[nostrademons]

Part of the guy's argument (and one I've heard from a few YC founders) is that with all the other odds that are stacked against you in a startup, do you really want to take a chance on location too? If it gives you a few percentage points better chance of success, why not take it? If your startup failed, how would you feel if it was only because you didn't move to Silicon Valley? Tech markets are often winner-take-all - if you're a couple percentage points better than the other guy, you win.

[wheels]

That uhm, wasn't part of his argument, that was his argument. And it's a fair one.

That said, all startup successes are statistical anomalies. The implicit irrational assumption is that you can beat the odds. Some companies beat harder odds than others, and being outside the valley does set them up for that.

There are lots of reasons one might not want or be able to move -- visas, family, other attachment to a particular place -- and that just has to become part of the calculation, "This makes it x% more likely that I'm just wasting my time, but I'm still [irrationally] convinced I can beat those odds."

We know that this works because there are examples of it. We also know that it's harder because of how relatively few there are.

[kaveri]

At the end of the day you succeed (in the larger world, not the Silicon Valley echo chamber) by having a great (or even good enough) product that hits the market at the right time, and can pretty much grow because you have customers willing to pay for it, directly or indirectly.

If all you have is a "me-too"|yet-another-Twitter-client that appeals only to the geek crowd, and has no viable business model, Silicon Valley is the place to be. Especially if you want to burn through early capital living in one of the most expensive locations in North America.