I’ve been noticing a pattern: companies like Apple and Meta frequently blame the EU for delays in releasing features, citing vague “regulatory risks.” For instance, Apple recently delayed its “Apple Intelligence” features in Europe, attributing the decision to concerns about compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Meta has also criticized EU rules like the DMA and the Digital Services Act (DSA), claiming they could stifle innovation or jeopardize privacy. However, in most cases, these companies eventually release the features after making necessary adjustments, which makes me wonder: Are these “regulatory risks” really valid, or is it more about resisting change?
At the same time, there’s been a noticeable wave of criticism against the EU coming from US-based VCs and tech companies. Many posts claim the EU is “dying” as a tech hub, often pointing to stricter regulations and fragmented markets as reasons. While the EU undoubtedly has challenges, like limited access to growth capital and fragmented venture funding, these narratives often feel inflated.
Take USB-C as a standard, for example. Many US-based critics framed this as overreach by the EU, even though it benefits consumers and smaller tech companies by reducing proprietary lock-in. As a tech company owner myself, I see it as a win for democratization and innovation—it levels the playing field, making it easier for new entrants to compete.
It’s worth questioning if this negative sentiment is part of a coordinated effort to lobby against the EU. The lobbying budgets of major tech firms are enormous, and the stakes are high. The EU’s regulatory framework—designed to promote fair competition and protect users—directly challenges the monopolistic advantages that some companies rely on.
While Europe does need to address legitimate problems, like retaining talent and scaling startups, many of these critiques seem driven by those with vested interests rather than a genuine concern for the EU’s future. What do you think? Are these criticisms fair, or do they serve as a smokescreen for resisting necessary regulation?
I think that it's both wholly justified and almost entirely grassroots/bottom-up. A thriving tech/industrial ecosystem -- even a functional military-industrial ecosystem -- is basically incompatible with Europe's regulatory and taxation structures.
Much has been written recently about how Norway and Italy tax unrealized gains to such an extent that running a SV-style startup is basically illegal. See, e.g.: https://x.com/aledeniz/status/1842872753499607407
Labor regulations result in very high costs of failure, so that what would be profitable in California would be unprofitable in Germany: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/12/wh...
As Boss Zvi put it, "Welcome to being a CEO in the EU with over 40m in revenue, now please report these 649 environmental and social indicators." https://x.com/jo3hill/status/1866450203743576478
And I could go on all day. Depending on the business you're in, it can be smart to incorporate in the Caiman Islands and work out of Europe on a satellite office basis, but you definitely want to limit your exposure to EU rules.
I'd only note that the EU is not a monolith, local regulations and tax laws can differ wildly, and some countries -- like Ireland and certain Baltic companies chasing investment -- are much more business friendly than others. (With Italy, Germany, and Norway in the "you'd have to be a masochist to start a business here" tier.)
reply