5 ms·
>As for an entire integrated systems provider, I don't think it'd fit a funding round like this. I agree. But it is the single most important thing there is, i
by constantcrying 2y ago
>As for an entire integrated systems provider, I don't think it'd fit a funding round like this.
I agree. But it is the single most important thing there is, if you want to limit exposure to US tech companies.
The EU has the monetary resources to fund this. But it obviously does not know how, so we have these distributed system, where funding trickles down through multiple layers into many different small projects, which then get some funding for some time.
I think the EU funding these many small projects is nice, but we should not pretend that distributed funding like this makes any meaningful difference, as long as most government and corporate institutions are running Microsoft products everywhere.
A new system vendor needs to be created, it needs to be well funded, it needs to attract really good people and it needs to be deployed, millions of people need to be trained to use it, EU wide. This is a decade long project, but it is the only way to create an EU independent of Microsoft.
- mvanbaak 2y agoAnd how would that new system vendor not become the european equivalent of microsoft? What you describe is exactly that.
- wqaatwt 2y agoIf it’s government owned/controlled it will be much, much worse than Microsoft (purely from the product quality perspective)
- guappa 2y agoUh? Why? You think that government employees are genetically stupid?
- wqaatwt 2y agoCompanies that don’t have to compete have no incentives to make good products. Especially when high level government officials (i.e. people controlling their funding) are their clients and jot end consumers. Wasting time/resources to make good products under such circumstances would be quite stupid. Of course same often applies to large enterprise corporation but thankfully at least occasionally they can go bankrupt (which keeps them in line to some extent).
- constantcrying 2y agoAnd?
- wqaatwt 2y ago> A new system vendor needs to be created If it’s not created and grown organically (with some extra funding and indirect support) it will certainly and inevitably suck. Government bureaucracies can’t directly establish and build a tech company. They will end up replicating their structure and decision making processes which will lead to massive inefficiency and result in crappy product with poor UX that are not built for actual users. Also free market competition always was and is the main source of human progress. If EU can establish an environment where competition can thrive something might happen. If they create a government owned monopoly and everyone is forced to use the same vendor who has zero incentive to build non crappy products, well.. the outcome won’t be good.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- vouwfietsman 2y ago> free market competition always was and is the main source of human progress Not really though, most progress is driven by scientific or government institutions, offloaded only to private enterprise for execution, usually still heavily subsidized to cover risk. True free market competition creates monopolies and stagnation, this is not a controversial opinion.
- wqaatwt 2y ago> most progress Well most progress in computing, software and related areas did come from private companies. > True free market competition creates monopolies and That’s where regulation must come in. To stop monopolies from forming or at least from abusing their position. Anyway your suggestion is to jump straight to the monopoly phase?
- GoatInGrey 2y agoThere is an uncomfortable truth to reconcile with in that the vast majority of technological progress in private companies has come from monopolistic ones.