David Senra - Gustav Söderström, Spotify

Episode Date: June 7, 2026

Gustav Söderström is the Co-Chief Executive Officer of Spotify, the world's largest streaming platform, with more than 760 million users across 180 countries. He earned a master's degree in electrical engineering from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, founded Kenet Works in 2003 — a mobile community software company acquired by Yahoo! in 2006 — and later co-founded 13th Lab, an augmented reality startup acquired by Facebook's Oculus division. He joined Spotify in 2009 and spent the next 18 years building the product and technology organization from the inside, rising from Chief Product and Technology Officer to Co-President before becoming Co-CEO alongside Alex Norström at the start of 2026. Spotify survived an existential challenge from Apple, which launched Apple Music in 2015 and told its teams internally they would kill Spotify within six months. Spotify's answer was a three-part strategy: a stronger free tier, superior personalization, and ubiquity across non-Apple hardware. All three bets paid out. The throughline in everything both Söderström and Spotify build is a conviction that media should be time well spent. Spotify surveyed users anonymously across major platforms and found that Gen Z valued roughly 90% of their time on Spotify, while regret rates on competing platforms topped 60%. That data formalized what had been an instinct: expand only into categories that are good for users — music, podcasts, audiobooks, fitness. He believes this is not just the right thing to do; it is what makes Spotify durable. His current bet is that AI gives every user a direct conversation with the product — and that Spotify should be first. He has been preparing since 2017, when he read the Transformer paper days after publication and evangelized internally. His principle: periods of change are when market share moves, and the companies that win are the ones that get there first. Show notes: https://www.davidsenra.com/episode/gustav-soderstrom Chapters (00:00:00) How Gustav Prepared To Become CEO (00:02:30) There Is No Right Org (00:05:06) Synchronized Swimming At Spotify (00:09:25) You Ship Your Org Chart (00:10:31) Why Apple's Functional Org Works (00:11:48) Tenure Is The Key (00:13:31) Oracle vs. Elon On Churn (00:16:41) Finding Your North Star (00:18:24) Choosing Pain For Distribution (00:19:21) Prioritize The User Over Yourself (00:23:05) The No Regrets Strategy (00:25:21) Building A Running Playlist With AI (00:27:35) Figuring Out What To Spend Your Life On (00:30:01) Being Honest About Doing Good (00:32:25) The Anti-Engagement Decision (00:34:50) Giving Users Control Of The Algorithm (00:37:57) The 1-9-90 Power Law (00:40:23) Getting Into AI Early (00:43:55) You Are Your Thoughts (00:48:22) Building Tools That Enhance Humanity (00:49:45) The Genius Of The Kindle (00:51:57) When Steve Jobs Came To Kill Spotify (00:54:24) Three Bets Against Apple (00:57:07) Building A Personal AI Agent (01:00:55) Premeditated Media (01:02:27) Who Tells You The Truth (01:05:16) The Vulcan Mind Meld Of Tenure (01:07:28) Hiring For Spikes And Fresh Blood (01:10:14) What Keeps Him Up At Night Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So I text Daniel Eck this morning. I was like, hey, I'm recording with Gustav. You've known him for two decades. Tell me what I should ask him. And he was asking to tell you how he prepared for the CEO role. We did something quite unusual. Can you describe what happened? Daniel is very big on preparing.

You know, Daniel. He's not very rationalist decisions. And so this was one of those decisions as well that I think grew with him for a long time. So already about three years ago, he asked me and Alex Nordstrom to step up and become co-presidents and sort of start to run the day-to-day of Spotify for him. He was still the CEO. And so he's been gradually giving us more and more rope to run the business day-to-day and week-to-week and the month-to-month.

So when it actually came to sort of taking over CEOs, we already knew that part, like by heart. And we had ran it for three years, the full P&A and Balanchet and so forth. And then there was still a lot of new stuff to learn, you know, all the stuff that was Daniel's responsibility alone, like, you know, P. government being the public face of the company, but we were very well prepared for taking over the business. I think that's unique with Daniel. I worked for Daniel for almost 18 years, and I don't think I'll work for anyone except Daniel again. I've had both great bosses and not so great bosses. Daniel is the great one. And he's incredibly delegating,

you know, already from the start. I remember when I joined Spotify, it was back in 2008, 2009. And then we were going to go to the US. And Daniel knew Suck at Mata, then Facebook. And we wanted to do this pretty deep integration with him. And I was new on the job at Spotify. And Daniel just said, like, can you just go there and, like, talk to Suck and Netta and, like, or Facebook at the time and, like, set this up?

I'm like, that's a lot of trust for someone who's new. He's always been like super delegating. And that is also, I think, why I've stuck around for almost 18 years because you get, you get so much responsibility. It's like you get a new job almost every year. And so this is a co-CEO or co-president partnership that he started three years ago was one of those journeys where, you know, Alex and I got to step up and try taking on the full business.

We actually change completely how we run the company from the way Daniel runs it. Say more about that? You know, when it comes to organization models in the, themselves. This is not something I came up with. I think, you know, Stevensonovsky said there's a bunch of, you just can't win. There's no organizational model, you know, there are many, and they all work. Like Amazon is organized in a certain way, a trillion dollar company, Apple in another way, also trillion, even another way, also produces trillion-dollar companies. So there is no right way. You just have to pick one that fits your personality. So I actually think organizations

are quite based on personalities. And Daniel has a very, very much. very specific personality, I think. He is not the typical sort of, I mean, you know him well, but he's not the typical sort of alpha male founder, which I think is one of the reasons why it's so successful in this type of business. Because if you think about what Spotify is, yes, it's a technology company doing sort of hardcore technology innovation. But it's also a media company working in an industry with a bunch of, you know, first music labels and then book publishers and podcast publishers,

some of these very, very big personalities in the media business, as you can imagine. So he needed to be able to both rally a team and build world-class technology, but also get all of these people with the big personalities to work together and get to do something that they didn't want to do individually and not as a group. And I still don't understand exactly how we managed to get all of these people to do sort of what he wanted. But it certainly wasn't through like Alpha Male 4,

It was through not being threatening, being very logical. He's very humble, but I think maybe most Americans specifically can mistake humbleness for weakness. It's the opposite. He's insanely tenacious, insanely tenacious. Just never gives up. So he has a very specific leadership style, and that shipped a company. And as I said, there are a bunch of incredible advantages to his leadership style. One thing that I think, you know, that I choose to do differently is Daniel loves to talk in a star pattern one-on-one with many people.

So he would talk to me about something, separate meeting then with Alex Nordstrom about something, the same thing, but from, you know, the business angle. And then maybe with PR and finance, he just talked in a star pattern. He doesn't like to have meetings, everyone in the room. And that can be frustrating in time, you know. It's like, it says something to me, something to Alex, and then Alex and I meet. I'm like, this is what we're going to do. And Alex is like, not quite. That's not what he said to me.

And so then we go back and we call him out on it, you know. But he likes that star pattern. Alex and I chose to do something very different. We chose to synchronize the whole company. And so you can think about Spotify as sort of a two function org. I run product and technology by and large. Alex runs sort of business and content by and large. But instead of sort of doing the divide and conquer,

which is a good idea. You divide and conquer because it's more effective, but it has the cost that you're unsynchronized. So instead of doing the divide and conquer in separate swim lanes, we do this thing which I've called synchronous synchronized swimming. We're kind of swimming together,

which is much harder to do than competitive swimming. And when you mess it up, it is ugly to look at. But when you do it well, it's a beautiful thing to look at. So we decided to, instead of having the usual sort of, you know,

I meet with my direct report, and we talk about product and technology. He meets with his and talks about business and content. And then our people meet in the org somewhere, and they fight it out, which is how most companies work. We chose to say, we're not going to have our own leadership meetings. We have a single one with all of our SVPs. So we have a single meeting every Tuesday called the E-Team for three hours

with all the SVPs of all the internal functions, like, you know, marketing ads, subs, but also, you know, all the product and technology functions in the same meeting. How many people are in this meeting? It's about 14 people. Okay. What happens is we meet every week to talk through the entire company. So we talk through, you know, machine learning problems that are blocking on someone, experience problems where, you know, we want to ship this music video feature and so forth.

But often that music video feature is blocked maybe on a licensing discussion that sits in Alex's org. So the whole reason for the E-Team meeting was that previously, actually under Daniel's sort of tenure, we were in so many meetings where someone said like, well, I'm blocked on that person in that org. And that person is not in the meeting. So people said, let's take it offline. And we got so tired of hearing this phrase, let's take it offline, that we did a team meeting. And we said, you're never allowed to say, let's take it offline again. Everyone that represents all functions should be in this one meeting.

So that when you say, like, I'm blocked on licensing, well, licensing is right there across the table. Now, let's talk it out in real time. So we change how the company operates and we have this synchronized operating model that is expensive in time. You have, you know, 14, 15 people times three hours per week. That's a lot of leadership time. And the conversations are not relevant for everyone at every time. Sometimes we talk a lot about content that may be not that relevant or ad strategy that may not be that relevant to someone in the personalization order. But the cool thing is we talk about everything.

We talk about P&Ls and balance sheets and we talk about machine learning problems. in there. So you have now 14 people that have the full CEO perspective. Yeah, I was going to say, you used the word not relevant. I just finished reading Kelly Johnson's autobiography. He's the one that did skunk works inside Lockheed. And his whole thing, it was like no separation between any department, like engineering, designing, manufacturing. It's all the same thing. We're all working together. We all want the same amount, like the same context, the same shared base of knowledge. So it's like, it is kind of relevant. It's just a question of time scale. So this thing about, you know, the person and experience

understanding a lot about the ad stack. It won't seem that relevant right then. But then like the fact that this person understands how we make money is going to affect our product decisions in the future when they build a product. Because guess what? There are ads in the product. So now they're not going to make decisions that go against

our monetization strategy. So it is very relevant. It's just relevant on a longer time scale. So I think of it as investment. But it is contrarium. I think many people would say like you should not sit in a meeting. I hear people saying like the same, like the second year in a meeting, you feel is not fully relevant, leave.

Elon says this, right? And like I said, he's not wrong. He's built some of the most successful companies on earth. It's just different approaches. We've chosen this approach. So we have a very senior group that has a complete perspective of the company. And I think that's right for our company, because there's so many dependencies between, you know,

licensors and relationships we have and contracts we have and how we can build a product and, you know, all of these things. it's very hard to divide and conquer a product like Spotify. And I think, you know, there's this truth out there that eventually your org chart shows up in your product. Yeah. And because we have a single experience strategy, our strategy is literally a super app. We try to build first music, then podcast and books and more things into a single product. I think our biggest risk is to ship the org chart.

So if we divided it and said, everyone just run in parallel, I think it will feel very good for about six months. then the experience would just start crumbling because you're externalizing all that complexity to the user instead of taking the fight internally and coming up with like a single experience. So in terms of organization models, you have functional orgs where has the benefit of clear ownership,

but supposedly hard to cooperate when you want two functions to work together. You have the matrix org which has the benefit that it optimizes for sort of the use case, but it's unclear even who you're reporting to. Then you have sort of the division-based org, like a riot games, you know, you're organized by game. You break out the technology platform into its own org.

Amazon is actually kind of a gaming org, like divisional with a strong platform underneath. And so on that scale, I've chosen to be actually very close to Apple because I think they cracked the problem of building something that is very, very complex underneath the surface, like insanely complex. And it still feels like it was built sort of by a single person for a single person. So tell me how you think Apple's run then. What I think is interesting about Apple is, when I look at it from the outside, it's a functional org. And functional orgs, I used to work at Yahoo for a while. At where? At Yahoo.

I sold one of my company is there. And I thought I didn't learn anything there, but I learned a lot about what not to do. It was a completely messed up company back then as well. I think I had four COs in like two and a half years or something. But all the EVPs and they fought each other to the death and tried to hide information from each other. So supposedly on paper, I think Apple should not be very well positioned to be able to build that kind of products. I was marveled that why aren't those functional leads just fighting each other? That's what usually happens.

The only answer I've come to us, I've spoken to people there, is that it actually has to do with tenure of leadership, which is one of the principles I've also tried to internal as Spotify. So they have very long tenure at the senior leadership, which means that these functional leads have found a way. to work together to synchronize. So sometimes it's the hardware function that innovates and takes the lead and then, you know, software and services follow. And sometimes it's a software function

that takes the lead and they follow. That only works if you have super high trust in the leadership, which I think stems all the way back from Steve Jobs, and they manage to keep that. But in theory, I think functional works tend to dissolve into politics. Without the tenure.

Without the tenure. So at Spotify, most of the people that work for me, Many have worked for me for 14, 15 years. I think the average is maybe seven, eight years. And then it works to have a functional work. But if you don't have trust in the leadership, I think functional works just dissolve into politics.

I want to tell you about the presenting sponsor of this podcast, Ramp. I have been reading a lot about SpaceX lately. SpaceX is one of the most valuable private businesses in the world. And one of the main themes in the history of SpaceX is constantly attacking and questioning your cost. Ramp helps many of the most innovative businesses in the world do exactly that. The median company running on ramp cuts their expenses by 5%. And one thing SpaceX has demonstrated is that a religious dedication to controlling costs can help actually increase revenue because you can pursue opportunities you couldn't otherwise. And we see that in

the ramp data too. The median company running on ramp also grows their revenue by 16%. So when you're running your business on ramp and your competitors are not, you have a massive competitive advantage that compounds over time. Ramp is the only platform designed to make your finance team faster and happier. Many of the top founders and CEOs I know run their business on Ramp. I run my business on Ramp, and you should too.

Go to Ramp.com to learn how they can help your business save time, save money, and grow revenue. That is ramp.com. This speaks to your previous statement that there's not one right way to do it. There's multiple different ways. I just had this conversation with Mr. Beast, and we talked about this.

and because, you know, I was like very curious, especially in media, like your top creative talent is so hard to manage and to integrate to keep. I was like, do you have a lot of turnover on, I'm not talking about like the people on the production. I mean, your actual, your top five most talented people are. There's a lot of turnover there. And he's a huge fan of founders. And so we talk about entrepreneur history every time we speak. And I was like, what's interesting to me is you take Larry Ellison, who he believed that one of the secrets of success oracles, the fact that they kept I think he said the core kernel of the product team together for like two decades or something

like that, or maybe a decade and a half. And you take Elon Musk, who, again, Larry mentored, Elon says that, you know, one of the few people he goes to it for advice is actually Larry Ellison, who says the opposite. He's like, I want fresh blood. I want to keep churning through people as possible. It's like, oh, it's like, Oracle's super successful. Elon's super successful. Exactly.

I think this is the whole thing. You can't win. You can only not lose as much. So the way I think about it, you have a bunch of organizational principles. And as I said, as I joined Spotify and had to like, when I was at Yahoo, I said I never want to work in a big org. I joined Spotify when it was like 30-something. I never expected it to get to thousands. Eventually I had to do the big org thing.

And then I try to read a lot about organizational principles and models. And I think at the time, I read a lot of Stevensonovsky. Yeah. And his, I think the thesis is you can't win. There is no right org. And companies, they sit with one type of org. and then you're going to be good at something and terrible at something. People look at the terrible thing and say, well, if we flipped to like a matrix role, we'd be great at this.

They flip, now they're great at this and terrible at the old thing. You just have to choose to a mention. So what we did at Spotify was we said, we have to choose. Like the best outcome is that you're optimized for the thing that is important for the company and you suck at the thing that is not as important. The worst outcome is you're really good at the non-important thing and you suck at the important thing. So like figure out what's important. And I optimize for that and just accept that you're going to be average at the others.

And so one thing we chose to optimize for was the single experience. We were really good at building a single experience that actually does a billion different things. And most people don't even realize that on the back end is even more complicated because you have a music business that is a royalty pool. So it's percentages out of a fixed pool. Music business that has a very different structure, podcast business that has ads. So when you click something in Spotify, it triggers all kinds of different business models. Like on the back end, it's insanely complicated. I'm a huge.

I obviously love to read. I read books professionally for a living, but I also have hundreds of audiobooks on Audible. And I remember asking Dan, it's like, how the hell? Like, why did no one think, like, oh, I like this book, just press plane and it goes instead of like a five minute. Like, Audubo's like, I can listen for five minutes. I have to do the credits, like awkward. And I was like, how the hell did you do that on the back end? He was explaining to me to collect thing in the back end, too.

Yeah. It's a very complicated model on the back end. Especially because you guys are designing the super app, though. Exactly. It was three different apps. You could have, again, you could have had different teams running in parallel. So you're optimizing for a single experience. But I feel you have an organizing principle, like a North Star.

And this is why I spend so much time and I really admire. Like, I've been to Stockholm like, I think four times the last like 14 months. Because I think of like the best founders usually can explain just a handful of words, It's like what their life's mission is. So, like, we mentioned, you mentioned Apple. Let's talk about Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs did in three words. He said, Insanely Great Products.

You can hear him when he's 25. He talked about Insanely Great Products when he was dying, insanely great products. You want to make Insaneely Great Products? Then you come with me. Well, you knew what was important to him. And I feel, I don't know if you guys do this internally, but I've talked to, you know, Alex and Daniel and you, a bunch. I feel your organizing principles time well spent.

If you look at what we focus on and what we optimize for, you have a strategic lens, then you have sort of a business lens and then an emotional lens. So the strategic lens is really that we saw a long time ago that the biggest challenge in the world is going to be distribution. You know, when the iPhone came out, it felt like distribution was free. People went to the app store every day and looked for like, you know, what's the top charting free and paid app? That stopped working. There was a lot of distribution through Facebook with all the install ads. That all went away.

So from a strategic point of view, when we were going into podcast, which was like the first, second product we did, we looked at that and said, okay, again, it's all the tradeoff. We could do a separate app. It would be easier for us as an org because we can divide the org and people can run in parallel and so forth. But is that the biggest problem to design the experience or is the biggest problem actually getting distribution? And then we looked at in the app store and I think there was maybe, it's probably, probably 10, but at least seven really good podcast apps in there, like overcast and all of these apps. And when we looked at their usage, I think Apple Podcasts was still like 98.5%.

All of them. So like the problem wasn't that there wasn't a good enough podcast product. The problem was that they didn't get a distribution. So we chose to take the pain of doing a single app with all the complexity comes with that for the benefit of reaching what was then already 300-something million users, maybe. But it was much harder. We chose like pain and cost.

somewhere to get benefits somewhere else. And we said like, you know, it's just software. It should be able to adapt to the use case, right? Which was contrarian at the time. And then with audiobooks, we did the same thing. So there was a strategic lens to that. The second thing we care deeply about is when we have to prioritize, we do prioritize the user over ourselves, over publishers and labels.

But this is- You're saying we prioritize the user over ourselves is super important. So a few months ago, we were racing cars together in Sweden. And then we took a break from racing cars, and we had lunch. It was me, you, Daniel, and Pia, who works at Pima Materia. One, I know you're super competitive. How did you feel about losing racing to a girl, by the way? I felt great about losing to Pia.

He's an awesome driver. It was very well to say. He's one of my favorite people. I'd do anything for prima materia. I love the entire team there. But this is where I kind of understood your philosophy because we had, I also previously had multiple conversations, We had this really long lunch one time. But this is what I think you guys are special

in the technology industry and why I like spending time. And Spotify's, you know, what? Out of the whatever your favorite AI chat bot, like chat app, it's like what's the best apps on your phone? Like Spotify's in the top two, you know, for anybody that uses it. But it's that. We talked at lunch. You knew there's dark engagement patterns.

And you can put into Spotify right. right now that would have people use the app more, would have more retention, maybe bring more users, but it's not good for them. Yeah, so this is our guiding principle. What does it mean to care about the user? You can care about the user experience, but if you really care about the user in some deeper way,

it would be how they feel about what you do. And what happened with Spotify is, you can say that we lucked into it because we started in music. Music is, but most people consider it almost an unequivocal good. Maybe there's bad music somewhere, but, you know, very few people feel that music is a bad thing for the world. And it also happens to have a very large time. There is almost no one that doesn't listen to music. It's like bigger than social networking, right?

Not everyone does social networking, but everyone does music. So we started in this space, which was very positive for the world. And I think that was a deliberate decision from Daniel. He was passionate about music. You want to do something that was meaningful. I don't think it was luck. Because if you look at the things he's doing now, it's in that same space of being good for the world and for Europe, et cetera, rather than just more money. So I don't think it was an accident.

But still, you could say we lucked into it. But then we realized that this is important. We're bringing a lot of joy. So when we looked at what to do next, we looked at podcasts, and we saw this thing where there was these, you know, the pattern on the internet already back then was shorter and shorter form content, short and shorter attention. And it looked like the world was lost. Like, this is just going to go to hell. But then you looked at a podcast, and you said, no, at the same time, there are these very long, deep discussions

where people speak in full sentences, get to explain full ideas, they don't necessarily get attacked, they get to retort and so forth. We said that we think this is actually good for the world. We didn't know how big it was going to be, so we had to take a chance on that, but we thought it was a business opportunity and good for the world. That's our lens.

So we went into that and we built people, podcast into Spotify. And it was the same thing with audiobooks. We think that books is one of the most important things that happen in the world. And I'm very passionate about books, but it's also a good business opportunity. And we were fortunate to be in Sweden that for some reason tends to be pretty advanced in media habits. So in Sweden, audiobooks is already very big things.

We have quite high conviction over the market. So we've kept going into these things that are considered by ourselves and uses time well-spent. But we never fully articulated that as a strategy externally. We've only recently started talking about it. Did you articulate it as a strategy internally, though? For a long time, we've had a strategy called No Regrets, but we largely haven't said that externally. And I don't know if no regrets is the best branding. I think time was bad at about it. It's like, that's a low bar. But we've said it again and again. Like, is this really no regrets? What that comes from is interesting. We surveyed our users through a third party anonymously. We do that all the time.

Someone comes and asks you, what do you think of these media service without seeing who they represent? So you get the truth. That's how we understand how we're doing versus competitors and so forth. So we had them survey across all the big media platforms. And this is what the no regret coming from. We asked the question like, how do you feel about the time you spent? Using Spotify? All of them. Okay. The time you spend on, you know, Spotify, YouTube, Apple, music, Amazon, TikTok, all of them. Just understand how you felt about it. But then we also asked the opposite question, how much of your time did you regret afterwards? And what was interesting was when we got that survey back, there were two things that surprised me.

One didn't surprise me so much. We were actually the lowest regret content sort of on the internet in terms of the platforms we asked for. Or if you flip it around, some of the time most well spent on the internet. With, you know, Gen C saying that they value almost 90% of the time they spend. they feel very good about it afterwards. So that was good. But what surprised me was the opposite, without naming which ones.

On many of the big platforms, people regretted almost 60% of the time they spent or more. And these were young people, you know. And what shocked me was, before I saw that survey, I knew that these were insanely high engagement platforms. But I kind of mistakenly thought that they were there because they wanted to be there.

I'm like, they're probably enjoying it. Turns out when you ask them, And they're like, no, I'm trapped. I feel horrible about the time I spent. So I was mistaking in thinking that, you know, they were there and they loved the time. It's just very, very captivating. So then we decided, okay, we've had this as a saying internally for some time. Let's just make it an actual strategy to be some of the most time well spent on the internet.

And so when we look at something, you know, we're talking about fitness now, for example. Why? Because we think very few people regret doing a workout or being a workouter. What do you mean you're talking about fitness? We just announced on partnerships with a bunch of companies, and we're investing in three quarters of almost 70% of people on Spotify work out with Spotify. So we're investing more into fitness,

into becoming an even better fitness app. So this is one area, kind of like music, podcast books. We're just investing more in it. What would that look like? My partner, Rob, was running through Central Park this morning and listened to Spotify, so he was exercising while using your app. Okay, so this is going to come. come out in a few weeks.

So I'll tell you what we're going to talk about at Investor Day. I'm a runner, I'm passionate about running, and we see a lot of people running with Spotify and they make their own playlists. One of the things I want to be possible, there's going to be possible very soon, is that you go into Spotify, you just tell Spotify, this is one of the good use cases of AI, I think. You say to Spotify, you know, I want running playlists for like an eight-minute mile and I I wanted to be in my taste, but I wanted to be on the downbeat, either on both my feet or just one of my feet, right?

And I want you to update it weekly. It's a pretty complicated task. So then what we want to be able to do is to first calculate, like, an eight-minute mile. What does that mean? Well, roughly, if your average height, maybe 165 steps per minute or something like that, okay, now we've got to go and find music in either 160 or half of that, 80, So it's either on every downstep or every other downstep. Okay, you're going to find some music there, but not a lot.

So now you want to look a bit broader. And then you actually want to speed them up or slow them down to exactly 160 or exactly 80. And then you actually want to mix them together with perfect beat match transitions. Right. And then you actually want to overlay commentary on top of it, saying like, now you're going to go into the interval part and now you're going to slow down and so forth. So these are the kinds of experience that we're building.

This is what I mean with going deeper into fitness. That's one of those no regrets area or time wasn't there. No, no one spends an hour in the gym or an hour and running. Now I come out and feel like, oh my God, I regret 70% of that. No. You don't. So it's been our guiding principle. And what I think is interesting about it is, you know, I'm 50. I've done a lot of interesting things in my life.

You've got to figure out what you actually want to spend your life on, right? And I want to spend my life on doing something that I feel good about personally and then I kind of feel proud of. You feel good, but the way a human's going to feel good is if what they're doing is actually in service of other people. I know you're into philosophy. This is a human's for yourself thousands of years ago. This is not a new idea.

It's something that's true thousand years ago. It's true today. It will be two thousand years now. Me and Milan, who's sitting over there, he works at Spotify, right before you came, I was talking to him about this because he's like, you have two different podcasts on the business charts right now.

And I was like, listen, this new show, I'm addicted to doing it. I can't sleep. I get wired from these. conversations. I'm doing it selfishly. It's another form of education, but I really feel that, like, founders' podcast is, like, my life's work. And the way I feel, like, when I put that out, I know it's good for the world. I know these conversations are good for the world. I was like, I'm not going to make fucking podcast slop. It's not, I'm not trying to, I want it to be entertaining,

but at the core, it's like, I want you to be inspired and educated by these people that have accomplished and great things. And then the point was just like that knowing that, like, you can do it too. Yeah. That is good for the world. I feel good doing that. And it's not like a, like a, I need to make certain, it's not tied to anything else other than like, it's not like, oh, I wouldn't do this if I unless I can make X dollars. Like, I don't give a shit about that. I care, the money will take care of itself.

I care about putting out good things for the world. And I think to your point, everyone gets there and every philosopher in history got there. The question is just like, how late in life do you get there? I think you got there a lot earlier than it. It took me 32 years to find my path, and another five and a half of fucking struggling until it actually, like, could sustain me. And then now it's like, I wake up every day. It's like, I have no doubts what I'm doing. I was like, I'm going to build, again, I'm mining these old books of somebody who did something amazing for ideas and insights that we can push down to the next generation of entrepreneurs and we have a conversation like this.

Where we talked before us, like, everybody's like, oh, you know, you ask this perfect question for your audience. It's like, I'm having these conversations selfishly because I just know there's 10 million Davids listening to this that have the same interest, that want to know what is in. You just said you're 50. You've been working at, you sold your first startup. Then you have such a singular life experience. This is what me and Daniel were talking about earlier. Who the hell sells their startup, works at a big company for 18 years, then become CEO. It's a different path.

It's a very different path. I want to talk about AI because... Can you say something on the previous thing first? What I think is interesting with this time well spent is these things are sort of easy to say. I think everyone convinces themselves that they're doing good for the world, even the ones who don't. Because most, you know, it's very, I think it's very hard to be honest with yourself, totally honest, and saying, like, I'm not actually doing anything good for the world. Where if people do that, they convince themselves.

I have an example of this that I want to talk about. Yeah. So we get, obviously, all these pitches, and hopefully don't forget, hopefully don't forget any way you're thinking. No, no, cool. But, like, listen, no disrespect. One of my favorite movies is The Godfather, and one of my favorite scenes is where Slotso goes to meet Marlon Brando.

And he's like, hey, it's not of my business how another man makes his living, but I can't get involved in that because, you know, you're dealing drugs to kids and it's not interesting to me. And so I feel the same way. It's like one of my principles I teach my kids is like number one, rule number two

is like mind your own business. But I had somebody pitch me they're like we want to do a deep partnership as one of the prediction markets and I'm on the phone with them and I didn't know anything about them. But the way they described themselves are like we're building a maximum

truth seeking machine and I pull up on my phone. I go to, I'm not going to say the company, I type in and I go, dude, the first thing I see on your website is who's going to going to win the coin flip for the New England Patriots game. If you're just saying we want to fucking gamble and make a ton of money, I respect that.

But don't give me this other bullshit there. You're building maximum truth-seeking machines. Yeah, but that's my point. I think almost everyone has to convince themselves of that. So to kind of call bullshit on us, then, does it actually mean anything to do this? Well, it means that you have to stay away from some things. So one decision that we did recently was, you know, our old podcasts are turning into video podcast. And so we followed that.

The only ways I do videos because you guys harassed me. Exactly. Exactly. So they are very popular, but there was a problem, which was that a lot of people, specifically parents who felt that, you know, they had this time well spent. Now they started seeing these videos in there that they didn't want to see there, right? So they felt that their time was going down. And then you're faced with a decision, like video is good for engagement, but these people

feel that it's not good for their time well spent. So we made the decision, sort of the anti-engagement decision, to allow people, anyone, to turn off video if they want to, and just listen, not just for their kids, but for themselves. So, and that may mean that, you know, we take some engagement hit on that person. But so if you're going to have these principles, you kind of have to live with them, and they're going to have consequences. Now, we still think this is very good business,

because most of our revenue is from subscribers, paying for their experience. like almost 90% of the revenue. And I think that what you pay for when you vote with your wallet every month, you're not going to pay for your engagement or time spent. You're going to pay for the value you feel, right? If you feel that this was time well spent, if you feel that this was high value, you're going to say, I want to pay for this.

So I think when you pay with your own money, that is very, very well aligned with optimizing food is good for the user. Whereas in a pure, in a pure advertising-based model, your incentives are clearly to maximize time spent at any cost. So I think it's a luxury for us because most of our revenue come from subscription to not have that pressure. Maybe we lucked into that business model, maybe with semi-deliberate. That's what I was going to ask you.

There's no way you could have predicted that when you chose a subscription model, but it had to be a subscription model based on your very first product, which is music. Yes. So now that we see it, we're doubling down on it. And I think it's going to be the right bet for Spotify. I think people are getting more and more aware of how, their time is getting captured and how they have less and less controlled over their life. This, by the way, so it leads us into AI, which everyone is talking about.

And, you know, there's a lot of negativity around AI now, which I understand. And for good reasons, there is a promise for generative AI to be the most addictive algorithm you have ever heard of because now we can understand you so deeply. There is potential for darkness over there, right? But what I'm trying to say, what we're trying to say is like, there is, but it's a dual-news technology. You could choose to do something else with generative AI. And so what we're choosing to do, for example, is to give back users control over the algorithm. So the other thing you can do is, which we're doing, so you can say like, hey, David, here's who we think you are, using LLMs.

And based on all you're listening, this is who we think you are musically. This is the podcast we think you're interested in. these are the audiobooks that we think are interested in. Then we can put a box where you can say, like, no, you're wrong. Maybe that's what I do, but it's not what I want to be. You know, I want much more, I want more, even more biographies. You know, I want to get back into classical music, which is something I've tried. But because I listen to most EDM, most EDM, so now I can go in and say, like,

now I want to be, I want to have classical music. And now I get classical music. The best way I think to describe generative AI is the finally computer's understanding English. Like, he used to be a small population of about one million developers on GitHub who could talk to computers. No, we all can. And so I think consumer companies could and should give everyone access to talk to them in plain English. So it means that at Spotify, we used to have these user research teams that sat with, you know, 10 users trying to understand deeply what they felt and what they did. Then we took those 10 users and tried to apply that, you know, 761 million users.

What if you could do that deep user research with every single user, all 7161 million of them all the time? Because you talk to them and they talk back in English, high fidelity, and the experience just adapts to what they want. So my mission now is to sort of give back control to consumers over these algorithms. And it's contrarium, but I think it's the right bet. People like you and I would probably want more control, but you have 700 million users.

What percentage of them do you actually think? I feel like people just want you to do it for them. No, you're not wrong. I think everything in the world is sort of a power law, right? Of whether it's music listening, some people listen a little, and then some people listen extremely much. Everything is a power law. But I think what is interesting, what Spotify is gained from,

if you look at playlisting, for example, some people playlists a lot. Most people have one playlist. Maybe they're liked songs, maybe two playlists, you know, some indie favorites. Some people have like hundreds of playlists. So sort of the story of Spotify and what we got good at personalization and recommendation in the first place was that we had like, I don't know,

10 billion user playlist, which is people carefully saying this track goes well with this track goes well with this track. It's an incredibly valuable data set. But to your point, it was heavily skewed. It was a few use, not a few millions, but not hundreds of millions, that did a lot of work that benefited the others. Those people saying these tracks go well together meant that the others who weren't that into music, they didn't keep up with the new releases of the back catalog. They got amazing recommendations from the work of these people. And so I think that's going to be true here as well. And in fact, I know it is true.

We see some people engaging a lot, talking to Spotify all the time saying, no, that's wrong, that's bad. You should be like this. They're doing a lot of work. They're making their Spotify better for themselves. But then we know that someone else who looks very similar to that, but doesn't have the time or knowledge to do all of that. They actually probably want the same thing. And they can benefit from the other work. So they benefit from the others.

The analogy I had because everybody's like, oh, you know, everybody's going to be building everything they want. I was like, I don't think they're going to build it all. Tell me if this is a stupid analogy. to your personal opinion on this. But if you even look at, like, how easy is it to post to social media? You put a picture, like, two buttons, and you're done. And it's something like, you know, 90% comes from 1%

and then you have the next 10% to us, and then, like, 85% or 90% just lurk. They do nothing. Exactly. I feel like that's a good representative of humanity with, like, 90% is not going to build anything. There is this famous 1-990, right? 1% creates, 9% curates and 90% consumes.

Okay. Something like that. And I think that's largely. true. That's what I mean with the power law. But as I said, that 1% that creates and that 9% that curates, it can be incredibly valuable for the other 9% that consumes. And then it allows you to do it for them, which I think is what most humans want. Deal is how the best founders turn the world into their talent pool. I've been studying how history's greatest founders operate for a decade. And one thing they all have in common is they understand that recruiting and hiring,

the very best talent is your most important priority. A players recognize other A players, which is why top companies like Ramp, Shopify, 11 Labs, Uber, and DoorDash all-used deal. Many of the top founders I know have personally invested in Deal after using their product. And what they discovered is that Deal is the best company in the world at building infrastructure for global hiring. Deal will help your business hire, pay, and manage any worker anywhere in the world so you can retain the best talent anywhere and spend the rest of your time focusing on what you do best, delivering value to your customers. The founder of 11 Labs has a great description of the value deal can give your company.

He said, we built 11 labs to break down language and communication barriers. With Deal enabling us to hire and support exceptional talent anywhere, we can accelerate our innovation and bring more voices, stories, and ideas to every corner of the world. Deal is trusted by over 40,000 businesses. Learn how they can help your business today by going to deal.com forward slash Senra. That is, deal.com forward slash Senra. There's some context I think people need here. So the fourth most listened to on my Spotify rap for podcast was Spotify product story, which you narrate. That came out in 2021, 23.

Yeah, something like that. Over a couple of years. Came out there. Long time ago. And it tells the history, which I think more company. I talked to founders to about this all the time because, like, you essentially is like, why don't we just tell our own company history? And then you interview the people that were there at the time. Like Sean Parker's in there.

Daniel X. There are people that played a role, even if they only played a role for a few years. Yeah. But the crazy thing is you have entire episodes, I think, from 2020, or 2022 dedicated to how you're using AI in Spotify, way before, you know, people have been talking about AI for 60 years, but even back then, way less people were talking about it now. Tell me the difference of how you view AI back then in 2021, 2021, 2022 to Spotify today.

Yeah, so my interest in AI, I think as many, you know, I was always interested in growing up and then it became an engineer and so on in university, which was like in the late 90s. Yeah, I was interested in it. There were no one networks back then, but you couldn't do anything. Computers were not powerful enough. And then I went into what was called IT, right?

And I did my own companies and I started at Spotify. And then when I came to Spotify, we already had one of these large data sets of music playlists. And so there were some very talented people there, specifically a guy named Eric Bernardson, who at the time, this is, 2009 was doing machine learning, something called collaborative filtering on what was the world's largest Hadoop clusters.

And I'm like, this is super cool. Like this scale of data and these algorithms, I hadn't been thinking about it for a long time. So I got very inspired by that, kind of got back into it. And then what happened was DeepMind started doing these reinforcement learning-based things. They had this thing called the Deep Q network that started beating Atari games, if you remember that. And it looked like a toy back then, like everything does. but I was so pilled already on like the idea of how do we actually work as humans from a philosophical point of view.

I didn't have a good answer, no one did. But I had this idea that maybe it is, maybe it is computational because it was the model of the artificial neuron. But it was hard to believe in the 90s. With these like deep Q networks from Demisazab and David Silver and the whole deep mind team, you could see the scaling of like it's, It's handling more and more complex problems. So I got very deep into that. I went home and I started coding again,

and I did my own sort of recurrent neural networks and LSTM and GRUs and stuff, just for fun, you know, during my vacations and evenings and nights. And we kept doing our recommendations problem, which was sort of old-school AI, which was called ML, machine learning. But then when the, what is called the Transformer paper came out in, I think June of 2017, there's a paper called Attention is All You Need. I think I read it like in the first few days, and I was completely blown away by it, and I started talking to anyone who wanted to listen.

So I was just primed for that happening. So then we started investing quite aggressively towards this. I think, you know, if you extrapolate it out, if you really believe in that exponential curve, which I've tested a few times, then eventually, you know, computers would be able to start talking to you and reasoned and you would be able to talk to computers. We started preparing for that quite early. We bought this company called Sonantic to be able to produce voice. I mean, you can buy voice anywhere on the internet today, but it's quite expensive per minute.

So if you want to serve 700 million users with like a few minutes of voice per day, you're going to go bankrupt. We bought this company producing voice very, very cheaply with the different technology, even before the LLMs were smart enough to produce the script for that voice. Because we just bet on, you know, intercepting that curve. instead of waiting for it and then then building for it. So I think it comes from a personal interest in AI and then a bit of luck being at a place like Spotify that had access to lots of data. And then when you see it, just, you know, have to bet on it.

And I think the interest is a personal interest. Spotify is sort of my excuse to get as close as possible to to the philosophical side of AI, sort of what it means to be a human. Say more about that. Well, I think you know, you go through life and I was I was thinking a lot as a kid

about things. And there were a few problems that really like dumbfounded me when I learned about them. One was this notion. I don't remember exactly when but someone told me, you know, all the atoms in your body or like 99% of them get switched out every seven years. And I'm like, yeah. What? What? Every seven years? What do you mean?

So yeah, every seven years, they're all switched out. But that means I'm not the same person. So I thought I was my atoms. I thought it was my body. Clearly this is me. And you're telling me, I see you in seven years and I'm someone else. So then what am I? If I'm not my atoms, what am I? You know, if you look at a rock, it is its atoms.

You look at it, you come back seven years later, same atoms. But in you and I, Like, your atoms may have been, first of all, most atoms never get destroyed or crater, right? They're largely the same. So you may have a bunch of Napoleon atoms in your body or something. And when you die, it's going to go to someone else, right? So it's just the construction of those atoms that is you for like a very brief time, right? So I got to that realization that, you know, you're not your atoms, you're the structure of your atoms.

And another word for structure is information. So then I'm like, okay, so it's the DNA. like DNA is the blueprint and like you arranged atoms in a certain thing, that's you. And then someone said like, no, that's not really it either. Because if you think about something for a long time, if you play the piano for a long time, so you think certain patterns, your brain will grow. You're going to get an overdeveloped musical center. If you're good at languages, your language center developers, or the most famous example

are cabies in the UK. You know, they have to learn all along them by heart. And when you brain scan them, they have a very overdeveloped 3D center for three-dimensional thinking. So clearly, it's not static. What you think about moves those atoms around in new patterns, and it's not even the same atoms. The atoms get switched out over time. So now you're not your atoms, you're not even the structure of atoms.

You literally are your thoughts. Literally, not as an analogy. It's the only thing that is constant is the processing information pattern, right? Everything, like the atoms that do the processing get switched out. So now I'm like, okay, shit, I'm information. processing. And that was kind of a mind fuck. And then I got comfortable with it

because I'm like, well, now I can sort of live forever. Because if I'm information processing, I'm thinking in certain ways. That's really what I am. You could have instantiated me with some other atoms, et cetera. Then if I bring some of that into my kids, if they're thinking a little bit in the same way,

like 32% of me is still living in them because I am my thoughts, and then I transfer my thoughts. And, you know, if you're Ray Kurzweil, you say, like, well, now transfer them to computer, and you get to live forever because you are your thoughts. And if that information processing lives there, that was really you. You were not your atoms.

So this whole thing of like, we probably are computational beings, information processing. I think it was what got me into AI in the first place. But then at universities. Almost two decades ago. More than that. In university, in the late 90s,

you couldn't do anything with it. The computers were not powerful enough. So when you tried to instantiate those ideas, you built a neural network like a few nodes, and it slowed her crawl and it was unimpressive. And you're like, no, that can't be it. Okay, so this is interesting. So you've been thinking about this for multiple decades.

You had to have this like favorable occurrence of events that now lead you to have, I think you guys are the second largest subscriber base in the world behind Netflix, and not correct. Yes. And you have this huge data set. Now the technology can catch up with the thing you've been taking about since you're in college.

Yeah, it's a good excuse to get to spend all my day thinking about learning about these things, working with the best people in the business. You know, I get, I have the fortunate meeting all of these people that are changing the world. I get to meet them and talk to them and ask my interesting, stupid questions about, you know, things. So it's just a fortunate position to be in to get to do something that you're passionate about. But I feel very lucky because I can do that, but I can do it in an area where I think it's still good for the world.

And I can have impact on, I can steer this towards what I think is a good outcome of AI, like giving back user control, for example. I don't want to skip over that because I truly believe we've had. enough private conversations. And I know you talked to all the other, like, people designing products of all the big companies. We talked about this privately in the past. And it's just like, yet some of them, you know, have made decisions where they know they have optimized. They're like, hey, we ran this test. This is great for engagement. It's terrible for the mental health. And they're like, push it. That's insane to me. That is insane. This is what we were talking about before we started

reporting was like, I told you it's like, it sounds silly. But like, I deeply desire a world in which Steve Jobs is still alive because I obviously love technology, but I want the people building the technology that we all use on the scale that we all use it at to build tools, and that's all technology is, that enhance humanity. Instead of trying to replace it or to make you dumber or fatter or just sucked into your phone and depressed, which I feel is a lot of what's going on now.

Yeah. Which is, I think what you said earlier was like, well, podcast, we have this thing growing massively that's good for the world, assuming you were listening to the right podcast, and you should be listening to David Sunder and Founders, of course. At the same time when these people are destroying their brains in 15, 20 second, you know, five second, one second, scrolling.

And it reminded me when you said that earlier, I was like, oh, you go back and read Jeff Bezos' shareholder letters. He talks about why he invented the Kindle. He said the Kindle was an anecdote to short attention spans. He was worried that people weren't going to read anymore. I'm deeply impressed by the Kindle, by the way, as a product. And it's not just the technology, like the passive screens and so forth. What people miss is the business model innovation they did,

the Whisper Sync, where it's silently just updates in the background because they bought a certain amount of mobile data. It's a great product. Explain the business model innovation on the Kindle. Well, normally you would have to pay for data. So if you would have been lazy, which they weren't, you would have said like, here's a Kindle, not go and buy a mobile subscription monthly for the bookstore update.

And what they did was they signed deals with these carriers. They calculated the average book size and they made a fixed cost deal where all the data forever was included in the price of the hardware. You bought this thing for a one-time cost and it just magically updates. At the time, that was magic. There was good business model innovation on top of all the product innovation, which is something I'm very passionate about. I believe that technology is necessary ingredient for change, but not sufficient.

I think you can cause havoc with technology like piracy, but when things really change is when you take a new technology and marry it with a new, often contrarian business model. This is the Spotify story of access versus ownership, for example. Which is, by the way, I would also love Steve Jobs to be around, but also not because he tried to kill us many times. It's funny, we had this conversation, so we had Jimmy Avivin on the show earlier.

And, you know, Jimmy was in like top three people I wanted to meet of all time because I love Defiant Ones, the documentary of him and Dr. Dre. Yeah. And I've watched it, I don't know, now 10 times or something, And it's weird because me and Jimmy are friends and we're like, we live close to each other. And he swears up and down.

He's like, I was going to kill him. He's just like, Apple held me back. And I was like, Jimmy, it's just no way. He's like, you're like a small part in a huge company that built the greatest, the most successful consumer product of all time. These were small guys in a tiny, there's like five million people in Sweden

and something like that. And they had, if Spotify, like, they only had one thing. They had, I always love this idea. It was like, if you had to pick between, this is Josh Kushner's quote, where it's like, if it's a pick the person that's like,

the most experience or the smartest or wants it the most, you always bet on the person that wants it the most. They had to, if they didn't succeed, they would have died. If Apple Music didn't work out, they would have been fine. And I think he said when he started the fight with you guys, you guys only had like, I don't know,

3 million or 10 million or 15 million subscribers. And then you just smoked them. A lot of people were very, very scared at the time. Because he was a legend. He was a legend. He still is. And he's a killer. I mean, dude, to this day,

even though he's retired. I mean, me and Daniels talk about this all the time because it's just hilarious because they're obviously close friends too. And yeah, he's a formidable individual. But again, I think being onto a bigger company and again, like, it was just very fascinating. But imagine that you're a fairly small Swedish startup

and you think you're good at product. And then the biggest, most respected product company in the world and the person you see up, look up to the most, Steve Jobs says there's coming after you. But not only that, goes and buys a bit music brings in Dr. Dr. Dr. and Jimmy, Iveen, it's like, we're going to kill you. That's what they literally said in their

internal meetings. They gave us six months. It was there. Those were hard times. Yeah. We worked very hard. But it worked out. There have been a few of those moments. There's a great line, though, about this, because if you think about Jimmy's experience in the music industry, it's just fascinating. They tell the story in the, obviously, a documentary, you know, starting out sweeping the

floor in the record plant and then, you know, becoming an engineer and then a producer and then one of the most successful creators of a new record company and then building products. Like the guy, the reason I recommend, you know, people studying his stories because, like, the people that can succeed in so many different domains over multiple decades, that's not luck. There's something going on that they know. Yeah, you don't get that lucky that many times. Yeah.

For sure. So I had to be terrifying from your end. But the one thing, I think, oh, there's great maximum from Game of Thrones, which I'm obsessed with. and says those on the margins often come to control the center. And if you think about it, it couldn't have been more marginal than these group of Swedish guys in this tiny country trying to take over and build the company you guys built. There were some good, hard reasons for why we didn't get crushed them.

What do you think they were? Well, I think the content side of the business was incredibly worried because if it was only about content and only about musicians, you had, you know, hip-hop. which has the largest appeal in the US and all these powerful people. But there are some structural reasons. One is, when we created our strategy,

we bet on three things, and they were all basically counter positions to Apple deliberately. One was freemium. We believe that Apple would, if they even did a product, free product, they would struggle to do advertising. They tried the AIAD, but they wanted so much control, they didn't work. So we bet that they wouldn't do a good free tier.

And so we focused a lot on freemium and a really good free tier. free tier. The second was personalization. Because Apple was, I would almost say, against data at the time, we bet that they would never get good at personalization recommendation. And I, and we believe that was the future. The third was ubiquity. We bet that they were going to prefer their own products and never get, be good on a Samsung TV or an Android phone. So these were our three bets, premium, personalization and ubiquity. And I have to say they pan out really well. We're, you know, they're still struggling on.

They had a free tier for a while, a radio, they pulled it back. Ubiquity, you know, I think they still struggled to be good on non-Apple hardware. And personalization, I want to say, we're better. So there were real strategic reasons

and still are for why I think we held out. But it was also, to your point, for us, this was not optional. We either died or we did this. Back against the wall. What are you going to do? Or I think, to your point, I don't know what prior you.

Apple music was at the time, but it was not more important than the iPhone, for sure. I found one of my all-time favorite quotes when I was reading the book Zero to One. The quote says, the single most powerful pattern I have noticed is that successful people find value in unexpected places. And they do this by thinking about business from first principles instead of formulas. That is exactly what Apple Levin has done with their advertising platform, Axon. AXON connects you with over a billion potential new customers inside mobile games. Axon allows you to capture undivided attention. Axon ads are full-screen video ads that are watched for an average of 35 seconds.

That is retention that blows other ad platforms out of the water. You can launch on AXON in minutes. You set the goal and AXon achieves it. There's no complex setup, no expertise needed, and AXon scales quickly. they can put your ads in front of over a billion potential customers. Other businesses have seen immediate results, have scaled to hundreds of thousands of dollars of spend per day, and increase their revenue by millions.

So you want to get started quickly before all your competitors are on Axon. And you can do that by going to axon.aI forward slash Senra. That is axon.comon.aI forward slash Senra. Everybody's going to know what Spotify is. I don't think, you know, many people know who you are. are. You've only done a few podcasts. The one you did with Patrick, that was excellent. But I want to go into some of the things that I know about you. I think is very unusual. We talked about the kind of the dangers of some of these social apps. And you have built your own AI agent. Can you

explain how you like consume X, for example, what you've built? So this is something I'm working on at Spotify. And we released this just a few weeks ago. Something called Save the Spotify. When you sit in your clock code or codex or something, you can just, you know, you can ask these agents to go out and look at information for you, write your podcast script, and then generate a podcast, and then we allow you to upload that to Spotify, but privately, right, because you may put private information in there. Maybe you want to, maybe we want to prep for your interview as I did today. I don't want that to be all over Spotify. So we now support private podcasts or personal podcasts. And so what I do is I use these agents and I take a combination on my

personal information, so documents I have and things I want to prep for. And then what I'm interested in based, you know, across my different services, all my interest. Spotify knows my interest pretty well from all my listening. It goes out and looks at what's happening in the world. And then it gives me this update that is deeply personal about what's happening in the world that I might be interested in. So it's kind of like a personal algorithm that filters out a lot of the noise and the crazy that I don't want to hear and just gives me the stuff that I want to hear. This is the kind of user control that I would like to give every user, but it's the kind of user control that you can have now

if you're prepared to put in the work. And what's interesting is I didn't expect this, but I found so much music and podcast through this. Then it's filtered to the people that I'm interested in, that I follow on different social media and so forth. So it's the thing that is being talked about among the people I care about. So, for example, your episode with Evan Spiegel came up again and again with lots of commentary in my personal podcast saying like this stuff,

This is really interesting for you. You should listen to this, because there are product wisdoms in there and so forth. So I listened to the whole episode, which I really liked, by the way. I'm thinking about stealing his framing of like, you know, we used to have all the ideas, but limited resources.

Now we have all the ideas and all the resources. I really like that. The thing about Evan, you know, people give me shit. They're like, yeah, but look at his market cap. I was like, I don't care about his market cap. I care about that you're thinking, he is truly differentiated. He is. And I spent a bunch of time with him.

At the end, I was like, I just want him to win. I don't like, I don't care. everyone's like, figure it out. And then everybody's like, oh, but his market, his, um, you know, stocks down 80% or something like that. So I just went to ChachyBT. And I was like, how many times did Steve Jobs suffer a 75% decline, you know? It was like four times.

Like, this happens in everybody's career. The kid is young. The guy is young. Like, let's see, look, let's see what happens over the next decade, you know? But the fact is, like, he's got a lot of very, very interesting ideas and no one else has. And he invented a pattern on social media that a billion people use everything. He invented several of them, right? the disappearing image, stories.

You think that guy's not interesting to hear talk for an hour? You're fucking crazy. Of course. No, I like him. Maybe it's because I'm a product guy. He's design guys close, but I like him for sure. This is one most fascinating things about you, and I think it's really, really important to drill down on,

and it's really dangerous for people not to do. You are constantly trying to eliminate noise. The idea, even before you turn this into an audio, you're essentially taking text and turning into audio now with the feature you just talked about. But when we talked about this, or maybe I heard you, I think you told me about it.

Maybe I heard you talk about a podcast. But you were taking it. You could read it though before, right? It was like stripping out all like the crazy shit that happens on X or the people fighting over politics. And it's just like that. What are the people I care about? What are they talking about?

It's not going to induce me, like, it's not going to raise my cortisol levels or make me sad. So I literally ask my agent, filter for rage bait, filter for clickbait, filter for, you know, politics. I just asked, this is the kind of user control that you can have now, that very few people understand that you can have yet,

and it's too complicated, but you can have all that control. So what I think is, most people kind of know what they want, but you get captured in the moment. You know, it's like you want something and then someone puts candy in front, you're going to take that candy.

So what is interesting is, can you give people the chance to decide their own future ahead of time? This is the idea behind the taste profile and behind these agents. I'm not better than anyone else. I get captured all the time. So my specific, that paid with road rage. I'm so fascinated by it. I just go down dark holes of road rage.

Because it's the weirdest thing. Like these supposedly, you know, fully normal, smart people, they waste their entire lives and go to jail. They shoot into cars and kill kids. And then afterwards, you realize that, no, they were pretty normal people. It's just somehow inside your car, you lose it. So I go down that rabbit hole and I watch hours of road rage, right? But what I can do now is I can say, like, don't show me road rage because I know what's going to happen. So that, that's like, what do you call it, um, ahead of the head of the, time pre-meditated. Yeah, premeditated media.

Yeah. It's something that I think everyone should at least have access to if they want to. It works for me. And I think it will work for a lot of people. And I think it's, I think that need is not going to get less. I think it's going to get, it's not going to get smaller. It's going to get bigger. So I happen to think it's also good business.

Something that just caught to mind when you were speaking just now. I'm very curious, like who influenced, so we're talking about essentially your information diet, right? And what you're letting into your mind, you talked about, We literally are our thoughts. Like, you're crazy to, like, let people get into your brain and affect you. And I was talking to Mr. Beast about this yesterday, where he's just like, I don't think people should have Instagram because it's like it's just making all these young kids. Like comparison is the thief of joy and all they're doing it all day long is comparing, you know,

somebody else's just highlight real to them. And it's just like very, very bad for you to let that into your brain. One of my favorite things, I think Daniel said it on this podcast last year where, you know, I'm always curious when I get to meet people, especially insane and successful people. It's like, who tells you the truth? a question I was asked, because it's like very few. A lot of them kind of have like this almost like cloud of sycophants around them. They're like filtering their knowledge that's getting into them.

And what they'll do is like they'll seek out people that can trust and it will tell them the truth. And I think he told the story of you being one of those people for him, for Daniel, because you pulled him aside. You're like, hey, you're running product and you're like not good at it. You're kind of fucking this up. And his response was he went home. I think he told his wife. He's like, oh my God, I have to fire this guy. It was you.

And then he goes, then he thought about it. he goes, oh, he's right. It's like, he just did me a service. Very few people are that strong. Can take that kind of, but that's why he's successful. Yes. Right. And so I think this is really important.

So who does that for you? So I do a version of the same thing. This is back to the thing of long tenure. So I have people who are long tenured, but like huge disagreements with them. And they've realized that when they, when they talk back to me and they get upset with me, there are no consequences, right?

But that takes, that comfort takes a long while to build. You can't expect someone to come in, especially if they come from corporate America and expect them to like stand up to you because usually there are consequences. You just get fired. So I've built. Well, yeah, but people don't know.

You're a brown belt? No, no, no, no. I'm a blue belt. Oh, bluebell and gist, so you could also choke that. There are many people who could choke me out. So that's a risky, risky path to take. It's a tenure. I have a bunch of people around me who,

who I think, can hope feel comfortable saying like, no, you're wrong. I think you're just not understanding this. And I think so because they do. And they've learned that, you know, I can't always control myself. I'm very passionate about something. I'm like, no, you're wrong. That's stupid, blah, blah, blah. And then they know it's not going to be consequences. So they say it anyway. I try to do that more in like one-on-ones or small groups. Sometimes there's a big meeting. Someone who has worked for a long time feels very, very comfortable. Just says like, no, I think that's a, that's a, that's a, stupid idea. And I'm like, now your idea is stupid. And everyone around is like, oh, shit.

Now everyone is going to get fired. You know, so you have to build that trust over time. So I have a version of the same. Okay. So we talked about tenure at the very beginning of this conversation where I never finished a thought when I was asking Mr. Bees about turnover on his talent, like the most talented people in there. And he's just like, there's a value here because the guy that runs his operations has been there. They used to live together. He's like, I've spent not 10,000 hours talking to this guy, 30,000 hours, where they walks on set. And since he's running his operations,

they're running like 10 at a time, Mr. Beas can walk on set. And before he'll look up, and the guy, his name's Tyler, he's like, I already know about this, and this is why I made this decision, and we're doing this. And oh, you may not like this shot, but we're doing this shot because it allows us to shoot from this angle. And then literally, nothing has to even come out.

It's like they're, what's the thing from Star Trek with the Vulcan mind mel. Yeah, exactly. That's what happened. He said the greatest thing. You don't get that in 100 hours. So one benefit of tenure is to trust. People keep you honest, unless you, you know, you become too full of yourself,

which is always a risk with success. But the other benefit is this efficiency of like people know. You don't have to give as much context. There are some downsides to tenure, which is opposite of Elon's. You don't get fresh blood as much. And you need to be careful. Maybe you're just a group of old people eventually. You have to control for that.

So I try to make sure that we also hire some new. but these are the two benefits, just efficiency and trust. The group of old people you have to be very, very careful with. Think about the most talented people that Walt Disney had. It was like these nine guys, there's animators. I think they used to call them the old men after Walt died. And I just talked to Ed Cattle, the founder of Pixar. And they're going in there as a, he's a young technologist trying to pitch them.

Here's a new way to animate. And Walt's dead. These guys are old. There's no fresh blood. They're like, the computers will never be able to do the stuff that you're talking about. It's like they reject. It's very inhumanation. reject these new ideas.

So it's back to like you optimize for some things, but then you have to mitigate for the other thing. So if you're optimized for tenure, you have to mitigate for the risk that you don't get fresh blood, that your career ladder is slow. So maybe people who are talented feel like, well, that's going to take 10 years to get up the career ladder. So then you have to create programs for that to give them exposure.

It took ghost off 18 years to get to the CEO. Yeah. Took 18 years to get to you. Wow, it's a long time. Finally made it. But it is the same principle. Well, how do you get new talent then? Like, what are you guys doing literally at Spotify?

Because I know you have the same idea. You guys have the same idea that Toby from Shopify talked to me about. And my friend Kareem from Ramp, do. Yeah, which was another great episode, by the way, that's a movie episode. Yeah, he's the best. But that you guys are fine hiring for spikes. Yeah. So how do you, like today, how are you getting in your huge platform, business around?

I think it's just celebrated 20-year anniversary, right? Yes, exactly. How are you getting new young talent then? How do you think about that? It's a couple of things. One is you get junior talent, and then we have this rising stars program. We literally ask managers to identify, like, these are rising stars. So then we have a program for them every year.

It's like maybe 20, 30 people. And so they get to go on this program where they go out into the different markets, like India, US, you know, Germany, etc. and learn about the different problems in different markets. Then they go and sit with Alex and talk to him. Then they sit with me. It's literally this internal, you know, MBA program where you learn business, technology, product, and you build relationships across the org.

So now these people come out 12 months later. They know everyone in Spotify across the world. So they can get anything done. So now they're going to start rising much faster. So we have these specific programs to identify the talent and help them accelerate, versus like the organic path of them doing something, getting noticed and slowly working the way up.

So that's one thing. But then every now and then, you also just have to hire a more senior level, right? So if you look at when AI started happening, it was called machine learning back then, I felt that we just weren't strong enough in deep learning, specifically. We knew the old school matrix factorization stuff.

So we did an acquisition of a company called the Echo Nest in Boston just to get very close to MIT. And then we got a bunch of business. bunch of talent in that field and establish ourselves. So sometimes you have to do acquisitions and just get when it's a completely new skill. Something like, you know, if you need to get big in crypto quickly, yeah, you can wait for years for the organization to understand crypto learn. You may have to acquire or hire at some senior level.

You have to mitigate for the problems of tenure. And if I'm going to make some far-fetched analogies, maybe this is one of the challenges that Apple had with machine learning and AI. On average, they were slightly too old to see that. Probably people in their org knew all about it. We're all over it. It was too late to see it. They should have gotten someone at a more senior level sooner.

So sometimes you have to mitigate for the drawbacks of long tenure as well. What's the thing that keeps you up at night? What do you think the weakest spot for Spotify is right now? I think the thing that keeps me up at night is, is not surprising what AI truly means in the limit. I'm pretty sure that media habits are going to change because of AI. And so I don't think it's an option to just sit still. But the way I think about it is the world moves in macrowaves.

You get some new technology. It often causes a bunch of havoc. Then there's some new business model that emerges. And then things change. This was the original on Spotify. We kind of rode on the macro wave of, cheap broadband and PCs, right? And then all of a sudden, they were so ubiquitous

and the broadband was so fast, you didn't actually need to own files anymore. You could just stream them, right? We realized that, we built a business model around it, that became very disruptive to the download industry and so forth. And then you wait a few years, everything looked great. Then the smartphone came along, and now everything changes again.

You have people that don't have a computer. We only had a free tier on the computers. We had no free tier. Turns out that while the PC and the internet, the desktop, had such low latency that you could stream it. If you try to stream a song over cellular back in 2008, it wouldn't even start. It was 20 seconds to start. It would chop. So, like, everything changed again.

And then we had to adapt to that. And we managed to. We came up with the offline sync business model and the mobile model and so forth. But then you get these periods of stability. So if I was an analyst, and I tried to predict the world between 2004, 15 to 2025, those 10 years, just like, what would the world be like? I would have done really well to just extrapolate more mobile, more subscription, more ads, just more of everything.

And you would have gotten really close to what happened. But if you would have shifted that 10 years earlier, 2005 to 2015, you would have extrapolated PCs and Internet. You would have missed smart. You would have missed everything. I would have missed Uber. We've really missed the entire world. So the question is, which era are we in?

Are we in the calm waters of extrapolation or in the macro change? I think we're in one of these, where everything changes. So I can't tell you what's going to change, but I'm pretty sure that things are going to change. But the way we think of it as a company is the scariest periods are the periods of change. Guess when Spotify grew the most? Periods of change. When things are stable, market share stays stable. You don't eat market share.

So when there's change, there's risk you can lose market share. But that is also when you have the most opportunity to eat market share. if you adopt a change. So my principle is just always be first. Be first and adopted first. The world is going to change, just accept that and get ahead of the curve. So I think this is a time of great opportunity for us to do new things, but it is also the thing I'm thinking about constantly.

What does it actually mean? And what are the right bets? Are the right bets to bet on user control and these things? Whereas others are going to bet complete opposite of us. So that's what keeps me up at night is we're still, in this change. It hasn't finished yet. No one knows exactly where it's going to end up. They're going to be the Ubers and Airbnbs of this era.

And maybe they are open-anthropic, but maybe not. Maybe it hasn't even happened yet. That's a perfect place then. Gustav, thanks for doing this, man. Always good to talk to you. Thank you, man. Appreciate it, man. I hope you enjoyed this episode. Please remember to subscribe wherever you're listening and leave a review and make sure you listen to my other podcast founders. For almost a decade, I've obsessively read over 400 biographies of history's

greatest entrepreneurs, searching for ideas that you can use in your work. Most of the guests you hear on this show first found me through founders.