Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Silicon Valley Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule

Posted by timothy on from the the-weather's-really-nice-too dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Lots of places want to be 'the next Silicon Valley.' But the Valley's top historian looks back (even talks to Steve Jobs about his respect for the past!) to explain why SV is unique. While there are threats to continued dominance, she thinks it's just too hard for another region to challenge SV's supremacy.

74 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How Switzerland Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule

    How Japan Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule

    How England Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule

    How Rome Got That Way -- and Why It Will Continue To Rule


    Nothing involving active processes, continued development, and people is permanent. Its longevity is always dictated by its continued management and the ability to keep pushing without growing complacent such that disruptive technologies or hungry competitors don't surpass it or make it irrelevant.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ^THIS.

      Computing, semi-conductors and software is becoming a Third World low margin products. Look at the bullet points she has especailly the last one:

      2000s: cloud, mobile, social networking

      If that's the best SV can do, then they're really behind the times. While they're futzing around with advertizing, harddrives connected to the internet and shiny toys, I have been seeing some incredible technology in medical and bio-tech over in a certain city - hint: beans.

    2. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by TWX · · Score: 1

      The cracks in the armor of the American automobile industry were already appearing in the early sixties. At one point nearly all of the sports-convertibles sold worldwide were from the United Kingdom, before auto consolidation and quality failure broke the back of the British auto industry.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by TWX · · Score: 3, Informative

      The most advanced silicon chip manufacturing plant in the world is in Chandler, Arizona, and the wafers made there are packaged into processors in Malaysia and Ireland. Many materials scientists work at the Chandler plant, not in Sunnyvale, because it's so much less expensive to live there.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Admittedly a biased sample of what was cool among the auto industry's target customer base...

    5. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by jythie · · Score: 1

      In other words, they are doing the most profitable things

    6. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      At one point nearly all of the sports-convertibles sold worldwide were from the United Kingdom,

      So what? Those were never huge sellers in the American market anyway, they were a niche product. Americans were all busy buying giant gas-guzzling behemoths all the way to 1974 when the Oil Crisis hit.

      So even in the early 60s, someone writing "Why Detroit will continue to rule" would have been absolutely correct; they had over 10 years of unchallenged dominance left, and even after 1974 it's not like things suddenly came to a halt there.

    7. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pretty much right on. Given how much of Silicon Valley is moving to my neighborhood just so they can afford to eat AND own a house at the same time, I'm not really that convinced that the important parts of technology will remain in SV...just the VCs.

    8. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So what? Those were never huge sellers in the American market anyway

      People buy cars in other countries too.

      Ford & GMs management in the sixties was about as clued-up as you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... at creating the world's strangest pornography.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    10. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So what if people bought cars in other countries? The biggest auto market was easily the US at that time.

      As for Ford's and GM's management, yeah, they were really clueless, as they cashed in their huge paychecks. *rollseyes* It wasn't until the oil crisis that things went south, and that was many years later.

    11. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Cheaper to live there brings to the fore, desirability of location to attract employees (cheaper to live there not so much, as cheaper to live means it likely sucks, supply and demand you know). So can companies attract better people and at lower costs by providing a better live, work and play environment, not only within their facilities but in the community at large. So locating according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W..., likely makes the most sense if you want to attract and keep the best people. Ain't the bosses that make companies (time to drop the main stream media celebrity illusion), it's the workers (that is the reality).

      Note, one huge advantage with locating at the best locations away from major competitors, it makes it much harder for staff (and their families) to leave to go to those competitors especially if those competitors are in cheap ass undesirable locations in the middle of a desert (you'll keep the most long term productive and lose the greediest often medium term destructive).

      So pick a city from the lists, check regional language use, check for competitors and, then check costs. Equipment can go anyone, good staff will be much more choosy and where does count a lot for them. Give the staff good quality of life and they are unlikely to leave to go to a competitor at a worse location, you might still lose them to local industry at that location but at least they will not be going to major competitors. Don't forget things like universal health care (means you don't have to pay for it and can discount their wages because they don't have to pay for it either). Climate, beaches, parks, recreation, choice of schools etc. (smaller capital cities will generally work best).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Bigger than everywhere else put together? I doubt it.

      And I see you used the past tense - "was". It didn't stay that way.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You still don't get it, do you? Nothing is permanent. It doesn't matter if Detroit fell; for a long time, it was highly successful. If you were a highly compensated auto executive there in the 50s, who cares if it's going downhill 20 years later? By then, you'll be retired.

      By your logic, everyone in Rome at 100BC should have moved out because the city was going to fall ~500 years later.

    14. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Flummox · · Score: 1

      I think you misspelled Hillsboro, Oregon. But, the point is still taken. :-)

    15. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by TWX · · Score: 1

      I've visited California several times. I enjoyed San Diego and the northern end of the state around San Francisco, but with the prices I'd have to make an awful lot of money to enjoy living there, enough that I'd be worried about money the whole time.

      Besides, technically-minded people that actually engage in technical hobbies can usually do those hobbies just about anywhere. They don't have to live in 'cultural' places, whatever that means, in order to enjoy their lives. Depending on the hobby it might actually be a disadvantage to live in a high-density area; I certainly wouldn't have the space to restore cars, do woodworking, and play the drums if I lived someplace high-density unless I was independently wealthy and could afford the expensive space to buffer myself from my neighbors.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    16. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by TWX · · Score: 1

      I would hope that those auto executives would care if the companies they built would significantly contract or collapse within their lifetimes. It's one thing for a company that makes disposable goods to go under, but a company that makes durable goods should last longer than the goods it produces.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    17. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by TWX · · Score: 1

      That doesn't really surprise me. As the American automobile industry has contracted and manufacturing has spread out to other geographic areas, lots of skilled workers have lost their jobs in addition to the large numbers of unskilled assembly-line workers. On top of that there are plenty of unskilled or lightly skilled jobs in a modern fab, and with depressed wages in Greater Detroit due to an overabundance of possible workers relative to jobs, wages can be lower and still attract employees.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    18. Re:How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Why should they? As long as they had a good run, what does it matter? Nothing lasts forever, certainly not any corporations. How many major corporations can you list which haven't either collapsed, been bought out, or significantly contracted in over 50 years? I can't think of any. Even IBM had a major contraction back in the 90s. Ford certainly contracted a lot, but these days they're doing great.

      As for "durable goods", cars don't last that long. Sure, a few weirdos keep the 25+-year-old models in pristine shape, and other cheapos keep old cars running (barely) long past their prime, but most cars are not kept more than 2 decades or so. And this span of time is quite a bit greater than it used to be: 30-50 years ago, a car was considered junk when it had 50,000 miles on it. It's only been the last 10-20 years where it became normal for cars to go well over 100k miles.

  2. Remeber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Silicon Valley was kick-started by federal dollars.

    Remember that you fuckers every time you fire American workers for H1-bs and then accuse them of having entitlement issues. And remember it again assholes when you say shit like "you could be in India" so be thankful for your refrigerator.

    The only people with entitlement issues are the SV "entrepreneurs" and VCs.

    1. Re:Remeber by jythie · · Score: 1

      People who have money tend to feel entitled to it, and have an interest in ensuring others do not rise behind them.

    2. Re:Remeber by minstrelmike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People who have money tend to feel entitled to it.

      That's because they buy into the Libertarian myth that they made their money themselves.
      Daniel Boone couldn't build his own rifle from rocks and sticks, because he didn't have the time nor the skills and Bill Gates could not get rich in Yemen or Somalia simply because the market wasn't big enough, regardless of whether it was steady enough and supported by laws and regulations and trust-worthy money.

      Business folks refuse to recognize the need for a government and a market, thinking those things just happen naturally. Even today, the conservative voters and their politicians (get cause-effect correct if you're defining a problem) still want to fix the Bush-recession by raising interest rates even tho most economists recognize the lack of recovery is because of a depressed market and not because of a depressed ability to borrow money. There is no reason to expand a factory if you cannot sell what's already being produced.

      The top tax rate in the US during the 1950s was 90%. That meant businesses paid their top employees a lot more (instead of giving _all_ the money to the CEO) and the government had enough money to build the interstate highway system (what is that worth for marketing) and fly to the moon. Then we decided rich people needed to keep "their" money and gradually for most of the people in America (more than half), life started to trend downhill.

      We're all in this together. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. And this isn't a plea for communism which many conservatives scream at folks who aren't on board with them 1000%. We already know communism doesn't work in groups larger than about 280 or so (but it works fantastically well for a nuclear family. We also know unfettered Capitalism that puts all the money into the rich folks hands without investing in infrastructure will destroy the society. You can see this in any kingdom that didn't invest in bridges or roads or put the collected tax money back in the hands of the people somehow.
      Adam Smith (1776) didn't push for complete economic freedom, just for competition within a well-regulated marketplace. Of course, he was writing to kings, most of whom had an interest in keeping their country runnning for mutiple generations.

      That doesn't seem to be a true statement about voters nowadays.

    3. Re:Remeber by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

      i see it as a similar conceit to anti-vaxxers

      anyone who grew up when it was common for children to die at a young age due to common diseases would vaccinate wholeheartedly. but, distant those horrors, the effort necessary to maintain the status quo of healthy children becomes all you see: vaccinations, sticking needles in children, strange concotions i don't understand...

      likewise, you have these similar fools who see the benefits of a regulated marketplace, but only see the onerous regulations, and not the horrors of what an unregulated marketplace is really like. so they react to the regulations as if they are the actual evil, just like anti-vaxxers

      anyone who survived (broke) one of the many banking panics of the 1800s would claim the FDIC the greatest godsend. but, now that we don't have runs on banks, we just have this "evil" "world domination" "freedom destroying" scheme called the FDIC: morons think the FDIC is the actual evil

      it's a conceit of lack of experience, lack of education, no awareness of history, prideful ignorance

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:Remeber by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      I think you are underestimating people's capacity to forget. Some of the same people who should remember "how things were" forget the salient details as they get older. A great example of this is the number of people who have forgotten how awful water and air quality was in America prior to intense government regulation, despite growing up with thick smog and polluted rivers.

    5. Re:Remeber by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yup, well said

      many of us also remember our youth fondly. when the teenage years are the most psychologically painful periods of a human life

      we all have it. we forget the bad, and remember the good. it's also why people think things should be "like the good old days," to mythologize the past and always think things are getting worse. the truth of course that the past was more violent, poorer, and unhappier

      it's a fundamental human conceit. historical myopia

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:Remeber by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Of course, he was writing to kings, most of whom had an interest in keeping their country runnning for mutiple generations.

      Except they didn't. Kings of old didn't give a shit about what happened to their countries after they died. Why would they had? They were divinely appointed to their office, so whatever happened as a result of said appointment wasn't really their problem. Peasant's starving because the king sold all of nation's wheat to fund a war waged for his ego? God's will.

      And of course this is still the case with the modern aristocrats. Shut down the only factory in a city and kicked all the workers to the roadside? No problem, the Invisible Hand will sort the worthy from the undeserving. A homeless guy asks for money? Hell no, he's suffering penance for his sins - if he had some marketable skills or connections he'd be sleeping in a mansion. Roads crumbling from lack of repair? Invisible Hand must be getting ready to release a flying car. The planet getting warmer? No worries, the Invisible Hand will surely save such devoted servants! And figure out some way to kick that homeless man some more in the process for being economically worthless.

      There comes a point of no return, when the damage already inflicted makes it impossible to rise funds to stop more from occurring. The question is, can this pathological secularized religion be removed from power before the damn cult dooms the entire country, and possibly whole West?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Remeber by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      that's just ignorance. valuing life means you value vaccines. if you value life, but you don't value vaccines, that's not a separate belief, that's lack of knowledge

      everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. no one is entitled to their own facts. if you don't understand that vaccines protect life, you're simply a stupid person

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:Remeber by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      If that were true, then why did so many of them commission monuments to be erected and histories to be written?

    9. Re:Remeber by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      It's mostly Republican paradises that maintain an inventory tax. It's uncommon.
      http://taxfoundation.org/blog/monday-map-property-taxes-business-inventory

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
  3. Rule? Dominance? It's not a kingdom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's a ton of software companies out there, and the majority of them aren't in Silcon Valley. When I think about the software I use every day, most of it wasn't produced in SV. Linux? Worldwide. Windows? Redmond. Facebook? Don't use it. Google Chrome? Ok, one.

    Software is way, way bigger than SV, and has been for a long time. SV is a big player to be sure, but it's not a company, and it doesn't act as one entity. It's a region, and it certainly doesn't rule, or have any dominance.

  4. How adorable... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    The place where everyone goes to 'disrupt' things has assured us that business will continue as usual.

  5. Why would anyone start there? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ultra expensive, employees can leave for another startup, employees demand 2x their national average wage, employees demand partial ownership, highest taxes in nation, lawsuit friendly, non compete clauses not enforceable.

    I can do a startup in Texas without these problems for half the cost and low taxes. I can find qualified workers too and not just self-righteous college graduates with no experience demanding 100k a year too! Before I am labeled anti employee assholes I would like to say a 70k job in Austin gets you a nice home. I pay less in taxes on you too and we both win. Try that with 120k in San Francisco?

    What made silicon valley was what Texas or North Dakota is today. Cheap land, cheap employees, friendly government, no one leaving for another startup.

    In the 1960s Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey was where it was out. Now the reverse is true.

    Economics should be encouraging companies to leave. This whole synergy argument is bullshit

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
    1. Re:Why would anyone start there? by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well it's not like this is all a recent development. The Bay Area has been more expensive than Texas for about 150 years now, and yet SV is the big time, while Austin is a regional hub. "Land is cheaper! Employees will settle for less money!" is true pretty much everywhere except for NYC, and yet I don't see many companies moving to flyover country.

      And of course, if a number of large employers all suddenly congregated in Austin, of course land prices would go up, salaries go up, etc...this doesn't all happen in a vacuum.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Why would anyone start there? by hwstar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is precisely why I won't leave California. I will never sign a non-compete contract. Noncompetes are what made silicon valley exceptional. People moving from company to company is what makes companies great, and it distributes the top talent across all companies so they get what they need done at their most
      critical stages of development.

      Some states are coming around to this way of thinking. Massachuttes, Oregon, and Illinois are considering severely restricting the use of non-competes.

      There are 3 areas of reform in United States labor law which need to happen to fully engage employees and to ensure an level playing field:

      1. Ban Non-compete contracts at the federal level. Use non-disclosure contracts instead.
      2. Ban pre-dispute arbitration clauses.
      3. Reform employment-at-will. Move to "just cause" like the rest of the developed world.

    3. Re:Why would anyone start there? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      And of course, if a number of large employers all suddenly congregated in Austin, of course land prices would go up, salaries go up, etc.

      That's definitely happening... Austin 10 years ago was cheap, now it is merely "not as expensive", especially if you don't want a long commute from the suburbs (Austin has horrible traffic, so I don't recommend that). Central areas of the city have prices in the $400-600k range. Fancy areas, like West Austin, are pushing $1m.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    4. Re:Why would anyone start there? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Well Silicon valley was so much cheaper than New Jersey in the 1960s so economics did the reverse.

      All the good engineers lived in the northeast. 1960s titans in high tech are GE, Bell Labs, IBM, and some startups in Massachusetts. It was hard to find an engineer in Northern California before Mayfield changed this.

      Now you are correct it is time for another correction but for some dumb reason people think the hills and the dirt are somehow magical and that some SV's demand relocation which is odd.

      Detroit is a hot spot too. Cheap and a government who are desperate to give you tax breaks too and very affordable office and living space for yourself and employees.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    5. Re:Why would anyone start there? by pspahn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is an odd statement. You intend to stay in California until the bitter end despite all the awful problems currently happening there. That is an acceptable trade-off for never signing a non-compete?

      You fear employers so much that you are unwilling to leave your cozy little nest even though it might be filled with fire ants and is no longer actually cozy.

      It's amazing the things one can be blind to if they never step out of their comfort zone.I hope you have fun sitting in traffic on 880 this summer.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    6. Re:Why would anyone start there? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      This is precisely why I won't leave California. I will never sign a non-compete contract. Noncompetes are what made silicon valley exceptional. People moving from company to company is what makes companies great, and it distributes the top talent across all companies so they get what they need done at their most
      critical stages of development.

      Some states are coming around to this way of thinking. Massachuttes, Oregon, and Illinois are considering severely restricting the use of non-competes.

      There are 3 areas of reform in United States labor law which need to happen to fully engage employees and to ensure an level playing field:

      1. Ban Non-compete contracts at the federal level. Use non-disclosure contracts instead.
      2. Ban pre-dispute arbitration clauses.
      3. Reform employment-at-will. Move to "just cause" like the rest of the developed world.

      While I sound like a jerk here let's turn the tables? You use that silly web 3.0 startup generator on here last week and want to start that insect management cloud software startup? You invest 1 million to some employees to do R&D, research, and develop ex[pertise with the algorithms.

      One of them leaves to compete with you and takes half your employees with him. He doesn't have to pay back that expensive line of credit from the bank that you took to develop the product. He undercuts you and goes directly to your customers! How would you feel?

      The Non-Disclosure sounds evil, but it is not intended to mess with employees at all. They can leave if they are unhappy and work elsewhere. The point is to protect your IP and investment.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    7. Re:Why would anyone start there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      70K in Austin will get you a 1 bedroom apartment that you will be paying $1300/month, with $100-150 for utilities. You can find cheaper if you move to the outskirts of town, but then you will be having to pay in time with a 2-3 hour commute each way, because Austin has not done a single road improvement (other than toll roads) since 1996, and there is no public transportation system to speak of. It takes three hours to go ten miles. Cycling? Other than a north/south corridor, you take your life in your own hands, and will get nailed either by someone with a Prius who is texting, or someone with a Suburban who just doesn't give a shit... either case, it will be a hit and run since no California transplant is going to take the time out of their day to make a blue form and give insurance to next of kin. (Trust me on this... there are a lot of ghost bikes as memorials.)

      The reason Austin has businesses are tax abatements and guarantees. With prices for housing running so high, coupled with no real amenities to speak of (Dirty Sixth is great if you are a member of the spray tan crowd or a hobo looking to roll a drunk or two, but there is no real entertainment to speak of when SXSW isn't in town), not to mention water problems, Austin is seeing its peak... I would not be surprised to see Austin hit the skids like in '86-87 where you get a free microwave if you just -look- at a rental property, much less sign a lease. May be a few years, but there isn't anything Austin has that Tulsa, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, doesn't.

      As for rural Texas, I do have to agree there. Possession of more than four dildos in Texas is a felony (penal code 43.21a), while bestiality is legal.

    8. Re:Why would anyone start there? by hwstar · · Score: 1

      I see no awful problems in California. Maybe you can elaborate further.

      I see lots of problems elsewhere (mostly in the middle and sourthern parts of the US). Employers take advantage of people and there's not much they can do about it the way the laws currently stand. At least in California, there are better employee protections than most of the rest of the country.

      I fear no employer. Unemployed at the moment, but I'm financially independent. I just refuse to work under some regimes.

    9. Re:Why would anyone start there? by hwstar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe you should have looked after your employees better, and paid them well enough to ensure they'd stick around. Companies that depend on locking in employees with non-competes are bad actors in my view.

    10. Re:Why would anyone start there? by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      You could halve your costs and lower your taxes by moving to Texas or North Dakota, but you'd also find it significantly harder to raise invement capital there. The big draw of the Bay Area for startups is the amount of VC money flowing around, and for some reason Silicon Valley VC firms have a strong preference for investing locally. Until this changes, or until people in other areas start investing heavily in tech, startups will continue to start primarily in Silicon Valley. And once established, it's hard for a company to move to a cheaper location, as it is extremely disruptive to its employees' lives.

    11. Re:Why would anyone start there? by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      True, but Austin has been a cultural hub (SXSW, live music capital of the world, etc.) for the weirder aspects of Texas for quite some time (and truly, Texas makes industrial strength freaks to survive the rest of the state), and it started well over 20 years ago with cheap rents, a college educated populace, and a mostly hands off government. That the rest of the country decided to take notice and drive up the costs isn't anything new. Boulder is going through the same now.

      Truth is the next Big Thing could be almost anywhere that is cheap, well educated, and free to fail without it being catastrophic. I'd bet on any of the college towns in the South, especially given drought concerns out West. Even their governments are starting to take a clue and realizing the legislature isn't the place to fight a cultural war.

    12. Re:Why would anyone start there? by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > What made silicon valley was what Texas or North
      > Dakota is today. Cheap land, cheap employees,
      > friendly government, no one leaving for another
      > startup.

      You couldn't be more wrong. People leaving for another startup is EXACTLY what made Silicon Valley.

      Pretty much all of the Intel founders met at and left Fairchild Semiconductors to form their own company. Fairchild itself was the result of people leaving Schockley Labs. Jobs and Woz worked at Atari and Hewlett-Packard before founding Apple. Palm came from ex-Apple employees. AMD also came from Fairchild employees. The cofounders of Nvidia jumped ship from AMD and Sun. YouTube was founded by ex-PayPal employees. And all that's just off the top of my head.

      Smart people meeting smart people, having an idea, and having the freedom to leave their employer to implement that idea, is the vert heart of innovation. The fact that you tout non-compete shackles as a good thing *does* mark you as an "anti employee asshole". You labeled yourself in your very first sentence. It also proves that you just don't get what makes for an environment that generates companies that are not only innovative, but fantastic to work for.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    13. Re: Why would anyone start there? by rfengr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, never mind Texas Instruments, Dallas Seminconductor, Raytheon, etc. as if there were never engineers in TX.

    14. Re:Why would anyone start there? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Clustering is a very real thing, especially when it comes to the very best workers. We are starting to see that in the DC area: For quite some time now, there have been a ton of tech workers for government and government contractors, but lately non-government related firms are starting to appear on the landscape, attracted to the amount of talent employed in the area. If you're building a tech startup, your number one priority isn't land, (you don't need it) it isn't taxes, (you aren't making money yet) it is top personnel, and it becomes much easier to go to them than have them come to you.

    15. Re: Why would anyone start there? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that corporations only pay tax on Profit right? Therefore, if the taxes become to high, you pump all your profit into R&D, or give out a dividend, anything to have 0 profit, therefore 0 taxes. So, raising taxes will cause less taxes paid, not more.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    16. Re:Why would anyone start there? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Even their governments are starting to take a clue and realizing the legislature isn't the place to fight a cultural war.

      If only this were true...

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
  6. Not so unique by Livius · · Score: 1

    Very little of the qualities identified are in any way unique. Lots of places around the world (Waterloo, Canada, for one) have created very similar environments, simply on a smaller scale. Silicon Valley is merely the first and the biggest, and will keep its place with a little bit of effort, or lose it just as easily.

  7. Personally, I'd bet on Detroit (no joke) by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Personally, I'd bet on Detroit for future economic ascendance- at least for the U.S. Rent ist dirt cheap and there's a distinct artsy/berlinish vibe to the people rebuilding Detroit right now - lot's of creativity and pragmatism ... For the western hemisphere in total Berlin is a good bet. Abundance of talent and creativity and a digital culture that is one abstraction level away from hardware (which will be built entirely by robots in just a few years from now anyway) plus a culture that emphasises a post-scarcity economy.

    On a global perspective we westerners shouldn't delude ourselves. Far-east asia and india and perhaps the arab nations (after the terror has calmed down and the people are clamoring for an age of reason again) is probably where the parties at in 2-3 decades from now. India is the youngest country in the world. We'll all be pensioners when they'll just be warming up. 1.3 billion fairly well educated people in their best years ought to pack some economic and innovation punch.

    I expect the valley and bay area to turn into something of a modern day Paris meets Amsterdam - which it basically is already. A tourist attraction and real-estate investment haven for the super-rich.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Personally, I'd bet on Detroit (no joke) by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Detroit's government deliberately drove off businesses. It took a long time to get to where it is today, and it was all part of the plan. Look up who Coleman Young was and what his policies were.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Personally, I'd bet on Detroit (no joke) by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Detroit is HOT! So is North Dakota, and Austin Texas is trying to do some startups too. Boulder Colorado is another one.

      There are very cheap rents, friendly local tax incentives, and with a low cost of living and a revitilized downtown it is a win for the employees and the employer. You can get a trendy bachelor apartment for half the price of a studio in SV and factories too are turning into office spaces that look funky too with bricks on the outside.

      The rules of supply and demand will have to come down soon as only the top 4 or 5 .com's can afford to stay with money to burn. Not everyone is a facebook or Apple with hundreds of billions in cash lying around.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    3. Re:Personally, I'd bet on Detroit (no joke) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm re-posting part of a previous comment about Detroit, and why I think Michigan's laws make us an unlikely place as a future engineering powerhouse.

      Michigan has what we used to call pro-business laws, but more and more, as California hoovers up the country's engineering talent, it's been come clear that these laws aren't even pro-business. They are anti-worker, and in the long term, they hurt a state's competitiveness in the very competitive engineering labor market. Michigan is now a right-to-work state (except for teachers, fire fighters and police lol). Most engineers I know are anti-union. I think that is misguided, though. Unions do a lot for all of us, and maybe right-to-work is appealing in the short-term, but in the long-term it's a bad thing. It suppresses average wages, and that drives away white-collar talent as well. If it wasn't good enough for police, fire and teachers, it probably isn't the right thing for any of us. In 1985, Michigan began allowing the enforcement of non-compete agreements, which I believe drives away the best workers to different states (but I don't have good data to back this up ATM). In addition, Michigan has a pretty loose treatment of non-competes in court. A three-year non-compete could potentially be considered reasonable by the court (which is insanity in the first place). Worse still, Michigan has this crazy "blue line" rule. So, where as in Wisconsin, an overly restrictive non-compete would be totally invalid, or better in California, where almost all non-competes would be invalid, or in Minnesota where certain parts of the agreement might be stricken, it's even more anti-worker in Michigan. In Michigan, a judge, after the fact, can modify the agreement in an attempt to align it with the original intents of the party's, rewriting overly broad portions rather than strickening them (so called "red lining"). This is called a so called "blue line" process, and it is one of the most anti-worker ways to handle employment agreements. Then there are IP-assignment agreements. They are effectively not legal in California, but they are legal in Michigan, even for inventions unrelated to the core business done on the employees own time without the employer's resources.

      These anti-worker laws in Michigan have two effects: many of the very best of workers are smart enough to leave to a state which is more pro-worker and startups are much less likely to grow and flourish. Workers want to be risk averse too, especially when they are 23 and prepared to invest in themselves. The very best talent even more so. On startups, in the era of student loans, few people, even the very smartest, can afford not to work a 9-to-5 after university. That means that many startups need to bud in the garage on evenings in weekends. Young, smart, ambitious engineers are, statistically on average, smart enough to work in a state that doesn't place that activity on shaky ground. So, until Michigan gets serious about attracting talent (and startups), I don't have a good outlook for the state as a future engineering powerhouse. For the moment, I am happy with my low-cost house and high paying job, but I don't foresee myself staying in Michigan for the rest of my life.

    4. Re:Personally, I'd bet on Detroit (no joke) by 31eq · · Score: 1

      Berlin is in the eastern hemisphere

    5. Re:Personally, I'd bet on Detroit (no joke) by Qbertino · · Score: 1

      Berlin is in the eastern hemisphere.

      USA geography at work? ... If Berlin is the eastern hemisphere, then Japan is the far west. ... But I guess it does depend on perspective.

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  8. How medium.com got that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and why it will continue to peddle nothing but empty clickbait.

  9. Water? by minstrelmike · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I actually did RTFA. The historical stuff is interesting. The assertion that no place else will ever come close is completely unsupported.
    I remember reading excerpts from historical articles about NYC and London in economic texts and how they would never be eclipsed.

    1. Both NY and London hit certain sizes and then the close interaction (required according to the author) between peoples cannot happen as well because of the size of the crowd.
    2. When the prices of renting get too high, the smartest students can't afford to move there, not unless they go into finance (or can live on H1-B wages)
    3. The price of water in California is going to skyrocket. That changes everything about the immediate area.

    Tulips in Holland (1500s), Tea from Asia (1600s), Beaver pelts from America (1700s), Watches from Switzerland (1800s), all highy profitable markets not only guranteed to never fail by their salesmen, but ones that failed spectacularly fast when the end did hit.

    1. Re:Water? by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

      Holland still has a large flower industry, and a large agricultural industry that advanced with it.
      Asia certainly still has a large tea industry.
      Beaver pelts, well OK, that one is dead.
      Switzerland still has a large watch industry, and a large precision manufacturing industry that grew up around the watch industry.

      There are always places that can do something on the cheaper, money floods in, they become the next player before someplace else becomes cheaper, and the money goes with it.

  10. Europe's SV by bre_dnd · · Score: 2

    Try Cambridge, with companies like ARM, Cambridge Silicon Radio/CSR (several billion chips sold) Cambridge University. Plenty of money in London, Europe's financial centre. Plenty of talent around, or attractable due to English being the universal language and European borders being open -- or old colonial ties. Or try Berlin for "frontier living".

  11. Noncompetes by sjbe · · Score: 1

    This is precisely why I won't leave California. I will never sign a non-compete contract.

    That has nothing inherently to do with being in California. I've never lived much west of the Mississippi and I've never signed or even been asked to sign a non-compete in well over 20 years. While they are legal in my state they are not particularly common.

  12. Yes Detroit by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd bet on Detroit for future economic ascendance- at least for the U.S. Rent ist dirt cheap and there's a distinct artsy/berlinish vibe to the people rebuilding Detroit right now - lot's of creativity and pragmatism

    Don't forget that Detroit metro has among the highest density of engineering talent in the country and has for the last 50 years. There is a LOT of technology in the area already and it's not particularly hard to find talent. The biggest problem in Detroit has historically been getting funding for ventures. There is nothing quite like the VC base there is in Silicon Valley. Of course that's true almost everywhere else

    1. Re:Yes Detroit by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      There is this thing called Skype and planes.

      The money saved in cheaper rents can be used to fly down or them fly up. Some may not like this and demand relocation but not all. In the 21st century this problem is less of an issue.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
  13. it was the gubment by alen · · Score: 1

    US defense industry was big in california from WW2 through the end of the cold war. Lockheed had lots of smart engineers building stealth aircraft at their Skunkworks there. the US space program was the original buyer for CPU's and all kinds of tech that we use today

    after the cold war ended these engineers went to work for private industry

  14. And will the mystery guest... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Isn't it basic writing that your IDENTIFY the subject before you start referring to them with pronouns? "The Valley's top historian" is a descriptive statement (and a personal opinion at that), it doesn't substitute for her name.

  15. Re:silicon valley != past silicon valley by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

    There have always been a handful of big players that "dominate" the valley. In the past, it was companies like Hewlett Packard, Sun, IBM, Xerox, and Fairchild Semiconductor.

    The names change, but the big companies play their role too. A big part of the valley is people getting their start at the big-name companies, meeting people and developing their skills, and then leaving to form their own startups... which something grow up to be the next big name that "dominates" the valley. Remember: The Intel founders all met each other whilst working at Fairchild, and Wozniak worked for HP before co-founding Apple.

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  16. You don't need to sign a non compete by lophophore · · Score: 1

    You don't need to sign a non-compete in California, your employer already has signed one for you!

    They've all secretly agreed not to poach! Who needs a non-compete agreement when your employer's competitors have all agreed not to hire you!

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
  17. The only constant is change. by Snufu · · Score: 1

    The article makes no argument to support its assertion that silicon valley will continue be a unique technology center. In fact, the article does make several compelling observations and cites trends that would portend just the opposite--a diaspora of tech development.

    The specific SV boom from 1960-1990 was a concatenation of unique events. There is nothing unique to the geography that will keep tech in SV. California has the best combination of weather and recreation in the U.S. (IMO), but that's not going to keep the rest of the world from catching up in the areas that created SV: knowledge workforce, capital, and willingness to take a risk.

  18. better watch your back by lophophore · · Score: 1

    Silicon Valley was nowhere in the 60s. Everything has it's rise and fall

    Consider what happened around Boston, look at the wreckage of the computer industry there:

    Symbolics, Lisp Machine, Prime, Data General, Wang, ComputerVision, and (of course) Digital Equipment Corporation.

    For a while, route 128 was the epicenter of the American computer industry. Now, those companies are all dead.

    It's coming for you, California! Silicon Graphics, Sun... Gone... HP is already circling the drain. Apple's remarkable boutique computer business can only last so long. The web companies are largely one-trick ponies, just waiting to lame up. (We saw what happened to Twitter's valuation last week...)

    I call bullshit on this article.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
    1. Re:better watch your back by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      also Thinking Machines Inc.

  19. Silicon Valley wasn't built on skype by sjbe · · Score: 1

    There is this thing called Skype and planes.

    Doesn't work, not at scale anyway. The notion that location doesn't matter is a myth. Silicon Valley is what it is precisely because the people that make it what it is are located there. Move them somewhere else and Silicon Valley doesn't exist - not as we know it. Detroit is the automotive capital of the world because of the people and companies that are located there. You cannot skype that into existence. It doesn't work. You have to have the people actually living and working there.

    1. Re:Silicon Valley wasn't built on skype by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      The GP meant the VCs, not the employees. Don't you feel silly now?

  20. Typically a non-existing problem by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    This is precisely why I won't leave California. I will never sign a non-compete contract.

    I've never signed (nor being asked to sign) a non-compete in the 20+ years I've been working in the East coast (Florida, specifically). And even if you were asked to sign one, they are rarely enforceable. The one case I know well was completely obliterated in a county court because it would have forced the defendant to take unreasonable daily commute drives to work - meaning 20 miles one way.

  21. your view is biased (and stupid). by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should have looked after your employees better, and paid them well enough to ensure they'd stick around. Companies that depend on locking in employees with non-competes are bad actors in my view.

    In your view?

    I don't defend non-compete agreements, but you are seriously mistaken if you think employees can leave (and worse, go after your clientele) because they do not get treated better. I've seen employees leaving with confidential information, and client information (in industries where that is/was illegal) despite getting a very good treatment, benefits, salaries and a decent work culture. These people not only damaged (or try to damage) the company, but by transitivity, they did so against their fellow (ex) co-workers who did nothing against them.

    Oooooohhhhhhhhh evil companies bluhr durr durr.

    Either it never occurred to you that this is possible, or your have never seen it, or you simply decide to ignore it. Either way, it doesn't help the position you are trying to present.

    Avarice, malice and treachery runs on both sides of the fence. It is human nature, and to pretend employees do not act on it is simply stupid.

    That people on /. mod you up without even considering the real examples in history of employees damaging companies that treated them well, that is not surprising.

  22. Re: How Detriot Got That Way -- and Why It Will... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Even as late as the 1980s, cars did not have a 6th digit on the odometer, so you couldn't go 100k miles without rolling over. I'm old enough to remember what cars were like in the 70s, and to have driven 80s cars. It was rare for cars to exceed 100k, rare enough that they didn't bother with the 6th digit on American cars. It was the Japanese cars in the 80s, as I recall, where they started putting that extra digit in, and it actually got used a lot. A mid-80s American car simply wouldn't last that long unless someone was really serious about upkeep and repairs and doing engine rebuilds. I do have a relative with a couple of 60s-era pickups still running, but he replaces the engines every so often and it's his hobby to do constant upkeep on them, but that is not a normal case at all.