COMMENTS
Boston and others need to stop having Silicon Valley envy and find their own niche / focus / big thinking. So far everything I am hearing is only how can we be as good as the valley.
Sounds like a great place to meet bright minds and learn! Wish I was there!
Dharmesh,
First I wish this comment text box was bigger. :-)
You brought up in important point in #2, one that I don't see getting talked enough about. Although oddly enough Andy Payne, a fellow Boston entrepreneur, blogged about it today as well.
http://blog.payne.org/
There are 2 things that we RARELY see here on the East Coast:
1. Venture guys letting Founders take "money off the table". This is something that is more common in the Valley. i.e. Would Facebook still be a private company if
Mark hadn't been allowed to take money off the table?
2. Venture guys being "ok" with founders creating their own portfolio strategy by founding or being involved in multiple startups concurrently. i.e. Kevin Rose & Jay Adelsen with Digg + Revision3 + Pownce (Kevin only).
Without at least 1 of these being feasible in Boston why would a founder being willing to hold out for a "grand slam" homerun when a $100m offer shows up on your doorstep?
I enjoyed your take. Two items stood out to me:
1. The lack of an entrepreneur in attendance does matter. There wan't a person in attendance there who wil have anything to do with starting the next great start-up in Boston. VCs (and I say this as an early stage venture investor) are fundamentally on a different page from the entrepreneurs (and they have to be). They/We aren't partners or buddies or any of the bs thats in the press materials. VCs are focused on returns not innovation or economic development or anything of the sort.
The second one as, "Frank Moss, the head of the MIT Media Lab challenged the group to better help commercialize the technology and invention that is coming out of MIT." The media lab especially is a huge disappointment as the ignition point of great start-ups and its not from lack of attention or resources that's for sure. A great example is the $99 laptop --that even though its basically a toy -- cost more than decent laptops you get from Walmart. Oh it makes everyone feel good, but its a typical Ivory tower boondoogle. And boobdoogle's have been what MIT's Media Lab has specialized in the past 5+ years.
MIT indeed has many great technologies coming out of it, but Frank's take is self serving at an obscene level. The fact remains that great companies are and could pop out of any of the area universities. And when you get to B2C plays, MIT is no Stanford. Its barely a Suffolk.
Technology is great -- but the best technology is not what great start-ups are about (Microsoft, AOL, etc etc etc). CUring pain, ideas, business acumen, revenues, and risk taking (hands-off) investors are what successful start-ups are made of.
This is complex issue. I sympathize with the temptation to take a sure exit early even if you're leaving potential on the table. At the same time, I'm concerned about what the proponderence of early exist mean for tech, especially software. 10 years from now will their only be 3 tech companies (IBM, Oracle and Google)? We need more.
Perhaps private equity has a role to play here. They can take over VCs' positions and give the entrepreneurs fresh runway (more years to build out).
One final comment: I think part of the "blame" here lies in the dependence on outside capital in the 1st place. Companies that get to cash-flow positive sooner give up less of their equity and control the shots more.
My sense of the scene is that Boston as a whole is not ambitious enough/too conservative for the global scale marets which are now readily addressable. So ironically it is that Boston prudence which which leads to the early cashing-ins by entrepreneurs.
And if someone has a very very big idea, they may not even bother trying to get it started in Boston as otehrs note, since the Boston VCs are looking for a string of singles, and less willing than California to swing for the fences. So the homerun ideas aren;t even pitched seriously in Boston.
I feel like Boston has a ton of talent chasing buzz words that simply are not the right fit. For example, I was awed to find one startup called Cover4Me throwing out terms like "web 2.0" "facebook application" and the rest without any supporting evidence that they had any idea what these things are! Upon further investigation, I discovered that the entrepreneur behind the project was a former VC from Intel Capital who was trying to create her own hot startup. It was disappointing to say the least, as I walked away feeling like it is this type of project out chasing funding (and sadly probably getting it) that taints the Boston reputation.