GAFA is an acronym for the four largest US technology companies:
Google (whose parent company is Alphabet): $ 109.65 billion in revenue (revenue) in 2017.
Amazon: 178 billion CA in 2017.
Facebook: 40.6 billion turnover in 2017.
Apple: 88.3 billion turnover in 2017.
In comparison, the GDP of Denmark, a rich country with nearly 6 million inhabitants, was about 300 billion dollars in 2016.
To this acronym, rarely, however, is the letter "M" for Microsoft. If the Seattle firm remains powerful, its star has faded. It no longer seems to be at the forefront of innovation in the eyes of the public. That said a lot of the media nature of the acronym GAFA.
Indeed, this one, which seems to be of French origin, is often used in a critical dimension. The GAFA, by their power, would prevent the outbreak of competition. These companies have financial means such that they can buy any competitor to be present in all fields.
In addition, the GAFA are regularly accused, in Europe for example, trying by all means to avoid their tax obligations and not to protect the data of their users. Facebook is particularly plunged into the Cambridge Analytica scandal: Facebook would have let this communication company tap into the data of millions of users of its social network during Donald Trump's campaign in the United States.
However, this acronym has the defect of only light on a limited number of companies, while many others, condemned or not, deserve to raise at least permanent surveillance: the famous Intel, Cisco, IBM to the States United States, the least famous SAP in Europe, the Chinese giants Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei and Xiaomi in China, Samsung Korea, etc.
A new acronym is finally starting to appear: NATU or TUNA. It takes the initials of four technology companies whose success has been dazzling in recent years: Netflix (TV content on the internet), Airbnb (rental housing at home), Tesla (batteries and electric cars) and Uber (VTC).
In conclusion, the acronym GAFA has the merit of designating a phenomenon: the emergence of new trusts. But it has the flaw to limit this phenomenon, wide and international, to only four companies.