TBPN - Google's Antitrust Victory | Aparna Chennapragada, Richard Socher, Pablo Palafox, Will Bryk, Charlie Wu

Episode Date: September 3, 2025

(01:08) - Google Stock Soars After Antitrust Ruling (22:23) - United States vs. Google White Board Breakdown (32:52) - Ben Thompson Sees Strategic Victory for Google (46:31) - Leadership Turmoil Hits Nestlé (51:33) - Timeline Reactions (01:11:18) - TBPN City Tier List (01:16:47) - Timeline Reactions (01:55:48) - Aparna Chennapragada, Microsoft's Chief Product Officer for AI at Work, has a rich background in product development, including leadership roles at Google and Robinhood. In the conversation, she discusses integrating AI into Microsoft's productivity tools, emphasizing the balance between adding AI features and enhancing user experience. She highlights the importance of meeting users where they are, whether through chat interfaces or embedded AI functionalities, to make work more efficient and intuitive. (02:14:03) - Breaking: Apple Steps Into AI Search Arena (02:22:42) - Timeline Reactions (02:32:03) - Richard Socher, a prominent AI researcher and entrepreneur, is the founder and CEO of You.com, an AI-powered search engine. In the conversation, he discusses You.com's recent $100 million funding round, valuing the company at $1.5 billion, and highlights the platform's rapid growth, now handling over a billion API calls monthly. Socher also addresses the evolving landscape of search, emphasizing the shift towards AI-driven models and the importance of accuracy in search results. (02:42:26) - Pablo Palafox, co-founder and CEO of HappyRobot, discusses the company's recent $44 million Series B funding led by Base10 Partners, with participation from existing investors like Andreessen Horowitz and Y Combinator. He explains that HappyRobot is building AI workers to automate repetitive tasks in the supply chain industry, such as negotiating freight rates, scheduling shipments, and collecting payments, allowing human teams to focus on strategic and higher-value activities. Palafox highlights that their platform integrates with existing enterprise systems and is already in use by over 70 enterprise customers, including industry leaders like DHL and Ryder. (02:48:03) - Will Bryk, co-founder and CEO of Exa, discusses the company's recent $85 million Series B funding round led by Peter Fenton, highlighting Fenton's extensive experience in guiding companies to IPOs and his alignment with Exa's vision. He elaborates on Exa's mission to build a search engine tailored for AI applications, emphasizing the need for AI-specific search infrastructure distinct from traditional human-focused search engines like Google. Bryk also touches on the challenges and strategies involved in developing such a platform, including the acquisition of a GPU cluster to support their research and the importance of training embedding models to enhance search quality. (03:00:32) - Charlie Wu, founder and CEO of Orchard Robotics, discusses the company's recent $22 million Series A funding led by Quiet Capital and Shine Capital, which will accelerate the development of AI-powered camera systems for precision crop management. He shares his personal journey, highlighting his family's background in apple farming and his early interest in robotics, leading to the creation of technology that provides farmers with detailed data on fruit count, size, color, and growth rates. Wu emphasizes the transformative impact of their technology on agriculture, enabling farmers to make informed decisions that enhance yield, reduce labor costs, and promote sustainable farming practices. TBPN.com is made possible by: Ramp - https://ramp.comFigma - https://figma.comVanta - https://vanta.comLinear - https://linear.appEight Sleep - https://eightsleep.com/tbpnWander - https://wander.com/tbpnPublic - https://public.comAdQuick - https://adquick.comBezel - https://getbezel.com Numeral - https://www.numeralhq.comPolymarket - https://polymarket.comAttio - https://attio.com/tbpnFin - https://fin.ai/tbpnGraphite - https://graphite.devRestream - https://restream.ioProfound - https://tryprofound.comJulius AI - https://julius.aiTurbopuffer - https://turbopuffer.comFollow TBPN: https://TBPN.comhttps://x.com/tbpnhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive

You're watching TVPN! Today is Wednesday, September 3rd, 2025. We are live from the TBPN Ultradome. Let's look at the wide. Let's get the Ultradome on screen. There we go. It's Krust. New.

You can't really see the troughs. But anyway, we will be revealing more of the dome as we build it out. We continue to build out the Temple of Technology, the Fortress of Finance, the capital of capital. today. Show off the truss a little bit. Do you have a camera? How are you going to show off the truss? I don't know. Well, we have a big trust and we're going to hang some lights from it and show people off. I think Jordy's going to do some pull-ups or something. He's going to climb. I don't know if we have the insurance for this, Jordy. This is very, very risky. There he is. You can see him

in the background. Anyway, we're talking about Google today. We covered it a little bit on the show yesterday. But it made the front page of the Wall Street Journal. You'll love to see it when tech businesses, companies that we love and feature every day on the show, making it the front page, they want. We're pushing them to rebrand it to the Sand Hill Journal. Yes, the Wall Street Journal, the South Hill Road Journal. Google Dodgers, the worst penalties. Search giant can't pay for exclusivity, but it isn't forced to divest Chrome. So good luck if you're out there bidding for the Chrome browser. Google's holding on to it. I'm not selling. You're going to have to drag me out of here saying Chrome at Google.

Arvin just punched the hole through the wall. So did Sam. Yeah. I think a lot of those, I mean, the post-mortem on that is like all those companies were kind of trying to like mess with the legal case, right, to just kind of be a thorn in Google's side. Is that basically the takeaway? Or did they actually want to buy it or something? It seemed like some sort of weird thing.

I mean, I think a lot of people would love to own Chrome. Yeah. But also a lot of people would love to just troll Google in the midst of their high stakes case. Anyway, so yesterday the news is Google wrapped up the case of the Justice Department, and the result landed somewhere between nothing ever happens, and we are so back, in my opinion. He says, I think we all owe Sundar an apology. Yes, time to fill out the Sundar-Pachai apology form. I was not familiar with your game, Sundar. You're an absolute dog.

Can we pull up the Sundar chart? Yes, yes. Do we have a Sundar graphic we can pull up? He has been looking fantastic. He has clearly been enjoying bulking season, and so we'll pull that up. So lots of pundits have been bearish on Google for years now. I've probably issued a bearish proclamation at some point during the show. But it was easy to do, right?

Because the narrative was very clean. They failed to release a consumer LLM chat app as quickly as OpenAI. And the crazy thing is first mover advantage really, really mattered. First mover advantage did not matter in cloud. AWS came out first. GCP came out second, Azure, third, or second and third. We don't even know, and they're both huge businesses. Very oligopolistic.

Not true. Here we go. There's a sea and double. We've got to get this revised. But he looks fantastic. Yeah, wow, he really has been hitting the gym. I'd love to see it. Anyway.

Really filling out the word there. First mover advantage really, really did matter in consumer. We've seen that with the amount of. of LLM queries from consumers, Open AIs running away with it. Obviously, there are lots of other good businesses to building AI, but in terms of consumer, even though Gemini, that app launched three months later to consumers, it wasn't fast enough. And it obviously was made, like, it stung all the more because the Transformers invented at DeepMind at Google. And so you have this narrative of like, they can do science and they can do research, but can they do consumer products?

And so Open AI is running away with it. And it was very easy to be like Open AI is going to disrupt Google. People are not going to be searching on Google anymore, blah, blah, blah. And there's still some good cases for cracks in the search business, I think. Semi-analysis has laid out one that seems pretty reasonable. Yeah, this case could have been a lot different if LLMs hadn't exploded. Yes, totally, totally. And so the interesting thing is it's been very easy to write the Google Bear case.

At the same time, Bucco Capital Bloch, friend of the show, has been Google bull posting for a long time. Ben Thompson has come out kind of pro-Google, really outlining what's going on. We saw that breakdown of the various parts of their business. And when you look at it that way, you're like, wait a minute, okay, like a couple trillion dollars. If you're only, the Wall Street analysts that put this together, they were only valuing Google search at like 800 billion. It was like cloud was worth a ton. D-Mind was worth a ton. Waymo was worth over $100 billion.

YouTube. You add all these things up and the properties become very valuable. So when you look at it in its totality, all of a sudden, Google looks a lot more stable where you could say, yeah, maybe search sells off a little bit over the next 20 years. It's clearly extremely lindy. And then simultaneously, like, YouTube gets even better because there's AI generated content. They have all the ability to generate AI video. And there's just a whole new wave, right?

So there's a million different ways that they can play this. and Sundar's clearly an absolute dog and never doubt him ever. Never again. But the interesting thing that you mentioned is that in an odd twist, the pressure from open AI and consumer AI chat interfaces potentially competing with traditional Google search might have sort of saved the search giant from more severe penalties. And Ben Gilbert of acquired summed it up well, he said, the court recognized the advantage Google hasn't paying browsers for distribution,

but held off on banning it because of the new AI disruption threat that they face. I can read from the actual PDF from the case. The court well recognizes what is skewing a payment ban made. Eschewing. A shoeing. A shoeing. A payment ban may mean for competition due to Google's massive financial advantage in its superior monetization. Distributors will be incentivized to stick with Google because it can pay more, thus leaving in place the very forces that effectively have made the ecosystem exceptionally resistant to change in the space and early, sorry, the money fling. into the space and how quickly it has arrived is astonishing. These companies already are in a better

position, both financially and technologically to compete with Google than any traditional search company has been in decades, except perhaps Microsoft. They also are moving toward monetization on commercial queries. These new realities give the court hope that Google will not simply outbid competitors for disruption if superior products emerge. It also weighs on favor of caution before disadvantaging Google in this highly competitive space. So for now, Google will be permitted to pay distributors for default placement. And if you've been living under a data center, that is making Google search the default in Safari on the iPhone.

There's other placements as well. Yeah, it's a very, like, online take almost. It's a very tech Silicon Valley take to see in a court document. Like the context here is very fascinating to me. Like written in this legal document is then venture funding in Internet search was considered Silicon Valley's biggest no-fly zone. Like, yeah, you can't raise money for something that's competitive with Internet search.

Like, it's just not a thing. But today, there was you, you.com. Yep. Trying to play in search. Founders coming on later today. They're now an enterprise AI company. Oh, interesting. Okay.

So it's completely different. Full pivot. I'm sure they're using some of the same foundational tech. Of course. Yes. Today, established technologies are making and startups are receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in capital to develop Gen.

products that pose a threat to the primacy of internet, traditional internet search. Interesting. Wouldn't it be amazing if like the Apple wallet, like by default, had just like a ramp card in it? They should just place for like default ramp in Apple. I feel like we should make this deal happen somehow. It is the official part of business. But until that happens, go to ramp.com. Time is money saved both. Easy use corporate cards, bill payments accounting and a whole lot more all in one place. All in one place. It's unbelievably good. Yeah. The other news, I mean, just to give some extra context on the financial outcomes here, Tane has been on the show, summed it up the financial results. Google stock is up 7%.

Don't never say law of large numbers ever again to me. You can pop 7% in a day off of one legal result. Apple stock is up 3% representing $250 billion of added market cap on the antitrust ruling that Google can continue to pay Apple, but in a non-exclusive manner and won't need to divest Chrome Android. So there are a bunch of good takes we're going to go through people who have been studying this way more than I have. The reason that Apple is up is they have $20 billion a year coming in from Google that is effectively like one line of code.

And it's, yeah, it's ultra profitable. It's incredible. Yeah. And it's something that like when I was thinking about that going away, I was like this is actually like pretty material to the business. Like it's a good. Apple's a huge business. But, I mean, we watched that Tim Cook interview from, what, a decade ago.

And he was like, we made 50 billion in revenue, 10 billion in profit. And now they're making, what, $5 billion a quarter from this, something like that. Like, this is a serious amount of money. It's definitely like a material piece of the business. Yeah, they're sitting at 36, 36 times earnings. Yeah. So we take away that. They make a lot of money.

Hundreds. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Like $500 billion or something. Hundreds of billions of dollars. Crazy. Okay.

So anyway, we're going to run through Ben Thompson's take because he's been studying this for the entire journey and for years. And I feel like he knows this stuff way better than we do. But I do have some questions that I want to dig into. We can kind of debate this, Jordy. And by the way, the chat was concerned because John Exley was not in the chat. He's on a flight. Give us an update.

But he got the flight Wi-Fi. Let's go. What an absolute god. And thank you to all the brothers in the chat. for checking on brother John. Yes, yes, yes. It's great. So my question is we're going to go through the timeline.

Tyler Cosgrove has written out the full United States versus Google case timeline. We're going to dig through. We're also going to go through Ben Thompson's. But my question that I want to answer is, what do these pay for default deals look like going forward? Specifically, in artificial intelligence, there is going to be a particularly odd dynamic around how LLM queries route on the iPhone by default. Like the last possible moment to start taking AI seriously and build like a serious AI foundation model lab, the last moment that you could credibly do that, I feel like

was earlier this year. Like that was when the last train left the station. And who was driving that train? Mark Zuckerberg. And what did he do? He went and tried to buy everything that was viable and hire everyone who has hireable. Weren't viable.

Yeah, for sure. And what he wound up with was not exactly a dream team. He didn't get Ilya. He didn't get Dario. He didn't get Demis. But he got a really solid crew, right? And some great business guys. Some great business guys, some great researchers.

He also just filled out the researcher tears. Like, he's got a ton of researchers. So I feel like he's done a good job. He wasn't worried about salary caps. No, no, no, not at all. And so we were debating yesterday whether Alex Wang was a good pickup for meta. And my conclusion is, like, he is the best possible option, and I think it'll pencil out.

I think it'll be a good deal. It is a big acquisition, and it'll be interesting to see how we look on that in a decade. But I think the opportunity is so big, it makes sense. At the same time, like, what would Apple even do if they wanted to compete in AI? Like, everyone is taken off. All the pieces are off the board at this point. They don't have the DNA for mega acquisitions, so they're not going to go and try and buy Anthropic.

Like, that's just not how they work. they don't like writing $100 million checks for talent. Tim Cook only makes $74.6 million a year. They're not going to pay some AI researcher $100 million. It's just not going to happen. And so everyone else sort of has a dance partner at this point. Apple wouldn't just be like trying to turn the cruise ship that is Apple. They're building an entirely new cruise ship.

It's just not going to happen. So I don't think Apple is going to try and build a serious frontier lab. I think they're going to partner on this. And the question is, where does it leave? them. They have something incredibly valuable. Do you know how many active iPhone users there are worldwide right now? One and a half billion? One point four billion. Isn't that a ton? That just, I feel like I was, if I had to just guess, I'd be like, jobs not finished. Truly. Truly. But so like that is incredibly valuable because it's not just, it's not just over a billion

users. It's over a billion users that have money. They can charge $999 a month forever, randomly. Yeah, yeah. So many. different monetization, but it's also it's the top one billion really usually, like basically of like earners because it's the most expensive phone usually. And so, and they also have that button on the side that right now activates something that should feel like AI but is very clearly far from the frontier. And so the logical outcome feels like a partnership here, but what will the scale and structure of that partnership be if Open AI really nails Agenda Commerce, as semi-analysis suggests, it wouldn't be crazy for Open AI to pay Apple billions of dollars to be the default.

And so right now we're thinking about if you push the Siri button, you trigger an LLM inference query that's very expensive. Every time I hit Chad GBT, it's a couple cents. If I do some crazy reasoning things, some deep research report, might be a dollar. I don't even know. It's expensive, right? If I'm sending off some agent to go and like research every single different type of tennis. an aquifer somewhere. Yeah, that's what it feels like, right? It feels like every time you hit a query, it's expensive. And so, but that's going to flip.

And I think each query is actually going to be monetizable, and they're all going to be, they're basically all going to be profitable, like Google searches. And so if they are profitable, if every time someone hits an LLM, it's not a cost center, but it's actually a profit center, well then OpenAI can pay to get more search volume, some more query volume.

And so that means that maybe Open AI will wind up paying Apple billions of dollars to be the default. And of course they're going to try and build their own device and there's a lot of other dynamics. But would they go with Gemini because they're already on Google for the search default, but would they go, would they do that? Or is that too, are they never going to be able to compete there because Gemini so deeply integrated with Android and the Android phones are over here, doing their own thing. So you can imagine. And over this year, there's been rumors bubbling up

of Apple in conversations with Anthropic, with ChatGBT, BT, with Gemini, right? And a lot of these companies have been throwing around some very big numbers with Tim and the Apple team. And I think they had, at least back then, they seemed to have some stickers. So right now, it feels like the Foundation Labs

are going to Apple and saying, every time we run a query, it costs us one cent, 10 cents, a dollar, whatever. You got to pay us to use our amazing intelligence. Yeah, to bring value to your users. But I think it might flip. And I think that each query might actually be profitable, just at the query level,

because there's going to be commerce that's triggered from those. So in the future, you'll pick up your phone, you'll press the button on the side, and you can instantly fire off a best-in-class open-a-I agent to do your bidding. So you'll say, order me some creatine, and it'll just go do it. And that will be valuable and that will actually drive, that will be a profitable query. And so Open AI could potentially be paying Apple for the right to do that. So right now, Open AI and Apple do have a partnership in place.

But the reporting suggests that no money is directly changing hands. But I don't necessarily expect it to stay that way. So I don't know. What's your take? How do you, do you think that this is reasonable that Open AI could, could be paying Apple billions of dollars within the next, I don't know, five years? Or do you think it flips the other way? And Apple is the one shelling out billions of dollars for access to frontier AI models

from maybe Anthropic, maybe Open AI, maybe someone else. Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, the people that are paying for chat, GPT, today probably have a pretty insane overlap with iPhone customers. like it probably looks something like this. I think that Sam recognizes, I mean, every consumer tech entrepreneur has like realized how important it is to integrate at the hardware level, right? This is why Zuck is hell bent on winning in VR, right? He's been sick of like being at the app layer. And I know that Sam does not want to be in that same, you know, why would he pay?

billions for Johnny Ive and that team like he he he understands the importance of the hardware layer and certainly will recognize the leverage that Apple is going to have over the entire ecosystem I think the question is a lot of this just comes down to in my view our consumers going to be paying for AI in the long run I haven't been totally convinced that that the everyday American is going to be spending certainly not $200 a month I don't even know about $20 a month right It's going to ultimately flip. And so I can see there being a period where opening I is willing to pay to be like the default intelligence product within the Apple ecosystem.

But again, it is just going to be a really, it'll be an interesting dynamic in partnership, right? Because it's going to, it's so, there's so much tension there because Apple is going to want to, Apple is already selling intelligence as a reason to upgrade the iPhone. right? And they've gotten lawsuits over this because they sold Apple intelligence and then people are like, this isn't very smart at all. What did I just buy? Right? And so are they going to be incentivized to say, even 70 IQ is a form of intelligence. It's just a low level of intelligence. They didn't say, they didn't say Apple high IQ intelligence. They didn't say Apple super intelligence. They just said Apple intelligence. Apple, room tem. Room tem intelligence. Tim. I Apple.

What do you think, Tyler? Do you think that Open AI will be paying Apple, or do you think Apple will be paying other foundation labs? Where will the flow of money go in the next few years? Yeah, I don't really see it flipping very soon to where, like, prompts or tokens are, like, actually super profitable. Because you need, like, both massive, you need, like, way better capabilities,

and it needs to be way more efficient. Because if you just have more capabilities, still, like right now, most people are not paying for chatubit. They're just using the free plan. Sure, you have a free tier. Which is like if you compare, I mean, if you compare 4-0, like, look at like five months ago,

if you compare 40 to like 03, yeah. It was like massive, you know, difference in people still weren't paying. In cost or in-in- In-capability? Yeah. Yeah. And people still weren't paying. So you need it to be like way better

for people to actually start paying or you need to be way cheaper. Yeah. I don't know if I agree with that. I feel like 4-0 was definitely good enough. People were obsessed with it. People were like falling in love with it, right? Even Meek Mill.

Like I understand as a power user, like didn't get that much out of it. Yeah, but I think you, like, if you ask normal people what they think of like AI, they're like, oh yeah, this is not going to take my job at all. When in reality, if you used like 03 and they, if they used 03 every day, if they were a power user, they'd be, I think they'd be way more bullish on AI generally. Yeah. So I think that might be evidence that people like, I don't know, are not. I think, I mean, one crazy dynamic is Apple says, I mean, if they were to do a deal with

Open AI, they could just say, like, great, like, we're going to sign up every, like, how many, how many paying subs do you have? Great. We're going to start heavily, if Apple just starts heavily pushing chat GPT, they will by default get their 30% from the app store, right? but they could work out. So like this could end up being like, even if Open AI is not directly paying Apple for it,

it could end up generating. I don't think it's enough. You don't think it's enough? I don't think it's enough money for the value that it'll bring on. If it was actually integrated into like the Siri button at the low level, I can just press a button and say, order me creatine. Order me creatine and it knows my address

because it knows my home address from my contact in the in there. It has my payment information saved. It does all of that. Like, I don't know if taking 30% of my chat GPT subscription, if I subscribe and if I subscribed on mobile, but really most people are going to subscribe on desktop and open AI is going to be constantly being like,

hey, go over here and like use a web view to like subscribe this way and stuff. I don't know. It'll be interesting to see how it pencils out. I feel like there's going to be some new deal that's going to happen. someone's going to pay. Someone's going to bid. Someone's going to pay out. Yeah, the Google team says, hey, we're already paying 20 billion.

Why don't we double it to Gemini be the default? Can you imagine? I mean, if Gemini was the default on iPhone, that would be bizarre. But, I mean, it does kind of like, it does kind of match with the search deal, right? Anyway, let's read through Ben Thompson. Maybe we go through the history first to get us up to speed, Tyler. Do you mind taking us through it? So this is the United States versus Google,

which started in 2020? 2020, starts in October 2020. So that's under Trump. Okay. So yeah, I think let's just go over like kind of the central claim of the actual case first. So it's basically that Google is violating the Antitrust Act of 1890. It's wild to think about, you know, before Donald Trump was a technology founder. Yeah.

With True Social, there was a time where he was beefing with big. tech. Yeah, it's crazy. It feels so long ago. Instead of just competing. Oh, thanks for getting us up on VHS. We needed this. Fantastic. Only possible on Restream, one live stream, 30 plus destinations.

Multi-stream your VHS tapes and reach your audience, wherever they are. Head over to Restream. Technology is incredible. Yes. Also, yeah, continue. Okay, so Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, I also put some of the victims, previous victims of this act. We see standard oil.

Standard oil. American Tobacco Company, U.S. Steel, AT&T. This is what broke up Bell Labs. Probably set us back a couple decades. Do you know who founded Bell Labs? Pop Quiz. Who founded Bell Labs? Wait, is it like, I don't know.

Is it Claude Shannon? No. No. Who founded Bell Labs? Oh. Bell. Alexander Graham Bell. Alexander Graham Bell.

Yeah. No way. No way. That's correct. Yep. Alexander Graham Bell started Bell Labs. Let's go. We don't know how to name.

We don't know how to name company. I know. I was looking at the names. Standard oil. American tobacco. U.S. steel. What is the A and AT&T stand it for?

Is that America? America technology and transfer. Okay. What does AT&T? Okay. Anyway, continue. And then Microsoft, of course, it was a headache for Bill Gates

for his entire career until you retired. Yeah. Oh, that's so good. American telephone and telegraph. Oh, that's so good. When you pick a name like that, and you actually, you understand the,

job and you're just like yeah standard oil I'm going to standardize oil I need a name for my telephone and telegraph company what about American telephone and telegraph company okay okay anyway so basically the claim is that they're legally monopolizing the search engine and the advertising markets like in search yep so they're they're locking up distribution they're self-reinforcing barriers to entry and and they're they're And the evidence is that they paid billions to Apple and other vendors. Exactly. Probably hundreds of billions at this point because it's been like 10 billion for decades.

Yeah, yeah. So wow, they are up. So that is, they filed the case, DOJ, in 2020. Should we start with the history of Google Search and Safari? Sure, yeah, yeah. So that might be better. So, yeah, okay, so Google Search and Safari. So 2002.

This is pre-Iphone. Yeah, this is pre-Iphone. This is just on Safari on the- I guess the Mac or whatever it was. So Google is the default there. It's just like... Apple just picked that because it's the best one. It's just the best thing.

They just put it in. Yeah, there's no like dealer. So Google's been the default search engine on Apple devices since 2002. Yep. And we don't know specifics. Most recently it's $20 billion annually, but it's been an over 20-year partnership. I mean, that's a crazy... It's crazy to go.

I mean, Google's founded late September 1998. And then by 2002, you're the default on Apple, like the previous era, biggest computing company. I mean, I guess Apple wasn't like what it is today back in 2002, kind of pre-Iphone. It was certainly not like the biggest company in the world. But still, like, pre-tyler, too. It's all pre, I mean, three years, 2005. Wow. Hey, if you want to feel old, born in 2005.

Okay, so anyway, Sergey Brin, what does he do? So 2005, Sergey Brin, it's exactly. suggest some kind of revenue share. They always call it a revenue share. Just out of the goodness of his heart? What is he thinking? That's crazy. I have to assume there's like there's some competition.

He's a honest man. He's seeing it on the horizon. Okay, okay. But yeah, I like that he, they always call it a revenue share. They don't, they're not paying. Sure, sure, sure, sure. They're just helping a brother out, you know? Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then 2007, 2009, these are like the real negotiations.

They're like, it's like, Sergey Brand says like, oh, yeah, we need a revenue share, but then when it comes down. to it he's like well you know let's slow down let's push the brakes a little bit the numbers are getting a little high and then basically the actual like numbers are not public yeah um they really only show up yeah as a result of this case like sure them being oh after the fact so we learned this through the case we didn't know for years wow yeah so it's not really till 2021 oh so there was like a full decade where people were like yeah like uh google's probably paying an apple something but yeah but hiding a $20 billion line item and you're you can do it if uh i i believe the disclosure

rules and SEC filings or something like if it's a if it's a if it's a division of the company that reports the CEO then you have to break out the financials this is like youtube this is uh the story of like a wS when we first got the a w s financials um so if it's just something like like you know it's some deal it's just one deal like it's not it's not even uh it's not even like a division of the company. It's a deal I did with Steve. Yeah, it's just like other income. I don't know.

I don't know. Yeah, so 2021, it's kind of revealed or estimated at least that payments are around $20 billion a year. And then 2023, this is also a result of the case. Apple is like confirmed to be taking 36% of the revenue from Safari that Google makes.

Okay. So it's similar to their app store revenue, a little bit higher, 36%. Yeah. And that's probably how they got to the number. That's pretty crazy that Google's making $6 billion off of... I never knew they got where they were getting 36% for the big man. For the big man.

That's crazy. Yeah, and then 2025... We know you paid to be here, but I'm going to need a cut too. Yeah, wow. Yeah. Okay, so let's go through the full... The case. The case.

So September 2023, this is really the first, like, actual, like, trial. It's a bench trial. Don't really know what that is, but August 24 is the actual like initial judgment. So this is, Google is in fact violating antitrust. Like something needs to be done. We don't know what is to be done. But we're going to do, but then we will eventually decide what the punishment is. Yeah.

But they are guilty. They are guilty. They were found guilty. There's no, you know, results like what are they going to do? Yes. Yeah, they're guilty. And then it's not until April of 2025. So this is five years after the, you know, it was actually filed.

There's the remedies trial, I think that's what it's... Sure. Yeah, figuring out the remedies. So this is like what is actually to be done. Sure. Now, like we know that they're a monopoly. What do we do about it? And then it wasn't until, I guess, yesterday that...

We found out what the verdict was. Yeah, got it. So I think we already went through some of the verdict. Yep. But it's... The judge denied the DOJ's request for forest divestiture of Chrome and Android. They ordered Google to end exclusively. exclusive distribution agreements.

So that's like, I think we talked about this too with Apple. You can't like just, it can't be exclusive to Apple, the like payments or whatever. Yeah, what does that mean in practice? It can't be exclusive so they have to pay like

Xiaomi or something. Are we talking about other phone manufacturers? Are we talking about other search engines? Like I know that it's not like if I go into my safari settings, I can't pick Bing. I can still pick other things. It's just the default that they're paying for.

Yeah. To dig into that. Jordy, do you want to look that up or something? I'm asking Gemini. Okay, cool. Yeah, it's kind of like legalese. And then there's mandating Google to share search index and user. Basically sharing data with competitors.

I don't understand the exclusive. So Google pays Mozilla. Yeah. Mozilla basically wouldn't survive without Google, apparently. It's like a very significant amount of their revenue, which is funny because Google obviously competes with Chrome. With Chrome. And then they do this with device manufacturers like Samsung that just continue to make Chrome and Google Search pre-installed. Sure, sure.

Okay. And then what's the last one? Search Index, sharing of the search index and user interaction data with rivals. So was that Bing? Yeah. So I guess this means, these are all basically direct quotes from the actual, like, file. But I assume it means that they have to just share some of the actual, like, actual index data from, like, whatever page rank is. They have to, like, put out publicly.

So we've got to hammer the chief product officer of Microsoft today about Bing and what this means. Because, yeah, I mean, there's got to be a way to make money off this if you're Microsoft. This is the way to do it. Okay, anyway, anything else from the history of this. So just to be clear, they prevent exclusive contracts. So Google is barred from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts that give it search engine, Chrome, Google Assistant or Gemini app, a monopoly position on a device. So basically they can't go to a smartphone manufacturer and say you just can't host any other. Sure, sure.

In the chat, Paraclet says Google's only going to share their search data with like other top three companies. It's still remaining a monopoly. interesting and people enjoy the VHS. So thank you for for tuning in. Also, so these rules also apply to like Gen A.I stuff. All this also applies to like Gemini if they want to do the same, you know, if they want to lease it to Apple or whatever, all the same rules apply about if you've been enjoying the whiteboard segments. We are thinking about getting a smart whiteboard where we can put up a fig jam from Figma, of course, sponsored by Figma. Think bigger, build faster, Figma helps design development teams build great products together. You can

get started for free figman.com. Let's run through Ben Thompson's take. So he kicks it off with Google's remedy decision, Alphabet Inc. will be required to share online search data with rivals while avoiding harsher penalties, including the forced sale. We know this. Google's statement was short and sweet. Earlier today, U.S. court overseeing the DOJ's lawsuit over how we distribute search, issued a decision on next steps. Google closes, says, as always, we're continuing to focus on what matters building innovative products that people choose to love, choose and love. That's a good line. That's a statement of a company that lost some battles but won the war, in my estimation,

says Ben Thompson in Strateree, which you should go subscribe to. There are some cursory objections to Judge Meta's decision, but by and large, that statement exudes relief and rightfully so. The company that is truly breathing, the company is truly breathing easier today, however, is Apple. Apple's actually breathing easier because they're getting that sweet sweet sweet sweet 20 36% off the top 99% margin 20 billion a year The first set of remedies were the ones that Google proposed and has already implemented namely Ending the exclusive agreements that were the foundation of judge meta's original finding of liability

So let's see I want to know what these actual remedies are here we go again this is literally illegal behavior. What? We should just highlight again. So Google will be barred from entering or maintaining any exclusive contract

relating to the distribution of search, Chrome, assistant, and Gemini. Google shall not enter or maintain any agreement that conditions the licensing of the Play Store or any other Google application

on the distribution preloading or placement of Google search Chrome assistant. This is the bundling thing. So a lot of the antitrust cases hinge on bundling. You say, oh, you can't have the Play Store.

on your Android phone unless you're defaulting to search or you you have to have Chrome pre-installed if you want access to search like all of that stuff is is seen as anti-connected. And so Ben says again this is literally a legal behavior so ending it was the bare minimum. Anti-trust precedent however dictates that judge meta go further again from the opinion. This is from meta. Yeah. Oh this is good too. So they cannot enter or maintain an agreement that prohibits any partner, either Apple or Samsung, from simultaneously distributing any other search engine, browser, or Gen AI product. So Google can't go to someone and say, hey, in order to have search as your default or Google search or whatever deal we're doing

or whatever we're paying you, you can't have Anthropic pre-installed or you can't have Mozilla pre-installed. You can't be in the contract. Yeah, can't be in the contract. And that is illegal behavior. And so ending it is the bare minimum, says Ben Thompson. Antitrust precedent, however, dictates that Judge Mehta go further. Again, from the opinion, the question now is what to do about Google's violations.

Precedent requires fashioning antitrust remedies that effectively pry open to competition, a market that has been closed by a monopolist's illegal restraints, denying the fruits of of the violation is a valid objective, and so two is ensuring that anti-competitive behavior will not recur in the same or related ways. The court has broad discretion to impose remedies to accomplish those aims. Judge Meta laid out four fruits of the violation. The court found that the agreements had four main anti-competitive effects. They, one, foreclosed a substantial portion of the relevant markets, thus impairing rivals' opportunities to compete. Two, denied rivals' access to user queries or scale needed to effectively compete.

Three, reduce the incentive to invest or innovate in search. And four, enabled Google to increase text ad prices without any meaningful competitive restraint, thereby allowing Google to earn monopoly profits to secure the next iteration of exclusive deals through higher revenue share payments. These effects did not persist independently together. They enabled Google to widen the moats and pull up draw bridges to ward off competition. Great analogy. Judge Meta attempts to address number two.

necessary scale by forcing Google to share various types of data, including Google's search index, but not the actual data from the web pages and the index of the output of Google's page rank algorithm. Competitors, which explicitly include Gen AI providers, will get a one-time snapshot, not an ongoing one, and only need to pay Google's marginal cost for providing the information. User click and query data showing what results users clicked on. Competitors will get this data at least twice, but the final number will be determined by the the technical committee, the court will set up and oversee. Do you fully understand, like,

yeah, that's a very, very odd, like, change and remedy. Like, I, I guess it, like, lets people catch up to where things are. It feels like the remedy is, like, there has been this unfair advantage for Google for years. We're letting everyone catch up, and then we're creating, like, a fair race, but we're restarting the race, and then everyone can go out and do whatever they want. But we're not permanently making Google share everything, but we're making a one-time catch-up of, like, data, I guess. Is that what's going on?

I don't know. Tossing some scraps of some data. That's what it seems like. So we'll continue with Ben Thompson. In addition, Google needs to make its web search results available via syndication at ordinary commercial terms for five years, capped at 40% of an alternative search engine's annual queries. These are all worthwhile remedies.

The problem, however, is that it. That's it. the Google patronage network. So there is a lot here. And he does talk about Bing. I'm going to work through the remaining fruits, three fruits backwards. First or fourth, Judge Meta decided

that Google sharing user click data for ads was both a request too broad and also the court didn't know what data needed to be disclosed. So that one was discarded. The third fruit, meanwhile, is getting a lot of attention because Judge Meta said

that basically no longer existed, Generative AI products are now a competitor to search and are getting plenty of funding. This is what we talked about earlier. Very interesting to see that there is a lot of competition there. In early 2023, when the new Bing with generative AI search, OpenAI Sam Altman told Ben Thompson's an integrity interview, I think it's fabulous for both of us. I think there's so much upside for both of us here,

we're going to discover what these new models can do. But if we're sitting on a lethargic search monopoly, I'm going to have to think about a world where this was going to be a real, challenge to the way that monetization of this works and new ad units and maybe even temporary downward pressure, I would not feel great about that. Do you know what that lethargic search monopoly does feel great about? Being able to keep the fruits of its anti-competitive actions because OpenAI exists. That's crazy.

Anyway, that leaves one point in the Apple Connection. Judge Meta admits that a ban on Google payments for search placement would have an impact on the market, the rationale for a payment plan, payment banish. straightforward, it would pry open the market to competition. And we talked about this a little bit earlier. And yet, Judge Meta declined because of the harm-ending payments would cause to recipients of those payments, leading to a list of downstream effects, quotes from the opinion, lost competition and innovation from small developers in the browser market, fewer products, and less product innovation from Apple. Apparently, they don't have enough money. Otherwise, that is a funny,

Funny conclusion. Higher mobile phone prices and less innovative phone features. Judge Meta further argued that the ultimate outcome would harm consumer welfare, and that was that. The entire section was, in fact, a total endorsement of the Google approach, Ben, described in friendly Google and enemy remedies. Yeah, this is great. The cleverness from Ben, the cleverness of Google strategy was their focus on making friends instead of enemies, thus motivating Apple in particular to not even try. Tech company, particularly advertising-based ones, famously generate huge amounts of consumer

surplus. Yes, Google makes a lot of money showing you ads, but even at a $300 billion-plus run rate, the company is surely generating far more value for consumers than it is capturing. That is in itself some degree of defense for the company. I should note much as standard oil brought light to every level of society. What is notable about these contractual agreements, though, is how Google has been generating surplus for everyone else in the tech industry. Maybe this is a good thing. It's certainly good for Mozilla, which gets around 80% of its revenue from its Google deal. It has been good for device

makers commoditized by Android who have an opportunity for scraps of profit. It has certainly been profitable for Apple, which has seen its high margin services revenue skyrocket, thanks in part to the $20 billion per year of pure profit it gets from Google without needing to make any level of commensurate investment. So what Ben actually recommended... And one more more line here from an old from from judge meta he says the revenue share payments shape the market for general search services in google's favor they provide an incredibly strong incentive for the ecosystem to not do anything they effectively make the ecosystem resistant to change and their net effect is to basically freeze the ecosystem in place apple's like why would like we could compete in search but why would

we if we can get 20 billion a year and the device manufacturers they say like i mean technically they could create a new search engine or new intelligence, but we could just get a revenue share from Google. There was a, I feel like there was a dust up back in the Steve Jobs era over Siri and whether Siri counted as a search engine and where the Siri project would go, because at a certain point, search had become so well defined in terms of the technology that you need to actually build a search engine, that Apple could do it. similar to training of foundation model now.

Like it's something that if you have the money and you have the talent, you can just do it and there are a number of companies that have done it. The problem is the distribution. Like there are other search engines out there, duck, duck go, but the problem is actually getting the aggregation of everyone actually showing up and getting the flywheel and getting the,

and making it a default. And Apple has the ability to make something a default, but you're basically paying them off to not go and build their own search engine and yeah, it's this like, there's this tension. Anyway, Ben Thompson recommended that Judge Ruehmeta do the following back when he was writing about this case earlier. Ben said, this is why ultimately I am comfortable with the implications of my framework and why I think the answer to the remedy question is an injunction against Google making any sort of payments or revenue share for search. If you're a monopoly, you don't get to extend your advantage with contracts, period.

Now do most favored nation clauses. More broadly, we tend to think of monopolies as being mean. The problem with aggregators is that they have the temptation to be too nice. It has been very profitable to be Google's friend. I think consumers and Google are better off if the company has a few more enemies. So basically, don't pay Apple at all. what will happen. Apple becomes an enemy. Apple partners up with a different search engine, builds their own, creates more competition, maybe add prices on Google go down, maybe there's more consumer surplus.

I think that's kind of what Ben's initial take was. But Judge Meta disagreed. Well, yeah, I mean, it's interesting because if you take away, you make it so that Google can't pay for search placements, and Mozilla dies and then browsers become less competitive. Yeah, yeah, that is the, That is the flip side of the coin, which is very interesting. But usually you would assume that it's the opposite. You would assume that they're maintaining this monopoly, but in fact, they're kind of, at least they're maintaining their search monopoly, but then they're propping up an oligopoly in browsing because they're like,

oh, it's okay, because the browsers are just a window into the actual high profitable, highly profitable search results. So Judge Meta disagreed because Google strategy is sharing its monopoly profits was deemed too important to undo. Note the paradox. Judge Meta is implicitly admitting that as long as Google, is able to pay for search placement. They will, in fact, continue to dominate search placement.

After all, continued Google dominance is a prerequisite to Google money continuing to flow, thus avoiding the downstream effects Judge Meta is concerned about. So he did allow for the fact that not banning payments might be a mistake. So he says, so for now Google will be permitted to pay distributors for default placement. There are strong reasons not to jolt the system and to allow market forces to do the work. still, judges must be open to clarifying and reconsidering their decrees in light of changing or unchanging market realities. The court is thus prepared to revisit a payment ban or a lesser remedy if competition is not

substantially restored through the remedies the court does impose. Anyway, let's move on. Let's tell you about Vanta. Automate compliance, manage risk, improve trust continuously. Vantas Trust Management Platform takes the manual work out of your security compliance process and replaces it with continuous automation, whether you're suing your... your first framework or managing a complex program. This is Vanta Country.

This is Vanta Country. Annie says, B. Nestle, hire a French CEO. Act surprised that the Frenchman is having taboo, debauchrous relations on the job. Their president literally married his child. Oh, you haven't heard about this?

So this was in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, and we didn't get to it. And then it was also in the Wall Street Journal today. Pull it up. Pull up the journal. We've got to pull it up. So Nestle has fired their CEO. following a probe of a romantic relationship with a subordinate.

You can't even marry your childhood teacher in this country? No, you can. You can't have a romantic relationship with a subordinate if you are running Nestle. So Laurent Frischet, I don't know how to pronounce the X in that name, but Laurent is out after just a year at the top job of the food giant, which is trying to sell a number of underperforming businesses. They dismissed the CEO with immediate effect following an investigative. into an undisclosed romantic relationship with the direct subordinate that breached the group's

code of conduct. The Swiss maker of Nescafe coffee, Purina Petfood, said Monday that his board had ordered the probe overseen by Chairman Paul Bulk and lead independent director Pablo Isla, with support of an independent outside counsel. This was a necessary decision, decision, they said. Nestle's values and governance are strong foundations of our company, and I thank Lauren for his years of service at Nestle. They didn't identify the employee in the relationship, but it's a dramatic shift in the top

echelons of Nestle in little more than a year. He, this CEO, Laurent, had replaced CEO Mark Schneider in a bid to revive growth as the company grappled with sluggish sales. He was the first outsider to run Nestle since 1922. He was dismissed because he wasn't seen by its board of directors as a cultural fit. The new guy, Laurent, who just got fired,

who had previously run businesses at Nestle in Europe and Latin America, took the helm of the company in September of 2024, so less than a year, exactly a year. In July, they were reviewing some underperforming brands,

but let's see, where is it? The company has been, so he isn't, so basically, he gets fired, and then today, he's,

He's in the news again. Where is it? It's here, I think. Not again. He's in again, with a detail. So an anonymous tip led to the fall of Nestle's CEO. Nestle's chief executive Laurent Frischet, his downfall started with an anonymous tip to an internal hotline called Speak Up. Laurent was having an intimate relationship. This tip initially came through like last year or something.

So it had been bubbling up. Yeah. So he was having an intimate relationship with a marketing executive who reported to him. The tipster reported. The couple initially denied any relationship. It took two investigations, more hotline reports, and a letter to the Nestle chairman before the food company acted. He didn't respond to request for comment. Shocking.

Gabe sent a unhinged message in the chat. He says, who cares about this nonsense? The divorce rate is like 50%. Makes your brand more personable. if your CEO is cheating on his wife. The real question that we need to dig into is how is Nestle going to come back from this? They got to get Gwyneth Paltrow or something

to do some viral video. Yeah, there's a playbook now. So the executive's downfall throws Nestle into disarray after the company abruptly ousted its previous chief for underperformance. Mark says it's Lohon. Lorone.

Laron. It's not Larent. Larent. Oh, Lerone. Lerone. Thank you. Lerone. Wait, how do you pronounce Fichet?

Is that, is that? Am I close on that? I don't know. He was Ness quickly, he was Ness quickly escorted out of the office. That's really good. Absolutely great chatter. So, Loron,

was 63 years old and was Nestle since 1986. He'd refocused the company on Corbriam. 86? 86, a 40-year run. 40 year run. You said 24 when he joined the company. 20 years before Tyler was born. Yes.

Put everything in the context. I mean, it's important. Wow. So you're telling me that America was founded 220 years before Tyler was born. Wow. So the French CEO slashed cost to reinvest in more promising products, such as cold coffee and short up Nestle's executive team.

at the company's headquarters on the shores of late Geneva in Veve Switzerland. I guess I'm probably mispronizing that too. His Swiss successor, Philip Navratil, faces the task of arresting a year-long slide in the company shares

and restoring calm after scandals, snafus, and executive departures. Anyway, there's more... Well, speaking of corporate controversy, the Los Angeles Clippers and owner Steve Balmer are accused of paying star Kauai Leonard $28 million for a no-show job as a way to circumvent the NBA salary cap,

according to a report by Pablo Tori. Tori laid out the alleged scandal on his program Pablo Tori finds out earlier today. The show, which features plenty of direct quotes from legal documents, made the argument that Leonard was paid $28 million through a company owned by Balmer to essentially do nothing. Balmer is accused of using this agreement as a way to pay Leonard more than his contract, which, if true, is a violation of NBA rules. The entire situation revolves... I thought there was no tax on tips.

I thought you could just tip a player if you really like them, and wouldn't that not count on the salary cap? Should have just been tipping. I feel like you should have just been tipping. And that tip 28 mil, they're your favorite player on the team. Why not? No, that entire situation revolves around a now bankrupt company called Aspiration, which is a tree planting service funded by Balmer.

So I think tree planting feels like a little bit disingenuous. This was, I think it was a fintech company that had sort of an eco angle to it. It would plant a tree every time you like saved a dollar on the app. Yeah, every time you spend like something like that. And so yeah, Balmer had invested a lot of money in this company. And yeah, they were effectively paying him as. a spokesperson but in the contract with Kauai's one of Kauai's entities stated that Leonard could decline to proceed with any action desired by the company so he

could they could say like hey you want to do this and he could say no no thanks and he would his contract was still you know valid he wasn't wasn't violating anything It is an odd choice. I feel like if you're Balmer and you're a multi-billion, I mean, he's one of the richest people in the world, right? And your goal is to get someone who you're effectively doing business with on the court. He's a basketball player. Your goal is to get him an extra $28 million.

Isn't there a better way to do that? Like, isn't there a way to, like, set up some fund that's, you know, you cut him in on and then you're actually like doing something economically valuable. Go invest, get into Founders Fund, growth fund. I mean, that that's one option. But honestly, it's like, couldn't you just make some calls and get him more Super Bowl ads and get him more like ad deals? Like, just make some calls and get some like legitimate business. Like it doesn't seem like that crazy of a number to try and pull together, like somewhat like much more legitimately.

you know, like there are probably advertisers out there who would say, oh, yeah, like, we'll, we'll pay them a couple million dollars to be like our, you know, the face of our brand. 28 million is a lot, though, for a company that had only raised a couple hundred million dollars. No, what I'm saying is that, like, is it like, I mean, the question, the question to me is like, does he not have to solve power at Microsoft to say, hey, we're rolling out a new version of Excel and you're going to be the face of the campaign? The new clipie is going to be Kauai. A little kawai hanging out.

I love it. Hanging out, helping you and... There's got to be some other way to help. The way is to actually make him an ambassador for the company. I don't think there's anything illegal about somebody, you know, a basketball player getting a major endorsement deal outside of their team. But I think the thing that takes it off is, you know, really big number. And then not doing any, not doing...

They weren't able to find any content. that Kauai was in related to aspiration. So signing this big sort of like... If you sign a deal with a company to promote them, you have to run ads for them. You have to tell the audience about graphite. Code review for the age of AI. Graphite helps teams on GitHub chip higher quality software faster,

get started for free. We will always tell you. They're not paying us to get around the podcast or salary cap. No way. Yeah, I mean, I read this and I just, I was feeling so grateful that we don't have any salary. caps in business. Yes, yes, 100%. We wouldn't have been able to retain. We wouldn't have been able to retain title. I also, I also don't know if I, I don't know that I feel that this story is finished. It feels

like it's viral and there's some allegations, but I will be reserving my judgment until I hear Steve Balmer in quad. Yeah, the Clippers already responded. They said, neither Mr. Balmer nor the Clippers circumvented the salary cap or engaged in any misconduct related to ask. Any contrary assertion is provably false. Yeah, it's like an anonymous inside source from Pablo Torre founds out. I mean, I do think if you care, if you, if you care about basketball and you care about this, if you're another team, are you not like deeply frustrated? If it's true, it might not be true. He might have, he might have been like, yeah, I had a deal.

We signed the deal. It was $28 million. They did not, they were not very good. planting trees, and so they didn't pay me anything, and I didn't do any promotion for them. So, yes, there's technically a contract. Or there could not be a contract. It could be this anonymous source just saying, like, whatever. I mean, this is not an anonymous source.

It says, inside source. I mean, but he's like a capital J. J. Jerno. Pablo Torre? Yeah. Oh, okay. I don't know. Yeah.

He seems to be athletic or something. Doing pretty legit journalism. Okay. But the funny thing is, so Leonard, Leonard joined the Clippers on a three-year, $104 million deal in 2019. re-upped in 2021 for 176 million and then re-uped again in 2024 for a three-year, $149 million extension. And so the $28 million is like almost like a rounding error in all of this. I mean, it's a big number, but at the same time, like would he not have joined the Clippers?

Yeah. Like, would he have gone somewhere else if he hadn't gotten this? Yeah, I don't know. maybe the nature of the salary cap is, like there is more cap space at another, NBA fans in the chat. Yeah, let me know. Does this piss you off or is this fair game for Kauai Leonard

to be the face of, the faceless face of aspiration? Yeah. Aspiration isn't even around anymore. They're chapter 11. There are plenty of sports with no salary caps, right? Where they can just spend as much as possible. Isn't F1 kind of like that?

Maybe Kauai just hates trees and wanted to put this company in the dirt. Who knows? Who knows? Anyway, we have massive news from one of our sponsors, Shane Copeland over at Polly Market. Polymarket has been given the green light to go live in the United States of America by the CFTC. Congratulations to Shane. He has the eagle in his bio or in his name tag. That is the most appropriate sound. effect for today. Credit to the commission and staff for their impressive work. The process has been

accomplished in record timing. Fantastic, fantastic turn of events. What a story. What Mike Wentner's there in the reply saying ban to approval in three and a half years is an absolute speed run. Very, very difficult to get new things done in the government generally. It's very tricky and they figured it out. So congrats to everyone over there. And if you're tracking, if you're tracking any news, head over to Polymarket to check it out. We, of course, have Polymarket powering our ticker down there. Anyway, I want your review of the new Aston Martin Vanquish, particularly this one. This is your favorite color way, right?

Green over tan? Yes. So it's green over tan. It's finished in historic California Sage over 21-inch liquid silver wheels. That features a 5.2-liter V-12 twin turbo with 835 horsepower. hour and 1,001 Newton meters of torque. I absolutely love the vanquish. I think I want to pick one up when they're half off in two years.

You think there'll be a depreciation? I think this is like a half a million dollar car right now. It feels like it's going to be a quarter million dollar car in a couple years. Why do you think, yeah, why do you think Aston Martin's depreciate so much faster than Ferraris? I mean, um, run nature? What's driving at you? One big issue.

over the last few years has been the lack of James Bond movies. Internal electronics have been extremely dated. So until the last two years, they were extremely dated. Isn't that true for Ferrari?

Is Ferrari known for like amazing car play integrations? I mean, not to the same degree. I mean, if you buy a 2021 Asson Martin, it feels like sitting in a car from like 15 years ago. And people just don't like that, right?

Like, I've looked at them and I'm like, if I'm driving this around L.A. Can you just rip all that out and get one of those assets? aftermarket things with like 12, 12 inch subwifers in the back. It's kind of, it's kind of janky. I think you'd put it on spinners and take it to the Pimp My Ride Shop with Exhibit and throw a, throw a TV in the front, I don't know.

Or you can pull off the, you know what the cops do where they put the full laptop next to them? Have you seen that? Or you pull up next to a police officer? Oh, yeah. And they have the full laptop. And you're like, wait, you're pulling somebody over for using their phone. And you're on your laptop.

Oh. You're watching TBPN. Yeah. Little hypocritical, don't you think? Oh, well. But I think this... Yeah, why... I think this will change a little bit.

Do they just make too many of them or something? Lawrence Stroll is out to win in the category. He's taking very seriously. They've up their manufacturers, like, guarantees now. They've made it a much easier decision. We'll see how these do. I still think they lack the kind of like cult the scale of the cold following that obviously Porsche has.

But I think in this case, I like this color way. I think green on tan, the meta, it's timeless, but I think the meta is fading. And brown on brown. Brown and brown. Yeah, you saw brown on brown on brown Porsche at the gym yesterday. And I tried to buy it. Jopped out of the car to go shake the person down.

Tried it. Made it, made a bid. You made a bid? Well, I just said, would you sell me your car? You said that? Yeah. Oh, I didn't realize. That's why he went out.

The woman said no. That's hilarious. But Brown on Brown. The most bullish catalyst for this vanquish going asymptotic and going into the stratosphere in terms of price, Aston Martin is, of course, partnered with public.com. That's right. And so all the public.com fans, the investors who take it seriously, because they have multi-asset investing industry leading yields, trusted by millions, all the public.com fans will buy Aston Martins now.

And Public is a sponsor. of the US Open and some tennis players. So they sent us some balls. Is Aston Martin paying public to, whoa, that's a good sound. Smell it. I don't think, I don't think you're supposed to smell it. That's the rule number one of opening a ball of tennis and tennis ball.

Trying to kill me, John. Anyways, these are fantastic. This is really cool. We got to get it. I mean, we almost have room for court here. Now, are those actually tennis balls or could those be used for some of the less popular sports, the pedal and the pickleball? Oh, I think it would be wrong to use these for anything but tennis.

Does Paddle or Pickle have like this different ball? Pickle ball does. Pickle ball has a own ball. What does Padel use? I don't know. Anyway, thank you to the public. No, Padel have higher pressure thicker, Felt, slightly larger size.

Okay, interesting. Well. Standard tennis balls are, Padil is smaller, I guess. Anyways. Yes. Well, Clarnas going public, and Eli says, oh, that's a good one. It says interest in this IPO, but $35 seems like a lot to pay all at once.

Would it be possible to split this up into four interest-free payments? Of course, there is. Well, I mean, this is what that company is what basic capital is doing. They're basically bringing leverage to the people. for your 401K. Yeah, yeah, pay later. It's very interesting, yeah. I mean, we talked to Max Levchin in a firm.

We've talked to Sebastian at Klarna. And a firm's doing very well. So that probably bodes well for Klarna going out. At the same time, it's oddly competitive. It's kind of shocking to me that there's such a duopoly here and one company hasn't run away with it. Like Shopify has really compounded and compounded and compounded and really defeated a lot of the other ecobley

commerce platforms, but in terms of the payment processors, it's been much more oligopolistic. Maybe it's just because the dynamic of the buyer wants to bid the two against each other. So like the Stripe ad yen dynamic kind of comes to Klarna in a firm. But both really big companies will get to see the financials and dig into Klarna as they go out. Clarnas total revenue in 2024 was $2.8 billion. I'm going to John and I right now. The firm's 2024 revenue is $2.3.3. billion. Wow, they're really,

Clarka made a very narrow profit in 2024, $21 million. 21 million. That's giving up to see it. And so, yeah, they've been cutting, but, uh, I mean,

credit to Klarna for, for getting the scale while competing against, uh, Max LeBchen. It is crazy. That is like a nightmare, uh,

wait, there's also something very, very odd about the, the, the, companies correct and they both compete with like stripe and and affirm these like sort of PayPal mafia ask Silicon Valley firms that have been doing it the very Silicon Valley way like there's this odd dynamic that's in both both companies yeah yeah so one of the things

cutting into Klarna's profitability is there just like credit losses they lost half a billion dollars last year which is more than they spent on sales and marketing interesting and is that just because people sign up for Klarna, they do the buy-na-pay-n-later thing, and they just bail. Like, they buy a burrito and they say, so yeah. Does that make it sense of collections? I imagine it does, but eventually it doesn't get collected. Well, I think part of their value, wasn't there part of their value prop is that it's not tied to your- okay. It's just like completely optional to pay it. Like, it has to hurt your credit score, right? I imagine. Like, I mean, maybe it goes into some sort of database, but the idea that you could

just go around and use buy now pay later willy-nilly and never pay your later bart does not seem sustainable uh anyway if you're looking to slice up a bunch of financial data do it on julius what analysis do you want to run chat with your data and get expert level insights in seconds it's the AI data and analyst that works for you used by princeton bcg and zapier clarna get on julius before you go public for sure thank you later. For sure. Let's go to this tier list by Mertheelius.dev. He's been on the show. Good friend. He says a city tier list that will trigger everyone but is true. S tier is Moscow and Tokyo. A tier is NYC. B tier is Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Singapore, Hong Kong, Istanbul, St. Petersburg, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Kuala Lampur, and Austin.

C tier is Paris, Berlin, Lisbon, Seoul, Chicago, and Rome. D tier is Los Angeles. Come on, Mert, you're doing us dirty here. Of course, I think that L.A. is definitely a D-tier city. I love living in Los Angeles County, but the city, the city itself is mid. Yeah. We should do our own tier list. Can you wipe that down, Tyler? Yeah, start working on a tier list.

Just draw up the S, A, B, C, D, F, and we'll fill in them. We'll throw them out. this is so funny because one of the first replies, SF not even on the list is accurate, and SF is on the list in B-tier. Reading comprehension, not quite there, Sam. Good job. I like the American flag in your bio.

Putting Austin above places like Paris and Berlin. It's a good mug. He did a really good job of like that. No, this is the perfect post. It is a great post. Like, you'll get people that agree and people that disagree, and it's perfectly controversial. Anyways, I got a text from a financial technology expert

that says most BNPL providers don't report to bureaus because the bureau systems haven't been able to use the data intelligently. They've tried to fix, but they're a cluster F. So that's interesting. Klarna is like, hey, we got a lot of people. I mean, the thing that Klarna can obviously do is say, like if somebody buys a burrito and doesn't pay for it, They can just, like, not work with that.

Yeah. So when you try and hit it the second time, you don't get a chance. Yeah. And I'd say most consumers would be like, I want to keep having options. Options, yeah. So I probably pay it back. Yeah. Well, there was a timeline.

I was in turmoil, a little battle between the scrote goat and Nikita Beer. Very interesting. Nikita's having a hilarious time on X. I feel like. He's on an absolute role. I'm so happy that he took. It's really the best. It's just the best.

like narrative arc. It's basically poster and residence. Yeah. But then gets to mold the platform. Totally. And I mean, I think I've been having a good time. I haven't noticed any like really negative changes. It seems like there's some intractable problems.

Dude, it's great. Did you notice the changes they made on video? Like they totally updated the UI. Oh, really? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, with the buttons down at the bottom. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's great. Let's do the tier list now. I've got this account that was rocket, you know, actually adding followers now for getting in this war.

Yeah. And this is Nikita's advice. Remember, he said if you're a tiny account on Twitter, the best thing you can do is go and pick a fight with the biggest account you can find. And that's exactly what this guy is doing. It's so good. So, yeah, Scroat Goat says, like, I have aid followers and they're all bots. And the algorithms keeping my reach from being, like, you know, Like, I'm not getting enough reach.

The only way to get reach is via comments. Nine followers is a byproduct of no reach. And Nikita says, maybe the scrote goat is not the best name for your account. It's, nah, man. Like, if anything, it's an all-timer. People should follow it just for the name. And it worked. And the stroke goat said, The Truth Always Wins.

And Nikita Beer, got 600 likes. And I checked the account. It had a couple hundred followers. So we might be looking at a future Hall of Fame poster. Okay, Tyler, let's do the tier list. I want to go first and then you can do your tier list. Maybe we can just do a little line down the center. Can you do a line down the center?

Like, after the city tier list? Like, a little bit farther, a little bit farther so that we can put mine. Okay, so, yeah, that's fine. So I'll start with F tier. I'll agree with Mert. I'll put London in F tier, just like Mert did. and Mert also has Toronto and Brussels. He has it in D-tier.

I'll leave Toronto and Brussels in F-tier as well. So for me, I think we're good, yeah. So put Toronto and Brussels in F-tier. Then for L.A. Have you been to Toronto and Brussels? Yeah, terrible. Then Los Angeles, he put it in D-tier. I'll actually go S-tier.

I love L.A. It's fantastic. I'll put L.A. there. In C tier, he has Paris, Berlin, Lisbon, Seoul, and Rome. I would, as a little controversial, I would put those in F tier. So I'd put Paris, Berlin, Lisbon, Seoul. So Paris, Berlin, Lisbon, Seoul, and Rome, all in F tier. Then for in B tier, he put San Francisco and Austin.

I put those in S tier, so put those up there. And then he put Dubai in B tier. This is going to be a little controversial, but I would put Dubai in F tier, yeah. He also put Hong Kong in B tier. Sensing a pattern. I think that's F tier. Let's put Hong Kong down there. And then also Istanbul.

I'd put that in F tier. And then New York City, he put it in A tier. I'd put it in S tier. And then also I'd also add Phoenix in S tier and Philadelphia. Just put Philly. and then San Diego. Have you been to San Diego? I absolutely put an S-tier.

And then Dallas, let's put Dallas in S-tier. And you got Chicago? Oh, you missed Chicago. Chicago's obviously S-tier. Okay, cool. Yeah, we're good. And then Moscow and Tokyo, he had them in S-tier. Let's go D-tier.

Let's go D-tier. D-tier. No, no, no, no. Tyler, what are you doing? What are you doing? D-tier, Moscow, and Tokyo. We'll give them a bone. And so this is kind of like how I think of the city

tier list. But your view of the world, rather than my world view right now. And so, yeah, I mean, you can see some patterns. You're probably, the next time your passport expires, you probably won't even renew it, right? Like, what do I need a passport for?

Why would I have, I have a long list of S-tier city. I could be in Philly. I could be in Philly right now. Why would I go to Tokyo? Why would I go to London, London, Paris, Rome. And I could be in Baltimore.

The London of Pennsylvania. The London of the East. Baltimore, Maryland. Anyway, what about you, Jordy? Do you want to take a crack? I don't think I can... I don't think I can... I don't think I can...

My only controversial... I mean, I don't... Oh, we got some questions in the chat. How are we feeling about Charlotte, North Carolina? Ast-tier, for sure. I think it's astere. Yeah, Charlotte is probably Ast-tier. It's part of the...

Isn't it part of the Research Triangle? It's one of the greatest places to New Orleans. How do we miss Nola? Throw Noah in the S-tier. New Orleans is definitely S-tier. Oh, Mark says it's not S-tier. Maybe we've got to move it down to A-tier. I don't know, Nola is not that good.

The lonely A-tier city. Yeah, no, okay, anyway. Oh, good stuff. Yeah, but you can admit that L.A. is S-tier in the, in that it's sunny hundreds of days a year and it's absolutely stunning but functionally it's a terrible city

here's a tough one where would you put Pyongyang people love Pygian I love PIF the Pyongyang Investment Fund yeah highly authoritarian some people are into that these days limited food option

I don't think you could put Pyongyang in Est here but I think it's It's definitely within the top. Do you remember when 4chan tried to send Justin Bieber to Pyongyang? Do you see this? Oh, this is amazing. This is like one of the greatest, like the internet does something funny.

So Justin Bieber put up a poll online saying, I will pick my next tour date. I'm going on a world tour. I'll let the fans vote. And if the fans vote for a particular city, I'll go to that city. And so, of course, the fans voted for North Korea. You've got to go to North Korea. And it was like a classic lesson in like, do you. not let the internet decide anything.

You could pick any, you could, yeah, you could pick any city. Suggest the city. You could suggest any city. And he was like, I'll go where the fans want me to go. Where do I have the most fans? Of course the fans were like, go to North Korea. They need to be like, I'm not going to North Korea. Anyway, thank you for doing the city tier list.

Now let me tell you about turbo puffer. Search every byte server list. We puffin. And full text search built from first principles and object storage. Fast, 10x cheaper and extremely scalable. If you're seeing- You want to be like cursor, you want to be like notion,

you want to be like linear. Can we pull that up again? Look at this website. This is honestly the biggest reason why I was excited to partner with them was you have to go to their website. It's so beautifully designed

and it's so, the layout is awesome. We officially puffin. We're puffin, baby. And you should too. Yeah, go check out Turbo Puffer. Anyway, let's move on to another Nikita Post.

Yep. Nikita says... Nikita's apparently gets a lot of DMs from people that gets their accounts suspended for spam. They say, I wasn't spamming. I was just commenting the same thing on every post, regardless of the context. Elizabeth Holmes says, Dear Nikita, rumors swirl that my account's been hijacked for a crypto rugpole. Not true, it hasn't. Please don't suspend me unless I start chilling a coin for then it's surely compromised.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. You got to know. We got to know. I mean, she's mixing a lot of stuff in here. So my theory is that it's the husband. I don't think that, I think it's hard to get access to a phone and post from prison. We should have Martin Screlli on again to discuss,

like the theories behind what's going on here. Could she get a printed out, like, you know, could she get 100 posts a day delivered to her that are just like basically letters? You can get fan mail letters. And then she could write back. Replies, absolutely. Letters one by one. What are the timestant?

on here two hours ago 845 a.m. It feels like it's too quick of a turnaround at the same time. There have been reports of like mob bosses, gang members in prison who get access to cell phones that get smuggled in. I mean, all sorts of stuff gets smuggled into prisons. They're not the most secure places. They're designed to keep people in, not necessarily keep everything out. So they bribe someone, they get something in. And there was a case where I believe in L.A. there was a gang member who was calling hits on people from prison, like organizing crimes from inside the clink. So not very good. And yes, SBF did do the pod from prison. I'm not sure how they did that. It might have been over the prison phone. No, but he was, he got in trouble at the prison for doing

yeah, but I don't actually know the rules. Like, are you allowed to do pods in prison over the cell phone? Like, I don't, can you record that? It feels like building, I know that after you go to prison, you can't sell your life rights. Like, you can't make a bunch of money off of selling the rights to movie or your book. I think it just doesn't work like that. I actually don't know enough about it. We should we should dig in much more and do a whole deep dive. Tyler, did you have something else? Do you want to share on Peter Elizabeth Holmes? I was just going to bring up the SBF thing. I mean, he had a laptop. So I don't know. But was he posting too? Is he still posting? I don't know. If he was, like the novelty kind of like wore off for sure. Either way,

Elizabeth Holmes got to clean up her SEO results. She's got to get her brand mention in chat. No, she doesn't. But serious businesses do, and serious businesses need to use Profound. You need to get your brand mentioned in ChatGPT. Reach millions of consumers who are using AI to discover new products and brands. More important than ever in the age of agentic commerce. What's coming is a lot of consumers buying a lot of things through ChatGipa. Discovering, learning, through LLMs.

You need to know how you're showing up, and Profound helps you do that. So, you know. This was, this is crazy. Morning Brew has some, a, highlight from the athletic. Stream East, the world's largest illegal sports streaming platform shut down in a sting. They had 80 unauthorized domains, 136 million average monthly visits, and 1.6 billion total visits in the last year, the digital equivalent of catching black beer.

Whoever writes for Morning Brew? Fantastic. Fantastic post. So Stream East was the bane of Dana White's existence. UFC, I'm sure. Yeah, so a lot of the pay-per-views were streamed over here. And I would assume that this platform alone, you know, accounted for a billion-plus of, like, lost revenue for the UFC.

It's been operating for years. Anybody from anywhere in the world could just tune in and watch a pay-per-view. And I think that this was like a game of whack-a-mole. Like they had all these different domains. They'd be buying every time they spin up a new. domain, they have one getting shut down and people are just like, you know. I wonder if they're, this is, this is oddly timed. Because if you think about it, like what's, what's coming in the next couple weeks that

would be illegally streamed? That's not going to be publicly streamed that everyone's going to want to watch. It's obviously the Antichrist lectures in San Francisco, Peter Thiel's hosting. Yeah. So they shut that down. They shut down this because people were going to go there with a phone and live stream it. But you know everything's off. the record, right? What do you think, Tyler? Would you be tuning in on streamies, breaking the rules?

Yeah, so, like, I personally have a, I have a couple guys there who are going, I have a plug, you know, my personal streaming. Yeah. But, yeah. Oh, so they're going to like FaceTime you and you can just watch. Well, it'll be sitting in their pocket. Okay, okay, okay, okay. I'm not going to reveal on. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I was trying to think of like, uh, like, why am I not familiar with this? Why am I, this is the first time I'm hearing about stream East. It's because like, well, I don't watch sports is at all. And I can't think of anything that I would want to watch that's behind. I've never bought a pay-per-view in my life.

You just reload off of Rob and David. Yep, yep. I freeload off of you for sure. Nice, dude. For sure. And other than that, I mean, are there other, are there, was their entire business just like UFC piracy? Like what else is?

No, no, all sports. Because there's people that don't have cable. Oh, so you want to get the NFL game. Yeah, Tyler, what you said. Baseball. Yes. So, like, I also don't really watch sports, but at school in college, streammeist is like, I mean, everyone knows streamiest. Like, that's, like, basically the default rather than, I mean, some people have, like, the cable equivalent or something.

Yeah. But, yeah, every UFC, every football game. And they were monetizing, like, crazy, right? Because they have 136 million visits. Imagine how much sports betting sign up. Can you pull a list of all your friends who are using streamies so we can contact the authorities and make sure that they... Let's include them in the sting. Yeah, let's get...

They owe Dana White money, and we're going to collect. Okay? Or Uncle Dana. You know, I have a funny story. I have a buddy in college who was very much into watching football, did not have cable. And I go over to his like Harvard dorm room and he pulls up a website and he's like, I can watch sports on here. I can watch my Raiders, even though they're not even like the Raiders game is so local to, I guess they were in Oakland at the time. that like even if you paid, you'd have to be on like the highest tier of NFL Sunday ticket to get access to a cross-country game.

Like you could, like if you were, if you were at school in Boston, you could get like Nesson, the local regional sports network, New England Sports Network. And you could see the Patriots games. And then the local news channel or the local sports channel would show you like the local games. Like you'd probably see like the, I don't know, the New York, what is it, the Giants like they'd play and like they'd be local. So they'd be played. But you couldn't just go see the Raiders. unless you pay the highest year. It was really expensive.

No one wanted to pay. And so he gets out of his laptop. He pulls up this website. And he's like, I can watch the Raiders on this website. Do you know what website it was? Justin.tv. No way. Yeah.

And it was the funniest thing because he explains it to me. He's like, yeah, anyone can go on Justin TV. This is pre-Twitch. They're saying we should citizens arrest Tyler's friends for using streamies. Yeah, yeah. Can you? Yeah, guys, no show tomorrow. Can you invite them?

that we're hiring like tons of interns and they pay really high and like they got to get out here. Just it's a one week and we'll arrest. We'll arrest. On the street. In support of Dana White. But so my buddy pulls up Justin TV and is like, yeah. Apparently Mark in the chat says LeBron uses streamies. What?

I guess he was he like, I feel like I remember this. Was he like caught? Oh, I've seen this. Well, a lot of people do this. Oh, F1 was big on streaming. Yeah, that makes sense. A lot of people do it just because it's a hassle to figure out how to do the pay, How to pay.

Trey says I would never watch streamies because then I wouldn't see the local ads. That's an affront to the advertising industry. Thank you. Thank you, Trey. Thank you for supporting big television advertising. So my buddy is watching Justin TV.

Justin TV had all sorts of crazy because anyone could spin up a stream so people would do all sorts of crazy stuff. The gaming thing was the first intersection of like, oh wow, this is legal and growing. And it's a niche that no one else is catering to. Like G4 TV existed, which was a TV channel just for video games.

And it was like scripted content and talk shows and interview shows. They had a whole bunch of stuff. But there wasn't that much video game content. So like they eventually pivoted into Twitch and figured out that that was the right thing. But before they pivoted, Justin TV was playing whackamol with all the scammers, all the illegal streams. And it was like a huge hassle. And of course you get adult content and all sorts of stuff.

And it's a interesting challenge for a platform like that that's trying to bootstrap itself and get a lot of content and users because that's some of the most in-demand content is like an NFL game. Look at the visits on this. Stream East had 136 million average. They're like, we got to take, we got to knock out these illegal streams,

but at the same time. Isn't that more than all of F1 combined or something like that? Yeah, I think they get... Hasn't F1 at like 100 million or something like that? No, they get like a few million live viewers in the U.S. And then an incremental 100 million on Stream East. And so, yeah, they should be,

selling those ads. Hey, if you're putting your logo on a F1 car, it's going to be seen on stream E. So you've got to pay up. Anyway. Wait, this, should we pull up this video, this hot mic moment? Yes, but I want to close that. So my buddy is like Justin TV is explaining to me. And he's like, he describes it to me as like, there's just a guy named Justin, and he has a website where you can watch this stuff and didn't have this conception. And it kind of was that way. But really, it's like there was a team behind it and Amit Shear was there and a bunch It probably wasn't Justin and Emmett.

No, at that point they probably had 10 or 20 people. But there was this moment in like 2007, 2008 where like people didn't realize that websites were companies that had organizations and stocks and like could become like massive like Facebook. Like like in 2005 when people were first introduced to Facebook, they were like, oh, it's like some kid at Harvard like put up a website. Justin was so early. Yeah. Well, if you're trying to build the next great streaming platform, do it legally and do it using linear. Linear is a purpose-built tool for planning and building products.

Meet the system for modern software development, streamline issues, projects, and product roadmaps. Start building on linear. Let's pull up the hot mic moment on CTTV. First, Truth Zone, is this real or is this dubbed and faked? Like, this says this was picked up by Bloomberg. This seems crazy. I would like to know if this is real, but let's play it,

and then we'll decide it's real. Yep, Bloomberg. Confirmed? Okay, so this is Seesion Pink. talking about it. Wait, we can't see the subtitles. Okay, start it over. Yeah, what are the subtitles?

No, they're here. That. What's he saying? These days, 70 years old. Earlier people rarely lived, but these days, 70 years, you're still a child. You're still a child. That's amazing. Putin speaks inaudible.

How are they picking this up on this microphone? This is so rough. With the development of biotechnology, human organs can be continuously transplanted and people can live younger and younger and even achieve immortality. Mortality. Wow. predictions are this century, there's a chance of living to 150 years old. That is crazy. She is, he's like, I'm just getting started actually.

I'm down. Extremely bullish for new limits. bullish for a new limit, Jacob Kimmel. True, true. Extremely bullish. Speaking of old people, guess who the oldest billionaire in America is?

His names, or guess how old he is? The oldest billionaire in America. 94. You're 10 years short. 1004? 1004 in September. He founded the insurer, Mercury General

in 1961. His name is George. Joseph. We got to get a founders episode on this guy if there isn't already won. That is an incredible run. 61. That's that's what 50 years before Tyler was born. The chat's calling it BT before Tyler. B.T. B.T. The journal has a fun article deep diving. All the biggest billionaires in America. He also has non-traditional background. He actually got his bachelor's degree at Harvard. The youngest to oldest,

anonymized mostly. The Coke and Coke Jr. are under 30. They're billionaires. Selina Gomez and Taylor Swift are under 40. While 86% of the billionaires are men, more than 150 out of the thousand that the Wall Street Journal collected are women,

including Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift. Mark Zuckerberg's in his 40s. has a huge circle here on this graphic. Musk, Page, Brin, these guys are all top in the charts. Elon Musk is at $423 billion. The next richest person, Jeff Bezos, is worth $283 billion. Of course, $423 billion. There's only 300 million Americans,

so that's enough to make every American a millionaire if he just gave his money away. But it's way better for him to keep it because he gets to do all the cool stuff with it. Yeah. Sick. Illinois, Governor J.B. Pritzker

and President Trump are among more than 360 billionaires who started with some inherited wealth. Just a bit. Jensen Wong's on here. Steve Ballmer's on here.

He's almost 70. The Walton's are on here and they're in their 70s. Milken's on here. He's almost 80. What a run to go to jail, come out, still hold on to a billion.

Not bad. Larry Ellison's in a great conference. Gaparck. Fenn's on here. George Lucas is on here. It's a murderer's row. You love it.

Rockefeller. There's still a Rockefeller. Who's alive? Who's Rockefeller? So did you cover this? Collectively, these people, you were joking, but these people are worth

$5.7 trillion. That's enough wealth to buy a Corvette Stingray convertible for every 65 plus U.S. driver. Wait, did you actually do this, Matt? The journal did this? Yeah. That's hilarious.

So that's $4.7 trillion. A four-year Harvard tuition, room and board for 1 million students plus $10,000 annual stipend only 388 building. How much are they worth in total? 5.7 trillion. I am deaf. Congratulations. All the stock in McDonald's, Delta Airlines, Ford, and Lulu Lemon.

There we go. And every residential property in Chicago, $245 billion with $8 billion to spare. That was not that impressive. This is a weird stat from the journal. So they collected, what, 1,135 billionaires. So I got to put their stats in the True Stone because if you tried to buy a Corvette Stingray for every 65 plus U.S. driver, the price is going to go way, way, way up. You're going to get, you're going to hit real scarcity real quick.

You might be able to lease a Model 3 for everyone. But is this not like an incredibly, an incredibly, like, an incredibly, like, an incredibly, Like, you could get a Corvette for every American 65 plus, a four-year degree for one million students. You could buy McDonald's, Delta, Ford, and Lou Lemon, and some property in Chicago. And that's the journal saying, like, look how much they have to spare. Can you imagine how long it would take to calculate all the sales tax for all those Corvette Stingray purchases? I don't even want to think about it. I'd rather spend five minutes.

I'd rather spend five minutes with numeral sales tax and autopilot, spend less than five minutes per month on sales tax. In fact, it's the only way you could actually execute that deal to buy 300 million Corvette Stingrace. But this is a funny stat. So billionaires are everywhere. So they track 1,000 billionaires, right? In the U.S., they own more than 3,000 homes. That's only three per person? I feel like that's not that many.

Like if you're a billionaire and a house is like 10, 20 million. These must be residential properties, but still that seems extremely low. 300 homes. Yeah, it seems like the data was not like. widely available. I feel like they must have like, oh, that's only what they could like pull together, but there's a lot more homes. A lot of these billionaires are not, like 20 homes just in Powell. A lot of these, only only a third of them inherited wealth, meaning that that the other 700 or so are not beating the American dream allegations. This is the real headline here. Seven hundred billionaires

in America are not beating the American dream allegation. They were born. They didn't inherit anything. and they created billions of dollars of wealth. They're not beating the allegations. They're not beating the allegations. They are living the American dream. They can't deny it. Started without inherited wealth. Nothing. And now they own not one, not two, but three homes on average. What's funny is I feel like I heard this story about like Bill Gates owns like a thousand homes or something like that or like all the land or whatever.

I know. I know a beaner. Ken Griffithy owns 50 homes. You don't even have to be a beaner to be to be just collecting homes on the fly, just browse and, I feel like I see a guy on Instagram every day, buy a fourplex, buy seven homes, rent them out, make a billion dollars. I'm assuming this is like residential, so it's not like units. It's like what they actually, yeah.

Like one real estate developer billionaire would own more than 300 homes you think. Isn't BlackRock counted? Doesn't BlackRock own like a bigillion homes or something like that? Isn't that the conspiracy? They own 105% of all the homes in America. But that's just because they're counting the tents at Burning Man in Black Rock City as individual homes. If you take those out,

I mean, like, you can't count a Black Rock tent as a Black Rock owned home because it's not really a permanent home. It doesn't make any sense. I don't get it. Also, underrated Alpha.

If you're trying to be the only billionaire in a state, you've got to go to Wyoming and Alaska because there's no billionaires with primary businesses in Wyoming and Alaska. Primary businesses? Primary businesses. So, like, you know. So just move your business there.

Yeah. I mean, Alaska, it's just sitting there waiting. It is crazy that Wyoming, I feel like they're super like crypto friendly. You think there'd be somebody who like went and built some massive thing there, but it hasn't happened. At least not yet. Jack on X said Costco should get into web services. Kirkland Cloud would clean up. It really would. I would be rep in Kirkland Cloud. We would build on Kirkland. This is interesting. Sheel highlights German discount grocer Lytle. Lydell? Okay. Little, sure. Lytle. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Built their own cloud infrastructure

because of German data laws and now has a $2 billion revenue business selling it to other. No way. Oh, it actually worked. If you're a retailer, get into cloud. Neo cloud. Get into cloud. Costco should do neocloud.

Buy GPUs, by the bulk. By Iraq. Do you get this meme, the Dr. Strange tweet, or how I learned to love the RT, just after the, just after the Seizan Peng and Vladimir Putin were caught on a hot Mike.

There's this meme of this woman looking at this screen, and this is the, this is the, what would you? No, I don't, I miss, I missed the original meme. Tyler,

you were born, uh, do you understand this meme? Do you understand this meme? When it's the woman looking at the screen? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

It's from some Netflix documentary or Apple TV. Yeah. I never watched a show, me either. Yeah. Uh, I think it's like, it's just like a boomer meme.

It's like, oh, like the old woman is like, doesn't understand the internet. Wow. We are boomers because we don't understand the boomer meme. Yeah, it's kind of a meta-boomer take. I don't know.

It's a boomerang. It comes right back. It's always like her looking at the screen is like, oh, what do they mean by this? I'm curious to know what the actual show is because the original photo of that meme, it looked, it looked cinematic. It looked interesting. And of course, I have to watch 100% of the movies around here since Jordy isn't lifting his weight. anyway do you see this

interaction between Daniel Tenriro and Rune? Do you think this is real? So Daniel says Hedge fund guys are so much more fun to spend time with than tech guys rigorous, irreverent, and don't have their heads up,

their own butts. And Rune says, Bro, tweeted this five minutes after we got done hanging out. And do you think it's real? Do you think this actually happened? He's a trolling Rune? Or do you think this is just completely random?

I think, taking the opportunity. I think Rune is an S-F. and I think Daniel's in New York City. Roon's been on a little trip, but he was in L.A. briefly. I didn't get a chance to meet up with him, but I do want to hang out with him soon. Hedge fund guys are serious guys. Serious?

That's what I'm saying. He's a irreverent. That's the opposite of serious. No, they're serious about making money. More serious than venture capital. This is what, Jeremy Giffon take, that investors are more interesting than founders. The Fox and the Hedgehog thing, right? Is that a public take?

Yeah, it was at the founders. It was at the founders event with David Center, which I don't know if that was ever streamed or released. So maybe it's not, but you're leaked. Sorry, bro. I mean, yeah, founders that are, the average founder that is incredibly locked in knows a lot about their business and their market, not a lot about other things. Yep. And it's more difficult to be a generational investor, you know, only knowing about it super narrow. It's like the fox and the hedgehog, right? That's the analogy.

The Fox knows a little bit about a lot of different things. The hedgehog knows one big thing. That's like the mind, what's it called? Like the mindset. The, what is it called? Like the framework. The mental model. The mental model that's people talk about.

He's got like sort of spiky intelligence. The hedgehog? That completely blows up the metaphor. Because the metaphor is that the hedgehog only knows one thing. And in fact does not have spiky intelligence. Oh, I guess it does. You know, you're right. Spiky intelligence.

because it's actually better now. That's fantastic. Yeah, okay. Yeah, we need to expand on the Fox and the Hedgehog metaphor, for sure. Anyway, Finn.aI, the number one AI agent for customer service, number one in performance benchmarks, number one in competitive bakeoffs, number one, ranking in G2. You want some spiky intelligence.

Spike that intelligence right into your customer service organization. Smart. It's the best place to spike the intelligence. Spike the football after you. Do it. Bring AI-enabled service to your organization. to your organization. Vitorio says incredible white pill.

Scientists just mapped how aging rewires our genes. They found universal switches that control decline. Basically, aging is a coordinated epigenetic drift, of which we now have the Atlas. We will solve aging in our life. Maybe Putin and Xi Jinping were reading Vitorio. Yeah, just, yeah. They probably follow Vitorio.

And right before that clip started, they were like, oh, did you see what Vittorio posted? And they're like, yeah, we're going to live to 150. But yeah, Vitoria is like the best. And that's where I got my news from. Yeah, just a couple 72-year bros following Vitoria. I like to think that they both, both Putin and Xi Jinping have a non's on X through VPNs. They just scroll the timeline like the rest of us.

I can see it. It is possible. It is funny if you assume that organ trans, you know, if they assume that organ transplants are the solution to immortality, why are they assuming like 150? is the cap. Yeah. Is by that point, you're so, such a mix of different parts.

It's not really you anymore. Well, you're a ship of Theseus. Yeah. Yeah. You have no original parts anymore. Yeah. So you're like entirely new up.

I mean, that's the classic, classic question. If you, if you swap out everything but your brain, it feels like it's still you. Isn't there crazy,

isn't there crazy stories around like heart transplants, like changing? Your soul? Yeah, your personality. Really? No way. I had no idea.

I haven't seen that. What do you think, Tyler? Well, I mean, you're already a sympatheticist because, like, your sales die. Oh, true. But I think it's more likely that Xi Jinping and Putin have been watching Dorcasch. Yes. And saw the Jacob Kim Lips. That's probably true.

That's probably true. Yeah, so. I mean, I would be surprised since Dworkesh is, like, the foremost interview scholar on China right now. I'm being serious. Yeah, no, 100%. Like, that makes sense. And apparently podcasts are booming there. Did you see that post about how, like, China seems to be going through some sort of, like, boom of translated,

American podcast content that's doing very well there. So stay tuned. I'm on Gemini. The idea that a heart transplant can change a person's personality is fascinating, controversial. The medical community broadly says that personality, these sort of psychological changes that happen after heart surgery are due to trauma and side effects from the medication.

But there's more speculative ideas around how potentially memories are stored in places other than the brain. And so, and what happens, there's, there's people that report, like, personality changes that mirror the donors, the person that, that, that, uh, the original person's heart gets transferred into the new host. And then, and then the new host starts being, being and acting more like the original donor, which is crazy. That is actually crazy.

So anybody in the chat, if you've had a, if you've had a heart transplant. Maybe we should get our hearts swapped. like face off, which a movie you haven't seen I know, but in the movie face off, Nicholas Cage and John Travolta take their faces off and swap faces because of some convoluted thing

where one of them is a criminal and one of them's a one of them's a hardened criminal who has some information about where like a bomb will go off or something like that and then the and then the special agent needs to go

undercover as the criminal and so they swap faces. and then they, of course, the actors just play each other, and then they go on a... I don't know what our... If we did a heart swap, it would just be... It would just be more golden retriever mode activation. I don't know if...

I don't know how much it would do. Do you want to kick off this article about Open AI? I would rather tell you the full plot of face-off, actually. Okay. Tell it to me. I'll be listening. Okay, perfect. So FBI Special Agent, Sean Archer, survives an assassination attempt by Kassi. Troy, a terrorist for hire, but the bullet kills his son, Michael. Archer then engages in an extended

vendetta against Troy. It culminates six years later in his team ambushing Troy, who is with his younger brother and accomplice. Polu? Poloks. On a remote desert airstrip, Troy goads Archer by saying he knows of a bomb that is located somewhere in Los Angeles and is set to explode in a few days. I was correct about the bomb. Before Archer can learn more, Troy is knocked on and falls into a coma, Palo, Palux. I need to figure out how to pronounce that. The guy in custody affirms that the bomb is real but refuses to reveal its location.

In secret, Archer reluctantly undergoes a highly experimental face transplant procedure by Dr. Malcolm Walsh to take on Castor Troy's face, voice and appearance. Archer as Troy is taken to the same high security prison where Paloo is being held in order to obtain information on the bomb's location. Troy. Got some visuals for you, John.

Oh, you got it? Yeah, this is great. Troy unexpectedly awakens from his coma and discovers that his face is missing. He calls his gang and they force Dr. Walsh to transplant Archer's face onto him. Meanwhile, Archer successfully learns the bomb's location from Palu before being informed that he has a visitor. Anticipating a reunion with his colleague and return to his normal life, Archer instead finds Troy wearing his face upon revealing he has murdered everyone else who knows about the face transplant. Troy gleefully informs Archer that he looks forward to running his FBI career and ravishing his wife.

That's a great film. It's a classic 90s. Is it 90s? When did this come out? 1997. Thriller. You got to watch it. It's the best.

I'll add it to my list. You should. You should for when the singularity hits. Do we have the singularity tracker up and running yet or is it working, Tyler? What do we got? How many days until... Right now it's at 344. 344 days?

344 days until what? What are we saying? Until AGI? Until AGI. Until AGI. You need a light on... Hold it up. We can't really see it.

Yeah, you need a light. You need a light on that. But we got a ticker. We got an analog date tracker. We will be tracking the amount of days until the singularity. Sam Altman said that the singularity is just a few thousand days away.

Wasn't that what he said? How did Sam Altman exactly describe the few thousand days? He said, superintelligence is a few thousand days away? Super intelligent AI. So that's ASI. So AGI is here, essentially.

Let's see, thousand days. So super-intelligence. is a few thousand days away. According to Sam Altman, Tyler Cosgrove has a much shorter timeline, apparently, just 300 days. We're booting up for ASI in 300 days. Yeah, we've got to do better on the lighting here. We're getting some crazy reflections in that thing. Maybe we need to take off the front, you know, take off the glass so we can just see it fully. But anyway, realistically, how many days do you think should go on there, Tyler? timeline to ASI.

So it's ASI. It's super intelligent. Sam Altman puts it in a few thousand days. I count a few as three. A few is three. A couple is two. What's a few is three? What do you think a few means?

Do you think a few could be four? How many is a few? I would maybe put more at a handful. More than two, but less than a significant amount. A couple often implies two. A few usually starts at three or more, which can extend to small, indetermined quality that is not many, the exact number depends heavily on the context and what is being discussed. So could a few be six?

Max is saying it feels pretty gentle. Yeah, yeah, it is a gentle singularity for sure. I was going to say 3,000 days, which is 10 years, right? 3,000 365. Yeah, I've updated my... Oh, wow, ultra-bearish. Short everything. I don't think it's...

How many years is that? 99999 divided by 365? That is 273 years away. You got to be more optimistic than that, Tyler. Do we do the OLLIG? All EG, somebody asked OLLIG how many days until the singularity? 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99. I, realistically, I'm at 6,000 days.

I'm on Kurzweil timelines. Kurzweil timelines put us at maybe even more, honestly, maybe maybe 7,000 days. You put it in GTA terms? Like is that GTA 7 or 8? GTA 7, probably. So, so I'm on 2045 ASI. Kurzweil timelines.

I remain unchanged by any developments, essentially. So 2045 ASI arrives. It's the singularity. And so I'm around 7,000 days. Sam Allman said a few thousand. Is seven a few? I don't know. We'll decide.

But Tyler, feel free to feel free to update that to whatever you think is the correct estimate for when ASI arrives. Jordy, you've gone from not AGI-pilled to extremely AGI-pilled, back to, you know, top signal, Maxer, extremely AGI-N-Pilled. How are you feeling about the progress towards superintelligence? I think we're a few thousand days away. I think there's only, it feels like there's very small number of people that have any, like, like, like, a real sense of the truth

and they're all extremely conflicted. They all have no incentive to tell you that it's... They have an incentive to be... They try to be a little realistic about it, but they have no incentive to say you know, we're 10 years away or it just all feels... But you specifically don't have

foundation model lab bags. You have adio.com or adio bags, customer relationship magic. Adio is the AI native CRM that builds scales and grows your company in the next level. Obviously, Adio has their own timelines, but what are your timelines? My, I don't even know if it's the right. Are you over under my estimate of 7,000 days until super intelligence and a singularity? Me and Ray Kurzweil riding together. Are you earlier or later? This is self-reinforcing. Oh on, super intelligent, smarter than everyone, can do any job, can do.

anything. Can make itself smarter. Yes, and it's just like it's a thing that just runs. You know, one-shots anything. Full self-reinforcing. Who knows? Maybe it goes to war.

Maybe it just leaves, you know. But it is fully... Definitely more than a decade. Definitely more than a decade out. Yep. So over 3,000 days for sure. That's the low end of Sam Altman's prediction. Yeah, I just still find it

hard to believe entirely. So maybe never. Maybe infinite days. You could be in the 9-99-99-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9. So this is the update to take, actually, from some of the AI-pilled people, they will say, it either happens very soon or it doesn't happen at all, which is kind of a funny way to frame it. But if you put it in those terms, if it happens, 10 years, 20 years,

30 years? What are you feeling? I just feel like it'll end up being, I think we're going to continue to get more and more advanced capabilities. But I don't, I just believe that even the, even the smartest people in the room, like, clearly we're getting machines that are just more intelligent and capable in many ways than humans. But you can take, you can take an, and I just sort of disagree. with like the ramp that will come from that, right? Because if you took, if you took a thousand of the smartest people in the world and put them in a room and you say like solve world hunger or like get us to Mars, it's like they're not gonna do it and it doesn't work, it's not gonna happen in a year. Yep.

Like if you take a really smart group of people like with SpaceX and you say, get to Mars, say like, great, well, we're gonna work on this for decades, right? And so I just, I disagree with, or I don't believe in this, I don't believe in the fast takeoff. I believe that machines will continue to get smarter and smarter and more capable and more valuable to humanity, but I don't believe in a fast takeoff. It is somewhat of an abstraction of that philosophical question of like, can God create a rock

so heavy he can't lift it? Like can a human create something that's smarter than a human in every way? Like how would that work? There is sort of like a fundamental philosophical question. Yeah, and also, like, raw intelligence is rarely the bottleneck for progress. That's a very good point. Yeah. I don't know.

I still am rooting for the Terminator outcome, where superintelligence comes around 2045. We go to war, and the indomitable human spirit wins out, and we kill all the robots, and we win. I think that would be the most exciting outcome. That would be fun. Because you, it would be so unifying to humanity to have a common enemy, the clanker. Humanity needs a true common enemy. Exactly. There's so much infighting.

I don't want to manifest like an alien race that wants to destroy us, but it'd be so good for the world. We could stop. Fantastic. We could ignore all politics and just focus on. Imagine the dream team. Siegian Ping, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, all your boys working together to shoot the clankers. Be great. It'd be amazing.

And the funny thing is that the DOOMers will come to you and they'll say, A uniform that just says human race. Haven't you seen the Terminator? That's what's going to happen if we create AI. We're going to get the Terminator outcome. Well, I've seen Terminator. I know you haven't. But I've seen Terminator.

What happens in Terminator? Who wins at the end of Terminator? The humans. The humans win at the end of Terminator. That's the conclusion of the movie. They fight and the humans win. And so if we get the Terminator outcome, that means we win. That means we win.

And that's going to be a lot of fun. So, tool up, get the guns, get ready to fight the clankers. We're going to war, but not for the next two decades. It's going to be two decades of enterprise SaaS. It's going to be two decades of shareholder value. Cruel. And it's going to be two years of delightful rest on an eighth sleep. Get a pod five, five-year warranty, 30-night risk-free trial, free returns, free shipping.

Fantastic. Here we go. I put up an 84. Not my best. And I got a 90. So please play my your on a roll. Thank you.

Congratulations, John. I am on a role. And you know who else is on a role? Microsoft has been on a role. And we have the chief product officer of Microsoft joining us in TBPN Ultradome. The final boss of product people. This is the true gatekeeper to our plan

to bring back Clippy. So we will welcome the CPO. Welcome to the stream. How are you doing? What's happening? I think we can hear you. How are you doing? Okay.

Yes. Fantastic. Thanks so much for hopping on the stream. So just so you know. What was that? I said there's many bosses, but Clippy is the ultimate boss. Yes, Clippy is the ultimate boss. Has Clippy actually been thrown around as an idea?

It feels like more and more, you know, mega companies. Like the huge companies are starting to have a little bit more. fun every once in a while. It is a bit of a wild. I've seen some like throwback Microsoft merch that's gotten out. Is there any serious discussion internally to think about reviving Clippy? I feel like it would be so much fun. Dude, I'm with you. I feel like, um, unironically, creepy was just like early, right? Yeah, totally. Totally. The original conversation. Early and right. Interface. Interface. Anyway, would you mind introducing yourself and give us a little bit of an overview of like what your day-to-day actually looks like.

It's such a huge organization. There's so much to do. But I'd love to have a little bit more context on what you oversee and what your role actually looks like. Yeah. Let me give you the low round of me. I've been at Microsoft for two years of the chief product officer for AI at work.

So focused on kind of like, how do you make work great again with AI? And before that, I was at Robin Hood. And before that, I was at Google for many years. But I think a steel thread through all of this for me as being like the way I think about this bringing near future science fiction and putting it in product and making sure that billions of people have it. So I did that with Google search. And then I founded this area called Google Lens with, you know, the camera turns into a search engine. And of course, Robin Hood for first-time investors.

And at Microsoft, my focus has been and our team's focus has been, we have hundreds of millions of professionals. we've got to make work not just about doing more, but about being better. So on co-pilot work, what are the agents that you get for work today? You get a badge and a PC. Should you get a team of agents? How are you thinking about the trade-off of put a chat box? Obviously, Microsoft has fantastic access, exclusive access to GPT-5, the frontier-level capabilities. But there's a trade-off from the product perspective.

put the chat box next to it, which is almost just one level away from just having two tabs open next to each other and having GPT5 in chat.com over here versus do the hard work of have the product teams go and dig into how do we add AI functionality into every sub tool? If you're in Excel, how do you create smarter functions within the cells as opposed to just a sidebar, which has kind of been the status quo for a lot of AI at work projects broadly. Totally. And I think this is the, I mean, the answer is yes and, right? In some sense, like look, every shift, and I've been through three of these, I worked at Akamai like 20 years ago, and the internet was like a thing was going to be a thing. And then, you know,

I was obviously mobile and trial out at Google and now at Microsoft with AI. The first wave of all of these things is just that AI, right? Like, put, chat next to it, bring some intelligence to it. And it's no different from, you know, the first wave of mobile apps were like desktop form factors, like shrunk into the mobile screen form factor. Or the first websites actually were like scanned brochures, which are PDFs, right?

In the back in the day, folks. And I think now I feel like one of the, that's why you see across the industry saying, oh, let's add AI to it. But I think the yes and comes from two things. One is you want to make sure that when there's a natural way, because of the natural language interface, you're actually asking AI to do a lot more higher order things, right? Instead of this fine-grained manipulation of like, oh, let's go through 200 menus and remember the magic incantation.

Like you want to kind of say, hey, do it for me. So there's a bunch of things where chat is the right answer. But then there are other things where if you're an Excel bro, like you want to be in your ID, right? and get your, you know, get the assistance right where you are. So meeting you where you are. So if you saw last two weeks ago, we talked about and we announced the equals co-pilot. But that's like the hello world of like what we're thinking of and say, how do we actually, right now in teams or in your meeting, how do you have assistance, right? Along with the chatbot.

Yeah, from a product perspective, there's something very interesting going on where, I mean, might. Microsoft kind of coined the term or the definition of like being a platform where the companies that built on top of Windows created more value than Microsoft captured. And it was like the classic example of a technology platform driving like incredible value. There's something potentially at least that we've been tracking where we've talked to what three or four different companies that are building AI add-ons to Excel. Or trying to rebuild it. or trying to rebuild it, but a lot of times it's actually integrated into Excel. And there's one frame where, okay, those companies are going to get steamrolled by Excel and the team there. There's the other frame which is...

We said it, not you. Well, I mean, that's a risk that I'm sure every investor in those companies is discussing. But then there's another frame where Excel becomes a platform, like Windows became a platform, and there is a robust ecosystem of apps and services on top. some of those that are complementary to co-pilot functionality, some of those that are competitive. So I guess the question is like, is Excel becoming a platform and do you see, like, how do you, how do you message around the openness of the Excel platform? Are you trying to take learnings from the openness of the Microsoft ecosystem and bring that

into the developer communications on top of Excel or is there a different strategy at play? Yeah, and I think, you know, look, a super sharp point. And I think in the fullness of time, office as a whole, has always been a platform, right? If you look at like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, actually Outlook plugins, teams, as a very healthy, like, bot ecosystem. So the platform play is always being kind of at the center of it. And it's the question, though, is there are, keeping the user in mind, are there things that are much more intuitive and native to be part of the product? And are there things that are kind of like, let's say you're doing something very specific for accounting. It is absolutely the like thing for that to be a plug-in and add-in versus doing something horizontal that should really be a feature of the product.

So that's the way we're thinking about it. Have you thought any at all about how AI can supercharge the way people use LinkedIn? I imagine that there's a lot of, that might be a completely separate world from what you're doing. But it does seem like something that in the future, people, People have been out there for so long. I need a personal CRM. I need some sort of thing on top of my LinkedIn connections to remind me. And you get those, like, on every social app, you get the reminder.

Hey, it's somebody's birthday. You should write them a note. But with AI, you can imagine so much more power there to say, I'm trying to sell this particular thing. I'm hiring for this particular thing. And having GPT-5 go and crawl all the profiles put together something for you. Have you thought about anything that's happening over in the LinkedIn world? Or is that just kind of out of your purview?

You know, Ryan and I talk all the time, and he's actually like much more front and center on the office world now. So I think the thing that's interesting there is that a lot of these ideas were just like unfundable or bad ideas before because it didn't have enough tokens. So my favorite thing to say is like take all these like ideas people thought were like really bad. So for example, like I'd have like a whole bunch of people pitch back in Google the whole alerting, oh, wouldn't it be great if you could kind of like, ongoing to like event discovery. I'm into this favorite, like my favorite band is this obscure thing and like, you know, wouldn't it be great if I knew something about like the name? Oh, I think we have some.

I think we're having some technical difficulties. Sorry. I think we're having some technical difficulties here. Can you hear us okay? I can hear you. It's fine. Okay, sorry. I think you're cutting out.

Let's move on to. I didn't say anything. controversial? No, no, it's not that. I think it's the backbone internet infrastructure in this company, in this country that's controversial. What, what, what, what about, yeah, I would, like, I guess like my biggest thing that I'd be curious to get your insight on is, is are there, like, how many businesses in the, in the Microsoft ecosystem have just totally opted out of AI that are not, that are not responding to upsells that are just not interested. Maybe they have employees that are kind of using various AI tools themselves.

But I have to imagine it's like a very, very large percentage of companies within that are. Of contrary, I think it's, in fact, we've had like more than 90% of Fortune 500 using some form of like, you know, co-pilot AI products, like 100 million customers that have just, we've just crossed 100 million, across commercial and consumer on co-pilot usage. The thing that's actually interesting that I see is maybe a variant of what you're asking, which is, you know, like there's one extreme, there's a set of folks who are just leaning much, the posture is much more proactive, I would say, and kind of like in the game, get in the arena, building stuff, it's not just about, oh, like, there's an off-the-shelf thing,

this is a chatboard that I'll buy and see who uses it in my company. So that set of firms, in fact, like we've started calling them frontier firms, right? These guys are like out there starting to kind of like invest both build and buy and partner. And we are starting to see, oh, those folks actually get a lot more out of AI. So for example, like one example for me is like these guys are using the reasoning models. So when you, if you step back and think like, you know, where we are in AI, the first version of AI, it's just been more about like next token prediction and like chatbot. Yeah.

But the next really, real big unlock came in January and February around that time and the reasoning models came online. Yeah. That's when we saw a very clear shift. There's certain companies that just jumped in and said, oh, all these things that we couldn't do six months ago or one year ago, let's try them now. Has that been affecting...

Including Microsoft, by the way. Yeah. Has that been affecting gross margins we saw in the Wall Street Journal yesterday the Notion obviously sells a few competitors to Microsoft products, saw gross margins drop from 90% to something like 80%. I was talking to Ivan. He said it actually wasn't even that bad, but there was some sort of an impact. Obviously, you can upsell against that. But how is the economic tradeoff? How are you thinking about that with selling, obviously, people want frontier level intelligence, but it might change the economic equation. Are you seeing anything that indicates that

going forward, the fundamental gravity of the economic equation might be different? I mean, look, look, I think it's going to be proportional. In the sense that, like, I was joking with someone saying, like, you know, using GPD-5 thinking, like, in your product is like taking a flying car to a grocery store, right, or O3 Pro. So in some sense, you do have to be, it's no longer about, like, just being a wrapper around the model. Sure.

Yes, the model is eating the product, like, absolutely. So that's, I think, one thing. these statements seemingly contradictory are true and we're seeing that on one hand the model is eating the product what do I mean by that like you know internally even us we spent a bunch of time trying to solve what I call the six finger problem right like remember two years ago and Dally three came out and like each other in humans it would be like six fingers and five like 18 toes or what have you and there's a whole bunch of startup that said oh we'll solve that right and a whole bunch of

product teams inside Microsoft too saying oh we'll just like figure out how to solve the finger problem. Metaphorically speaking, six months later, the model of a GPOO came out and like, you know, there's no longer a six finger problem. Yeah, I mean, hallucinations seem to be at an all-time long. Like the models are getting way more. There's been a lot of reports of consumers developing like friend-like relationships with various LMs. Do you have, is there any evidence that employees at companies are developing real relationships? relationships with AI in the way that some people on Reddit have developed relationships with models like 4-0? Yeah, I mean, I think we've made product choices that kind of squarely put AI at Microsoft as tools, right?

Yeah. And even these tools, they can be a genetic tools, meaning they can be working for you in background. You have a natural language interface to it. But this is not an accident building. We have to make intentional choices. In fact, I called a term called neural software, meaning that it's not software as usual. In fact, Stisinawkin, I had a spat on Twitter about it.

Because for me, the way I think about this is, look, yes, it is software. As engineers, we all know that. It's like stochastic models, and it's like, you know, you peel a few layers, it's all software. But it is probabilistic. And there are three things that are really important going on here. And we, like, as builders, I feel like we got to pay attention to it. Number one is the natural language interface, right?

It just has this human-like anthropomorphic interface. So when Porog is replaced by five, like, you're like, you're not like, oh, who moved my cheese or this menu item moved? Like, who fired my, you know, like chefs, right? So I think that is a point, whether it work or in personal life. But I think the second thing that we are underestimating, and we certainly see that inside, is the way we are building products and releasing them is changing. Like previously we'd say, oh, yeah, like 2.1 to 2.2, right? Like the software is updated, release notes and change lots.

But now it's just like you're, you have to kind of slow roll out. You have to kind of do evalves and benchmarks on how the interaction works, not just the accuracy of things. And then the third thing I'm seeing, at least like, and this one's a lot. hard one to kind of like crack. We're still trying to figure out what that means is the composition of the team. Like in the past, it'd be like, oh, you had engineers, you know, your desk, your test, your product, your UX. It's all a blur, right?

It's so much. And like you have a bunch of generalists and you have the model whispers, right? And then you have go to market. Like that's the new triangle that we're seeing. Well, it's a fun puzzle to solve. Thank you for how. on the stream. This is great. We will talk to you soon. Have a great rest of your day. And just let everybody know internally that we're riding with the Excel Bros. And Clippy.

We're riding with Clippy. We would love to help relaunch Clippy given the opportunity. No day. Thank you so much. Great to meet you. We'll talk to you soon. Have a great rest of your day. In the meantime. Let me tell you about adquick.com. Out of home advertising made easy and measurable. Say goodbye to the headaches of out of home advertising. Only ad quick combines technology. Out of home expertise and data to enable efficient, seamless ad buying across the globe. Nick, did you see this posed by Nick Dobos, Open AI cackling right now today? So OpenAI acquired StatsSig. We talked about this yesterday.

But he's sharing a photo of Anthropic and telemetry services for data usage. ClaudeCode connects from users' machines to the Statsig service to log operational metrics, is latency, reliability, and usage patterns. And so is what he's saying, like they're going to rug Anthropic by? buying their telemetry, like their logging service. Like, is this monopolistic, like, market? Can Anthropic not just use another company or product? I don't, this doesn't quite, like, sit with me as like, oh, yeah, it's like they totally

owned Anthropic. It's like, yeah, they bought a company that Anthropic uses. Like, the Anthropic would probably keep using that. Maybe they'll re-platform. I don't know. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Yeah, I mean, I do wonder curious. if Statsig is going to remain an independent brand

or just be rolled under OpenAI. Yeah. Yeah, there's a bunch of companies that use Statsig. I'm just looking at the website. EA, Microsoft, Atlassian, Bloomberg, riot. Affecting altruists use it? You said EAs use it? Tyler, do you think this is, do you think that,

Open AIs using Statssig? What are the, EAS using Statssig? Or like tracking shrimp welfare? I, frankly, I don't. know what Statsig really does. So I have no, like, it seems like, yeah, Anthropa can just... Why don't you know what it does? It's no more complicated than Palantir. It's equivalent to... Oh, we got Arfa Rock dropping massive alpha on Mastrol. Mestral's closing $14 billion. Blue past the initial target of $9 billion. I assume that's market cap. The rumors about Apple's

acquisition were fake. That seems right. That always seemed fake. I mean, in what world was France going to let their national AI champion be... Wait, wait, wait, wait. Is this real? This hello, hello? Breaking Apple and Google have reached a deal to have Gemini power a new Siri platform as per Bloomberg. Let's pull that up because that's literally my prediction today. Did I just not

read Bloomberg? Well, this was rumored for a while. Yeah, so... Is it actually... Okay, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We got... Either I'm going to look extremely dumb or extremely smart. Let's read this. Okay, so this... Okay, Apple Plan's AI-powered search tool for Siri to rival open AI

perplexity. Apple is planning to launch its own artificial intelligence web-powered search tool next year, stepping up competition. I'm going to put this in the chat, or should I put it in the tab. The company is working on a new system, world knowledge answers that will be integrated into the Siri voice assistant, according to people with knowledge of the matter. And who are they? So it's Google. Okay. Apple is aiming to release the service described by some executives as an answer engine. The news breaking right now is crazy. So American Eagle just beat earnings up another 20% after hours. Also, moment of silence for Figma.

They missed earnings. Very sad to see that, but never bet against our boy Dylan Field. And the team. Yeah, everyone is ripping. American Eagle. I wonder if they actually beat earnings because that's Sidney's Sweeney thing. We were talking about the value that she brought to that brand. and it probably was like $100 million in market cap.

She should have gotten like a $50 million payday. Like it really did change the trajectory of the business. Sweeney X-I-I-deal income. Raghav is a goaded poster in the chat. Raghav is on a tar. Thank you for what can you do Rigauff. American Eagle is still down 30% in the last 12 months, 20% year-to-date.

So Sweeney really was the turnaround. Sydney Bottom ticket? Hopefully she got some shares. She might have bought in. The underlying technology enabling the new Siri could come in part from Alphabet Google, Alphabet Inc.'s Google, Apple's longtime partner in Internet search, the company's reached a formal agreement this week for Apple to help evaluate and test a Google-developed AI model to help power the voice assistant.

So very interesting. I would imagine Apple has to pay Google for this version of just an answer engine, because the answer engine is not going to be directly monetized, but Google has to be working on agentic commerce, agentic ads in the LLM results. It seems so obvious. I feel like this is going to flip at some point, but I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

Apple's new search experience will include an interface that makes use of text photos. So how is Google going to feel about this giving them... Why? What's wrong with this? They're building something that is... They're building an AI-powered web search tool for Siri. Yeah.

They're building software because they're a software company and they're selling it to the hardware company or they're partnering with the hardware company. So you think Apple's saying you're going to keep paying us $20 billion and we're going to compete with you? How are they competing? No, this is them not, this is them saying we're not getting into foundation models. We're not going to do our own animal. We're going to use Gemini. Oh, they're saying, okay, I miss the part. No.

So today, Siri can answer basic questions. Yeah, we got it. Instead of the companies reached Apple and. alphabet reached a formal agreement for Apple to evaluate and test a Google developed AI model to help power the voice system. Yes. So, like, this is, I mean, it's a formal agreement to evaluate and test it. So like, we're still like years away from anything happening here.

Like, like, the next iPhone event is like next week. And like, they're not going to roll out a Google partnership. I imagine they don't roll out a Google partnership. This feels like something that they're going to be working. in over time. I don't know. Maybe they will. But either way, it's... So Apple is rebuilding Syria around three core components, a planner, the search systems for the web and devices, and a summarizer. The planner interprets voice or text input and decides how to respond. The search system scans a web or user data and a summarizer

pulls it all together into an answer. And Apple has recently leaning toward a custom-built Google Gemini model for the Summizer. It would run on Apple's own private cloud computer computing servers. that's going to be important. Search giant already delivered the technology to Apple, and both companies are now collaborating on fine-tuning and testing it.

Yep. Apple has been recently... It does say that Apple considered acquiring perplexity to enhance the search features in Siri. But again... Perplexity is the big... Yeah, but perplexity sits on top of other foundation models. So it doesn't fully solve Apple's problem

all the way to the root of the stack in my opinion. So somewhat makes sense that they would, the secret sauce that perplexity builds is something that Apple's capable of instantiating. Yeah, what you got there? So I'm reading the article. It says Google was not initially the frontrunner

for the series project. Anthropic had been in the lead for the deal, but then their price was too high. Yeah. Interesting. Anthropic demanded a high price for using its technology more than $1.5 billion a year, and Google was open to more favorable financial terms. So the end result is that we should expect that Apple pays Google less than

$1.5 billion per year to vend Gemini models into Siri, essentially. And I feel like as soon as Gemini has ads in the results or monetized commerce in the results. And Apple can take a cut of that. Apple should want to take a cut of that. And so it feels like this, this, this, this economic flow is going to reverse at some point. I don't know. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe, maybe inference is really,

remains really expensive and the, I mean, this is, monetization never really pencils out or something, but this feels like something that, that would flow the other direction at some point. They're a gatekeeper. They're going to, they're going to take the cut. Yeah, I mean, Open AI is now in the league of actually,

They're very much in the MAG7 lead in terms of competing, competing. I mean, in a world where Apple device users are just pushed into using new effectively, this is a Google product, right, that will be powered by, still powered by Google Search and theoretically built into the existing Google Ads engine, which is going to be, I would I would not bet against Open AI in any way, but it's certainly, this is some real competition, more so than just a net new Gemini app that people are. I guess the question is, what is the value of this particular knowledge engine, right? Isn't that how they're characterizing it? Like the, what's it called?

they world knowledge answers so to me this is starting with something that's just like hey what are some things I can do for fun when in New York

and it's like you should world knowledge answers is that related to world liberty financial or world coin the orb scanner potentially both potentially both

a kretsu put them all together no world knowledge answers that feels like something not the most high value searches. Yes, not highly monetizable. Yeah. And so maybe there's some bifurcation where the user activity, when they want world knowledge answers, that is a cost center. And when you want to do agentic commerce and

shopping, that's monetizable. But apps want both. Companies want both types of searches because I would assume. I would assume. I would assume that what like the world knowledge answer, what headphones should I buy. That's a question that I would want the new Siri to answer. And then I would want it to buy them for me. Why not? More data. Hello in the chat says more data for Google. Let's give it up for Google. They are just data world champions. It is wild. People, yeah, this is not on many people's big go cards earlier. Of course it was probably on Mark German's. Up. Everyone's, everyone's ripping. The mag seven remains undefeated. Anyway, speaking of of Mag 7, let's go to Lulu Misservi's breakdown of the Tesla master plans.

She's highlighting V2 and V4, and she calls it founder writing versus committee writing. And if you look, and we touched on this yesterday, if you look at the way the first two master plans were written, it really does feel like Elon just tapped it out on the phone almost, like a couple bullet points here and there. There's one chart in there. Then when Master Plan V3 comes out, it's this 40-page PDF with a bunch of charts. Maybe he was involved, but the latest version does feel very dry. And Christian Kyle had a very good reply.

He just replied with the M-Dash because, of course, the Tesla Master Plan V4 had 14 M-Dashes in it. It's a lot of M-Dashes at a time when the M-Dash is highly controversial. I was thinking about the M-Dash. I don't know how to create an M-Dash. Like, I don't have the button on my keyboard. I have a minus sign, and I have an underscore. All you have to do is hit the dash button twice and in space. Minus-minus, and then space and it turns into it.

I never learned how to use that. Really? You can also do shift option. You were too poor and then you were too rich. I was too poor and then I was too rich to use the MD-Dash. I'm not kidding. I've never, you can look at any of my writing and any of the scripts I've written or blog posts. I just have never used the M-Dash.

I don't know why. I was pretty devastated by Chad Chb-T, just stealing it. You were a big MDash guy before? It's just very functional. I'm just all about the comma. Like, why do you ever need an M-Dash when you can just use a comma? You know, like, so in the Tesla thing, how we develop and use autonomy. It's more than M-Dash.

John, it's a statement. Why? Just use a comma. I don't know. I don't understand. Tyler, do you understand why the M-Dash is valuable at all? We should just destroy it. We should just get rid of it.

I don't think it makes any sense. Yeah, I mean, there's some, like, stylistic value. What is the stylistic value? Just looks nice or something? Looks maxing. You're writing. ORA farming, the M-Dash. I just don't like it.

It doesn't have spaces around it. Like, the comma's just so much cleaner. Use a comma. Use a period. Use a space. It just, like, did Shakespeare write M-Dashes? Let's figure that out. I think so.

Who is the first person to really dominate the M-Dash? I see it in, I see it all over the place. I see it in the, I mean, it's in, is it in the journal usually? I don't know. I don't see a lot of it in the journal. No. Okay. If it's not in the journal, it shouldn't be in your.

It should get out of the training data. Some of the most well-known users of the M-Dash. I asked Gemini because I just feel like the attitude between is biased. James Joyce. Oh, okay. Emily Dickinson. M-Dakoff. Vladimir Novakov.

Nabokov. A master of style. Nobakov. use the M-Dash to create a specific kind of voice and pacing. No. Shakespeare did not use the M-Dash. Does the Bible... Does the Bible use... J.K. Rowling has been a notable user of the M-Dash.

Maybe she is an AI that traveled back in time. To bring Harry Potter forward? To bring the chosen one. Does... Does the M-Dash occur in the Bible? No. The Bible, at least in its early printings and manuscripts, did not use... use M-Dash's. Ancient texts, the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament were originally written without punctuation at all. And that's not in the Bible. This is hilarious. So Chachapagin says, no, M-Dash. The Bible at least did not use M-dash. The Greek New Testament were originally

written without punctuation at all. M-Dash, just continuous script. Breaks, pauses, and emphasis were conveyed by spacing, rhythm, or oral tradition. Modern editions, some 19th and 20th century English Bibles, especially in America, started using dashes to mark sudden breaks or interruptions and thought, but this is a modern editorial choice, not a part of the original text or the earliest print traditions. So the M-Dash is relatively recent punctuation invention. I think we got to return. We got to get rid of the M-Dash. Destroy the M-Dash. I'm sick of hearing it. Take it out of your writing. Instead, get on Bezzle. Your Bezell Concieres is available now to source you any watch on the planet. But seriously, any watch.

Go to get Bezell. Alex Conrad went viral yesterday. He shared a screenshot from Bloomberg. Erwan, the Colt, Los Angeles grocery chain is opening its first New York City tonic bar inside a private West Village Padal Club. Okay. He said none of these words appear in the Bible. Oh, there we go.

Related to the Bible. This is the Arawan thing in New York that Emily Sundberg broke. Very excited. Very excited. Did you see that Josh Kushner was at the U.S. Open and he's so famous. He's so recognizable. They didn't need to give him a little Chiron, a little lower third. They had to explain who Adam Silver was. The man that needs no introduction. Who is Adam Silver again? He's like a sports guy. Adam Silver. I don't know if you're serious.

He's the commissioner of the NBA. What's the NBA? That's the guy that said, get ready to learn Chinese. The NBA is the National Basketball Association. So what is, is that a sport? What is basketball? Basketball is a dynamic team sport where two teams of five players try to score points by shooting a ball through an opponent's hoop. Okay, so, so the guy on the left, apparently he, I guess he runs a company that where people, they have teams where they have five players each and they, they, they, they, try and throw a ball through a hoop. Okay.

So there's Adam Silver, the basketball guy. Then there's Josh Kushner. Everyone knows Josh Kushner. Then there's Bob Eiger. Who is Bob Eiger? Who is Bob Eiger? Okay. Bob Iger is the CEO of Disney.

What is Disney? What is Disney? Disney is a global American mass media and entertainment conglomerate, known for its family-friendly content and content and services, including theme parks. What is a theme park? A theme park. A theme park is an amusement park.

Oh, it's an amusement park, but it has a unifying setting or idea. So it is a theme to it. Yeah. Okay. It's a themed amusement park. Okay.

The theme park. Okay. So anyway, I think we cracked it. So obviously everyone knows Josh Kushner, Thrive Capital, but Adam Silver. It's good to know about these guys, too.

with some game where you throw basketball through the hoop and then Bob Iger does, he's a media guy I guess. Yeah. Cool. Well, I'm glad that they put their names there because otherwise I'd be lost. I'd be lost. Anyway,

Robin Hood, former guest on the show Vlad Tenev said investing for a living could replace labor in a post AI world. Will Brown quote posts it gets a 1.3K likes. It says Roblox CEO David Bazuki has said that gaming for a living could replace labor in a post-AI world.

Podcast host John Kugan and Jordy Hayes say that podcasting for a living could replace labor in a post-AI world. You know what I would hope replaces labor in a post-AI world. Pull-ups and pushing. Wandering. Just going from wander to wander. Finding your happy place. Finding your happy place. Booking wanders with inspiring views. Hotel Great a Menny's Dreamy Veds, Top Tier Cleaning, and 24-7 concierge service. It's a vacation home.

better. And in just 6,000 days, you'll be able to just spend all of your time wandering around. Hopefully, hopefully. Last post before we go into our next guest, they're in the stream waiting room. They're about to come into the TVPen Ultram.

Get that gong ready. Would you buy Ilya Sutskiver merch? Alps has printed Ilya's head on a hat and also on a mouse went mega viral with 2.6 likes, people are excited.

I mean, the mouse looks clean. Ilya, you, Tyler, you've said that Ilya is like the best aura farmer of all time, something like that? He's a goaded ore farmer, yeah. But I feel like in terms of his aura farming strategy? Explain that like I'm a hundred

years old. Yeah, I would argue that his aura farming strategy is do nothing win. I think that is an example of ore farming. It's like, it's kind of like a nonchalance. You know. Yeah.

He has a certain genesecois. He has a, yeah. Don't nonchalant for nonchalant with Ilya. That's my. You don't nonchalant. Don't do it, don't do it. He will not.

He just posts up like this. He will out nonchalant you for sure, for sure. You'll get roasted. Don't even try it. Also, don't go fundraise with our next guest. Ilya or a farm. Richard from you. Oh, he did?

No. Oh, I thought that was news. Anyway, we got our next guest in the Restream waiting room coming into the TBPN Ultradome. Welcome. We got Richard from You.com. How are you doing? Very well. How are you guys doing?

We're doing fantastic. It's a wonderful day. We're having a great time. What's new in your world? Give us the news. Any big numbers? Yeah, we just raised $100 million at a $1.5 billion. Boom.

When did you start the company again? In 2020. Nothing like a five-year overnight success. Love it. Give us an update. You were on the show. Was it, I'm forgetting, was it maybe three months ago at this point? Yeah, yeah.

Main thing since then is we kept growing more and more aggressively. Like we have over a billion API calls a month now. There are not many other startups. In fact, I can't think of any other startup at that scale now. And these API calls give search results for both people directly, but also for LMs. Like the way we search is going to change, right? So you have this whole Google thing that's unfolding now. But that's kind of the last, you know, sort of pass of searching.

Now people are going to search more and more through the LMs, and LMs can search hundreds of times. And then summarize all that content for you, right? So it's a whole new world. And we're building composable infrastructure layers for companies. companies and startups, massive consumer companies like Doctor Go and also enterprise companies like Harvey and Windsurf, the NIH is a customer of U.com, Telegraph, like lots of different organizations, both for the APIs, but also we built end-to-end solutions because not every company is ready to just like take in an API and may have an epic AI transformation.

So we're doing both of those together. Yeah. When did you realize that it made sense to combine those efforts? I'm sure early on companies, like maybe that, maybe that, you know, actually building out these, this infrastructure for companies was not something that you were selling. And then you realize like, hey, we, in order to actually unlock the value of our product, we need it. We need to kind of like hand deliver some of these features.

That's right. Yeah. For the last couple of years, we were the most accurate answer engine in the world. But normal consumers, they care more about marketing and fun ads and stuff like that and designs. But companies kept coming to us and be like, we did a benchmark. You are the most accurate. We need that. You know, there are hedge funds, the NIH, like journalists, like that really care about accuracy.

And so they are like, we want the technology, but we don't necessarily want it on you. com. We want it inside our own products and our own websites, in our own apps and so on. And so at some point, there's so much market pull there for the technology that we said, let's build out a proper sales team that's really go to market with those APIs in an enterprise context. Give us your reaction to the Google News today. They beat the charges almost. I mean, they were found guilty, but then the remediation was pretty minor.

You're obviously an expert in this category. Walk us through how you process the news. Yeah, I mean, I think overall it goes in the right direction in terms of giving some more access to certain companies for the index and some of their data. At the same time, you know, we're a startup still. And by the time this gets really implemented, you know, they're probably going to try to appeal it. And so on this guy, take another.

We were really struggling to understand what giving the search index one time and then on an ongoing basis means. It's only like some percentage of the query data based. Yeah. They're giving you data based on some percentage of your queries. Yeah. Can you explain like what exactly is available? Can I just go get this data?

Can you.com go get this data? Can anyone get this data? Like, what does it actually take? Is this just Microsoft Bing and the other like Duck, Duck Go? Like the big competitors, are they named? Like, how does this actually work? Yeah, so no one fully knows yet, right? There's like recommendations from Juddha.

And then like, so there's like a ton of meta within EH, not, you know, company meta. But inside wheeling. It was METM. But like my hunch is the one, the most extreme scenario here would be like they have a full-on API. the way you.com right now sells it, right? Which could be good for some people. My hunches, they're going to try to drag your feet as much as possible on that for as long as possible because that is very much core IP for them. And then they're also going to realize that the index, the way it used to be built was for people to decide which of 10 blue links to click on.

Our index now is looking very different. It can go deeper, it can crawl more, it has these decomposable components, and it actually gives you much more content per link back rather than just a short snippet the way like the Google search results would. And so by the time this all comes out and this might become available maybe as an API, it'll probably be somewhat outdated for the use cases LMs need. Do we need an API here? I feel like if I have an AI agent that has a browser, the browser can go to Google and search for me and then scrape the results. Like is not? not the front end, the API?

Like, does Google have like a blocker on this? Like, can open AI not just Google things? Like they certain their employees can Google things, I imagine. But can they not resell that to me in their chat app? Like, what's the dynamic there? Yeah, it's in a really interesting world, actually. You know, there are not many real web indices out there and you have a lot of startups, including some of our competitors,

who essentially just do what you described. through so-called SERP APIs and proxy networks where you have your phone, you have your smart TV, and you install some app. And that app then has some SDK installed somewhere where if you're not using your phone or your TV, it becomes an IP address. Interesting. And then pretends to be a user, goes to, scrapes the content from a search query in that, sends it back to centralized IP.

And then folks sell search results, but they really just Google results. Like literally biggest competitors in the consumer space are just really fast at scraping Google results and then connecting it to an LM and doing all of that. It's hilarious. Now, the problem of that is that, A, if you're a bigger company like Open AI or Facebook meta, like they wouldn't want to send all of their data and all their queries to Google. They're literally trying to compete with them. So that's not an ideal setting. Two, it doesn't really scale. Like, because Google can and does shut down these proxy networks all.

the time and they try to block it and have CAPTCHAs and all of that. And in three, as it, you know, as you go through someone's random phone and maybe they did click on something, now it's really slow. And there's slow response times. And so where we actually have benchmarks that we can, you know, back up, we can go on you.com and find them. Like, we're super fast and we're more accurate than Google SERP APIs. And that is very unique in the market. What about this news? It just broke that Apple will be. potentially partnering with Google to have Siri powered by some sort of version of Gemini. Was that on your bingo card?

Was that expected? Does that seem like a reasonable kind of end state of the market dynamic? I was talking about this earlier. It feels very something that feels like it would be on your forecast, given that you guys are helping a lot of companies build these sort of knowledge. Yeah, like if you're in like business 101 going to Silicon Valley, you would say that like the ability to search and get great results is valuable. Therefore, Apple would be paying Google for search results. But in fact, the money flows the other direction because the search, because Google's making $60 billion a year or whatever off of Safari search results. And so how do you see the relationship and the economic flow changing there? I think the news report was that Anthropic wanted one. point five billion and Apple said that's too much. We're going with Google and Google will be getting less than 1.5 billion maybe from Apple for the rights to use the LLMs. But what's your take on all that? Yeah. So a couple different angles here. So one, it's surprising that Apple cannot

do it themselves still. Like it's kind of crazy and surprising. They're like, you know, trillions of dollars worth and somehow are not able to execute on this themselves. The second thing, And they have great privacy at Apple, but then they partner with companies that have a different stance on privacy. So there's like interesting complexities there. The second thing is that indeed, you know, one of the biggest changes also of the ruling today was that Apple is will continue to be allowed to take the 20 billion to not build their own search index. Right. So that's that's a really interesting part of the ruling too. Google is allowed to still pay Apple $20 billion a year to stay the default.

So that is a really important piece of this whole situation because defaults are very strong. I don't know where I read this, but like 80% of all iPhone users never change a single setting. Maybe not your viewers, but many normal iPhone users, they don't change any setting ever. So if you're the default, you'll be on there forever. I wonder how, I mean, I imagine. No settings after me. I don't need to adjust the volume. I'll never adjust the brightness of my screen.

a single setting. No, I imagine that it's like deeper in the settings, of course. Yeah. That is hilarious. Anyway, do you have anything else where we have a couple other people in the restream? Very happy to hear about your progress. Yeah, congratulations. This is awesome. Thank you. Yeah, my favorite new pun. Unicorn. Yeah, there we go. There we go. Unicorn. Fantastic. Well, yeah, tremendous. Thanks for joining. Yeah, we'll talk to you soon. Have a great rest of your day. Our next guest is already in the Restream waiting room. We got Pablo from happy robot and I think we got some more news. Let me put my pack in here so I can get ready. Let's bring in Pablo. Pablo, how are you doing? Welcome to the show.

How are things? Can you hear us? Are the robots happy? Are they sad? Are they going to turn into Terminators? What's the plan? Can you hear us? Can you hear us? No worries. You're good. Probably watching live. We're like, oh, that's me. Back to you. But thanks so much for hopping on. Give us the update. Give us the news. What's latest?

We just raised our series V, 44 meal. Let's go. Let's go. 44. Great number. Great number. Take us through the story of the company. What unlocked this fundraising round?

What are the biggest drivers of growth for the business? Yeah. To set the scene a little bit for the audience, we're building the AI workforce for an entire industry for supply chain. Okay. There's a lot of work that is very repetitive and manually in that industry. Quiddish and take my hat off to all of those folks that are running those operations every day so that you guys can have that very cool RAMP TPP hat on your doorstep every

time you order on Amazon or any other platform. So we are powering those operations so that we take away the work out of work. We're trying to lift off the mundane and repetitive tasks from those folks running operations in supply chain and logistics, so that they can focus on the more strategic and higher value tasks. We started over a year and a half ago, raised our series A last summer, announced December last year, raised 15 meal from Andrewston Horwich. Now we announced our B, with Baystom, and follow on from other folks like YC and

existence. Very excited to be here, yes? Is it fair to characterize this as like AI-E-R-P, like how much of this is like, like, like, you know, some sort of like point solution within the supply chain and operation stack versus like system of record. Really building that system of record that a layer of interaction, we call it. So we define it as a layer of interaction, later of connectivity, if you will, that sits on top of the actual data that already exists today.

You can have a transportation management system, a warehouse management system, an ERP. You're talking about the shippers and distributors. Today we serve multiple verticals within supply chain. Shippers is one, freight brokers is another one, ocean carriers is another one, right? But right on, right? This is exactly what we're doing. We're building that layer of interaction so that users don't have to go and look for that little detail on the TMS.

Where the hell is my load, right? Where is my truck today? Oh, let me just look it up on these messy UI from the 80s, you know what I mean? Instead, they just go and chat with their data. And not only that, an AI also is exposed to the customers, to the vendors that are calling in every day. We're automating over a million phone calls every week with our customers. We serve eight of the top 10. Million phone calls. A lot of, a lot of emails as well. Ultimately, our customers come to us. Customers like DHL are Uber Freight come to us to

automate what their team doesn't want to do. Yeah. What's the split? Yeah. So how, yeah, have you guys had a, had a more, you know, working with Uber freight, DHLs, are you taking more enterprise focus? Because I know there's a long tail of play. players in logistics and supply chain broadly. But are you focusing there or going upmarket? Fully focused on enterprise. We're very lucky to have been able to cater to these enterprises from very early on. Thing AI has unlocked that capability in startups.

Maybe 10 years ago it was harder to tap into the enterprises. Today, they just understand that they don't have the AI capabilities themselves. So they're just looking at it at whoever is tempted or willing to go into that space. We were early on in the space of supply chain and logistics, and we've kind of defined that category for AI agents in this space. So they really don't have anyone else to go to. They just come to us as a trusted partner. And that's really what our customers are looking for.

They're looking for an AI partner, really. You're based in San Francisco? Yeah. Fantastic. Because there's this big German company that's been in this space forever. and I can't wait to just like fully put them out of business and just make America dominant in enterprise resource planning. Let's make it happen.

Jordy, anything else? No, what were you doing before this out of curiosity? I was doing my PhD in actually Germany. I was in New York. I was engaged, though. All three founders are, one of my co-founders is my brother, who mostly for a while. And the other one is my best buddy from college from Spain.

We studied out in Madrid. But yeah, no, the company is based out of us. We have offices in Madrid as well. Open it up in Chicago and office now because of all the freight and logistics that helps. Maybe you've got to take the fight to Germany. You got to invade Germany. I mean, we're up to the big boys, the big boys. I love it.

A couple, couple brothers armed with with $44 million, ready to do some international business. I love it. It's fantastic. Thank you so much for joining. Congrats on all the progress. Congratulations. I'm sure you'll be back on soon, given the past couple raises. I'm sure you'll be. I'm excited. Let's do that. Let's respond for that. Appreciate you guys.

We will talk to you soon. Have a good one. Great chat. Our next guest is in the Restream Waiting Room already. We'll bring in Will from Exa with another massive fundraising round. You can do the honors on this one, Jordi. Let's bring Will in from the Restream Waiting Room into the TVP and Ultradam. Welcome to the stream. Will. How you doing? How's your day? Hello? How you doing? What's you got? Where are you sitting right now? I'm in a phone booth within our office. Okay, okay, cool.

It looked like it was like some type of tractor or something. This is the physical instantiation of the lock, the great lock in of September to December. Yes, yes. Locked in. Fantastic. You've clearly been locked in. What's the news? Yeah, the big day today we just announced our series B.

85 I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, couldn't hear you. Oh yeah, Peter Fenton. That's exciting. What's it like working with him? Yeah, I mean, he's a legend. He's super experienced.

He's taken seven companies to IPO. He just, honestly, his vision for Exha was just like matched or exceeded hours. And so that was really exciting to work with a VC who just saw what we saw and saw how big this company can get. Yeah. Yeah.

So he's joined the board. Had you worked with him before or is this new? No, no. I met him like a month ago, a month and a half ago. Nice. Fast friends and part of it. So yeah, take us through the story of the business. I mean, only a couple years old, well on your way to an overnight success.

I think we check in with you in a decade. It would be pretty clear that you're an overnight success. But take us through the history of the company, where you are now, kind of what's been the key growth driver? Yeah, so we actually started 2021, so summer 2021. This is way before ChatsbyT. And the idea was like, you know, at the time GV3 had recently come out and it was like this magical thing that could understand like a whole paragraph of text. And then at the same time there was Google, which felt like it hadn't changed in a decade.

So the idea was what if we could build a search engine that was as smart as GV3? Something like fully understand, understood the web and fully understand your query and get you like way better results in Google. And that's how we started. So not necessarily a search engine for AI. It was more like a search engine for nerds because we were building it for ourselves. And then when Chatsuitee came out a couple years later, it turned out that like the search engine we were building for ourselves for nerds is actually perfect for AIs because AI's the nerds are very similar. But yeah, I mean, basically we had to go build a search engine from scratch for years, which is really hard.

So we did, you know, we bought a million dollar GPU cluster after YC. We trained, you know, a ton of different models, try to done a ton of different transform architectures until we had like a new type of search engine. So the so the GPUs are trained to actually, so you're not doing, you're not doing crawling on GPUs, right? that's like traditional CPU workloads, right? That's right. We have our CPU batch processing and then we train models on our computers. Okay. And yeah, there's been a ton of news today in the search engine world with the Google news.

Like, what's been your interpretation of it? Oh, yeah. I mean, there's so much, like, what's crazy, like AI is very exciting, but then search for AI is like now the most exciting. Yeah, yeah, totally. I think everyone's realizing that, like, sure, like we want smarter and smarter LMs, but really we want more knowledgeable. We want to connect our allMs to like the best data in the world. And search is like basically the most important tool to connect your LLM to. And so yeah, I mean it's pretty exciting.

There's Google news like for example like yeah I mean they're sharing their data has one thing about the search space is everything is very counterintuitive. So for example like if everyone now has access to Google's data, people are less incentivized to build new search engines which is interesting. So there's all sorts of counterintuitive like things in the search space. Yeah. So what so yeah, how does that shape like? your strategy because it feels like right now Google's not only like the,

they have the search monopoly. They were kind of like, you know, found guilty of that. The remedies are not exactly putting them on the back foot. The stock's up 8% today. And it feels like they're partnering even, they're going even deeper with Apple potentially. The Bloomberg reporting that just came out is that there are rumors that that Apple will be partnering with Gemini to test out if Siri can be powered by Gemini,

which is obviously built on top of the Google crawler and Google's search index. And so is the future for you look like a really long tail of tons of businesses that need to use some form of best in class search? And they can't go to Google for a particular reason at like an API level because Google doesn't want to sell that as a product and you're there to sell that? Yeah, that's exactly right. Like a big difference between us and Google is that Google is not trying to be search infrastructure. they're trying to be a platform. They want people to go to Google. But we are uniquely trying to be search infrastructure.

So we want a long tail of companies, like every company to be able to have the highest quality search inside their applications. And so that makes us very unique. Like when we said we were a search engine for AIs like a couple years ago, no one really got what that means, but I think that world has really played out. We now we have thousands of companies using XA

powering all sorts of applications, whether internal or external with high quality search. And like you said, like Google doesn't, like, is not doing that. They're not going to have an API because... Well, there's a lot of searches that are valuable in the context of specific applications that are actually not even that valuable to Google, right? Like, when you're trying to retrieve information that you can then take action on,

that's not necessarily something that Google is, like, you know, able to run a bunch of great ads against. Is that right? Yeah, that's right. And the business model determines, well, you're saying it's business model determines, like, how the search feels or how the algorithm works. And so, for example, like, Google's really bad at recruiting. You can't use Google to find, like, give me all the engineers in San Francisco who have, like, a PhD in machine learning and get a list of those things.

Like, why isn't Google good at that? Well, it doesn't make them more ad revenue. Whereas we're very good at that because all sorts of customers' AI applications want that high quality knowledge. And so, like, the end user you're selling to really determines the search algorithm, which also makes us very unique. Yeah. What is the value of actually training a model? I feel like there's enough of a business. I don't know if now's the best time for that particular business.

But just being the best web scraper index, every single web page perfectly indexed in a database that people can query, that feels like a valuable product in and of itself. And then someone else brings their foundation model to bear on top of your search index, and you're a partner to the big labs that train the big models. Why are you training your own model? Yeah, I mean, well, the easy part is actually gathering all the data. I mean, it's hard that you need like crazy,

scale infrastructure, but it's an engineering problem. Once you gather all the trillions of pages, the hard part is how do you filter those trillion pages to the right 10 or 100 pages in real time? And that's where all the secret sources. And so like we train our own, we train embedding models because we see that as the way to get the highest quality search.

Like how do you get perfect search over the world's information? You need to train all these crazy neural models, which is in contrast to the old world, which is like Google for example, mostly uses a keyword-based method. Obviously they use a mix of things, but like we're very, bitter lesson pilled at Exa, and so we believe if you have the right, you know, a training

data set and like a feedback signal, you can get an extremely good search engine for the thing your training tool. Yeah. So that's like our approach. When you say you're bitter lesson pulled, I feel like that's rough because like who's more bitter lesson pill than Google? Like they have the most data, the most compute deep mind and all this other stuff. Like what is the, can walk me through like the counter positioning against like Google's like business here? I did the whole like Google will do it is. like a complete trite over I don't believe in it I'm bullish on you you know but like there is

something weird about what you just said and that I would expect Google to be able to move off of keyword pretty quickly at least from a technology perspective yeah well there are two things so one it actually is kind of hard for for a giant shift to switch to a different algorithm that's like they have that works really well people it's very reliable and there are a lot of benefits to the keywords for talking sure and so it's it's hard you know you have a lot of people at the organization who are like been there for decades who have a certain thing You have all sorts of like advertisements that are connected to the keywords actually. So like that, but I think the more important thing is that it comes back to the way the revenue model.

So they are serving humans with ads. And so to serve like and by the way, Google is fantastic at that. Like Google has built an amazing consumer search engine for humans to make money from ads and optimize for what humans click on. But that's not what AI applications want. So a critical point of XA is like we are optimizing for a different thing than Google. Google is optimized for humans and clicks and ads. we are optimizing for AIs and AI applications and all these complex searches that this new AI world makes. And so that explains, like, even if we both have a ton of compute, we'll build very different search algorithms.

Yeah, it does seem like with the, what does it, AI search overviews, like those have at least anecdotally been hallucinating like crazy. So they definitely have some gaps to bridge between like some phenomenal stuff going on in Gemini and some frontier level like reasoning models. And then some very reliable Google search results. and then the AI search overviews, still they haven't fully solved the hallucination problem and some grounding in truth there. Obviously a problem they're working.

You guys compete with you.com. We just had Richard on, Richard on. Is that, or is it, it's not a lot of overlap? You're like, if I see him, it's on site. Well, it's funny if you both announcing fundraisers today. I don't know if that was random. Yeah, yeah. I mean, they mentioned that they do search

and they also do AI agents. So, like, we are definitely, like, in a similar space. I would say, like, the space is very hot. Like, the market, everyone's realizing the market is massive. Sure. And so, like, you know, I welcome other players there. I think, you know, we've been doing this for many years. You welcome them, but you encourage them to take the full memorial

for Labor Day weekend off. You guys should be. It's a hot space. It's going to be a long road. Just take the full three-day vacation. Yeah. We grind. Okay.

Sorry, last question for me. You bought a GPU cluster. That can mean a million different things. What does that mean? Do you own the land? Do you own the data center? Do you own the cards? Do you own a space within Azure?

Like there's so many different, are you partnered with a neocloud? Like, what can you tell me about what it means to actually own or manage a GPU cluster? What are the best practices? Like what actually works? You're down dealing with depreciation. There's so much going on. I love to just learn more about like owning and managing a GPU cluster as a startup,

not as some hyperscaler. Yeah, sure. So in terms of like getting GPUs, like there are a couple options. Like you could spin up on demand clusters, which is more expensive. But if your workloads are like very like spiky, then that makes sense. But for us, we're good, doing constant research. So we want something that we're like constantly using gets like, you know, 80% utilization. When you start to have that kind of utilization, then you want to get like either reserved or your own cluster.

And you know, do the math and like, you know, it often makes sense to buy your own cluster. If you're crazy enough to like set it up, if you have the, you know, if you have the expertise to set it up and and you could customize in all different ways. And so, yeah, we kind of went that route. Also, it's just freaking badass. And we know we're going to get bigger. And we want to have experience, like, building clusters. I would say, like, we're not. So you have servers, like, in your office?

Like, the cluster exists physically? Okay. He's, like, George Hots literally has, like, server racks in his comma AI spot in San Diego. And it's, like, the craziest thing you've ever seen. Then Nat Friedman, when he was doing NFDG, they spun up the Andromeda cluster. And that was more, like, in partnership with someone else, which made a lot more sense, because, like, why do you have to learn how power routes necessarily? Like, that's not necessarily the differentiator.

Yeah, so we don't, well, we're not big enough yet. Our previous one was big enough where we had to buy the land or buy the data center. Yeah, yeah. We have a part of the data center. But, you know, as we expand, at some point, we'll have our own data. I see land on your horizon will. Yeah. I think you've got to vertically integrate.

You got to buy oil and gas tract. You got to buy the natural gas resources in the ground. Buy the sand that you can turn into silicon. Fab your own chips, design your own chips. You've got to be vertically integrated. It's the only way to win. From Santa Search. Exactly.

From Santa Search. That's a great line. Printing it. Put it on a T-shirt. Give them, I've seen enough. Give them 10 billion. Give them 10 billion. Thank you so much for wrapping on.

Jordi, you got anything else? No, that's great. Awesome progress. Congratulations. Thanks for breaking it down for us. We will talk to you soon. Congrats to the whole team. Have a great one.

Yeah. Thanks, guys. Cheers. Our next guest, Charlie from Orchard Robotics is in the Restream Waiting Room. We'll bring in Charlie from Orchard. Charlie Charlie Charlie Orchard Orchard

A teal fellow Cornell dropout Wow A wild flush How you doing Charlie It's great to have you in the Ultram Great to be on the temple of technology The capital of capital Welcome

There we go What else can we do Can we play a sound board for you Can we ring this gong for you Do you have anything for us? It would be an honor to us Give us something So today we announced

our $22 million series A, led by Quiet Capital and Shepard. Let's go. So excited to finally have us out there. We've been growing the team a bunch. We've been scaling up our technology into a bunch of new farms. It's really been an exciting time these last couple of months. Thank you for making cool-looking robots. We've got to pull this.

We'll have a team. Yes, yes. Pull up the landing page. I want to look through this. Also, thank you for making a company with a name that directly translates to what you do. Orchard. AI. It's a farming company. Yeah. It's fantastic. And I love your background, by the way. How did you get into this?

Did you just like do a market map and figure out there's opportunity in farming or did you have some background? How'd you learn on that? My grandparents were actually apple farmers and my parents in the agriculture before they immigrated to the U.S. I grew up in Virginia, gone to robotics early on, built my first robot when I was like seven years old, trained my first ML model in middle school. I ended up going to school to study CS and mechanical engineering. And this was kind of during the COVID use. People love people to know this, but Cornell is actually the number one agriculture school in the nation. And we have anchors of...

Look at this robot, John. Yeah, it's a beautiful robot. You made a beautiful robot. Yeah, thank you. Our amazing team made that. But it's been a pretty long journey the past three years to get to this point, actually. And the first iteration of this was actually this huge six-foot-tall autonomous rover that I built my dorm room. And then we realized, wait a minute, you don't really need a rover, you can just have a camera because you have tractors that go through the farms all day already.

But really, I was talking to, I think, you know, when I first started the company, I talked to like 100 different farmers, just drove around upstate New York, talked to everyone I could, and basically learned that, you know, here in the U.S., even on the largest commercial farms, like these farmers are relying on very, very small amounts of data to make every decision. So, you know, say an apple farmer is going to send their 10 best workers out to the fields for entire week to count incise fruit on trees. And maybe, you know, 400 man hours, they get to 500 trees. seems like a lot until you realize there's five million trees in the farm. And that sample size is what they use to make every decision across their entire company, which is kind of insane to think about. But, you know, we're helping them get into that. So you started, are you starting with counting, which sounds simple, but...

We can do a lot of things. We started with things. Now we can count and size, measure color, measure grade, detect disease, measure growth rate, do inventories of plants, basically telefarver, everything they want to know that can be, you know, glean from visual information out in the fields, which is, you know, pretty much all of the important information that they've, you know, been lacking for these last couple of decades. Get nerd out with me for a second on the hardware. I see a bunch of different lenses and cameras on here. I imagine that you're driving right by a tree. There's going to be apples that are

obscured by leaves. You need high definition, some 4K, 8K, some zoomed in, some zoomed out. like what's the optic stack that gets you enough resolution or data to actually determine, you know, is this an apple or is this Apple healthy? Like, walk me through that decision. Yeah, we have four lenses on each of our cameras and they're basically two stereo pairs. We use stereo vision. They're RGB cameras. They're pretty much off the shelf cameras.

Camera technology is really good in the last couple of years. The real magic is in the machine learning models that we run on the edge. So we have some state-of-the-art multi-object detection. tracking models that we run on every number of cameras. We have Nvidia, Jets, and Orrin set every single one of them that run these models at the edge. And we can basically do things like, you know, of the 100 images we take every single second, we can tell, you know, even through occlusion, through, you know, things like leaves, blocking fruit or fruit that are, you know, as small as 5 millimeters we can actually size. You actually hit the nail on the head.

We have a really wide angle lens and a really narrow angle lens. And that lets, you know, do things like zoom in to see very, very small things, but also things like a, you know, 12-foot tall tree from three or four feet away. Being a farmer and just refreshing your dashboard and seeing that you have a bountiful harvest must hit extremely hard. How do you sell robots? Are you like imagine if this is replacing the need to send hundreds of people or a bunch of people into the field to like physically count fruit? It can pay itself back fairly quickly. But what's the what's a business model? Yeah.

So we actually charge a per acre per year subscription fee. So it's similar to SaaS pricing where it scales on the number of acres they use it on. Since the hardware is so relatively inexpensive, we actually don't even charge for the hardware. It's it's, you know, boxed in with the subscription fee. So it's really easy and not capital intensive for a farmer to, you know, try on a couple hundred acres and scale onto thousands or tens of thousands of acres. Are those LED lights on the sides of the robot? They are. Yeah, they're LED strobe lights. So even at night, we can operate.

Oh, and you only strobe them when you're taking a picture with the cameras to say, energy? Yep. Makes a ton of sense. All of the cameras are powered. So we actually can power them off of any 12-volt power source. So we, you know, we have farmers that actually plug them into like the 12-volt sockets, like the carjacks, like on your car. We have, you know, like people who use external batteries, you know, you can wire it into like, you know, the car battery of any tractor or ATV. It's really versatile. What's the, what's the refresh rate on the flashing on the strobes? Are you doing like one for a second or something? It's, it's more. It's more. It depends, but it's more than 15 times a second from Peters.

15 times a second, you're flashing LED lights. Is this going to make squirrels go insane? Hopefully the squirrels aren't awake and night. Yeah, go to sleep squirrels. Yeah, close your eyes. We're farming out here. We're farming. Get out of here.

Yeah, I mean, maybe there's a pest control. We talked to the laser weeder guy, and maybe there's a pest control angle. Maybe you can also place a heavy metal, tell you to pick a different category. Oh, yeah. Actually, it's a good point that you brought up because, you know, we started this company back in March of 2022. And it was actually, I think it was around the time that like the whole American dynamism thing. Yeah, they were like, please make weapons. Please.

Make weapons. I'll give you 100 million. Put a gun on it. I remember actually when I met my first like VC ever, they were like, oh, you should pivot into crypto. Like that was the, because this was March of 2022. It was before everything came, you know, tumbling down. And we were like, I don't really want to be crypto. I think, you know, this is my life's work.

I'm going to do this for the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years. And, you know, I think over the last year or so, there's been kind of this rise in, you know, robotics and American dynamism and, you know, like manufacturing, all these like industry things. And, you know, suddenly, you know, agriculture and ag tech is sexy now. And, you know, it's been, you know, when we went out to raise this last round, it was, I'd say, a bit, I don't say easy. Nothing's ever easy. But, you know, it was a lot better than, you know, when we were raising. our first two rounds. You could have gone into beans. Do you remember beans? Hey, you know, I've actually heard that coffee beans are a pretty big market. I'm talking about the crypto project

beans. I don't know if you're familiar with this, but it was popular on Twitter for like, you know, right around that time, right about when you would have been pivoting from agriculture themed robotics into agriculture themed crypto. It was a very popular crypto app where you would put your, the whole thing was like staking coins, but the metaphor was like you steak your beans and your beans harvest and they yield and stuff. And then there were tons of people that all of a sudden they put in like a thousand dollars and then they like the harvest came and they were worth like a million dollars on paper. But then the thing got hacked and so they lost all their money. It was a wild. I'm glad. I'm glad you tripled down. Seems like you did something much more value

creative thing. And it feels like I have to imagine, uh, uh, I have to imagine, uh, this is like already helping solve labor shortages with farms and and the same thing that you know when people sell in AI to the enterprise are saying we're freeing up people's time to do higher leverage work and like counting and doing doing doing this stuff uh you know you're just sort of like getting the state of things by by understanding like crop yields and things like that and then i imagine this is freeing up labor to like actually take action to increase yields and fight off pests and things like that that actually impact the bottom lines. Yeah, you know, the big thing is, you know, not only is it freeing up labor from, you know,

having to go out and do this counting and sampling work, but perhaps the more important thing that's actually being, you know, done in the immediate ROI a lot of our farmers can see is actually a reduction in labor costs and crop inputs because right now what, you know, this is a bit of a simplification, but what happens across a lot of these farms is that, you know, a farmer who's managing millions of trees and thousands of acres might go out and say, hey, you know, this is like one, you know, 50-acre pot of land, I'm going to do the exact same thing to every one of the 50,000 trees in this 50-acre pot of land. When in reality, half the trees might only need half the amount of, you know, pests, they're pruning or, you know, fertilizers, you know, whatever it is,

they might be applying or doing to those truths. So it's very one-size-fits-all. And, you know, we can tell these farmers things like, hey, wait a minute, in this half of this block, it only needs, you know, half the amount of pruning. You only need to send half the amount of workers into that half. And suddenly you're saving 25% of labor costs in that block. So That's probably one of the first big things that a lot of our customers notice when they use their technology is just this ability to see where you need more of something and where you need less of something else. And you can see pretty immediate labor and cost savings just from that alone. But in the long run, we have this, I guess, this conception of what we call like an AI farmer, which is that if we can see, you know, tens or hundreds or, you know, like billions of trees across their entire life cycles across multiple seasons, we can start trading large embedding models in all of the same. data that can basically farm or know how to farm better than any human ever could because it has

so much experience. And from there, it's like, what can we do with that? We get down to the tree level and like prescribe, you know, individual recommendations to what every single plant into farm needs. And that's super exciting. I mean, I think that's ultimately where, you know, a lot of this technology is going to go over the next couple of years. That's amazing. I'm incredibly bullish on you and Orchard. Extremely bullish for Erwan too. Very exciting. Thanks so much for helping out. Congrats, Charlie. It's great to get the story, and I'm sure you'll be back on very soon. We're excited for me. Amazing. Thank you, guys.

And send me your address, too. Oh, yeah. I'll send you an orchard hat, yeah, in exchange. Well, yeah, we're going to need a robot to count and make sure nobody's overdosing on caffeine in this studio. That's a problem we have. We'll talk to you soon. Great talking. Happy to see you guys. What a legend.

His product's called Fruit Scope. And we got to talk about no. 360 no scopes. A call of duty movie is officially in the works. This could be the second movie the Jordy season, his entire life after Borat. Borod will be the first one. Thank you.

Would you see the call of duty movie? Paramount also has the rights to expand Call of Duty into a universe of multiple films and TV shows. I wouldn't just watch it. I would study it. Sit down and listen. I would sit down and listen to the Call of Duty movie. The Call of Duty movie seems like a no bird.

brainer. Seems awesome. Dodford, a great YouTube creator, says, the sensible thing to do would be adapting black ops or modern warfare. Instead, I fear they'll do a Minecraft movie-esque comedy with trick shots and noob tubes. What do you think? Do you think they're going to go slapstick, comedy, lighter, PG-13, joky for kids, or do you think they will actually try and make it like Blackhawk down, gritty, serious? Like, you know, brain rot or I don't think they're going to go comedy I think they're going to go

oh we already saw Mountainhead Daniel's crafting me that's true I did and I felt like I needed to give a review I'll watch yeah and uh well we'll have to give a review of the Call of Duty movie obviously everyone will demand it and listen

well we got to hop on to get over onto substack we got to hop on with Philadelphia that's right no but we actually are going to do a live over on Substack right now. You can go watch us on Substack. You might already be watching on Substack.

We're going to be live with Emily Sundberg. We love you. We'll see tomorrow. Thank you. We'll see you tomorrow. Have a great evening. Goodbye. Cheers.