back

by FinnLobsien·1y ago·view on hn ↗
I would argue the opposite: It actually makes European businesses worth off by continuing to make its regulatory environment so complex only massive companies like big tech or Europe's legacy players have the resources to comply.

Add to that feel-good green initiatives like a packaging initiative that might lower packaging waste from European companies, but more likely will just make European goods more expensive and cause Europeans to buy from Temu instead.

10 comments
The EU has basically said that it's better to have a handful medium-sized companies in competition for customers than one or two mega-corps owning and dictating the market. And to resolve that they employ two things, one is the DMA/DSA and similar laws which mostly takes effect when your company reaches a certain large market penetration, the other is standardisations such as the Radio Equipment Directive (think "USB-C law" and similar ones) that make it easier for consumers to avoid vendor lock-in.

> just make European goods more expensive and cause Europeans to buy from Temu instead

Temu is under active investigation for breaching these laws, anyone operating within EU is subject to those laws, not just European companies (e.g. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-ope...)

Not sure if you're agreeing with or contrasting the parent post, but I think their point was...

> it's better to have a handful medium-sized companies in competition

is impossible in the hyper regulatory environment the EU has made, causing ...

> one or two mega-corps owning and dictating the market

... because they're the only ones that can afford the legal and/or lobbying efforts to do so.

> The EU has basically said that it's better to have a handful medium-sized companies in competition for customers than one or two mega-corps owning and dictating the market. And to resolve that they employ two things, one is the DMA/DSA and similar laws which mostly takes effect when your company reaches a certain large market penetration, the other is standardisations such as the Radio Equipment Directive (think "USB-C law" and similar ones) that make it easier for consumers to avoid vendor lock-in.

Then show me the handful of European, medium-sized companies competing for customers. The problem is that you pass DMA, DSA, GDPR, etc. which Google, Apple etc. can fight for years in court and if they have to pay a few billion, so be it.

Instead what's happening is that European alternatives (the kind that's actually good, not the kind that's European and half as good) don't exist and the incentives to build one shrink because any scaling company is instantly hamstrung.

> Then show me the handful of European, medium-sized companies competing for customers.

Competing in category chemicals:

BASF, Akzo Nobel, Lanxess, Air Liquide, and a bunch others

Competing in category engineering:

Siemens, Bosch, ABB, Alstom, ThyssenKrupp, Airbus and a bunch others

Competing in category metals:

Aurubis, Umicore, Norsk Hydro, Gruppo Riva, ThyssenKrupp, and a bunch others

Competing in category pharma:

Novartis, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and others

Competing in category electronics:

Nokia, Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent, Electrolux, Schneider Electric, and lots of others

> any scaling company is instantly hamstrung

You are assuming scaling this way is a long-term positive for consumers, investors, employees, and/or markets. I can find no such evidence.

These are all huge companies in my view.

In addition to them there are also countless small to medium sized companies that nobody's ever heard of, that don't experience hypergrowth but have slow and steady growth - especially in the B2B sector. I've worked at some such companies.

Where are the software companies that compete with apple though? Wasn't that the question?
Significant about your list is that most of them are businesses who sell to other businesses, not to consumers. That's what is propping up the European economy, since European companies don't seem to be able to make an export that foreign customers are interested in. With some exceptions of course, mostly food and luxury goods. Nokia could have been a forerunner for lots of other European companies taking on the world, but sadly it fizzled out.
Small nitpick but FYI Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia merged. Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise still exists but is just the bit nobody wanted.
> Competing in category [...]

Also, this is not true. These are categories huge enough to be meaningless. They are stock market classifications (at best) which do not reflect market competition.

All the companies that I've heard of that you listed were all founded before the EU.
I work at OVH, we're European, we're actually good.

I use our product, it's better than GCP for my use cases.

We've got Hetzner in Germany doing the same thing we are.

Yes. As someone who has worked with 100+ funded start-ups, roughly 85 in USA and 15 in EU - the EU ones have such a harder, trudging climb due to regulations.
Good. I would hate for my country to become like the USA.
Given the tidal wave of vibecoded startups were about to see - the US may want to take a look at what the EU is doing.
You say that like it's a bad thing. But it's not. It's a good thing.
In what areas are the regulations too strict? Is it in service of protecting rights of others?
SAP, Spotify, Sitecore, Roche, Airbus, CERN (the ecosystem powers its research), CodePlay, SN Systems, BAYER, Roche,....
Since when is Airbus a small company and not part of the large state supported corp monopoly gang? Same with SAP, Roche and Bayer. These are all masive corporations that swallowed entire sectors. Same with Spotify having used its monopoly status to screw over smaller artists. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read such comments.

Let me ask you guys something else, if EU hates large monopolist companies so much as you claim, then why are all its car companies monopolistic mega conglomerates that rule the world like Volkswagen, Stellantis, Daimler Benz, BMW, and Renault? Where's EU's equivalent of Tesla if they supposedly hate all these big companies?

I'll tell you why: Just like the US, the capital controlled EU also supports its domestic monopolies and only bitches about foreign monopolies in sectors they don't control and threaten their economic hegemony. That's the cold hard truth, everything else is just political hot air and virtue signaling for brownie points, and I'm pissed people are not only buying it but also parroting it when the goal to monopolize business sectors is as strong in EU corporations as it is in US and Chinese ones.

Europe is just more stricter now with controlling large (mostly foreign) corporations since its own economy lost a lot of ground to the US and Chinese ones (it has now half the real GDP it had 2 decades ago), and since it can't create new large companies, all it can do now is protecting what it has left from foreign companies taking over their turf. The upshot being that a lot of those rules are congruent with the consumer protections which also end up globally favoring consumers abroad.

Spotify has never been consistently profitable and had Net income last year of a little over a billion. They are a nothingburger
> The problem is that you pass DMA, DSA, GDPR, etc. which Google, Apple etc. can fight for years in court and if they have to pay a few billion, so be it.

And how do you compete with the big tech companies without it? It's been decades without anyone being able to do it. Not in Europe and not in the US. OpenAI might have a chance, but they also have billions.

The days where someone could drop out of school and start a company in the garage is over. Cost of living is up, so is competition. Companies need to expand and regulation like GDPR makes it easier to do so instead of having to deal with multiple countries regulation. The US always had an advantage in regulation like the DMCA.

To spell it out, before regulation European companies had to...

Deal with privacy regulation of each country. Which in the EU was supposed to be similar, but wasn't entirely. With GDPR not only is it the same in the EU, but other countries are now following the same model.

Register for VAT in every EU country it sold (enough) products in. Making many not sell to other countries at all until Amazon ate their business. With VAT MOSS you only register in you own country.

Accept many form of payments with many different fees since credit card adoption and cost could vary wildly. With interchange fees capped you increasingly only need to accept common credit cards.

Pay large roaming charges when traveling, making starting services like Uber or Airbnb less relevant since you couldn't assume someone had data in another country.

Try to compete with big tech companies that were charging for access to their platforms while minimizing their taxes through royalty payments, VAT deals and offshore holdings. Giving them a huge advantage. This is still the case, but lesser so.

For actually running a company it is a lot better now.

There are other problems with EU regulations. Some things are natural monopolies or in other ways doesn't do well as markets. Privatization and state-aid rules prevent European countries from effectively managing these areas. Any advantage Europe had over the US in cost of living and public services is rapidly diminishing.

It costs practically nothing to comply with those regulations.

It only costs to somehow keep doing the abusive things they exist to prevent.

It's impossible to express how little sympathy this deserves.

> Then show me the handful of European, medium-sized companies competing for customers

as much I'm not a fan of them, Leica is a peer competing against Nikon, Fujifilm, etc.

> The problem is that you pass DMA,

Doesn't apply to your medium-sized company

> DSA,

Basically says "customers have the right to not be profiled and are entitled to not be shown algorithmic feeds"

> GDPR

Costs about 0 to implement as long as you only user data as intended, and not sending it off to 2763 "partners" who "respect your privacy".

What "insane regulatory burden" are you talking about?

> can fight for years in court and if they have to pay a few billion, so be it.

The only reason these poor poor innocent trillion-dollar supranational corporations fight these laws in court is because they really don't want anyone competing with them, or to respect such minor things as user privacy. Not because the laws are somehow bad or complicated.

Even DMA, the most complex of them all, can be understood by anyone.

If a company is so small and weak that they can't support GDPR etc., then that company should not exist.

I don't care about any companies like Americans do with American business centric laws that hurts normal people. Life isn't about lowest price at any cost model. Buy from china (as everyone is doing but try to hide it) if you want low cost. I don't give a damn if all those companies die for not complying GDPR, fuck them.

Even in Europe, small companies can often (not always) get away with not following regulations or only following them in spirit but missing the details, simply because they are small and do not attract attention. Some laws have escalating requirements based on business size. GDPR isn't one of those, but a lot of small businesses still don't follow it.
> regulatory environment so complex only massive companies like big tech or Europe's legacy players have the resources to comply

This is a very inaccurate view. I’ve worked with multiple SMEs and no such “complexities” ever become operational challenges. Even as a indie developer, my compliance is a default provided I’m not trying to do something shady.

Looking into the EU regulations, in most cases what they want you to do (or not do) is common sense.

Same experience, from startup to large multinational EU companies.

The biggest headaches/issues are normally local regulations (country specific or even more local). The EU directives are more frameworks with a lot of flexibility and well grounded on common sense + expertise. How the different countries implement them in their own laws (with their own historical laws) is a different story.

Right, and the entire point of the EU is to reduce regulatory overhead by extracting regulations to a bigger governing body.

The US has 50 sets of regulations and I don't hear anyone complaining. Although they should - you're almost certainly controlled by California law because, surprise surprise, complying with 50 sets of regulations is hard.

In IT it may be the case. In foodtech it is a problem. This may sound reassuring, as we don’t really want much of the stuff being sold in the US here in the EU. But, for new approaches regarding food production the EU regulatory environment is unfortunately a morass. There are lots of regulation which is neither fact or experience based, for example around insects, or ecological labelling.
Most of that is adjacent to regulation, and it's more or less asking for exemption from regulation for smaller companies. Which the EU already does a lot of: generally smaller companies have much lower regulatory regulatory requirements. But the threshold proposed is silly: you do not need to be anywhere near a $10 million company for complying with the listed regulations to be a pretty trivial amount of work. I do suggest reading these things, for the most part they can usually be sorted with a bit of paperwork, the kind of thing someone who's reasonably on it can bang out in a day or so. (Especially software: hardware can be a bit more of a pain, but that's because of important shit like not starting fires or electrocuting someone)
That indie dev got contacted by the government for feedback. Not a bad sign, in my opinion.
There’s some definite nope’s in there — excluding small companies from GDPR, exempting them from corporation tax on profits etc
DMA is applicable only to "gatekeepers" who markets with X amount of users. This is designed not to burden smaller businesses, but to limit monopoly of the large few corporations.
> It actually makes European businesses worth off by continuing to make its regulatory environment so complex only massive companies like big tech or Europe's legacy players have the resources to comply.

The DMA (that this article is about) applies to gatekeepers (massive companies like big tech), not mom and pop startups

It doesn’t even apply to megacorps generally. The DMA applies to Core Platform Services – meaning app stores, browsers, etc – that are evaluated as gatekeepers individually.

The same company can have provide CPSs, with different status. For instance, Google is a designated gatekeeper of Android (OS) and Google Maps (Intermediation), but not Gmail. So the DMA won’t dictate anything related to Gmail, even if Google is a gatekeeper in other areas.

That is the western European way though. It's supposed to be a nice place to live, not a nice place to do business. If that leads to Chaebolification of the economy then so be it. There are other parts of the world that specialise in deregulation at the expense of living standards.
I'd argue that actions like the DMA regulation are actively working against "Chaebolification" though.

It's not national law that can be bent locally, it's EU law that applies to all companies of certain size.

I think the EU learned the hard way that they can't rely on its members to prioritize common interests

(see Ireland vs. Apple tax avoidance, Germany vs. Car evolution, Austria vs. Reduction of Russian influence, Hungary vs. everything)

True! And I generally empathize with this. The core point of the EU and its member states' governments should be to enable high quality of life.

But that model you describe is cracking: Cost of living is going through the roof in Europe, taxes/social contributions going up every year, etc.

The problem is that Europe is like an old, rich person who now lives off of the principal of their wealth. For a person that's fine because they'll eventually die. For a government, you should strive for an environment that lets you keep growing wealth.

> But that model you describe is cracking: Cost of living is going through the roof in Europe, taxes/social contributions going up every year, etc.

Cost of living is increasing in the US too (in large part due to geopolitical reasons), and social contributions are rising because of demographic factors. I'm not sure how market liberalism is magically going to fix that latter issue.

Fair point re: US! Though that doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Re: demographics. It's relatively straightforward: To keep contributions constant while supporting more people, you need either:

-more people via immigration (which is extremely tricky to get right) who are net contributors, not beneficiaries of social systems -massively increased productivity through innovation/technology -cut benefits from social programs

If you do none of those things, the systems will either collapse or you need to raise taxes/mandatory contributions which are de-facto taxes.

Massive companies typically smother small players anyway, especially in unregulated environments.

> Add to that feel-good green initiatives like a packaging initiative that might lower packaging waste from European companies, but more likely will just make European goods more expensive and cause Europeans to buy from Temu instead.

Does this actually happen or are you just making shit up?

Is Temu exempt of any packaging requirements?

> continuing to make its regulatory environment so complex

To be fair, the regulations are there because companies are out-of-control paperclip maximisers. For example, the cookie banner didn't have to be obnoxious - companies choose to comply maliciously to adhere to the text and shit over the spirit of the regulations, which have to become more and more verbose and explicit.

> I would argue the opposite: It actually makes European businesses worth off by continuing to make its regulatory environment so complex only massive companies like big tech or Europe's legacy players have the resources to comply.

Are you arguing that 27 different sets of laws was a better approach? That these countries would just gladly lie down and never regulate the societal-level harms, systemic lawbreaking, and massive infringement of privacy across the board? I don't think so.

For a moment the political system in the US seemed to get to the same conclusions as the EU under Bidens FTC and anti-trust cases. But the conclusions of that remain to be seen.

The problem is that those 27 sets of laws basically still exist. Regulation is certainly not the only reason. Fragmentation is another massive problem.

There's the EU-Inc initiative that the EU has basically made pointless (by wanting to introduce 27 new standards, not one, just making things more complex).

Note that I'm not arguing for zero regulation.

This keeps coming up over and over on HN.

There are no 27 sets of laws to do business in Europe. It's not perfect, but it's a SINGLE MARKET, if you comply to the EU regulation you are allowed to sell everywhere.

It does however not absolve you from additional local market demands to be competitive, i.e. local language support, service infrastructure, etc.

For example: Miele is one of the largest washing machine manufacturers in Europe. They have their front panel translated to local languages for most of its markets. You can sell a washing machine with a English front panel, but you won't be able to compete in e.g. the German/Italian/French market

> regulatory environment so complex

The DMA really isn't particularly complex though. And what complexity it has only becomes complex once you're a manager of a whole consumer platform (a "gatekeeper" in its jargon).

To wit: your point is backwards, the DMA is structured such that the only companies that need to bear its burdens are "big tech or Europe's legacy players". If you're a little company wanting to add a paid app store to your Tiny AI Robot Virtual Experience or whatever, go nuts. The DMA absolutely won't stop you.

... where is it easy to do business anyway? sure, there are degrees, levels, grades of this, the size of the barriers to entry matters, there are metrics about how easy it is to start a business for example, but that's just one aspect, and I'd argue mostly an unimportant one (if it takes 2 hours or 2 days or 1 weeks it's fine, what matters is how much does it cost to do it and how much does it cost to maintain the legal entity, and to do the filings, etc.)