In December 2024, Russia’s communications authority, Roskomnadzor, blocked access to major foreign technology platforms — including Google, YouTube, Telegram, and WhatsApp — in regions such as Dagestan, Chechnya, and Ingushetia. These tests were part of Russia’s broader effort to develop a “sovereign internet,” ensuring domestic control over digital infrastructure in the event of global disconnection.
At the same time, the US has intensified export controls to restrict access to critical technologies. Since February 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has imposed strict measures limiting Russian and Chinese access to semiconductor technologies, AI chips, and other dual-use components. These restrictions aim to curtail military and surveillance capabilities and recently hit the headlines when China’s new Deepseek R1 large language model was reported to be trained on Nvidia’s H800 GPUs, which are an export modified version of the widely used and allegedly more powerful H100 chip.
Beyond these geopolitical tensions, digital sovereignty is also shaping procurement policies. Germany, for example, has enacted legislation known as OZG 2.0 (Onlinezugangsgesetz or Online Access Act), which requires government agencies to prioritize open-source software and reduce reliance on non-European IT providers. While framed as a security measure, this shift signals a growing preference for regional digital self-sufficiency — a trend that could expand in scope.
As technology leaders, we sometimes have to ask ourselves “what if the worst happened”, rather than “what would we like to happen”. That question is the inspiration for this research. The relationship between Europe and the US remains strong, but what if it were to shift? If economic or political strains led to tariffs, export restrictions, or even — however unlikely — a Russian-style internet disconnection, how reliant are European companies on American technology?
The simple answer that I discovered: very. Almost every organisation relies on Microsoft or Google for email. Most search with Google, sell with Salesforce, and work on Macs, iPhones, Dell laptops, and Android devices. We use Notion and Slack to collaborate. Our cybersecurity is safeguarded by firms like Okta, Palo Alto and CrowdStrike. Many of the best workplace technologies in the world are built by teams with US HQs.
For small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), these geopolitical shifts raise important questions about vendor dependency, resilience, and technology risk mitigation. This study explores whether a viable non-US workplace technology stack exists and how it compares in usability, cost, and integration with existing workflows.
So, what if that access to US tech was suddenly cut off? Could European businesses still function in a world without American technology?
That’s the question I set out to explore.
The research that I intended to carry out aims to examine the feasibility of assembling a workplace technology stack without reliance on US-based software and hardware. The objective was to identify alternatives suitable for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), focusing on user experience, security, and interoperability.
Key findings
- A viable non-US software stack is achievable, with strong alternatives such as ProtonMail (Switzerland) for email, Atlassian (Australia) for collaboration, and Xero (New Zealand) for accounting.
- The non-US tech stack is comparative in cost to a US-tech stack; for similar components, the non-US stack that I selected cost £47 per user per month, splitting the difference between Google based stack (£36) and a Microsoft based stack (£58)
- Avoiding US-based hardware is significantly more challenging. While Lenovo (China) and Fairphone (Netherlands) provide alternatives, most components (CPUs, GPUs, networking chips) remain dependent on Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm.
- Zoho (India) was evaluated as a consolidated alternative, offering deep integration but with trade-offs in flexibility.
The research confirms that while a US-free software ecosystem is possible, hardware supply chains remain dependent on US-designed components. There is also likely to be a strong supply chain dependency on the three US based hyperscale providers; Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS. For European companies hosting on these platforms, it may be possible to move to a European equivalent (like France’s OVH Cloud), but there would likely be considerable effort to remove the hyperscaler specific technology (like AWS’ S3, or Azure’s Fabric).
The Objective
The goal of this experiment was to construct a comprehensive workplace technology stack that excludes all US-based software and hardware while maintaining usability, scalability, and security for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs).
This required evaluating laptops, phones, operating systems, communication tools, productivity software, security solutions, and infrastructure — all sourced from Europe, Latin America, Canada, EMEA or Asia Pacific.
This study aimed to evaluate whether a viable non-U.S. workplace technology stack could be assembled for SMBs. To assess its effectiveness, the selected stack was systematically compared to the Seeto Stack — a curated selection of workplace tools based on Microsoft and Google suites, provided by Seeto (full disclosure, I’m a co-founder). This comparison examined functional capabilities, cost differences, and key trade-offs between commonly used U.S.-based technology stacks and their non-U.S. counterparts.
How I went about this
Establishing Scope
This study focused on workplace technology rather than server or cloud infrastructure. The evaluation prioritized core areas including hardware, collaboration tools, security solutions, communication platforms, and business applications. To ensure relevance for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), enterprise-scale tools were deprioritized. Additionally, software solutions were preferred in a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model rather than downloadable or installable applications.
Identifying Key Categories
To structure the evaluation, workplace technology was divided into four primary categories:
- Hardware — including laptops, phones, and networking equipment.
- Software — covering operating systems, office tools, security, collaboration platforms, customer relationship management (CRM), business intelligence (BI), and automation tools.
- Security and Infrastructure — consisting of VPNs, mobile device management (MDM), and identity management solutions.
Technology Selection & Elimination Process
Each category was populated with global technology solutions that met the non-US criteria. The evaluation process considered several factors, including headquarters location, suitability for smaller businesses, feature set, usability, market adoption, compliance with security/privacy regulations and ease of integration. Solutions that failed to meet these criteria were excluded.
A common challenge during this process was identifying companies that were originally founded outside the US but had since relocated their headquarters to the US (e.g., Pipedrive, Freshworks). Such tools were excluded from consideration.
Findings & Outcomes
While a non-U.S. software stack is achievable with strong alternatives, significant trade-offs exist, particularly in user experience, supply chain dependence, and integration complexity. These limitations highlight why U.S.-based technology continues to dominate in many areas.
The final non-US workplace tech stack consists of a combination of solutions from the UK, EMEA, APAC, and Canada, which have been chosen based on their suitability for modern SMB workforces. A selection of commercial and Open Source solutions were found to be the most appropriate in this review.
The high level findings include the following selections:
Hardware & OS
- Lenovo (China), Ubuntu (UK), FairPhone B.V. (Netherlands), /e/OS (France).
Collaboration & Communication
Office & Productivity
- ONLYOFFICE (Latvia), Pitch (Germany)
Security & Infrastructure
- 1Password (Canada), Scalefusion (India), Bitdefender (Romania).
Business Applications
- Xero (New Zealand), Mistral AI AI (France), Qwant (France), Count (UK)
I also discovered that by utilising the full suite of products from India-based Zoho , an alternative stack could easily consolidate multiple business functions into one unified ecosystem, reducing vendor complexity. This would provide an SMB-friendly tech stack with deep integration across tools.
Supply Chain Complexity
While it is theoretically possible to construct a fully US-free business technology stack at the software level, hardware remains deeply intertwined with US-based supply chains. Key semiconductor manufacturers such as Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm dominate the market, making it difficult to source essential laptop and smartphone components without reliance on US technology.
Although alternative chip manufacturers (such as MediaTek, Samsung Exynos, and RISC-V) offer potential substitutes, they come with significant limitations in terms of performance, availability, and software compatibility. While the findings of this research successfully minimizes U.S. software dependence, achieving full independence at the hardware level would require a fundamental restructuring of the global semiconductor industry — a shift that remains improbable in the near future
While we have demonstrated that it’s possible to build a tech stack that has no obvious reliance on US based businesses, it would be hard to propose that it was preferable.
Two things became obvious in the course of this research; first that it is very difficult to replace US technology, especially when considering the full supply chain — semiconductors and hyperscale cloud providers are probably the most obvious examples. Second, it demonstrates just how widespread US-based technology is, and that Europe and the UK have few compelling alternatives for critical components of their workplace technology infrastructure.
The workplace technology stack that we have selected here does, at a broad level, cover the same capabilities as a tech stack made up of Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Slack and others. However for the end user, and indeed the IT administrator, the experience would not match up. While several of the tools that we have selected are excellent, there is a massive benefit from user familiarity with the popular tools, the strength of the ecosystem and the tightness of the integration within tools themselves. Google Workspace has an excellent user experience that is hard to replicate. Microsoft 365 has incredibly close integration between tools, and extremely high adoption.
Perhaps strangely, one of the hardest tools to replace was also one of the simplest: Excel — with Google Sheets off the table, the only real alternative was Libre Office, which doesn’t have a comparable online mode (Only Office was selected, but the user experience may lack and finance professionals will fight to the end to keep their Excel licence).
With that said, Zoho deserves special mention, offering a wide range of high quality tools which would capably replace many US alternatives. It wasn’t in the spirit of the research to simply adopt Zoho as a single solution, and so we have offered an alternative ‘Zoho stack’, but gone on to offer a complete stack made of component non-US parts.
This research also evidences just how significant the opportunity is for more competition in these areas, and specifically for competition that comes from Europe and the UK. Whether it’s commercial software, or stewardship of open source projects (as Canonical have done), there is a compelling reason for entrepreneurs and investors in the UK and Europe to build a more competitive, and stronger market.
For small and medium businesses, this research underscores the reality that while a non-U.S. technology stack is possible, it involves compromises in integration, user experience, and long-term viability. Organizations evaluating vendor independence should weigh the trade-offs carefully, balancing sovereignty concerns with operational efficiency and supportability.
Have more suggestions to add? Leave a comment!
The full report, including the complete list, vendors that didn’t quite make it, and a cost analysis is available here: [Link]