
In search of a European Google - SandB0x
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/06/europe-google-silicon-valley-digital-industry
======
CM30
Personally (as someone from Europe), I'd say the general reasons we don't have
an equivalent tp Google or Silicon Valley or any of that sort of thing are
more that:

1\. European laws are too restrictive. It's especially notable with stuff like
the hilariously stupid online tax laws the area has (having to apply different
tax rates based on the location of the user rather than the business makes it
hugely more complex than it has to be) or the right to be forgotten, but it
just feels we're too restrictive here in general.

2\. Culture. People in the US seem more ambitious and more willing to risk
everyone for the small chance of becoming a millionaire/billionaire at the end
of it. People in European countries on the other hand seem to be encouraged to
avoid risk and avoid anything that might lead to less job security in the
short term. Probably because failure in the US is seen as a minor bump in the
road, whereas failure in Europe is seen as the worst possible thing
imaginable.

3\. Money. Not just in the form of venture capital (though that's a huge
reason), but also because US startups tend to pay their employees more,
whereas their European equivalents stick to the average local wages. Hence the
best programmers, designers and other such people usually either find
employment in a more stable company (read, one where there's a work/life
balance) or move to the US to work in Silicon Valley.

If we want a 'European Google' or European startups in general, we need to
become less risk averse, more willing to reward the types of people needed to
work in those companies and less obsessed about regulations.

Oh, and fix the issues certain areas have with internet connection speeds. The
fact that a lot of areas in large cities like London can't get fibre internet
and the likes is not helping our tech businesses compete with their US
counterparts.

~~~
ilurk
I agree with all of the above but I think you missed another important aspect
about money.

Engineers in SV are paid bucket loads of money.

They can afford to take one year of to travel the world or just work on their
own projects.

For me that is key.

How many people do you know in Europe that can do that?

Another thing is in Europe the biggest tech hub is in London. And if you're in
London you have to wonder

 _Why am I dealing with this crappy weather when I can move to somewhere where
I 'm paid 2-3x more and it's summer all year?_

I know someone who falls along these exact lines and has moved to SV. Although
he was already working remotely to a US company.

~~~
raverbashing
> They can afford to take one year of to travel the world or just work on
> their own projects.

Can they?

> Why am I dealing with this crappy weather when I can move to somewhere where
> I'm paid 2-3x more and it's summer all year?

Because you don't risk bankruptcy by having a health issue, if you're single
it's not a sausage fest, more laid back work (in SF it seems you're bound to
stay longer times at the office), greater tourism choices (a short trip away)
and probably still cheaper than rent in SF even if we're talking London

~~~
jryle80
> Because you don't risk bankruptcy by having a health issue, if you're single
> it's not a sausage fest, more laid back work (in SF it seems you're bound to
> stay longer times at the office), greater tourism choices (a short trip
> away) and probably still cheaper than rent in SF even if we're talking
> London

We have another reason right in this very answer: People in SV are willing to
take more risk and sacrifice. Sure there are chances one may be bankrupted
because of a health issue. Sure there are fewer entertainment choices. Living
in SV may not be an ideal lifestyle for many but it has attracted a lot of
adventurous mind from all over the world, who together conjure up trailblazing
ventures.

~~~
gozo
Not only do I not think that is true, I think there's real danger that people
conclude that more risk is better. SV is in many ways risk averse. The days
when any kid could get a million dollars are over. Almost every success story
seems to happen on a background of brand name colleges, companies, incubators
or investors. What I think people mean when they talk about risk is really
"hype". People move to SV to work in the tech industry because that is THE
place to be. You don't have that in London, Berlin or even New York. The pure
momentum of the industry simply overshadows any health care, housing, dating
problems in the bay area.

~~~
jryle80
> Not only do I not think that is true, I think there's real danger that
> people conclude that more risk is better

I don't think people in general consider more risk being better. Rather,
higher reward often comes with higher risk. People aim for higher reward
obviously have to accept the risk associated with it. It just so happens that,
as you said, SV is the place to be for the tech industry.

> SV is in many ways risk averse. The days when any kid could get a million
> dollars are over. Almost every success story seems to happen on a background
> of brand name colleges, companies, incubators or investors.

I don't argue for or against the risk averse nature of SV. And of course,
knowing the right people helps get your foot in the door everywhere.
Undeniably though, for variety of reasons, there exists an ecosystem in SV
that breeds the creation of hi tech businesses. If you want to make a name for
yourself, being in SV makes a lot of sense. It isn't easy to replicate that
elsewhere.

Just look at the list of car companies that set up shop in SV in the last few
years:

[https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015...](https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/01/22/research-
and-innovation-center-palo-alto.html)

[http://www.technologytell.com/in-car-tech/1848/volvo-
geely-g...](http://www.technologytell.com/in-car-tech/1848/volvo-geely-get-in-
on-research-center-game-as-well/)

[http://www.technologytell.com/in-car-tech/1798/renault-
nissa...](http://www.technologytell.com/in-car-tech/1798/renault-nissan-
alliance-opens-new-research-center-in-silicon-valley/)

[http://www.industryweek.com/expansion-
management/expansion-m...](http://www.industryweek.com/expansion-
management/expansion-management-why-auto-industry-driving-silicon-valley)

VW has been there essentially forever, apparently:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VW_Electronics_Research_Labora...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VW_Electronics_Research_Laboratory)

Those are big names in a very established industry, yet they can't afford not
to have a presence in SV.

------
vlehto
"de facto platform, it’s hard to control and even harder to dislodge"

There is a Finnish service called irc-galleria.net. It's a service that was
created to let irc users to share pictures of themselves to other irc users.
It got really big in Finland. They even had big screen in center of Helsinki
to show new pictures uploaded to the service. They had this paid feature which
let you keep a list of friends in there. Everybody talked about irc-galleria
stalking.

Then Facebook came. The major difference was that facebook let you make
friends for free. Year later nobody remembers irc-galleria.

Dislodging a platform is easier than ever. It's enough to make better or
cheaper product, then just get lucky. Previously you had to also take
distribution and marketing into account and then get lucky.

~~~
7952
I don't think these big platforms will ever be dislodged exactly, just made
irrelevant. Photo sharing used to be difficult enough that it could act as the
basis for an entire product category. Now it has been commoditized
sufficiently that it can be just added to any product with relative ease.
Maybe one day it will be possible to add Google style search technology to any
product with ease. At that point the opportunity is to have specialist search
as an add-on to other products.

~~~
vlehto
I'm trying to imagine here what it would take to beat Google in it's own game.

The most frustrating searches I've had with google are always about some thing
I have seen before, but can't find again.

It would be relatively easy to optimize for this if you can have some kind of
bookmark app and search history available. So that search would prioritize
stuff I have bookmarked or found previously. It would be probably be valuable
for the search engine to know what products I have bookmarked. The catch here
is that I'm not going to trust google with that data.

So essentially delicious with very powerful search as by product.

------
knz42
“The combined value of the top three internet companies in the Americas – so,
basically, in America – is around $0.75tn (£0.5tn). In Asia, it’s around
$0.5tn. In Africa, it’s $50bn. And in Europe, it’s just $25bn.”

In Europe, we have wealth redistribution. A few companies with so much
concentrated financial power is not healthy.

~~~
adventured
Europe has far more stagnant wealth than America does in fact.

Europe's dynasties do not tend to give away their wealth, instead they pass it
down through families for generations. Most of Europe's largest companies and
fortunes are controlled through family dynasties. American billionaires always
dominate the list of most philanthropic.[1] It's also why Europe sees such a
low rate of turn-over among their billionaires, and why such a high proportion
of their billionaires are derived inherited wealth. [2]

[1]
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/11/18/the-50-ph...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/11/18/the-50-philanthropists-
who-have-given-away-the-most-money/)

[2] [http://i.imgur.com/cvTR3q1.png](http://i.imgur.com/cvTR3q1.png)

~~~
maxerickson
Is an operating business well described as stagnant wealth?

~~~
adventured
I think so, if vast wealth passes down through generations and occupies such a
large portion of the ultra rich. Stagnant in this regard refers to wealth that
is inherited.

How about if Europe's entrenched old money prevents new money from arising,
and is part of the problem? Money comes with obvious vast influence on
politics. What if that old money acts to protect itself at the expense of
economic dynamism and new wealth creation? I think it's a reasonable
conclusion that that does in fact occur. Is bunched up old money inherently
more conservative? I'd argue yes.

The parent comment implies that wealth is more redistributed in Europe. That
is plainly not true, given the extreme inheritance levels of their
billionaires and lower rates of philanthropy.

The wealth is also not inherently bound to the operations. You can give away
your billions without sinking a business. Berkshire Hathaway isn't going to
collapse when Buffett dies or gives his remaining wealth away (Burlington
Northern railroad isn't going to tip over when he gives away his last shares,
just as BMW wouldn't if the Quandt family ended their dynasty, ditto Walmart
with the second generation of Walton heirs). Just as Microsoft isn't
collapsing as Gates exits his formerly huge percentage share of ownership (he
has gone from ~60% ownership to now ~3% since the IPO, obviously it has not
seriously harmed Microsoft). There is a large, important question at the
center of this that can be best illustrated by a rhetorical: is Howard Buffett
(Warren's oldest son) the best qualified to run Berkshire Hathaway? What are
the odds the Quandt family is best suited to steer BMW for the next hundred
years? Or that Inditex should be run by the Ortega family forever, or that the
Slim family should control such a large swath of telecom in Mexico for the
next century? I think that kind of economic dominance by families is more
often detrimental (loss of dynamism, too much wealth acquired without earning
it) than beneficial, much as a cartel or monopoly ends up being.

~~~
maxerickson
_The wealth is also not inherently bound to the operations._

Yes, obviously not. But that characteristic detracts from the suitability of
"stagnant" as a descriptor.

~~~
adventured
Not if inherited wealth is in fact more stagnate in terms of the results it
produces in an economy, because that wealth is acquired without earning it
(with the heir very likely lacking the early formative experience, knowledge,
talent, or drive required to create it), including if it acts as a large drag
on new wealth and business formation.

The stagnation is derived from people inheriting the wealth who do not possess
the creation ability or skill level of the originator/s. Put in starker terms:
incompetent, low ambition, low skill, low accomplishment heirs that rest on
the wealth. I'd argue that's far more often the outcome than not, and I
believe we have the proof of that in the history of who starts companies, who
creates the most successful companies, and who creates the next tiers of
innovative breakthrough companies - and who does not.

Scrappy entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs do, not the Nth generation
of extreme dynastic wealth like the Quandt or Walton families.

------
x5n1
Europe needs an investment culture similar to the Capitalist American culture.
Without that there is no hope for anyone. There need to be investors and
technical people in one hub that feed off each other, network with each other,
and empower each other.

How many American startups are a result of a pissed off employee working at a
successful company going off and creating the same thing his or her employer
did but better? And this cycle feeding on itself.

Or university students with an idea getting all the financial, technical, and
managerial support necessary to create the next big thing.

You have to understand the process and then try to replicate the process. And
each component of the process is as important as the other. You need the whole
pie. Not a piece for it to succeed.

You can seed this with massive capital expenditure, tens of billions basically
poured into private coffers of Caplists, but the process has to be very
similar for it to actually work.

~~~
kwhitefoot
> How many American startups are a result of a pissed off employee working at
> a successful company going off and creating the same thing his or her
> employer did but better?

Some numbers might make your point more convincing.

~~~
raverbashing
Easily googable and not news

Intel started like this.

See the companies founded by ex-Googlers

------
nabla9
Biggest Internet companies are in advertising or catalog merchant business
that started in late 90's or early 2000's. American Internet startups in these
areas had immediate access to markets of 300 million people.

Homegrown American, Chinese or Japanese Internet company can have hundreds of
millions in revenue before it even starts to think about localization and
adjusting to other countries, cultures, languages, payment system and
advertising biz.

Network effect rules in the Internet business and US based business had huge
upper leg in this regard in early 2000s.

~~~
hengheng
Germany has 80 million people, the German-speaking market is 100 million
people. The smaller countries are mostly used to everything being in English
(Slovenia, Finland), so they don't care. France is 50 million people as well.
If your business idea doesn't bootstrap with that market size, it won't work
with a factor 6 more either.

Also recently, international payment can be considered a solved problem with
iban/bic, PayPal and credit cards.

Which means you can get by just as well with English, French or German only,
and some point down the line you add i18n for one or two other languages
first, and then whatever there might be a demand for.

On the other side of the coin, next-day national shipping for 3,50€ to 5€ is
the norm around here. Go try that in NA.

~~~
briandear
Regarding the shipping price differential.. That shipping might be cheap, but
the 20% VAT and the higher cost of taxes and social charges quickly destroy
that competitive advantage. So that 5€ shipping really costs much much more
than NA when the much higher costs of doing business are factored in.

------
jacquesm
Well, a European Google would still have to abide by the patent minefield that
search has become so it has very little chance of getting off the ground
without a breakthrough in search engine technology outside of Google or
Microsoft. Good luck with that, the head start is tremendous. And the likely
outcome of such a thing happening would be an acquisition by... Google or
Microsoft.

~~~
frik
Wrong, "Software patents" aren't recognized in most parts of Europe.

~~~
rwmj
.. unless they also wanted to do business in the US.

------
randomsearch
I think it's a fairly straightforward cultural difference. Americans take more
risks and are more ambitious. This is true of both entrepreneurs and VC,
although I'd say VC is the heart of the problem. Money goes into safer
investments in Europe.

------
dmoo
Just a question, how many people actually benefit from a Google being in their
particular country?

~~~
IkmoIkmo
I tried to cover this line of reasoning a bit in an other post in this thread.

No deep analysis from me, but very briefly looking at ROI of Google's
shareholders one can see it flows to investors worldwide, not the US in
particular.

Taxes then... very minimal, and are mostly redirected through a Dutch-Irish
tax scheme anyway, EU probably profits more than the US.

Employment, 50k or so, that's significant for sure. But 40% is outside the US,
and compare it say to Walmart which employs literally a couple million, and
you'll find tech companies in general don't make large dents in employment
figures.

As for actual services, there's barely any difference. A European benefits
virtually the same from Google's products and services, albeit sometimes say
the launch of the latest Nexus happens two weeks later in small European
countries like the Netherlands.

Mostly I'd say the benefits are related to generating and disseminating your
own culture, more political/legal influence in worldwide companies, drawing
talent to your country etc. These benefits are significant, but I don't think
Europe has anything to be alarmed about. Tech here is great, lots of solid
companies with billion dollar valuations, solid infrastructure, but fewer
unicorns. And that's no surprise with the EU being, deep down, a fragmented
market where the biggest first-language market is German which stands at 18%
of the EU population. It's not easy to roll out companies that grow to
hundreds of millions of people in Europe, if the biggest language that people
speak as a first language is only spoken by 18% of the union. European talent
with great ideas that aim very large tend to go English first, and then move
to the US at the earliest signs of solid traction. Everyone else stays, and
that's how you get lots of solid companies like Supercell with a few billion
dollars valuation that are relatively small compared to a Facebook. That's not
a bad thing.

~~~
icebraining
I think the language issues are overplayed; translating the software is not
expensive, and it's usually not very difficult to hire someone who can read
and write in English, German and/or French.

We are a <10 person startup, and yet we have customers that speak Portuguese,
Spanish, French and English.

~~~
Scarblac
It's mostly cultural. In the Netherlands, the majority of online payments are
done during a system called "iDeal". A few hours' drive away, and that system
is never heard of.

Different laws. Of course the EU exists to combat exactly that problem, but
they haven't succeeded yet.

The problem your company tries to solve may not even be relevant in half the
markets.

------
CM30
Also, I'd say the university system may have something to do with it. US unis
work more like UK Sixth Form Colleges, where students study a variety of
subjects and encounter people with different interests (whereas a UK
university education is about one subject with a much smaller group of peers).
As a result, the US system is arguably a lot better suited to networking and
meeting people with an interest in starting a business.

How many tech company founders met at university? Now, how many studied the
exact same things? I'd say a lot less of them.

~~~
icebraining
_How many tech company founders met at university? Now, how many studied the
exact same things?_

Well, a short search returns:

Google: two PhDs studying the same thing.

Apple: Jobs and Woz met when the former was in High School; they never
attended the same college.

Yahoo: two EE graduate students.

Microsoft: childhood friends, didn't attend the same college.

Oracle: didn't attend the same college, met when working for the same company.

Red Hat: didn't attend the same college.

Salesforce: met while working at Oracle.

At least for the software behemoths, it seems it's not that important to have
mixed colleges.

------
ThePhysicist
Why are people looking for a second Google in Europe?

They should instead look in China, where there already is not only a second
Google but also a second Facebook, Amazon, WhatsApp, Stripe, ...

So, why did the Chinese succeed where Europe failed? Here are my thoughts:

* Regulation: With its strict censorship and great firewall, the Chinese government effectively shut out most American IT companies from their market, giving local companies enough time to grow.

* Culture: Chinese culture is much more different from American than European culture is, hence it is also much more difficult to adapt an American IT service to the Chinese market than to the European.

* Market size: With 1.3 billion people, 900 million of which speak Mandarin the market size for any IT service is enormous, even taking into account that many people still do not have reliable Internet access or a lot of money to buy services / products online. Likewise, the market growth is much higher than in the US or Europe.

Personally I believe that the main competition for American IT companies will
not come from Europe but from China. Right now, most Chinese IT startups only
follow in the roots of their successful American idols, but with so many well-
educated young entrepreneurs this should change soon, and I predict that we
will see more and more disruptive Internet startups "made in China" very soon.

~~~
pille
> Why are people looking for a second Google in Europe?

Because they are in Europe, not China. It's a British article.

~~~
ThePhysicist
I just think that by looking at China you can better understand the reasons
why there is no European Google.

------
Scarblac
Does booking.com count? Founded in Europe in 1996, still entirely located in
Europe, over $1 billion _yearly profit_, but acquired by an American company
in 2005.

------
jokoon
Europe is less capitalistic, is less versed into risk, and is clearly not
entrusting so much money to an IT company like google.

It's hard explaining to people what exactly google does for so much money.
Europe is more "feet on the ground" when it comes to business in general. What
does google sells by the way ? Ads, android (which is mostly open), internet
services... it's hard to really tell. In europe, technologies and research
will often rather belong to the public sector than the private sector.

The silicon valley is a typically american thing because US business laws and
the culture allow it. In europe it just won't. The only way you can really
thrive as a programmer in europe, is by doing open source, and Torvalds is a
good example of that, so by a loose definition it's only accessible to people
who spent a lot of time in universities. There are no other way you are going
to do business and getting money typing code in europe. It just won't happen.

~~~
kiiski
I don't think you have to be academic to be successful in open source. One
example of non-university developed financially successful open source would
be MySQL. I'm sure there are others from other parts of Europe that I'm not
familiar with.

~~~
jokoon
Well you need a way to bring food on the table.

I too could make the most amazing software if I could by open sourcing it.
Without resources nor the organization, nothing will happen.

------
frik
"Quaero was announced by Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder during the
French-German ministerial conference in April 2005. [...] Quaero was often
described as a European competitor to Google [...]

The main source of disagreement was the format of the search engine, with
German engineers favoring a text-based search engine and the French engineers
favoring a multimedia search engine. Many German engineers also balked at what
they thought was becoming too much of an anti-Google project, rather than a
project driven by its own ideals."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaero)

[https://www.exalead.com/search/](https://www.exalead.com/search/)

The project failed to deliver. Though the Exalead web search engine survived
and got bought by Dassault Systems (CATIA 3D CAD). Next time they should open
source the public funded projects...

------
lumberjack
Not sure how they are related but Qwant is the new Google rival. It's also
partly funded by the French government:

[https://www.qwant.com/](https://www.qwant.com/)

~~~
adventured
France has been trying for nearly a decade to build a search engine that
matters:

[http://www.dw.com/en/eu-allows-france-to-bankroll-google-
riv...](http://www.dw.com/en/eu-allows-france-to-bankroll-google-
rival/a-3186854)

------
jkaljundi
One of the big issues in Europe is almost non-existent local M&A (and to
lesser extent single pan-European shared IPO) market. As long as that is
purely focused on US e.g. the exits at all stages (from tiny few million
acquihires to hundreds of millions acquisitions) are mostly based in America,
a healthy tech market will not emerge in Europe.

------
IkmoIkmo
One can wonder how valuable these companies really are. Yes, they're valuable
to investors, but the investors of Facebook are not American, they're
completely international. The return on investment on capital investment flows
to investors worldwide, not just US investors because it's a US company.

So what else then... Taxes, here tech companies are notorious. Stories of FB
paying a few thousand in total taxes in the UK, Apple leaving its cash abroad
to avoid taxation, Google channeling its revenues through a royalty-scheme
between Ireland and the Netherlands that goes virtually untaxed (Dutch
Sandwich) etc... tax wise these companies contribute little to the place of
their main business (e.g. the US for the above three companies).

Then, employment? Here too, tech companies are known for providing relatively
little employment compared to the size of the business, versus other
industries. To take an extreme example, walmart (a company which pulls the
vast majority of its revenues from the US alone) has up til recently had more
store locations, than FB has employees. FB doesn't even have 12k employees,
Walmart has literally a couple million. The article mentions Whatsapp as an
example, it just had 55 employees when it was sold for almost $20b Compare
that with say Vente Privee, a French online retailer that has 2500 employees
and close to $2b in revenue and a slightly higher valuation, that nobody talks
about. Which would you rather have in your country, creating jobs? You may
still (likely) say Whatsapp, but it wouldn't be an obvious answer. Instagram
is similar, 18 employees, who cares whether they're in the US or not? It's a
meaningless figure for employment alone. And again, ownership wise the billion
dollar valued company is in the hands of international investors, and tax wise
it's likely little to nothing.

So what's the contribution of these US companies to the US then? What is
Europe really missing? It profits from all the international innovations (I
happily use Google's services), while it taxes the above companies for doing
business in the EU.

If tech was shitty in Europe, sure, all of this would be alarming. But we have
great research (e.g. hadron collider), IT/ICT infrastructure is very solid, if
I look at my own country we have digitised and modernised everything from
insurance to banking to tax filings, at the supermarket I pay via NFC, as I do
in a bus, metro, train or tram. I don't live in some outdated world without
technology.

There are very obvious counterarguments to make... in particular political and
cultural control and influence that large companies like Google have and the
power that wields, that Europe thereby doesn't have, can be or become an
issue. Reinventing our own industries the next few decades without inspiring
tech companies, is trickier. Seeing talent trained at great European
universities with great startup ideas fly to the US for various reasons, is an
issue. I appreciate all of that, and yet I feel the importance of companies
like FB's contributions to the US as opposed to the rest of the world, is
overstated, and that we're not missing out all that much by not having a
European FB, for example.

At the end of the day there are 3 superlarge markets, the US, Europe and
China. Then a number of very large ones like India or Japan. But of those
first three, the EU is merely a partial economic, political and legal union,
with a wide range of languages, laws, cultures and systems. While the US and
China certainly have internal diversity, it's nothing like the EU. It's why we
have tons of companies with a few billion dollar valuations, that capture a
substantial portion of the EU but far from all of it. The biggest first
language market in the EU is German, and it stands at 18% of the EU as a first
language, see what I mean? In the US or China, you can pretty much roll out
tech products nationally in many cases, not without any friction, but in a way
that's much more natural than in the EU. That doesn't mean tech sucks here,
that we have little value, no jobs or shitty digital/online services, it's
just fine here (find me digital/online services that the US has that we simply
don't have access to, that's missing in EU markets completely), but we have
fewer ultralarge unicorns like Google or Facebook, and I'm not all that
convinced that this is as big a problem as it's made out to be.

------
mark_l_watson
I like the point made about the hypocracy of Google saying that European
companies don't have the right to affect what people in other countries can
see in search results, but, at the same time, filter results based on the
special interests of US copyright laws.

------
danmaz74
I think one thing the EU could really do to help startups here would be to
offer almost free services and/or grants to localize their websites/apps into
all the EU languages much more quickly and less expensively.

~~~
dogma1138
That's not the issue, the overall mentality, strict employment laws, and
stricter access to funding is what slowing EU startups down.

Startups do not need free services that ridiculous, they need an environment
which will allow them to take risks and not to have to cut trough a mile of
red tape to hire and employees.

~~~
danmaz74
It's not "the" issue. It is AN issue, and one where they could actually do
something.

~~~
dogma1138
Startups already get plenty of free stuff, that's not whats holding them back
so it won't do anything.

------
sqldba
LOL. How about Australia? The lucky country indeed...

