Web Summit quits Dublin

MadsL

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

2010? You've been holding on to that one...

Is that related to the Web Summit, or are you just pointing out failed tech start ups?

More pointing out the 100 grand thrown at grand ideas with no followup or accountability, no surprise then that Ireland becomes less attractive to tech startups.

The Digital Hub is another grand idea adrift with no accountability, basically a heavily taxpayer funded landlord operation now folded into Dublin City Council so that it doesn't have to publish an annual report on how badly it was managed this year, or last year or the year before.

Edit: They did publish the 2013 report detailing a 50k loss, down from the 150k loss in 2012.

Tiddlypeeps

MadsL wrote: »

More pointing out the 100 grand thrown at grand ideas with no followup or accountability, no surprise then that Ireland becomes less attractive to tech startups.

The Digital Hub is another grand idea adrift with no accountability, basically a heavily taxpayer funded landlord operation now folded into Dublin City Council so that it doesn't have to publish an annual report on how badly it was managed this year, or last year or the year before.

Edit: They did publish the 2013 report detailing a 50k loss, down from the 150k loss in 2012.

Are you suggesting the government shouldn't put money into trying to create jobs? Or that IT was a bad place to put it?

Also I hate to break it to you, 100k is a drop in the bucket. You should take a look at what EI hands out and most of those companies fail too. They probably rarely make a profit too, but their objective isn't to make money, it's to create jobs. I could be wrong but I think that's the digital hubs goal too.

MadsL

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Are you suggesting the government shouldn't put money into trying to create jobs? Or that IT was a bad place to put it?

Also I hate to break it to you, 100k is a drop in the bucket. You should take a look at what EI hands out and most of those companies fail too. They probably rarely make a profit too, but their objective isn't to make money, it's to create jobs. I could be wrong but I think that's the digital hubs goal too.

The Digital Hub doesn't create jobs beyond the overpaid management. Payroll in 2013 was over €1 million.

The Digital Hub is a landlord for office space. I'd ask you why taxpayers should subsidise poor management of office space?

As to a drop in the bucket, DHDA got a €250 million starting grant, took an major hit of a €39m property investment hit in 2011, a loss of €2.7m in 2009 and a loss of almost €42m in 2010. and the only result of a Govt review of its activities was to dump it into DCC control where there is now no transparency on its finances.

Last year a further €40 million of Govt money was thrown at DHDA to create amongst other things a student housing property investment.
Edit: This was a private investment not Govt investment, so basically the DHDA selling off assets. The DHDA is frankly nothing more than a heavily disguised boom-era property speculator.

There is nothing especially attractive to start-ups in the rents they charge which are actually often ahead of commercial rents.

Whilst there is some merit in the redevelopment of historical buildings at the site, they have strayed often down the path of foolish overambition resulting in some heavy expenditure on vanity building projects that had little to offer in the way of job creation sustainability or assistance to start-ups. in addition, many of the buildings on Thomas Street and environs owned by DHDA are in a criminal state of neglect and disrepair, almost all of them Protected Structures.

Tiddlypeeps

MadsL wrote: »

The Digital Hub doesn't create jobs beyond the overpaid management. Payroll in 2013 was over €1 million.

The Digital Hub is a landlord for office space. I'd ask you why taxpayers should subsidise poor management of office space?

As to a drop in the bucket, DHDA got a €250 million starting grant, took an major hit of a €39m property investment hit in 2011, a loss of €2.7m in 2009 and a loss of almost €42m in 2010. and the only result of a Govt review of its activities was to dump it into DCC control where there is now no transparency on its finances.

Last year a further €40 million of Govt money was thrown at DHDA to create amongst other things a student housing property investment. The DHDA is frankly nothing more than a heavily disguised boom-era property speculator. There is nothing especially attractive to start-ups in the rents they charge which are actually often ahead of commercial rents.

Whilst there is some merit in the redevelopment of historical buildings at the site, they have strayed often down the path of foolish overambition resulting in some heavy expenditure on vanity building projects that had little to offer in the way of job creation sustainability or assistance to start-ups. in addition, many of the buildings on Thomas Street and environs owned by DHDA are in a criminal state of neglect and disrepair, almost all of them Protected Structures.

I haven't been following the scene for a while now, but the Digital Hub's goals used to be to create an affordable space for start ups to grow in order to create jobs. And it worked for a long time. I know one company, (who are sadly gone now) that wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the Digital Hub that went on to employ about 100 people, the operated for about 6/7 years before they shut down. Back of the envelope calculations say that during that time those employees alone went on to pay at least 10m in PAYE probably closer to 20m, plus all the other taxes the company would have paid with regards to actual sales and profits. That one company well paid back the tax payer for the subsidised rent it received in it's first year and cover that of many others. And that's just one example of a company that ultimately failed. You can't track the success of these things in just how much money the Digital Hub themselves are taking in, you need to look at the tax revenue raised from the companies that ultimately go on to be successful.

It's quite possible the company is now rotten to the core and is no longer operating efficiently (or maybe it never was), but the concept of providing subsidised rents to start ups at it's core can a pretty effective way of generating jobs and therefore tax revenue. It only takes 1 successful company to cover the costs of many failed ones.

Do you disagree with the concept of the government spending money on encouraging start ups?

I'm not going to touch the property speculation stuff as I have no idea about it and I have no idea how government funded property speculation is even remotely relevant in a thread about the tech industry

Tarzana2

ricardo1 wrote: »

I would say that's one of the reasons but the real reason is Dublin's poor public transport infrastructure.

The RDS doesn't have the infrastructure for the attendance they're looking for and a nearby luas/metro DART station to get people back to their hotels.
People last year were complaining about having to wait in the rain to get a taxi or having to get on a bus to get into town in rush hour.

Pat on the back DCC current and previous governments for a capital city of buses and taxis as its main form of public transport.

There's a DART station really near the RDS. And Dublin bus lays on the most regular bus services in the city for the Dublin 4 area

Kermit.de.frog

Tarzana2 wrote: »

There's a DART station really near the RDS. And Dublin bus lays on the most regular bus services in the city for the Dublin 4 area

What good is the DART if you are coming from the airport? Country is run by gombeen country TD's that don't give two hoots about the capital, only their own seats and voters. Not that many of the natives do either but anyway. It really is a disgrace the way Dublin is run and managed. A national embarrassment that has us on a par with Newcastle, Hull or Sheffield instead of the capital of a modern country.

It is not even the big things Dublin does not get right - it's the simple things.

the dark phantom

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What good is the DART if you are coming from the airport? Country is run by gombeen country TD's that don't give two hoots about the capital, only their own seats and voters. Not that many of the natives do either but anyway. It really is a disgrace the way Dublin is run and managed. A national embarrassment that has us on a par with Newcastle, Hull or Sheffield instead of the capital of a modern country.

It is not even the big things Dublin does not get right - it's the simple things.

Newcastle and its surrounding area have a transport system light years ahead of Dublin. Not too familiar with the other cities.

johnnyskeleton

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

wow, major blow to Dublin as a "tech capital".


no doubt this is mostly due to the embarrassing broad band wifi service provided last year by the RDS which really riled the organisers.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0923/729704-web-summit/

Maybe im too much of a luddite but the only thing i know about that event is that every year all my single female friends find their tinders going crazy as hordes of horny tech savvy young gentlement storm into town.

Theyre like the Russian Navy coming to town!

Tarzana2

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I'd say that 20m in ticket sales pales in comparison to the company buying up exhibition space.

I went a few years ago, it was a bit sad. A bunch of desperate start ups chasing around a bunch of indifferent VC's. The VC's are only there so they can fight each other over the 1 or 2 start ups that actually look like they are going somewhere. The rest is just advertising from the already successful companies trying to sell their wares to the desperate start ups with the promise it will help them become successful. Unfortunately tho if you are in that space you have to be seen to be taking part in that type of thing.

HBO's Sillicon Valley does a great job of parodying the type of knob ends that surround this type of thing.

Sad to lose it all the same, it was a decent money spinner for the economy. I worry this a sign of early cracks forming in the tech sector here. It's becoming very expensive to operate here and for most companies it's only really worth it because they can make it up in the savings from the corporation tax.

Yeah, attracting companies based on a low corporation tax rate has always struck me as precarious.

Tarzana2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What good is the DART if you are coming from the airport? Country is run by gombeen country TD's that don't give two hoots about the capital, only their own seats and voters. Not that many of the natives do either but anyway. It really is a disgrace the way Dublin is run and managed. A national embarrassment that has us on a par with Newcastle, Hull or Sheffield instead of the capital of a modern country.

It is not even the big things Dublin does not get right - it's the simple things.

Simply correcting the poster who said there was no DART station nearby.

Never understand people getting their knickers in a twist about the airport. It's not even very far away compared to other cities

MadsL

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I haven't been following the scene for a while now, but the Digital Hub's goals used to be to create an affordable space for start ups to grow in order to create jobs. And it worked for a long time.

It was set up with the aim to have 2000 jobs housed at the Hub. In 2006 there were 500 employees at the Hub, in 2007 - 740, In 2008 - 857 people, 2009 - 840, 2011 - 800. Today there are approx 700 jobs - well short of the target in 10 years of existance.

I know one company, (who are sadly gone now) that wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the Digital Hub that went on to employ about 100 people, the operated for about 6/7 years before they shut down. Back of the envelope calculations say that during that time those employees alone went on to pay at least 10m in PAYE probably closer to 20m, plus all the other taxes the company would have paid with regards to actual sales and profits. That one company well paid back the tax payer for the subsidised rent it received in it's first year and cover that of many others. And that's just one example of a company that ultimately failed.

What did the Hub do for them other than charge commercial rate rent? Seriously, if the Hub didn't exist then surely that company would have still started, boomed and perhaps not failed.

You can't track the success of these things in just how much money the Digital Hub themselves are taking in, you need to look at the tax revenue raised from the companies that ultimately go on to be successful.

Companies whose success is probably not attribrited to the Hub.

It's quite possible the company is now rotten to the core and is no longer operating efficiently (or maybe it never was), but the concept of providing subsidised rents to start ups at it's core can a pretty effective way of generating jobs and therefore tax revenue. It only takes 1 successful company to cover the costs of many failed ones.

The rents are not subsidised, numerous companies, including one I worked for, moved out because the rents were overpriced and there was little advantage other than some misguided cachet in a Digital Hub address. Vanity money being charged basically.

Do you disagree with the concept of the government spending money on encouraging start ups?

No, I don't. But I don't think paying 187k a year to the Chair of a board to be a landlord is a sound basis for spending that money, nor allowing them to try and build Trump Towers on the land with taxpayers money is a wise use of such funds.

I'm not going to touch the property speculation stuff as I have no idea about it and I have no idea how government funded property speculation is even remotely relevant in a thread about the tech industry

It is relevant because the money thrown at DHDA has largely been spent on vain attempts to create a mini Manhatten on the site, which wisely ABP rejected as unsustainable planning.

Recent planning documents from 2013 show that the DHDA has not given up its primary function as a property development agency

The Digital Hub
The Digital Hub has 9 acres of brownfield sites on both sides of Thomas Street close to St James’ Gate. DHDA have a 10 year development plan in place that will target investment through sale of some sections of the site to fund development on others.

The idea that the DHDA are in the business of subsidising startups is a smoke and mirrors trick.

Pac1Man

No more Eva Longoria?

kippy

Streetwalker wrote: »

Big blow for Dublin and another indication of the weakness of the "recovery".

How do you link the two?
To add, this move is completly down to profit margins for the business that runs the event and Ive no issues with that.
As for all the other reasons trotted out here you will find that dublin manages to cater for major events on a regular basis.

FloatingVoter

€35m is the loss. The World Scrabble Championship would bring in similar. With less fuss. As usual with anything web based its smoke and bull****. Those hotel rooms and bar bills will be taken up by tourists who actually own things other than refused credit cards and bad manners.

deisedude

I know a few people who have worked for Paddy and while they are all in agreement he is a very smart man they all said he was a nightmare to work for.

His tactics seem to be to scare and intimidate suppliers to drive the price down until he gets his way. Looking for money from the government by threatening to leave Ireand eventhough his private event is raking in cash is just the latest example in a long list.

I've attended Web Summit and the conference is all style over substance. I attended for the markting sessions and I took absolutely nothing of value from last years event. Sales pitches and buzz words were the order of the day.

Having worked for and attended international events across a number of different countries its not uncommon for the wifi to go down when thousands of nerds using multiple devices try to access it at the same time. However that doesn't excuse throwing your toys out of the pram, going on stage and complaining that its someone elses fault

Aoibhinn_C

If you think about it most of the biggest websites like Facebook and Google have headquarters in Dublin anyway so why do they need to have a summit to see each other anyway. Maybe they moved it over to Portugal because they just wanted a little sunshine after the piss poor summer we've had...

Tiddlypeeps

MadsL wrote: »

What did the Hub do for them other than charge commercial rate rent? Seriously, if the Hub didn't exist then surely that company would have still started, boomed and perhaps not failed.

Companies whose success is probably not attribrited to the Hub.

The rents are not subsidised, numerous companies, including one I worked for, moved out because the rents were overpriced and there was little advantage other than some misguided cachet in a Digital Hub address. Vanity money being charged basically.

I dunno about these days but back then rents in the Hub were way cheaper than commercial rates. It's possible the company I mentioned would have gotten by regardless but they came pretty close to the wire cash flow wise multiple times in the early days so it's impossible to say for sure.

Still not really sure what the whole property speculation thing has to do with anything but either way it's not my area of expertise so I can't comment.

MadsL

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I dunno about these days but back then rents in the Hub were way cheaper than commercial rates. It's possible the company I mentioned would have gotten by regardless but they came pretty close to the wire cash flow wise multiple times in the early days so it's impossible to say for sure.

Still not really sure what the whole property speculation thing has to do with anything but either way it's not my area of expertise so I can't comment.

All I can say to you is that the company I worked for moved out of the Hub because the rents were poor value.

Perhaps you can answer my question, even though you have no "expertise" in property speculation - should taxpayers be funding speculation by an "agency" supposedly set up to assist start-ups?

The status of some of those start-ups is suspect anyway...Etsy, Amazon, Eventbrite??

PARlance

Really bad call on their behalf.

A lot of the success of it was down to the fact that it was a good excuse for a p1ssup, and no better place than Dublin. The Summit itself was all frills and no knickers. Can't see half the crowd attending by Yr2. It'll be a dead duck by Yr3.

Reiver

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

They may have just seen this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057497217

All this time I thought I was doing good on boards I was in fact serving the dark side

Eoin

I was at last year's one (courtesy of work) and found it completely useless and dull. No wonder everyone was trying to connect to the internet all day. It wasn't worth a drive across town, let alone a flight to Lisbon. I doubt many attendees really got much out of it - and smaller and more relevant & focussed events will and are already filling the vacuum where needed.

Anyway that's beside the point - this news doesn't mean that Dublin is not a place to do business, technology etc. It just means that we're not a city for large conventions.

The places that can cater for the numbers he wants to get to are absolutely massive, and often in the arse end of nowhere where you won't get a train from the airport any easier than you would in Dublin.

I've been to a few in the US that can hold about 6000 in the one room, and the buildings are several hundreds of thousands of square footage (about twice the size of IKEA in exhibition/meeting space alone). One in Vegas where it was a 20 minute walk from my room to the convention room, and that was without leaving the building. And there were a few internet issues too - but we just got on with it.

I don't know if there's really much shame in saying that we're just not set-up for that kind of thing. A lot of the comments here just sound like that strange compulsion to moan about ourselves and the country.

The 100m figure sounds a bit high - was it broken down at all? That's over 4.5K each for 22,000 attendees, unless my maths is terrible. That's more than what SalesForce estimated that their "Dreamforce" event was worth to the local area, with 130,000 attendees.

FloatingVoter

^ A lot of the kids coming over will have been inflating their expenses and bigging themselves up. They know they'll be back flipping burgers in Boise when the killer app sinks. So anybody saying the spend was 100m is like the cops talking about the street value of their drugs seizures. "Not on the street where I buy my drugs" as Sgt. Gleeson reminded us.

Sunnyisland

When news of the Web Summit's decision to leave Dublin for Lisbon started to surface, many people assumed it must be for big bucks. €5m? €10m? How much had Portugal promised to prise away an event so indelibly linked with Dublin away?

€1.3m. And that was it.

In other words, it wasn't a lack of state funding that got the Web Summit to ditch Dublin. It was Dublin itself.
Company organisers have long griped about the capital's creaking infrastructure, rollercoaster hotel stock and lack of transportation.
Yesterday, they finally acted on it.

The Web Summit was moving away, said the company's official statement,"for our attendees to get the best experience possible".
Decoded, that means no gridlocked streets around suburban venues. It means no hoteliers who jack prices up from €75 to €600 for the week of the conference. And it means no more worrying about getting people around the city on time.

Instead, the Web Summit will now have a sparkling convention facility that can host up to 50,000 people. It will have a venue that has a metro stop all to itself. And it will have an event that's not located in the middle of a residential neighbourhood.
In fairness, there is an alternative explanation. The Web Summit may have simply outgrown Dublin. After all, what used to work as a boutique event designed as a charming antidote to regular conferences is closer to being the original global thing now. Pub crawls down narrow streets with Bono may no longer be a substitute for fibre-backed wifi.

So maybe it's time for the Web Summit to find a bigger home where it can accommodate its ambition. For many, it's a shame that Ireland can't be that home.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/its-not-you-its-us-why-web-summit-ditched-dublin-for-modern-lisbon-31554024.html


If the above is true it is a shame .

BoJack Horseman

realies wrote: »

no gridlocked streets around suburban venues. It means no hoteliers who jack prices up from €75 to €600 for the week of the conference. And it means no more worrying about getting people around the city on time.

It is annoying that Dublin is the only city with traffic & exploitative hotel prices.

Wompa1

A very non-technical tech conference. Seemed more like a big circle jerk...better off without it.

kippy

realies wrote: »

When news of the Web Summit's decision to leave Dublin for Lisbon started to surface, many people assumed it must be for big bucks. €5m? €10m? How much had Portugal promised to prise away an event so indelibly linked with Dublin away?

€1.3m. And that was it.

In other words, it wasn't a lack of state funding that got the Web Summit to ditch Dublin. It was Dublin itself.
Company organisers have long griped about the capital's creaking infrastructure, rollercoaster hotel stock and lack of transportation.
Yesterday, they finally acted on it.

The Web Summit was moving away, said the company's official statement,"for our attendees to get the best experience possible".
Decoded, that means no gridlocked streets around suburban venues. It means no hoteliers who jack prices up from €75 to €600 for the week of the conference. And it means no more worrying about getting people around the city on time.

Instead, the Web Summit will now have a sparkling convention facility that can host up to 50,000 people. It will have a venue that has a metro stop all to itself. And it will have an event that's not located in the middle of a residential neighbourhood.
In fairness, there is an alternative explanation. The Web Summit may have simply outgrown Dublin. After all, what used to work as a boutique event designed as a charming antidote to regular conferences is closer to being the original global thing now. Pub crawls down narrow streets with Bono may no longer be a substitute for fibre-backed wifi.

So maybe it's time for the Web Summit to find a bigger home where it can accommodate its ambition. For many, it's a shame that Ireland can't be that home.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/its-not-you-its-us-why-web-summit-ditched-dublin-for-modern-lisbon-31554024.html


If the above is true it is a shame .

Decoded the organisers make more money. If only they'd be honest enough to admit it.

sabat

realies wrote: »

It means no hoteliers who jack prices up from €75 to €600 for the week of the conference.

And where does he think the knowledge and technology that enables hoteliers to perfectly judge supply vs demand and maximise rates comes from? That's right- computer applications-programs and companies that probably advertise at events just like the Web summit. When someone like Uber does this it's fine though cos they're like disrupting old industries and stuff... If he thinks this won't happen in Lisbon he's in for a bit of a surprise.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It is annoying that Dublin is the only city with traffic & exploitative hotel prices.

Pretty sure this is meant sarcastically, but it's also actually true compared to cities of similar size.

Dyr

realies wrote: »

When news of the Web Summit's decision to leave Dublin for Lisbon started to surface, many people assumed it must be for big bucks. €5m? €10m? How much had Portugal promised to prise away an event so indelibly linked with Dublin away?

€1.3m. And that was it.

In other words, it wasn't a lack of state funding that got the Web Summit to ditch Dublin. It was Dublin itself.
Company organisers have long griped about the capital's creaking infrastructure, rollercoaster hotel stock and lack of transportation.
Yesterday, they finally acted on it.

The Web Summit was moving away, said the company's official statement,"for our attendees to get the best experience possible".
Decoded, that means no gridlocked streets around suburban venues. It means no hoteliers who jack prices up from €75 to €600 for the week of the conference. And it means no more worrying about getting people around the city on time.

Instead, the Web Summit will now have a sparkling convention facility that can host up to 50,000 people. It will have a venue that has a metro stop all to itself. And it will have an event that's not located in the middle of a residential neighbourhood.
In fairness, there is an alternative explanation. The Web Summit may have simply outgrown Dublin. After all, what used to work as a boutique event designed as a charming antidote to regular conferences is closer to being the original global thing now. Pub crawls down narrow streets with Bono may no longer be a substitute for fibre-backed wifi.

So maybe it's time for the Web Summit to find a bigger home where it can accommodate its ambition. For many, it's a shame that Ireland can't be that home.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/its-not-you-its-us-why-web-summit-ditched-dublin-for-modern-lisbon-31554024.html


If the above is true it is a shame .

The hotels were charging 600 smacks for a room. My god, you could buy a ticket to the web summit with that sort of money :rolleyes:

Anyone who says they can find good hotel accommodation in dublin for 70 lids is talking a load of balls

I'm amazed the government has'nt built a conference centre with dart link and zeppelin sized ego landing pad just because paddy cosgrave threw his rattle out of the pram

jem hadar

What was the actual point of the Web Summit?