[HN Gopher] UK Has 'No Chance in Hell' of Making Its Own Tech Ch...
___________________________________________________________________
UK Has 'No Chance in Hell' of Making Its Own Tech Champs: ARM
Founder
Author : xqcgrek2
Score : 112 points
Date : 2022-09-28 14:59 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| killjoywashere wrote:
| So that we can enjoy a higher standard of living and, and, and
| ... gasp ... be prepared to defend our democratic way of life, we
| need our own engineering and manufacturing workforces?! I wonder
| if these same politicos might suggest we should improve our K-12
| education systems?
| Etheryte wrote:
| https://archive.ph/U6BUV
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| Don't hold back.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Reading between the lines of his quote, my guess is he's angling
| for some cash from the government, by securitizing the tech
| sector. It won't work, because the treasury feels that spending
| money, like eating people, is always wrong. It won't cost any
| politicians anything when the bits and pieces of the UK tech
| sector go down the pipes, because their fortunes rest entirely on
| house prices, and the opinions of the fine people at Sky News. So
| expect another ten years of meaningless and toothless
| 'initiatives', sound and fury, signifying nothing, while the UK
| continues into another decade of death spiral.
| jsty wrote:
| > the treasury feels that spending money, like eating people,
| is always wrong
|
| I feel the Treasury would be more likely to hand out free
| soylent green than start spending money
| origin_path wrote:
| This is the same Treasury that just had its top civil servant
| and minister replaced, specifically in order to allow a massive
| splurge of borrowing and money printing on an ahistoric scale?
| That Treasury?
|
| The UK's problem is _not_ government unwillingness to spend
| money. The US tech sector was primed and bootstrapped almost
| entirely without government money after the wall fell, and even
| before that it was largely independent of government funding.
| And there just isn 't the same culture there of people
| expecting grants or handouts from the government - even in the
| cases where the US tech industry was helped by USG spending it
| was all via military/intelligence research projects.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > The US tech sector was primed and bootstrapped almost
| entirely without government money
|
| This is mostly wrong, if you read the enterpreneurial state.
| im3w1l wrote:
| > It won't cost any politicians anything when the bits and
| pieces of the UK tech sector go down the pipes, because their
| fortunes rest entirely on house prices,
|
| People want to live (and buy housing) where there are good
| jobs.
| f1shy wrote:
| > People want to live (and buy housing) where there are good
| jobs.
|
| That sentence is fundamental.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| It sounds to me like he doesn't actually say that. In the
| article:
|
| >The UK has "no chance in hell" of becoming technologically
| sovereign
|
| Well which is it, having our own Tech champs or being
| technologically sovereign?
|
| Because they're totally different things. To be honest I'm not
| sure _any_ country apart from China stands any chance of becoming
| technologically sovereign. Like what does that mean? Do we need
| to mine our own Lithium, do we need to build our own foundries,
| are we planning on building a competitor to ASML to source
| machines to build our foundries? And look at Oil prices, the UK
| isn 't massively dependent on Oil and we have our own resources
| but we still got absolutely slammed by the war in Russia because
| we operate in a global market. So do we need our own Lithium
| mines _and_ export controls to stop them being bid up on the
| international market when there 's some exogenous event?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| I would say even China isn't technologically sovereign,
| depending on how broad the definition of technology is.
|
| As a general example, even the Chinese attempt at building a
| commercial airliner still uses Western engines and other
| avionics.
| scythe wrote:
| Lithium, ironically, is one of the few resources that the UK
| has plenty of.
|
| https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?records...
| (1987)
|
| https://cornishstuff.com/2021/02/02/high-grade-of-lithium-fo...
| (2021)
|
| Other things, like nickel, would be more problematic.
| Etheryte wrote:
| This is not how the article approached technologically
| sovereign at all, as is this is just a strawman argument. No
| one proposed that sovereignty is about producing everything
| from scratch yourself. Here's the actual excerpt:
|
| > One question countries have to ask themselves if whether they
| have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and
| its economy.
|
| > "The answer for Britain" is "absolutely no, there is no
| chance in hell that Britain could ever become technologically
| sovereign," he said.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| I hit a paywall. http://archive.today/U6BUV
|
| > [...] whether they have all the critical technologies
| needed to run a country and its economy.
|
| That's what he seems to mean by "technologically sovereign":
| apparently, it comes down to being able to build computers
| from sand and copper ore. Well, if you define "sovereign"
| that way, then of course the UK can never be sovereign.
| Napoleon called us a nation of shopkeepers; we've been
| dependent on trade for 400 years.
|
| Maybe he's just having a go at the new Tory leadership, which
| has some odd notions about being completely independent of
| any one else on principle. But if that's it, it doesn't come
| across in the article.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| Why would anyone expect that from a small country? If it was
| part of the EU - yeah you should expect the EU to be
| technically sovereign. But not a small island who decided to
| leave (so they could make bankers richer and the poor
| poorer).
| shubb wrote:
| Do you mind explaining more clearly the difference between
| your understanding of what the article means, and what the GP
| wrote? They seem pretty similar?
| registeredcorn wrote:
| I'm in the same boat as you.
|
| I'm not sure exactly what, "whether they have all the
| critical technologies needed to run a country and its
| economy", means.
|
| When I think "critical technologies" I think of a lot of
| what SilverBirch was bringing up.
|
| When I think of, _critical technologies_ [...] _to run a
| country and its economy_ , I think of things like: EMS,
| traffic lights, the stock market, electricity, etc.
|
| Similarly, saying something like "economy" could either
| mean, "businesses specific to Britain", or, "the 'economic
| climate' of Britain, which is influenced by a global
| market".
|
| Example:
|
| Can a technology firm start up in Britain? Absolutely. They
| might even do well, depending on how they're run.
|
| Can a technology firm start up in Britain _and immediately
| sustain the current economy that British Citizens are
| currently accustomed to_? That 's a bit of a taller order.
|
| It's hard to get a feel for exactly what is meant by how
| the statement was worded. Any country can compete, but
| without the global resources provided by businesses that
| exist across the world, any _local-only_ upstart is going
| to struggle to be competitive in any part of any market.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Yeah, even something "simple" like a replacement of Visa
| or Mastercard is quite complicated.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| That's not how these two credit card networks work.
|
| You have card issuers and acquirers, both of these can be
| local, so it's not a big issue if you're cut off from the
| world.
|
| It's more like a web of trust peer-to-peer protocol, so
| if a foreign entity removes you from the web of trust,
| you'll still be able to have transactions with anyone
| that still considers you trustworthy.
|
| That's probably the only reason why visa/Mastercard is so
| broadly accepted.
|
| Amex is run differently, and it's rarely accepted outside
| of the USA for example
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I think you're reasoning about it from the wrong end.
|
| The implied precursor I took from the article was that
| another nation suddenly decides to remove access to a
| critical technology, via coercing or ordering the company
| supplying that technology.
|
| "Technological sovereignty," in the context of the
| article and quotes, would mean a country has the means to
| continue without that access.
|
| This doesn't mean creating a commercially-viable, world-
| leading industry (there can only be so many of those!),
| but does mean having a plan and emergency suppliers who
| can make _functional_ substitutes.
|
| As an example, the US's strategic petroleum reserve made
| it sovereign in the matter of energy (effectively, and
| pre-recent production increases). Which is also a good
| example because it didn't mean 1:1 replacement of 100% of
| supply volume, but rather replacing _enough_ so that
| alternate suppliers can be switched to and restricting
| access lost its power.
|
| But that was my read. Ymmv.
| registeredcorn wrote:
| Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for that!
|
| I was coming at it from a, "Let's isolate ourselves!"
| type thing.
| darkteflon wrote:
| I get your point, but the word "sovereign" carries very
| particular implications that make it a poor choice by the
| interviewee in this context. I think it's uncharitable to
| characterise GP's argument as a strawman.
| giobox wrote:
| I think it's a huge stretch to say the two concepts aren't
| related.
|
| To take the example of the military; we have the "military
| industrial complex" which is the collection of private
| companies that form the vital part of the state's war
| functions.
|
| To become technologically sovereign will require a similar
| basket of private companies based in your own State, unless you
| expect the government to be capable of all of these tasks
| effectively itself. Think universities, chip designers, fabs,
| factories. This is also not an all or nothing choice - the
| absence of Lithium in the UK is not a good argument against
| considering strategically what aspects of the tech industry
| should be sovereign.
| f1shy wrote:
| Exactly. And I would add, it is not about producing
| everything, but being able, if need be, to produce it. To
| have enough know how inland.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Also, it may be soon economically viable to harvest lithium
| from the ocean :)
| elil17 wrote:
| "Technologically sovereign" means that a country is able to get
| the technologies it needs to achieve it's goals either
| internally or through alliances that don't create a "one-sided
| structural dependency." [1]
|
| Saying that the UK isn't technologically sovereign is
| essentially saying that the UK has an undersized technology
| sector and doesn't have enough power to import effectively. On
| the flip side, you could view it as meaning that the UK has
| outsized geopolitical and economic ambitions given its size and
| technological capabilities.
|
| [1]:
| https://olc.worldbank.org/system/files/Webinar%201-4_Present...
| eternalban wrote:
| Flip side is more compelling.
|
| I don't think loss of empire is an easy pill and takes
| generations to process. Different cultures cope differently.
| Would be interesting to hear from Turks (Ottoman) on this.
| Russians clearly are still not over their loss of standing. I
| remember scenes from BBC's spy shows (Smiley stuff) where old
| IC hands (recruited from elite colleges) lament and make
| ironic comments. British Empire was a big deal. Can you
| imagine the shock of dropping from that height? And you know,
| the brits have one quality that has always impressed me: they
| are irrepressible. They just don't give up. Really admire
| that.
|
| p.s.
|
| this is the moment of realization. You can see it on his
| face, sitting on his '[shorter] chair'. location is Tehran,
| Iran, 1943: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/
| d8/Tehran_C...
| tablespoon wrote:
| > To be honest I'm not sure any country apart from China stands
| any chance of becoming technologically sovereign.
|
| IMHO, the US probably could manage it too: it has a big
| population and lots of natural resources. The reason it isn't
| is more of issue of ideology and will: it was far more
| technologically sovereign in the past than it is now, but chose
| to give that up so some investors could get more profits in the
| short-term. It's unlikely to change, since the ideologies that
| drove those choices are still strong.
| azinman2 wrote:
| I don't know what you call short term, because this has been
| decades in the making. I'd at least call it medium term.
|
| The flip side is now the US is more competitive globally as
| the products can be priced as such, in addition to consumer
| price decreases. You also have the issue that most Americans
| don't want the ultra low paying jobs necessary to build all
| this stuff, nor want the environmental damage from the
| mining.
|
| So it's not so simple as just some greedy evil villains we
| can point to.
| lazyeye wrote:
| I wonder what percentage of the population it was that made
| the decision to "choose to give it up".
| quantified wrote:
| A smaller percentage made the many impactful choices, a
| larger percentage went along with it. For example, some
| people have always been intently "buy American", most
| haven't been. Few if any "buy American" people were ever
| involved in or supportive of moving the jobs to China,
| India, Phillipines, or Mexico. And it'll be iffy as to
| whether they have 401(k) gains from the financiers'
| decisions to do the movement.
| Zigurd wrote:
| No nation, anywhere on the planet, is by itself technologically
| sovereign. The ability to get by in the world is a cooperative
| venture for everyone, even the US. What makes first tier
| technological nations different is the alliances of which they
| are active contributing members. Those alliances make trade
| flow smoothly and securely. That is what creates prosperity in
| an interconnected world.
|
| That is especially important in evaluating China's ability to
| achieve technological first tier status. China has one formal
| alliance. It is with North Korea. This is remarkable. China
| cannot rely on Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia,
| nor even any country with a land border with China as an ally.
| China's neighbors are threatened by China, are hostile to
| China, or are just extremely wary of China. China's navy cannot
| project power beyond the island nations off China's coast.
|
| China's position and prospects are less advantageous than it
| seems to many people.
| uup wrote:
| China also has a security agreement with the Solomon Islands.
| While a tiny nation in and of itself, the use of the islands
| by the Chinese navy allow for quite a bit of force projection
| into the pacific. It would be very hard, for instance, for
| the U.S. to use their navy to defend Australia or Taiwan.
| coredog64 wrote:
| The international airport in Honiara is called "Henderson
| Field" and not whatever name the Japanese gave their
| airfield. Based on historical precedents, it might be
| premature to say that a naval base in the Solomons means
| game over for Australia.
| uup wrote:
| No one knows how a military conflict between China and
| Australia would end. I can't imagine it helps Australia
| to have a major naval military installation between
| Australia and one of its major allies however.
| humanwhosits wrote:
| Australia is kind of a fortress, just by being so
| physically far away from most places. All the important
| population centers are far to the south, so the north
| becomes a continent sized staging area for battle
| alephnerd wrote:
| Pakistan's airforce works closely with Chengdu Aerospace
| Corporation - the JF-17 Thunder [0] being their flagship
| product. That said, even Chinese flagship aerospace
| manufacturers also depend on IP transfers from Russian firms
| like Klimov and UEC Saturn. Also, most companies require some
| amount of IP transfer and collaboration because of how
| complex Engine design, Body design, etc are, as well as the
| fact that collaboration incentivizes collaborating countries
| to purchase these weapon systems. Aerospace, cybersecurity,
| enterprise partnerships, weapons systems - it's all the same
| business model.
|
| [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder
| fooker wrote:
| > China has one formal alliance.
|
| This is a geopolitical trope about 20 years out of date.
| Don't be surprised when dozens of African and Asian countries
| choose China over Western interests if push comes to shove.
| [deleted]
| FredPret wrote:
| China sends a pile of money to Africa. But there is a
| growing disillusionment with their investments.
|
| For example, they would promise to develop infrastructure
| in exchange for mineral rights. So they move in a large
| number of Chinese, creating zero local jobs. Then they mine
| out the resources as fast as possible and move out.
|
| And right after that, the infrastructure invariably falls
| apart.
|
| They can only screw so many countries before everybody
| catches on.
| t43562 wrote:
| Zimbabwean here: our elite will take money from whoever
| will give it and make nice noises and when the time comes
| to pay it back in some way that involves and actual cost
| to themselves..........will find the next donor.
|
| The Chinese (and any other country) will only get out of
| Africa that which they can demand today quid-pro-quo.
| There won't be any loyalty.
| FredPret wrote:
| 100% the pattern I saw in other countries too;
| Mozambique, South Africa. No reason to expect a different
| trend further north
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > Don't be surprised when dozens of African and Asian
| countries choose China over Western interests if push comes
| to shove.
|
| And don't be surprised if they don't. Even if China has a
| lot of frenemies on its border in Asia, every country in
| Asia has some fear over China, and this often pushes them
| to improve their relationship with the USA (e.g. Vietnam).
| Even Russia and North Korea have some antagonism with
| China. None of their relationships are particularly strong.
|
| > This is a geopolitical trope about 20 years out of date.
|
| I don't think. China hasn't done much to court soft power
| in the last 20 years beyond a some loans for infrastructure
| made by Chinese companies. They still are inwardly focused.
| somenameforme wrote:
| I see China's soft power quite a bit differently. China
| has an increasingly large presence throughout all of
| Asia. There are obviously the government initiatives but
| in many ways the non-governmental stuff is far more
| visible. 1.4 billion people + rapidly growing middle
| class = Chinese are absolutely everywhere. Chinese
| tourists are playing an increasingly large role in the
| economies of nations throughout Asia, even including
| Japan with whom China has poor relations. There are also
| large numbers of students from China that are
| living/studying abroad (Gaokao), and so on.
|
| This is all creating an increasing intermingling of
| cultures and economies that's improving relations in a
| _meaningful_ way. It 's easy to discount this sort of
| stuff, but I think it is what really changes the world in
| the longterm. When people themselves are able to change
| their own views gradually over time, without effort at
| "directing" them, those resultant views tend to be quite
| difficult to ever change. It's in this domain that we
| were once unrivaled.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Asian countries do not dislike Chinese people and
| culture: they have had large communities of Chinese
| immigrants for a long time, they don't mind the tourism
| and like the students as well. But that says nothing
| about whether they like the Chinese government or not: be
| it the Communists, Nationalists, or Qing dynasty, that's
| where the friction begins.
| hosh wrote:
| 1. China has been building out their railroad net for
| years now, both internally and reaching outwards
|
| 2. Those synergize with the loans. They are not "some"
| loans
|
| 3. Cultural exports have been going on for a while,
| though it has not been as successful as South Korea or
| Japan
|
| 4. China has been seriously wooing back Western-educated
| citizens to head R&D in a variety areas, for the past ten
| years or so. Quality-of-life, career advancements,
| respect and social status exceeds that of staying in the
| West. That's more the sufficient to successfully bring
| expertise back.
|
| 5. China has been adding more people into the
| international computing and network standards community.
| They are starting to influence that.
|
| 6. China has been developing its naval power. While it
| has yet to field a fully operational carrier group, its
| drone carrier program is probably further along than the
| US Navy
|
| 7. China needs to secure a supply of crude oil, since
| they are a net importer. The SE Asian shipping corridor,
| of which the Taiwanese strait anchors one end of it, is
| going to be hotly contested.
|
| 8. Along with some other countries, China has been
| involved in creation of an alternate world reserve
| currency. That is not yet successful as far as I know.
|
| I think the general nationalist sentiment among Chinese
| citizens is along the lines of, "we were once a
| superpower, why shouldn't we be again?". And, the culture
| tends to be more amendable to thinking generationally;
| that is, the benefits may not be realized in this
| generation, but that's ok.
| smcl wrote:
| Among other things, right now I don't think Quality-of-
| life is particularly high if you run the risk of suddenly
| being locked down in place or thrown in a covid hospital
| (friend of mine went through both, sounded very
| unpleasant indeed)
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Ya, China's Zero COVID policy has reversed this trend for
| sure. It isn't just getting lockdown that people are
| worried about, but the inability to freely travel without
| a long quarantine at the end of the trip.
| Zigurd wrote:
| TBF China hasn't got a lot of choice. They do not have a
| highly effective vaccine. Millions of people in China
| would die if COVID were allowed to spread. Damned if you
| do, damned if you don't.
| [deleted]
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > TBF China hasn't got a lot of choice.
|
| I wouldn't doubt that this is true. But individuals can
| make choices, especially mobile techies.
| prottog wrote:
| I'm not advocating that millions of people die in a
| vacuum, but millions of people risking death so that the
| other billion people in China could live a normal life is
| at least worth considering the trade-off.
|
| The median age of a Covid death in the US, with its obese
| and unhealthy population, is around the average life
| expectancy with some room for error. I can't imagine that
| China fares worse in that regard.
| Zigurd wrote:
| The Chinese government would likely consider letting
| COVID rip through the population if they could survive
| the consequences of an overwhelmed health system and the
| numbers of dead.
| smcl wrote:
| So that's what is surprising to me, because I figured the
| CCP had a fairly tight grip on power and is in no danger
| of being overthrown. My naive guess as an outsider was
| that it's face-saving for those at the very top - to make
| an about-turn now would be embarrassing and an admission
| of defeat. And that only a few specific heads that would
| roll, but the government itself would remain largely
| intact
| foobarian wrote:
| > 7. China needs to secure a supply of crude oil
|
| Wonder how that's coming along. I'm sure those African
| countries will stand up for China even when they can't
| get any oil.
| smcl wrote:
| Would Russia not be a more natural source of this? I know
| they're not exactly _best_ pals but China is maybe one of
| the closer countries to Russia outside of Belarus and
| Syria rn.
| [deleted]
| foobarian wrote:
| I wonder how they would pay for it. The world market
| operates in US dollars so presumably they'd have to set
| up some kind of bilateral arrangement and I doubt
| Russians would accept Yuan.
| hosh wrote:
| Yes they would. Russia was one of countries working with
| China to create an alternate reserve currency.
| (https://coercioncode.com/2022/07/25/russia-and-china-
| announc... ) Sanctions on Russia over Ukraine is
| accelerating this.
|
| This isn't the first attempt. Yuan is already
| increasingly held by central banks (https://markets.busin
| essinsider.com/news/currencies/dollar-v...) but I was
| thinking of a composite currency that included the Yuan.
| I don't remember the article talking about this
|
| Also keep in mind that Russia is not a part of OPEC,
| though they had historically worked with OPEC until the
| sanctions over invading Ukraine.
| hosh wrote:
| Oil and other trade between Russia and China has
| increased since sanctions against the Russian invasion of
| Ukraine.
| hosh wrote:
| Despite the unfavorable terms for the loan, I hear that
| the Chinese are regarded well in those countries.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > beyond a some loans for infrastructure made by Chinese
| companies.
|
| You say that like it's not a big deal, but it is. The
| Belt and Road initiative precipitated major shifts in
| geopolitics.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I don't think the Chinese have bought as much goodwill as
| they think they have, and right now many of those loans
| are going south fast, so it will be a real cost.
| Aunche wrote:
| It's not even exclusive to developing nations. For example,
| Portugal tends to side with China.
| [deleted]
| dirtyid wrote:
| US was near tier1 technologic autarky post war until 90s, it
| had unrivalled STEM talent pool (by virtue of others having
| relatively very little) as well as FP tools to constrain
| foreign high tech competition while feeling her own via
| favourable immigration / brain drain policies. US crushed JP
| semi in 80s, but chose not to continue crushing other east
| asian tech ambitions / indy policy in 90s-10s because it was
| deemed acceptable cost of feeding alliances in era of US
| primacy. Now US is desperately trying to reshore semi and
| other strategic supply chains now that she realized sensibly
| that interconnected world is increasingly not secure,
| especially in potential future frontlines of allied soil.
| Ultimately what likely will prevent US from recreating tech
| soveriengty according to analysis is lack of talent -
| domestic doesn't produce enough, nor can current immigration
| policy close gap.
|
| > especially important in evaluating China
|
| Not particularly. PRC doesn't need alliances to leech off,
| because she has the demographics headroom to generate massive
| talent and governance power to systematically build academic
| / R&D / S&T institutions to harness said talent to be
| directly competitive with US + co. Mostly indigenously with
| big bux programs to recruit critical foreign talent and
| espionage to fill gaps. There's a reason PRC is rapidly
| catching up to tier1 tech levels on almost every sector
| within the last 10 years now that it's producing comparable
| STEM talent than ALL OECD countries combined, with lagging
| indicator of # of PhDs undergoing similar explosion that will
| ultimately drive PRC to tier1 levels. PRC has the most
| prospects and extremely strong advantages going forward
| simply because it will have the most skilled workers working
| off a relatively comprehensive industrial/tech chain and can
| souly focus on achieveing technologic sovereingy without
| stepping on toes. Unlike US whose has to balance providing
| advanced allies both security and prosperity. It's
| increasingly unable to do the former in PRC's back yard and
| now the latter is being harvested/reshored to US soil
|
| As for PRC's neighbourhood... was US at height of primacy
| threatened by Cuba / South America? There was some fucking
| around and finding out. Folks in the neighbour hood can see
| which way the winds are shifting. PRC's growing power has
| already pushed most of region into neutrality and hedging,
| while actual US alliances are giving nothing but platitudes -
| very little concrete actions that actually boostered US
| defense position within 1st island chain. Also PRC has
| massive blue water navy with expanding replenishment fleet,
| it just doesn't choose to project outside of 1st island chain
| much, but it does regularly. Aleutian Islands this week.
| Kalanos wrote:
| hmm. alpha fold guys were london-based, but if this is about
| sovereignty it doesn't matter
| AtomicOrbital wrote:
| For newcomers ARM cpu was/is designed in the UK ... Say nothing
| about Alan Turing who first conceived of how digital computation
| can happen using hardware then went on to help design and build
| one of the first computers and yes he coded it to use a Bayesian
| algorithm... Not to mention Thomas Bayes, De Morgan, Charles
| Baggage and Boole of boolean logic fame just for starters
| Jweb_Guru wrote:
| I am neutral on the position of UK "technological sovereignty"
| but I don't think listing a bunch of people who died before
| 1900 really helps demonstrate your point.
| origin_path wrote:
| Alan Turing didn't die before 1900. Agree he isn't exactly
| relevant to the question of a modern tech sector, but these
| examples are at least interesting for what they show _isn 't_
| the problem. A comment above AtomicOrbital's argues it's to
| do with a "deferential, hierarchical society" and that
| "bureaucracy is great for running an empire". That clearly
| can't be the case, given that Britain churned out computing
| pioneers when it was at the height of its imperial power.
|
| I think the actual reasons are a lot simpler than some
| imputed aspect of the British national character. Obviously,
| struggling to compete with US tech supremacy isn't limited to
| the UK. Specifically:
|
| 1. Outside the USA there's no real culture of granting equity
| to early stage employees. Interestingly, ARM was one of the
| _very_ few exceptions. Incentivized and passionate employees
| are considered non-negotiable for US startups, not so
| elsewhere.
|
| 2. The USA and California specifically has some laws that
| happen to be really good for founding successful internet
| startups e.g. banning non-competes, at will employment, the
| first amendment, and so on. UK and EU have the opposite: lots
| of laws that make it difficult or risky.
|
| 3. The USA benefits from a large internal market with
| homogenous language and timezones. When British computer
| companies tried to expand into the USA all kinds of
| logistical issues got in the way of them scaling up, both in
| the USA and Europe. It's much easier for a company to get big
| in the US and then start picking off local markets one by
| one.
|
| The first two problems often combine. Try setting up an
| employee equity scheme for a new startup in Europe. You'll
| find the tax systems often make it absurdly complicated or
| even impossible, and accountancy/legal firms are usually
| inexperienced with it. I'm going through this problem right
| now. I asked for a US style straight equity vesting scheme -
| no options even - and got back some wacky alternative that
| involves buyback clauses, contractual promises to continue
| granting equity even after termination for cause and contains
| nonsensical statements. Justification is local tax law. Sigh.
| [deleted]
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > banning non-competes
|
| Are non-conpetes a violation of free market because they
| stop employees moving freely to a better job?
|
| Or are they free market in action, becauae thats what
| employer and employee negotiated?
|
| To the best of my knowledge non-conpetes are illegal in
| most of europe.
| origin_path wrote:
| Good question but I'd say the former. One can imagine all
| sorts of 'negotiations' that restrict civilized
| competition which people feel forced to agree to in the
| moment. A free market is one in which sellers are free to
| compete, and buyers are free to buy. That does require
| various kinds of trust-busting.
| m_mueller wrote:
| Nitpick: Charles Babbage was the first to conceive digital
| computing in hardware - just mechanical instead of electrical.
| Cederfjard wrote:
| "Charles Baggage" made me giggle a bit.
| t43562 wrote:
| Well, the nerds aren't the super rich here. It's still about
| public schools and old money and people who studied law or the
| classics or at least graduated from Oxbridge. The big money in
| software is all from the world of finance and there's nothing
| tech about them - no heart or vision except how to make a faster
| trade.
|
| So who will foster a company that's not going to make money for
| 10 years?
|
| I think there's also an attitude here that "having failed ever"
| is a black mark against a person. We really need to believe that
| experience is helpful and that would require some kind of
| cultural/personality change which I think are difficult.
|
| Occado is potentially interesting - a lot of technology there -
| but it has had a lot of the "praise and then trash" kind of
| attention and it probably just needs to invest a lot more.
|
| Arrival is another interesting one which might or might not make
| it but we should be hoping that it does and trying hard to enable
| it.
| Veen wrote:
| > The nerds aren't super-rich here. It's still about public
| schools and old money and people who studied law or the
| classics
|
| At tech companies? I think not.
| DoughnutHole wrote:
| I don't think he's talking about tech employees - he's
| talking about capitalists.
|
| The tech industry in the US is mature enough that there
| plenty of "rich nerds" who made their fortune in the early
| days of the industry and today invest in tech startups.
| Hardly anyone with the money to jumpstart a startup in the UK
| has any interest or involvement in tech as an industry.
|
| The capitalist class in the UK is very old and very
| established, and likes to invest in old and established
| industries. If they're not just passively extracting rent
| from their assets they might go as far as to let their
| friends in the city play with more interesting financial
| instruments. Pumping money into different probably doomed
| startups in the hope that they'll land a unicorn isn't really
| their style.
| origin_path wrote:
| I'm not sure that's true. There are quite a few venture
| capital firms in the UK that invest in the software world.
|
| The problem is more that, especially in the past 10 years
| or so, the sheer number of failures you need to absorb in
| order to get one success seems out of whack to the
| historical norm. The VC firms in the UK and rest of Europe
| (really, everywhere that's not California) can only afford
| relatively small investments for relatively large chunks of
| equity. To get VC firms on the scale of a16z or YC you need
| to have at least one mega hit, ideally several, and then
| you make big investments in hundreds of ropey startups in
| the hope that another one comes good. That's the US
| approach. The UK hasn't had an equivalent of a Google or
| Netscape that could kickstart whole new VC funds.
|
| The past 10 years feels especially poor for non-US VC
| because so much money flooded into the market that there
| are dozens of venture backed "tech firms" for every obvious
| idea, so companies outside the US just get outspent into
| oblivion. How on earth would a UK firm have competed
| against Uber for example? The sums of money burned were
| astronomical. Blockchain firms also sucked up vast amounts
| of talent and capital in the UK due to its adjacency to
| finance, but with relatively little to show for it all.
|
| It feels like in the era where the big US funds were made,
| companies were risky but still on a reasonable scale.
| Google/Facebook etc became profitable within a small number
| of years. You didn't get funds willing to pump money into
| firms for a decade+ with no ROI in sight.
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| I just interviewed at Ocado and I agree that it looks like they
| have it together. But then they're outsourcing a chunk of the
| software to my country so not sure if that reflects well on the
| UK.
|
| Another one worth mentioning a bit closer to my field is CMR -
| a surgical robotics company. They're blowing enormous capital
| trying to conquer Europe and it might be working. Their tech is
| convincing and they have good showmanship. If it works out
| that's an enormous market.
|
| But it's not visionary - just building on many incremental
| improvements and respectful of the thorough research and
| validation required. My external (optimistic) view is that this
| is something that is given a bit more respect in UK culture.
| Something about strong educational institutions and empirical
| reasoned thinking. But then maybe it's just my POV?
| kypro wrote:
| Yes, you're completely right. Not that I'm in favour of the
| wealth inequality in the US, but in some ways it's one of the
| US's biggest assets. There are a lot of people in the US who
| are so excessively wealthy they're willing to throw money at
| moon-shot companies (and sometimes simply ideas) that will
| almost certainly never yield them a return.
|
| You don't get companies like Space X and Blue Origin without
| extremely ambitious and extremely wealthy individuals and the
| US has a large amount of both. In the UK people are generally
| far more conservative both with their ambitions and with their
| investments. We do have innovative tech companies here, but
| they're far less ambitions than those you'd typically find in
| the US. Things like food delivery, customisable greeting cards,
| accounting services, etc.
|
| I think to a lesser extent there are geographical,
| demographical and regulatory advantages to starting tech
| companies in the the US too. In the UK employers have provide
| paid holiday, maternity leave, and pay national insurance
| contributions for everyone they employee. This isn't a huge
| issue if your a profitable company, but things like this add up
| if you're trying to bootstrap a company with a limited amount
| of VC money. Similarly, we can't scale as easily because of our
| geographical and demographical limitations. Europe isn't as
| easy to scale into for various geographic and cultural reasons
| and the UK as a domestic market is far smaller than the US.
|
| While nothing I've said makes it impossible for the UK to
| create a tech giant, it does stack the odds against us. And
| just based on relative population size we're already 5 times
| less likely to create a tech giant when compared to the US.
| prottog wrote:
| I'm in favor of a system of free(ish) markets operating well,
| with big fortunes made from value creation and not rent-
| seeking behavior. If that results in wealth inequality, so be
| it; the old idea that a rising tide lifts all boats has not
| been invalidated yet.
| kypro wrote:
| I agree, but I think a lot of people would argue the rising
| tide in the US doesn't come anywhere near to lifting all
| boats. If you're smart and educated then US is an
| incredible place to live and work. If you're not then life
| in the US seems quite harsh by Northern European standards.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| This has parellels in the music industry. A British band has
| "made it" only if they have made it in America.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| All true. VC's in the UK only share the name of their US
| cousins. They invest in established business. They are full of
| the orthodoxy expected of a bunch of ex-big 4 accountants that
| went to expensive schools.
|
| A startup in the UK is a son of a rich man who wants to set up
| doing whatever, and leverages their Old Boys network to get
| customers.
|
| Banks are so risk averse that it is laughable.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The idea that you could raise money based on a powerpoint
| presentation, like Dropbox did, is laughable in UK.
|
| The investment culture is hard to describe with a word other
| than cowardly.
| Doches wrote:
| Reading between the lines, this is actually one of the side-goals
| of the zombie Online Safety Bill. Require all apps with user-
| created content to use a UK-approved 'identity provider' for age
| verification, and only issue approval to a handful of home-grown
| companies. Et voila, a whole thriving tech /sector/ where the UK
| can legitimately claim to be world-leading, even if they did
| invent the whole thing out of whole cloth and pointlessness.
| tialaramex wrote:
| The assumptions underpinning that legislation are from about
| 2016. A Tory government apparently can't achieve much in six
| years but the Internet changed considerably. The technical
| mechanisms described (DNS blocking to force UK users to use UK
| approved sites) are no longer achievable, which means the
| budgetary impact goes up very considerably, for this programme
| which would be unpopular.
|
| Now, if a government thinks a few decrepit Tory voters picking
| a new PM counts as a fresh mandate for radical economic
| strategies, maybe they also think a $10B pa budget line item
| for "Block Facebook?" is a good idea. So maybe they'll do this
| anyway. But it won't work.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| I'm afraid "it won't work" is not something British
| politicians care about very much, as we can see today.
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| > A Tory government apparently can't achieve much.
|
| You could just stop there. I've yet to see, in decades of
| Tory rule, much but decline, neglect, and scandal. Tax cuts
| and service cuts. That's all everyone needs apparently.
| Unfortunately, labor seems so incompetent at gaining power
| that it seems almost like a "managed opposition." Maybe I'm
| being too generous to their electorate as well. The UK is a
| tourism attraction at this point, a historical relic found in
| a curio shop or flea market. Or soon will be at its current
| clip.
| MisterSandman wrote:
| I don't think there's ever been an industry created by
| government nationalistic policies that hasn't eventually led to
| stagnation of said industry
| donmcronald wrote:
| I don't know anything about ARM, but is the IP ownership a big
| deal compared to the manufacturing?
|
| My first reaction was to think I'd do everything possible to keep
| ARM as a domestic company, but does it even make a difference if
| they don't actually produce (ex:) CPUs? I can't run my workload
| on IP.
|
| The expertise _is_ worth something though. We've seen that in
| Canada with companies like Nortel. Once those companies are gone,
| the local expertise quickly follows and you become dependent on a
| foreign company, which is regulated by a foreign government, for
| part of your critical infrastructure. It's extremely short
| sighted IMO and most people don't even realize what's being lost.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > I don't know anything about ARM, but is the IP ownership a
| big deal compared to the manufacturing?
|
| Apple manufactures nothing, all they have is IP
| f1shy wrote:
| > but is the IP ownership a big deal compared to the
| manufacturing?
|
| Yes, it is.
| dqpb wrote:
| Every dollar you spend on an effort, moves you one decision token
| closer to achieving your goal.
| sgt101 wrote:
| I've spoken with Hauser about this - his point (in 2012 when I
| had the conversation) was that the UK simply did not have access
| to a market big enough to support a global champion. I said
| (given the date) but what about the EU and he said no, because in
| fact the single market is fractured and filled with barriers. I
| asked well, what about French and German Tech companies?
|
| Hauser looked at me and said : yes.
| oblio wrote:
| > I've spoken with Hauser about this - his point (in 2012 when
| I had the conversation) was that the UK simply did not have
| access to a market big enough to support a global champion.
|
| Samsung, Hyundai/Kia, TSMC, Toyota, etc.
|
| A lot of local brands have figured out that you can bootstrap a
| product locally and then just focus relentlessly on the
| American market, after which you can practically conquer the
| world.
|
| Asian companies for some reason do this well. European
| companies fail horribly.
| distortedsignal wrote:
| The South Korean companies that you're thinking of (Samsung,
| LG, Hyundai) might have had a leg-up from some friendly
| government policies. Check out the history of Chaebol [1] in
| S. Korea.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol
| rvz wrote:
| He's right you know.
|
| We've waited long enough for the UK to come up with one for 40
| years and the only one people can think hard enough of an example
| is ARM, which that has become a acquisition football by NVIDIA,
| Softbank and having the UK government getting involved in the
| ordeal. (No, Imagination Technologies is also gone before you
| mention that.)
|
| So there are no credible candidates worthy for being a tech giant
| in the UK.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Don't forget Autonomy for $11B which turned out to be a fraud.
| Herman Houser and Mike Lynch are still good friends.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Amazing how slow the wheels of justice turn for rich people.
| He was ruled to be extraditable in summer 2021, lost his
| appeal in Dec 2021, the UK Home Secretary approved it in Jan
| 2022, and as of Sep 2022, still has not been extradited or
| seen a day of prison. For crimes committed in 2011 or before!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Lynch_(businessman)
| renewiltord wrote:
| Not for everyone. I knew his CFO's wife and that guy went
| to jail for a bit. Entertaining stuff, for sure.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| ARM and Imagination Technologies were worthy companies. They
| could have been giants if they had access to the kind of
| financial muscle that the US market provides
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| The problem is a hierarchical, deferential culture. Ex-UK
| countries that have been successful have thrown that yoke off -
| India is currently struggling to do so - and moved to a model
| less concerned with status and offense. Bureaucracy is great for
| running an empire, terrible for fostering startups.
|
| This is the same reason the hinterlands are so neglected and
| Ireland hates the English so much, by the way. The caste/Eton-
| focused system means that power will always be concentrated in
| London, and newcomers are not welcome. One day it will crumble,
| but that day has yet to come.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-28 23:02 UTC)