In this vein [but slightly off topic], can anyone point me to high profile megacap EU startups? The only one that comes to mind is Spotify. I was speaking with some people the other day and probably due to a NA centric focus we were at a lack of well branded EU starts up that had made it similar to US ones.
> can anyone point me to high profile megacap EU startups
Don't waste your time looking, there are none or almost none.
EU is simply not geared (anymore) for this type of endeavor to succeed:
- finance infrastructure for this is non-existent (VCs are a joke in Europe, both in terms of size and in terms of the type of stuff they invest in)
- risk-taking is simply not a cultural value anymore
- administrative burdens (taxes, labor laws, cost of labor, hyper-restrictive regulations, etc ...) are such a gigantic drag that most people potentially potentially capable of starting such things either walk away, or move to a place where they can actually conduct business (historically, the US, although it's not as good as it was).
- at least in Western Europe, (Germany, France), people are so very comfy in their social cocoon (social security, retirement, social programs), the whole notion of "making it" (e.g becoming truly financially independent) is *very* hard for them to even understand. Net effect: no motivation, no GOOG/FB/AMZN/TESLA/SpaceX
- the US has a "let the tree grow first, we'll regulate once it bears fruits" attitude towards emerging and potentially disruptive tech. The EU on the other hand has a "oh, my god, this is potentially very disruptive, someone ought to legislate, and quick".
When you try to propose a SpaceX sized idea to a bunch of smart engineers in EU, the immediate reaction is a non-stop list of detailed explanation why the plan simply can't happen. Having really big plans in the EU is a guaranteed way to be classified as complete bozo.
As someone from the EU, some of your points seem very true, but it's also simply a matter of many people not really having the same goals and requirements.
There is no true independence in any society, apart from autocracy, and externalities always exist.
There doesn't seem to be much value attributed to 'having a lot of money' etc, for a lot of people, having a fulfilling job, family and life is enough, and having the security of knowing that you can get sick and go to the hospital without being bankrupted, or knowing that you will be able to provide for your family directly or indirectly in almost all scenarios makes this whole "I need to be a billionaire to live" notion very non-existent here.
You don't need a VC to be happy, you don't need to create a startup and you don't need to take a lot of risk to create value. This is of course directly related to the social cocoon; and knowing the value of that makes for very little need to take big risks for a chance of making things 'better' (whatever 'better' might be...).
That said, there are a lot of self-bootstrapping businesses that function just fine. They don't go public and mostly don't make more than a couple of millions each year, but it is enough, or better: it is plenty. There is no rat race, you have plenty of vacation, you can travel the world, and if something goes wrong there are buffers to catch you. (but those aren't comfortable enough to just slack off in to and 'do nothing', but that'd be unfulfilling for most people anyawy).
More like biased against high risk, low reward constructions. What is considered a low risk with a potential high reward in some places has the inverse in other places.
For example, taking a high risk of attempting to create a unicorn startup for the low reward of having more money isn't really worth it here. That's because the barrier at which point 'more money' makes your life 'better' is much lower. Same goes for prestige, it doesn't really get you all that much here.
Together, that means that taking larger risks doesn't really have a lot of benefits in general, unless you personally enjoy it.
This is different form the need to have a 'big' change requiring a 'big' risk in order to make your life measurably better (monetarily, prestige, perceived power, or otherwise).
There are endeavours that pose significant risk, but have a significant reward to match; think ITER and CERN; it is a considerable effort and monetary investment without knowing what the true outcome will be. All you know ahead of time is that something will come out of it. (while those two aren't exactly comparable; a single-purpose project vs. an organisation with multiple projects; it's about the concept of risk, investment and possible outcomes or returns)
Say a particle accelerator take a lot of time, labour and money and can be used to make discoveries, but you don't know what discoveries. That means you have a huge investment but no guarantee that you will be able to produce something that has the value of the investment (or more). But there is the chance of significant scientific discovery, which makes it a project that countries are willing to take the risk for.
Expanding on my own word salad: perhaps personally I'd say that in my environment collecting money or 'stuff' in itself isn't seen as valuable, but being able to maintain a good life and have a fulfilling life is. At the same time, in a larger context, things like discovery, exploration and research are valued as well, but boasting or broadcasting about it isn't seen as very valuable. I suppose that also makes for an environment where space exploration is seen as a good thing but ironically without a big PR machine it can't be funded. It's like having a goal without the means.
But, is this true? Other than right now, and is this the reason or a consequence?
I ask because, without heavy, heavy, megatron like heavy, investment from the government none of the technologies that now feed this ecosystem would have been developed (semiconductors, internet, etc, there's more, probably even in seemingness fields). Do you imagine any entrepreneur in the USA would have gone "yeah let's just feed this tree some millions to grow the internet"? Or many other industries.
Then there's some other things. Google tried to sell itself for what, 1M at the time? To Yahoo (if I'm not mistaken). They were a search engine. If their proposal would have been accepted there wouldn't have been any google as we know (probably). And we could say that all other examples are heavily, government invested, under or over the covers.
I ask because I'm tired of hearing narratives that leave out of the equation so many important details as to not have any semblance to reality.
This is not so much a list of "reasons" (though there are levels of impact), it is more a list of, maybe "excuses".
Because I could come up with a big list of reasons why the US would be a bad place to start a company with. It is a good place to start, but even then most of the top high-earners companies are located into 2 or 3 very small geographical areas in the whole US.
China has many more impediments/bureaucracy than the EU (though maybe in different areas) but they have $$$ so problem solved.
Also Americans are very blind to what happens "on the other side of the pond" especially the non-English world. Mojang was bought for $2.5B JustEat/Takeaway is $13B Marketing Cap
I mean the problem with China is you have no real control of your company and no real freedom (even if large market and a lot of money). See Jack Ma. Even if you make a huge company worth billions you are still owned by the Communist Party of China.
Klarna, Revolut, and Hellofresh (German founding I believe) immediately pop to mind but I'm sure there are more if I did some searching.
The recent trips to Europe I have been so intrigued by how different the apps people use for many common commercial tasks are to the ones I use at home. I'm assuming there are logistical, cultural, or compliance reasons at play but I can't speak to it.
Oh agree that there are a ton of other reasons for it was just curious. And to be honest I don't know any of those companies. Vaguely familiar with Klarna, no clue on Revolut, is hellofresh the originator or the follower of Blue Apron?
