3 ms·

In some cases it works better than others, and often it's needed. Consider that in the US, the decisions are also 'made from the Top' but often from large inve

by jariel 6y ago

In some cases it works better than others, and often it's needed. Consider that in the US, the decisions are also 'made from the Top' but often from large investment firms that decide where the money goes. When an industry is small and new, it's more open. But for commercial aircraft like for regular airlines, there is zero hope unless the government coordinates it. There's no 'hey, invest $20 Billion in my startup, maybe I will have customers some day'. No - you need a national strategy with the airlines buying in. That said - concerns over central planning are real - not so much in impetus, but in execution. If Europe could snap it's fingers and for $10 Billion just have competitors to Intel just magically appear - it would be a good investment. Very good. But unlike roads, tunnels and bridges, you can't just buy innovation. It's going to take the right leaders, the right investments, the right kinds of innovation. Which is extremely hard. I don't know the industry but it may may more sense to come at it from the periphery: possibly by creating design and fabs for more common chips. Or maybe it makes sense to come at it from an academic/open angle, and get the top Universities to publish open source designs that if industry buyers want, they can get subsidies for fabs. Finally ... the other parts of the ecosystem are not there as much: there is no more Nokia. There is nobody making computers. There is no 'OS' to guide deep integration. I think it's reasonable to be wary of this kind of top down sentiment as it's risky and not preferable, and prone to fluffy words without action, at the same time, it's reasonable to address the issue.

sseveran 6y ago
There is at least one YC company that would beg to differ with respect to airlines. Boom Technology. https://boomsupersonic.com https://boomsupersonic.com
- jariel 6y ago
  It's an example of the opposite. 'Boom' is a tiny little venture company that may or may not make actual commercial viability, in a niche sector. Boom is not remotely trying to enter the market for real commercial traffic, which is essentially impossible for a regular private company. There are no successful airline manufactures that exist without the expressed coordination of a national strategy. Boeing is a 'strategic asset' - they are supported by massive military contracts and other industrial subsidies. They have Federal level support from the diplomatic corps and may involve themselves in foreign policy. Sales of aircraft may be tied to other mechanisms of statecraft. Airbus - even more so, practically a creation of European governments. To give an example of what happens when nations are not powerful, look at Bombardier in Canada - which was squeezed out of a more niche are of commercial aircraft by state actions. Boeing complained to Donald Trump about 'unfair competition' - the US - against NAFTA treaty - imposed a 250% duty on Bombardier jets. To get around this, Bombardier had to drop their pants and do an ugly deal with Airbus. Eventually, this inability to flex material power in conjunction with other state assets ... and it's a flop for Canada, and a 'win' for a bigger entity backed by a more powerful state entity as the commercial aircraft business was sold off to Airbus. If Canada had a huge domestic market, this probably would not be the case. Edit: it's possible Boom eventually develops into a much bigger entity, maybe in 40 years, using their 'smaller, currently niche but growing industry' as an entry point. But taking on Boeing is tantamount to taking on Microsoft directly.

by jariel 6y ago

sseveran 6y ago

There is at least one YC company that would beg to differ with respect to airlines. Boom Technology. https://boomsupersonic.com https://boomsupersonic.com

jariel 6y ago
It's an example of the opposite. 'Boom' is a tiny little venture company that may or may not make actual commercial viability, in a niche sector. Boom is not remotely trying to enter the market for real commercial traffic, which is essentially impossible for a regular private company. There are no successful airline manufactures that exist without the expressed coordination of a national strategy. Boeing is a 'strategic asset' - they are supported by massive military contracts and other industrial subsidies. They have Federal level support from the diplomatic corps and may involve themselves in foreign policy. Sales of aircraft may be tied to other mechanisms of statecraft. Airbus - even more so, practically a creation of European governments. To give an example of what happens when nations are not powerful, look at Bombardier in Canada - which was squeezed out of a more niche are of commercial aircraft by state actions. Boeing complained to Donald Trump about 'unfair competition' - the US - against NAFTA treaty - imposed a 250% duty on Bombardier jets. To get around this, Bombardier had to drop their pants and do an ugly deal with Airbus. Eventually, this inability to flex material power in conjunction with other state assets ... and it's a flop for Canada, and a 'win' for a bigger entity backed by a more powerful state entity as the commercial aircraft business was sold off to Airbus. If Canada had a huge domestic market, this probably would not be the case. Edit: it's possible Boom eventually develops into a much bigger entity, maybe in 40 years, using their 'smaller, currently niche but growing industry' as an entry point. But taking on Boeing is tantamount to taking on Microsoft directly.