The US tech sector was among the year’s biggest winners with stock market investors © AFP via Getty Images
For most companies this was a year of turmoil. For Big Tech it was business as usual, only at accelerated speed. Stock market investors decided the US tech sector was among the year’s big winners, bidding it up by 42 per cent. 
Yet, with hindsight, 2020 may come to be seen as the year in which the biggest tech companies slipped from success into excess, leading to a global backlash. There is certain to be increasing pushback from a chorus of critics over the next year as competitors, regulators, politicians, civil-rights organisations and even employees look to curb excessive power.
Big Tech faces three big questions in 2021.
Will investors continue their love affair with technology? Globally, there are good reasons to believe they will. No matter how quickly vaccinations prove effective in slowing the Covid-19 pandemic, the world will continue to move from offline to online. Tech companies are the most immediate and obvious beneficiaries of the trend.
Comparisons are often made between the surge in share prices this year with the dot.com mania and crash of 2000. There is undeniably a lot of froth in the market and some extreme valuations. At around $640bn, Tesla is now worth about the same as the next six biggest publicly quoted car companies combined. At around $90bn, Airbnb is worth about one-third as much as the 25 largest quoted hotel chains. Such companies still have a lot to prove. 
But, unlike in 2000, many of the more established tech companies are dominant global businesses and look to be solid bets on many financial metrics. Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Facebook have all become giant companies with highly lucrative franchises in their chosen sectors. Their fate will largely depend on the second question.
How fierce will the regulatory backlash be? In 2020, regulators finally woke up to the dominance of the tech sector and decided to act. US, EU, Indian and UK regulatory authorities all put the squeeze on Big Tech in different ways. Incoming American president Joe Biden is likely to be more activist, too.
But the force of these actions is only likely to be felt in years. In the meantime, the place to watch is China, where regulators are currently taking lumps out of Jack Ma’s business empire. In October, Beijing halted the $37bn listing of Ant Group, the digital financial services company in which Mr Ma is a major shareholder. Earlier this month, regulators launched an antitrust investigation into Alibaba, the digital marketplace he founded. 
The big unknown is whether Beijing is just cutting one troublesome tech tycoon down to size (following the playbook of Russia’s Vladimir Putin for dealing with overmighty oligarchs) or whether these latest moves signify a broader attempt by President Xi Jinping to exercise more control over the sector. The latter would clearly have massive implications for the direction and vitality of China’s economy.
“You can either have absolute control or you can have a dynamic, innovative economy. But it’s doubtful you can have both,” Fred Hu, an Ant board member and founder of Primavera Capital Group, told the New York Times.
Given all this, how innovative can Big Tech companies remain? On one level, it seems absurd even to pose the question. These companies boast mountains of cash, vast pools of data and dizzying ambitions to remake industries such as healthcare, finance and cars.
But no matter how strong their advantages, technology remains a people business. Stratospheric house prices and a more hostile visa regime are deterring many overseas workers from moving to Silicon Valley. Indeed, many existing residents are moving out, a trend labelled The Techodus by The Information news website. 
Moreover, the Silicon Valley start-up model has gone both national and global. According to a forthcoming report from Mosaic Ventures, even Europe now boasts more than 120 unicorns (tech companies worth more than $1bn) with a collective value of about $600bn. The world’s most driven entrepreneurs may well see promising opportunities closer to home.
As Big Tech executives themselves privately admit, their companies will only prosper to the extent that they can attract and retain the best engineers. At some companies, that looks increasingly in doubt. Google has been repeatedly roiled by employee protests, most recently over the departure of Timnit Gebru, an ethics researcher. An internal Facebook poll in October showed that only 51 per cent of its employees thought the company had a positive impact on the world. 
The best indicator of the resilience of Big Tech may be to follow the people, not the money. Watch how the insiders vote with their feet.

Get alerts on Big tech when a new story is published
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2021. All rights reserved.

Promoted Content

Comment guidelines
Please keep comments respectful. By commenting, you agree to abide by our community guidelines and these terms and conditions. We encourage you to report inappropriate comments.
Comments are closed on this story.
If Europe wants to increase its influence it should be doing two things - pushing this angle of building it's tech entrepreneurs and also making the stuff if designs. The pandemic exposed that Europe is still at the behest of China. 
All this lynch mob rhetoric, Xi happily enrolled to show us how to regulate a chimera.  Any harm to consumers is lost in hand waving.  We are discussing ordinary people who created huge welfare gains for billions of folks, are we not?

And just what do you imagine “regulators” gained, if you accept Picketty’s finding that more than a century of regulation increased inequality.
The issue is not how to sustain innovation, it’s how to prevent very large companies squeezing out competition. Facebook, Google, and Amazon and to some extent Apple and Microsoft as well, are more than just dominant in their respective markets, they control and define them, and extract disproportionate rents at the expense of the rest of the economic ecosystem. They are already too big for competition to rein them in. Only governments can do this now. 
What the author fails to acknowledge is that the pandemic and also climate change have forced companies to appreciate new real world consequences for not transforming their businesses. Supply chain, business continuity, cyber-security, flexible working, carbon footprint...these are just a few issues any board of directors must be concerned about as they will impact the bottom line in the next 12 months. 
It's all too easy to point a finger at the tech giants but there has been years of under investment coupled with a chronic lack of innovation across established industries. The words largest companies look to big tech to provide the capabilities they cannot develop in-house and to accelerate that journey. 
A very clear picture is emerging, the companies that lean-in to the crisis and transform their operations and business models will survive. Those who only pay lip service to virtue signal will not be around five years from now. 
The forced break-up or split-up of Facebook and possibly Google, the imposition of large fines on social media operators for lack of effectiveness in reducing abuse, manipulation and threats to our societies and the ultimate forced retirement of notably Zuckerberg are, in my view, bound to happen in time. A parrallel with the Banking industry, although a reach, strikes me as interesting. Not to mention the taxation of profits in currently untaxed locations. 
 In reply to Scarlet Pimpernel
Yes the tax evasion - especially the scandalous amount paid in the legal battle in Ireland, is a case in point that it's all wrong. And what's worse is that the Irish gov were championing Apple. Instead of fighting for the bigger picture, they were pathetically grateful for the few thousand euros of gains, and lost sight of the millions Apple would have paid if it had been fairly taxed at corporation levels 
So far so good :-

Such exuberance won't last in the short term and corrections are likely, but as the businesses continue to grow, so will their value. Tesla looks bloated beyond belief in value, but their demise has been predicted for a very long time now.
Talking about regulating these companies is great politics; but the $ and influence of these companies usually ensure nothing changes too much
 In reply to El Dentisto
I guess the air will come out of the Tesla bubble. They have managed to create a brand that has cache though, which so far other EVs haven't done. That has a premium price tag.
Note, I spent a good amount of time looking for a eurozone tech etf that I can buy and couldn't find one. they seem to exist for people to buy outside the usa. This could be a problem with my search or google, or the sites themselves. 

I do want to remind people that once what was good for general motors was good for the usa, so to think the future belongs to the biggest now? 

or think GE

In medical school, at the dawn of the internet I almost left to try and start a version of web md. didn't know any coding, had no connections. at the time you'd find information on obscure head and neck tumors,, but not heartburn 

this shows the importance of networks and connections, but i admit I am often an idea man but being a being a perfectionist I've no idea how to start 
I have lived in Silicon Valley for 26 years, working in Tech. And people have been predicting the demise of it regularly, for the same reasons that you give, housing prices, cost of living, traffic. But none of this has come to pass, not because this is where the money is, but because this is where the people are. And while there are people leaving, it is a minor blip in the total tech population here. I don’t see this changing any time soon.
 In reply to Lisa from San Jose
interesting feedback
 In reply to Lisa from San Jose
Everything is a question of time.
I worked in Oil&Gas for quite some years. Outsiders have been predicting Peak Oil since the seventies. Now, almost fifty years later, this moment seems to have come. 
 In reply to Lisa from San Jose
Correct, the so called exodus is media hype. Yes Oracle and Tesla moved to Texas along with a few dinosaurs like HP, but Silicon Valley dominates despite the ridiculous state policies that act as a drag on companies.
Companies that obtain a massive early and sustainable lead are usually very difficult to dislodge. Having worked for companies like Synopsys, Cadence they are incredibly resilient and the talk of here demise is now many decades old.
Facebook, Microsoft are massive cash machines and are innovative, acquisitive and dominant in their fields.
It will also be very difficult to displace Amazon in e-commerce. 
I'm also not sure making comparisons with the Chinese CCP regime is that indicative as to what will happen with the US or UK regulatory systems. The EU is likely to be more rigorous in its attempts to kerb big tech, but will it have success given there are no companies here that come close to competing, let alone displacing them.
(Edited)
The theme of employee activism is an intriguing one, but largely wishful thinking.

Committed employee activists tend to leave when they realise the limits of internal dissent (Tristan Harris at Google). Google has become noticeably more aggressive in clamping down on such protests and Timnit Gebru’s termination of employment is a good example of that. 

More broadly, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to show that Big Tech is seen as an unattractive employer by millennials / engineers due to the negative consequences of their reach. The other 49% still choose to work at Facebook. 
 In reply to NP1
in that example, 100% still choose to work at Facebook. 
 In reply to alco
Nick Clegg thought it was a good idea.
Bubble 
 In reply to Dr JP
yes, to be honest I thought it would burst but then came covid. 
(Edited)
 In reply to Dr JP
It's a bubble, but unlike the often stated dot com bubble, the big tech companies of today have real earnings that are growing.
Even Microsoft had a very high P/E in 2000, today it is much more modest and very much backed by real earnings growth in a changed world.
Few companies really compete with Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Google and Netflix - they simply dominate their chosen fields with few challengers from Europe. 
China is equally dominant in e-commerce and social media, but the world of China and the rest is still very much divided. 
The lump in the middle between these two vast empires is kind of floundering around with regulatory paralysis and few innovative challenges.
Catch-22 for the "stock-market-is-the-economy" school of thought. Do you either:
  • (A) regulate these tech companies, many of which should be illegal, and cause a cataclysmic market drop as investors realize their dreams of monopolized industry are a fever dream. On the other hand you free up untold amounts of capital to invest in businesses that actually create value instead of flouting regulations or abusing workers and this may be beneficial for the economy in the long run.
  • (B) accept the millions of dollars of lobbying money and VC propaganda that says rewriting employment law is innovation and let these overcapitalized behemoths lumber into the future, knowing this means a continuing devolution of workers rights, an inevitable stock market crash in the future, and no real innovation for the foreseeable future as investor money continues to chase rent-seeking activity.
I wonder which option the incoming administration will choose? It's not like the Biden/Harris cabinet is absolutely jam packed with former Uber lobbyists and tech spivs...right guys?
 In reply to Joe, London
Unbelievable.   Illegal companies???  How are they illegal, by providing a service that many folks want?   By constantly innovating?    Not saying everything they do is roses, but they do operate within the confines of laws in each area they operate.   No innovation?   Have you seen the number of new things Amazon is doing in the cloud, just about every single day?   Sure we have to look after workers rights, but are they breaking worker laws now?   In the US, full medical benefits, sick time, and $15 an hour is not unreasonable.  It is pretty sad to paint it black all the time without at least adding some yellow paint to reflect the many positives these companies have brought to society.         Don’t like Netflix, cancel your subscription.   Don’t like Apple, don’t buy an iPhone.   Pretty simple unless you want to live in a completely autocratic government that itself doesn’t even know how to innovate.  
 In reply to Mr Slate
Netflix: will never make a profit unless it is a total monopoly, has no new customer bases to tap into. Constantly loses money.

Amazon: one division (AWS) makes a profit which it uses to anti-competitively undercut and monopolise new verticals, since it can lose money in these spaces indefinitely. The way it treats warehouse workers is criminal. It has a proven track record of stealing technologies and IP from customers on its platforms.

Uber/Lyft/Doordash/gig economy: not tech companies and they do not make money. They will never, ever make money unless they can maintain a complete monopoly in a commoditised space (read: impossible). They are rewriting the fundamentals of employment law in dangerous and cruel ways. They are not a real tech company - the technology they provide existed before they were founded. What differentiates them is massive capital influx in the hopes of future monopoly rents.

Apple: uses overseas slave labor to build its hardware. They knowingly used child labor for years. The suicide rate in their Chinese factories is appalling. Meanwhile they were the world’s wealthiest company for a spell, while constantly performing elaborate tax evasion schemes.

These companies are not innovative. A new iPhone model every year is not a sophisticated tech economy. These companies exist because we are in a period of time where there is an excess of capital available that is willing to gamble indefinitely in the hopes of creating a monopoly. If the interest rates ever rise noticeably most of these companies would shrivel and die overnight.
 In reply to Joe, London
That is pretty delusional man.  Sorry.  Just don’t use Amazon or Apple, but rest assured, they will be around.   You really don’t understand the ambitions or potential of Amazon if you think they don’t have the worlds best business plan.  Change some things if they are bad, but I bet you got many things made in the same Chinese factories by similar workers.   You have the choice to not use all of them but I bet you don’t make that choice.  Put your money where your mouth is.  
Read More of this Conversation >
 In reply to Joe, London
I don't think they'd shrivel and die, but yes interest rates would hit them. Also agree with the point about slave labour in Apple factories. No one cares though. Even leftie virtue signallers still use Apple and don't question the conflict mines or factory suicides.  
Read More of this Conversation >
 In reply to Mr Slate
He has many valid points about tax evasion and poor practices. The reason the US doesn't regulate more is because they were behind the curve in realising the immense power of tech and data (Facebook) and because without tech the US wouldn't be the powerhouse that it is.