Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Bloomberg's Mark Gurman says that even though Apple partnered with Google Gemini for Siri, they actually run their business on Anthropic. "Apple runs on Anthropic at this point. Anthropic is powering a lot of the stuff Apple's doing internally in terms of product development and a lot of their... internal tools." "They have custom versions of Claude running on their own servers internally, too. This Google deal just came together a few months ago. They were not going to use Google. Apple actually was going to rebuild Siri around Claude. But Anthropic was holding them over a barrel. They wanted a ton of money from them, several billion dollars a year, and at a price that doubled on an annual basis for the next three years."show more

TBPN

738,240 subscribers

944,581 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Bloomberg's Mark Gurman says hiring John Giannandrea to lead Apple's AI team has been the biggest mistake of Tim Cook's career at Apple: "In 2018, they hired John Giannandrea. He was this high flyer at Google. He ran AI in search, and Apple thought they would hire this guy and really hit the ground running and be at the forefront of AI." "Just seven years earlier, they announced Siri in 2011. There was absolutely nothing like it. It was a breakthrough. But then it became utter junk." "You haven't even scratched the surface of how big a problem this is for Apple. They've completely screwed up AI in every way, and it comes down to hiring the wrong people and entrusting the wrong people."

Bloomberg's Mark Gurman says hiring John Giannandrea to lead Apple's AI team has been the biggest mistake of Tim Cook's career at Apple: "In 2018, they hired John Giannandrea. He was this high flyer at Google. He ran AI in search, and Apple thought they would hire this guy and really hit the ground running and be at the forefront of AI." "Just seven years earlier, they announced Siri in 2011. There was absolutely nothing like it. It was a breakthrough. But then it became utter junk." "You haven't even scratched the surface of how big a problem this is for Apple. They've completely screwed up AI in every way, and it comes down to hiring the wrong people and entrusting the wrong people."

TBPN

58,033 views • 4 months ago

Anthropic engineers finally showed how they actually use Claude Code internally 31 minutes of internal workflow that most Claude users will never see on their own here's what they cover: > how to set up project context files the right way > custom commands that save hours of repeated work > hooks that make Claude behave exactly how you need > subagents and how to actually spec them properly "your agent isn't the problem, your spec is" the people who understand how Claude Code actually works inside Anthropic are shipping things everyone else thinks requires a whole team that's exactly why I put together a breakdown of Claude features most people have never discovered you can find it below

Anthropic engineers finally showed how they actually use Claude Code internally 31 minutes of internal workflow that most Claude users will never see on their own here's what they cover: > how to set up project context files the right way > custom commands that save hours of repeated work > hooks that make Claude behave exactly how you need > subagents and how to actually spec them properly "your agent isn't the problem, your spec is" the people who understand how Claude Code actually works inside Anthropic are shipping things everyone else thinks requires a whole team that's exactly why I put together a breakdown of Claude features most people have never discovered you can find it below

Anatoli Kopadze

308,994 views • 1 month ago

Dylan on why Anthropic leading on models doesn't mean OpenAI loses. Even the tier 2 and 3 labs will sell out of tokens: "Everyone's like Anthropic won. They had Mythos, Opus 4.7 and their revenue is adding $10 billion a month all before OpenAI's alleged Spud release. So clearly Anthropic is in the lead and OpenAI is cooked. Anthropic has such bounds on compute, they can only grow it so fast. Dario used to gloat about how OpenAI was being too aggressive on compute and Anthropic was more sensible in their scaling. Now Anthropic is like I wish we had a lot more compute. OpenAI just raised a ton of money to get incremental compute in addition to the irresponsible levels of compute that they were buying. By the end of the year, let's say a 4.6 Opus tier model, the economy would spend $100 billion on. Anthropic won't have enough compute to do that. And presumably OpenAI and Google will hit that tier soon. Anthropic may get to charge 70%+ gross margins but if OpenAI hits it next, they charge 50% gross margins. They still get all of this incremental demand. There is such demand for these tokens and such limitations on compute. It's pretty clear even the tier 2 or tier 3 lab are going to be sold out of tokens. The economic value that the best model can deliver is growing faster than our ability to actually serve those tokens to people via the infrastructure."

Dylan on why Anthropic leading on models doesn't mean OpenAI loses. Even the tier 2 and 3 labs will sell out of tokens: "Everyone's like Anthropic won. They had Mythos, Opus 4.7 and their revenue is adding $10 billion a month all before OpenAI's alleged Spud release. So clearly Anthropic is in the lead and OpenAI is cooked. Anthropic has such bounds on compute, they can only grow it so fast. Dario used to gloat about how OpenAI was being too aggressive on compute and Anthropic was more sensible in their scaling. Now Anthropic is like I wish we had a lot more compute. OpenAI just raised a ton of money to get incremental compute in addition to the irresponsible levels of compute that they were buying. By the end of the year, let's say a 4.6 Opus tier model, the economy would spend $100 billion on. Anthropic won't have enough compute to do that. And presumably OpenAI and Google will hit that tier soon. Anthropic may get to charge 70%+ gross margins but if OpenAI hits it next, they charge 50% gross margins. They still get all of this incremental demand. There is such demand for these tokens and such limitations on compute. It's pretty clear even the tier 2 or tier 3 lab are going to be sold out of tokens. The economic value that the best model can deliver is growing faster than our ability to actually serve those tokens to people via the infrastructure."

Patrick OShaughnessy

294,850 views • 2 months ago

.John Coogan says the recent reporting on Meta's 'tokenmaxxing' is less of a sign of bad incentives at the company, and more of a tell about its potential strategy for more vertical integration: "I think it makes clearer the strategy with MSL. Because it's clear that they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this, just for internal code-gen tooling — like, running their business." "They are going to spend an inordinate amount of money on frontier inference, and so [by] training a model there, they will be able to amortize the training cost of the next model they build not just over, 'Can they get a product out that goes viral and becomes its own standalone chat app that people pay for.'" "Just on the internal usage, they could be running a multi-billion-dollar token bill that they would have to pay another lab. And so if they develop that internally, it's pure vertical integration." "And then you also have everything that's happening on the actual ad targeting and content delivery side..." "The big question has been like, 'Is Meta going to be able to launch an entirely new AI product like Vibes or something like that?'" "And this is a data point that, to me, says they don't need to. Because just from a pure vertical integration [perspective], the investment in MSL can pencil out."

.John Coogan says the recent reporting on Meta's 'tokenmaxxing' is less of a sign of bad incentives at the company, and more of a tell about its potential strategy for more vertical integration: "I think it makes clearer the strategy with MSL. Because it's clear that they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this, just for internal code-gen tooling — like, running their business." "They are going to spend an inordinate amount of money on frontier inference, and so [by] training a model there, they will be able to amortize the training cost of the next model they build not just over, 'Can they get a product out that goes viral and becomes its own standalone chat app that people pay for.'" "Just on the internal usage, they could be running a multi-billion-dollar token bill that they would have to pay another lab. And so if they develop that internally, it's pure vertical integration." "And then you also have everything that's happening on the actual ad targeting and content delivery side..." "The big question has been like, 'Is Meta going to be able to launch an entirely new AI product like Vibes or something like that?'" "And this is a data point that, to me, says they don't need to. Because just from a pure vertical integration [perspective], the investment in MSL can pencil out."

TBPN

32,654 views • 2 months ago

Google just STOLE Apple away from OpenAI... And it might decide who wins the AI race. Apple announced a multi-year $1 billion deal with Google to power the next generation of Siri using Gemini AI. Not ChatGPT. Gemini. This is the same Apple that 18 months ago announced a partnership with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into iPhones. Everyone thought that meant OpenAI won. Turns out it was an audition. And OpenAI failed. Here's why: June 2024: Apple announces OpenAI partnership. Sam Altman tweets: "very happy to be partnering with apple." Media declares OpenAI the winner of the AI race. December 2025: Sam Altman issues "code red" at OpenAI. Tells everyone to pause everything and ship ChatGPT 5.2 faster. Why the panic? Google released Gemini 3 and it was actually good. January 2026: Apple picks Google. ChatGPT stays as an "optional feature" for complicated queries. But Gemini becomes the DEFAULT intelligence layer for 2 billion Apple devices. The financial reality: Apple pays OpenAI $0 But Apple pays Google $1 BILLION per year That's a verdict. The excuse OpenAI gave for why they did it for free was "exposure to millions of iPhone users." Which basically means "we couldn't negotiate worth shit." Meanwhile Google walked away with both the money AND the distribution. Why Google won: Infrastructure ownership. OpenAI runs on Microsoft's Azure cloud. That creates a dependency chain: Apple → OpenAI → Microsoft. 3 companies. 3 points of failure. Google owns its entire stack. One relationship. Zero middlemen. Apple's statement said Google's technology provides "the most capable foundation." Not "most innovative." Not "best partner." Most CAPABLE. In other words, OpenAI's tech couldn't handle the scale. The Alphabet boost: Google's stock hit $4 trillion market cap after the announcement. Up 65% in 2024 on AI momentum alone. This deal validates Google's pivot from "search company" to "AI infrastructure company." Now they power Samsung's Galaxy AI AND Apple's Siri. Billions of mobile devices running on Gemini. OpenAI's big problem here: Still no profit. Ever. Anthropic is stealing enterprise customers. DeepSeek launched a price war forcing ChatGPT to cut prices. GPT-5 was overhyped and underwhelming. Circular financing deals are getting scrutinized. And now Apple just downgraded them from partner to backup option. That "code red" in December? Too little, too late. The reality everyone's missing: This isn't about chatbot quality. It's about who owns the infrastructure to power billions of devices. Google proved it with Samsung. Now Apple. OpenAI proved it can build a viral product but can't scale it profitably. Very different skill sets. Elon called it "unreasonable concentration of power for Google." He's right. But that's exactly why Apple chose them. Apple doesn't want a startup partner. They want a utility provider. Google is now the default AI for Android AND iOS. OpenAI is relegated to opt-in queries for people who specifically request ChatGPT. That's the difference between infrastructure and feature. The next 12 months: Apple launches Gemini-powered Siri in spring 2026. If it works, every iPhone user defaults to Google's AI. ChatGPT becomes the thing people use when Siri can't answer. The backup plan. My takeaway for entrepreneurs watching this: Distribution beats innovation. Google didn't necessarily build a better chatbot. They built better infrastructure and negotiated better terms. OpenAI won the hype race. Google won the business war. What do you think can save OpenAI now?

Google just STOLE Apple away from OpenAI... And it might decide who wins the AI race. Apple announced a multi-year $1 billion deal with Google to power the next generation of Siri using Gemini AI. Not ChatGPT. Gemini. This is the same Apple that 18 months ago announced a partnership with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT into iPhones. Everyone thought that meant OpenAI won. Turns out it was an audition. And OpenAI failed. Here's why: June 2024: Apple announces OpenAI partnership. Sam Altman tweets: "very happy to be partnering with apple." Media declares OpenAI the winner of the AI race. December 2025: Sam Altman issues "code red" at OpenAI. Tells everyone to pause everything and ship ChatGPT 5.2 faster. Why the panic? Google released Gemini 3 and it was actually good. January 2026: Apple picks Google. ChatGPT stays as an "optional feature" for complicated queries. But Gemini becomes the DEFAULT intelligence layer for 2 billion Apple devices. The financial reality: Apple pays OpenAI $0 But Apple pays Google $1 BILLION per year That's a verdict. The excuse OpenAI gave for why they did it for free was "exposure to millions of iPhone users." Which basically means "we couldn't negotiate worth shit." Meanwhile Google walked away with both the money AND the distribution. Why Google won: Infrastructure ownership. OpenAI runs on Microsoft's Azure cloud. That creates a dependency chain: Apple → OpenAI → Microsoft. 3 companies. 3 points of failure. Google owns its entire stack. One relationship. Zero middlemen. Apple's statement said Google's technology provides "the most capable foundation." Not "most innovative." Not "best partner." Most CAPABLE. In other words, OpenAI's tech couldn't handle the scale. The Alphabet boost: Google's stock hit $4 trillion market cap after the announcement. Up 65% in 2024 on AI momentum alone. This deal validates Google's pivot from "search company" to "AI infrastructure company." Now they power Samsung's Galaxy AI AND Apple's Siri. Billions of mobile devices running on Gemini. OpenAI's big problem here: Still no profit. Ever. Anthropic is stealing enterprise customers. DeepSeek launched a price war forcing ChatGPT to cut prices. GPT-5 was overhyped and underwhelming. Circular financing deals are getting scrutinized. And now Apple just downgraded them from partner to backup option. That "code red" in December? Too little, too late. The reality everyone's missing: This isn't about chatbot quality. It's about who owns the infrastructure to power billions of devices. Google proved it with Samsung. Now Apple. OpenAI proved it can build a viral product but can't scale it profitably. Very different skill sets. Elon called it "unreasonable concentration of power for Google." He's right. But that's exactly why Apple chose them. Apple doesn't want a startup partner. They want a utility provider. Google is now the default AI for Android AND iOS. OpenAI is relegated to opt-in queries for people who specifically request ChatGPT. That's the difference between infrastructure and feature. The next 12 months: Apple launches Gemini-powered Siri in spring 2026. If it works, every iPhone user defaults to Google's AI. ChatGPT becomes the thing people use when Siri can't answer. The backup plan. My takeaway for entrepreneurs watching this: Distribution beats innovation. Google didn't necessarily build a better chatbot. They built better infrastructure and negotiated better terms. OpenAI won the hype race. Google won the business war. What do you think can save OpenAI now?

Ricardo

50,663 views • 5 months ago

SPEC IS BECOMING THE PRODUCT An Anthropic engineer gave Claude a spec, pointed it to an Asana board and left for the weekend. Claude broke it into tickets and spun up a team of agents. The agents started picking up tasks on their own. No one told them to. They just did.

SPEC IS BECOMING THE PRODUCT An Anthropic engineer gave Claude a spec, pointed it to an Asana board and left for the weekend. Claude broke it into tickets and spun up a team of agents. The agents started picking up tasks on their own. No one told them to. They just did.

Shubham Saboo

285,562 views • 4 months ago

Bloomberg's Mark Gurman says he's aware of an ongoing internal humanoid project at Apple. "They're exploring humanoids. They're not working on it full throttle, but they have a large robotics initiative. They're working on AI robotics technology and robotics hardware."

Bloomberg's Mark Gurman says he's aware of an ongoing internal humanoid project at Apple. "They're exploring humanoids. They're not working on it full throttle, but they have a large robotics initiative. They're working on AI robotics technology and robotics hardware."

TBPN

29,356 views • 2 months ago

Chris Camillo just made the most bullish case on $AMZN. Everyone worried when Amazon raised their capex to $200 billion Camillo believes they might make that $200 billion back on their Anthropic investment alone when Anthropic IPOs. What Amazon has done in the last 18 months is remarkable in scope. They didn't try to win the foundation model race against OpenAI and Google directly. They went a completely different direction, positioning themselves as the infrastructure underneath everything that is AI. Trainium chips, cloud buildout, advertising integration and equity stakes in two of the three most important AI companies on the planet. First Anthropic. Now $50 billion into OpenAI on top of that. And that OpenAI investment isn't just a financial bet. It ties OpenAI into Amazon's cloud ecosystem, probably permanently. Two of the big three AI labs now run on Amazon infrastructure. Google is the only one that doesn't. The market has spent two years debating who builds the best model. Amazon decided to own the plumbing those models run on and bought equity in the winners while they were at it.

Chris Camillo just made the most bullish case on $AMZN. Everyone worried when Amazon raised their capex to $200 billion Camillo believes they might make that $200 billion back on their Anthropic investment alone when Anthropic IPOs. What Amazon has done in the last 18 months is remarkable in scope. They didn't try to win the foundation model race against OpenAI and Google directly. They went a completely different direction, positioning themselves as the infrastructure underneath everything that is AI. Trainium chips, cloud buildout, advertising integration and equity stakes in two of the three most important AI companies on the planet. First Anthropic. Now $50 billion into OpenAI on top of that. And that OpenAI investment isn't just a financial bet. It ties OpenAI into Amazon's cloud ecosystem, probably permanently. Two of the big three AI labs now run on Amazon infrastructure. Google is the only one that doesn't. The market has spent two years debating who builds the best model. Amazon decided to own the plumbing those models run on and bought equity in the winners while they were at it.

Milk Road Macro

54,180 views • 1 month ago

Google just got executed by a Nobel Prize winner, the inventor of modern AI, and Donald Trump. They literally LOST the AI race in the most brutal way possible. Here is what happened: 5 days ago, Trump told Axios that Anthropic was a national security threat and warned that "people get put in prison immediately" for what the company had been doing with its frontier model exports. 4 days ago, Trump met Dario Amodei at the G7 AI Summit and walked out telling reporters Dario was a "nice guy, smart guy" who had "responded very responsibly." 3 days ago, Noam Shazeer, the co-author of "Attention Is All You Need" (the paper that invented the transformer architecture powering EVERY modern AI model on Earth), walked out of Google to join OpenAI. Yesterday, John Jumper, the 2024 Nobel Prize winner who co-created AlphaFold and ran Google DeepMind's protein structure team for nearly a decade, announced he was leaving to join Anthropic. And this is NOT a coincidence or a normal talent shuffle... Demis Hassabis, who shared the Nobel Prize with Jumper just 18 months ago, had to publicly THANK his own co-laureate for defecting to a rival lab. The man who shared the highest scientific honor in the world with you is now going to work for the people trying to put you out of business. This is what the end of a war looks like. The AI race was never going to be decided by chips, capital, or compute. There are only about 50 people on Earth who can actually build a frontier model from scratch. Google invented the field and trained most of them. They had the largest concentration of them anywhere on the planet. But in one week, two of the most important AI researchers alive betrayed them. And the actual reason is what's terrifying here: For nine months, the consensus take has been that Google's compute advantage would eventually win because talent is replaceable and compute is not. This week proved the opposite. Anthropic just secured a Nobel Prize winner whose work on AlphaFold opened the entire field of AI for biology. That is the same field every pharma company on Earth is desperately trying to enter. Anthropic now literally owns the most credentialed scientist in it. Meanwhile OpenAI just secured the actual inventor of the transformer. The man whose paper underpins every product Google has shipped in the last three years, including Gemini itself. Google has the compute but Google does not have the people who know what to do with it anymore. And the crazy part is that five days ago, Anthropic was effectively under siege. The administration was threatening PRISON, and the Mythos export crisis had triggered a federal block. Their largest investor was reportedly working against them while the company was hours from an existential national security designation that would have frozen them out of federal contracts. But four days later, Trump cleared them in public, they secured the most decorated AI researcher of the decade, and the entire frontier AI duopoly locked in with Anthropic in pole position. The fastest reversal of fortune in modern corporate history. "It's a two-horse race at the frontier. Google is effectively out." Wall Street wakes up to this in six months and starts downgrading Alphabet. But the smart money already knows. Anthropic is being whispered at a $2 trillion valuation. OpenAI is approaching $500 billion in the private market. Gemini 3.5 Pro has been delayed with no public timeline. The AI race literally ended this week. What do you think?

Google just got executed by a Nobel Prize winner, the inventor of modern AI, and Donald Trump. They literally LOST the AI race in the most brutal way possible. Here is what happened: 5 days ago, Trump told Axios that Anthropic was a national security threat and warned that "people get put in prison immediately" for what the company had been doing with its frontier model exports. 4 days ago, Trump met Dario Amodei at the G7 AI Summit and walked out telling reporters Dario was a "nice guy, smart guy" who had "responded very responsibly." 3 days ago, Noam Shazeer, the co-author of "Attention Is All You Need" (the paper that invented the transformer architecture powering EVERY modern AI model on Earth), walked out of Google to join OpenAI. Yesterday, John Jumper, the 2024 Nobel Prize winner who co-created AlphaFold and ran Google DeepMind's protein structure team for nearly a decade, announced he was leaving to join Anthropic. And this is NOT a coincidence or a normal talent shuffle... Demis Hassabis, who shared the Nobel Prize with Jumper just 18 months ago, had to publicly THANK his own co-laureate for defecting to a rival lab. The man who shared the highest scientific honor in the world with you is now going to work for the people trying to put you out of business. This is what the end of a war looks like. The AI race was never going to be decided by chips, capital, or compute. There are only about 50 people on Earth who can actually build a frontier model from scratch. Google invented the field and trained most of them. They had the largest concentration of them anywhere on the planet. But in one week, two of the most important AI researchers alive betrayed them. And the actual reason is what's terrifying here: For nine months, the consensus take has been that Google's compute advantage would eventually win because talent is replaceable and compute is not. This week proved the opposite. Anthropic just secured a Nobel Prize winner whose work on AlphaFold opened the entire field of AI for biology. That is the same field every pharma company on Earth is desperately trying to enter. Anthropic now literally owns the most credentialed scientist in it. Meanwhile OpenAI just secured the actual inventor of the transformer. The man whose paper underpins every product Google has shipped in the last three years, including Gemini itself. Google has the compute but Google does not have the people who know what to do with it anymore. And the crazy part is that five days ago, Anthropic was effectively under siege. The administration was threatening PRISON, and the Mythos export crisis had triggered a federal block. Their largest investor was reportedly working against them while the company was hours from an existential national security designation that would have frozen them out of federal contracts. But four days later, Trump cleared them in public, they secured the most decorated AI researcher of the decade, and the entire frontier AI duopoly locked in with Anthropic in pole position. The fastest reversal of fortune in modern corporate history. "It's a two-horse race at the frontier. Google is effectively out." Wall Street wakes up to this in six months and starts downgrading Alphabet. But the smart money already knows. Anthropic is being whispered at a $2 trillion valuation. OpenAI is approaching $500 billion in the private market. Gemini 3.5 Pro has been delayed with no public timeline. The AI race literally ended this week. What do you think?

Ricardo

87,623 views • 6 days ago

Google's Ai Gemini was recently licensed by Apple to power Ai on their devices. Now Mark Zuckerberg seems to be upset at his Ai team and their lack of progress. They have delayed their "Avocado" until May after failing to perform against others. Google Gemini does not use Nvidia chips. Google designed their own Ai chips. Not all Ai hyperscalers will continue. Some will give up. Mark Zuckerberg's META might be the first to give up on their own Ai and just license Gemini, following the Apple model. This would save META a ton of money on infrastructure. It would be bad for Nvidia because they would lose a major Ai hyperscaler customer to Google's Ai chips. Follow: Wall Street Mav

Google's Ai Gemini was recently licensed by Apple to power Ai on their devices. Now Mark Zuckerberg seems to be upset at his Ai team and their lack of progress. They have delayed their "Avocado" until May after failing to perform against others. Google Gemini does not use Nvidia chips. Google designed their own Ai chips. Not all Ai hyperscalers will continue. Some will give up. Mark Zuckerberg's META might be the first to give up on their own Ai and just license Gemini, following the Apple model. This would save META a ton of money on infrastructure. It would be bad for Nvidia because they would lose a major Ai hyperscaler customer to Google's Ai chips. Follow: Wall Street Mav

Wall Street Mav

69,786 views • 3 months ago

I was not expecting the revamped Siri to be teased at a Google event… with an Apple logo on screen lol This partnership is going to be interesting.

Shishir

450,009 views • 2 months ago

GOOGLE SIGNS $5B DEAL WITH ANTHROPIC @jason: Who Nvidia's biggest competitor? Chris Lattner "Google... They are way better already and have the opportunity to add a couple trillion to their marketcap." From episode 6 of This Week in AI.

GOOGLE SIGNS $5B DEAL WITH ANTHROPIC @jason: Who Nvidia's biggest competitor? Chris Lattner "Google... They are way better already and have the opportunity to add a couple trillion to their marketcap." From episode 6 of This Week in AI.

This Week in AI

161,643 views • 3 months ago

Gavin's takes on Microsoft, Google, Meta, & Amazon: Microsoft ($MSFT): "I like Satya, I admire him. He's an exceptional CEO, and I give him a lot of credit for the decisions he's made. But he did go from, "We're going to make Google dance," to being the product manager of Copilot in 3 years. The decision Satya is making now, which the market has punished him for, but I think is the right decision — who knows how fast Azure could be growing if they were willing to just sell GPUs to OpenAI. 'We're going to use our compute internally to make our own products better.' One reason Copilot was so bad, or has been so bad, is that there wasn't enough compute available. They're fixing that. He's making good decisions that are risky decisions, to position Microsoft for this world where frontier models are no longer API-accessible. It's a really courageous decision that I give him a lot of credit for. Microsoft probably would be an $800 stock today if they were using their GPUs to serve solely OpenAI and Anthropic's capacity instead of using them for their own products." Google ($GOOG): "Google was incredible last year because they had that TPU advantage, which is now gone. The reason I think they're still in a great position is they have the most compute of everyone. We talked about the value of installed bases being higher as a result of shortages — they have the biggest installed base of compute. Google I/O is this week. If they don't release something that even slightly leapfrogs OpenAI and/or Claude, that's interesting. It's not a disaster for Google, it's just interesting. Between the amount of data they have, the YouTube data, the amount of compute, the search business — Google's never not going to be in a good position. You see that with GCP going crazy." Meta ($META): "You've got to give Zuckerberg immense credit, for what he's done in terms of making Meta an AI-first company internally. He is the only one of those true internet giants to have done that. I give him a lot of credit for paying up when he did for contracts, that talent. And Muse was a really big upside surprise. It was the first model from MSL, and it's not on the Pareto frontier with xAI, Google's one entrant, OpenAI and Claude, but it's pretty close. That was very impressive to me. So Meta is in a better position — still not as strong of an absolute position as Google, but a better position." Amazon ($AMZN): "Amazon is in a really strong position because of Trainium. You're going to see real P&L efficiencies from robotics over the next 18 months in their retail business. I actually think Nova — their internal models are not where Muse is, but they're better than they get credit for. The two companies who are the most deeply engaged with startups are Amazon and Nvidia by a mile. It's going to end up being a pretty big advantage for Nvidia and Amazon — with Google right behind them — to have this engagement that you just don't see from these other hyperscalers."

Gavin's takes on Microsoft, Google, Meta, & Amazon: Microsoft ($MSFT): "I like Satya, I admire him. He's an exceptional CEO, and I give him a lot of credit for the decisions he's made. But he did go from, "We're going to make Google dance," to being the product manager of Copilot in 3 years. The decision Satya is making now, which the market has punished him for, but I think is the right decision — who knows how fast Azure could be growing if they were willing to just sell GPUs to OpenAI. 'We're going to use our compute internally to make our own products better.' One reason Copilot was so bad, or has been so bad, is that there wasn't enough compute available. They're fixing that. He's making good decisions that are risky decisions, to position Microsoft for this world where frontier models are no longer API-accessible. It's a really courageous decision that I give him a lot of credit for. Microsoft probably would be an $800 stock today if they were using their GPUs to serve solely OpenAI and Anthropic's capacity instead of using them for their own products." Google ($GOOG): "Google was incredible last year because they had that TPU advantage, which is now gone. The reason I think they're still in a great position is they have the most compute of everyone. We talked about the value of installed bases being higher as a result of shortages — they have the biggest installed base of compute. Google I/O is this week. If they don't release something that even slightly leapfrogs OpenAI and/or Claude, that's interesting. It's not a disaster for Google, it's just interesting. Between the amount of data they have, the YouTube data, the amount of compute, the search business — Google's never not going to be in a good position. You see that with GCP going crazy." Meta ($META): "You've got to give Zuckerberg immense credit, for what he's done in terms of making Meta an AI-first company internally. He is the only one of those true internet giants to have done that. I give him a lot of credit for paying up when he did for contracts, that talent. And Muse was a really big upside surprise. It was the first model from MSL, and it's not on the Pareto frontier with xAI, Google's one entrant, OpenAI and Claude, but it's pretty close. That was very impressive to me. So Meta is in a better position — still not as strong of an absolute position as Google, but a better position." Amazon ($AMZN): "Amazon is in a really strong position because of Trainium. You're going to see real P&L efficiencies from robotics over the next 18 months in their retail business. I actually think Nova — their internal models are not where Muse is, but they're better than they get credit for. The two companies who are the most deeply engaged with startups are Amazon and Nvidia by a mile. It's going to end up being a pretty big advantage for Nvidia and Amazon — with Google right behind them — to have this engagement that you just don't see from these other hyperscalers."

Invest Like the Best

52,358 views • 1 month ago

.Mark Gurman explains why John Ternus is the "only guy" that could become the next CEO of Apple: "All signs are turning towards Ternus." "Ternus is 50. Everyone else on the Apple executive team is late 50s through their mid 60s. Turning 66 this year, in the case of Tim Cook. You're Apple's board, you like continuity, you like an insider, you like people who know what they're doing, and who have been there for a while, they know where the bodies are buried." "At 50, he's the only one. Let's say Tim Cook hangs out for another three to five years. You're not going to appoint another CEO who's 65 or 70 years old. He's the only guy." "Apple gets the vast majority of its revenue from hardware. He's the hardware guy. Have they screwed up any hardware since he's been in charge? No. He's a steady hand who knows what he's doing. He's really the only choice." "A few months ago, he took full control of the Apple Watch engineering team that was co-run with the old COO until he retired." "When they started soft-firing the Head of AI [John Giannandrea], they took the robotic stuff away from him and gave that to Ternus. And then the real news that I broke last week is, even though on paper Tim Cook is running the Apple design teams, he's not. It's Ternus. He took that over at the end of last year."

.Mark Gurman explains why John Ternus is the "only guy" that could become the next CEO of Apple: "All signs are turning towards Ternus." "Ternus is 50. Everyone else on the Apple executive team is late 50s through their mid 60s. Turning 66 this year, in the case of Tim Cook. You're Apple's board, you like continuity, you like an insider, you like people who know what they're doing, and who have been there for a while, they know where the bodies are buried." "At 50, he's the only one. Let's say Tim Cook hangs out for another three to five years. You're not going to appoint another CEO who's 65 or 70 years old. He's the only guy." "Apple gets the vast majority of its revenue from hardware. He's the hardware guy. Have they screwed up any hardware since he's been in charge? No. He's a steady hand who knows what he's doing. He's really the only choice." "A few months ago, he took full control of the Apple Watch engineering team that was co-run with the old COO until he retired." "When they started soft-firing the Head of AI [John Giannandrea], they took the robotic stuff away from him and gave that to Ternus. And then the real news that I broke last week is, even though on paper Tim Cook is running the Apple design teams, he's not. It's Ternus. He took that over at the end of last year."

TBPN

35,627 views • 4 months ago

🚨 do you understand what happened to the AI money loop.. Google just signed a deal to pay SpaceX $920 million a month for AI compute. Yes, Google - the company that owns one of the biggest GPU stockpiles on Earth - is now renting servers from a rocket company. - Anthropic pays SpaceX $1.25 billion a month for the same kind of compute - Google's old stake in SpaceX could be worth over $100 billion after the IPO - So Anthropic pays SpaceX, SpaceX answers to Google, Google funds Anthropic - The entire AI industry is quietly paying itself in a circle The money never leaves the room. It just changes whose name is on the check.

🚨 do you understand what happened to the AI money loop.. Google just signed a deal to pay SpaceX $920 million a month for AI compute. Yes, Google - the company that owns one of the biggest GPU stockpiles on Earth - is now renting servers from a rocket company. - Anthropic pays SpaceX $1.25 billion a month for the same kind of compute - Google's old stake in SpaceX could be worth over $100 billion after the IPO - So Anthropic pays SpaceX, SpaceX answers to Google, Google funds Anthropic - The entire AI industry is quietly paying itself in a circle The money never leaves the room. It just changes whose name is on the check.

BuBBliK

18,631 views • 22 days ago

Three months ago on TBPN, Mark Gurman explained why John Ternus is the "only guy" that could become the next CEO of Apple: "All signs are turning towards Ternus." "Ternus is 50. Everyone else on the Apple executive team is late 50s through their mid 60s. Turning 66 this year, in the case of Tim Cook. You're Apple's board, you like continuity, you like an insider, you like people who know what they're doing, and who have been there for a while, they know where the bodies are buried." "At 50, he's the only one. Let's say Tim Cook hangs out for another three to five years. You're not going to appoint another CEO who's 65 or 70 years old. He's the only guy." "Apple gets the vast majority of its revenue from hardware. He's the hardware guy. Have they screwed up any hardware since he's been in charge? No. He's a steady hand who knows what he's doing. He's really the only choice." "A few months ago, he took full control of the Apple Watch engineering team that was co-run with the old COO until he retired." "When they started soft-firing the Head of AI [John Giannandrea], they took the robotic stuff away from him and gave that to Ternus. And then the real news that I broke last week is, even though on paper Tim Cook is running the Apple design teams, he's not. It's Ternus. He took that over at the end of last year."

Three months ago on TBPN, Mark Gurman explained why John Ternus is the "only guy" that could become the next CEO of Apple: "All signs are turning towards Ternus." "Ternus is 50. Everyone else on the Apple executive team is late 50s through their mid 60s. Turning 66 this year, in the case of Tim Cook. You're Apple's board, you like continuity, you like an insider, you like people who know what they're doing, and who have been there for a while, they know where the bodies are buried." "At 50, he's the only one. Let's say Tim Cook hangs out for another three to five years. You're not going to appoint another CEO who's 65 or 70 years old. He's the only guy." "Apple gets the vast majority of its revenue from hardware. He's the hardware guy. Have they screwed up any hardware since he's been in charge? No. He's a steady hand who knows what he's doing. He's really the only choice." "A few months ago, he took full control of the Apple Watch engineering team that was co-run with the old COO until he retired." "When they started soft-firing the Head of AI [John Giannandrea], they took the robotic stuff away from him and gave that to Ternus. And then the real news that I broke last week is, even though on paper Tim Cook is running the Apple design teams, he's not. It's Ternus. He took that over at the end of last year."

TBPN

96,376 views • 2 months ago

This new Siri update is absolutely maddening. It's a tale as old as time, Siri being a complete joke. Google has historically just been far better at basically every stage of their lifecycle in terms of voice to text, and phone control. Google Assistant was completely dominant. So you would think considering that Google makes their own frontier models, and the fact they are one of the industry leaders in small models capable of running on Edge devices, that they would easily dominate the mobile space, right? I mean surely that would be true considering Apple has more or less been on the sidelines in the AI race, right? I seriously don't understand how this happened. On device Gemini, even with "Personal Intelligence" really has very little additional utility over the previous deterministic STT "Google Assistant" we've had for the last decade. What are we doing?

This new Siri update is absolutely maddening. It's a tale as old as time, Siri being a complete joke. Google has historically just been far better at basically every stage of their lifecycle in terms of voice to text, and phone control. Google Assistant was completely dominant. So you would think considering that Google makes their own frontier models, and the fact they are one of the industry leaders in small models capable of running on Edge devices, that they would easily dominate the mobile space, right? I mean surely that would be true considering Apple has more or less been on the sidelines in the AI race, right? I seriously don't understand how this happened. On device Gemini, even with "Personal Intelligence" really has very little additional utility over the previous deterministic STT "Google Assistant" we've had for the last decade. What are we doing?

am.will

205,878 views • 16 days ago

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?

OpenAI just admitted Anthropic is KILLING their business. Their own applications chief told employees it was a "code red." Said Anthropic was a "wake-up call." Then admitted OpenAI had been "spreading efforts across too many apps" and it was "slowing them down." This is an internal confession. Here's why Anthropic is eating up OpenAI: 12 months ago, OpenAI owned 50% of all enterprise AI spending. Today it's just 27%. Anthropic went from nearly ZERO to winning 70% of every first-time enterprise AI deal. Seven out of ten companies buying AI tools for the first time are choosing Claude over ChatGPT. A year ago, one in 25 businesses on Ramp paid for Anthropic. Today it's one in four. OpenAI just had its biggest single-month adoption decline ever recorded. And Anthropic literally charges MORE than OpenAI for roughly the same performance. And businesses are STILL choosing them. In enterprise software, that never happens. The cheaper product usually wins. But Claude became something OpenAI never figured out how to be: Cool. Celebrities publicly switched to Claude. Senators are tweeting about using it. Engineers are shipping entire products with Claude Code in hours that used to take weeks. It started to became an identity signal. Like blue bubble vs green bubble in iMessage. Choosing Claude says something about you now. Meanwhile OpenAI went the opposite direction: They took the Pentagon contract that Anthropic refused. Greg Brockman donated $25 million to fund wars. ChatGPT uninstalls jumped 295% in a single day. Reddit posts saying "Cancel and Delete ChatGPT" got 30,000 upvotes. Anthropic said no to mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. Got blacklisted by the Pentagon. Trump called them a "Radical Left AI company." And their downloads went to #1 on the App Store the next day. Turns out refusing to build weapons is good marketing. But the real damage isn't consumer downloads. It's the MONEY. Claude Code hit $2.5 billion in annual revenue in six months. OpenAI's competing product Codex just barely crossed $1 billion. And Anthropic literally cannot meet demand. They're turning away paying customers because they don't have enough compute to serve them. A company REJECTING revenue because it's growing too fast. While OpenAI scrambles to consolidate. Last week OpenAI announced they're merging ChatGPT, Codex, and their browser into one "superapp." But what this really means: "We launched too many products, none of them worked well enough alone, so now we're cramming everything together and hoping it sticks." And remember their video tool Sora? Launched standalone. Hit #1 on the App Store. Usage flatlined within weeks. Now they're forced to shut it down. Their browser Atlas? Still hasn't launched publicly. Their IPO? Polymarket odds dropped from 55% to 35%. OpenAI has 900 million users. Anthropic has maybe 10 million daily actives. But here's the thing... OpenAI won the consumer war. ChatGPT is where your mom asks about recipes and your cousin makes memes. Anthropic won the war that actually MATTERS. The developers. The engineers. The enterprises writing 7 figure checks. OpenAI built the biggest chatbot on Earth. Anthropic built the tool that companies can't stop paying for. This is Yahoo vs Google all over again. Yahoo had the users. Google had the product. And we all know how that ended. OpenAI has 12 months to prove the superapp works, land the IPO, and stop the enterprise bleeding. If they can't, the most valuable startup in history becomes the most cautionary tale in tech. 900 million users don't mean anything if the people who actually pay are walking out the door. What do you think?

Ricardo

35,020 views • 3 months ago

STOP COMPARING ANTHROPIC TO GOOGLE Let me destroy that comparison in three lines - Google IPO valuation: $23B - Anthropic IPO valuation: $965B That's 42x more expensive before retail even touches it For Anthropic to match Google's return - it would need a $175 trillion market cap The entire global GDP is $110 trillion It's mathematically impossible to repeat what Google did But the comparison gets worse Google was profitable at IPO. Anthropic loses billions every quarter You're not buying the next Google. You're buying their exit FOLLOW + NOTIFS ON!

STOP COMPARING ANTHROPIC TO GOOGLE Let me destroy that comparison in three lines - Google IPO valuation: $23B - Anthropic IPO valuation: $965B That's 42x more expensive before retail even touches it For Anthropic to match Google's return - it would need a $175 trillion market cap The entire global GDP is $110 trillion It's mathematically impossible to repeat what Google did But the comparison gets worse Google was profitable at IPO. Anthropic loses billions every quarter You're not buying the next Google. You're buying their exit FOLLOW + NOTIFS ON!

bee🐝

216,738 views • 26 days ago

ANTHROPIC IPO COULD BE THE BIGGEST OPPORTUNITY OF YOUR LIFE. GOOGLE DID +20,000% SINCE ITS IPO. Anthropic, the lab powering AI for 8 of the 10 biggest companies in the world, is targeting October 2026. Revenue: $1B in early 2025 to a $30B run rate today. 10x growth, three years in a row. Secondary markets already price it near $800,000,000,000. Turn notifications ON for updates on the Anthropic IPO.

ANTHROPIC IPO COULD BE THE BIGGEST OPPORTUNITY OF YOUR LIFE. GOOGLE DID +20,000% SINCE ITS IPO. Anthropic, the lab powering AI for 8 of the 10 biggest companies in the world, is targeting October 2026. Revenue: $1B in early 2025 to a $30B run rate today. 10x growth, three years in a row. Secondary markets already price it near $800,000,000,000. Turn notifications ON for updates on the Anthropic IPO.

CryptoGoos

80,607 views • 25 days ago