Of course, I forgive the fact that you apparently can’t make the distinction between “real” technology companies that are actually valued in line with their revenues (i.e. Sun, Intel, etc.) and Web 2.0 companies that don’t generate much revenue but receive exorbitant valuations (i.e. Facebook, Digg, etc.). After all, you’re a senior engineer for a company headquartered in the Bay Area so I wouldn’t expect you to actually understand that the business of technology involves more than just technology.

I also think you miss the point of my post so let me summarize it for you in engineering terms:

if ($location == “Silicon Valley” && $idea == “stupid”) {
$outcome = “failure”;
}

if ($idea == “good” && $execution == “flawless”) {
$outcome = “success”;
}

On a side note, shouldn’t you be writing code right now instead of reading blogs?

The drama show is ridiculous in the way it tries to deconstruct the supposed Web 2.0 bubble… This is much the same vein a newbie podcaster proclaiming that Hollywood is dead. Google, Apple, Yahoo, Sun, Intel, Oracle, etc… are all HQ’d in the valley. Until the large concentration of tech companies with it’s large concentration of engineers start to dilute, the valley will be focal part of technology. Get over it. There is a reason why Myspace moved it’s development office to SF – not enough LA based programmers worth a damn.

Maybe Revver wouldn’t have crashed and burned if Michael Arrington didn’t spend so much time wanking off on TechCrunch and actually thought about a business plan.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the people who wax poetic about how the internet can bring everyone closer together and make the world flat also feel that you have to be there to be successful? The fact is that SV has no idea what will be successful and it’s completely scattershot. The fact that any of them succeed is more a function of statistics than good planning.