<p>Een paar jaar geleden keek niemand op van een chatbot die draaide op servers in Californië. Nu krijg ik die vraag steeds vaker:</p><p><strong>"Is dit wel AVG-proof?"<br />"Kan ik dit blijven gebruiken?"</strong></p><p>De wereld is veranderd. En als je in het mkb werkt, voel je dat inmiddels ook. Niet omdat je iets verkeerd doet—maar omdat de regels strakker worden en het speelveld geopolitiek is geworden.</p><p>In dit artikel: waarom Europese chatbots straks de norm zijn, en hoe je daar als mkb’er slim op kunt voorsorteren.</p><h2 id="1-chatbots-zijn-geen-speeltje-meer">1. Chatbots zijn geen speeltje meer</h2><p>AI-chatbots zijn in korte tijd volwassen geworden. Ze nemen klantvragen over, filteren leads, doen intake, zelfs recruitment.</p><p>Maar naarmate ze belangrijker worden, wordt ook de vraag urgenter:<br /><strong>Wie ziet die data? En waar staat die chatbot eigenlijk?</strong></p><blockquote>🇺🇸 De VS ziet data als strategisch goed.<br />🇪🇺 Europa ziet data als iets wat beschermd moet worden.</blockquote><p>Daar zit een botsing, en jij zit ertussen als gebruiker.</p><h2 id="2-de-realiteit-steeds-meer-beperkingen">2. De realiteit: steeds meer beperkingen</h2><p>Wat verandert er concreet?</p><ul><li><strong>AI Act</strong>: Europese wet die regels stelt aan ‘hoog-risico AI’, maar ook transparantie eist bij bots die met mensen communiceren.</li><li><strong>DSA &amp; AVG</strong>: Je moet kunnen uitleggen wat je chatbot doet, waar data blijft, en hoe iemand zijn gegevens kan laten verwijderen.</li><li><strong>Overheidsklanten</strong> en semi-publieke sector stellen al strengere eisen.</li></ul><blockquote><strong>Case:</strong> Er zijn overheidsprojecten waar je <em>geen</em> ChatGPT of Amerikaanse AI-diensten meer mag inzetten. En dat sijpelt door.</blockquote><h2 id="3-wat-betekent-dit-voor-jouw-chatbot">3. Wat betekent dit voor jouw chatbot?</h2><p>Stel: je gebruikt een tool als ManyChat, Intercom, Drift of een custom ChatGPT-oplossing. Dan werk je met infrastructuur en/of AI-modellen die buiten de EU draaien.</p><p>Dat hoeft geen ramp te zijn—maar je moet er rekening mee houden:</p><ul><li>Je moet uitleg kunnen geven over dataverwerking</li><li>Je moet het contractueel kunnen borgen (verwerkersovereenkomst)</li><li>Je loopt het risico dat het over een jaar niet meer mag in jouw sector</li></ul><p>Daarom is het slim om nu al te kijken naar alternatieven.</p><h2 id="4-europese-alternatieven-hoe-goed-zijn-ze-echt">4. Europese alternatieven: hoe goed zijn ze echt?</h2><p>Er is lang geroepen: “de Europese AI-tools zijn niet goed genoeg.”<br />Dat verandert.</p><ul><li><strong>Aleph Alpha</strong> (DE): krachtige modellen, Europese focus</li><li><strong>Silo AI</strong> (FI): bouwt LLM-oplossingen op maat, o.a. voor overheid</li><li><strong>Deeploy</strong> (NL): beheersbare AI-services voor gevoelige toepassingen</li><li><strong>Mistral</strong> (FR): open modellen, verrassend snel en efficiënt</li></ul><p>Voor mkb-oplossingen zie je ook tools als <strong>Flowstorm</strong>, <strong>Botpress</strong> en <strong>Chatlayer</strong> opkomen. Die geven je meer grip op data én voldoen makkelijker aan EU-eisen.</p><h2 id="5-wat-kun-je-nu-doen">5. Wat kun je nu doen?</h2><p>Je hoeft niet direct alles om te gooien. Maar voorsorteren helpt.<br />Kijk bijvoorbeeld naar:</p><ul><li><strong>Waar draait je chatbot technisch gezien?</strong></li><li><strong>Wie heeft toegang tot de data?</strong></li><li><strong>Is er een alternatief dat hetzelfde kan, maar lokaal?</strong></li><li><strong>Kun je nu al kiezen voor een tool die schaalbaar én compliant is?</strong></li></ul><p>Zelfs als je bij je huidige tool blijft, kun je documentatie en afspraken alvast op orde brengen.</p><h2 id="slot-van-afhankelijk-naar-vooruitkijkend">Slot: van afhankelijk naar vooruitkijkend</h2><p>De tijd dat je als mkb’er “gewoon maar iets koos wat werkte” is voorbij.<br />Chatbots zijn volwassen geworden. De wereld ook.<br />Nu is het moment om je digitale infrastructuur te bouwen op basis van waarden, compliance én praktische bruikbaarheid.</p><blockquote>Niet uit angst voor boetes. Maar omdat je dan klaar bent voor wat er komen gaat.</blockquote>

<h2 id="notes-from-the-edge-of-building-with-llms">Notes from the edge of building with LLMs</h2><p>I am all in on large language models as cognitive amplifiers. I use them to think, to structure, to explore, to write. That part feels natural to me. What I have never been particularly drawn to is using them as coding tools. Programming has always felt like a different craft. Adjacent, interesting, but not where I naturally place my attention.</p><p>And yet, over the past months, that boundary has become harder to ignore. Not because I suddenly wanted to become a developer, but because clients started asking different questions. They see headlines about “AI eating code”. They see demos racing past on LinkedIn. And they wonder whether they are missing something important.</p><p>So I decided to explore. Not to reskill, but to orient myself. To understand what is actually changing, where agency now sits, and what is realistically accessible to people who are curious, but not intent on becoming software engineers.</p><p>What follows is not a survey. It is a short field note, guided by my own steps.</p><h2 id="standing-near-the-edge-of-coding">Standing near the edge of coding</h2><p>I have never really been a coder. I know enough to follow along, to collaborate, to get something running from <a href="https://github.com/rhoeijmakers">GitHub</a> if I have to, but it has always felt like a different craft. Interesting, sometimes impressive, but not where I naturally operate. You may recognise that position. Curious, not allergic to technology, but not inclined to disappear into documentation or frameworks either.</p><p>What surprised me in these experiments was not how powerful the tools were, but how quietly the boundary shifted. Not because I learned a new skill, but because the effort moved. An idea could turn into something that actually works. Not a mock-up, not a diagram, but a usable thing.</p><p>That was new to me. Not spectacular, but disorienting in a subtle way.</p><h2 id="first-encounter-describing-a-thing-into-existence">First encounter: describing a thing into existence</h2><p>The first thing I tried was <a href="https://lovable.dev">Lovable</a>.</p><p>Someone <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cassombroek_bij-de-meeste-bedrijven-zijn-e-mailhandtekeningen-activity-7418204193548562432-Gv62?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAAGPccBqY4Rvlcj2zZ2PdvOk7tl5dQrkUs">shared a prompt</a> for building a simple email signature generator. I copied it, adjusted it slightly, and watched the result appear. A working interface. Inputs, preview, export. No setup, no explicit architectural decisions on my side.</p><p>What struck me was how familiar this felt. This was not programming in the traditional sense. It felt much closer to product definition. Describing behaviour, constraints, and outcomes. The kind of thinking that normally stops at wireframes or tickets.</p><p>Here, the description executed.</p><p>That is the strength of tools like this. They let you stay at the level of intent and outcome. At the same time, the trade-off is clear. Many decisions are made for you. Hosting, structure, deployment, all of that is implicit. You gain speed and clarity, but give up control.</p><p>For an experiment, that was exactly right.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://brand-signature-scribe.lovable.app/"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">Lovable App</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description">Lovable Generated Project</div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/icon/favicon-40.ico" alt="" /><span class="kg-bookmark-publisher">Lovable</span></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/thumbnail/id-preview-7f5b0dcc--bb3425a8-ad34-420a-81f6-0c4ac8723ba9.lovable.app-1768640349762.png" alt="" /></div></a></figure><h2 id="a-step-deeper-intent-meets-a-project">A step deeper: intent meets a project</h2><p>Curiosity pulled me one layer down. I wanted to see what would happen if I stayed close to intent, but entered a recognisable software project.</p><p>I tried <a href="https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/claude-code-best-practices">Claude Code</a> and connected it to GitHub. This time, the result was not an abstract app, but a repository. Files, versions, commits. I used it to build a bespoke email signature generator inside Google Workspace, backed by a Google Sheet and implemented with Google Apps Script.</p><p>The experience changed in kind.</p><p>Claude Code did not “build an app for me”. It helped me think through a project. What goes where. What changes when I adjust something. How to iterate, deploy, and improve. The LLM was no longer replacing structure. It was inhabiting it with me.</p><p>I also felt a boundary. Systematic software development, long-term maintenance, deeper architectural decisions, that still felt like a different craft. Not inaccessible, but distinct.</p><p>What mattered was that this boundary was now visible.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/image.png" class="kg-image" alt="" loading="lazy" width="2000" height="1364" srcset="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w600/2026/01/image.png 600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1000/2026/01/image.png 1000w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1600/2026/01/image.png 1600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w2400/2026/01/image.png 2400w" /><figcaption><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">The signature app in Google Workspace.</span></figcaption></figure><h2 id="what-people-mean-when-they-say-%E2%80%9Cide%E2%80%9D">What people mean when they say “IDE”</h2><p>This is where the term “IDE” often comes in. IDE stands for Integrated Development Environment, but that label tends to obscure more than it explains.</p><p>In practice, an IDE is the place where software lives while it is being made and maintained. It is where files are organised, changes are tracked, versions are compared, and decisions accumulate over time. Not just a text editor, but a working environment with memory.</p><p>A widely known example is <a href="https://code.visualstudio.com">Visual Studio Code</a>, used by many developers and familiar to a broader technical audience. What is changing now is not the existence of such environments, but their role.</p><p>With LLMs embedded, IDEs start to absorb more of the thinking, explanation, and iteration that used to happen outside them. They begin to look less like specialist tools and more like shared workspaces between human and system.</p><h2 id="three-ways-of-building-loosely-speaking">Three ways of building, loosely speaking</h2><p>Looking back, what helped me make sense of this was not taxonomy for its own sake, but orientation. Roughly speaking, I now see three modes people move between.</p><p>First, <strong>outcome-driven tools like Lovable</strong>, where you stay at the level of intent and receive a working artefact.</p><p>Second, <strong>artifact-centric assistance</strong>, where LLMs help you produce scripts, components, or configurations that you then integrate yourself.</p><p>Third, <strong>IDE-centred environments</strong>, where the LLM is embedded into the development workflow itself and develops a persistent understanding of a system over time. Tools such as <a href="https://cursor.com">Cursor</a> are often mentioned in this context, as are <a href="https://openai.com/codex/">Codex</a>-based systems from OpenAI.</p><p>These are not strict categories. They overlap and evolve. But they differ in one crucial respect: where your agency sits. At intent. At artefacts. Or at systems.</p><p>What has changed is that moving between these layers no longer requires a hard identity shift.</p><h2 id="a-signal-worth-paying-attention-to">A signal worth paying attention to</h2><p>This is also why it is telling to see Google presenting tools like <a href="https://antigravity.google">Antigravity</a> explicitly as a “next-generation IDE”. Even if such tools are still emerging, the framing itself matters.</p><p>It suggests that IDEs are no longer seen only as specialist developer tools, but as environments where complex work takes shape, especially when that work results in living systems rather than finished documents.</p><p>That matters even if you never plan to work there yourself.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/image-1.png" class="kg-image" alt="" loading="lazy" width="2000" height="1159" srcset="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w600/2026/01/image-1.png 600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1000/2026/01/image-1.png 1000w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1600/2026/01/image-1.png 1600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w2400/2026/01/image-1.png 2400w" /></figure><h2 id="abundance-noise-and-judgement">Abundance, noise, and judgement</h2><p>One effect of this shift deserves a little more attention. As software becomes easier to create and easier to discard, the market around it changes shape.</p><p>We move away from a relatively structured landscape, with high entry costs and clear thresholds, towards something more crowded and informal. A place with many small offerings, many claims, many tools competing for attention. At times, it starts to resemble a medina: lively, inventive, and full of possibility, but also noisy and disorienting.</p><p>In such an environment, the hard part is no longer building something. The hard part is knowing what needs to be built, what can be thrown away, and what deserves care, continuity, and quality.</p><p>Not every problem needs a robust system. Not every tool should live beyond its moment.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-image-card kg-card-hascaption"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/30626148-E457-4C58-836E-EEAE655E76B5_1_105_c.jpeg" class="kg-image" alt="" loading="lazy" width="1024" height="768" srcset="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w600/2026/01/30626148-E457-4C58-836E-EEAE655E76B5_1_105_c.jpeg 600w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/size/w1000/2026/01/30626148-E457-4C58-836E-EEAE655E76B5_1_105_c.jpeg 1000w, https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/2026/01/30626148-E457-4C58-836E-EEAE655E76B5_1_105_c.jpeg 1024w" /><figcaption><span style="white-space:pre-wrap">Finding your way in buying or using software is changing. </span></figcaption></figure><h2 id="what-actually-gets-democratised">What actually gets democratised</h2><p>Software development is becoming more democratic. Not because coding no longer matters, but because much of the handwork no longer determines who gets to participate.</p><p>It is now relatively easy to spin something up. To test an idea. To build a situational tool and discard it again. Software starts to behave more like a medium than a monument.</p><p>At the same time, this does not remove the hard parts. Vision still matters. Knowing what to build, for whom, and why does not get automated away. Nor does the work of building systems that are robust, scalable, secure, and efficient.</p><p>If anything, that work becomes more valuable.</p><p>Good developers do not become less important here. They become more important. Not because they type faster, but because they understand structure, trade-offs, and long-term consequences. The same goes for people who know how to deploy systems into production, test them properly, and keep them running once they stop being experiments.</p><p>What changes is the division of labour. A large amount of manual work has quietly been absorbed by tools. That opens space for non-coders to explore, and for coders to focus on what actually requires judgement.</p><p>So when people say “you no longer need coders”, they are pointing at the wrong thing. What is disappearing is not the craft, but the gatekeeping.</p><p>And in a noisier, more abundant landscape, that kind of discernment becomes the real advantage.</p><hr /><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://hoeijmakers.net/excel-and-the-future-cockpit-of-business-logic/"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">Excel and the future cockpit of business logic</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description">Excel has always been more than a spreadsheet. For decades it has been the place where business logic quietly lives. Not in software systems designed for control, but in the free space where analysts, planners and managers actually think. What interests me today is how this space is changing as</div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/icon/Circle-logo-2-503.png" alt="" /><span class="kg-bookmark-author">Rob Hoeijmakers</span><span class="kg-bookmark-publisher">Rob Hoeijmakers</span></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/thumbnail/IMG_5794-2.jpeg" alt="" /></div></a></figure><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2026/01/15/smaller-nimbler-smarter-ai-taking-paths-of-least-resistance/"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">Smaller, Nimbler, Smarter: AI Taking Paths Of Least Resistance</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description">With AI projects this year, there will be less of a push to boil the ocean, and instead more of a laser-like focus on smaller, more manageable projects.</div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/icon/144X144-F.png" alt="" /><span class="kg-bookmark-author">Forbes</span><span class="kg-bookmark-publisher">Joe McKendrick</span></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/thumbnail/0x0.jpg" alt="" /></div></a></figure><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://hoeijmakers.net/excel-hidden-operating-system-of-business-reasoning/"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">Excel, the Hidden Operating System of Business Reasoning</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description">Excel has long been the silent operating system of business reasoning. AI may be about to extend that logic into natural language.</div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/icon/Circle-logo-2-504.png" alt="" /><span class="kg-bookmark-author">Rob Hoeijmakers</span><span class="kg-bookmark-publisher">Rob Hoeijmakers</span></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://hoeijmakers.net/content/images/thumbnail/IMG_8930-1.jpeg" alt="" /></div></a></figure>

<p><br /><strong>Waarom dit idee nu relevant wordt voor groeiende bedrijven in de EU</strong></p><h2 id="kernboodschap">Kernboodschap</h2><p>De Europese Unie werkt aan het idee van een nieuwe, optionele bedrijfsvorm die vanaf de start grensoverschrijdend inzetbaar is. Niet om nationale BV’s, GmbH’s of SARL’s te vervangen, maar om een alternatief te bieden voor bedrijven die <strong>EU-breed willen opschalen zonder telkens opnieuw het juridische wiel uit te vinden</strong>.</p><p>Voor ondernemers gaat dit niet over oprichten alleen, maar over wat daarna komt: groeien, mensen aannemen in meerdere landen, aandelenstructuren opzetten en kapitaal aantrekken binnen Europa.</p><h2 id="wat-is-eu-inc-precies">Wat is EU-INC precies?</h2><p>EU-INC is de informele naam voor een voorgestelde <strong>pan-Europese rechtsvorm</strong>, ook wel het “28ste regime” genoemd. Het idee is dat bedrijven kunnen kiezen voor één Europese juridische structuur die in alle lidstaten wordt erkend.</p><p>Belangrijke uitgangspunten:</p><ul><li>EU-INC is <strong>optioneel</strong>. Nationale rechtsvormen blijven bestaan.</li><li>Belastingen en arbeidsrecht blijven <strong>nationaal geregeld</strong>.</li><li>De focus ligt op <strong>vennootschapsrecht, governance en kapitaalstructuren</strong>.</li></ul><p>Je kunt het zien als een extra juridische laag die bedoeld is om grensoverschrijdend ondernemerschap eenvoudiger en consistenter te maken, zonder de nationale autonomie volledig los te laten.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://www.eu-inc.org/"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">EU–INC — One Europe. One Standard. — Pan-European legal entity.</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description">EU–INC is a proposal for a pan-European standardized legal entity to unlock pan-European startup scaling.</div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://www.chatvoorbedrijven.nl/content/images/icon/hTcgaWRewUNZeB6wVrfBSXk9Mn0.svg" alt="" /></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://www.chatvoorbedrijven.nl/content/images/thumbnail/DywwAp236AdnECpow4p9VcGluY.png" alt="" /></div></a></figure><h2 id="waarom-dit-voorstel-nu-weer-op-tafel-ligt">Waarom dit voorstel nu weer op tafel ligt</h2><p>In veel EU-landen is het oprichten van een bedrijf inmiddels snel en digitaal geregeld. Dat is niet het knelpunt.</p><p>De complexiteit ontstaat zodra een bedrijf:</p><ul><li>actief wordt in meerdere landen</li><li>personeel aanneemt buiten het land van oprichting</li><li>aandelen, opties of converteerbare leningen wil uitgeven</li><li>investeerders aantrekt uit andere EU-lidstaten</li></ul><p>Elke extra jurisdictie betekent een nieuw juridisch systeem, met eigen regels voor bestuur, aandeelhouders, rapportage en compliance. Dat maakt groei duurder, trager en risicovoller. Voor investeerders is dit vaak een reden om voorkeur te geven aan bedrijven die buiten Europa zijn gestructureerd.</p><p>EU-INC probeert precies dát probleem te adresseren.</p><h2 id="wat-is-de-status-nu">Wat is de status nu?</h2><p>Er is <strong>nog geen wet</strong> en er is <strong>nog geen definitieve juridische structuur</strong>. Wat er wel is:</p><ul><li>Een duidelijke politieke oproep aan de Europese Commissie om met een concreet voorstel te komen.</li><li>Toenemende steun vanuit startup-ecosystemen, investeerders en beleidsmakers.</li></ul><p>Als de Commissie met een voorstel komt, volgt daarna een langdurig traject van onderhandelingen met lidstaten. Het gaat dus om jaren, niet om maanden.</p><p>Voor ondernemers verandert er vandaag niets. Maar de <strong>richting is duidelijker dan in eerdere pogingen</strong>.</p><h2 id="waarom-eerdere-pogingen-strandden">Waarom eerdere pogingen strandden</h2><p>Het idee van één Europese bedrijfsvorm is niet nieuw. Eerdere voorstellen, zoals de European Private Company, zijn nooit breed ingevoerd.</p><p>Terugkerende bezwaren zijn onder andere:</p><ul><li>nationale controle over vennootschapsrecht</li><li>angst voor juridische ‘shoppen’ tussen systemen</li><li>zorgen over arbeidsrechten en sociale bescherming</li><li>de vraag of bestaande nationale structuren niet voldoende zijn</li></ul><p>Ook de naam “EU-INC” roept weerstand op. Voor sommigen klinkt die te Amerikaans of te sterk gericht op aandeelhouderswaarde.</p><h2 id="wat-zou-eu-inc-concreet-kunnen-betekenen-voor-bedrijven">Wat zou EU-INC concreet kunnen betekenen voor bedrijven?</h2><p>Als het voorstel er daadwerkelijk komt, zou EU-INC in theorie bieden:</p><ul><li>één juridische entiteit geldig in de hele EU</li><li>één set governance-regels</li><li>eenvoudiger uitgifte van aandelen en opties</li><li>een centraal Europees register in plaats van nationale versnippering</li></ul><p>Daarmee kan het voor groeiende bedrijven makkelijker worden om EU-breed te opereren zonder telkens juridische herstructureringen.</p><p>Tegelijk blijft het belangrijk om realistisch te blijven:</p><p>belasting, sociale zekerheid en arbeidsrecht blijven nationaal. EU-INC haalt frictie weg, maar elimineert die niet volledig.</p><h2 id="wat-heb-je-hier-als-ondernemer-n%C3%BA-aan">Wat heb je hier als ondernemer nú aan?</h2><p>EU-INC is geen instrument dat je morgen kunt gebruiken. Het is wel relevant om:</p><ul><li>te begrijpen <strong>waar Europa economisch naartoe wil</strong></li><li>te volgen als je ambities of investeerders EU-breed zijn</li><li>mee te nemen in strategische discussies over vestigingsstructuren</li></ul><p>Het voorstel raakt aan een grotere vraag: wil Europa een interne markt zijn waar kapitaal en ondernemerschap écht kunnen schalen, of blijft groei vooral nationaal georganiseerd?</p><h2 id="afsluitend">Afsluitend</h2><p>EU-INC is geen revolutie op korte termijn. Het is een signaal dat Europa zoekt naar manieren om ondernemerschap, innovatie en kapitaalvorming minder versnipperd te maken.</p><p>Voor ondernemers en adviseurs is het vooral iets om <strong>te volgen, te begrijpen en te plaatsen</strong>. Niet omdat het morgen alles verandert, maar omdat het veel zegt over hoe de Europese markt zich de komende tien jaar zou kunnen ontwikkelen.</p><figure class="kg-card kg-bookmark-card"><a class="kg-bookmark-container" href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_26_150"><div class="kg-bookmark-content"><div class="kg-bookmark-title">Special Address by President von der Leyen at the World Economic Forum</div><div class="kg-bookmark-description">It is now 55 years since the first meeting here in Davos. The idea of the founder, Klaus Schwab, was to create a platform to discuss the issues and the ideas of the day. Of course, the world has transformed completely since 1971. But the original idea of Davos has remained, as we have just heard in the speeches. So I was delighted that you have gone back to your roots with this year\’s theme – A Spirit of Dialogue.</div><div class="kg-bookmark-metadata"><img class="kg-bookmark-icon" src="https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg" alt="" /><span class="kg-bookmark-author">European Commission - European Commission</span></div></div><div class="kg-bookmark-thumbnail"><img src="https://www.chatvoorbedrijven.nl/content/images/thumbnail/sm_ec_logo_big.jpg" alt="" /></div></a></figure>

When the EU says it is building eight quantum computers, the number sounds precise. It isn’t. This piece explores why that question is harder than it looks.

WhatsApp is voor veel bedrijven vooral een communicatiemiddel. Met Channels krijgt het ook publieke reach. Dat verklaart waarom de EU nu meekijkt.

WhatsApp is introducing usernames. A small change that reshapes identity, privacy, and how people and businesses can be reached without sharing phone numbers.

Met usernames laat WhatsApp het telefoonnummer los. Voor gebruikers betekent dat minder delen, voor bedrijven krijgt WhatsApp eindelijk een voorkant.

We talk about unlimited data, but most of our digital life quietly depends on fibre. What mobile, roaming and holidays reveal about real limits.

In modern cars, text is no longer read but registered. Letters function like icons, designed for saccades, speed, and cognitive restraint.

A Japanese colour book, a digital-first brand, and a late encounter with Pantone led me to finally understand why print colour always felt confusing.

For a long time, I treated Kobo and Kindle as roughly the same thing: e-readers with different ecosystems. Only when I started using them side by side did it become clear that they are built around very different setups. Not different features. Different models. Once you see that, the choice becomes much simpler. ## Two ways of getting content to a reader With Kobo, the device is the centre. You connect it to a computer, copy files onto it, and that’s where they live. The book is on the device, and the device is the destination. The cloud, if you use it at all, is secondary. With Kindle, the account is the centre. You don’t really put files on the device. You send them into Amazon’s system, and the device pulls them down. The book lives in the cloud first. The Kindle is one of several ways to read it. That single difference explains most of the experience. ## Kobo: device-first, edge-based Kobo works best when you treat it like a quiet, durable object. You put books on it deliberately. They stay there. Reading position and annotations live on the device. With tools like Calibre, you can run it almost entirely outside Kobo’s ecosystem. It has more friction. Often a cable. Often a computer. But that friction fits long-term reading. It assumes you care about the book, want to keep it, and might return to it. Kobo feels like a library. Connecting My Kobo Directly to an iPhone 16 ProI connected my Kobo e‑reader to my iPhone 16 Pro with a USB‑C cable. It worked instantly. No adapter, no fuss but just a quiet moment of satisfaction.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers ## Kindle: account-first, cloud-operated Kindle works best when you treat it like a service. You send documents to your account. They appear wirelessly. They sync across devices. You read them, and you can remove them again without much ceremony. That makes it ideal for: * PDFs * Reports * Business books * Things you read once or twice It also means you depend on Amazon being there. The system only really works because Amazon operates it end to end. Kindle feels like an inbox. Reading Webpages on Your Kindle: A Simplified ProcessReading online articles on your Kindle made easy: follow our steps to simplify, convert, and transfer webpages from iPhone effortlessly.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers ## One extra thing that matters: screens Kindle is not just an e-ink reader. It’s a delivery system. The same document can be read: * On e-ink, quietly and with low energy use * On a phone or tablet, with colour and zoom * On a desktop screen, where layout really matters That is especially useful for professional PDFs. Many of them are designed visually, with columns, charts, and typography doing part of the work. With Kindle, you can switch between those forms without changing how the document is delivered. Kobo doesn’t really do that. There, the device _is_ the destination. ## Where I landed Once I stopped trying to make one device do everything, it became obvious. * Books I want to keep live on the Kobo. * Documents and work-related reading go to the Kindle. Kobo is where books stay. Kindle is where documents pass through. The devices didn’t change. My expectations did. * * * Electronic paper and digital ink explainedWhy are electronic paper and digital ink so gentle to the eyes and why is it that these screen consume so little energy.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers

AI literacy rarely shows up as a skill gap. It appears when organisations need to justify decisions, manage risk, and remain accountable.

When I looked back at the words that kept appearing in my work this year, one stood out more than I expected: _model_. Not because it felt central or dramatic, but because it was everywhere. In AI, obviously. In strategy documents. In conversations about organisations, processes, responsibility. Even in fairly ordinary moments. The word kept resurfacing, quietly doing work. At some point I realised I was using it constantly without really stopping to think what I meant by it. And the more I tried to pin it down, the more elusive it became. Not vague, but flexible. Almost suspiciously so. This piece is an attempt to understand that flexibility. Not to define _model_ , but to ask: how did we get here, and why does this word fit so many domains so well? 2025 Wordcloud for my blog ## The everyday meanings we hardly notice If you search for _model_ , you will likely land on fashion models first. Photo models. People. That might seem like a distraction, but it is actually a useful starting point. A model here is an example. Something you look at in order to orient yourself. This is what it looks like. This is what it could be. We use the word like this all the time. A role model. A model student. A model answer. In all these cases, the model is not a description of reality, but a reference point. It reduces complexity by embodiment. Instead of rules or explanations, you get an instance you can copy, approximate, or respond to. Alongside this, there is another everyday sense that feels more abstract. Scale models. Maps. Diagrams. Calendars. Dashboards. These are not things you imitate, but things you use to navigate. They deliberately leave things out so you can act. A map is not the territory, but it is still indispensable. Already, the word is doing two different jobs: showing what something looks like, and helping you move through complexity. That tension turns out to be important. ## A small detour into etymology The word _model_ comes from the Latin _modulus_ , a diminutive of _modus_. _Modus_ means measure, manner, way, method. Not an object, but a way of doing something. A pattern that makes action possible. _Modulus_ is a small measure. A manageable unit. This matters more than it might seem. From the start, a model was not meant to be the world in miniature, but a chosen scale. A way of handling something too large, too complex, or too messy to grasp directly. A model is already an admission: we cannot deal with everything at once. That quietly underpins almost every use of the word today. Model - Etymology, Origin & Meaning“likeness made to scale; architect’s set of designs,” from French modelle (16c., Modern… See origin and meaning of model.etymonline ## Two paths that never really split Historically, _model_ developed along two closely related paths. On the one hand, the model **as exemplar**. A sculpture model. A pose. A prototype. Something you look at and emulate. On the other hand, the model **as representation**. A plan, a sketch, a proportional guide. Something that captures relationships rather than appearance. These were never cleanly separated. A sculptor’s model was both something you looked at and something you built from. It guided action without claiming to be the final thing. That dual role has always been there. The confusion around _model_ today is not new. It is inherited. ## From craft to science When science and mathematics adopted the word, they did not change its meaning so much as tighten it. A mathematical model is a reduction of reality, expressed in symbols, designed to preserve certain relationships while ignoring others. An economic model does the same with incentives, behaviour, and constraints. These models are explicit about what they leave out. They are tools for thinking, not claims to completeness. This is why scientific models are always accompanied by assumptions, boundaries, and caveats. Not because they are weak, but because their strength lies precisely in being limited. They help you see a system. They do not pretend to be it. ## When models start to build things Engineering shifts the balance. Here, models are no longer only aids to understanding. They become instruments of construction. A blueprint is a model. A data schema is a model. A software architecture is a model. **Change the model, and you change the system.** At this point, the model stops being merely epistemic and becomes operative. Errors are no longer just misleading. They propagate. This is where the stakes rise, and where the word _model_ starts carrying real authority. Not because it is more accurate, but because it has consequences. ## Language models sit on the fault line This long history helps explain why _model_ feels so overloaded in AI. A language model brings all these meanings together. It is a statistical reduction of language, trained rather than reasoned into existence. It produces exemplars: plausible sentences, answers, styles. It is deployed as an operational system. And it is used by people as a way to explore, understand, and make sense of domains. It is, at the same time: something that generates behaviour, and something we use to think with. This collapses an old distinction between models that help us see systems and models that are systems. No wonder the word feels unstable here. It is being asked to do everything at once. Much of the current confusion around AI is not technical, but semantic. We slide between treating the model as a tool for exploration and treating it as an authority. Between using it as a map and mistaking it for the territory. The word _model_ quietly enables that slide. Model Cards, System Cards and What They’re Quietly BecomingWhat are AI model cards, and why are they becoming the documents regulators will turn to first? I read a few and it taught me more than I expected.Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers ## Why this word keeps appearing Looking back, I think this explains why _model_ surfaced so often for me this year. It is a word that allows us to work with complexity without fully resolving it. It lets us act, decide, and build while acknowledging that what we are doing is partial and provisional. At the same time, it carries a risk. A model can easily stop being a choice and start feeling like reality. Especially once it is embedded in systems, dashboards, policies, or software. The problem is rarely the model itself. It is forgetting that it is a model. Seen this way, _model_ is not just a technical term, but a cultural one. It sits at the boundary between understanding and authority, between representation and action. That is probably why it is almost everywhere now. And why it is worth pausing over, at least once, to ask what we are really doing when we invoke it. Not to pin the word down, but to keep it honest.

From GDPR to the EU AI Act, a recurring pattern emerges: European regulation lands in procurement, spreading responsibility, caution, and friction.

A continuation of my exploration of digital payments, looking at how different layers relate and how the Mollie–GoCardless story helps illuminate the broader picture.

While writing about how money flows, a simple confusion between Apple Pay and Apple Wallet exposes the hidden layers of modern payments and power.

Unstructured content already holds the knowledge organisations rely on. The shift is learning how to reveal its structure so intelligent systems can use it.

Voice mode without the screen. The lock screen, Dynamic Island, and Live Activities decide whether your assistant stays visible.

Before it meant computers, cyber meant steering. This piece follows that idea from its origins to the way it now shapes states, platforms, and our digital lives.

The real AI race is not model vs model, but who owns the environment where work lives. Gemini 3 gives Google a quiet but strategic advantage.