Which Browsers Devour the Most User Data?
May 19, 2025
Those concerned about data privacy may want to consider some advice from TechRadar: “These Are the Worst Web Browsers for Sucking Up All Your Data, So You May Want to Stop Using Them.” Citing research from Surfshark, writer Benedict Collins reports some of the most-used browsers are also the most ravenous. He tells us:
“Analyzing download statistics from AppMagic, Surfshark found Google’s Chrome and Apple‘s Safari account for 90% of the world’s mobile browser downloads. However, Chrome sucks up 20 different types of data while being used, including contact info, location, browsing history, and user content, and is the only browser to collect payment methods, card numbers, or bank account details. … Microsoft‘s Bing took second place for data collection, hoovering up 12 types of data, closely followed by Pi Browser in third place with nine data types, with Safari and Firefox collecting eight types and sharing fourth place.”
Et tu, Firefox? Collins notes the study found Brave and Tor to be the least data-hungry. The former collects identifiers and usage data. Tor, famously, collects no data at all. Both are free, though Brave sells add-ons and Tor accepts donations. The write-up continues:
“When it comes to the types of data collected, Pi Browser, Edge, and Bing all collected the most tracking data, usually sold to third parties to be used for targeted advertising. Pi Browser collects browsing history, search history, device ID, product interaction, and advertisement data, while Edge collects customer support request data, and Bing collects user ID data.”
For anyone unfamiliar, Pi Browser is designed for use with decentralized (blockchain) applications. We learn that, on mobile devices in the US, Chrome captures 43% of browser usage, while Safari captures 50%. Collins reminds readers there are ways to safeguard one’s data, though we would add none are total or foolproof. He also points us to TechRadar’s guide to the best VPNs for another layer of security.
Cynthia Murrell, May 19, 2025
Grok and the Dog Which Ate the Homework
May 16, 2025
![dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1_thumb_thumb_thumb-1.gif "dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb_thumb")
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.
I remember the Tesla full self driving service. Is that available? I remember the big SpaceX rocket ship. Are those blowing up after launch? I now have to remember an “unauthorized modification” to xAI’s smart software Grok. Wow. So many items to tuck into my 80 year old brain.
I read “xAI Blames Grok’s Obsession with White Genocide on an Unauthorized Modification.” Do I believe this assertion? Of course, I believe everything I read on the sad, ad-choked, AI content bedeviled Internet.
Let’s look at the gems of truth in the report.
First, what is an unauthorized modification of a complex software humming along happily in Silicon Valley and— of all places — Memphis, a lovely town indeed. The unauthorized modification— whatever that is— caused a “bug in its AI-powered Grok chatbot.” If I understand this, a savvy person changed something he, she, or it was not supposed to modify. That change then caused a “bug.” I thought Grace Hopper nailed the idea of a “bug” when she pulled an insect from one of the dinobaby’s favorite systems, the Harvard Mark II. Are their insects at the X shops? Are these unauthorized insects interacting with unauthorized entities making changes that propagate more bugs? Yes.
Second, the malfunction occurs when “@grok” is used as a tag. I believe this because the “unauthorized modification” fiddled with the user mappings and jiggled scripts to allow the “white genocide” content to appear. This is definitely not hallucination; it is an “unauthorized modification.” (Did you know that the version of Grok available via x.com cannot return information from X.com (formerly Twitter) content. Strange? Of course not.
Third, I know that Grok, xAI, and the other X entities have “internal policies and core values.” Violating these is improper. The company — like other self regulated entities — “conducted a thorough investigation.” Absolutely. Coders at X are well equipped to perform investigations. That’s why X.com personnel are in such demand as advisors to law enforcement and cyber fraud agencies.
Finally, xAI is going to publish system prompts on Microsoft GitHub. Yes, that will definitely curtail the unauthorized modifications and bugs at X entities. What a bold solution.
The cited write up is definitely not on the same page as this dinobaby. The article reports:
A study by SaferAI, a nonprofit aiming to improve the accountability of AI labs, found xAI ranks poorly on safety among its peers, owing to its “very weak” risk management practices. Earlier this month, xAI missed a self-imposed deadline to publish a finalized AI safety framework.
This negative report may be expanded to make the case that an exploding rocket or a wonky full self driving vehicle is not safe. Everyone must believe X outfits. The company is a paragon of veracity, excellent engineering, and delivering exactly what it says it will provide. That is the way you must respond.
Stephen E Arnold, May 16, 2025
Apple AI Is AImless: Better Than Fire, Ready AIm
May 16, 2025
Apple’s Problems Rebuilding Siri
Apple is a dramatist worthy of reality TV. According to MSN, Apple’s leaders are fighting each other says the article, “New Siri Report Reveals Epic Dysfunction Within Apple — But There’s Hope.” There’s so many issues with Apple’s leaders that Siri 2.0 is delayed until 2026.
Managerial styles and backroom ambitions clashed within Apple’s teams. John Giannandrea heads Siri and has since 2018. He was hired to lead Siri and an AI group. Siri engineers claim they are treated like second class citizens. Their situation worsened when Craig Federighi’s software team released features and updates.
The two leaders are very different:
“Federighi was placed in charge of the Siri overhaul in March, alongside his number two Mike Rockwell — who created the Apple Vision Pro headset— as Apple attempts to revive its Siri revamp. The difference between Giannandrea and Federighi appears to be the difference between the tortoise and the hare. John is allegedly more of a listener and slow mover who lets those underneath him take charge of the work, especially his number two Robby Walker. He reportedly preferred incremental updates and was repeatedly cited as a problem with Siri development. Meanwhile, Federighi is described as brash and quick but very efficient and knowledgeable. Supposedly, Giannandrea’s “relaxed culture” lead to other engineers dubbing his AI team: AIMLess.”
The two teams are at each other’s throats. Projects are getting done but they’re arguing over the means of how to do them. Siri 2.0 is caught in the crossfire like a child of divorce. The teams need to put their egos aside or someone in charge of both needs to make them play nicely.
Whitney Grace, May 16, 2025
Complexity: Good Enough Is Now the Best Some Can Do at Google-
May 15, 2025
![dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1_thumb_thumb-1.gif "dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb_thumb")
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.
I read a post called “Working on Complex Systems: What I Learned Working at Google.” The write up is a thoughtful checklist of insights, lessons, and Gregorian engineering chants a “coder” learned in the online advertising company. I want to point out that I admire the amount of money and power the Google has amassed from its reinvention of the GoTo-Overture-Yahoo advertising approach.
A Silicon Valley executive looks at past due invoices. The government has ordered the company to be broken up and levied large fines for improper behavior in the marketplace. Thanks, ChatGPT. Definitely good enough.
The essay in The Coder Cafe presents an engineer’s learnings after Google began to develop products and services tangential to search hegemony, selling ads, and shaping information flows.
The approach is to differentiate complexity from complicated systems. What is interesting about the checklists is that one hearkens back to the way Google used to work in the Backrub and early pre-advertising days at Google. Let’s focus on complex because that illuminates where Google wants to direct its business, its professionals, its users, and the pesky thicket of regulators who bedevil the Google 24×7.
Here’s the list of characteristics of complex systems. Keep in mind that “systems” means software, programming, algorithms, and the gizmos required to make the non-fungible work, mostly.
- Emergent behavior
- Delayed consequences
- Optimization (local optimization versus global optimization)
- Hysteresis (I think this is cultural momentum or path dependent actions)
- Nonlinearity
Each of these is a study area for people at the Santa Fe Institute. I have on my desk a copy of The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution and the shorter Reinventing the Sacred, both by Stuart A. Kauffman. As a point of reference Origins is 700 pages and Reinventing about 300. Each of the cited articles five topics gets attention.
The context of emergent behavior in human- and probably some machine- created code is that it is capable of producing “complex systems.” Dr. Kauffman does a very good job of demonstrating how quite simple methods yield emergent behavior. Instead of a mess or a nice tidy solution, there is considerable activity at the boundaries of complexity and stability. Emergence seems to be associated with these boundary conditions: A little bit of chaos, a little bit of stability.
The other four items in the list are optimization. Dr. Kauffman points out is a consequence of the simple decisions which take place in the micro and macroscopic world. Non-linearity is a feature of emergent systems. The long-term consequences of certain emergent behavior can be difficult to predict. Finally, the notion of momentum keeps some actions or reactions in place through time units.
What the essay reveals, in my opinion, that:
- Google’s work environment is positioned as a fundamental force. Dr. Kauffman and his colleagues at the Santa Fe Institute may find some similarities between the Google and the mathematical world at the research institute. Google wants to be the prime mover; the Santa Fe Institute wants to understand, explain, and make useful its work.
- The lingo of the cited essay suggests that Google is anchored in the boundary between chaos and order. Thus, Google’s activities are in effect trials and errors intended to allow Google to adapt and survive in its environment. In short, Google is a fundamental force.
- The “leadership” of Google does not lead; leadership is given over to the rules or laws of emergence as described by Dr. Kauffman and his colleagues at the Santa Fe Institute.
Net net: Google cannot produce good products. Google can try to emulate emergence, but it has to find a way to compress time to allow many more variants. Hopefully one of those variants with be good enough for the company to survive. Google understands the probability functions that drive emergence. After two decades of product launches and product failures, the company remains firmly anchored in two chunks of bedrock:
First, the company borrows or buys. Google does not innovate. Whether the CLEVER method, the billion dollar Yahoo inspiration for ads, or YouTube, Bell Labs and Thomas Edison are not part of the Google momentum. Advertising is.
Second, Google’s current management team is betting that emergence will work at Google. The question is, “Will it?”
I am not sure bright people like those who work at Google can identify the winners from an emergent approach and then create the environment for those winners to thrive, grow, and create more winners. Gluing cheese to pizza and ramping up marketing for Google’s leadership in fields ranging from quantum computing to smart software is now just good enough. One final question: “What happens if the advertising money pipeline gets cut off?”
Stephen E Arnold, May 15, 2025
The Zuck Plays Defense: The Opposing Line Is Huge, Dude
May 15, 2025
The BBC reports that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has been in the news lately for his company being on trial: “Mark Zuckerberg Defends Meta In Social Media Monopoly Trial.” Meta and Zuckerberg are on trail for antitrust allegations that the company has a monopoly on social media. Zuckerberg testified in 2020 when the FTC brought the case to court.
The allegations are that Zuckerberg dominated the social media market when it acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. The FTC wants Meta to split apart by forcing Instagram and WhatsApp into separate entities. Meta argues there’s plenty of competition with X, YouTube, and TikTok. Zuckerberg was the first to testify in the trial expected to last until July 2025.
The FTC says that Meta bought rivals because it was easier to acquire them than compete with them:
“They decided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,” said FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson in his opening statement at Monday’s trial. Meta countered that the lawsuit from the FTC, which originally reviewed and approved both those acquisitions, was “misguided”.
Meta ‘acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to improve and grow them alongside Facebook’, the company’s attorney Mark Hansen argued.
The FTC lawyer cited a 2012 memo from Mr Zuckerberg in which he discusses the importance of “neutralising” Instagram.
Mr Matheson called that message “a smoking gun”.”
Meta argues that when they acquired the competing platforms that it made them better for users. Instagram accounts for over half of Meta’s advertising revenue. Meta also donated to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Zuckerberg repeatedly petitions Trump to have the FTC charges dropped. The FTC has a harder case to prove than when Google was sued for monopolizing search. I wonder if the prosecution’s attorneys have read Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism.
Whitney Grace, May 15, 2025
Bing Goes AI: Metacrawler Outfits Are Toast
May 15, 2025
![dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_1_thumb-1.gif "dino-orange_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_[1]_thumb")
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zillennials.
The Softies are going to win in the AI-centric search wars. In every war, there will be casualties. One of the casualties will be metasearch companies. What’s metasearch? These are outfits that really don’t crawl the Web. That is expensive and requires constant fiddling to keep pace with the weird technical “innovations” purveyors of Web content present to the user. The metasearch companies provide an interface and then return results from cooperating and cheap primary Web search services. Most users don’t know the difference and have demonstrated over the years total indifference to the distinction. Search means Google. Microsoft wants to win at search and become the one true search service.
The most recent fix? Kill off the Microsoft Bing application programming interface. Those metasearch outfits will have to learn to love Qwant, SwissCows, and their ilk or face some-survive-or-die decisions. Do these outfits use YaCy, OpenSearch, Mwmbl, or some other source of Web indexing?
Bob Softie has just tipped over the metasearch lemonade stand. The metasearch sellers are not happy with Bob. Bob seems quite thrilled with his bold move. Thanks, ChatGPT, although I have not been able to access your wonder 4.1 service, the cartoon is good enough.
The news of this interesting move appears in “Retirement: Bing Search APIs on August 11, 2025.” The Softies say:
Bing Search APIs will be retired on August 11, 2025. Any existing instances of Bing Search APIs will be decommissioned completely, and the product will no longer be available for usage or new customer signup. Note that this retirement will apply to partners who are using the F1 and S1 through S9 resources of Bing Search, or the F0 and S1 through S4 resources of Bing Custom Search. Customers may want to consider Grounding with Bing Search as part of Azure AI Agents. Grounding with Bing Search allows Azure AI Agents to incorporate real-time public web data when generating responses with an LLM. If you have questions, contact support by emailing Bing Search API’s Partner Support. Learn more about service retirements that may impact your resources in the Azure Retirement Workbook. Please note that retirements may not be visible in the workbook for up to two weeks after being announced.
Several observations:
- The DuckDuckGo metasearch system is exempted. I suppose its super secure approach to presenting other outfits’ search results is so darned wonderful
- The feisty Kagi may have to spend to get new access deals or pay low profile crawlers like Dassault Exalead to provide some content (Let’s hope it is timely and comprehensive)
- The beneficiaries may be Web search systems not too popular with some in North America; for example, Yandex.com. I have found that Yandex.com and Yandex.ru are presenting more useful results since the re-juggling of the company’s operations took place.
Why is Microsoft taking this action? My hunch is paranoia. The AI search “thing” is going to have to work if Microsoft hopes to cope with Google’s push into what the Softies have long considered their territory. Those enterprise, cloud, and partnership set ups need to have an advantage. Binging it with AI may be viewed as the winning move at this time.
My view is that Microsoft may be edging close to another Bob moment. This is worth watching because the metasearch disruption will flip over some rocks. Who knows if Yandex or another non-Google or non-Bing search repackager surges to the fore? Web search is getting slightly more interesting and not because of the increasing chaos of AI-infused search results.
Stephen E Arnold, May 15, 2025
NSO Group: When Marketing and Confidence Mix with Specialized Software
May 13, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
Some specialized software must remain known only to a small number of professionals specifically involved in work related to national security. This is a dinobaby view, and I am not going to be swayed with “information wants to be free” arguments or assertions about the need to generate revenue to make the investors “whole.” Abandoning secrecy and common sense for glittering generalities and MBA mumbo jumbo is ill advised.
I read “Meta Wins $168 Million in Damages from Israeli Cyberintel Firm in Whatsapp Spyware Scandal.” The write up reports:
Meta won nearly $168 million in damages Tuesday from Israeli cyberintelligence company NSO Group, capping more than five years of litigation over a May 2019 attack that downloaded spyware on more than 1,400 WhatsApp users’ phones.
The decision is likely to be appealed, so the “won” is not accurate. What is interesting is this paragraph:
[Yaron] Shohat [NSO’s CEO] declined an interview outside the Ron V. Dellums Federal Courthouse, where the court proceedings were held.
From my point of view, fewer trade shows, less marketing, and a lower profile should be action items for Mr. Shohat, the NSO Group’s founders, and the firm’s lobbyists.
I watched as NSO Group became the poster child for specialized software. I was not happy as the firm’s systems and methods found their way into publicly accessible Web sites. I reacted negatively as other specialized software firms (these I will not identify) began describing their technology as similar to NSO Group’s.
The desperation of cyber intelligence, specialized software firms, and — yes — trade show operators is behind the crazed idea of making certain information widely available. I worked in the nuclear industry in the early 1970s. From Day One on the job, the message was, “Don’t talk.” I then shifted to a blue chip consulting firm working on a wide range of projects. From Day One on that job, the message was, “Don’t talk.” When I set up my own specialized research firm, the message I conveyed to my team members was, “Don’t talk.”
Then it seemed that everyone wanted to “talk”. Marketing, speeches, brochures, even YouTube videos distributed information that was never intended to be made widely available. Without operating context and quite specific knowledge, jazzy pitches that used terms like “zero day vulnerability” and other crazy sales oriented marketing lingo made specialized software something many people without operating context and quite specific knowledge “experts.”
I see this leakage of specialized software information in the OSINT blurbs on LinkedIn. I see it in social media posts by people with weird online handles like those used in Top Gun films. I see it when I go to a general purpose knowledge management meeting.
Now the specialized software industry is visible. In my opinion, that is not a good thing. I hope Mr. Shohat and others in the specialized software field continue the “decline to comment” approach. Knock off the PR. Focus on the entities authorized to use specialized software. The field is not for computer whiz kids, eGame players, and wanna be intelligence officers.
Do your job. Don’t talk. Do I think these marketing oriented 21st century specialized software companies will change their behavior? Answer: Oh, sure.
PS. I hope the backstory for Facebook / Meta’s interest in specialized software becomes part of a public court record. I am curious is what I have learned matches up to the court statements. My hunch is that some social media executives have selective memories. That’s a useful skill I have heard.
Stephen E Arnold, May 13, 2025
China Smart, US Dumb: Twisting the LLM Daozi
May 12, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
That hard-hitting technology information service Venture Beat published an interesting article. Its title is “Alibaba ZeroSearch Lets AI Learn to Google Itself — Slashing Training Costs by 88 Percent.” The main point of the write up, in my opinion, is that Chinese engineers have done something really “smart.” The knife at the throat of US smart software companies is cost. The money fires will flame out unless more dollars are dumped into the innovation furnaces of smart software.
The Venture Beat story makes the point that “could dramatically reduce the cost and complexity of training AI systems to search for information, eliminating the need for expensive commercial search engine APIs altogether.”
Oh, oh.
This is smart. Buring cash in pursuit of a fractional improvement is dumb, well, actually, stupid, if the write up’s inforamtion is accurate.
The Venture Beat story says:
The technique, called “ZeroSearch,” allows large language models (LLMs) to develop advanced search capabilities through a simulation approach rather than interacting with real search engines during the training process. This innovation could save companies significant API expenses while offering better control over how AI systems learn to retrieve information.
Is this a Snorkel variant hot from Stanford AI lab?
The write up does not delve into the synthetic data short cut to smart software. After some mumbo jumbo, the write up points out the meat of the “innovation”:
The cost savings are substantial. According to the researchers’ analysis, training with approximately 64,000 search queries using Google Search via SerpAPI would cost about $586.70, while using a 14B-parameter simulation LLM on four A100 GPUs costs only $70.80 — an 88% reduction.
Imagine. A dollar in cost becomes $0.12. If accurate, what should a savvy investor do? Pump money into an outfit like OpenAI or the Xai- type entity, or think harder about the China-smart solution?
Venture Beat explains the implication of the alleged cost savings:
The impact could be substantial for the AI industry.
No kidding?
The Venture Beat analysts add this observation:
The irony is clear: in teaching AI to search without search engines, Alibaba may have created a technology that makes traditional search engines less necessary for AI development. As these systems become more self-sufficient, the technology landscape could look very different in just a few years.
Yep, irony. Free transformer technology. Free Snorkle technology. Free kinetic into the core of the LLM money furnace.
If true, the implications are easy to outline. If bogus, the China Smart, US Dumb trope still captured ink and will be embedded in some smart software’s increasingly frequent hallucinatory outputs. At which point, the China Smart, US Dumb information gains traction and becomes “fact” to some.
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2025
Google, Its AI Search, and Web Site Traffic
May 12, 2025
No AI. Just a dinobaby sharing an observation about younger managers and their innocence.
I read “Google’s AI Search Switch Leaves Indie Websites Unmoored.” I think this is a Gen Y way of saying, “No traffic for you, bozos.” Of course, as a dinobaby, I am probably wrong.
Let’s look at the write up. It says:
many publishers said they either need to shut down or revamp their distribution strategy. Experts this effort could ultimately reduce the quality of information Google can access for its search results and AI answers.
Okay, but this is just one way to look at Google’s delicious decision.
May I share some of my personal thoughts about what this traffic downshift means for those blue-chip consultant Googlers in charge:
First, in the good old days before the decline began in 2006, Google indexed bluebirds (sites that had to be checked for new content or “deltas” on an accelerated heart beat. Examples were whitehouse.gov (no, not the whitehouse.com porn site). Then there were sparrows. These plentiful Web sites could be checked on a relaxed schedule. I mean how often do you visit the US government’s National Railway Retirement Web site if it still is maintained and online? Yep, the correct answer is, “Never.” There there were canaries. These were sites which might signal a surge in popularity. They were checked on a heart beat that ensured the Google wouldn’t miss a trend and fail to sell advertising to those lucky ad buyers.
So, bluebirds, canaries, and sparrows.
This shift means that Google can reduce costs by focusing on bluebirds and canaries. The sparrows — the site operated by someone’s grandmother to sell home made quilts — won’t get traffic unless the site operator buys advertising. It’s pay to play. If a site is not in the Google index, it just may not exist. Sure there are alternative Web search systems, but none, as far as I know, are close to the scope of the “old” Google in 2006.
Second, by dropping sparrows or pinging them once in a blue moon will reduce the costs of crawling, indexing, and doing the behind-the-scenes work that consumes Google cash at an astonishing rate. Therefore, the myth of indexing the “Web” is going to persist, but the content of the index is not going to be “fresh.” This is the concept that some sites like whitehouse.gov have important information that must be in search results. Non-priority sites just disappear or fade. Eventually the users won’t know something is missing, which is assisted by the decline in education for some Google users. The top one percent knows bad or missing information. The other 99 percent? Well, good luck.
Third, the change means that publishers will have some options. [a] They can block Google’s spider and chase the options. How’s Yandex.ru sound? [b] They can buy advertising and move forward. I suggest these publishers ask a Google advertising representative what the minimum spend is to get traffic. [c] Publishers can join together and try to come up with a joint effort to resist the increasingly aggressive business actions of Google. Do you have a Google button on your remote? Well, you will. [d] Be innovative. Yeah, no comment.
Net net: This item about the impact of AI Overviews is important. Just consider what Google gains and the pickle publishers and other Web sites now find themselves enjoying.
Stephen E Arnold, May 12, 2025
US Cloud Dominance? China Finds a Gap and Cuts a Path to the Middle East
May 11, 2025
No AI, just the dinobaby expressing his opinions to Zellenials.
‘How China Is Gaining Ground in the Middle East Cloud Computing Race” provides a summary of what may be a destabilizing move in the cloud computing market. The article says:
Huawei and Alibaba are outpacing established U.S. providers by aligning with government priorities and addressing data sovereignty concerns.
The “U.S. providers” are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Oracle. The Chinese companies making gains in the Middle East include Alibaba, Huawei, and TenCent. Others are likely to follow.
The article notes:
Alibaba Cloud expanded strategically by opening data centers in the UAE in 2022 and Saudi Arabia last year. It entered the Saudi market by setting up a venture with STC. The Saudi Cloud Computing Company will support the kingdom’s Vision 2030 goals, under which the government hopes to diversify the economy away from oil dependency.
What’s China’s marketing angle? The write up identifies alignment and more sensitivity to “data sovereignty” in key Middle Eastern countries. But the secret sauce is, according the the write up:
A key differentiator has been the Chinese providers’ approach to artificial intelligence. While U.S. companies have been slow to adopt AI solutions in the region, Chinese providers have aggressively embedded AI into their offerings at a time when Gulf nations are pursuing AI leadership. During the Huawei Global AI Summit last year, Huawei Cloud’s chief technology officer, Bruno Zhang, showed how its AI could cut Saudi hospital diagnostic times by 40% using localized Arabic language models — a tangible benefit that theoretical AI platforms from Western providers couldn’t match.
This statement may or may not be 100 percent correct. For this blog post, let’s assume that it is close enough for horse shoes. First, the US cloud providers are positioned as “slow”. What happened to the go fast angle. Wasn’t Microsoft a “leader” in AI, catching Google napping in its cubicle? Google declared some sort of an emergency and the AI carnival put up its midway.
Second, the Gulf “nations” wanted AI leadership, so Huawei presented a “tangible benefit” in the form of a diagnostic time reduction and localized Arabic language models. I know that US cloud providers provide translation services, but the pointy end of the stick shoved into the couch potato US cloud services was “localized language models.”
Furthermore, the Chinese providers provide cloud services and support on premises plus cloud functions. The “hybrid” angle matches the needs of some Middle Eastern information systems professionals’ ideas. The write up says:
The hybrid approach plays directly to the strengths of Chinese providers, who recognized this market preference early and built their regional strategy around it.
The Chinese vendors provide an approach that matches what prospects want. Seems simple and obvious. However, the article includes a quote that hints at another positive for the Chinese cloud players; to wit:
“The Chinese companies are showing that success in the Middle East depends as much on trust and cooperation as it does on computing power,” Luis Bravo, senior research analyst at Texas-based data center Hawk…
For me the differentiator may not be price, hybrid willingness, or localization. The killer word is trust. If the Gulf States do not trust the US vendors, China is likely to displace yesterday’s “only game in town” crowd.
Yep, trust. A killer benefit in some deals.
Stephen E Arnold, May 11, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
