You make it sound like the main reason Europe still doesn't have a viable Google/FB competitor is the fact that their citizens have access to Google/FB.
I have a strong feeling that it might not be the case at all, given that Russia also has access to Google/FB, and yet they have their own viable and massively popular competitors (Yandex for Google, VK for Facebook).
> You make it sound like the main reason Europe still doesn't have a viable Google/FB competitor is the fact that their citizens have access to Google/FB.
This sentence seems wrong on multiple levels. One it implies that Europe has been trying to build competitors and failing. Europe hasn't been, Europe has been trying to tax and control Google and Facebook. Which they've been doing rather well.
It implies that Europe can't build these. Which is really messed up since both those companies have multiple offices in Europe. And that both those companies are largely built by non-us born people.
It fails to understand or at least tries to frame away from the value a site like Facebook has, which is its user base. Even for it's users the value is the other users. Nearly everyone is on Facebook, even if they don't use it regularly.
> I have a strong feeling that it might not be the case at all, given that Russia also has access to Google/FB, and yet they have their own viable and massively popular competitors (Yandex for Google, VK for Facebook).
Facebook got into its dominant position not because other countries didn't have viable competitors. It's that all the competitors were bought up by companies that ran them into the ground.
Russia like China is a country that doesn't aim to be best friends with the US and has propaganda to boost it's own countries offerings, while actively trying to build its own offerings. Russia has more investment into its own services. The US also has lots of investments into offerings from the US. While Europe doesn't really match up. And there isn't even really a specific EU silicon valley competitor, London and Berlin both seem to be in the mix.
My original point is, if Facebook and Google aren't there, there would be a replacement extremely quickly. The revenue these companies make show it's clear there is value in building these service and if the current providers don't exist other companies will want to take that revenue. The technical know-how of how to build these is there. The desire and a realistic chance of success of competing with established companies are not.
