Micha Benoliel grew up in France and launched his first technology start-up there, but he never forgot the atmosphere of adventure and optimism in San Francisco, where he studied in the early 1990s.
So when he came up with an idea for a smartphone app that could send messages without Internet or cellular connections, he went back to California in 2011 to pursue his dream.
“I knew the only way to change the world was from here,” said Benoliel, the CEO of Open Garden, the maker of the FireChat messaging app.
As technology upends industries and lifestyles at breakneck pace, the old continent is not producing any of the online giants like Google, eBay or Facebook. Its best and brightest prefer to emigrate to Silicon Valley, or sell their ideas on to US firms before they have a chance to establish themselves.
The EU’s top executives in Brussels are trying to rectify that with a long-term plan of reforms and incentives, but face an uphill battle. The 28-nation bloc is, above all, lacking in the risk-taking culture and financial networks needed to grow Internet start-ups into globally dominant companies.
“In the US, especially in Silicon Valley, they are up for any crazy idea,” 43-year-old Benoliel said. “Successful businesses often come from crazy ideas.”
Europe’s relatively cautious attitude to investment stands out as one of the biggest hurdles — and among the most difficult to change.
Investors in Europe want to see that a young company can generate revenue from the start. Europe’s many high-technology companies are focused on manufactured goods that can be sold right away to generate revenue — industrial equipment, energy turbines, high-speed trains, medical devices and nuclear energy.
By contrast, Internet companies often have little to no revenue at the beginning. For example, Twitter and Facebook first focused on building up their user numbers. Only once they were established as global forces did they put more attention to making money, through advertising and other strategies.
This difference in mentality stands out as one of the key reasons why Europe has fewer venture capital firms and less investment in start-ups than the US or Asia.
Over the past five years, US venture capitalists spent US$167 billion on new business ideas compared with about US$20 billion by their European counterparts, according to the US’ National Venture Capital Association.
Last year alone, US investment in start-up companies was US$50 billion, with nearly half of that amount in Silicon Valley. The European equivalent paled at US$4 billion.
Asia, which has seen the rise of Internet retailer Alibaba Group Holding Ltd (阿里巴巴) in recent years, also outshone Europe, with venture capital totaling US$22.5 billion last year, according to Preqin, a data analysis company. That figure is set to surge further this year, with US$23 billion invested already by the end of last month.
Early investment is crucial for start-ups to be able to get their products to market quickly. With technology, several competitors often work on the same idea and race to get out their product first and make it stand out.
“These are very fast-moving, winner-take-all industries, so if you are slow on the uptake then you will be done from the beginning,” said Anand Sanwal, CEO of CB Insights, a New York research firm that tracks Internet start-ups.
Part of Europe’s struggle to compete in online technology is not specific to itself, but a reflection of how Silicon Valley has been able to create a community of tech specialists and venture capitalists who can meet easily, exchange ideas and strike up new collaborations.
“It’s really a venture capital oligopoly, where a few people who have tonnes of cash agree among themselves to invest in something and that can’t be done in places where investors don’t meet in the same way,” said Anssi Vanjoki, a professor at Finland’s Lappeenranta University of Technology who was chief of mobile phones at Nokia when the company was the world’s top handset maker.
It takes time to foster such communities. Even within the US, other cities and regions have tried and failed to replicate Silicon Valley’s success, perhaps with the exception of Seattle, where Amazon and Microsoft are based.
Europe’s start-up culture has been further hindered by the fact that in many EU countries it often takes more paperwork, time and money to do business than in the US.
For example, the stronger social safety nets make it harder to fire a worker, which in turn makes it a riskier proposition to expand staff for a start-up.
The markets of Europe also remain fragmented. Expanding operations across the continent is made more difficult, because business laws and languages are different from one country to the next.
By contrast, starting off in the US gives a company a single English-speaking market of 320 million people within which to grow.
Some European companies have made the extra push and reached global proportions, although none has hit the rarefied levels of Google and Facebook.
Local success stories include online calling service Skype, which started as a Swedish-Estonian venture, and the Swedish commercial music streaming service Spotify, which has more than 60 million users worldwide.
Two years after Skype started, it was sold to eBay for US$2.6 billion and Microsoft eventually acquired it in 2011 for US$8.5 billion.
Meanwhile, the Finnish are cornering the market for mobile gaming. After Nokia’s cellphone demise, a start-up culture flourished in Finland, helping to create a booming mobile game industry with companies like Rovio and Supercell, which created the hugely popular Angry Birds and Clash of Clans games respectively.
In 2013, Supercell sold a 51 percent stake to Japan’s Softbank and GungHo for 1.5 billion euros (US$1.7 billion).
Swedish cofounder of Skype Niklas Zennstrom, who is now chief executive of Atomico, a technology investment firm based in London, says things are improving.
“Since I started Skype in 2002, the market has changed tremendously for the better,” he said at a European venture capital conference in Geneva.
The European Commission in Brussels has a long-term plan to speed things up and help European start-ups become the next big Internet company.
It aims on the one hand to make a more unified EU market by reducing red tape and differences in business laws. On the other, it is taking a tougher stance on dominant Internet companies, particularly Google, to foster competition.
Experts say that while the policies might help, they are unlikely to be enough in themselves.
“Legislation will always create a context for growth, whether that’s through taxation or incentives, but the real value comes from connections between people and a focus and real desire on solving real human problems,” says Duncan Lamb, who was a software designer at Nokia and is now the new design director at TransferWise.com, a financial services online company based in London and Tallinn.
“It’s 100 percent about people,” Lamb said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing