The problem is not the lack of exciting tech companies, but the ability - and interest - to retain them in Europe.
Money is cheap in the US, and most of EU countries are quite pleasant to live without obscene amounts of money in the bank (basically thanks to public services), so any good offer it's quite convincing.
Not to mention that EU governments don't see tech companies as strategic assets, unlike the US/China.
Another aspect of the absent tech boom in Europe is the structure of the public markets, they're basically bullshit compared to what happens in the US.
In the case of growth companies, it's definitely not a talent thing, the American financial system has a well developed pipeline for growing ideas and providing endless access to capital. Europe simply doesn't have that. We don't even have consolidated pricing for our stock markets, even after many decades under the EU, something the US has had since 1976. It's a joke, and no surprise all eyes are on and money flows into the US for speculative investment
> In the case of growth companies, it's definitely not a talent thing, the American financial system has a well developed pipeline for growing ideas and providing endless access to capital.
This doesn't just apply to growth companies, or tech. It's a fundamental difference for all companies no matter how you segment Europe.
It is a difference that I don't think Europe will ever get past because changing it will be viewed as an attack on beliefs and ideals which can't trade-off to be similar to those in the US or China.
The obscene amounts of funding in Silicon Valley seem like a reasonable consequence of the obscene amounts of profit funded companies sometimes achieve.
The obscene amounts of funding exist for various reasons. I don't disagree with it being bullshit, but the analysis of why this occurs is relatively straightforward. Implementing a solution to balance the situation is the difficult part.
Definitely agree with you here. It's insane to see one country sell all its energy providers —and communications, and infrastructure— to foreign interests. Some European countries have an unhealthy disdain for state control (and state ownership), which contaminated too many levels of the EU. So they end up playing by the rules when their competitors most definitely aren't.
It's not disdain for state control / ownership, but that officials are easily bribed and bought off. Add the historical reasons why EU was founded and voila.
Well the US only got cozy with big tech after it got big, not actually that different than EU policies you mention being around only existing big industries like automotive.
Only China has taken active steps in fostering those companies from nothing.
Big tech has been around for a long time it’s Big Tech FANG that’s new. Apple and Microsoft are not new companies. IBM is old school big tech that’s been cozy with the US Govt for a very long time. Fairchild was big with the government before they produced their first silicon integrated circuit.
The Fairchild days would be the general military industrial complex at work, and it's emphasis on R&D, not a special affinity for the modern tech company. Europe also has its privileged deference contractor.
I don't see anything happening regarding this. All money is going towards EU projects that are dreamed up by burocrats, and goes to either things that already exists, or flashy non-tech startups with good connections.
I don't know about western europe, but most of the tech startups in eastern europe have a sales/VC representation in the US for a reason.
Money is cheap in the US, and most of EU countries are quite pleasant to live without obscene amounts of money in the bank (basically thanks to public services), so any good offer it's quite convincing.
Not to mention that EU governments don't see tech companies as strategic assets, unlike the US/China.
So I guess it's a mix of culture/policies.