Acquired - Episode 27: Special—A Conversation with Microsoft's Head of Strategic Investments Brian Schultz

Episode Date: December 16, 2016

Topics covered include: Brian’s history working across “both sides of the aisle” as both a startup founder and corporate development leader at a big company, how perspective from each informs the other, and the importance of learning “customer empathy” How Microsoft approaches M&A from an organizational perspective, and the importance of fit with the company’s product roadmap How Brian approaches strategic investments at Microsoft, and the evolution over time of the Microsoft (and large technology companies as a whole) perspective on investing in other companiesBalancing the tension between partnering and investing, and what criteria Brian thinks about when evaluating companies Microsoft’s investment in Facebook in 2007 (at a then-crazy-seeming $15B valuation), and more recently Foursquare,  Mesosphere,  CloudFlare and othersThe current state of the tech M&A landscape, and the emergence of private equity as tech company acquirers Potentially changing corporate and foreign tax structures and how they impact acquirers’ thinking around deals (or not!) How Microsoft tracks and evaluates success of acquisitions over time, and lessons learned from successes and failures The increasing number of operating companies (technology and otherwise) looking to invest in startups, and how that landscape has evolved over time Sponsors:ServiceNow: https://bit.ly/acqsnaiagentsHuntress: https://bit.ly/acqhuntressVanta: https://bit.ly/acquiredvanta Followups:  Snap Inc.’s rumored IPO filing — and bonus discussion of how VC’s and other investors think about “exiting” their investments in companies that have gone publicHot Takes: Amazon Go!  The Carve Out: Ben: OK Go - The One Moment David: UC Berkeley Oral History with Sequoia Capital founder Don ValentineBrian: Om Malik’s recent piece in the New Yorker: Silicon Valley Has an Empathy VacuumMore Acquired!:Get email updates with hints on next episode and follow-ups from recent episodesJoin the SlackSubscribe to ACQ2Merch Store!

Okay, listeners, now is a great time to tell you about longtime friend of the show, ServiceNow. Yes, as you know, ServiceNow is the AI platform for business transformation. And they have some new news to share. ServiceNow is introducing AI agents. So only the ServiceNow platform puts AI agents to work across every corner of your business. Yep. And as you know from listening to us all year, ServiceNow is pretty remarkable

about embracing the latest AI developments and building them into products for their customers. AI agents are the next phase of this. So what are AI agents? AI agents can think, learn, solve problems, and make decisions autonomously. They work on behalf of your teams, elevating their productivity and

potential. And while you get incredible productivity enhancements, you also get to stay in full control. Yep. With ServiceNow, AI agents proactively solve challenges from IT to HR, customer service, software development, you name it. These agents collaborate, they learn from each other, and they continuously improve, handling the busy work across your business so that your teams can actually focus on what truly matters. Ultimately, ServiceNow and Agentic AI is the way to deploy AI across every corner of your enterprise. They boost productivity for employees, enrich customer experiences, and make work better for everyone. Yep. So learn how you can put AI agents to work for your people by clicking the link in the show notes or going to servicenow.com slash AI dash agents. It was a classic

reload the page problem. Turn it off, turn it you? Is it you? Who got the truth now? Is it you? Is it you? Is it you? Sit me down, say it straight, another story on the way. Who got the truth? Welcome to episode 27 of Acquired, the show about technology acquisitions and IPOs. I'm Ben Gilbert. I'm David Rosenthal. And we are your hosts. Today's episode is a discussion about M&A at Microsoft with Brian Schultz. Brian is the managing director and head of strategic investments at Microsoft. And Brian actually started at Microsoft in 1999 in corp dev and then left for a little detour into the startup world in the mid 2000s. He left and co-founded Antella here in Seattle, which was ultimately acquired by Photobucket. And he did that with Dan Shapiro, who's now the co-founder and CEO of Glowforge here in town.

Shout out to Dan. After that, he came back to big tech and to M&A, to Microsoft, and has been back in corp dev and now running strategic investments ever since, but remains very active in the Seattle startup scene and has been a friend to us and many others here. So welcome, Brian, and thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. Yeah. Yeah. We are, um, uh, super excited to, you know, we've had, uh, we've had Taylor Barada from Adobe on who runs Adobe's CorpDev. Um, but, uh, super excited to talk to you about kind of the, uh, bridging this world between kind of the big technology companies and running CorpDev there and strategic investments, but actually having gone and founded a startup yourself. What's your perspective? What kind of brought you back into Microsoft after tasting the startup world? Right. Well, there's, I think,

a whole bunch of different ways to look at it. And I think the one thing that I certainly believe is that it actually has made me a better CorpDe dev person by far, having been on the other side, if you will. Talk about empathy. Empathy for your customer. Yeah, and having had to raise money and deal with these discussions that happen between strategic investors and acquirers. Raise money and sell your company. All these things. And so just having – and as a CFO, COO of a startup, having been on the other side, both on the investing and acquiring side, I also, I think, I hope, avoided a lot of pitfalls and kept my cap table clean. I knew a lot of things that I should be doing that I think a lot of folks can get trapped in. And so I think having the diverse set of experiences is a great thing,

and I wish more folks in Microsoft and other big companies, as well as in startups, had that empathy to be able to reach across the aisle. Of course, now we're getting into politics and didn't mean to do that. But going back. Was there an election this year? I don't know what you're talking about. I bet it's all out. Blocked, completely blocked.

One good example is in a startup, of course, you have trouble getting people to call you back, right? You want to do partnerships, you want to do fundraising, whatever it is, you're just out there trying to, you know, make yourself known and actually do things. Whereas in the big company, you almost have the opposite problem, where you have too many people you have to deal with. And so, thinking specifically about M&A, you know, I acquired a company a few years ago that was about 25 people. And I remember looking at the conference call set up on my computer, said, you have 28 people on the call. He said, to do the acquisition of 25 people, I was talking to 28 people. Was that just an internal Microsoft call?

Just an internal call, right? And if you think about all the business owners plus their lawyers in and outside of the company, and it's just, it's a big effort. Now, of course, that doesn't quite scale, right? And so even doing, say, an acquisition of LinkedIn, you don't necessarily have a much bigger team on the inside. But along with- You didn't have 10,000 people.

Exactly. Well, definitely not. Hopefully not. So you're the head of strategic investments. To give a little bit of context to our listeners, can you explain what that looks like organizationally inside of Microsoft and what the process looks like when you're acquiring a company? Like, do you find the company and bring it in? Or does a business owner find the company and then loop you in to start the actual formal process? How does that look? The corporate development team within Microsoft sits under the CFO. And we manage Microsoft's balance sheet activities.

And so if you think about acquisitions, investments, divestitures, and joint ventures, when we do these partnership activities as it relates to the balance sheet, that's where corporate development gets involved. And how we find companies or find our targets and have these discussions is really it's a mix, although it's typically driven by our business groups in terms of the finding of the companies. And that is because our product teams, they know their markets much better than we do. And certainly at Microsoft, we have such a broad based business in so many different areas, it would be really difficult for the central team to be all knowing, right? You'd have to be a venture capitalist.

Well, yeah. I mean, you guys obviously have these extensive maps of different spaces, and it's constantly evolving, and you have new players coming on board and in any given little micro area, you might have 10, 15, 100 companies, right? And so if you think about that at the Microsoft scale across all of our products, you'd be looking at a really complex diagram. And so it's really impossible for a central team to keep up with all of that. And so we really rely on the business groups to think about what's in their space as they think about their roadmaps. And most of the M&A, I mean, obviously the headlines go to LinkedIn and the large size acquisitions we do, but most of our acquisitions tend to be much smaller and are really driven by those product roadmaps in terms of where there are holes and

what they need to fill and where they're going. And so those are really just square up the center of where the product teams are thinking. Yeah. I'm curious to kind of go back to the fact that you have kind of actually been a founder in a startup and a successful one that raised money and then was acquired and then did M&A at Microsoft before and then came back to do it again. How did it change your perspective? Like, are there particular things that you're more acutely aware of now or that you think about differently than before? And because when you joined before, I think you'd been an investment banking analyst, right? As many folks who come into M&A roles at companies have been, which speaking from experience myself, you know, that's pretty far from

actually being a founder of a startup. So how'd the perspective change? Yeah, well, you know, when I got to Microsoft, I mean, even when I was doing investment banking, I was thinking, you know, you're almost too removed from what's actually happening on the ground in terms of doing something, right? I mean, you're kind of removed from what's actually happening on the ground in terms of doing something, right? I mean, you're kind of advising and moving things around the chessboard, but you're not actually doing anything, producing anything. Not building the chess pieces. Exactly. And so in investment banking, that's why I joined Microsoft, because I thought, wow,

I really want to get into an operating role in a company. And that seemed like a good path to do it. And this was back in 1999, right at the height of the dot-com boom, where everything was kind of going a little crazy. And my thought at the time was, you know, this is going to end somewhat soon, most likely. And I want to go get myself positioned in a place where I could actually, you know, still have a job in a year and actually learn something from it. And so that's where that Microsoft job seemed really appealing. And I'd never been to Seattle and hadn't really thought too much about coming here to do that, but it worked out nicely. And we were super active in those early days. And then I got here and did a lot of fun things and actually helped create an internal startup.

At the time, I was advising the Windows and our kind of infrastructure teams, enterprise teams, on security storage management and those types of systems. And we started the security business group back then. Is that what became Windows Defender? Eventually became Defender and a whole bunch of other things. And one of the first things we did was acquire, at the time, anti-spyware, anti-virus technologies and roll those in along with some stuff that we built. And so I joined this startup group and realized, hey, I really like this startup thing, but doing it within Microsoft was not quite what I had in mind. And I saw the pros and cons of that and thought it would be really great to go and actually do it for real. And so actually, there was a company I co-founded

before Antella, which was at the time known as Genesys and then became Plectix Biosystems. And there was a Microsoft co-founder that I met. And we went out and raised money for that company. And then I left that company after about a year after we got it funded and joined up with Dan and Charles, where we founded Ontella. And so, you know, kind of that pathway and what I realized was kind of taking the business knowledge and the corp dev knowledge as a general finance and business and strategy thinking, you know, and work with some really great technical and product folks

was really a nice combination. And so that was kind of that role that I took on as kind of founder and then evolving into CFO, COO. I'm curious, kind of getting into your specific role, which I assume probably takes much, if not most of your time these days in the investment side. How does that function at Microsoft? And Microsoft just relaunched Microsoft Ventures, which is early stage investing, kind of more traditional VC type stuff. You do later stage larger checks, right? Yeah. And that's actually probably gone through more of a significant

evolution than the core M&A role has in those three epics. So in that dot-com timeframe, Microsoft was very active as an investor. And in those days, every company was going public a year after they were founded. The Series B round was your IPO. Pretty much. And what was commonly accepted as one requirement of your IPO, it wasn't revenue, but it was actually having a strategic investor. And so the name brands of your investors lent a lot of strength to your IPO without anything else. And those were the days when the number one VC question was, what are you going to do when Microsoft enters your space, right? That's right. And so, you know, Cisco, Microsoft, you know, kind of the big companies

at the time were investing a lot in a lot of different startups. And we were also investing, it was a really interesting time in terms of influence and how the world was going to play out. And so we were investing in, were investing in undersea fiber cables and satellite companies and cable companies and telcos and DSL coming, you name it. And so we were really spreading around a lot of money. And that didn't end so well. We didn't really get the strategic return. And of course, you know, from a Microsoft perspective, despite having a nice balance sheet, our investors aren't investing in us as an investor. They're investing in us as an operating company who's delivering revenues and profits to our shareholders. And so, you know, even if you take a billion dollars of our balance sheet and

turn it into 2 billion, 3 billion, 5 billion, you know, it doesn't really impact your stock price in the same way as doubling, tripling revenue and profit. And so we, you know, we weren't, so the reason to do it was really strategic reasons of how are you going to take those investments and turn that into leverage plays on increasing revenue and profit for the company. And that didn't really happen. And so we really stopped doing it for the most part throughout the 2000s. And I think one notable exception was our investment in Facebook back in 2007. And so what we did do is we said, where it's really, really deeply strategic, we'll go out and we'll do an investment. And that's what we did in Facebook's case.

But otherwise, we weren't really doing this kind of, hey, we'll put some money in our balance sheet. We're a partner. Why not? Kind of thing. And that was just a quick sidebar. I mean, the Facebook investment, at the time, the world thought you guys were crazy, right? Yeah. They were nuts.

Was it a $15 billion valuation, I believe? That's right. I think their last round had been done at $5 five billion and so we we took it up to 15 um and yeah they certainly ridiculed us at the time obviously in hindsight that that did okay turned out pretty well yeah and i remember when i was there that that began um or this was uh this was after the investment but um there was a lot of integrations like the companies were very friendly with each other. It was when Windows Phone was doing a lot of things differently than iOS and Android were doing and integrating across networks.

There was a lot of proprietary, first-party-type integration with Facebook and their contacts and providing Bing back to them for mapping things. There was a very tight integration there. So I can totally see what you're talking about on the strategic side. Yeah, and that was exactly that case, right, where we could really deeply align with a partner and do the investment, create this whole win-win scenario.

I think coming back to investments, they're often talked about as either or. You can acquire us or you can invest in us. And I don't really think they operate that way as really substitutable goods. Because as a minority... Oh, completely. Speaking as a shareholder in lots of startups, it's very different if you create an exit for the company versus just put more money into the company. It's very different if you create an exit for the company versus just put

more money into the company. That's absolutely right. And if you think about, again, coming back to the strategic angle of it, if we own 5%, 2%, 10%, even 20%, even with a board seat of any given startup, we really don't have any control. And we don't really have really anything. Yes, you have some equity, and that's obviously nice. But again, that's not really what we're here for. We're here to be partners. Wall Street isn't compensating. That's right. Wall Street isn't evaluating the Microsoft share price based on how good you are as an investor. That's absolutely correct. Yeah, that's like a fascinating, taking a step back for listeners and thinking about how we normally evaluate companies on these episodes, being an

LP, or let's say you're a venture capital firm and you have LPs, the pressure on you and the expectation is very different than being an operating company with shareholders. The shareholders are looking for multiples that come from your operations and your ability to execute core business activities in a sustainable way. And when LPs are in a fund, they're in it for 10 years, they're looking for three times or so the capital that they put in, hopefully more. But really, it's like, can you guys sustainably make these investments? And I think as an operating company, that's just not, to your point, it doesn't move the share price. It's not the business. That's right. And from an employee perspective, I mean, take this all the way down to

the individual practitioners in any given corporate fund. And again, you can, for any of you who are talking to different corporate investors, ask them how they get compensated, you can, you know, for any of you who are talking to different corporate investors, you know, ask them how they get compensated, right? And most likely, if it's your typical corporate VC, and it's a balance sheet activity, they're employees of the company, right? And their compensation is going to come in, you know, shares and bonuses and salary from the operations of that company. It's not coming from, you know, whether or not you succeed. Whereas obviously, a VC investor is in a different place. And so that's why I think you have to be really careful in this world of strategic investing and coming back to why we do it.

Yeah. So with all that context and having done it in the past and realized it didn't work, what's the philosophy this time around? Yeah. And when you say it doesn't work, I think you have to be careful in terms of work to do what, right? And so if your objective is these really deep strategic tie-ups and or return on your capital or both, right? I mean, I think it's kind of hard to do both at the same time. And you think about setting valuation and being a difficult investor, sometimes you have to have hard conversations as an investor with your companies. And you think about, obviously, the hardest one that a board might have to do, which is changing out a CEO. As a partner, as a strategic investor, we're not good at that. We certainly don't want to ever have to turn to our partner and say,

by the way, you, you founder, you CEO, you're not right for this company anymore as an investor. Or also even, you know, I mean, there's so many whole set of difficult conversations that come along with being an investor in companies. But, you know, one in particular I'm thinking about is, hey, now is actually the right time to sell the company. To sell the company, to fold the company. And if you are a potential acquirer as well, then... That's right. Yeah. And so there's a lot of conflict there. And it's why I think if you want to do strategic investing the right way, you have to be really clear on what your objectives are and why you're doing it, or you create lots of conflict. And in many cases, they can backfire.

And certainly something we want to be very cognizant of is our reputation among investors, among founders, and technologists is we never want to damage our reputation as a good partner, as a good technology company in order to achieve those investment returns. Because obviously that's penny wise, pound foolish for us. So would you say the effort is more around creating like strategic partnerships through investment rather than investment to generate returns? Well, so it's the way we've scoped it. And there's actually two components to this. One of them is relatively new, which as of earlier this year, we created Microsoft Ventures, which is an early stage venture effort. And so Microsoft Ventures is out there looking for companies that are in generally our strategic partnership ecosystem,

and they're looking to establish those relationships, starting with that equity check and developing a relationship. And so they're out there looking on the come, and if you're using a craps analogy. And so the fact is that the early stage, kind of your seed, your A type stage investment, it's hard to be a meaningful strategic partner to Microsoft because of our scale. It's really hard to do. Now, you can be a potentially really interesting strategic partner. And so that's what Microsoft Ventures is there to do, which is to create those relationships and those opportunities and be in those conversations around how we can add value to companies. In some cases, it's going to come with that equity check and then a partnership.

In some cases, it'll come just from the partnership, but they're there to have those conversations. On my side of the house, it's almost the opposite where I'm leaning into companies that are already Microsoft partners and that are deep, meaningful ones. And we're doing, call it five to 10 of them a year. And it's really more of an endorsement and ecosystem leverage and tightening that relationship as opposed to trying to find new and interesting partnership opportunities. And so that's why I'm more of a growth investor, if you will, because these companies tend to be a little bigger, a little more mature.

Yep. And are these companies like, for instance, that might be selling through the Microsoft Salesforce on the enterprise side already? Yes. And so we typically look, and obviously, we have lots of partners. And those partnerships come in, when I look at a strategic investment, really three criteria at its core. One is, on the partnership side, is there a really interesting technology product integration between the two companies that makes this really interesting? And then the second piece, is there some sort of go-to-market sales marketing motion that makes the combination of the partnership powerful.

And where I find really interesting components of both, right, because there are plenty of companies that have one or the other. But when you find a really, really impactful combination of those two things, that's where it gets more interesting as a strategic investment. And then the last part, the third part is, is it a good investment? And just like any kind of growth investor will monitor a portfolio based on expected returns and make financially sound investments in those meaningful partners. As I have to imagine, as much as Wall Street won't reward you for being a great investor, Amy Hood, Microsoft CFO might punish you for being a bad investor. Yeah, exactly. That's again why we tend not to do this in a hugely active way. Again, I'm not out there spraying billions of dollars of our balance sheet money around because that

really just creates a huge liability. We do it where it's meaningful, where it makes sense, and where we think we're going to get a reasonable financial return that's risk-based. And so over the last two years, since we started doing this in a programmatic way, we've done about 16 investments, investing about $250 million on this side of the house, on the growth side. Microsoft Ventures has a separate portfolio they're managing. That's a great transition. We want to move into talking about the state of the M&A market right now at large. And you talking about number of deals is a great segue into why have we seen so much deal activity this year, both large and small? And the largest of which being obviously you guys right well yeah and those are again you know as we look at m&a um they are they are different and and we're always looking for

great opportunities for us to grow uh and and so you know the question of uh you know those large companies uh we're always evaluating everything right? And the thing with the large companies, they tend not to be, you know, suddenly found opportunities. We do, we know about LinkedIn. We know they're there. You know, we know where all these large companies are. We know who they are. And so, you know, those are always being evaluated.

And obviously when, you know, something happens, whether, you know, something flips between, you know, day one and day two, or we decide, okay, now it's the time to acquire Skype. Now it's the time to acquire LinkedIn. And there's a whole bunch of things that go into that. And in terms of you're asking about the trends right now, I wouldn't say that there's anything on our side of the house

that makes this a better time or more exciting time to acquire. I'd say it's almost on the opposite side, where it might be a really good time to sell. And so there's a lot more companies that are trying to market themselves in that way. And if you think about the technology cycle and how things get funded and how technology moves in waves and how startups get funded, there's certainly a lot of companies that are, you know, kind of coming to be a no man's land in terms of their growth relative to the last round relative to their ability to raise more money and really kind of reach escape

velocity into independent land, if you will. And so I think there's a lot of companies that are certainly looking to sell. Do you think that's motivating? Let's zoom out from Microsoft and look at the industry at large. That's motivating why so many deals are getting done? Because companies are so much better at marketing themselves as a great pickup? Yeah, I mean, I don't know if they're better at marketing themselves, but they need to. They need to be, right? I mean, if your next funding round isn't going to come, you've got to do something, right?

I mean, you've either got to fund through cash flow or you've got to fund through investment. And if you can't raise your revenues enough relative to your burn and if you can't raise investment, then you really have one choice. Well, you have two choices. One is happier than the other. Yes, yes. Fair point. I'm talking about the companies that actually have something, right? And so there will be a price for companies that actually have something, right?

So I'm curious on that front. The fact of life in startups is, unfortunately, more companies than not end up in that situation where they've built something. They've built a product. It's getting usage. They have revenue. But it's either not going to get to a scale where they can cover their burn. And thus the company has faces the prospect of going out of business or, or we see this

plenty of times too. The business grows to a certain scale, it becomes profitable, but then the growth just stalls and you're, you're, you realize you're not going to get to a point where you could be a standalone independent company. I'm curious for you guys, you probably see these companies many times a week. How do you think about whether an asset like that makes sense for you? Yeah. Well, it goes back to what you were talking about earlier in terms of who's driving that decision. And again, different companies are different here, right? And so we are typically a product driven company, when it comes to M&A and comes to our business generally. And so we're not out there

looking to assemble and kind of business conglomerate sense, an amalgamation of random software companies. And so you could certainly have that kind of business, right, where you go out and find interesting software companies that then you can, through synergies of overhead and sales and other things, can make good money at. We're not really in that game. We're here to grow our franchises and our products and really be a leading technology company. And so we're looking really at our technology roadmap and saying where things need to fit in, which is partly why we're less of that opportunistic buyer that's out there kind of just buying companies that have fallen angels, if you will. Now, there's still plenty of fallen

angels that are interesting to us, but those two things are different. Yes, it's related to the roadmap. And so where those two things intersect, where you have a fallen angel that's on a roadmap, that's where things get exciting for us. And the other piece of that, again, from a Microsoft perspective, is we're typically not looking to acquire businesses. We are typically looking to acquire teams and products and technologies. And again, thinking about that roadmap piece, where holes are in the roadmap, we sell the office suite.

And so where things can plug into that, that's great. But if we're acquiring a business, oftentimes that's incompatible with selling as the suite. And so in some cases, actually having a large sales force and a large business could be actually value destructive relative to how we think about things. And so there's plenty of companies that are great, but because they have such infrastructure and raise such money, that it actually takes it out of our ability to really find any interesting intersection of deal value relative to what they need and want to sell for. Wow. That's fascinating to think about the conflicts there because we, listeners to the show who uh kind of listened to our more classic analyze a single acquisition episodes um will remember that we we analyze whether a an acquisition was technology product business line people asset or other and we've got these kind of categories and it's

interesting to think about if it's a business line that can't be incompatible with the existing business line of the the acquir line of the acquirer if the acquirer is not looking to create a conglomerate, right, of like separate and potentially even competitive businesses under the same management structure. So for you guys, you know, when we did the LinkedIn episode, we were looking at, you know, it was like an 8x multiple of revenue that LinkedIn was acquired for. And we were like, well, you know, it's actually a prettyx multiple of revenue that LinkedIn was acquired for. And we were like, well, you know, it's actually a pretty good business on its own, even if there aren't a

lot of synergies and integrations. And it's interesting to think about like you sort of pushing back on that notion of like, no, we don't just buy businesses because they're good businesses. And like, you know, we hope to cash flow them for the long term. It's actually a strategic integration, and they have to be compatible with our existing business. That's right. Now, obviously, and that's one of the reasons that you look at the larger businesses we buy, like a Yammer or like a Mojang on the Minecraft side or like LinkedIn, generally, to make those deals work, you're generally not going to destroy their business. And so if you have enough critical mass and it makes sense on the strategic side, that's, you know, it's a different game too. And so, you know, all these things do fit together and every deal is different. But, you know, I'm just saying on the whole, when we're thinking

about these things, you know, those are some of the things we think about and consider is, you know, how does that business play, as you said, with our existing businesses? Is that something that we value or something that we don't, or in some cases, something that actually is a cost to us. One kind of tying together both of these topics on growth and sort of the roadmap and strategic imperative for Microsoft at the opposite end of the spectrum, a trend that's emerged or re-emerged in 2016. And I'm curious, your take on and whether you talk to these guys is the appearance of private equity in the software market and sort of the P-fueled or P-led buyouts of software companies. How much, you know, in many ways, that's the exact opposite of what you're talking about. That is the, you know, if not, in some cases, an attempt to create a conglomerate

of multiple software companies together. But in other cases, just, you know, hey, we're just going to take this private solely for its own business line. Why do you think we've seen that emerge? Because traditionally, PE has shied far away from technology. These are typically not cash flow positive companies. You can't put debt on them. What's changed? Well, I think that has changed, right? I think there are a lot of now mature software companies that have legacy businesses where you have nice cash flow and if you think about your typical technology companies business where you know a lot of money goes to r&d because you're always trying to grow and chase the next next generation if you strip out all that

cost in some cases you can have a really nice profitable business because the marginal cost of producing and selling software is relatively low or i should say the cost of producing is relatively low cost of selling it could be high. But where you find that right model where if you strip out a lot of costs from the business and you think you have this pretty solid revenue stream from customers that even if you don't invest is just going to fade out over time, you can actually have some really nice traditional looking LBOs. We've certainly seen that. Those aren't always so exciting to us, but we actually have co-invested with some private equity firms in a few of these take privates or LBOs or resettlings. And the one that was announced is Informatica, where Primera

bought them. And we invested in that. And what's actually exciting about that one is there's a component of that business, you know, that is legacy, but there's also a really good growth component to it, which is what gets us excited. And the opportunity to really go deep in a partnership with them was what got us excited about the partnership and the investment. And, you know, kind of on the quarter to quarter basis, sitting under a public company, you know, street mentality of managing that, it's often hard for them to really make the hard decisions and the both the cuts as well as the investments that they need to make to kind of modernize that company. And so in many cases, it's better suited in a private, you know, kind of private equity based format. And so that that can actually be

really interesting and really exciting. And there's certainly a lot of those businesses that are that are out there. I just want to highlight real quick for listeners, because I, I'll admit, I just googled it LBO is a leverage buyout. Oh, sorry. Yes. No, no problem at all. We've got a good mix of kind of like product and engineering types that listen to the show, as well as people that are kind of much more versed in the corporate development and financial world. And I tend to perhaps over-index on being a recovering investment banker myself. I just imagine everybody knows these things. But yeah. And typically, you know, the reason we're talking about this is it's only been very recently that private equity firms and LBOs have really started paying attention to tech.

And Brian, for really the reasons that you were saying, that the industry's matured. But typically, these firms would buy, you know, like Heinz Ketchup, right? The types of things that Berkshire Hathaway would buy. Exactly. It's more Warren Buffett style in a way. Yeah. Yeah. And actually, I mean, it was back when I was an investment banker that Silver Lake, which I think was the first true private equity, traditional private equity tech-focused firm was formed.

And I remember meeting with them thinking, you know, how odd, right? Really, these two models are somewhat incompatible. But certainly over time, and being the first, they were able to create a really nice business to go and take that traditional private equity model into tech. And now there are a whole bunch of other folks that play in that space as well. Yeah, I think in quite short order, I forget it maybe two years they 3x skype before uh before selling it to microsoft that's right pretty wild yeah yeah which obviously then that was a uh a tech buyout that you played on on the other side yep that's right this is actually a pretty good uh segue so on the skype episode we talked a lot about um the the implications of having a lot of cash

overseas, and that, you know, Skype was actually a really great way to deploy some of that capital, because it would have a pretty heavy tax burden when attempting to repatriate it. And so the question for you is, are potentially changing corporate and foreign tax structures on your mind as you think about large deals? Yeah, we're certainly always cognizant of the regulatory regimes and tax regimes. Most of these larger acquisitions have a large and complex international component to it, which means we're dealing with that anyway, even at the kind of more operating internal level of any given company. I mean, if you look at Skype,

if you look at LinkedIn, if you look at a whole bunch, they all have pretty complex operations that you've got to think about. Skype, of course, happened to be domiciled, not in the US. And so that was certainly a nice benefit that we were certainly aware of. But, you know, these things are always changing.

And if you think about from the Microsoft overall planning perspective of how we manage those environments, it really has to sit within our overall management. And again, these things get really complex in terms of where IP lives. Apple and others have been in the news a lot lately in terms of how they do those transfers of tech and how that creates or avoids or distributes their taxes in different ways. And so, again, it's a very complex issue that we certainly pay a lot of attention to. Again, I wouldn't say that going back to why we do M&A in the first place, we certainly aren't financial engineers as a business. And so we're always looking out for the right strategic thing. And if that deal happens to be Skype that's based outside the U.S.

or if that deal happens to be LinkedIn that that's based outside of the US, or if that deal happens to be, you know, LinkedIn, that's based here in the US, you know, we go do the right deal, you know, assuming we can come up with the right, you know, terms and structures that makes the deal work. And so we're not out there to be financial engineers. So that's certainly a part of what we have to do, you know, just given the complexity of operations of these companies. I was always amazed when I worked in banking how many tax lawyers we had running around on every deal. It's certainly part of those 28 people

I discussed earlier. Yeah. In thinking about the two different functions, there's M&A activity when Microsoft acquires companies, and then there's strategic investment activity, which is what we've been talking a lot about on this episode, where you choose to deploy capital into someone for strategic reasons. Do you have any good examples of investments that Microsoft has made in the last few years that, you know, ended up becoming product integrations or like success stories for a business or some payoff with that strategic alignment? Payoff in terms of?

Maybe like you made the strategic investment and then there was something in the product in the ensuing years, either on the Microsoft side or on that company's side that took advantage of the sort of strategic alignment between the companies. Yeah, sure. I mean, we can look at a couple of examples in the recent past that I've been involved with. If you look at, say, Foursquare, we made an investment at Foursquare, and we've developed a great partnership around their data and data asset that feeds into Cortana.

Oh, interesting. And so that's, yeah, that's pretty cool. If you look at DocuSign. What does that look like with Foursquare? Is that like when people ask Cortana about what's a good place to eat and it surfaces recommendations from Foursquare data or? Yeah, I mean, Foursquare is one of the sets of data

that we leverage in that case, yeah. I mean, we certainly have a lot of our own data as well, and we pull data from multiple sources. But Foursquare has a great, great set of data on location. And lots of Foursquare data gets used in all sorts of location use cases that aren't even related to, you know, user recommendations. We were kind of a prototype for them doing that kind of deal. And now they've basically created a whole business out of licensing that data to others, which is part of our investment thesis in that company. And then if you look at DocuSign, we had a different example,

but we've had a great partnership with them going back many years in terms of how you could utilize their electronic signatures in Office 365. There's some good selling and marketing motions that go along with that as well that go in both directions, and we participated in their last private round as well long after the partnership itself had come to be. And then if you look at a more recent one, which is Mesosphere, the container space, and we're doing a whole bunch of interesting things both with them and the other container players.

And we really like that partnership as well, both on the technical and go-to-market side. Or you want to be horizontal and participate with everyone? Let's just say it's all the container players in a very democratic and open way, and yet you have this strategic bet that you've placed on one of them? We certainly do. I mean, obviously it depends on the space in terms of how democratic you want to be, if you will. But again, we're first and foremost technology partners, and the commercial deals will speak for themselves. And so if we're going to go and do some sort of exclusive or semi-exclusive, whether it be kind of implied or purposeful exclusivity in any given area, the commercial partnership and how we do that and talk about it, we'll mention that.

And the investment is, again, a separate deal. And so one good example there would be if you look at a company called Cloudflare that we invested in. They actually, doing what they do, they need to be and want to be kind of a neutral party. And to do that and to hammer it home, it was actually an interesting approach by that CEO founder to use his investment round as a way to reinforce that message of neutrality. And so he got Baidu, us, Qualcomm, and Google all to co-invest together in the same round. And so you can use these investments as tools. And again, given the right commercial partnership, we certainly had no qualms with those guys as investors. All right, listeners, our next sponsor

is a new friend of the show, Huntress. Huntress is one of the fastest growing and most loved cybersecurity companies today. It's purpose-built for small to mid-sized businesses and provides enterprise-grade security with the technology, services, and expertise needed to protect you. They offer a revolutionary approach to managed cybersecurity that isn't only about tech, it's about real people providing real defense around the clock. So how does it work? Well, you probably already know this, but it has become pretty

trivial for an entry-level hacker to buy access and data about compromised businesses. This means cybercriminal activity towards small and medium businesses is at an all-time high. So Huntress created a full managed security platform for their customers to guard from these threats. includes endpoint detection and response, identity threat detection and response, security awareness training, and a revolutionary security information and event management product that actually just got launched. Essentially, it is the full suite of great software that you need to secure your business, plus 24-7 monitoring by an elite team of human threat hunters in a security operations center to stop attacks that really software-only solutions could sometimes miss. Huntress is democratizing security, particularly cybersecurity, by taking security techniques that were historically only available

to large enterprises and bringing them to businesses with as few as 10, 100, or 1,000 employees at price points that make sense for them. In fact, it's pretty wild. There are over 125,000 businesses now using Huntress, and they rave about it from the hilltops. They were voted by customers in the G2 rankings as the industry leader in endpoint detection and response for the eighth consecutive season and the industry leader in managed detection and response again this summer.

Yep. So if you want cutting edge cybersecurity solutions backed by a 24-7 team of experts who monitor, investigate, and respond to threats with unmatched precision, head on over to huntress.com slash acquired or click the link in the show notes. Our huge thanks to Huntress. Maybe good time to jump to, you know, we discussed with Taylor at Adobe when we chatted with him a few months ago, kind of what the right way was for startups to, you know, build the relationship over time with potential acquirers. And he really stressed the importance of that it is a relationship. You know, don't expect that you're just going to call up, you know, a potential acquirer one day and have a deal done, you know, by the next week. But I'm curious on the investing front, you know, for you guys, obviously, you know, different companies have different policies on this and approaches to strategic investments.

But what's the best way for an earlier mid-stage company to start building that relationship with Microsoft? Yeah, and I think piling on with the Adobe guys on that, it is amusing or unamusing sometimes where we'll get these calls saying, Hey, we have a term sheet in hand from X. Would you like to also put in a bid, you know, let us know within the next week to be acquired, right? And that's generally not very productive. And it is indeed a relationship. And the thing to think about as a startup founders is, you know, getting acquired is almost like going through a hiring exercise. And you do have to develop relationship and trust. And essentially, the acquiring entity is indeed making a hiring decision on the company as well as the specific people. And so if you don't have a relationship in place, it's really hard to speed that through in a rapid way.

And so it's always a good idea to be developing those relationships with potential acquirers well in advance. And it leads into what I will say on the investing side, which is certainly on the strategic investing side, for me, all those roads lead through a partnership anyway. And so you need to have that dialogue with us on the partnership side with our product teams. Yeah, with the business units and the product teams to get those partnerships in place long before I could potentially invest. And, you know, so that's really the best way to do it. And I'm always happy to help get folks set up with the right folks at Microsoft if they don't have a path in otherwise. But that's really what has to start. And certainly then, you know, as those conversations are going to then have a separate parallel relationship development with my team, this is certainly not a bad thing.

But, you know, again, first and foremost, we're a technology partner. The investing thing is really secondary to everything we do. So, you know, if there's limited resources in any given site, I wouldn't bother with me as much as that hurts me to say. But, you know, and really focus as much as that hurts me to say. And really focus on those strong relationships on the product level. It's also more leverage for them. I mean, if they can get a situation where there's cross-selling motions, I mean, the Microsoft field and sales team is really powerful, and I've certainly seen a lot of startups get a lot of leverage from that.

And if you can make that work, that's really impactful to a small company. Yeah. that and if you can make that work that's it's really impactful to uh to a small company yeah and uh uh it's funny as we uh anybody who's in the startup world knows um it always just happens to work out that anytime that you're very close to a major milestone whether it be cementing a partnership with somebody like a Microsoft or a sales milestone also just happens to be when you're running out of money and founders are tearing their hair out trying to balance the two of them yeah no I mean it's and it's I certainly don't mean to make light of that that really difficult challenge and I've obviously been there and so one one philosophy though you know going back again to to our investing investing approach, we're not looking to make companies or make rounds except in those really rare cases like the Facebook investment.

And so we tend not to lead rounds. And we tend to just put a little bit of money in. I mean, again, we're not looking to be the primary funding source here in any given round or dealer company. And so, you know, we're not, you know, we're not your typical investor. We're not going to jump in and save a company if they're running out of money. And so we're the wrong folks to rely on, you know, on that basis. Anyway, and so the relationship can certainly be very helpful, and both on the M&A front and the investment front, for us to have that dialogue. That's always a good thing. But if the running out of money thing is something that you're trying to avoid, I'm not usually a good call to make.

Yeah. Well, jumping back over to the M&A side of the house, one of the theses of this show when we first set out was to figure out what makes acquisitions successful and selfishly so that David and I can really understand how to build companies that will become successfully acquired and will fit into another business. Or more recently, we'll actually have a successful IPO process. We realized that we were selling ourselves short. That's right. Our ambitions short. Right, right. In that vein, I'm very curious how on the M&A side of the house at Microsoft, do you judge acquisitions and do you decide if this worked out well and we're glad that we did

this five, 10 years later? Yeah, we certainly do. It's a really hard thing to do. And of course, the challenge there is that the destination is often changing as you're going through the process. And certainly in tech, two, five years hindsight wise, things look a lot different

than they did initially. It's the wrong number here. Yeah. And so it's really difficult to think about how to judge an acquisition and whether it's successful or not on any really rigorous way in tech. You know, that said, we certainly try. And so with any given acquisition, we'll have a set of agreed judgment milestones, metrics, and various

criteria, which usually include, you know, retention, you know, are all the folks or some folks of the acquired company still here, you know, six months, one year, two years later, are they happy? You know, have we shipped X, Y, and Z product or feature? Have we done, you know, A, B, and C integration? Have we, you know, pick your, you know, the revenue targets or profit targets? Are there some sort of accelerated, sort of accelerated either schedules or unit volumes for some product or feature we have? Pick your set of things that form the basis for why we went and did a deal. And we lay that all out, and we cement that in, and then we do track that. And then the owner, someone in Microsoft owns that. Someone in the product team owns that team and signed up for either that revenue or those features or retention or whatever it is.

And so we certainly do judge those over time. And that's, I think, the closest we can get. And again, even with that, we have to be cognizant of how things shift and change. And often that person might not be the same person who's managing them, you know, those acquired employees 6, 12, you know, 24 months later. Are there any that you think went particularly well in the last five years that are worth saying like, wow, that one went really phenomenally? Yeah, and I think there certainly are. And one thing I think that's fun to watch is our changing approach to these things. And I think in a lot of companies, and certainly in Microsoft, it used to be the case where, let's say you're the product team for Outlook, and you're trying to ship a mobile client,

and it's not going so well. And then you get management buy-off go buy, buy a mobile client, in this case, maybe a company, let's just say as an example. And, and then you bring those folks into the company. And now that startup that you just acquired is reporting to the same people who were failing before. That usually ended up being a recipe for for not, not, let's just say that the acquired companies just were more excited to be in that position. And let's say that the managing folks there, you know, essentially went and continued to try and do the same thing, but now just with new people working for them. And so that usually didn't end well, surprisingly. And so, you know,

I think with the company and with, with we've acquired recently, we've done that differently. And we've taken those folks and empowered them. And assuming they've been successful, we've continued to expand their scope and given them more and more. And so I think you're seeing the benefit of that approach with Outlook Mobile and iOS and how that's worked. And so I think that's a case where I think we're pretty excited. And you could say the same thing for, I think, a lot of the other companies we've acquired recently. Yeah, it's interesting.

I always love thinking about what those, as the organization matures, the corp dev organization matures, or from my world, as a VC firm grows and sees many cycles and as individuals within those organizations grow, you start to learn these. VC is all about pattern matching, but you get these, you know, sort of senses that develop and kind of informal roles. And then what's really interesting is when you decide to break the rules. But I'm thinking about like, you know, one that actually be relevant to my carve out, you know, in VC that you learn pretty quickly is it's really hard to build a big company if you're not targeting a big market.

And plenty, you know, i make that mistake madrona makes that mistake even the other great vc firms make that mistake all the time um but uh and then you always remind me like god why did i do that you know uh but um but you know for you for you and for microsoft now you know for decades uh having been able to practice the craft of M&A, and I think about VC is the same way, you definitely get these rules that kind of evolve. Like, oh, yeah, maybe we shouldn't, if we're buying a product to replace one that's failing, we probably shouldn't have them report to people who are not successfully shipping the current product. No, that's right. Yeah. One final note kind of before we move into follow-ups, hot takes, and carve-outs.

Are there any other people or companies who you admire that you think do corporate development or strategic investing really well? That's a good question. I think you see lots of different models if If we're talking about just the investing side, you know, and Google has taken the approach of creating a separate fund and a whole separate, and they're essentially out there competing with any other VC for $4, you know, that can take away some of the strategic components to it, too. And so there's, you know, all sorts of views on the spectrum. You know, corporate VC has gotten, I think, really hot for some reason over the last number of years. And just about everyone, I think, I was reading today that, just about everyone I think I was reading today, that, you know, I think it was Tyson Foods, you know, the folks who make chicken,

they now have a VC looking at new protein replacement opportunities. So, you know, Sesame Street has a VC, you know, pretty much everyone has a VC these days, right? I've been amazed. I mean, it's been so much talked about in the last couple years but you drive around in silicon valley and you see all the auto companies have their uh yeah you know silicon valley centers now yeah i mean i did a deal recently with ge and caterpillar and and others i mean it you know kind of you know everybody's getting into the game and i think that's going to be interesting to watch over time and so to kind of flip your question um you kind of i i think there's a lot of folks who i'm not sure if they're doing it right and we'll have to see.

And again, going back to why these folks are setting it up and what they think they're going to get out of it. And as a former startup founder, certainly at the early stage, you certainly have to be careful about tying your wagon to really anyone because you want to maintain optionality at the early stage if you can. And so that's a hard thing to balance against the corporate entities and keeping in mind what we already talked about in terms of their incentives, which is really for their company and their equity versus a traditional investor who's really looking to you to make a gain. And those incentives are very different. And that manifests itself in the boardroom, that manifests itself in shareholder votes and follow-on rounds and all sorts of things

that I think folks are going to have to be careful of. So I think there's a whole bunch of folks who are out there doing a good job. Qualcomm Venture certainly does. And I think Google has a pretty good reputation and Salesforce is very active and we've co-invested with them before. So I've been very impressed with a lot of the teams I've seen in Corporate VC.

And again, we'll have to see how the whole space shapes out. Indeed. Should we do follow-ups and hot takes? Yeah, let's do it. We've got some fun ones. I realized we were negligent last episode on the Marvel episode and didn't discuss, I believe, we discussed Snapchat's, Snap Inc.'s Spectacles launch and initial very positive reviews. I can't wait to try them. But we did not discuss the elephant in the room, which is news that they are rumored to be preparing to file for an ipo yeah uh really interesting to

think about they're a younger company than um uber and a lot of these other kind of like super unicorns um and uh in in true snapchat fashion just not necessarily going with the trend like they just continually think of themselves as a different company or a different type of company than a lot of these other um other these other big private companies of their generation. And so I think there are reasons why it makes more sense for Snapchat to be IPOing and companies like Uber to be waiting. There's a lot of Uber in China, I think, is kind of the big reason they're waiting. But with Snapchat, I continue to be impressed, and I'm a buy at any price. Note to self, do not give money to Ben. Don't take my investment advice.

Yeah. Also really interesting with Snapchat. I mean, one, you know, to kind of as we talked about on the Facebook IPO show and then afterward as well. I think it's great to see a company that is four years old, but clearly has achieved scale and is in the process of building a meaningful revenue business and eventually hopefully profits as well, take this step and do this. They've achieved domestic scale. I'm very curious to see how they do internationally as they really start to expand there. Because I think we keep seeing Instagram copy a lot of Snapchat's functionality.

And if you're already an avid Snapchat user, you often are not really compelled by the Instagram features. You're like, I can already have my network, my habits. But then you think about all these people that are in countries where Snapchat hasn't gotten big yet. And now the sort of question is, will Snapchat ever get big in those countries since Instagram kind of has a lot of that functionality now and they already use Instagram all the time. And I'm still bullish because this is one of those seed company bets where you just say, yeah, I wouldn't bet against that person. And I have a lot of faith in their

ability to figure that out. And that's how I about evan spiegel and uh the kind of leadership at snapchat but um i i think it's important to like note a risk that they've achieved domestic scale and we'll see how they do well it'll be a very interesting s1 to read yeah no matter what yeah what are the risks of the business section is going to be awesome uh i'm curious I don't think Microsoft is a shareholder in Snap Inc., but Alphabet, Google Alphabet is, as are several other strategic companies. I'm kind of curious, Brian, when you guys have had investments that then go public, what do you guys do with the stock? Yeah, we, we depends on the situation. And we, we generally don't comment on what we do with it. And this goes back to, to the whole question around how, how and why we're doing strategic investing is, is, you know, selling a partner is usually a really difficult thing to do. And so we generally just don't talk about these things. And so people will ask, hey, Facebook, have you sold your stock?

And we just don't answer. And it's for good reason, which is assuming we're under the threshold, of course, for having to be... Yeah, you don't have to report it. Yeah, then there's really no benefit whatsoever to talk about how and what we're doing with those stakes that are put in place. Which is actually interesting. Something that I didn't realize even until I'd been working in venture for quite a number of years, but I think most people don't realize about the VC ecosystem. It's actually kind of the same thing.

When companies go public, it's actually kind of the same thing um you know when companies go public like it's not like there's a magic moment and like we sell all our shares oftentimes we can't even if we wanted to uh and so um you have vc firms that are holding shares of companies that went public long ago uh and figuring out it's it's actually a big um it ends up being a meaningful kind of strategic discussion within VC firms for each investment. When's the right time to sell? When is the right time to sell?

And we also have the complication, we can distribute the shares directly to our investors. So we can just give them the shares rather than selling on the open market. So that's another lever we can pull. We can hold, we can sell, or we can give the shares away or give the shares back to our LPs. Is that LP decided or is that decided by the

management of the VC firm? It's decided by the management of the VC firm. And then so the risk of the sort of LP argument, typically they want us to distribute as fast as possible because like, hey, that's our investment. We invest in you. These are shares. They're now liquid on public currency. We have people that manage public stocks. You should give them to us. The tension though is if we do that

and we think there's a meaningful chance that they might just sell those shares, then that can be detrimental to the company. If a whole slug of shares comes on the market at once, that can depress the share price. So it's a complicated situation. Yeah. Hot take. This is just today as we're recording this, Amazon announced Amazon Go. We got to talk about this. Yeah. So Amazon Go is a driverless drive-through store. Am I getting that right?

Autonomous AI. It is all of these things. It's a grocery store here in Seattle that you walk into, and there are scanners and sort of turnstile-like things when you walk into the store. You scan the Amazon Go app on your phone, and then it identifies you. And then once you're into the store. You scan the Amazon Go app on your phone and then it identifies you. And then once you're in the store,

you just pick up anything that you want to buy. You put it in whatever, you hold it, you put it in your backpack, you put it in your purse and you just walk out of the store. No checkout aisle, no cashiers, no nothing. Just automatically tracks what you picked up and you pay for it through the app automatically yeah i don't know if this will work but i i love uh it's it's impossible to overstate how much i love amazon's muscle for experimentation and ability to like do

tens or hundreds of these sorts of things at once and And it's interesting. I'd love to know how big the team was that pulled this off. I'm willing to bet it's a lot smaller than you'd think. Yep. What's also interesting, we don't know, but one of the cool things about how Amazon works is there are these small teams within the company that are focused on innovative projects that they're doing. There's a good chance this might be completely separate from the amazon bookstore uh which is in new village here yeah um certainly it's a very different uh model of the store um super cool love to see this innovation i can't wait to uh it'll be open to the public in early 2017 i can't wait to go try it yeah brian what's your take you're gonna check it out i i'm excited to go buy stuff and walk out and see what happens.

Feeling like I'm shoplifting, but it being totally legit. Exactly. Exactly. I mean, this is going to create all sorts of consternation for shoplifters. I mean, how they're going to get around this is going to be an interesting question. Yeah. I wonder into the product and the model for this, how much they thought about that i mean shoplifting is like a meaningful um you know it's a meaningful cost to retail stores and grocery stores um this solves that problem maybe i mean you know obviously if they have technology that solves

that problem generally um you know in theory everybody everybody who does retail is going to want to buy it you know you have uh you have lots of companies or i shouldn't say lots of companies but a few companies around that have anti-theft anti-shoplifting technologies i did some work actually as an investment banker for a company called sensor matic uh back in the day which has some of those and you know they have some that you put in clothes and if you try and walk out it does the ink splash across across the clothes to ruin them just like you find with bank robbers they put on those ink things that explode uh others that just make the thing go beep um but obviously shop lifters uh you know have ways to still prevail those things yeah so i don't know what official

intelligence though so there's an interesting question right with with tech uh that amazon's using here as to how they think this is gonna work yeah um Yeah. All right. Carve outs. Yeah. So mine is for years now, maybe even a decade, OK Go has been producing really incredible music videos and up leveling their game every single one. So for anybody that remembers, I mean, I don't know, probably 10 years ago, the treadmills video where it um, it, it went totally viral and they, they shot it themselves in their backyard. And, um, you know, there's people dancing and they've just choreographed the band members having a choreographed dance on treadmills and they uplevel their game over and over and over again. And maybe a year or two ago, they did this incredible drone shot one where it was, uh, you know, the first music video that I

saw that, that, uh uh really took advantage of oh my god what if we have this uh slowly rising drone go into the sky and um you know you can see patterns formed by thousands of people on the ground all wearing different things and they've they've upleveled their game again um so their their new video for the one moment um the entire video is shot in a super high frame rate camera and snapchat spectacles no yeah it's not it's not but it's um it's exploding paint and like bullets going through things and it's also it's like the matrix it takes place in like four seconds like the whole music video but it's all super slowed down. And so you have like three minutes of, of super high frame rate footage and it all actually lines up with the words

they're singing and the music. It's, it's really, really cool. That's really cool. Um, that's really cool. I gotta watch that. Uh, mine, uh, which I alluded to earlier on the show, um, is, uh, UC Berkeley. Um, I just found out about this recently and read it um they do this really cool uh oral history uh this program that does oral histories uh with people that have been um instrumental in kind of the development of the bay area uh and uh one of the aspects is business in the bay area and um they have uh don valentine who was the founder of sequoia uh and he founded sequoia in the early 70s he had been um he was a fairchild semiconductor uh he was not part of the trader estate uh that i believe was the Trader State left where was it

but they founded Fairchild and then he went to National Semiconductor and then he founded Sequoia but these were like this was the birth of Silicon Valley anyway there's this great kind of 75 page it's all a transcript of hours of interviews with Don

and it's fantastic just to hear him talk about that history of the early days of the Valley and the semiconductor industry, but also the philosophy behind Sequoia, how it started, how they evolved their thinking process about things. And they're still, you know, among the best in the business and how they've evolved over the years. Really cool. We'll link to it in the notes. Cool. Brian, we know you've got one too.

Yes. Yes, I do. I find this, particularly in light of everything that's going on right now, in terms of the election, is an article that O'Malick published in The New Yorker about a week ago called Silicon Valley Has an Empathy Vacuum. And I think it's just a really interesting thought piece for all of us just to think about how what we do affects everything and everyone else and whether or not there's more we could or should be doing

or less that we could or should be doing relative to that. And that's relative to job displacement, relative to changes in society that our technology can foster, such as how we're impacting journalism, how we're impacting culture and communities and all sorts of things. And so it's really interesting. Yeah, it's a great piece. And certainly something I and Ben and i in the show have been thinking about a lot over the last you know month or so is uh um you know lots of questions uh to be asked but i don't think we can uh i don't think we should as a tech industry continue to operate just in ignorance of even trying to think about the broader impact of uh what we're doing especially as we head into you know this age of artificial

intelligence and um you know all of the great things that are going to come from that and all of the social challenges as well so it was a great piece by by um yeah and to to just pile on like it's i'd recommend everyone read it for sure um something we have struggled with i think uh david and i and a lot of other people that that i've talked to in the last few weeks and even before the election um we celebrate a lot of the things that that technology does uh growth to hyper scalecale, being in shock and awe. Instagram having 13 employees when it was acquired. In shock and awe of the model, actually originally kind of created by Microsoft of incredibly

high fixed costs, but then, oh my God, you can sell licenses to this software with zero marginal costs to the world at gigantic, enormous scale. And now with the internet making that even more accelerated, yes, generally in the long term, more jobs are created after one or two generations of a gap by an advanced technology. But as an industry, we really do over-celebrate these gains in the short term and really do not come up with solutions for all the people that are disenfranchised because of it. And I think that this piece is really great.

I think we are about to have a self-driving truck, huge change and if anybody looks at that that uh um graphic that was floating around the internet um about a year ago of uh truck driving is like the top job in 20 states yeah including california in california and like auto has just like acquired by uber has just completed successful self-driving truck trips like it just doesn't feel like it'll be, um, too long now. Can't ignore the consequences. No,

no. And I'm, I know I'm rambling a little bit on this, but it really, uh, we're, we're glad you brought it up, Brian.

Yeah. We want to thank our longtime friend of the show, Vanta, the leading trust management platform. Vanta, of course, automates your security reviews and compliance efforts. So frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and HIPAA compliance and monitoring,

Vanta takes care of these otherwise incredibly time and resource draining efforts for your organization and makes them fast and simple. Yep, Vanta is the perfect example of the quote that we talk about all the time here on Acquired. Jeff Bezos, his idea that a company should only focus on what actually makes your beer taste better, i.e. spend your time and resources only on what's actually going to move the needle for your product and your customers and outsource everything else that doesn't. Every company needs compliance and trust with their vendors and customers. It plays a major role in enabling revenue because customers and partners demand it, but yet it adds zero flavor to your actual product. Vanta takes care of all of it for you. No more spreadsheets, no fragmented tools, no manual reviews to cobble together

your security and compliance requirements. It is one single software pane of glass that connects to all of your services via APIs and eliminates countless hours of work for your organization. There are now AI capabilities to make this even more powerful, and they even integrate with over 300 external tools. Plus, they let customers build private integrations with their internal systems. And perhaps most importantly, your security reviews are now real-time instead of static,

so you can monitor and share with your customers and partners to give them added confidence. So whether you're a startup or a large enterprise, and your company is ready to automate compliance and streamline security reviews like Vanta's 7,000 customers around the globe, and go back to making your beer taste better, head on over to vanta.com slash acquired and just tell them that Ben and David sent you. And thanks to friend of the show, Christina, Vanta's CEO, all acquired listeners get $1,000 of free credit. Vanta.com slash acquired. All right.

Should we bring it home? Yeah. Awesome. Well, Brian, thank you so much to our listeners out there. If you aren't subscribed and you want to hear more, you can subscribe from your favorite podcast client. If you've been a longtime listener of the show or maybe you're a new listener and you just want to help us out, we would love, love, love a review on iTunes or a

tweet or a share on Facebook or any way that you can help, help grow the show. So thank you so much. Thanks for listening. Thanks to Brian. And we'll see you next time. Yep. Is it you, is it you, is it you Who got the truth now?