Cloud computing might be part of the next great evolution of computing, but mobile computing probably will be such an intrinsic part of the architecture that the two will be hard to separate. The ramifications could be substantial.
Amazon’s AWS Marketplace, for example, could have huge ramifications for sales forces in the communications and information technology marketplace. As AWS Marketplace and other similar marketplaces develop, the “cloud” becomes the way everyone gets access to business apps and data.
Separately, Hewlett-Packard (HP) has launched an “HP Enterprise Mobility Platform” designed to allow telcos to create “enterprises app stores.”
Service providers can populate the app stores with custom apps designed to use data from corporate back-end systems (such as CRM and ERP) and deliver it to increasingly mobile staff using tablets and smartphones. The assumption is that apps and data can be gotten directly by any device from the mobile network.
Both offers illustrate use of cloud computing and mobility to make business application installation and use a simple mobile app install to a device with web browser capability and broadband access.
What you will note about the enterprise app store concept is that it disintermediates nearly all of the premises networking infrastructure. There is no need for the enterprise local area network, except perhaps to switch to Wi-Fi access at times.
You can imagine this will have serious implications for firms that traditionally make a living selling gear and services for enterprise LANs. Just as easily, you can see the upside for traditional communications providers who now could have an expanded role in the information technology business.
What products would be “natural” parts of a communications and information technology bundle? How much easier would it be for traditional telco sales organizations to sell key business software?
In fact, non-technical sales forces of all types might find there are new opportunities to sell products that might have been “too technical” in the past. Firms outside “IT” might find they can create bundles almost on the fly, customized for vertical markets or businesses of various sizes and types.
A shift to some new computing architecture based on cloud resources and mobility could have huge implications for any number of businesses in the information technology and communications businesses.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Cloud Computing and Mobile Apps Could Shake Up IT Business
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
HTC Share of Traffic Drops 60% in Five Months
From October 2011 through March 2012, Apple’s traffic share grew from 46.8 percent to 76.9 percent, an increase of 64 percent, says Chitika Insights. HTC, on the other hand, experiencd an overall web traffic share fall from 18 percent to 7.3 percent, a decrease of 60 percent.
Traffic is in many ways a proxy for device market share. Others who follow the device market more closely than I do can offer reasons for the precipitous decline. Aside from the competition with Apple, HTC obviously has to compete with other Android device manufacturers on price and value.
Traffic is in many ways a proxy for device market share. Others who follow the device market more closely than I do can offer reasons for the precipitous decline. Aside from the competition with Apple, HTC obviously has to compete with other Android device manufacturers on price and value.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
1 Gbps: If You Build It, Will They Come?
Individual subscribers connected at gigabit speeds constitute a relatively new phenomenon.
First introduced by Hong Kong Broadband in 2010, the number of service providers offering
residential gigabit services is growing, with more than two dozen service providers providing such service, according to a study by Joe Savage, Telecom ThinkTank principal, and Michael Render RVA Market Research principal.
About seven of those providers offer service to residences as well as businesses, and have networks that pass at least 100,000 sites (not to be confused with “customers”). “Our March, 2012 estimate is that global residential gigabit subscribers number in the hundreds,” the authors say.
Historically, consumers have responded enthusiastically to higher speeds, at least up to a point. For both dial-up Internet and then broadband Internet access, consumers responded in overwhelming numbers. Both were examples of “build it and they will come” optimism on the part of service providers.
But that has not yet proven universally true. As many people buy automobiles, but not everybody buys a luxury automobile, service providers probably should maintain some circumspection about demand for “super-fast” access, defined as 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps or even 1-Gbps service.
As with the market for automobiles, user have distinct needs and spending abilities. Any auto provides “transportation.” But most people do not buy high-end luxury vehicles. In the same way, one might argue, demand for broadband speed is simply not highly elastic.
Verizon, for example, had a total of five million FiOS Internet connections in service at the end of the first quarter of 2012. That works out to FiOS Internet penetration of 36.4 percent.
That should provide evidence that fiber to the home does not sell itself. Some of us tend to believe that the advantages of fiber to the home are so obvious Verizon would only have to "build it and they will come." Not so, it turns out.
Though there is slow movement to higher access speeds, Verizon's experience suggests providers of 1-Gbps services should have realistic expectations about take rates.
Some of us immediately would wonder whether existing 1-Gbps customers, especially in markets where monthly prices are in the $200 range, actually are “business” users, though, much as Google product managers and others have 100-Mbps connections, paid for by Google, so they can work efficiently at home. Some ISPs have found scant interest for 50-Mbps services, for example.
Prices for residential gigabit service range from a low of $26 per month for Hong
Kong Broadband’ s service to a high of $560 per month at network operator Turkcell. Prices
roughly correlate to the capital investment required to pass a subscriber in the serving area, the authors say. It costs $200 per home passed in Hong Kong compared to $1,000 to $4,000 per home passed in Europe and North America. ISPs have seen price resistance whenever monthly recurring costs approach triple digits.
In North America, Sonic.net will be seen by many, and ought to be seen as notable, for offering 1-Gbps service to consumers for $70 a month, including two phone lines with no-extra-charge domestic long distance. Comcast’s 105-Mbps service in San Francisco costs about $200 a month, by way of comparison.
Gigabit subscribers report that they are online an average of eight hours per day. That compares with the “typical” U.S. Internet user average of 2.5 hours per day. By definition, 1-Gbps customers are not “mainstream.”
In addition to being “early adopters” and “technology enthusiasts,” they stream high-definition content, engage in multi-player online games and tend to be content creators.
It remains to be seen whether there will be higher adoption as the service is made available to more potential users. At least up to this point, few subscribers who pay for their own connections (as opposed to having the bills paid by an employer) seem to have become customers. Also, surveys have shown that most users are happy with speeds they now get.
That said, we will soon get a better look at receptivity to 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps services in a number of markets, such as United Kingdom. Some question whether “build it and they will come” is so reasonable an assumption, at this point.
First introduced by Hong Kong Broadband in 2010, the number of service providers offering
residential gigabit services is growing, with more than two dozen service providers providing such service, according to a study by Joe Savage, Telecom ThinkTank principal, and Michael Render RVA Market Research principal.
About seven of those providers offer service to residences as well as businesses, and have networks that pass at least 100,000 sites (not to be confused with “customers”). “Our March, 2012 estimate is that global residential gigabit subscribers number in the hundreds,” the authors say.
Historically, consumers have responded enthusiastically to higher speeds, at least up to a point. For both dial-up Internet and then broadband Internet access, consumers responded in overwhelming numbers. Both were examples of “build it and they will come” optimism on the part of service providers.
But that has not yet proven universally true. As many people buy automobiles, but not everybody buys a luxury automobile, service providers probably should maintain some circumspection about demand for “super-fast” access, defined as 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps or even 1-Gbps service.
As with the market for automobiles, user have distinct needs and spending abilities. Any auto provides “transportation.” But most people do not buy high-end luxury vehicles. In the same way, one might argue, demand for broadband speed is simply not highly elastic.
Verizon, for example, had a total of five million FiOS Internet connections in service at the end of the first quarter of 2012. That works out to FiOS Internet penetration of 36.4 percent.
That should provide evidence that fiber to the home does not sell itself. Some of us tend to believe that the advantages of fiber to the home are so obvious Verizon would only have to "build it and they will come." Not so, it turns out.
Though there is slow movement to higher access speeds, Verizon's experience suggests providers of 1-Gbps services should have realistic expectations about take rates.
Some of us immediately would wonder whether existing 1-Gbps customers, especially in markets where monthly prices are in the $200 range, actually are “business” users, though, much as Google product managers and others have 100-Mbps connections, paid for by Google, so they can work efficiently at home. Some ISPs have found scant interest for 50-Mbps services, for example.
Prices for residential gigabit service range from a low of $26 per month for Hong
Kong Broadband’ s service to a high of $560 per month at network operator Turkcell. Prices
roughly correlate to the capital investment required to pass a subscriber in the serving area, the authors say. It costs $200 per home passed in Hong Kong compared to $1,000 to $4,000 per home passed in Europe and North America. ISPs have seen price resistance whenever monthly recurring costs approach triple digits.
In North America, Sonic.net will be seen by many, and ought to be seen as notable, for offering 1-Gbps service to consumers for $70 a month, including two phone lines with no-extra-charge domestic long distance. Comcast’s 105-Mbps service in San Francisco costs about $200 a month, by way of comparison.
Gigabit subscribers report that they are online an average of eight hours per day. That compares with the “typical” U.S. Internet user average of 2.5 hours per day. By definition, 1-Gbps customers are not “mainstream.”
In addition to being “early adopters” and “technology enthusiasts,” they stream high-definition content, engage in multi-player online games and tend to be content creators.
It remains to be seen whether there will be higher adoption as the service is made available to more potential users. At least up to this point, few subscribers who pay for their own connections (as opposed to having the bills paid by an employer) seem to have become customers. Also, surveys have shown that most users are happy with speeds they now get.
That said, we will soon get a better look at receptivity to 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps services in a number of markets, such as United Kingdom. Some question whether “build it and they will come” is so reasonable an assumption, at this point.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Data Caps Serve Multiple Objectives, Exec Argues
The need to protect the fixed line business is the real reason behind the move towards data caps and tiered pricing for Long Term Evolution, says Roberto Saracco, director of Telecom Italia's Future Center. Data caps on mobile broadband usage often are justified because mobile bandwidth always is more finite than fixed network bandwidth.
On the other hand, business policies often can serve several goals, at once. Saracco argues that mobile data caps, especially as faster LTE fourth generation networks become available, also help some service providers protect their landline broadband access businesses.
With caps in place, users have less opportunity to replace a fixed network connection with a mobile alternative. One key issue is the size of the respective caps. Mobile broadband might feature caps between 2 Mbytes and 5 Mbytes, with optional plans of 10 Mbytes.
Fixed networks routinely have caps of 150 Gbytes, or two orders of magnitude higher. Aside from the fact that the cost per bit is much higher on a mobile network, the difference in caps mean mobile substitution does not work.
Some lighter users, in single-person households, might be able to substitute mobile broadband for fixed service. Multi-person households, heavier users and people who watch significant amounts of video, will find mobile unworkable as a fixed network substitute product.
On the other hand, there are instances where mobile substitution makes perfect sense for an ISP. Where a service provider has no landline facilities, wireless substitution allows a mobile provider to compete for some parts of the landline broadband access business, with no risk of cannibalization.
On the other hand, business policies often can serve several goals, at once. Saracco argues that mobile data caps, especially as faster LTE fourth generation networks become available, also help some service providers protect their landline broadband access businesses.
With caps in place, users have less opportunity to replace a fixed network connection with a mobile alternative. One key issue is the size of the respective caps. Mobile broadband might feature caps between 2 Mbytes and 5 Mbytes, with optional plans of 10 Mbytes.
Fixed networks routinely have caps of 150 Gbytes, or two orders of magnitude higher. Aside from the fact that the cost per bit is much higher on a mobile network, the difference in caps mean mobile substitution does not work.
Some lighter users, in single-person households, might be able to substitute mobile broadband for fixed service. Multi-person households, heavier users and people who watch significant amounts of video, will find mobile unworkable as a fixed network substitute product.
On the other hand, there are instances where mobile substitution makes perfect sense for an ISP. Where a service provider has no landline facilities, wireless substitution allows a mobile provider to compete for some parts of the landline broadband access business, with no risk of cannibalization.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
OpenFlow Poses a Challenge to Net Neutrality, in a Good Way
In principle, some of us would argue, consumer users of Internet apps should have the ability to prioritize their own traffic, or have their ISPs optimize on their behalf, in ways that preserve user experience as deemed important by users themselves. Current network neutrality rules prevent that. OpenFlow might help.
OpenFlow is software that could allow any end user to create priorities for their own traffic. In principle, ISPS could use OpenFlow to optimize on behalf of their customers. In practice they cannot, as it would violate network neutrality rules that only allow "best effort" for all packets.
The advantages are relatively obvious. Business users for example, can buy services not subject to net neutrality rules, in ways that are helpful.
Cadbury, for example, is managing its internal corporate network using application and other priorities after an audit found that 55 percent of its traffic was recreational, says Nolan Rosen, chief marketing officer at Exinda, a consultant to Cadbury, USA Today reports.
Now, each office now gets bandwidth prioritization based on size of site or its contribution to overall business objectives. Such policies, based on type of application, time of day, day of week, type of user or site are permissible for private networks run by enterprises, but are not allowed for consumer broadband customers.
That's one reason some of us have argued that current network neutrality rules, intended to prevent unfair business practices, also have the effect of denying packet prioritization policies that actually can have high value for discrete end users, based on the priorities those users have.
Video and voice are two applications most consumers use frequently, and both are real-time services that benefit from policies that preserve bandwidth for such applications at times of network congestion. Gaming is the other obvious application that can benefit from prioritization policies at times of network congestion.
OpenFlow is software that could allow any end user to create priorities for their own traffic. In principle, ISPS could use OpenFlow to optimize on behalf of their customers. In practice they cannot, as it would violate network neutrality rules that only allow "best effort" for all packets.
The advantages are relatively obvious. Business users for example, can buy services not subject to net neutrality rules, in ways that are helpful.
Cadbury, for example, is managing its internal corporate network using application and other priorities after an audit found that 55 percent of its traffic was recreational, says Nolan Rosen, chief marketing officer at Exinda, a consultant to Cadbury, USA Today reports.
Now, each office now gets bandwidth prioritization based on size of site or its contribution to overall business objectives. Such policies, based on type of application, time of day, day of week, type of user or site are permissible for private networks run by enterprises, but are not allowed for consumer broadband customers.
That's one reason some of us have argued that current network neutrality rules, intended to prevent unfair business practices, also have the effect of denying packet prioritization policies that actually can have high value for discrete end users, based on the priorities those users have.
Video and voice are two applications most consumers use frequently, and both are real-time services that benefit from policies that preserve bandwidth for such applications at times of network congestion. Gaming is the other obvious application that can benefit from prioritization policies at times of network congestion.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Verizon FiOS Lessons for 1-Gbps Access Providers
Two subjects from Verizon's first quarter 2012 earnings report jumped out at me, one being wireless data revenues, the other being FiOS penetration.
Data revenues were $6.6 billion, up $1.1 billion, or 21.1 percent, year over year, and now represent 42.9 percent of all wireless service revenues. Total revenues were $18.3 billion, up 8.2 percent year over year.
Also, retail postpaid average revenue per user grew 3.6 percent over first-quarter 2011, to $55.43. Retail postpaid data ARPU increased to $23.80, up 16.0 percent year over year. Retail service ARPU grew 3.4 percent, to $53.66.
The second subject was FiOS penetration. Verizon had a total of five million FiOS Internet and 4.4 million FiOS video connections at the end of the quarter. FiOS Internet penetration was 36.4 percent at the end of first-quarter 2012, compared with 33.1 percent at the end of first-quarter 2011, Verizon reports.
In the same period, FiOS video penetration was 32.3 percent, compared with 29.1 percent in the same quarter a year ago.
The conventional wisdom, and in fact the correct wisdom, is that Verizon growth is lead by mobile service revenues, and that mobile service revenues are lead by mobile broadband services. That clearly is the case at Verizon Wireless.
Also, mobile broadband revenues seem to be kicking ARPU higher, despite the decades-long downward drift of average ARPU, industry wide.
The other observation is that fiber to the home does not sell itself. Some of us tend to believe that the advantages of fiber to the home are so obvious Verizon would only have to "build it and they will come." Not so, it turns out.
Some 36 percent of consumers able to buy FiOS broadband have done so. About a third of customers able to buy FiOS video services have done so. Some of us would say the former figure is less than we'd have expected, the latter about what we would have expected.
Video competition is brutal, with Verizon facing two experienced satellite providers and a cable operator in every market. Getting a third market share is an accomplishment.
The continuing surprise is that broadband access penetration is not higher.
Put another way, Verizon has built an extensive fiber-to-the-home network that provides one brand new service--video--and a better experience for an existing service. But that investment garners about one in three households for the new service, and only a bit more than that for the better broadband service.
Though there is slow movement to higher access speeds, Verizon's experience suggests providers of 1-Gbps services should have realistic expectations about take rates.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
92% of Consumers Want A La Carte Video: Won't Get It
About 92 percent of consumers want some type of a la carte programming offering from their video subscription providers, but they're not willing to pay much for it, according to RBC Capital Markets. The upshot is that they aren't going to get a la carte programming.
About 92 percent of respondents said they would be at least "somewhat likely" to switch to a full a la carte option, the RBC Capital survey of more than 1,000 consumers found.
Some 82 percent said they would subscribe to at least 11 channels and 40 percent indicated they would subscribe to more than 20 channels, with a weighted average of about 19 channels.
That sounds about right: most people watch seven to 12 channels on a regular basis, a rule of thumb suggests.
Of the respondents who would prefer a la carte service, and would pay for the services, about 51 percent said they would pay at least $1 per month per channel, with the weighted average being $1.47 per month.
That works out to about $28.50 per month, or about a third the average monthly video subscription bill. Some programmers might be able to build a business case on an a la carte basis, but most likely would not fare as well.
Granted, programming rights costs appear low for many channels, in the cents per month range. But that is based on volume discounts and represents only licensing fees, not marketing, operations, billing and other costs of delivering content to a customer.
Consumers seem to be using the same sort of logic they use in assessing the "right cost" for a single downloaded song. People seem to divide the retail cost of a CD by the number of songs and assign a value. Users might be doing the same thing with their video service, essentially dividing the monthly recurring cost by the number of channels in their packages.
Service providers would rightly argue that there are sunk overhead costs that are not "channel based." All those costs would, in a full a la carte regime, need to be amortized over a smaller number of revenue units (channels).
About 92 percent of respondents said they would be at least "somewhat likely" to switch to a full a la carte option, the RBC Capital survey of more than 1,000 consumers found.
Some 82 percent said they would subscribe to at least 11 channels and 40 percent indicated they would subscribe to more than 20 channels, with a weighted average of about 19 channels.
That sounds about right: most people watch seven to 12 channels on a regular basis, a rule of thumb suggests.
Of the respondents who would prefer a la carte service, and would pay for the services, about 51 percent said they would pay at least $1 per month per channel, with the weighted average being $1.47 per month.
That works out to about $28.50 per month, or about a third the average monthly video subscription bill. Some programmers might be able to build a business case on an a la carte basis, but most likely would not fare as well.
Granted, programming rights costs appear low for many channels, in the cents per month range. But that is based on volume discounts and represents only licensing fees, not marketing, operations, billing and other costs of delivering content to a customer.
Consumers seem to be using the same sort of logic they use in assessing the "right cost" for a single downloaded song. People seem to divide the retail cost of a CD by the number of songs and assign a value. Users might be doing the same thing with their video service, essentially dividing the monthly recurring cost by the number of channels in their packages.
Service providers would rightly argue that there are sunk overhead costs that are not "channel based." All those costs would, in a full a la carte regime, need to be amortized over a smaller number of revenue units (channels).
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
More Deregulation for Landline Voice
In a significant development for the landline telecommunications business, states are passing or considering laws to end the requirement that phone companies provide "universal service" to every potential customer in competitive markets. Definitions might vary, but the Indiana version of the law defines what we might call effective competition as situations "where at least two other companies provide voice service, whether it's wired phone, Internet services such as Skype, or mobile access."
Indiana and Wisconsin are the two most recent states to end the requirement, and many others, including Alabama, Kentucky and Ohio, are considering it, USA Today reports.
Indiana and Wisconsin are the two most recent states to end the requirement, and many others, including Alabama, Kentucky and Ohio, are considering it, USA Today reports.
In California, a State Senate bill to deregulate VOIP services has passed the Senate Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee by a vote of 11-0.
The bill, SB 1331, would eliminate the power of the state’s Public Utilities Commission to regulate VOIP services, which historically has had regulatory authority over public utilities, including telephone companies.
In some ways, the move was inevitable. California deregulated nearly all landline service six years ago.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Broadband Saves U.S. Start-Ups $16,000 Each
High-speed broadband saves U.S. start-ups and entrepreneurs $16,550.52 in costs when a new business is started, according to a report published by the Internet Innovation Alliance and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
Here are the top 10 ways high-speed Internet, including wireless broadband, saves American entrepreneurs money
Top 10 Ways Broadband Saves American Entrepreneurs Money
Savings may also be greater for businesses that tap into broadband for a host of other needs not covered in the study, including purchasing equipment and furniture, utilizing cloud services, or marketing products and services.
According to the Kauffman Foundation, young firms were responsible for nearly all the net job creation in the United States between 1980 and 2005. Kauffman estimates that new firms create approximately three million jobs each year, and have created 40 million new jobs since 1980.
Top 10 Ways Broadband Saves American Entrepreneurs Money
| Category | Traditional | Online | Amount Saved on Start-up Costs | % Saved |
| Accounting: Online Services and Software vs. Traditional Accountant Services | $2,101.00 | $267.30 | $1,833.70 | 87.28% |
| Printing Services | $875.22 | $497.15 | $378.07 | 43.20% |
| Telephone Line | $696.00 | $264.00 | $432.00 | 62.07% |
| Website Design and Hosting | $2,397.84 | $299.64 | $2,098.20 | 87.50% |
| Mobile Apps and Business Owner’s Time | $35,027.20 | $31,524.48 | $3,502.72 | 10.00% |
| Logo Design | $500.00 | $42.00 | $458.00 | 91.60% |
| Office Space vs. Home Office | $6,180.00 | $0.00 | $6,180.00 | 100.00% |
| Incorporating a Business | $394.67 | $98.67 | $296.00 | 75.00% |
| Newspaper Subscriptions | $348.71 | $0.00 | $348.71 | 100.00% |
| Travel Costs: Air Travel vs. Online Video Calls/Conferencing | $1,083.00 | $59.88 | $1,023.12 | 94.47% |
| TOTAL | $49,603.64 | $33,053.12 | $16,550.52 | 33.37% |
| Cost of Broadband Connection | $490.00 | |||
| Total Saved, with Broadband | $16,060.52 |
Savings may also be greater for businesses that tap into broadband for a host of other needs not covered in the study, including purchasing equipment and furniture, utilizing cloud services, or marketing products and services.
According to the Kauffman Foundation, young firms were responsible for nearly all the net job creation in the United States between 1980 and 2005. Kauffman estimates that new firms create approximately three million jobs each year, and have created 40 million new jobs since 1980.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
We have all repeatedly seen comparisons of equity value of hyperscale app providers compared to the value of connectivity providers, which s...
-
It really is surprising how often a Pareto distribution--the “80/20 rule--appears in business life, or in life, generally. Basically, the...
-
Financial analysts typically express concern when any firm’s customer base is too concentrated. Consider that, In 2024, CoreWeave’s top two ...
