Pivot - Bonus Episode: Satya Nadella at Code Conference 2021

Episode Date: October 13, 2021

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella joins Kara for a discussion on ransomware, remote work, and dealing with the Trump administration. Recorded live at Code 2021. This interview was been lightly edited for runtime and clarity. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London and beyond, and see for yourself how traveling for business can always be a pleasure. to get your customers to notice you, Constant Contact has what you need to grab their attention. Constant Contact's award-winning marketing platform offers all the automation, integration,

and reporting tools that get your marketing running seamlessly, all backed by their expert live customer support. It's time to get going and growing with Constant Contact today. Ready, set, grow. Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today. Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial. ConstantContact.ca. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher. Today, we've got a bonus episode from our Code Conference. It's my conversation with Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella. Thank you so much for being here. Oh, it's my pleasure. Thank you. Good. So we did your first interview.

That is right. Correct. How did you think that went? Somebody, I remember the tweet right after that interview. I forget, there was some founder, I think, right after me. He said, oh, that guy is a manager, and there was a founder after him. And I thought, oh, that's interesting. And that grounded me. I'm somebody who grew up in Microsoft.

I was not a founder. But in some sense, I think I tried to sort of make sure that I stayed grounded in what that meant and what I could do with it. Well, you've done rather well. You've done rather well. The company is, you have to give credit where credit is due. It was the most valuable company in the world. It's now the second, I think, but it's in and out of that. Talk a little bit about that process for you. There's a lot of new CEOs. Ted just came in at Netflix. Andy Jassy just came in at Amazon.

What's your advice to them? I mean, if I go back to, I think, this distinction of what does it mean to be a CEO, what does it mean to be a founder-CEO, it's pretty distinct, right? I think one of the things that founders have that sort of amazing followership and they take a lot of things for granted, rightfully so, because they created something from nothing. And for any CEO, at least in my case, even though Steve technically was not a founder, he had founder status in our company. I felt I was the first non-founder CEO. To be able to ground yourself on what Reid Hoffman called refounding is a great metaphor, which is to be able to recommit yourself to what's the mission and sense of purpose of the company. purpose of the company. To be able to articulate that though in your own words and then build the culture, the capability, and at the end of the day, you've got to get a lot of things right

around strategy and the new concepts. So the best advice I ever got after becoming CEO is to be yourself versus try to fill someone else's shoes. Yeah. But doing so, respecting what came before you, but at the same time to be able to shape what comes after to be truly something you believe in, not because something, you know, has done before. What is a mistake you can make? I'm just thinking the new CEO of Disney insulting Scarlett Johansson probably is not the best move before. What is a mistake you can make? I'm just thinking the new CEO of Disney insulting Scarlett Johansson probably is not the best move. But what is something that you did that you, what are some of the refounding principles

that you thought were critical, not to mistake, besides the strategy? Yeah, I mean, the thing that maybe as an insider, because in fact, it's interesting, Cara, I don't really think of my Microsoft career or even my tenure as CEO of the last seven and a half years. I think about it since 1992, right? So it's sort of one continuous film, if you will. So the mistake at least is to, Mistake, at least, is to, you have to objectively look at yourself.

And it's hard, you know, because, and especially as an insider, it was perhaps even harder for me. But the biggest benefit, at least, was when I criticized, I was criticizing myself when I criticized what we were doing as a company. It was not like I was critical of someone else. I was critical of all of us, including myself. And it really did give me, perhaps, the best shot at being able to then work the issues versus feel like I'm just criticizing for criticizing's sake. So the mistake I think if someone can make is not to respect the place that you sort of, that was created.

You've got to go in there and understand what made you successful in the first place. And there must be lots of patterns that you need to renew. So not throwing everything out. Like for example, one of the things my father said to me

once, which he was a civil servant, and he always had this thing about, look, when I work in an institution, I want to make sure that the institution becomes stronger and it doesn't fall apart after I leave. And that stood with me, right? So as a CEO, I think the mistake you can make is all about cult of personality it's about you and it's once you leave the thing falls apart so that the after all if the previous ceo did a decent job they gave you some a platform respect that uh but then make it your own build and then leave it a better place for the next ceo i guess that begs the question did the previous ceo do a very good job i i as far as i'm concerned, Steve Ballmer made some of the biggest bets that I was able to build on.

If Steve had not taken a bet on me running what was our cloud business, if he had not taken a bet on me spending all the money I spent, we wouldn't be where we are. So I absolutely think that like all CEOs, he got a lot of things right. We all get things wrong. The one thing I learned from Steve, all my years working with him, I never sort of sat with him in a meeting where he said, let me tell you, Satya, about all the great things I've done. He would only talk about all the mistakes he was making. It's the greatest gift that somebody can give you. Right. But many of the things you shifted.

Let's talk about what you shifted. Because he made a lot of bets all over his life, whether it was the phone, all kinds of different things they did. Same thing, Gates. You have really, talk a little bit about your strategy because you've sort of honed Microsoft into a much simpler setup, I would say. Yeah, I mean, it goes back a little bit to sort of rediscovering what that core identity, Kara, for me was. You see, I felt like at some point, you know, Microsoft was doing a lot of things out of envy, not because out of things that we were meant to do, right? So that's sort of, in some sense, customers give you permission. Your brand gives you permission to do things and you should do

those super well. And maybe if you do that super well, you get more permission to do other things. And so in that context, if you think about at least three layers of what we perhaps got right, first is we were able to take the big inflection points, like the cloud, and redo our entire server infrastructure. In fact, it became more expansive. I used to grow up in our server space and I used to think it's a big business, except we now have a bigger business than we ever built in the client-server era. We rode the SaaS wave and reinvented Office 365. I mean, we were all saying, oh, wow, can we ever build a bigger business than the traditional Office? And Office 365 is orders of magnitude bigger than what we were doing. Well, same thing with Dynamics.

We had lots of chaos in the client-server era because we had grown there by acquisition. Whereas now we have a complete cloud-native news business, SaaS, which doesn't even have the encumbrances of the first-generation SaaS guys. So it was fantastic to be able to reinvent. Even Xbox. Xbox was part of Microsoft. But it was sort of this thing on the side, whereas today Xbox is much more central to Microsoft. It's built on a cloud. The social network is critical to You know, it's entering, to me, if I think about, it's not even like, you know, doing things even in Windows, right? Windows is a device, it's an operating system that was built for productivity and communications. Right. And to be able to reinforce that, or Windows is the, today, in fact, if you think about it, right, it's the most open platform. I mean, it's ironic that, you know, it is sort of, I used to think the, you know, both AOL, you know, was killed by the web or the internet.

And guess what? We now have, what, five AOLs thriving. And so that's 25 years of progress for you. AOLs thriving, and so that's 25 years of progress for you. So therefore, we're saying, no, let's get back to what Windows is fantastic at, at being an open platform and leaning into that uniqueness. I'm not saying it's out of some great virtue out of us, but it's just about how competitive... So what keeps you from not moving into those envy areas? Like like I don't see Microsoft Studios anymore, although you had done MSN. Search is not as big a focus for you all. It's there, but that was certainly a bigger focus. The phone, how do you stay out of those things without wanting to move into them?

Yeah, I mean, if I look at the new areas we've gotten into, the first thing I always think in terms of strategy is before you go into something completely new, make sure you don't miss line extensions. So the adjacencies, whether it is building out our security business, I mean, they're securing the platform and building security products. We now have an end-to-end security suite that's best in class. It's basically a new big business for Microsoft. Of course, it has the adjacency to what we've always done. Or developer SaaS, right?

With GitHub and what we've done with VS Code, we are into developer productivity. You could say we were always into it, but we've now reinvented ourselves in that. Or our new automation suite called Power Platform. That's another complete line extension. Or getting into new spaces like LinkedIn. LinkedIn is a fascinating one for me because it is... These are acquisitions you've made, LinkedIn, GitHub. LinkedIn, GitHub, and Minecraft are the three large ones. They all sort of center around building

communities around something we had permission in, right? Minecraft is very different than all the other games. It's not sort of the same as Halo or what have you. My kids play Minecraft. And Minecraft just got us new permission in gaming, which we were a primary on. LinkedIn is about professionals. And after all, Office is about professionals and knowledge workers. But we didn't have 800 members just choosing as consumers to network. So it's sort of both an adjacency and a different business model. So how do you think of acquisitions? Because you've made several rather large ones.

So that's kind of how I think about it. The primary thing I ask myself is, will we be able to create the platform for that entity to thrive? In other words, the classic question is, are you a better owner? You're only a better owner if the mission for a LinkedIn or a GitHub or a Minecraft could be realized better with Microsoft as a platform. In fact, in all three, one of the interesting things for me is we had other people who were bidding for those assets and all three founders chose to sell to Microsoft. Were you surprised?

I was not surprised, but I feel like we got it right because that choice that the founder was making is to make sure that whatever it is that they'd built can thrive and not just high price. Right. So talk a little bit about that approach to buy Discord.

That was one that didn't work. What extent do you see acquisitions as important versus creating original things within Microsoft? How do you balance those two? I think fundamental bet is organic. I mean, when I look at our R&D budget today, the inorganic things that you do, which is more episodic, seem, you know, they get the press, they get the headline number. year over year, R&D increases. It's most, I would say, 80% or 90% of what a company does,

at least at our scale, has to be about organic growth. And inorganic things are definitely going to be key. What did you want to do with Discord? What is Discord? No. Look, I mean... Don't make me laugh, Sachin. The thing that I feel that we're in the business office to sort of look at anything that is in the core communications and whether it's entertainment or communications and productivity, we want to be a primary. And we will definitely keep working on our own and we'll keep looking at assets.

Well, then I just sort of have to ask about TikTok. Tell me what happened there. It's the strangest thing I've ever sort of worked on. I figure. It's the strangest thing I've reported on. It's unbelievable. I mean, I learned so much, Cara, about so many things and so many people.

So? Give it to us. I mean, one of the things, first of all, you've got to remember, TikTok came to us. We didn't go to TikTok. Right. I think the way people talk about it

is as if I went looking for TikTok. I mean, TikTok was caught in between a lot of issues. They were having it across two capitals, and they wanted a partner. And Yiming, whom I'd met a couple of times before, and fundamentally came to us and said, hey, can you be a cloud provider who can help us with these security things that we seem to be hearing about? And that's kind of how it started. But I was pretty intrigued, I must say.

It's a great property. Obviously, you know, everybody seen their growth and what have you. And then I guess the rest is history. Well, tell me. I don't know. What part? Tell me about your discussions with Donald Trump. He's gone now for a little while, at least.

You know, President Trump, I think, had sort of a particular point of view on what he was trying to get done there. And then it just, I just dropped off. I mean, it was interesting. There was a period of time when I felt that the USG had some particular set of requirements, and then they just disappeared. Yeah. And I mean, I'm not part of the USG, so you'll have to ask someone there. Interesting. Lack of execution.

That's interesting. The quality. But what did you want it for? Tell me what you were thinking about it. Yeah. To me, you know, if we had a chance to both, quite frankly, the place where even if you, you know, go to Yiming and ask him, like the thing that attracted him to even talk to Microsoft was all of are doing in content moderation and child safety is what would have given us even permission. Right.

What we were doing with Xbox. There were very few companies who could have done this, correct? Yeah, I mean, there are a few companies who can, I think, bring a lot. I mean, there's the cloud platform, there's the security infrastructure that was very much required because if you remember, at least at that time, what was the conversation was to complete fork off the code base, which you then, do we have the engineers to be able to take over a code base and then to secure it on an ongoing basis? That required competence. And on top of it, you better know something about running a social media, which we know,

with either through Xbox Live or LinkedIn. And so it is an interesting product. And also the way it was engineered, you know, quite frankly, appeals a lot more to me and Microsoft, I think. The way it's about design and AI, and I like that. So were you surprised Oracle showed up? I like that. So were you surprised Oracle showed up?

I mean, Oracle is a very competent company. And I think that the partnership, you know, I mean, at this point, it's all moot, right? I mean, I have no idea. What's happening now? I have no idea. Have you called? I'm no. Okay. All right.

Would you like to acquire TikTok? At this point, I'm happy with what I have. Okay. All right. Okay. So I want to talk a little bit about, are you looking at anything else? I'm happy with what I have. All right. Okay. Well, let's talk a little bit about cybersecurity because you mentioned it. One of the things you were involved in was the Jedi project before Jeff showed up. He's suing Elon now, so don't worry about it for you. Talk a little bit about that process and then a little bit about SolarWinds

and what happened there. Yeah, I mean, on JEDI, I think at this point, the Department of Defense has decided themselves that they want to go multi-cloud. Quite frankly, we were advocates of a multi-cloud strategy across all of the federal government. And so it is what it is. And we are happy to compete for each contract.

And we were proud to win it first time. We won it second time. And now hopefully we'll get to execute on it going forward. And then on SolarWinds, it's a... Can I just ask you a question for JEDI? Is it a bad thing that they haven't moved forward more quickly on this for national security? Absolutely, right. I mean, it's one of the things that I feel the United States in general, all up,

you know, the federal government is probably a little better off than a lot of the state and local governments because we do need to modernize our infrastructure as rapidly because it even, know touches upon the cyber issue which is what is our biggest we were after all there was significant penetration of let's call it the client server error technology inside of our government and inside of our private sector and so it's more incumbent on people like us or a country like ours to modernize faster. And it does require capital investment. Like the run costs, in fact, was stunning to me. I was meeting with one of the state CIOs and the run costs of most of the CIOs still is predominantly mainframe.

I mean, in 2021, when you have that, that's a problematic thing. So you need to modernize. From Microsoft's point of view, how important are defense department contracts or government contracts? Department of Defense has been a big customer of ours from day one. And they're important, but they're not the only customers. Look, we're not a defense contractor. We are a company that builds commercial technology that's broadly used. And we've been very, very clear that we want to make sure that the Department of Defense can use the same technology we build for commercial customers.

All right. So talk to me about cybersecurity. Yeah. The fundamental thing I think we're hitting upon is we can talk a lot about what are the specifics of the adversary in this case, how they were able to penetrate the supply chain essentially of this one company and thereby its blast radius was very, very high. And you came forward compared to other companies, correct? Yeah. I mean, disclosure is another side of it, right? Which is one of the key things in cybersecurity is we now need to make sure that whoever gets impacted. So in our case, basically, yes, we had an instance of solar wind. Interestingly enough, the way we had designed our network is that instance obviously got the update from solar winds, but it stayed there and it didn't propagate. But at the same time, we wanted to make sure that everybody understood that our production servers, nothing was affected, and we disclosed on that.

And the reality is a lot more people were impacted by it and very few people disclosed, but it's up to them. But the bottom line, though, is more than any disclosure or any headline around how this happened, the thing is trust. There was a great paper by, I think, Ken Thompson in his Turing Award paper, actually. It's trusting. Trust, I think, is what it's called. And it just, I think, hits the right thing, which is you ultimately, you can come in and we can talk about technology and technology and technology. Ultimately, you've got to trust the institutions from whom you're getting your software from. And how do you ensure that? That is where I think the role of governments and multilateral agreements and institutions is going to be the thing. So you can't solve the cyber problem by just talking about technology.

So what has to be done is, I interviewed Mariana Matsukato, talking about public-private partnerships. What is the problem in doing that? Because these have to span government. What is the challenges you face? I think the challenges are first to try and prioritize this as a domain that requires. We had a White House summit, I think, last month, which is a great...

The fact that the White House is prioritizing this is fantastic. I mean, multiple things have to happen. New standards that NIST puts in place, which is Department of Commerce around, let's say, supply chain attacks. That is something that will, I think, raise the bar for everybody. Then the national security apparatus and the intelligence agencies, right? Today, I would say information sharing across both sides, public and private, that I think needs to happen. Then there's a side to diplomacy as well, right? Which is you do need to hold other nation states accountable when cyber attacks are being propagated by a nation state. And we also need to have some moral equivalent of

a Geneva Convention here, because in some sense, if you think about the people who suffer the most under any cyber attack, it's the small businesses and it's the individual consumers, i.e. the most vulnerable. And so therefore, you need... How did Geneva Convention work? How would that... It goes back to how did the Geneva Convention work? It's got a bunch of countries that are coming together within some auspices of a multilateral... Saying we will not do this. And within some governance of some multilateral organizations that can enforce the convention. Why would China do this?

China would do it because they have a stake in the world being safe, right? China, I think, cares as much or should care as much about cybersecurity for their own, you know, economy. Because no one's going to be somehow isolated from the... And in fact, if anything, cyber doesn't have borders like the pandemic. And so of all things, this is a place where I think the world does need to cooperate in order to protect their own citizens and protect their own economy. What is your hopes for that cooperation? I mean, today we are in that state where it's sort of a little bit of, hey, the globalization as we knew of it didn't work that well, so therefore we should just all be about our countries first, which, by the way, is correct because, after all, every country does need to look after its national interests,

its national security, and I subscribe to that as a CEO of a multinational company. I feel I only have permission to operate in any country if we are meeting that country's national interests. Otherwise, we should get kicked out. And so having said that, I think we now need to recognize that all of what globalization did can't be thrown out. We, in fact, need multilateral institutions with some strength on big issues, whether it's climate or cyber or pandemic response. Because without it, the world's too connected.

Too connected in capital markets, too connected in climate, too connected in many other dimensions. Are there national security interests? You being one of the big tech companies, I just talked to Lisa Su about that. Are there considerations of nationalist protection, I guess? hey, what does our silicon supply chain look like? What is our dependence on other countries and perhaps what happens to our ability

to continue to operate our economies and so on? And that's good. I mean, after all, you may say that in the last phase of globalization, the way the supply chains were organized may not be completely compatible with whatever are the national security considerations.

So they need to be rearranged. And that'll happen in time. And so I think the question, though, is does that mean we can get disconnected? That, I think, is a fallacy. You cannot disconnect yourself from the world. You can take steps to make sure that you're more resilient if something happens, like whether it's the pandemic or whether it's the supply chain. We'll be back with more from Satya Nadella after the break.

Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting, crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists.

And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward

conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim. And we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk, and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere?

And you're making content that no one sees? And it takes forever to build a campaign? Well, that's why we built HubSpot. It's an AI-powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you, tells you which leads are worth knowing, and makes writing blogs, creating videos, and posting on social a breeze. So now, it's easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers.

Welcome back to this bonus episode of Pivot. Here's more of my conversation with Microsoft CEO, Satya Nadella, at this year's Code Conference. One of the things, I want to talk about two areas. One, the pandemic, you just mentioned it. How has it affected running your company in terms of the work from home? Obviously, you benefited, teams benefited, Zoom and other companies. Tech has never been more valuable.

How are you thinking about this? Your policy is hybrid, right? Correct? How did you think about this? Yeah, I mean, the first thing, Cara, I'd say is we for sure have seen a tremendous amount of growth. I mean, you know, being a software company, being a cloud company at a time when the most malleable resource that was available for people to continue to operate was digital tech. And so, obviously, the adoption curves went up across all sectors of the economy. Spotted your valuations.

And, yeah, I mean, so we're clearly beneficiaries of it. The one thing, though, interestingly enough, before we come to sort of our own policy, the interesting thing was during even the early sort of months of the pandemic in 2020, as we were going remote, we needed to really ensure that we were scaling all of our cloud for all the frontline people, whether it was in healthcare or retail or critical manufacturing, because those are the folks who needed, in fact, I always say we are the first responders for all the first responders out there. And even today, in fact, we talk about the hybrid policies

of a few tech companies or the tech sector, but in the overall labor market, it's still a very small percentage because most people are actually at work and working. So that said, to your point, right now, at least there's a real structural change. Some of the poll data in our own employee base is pretty clear. I describe it sometimes as the hybrid paradox, which is there is 70% of the people want to say they want more human connection. Right.

And 70% of people say they want more flexibility. And so therein lies the challenge. What do you do? Yeah, the best thing is to sort of make sure that we build the tools that allow for that flexibility. In fact, the other thing, at least in my own opinion,

and the policy at Microsoft is, let's not try and make too dogmatic a decision right now on, we found the future and this is the future. Let data over time, not data today, but like what are people's expectations of employees has changed. Let's accept that. Have your employees been more productive? In fact, all of the metrics, in fact, this is what I feel even where all the metrics will say they've been very productive. In fact, if anything, we want to make sure that things like wellness, we are really being careful because there is all, you know, productivity can lead to burnout. How are you managing that? Therefore, the role of a manager has become more important.

Interesting enough, when you get to a workplace, say one bad manager could be compensated by just the work environment and a lot of people around the person. Whereas when you're remote, you're very dependent on managerial excellence at all levels. So I do feel that our employees have been very productive. But what is productivity in the long run, right? You just

can't say, oh, patents filed or code written or pull requests. Those are all interesting metrics. But I think that it's too early to tell whether productivity or innovation. So I want to make sure that we do take... I'll tell you one place where we were not that productive, Game Studios. We were very sure, it was very clear that... They need to be together. They need to be together. It's interesting.

We learned a lot about which functions need to be together for what. So we now have, I think, a bit deeper understanding of what people need to be together for what. And so to your earlier question, I think we then now need to make sure that we have enough flexibility, but at the same time, new norms will emerge, which bring people together in order to be. It's your instinct for yourself. I think I'll do what we have now stated as our policy. That's at least where I'll start, which is at least work, you know, maybe three days a week in person, two days a week, you know, remotely. But which three days in two days? That's going to be the one that we are going to basically allow individual team norms to

emerge. Do you think this is a big area of business for you? You have teams, obviously, tons of other things. Some of it worked. A lot of the tele-education just didn't. Anyone with children knows what a disaster it was, no matter where you sat. Yeah, I mean, the thing, if you sort of do this simple two-by-two quadrant and you say there's synchronous communications, asynchronous communications, and then there is collaboration happening that people are together and remote, you could get away in the past, perhaps by being good in, say, a couple of cells in that two-by-two or the four quadrants. You now need to be great at all four. So to your question, is this a good business for us? Because as a tools provider and a platform

provider, it's a good business. But to your point, the practice, whether it's in education, whether it is in healthcare, or whether it's in retail, I think we all have to accept that we don't need to be able to deliver whatever service or content in more ways than we did in the past and improve its ethic. Education is probably the place where we have suffered the most because the core pedagogy has to evolve in order to support the different ways people learn. Yeah, absolutely. So in seeing the opportunity, one of the things that's happened is, as we said, your company's never been more valuable. All of tech has never been more valuable.

Someone, I think it's Scott who said I should ask this, how have you escaped scrutiny of regulators? Because we were scrutinized a lot. I understand that. I recall. But talk a little bit about that. Your company is one of the most powerful companies. There's two ways you can go here. One is we're not doing anything that would attract scrutiny. And the other is they're so bad that they're focused on

that. Should you mush everybody together? I always think. I think that's the issue, right? Which is, what is the tech company today? Here's my thesis. And I think that it's sort of very important. Interestingly enough, the regulators, at least today, seem to, whether it's in the United States, whether it's in Europe, even China, everyone seems to recognize that there seem to be two forms of tech. This is now not even saying let's not get into financial services, let's not get into health tech, let's not.

But even in what is considered core tech, I would say there is platform technologies which act as factors of production. So that is their input for someone else so that they can create new products and services. So things like cloud fit into it, productivity suites, business application suites, and a lot of Microsoft business is that factor of production. And there is also what I'll call factors of distribution. So these are marketplaces, whether they're app stores, whether they are, you know, news feeds in social media or search, which is the biggest of them all as an organizing layer. And so all of those, and or e-commerce marketplaces. So I think finally people are coming and saying, oh, you know, this idea that, and both, by the way, have a place under the sun. After all, these marketplaces reduce transactional costs, which I think all of us can do with.

And platforms are commodities, ultimately, if these markets are competitive. And the issue though is measuring the social impact of these basically factors of distribution are what everybody is evaluating. First of all, is there competition? I mean, one thing that I sort of look at is, hey, when was the last time sort of lots of funding went into search? Other than good old Microsoft, you know, where we spend billions of dollars trying to compete. Good old Microsoft. That's what I always say. It's like we're going to be at it because that market has to get competitive. Yeah.

I mean, it's kind of like the most ridiculous thing that is the biggest market in the world is just a complete monopoly. Do they deserve antitrust? No, I just want... You're just saying. I'm saying the onus is quite frankly on us to compete. I mean, they've done a fantastic job. Let me just not sort of... Should regulators come in here?

I'll let the regulators do whatever they need to do. But the bottom line is for us to sort of say, let's make these factors of distribution more competitive. Right. And if they become more competitive, then even the unintended consequence of any one thing will more competitive. Right. And if they become more competitive, then even the unintended consequence of any one thing will be less. Yes.

And I think that's the simplest way. So I'm not sort of saying let's wait for regulators on any side. I think, you know, I think we should just compete in lots of these places. What about Facebook? Are you glad you didn't get into social media? We are in social media. We love LinkedIn. You are. Okay.

LinkedIn is the only social media company anybody likes. Correct? Snapchat. Snapchat. Look, I mean, I think in social. What do you think is happening over there? What do you think of all the scrutiny they're getting? The criticism.

I think in the case of, you know, we kind of run, I mean, obviously we have LinkedIn. We also have Xbox Live. You do. So the thing, though, what at least we have learned is context matters. In other words, as a platform in this case of a social media network, you need to use the context of that network to enforce the standards of discourse on the network that's sort of what the terms of use all are about it's a hard problem i mean disinformation is a hard problem there is no ai that solves for it there's no amount of just even moderators that solve for it but the best thing, is for us to recognize our responsibility

and govern by using the context of the platform. What is allowed? Like on LinkedIn, we know ultimately, why is anybody on LinkedIn? To find economic opportunity. That's the context. So we want to curate everything we do, all the mechanics.

How would you run Facebook if they said you're the CEO? I mean, there is, I let you bring Mark in and have that conversation. He's never coming back here. It's three for three with him and me, so. I am not going to talk about any other CEO's problems. All right, what about Epic and Apple and Google? Look, first of all, let me put it this way.

I think app stores are absolutely important assets, right? After all, if you think about it, like even on Windows, we have an app store. And if anything, when we didn't have an app store, some of the security challenges were immense. And so therefore, I think app stores are a necessary mechanism. Each platform, the way like Xbox has an app store, Windows is an app store, the economics of Xbox are very different. So I don't sit here in judgment, quite frankly, as someone who competes and cooperates with all these folks that one person's doing something right and the other person's doing something wrong. And I think they all have to sort of both listen. Everyone, including people like us, have to ultimately listen.

In fact, that's probably the biggest lesson. Nobody's complaining about the Windows app store that I have. Yeah, but I'm just saying, if I think back at 1990s, right, the biggest lesson learned from Microsoft's own sort of history here is when there's a lot of people sort of complaining about something that you are doing, then there must be something that you're doing that's bothering people that you need to reflect on. And that's it. I mean, and so therefore, to me, that's what I like to look at. And so in every company and every CEO probably needs to reflect. We'll be back with more from Satya Nadella after the break.

Support for this podcast comes from Anthropic. You already know that AI is transforming the world around us, but lost in all the enthusiasm and excitement, is a really important question. How can AI actually work for you? And where should you even start? Claude, from Anthropic, may be the answer. Claude is a next-generation AI assistant, built to help you work more efficiently without sacrificing safety or reliability. Anthropic's latest model, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, can help you organize thoughts, solve tricky problems,

analyze data, and more. Whether you're brainstorming alone or working on a team with thousands of people, all at a price that works for just about any use case. If you're trying to crack a problem involving advanced reasoning, need to distill the essence of complex images or graphs, or generate heaps of secure code, Claude is a great way to save time and money. Thank you. that puts humanity first. To learn more, visit anthropic.com slash Claude.

That's anthropic.com slash Claude. Welcome back. Now back to my conversation with Satya Nadella of Microsoft. You suspended Microsoft PAC donations to politicians who oppose certification of the 2020 results. How should big tech work in this highly partisan environment? That's a great question. I get very weary of individual CEOs, individual companies, in a democracy like ours, make decisions to sanction sort of our own political system and its constituents. It just bothers me. I mean, after all, I mean, as an immigrant to this country, one of the greatest things about the United States is its democracy, its vibrancy. And so for me to take, or for our company to take stance, it seems quite frankly silly.

Because after all, we are all companies are not meant to do that. Individuals do. But that said, I think we will need to have certain grounding in some values, like protecting our democracy. So when those lines are crossed, how can you be clear that you will use your voice? And you've got to be sparing on it. You just can't be out there just trying to act as if you are somehow the replacement. So when people say business leaders are now the people who

are going to somehow solve what, I mean, I don't want to live in a country where I have to depend on CEOs to govern us. Same time, IBM was at the forefront of integration. Apple was at the forefront of gay and lesbian rights. And that's fantastic. We can definitely lend our voice, lend our support, push for legislation. After all, we sued the US government on many issues around privacy. And those are all instruments of our democracy that I think that we should exercise.

What happens when you get faced with the Texas abortion laws or trans issues or voting rights? Like take the Texas issue. We are very, very clear at Microsoft that we will support the women's choice on their rights, on any medical decisions they make. And so therefore, our insurance will cover them wherever they want to go and exercise that right.

So we will make sure we do protect our employees. That's our responsibility. And we'll be clear on that. Do you get tired of the political partisanship? I mean, you got sucked into the TikTok thing. That was lunacy. The partisanship, yeah, I mean, I think the way it's currently characterized, because if it's debate that allows us to truly get things done ultimately by compromising, after all, democracies do function in that form. But right now, I think, yeah, I think we can all do better. But right now, I think, yeah, I think we can all do better. And I think we can do even as individuals, as well as organizations like a private company,

on how to take any issue, just completely ignoring every nuance and making it as if it's just two decisions. It's just not going to help us. making it as if it's just two decisions, it's just not going to help us. And so I'm actually, you know, at least President Biden and his approach saying, look, I want to talk this through and perhaps bring people together and compromise. I hope it sort of leads to more or less partisanship, more action and more benefits. Because there are real points on both sides, except those points have to be reconciled in a way that is very, very different than at least current state of play. All right. Speaking of, you knew this was coming, do better.

The Bill Gates situation. Can you talk a little bit about the impact on Microsoft and what your role was in that? Bill's our founder and remains our founder. He's very engaged on things that he cares about. There are certain technologies he deeply cares about. And even though he now is not on our board, he remains in close contact with the company on those issues. And the Microsoft of 2021 is a different place that I am responsible, my leadership team. The lived experience of any person in the company is

our responsibility and we shape it every day. We're not perfect by any stretch, but we care deeply about all topics of our culture, and we're working it every day. That's a lot of good words. I appreciate them. But was it right to take him off the board? Was it important? As Bill stated and we stated, Bill left the board. It was not about the board asking him to leave.

And he decided that, in fact, that he had a lot more things to do with his climate work and his philanthropy. But did it have an effect within Microsoft? You know, look, I mean, Bill has been, you know, he was CEO and then he was on our board, but he was not full-time at Microsoft. So in some sense, Bill's transition has been many decades, I mean, maybe more than a decade in the making.

So the impact on Microsoft at this point is more about the people at Microsoft and what we do for the future. Right. I'm going to let you off the hook. I think the fact that he was left from the board, he left, is great. That was probably the right thing to do. Same time, disclosure is also important.

So it's a difficult situation. But I appreciate your answering that, Rob. You're an old friend. Oh, yeah. Great to see you guys. Great to all be live in the same place. I had a question about ransomware. Oh, yeah. Something that I guess a lot of us have been thinking about.

It seems to me that between better tracking of zero-day exploits, secure Cloud backup for enterprises, helping with enforcement, there's a big role for Microsoft since Microsoft platforms are generally involved in all the big cases, not unilaterally by any means. I'm curious how you're thinking about that and how important that is. It's almost like a mission

for Microsoft's platforms to be secure. Yeah, first of all, it's great to see you, Rob. And I 100% agree with you. I think what we were able to do with, say, botnets is what I would like us to do even with ransomware. Because starting, if you think about the botnet work, going back to that public-private, that is a place where the public-private partnership works superbly, right? I mean, even the judicial system and its support of takedowns on the botnet. I

think the same thing needs to happen on the ransomware, including, this is one place where the crypto rules should be very, very clear so that the incentives are placed in the right place. So we are definitely going to go after this. This is definitely a topic of discussion even in the White House and what they want to do, but it will require Microsoft. We are making it our mission. As you said, the best thing we can do immediately is on the Black Backup Rest restore. In fact, the detection, the interesting thing is, you know what set of activity anybody who is involved in ransomware does, which is first delete backup. So we need to get better at being able to sort of see that

first activity and then to, you know, do the mitigating thing. So absolutely the right call and we're on it. Right. Are you interested in the cryptocurrency markets? You know, I'm watching it. I mean, when I say like, you know, there's multiple things there. I'm very definitely interested in the use cases of what's the distributed database underneath crypto. But we've got to get out of this POW thing in the sense that there needs to be a better than proof of work so that we don't have the energy use problem and what have you. So I think it's a great general purpose technology there that I think can have many use cases.

I was recently learning about settlement of our own accounts payable across all the banks, across all the countries. Oh, my God, it's sort of it's so pretty antiquated. And so some new infrastructure for that would be fantastic. And then on the currency side, my own feeling is that nation states, and I know you had a great conversation just before me, but I think nation states are going to find it very, very hard for just some decentralized infrastructure to completely take over. So I see that that's what what I'm not an expert on crypto. And so therefore we're watching to see what equilibrium do we reach between what is an alternative infrastructure for how the world ascribes value and how value gets transferred. And then good old nation states, they're not going to go away.

See China this week. And the United States. Right here, and the United States, but a little slower right here. Hi, Terry Kawaja, Luma Partners. Question about advertising. As Kara mentioned, you've had sort of fits and starts with businesses in and around advertising from search to MSN, et cetera. That was back when advertising was more of an art.

Today, it's much more science, right? You've got, it's a trillion dollar global industry. You've got ads coming to gaming. You've got advertising being far more data, software, and cloud related. So I guess my question is, might that change per your comment about product extensions, given the scale of that opportunity, that vertical, your approach? Yeah, I mean, first of all, advertising as a business model is a very powerful business model, as you described it. And we definitely want, we do have, you know, like LinkedIn has a significant advertising business. And then Bing and what's happening in gaming and our newsfeed, both, all of those add up. So we would probably be, I forget now, fourth largest advertising business. There's a huge distance between one, two, and four.

So we do have aspirations to grow that. And I think that the opportunities today of being able to take a fresh take at it, I think are there and you're gonna see us take a run at it. All right, Satya has an eight o'clock flight, so we're gonna have one more quick question. Satya, how you've made great leadership in many areas that you work on. Can you comment on the future role of Microsoft

in healthcare in the context of leaders like Tim Cook, saying that's gonna be the most important work Apple will ever do Where do you stand at Microsoft in terms of your work in the healthcare and life science? Yeah, look, I mean I think In general, I would say I think the next stop, you know If we come back here at code, let's say ten years from now or five years from now I want to be in Hawaii with my children. We will be talking about for sure what's happening in healthcare, what's happening in energy, what's happening in financial services as if it was just tech. In our case, we're very,

very excited about our Nuance acquisition, which is still pending. But for example, acquisition, which is still pending. But for example, what Nuance has done to take the cutting edge AI work and apply it to where some of the biggest problems are, which is physician burnout, and to be able to really help them focus more on the patients, less on the administrative tasks, as just one example. So yes, I ascribe to that, which is we're doing a lot today in healthcare being a provider to all the providers, the payers, the life sciences companies with our cloud tech. I think drug discovery will fundamentally get super accelerated with some of these large-scale AI models and their ability to simulate even the biochemistry. And so therefore, I think there's tons and tons of things that we as Microsoft are investing in

and looking forward to sort of seeing that. So, lots to do. Lots to do for sure. You look like you're having fun. I am. I figure. And it's, you know, look, I think one of the things I think is it's such a privilege to be in this industry

at a time where its impact is so visible and so broad. And I also think to the many questions you asked, it's also incumbent on all of us is to really make sure that as we scale this, the unintended consequences of scale is something that we invest the time. Take care of the issues before they become scale issues. Right. Some of them are intended. Some of them are intended. But I really enjoy interviewing someone I actually like. Anyway, Satya, thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Okay, that's the show for today. Stay tuned for more bonus code episodes in the Pivot Feed. I just don't get it. Just wish someone could do the research on it. Can we figure this out? Hey, y'all. I'm John Blenhill, and I'm hosting a new podcast at Vox called Explain It To Me. Here's how it works. You call our hotline with questions you can't quite answer on your own. We'll investigate and call you back to tell you what we found. We'll bring you the answers you need every Wednesday starting September 18th.

So follow Explain It To Me, presented by Klaviyo. follow Explain It To Me, presented by Klaviyo. Support for this podcast comes from Anthropic. It's not always easy to harness the power and potential of AI. For all the talk around its revolutionary potential, a lot of AI systems feel like they're designed for specific tasks, performed by a select few. Well, Clawed by Anthropic is AI for everyone. The latest model, Clawed 3.5 Sonnet, offers groundbreaking intelligence at an everyday

price. Clawed Sonnet can generate code, help with writing, and reason through hard problems better than any model before. You can discover how Clawed can transform your business at anthropic.com slash Clawed.