Big Technology Podcast - More OpenAI Executive Drama, Is Siri Seriously Broken?, Meta’s Elusive Next Hit

Episode Date: April 6, 2026

M.G. Siegler of Spyglass is back for our monthly tech news discussion. Siegler joins us to discuss latest turmoil inside OpenAI, what the reported tension between CEO Sam Altman and CFO Sarah Friar says about the company’s spending and IPO plans, and whether Anthropic or OpenAI is better positioned to win the agentic AI battle. We also cover Apple’s latest Siri plans, whether Apple should try to buy Anthropic, and why Meta still hasn’t found its next big hit beyond advertising. --- Enjoying Big Technology Podcast? Please rate us five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ in your podcast app of choice. Want a discount for Big Technology on Substack + Discord? Here’s 25% off for the first year: https://www.bigtechnology.com/subscribe?coupon=0843016b Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Top OpenAI executives are reportedly at odds over its spending in IPO plans. Apple keeps making plans for Siri and, well, nothing to show for it yet, and can Meta find its next hit? That's coming up with MG Siegler from Spyglass right after this. This episode is brought to you by Tellus Online Security. Oh, tax season is the worst. You mean hack season? Sorry, what?

Yeah, cybercriminals love tax forms, but I've got Tellus Online Security. helps protect against identity theft and financial fraud so I can stress less during tax season or any season. Plans start at just $12 a month. Learn more at tellus.com slash online security. No one can prevent all cybercrime or identity theft. Conditions apply. Welcome to Big Technology podcast. It's the first Monday of the month and M.G Cigler is here with us in his traditional spot to break down what's going on in the world of tech. We have a lot to talk about today, including more turnover at the top. of Open AI and what that means.

We'll also talk a little bit about Open AI and Anthropics seemingly headed toward the same product. Then we will return to a common theme in these discussions. Apple, whether that company's plans for Siri will ever materialize. And then finally, why Meta seems not to be able to find its next hit. M.G., great to see you. Welcome back to the show. Thanks, Alex. Super sunny here in London. So it's nice outside. Got Michigan Wolverines in the National Championship game this week.

And so I'm glad we're recording this right now and not say tomorrow when I might be staying up until about four in the morning. Oh, goodness. Well, it's definitely going to be a busy week on a number of fronts. And certainly the OpenAI team is going to have to figure out what's happening once again in the C-suite. Because there's breaking news that we have coming, you know, basically within our recording window here that there is potentially some discontent between opening I, CEO. Sam Altman and CFO Sarah Fryer. This is from the information. Sam Altman has committed OpenA.I. to spend $600 billion in the next five years and privately said he wants to go public as soon as the fourth quarter. Despite expectations, his company will burn more than $200 billion before it starts generating cash. Behind the scenes, Sarah Fryer, his chief financial officer, has voiced concerns that reflect the tensions and risks inherent in the CEO's extraordinarily ambitious plan. She told some of the scene. colleagues earlier this year that she didn't believe the company would be ready to go public in

26 because of the procedural and organizational work needed and the risks from its spending commitments. She also said she wasn't sure whether Open AI would need to pour so much money into obtaining AI servers in the coming years or whether its revenue growth, which has been slowing, would support the commitment. And seemingly as a result, Altman has excluded her from some conversations related to the company's financial plans. Now, Open AI has a statement between Altman and Fryer saying everything is uncie dory, but this does seem like yet more drama at the top of Open AI. On one hand, I would expect this type of disagreement between any CFO who's done any sort of financial job and OpenAI with its like unbelievably ambitious plans that don't really fit any model previously.

So I can't tell whether or not this is like a big deal and another problem within the company or whether, Basically, this is just kind of business as usual for a company growing at an unprecedented pace. That's going to deal with some typical tension at that juncture where the finance and the product strategy meet. What do you think, MG? So, yeah, my first initial thought, same as what you just said. It was like, oh, my God, I can't believe a CEO and a CFO are at odds. What are the odds of that? Like, that happens in every company, of course, because obviously the CFO often has to be the bad cop telling, you know, slowing down specials.

or we're sort of putting a dose of reality into, you know, any sort of future plans. But at OpenAI, not a normal company famously, things are always sort of to the extreme. And I think this one is obviously unique in the case that we're talking about the IPO. You know, this had been rumored, of course, dating back to last year that basically Open AI and, of course, Anthropic are sort of in starting to put the wheels in motion, at least, to go public, this year. I actually predict, as one of my year in predictions, I predicted that neither open AI nor Anthropic will go public in 2026. That was looking fairly bad, I would say, a few weeks ago, like it, like it was going to happen. But, you know, there's reports like this now coming out that

are not too surprising. Again, it's the CFO. Of course, she's probably going to be, you know, if anyone, putting the brakes on a little bit more than sort of others at the company. But, you know, the CFO is obviously vital to a company going public and being instrumental in that raise in Sarah Fryer in particular, who's been involved with public companies and on the board of companies and knows what to do here. But again, I just think when all these these rumors have come out about Open AI and Anthropic potentially going out, like there's so many wildcards still at play over the next even, you know, six, seven, eight, nine months macro wise, as we've talked about before, like where anything could derail, like an IPO from happening.

But I do think, you know, now that SpaceX is formally, you know, put the wheels in motion to go out, and it sounds like, you know, they're angling for June for maybe for Elon Musk's birthday. And, you know, that puts a little bit more pressure, of course, given his position with OpenAI is technically a co-founder, but now, you know, at odds, obviously, with the company and with Sam Altman in particular, you know, that adds another layer to this. But it does feel like that maybe Sarah Fryer is looking at sort of the overall picture and looking at these leaked, you know, what these league financials, obviously they have even better insight into what the actual numbers are and just looking at the market and being like, it's unclear what would happen if Open AI went public. You think like, oh, it's an AI company.

There's so much buzz like everyone. But again, SpaceX is already going to be out there touting the AI angle, right? Elon's going to play up the data centers in space and XAI and all of that. So we're going to have sort of some of the wind taken out of the AI hype sales in the public market already. And then if Open AI goes out and you see just this massive, massive burn, how are public markets going to react to that? It's sort of unknown. But I think like she might be saying, look, we're in the midst of changing a lot about the business right now. Famously, we're putting a pause on these side quests and at the same time sort of maybe pivoting to sort of.

of focus more on what historically has been anthropics strength in enterprise and obviously with what's going on with cloud code and codex. And so we don't have like a full vision into what like the next year is going to look like even financially. Yeah. I mean, any CFO, you know, no matter who it is sitting in this company would probably be having a heart attack because the belief within OpenAI is that this technology is moving on an exponential. And it may well be, but as a CFO, you're not really able to think in those exponentials. You have to think of like, am I going to, is this company going to go bankrupt? Like, are we investing so much that we're going to end up, you know,

sort of not being able to meet our commitments. And we've already seen Open AAC pull out of a few commitments recently. This is a quote. It's kind of an interesting quote in this information story. Breyer has a hard job said someone who works closely with her and Altman. she's working for a founder with big ambitions who wants to push the envelope as hard as he can on spend. I don't know. That to me seems like a non-background quote from a comms person most likely.

But then there's an interesting, let me just say this one interesting thing here, though, which I almost overlooked. And that is that at the beginning of this report, they, I'll read it again. Breyer said she wasn't sure whether Open AI would need to pour so much money into obtaining AI. servers in the coming years, or whether it's revenue growth, which has been slowing, would support the commitments. Revenue growth has been slowing. I haven't seen that reported previously. So if the revenue growth is slowing, it's harder to believe you're on an exponential,

and maybe that's the source of all this. Yeah, I mean, it's hard to know exactly what they mean or what the wording exactly is there, right? Because, okay, you might say, yeah, the revenue growth is slowing relative to the speed at which it's been good, you know, like it's the law of large number stuff, right? Like it's coming down, but it's still growing very fast. It's hard to parse exactly what they mean by that. But at the same time, even at the high level, like if you're, if you already know that sort of

things are, you know, slowing down a bit and you're, again, angling to take this company into the public markets, like, you've really got to lock down the narrative in terms of like what both growth is going to look like going forward and sort of what the key drivers are going to be. And again, the company itself is in the midst of the. this product pivot and sort of business model pivot in a way. And so it's unclear that they know exactly what the growth picture is going to look like over the next year. And so if I'm Sarah Friar, I'm probably saying like, hey, we just raised this $122 billion round, you know, by far in a way the largest round ever raised, by far and away larger than any IPO, you know, including SpaceX

upcoming rumored IPO, you know, would target a mere 70 or 80 billion. million dollars, right? And Open AI is raised more than that in the, in a private round. And so if I'm Sarah Fryer, say, well, look, we just got this done. This, this buys us X amount of runway. We don't know exactly what that is, but it's not indefinite, given these burn numbers. And, you know, it just sort of slow things down a little bit. Let's see how all the codex work that we're putting in, this new super app, you know, that we're working on. Let's see, you know, give this some months to, to play out. So we of a better picture of what our actual financial picture will look like before sort of we start the wheels in motion. But again, Sam Altman and maybe others within the company are probably

looking at this, you know, overall picture and looking at not only SpaceX, but again, Anthropic is probably the main concern here because if Anthropic were to go public before Open AI does and has sort of is able to paint that better picture in terms of profitability, that's going to be even more problematic for Open AI. And so I get sort of the, you know, the two sides here, the push and pull, as it were. But again, it seems very risky for them to try to go out this year, regardless of all the macro stuff going on. Yeah, and you're going to really need your CEO and CFO to be in sync if you're going to do it. And this is, again, the reporting from the information.

In recent months, Altman left Friar out of a conversation about service spending with leaders. at one of OpenAI's top investors. Her absence was noticeable, noticeable, and awkward, given the previous conversation on the same topic included her. A different person who also attended, sorry, a different person who attended a senior level meeting at OpenAI with Altman earlier this year said it was unusual that Friar was not invited. Also, this is again from the information in an unusual move for a large company,

where CFOs almost always answered directly to the CFO, sorry to the CEO. Friar stopped reporting directly to Altman in August last year and instead began reporting to Fiji Simo, who had joined as head of Open AIs applications business, who, as we know, after last Friday's news, Fiji is now on medical leave. So leaving Friar where exactly? I mean, there's so much in just what you said right there. So sort of going backwards, when the news came out that Fiji Sima was joining, I did think it was odd at the time even that, yeah, all of these reports were moving over to her. She had the CEO title, but it's not the CEO of the company, right?

It was at the time CEO of applications, and now they've changed it to CEO of AGI something or another. I'm not 100% sure what it is right now. EGI deployment. Yes, AGI deployment. AGO deployment, totally normal, whatever that means. And so it seemed a little weird at the time that, yeah, Sarah Fryer, the CFO was sort of moving in that. Now they would play it as like, look, we just needed to. free up Sam's time. He needs to do fundraising, though obviously finance is pretty important with

fundraising. You'd think like, again, they might want to be, you know, perfectly in sync and in line with one another talking through that. But that's sort of why I've always sort of had in the back of my head that I would not be shocked if Fiji Simo is eventually sort of overall CEO. And they just sort of have Sam Altman there because he's vital still, obviously from a fundraise perspective, from sort of these higher level mission-oriented goals. But, you know, if and when Vigisimo, you know, is in a place with her health where, you know, she can be sort of more instrumental on the day-to-day. Obviously, you know, everyone hopes that she gets better and she's able to come back quickly from this leave of absence. You know, you can see a world in which she already has all these people

who normally report to a CEO reporting to her as the sort of sub-CEO. And so we'll see where, that path goes down. But yes, the sort of fracture in this report between Sam and Sarah Friar seems like the big element of it. Obviously, that's very damning if you have financial meetings and the CFO isn't involved and you're specifically not including the CFO. What does that suggest? Now, it might suggest that, who knows, Sam Aldman is saying like, look, I'm trying to come up with all these new methods of financing as he's talked about in the past. And maybe I just need someone to brainstorm with that's not our CFO because, of course, she'll say no or she'll, you know, lead us down a more traditional path. And I really need to think outside the box. I'm trying to come up with some

way in which, you know, you could say like, yeah, the CFO doesn't need to be in this very important financial meeting that she's normally involved in. But the reality is like it might be a bad sign or, you know, there might be something else going on. But it doesn't look good regardless optically, you know, from the outside. And of course, the company's going to say everything is hunky dory, just like they historically have always said with Microsoft and, and, you know, everything else, like, you know, nothing to see here. But there's always something to see with Open AI, as we've learned. Absolutely. And it's also interesting that that meeting leaked. Like, who leaked it? It probably was an Open AI. It seems like that was leaked by the investors.

Maybe someone who wasn't happy without the latest $122 billion funding round went down. I don't know. I mean, obviously, this is all just speculation. But that is an interesting. wrinkle as well. A top investor leaking this stuff is. By the way, the entire, um, press strategy around the $122 billion round was weird too. It's like, look, I get that they had, you know, it's again, we've talked, as we just mentioned, it's like a record raise. It's an incredible number. But they also had just announced the $110 billion raise, right?

And now, and then they felt the need to do a whole other cycle with Sarah Fryer going out there and talking to folks. Um, it sort of felt very, it felt like the most defensive. way to announce the biggest fundraise in history. You know, obviously they're under attack on a few fronts. You know, we talked about Anthropic and everything else going on, Google and et cetera, et cetera. But still, like, that whole cycle was just weird. Yeah, it's an up of, you know, an upgrade of 12 more billion dollars coming in, which, again, is incredible.

That's bigger than almost every fundraise ever, you know, not done by Open AI. That in and of itself, the delta between those two numbers. But still, it's like you just announced the 110. now you're announcing the 122 and like you're getting, you know, two bites of the Apple out of these things. And I don't, I don't know. There's weird, weird, weird optics around this if you just take a step back around a lot going on in Open AI. Well, MG, TBPN fixes this. You know that.

Yeah, we haven't even gotten into that. I mean, yeah. But like, yes, there's, there's so many weird things going on at the moment. One last thing about the revenue side. There's this chart in the information story. And for those of you in audio, I'll just kind of narrate it a little bit. It looks at OpenAI versus Anthropic revenue. And you could sort of see why they'd want to go public before Anthropic.

Because late last year, Anthropic was doing, looks like, about $10 billion in annualized revenue. And Open AI was over $20 billion. But now Anthropic has closed that. They're at $19 billion in annualized revenue. OpenAI, or the latest report has $25 billion. So if things continue at this rate, does Anthropics surpass Open AI in revenue? And what does that do to the IPO story? I think I actually asked Claude to do that extrapolation.

I'm trying to remember exactly a few weeks ago. And it did have them crossing. I think at some point next year, if memory serves. And, you know, it's obviously a moving target quite literally. But even that speaks to exactly like why OpenAI is doing this sort of product and in a way, business model pivot because of those very numbers, right? They see them too. Like they see that Anthropic is gaining steam. And we, you know, we talk a lot about like, yeah, Claude is getting consumer usage, which sort of they hadn't had historically or hadn't had a strong point there historically.

And that's big. But the key thing is, yeah, this Claude code usage driving these sort of enterprise. is to sign up for Anthropic versus using Open AI and how that is closing that gap as you're talking about. And so regardless of that being bad from a public company narrative when you're trying to go public, it's bad for the company overall because that's entirely why they're pivoting, it would seem, right? That's why they're doing everything and killing off these side quests and killing off SORA and just trying to focus because they see this real threat from what had historically been. their much smaller competitor.

Right. And so let's go to that because that also plays into some of this executive turnover here. Let me read from Spyglass, something that you wrote about OpenAI's Odyssey. You said, while Open AI was doing a million things to expand to any and all potential markets, Anthropic was focused on their core market. The game has changed and Open AI needs to change with it. Good thing they have that second CEO, Fiji Simo, with a range of experience at dynamic companies. It's hard to imagine that Altman could instill the discipline needed here.

Is he really going to be able to tell Johnny Ive, no, no, he's not. But it's fairly easy to see how Simo could. This may not be exactly why she was brought in and she'd clearly lived to focus on health and other initiatives, but here she is. And now she's on leave. Here she was. Yeah, unfortunately. But yeah, I mean, that is the sort of crux of everything going on right now within Open AI and just looking again at Anthropic. And what they end up doing here, it feels like it's a full on sprint now to get this quote unquote super app, you know, in place, bring in all the elements of Open AIs and ChatchibT in particular their strength and sort of see if they can use that strength with the big consumer installed base and mixed

with the sort of all the work they've been doing on codex and then whatever they're trying to do with Atlas, the browser, it sounds like that's going to be a piece of it as well. You know, bring this in and can they use that to sort of cut off the momentum that Anthropic has garnered over these past several months? And, you know, that's really what the sprint is, is all about. But again, at the same time, I go back to it's not just that they're sort of doing all of these, you know, this focus. It's also that they're, this is a different sort of muscle than they've needed to, you know, sort of adhere to in the past where, again, they're not selling directly to consumers. They're talking about selling into enterprise. And by all accounts, they've been doing a good job.

It seems like it's a fast-growing business codex for them. But it's still not nearly, you know, as big as Cloud Code is. And they've got cursor out there. And they've got, you know, and myriad other, you know, would be competitors. And so they like these next few months are going to be even more fascinating than they always are for OpenAI. The fact that, you know, these past few years have been, this has been arguably the most interesting company in the world to watch. And now these past these next few months seem like they're going to be absolutely vital to watch. MG, let me ask you, is this wise the fact that OpenAI is going to build this super app that will have a computer use or browser use, chat chip BT and Codex?

altogether. And Anthropic also has their own version of this super app, which is, you know, Claude and Co-work and Claude Code altogether. Do you think that this is the right use case to be running after, basically this AI code jockey that can just basically go do everything for you, even if you're not technical? I mean, I go back and forth a little bit on this, and as I think the companies do, right? It's like the famous bundling and unbundling quote, right? The Jim's, Jim Barksdale back in the day. It's just like companies always do this from meta. Meta famously has done this multiple times now, right? Where they have all these products inside of back in the day, Facebook, and then they start to unbundle them into their own sort of disparate products. And then later they've realized like, oh, actually we should bring them all back in together.

And so companies just bundle and unbundle. And open eye, again, it's just doing it a little bit faster. It feels like then sort of historically has been the. case. Do I think it's a good strategy? I think it's probably the right thing to do right now for them, because again, they have this massive user base with chat chit. They have what they feel like is a good competitive product in Codex. If they're able to bring the two of them together, I think that it makes sense in a world. If you truly believe that Codex is not just going to be coding for developers, if you believe it's going to be the future of sort of agentic software, that it's going to be meant for consumers as well as enterprise

and everything sort of all in one. Then I think it makes sense to do that. And I think that, you know, Claude right now sort of already has that baked in, right? Like they're all part of sort of the same, at least Mac app payload right now. I think there's other sort of variables that play with regard to mobile, like how you make this all work on mobile and what that might look. like, but at least for now, I think it probably makes sense and I think it's sound strategy to do it. There is a risk, though, obviously, that both like your app just becomes this bloated mess of

Microsoft Office and you've got drop downs and you've got drop downs of drop downs. And chat TBT has had this problem in the past, right, with the model picker and they had to simplify things. And so when you're bringing in two products together and potentially three, as we mentioned with Atlas in the mix as well, like does it just become the sort of thing that that, that consumers all of a sudden don't like because it's just like this, this Frankenstein of a product, Frankenstein's monster of a product. And so there's risk to it. But again, I think that their strategy is to basically leverage that chat CBT massive user base in order to, again, get out ahead or try to stop the growth of Anthropic that they're seeing. Right. And it is interesting because

there used to be like opening I was going after a consumer, Anthropic was going after Enterprise. Now they're going after the same thing. And it really is interesting. does take the experience to a different level, right? It goes from AI being a chatbot to AI being this like personalized agent for you that can help you with work or your personal life. And so I guess what I'm asking is, do you believe in that vision? Like, do you think that is appealing enough to pivot the entire company toward? And if it is, I mean, you're basically going to see OpenAI versus Anthropic head to head. So who do you think wins? So first, I do think that it is, again, I think it's directionally the right bet.

I think we've seen enough now of the early signs. And I think it was, frankly, I'm not sure how much it was Claude Code that drove this decision as much as it's Claude Co-work, right? The offshoot that sort of goes after the more, again, computer use, agenic use cases that are more meant for regular day, everyday usage of quote-unquote regular people, not just developers coding. where Open AI must have looked at that, mixed with what's been going on with OpenClaw, and just been like, look, we need to be the one go-to shop for everyone to do this. We already have ChatGBT, BT, which has sort of become the Kleenex of the ubiquitous brand within AI. And we have a risk of losing that if we're not there with these sort of agentic coding and agentic services. And again, it feels like it's early.

Even now, like with all the momentum and all the hype around these things, it still feels like it's too early for these things to really take off in a meaningful way on the mainstream. But I think that you're seeing everyone sort of go after little pieces of it. Again, we talked about OpenClaw. It felt like that was, you know, there's a movement behind that. But at the same time, it's sort of too obtuse, I think, for sort of everyday regular people to wrap their heads around. Claude code comes in and others perplexity and even Microsoft and some others are now trying to make it more, you know, regular user consumer friendly. These general ideas about using agents on your behalf, on your computer and letting them like sort of roam free and sort of trying to, yeah, sequester them or put them in their own little sandbox to make it a little bit safer so people aren't, you know, doing all the bad things that, you know, you can easily go on the path of.

And so you ask, do I think that Open AI or Anthropic has a better shot of sort of doing this? Again, Open AI with thanks to just ChattyBT BT has a huge, huge advantage in terms of just installed user base. And when they're shoving this new product, you know, this new super app in everyone's face, presumably in the next couple of months, they're going to have the opportunity to overtake certainly the momentum that Anthropic has. that said, Anthropic made the absolute right bet here, whereas Open AI seemingly did not, at least for where we stand right now. And everything they've done over the past few months has just been insanely impressive of how they've angled, you know, what seemed to be this enterprise-oriented company and product towards being able to do some things, which may or may not be the future of AI, at least in the relative short term. So I gave you a non-answer, but yeah, I mean. A lot of it is TVD. Yeah.

Right now, I would bet honestly on Anthropic doing it first, doing it better. But it really comes down to the timing of when Open AI gets this super app out there. And if the world is ready for sort of, yeah, all this, this agentic workflows that come in. And I still think it's early. And so I think that they'll have some time to be able to sort of catch up to all the work that Anthropics been doing. Which, by the way, just going back to the numbers for a second, when I looked at the published charts, whilst your journal published those charts, it's sort of incredible that Anthropic is where they are, given the relatively much smaller spend on compute versus Open AI, right?

And that's still going to be the case from these projections going forward. And it's not like, you know, in some cases, of course, you could argue open AIS models are a little bit better. by all accounts, like, Claude is near the top of most things, most of the leaderboards for most use cases. And again, they've done that without nearly the amount of spend, it seems like, from opening out. But that's going to hurt Anthropic, because it seems already like the demand for their services is outpacing what they were willing to invest in from a compute standpoint. That's just the sense I get from seeing the developers react. They just did this thing where they pulled back some of the Claude code from OpenClaught type instances. and if you're, it is interesting because Anthropics, like we're going to build with caution and Open AI is like we're going to build because we see the demand going this way, which is probably what's causing those issues with the CFO in the beginning.

But if you get to the point where the demand is outstripping your ability to deliver the service and you're delivering the same service as Open AI, people are going to go to Open AI. Yeah, and that's true. And we're seeing that right now, right? I think even today sort of Anthropic had had a bit of downtime. And I think that they're, they're probably just getting stretched in, you know, in ways that are very unnatural to them. And again, before when we were talking about when these two companies were going down separate paths, like that was basically, yeah, I wrote about that angle a little bit, like the two roads diverged, because it did feel like basically Anthropic was totally fine with letting OpenEI take on that KAPEX spend, that insane KAPX spend while they sort of, yeah, just sort of focused on their meat and potatoes and what they needed and sort of they were just going to spend for what they needed.

But yes, to your point, the flip side of that is that now opening eye may be in a the relatively better position from a pure capacity standpoint, right? But, you know, again, I'm sort of talking more about like the way that they've been able to not spend as much and still do the model training, you know, has been insanely impressive. Yeah. Without a doubt. But you're right. Like, yeah, if capacity ends up mattering far more, what is, what is anthropic story?

there because again, this is a company also trying to go public. And if they all of a sudden realize like we are badly, badly server constrained, we need to start cutting deals left and right with all of the neoclouds, with all of the big tech partners. The reality is like just everyone's constrained right now. So how are they going to be able to do that? By the way, every time that does happen, like OpenA had this issue at the end of last year where the demand outstripped their ability to deliver to the compute. They did go out and they made those deals. But you, you know, you're kind of over a barrel then and your margin goes down because you're paying so much for the data centers.

Yes. And that was the story of sort of the end of last year. And I think it's mentioned in one of those stories today, right? Like their margins are not going the wrong way. They've been going the wrong way. And it's largely sounds like it's just the under under appreciation for how inference costs would sort of go through the roof. And that's, yeah, again, that's demand and utilization of these things. Can I share like one perspective of the way I think this will go?

So you know how like these GPT5 series models, they'll give you an answer. And I think they've gone a little bit better at this. But like basically every question you've had, they've tried to do something useful for you. So they've been like, let me build you a PDF of that or give you a five-step plan and I'll make that an image. Or, you know, why don't I take that, you know, idea that you had for a business and then flesh it out and deliver to you in a dock? I think as all this stuff merges, that will end up being either a, let me build you an app that will be able to, you know, sort of handle some of these things that you want to do. Like, for instance, let's just take the fitness example. You know, okay, you have some, your key coming back to me with these fitness ideas.

I think I can build you an app that will sort of, you know, help you accomplish those goals. Or even take it a step further. Let's say you're asking, I'm just going to use an example from my world. Let's say you're asking it for help about like how to break a video into. chapters, and this is something I spoke with Greg Brockman about last week, you know, instead of just taking the transcript and breaking it into chapters, this thing will now want to go into Adobe Premiere and start the edit for you. It's going to just take that one step further because it knows what you're trying to do. It knows your interest. And having the ability to code and go out and get stuff

done, it can become proactive about suggesting these things and then do more than just give you that PDF or the business plan. That's interesting. When you're talking about that, my mind goes to the teaching Amanda Fish, you know, idea. And like, basically AI is saying, like, we know what you're trying to do. So we're just going to go ahead and do that so you can do this and you don't have to keep coming back over here and, you know, doing it step by step and slowly. One other thing that jogged in my head while hearing you talk through that, I do wonder if there's a way, and this is sort of delicate given privacy and whatnot. But like you think about how back in the day when YouTube and Netflix and just the sort of other services along those lines had to scale.

And they sort of realized like rather than, you know, sort of doing the same thing over and over again, they were able to sort of save up some of the content that they knew would be sort of pulled by, was going to be asked for by multiple people. And instead they would just serve, they've had one version of that and then they would distribute it out, right, to whoever asked for it. Like, is there a way in which, AI for some of these, you know, for some of these ideas and queries that are just getting asked over and over again. And maybe they're already doing this to some degree. But they can stop sort of trying to do everything on the fly and instead sort of go back to their own sort of broader

memory of things that have been asked in the past and sort of reference that up just as a way for like a, you know, they would never frame it this way, but it's like a good cost saving mechanism, right? Like when you don't have to do the same sort of queries over, or sorry, you don't have to run basically the models and do the inference over and over again because you already have a corpus of data that have people that have asked for this. I mean, considering that I would imagine the vast majority of users have the default toggle on to allow the AIs to train on my conversations, I mean, basically, you know, wittingly or not, most of us are giving these things permission to do this,

exactly what you said. Yeah. We'll see. We'll see. Yeah, it's going to get, like you said, I agree with you. It's going to get very interesting very quickly, especially over the next few months as we see this all play out. You know, IPO, notwithstanding, although that will add a new wrinkle to it and we'll be able to see even more data on the revenue numbers. Yeah, and I guess so if, as talked about, SpaceX is as confidentially filed, it sounds like they're targeting June. So if Open AI and Anthropic really want to go out and they're both said they're targeting Q4, at least that's those are the reports. They haven't said that, but those are the internal reports say that.

You know, we're looking at the end of, you know, summer, early fall when they would have to sort of file. And so those are the targets that we're going to be looking for and seeing what, how their businesses look at that point. Okay. I was going to say they should both wait, but they won't. But do you think they should wait? Maybe they should just go out now. I just raise, get out there, raise that money. I mean, how ready can you be?

That is the unstated thing here, which is that we can go back and forth about whether they should or not. But the reality is like given these numbers, Open AI is going to need to go public. Like they need the capital and anthropic as well. Like they basically have tapped into all of the possible, you know, private capital. I'm sure there's some other things out there. There will be other little like strategic things that come in. And I say little. I mean billions of dollars, of course.

Do you think the golf money is still in play given what's going on in Iran right now? That's a good question. And actually, because I thought that they were the next one, the final boss, then you IPO, but we haven't heard them mention at all. I mean,

some of it in there, right, MGX is one of the same ones. So there is already quite a bit of money in there. But yeah, I mean, Sam Maltman and Dario

have been spending time over there for reasons, right? They're establishing these relationships. So yes, that would be sort of the one final thing. But as you noted,

given all the turmoil in the region right now, it's a little bit tricky. But at the same time, there's other reports like there was headlines, is about today, just about the debt that, yeah, the Mideast wealth funds are putting into the Warner Brothers deal, which we previously talked about, right, for Paramount and Warner Brothers. And so they're

still apparently active, you know, doing that. And so it seems like they're still open for business. But still, at the end of the day, at some point, Open AI and Anthropic are going to have to go public in order to just access the amount, the sheer amount of capital and not meaning in one big slug. Because again, they're already raising rounds that are bigger than any IPO. But it's just like all different sort of instruments that you have access to when you have, you know, when you're a fully liquid public company and the different mechanisms you can use. Because remember again, like OpenAI in particular has had a really hard time. And this was in some of the reporting today as well, like with regard to trying to build their own data centers because they just, they don't have profits. Like what, how are they, you typically do that with debt? And they're having a hell of a time raising debt because of the financials of the company. And so, you know, if and when they go public, while they might not be profitable for some time, at the very least, they'll have, they'll have more avenues and more levers to pull in order to put some of those wheels in motion. All right. Let's go to a break because we have

plenty more to talk about, including what's going on with Siri and then the latest that we have on meta's attempt to diversify its business beyond advertising. So let's do that right after this. Starting something new isn't just hard. It's terrifying. So much work goes into this thing that you're not entirely sure will work out, and it can be hard to make that leap of faith. When I started this podcast, I wasn't sure if anybody would listen. Now I know it was the right choice. It also helps when you have a partner like Shopify on your side to help. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of business around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. From household names like Allbirds and Kodopaxi to

brands just getting started. With hundreds of ready-to-use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand style. Get the word out like you have a marketing team behind you. You can easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. It's time to turn those what-ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash big tech.

Go to Shopify.com slash big tech. That's Shopify.com slash big tech. If you think about it, most work isn't actually. hard, it's just repetitive, status updates, routing tasks, answering the same internal questions over and over again. These are the things that quietly eat up your team's hours every week. That's where Notion's new custom agents come in. Notion is an AI power connected workspace for teams. Notion brings all your notes, docs, and projects into one space that just works. It's seamless, flexible, powerful, and actually fun to use. And with AI built in, you spend less time switching

between tools and apps and more time creating great work. And now with Notion's, new custom agents, the busy work that used to take hours or never actually happened at all, runs itself. What's interesting here is these agents don't just respond to prompts. They run on triggers and schedules. So once they're set up, they operate more like embedded systems. Try custom agents now at notion.com slash big tech. That's all lowercase letters. Notion.com slash big tech to try custom agents today. And when you use our link, you're supporting our show. That's notion.com slash big tech. Notion.com slash big tech. If a driver in your fleet got in an accident tomorrow, can you prove what actually happened

without the footage? It's much harder. So your insurance rates spike and you're stuck paying for it. That's why so many fleets choose Samsara's AI-powered dash cams. Clear video evidence, real-time alerts, and coaching tools that help prevent accidents before they happen. Samsara AI helps reduce crash rates by nearly 75%. For instance, the city and county of Denver,

saw a 50% reduction in false claims against them and a 94% reduction in safety events overall. This is the kind of visibility that every operation manager needs. Don't wait for the next accident to take action. Head to somsara.com slash big tech to request a free demo and see how somsara brings visibility and safety to your operations. That's samsara.com slash big tech. Somsara, operate smarter.

And we're back here on big technology, podcast with M.G. Siegler of Spyglass. You can find Spyglass at Spyglass.org. One of my must reads definitely recommend you go check it out and sign up. All right, MG. So, you know, I kind of titled this section is seriously still broken because it does seem like we keep getting more and more big plans from Apple about what Siri can be. But yes, here we are in April 2026. nearly it's going to be a couple months away from four years after chat jpcdia's launched and the thing is still terrible so let's just talk about the latest and then we can kind of riff on on what the vision year is and whether they'll be able to accomplish it you highlighted some

reporting from mark german at bloomberg that uh where german said that apple is testing a dedicated Siri app for the iPhone the app's main interface will display prior conversations and either a list or a grid of rounded rectangles with text previews. Users can pin favorite chats, save older conversations, search across interactions, and start new chats. The conversation view resembles a thread in Apple's messages app. You also, I'm sorry, German also highlighted that one new design in testing places for Siri is at the top of the screen within the dynamic island.

There are also some reports that it's going to use the action button on the phone. So it is interesting. It seems like Apple is basically kind of warming to the idea that it's going to bake a chatbot app or Siri, the chatbot app built on top of Google directly into the operating system, whether that's above the dynamic island in its own app, using an action button or a combination of all the above. But yet again, you know, Siri is not really ready to do that. So what do you think this is all about? What do you think this means? Where do you think it's going? And do you think Apple is capable of pulling it off?

I think this is a good sign. The fact that they're going to do a standalone app, you know, per German's reporting. I actually had written about this last year that it seemed wild to me that they weren't going to do it, right? Because the previous reporting had said that Siri was going to sort of remain as it has been over the past 15 years where it's sort of in the background and you invoke it by either saying, you know, hey, so and so, which I don't want to do because I'll trigger all of my devices. now or using some sort of software or button or whatnot. But now if they have an app, it felt like they needed to do that because that is basically the standard, thanks to chat GPT, that everyone is used to now. Like you go to, you say like, oh, I'm going to use AI to do this and you either, you know, at the very least you're loading up then a website to do it. But on a phone, you're definitely

loading an app. You're not talking to Siri in the background. And so it felt like this was a type of thing that historically Apple would learn the hard way, meaning like they'd roll it out, they wouldn't have the app, people would be confused and not understand like where series app is, and then they would eventually launch the app. But instead, it feels like they're getting ahead of it by doing that and sort of recognizing like this is the reality of the market, even though they've historically said. They've just historically by many reports now, you know, in the past have disparaged the idea of a chatbot and an app, right, for those things. They thought that AI would be some bigger, more grandiose thing where it's, again, running in the background and a part of every app and doesn't need to be its own standalone thing.

But that's not the reality of the market right now. The reality is like people are going to want this chat app and they're going to want a repository to see what they've asked before. And they had no way to do that without building an app. And so I think it's a good sign. You know, yes, everything continues to be delayed, but it's obvious now that they're just waiting for WWDC coming up. They announced the dates of it. coming up next June, which will be the two-year anniversary of when they last announced, you know, everything that was coming before famously, infamously having to pull back all the things that they just couldn't ship on time. And so I'm getting more optimistic as time is going on that I think that

they're going to do it right this time, that they have obviously the deal in place with Google to use Gemini and Gemini is going to underpin, you know, the Siri models. And now the new reports that they're going to allow other third parties potentially to come in there, including, obviously, they've already had chatGBT as a part of it. I think it's way too buried for what it's been right now. It's way too buried within Siri. But if they make it more of a first class citizen and along with Claude, if you wanted, Claude, if you wanted perplexity, if you wanted any number of other sort of apps, they'll just allow them to plug right into it on top of their baseline Siri powered by Gemini. I think that's the right approach. And I'm getting optimistic. I know this sounds foolish.

Given the 15 years, given we've been fooled every single year for those 15 years. But I think that they're starting to sort of come into focus on what this should look like for them. Interestingly, their perspective of, yeah, it's got to be a chat bot app kind of is now changing places with the others, which are like it should be an AI that is sort of magical and baked into all programming. Hey, it's baby steps. This is Apple. Like they're always going to be, you know, late to the game. And that's the real risk with AI, right? even at a bigger level.

Like the AI moves so fast relative to other technology. And Apple historically has come into markets later than, you know, than competitors and sort of, you know, quote unquote, done it right, done it correctly. And so that might be the case here where they make the most beautiful, the best sort of AI chat app that anyone's ever done. And it makes the others sort of look, you know, much worse, more childish or whatnot. And then everyone else, though, has moved on to these agentic full-on. service suites of of AI and Apple then has to sort of go back to the drawing board and

try to hustle to come up with that as quickly as possible. Right. I mean, it is interesting. Like Apple still hasn't gotten chatbot right and open AI and Anthropic are already on to the next thing. And you sort of highlight this in your story. You talk about the biggest issue or the bigger issue remains that by outsourcing the core work to Google, Apple might never be able to catch up from a pure technology standpoint, and this encumbers the true what's next shift in hardware. And I think this kind of points, we've been having these, like,

debates back and forth on the show for a little bit about whether Apple was actually right and not making these big investments in AI development and sort of what does it lose if it just implements, like Google's technology into its products and doesn't have to do all that big R&D spend. But I think the answer really is that if you don't do the R&D spent, you're in a, you're working in a technology world,

that's going to be passing you by. And by the time you catch up on, you know, step one, your competitors can be at step three or four. And it's basically at their whims as to whether you're even able to participate in that game. That's the problem. Yeah. And sort of so I think that that's all correct. And there's also the sort of the second order effect of that, which is that, look, they may or

may not be behind on the product side and with the models. but what if even just by not sort of competing in that space, well, it may make a lot of sense financially, they run the real risk that they just never get the right DNA within the company and the right mentality to really be able to compete in AI. And if you believe that it's the future technology that sort of permeates everything, there's a real risk that they just don't have, again, that right mindset. And they are constantly, like, as you know,

running a step behind and or, you know, they don't quite have all the right people in place to be able to execute on this. And as we just talked about, like, this is technology that's moving faster than any other technology that's come before it. And so it's not just being behind. It's that they will fall increasingly further and further and further behind. And I do think that that's a real risk. And it's also like, it goes back to the notion that, you know, Apple has long sort of adhered to, which is that like, you know, if the whole mentality of if you want to, uh, you know, prove yourself, uh, in computing, you've, in, in, in hardware, you've got to, sorry, in software, you've got to make hardware.

And it's like, what if in order to prove yourself in this next phase of computing, like, you also have to sort of make your own AI, like, that's a part of it. And Apple is sort of seeding that to Google right now. And you'd hope, like, they have their own projects, obviously that they've been working on internally. You'd hope that this is just a stopgap measure. But at the same time, what if they, they could. can never bridge that gap because they're just, you know, going and seeding that work right now.

And this is almost the perfect setup for what we had planned to speak about next, which is should they acquire anthropic? Now, it's been floated in the discourse, shall we say, that maybe Apple should try to acquire anthropic. And you wrote about it a little bit over the past month. We never really spoke about it too much in depth on the show just because it seemed like Dario just I couldn't imagine Dario selling that company to Tim Cook and being a subsidiary of Apple. And now also the finances might just be unworkable for Apple's a $3.8 trillion company. And Anthropic is probably going to go public at a trillion. So, you know, maybe more than a fourth of Apple would have to go towards buying Anthropic. But let's throw that aside, throw that skepticism aside and just give you the floor here to talk about what an acquisition like this could look like.

Yeah. And this was, to be clear, like more of a thought experiment. I couched it, right, like that I don't think this is going to happen. But I did think my jumping off point was the, you know, as we've talked about in previous episodes, the anthropic and DOD situation. Right. Like that to me made a unique moment in time potential here, right? where Anthropic was under attack from the government and still is. And so would they, you know, be potentially more amenable to doing a type of acquisition,

meaning getting acquired by one of the big tech companies in order to protect them and, you know, and ensure that they can continue to do what their mission is? And if you look around the landscape, like, who's the only real of the big tech companies that sort of would fully buy into maybe that vision? like it does seem like Apple and Anthropic are the most aligned, which is sort of ironic because Apple is the one company that I think is not an investor now of the big tech companies in Anthropic because they're not an investor in any of them.

They famously went down the path with Open AI, but didn't end up doing it. And so it does feel like there's some real natural alignments there. Now, would Darya work there? Would he dare sell a company that's potentially going to go public at a trillion dollar valuation? Again, it's a unique moment in time given the risk that they face right now. And on the flip side, for Apple, everything we just talked about, yeah, that's exactly it.

It feels like they need to do something. There's a world in which they need to do something that's a true game change deal. And it's not making these $100 million purchases here and there, which they do from time to time of talents. And those are good. And obviously Apple has run that game plan as well as anyone. over the past couple of decades. But this would be more like, you know, I hate to invoke the idea of buying next and bringing Steve Jobs on, which was a much smaller deal relative to what this would be, of course.

But still, that was a game change deal that really changed the DNA of the company, right? And this hypothetical, theoretical deal would be along those lines in that. I think it would be about much more than bringing on a great product and, you know, a great potential business, it would be about changing the DNA of the company and really getting them geared up for the next phase of whatever the AI future is. And right now, it's hard to see for everything we just talked about how they do that without some sort of real mentality shift and something that totally changes the culture to do that. So that's my argument. I was going to say, I couldn't really imagine Dario as a product manager at Apple. But then again,

we know they've been looking for a successor to Tim Cook. I don't know. That would never happen. He would be the head of AI, obviously. Yes. You know, he'd be the John G. Chief AI officer. But would he still be okay with that?

I don't know. I mean, again, you would have Apple's unlimited resources. They would never have to worry about fundraising. Well, presumably if they struck the right deal with Apple. They would never have to worry about that. Like Apple has more profits that they could funnel into this. And again, if you believe like Google's got deep mind, Microsoft had Open AI, now they have their own, you know, version that they're working on internally, the My stuff and their own super intelligent stuff. Amazon's obviously working on their own internal super intelligence stuff internally.

And so Apple, can they really afford to just partner? Like, yes, literally they can afford it. That's why it's a great deal in that they're not spending all the money on CapEx that all of their rivals are. But there's still a real risk of that. And everyone points to like, oh, Apple's going to get the last laugh here. But there's a real, real longer term risk for the company by not going down this path. Totally agree. All right.

Before we go, we should definitely spend a couple minutes on meta. They just haven't been able to put together the next hit. And we can talk about reality labs. Clearly, whatever's happening on AI within that company. I mean, maybe there's, you know, sometimes. you can have delayed progress where you need a couple of years of research to put something together. They don't have a competitive LLM. And again, it's the same problem as Apple.

They're now, you know, not one, but two generations behind what the cutting edge is. And so what do you think the state of, what do you think that says about where meta is today, where it says what it says about Zuckerberg, the fact that they are unable to come up with that next hit and certainly have not been able to diversify away from advertising. Yeah, I've swung around a little bit here. Because when they first sort of announced the scale deal that sort of was the effective end of the Lama strategy and their new path going forward, I wrote a post like just saying like Ken met up by the future of AI and my thesis was no that I felt like they were basically buying up mercenaries and it would require a team of true believers in the mold of sort of anthropic. I think was the main example I used to be able to actually do this.

And then, you know, all this stuff happened, a lot happened, obviously, in the subsequent months. But like, certainly with Elon spinning up XAI and how we got that data center up so quickly. And basically it felt like maybe you could just throw money at the problem, right? And you could basically get up to speed quickly. Fast forward, you know, a couple months ago, there's new reporting that, well, actually, it looks like XAI for all that money spent. And the models, by all accounts, are good. but it's not good enough. It doesn't matter, right? Like, what's the point? Like, what's, what's X-A-I doing? And meta, all that money spent, the billion spent. And now they have to delay,

they delayed, you know, potentially their new work. And it seems like that work is definitely feels like it's being couched in the public comments about it. It's like, oh, it's going to be a good first step, but it's not going to, you know, be competitive with the Gemini's of the world and the cutting-edge models. And so there's also a world now, it seems like, in which all of that money, you could spend all the money in the world and you still can't catch up to what the leading edge is. And or even being at the leading edge, it doesn't matter because the chat EBTs of the world and now Claude with Claude code, they have the mind share advantage where they're just going to be locked into these cycles where they just keep improving

and it's sort of the self-improvement stuff. It just makes them better and better faster and faster, just like Google leverage back in the day with search engine, where they were able to just out-compete the bings of the world and the Yahoo's of the world because, again, it just was self-fulfilling in a way. And so it feels sort of like that we're into that. And now meta, you know, is, yeah, there's all these reports about these little new superintelligence projects that they're spinning up and these new groups and all this other sort of stuff. And again, the reports, you know, that they say on the record, everything is great. And we're making progress and yada, But the posts that you're sort of alluding to that I wrote about where they weren't, you know, they just, they don't have a good track record over the past decade plus of launching new things.

Obviously with the metaverse being, you know, the prime example. But several other projects, they had a crypto project, DM, and, you know, they've had many, many other things that just have gone nowhere. And, and of course, they had Zuckerberg's big initiative of going after encryption. And that was going to be the future of social networking. and that was going to be the future of the company. And now they're pulling back on that because, again, they don't get, they don't seem to get traction unless they acquire something. And we're in the tricky position where who were they going to acquire besides scale? And that seems like, you know, maybe a problematic deal that they did there.

Yeah, I don't think that worked. You know, it's interesting because I was thinking back to like the old developer conferences that Meta used to hold. and Zuckerberg put like a 10-year roadmap. And I remember being in the audience in 2016 specifically. And he was basically right on the roadmap that there was going to be some technology development. And then AI was sort of at the end of the tunnel. And here we are. And yet they also like Apple, don't have much to show for it.

And not only that, super intelligence labs, like it's already seen some departures. We don't know what Alexander Wang is really doing within the company. you know, from the chatter I've heard, you know, there's definitely been some disputes with him and I met a leadership about the, you know, the path forward. And what are you going to do to him? You just paid, you know, billions of dollars to bring him and some of his team on board. And now, and this is, again, just according to reports, but the company might be staring down the barrel of a massive layoff that could be en route, you know, between now and the next time we speak and you put it all together and you're just like, you know, they, you know, they,

got maybe a couple more shots at the AI getting this AI thing right. Other other than that, they, they look like, um, they look kind of like a potential Yahoo, right? Where like they got advertising right and it's the one thing they do right and they're going to live off it for a while. But, you know, anything we know about Mark Zuckerberg is that, that has effectively been his greatest nightmare. Yeah. That's, uh, that's an interesting analogy. I hadn't thought about that, but I could see why you draw that. The difference would be that Zuckerberg is there. And while like Jerry Yang tried to come back, as you'll recall, to Yahoo,

and they almost sold to Microsoft for $40 some billion back in the day with it and Steve Bummer days, Zuckerberg has total control of the company, right? From the stock on down, he is in control. And so it's a strength and probably a weakness in ways. right, where like they do, as he goes, so goes meta. And so he leads them down the metaverse path. And maybe he was wayward in that, right? And maybe he was distracted to your point of like they, he had the roadmap for knowing

AI was coming. So did Google, by the way. And Sundar's been talking about that for for a decade plus, right? The difference is Google actually execute upon it. And meta so far has not, even though they brought in Jan Lacoon. And even though, you know, they tried to buy deep mine back in the day and sort of failed at it. And again, that led to Jan Lacoon coming in potentially and sort of they had the right pieces in place, but they have not been able to sort of, for whatever reason, zero in on it.

And some of me, part of me just wonders, again, going back to that post, it's like, they're good at acquisitions. They're one of the best companies ever at acquisitions. But when they're not making acquisitions, like, they're not that great. Like, they've been good in sort of copying snap and stuff like that, right? Even in a way you could call that at, an acquisition, an acquisition of another idea. Here, they have not been able to both acquire, you know, potentially the game-changing company

that gets them into the AI race in a meaningful way and or clone, as they're obviously trying to do now, the game plan of others. And so what changes that? Now, Zuck and everyone else at Meta would probably say it's the glasses, right? Like that they have a foothold in the early part

of, you know, the next paradigm shift in terms of new devices. We'll see. I mean, they're certainly successful right now, but it's super small compared to a lot, certainly compared to the iPhone, and it still relies upon the iPhone. And so, like, what else are they going to come out with,

you know, it sounds like a risk device, you know, they've been working on and several other, I'm sure, Skunkwork projects that they have right now. And that's going to be the hope for it. Because otherwise they're just competing, again, with all of these sort of already more established players, in AI. And so they need to come up with something that actually changes the game and they're

not just chasing and they're actually leading. And again, the glasses are probably the best place they have right now. But we'll see what happens when Google and Apple and everyone else comes out with their competing products. Like that's going to be fascinating. Because beyond even the technology angle of it, like, remember, Apple has a retail footprint all around the world. They're going to be able to move any sort of product that they put out there. And if it's fairly priced, if it's not the Vision Pro pricing strategy, they're going to have an advantage over meta in a number of ways. And it really becomes, you know, trying sort of a foot race as to like, what's the better strategy in terms of, you know, getting these newfangled devices out there.

I know we're over time, but I just want to end on this. Sebastian Maliby has this book about Demis Asab, the head of Google, Deep Mind coming out. And there was this excerpt published in the Wall Street Journal. And it just made me, you made me think about it when you. you talked about how good meta has been at buying and about how Zuckerberg has sort of been all over the place and his bets. And this anecdote just brings it together perfectly. So Demis Sabaabas was on the West Coast when he, when Deep Mine was still independent to have lunch with Larry Page from Google and Zuckerberg heard about it and invited him to dinner. This is from the excerpt.

Arriving at Zuckerberg's Palo Alto home, Hasabas administered a subtle test on him. The two men discussed the potential of AI and Zuckerberg expressed appropriate excitement. But then as the dinner continued, Hasabas brought up other hot technologies. Virtual reality, augmented reality, 3D printing, Zuckerberg sounded equally excited about all of them that told me what I needed to know. Hasab said later, Facebook offered more money, but I wanted somebody who really understood why AI would be bigger than all those things. And then he sold to Google. oof, that's painful. That is an expensive dinner in what he didn't get to spend on potentially acquiring the future of his company. And it, of course, harkins exactly right to the future where by the reporting, the founder of OpenClaw, you know, wanted Mark Zuckerberg wanted to bring him on board as well and maybe offered more money as well. And he went to Open AI. And again, history repeats itself. So. Yeah, not a great look.

Website is spyglass.org. M.G. Siegler, of course, is our guest. First Monday of every month. MG, great to see you. Thanks for coming back on. Thanks, Alex. Talk soon. All right, speak with you soon.

Thank you, everybody, for listening and watching. And we'll see you next time on Big Technology Podcast.