Cloud Computing solutions, including Software, Infrastructure, Platform, Unified Communications, Mobile, and Content as a Service are well-established and growing. The evolution of these markets will be driven by the complex interaction of all participants, beginning with end customers.
Edge Strategies has conducted over 80,000 interviews in behalf of our clients in both mature and emerging markets with decision-makers across the full cloud ecosystem- including Vendors, Service Provider and End Customer organizations.
Typical projects include:
We provide current, actionable insight into business decision processes across market segments, from SMBs to Large Enterprises. Our work leverages a deep understanding of the business models of key Cloud Ecosystem participants including:
Our experience allows us to get up to speed quickly on new projects. We are experts in designing and conducting quantitative and qualitative research. Based on our focused findings, we work with our clients to make the decisions necessary to gain early success in a variety of markets, including SaaS, IaaS, PaaS, UCaaS, and mobile/device services.
Historically, when companies roll out new capabilities, they start out lenient to encourage usage. Take facial biometrics for example. When they first went into use, the initial settings were chosen to make it easier for the biometrics to work. Yes, it meant more imposters would get a green light, but it sharply limited friction for legitimate users. Google and many certificate authorities used a similar playbook with web server certificates, allowing them to be used for all kinds of authentication functions instead of just the web server function they were designed for. That all ends, in theory, on June 15, 2026, according to Google. The online post explaining the change is quite technical, but the upshot is that Google is finally trying to put an end to the sometimes sloppy way in which certs are being used. Earlier this year, various groups debated shortening the expiration time frame of web certs to six weeks, a move that was ultimately made official in April. That move dealt with how long web certs could be used. The new Google effort focuses on what they can (and cannot) be used for. The decision “marks a critical shift in how digital trust is governed and it has serious implications for enterprises, particularly in financial services,” said Timothy Hollebeek, industry technology strategist for DigiCert. The change “will flag such certificates as misconfigured or non-compliant, leading to significant outages for legitimate applications of this EKU. For organizations still using multipurpose certificates, this is a wake-up call. Financial institutions may no longer rely on certificates intended for browsers and web servers.” Hollebeek argued that this is the right move, given that “many of these applications need no communication outside of the company network and will therefore be more securely protected on an internal PKI, where the organization can configure certificates as they see fit.” Erik Avakian, a technical counselor at consulting firm Info-Tech, agreed. “Google is actually doing the right thing,” he said. “This is good because it goes back to the concept of least privilege” where certs are used “only for the intended purpose. It’s about zero trust” when “certificates are separated like this.” Avakian said most users will do whatever is convenient, unless they’re required to do otherwise. “It helps to be forced to do better security,” he said. “Users want to get things done quickly and easily. It comes down to culture, to costs, to ease.” Hollebeek said the change comes down to using different certificates for server authentication and client authentication. “Cryptographic separation between domains is a well-known security principle,” he said. “You should only be using Web PKI certs if there is a browser involved.” Another certificate expert, Jason Soroko, agreed with the others that taking the easy route with certs —rather than correct one — is behind this problem. “Client authentication certificates should be coming from a private certificate authority,” said Soroko, who is a senior fellow at Sectigo. “It was just easier to go to some CA [certificate authority] and get your client authentication.” The Google statement is written in a language the cert community should certainly understand: “To align all PKI hierarchies included in the Chrome Root Store on the principle of serving only TLS server authentication use cases, the Chrome Root Program will phase-out multi-purpose roots from the Chrome Root Store. Beginning June 15, 2026, the Chrome Root Program will set an SCTNotAfter constraint on root CA certificates included in the Chrome Root Store for any PKI hierarchy found in violation of the below requirements,” Google wrote. “To reduce negative impact to the ecosystem, the Chrome Root Store may temporarily continue to include a multi-purpose root CA certificate in the Chrome Root Store without an SCTNotAfter constraint on a case-by-case basis, but only if the corresponding CA Owner has submitted a Root Inclusion Request to the CCADB for a replacement root CA certificate before June 15, 2026.” The upshot? If your operation has been using certs in a lazy, lackadaisical manner, you’ve got less than a year to clean things up.
Even though threats of additional fines mean it has been forced to make so many changes to bring its business into compliance with Europe’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple has always said it would appeal Europe’s $570 million fine for violating the DMA. Today, it did just that against, accusing the European Commission of going beyond what the law requires. In a statement provided to Computerworld, Apple said: “Today we filed our appeal because we believe the European Commission’s decision, and their unprecedented fine, go far beyond what the law requires. As our appeal will show, the EC is mandating how we run our store and forcing business terms which are confusing for developers and bad for users. We implemented this to avoid punitive daily fines and will share the facts with the Court.” Beyond what the law requires The company has identified multiple instances in which regulators agreed to one thing and then demanded more, effectively dictating and micro-controlling Apple’s business to the detriment of the company and its customers. The company seems to have two strands to its argument: The recently introduced tiered service scheme Apple reluctantly brought to market in Europe is one facet. It seems the two sides agreed that Apple could seek compensation for App Store services provided to developers through a Store Services Fee, which Apple announced last year. The regulators then changed their minds, insisting the fee structure include tiers so developers could opt out of some services. This forced Apple to introduce a new model quite recently — even though no other App Store provider offers such services in this way. In the days following Apple’s latest changes, I saw complaints about the tiered system Apple put in place. But the company was required to split them this way by the regulators, who dictated which services had to be optional. Given regulators don’t actually make anything, it’s no surprise some of their decisions seem somewhat clumsy. Lack of clarity and consistency Apple is also challenging the “steering” concept the regulators seemingly insist should be applied against its business. Announcing its record fine against Apple, Europe also redefined some of the components to justify the move. That meant the European Commission changed its stance to say steering wasn’t just about publicizing offers and promotions on external sites, but also about free promotion of offers and services such as alternative app payments within apps. Apple was also forced to permit links from inside apps to third-party app stores. Apple’s claim is that in making these changes, the regulators moved beyond the law, redefining the notion of steering in a way that exceeded what the DMA actually required. Win or lose, we’ve already lost Apple will use its time in court to try to prove these claims, but the action will probably stretch across years — unless Commissioners change their approach or the political intention in the EU and/or US shifts. While we wait, European customers will be able to enjoy the full benefits of the new arrangements, in the form of sketchy in-app pester advertising to use unregulated third-party payment services, a loyalty war as some big apps attempt to use their own market reach to create their very own app store fiefdoms, slow or no appearance of some operating system features and a less-effective search system for applications. It won’t all be good news, as I expect some millionaires with the cash to build and maintain App Stores of their own might carve out a couple of bucks from within this inevitable chaos. If you play games, for example, you’ll gain the pleasure of giving money for existentially inconsequential in-game digital boosts direct to the publisher, rather than via the platform. (This does also mean you’ll only have the games publisher to help you when things go wrong, including when your kids purchase in-game currency when using the app. Good luck with that.) That’s progress I suppose, a change that will give some users a real sense of freedom from the so-called Apple Tax, and will no doubt give Europe’s current neo-liberal leadership a cozy, fuzzy feeling. Perhaps Commissioners should focus their intention elsewhere. You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, and Mastodon.
IT consulting firm Capgemini wants to beef up its agentic AI expertise with its planned $3.3 billion acquisition of business process management specialist WNS. The deal is an indicator of the rapid expansion of the business process services (BPS) market driven by the surging demand for automation powered by agentic AI, said Industry experts and analysts. “Hybrid automation with agentic AI is a key priority for enterprise decision-makers in the next three years,” said Charlie Dai, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester. The global business process outsourcing (BPO) market, including BPS, was valued at $300 billion in 2024 according to Grand View Research, which projects the market will surge to $525 billion in 2030, driven by demand for new technologies such as generative AI. Capgemini has reached a definitive agreement to acquire WNS, and plans to it into its Global Business Services portfolio when the deal closes some time before the end of the year. It expects the deal to help it serve enterprise clients seeking intelligent automation and digital transformation. Forrester’s Dai said WNS’s domain-specific AI agents and agentic AI platforms, especially the AI.Agentic suite and WNS Expirius, will effectively help Capgemini enhance its agent-driven business process services and offer the same to its existing customers. For Gartner vice president analyst DD Mishra, WNS’s investments in intelligent automation, analytics, and agentic solutions including its TRAC analytics suite and Malkom knowledge management platform will complement Capgemini’s existing technology and consulting strengths. Sharath Srinivasamurthy, research vice president at IDC, pointed to the acquisitions WNS has itself made in recent months, including Kipi.ai, Smart Cube, and OptiBuy to enhance its data, analytics, and procurement stack and extend its proficiency in business process operations, said. Less about agentic tools and more about process operations expertise? However, Rajesh Ranjan, managing partner at Everest Group, views the WNS acquisition as more of a strategic play rather than being focused on garnering more agentic tools or capabilities. “The key driver behind the acquisition is less to do with the tools or software but rather the access to business process operations expertise that WNS brings to the table, a pre-requisite to develop and deploy real-world AI solutions,” Ranjan said, adding that agentic AI is still in its infancy and are largely locked in pilot stages across enterprises. WNS’s 600 clients should expect to receive sales calls Capgemini once the deal closes, said IDC’s Srinivasamurthy: “This a huge opportunity for Capgemini to cross-sell technology services to them and position as a true technology driven end-to-end service provider.” Changing dynamics for BPS The WNS acquisition may trigger similar acquisitions in the BPS market as Capgemini rivals are also eying BPS vendors to increase their footprint and operations, as these vendors undergo operational transformation driven by the demand for AI, said Everest Group’s Ranjan.
Huawei’s AI research division has rejected claims that its Pangu Pro large language model copied elements from an Alibaba model, marking a significant escalation in China’s AI ecosystem as tech giants abandon their collaborative approach in favor of bitter public disputes. The telecommunications giant’s Noah Ark Lab issued a denial Saturday, after an entity called HonestAGI published a technical analysis claiming Huawei’s Pangu Pro Mixture of Experts (MoE) model showed extraordinary correlation with Alibaba’s Qwen 2.5 14B model, reported Reuters. The analysis alleged the model was derived through “upcycling” rather than being trained from scratch. The public confrontation represents a dramatic shift from China’s previous unity in challenging Western AI dominance. Industry analysts say the infighting could undermine China’s ability to present a consolidated front against US-led competitors like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic. HonestAGI’s GitHub analysis claimed a correlation coefficient of 0.927 between the two models, using what it called “model fingerprinting” to identify patterns that supposedly revealed one model’s derivation from another. Noah Ark Lab responded that its model was “not based on incremental training of other manufacturers’ models” and featured “key innovations in architecture design and technical features.” The company emphasized that Pangu Pro was the first large-scale model built entirely on Huawei’s Ascend chips, the report added. “This dispute actually points to changing dynamics of the Chinese AI ecosystem’s speed of maturity and pressure to remain relevant and compete to foster innovation faster than the traditional collaborative approach, which we have seen,” said Neil Shah, VP for research and partner at Counterpoint Research. Competition reaches fever pitch The controversy escalated when an alleged Huawei insider posted detailed accusations about systematic model copying within the company. The anonymous whistleblower, claiming to be a Pangu team member, accused leadership of “cloning” both Alibaba’s Qwen and startup DeepSeek’s models while presenting them as original work. “They had ‘cloned’ Qwen‑1.5 (110B), wrapped it in extra layers and changes — creating a pseudo‑135B ‘V2’ model,” the whistleblower wrote in the paper. “This rebranded model, with code still named ‘Qwen,’ was rolled out to clients.” The allegations couldn’t be independently verified, and the whistleblower’s identity remains unknown. The dispute comes as Chinese AI companies scramble after DeepSeek’s breakthrough R1 model release in January stunned Silicon Valley with its low-cost, high-performance approach. Alibaba rushed out its Qwen 2.5-Max model just weeks later, claiming superior performance across multiple benchmarks. “What once was a state-aligned innovation drive is now being reshaped by market-led competition, where speed-to-scale often overrides transparency,” said Sanchit Vir Gogia, chief analyst and CEO at Greyhound Research. Trust deficit emerges This development has raised uncomfortable questions about credibility on all sides. Technical analysis of HonestAGI’s methodology revealed potential flaws, with researchers finding similar correlation patterns between unrelated models using the same fingerprinting technique. Critics also discovered fabricated references to non-existent research in HonestAGI’s paper. “Also, this is a double-edged sword for China’s strategy to drive openness of the models where there could be potential derivations of the best models out there,” Shah added. “We have seen this happen with OpenAI-DeepSeek as well.” The dispute highlights broader challenges facing the AI industry as development costs soar and model reuse becomes common. Vershita Srivastava, practice director at Everest Group, said the sector needs better tools to handle such controversies. “The industry must adopt a comprehensive framework that includes advanced fingerprinting and watermarking techniques that can reliably trace model lineage,” Srivastava said. The public nature of this dispute marks a turning point for China’s AI sector, which previously maintained at least a veneer of collaboration. Gogia warned that the infighting could have lasting consequences beyond China’s borders. “This episode underscores that Chinese vendors are now operating under public scrutiny, and any erosion of trust could have lasting geopolitical and commercial consequences,” he said. The controversy may force enterprise buyers, especially in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, to reevaluate partnerships with Chinese AI providers. The allegations have also exposed what Gogia calls the “growing inadequacy of conventional IP frameworks when applied to LLMs.” Parameter-level fingerprinting techniques offer promise but remain scientifically contested and legally untested. Market divide The feud highlights how China’s AI leaders target different markets while chasing the same prize. Alibaba’s Qwen family focuses on consumer applications with ChatGPT-like services and has been downloaded more than 40 million times since going open-source. Huawei’s Pangu models target enterprise clients in government, finance, and manufacturing. Despite entering the large language model arena early with Pangu’s 2021 debut, Huawei has struggled to keep pace with rivals. The company open-sourced its Pangu Pro MoE models in June, hoping to boost adoption through free developer access. The latest controversy underscores the urgent need for industry-wide standards. “Without agreed-upon definitions of derivation — particularly in models trained on shared corpora — vendors face an unclear compliance landscape,” Gogia noted. “This ambiguity creates space for weaponized accusations and erodes open-source collaboration.” Srivastava emphasized the need for legal frameworks, saying it’s “imperative to establish clear definitions for derivative models and implement nuanced licensing frameworks that support responsible reuse, enforce appropriate attribution, and uphold usage restrictions.” How this controversy resolves will set important precedents for intellectual property disputes in an increasingly competitive AI landscape. The success of nimble operations like DeepSeek has upended assumptions about what it takes to build cutting-edge AI, making bloated bureaucracies look more like liabilities than advantages. Alibaba did not immediately respond to requests for comment.