Some would say platformication, anti-competitive behaviour and tax avoidance.
But there are four things that stand out:
1. Investment capital: There is no comparable VC scene in Europe, many European countries are extremely risk averse
2. Language barrier: In order to “reach” the EU you basically have to release your software with 10+ languages and have to deal with 20+ tax offices; the US home market is much simpler (except for the need of Spanish to reach the whole US) and can easily be exported to Canada, UK, Australia
3. Europeans never saw technological advancements as serious as the US, for the US it was an opportunity, for the EU countries it was a threat
4. The US megacorps bought a lot of good EU technology corporations (think Skype and Nokia) and now anytime a European tech firm rises it will be bought by a US firm
Cause Americans get more coke. Make coke for IT workers legal.
Because US tech firms pay more.
Don’t underestimate the “Network effect” of places like Silicon valley.
There have been innumerable attempts to replicate it across the world, but apart from Israel (“Silicon Wadi”), I can’t think of any that has really succeed. Not saying it will last forever, but even London or Paris will remain second choices for companies and employees until something drastic and unforeseen happens.
Some examples:
– Silicon Mountain (Cameroon)
– Dubai Silicon Oasis
– Silicon Alley (New York)
– Silicon Peach (Atlanta)
– Silicon Slopes (Utah)
– Silicon Docks (Dublin)
– IT Valley(Turkey)
Simple.
All the talent goes where the money is. The money being in Silicon Valley, Google, Facebook etc.
Off hand I would say its partly due to the amount of regulation EU based tech has to live up to from the get go that makes it somewhat unattractive to even try as a start up. You are ofc golden if you live up to it all, but it is an extra hassle that could kill a start up fairly quickly.
The other bit is that like with finances, formula one teams and others, tech is highly centred already, so the people you need will already be in or around the existing hotspots and its very hard and a drawn out process to get them to move somewhere else.
Because European Union its different, if you wanna same results as USA, you need do same decisions
Because there is no capital, and there is no capital because laws are a. anti-investment, b. nationalized.
We could perfectly, if the European Entreprises wouldn’t only think to put its assets out of Europe to maximinize its profits for its shareholders. If only we had a law that impose that a certain amount of the benefits was reinjected in ID and produced localy the things would be different. An other thing is that the European Council look more as an apendix of China than something else. Just look in Belgium, you know where the European Parliament is seated, several extreem right politicians were on the payrol of Xi Sing Peepee.
While I’m far from an expert I’d say the 2 main things are venture capital and first mover advantage. Silicon valley was dominant before anyone else tied their shoelaces.
As a German/American having lived in the both countries for a very long time, it comes down to mindset for me. Here in the the US it’s more like “fuck yeah let’s do it!” while in Germany you’ll get a “Why? Who needs that? Are you sure? nah thanks, better not. So much money, so much risk…”
The answer is money. Regardless what all the other reasons may be, the simple hard truth is that the US – and specifically the US government – understood that simply dumping money will attracts investors.
Now many will say that venture capitalists are the big moneygivers – but what they dont know is that tech companies benefit from a mirror investment in many regards.
Every single dollar they receive through investors, they get additionally again from the US government. An incredible boon for both the company and the investors. When you attract 100 dollar you know the government will give you another 100. Similary, when you invest 100 dollar into a company you believe can succeed, you know the government will equally chip in and share the risk with you.
Of course its not always and everytime, but in a lot of ways it is, especially in the early beginning stages.
This is something which is also not just randomly a one off idea but its an annual, repeated, completely normal happening in their funding.
And something like this doesnt exist in Europe. Not to this extent.
To put things into perspective. Think of all EU tech companies. All of them. Now add the ones from the UK. The result will be a 3 trillion dollar landscape of tech industry.
Which is still less worth than just a single US tech company: Apple. One. A singular company. Worth more than all EU + UK combined.
Money is the answer.
This was totally written by an AI.
>In conclusion, the reasons behind European tech firms struggling to compete with their US counterparts are deeply rooted in a long-standing trend of American dominance in high-tech sectors. To bridge this gap, Europe needs to prioritize innovation, invest heavily in research and development, and create a more favourable environment for tech startups.
So in conclusion, the underlying reason why European firms struggle to compete is because America is dominant?
All these are great answers but I’d like to add that the USA treats Europe as a fiefdom and can’t tolerate competition in the tech space especially since all major tech firms in the USA are basically government cutouts/public private partnerships. This is a national security issue
Because what’s good for workers is bad for corporations and vice versa. You want mega corporations – you need workers with almost nonexistent rights. You want proper regulations, salaries, healthcare and PTO – you get shit companies that cannot compete unless it’s something extremely innovative. But even then, it will be bought by a more powerful corporations.
Waking up 15 years late is not a good thing in any business.
Cheap VC money, mostly
First mover advantage.
When first big companies emerged – I guess it was easier to sell a product in a 300 mln market than for local European countries in their domestic markets. Plus I think there’s more of risk-taking culture in US than in Europe.
Now they have a dominant position and can just buy any emerging competition. And to be honest, I don’t blame anyone who sells their company. Doing the ‘right’ thing and risking your health/wealth for ‘patriotism’… no thank you, you can be altruistic once you’re set up.
I don’t get the definition of “tech” or whatever you want to call it.
The article mentions electric vehicles as a “tech” sector. Does this mean combustion-engine vehicles are *not* “tech”? Both are part of the vehicle manufacturing sector. They employ the same kind of engineers.
It’s a silly label.
Because of the mentality of the people in these comments – Europeans are very close-minded and fragile when met with any ounce of criticism. Instead of acknowledging that Europe is pathetic in the tech world, [with only having 12 out of the top 100 tech companies by market cap](https://companiesmarketcap.com/tech/largest-tech-companies-by-market-cap/) even though Europe has 40+ countries and 700+ million people, they act like little children and blame the US for everything. Even East Asia has a bigger tech industry, even though it’s far smaller (only 3 countries) and poorer.
Europeans just don’t have an entrepreneurial spirit. All the forward-thinking Europeans moved to America! All they can do is sit around and regulate American tech companies, and then wonder why any European who gets a brilliant idea for a start-up plans to go to America ASAP
Over regulation and and a cautious mentality is usually the reason.
This feels very much like a reaction to European regulation of American tech companies, who the US refuse to regulate properly.
Without reading the article: salaries too low, too little investments, too many worker protection laws resulting in slow hiring and no or little possibilities to get rid of people. Risk averse culture resulting in less new ideas being tested.
Many good reasons I see here. But also, US corporate tax rate is 21%, while Europe has:
– Germany 29%
– France 28%
– UK 19%
– Italy 24%
– Spain 25%
– Sweden 21%
– Norway 22%
– Netherlands 25%
It’s just a shifting trend. It all started in the US there is an expectation for Asia, Africa and then back to Europe but it can’t be in this particular order.
There also is the cultural difference, many of you on hear brag about your social programs which do sound great to have, but also seem to make you guys comfortable. Americans in general seem to have more of a drive to make something of themselves and driven by materialistic goals.
Why European tech firms don’t swell to immense size like those in the US?
The US is one country, Europe is 50. That’s all the explanation anyone ever needs. Everything takes a lot longer time to get anywhere and any promising startups are gobbled up by said giants.
Because European pay taxes…
Regulation(s). Too much, it completely hinders innovation!
You can’t do shi….anything without complying with 1001 laws, norms and other paper work. What could be an one man enterprise (the famous “garage” startups) easily ends up being a small to medium company. This, assuming the business model is even allowed!
I, for one, have some cool idea using drones (it’s small in terms of potential revenue and easily copied) but God forbid even trying to put it to work in the field mostly anywhere in EU.
GDP USA :approx **23 trillion USD**GDP of all European Union: countries approx **18 trillion USD**
When you have that much money, your VC can afford to take more risk, the mindset is more inclined to taking risks.
We can’t compete on a local level, we never will, USA is 300+ million people alone to start with, france is 67 for instance. China and India is more than 1 billion. It never made sense to compare.
you have a nice idea, in the USA you’ll likely get far more money, more easily and you’d have a large pool of engineers, scientists, etc.
So how do you counter that ? it’s not easy…but one thing is sure for me, it’s only on a EU level that we can.
32 comments
Some would say platformication, anti-competitive behaviour and tax avoidance.
But there are four things that stand out:
1. Investment capital: There is no comparable VC scene in Europe, many European countries are extremely risk averse
2. Language barrier: In order to “reach” the EU you basically have to release your software with 10+ languages and have to deal with 20+ tax offices; the US home market is much simpler (except for the need of Spanish to reach the whole US) and can easily be exported to Canada, UK, Australia
3. Europeans never saw technological advancements as serious as the US, for the US it was an opportunity, for the EU countries it was a threat
4. The US megacorps bought a lot of good EU technology corporations (think Skype and Nokia) and now anytime a European tech firm rises it will be bought by a US firm
Cause Americans get more coke. Make coke for IT workers legal.
Because US tech firms pay more.
Don’t underestimate the “Network effect” of places like Silicon valley.
There have been innumerable attempts to replicate it across the world, but apart from Israel (“Silicon Wadi”), I can’t think of any that has really succeed. Not saying it will last forever, but even London or Paris will remain second choices for companies and employees until something drastic and unforeseen happens.
Some examples:
– Silicon Mountain (Cameroon)
– Dubai Silicon Oasis
– Silicon Alley (New York)
– Silicon Peach (Atlanta)
– Silicon Slopes (Utah)
– Silicon Docks (Dublin)
– IT Valley(Turkey)
Simple.
All the talent goes where the money is. The money being in Silicon Valley, Google, Facebook etc.
Off hand I would say its partly due to the amount of regulation EU based tech has to live up to from the get go that makes it somewhat unattractive to even try as a start up. You are ofc golden if you live up to it all, but it is an extra hassle that could kill a start up fairly quickly.
The other bit is that like with finances, formula one teams and others, tech is highly centred already, so the people you need will already be in or around the existing hotspots and its very hard and a drawn out process to get them to move somewhere else.
Because European Union its different, if you wanna same results as USA, you need do same decisions
Because there is no capital, and there is no capital because laws are a. anti-investment, b. nationalized.
We could perfectly, if the European Entreprises wouldn’t only think to put its assets out of Europe to maximinize its profits for its shareholders. If only we had a law that impose that a certain amount of the benefits was reinjected in ID and produced localy the things would be different. An other thing is that the European Council look more as an apendix of China than something else. Just look in Belgium, you know where the European Parliament is seated, several extreem right politicians were on the payrol of Xi Sing Peepee.
While I’m far from an expert I’d say the 2 main things are venture capital and first mover advantage. Silicon valley was dominant before anyone else tied their shoelaces.
As a German/American having lived in the both countries for a very long time, it comes down to mindset for me. Here in the the US it’s more like “fuck yeah let’s do it!” while in Germany you’ll get a “Why? Who needs that? Are you sure? nah thanks, better not. So much money, so much risk…”
The answer is money. Regardless what all the other reasons may be, the simple hard truth is that the US – and specifically the US government – understood that simply dumping money will attracts investors.
Now many will say that venture capitalists are the big moneygivers – but what they dont know is that tech companies benefit from a mirror investment in many regards.
Every single dollar they receive through investors, they get additionally again from the US government. An incredible boon for both the company and the investors. When you attract 100 dollar you know the government will give you another 100. Similary, when you invest 100 dollar into a company you believe can succeed, you know the government will equally chip in and share the risk with you.
Of course its not always and everytime, but in a lot of ways it is, especially in the early beginning stages.
This is something which is also not just randomly a one off idea but its an annual, repeated, completely normal happening in their funding.
And something like this doesnt exist in Europe. Not to this extent.
To put things into perspective. Think of all EU tech companies. All of them. Now add the ones from the UK. The result will be a 3 trillion dollar landscape of tech industry.
Which is still less worth than just a single US tech company: Apple. One. A singular company. Worth more than all EU + UK combined.
Money is the answer.
This was totally written by an AI.
>In conclusion, the reasons behind European tech firms struggling to compete with their US counterparts are deeply rooted in a long-standing trend of American dominance in high-tech sectors. To bridge this gap, Europe needs to prioritize innovation, invest heavily in research and development, and create a more favourable environment for tech startups.
So in conclusion, the underlying reason why European firms struggle to compete is because America is dominant?
All these are great answers but I’d like to add that the USA treats Europe as a fiefdom and can’t tolerate competition in the tech space especially since all major tech firms in the USA are basically government cutouts/public private partnerships. This is a national security issue
Because what’s good for workers is bad for corporations and vice versa. You want mega corporations – you need workers with almost nonexistent rights. You want proper regulations, salaries, healthcare and PTO – you get shit companies that cannot compete unless it’s something extremely innovative. But even then, it will be bought by a more powerful corporations.
Waking up 15 years late is not a good thing in any business.
Cheap VC money, mostly
First mover advantage.
When first big companies emerged – I guess it was easier to sell a product in a 300 mln market than for local European countries in their domestic markets. Plus I think there’s more of risk-taking culture in US than in Europe.
Now they have a dominant position and can just buy any emerging competition. And to be honest, I don’t blame anyone who sells their company. Doing the ‘right’ thing and risking your health/wealth for ‘patriotism’… no thank you, you can be altruistic once you’re set up.
I don’t get the definition of “tech” or whatever you want to call it.
The article mentions electric vehicles as a “tech” sector. Does this mean combustion-engine vehicles are *not* “tech”? Both are part of the vehicle manufacturing sector. They employ the same kind of engineers.
It’s a silly label.
Because of the mentality of the people in these comments – Europeans are very close-minded and fragile when met with any ounce of criticism. Instead of acknowledging that Europe is pathetic in the tech world, [with only having 12 out of the top 100 tech companies by market cap](https://companiesmarketcap.com/tech/largest-tech-companies-by-market-cap/) even though Europe has 40+ countries and 700+ million people, they act like little children and blame the US for everything. Even East Asia has a bigger tech industry, even though it’s far smaller (only 3 countries) and poorer.
Europeans just don’t have an entrepreneurial spirit. All the forward-thinking Europeans moved to America! All they can do is sit around and regulate American tech companies, and then wonder why any European who gets a brilliant idea for a start-up plans to go to America ASAP
Over regulation and and a cautious mentality is usually the reason.
This feels very much like a reaction to European regulation of American tech companies, who the US refuse to regulate properly.
Without reading the article: salaries too low, too little investments, too many worker protection laws resulting in slow hiring and no or little possibilities to get rid of people. Risk averse culture resulting in less new ideas being tested.
Many good reasons I see here. But also, US corporate tax rate is 21%, while Europe has:
– Germany 29%
– France 28%
– UK 19%
– Italy 24%
– Spain 25%
– Sweden 21%
– Norway 22%
– Netherlands 25%
It’s just a shifting trend. It all started in the US there is an expectation for Asia, Africa and then back to Europe but it can’t be in this particular order.
There also is the cultural difference, many of you on hear brag about your social programs which do sound great to have, but also seem to make you guys comfortable. Americans in general seem to have more of a drive to make something of themselves and driven by materialistic goals.
Why European tech firms don’t swell to immense size like those in the US?
The US is one country, Europe is 50. That’s all the explanation anyone ever needs. Everything takes a lot longer time to get anywhere and any promising startups are gobbled up by said giants.
Because European pay taxes…
Regulation(s). Too much, it completely hinders innovation!
You can’t do shi….anything without complying with 1001 laws, norms and other paper work. What could be an one man enterprise (the famous “garage” startups) easily ends up being a small to medium company. This, assuming the business model is even allowed!
I, for one, have some cool idea using drones (it’s small in terms of potential revenue and easily copied) but God forbid even trying to put it to work in the field mostly anywhere in EU.
GDP USA :approx **23 trillion USD**GDP of all European Union: countries approx **18 trillion USD**
When you have that much money, your VC can afford to take more risk, the mindset is more inclined to taking risks.
We can’t compete on a local level, we never will, USA is 300+ million people alone to start with, france is 67 for instance. China and India is more than 1 billion. It never made sense to compare.
you have a nice idea, in the USA you’ll likely get far more money, more easily and you’d have a large pool of engineers, scientists, etc.
So how do you counter that ? it’s not easy…but one thing is sure for me, it’s only on a EU level that we can.
Bluetooth and Google Maps is European måde.