[mironathetin]

"Hm, sorry but ages of experience show that what mostly works is the other way around …"

I think it is a business by itself: you pay for your exotic startup location. What we just read is a travel agency that focuses on startups.

I agree with atmosx, that towns are better suited for startups. When we worked on our startup many years ago, one of the largest obstacles for investors was the location: a mid size sleepy town, away from where the money is. One reason for it was of course, that investors back then didn't get what internet means (they still don't). The other reason is, they want control. If their investment is out of reach, there will be no investment.

Uhh, funny idea: take their cash and disappear to a moroccan beach. Sounds certainly nice, but looks so bad.

[tjradcliffe]

Same experience here. Investors like to be close to their money. Being in a city that is easy traveling distance from a major international airport hub means that any investor in the world is one plane flight away. being one short hop beyond that means the number of available investors becomes limited to the people who are very local.

[tracker1]

Even then.. Are the airports in NYC, SF or Seattle really that much better than say Portland, Denver, Boise or a number of other smaller cities that aren't as packed?

[mathattack]

Yes - they're talking their book. Which would survive a VC funding round better: Two startups with a similar very far fetched idea - one asks for $10mm to continue in the valley, the other $5mm in Morocco?

[bdcravens]

The valley one, but odds are it'd burn through the cash faster.