Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable.
It’s the new kids in the block that will make the difference.
You know those lists on twitter about how many companies US has in top 10 and are presented as a win? Those are actually lists of capital concentrations blocking innovation. It looks like US is winning but for some reason life is better in EU and innovation is faster in China.
It’s companies like OpenAI Anthropic that will move US ahead. Even if some core innovation or and capital comes from the establishment.
> Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though?
The GP was talking about Google specifically, and their outcomes on AI are nothing to scoff at. They had a rocky late start, but they seem to have gotten over that. Their models are now very much competitive with the startups. And it's not just that have more money to spend. They probably have more training data than anyone in the world, and they also have more infrastructure, more manpower, more of a global footprint than the startups.
The Innovator's Dilemma is an anecdotal, maybe a statistical relationship at best, but not a fundamental law of nature. When an established company has everything it should take to become a leader in a new industry in theory, and in practice their products are already on par with the industry leaders, you know at some point it becomes rational to think that maybe they might become a leader.
Google didn’t have a late start, they invented the tech, had bespoke hardware in place that supported it and have money to spend.
I don’t have any idea what comes next but Google and Microsoft look bad right now because they can’t execute a product strategy.
My personal bias is that either ms or Google or both will land just fine after it all shakes out but they started with a lead and are now playing catch up.
they did have a late start in terms of productionizing the models. It's definitely improved but there was a time where Gemini and the associated tools werent as good as claude/oai
Sometimes I worry about the incentives for innovation in the US.
Step 1, find something to innovate on, sell the promise of it to investors. Step 2, build a prototype or worst case, build it for real and start generating income from your truly innovate and unique product. Step 3, get acquired by a large company and then shut down because your product competed with theirs.
End result, general public possibly benefited from your innovation, but in the long run, it was temporary.
Maybe the incentives would be better if it were harder for large companies to acquire small ones? If the path to riches where driven primarily by delivering value to customers. Would love to hear other's opinions on this.
This is what I struggled with after grad school. You have so many decent ideas. So many people you know in the domain also with their own good ideas. Everyone looking for their next gig. It could all be so easy to get a couple people together and start building. But, alas, money, that must come from people who expect more money back before long, which severely limits the scope of ideas that will get investor funding. No moonshots, no sci fi future, just same old looking for low hanging arbitrage or rent seeking opportunities. Kinda sad when you realize that is pretty much all private tech investment because funding is driven by investors ultimately, and not scientists like what you see on grant review panels for basic research. Money must make more money, which again limits severely what money can do.
[flagged]
I wonder what makes EU so wealthy to just buy stuff everywhere - maybe it's the export of high-end technologies inaccessible to US and China?
Having someone else pay for your national defense for 80 years sure doesn’t hurt.
The EU is no way share or form in a good economic position right now. That's why euro leaders have been kowtowing to Trump despite him being a deranged lunatic.
Delete all American software, American defense, American energy, and Chinese hardware from the EU tomorrow. That's the deep-seated unease that keeps EU leaders up at night. Europe needs to be doing 3-4% GDP growth annually and have a globally competitive top to bottom tech an defense industry, and it needs that years ago.
The problem is that the EU needs to become more like the US to do this, and for people who grew up under the protective overhang of the soviet collapse, this is mostly unthinkable. Just like the US not bankrolling half of Ukraine's defense would be unthinkable...
> Just like the US not bankrolling half of Ukraine's defense would be unthinkable...
This is outdated. Look at page 4 of this report for instance: https://www.kielinstitut.de/publications/europe-steps-up-ukr...
Their data is not perfect as they rely on public sources, and some governments are more transparent than others, but the reality is that US funding all but vanished in 2025.
Back to the topic, there is also a pattern of promising European startups being bought by wealthy USA incumbent companies. This is also happening to established compagnies: see ARM, Alstom Power, etc. As Europe de-couples from the USA in the current context, I suspect (and hope) that such acquisitions will come under more regulatory scrutiny.
This is a common US position, but doesn't actually reflect reality.
The EU and the UK took over aiding Ukraine almost completely in 2025 [1]. So not as unthinkable as you'd think.
> That's why euro leaders have been kowtowing to Trump despite him being a deranged lunatic.
Less to do with economy, more with security. Europe still needs a credible deterrent against Russia, and the US is still its best bet.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fl...
> "Get bankrolled by the state at the state's discretion until they get what they want, even if they need to burn $1B to get $1M of value"
If that's how it worked, they wouldn't lead in anything, they'd be bankrupt already. They burn state money like VCs burn cash. DeepSeek, Alibaba, Tencent, Xiaomi, Huawei, etc., disprove your point.
Look into how their 5 year plans have lead to capital investment with almost zero feedback. A heavily bureaucratic system of bureaucrats incentivized to spend massively to boost their own appearance, and cover up losses/inefficiencies.
Ghost cities, empty high speed rail lines, solar cells being mass produced at a loss.
All these things also produced end products the state wanted, no doubt. But the capital allocation strategy is basically a "throw all the money the leader gives in that direction until the leader says stop".
Is there a lot of wasted capital? Sure but a lot of it still produces outcomes.
> A heavily bureaucratic system of bureaucrats incentivized to spend massively to boost their own appearance, and cover up losses/inefficiencies.
In China, if you want to move up politically, you generally need to show results, meaning the province or area you govern is expected to deliver measurable performance (even if politics and connections still matter too). In that sense, you could argue it's more performance driven in some respects than the US.
EVs and solar were clear priorities, and China has been very successful at scaling both and driving costs down. Domestic competition has been so intense (especially in EVs) that margins have gotten extremely thin, and officials have recently signaled they want to curb "irrational" price wars.
> Ghost cities
Sure, some exist, but many of the developments that were circulated online years ago have filled in over time. That said, there's no question a lot of projects stalled or collapsed during the property downturn, especially after China Evergrande and other developers ran into trouble.
> empty high speed rail lines,
I can't speak to every route, but overall the high speed rail network is heavily used. When I traveled in China, it was excellent and extremely extensive. Some lines and stations likely see weaker demand than others, but the idea that it's broadly "empty" doesn't match reality.
> solar cells being mass produced at a loss
With overcapacity and price wars, many firms have faced serious margin pressure and losses though that doesn't mean every producer is losing money on every panel.
In the end, the real question is whether the capital allocation is efficient enough for citizens to benefit and for the country to remain competitive. Empirically, the answer looks closer to yes in industry and infrastructure, while real estate has been a major exception, with real costs and inefficiencies.
> Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though? All those giants have their own business that are established and profitable.
Ah! Well, if we put aside "The Innovator's Dilemma" and pick up Reis and Trout's "marketing Warfare," we get the answer. Apple does have an existing business, but investing in AI does not cannibalize it. They can throw money at it, try to find a way to make it work really, really well for consumers on very specific custom hardware in their devices...
Likewise, someone like Google has all the money in the world to throw at it, but they aren't investing in a new market, they're defending their search business against everyone just asking a generative AI Chatbot questions. I\But it's possible for them to screw this up internally over turf wards, just ask the engineers who tried to make search better but were kneecapped by Prabhakar Raghavan who demanded that search be poor enough to drive people to click sponsored results.
In the "Marketing Warfare" model, Apple is attempting a flanking attack: An outsider trying to disrupt the AI giants with an approach that they can't imitate without undermining their value proposition. On-device AI flanks the big giants that areservcie-centric.
And in that model, Google is playing defence, which is what every leader is supposed to do. Their job is to "cover every move," which they are doing in textbook fashion. If AI goes away, Google dry their tears and continue to mine ad revenue.
I'm very curious if they're going to ditch Google by providing on-device search. A monthly Open Crawl is under 100 terabytes, and if you clean that down to raw text and deduplicate and maybe pick out what you don't care about, the dataset might already fit onto my iPhone. They could do a lot without making a network call and reach out to a server for anything the device doesn't have, but a lot of user queries might never need to leave the phone. In another couple years, storage will be even higher.
I was hopeful for on-device AI too but any AI processing so far sucks up the battery, heats up the phone and most importantly isn't even nearly good enough. Without a breakthrough in battery, chips or the models and algorithms the way forward is thin clients that connect to some servers close to a solar farm or nuclear energy plant.
> On-device AI flanks the big giants that areservcie-centric.
Wouldn't on-device AI also support Google's position? If search is to be protected, on-device AI (small models) would be capable of basic usage, but inept at answering knowledge questions specifically, necessitating a search service be preserved. They have already launched local models in Chrome and Android. Meanwhile none of the big AI competition can profit off of local models, so this is a unique opportunity for big-G.
That said, I disagree with the premise you propose. It's 2026, and about 40% of their revenue over the last few years comes from non-search products (depending on quarter). Oh and Apple doesn't seem to be investing enough in AI products, because it's just making them look bad, not providing a "flanking attack".
Google is pulling in tons of AI revenue - from subscriptions, personal and enterprise, and Google Cloud (APIs etc). Cloud is seeing a ton of growth lately, and I'm sure that's largely from AI services that are uniquely available there. As long as they can serve models with a better cost structure (thanks TPUs) they can squeeze out better margins than their competitions.
+1 for mentioning Christensen & Trout and Reis.
Kind of funny you say it is capital concentration that blocks innovation then praise anthropic, when we are in a thread about them concentrating capital. And not only have these companies concentrated capital, and mindshare in the mass media, they have concentrated talent.
You have to wonder how often they hire talent just to keep them out of the market for other upstart companies to potentially use, like with no actual objective just to keep them off market. With half trillion valuation there's plenty of money for that, and given how few people actually know the really deep stuff competently, it would be so stupid of them not to be doing that right now.
No need to be pedantic about it, obviously you need capital concentration to do stuff. The difference is what this stuff is, in Apple and Google's case its even more from the same but for Anthropic its this new thing.
The gist is, world beating(in profit and market cap terms) tech giants who made their money with innovation are now just the roadblocks to innovation. If succeeds, Anthropic will eventually be like that but until then Anthropic is the innovator. The contemporary US is able to concentrate wealth but not able to turn it into innovation or life quality improvements as efficiently as EU or China, since they are getting better outcomes with less. So it is a systematic issue.
>The contemporary US is able to concentrate wealth but not able to turn it into innovation or life quality improvements as efficiently as EU or China, since they are getting better outcomes with less.
This is a really interesting thought. I wonder why this is, fundamentally? You'd think people are people and the elite here would be much like the elite in europe or china. Maybe in china there is some sense of pride or competition among the elite for uplifting the populace these days? Kind of like when vanderbilt, carnegie, and rockefeller felt compelled to invest into things like colleges and other civic institutions to build up their personal clout. Seems here the main drive is to squeeze our population for what little it has left in its pocket vs actually improve standards of living or anything like that. Standard of living when you remove the internet (which arguably doesn't even contribute to standard of living as it is used for mindless leisure by most), is basically the same as it has been in the US since about the 70s or even a little earlier. Arguably worse considering the bog standard two kid, two car, four bed nuclear home setup is increasingly unaffordable in more places across the country.
My guess is that US KPI's are about concentrating even more wealth when in China and EU they aim to improve other measures on societal level.
Obviously a US individual with control over large wealth concentration can choose to do something else with it, i.e. Elon Musk choose to fight trans people or Peter Thiel choose to fight nations states. In China and EU, wealth is more communal therefore those who have control over it can buy a yacht and a mansion but can't choose to dismantle nation states to start new forms of government therefore the regime change is separate thing from use of the resources therefore resources are used to in a more communal mindset which itself can be slow on innovation when no obvious pressing needs or can be inefficient when the communities can't agree on a vision.
In Europe you do the regime change through political means and violence, check out how many regime changes occurred in Europe in the last 100 years and how many politicians were toppled/imprisoned or killed.
It just that life flows differently, not necessarily one is superior to another IMHO. They all have strong sides and weaknesses and US is currently facing its weaknesses after a long period of strength and this is happening because some people won the game and its very hard to restart the game in the American system since the winners can be colossal and as a result immovable.
> What are the outcomes though?
NVIDIA, and contractors who build data centers, and manufacturers who supply them, will all get rich.
The new kids have an easier time focusing. the big kids can integrate AI with their existing products and user data
In the long term, big kids win no? The big kids are also going to have an easier time with hardware at scale too
"but for some reason life is better in EU" citation needed
[dead]
[flagged]
It's telling that the measure of quality of life you use in this comment is entirely materialistic in nature. I also challenge the idea that US provides 'access to better medical care', as it is pretty well documented that Americans spend more for lower quality care compared to similar developed countries.
I believe this cultural divide is a big reason America won't make it back to the top - insatiable desire for wealth and a lack of values-based principals. Ironically US companies are the first to tout their 'values' in the workplace.
> I believe this cultural divide is a big reason America won't make it back to the top
What top are you referring to?
We're in a thread about a US company announcing its new $30B fundraise from a group of elite US growth investment funds arguing about whether this company will be able to overthrow the $4T US tech behemoth and suggesting that all the other US tech behemoths are actually stifling progress.
Seems like you’re in a thread about people’s quality of life and talking about giant mega corps’ big money. Has it been trickling down yet?
If you are in the bottom 30% of earners, the EU is better.
If you are in the top 30% of earners, the US is better.
And the top 1% get to have fun on a private island.
> bigger cars
I gotta say, I found this one especially funny as I currently don't have a car and that's actually my biggest luxury: being able to go around without one and no spending time in commute.
> more food
Yeah, so I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but as a European who visited the US, your food is definitely not something I would use as an example of your QoL.
You went to the wrong parts and ate the wrong things.
I used to live in Paris for a spell and the food here in San Francisco is better. California has some of the freshest and best local produce in the world. If you eat at real restaurants (not McD), and intentionally buy fresh food (which is available at normal grocery stores too) then you're getting great quality food. I think there is much better access to a variety of foods, of suitably high quality, and the variety of cuisines at restaurants is laughably incomparable. The prices are definitely higher, but the median income in SF is significantly higher, so I think it may still be a smaller % of salary for most people.
For some reason people associate fast food and junk as "American" and then extrapolate that as what typical American diet is. Maybe there are parts of the US that are much poorer and with worse access to food distribution, but I'd assume that rural and impoverished Europe is the same.
In the current age everyone can eat everything everywhere, apparently there are even people who fly their bread everyday from France to New York. So when we talk about food in some place, its usually about the general practices and not the possibilities.
For example the food in London is shitty even if you can find some of the best restaurants there. The problem with London is that you can't fit those restaurants into your daily routine, the default is a sad meal deal from Tesco or something.
Yes and unlike London, the default in many parts of America are great.
To your last point, the answer is probably much different in China
I have a friend who needs a medication that costs more than 30,000$ a year. Here in Canada it is 100% covered by our government health insurance regime. In the USA he would be bankrupt (or dead).
Here in Canada if I have an accident i do not have to worry about being bankrupt if the ambulance brings me to the wrong hospital.
I am really not enthusiastic about the so-called superior quality of life some US-ians like to boast about.
> In the USA he would be bankrupt (or dead)
Why? I live in the US. I have the best healthcare coverage in the world. I pay absolutely nothing for it, ever. No matter the cost. And I have access tot he best doctors, innovations, and technology in the world.
Tell me again why your friend would be dead? It sounds like you really have a poor understanding of American health care.
I suppose you work... and have an employer who pays for your extraordinary insurance?
>As measured by prosperity life in the US is better; the poorest US state has a higher GDP per capita than most western European countries.
GDP per capita/prosperity is a poor proxy for quality of life. The US is lagging most of the developed world in most quality of life metrics, even as reported by US news outlets, which don't rank the US in even the top 20: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/quality-...
>Americans have bigger houses, more food, bigger cars,
The size of one's house or car is at best weakly-correlated with quality of life. I would rather not own a car at all and be able to walk everywhere, rather than spend hours of my life commuting in a gigantic SUV.
>bigger salaries, and access to better medical care and schools if they've got an okay job.
The US ranks the lowest in the developed world for life expectancy, and among the highest in obesity globally (obesity being a major determinant of health). The US remains the only developed country where an unlucky dice roll (e.g. genetic-linked cancer) will bankrupt you and destroy the livelihoods of your children.
This is not the flex you think it is.
Keep in mind there are two Americas, a wealthy one and a not wealthy one; someone posting on HN is likely in the former bucket, and not juggling a retail job and doing Uber on the side while being unable to afford healthcare.
I'm not sure even wealthy America is better off. They might have their $3M mansion in a nice town but it will still have no sidewalks, be 2 miles from school, and an hour from major city center.
I don't know where you've gotten the idea that wealthy Americans spending $3M on their homes can't have sidewalks or live near major city centers. It's a big country, so there's lots of places that don't have sidewalks or aren't near a city. But any wealthy American who wants those things can easily get them without making compromises.
(The school thing I'll grant you, although in a car-centric country a school 2 miles away often takes like 5 minutes to get to.)