Pathetic. This type of thing will never work. Let the bickering between the companies begin and watch the money be wasted. Instead of pumping money into playing catch-up with Google, they should supporting start-up enterprises that are innovating beyond Google. At least then these start-ups won't be going to the states because of the lack of support and vision in Europe.
I just realised that it is not even a fully fledged search engine, but a "multimedia" one:
"Quaero aims to be a multimedia search engine that will work across all online digital media platforms including PCs, mobile phones, set-top-boxes and handheld devices. The engine will index content in several languages and will provide content management tools for media producers to promote their material."
This is my favourite bit:
"But after seeing that Quaero's German and French researchers were working in different directions, the project split in December 2006, with the French continuing to work on Quaero and the Germans focused on Theseus. Managers from both projects have, however, said they will meet regularly to form synergies when possible."
Agreed. I have no problem with government subsidising businesses to help get them off the ground, because a lot of the time it helps them grow to the level of competing quite quickly; except French farming.
However, no corporate group can ever perform well. One company running in a form of dictatorship over their product, like Jobs, can react quickly and, even for a large company, remain competative. However, if every decision has to go through multiple screening processes, tests, etc. you end up with a production cycle equivalent of Microsoft.
The Quaero project is doomed to failure. Not only is it going to have corporate bickering, but it's going to be in multiple languages. You can bet a large number of coders will enter from the UK, Netherlands and many other countries.
This means you're going to need translators to get the documents to read correctly in each individual language, or there's going to be many screw ups. Not only that, but you'll be faced with several days delay between project heads to get to a meeting. Bascially for a weekly status update, it would take probably 3 days to get everything translated and checked. So it's a weekly-3 status update, and what you did today is never going to be on the agenda, it's going to be the 3rd day on the next agenda, by which time something important is gone from your focus.
I belive the best words to describe this are, eww, and, no!
Yeah, this is crap, and honestly, it's more typically French than German.
I suppose the political logic was something like, "What's hot right now? Google. Why don't we have one? Well, let's fix that."
On the other side, doubly so in Berlin where I'm based, there is significant funding for startups available especially once they start creating jobs. We're planning on tapping that once we get far enough in. At least as best as I can judge, Berlin's one of the hot-spots for startups in Europe right now.
Wait wait wait, here in Europe, we are not strong in internet technology or tax spending, but we can do quite good raw milk cheese, and that's what IS important.
More seriously, EU sometime mess up things, teh big way, but :
1) if you are about to mess up something, don't fail shy, fail big, make some noise. If you win, you deserve your bragging rights.
2) EU did actually create some quite good technology, mainly with EADS, ESA and high speed trains.
disclaimer : I'm French.
edit
a more serious answer : what did the people around you told you where you started your venture ? I bet exactly what people here say to quaero.
Innovation rarely comes from large companies - especially European ones. Big companies know this and don't care anyway... they can depend on ill-informed politicians and a general public who think Bill Gates is a really cool guy ('he invented the moderen world, don't ya know') to throw money at them.
I agree. I'm from Europe, and I watch European companies get whooped by their American competitors on a regular basis. I do think we are better off with subsidized businesses (they prevent monopolies, which are bad), but there aren't many European corporations who both get governmental support and happen to be the world leader in whatever they do. I doubt there's even one.
"subsidized businesses (they prevent monopolies, which are bad)"
I always like it how the biggest monopolist ever (in my native Germany monopolizing or near-monopolizing by force education, transport, health care etc) is so eager and capable of "preventing evil monopolys" out of other peoples funds. Very protective. I feel so secure. shudder
You've clearly never had to use UK public transport. Living there for 5 years made me appreciate just how awesome transport is in Austria. Market forces don't seem to work for trains. I think infrastructure is one of the few things (the only thing?) that is better off regulated.
It's not so much the market forces as the way the privatisation was structured, and the perverse incentives that were created. The tube is a good example - there are multiple maintenance firms, line management firms, Transport for London, the unions, etc. All of them have competing agendas, which doesn't fit well when they are providing one product. I would be happier with a public monopoly than the current situation, and would accept a private monopoly instead of both, contingent on them getting the incentives right.
The reasoning behind this idea, I think, is this: since the entire population depends on a search engine to do their work and pretty much everything else, search engines have become a utility and utilities should be state run.
Much in the same way railroads were nationalized in most of the EU sometime during the early 20th century or even earlier.
As far as railroads are concerned, it was probably a decent idea (not much free market competition possible there, really), but whether it works for a search engine remains to be seen.
Except that in a democracy, what a government controlled search engine does with your data is more transparent than what a publicly held company (Google, say) does with it.
Of course the EU itself is very far from being a democracy (unlike its member states) so I'm still not thrilled about the idea, but in principle I'm not opposed to it.
The $316m could accomplish much, but I doubt directly creating a startup hub. The drivers which turn cities into creative class meccas wouldn't be included, and it likely would face the same difficulties as the Middle East's education plans: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/education/11global.html
It would a powerful change if groups like Gates' (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120113473219511...) began investing in the efforts which have the best chance of the results they're seeking: startups. I'm guessing the startup model is antithetical to what BillsG sees as the answer, which is unfortunate.
Obviously I'd choose whatever town was most SF-like. Suppose only 1/10 of the startups lived (a very conservative assumption). Don't you think a city with 1749 startups in it would feel like a startup hub?
Not directly. But if I (a) worked on nothing else, (b) did it over 10 years, and (c) trained the earlier founders to help the later ones, I could just about manage it.
$306 to get a head start? Its like they say, If one woman tells you it will take 9 months to make a baby, maybe we'd better hire 9 of 'em so we'll be done in a month.
I think we're gonna need a new category of fail to describe this one.
If Windows Live Search and Yahoo Search can't provide as good of results as Google (assuming they can't based off of Google's increasing market share), does Quaero even stand a chance?
This is very typical of the EU, and a major factor in why Europe often falls behind the US in innovation. The basic difference is that the EU believes that state funding will solve the problem of innovation, while the US relies more on capitalism and market forces.
As we saw in the Soviet era not much good comes from letting the state decide who gets the money. More recently France even tried to to make their own state-run internet, owned by France telecom. It was called Minitel.
One a related note, can the government aid basic research here in the U.S. (NSF, NIH, etc.) or are the agencies dispensing that money too bureacratic as well? Here are some numbers: http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/Top50Inst2/default.asp
First Galileo (the EU's GPS alternative), now this. Do Europeans enjoy wasting taxpayer money on duplicating perfectly good solutions in the name of nationalism?
I think the US was ahead economically by around 1900. Scholarship tends to lag by a generation or two.
Very interesting question though, and one I've thought about a lot, coming from Europe to the US as a kid.
It's possible that Europe may have only lost relatively. I.e. Europe may not have fallen so much as that other places have risen.
The single biggest problem with Europe may be government. There's a tradition in most northern European countries of strong central government. And the growth of technology in the 19c made it possible for a hands-on central government to be very much more hands-on. This seems to have had a disastrous effect on certain kinds of economic growth.
Remember too that Europe had two huge wars go through it during the 20th century. That can't have helped.
> Europe may not have fallen so much as that other places have risen.
Right. There are tons of cool things in tech (Linux, Python, Mysql, Qt/KDE, off the top of my head) and the sciences in Europe, just that there are more in the US.
I live in france and before uk this sort of shit makes me sick like they really have a fucking clue in politics as to how to develop and what to develop in tech, fuck me the politicians in the uk didnt get fucking email until about 2001
oh and you know they blew 600 million on a computer system to tie the UK health department together, (bog standard shit) didnt even work at that silly price.
