This 1 Thing Is Really Bugging Me About Amazon Web Services
This proverbial gravy train might not be quite as impressive in the foreseeable future as it's been in the recent past, though. While Amazon Web Services still seems to enjoy a decent degree of pricing power, if AWS' market share trend is any indication, that could be changing soon. This sets the stage for narrower profit margins, and ultimately less net profits.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Learn More »
AWS is losing market share
Technology market research outfit Synergy Research Group keeps track of the numbers, reporting how much the world spends on cloud computing services each and every quarter. As has been the case for some time now, Amazon Web Services remained the single-biggest name in the business through Q1 of this year, maintaining its lead on Microsoft 's and Alphabet 's Google cloud businesses.
That lead is narrowing, though. Indeed, as the chart of Synergy's recent historical data illustrates, Amazon Web Services' share of the world's cloud computing sales fell to a multi-year low (maybe a record low?) 29% during the first quarter of 2025. That lull not only extends a downtrend that's been underway since early 2023, but accelerates it.
That's not to suggest Google and Microsoft are solely responsible for this market-share setback. While both clearly gained share through 2022 and into 2023, both of these big names have also struggled to win cloud business of late. Much of Amazon's recent loss of market share is to mostly unknown "other" providers. This makes sense -- as the industry matures, cloud computing clients are looking for the more specialized options and features that only the smaller cloud computing companies may offer.
Regardless, Amazon Web Services is clearly losing market share. And it certainly doesn't want to.
Still profitable enough ... for now
It hasn't mattered much yet. Indeed, AWS' revenue is still technically growing faster than the arm's operating costs are, allowing for still-widening profit margins through the first quarter of 2025.
Think bigger picture, though, and longer term. The cloud computing business is clearly competitive, and even its smaller players are now in a position to push back against the so-called "Big Three." While there's been enough industrywide growth for all these service providers to go around, we may be at a turning point on this front. If its growth rate slows -- as is usually the case once a business matures -- look for cloud's commoditization to kick off a price war.
Price wars, of course, punch profit margins.
Just keep your finger on the pulse of this business
Don't panic if you currently hold a stake in Amazon; this isn't exactly a reason in and of itself to avoid a position in Amazon, either. There's still good money to be made in the business, and Amazon is well-positioned to earn its fair share of it.
Don't be naïve, either, however. Amazon stock has been and remains priced as if AWS will remain the powerhouse profit producer it's been up until this point. Now this once-reliable presumption is in question. Even the smallest red flag on this front could take an oversized toll on Amazon stock, sparked by unexpected disappointment.
In other words, just keep your finger on the pulse of this business to make sure you're not completely blindsided by one of its upcoming quarterly reports. One of the two charts above is going to have to change directions sooner or later, and likely sooner than later.
Should you invest $1,000 in Amazon right now?
Before you buy stock in Amazon, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Amazon wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $651,049!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $828,224!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is979% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to171%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025
Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. James Brumley has positions in Alphabet. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. House Republicans stall again in vote on Trump's tax-cut bill
House Republicans were straining past midnight to advance President Donald Trump's tax and spending cuts package despite GOP leaders having spent the afternoon and evening working furiously to persuade skeptical holdouts to send it to his desk by the Fourth of July deadline. The roll call vote that started late Wednesday was held open for hours as several Republicans refused to give their votes. With few to spare from their slim majority, the outcome was in jeopardy. House Speaker Mike Johnson had recalled lawmakers to Washington, eager to seize on the momentum of the bill's passage the day before in the Senate, and he vowed to press ahead. 'Everybody wants to get to yes,' Johnson said during an interview on Fox News as the voting was underway. But as voting stalled Trump lashed out in a midnight post: 'What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove???' He also warned starkly of political fallout from the delay 'COSTING YOU VOTES!!!' What's really in Trump's big spending bill? The idea of quickly convening to for a vote on the more than 800-page bill was a risky gambit, one designed to meet Trump's demand for a holiday finish. Republicans have struggled mightily with the bill nearly every step of the way, often succeeding by the narrowest of margins – just one vote. Their slim 220-212 majority leaves little room for defections. Several Republicans are balking at being asked to rubber-stamp the Senate version less than 24 hours after passage. A number of moderate Republicans from competitive districts have objected to the Senate bill's cuts to Medicaid, while conservatives have lambasted the legislation as straying from their fiscal goals. It falls to Johnson and his team to convince them that the time for negotiations is over. They will need assistance from Trump to close the deal, and lawmakers headed to the White House for a two-hour session Wednesday to talk to the president about their concerns. 'The president's message was, 'We're on a roll,'' said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C. 'He wants to see this.' Republicans are relying on their majority hold of Congress to push the package over a wall of unified Democratic opposition. No Democrats voted for bill in the Senate and none were expected to do so in the House. 'Hell no!' said House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, flanked by fellow Democrats outside the Capitol. In an early warning sign of Republican resistance, a resolution setting up terms for debating Trump's bill barely cleared the House Rules Committee on Wednesday morning. As soon as it came to the full House, it stalled out as GOP leadership waited for lawmakers who were delayed coming back to Washington and conducted closed-door negotiations with holdouts. By nightfall, as pizzas and other dinners were arriving at the Capitol, the next steps were uncertain. The bill would extend and make permanent various individual and business tax breaks from Trump's first term, plus temporarily add new ones he promised during the 2024 campaign. This includes allowing workers to deduct tips and overtime pay, and a $6,000 deduction for most older adults earning less than $75,000 a year. In all, the legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years. The bill also provides about $350 billion for defence and Trump's immigration crackdown. Republicans partially pay for it all through less spending on Medicaid and food assistance. The Congressional Budget Office projects the bill will add about $3.3 trillion to the federal debt over the coming decade. The House passed its version of the bill in May by a single vote, despite worries about spending cuts and the overall price tag. Now it's being asked to give final passage to a version that, in many respects, exacerbates those concerns. The Senate bill's projected impact on the nation's debt, for example, is significantly higher. 'Lets go Republicans and everyone else,' Trump said in a late evening post. Johnson is intent on meeting Trump's timeline and betting that hesitant Republicans won't cross the president because of the heavy political price they would have to pay. They need only look to Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who announced his intention to vote against the legislation over the weekend. Soon, the president was calling for a primary challenger to the senator and criticizing him on social media. Tillis quickly announced he would not seek a third term. One House Republican who has staked out opposition to the bill, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, is being targeted by Trump's well-funded political operation. Flanked by nearly every member of his caucus, Democratic Leader Jeffries of New York delivered a pointed message: With all Democrats voting 'no,' they only need to flip four Republicans to prevent the bill from passing. Jeffries invoked the 'courage' of the late Sen. John McCain giving a thumbs-down to the GOP effort to 'repeal and replace' the Affordable Care Act, and singled out Republicans from districts expected to be highly competitive in 2026, including two from Pennsylvania. 'Why would Rob Bresnahan vote for this bill? Why would Scott Perry vote for this bill?' Jeffries asked. Democrats have described the bill in dire terms, warning that Medicaid cuts would result in lives lost and food stamp cuts would be 'literally ripping the food out of the mouths of children, veterans and seniors,' Jeffries said Monday. Republicans say they are trying to right-size the safety net programs for the population they were initially designed to serve, mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children, and root out what they describe as waste, fraud and abuse. The package includes new 80-hour-a-month work requirements for many adults receiving Medicaid and applies existing work requirements in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to more beneficiaries. States will also pick up more of the cost for food benefits. The driving force behind the bill, however, is the tax cuts. Many expire at the end of this year if Congress doesn't act. The Tax Policy Center, which provides non-partisan analysis of tax and budget policy, projected the bill would result next year in a $150 tax break for the lowest quintile of Americans, a $1,750 tax cut for the middle quintile and a $10,950 tax cut for the top quintile. That's compared with what they would face if the 2017 tax cuts expired.
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Boeing, U.S. Justice Department ask judge to approve deal allowing company to avoid prosecution
Boeing BA-N and the Justice Department on Wednesday asked a U.S. judge to approve an agreement that allows the company to avoid prosecution despite objections from relatives of some of the 346 people killed in two 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019. The deal enables Boeing to avoid being branded a convicted felon and to escape oversight from an independent monitor for three years that was part of a plea deal struck in 2024 to a criminal fraud charge that it misled U.S. regulators about a crucial flight control system on the 737 MAX, its bestselling jet. Boeing argued the executive branch solely has the power to decide whether to bring or maintain a prosecution. 'Because it is entirely within the government's discretion whether to pursue a criminal prosecution, an agreement not-to-prosecute does not require court approval,' Boeing said, asking a judge to reject objections filed by the families and grant the government's motion to dismiss the charge. 'Disputing the government's considered assessment of litigation risk, the calculation of the maximum fine, or the appropriate mechanism for compliance oversight, do not demonstrate – even remotely – that the government was clearly motivated by considerations contrary to the public interest.' Boeing reaches deal with U.S. Justice department to avoid prosecution in 737 MAX fraud case The Justice Department said in a court filing it acted in good faith and in accordance with the law, agreeing to dismiss the case for an agreement 'that secures a significant fine, compliance improvements, and a substantial victim compensation fund.' The families cited Judge Reed O'Connor's statement in 2023 that 'Boeing's crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history.' They argue dismissal is not in the public interest and obligations imposed on Boeing are not enforceable. If the government declined to move forward with the prosecution even if the court rejected the deal, O'Connor should appoint a special prosecutor, the families said. Boeing and the Justice Department both asked O'Connor to reject appointing a special prosecutor. Under the deal, Boeing agreed to pay an additional $444.5 million into a crash victims fund to be divided evenly per crash victim, on top of a new $243.6 million fine. Boeing in July 2024 agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge after the two fatal 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. Under the non-prosecution agreement, Boeing will pay $1.1 billion in total, including the fine, compensation to families and more than $455 million to strengthen the company's compliance, safety and quality programs. The vast majority of the families have settled civil suits with Boeing and collectively have been 'paid several billion dollars,' the Justice Department said.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Company's carbon credits raise questions about unproven ocean technology to fight global warming
The startup Gigablue announced with fanfare this year that it reached a historic milestone: selling 200,000 carbon credits to fund what it describes as a groundbreaking technology in the fight against climate change. Formed three years ago by a group of entrepreneurs in Israel, the company says it has designed particles that when released in the ocean will trap carbon at the bottom of the sea. By 'harnessing the power of nature,' Gigablue says, its work will do nothing less than save the planet. But outside scientists frustrated by the lack of information released by the company say serious questions remain about whether Gigablue's technology works as the company describes. Their questions showcase tensions in an industry built on little regulation and big promises — and a tantalizing chance to profit. Jimmy Pallas, an event organizer based in Italy, struck a deal with Gigablue last year. He said he trusts the company does what it has promised him — ensuring the transportation, meals, and electricity of a recent 1,000-person event will be offset by particles in the ocean. Gigablue's service is like 'an extra trash can' where Pallas can discard his unwanted emissions, he said. 'Same way I use my trash can — I don't follow where the truck that comes and picks up my trash brings it to,' he said. 'I'll take their word for it.' 'Hundreds of thousands of carbon credits' Gigablue has a grand vision for the future of carbon removal. It was originally named 'Gigaton' after the one billion metric tons of carbon dioxide most scientists say will be necessary to remove from the atmosphere each year to slow global warming. The company began trials in the South Pacific Ocean last year, and says it will work with country authorities to create a 'sequestration field' — a dedicated part of the ocean where 'pulses' of particles will be released on a seasonal basis. Gigablue says its solution is affordable, too — priced to attract investors. 'Every time we go to the ocean, we generate hundreds of thousands of carbon credits, and this is what we're going to do continuously over the upcoming years and towards the future, in greater and greater quantities,' co-founder Ori Shaashua said. Carbon credits, which have grown in popularity over the last decade, are tokens that symbolize the removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On paper, companies that buy credits achieve a smaller carbon footprint without needing to reduce their own emissions — for instance, by paying another vendor to plant trees or capture carbon dioxide from the air. Only a few countries have required local industries to purchase carbon credits. Most companies that buy them, including Microsoft and Google, do so voluntarily. The credits have helped fund a band of startups like Gigablue that are eager to tackle the climate crisis, but they are also unevenly regulated, scientifically complex, and have in some cases been linked to fraud. Gigablue's 200,000 credits are pledged to SkiesFifty, a newly formed company investing in greener practices for the aviation industry. It's the largest sale to date for a climate startup operating in the ocean, according to the tracking site making up more than half of all ocean-based carbon credits sold last year. And it could beckon a rapid acceleration of the company's work. Gigablue hopes to reach a goal this year of capturing 10 metric tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of particles it deploys, Shaashua said. At that rate, Gigablue would disperse at least 20,000 tons of particles in the ocean. Gigablue wouldn't reveal what it earned in the sale, and SkiesFifty's team declined to be interviewed for this story. Most credits are sold for a few hundred dollars each — but a chart on Gigablue's website suggests its prices are lower than almost any other form of carbon capture on the market. A mission to save the world The startup is the brainchild of four entrepreneurs hailing from the tech industry. According to their LinkedIn profiles, Gigablue's CEO previously worked for an online grocery startup, while its COO was vice president of SeeTree, a company that raised $60 million to provide farmers with information on their trees. Shaashua, who often serves as the face of Gigablue, said he specializes in using artificial intelligence to pursue positive outcomes in the world. He co-founded a data mining company that tracked exposure risks during the COVID-19 pandemic, and led an auto startup that brokered data on car mileage and traffic patterns. 'Three years ago, I decided to take the same formula, so to say, to climate,' Shaashua said. Under his guidance, he said, Gigablue created an AI-driven 'digital twin' of the ocean based on dozens of metrics to determine where to release the particles. Chief technology officer Sapir Markus-Alford earned a bachelor's degree in earth and environmental sciences from Israel's Ben-Gurion University in 2021, shortly before founding Gigablue. Markus-Alford said she began her studies and eventual path to Gigablue after seeing bleached coral reefs and other impacts of warming waters on a series of diving trips around the world. 'I understood that the best thing we could do for the ocean is to be able to remove CO2,' Markus-Alford said. A spokesperson for Gigablue did not answer whether the other co-founders have graduate degrees in oceanography or environmental science, but said the company's broader team holds a total of 46 Ph.D.s with expertise in biology, chemistry, oceanography, and environmental science. Markus-Alford said that figure includes outside experts and academics and 'everyone that supports us.' The company's staffing has expanded from Israel to hubs in New York and New Zealand, Shaashua said. In social media posts advertising open jobs, Gigablue employees encouraged applicants to 'Join Our Mission to Save the World!' Trapping carbon at the bottom of the ocean The particles Gigablue has patented are meant to capture carbon in the ocean by floating for a number of days and growing algae, before sinking rapidly to the ocean floor. 'We are an elevator for carbon,' Shaashua said. 'We are exporting the carbon from the top to the bottom.' Algae — sometimes referred to as phytoplankton — has long been attractive to climate scientists because it absorbs carbon dioxide from the surrounding water as it grows. If the algae sinks to the deep sea or ocean floor, Gigablue expects the carbon to be trapped there for hundreds to thousands of years. The ultimate goal is to lower carbon dioxide levels so drastically that the ocean rebalances with the atmosphere by soaking up more CO2 from the air. It's a feat that would help slow climate change, but one that is still under active study by climate scientists. Gigablue's founders have said the company's work is inspired by nature and 'very, very environmentally safe.' The company's particles and sinking methods simply recreate what nature has been doing 'since forever,' Shaashua said. Gigablue ran its first trial sinking particles in the Mediterranean in March last year. Later, on two voyages to the South Pacific, the company released 60 cubic meters — about two shipping containers — of particles off the coast of New Zealand. Materials kept a mystery While Gigablue has made several commercial deals, it has not yet revealed what its particles are made of. Partly this is because the company says it will build different particles tailored to different seasons and areas of the ocean. 'It's proprietary,' Markus-Alford said. Documents provide a window into the possible ingredients. According to information on the permit, Gigablue's first New Zealand trial last year involved releasing particles of pure vermiculite, a porous clay often used in potting soil. In the second New Zealand trial, the company released particles made of vermiculite, ground rock, a plant-based wax, as well as manganese and iron. A patent published last year hints the particles could also be made of scores of other materials, including cotton, rice husks or jute, as well as synthetic ingredients like polyester fibers or lint. The particles contain a range of possible binding agents, and up to 18 different chemicals and metals, from iron to nickel to vanadium. Without specifying future designs, Markus-Alford said Gigablue's particles meet certain requirements: 'All the materials we use are materials that are natural, nontoxic, nonhazardous, and can be found in the ocean,' she said. She wouldn't comment on the possible use of cotton or rice, but said the particles won't include any kind of plastic. When asked about vermiculite, which is typically mined on land and heated to expand, Markus-Alford said rivers and erosion transport most materials including vermiculite to the ocean. 'Almost everything, basically, that exists on land can be found in the ocean,' she said. The company said it had commissioned an environmental institute to verify that the particles are safe for thousands of organisms, including mussels and oysters. Any materials in future particles, Gigablue said, will be approved by local authorities. Shaashua has said the particles are so benign that they have zero impact on the ocean. 'We are not changing the water chemistry or the water biology,' Shaashua said. Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who has spent decades studying the biological carbon cycle of the ocean, says that while he's intrigued by Gigablue's proposal, the idea that the particles don't alter the ocean is 'almost inconceivable.' 'There has to be a relationship between what they're putting in the ocean and the carbon dioxide that's dissolved in seawater for this to, quote, work,' Buesseler said. Buesseler co-leads a nonprofit group of scientists hoping to tap the power of algae in the ocean to capture carbon. The group organizes regular forums on the subject, and Gigablue presented in April. 'I left with more questions than answers,' Buesseler said. Scientists raise questions Several scientists not affiliated with Gigablue interviewed by The Associated Press said they were interested in how a company with so little public information about its technology could secure a deal for 200,000 carbon credits. The success of the company's method, they said, will depend on how much algae grows on the particles, and the amount that sinks to the deep ocean. So far, Gigablue has not released any studies demonstrating those rates. Thomas Kiørboe, a professor of ocean ecology at the Technical University of Denmark, and Philip Boyd, an oceanographer at the University of Tasmania who studies the role of algae in the Earth's carbon cycle, said they were doubtful algae would get enough sunlight to grow inside the particles. It's more likely the particles would attract hungry bacteria, Kiørboe said. 'Typical phytoplankton do not grow on surfaces, and they do not colonize particles,' Kiørboe said. 'To most phytoplankton ecologists, this would just be, I think, absurd.' The rates at which Gigablue says its particles sink — up to a hundred meters (yards) per hour — might shear off algae from the particles in the quick descent, Boyd said. It's likely that some particles would also be eaten by fish — limiting the carbon capture, and raising the question of how the particles could impact marine life. Boyd is eager to see field results showing algae growth, and wants to see proof that Gigablue's particles cause the ocean to absorb more CO2 from the air. 'These are incredibly challenging issues that I don't think, certainly for the biological part, I don't think anyone on the planet has got solutions for them,' he said. James Kerry, a senior marine and climate scientist for the conservation group OceanCare and senior research fellow at Australia's James Cook University, has closely followed Gigablue's work. 'What we've got is a situation of a company, a startup, upfront selling large quantities of credits for a technology that is unproven,' he said. In a statement, Gigablue said that bacteria does consume the particles but the effect is minimal, and its measurements will account for any loss of algae or particles as they sink. The company noted that a major science institute in New Zealand has given Gigablue its stamp of approval. Gigablue hired the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, a government-owned company, to review several drafts of its methodology. In a recent letter posted to Gigablue's website, the institute's chief ocean scientist said his staff had confidence the company's work is 'scientifically sound' and the proposed measurements for carbon sequestration were robust. Whether Gigablue's methods are deemed successful, for now, will be determined not by regulators — but by another private company. A new market is one of several companies known as registries that serve the carbon credit market. Amid the lack of regulation and the potential for climate startups to overstate their impact, registries aim to verify how much carbon was really removed. The Finnish has verified more than a million carbon credits since its founding seven years ago. But most of those credits originated in land-based climate projects. Only recently has it aimed to set standards for the ocean. In part, that's because marine carbon credits are some of the newest to be traded. Dozens of ocean startups have entered the industry, with credit sales catapulting from 2,000 in 2021 to more than 340,000, including Gigablue's deal, last year. But the ocean remains a hostile and expensive place in which to operate a business or monitor research. Some ocean startups have sold credits only to fold before they could complete their work. Running Tide, a Maine-based startup aimed at removing carbon from the atmosphere by sinking wood chips and seaweed, abruptly shuttered last year despite the backing of $50 million from investors, leaving sales of about 7,000 carbon credits unfulfilled. In June, published a draft methodology that will be used to verify Gigablue's work, which it designed in consultation with Gigablue. Once finalized, Gigablue will pay the registry for each metric ton of carbon dioxide that it claims to remove. Marianne Tikkanen, head of standards at said that although this methodology was designed with Gigablue, her team expects other startups to adopt the same approach. 'We hope that there will be many who can do it and that it stimulates the market,' she said. The road ahead It remains to be seen whether New Zealand officials will grant permission for the expanded 'sequestration field' that Gigablue has proposed creating, or if the company will look to other countries. New Zealand's environmental authority has so far treated Gigablue's work as research — a designation that requires no formal review process or consultations with the public. The agency said in a statement that it could not comment on how it would handle a future commercial application from Gigablue. But like many climate startups, Gigablue was involved in selling carbon credits during its research expeditions — not only inking a major deal, but smaller agreements, too. Pallas, the Italian businessman, said he ordered 22 carbon credits from Gigablue last year to offset the emissions associated with his event in November. He said Gigablue gave them to him for free — but says he will pay for more in the future. Pallas sought out carbon credits because he sees the signs of climate change all around him, he says, and expects more requirements in Italy for businesses to decarbonize in coming years. He chose Gigablue because they are one of the largest suppliers: 'They've got quantity,' he said. How authorities view Gigablue's growing commercial activity could matter in the context of an international treaty that has banned certain climate operations in the ocean. More than a decade ago, dozens of countries including New Zealand agreed they should not allow any commercial climate endeavor that involves releasing iron in the ocean, a technique known as 'iron fertilization.' Only research, they said, with no prospect of economic gain should be allowed. Iron is considered a key ingredient for spurring algae growth and was embedded in the particles that Gigablue dispersed in October in the Pacific Ocean. Several scientific papers have raised concerns that spurring iron-fueled algae blooms on a large scale would deplete important nutrients in the ocean and harm fisheries. The startup denies any link to iron dumping on the basis that its particles don't release iron directly into the water and don't create an uncontrolled algae bloom. 'We are not fertilizing the ocean,' Markus-Alford said. 'In fact, we looked at iron fertilization as an inspiration of something to avoid,' Shaashua said. But the draft methodology that will use to verify Gigablue's work notes many of the same concerns that have been raised about iron fertilization, including disruptions to the marine food web. Other scientists who spoke with AP see a clear link between Gigablue's work and the controversial practice. 'If they're using iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth,' said Kerry, the OceanCare scientist, 'then it is iron fertilization.' For now, scientific concerns don't seem to have troubled Gigablue's buyers. The company has already planned its next research expedition in New Zealand and hopes to release more particles this fall. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. 'They mean well, and so do I,' said Pallas, of his support for Gigablue. 'Sooner or later, I'll catch a plane, go to New Zealand, and grab a boat to see what they've done.' — This story was supported by funding from the Walton Family Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. __ Contact AP's global investigative team at Investigative@ or
