Disclosure: I am the author of the linked article, published on the Arcentry blog.

I put together an overview of European cloud providers. A useful distinction is between three overlapping groups:

General-purpose clouds: OVHcloud, IONOS Cloud, Scaleway, STACKIT, and T Cloud Public offer broader combinations of infrastructure and managed services.

Infrastructure providers: Hetzner, Leaseweb, UpCloud, Exoscale, and Contabo focus more on the compute, storage, and networking building blocks. The boundary is blurry because some also offer managed databases and Kubernetes.

Hosting providers: companies such as Aruba and Infomaniak combine traditional hosting with broader cloud offerings.

The main tradeoffs are not just the VM price. Managed-service availability, regional coverage, independent availability zones, provisioning flexibility, and the operational work your own team takes on can change the comparison considerably. Using PostgreSQL, Kafka, or Kubernetes can make an application more portable, but someone still has to integrate and operate the stack.

For sovereignty, European ownership and European data residency are separate questions, as is dependence on another company's technology or operations. A European data centre address alone does not answer all of them.

Full guide and provider comparison table: https://arcentry.com/blog/a-simple-guide-to-europes-complicated-cloud-provider-landscape/

Last week I had a call with a former colleague working in a non tech company now. Her boss said "we bring all our IT services into the EU".
She wanted to talk with me about what options there are. I asked her "why do you want to bring the services to Europe in the first place", and she said "because of data protection and the orange man in murica".

Then she told me that they already switched from from Claude to Langdock, and from DocuSign to Swipesign,
And I was like "Hm, Langdock is an EU company, but all their subprocessors are from the US", after we checked swipesign and it was the same.

I explained her if the data is in Europe that's a great first step GDPR wise, but if their fears are "data protection" and "the orange man who can pull the plug" then using EU firms that run on US infrastructure makes littles sense (Augenauswischerei). Due to the US Cloud Act, agencies in USA can access also data that's European hosted, and if (in the very unlikely case) the US pulls the plug on all IT services, then using Langdock and Swipesign won't help you.

My suggestion for Sproof instead of Swipesign didn't work out cause apparently they don't have enough functionality yet, and suggestions for Dentrochat instead of Langdock also not cause they got no Enterprise plan yet, but I could show her some actual European alternatives.

She was like "wow you know, in my business area everyone always talks about that we should use European tools, but you're the first one who explained this thing about subprocessors".
I was pretty surprised, cause she's rather deep in tech and obviously interested in EU Tech, but I guess that many people don't understand this difference.

Just wanted to post this here cause browsing on reddit and other bubbles I felt like this is clear to everyone who wants to do "the switch to Europe" but apparently it isn't.

(Image was made with paint . js . org, made in Germany, hosted by Cloudflare)

Germany is working to strengthen its position in the global technology economy as competition intensifies among major industrial powers. Long recognised for its engineering expertise and manufacturing capabilities, the country is increasingly focusing on artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, automation and advanced technologies. These sectors are becoming important to economic growth as companies seek to improve productivity, develop new products and adapt to changing global markets. For Germany, the challenge is to build on its industrial heritage while creating an environment in which new technologies can develop and reach commercial markets.

Startups are playing an increasingly important role in this transition. Germany’s established industrial companies provide a strong foundation for innovation, while younger businesses bring flexibility and new approaches to areas such as software, robotics, financial technology and clean energy. Cities including Berlin and Munich have developed distinct startup ecosystems, connecting entrepreneurs with investors, research institutions and established businesses. However, the ability of these companies to grow internationally depends on access to financing, skilled workers and customers. Encouraging promising startups to expand beyond the domestic market will remain an important part of Germany’s efforts to strengthen its technology sector.

Investment is central to turning technological potential into long-term economic value. Venture capital, corporate partnerships and public funding can help businesses move from early-stage research to commercial production and international expansion. Germany nevertheless faces challenges in ensuring that innovative companies can secure sufficient growth capital and navigate complex regulatory requirements. Competition from the United States and Asian markets has also increased the pressure on European technology firms to scale more quickly. Stronger links between universities, research centres, investors and established manufacturers could help close the gap between technological development and commercial application.

Artificial intelligence offers Germany an opportunity to connect its industrial strengths with emerging digital capabilities. Its manufacturing base creates potential applications in automated production, predictive maintenance, logistics and advanced engineering. These uses may allow companies to improve efficiency while developing specialised solutions for international customers. Realising this potential, however, requires investment in computing infrastructure, data systems and workforce skills. It also depends on cooperation between technology developers and the industries expected to use their products, ensuring that research translates into practical improvements across the economy.

International cooperation is becoming another important consideration as technology businesses seek investment, expertise and access to new markets. Germany’s industrial companies and startups can benefit from partnerships that connect European research and engineering with growing demand in other regions. Across the Gulf, for example, investment in digital infrastructure and artificial intelligence is creating new opportunities for international technology firms. The UAE is part of this wider development, with its business environment and connections to regional markets offering a potential point of entry for companies looking to expand beyond Europe. Such links reflect a broader shift in which technology investment increasingly follows opportunities for collaboration, market access and long-term commercial growth.

Germany’s future competitiveness will ultimately depend on how effectively it combines industrial experience with entrepreneurship and technological innovation. Supporting startups, improving access to investment and encouraging the adoption of advanced technologies could help create new industries while strengthening existing ones. International partnerships will also remain important as companies navigate an increasingly interconnected global economy. By creating better conditions for innovative businesses to grow and compete internationally, Germany can reinforce its industrial foundations while adapting to the demands of a rapidly changing technological landscape.

The MDR was sold as a patient safety law. In practice it has become a serious brake on medical innovation in Europe, and the people paying for it are patients and the clinicians trying to help them.

A few things I see from inside a university hospital:

An Excel sheet can need certification. If a clinician builds a spreadsheet that takes weight and lab values and suggests a dose, that is software informing a therapeutic decision. Under Rule 11 it lands in class IIa or higher. That means a notified body, a quality management system, technical documentation, clinical evaluation and post-market surveillance. For a formula that fits in one cell.

Hospitals can't innovate. The in-house exemption in Article 5(5) looks like a way out, but you have to show that no equivalent product exists on the market, run a QMS, document everything and publish a declaration. Most hospitals have no regulatory function for this, so the safe choice is to do nothing. Tools that clinicians build to fix real problems end up in a grey zone or get shut down.

Legislative capture. The rules reward whoever can afford regulatory departments, consultants and long notified body queues. Large incumbents absorb the cost. Startups, SMEs and academic groups can't. A framework only big players can survive ends up protecting big players, and an entire consultancy and certification industry now depends on the complexity staying.

Europe gets innovation last. Products leave the EU market, startups launch in the US first, and clinicians fall back on mental arithmetic and paper notes instead of validated tools. Safety looks better on paper while care gets worse in practice.

The Commission's simplification proposal shows Brussels knows something is broken. Until low-risk clinical software and hospital-built tools get a proportionate path, we will keep paying for safety theatre with patients' time.

Two years ago, Mario Draghi warned that Europe faced a "slow and agonising death" unless it fixed innovation, energy and security and delivered a massive plan of 383 recommendations to save the EU economy. So how much has Europe actually implemented? In this video, we do a reality check using Draghi Watch data: only 3.7% of innovation recommendations have been fully implemented, European industries still pay roughly double US electricity prices, and while defence spending hits a record €454 billion, just 11% of procurement is done jointly. From the Savings and Investments Union and Europe's €10 trillion in bank savings to venture capital gaps and Eurobonds, what should Europe prioritise to finally compete with America?

I’ve been curious about waste management in Europe. For those working in the industry, what do you think is the biggest problem that still needs solving, and is there a real opportunity for someone to start a business in this space?

Nvidia just doubled down on Europe, minority stakes in four French AI companies and a fresh $2B commitment on top of the $8B already deployed. Huang and Macron also aligned on open source and AI safety.

On October 24, AWS will run a test where its European Sovereign Cloud operates without relying on the AWS global private network.

Traffic will go through European providers, and the system handling controlled transfers of operational data outside the EU will be switched off.

What I find interesting is that AWS is going beyond just saying its cloud is independent. They're actually putting it to the test, with technical evidence that customers and regulators can assess.

There's been so much discussion about what cloud sovereignty really means in Europe. Seeing it tested in practice, rather than just described in documentation, is a pretty important step.

Germany is planning an AI partnership with Nvidia covering robotics, autonomous vehicles and industrial AI models, Reuters reported on October 15, citing Handelsblatt. The German government had not commented at publication.

The interesting tension: Germany wants stronger European digital sovereignty while working with a major US technology supplier.

My take: a partnership could build European capabilities, but the terms matter. Who controls the models, can companies switch suppliers, and what expertise stays in Europe?

What would make this a genuine step toward technological independence rather than deeper dependence?

Source: Reuters, via CNA — October 15, 2026

From their LinkedIn page:

RATLOG is building Europe's next heavy lift launch vehicle - engineered around an engine capable of generating extreme thrust levels that current European launchers can't match.

That thrust capacity opens up a new class of missions: large satellite constellations, orbital transfer vehicles, cislunar transport - payloads that today have no European launch option.

We're currently at engine prototype stage, with our first test coming up in August 2026. First commercial launch: 2030.

Our customers are constellation operators, OTV builders, and anyone who needs serious lift capacity and a European alternative to the current market.

What’s the point of going for EU hosted platforms that spout privacy if the US can just do this?

Lithuanian startup Holo raised €5 million in seed funding, Tech.eu reported on October 15. Its platform turns a business website into a marketing plan, then creates ads, emails and social posts for review and publication.

For a small business, the appealing part is having fewer disconnected tasks to manage. My test would be simple: does it reduce weekly marketing work without increasing corrections or wasted ad spend?

The funding alone cannot answer that.

Would you let AI publish campaigns automatically, or keep approval over every post and ad?

Source: Tech.eu — October 15, 2026

There’s a lot of confusion about what the EU AI Act means for firms deploying AI agents (software that takes actions, not just answers questions). The Digital Omnibus delay made it worse, because delayed gets read as nothing applies. Here’s my attempt at a map of what applies now and what doesn’t.

Already applying

• AI Act, Art. 4 (AI literacy): firms must take measures to support the AI literacy of staff who work with AI systems. The Omnibus softened this in July from “ensure a sufficient level” to “support the development of”.
• AI Act, Art. 50 (transparency), since 2 Aug 2026: if an agent talks to customers, they must be told it’s an AI (unless that’s obvious). This is about disclosure, not oversight or logging.
• GDPR, Art. 22: individuals have rights around solely automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects (e.g. a loan refusal), including human intervention and the ability to contest. GDPR Art. 30 (records of processing) also applies as before.
• DORA, since Jan 2025: financial entities must manage ICT risk, report major incidents, test resilience and manage third-party ICT providers. An agent running on a third party’s cloud or model API is within the third-party part.

Not yet applying

• AI Act high-risk obligations (risk management, logging under Art. 12, human oversight under Art. 14, deployer duties). The Digital Omnibus moved the Annex III date to 2 December 2027. Credit scoring of individuals and life and health insurance pricing are in that category. Many agent use cases (support, internal automation, fraud detection) are probably not high-risk at all, so check classification before assuming the heavy rules apply.

The gap that matters in practice

No EU rule yet requires general technical controls that block agent actions before they execute. The Art. 14 oversight and intervention requirements for high-risk systems arrive in December 2027, and until then GDPR Art. 22 gives customers rights over solely automated decisions. But DORA and GDPR already mean that if something goes wrong, you may need to show what happened, why, and who was responsible. Firms that wait for the AI Act deadline may find they have to retrofit controls onto systems already in production.

The sovereignty question I’d like opinions on

Many agent stacks depend on US-hosted model APIs and cloud platforms. For EU financial firms, DORA’s third-party and concentration-risk rules, plus GDPR’s limits on data transfers, are real constraints. I think they push toward options that run inside the firm’s own infrastructure or at least with a European provider, but I’m not sure how many firms treat this as a hard requirement versus a nice-to-have.

Questions:

1. If you work in EU finance or compliance, are agents already being classified under the AI Act, or is it still on the backlog?
2. Is “data stays in our own infrastructure” a hard requirement in your procurement, or negotiable?
3. Have I got anything wrong or missed an obligation?

This is my reading, not legal advice, so please correct me where I’m off. I work on tooling in this area, so I have a bias.