I have no doubt that the USA / SV is a great place to start a company, but why waste your life trying to satisfy government bureaucrats that you should be allowed in when there are plenty of other places that want you?
If you are European, you can move to any of the hubs like London or Berlin. They might not be as brilliant as SV, but they have their own advantages, and the key for an entrepreneur is to get down and make use of these advantages. Folks in the Persian Gulf (I am from Bahrain) can move to any of the hubs there like Dubai or Bahrain, and there are plenty of gaps in the market that an entrepreneur can fill by starting a company. And of course the BRIC countries have huge growth for their own nationals to ride.
So why go through the headaches of government immigration?
(PS I am really sorry for entrepreneur that this story describes. I just hope fewer people have to go through that fate.)
I always want to say 'OK, I get it, you don't want me here, sorry for trying to do business with your citizens'. But of course I just shut up and smile for the camera.
I can very much understand that Israel's physical and cultural distance from SF can pose a problem. Do not underestimate the importance of being physically close to customers and partners - not to mention VCs.
If you start a start in Israel, you will be losing money because (quite like) there's an international boycott on Israeli goods.
You want to be where the action is, it maximizes your chances of success. Sure, you could attempt to run your startup from Milan, Barcelona or Marseille, but the amount of talent and opportunities for support are infinitesimal compared to what SF will have to offer.
If you're 100% determined to obtain success at any cost, it's worth packing your bags and leaving Peripherystan to come to the big city.
I'd question whether being in "the valley" really does increase your chance of success, and also question what's meant by 'success'. If you raise a few million in a first or second round, hire people, then close up shop 2 years later, was that a 'success'? That's probably easier to do out in CA, but if you define success as a longer-term sustainable organization, does being out there really make that much of a difference? Successful companies are built all over the place.
The USA is like going to a store, filling up your cart, but just before you are about to checkout and make them money, they drag you out the door instead.
Comparing the startup scene in Vancouver to the one in the Bay Area is like, well, comparing a basket of oranges to an entire orchard. Or a bunny hill to a black diamond run.
The level of acceptance for hackers, much less hacker-entrepreneurs, is worlds apart. There are numerous places in Canada that would proclaim the title of "Silicon Valley North", I've lived in almost all of them. None come remotely close.
But the start was rough. Unless it's a one-person gig (and there aren't many of those out there) you need two things - bodies and money. The further you are away from metro areas the harder it is to find both - the people with the skills either left or are already working somewhere and the investors aren't multi-millionaires, they are angels with $10-20k each, sometimes $100k+.
It's possible though. That startup eventually sold but long after a more inferior competitor sold for a lot more which had more to do with their location (Cali, I think in the valley) than how well they functioned. And the company I was with sold for less than we thought it would and long after the window in which acquisition would have been ideal.
There's just no visibility outside of major (tech hub) metro areas. You don't get any buzz even if you are in magazines and the like, and you don't have the contacts that can really help you out. It's a major negative.
Pure (somewhat educated) conjecture: if that startup would've been in Seattle or Portland it would've sold much earlier and for much more than it did, maybe in year 6 instead of year 10. If in the Bay area I think it would've sold by year 3 instead of year 10.
Wouldn't be surprising at all if your competitor that was acquired was absorbed or shut down within a year. For the founders - sure, that's success - they had an exit. But how is this necessarily good for the long term economics of those businesses?
The original video story on this talked about all the jobs that 'high tech entrepreneurs' create. But how long do those jobs last? Sure, there's no such thing as a 30 year job for most people any more, but isn't this type of behaviour contributing or accelerating this trend?
Whether or not we were to get acquired, it was just tough to find quality employees and the money to pay them until sales went into the black. It took about 3 years to become solvent and even then that did help luring good programmers to Idaho.
If I knew anything about your country, language and culture, I'd probably give it a shot. You should use your situation to your advantage in my opinion. The asian culture is so foreign to us North Americans that it makes it nearly impossible for us to do business over there, yet, there's a huge opportunity.
The immigration thing definitely sucks, but other things probably make up for it. You're probably underestimating the good parts of living in the US, especially from the point of view of someone who comes from a poorer country or, in some cases, for an entrepreneur who lives in a developed country but doesn't have access to places like Silicon Valley and NY.
Also note that, with the possible exception of Canada and Australia, most other developed countries are at least as restrictive as the US regarding immigration from developing countries.
I'm from Brazil, which is considered one of the leading countries among the "emergent" countries. Yes, things have been improving in the last 20 years. But it still sucks. For instance, consider that the GDP per capita in Brazil is still far lower than places like Portugal and Greece, which are not exactly booming. In fact, there's a significant number of Brazilian immigrants in Portugal even though they're not exactly welcoming us with open arms.
In another area: half of slums in Rio are now dominated by drug gangs, and the other half by paramilitary militias. One of those militias recently killed a judge. A state congressman had to flee the country due to death threats from militias. I'll take your bureaucratic nightmares anytime. ;-)
The US is really good at advertising.
I also found article a bit biased, in the sense that it does not give proper detail about his visa status and in what terms he was allowed to the country and why he was asked to leave. Article is emotional.
I think the biggest merit of starting a company in US is the aura of credibility it gives. The other is the huge market size. Ask this question yourself, would you be willing to give your credit card number to a (for no particular reason) Hungarian or an Israeli company or to a company from US? How much sense of security do you feel?
Of course, ventura capital and startup culture in US is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world.
What is it like in Israel for startups? In theory his kind of internet startup could work from almost anywhere in the world. Since he is in Vancouver now, might as well bring in the tax dollars for Canada.
ps. what is with linking through Digg for this - and they are still framing sites?