Logo
Become a Client

近日，国家网信办、国家发展改革委、工业和信息化部联合印发《智能体规范应用与创新发展实施意见》（以下简称《实施意见》）。这是国家层面首次针对智能体这一人工智能产品形态，给出覆盖技术底座、标准协议、场景应用、安全治理和产业生态的系统性政策框架。这意味着企业级智能体从过去的小规模技术试点阶段，正式进入以治理、协同和规模化为核心的新竞争周期。

从IDC的视角看，《实施意见》把技术底座、安全治理、应用牵引和创新生态构建成了一张全局路线图。技术与标准构成发展基础，分类分级与权限管控划定行为边界，五大类典型场景提供规模化落地入口，开源与供需平台则负责连接研发与市场。

在IDC预测中，2026年和2027年将是是中国企业场景中的活跃智能体数量增速最快的两年，单年同比增长超过200%，并将在2031年达到3.5亿个活跃智能体，2026-2031年CAGR达135.3%（《中国智能体规模预测，2026-2031》）。而《实施意见》这样的智能体国家顶层政策，也将进一步加速智能体走向规模化的应用。

活跃智能体数量增长反映的是企业部署广度，也会直接放大运行、权限、审计和治理压力。一个企业内部只有几个智能体时，治理方法更接近单个项目的管理；当Agent数量进入快速增长周期，治理就会变成IT架构问题。身份、权限、审计、工具调用、异常回退和跨系统协同，都会从项目交付细节变成平台能力要求。

《实施意见》放在这个阶段变化中看，正是把这些问题推到了产业议程前台，也让企业级Agent从小规模试点建设进入更正式的IT治理和产业协同框架。对企业来说，Agent会更快进入正式IT治理体系；对技术供应商来说，产品竞争也会从功能构建，延伸到运行、治理、评测和生态分发能力。

场景牵引推动Agent规模化复制

《实施意见》明确提出，要围绕科学研究、产业发展、提振消费、民生福祉和社会治理五大方向，打造19个典型应用场景。政策并没有停留在技术倡导层面，而是把智能体放进具体的任务环境里，通过典型场景牵引技术验证、产品迭代和应用落地。

智能体与上一阶段生成式AI应用的差别，就在于它需要进入业务环节端到端的完成任务。生成式AI更多围绕内容生成、知识问答和辅助分析展开，智能体则需要调用工具、访问系统、执行动作，并对结果产生影响。只有进入真实业务场景，任务边界、数据条件、系统接口、权限控制和结果责任才会被定义出来，才能真正落地出好用可用的智能体。

当前智能体在企业业务中的渗透率依然较低，仅有18%（IDC Syndicated Survey 2026: China AI Agents Market）。智能体没有在企业业务中真正规模化应用起来，核心在于缺少清晰的切入场景和可复用的落地路径。政策在这个角度提供了场景牵引，通过典型应用场景帮助智能体走向业务落地，并进一步形成规模化应用。

开发平台将会从构建工具延伸为运行和治理底座

《实施意见》在夯实发展基础部分提出，要提升智能体任务理解、任务规划、工具使用、长期记忆等核心能力，推动智能体互认互通和群体协同，同时完善底层框架、功能组件以及研发、测试、部署、运维工具链。

这与IDC观察到的，智能体平台厂商产品迭代的趋势高度吻合。2025年头部平台的产品形态已经从单纯的开发工具演进为涵盖规划、开发、测试、发布、观测、优化、治理的完整系统，企业也越来越关注智能体深入业务后，智能体是否是否可观测可治理，以及如何确保智能体执行任务的稳定性安全性（具体见IDC即将发布的《中国智能体开发平台市场份额，2025》中的重大市场变化章节）；同时，智能体规模化进入企业之后，企业内部多种来源的智能体（应用内智能体、低无代码配置智能体、独立智能体、定制智能体）如何统一管理和协同也会成为企业下一个阶段的关键需求。

《实施意见》中关于工具链、互认互通、群体协同的部署，将把这些工程化能力进一步推向产品标配。这些要求会转化为智能体开发、测试、运行、观测和治理的一整套工程能力，并逐步沉淀为智能体开发平台的核心竞争力。

安全治理成为Agent进入业务流程的准入条件

《实施意见》用相当篇幅讨论产品准则、决策权限、行为管控、内生安全、供应链安全、应用衍生风险、分类分级治理与合规服务体系。安全合规既是政策关注的重点，也是企业实际落地中的关键门槛。IDC在2026年最新智能体调研中发现，62%的企业把数据权限与安全合规列为智能体跨系统执行的首要障碍；而在智能体平台引入目标上，58.7%的企业把治理与合规放在首位（IDC Syndicated Survey 2026）。

智能体只有安全可控，才能正在被企业放心的纳入业务流程中。因此智能体的权限治理、行为审计、决策追溯、安全护栏等能力需逐渐的沉淀为智能体或智能体平台的标准能力。在金融、医疗、政务、公共安全等高合规领域，这种能力更是智能体能否落地的前提条件。

标准化分发和生态将重塑智能体产业

《实施意见》在标准协议和创新生态部分提出，要建立智能体标准体系，加强智能体互联协议（AIP）等关键标准推广应用，探索建设智能体注册平台，提供数字身份管理、检索发现、能力声明等服务，并推动智能体软件商店和行业供需信息发布平台建设。

智能体标准体系的成熟会明显推进智能体，尤其是独立智能体的规模化进程。在IDC 2026年初的预测中，独立智能体是增长弹性最高的智能体形态之一，其爆发主要依赖标准协议和智能体生态的成熟（《中国智能体规模预测，2026-2031》）。AIP、注册平台、软件商店和供需平台逐步成型后，独立智能体的构建、分发和使用门槛都会随之下降，独立智能体尤其是像Xclaw这类智能体产品有机会更快进入企业规模化应用场景中。

行动建议

面向企业用户

  • 把安全治理能力列为智能体规模化前置条件。 企业应尽早建立场景分级、任务边界和权限管理机制。在金融、医疗、政务等高合规领域，应参考政策要求提前规划备案、检测、安全评估以及第三方权威评测，低风险场景也应建立合规自测和风险报告机制。
  • 建设智能体统一运营和协同体系。随着智能体的规模化应用，企业内部将同时存在多类智能体，因此企业在平台选型和架构规划中，需要提前考虑智能体注册、统一身份、统一权限、统一审计、统一成本管理和跨智能体协同能力。

面向技术供应商

  • 安全治理需成为产品基础能力。智能体安全治理相关的决策权限边界、行为管控、最小权限、全链路审计、异常检测和回滚机制等能力，会逐步成为企业采购时的核心指标。
  • 建立智能体全生命周期能力。智能体全生命周期涉及到的开发、测试、部署、运行、评测、优化和治理等均需建立起相应的平台级能力，为未来企业级智能体规模化运营提供支撑。
  • 构建异构智能体的统一管理能力。智能体规模化时代，企业智能体的来源多样，平台需要建立统一的智能体身份、权限、审计、成本和调度能力，帮助企业把分散的智能体管起来，建设企业级的智能体运行和治理入口。
  • 关注智能体标准协议和平台商店的建设。AIP、智能体注册平台、软件商店和供需平台会推动智能体的标准化分发。建议厂商提前规划产品路线，并参考政策要求开展第三方功能、性能、质量与合规评测。

分析师观点

孙振亚，IDC中国分析师：《IDC中国研究经理孙振亚表示，《实施意见》的出台，标志着中国智能体产业从技术和市场自发探索，进入政策框架下的规模化扩张阶段。政策一方面通过分类分级、决策权限、行为管控和合规服务体系，为企业部署智能体提供可预期的合规路径；另一方面通过标准协议、注册平台、软件商店、第三方评测和供需对接机制，为智能体走向跨系统协作和产品化分发铺设了基础设施。

与IDC同行，抢占智能体规模化的战略先机

《实施意见》的发布，标志着企业级智能体正式进入治理驱动、生态协同的新阶段。但对企业来说，仍然存在诸如“如何在自己的行业与业务中，识别高价值的智能体场景”、“如何在平台选型、安全治理、标准化对接等关键决策上少走弯路”等现实挑战。

IDC长期追踪全球与中国智能体市场的发展脉动，拥有覆盖技术供应商、企业用户、投资机构的多维研究体系。已发布《中国Agent基础设施平台/执行平台技术评估，2026》、《中国智能体规模预测，2026—2031》、《IDC Market Glance：中国AI Agent市场概览，1Q26》等智能体报告，即将发布《Agent企业最佳实践与场景精选（ROI视角）》、《中国智能体开发平台市场份额，2025》、以及针对Xclaw产品进行评估的《企业级通用Agent助手评估》等一系列重磅报告，并可为企业提供定制化的场景评估、平台选型与治理成熟度诊断服务。

欢迎您联系IDC中国智能体研究团队，获取最新研究成果，或与分析师进行交流。让我们助您在智能体规模化的浪潮中，走得更稳、更快、更远。

请点击此处与我们联系。

Zhenya Sun

Zhenya Sun - Research Manager

Analyst Profile
Zhenya Sun is a research manager for the IDC team focused on exploring the application of technology and industrial development of AI and AI agents. He is also responsible for providing clients with consulting services on technologies, products, and markets…

视角决定格局。​若仍将公有云安全视作单一的技术模块，便无法窥见其真正的战略全貌。

IDC 2025全球数据指明：公有云安全已跨越单纯的合规门槛，跃升为企业的数字生存底座。​ 它不再是隐匿于防火墙之后的附属插件，而是支撑AI规模化落地、护航业务出海、乃至抵御周期波动的核心底层资产。

三个信号值得认真对待：

  • 信号一：全球公有云安全支出超1100亿美元，增速超20%，是IT支出中最坚硬的赛道
  • 信号二：中国市场云安全收入增速普遍高于云基础设施本身增速，客户正在从为资源付费向为安全付费跨越
  • 信号三：随着AI业务场景的深化，云原生安全已成为大模型落地的隐性门槛，若缺乏深度集成的原生安全体系，企业很难安心地将高价值数据与应用托管其上

一、全球浪潮：安全正在重新定义云的价值

站在2026年的时间节点回看，公有云早已不再仅仅是企业的外挂资源，而是数字化生存的电力系统。

2025年，全球企业正在混合云和多云架构中疯狂奔跑，全球公有云安全市场连续多年保持每年20%以上增速，2025年支出飙升至1100亿美元。

在全球范围内，AWS、Microsoft Azure和Google Cloud等头部玩家正经历着前所未有的技术迭代。他们不再仅仅提供安全插件，而是通过硬件级隔离、身份边界重塑以及AI驱动的情报分析，将安全深度嵌入云原生底座。

与此同时，以Palo Alto Networks、CrowdStrike、Wiz和Zscaler为代表的安全巨头也在快速进化。他们正推动从单一工具向CNAPP云原生应用保护平台和代码到云（Code-to-Cloud）的统一平台转型，试图在多云环境中建立一道跨厂商、自动化的全栈防御屏障。

在这场技术长跑中，谁能率先解决复杂环境下的可见性真空，谁就将定义下一个十年的云安全标准。

二、中国实践：快速跟进与创新，但仍有差距

2025年，中国云计算市场规模持续扩大，云安全产品的营收增速普遍高于云基础设施本身的增速，显示出客户从买资源向买安全的意识跨越。

作为国内市场的领头羊，阿里云已将其安全产品线全面推向智能体时代，通过升级Agentic SOC，利用大模型实现了超过80%的安全事件自动响应。华为云演进为AI原生安全架构，通过其安全大模型实现对AI算力集群的实时监测。腾讯云充分发挥攻防领域的深厚沉淀，在内容风控、反欺诈、DDoS高防等领域形成了极高的市场占有率。

传统网安巨头正通过云地协同战略，在云安全管理平台C-SOC市场占据核心位置。深信服、奇安信等厂商通过与公有云厂商的深度技术绑定，成功实现了从卖防火墙硬件到卖云安全服务的转型。

但不可忽视的是，相比于全球安全厂商，中国安全厂商目前在公有云安全市场仍需发力。虽然在私有云和特定业务场景中展现了卓越的实战能力，但在全球化的SaaS安全标准、跨云的Agentless治理精度、以及安全左移的代码级闭环上，国内厂商仍有巨大的进阶空间。

三、商业启示：为什么公有云安全是好生意

海外巨头的成功路径为中国厂商提供了极具诱惑力的商业模板：

极致的用户粘性

安全业务之所以具备IT板块中最高的粘性，是因为它正逐渐从外部挂载的锁具演变为深度嵌入企业架构的神经系统。一旦部署，更换安全供应商不再是简单的卸载与重装，而是一场涉及底层策略重写、合规记录迁移以及全员操作习惯重塑的伤筋动骨式手术。

抵御周期的现金流

与传统网络安全硬件的订单式生存不同，Wiz和CrowdStrike的成功路径证明了SaaS化订阅模式在资本市场中的统治力。这种模式具有极强的抗周期属性，即便在经济下行期，企业可能会削减新员工入职或新业务线扩张，但绝不敢轻易关掉云端的安全防护。

掌握AI与全球化的通行证

在当前的全球技术格局下，拥有顶级的云安全能力已不再仅仅是为了防御黑客，它更是企业进军AI云和全球化市场的入场券。只有具备原生云安全能力的厂商，才能解决大模型在云端训练、推理过程中的数据投毒和提示词注入风险。中国厂商若能构建起符合国际主流标准的云安全体系，本质上就是为中国企业的全球化交付提供了一套合规标准化的底座。

四、IDC：不止于数据，更是决策指南

IDC已发布 《IDC中国半年度安全软件数据跟踪报告——公有云，2025H2》，其中包含公有云部署模式下的数据安全软件、终端安全软件、身份和访问控制软件、软件安全网关、安全分析和运营软件、漏洞管理软件等子市场的厂商数据跟踪。

上述商业逻辑的兑现，最终需要落地到真实的市场数据中加以验证。化繁为简，洞见未来。 本次报告透过公有云安全市场不同赛道中的厂商营收数据，为您剥离噪音、还原真相，助您在复杂的市场环境中精准锚定业务增长点与投资机遇。无论您是寻求赛道突围的企业，还是布局未来的投资者，皆能在此获取专属的行动指南。

具体而言，可以为不同角色的参与者提供以下支持——

云厂商：帮助您精准识别自身安全产品的市场位次，明确自身赛道定位与竞争位置。

安全厂商：帮助您应找准生态位，重点锚定高增长赛道，避免无效内卷；同时积极融入头部云厂商生态，通过技术集成与联运合作，借助云市场流量触达客户。

企业客户：为您提供了客观的供应商评价维度，帮助 CIO 识别哪些厂商在特定公有云安全领域具备长期投入和领先地位。

投资机构：报告是评估公有云安全景气度的核心参考，能够清晰展现公有云安全市场的天花板及各子市场的集中度，利用数据降低因信息不对称导致的投资偏差。

结语

公有云安全已经完成了从附加品到必需品的身份蜕变。在客户从买资源向买安全的意识跨越中，IDC 将持续通过系统性的研究，助力每一位参与者：看清坐标、捕捉先机、定义未来。

欢迎广大云厂商和安全厂商关注IDC公有云安全系列研究，如需进一步沟通或获取深度数据与战略洞察，请与IDC联系。

请点击此处与我们联系。

Joe Zhao

Joe Zhao - Senior Research Manager

Analyst Profile
Joe Zhao is a senior research manager of Enterprise Research for IDC China. He focuses on research and analysis of the China security market. Joe has more than 12 years of domestic and international work experience in ICT. Prior to…

2026年CHIMA大会上，一个变化已经非常明确：医疗行业的讨论重心，正在从大模型快速转向智能体。过去两年，行业关注的是模型参数、多模态能力、医学问答准确率，本质上是在验证“模型是否足够强”；而今年，几乎所有厂商都开始展示智慧诊疗、智慧服务、智慧运营等智能体矩阵，并强调与HIS、EMR、医保等核心系统的融合能力。

IDC认为，当前医疗AI最大的鸿沟已经不是模型能力，而是医院现有体系“接不住”智能体。行业竞争正从技术竞赛，转向流程、组织与承接能力的落地竞赛。

本文基于CHIMA 2026观察，IDC指出：技术供给已超前于医院承接能力；未来医疗AI的竞争，谁能够率先帮助医院构建Agent-ready的能力体系。

CHIMA释放新信号：医疗AI全面从“模型竞赛”转向“落地竞赛”

此次展会中，互联网平台、AI创业公司、基础设施厂商、安全厂商大量涌入医疗市场，行业从模型的参数比拼迅速转向Agent开发。许多厂商甚至已经不再强调自研医疗大模型，而是直接基于通用模型构建医疗智能体。会场中，各类智慧医院、AI中枢、全场景智能体方案层出不穷。

这意味着，医疗AI已经进入新的阶段。行业竞争正在从技术能力竞赛，转向围绕业务闭环、流程协同与组织能力的落地竞赛。

智能体落地，厂商与医院之间存在巨大的“数字鸿沟”

相对于展会上技术厂商层出不穷的智能体产品，医院关注的问题却依旧十分现实。纵观大会论坛与议题，医院讨论最多的仍然是数据治理、系统集成、算力不足、网络安全、医保合规等基础问题。相比厂商描绘的“全面智能化”，医院更关心的是系统是否稳定、数据是否打通、流程是否真正可落地。

同时，伴随着医疗大模型走向落地应用，医院用户逐步发现发现，即使模型已经足够强，AI依然很难真正进入核心业务流程。因此，目前医院实际引入的智能体，依然主要集中在病历生成、预问诊、报告解读等非核心场景。

这种明显的供给的错位揭示了当前医疗AI行业最大的矛盾：技术供给正在快速超前，但医院真实需求与承接能力并没有同步成熟。

问题根源：技术供给超前，但医院接不住智能体

过去医院信息化建设的核心目标，是实现业务电子化与线上化，因此形成了以HIS为中心的大量烟囱式系统。这种架构适合传统软件，却不适合智能体的部署及管饭应用。智能体需要实时数据流、跨系统协同、动态推理以及持续决策能力，但当前医院普遍存在数据孤岛、接口割裂、标准不统一的问题。因此，当前智能体落地的主要问题并不在于AI“做不到”，而在于医院体系“接不住”。

跨越鸿沟，构建“Agent-ready的能力”

医疗AI下一阶段的核心问题，已经不再是“还能做出多少Agent”，而是“如何让医院真正接得住Agent”。尤其对于技术厂商而言，下一阶段不应只是推出更多智能体，而是帮助医院构建能够承接智能体持续运行的Agent-ready能力体系。对此，IDC认为应该关注一下几点：

首先，厂商需要从“卖单点AI应用”转向“建设AI基础能力”。厂商需要熟悉医院的基础架构，拓展从底层基础设施到上层应用的全栈技术能力，将重点放在数据治理、统一接口、智能中台与安全体系建设上，帮助医院建立能够支撑多智能体运行的底座能力。

其次，短期聚焦高ROI场景，形成可量化的价值。在预算收紧的背景下，医院对AI的投入将更为审慎。厂商应主动协助医院识别那些流程相对独立、数据标准较高且业务痛点明确的场景，如病历生成、医保审核、医疗质控或患者预问诊，采取点状化的切入方式，率先形成可量化价值，从而推动医院主动升级Agent能力。

与此同时，立足长期发展，重构软件让智能体真正融入医院工作流。当前大部分智能体仍停留在单点工具阶段，但未来医院真正需要的，将是能够跨系统、跨科室协同运行的智能体网络，需要将智能体与软件深度交融。因此，厂商需要率先从软件设计底层进行变更，并加一验证，才更有可能成为下一阶段医疗AI市场的核心玩家。

最后，主动成为医疗用户的同行者。一方面，建立“临床+信息中心+厂商”的联合共创机制，主动帮助医院洞察痛点，个性化定制智能体，解决医院的实际问题；另一方面，构建多元化的合作模式，主动解决医院信息化预算短缺的问题，形成更可持续化的付费模式。

未来医疗AI的竞争，谁能够真正帮助医院完成智能化转型

因此，CHIMA 2026最重要的意义，并不是“智能体全面爆发”，而是行业开始意识到：医疗AI的核心挑战，已经从模型问题，转向流程问题、组织问题与体系问题。这也意味着，未来行业竞争的焦点，将不再是谁拥有更多Agent或更大的模型，而是谁能够真正帮助医院完成智能化转型。

本文与IDC研究报告
本文基于CHIMA 2026的一线观察，回答一个问题：为什么医院现在需要认真对待医疗大模型与智能体的落地？
而关于“谁家的技术更强、如何评估、如何选型”的系统性答案，请参见IDC已发布的《中国医疗大模型技术评估，2026》（Doc# CHC53377725，2026年4月）报行。旨在帮助医院读者理解报告的背景、建立思考框架、明确自身准备工作的方向：

  • 主要医疗大模型厂商的技术能力深度对比
  • 分场景（病历、医保、质控、患者服务）的能力评估
  • 可解释性、幻觉控制、系统集成等关键维度的实测分析
  • 医院选型建议与ROI参考框架

IDC更多相关研究：

这一跨越是一场从底层到上层应用的整体变革，当前市场正处在从智能体的点状式应用到全面智能体化的转折期。作为行业的观察者，在迎接医疗智能体的全面到来之际，IDC也将研究也将聚焦智能体话题：

医疗AI正从模型能力竞争进入落地能力竞争的新阶段。IDC将持续跟踪智能体在医疗场景中的演进路径、组织适配与价值评估。如需了解报告更多信息，或就医疗AI落地策略、智能体成熟度评估、医院数字化转型路径等进行深度交流，欢迎与IDC联系。

请点击此处与我们联系。

2025年中国企业级MaaS市场经历了从试点到规模化应用的关键转折。无论是Token调用量还是实际营收，各个统计口径都呈现出倍数级的增长，同时Token消耗的快速攀升正在重新定义企业使用人工智能的方式。然而，在这一轮高速增长的背后，市场仍然面临性能、安全合规、回答质量等多重实际约束。IDC认为，MaaS厂商的竞争焦点正在从过去单纯的价格比拼，转向“价格、性能与工具链支持”的综合能力竞争。

市场总体规模：调用量增长16倍，但需理性看待基数效应

2024年，中国企业级MaaS市场按调用量统计的规模仅为114万亿Tokens，而到2025年，这一数字跃升至1944万亿Tokens，同比增长约16倍。在营收口径下，2025年中国公有云MaaS市场的规模达到30.7亿元人民币。与此同时，面向传统政企客户的大模型私有化部署市场也保持活跃，尤其在政务、金融、能源等领域形成了独立的采购与交付体系。

IDC预计2026年全年Token消耗量约为40,000万亿次，较2025年进一步增长约20倍。这一加速增长的主要驱动因素，是多模态大模型的逐步成熟以及Agent类应用的规模化落地。换句话说，市场正在从“文本生成”向“多模态理解与自动执行”扩展，每一次交互所消耗的Token量级也相应大幅提升。

Token消耗快速增长，但不同场景之间差异巨大

Token消耗的整体走势非常明确：2025年1月全市场日均消耗约为1.6万亿Tokens，到2025年12月底，这一数字已经攀升至9.6万亿Tokens。随着多模态大模型的进一步成熟，日均Token消耗的增长曲线将会变得更为陡峭。

不过，不同应用场景之间的Token消耗量级存在巨大差异，这一点往往被笼统的市场总量数字所掩盖。例如，一家投资机构在合同摘要场景中，一次处理几十个合同文档，单次消耗的Tokens可达200万。一家教育机构在其在线培训场景中，高峰使用期日均消耗高达2000亿Tokens。而使用多模态产品生成一个视频，也会消耗上千万Tokens。这些差异意味着，企业在评估MaaS服务时，不能只看单位Token的报价，还必须结合自身场景的实际消耗特征来判断总成本。

从应用场景的分布来看，当前公有云上MaaS的主要应用群体集中在泛互联网行业（游戏、娱乐、教育）、智能办公赛道、智能硬件赛道（智能汽车、手机、智能眼镜）以及大消费赛道。主要的应用场景包括角色扮演、短剧生成、市场营销、搜索、数据处理、数据分析和文档处理。而在传统政企的私有化部署项目中，应用场景相对收敛，主要集中在智能办公、数据处理与分析、市场营销等几个方向。

竞争格局：公有云头部集中，私有化部署市场更为分散

在公有云MaaS市场，按调用量计算，2025年火山引擎占据了接近一半的份额，其次是阿里云、百度智能云、硅基流动以及移动云。其他值得关注的厂商还包括腾讯云、商汤科技、华为云、天翼云等。

如果按营收口径来看，火山引擎仍然占据40%以上的市场份额，阿里云、百度智能云、智谱以及移动云位列前五。不同厂商在单位Token定价、折扣策略以及高价值场景的占比上存在显著差异。例如，某些厂商可能在低单价、高调用量的场景中占优，而另一些厂商则在高单价、专业场景中获得了更高的营收贡献。

在私有化部署市场上，格局则完全不同。传统政企客户出于数据安全、合规可控等考虑，仍然将私有化部署作为第一选择，也因此培育了众多的大模型平台私有化厂商。2025年IDC追踪到的头部厂商包括百度智能云、商汤科技、电信AI、中关村科金、创新奇智、星环科技以及中国电子云。相比公有云市场，私有化部署市场的集中度更低，这与政企采购的区域性、行业性特征有直接关系。

企业落地大模型时，性能、合规与质量优先于成本

高速增长的数字背后，企业在大模型落地过程中仍然面临一系列现实挑战。根据IDC的调研数据，影响大模型落地的Top5因素依次是：模型性能、安全合规要求、回答质量、在AI平台可用性以及成本效益。其中，性能指的是企业部署上线后的稳定性、并发数和可靠性；安全合规既要求模型在中国市场可以合规使用，也要求模型生成的内容本身合规；回答质量则直接决定了模型能否被大规模上线应用。

值得注意的是，成本效益在当前阶段排在第五位，并非企业最优先考虑的障碍。这一结果在一定程度上说明，企业当前更关注“模型是否能用、是否安全、是否稳定”，在这些前提条件满足之后，才会进入精细化的成本比较。然而，原文也明确提示了一种中长期风险：随着大模型应用场景的持续渗透，以及算力紧缺状况的延续，大模型的投资预算终将成为关键挑战。换句话说，成本问题目前还没有爆发，但它迟早会来。

MaaS市场的竞争要素正在发生结构性的变化

随着Token经济的兴起和市场参与者的迅速增加，MaaS市场的竞争规则也在发生变化。IDC认为，未来制胜的核心要素将集中在三个方面：价格与成本优化、性能、以及工具链与应用开发的支持。

在价格与成本方面，企业Token的日均消耗正在快速增长，尤其是各类Agent类产品的出现，进一步放大了Token的使用规模。随着规模化智能的到来，厂商需要关注的不是单纯降低单位Token的价格，而是帮助用户降低整体成本，同时确保输出的是高质量、有效用的Tokens。

在性能方面，大量行业场景对并发数和吞吐量有很高要求，与此同时算力紧缺的现状短期内难以根本缓解。能够通过底层算力优化来提升模型训练和推理效率的厂商，将在用户选型中获得明显的优势。

在工具链与应用开发支持方面，过去两年的MaaS市场中，买方选型的首要因素几乎都是价格，而且由于大模型迭代速度太快，买方通常选择直接调用大模型API，而不进行二次调优。但未来，企业将有更多垂直场景落地，这些场景离不开智能体的开发。因此，MaaS平台在工具链（如调试、评测、智能体编排）上的完备性，在用户选型中的重要性将不断提高。

展望：2026年预计20倍Token增长，但需注意情景依赖

基于现有数据和趋势，IDC对MaaS市场给出了明确的预测：2026年中国MaaS市场的Token消耗量将达到约40,000万亿次，按营收规模计算将达到约186亿元人民币。2024年至2030年的年复合增长率约为1154.9%，但这一数字是基于高增长情景得出的。

需要特别提示的是，如此高的复合增长率高度依赖于一系列前提条件：多模态模型的持续成熟、Agent类应用的大规模落地、算力供给不出现严重瓶颈，以及合规政策保持稳定。上述任何一个条件发生变化，实际增速都可能显著低于高增长情景。对于行业参与者和企业买方而言，在看到巨大市场机遇的同时，也有必要对风险保持清醒的认知。

对厂商与买方的建议

基于上述分析和IDC的调研数据，我们可以对MaaS厂商和企业买方分别提出几点建议。

对于MaaS厂商而言，在价格竞争的同时，应当优先解决高并发场景下的性能稳定性和合规推理能力。工具链能力（调试、评测、智能体编排）正在成为差异化竞争的关键，不可忽视。此外，可以考虑在垂直场景（如合同处理、视频生成、教育陪练）中建立深度优化能力，而不是在所有场景中采取同质化的竞争策略。

对于企业买方而言，在当前阶段应当优先验证模型的回答质量、安全合规性和并发稳定性，成本可以放在次优级的位置上。在选择MaaS厂商时，建议关注其工具链的成熟度，而不仅仅是API的单次调用价格。从长远来看，建议尽早建立Token成本的评估机制，避免业务规模扩张后出现成本失控的局面。

进一步交流

MaaS市场的爆发才刚刚开始，IDC将持续追踪这一市场的格局变化与技术演进。如需获取完整报告、订阅后续研究，或针对特定厂商与行业进行定制化分析，欢迎与IDC中国人工智能研究团队联系。

关于数据：本文所有数据和图表均来自IDC《中国AI软件市场半年度追踪，2025H2》。调用量口径统计企业通过公有云MaaS平台调用大模型API产生的Token数量；营收口径统计企业实际支付的公有云MaaS服务费用（不含私有化部署）；私有化部署市场统计面向政企客户的大模型平台软件及相关授权收入。

请点击此处与我们联系。

Yanxia Lu

Yanxia Lu - Research Director

Analyst Profile
  Yanxia Lu is a research director, focusing on big data and artificial intelligence (AI). Her responsibilities include big data information management platform, and big data analytics and applications. She is also involved in research on AI technology and enterprise…

SpaceXAI has reached an agreement to provide Anthropic with large-scale AI compute capacity from its Colossus 1 facility. The deal grants Anthropic access to more than 300 megawatts of capacity and roughly 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs for training and inference workloads. The agreement marks one of the most significant infrastructure moves in the frontier AI market because it gives Anthropic a dedicated block of capacity at a time when Claude, Claude Code, and Claude-based enterprise deployments are scaling rapidly. It also shows how SpaceXAI is beginning to turn Colossus into an external compute platform for major AI companies rather than reserve the facility for internal xAI model development. The deal illustrates how compute has become a primary constraint on frontier AI competition, alongside model architecture, product experience, enterprise distribution, and developer adoption.

Watch the full interview with Arnal Dayaratna, Research VP, Software Development, IDC.

IDC’s point of view

Compute is becoming a core competitive asset for frontier AI labs

The Anthropic-SpaceXAI agreement shows how compute has moved from a background operational concern to a frontline competitive variable among leading AI labs. These companies now compete on their ability to secure large blocks of training and inference capacity in addition to model architecture, product experience, and enterprise distribution. Anthropic’s most recent capital raise set a post-money valuation of roughly $380 billion and disclosed an annual revenue run rate of about $14 billion as of early 2026. Subsequent reporting points to expectations that annual recurring revenue could reach roughly $44 billion, which supports a path toward a trillion-dollar valuation over the medium term. At that scale, Anthropic needs additional compute to keep model performance, product quality, and enterprise adoption on pace with demand.

Anthropic also operates with a smaller base of committed training and serving capacity than OpenAI, whose recent financing and infrastructure partnerships give it access to substantial dedicated training and inference capacity. Anthropic’s relationships with Amazon and Google remain central to its infrastructure strategy, but those relationships have not fully closed the gap in committed compute. The SpaceXAI agreement narrows that gap on terms that are difficult to secure through conventional cloud channels. Training remains essential, but inference now carries more of the operational burden as Claude, Claude Code, and agentic workflows become part of daily enterprise and developer work. The relevant demand unit is now the completed workflow — each step in planning, retrieval, tool selection, API calls, code execution, validation, and summarization issues one or more model calls. That structure raises inference volume, tightens latency expectations, and heightens reliability requirements that Anthropic will address through expanded Claude capacity at Colossus 1.

Power, land, and facilities are moving upstream in AI competition

Competition among frontier AI companies increasingly depends on their ability to secure and operate the infrastructure required for large-scale AI training and inference. Land, power availability, real estate, zoning, permitting, cooling, networking, and data center operations now sit upstream of model development. Colossus 1 is a large AI data center in Memphis, Tennessee, originally associated with xAI and now available to Anthropic through SpaceX. Its importance lies less in the name of the facility than in the infrastructure base behind it: more than 300 megawatts of compute capacity, more than 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs, and a site already organized around the power, cooling, networking, and operations required for AI-scale compute. The companies that can assemble and operate such environments gain a practical advantage because large-scale model development depends on infrastructure that takes years to secure, permit, build, and stabilize.

NVIDIA’s grip on frontier compute remains intact

The Anthropic-SpaceXAI agreement reinforces NVIDIA’s dominance in frontier-scale AI compute. The agreement lands amid a broader debate about whether custom silicon from Amazon and Google can reduce frontier labs’ dependence on NVIDIA. Anthropic is a useful test case for that debate because it relies heavily on Amazon and Google for infrastructure — both of which have invested heavily in alternatives to NVIDIA through AWS Trainium and Inferentia, and through Google TPUs. Yet Anthropic’s largest new capacity agreement still centers on NVIDIA GPUs. That weakens the case that custom silicon is close to displacing NVIDIA for the largest frontier-scale capacity expansions. The agreement also shows that the broader market for NVIDIA capacity still does not fully meet the needs of the largest frontier labs, as Anthropic chose SpaceXAI over neocloud providers such as CoreWeave, Lambda, and Nebius for a larger, more concentrated block of power, facilities, networking, operations, and NVIDIA GPUs.

SpaceXAI adds an AI infrastructure premium to the SpaceX valuation case

AI infrastructure adds a new value layer to SpaceX because Colossus turns scarce AI infrastructure into an asset that can serve more than internal model development. SpaceX already has large value drivers in space transportation and Starlink broadband, but Colossus gives the combined company exposure to one of the most constrained parts of the AI market: dense compute capacity backed by power, facilities, NVIDIA GPUs, and operational depth. Elon Musk noted that xAI would become part of SpaceX and that the combined entity would be called SpaceXAI. The Anthropic agreement shows that SpaceXAI can sell large-scale compute capacity to a major AI lab with demanding training and inference requirements. The strategic asset is the combination of power, facilities, NVIDIA capacity, operating discipline, and Musk’s ability to negotiate deals that extend beyond ordinary compute supply. That scarcity can translate into pricing power, strategic deal flow, and a higher valuation multiple than SpaceX would command from space transportation and Starlink broadband alone.

What this means for the market

The Anthropic agreement signals that SpaceXAI is becoming a meaningful infrastructure force in frontier AI, not just a rocket company with a side bet on AI. For Anthropic, the deal closes a meaningful compute gap and removes a ceiling on how fast Claude and its associated products can scale. For the broader market, it reinforces two durable realities: NVIDIA’s grip on frontier-scale compute remains intact, and the companies that control power, land, and facilities at scale are sitting on an increasingly scarce and valuable asset. How quickly Anthropic can translate this capacity into measurable reliability and performance gains will be one of the more important stories to watch in enterprise AI over the next 12 to 18 months.

To go deeper on what this deal means for enterprise AI strategy, read IDC’s full research on the Anthropic-SpaceXAI agreement.

Also publishing: IDC’s analysis of the Cursor-SpaceXAI deal and what it means for the agentic coding market.

Arnal Dayaratna

Arnal Dayaratna - Research Vice President, Software Development

Analyst Profile
Dr. Arnal Dayaratna is Research Vice President, Software Development at IDC. Arnal focuses on software developer demographics, trends in programming languages and other application development tools, and the intersection of these development environments and the many emerging technologies that are enabling…

The sustainability software market has over 500 vendors, a consolidation wave in progress, and no obvious safe harbor. Here’s how to cut through it.

More than 500 vendors now compete in the sustainability management software market — a field encompasses greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting, regulatory disclosure, supply chain emissions tracking, and decarbonization planning. Competitors range from early-stage startups with narrow, specialized capabilities to some of the world’s largest enterprise technology companies. It is a market defined less by steady growth than by turbulence: new entrants arrive regularly, established players acquire or are acquired, and some vendors quietly exit.

IDC’s From Data to Disclosure: Sustainability Software Vendor Mapping and Capability Assessment maps this landscape systematically, categorizing vendors by capability domain and strategic positioning. Paired with the IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Carbon Accounting and Management Applications 2026, the two documents offer a structured view of a market that remains genuinely difficult to navigate.

The picture that emerges is one of significant opportunity and significant risk. Three realities deserve the attention of any organization evaluating sustainability management software in 2026:

  1. The vendor landscape is turbulent, consolidating, and uneven
  2. Vendor solution portfolios matter as much as feature sets
  3. Selection is a strategic decision — and the stakes have never been hig

1. The vendor landscape is turbulent, consolidating, and uneven

The sustainability software market is consolidating rapidly. According to IDC’s February 2026 vendor mapping report, acquisition activity accelerated throughout 2024 and 2025: Makersite announced a deal to acquire Siemens’ SiGREEN product carbon footprint platform (closing June 2026). Diginex acquired Plan A.earth in December 2025. Position Green acquired Greenomy in September 2025. Ecologi absorbed Net Zero Now in February 2025. Asuene took on NZero in May 2025. Workiva acquired Sustain.Life in 2024.

Pressure is also building from the other direction. Shifting regulations and tightening venture capital have left a number of underfunded startups struggling to find new customers or investors, with several choosing to sell or merge rather than continue independently.

For buyers, consolidation cuts both ways. Acquired platforms can gain infrastructure and R&D investment, but acquisitions also introduce roadmap uncertainty and the risk that a specialist solution becomes subordinated to a larger platform’s priorities. Given the market’s turbulence, vendor stability should be a critical evaluation criterion alongside functional capability. A platform that is the right fit today but struggles to sustain its roadmap in two years is a liability, not an asset.

2. Vendor solution portfolios matter as much as feature sets

Organizations that select sustainability management platforms misaligned with their operational context will face costly platform migrations as they attempt to close capability gaps that feature comparisons failed to surface.

Nearly every vendor in the IDC mapping peport claims support for Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, regulatory reporting, supplier engagement, and decarbonization planning. The real differentiation lies in operational assumptions, industry fit, and integration architecture. IDC’s mapping report identifies five meaningfully distinct vendor archetypes, each suited to a different organizational context:

Pure-play carbon accounting specialists — Normative, Greenly, Watershed, Persefoni, Sweep, Terrascope, and Unravel Carbon — are purpose-built for GHG management, with strength in methodological rigor, audit readiness, and AI-driven Scope 3 automation.

Large enterprise platform providers — SAP, Microsoft, IBM, Salesforce, ServiceNow, and Workiva — embed sustainability within platforms organizations already run on. SAP’s Green Ledger integrates carbon accounting directly into financial systems; Salesforce’s Agentforce Net Zero sits on the same platform as CRM.

Industrial and operational specialists — IFS, Siemens, GE Vernova, Honeywell, and Schneider Electric — treat carbon as an outcome of operational performance, capturing emissions at the equipment level via IoT and rolling up results through the asset hierarchy. For asset-intensive industries, this operational embedding is the primary differentiator.

EHS-adjacent providers — Cority, Sphera, EcoOnline, Ideagen, and Quentic — extend established environmental health and safety (EHS) platforms into sustainability, offering natural evolution pathways for organizations with existing EHS programs.

Supply chain and compliance specialists — Blue Yonder, Coupa, and Sedex— focus on sustainable logistics/shipping, responsible sourcing, and value chain transparency. For many organizations, this category addresses the most strategically significant portion of their carbon footprint: Scope 3 supply chain emissions frequently represent 70% or more of total enterprise emissions, yet they are also the hardest to measure, manage, and reduce without dedicated tools for supplier engagement, audit management, and risk analytics.

3. Selection is a strategy decision, and the takes have never been higher

Some of today’s vendors will not exist independently in three to five years. Architectural fit matters and alignment with organizational use cases and goals is paramount. And the consequences of a poor selection — regulatory exposure, integration complexity, increased costs — are compounding.

IDC’s vendor mapping and MarketScape research provide the structure to navigate this with discipline.

“Sustainability management is no longer a reporting exercise — it’s the new foundation for enterprise strategy, risk, and value creation in a decarbonizing world.”

Amy Cravens, IDC Research Manager

The vendors best positioned to support that foundation are those whose operational DNA, strategic roadmap, and market stability align with the organizations they serve.

Amy Cravens

Amy Cravens - Research Manager, Sustainability and ESG Software

Analyst Profile
Amy Cravens is Research Manager contributing to IDC’s Sustainable Strategies and Technologies Team. In this role she is responsible for the Sustainability and ESG Software research program, providing strategic guidance and research on market trends, technology usage, and business strategies.…

At IDC, our analysts and data get a lot of the spotlight, and rightfully so. But behind every research report, every client relationship, and every strategic decision is a team of people making sure IDC can do what it does best. Renuka Drummond, IDC’s General Counsel, is one of those people. And this spring, the broader legal community took notice.

Renuka was named one of the Top 10 Corporate Counsel worldwide by the OnCon Icon Awards, a peer and community-voted recognition that honors professionals who have made a considerable impact on their organizations, shown innovation in their roles, and demonstrated exceptional leadership. It’s a meaningful distinction in a field where the best work often happens quietly, behind the scenes.

A career built on being close to the business

Renuka’s path to IDC started in Big Law in New York, where she spent roughly a decade advising private equity clients and global companies on complex, multi-jurisdictional transactions at Baker Botts and Akin Gump. But she felt drawn to something different: being inside the business, closer to strategy and the people responsible for execution.

That pull led her to Cognizant, a Fortune 200 global technology company, where she led M&A as Associate General Counsel, managing cross-border acquisitions and integrations across healthcare, financial services, and digital industries on a global scale. From there, she became Chief Legal Officer at MediaKind, where she helped the company shift from legacy business models toward more sustainable growth.

She came to IDC because it brought those threads together: technology, data, global operations, and a company with a strong reputation at the center of how tech decisions get made.

What the work actually looks like

As general counsel, Renuka leads IDC’s legal team, which includes privacy and compliance, and supports work across the entire company. That means commercial contracts, data privacy, intellectual property, AI governance, legal entity management, and employee matters. Day to day, her team works alongside sales, product, finance, HR, and senior leadership.

She also serves as Corporate Secretary to IDC’s board, helping navigate governance and serving as a bridge between management and the board of directors.

“The simplest way to describe my job,” Renuka says, “is that I help IDC move quickly while staying protected.”

Proud of what the legal team is building

When asked what she’s most proud of at IDC, Renuka points to the role her team is playing in IDC’s AI transformation. IDC’s business depends on the quality and trustworthiness of its proprietary research and data. As AI has changed how information is accessed and embedded in customers’ workflows, the legal team has had to think carefully: building legal frameworks for new products, modernizing customer agreements, developing responsible AI terms and disclosures, and supporting new ways for customers to use IDC’s research.

“I’m proud of that because it captures what legal does best,” she says, “which is protect the company’s core assets while helping the business grow at the same time.”

Advice worth passing on

For anyone early in a legal career, Renuka offers two pieces of guidance: be curious about the business, and be intentional about the people you learn from.

Technical legal skills matter, she says. But the lawyers who become truly indispensable are the ones who understand how a company grows, what customers care about, and what risks actually matter in that context.

She also encourages young lawyers to choose their teams carefully. Surround yourself with people who will challenge you, invest in you, and hand you hard problems before you feel completely ready for them. “That’s how you build judgment and confidence,” she says, “and the ability to become a trusted advisor.”

Christina Cardoza - Content Marketing Manager - IDC

LinkedIn
Christina Cardoza is a Content Marketing Manager at IDC, where she specializes in brand content and social media strategy. With a background in journalism and editorial leadership, she has a proven ability to transform complex technology topics into clear, actionable insights.

What Happened in India’s Smartphone Market in Q1 2026?

India’s smartphone market shipments declined 4.1% year over year to 31.0 million units in Q1 2026, according to IDC’s Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker. Rising memory prices drove brands to front-load channel inventory ahead of anticipated cost escalations, pushing shipment volumes above initial expectations. However, underlying consumer demand remained subdued — weighed down by a typical post-festive slowdown, elevated device prices, and cautious spending sentiment. Despite falling volume, the market grew 5.8% in value terms, underscoring India’s ongoing shift from volume-led to value-driven growth.

Why It Matters

The Q1 2026 data signals a structural turning point for one of the world’s largest smartphone markets. Brands, retailers, and investors should take note:

  • Device makers relying on entry-level volume face shrinking margins and reduced market viability as memory costs continue to rise.
  • Consumers in sub-US$100 brackets are being pushed upmarket by necessity rather than aspiration — a trend that reshapes demand forecasting for 2026 and beyond.
  • The gap between channel inventory and actual consumer demand points to a near-term correction risk, particularly in affordable segments.

Market Dynamics: What Drove the Outcome?

The market’s performance was shaped by three converging forces:

  • Memory cost inflation → entry-level collapse: A global memory shortage drove up component prices across newly launched and existing models alike. Brands could no longer sustain profitability in the sub-US$100 tier, leading to reduced model availability and weaker channel participation. Shipments in this entry-level segment fell 59% YoY, with segment share collapsing from 18% to just 8%.
  • Forced premiumization → mass-budget gains: Consumers who could no longer find affordable sub-US$100 options migrated upward. The mass-budget segment (US$100–200) grew 10% YoY, expanding its share from 39% to 45% — driven more by eroding entry-level value than deliberate upgrade intent.
  • Promotional pullback → constrained demand recovery: Rising input costs limited brands’ ability to deploy the aggressive discounting and channel-led promotions that historically fuel mass-market growth. With fewer price interventions, underlying consumer demand stayed soft, particularly online, where shipments fell 14% YoY and share declined from 42% to 38%.

Price Band Performance

  • Entry-level (sub-US$100): −59% YoY; share fell from 18% to 8%
  • Mass-budget (US$100–200): +10% YoY; share rose from 39% to 45%
  • Entry-premium (US$200–400): −3% YoY; share edged up from 26% to 27%
  • Mid-premium (US$400–600): +29% YoY; share rose from 6% to 8%
  • Premium (US$600–800): +32% YoY; share rose from 4% to 6%
  • Super-premium (US$800+): −1% YoY; 7% share maintained

India Smartphone Market at a Glance – Q1 2026

  • Total shipments: 31.0 million units (−4.1% YoY)
  • Average selling price (ASP): US$302 (+10.4% YoY) — a record high
  • Market value growth: +5.8% YoY despite volume decline
  • Offline channel: 62% share (up from 58%); +3% YoY
  • Online channel: 38% share (down from 42%); −14% YoY
  • Top five brands: vivo (#1), Samsung (#2), OPPO (#3), Apple (#4), Motorola (#5, new entrant)

Analyst Insight

“Average selling prices increased 10.4% YoY to a record US$302 in Q1 2026, driven by persistent memory cost inflation across both newly launched devices and existing models. Unlike previous quarters, aggressive discounting and channel-led promotional schemes remained limited, as rising input costs constrained brands’ ability to stimulate demand through pricing interventions. The current environment signals a broader structural shift in the market, where brands may increasingly need to rely on product differentiation, financing offers, and premiumization strategies rather than price-led promotions to drive demand through the remainder of 2026.” said Aditya Rampal, senior research analyst, Devices Research, IDC Asia Pacific.

Note: This chart/table shows data by IDC’s Brand field. Company ranking may differ where Companies own more than one Brand.

*Figures in tables/charts rounded to the first decimal point.

IDC Outlook: What’s Next?

The first half of 2026 is expected to remain relatively resilient as brands draw on existing component inventories to partially offset rising memory costs. However, brands are increasingly revising annual shipment targets downward, with channel inventory managed cautiously — especially in entry-level segments.

Recovery in the second half will depend on how effectively brands balance product innovation, pricing strategy, and cost management against sustained component inflation and uneven consumer demand.

  • What could accelerate growth? Stabilization of memory prices, new financing models, and festive-season promotional activity.
  • What could slow it down? A prolonged memory shortage, further rupee depreciation, and continued weakness in mass-market consumer confidence.
  • What should readers watch next quarter? Whether brands can close the gap between channel inventory and end user sales, and how second-half pricing strategies unfold.

“In a value-conscious market like India, consumers have traditionally delayed purchases in anticipation of festive discounts and promotional offers. However, that pattern is unlikely to hold in the current cycle. With the global memory shortage expected to continue into 2027 and rupee depreciation adding further cost pressure, smartphone prices are set to rise further across segments. Consumers considering an upgrade may find better value in purchasing sooner, as pricing pressures are expected to intensify over the coming quarters,” said Upasana Joshi, senior research manager, Devices Research, IDC Asia/Pacific.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the market decline despite strong premium demand?

Growth in higher price bands could not offset the sharp collapse of the entry-level segment. While brands pushed inventory ahead of anticipated price hikes, weak consumer demand and limited promotional activity constrained actual market absorption, leaving supply-side momentum ahead of end-user demand.

Which brands benefited most in Q1 2026?

Motorola and OPPO were the only top-five brands to register YoY growth, with Motorola entering the top five for the first time. Apple held fourth place with a 9% shipment share while leading the market by value with a dominant 28% share. Notably, despite a 5% YoY decline in Apple shipments, the iPhone 17 alone contributed 4% of total smartphone volumes — underscoring Apple’s sustained premium strength amid broader demand softness.

What risks could impact the market in 2026?

A prolonged memory shortage, rupee depreciation, and weakening mass-market viability are the key near-term headwinds. Recovery will increasingly depend on brands’ ability to drive demand through financing and affordability-led models, rather than the aggressive price-led promotions that have historically fueled market growth.

-Ends-

About IDC

International Data Corporation (IDC) is the premier global provider of trusted technology intelligence, advisory services, and events. With more than 1,000 analysts worldwide, IDC offers global, regional, and local expertise on technology, IT benchmarking and sourcing, and industry opportunities and trends in over 100 countries. IDC’s analysis and insights help IT professionals, business executives, and the investment community to make fact-based technology decisions and to achieve their key business objectives. To learn more about IDC, please visit  www.idc.com. Follow IDC on Twitter at @IDC and LinkedIn. Subscribe to the IDC Blog for industry news and insights.

All product and company names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.

Upasana Joshi

Upasana Joshi - Research Manager

Analyst Profile
Upasana Joshi is an Research Manager for Channel Research at IDC India. Based in Delhi, Upasana is primarily responsible for City Level Smartphone Tracker in India. The research involves analyzing the trends within Smart Phone domain, market sizing, brand performance…
Aditya Rampal

Aditya Rampal - Senior Research Analyst

Analyst Profile
Aditya Rampal is a senior research analyst for the India mobile market at IDC. He is responsible for end-to end mobile devices market research involving both primary and secondary research for smartphone and feature phones. Aditya analyzes trends within the…

Digital sovereignty is becoming a strategic priority across EMEA, reshaping how governments and enterprises choose infrastructure and network partners. This blog explores what the shift means for telcos, sovereign cloud, and AI infrastructure. 

Around the early 2010s, data residency was already part of the policy debate, but the infrastructure landscape was still more fragmented, and the issue had not yet become as central to cloud, AI, and national digital strategy as it is today. Telcos, regional ISPs, and a long tail of independent providers ran most of the hosting. The policy debates of the time already touched on carrier-neutral internet exchange points, peering, net neutrality, and data residency – how traffic moved between networks, where data was hosted, and who had jurisdiction over it. 

That picture has since changed twice over. 

First, market gravity shifted. A handful of hyperscalers and major social platforms absorbed most of the workloads, the storage, and the user attention. Hosting that used to sit inside national operators’ data centers consolidated into a few global clouds. 

Then policy caught up. Across EMEA, governments and regulators have moved data privacy, residency, and infrastructure control out of the compliance file and into national and regional strategy, with AI sovereignty layered on top, and geopolitical sovereignty sitting above all of it. 

For telcos, this is no longer a niche or optional conversation. It is actively shaping how enterprises and governments choose their network and infrastructure partners. 

How digital sovereignty is influencing buying decisions in EMEA 

The signal is clear. IDC’s EMEA Enterprise Communications and Collaboration Survey 2025 shows that, in response to geopolitical uncertainty, 28% of organizations are now more likely to use network service providers based in their own region, 27% are increasing their use of sovereign network services, and 26% are diversifying their network providers. Network infrastructure sits at the center of this shift, 70% of organizations cite sovereign controls over network infrastructure software as the most important component of technical sovereignty.  

The shift is showing up in budgets too. IDC’s 2025 Future Enterprise Resiliency & Spending Survey shows that nearly 30% of telcos plan to migrate applications from public cloud to country sovereign cloud infrastructure in 2026, with cybersecurity, regulatory compliance, and operational resilience among the top drivers of increased telco spending. 

Where AI and digital sovereignty converge 

AI has become a central thread in sovereignty conversations. The connection between cloud and AI needs has tightened, and sovereignty is now a recurring factor in both. IDC’s Worldwide AI and Generative AI Spending Guide Forecast (August 2025) projects AI and GenAI spending in EMEA telecommunications growing at a CAGR of 32% between 2024 and 2029, with telco AI spending set to treble by 2028. On the demand side, 53% of EMEA governments plan to increase their use of sovereign cloud for AI solutions, putting telcos squarely in the frame as infrastructure partners in sovereign AI ecosystems. 

The infrastructure shift is concrete. Among telcos, expanding data center capacity, AI inferencing (58%) and LLM training (54%) are the workloads driving most of the new build. Where these facilities sit, who certifies them, and who governs them is becoming a first-order strategic question. 

The role of telcos in sovereign cloud and AI ecosystems 

Governments across EMEA are pushing sovereign cloud and AI initiatives to take greater control of digital infrastructure and compute, and that is sharpening what buyers expect from their providers. 

Enterprise and public sector buyers are increasingly evaluating providers based on capabilities such as: 

  • In-country or in-region data centers  
  • Country-level certifications  
  • Freedom from lock-in 
  • Solutions to support operational resilience 
  • Sovereign controls of infrastructure  

Telcos are well placed to answer this list. National operators already own most of the underlying assets: in-country and in-region data centers, a regulatory and certification footprint, established government and enterprise relationships, and the connectivity layer itself. This is where telcos hold something cloud providers don’t; sovereign control over data in transit and the network layer itself. The bigger opportunity isn’t supplying pieces of someone else’s sovereign build. It’s pairing with sovereign cloud providers to deliver an end-to-end sovereign stack, data at rest and in motion, that neither side can credibly offer alone. 

What sovereignty looks like across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa 

Sovereignty is not a single play. The operator playbook looks different by sub-region. 

In Europe, regulation matters; and most of it now sits at EU level rather than national, but the top driver has shifted to protecting against extra-territorial data requests. Operators with strong domestic positions and certified infrastructure are best placed for both. 

In the Middle East, sovereignty is being driven top-down as national strategy. Governments are pairing sovereign cloud and AI ambition with serious capital, often through national champions, with major operators positioned as primary infrastructure partners. Established data localization regimes in some markets give operators a head start on dedicated capacity. 

In Africa, the story is data localization meeting infrastructure scale. National data protection frameworks are increasingly pushing data inside national borders, and pan-regional operators are expanding capacity that doubles as a sovereign-cloud foundation. 

Across all three, the playbook converges on regional infrastructure, certifications, simpler portfolios, and active ecosystem participation. Operators are also working with fewer, more strategic partners, ones that can take end-to-end accountability. 

Why sovereignty is becoming a default expectation 

Sovereignty has moved from a compliance topic to procurement criterion. It now sits alongside performance, cost, and scalability. AI and platform-based models only sharpen the demand for control, transparency, and resilience. 

For telcos, this isn’t a niche compliance discussion. It’s a strategic play, redefining what credible infrastructure looks like across EMEA, and where operators sit in the sovereign cloud and AI stack. 

Explore the broader telecom trends shaping 2026 
 
Sovereignty is one of several trends shaping the telecom market. In the IDC eBook State of the Telco Market 2026, you’ll find detailed data, forecasts, and analysis on topics including sovereign AI, infrastructure investment, and evolving business models. 

Download the eBook to explore the data behind these developments and better understand how the telco landscape is evolving. 

If you’re currently evaluating how sovereignty requirements will impact your network, infrastructure, or partner strategy, our experts are happy to exchange perspectives. Whether you’re at an early stage or already executing, we welcome the conversation. Get in touch with our team to continue the discussion. 

Tolga Yalcin

Tolga Yalcin - Research Director, Telecoms and ICT Regulations, IDC Middle East, Turkey, and Africa (META)

Analyst Profile
Tolga oversees the telecommunications and ICT policy and regulations side of IDC’s syndicated research, custom consulting, and advisory services in the Middle East, Turkey, and Africa region. Tolga plays an integral role in all IDC telecommunications-related initiatives in the Middle…

For three decades, the IT and business services industry has run on a familiar formula: scale headcount, drive utilization, price work by time and materials. That model built a $1.6 trillion industry. It will not carry the next one.

Agentic AI is changing the economics, the contract, and the control point of the services market. Service providers that recognize the shift early will redesign their portfolios around platforms, productized IP, and measurable outcomes. Those that wait will find themselves competing on price for work that is rapidly being automated, productized, or absorbed by software vendors and AI-native challengers.

This is not simply about doing the same work more efficiently. It is a fundamental shift in how services are built, sold, and delivered.

The three waves and why the next one is different

The services industry has evolved through distinct waves of value creation.

  • Outsourcing and systems integration created value through labor arbitrage.
  • Managed services and cloud migration created value through operational efficiency.
  • Digital transformation created value through business innovation.

The next wave breaks that pattern. Agent-enabled service delivery creates value through automation, intelligence, and measurable outcomes, and it rewrites the value equation on three axes at once. Buyers are moving from time and materials to outcomes and impact, from expertise access to insight and enablement, and from project delivery to platform-based action. What remains human moves up the stack: relationships, strategic judgment, and contextual understanding.

IDC data backs this up. By 2029, IDC expects 30% of all contractual engagements with service providers to be outcome-based, and 30% of IT services to be delivered as modular, platform-enabled products.

What is a SPAAP and why it matters

That shift is creating a new asset class. IDC calls it the Service Provider Agentic AI Platform, or SPAAP: a proprietary platform built, operated, and maintained by firms whose primary business is services, not software. SPAAPs are the AI-native expression of the Services as a Product model, and they are quickly becoming the strategic core of how a modern services firm scales.

These platforms serve two purposes, often simultaneously. They can function as internal delivery platforms that industrialize how a service provider designs and delivers services at scale. They can also be client-facing platforms that complement or replace business and technical processes inside the client environment, persisting after the engagement ends.

The industry is bifurcating and the gap is widening fast

The services industry is splitting into two camps. Winners are rebuilding their business models around client outcomes. Everyone else is defending legacy structures.

Winners run productized portfolios aligned to industries, domains, and buyer personas. They invest in proprietary, modular platforms with orchestration, governance, observability, and interoperability. They build smaller, higher-value teams of humans and agents. They price on outcomes, with clear IP and data ownership and shared risk structures. They earn trust by being transparent and auditable.

The losing profile looks different: broad menus of generic capabilities, fragmented delivery tooling, pyramid talent models, and time-and-materials pricing. Black-box solutions. Deflected accountability. The gap between the two groups is widening and fast.

Two new competitor types are entering the arena

Service providers face two distinct new categories of competitor.

AI-native firms like Harvey, Sierra AI, Hyperscience, and others promise 60% to 80% automation of traditional SOW work with outcome-based pricing. They are not trying to replicate the full services model. They disintermediate specific high-value workflows, often the ones that previously went to BPO firms and lower-tier SIs.

Platform players like AWS, Microsoft, Google, SAP, ServiceNow, Salesforce, Palantir are moving differently. They are bundling software, tokens, and forward-deployed engineers into outcome-priced offers. The contract is not just price-competed. It is structurally redesigned around the product.

The strategic battleground is no longer service execution. It is the workflow and outcome layer and whoever owns that layer owns the customer relationship.

Where established service providers have a structural advantage

It is easy to assume that hyperscalers, ISVs, and AI-native firms will simply absorb the services market. They will not. Service providers hold a real structural advantage across three layers of the agentic stack: build and deploy, govern and operate, and orchestrate.

Portability is the most visible piece. No enterprise wants lock-in to a single foundation model, a single hyperscaler, or a single agent framework. Buyers want freedom to swap models as they improve, move workloads as economics shift, and integrate agents across platforms they already own. Service providers are the only vendor category whose business model rewards staying open on those choices while remaining accountable for the outcome.

Governance is the more durable piece. Agentic delivery raises the stakes on identity, observability, auditability, and risk controls. Enterprises need explainable behavior, evidence trails for regulators, and clear human accountability when an agent acts autonomously. Service providers sit closest to the client’s process, the people in the loop, and the contractual liability for the outcome, which is exactly where agentic governance has to hold. Governance declared in a product spec and governance operationalized inside a client environment are two different things.

Orchestration is where the advantage compounds. Enterprise work spans ERP, CRM, ITSM, data platforms, custom applications, and cloud workloads. Agentic delivery has to coordinate across all of them, often with agents built on different frameworks and run by different teams. Cross-system, cross-vendor integration is what service providers do for a living. Extending that into multi-agent orchestration, A2A and MCP interoperability, and the workflow layer that ties internal delivery agents to client-side agents is a natural extension, not a pivot.

Underneath all three layers sits the differentiator hyperscalers and horizontal ISVs find hardest to replicate: industry depth. Workflows, regulations, KPIs, and the definition of a good business outcome differ sharply across banking, healthcare, manufacturing, retail, and the public sector. Service providers have spent decades embedding that context into delivery teams. They are now encoding it into agentic platforms through vertical playbooks, domain ontologies, and persona-targeted agent suites. The substrate can be built quickly. The industry context is what turns agent activity into measurable business outcomes.

Three priorities for services leaders

Three moves should be on every services leader’s agenda right now.

Productize delivery. Treat your agentic platform as a product, not an internal accelerator. Give it a roadmap, dedicated engineering, security hardening, transparent pricing, and clear IP and data ownership terms. Buyers are already asking whether providers will maintain proprietary platforms the way a software vendor would. Adoption increases when the answer is yes.

Modernize the commercial model. Outcome-based, fixed-fee, and consumption pricing should sit alongside time and materials as first-class options. Build the instrumentation, KPIs, and reporting that make outcomes credible to buyers. Reinvest cost savings from automation into the next round of platform R&D.

Differentiate beyond the core platform. As agentic tooling commoditizes, the edge moves to vertical playbooks, ISV-specific accelerators, domain packs, and persona-targeted agent suites. Business context, workflow logic, and compliance depth are encoded most deeply here, and general-purpose platforms cannot easily follow.

Agentic AI is rewriting the economics, the contract, and the control point of the services industry. The providers that win the next decade will productize delivery through proprietary agentic platforms, treat governance and interoperability as differentiators, and price on client outcomes.

For the platforms, archetypes, and strategic moves shaping that shift, explore IDC’s new research domain: Service Provider Agentic AI Delivery Models and Platforms.

Dina Capelle

Dina Capelle - Senior Research Analyst, Service Provider Agentic AI Platforms

Analyst Profile
Dina Capelle is a Senior Research Analyst on IDC’s Worldwide Services team and leads the Service Provider Agentic AI Delivery Models and Platforms program. Her research tracks the global market for agentic AI platforms built by IT and business services…