Pivot - Pivot Schooled #4: The Big Four, with Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Columbia University's Tim Wu

Episode Date: September 13, 2020

Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway talk about the growing power of Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon during the COVID-19 pandemic. Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai joins to talk about Google’s impact on society, its feud with Fortnite maker Epic Games, whether he believes America is headed in the right direction, and more; then, Columbia University professor Tim Wu talks with Kara and Scott about the future of tech antitrust, how China has run circles around the US in tech policy, and why Facebook faces the greatest legal risk; finally, The Verge’s Casey Newton drops in to discuss the TikTok acquisition drama, disinformation on Facebook, and Joe Biden’s plan to repeal section 230 of the CDA. Plus: Comedian Roy Wood Jr. has some predictions about Apple's next iPhone. Get your Pivot Schooled hats, mugs, shirts and more at PivotSchooled.com/Shop. 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. 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. Hi, everyone. It's Scott. Today on the podcast feed, we're going to share an edited version of the fourth episode of Pivot Schooled, our live video series. This episode was originally broadcast on Wednesday, August 26, and the theme was The Big Four. Our guests were Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Columbia University Tim Wu, and The Verge's Silicon Valley editor Casey Newton. Later in the

show, we'll also answer listener questions and make some predictions. By the time you're hearing this, we've already broadcast a fifth and final live episode of Pivot Schooled. But if you paid for a ticket, you can watch the video replays of all five episodes at PivotSchooled.com. But now, let's get to Pivot Schooled and discuss the big four. Hello, everybody, and welcome to Pivot School. I'm Cara Swisher. Shall I yell throughout the whole thing? Good to see you. Good to see you, Cara.

I saw a guy in your background. Is it the pool boy from the Fontainebleau? Is he hanging out at your place now? No. Oh, Jerry Falwell Jr. Holy George. Oh, God, whatever. No, that is my speaker guy. You heard I'm going to be on the RNC tonight. What do you mean? What does that mean? What is the RNC? No, I didn't. What's that? The Republican National Convention, whatever the hell it is. I've not booked, but between now and then, I'm going to tweet a bunch of anti-Semitic comments and wave a gun at any person of color who walks by. Boom!

Guest host coming your way. Oh, that would be good. What would you say? What would you say if you had a little moment besides screaming or looking like you might have a drug problem? What would you speak to them if that was your speech? I would say that it's important that we endorse the sciences and fund tech such that they can build a cloning machine and a time machine and we can go back and find us, track us down, kill us, and then commit suicide. That would be my advice to the people speaking at the RNC tonight. Yeah. Oh, all right. What would be your chosen area, since they're using all the federal buildings, even though, you know, it's sort of a violation. It's not even, someone was saying it's a violation festival of the Hatch Act, which they will not get caught for, by the way. So the press should just, well, they should be mad, but nonetheless. So what would you pick? What federal building? The museum. The museum that was opened and closed because they couldn't figure out what the hell it meant.

Remember that? The museum? I would sit my ass on the top of the Washington Monument. That's what I would do. Right at the top there. That's where I would do it from. A little window. You know a lot of inappropriate jokes.

I'm not even going to go there. I don't even go there. Anyway, how is your vacation going? Once again, I have been left alone in regular pivot school, but here you are weekly. You look rather nice. It's like you're ready to go back to school. Yeah, I'm looking forward to school. Everything's good here.

You know, kids. Yeah. My kids are awful. But other than that, you know, I hate spending time with kids. So that's been kind of a bummer. But other than that, it's fine. It's been nice. What have you been up to?

Just things. I know. I know. It's wonderful. I'm not going to insult my kids on Just things. I know. I know. You're good. It's wonderful. I'm not going to insult my kids on a team. I know. I know. He's up in quarantine.

He's going a little batshit crazy. Yeah. But now I just realized he may be able to leave slightly early from your New York University quarantine. We'll see how that goes. I have been up to building a podcast studio for my new New York Times thing. That's working. I have been up to building a podcast studio for my new New York Times thing. I have, that's working, working on that. Booking guests and some really big guests we're getting, which is going to be good. And just general working as I always do. I don't take the month of August to go to. Just being Kara. Got it. So there's a lot we can talk about this week. This

is your big, this is something that based on a book we're going to be talking about, which we've talked about a lot, which is The Big Four. You wrote a book how many years ago? That was your, not your last book. Oh, I'm not entirely sure. I don't even, I don't think that way about my work, my IP. Let me see. It was, what was it, three years ago?

Yeah, it was three years ago. Let me see. Because all told, I've written one, two, three, four, five, six, two books. So yeah, it was three years ago. Okay. And explain your book for them. So I'm here with you. Do you remember? That's why. You reached out to me and said, come on our show. And then this is my favorite. You told me I was the most, you called me and said, you were the most downloaded guest we've ever had. And we think it was a mistake. So we'd like to have you back on. That's how our relationship got started.

I was like, what could happen here? What did they think it was? I don't know what had happened. And there it was. You were not the most downloaded. Elon Musk remains the most downloaded, but you were near the top. You were very close to the top. You and Elon were up there. Let me ask you a couple of questions about the big four. So at the time, you were sort of writing about them in a less, it was a simpler time three years ago when you were writing, correct? You were talking about their sort of different roles. And each of the big four had a different personality, correct? Would you go through those very briefly for the people? Well, I mean, when I started writing, it was five years ago.

And it started out as a love letter. These companies are the number one recruiters out of my class. When I started teaching 20 years ago, the number one recruiter was Amex. Now it's Amazon. Number two is Google. I'm economically more secure and more prosperous because of these companies. The only stocks I've ever owned are these companies or up until that moment. And it struck me that they had in a world where you see countries as they get more affluent and educated, a reliance on a super being and church attendance goes down, that each of these companies was tapping into a basic instinct. And so essentially, you know, as our society evolves, our questions get bigger. But

because we fewer and fewer of us think of a super being, there's this huge void for an ability to pray. And what is prayer? It's sending a query into the universe. Will my kid be all right? Symptoms and treatment accrued. And there is no entity that you trust more than Google. You trust Google more than a rabbi, priest, scholar, job boss. It knows if you have diabetes.

It knows if you're having an affair. It knows if you're contemplating divorce, your sexual fetishes, and how much money you make. Google knows more about you. Google really knows you. So I think Google's God. I think as we move down to love. I just use it for recipes. Go ahead.

I just use it for recipes. But go ahead. Move along. Move along. That's because you're paranoid. But anyways, I think Facebook initially held out the promise of love as a species. One of the wonderful things about mammals is we literally have longer life expectancy and better health when we connect to other people. And it held out that promise. Moving down to the gut, the ultimate business strategy is always more for less. It's

the strategy of Walmart, of China. And then Amazon has done a better job communicating that basic instinct that if you go into the cave with us, you're more likely to survive the winter. That business strategy never goes out of style. And then finally, Apple tapped into the second most powerful instinct in the world right behind survival. And that is your ability to signal to the opposite sex or the same sex that you have better genes and that you should mate and that you are more likely, I am more likely, or you are more likely, your kids are more likely to survive if you have sex with someone who carries an iPhone versus an Android, because it means they're wealthier. It means they're storytellers.

It means they're the creative class. It means that their genes are more worthwhile. So you had God, love, consumption, and sex. And I thought those four things had, you know, were just so powerful. And then these companies effectively have, you know, dominated those respective, for better and for worse, have dominated those sectors. And there's never been anything like these companies, I don't think. All right. So it was a love letter, has turned into something else. And we're going to talk about that. Let's bring some friends of Pivot on to talk about the big four. First is Sundar

Pichai. He's the CEO of Google and Alphabet. It's been a long time. Please bring on Sundar. That's one I've known a long time. Please bring on Sundar. Hey, Sundar. How are you doing? Good. Good, Scott. Good, Karen.

Good to see you guys. Good to see you, Sundar. Okay. So let's start with a lot of what Scott was talking about is COVID, the impact of COVID on all businesses. Talk a little bit about the challenge in the operations, the consumer base. You're obviously working from home. What lessons have you learned from it? You know, it's been extraordinary.

I mean, like many companies, we've had to literally move most people to working from home. I think what's been hard is I think people are definitely stretched thin, struggling to separate work and home. stretched thin, struggling to separate work and home. If you have parents, two of you working without support, I think it's been a tough stretch for people, I think, that way. In terms of future of work, I'm thinking about a lot. And I'm worried right now we are doing fine, but it's based on all the shared connections you've built when we've all been working together. So when we get into the next phase, ideation, building new things, how do you do innovation while we are all set up like that? That part isn't fully clear to me.

So hoping in the future you have a combination of more of a flexible workspace. I think we know now we can work remotely. So I think you don't always need to pull people five days a week in, people in San Francisco, New York, commuting two hours each way. So I do think we can do stuff better. But maybe the future will be in a focused way. You bring them together for brainstormings and group meetings, ideation, creative phases. And it's a bit more of a hybrid. So it's exciting to think about that.

and it's a bit more of a hybrid. So it's exciting to think about that. But it's definitely been hard on a lot of people, I think, and hoping to get to some sense of normality soon. Well, one thing is, though, that all these tech companies, including yours, have become more powerful than ever during COVID. It's a real delta between your companies and other companies. Why do you think that is?

And should people be nervous about this? You know, I've written about this, that I thought you guys would come back more powerful than ever. And Scott just talked about the idea that you all are controlling the fates of a lot of people in whatever sector you're in. You know, for sure, digital has been a lifeline through COVID. So that's the, you know, but with that comes the effort you're talking about.

I think people are using services and tech is benefiting from that standpoint. For sure, they go hand in hand, I think. I do think some of it will stay. I think you mentioned telehealth, which is a great example. I think if you were a normal hospital, maybe before COVID, 2% to 3% was telehealth. Now it's like 70%. When it returns back, it's not going to go back to 2%. So some of it is, you know, the trends will last a bit.

And so I do think it's an opportunity for tech. And, you know, I think that's what we are seeing in the marketplace. You know, we've always known for a long time, I think, you know, technology is going to be a bigger part of everything. And I think you see some of that play out more sharply, the e-commerce curve, even though I knew it, when I see the slide, it's a, you know, it's a bit striking. This literally looks like you're pulling a decade into this time. And, you know, we are impacted. Look, I mean, we are broad-based. We are impacted. You know, Scott mentioned this. We took one of our, you know, toughest revenue hits last quarter.

But having said that, you know, the company is diversified and we have strengths as well. And so, you know, we are investing, investing deeply through this crisis as well. Right. Scott's going to get the question, but when I see that slide, I'm terrified of all of you even more. You know what I mean? Not you in particular. Again, as Scott said, you're all nice guys, except maybe one or two of you. But I'm terrified of that idea of just a few companies controlling the fates of billions and billions of people across the country. How do you answer that? Away from sort of the, we're trying to do good and we're here to protect everybody from China or whatever the excuse is. Look, from a few ways I think about it,

I mean, through this time, there are other companies which have emerged very strongly too, right? You know, somebody like Shopify, you know, you can see them or Zoom or, so you see, you know, Tesla has done really well. Netflix has done. And so I can go through a long list of companies which have done well too. Also look at it from my standpoint, go back maybe 15 years ago, you opened your computer, you opened a browser, Google was the

main gateway to information. I look at my daughter now and she's on her iPhone and, I mean, she gets information coming to her from more sources than ever before. To the extent, you know, you may worry about something different as to, you know, hopefully she's getting the right information and so on. But it's both, you're right. I think the big companies are doing very well. But I do see a lot of emerging companies. I mean, you've all seen the interest around TikTok, which is new. And at least I can tell you, sitting on a Monday meeting running the company, it feels like there's a lot coming at us, right? And so you're worried about innovating. You're worried about making sure you're on the cutting edge of things. You worry whether the next generation is going to, you know,

find your products valuable. So both are simultaneously true. So I'm not denying or I'm not saying that the big companies aren't, you know, doing well. At the same time, I see, you know, I think it's paddly true that there's more choices for information than ever before.

And, you know, I see that when I use it, I get my news from Twitter. You can ask Siri on your phone or you can ask questions to Alexa. You know, we know, for example, as Google, when people look for any products, you know, many searches happen outside of Google. And that's been true. It's an important way we make money. So all of this is simultaneously true. So I do think there is concentration, for sure, but there's a lot of competition, too. And so at least from my standpoint,

it feels like both are happening at the same time. Scott? So the go-to, I find the go-to, and I think any CEO feels a lot of heat, a lot of competitors from everywhere. Can you think of another sector that's over $100 billion where one player has a 93% share and isn't

regulated? It depends on, at one point in time, somebody had a 90% share of homepages. To me, it's like the railroad versus transportation analogy. I think it's in the business of providing information. There is more information, new apps on your phone. You go to the app directly. So search is, you know, you can view it as a market, but it's one way by which people get information.

And I think that dynamic will constantly evolve. That's why you have the homepage example. When Google started, portals, homepages were the way people primarily had a window to the world of information, but the game changes, right? And so, you know, I viewed it as dynamic. And, you know, there are companies

which are bigger than us, which wouldn't pass that market share. They may say they have 10% of some market. So, you know, I think it's, you're right. You know, we are a popular search engine and, you know, we think it's, you're right. You know, we are a popular search engine and, you know, we work super hard at that. You know, we invested $26 billion in R&D last year. So the amount of work we do to stay in search is a lot.

But I think, you know, I gave this example for product searches. So, you know, Google is not the way by which people find product searches. They can click and go to Amazon or Walmart or Target directly and buy the product too. So the company, and that doesn't get captured in your search share. So that's the sense of competition I talk about too. So I wanted to make sure this didn't digress into a non-carbonated antitrust hearing.

So I want to shift gears. And I thought the most underreported story, and obviously I have an interest here, was Google career certificates of last week. And if I understand it correctly, six months of training from Google in a specific domain, micro-certification after six months, 300 bucks. And the most exciting thing, I thought the most revolutionary thing, is that Google will value this similarly or with the same equivalence as a bachelor's, and that someone can come into Google at $70,000, $80,000, $100,000 a year. And this is, in my industry, this is, I mean, we've been sticking

our chin out, increased tuition 1,400%, preying on the hopes and dreams of the middle class, and I've been saying that big tech's going to come in. I feel like this is the first big move. So my question is, is this CSR? Do you see this as a market? What was the catalyst for the decision? Do you see yourself going into other domains? Will this be a $10 billion, $20 billion business for you? Do you see this as a key business line?

Or is this just CSR? Can you give us a little color here? Yeah, great question. First of all, thanks for being excited by it. You know, I almost become a professor of marketing at one point. I have to tell you that story. You screwed up. I'm sorry things haven't worked out for you, Sunder. You know, my uncle is a professor of marketing and his home is where I first came. He's a professor at Carnegie Mellon of marketing. And so when I first came to the U, he was like, you have to become a professor of marketing. That's what you should do. But look, I've always been passionate about education.

It is amazing to me. We know, we started the conversation with how much tech is becoming an important part of people's lives. So transitioning your workforce to have digital skills and make the transition is going to be important. I think four-year colleges alone, I think they are great, but it's very clear from data that for many people, it's just not an option for a whole set of circumstances. it's just not an option, right, for a whole set of circumstances. So figuring out, and I know you're doing a lot here, Scott, but figuring out, you know, more accessible units by which you can do it, but you have to match it with making sure that can result in jobs.

So that's where the certification comes. You know, we are trying to lead it. You're right. It started as part of our Grow with Google effort, talking with people. And so it's more we are trying to say, you know, as part of this tech transition, there is a clear digital skills gap. We are trying to lead by example and show it. We would be happy for others to pick it up and scale it up. We actually want to see more certification programs come there. So we are trying to validate, show proof of concept, and show that it works.

But we are not thinking about it as a business opportunity, if that helps. All right. I'm going to shift us again back to antitrust because we do have Tim Wu here. But when you're thinking about moving into other areas, that's great. But the businesses you are in, and not just you, but Amazon, Apple, and others, were all at these antitrust hearings. I know you can't talk right now. You're under investigation by the government. How are you preparing for new regulations overall, not just antitrust,

but privacy legislation? What concerns you the most, and what do you think is necessary? I mean, I know not that we want to get our regulation tips from the CEOs of all the companies being regulated, but what are you most concerned about? Look, a few things. You know, I think rules of the road helps. And, you know, so even as a company, sometimes there are spaces where we are in, we are happy to take feedback and, you know, do our work differently. And so, you know, we need to understand the rules of the road.

So the good thing about regulation is, to the extent if you feel something is not working and you can adjust it and you have new rules of the road, it's tough to get regulation right. And precisely, sometimes regulation can actually entrench companies. If I look at the most regulated sectors, they are hard to innovate in. It's tough for a new company in a garage to start up and actually build themselves up. You've seen the automotive sector or something. It's been a long time since something like Tesla has come and innovated there.

So I think these are heavily regulated industries. So there is some concern I have that sometimes it can entrench big companies. Sometimes it can haverench big companies. Sometimes it can have the wrong intended effect. You're trying to achieve something. A regulation in one place can actually strengthen another big company, right? And, you know, we've gone through it. For example, in Europe in commerce, you know, we are under regulation. The market share definition didn't include Amazon and other companies. And so we've had to make a set of changes.

And so, you know, the question is who benefits from it? And so I think it's tough to get good regulation. So, you know, I think GDPR was a good step in the right direction. And I think privacy is an area where most of us agree that there can be better regulation. And I think all of us would support it. But, you know But you're right, you shouldn't take it from big companies alone. But I think it's tough to get good regulation done. And so that's what I would worry about at the highest level. But I think, you know what I mean, is more philosophically, that's my concern. You asked me what would my concern be, I think, to get a good piece of regulation done.

But I do think, I think there are many people in Congress who are genuinely engaged. And, you know, I see smart people, be it on topics of privacy or something. People are engaged. And so I think, you know, I'm hopeful that we'll do the right things. Well, getting to that, you know, one of the concerns just recently was you and Apple are on the same side for once battling Epic Games over money made by Fortnite on your app stores, for example. Explain Google's position on this and what's happening. This is an example of you both control the mobile app space. You're it.

And you have developers sort of starting to base camp whether any of them are complaining about this. Oh, it's a good question. It's a complex topic. Just to give some sense of how, while it looks similar, today, we license Android for free. We don't take a share of the device sales, right? And we do commercial distribution agreements now for all our services. So for us, monetizing the Play Store is an important way.

We fund all of Android, and we have to compete against Apple and other companies too. A few more differences on Android, we allow other app stores. So we do allow other app stores. And for game developers, you know, within app payments, we only make money when they make. But I think these are good debates to have. You know, I think we think we bring value and we are trying to take some value. Like today, when we sell a Pixel phone or something, we pay distribution costs to it, right? You know, I think we have to pay retail margins, we pay revenue shared to carriers and OEMs and so on, right? And so there are business models here, but I think these are good questions and I'm glad there's a debate about it. We are trying to find the right balance and we are in conversations with a lot of our developers.

But I do think there are big differences between the two ecosystems as well. And we license Android open source way free of charge. Amazon uses Android to ship their tablets. So our competitors use Android. So it's a very different model as well. And that's why in some of these conversations, I think, how do you compete in these? It is increasingly gotten very expensive

to invest in tech too. So the R&D investments that go into these new areas, when we do things like AI and quantum, these are deep, long-term investments as well. So I think they're interesting questions to ask about. Okay, we're going to get some audience questions. I'm sorry I didn't ask about quantum, which I will at the very end. This is a question from the audience.

How would you describe Google's efforts in hardware so far? Should we expect to see those three years from now? You know, we've been around. This is a long and winding road for Google. How do you look at it? It's a good contrast to the before question. I mean, hardware is hard.

You know, there are many spaces where we feel like we are challenging others and we have a small player and, you know, emerging and doing better. Cloud is an example. Hardware is an example. I'm really excited about Pixel 4a. It builds on Pixel 3a, which was one of our highest

NPS best-selling products. The amount of R&D that goes into building just a great camera, it's great at security, but at an affordable price, something we are proud about. Early traction is early feedback on sales, etc. has been very positive, even compared to 3DA. So I'm excited by it. We are very committed to the space long term, but it's definitely, you know, we don't have access to the distribution. Somebody like Apple has, you know, they have stores all over the world. So in this space, it doesn't matter that you build a good product.

That's maybe 40% of it. 60% of it is how can you distribute it and get it into the hands of other people. So if you take something like Pixel, it's available maybe in one carrier in the US, right? And most of it we try to sell online. And so we are an upstart in this space, but very committed. The roadmap looks exciting. And so we are an upstart in this space, but very committed. You know, the roadmap looks

exciting. And so, you know, we are, you know, I'm excited about the roadmap, particularly next year, because, you know, it takes about two to three years to plan for innovations and build it into the product line. Okay. Next question. If broken up in antitrust, how secure is an individual's data? That's a hypothetical, you know. Look, some of the things, part of why we set Alphabet, you know, to Scott's points too, is some of the newer areas we are getting into, we can get into it with the right structure. So if you take something like Waymo as an example, it is set up independently from day one. You know, recently we raised money, we brought outside investors in, so that long-term some of that is possible.

Some of the things we have done over the last 10 to 20 years is truly intermingled in infrastructure. You know, so for example, Google Cloud is deeply built on our technical infrastructure, which we built to serve our product. So the underlying technical couplings are, you know, not because we've done anything recently. It's been that way for a long time. But having said that, you know, today, for example,

to support data localization requirements, you know, we do a lot to make sure data is protected in the right way. So if it's an enterprise customer, it's their data, it's siloed, it's encrypted with their keys so that only they have access to it. So we have a lot of technical solutions to protecting user privacy and data. And so depending on what we need to do,

we'll work hard to get it right. So that's what we would do. Okay, we have two more questions. How is Alphabet planning for automation and its effects on society? And maybe you could dip into some of the AI investments you've been making and with DeepMinds and other places. I mean, that's a profound question.

You know, it's interesting to note that pre-pandemic, you know, we've had a decade of automation and we had one of the lowest levels of unemployment too at the same time. I think that's different from wage growth and I don't want to decouple the two conversations, but at least from an unemployment standpoint, with a lot of automation over the last many years, we also had low unemployment. It's kind of important to remember that. AI, of course, can be different because the change can be very fast. It

can get into areas which previously technology hasn't done that. So I do think it's important to worry about. The good news is AI is going to take some time, you know, so I think it gives us a chance. And there are areas where I think, I take healthcare as an example. You know, I look at our work we are doing in pathology or diagnosis. The way I see it is not it's automation. It's going to, one, for many people, I think it'll give actually, it'll help them spend their time better. Maybe they will have more time for patients, talking to other doctors, and the error rates will go down.

B, there are parts of the world in which by having AI, we see this with diabetic retinopathy, we are helping other clinics in the world diagnose the disease early, which they could have never done before. So that's the optimistic way I see it playing out. But, you know, look, I mean, we all have to, these are going to be important societal topics.

And, you know, you talked about regulation. These are the areas where, you areas where if technology is very disruptive, we do need to think, ask hard questions and think about the right social safety nets and the right constructs to support society too. And I think society will slow down innovation in some of these areas if it is disruptive enough and rightfully so. And so I think that's slow down innovation in some of these areas if it is disruptive enough, and rightfully so. And so I think that's the balance we have to debate. Okay. Last question.

I'm going to combine them together. One is about unity, and the other is about diversity, specifically around what was going on at Google. The big four, some more than others, played a role in giving a rise to populism on account of how segment and divided they've made us. To what extent can and will they help reunify us? And then secondly, has Google adjusted their company policies post-employee walkout to make their working environment better and more equitable for employees? So either one, they're sort of in the same genre

of how your impact on society. I mean, both good questions. On the second one, you know, we've obviously, you know, more than many companies, we've always given our employees a voice. And, you know, I think we pride ourselves on that. And as there are many things we have done from that moment, to give one example of it, you know, we've obviously for a company of our scale, you know, we've ended binding arbitration, forced arbitration, you know, and our employees today, you know, get the right to choose to have any day want to proceed. So that's an example of a change we have done. We have really made our processes more transparent, fair. We have

internal transparency reports. We've made specific changes to make sure there's care in the processes when people come up to report something. And so I can talk about this for a long time more. On the first question, look, as a company, for most of our products, we build search, et cetera. It's really, you know, this is the essence of what we do in search. We work very hard to get accurate information and the right information. And, you know, and we take that super seriously. YouTube is an area where we really focused on here. Over the last two years, a clear number one goal for the company, for YouTube, has been what Susan and the team have been focused on is around what we call content responsibility. And we've made many changes in the product.

And more than ever before, if I look at where we see the usage in YouTube, it's around entertainment. I mean, it's becoming one of the biggest learning platforms in the world. I know we spoke about our certification program, but the YouTube is a place where people go to learn. And while it's informal, I think it's a big opportunity for us. And maybe we can think about deeper work there as well. But that's how we think about it. You know, we haven't gotten everything right. And anytime, but, you know, we learn from it. And, you know, I think it's important. I think as a company for the long term, we have to get this right. So. Do you yourself feel responsible

for part of it? Not you and the other tech executives. Do you think they should accept some of the responsibility for it? You know, of course, I think so. I mean, these are large platforms for information. And so, for example, when it comes to elections or foreign interference, etc., we all have to, you know, we see actors on these platforms trying to do stuff. We are collaborating better than ever before. So there's a tech coalition now. We exchange data. We collaborate with the government. So there are many things on which I can point to tangible progress that's been made.

And so I feel better about it. But there's more work to be done. And the work has to be continuous in nature, I think. Okay. Sundar, thank you so much. Scott, go ahead. Do you have one more final question? Yes. Final question from Scott. Sundar, you you so much. Scott, go ahead. Can I ask my final question? Yes. Final question from Scott.

Sundar, you are the American success story. My understanding is you came over on a student visa. Is that correct? That's right. Yeah. And then ultimately decided to become a U.S. citizen. So you have the perspective of having been raised somewhere else, come here, decided to become a citizen. Do you think America is headed in the right direction? to become a citizen. Do you think America is headed in the right direction? You know, I'm concerned about making sure we are a place where we've had a model which has worked well for many, many years. You know, it's not only you mentioned the Manhattan Project. It was built by many immigrants, you know, who left other places and came to the U.S.

You know, it's never changed in my opinion. You know, I think, but we can't take it for granted, right? I think you have to earn it every year that you're the best place where the best people around the world want to come. And the opportunity this country provided me, I think it's a beacon of hope. And, you know, I hope we value that and continue to keep it in that direction. Do you think it's headed in the right direction? I'm optimistic over the long term.

I think there is inherently something about our system which wants to, I think on issues like this, I think it will revert to America has always been an open country. And I think if I were to bet, I would bet in that direction over time. What would you, as an immigrant, as someone who's seen this, and I know you and I've had discussions about this, what would you say to the Trump administration right now to do? Is there something, some message you would like to send this year? You're like the perfect example of how great immigration can be for our country.

I mean, I've been very clear, be it in meetings. I mean, today there was an announcement of investment for AI and quantum, which I'm glad to see in my conversations and the opportunities I've had. I've advocated for basic science funding, making sure there are policies by which we can bring in talent everywhere. These are things which I've worked for. So both publicly and in the right conversations, I've consistently taken

that view. And I think it benefits the country and it benefits the world. You know, one of the things I'm very worried about is technologies like AI. There is nothing called AI safety for an individual country, just like climate change. And so the only way these things work is by globally solving it. And so figuring out those connections. And I think immigration helps towards that. It helps in the exchange of ideas and people and I think brings the world together too. So for a whole set of reasons,

I think it's important to get it right. All right. Sundar, thank you. I'm so glad your staff is trying to get us to go. I have just one last little question.

Are you trying to buy TikTok at all or are you not in that game? No, you know, we can be a technology provider as a cloud provider, but we are not in the, you know, yes.

So yes, I'm not. We are not. So, you know, yes. So yes, we are not. We are not. So it's just Larry Ellison. Okay. Larry Ellison and Sacha. My money is on Scott buying TikTok. That's what I'm assuming. Go on. Go on. Sundar Pichai, next slide.

Professor of marketing, Sundar Pichai. Next slide. All right. Sundar, thank you so Next slide. Next slide. All right. Sundar, thank you so much. We really appreciate you taking the, especially the extra time. And thank you for doing this. And we'll talk soon.

All right. Thanks, Scott. Hey, it's Scott. We're listening to the fourth episode of Pivot School, which was broadcast live on Wednesday, August 26th. We're going to take a quick break now, but we'll be right back after this. 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. 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. This is Pivot School. Let's get back to the show for our second friend of Pivot Interview, Columbia University professor and total gangster, Tim Wu. Let's get right to our next guest, who is Tim Wu, who doesn't really need introduction, but let's bring him on.

He is a Columbia University professor, Tim Wu. Hi, Tim. How you doing? Hey, how's it going? Good. Good. Just so you know, he's in rural Pennsylvania, but you look good.

We were supposed to warn people of that. You may appear blurry. But thanks for joining us. So before we talk about the big four, a question about TikTok, you recently wrote an op-ed for the New York Times called, A TikTok Ban is Overdue. I was surprised by that piece. So talk about why you wrote that and a little bit about whether selling TikTok to a U.S. company solves its problems. That piece is a broader comment on the Chinese relationship with the

rest of the world. And my basic opinion is that in the West, and I think we've been just playing the sucker for too long when it comes to the Chinese tech industry. You know, I got to make it clear that I'm in no way in agreement with Trump's whole idea of villainizing China and saying that they have this, you know, conspiracy to steal everything. But, you know, you can get a little confused by being anti-Trump into forgetting what good policy is. And I just think, you know, China bans every single important foreign application in its market. It won't let any foreign sources of information reach it. And so if you're going to have an open internet, I think it should be a little more of a mutual society that you extend the privileges of an open internet to countries that play by the rules. So that was my thinking in that piece, that we should quit playing the sucker when it comes to China's tech industry. Okay, Scott, why don't you start?

Professor, so 93% of $100 billion plus, is there any reason, is there any reason in any alternative universe that Google has not been already broken up? Well, you know, I was a little surprised. You know, Sundar, he was pretty relaxed for a guy who's about to be sued by Bill Barr and Ken Paxson of Texas. There's no question that there is a lawsuit coming. Everybody knows it. And I hope they have a better defense than the argument that, well, you know, everyone's looking for information, so we're competing with the phone book or something. He said it's a little like Standard Oil saying, well, we don't have an oil monopoly because people like olive oil in their

salad. So, yeah, it's coming. There's no doubt, you know, how long it lasts and what happens. That's what we don't know. So what do you imagine is happening? What have you heard is happening? What do you feel like should happen? You were Bill Barr, and I'm sorry to make you put yourself in his body, but what would you be doing right now in preparing? Well, as I understand it, the argument is not whether they're going to file, but how broad the lawsuit's going to be against Google.

not whether they're going to file, but how broad the lawsuit's going to be against Google. And the debate is between just advertising-driven, where Google has a clear monopoly in search advertising, and something a little more broad that has to do with how competitors to Google in their verticals get treated, like Yelp or TripAdvisor or shopping companies. So I think that's a debate. I suspect the complaint is done. Knowing Bill Barr, they've probably done whatever he wants. It's very strange, by the way, to have the Attorney General of the United States run these, but that's what's going on, according to everything we're hearing. And I think, I hate to say this, but I think that it is a matter of political timing, probably, that Barr works very carefully with the White House.

So this is one of these situations where I'm a support antitrust revival. I'm not too thrilled about Google becoming a potential scapegoat for purposes of a Trump re-election policy. But anyway, that's where it is. Well, doesn't the advertising drag in Facebook then, or the things around Yelp and others drag in Amazon? Shouldn't it be a broader investigation? Because both those other companies, or Apple, have those problems. That's true. So the way it works in the antitrust world is the main agencies divide up the companies. Actually, they fight over them quite extensively. And another agency, the Federal Trade Commission, they have Facebook, and they have been just slower,

a little quieter. And I think they have a strong case against Facebook as well. Actually, I think the strongest case is the case against Facebook. Scott referred to this earlier. Facebook was allowed to buy most of its direct competitors over the last 10 years in a sort of serial acquisition campaign, very similar to Standard Oils, actually. So I think they're the most vulnerable. But the government know, the government isn't always exactly rational or straightforward in how it operates. And so that's a different agency. And they may sit it out and decide to let the next administration decide whether that's Biden or Trump, whether to bring the case that would break up Facebook. Professor, we always talk

about antitrust through the lens of it's some sort of punishment. Whereas, and you're a scholar around antitrust, can you talk a little bit about what happens post-breakups? I mean, generally speaking, isn't it a positive for almost everybody? You know, you're right. It depends a little bit on the company. But Standard Oil, which we've already mentioned twice, the old oil monopolist, they were broken into 36 pieces. And after that, suddenly became much more valuable. It turned out this huge hulking conglomerate. You know, everyone in business knows conglomerates are inefficient. And, you know, if you've hung out at some of these big tech companies, I mean, you did that slideshow how great they are. There's

obviously, and like in any giant company, a lot of dead wood there too. So, yes, it's possible that a breakup could be the best thing that ever happened in terms of value. In terms of, as you mentioned, the personal domain, you know, does Mark Zuckerberg sit across all of social media? You know, does Amazon control web service as well as everything else? You know, they have a smaller domain, but it might actually better for everyone. I know it sounds a little weird. It's like hiring the Justice Department to be your management consultant and break you up for you. But yeah, I see that possibility. Yeah, we're trying to sell to them as a good thing. They don't have to be in hearings all the time.

They don't have to be seen as evil, et cetera, et cetera. And then they'd be richer than ever. But that's how Scott's trying to play it. But when you looked at those hearings, the effect, this has taken a long time. Tim, you've been covering this. You and I have talked about this for years. What did you think of the most recent one? And is there anything we heard that day that will come back to haunt anyone?

Yes. I was most struck less by what people said and more what was in the big document dump. Because there was a lot, a lot of bad stuff in those documents. I think it got, you know, everyone likes to show. You had Facebook, for example, clearly articulating a plan to eliminate its most dangerous competitors, perceiving that they could replace it. Obvious what we call in the law, anti-competitive intent. You had Amazon clearly indicating it's willing to lose money to put a rival out of business. So there were a lot of smoking guns coming out. Some of the questioners raised them. Others were talking about bias

against conservatives and things like that. That's what I think came out of it, is that there's a much stronger case here legally than people realize. Right. You mean land grab and neutralize caught your eye? Those words in emails around competitors. So if you had to, and there's more documents where those came from, I think it's very clear. But if you had to rank the big four in terms of who's doing the most good right now and the most harm, could you do that? Or do you feel it's all part of the same idea? Who's doing the most good and some kind of cosmic... Yeah. Or you can go through each of them and say what their big problem is from your perspective. I mean, how would I

rank them in terms of what I think is their legal risk? Okay, all right. Why don't we do that? Have a little comment on that. I mean, it's a little different. I think actually the most legal risk is Facebook. I think Facebook... Scott was saying earlier, most of these are good guys. I'm not so sure about them. You know, the law likes a villain. And there's just a lot of documents where Facebook has undertaken deliberate attempts to try to stamp out its competitors in very clear ways, anti-competitive ways, not ways in which are about them being better. So I think they're in the most risk. And I overall still think that they do the most harm. So I guess my feeling about their contribution to the universe is the most negative. You know, I think the idea of being in touch with your family and friends is a great one. And if it were run by an entity that wasn't friends is a great one. And if it were run by an entity that wasn't so interested in maximizing its hold over your attention, I think it would be a beautiful thing. So, they, I think, are the

most harmful. Let me discuss Amazon next. You know, Amazon is a big question because they have, in some ways, followed the script prescribed by 20th century economics, which is consumers over everything. You know, they have made it their job and you can quibble about around the edges, but they have made consumers a priority. For them, the larger question is, well, what about everyone else? What about what it means to work in the United States? Are children going to work in warehouses? Is there any money to be made elsewhere? So that, I think, is a question. What do you get when an economist has their wet dreams come true and everything is about the consumer and the shareholder? What does that look like? And it doesn't look...

You get a lot of stuff pretty quick, pretty cheap. And if you own their stock, it looks pretty good. But what does it mean to work in this country? That is, I think, the hardest question posed by Amazon. What does it mean to sit there and think, what am I going to do with my life? And, you know, so then we move on finally to Google. No. So then we move on finally to Google. And, you know, Google shares, especially with YouTube, deserves a little more of the blame for splitting the country and catering to people's worst sides than they get blamed for.

Facebook gets a little too much for that. They do have some antitrust risk, but not the same level. And maybe I'll add, you know, this is going on a bit. I think Apple, you know, Apple plays to vanity. Is that a sin? Maybe, you know, and the stuff around their app store, I agree. I think it would be a better world, as Epic suggests, where you could develop stuff and it was, you know, not necessary to pay a 30% tax to Apple. So Apple is in this way, a little bit of a parasite, but in terms of sort of,

I used to think differently about this, but in terms of, you know, monumental harms to democracy and so forth, to the way we want life to be, I don't quite see Apple in the same category. All right. That's great. That's a great rundown. All right. We have questions from the audience. Two questions. Will China retaliate if the U.S. bans TikTok? I mean, the thing is China has already retaliated. It has to be understood. I mean, China has already banned all the American equivalents of TikTok and of WeChat.

They don't let any important American information reach their citizens. And I'm not just talking about commerce. I'm also in trade. I'm talking about ideas. You know, they're cut off. They are in many ways an outlaw nation, more than people accept or realize. And I just think, you know, this is one area where I'm vaguely sympathetic to this administration. I think we've been played for suckers. You know, I think we've let them have it.

So what could they retaliate more? How about, what could they do retaliating more? Because you're right, you're 100% right. And their hegemony in areas like AI and robotics is really growing. I mean, it's a great question. Could they steal more trade secrets? Could they ban more? I mean, they're kind of at full tilt. And we've just sat there. You know, it could turn into a trade war. I mean, I think it should be a trade war, actually. That's the thing. Because we haven't really thought of the internet in trade terms. We've just said, okay, it's fine for them to buy in all their products and export everything here. If you think it is a trade issue, you're like, what on earth is going on here? So no, I think it's just a huge asymmetry already. All right. So the last question, then Scott may have a final one. Does the alphabet structure still make sense? No, I don't think so. I think that Google has a couple of great products and has managed to string along. I mean, I kind of like that they're able to support a bunch of random stuff.

Some of this reminds me of AT&T and its golden age when it, you know, held Bell Labs operating. So in some ways it's like a, so it makes, you know, I like that fact of it. I can't see it making that much sense. No one really thinks conglomerates are a great idea. Okay, Scott, final question. So, Professor Wu, Big Tech and antitrust gets a disproportionate amount of oxygen. Can you name another company or another sector that's not in the news where you think the concentration of power is dangerous for the economy and society? Yes. I don't know where I start. I would say agriculture is a big one. And who are the players there? Monsanto, who's merged with a German firm. There's a bunch of

small number of meat processing companies, Tyson Chicken being a good example. So these aren't really headline companies. But if you want to talk about why people in rural areas are so upset and getting starved, they have been squeezed. You know, the same way Amazon squeezes suppliers, producers, agriculture, it's the same story of a bunch of really big middlemen who ensure that American farmers are, are close to impoverished. They have a terrible deal going on there. It doesn't get as much. And, you know, that's where some of this grievance comes. That's tearing this country aside. That's why a lot of Trump supporters are angry about big business. Um, yeah. Um, pharma is terrible second and third pharma you said i'm sorry i asked you for a second third pharma yeah pharma and look what i'm dealing with here my why is my uh rural broadband uh just a series of unmolested uh monopolies who do whatever the hell they want and um you know we're just melting the ice cube out here uh i think it's infuriating that we've allowed there to be these rural broadband across the country. Pharma, let me just add, Pharma and Novartis just introduced a new drug that costs $2.1 million per dose.

And they got a bunch of people lined up to say this is a very reasonable price, very good for American health care. And that is somehow what's become normal in that industry. I think big tech is very powerful. But frankly, things are even worse outside this little bubble we live in. Yeah, fair point. That's a fair point to end on. Get back to the city, Tim. Obviously, that's your solution.

Professor Wu, the curse of bigness. A cable monopoly. that's your solution. Professor Wu, The Curse of Bigness. A cable monopoly. Anyway. Strunk and White's Elements of Style and The Curse of Bigness are my go-to books when I think, okay, I need to be smarter really fast. The Curse of Bigness. Don't forget The Master Switch. That's right. The Master Switch, where it all started. Yeah. All right, Tim, thank you so much. I'm not going to call you professor. I'm going to call you Tim. Tim, thank you so much. Professor Tim Wu, he's at Columbia University. He's a great author. Thank you so much for coming on. Thanks, Tim. All right. Gosh, he's smart. Do you like to call each other professor? Do you go professor,

professor? Is that a thing you guys do? I know. Professor Wu has earned it. That guy's a gangster. That guy is all of the great taste, none of the calories. He's a world-class academic he's also a great author i love the curse of bigness literally is one of my favorite books he's just he's like he's like the renaissance man let me just say i want an honorific what honorific would you give me the honorable way about it an honorific like you know you're you're you're don't wait grandam swisher yeah wait all right lady dame swisher. Lady Dame of Subaru and Ray-Ban Swisher. All right.

Go on. I got rid of my Subaru a long time ago. Hey, it's Scott. Interrupting myself to mention that in the live version of Pivot School, we played a game for the first few episodes called No Pressure. You haven't heard it here on the podcast feed because it was too visual and chaotic to translate to audio. Our friend Casey Newton, who's the Silicon Valley editor of The Verge and a total bitch in my view, and author of the email newsletter, The Interface, won all three of those games. Also got great hair. He's got great hair.

So for this fourth episode, we've decided to say, screw it. I would never use the term screw it. I would say something else. But anyways, we skipped the game and invited Casey Great Hair on to talk about Facebook, TikTok, and more. Let's jump ahead to get that conversation right now. Casey, right now. I need some more Casey, said no one ever. Anyway, let's talk a bit about Facebook, which is one of the companies you cover very closely in your newsletter. Talk about your newsletter, the interface. And just Wall Street Journal had a bombshell day about Zuckerberg stoking fears about TikTok in Washington, which you and I both know he was doing. Explain that and where we are right now with this company that you and I are so obsessed with. Yeah. So, I mean, there's a lot in what you just said. I write a newsletter four days a week called The Interface that looks at the

collisions of big technology and democracy. And Facebook often leads a lot of those discussions. Like all the bad things that happen to tech companies happen to Facebook first. So I spent a lot of time writing about it. And the story of TikTok and Facebook this summer has been fascinating because for a bunch of reasons. And where I would start was in the middle of this antitrust hearing where we are all so eager to see Zuckerberg finally take questions about his dominant market power. Lo and behold, they have a legitimate competitor in TikTok. Kids are spending 80 minutes a day watching this thing. And all of a sudden, he is legitimately forced to go out and compete.

So it is really complicated, I think, the story of Facebook and antitrust in a way that maybe we didn't see coming. Do you think they get acquired by an American firm? I think if they can figure it out, they will. When you talk to folks at TikTok, they will tell you the technical challenges of trying to unwind all of that technology from ByteDance in 45 days is insane. So, I mean, just logistically, it's very difficult.

Well, it's meant to be insane, isn't it? It's meant to force a sale so that it creates that problem, correct? Yeah, well, I mean, like, this is, you know, just a classic Trump as chaos agent, correct? Yeah, well, I mean, like, this is, you know, just a classic Trump as chaos agent, right? Like, it is up to all of us to just sort of live under his whims and his caprices. And, you know, TikTok would die in the process. You know, I mean, I am very sympathetic to Tim's view that, you know, the United States needs to take, you know, Chinese social products like this more

seriously. But as a matter of policymaking, I mean, it's just horrifying. Yeah. So what do you imagine will happen here? I mean, there's Larry Ellison's involved and, you know, and really, I want to get back to Mark, which I think he's trying to create. I think Mark started this in a lot of ways, like the nervousness around TikTok, because there's so many other things, I think Tim and I agree, that we need to focus our Chinese policy on. This is not one of them necessarily. Or maybe you think it is. Well, Zuckerberg's argument has been, look, the internet has winner-take-all dynamics. And if you believe that, then you think there's probably only going to be one massively powerful global social network. And so in his view, it's either going to be Facebook's products or it's going to be TikTok.

And so the message that he was trumpeting in Washington last year was, do you want to have a big social network as an agent of US soft power? Or do you want China to have a giant social network that it can do whatever it wants with inside America? So he's trying to position Facebook as this national champion. Right, which he's trying to position Facebook as this national champion. Right. Which he's done before in lots of interviews with both of us. So where does it go? Which, by the way, almost never works.

National champions almost never work. That's one of the things I learned from the curse of bigness from Professor Tim Wu. National champions never work out. Yeah. It's not really my preferred. Let's all take Air France. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, look, how do i think this works out tiktok just filed a lawsuit on monday um you know it is possible that the that the courts could intervene and say that this executive order which is forcing the sale uh is not allowed but we know that the courts will typically give presidents almost you know uh infinite latitude to do anything if a president so much as says the words national security, and Trump did. And so I think the expectation has to be he is going to get what he wants here. And so the question is, what is a sale going to look like? I have to say, I would much rather see it go to Microsoft than go to Larry Ellison, who has spent four years licking Trump's boots

in a way that is just frankly stacks of outright corruption. So I think if, if Oracle winds up with TikTok, that this will just look like a straight up mafia deal. All right. Okay. Well then, all right, let's go. We're going to get to a question from the audience, but I want to talk about disinformation. Where are we on that? And, and, and what will happen if face, if, if Biden wins, is Joel Kaplan out? And is there danger of them breaking up Facebook and WhatsApp? It looks like Google's the one really on the hot seat with the government, not Facebook, because they have such an unholy alliance, as Professor Galloway talks about it.

You just asked me five questions like they were one question, by the way. Which one of them do you actually care about? Information, disinformation. By the way, Casey, I am so onto you. You are not the Silicon Valley editor. You're the pool boy at the Fontainebleau and your name is Brad. I know what's going on here. I know what's going on here. I've been proud to be Kara's pool boy for some years now. I have been pool, but manservant is how I like to call it. That's my big complaint about this place, by the way. But look,

you want to know the misinformation story. Two things are true. One is Facebook has invested a lot in trying to get bad stuff off the platform. But at the same time, it's the same old story. It has always been. You look at QAnon, you look at the Boogaloo groups, right? And what we see is the same old thing, which is Facebook is recommending groups to people without even knowing that it's doing it. They grow to unfathomable size. And then we start to see real world violence. I mean, QAnon has taken over the Republican Party. You could argue that they

could have done it without Facebook, but it sure seems like Facebook helped just as they helped the Russians in the 2016 election. So this just continues to be an issue Facebook is having trouble wrapping its arms around. Yeah. All right. Now, what happens in our Biden administration? Joe Kaplan, is he still with us? The crazy thing about Biden is that Biden wants to destroy Section 230, which is the underpinnings of the internet that you and I love, right? Just our ability to just get on Twitter, say whatever we want.

Like Joe Biden wants to take that away. Now there's an open question as to how well he understands the law and how seriously he's going to pursue that if he actually becomes president. But his stated position is basically we need to get rid of the internet as we know it today. And I think most people aren't paying close attention to that. I don't think he knows what he's talking about. All right. But what

about Facebook? What's going on with Facebook and Joel Kaplan? He doesn't know. He's not doing it. That ain't happening. I'm sort of working on a story about this right now. Like Joel Kaplan often gets positioned as this bogeyman, right? You read all these stories where, you know, Joel Kaplan appears out of nowhere to intervene and, you know, help out Breitbart here or there. And, you know, and I believe all of that reporting. But the thing people forget is that Mark Zuckerberg's user base is more conservative than the average American

and certainly his own employees. So Zuckerberg has a lot of just customer service reasons to cater to that population that go well beyond, go well beyond Joel Kaplan whispering in his ear. So even though he's a convenient explanation for a lot of these things, I think people really miss the real story when they talk about him. Yes, that's a good answer. Last question from me, broken up. Are they in any real danger? I mean, Tim just said that, that they're in the most legal jeopardy. How do you assess it? And I have questions from the audience. I think if you look to the letter of the law, then yes, I think there's a very good case to be made that Facebook should have to unwind the WhatsApp and Instagram

acquisitions. The question is just, do you truly believe that this utterly chaotic, corrupt administration is actually going to go through that process and will win in court? And that's Just do you truly believe that this utterly chaotic, corrupt administration, you know, is actually going to go through that process and will win in court? And that's where I sort of have my doubt. So I think it is the right thing to do in principle. I think it's unlikely to happen in reality. Okay, one question from the audience, and Scott will have a final question. What's your take on the morning news about Facebook versus Apple's new operating system

is able to block Facebook's ability to merge, to target ads. It starts an interesting data compatibility war between the two giants, and they have fought before. They have. This is going to be the subject of my column today. So if you want the full take, go to theverge.com slash interface and sign up.

Look, I think there's a lot to like about what Apple is doing. At the end of the day, they're just giving people more control over the information they want to share. This is usually what we, you know what people like you and me argue for. You want people to have control over this sort of thing. But I do think that there's another view of this, which is Apple is unilaterally setting the terms of the advertising market,

and no one gets to appeal. So if you want to be sympathetic to Facebook here, you can at least say, here is once again a case where Apple is abusing its market position just as it has with Epic and Basecamp and all the other companies we've seen this summer. All right. Scott, last question. Casey, what's the most underreported story in tech? The most underreported story in tech. You know, the thing I would point to is a great piece that Rafat wrote on Skift today about how free Zooms are going to destroy the events business, which I encourage both of you to read and every media business should read. All of us are getting used to doing this sort of in-person video conferencing.

And I think it has huge implications that actually are starting to become clear. This is starting to become one of the major dividing lines between the before times and the after times when it comes to COVID. He calls Zoom basically the events industry having its Napster moment. And I think we need to think a lot more about that because a lot of companies are going to get founded and sold. And a lot of incumbents are going to get hurt and maybe destroyed because of it. Wow. Casey, so much information. I like that. Hotels and everything. So much information.

And by the way, I want to thank Steve for opening up for me today. He did a great job. All right. Well, you were the man of that. He was the, the. You're you, too. All right. All right, Scott.

Thank you, Casey. See you soon. Well, maybe not. Thanks, Casey. Bye. Bye. Bye. See you in San Francisco. Okay, Scott. Thank you, Casey. See you soon. Maybe not. Thanks, Casey. Bye. Bye. See you in San Francisco. Okay, Scott, let's answer some questions from the audience. We're running very late. So listener mail. First, we have a video question. So let's watch.

What I want to get your perspective on is sovereign risk in the US. We've heard recently that the federal government would like to nationalize the profits of a foreign asset sale with TikTok. And they've also, of course, talked about banning companies which are disloyal to the central government. We know this to be the authoritarian playbook. It's the next chapter we can likely expect in a Trump re-election, that he will take over companies owned by non-loyalists and hand them to friends and allies. I want to know if analysts are talking about this as a serious risk and whether companies, especially like Amazon, which is currently run by a known non-loyalist of the central government,

is asleep at the wheel in realizing the risk that is coming to them if Trump is reelected? Well, that's Clinton Barnes of New York, and he's very jaunty. I think, you know, Clinton, this is a really interesting question. I think you're right. It is the authoritarian playbook to have friends take over industries. If I had to go even with another four years of Trump, I think Jeff Bezos will outlast him in every aspect. So if you're going to use that one, I do think he will try to help his friends and hurt his enemies. I don't think he's particularly effective at it as much as he thinks he is. And I think it'll get worse in the next administration because the next administration, if he's the president,

it's going to be subject to protests and just constant scandal, I suspect. And still, you know, the people working for him are getting less and less good. And I'm being kind there. So I don't worry about it necessarily. And again, I think Jeff Bezos, if I'm going to use him as the proxy here, is probably just fine. What do you think, Scott? Yeah, the liberal and liberal democracy is that we have institutions to slow down our thinking such that when we make a mistake and elect people who decide to play pretend CEO, that the courts and regulators can step in. And if you look at what's really happened, you know, he went after CNN. I hate CNN, so I'm going to block their merger with AT&T.

And the courts said no. So, look, you're absolutely right, Cara. Trump versus Bezos is Mayweather versus McGregor. The redhead gets the shit kicked out of them. Big tech is the windshield. And right now, any single politician who tries to circumvent the law is just a big splat against that windshield. the law is just a big, a big splat against that windshield. I'm not, I'm not as worried. I think you're smart to be worried, but I haven't seen any evidence that he's been able, other than saying picking on Maytag or, I mean, it's just so, it's just, it's almost comical. It's like a bad version of the shark tank. I think Casey and Tim both talked about Oracle being in this deal with TikTok is that it looks like that for Oracle.acle oracle looks like friend of friendo trump talk about hair plugs on an aging company jesus christ my god tiktok and oracle yeah that makes sense that makes sense seriously that's like when i show up wearing my members only jacket yeah. Yeah, yeah, that makes sense.

I got a Corvette. Let's go to the Red Onion. Some Lancer's wine. I used to party with these cool cats in Cuba. Red Onion? Oh, my God. What is the Red Onion? The Red Onion?

I don't even know what that is. That's where the dog used to take dates in college. $2 Long Island iced teas. Nine shots of alcohol for two bucks. That's right. Do you know how charming I get after seven or eight shots? No, I don't think you're charming at all after seven or eight shots.

Someone asked, Silicon Valley and hoodies, what's the deal? They don't wear hoodies as much as you think. Do they? Sundar looked so elegant, didn't he? He looked like Omar Sharif's nephew who's the ambassador to Rwanda. He looked like something out of mid-century modern cool. Was that a hate crime? Did I do that wrong?

Have I just been canceled on Twitter? It was so offensive that it wasn't offensive. He's very elegant looking. The cancel culture experts on that. Yes, he is. He's great. Yeah. They just like to wear it. You know what I took away from the interview with Sundar? So first off, and you know my rule, anyone who's famous who calls me and asks me to lunch, I say no, because you know what happens? And this happened on this episode. This happened on Pivot School. I listened to Sundar and I see those sublime shoulders and that cool hoodie and that thoughtful demeanor. And I'm like, I just like Sunder. And I like, we immediately don't, we Google as less of a threat. And then Tim Wu comes on and reminds us what the real world's

like, that these guys are a huge threat and need to be broken up. Do not have lunch with famous people because they're almost very, always very likable and take your eye off the ball. Okay. All right. That's a real, okay. I think, okay. All right. Okay. Sure. One thing I did note in that hearing, the only person they accused of being un-American was the person of color, which was amazing. I thought that was- They used the word American nine times with Sunder. They used it four times with Zuckerberg. And the guys that were born in Alabama and Texas, they didn't bring up the word American. Yeah. It was really quite striking. I thought that was wrong. But you're right. We should

not, just because he has a lovely, elegant hoodie, which they all do. They all cost $200 just so you know, $300 hoodies. Could that guy be any more likable? He's the most... Okay, I'm losing you, Scott. Anyway, thank you for everyone who sent in video questions. Remember to send

in video questions for next week's show. We have one more thing before we wrap up today's show. We have predictions really quickly, but Scott has disappeared once again for predictions. All right. So now, very quickly, we're going to do predictions. Scott, you're not out of here yet. We're very close to being out of here. Professor Gally, before we get to your prediction, we have another special guest who sent in

a video with their prediction. Let's play it. video with their prediction. Let's play it. Hey, it's Roy Wood Jr. And I'm going to give you my prediction for the big four. Let's talk about Apple. Apple is a company that started with a nice, small and compact iPhone. And then what happened? It started getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And now we have an iPhone X plus x plus xlr whatever the hell that's basically close to the size of an ipad but now if you see what's happening apple's offering smaller phones now to say that they're more affordable but what they're really doing is making everything small again they're going to be the first company to go from small to big back to small and make us buy everything

a la carte because the first thing that they're doing now because everybody's going to the universal charging ports now i think the usbc's are called uh apple is not going to include a charger at least that's the rumor they're not going to include a charger with the next version of the iphone so now you got to buy the phone then you got to go buy a case then you got to buy a charger then you know the next thing they're going to do they're going to separate the cord from the plug so now you got to buy ip. Then you got to buy a charger. Then you know the next thing they're going to do. They're going to separate the cord from the plug. So now you got to buy an iPhone. Then you got to buy an iPhone plug. Then you got to buy an iPhone cord. How soon till they just selling us the glass and then

you just got to assemble your phone at the house by yourself like a damn puzzle? That's where we're headed. All right. I got to go check on my child, man. What was that? What just happened there? That was Roy Wood Jr.,

great stand-up comedian and correspondent for The Daily Show. All right, Scott, he's very funny. What's your prediction? Very quick, quick, quick, quick, quick, please.

Trillions of dollars in shareholder value being moved to the home, connected devices, Peloton or Sonos acquired by the end of the year. Oh, that's a big one. What, you can't just

drop that and run by whom by sure again i'm usually wrong um each of them the really the obvious acquirer for peloton would be apple yeah okay yeah i actually i think the gangster move here would be netflix to acquire spotify and then acquire um sonos and have vertical distribution they'd have content on the back end they'd have uh and then they'dos and have vertical distribution. They'd have content on the backend. They'd have, and then they'd have a distribution with a device and both Netflix and Spotify need that. I just, Sonos is 1.4 billion. It's just so ripe. It's the apple of sound, if you will, in people's homes.

I have someone waiting to finish setting up my system today. It's a great, it's a great brand. It just seems to me just to be so ripe. And Peloton, they connected, the workout from home space, think about literally, think about the sweating industrial complex has literally collapsed, but people are working out more,

which means there's going to be an unbelievable transition in shareholder value. And who's sitting there is kind of the coolest brand. By the way, the NPS score is another prediction. Peloton, Peloton, you know what business they're going to get into? Dating. They have a rabid community of like-minded fitness people. They'll call it something and they'll get into it. They could put Tinder out of business, Peloton dating. Well, that's interesting because I am in love with Allie Love. Yes, you're right. I love Peloton. I love the product more than anything. I've owned it a long, long time. And

I know I'm an elite person, but it's the most satisfying product I've owned in a long, long time. And I know I'm an elite person, but it's the most satisfying product I've owned in a long time. Thank you. Dom Swisher. Lady Dom Swisher. All right, Scott. Next week is our, that's all we have today for Pivot School.

Next week, our final episode of Pivot School, we'll be talking about education and recovery. Our friends of Pivot will be the president of Howard University nearby my house here, Dr. Wayne Frederick. And he is amazing. And the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, Austin Buechner. This is happening on Wednesday, September 2nd.

Education is a big topic for Scott and for me, too, at 1 p.m. Eastern. You can send in a video question for next week's episode to school at voxmedia.com. We really appreciate it. We're sorry we went long today, voxmedia.com. We really appreciate it. We're sorry you went long today, but really we don't, we're not sorry. We're not sorry, but Scott, that was a really good prediction. We're going to talk about it later. And Scott will be back on the main show next week. But this week we have a baritone Thurston, who's again,

who's our guest host and we're having a lovely time without you, but I miss you and I can't wait to get back. I can't believe I just said that publicly. Shoot. Anyhow, Scott, you're frozen again. You're frozen again. So leave it with that. All right.

Thank you, everyone, for coming. We really appreciate it. And we'll be back next week. Good. Scott missed my little love letter to him. And that's all he's going to get from me. All right. Thanks, everyone.

I heard it, you saucy minx. He didn't hear it. He didn't hear it. It never happened. Bye, everybody. OK. All right. Thanks, everybody. I heard it, you saucy minx. You didn't hear it. You didn't hear it. It never happened. Bye, everybody. Okay. All right. Thanks, everybody. I love the dog. Thanks so much for everyone who joined us live for Pivot School.

Remember that if you paid for a ticket to the live show, you can watch the video replays of all five episodes at PivotSchool.com. And more importantly, I am surrounding you with white light. That's worth a lot. You can also buy Pivot School swag at pivotschool.com slash shop.