The oceans are pretty big though. Adding more cables right now isn’t a heavily constrained space. So yeah you have some giants laying their own. However, I don’t think that more privately owned links is necessarily a sign of power concentration, rather a symptom of it perhaps. You have these giants leveraging economies of scale to gain an advantage, and it’s not necessarily something a non-giant couldn’t do themselves if they were motivated enough. Example, if Meta didn’t own and operate Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp (i.e. regulators force the split of their social media platforms) they could conceivably still lay these new cables.
Facebook the product is run by a company named Meta. Google the product is run by a company named Google, which is owned by the conglomerate Alphabet. Google is the vast majority of Alphabet, and they share CEO and CFO. So when you talk about Alphabet's finances or stock price, you're mostly just talking about Google but the name Alphabet is correct. However if you're talking about a company doing thing, you're almost certainly talking about one of the subsidiaries.
Eg, "Google made AlphaGo" or "Google's Deepmind made AlphaGo" is incorrect, but "Deepmind made AlphaGo" or "Alphabet's Deepmind made AlphaGo" are correct, while "Alphabet made AlphaGo" is technically correct but unspecific.
It’s a different structure. Google the company still exists and is owned by Alphabet. Its products include Google search and YouTube. There is no longer a company called Facebook; Facebook is a product owned by Meta.
"four tech giants— Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet, Meta (formerly Facebook ) and Amazon"
So I guess the distinction in their eyes is that Facebook renamed itself whilst Google sold itself to a parent company? Can someone chime in on the legal entities and mechanics used for the two?
Don't forget Apple. Building a computer or a phone company today is basically impossible. We're heading towards a state of extreme monopolies. There is no way to vertically integrate like Apple without having access to crazy amount of resources and time. If there is competition, Apple's cash reserves will come to rescue and crush any competition.
I love Apple products but this is all so worrying.
> Building a computer or a phone company today is basically impossible. We're heading towards a state of extreme monopolies. There is no way to vertically integrate like Apple without having access to crazy amount of resources and time.
If you're building a new hardware company today, you wouldn't want to start out vertically integrated. You'd start by whitelabeling from an ODM, and as you gain experience and hopefully sales, figure out what parts you can design and get manufactured yourself. You can't differentiate much when you're selling the same ODM kit as everyone else, but maybe support or updates or meaningful changelogs or a splash or color or less spyware or ?
It would be a lot more worrisome if they were actually owned and operated completely in a close system by the four and only rented out the bandwidth. But this is not the case here.
Yes, Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft invest in international undersea cables. But those Cables are done by a Consortium of companies. Not just between the four listed but many Telecom companies in the regions.
Pacific Light Cable Network for example, connecting between Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Philippines and the US only cost $300M with 120Tbps according to the same WSJ. That is such a small amount of money by modern standard. Not to mention while the cost wont likely go down, the total bandwidth you get from deployment will continue to go up in the future. A 1 Pbps undersea connection isn't too far fetch within 10 - 15 years time.
My 10 year old self couldn't imagine having these massive artificial brains scattered throughout the world connected by high speed fiber network being a real thing.
[+] [-] BogdanPetre|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smitty1e|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btmiller|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supertrope|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boxed|4 years ago|reply
I don't understand why Facebooks rebrand should be honored when we just ignore Googles.
[+] [-] Laremere|4 years ago|reply
Facebook the product is run by a company named Meta. Google the product is run by a company named Google, which is owned by the conglomerate Alphabet. Google is the vast majority of Alphabet, and they share CEO and CFO. So when you talk about Alphabet's finances or stock price, you're mostly just talking about Google but the name Alphabet is correct. However if you're talking about a company doing thing, you're almost certainly talking about one of the subsidiaries.
Eg, "Google made AlphaGo" or "Google's Deepmind made AlphaGo" is incorrect, but "Deepmind made AlphaGo" or "Alphabet's Deepmind made AlphaGo" are correct, while "Alphabet made AlphaGo" is technically correct but unspecific.
[+] [-] thebean11|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zo1|4 years ago|reply
"four tech giants— Microsoft, Google parent Alphabet, Meta (formerly Facebook ) and Amazon"
So I guess the distinction in their eyes is that Facebook renamed itself whilst Google sold itself to a parent company? Can someone chime in on the legal entities and mechanics used for the two?
[+] [-] systemvoltage|4 years ago|reply
I love Apple products but this is all so worrying.
[+] [-] toast0|4 years ago|reply
If you're building a new hardware company today, you wouldn't want to start out vertically integrated. You'd start by whitelabeling from an ODM, and as you gain experience and hopefully sales, figure out what parts you can design and get manufactured yourself. You can't differentiate much when you're selling the same ODM kit as everyone else, but maybe support or updates or meaningful changelogs or a splash or color or less spyware or ?
[+] [-] ksec|4 years ago|reply
Yes, Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft invest in international undersea cables. But those Cables are done by a Consortium of companies. Not just between the four listed but many Telecom companies in the regions.
Pacific Light Cable Network for example, connecting between Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Philippines and the US only cost $300M with 120Tbps according to the same WSJ. That is such a small amount of money by modern standard. Not to mention while the cost wont likely go down, the total bandwidth you get from deployment will continue to go up in the future. A 1 Pbps undersea connection isn't too far fetch within 10 - 15 years time.
[+] [-] simpleguitar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Terry_Roll|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8f2ab37a-ed6c|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zerverus|4 years ago|reply