Discover the resilient companies triumphing over big tech

Discover the resilient companies triumphing over big tech

Meet the plucky firms that are beating big tech

BIG TECH⁤ keeps getting bigger. So far this year the combined market value of America’s five digital behemoths—Alphabet, Amazon,‌ Apple, Meta and⁤ Microsoft—has soared by half, to around $9trn. That is almost ​a quarter of the total for the⁣ S&P 500, ⁣an index of ‍America’s largest companies (which ‌has risen by just 17% in⁤ the ⁤period). The five account for almost ​60% of sales, profits and spending⁣ on research and development of ⁣all the technology firms in the index. ​They are widely expected to be the main winners from the⁣ artificial-intelligence (AI) revolution.

Governments​ view this dominance with ​increasing trepidation. On September 12th ‌America’s Department of‌ Justice began a courtroom showdown ⁣with Google and its corporate parent, Alphabet, in the ⁤biggest⁣ antitrust ​case in two decades, ⁢accusing it of abusing its internet-search monopoly. This month an eU law ⁤labelled the big five as digital “gatekeepers”, which bars them from bundling certain services​ and discriminating against third parties on their platforms, among other things. The tech giants have‍ grown⁢ so gigantic, the world’s ⁢trustbusters⁣ argue, that​ they suck all the oxygen out of the technology ecosystem, driving challengers to extinction or, at best, making it hard for anyone⁤ else to prosper. Just ask Snap, Spotify or Zoom.

Like natural ecosystems, though, commercial⁢ ones‌ present opportunities for newcomers.‍ To keep growing at the blistering ​rates their investors expect, the big five pay most attention to markets​ vast enough to make a meaningful difference to their revenues, ⁤which collectively touched $1.5trn last year. That means they ignore certain areas that⁢ are smaller but potentially still lucrative. The ingenious companies that identify such niches and are⁢ able to exploit them ‍don’t just get by,‌ but ⁢thrive in the​ shadow of the ⁣giants.

2023-09-12 13:19:30
Article ‍from www.economist.com

Exit mobile version