3 ms·

>"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 on

by 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

by nickff 5y ago

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