aerospace, energy, semiconductors,
telecom, drugs/biotech
aerospace, energy, semiconductors,
telecom, drugs/biotech
Airbus is absolutely crushing Boeing in terms of quality. Granted, we are woefully behind on the 'space' part of aerospace.
> energy
CERN is anchored to the EU. ITER is anchored to the EU. We are world leaders in wind energy.
> telecom
Except for everyone in the West scrambling to replace Huawei with Ericsson tech.
> drugs / biotech
BioNtech made the first breakthrough on a COVID vaccine.
The EU has many issues, but losing leadership in the sectors you mentioned is not one of them.
Anchored, yeah sure. So you're listing something that isn't in the EU, which is revealing. ITER is entirely irrelevant. It's a pork project that won't result in much. The biggest breakthroughs in fusion will derive from smaller projects, not giant slow-moving projects like ITER. The next 20-30 years of energy generation is wind, natural gas, oil, solar, some hydrogen and nuclear (and primarily only China is brave enough to build that). Fusion will make zero contribution in that time.
> BioNtech made the first breakthrough on a COVID vaccine.
Moderna was just as well positioned as BioNtech, you're more than reaching. Russia and China also have apparently successful vaccines being deployed.
> The EU has many issues, but losing leadership in the sectors you mentioned is not one of them.
That's true in the sense that the EU never had leadership in most fields to begin with.
It is surrounded by EU countries, in a country that is a pseudo-EU member. You're reaching.
> ITER is entirely irrelevant. It's a pork project that won't result in much.
Unless you have a seer's eye, these kinds of claims are baseless.
> The next 20-30 years of energy generation is wind, natural gas, oil, solar, some hydrogen and nuclear (and primarily only China is brave enough to build that)
Agreed and a sad state of affairs
> Moderna was just as well positioned as BioNtech
Which makes Moderna a leader too? It doesn't diminish BioNtech's work.
> That's true in the sense that the EU never had leadership in most fields to begin with.
You literally had to ignore multiple points in my parent comment to even be able to make this claim. Revealing..
Edit: not to mention we are commenting under an article that partly concerns ASML..
That's entirely political and nothing to do with the tech. Huawei's tech is arguably better, cheaper (and available now).
If you knew that important people would use your phones you could as well give them for free - easier to spy on them.
Such a hyperbole statement.
Airbus has the edge in the narrowbody aircraft market, especially A321, while Boeing is plagued by 737 MAX problem.
OTOH Airbus is well behind Boeing in the widebody segment. Boeing had 1,464 787 orders as of Aug 2019, 882 of those had been delivered. Airbus had only sold 913 A350. A380 has been discontinued while Boeing can still count on B748 freighter.
Of course 2020 threw a wrench to the airline industry and it remains to be seen how well it will recover post pandemic. Both Airbus and Boeing are affected deeply.
You are right that for now, Boeing is better in widebodies. But let's see Boeing new aircraft program, because currently Airbus is better prepared for the future.
Well, SpaceX caught with the pants down to everyone. Before the revolution of the reusable Falcon 9, the Ariane 5 was a fine reliable rocket.
Sadly, the Ariane 6 design predates the reusable revolution of SpaceX, how ever they are working on reusable Arianes that are similar to the Falcon 9 and Spaceship (https://www.techforspace.com/european-space-sector/european-...).
There are a variety of ways to cultivate a domestic industry, govt committees directly investing doesn’t seem like the leading candidate can. Trade barriers and state sponsored industrial partnerships.
Generalising from 40 years of EU history, I have little confidence. The top US and East Asian processor and semiconductor companies all are extremely successful in the marketplace, in addition to consuming government subsidies. Fostering a competitive market has not been the EU's forte. Indeed the EU narrates this funding as a need to address a "market failure" [1]. I feel that this is one-dimensional, bur entirely predictable from the structure of EU decision making.
Just today, at midnight, the EU lost ARM and DeepMind as domestic industries.
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52...
It raises to prominence after becoming a Google wholly owned subdiary. I have repeated multiple times in other comments that DeepMind's success is at least built on top of Google's tech and capital.
Interesringly, Google's tech infrastructure were blueprinted by a lot of pioneers and two of the most well known are Urs Hozle and Luiz André Barroso both are of Eu descentdent.
There is no evidence that whatever DeepMind did can be done with another EU partner. Or even anyone who is not Google, largely thanks to Larry and Sergey's personal tastes and experience. I doubt Msft or Amazon have the right culture for DeepMind.
The whole alphabet thing was engineered to allow independency. So that, among other things, a more pure research org can work without the ever encroaching of the profit driven hands inside Google. Mind you, DeepMind absolutely put itself above Google, or at least firmly distance itself from Google, GCP once proposed to use DeepMind brand in marketing materials, and was sharply rejected citing "conflicting brand images".
I have no idea whether any of the relevant antitrust official could still stop it.
It lacks motivation, there is no SV in Europe because one cannot pay competitively with SV for top talent when you tax to death. It is a lot easier to become a billionaire from real stuff (not manipulating stock markets or other financial trickeries) in US than in EU, so the smart and motivated in EU move to US; what is left is ... what is left: either less motivated or less smart or less both.