The Vergecast - The tech trials keep coming

Episode Date: November 8, 2023

Today on the flagship podcast of anti-steering provisions: 02:57 - The Verge's David Pierce and Makena Kelly discuss Epic v. Google, a trial about the future of app stores. The Epic v. Google trial may come down to simple v. complicated Epic v. Google: a battle over Fortnite fees goes to court 28:49 - Liz Lopatto joins the show to detail her experience covering the Sam Bankman-Fried trial from start to finish. FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is guilty of fraud Sam Bankman-Fried gambled on a trial and his parents lost 58:27 - Richard Lawler helps answer this week's Vergecast Hotline question. Disney’s new vision for ESPN might include part ownership by the NBA, NFL Disney finally revealed how many billions ESPN pulls in. Email us at [e-mail] or leave a voicemail at 866-VERGE11, we love hearing from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the Vergecast, the flagship podcast of anti-steering provisions. I'm your friend David Pierce, and I am currently getting ready to travel. It's 6.47 p.m. on Monday night. I have a flight Tuesday morning. We're recording all of this a little bit early as a result. I'm going to San Francisco, and what that means is I'm about to spend five or so hours on a plane. So I'm doing, of course, what you always have to do, which is bring 45 different devices to use on the plane. an iPad. I have a switch. I have my laptop. I have my phone. I have another iPad that I'm just now

realizing I don't need to bring. I have a Kindle. Did I mention my Kindle? All of that is full of content. I'm downloading stuff. I'm charging everything. I have Super Mario Wonder to play on the plane, which is the only thing I'm going to do for the whole flight, and I know that already, and yet I'm doing all of this other work. I also have to charge all my gadgets. I have to make sure I have all of the cables that I need, which is a lot easier than it used to be, but there's always still one stray lightning cable or micro-usb thing I have to bring. It's just a lot. And it turns out that whenever I travel, half the stuff in my bag is gadgets and the other half is just like one pair of jeans, no matter how long I'm traveling for. Listen, this is not the life anyone should live,

but it's the one I've signed up for. So here we go. Anyway, we have an awesome show coming up for you today. We are going to talk almost entirely about trials. Because like we've been talking about on this show, all fall, we're in the midst of a couple of really interesting, really important, potentially really consequential things happening in court around the tech industry. Today we're going to talk about two in particular. Epic v. Google, the latest antitrust trial against Google, not to be confused with the other antitrust trial that's happening against Google. And then we're going to talk about SBF. The trial of Sam Bankman-Fried is finally over. He was convicted, and we're going to talk about how we got there and what it means going

forward. All that is coming up in just a sec, but first, I have to find the charger for my Kindle because I have two Kindles with two different chargers, and I'm just going to bring whichever one is least dead. There's just a lot going on. This is the Vergecast. We'll be right back. Support for the show comes from Retool.

Too many companies run critical operations on duct-taped spreadsheets, Slack workflows, and whatever else they could cobble together. Not because they want to, but because building internal tools means weeks of waiting on someone else's backlog. That's where Retool comes in. Build custom internal tools just by describing what you need.

Prompts something like, build me a revenue dashboard on our Salesforce data. And Retool actually builds it on your company's data in your cloud with enterprise security built in. Go to retool.com slash Verchcast. We all need to retool how we build software. What's up, y'all? I'm Skyler Diggins, seven-time WMBA All-Star, Olympic gold

medalist, and mom. And I'm Cassidy Hubbard, host and reporter for nearly 20 years, covering the biggest names and stories in sports and mom. And this is Am Mom, a community for athletes, game changers, and moms of all kinds. Dropping May 14th, tap in with us. Welcome back. I have like 65 different things plugged in right now. Two different devices are doing software updates, and I think I'm downloading like half of Netflix to my iPad. I am ready for this flight, y'all. All right, let's get into the trials. The first one I want to talk about today is Epic v. Google, which is a trial fundamentally about the future of app stores. Epic says, basically, that Google charging a 30% commission on in-app purchases is

anti-competitive, and it wants to blow up the app store model altogether. Google says, you know, no thanks to all of that. If this is ringing deja vu, bells in your brain, there is a good reason for that. In 2021, Epic went to trial against Apple, alleging pretty much the exact same stuff. This trial has a lot in common with that one, but also some important differences. And there's a decent chance that we're going to get a different kind of outcome here. The trial is already a couple of days old as you're hearing this. We're covering it really closely. Sean Hollister is in the courtroom, and the Virges-McKennie is here now to help me figure out what to make of all of it. Hi, McKenna. Hi. I don't know where to start

with this trial. I was going back and trying to figure out where do we need to start to catch people up on what is going on between Epic and Google. And I feel like to some extent the answers, we have to go all the way back to the beginning of Epic versus everybody, right? Which is like 2020, mid-pandemic, everybody's out of their mind. Life is pure chaos. And Epic just sort of decides to pull the rip cord and pick a giant fight with the two biggest companies in tech all at once. Can you just give us like the 60-second backstory kind of starting there and And what happened between these companies? Sure.

So what happened in 2020, like you're describing, is Epic Games, the Fortnite maker, decided that they were going to just say, screw you to Google and Apple in their app stores. That was like the official plan, by the way. That's not really editorializing. Like, that is what they were attempting to do. It totally was. And Sweeney, I mean, that is so like Tim Sweeney to do anyways. And so he said, screw you.

We are going to allow people to make in-app purchases in our games. without it going through the app stores and being subject to this like 15 to 30 percent tax. And immediately, Google and Apple pulled Fortnite from their app stores. And so as a result, Epic Games sued them for that, alleging that they hold these monopolies in the app store markets and that these, you know, 30 percent taxes are unlawful and should be challenged. And so we're three years from that. And the Google one is just going to trial right now. Yeah, it's been a long three years.

So, and then in between we had Epic versus Apple, which is, I think, not exactly the same thing as the trial we're about to have. And we should talk about the differences. But in a lot of ways, the bones of the trial are very similar. One side is the App Store and one side is Epic trying to say the App Store is illegal. And I would say Epic didn't completely lose the Apple trial. It won the sort of anti-steering provision, which says you can now link to other ways to make payments, but in general, its fight against App Store monopolies pretty much came up short.

So if I'm epic, why on earth do I keep picking this fight after more or less losing it the first time? Well, to look at Tim Sweeney, I think he really does like to tick these people off. He's kind of a hard-headed CEO. I don't think he's worried about losing face in these at all, to be honest with you. And so for them, these like taxes that these app stores, put on software, what requires them to raise, well, what they'll say is it requires them to raise prices for consumers. And it makes whatever it is, V bucks or whatever, more expensive in Fortnite. It makes it more expensive for you to, I don't know, get Tinder, gold or whatever they're calling it

nowadays and all that kind of stuff. So they continue to push this because they don't want to give any of these profits, any of this money, to Apple or Google. They're just operating an app store in their opinion and it should be, you know, free for people to access and use as an open marketplace. What's your sense of what's different about this case? Sort of at a very high level, the two sides of the fight, like we were saying, are more or less the same thing. Is there anything different about Google as an opponent, as Apple as opponent a couple years ago? Sure. So, I mean, looking at Google, the Play Store is so huge. Yeah.

As much as we talk about, you know, iPhones being like the elite, whatever. whatever device to be using, more people use Android. Like, it really is just everywhere. And so I think that lends itself more to Epic's argument here. And then also, we already had the ruling and the anti-steering provision. And that's in appeals right now with having to be able to link out. So another decision similar to that would really offer some more precedent in whatever appeal comes from the Apple case as well.

Yeah, the Play Store thing is so interesting to me because I think if I'm remembering back, Apple basically tried to make a security argument about iOS, that like if you allow people to side load apps on their phone, bad things will happen. People will install malware, all kinds of awful things will happen to your phone. And essentially, users and developers cannot be trusted to do things outside of the app store. And it seems like Google is making a similar case in this case, which is sort of funny because the Play Store is like notoriously kind of a disaster. but also Google is slightly different because you can kind of get around the Play Store. Like you can sort of side load apps on Android.

The Samsung store exists, which seems like a really weird sort of wrench in this trial. So even at a platform level, it just seems to me that the case against Google is stronger because the Play Store, like you said, is so big and so important on this platform. but also is so much sort of messier and easier to get around than like the unbelievably tight fist that Apple has on the app store. Does that feel different to you going into this? Oh, yeah, I mean, because it's easier. You can just download another app store or use like the Samsung Play Store or be able to, it's so much easier.

People talk about customization and having more control of your devices. Google has let you do that for a very long time on Android. And so people do, of course, have more options. And it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. And this goes back to, I think, one of the things we learned from the Apple case is so much of this is about the fight we end up having, which is part of the thing I think that's going to be so interesting about this case. It's like every time you and I talk, I feel like we end up talking about market definitions because all anybody ever wants to talk about in these cases is market definitions because the market you define is so important. And it was some like, it was the last time there were questions about like, is it mobile apps, is it games? and we ended up talking about the market was like mobile digital transactions or something goofy.

And in this case, it feels like we're about to just relitigate all the same stuff, right? Like, what is it that we're actually fighting about here? And I wonder if I'm epic, if I've learned anything from that first fight that is going to make them do a better job in this case. Yeah. And I mean, when you talk about continuing to pick this fight, last week, Match.com and, you know, other plaintiffs on this case dropped out. seemingly, you know, settling with Apple. It's interesting how Tim Sweeney and Epic Games is continuing to pursue this, especially with whatever settlements, you know, Google is trying to make behind closed doors right now.

Yeah, what do you make of the match thing? They were the other company that has been really loud in this fight. I feel like it's been Epic, Spotify, and Match have been the three companies sort of most aggressively fighting these apps or monopolies. And Match in particular seems to have just kind of given up the fight. What do you make of that? Yeah, I think this case, like you're saying, is going to be a bit more. more challenging for these companies to take on. And I'm sure, you know, whatever agreement they were able to get from Google on this was enough to satisfy, you know, their concerns with

this. And that kind of, you know, lends to the question of what is Epic Games? What is their opening argument going to look like this week? What is it that they're, you know, continuing to push and to continue to fight for that they probably couldn't have gotten, you know, in its settlement? And it's probably that challenging that monopoly. Do you believe Tim Sweeney when he makes these sort of grand pronouncements? I mean, I think one way to look at this is, just two very greedy companies fighting over money, right? Like, big company wants to keep its money, other big company wants to take some who wins. Like the Occam's Razor version of this argument is that. But the flip side of this is that Tim Sweeney has said resolutely, and for years at this

point, that this is bigger than epic, this is bigger than money, this is about like principles and software development and who gets to win in society. And normally I would find that to be nonsense, but at this point, Tim Sweeney seems maybe more likely than most to not be full of it when he says that. I don't know. What do you think? Yeah, it's hard to read into the hearts and minds of people like this, but if I was Tim Sweeney and I brought this case, these cases three years ago, even if I didn't buy it in the first place, I definitely had convinced myself by now. I have internalized these arguments in a way that I literally cannot give them up after being so loud and so like at the forefront of this issue for so long. Yeah, that is fair. And I think at some point, you've said it at enough times that you

just kind of have to keep saying it. Like at some point, if he just testifies and he's like, look, I just want to keep our 30 percent. I want more money for my shareholders. Like, the whole courtroom is just going to start booing at him. And it's, he can't, he can't do that now. Yeah. The thing about this case that I found really interesting back when I was first announced and we had that big, like, Apple 1984 Epic Games thing is that for the past, you know, how many years I have been waiting for the tech policy arguments that were having in antitrust, content moderation or whatever, to have its net neutrality

moment, like it's 2015 net neutrality, 2017 net neutrality moment. And when I saw that video and I thought about how big Fortnite was and think about the player base and the people behind it, I really was like, okay, if it's going to happen, you know, in any case, in antitrust, it's going to happen

right now. And it didn't necessarily happen. I was waiting to see, because, you know, if you remember like the old net neutrality stuff, like Google's website, you know, Reddit's website where it's plastered with all this stuff. And just to have like, I mean, Epic games, you know, in Fortnite, the biggest game, you know, that so many young people are playing. I was really hoping that we were going to see that. And it just, it never grew to that size. It makes me think about, you know, what would happen? Like, if we actually did have a bunch of, like, young kids and teenagers and young people, like, riled up over App Store markets and, like, how different this would look right now. But yeah, I, I'm always looking for that kind of, you know, emergence of like this as like a, I don't know, like a public protest movement. Yeah, I mean, it's really interesting because I think the thing in recent times that has gotten the closest to that was the like would be TikTok ban. In terms of like real sort of grassroots rage among young people, that's the closest one I've seen is a lot of people fighting about the TikTok ban and for creators and for free expression and all this stuff.

But the antitrust thing is really interesting to me because it feels like. like this right now should be the moment. You have the U.S. versus Google antitrust trial ongoing, like as we speak right now, you have Epic versus Google, another antitrust trial starting right now. You have this suit filed against Amazon that is increasingly the more we learn about it, the weirder and sketchier and more problematic and all-consuming it seems. This should be the moment where antitrust becomes this like big mainstream everybody's talking about it issue. I certainly don't see that like in the world. Like the people I talk to are not interested in antitrust legislation at this moment.

But also I don't even necessarily get the sense that there's a ton of energy like among politicians and in Washington right now about this. What is going on here? Yeah. So when I'm going back to 2019, 2020, in the heat of that election cycle, when we were in the heat of the Democratic primary. And we had Elizabeth Warren and whoever putting out these giant antitrust packages saying that, Big tech needs to be broken up. All of a sudden, we have people who are taking the thoughts of, like, Lena Kahn and Tim Wu and mainstreaming it in a way that was getting people really, really excited. And as legislation got introduced, and as that continued to move in Congress, I think there was one bill that got passed, and it was just like a merger filing fee thing.

And so it wasn't that major. Progress. And then a lot of the conversations around this has been, okay. well, we will wait and see what the courts do, you know, to see what legislation is necessary for this. You know, you would think that people would be paying maybe a bit more closer attention, you know, to this and maybe talking about it a bit more. But it seems like people are just kind of getting ready to see what happens and what steps that they should take. I know I've been trying to check in. And there's like bills like the Open Apps Market Act.

And that would open up the marketplaces. This was something that came out of, you know, all of these app stores. There was that piece of legislation. It didn't really go anywhere. I've heard some stuff about them reworking that and then reintroducing it at some point in time. But again, maybe they're waiting to see what happens in the Google case. It's really unclear to me right now. Yeah, it does seem like there was this underlying argument for a while that Lena Khan in particular was ready to lose some of these antitrust fights in order to make broader, longer term legislative changes. That it's like, you need a different kind of precedent and a different kind of case if we're going to start

to make Congress make laws in order to win these fights that the FTC can't win based on like 100 year old law that had nothing to do with tech companies. And so far it doesn't seem to have happened. I understand that it's a long game. And I feel like one thing you've drilled into my head on this show over and over is that there's just only so much time and energy in Congress to do things. And getting anything in tech to be the most important thing at the moment in order for people to actually get something done takes a lot of work. Like I was thinking about this over this weekend because it was daylight saving time. And there was the, was it the Sunshine Protection Act? Every year. Yeah. And as far as I can tell, no one is against this. It's just like no one cares enough

to bring it up in Congress and do something about it, even though they would be a national hero and they should do something about it. This feels in a certain way like kind of the same thing. More and more more people, I think, in politics and in the government, agree that something should be done and that changes need to be made. But even right now, there's so much more heat on like AI regulation, that it just feels like yet again, we've bumped, what do we do about big tech down the pecking order of tech issues? And it just, it feels like as long as it is never the most interesting thing, which if it's not right now, I don't know how it's ever going to be. It's hard to see what happens there in the immediate future. Yeah. And I do think that there might be a turning point.

I was listening to this funny enough AI hearing in the House a couple weeks ago. And in it, Republicans and Democrats were both talking about, well, okay, AI regulation, we need that. But how do we even start thinking about that without a nation-wide federal privacy framework? You know, some lawmakers are reconsidering like, okay, maybe we need to go back to basics. Things are getting too complicated. We have too many issues. Why don't we attack something that will have maybe the best outcome for a consumer? and for Americans by like going back and looking at an American, you know, a federal data privacy law.

And then maybe going back and like rethinking antitrust more holistically instead of doing these, you know, these bills that just attack little pieces of this, rather than just going after AI. Like Chuck Schumer and all these AI summits, they've been targeting different things. So there's been like innovation ones and work, you know, labor and workforce ones. And it just, that almost feels like it's making the issue like too complicated at the same. same time, like, you're trying to teach lawmakers, you know, about AI, and then you're just completely inundating them with all this information. And, like, how do you make sense of that and turn, you know, legislation into that and, like, decide exactly what to focus on? Of course, when it comes to AI regulation, then it seems like Open AI and all the companies are a bit more concerned

with Congress going after election-focused stuff and, like, political ads maybe. But at some point, and I think we're starting to see it now. Picking these little fights is not going to be enough. They're going to have to decide to like come back, lay the foundation, and then maybe think about those things later. I totally agree with that, but it does seem like there is a certain element of the perfect being the enemy of the good in all of that where it feels like with so many of these conversations, I think data privacy probably chief among them, we've had this debate over and over. And it just seems like we land in this place where it's like, well, if you can't solve the whole problem, we don't have anything. And so we've gotten to this point where the only solution is just like we have to rewrite the American Constitution to explicitly reference Apple and Google. And it's like, well, that's not going to happen.

And so nothing happens. And it just feels like at some point, one of the things I have thought over the last couple of years is that maybe some of these antitrust fights might be a thing where you can actually pick one chunk of what's going on and do something about it. And part of me, like one of the reasons I've been so interested in this US versus Google search defaults thing is. It's like that is a finite-sized thing that you could regulate, right? And I think, like, Benedict Evans, the venture capitalist said this to me years ago, and I think he's right that it's like, we don't regulate cars. We regulate every single thing inside of a car, and that's how we regulate cars. His case was that's how we should regulate privacy and the internet.

We shouldn't regulate the internet. We should regulate all of the things that happen piece by piece because regulating the internet or technology is impossible, and it's too big. And I think with all this antitrust stuff, and I think the epic, Apple thing is a good example because anti-steering is another tiny sort of finite piece that you can break off and make decisions about that has real meaningful change for the industry. And I guess the question is like, can you build up a bunch of those over time? Or are we eventually going to need this sort of one big giant sweeping something that just like blows everything up and then we see

what happens, which tends to be like every 25 years. It seems like we get one of those from the government. Well, also when it comes to enforcement, I think people have been waiting for that. too. Like, I think that's why we're waiting on legislation. That's why we're waiting on a lot of things. The problem with enforcement is that our enforcers don't have that many resources. Yeah, they're on like Windows 98 computers trying to figure this out. Exactly. So that's one problem. And then even if they do go ahead and win a case, that is one company. You know, look at, I like to think about all the stuff Facebook had to agree to, you know, after Cambridge Analytica. There was some AI stuff in there, if I remember correctly and all this kind of stuff in this, you know, agreement.

with the FTC, the same thing with Twitter. Twitter with the security and safety practices, the reason why the FTC is investigating Elon Musk's Twitter right now is because of this 2011 consent decree with the agency, you know, about these things. And it gives them the leverage and the authority to go ahead and reinvestigate. But of course, you know, it's these specific agreements with specific companies. And it's a lot harder, right, to do something new or like to continue and like investigate everyone. You have to kind of target. and the people who you feel are the worst actors and then fix things there. But it's one company.

It's maybe setting a standard and like a precedent for how other companies can act, but they're not going to be, you know, breaking the law if they act similarly later. Yeah, that's very fair. One of the things I think is different about a lot of these fights and Epic versus Google is that this is a jury trial, which strikes me very different from a lot of the stuff that we've seen, which is not essentially the government arguing one side and the company arguing another. side and a judge having to decide who's right. Like that's a thing we've come to understand. There have been a lot of those. This is just going to be like a dozen random people off the

street who are deciding what's going on here. Is that potentially as different a thing as it seems like it might be to me in terms of how this case might go? Yeah. I mean, like you're saying, antitrust trials are typically bench trials. Like it is the judge making the decision. And I can't remember really anything else in recent history where we've seen this with people being forced to recognize. Like, Congress can't even make sense of like old antitrust laws and how we should apply them to technology companies right now. And hell, I have issues with it sometimes too. I just think having faith that, you know, these attorneys make the proper case and these folks can make the right decision. But again, like, your average person is not stupid.

either. I think what Epic really wants here is to not get into the weeds on the numbers and, you know, the sheer size and all of these, you know, very like granular arguments we can have. And they probably want to see, you know, the grander argument, the bigger argument, how these app markets should operate and what these, you know, taxes and fees and all these things mean and how, you know, the average person like me and you, the average consumer wants to interact with these, you know, platforms day in day out. And I think that lends itself better to this. I think it's like a 10-person, yeah, jury that will start hearing these arguments on Monday. It seems to me, and this is based on nothing but just the gut feeling that I'm having,

that the fact that it's a jury trial would stand to benefit Epic a lot more than it would stand to benefit Google. Because I feel like if I'm the prosecutor, all I have to do now is tell a convincing story basically about David and Goliath, right, about a gigantic tech company that is preventing not just me, but I'm fighting on behalf of every small developer everywhere who is having to essentially give a portion of our earnings to the king, right? Like that is borderline un-American. That's how we have to do this. And I feel like, again, I think you're right. We're going to get away from a lot of the technicalities. And like, being in the courtroom for USV Google, it is all about technicalities. Like, all they talk about

is deal structure and revenue sharing and the like tiny little mechanical economic details of how this stuff works. I would assume, and it's totally possible I end up being wrong, that this ends up being a much less technical trial because what they have to do, like you were saying, is essentially tell a story to a jury that is going to have to then apply it to a hundred-year-old precedent that arguably doesn't make any sense in the current context. And I assume whatever way this goes, it is going to be absolutely ripe for appeal and everything's going to get weird, even more so than most of these cases because it's a jury trial. But it just seems like we're going to get much more feelings and sort of grand storytelling as opposed to like a parade of expert witnesses

telling you how contracts work. Right. I mean, it makes the most sense. If I was Epic's attorney right now, that would be my approach is focus more on storytelling than like overwhelming people with these ridiculous, you know, numbers and economic data and everything. Yeah, it's going to be really interesting to see. I'm sort of sad we're not going to get as much access to this one as we did Epic v. Apple, which you could, like, because it was COVID, it was ironically more publicly available. This one, we're back to much more closed down. But Sean Hollister is going to be in the courtroom, so we're going to see a bunch of stuff. What are you looking for in this one? Like, is there, are we looking to see if Epic can get another

version of kind of the small wins? It got in Apple. Is this going to be a much bigger win or lose? Like, how would you sort of handicap the odds here? Yeah. I'd want to first hear the arguments on, like, you were bringing. up earlier about the Samsung store, the ability to load apps and stuff on outside of the Play Store. I'm curious how those arguments are made, what we hear from the judge, you know, and the, you know, the mind reading of the jury on that of reporters in the room. And I think that will really color what we can expect. Because if we're right here and we're talking about, you know, something that is focused more on storytelling than, you know, this like granular

evidence, I think that is where we are going to get the best idea of what, you know, this end result will look like. All right. Sean Hollister is going to be in the courtroom. So we'll grab him on this show at some point in the next. I think this supposed to be five weeks is the plan for this one. Yeah. It's supposed to end right before Christmas.

Okay. Well, God help us all for the next five weeks. But yeah, we'll check back in and keep it locked on the site. Sean's going to be covering it for us. McKenna, thank you, as always. Yeah, no problem. All right. We got to take a break.

and then we will be back to talk Sam Bankman Fried. We're right back. Support for this show comes from Shopify. Every thriving, successful business has to start somewhere. A good place to start is a relatively simple question. What if, given the right tools, I've really put my all into this. One tool that can help grow your sprouting business to new heights is Shopify. Millions of businesses around the world rely on Shopify for e-commerce.

They offer a host of helpful tools you can take advantage of, from pay, processing to analytics to website design. Their design studio includes hundreds of templates to help you create the exact website you've been envisioning for your business. If you're wondering, what if I need help? Then no worries, because you're never left to fend for yourself. Shopify's award-winning customer support is available 24-7. It's time to turn those what-ifs into a thriving business with Shopify today.

Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com. slash vergecast. Go to Shopify.com slash vergecast. That's Shopify.com slash vergecast. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. If you're a small business owner, you know that every hire counts, but time and resources are limited.

Finding, connecting with, and screening the right candidates takes up valuable time you could be giving to your customers. That's where LinkedIn Hiring Pro comes in. It's built to be your hiring partner, helping you find the right candidates faster. That way you can hire with confidence without turning it into another full-time job. Hiring Pro streamlines the entire process from drafting your job to shortlisting candidates

and conducting AI-powered interviews for initial screenings. Its updated conversational interface lets you describe what you need in plain language. Nearly 60% of hirers find a candidate to interview within a week. With Hiring Pro, you spend less time searching and more time connecting with the right talent. And instead of getting buried in resumes, you get a focus shortlist that actually moves your hiring forward. Join the 2.7 million small businesses using LinkedIn to hire. Get started by posting your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash track. Terms and conditions apply.

All right, we're back. Last week, after a truly wild trial that, lasted more than a month, and a saga in general that lasted almost exactly to the day a year, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was found guilty on seven counts, which included wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The short version of a really long story is that SBF was accused and convicted of using FTX's customer deposits to shore up his crypto trading firm called Alameda Research. Throughout the whole trial, his former colleagues testified that FTX falsified numbers,

gave Alameda special privileges, including to lose billions of dollars, and that he lied to the public and users about where their money was. Prosecutors said FTX was a fraud from the start, and a jury agreed. In a certain sense, the SBF story is now over, or at least almost over, given that he's set to be sentenced in March. And the Virges Liz Lapato has watched it all go down. She was in the courtroom for the entire trial watching the whole thing unravel. So I brought her in to see what she saw, how it felt, and what happens next.

Liz, hello. Hi, David. How's it going? You survived. I'm so proud of you. I made it. How is your headspace after, what, six weeks of sitting in a courtroom? Oh, man. Well, I'm very ready to do something else. Fair. But it was intense. I mean, it was like a, you know, I wasn't just sitting in the courtroom.

I was also standing outside the courtroom at the wee hours of the morning, many mornings. Yeah. So I'm excited to have a life again because this was like sort of an assessment. experience for about a month. Yeah, I do actually want to talk about the sort of spectacle of this, because I remember one of the things we talked about, I think on the show, before it started, was how much kind of outside interest there was going to be. It was obviously going to be a very high profile trial, but the question of like, are there going to be crypto fanboys outside the courtroom every morning? Or like, are there going to be, there were like the Elizabeth Holmes

cosplayers at the Theranos trial. Are we going to get some of that? The only bit of story that I heard was that we literally had to hire a line sitter for you at one point because the line for the Sam bits of testimony was so early that it was like untenable for you to be there early enough to get in line. So like was it like that the whole trial? How crazy did it get? So the Sam testimony was the peak, especially the Sam cross. And the way that line sitter thing worked was like I got in line on Sunday night for Monday. Like I got in line at like, I don't know, 11. 45 on Sunday night. Good Lord. Because I knew there was going to be a lot of interest and I was, to be clear, like, fourth. Wow. Yeah. So the first person who had gotten there had gotten there around 1030. And, you know, the day ended, I was like so tired, I felt drunk and I still had the story to write. And I remember going into, like, nobody's up yet. Like, we're going into the building. It's 7.30. The editors haven't logged on. And I was just texting them like, I can't do this Tuesday.

Like Tuesday, you know, I'm going to write and then I don't have enough time to like have dinner and sleep. Because you would literally have to walk out of the courtroom, file your story, and then walk back to the courtroom. That's right. So that's how we ended up with a line sitter on Tuesday. I got like six hours of sleep and it was like the best six hours of sleep I've ever had in my life. It was so rewarding. It felt amazing. That's very good. So it wasn't like that the whole time. That was just the Sam bits. Oh yeah. I mean like, you know, Caroline Ellison was the other sort of big draw. And that was. like, that was a much more reasonable 4 a.m. time to get in line. There was just, there were a lot of people there. It was, um, especially for the sand testimony, there were a lot of people who were, you know, they worked in tech or they worked in finance or they like had an interest in crypto,

a lot of reporters, obviously. So there was just a, it was a pretty big draw from the general public. And there were like a couple of people who were in town from London or from Ireland, who had stopped by the trial. And so that was like, pretty remarkable to me. It was like a tourist attraction. Yeah. So there was, absolutely, there was a certain amount of, like, spectacle. There weren't any cosplayers like there were at the Holmes trial. We didn't see, like, you know, the art students who were setting up, like, Theranos-themed, like, gift shops or anything like that. But there was some very, very intense interest from a lot of people who had been following this. That's just nuts. So, and I'm particularly curious. We've obviously,

we know how the trial ended, which we're going to get to in a minute. But I'm super curious about the vibes in the courtroom, which I feel like is one of the things you wrote a lot about, was you spent a lot of time watching one person's testimony while watching somebody else just sort of be in the courtroom. That's right. And especially Sam and Caroline for a chunk of it and Sam's parents. I feel like we're kind of your main characters, for obvious reasons, throughout the whole trial. And I'm really curious how the kind of vibes shifted from the beginning of the trial to the end of the trial, just as like a person in the room. courtroom. So this is why I wanted to be in the courtroom is that there are things that play

really differently in the courtroom than they do, even in the overflow rooms or in the transcript or on Twitter. And I was really struck by that throughout this trial. We had moments of levity that like people didn't think were funny outside of the courtroom, for instance. So like the best example was when Sam was testifying and his lawyer successfully objected to a question. And Sam responded anyway that he thought, you know, embezzling money was not protecting customer assets. And his lawyer was kind of like, Sam, you've been here for a couple weeks. You know you don't have to answer that. And Sam was like, yeah, but I felt like it was important. And that was like a big laugh line in the courtroom. And the way that it seemed to play elsewhere was that he was getting scolded, which like,

it was like a little bit of a scolding, but it was it was playful, you know. So there were these moments that I, that's part of the reason why I was getting up at those kind of insane hours was I wanted to really sort of describe what was happening in the room because the text only version. of that doesn't give you how people are feeling. And part of it was that I wanted to keep an eye on the jury. And by the end of the prosecution's case, the jury was really fed up with Sam Begman-Fried. And this was before he took the stand. I want to be clear. Like, you know, we have Caroline testifying to, you know, the sort of arc of her time at Alameda and ending with this all-hands meeting where she essentially confesses to her staff, what has happened.

And then immediately afterwards, we have Christian Drappy getting up on the stand. He's a former employee. He's got the recording of her, you know, doing it. And the jury was really wrapped for that. I know that it played a little differently, again, for other people who like was like, oh, she's like giggling, you know. But the jury was absolutely locked in. You know, this was something that they took very seriously. And part of the reason he had been called was to talk about the way that she was speaking on the tape. He noted that she has a half. of giggling nervously, like when there are times of tension, she tends to laugh uncomfortably. And like, so that was part of the reason I think that he was giving that testimony was to say, like, she's not laughing like out of joy or anything. Like, this is a very uncomfortable moment for her. Right. As that tape was playing, I was watching members of the jury, like, shaking their heads. Like, no.

And like, I saw them shake their heads again at the sort of towards the end of the prosecution's case where Can's son, who is one of the FTX lawyers, was testifying that Sam Beckman Fried had come to him and talked about wanting to find an excuse to give Apollo the private equity group he was trying to raise money from an explanation legally for how all of this money had gone missing. And Can's son ran through three explanations. It was like none of them, none of them do it. And then he quit. Oh, boy. And this is sort of a recurring theme. Yeah. You know, We immediately saw Sam Bickmanfried in a December interview with George Stephanopoulos running through one of these explanations and saying, oh, it was the margin lending program, which Kansom had been very clear with him. It was so much more money than was in the margin lending program.

There's no good explanation for this. And again, during this video clip, you could see members of the jury like shaking their heads. Like, no. Like, this is ridiculous. So there was sort of, you know, this sense of almost absurdity by the end. end of the prosecution's case because every day I would come in and then there would be like a new crime. And like at one point I remember turning to another reporter like when we were standing in line and be like, look, I knew he was guilty, but I didn't know he was like guilty, guilty. He's like

guiltier than I thought. The prosecution easily could have rested their case after the second week. And we had two more weeks. So it was, it was a lot of evidence. It was really like an overwhelming amount of evidence. And, you know, by the end, we had a pretty good idea of what had happened. And then I guess the idea behind Sam testifying is sort of something that you get in these white-collar cases where intent really matters. You may remember that Elizabeth Holmes testified in her own trial, too. And who can speak to the intent better than the person who is there? And the defense, just to button on that, the defense in that case basically is either I didn't know or I didn't mean to, essentially, right? Because it kind of boils down to you like, did you do this on purpose or not?

And if you can convincingly say you didn't do it on purpose, you might get away with it. That's right. Good intentions are a complete defense. Like, it's not illegal to be an idiot, which is lucky for me. The lying is the illegal part. It's not that he lost all this money is that he lied to people. That's the fraud piece of it. So if he had believed what he was saying, if he hadn't known that it was untrue, that would be a complete defense. That would be enough. And the problem with putting your defendant on the stand in that way is you open them up to cross-examination. And that can be really gnarly and that was really gnarly. Like, that was, I've seen a lot of cross-examinations and that was probably the nastiest I think I've ever seen. Wow. Danielle Sassoon, who was the prosecutor, she clearly knew just backwards and forwards everything Sam Bergman-Fried had ever said in public, just like all indexed in her brain. Which is a lot, by the way. That man has talked in public so much.

So much. Yeah. So we had like a long section of her saying, did you say this? and him being like, I don't recall, and then her playing it. And then her saying, did you say this? And him saying, I don't recall and her playing it. Oh, boy. You know, it was like a couple hours of this. And it really established him as like an unreliable narrator, particularly because he wasn't saying something like, I don't remember saying that specifically, but it sounds like something I would have said. It was just like, I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. And like after a certain point, again, you see like the jury starting to make like prolonged eye contact with each other. Like, you know when somebody's misbehaving on the sub-werexed. way and you make eye contact with a stranger like do you see the shit like it was very that so that was not great and it's not what you want it's not well and it also seems like that specific thing is part of the shift i think that you covered in a lot of your stories is like at the beginning of the trial sam thought and a big part of his whole schick had been that you can get an awfully long way with

this kind of moppy-haired slightly spacey genius weirdo and that that affectation, ironically, like you and I have been covering the space a long time, like there's no better way to be a billionaire than to have that specific deal. People will just throw money at you if you seem like you don't care how you dress or what you look like or whatever. But then at some point over the course of that trial, that went from being like his greatest asset, or at least what he thought was his asset, to like the thing that destroyed him in a lot of ways. So I want to put a little button on that. It's not people that will give you a lot of money.

It's specifically VCs that will give you a lot of money. that will give you a lot of money. That's a very good distinction, yes. VCs have a specific model of what they think a genius looks like, and he played very much into that. The problem is, if you are marketing yourself as a genius, if you're saying you're brilliant, if you are putting yourself forth as, like,

someone who is really, really smart, you have a harder time showing yourself to be stupid. Like, I mean, that's like part of what's going on here, right? Like, he doesn't have a CFO at this company, even though it's a financial company, and that's like very important. He doesn't have any risk management, which you're running a futures exchange. Risk is what you do. Yeah. And trying to hold those two things together in your mind at this guy's a genius and that there's no risk management, there's no CFO, there are no adults in the room. That starts to look damning. That starts to look

like you did something on purpose. It starts to look like you don't want risk management because you think risk management won't approve of what you did. And so that's sort of, I think, of the specific ways where this backfired. Like, I think that there could have been a lot more understanding if he had been an ordinary person, ironically, you know, where it's like, oh, yeah, ordinary people, like, misplace things. Like, they sometimes do dumb stuff. But, you know, if you're presenting yourself as, like, this genius, and he was, you know, he was leaning very heavily on, like, having gone to MIT, having worked at Jane Street, which is a pretty exclusive firm on Wall Street, having been this startup founder, having done this incredible like arbitrage trade to get his money, like, if your whole story is that you're brilliant and then $8 billion goes missing, people are not going to think you lost it.

Yeah. And then a bunch of people get up on the stand and testify how you did it. In fact, you did not lose it. That's right. Yeah. And I think so much of what it seems that he thought. And I am curious, like I generally am not. interested in trying to like psychoanalyze people in his position but like my guy just like got up on the stand for three days and did it so we're going to do it to him you got the sense he felt like through this whole process he could sort of smart guy his way out of everything and like again not to keep coming back to the theranos thing but i think it's like there was this sense of if we can just get away with it long enough we'll eventually get where we're going and everything will be fine and it'll be worth it and like that's not even to bring in all of the effective altruism i'm

going to save the world stuff, which like, I'm just, I'm done with that. Like, I don't think, I don't care anymore that he was an effective altruist. I'm no longer interested in that fact about him. But I do think he thought he could just like smart guy his way through these troubles. And he was so smart that everything was going to be fine. And that just, it just doesn't work. And I think even in this trial, you get the sense that he thought he could just get up there and smart guy his way through it and that he would win in the end. And that was so spectacularly the wrong call in this trial, it seemed. I mean, watching his parents during the cross-examination was sad.

I'm sure. And they left for the end of it. And I don't blame them because it was really nasty. It was obvious what was happening. It was obvious what the outcome was going to be. And I wouldn't want to watch that happen to my child either. But it felt like throughout the course of the trial, there was like a delusion almost on at least Sam's part and maybe the part of his parents as well. that, you know, everything was going to be okay because Sam was a really good guy and he never

would have done anything wrong. And that was, as far as I could tell, the entire defense was like, you know, Sam talked about how he didn't drink when he was in college and he, you know, like to play board games and he was very wholesome. And like, you know, he's a good boy. And I think there was an understanding that Bankman Fried has of himself and that his parents have of him that ran pretty much headlong into the rest of the world and the way the rest of the world understood him to be working. And certainly by the time of the closing statements, I think everybody understood what was going to happen. I was just about to ask that. Like, at what point did the whole room sort of realize, oh, he's going to be convicted? Was it closing arguments? I kind

of felt like reading your stories, it felt like it might have happened before that. It definitely happened before that for me. Okay. I think it happened before that for several members of the jury. They weren't out very long. They were out for four and a half hours. It's not a long time. No, that's long enough to like have a coffee, look around the room and be like, we good? And then go back in. Like, that's not, that's not a group of people who had a lot to talk about for four hours. I mean, they did, they did send in for like a couple of questions. They had some questions around the investor testimony. They wanted portions of that sent in. But that was fast. You know, something like this, a complicated trial like this. I actually wasn't expecting a verdict until the next week. I was expecting a

verdict the following like Monday or Tuesday. And we just went right through and that was it. So 8 p.m. Like we had a verdict. But the reason I come back to the closing statements was that I was really struck by Sam who had turned towards the jury. And so I could see the side of his face. And he looked like he either had been crying or was about to cry. You know, his nose was red. He looked devastated. basically. And so I think that's why I think he knew. There was this very emotional moment from him of his attorney reading this closing statement and him just looking terrified and perhaps crying. You know, and his parents throughout seemed really horrified by the testimony. At times, you know, I could see his mother with her head in her hands. It was rough. And, you know, one of the sort of

recurring themes throughout my coverage is I just couldn't figure out why we were there. Like, I don't know why you wouldn't just plead. Like, that's the part that's wild to me, right? Like, okay, maybe you're not going to get a deal. But if you plead guilty and you throw yourself on the mercy of the judge and you say, I'm very, very sorry, I heard a lot of people. I did wrong. I want to be punished. Maybe you get a shorter sentence that way. And even if you don't, you haven't dragged everybody you love through this spectacle of a trial. Because if you think about it, like the scale of destruction here is unusual. I mean, there's obviously all of these customers who've lost money and many of whom maybe don't want to go public about how much money they've lost because they feel silly about it. But like those people, you know, they deserve our sympathy, I think. The investors who've lost money, the lenders who lost money, like one of them, BlockFi ended up going bankrupt. And it wasn't, this wasn't the only thing that pushed them into bankruptcy, but it sure didn't help. You know, and then on top of sort of all of that like destruction, And a lot of the FTX employees kept their money on the exchange. So they're the people who are also wrapped up in this bankruptcy. They had no idea most of them that anything was going wrong. You think about Adam Yadiddea's testimony. And like there was this horrible sort of moment towards the end of it where one of the text messages he had read to was read aloud, you know, he was telling Sam he loved him. He would stand by him. He would try to like fix FTC. And then he found out what had actually happened and he immediately quit.

Wow. I want you to think about this. This is like one of Sam's best friends from college. They were like frat boys together. They shared or they were roommates in college. They were roommates in the Bahamas. Like this is like one of his closest friends. I want you to just hold that in your mind for a minute. Think about your closest friend and how pissed off they would have to be at you, how betrayed they would have to feel to testify against you at trial. Yeah. And there was so much of that. I mean, I think the extent to which and you wrote about that, you wrote about. this at one point that like, I think you called it like summer camp syndrome, that it's just a group of friends who all essentially turned all at once on Sam at the end of this. I think you're right. It is sort of unusual that everybody told the exact same story, which I think in the end made it really easy in a lot of ways. Like the prosecutor story was so simple and so straightforward and so corroborated by so many people. And then Sam's story was like the same. story, but he just said he didn't know about any of it. Right.

He clearly deserved to be convicted because all the evidence said so. But it also just seemed like he was, the weight of the evidence against him was so sort of uniquely pointed and strong in that sense. Well, and even assuming there hadn't been testimony from his conspirators, you know, his co-conspirators, all of whom were like, yeah, we work together with Sam on this. just looking at where the money went and who benefited from that money, Sam benefited more than anyone. These were investments that he wanted to make. His parents got a home in the Bahamas, and that was traced back to FTX investor money. He got a bunch of Robin Hood shares in a

personally owned vehicle. Just looking at who benefits, like not even thinking about the blow by blow of how it happened. It's kind of open and shut. So to me, you know, there were all of these moments where I kept being like, why are we here? Like literally, why are we here? You know, like plead guilty and spare, you know, your family and friends this humiliation. And maybe they'll come visit you in jail. So speaking of the ramifications of all of this, I feel like I've seen two narratives over the last few days start to come out. One is that Silicon Valley, as it does, we'll just move on.

The VC class is not going to do the self-introspection that everybody always. wants them to do in moments like this. They didn't do it with their nose. They're not going to do it now. You just move on to the next thing. They're all pouring money into AI stuff. And then on the flip side, there is this sense that this is kind of a broader crypto reckoning. One of the things we talked about at the

beginning of the trial was how much crypto industry dirt was going to come out of this one way or the other about how unwatched and unmanaged a lot of this space is. I have a hard time figuring out kind of what the macro legacy of this

trial is going to be. Do you have a sense, even just a few days out? I think I do. And part of it is because there were crypto industry people who were coming to the trial. And so during Gary Wong's testimony about the faked insurance fund, because this was just like Russian nesting dolls of crime. But there was a random number generator that they had that was their insurance fund. There was no insurance fund. Alameda was paying stuff out. One of the people who I was talking to who was a crypto investor was like, oh, Binance has an insurance fund. I wonder if that's real, too. Some things that are different, right? Like, for instance, there are exchanges where you know which ones are the omnibus wallets. You can watch them. You can sort of see on chain what's going on. But there are going to be, I think, larger questions

of who's telling the truth. Because Sam said all the right things in terms of wanting regulation, in terms of trying to be safe and trustworthy for customers. And there is going to be, because the scale of this fraud was so enormous, I think there is going to be a question for regulators, for customers, for everyone. The next time someone says something like, oh, yeah, we want regulation. Like, is that true? Sam said that. Is that real? And so I think that that's sort of going to be one of the lingering things from this trial more so than anything else is this question of like, how trustworthy is the crypto industry? And, you know, this is an industry that is like, very, I think, proudly, full of pirates. These are people who have been operating in sort of legal

gray areas, many of whom were excited about that. And that was like part of the joy, almost, of the industry for a long time. And now it's cutting the other way where it's like, okay, but like, do you want to give your money to pirates? So I think that that's certainly going to be a long-term ramification. As for the VCs, I don't know. I would like to say that I think it might be different. And part of the reason I might say that is that interest rates have been going up. And that means that there's less money sloshing into VC than there used to be. And there was this whole period where they had so much money, they had to figure out how to invest it somehow. And so, like, you had mattress companies that were suddenly tech companies because they were selling stuff online,

right? You had WeWork, which to Adam Newman's credit, like, that was not a fraud. He told everybody that he was planning to benefit disproportionately from we work like that. And they funded it anyway. So there was this period where like the balance of power had really shifted to founders. There was a real sense of FOMO in the investing community. Then you could sort of pressure them into doing deals without due diligence. And so I think as the money is receding, which it has been, and as the valuations are getting cut, and as like the tide is kind of going out, I think that as well as the sort of profound embarrassing, of these major fraud trials may contribute to more careful evaluation. Do I think that that's a guarantee? No, I don't. You know, I certainly have heard a lot of wild VC talk about like how

Elizabeth Holmes wasn't really a product of Silicon Valley and they didn't really do anything wrong. And FGX is a standalone fraud. And like, you know, I think there's a lot of denial. But I certainly think that among the people who are using VC as an investment vehicle, you know, whether those are family offices, retirement funds, endowments, whatever, if they provide enough pressure, that will change things. And so the question is sort of, you know, who's upstream from the VCs and how much pressure are they putting on, especially now that we are out of this low interest rate environment and there are less risky places for you to make money. Yeah, my only worry about that outcome would be that we've been through this in smaller ways a bunch of times now, right?

Like, I think if you're still a crypto believer, your tolerance for chaos and risk and fraud is so high at this point that I wonder what would possibly turn you off. If you're a person who like earnestly believes that crypto is the future of everything, what on earth is left to convince you? This one's a pretty big one. And I think what it might do to your point is it might instill. worry in a lot of people like two concentric circles out from the believers. The kinds of people who were like setting up Coinbase accounts two years ago, right? Who were like, what's this? I'm not like a

diamond hands crypto maniac, but I'm just like a person who wants to invest my money. And I think you're definitely right that those people are going to remember FTX in a pretty real and pretty damning way for the crypto industry. Yeah, I think the true believers, I mean, the true believers are the true believers. They're still going to be there. This is an internet subculture that I think we're going to continue to see for a long time. You know, they're already talking about the next cycle. Yeah, this is just crypto winter. That's right. So, you know, I don't know that crypto's gone forever. I certainly don't think that's true. And I also think the approval of a Bitcoin ETF, which is something that the crypto community has really been keeping an eye on, that might potentially be a help to them.

Like, that might be something that gets institutional investors involved, you know, your black rocks and so on. Is that a guarantee? I don't know. Again, we're in a different investing environment now, where there are easier ways, less risky ways to make money. Because part of what really fueled the last boom was that VCs were able to cash out much more quickly in crypto than they were in a lot of other investments. And so that gave them a pretty quick return. And that gave them an incentive to work with a lot of crypto companies. And I think that's less true now. So we'll see. You know, and I don't necessarily mind weird internet subcultures. Those are your people, yeah.

Yeah, I love the crypto true believers. They're a lot of fun to hang out with. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they're a great time. You know, these people, they're not stupid. They're not. They're smart and thoughtful, and they don't like the current financial system. Totally. All right, we have to go, and you have to go on vacation.

But thank you for coming on. You did truly ridiculous work over the last four weeks. So thank you for all of that and for coming on the show. and I have a feeling we're going to be doing this again. What is it in March when sentencing happens? March is when sentencing happens, right? We are not done with this story just yet. So we'll do this again.

But thanks to this. All right, thank you, David. All right, we've got to take one more break, and then we'll get to the hotline. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. If you're a small business owner, you know that every hire counts, but time and resources are limited.

Finding, connecting with, and screening the right candidates takes up valuable time you could be giving to your customers. That's where LinkedIn Hiring Pro comes in. It's built to be your hiring partner, helping you find the right candidates faster. That way you can hire with confidence without turning it into another full-time job.

Hiring Pro streamlines the entire process from drafting your job to shortlisting candidates and conducting AI-powered interviews for initial screenings. It's updated conversational interface lets you describe what you need in plain language. Nearly 60% of hirers find a candidate to interview within a week. With Hiring Pro, you spend less time searching and more time connecting with the right talent. And instead of getting buried in resumes, you get a focus shortlist that actually moves your hiring forward.

Join the 2.7 million small businesses using LinkedIn to hire. Get started by posting your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash track. Terms and conditions apply. Support for the show comes from Anthropic. Not every question has an easy answer. And the ones that are really worth asking usually come with a healthy mix of inspiration and backpedaling, aha moments, and quiet meditation.

When you're working through one of those problems, you want a partner to bounce ideas off of and figure out where the deeper issue lies. That's where Claude can help. Claude is the AI for minds that don't stop at good enough. It's the collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow and thinks with you, whether you're debugging code at midnight or strategizing your next business move. Claude extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter.

Plus, Claude's research capabilities go deeper than basic search. It can have comprehensive, reliable analysis with proper citations, turning hours of research into minutes. Ready to tackle bigger problems? Get started with Claude today. at clod.aI.ai slash vergecast. That's clod.a.ai slash vergecast. And check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all the features mentioned in today's episode.

Claude.a.ai slash vergecast. All right. We're back. Let's get to the Vergecast hotline. As always, the number is 866. Verge11. Call and ask us all of your weirdest, deepest, darkest secrets and questions about technology. I don't know how to ask us a secret, but you can do it if you want to. This week we have a question about sports. Sir Richard Lawler is here to help me answer. Hi, Richard.

Always love to talk to sports. Yeah, man, we don't get to do it that often. So when it's just us, we get to talk about sports. This is going to be a six-hour long segment. It's going to be great. All right, let me just play the question, which I think is a very fun one, and then we're going to get into it. Hey, David.

This is Jeff from North Carolina. I recently listened to your Friday episode where you were talking about the Hulu deal with Disney and Comcast. And I'm wondering, you mentioned that you think Disney wants to say, ESPN. And I'm curious if you think that Disney would potentially not sell ESPN and instead look for a strategic partnership like Apple to run ESPN with them or do the ESPN would ever get sold to Apple altogether. Thanks so much. Let's show. Bye. Okay. I love this question because A, it's about ESPN, which I very much enjoy talking about.

But B, it brings up, I think, a thing you and I have talked a bunch about, which is why ESPN is kind of a of the whole streaming universe. We talked about Disney and Hulu last week. Disney is going to be required to pay somewhere north of $8.5 billion to buy the rest of Hulu. That's very expensive. Disney is not a company that is full of cash right now. But I'm curious, hearing this question, what if Disney doesn't sell ESPN? Could it sell to Apple? Could it partner with Apple? What do you think? Apple is the always, oh, they could buy it for every question you ever have. They just have all the money. Because they have all of the money. Every bit of money, that there is belongs to Apple. Tim Cook is just sitting on it, presumably in a cave like small,

I assume. Will they buy it? The answer is almost always no. And I think for ESPN, the answer is probably no. You can never rule it out. But it's an interesting question. Okay, so like, what is Disney going to do? But I don't think they have an answer. That's why we got these weird rumors about they want to partner with different sports leagues maybe, because I don't know how that works with the sports leagues owning part of the broadcaster that they sell broadcasts to. That seems strange. And I don't know where the money comes from. But Apple buying them is just one of those things where, yes, it could technically happen.

And yes, it would open up all of these things with Apple TV that they would love to do. And it would give them something that everyone needs to have. But they don't actually do those things. It's just generally not the way that Apple operates. For Disney, it would narrow the availability of ESPN if it were suddenly somehow exclusive. Maybe even if they could still sell it to cable operators, it would. be weird. And I think that what we've seen, like we saw with their deal with, I think, cable vision. They kind of worked it out so that you have streaming and you have cable. And it seems like that's

the way that they're going, at least for the future. Because the other thing that we know now is exactly how profitable ESPN is. And that answer to that is a lot. It makes a ton of money. So profitable. I think that's the thing that actually gets lost in a lot of this because Disney has made fairly clear that it would like to find some more money for ESPN, which people make out. to be because ESPN is not a good business. That's not true. ESPN is such an unbelievably good business. They just started breaking out how much money ESPN makes

because it is so much money that, like, Disney is trying to make the point. And that's now. That's now after everyone has cut the court, after everyone you know has stopped subscribing to cable, ESPN is still making just absolute billions and billions and billions of dollars. Yeah. And I do think it's true that if you cast out far enough, you can see where ESPN gets harder.

because the rights deals that ESPN is fighting for are getting more and more expensive. The number of cable subscribers who are essentially paying for ESPN twice are going down. So like you cast out another what 10, 15 years and ESPN is maybe a less good business. Right now is still an unbelievably great business. I'm with you. I don't think it would be Apple because like I was thinking a lot about the deal that Apple made at the MLS and the deal that Apple didn't make to get Sunday ticket. And it seems like what Apple is.

all about, and this makes sense given what Apple is, is control, right? Apple wants a thing it can do itself. So the idea of having a thing that is fundamentally about making a million different partnerships with a million different people or being like a minority owner in a thing it doesn't actually control all of feels very unappily to me. But like Amazon, I can absolutely imagine making roughly that exact deal where Amazon is like, we're going to put all the sports on prime. You can subscribe to ESPN through Prime. You get ESPN if you're a prime subscriber. We're going to make prime $8 a month more expensive. There's your cable difference right there. I can totally imagine a world in which that happens. I don't think it would be Apple, I agree with you. I think Apple's

much more likely to buy a sports league than it is to buy ESPN. Yeah, something where they actually can control. And I think that's the number one most important word for what Apple likes is control. And the other part of ESPN is there deals with the different leagues means that Apple would have no control because all of these arrangements are old and have been made in different ways and have a lot of compromises and all the leagues have different things. Like, people talk about Apple will buy Formula One rights. It's one of those things that people say, but I think is unlikely, Formula One broadcast itself. It does all of it through its own broadcast center and sends it around the world.

Apple doesn't really want to deal with Formula One telling it what to do. And I think as you go down the line, that's just really what you run into. And that's what makes it less and less and less likely. But yes, like a company like Amazon, what if Microsoft is like, you know what, we should combine ESPN and Game Pass. Let's do it. ESPN GamePass Bing bundle, done. The weirdest way to spend $20 a month that you've ever encountered. I love it.

The reason I continue to think ESPN is so interesting is because it is right smack in the middle of this thing where what ESPN wants is to be everywhere, right? Because the crazy part about this is ESPN isn't going to get the rights deals that it wants if it doesn't have the distribution that you get through cable. This is why CBS and Fox keep getting deals because they're everywhere. Like, no one but old people watches CBS anymore, but CBS keeps getting football deals because it's free over-the-air television that absolutely everybody can get, which means you can charge more for ads, which means you get more reach.

Like, everybody wins. So ESPN needs that, but it also needs to figure out what a streaming-only world looks like because it's coming. But if ESPN in 10 years, that world comes and ESPN doesn't have any rights deals, ESPN is dead anyway. So it's caught in this transition that we're in. Nobody has a harder time of navigating it than ESPN, even as it continues to just throw off billions and billions of dollars for Disney. Yeah, being in the lead means that making a decision about changing something is so much more difficult.

Totally. So, okay, real quick, before we go, 12 months from now, you have to answer, does Disney still own ESPN? Yes. Majority. See, that's good. That's good. I think I'm with you. I think if I put the number at like five years, I think I'd have a hard time answering the question.

I think 12 months, it's just too big a thing to change in that period of time. And I think people really underrate how messy sports deals are. And just like the paperwork involved in selling ESPN will, I think, just like blow people's minds. And I think the money that it brings in simply makes a lot of things that Disney wants to do a lot easier. It is something that we know now that we always suspected, but we know now. Like all those Marvel movies are like, ESPN paid for those. You're welcome. In like a very real way ESPN paid for all of that stuff.

And now the question is going to be, can Disney find another way to pay for all that stuff without ESPN? And is it going to have to. And all of that is so unknown, which is why it's very weird to be Disney right now. Because it's dealing in like a thousand concurrent hypotheticals that none of which are true. Like right now Disney's fine. Wall Street doesn't think so because they're terrified about like some future streaming universe that doesn't actually exist yet. But like right now as a business, Disney's doing great.

Bringing in just tons of money. It's just hosed in so many ways it doesn't yet understand. It makes it very complicated. What that future looks like is something that, you know, if you have an answer, I'm sure Bob Heger will take your call. Yeah, hit him up. Bob at Disney.com, I'm sure. He'll take your email.

All right, Richard. Thank you as always. Appreciate it, then. All right, that's it for the Vergecast today. Thanks to everybody who's on the show. Thank you, as always, for listening. There's lots more from everything we talked about. All of Liz's SBF coverage is amazing.

You should go back and read it all. Everything Sean is doing from the courtroom for Epic v. Google has been great so far. We'll put some links in the show notes, but also keep an eye on the website. There's all kinds of stuff still going down. And as always, if you have thoughts, questions, feelings, or curiosities about the jury in these trials, let us know. You can always email us at vergecast at theverge.com or keep calling the hotline. 866, Verge11. Like I said before, I love hearing from you.

It is one of my favorite things we get to do on the Vergecast. This show is produced by Andrew Marino and Liam James. The Vergecast is a Verge production and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Nelai, Alex, and I will be back on Friday to talk about everything happening at OpenAI, the new MacBook, the PS5 Slim, and a whole bunch more. We'll see you then. Rock and roll.