BBS: TELESC.NET.BR Assunto: Europe, US Big Tech reach breaking point De: Mike Powell Data: Mon, 4 May 2026 10:17:08 -0500 ----------------------------------------------------------- Europes relationship with US Big Tech has reached a breaking point Date: Mon, 04 May 2026 08:50:34 +0000 Description: It starts with upgrades. It ends with losing control of your own systems OPINION Europe has a problem with Big Tech. And it's not abstract, theoretical, or something policymakers can quietly debate for another decade. It's happening right now, inside banks, hospitals, transport systems and government departments that cannot afford to fail. A handful of US technology vendors now sit underneath Europe's most critical IT infrastructure . They decide when systems change, how much they cost to run, and what happens when something breaks. This is masked as progress. In reality, it's dependency and, in some cases, outright coercion. Toms O'Leary Social Links Navigation Founder and CEO of Origina. Amazon , Microsoft and Google control more than 70 per cent of the European cloud computing market, while US firms supply the vast majority of enterprise software used across the continent. When those vendors change their commercial models, customers don't get a vote. They do receive an invoice. This is no longer about IT preference. It's about control. The part no one likes to say out loud For years, the software industry has pushed a simple story: change is good, upgrades are inevitable, and moving on a vendor's timetable is the price of staying "modern." That narrative has been repeated so often that many organizations have stopped questioning it. But look closely, and a different picture emerges. A stable system reaches the end of official support. The vendor announces a major upgrade or cloud migration. Licensing terms change. Costs rise. Security risks are quietly reframed as the customer's responsibility, unless they move. Each step is presented as reasonable in isolation. Together, they form a funnel with only one exit: deeper lock-in. At that point, this stops looking like a competitive market and starts to resemble a cartel. Customers technically have choices, but exercising them would mean rebuilding core systems under pressure, with limited internal expertise and no room for downtime. Vendors know this. That's why they push so hard. I've sat across the table from CIOs who are told their perfectly stable platforms are now "legacy" overnight. I've spoken to boards facing seven-figure cost increases because a licensing model changed, not because their needs did. That's leverage, masked as innovation. When dependency becomes dangerous Technology failures aren't new. But the concentration of risk is. Today, many organizations run critical operations within tightly integrated vendor ecosystems: cloud, databases , middleware, and core applications sourced from the same small group of providers. If one part fails, everything downstream feels it. We've seen this play out repeatedly. A European travel company running tens of thousands of servers was pushed into a forced migration that would have increased cost and carbon emissions overnight. Instead, by stepping off the vendor's upgrade treadmill, it extended the life of its systems, avoided tens of thousands of tons of CO, and kept full operational control. In another case, a media organization discovered that a core encryption standard had been deprecated, not because it was unsafe, but because it no longer aligned with a vendor's product roadmap . The choice presented was stark: rebuild fast or pay indefinitely. We developed the new standard into the existing system. They maintained compliance, avoided the disruption, and freed up resources for work that actually mattered. These aren't edge cases. They're the logical outcome of a market where too much power sits on one side of the contract. That's why boards are now asking different questions about what systems they run, who controls them, and what leverage they've given away over time. How lock-in quietly took hold Vendor lock-in didn't arrive with a single bad decision. It crept in through decades of reasonable ones. Software estates evolved through mergers, upgrades, integrations and bolt-ons. Contracts were signed under very different market conditions. Licensing language grew more complex as vendors consolidated and alternatives disappeared. Over time, visibility was lost. Few organizations today can clearly map what they run, which components are mission-critical, and which obligations are contractual rather than technical. This suits vendors. Environments that aren't fully understood are easy to control and hard to challenge. This is why the sovereignty debate matters. It's not about nationalism or rejecting US technology. It's about whether customers are allowed to make rational decisions about their own systems or whether those decisions are pre-made for them. The baseline every CIO needs Nobody is suggesting a mass exodus from Big Tech tomorrow. That's both unrealistic and unnecessary. What is necessary is a reset. The first step is clarity. Organizations need a true baseline of what they run, how it's used, and where contractual constraints are driving decisions. Without that, every renewal conversation is reactive. Once that baseline exists, options reappear. Some organizations renegotiate contracts that were signed when the balance of power looked very different. Others choose to extend the life of stable systems instead of replacing them on an arbitrary timetable. Software doesn't lose its value simply because a vendor says it should. Stability and reliability don't expire on a policy date. Recognizing that restores choice. Taking back control Across Europe, CIOs are already pushing back, and with data on their side. They're entering renewal discussions with clear usage insight, a realistic view of operational risk, and defined red lines on cost and control. They're turning forced upgrades into negotiations. They're refusing to be passive. The result won't be a sudden rupture with Big Tech. But the relationship is beginning to rebalance. Customers who understand their systems, question inherited assumptions, and stop equating vendor pressure with progress will regain leverage. Those who don't will keep paying for change that serves someone else's bottom line. Europe's technology future doesn't depend on choosing the right vendor. It depends on whether customers remember they're allowed to say no, and have the courage to do it. This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives , our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today. The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit Link to news story: https://www.techradar.com/pro/europes-relationship-with-us-big-tech-has-reache d-a-breaking-point $$ --- MultiMail/DOS * Origin: Capitol City Hub (1:2320/105) ----------------------------------------------------------- [Voltar]