Europe’s Startup Unicorns
sifted.eu
sifted.eu
54 United Kingdom
18 Germany
14 France
8 Netherlands
6 Switzerland
4 Sweden
4 Spain
2 Romania
2 Norway
2 Lithuania
2 Finland
2 Estonia
2 Cyprus
2 Belgium
United Kingdom is definitely over-represented. Bad sampling by Sifted? Or is the climate in UK genuinely more favorable to start-ups?edit: if you want more spice to this, then imagine that our Chancellor is married to woman that her and her father have substantial stake in Infosys.
Edit: or do you mean the already existing legislation where companies practically can't keep freelancers long-term?
It looks like the counts from this voodoo are incorrect: they are all twice as much. However, proportions are still correct.
The existing financial hub in London makes a great environment for fintechs in particular.
1. Funding: UK has 3-4x total deal volume compared to Germany [1]. I've heard somebody say UK (London) is comparable to NY, which is a 2nd tier US VC market.
2. Tax incentives: Early-stage investors get significant tax reliefs under the UK government's Enterprise Investment Scheme (S)EIS. They made a big difference when fundraising, almost every startup I know has used EIS. I see nothing of the sort in Germany.
3. Policy backing: My understanding is that around 2010 the startup sector was seen as a strategic investment both by UK and local governments, in particular the City of London. Which lead to the establishment of Tech City ('Silicon roundabout') as we know it today. In Germany, on the other hand, most politicians aren't aware of how bad the current state is. Of course there is a lip service, but in a way the success of the 'Mittelstand' (SMEs) never made it a necessity to foster startups.
4. Culture: One factor is risk aversion, for certain, but also how Germans perceive innovation plays a big role. I would describe it as an incremental view of innovation rather than disruptive technology, like a new type of car paint that dries 30% faster.
I'm not a pessimist at all, but that's really one of the things that makes me bearish for Germany going forward.
[1] https://news.crunchbase.com/news/european-venture-report-vc-...
- Price dumping and market grabbing through losses subsidised by infinite investor money
- Price dumping and market grabbing by aggressively turning everything into gig economy (usually, losses subsidised by overworked underpaid couriers)
- Financial market. No one has any savings to speak of, so managing credit is quite a lucrative business indeed.
- Outright lies and vaporware: flying cars, innovative vehicles, fantastical medical devices etc. Once again, losses subsidised by infinite investor money
And among this humongous pile of outright crap there are just a few companies that actually do something. And out of those may be one actual innovator.
Founded in 2000 or later seems odd definition for a "unicorn", the last one on the list, vente-privee was founded in 2001, that's 4 years before YouTube (2005), a year before LinkedIn (2002)... doesn't a unicorn loose its unicorn status after some point if not going public?
Speaking of going public, not quite sure how up to date the list is, UiPath, which is about to go public, is headquartered in New York, USA, so does it still count as a Europe unicorn? :https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-14/software-...
Joke aside, can anyone explain to me why most startups there seem to be in the UK and so little in Germany or other countries?
Genuinely curious, since the way I know my EU economics, is that Germany has a higher GDP than the UK.
This said, Berlin started later than London but, from what I hear, got much hotter in the last 5/10 years, so there might be some rebalancing in progress.
Nope, they're happy producing aspirin. Less risk.
But yes, there is risk avoidance in the German market (but the language barriers kinda make some startups look "invisible" outside of their non-English speaking countries)
Merck and Sanofi are developing vaccines based on existing vectors. They can reach true mass production as soon as they get approved. It's the same thing for Johnson and Johnson actually. AstraZeneca has what I would call a true headstart however.
Why do people care about unicorns so much?
Why is having a bunch of $1bn+ companies necessarily a Good Thing?
Is having lots of smaller companies seen as a Bad Thing?
1. Unicorns are lottery tickets. People dream of being rich.
2. Unicorns represent Big Wins: an idea that was worth a huge sum of money. It makes the world a richer place, figuratively and literally. The person who had it (and more importantly, the people who run it) are Big Heroes.
Companies like Facebook and Uber aren't just big companies. They change the world, making value from something that wasn't valuable before. That may be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, but it's a Thing in a way that ten thousand smaller companies don't.
As with celebrities, we probably talk about them disproportionately to the value -- in part because they give us something in common to talk about. But there's usually some kind of "there" there, as well.
Some of the later PMs were toxic (I wouldn't say it's much better in large enterprises though), but it was great to focus on the engineering at the start and work closely with lots of different partners.
I like to really explore innovative options so too fast of a pace can be annoying being at the bottom of the latter at a fast-paced company.