[newswasboring]

I have a general impression they are not interested too much in individual devs and making it suite their workflow. They want to be a B2B company and deliver a custom workflow per company.

Or it can just be a Google like problem where a big company one part doesn't talk to the other.

[soco]

But wouldn't winning devs be a neat helping point in winning b2b contacts? Or they think golf courts are enough for success? Okay they might be right here, but still they make it so confusing for no obvious reason.

[MidnightRider39]

In my experience devs rarely have anything to say in B2B contracts. At best they can recommend a solution to the decision maker, but in almost all deals i was a part of they didn’t have any influence on the final decision. I wish it were otherwise but alas

[yunwal]

In my experience, this is only true at large companies (say, >200 employees). Which means the large companies of the future will all be taking their business elsewhere.

[lelanthran]

> But wouldn't winning devs be a neat helping point in winning b2b contacts?

How? The largest providers that are trying to win devs are locked in a competition to get the devs to continue using the models for free!

The best way to win B2B contracts is to solve the problems that plague business, not those that plague devs. The devs are fickle, have no stickiness and will jump providers to the next free provider, to self-hosted, etc.

Selling to business using Mistral's approach is, I feel, just a good business plan.

"Giving away some credits for free, then making a loss on subscribers" is an absolutely terrible business plan.

[newswasboring]

To me it's obvious because the size of companies they are targeting (ASML being an obvious one). I think golf course marketing works well in the EU context when decisions are being made not purely on tech reasons.

[sofixa]

> I think golf course marketing works well in the EU context when decisions are being made not purely on tech reasons.

It's not like b2b sales is more technical merit based, individual contributor led, elsewhere.

It's always the same, depending on the field individual contributors can have some flexibility on picking tools (so a developer in a mid sized company would be able to pick whatever, an accountant probably would be more constrained, meanwhile a developer at a big bank would not have any choice). But for strategic software choices, that impact the whole company, where standardisation makes sense or is even mandatory to get actual value out of it, you need to sell to high level decision makers, not individual contributors. A CTO or a VP of X can decide to buy and mandate the implementation of something as impactful, workflow changing and potentially time and money saving as a company wide AI platform. A dev can't.

[wqaatwt]

> being made not purely on tech reasons.

As if that’s not true in the US (not just government contracts but VC in general as well)…

[R0m41nJosh]

As far as I understood the French president is pushing French most valuated companies to use Mistral. There can't be a more to down strategy :)

[philipallstar]

Also EU protectionism itself might be enough.

[hermanzegerman]

Where is EU protectionist?

I feel we are way less protectionist than most other Economic Regions. Including the USA, which are very protectionist but always claim otherwise

[brabel]

Well different discussion, but look at the Mercosur agreement and all the opposition from farmers in the EU. They are extremely protectionist when it comes to agriculture, at least.

[hermanzegerman]

Yes the farmers are a very vocal and powerful minority.

They get more than 50% of their income from subsidies, are quite well off, but always find a reason to complain.

I was thinking more about stuff like "Buy American"-Regulations for public tenders. Stuff like that doesn't exist here

[prmoustache]

Well I can certainly understand them. Based on price tgey would not be able to compete and have half decent living wages so protectionism AND subsidies is a decent strategy to maintain local production which I feel allow a country / area to not lose a lever in international negociations.

[philipallstar]

Well, if every big company gets a giant EU fine for, say, preinstalling a web browser in an OS, except for EU companies, that could make it easier for the EU companies.

[sofixa]

Every company would get fined for anticompetitive behaviour, regardless of where are based.

[wqaatwt]

Well yes, but because there are approximately zero EU tech companies that can be affected by these fines and regulations there is very little political pushback against them.

In a certain sense it’s a way for EU to clawback at least a small slice of all that money flowing to the US.

[pembrook]

Apparently you aren't aware of the EU's deep regulatory protectionism and subsidies at both EU and country level. A small portion is legitimately about protecting consumers, but ultimately this stuff is all designed by and for EU industry.

Basically all economic regions get highly protectionist when it comes to key areas like agriculture, banking, steel production, energy, automotive manufacturing, etc.

On tariffs, the US is now higher, but tariffs are a tax that passes through overwhelmingly onto the consumer (by like 95%+). Given there's essentially no fully domestic US manufacturing supply chains and the US imports everything, it's a defacto VAT from the perspective of the consumer. The EU has VAT levels that are still much higher than the average US tariff level, which is a essentially a dampener on consumption.

[hermanzegerman]

But the VAT applies to all goods regardless where they are produced. So that's not a protectionist measure

[victorbjorklund]

Like American protectionism? Heck, America even prohibits its own companies to sell to the government if the president doesn't like them enough.

[kioleanu]

you might be correct. for example, they have an intellij plugin that allows integration without the AI Assistant, but it is only available for Enterprise customers