8 ms·

When I, as a European Union citizen, want to watch some videos of how to access European funds for investments on the EU Commission's website, they are all secu

When I, as a European Union citizen, want to watch some videos of how to access European funds for investments on the EU Commission's website, they are all securely hosted in European Data Centers, using a nicely European-built streaming service to play them. Just kidding, they embed YouTube, an American company. I think until the weird robed cultists that run the EU find some time between their Brussels orgies to encourage innovation inside the EU borders, we'll only be using fines and legalese to even the playing field with the rest of the world.

nickff 5y ago
>"I think until [those] that run the EU find some time between their Brussels [meetings and conferences] to encourage innovation inside the EU borders, we'll only be using fines and legalese to even the playing field with the rest of the world." The real question is what the limits of government support and 'encouragement' are. It seems like governments are capable of enacting massive infusions of capital into stable industries, but there aren't many cases where the government itself created 'innovation'. There are arguments to be made around semiconductors and the military (and similar examples), but that was mostly the government fostering the demand side, not really 'taking charge'. There is no lack of demand for software products in the EU, but there does seem to be a distinct lack of innovation.
- ThalesX 5y ago
  > The real question is what the limits of government support and 'encouragement' are. In this case, they could encourage European competitors to YouTube by using their services and infusing them with some capital. By digitalizing the processes across the union, and by again, using European services. They certainly have the money; maybe they can spend a bit less on those "[meetings and conferences]". I'll give you another example. Because Germany is big in Pharma, they encourage the pharma industry along with its research and development. Because of this, when the pandemic hit, we were already exploring some interesting options. This should be the tech case also, not just pharma. "but that was mostly the government fostering the demand side" - this is a great way to do it, yes. > there aren't many cases where the government itself created 'innovation' Maybe my understanding is wrong, but I feel like a lot of innovation comes from heavy government-backed entities. And then the capitalists come and distribute these innovations in various forms to the population.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >'In this case, they could encourage European competitors to YouTube by using their services and infusing them with some capital. By digitalizing the processes across the union, and by again, using European services.' Capital infusions have a troubled history, as they've often been used for political payoffs to companies with dubious prospects (Solyndra). I'm also not sure the government will choose 'the right ones', as their criteria may not match those of the consumers, which will lead to specialty government contractors (like US ship construction since the Jones Act). >" Because Germany is big in Pharma, they encourage the pharma industry along with its research and development." This seems to be a typical failure mode of government, they encourage & subsidize existing, visible industries, and ignore/tacitly punish 'up & comers'. The film industry is a typical example of the subsidies, and software is a classic example of the neglect. >"Maybe my understanding is wrong, but I feel like a lot of innovation comes from heavy government-backed entities. And then the capitalists come and distribute these innovations in various forms to the population. " I think this depends on how you frame the issues; for example, you could say that ARPAnet was the progenitor of the internet, or you could say that 'cisco' was the real innovator. I tend to view 'true innovation' as transforming a niche or speculative idea into something widespread and common, but that's not a universal perspective.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "there aren't many cases where the government itself created 'innovation'." "Literally every single sliver of technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone instead of a stupidphone – internet, GPS, touchscreen, battery, hard drive, voice recognition – was developed by researchers on the government payroll." - The Entrepreneurial State
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
n8cpdx 5y ago
What is unfair about the playing field? Why aren’t European innovators creating YouTube alternatives? If they are, what specifically is it about EU law that prevents them from being successful? It seems like there might be a cultural issue at play - I keep hearing about how European VCs are much more conservative, and European banks/investors in general just don’t want to invest in software like they do in the US. Every time there’s a post about working hard at startups, or at work in general, the European commenters are the first to raise that as a self-imposed crime against humanity. But some would argue that a small uptick in hustle might help Europe compete with FAANG and Silicon Valley startups. It’s not impossible to compete - see Spotify, which drove more established US competition out of the market. I understand the European solution is to have national champions that are heavily subsidized (the US does this to some degree, too, at its peril) - but should that be the first choice?
- jimbob45 5y ago
  You’re right and you just need to compete. You don’t necessarily need to win - just compete better at one facet of the market, whatever that may be. You don’t need home runs, you just need quality competitors that have enough success to be sustainable. The EU would seem to think creating a Vimeo would be a waste. The US is winning because they recognize that Vimeo is successful, even if small.
- ThalesX 5y ago
  > What is unfair about the playing field? I'm not arguing that it's unfair, I'm arguing that the EU is not doing enough to encourage development within its borders. > Why aren’t European innovators creating YouTube alternatives? I have unsourced beliefs in this matter, that a lot of innovators follow capital outside of EU. There is not a single start-up that I worked with locally, that didn't end up incorporating in US for the capital and the market. Recently, the EU start-up scene is picking up, so I hope we can see more and more successful companies springing up here. But we're very far from competing with the US and China. > If they are, what specifically is it about EU law that prevents them from being successful? I'm not an expert, so I couldn't really say this, however, I know one major issue is the cultural and language barrier. There must be solutions to it, and there must be money in the EU to finance looking for such solutions. > I keep hearing about how European VCs are much more conservative, and European banks/investors in general just don’t want to invest in software like they do in the US This is also true; changing recently. I also agree with everything that you posted after this, with the mention that it should be a market-led choice, which type of engagement you want with whichever company you choose. > I understand the European solution is to have national champions that are heavily subsidized (the US does this to some degree, too, at its peril) - but should that be the first choice? I believe that, in general, investing smaller sums in more companies across multiple industries is the best solution in terms of government intervention. Then specialized programs for more capital infusion to companies in various stages of development, based on proper due diligence. But again, I'm not an expert.

nickff 5y ago

>"I think until [those] that run the EU find some time between their Brussels [meetings and conferences] to encourage innovation inside the EU borders, we'll only be using fines and legalese to even the playing field with the rest of the world." The real question is what the limits of government support and 'encouragement' are. It seems like governments are capable of enacting massive infusions of capital into stable industries, but there aren't many cases where the government itself created 'innovation'. There are arguments to be made around semiconductors and the military (and similar examples), but that was mostly the government fostering the demand side, not really 'taking charge'. There is no lack of demand for software products in the EU, but there does seem to be a distinct lack of innovation.

ThalesX 5y ago
> The real question is what the limits of government support and 'encouragement' are. In this case, they could encourage European competitors to YouTube by using their services and infusing them with some capital. By digitalizing the processes across the union, and by again, using European services. They certainly have the money; maybe they can spend a bit less on those "[meetings and conferences]". I'll give you another example. Because Germany is big in Pharma, they encourage the pharma industry along with its research and development. Because of this, when the pandemic hit, we were already exploring some interesting options. This should be the tech case also, not just pharma. "but that was mostly the government fostering the demand side" - this is a great way to do it, yes. > there aren't many cases where the government itself created 'innovation' Maybe my understanding is wrong, but I feel like a lot of innovation comes from heavy government-backed entities. And then the capitalists come and distribute these innovations in various forms to the population.
- nickff 5y ago
  >'In this case, they could encourage European competitors to YouTube by using their services and infusing them with some capital. By digitalizing the processes across the union, and by again, using European services.' Capital infusions have a troubled history, as they've often been used for political payoffs to companies with dubious prospects (Solyndra). I'm also not sure the government will choose 'the right ones', as their criteria may not match those of the consumers, which will lead to specialty government contractors (like US ship construction since the Jones Act). >" Because Germany is big in Pharma, they encourage the pharma industry along with its research and development." This seems to be a typical failure mode of government, they encourage & subsidize existing, visible industries, and ignore/tacitly punish 'up & comers'. The film industry is a typical example of the subsidies, and software is a classic example of the neglect. >"Maybe my understanding is wrong, but I feel like a lot of innovation comes from heavy government-backed entities. And then the capitalists come and distribute these innovations in various forms to the population. " I think this depends on how you frame the issues; for example, you could say that ARPAnet was the progenitor of the internet, or you could say that 'cisco' was the real innovator. I tend to view 'true innovation' as transforming a niche or speculative idea into something widespread and common, but that's not a universal perspective.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"there aren't many cases where the government itself created 'innovation'." "Literally every single sliver of technology that makes the iPhone a smartphone instead of a stupidphone – internet, GPS, touchscreen, battery, hard drive, voice recognition – was developed by researchers on the government payroll." - The Entrepreneurial State

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

n8cpdx 5y ago

What is unfair about the playing field? Why aren’t European innovators creating YouTube alternatives? If they are, what specifically is it about EU law that prevents them from being successful? It seems like there might be a cultural issue at play - I keep hearing about how European VCs are much more conservative, and European banks/investors in general just don’t want to invest in software like they do in the US. Every time there’s a post about working hard at startups, or at work in general, the European commenters are the first to raise that as a self-imposed crime against humanity. But some would argue that a small uptick in hustle might help Europe compete with FAANG and Silicon Valley startups. It’s not impossible to compete - see Spotify, which drove more established US competition out of the market. I understand the European solution is to have national champions that are heavily subsidized (the US does this to some degree, too, at its peril) - but should that be the first choice?

jimbob45 5y ago
You’re right and you just need to compete. You don’t necessarily need to win - just compete better at one facet of the market, whatever that may be. You don’t need home runs, you just need quality competitors that have enough success to be sustainable. The EU would seem to think creating a Vimeo would be a waste. The US is winning because they recognize that Vimeo is successful, even if small.
ThalesX 5y ago
> What is unfair about the playing field? I'm not arguing that it's unfair, I'm arguing that the EU is not doing enough to encourage development within its borders. > Why aren’t European innovators creating YouTube alternatives? I have unsourced beliefs in this matter, that a lot of innovators follow capital outside of EU. There is not a single start-up that I worked with locally, that didn't end up incorporating in US for the capital and the market. Recently, the EU start-up scene is picking up, so I hope we can see more and more successful companies springing up here. But we're very far from competing with the US and China. > If they are, what specifically is it about EU law that prevents them from being successful? I'm not an expert, so I couldn't really say this, however, I know one major issue is the cultural and language barrier. There must be solutions to it, and there must be money in the EU to finance looking for such solutions. > I keep hearing about how European VCs are much more conservative, and European banks/investors in general just don’t want to invest in software like they do in the US This is also true; changing recently. I also agree with everything that you posted after this, with the mention that it should be a market-led choice, which type of engagement you want with whichever company you choose. > I understand the European solution is to have national champions that are heavily subsidized (the US does this to some degree, too, at its peril) - but should that be the first choice? I believe that, in general, investing smaller sums in more companies across multiple industries is the best solution in terms of government intervention. Then specialized programs for more capital infusion to companies in various stages of development, based on proper due diligence. But again, I'm not an expert.