Limitless Podcast - Elon's Plan for Starlink to DESTROY Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile

Episode Date: September 10, 2025

In this episode, we explore SpaceX's $17 billion mobile spectrum acquisition enabling cellular service via Starlink, challenging major carriers. We discuss OpenAI's new Jobs Platform connecting businesses with AI-skilled individuals, along with updates to the ChatGPT interface that enhance interactivity. Additionally, we cover Microsoft's $17 billion partnership with Nebius for AI infrastructure and Atlassian's $610 million acquisition of The Browser Company, signaling a shift in productivity tools. Stay tuned for our next episode featuring Apple’s latest tech announcements!------🌌 LIMITLESS HQ: LISTEN & FOLLOW HERE ⬇️https://limitless.bankless.com/https://x.com/LimitlessFT------TIMESTAMPS0:00 SpaceX's Bold Acquisition0:52 OpenAI's LinkedIn Competitor10:52 The AI Job Platform13:50 Advancements in ChatGPT16:07 OpenAI's Spending Surge21:57 Microsoft Acquires Nebius24:36 The Browser Company Acquisition29:43 Wrapping Up This Episode------RESOURCESJosh: https://x.com/Josh_KaleEjaaz: https://x.com/cryptopunk7213------Not financial or tax advice. See our investment disclosures here:https://www.bankless.com/disclosures⁠+

SpaceX just announced a $17 billion acquisition to essentially allow them to shoot space lasers down from outer space, direct to your cell phone to enable you to have service anywhere in the world. So if you're a user of T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, if you've ever experienced a dead zone in your life, those days are soon to be behind you. Because what SpaceX did is they just purchased mobile spectrum that will allow them to shoot these amazing Starlink satellites that are in space, direct to your cell phone to receive service. But that's not the only thing we are covering today. Yeah, apparently Open AI is launching a LinkedIn competitor. There's a robotics company that's IPO in $7 billion in China. And also, Elon's not the only person that spent $17 billion this week. Microsoft also blew that exact same amount of money on a very niche European startup, which we'll get into later.

But Josh, sorry, can we rewind a second to the laser beams coming down from space? Yeah, okay, so SpaceX bought this thing called the Wireless Spectrum. So what is wireless spectrum? And why did they pay $17 billion for it? So wireless spectrum, I guess, EJS, you can imagine it, kind of like the air being full of invisible waves, like radio signals or Wi-Fi. We're kind of aware that this exists, but not quite sure how. Spectrum is basically buying a chunk of these waves that companies use to send data,

like calls, text, or the internet. And because this is limited in bandwidth, there's a limited spectrum in which you could send these radio signals. The government actually controls who gets to use which parts. So you can imagine a close tie to like CBS or ABC. broadcast networks where the rights to actually broadcast on a network are very expensive because, again, Spectrum is very pricely. What SpaceX did is they bought the license to this spectrum from a company called Echo Star that allows them the ability to actually use part of the

spectrum and send cellular service direct to your mobile cell phone. Wow. So just to clarify, every two weeks, I go on a hike, Josh, right? And I mainly do it to get away from my girlfriend because she can't contact me. There's no cellular service. You're, you'll, you'll, you'll saying now with this new satellite service that Elon is launching, with this new spectrum thing, I'll be able to get coverage wherever, even on a desolate mountain viral hike. Exactly, yes, because this is leveraging the existing Starlink network that we know and love that people use all over the world. And I actually have a question for you, because I found this super interesting, EGES. How much of the world do you think is actually covered in cell service currently?

It, come on. It's 2025. It can't be that much. I'm going to go with 15%. it's over 50%. Over one half of the world at any given moment has no cellular service. And what this deal does is it allows SpaceX to cover 100%. So anywhere in the world, you could be in the middle of the Atlantic, the middle of the Arctic, you will have cell service direct to sell. And I think that's what's noteworthy about this. In the past, SpaceX has had to contract out this ability through companies like T-Mobile.

So if you remember a few episodes ago, we spoke about the Starship and how this will allow them to send up version 3 satellites of this, which will give much more bandwidth to the network. They enabled it through T-Mobile, because T-Mobile owns the Spectrum license. What they did today is they actually bought the rights to a license that allows them to go around cellular companies. So they don't need to go through T-Mobile.

They can issue their own SpaceX network. So you can imagine a world in which Verizon and T-Mobile and AT&T, well, they kind of suck. They have over 50% in the world as a dead zone. But SpaceX, who will probably offer a service directly similar to a cell provider, will have zero dead zones. And what they bought is the rights to enable that to happen. You know, I'm just thinking about this. And with all the technological progress that we've made over decades, Facebook, social media, all that kind of stuff,

I've never actually heard of someone contending with AT&T, T-Mobile, and all these other major carriers. Which brings me kind of to my next question. $17 billion is a lot, Josh. And I was looking at this tweet that said, you know, you said half of it was in SpaceX stock, right? So that's around $8.5 billion. And SpaceX stock was, according to this agreement, was granted at $212 per share, which would value SpaceX at $400 billion. So my thought is like, do these figures seem right to you to get access to this spectrum? Yeah. Well, I would think you could probably imagine this as a relative valuation compared in the case of Starlink. So SpaceX is much more than just Starlink. But if you're evaluating the Starlink network as a whole, which is owned by SpaceX, you could use Relative. relative valuations based on actual cellular providers because now this is direct competition. So you could look at the comps being Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and that being just a small subset of the actual SpaceX business. So think about what the market cap of these companies are,

maybe even combine them because, I mean, now you have true global access. So right now I'm traveling in Greece and Verizon doesn't exist here. T-Mobile doesn't exist here. I'm using foreign network lines, but in the world where SpaceX actually does offer direct to sell, not only are the comps Verizon, but they are all the internet. national cell providers as well. So the global cellular service provider marketplace would be the comparable, I guess, comparison to SpaceX now that they have this direct-to-sell capabilities. Okay. It sounds huge. And then where my mind naturally goes to next, Josh, is Elon's got to be making a cell phone, right? Surely that's the next step. I would bet no. I would like bet pretty strongly.

The answer is no. Cell phones are very difficult to make its scale. Nor do they contribute to the mission of any of the company. So the idea of Starlink and SpaceX in general is to get people to Mars, to make life interplanetary. What Starlink is doing is funding this mission directly because it's adding a lot of value to the company. It's adding a lot of value back to the world. For them to build an actual smartphone, not only is it a logistics nightmare to have to capture the entire supply chain and ship many of these, but it just doesn't feel like a requirement when current hardware is so good. I think I'd much prefer SpaceX give my iPhone incredible service than replace my iPhone with something that hasn't been refined over two decades of time.

Okay, I'm definitely going to take the other side of that. I've got this tweet pulled up here, which says, seems like we're trending ever closer to Elon making a phone. Battery supply chain synergy with Tesla, so that addresses your supply chain thing. AI powered OS synergy with XAI. It's rumored to be working on it behind the scenes. XAI now officially owns X and all these other kinds of things. Inference chips locked down with the new AI6 with T.

Tesla and now telecommunications locked down with Starlink. Also, I remember Elon mentioning about a year and a half ago, should X basically create their own phone. So I think he's down for it. And then you'll point around like, you know, this being like a massive slog for like hardware supply chain manufacturer. We just watched Elon pump in how many, how many billions into this new Colossus 2. I think that there's any man to take over it. It's going to be him. I agree that it might not be a cell phone. But whatever the next major consumer hardware thing is, and that might be a version of a cell phone, I think Elon might take a shot at it. So I don't know. I'll take the other side.

Okay, because I was going to bet you my entire SpaceX stock that they would not release the cell phone. I feel like very confident in the idea that they will not release a cell phone. I will bet you dinner at the Tesla diner. I won't bet you my entire stock portfolio, but I'll bet you that. Okay. All right. Well, I guess we'll leave it at that. Tesla is doing really cool things. And what this means for the future, basically, is just like, yeah, the entire world has cell service. And that's pretty freaking exciting.

So that is not the only news this week, right? Ejazz, I'm actually away. I'm on vacation. I've been mostly offline this week. So I am leaning on you to guide us through what is going on. I'm going to learn kind of as the audience member, I think, for most of this episode. So fill me in what we have next. Okay, so what you're seeing on my screen is a tweet from someone called Fiji Simo.

And if that name sounds familiar to you. Yeah, yeah. She is the C. of OpenAI applications. Not to be confused with the CEO of Open AI as a whole. Yep. Okay. And just a bit of background.

Fiji is a tenured employee at Meta, where she actually helped build a bunch of the consumer applications at Meta, and then she recently left and joined OpenAI, where she's leading basically the app buildup, the app store build out, all the cool different AI apps that you can get access to. And she's just announced the major flagship app that Open AI is going with, which is AI linked in.

It's essentially a new platform that will allow businesses or anyone, quite frankly, to connect with AI proficient individuals. So what I mean by AI proficient individuals is, Josh, you and I use chat chabitie, right? And I would say we're fairly good at it. We kind of know how to prompt certain ways and know how to ask it for certain things.

We kind of get the vibe. But I'm talking about a layer deeper where there's people that actually learn how to structure prompts for various different situations and tasks that literally dedicate 50 to 70 to 80% of that time every day learning and trying to become proficient in these things, kind of like trying to cut down waste at companies and make it more efficient, all the type of people that create startups from zero to one that create millions and millions of dollars per month, like we're saying, you know, all over social media. So this new AI LinkedIn is an interesting

concept because it's called the Open AI Jobs Platform. And it's basically, like I said, it's a place where businesses can connect with certain different kind of workers. And the main problem that they're trying to fix here, Josh, is everyone has AI tagged onto their resume at some point right now. But it's very hard to tell whether someone is actually kind of like proficient in that thing. And so the other way that this platform is trying to kind of like surface high quality individuals and this problem that Open Air is trying to fix is they're linking this in with their Open AI Academy, which is kind of like a Khan Academy.

If you guys have heard of it, it's kind of like an online academy where you can kind of learn various different kinds of things, software engineering, math, courses, all that kind of stuff, but dedicated towards AI. And why I think this holds such esteem for Open AI in particular

is they're putting their full brand and weight behind it, Josh. Like I said, this is the first application that they're launching. And the final point I'll make is when I zoom out, right, we have said so many times on this show that AI is going to replace everything.

But we don't specifically know how. This is kind of like this big, ambiguous vision that hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars is being invested in. But we don't know quite how it materializes just yet in each different industry. We're starting to see it. I think Open AI's job platform

is going to be one of the main ways that facilitate this. And I was thinking about the kind of power that they're going to hold, right? They're going to have basically all the highest influential experience AI, engineers, researchers, product people, all within one platform. And I can't help but think that that data is very useful.

But I'm going to pause for a second. Josh, hot take, initial tech. I think it's interesting. The most exciting thing to me is the last line of this actually, and Open AI certified for workers to learn and demonstrate their AI skills. I think oftentimes a lot of companies and a lot of employees, they might think they know how to use AI, but there's actually a lot of ways to use AI.

and creating some sort of a benchmarking system for individuals relative to models. So the way we compare benchmarks with normal models or the way we compare normal models is using benchmarks. Well, we don't really have those for actual employment productivity skills. Like if you've ever done this back in high school

or early days of college, you can get certified in like Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Word, just kind of proved that you know it, which felt very lame. I mean, this is not what I want to see Open AIA working on. But I guess I'm kind of torn because it feels like it solves

an interesting problem, right? Because we do have this employment problem. We do have the existential idea that AI is going to replace jobs. The reality is it probably creates a lot more jobs. And in that world, does having this job platform make sense? Probably, I think so. Because it will, I mean, they're the closest to the metal in the sense that they are the closest to the actual model. They have all of the user data. They can certify who is valuable. It's an interesting first example. And I'd love to hear more about why they chose to do it. I, I, I, agree. So if I were to summarize my thoughts, the bare case is that it seems pretty uninspired. Like LinkedIn is kind of whatever to me at least. And so I thought they might come out with something

novel and AI native that would wow people, like something magical, right? Like chat GPT was. But the bull case, I think, is something that you just mentioned, which is to date, benchmarks have been kind of very binary and very gamable. And the only real way to see how AI can can impact the real world is through humans. That's why AI agents haven't really exploded just yet, because you need the human component, you need the intuitive component. And the only way to do that is via humans.

So I think this is one step of many, potentially like, you know, create this platform, create a bunch of different new job roles and job types, and then industries at large start to understand how they can effectuate change using AI. It becomes much more realistic. Like, oh, this is what an AI product manager does. Or, oh, this is what an AI

enabled engineer can do, and this is how much that was. It's exciting for the, I guess, the business world, if you were a business owner, if you're someone in the job market, this is probably interesting to you. It probably takes time to get seated and actually become valuable. But selfishly, I do wish the product team at Open AI was releasing more products that we could use as customers. I want some, like you mentioned, I want some improvements, I want some new tools. I want to be able to further leverage my skills instead of prove that I have skills.

So I guess this one falls a little flat for me, but I could see why it's very important. And I hope that the future will lead it to be much more important than I hope for. But there's more, right? There's more chat ShepT news this week or Open AI news in general. Yeah. So I think this one's going to make you happy, Josh. Open AI revealed by popular request, you can branch conversations in chat GPT now, letting you more easily explore different directions without losing your original thread.

So for the listeners of this show, imagine you open up a conversation with ChatGBT, GBT, and you're asking about travel plans to go to this option, that option, or maybe asking you to write an essay for you, right, for high school, which I know a lot of you guys are doing. And you kind of think, okay, I wonder how this essay might have been written if I had prompted it differently, or if I had asked it to take a particular different tone for this essay. Well, now you can scroll back up to where you ask the initial prompt or wherever and click branch. And it opens up a new tab with a brand new conversation, but with all the same context that you've already fed chat GPT.

Now, for those Marvel fans out there, specifically Marvel Avengers, you know or are familiar with parallel universes, right? Many different timelines for many different possibilities. This is effectively what Open AI has just enabled for your conversations. And I love this personally because I can now run many different experiments and see which one comes to the best answer. Josh, what do you think? Yeah, this is great. See, this gets me excited. This is something you could go into chat GPT today and use and it will improve your experience.

It will improve your quality of life. I think it's great. What's the funny thing that always drives me crazy is that you can use the same model and share the same prompt. And it will spit you out a different answer every single time without fail. And the ability to now fork off the conversation and to try something different while maintaining that stream of thought. And more importantly, the context prior in the conversation, that to me is a really cool use case because there are oftentimes where I'm exploring an idea or I'm doing some research. And I want to go off in one direction. But by adding the additional context of the future answers,

it throws off the further streams of directions that I want to go. So being able to cut it, fork it, and then try multiple times, that's fun. I like that. This is good news. This is good. Open AI, thumbs up. Agreed. Well, there is another big up that happened this week, and that is Sam Altman casually announced that there's been a change, Josh. It's been a slight change. Oh, change?

That's new. Initially, OpenAIA had planned to spend along the lines of maybe $30 to $40 billion on compute over the next couple of years, which for a single company, by the way, is a staggering amount of money. That is like, whatever. That is like something like 40% of META's cash reserves. And META is a very mature public company that has produced many valuable things of the world.

Open AI, still private, still kind of working on their things. Still working on the consume applications. Sam Olman announced this week that, yeah, we need to up that by around $80 to $100 billion. Yeah, we need more compute. Whoa, so that puts them, what, over $100 billion of spending now for a company? $150 billion to be specific. For a nonprofit private company, that is incredible.

So, like, I have a lot of thoughts going through my mind. I'm curious to hear yours, but my first take is like, oh, my God, if we don't get AI or AGI with $150 billion of power through the end of the decade, we have a serious problem. So this is what we were talking about this briefly with the Colossus project where they're planning to put, the XAI team is planning to put a million GPUs online coherently. We are approaching numbers that are truly astounding. Like, $115 billion of spend is millions and millions of GPUs that you assume will be coherent that should produce models that are exponentially better than what we have today. So assuming this works, the future, there's no, surely there's no way

we don't get AII, right? Do you agree? What do you think about? It's a huge amount of money. Yes, it's a huge amount of money, and there are basically two camps of thought around this. I call it the bear camp and the ball camp. The bear camp basically thinks this is all a bubble, specifically something called the AI capex bubble. Basically, people are spending way too much on this AI infrastructure thing, and there's no goods to show. You could also argue that Fiji Seymour's announcement of AI LinkedIn for OpenAI kind of proves that. You could also argue that GPT5 launching and kind of being nothing magical. Maybe I'm desensitized to the magic of AI.

You could also use that as a proofing point behind that. The Bull camp says that no, there's going to be actually an over-demand for compute and not enough money is actually being spent on it, right? So there's these two camps. $80 billion is a massive swing. Sorry, it's not even a swing. It is a completely new budget, right? It is over like 70% of the original.

termed budget. So this could be, we could like speculate on this. Like my view is, I think Sam sees something that we don't, which is going to require a lot more compute. Maybe this is the new hardware consumer device that he's going to launch.

Maybe he's realized a new architecture, which is different to transformer architecture, to train a new model. Well, maybe he's just realized, but to get to the next step change, AGI, you need this amount of compute. That's my ball case. My bad case is he's kind of pulling this number out of his ass and we're not going to get it anywhere.

Yeah, I hope for the latter. I hope that, or the, I guess the former, which was that Open AI actually has a lot more left in the tank. And GPT5 was kind of an anomaly in the sense that they optimized for things that maybe weren't quite popular with the masses, but were very important to the business. So I think retroactively looking back at GPT5, it was optimized for cost per token, really, and trying to optimize for quality per token by using a router. I think they understood this misstep, and now they are going for the raw power. And I'm hopeful that there actually is no scaling wall and that there is a direct correlation between dollars in and intelligence out. Now the question, and I would love comments too for the people who are listening to share,

is this actually a Cappex bubble? Is there a world in which they can derive greater than $115 billion of profit by the year or after 2029? but that's how much they're spending before 2029 and actually earn a return on this investment. That is where I don't know because at the end of the day, they're competing for what will probably be a commodity, right?

We have Google is going for the same thing, X-A is going for the same thing, and maybe there will be hyper-specific models. Just last week we talked about the GPT4B model that is good for biometrics for these protein synthesis and extending life, but you don't need $115 billion of processing for that. So that's the big question.

Is this a Kappex bubble? We don't know. But we are, I'm stoked to find out because it's not my problem. They're privately held. We don't own any shares. So, hey, do your thing. And if you give us AGI for $20 a month, sign me up. I think that AI is the most crucial thing to be spending money on.

So regardless of whether they know where in a bubble or whether they don't know, I think the money is worth spending because we're going to have some kind of discovery from this. And the clearest signal for the bull case of us not being an AI Kappex bubble came from Microsoft. this week, Josh. Do you see the news? Interesting. So they just plow... No, a multi-billion dollar agreement. Another day, another couple billion.

Yep, yep. They just plowed in $17 billion. So the same amount Elon just dropped on his new spectrum provider on this company called Nebius. And the main reason why is to acquire more compute. Nebius is a data center provider,

which is primarily located in Europe. and they specialize in hardware data centers. I'm talking cold metal barebones infrastructure out in God knows where, in Norway or wherever, energy proficient, pure power to help Microsoft surface and train their models that they're doing in conjunction with OpenAI, but also to service some of the features that they have

that they offer to clients, such as Microsoft co-pilot. One striking take from this, bit of news is, okay, let me ask you this, Josh. How much do you think Nebius was valued prior to this announcement? I'm not even going to guess. I'm so far

out of the ballpark in these numbers. Now, I have nothing to even... It could be a million dollars, it could be $100 billion at this point. Got it. That total market cap their public company, I believe, is $15 billion. Whoa. So that's a

very low multiple that they purchased them for. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So Microsoft plowed in, well, this is the thing. It's not a purchase. It's a partnership. $17 billion of consumer revenue is going to Nebius. So over the next, I think it's like three to five years. Microsoft is paying them basically $17 billion. So someone did the math looking at that. I don't know if I have the tweet. Oh, yeah, it's right here. Nebius is projecting $625 million of revenue by the end of 2025. Microsoft's revenue alone would increase their revenue by a growth of 3x year upon year. So this might be the best stock purchase or for people who are holding Nebius are up bigly, basically, in the last 24 hours. Congrats to Nebius holders.

And I guess congrats to Microsoft holders as well, because the stock did very well as soon as this was announced, right? I don't know how much Microsoft shares went up. do know is that Nebia shares jumped 53% in after hours, Josh. So we have another data AI spend. And going back to my original point, I think this is a proving point against the AI Cappex bubble. Because if Microsoft, a Titan that has spent, I think it's, what is it, $35 billion that was invested in open area when Sam Altman was ousted, right, to acquire the rights to basically all open air AI models till 2030, is spending even more money on another data provider. And remember, they're like the primary compute providers via Azure to train open AI's

models. If they're spending a further $17 billion to acquire more compute capacity, this is a sign that it's not a bubble and that we're actually building something useful. There's a lot of spending. And this is not where the spending ends. For our last story, we have one more acquisition merger too, correct? And this one is also fairly large. Oh, yeah. Okay. So as you know, the browser company? Let me tell you about the browser company. Well, actually, let me tell you about our views of the browser company. So for context, Josh and I have done, I think, about three episodes so far on these things

called AI browsers. Think of your internet browser, Google Chrome, Safari, Firefox for you crazy kids out there, paired with AI technology. So having a live-in chat GPT like assistant that kind of like knows what you're browsing, knows what you're looking for, surfaces all your results, combines all these. videos and summarizes it for you in one slick little interface. It kind of reads your brain before you even type any keys. I think Josh and I were both kind of bearish on the AI browser. And the reason why, and Josh, please jump in here, is we kind of thought that the interface was

a cop-out. We think that AI is going to enable a completely different type of OS operating system. And we don't think browsers are quite the same medium. Josh, do you agree with this? Yeah, we spoke about this at length with Arvint, the CEO of Perplexity. So if you have not seen that episode, go check it out. It was interesting to hear the other side from someone who's actively building what I would assume is one of the largest AI browsers in the world. But the take that I had was that, well, when I'm using a browser, I use it for two purposes, right? I use it one for leisure, which is watching YouTube videos or scrolling Twitter or whatever

type of engaging thing that I want to be doing. And for me, I want to do that. I want to personally watch the videos. I don't want a bot doing that for me. And then the other bucket that I use a browser for is productivity. So I use it for working on agendas with you for the show notes or doing research or writing papers or whatever random things it may be or even booking a trip like I did for this trip that I'm on right now. But I don't really care to do that part. Like if I can offload that to an agent to go and book my flights to give me help on this prep and just present me with the finished thing, I would much prefer an agent.

I'll just get away all of the complexities of the browser and just present. me with what I want. I don't really care for the browser interface that is now over 25 years old, I believe. When an agent could just go and do the engaging itself and then return me the results. So for that reason, we've embarrassed on AI browsers, but clearly we are, I mean, to some extent, the market signaling are wrong. I don't know if we're wrong, but according to this acquisition, the market is giving a signal that like maybe people actually do want AI browsers. Yeah. So the headline here is AI browsing company called the browser company. just got acquired for $610 million,

all cash by none other than Atlassian, which is an enterprise software product, a software as a service company, famous for their product, Jira, right? I actually caught up with the guy that set up this entire deal, who is the number two at Alassian. He's my former boss, Sanchez. Oh.

And he basically said that the reason why they bought it is they are betting big on the browser, but not at a consumer level, at the enterprise level. They think that a number of their clients are going to want to have their own in-house browser that they can use for their own data set, for their own operating system,

for their own products and systems. And what he wants to do with part of the browser strategy's company is build out this kind of like enterprise-grade browsing solution. How much revenue do you think the AI browser company, sorry, the browser company is making prior to the acquisition? You are accurate. Zero. Yeah, that's insane.

Zero dollars of revenue and $610 million in acquisition cost is crazy. Congratulations to the team. That is an unbelievable accomplishment for the Atlassian company. Oh my gosh. That feels scary. You are selling B2B products in a world where. software will be hyper-customized. And to productize this as a generic product that you can customize the data for and then

serve to an employee base, a company, seems scary and risky, when there will be a world in which you can create a prompt that generates an entire software suite custom to each company. So this is an interesting bet. I mean, Jira is kind of, what, a project management software for like, yep, corporate B2B services. It's kind of slow. It's kind of clunky. Yeah. We use Asana also kind of slow, kind of clunky. It's just, it feels like this, this outdated type of form factor and, and business plan when the new and exciting thing feels like, hey, we actually just have

an incredible AI service that can write unbelievable code and create a custom software stack with all your data for exactly how you need it without needing to use a browser. It's, it's interesting. I mean, they, they're clearly well researched. If they, have that much money to spend on a company that isn't making zero revenue. So it's an interesting purchase. And that's it for this episode, folks. It has been a crazy week so far. And I have a feeling this is just the start. Remember, this is TechTember. And in under an hour from now, Apple is streaming live about their latest hardware and software. And we have our biggest Apple fanboy on this show. So you know we're going to get you a hot episode out very soon. Josh, any any, any

initial takes? Guys, this is my Super Bowl. This is a big deal. If you don't tune into the episode this week, you are going to missing out on some pretty spicy takes. There are not many companies that I followed for this long,

this closely and care this passionately about than Apple. And this is very much the Super Bowl event of the year. It's the new iPhone. It's the new watch. It's the new AirPods. And if we are lucky, God willing, we will get some AI news as well.

So there's a lot riding on this. The future of Apple depends on it. We are going to go tune out and tune into the live stream. Watch that and then report back to you, So if you are listening to this, tune in. It's coming soon. It's going to be a great episode. But in the meantime, I hope you enjoyed this one. Thank you so much for listening. Don't forget to like, subscribe, share with your friends, all the other great things that help our show grow. We really appreciate you sticking to the 33 minute. This is a little bit longer. Nice little roundup. Hope everyone enjoyed. And I guess for the fun comments, I've been loving the comments. I've been trying to reply to a lot of the comments. I've been trying to reply to a lot. I've been trying to reply to the comments. They're great. So if you have anything to say, please don't forget to leave a comment. If anything, just let us know if you think it's a bubble or are we in the CAPX bubble or are we not? I think. this is kind of a point of contention we go back and forth on. So I'd love to hear your takes. But anyway, thank you so much for listening. We will be back tomorrow with our lovely and

exciting, hopefully exciting Apple episode. But yeah, in the meantime, we'll see you guys later. Peace. See you guys.