If it was possible to beat silicon valley competitors we'd see a lot more unicorns outside silicon valley. You certainly can hide but you can't run ;-)
The problem I see is that the massive funding available to "SV Startups" often skews what a success really is. Say you have a startup that's received several rounds of funding and based on those rounds it's now valued at $1B+, what is that valuation really worth if you're burning cash so fast you're only 1 or 2 failed rounds away from bankruptcy. Sure it's nice to be able to say "we have a 1 billion dollar company" but what is that worth if the valuation only holds if investors keep pouring cash into it? IMHO a company that is worth $100M and can stand on it's own feet without constant infusions of cash is inherently more valuable than a company "worth" $1B but needs to make every funding round to keep the lights on.
"Unicorn" is a term meaning a billion dollar valuation, without being listed as a stock. If I go spend a billion dollars on a company it is a unicorn, even if has zero success or sustainability.
So of course there are fewer unicorns outside of SV. The entire concept of a unicorn is tightly coupled to VC dollars.
Yeah, sorry if my jest wasn't clearly jesting. I'm actually not overly concerned with successful VC-backed companies, I'm just pointing out that the term "unicorn" is fairly contrived.
Actually, this is indicative of the SV mindset where "biggest wins". I hope that's not the case for many businesses, and there are plenty where "successful" means having sustainable income growth, and "win" means "being the obvious choice in your niche".
The problem I see is that the massive funding available to "SV Startups" often skews what a success really is. Say you have a startup that's received several rounds of funding and based on those rounds it's now valued at $1B+, what is that valuation really worth if you're burning cash so fast you're only 1 or 2 failed rounds away from bankruptcy. Sure it's nice to be able to say "we have a 1 billion dollar company" but what is that worth if the valuation only holds if investors keep pouring cash into it? IMHO a company that is worth $100M and can stand on it's own feet without constant infusions of cash is inherently more valuable than a company "worth" $1B but needs to make every funding round to keep the lights on.