Breaking up with Big Tech (gently)
We cannot live without Microsoft
There is one statement we encounter repeatedly in both public and private sectors: “We cannot function without Microsoft.”
Why anyone would place themselves in such a poor negotiating position, we do not know. Telling your supplier “we have no alternatives” is not a procurement strategy, it is surrender.
The real question is not whether Microsoft is useful. It obviously is.
The question is: When does dependency become too expensive, too risky, or too strategically limiting?
And that point connects to something larger.
Europe behaves as if it has no options
Across cloud, AI, operating systems, productivity tools, and enterprise software, Europe relies
overwhelmingly on US platforms. The dominance is not subtle. In most categories, American providers
control 80 to 90 percent of the market.
This creates a familiar pattern:
We talk about sovereignty, but buy accordingly to habit.
We discuss alternatives, but treat them as unrealistic.
We act as if choice is theoretical rather than practical.
Europe does have options. It simply does not use them.
Learn how Exfluency supports sovereignty in practice >>>
Breaking up is not the point. Balance is.
Debates about “breaking up with Big Tech” often collapse into an all-or-nothing scenario. Either you stay inside the US ecosystem completely, or you are expected to throw out every device you own and retreat to a solar-powered hut with a fair-trade router.
Reality is more mundane and far more important. Roughly 80 to 90 percent of the tech used across Europe is American. That level of dependence affects everything from our economy to our negotiating leverage.
Shifting even to a 70–30 split between US tech and European or open source alternatives would strengthen European sovereignty overnight.
Seventy–thirty is not a revolution. It is a rebalancing. And it is achievable.
See how Exfluency helps organisations diversify their tech foundation >>>
Change should not be painful. The right systems remove the friction.
People often describe platform-switching as a heroic struggle. Move away from an iPhone. Leave Meta. Try an alternative cloud stack. The narrative is always the same: too hard, too messy, too much effort.
It does not have to be.
Yes, habits are comfortable. But, at the same time, discomfort should not be the price of sovereignty. The right tools make alternatives viable. The right architecture makes transitions bearable. And the right design decisions mean you can choose European and open source technologies without sacrificing efficiency, quality, or convenience.
This is precisely why Exfluency exists. We have done the hard work so clients do not have to. You can use the models you prefer, keep the ones that work, switch the ones that do not, and maintain full control of your data throughout. No drama. No cliff’s edge.
Choice only becomes difficult when vendors remove it.
Explore how Exfluency TRANSLATE lets you pick your model, not your maste >>>
Where Exfluency stands
At Exfluency, we push for model choice, data ownership, and open ecosystems. Not because it sounds progressive, but because it is the only rational way to avoid lock-in.
We have built our platform around this principle for years. AI agnosticism, model choice, and data
ownership are not marketing lines. They are structural decisions. Clients decide which models they want, and they can change them. That is sovereignty in practice.
What AI agnosticism looks like in real life >>>
If you want to reduce dependency without disrupting your entire organisation, we can help. Contact us to explore what optionality looks like in practice.
