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.
I agree with everything you say, apart from the general assumption in #1.
The examples you provide for European laws being too restrictive are correct imo, and there are more examples of laws that were, in my mind, the poor execution of a good idea (take the EU privacy directive that forces the opt-in for cookie tracking. This has in its execution by Google etc. generally become more of an annoyance than a privacy feature).
However, I think the decisions the European Court of Justice makes on these issues could be a chance for Europe. The 'right to be forgotten' and the recent safe harbor decision show--in my opinion--that the ECJ wants to establish a more privacy-focused jurisdiction in Europe. That could be a chance for, say a Google competitor that does not track you through AdWords but, instead, relies on a monthly subscription model (this might not be a very good idea, but you get my point). And when Angela Merkel says that 'too much privacy is bad for business', I disagree, because Europe cannot come to the table one decade late and copy what worked in the Bay Area.
If Europe establishes a reputation for a different sort of service that relies on strong encryption, user privacy and the absence of ad-support but rather subscription, I think the European startup world could thrive in serving a market that is currently emerging rather than one that has been there for the better part of a decade.
I don't think enough users care enough about privacy for there to be a massive market there. If not why didn't more people switch to DuckDuckGo or Diaspora?
"the poor execution of a good idea (take the EU privacy directive that forces the opt-in for cookie tracking. This has in its execution by Google etc. generally become more of an annoyance than a privacy feature)"
That's because Google rather have these annoying notices than make it easy to disable tracking. The EU did the right thing in leaving it up to the industry how to solve these problems, it's just that the industry doesn't want to.
I think what people tend to forget is that there is almost zero worker protection in the United States.
Most Europeans prefer a stable life with some luxuries instead of a lottery type life where you may get fired at any point.
A lot of people in Europe who say we should be like Silicon Valley only see the money these companies make but not what it took to get there and the toll it takes on the work force.
The spirit of Silicon Valley generally goes along the lines of "all or nothing".
Europe generally sees more value in a sane and balanced life style, where physical/mental health, family, stability, etc. play an important role and living itself is more important than what you will have achieved at the end of your life (in terms of money or material things).
Software developers are well paid and can easily find a new job if fired. All those laws are made for unqualified and therefore easy to replace workers.
> 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.
I think we don't. Europe just isn't setup for breakaway successes in the way that the US is. And we wouldn't be able to stomach the societal cost even if we were to try.
Europe is built to enable a Mittelstand [1] though which also allows for lots of diversity and innovation and is why Germany is still an industrial powerhouse.
If Europe wants to compete it should do so on its own terms; except doing so is virtually impossible when companies can claim ownership of their users data because that inevitably leads to the massive centralized monopolies we're seeing now.
One thing Europe is good at though is pushing through laws which prevent companies from establishing harmful monopolies though and that is what Europe needs to do.
If in addition to "the right to be forgotten" Europe would push through "the right to own your data" and forced companies operating in the EU to return all user data (down to request logs used for analytics) to the user the dynamics of tech industry would change dramatically; and in a positive way for the user too.
That will take a while but I think, or hope, it will happen eventually and either way; it will have a much greater chance of success than trying to copy a model that is inherently at odds with a value system developed over dozens of centuries.
Europe today might not be set up for economic dynamism, but that's not some consensus that has formed over "dozens of centuries", as you claim. Liberalism is not an American invention. The Industrial Revolution began in Britain. Adam Smith was a Scotsman. The individualist and capitalist Austrian School of economic thought was centered in Vienna. The Dutch invented public corporations. And Europe has had plenty of other influential philosophies since then, like Fascism and Communism in the last hundred years.
What's the betting that if Microsoft had originated in Europe, it would have been stopped in its tracks? For all its monopoly (draining somewhat now as the world moves on) it's created trillions of dollars of wealth across the world.
Has it? Aren't you making the mistake of comparing the status quo with a copy of it sans Microsoft? Let's say European laws prevented a Microsoft from appearing; computers would still be here, and companies and organizations using them would still need an OS to use them, so there probably would be an increase investment in alternatives.
Would the world be worse off? Maybe in some ways, but I doubt it'd be significantly so.
Microsoft held back computing for a decade or more. So many companies didn't start because they were afraid of being crushed by MSFT. Such a lack of diversity and experimentation. So many security problems.
> 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
> 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.
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.
> 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:
Why would you risk bankruptcy? Every company in Valley typically offers great health insurance. London rents are more expensive than San Fran in particular areas and buying property has become nearly impossible at any reasonable price.
Gender distribution is not particularly different in the European tech scene than in the US one. Quite a lot of companies (both in the startup and agency world) have no female employees.
Hours I'd assume wouldn't be so different in a real startup, since that sort of business kind of depends upon its employees not really doing anything else in the day.
And rent is definitely not cheaper, not if you want to live anywhere decent.
Still, you're right in terms of tourism choices, and it's a lot easier and more enjoyable to explore London on foot.
Reducing London to "all this crappy weather" is just nuts. It's one of the greatest cities in the world. A lot of people are motivated to live in London for reasons other than the weather!
> 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?
Actually, London's weather isn't half bad compared to other places in Europe. At least there is no freezing cold, no real heat waves and less rain than in Paris, especially in the summer.
The problem is xenophobia. Hate of Europe is getting ever more vitriolic and irrational.
"How many people do you know in Europe that can do that?"
I did that, after only a couple of years in the tech industry. Most of my friends could do that. I wrote a tutorial of sorts how to do things like this in a comment on HN a while ago, but removed it because people seemed to get upset (I could summaries if someone is interested).
You forget politics. Especially in Germany the hacker scene is very political and fairly well connected. If you're product is essentially spying on people and selling the results (Google, Facebook, ...), you limit the pool of employees, especially good employees, willing to work for you substantially.
Also: Different languages to cater to right from day 1, better job security so less of a drive to be independent, education tends to prepare for a job rather than for running a company or being a founder.
I'd shorten the list to one significant difference that's somehow avoided - Europe consists of different countries, with different cultures, interests and languages. That's one of the beautiful things in Europe, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist. Forget laws, they can be written, changing culture, interests and financial situations is huge. There is no country called "Europe".
But to do business through all European union, there's way more added issues at the beginning then compared to Silicon Valley vs. US (similar culture, values, interests, language) or eastern countries (China, Korea, Russia and their markets).
On the anecdotal side most accelerators I've been to in London were filled with non-UK and non-EU founders, the majority would be from the US, Asia and the Middle East, the European founders would often be from Eastern Europe where people are I guess much more accustomed to having to "fight" for it.
I also agree about the employment part from both sides (legal and employee mentality) with the exception of highly competitive fields (big 4, high end law firms) you would rarely find many employees willing to work for 12-14 hours a day when need be.
Even in the accelerators unless it was a "beer and talk night" the place would pretty much start to clear out around 5, and by 7 there would be no one there. Similar accelerators in Eastern Europe or the Baltic states (as well as out side of the EU) would be quite often still quite full till 11pm and even later.
Employment laws in many countries also make it very hard for startups to actually develop, the UK (and to some extend eastern Europe) probably has it's the easiest (which is why I think that and the combination of access to financial institution is why accelerators like London) as small businesses are still exempt from things like mandatory pension.
However hiring employees in other European countries may incur heavy financial costs which include pension, healthcare, allot of paid vacation and other benefits, that combined with the cost of actually managing all the HR related stuff and the fact that in some countries firing employees on a permanent contract requires you to involve a court makes it very unattractive for startups.
I also agree about the fact that many employees simply do not want that life style, but this has also been some what solidified by employers, as you won't find many if any at employers at all willing to pay a kings ransom for extraordinary talent most roles will have a salary range set to them and while it's possible for some one to make 10% more than their colleague or even in some very rare cases 15-20% (which will usually include other responsibilities) you wont find people making 50% not to mention double what their colleagues do simply based on their apparent talent or what they've demanded during hiring / what was offered at that time.
I feel like I'm being contrarian, but I don't see how your points aren't overshadowed by other factors.
1. Russia, China, India and other markets that to some extent have "their own Google" are completely horrible in terms of running companies. Much more so than Europe. The US is no dream in terms of e.g. declaring taxes either. I think this has more to do with attitude than anything else. US companies simply hire someone to do this.
2. That would explain why people doesn't start companies, if Europe didn't already have many successful technology companies. It offers little explanation why those companies doesn't go on to become "Googles".
3. I do somewhat agree with this one. Because while the technology industry do pay good salaries in Europe startups usually doesn't even though they are in high cost markets. I'm not sure this is actually that different from the US though. There are huge incentives for "the best" programmers to work at Apple/Google/Facebook where they have higher salary and relative job security, especially if the want to keep up with the housing market.
I would say that that almost they entire reason why Europe doesn't "have a Google" is because we are part of the US market. All our contenders in the early days used to be domestic. Once we realized that we had to be global US companies bought those that were successful. Skype, for example, could have become a Google if it had been forced to stand on it's own or been acquired by a local company like Ericsson. Rather it was built to be sold and was to Microsoft.
"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.
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."
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.