Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

🚨Gavin Baker on why a potential xAI + Apple partnership makes sense: "On the internet, distribution wins championships." "Something that I think is interesting and relevant, particularly to Grok 4 being the best product, is the best product doesn't always win in technology." "In sports, they say 'defense wins...

theallinpod's profile picture

The All-In Podcast

559,542 subscribers

211,305 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологииНовости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

🚨 ELON: "GROK WILL END THE FAKE NEWS ERA FOR GOOD" "We’ve got Community Notes. You can also ask Grok about anything you see on the platform. Just press the Grok icon on any X post, and we’ll analyze it for you and research it as much as you want. So basically, by tapping the Grok icon, you can assess whether that post is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or whether there’s something supplemental that needs to be explained. I think we’ve made a lot of progress toward freedom of speech and helping people tell whether something is false, misleading, or propaganda." Source: The All-In Podcast, Elon Musk, Grok, xAI
1:01

🚨 ELON: "GROK WILL END THE FAKE NEWS ERA FOR GOOD" "We’ve got Community Notes. You can also ask Grok about anything you see on the platform. Just press the Grok icon on any X post, and we’ll analyze it for you and research it as much as you want. So basically, by tapping the Grok icon, you can assess whether that post is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or whether there’s something supplemental that needs to be explained. I think we’ve made a lot of progress toward freedom of speech and helping people tell whether something is false, misleading, or propaganda." Source: The All-In Podcast, Elon Musk, Grok, xAI

Mario Nawfal

180,121 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Here's more analysis on the Apple and Google deal to make a new kind of Siri, after I had a cup of coffee. This is what OpenAI is doing: they're making a variety of new products and going after Apple. Apple didn't want to give OpenAI any more data to help a potential new competitor. The real problem for this OpenAI effort is that we're about to move to glasses. People don't believe me that we're about to move to glasses, but you should, because I just got back from CES and there was a ton of glasses there. For OpenAI to really get somewhere, they need to add a camera to an earphone. While I don't see that in this latest report, I won't be shocked to see a camera show up somewhere eventually. It is cameras that add understanding of the real world, which can lead to many new features that Apple's current AirPods Pro can't match. I believe Apple is developing such a product to go with their glasses, which makes a lot of sense. Also, Google's AI models are better at multimodality; this means they can use cameras in a much better way than even OpenAI's models can. This is why in Silicon Valley robotics companies, a lot of them use Google Gemini: because robots need multimodality. Apple's glasses, which are expected in 2027, have some significant advantages over the others. First, they have eye sensors in them, so it knows where the user is looking. It also can tell what the user is touching, holding, or gesturing towards. This new capability will give Siri a significant parlor trick: it will let Siri answer questions that no other search engine has been able to answer before. But the real reason I'm still bullish on Apple's glasses isn't technology—it's content. Apple has NBA rights and Formula One (among others) and a really great studio system, which has produced one of the biggest hits of the last six months. Pluribus. Apple also, because of its privacy stance, has a significant lead in consumer trust. Because of its retail stores, it also has a significant lead in the ability to: 1. Show people glasses 2. Get them fit properly 3. Get people trained On Saturday, I went to the main Apple store in Cupertino and watched one of the classes that they teach every few hours in an Apple store. The store was packed with people watching the class on a huge screen in the middle of the store. Apple has dramatically changed retail because of its stores, which gives it the most trusted brand in the business and gives it distribution to most of the world's richest people. While OpenAI has almost a billion users, it is unclear whether those users will switch ecosystems from Apple to OpenAI. Even if OpenAI's AI and devices can do a few more things, I'm not so sure anybody's going to care when Apple has very capable headphones that match up with their iPhones and has the world's richest people addicted to the Apple ecosystem (me included). Here is one of the secret Chinese suites at CES, which makes a series of glasses to sell to other brands. This gives you a sense of how fast the glasses world is moving. AI needs to not just tell you what it's seeing, but it needs to show you things to really make the solution complete. Also, Apple usually picks a much better design than anyone else. Because it's such a luxury brand, it can charge more than anybody else and be more profitable. I don't see anyone else being able to put together the whole solution the way Apple can. Therefore, I am still very bullish on Apple making a dramatic announcement about glasses sometime in the next 24 months. At CES, though, it's clear that many manufacturers will try. XREAL 👓 just got $100 million of funding to continue its glasses development, and officials of the company told me it will release its Android XR based glasses later this year. Short version: AI is coming to wearables in a big way, and Apple will do what it always does: come in late to the market and redefine it when it enters. It still has all the pieces to put together the puzzle, even though it doesn't have its own LLM so had to do a deal with Google for that. Yeah, others will be earlier to the market, and will win some buyers because of that, but buyers like me know that and will be happy to put down our other ones to buy Apple because of its advantages. With one big caveat: Apple has to deliver an amazing pair of glasses, and maybe a headphone with a camera, to keep the competition from taking its lunch. Also, behind the scenes there is a big patent battle brewing. Apple has quite a few, but I talked with Ann Greenberg at CES, who started Gracenote. She says she has several patents that will enable a large company to force others to license their technology and that she's already in final stages of selling those patents to a big company. All the big companies have patent portfolios they can use against each other, and particularly smaller, newer, competitors. Microsoft alone has dozens of patents it bought to start off its Hololens efforts, which it gave up on, but Microsoft still has almost 1,000 lawyers who would love to go after other companies for licensing deals. Plus, Google-funded Magic Leap has about 1,000 patents, so it'll be interesting to see if anyone buys the remnants of that company. The question is: can anyone disrupt Apple? Especially OpenAI?
2:14

Here's more analysis on the Apple and Google deal to make a new kind of Siri, after I had a cup of coffee. This is what OpenAI is doing: they're making a variety of new products and going after Apple. Apple didn't want to give OpenAI any more data to help a potential new competitor. The real problem for this OpenAI effort is that we're about to move to glasses. People don't believe me that we're about to move to glasses, but you should, because I just got back from CES and there was a ton of glasses there. For OpenAI to really get somewhere, they need to add a camera to an earphone. While I don't see that in this latest report, I won't be shocked to see a camera show up somewhere eventually. It is cameras that add understanding of the real world, which can lead to many new features that Apple's current AirPods Pro can't match. I believe Apple is developing such a product to go with their glasses, which makes a lot of sense. Also, Google's AI models are better at multimodality; this means they can use cameras in a much better way than even OpenAI's models can. This is why in Silicon Valley robotics companies, a lot of them use Google Gemini: because robots need multimodality. Apple's glasses, which are expected in 2027, have some significant advantages over the others. First, they have eye sensors in them, so it knows where the user is looking. It also can tell what the user is touching, holding, or gesturing towards. This new capability will give Siri a significant parlor trick: it will let Siri answer questions that no other search engine has been able to answer before. But the real reason I'm still bullish on Apple's glasses isn't technology—it's content. Apple has NBA rights and Formula One (among others) and a really great studio system, which has produced one of the biggest hits of the last six months. Pluribus. Apple also, because of its privacy stance, has a significant lead in consumer trust. Because of its retail stores, it also has a significant lead in the ability to: 1. Show people glasses 2. Get them fit properly 3. Get people trained On Saturday, I went to the main Apple store in Cupertino and watched one of the classes that they teach every few hours in an Apple store. The store was packed with people watching the class on a huge screen in the middle of the store. Apple has dramatically changed retail because of its stores, which gives it the most trusted brand in the business and gives it distribution to most of the world's richest people. While OpenAI has almost a billion users, it is unclear whether those users will switch ecosystems from Apple to OpenAI. Even if OpenAI's AI and devices can do a few more things, I'm not so sure anybody's going to care when Apple has very capable headphones that match up with their iPhones and has the world's richest people addicted to the Apple ecosystem (me included). Here is one of the secret Chinese suites at CES, which makes a series of glasses to sell to other brands. This gives you a sense of how fast the glasses world is moving. AI needs to not just tell you what it's seeing, but it needs to show you things to really make the solution complete. Also, Apple usually picks a much better design than anyone else. Because it's such a luxury brand, it can charge more than anybody else and be more profitable. I don't see anyone else being able to put together the whole solution the way Apple can. Therefore, I am still very bullish on Apple making a dramatic announcement about glasses sometime in the next 24 months. At CES, though, it's clear that many manufacturers will try. XREAL 👓 just got $100 million of funding to continue its glasses development, and officials of the company told me it will release its Android XR based glasses later this year. Short version: AI is coming to wearables in a big way, and Apple will do what it always does: come in late to the market and redefine it when it enters. It still has all the pieces to put together the puzzle, even though it doesn't have its own LLM so had to do a deal with Google for that. Yeah, others will be earlier to the market, and will win some buyers because of that, but buyers like me know that and will be happy to put down our other ones to buy Apple because of its advantages. With one big caveat: Apple has to deliver an amazing pair of glasses, and maybe a headphone with a camera, to keep the competition from taking its lunch. Also, behind the scenes there is a big patent battle brewing. Apple has quite a few, but I talked with Ann Greenberg at CES, who started Gracenote. She says she has several patents that will enable a large company to force others to license their technology and that she's already in final stages of selling those patents to a big company. All the big companies have patent portfolios they can use against each other, and particularly smaller, newer, competitors. Microsoft alone has dozens of patents it bought to start off its Hololens efforts, which it gave up on, but Microsoft still has almost 1,000 lawyers who would love to go after other companies for licensing deals. Plus, Google-funded Magic Leap has about 1,000 patents, so it'll be interesting to see if anyone buys the remnants of that company. The question is: can anyone disrupt Apple? Especially OpenAI?

Robert Scoble

275,056 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Gavin Newsom (in my estimation) wants to be President, and he sees a Shiny Red Apple. 🍎 Shiny Red Apple --> "57% [of Democrats say]... that Democrats should mainly work to stop the Republican agenda." (CNN poll from earlier this year) That -- in a nutshell -- is the Democratic presidential primary. I believe Newsom sees the Shiny Red Apple. Newsom is a political animal. And I think he is ready to devour that Shiny Red Apple, even if Los Angeles is devoured with it! ⬇️
1:31

Gavin Newsom (in my estimation) wants to be President, and he sees a Shiny Red Apple. 🍎 Shiny Red Apple --> "57% [of Democrats say]... that Democrats should mainly work to stop the Republican agenda." (CNN poll from earlier this year) That -- in a nutshell -- is the Democratic presidential primary. I believe Newsom sees the Shiny Red Apple. Newsom is a political animal. And I think he is ready to devour that Shiny Red Apple, even if Los Angeles is devoured with it! ⬇️

Kayleigh McEnany

104,016 просмотров • 1 год назад

ELON: GROK IS THE BEST ASSISTANT TO FIGHT PROPAGANDA “You just press the Grok icon on any 𝕏 post and it will analyze it for you and research it as much as you want. So, just by tapping the Grok icon, you can assess whether that post is the truth, nothing but the truth, or whether there's something supplemental that needs to be explained. So, I think we've made a lot of progress towards freedom of speech and people being able to tell whether something is false or not false, or propaganda. The recent update to Grok is actually, I think, very good at piercing through propaganda. And then, we used that latest version of Grok to create Grokipedia. It's not just, I think, more neutral and more accurate than Wikipedia, but it actually has a lot more information than a Wikipedia page.” Source: All-In Podcast The All-In Podcast, October 31, 2025
0:49

ELON: GROK IS THE BEST ASSISTANT TO FIGHT PROPAGANDA “You just press the Grok icon on any 𝕏 post and it will analyze it for you and research it as much as you want. So, just by tapping the Grok icon, you can assess whether that post is the truth, nothing but the truth, or whether there's something supplemental that needs to be explained. So, I think we've made a lot of progress towards freedom of speech and people being able to tell whether something is false or not false, or propaganda. The recent update to Grok is actually, I think, very good at piercing through propaganda. And then, we used that latest version of Grok to create Grokipedia. It's not just, I think, more neutral and more accurate than Wikipedia, but it actually has a lot more information than a Wikipedia page.” Source: All-In Podcast The All-In Podcast, October 31, 2025

Mario Nawfal

1,641,186 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Steve Jobs on how to build a great brand After re-joining Apple in 1996, Steve Jobs announced the “Think different” campaign with the following statement: “To me, marketing is about values. This is a very complicated and noisy world. We’re not going to get a chance to get people to remember much about us. No company is. So we have to be really clear on what we want them to know about us.” He cites Nike as one of the greatest jobs of marketing the universe has ever seen: “Remember, Nike sells a commodity—they sell shoes! And yet when you think of Nike, you feel something different than a shoe company. In their ads, they don’t ever talk about the product. They don’t ever tell you about their air soles and why they are better than Reebok’s air soles. What does Nike do in their advertising? They honor great athletes, and they honor great athletics. That’s who they are, that’s what they are about.” Marketing guru Seth Godin also used Nike as an example of great branding in a blog post a few years ago: “If Nike announced that they were opening a hotel, you’d have a pretty good guess about what it would be like. But if Hyatt announced that they were going to start making shoes, you would have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what those shoes would be like. That’s because Nike owns a brand and Hyatt simply owns real estate.” Jobs goes on to explain how the Apple team arrived at the “Think Different” campaign: “Our customers want to know who is Apple and what is it that we stand for. Where do we fit in this world? What we’re about isn’t making boxes for people to get their jobs done—although we do that well. We do that better than almost anybody, in some cases. But Apple is about something more than that. Apple at the core—its core value—is that we believe people with passion can change the world for the better… And that those people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world are the ones who actually do.” He continues: “And so, what we’re going to do in our first brand marketing campaign in several years is to get back to that core value. A lot of things have changed. The market is in a totally different place than it was a decade ago, and Apple is totally different… the products and the distribution strategy and the manufacturing are totally different. And we understand that. But values and core values—those things shouldn’t change. The things that Apple believed in, at its core, are the same things that Apple really stands for today.” Apple’s “Think Different” campaign was designed to honor those people who have changed the world. And as Jobs so eloquently put it: “Some of them are living. Some of them are not. But the ones that aren’t, you’ll know that if they ever used a computer, it would’ve been a Mac. The theme of the campaign is ‘Think Different.’ It’s honoring the people who think different and who move this world forward. And it is what we are about. It touches the soul of this company.” If you’re looking to create a great brand, I’d start out by asking: what are your core values and what does your company honor?
6:48

Steve Jobs on how to build a great brand After re-joining Apple in 1996, Steve Jobs announced the “Think different” campaign with the following statement: “To me, marketing is about values. This is a very complicated and noisy world. We’re not going to get a chance to get people to remember much about us. No company is. So we have to be really clear on what we want them to know about us.” He cites Nike as one of the greatest jobs of marketing the universe has ever seen: “Remember, Nike sells a commodity—they sell shoes! And yet when you think of Nike, you feel something different than a shoe company. In their ads, they don’t ever talk about the product. They don’t ever tell you about their air soles and why they are better than Reebok’s air soles. What does Nike do in their advertising? They honor great athletes, and they honor great athletics. That’s who they are, that’s what they are about.” Marketing guru Seth Godin also used Nike as an example of great branding in a blog post a few years ago: “If Nike announced that they were opening a hotel, you’d have a pretty good guess about what it would be like. But if Hyatt announced that they were going to start making shoes, you would have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what those shoes would be like. That’s because Nike owns a brand and Hyatt simply owns real estate.” Jobs goes on to explain how the Apple team arrived at the “Think Different” campaign: “Our customers want to know who is Apple and what is it that we stand for. Where do we fit in this world? What we’re about isn’t making boxes for people to get their jobs done—although we do that well. We do that better than almost anybody, in some cases. But Apple is about something more than that. Apple at the core—its core value—is that we believe people with passion can change the world for the better… And that those people who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world are the ones who actually do.” He continues: “And so, what we’re going to do in our first brand marketing campaign in several years is to get back to that core value. A lot of things have changed. The market is in a totally different place than it was a decade ago, and Apple is totally different… the products and the distribution strategy and the manufacturing are totally different. And we understand that. But values and core values—those things shouldn’t change. The things that Apple believed in, at its core, are the same things that Apple really stands for today.” Apple’s “Think Different” campaign was designed to honor those people who have changed the world. And as Jobs so eloquently put it: “Some of them are living. Some of them are not. But the ones that aren’t, you’ll know that if they ever used a computer, it would’ve been a Mac. The theme of the campaign is ‘Think Different.’ It’s honoring the people who think different and who move this world forward. And it is what we are about. It touches the soul of this company.” If you’re looking to create a great brand, I’d start out by asking: what are your core values and what does your company honor?

Startup Archive

338,071 просмотров • 2 лет назад

🚨ELON MUSK: "As we dug into USAID it became apparent that what we have here is not an apple with a worm in it, but we have actually just a ball of worms. If you have an apple with a worm in it, you can take the worm out. If you have a whole ball of worms, it's hopeless. USAID is a ball of worms. There is no apple. And when there is no apple you just need to get rid of the whole thing. That's why it's got to go. It's beyond repair."
0:39

🚨ELON MUSK: "As we dug into USAID it became apparent that what we have here is not an apple with a worm in it, but we have actually just a ball of worms. If you have an apple with a worm in it, you can take the worm out. If you have a whole ball of worms, it's hopeless. USAID is a ball of worms. There is no apple. And when there is no apple you just need to get rid of the whole thing. That's why it's got to go. It's beyond repair."

Autism Capital 🧩

1,539,400 просмотров • 1 год назад

TODAY Apple announces a major push into AI, they will be creating robots, devices and software Joe Rogan agrees with Elon Musk, the only artificial intelligence that can be trusted is Grok. Remember, Apple is the same company that deplatformed entire social media companies for censorship Apple literally removed Apps like Parler from the App Store during the 2020 election to make sure conservatives were censored and Donald Trump had no where to go after all the big social media companies suspended his accounts Elon Musk “Grok is aspirationally a maximally truth-seeking ai, even if that truth is like politically incorrect” “Other AI like OpenAI, Google Gemini secretly still contain DEI, The sort of DEI stuff buried in there and that’s very dangerous”
7:12

TODAY Apple announces a major push into AI, they will be creating robots, devices and software Joe Rogan agrees with Elon Musk, the only artificial intelligence that can be trusted is Grok. Remember, Apple is the same company that deplatformed entire social media companies for censorship Apple literally removed Apps like Parler from the App Store during the 2020 election to make sure conservatives were censored and Donald Trump had no where to go after all the big social media companies suspended his accounts Elon Musk “Grok is aspirationally a maximally truth-seeking ai, even if that truth is like politically incorrect” “Other AI like OpenAI, Google Gemini secretly still contain DEI, The sort of DEI stuff buried in there and that’s very dangerous”

Wall Street Apes

26,487 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Jack Dorsey on becoming a better storyteller: "I found myself very early on thinking about something like thinking about this early idea for Twitter and saying to myself, I could build this awesome. You have those shower-like moments, or you're walking at midnight in some town in New York City, and you've got these amazing brand ideas. And then you start thinking, well, I could really start doing this if only X and if I had this person or if this technology existed or if this happened or this happened. And what I realized was that I was constantly making excuses for not working on it. And then the window had passed, and then I couldn't do anything. So I think it's really, really important to write it out or to draw it out or to code it. But you need to get it out of your head. And the reason you have to get it out of your head is that you need to be able to see it on a surface that is not in your mind. And once you can see it, and once you can step back from it, then you can also decide this passes my filter, my constraints, so maybe I can show it and share it with some other people. And then they will be like that's the stupidest idea ever and or that's somewhat interesting, but maybe this and this and this. So the sooner you can do that, then you have a lot of momentum around it, and you can really decide if you want to commit to it and work on it more or put it on the shelf for a later date. And the realization that I think everyone needs to have about that latter option, putting it on the shelf, is that you can come back to it and it will surface back up in another piece of work or another idea at some point in your life. So having that ability to close off a chapter and move on is really, really important. You can't have all these open threads, and that's what I realized I was doing. And that also encouraged me to really write more and to really think about what's the story? How are people coming to this? And like when I show my friends this, how are they going to react and I would write it down. I would actually treat it like a play. And when I realized that I was writing plays, I read a lot more plays for style and for substance and for technique and I think it's really good. I think there is another company that I have always looked towards for inspiration and I know a number of people in this room probably have a similar company in mind, which is Apple. Apple, I think, is run like a theater company. It has a great sense of pacing, has a great sense of story and has a great sense of execution and it's all about event-driven, it's all stage-driven, the stage being a billboard or the stage being a keynote or the stage being a product launch. All of it has a very, very cohesive end-to-end story. I mean you think about what happened when Steve Jobs came back to the company. The first thing he did was kill every product line the company was working on. And for two years,rs they had no product on the market whatsoever. All they had were a bunch of posters all around the world with Steve Jobs' heroes, and it said, think different. And it was just focused on bringing up the brand and making people aware of the brand again and how the brand is aligning to this particular feeling and story. And then they came out with the iMac and then built iTunes and then the iPod, and they realized that, wait a minute, people are carrying music on their phones now, so we better build a phone, an iPhone. And so this unfolding of the plot and the epic story has been very, very interesting to watch, especially if you look back to that time when he came back to the company. So I've learned a lot from that company and other companies that operate in a similar fashion."
4:07

Jack Dorsey on becoming a better storyteller: "I found myself very early on thinking about something like thinking about this early idea for Twitter and saying to myself, I could build this awesome. You have those shower-like moments, or you're walking at midnight in some town in New York City, and you've got these amazing brand ideas. And then you start thinking, well, I could really start doing this if only X and if I had this person or if this technology existed or if this happened or this happened. And what I realized was that I was constantly making excuses for not working on it. And then the window had passed, and then I couldn't do anything. So I think it's really, really important to write it out or to draw it out or to code it. But you need to get it out of your head. And the reason you have to get it out of your head is that you need to be able to see it on a surface that is not in your mind. And once you can see it, and once you can step back from it, then you can also decide this passes my filter, my constraints, so maybe I can show it and share it with some other people. And then they will be like that's the stupidest idea ever and or that's somewhat interesting, but maybe this and this and this. So the sooner you can do that, then you have a lot of momentum around it, and you can really decide if you want to commit to it and work on it more or put it on the shelf for a later date. And the realization that I think everyone needs to have about that latter option, putting it on the shelf, is that you can come back to it and it will surface back up in another piece of work or another idea at some point in your life. So having that ability to close off a chapter and move on is really, really important. You can't have all these open threads, and that's what I realized I was doing. And that also encouraged me to really write more and to really think about what's the story? How are people coming to this? And like when I show my friends this, how are they going to react and I would write it down. I would actually treat it like a play. And when I realized that I was writing plays, I read a lot more plays for style and for substance and for technique and I think it's really good. I think there is another company that I have always looked towards for inspiration and I know a number of people in this room probably have a similar company in mind, which is Apple. Apple, I think, is run like a theater company. It has a great sense of pacing, has a great sense of story and has a great sense of execution and it's all about event-driven, it's all stage-driven, the stage being a billboard or the stage being a keynote or the stage being a product launch. All of it has a very, very cohesive end-to-end story. I mean you think about what happened when Steve Jobs came back to the company. The first thing he did was kill every product line the company was working on. And for two years,rs they had no product on the market whatsoever. All they had were a bunch of posters all around the world with Steve Jobs' heroes, and it said, think different. And it was just focused on bringing up the brand and making people aware of the brand again and how the brand is aligning to this particular feeling and story. And then they came out with the iMac and then built iTunes and then the iPod, and they realized that, wait a minute, people are carrying music on their phones now, so we better build a phone, an iPhone. And so this unfolding of the plot and the epic story has been very, very interesting to watch, especially if you look back to that time when he came back to the company. So I've learned a lot from that company and other companies that operate in a similar fashion."

Founder Mode

107,213 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

.Shaun Maguire says SpaceX's data center deal with Google may suggest there is something fundamentally different about the company's terrestrial compute. "I think a lot of people were surprised by the Anthropic and Google announcements. And I think a lot of people are getting the wrong takeaway there." "The way a lot of people are interpreting that is it's like, 'oh, we're just in this temporary compute shortage. And so anyone's willing to work with anyone, and they're willing to pay any price for compute.'" "I think that might be a reasonable way to look at the Anthropic announcement. I don't think that makes sense for looking at the Google announcement." "To me, I think an alternative hypothesis is that SpaceX's terrestrial compute is not actually a commodity. There's something that's better about it than other people's terrestrial compute."
2:22

.Shaun Maguire says SpaceX's data center deal with Google may suggest there is something fundamentally different about the company's terrestrial compute. "I think a lot of people were surprised by the Anthropic and Google announcements. And I think a lot of people are getting the wrong takeaway there." "The way a lot of people are interpreting that is it's like, 'oh, we're just in this temporary compute shortage. And so anyone's willing to work with anyone, and they're willing to pay any price for compute.'" "I think that might be a reasonable way to look at the Anthropic announcement. I don't think that makes sense for looking at the Google announcement." "To me, I think an alternative hypothesis is that SpaceX's terrestrial compute is not actually a commodity. There's something that's better about it than other people's terrestrial compute."

Jack Kuhr

44,972 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

JUST IN: President Trump announces $600 BILLION investment from Apple into the U.S. over the next 4 years—the LARGEST Apple investment into the U.S. Wow. This is MASSIVE. President Trump just stood beside Apple CEO Tim Cook in the Oval Office and made one of the biggest economic announcements in years: “Apple is announcing that it will invest $600 billion, that’s with a B, in the United States over the next four years.” “That’s $100 billion more than they were originally going to invest. And this is the largest investment Apple has ever made in America.” “It’s just an honor to have you. As you know, Apple has been an investor in other countries—I won’t say which ones, but a couple… and they’re coming home.” “$600 billion. That’s the biggest there is.” This is a game-changing moment for U.S. manufacturing and jobs.
1:08

JUST IN: President Trump announces $600 BILLION investment from Apple into the U.S. over the next 4 years—the LARGEST Apple investment into the U.S. Wow. This is MASSIVE. President Trump just stood beside Apple CEO Tim Cook in the Oval Office and made one of the biggest economic announcements in years: “Apple is announcing that it will invest $600 billion, that’s with a B, in the United States over the next four years.” “That’s $100 billion more than they were originally going to invest. And this is the largest investment Apple has ever made in America.” “It’s just an honor to have you. As you know, Apple has been an investor in other countries—I won’t say which ones, but a couple… and they’re coming home.” “$600 billion. That’s the biggest there is.” This is a game-changing moment for U.S. manufacturing and jobs.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

110,974 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Elon Musk: Apple and Google shouldn't have a heavy hand in their app stores. “Man, I sure hope we don't have to make a phone. That's a lot of work. The idea of making a phone makes me want to die. But if we have to make a phone, we will, but we will aspire not to make a phone. You know, I do think that the various companies, Apple and Google, Android and whatnot, they need to make sure they don't have a heavy hand in the app store, or they will create a forcing function for there to be a competitor. But man, I dread the idea of making a phone. But if that turns out to be necessary, we'll do it, but hopefully it is not necessary.” Town Hall in Philadelphia, October 18, 2024
0:47

Elon Musk: Apple and Google shouldn't have a heavy hand in their app stores. “Man, I sure hope we don't have to make a phone. That's a lot of work. The idea of making a phone makes me want to die. But if we have to make a phone, we will, but we will aspire not to make a phone. You know, I do think that the various companies, Apple and Google, Android and whatnot, they need to make sure they don't have a heavy hand in the app store, or they will create a forcing function for there to be a competitor. But man, I dread the idea of making a phone. But if that turns out to be necessary, we'll do it, but hopefully it is not necessary.” Town Hall in Philadelphia, October 18, 2024

ELON CLIPS

244,038 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Trump on the EU: They took court cases with Apple and they supposedly won a case that most people didn't think was much of a case. They won 15 or 16 billion from Apple. They won billions from Google. I think they're after Facebook for billions and billions. These are American companies, whether you like them or not. They're American companies and they shouldn't be doing that. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a form of taxation
0:33

Trump on the EU: They took court cases with Apple and they supposedly won a case that most people didn't think was much of a case. They won 15 or 16 billion from Apple. They won billions from Google. I think they're after Facebook for billions and billions. These are American companies, whether you like them or not. They're American companies and they shouldn't be doing that. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a form of taxation

Acyn

1,234,809 просмотров • 1 год назад

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?
1:19

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 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Jony Ive explains the Steve Jobs product philosophy that saved Apple from bankruptcy in 1998 “Our job isn’t to make money for Apple. Our job is to try and make the very best products we can.” Jony is aware that this sounds simplistic and easy to say given that Apple is one of the most valuable companies in the world today. But he points out that Steve Jobs stuck to this philosophy when Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1998: “When Steve came back, that’s how he articulated what the goals of the company needed to be… It takes a tremendous courage when you’re losing fabulously large amounts of money to say ‘Our goal isn’t turnaround. Our goal is to make a great product.’ That’s not a natural reflex to that situation. The reflex is: let’s not spend this money and let’s try to get a little bit more because we’re about to go out of business.”
0:50

Jony Ive explains the Steve Jobs product philosophy that saved Apple from bankruptcy in 1998 “Our job isn’t to make money for Apple. Our job is to try and make the very best products we can.” Jony is aware that this sounds simplistic and easy to say given that Apple is one of the most valuable companies in the world today. But he points out that Steve Jobs stuck to this philosophy when Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1998: “When Steve came back, that’s how he articulated what the goals of the company needed to be… It takes a tremendous courage when you’re losing fabulously large amounts of money to say ‘Our goal isn’t turnaround. Our goal is to make a great product.’ That’s not a natural reflex to that situation. The reflex is: let’s not spend this money and let’s try to get a little bit more because we’re about to go out of business.”

Startup Archive

199,892 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

ELON: I HOPE APPLE AND GOOGLE WON’T FORCE US TO MAKE A PHONE “I sure hope we don't have to make a phone. That's a lot of work. The idea of making a phone makes me want to die. If we have to make a phone, we will, but we will aspire not to make a phone. I do think that the various companies and Apple and Google Android and whatnot, they need to make sure they don't have a heavy hand in like App Store and whatnot or they will create a forcing function for there to be a competitor. But man, I dread the idea of making a phone.” Source: Town Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 2024
0:35

ELON: I HOPE APPLE AND GOOGLE WON’T FORCE US TO MAKE A PHONE “I sure hope we don't have to make a phone. That's a lot of work. The idea of making a phone makes me want to die. If we have to make a phone, we will, but we will aspire not to make a phone. I do think that the various companies and Apple and Google Android and whatnot, they need to make sure they don't have a heavy hand in like App Store and whatnot or they will create a forcing function for there to be a competitor. But man, I dread the idea of making a phone.” Source: Town Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 2024

Mario Nawfal

271,471 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Why Apple is fumbling AI, and how they could course correct (hint: buy OpenAI for $500B) Thomas Laffont explains: "I've studied Apple basically my whole career." "If you think about their defining competitive advantage, it was the integration of hardware and software that led to the beautiful MacBook that we're all using. It led to the iPhone." "And the fact that they were so coupled between hardware and software, the user interface, you know, etc. And I think it directly led to them winning ... the mobile era." "In AI, they're the opposite. They don't control the silicon, they don't control the underlying models." "And so now they're back to maybe, using a historical analogy, the PC makers who didn't control the OS." "So I think the good news for them is, look, they still have a monopoly on users. They have $3T of market cap to kind of play with." "So I think it's way too early to count them out." "What's the most extreme thing that they could do? Just for intellectual sake, right?" "Buy OpenAI for $500B. I'm just gonna put a crazy thing out there." "So you think, okay, that's the most extreme." "Well, is it even that extreme? And what would Apple's stock do that day?" Chamath Palihapitiya: "Go up." "That's my view too. I actually think it would go up, not down even if they did something like that." "I would love to see them be a little bit more aggressive."
1:17

Why Apple is fumbling AI, and how they could course correct (hint: buy OpenAI for $500B) Thomas Laffont explains: "I've studied Apple basically my whole career." "If you think about their defining competitive advantage, it was the integration of hardware and software that led to the beautiful MacBook that we're all using. It led to the iPhone." "And the fact that they were so coupled between hardware and software, the user interface, you know, etc. And I think it directly led to them winning ... the mobile era." "In AI, they're the opposite. They don't control the silicon, they don't control the underlying models." "And so now they're back to maybe, using a historical analogy, the PC makers who didn't control the OS." "So I think the good news for them is, look, they still have a monopoly on users. They have $3T of market cap to kind of play with." "So I think it's way too early to count them out." "What's the most extreme thing that they could do? Just for intellectual sake, right?" "Buy OpenAI for $500B. I'm just gonna put a crazy thing out there." "So you think, okay, that's the most extreme." "Well, is it even that extreme? And what would Apple's stock do that day?" Chamath Palihapitiya: "Go up." "That's my view too. I actually think it would go up, not down even if they did something like that." "I would love to see them be a little bit more aggressive."

The All-In Podcast

67,295 просмотров • 1 год назад

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”
3:14

Two years ago today, Elon Musk introduced xAI with these words: “The overarching goal of xAI is to build a good AGI with the purpose of trying to understand the universe. I think the safest AI, the safest way to build an AI is actually make one that is maximally curious and truth seeking. So you go for try to aspire to the truth with acknowledged error. Does one ever actually get fully to the truth? It's not clear, but one should always aspire to that and try to minimize the error between what you think is true and what is actually true. My theory behind the maximally curious, maximally truthful as being probably the safest approach is that I think to a superintelligence, humanity is much more interesting than not humanity. One can look at the various planets in our solar system, the moons and the asteroids, and really probably all of them combined are not as interesting as humanity. As people know, I'm a huge fan of Mars, but Mars is just much less interesting than Earth with humans on it. And so I think that that kind of approach to growing an AI, and I think that is the right word for it, growing an AI is to grow it with that ambition. I've spent many years thinking about AI safety and worrying about AI safety. And I've been one of the strongest voices calling for AI regulation or oversight just to have some kind of oversight, some kind of referee, so that it's not just up to companies to decide what they want to do. I think there's also a lot to be done with AI safety, with industry cooperation. I kind of like Motion Pictures association, so I think there's value to that as well. But I do think there's got to be some like in any kind of situation that is, even if it's a game, they have referees. So I think it is important for there to be regulation. Like I said, my view on safety is like try to make it maximally curious, maximally truth seeking. And I think this is, this is important that you to avoid the inverse morality problem. Like if you try to program a certain morality, you can have the, you, you can basically invert it and get the opposite, what is sometimes called the Waluigi problem. If you make Luigi, you risk creating Waluigi at the same time. So I think that's a metaphor that a lot of people can appreciate.”

ELON CLIPS

21,519 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."
1:23

🚨 Elon Musk on Grok 3.5: "With Grok 3.5, that is about to be released, it's trying to reason from first principles. The focus of Grok 3.5 is to find the fundamentals of physics and applying physics tools across all lines of reasoning and to aspire to truth with minimal error. So apply kind of the tools of physics to thinking, and you know physics, if you violate conservation of energy or momentum, then you're either going to get a Nobel Prize, or you're wrong. We aim to get to truth with acknowledged error, but minimize that error over time. And I think that's actually extremely important for AI safety. So I've put a lot for a long time about AI safety, and conclusion is the old maxim that honesty is the best policy."

DogeDesigner

83,775 просмотров • 1 год назад

"I think that xAI is severely underrated" "It just kind of blows my mind that people don’t understand how fast the company is moving." "xAI is gonna shock people with the scale that it gets to quickly." "With xAI, they’ve been building the biggest coherent training clusters in the world, & they’re just not really focused on monetizing them right now." Shaun Maguire (Shaun Maguire), Partner Sequoia Capital Elon Musk (Elon Musk) . . . "I think that xAI is severely underrated and it makes sense—their revenue scale compared to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google is obviously much smaller—but it just kind of blows my mind that people don’t understand how fast the company is moving. Yeah. And you just have to look at the derivatives of progress, and then also just look at the bottlenecks. I believe the bottleneck at least is gonna be power. And even if you have the best model in the world, if you can only deliver it to 1% of the market or 2% of the market demand, you’re heavily limited in your growth rate and expansion opportunities. I just think xAI is gonna—like Elon’s the best in the world at atoms, and I think atoms are gonna be a decisive factor in the AI race. And the way Elon builds companies is different than other people. He builds the way I describe it is: he builds up potential energy, and then he converts that potential energy into kinetic energy. With xAI, they’ve been building the biggest coherent training clusters in the world, and they’re just not really focused on monetizing them right now. And it’s kind of crazy to me that people don’t understand the pattern yet. And it’s not to say that I’m bearish on the other foundation model companies. I just think xAI is gonna shock people with the scale that it gets to quickly. But I’m bullish on all of them. Like, I’m bullish on The Boring Company, I’m bullish on Neuralink. Tesla’s a public company so I have no comment on Tesla. But literally insanely bullish on all of them."
1:57

"I think that xAI is severely underrated" "It just kind of blows my mind that people don’t understand how fast the company is moving." "xAI is gonna shock people with the scale that it gets to quickly." "With xAI, they’ve been building the biggest coherent training clusters in the world, & they’re just not really focused on monetizing them right now." Shaun Maguire (Shaun Maguire), Partner Sequoia Capital Elon Musk (Elon Musk) . . . "I think that xAI is severely underrated and it makes sense—their revenue scale compared to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google is obviously much smaller—but it just kind of blows my mind that people don’t understand how fast the company is moving. Yeah. And you just have to look at the derivatives of progress, and then also just look at the bottlenecks. I believe the bottleneck at least is gonna be power. And even if you have the best model in the world, if you can only deliver it to 1% of the market or 2% of the market demand, you’re heavily limited in your growth rate and expansion opportunities. I just think xAI is gonna—like Elon’s the best in the world at atoms, and I think atoms are gonna be a decisive factor in the AI race. And the way Elon builds companies is different than other people. He builds the way I describe it is: he builds up potential energy, and then he converts that potential energy into kinetic energy. With xAI, they’ve been building the biggest coherent training clusters in the world, and they’re just not really focused on monetizing them right now. And it’s kind of crazy to me that people don’t understand the pattern yet. And it’s not to say that I’m bearish on the other foundation model companies. I just think xAI is gonna shock people with the scale that it gets to quickly. But I’m bullish on all of them. Like, I’m bullish on The Boring Company, I’m bullish on Neuralink. Tesla’s a public company so I have no comment on Tesla. But literally insanely bullish on all of them."

Molly O’Shea

197,995 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад