>I watched Social Network for the second time today, and it got me thinking. Entrepreneurs are no different than struggling actors.

Didn't we already collectively agree that the events depicted in the Social Network were more Hollywood than Silicon Valley?

Not that I totally disagree with the comparison, I've made it myself as recently as yesterday, but it's not exactly a bad thing. There was a time when Hollywood was making a lot of good films. But those films brought in money, and money brought in vanity and all that other nastiness. There's certainly plenty of money bouncing around SV, but the fame is a bit more self-contained. If you move to the valley and send a letter home to your mom about how you bumped into Fred Wilson in a coffee shop, she would probably not run off to tell all her friends about it.

If the worst thing you can say about the valley is that everybody there wants to build something great and is willing to risk a lot to make an effort at it, that sounds like a fantastic environment.

- crushing conformity ? check.

- love of me-too and sequels ? check.

- living off the glory days of the past ? check.

- patronage and network trump talent and originality ? check.

- overwhelming sense of self-importance ? check.

- lack of common sense economics ? check.

Maybe Silicon Valley is Hollywood for startups after all.

Indeed, things that are not possible anywhere else seem to be possible in Silicon Valley. Having visited there myself I also found it a unique and interesting place. Having said that, the real world is not Silicon Valley. And even in Hollywood there's a lot of famous actors who only gained fame for one role and then disappeared, never to be seen again. I wonder if IT is similar in that way as well.

> What other place can you get a more dramatic scene when you finally tell your parents: “Mom, Dad: I’ve decided to quit school & work, and move to hollywood to pursue my lifelong dream of becoming an actor”. Change Hollywood with “Chicago, New York, London, Tokyo, Paris” and it just doesn’t have the same effect.

I would argue that New York does have nearly the same cachet for actors as Hollywood. Just because you're going to become an actor doesn't mean you're going to do film or TV. Chicago's Second City has also helped develop the careers of lots of famous comedians. (I know London has a thriving theater scene as well, but can any Brits comment on whether going to London to become an actor is a "thing" in the UK?)

What this metaphor might mean for startups is that there may be room for another startup hub or two, although with a different focus from Silicon Valley (perhaps non-web?), but probably not more than one or two.

Actually it is different. Using your analogy the actor is the programmer. Most of the time in Hollywood the actor matters more than the product. Also as an actor you are trying to get a part in someone else's product. So you need to be where the product owner is.

As a programmer, you own the product. Noone needs to know you, and you product could be very famous without anyone knowing you.

As an example take the movie SALT. It is quite famous. I know the actors. I do not know the name of the producer or writer. That would be the programmer.

My point is, programmers do not need SV as much as actors need HW. Programmers are writers, and producers. You can produce a movie in your basement, and distribute it on Youtube for free. If enough people like it, you can get funding to do a more polished, cinematic version of it.

The author's premise is flawed.

I would argue that New York and DC are extremely important as well. Centers of finance and government? Beijing and Shanghai may soon become quite influential so I would hold off on making judgments. They come off as self-congratulatory and insular.

I think the comparison can go much further. If you want to bootstrap, then the high rent and other issues make the valley less attractive. If you want to make a low-budget indie flick, you are better off with no-name actors and emphasize the artistic qualities.

So essentially, this comparison is not as patronizing as the article suggests. Rather it exposes some of the flaws. Let's just hope the valley doesn't get as full of themselves as Hollywood does and misses the warning signs when things start to change.

Hollywood controls the movie and TV distribution, so if you don't play their game, good luck getting on TV or in the theaters.

In Silicon Valley however, you can still win without playing the insular game, and paradoxically it might end up making you more successful.

I was always interested in startups because it seemed a path to 'doing your own thing' and not being beholden to 'the man.' It's funny that people have now come to think of it in the complete opposite way.

Sorry but this was an old joke in 1995, the joke went:

In Hollywood you can walk up to anyone and ask "How's your screenplay coming?" and they will look at you shocked and ask "How did you know I was working on a screenplay?" In Silicon Valley you can walk up to anyone and say "How's your business plan coming?" and they will look at you shocked and ask "How did you know I was working on a business plan?"

So what's the silicon valley equivalent of American Film Market?

AFM is where all the lesser films get sold to distributors around the world, in a process that's very focused on commercial value.

In the boom times, producers could famously sell rights to a film that existed as nothing more than a mocked-up poster.

Wait...maybe y-combinator is afm?

On the plus side, I now have one incentive to become a manager: the ability to say "You'll never work in this town again!" when I fire someone.

Oh well, I'll just have to bide my time until then demanding a bigger trailer.

I think Robbie does a great job acknowledging that you can make it in other cities, while pointing out that there is something special about the valley.