I currently run a technology company with VC backing. I've considered recently leaving the US and moving my business to Canada (specifically Toronto). I wonder if anyone here with experience in Canada's tech market has a short bullet list of pros and cons of Canada and Toronto specifically when it comes to that.
Here's a couple notes from a Canadian founder who's lived in the US for 3 years but has been back for a while due to visa issues. To be fair I haven't dug in that much to the tech community here, but I've checked it out a bit.
Developers in Toronto are very cheap compared to large cities in the US like NYC and SF. A lot of really good Canadian developers move to the US because they get paid 2-3x as much.
There is very little "startup tech culture" in Toronto itself which is good or bad depending on what you want. That being said Kitchener/Waterloo, although very small, is actually closest feeling I've seen to SV with regards to engineering focus and community. It's about 2 hours outside of Toronto.
Most early stage startup investing in Canada is done by BDC (or Business Development Canada). Even with incubators like Extreme Ventures, the company she is working at in the article did Extreme, the majority of the money they invest is from the government of Canada. Canadian founders I know who have taken Canadian money always say that you are better off taking money from investors in the US.
Canadians, in general, are more risk averse. Even Americans who wouldn't start a company understand what entrepreneurship is about as it is kind of baked into the American raison-d'etre -- but this is not the case in Canada.
Just wanted to back what zmitri said about Kitchener/Waterloo being the closest to SV in Canada. I went to school at the University of Waterloo, spent 2 years in Seattle, spent a year in Toronto, and have now been in Mountain View for 2 months going through YC. My general conclusions are:
CONS:
-Canada thinks smaller than SV (not as open to big ideas)
-BDC is a big player when it comes to Canadian money, we've had some interactions with them and for the most part they run more like a bank/government organization than they do a VC. They are getting better, but are just not quite there yet. In the end we actually turned down money from them.
-The accelerators there are trying...but they are a far way off from being of the same quality as some of the ones down here
-When it comes to raising money you normally get a lower valuation and the terms aren't usually as founder friendly
PROS
-There are a few bigger players popping up in the Toronto/Kitchener scene that are really helping the culture and community there grow
-It's cheaper and talent is easier to find (Waterloo produces some amazing talent)
-There are a lot of government grants and tax incentives
There are definitely people in the area worth meeting who are doing some exciting things, but the buzz and excitement and opportunities down here are still greater imo. I'm also partial to the West coast as a general lifestyle choice.
The outdoors and the mountains just breed a different culture from my experience. Living out west I would go camping, hiking, climbing and I even got into mountaineering. Toronto doesn't really offer any of those to the same degree that you will find out west. I tried going outdoor climbing once up at Rattlesnake point and it didn't even compare to places like Smith Rock or Tieton. Being able to go jogging in the morning and seeing the Olympics or the Cascades was breathtaking. People out west are just generally more active and up for adventures outdoors.
No, I had a great group of friends in Seattle that I'd get outdoors with. Managed to find a climbing partner in Toronto but just stuck to the local climbing gym while there. Haven't had a chance to meet anyone in Mountain View yet who climbs (also haven't had a chance to do much else apart from work the past couple months). Hoping that will change soon and I'll be able to get back into some of these things.
Honestly, stock options never crossed my mind as a valid reason to stay. They are a nice to have for sure - but they played no role in me wanting to stay. I understand for some people this is a huge incentive, but just not for me.
Stock options shouldn't be a "huge incentive" unless you're a founder, or one of the first five employees and very good at negotiating. For typical employee package, there just isn't enough to justify staying in a mediocre role.
OP got stuck on low-end work and wasn't learning anything. She got shitty reviews. That doesn't mean she did a bad job or is incompetent (I doubt either is true) but it means they didn't value her, and she made the right call by getting out. If she'd stayed just to vest a few hundred shares of MSFT-- I doubt this benefit rang out to more than $10k per year-- she'd be nuts.
Is there a scale somewhere where I could calculate the expected percentage a very good negotiator with appropriate leverage would be able to extract in the best-case scenario, based on employee # and some metric of value-add?
Take your pay cut (as a percentage, negative) and add 2/3 times your equity value at-current-valuation, divided by the vesting period, as a percentage of market salary.
For example, if market is $125k, and you're making $100k + 0.2% of a company worth $100M, that's:
Equity is worth 200k over 4 years, or 50k/year. (40% of market salary.)
-20 (paycut) + 40 = 20
Here's how you evaluate it.
Below 0: Fucking awful. They don't respect you. Leave.
0 to 25: Mediocre, not interesting. OK for an otherwise attractive job.
25 to 60: Substantial but probably not life-changing equity. Typical for good contributors.
60 to 200: Real equity. They want you. They care if you work there.
200+: Founder-level.
My friend just told me this made it to the front page of HN and I feel I should add a quick follow up that a year later I haven't been happier about the decision. I actually decided to start my own company a couple months ago with a friend and former classmate, and we are actually part of the current YC batch (www.amulyte.com) and I couldn't be more excited about how things have turned out :)
I made the same decision after about 10 months at Bing back in 2011 and joined an early stage startup in Seattle. A year and a talent acquisition later, I'm in SF working for a web company that couldn't be more different (and happier) thenMSFT. Good job on getting out; I'm glad I did when I had the chance!
Out of curiosity, what city did you base the startup out of? (Couldn't find it on the website). I recently moved back to Toronto (Amazon Seattle to Amazon Toronto) and I've noticed that there really seems to be growth in the industry here. Lots of little start-ups, and lots of large companies opening and expanding offices. It's fantastic.
We were based out of Markham while I was back living in Toronto (free office space), but have relocated to Mountain View while going through YC. We haven't decided where we will be based out post Demo Day yet - I think it will depend on how the next couple of weeks play out.
Toronto/Waterloo area is definitely growing and expanding - I went to school at UW and it's crazy to go back and visit and see how much has changed. I'm also partial to the SF area, the energy here is still quite different than back in Toronto I've found.
I was interested to know why is shoplocket not listed on your LinkedIn? Obviously, this might be a personal question, and no answer is deemed necessary but was just curious about the direction of the original project.
I ended up staying at Shoplocket for only 2 months. It was a great experience and I'm still really close with the founder (she's a great friend of mine). I decided not to list it on LinkedIn because I think it usually just raises more questions than answers when someone sees you worked at a place for only 2 months. I ended up writing another post about why I left after 2 months - http://jaclynkonzelmann.com/when-things-take-a-turn/
The amulyte website seems to imply that you are the only outside-the-home option, which isn't true. You might want to edit that a bit. Overall I found it a little weird that none of the content appears to be addressed to the old person who will wear and use the system (it all talks about "your loved one" not "you") - if you're targeting seniors who want to "maintain their independence", shouldn't you be expecting at least some of them to be still aware enough to want to look this stuff up for themselves?
Thanks for the feedback! The voice we use on the website is something we have put a lot of careful thought into. We talked to several retirement home directors, researchers in elder care, rehab experts (the list goes on) and we learned that in almost all cases, the decision to use a device like this is made by the daughter or daughter-in-law. That is why the copy on our website addresses the audience as being the primary caregiver as opposed to the senior.
Most seniors won't be looking at the website to learn more about the product, but we also wanted to make sure there was a way for them to read about it if they wanted to learn more, so we also have a brochure available that is addressed to them.
As for other products that are able to work outside - there really aren't that many options available, and all of them are missing certain features that we have built into ours. The most popular systems being used today definitely are not capable of working outside (Philips Lifeline, Life Alert, etc.), and that is the primary market that we are targeting. The combination of being cell enabled, single device, online portal, with activity tracking capabilities is something that sets us apart from those systems. We also have a WiFi module integrated into the device to allow us to accurately detect location even indoors (other systems simply use GPS and cell towers).
When I was a young man, at my first job, I expressed my discontent. My dad (Viggo Jensen, RIP) gave me sage advice. He nodded his head, and said "it takes about 3 years to find out what's wrong with an organization. After that it's harder." (Shockingly, this from a guy who spent 35 years in Los Angeles City Schools.)
I would not suggest that Jaclyn is wrong in her choices. Not at all. But sometimes it is a choice between working within an imperfect organization, and moving on to another .. whose flaws you will discover over the next 3 years.
You're exactly right. I'm not naive in thinking that I won't ever be faced with problems and imperfect situations - but I'd rather do everything I can to shape my future in a direction I want. Being able to work at a company I co-founded is the best possible outcome for me (and I'm absolutely loving it so far).
I lost four years in my career because I was afraid the next company would be worse. It wasn't. Pick your battles carefully and know when it is time to move on.
Seconded. Plus, I don't really buy the 3 year thing. Once you know what to look for, it isn't hard to detect serious problems. Horrible source code? Engineers that don't know how to use SCM? Politics? Cargo cult processes? I don't think it is that hard to figure out. You will have annoyances in any job, but there are broken cultures, and then cultures that continually try to do the right thing, and fix themselves when something goes wrong.
It ranges from large companies who say "this is an important issue, let's meet next month to discuss" to small companies who say "I was worried about that, so I made a fixed decision an hour ago." There really are different cultures of ... not really so much failure, but dysfunction. Companies can succeed while being dysfunctional at the same time.
Did you ever consider changing teams or org? The review process is of course standard throughout all of MS but a lot of your complaints seemed to be local to your team (e.g. status report noise) or Org ("Office needs robots"). Bug triaging might also be less of a bore now that microsoft seems to be moving to yearly release cycles.
Either way, seems like you ended up making the right decision for yourself. Congrats!
I don't know OP or Microsoft, but usually once companies build the Enron-style performance reviews (stack ranking, high stakes, lots of horse-trading behind the scenes) it becomes really difficult to move internally, because (a) anyone with less than a top-25% review history-- remember that those top-25% scores must be sustained over years, so it might be 15-20% who qualify-- becomes undesirable as a transfer applicant, and (b) managers don't give good reviews to people they see as likely to leave the team if given wings. The result of all this nonsense is that people get stuck where they spawn.
That's why companies that stack rank and make performance reviews part of the transfer packet always-- there are no exceptions to this in the long run-- end up with the warring departments phenomenon for which Microsoft is notorious.
I did consider switching teams briefly, but at the end of the day I actually had a pretty great team compared to what a lot of people I was friends with would describe to me. The issues I had were definitely not limited to just my team (I talked with plenty of my friends on other teams who had similar issues and a lot of other ones that I was lucky I didn't have on my team). The process also takes time, and usually only happens after a release, or if you are at least at a level 60 (which can take a couple years).
I worked in many different parts of Microsoft over 10 years and I can tell you that the culture doesn't change enough from team to team to make up for this sort of thing.
The geographic insight is interesting. I agree that San Francisco is taking the Microsoft road, culturally, that spells the end of tech: project managers, high house prices, 20-minute "standup" meetings in which the bosses sit, laughably low equity slices used to justify long hours, mean-spirited performance review systems, VPs of biz dev, etc.
Silicon Valley is the best place for VC-funded technology, by far, but the culture that's sprung up in this current wave is just repulsive. People are starting to figure that out.
Lots of smart people who, five years ago, would have only gone to New York or San Francisco, are now going all kinds of cool places as a generation figures out where the next maker culture is going to start (if it's going to be limited to one or a few places at all, which I doubt). It's like a diaspora. Austin, Toronto, Boulder, all seem quite strong.
Later this month I'm moving to Baltimore, which is somewhat of a dark horse but I actually think it will win big in the longer term (5+ years). It's already come a long way from what it used to be.
Seattle and Boston are quite nice places to live, too; but they're still kinda pricey and that means the legacy of the last wave hasn't gone back into the sea yet.
Toronto's a good pick. I spent a couple months there in the late '90s and it struck me, even then, as a great place to live.
What do you think is bad about using jira at a startup? I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but I've only ever worked at two startups (~120 people - I'm 21) and both used jira for bug management.
Jira works, but then you meet people who created their "careers" around using Jira. Then it all goes to hell. The VCs are going to lose a lot of money to them.
It's poorly implemented. Slow, rendering kills browsers. Takes too much space in the screen in order to be useful.
It's just a shitty product and not built for decent software engineering.. Not for all types of engineering either.
That's my biggest problem. Say iOS developemtn is asset heavy and requires a decent way of sorting your assets with your stories. JIRA is complete shit for that. Trying to explain that to the agile coach or scrum master... yeah.
Yup, sounds like the Microsoft that I know. Microsoft is a company ruled by fear. Everyone is afraid that a decision they make is going to blow up on them, so very few people do anything beyond maintaining the status quo.
So nothing changed in the five years after I quit. I guess that isn't too surprising. The review process is toxic, especially stack ranking. I don't think you could pay me enough to go back.
or, as I am wont to say, back up the dump truck filled with money and then we'll start talking. It has to be worth it (however you measure what "worth" and "it" are) to go back to something that goes against your principles. :)
I can't believe they still use stack ranking. I've come into contact with over 50 Microsoft people through my job and each one has been very high caliber and hard working. Granted, it's a very biased sample, but these are not the kind of folks we'd want to fire where I work.
The religion inside the company (not my personal view, but what you'll get if you talk to an upper-echelon manager) is that:
- stack ranking leads to competition leads to everyone doing their best,
- at the end of the day you have to offer differentiated rewards to your team, and it's better to offer more rewards to those who earned them (vs. just blanketing everyone with the same rewards)--stack ranking just makes this explicit, and
- it puts pressure on bottom performers to leave the company or find a team that's a better match.
That said, I recently left Microsoft (after 8 years in the Office org, probably near OP), and stack ranking was one of the reasons. For me the toughest part of it was that I felt there was no part of my compensation that was tied to the overall product my team produced--we could have produced a gorgeously engineered, ground-breaking product or a buggy piece of bloatware no customer wanted; it really didn't matter from a review perspective.
Stack ranking is also generally despised by the rank-and-file, often because they are sure it's the reason they haven't had a meteoric rise despite their obvious superiority over everyone else. Folks who have "made it" to the upper echelon often mysteriously acquire the stack ranking religion.
it puts pressure on bottom performers to leave the company or find a team that's a better match.
Stack-ranking makes it impossible for everyone but the top 25% to transfer, though, because no one wants someone with a bad or mediocre review history.
If you need to fire people, fire them. Flushing out good people in the name of stack ranking is a pointless, morale-killing waste.
I'm a UW grad as well working for another behemoth of a software company.
We have the same common evils of legacy software where weeks are spent triaging bugs and shipping stable code.
But I guess what I dislike the most is the stack ranking system.
Do all large software shops have stack ranking?
I ask HN this as I'll honestly skip any company now that uses stack ranking as a measure of performance.
Not sure about the rest of you but I find it to be incredibly detrimental to team work, people start hoarding techniques and skills in order to get ahead. The bus factor of the team shoots up. The work place environment just feels adversarial. Its just quite sickening, but maybe I'm just very naive.
If we are talking about Microsoft and Seattle, UW means University of Washington; if we are talking about Toronto-area, UW means...University of Waterloo, right?
If you haven't been already, the Rails Pub Night (run by the kind folks at unspace.ca) is a great way to meet people in the Toronto startup community. Very friendly, meets at The Rhino on Queen west the 3rd Monday of every month at 7pm. I think I've met some people from Shoplocket there as well, so ask them about it!
I also know the guys who run HackerNest. They have a monthly meetup too that I used to really enjoy going to. Definitely check them out if you get a chance!
you're right on the downside, however the 3 is seen quite positively afaik, 2s are given to low % of employees. there is more math then actual merit in these numbers, if too many people excel the evaluation becomes stricter to lower the numbers and keep the majority at 3.
76 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 131 ms ] threadDevelopers in Toronto are very cheap compared to large cities in the US like NYC and SF. A lot of really good Canadian developers move to the US because they get paid 2-3x as much.
There is very little "startup tech culture" in Toronto itself which is good or bad depending on what you want. That being said Kitchener/Waterloo, although very small, is actually closest feeling I've seen to SV with regards to engineering focus and community. It's about 2 hours outside of Toronto.
Most early stage startup investing in Canada is done by BDC (or Business Development Canada). Even with incubators like Extreme Ventures, the company she is working at in the article did Extreme, the majority of the money they invest is from the government of Canada. Canadian founders I know who have taken Canadian money always say that you are better off taking money from investors in the US.
Canadians, in general, are more risk averse. Even Americans who wouldn't start a company understand what entrepreneurship is about as it is kind of baked into the American raison-d'etre -- but this is not the case in Canada.
CONS: -Canada thinks smaller than SV (not as open to big ideas) -BDC is a big player when it comes to Canadian money, we've had some interactions with them and for the most part they run more like a bank/government organization than they do a VC. They are getting better, but are just not quite there yet. In the end we actually turned down money from them. -The accelerators there are trying...but they are a far way off from being of the same quality as some of the ones down here -When it comes to raising money you normally get a lower valuation and the terms aren't usually as founder friendly
PROS -There are a few bigger players popping up in the Toronto/Kitchener scene that are really helping the culture and community there grow -It's cheaper and talent is easier to find (Waterloo produces some amazing talent) -There are a lot of government grants and tax incentives
There are definitely people in the area worth meeting who are doing some exciting things, but the buzz and excitement and opportunities down here are still greater imo. I'm also partial to the West coast as a general lifestyle choice.
OP got stuck on low-end work and wasn't learning anything. She got shitty reviews. That doesn't mean she did a bad job or is incompetent (I doubt either is true) but it means they didn't value her, and she made the right call by getting out. If she'd stayed just to vest a few hundred shares of MSFT-- I doubt this benefit rang out to more than $10k per year-- she'd be nuts.
For example, if market is $125k, and you're making $100k + 0.2% of a company worth $100M, that's:
Here's how you evaluate it.Toronto/Waterloo area is definitely growing and expanding - I went to school at UW and it's crazy to go back and visit and see how much has changed. I'm also partial to the SF area, the energy here is still quite different than back in Toronto I've found.
Most seniors won't be looking at the website to learn more about the product, but we also wanted to make sure there was a way for them to read about it if they wanted to learn more, so we also have a brochure available that is addressed to them.
As for other products that are able to work outside - there really aren't that many options available, and all of them are missing certain features that we have built into ours. The most popular systems being used today definitely are not capable of working outside (Philips Lifeline, Life Alert, etc.), and that is the primary market that we are targeting. The combination of being cell enabled, single device, online portal, with activity tracking capabilities is something that sets us apart from those systems. We also have a WiFi module integrated into the device to allow us to accurately detect location even indoors (other systems simply use GPS and cell towers).
looks like a solid offering, best of luck.
I would not suggest that Jaclyn is wrong in her choices. Not at all. But sometimes it is a choice between working within an imperfect organization, and moving on to another .. whose flaws you will discover over the next 3 years.
What's that saying about doing something that you love and you'll never work a day in your life...
Would not go that far.
Either way, seems like you ended up making the right decision for yourself. Congrats!
That's why companies that stack rank and make performance reviews part of the transfer packet always-- there are no exceptions to this in the long run-- end up with the warring departments phenomenon for which Microsoft is notorious.
Silicon Valley is the best place for VC-funded technology, by far, but the culture that's sprung up in this current wave is just repulsive. People are starting to figure that out.
Lots of smart people who, five years ago, would have only gone to New York or San Francisco, are now going all kinds of cool places as a generation figures out where the next maker culture is going to start (if it's going to be limited to one or a few places at all, which I doubt). It's like a diaspora. Austin, Toronto, Boulder, all seem quite strong.
Later this month I'm moving to Baltimore, which is somewhat of a dark horse but I actually think it will win big in the longer term (5+ years). It's already come a long way from what it used to be.
Seattle and Boston are quite nice places to live, too; but they're still kinda pricey and that means the legacy of the last wave hasn't gone back into the sea yet.
Toronto's a good pick. I spent a couple months there in the late '90s and it struck me, even then, as a great place to live.
That's my biggest problem. Say iOS developemtn is asset heavy and requires a decent way of sorting your assets with your stories. JIRA is complete shit for that. Trying to explain that to the agile coach or scrum master... yeah.
or, as I am wont to say, back up the dump truck filled with money and then we'll start talking. It has to be worth it (however you measure what "worth" and "it" are) to go back to something that goes against your principles. :)
- stack ranking leads to competition leads to everyone doing their best,
- at the end of the day you have to offer differentiated rewards to your team, and it's better to offer more rewards to those who earned them (vs. just blanketing everyone with the same rewards)--stack ranking just makes this explicit, and
- it puts pressure on bottom performers to leave the company or find a team that's a better match.
That said, I recently left Microsoft (after 8 years in the Office org, probably near OP), and stack ranking was one of the reasons. For me the toughest part of it was that I felt there was no part of my compensation that was tied to the overall product my team produced--we could have produced a gorgeously engineered, ground-breaking product or a buggy piece of bloatware no customer wanted; it really didn't matter from a review perspective.
Stack ranking is also generally despised by the rank-and-file, often because they are sure it's the reason they haven't had a meteoric rise despite their obvious superiority over everyone else. Folks who have "made it" to the upper echelon often mysteriously acquire the stack ranking religion.
Stack-ranking makes it impossible for everyone but the top 25% to transfer, though, because no one wants someone with a bad or mediocre review history.
If you need to fire people, fire them. Flushing out good people in the name of stack ranking is a pointless, morale-killing waste.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/03/the-te...
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/07/microsoft-dow...
We have the same common evils of legacy software where weeks are spent triaging bugs and shipping stable code.
But I guess what I dislike the most is the stack ranking system.
Do all large software shops have stack ranking? I ask HN this as I'll honestly skip any company now that uses stack ranking as a measure of performance.
Not sure about the rest of you but I find it to be incredibly detrimental to team work, people start hoarding techniques and skills in order to get ahead. The bus factor of the team shoots up. The work place environment just feels adversarial. Its just quite sickening, but maybe I'm just very naive.
If we are talking about Microsoft and Seattle, UW means University of Washington; if we are talking about Toronto-area, UW means...University of Waterloo, right?