3 ms·

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 pre

by 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.
BlueTemplar 5y ago
Not sure what Spotify did, but usually potential competitors to GAFAMs just get bought : see Skype or Nokia for instance.
mlinksva 5y ago
How Law Made Silicon Valley (2014) https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=elj https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... presumably has been superseded (pointers appreciated) but points out some areas of law that made the US favorable to grow large internet companies relative to the EU, Japan, and South Korea -- IIRC more permissive and/or more certainty, sooner, concerning some areas of intellectual property, intermediary liability, and privacy.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Why aren’t European innovators creating YouTube alternatives?" How can anyone create a viable youtube alternative if it's free? The adtech monster killed dozens fo companies.
- n8cpdx 5y ago
  This is a very European attitude. IDK what it is about Europe, but the pervasive business mindset seems to be to jump to the conclusion that things aren’t possible before even brainstorming the options. Nothing is ever possible in Europe. A bookshop can’t possibly compete with Amazon in France (despite damn near every small town I’ve visited in the US having a successful independent bookseller) without government help. European businesses could never succeed because Americans sell ads. Stop making excuses for businesses and actually try to compete. Options for EuroTube: - sell ads with a focus on European content - sell privacy - sell better creative control and/or get really great at microsubscriptions - sell in-country hosting of content - sell as a “green” hosting alternative - sell better software with a better experience/creator tools - sell better streaming (compete with Twitch) - sell region-specific hand-curation There are competitors to YouTube that are successful, there are competitors that have created new categories, etc. Heck, it doesn’t even have to really be all that competitive, at least give Europeans an equivalent-quality option and the impetus to buy local/but European should be enough to carve out a niche. Stop. Making. Excuses. For. Businesses.
  - wwtrv 5y ago
    Why would you want to create an alternative to Youtube anyway? Streaming videos for free is a terrible business model YT itself still wasn’t profitable back in 2015 (and Google stopped releasing figures after that) for all we know Google might still be subsidizing it, in any case it took at least 10 years for it to break even.
    - n8cpdx 5y ago
      Probably to avoid the national/continental embarrassment of relying on the Americans for every basic piece of technology European society depends on. The original comment was about how government websites rely on YouTube to host their content. I guess there’s also a case for not subjecting European citizens to the perils of Google’s data collection efforts, or the government’s content to the moderation whims of YouTube’s algorithms. This is part 2 of the dirty duo of European business attitudes: “why even bother?” Nothing is ever worth doing in Europe, an unfruitful complement to the belief that nothing is possible in Europe.

by n8cpdx 5y ago

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.

BlueTemplar 5y ago

Not sure what Spotify did, but usually potential competitors to GAFAMs just get bought : see Skype or Nokia for instance.

mlinksva 5y ago

How Law Made Silicon Valley (2014) https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=elj https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... presumably has been superseded (pointers appreciated) but points out some areas of law that made the US favorable to grow large internet companies relative to the EU, Japan, and South Korea -- IIRC more permissive and/or more certainty, sooner, concerning some areas of intellectual property, intermediary liability, and privacy.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Why aren’t European innovators creating YouTube alternatives?" How can anyone create a viable youtube alternative if it's free? The adtech monster killed dozens fo companies.

n8cpdx 5y ago
This is a very European attitude. IDK what it is about Europe, but the pervasive business mindset seems to be to jump to the conclusion that things aren’t possible before even brainstorming the options. Nothing is ever possible in Europe. A bookshop can’t possibly compete with Amazon in France (despite damn near every small town I’ve visited in the US having a successful independent bookseller) without government help. European businesses could never succeed because Americans sell ads. Stop making excuses for businesses and actually try to compete. Options for EuroTube: - sell ads with a focus on European content - sell privacy - sell better creative control and/or get really great at microsubscriptions - sell in-country hosting of content - sell as a “green” hosting alternative - sell better software with a better experience/creator tools - sell better streaming (compete with Twitch) - sell region-specific hand-curation There are competitors to YouTube that are successful, there are competitors that have created new categories, etc. Heck, it doesn’t even have to really be all that competitive, at least give Europeans an equivalent-quality option and the impetus to buy local/but European should be enough to carve out a niche. Stop. Making. Excuses. For. Businesses.
- wwtrv 5y ago
  Why would you want to create an alternative to Youtube anyway? Streaming videos for free is a terrible business model YT itself still wasn’t profitable back in 2015 (and Google stopped releasing figures after that) for all we know Google might still be subsidizing it, in any case it took at least 10 years for it to break even.
  - n8cpdx 5y ago
    Probably to avoid the national/continental embarrassment of relying on the Americans for every basic piece of technology European society depends on. The original comment was about how government websites rely on YouTube to host their content. I guess there’s also a case for not subjecting European citizens to the perils of Google’s data collection efforts, or the government’s content to the moderation whims of YouTube’s algorithms. This is part 2 of the dirty duo of European business attitudes: “why even bother?” Nothing is ever worth doing in Europe, an unfruitful complement to the belief that nothing is possible in Europe.