[askinakhan]

The UK will never be able to foster the same atmosphere as Silicon Valley. We're a conservative bunch and always will be; it's almost embedded in our culture. This isn't a problem because it means we're more prudent when it comes to investing hence why we rarely get VC/Angel investment for startups unless they have an already successful business model.

The best way to put it is: In the UK we mostly invest in 1 - n whereas in Silicon Valley they also invest in 0 - 1. After all, it's the birthplace of true capitalism.

[pjc50]

In the UK we mostly invest in property. You can get an easy 15% annually out of leveraged BTL. Every one year out of seven things slump but values don't generally go down in nominal terms. Compared to that, why bother with buying a technology lottery ticket?

UK has a very poor history of management culture as well. This is what sunk a lot of the old national companies and hangs around the privatised sector like a bad smell.

After all, it's the birthplace of true capitalism

I can't tell whether you're referring to UK or SF here, although surely that descriptor could only apply to the UK or Italy.

[madaxe_again]

This is basically the old Tory and Whig argument, unresolved. Whigs put faith in commerce and the growth of wealth borne from innovation - and founded the Bank of England. The Tories insisted that the true value of the country was in its land, and founded the Land Bank at about the same time as the BoE ~ 1690.

While the BoE appears to have won, as it still exists and the Land Bank does not, the mindset of the nation has been, and is still, Tory to the heart.

Oh, and land/property is a bubble, unless you're hedging on infinite growth of a fixed asset based on demand growth - which is daft, particularly if you're in the same breath opposing immigration and social mobility.

[georgespencer]

> The UK will never be able to foster the same atmosphere as Silicon Valley. We're a conservative bunch and always will be; it's almost embedded in our culture.

I would agree with this if I wasn't seeing entrepreneurs who are breaking the stereotypical British attitude of "sell for £10m, kids to private school, consultancy gig until I'm 50 and retire". We have US-style founders over here who are trying to build amazing things. The venture community hasn't caught up, but I think after one or two larger exits for truly spectacular businesses (forget Zoopla, which is about as innovative as Amazon would be if it helped you check the stock of book stores which you still had to visit), the limited partners in funds will pile on.

> This isn't a problem because it means we're more prudent when it comes to investing hence why we rarely get VC/Angel investment for startups unless they have an already successful business model.

That's changing amongst the top tier of venture investors. Rentify (my business) couldn't process credit cards when we raised from Balderton, and the first board mtg of the year was focused on going for growth uber alles.

I agree that some in the UK lack the natural optimism of the west coast, but there are entrepreneurs here who fit the bill and I think venture will catch up on the whole.

Seed stage is different and I agree that seed investors are a lot more conservative in the UK. But from their perspective, look at the recent explosion of pre-venture startups in the UK, and the relative lack of expertise in discerning which is high potential and which isn't. Risk profile doesn't come into it (on the basis that all early-stage startups are high risk), but rather the seed community in London/UK has a heavy financial services bias, and therefore there's a paucity of expertise or even interest in tech.

> The best way to put it is: In the UK we mostly invest in 1 - n whereas in Silicon Valley they also invest in 0 - 1. After all, it's the birthplace of true capitalism.

I agree with this although I dispute the reasons, and the notion that it will never change.

[askinakhan]

> I would agree with this if I wasn't seeing entrepreneurs who are breaking the stereotypical British attitude of "sell for £10m, kids to private school, consultancy gig until I'm 50 and retire". We have US-style founders over here who are trying to build amazing things. The venture community hasn't caught up, but I think after one or two larger exits for truly spectacular businesses (forget Zoopla, which is about as innovative as Amazon would be if it helped you check the stock of book stores which you still had to visit), the limited partners in funds will pile on.

My suggestion wasn't that we aren't creating successful startups. My suggestions is that RELATIVELY, when compared to Silicon Valley, we are not fostering innovation. Of corse we are breaking through the barrier but we will always be risk averse and when compared to Silicon Valley, we will never reach the same levels of innovation unfortunately.

From just plucking figures from Google we can see that Silicon Roundabout has about 1000-2000 startups whereas Silicon Valley has more than 20,000 which is a ridiculous ratio.

> That's changing amongst the top tier of venture investors. Rentify (my business) couldn't process credit cards when we raised from Balderton, and the first board mtg of the year was focused on going for growth uber alles.

Agreed, I think it is changing but I really don't think it will catch up with SF VC. London is great for go-getters but when you go to SF you can raise money for an app that sends a "Yo". Don't get me wrong, it's not a good thing that you can get investment for the most ridiculous of ideas but i'm just trying to portray how risk averse we are as a population. Or maybe a better way to put it is that we take calculated risks.

> I agree with this although I dispute the reasons, and the notion that it will never change.

My suggestion that it would never change was a mistake. We will, as a population, become risk-prone but we will never compare to Silicon Valley. I think we will always be less likely to invest in 0-1's.

[mattmanser]

What's ironic is that the British are known for their innovation and inventiveness and yet here you are making the outrageous claim we're not.

it's pretty stupid how these ridiculous, unfounded memes perpetuate on HN. Young founders are best (but there are regular article how empirically they are worse), SV is the only place that has innovation (but clearly aren't).

The funny one I read a year or two ago was that no EU startup had ever sold for $100mill, which was utter nonsense that 5 secs of googling proved wrong, but was being repeated by various SV journalists.

[pm90]

>What's ironic is that the British are known for their innovation and inventiveness and yet here you are making the outrageous claim we're not.

I don't think that's what askinakhan is saying. He/she is basically saying that there is way too much Venture capital in the valley, which basically means that a lot of ideas get funded, even if a majority of them are crazy ones. This lack of capital splurge in the UK makes it harder for startups there, so they have to be more careful...and this is what he/she is saying might lead to lesser innovation.

[dreamfactory2]

Isn't that an argument that the UK market represents far higher returns on investment and thus a much stronger startup scene i.e. the crap has been weeded out?

[dublinclontarf]

It's funny, when trying to get funded I spoke to so many angels and VC's who would bemoan the lack of any Facebook / Google / Twitter level exits.

Those businesses would never have gotten funding if they were based in London.

We ended up not getting funding, and I had to move on. I second the other comments here on the conservative nature of London investors, the most common comment we heard was "come back when you're making money".

[hackerboos]

The problem with investors in the UK is that they generally want to see profit early and are dismissive of ideas that appear to be radical.

[tudorw]

That's a fairly good criteria for success in most businesses.

[jaksmit]

define success. It's not necessarily a good formula for tens of billions $ ipo level success; see facebook, twitter, google

[mike_hearn]

Yes, but then there are a lot of startups in the Valley and the vast majority are not Googles or Facebooks. It does tend to look quite bubbly. And from an investor POV perhaps Twitter is not something to aim for, profits-wise.

Another problem is that the current bubble (if you want to call it that) seems heavily driven by the tendency of Google and Facebook to engage in enormous acquisitions of otherwise unremarkable or even no-hope businesses. A lot of companies don't seem to have any business plan beyond "get bought". But the big fish want companies down the road so the employees can all relocate to HQ. They don't typically want to acquire companies in other countries unless that company is truly something unique.

[vidarh]

> tens of billions $ ipo level success; see facebook, twitter, google

But those make up a tiny proportion of business.

[cylinder]

define success. most VC funds lose money every year.

[madaxe_again]

This is true, and it's still most readily manifested in the way that entrepreneurs are viewed and treated in this country - as crazy outcasts, who are best avoided, as you might catch the horrendous disease of independent thought.

[jarek]

This really isn't the case in London in my experience

See: the hundreds of people who attended Silicon Milkroundabout yesterday

[spacecowboy_lon]

Unfortuntly I think CP Snows two nations is still intact and its not the technical/sceintific side that has the whip hand - in the UK techies are regarded as greasy engineers not fit to press our nose against the window (to quote tom jones) to look at the other professions.

[madaxe_again]

That's the one. Same thing as causes my parents (and myself) to tell people that I'm unemployed, as it's easier to explain than "I run a successful startup with multi-million pound net profit" - as they then realise it's one of these technology things, and that puts me on the same rung as, say, a waste-water engineer. Actually, they're up a few rungs, as they deal with "real" things. Techies are all viewed as "the IT guy", and are there to be blamed for anything and everything, and to be belittled at every opportunity. "You wouldn't know what it's like to run a business!", says the guy who runs a pair of holiday lets, to the guy who employs 50 people and powers £1bn+ of commerce p.a.

Being involved in the web in the UK is akin to having social leprosy - the only other people who will accept you or even talk to you without peering down their noses at you are other people with leprosy - sorry - other web professionals.

This extends even to investors and VCs, as their view over here is that entrepreneurs/technologists are a necessary evil that you have to deal with as part of the process of making money by magic.

[spacecowboy_lon]

Quite I once took a call for my dad (who's an EE) from some one who wanted a house rewiring I had to tell him oh he's working as a consultant for London underground on the upgrade to the Tube's power systems.

Thers an story that the no2 at BT labs (the place that designed and built colossus) was asked what sort of cars he worked on :-(

[computerjunkie]

Disagree. As Jarek said, the siliconmilkroundabout event yesterday says the opposite. I attended yesterday and I was actually surprised by the energy and passion people have for their own products. Its really changed my perspective on start ups.

My biggest concern with start ups is the work/life balance. Putting in unnecessary hours and producing mediocre results doesn't sound so productive to me. I understand the occasional long night once in a blue moon but if it becomes a weekly or daily thing then you are immediately fall into sleep debt.