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.
South China Sea exercises in July by two United States Navy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers reminds that Taiwan’s history since mid-1950, and as a free nation, is intertwined with that of the aircraft carrier. Eventually Taiwan will host aircraft carriers, either those built under its democratic government or those imposed on its territory by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). By September 1944, a lack of sufficient carrier airpower and land-based airpower persuaded US Army and Navy leaders to forgo an invasion to wrest Taiwan from Japanese control, thereby sparing Taiwanese considerable wartime destruction. But two
This year, India and Taiwan can look back on 25 years of so-called unofficial ties. This provides an occasion to ponder over how they can deepen collaboration and strengthen their relations. This reflection must be free from excitement and agitation caused by the ongoing China-US great power jostling as well as China’s aggressive actions against many of its neighbors, including India. It must be based on long-term trends in bilateral engagement. To begin with, India and Taiwan, thus far, have had relations constituted by various activities, but what needs to be thought about now is whether they can transform their ties
The US Navy’s aircraft carrier battle groups are the most dramatic symbol of Washington’s military and geopolitical power. They were critical to winning World War II in the Pacific and have since been deployed in the Indo-Pacific region to communicate resolve against potential adversaries of the US. The presence or absence of the US Seventh Fleet — the configuration of US Navy ships and aircraft in the Indo-Pacific region built around the carriers — generally determines whether war or peace prevails in the region. In the immediate post-war period, Washington’s strategic planners in the administration of then-US president Harry Truman shockingly
On Thursday last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a barnstorming speech at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California, titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future.” The speech set out in no uncertain terms the insoluble ideological divide between a totalitarian, communist China and the democratic, free-market values of the US. It was also a full-throated call to arms for all nations of the free world to rally behind the US and defeat China. Pompeo elaborated on a clear distinction between China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in an attempt to recalibrate the