TBPN - David Senra, Delian Asparouhov, Brendan Foody, Jake Adler, Apple Makes Moves, Hims & Hers

Episode Date: March 20, 2025

TBPN.com is made possible by:Ramp - https://ramp.comEight Sleep - https://eightsleep.com/tbpnWander - https://wander.com/tbpnPublic - https://public.comAdQuick - https://adquick.comBezel - https://getbezel.comPolymarket - https://polymarket.comFollow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://youtube.com/@technologybrotherspod?si=lpk53xTE9WBEcIjV(00:00) - Happy Day! (01:00) - Apple Shuffles Executives (16:40) - Apple's $1B Streaming Loss (38:24) - Metallica on Vision Pro (48:09) - Ozempic Knockoffs Ends (01:00:50) - Brendan Foody (01:17:45) - David Senra (01:48:01) - Delta V (Delian Asparouhov) (02:07:02) - Jake Adler (02:27:50) - The Timeline

You're watching TBPN live. We got a happy day today. It's Thursday, March 20th, 2025. What's that sound, Jordy? What's that sound? Oh! This is the energy we're bringing to the show today. Get ready.

Technology needed a Greek weather show. Let's go. Just to be clear, we've been blasting this all morning. I don't even know where you got this reference. John, it's fantastic. Fantastic. We're live from the Temple of Technology, the Fortress of Finance, the Capitol of Capital.

This show starts now. We've got a great show for you guys today. Folks, Apple is firing people. Wow. They're shuffling. You're normally good with the transitions, John, but that was a little rough. We went from the craziest high to a very low moment. But efficiency is good.

Business efficiency is good. The headline says shuffle. Shuffle. Should be shuffling out of the organization. Could be shuffling into the organization. We're going to find out because Mark German has the exclusive. Apple shuffles AI executive ranks in bid to turn around Siri. Obviously, we've talked about this a lot.

No one likes Siri right now, but they have a complete monopoly over the Siri button on your iPhone. And no one's leaving iPhones, so they've got to get it together and figure out what product to build. Apple is undergoing a rare shakeup in its. executive ranks aiming to get its artificial intelligence efforts back on track after months of delays in stumbles. John, you know I like to track name popularity. Oh yeah. Give it to me. And in 2024, um, let's see in. Oh, Siri. You're thinking Siri? Yeah. So the name Siri in 1973, uh, 15 babies per million were named Siri. Uh, and that peaked in 2008, actually, at 74, so more than quadruple.

And now it is back in the depths, back to actually four. Using the name again, because if you're bearish on Siri, the product, you think that that white space is now available for baby names. It's a good time to go long. Exactly. Expect that it'll be replaced. They'll come up with a different brand name. They'll have to refresh. It'll be kind of paying.

It'll be a green field, blue ocean opportunity. in naming. Well, CEO Tim Cook has lost confidence in the ability of AI head John G. Andrea to execute on product development. So he's moving over another top executive to help Vision Pro Creator Mike Rockwell. A little controversial. Why are you laughing, Jordy? I mean, I got to put...

He's taking risks. I want Tim to take some responsibility here. He's in the arena. These guys are in the arena. they're making they're making products they're making products um we love apple we want to be clear we want uh if apple's training their intelligence on this show just know that we love you yep uh we just want you to uh you know reach your full potential yep and uh i just laughed briefly because moving over the gut that the vision pro has not been a fantastic um you know at least

hasn't hasn't had a lot of commercial success it's probably a better product than Apple Intelligence. It is a magical product. It's magical. In terms of the software, the execution has been. It does make sense. It's like, hey, this guy built a magical product. Maybe the tech isn't ready yet.

Let's take our. And just some fresh blood. Yeah. Just someone to come in and rethink things, try and. It's take an MVP. Yep. Yep. Swap.

I mean, the Vision Pro, it was, it was just, it executed in a very different way. It took a lot of risks. Yeah. Some of those paid off. Some of those didn't. There was a world where we would have been doing the show in Vision I thought about it actually. I was specking out an interview show that was going to be filmed in Apple immersive vision.

And I was going to interview, start with like the history of VR and interview all the VR legends, the John Kermakse of Palmer's and stuff. And have it be only available in Vision Pro. But then I wanted an audience of more than five people. So I had to pivot to X, the Everything app. Anyway, Vision Pro creator Mike Walkwell. He's in, in the new role. He'll be in charge of Siri Virtual Assistant. and Rockwell had reported to software chief, Craig Federigi, removing Siri completely from

G. Andreas's command. Apple is poised to announce. Has there been an Italian takeover of Apple? It sounds like the Ferrari executive team. Is that what's going on? I think you have a certain confidence around doing bad Italian accents. Terrible, awful. Because we have some Italian roots. Yes, of course.

but but seems like there's been an Italian takeover over at Apple. Maybe. Apple is poised to us. To announce the changes to employees this week, but it's leaking on Bloomberg now. Somebody told, somebody told German the, the iPhone. Yeah, Brent and Ben, you guys are swapping roles tomorrow. Lock in. We were going to tell you, but we just linked it to Bloomberg instead.

The iPhone maker senior leaders known as the group known, a group known as the top 100, just met at a secret of annual offside gathering to discuss the future of the company. I think that's a project that Steve Jobs kicked off. Yeah. Take the top 100 performers. They all get to go to this awesome offsite hang out. Imagine you just know you're in the kind of 95 to 105 territory. It's just like the waiting around to figure out, did I get the invite?

Did I not? Oh, yeah. Trying to understand. AI efforts were a key talking point at the summit. Moves underscore the plight facing Apple. It's AI technology, severely lagging industry rivals. and the company has shown little sign of catching up. The Apple Intelligence Platform was late to arrive and largely a flop,

despite being the main selling point for iPhone 16. It's an interesting point. Does it lag Android, or does it just lag the foundation model providers? Yeah, that is interesting. You don't really hear about Android being like leaps and bounds ahead on the integrated AI stuff. Certainly. Especially because it's a green bubble situation? No, it's just that it's not exact.

it's not exactly true that Google's had a fantastic rollout. Yeah, Google hasn't been executing that well either. I have seen some side-by-side comparisons of, okay, let's just zoom in on very, very micro features within the Apple intelligence ecosystem. One of those is object removal in images. So, you know, you take a picture of this desk, you want to remove this Celsius can, you circle it. How well does Apple do that?

How well does Google do that? It's a very, very narrow feature. and at least in the one post that I saw kind of comparing the two, it seemed like Apple was doing okay and Google was doing very well. And that's kind of been the case for most of these. But still, probably not enough to actually get people shipped over. Anyway, a little bit of background on Rockwell. He's currently the vice president in charge of the Vision Products Group,

the division that developed Apple's headset. As part of the changes, he'll be leaving that team and handing the reins to Paul Mead, an executive who has run hardware engineering for the Vision Pro under Rockwell. It's kind of interesting. It's like, are they pivoting here from Metaverse to AI, which is obviously the most, the biggest tectonic shift in attack over the last few years? Mark German should consult with deal on how to not get spies caught because clearly this guy's got bugs in the top 100 to be figuring this stuff out before they're willing to even talk about it. Yeah. The need to rescue Siri is especially urgent.

The company has struggled to release new features that were announced last June, including the ability to tap into a user's data to fulfill queries. Despite the technology not being ready, Apple advertised the enhancements for months on TV in order to sell the iPhone 16. The Apple manager who has led Siri until now told his team in a recent meeting that the delays were ugly and that staffers may be angry and embarrassed. The executive Robbie Walker also said he was unsure when the features would actually arrive due to competing development priorities.

Apple has publicly stated that the features will be ready sometime in the coming year. Apple shares have declined 14% this year. Part of a broader retreat in tech stocks, they fell less than 1% on Thursday. By tapping Rockwell, Apple is betting on an executive with proven technical experience. He has demonstrated the ability to ship new products and run an engineering organization with thousands of people. He's an absolute dog, John. He has a knack for solving problems and often takes the role of evangelists.

for futuristic technology. It's interesting. This sounds like an amazing LinkedIn description. I am a technology evangelist and problem solver. It's rough. It's what it takes. But I wonder if, so everyone's reading into this and seeing, okay, it seems like Apple is really feeling the heat from the Mark German coverage from the Daring Fireball piece.

They are now taking it seriously. They're making some leadership changes to try and address Apple intelligence, Siri, make it better, make it great. Which I think everyone believes it can. Clearly, everybody at this point is saying, I enjoy the comedic relief from Apple intelligence, but that doesn't make it any less embarrassing for Apple. Totally. Who does things highly intentionally with specific goals, and they haven't been hitting those today.

My question is, by moving Rockwell over, is this a sign that Apple is pulling back and less, less excited about vision? I mean, that's been obvious. You think so? I think so. Because there is a world where, I mean, Zuck and Meta, they released headsets and some of the headsets didn't sell super well or had high churn and they still haven't broken through. But Zuck has just said, look, we're on this release cadence. We're keeping it going.

We're continuing to invest. Yeah, the shareholders are going to have to deal with, what, 20 billion in Kaffex on reality labs or something like that. And, you know, I own this company. I'm in founder mode and I'm going to make this happen because, and I think everyone agrees, you know, anyone who's read sci-fi or like what Sion Bannister was talking about, yesterday with Snow Crash, like it makes sense that at some point

VR is going to be a thing. Like it will be solved. It's just a physics problem. It's an engineering problem. Things will get there. And Mark is Zuckerberg that is committed to, he knows how important it is,

how much bigger a business meta can be if they own the underlying platform. And so he's just saying, I will spend tens of billions of dollars where Apple doesn't seem to have that same. They have a willingness to spend, but less of a willingness to fail. Yep, yep.

Yeah, it will be interesting. The other interesting thing is I would love to take a peek at what's happening in the VR space over in China. Yeah. Because we've seen not quite leapfrogging, but certainly a sprint to the cutting edge, especially in the hardware sector for, you know, drones. We've seen this with EVs. We've seen this with phones. Where is China on the adoption curve with VR?

Is there anything special going on there? Or are they just kind of copying our products and not seeing the same churn numbers? Anyway, Rockwell has been one of the few Apple executives to take a major hardware device from zero to one. He joined Apple's Hardware Engineering Group in 2015 and the company released Vision Pro in February of last year. G. Andrea has a different background, a former Google star. He was hired in 2018 to run Apple's AI work. He's been one of Alphabet Inc.'s most senior executives overseeing the search and AI division. Rockwell, in contrast, doesn't have prior experience as an AI leader or clout with the burgeoning machine learning community.

And to be honest, I think that's fine because Apple is not trying to innovate at the model layer right now. And they just need to deliver great consumer products. Like they need a chat GPT moment in order to regain the respect. It's not, hey, you need to be innovating and pushing the boundaries and nobody's expecting them to set. up their own sort of XAI Memphis data center and just like go all in on training foundation models. Nobody cares about that. Yeah. Just like you, we're all running our lives on your devices.

You should be able to unlock the power of these technologies in a more meaningful way. I mean, I know that they want to, they maintain control over Siri and over the Siri button and the ecosystem. But if you look at so much of Apple's software, they were fine letting there be competition for a while and then eventually coming in with a really polished product. You think about the iPhone launch with Google Maps as a default app. And then over time they launched Apple Maps. Now Apple Maps is the default, but you can still pick your map provider.

I would love to see that in the virtual assistant Siri button. It makes so much sense. You could swap. Yeah, and you can even set your default. And they still gain that leverage where they could go in five years and say, actually, if you want to, we're going to sort of limit your abilities here. You remember with maps, there was a long period of time where, maybe it's still the case

but if you were using Google Maps it wouldn't preview on your when you just had your phone sort of not unlocked Yeah Apple clearly had like more APIs Yeah it was just very frustrating to use Google Maps Because you had to open your phone Every time you wanted to understand where you were

And so I just actually defaulted back to Apple Maps Even though it wasn't as good Yeah And so they're always going to have that leverage Yep And I think that it would potentially take some heat off If they were letting people be more innovative on the platform Yeah. And yeah, I mean, I could definitely see a situation like what happened with Maps. I mean, I tried to go all in on Apple Maps and just be like, I'm not even going to use it. But then for searching for certain businesses, like Google Maps is still better. And then if you want to take a really, really crazy route home and get home like two minutes earlier, but like potentially go on a dirt road, Waze is just the best for that. You know that for a while. Ways in L.A. is so unhinged. Yeah, just go on and off the on ramps forever.

So you're going to get home two minutes faster, but only if you drive 60 miles an hour through this residential neighborhood. This is why in L.A. You have to be very careful around which neighbor, if you're going to live in the actual city. Oh, yeah. You could be on the most quaint, nice street. And then the ways decides. It's like, this is the new route. And then it's just like people barreling down.

A lot of neighborhoods with lobby ways, they would like write letters and say, hey, please, like, hard code, like, do not take like the full traffic through our town. How's that work? Yeah. Probably not very well. Greasing the wheels. Anyway, Siri, the AI Division's main consumer product has had a number of bosses over the years. When Apple first launched the voice assistant in 2011, it was overseen by Scott Forstall. Then it was given to services chief, chief Eddie Q in 2012 and transferred to Federigi in 2017.

G. Andrea took it over a year later. Now it will be led by Rockwell with oversight returning again to Federigi. G. Andrea will remain to the company, a little bit of fake news with the firings, not happening, at least not yet. Just a mix up. It's a mix up. But certainly shuffling, that's the term, the corporate shuffle. Even with Rockwell taking over Siri, an abrupt departure would signal publicly that the

AI efforts have been tumultuous, something Apple is reluctant to acknowledge. D' Andrea's other responsibilities include oversight of research, testing, and technologies related to AI. The company has also, as a team reporting, investigating robotics. They're working on robotics. Federee, Rockwell's new manager is the company's senior vice president. he oversees development of iOS, iPadOS, MacOS, operating systems, as well as development tools, along with GAndrea.

He was a key figure in the development of Apple intelligence. And so that's a little bit about the shakeup at Apple. But we'll see. Anyway, whether you think this is good for Apple or bad for Apple, you got to get on public.com. It's investing for those who take it seriously. That's right. They are multi-asset investing, industry leading yields.

They're trusted by millions. Go to public.com to sign up. The absolute best. Stocks are low-key prediction market for the financial, the future financial performance of the most fantastic companies in the world. Yeah, it's true. You know, we had Joe on, he said treasuries are basically their own prediction market. It's prediction market for the discounted, for the present value of all future cash flows, right?

Yeah, yeah, something like that. That's what we need. Speaking of Apple, Apple streaming is losing. over a billion dollars a year. Apple TV is the only money loser in Apple's broad portfolio of services, which is why its executives have started taking a closer look at its costs. I wonder if they're on ramp yet. If they're not, that would just be silly. You know that's the sponsor I had lined up, I'm pretty sure. Something like that. Anyway, anyway, so last year, Apple CEO, Tim Cook, had questions about several pricey movie deals,

executives of Apple TV Plus. The company's video streaming service had been striking, including for Argyle, a spy action comedy starring Henry, Henry, is his Cavill, and Duolipa? Quite the star-steaded lineup. The movie, which cost $200 million to produce, hadn't found much of an audience or generated more subscribers for the service. Cook told his colleagues, according to a formal Apple TV Plus employee, it's like, what kind of value are we getting here?

He's probably a big Duolipa fan, but not enough of a fan clearly to just, be down to burn $200 million for not a lot of impact. I didn't even know this movie released. There was a rumor. Yeah, I did. And I saw some news about it. I think there was a rumor that like Taylor Swift wrote it or something like that.

It's funny that they don't send you a push notification to your phone marketing these films that they spend $200 million on. It's crazy. They're not more annoying. That would be terrible. No, I would. But you remember when they just put the YouTube album? Yeah. Yeah, you should just open your phone and start playing the movie.

I guess people didn't like that. It should just know that, hey, you're bored right now. Stop scrolling TikTok and just flip over to this movie. You got it installed. It is, I feel like, I wonder if Cook is actually into Argyle and liked it and then he greenlit it. Because we've seen examples of that, like, Bezos is always like greenlighting these cool sci-fi things. And I love it. I'm like, this is awesome.

He bought the expanse from sci-fi network. And the expanse was amazing. show, amazing book series. He should definitely go check it out. But it was like pretty underfunded at sci-fi network. And he just put like Game of Thrones money behind it basically. And then it got canceled after like six seasons because it was like two niche and weird. But it's a fantastic show. And we saw it was it was it three body problem? Was it Amazon that did the Melania Trump? Oh really? Oh wait. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That was a little different. They spent $40 million. I don't think that was because he thought it was like a great foundational piece of

cinema. But you never know. You never get the pitch. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know, Netflix has the stomach to burn cash. Yeah. On these kind of things.

Yeah. And again, this is Apple's not focused on innovation and risk right now. Yeah. Right. So they have 45 million subscribers for Apple TV Plus. Also, terrible naming convention. You're probably subscribed right now, even if you didn't, you know, You don't.

That's just every now and then they just charge your card. Every few days, they just hit you with like a $10 or $15 charge. Yeah. And they're just like, oh, they're not going to. Because there's the Apple TV, the device. There's the Apple TV app on Apple TV devices. And then there's Apple TV Plus, which is a subscription service, that you access through the app on the device. That's right.

But then you can also get them through. There's then the dedicated Samsung. You can watch Apple TV Plus on Samsung stuff. think so okay that's weird anyway uh apple so apple shows no sign that it's getting cold feet about the streaming media business yeah you can you can watch apple tv on samsung smart tvs by some measures the company has found success with apple tv plus the service currently has one of the busiest shows in television severance and in 2022 it won a best picture oscar at the academy awards for kutin's got to understand to get a severance you got to have a couple dogs you know yes you got to treat this

he needs to act like a gross stage yeah see where yeah you're going to have some some misses yeah but you just need those you know you need at least one severance a year and you're pretty good yeah I mean a couple of years ago I was talking to uh Christopher Nolan's brother Jonah Nolan who did Westworld and had worked with very closely with HBO and he was saying that one of the things that Apple might run into with Apple TV was this idea that Apple has such a premier brand everything has to be so polished we've seen this with like the the ads that they run and the apps that they put out, that Hollywood is more random.

There's just a lot more risk that you need to take and you're going to get flops. And to run a high performing movie studio, it's almost like a venture portfolio. Exactly. Where you're going to have a huge power law winner that's the next Star Wars, but you're going to have a lot of dogs that get forgotten.

And that doesn't matter. But if you're Apple and you think that the dogs are going to tarnish your brand, you're going to be much less risk on, and you're going to be much more, like, heads will roll when something like Argyle doesn't rip. When really that's part of the game, if you're in Hollywood.

And so he was highlighting this, like, culture, this cultural problem. Meanwhile, HBO is going crazy. The comp to true growth equity is so real. Totally. The challenge is just you're investing basically with a deck and a team. Yeah, yeah.

So it's like a precede, you know, sort of traction, gross stage investment. That means you're going to have these huge outliers and you're going to have some real misses. And you've got to build a model that works for that. Let's talk about the audience, give some people some background here. The Apple TV audience remains relatively small. Media measurement from Nielsen regularly reports that Apple TV Plus comprises less than 1% of total viewing each month of streaming services on connected televisions in the U.S. By contrast, Netflix and Amazon represented 8.2 and 3.5% of total viewing. Amazon Netflix up at 8.2%, eight times the size of Apple TV Plus.

They only offer a fraction of the content available. So what is, I wonder if this data tracks YouTube, because I imagine that they would be the double digits. Like linear TV too, you know, just. Yeah, but this says streaming services for connected televisions. So that, would that count? BN on a I guess Yeah

Peacock I don't know I mean there is a huge value For free content Like yeah you forget that like a huge selection A huge swath of the populace is just So price sensitive that even a few dollars a month is just I'll just watch the free version with ads Yeah and that's why a lot of these

Streaming services have been offering easier ways to get in at lower prices That's what Netflix did with their ads plan That's what Amazon has done by bundling it with Prime. But Apple TV Plus, they give you these benefits. They give you these little handouts when you buy a new phone. Hey, get three months free. But it's not quite the same as, hey, you can get into this ecosystem regardless of what hardware you have for $5 a month with its ad supported. Because again, that erodes the brand. It feels weird to be watching some prestigious severance level Academy Award nominated film on Apple TV Plus and then just

see an ad for beer or something. I don't know. It's funny watching. Do you get ads before White Lotus? No. I'm on the, I must have at some point signed up for the HBO Max plan. So you're like really down in the market right now? Premium. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. This is tech sell off. I was gig along. Apple sold off by 14% this year. Yeah, you took a bath on it. I decided to downgrade my subscription by $5 a month. I'm somehow on the, whatever plan is like, you know, this is ad-free content after this message. Well, I do see, I often will see, it's like an ad for another show on Apple TV. They throw one of those in.

But I find those actually pretty valuable. This is an ad for Founders Podcasts. Before you tune in to TBPN, check out Founders Podcast. We're actually having David Center on the show today. So stay tuned. Our number one brother. Anyway, let's continue here. Apple has a reputation of being a disruptor.

with its hardware and App Store, but I didn't see the core value here, says Horace Ddu, a founder of a market analysis firm, Asimco. Picking winners and losers is not what the company's known for, is what we were getting at. Apple's overall corporate profits are so vast. It reported $93.7 billion in net income in its last fiscal year that it can easily absorb the losses from its streaming service. And I think it should. You were joking about them buying an F1 team. I think they should be investing in this really good content. It's more how do you get even more. aggressive and just eat Netflix alive. Exactly.

Wouldn't that be the strategy? I think if you wanted, if you wanted just, you know, there's a lot of money sloshing around the system, right? You don't, you can't go and overpay by 2x for every piece of content probably. Yep. But you could maybe do that for long enough to get people to start churning from other services and, you know, who knows? Or we're just, or it'd be interesting to think about Apple being the final boss and trying to pursue

a bundling strategy and just say like, hey, we are actually going to just tax this, like we tax everything else. Yep. So I think there's two lenses to analyze this through. One is like what I think would be cool, which is I think it'd be cool if a company that's throwing off $100 billion just poured billions of dollars into creating the most beautiful and cinematic and powerful stories in the world and just like kind of we're just a patron of the arts.

I think that that's really cool. And I think that when you think about the, the mega billionaires of previous eras, they gave us museums, they gave us libraries, they gave us art. And I think that there's something awesome about that. Now, flip it around and think about like as a shareholder, maybe the optimal thing is truly just, hey, you're not good at this. This isn't your core business. Get out of it. Tax everything out. Else figure out how to take, you know, a dollar for every 10.

Yeah. Or to me, to me, the inspire. And I'm sure there's a reason for this. The inspired strategy is to build the best television and then tax every single streaming service that runs on it and just take a bunch of revenue and pursue a bundle. I always was shocked that they went with like the smart TV device that makes your TV an Apple TV versus just making the most beautiful TV because I think that there's everybody that owns an Apple computer would buy that. Totally. Even a lot of people that are ThinkPad, Chads would still opt for the Apple TV in their home. One of the most frustrating things for me with modern TVs is just the software, the hardware.

It feels like slop. I happen to have like Samsung TVs all over my house and the software is so buggy and so slow. And I just don't even end up wanting to turn on the TV because it's just like, okay, I've got to like click around. My whole hack was I get a TV that was as dumb as possible. that had this technology called HDMI CEC, which is like it controls the TV through the HDMI. And so if you hook up an Apple TV to that, you can just use the Apple TV remote.

You push it on the TV, it actually turns on the TV and controls TV. And then you can use the Apple TV remote as the volume button as well, because the Apple TV remote is good. Yeah, it's just crazy to think that Apple could easily have a TV business that was significantly bigger than AirPods.

I agree. I asked Ben Thompson this, and I was, unsatisfied with the answer. But what was it? I asked him like why don't like they make they make a $5,000 display the Apple Pro display XDR make me a 10,000 pay for that. They love it.

Yeah, yeah. We have multiple of them here. I have it at home. And I think I think there were a few things that went in there where, you know, the like the market is moving so quickly and that like the install rate is is odd. And there's something about like the the, like the, the, like the, the, the, the, like the, the, the, the price per inch of TVs and HD is like declining so quickly. But Apple is a luxury brand.

I know. I know. And having an Apple TV on the wall would be iconic and I think it would sell very well. I would love it. And the integration would be fantastic and you can imagine it working very, very well. But there's, you know, you got to stay focused at some point. Yeah, there's probably a startup opportunity to just build the most beautiful TV. If Pebble is saying, you know, we're going to make a,

a smart watch again. Yep. You can go build. I would certainly hope so. It is like the most deeply competitive market and a lot of the buyers are just like purely fixated on price to value and don't care about design. The other thing is that I think if they're really, really looking forward to the future, you put on the app.

It's VR. And you put on the Applevision Pro and there's a lot of apps that don't work and the dinosaur thing is like two minutes long and like talking to your friends. All that stuff is like crazy future. But just putting on the Apple Vision Pro and watching a movie is a fantastic experience, and it feels like having a private movie theater. And if they just make it lighter and a little bit more comfortable, the visuals were there. The pixel density was there.

The price point doesn't matter, I think, for the Apple consumer. I think five grand for something that's actually light and comfortable, and you can put on every night to watch a fantastic movie in a movie theater, and you can have someone for your whole family. I think that will sell very well if they really focus the... the software and the strategy on that. And I mean, that was one of the best parts about the Apple Vision Pro is that the app that was in the top left corner, like the one that they want you to click on the most, was just

the Apple TV like store where you could just buy movies. And you could go there and immediately with a couple clicks, pay a couple bucks and be watching Avatar in 3D in a theater. And it was a magical experience. It was great. Just a lot of other problems with that thing. But I think that that's where they're going to bet and that's where they're going to invest and they're just going to skip over the wall-mounted TV entirely.

Yep. Anyway, if you don't want to watch Apple TV, maybe you should buy a watch on Bezzle. Go to getbezzle.com. They have over 23,500 luxury watches, fully authenticated in-house by Bezell's team of experts. One thing they don't have on Bezell? What? Apple watches. They don't.

They just don't. Make a state, let people know that you care about craftsmanship. I guess I think they have they have a case for a certain app no no they don't they have some watches yeah yeah anyways anyway absolutely no watches on the platform but if you're listening to this you owe yourself a little treat and go get yourself a watch on bezel

you can always find a reason yeah there's always a bull market somewhere there's always a bull market somewhere let's stay with the vision pro Apple released a new piece of immersive content, a Metallica concert, and it was absolutely panned by Ben Thompson, a scathing review. And he makes a very clear argument. Before we drag this through the mud, I just want to go out and say that Metallica is awesome. And it was a core part of my childhood. It's so funny. I love metal. Never really got into Metallica. Really? What were you into?

More like Slipknot, you know, the really hardcore stuff, I guess. Yeah, yeah, I was never a Slipknot guy. I was never big into that world. Yeah, yeah. Even like Iron Maiden better for me than Metallica. I don't know why. I think, you know what it was? I think I got turned off because I grew up in the Napster era,

and Metallica was very hostile to piracy. And a lot of, you know, my generation was very into, you know, the Napster, the Kazah downloading stuff illegally, the precursors to Spotify. And Metallica left a bad taste in everyone's mouth by being so prosecutorial. doing lawfare, really, against us, us hackers on the internet. And so I was just like, you know what? I'm not going to give you a chance, Metallica.

But they're back and they're partnering with Apple, and they launched a new immersive concert experience. It's coming to Apple Vision Pro this Friday. It's filmed in Mexico City during a sold-out second-year finale of the band's world tour. It features full performances of three longtime staples, Whiplash, won and Enter Sandman. and it was captured exclusively at Apple immersive video, the remarkable storytelling format that's only possible with Apple Vision Pro.

And so Ben Thompson kind of hated this. And the reason is that it is not immersive because they cut it like a documentary and they keep cutting from one camera to the next. And every time they cut, it feels like, okay, I'm not just sitting there. You would almost want a drone that's just flying around the event. Even flying around is going to be a little bit jarring. Really, all you need, this is Ben Thompson's thing, is like, just take the immersive rig, put it courtside at the Laker game or the basketball game or whatever that UFC thing you keep talking about. Yeah, the octagon.

Yeah, yeah. You put there. And then you just look around. And if you want to look at the scoreboard, you look up at the scoreboard. And if you want to look at the one team, you look at it and you turn your head. Think about if Apple, I love that from a go-to-market just strategy. hey, we're going to create this Apple, like, orb thing that just goes and we're going to put it in prominent. We're going to put it at the U.S. Open.

We're going to put it at the Super Bowl. We're going to put it all these places. We're going to get the partnerships that allow us to do that. We're going to put you, you know, right next to the ring in UFC. Yeah. And we're going to put you on the track at F1. Yep. And I think people would buy the Applevision Pro just to be able to teleport into these crazy cool locations.

And then, yeah, if you want to do the cut down version, you can do that. That's just repurposing. is just your short form thing, but give the fans the full experience as they want it. If WorldCoin can scan millions of eyeballs all over the world. You can drop immersive video rigs at the Lakers game. At the Lakers game. And they clearly have the money to go pay for those rights and it's super complimentary. And you could even upsell them.

Like I would imagine that, you know, you could, you could charge someone, I mean, $100 for, you know, like a fully immersive live stream. it's like pay-per-view, but just in VR. But for some reason they're not doing it, it's very unclear, and Ben Thompson doesn't like it at all. They also did this with soccer. So when they first demoed the Vision Pro, they brought in all the reporters. Ben Thompson was among them,

and they said, put on the headset, and we're going to show you this reel of all the things that you'll be able to do with this headset. And one of them was a basketball game, and Ben Thompson's a huge basketball fan. and he's just sitting there court side for like a couple seconds. And he was like, this was my like epiphany moment where I realized that I would watch an entire game here because you don't need any graphical overlays.

The production is actually easier because you can just hear the sound in the stadium. If you want to look at the scoreboard, you just look up at the scoreboard. It's a fantastic experience. Maybe you could get the audio that you don't need the actual commentator track. You just need the what's happening. You need the feeling of being in the stadium. People pay for court side seats and they don't need anything else. They're not saying like, oh, like, I want to be over there right now.

I just want to say here. I want to say here. To that Greek weather report and just get immersed in the moment. Yeah. And so he breaks down another Apple immersive video that they released the ML season in review. And so instead of just saying, hey, the season's over, you can go watch the full game. They do, they released a five-minute video with 54 distinct shots. It's one cut every six seconds.

There's not that much gameplay, only two minutes and 32 seconds of gameplay. Worse, some of the cuts happen in the same highlight. There was one play where there was a sideline view of the ball being passed up the field, and then it switched to a behind-the-goal view for the goal. I actually missed the goal the first time because I was so discombobulated that it took a few seconds to even figure out where the ball was. And this is like a classic problem in VR. When you're teleporting around, it's really jarring.

Even if you don't get motion sick, it's just, you have to reestablish yourself because you're so immersed. Wyatt in the chat right now. I just had a good idea. Imagine being an Apple VR and watching Tracy Morgan throw up on the court. And you could be at, you could have the perspective of the court and just watch. Fantastic.

Yeah. Or you look over and, hey, it's Bill Gurley right there. Hey. Girlie. Girlie. Girlie. That's something you'd pay a paper review for. Who is, somebody who was messaging me on X.

Will Quist over at Slow says, by the way, the dude Gurley was sitting with was Bob Kegel, one of the benchmark founders who was on the eBay board, which is a top 25 legendary venture deal. And he's a Warriors co-owner. So we gave Gurley all the credit. I think Gurley replied to that post. It was like, actually the owner was right there. Like you probably should have clocked him, you idiots. It was a lot of fun. Well, Ben Thompson goes back in time talks about Ping. Do you remember Ping at all? This was kind of interesting.

It's a social network. This was in 2010. Yeah, you weren't born yet. I thought you might have seen it in like your, your tech history book in middle school or something. Yeah, yeah, one of those textbooks. Yeah. So this launched in 2010 and the idea was

Ping lets you follow your favorite artists such as Lady Gaga, Coldplay, YouTube, Jack Johnson, YoYo Ma, and more to find out what they're up to. Check out photos and videos they've posted. See their tour. dates and read comments about other artists and albums that they're listening to. Spotify has since integrated all of this. You go to an artist's page.

You can see their tour dates. You can see their bios, all this stuff. But Apple thought that this would be big for iTunes. Yeah, and they just released a new feature, I think today. I saw Daniel all coaching about it, specifically around this. Well, Ben Thompson says, Ping is an old standby when it comes to making jokes about past Apple failures, but that last paragraph actually helps explain why Ping never had a chance. And in the press release, it closes with this very boilerplate PR thing.

Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with iOSX, OSX, OS10, I-life, I work, and professional software, blah, blah, blah, blah. When you think of Apple, you think about their jewel-like devices, about the integration of hardware and software, Joni Ive in a white room, et cetera. Indeed, you think about the magic of putting on the Apple Vision Pro and having your eyes seamlessly tracked as you touch your fingers together to enter your passcode. All of this is basically the exact opposite of the reality of social media

and user-generated content. I wrote this about Quibi's failure is the same thing. So it all relates. It's the same thing with these, like when things get messy and user-generated and AI-generated and hallucinatory,

Apple struggles. But when it's a super, super-titely integrated, polished product of aluminum and steel and titanium, Apple wins. And so the thing that we want is stick to... Speaking of stainless steel. Yeah, Aurora.

Go to Aurora. Check it out. I mean, the thing that we want is Apple to do what they're really good at and let other companies that are better do what they're best at. But that's not the nature of monopoly. Like, they have control. And so if they can get 10 times as much value with a product that's half as good, that's a trade they take all day.

I was listening to a film critic talk about, kind of gripe about the fact that films are no longer released in theaters. And he was saying, like, I think that there should be a rule that if you release a film, you have to have it in theaters for six weeks. And because a lot of Netflix and Apple, like they're no longer even doing theatrical runs. It's on streaming the next week or it just goes straight to streaming.

And the filmmakers sometimes get upset about this. And the fans sometimes get upset about this. But I was thinking about it. I was like, that's kind of like an authoritarian thing. Like that might not be what's best for shareholders. Like, sure, you can want that. But if the market doesn't want that, you're kind of just saying like, I want to force you to do something that's uneconomical. It's just like a tax, basically.

And it's kind of the same thing here where, you know, I want Apple to open up Siri or I want Apple to invest billions of dollars in amazing films that probably lose the money or I want them to, you know, ditch their current Applevision pro strategy. But F1 team. Yeah, and just broadcast F1, buy an F1 team and just put, let me just sit in the paddock all race long. They could genuinely buy an F1 team and let you be in the car for the entire race via Applevision Pro exclusively. Yes, they could. But is that in their business plan? Who knows? Is that what profit maximizes for them?

I don't know. Yeah. And so, I mean, it's just, it is so funny to think we're going to do this concert. We're going to do, we're going to make this big deal about a Metallica concert. a band that I hadn't heard about in five years, even though when Apple was at its best, I was listening to Metallica as a kid. And so it's just not the music partnership that you would do if you were building for the next generation. One of the things I did love about the Apple Vision Pro was, was using it in bed right before I'd go to

sleep. I'd be able to put it on. And then there would be no light. If you turn on TV, it's going to disturb your wife or whoever is in the bed with you. But if you have an Apple Vision Pro on, you can actually just lay back and watch an amazing IMAX quality film. The problem was is that the software was so bad that it would freak out and say, I can't track because the lights aren't on. So then I had to use it with the lights on, which would have no sense. And it was just very janky, so I returned it. But if you're looking to upgrade your bed, you've got to go to 8Sleep.com. Nights of fuel your best days. Turn in the bed into the ultimate sleeping experience.

The Apple of smart beds. Yeah. Many people have said that. So go to 8Sleep.com slash TBPN and get $350 off your pod. It's a fantastic product. I put up 100 last night. You put up 100? You didn't tell me.

I took it very seriously when I got the worst night sleep. How did I do? The last year on Monday. 84. Not enough. Six hours and 38 minutes. I need to step it up. Routine was a little bit rough too.

Anyway. I got over two hours of deep sleep. Who's doing that? You know who's sleeping pretty well these days? Masayoshi-Song. Of course, SoftBank bought chip designer Amper computing for $6.5 billion. Amper will retain its name and operate as a wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank. And so this is an interesting deal.

They just inked the deal. This just broke recently. It's a series of investments to advance its artificial intelligence initiatives. And this is one of those deals that you don't hear about as much because it's doesn't have the crazy PowerPoint. It's not this high flying thing. But this is like, you know, when Masa went and bought arm, you know, it was kind of, it was kind of a boring deal.

And so people weren't like, oh, top on arm. And of course, armed really well. Early and right. Yeah. Early and right. This is kind of where I disagree with Sam lesson a little bit. It's like, like, yes, he does get over his skis a lot. But also he does go back.

Skiing is awesome. Sam. Yeah. The Japanese technology investment companies, purchase of Amper will help improve its AI capabilities. The deal comes as SoftBank is starting a giant data center project in the U.S. How much is SoftBank spending on OpenAI agents this year? They want to spend $3 billion this year just on Open AI, which is amazing. And so Amper designs. You're saying it's one of the best SaaS deals of all time.

It's really remarkable. I wonder if agents had anything to do with this deal. Maybe they used Hebia to get in the data room, crunch some numbers. Maybe they used deep research. Maybe they used deep research. We'll have to get Masa on and ask him about how he's using agents to speed up his multi-billion-dollar acquisition process. But in this case, Amper designs energy-efficient processors for cloud and AI computing and has about 1,000 skilled chip engineers. Amper's expertise in developing chips can complement the design strengths of arm holdings. So they're kind of like creating this kiretsu, which we love. We love. We love a keretsu.

Buoyed by a rush of AI chip buying, Arm in February reported records. quarterly sales for the three months ended in there. We should help facilitate a gondo Kuretsu. They really should. We're already doing it between all of our sponsors. Diamonds investing in all the different companies. Some of our sponsors, all of our sponsors are now on ramp, all the founders are wearing watches from Bezels,

sleeping on eight sleeps, they're running ads on ad quick. It's great. Their personal portfolios are on public. It's great. It's beautiful. You know, if you join the TBPN Corretzoo. If you join the TBPN sponsorship, Kretzu,

everybody's going to be. Everyone benefits. Yep. Yeah. Positive. Some said that realizing AI, realizing AI that surpasses human capabilities requires breakthrough in computing power, ampiers, expertise in semiconductors and high-performance computing will help accelerate this vision and deepens our commitment to AI and innovation

in the U.S. I really just want to know how this deal got done. I imagine it was Masa writing on a napkin. He probably has specially designed napkins. that have, you know, space for two different sick blocks and signatures. It's like a mini-X-L model. Yep. I think it might have been maybe a little bit more boring.

I mean, look at who was, who owned Amper at the time. It was Carlyle Group in Oracle. Carlyle owned 60%. And it's crazy because the VCs, typically, when SoftBank Invest, would love to be able to sell. Yep. usually doesn't, not really able to exit. It's PE that benefits this time around.

SoftBank is borrowing from Mizuho Bank to finance the deal over the past few years. It's our leverage came. Operating losses as its revenue dropped and its liabilities exceeded its assets. The acquisition is expected to be completed in the later half of the year, subject to customary closing considerations. I love Masa. Levering up to buy an asset that's losing money. Well, it doesn't have to.

lose money because I was thinking about this. Like the real bull case is that Amper gets on ramp because time is money and they could save both. Exactly. So you think about the Amper team. If they had easy use corporate cards, great bill payments, accounting and a whole lot more all in one place, that could really drive the accretion of that deal. Yeah, it's very possible that Moss is running a ramp oriented M&A strategy where it just looks at all these businesses, hey, I know you're losing $2 billion a year. Yeah. Like, I have a great fix.

I think we're going to see more of this. We can see a lot of... We do a roll up and we drop AI on top. We do a roll up and we drop ramp on top. It's the same idea. Yeah. Anyway, go to ramp. Sprinkle a little bit of ramp in your next acquisition.

We got big news in the world of Ozempic. Sale of Ozempic knockoffs is supposed to end soon. Telehealth companies aren't happy. We've covered this on the show before. Fascinating industry. obviously the creators of OZemPEC are printing, but also the telehealth companies that have been selling OZemPEC and compounded versions of OZempic, which are manufactured independently, have also been doing quite well.

And so pharmaceuticals of giants are squaring off against telehealth companies and pharmacies selling custom-made versions of the hot medicines. Today was supposed to mark the beginning of the end for a chapter, knock-off versions of hot weight loss drugs. The FDA wants bulk production of the copycats to stop. starting Wednesday for pharmacy-prepared versions of Zepbound and later in the spring for knockoffs of OZempec and Wagovi. But telehealth companies and pharmacies have fueled wide use of copycats.

They have other plans. Telehealth platform Hymns and Hers Health says it will keep offering pharmacy-made or compounded versions of OZempec and Wagovi tweaked to individual prescriptions. And some of the pharmacies making GLP-1 drug copycats will continue, according to people familiar with the industry. The firms are seeking to take advantage of current law, which allows compounding pharmacies to make special individualized versions of the drugs that aren't available commercially. And so what happened here was that Ozzymic became so popular in America that they could not supply the market.

And for most things, like when the iPhone dropped, the iPhone was extremely popular and it would sell out there, it would be lines out the door. And so for years, Apple's, Apple hit their earnings perfectly. And it was an amazing, it was an amazing stock because they knew we're going to sell every iPhone we make. And so how many iPhones can we make? How many can we make? If we can make five million iPhones, we're going to sell five million iPhones. And so they hit their earnings every single quarter. And it was great.

Then now we're in the era of abundance of iPhones essentially. And now it's much harder to predict how many Apple Vision pros will sell, how many new iPhones will sell because the demand is much more sticky or loose. and iPhone production is essentially unlimited at this point. Drugs are different. Drugs, you know, you can say whatever you want about OZemPEC, but abstracted away to the classic like cancer drug, insulin, these drugs, when they're approved, the FDA is saying, like, these are important.

These help people solve health problems. And so it is critical that these, if doctors are prescribing them, they need to be available. And yes, we respect your intellectual property. We are granting you a monopoly on your patent for a certain amount of years. But if you can't supply the market, we are going to invalidate your IP temporarily while you're out of stock and say, hey, there's a supply shortage. Anyone can make these, including the compounding pharmacies. But as soon as the big companies.

Great side hustle last year. If you were in high school, buy the compounds, start compounding. Online, compound them in your garage. Yep. Go door to door. Yep. Pay for your college. And so, OZempeg and Wugoovi are a little bit different.

but, you know, the general scientific consensus is that obesity causes tons of diseases and losing weight causes you to live a lot longer. So these are important medicines. And so if Novo Nordisk couldn't supply the market, then it was okay for compounding pharmacies to make their own and sell them. And of course, Hymns and Hers, large telehealth public company was able to use that compounding pharmacy, I don't even know if you call it a loophole, it's more just like a rule by the FDA. They were able to use that to sell a lot of this product and it really benefited the stock. But of course, Nova was eventually going to catch up and that's exactly what happened. And at the beginning of this year, Hymns and Hers Health went on a generational run.

They had really struggled after they went public. I think it was a couple years ago at this point. many people were writing them off completely. It was a SPAC, I believe, and then they dropped like most SPACs, but never went down 99% or anything like that. Yeah. And people have critiqued their business for a bunch of different reasons, but ultimately consumers like to be able to buy their medicine easily and directly online. And so they peaked on February 18th just about a month ago at $15 billion, and then they've dropped almost 50%. since then.

So there's seven and a half now. Yeah. Yeah. And there's kind of a question about like, what's the next act? They clearly have a lot of customers. They have a lot of people on the platform. I think they even allow subscriptions. And they still sell a lot of hair care drugs and ED medications.

They're basically saying we are going to keep selling these drugs. But they want to find, they want to find it. It's this interesting balance, right? Because it is this sort of tough position to be in where they're saying, we can make hundreds of millions or potentially billions of dollars in revenue from selling these drugs. from selling these drugs, even if we're very clearly proven to be in the wrong. The settlement to Eli Lilly and Nova Nordisk would probably be in the nine figures, but maybe not. Maybe it's worth it. It's worth it potentially. These are high margin products. Also, I mean, just legally, you know, no one's ever done compounding pharmacies at this scale. The law might not

be written in a way that makes this illegal. Like it's, it's an open question. There are lots of pundits and that have been saying, hey, this can't last or this can't happen. But you don't really know until you run through the legal process fully and look at what all the judges and what all the presidents say. Yeah, I mean, Hems and hers and these other players can go to Washington. They are doing this. They have two different lobbying firms that they just hired in January. I'm sure they had others historically.

And they can say, hey, obesity is the biggest health problem in America. the best way to help Americans is introduce a massive amount of competition. We're not trying to lobby to say we're not going to let North, you know, it's just saying consumers should have choice. They should be able to buy these. But it will set a crazy precedent around just IP laws in America, which is the biggest pharmaceutical market in the world, right? Don't we spend more, the people of fact check me if I'm incorrect there.

But I believe we spend more money on pharmaceutical. than any other country. I'm pretty sure. Yeah. The firms are seeking to take advantage of current law, which allows compounding pharmacies, to make special individualized versions of drugs that aren't available commercially.

Telehealth firms and pharmacies. We account for nearly half of global pharmaceutical spending. Let's go. And what was, Jensen Wong was saying, we need 100x that? Or he was talking about AI production. Spend.

But maybe. Yeah, that. Maybe we get Andrew Diedemann and he says the same thing. Yeah, yeah. Andrew from him. We need 100x per capita spending on my compounded. I mean, like, the crazy thing is that, like, you know, everyone was projecting, like, I mean, like, runaway takeoff of these drugs and, like, obesity rates do seem to be coming

down, but it's not, like, you know, it's not this fast takeoff. Like we hear in AI, these drugs take a long time to work through the system. They're expensive. They really are. And a lot of people are skeptical about them. and they don't want to be the first person to take them. They want to say, okay, yeah, sure, the FDA has approved them, but maybe I'll wait a couple of years, even if I am obese.

I'll wait a couple of years and see where does this shake out? Are there some unknown complications? What are the pro scientists saying about it? Yeah, we really got to wait until Joe Rogan chimes in here. You've got to trust the bro science on this one, for sure. The brother scientists. For sure. The FDA deadlines come after the agency declared the official end of obesity,

drug shortages that allowed compounding pharmacies to make copies of the drugs in bulk. The shortages have led to a fierce fight in the courts on airwaves and around Washington with the pharmaceutical heavyweights Eli Livy and Novo Nordisk that sell branded drugs. And there was actually a Super Bowl ad from Hymns that was framing them as a challenger to the entrenched incumbents, the large pharmaceutical companies that are raising prices, decreasing demand, monopolizing these important drugs in their in their in their view. Telehealth companies often sold the compounded drugs at $100 to $300 a month,

well below the $1,000 a month price tags of the branded medicines. And so, yeah, I mean, for a lot of Americans, even if they're obese, a thousand bucks is a lot. And even though, you know, you could say that the benefit of not being obese is very high, a thousand bucks and a thousand bucks. And not everyone has that, unfortunately. Anyway, let's move on to Wander. I was really thinking

how do we get a Coogan transition into this next sponsor and I tried to do the work for you couldn't come up with anything but we do have a good way to transition and that is Find your happy place Find your happy place

Book of Wander with inspiring views Hotel Grated Menonies dreamy beds Top tier cleaning and 24 7 concierge services Vacation Home but better folks Go to Wander.com Go to Wander.com slash TBPN Use code TBPN and I was really excited

So Kyle, who's the CMO of at Wander, he posted this incredible house. Yeah. And it happens to be like a quarter mile from my house in Malibu. So I hit him up and I said, hey, let's do it. We get some early access to that spot. Fantastic. So we're working on that. Very excited.

Can't wait. And yeah, can't wait to get over there. Yeah. Well, let's move on to, oh, we only have four minutes. Let's just do some timeline, folks. We've got to do some timeline. Let's go to Zabi Elmgren. She says, we'll lead your series A if you can hang.

I saw this earlier. I thought it was fantastic. I would like to make this the new kind of like Y Combinator. Basically Zabi takes you down the most aggressive, gnarly run. And then afterward there's like VCs at the bottom that you can pitch to. Yeah, it's kind of like Keith Rboises like you shouldn't hire anyone over third. VC, you shouldn't fund anyone if they're skiing less than 30 degree inclines. Something like that.

And to be clear, something about skiing when you take a picture of a cliff like this, it doesn't necessarily look super significant. Yeah. But that is a serious drop. Yeah. And she really is going full send. Next time Zobby posts the video, we'd love to see the entire run. Let's go to the next post.

Let's go to Kristen Green over at Forerunner. She says, today we're sharing our annual consumer trend report, our primary research and analysis on where consumers are at and what trends are driving new needs, priorities, and business opportunities. We focus on three key forces, health and wellness, generative AI, and personal security. Interesting. So you want to have it on the show. Yeah, I had a friend reach out to her this morning about coming on the show. I think it'd be awesome. I always love these trend reports.

They put them out pretty frequently. I'm trying to find it. I can't find it on forerunner.com. Well, she says this past year was marked by contradictions, yo-yoing in consumer sentiment and markets, explosive new tech and out-of-pocket healthcare spending, a strikingly resilient jobs market and mounting fear about career, financial, and personal safety,

our full report here. Interesting stat here. Yeah, I want to have a break it down, but just some interesting stats. forerunners historically been heavily consumer focused. You know, they'll do a B2B company here, there from what I know, but there, and the reason for this,

a lot of people sort of write off consumer because it's really hard, it's really hard to get right, but many of the biggest outcomes ever have been in consumer. And interesting stat here, two thirds of US GDP is from consumer activity. And so that's why the outcomes end up being so massive. Yeah, it's also interesting just to hear her talk about these brands because they're

just so much more tangible business cases than the B2B stuff that's harder to dig into. It's more spreadsheet-based. You need to really understand what's going on in these niche submarkets. Everyone can have opinion on liquid death or Dollar Shave Club. You can kind of understand that. It's very tractable. Anyway, we have our first guest. There we go.

Welcome to the Temple of Technology. you, Brendan from Merckor. How you doing? What's going on? I'm doing great. Thanks so much for having me, guys. I'm excited to be on the most profitable podcast. Yes, well, you're live. Can you introduce yourself, break down a little bit about your history, your story, and what you're building, what your company does? Yeah, usually when somebody gets to your stage, they've been in market for five, six years, so people have more of an opportunity to get to know you. So yeah, we'd love to, we'd love the full intro. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So I grew up in the Bay, I met my co-founder as Darsh and Suria when we were 14 in high school.

And so we were all in the speech debate team together. They were the winningest speech and debate of all time in high school debate. But I was always building companies in one form or another, so I didn't want to go to college. My parents insisted that I had to. And so I went to George Chen for two years where Surya was my roommate there and Darsh was at Harvard. And we started McCourt when we were 19 to train models that

predict how well someone will perform on a job better than a human can similar to how a human would review resume conduct an interview and decide who to hire we automate all of those with lMs and then fast forward two years we scaled from one to a hundred million in revenue in 11 months and so we're only 21 and running this really exciting company that's working with most of the most prominent companies in Silicon Valley it's more of a more of a line than a curve over there It's not really just a hockey stick. How do you, uh,

it's a, it's a fencing sword. So you're very, you're very, you're very, you're very, you're very smiley right now. You look like you're having fun,

but your, your, your LinkedIn profile is dead serious. Uh, do you, do you, uh, you know,

like, I'm sure internally as a team, you guys are focused on not letting the hype and the crazy initial traction get to your head. How do you think about running the team when the team is only experienced sort of massive, sort of immediate success. Totally. And I think one thing that compounds this is that so much of our team is like college dropouts and new grads, right?

Because it was the extension of our initial network at Harvard, Stanford, MIT, et cetera. And so a lot of them haven't seen what normal companies look like. This is all that they're used to. And it's easy to get caught up and lost in so much that's happening. But I think the most important thing to stay grounded is just focusing everyone on the numbers that matter long term, right? the network effects of the business, how do we build up the marketplace? How do we learn from all the performance reviews that we're getting to build our usage data wheel rather than focusing on a lot of the lagging indicators like revenue or, you know,

or more of the customer signals? Can you talk about some of the jobs that you're actually placing? Like you go to Merckor, you get placed. Are you placing people in white collar jobs, blue collar jobs, everything, any specific niches? Yeah, so when we started out, it was that we were very amazed with the Calvertan in India. And so we would hire these software engineers in India and use LLMs to assess them, hire them for our friends. But what we realized was that there was this really large shift happening in the human data market, where large AI labs are hiring thousands of people to train the next generation of LMs.

And it used to be this crowdsourcing problem, though, super low-skilled, right? of how do you get a bunch of people writing barely grammatically correct sentences for the early versions of chat CBT, that was moving towards this vetting problem of how do we find the most exceptional people in the world in high volumes that want to work directly with researchers to push the frontier of model capabilities. And so to your question, we now hire roles across almost all domains, or the vast majority of popular domains, ranging from software engineers to consult people in finance, medicine, law, et cetera. Podcasters.

Both help more traditional customers as well as these AI labs. Yeah, what about robotics? I mean, obviously there's this question of like a data wall in robotics. Google had that famous like arm farm where they were trying to generate reinforcement learning data with like 17 robotic arms just working on grasping. Are we going to see a future where people are getting placed into jobs, kind of wearing motion tracking suits to generate robotics data? How do we solve that problem?

That's a phenomenal question. I'm not sure I think so. There is a lot of questions around like what kind of data production are most efficient robotics. And I will say we don't provide people to create robotics data as much yet, but it's certainly something that's top of mind is. these companies start to mature and really scale up the kind of data that they're interested in. What about like revenue volatility? I feel like a lot of these, like if you're placing individuals into, you know, some big foundation model company or some big hyperscaler is doing

a massive training run. They need to really nail down math and they're going to bring in a ton of mathematicians, generate a ton of training data. And then they're like, hey, actually good, we're moving on to the next thing, that can kind of create a massive oscillation in your revenue. How are you thinking about scaling out and making sure that the growth curve smooth? Because obviously it's very fast, but, you know, the iron law of the universe is like, what goes up quickly, comes down quickly, but then maybe there's a second act and you go back up again and over time it looks smooth, but it can be very jostling in the next few years. Yeah, I think the most important thing to think about is the leading indicators and fast

moving markets, right? And that if you look at the most sophisticated labs and what they're really investing in, it's a super high caliber expert data that is like far beyond the model frontier of capabilities. And so long as we focus on like the leading indicators, the things that, you know, all the big tech budgets are starting to move towards, that positions us really well. And obviously, like the leading indicators evolve over time and we need to position ourselves there. I think where companies get themselves into trouble in these fast-changing markets is when they aren't looking at the leading indicators and they're sort of sitting with the large incumbents that are doing a lot of the legacy systems that get phased out. And so that's how we think about it.

But my broader take on the human data market is that it's going to grow dramatically because so we're getting to the point where RL is so effective that you can create almost any eval and it will be able to solve that e-val. And so the barrier to apply AI throughout the entire economy is just creating e-vils for everything, right, which is a process that inherently requires humans in the loop. And so I'm very excited about building that world. What are some customers that you can talk about or maybe allude to that have been kind of surprising? We talked about yesterday, Yum Brands, which is like a $44 billion public company that owns a bunch of fast casual restaurants. They're partnering with Nvidia and like buying chips

and actually building, effectively building their own AI in-house. Has there been any sort of, you're obviously working with all the big sort of foundation labs, or I would say most of them would be my guess. But has there been any customers that you're working with that you've been surprised by? Not too surprising yet. Like most of our customer base, we work with all of the top five labs in the U.S. And we're starting to see maybe actually one interesting, is we're starting to see a lot more customization at the application layer. And I think a big reason

for this is that it's now much more data efficient to customize models with RL environments and a lot of this new kind of data versus fine-tuning data that people would do historically. And so it's now becoming this like gold rush for all these application layer companies without too much CAPEX, they're able to get these incredible results. And so we're seeing some of that. But at least for the most part, the legacy Fortune 500s, haven't really caught on to this yet. And I imagine that that might take a year or two. Well, that'll be a nice rush of revenue once they realize what's happening.

I have a question. Yeah, go for it. Yeah, I mean, we've been talking a lot about agents and kind of wondering. Obviously, agents are breaking through in the enterprise and the coding sector. But we've just been kind of tracking against, like, when can you actually use an agent to just book a flight reliably. And I'm wondering if we're in this weird thing where you see a foundation model company do a press release and it's like we're working on, you know, fundamental math innovation or we're going to solve, you know, I forget that like really, really hard problem in math. And it seems like

maybe there's a gap in the human RL training loop just around like a really good executive assistant. Is that the gap? Is it, we need more data there to actually break through? or is that just a product issue? Like, why can't Siri reliably book me a flight? Yeah, so I think there's two challenges. One is the interest of researchers has historically been in these super hard reasoning problems, right? They're interested in GPQA of how do we solve PhD level reasoning.

They're interested in IMO-level math of how do we have models that are beating all of these incredible mathematicians and have historically just been less interested in like how do we automate a McKinsey consultant or an executive assistant? And I think that shift is starting to happen. And so that's like a big part of it. And that ties into the data that they create. Because of course, if you want to automate a McKinsey consultant, you need evils for everything a McKinsey consultant does. If you want to automate an EA, you need evals for everything that an EA does. I think the other part of it is the models are just starting to get really good at tool use.

Like tool use is still relatively immature relative to all the reasoning capabilities. And so I think as that starts to happen, I would really expect that this year you're able to use operator or whatever the equivalent agent is to start booking flights and doing a lot of these more mundane tasks. Have you ever been approached by any of the labs around help us make our models funny? Like, is there a world where you guys are, you show up to the comedy store here in L.A. And you're, you're trying to, you know, grab some of the comedians and say, hey, hey, come on. Come on, come on, work for. Tell me a joke. We're going to test how funny you are.

We got some opportunities for you. Yeah, yeah. If you can, if you can. The Joe Rogan mothership, we just pull right off stage, you know, the kill Tony bucket pulls. Hey, you did, you got the joke book. Come on. But it seems like that's like when, when every model is like pretty good at some of these sort of

like foundational like problems and things. then the way to differentiate is can a model be more entertaining for consumers? And there's value in that itself. Yeah, a lot of our customers at the frontier, as you've seen in recent releases, are starting to think a lot more about humor and these exciting things. We have been hiring a bunch of people out of like the Harvard Lampoon and equivalent places that have these comedic skills to help teach models how to get there. And so it's really like every capability you want, you need evals for. for. John has been doing like the Coogan Eval, which is just he asks, you know, various models to tell a joke.

And then they end up just taking you on this winding thing that sounds like a joke, but it's not actually, it doesn't actually have a punchline. I mean, it's hard because there's not, there's not a quantitative eval for humor. It's so subjective and so quality. Another question just related just broadly to the future and how these labs. So, you know, the labs are your customers. The critique of the labs broadly in the model companies as they raise tens of billions of dollars has been, you know, if the models are commoditizing and intelligence just becomes too cheap to meter, where does the value come from? John's point of view has been there are many commodities in the world that have a ton of value and there's a bunch of great businesses that, you know, drill and, you know, produce oil and then sell it, right? Even though oil is like a commodity that just sort of trades on the open market.

How do you see the model market long term? And do you see a world where there's constantly new companies being spun up to create these sort of bespoke, specialized models for different use cases? Yeah, I think the value will accrue to the product layer. Like I don't think about OpenAI as much as an API business. And it seems like most people are really placing a bet on the product side of things, which will start to get very exciting, especially and spread out across many companies considering that customizing models is so much more affordable than it used to be.

So that's sort of how I see it playing out. I think one of the things that a lot of investors don't quite realize when they're not like in the code of building these products is how low the switching costs are for API, right? Like it's a line of code to switch back and forth and like see how new models are doing. And so it's it's hard to build a business when that's the switching cost. And I think it's really going to be in the product there. Well, I mean, given that, do you have a view on why every single X OpenAI employee seems to start the exact same foundation model company instead of doing something else? I was really hoping for like a supplements company from Ilya or, you know, like a hair loss

or something fun, something different T-shirt company. But everyone just seems to be, hey, I'm going to do what I know. I've been building foundation models. I'm going to stick with it. Yeah. Yeah, it's a good question. I think a lot of it ties to just like the ideology around AGI, right? This is the most important problem in the world. And so how do we all race as fast as possible to get there rather than a lot of the unit economics and competitive dynamics that investors would be thinking about? Yeah, so they're basically just disregarding the fact that the like sure the value might accrue to the application level layer for 10 years.

and then it's completely irrelevant once ASI arrives. Yeah. Yeah, it's an interesting strategy. It value in the short term, short to medium term, occurs to the product layer. But then if you actually can build artificial superintelligence, then none of it actually potentially matters in the end. So it's an interesting strategy. Last question for you.

I know we have a minute left. This is the most champagne problem that founders ever have. And when you were fundraising, you probably couldn't even drink champagne. But do you have any funny stories? I'm sure you raised a series of like very competitive rounds. You have any funny stories of like offers investors made to just like try to get you. You know, the classic is like, didn't you go to helicopter? Yeah.

The classic is like, you have a helicopter. Yeah, yeah. A private jet to Vegas to race Ferraris. There you go. I knew there was going to be something. You're like, I don't know. I never actually got my driver's license. Yeah.

Like, it's fine. It's a private track. Are those effective? Do they win you over? It sounds like you went with benchmark after the helicopter thing. So maybe it's effective. Yeah, yeah. They could be very tempting because we never actually for our series A and our series B

we didn't create a slide deck because we weren't both times like people asked for it. And we're like just no, not really willing to create one. But the sales processes could be a lot of fun. It's sort of like Christmas where you're getting all of these like gifts and fun experiences. But also trying to balance that with it not being too much of a distraction. from building the company. Well, that's fantastic. I love it.

Congrats to you. Good luck. And we'll have to check in soon when you have new fundraising news. Absolutely. Every other week. Every other week. Let's get on schedule.

Yeah, same time next week for the series app. Yeah. We'll make it happen, John. There we go. Fantastic. Give our best to the team. Thanks for coming on. Bye.

Thanks. See you guys. That's great. That was fun one. Oh, to be 21 again. Yeah, I know. 21 getting flown out to Vegas to fly Ferraris or fly helicopters and race Ferraris. That's very TB-coded. Well, we got David Senner coming on the show. I'm going to ask him about

NVIDIA. Going to ask him about Jensen Wong. I'm going to ask him about great founders. I'm going to ask him how he's doing today. How are you doing? What's going on, brothers? Looking fantastic. Amazing. Look at this. Look at this. Professorial, if I might say so myself. I honestly, 99% of the time I see Senra, he's got the black founders tea on. It's good to see you in a jacket. I know. People say I shouldn't wear my own merch and I completely disagree. Yeah. Yeah. What the greatest merch in the world?

It is, it is honestly like one of the most comfortable T-shirts to work to work out in. If think about how important that random me and Jordy ran into each other after not talking for like six months. Yeah. At a gym in Malibu. And I don't know if you would have recognized me if I didn't have the without the founder shirt on. So well, now that you're doing video, you know, you're a lot more recognizable. You're going to get stopped on the street all the time. I'm sure it's a dream that you've been waiting for.

No, let's hope not. Please don't. Yeah, you only wants to get recognized in the Amman. Yes, yes. That's the most common place that it happens, I'm sure. Anyway. Our friend Justin Mayors told me he's opening the new factory for cattle and fire and he texts me last night and he text me where it is.

I was like, is there Amman in that city? It's like Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Yeah. Amman Lancaster. Yeah. I'm on Castor. Yeah. One of the most historic locations.

The caster. The caster. That's great. What was the last episode you dropped? Oh, my God. The episode's actually going kind of crazy. Most people like it. Some people are very upset.

It's Todd Graves, the founder of Raising Cains. Okay. So, Raising Cains, this guy's been running his business for 30 years. He owns over 90% of it. It's worth at least $10 billion. And he truly believes that God put him on. on earth to be great at chicken fingers, making chicken fingers so he can help other people. Life's work.

And people, so a lot of people love his approach. He's essentially what I would describe is I did this episode on the founder of In and Out a long time ago, Harry Snyder. It's essentially like Harry Snyder's reincarnated, but instead of making hamburgers, he's making chicken fingers. They have like the very same philosophy. But people are like really upset that he feels this is his mission. But he like does a ton of good for the community, like gives a charity, like, let the guy make

his fucking chicken fingers. That's funny. Yeah. Yeah, so he basically just was building the company while he was still in college, right? No, so there's a funny, there's an interesting thing that reoccurts at the history of entrepreneurship. It's like these founders write a business plan and business school about their idea. And they get terrible great. So like Fred Smith, the founder of FedEx, C-minus.

Todd Graves, lowest grade in the class. Phil Knight for Nike. Same thing. Bad grade. completely disinterested. The professors don't know. The professors don't know. I remember in college, I wrote a bull case on Twitter at like $1 billion and they got like a B minus.

Just because he like disagreed me with me on the valuation. And it's like I was completely right. Yeah, I was completely correct. A hundred percent. But the crazy thing about Todd Graves is like no one would give him money. So he never raised again. And so he raised from, he actually to save money or to make money, he worked as a boiler maker. And so they do these fucking crazy things where you have to work like five or six weeks because you're fixing a refinery.

And every day the refinery is down is like very detrimental to the health of the company. So they pay you a ton of money where you just have to work like a dog for like 100 hour weeks, six weeks straight. So he meets a bunch of boilmakers. Then he risks his life doing commercial fishing. Do you remember this show like deadliest catch? Deadliest catch. Yeah. That's what he did. He did that when he was like 23. And then he goes and he borrows money from his bookie and then a boiler maker named Wild Bill. So he never talks about this anymore, but I know, I just, I love the idea like there's some boiler, there's some boiler maker named Wild Bill out there that has like a couple hundred million dollars with a racing cane stockers book he made like a hundred or $20 million.

Wow. So that was that the, his 23 old kid wouldn't shut up about wanting to live a chicken finger dream. That's what he repeats over and ever again. Chicken finger dream. And those guys have the 10% of raising canes. No, he never says the percentages who has the rest of the time. He says over 90%. But, you know, he's. He said he rolled him into the, he rolled them into the main company because they just, they just invested in the first, uh, raising canes. Another thing that's interesting, he had a co-founder who quit after the second store. Ooh. Ooh.

Miss. No conviction. There's always a story like that with like all these power lock companies. No, it's interesting. It's, it's funny. Restaurants and CPG are so tangible that it attracts people that, that, that have, uh, dreams, but not necessarily extreme. conviction. They can see the idea in their head. And there's a sandwich shop in L.A.

and I've sat down, I'm blanking on the name right now, but they've got probably 20, 30 locations around the West Coast now. And he was just telling me how the first year, he had been a successful restaurateur. He had multiple locations. He'd done nightclubs and all the stuff. And then the first year of his business, he went into massive debt. He was working 14 hours a day. He went into this business, like knowing food and beverage really, really well. And it was just the most devastating, like, a couple years where it didn't matter that they were making a good product and people liked it. He was getting, you know, he was having high schoolers sort of like talk smack to him, you know, saying like, make my sandwich faster, you know, like getting angry at him. And so it just like,

you know, it weeds out the people that don't have that like ridiculous can, you know, didn't have. Maybe the co-founder didn't have the chicken finger dreams. Listen, I would, I think the episodes like an hour long. So if you listen to it on 1.5x speed, you can get it in 40 minutes. It's exactly that. He almost lost. So he was like heavily geographically concentrated in Louisiana. And he almost lost everything in, in, uh, during Hurricane Katrina, because it knocked out 21 of his 28 restaurants. And it was all personal debt. So no one would lend them money. So he'd have to go find like an angel investor in a very interesting way to, uh, to finance each individual store. He was like, hey, invest like 200 grand in this. He would take that, uh, he called

an angel investment, but it's really an angel investment. It's a really an angel investment. He's like, give me 200 grand. I will fill out a one-page contract. I will guarantee you personally that I will pay you back your money with 15% interest. He would take that contract to the bank. The bank would loan him like a million dollars to give him the start of money. And he did that all the way up until the first 20 restaurants.

And he was like, we're rolling. We have so much cash flow. Nothing's going to go wrong as long as I don't lose out on any day sales. And then Hurricane Katrina comes and knocks out, you know, 21 out of 28 restaurants. And so he talks about, he says this over and over again. He's just like, don't do the things I did because they were wildly reckless. They just happened to work out for me, which I thought was also really funny. Now, he's still alive.

Are you planning on doing one of those episodes where you go sit down with him, have dinner, eat some chicken fingers, break it down? So I said on the episode, if anybody knows him, please, I would like to meet him because I'm upset. You know, like you guys know this because we talk all the time. Like I'm obsessed with people that do one thing. The only thing I'm really interested in is like I'm not interested in your stupid fucking startup or your latest company. I'm interested in your last company. Like the thing that you were going to do until you thought you were put here on the earth to do and the thing that you're going to do until you die.

And so yeah, I'm fascinated by talking to people like that. Most of the most interesting like unknown founders that I've met recently, the most impressive ones are all in like their 70s and they've been building their company for, you know, 40 or 50 years. You just talk to them. It's like the level of detail they know about the world they've built is like on, it's one of the most unique experiences you can have in your life because that compounded knowledge. There's things that they know that they can't even really explain why they believe what they

believe. But it's just like a very like deep intuition, sense of intuition. Jensen is the same, I would imagine the same way. I think he's the longest running Texio, if I'm mistaken. My question is, do you think that these founders who wind up running their companies for 40 years know it's their life's work in the first month, in the first decade even? Do they fall into it? And because I feel like a lot of it's just luck. Like no one ever made them an offer they couldn't refuse. They never wound up big like being in a situation where they had to, you know, pay some bill and they wanted to cash out or something.

So I don't think, um, they know it that early. Yeah. That is separate from like so like Todd Graves, right? It was like he's been offered billions of dollars. Yeah. And he's like, I never thought of it for a second. What I also love about him is he talks about the need. We need more founders and need more entrepreneurs to not sell their

company. And so he's like, I'm competing. The reason he's like running through the QSR industry right now is because he's like he's competing against these very old corporate run businesses. There's no founders competing against him. And like he's just like, we need more diversity of thought. We mean more ideas. You need more innovation. You need people actually care. And so people, somebody asked him like, you've been offered billions of dollars. What was the offer that was the most tempting? He's like, none of them. Nothing was ever tempting. He's like, this is it going to be a multi-generational business. I'm going to give it to my kit. So let me, Let me give me another hilarious story about this.

And I'm going to paraphrase this. But so James Dyson, who still owns 100% of Dyson, which I've done four episodes on, right? My number one autobiography recommendation out of, you know, the almost 400 biographies of entrepreneurs have read so far is James Dyson's first autobiography, which is called against the odds. Like a few weeks ago, so he still owns 100% of the company. The numbers you see thrown out there, they say, oh, it's worth 10 billion. It's worth 20. I've heard he's pulling out more than 5 billion a year dividends personally from what I hear. Okay.

So I was at this like super fancy invite only. Where's he investing? Does he have a family office or something? So that's how. Yeah. So there'll be hints because like you if you're, he's been pulling out a ton of money. It turns out he owns 5% of Apple now because he's been building a position for a decade.

No, way better than that. Way better than that. He owns. He owns. He owns most the most sheep in anybody in the world. I love it. Yeah. You got to be sheep maxing.

You just like you have to be she maxing. You run out of things to invest it. So he's like he's the largest green people. producer in Europe. Like, he's amazing. So this is true wealth. So I'm at this like super fancy invite only investor conference. There's like 15 people there and all of them like controlling massive amounts of capital.

And one guy was telling a story like he the more assets under management, the like they're trying to buy private businesses and you know, you start out buying, you know, 500 million dollar businesses and a billion dollar businesses. Now he's like he's got to shoot really, really fucking high. Yeah. And so I'm going to paraphrase this. this is why I love people like James Dyson like Bloomberg, Michael Bloomberg, like Todd Graves.

Steve Jobs is obviously similar though, even though it's a public company. They go to, they approach Dyson to see it, would you be interested in selling? And the response, I'm paraphrasing was, fuck you, this is a family heirloom. I'm not selling for any price. So there's actually,

there's actually a really important idea here. And I think another way to answer. question, John, is I realized that I remember exactly where it was. You guys have both met my wife. I was supposed to be on a date with her at Harry's Pizzeria and the Design District of Miami, right? And I'm not even paying attention to what we're talking about. I'm thinking about founders. And I remember like it just where it was. The epiphany at high was like, oh, people say if like you love what you do, like you would do it for free. And I was like, no, no, no, there's a different level. If you, there's a, there's a, there's a, you can have such a deep love for what you're doing that people couldn't pay you to stop.

So it's like the idea has like how much would you have to help? Yep. How much would you have to pay Steve jobs to not build to not work on Apple or build products? There's no money. You couldn't, you couldn't give him $2 trillion. It didn't matter. This was the sort of the Zuck acquisition attempt. Yeah.

They said, hey, here's a billion dollars. You're 23 or something. And he's like, but I would just start another social network. This is what I want to work on. Like what am I going to do? I like this one. Amazing. That is the perfect example because there's a bunch, there's a bunch of young kids that,

you know, sell their companies to have a bunch of money. But like look at the difference of his life. No one would know his name. No, who knows what would happen. It's like now he's like working, you know, the best, you know, the best 40 year old public company CEO in the world by far. Yeah. Working in the most interesting time, having access to like build some of the most interesting

products and then essentially unlimited at resources. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Question. Todd Graves, I'm sure, has like an extreme loyalty to his team and employees at the corporate level and the individual restaurant level. There's sort of a broader trend playing out in restaurants.

People have been attacking the sort of like one of the biggest cost centers for restaurants is, or probably the biggest, is labor. And so you have, we covered yesterday YUM brands, which is like a $44 billion public company. They own KFC Taco Bell, Pizza Hut. they're trying to integrate sort of robotics on both sides, both on the ordering process. They're partnering with Nvidia to like do like voice models and process, you know, you're driving through the drive-through or calling or texting or whatever. And then they also are trying to integrate robotics on, you know, within the actual kitchens

just to produce food more cheaply. How do you think Todd Graves, I haven't found any commentary from him online about robotics, but how do you think he would think about that in a world where I'm sure he has a deep loyalty to his team and loves that it's sort of this human experience going to a raising canes. But at the same time, his competitors are just going to be like trying to drive cost down as low as possible. Yeah, that's a good question. I'd love to ask him that.

Based on what he says, like he's pretty anti-making decisions just based on financial reasons. Like he talks a lot of shit in his interviews about like PE people. What, like, he's just not a big, he's not a fan at all. Whoa, whoa. We love private equity here on this show. Okay. Let's not slander. The good folks over at Blackstone.

Two of my closest friends who I love all the, and I talk to all the time, they were literally might be the most successful PE people rolling up QSRs. Patrick just did an interview with Matt and Alex. So I love them too. But Todd Graves does not. It is very anti-P-E in QSRs. Timeline and turmoil if they start chirping each other.

I have a question about your point about founder control over the long term, never selling, owning 100%. Do you think that there's need for some sort of maybe cultural shift or even a shift in the way startups are financed in Silicon Valley. It's just so like the standard YC playbook, for example, is like you get three co-founders, you split it equally, then immediately YC takes 10%, then it's like back to back to back, 20% rounds, you're diluted down to a few percent. Maybe you get some super voting, but you're not paying yourself

a good salary. And so, you know, Jordy's kind of talked about maybe we need to normalize some sort of secondary sales so that the founders can take a little cash out of the business and then actually go in it for the really long term. Maybe we just need, hey, it's okay to pay yourself a really reasonable salary. A lot of founders are out there kind of like starving, even after they've raised $20 million. What do you think about the structure of Silicon Valley? Like, is the Silicon Valley playbook setting us up for to create the next James Dyson or the next Todd Graves? So when you say, what do I think about that? I don't think about it. So, It's really bizarre to me.

Again, like, I have an unfair advantage because essentially I just talk to dead people all day. I have one-sided conversations with history's greatest founders, right? So, like, for like the first four or five hours of my day, I'm usually just reading biographies. And then I usually have lunch. And then in the afternoon, I like reread highlights of the stuff I read over the last like eight years while I'm building the podcast. And one of the main lessons from all that is just like they do like the people that usually get to the top of their profession. the best of what they do. They do what's best for them, regardless of what works for other people. And so the weird thing that I have is like when I open up Twitter and people arguing about like,

you should raise from this person or you shouldn't raise at all or you should do this. It's just like, you should do whatever's best, whatever is best for like whatever mission you happen to be on. So I don't have like an opinion of like how other people should do it other than like, what do you actually want to do and then figure out what's the best way to go about doing that. And then this is this is my issue was like, remember when Paul Graham released like the founder mode episode or essay? So many people sent. it to me and like asked me what I thought of it. It was just like it was a bizarre reading and I'm a huge fan of his essays in general. But I just think like it missed which something that he obviously knows.

It just depends on who the founder is as a person. Like one of my favorite lines, it was this random book on Steve Jobs. You know, I've done like I don't know, 10 or 12 episodes on Steve. And it said that Apple is just Steve Jobs with 10,000 lives. And I think like the good news like one of the best benefits of being a founder is like you get to create your own world. scratch you get to choose like what you work on who's around you how you go about doing everything um and so i would start with like what do you actually want to do in the world and then work backwards from that so like i am tech i am like obsessed with control so you know us three talk basically every day and especially about what's going on with like tpbn i told you what's going to fucking happen because it's happened to me

it's like you guys are blowing up your podcast is going to get a ton of attention all the people in your audience want to do deals they're investors or entrepreneurs they're going to come to you with all this crazy shit because they did the same thing. And for me, it's like I had an insane amount of investment opportunity, people offering to invest in the podcast or I would acquire it. And like I said no to all of them because the most important thing to me is like control for long term. I believe this is my life's work.

Just like Todd Graves on a chicken finger dream. I believe I was put here to do this. I think I'm the right person at the right place with the right set of skills with the right time. And like I was watching yesterday. I was watching my son turned five and he's obsessed with dinosaurs. right? And so I was like, oh, it's a good idea. Let's watch Jurassic Park. I didn't fucking realize how scary that movie is for a five-year. Yeah, it's so scary. I tried to do that

once too. I was like, Jurassic Park, dinosaurs. My son loves dinosaurs. Yeah. It's dinosaur time. And then I was like, oh, pop the brakes. Yeah. But I had the thought because like you see the computers and like everything else. I'm like, wait a minute, this movie came out in 93. Yeah. And like, if I wanted to do what I'm doing now, 20 years ago and you guys too, what would you have to do? You could have to go knock, You have to go to a physical building and be like, please put me on the air. Yeah. It's just so important that like we're doing this at the right time.

So again, for me, it didn't matter. Like the money was not what I'm optimizing for. It was the control and the long term control because I want to do this until I die. And so for me, it's like control is way more important than money. Yeah. I think the question maybe you were getting at is at a high level is, are we losing the like true generational founders because they do four back to back rounds and then they own 10% of their company

and they've got a big board and somebody comes and says, hey, you're experiencing all this like, you know, craziness, we'll just buy the company, you'll do an earn out and then you're going to be like worth $100 million. But the question, when you look at, you know, the Mark Zuckerberg example,

it's somebody who maintained extreme control despite doing a bunch of venture rounds. And I feel like many founders aspired to that path over the last 20 years, 15 years, whatever. I know a guy with eight board seats. Not, I wouldn't recommend it,

but it is a path to control. Yeah, that's one path. No, I think like the, the main thing is like you find something you want to do. Like, again,

I don't think you could pay Zoc to not work at meta, right? He's got all the money. You know, I just admire people to do things for a very long time. Some of these people, I talked to a lot of PE people. One of my friends has the funniest lines.

I think that's just like, he says VC gets all the tension, PE gets all the money. And his whole point was just like VC's so loud. Most of like all the media is obsessed with like fundraising, everything else. So to a founder,

it looks like this is everything that's going on. I have a weird like vantage point in the founder ecosystem because like yeah, a lot of tech people listen to the podcast, but a lot of people like that have billion, like multi-billion dollar family companies listen to the podcast. So like there's just a ton of businesses out there. Some of them raise money.

Some of them don't. I don't think you're losing anything. I just think there's, just it's there's a uh it's you're there's like a what's the word i'm looking for it's like there's just a lot of noise that don't that doesn't exactly represent like everything that's going yeah yeah the next todd graves or the next uh you know james dyson might be quietly building out there some behemoth that we're just not even hearing about because there's no vc's chattering about it so i just i just tweeted this out uh where it's just like i had um mid journey's kind

of like that you know no no outside capital people know about it but mid journey could become some behemoth that David Holes just out. If you're not raising, like there's a reason that you have to be allowed if you're constantly having to raise money. Like, so I just did this tweet. It was like I had dinner with one of the wealthy people in the world.

And, uh, his family has commissioned two biographies. It's for the family use only, right? Yeah. And I was like, dude. And we got along.

Like we had a fucking fantastic dinner. I thought he was charismatic, smart, great storyteller. I'm going to hang out with him again. Again, in the 70s. And I was like,

dude, dude, Let me get those biographies. Like, I would do such a good job. He's like, absolutely not. I have no interest in educating my competitors. I've met a ton of founders like this where I get to go to their company offsite. I've met or their warehouses gone to their company.

And they're usually all family-owned businesses. And I'm always like, you're so fucking talented. Why don't you write an autobiography? I want you write a, do something. And they're absolutely not. They're just very, very quiet because there's no reason to make noise. There's also, it's also dangerous where this is something Charlie Munger said that was fascinating where he thought it was very it was against human nature for him and Warren to be so

wealthy and so loved and his point was that most you know there's that greed doesn't run the world charlie has a great line he says greed doesn't run the world envy does yeah and so when you're really wealthy there's a lot of envy and so it's like she's smart to not advertise that yeah that yeah so it again i think it's just can we flip it over to jensen i want to know i mean obviously he's in the news he put on the super bowl of artificial intelligence made a bunch of announced at Nvidia GTC. And I wanted to know where do you see gaps between Jensen's archetype as a founder from maybe the other Magnificent Seven founders, the Steve Jobs of the world, the Zuck of the world, whoever else you've studied, where are the similarities and differences?

I think they're more similar to each other than they are to like, obviously they're more similar to each other than they are to like the general population. I don't feel like, I don't think there's a single founder that I've covered that is like the only one. Like he's got a lot of interesting ideas. Like they're all usually, you know, what would be considered like micromanagers. They're obsessed with the details. Like Todd Graves example, right? He's got 50,000 employees, 800 stores.

He's opening like 100 stores every, every year. And before he does the interview, like he interrupts the interview so he can approve the Instagram reel that's going out. Wow. Same thing with Steve Jobs did the same thing where like there's a great book called Insanely Simple, which talks about this. And it didn't matter if it was like a billboard in Missouri. are a full page ad in Wall Street Journal.

Steve Jobs would approve every single ad before it came out. And then he'd be calling up. So the guy that wrote this book called Insanely Simple is the guy that was actually running Steve Jobs ads. And he says, Steve would call me at fucking midnight. And we'd be debating for an hour over a single word. So we don't feel like that's happening anymore at Apple. It's been a little messy lately.

No, no. So I think Jensen's the same way. What I thought was most interesting about him, he is definitely one of the more extreme. like he is every single person on i cover on founders is hardcore and extreme he is you know and he's a he's unusual he's uncommon amongst uncommon people one of my favorite things that he said was that um he likes to torture people to greatness i thought that was like a really interesting line and his whole point was like you know people kind of like clip through people and fire people uh really fast is if he felt somebody had potential they're just fucking up like he's just going to torture them into greatness he's going to make them great and what you realize is the longer you read this book, there's a book called NVIDIA by Take Him,

which is the one I did the episode on. What you realize is he does that to himself. He's tortured himself to greatness where they just had, there's a great story in the book where they had one, a blowout quarter, they absolutely fucking killed it.

And he comes in and he tells his team. He's like, every morning I wake up, look in the mirror, and I say, you suck. I love that. The anti-manifistation or,

visualization. How do you how do you square his micromanagement with his he's stated that he doesn't have one-on-one meetings very often he is a very like kind of scattered organization. It's an interesting thing. It's like kind of like you just dive into a specific thing. How do you think about it? Yeah, he's got 60 direct reports, I think in the book. I think when they start writing a book, it's like 30 and I think it goes up to 60 because the book just came out. It's like it covers stuff up up until like the recent last few months. Yeah. He actually has a great way to describe this.

That is most interesting where people are saying like, how are we going to handle all these agents when they're smarter than we are? And he's like, I'm already doing that. He goes, my 60 direct reports are agents. They're all smarter at what they're in charge of than I am. And yet I'm able to direct them. There's a great line. Let me see if I can find it.

He has this line where he says something about, the company has to be like an F1 Pit crew probably Well he's describing the way Like he organizes it and essentially like nobody He designs he believes the founder or the leader Should design the company Not for like what's necessarily best

Like after they leave but literally what's best for what they're doing now He says ultimately my E staff which is his direct ports Ultimately my E staff is something that I have to know how to work with The company's organization is like a race car It has to be a machine that the CEO knows how to drive. And so if you think about it, it's like he made an F1 organization that is tailor suited to him and may not be, it's obviously not going to be tailored suited to the person that takes over after him. I have a totally separate but somewhat related question in that certain high profile investors sold a huge stake in Nvidia in 2019 that would be worth $160 billion as of last year. that person is Masa Masayoshi Son.

You haven't done an episode on Masa feels like... No, I won't. I fucking won't. So this, uh, I, sometimes I get sad because I feel like the great thing about podcasting is like you actually know the person, like when people meet you and you guys and me, they're like, well, I feel like I know you. It's like, you've heard me talk for 100 fucking hours. You do know me.

Right. Yeah. And so I had so many people that listen to the podcast. Like there's this new first English biography of Masa called The Gambler. You have to do it. It's going to be a great episode. I started reading it. And I was like, oh, this is interesting.

He's kind of like nutty. And then this happened this week. This was supposed to be the next episode of Founders. And no, listen, rule number two in the center of family is mind your own business. So like, I don't care what other people do for a living. I don't care how they do it. I really does bother me. I wind up fucking hating this guy halfway through the book.

Like, I found it. I found it disgusting. Like, and it's like, so we have a bunch of mutual friends. We've spent a lot of time together. We're like legit friends off camera, right? We talk all the time. I'd be very concerned if I like ran into people and like Coonin's a fucking liar. He's fucked me over.

The entire book, the first half of the book is all these people that Masa did business with. That is like, that guy lies all the time. He screwed me over. So then I then I fast forward and I read the last chapter. And it's like he's super depressed. He's like I've wasted my life. He says I have an ugly face, which is kind of weird. And he's just like, and would you just like, and would you really?

realized like he never he was just so obsessed with he is a legit gambler and it's like a sad existence he didn't build a product that made somebody else's life better he didn't do any of that and so i was like i don't give a fuck about weight sunk cost of spending half a week i if i'm going to make an episode on this guy that means i have to live inside his world for like another 40 hours and i'm just not willing to do that so i just threw the book across the side of the room i was like i'm not doing this crazy wow well let's uh i mean i'm glad that you have a beautiful face uh and It's always great to have you on the show. Thanks.

We'll have to have you back soon. This is fantastic. It's great seeing you in a jacket. I'll say it again. Now that you set the bar, make sure, hey, this summer when we're doing this live in person in Malibir. Yeah, I mean, seriously, we still have to do the goat debate, the greatest entrepreneur of all time.

We have a bunch of, we've been debating it in a chat room for a while. Let's do that in person. We have to. In tuxedoes. If it's the goat debate, we have to take it one step. With a bottle of down pairing out, hopefully. I would love that. That's right.

Well, thanks for stopping by, David. This is fantastic. Great to see you. Always great chat. Talk about you. I'll talk to you soon. Bye. Love you.

Bye. Love you too. Fantastic. I told David last time we talked, he ended the call. He's like, love you guys. And I'm like, if you're just tuning into the show for the first time and you're a Senra fan and it's a great. It's crazy about Masa. It makes sense.

We'll have to get jelly and steak on Masa. Yeah. I mean, I'm, I'm sure. I think David changes his tune if Mosa comes in and says, hey, look, we're going to lever you up. We're going to take founders podcast. We're going to put $20 billion in at $100 billion pre. And we're really going to take this to the next level. I think David all of a sudden says, well, yeah, that's enough to live it in an Amman for the rest of my life.

And so he does it. No, there's no price. You can't buy them out. There's no price. Moss could get us on his side if he took Pita into for profit. That would be a fantastic move. I would love that. Anyway, I think we got Dellian.

in the Temple of Technology. Welcome to the show, Delian. How you doing? What's going on? What's up, boys? Thanks for having me on again. We're excited to catch up. Appreciate it. We're calling this Delta V with Delian. Our little space update. We're still workshop in the name, but we got to come on, we got to come up with a catchy, pithy phrase for all the regular guests. But very excited to have you here. Can you give us an update? Let's start with the rescued astronauts. You got community noted. You know, you know, know, the ex-army really came out for you. How'd you process the landing? Break it down for us. You know, I already have enough of an ego that I don't need to like, you know, overly, you know,

sort of praise myself even more. But all I'm going to say is, you know, they go up. I forget the exact timing, but like beginning of June last year. I sent out this tweet that's like end of June where I was just like losing my mind. I was like, how is nobody talking about this? Like these guys are like totally stuck up there. It's clear that like, you know, Boeing and NASA clearly are panicking and realize that like they can't take these guys down on Starliner and nobody's even begun a plan for how to bring these guys down. And so I tweet with you like, hey, why is nobody talking about the fact that there's like two American astronauts like stranded in orbit? And like, look, if there were like Apollo days or like space shuttle days and like, you know, they were

stuck up there for an extent of period of time, people would 100% be using like the word stranded. And so I was just like so confused as to why this just was getting no attention. And then I literally just felt like I was being fucking lied to when I get community noted. And it's like, oh, like they're totally fine. They're doing some like final checkouts on Starliner. I'm like, has anybody like read the comms that NASA and Boeing are putting out? Like, this thing is clearly in like a very bad state, definitely in the way that they actually like decide to bring astronauts, you know, sort of down on it. And the word stranded had not yet been used a single time in any like NASA comms and

anybody's like comms about the entire mission. Within 24 hours of my tweet going viral, NASA put out a press release explicitly saying the astronauts are not stranded. And like then the word stranded became like totally in the lexicon around the mission. I'd like to think that it had something to do with that, you know, sort of viral tweet. Maybe there were other people that, you know, sort of influence did. And then God even like literally, you know, the White House's communications this past week said, you know, we brought back the stranded astronauts. So I'm going to claim credit on stranded being the case.

The entire thing to me was, you know, sort of crazy, you know, not to go, you know, there's a lot of history that we could give here. But like, when commercial crew was originally getting started, the original plan by NASA was to only, you know, do it as a sole source of war just to Boeing. SpaceX was seen as a bunch of, you know, you know, cowboys, hoo-haws that had no chance of actually being able to be trusted with, you know, you know, some human astronauts. nots on board. They actually had to delay the announcement because in like the final hours, they basically decided to do it as a split award where they gave Boeing. By the way, it's crazy. Like they literally just gave Boeing twice the price per seat. So it's just like Boeing, it's like, hey, the price is like $10 for SpaceX and for Boeing it's $20. And like we're just going to pay them more. Why? Because, you know, it's because Boeing has a 200 person lobbying team.

And so there was like a very near world where like we only had Boeing as the only option. It was only like in the final hours of that program that like SpaceX was either should have given an alternative and like thank God otherwise like we would have been begging the Russians to bring our astronauts back and you know it's a little tricky to do when you're also like you know providing you know weapons to their you know enemies so you know was this a geopolitical was this a lot of people you know would say this was political was it uh do you think these astronauts are coming back like deeply radicalized like are they you're up in space a long time you got a lot of time to think uh i don't know how the internet connection is up there

if there even is one, you know, they don't have necessarily the bandwidth, the doom scroll. Are they coming back sort of like deeply, you know, are they going to be like kept off camera? Like, you know, you guys got to kind of stay off the mics for a while while you cool off? Or, you know, what do you think their reaction is to the whole thing? Well, now that it's the Trump administration, I don't think that Trump will, you know, sort of limit them from the mics. But I think what's incredibly clear is SpaceX offered to bring the astronauts back sooner. And because it was limited to the election cycle and because Musk,

was campaigning for Trump, the Biden administration turned down that offer. There's a whole lot of fucking, you know, Jackos and Wahoos that will try and convince you otherwere eyes, hey, this is the preexisting ICE schedule. This is when Dragon was scheduled to go up, et cetera. So they had to stay up there for, no way. If somebody had gone to Elon and said, yes, like, according to the standard NASA budgetary process, this was supposed to fly then. But like one of the astronauts has like, you know, bone density issues and is having health

problems up there. We want to bring her down like this week because there's planned to be like a three week long mission, not a nine-month-long mission, they 100% could have done that. The Biden administration very much so tried to challenge those sort of facts and deny that. Dems today, he even have tried to deny that. Crazy is like typically NASDA astronauts, at least in the last 20 years have not ever really made even the slightest inklings of political statements. Butch and SUNY basically confirmed these facts. Like they basically made it clear, hey, we could have been brought back earlier and we were like denied the opportunity to be brought back earlier. And if I were that, that might be

pretty pissed because like, you know, Sunni, I believe, like, did suffer bone density issues and was not supposed to be up there, you know, sort of for, you know, for that long. And so I wouldn't be surprised if you, you've already seen them push the fold on what they've been willing to say behind the mic. I wouldn't be surprised if they, like, do that even more now that they're on the ground and you're in a Trump administration. Do you think that NASA has a talent crisis? You can imagine that Boeing is finding it difficult to compete on, you know, getting the best talent when there's SpaceX and Varda and all these other players that are sort of competing for the best and brightest in the world. I imagine NASA is very prestigious, but at the same time,

you're going to work in this government organization and there's a bureaucracy. And, you know, if you're 22 years old right now and your hero's Elon Musk, and Elon Musk is beefing on the timeline with NASA, like, where are you going to go, right? Yeah, I mean, you know, I do think, they have a real challenge. They also have a bit of an identity crisis where they are turning more and more to buyers of commercial off the shelf hardware versus like developers of it. And so what does that transition look like? But then if you only have people internally that are just buyers and don't have an engineering background, how do you know that they're buying the best stuff? At the same time, look like, you know, NASA also like flew a helicopter on fucking Mars. That's insane.

Like that's like a crazy capability. Nobody else would be capable of doing that. Yes, they worked with air environment as like the contractor for that, but they like such a heavy hand in that. They're now talking about like flying a helicopter on Mars. They did like the, you know, sort of six minutes of, what is it called, like when the curiosity river came down, like the six minutes of, you know, hell or whatever it is. They're like, you know, literally using like retro boosters to like sky crane down a, you know, a rover. So like there's a lot that NASA does that is like requires crazy talent.

But I think what they need to, you know, sort of go through. And I think like, you know, Trump administration is likely aligned with this, Jared Isaacman, and the likely incoming administrator is NASA needs to basically just focus on two core parts. One, the core of space capabilities, they just become buyers of and they just buy things off the shelf. And then where they're developing technologies directly themselves, it should only be the really radical super far out things, right? Like there's just not commercial space companies that are like talking about like,

we're going to build like off the shelf Mars helicopters. We talked about this. We talked about this last time, like asteroid deflection is something that NASA should work on because it's not that commercial, right? It's like we maybe need to do it once every 50. years, hopefully not. And then NASA, you can be the hero. Yeah. Exactly. Can we move on to the continuing resolution? Can you break that down for us? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it kind of relates to some of the NASA stuff, too, where, you know, it's been interesting to see, you know, this quarter feels like it's

been the most active in, you know, sort of defense tech aerospace investing in a long time, some of which feels rational, some of which feels sort of crazy over the top. And it's just interesting to have this like massive flow of capital, you know, from, you know, venture investors going into this field, while at the same time, the flow of capital from D.C. literally has been halted, right? So, you know, for the, you know, sort of less informed, you know, viewers, ultimately defense tech and aerospace companies that are selling to the government, yes, there's commercial, you know, sort of use cases for these technologies. Those aren't related to government budgets, but ultimately, you know, a lot of these reliant on government budgets. You know, about 10 days ago,

the House and Senate agreed upon a year. long continuing resolution. And so what that basically means is both the House and the Senate had previously passed budgetary bills that increased basically defense spending, had various NASA spending, et cetera, couldn't come to an alignment on that, couldn't come to an alignment with the president. And so the ultimate, you know, sort of call by all parties was we're actually just going to freeze to whatever fiscal year 24 levels, you know, basically are. Now, in that CR, they did give the DOD, hey, we know that you guys are thinking about like, you know, sort of reprogramming. And so as you're shifting budgets around, make sure that it reflects whatever like, you know, House appropriators, you know, and, you know, Senate appropriators basically had in those budgets that they basically put out, you know, sort of end of February.

But in the grand scheme of things, this mostly means a freezing of new ads, any new programs. And as you can imagine, who's the biggest, you know, sort of beneficiary of that? Well, incumbents have their programs continuing to be funded, right? And so, you know, Lockheeds, Raytheon, et cetera, Northrop's, you know, might not be experiencing as much growth. growth as usual, but they're generally continuing to be funded versus all of the net new entrance while are experiencing massive inflows of venture capital dollars have literally been told by the U.S. government, like, expect zero stars. And so it's just a little odd to me that that's not a thing that is being talked about by all these people that are talking about like

the gundo dynamism, this, that. It's like, well, who talks the most on X? It's it's founders and investors and neither have an incentive to really say like, hey, by the way, none of us are making anything back anytime soon. Yeah, I mean, I don't know, it's like a paranoid founder. I like to talk about this stuff because, you know, I want to make sure that like the thing that I'm working on, you know, survives for a very long time and is like sustainable. But like to be clear, what this means practically is like, you know, basically this year's budget, you know, was basically end September 31st is completely frozen. Now it's being, you know, begun to be worked on is like the fiscal year, you know, so 26 vehicle. That's going to, you know, first have to come from like, you know, so the president, you know, putting forth, you know, sort of a plan that you'd expect to make it over to, you know, sort of the House and Senate in, like,

roughly the May period, that means it's going to make it onto the floor in like, you know, sort of June July, hopefully gets passed by like September October. Realistically, though, we basically have not hit that September 31st deadline for the past. I don't even know what it is, like 10 plus years. And so that continuing resolution is probably going to extend for at least another 30, potentially 60 days. So, you know, potentially until the end of the year, that means that like new budget actually doesn't start until, you know, basically January of next year.

And so all these companies that are raising all this capital for all these things that they would like to start, yes, there's going to be reprogramming. yes, like the president is, you know, doing shipbuilding and CAA, et cetera, but like a lot of this stuff is very much so frozen. And, you know, what people don't realize is, let's say, you know, you have, you know, sort of CCA, sorry, and, you know, sort of shipbuilding. Those five-year plans of the DOD put together where they were like, look, in order to do the early R&D in 2024, we need $100 million and $200,000, we need $200 million. Well, because we're now frozen at 24 levels, that means it's only $125 and $125. So now when you're looking at 26, it's like, are you making up for the fact that 25, you know, sort of was, you know, low and you're trying to scale all the way to 26. You're like in a real budgetary hole.

So like new programs are also in a way worse state because it's typically the new programs that are the ones that are growing. And so if it's flat, you're both trying to figure out do you make up for last year and how do you keep up with like what the program needs or are you like really pushing on milestones? But if you're pushing on milestones, now is it relevant to Taiwan if people are thinking about that needing to be ready in 2027, 2028? And so does that now make the DoD just want to keep shifting budget to incumbent programs that can deliver by 2728, even if they're not as capable? Right. So there's just like a lot of things where it's just like, you know, I'm a, you know, obviously mega bull on like the team of Androl because like they have the like bench, the capability, the, you know, set of different products suite, different programs going like they will navigate this. But like, I don't know that there's going to be like five and rolls. And I think VCs are investing like there's going to be, you know, sort of five end rolls right now. but without even understanding the basics of like the budgetary, you know, sort of process on the hill, they're just, you know, sort of slinging checks, you know, based off of, you know, the, you know,

the zip code of where somebody's office is. If you're a, yeah, if you're a, yeah, if you're an American dynamism, defense tech investor, are you looking at, you know, are you seeing more pitches in Europe right now? If the Anderl of Anderol is Andrewill here in the U.S., but then European, Europe is like remilitarizing, at least Western Europe, you know, are you seeing pitches come in? would people just kind of divert dollars over there because there's potentially a lot more willingness to spend? I think you're starting to see that happen.

Obviously, both the Overton window has changed there, that like, you know, sort of budget, you know, sort of growth there is insane. And if you think that like U.S. incumbents are like stodgy, old school, et cetera, EU incumbents are like, you know, sort of that, you know, jacked up to the nines. And so I do think there's a real opportunity there. There aren't a ton of like super competent players. And so, you know, I wouldn't say that like the quality of what we get, either sort of inbound, at least at Founders Fund, is, you know, something, you know, super high in Europe.

The thing that I will say, though, is at least the biggest check that I've ever, you know, sort of led is like a net new, you know, portfolio company investment. So not just like follow-on. Obviously, we've deployed mega checks in a ramp, but that was after doing seed in Series A. But we're investing about $36 million into basically a European aerospace defense, you know, sort of type player. And that's our first check into the company. Now, part of it is that the company was already performing very well irrespective of the EU tailwinds.

And then now with reindustrialization, et cetera, we're like even more bullish, you know, sort of on the, you know, company. But we're also getting to do it at a price that is like highly differentiated relative to like the, you know, 94129, you know, sort of, sorry, shoot, that's the SF, you know, so zip code. With all this turmoil with the DoD and with the budget and the continuing resolution, is it more important than ever that these companies figure out commercial applications? We talked to a company Albido. They're a satellite company yesterday. It seemed like even if the government doesn't want to buy the ISR capabilities, there are hedge funds and oil and gas providers that want, you know, high resolution images from V Leo.

And so is that something that you should, I mean, you've thought about this at VARDA with the pharma and DOD contracts. How do you think about that? And is that more important going forward? Yeah, but I think it's like one of these things that's like very, you know, sort of hard to pivot to depending on how you've set up your business, right? So, you know, take a business that's a day, like, Serronic. I'm not sure there's that many commercial use cases for, you know, sort of small-scale,

autonomous surface vessels or take a company, you know, like Apex that is, you know, mostly selling, you know, sort of commercial satellites. Now, some of them are to, like, you know, various defense groups, but they also have a bunch of commercial sales, right? So I think it's one of these things that it's really hard to, like, pivot from one approach to the other. Maybe somebody like Palantir has clearly shown it where they were super duty-focused for a long time and now have a massive commercial business.

business, but that felt like it happened at like the very, very late stages of the company. I think your ability to like pivot from, you know, either being dual use from the getco or being defense from the get go, you kind of have to choose one. And we've obviously chosen the like, you know, sort of dual use from the get go. Does that give us some cons when it comes to like defense programs? Yeah, because like we're not as willing to like change around our architecture to totally match defense needs. But the pros is also in a continuing resolution year. I also have a lot of commercial work that I can continue to go pursue. There's pros and cons, I think, to sort of both approaches.

But I don't think you're going to see that much shifting. It's just too hard to shift. Well, if the DOD isn't buying Kamikaze drones, I'm happy to buy them personally for my next hunting trip. Give me the C4. Let's lift the ITAR control rules. Get me the suicide drone. I want to go hunting for some big game.

Thank you, Delian, for coming on. Do you have a last question? Oh, last, we got another guest coming on. But quick question, do you think that the deal, without commenting on real rippling and deal, Do you think that was a wake-up call for the defense industry around, hey, if this is happening in HR tech, like, we got to take everything way more seriously, right? Because obviously, you know, people probably, anybody that would be competing with Varda knows who else is, like, bidding on the contract. It's like common knowledge. It's not the same type of information advantage.

But if people are willing to, like, break the law to steal customer data, CRM data for HR tech, you know, it to me should just, you know, it to me should just, just be this massive wake-up call around. If you're doing anything that's critical to national security, you need to take your own security at your company 10 times more seriously. Yeah, I mean, I think if you look at the, you know, sort of SpaceX, the Anderals, the Vardas, the Hadrian, et cetera, on down, the per capita number of like IT security people

you basically need on staff because you're just like ITR compliance, et cetera, means these companies are thinking about it all the time. Now at the same time, are there like Chinese spies and, you know, foreign spies sniffing around all these? Almost certainly. Are there other corporate spies? sniffing around this all the time, absolutely.

But I do think you see this stuff a bit less in terms of, you know, actually having these like, you know, sort of totally negative facts. Partially because like, you know, with Rippling and deal, it's like there, it's like, okay, let's pull like which software features, et cetera. When it comes to something like Varda, man, it's like, what would you even pull from our servers to figure out how to do what we do? It's like you could get this CAD file, this thing, but it's like you need the supply chain, you need to cut the metal, you got integrated it.

You got to know how to test it, et cetera. It's like, even if you gave me access to our full server base, You gave me a team of like 30 engineers and you tell me, go replicate Varda, it would still be like a really hard problem. Like if you look at the, you know, sort of Chinese rockets, they look a hell of a lot like the Falcon 9s and they're still not landing, right? And so, you know, I think it's clear that like the Chinese definitely ripped a lot of stuff from SpaceX at some point or another. It's really hard to, you know, sort of prevent that from happening. You know, so can't blame, you know, anybody for having that happen to their company. But also the Chinese still aren't landing rockets.

Now, their solution has just been let's build as many rockets as possible and screw it, you know, rather than purposely landing them on barges, we're just going to ditch them over, Chinese villages and, like, you know, dump propellant on like our, you know, some poor villagers, but like, whatever, we're going to set up, you know, the first Chinese lunar base before the Americans because, like, we're just willing to murder citizens nonstop on the way to a goal. And, you know, unfortunately for America, you know, we don't, you know, murder our citizens. We only murder our presidents. Oh, JFK files. Good deep cut.

Hey, well, at least we didn't land on the dolphins yesterday. Yeah, that's good. The dolphins seem like they were good. Let's end on a high note. Like, maybe the dolphins work for Mossad, though. That's all said. Maybe. You never know.

As soon as you get off, dolphin tech, there's some crazy. What happened on the ISS. No, there's some crazy NASA lore around dolphins. Don't Google it. Don't Google it. But, uh, okay. Well, thank you, Deli. We'll talk to you soon.

Have a great one. Always a good time. I think we got Jake Adler coming in the Temple of Technology in just a few minutes. He is building military medicine, biotech for the next generation soldier. And we got to see if there's some dual use applications for that because we podcast pretty hard. Yeah, harder than anyone else we know. We're still going live.

So let's talk to Jake about it. I believe he's here. Welcome. Come on down. Ooh, the big Celsius. There you. Cheers. Cheers.

Cheers. Cheers. Jake. How you doing? I'm good. How are you guys doing? Doing fantastic. Can you give us the update?

What did you announce? What are you doing? What are you building? What's behind you? Oh, so behind me is our lab. This is a BSL2. So biose safety level two facility. So it's a biosafety cabinet.

So we're handling any like pathogens, like, any anthrax or botulinum, we're going to be doing it in there just for protection of the operator. But yeah, so we just announced a $3.5 million round led by Peter Thiel, Cantos, and Refactor Capital to transform really the battlefield with advanced biotechnology. And really, if we consider like the state of affairs today, you know, military medicine hasn't really changed much since Vietnam. We've seen a little bit of improvement in tactical combat casualty care, but we very much still have war fighters who are going on the front lines and dying in combat. So what we're trying to build here is really advanced a novel biotechnology that we can really equip war fighters with to make them more lethal, more resilient and more ready in combat environments. So initially, applications of that look like a nanocomposite for rapid wound healing along with something we're exploring with more intelligence partners, which is a,

a novel biosurveillance network that would effectively be able to monitor for biological and chemical threats. I remember reading about QuickClot back in the day. Can you talk to me about the evolution in just wound healing on the battlefield, kind of the different eras and where you see it going with your company? Yeah. So Quick Clod is a really, really interesting example. It was started by a guy named Frank Hersey. And they basically, you know, this guy would cut himself when he was shaving and he realized that this mineral called zeolite, he would pour it on his skin and it would stop the bleeding. The challenge with QuickClaught, at least its initial formulation, was that it used to burn warfighters. So it actually would cause like second or third degree burns. So it would

effectively stop the hemorrhage, but it would also burn them in the process of doing that. And they've now transitioned to technology. But really, the issue with the traditional quick claw idea and the concept is that it might have supported warfare in a more traditional context where we can medevac that troop. But military is heading towards, like the military doctrine is heading towards this environment where, you know, troops are going to be deployed in combat for an extended period of time. And military medics, we won't, we won't even be able to retract them for maybe upwards of two weeks. So, you know, the almost in many ways, the definition of what a casualty is is changing. It's not somebody who's just been shot and it's completely, you know,

completely gone. It's now somebody who can't even pull the trigger. So what we're trying to explore with King's foil is, is moving beyond just that initial hemorrhage control and that hemistatic agent and building a product that would actually enable the warfighter to heal faster, so reducing that convalescent period and having them return to duty sooner. Talk as much as you can about sort of broad, I would call it almost like drug use in the military. I've heard stories of fighter pilots. You know, the funny thing is from what I know, when F-35 pilots are deploying to the Middle East, they just sort of like take off the MUS and they just fly there. And you can imagine it's a pretty long flight anybody that's been on a you know 16 hour flight to the middle east doing a little fundraising

it's uh usually want to fall asleep at some point um you know adderall and some of these sort of like medafinil those types of drugs are obvious uh world war two has some crazy examples would love to hear the history of like kind of drug use in the military super abbreviated everything from like stimulants to stuff more like um quick clot yeah yeah so you know the medications you you guys mentioned are typically categorized as no and no-go. So your stimulants and then you have like your Z pills or your benzodiazepines to help with drowsiness. And look, it's really interesting. The military is relatively constrained for what they can actually provide to war fighters.

I've heard some crazy stories. I think I heard this story about an Air Force, a pilot who, yeah, he basically took a bunch of benzos. He was like unable to fall, unable to fall asleep. So he started taking more and ended up like trying to like go go use the bathroom and started like completely pissing himself. So they don't have like a lot of control over. And I would say they don't really advise how to use them so well. But modafinil is definitely a big one for vigilance and awareness. Obviously your benzodiazepine class is pretty big as well,

although the military is trying to move away from those. So there's quite a broad history here. But really I think I don't think pharmacological is necessarily the right or immediate approach. I think in many ways we should be targeting the more of the root causes. So, for example, one of the early technologies we were exploring was a device called New Sleep, which is a closed-loop brain computer interface that would effectively shock you to sleep. And this has been a really big point of interest for the military is can we build neuromodulation or brain stimulation devices that can control sleep architecture and make it so when warfighters sleep

three hours, they really feel like they're sleeping five hours, right? So we're trying to find alternatives that are not addictive or habit forming and don't really carry that their secondary or next day effects that many benzodiazepines would. Talk about, talk about sort of like dual use applications of sort of stuff on your roadmap, right? I imagine there's some things that you're developing that are going to be so powerful that eventually will want to get consumers will be like, hey, we want some of that too, right? And there's a long history of the sort of military.

Aren't you a consumer of this stuff? I see pictures of you testing yourself. So whatever we're thinking about a new initiative, my brain immediately goes to the dual use implication. And that's sort of one of the beautiful things we get to do at this intersection of biotech and defense. You know, a lot of the companies today that are getting funded are building like cruise missiles. And you can't really sell that to the consumer civilian population. John wants some. I'm really a big game hunting and I want to take it to the next level, move past the sniper rifles and the long guns and go into the kamikaze drones and the cruise missiles.

That's my goal for this year. But I take your point. Yeah. So continue. Sorry. But, but yeah. So we're consistently thinking about that dual use implication. And really, in many ways, I see the DOD and our work with federal partners as a launch pad.

Right. We kind of get the offload of all of this initial experimental and financial risk kind of deployed into this first customer market and be able to eventually, you know, leverage that market for really extreme validation in the most austere conditions. and then bring it back to the civilian market. So practically everything we're building has a dual-use implication. And I think another interesting implication as well is that, you know, a lot of technology we're building is potentially maybe too early for the civilian market.

So we kind of get that initial footing with a partner who can actually help us build up the technology, provide us with the necessary revenue to grow as a company and really, you know, grow as an organization and grow at our product portfolio, and eventually bring it back to the market when it's the right time for civilians. How do you, we were just talking to Delian about kind of the continuing resolution and the fact that the DoD isn't adding a lot of new programs. You're obviously still in the early stages here, kind of seed round level. Are you thinking about, hey, let's just go heads down for a couple of years, R&D and then sprint towards program of record? Or are you, are you seeing there's pockets of money that you can be responsive to and little programs that you can build up very quickly? Yeah.

So we're pretty aggressive with our approach. You know, one of the last conferences we went to to present our technology, we got like removed by armed security, present to the PMs on garbage bins outside the conference center. So we're definitely in the mode of trying to get our technology in the warfighters' hands. Sort of the chasm we're trying to cross here is that if you look at the state of things today, you know, academia rules military medicine. And they do a horrible, like totally shitty job of taking technology from the bench top to the battlefield. So the way we've been approaching things is thinking, like, how can I build something in four months that we can then present to a federal partner, get it in the hands of the warfighter, and deploy this rapidly. So QuickClaught, which is an example you brought up, got cleared in nine months with no human trials.

Right. So there's kind of this really interesting opportunity for us to leverage the DOD and FDA memorandums, which enable expedited approval and clearance. And notably, like big companies right now with big startups like Neurrelink and Synchron, like these big brain computer interface companies, you know, which have breakthrough designations. which was, you know, prized as like the fastest, most expedited pathway in the FDA. If you work with the DOD, you can move faster, right? So there's this really interesting opportunity for us to build technology and actually get it in the hands of the warfighter and make sure that the troops were putting in the most austere conditions aren't just surviving, but they're thriving, right? It's really hard to ask a 20-year-old to go into combat without the tools that they need to survive.

I'm curious how much of what you're developing is based on a, you know, sort of studies that have existed for a long time that just nobody cared about, right? Like, I imagine, uh, I imagine there's just this treasure trove of like information and research that people just never acted on. And now that you're, you sort of this high agency, you, you, you have this like kind of core thesis for the company. Uh, I imagine there's a lot of basically like off balance sheet R&D work that you can just kind of absorb and, and sort of, uh, run with. Yeah. So, um, the, But first thing I'll mention, I think Palmer actually said this, which is that, you know,

he doesn't really invented anything new because a lot of these concepts are already in sci-fi. And, you know, growing up being a big sci-fi reader, you know, a lot of the ideas I have are coming directly out of science fiction. So, you know, rapid wound healing, you know, artificial and synthetic blood, bio-surveillance and biodefense. So a lot of these are deeply tied to fiction because of the limited constraints on the reality. But in terms of existing literature, we really do stand on the shoulders of giants. I think my primary skill set has been, how do I take really compelling literature from this one field that has no real practical application and combine it with something else, right? And kind of find these really interesting points of convergence between different ideas and turn that into a practical product. So in many ways, we do a really good job at taking, you know, this cutting edge research and perfecting it.

And I owe a lot to academia for that. And that's really, in my view, with the role academia should be serving, right? Academia should be that foundational doing that breakthrough science without very much thinking about the translational ability. But then you do need that partner to cross that bridge and actually build technology that can translate and get in the hands of the warfighter. And that's what we're trying to do at Pilgris. That makes sense. The biological weapons convention in 1972 said the development, production acquisition transfer stockpiling and use of biological and toxins are effectively prohibited so bio weapons are illegal but that doesn't mean they're not going to be used right

do you think the doD like if i'm if i'm a soldier being deployed to some you know far off land to fight some enemy that i don't know what their sort of ethics are i don't know if they're going to follow the sort of like laws right against these things maybe they get super desperate it, do you think that the DOD generally takes these sort of threats seriously enough? And I imagine, you know, a lot of the stuff you're thinking about is reactionary to, you know, a certain situation on the battlefield. How do you make sure that you're keeping our warfighters safe in a sort of unpredictable environment? Totally.

So first off, you know, the DOD has a very kinetic frame of reference. So when they're thinking about things and threats, they're thinking about big, shiny explosions. I always show up with our team that I wish there was more explosions in bio, but there just really isn't. I can't just do like an on-drill demo of an altius or fear of age just like crashing into something. It just doesn't really work that way. So to your point, the DOD's response has been largely reactive. You know, you look at COVID-19, spread across the globe in nine months, killed like 1.2 million Americans and wiped out 16 trillion in our GDP. It also took took off like for 10 weeks.

We had an operational gap in the Pacific due to the USS Theodore Roosevelt. So it's very reactionary. So in terms of the biological weapons convention, we should not be at the mercy and in trust of other states. The U.S. has somewhat of a grandstanding policy around this, which is that we will not build bio weapons, and the best offense is really stronger defense. The problem is that we have no defense. So we're kind of in this really precarious position right now where we are very vulnerable to a biological weapon attack. And we've seen that with COVID.

We saw that very briefly with H5N1, but that doesn't really have a much spillover risk. So even if it's manmade or natural, it's still a threat. So the reality is that most of our foreign adversaries are building out these laboratories. They're building out these weapons. In many ways, these systems tend to be referred to as like poor man noops because they're a lot cheaper and also don't really respect borders so they can proliferate a lot faster and don't really require that direct confrontation. So it really underscores a frightening reality where these weapons can be used in really novel ways to really take down. and break down the resilience of our military and also the critical infrastructure around the U.S. So even with the biological weapons convention, there still is an outlasting and really

real threat that's impeding with these systems. How do you think about the legacy of Theranos? I'm sure if you're successful, people are going to be like, oh, this dropout, you know, raising all this money, building this stuff. It's tough in bio because obviously there's so many real drugs that make it to market and quietly make billions or trillions of dollars. Novo Nordisk is bigger than the entire GDP of Denmark. But at the same time, it's harder for someone just to like download the app and verify

that it's a real thing like they can with a cursor, for example. What's your take on the legacy of Theranos? So Theranos is obviously a very concerning, or was a very concerning situation. You know, Elizabeth Holmes had basically this disability to keep the FDA out and prevent them, you know, proper inspectors from coming in and checking out their work. And this is actually something I'm seeing again with non-invasive neuromodulation today. A lot of the companies in the space are building brain computer interfaces and trying to circumvent the food and drug administration by trying to fall into this general wellness category. I've seen like dozens of companies do this.

And right now, like they're going to be fine, right? Like they don't get away with it for the time being. But if they hit a billion dollar vow, you know, they're going to get a horrible enforcement action. Like, you know, at that point, it's fraud, right? So you can even be seeing jail time and you can be seeing massive fines. So it isn't like this cycle has gone away since there. knows, it's still very prominent. One thing that we do at Pilgram, which is something I've been very adamant about since day one, is that we do that preliminary validation. So if we don't

see the results on our bench top, we don't even bring it to the U.S. government. And the belief there is that we're trying to not only save taxpayer dollars, but also save our time. Like, I don't have any interest in working on tech that doesn't work. So I want to see it work for myself. And clearly, if it wasn't clear with the demo, I did all myself, I have a pretty high conviction to get to results. Right. So on limited time, I had to cut holes in my legs on camera to demonstrate the the rapid healing abilities of one of our composites. So, you know, that's sort of the approach we've taken, but in terms of Theronos's legacy, it obviously has scarred the biotech industry. I'm pretty bearish on biotech as a whole, which is a pretty hard thing to say being in the industry itself. But I just

don't think many companies here are actually thinking about the practical and commercial implications of their work. Many people come in, they'll raise a couple million and buy like hundreds of of thousand dollars worth of equipment and, you know, run with that idea, but not actually think about how they're going to make it to the market. And I think that's a really concerning reality when we're thinking about startups, even on that 10 to 15 year timeline. Have you had any luck finding the, you have a roll up here called Pathfinder. It says, as a Pathfinder, you're the stormtrooper who stares down, critical near impossible challenges you'll take on missions that break lesser souls, problems with no playbook,

trekking into combat zones to deliver our tech, restoring a 90s, scanning electron microscope without a manual, crashing a DARPA event with a fake badge to snag until from top brass. tasks so wild, they'll call you insane. Has it been challenging to find the right person for that? That's barely no. We've gotten in a lot of really compelling submissions for that. One thing I was very smart to do ahead of the announcement of the company was put like the question as part of the job post.

So we've gotten some really interesting information out of people. So when people are, instead of just like submitting a bullshit application, they actually have to spend the time and write something compelling. But we found some really cool people. Like I said, our approach is very much based in guerrilla warfare, right? So we do what it really takes to get the meetings that we need to get. And thus far, you know, it's worked very well in our favor. I think in many ways we're kind of battling a lot of entrenched interests.

I somewhat compare, you know, with limited perspective on precisely what it would look like. But I somewhat compare our experience to 05 Pallantier, you know, going up against the government, going up against these primes and really trying to make a name positioning ourselves on our company. So the Pathfinder role is one that I was really excited by. It really even fired me up, writing it. And we really wanted a stormtrooper who could go on the front lines. I could put them into combat environments and they would just kill it. You know, if we need to get a meeting with Seckdef, if we need them to break into a DARPA conference,

if they need to go, you know, beyond enemy lines, whatever it may be, we just needed somebody who would basically take the task, you know, and sign off and get it done. Need an absolute dog. Well, I have one more question. One more question. Then I'll cap it off. Okay, cool. You talked about Brink.

computer interfaces. We've talked about this in the past. You know the industry very well. I don't know if you saw this, but a couple weeks ago, someone burned something close to like a couple million dollars of Ethereum to encode a message in the blockchain that alleged that China had developed brain computer interface technology that was being used to control workers like ants. And it was very scary sounding sci-fi. If it's happening, it's terrifying. Why would someone spend so much money? Is this a some sort of false flag? Just try and freak out the Americans by spending this money.

Is it even possible? What's your timeline for that type of thing? The Ender's game of BCI, you know, controlling all the, all the soldiers on the battlefield. Give us the most sci-fi take you have. So notably, first of all, address the China thing. China is beating out the U.S. in patents around neural interfaces. They've been doing that, I think, for a few years now.

So they've really taken the lead. China also thrives on this belief of military civil fusion. So basically any civilian corporation has basically as a direct in line to the government for military applications. So, you know, it's realistic in many ways that China is going to get there. And also, like I mentioned before, the U.S. maintains a somewhat of a grandstanding approach to bio. So, you know, we've been pretty anti-modification or genetic enhancement of our warfighters

for good reasons. But notably, that's going to inhibit our timeline to get to potential. the same outcomes that China might eventually move towards. So in terms of neural interfaces that can control war fighters, it's something I've looked into and something that I've explored. And there's a couple interesting modalities that are still semi or non-invasive. The biggest challenge with neural interfaces is spatial and temporal resolution. So most of the solutions today that rely on like EEG, you have really high temporal resolution. So you see the signal really, really quickly, but you're basically looking at like a bowl of soup.

You know, it could be with millions of different things mixed in. You don't know precisely where that signal is coming from. And we've been leveraging AI. Like there's been researchers who've been using AI to like isolate it a little bit more. But non-invasive modalities are still pretty unclear. But in terms of a timeline or really approach to build technology that would, you know, be able to control the warfighter. It's a lot sooner than you would imagine.

Terrifying. Terrifying. Amazing. Thanks for breaking it down. I'm glad you're doing what you're doing. Last thing I just want to leave you with, if you're working on anything that would help us do this show 24 hours a day for weeks in a row.

If you can just eliminate sleep entirely, that'd be great. Just get it over here. We have Celsius, but we're looking for something stronger. Make it happen, Jake. Yeah, we're here. We appreciate you dog fooding your product. We'll step up.

We're confident. You can test the craziest stuff. Pre-FDA. We'll get ITAR compliant. We'll get regulated as a D-D effort if you need to test stuff on us. Thank you for doing what you do. Appreciate you on. Jake.

Thanks for stopping by. We'll talk to you soon. What an absolute dog. Wild. Should we move on to the timeline? Close it out? Yeah, I have a post here that's breaking news. Oh, yeah?

This was sent right when we started going live. This is from Barrett Ames. He says, yo at TBPN. Ramp just sent us cookies. Talk about customer service. I reached out to them because of you also keep shilling. There we go. Thank you.

And so we love to see it. Nice work. Barrett, nice work, ramp on sending. These look like some fantastic cookies. Ramp. When you hear this, we like cookies too. Yes, send us some cookies. John will eat anything.

Just make sure it has no carbs and it's all protein. It's actually made out of Philly Mignon. Yeah, exactly. Well said. Anyway, should we move on to Wilmanitis? Let's do it. Obscure hobbyist of the year, if you're following on our award show last year.

He said, the end result of vibe coding, $100 million in 30 days and all this software, prosperity, gospel junk isn't hundreds of venture-scale AI companies. It's just junk. food. It's a return to artisanal software, software that fits right in the hand, distribution passed down over generations. Amazing. What a word, Smith. What a word, Smith. Yeah, so Will's one of those people, again, right? He's sort of in that ruin category of, uh, he, he should be writing great, you know,

novels and texts, but instead he's just gripping, you know, bangers. Um, yeah, I mean, I've been seeing that there's this whole trend of the levels I, oh, I just vibe coded a flight simulator. And now a lot of developers are realizing that they can take work that they've already done and spend a lot of time on and been like, I just vibe coded this in the day. And so I saw someone post a website that they designed. And it was like a beautiful website that was so pixel perfect. And like you'd scroll down and you'd go on this crazy 3JS thing. And it was like so complicated.

And everyone in the comments was just like, you didn't vibe code this. There's no way. Like show us the prompts or it's not. I love that. I got to hide the secret sauce. Like my prompt is so good. I was able to build this thing. Jeremy's comment on that I longed to pay $59.99 for a one-time downloaded of a

handcrafted German to-do app. Absolutely. I'm totally on that. Yeah, I could see a return to the one-time purchase model. Like everything comes in cycles. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I'd like that. Well, should we move on to a ramp employee, Jeff Charles?

Yeah, this is a great post. He has a screenshot of Gemini. He says make a presentation that's, summarizes these trends highlighting key statistics and takeaways i'm still learning how to create multiple slides at once can you describe one slide you want me to create okay create one slide with main takeaways and i'm still learning how to create multiple oh i'm sorry i can't help with creating slides yet but i'm still learning jemini oh come on you you have to pay for this stuff you have to pay yeah they charge for this product oh yeah this is like 20 bucks a month and then it just

annoys you in every app you're in like hey you wanted to use Gemini and then it doesn't deliver. Clippy would never do this to you. No. It would never make it sound like it could do something. Exactly. Clippy was just there with like fun little positive messages. Hey, I'll help you out. Here, have you heard of control V? Control C? We got it all here

in Microsoft Word 95. Anyway, should we move on to Joe Wisenthal? Oh, the post was deleted. Anyway, he was just giving a shout out to bros. He says they love using bros as an epithet. That's sad. I only have warm feelings toward my bros. And this is because there is a new phrase on the timeline, the abundance bros.

This is popularized by Ezra Klein saying that we need to focus on a basically a democratic platform around abundance and building a pro builder political party. And a lot of people are trying to take them down. Calling him abundance bros. Bernie Bros was the same thing. Whenever someone wants to take down something, you know, it's a SaaS bros. tech bros, business bros, finance bros, they throw bros around. I saw another post that was relevant to this from someone named Grace Freud. She says, hi, I'm Ezra Klein.

I've spent the past two weeks or so thinking about how to fix the world and I think I have the answer. What if things were good? I love it. But no, I'm pro abundance. It's easy to rally around. Yeah, I mean, we don't really talk about politics here, but like Ezra Klein is, you is on the vanguard of a significant shift politically, where if you read his book or you listen to his YouTube video breaking it down,

it sounds very, very different from anything we've heard from his camp over the last few years. So I don't know, check it out if you're into politics, but there's other podcasts for that. There certainly are. Unsubscribe from us. We got a post from Patio 11, aka Patrick McKenzie, he says. So Atlantic came out with this new article that said there are two kinds of credit cards, yet another way the poor are subsidizing the rich. The credit card market is quietly transformed into two credit card markets, one offering

generous benefits to wealthy Americans and the other offering expensive debt to the poor with the latter subsidizing the former. And so this is, so he's Patrick. His piece on credit cards. Yeah, so Patrick says, the thesis is that interchange fees redistribute money from poor to rich. I do not subscribe to this thesis. So he's, let me see. in the truth zone.

Yeah, you got to put this one in the truth zone. I mean, credit cards take fees from payment processors when they swipe a card. Yep. Because they're taking on some amount of risk related to that transaction. And the credit card companies pass some of that back to the people that pay them off. And if you really want the best rewards, just constantly switch credit cards and debit cards and just always use the latest neobank that's offering you 5% cashback. or a 10% Bitcoin match, whatever it is.

We should have him on the show because I want to hear his thesis because I've talked to consultants and kind of investors who have looked at consumer credit card products and they've basically said that, you know, that is the business model. Like revolvers are the way, like revolvers, people that revolve the debt and actually they collect interest on and then there's a whole cohort that they never make any money on

and that's kind of always been the business model. And so I wonder. Well, you can still make money on the people. people just from the spread between the interchange fee and what gets past. And I guess there, yeah, I guess it's not redistributive in the sense that like the rich person is still generating a lot of money for the credit card companies. It's like the credit card companies is making a lot of money on everyone and probably more

money on the rich person. Turns out, anyway. It's a good business. This was an interesting post by Tyler Huggie. I'm not exactly sure to pronounce that. But he says, the venture capital Mount Rushmore. Ready?

Arthur Rock, Don Valentine, John Dore. And for many years... Arthur Rock, the anonymous poster? I was kidding. Don Valentine, the creator of Valentine's Day? Yeah. By the way, you made that joke and like 10... Flopped.

I don't even know if 10 people got it. No. I don't know if anybody got the joke. I don't think he's that iconic of image. I thought it was funny. Yeah, well, we scheduled that one like months ahead. And it went out and it was a complete flop. Anyway.

And for many years, he couldn't pick a fourth. Today he's calling it Doug Leone. and then a lot of people in the comments are saying Paul Graham, Jessica Livingston, Kosla, Teal, Moritz are all interesting. I wanted to go back and look through who wrote the seed checks into the hypers, the Mag 7.

I thought this was an interesting thing and I wanted to go through it really quickly. Apple had Mike Markula who did not become a large venture capital firm. So he kind of doesn't count as a generational VC even though obviously he invested $92,000 plus the secured credit line made a huge amount of money. And interestingly, he was introduced to Apple through Don Valentine and Arthur Rock.

So like literally every major company went through them. Microsoft had David Marquette of technology venture investors. Got one million for a 5% stake. And when you talk to David Center, he's all, Microsoft didn't raise venture capital because they didn't really do more than that. They only did one VC round. And of course, TBI did not go on to become like a. big generational firm.

Amazon, Jeff Bezos' family came in, but they had other angel investors and later Kleiner Perkins came in. Andy Beckdell Shime at Google. There's a lot of folks that like the early rounds of these Mag 7 were just kind of like random people that never fully scaled up. Like you even look at meta. It just became post-economic too fast. Basically.

They lost the dog in them. Of course with Google, Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins eventually came in very, very early. and got huge stakes. Meta, formerly Facebook, Teal put in 500K on a convertible note, which converted to 10% equity stake, and then he turned it into Founders Fund. Tesla, Elon Musk, you can kind of think of the first investor, but then Sequoia and Kleiner came in, of course. And then, yeah, Tesla with Elon Musk, and then Nvidia, Sequoia Capital again.

So just some generational firms putting up big numbers, the Holy Trinity for a reason. And it's crazy to think about investing in Apple or Microsofts and then just being like, yeah, I'm not gonna raise a massive growth fund. Yeah. Like it's a different era. Now the LPs would be beating down your door. Yeah.

If you had 10% of a trillion dollar company. But anyway, should we move on to this robot? Do we have this video pulled up? Can we play this? Boston Dynamics wants to do another demo. No. Oh no. demo bro.

Let's do Mads posting first while Ben tries to pull that up. Mads posting, Science Girl says, what massively improved your mental health and Mads is sharing a picture of a book? Caller, I'd like to know how you handle your stress. Trump, I try and tell myself it doesn't matter. Nothing matters. If you tell yourself, it doesn't matter, like you do shows, you do this, you do that, and then you have earthquakes in India where 400,000 people get killed.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. What a bizarre quote. And it just sounds like a ramble. I don't even get it. I think there's some more context here. I remember when this was first shared, it was during the height of the drama, the election,

and everything like that. And I think this is a good and bad philosophy. It's very nihilistic. If you're dealing with problems, yeah, you want to sort of detach from them and understand like, you know, okay, this is frustrating. or I'm not happy with the situation.

I need to resolve it, but you can sort of detach and look at it from a different perspective and say, you know, I still have, there's still a lot of good things in life, and this one thing doesn't make everything else bad. Yeah. Is he a nothing ever happens guy?

This feels very nothing ever happens coded. Maybe. We should ask him when he comes on the show. Yes. Only if he's done about his business. No, I'm just saying after. Yeah, after he gets done with all this politics, side quest,

social networking and crypto technology that's right uh ben do we have a video hey we got it there we go looks like a normal boston dynamics demo all right let's see it do a kickfoot it's running okay hmm pretty impressive kneeling okay oh wow crawling not bad this is pretty good I'm excited. I still don't understand what's going on with Boston Dynamics because, you know, Unitary is getting all the attention now. Wow, okay.

That's cool. That's pretty good. I like that. Anytime you're going vertical, doing flips. Yeah. Whoa. Okay, break dancing. That's pretty good.

So there's a human in the suit, right? Yeah, for sure. I mean, honestly, the robots look so crazy. It's so easy to think like this is CGI, this is AI generated. But wow, okay, doing some break dancing. Interesting to start. with a very unimpressive. Okay, that's getting really, really good.

Wow. Very interesting. I'm really wondering when is Boston Dynamics going to get more aggressive about the commercialization? Like, they're not in the conversation at all. Yeah, you called this. The best marketing strategy

for any robotics company is to figure out a way to make 10,000 of them and just march them across a field. Yep. That would be very intimidating to anyone and there probably be a program of record the next day.

I would try to lead their round. Yes. And I recently said, There's a lot of companies working on counter UAS technology. You're invested in the company. Allen control systems, gun on a truck, right? Yeah. And they can demolish DGI drones if they were coming to attack.

And those drone light shows, we now have counter to that. We have Andrews Anvil. We have electronics systems. Drones are good for drones against drones. I've even seen eagles be used to capture drones. Nets, all sorts of stuff, shotguns. Beagles, hunting dogs. But I have yet to see a company build counter heroes.

humanoid technology. I think it's just a gun. But I want to see it in a demo. I want to see a gundo defense tech company just showing, you know, a mini gun, just spitting out a thousand rounds at a horde of unitries. There's this thing, I don't think you've ever seen it, but we're two guys getting an octagon and they fight. Oh. And you could imagine a world where we take some of our best MMA athletes.

That's the United Fistakuff's championship, right? Yeah, yeah. It's not mixed martial arts, it's muscle man attack. You called it? Muscle man attacks. And you could imagine a world where we just take our UFC champions and face him off against the humanoid. Boston Dynamics. That's the final boss.

The final boss. Anyway. And you could a humanoid take out of John Jones and his prime, you know, bow nickel today. I think bow nickel makes short work of that Boston Dynamics robot. Oh yeah. Oh, yeah. Rear naked choke. Your naked joke on that.

I don't know. I mean, that robot seemed like you could just flip around and just grab them. The hard thing is you can't. I think it's more like a strike to the head. A foot to the head really does it in. Kick it over. Maybe. It's kind of crazy.

How do you submit a robot you can break their arm and the rest of them is still. Yeah. It's going to be tricky. Yeah, our producer, Ben, is a former almost champion of a jujitsu tournament recently. Go for number one, Ben. Let's move on to chat. Yeah, Chet. No cap capital.

Yeah, so this is a good one. I've heard this before. I just wanted to highlight it again as a word. If you're running a city, don't do this. Just learned about how Chicago sold the rights to all of its parking meter revenue to the UAE for $1.1 billion in 2008. The city is currently collecting $150 million a year and growing in parking meter fees and sends it straight to Dubai until 2008. That had a good inflation hedge. But maybe they put that $1.1 billion in some high growth asset.

And it's now sitting at 20 billion. You know, they could be outpacing the inflation. We don't know what they did with the money. Probably just did nothing with it, though. Let's be honest. Anyway, Sam Ruddy Koff says, Rudy Koff says, my dad uses these speakers to watch MSNBC. And this is what we expect our future to be.

When you're enjoying TVPN live, you know, throw it on a TV, but get some nice speakers. Get some bass there. We recorded nice microphones for a reason. The ideal way to listen is, is through sort of handcrafted European, very artisanal speakers where the maker makes one or two of them a year.

Exactly. And it's sort of like a 30-year waiting list. So get on the waiting list. It's fantastic. And get a nice recliner to sit there and watch us. What else should we cover before we wrap up? What's interesting to you? Do you want to do carp madness?

Palantir? This is kind of an interesting one. Eliano Eunice over at Palantir has created a March Madness bracket for the greatest Dr. Karp moments, the infamous soundbites, cockroach holders, self-pleasureing, rusty crusty, don't play golf, fake religion, Coke shortsellers, AI Revolution. And he posts all the different video clips, and you can go and vote on this post and have a lot of fun picking the best carp soundbite, the most electric carp soundbite, the player haters, the PowerPoint, the Motel 6.

They're all great clips, and Eliano has done the great job of collecting this ago and figure it out. I have one more post from Stephen Schwartz over at WOP. So Arfer Rock posted 24 hours ago, WAP just crossed 90 million dollar run rate and closed an unannounced series B at $800 million from Bain Capital. I'm sorry. And then Stevens quotes it and says this is nearly one year old news. Sorry we hadn't told anybody yet.

WAP has grown significantly since then and we have enormous plans for the rest of the year. So totally sleeper company. Yeah. We should have them on. I mean, I don't fully understand. They run sort of a a substack-esque platform

that helps people sell like information products from what I call it the make money app great name and yeah we should have the founders on to talk about it I remember they reached out to about PMF or die yeah when we got started but very cool they have like live streaming functionality like a bunch of bunch of stuff so sleeper company excited to have them on at some point and congrats to Stephen Schwartz on the round you got to announce the next one with us come on the show Do it. Don't let Arthur Rock leak stuff.

Leak it here. Take control. Go direct. We love scoops. We love scoops. We love scoops. As much as John loves scooping his protein powder. We like scoops.

And we don't like leaks. It's very disrespectful. Stop leaking numbers, folks. Never leak. We will never leak. We will never leak. What we will do, though, is say thank you to ramp, public, ad quick, ate sleep, wander, and bezel.

Thanks to our sponsor. Thank you all for the support of the show. Thank you. For supporting the show. We love doing this and I can't wait for tomorrow. I can't wait for the next one. I was going to say the same thing. It's 21 hours away and you got a really big knuckle through it.

I wonder if we could commission Jake over at Pilgrim to develop just like the sort of pod call it like podcast alpha. You know that Joe Rogan had alpha brain. If we could develop like our own proprietary drug and then not release it to the world just so that we have another edge. Or some sort of drug that just as soon as the camera stop rolling, it just puts me to sleep and hibernation. and I just wake up 24 hours later, welcome to TBPN line. That would be ideal,

so I don't have to spend a minute away from the show. Guys, we're moving to a new studio soon, and we're actually just going to set up our mics on our eight sleeps right here. So the second the camera goes off, we just kind of go back. Anyway, thank you for watching. We will see you tomorrow.

Go leave us five stars on Apple and Spotify. We've been climbing up the charts, by the way. Thank you to everyone. Seriously, if you've subscribed, if you've listened on any of those platforms, it's really cool. really awesome to see we really appreciate the score takes care of itself truly but thank you all for being a part of this and we will see you tomorrow see tomorrow thank you bye