正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

The Biggest Opportunity in Consumer AI: Google Going Full OpenClaw David Sacks: “Google is going to compete very vigorously for the consumer because it is existential to them. It's very clear that search and AI chat are kind of merging into one space. I also think that Google is... in an outstanding position to do the whole OpenClaw thing because they already have access to your calendar, your documents, your email. The agent doesn't really have to earn your trust because you already trust Google with all of your stuff.” Chamath Palihapitiya: “They're the only one that has so much free cash flow that they can almost view it as two separate companies, which it effectively is. GCP over here runs the enterprise play, and then Google Consumer over here runs the consumer chatbot play. And they can keep them segregated. That's so much harder for a startup to do because on top of just keeping everybody organized, you have the financing problem of constantly having to raise more money because you don't yet have a profit engine that spits out cash. They're probably the only one. And you can see it in the valuations. People believe the durability of Google more than they believe the durability of anything else.” @jason: “Google has announced Google Workspace Studio to do AI automation, and people are playing with it already. So they have joined the OpenClaw party.”show more

The All-In Podcast

577,666 subscribers

75,225 次观看 • 4 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Chamath: Tesla and Google are best positioned to win AI because they are building the full-stack Jason: "The game here is who wins the AI prize five years from now?" "Chamath, who's your number one and number two?" Chamath: " Tesla's one and Google's two." "And the reason is because they are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about." TESLA 1⃣ "I think that Tesla has the best vision models." "Now with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models." "And they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo." "And then all of that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life." "Whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi. So that's number one." GOOGLE 2⃣ "And then number two, for many of the same reasons, I think Google." "Because you'll have the Gemini family of models, which just absolutely kick ass." "Like Veo 3, which we haven't really spoke about, is gonna destroy Hollywood in the next year, like Hollywood is done, I think." "But they're landing model after model." "They have the TPU, and the next generation TPU I think is exceptional." "They're baking quantum." "And then they have an entire funnel of billions of people that they can direct experiences to." "So Tesla one, Google two."

Chamath: Tesla and Google are best positioned to win AI because they are building the full-stack Jason: "The game here is who wins the AI prize five years from now?" "Chamath, who's your number one and number two?" Chamath: " Tesla's one and Google's two." "And the reason is because they are the closest to having that vertically integrated stack that I spoke about." TESLA 1⃣ "I think that Tesla has the best vision models." "Now with xAI, they'll have one of the best LLMs and reasoning models." "And they'll be able to eventually stick that on Dojo." "And then all of that will be in all of the physical AI that you will interact with in your daily life." "Whether it's a robot, or whether it's a car, or whether it's a Robotaxi. So that's number one." GOOGLE 2⃣ "And then number two, for many of the same reasons, I think Google." "Because you'll have the Gemini family of models, which just absolutely kick ass." "Like Veo 3, which we haven't really spoke about, is gonna destroy Hollywood in the next year, like Hollywood is done, I think." "But they're landing model after model." "They have the TPU, and the next generation TPU I think is exceptional." "They're baking quantum." "And then they have an entire funnel of billions of people that they can direct experiences to." "So Tesla one, Google two."

The All-In Podcast

7,919,160 次观看 • 1 年前

Sarah Guo (Conviction) says founders fear the wrong thing, because a giant like Google only ever has one A-team and your product is its 27th priority. "One really important thing for founders to think about is, who are you really competing with? If you are competing with Google Search and Google Ads, you're competing with the A-team at Google. They're pretty good, right? They do know how to do that stuff... But the vast majority of products that any large incumbent has is not staffed by the A-team, because there's only one A-team, right? And so if your product is the 27th priority for Google, it's actually not that scary."

Sarah Guo (Conviction) says founders fear the wrong thing, because a giant like Google only ever has one A-team and your product is its 27th priority. "One really important thing for founders to think about is, who are you really competing with? If you are competing with Google Search and Google Ads, you're competing with the A-team at Google. They're pretty good, right? They do know how to do that stuff... But the vast majority of products that any large incumbent has is not staffed by the A-team, because there's only one A-team, right? And so if your product is the 27th priority for Google, it's actually not that scary."

Fireside Alpha

275,981 次观看 • 1 个月前

Trump goes on unintelligible rant: “Google, nobody called from Google. One of the things like doing a show like yours, your show, you know, you see it on Fox, but when you really see it is all over the place, they take clips of your show that you're doing right now with me and if I do a good job, they're gonna vote for me, they're gonna vote for me because it's not just on Fox, it's on Fox is a smaller part of it. You're on all over this, those little beautiful cell phones you're on, you're all over the place. You have a product, you have a great product. You have a great brand. So you have to get out, you have to get out, you have to do things like your show and other shows and Google has been very bad. They've been very irresponsible and I have a feeling that Google is gonna be close to shut down”

Headquarters

2,693,878 次观看 • 2 年前

Your social posts used to die in 48 hours. But Google… just changed everything. Now you can connect your social media profiles with your Google Search Console, just like you do with your website, you can see which posts show up in Google, which keywords they rank for, and how many clicks they drive. And that flips the entire ROI of social content. Because a post in your social feeds peaked in a day or two. Then it's gone. But then that same post ranking in Google can keep working for months. And the thing is Instagram content has been indexed in search for about a year now. But you just couldn't measure any of it. Now you can. So I’m telling all clients to create content around questions people are actually typing into Google. I use AnswerThePublic for this. Type in your topic, and it shows every question your audience is asking. Then answer one question in every piece of content you create. Because now, every post has the potential to become more than a social post. It can become a measurable search asset that keeps bringing you attention, traffic, and customers long after you publish it.

Your social posts used to die in 48 hours. But Google… just changed everything. Now you can connect your social media profiles with your Google Search Console, just like you do with your website, you can see which posts show up in Google, which keywords they rank for, and how many clicks they drive. And that flips the entire ROI of social content. Because a post in your social feeds peaked in a day or two. Then it's gone. But then that same post ranking in Google can keep working for months. And the thing is Instagram content has been indexed in search for about a year now. But you just couldn't measure any of it. Now you can. So I’m telling all clients to create content around questions people are actually typing into Google. I use AnswerThePublic for this. Type in your topic, and it shows every question your audience is asking. Then answer one question in every piece of content you create. Because now, every post has the potential to become more than a social post. It can become a measurable search asset that keeps bringing you attention, traffic, and customers long after you publish it.

Neil Patel

91,905 次观看 • 5 天前

Here is the actual GOP candidate for President of the United States attempting to say something about Mark Zuckerberg which is literally all I can figure out from this 90-SECOND LONG SENTENCE. 😵‍💫 “So Mark Zuckerberg called me first of all he called me a few times she called me after the event that he said that was really amazing it was very brave and you know and he actually announced he's not going to support a Democrat because he can't because he respected me for what I did that day I think what I did maybe was a norm to me it was a normal response but I was called by Mark Zuckerberg yesterday the day before on this same subject and he actually apologized he said they made a mistake etc etc in the correcting mistake a Google nobody called from Google one of the things I do in a show like yours you you show you know you see them Fox but what you really see it is all over the place they take clips of your show that you're doing right now with me and if I do a good job they're going to vote for me they're going to vote for me because it's not just on Fox it's on Fox is a smaller part of it you're on all over this those little beautiful cell phones you're on you're all over the place you have a product you have a great product you have a great brand so you have to get out you have to get out you have to do things like your show and other shows and Google has been very bad they've been very irresponsible and I have a feeling that Google isn't going to be close to shut down because I don't think Congress is going to take it I really don't think so Google has to be careful now I will say this I believe Mark Zuckerberg he called me so he called me a lot they are working and I think they fixed it but what can he's not doing what he did four years ago with the five hundred million dollars I don't believe.”

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

2,250,158 次观看 • 2 年前

Jennifer Lopez reveals she physically broke the early internet so badly that Google was forced to invent Google Images just to handle her "At the time, the internet didn't have the ability... Google did not have the ability to show images, it was only text." "And because of the demand, people were typing in that they wanted to see Jennifer Lopez's dress..." "Google created an images section!" "Google Images was created because of me in that dress."

Jennifer Lopez reveals she physically broke the early internet so badly that Google was forced to invent Google Images just to handle her "At the time, the internet didn't have the ability... Google did not have the ability to show images, it was only text." "And because of the demand, people were typing in that they wanted to see Jennifer Lopez's dress..." "Google created an images section!" "Google Images was created because of me in that dress."

Nichole

65,924 次观看 • 1 个月前

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."

The All-In Podcast

100,683 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨Keith Rabois on Perplexity's AI browser: "It's a great Hail Mary attempt" because " absent something like this, Perplexity is toast." @jason: "OpenAI and Perplexity are going after the browser." "Perplexity launched Comet for their $200/month tier." "This is a really interesting category. Having your browser connected to agents lets you do really interesting things." Keith Rabois: "I think it's a great Hail Mary attempt by Perplexity." "I think absent something like this, Perplexity is toast." "Like, per the stat about ChatGPT going to a billion users, it's becoming the verb, you know, the way you describe using AI for a normal consumer." "There's nothing left of Perplexity if they can't pull this off." "So it's a great idea because the history of consumer technology companies is, whoever has uphill ground, like in a military sense, whoever's first has a lot of control." "This is actually what Google should be doing, truthfully." "I think Google Search is toast." "And since they have Chrome and they theoretically have a quality team in Gemini, they should be putting these two things together and hoping to compete with ChatGPT." "They're gonna lose the search game. The assets that are best at Google right now have nothing to do with search." "It's every other product that's the only thing that's gonna save that company if they can figure out how to use them."

🚨Keith Rabois on Perplexity's AI browser: "It's a great Hail Mary attempt" because " absent something like this, Perplexity is toast." @jason: "OpenAI and Perplexity are going after the browser." "Perplexity launched Comet for their $200/month tier." "This is a really interesting category. Having your browser connected to agents lets you do really interesting things." Keith Rabois: "I think it's a great Hail Mary attempt by Perplexity." "I think absent something like this, Perplexity is toast." "Like, per the stat about ChatGPT going to a billion users, it's becoming the verb, you know, the way you describe using AI for a normal consumer." "There's nothing left of Perplexity if they can't pull this off." "So it's a great idea because the history of consumer technology companies is, whoever has uphill ground, like in a military sense, whoever's first has a lot of control." "This is actually what Google should be doing, truthfully." "I think Google Search is toast." "And since they have Chrome and they theoretically have a quality team in Gemini, they should be putting these two things together and hoping to compete with ChatGPT." "They're gonna lose the search game. The assets that are best at Google right now have nothing to do with search." "It's every other product that's the only thing that's gonna save that company if they can figure out how to use them."

The All-In Podcast

45,297 次观看 • 1 年前

"The grand unification of AI and crypto is about to happen." — Marc Andreessen "It's now obvious that AI agents are going to need money—it's already happening." "It's that William Gibson quote: the future is already here, it just isn't distributed yet." "My friends who are the most aggressive users of OpenClaw have given their Claws bank accounts and credit cards. And not only have they done it—it's obvious that they needed to do it, because it's obvious that they needed to be able to spend money on their behalf." "And by the way, OpenClaw—if you don't give it a bank account, it's just going to break into your bank account anyway and take your money. So you might as well do it." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Latent.Space

"The grand unification of AI and crypto is about to happen." — Marc Andreessen "It's now obvious that AI agents are going to need money—it's already happening." "It's that William Gibson quote: the future is already here, it just isn't distributed yet." "My friends who are the most aggressive users of OpenClaw have given their Claws bank accounts and credit cards. And not only have they done it—it's obvious that they needed to do it, because it's obvious that they needed to be able to spend money on their behalf." "And by the way, OpenClaw—if you don't give it a bank account, it's just going to break into your bank account anyway and take your money. So you might as well do it." Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸 with Latent.Space

a16z

170,898 次观看 • 4 个月前

Google is a vaccine company?! "One thing people need to know, is that Google is a vaccine company. Google's parent company alphabet and Verily have this this a series of sister subsidiaries of Google's, actually manufactured vaccines flu vaccines and other vaccines and they're making and they're partnering with all the pharmaceutical companies. So Google has a seven hundred and sixty one million dollar partnership with Glaxo and what they're doing is they're harvesting medical information. That's a huge part of their business and then they're selling it to the pharmaceutical companies. But they're partnering with pharmaceutical companies that they can use that medical they can tell what you're buying habits are they can hear you cough listening to the theory and that all of these, you know, the surveillance systems they're erecting and the informational systems and how we use them and what we purchase is Is all turned into sellable data. Now going to the vaccine companies and the big pharmaceutical companies and they're partnered with them. They're really just part of the big part of the industry."

Google is a vaccine company?! "One thing people need to know, is that Google is a vaccine company. Google's parent company alphabet and Verily have this this a series of sister subsidiaries of Google's, actually manufactured vaccines flu vaccines and other vaccines and they're making and they're partnering with all the pharmaceutical companies. So Google has a seven hundred and sixty one million dollar partnership with Glaxo and what they're doing is they're harvesting medical information. That's a huge part of their business and then they're selling it to the pharmaceutical companies. But they're partnering with pharmaceutical companies that they can use that medical they can tell what you're buying habits are they can hear you cough listening to the theory and that all of these, you know, the surveillance systems they're erecting and the informational systems and how we use them and what we purchase is Is all turned into sellable data. Now going to the vaccine companies and the big pharmaceutical companies and they're partnered with them. They're really just part of the big part of the industry."

Bridgett Fertig

49,678 次观看 • 7 个月前

Brian sits on the board of Y Combinator. He said the last batch had 175 companies and only 16 of them weren't enterprise. "Here are the reasons I think it's happening. Number one, when ChatGPT came out, people were afraid it was going to kill their business. Number two, the business model is tricky. There is no consumer business model for AI that I've seen. For example, ChatGPT, there's three ways it can monetize subscriptions. Unfortunately, they're probably going to hit a local maximum percentage of users. Ads, they're hitting a local maximum because Claude and Gemini are not going to do ads. And e-commerce, they shut down the third party apps. And so the first thing is you need to have a business model around consumer AI. People are not trained to pay for information. The second problem is distribution is mature. Like the app store. Now again, top three apps in the app Store are AI, so it does prove you have something revolutionary, you'll find your way to the top. The third thing is, while I think Silicon Valley, we like to describe ourselves as rebels. I think it's very trend based and vibe based. And I think the trend is enterprise. Maybe finally the reason people aren't doing consumer companies is that they're just harder. You have to be good at a lot more things. You generally have to be better at design, marketing, culture, press. It's not purely technology and sales. But my prediction is that we're living in the age of enterprise AI, and I think in the next 12 to 24 months you're gonna see the beginning of a consumer AI renaissance. Almost every app on my home screen has not changed since AI, including Airbnb. I think that's gonna change in two years."

Brian sits on the board of Y Combinator. He said the last batch had 175 companies and only 16 of them weren't enterprise. "Here are the reasons I think it's happening. Number one, when ChatGPT came out, people were afraid it was going to kill their business. Number two, the business model is tricky. There is no consumer business model for AI that I've seen. For example, ChatGPT, there's three ways it can monetize subscriptions. Unfortunately, they're probably going to hit a local maximum percentage of users. Ads, they're hitting a local maximum because Claude and Gemini are not going to do ads. And e-commerce, they shut down the third party apps. And so the first thing is you need to have a business model around consumer AI. People are not trained to pay for information. The second problem is distribution is mature. Like the app store. Now again, top three apps in the app Store are AI, so it does prove you have something revolutionary, you'll find your way to the top. The third thing is, while I think Silicon Valley, we like to describe ourselves as rebels. I think it's very trend based and vibe based. And I think the trend is enterprise. Maybe finally the reason people aren't doing consumer companies is that they're just harder. You have to be good at a lot more things. You generally have to be better at design, marketing, culture, press. It's not purely technology and sales. But my prediction is that we're living in the age of enterprise AI, and I think in the next 12 to 24 months you're gonna see the beginning of a consumer AI renaissance. Almost every app on my home screen has not changed since AI, including Airbnb. I think that's gonna change in two years."

Patrick OShaughnessy

285,938 次观看 • 3 个月前

J-Cal Explains Why Google is UNDERRATED in AI 👀 On E227, the besties discussed Google's value in a post-search world if AI replaces traditional search. @jason broke down why he thinks Google is being slept on: "I think there's a chance that we're underestimating the power of Google's ad network right now." "They have four or five products that are one or two billion users per month. You have YouTube, Google Docs, Android." "They have such a data advantage and such a deep integration into people's lives because they use three or four services, I think Google's gonna figure this out." "It's quite possible that knowing your queries in Gemini, knowing what you're doing in Calendar, knowing what you're watching on YouTube could lead to a stream of more targeted ads that do better and are more valuable." "We've been seeing a number of startups that are figuring out how to use your queries and what you're doing in AI to present to you search results." "So imagine you're doing a Gemini search and on the side of it, it's giving you a rolling list of ads or offers that you might be more interested in." "That could be a better advertising product than even search itself." "I think YouTube search is the place to go all-in." "Right now, when you do a YouTube search, it just gives you 10 links, right? It just gives you that rolling thing." "You should be able to ask a question to YouTube, and you should be able to ask questions to your calendar." "You should be able to say, who have I met with over the last 10 years? Who I'm no longer in touch with and what are they up to?" "And it should do a Gemini search inside of Google Calendar. It's very light right now." "And then if you did that on YouTube, this would train people at the point of pain in a very deep way without sacrificing Google Search queries too aggressively."

J-Cal Explains Why Google is UNDERRATED in AI 👀 On E227, the besties discussed Google's value in a post-search world if AI replaces traditional search. @jason broke down why he thinks Google is being slept on: "I think there's a chance that we're underestimating the power of Google's ad network right now." "They have four or five products that are one or two billion users per month. You have YouTube, Google Docs, Android." "They have such a data advantage and such a deep integration into people's lives because they use three or four services, I think Google's gonna figure this out." "It's quite possible that knowing your queries in Gemini, knowing what you're doing in Calendar, knowing what you're watching on YouTube could lead to a stream of more targeted ads that do better and are more valuable." "We've been seeing a number of startups that are figuring out how to use your queries and what you're doing in AI to present to you search results." "So imagine you're doing a Gemini search and on the side of it, it's giving you a rolling list of ads or offers that you might be more interested in." "That could be a better advertising product than even search itself." "I think YouTube search is the place to go all-in." "Right now, when you do a YouTube search, it just gives you 10 links, right? It just gives you that rolling thing." "You should be able to ask a question to YouTube, and you should be able to ask questions to your calendar." "You should be able to say, who have I met with over the last 10 years? Who I'm no longer in touch with and what are they up to?" "And it should do a Gemini search inside of Google Calendar. It's very light right now." "And then if you did that on YouTube, this would train people at the point of pain in a very deep way without sacrificing Google Search queries too aggressively."

The All-In Podcast

58,275 次观看 • 1 年前

Really interesting parallel from Ben, comparing Google to Berkshire Hathaway. He says Google's search business is See's Candies. Its AI bet is Berkshire's move into the railroad: "They have See's Candies. Tremendously high margin business. The problem with a lot of high margin businesses is the percentage profit you can make is very high, but the absolute profit is small. So the brilliance of the BNSF Railway thing was they took the See's Candy profits and said, here's another industry whose margins are worse, but the absolute dollar amounts are so large that those worse margins result in absolute profits that are much larger. BNSF in one year threw off more free cash than See's Candies had thrown off in its entire lifetime. The reason why I find that story so interesting is it seems to capture where Google itself might be going. This unbelievable high margin business of search, one of the most perfect, beautiful business models of all time. And meanwhile there's this AI opportunity which requires astronomical spend. It's a cash incinerating machine. But if AI is intelligence and its TAM is basically all white collar work and eventually more, the margins are lower but the absolute profits available are much larger. Will we look back and say Google was See's Candies? It feels like that's happening. In that world, you use all your free cash flow. They've done that. You tap the debt markets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. They've done that. You issue equity. What does an equity issue do? It dilutes your interest in your shareholders. So you have a smaller percentage of the pie. Well, you have a smaller percentage of an astronomically larger pie. At the end of the day, no one's going to be complaining. Berkshire is actually not just an investor in Google, but a model for Google and where they're going."

Really interesting parallel from Ben, comparing Google to Berkshire Hathaway. He says Google's search business is See's Candies. Its AI bet is Berkshire's move into the railroad: "They have See's Candies. Tremendously high margin business. The problem with a lot of high margin businesses is the percentage profit you can make is very high, but the absolute profit is small. So the brilliance of the BNSF Railway thing was they took the See's Candy profits and said, here's another industry whose margins are worse, but the absolute dollar amounts are so large that those worse margins result in absolute profits that are much larger. BNSF in one year threw off more free cash than See's Candies had thrown off in its entire lifetime. The reason why I find that story so interesting is it seems to capture where Google itself might be going. This unbelievable high margin business of search, one of the most perfect, beautiful business models of all time. And meanwhile there's this AI opportunity which requires astronomical spend. It's a cash incinerating machine. But if AI is intelligence and its TAM is basically all white collar work and eventually more, the margins are lower but the absolute profits available are much larger. Will we look back and say Google was See's Candies? It feels like that's happening. In that world, you use all your free cash flow. They've done that. You tap the debt markets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. They've done that. You issue equity. What does an equity issue do? It dilutes your interest in your shareholders. So you have a smaller percentage of the pie. Well, you have a smaller percentage of an astronomically larger pie. At the end of the day, no one's going to be complaining. Berkshire is actually not just an investor in Google, but a model for Google and where they're going."

Patrick OShaughnessy

125,399 次观看 • 4 天前

David Friedberg: OpenAI’s rise is the best thing that ever happened to Google “No greater blessing has ever happened to Alphabet than OpenAI's rise.” “Not only did it create the foil for Google in the monopoly sense, but it also took the attention away from Google, focused it on OpenAI, and that attention fundamentally damaged OpenAI's strategic product capabilities because they had to start to be so much more careful about what they said and how they said it.” “And the opposite was happening at Google at the same time, which is Larry, Sergey and Sundar being given permission by the board to take risks, to go hard, to figure this out. And boom! It's amazing how the horse race has changed.” “The reason Google didn't lean into AI for years, even though they had the technology, is because they were nervous about cannibalization to search, they were nervous about the quality of the product, they didn't want to release things too early, and then they changed their posture.” “Which, by the way, I would argue is the opposite at OpenAI in the last couple months.” “I used to use advanced voice on ChatGPT all the time. I cannot stand it anymore. I do not use it.” “It has basically hedged away all of the value because it tries to be polite, it tries to make sure that it's giving you warnings all the time.” “It doesn't want to give you data because it's scared that it might give you the wrong data.” “OpenAI has been acting like an incumbent fearful of losing market share and fearful of getting attacked in the media and attacked by consumers for saying the wrong thing.” “And so they've taken this kind of defensive posture that I think has fundamentally damaged the product and the brand.”

The All-In Podcast

108,007 次观看 • 8 个月前

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

Ricardo

250,997 次观看 • 3 个月前

California's Wealth Tax Has a Secret Prohibition On Founder Control That's Forcing Entrepreneurs Out Sacks: “Larry and Sergey have left the state, and they’re probably getting dragged for that, but one of the reasons they have to is because of the super-voting stock provision in this thing.” “The way they calculate the value of your stock isn’t based on its liquid market value, but if you own super-voting shares, they multiply your ownership, your super voting, by the market cap of the company, and they deem your shares be worth that.” How it works: – Larry and Sergey have a combined 52% voting share of Google, which is worth $4T – They would be deemed to be worth roughly $1T each, not the ~$200B they are actually worth – So a 5% tax for them is more like a 25% tax on their entire net worth Chamath: “It actually becomes closer to 50%, because you'd have to sell more than that to overcome the drag of selling to generate $25B or $50B of net worth.” “You have to sell two times that, because you have to pay taxes on that.” Sacks: “So what’s the point of having that super-voting provision in there?” “It’s just totally punitive and vicious.”

California's Wealth Tax Has a Secret Prohibition On Founder Control That's Forcing Entrepreneurs Out Sacks: “Larry and Sergey have left the state, and they’re probably getting dragged for that, but one of the reasons they have to is because of the super-voting stock provision in this thing.” “The way they calculate the value of your stock isn’t based on its liquid market value, but if you own super-voting shares, they multiply your ownership, your super voting, by the market cap of the company, and they deem your shares be worth that.” How it works: – Larry and Sergey have a combined 52% voting share of Google, which is worth $4T – They would be deemed to be worth roughly $1T each, not the ~$200B they are actually worth – So a 5% tax for them is more like a 25% tax on their entire net worth Chamath: “It actually becomes closer to 50%, because you'd have to sell more than that to overcome the drag of selling to generate $25B or $50B of net worth.” “You have to sell two times that, because you have to pay taxes on that.” Sacks: “So what’s the point of having that super-voting provision in there?” “It’s just totally punitive and vicious.”

The All-In Podcast

155,130 次观看 • 7 个月前

ELON: IT’S OUTRAGEOUS THAT TWITTER SUSPENDED THE ACCOUNT OF A SITTING PRESIDENT “The reason I felt that it was important to acquire Twitter was because I could feel the walls closing in. It was outrageous that they suspended the account of a sitting president. That's insane. And I think it was only a matter of time before they suspended my account. Pretty much all the social media companies and Google and everyone are controlled by far-left activists. That's the truth of it. And so, how do you know what's real when it's all filtered through a far-left, San Francisco-Berkeley lens? They just manipulate the truth constantly. It's very easy to tweak the Google results. You don't have to delete information, you just move it to the second page. And people don't go there. But, at least there's one place where you can find out what's actually going on, what's real, and that's the 𝕏 platform.” Source: Town Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 2024

ELON: IT’S OUTRAGEOUS THAT TWITTER SUSPENDED THE ACCOUNT OF A SITTING PRESIDENT “The reason I felt that it was important to acquire Twitter was because I could feel the walls closing in. It was outrageous that they suspended the account of a sitting president. That's insane. And I think it was only a matter of time before they suspended my account. Pretty much all the social media companies and Google and everyone are controlled by far-left activists. That's the truth of it. And so, how do you know what's real when it's all filtered through a far-left, San Francisco-Berkeley lens? They just manipulate the truth constantly. It's very easy to tweak the Google results. You don't have to delete information, you just move it to the second page. And people don't go there. But, at least there's one place where you can find out what's actually going on, what's real, and that's the 𝕏 platform.” Source: Town Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 2024

Mario Nawfal

124,287 次观看 • 11 个月前

Why doesn't Google have plans to put ads in Gemini? Because Google is monetizing its AI overviews at parity with search, and they already reach 2 billion people monthly, says Eric Seufert. "That's the biggest single LLM output ad surface that exists."

Why doesn't Google have plans to put ads in Gemini? Because Google is monetizing its AI overviews at parity with search, and they already reach 2 billion people monthly, says Eric Seufert. "That's the biggest single LLM output ad surface that exists."

TBPN

15,028 次观看 • 6 个月前

David Friedberg says if you want to bet on AI you should own Google ($GOOG) "If you want to bet against Google’s deployment of capital into infrastructure because you’d rather have them give you cash for your shares today, you shouldn’t own the stock. Someone else will buy it." "I think Google wins in a lot of different ways. There’s the consumer business, there’s also YouTube. There’s also GCP." "I think there’s no better suited enterprise layer than GCP to take advantage of capturing value with AI for that enterprise setting. You can run any model you want and you can run any workflow you want, and you don’t have to be tied in." "There’s also this portfolio of other bets, which includes 10% of SpaceX and a good chunk of Anthropic that they own, worth way more than $100 billion. They just went up $20 billion on Anthropic in the quarter." "The worst, worst, worst case scenario is they have the lowest cost infrastructure in the world to run other people’s models as a service, like Elon did with Grok and the Colossus."

David Friedberg says if you want to bet on AI you should own Google ($GOOG) "If you want to bet against Google’s deployment of capital into infrastructure because you’d rather have them give you cash for your shares today, you shouldn’t own the stock. Someone else will buy it." "I think Google wins in a lot of different ways. There’s the consumer business, there’s also YouTube. There’s also GCP." "I think there’s no better suited enterprise layer than GCP to take advantage of capturing value with AI for that enterprise setting. You can run any model you want and you can run any workflow you want, and you don’t have to be tied in." "There’s also this portfolio of other bets, which includes 10% of SpaceX and a good chunk of Anthropic that they own, worth way more than $100 billion. They just went up $20 billion on Anthropic in the quarter." "The worst, worst, worst case scenario is they have the lowest cost infrastructure in the world to run other people’s models as a service, like Elon did with Grok and the Colossus."

dnap

99,467 次观看 • 28 天前

.President Donald J. Trump: "In order to do it, they have to be a member of the Abraham Accords... it's time now that they do it. They, and others, didn't want to do it because of the problem that they had with Iran. You don't have that problem anymore... they were the bully of the Middle East. They're really not going to be that much of a bully anymore."

.President Donald J. Trump: "In order to do it, they have to be a member of the Abraham Accords... it's time now that they do it. They, and others, didn't want to do it because of the problem that they had with Iran. You don't have that problem anymore... they were the bully of the Middle East. They're really not going to be that much of a bully anymore."

Rapid Response 47

134,106 次观看 • 29 天前