TBPN Live - Apple Tax is Dead, OpenAI Ends Vesting Cliff, Anthropic’s Massive TPU Order | Diet TBPN

Episode Date: December 16, 2025

Diet TBPN delivers the best of today’s TBPN episode in under 30 minutes. TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with each episode posted to podcast platforms right after. Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” the show has recently featured Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella.TBPN.com is made possible by:Ramp - https://ramp.comFigma - https://figma.comVanta - https://vanta.comLinear - https://linear.appEight Sleep - https://eightsleep.com/tbpnWander - https://wander.com/tbpnPublic - https://public.comAdQuick - https://adquick.comBezel - https://getbezel.com Numeral - https://www.numeralhq.comPolymarket - https://polymarket.comAttio - https://attio.com/tbpnFin - https://fin.ai/tbpnGraphite - https://graphite.devRestream - https://restream.ioProfound - https://tryprofound.comJulius AI - https://julius.aiturbopuffer - https://turbopuffer.comfal - https://fal.aiPrivy - https://www.privy.ioCognition - https://cognition.aiGemini - https://gemini.google.comFollow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

Tim Sweeney was taking a victory lap. I kind of missed this. This was last Thursday. Basically, the Ninth Circuit struck down, you know, Apple trying to do something else in the Apple tax battle with Epic games. So a quick, quick refresher on this. Tim Sweeney says the Apple tax is dead in the United States. This particular nail in the coffin comes from the Ninth Circuit. These things are never fully over. I've learned. Like, it's just, it just, there's a class action lawsuit, then there's another lawsuit, then there's this one, then there's appeals, then they go to the Supreme Court, then they go back to the Supreme Court. It's always up and down, like, that's just the nature of these things because the stakes are so, so high. Exposure seems a little hot on that. What's going on there?

Basically, the court had said that Apple could not charge 30% if a developer routed an app customer to their own payment page. And so Apple was like, yeah, totally, we're cool with that. How about 27% plus 3% for payments and 27% for like IP licensing? And so like the end result was exactly the same. It was literally 30%. It was just like structured slightly differently. They just changed the language. You know, this was contempt.

Like, you know, it's like we told you not to do this and you're still doing it at Apple. And so now they they're not supposed to. Of course, like the weird takeaway here is like these big momentous things happen. And then the stock moves like not at all. conclusion from digging into this was that the fundamentally like consumer behavior has built up over almost two decades now I mean the App Store would launch I believe in 2007 this whole saga starts in 2011 this guy Robert Pepper he sues Apple along with three other plaintiffs mr. Pepper mr. Pepper alleging that he was

overcharged for iOS apps it's funny to imagine a guy just saying I'm coming for you Apple you know what Flappy Bird I was charged $2 for it, should have been $1.70, something like that, $1.20, and taking it all the way to the Supreme Court. I mean, if he's a Flackenberg, Whale, and he spent millions, tens of millions of dollars in the app. But yeah, yeah, the economics are a bit, you would normally see somebody like that suing Apple because they're like, you overcharge me by $2,000 across the lifetime, and I'm suing you for damages, and it's like a lawsuit that will, you know. With the class of section lawsuit obviously you get a couple plaintiffs who are exemplary of the

problem and then wrangle when the settlement happens it's like billions of dollars paid to everyone who ever purchased an app and you see these things before like do have you did you use Facebook between 2016 2017 you may be entitled to like five cents obviously massive economic incentives for the for the lawyers who fight them anyway the court ruled that Apple can't do that anymore they can only collect fees that are in line with actual costs of facilitating lengths. Paying the process.

Cloud costs for one link. I know, it's crazy. And the associate intellectual property. Actually, we need to use AI for this. Yeah, and we need to. No, no, no, that's actually what's gonna happen. So basically, right now, it's like the, like, if I'm, I'm the app store, I'm Apple, I have the app store,

you have your own app and you have your own, you know, stripe account and you wanna pay, you wanna accept payments your way. Apple says, well, you know, even though we're, yes, you are checking out on your payment rails. And it's your app. Like, I created the link and the technology that creates links within iOS. And that is helping you. So you got to pay me an IP licensing fee. Typically, it was like 27% of whatever you make, which doesn't make any sense because obviously my, as Apple, my cost don't scale proportionally to your revenue. It's linear with regard to my cost. So like, yes,

If Apple probably- These are pricey links, John, these are pricey links. Like, you're laughing, but like, like, realistically, like the iOS team that has been working on just links, like, they get paid a lot. It's probably in the millions. If you're a successful mobile developer, you've been paying millions of dollars to Apple forever. And you're talking about millions, like relatively fixed OPEX for Apple that, again, doesn't scale. And they make the $30 billion a year or something. The idea is like justifiable costs should be like 10 bucks, maybe like 100 bucks for reviewing an app and just saying, okay, we ran our software, we understand the, you know, is this violating any rules? We maybe had a human pop by and look at it for, you know, a couple minutes, make sure that this is compliant with the app store.

And then there are obviously other costs, but, you know, should it be millions of dollars, should it be proportional to revenue, should be 30% of revenue? A lot of people have been arguing, no. But of course this will go back and forth and Apple will probably try and make the the fee as high as possible of course because they have every incentive to Oh, the other interesting thing is in Pepper versus Apple there was this question of You know like where in the chain is the monopoly pricing having an effect like where is it increasing the The price of the good this Illinois brick company versus Illinois the state of Illinois? This was in 1977 and the the the the Supreme Court held that only direct purchases of direct purchasers of a legally priced goods had standing to sue so the the Illinois brick case this is

pretty interesting he says the value chain was very straightforward concrete block makers including the eponymous Illinois brick company great name for a company that makes concrete blocks they were accused of colluding colluding to fixed prices of concrete blocks which were bought by masonry contractors Masonry contractors in turn submitted bids to general contractors for construction projects, which were ultimately paid for by the state of Illinois. And so the state of Illinois sued for damages, alleging that the higher prices resulting from the price fixing, had been passed through to the state of Illinois.

So even though the masonry contractors were like, okay, yeah, like the Illinois brick company is with all the other brick companies, they're jacking up prices. It doesn't really matter because they just passed that through. And so there's a question about like, well, you didn't actually pay the high higher price directly, state of Illinois, but it was passed through. And so that harm gets passed through. And so, you know, he says in this value chain is obvious who the direct purchasers were, masonry contractors to the extent the state of Illinois suffered harm. It was indirect pass-through harm. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Illinois did not have

standing. So the state of Illinois could not sue then. If every party in the value chain were to sue, the infringing party could be the subject of duplicative recovery for damages and parsing out the share of damages would be extremely difficult. In Apple versus Pepper, there's this question of who is harmed by Apple's alleged monopolistic practices. According to the plaintiffs, the value chain looks the same as the concrete block manufacturers. Basically, there's developers who sell their apps to Apple, who sell those apps to consumers. But Apple said, whoa, whoa, no, we're not a retail store, even though it's called the App Store. It's not a real store. We don't buy by inventory and sell them exactly we're more and we're an agent the developer agreement confirms

that apple acts as an agent for app providers in providing the app store and is not a party to the sales contract or user agreement between the user and the app provider thus respondents concede that the direct sale is actually between developers and consumers facilitated by apple as an agent and conduit and that sort of makes sense you know you go to a grocery store they buy the apples from the farmer they sell them to the customer they take possession a real estate agent, it facilitates a transaction. Take a fee. If Apple was actually going and like buying licenses and then reselling them, you know they'd

be negotiating like crazy too and be like, we'll give you a dollar and then we're going to sell it for $10. Yeah, yeah. You could argue it'd be even worse for developers in that situation. The interesting thing about this, just how much the reality of the shape of the app store and the business of the services narrative changed the entire financial story of Apple over the last, I guess, decade and a half. Look at the price to earnings ratio.

Because back in 2011, it was 9.7. Let's call it 10x price to earnings. Today it's 37x. So obviously the business has grown, but the value of the earnings is so much higher. Why is that? It's because it's so much stickier. And it's because they've developed this services monopoly,

essentially. It's a toll road for your life. It's not a toll road. That's a great, that's a great thing. There is a difference between a toll and a tax, and a toll is something that you pay that is directly linked to the service that you're getting. Okay, so you're saying it would be more like a toll road now. Now, yes, now it will be a toll road, and we should celebrate that, or developers should celebrate that. Tim Sweeney should be celebrating that because a toll road is something where it's like, it's like, I'm paying $5 to drive down this road.

That money goes directly towards this road. Yeah, the tax structure applied to a toll road is like, what economic value are you creating by driving on a road? Exactly. We're going to charge 30% of that. Exactly. Oh, you're transporting a shipment of televisions on this road? Those are high margin.

Or, oh, you're, you know, oh, you're a rich person driving on your truck. You have some GPUs. You're hiding GPUs on your truck. Are you not? Yeah, yeah. Oh, you can certainly break us off more. As opposed to saying, you know, every time someone drives on this road, it takes a dollar of depreciation.

We need a million dollars to repave it every year. And so we need to link the cost of using the service with the actual underlying cost of operating that service. My question with these changes is what is the consumer experience going to be when trying to cancel subscriptions? Because the one aspect of the app store that I've always appreciated is the ability to one click cancel from within the app store.

And so I do wonder, as soon as you let payments live outside of the app store. Everyone has experienced any type of software, retailer making it hard to figure out how to cancel a subscription. Will Apple keep that kind of one-click cancellation ability within the app? Or will they actually have to let?

I mean, this already exists. Because you can go put your credit card down in Fortnite. The thing is that I think the subscription revenue is not as much as you think. It's not as much of a driver. Like the in-app payments, the one-off click. Like those are much bigger driver of overall economic activity. But I don't know, on the subscription side,

it would be interesting if there's like some sort of re-aggregation at like the Stripe level or something like that. The interesting thing is that like, so Apple's price to earnings goes from 10 to 40 basically, like massive run-up. And this is all on the back of like the services narrative that Luca Maestri, the CFO sort of outlined in, I think 2016. He said, each quarter we report for our services category, which includes revenue from iTunes, the App Store, AppleCare, ICloud, Apple Pay, licensing, and some other items.

Today, we would like to highlight the major drivers of growth in this category, which we have summarized on page three of our supplemental materials. The vast majority of the services that we provide to our customers, for instance, apps, movies, TV shows are tied to our install base of devices rather than to current quarter sales. And so he's saying, like, you need to stop thinking about our financial. financial performance as driven by how many phones do we sell this quarter, you need to think about just how many users we have broadly and start valuing us more like Google, more like Facebook. So Luca Mastry went on to say for some of these services such as content, we recognize revenue based on transaction value for some of these services such as App Store. We share a portion of the value of each transaction with the app developer. And we only recognize revenue on the

portion that we keep to fully comprehend the scale of the service. that we are delivering to our installed base and how fast this business is growing. We look at purchases in addition to revenue. When we aggregate the purchase value of all the services tied to our install base during fiscal 2015, it adds up to more than $31 billion. It's basically what's going on is Luka Mastry is the CFO of Apple

and he's having trouble in the market because it's 2015 and what's happening. You're eight years into the iPhone. 2007 the iPhone comes out. It's expensive. It doesn't have 3G. it's got a lot of rough edges. Doesn't have copy and paste.

But it's cool and it's interesting and there's lines out the door for them and people at the higher end. Like a cell phone back then was like a hundred bucks or you'd get it for free. You'd get it as part of a, you know, every... Cellular bundle. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Every two years you'd get a new, you'd get a new phone and it was free, basically. Then the iPhone comes in. It's $600, very expensive. very upmarket, then a year or two in, they start figuring out how to bring down the price. It comes down to like 300, 400. There's these incentives for signing up for a year-long plan. There's a whole variety of things that make it. You know, the app store comes out. There's like, there's just more functionality. You don't, you no longer are like, well, my BlackBerry still does this,

but Apple doesn't. It's like, no, they do the enterprise stuff. They checked all the boxes. And so it's growing, growing, growing. But eight years in, everyone who has one, like they won the game. So device, like actual, the device install base, device sales are starting to flatline. Then they need sort of a new narrative for the stock because it's sort of getting beat up because Apple's basically winning the store. You sold everyone an iPhone. But it's over. Like the trade's over.

It's like, yeah, we get it. Everyone has smartphones now. iPhone revenue is basically, or unit sales are slowing significantly. Of course, they're able to raise prices still because people are locked in. Like, it's a good business, but it's not this like incredibly high growth thing anymore. So Luca Mastry needs to come in with a new narrative, and that's the services narrative. And so the services narrative is saying, hey, for a long time, you've been looking at this bucket of basically, like, other revenue. We have device sales, which you've been obsessed with as the investor, as the Wall Street.

You've been obsessed with, you know, how many iPhones we're selling, how much we're selling them for, our margins on those iPhones, how many we can make, all of that. And then we've had this other bucket, which is like iTunes, App Store, AppleCare, ICloud, Apple Pay, license. There's a bunch of other stuff. reading it like the storage feature on the iPhone where it's like, hey, you have like photos and these other things that are taking it in apps and then like, don't worry about other. Yeah, don't worry about other. Don't worry about other. We're just going to throw everything in there.

Don't worry about other because we don't really know how it's growing. Is it that high margin? We don't know. Then all of a sudden it became like, don't just not worry about other. Like, in fact, focus entirely on it because it is the best revenue that's super high margin and it's growing really fast. And oh, by the way, if you zoom out and you look at the economic activity that is driving on top of the App Store. Yes, our take rate's 30%, but on top of it, just in 2015,

it's $31 billion of economic activity in that ecosystem. But Ben Thompson was not a fan of it. I mean, he was a fan from the stock price perspective, but he had some really, really harsh words. He said at the time, it seems incredibly worrisome to me anytime a company that predicates its growth story on rent-seeking, it's not that the growth isn't real, but rather the pursuit is corrosive on whatever it was that made the company great in the first place. It's like, whoa. It's sort of like, okay, they're going like private equity mode, like the beautiful art, the creativity is gone at this point. Tim Cook has effectively done exactly that. Going forward, the growth story of Apple has been someone else

innovate, someone else creates an app and we'll take 30%. And we don't need to do the innovation. The innovation, that doesn't need to happen here. And that's a big shift in the narrative. Whereas before, all through 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, it was like, the innovation comes from now. They're like, We're going to make the iPhone 1700. It's going to be newer, lighter, better, faster, stronger, and they're going to buy it. Then we're going to take our cut from everything on top of it. Exactly. Exactly.

Megan, in the Wall Street Journal has a scoop. OpenAI ended a policy earlier this week that required employees to work at the company for six months before their equity vested. A few months ago, XAI shortened their waiting period known as a vesting cliff from 12 months to six. A change to the vesting cliff announced by Applications Chief Fiji-Simo. designed to encourage new employees to take risks without fear of being let go before accessing the first chunk of equity. Interesting. So they had a problem where people would come in and say okay I got to just do politics for the first

six months because I don't want to get fired before. That's like that's a crazy culture I feel like. I think this has to be more reactionary to meta and obviously some of the other open AI has shortened its vesting period for new employees to six months from the industry standard to 12 months in April. Let's see, Elon Musk's XAI and Open AI competitor made a similar change in late summer. People familiar with the matter said, the decision to loosen or do away with restrictions

meant to ensure new hire stick around reflects the frenzied competition for top tier technical talent within the AI industry. Tech companies typically have a one-year vesting cliff, that's what I'm certainly familiar with, for new employees, preventing them from having to give away stock to hires who leave quickly or don't work out. But with AI companies, including meta platforms, Google, Anthropic, wooing top researchers

with pay packages that can be worth $100 million or more, researchers and engineers have been able to hold out for the most attractive terms and in many cases have been quick to leave jobs they have found not to their liking. I also could see at them trying to kind of rehab their employer brand. Do you remember there was a bunch of this was probably six, eight months ago at this point, opening I had a bunch. There were some articles surrounding they had some like really restrictive exit agreements. That's right. That's right. Yeah. A lot of people were pretty frustrated around there.

I feel like that was over a year ago. That was maybe if you left and didn't, maybe didn't sign a non-disparagement agreement or NDA or something. Yeah, if you didn't sign it, they could claw back your equity. And then they were saying that was important during the whole like Ilya ousting thing. A lot of the employees left after that, but then they couldn't talk about it. I always thought that, like, the bull case for that was, well, if you're going to be whistleblowing on something that's like a true AI doom scenario, well, then money doesn't matter, so you shouldn't matter about them clawing back your equity. The company expects to spend $6 billion this year on stock-based comp, almost half of its projected revenue.

A company that creates however many hundreds of billions of dollars in value in a year, and then has $6 billion of a non-cash expense. It doesn't seem that crazy. The SpaceX IPO, if they raise $30 billion, will be lower than the $40 billion that Open AI offered. Yeah. In this private market. In the private markets.

And so there's been this big question about, like, are the private markets tapped? It appears it's the David Goggins thesis in the market. The David Goggins thesis for life. I mean, if you went back, you know, I don't know, five years and you were like, yeah, like, do you think you could raise $40 billion in the private markets or would you have to go public for that? They're like, you know, the Saudi Aramco level funding. Like, yes, you'd have to be public. But it turns out you don't not have to be public.

Finn Barr says, okay, but seriously, why is everyone leaving meta? People are speculating in the comments. Jane says vest. Finn says, but if you stay longer, you vest more. True. Someone else says, no direction for the company. Several major unannounced R.L. Project canceled. The 100 million boys reportedly do zero work because they know that if Zuck fires them, he'll look foolish. I don't know. I think some of these 100 million dollar men and women just that do, they are about that life. They do want to pursue greatness. They do want to do the biggest run. So who knows? I'm sure there's some instances of that. Zuck, you know, overpaid for talent is to try to catch up. No PMF on their consumer AI products, even though they force everyone on Instagram to see it.

I think we've got to wait a little bit for the Christmas season to come and go and see how, see how these things are selling. It is a tough position to be in because they don't have like a public cloud. They don't have a cloud service, even though they are a hyperscaler. With Google, like even if they, even if Google gets completely smoked by opening up. and ChatGPT, and ChatGPT winds up being, like, truly, like, the, you know, the Facebook of chat apps, and it's, like, 99% people use, it captures 99% of, like, the consumer AI value. It's, like, having a Gemini API is still extremely valuable, because, like, you have cloud

services. Brett Adcock. Okay. What's going on with Brad Adcock? He had a party over the weekend with Dead Mouse. He posted earlier today that that figure is looking quite cheap now in comparison to SpaceX. there's a new biggest line on the private markets chart drinking on here what is he drinking

i think he's having i think he's cracking open some cold one this is my so my theory is that they have done billions of dollars in sales okay and this is kind of their way of signaling if you know you know because of course it would be absolutely insane to have a party like this yeah if you still hadn't shipped a product if you still were yeah kind of a sort of uh i don't know if they're pre-revenue, but certainly being valued on vibes. So there's no way they would throw a party like this. Because SpaceX has 30 billion in revenue, right? Yeah.

So, and it's going out at 1.5 trillion. So it's at like 50x revenue? He'd probably trading it like, what, 20x revenue, something like that? That was my theory at least. And then what's the market? They're at around 40 billion. They're at around 40 billion. So, yeah, they could be doing like two to four billion in revenue, potentially.

This is very much a... On a price-to-sales ratio. A wink-wink moment, because seriously, you know, no, I don't think any CEO would throw this crazy of a party if you weren't, if you weren't really really printing. So expect an announcement soon. I would. Data centers in space, it might not be economically rational, but it might be physically possible. I'm trying to bring some quantitative structure to a conversation that's been mostly big number

of vibes. So we have sort of dueling, dueling math equations at this point. What is he this is vibe coded from public from so maybe we need to have a debate Maybe we need to have them both on but he says TLDR the analysis is actually far more favorable than I thought It's a close thing I desperately want a Kardashev level civilization But we've got a lot of work ahead of us Delian's been saying like it's impossible it is not gonna happen anytime sin it's not gonna it's not gonna not gonna be a thing But Andrew McCallup says there just might be a chance God says my dealer I got some straight gas

this train called space data centers. You are going to effing fry. L.O.L. Me. Yeah, whatever. 20 minutes later. Dude, WTF, we just need to radiate the heat and then we can totally bypass terrestrial regulations. My friend, pacing. I should buy magnet stocks to get ahead of all the rail guns. They're smoking space data centers, John. Anthropic has ordered $21 billion worth of TPUs to train large claws. Is that really what they're calling it? Text is from yesterday's Broadcom's earnings call. The scale at which we see this happening could be significant.

As you are aware, last quarter, Q3, we received a $10 billion order to sell the latest TPU Ironwood racks to Anthropic. This was our fourth custom that we mentioned. In this quarter, we received an additional $11 billion order from this same customer for delivery in late 2026. Kaiju fights are the best kind of fights from October. This is from Andrew Curran. He says, Anthropic is in discussions with Alphabets, Google, about a deal that would provide the artificial intelligence company with additional competing power valued in the high tens of billions of dollars, according to people familiar with the matter.

Fermi, which is the energy company that went public at a $20 billion valuation, they talked about getting their kind of facilities online, I think, in the 2030s. And people were a little bit bearish about that. They've traded down almost 75% since their IPO. So it seems like, yeah, we've basically seen this kind of rolling correction across every single AI pureplay. You could even say that. But nobody's done volcano data centers. No one has done those. Where are you going to, the chat's asking, where do you put the heat?

Just shoot it up into the air. That's what that's. Yeah. Volcano data centers is funny because immediately you're like, but don't you want the chips to be cold? You need cooling, not heated. Yeah, the heat dissipates with the lava. It would be great to just hard light. But the heat's free, heat's free.

Data centers are hot. And in this one, we're getting the heat for free. What happens after a correction? You're corrected. I think we're corrected. I think it's possible that the market is cracked. It's perfectly valued. I saw somebody saying that the BG2 interview with Sam,

they were claiming, it's very possibly helped us avoid a 2000, 2001 style. Yeah, things could have gotten a lot crazier. So maybe that was Brad's play the whole time. He was like, hey, we just need a little reset. He's a hero. He's a hero. I'm going to look like, I'm going to look like, you know, I'm going to look like maybe a bad guy for two weeks, but now it looks like a hero.

I mean, even in the moment, he didn't look like a bad guy. No, no. He asked the question. If he didn't ask that question, there would have been, I think, some rightful criticism. Everyone was wondering. It was an important question to ask. Jim Carrey offered to return his $20 million grinch salary and was going to quit the movie. panic attacks over the makeup.

Then a guy who trained the military on enduring torture was hired to help him. Richard Marcinko was a gentleman that trained CIA officers and special ops people had to endure torture, Kerry told the vulture. He gave me a litany of things that I could do when I began to spiral, like punch myself in the leg as hard as I can.

Have a friend that I trust and punch him in the arm. Eat everything in sight. Changing patterns in the room. If there's a TV on when you start a spiral turn it off and turn the radio on smoke cigarettes as much as possible there are pictures of me as the grinch sitting in a director's chair with a long cigarette holder i had to have the holder because the yak hair would catch on fire if i got too close later on i found out that gentleman had trained me to endure the grinch also found it so the only my only kind of question

here is i feel like all these things if you're being tortured they wouldn't exactly be like oh let him turn the tv off and on again let him turn the radio on oh yeah that is It is interesting. So I think these are probably great things to do if you're not getting tortured and you're just developing anxiety attack. Yeah. I did resonate with this because when we had the Halloween makeup on. Well, I mean, to be very, it could be like metaphorically being tortured like in a foxhole as a member of Steel Team 6. Like, oh, you're staking out someplace and you're in a muddy pit and it's a hole.

You're not actually being directly tortured by like an enemy, but you have to deal with a really hard situation. you sit there chain smoking and I don't know why you have a TV in this scenario this just resonated because when we had when we were three hours into our Halloween episode and I started to realize it didn't resonate for me I was like I am fully it felt like very suffocating having you know I was fine with it two centimeters surrounding everywhere and Brown says chat GPT is the only consumer app with regular pop-ups asking if I want to downgrade my subscription this is hilarious it's testament to the they're running this as an A-B test they're like Like we tell people they can pay less and they don't.

They enjoy giving us money. Maybe the pro plan results in more permanent churn. And so this is actually LTV, a downgrade is actually LTV positive. No way to prove that that's true. But it would be very funny if that was the case. The polish around the product is potentially like the way you win consumer. I really think we're in the era of like, of productization more than the latest model. The product, the product managers are the heroes now.

I want to see a product manager getting a four-year, one billion dollar package. It's not, it's not completely over for the AI researchers. Like, the models are important. They do get better. And there's functionality under the hood that's research-driven, that's valuable. But if you believe in the, we're in the age of research, then what is the AI researcher doing? Like, they are doing experiments that you have no idea the timeline. Like, you're not just doing engineering.

You can't just put one foot in front of the other and get easy wins. It's actually going and doing science and discovering new ideas, new ways to create new capabilities. And so in the age of research, the researchers should be off doing research and the user experience designers are the heroes, basically. Goodbye. We love you. See you tomorrow. See you guys.