Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, the other way around. In 2015, HP split into two companies: the hardware component (including any IP from Compaq) became HP. The software version became Hewlett Packard Enterprises. That's what's moving to Houston, not HP.
Both are dying companies though. HP is worth $31b and HPE is worth even less: $15b. And HPE has lost 28% of its market value in a year where tech has boomed.
If Texas can poach Paypal or Tesla, then we're talking.
I just don't see how Texas can rival Silicon Valley by relocating tech companies of yesteryear. If you're at the point where you're trying to squeeze blood out of rocks by saving on taxes (essentially Texas's big advantage), you're not a company of the future.
Not prejudging Texas here, just saying that Oracle and HP are bottom of the barrel when it comes to tech. What's next? Netscape and AOL? Not all tech companies are created equal. And the premier crop are staying put in the West Coast. A good day for Texas is nabbing Paypal or Tesla. I could see both of those moving based on their leaders' conservatism. But even those won't compete with the dozens of mega cap tech companies in the West Coast.
I wouldn''t consider Oracle a dinosaur. They are legacy and they're woven into the fabric of any enterprise. But, I'd caution that these HQ moves to Texas will provide a great financial windfall. These are still global companies, you're already giving them crazy incentives, and there's no income tax in Texas.
I wouldn''t consider Oracle a dinosaur. They are legacy and they're woven into the fabric of any enterprise. But, I'd caution that these HQ moves to Texas will provide a great financial windfall. These are still global companies, you're already giving them crazy incentives, and there's no income tax in Texas.
Honestly I've seen Oracle's business getting eaten up left and right by newcomers (and some old stalwarts of the tech scene who've been innovating). Between this sudden move of HQ, Ellison's weird connections with fringe political groups, and their desperate attempts at purchasing Tiktok, I see a lot of instability within Oracle, sadly.
I agree on Texas being the next Silicon Valley to be reaching but the claim that only tech dinosaurs are going back is also reaching.
Ikr.
Some people get so catty in these threads.
And is not even the Bay area posters.
Posters from random places posting harsh, overly exaggerated and sometimes untruthful posts.
I don't range the question as is Texas = to Silicon valley.
I see places named New XYZ as a a spin on those places.
New England =\= England
New Orleans =\= Orleans
New York =\= York
I think those places start out loosely connected then blossom into their own thing.
I have no connection to Austin, I don't even like the place but Silicon Hills is definitely a thing. It's not the she as Silicon Valley, it may not ever become close to being as prosperous as silicon valley but none of the New XYZ'S blossom into anything remotely similar to the original.
I think Austin will continue to blossom, grow more of its companies and more will also relocate there.
I still maintain it will have competition from DFW tho.
Anyway, why is City data so tribal?
Why can't people disagree without being downright hateful
Honestly I've seen Oracle's business getting eaten up left and right by newcomers (and some old stalwarts of the tech scene who've been innovating). Between this sudden move of HQ, Ellison's weird connections with fringe political groups, and their desperate attempts at purchasing Tiktok, I see a lot of instability within Oracle, sadly.
But yes, I agree with everything you said.
Don't get me wrong, their customers hate them and I certainly root against them.
One thing Texas is missing as compared to California to really take on innovation is the higher education and research that California has. Outside of Rice, UT and A&M, Texas is very short on schools that we would call game changers. California with the Stanford, CalTech, UCLA, Bekerley, USC. It’s no comparison here.
I'd say Seattle has a better argument for SF2. SF is about startups, headquarters, and engineering, and we're two of those. (Neither are strong in manufacturing and back offices.)
Start with that market cap thread. Two of the top three are based in Seattle. They employ 100,000 people in HQ positions locally, with six-figure average incomes. T-Mobile is another in the $100b+ category.
Then look at outside techs with local offices. Facebook and Google each have millions of square feet locally. Salesforce is big due to buying Tableau, and Adobe since its purchase of Aldus in the 90s(?). Oracle, Apple, and others collectively have millions of additional square feet.
Our other home-grown companies aren't too shabby either -- Expedia, F5, Zillow, Redfin, Getty, Cray, Ziluly, Convoy, Trupanion, Big Fish, Valve, Bungie, and so on.
Anyway, why is City data so tribal?
Why can't people disagree without being downright hateful
It’s not city-data, America is tribal, including Texans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
