I keep thinking about the historical analysis posted by Fred Wilson a short while ago, of the cycles and patterns inherent in start-up ecosystems. The argument is made, convincingly, that the typical cycle of entrepreneurship and innovation in a given geography runs its course over a 30-year stretch. During the first decade, the entrepreneurs and their financial backers muddle their way through and learn important lessons in the process. During the second decade, the same group of characters (not necessarily literally) tries it a second time, having now learned from original errors, and is therefore more likely to get it right and create meaningful value. In the third decade the start-up and venture capital ecosystem is fully mature, and perhaps by extension the upside opportunity diminishes.

The case is made in the referenced article that where Silicon Valley was about twenty years ago, or more, New York is now. In light of what Silicon Valley has produced in the past several decades, I sure hope that Fred is right. I wonder, though, if the stage has really been set in New York the same way it had been set in San Francisco for the great successes that ensued.

With all things equal, but I will explain below why I don’t think all things are equal, the described cyclical interpretation of history presupposes that evolution proceeds at a steady pace. As others have pointed out, however, there is an acceleration. In digital media and related sectors this acceleration is perhaps more noticeable than anywhere else. More disruptive changes have occurred and newer modes of competition introduced within spans of years, it seems, than had been the case in prior decades. If one were to adjust the 30-year calculation, therefore, by this factor, then New York should have already caught up with Silicon Valley some time ago.

But this has not happened, and there may be several reasons for it, as there are important differences between New York and San Francisco in the respective eras. To begin with, the innovation which was occurring on the west coast in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, was not merely tweaking pre-existing concepts and business models, in the same sense that New York startups are for the most part doing today. The New York digital media community has tended to build upon older forms (e.g., Etsy, Foursquare, even DoubleClick and Bloomberg), and either improve the technique or extend into new markets… though not necessarily transform anything. Even within the more aggressively acquisitive or progressive end of New York’s “diversified media” conglomerates, it’s hard to argue that, for example, IAC is doing anything particularly innovative. And if Hearst were to acquire online properties for $1 billion, as was speculated in the press last week, this may add shareholder value but is unlikely to change the sector in any meaningful way.

Which really all speaks to another major difference between eastern and western environments in digital media. In the west, the strategic foundation consists of Google, Facebook, and Apple – companies that were upstarts not long ago and that continue to innovate to this day. In New York, by contrast, the strategic community includes organizations that have in some cases been in existence for more than a century, and which have dominated their respective fields for the better part of that time. Such outfits are less likely than others to push for change, rather defending a fenced-off area. This is a dominant gene, as it were, in the environment, which creates ripples and effects on the culture and the system.

All that being said, we see evidence every day, all around town, that the atmosphere of innovation and entrepreneurship is progressing. Not only in meetups and conferences, but in college programs and incubators, which are all moving in the direction of increased prominence and quality. This is good, and undoubtedly marks the start of a trend. But it could take a while longer for New York media and Madison Avenue to become Silicon Valley, because cultural change never occurs overnight. To figure out where in the cycle New York truly stands, a better reference point than San Francisco may be some location (and possibly another sector) where the evolution of a start-up community was predicated upon first changing a powerful incumbency culture.

Regardless, New York is still at the beginning, which only spells opportunity ahead.