4 ms·
I'm from the US originally and emigrated about 10 years ago; I think you're conflating different aspects of technology. The boom of US tech isn't superior infra
by csydas 4y ago
I'm from the US originally and emigrated about 10 years ago; I think you're conflating different aspects of technology. The boom of US tech isn't superior infrastructure, it's that tech is a very lucrative investment vehicle so it gets a ton of attention. (Well, it was anyways, not sure what 2023 is going to do to this)
While I understand what you're saying, I think what you're observing and commenting on is the huge amount of money that is thrown at technologies developed in the US compared to similar technologies developed by an EU nation which don't get the same attention. US tech infrastructure is by no means exceptional. It's good in many places, don't get me wrong, but it's an extremely similar or lesser experience compared to many EU nations (including the ones you mentioned), and a lot more costly for end users.
Even when I lived in Russia for a time, the infrastructure/costs were amazingly better in Russian cities (outside of Moscow and Saint Petersburg even) than in many US cities.
This is not to say everything US == bad everything EU == good; far from it. Instead just try to understand that the main difference between the tech you read about in US that gets millions or billions and the tech in the EU which just stumbles on like any other business is simply the high attention from investors looking for investment vehicles.
Beat for beat, the day to day technology that I used in the US has either an acceptable or better EU-accessible version, and the EU version is often even a bit cheaper.
The big projects like Starlink are extremely subsidized by the US government; it's the US residents paying person like Elon Musk to let him sell them something right back, without having any real control or input over the way that money is spent by Musk and other similar corporations, or even ensuring that everyone has a chance to use the stuff that billions of dollars of their tax dollars are going to. It's an oligarchy that's been fully legalized and approved.
I really don't think that's the direction we want any nation to be taking, as it does _not_ provide good results long term for the people. US broadband is a perfect example for this with the incumbent providers doing everything in their power to offer as little as possible while still technically qualifying for the subsidies so they can pocket the remainder after the bare minimum requirements are met.
Don't misunderstand the high investor attention that US tech companies get as always being great innovation; investors want a good investment vehicle, and that doesn't always mean the vehicle is a worthy and innovative product. It just means it's something that has a way of providing good returns on investments, including short term fads.
- TMWNN 4y ago>The big projects like Starlink are extremely subsidized by the US government No, it's not. (No, "SpaceX's US government launch contracts = US government subsidies" is not true.)
- hef19898 4y agoThis question was, lest say, discussed between the EU and the US for litteraly decades regarding Airbus subsidies and Boeing subsidies. The former came directly the latter came through government contracts. Government contracts are one of the easiest ways to subsidize a company, and SpaceX got plenty of those.
- TMWNN 4y agoI am well aware that EU claimed for decades that Boeing's military contracts were some sort of hidden subsidy for its civilian business. That does not make said claims accurate, or why McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed would not have sought to benefit from such subsidies, as opposed to selling itself to Boeing and exiting the airliner business, respectively. SpaceX gets plenty of government contracts because it has proven, reliable, and volume-capable launchers of government payloads. Many within NASA were fiercely opposed to SpaceX for years.
- hef19898 4y agoWhether or not government contracts can be considered subsidies was the question of the related WTO dispute. And it was never ruled that they are not. Since the WTO is the highest authority in those questions, everything else is just an opinion.
- panick21_ 4y agoThere is a waste over estimation on how large SpaceX government contracts are. You are ignoring that Airbus is also getting additional government contracts. Arianespace gets massive infrastructure subsidy, they are gone get at least 5 billion all said and told for Ariane 6, and that does not cover the last 20 years of sub-component level development for things like the engine and the solid fuel. Lots of the testing and development for sub-components is all done in govenrment funded institutions that all have their own public funding. In addition to Arianespace has received lots of 'contracts' for development of things like engines, carbon fiber second stages, different re-usability prototypes and the list goes on. And when all that is done, Ariane 6 will STILL GET GOVERNMENT contracts, such as launches from ESA, EU governments projects like Galileo and countries own launches. SpaceX actually likely lost money on development of Dragon 1 and Crew Dragon. The had incredibly competitive bids and the govenrment got absolutely amazing deals by anybodies accounting. For Arianespace to claim SpaceX is subsidized and that's why they can launch cheaper is simply the height of hypocrisy and and Arianespace actually knows that they are outright lying when they say that. The reality is Arianespace and Europe dominated the market for 20 years and barley made any technological or price progress in that time. Even in the 2010s they mostly launched Russian rockets developed in the 1960s. If that's not a complete failure I don't know what is.