for lack of a better term -- open source community? The problem here is that "community" is too loose and lack of coordination is the norm. Even in projects that have a charismatic leader who does an excellent job stimulating communication, projects themselves tend toward isolationism.<p>As the author notes, it won't be possible to create another hub innovating at ludicrous speed without looking at the problem organically and starting small.
Timothy J. Sturgeon’s "How Silicon Valley Came to Be" covers this as well:<p><pre><code> The fact that the San Francisco Bay Area’s electronics industry
began close to the turn of the Twentieth Century should lay to
rest the notion that industrialization and urbanization on the
scale of Silicon Valley can be quickly induced in other areas.
Silicon Valley is nearly 100 years old.
It grew out of a historically and geographically specific
context that cannot be recreated. The lesson for planners
and economic developers is to focus on long-term, not short-term
developmental trajectories. Silicon Valley was the fastest
growing region in the United States during the late 1970s and
early 1980s; but that growth came out of a place, not a technology.
Silicon Valley’s development is intimately entwined with the long
history of industrialization and innovation in the larger San
Francisco Bay Area.
</code></pre>
See <a href="http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/00-014.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/00-014.pdf</a> I had blogged about this in 2008 at <a href="http://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2008/11/05/steve-blank-on-secret-history-of-silicon-valley-at-chm-nov-20/" rel="nofollow">http://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2008/11/05/steve-blank-on-secre...</a><p>Three good books on how Silicon Valley came to be<p>"Understanding Silicon Valley" by Kenney <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Silicon-Valley-Entrepreneurial-Stanford/dp/0804737347" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Silicon-Valley-Entrepren...</a><p>"The Silicon Valley Edge" by Lee, Miller, Hancock, and Rowen <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Valley-Edge-Innovation-Entrepreneurship/dp/0804740631" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Silicon-Valley-Edge-Innovation-Entrepr...</a><p>"Regional Advantage" Saxenian <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Regional-Advantage-Culture-Competition-Silicon/dp/0674753402/" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Regional-Advantage-Culture-Competition...</a><p>See also this thread: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=908026" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=908026</a>
(Full disclosure: I have graduated from Popov Electrical Engineering University, St.-Petersburg, Russia)<p>It bothers me how every time someone mentions the invention of radio, they seem to mention Marconi, not Popov (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanovich_Popov" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stepanovich_Popov</a>)<p>Could it be because the history is written by the winners i.e. if Russia would be the world leader in electronics today, more people would recognize Popov than Marconi?
There's a great point here that the post doesn't really go into enough detail about: in many (most?) places, business and financial types are focused on the goal of trying to find ways of making money without actually creating any value.<p>The mentality seems to be: Creating value is hard! Let's find a way to just make money off "immaterial" assets, financial manipulation, pure marketing and reselling, etc.<p>In the valley, people still look for ways to make money by making things that people want.
<i>They do not see the past. They do not see the context, or the trajectory. They are </i>Heisenberging <i>the valley at some snapshot in time.</i><p>Can't wait to use Heisenberg as a verb in some idel conversation. Pure win.