Computing Power Crisis: Google Quietly Imposes Usage Caps on Meta for Gemini

marsbitPublicado a 2026-06-29Actualizado a 2026-06-29

Resumen

Google has quietly imposed usage caps on Meta's access to its Gemini AI models since around March due to surging demand overwhelming its computational infrastructure, according to a Financial Times report. The limits, which remain in place, have disrupted and delayed several of Meta's internal AI projects, forcing the social media giant to ration AI usage and improve efficiency. This reflects a broader industry-wide shortage of AI inference capacity, as companies deploy more chatbots and AI agents. Google CEO Sundar Pichai acknowledged compute constraints are limiting cloud revenue growth. In response, Google recently signed a $920 million monthly compute leasing deal with SpaceX to expand capacity. The restrictions have accelerated Meta's shift toward its own AI models, such as Muse Spark, to reduce dependence on external providers like Google. While other Google clients also face limits, Meta's vast scale made it particularly affected. The situation highlights how the AI infrastructure bottleneck has shifted from model training to inference, requiring massive new capital investments to resolve.

Written by: Xu Chao

The supply-demand contradiction in artificial intelligence infrastructure is intensifying among the world's leading technology companies. According to informed sources, Google informed Meta around March this year that it could not meet its full Gemini computing power demands and imposed usage caps on the social media giant—even the world's largest AI service provider is struggling to cope with the surging demand for computing power.

According to a report by the Financial Times, the restrictions remain in effect and have already caused disruptions and delays to several internal AI projects at Meta. As a result, Meta has instructed employees to improve the efficiency of their AI computing power usage, promoting a more meticulous accounting of AI tokens internally. Both Google and Meta declined to comment on the matter.

This situation has forced Google to accelerate its expansion efforts. Earlier this month, Google signed a computing power leasing agreement with Elon Musk's SpaceX worth $920 million per month. Google CEO Sundar Pichai admitted during the Q1 earnings call: "We are indeed facing constraints in computing power recently; if we could meet the demand, cloud business revenue would be higher."

Meta is not alone. Multiple sources pointed out that other Google enterprise customers are also subject to varying degrees of restrictions, with Meta being the most affected due to its exceptionally large demand. This incident highlights the explosive growth of AI inference workloads, which has become one of the industry's biggest challenges.

Computing Power Bottleneck Under Persistent Pressure, Major Clients Bear the Brunt

Despite hundreds of billions of dollars invested by major tech companies in chips, data centers, and power supply, AI computing power supply still struggles to keep pace with demand growth.

Google's Q1 cloud business revenue surpassed $20 billion for the first time, and its backlog of signed but undelivered cloud contracts nearly doubled sequentially, exceeding $460 billion. Pichai clearly stated that computing power constraints will persist in the near term.

Against this backdrop, the impact on Meta is particularly pronounced. Sources indicate that it is the high-intensity demand from major enterprise clients like Meta that directly pushed Google to accelerate its search for external computing power sources. As enterprises deploy chatbots, coding assistants, and AI agents on a large scale, inference workloads—the computing power consumed when models perform tasks in real-world applications after training—are becoming a core bottleneck for the industry.

Meta's Internal Projects Hindered, Accelerates Shift to In-House Models

Meta uses Gemini extensively internally, covering platform security review (including identifying fraudulent content and removing harmful information), customer service and advertising-assisted chatbots, as well as some internal workflows and code development, while also using other models like Anthropic's Claude.

According to sources, Meta initially chose Gemini because its performance surpassed that of the company's own open-source Llama model. However, as computing power restrictions tightened, Meta is accelerating its migration to in-house models. Multiple sources stated that Meta has recently begun prioritizing the promotion of its newly launched Muse Spark model, which is believed to be competitive with Gemini in performance, helping to reduce reliance on external models.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has previously continued to increase investment in AI talent and infrastructure, aiming to build what he calls "personal super intelligence." Unlike Google, Meta does not have a cloud business and is accelerating the construction of its own data center system, pledging a cumulative investment of $600 billion in the United States by 2028.

Google Expands Capacity via SpaceX, Industry Seeks Solutions

Faced with computing power pressure, Google signed a $920 million per month computing power leasing agreement with SpaceX this month to bridge the infrastructure gap. AI lab Anthropic also reached a similar agreement with SpaceX last month.

Google's move to impose restrictions on Meta provides a rare window for the outside world to glimpse the real pressure faced by the world's top AI service providers in allocating computing power. Currently, the infrastructure bottleneck across the entire AI industry is spreading from the training side to the inference side. Resolving the supply-demand contradiction still depends on the realization of a new round of large-scale capital investment.

Preguntas relacionadas

QAccording to the article, what limitation did Google impose on Meta regarding Gemini usage?

AGoogle reportedly informed Meta around March that it could not meet all of Meta's Gemini computing power demands and imposed usage limits on the AI model for the social media giant.

QWhat consequence did the reported Gemini usage limit have on Meta's internal operations?

AThe limitation has interfered with and delayed several of Meta's internal AI projects, leading the company to instruct employees to be more efficient with AI computing power and to carefully manage their use of AI tokens.

QWhich company did Google recently sign a major compute rental agreement with to address its capacity constraints?

AGoogle recently signed a compute rental agreement with Elon Musk's SpaceX, worth $920 million per month, to help expand its infrastructure capacity.

QHow is Meta responding to the challenges posed by the reliance on external AI models like Gemini?

AMeta is accelerating its shift towards its own self-developed models. It is prioritizing the promotion of its new Muse Spark model, which is considered competitive with Gemini, to reduce dependency on external providers.

QWhat does the article highlight as a major industry-wide bottleneck that is shifting from one area to another?

AThe article states that the infrastructure bottleneck in the AI industry is shifting from the training side to the inference side, as explosive growth in AI inference workloads becomes a core challenge for the sector.

Lecturas Relacionadas

"King of Shilling" Hayes Strikes Again, This Time Setting His Sights on Deribit

On June 29, BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes acquired approximately 6.16 million SYN tokens via OTC platform Flowdesk, valued at around $2.2 million. Subsequently, Hayes publicly endorsed SYN on X, calling it one of the most asymmetric investments he's seen since HYPE and declaring it time for an on-chain options DEX to challenge industry leader Deribit, naming Hypercall as that challenger. The article details the evolution of the Synapse Protocol, originally launched in 2021 as a cross-chain messaging and liquidity network. While its TVL peaked above $1 billion during the last bull market, it has since declined. The protocol's team has since built Hypercall, an on-chain options trading platform on Hyperliquid's HyperEVM, which supports trading options on "any asset" with features like 24/7 trading and defined risk limited to the premium paid. Deribit, founded in 2016, is highlighted as the dominant centralized crypto options exchange, commanding roughly 85% market share in BTC and ETH options. Its strengths include deep liquidity and professional tools, though it faces critiques over custody risk, KYC requirements, and regulatory uncertainty. The analysis suggests Hypercall's potential lies in decentralization, permissionless access, and transparency, potentially carving a niche in DeFi-native and emerging asset options. However, it faces significant challenges competing with Deribit's established network effect and liquidity depth. The piece concludes by noting Hayes's recent and mixed "call" history, referencing his previous promotion and subsequent sale of HYPE, as well as a controversial price target report for CARDS from his family office, Maelstrom, which was followed by a significant price drop for the asset. This activity has drawn criticism, with some accusing Hayes of creating exit liquidity for his followers.

Foresight NewsHace 18 min(s)

"King of Shilling" Hayes Strikes Again, This Time Setting His Sights on Deribit

Foresight NewsHace 18 min(s)

One Year After the Crash of Crypto Treasury Companies, Copycats Are Already Making a Comeback

One year after the collapse of digital asset treasury (DAT) companies, which wiped out up to 99% for early investors, the scheme has returned in a new guise. Recently, Triller Group announced it would become a "SpaceX treasury company," causing its market cap to surge. This follows the rebranding of another firm, LGHL, now targeting a token called HYPE. The original model, popularized by MicroStrategy (MSTR) and its "Bitcoin yield" narrative, saw companies trading at massive premiums to their underlying crypto holdings. However, most followers like TwentyOne, Metaplanet, and Nakamoto have crashed 80-95%+ from their peaks, erasing nearly all value for late investors. The author argues these structures have no fundamental reason to trade at premiums when low-fee Bitcoin ETFs or direct ownership exist. The cycle persists due to speculative demand driven by FOMO, gamification, and a belief the system is rigged, met by insiders and promoters who profit from the pump-and-dump dynamics. Drawing a parallel to the 1637 Tulip Mania, the piece concludes that such frenzies are not a bug but a recurring product of markets, where greater fools provide demand and insiders supply the schemes. Despite holding Bitcoin personally, the author condemns this specific packaging of assets into leveraged corporate vehicles marketed as innovation, a cycle seemingly unstoppable until a major crash.

marsbitHace 29 min(s)

One Year After the Crash of Crypto Treasury Companies, Copycats Are Already Making a Comeback

marsbitHace 29 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片