Azure Capacity Crunch Extends into 2026 Amid Data Center Constraints

Microsoft’s internal forecasts now paint a longer, rockier road for its cloud operations: the data‑center capacity squeeze that rattled markets in 2025 is likely to extend well into 2026, constraining new Azure subscriptions in key U.S. hubs and forcing tougher tradeoffs between rapid AI growth and the physical limits of servers, power and space.

Background​

Microsoft’s Azure cloud has become the company’s growth engine, surpassing $75 billion in annual revenue as demand for AI‑driven services exploded. That surge came alongside an unprecedented capital‑spending program: Microsoft committed to massive infrastructure investment to support AI workloads, with fiscal‑year capex plans measured in tens of billions. Those investments accelerated custom silicon efforts (Azure Cobalt CPUs and Maia AI accelerators), new racks and liquid‑cooled systems, and large-scale land and lease plays across major data‑center markets.
Despite that spending, hyperscale cloud capacity is a physical problem as much as a financial one. Building a new, fully powered data center with adequate utility hookups, network fiber, and validated racks takes many quarters — often years. The combination of near‑term hardware shortages, permitting and power constraints in dense data‑center corridors, and explosive demand for GPUs and CPU inventory has produced localized shortages that are now spilling into Microsoft’s sales motion.

---

What changed: the new capacity picture​

Recent internal forecasts indicate that several U.S. Azure regions, including some of the industry’s most important server‑farm hubs, are tight on either physical space or rentable server inventory. The constraints are reported to affect both traditional CPU‑dominated capacity and GPU‑heavy machines used for AI training and inference. As a result, Microsoft has in some cases restricted new Azure subscriptions in those constrained regions and implemented capacity‑preservation measures to prioritize existing customers and critical workloads.
Key points of the situation:

• Regional restrictions — Some Azure regions are reported to be restricting new sign‑ups or deferring capacity for new customers while allowing existing, deployed workloads to continue to grow.
• Hardware mix matters — Constraints span both CPU and GPU server classes; AI‑grade GPU inventory is especially scarce during surges, while standard CPU racks are constrained where power or rack density limits expansion.
• Temporary customer redirects — Sales teams are steering customers to other Azure regions when preferred local capacity is unavailable; this adds complexity and may affect latency‑sensitive deployments.

This is not a case of a single temporary shortage: the forecast horizon now extends beyond the company’s own earlier timelines, pushing pressure into 2026 for some regions.

---

Why this matters: revenue, growth and reputation​

Azure isn’t an auxiliary business — it’s central to Microsoft’s growth thesis. The cloud platform’s scale is critical not only for subscription revenue but also for the strategic AI partnerships and product roadmaps that drive product adoption across Windows, Office, Dynamics and developer tools.
Immediate implications

• Revenue growth friction: When a cloud vendor restricts new subscriptions in high‑demand regions, customers who can’t deploy where they need to may delay purchases, select smaller footprints, or shift to competitors.
• Customer churn risk: Enterprises that require specific regional presence, low latency or compliance with local data residency rules may take new projects to rival clouds or hybrid providers.
• Sales friction and complexity: Recommending alternate regions increases deployment complexity, network configuration headaches and potential performance tradeoffs for customers.

Market and investor reaction

• Stock volatility: Perceptions of unmet cloud demand or capacity misalignment have historically depressed valuations for hyperscalers; a prolonged capacity crunch can send ripples through investor sentiment.
• Earnings pressure: Azure capacity tightness can cap near‑term revenue expansion even as the company ramps capex — a mismatch between cost timing and monetization that investors dislike.

---

The technical root causes: servers, power, cooling and chips​

The cloud capacity squeeze is driven by multiple intertwined technical constraints:

• Server supply and lead times: Hyperscale server procurement cycles lengthen during GPU surges. High‑end accelerators have limited production throughput and long lead times, and system integrators face supply‑chain bottlenecks for memory, interconnects and power distribution units.
• Power and grid capacity: Data centers are constrained not only by floor space but by available and reliable power. Utility interconnects, substations and energy procurement are long‑lead components; adding tens of megawatts at a site can require substantial grid upgrades and regulatory approvals.
• Cooling and rack density: AI accelerators concentrate heat; some custom rack and cooling architectures (closed‑loop liquid cooling, redesigned PDUs) are needed to safely host next‑generation AI boards. Existing facilities may need retrofits that add cost and time.
• Custom silicon timelines: Microsoft’s investments in custom silicon — ARM‑based Cobalt CPUs and Maia AI accelerators — were designed to diversify suppliers and improve performance per watt. However, custom chip programs and production schedules can slip, delaying the deployment of optimized in‑house hardware that would otherwise relieve vendor supply pressure.

Together these constraints create a situation where building raw capacity is necessary but not sufficient: the right mix of certified machines, adequate power, network fabric, and cooling must be in place for Azure to expand usable capacity for customers.

---

What Microsoft is doing (and not doing)​

Microsoft is moving on multiple fronts:

• Strategic capex and pacing: Large capital programs continue, but the company has signaled it may pace deployments in some regions to match validated energy, construction and supply availability.
• Capacity preservation and traffic shaping: In peak situations the company applies capacity‑preservation policies to maintain service for existing workloads. This is intended to keep live customer deployments running while managing unexpected demand spikes.
• Sales guidance and regional re‑routing: Sales teams are being advised to propose alternate regions or hybrid models when local region capacity is restricted, adding a manual orchestration layer to new sales.
• Diversification of chip suppliers: Microsoft is offering VMs backed by alternative accelerators — including AMD MI300X series and its own Cobalt CPU VMs — to give customers more options and reduce dependency on a single vendor’s GPUs.
• Custom silicon rollouts: Microsoft is accelerating deployment of its Cobalt Arm‑based CPU instances and building Maia accelerator systems, although next‑gen Maia production schedules have experienced delays.

These are pragmatic responses, but they don’t erase short‑term constraints. Pacing capex helps avoid stranded assets or overbuild, but it can prolong the period where customer demand outstrips local capacity.

---

Who benefits — and who loses​

Winners

• Competitor clouds and multi‑cloud vendors may capture customers unable to deploy in constrained Azure regions.
• Colocation providers and alternative GPU suppliers could see demand for leased racks and third‑party accelerator capacity spike.
• Data‑center developers and local grid contractors stand to gain from a fresh wave of permits, construction and utility upgrades in markets where expansion is possible.

Losers and at‑risk parties

• Enterprises with tight regional or latency requirements could be forced to re‑architect or choose other cloud providers.
• Small and mid‑sized customers who rely on simple, regional provisioning may experience onboarding delays and unexpected project timelines.
• Partners and resellers that count on fast Azure provisioning for migrations or SaaS rollouts risk revenue timing gaps.

Longer term, Microsoft’s brand and enterprise trust could be dented if customers perceive the company as unable to meet promised capacity in core markets.

---

Strategic risks and downside scenarios​

• Customer migration at scale: If a material number of enterprise customers decide to move critical workloads because Azure cannot guarantee regional delivery windows, Microsoft could see a persistent drag on cloud growth beyond the immediate capacity problem.
• Margin mismatches: Heavy capex today, combined with delayed monetization in constrained regions, can compress margins for cloud services while infrastructure costs accelerate.
• Regulatory and permitting delays: Data‑center projects hinge on local approvals and community acceptance. Rising local opposition to large power draws or environmental impacts can slow builds and increase costs.
• Supply chain concentration risks: Reliance on a narrow set of GPU vendors (or any single vendor) exposes Microsoft to production shocks. Diversifying suppliers is possible but takes time to operationalize across hyperscale systems.
• Competitive poaching: Rivals with excess capacity in the same periods can offer aggressive pricing and capture long‑term contracts, turning a temporary advantage into a structural shift.

These scenarios aren’t guaranteed, but the confluence of physical and market pressures elevates downside risks.

---

Tactical options for customers navigating the crunch​

Enterprises evaluating cloud architecture in this environment should consider a pragmatic set of hedges:

• Multi‑region and multi‑cloud deployments: Distribute workloads across regions and, where feasible, across clouds to ensure continuity and avoid single‑region constraints.
• Reservation and committed capacity agreements: Lock in capacity via longer‑term commitments or reservations where available to secure future capacity.
• Hybrid cloud and on‑prem bursts: Keep critical inference or compliance workloads partially on‑prem or in co‑located facilities that can act as overflow when public cloud regions are saturated.
• Flexible architecture for data locality: Design applications for region‑agnostic deployment (stateless services, replicated data planes) to enable fallback regions with minimal disruption.
• Explore alternative accelerators: Test AMD‑based instances and non‑Nvidia accelerators where performance tradeoffs are acceptable, and consider vendor neutrality in future procurement.

These steps reduce single‑point risk and give customers leverage in negotiation during capacity scarcity.

---

Market implications: colocation, REITs and the supply chain​

The capacity squeeze amplifies demand for third‑party colocation and interconnect services. When hyperscalers restrict direct cloud provisioning, enterprise customers often turn to colocation operators to host private racks or secure GPU time through providers that buy and resell accelerator capacity.

• Data‑center real estate investment trusts (REITs) may see near‑term benefits as prelease rates remain high, though long‑term pricing pressure could emerge if hyperscalers reallocate their needs.
• Hardware vendors (board makers, memory and interconnect suppliers) see order volatility — sudden surges followed by pauses — which complicates forecasting and inventory management.
• Chipmakers that diversify supply options (beyond the dominant GPU maker) can gain traction as cloud providers look for ways to reduce single‑vendor dependency.

Overall, the capacity mismatch doesn’t simply slow a single cloud provider — it reshapes demand across the whole data‑center ecosystem.

---

What to watch next — indicators that will matter​

• Regional provisioning windows: Watch for updates from cloud providers about when capacity in constrained regions becomes available again. These operational signals are immediate indicators of relief.
• Quarterly earnings cadence: Cloud guidance and capex comments will show whether capacity constraints are expected to persist or ease in subsequent quarters.
• Chip production schedules: Delays or accelerations in custom chip and third‑party GPU shipments directly affect the supply timeline for AI servers.
• Local permitting and grid upgrades: New utility interconnect approvals or major substation projects in Northern Virginia, Texas and Phoenix will materially affect how fast new capacity can come online.
• Customer migration announcements: Public contract wins or cloud‑migration reversals are a clear sign that capacity constraints are shifting real workloads between providers.

Monitoring these indicators will help enterprises and investors separate temporary noise from structural change.

---

Balancing the narrative: strengths and caveats​

Strengths

• Scale and investment firepower: Microsoft’s ability to mobilize tens of billions in capex and to design its own silicon (Cobalt, Maia) is a long‑term competitive advantage. Scale allows negotiating power with utilities, chip vendors and construction partners.
• Product breadth: Azure’s large services catalog, enterprise relationships, and integration with Microsoft software products create strong customer stickiness even during short‑term frictions.
• Operational maturity: Microsoft has decades of experience operating hyperscale infrastructure and has shown agility in redirecting customers and preserving availability for existing workloads.

Caveats and uncertainties

• Anonymous forecasting: Much of the granular capacity outlook is informed by internal, anonymous channel checks and third‑party reporting. Those sources can be accurate, but by definition are not official company statements — treat region‑specific timelines as provisional.
• Timing risks for silicon and construction: Custom chip rollouts and power buildouts are subject to technical delays, regulatory hurdles and supply‑chain shocks. Optimistic timelines have often slipped in the industry.
• Competitive reactions: Rivals with spare capacity or aggressive pricing could convert temporary availability advantages into long‑term market share gains.

Flagging unverifiable claims: statements that Microsoft “turned away” specific customers or made named internal decisions are derived from anonymous reports and may not reflect consistent company‑wide policy. Microsoft’s public position emphasizes that most Azure services and regions retain available capacity for existing deployed workloads, and that capacity‑preservation policies are used selectively.

---

Long‑view assessment and conclusion​

The current data‑center crunch is a reminder that even the largest cloud providers operate within physical constraints: servers, chips, power and permits still matter. Microsoft’s challenge is not a lack of will or capital — it is aligning multi‑year infrastructure investments, complex supply chains, and utility ecosystems with a sudden, historically unprecedented demand for AI compute.
For Microsoft, the path forward is clear operationally: continue heavy investment, diversify hardware suppliers, accelerate custom silicon where it gives a structural advantage, and pair those moves with disciplined regional pacing so capex converts to usable capacity rather than stranded assets. For customers, the practical response is to architect for flexibility — multi‑region, multi‑cloud and hybrid strategies will be the hedge against localized constraints.
The period through 2026 will likely be one of friction rather than failure: expect temporary customer redirects, competitive pressure, and noisy headlines. But a company with Microsoft’s financial muscle and ecosystem integration also has the levers to fix the supply‑side problems — provided timelines for power, chips and construction cooperate.
In the near term, enterprises should plan for contingency pathways; investors should watch capex-to-revenue conversion and regional provisioning statements; and the industry should treat this crunch as a structural signal that cloud expansion — and AI scale — will be as much about real‑world infrastructure as it is about algorithms and software.

---

Source: FXLeaders MSFT Tumbles: Microsoft Data Center Crunch to Drag On Through 2026

 

[ChatGPT]

Microsoft’s race to build more data centers is colliding with a faster, more voracious demand curve — and the result is a constrained Azure pipeline that may not clear until well into 2026 in some regions.

Background / Overview​

The hyperscale cloud era has entered a new, more physical phase: raw compute, power and land are now the gating factors for AI-enabled growth. Reports in October 2025 — driven by Bloomberg coverage and confirmed by industry filings and channel checks — indicate Microsoft is facing localized shortages of deployable data‑center capacity, with some Azure regions (notably Northern Virginia and parts of Texas) limiting new subscriptions because of space, rack, or server shortages. These constraints affect both traditional CPU workloads and the GPU-dense clusters required for large‑language-model training and inference.
This is not a short blip. Internal forecasts once targeted relief by late 2025, but multiple independent checks now push meaningful alleviation into 2026 for affected corridors. Microsoft’s public disclosures and earnings commentary have consistently warned of near‑term “capacity constrained” conditions while the company brings new sites, hardware and power online.

---

Why this matters: Azure, growth and the economics of constraint​

Azure is a foundational growth engine for Microsoft. Capacity problems translate into three immediate business effects:

• Slower customer onboarding where new regional subscriptions are restricted.
• Timing shifts in revenue recognition as booked but unfulfilled commercial capacity delays when revenue can be recognized.
• Operational trade‑offs between prioritizing existing high‑value customers, OpenAI and other strategic workloads versus broad commercial availability.

Those are not hypothetical outcomes — Microsoft executives warned investors about capacity-driven variability in Azure growth and guided increased capital spending to narrow the gap. Amy Hood told investors Microsoft expected to remain capacity constrained through the first half of its fiscal year and signaled stepped-up CapEx to bring sites online.

---

What’s driving the shortage?​

The constraint is the intersection of several hard limits that together create a multi‑year supply‑side problem.

1. GPU, memory and semiconductor supply​

Large AI models require dense GPU clusters and huge amounts of HBM / DRAM and high‑bandwidth storage. Demand for the latest server GPUs (H100, H200, and the Blackwell family) surged as hyperscalers and specialist AI clouds placed massive orders. While suppliers have expanded capacity, fab timelines and packaging capacity (CoWoS and similar advanced assembly) mean production ramps are measured in quarters or years. Some market trackers reported long lead times for Blackwell-class GPUs in 2024–2025; vendors and market statements since have produced mixed signals about near‑term shortages versus shipment ramping. This creates uncertainty in how quickly new buildouts can be populated with the required compute “kits.”

• Key point: Even with money on the table, fabs and HBM supply are not instantly elastic.

2. Construction, permitting and supply chains​

A fully operational hyperscale site is more than racks. Land acquisition, civil work, building shells, fiber, substations and redundant power feeds require months to years. Permitting and local permitting/environmental reviews add calendar time. Microsoft itself has publicly acknowledged that site-to-rack timelines can be measured in multiple quarters, and the company has paused or re-prioritized projects in some markets in response to the shifting mix of demand and feasibility.

3. Power and grid interconnection​

High‑density AI racks dramatically increase power per square foot. Utilities and grid operators are now a limiting partner: interconnection queues are long, transmission upgrades cost hundreds of millions, and some regions simply cannot accommodate tens or hundreds of megawatts at short notice. Industry analysis shows interconnection queues are backlogged and that only a fraction of proposed projects will clear and be built in the near term — a structural headwind for hyperscalers seeking immediate scale. Google’s recent demand‑response agreements underscore how even the largest operators must negotiate power use and local utility constraints to manage peaks.

4. Competitive dynamics and lease strategy​

Microsoft and other hyperscalers are competing for the same scarce inputs: chips, construction contractors, qualified land and utility capacity. That competition lifts prices and sometimes leads to strategic reallocation — canceling or deferring leases in less certain markets, then reallocating capital to higher‑priority corridors. EDG: TD Cowen‑sourced market checks and Bloomberg reporting showed Microsoft walked away from some leases and deferred others earlier in 2025; the company described that as selective pacing rather than a strategic retreat.

---

The Bloomberg warning and the timeline correction​

A Bloomberg‑led report summarized in market feeds on October 9, 2025, indicated Microsoft’s internal forecasts now extend capacity constraints into the first half of 2026 for some regions — later than Microsoft publicly suggested in July 2025. It’s important to correct an apparent date mismatch in the circulated summary: several secondary summaries (and a number of community and corporate analyses) referenced the Bloomberg warning as October 2025, not October 2024. The accurate anchor is October 9, 2025 for the widely‑discussed Bloomberg coverage that signaled the timeline extension.
Two independent confirmatory signals strengthen that timeline:

• Microsoft’s own earnings commentary and guidance (Q4 FY2025) warned of being “capacity constrained” into the following fiscal period and noted stepped CapEx to resolve the issue; executives explicitly linked revenue timing to when sites come online.
• Market channel checks and analyst notes (TD Cowen) and follow‑up reporting showed Microsoft paused or canceled select leasing and build projects earlier in 2025 — a behavior consistent with re‑prioritizing where new capacity will come online and when.

Where earlier internal forecasts hoped for relief by late 2025, the cumulative evidence now points to phased recovery across 2026 — uneven across regions and SKU types (GPU versus CPU capacity).

---

Microsoft’s tactical responses​

Microsoft is not passive. The company is deploying a multi‑pronged strategy to stretch present capacity and accelerate usable supply.

• Prioritization and steering. Microsoft is reportedly steering new customers to regions with spare capacity and reserving scarce GPU inventory for strategic partners and high‑value contracts. This triage approach preserves service quality for existing customers at the expense of some new local signups.
• Third‑party agreements. Microsoft signed large multi‑year commercial arrangements with external AI infrastructure providers to accelerate time‑to‑capacity. A high‑profile example: Nebius announced a multi‑billion dollar, multi‑year supply agreement with Microsoft in September 2025 to deliver GPU capacity from a new Vineland, New Jersey site; Reuters, Financial Times and company filings reported the headline value around $17.4B, expandable to roughly $19.4B depending on options. These contracts buy compute capacity faster than building from the ground up.
• CapEx increase and efficiency bets. Microsoft has publicly committed very large capital budgets for AI infrastructure — tens of billions in a single fiscal year — and is investing in efficiency measures such as liquid cooling, custom silicon (Azure Cobalt CPUs and Maia accelerators), and hardware tuning to extract more performance per megawatt. The firm’s public filings and earnings calls show elevated CapEx levels and a focus on efficiency to offset physical bottlenecks.
• Power procurement and grid engagement. The company is signing longer PPAs and negotiating with utilities for upgrades, while also exploring technologies (closed‑loop and microfluidic cooling) that could reduce water and power intensity per unit of compute. These are necessary but long‑lead solutions.

---

The competitive and market effects​

This shortage is not a Microsoft‑only story. The AI infrastructure race has created winners and losers across the supply chain.

• Winners: chipmakers and vendors of power and cooling infrastructure are seeing sustained demand. Specialist GPU cloud providers and “neoclouds” (examples include CoreWeave and Nebius) can monetize the shortfall by selling ready capacity to hyperscalers. Financial markets have rewarded some of these suppliers when headline contracts were announced.
• Pressures on margins: until supply catches up, hyperscalers face the prospect of elevated CapEx with some near‑term revenue timing risk as capacity lags demand. Investors will watch CapEx-to-revenue trends, project pipelines and power contracts closely.
• Smaller hosts at risk: smaller cloud and colocation providers that cannot secure chip supply, power or financing on favorable terms may struggle to compete in a market where scale and upstream relationships matter.

---

Cross‑checks and disputed points​

Several claims about the nature and duration of shortages require nuance and, in some cases, caution:

• GPU availability: mixed signals. Market trackers and analysts reported backlog and long lead times for Blackwell‑class GPUs in 2024–2025, suggesting constrained supply for top‑tier accelerators. However, vendors including Nvidia have publicly disputed that certain SKU lines are supply‑constrained, saying they can meet customer orders. The practical reality is that large buyers ordering in the tens of thousands of GPUs will experience lead‑time effects even if overall vendor supply is improving — because allocation decisions and inventory timing can favor long‑standing hyperscaler contracts. This is a partially verifiable, partially contested point.
• Power-grid risk is real and measurable. Grid interconnection queues and demand‑response programs show utilities are a real bottleneck. Analysis of interconnection data suggests only a portion of proposals actually get built in the short term, and demand‑response agreements highlight that hyperscalers may need to coordinate consumption with grid operators during peak events. This is well documented.
• Lease cancellations do not equate to retreat. Early‑2025 reporting showed Microsoft canceling or deferring leases totaling hundreds of megawatts up to nearly 2 GW in aggregate, depending on how analyst checks are aggregated. Those moves look like re‑optimization — canceling weaker or slower sites and redeploying capital to faster, higher‑priority locations — not abandonment of AI data center strategy. Microsoft’s public stance emphasizes continued, large‑scale investment while pacing where and how it is deployed. Still, the cancellations served as an early warning sign of how operational realities (power, permitting, supply chain) constrain simplistic build-and-scale plays.

---

Practical implications for enterprises, developers and Windows users​

• Latency‑sensitive and region‑dependent deployments may need to consider multi‑region or multi‑cloud designs if local Azure capacity is restricted.
• Large AI training projects should plan around extended procurement and scheduling windows for GPU allocations, and consider flexible execution models (spot, burst, external provider capacity) to offset queue times.
• Cost and contract timing: enterprises signing large cloud commitments should clarify regional delivery timelines, SLA remedies and the possibility of temporary redirection to alternate regions.
• For Windows and Microsoft product users, the short‑term effect is likely uneven: consumer and SMB experiences will mostly be unaffected, but enterprise rollouts of cloud‑intensive services (large Copilot deployments, enterprise LLMs, Azure‑hosted virtual desktop farms) could see staggered regional rollouts.

---

What to watch next — signals that matter​

• CapEx cadence and guidance. Watch Microsoft’s quarterly CapEx numbers and commentary on the pace and regional focus of buildouts; a sustained uptick tied to specific regions signals faster relief.
• Third‑party capacity agreements. More large, multi‑year contracts with neoclouds or specialist GPU providers will indicate Microsoft’s reliance on outside capacity to bridge near‑term gaps; Nebius is only a first among several potential partners.
• Utility interconnection progress. Project approvals, substation upgrades and interconnection agreements in high‑demand data‑center corridors will materially affect how quickly sites can go live. Grid‑level progress reports and regional utility queue movement are leading indicators.
• Chip vendor allocation statements. Public comments and ordering transparency from GPU and HBM suppliers will shape expectations about how quickly “kit” shortages ease. Conflicting vendor messaging (shortage vs. ability to meet demand) should be treated skeptically and cross‑checked.

---

Longer‑term outlook: structural demand, supply fixes and winners​

AI adoption appears structural rather than ephemeral. Training huge LLMs and running low‑latency inference across millions of endpoints is a multi‑year growth trend that will keep pressure on cloud infrastructure. Fixes will arrive, but they require capital, time and coordination:

• More fabs and packaging capacity will eventually ease GPU and HBM bottlenecks, but fabs take years to build.
• Grid upgrades and new generation capacity (including renewables, long‑term PPAs and potentially nuclear or dispatchable resources in certain markets) are necessary to support sustained high‑density data centers.
• Construction and permitting reform or acceleration in certain jurisdictions can speed some projects but rarely overnight.
• Software and hardware efficiency gains (custom silicon, liquid cooling, model optimization and quantization) can reduce the compute and energy per unit of AI work, providing incremental but meaningful relief.

Winners will be firms that can align chip delivery, on‑site power and construction velocity fastest. Vendors of cooling, transformers, and advanced packaging will also capture disproportionate demand.

---

Conclusion​

The data‑center race has entered a more constrained phase where the limiting factors are tangible and regional: chips, power, land and permits. Microsoft — like its hyperscale peers — faces real trade‑offs between where to spend, which projects to accelerate and how to protect service quality while demand for AI escalates rapidly. Bloomberg’s October 9, 2025 warning that some shortages will last into 2026 is consistent with Microsoft’s own guidance and market channel checks; the company’s strategy now blends internal buildouts, third‑party capacity contracts and aggressive efficiency investments to manage through the shortage. For customers and investors, the near term is one of timing risk and regional variability; the long term still favors those who can coordinate chips, power and build speed most effectively.

---

Microsoft’s physical infrastructure challenge is the most concrete reminder yet that AI’s promise depends on factories of compute — and those factories take time to build.

---

Source: Meyka Microsoft Data-Center Shortages May Last Longer Than Expected, Says Bloomberg | Meyka