This is how giants quietly take over. A dangerous phenomenon is deepening.

• Is it possible to run a business without the services of big tech? According to Sylwia Czubkowska, author of the book "God of Tech," it's difficult. And big companies have deliberately created this situation.
• Technology companies build influence through, among other things, relationships with decision-makers and acquiring smaller competitors to extinguish their products.
• The WNP interlocutor argues that it is worth looking for alternatives, especially for cloud services or artificial intelligence, where large companies do not yet have full dominance.
• Czubkowska warns that large companies today are investing in AI skills training to gain this advantage. The mechanism is simple: to encourage employees to use "free" tools, thus reducing their enthusiasm for exploring other solutions.

What operating system are you using?

- It depends on where. On my computer I'm on iOS, on my phone I have Android.

How is it that a journalist who wrote a book about the dominance of tech companies uses their systems?

- Because it's hard to break free from them. I even have an experiment in the book's conclusion in which I tried to completely disconnect from big tech services and products.

It turned out to be so difficult for me to work that I had to stop. Without the products and services of big tech, there aren't many options left. Sure, you could buy a "dumb phone," but at work, I simply need efficient and reliable equipment that supports the programs I use.

When I started writing the book, I thought it was possible to somehow cut myself off from these ecosystems. Today I know that this attempt was doomed to failure.

How to become independent from big tech services in everyday life?

Game over?

- Exactly. We can always look for replacements for some solutions, giving up those we don't really need.

What did you give up?

- From the part that doesn't serve me for work. For example, I trimmed streaming platforms because I noticed that streaming had become a bigger problem for me than social media.

I spent more and more time on them and realized that it was my way of curing sadness or fatigue – watching episode after episode. I had five or six platforms, and I was still dissatisfied because they offered nothing. Today, I have two services left, one of which is included for free in my contract with my internet provider. The other is hard for me to part with, but for reasons unrelated to its content.

What do you mean?

"The thing is, this service is tied to Amazon, which I heavily use to buy books abroad. It's one of the ways big tech companies lock users into their ecosystems. Amazon offers that when users join their Prime service, they not only get TV series but also free shipping from the store. The store, on the other hand, is efficiently organized because it handles the customs payment process for the user when ordering from outside Europe."

However, I found two alternative bookstores. I placed my orders a few days ago and am waiting for deliveries. If everything works out, I'll give up on Amazon.

How did the digital monopolies of the largest technology companies come into being?

How did it come to be that it is so difficult to find alternatives?

"I believe this is deliberate. We still think we have a huge selection of services and options, but in reality, it's very limited. Phone operating systems? In the West, two are used. The situation is even worse with document circulation within companies and institutions. Companies create gardens with high fences for their services, where users may feel comfortable, but the entrance is heavily guarded . The same applies to the exit. This deepens the phenomenon of oligopolization of the digital market."

What was the process like to achieve this? The service package wasn't initially so limited.

The companies behind these services have built financial power, so they have vast resources for investment and market capture. Furthermore, they create such an atmosphere around their products that it seems that all other alternatives are weak and inconvenient, that searching for alternatives is like reinventing the wheel. If you don't want our products, you're a Luddite.

However, closed ecosystems limit innovation. And this is also a deliberate policy – the number of applications that Microsoft has closed is legendary. Skype, for example, recently suffered a similar fate. Why was it unprofitable for Microsoft to develop Skype, but it was profitable to introduce MS Teams?

Why?

"The history of Slack, which I describe in detail in the book, is quite telling. It was created by accident, a spin-off of a completely different project led by a young startup producing online games. Teams working in several different cities in Canada and the United States needed to communicate and connect with each other. The internal messaging app proved to be a great system for remote collaboration among small, flexible teams."

The service began to grow rapidly, but then Microsoft introduced Teams , immediately connecting it to the cloud, Azure. At that point, there's no way a smaller company, even one that had previously been successful, could achieve any significant market scale.

Slack, however, has broken away somewhat.

"Yes, because it filed a complaint with the European Commission, even though it's an American company. It concluded that it had a better chance of fighting for its rights in the European Union. The reality is, however, that the big ones are getting bigger because they already have a built-up mass and are able to implement solutions much faster. Smaller companies try to break through, but they quickly hit walls, so they merge with the largest ones or are acquired by them."

But it is precisely these smaller enterprises that are sources of innovation.

How do I remove pre-installed apps from my smartphone? It's deliberately made very difficult.

What else are companies doing to lock us into their ecosystems?

"For example, we have apps installed on the phones we buy. Getting rid of them is very difficult. Preinstalling the search engine is one of the reasons why the US initiated antitrust proceedings against Google . I don't think people should be forced to put in so much effort to look beyond the fence. It should simply be easier."

There was a time when you couldn't open Word files in another program.

"And no one can imagine that today. Interoperability between programs was also forced. And it still doesn't work perfectly. On the book, I collaborated with editors who used different programs than me, and it wasn't easy to retain all the comments and remarks."

We need regulations to enforce cooperation between ecosystems . Otherwise, companies will do everything they can to keep their consumers away.

Companies profit from the fact that by using their email, you'll also start paying for cloud storage. And they'll also keep the data, which means they learn about consumer behavior. You're an increasingly well-researched sales product. The point is to maximize profits.

How do you break away from the ecosystems of digital giants? It's very difficult for companies.

We're talking about consumers. But is it possible, as a business owner, to escape the ecosystem they offer?

"It's incredibly difficult. I've spoken with many decision-makers in companies. They've pointed out that it would sometimes be necessary to impose drastic decisions on a very large group of employees, related to their daily functioning. Of course, it would be possible, but it would impose enormous operating costs on the company—for example, due to a temporary drop in team productivity."

But unless you need to disentangle yourself from Excel, perhaps it's worth considering diversifying into cloud services. Or the AI tools currently being introduced? Big tech knows they don't have a complete advantage here and are doing everything they can to gain one.

For example?

Training. Large companies constantly organize training courses on cloud computing and AI. I'm convinced they're truly great. However, they also serve to convince people to use one product . Then, no one asks if the company could use another tool, because the team is so well trained in one.

Polish companies I talk to say they could compete with, for example, cloud hyperscalers. But they're not getting any orders.

Of course, they need collaboration with specific entities to scale. However, I also understand entrepreneurs who choose big tech companies because they have globally standardized cloud services, an international network of data centers, and large budgets for security.

I remember when the company where my team and I hosted the project website had its data center burn down. We were completely removed from Google because the algorithm didn't ask why we were absent. It simply limited our reach. On the other hand, another aspect will become increasingly important for companies: who has access to their data.

American intelligence agencies have access to Polish company data? Is this legally permissible?

And this is a matter of law that applies to companies.

We're used to the fact that the Chinese government can demand our data. But Americans are also allowing this to happen – this is a result of the introduction of the Cloud Act . It's intended to protect American security, but the result may be that companies will respond to US government requests in a way that doesn't necessarily guarantee the security of the individuals, companies, institutions, and countries storing data in their data centers.

A year ago I would have been more calm, but today I am less convinced by the volatility of these companies.

For example, blocking emails of judges of the Hague Tribunal?

There's no evidence that Microsoft did this on purpose, but the company isn't exactly denying it. The situation is unprecedented – a few weeks ago, the emails of judges at the Hague tribunal were suddenly disabled. This came just after Donald Trump spoke critically of the tribunal.

And I can no longer trust them to prioritize the rule of law of the countries in which they operate over their own interests.

Here we return to what can be done to free ourselves from the power of large companies.

I wouldn't place all the blame on entrepreneurs here, as they operate within the logic of budget calculations. But public institutions in Europe can regain much of the space . Denmark, individual German states, and Lyon in France are preparing to abandon the services of big tech companies. Some of them were developing their own services – a prime example is Potsdam, where the cooperation of the state, i.e., the local government, with private institutions led to the development of its own cloud for education.

Education in general is a process from which we can begin, attempting to rebuild true sovereignty. Because it isn't digitalized, this is the moment when we can build anew, investing in competencies. Because investing in human resources is more valuable than investing in licenses.

How to start building digital sovereignty? The best place to start is with the government.

Should the administration set an example?

Yes, I think so. And develop best practices. Of course, there will be setbacks in this process, there will be mishaps, and people will write on social media how hopeless it is. But it was exactly the same with mObywatel (mCitizen) and the Individual Patient Account (IPA). It took some time and work.

It was in an interview with you that Magdalena Dziewguć from Google said that why should we break down the door and let them digitize our healthcare system ? Well, no thanks. I'd prefer the government invest in digitization, because it will not only solve some specific problems but also teach us something.

But isn't saying such things simply the job of lobbyists? Which you explicitly name in your book. Because they usually do everything they can to avoid saying that word.

"Indeed. I devote part of my book to lobbyists; I've met many people throughout my career. For some, it's simply a job. Others are driven by attachment to the organization where they've worked for over a decade. Some of them don't acknowledge how these companies actually operate and the consequences of their development, locking themselves away in besieged fortresses. And there's another thing – they make great money there."

They are effective because they create a great atmosphere around them, operate in environments with broad influence – political and business. They build networks of contacts, ensuring that their contacts include high-ranking officials.

Is that enough?

- Once you're in the right place, it turns out you also have budgets that can be used for educational and social purposes, you have great relationships that you can use to help you in your career.

What's characteristic is that the people working there are very nice. They know how to blend in perfectly with the environments they work in, understand them, and make friends. Years later, I also see that what I sometimes took for signs of being nice to me was simply an act.

It's easy to fall into this trap—whether you're a journalist, a politician, or work for an NGO or a company. It's very easy to get lost and start acting the way they want you to.