I think it depends on how integrated vs. modular the business is.
Disruptive business ideas usually require many deals between different parties - there's the business integration, and the technical integration that you mention (as video ads become more common, technical and business standards will probably emerge, making it modular).
But some business ideas are more modular, in that customers can just slot the produce/service into an existing business role, and into an existing socket in their system. They are plug-compatible, in both senses.
This plug-compatibility also applies to partners. If you need to interact with content providers and hardware manufacturers (e.g. as Apple needed for the iPod and iTunes), some kind of Pond is essential, not just for access to those parties, but also access to helpers of the connection (e.g. lawyers who understand the issues in these kinds of deals). I think this is probably true whether you have a novel disruptive business, or just an ordinary one: if you need to make deals, a Pond makes things much easier.
But if you can modularize (systematize) your interactions with your "partners" to such an extent that they become "customers", you don't need to be in the same pond. An example is the "partners" of Google Adwords - there's a standard interface that people use all over the world, and it works well even though there's no customer service.
New ideas tend to not be modular - standardization comes later - so a Pond there.
It's true that some businesses are more nimble than others, but Bill is still right: the ability to sit on the couch here is a more efficient integration mechanism than any other. You're far more likely to complete a deal when the technical work can be done extremely quickly.
I've worked at startups in Seattle and San Francisco now, and in my experience, the startups here are faster. At the risk of sounding like a cliche, it's just something in the air here. Things are always on fire.
Is it worth the cost of living? I don't know. But there's definitely a difference.
Disruptive business ideas usually require many deals between different parties - there's the business integration, and the technical integration that you mention (as video ads become more common, technical and business standards will probably emerge, making it modular).
But some business ideas are more modular, in that customers can just slot the produce/service into an existing business role, and into an existing socket in their system. They are plug-compatible, in both senses.
This plug-compatibility also applies to partners. If you need to interact with content providers and hardware manufacturers (e.g. as Apple needed for the iPod and iTunes), some kind of Pond is essential, not just for access to those parties, but also access to helpers of the connection (e.g. lawyers who understand the issues in these kinds of deals). I think this is probably true whether you have a novel disruptive business, or just an ordinary one: if you need to make deals, a Pond makes things much easier.
But if you can modularize (systematize) your interactions with your "partners" to such an extent that they become "customers", you don't need to be in the same pond. An example is the "partners" of Google Adwords - there's a standard interface that people use all over the world, and it works well even though there's no customer service.
New ideas tend to not be modular - standardization comes later - so a Pond there.