EU probes SAP over alleged software support stranglehold

The European Commission has launched a formal investigation into SAP's behavior in the aftermarket for maintenance and support services in Europe. Following a preliminary investigation, the executive branch of the European Union said there were grounds to consider whether the enterprise application behemoth may have distorted …

[ParlezVousFranglais]

While I don't necessarily agree with SAP's practices, the EU needs to remember that with SAP's competitors primarily being US big tech, publicly threatening to hamstring its most significant success story in that space is hardly the best way to improve EU self-sufficiency. Another case of EU tick boxes being more important than common sense.

[IGotOut]

So the answer to being shafted by US companies is to be shafted by an EU one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, hugely preferable to US dominance as that regime decends into a fascist dictatorship that nobody can rely on.

Not a business risk to take as AI and personal privacy are owned by the tech bro oligarchs.

While SAP has AI intentions, they will be subject to GDPR and future regulation.

[Kraft]

Weird logic when tech is concerned.

The idea that EU self-sufficiency requires tolerating abusive licensing practices is not only misguided; it’s dangerous.

True sovereignty in tech doesn’t come from shielding dominant players from scrutiny; it comes from fostering fair, transparent, and competitive ecosystems. If SAP’s licensing model is exploitative or obstructive, then addressing that isn’t “hamstringing success", it’s laying the groundwork for sustainable innovation.

Moreover, framing regulatory oversight as a threat to self-sufficiency ignores the fact that unchecked monopolistic behavior is precisely what undermines resilience. The EU’s goal shouldn’t be to protect its prominent tech firm blindly, but to ensure that its success doesn’t come at the cost of user rights, interoperability, or market fairness.

Tick boxes aren’t the problem; abuse disguised as strategic necessity is. Common sense means recognizing that long-term strength comes from principled governance, not from enabling the very practices that stifle competition and lock in dependency.

[Tron]

Choose the LEGO option.

Build your own. Most business software is a mix of tailored Works components with interaction added. If you are a multinational, you should have produced your own software (and considered selling it to others). Failing that, there are likely to be much cheaper alternatives to everything you use as individual applications. It is the easiest way to knock a fortune off your overheads in the long term.

Convenience has hidden risks. Placing your balls on someone else's chopping block with SaaS and the cloud is like renting instead of buying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Choose the LEGO option.

Wildly misjudgement of how hard building enterprise applications are and the long term cost of application management. Of course you're free to believe what you will but the record of enterprises efforts to build not buy show otherwise. This site is full of examples where building fresh or on a package like SAP or Oracle can go horribly wrong.

Best of luck with your claim..

[vtcodger]

Industry Standards

... SAP ... argues it is in line with industry standards

The industry has standards? Who knew?

[IGotOut]

Re: Industry Standards

Yes, to fuck their users over as much as they can get away with.