The article seems to acknowledge Silicon Valley is good and prolific at startups to the point of metonymy. SV is the standard way, and so you get descriptions like "Un-Silicon Valley Way" instead of say the "Atlanta Way" (another startup from Atlanta called Coca-Cola appears to be doing OK too ;))
But why does this article have this tinged negativity toward SV? Why not just highlight MailChimp's success without the jab on VCs? Clearly both VC or bootstrapping approaches can work for a company (though both approaches fail in the majority of cases and journalism is in love with survivorship bias).
I'm not in SV, but it's obviously the place important innovation has/is/will be coming from (and some crap too). Innovation and growth is needed and should be encouraged in this economy.
Just frustrating to see big journalism knock SV for no reason.
Better story: "Chimps and the Un-Silicon Valley Way to Make it as a Primate".
But why does this article have this tinged negativity toward SV? Why not just highlight MailChimp's success without the jab on VCs? Clearly both VC or bootstrapping approaches can work for a company (though both approaches fail in the majority of cases and journalism is in love with survivorship bias).
I'm not in SV, but it's obviously the place important innovation has/is/will be coming from (and some crap too). Innovation and growth is needed and should be encouraged in this economy.
Just frustrating to see big journalism knock SV for no reason.
Better story: "Chimps and the Un-Silicon Valley Way to Make it as a Primate".