diff --git a/content/posts/meta_analysis.md b/content/posts/meta_analysis.md
index f1dad4a..b709eb5 100644
--- a/content/posts/meta_analysis.md
+++ b/content/posts/meta_analysis.md
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ Truthfully, if the world is a better place in this example is up for debate. I
Big tech seems to be full of battlefield-like tactics. Take, for example, Alphabet’s dominance in the smartphone market. For a while Facebook thought they might like to make phones. To make phones, Facebook wanted their own operating system and their own devices, and as such needed navigation software for it. So, Facebook tried to buy Waze (a similar service to Google Maps).
-There were many other reasons Facebook wanted Waze; another key reason would be to deliver better location-based mobile advertising and optimise local search results. Right before they could buy Waze for 500m$, Google stepped in and spent 1bn$ to snatch it. Why? Google bought Waze so that Facebook would not have it. Google probably didn't really need Waze, but it partially contributed to Facebook abandoning their smartphone plans. It stunted Facebook's expansion. For big tech, messing up each other's game is a legitimate business strategy.
+There were many other reasons Facebook wanted Waze; another key reason would be to deliver better location-based mobile advertising and optimise local search results. Right before they could buy Waze for 500 million dollars, Google stepped in and spent nearly a billion dollars to snatch it. Why? Google bought Waze so that Facebook would not have it. Google probably didn't really need Waze, but it partially contributed to Facebook abandoning their smartphone plans. It stunted Facebook's expansion. For big tech, messing up each other's game is a legitimate business strategy.
Similarly, Microsoft's (and OpenAI’s) dominance in Generative AI might have been enough of a threat to prompt Meta into action. By making AI tools freely available, Meta isn’t just playing nice—it’s playing smart. It’s a calculated move to dilute Microsoft’s power and level the playing field, ensuring that no one company holds too much sway in the AI landscape.
diff --git a/public/posts/meta_analysis/index.html b/public/posts/meta_analysis/index.html
index 57d7626..40cfc90 100644
--- a/public/posts/meta_analysis/index.html
+++ b/public/posts/meta_analysis/index.html
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ Because big tech is a battlefield
However, this strategy isn’t as simple as it seems. While it might appear that Meta is levelling the playing field, the reality is more complex. Not everyone can leverage these whoopee cushions effectively. Small players might benefit, but large enterprises might still prefer Microsoft’s integrated solutions, even at a higher cost. Microsoft’s dominance isn’t just about the whoopee cushions themselves; it’s about the entire flatulent ecosystem they control.
Truthfully, if the world is a better place in this example is up for debate. I’m sure many people would rather live in a world with no whoopee cushions.
Big tech seems to be full of battlefield-like tactics. Take, for example, Alphabet’s dominance in the smartphone market. For a while Facebook thought they might like to make phones. To make phones, Facebook wanted their own operating system and their own devices, and as such needed navigation software for it. So, Facebook tried to buy Waze (a similar service to Google Maps).
-There were many other reasons Facebook wanted Waze; another key reason would be to deliver better location-based mobile advertising and optimise local search results. Right before they could buy Waze for 500m$, Google stepped in and spent 1bn$ to snatch it. Why? Google bought Waze so that Facebook would not have it. Google probably didn’t really need Waze, but it partially contributed to Facebook abandoning their smartphone plans. It stunted Facebook’s expansion. For big tech, messing up each other’s game is a legitimate business strategy.
+There were many other reasons Facebook wanted Waze; another key reason would be to deliver better location-based mobile advertising and optimise local search results. Right before they could buy Waze for 500 million dollars, Google stepped in and spent nearly a billion dollars to snatch it. Why? Google bought Waze so that Facebook would not have it. Google probably didn’t really need Waze, but it partially contributed to Facebook abandoning their smartphone plans. It stunted Facebook’s expansion. For big tech, messing up each other’s game is a legitimate business strategy.
Similarly, Microsoft’s (and OpenAI’s) dominance in Generative AI might have been enough of a threat to prompt Meta into action. By making AI tools freely available, Meta isn’t just playing nice—it’s playing smart. It’s a calculated move to dilute Microsoft’s power and level the playing field, ensuring that no one company holds too much sway in the AI landscape.
So, while Meta’s actions might seem altruistic on the surface, they’re likely driven by the same competitive instincts that have shaped big tech for years. Whether this leads to a better world, with more innovation and access, or just a noisier one full of whoopee cushions, remains to be seen.
(1) In the second quarter of 2024, 98.1% of Meta’s revenue came from adverts. Meta Q2 Earnings