Biotech startup Cradle has raised $73 million to expand its labs and team, aiming to make AI-powered protein design more accessible. Founded in 2022, the company uses language models to analyse proteins, often described as “an alien programming language,” to suggest modifications that improve functionality, such as heat resistance or manufacturability.
Cradle’s software has gained traction among biotech and pharmaceutical companies by reducing the time and cost of experimental rounds, which can be both expensive and unpredictable. Its simple SaaS model eliminates concerns about royalties or intellectual property, offering a streamlined approach compared to competitors that co-develop drugs or processes.
Despite being a software provider, Cradle maintains a laboratory in Amsterdam to validate protein designs and build datasets to refine its models. The latest funding, led by IVP with participation from Index Ventures and Kindred Capital, will support lab expansion and further hiring. CEO Stef van Grieken aims to scale Cradle’s tools to reach a million scientists worldwide.
Meta has proposed a unified system for age verification and safety standards across the EU to better protect teenagers online. The plan includes requiring parental approval for app downloads by users under 16, with app stores notifying parents for consent. Meta also advocates for consistent age-appropriate content guidelines and supervision tools for teens that parents can manage.
The proposal follows calls from incoming EU technology commissioner Henna Virkkunen, who emphasised protecting minors as a priority. Meta’s global head of safety, Antigone Davis, highlighted the fragmented nature of current European regulations, urging the adoption of uniform rules to ensure better protections for teens.
Although some EU frameworks like the Digital Services Act and Audiovisual Media Services Directive touch on youth safety, the lack of EU-wide standards leaves much to member states. Meta’s proposal aligns with ongoing discussions around the Child Sexual Abuse Material regulation, which aims to enhance online protections for minors.
Chinese big tech companies have emerged as some of the most influential players in the global technology landscape, driving innovation and shaping industries across the board. These companies are deeply entrenched in everyday life in China, offering a wide range of services and products that span e-commerce, social media, gaming, cloud computing, ΑΙ, and telecommunications. Their influence is not confined to China, they also play a significant role in global markets, often competing directly with US tech giants.
The rivalry between China and the US has become one of the defining geopolitical struggles of the 21st century. This competition oscillates between cooperation, fierce competition, and confrontation, influenced by regulatory policies, national security concerns, and shifting political priorities. The geopolitical pendulum of China-US tech firms, totally independent from the US election outcome, reflects the broader tensions between the two powers, with profound implications for global tech industries, innovation, and market dynamics.
The Golden Shield Project
In 2000, under Chairman Jiang Zemin’s leadership, China launched the Golden Shield Project to control media and information flow within the country. The initiative aimed to safeguard national security and restrict the influence of Western propaganda. As part of the Golden Shield, many American tech giants such as Google, Facebook, and Netflix were blocked by the Great Firewall for not complying with China’s data regulations, while companies like Microsoft and LinkedIn were allowed to operate.
At the same time, China’s internet user base grew dramatically, reaching 800 million netizens by 2018, with 98% using mobile devices. This rapid expansion provided a fertile ground for Chinese tech firms, which thrived without significant competition from foreign players. Among the earliest beneficiaries of this system were the BATX companies, which capitalised on China’s evolving internet landscape and rapidly established a dominant presence in the market.
The powerhouses of Chinese tech
The major Chinese tech companies, often referred to as the Big Tech of China, include Alibaba Group, Tencent, Baidu, ByteDance, Huawei, Xiaomi, JD.com, Meituan, Pinduoduo, and Didi Chuxing.
Alibaba Group is a global e-commerce and technology conglomerate, operating platforms such as Taobao and Tmall for e-commerce, AliExpress for international retail, and Alipay for digital payments. The company also has significant investments in cloud computing with Alibaba Cloud and logistics.
Tencent, a massive tech conglomerate, is known for its social media and entertainment services. It owns WeChat, a widely used messaging app that offers payment services, social media features, and more. Tencent also has investments in gaming, owning major stakes in Riot Games, Epic Games, and Activision Blizzard, as well as interests in financial services and cloud computing.
Baidu, often called China’s Google, is a leading search engine provider. In addition to its search services, Baidu has a strong presence in AI development, autonomous driving, and cloud computing, particularly focusing on natural language processing and autonomous vehicles.
ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, has made a name for itself in short-form video content and AI-driven platforms. It also operates Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok, along with Toutiao, a popular news aggregation platform. ByteDance has expanded into gaming, e-commerce, and other AI technologies.
Huawei is a global leader in telecommunications equipment and consumer electronics, particularly smartphones and 5G infrastructure. The company is deeply involved in cloud computing and AI, despite facing significant geopolitical challenges.
Xiaomi is a leading smartphone manufacturer that also produces smart home devices, wearables, and a wide range of consumer electronics. The company is growing rapidly in the Internet of Things (IoT) space and AI-driven products.
JD.com, one of China’s largest e-commerce platforms, operates similarly to Alibaba, focusing on direct sales, logistics, and tech solutions. JD.com has also made significant strides in robotics, AI, and logistics technology.
Meituan is best known for its food delivery and local services platform, offering everything from restaurant reservations to hotel bookings. The company also operates in sectors like bike-sharing, travel, and ride-hailing.
Pinduoduo has rapidly grown in e-commerce by focusing on group buying and social commerce, particularly targeting lower-tier cities and rural markets in China. The platform offers discounted products to users who buy in groups.
Didi Chuxing is China’s dominant ride-hailing service, offering various transportation services such as ride-hailing, car rentals, and autonomous driving technology.
But what are the BATX companies we mentioned earlier?
BAXT
The term BATX refers to a group of the four dominant Chinese tech companies: Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Xiaomi. These companies are central to China’s technology landscape and are often compared to the US “FAANG” group (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google) because of their major influence across a range of industries, including e-commerce, search engines, social media, gaming, ΑΙ and telecommunications. Together, BATX companies are key players in shaping China’s tech ecosystem and have a significant impact on global markets.
China’s strategy for tech growth
China’s technology development strategy has proven effective in propelling the country to the forefront of several high-tech industries. This ambitious approach, which involves broad investments across both large state-owned enterprises and smaller private startups, has fostered significant innovation and created a competitive business environment. As a result, it has the potential to serve as a model for other countries looking to stimulate tech growth.
A key driver of China’s success is its diverse investment strategy, supported by government-led initiatives like the “Made in China 2025” and the “Thousand Talents Plan“. These programs offer financial backing and attract top talent from around the globe. This inclusive approach has helped China rapidly emerge as a global leader in fields like AI, robotics, and semiconductors. However, critics argue that the strategy may be overly aggressive, potentially stifling competition and innovation.
Some have raised concerns that China’s government support unfairly favours domestic companies, providing subsidies and other advantages that foreign competitors do not receive. Yet, this type of protectionist approach is not unique to China; other countries have implemented similar strategies to foster the growth of their own industries.
Another critique is that China’s broad investment model may encourage risky ventures and the subsidising of failures, potentially leading to a market that is oversaturated with unprofitable businesses. While this criticism holds merit in some cases, the overall success of China’s strategy in cultivating a dynamic and competitive tech landscape remains evident.
Looking ahead, China’s technology development strategy is likely to continue evolving. As the country strengthens its position on the global stage, it may become more selective in its investments, focusing on firms with the potential for global leadership.
In any case, China’s strategy has shown it can drive innovation and foster growth. Other nations hoping to advance their technological sectors should take note of this model and consider implementing similar policies to enhance their own competitive and innovative business environments.
But under what regulatory framework does Chinese tech policy ultimately operate? How does it affect the whole project? Are there some negative effects of the tight state grip?
China’s regulatory pyramid: Balancing control and consequences
China’s regulatory approach to its booming tech sector is defined by a precarious balance of authority, enforcement, and market response. Angela Zhang, author of High Wire: How China Regulates Big Tech and Governs Its Economy, proposes a “dynamic pyramid model” to explain the system’s intricate dynamics. This model highlights three key features: hierarchy, volatility, and fragility.
The top-down structure of China’s regulatory system is a hallmark of its hierarchy. Regulatory agencies act based on directives from centralised leadership, creating a paradox. In the absence of clear signals, agencies exhibit inaction, allowing industries to flourish unchecked. Conversely, when leadership calls for stricter oversight, regulators often overreach. A prime example of this is the drastic shift in 2020 when China moved from years of leniency toward its tech giants to implementing sweeping crackdowns on firms like Alibaba and Tencent.
This erratic enforcement underscores the volatility of the system. Chinese tech regulation is characterised by cycles of lax oversight followed by abrupt crackdowns, driven by shifts in political priorities. The 2020 – 2022 crackdown, which involved antitrust investigations and record-breaking fines, sent shockwaves through markets, wiping out billions in market value. While the government eased its stance in 2022, the uncertainty created by such pendulum swings has left investors wary, with many viewing the Chinese market as unpredictable and risky.
Despite its intentions to address pressing issues like antitrust violations and data security, China’s heavy-handed regulatory approach often results in fragility. Rapid interventions can undermine confidence, stifle innovation, and damage the very sectors the government seeks to strengthen. Years of lax oversight exacerbate challenges, leaving regulators with steep issues to address and markets vulnerable to overcorrection.
This model offers a lens into the broader governance dynamics in China. The system’s centralised control and reactive policies aim to maintain stability but often generate unintended economic consequences. As Chinese tech firms look to expand overseas amid domestic challenges, the long-term impact of these regulatory cycles remains uncertain, potentially influencing China’s ability to compete on the global stage.
The battle for tech supremacy between the USA and China
The incoming US President Donald Trump is expected to adopt a more aggressive, unilateral approach to counter China’s technological growth, drawing on his history of quick, broad measures such as tariffs. Under his leadership, the USA is likely to expand export controls and impose tougher sanctions on Chinese tech firms. Trump’s advisors predict a significant push to add more companies to the US Entity List, which restricts US firms from selling to blacklisted companies. His administration might focus on using tariffs (potentially up to 60% on Chinese imports) and export controls to pressure China, even if it strains relations with international allies.
The escalating tensions have been further complicated by China’s retaliatory actions. In response to US export controls, China has targeted American companies like Micron Technology and imposed its own restrictions on essential materials for chipmaking and electric vehicle production. These moves highlight the interconnectedness of both economies, with the US still reliant on China for critical resources such as rare earth elements, which are vital for both technology and defence.
This intensifying technological conflict reflects broader concerns over data security, military dominance, and leadership in AI and semiconductors. As both nations aim to protect their strategic interests, the tech war is set to continue evolving, with major consequences for global supply chains, innovation, and the international balance of power in technology.
Zoom, once synonymous with video conferencing during the pandemic, is pivoting to redefine itself as an ‘AI-first work platform for human connection.’ The company has dropped ‘Video’ from its name, now operating as Zoom Communications Inc., as part of its broader strategy to move beyond video services and compete with tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Slack.
Amid declining growth following its pandemic-era boom, Zoom has expanded its offerings to include a comprehensive suite of tools under its Zoom Workplace solution, featuring team chat, email, and productivity apps. CEO Eric Yuan envisions AI as the cornerstone of this transformation, with tools designed to automate routine tasks and create ‘digital twins’ for users, freeing up time and enabling a four-day workweek.
In October, Zoom introduced its upgraded AI companion, which offers advanced summarisation and assistance capabilities. Yuan emphasises that leveraging AI for smarter, hybrid work solutions will be critical to keeping Zoom relevant as workers return to offices and competition in the enterprise software market intensifies.
A pivotal antitrust case involving Google’s dominance in online advertising has reached its conclusion in a Virginia federal court. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Alphabet’s Google unfairly monopolised key markets, including ad servers and advertiser networks, as well as attempting to dominate ad exchanges. Closing arguments were presented after a 15-day trial.
DOJ lawyers accused Google of manipulating the ad market for its advantage. They characterised the company as a ‘once, twice, three times a monopolist’ and likened the case to a tale of conflicting narratives, urging the judge to side with their evidence. Publishers testified about being unable to switch from Google’s services due to the company’s vast ad demand, highlighting the significant revenue at stake.
Google’s defence argued that its business practices align with antitrust laws and that the DOJ failed to meet the burden of proof. Company lawyers claimed the case misrepresented a competitive ad market and ignored Google’s legitimate strategies. Google contends the government focused narrowly on certain market aspects rather than acknowledging broader industry competition.
A decision could lead to major structural changes for Google’s advertising business. Prosecutors want Google to divest its Ad Manager platform, which includes its publisher ad server and ad exchange. The company recently offered to sell its ad exchange to resolve a similar EU antitrust inquiry, though European publishers rejected the proposal as inadequate.
Japan’s Fair Trade Commission has raided Amazon Japan over allegations of anti-monopoly violations. The company is suspected of pressuring sellers to reduce prices in exchange for favourable product placement on its e-commerce platform, a government source revealed.
The investigation comes amid growing global scrutiny of Amazon’s practices. In Europe, regulators are preparing a case to examine whether Amazon favours its branded products on its marketplace under new antitrust rules.
This is not the first time Amazon Japan has faced such scrutiny. In 2018, authorities accused it of shifting discount costs onto suppliers. The case was resolved after Amazon agreed to improve its business practices, but the latest allegations suggest ongoing concerns about its market conduct.
Google has announced further changes to its search results in Europe in response to complaints from smaller competitors and looming EU antitrust charges under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The tech giant has faced criticism from price-comparison sites, hotels, and small retailers over a 30% drop in direct booking clicks caused by earlier search tweaks.
The DMA, introduced last year to curb Big Tech dominance, prohibits Google from favouring its services. To comply, Google plans to offer expanded and uniformly formatted options for users to choose between comparison sites and supplier websites, along with new ad formats and tools for competitors to display prices and images.
As part of a test in Germany, Belgium, and Estonia, Google will temporarily remove hotel location maps and associated results to assess user interest in a simpler “ten blue links” layout. While reluctant to cut features, Google says these measures aim to strike a balance between user needs and regulatory requirements.
The European Commission has been scrutinising Google since March, with DMA violations carrying potential fines of up to 10% of global annual revenue. Google’s compliance efforts reflect its attempt to navigate the demands of regulators and rival businesses while maintaining its services’ usability.
Huawei has launched its Mate 70 smartphone series, signalling a major step in its comeback to premium devices while showcasing HarmonyOS NEXT, its Android-free operating system. Priced from 5,499 yuan ($758), the Mate 70 challenges Apple’s iPhone 16 in China, boasting features like satellite paging, an advanced processor, and a 40% performance boost over previous models.
HarmonyOS NEXT represents Huawei’s bid for software independence after US export restrictions cut off access to Google services. The company announced that all new devices starting in 2025 will run the new system, while current Mate 70 users can choose between HarmonyOS 4.3 (Android-compatible) and the new HarmonyOS NEXT 5.0. Despite this shift, Huawei has retained Android compatibility as a backup while growing its app ecosystem, which already includes 15,000 applications.
The Mate 70 also highlights China’s advancing chipmaking capabilities, reportedly featuring SMIC-produced Kirin 9100 processors in higher-end models. This achievement underscores Huawei’s resilience despite ongoing US export controls and the addition of Chinese firms to trade blacklists. Huawei’s rebound is reflected in its rising market share, now ranked as China’s second-largest smartphone vendor with over 10 million units shipped in recent quarters.
The launch of the Mate 70 marks Huawei’s increasing competition with Apple and other global players in the world’s largest smartphone market, fueled by patriotic support for its technological breakthroughs.
Brazil’s antitrust regulator, Cade, has mandated Apple to lift restrictions on in-app payments. The decision follows a complaint by e-commerce giant MercadoLibre, accusing Apple of unfair practices.
The complaint, filed in 2022 in Brazil and Mexico, criticised Apple for forcing app developers to use its payment system. It also alleged that the company blocks apps from offering third-party digital goods or redirecting users to external websites.
Cade’s ruling requires Apple to permit developers to integrate external payment systems and allow hyperlinks to external purchasing platforms within apps. Developers must also have the option to include alternative in-app payment methods.
Apple faces a 250,000 real (£43,000) daily fine if it fails to comply within 20 days. Both Apple and MercadoLibre have yet to provide comments on the ruling.
Meta, the company behind Facebook, is set to face trial in April over allegations from the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that it stifled competition by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC’s lawsuit, filed in 2020, argues that Meta acted illegally to maintain dominance in personal social networks by purchasing potential competitors rather than innovating within the mobile ecosystem.
The case is scheduled to begin on 14 April, as ruled by Judge James Boasberg. Earlier this month, the judge rejected Meta’s request to dismiss the case, which argued that the FTC’s claims relied on a narrow definition of the social media market. Meta highlighted competition from TikTok, YouTube, LinkedIn, and X as evidence that the FTC’s market analysis was outdated.
Judge Boasberg acknowledged the challenges facing the FTC, noting that shifts in technology and market dynamics complicate its claims. He described the agency’s approach as pushing antitrust law to its limits, raising doubts about whether its case could withstand trial.
The trial will examine whether Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 were part of a deliberate strategy to eliminate competition. The outcome could have significant implications for the future of antitrust enforcement in the tech industry.
