Connect with us

News

Alphabet shares sink after cloud growth stalls and spending surges

Published

on

Alphabet shares sink after cloud growth stalls and spending surges

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Alphabet shares dropped sharply after slowing growth in the Google parent’s cloud business and plans to spend $75bn this year on building capacity for artificial intelligence products unnerved investors.

Alphabet late on Tuesday reported double-digit increases in fourth-quarter revenues and profits, driven by its core advertising business. But investors homed in on a disappointing quarter for its vast cloud unit, which runs Google’s data centres.

The cloud division posted a 30 per cent increase in revenues to almost $12bn, but this was slower than the 35 per cent growth rate in the previous three months, and below the $12.2bn analysts had forecast. Chief financial officer Anat Ashkenazi blamed this on “more demand than we had available capacity”.

Advertisement

However, the scale of Google’s AI-related spending to meet this demand surprised the market. Fourth-quarter capital expenditure jumped to $14.3bn, up from $11bn last year and exceeding expectations for $13.2bn.

Google’s chief executive Sundar Pichai said spending on data centres and servers would accelerate to $75bn this year, up from $53bn in 2024 and a third more than Wall Street had estimated.

“The cost of actually using [AI] is going to keep coming down, which will make more extraordinary use cases feasible,” Pichai said, denying that the company was spending profligately. “That’s the opportunity space. It’s as big as it comes, and that’s why you’re seeing us invest to meet that moment.”

Alphabet shares dropped 8 per cent in New York morning trading on Wednesday, leaving it on track for the fifth-worst trading day in the past decade and wiping about $200bn from its market capitalisation. Still, the stock had previously risen 45 per cent in the past 12 months, valuing it at $2.5tn behind only Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and Amazon.

Alphabet’s fall echoed that of Microsoft last week, which also lost $200bn in market value after it also missed cloud growth estimates and said AI spending would reach $80bn in its fiscal year ending on June 30. The same day, Meta’s chief executive Mark Zuckerberg vowed to spend “hundreds of billions” more to stay in the vanguard of AI research.

Advertisement

The market reaction reflects broader concerns about spending at US groups that build and operate the vast data centres filled with advanced chips that they claim are needed to train and run AI’s large-language models.

The Alphabet sell-off also builds on doubts sown last month by a new model from Chinese start-up DeepSeek, which claimed to achieve comparable performance to US AI leaders including Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude on a shoestring budget using far fewer advanced Nvidia chips.

Pichai said DeepSeek had a “tremendous team” that had shown “you can drive a lot of efficiency to serve these [AI] models really well”.

He also fielded analysts’ questions about whether Gemini and its rivals were cannibalising its core search business, as users increasingly use chatbots to find information and answers online, obviating the need to click on the advertisements that support its free service.

There is little evidence of its dominant search engine being challenged yet. Search-linked ad revenue rose 13 per cent to $54bn in the quarter, beating estimates, supported by another quarter of ad growth at YouTube.

Advertisement

Overall, group revenue rose 12 per cent to $96.5bn in the fourth quarter compared with the same three-month period a year earlier. Excluding traffic acquisition costs paid to advertising and device partners, that figure was $81.6bn, missing Wall Street estimates of $82.8bn in a Bloomberg poll. Net income rose 28 per cent to $26.5bn.

Google is also in the crosshairs of regulators around the world. The company faces the prospect of being broken up after losing a landmark case brought by the US Department of Justice, which resulted in a ruling that its search business had engaged in monopolistic behaviour.

This week it emerged that China had revived antitrust investigations into Google’s Android mobile operating system, raiding its Beijing office in a move that has been interpreted as leverage in tariff negotiations with US President Donald Trump.

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Nick Reiner will be charged with first degree murder in his parents’ killing

Published

on

Nick Reiner will be charged with first degree murder in his parents’ killing

Michele Singer Reiner, Rob Reiner and their son Nick in 2013.

Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Teen Vogue


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Teen Vogue

Nick Reiner, the 32-year-old son of filmmaker Rob Reiner and photographer Michele Singer Reiner, is being charged with two counts of first degree murder. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said at a press conference Tuesday that the charges include a “special circumstance” of multiple murders and a “special allegation” that Reiner used a dangerous and deadly weapon — a knife.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

“No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty,” Hochman added.

Advertisement

Hochman called Rob Reiner an “iconic force in our entertainment industry” and his wife Michele Singer Reiner an “equally iconic photographer and producer.” The police became aware of their deaths on Sunday after a call from the fire department. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the cause and time of the deaths aren’t available at this time as they await updates from the coroner’s office.

Alan Hamilton, deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, said that Nick Reiner was arrested in public on Sunday, in the Exposition Park area of Los Angeles, near the University of Southern California campus. In response to questions, McDonnell said he was unable to say whether or not Nick Reiner was under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest. Reiner had been open about his struggles with addiction in the past.

When asked whether there was evidence of mental illness in Nick Reiner’s background, Hochman said “any evidence, if there is any” would be presented in court. Hochman wouldn’t answer a question about whether Reiner admitted to the crimes, saying that is the type of evidence that would come out in court.

Hochman emphasized that “charges are not evidence” and that his office would be presenting evidence to jurors in a court of law. He asked people to rely on trusted sources and not hearsay about the case.

He said that, as in any case, his office would be taking “the thoughts and desires of the family into consideration.”

Advertisement

Prosecutors are filing charges Tuesday afternoon. Reiner is going through medical clearance – a normal process, according to officials – and will be brought to court for arraignment, where he will enter a plea. Reiner is currently being held without bail.

Continue Reading

Trending