That’s because Silicon Valley and other tech hubs need money and talent, everything else is secondary.

SV specifically had bottomless US defense spending and good local schools to create a talent pipeline. Back in the early days, the defense industry was the primary consumer of chips, which built up the industry via public defense dollars.

While I do think things defense spending matters I don't think it is what makes (or made) the difference. Look at countries like Germany, France or South Korea. Arguably they have some of the best education and industries in the world but they don't have an outsized number of new tech companies. That is because most of the time you aren't inventing technology (because that is too hard) but trying distribute or commercialize technology that mostly exists.

Silicon Valley is of course where many things in computing were invented but it is more importantly where business machines became home computers. And in the end that is were most of the graphics cards, operating systems, network switches, software applications and services comes from. Sweden didn't invent many computers or operating systems but it was ready to distribute the next thing once it became available. Just like many good synths and samplers came from Japan but many of the big electronic music artists are from the US, the UK or Sweden.

I think you may have misunderstood. It's not defence spending now, but preceding the rise of silicon valley. Vast amounts poured into radio and signals tech in Silicon Valley before integrated circuits even existed. Companies like Shockley and Fairchild laid the groundwork for SV long before home computers or business machines.

No, I understand that. I just think the reason we talk about it is because of later developments. That is why I'm taking Japan as an example because they have made some of the best music equipment around but we don't talk about how good education, research and manufacturing is the source Japanese hip hop and electronic music because that never really happened. Instead most of the world is playing American or European music made with Japanese equipment.

Maybe I'm reading the parent to harshly. I just want to make the point that talent and money isn't everything. Most of Sweden's successes hasn't come from research spending and top talent but from widespread interest and application of technologies. Spotify didn't come out of Fraunhofer. The Swedish video game industry did arguably come out of the demoscene however.

California / Silicon Valley is witness to that unusual and under-reported aspect of climate change where it simply rains money.

I would say they did maybe just not directly. There are plenty testimonials of people crashing on other peoples couches, working out of garages or sitting in on classes at Stanford in the 00s in SV. Of course today SV also recruits from all over the world and spends plenty of venture capital for housing, transportation and health care. But that isn't something most cities or even countries can do.

New York and London are outliers because they are big financial centers. They are still far more like Stockholm than the other financial centers are. In theory a smaller financial center like Zurich should arguably be better for startups than Stockholm but it isn't even a competition when looking at the outcome.

Zurich is in fact a tech hub, Google is there, and many interesting startups come from their outstanding technical school.

Other tech hubs like Paris, Tokyo, Austin, or Boston have not seen the circumstances you describe as far as I know.

> Zurich is in fact a tech hub, Google is there, and many interesting startups come from their outstanding technical school.

That is exactly what I mean. Zurich has prestigious schools and foreign companies that you have to attend because otherwise you can't get things like good housing or health care. In 00s Stockholm you didn't really have to do that. Which is why Stockholm have the homegrown companies and exits.

Daniel Ek didn't attend university. He tried to apply to Google but wasn't accepted. Now Spotify has had a $30 billion IPO. Presumably more than all contemporary Swiss startups exits ever. His co-founder had a degree in civil engineering (as roads and water infrastructure) but had instead founded and exited an adtech company.

Markus Persson didn't attend university either. The company behind Minecraft which he owned ~70% of sold for $2.5 billon to Microsoft. He was a former employee of King, the company behind Candy Crush Saga, which sold to Activision Blizzard for $5.9 billion.

That was the difference between Stockholm and Zurich. And between Stockholm and most other self-proclaimed tech hubs for that matter.

>His co-founder had a degree in civil engineering (as roads and water infrastructure)

I think this might be something that got lost in translation - at least according to Wikipedia, Martin Lorentzon studied Industrial Economics at Chalmers University.

The Swedish word Civilingenjör translates to Master of Science in Engineering, not to Civil engineer.

I was referencing Swedish Wikipedia which says he studied actual civil engineering (väg- och vattenbyggnad numera samhällsbyggnad) at Chalmers. NyTeknik writes that he applied for industrial economics but didn't get accepted.

https://www.nyteknik.se/ingenjorskarriar/karriar/it-bransche...

I'll be damned. Thanks for the correction!

So in essence, every other tech hub is an exception to Sweden…

There are however a dozen other places with good social support and public services where startups did not happen on that level.

As it stands, the only real common threads I see among all the startup hotbeds (SV, NYC, Boston, London, Stockholm, etc) are a tradition for trade/commerce/entrepreneurship, good universities for talent, and fairly laissez-faire regulations.

> Daniel Ek didn't attend university. He tried to apply to Google but wasn't accepted.

Amazing, so he combines two Silicon Valley founder narratives of 1) being a college dropout (or lacking a degree at any rate) and 2) being rejected by an established big company.

Who are the others?

1) is a cliche at this point, to the extent that this 2015 listicle has a huge variety of figures both new and old:

https://www.pcmag.com/news/tech-ceos-who-ditched-college-for...

2) WhatsApp founder Brian Acton was famously rejected by Facebook (and Twitter), and is the canonical example, but there are others. There's even a website:

https://rejected.us

No, they had literal silicon, DARPA instead and then a swarm of investors.