This is a gross oversimplification and wrong. There are different types of investors, and only a few make it into the news, among those are the ones you are mentioning.

Europe will never be China.

This is what we all hope.

The expected whataboutism.

the country that actually is providing solutions to those problems: China

China heavily depends on fossil fuels to ‘provide solutions to those problems.’ If we rely on China, it gets worse. China is the world’s top emitter of CO2. A third of global emissions is produced in China (second is the US with 12%, India below 8%, while the EU ranks fourth with 6.5%).

Since 2000, emissions in China have increased by +260%. In the EU emissions the decreased by -30%.

China’s own five-year plan provides evidence that consumption of fossil fuels in thecountry will rise by 2030.

I’m dissatisfied with a lot of European politics, but framing China as a solution is complete fantasy. China is worse by any comparable standards. Environmental and social norms exist at best on paper while the ruling Chinese Communis Party’s one and only goal is its self-preservation at all human and ecological costs.

Switching between the systems would also require new terminals and supporting equipment, complicating efforts to replace existing services.

This is what you get if you use proprietary stuff instead of Open Source.

It’s the usual foreign interference by the bully disrespecting international law.

It is important to note that Gigaset is a German company, but since 2024 it is owned by V-Tech based in Hong Kong.

This is good, of course, I just hope that sovereign cloud spending doesn’t include thd so-called “European Sovereign Cloud” by firms like AWS and the like as it was the case in the past.

The subsidies in China for its companies go well beyond everything we do (or have done ) in the West.

A good way to observe this is, for example, when we compare Chinese and Western car manufacturers which are producing within China. Even in the country, Chinese car firms receive a lot more direct state aid by all comparative standards. Between 2019 and 2002, Tesla’s reported state aid was 2% of net income, and no grants since 2023 (European car markers’ grants were even lower than Tesla’s), while BYD’s subsidy income were 265 of net income in 2024 and 35% in 2025.

The gap between Western and Chinese producers is much larger if Western firms produce at home.

Another way Chinese carmakers lower costs: they ‘outsource’ costs to their suppliers. BYD has even created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which it issues “e-debt certificates" which means the company stands outside the law (there is a Negotiable Instruments Law in China in principle, but it doesn’t matter to all companies). According to company reports for the years 2023 and 2024, BYD took an average of 155 days to pay suppliers, Geely 149 days, and Leapmotor even 225 days.

Western carmakers paid their suppliers much sooner - Tesla withing 60 days, Volkswagen in 43 days, and 41 for Toyota in 41 days.

Chinese companies also benefit from below-market borowings (below the China Prime Loan Rate), and they receive preferential access to cheap land to build their factories (especially if and when there are good connections to the party).

And this is a TINY sample of what happens. Comparing Western and Chinese subsidies doesn’t make sense. It must clearly be said that under Western subsidy schemes, Chinese carmakers would have long been bankrupt.

Edit: I didn’t mention that whenever you buy a China-made car (from a Chinese or non-Chinese brand), you risk to buy a car made by forced labour. We must not forget this.

Usually the European tech that becomes popular is after they get bought by a US company

This is true, but only because they are bought at a very early stage. These are start-ups when being acquired.

What Europeans could not build quickly for themselves, due to a thicket of regulations, they often imported just as quickly from abroad….

Skype was a very successful European company that was acquired by Microsoft (and then shut down to promote MS Teams, a product that is much worse). Mojang Studios, famous for its online game Minecraft, is a Swedish product also acquired by Microsoft. DeepMind was acquired by Alphabet/Google from its UK founders.

The list of European companies that have eventually been acquired by U.S. big tech is very long. What Europe lacks in my humble opinion is a sense of sovereignty, meaning we need to make sure that our stakes are protected and not just sold out abroad. We needs more laws to protect this sovereignty (similar to those in the U.S. and China).

I also agree with other views here like @masterspace@lemmy.ca’s remark that American firms are underregulated, but this is something Europe can hardly influence. But Europe should enhance regulation to make sure that technology developed on the continent isn’t given away.

I strongly disagree with the article in that sense. There is a lot of homegrown EU tech, Mastodon being another example.

No, they aren’t. But there is a community here that permanently promotes this and similar anti-European sentiment.

You may include https://opentalk.eu/en as a video conferencing tool, for e-commerce there is https://particl.io/, and for AI there is https://minerva-ai.org/en. The first two are German, the latter is Italian.