<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><feed
	xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0"
	xml:lang="en-US"
	>
	<title type="text">Nilay Patel | The Verge</title>
	<subtitle type="text">The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.</subtitle>

	<updated>2026-09-03T13:30:12+00:00</updated>

	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/author/nilay-patel-2-2-2" />
	<id>https://www.theverge.com/authors/nilay-patel-2-2-2/rss</id>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.theverge.com/authors/nilay-patel-2-2-2/rss" />

	<icon>https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/01/verge-rss-large_80b47e.png?w=150&amp;h=150&amp;crop=1</icon>
		<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[How Sonos rebooted itself]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/988368/sonos-ceo-tom-conrad-ai-smart-home-fabric-app-redesign" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=988368</id>
			<updated>2026-09-03T09:30:12-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-09-03T10:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Smart Home" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Sonos" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Speakers" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today, I’m talking with Tom Conrad, the CEO of Sonos. Tom and I have known each other for a long time — he was the chief technology officer of Pandora, VP of product at Snap, and the chief product officer of Quibi. He was also on the board at Sonos during its disastrous 2024 app [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A photo illustration of Sonos CEO Tom Conrad." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: The Verge / Photo: Sonos" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/09/DCD_Conrad_Sonos.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today, I’m talking with Tom Conrad, the CEO of Sonos. Tom and I have known each other for a long time — he was the chief technology officer of Pandora, VP of product at Snap, and the chief product officer of Quibi. He was also on the board at Sonos during its <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/13/24342282/sonos-app-redesign-controversy-full-story">disastrous 2024 app redesign</a> that threatened to crash the entire brand.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tom took over as <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/13/24342179/sonos-ceo-patrick-spence-resignation-reason-app">interim CEO to right the ship</a> during that period, and then took the permanent role just about a year ago. As you’ll hear him say, he thinks Sonos is fully out of that period now, and on to its next chapter <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/987129/sonos-27-ace-ultra-beam-ultra-announcement">with a huge product and platform launch called Sonos 27</a>.</p>

<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24792604/The_Verge_Decoder_Tileart.jpg?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don&#8217;t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Decoder</em> wherever you get your podcasts. Head <a href="https://www.theverge.com/account/podcasts">here</a>. Not a subscriber? You can <a href="https://www.theverge.com/subscribe">sign up here</a>. </p>
</div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I mean, come on, you all listen to the show. That is all the most <em>Decoder</em> bait imaginable. I have been dying to have Tom on the show to talk about how the board decided to move on from previous CEO Patrick Spence, how he diagnosed the issues inside the company, and what decisions he made to fix them.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those fixes involved a lot of big changes: to the company’s structure, its product lineup, and how it thinks about itself and what its product fundamentally is. That’s that new platform, Sonos 27, which you’ll hear Tom call a new foundation for the company that makes every Sonos product work better as part of a system.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There’s a lot here, including how AI assistants can work across the system, the idea of having a mesh network of little computers in your home disguised as speakers, and of course, the testy relationship between Sonos and Google, which means Google’s Gemini assistant isn’t available on Sonos devices.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oh, and of course we got into the weeds about smart home standards, because I am a smart home nerd and simply cannot help myself. But to his credit, Tom was willing to nerd out with me, and I think this conversation is pretty fun because of it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: Sonos CEO Tom Conrad. Here we go.</p>

<iframe frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP2424781090" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.&nbsp;</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tom Conrad, you&#8217;re the CEO of Sonos. Welcome to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thank you. As they say, it&#8217;s so great to be here.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I am just going to say, finally, I have been asking you to be on the show for at least a year, if not before. I think the first time I met you was in the back of a car at CES when you were at Pandora.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sounds right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One hundred years ago.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One hundred years ago. We were children.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>[Laughs] We were little babies. That car was driven by a human driver. That&#8217;s how far back it was.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And then you took a turn through Quibi. You and I talked through that, and now you&#8217;re at Sonos. As you know, I&#8217;m a huge fan of Sonos. We had your predecessor, Patrick Spence, </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/5/20849503/patrick-spence-sonos-move-apple-siri-bluetooth-podcast-vergecast-interview"><strong>on the show</strong></a><strong> a </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/22955336/sonos-google-lawsuit-ceo-patrick-spence-interview"><strong>bunch</strong></a><strong> of </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/23627331/sonos-ceo-patrick-spence-giles-martin-interview-era-100-300-podcast-vergecast"><strong>times</strong></a><strong>.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Many things have happened, so I just want to start at the very beginning of this. You&#8217;re about a year into being the permanent CEO of Sonos. You have a bunch of news to announce. Just tell us what you think Sonos is today. What is your conception of this company?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When I came in the door, one of my earliest observations was that the company behaved like it was 100 percent hardware, but we&#8217;re really 100 percent hardware and 100 percent software. And if you get either one of those even a little bit wrong, the impact is tremendous.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So how does that show up really day-to-day? It was about returning the company to the idea that Sonos doesn&#8217;t make these individual products, but we really make one thing — we make the Sonos system. It all has to hang together in a cohesive, interesting, and valuable way, or we&#8217;re just not doing the work.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><br>There&#8217;s been a bunch of basic blocking and tackling, of course, both operationally and in the work that we&#8217;re doing in the product family. But at the highest level, returning the company to the idea that we are a system for audio in the home has been the highest-level mantra.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When you say come into the company, do you mean as a board member or as the CEO?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I mean, let&#8217;s start the starter pistol in January of 2025, 18 months ago, when I stepped in first as interim CEO and then was lucky enough six months later to be asked to take the job more permanently.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The reason I asked that question is that you obviously have two different views of the company in different roles. We did have former CEO Patrick Spence on several occasions, and he said something very similar to me when he first took over — that Sonos was stuck in its ways. It was really focused on very, very slow iterations of hardware.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>He tried very hard to push the metabolism of the company to be much faster, and he talked about that very openly with me. That led eventually to what I think is a moment of true crisis: the app launch. It was a disaster. The system stopped working. That&#8217;s when you came in to right the ship.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tell me about that gap. You came in, and you said this company thinks it&#8217;s a hardware company. That&#8217;s what your predecessor had been saying, but it went sideways in big, meaningful ways. Tell me about that moment and why you think it was the same conception even when you came in.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So as you describe, I&#8217;ve been involved with the company going back almost 20 years. We brought Pandora to Sonos in 2007, I think, and I was able to get to know the company as a partner before I got to know it as a board member. I came onto the board in 2016 right as Patrick became CEO. So from the vantage point of a board member, I got to participate in Patrick&#8217;s chapter.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I guess the way I would characterize his high-order thinking about the company in those early days was that, as you described, he wanted to turn the company into a product execution machine with an emphasis on hardware products. We call them NPIs, or new product introductions.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In the chapter before him, it was sometimes years between new Sonos products. Spence said, &#8220;Look, we&#8217;re going to make a company that knows how to ship a couple of great new products a year.&#8221; And he did that. I mean, the company has reliably shipped a couple of great products, hardware products, every year, for close to a decade now.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sometimes, when you energize an organization around an idea, there are unintended consequences. I think one unintended consequence of that framing was that the company became very focused on the individual products, one at a time. Even as a board member, I received Roam as a portable speaker with a certain amount of battery life, waterproofing, and Bluetooth connectivity. I didn&#8217;t really think about it as a member of the Sonos system.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Even with the software work that we did, and with every product that we make, there is a tremendous amount of software effort and innovation that goes into them. But even the software that we made was very focused on the individual NPIs. “What can we do in software to differentiate Move 2 from other speakers in that category?”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What was hard to do, and what was hard to prioritize in the company, was horizontal slices of software experiences that benefited all of the platform. So, in a way, I think some of that debt accumulated, and the company thought that the antidote was to recreate the app experience. And as you know, we made a bunch of mistakes at that moment.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m really proud of the fact that I think we&#8217;re well beyond that chapter now, but we could have been much more thoughtful about how we qualified that product in the real world. We could have been much more thoughtful about how we rolled it out to customers. We could have, candidly, I think, examined the original impetus in the first place. It was very Sonos-motivated. We wanted to put the app on a modern architecture to make us more nimble.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my chapter at Sonos, I&#8217;m really trying to bring it all back to how we can focus on the customer first. I&#8217;m so inspired by talking to people on social media and in my inbox, and people in the industry, like you, about how we show up and solve the real problems that are happening in real households. I&#8217;m so excited about the things we&#8217;re going to talk to you about today because I think they&#8217;re really an answer to many of those questions.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>If you&#8217;re a listener, you know I&#8217;m familiar with Tom. The man&#8217;s on Threads doing customer support every day. And actually, I should not take advantage of this. I hold myself back from asking you for direct customer support all the time.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Anytime. The way that you can tell it&#8217;s actually me and not our crackerjack social team is that I often will let a Thread die before I should or fail to follow up with someone. So if we were executing perfectly on that, you would know it was fake Tom, but it&#8217;s real Tom, and I do it when I can, but sometimes imperfectly.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>At least it&#8217;s not an AI avatar Tom. That&#8217;s when we know it&#8217;s going to go sideways.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">[Laughs] That&#8217;s right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I know you&#8217;re a </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> fan, so I&#8217;m going to make you sit in this for just one more moment because I find all of this to be really fascinating. The app shipped, and the feedback was immediately and intensely negative. Many, many things were broken. Speakers weren&#8217;t working at weddings. This is a time of massive crisis.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The company goes to resolve it, but then you&#8217;re on the board, and it&#8217;s clear that there&#8217;s going to be a leadership transition, that Patrick needs to go, and we need a new CEO. You&#8217;re going to be the interim CEO.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tell us about that process. Very, very few people will ever be in that kind of process or get insight into that process. What happened? What were the steps?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Well, I guess you start by saying that the last thing as a board that you want to do is to remove a CEO, particularly one who had as many successes as Patrick had. But I think as we looked at the company&#8217;s progress recovering from the app crisis, and frankly the tenor of the conversation inside the company, we just decided that for this kind of step-function improvement we needed on some of these dimensions, we had to make some changes in leadership, and that included a CEO change.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It was a wild experience for me because, I&#8217;ll tell you, at no point in the decade leading up to that day in January did I imagine that I might end up the CEO of Sonos. But in the process, the board asked if I&#8217;d be willing to step in on an interim basis, and it was an easy yes for me. It&#8217;s a cliché, but I&#8217;m a customer, and I love this product. There was a Sonos Move in the room when my daughter was born. You talked about weddings. I was watching friends and colleagues on the internet, frustrated by their experience. I wanted to come in and fix it. Of course, as a board member, I felt some real culpability in it. So [I was] thrilled at the chance to come in.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you&#8217;re an interim CEO, the assignment is really to keep the wheels on. The assignment at Sonos specifically was to right the ship. So during the period when the board was doing their comprehensive search for the person that they would ultimately decide was the right choice for the company, it was really easy for me to show up and just do that hard work of trying to get the company back on track.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While I never imagined that I would land in this seat, I feel so blessed that it happened. I do love this job and continue to love the company and the team, and I’m so excited about the things we&#8217;re doing for our customers.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Very few people are going to get an interview to become the CEO of Sonos. I imagine at some point you went from being the interim CEO to wanting to become the permanent CEO. What was that process like? Did you write a memo? Was there a pitch deck? What were the steps?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, so there were a couple of pitch moments that the board asked me, completely reasonably, to engage in the process of applying for the job in the same way that all of the other talented candidates that they spoke to engaged. And so I took a personality test.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Wait, you did?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>With the letters?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oh, yeah.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Like an ENTJ or whatever?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oh, yeah. One of the letter things, sure. They wanted to know what they were getting.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do they know that that is basically just like astrology? Someone should tell them. </strong><strong><br></strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You know what? Yep, yep. I presented my vision for the company more than once, and I had the incredible advantage of being inside the four walls of the company and deeply understanding what was working and what wasn&#8217;t, and the things that we needed to do to get to this next chapter. It was a period of intense, intense work for me and everybody around me at the company, and more than a little anxiety about how it was going to turn out.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It was so fun, though, to get the call and then to just immediately be able to pivot at least a fraction of the work from the entirely tactical to the much more strategic, to begin to talk about what kind of company we are going to build together in this next chapter.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When it was announced that you would become the permanent CEO, even when you were the interim CEO, my reaction was, “Oh, this makes sense.” To use a football analogy, football teams hire defensive head coaches and offensive head coaches, and they come from one side of the ball or the other. It was just obvious: “Oh, this company needs a software CEO, and Tom is a software guy.”&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;re describing a situation where obviously it&#8217;s both. You&#8217;ve got hardware and software together, but that was the light that went off in my head — “Oh, this is a software person coming in to fix a big software problem.” Is that how you saw it initially?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, my career started with selling personal computers in 1986 or something, at the original Micro Center. If you&#8217;ve ever been to a Micro Center, it&#8217;s one of the few remaining big-box retailers for computers. So at the original Micro Center in Columbus, Ohio, at 16 years old, I walked into the CEO&#8217;s office and said, &#8220;I want to work here.&#8221; So from my earliest days, I was sitting with early adopters of personal computers and watching their struggles to understand the technology and put it to use in their lives.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I became an engineer and a product designer out of a desire to help people learn to use these products. And that&#8217;s really what&#8217;s motivated me through my entire career: how do I help teams make great experiences? So while it&#8217;s true that I&#8217;m a software person, 35 years in the business, my identity really is as a product designer. And I&#8217;d like to think that the board imagined that, yes, they needed a software person, but they needed somebody who could holistically look at the opportunity across hardware and software and help the team get there.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You appear to be through it now. There&#8217;s a big stack of announcements here, including MCP integration. I&#8217;ve got a lot of questions about all that.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When you became the permanent CEO 18 months ago, you said you immediately shifted strategy. What brought that into focus for you? “Oh, this is actually a software platform with hardware components”? Was that instinct? Was it research? Was it, “I&#8217;m getting through this app process, and that is becoming revealed to me”? How did that work?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think by disposition I&#8217;m a fairly right-brained person, and I have this intuitive feeling — creative, or whatever the words are, not as quantitative. But my first job out of college was at Apple, and I think even from the early days when I was there, we talked about the intersection of the arts and humanities and the sciences.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think one lesson of my career has been that you really do have an obligation to bring both a quant and a qual assessment to most things that pass your desk. So the development of our strategy was very much like that. Yes, there was an intuitive sense about what the right answer for Sonos was that was built up from my experience as a customer by observing our customers and talking to them through the years. A piece of that is a perspective about where the puck is going, of course.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But I do have access to piles and piles and piles of data about how our products behave in the real world, how our customers interact with them, what they use, what they don&#8217;t use, and lots of people around me in the organization who can bring that quantitative framing. I think one advantage I had over other CEO candidates was that I could bring some of that horsepower to bear on the story that I shared with the board about my vision for the future of the company.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;ve made some changes. It&#8217;s time for the </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> questions. You have restructured the company. There have been a few rounds of layoffs. How big is Sonos today?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re about 1,500 people.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And how is that structured?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So the company that I stepped into was divided into business units. We had a team that was focused on home. We had a team that was focused on the professional opportunity, a team that was focused on home theater, and so on. While there&#8217;s something to be said for P&amp;L responsibilities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, there&#8217;s something to be said for that approach at a certain scale. I think that my appraisal was that we were sub-scale for the inefficiencies that creep in. We have the almost guaranteed duplication of effort across the silos.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What&#8217;s more, if you imagine that the product is really the system, the idea that your portables team sits far away from your home theater team, and sits far away from your plugged-in speakers team, is almost surely going to run counter to the kind of progress that you&#8217;re trying to motivate. And so very quickly, within three weeks of my arrival, we reorganized the company into a functional model.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So my leadership team today, of course, has a finance organization, a legal organization, a sales organization, and a marketing organization. But the product team now shows up as represented by hardware, software, and global supply chain operations, so leaders across each of those things. And what that allows us to do is to assemble cross-functional teams, or matrix-style teams, to invest in the initiatives that are of the highest priority to our customers and to the business at any given moment. And we can flex that up and down and side to side as our needs change.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We might, for an interval, be very focused on this part of the portfolio over here, and then we might be able to move to focusing on a different corner of the portfolio. No one has to get a new boss, and people can fluidly move from these things and get new opportunities to learn. It just strikes me as a much more appropriate organizational structure for our current stage.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;re describing the shift from a divisional structure to a vastly more functional structure.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s Apple, right?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yep, sure.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Everyone comes up, and there&#8217;s one big product meeting.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You obviously make a lot of software. I&#8217;ve described you as a software CEO. It seems like the software industry is in a moment of existential crisis about how software is made, about what a product manager versus an engineer versus a designer do. Are you still in the classic structures of building software? Or has AI completely upended what you&#8217;re doing?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, we&#8217;re as deep in this as anyone. What&#8217;s been really fun for me over the course of the last year is to watch the software engineering team go from thoughtful skepticism to pretty deep embrace, if I&#8217;m honest. Some of that is on the back of just how dramatically the tools have evolved over the course of the last 12 months, certainly.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think almost everyone in the industry went home at the holidays at the tail end of 2025, coming into 2026, and came back just gobsmacked by how much progress the frontier labs were making on agentic coding, and it&#8217;s been a real accelerant for us. As complex as this transition is, I&#8217;m really excited about being able to help our engineers navigate what&#8217;s a pretty fundamental sea change in the way that this kind of infrastructure gets built, and it&#8217;s fun to get to be a part of that at this moment.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Did you break up the classic PM, designer, and engineer triad? Or is that still the core building block?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We still have all three, but it blurs particularly as the designers and the product managers can be prototypers at a really high level with incredible efficiency. It&#8217;s exciting to see how quickly they can communicate their ideas now in a medium that just didn&#8217;t exist at all for them a year ago.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;re at the turn, right? You came in, you restructured the company, you identified a new thesis for the company. Today you&#8217;re here to talk about all the new news. Do you think you&#8217;re through it? Do you think the existing customers have forgiven you for the app mess? Do you think the brand has been restored?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, as we&#8217;ve been saying, I think that there&#8217;s the quant and there&#8217;s the qual. The quant is green across the board. Performance, reliability, customer care interactions, social tone, NPS — these things are all restored to levels that we enjoyed before any of that happened.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the qualitative side, I love the fact that I can show up on Reddit or on social media broadly and engage with our customers and have a constructive conversation about things that they&#8217;re excited that we&#8217;re doing, and things where we&#8217;re still disappointing an individual customer on some dimension.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think that at some level, maybe this game is never over; you&#8217;re just always trying to polish off the remaining rough edges of everything that you do. So I have a real critic&#8217;s eye when I look at the work that we do, and if I ever let that slip, a customer will remind me of where the work remains. And so, yes, I think in every measurable way it&#8217;s behind us, but it&#8217;s a “never forget” chapter for the company.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That brings me to the other <em>Decoder</em> question: how do you make decisions? What&#8217;s your framework?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Well, I don&#8217;t think you bring just one framework to every decision. So we talk about, for example, product decisions. As an idea moves through its lifecycle from its days as an early little sapling that you have to care and tend to, through final mass production for a hardware object, and out into the channels, I think how you think about [each of those] decisions is different.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So in the earliest days, I really tried to protect the creativity of the company and to not let the antibodies of doubt and critique erode an idea before it&#8217;s had a chance to express itself in a way that anybody could get excited about. That means creating room for risk-taking, creativity, qualitative assessment, and prototyping before you get to the details of the business case and the hard trade-offs that you make on a journey from an idea to something you can actually ship.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But of course, as the programs roll along and they take on more and more financial investment and organizational risk, as more and more people aggregate into the product, you become, I think, just naturally much more quantitative in your analysis of the decisions. And you ask the teams to bring a really thoughtful, detailed description of the puts and takes and the risks associated with it, and you use that to help you make your decisions.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But maybe on top of all of that, you just have to hire great people. I mean, you just do, and you have to put them on teams that are an appropriate size for the task at hand. I think it&#8217;s going to be very, very difficult for any CEO or any leadership team to make great decisions if the people who aren&#8217;t bringing the ideas themselves aren&#8217;t great. So I suppose it starts with the right people in the seats.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The reason I ask that question in that way is that, I think, the decision you made that is most emblematic to me of changing from a divisional structure with individual P&amp;Ls to a more functional structure, and thinking about the platform as a whole, was the decision to kill a product that I believe was called Pinewood. It was a set-top box that was going to integrate all the streaming services. This was </strong><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-03-10/sonos-new-speaker-heralds-revival-under-ceo-tom-conrad-after-app-fiasco"><strong>well reported by former </strong><strong><em>Verge</em></strong><strong> reporter Chris Welch</strong></a><strong>, who&#8217;s now at Bloomberg.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The thing that really struck me about that was if you had a division that was focused on soundbars, the only place that division could go was to compete with Roku. And all the reporting that we had before suggested that the soundbar division was growing because the attach rate for soundbars with new TVs is 100 percent. Everyone knows the speakers in their TVs are bad.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s a great business, and we&#8217;re for sure the best product in the category.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So if you want to grow, which is the big thing, you&#8217;re going to be like, “How do we grow? And you say, “Well, I got to beat Roku.” And then now you&#8217;re just off doing that. You came in, and you just ended that, and I thought, “Oh, this is not just a decision to end a product line; this is also a decision about the strategy of the company. Because if you&#8217;re going to go compete with Roku, you&#8217;ve got to be a different company.” That&#8217;s my view of it. Is that how you saw it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Like so many things, these decisions do have more than one dimension that you evaluate. A big part of that decision, candidly, was that we were spread too thin across too many things, and I didn&#8217;t believe that we could be exceptional at all of them. I wanted to return us to focus on the thing that allows us to be most differentiated in the competitive set, and that&#8217;s the incredible systemness of the product, the audio experience that we can deliver, and attending to what, at the time, was a very long list of things that our customers were explicitly asking us for.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think if we were, putatively, actually working on a set-top box at that moment, another thing that I might have wondered about was whether our desire to make this particular product came from our customer or did it come from some sort of internally sourced sense of business opportunity? And I think companies get in a lot of trouble when the thing that comes first is the model and the thing that comes second is the product.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I certainly feel a sense of obligation to constantly be evaluating new business opportunities for the company, new business models for the company, sure. But I want them to always start from a place of what we really see in the market from customers. I&#8217;m not sure that they were saying we want a high-end streaming box that is somehow the love child of an Apple TV and a Roku.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Although that love child… I would be very worried about that love child. Why does this product have 200GB of storage for no identifiable reason, but also shows me ads at all times? We&#8217;ll set that aside.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I ask that because I want to talk to you about all the news here. The news here is a bunch of big bets. You&#8217;ve got Sonos 27. That is the new name of what you were calling an audio operating system that has something in it called Sonos Fabric.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Boy, I know you know me. I&#8217;m ready to go on all these names and all these ideas. In there, somewhere, is MCP support. There&#8217;s a big idea about assistants that I want to talk about. You&#8217;re cashing some chips, right?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;re saying, ”Okay, here&#8217;s a big new idea. Trust us. We&#8217;re going to get it right this time.” You&#8217;re ready for it.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, I feel very ready. We&#8217;ve spent the last year building the new products that tell the story of this next chapter of the company. We&#8217;re really excited, not just about their capabilities, but how we&#8217;re going to share them with the world and how we&#8217;re going to enter a period of co-creation with our customers.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;ve recently done that with some of the app enhancements that we&#8217;ve been rolling out. We&#8217;ve rolled out a mechanism that allows our customers to opt into them explicitly and talk to us about what they see in their own homes, and it&#8217;s just been such a delightful chapter of engagement with the community that I think we really lacked for a while. So yeah, I feel very ready.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Can I talk about it?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah, let&#8217;s get into it. Sonos 27 and Sonos Fabric, what are these things? Explain to people what&#8217;s going on here.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So 100 percent hardware, 100 percent software. For 20 years, we&#8217;ve given all of our hardware objects names: Roam, Arc, Beam, Ace, Era. But we&#8217;ve never named the software platform — the thing that takes these collections of products and creates a consistent whole. So in some ways, the big news that we&#8217;re sharing right now is that the software platform has a name called Sonos 27, and it has a bunch of promises that it makes to customers in its nuts and bolts.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s an ecosystem platform that allows a huge heterogeneous world of services to come together in your home. It&#8217;s a system that has a deep technological layer that tunes the audio for every part of your household through a system we call Trueplay. It&#8217;s fundamentally built on a kind of fabric that brings all of the products together into a cohesive whole. And architecturally, it&#8217;s one of the things that&#8217;s really, really unique about what we&#8217;re doing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Our products in your home really find each other on the local network and create something that is truly where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And it&#8217;s what unlocks so much of the magical experiences that we&#8217;ve delivered through the years. We&#8217;re about to announce some exciting new capabilities for Sonos Fabric and point a vector into the future of more to come.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finally, we have these control and engagement services: app, voice, web. You mentioned MCP, which is a new dimension that we&#8217;re adding. We also have an entirely new voice assistant experience. And so we&#8217;re doing all of that across the software ecosystem, and we&#8217;re even giving a little bit of a preview of a capability that we&#8217;re calling Custom Agents, which is multi-tenancy inside of the platform to allow modern voice assistants to live side by side and interact with one another on the platform.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So we&#8217;re doing all of that, and we have some great new hardware too. We’ve got a brand new amazing soundbar and an amazing set of new headphones.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The Beam Ultra is the new soundbar, and I think it&#8217;s 7.1.2.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yep.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is very nerdy, but to me it represents the fact that Atmos is totally mainstream now at this price point.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, totally.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That might be an entirely different home theater podcast.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I can&#8217;t wait for you to hear it, honestly. Obviously, I&#8217;m biased and consider the source, but it sounds amazing. People who have heard it just can&#8217;t stop talking about how great this little soundbar sounds.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Honestly, I should quit doing this and just do home theater podcasts. Where does my heart truly lie? It&#8217;s that. It&#8217;s just doing that.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">[Laughs] I&#8217;m down. Anytime.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We should do it.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you need a co-host, we should do it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Look, I just </strong><a href="https://valueelectronics.com/tv-projector-and-headphone-shootout-evaluation-events/"><strong>judged the TV shootout, and Sony lost</strong></a><strong>. It&#8217;s a big deal. There&#8217;s a lot going on in that world.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tell me about the idea of naming the operating system Sonos 27. It&#8217;s obviously the middle of 2026. It obviously tracks Apple&#8217;s naming scheme. This very much implies there&#8217;ll be a Sonos 28 one year from now, in August of 2027.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It does. I think from the beginning we knew that we wanted to give it a name, and we knew that we wanted the name to be able to express this idea that Sonos does evolve. And for many, many years, that evolution was to the great benefit of our customers. We had lossless audio for Apple. We had high-fidelity audio for Spotify. We had AirPlay. We had Alexa.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Through the years, we&#8217;ve just over and over and over again expanded the capability of the products that were already in our customers&#8217; homes, and we didn&#8217;t have a way of talking about it at all. So we wanted to give it a name. We wanted people to understand that it improved over time.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So as we started thinking about, “Well, how do you really do that?” I mean, the first thing they came to was like, “Gosh, we already have ‘OS’ right in the name of the company.” So to try to brand some entirely new thing felt like a self-own, and so we pretty quickly reverted to this idea that the product is 100 percent hardware and 100 percent software. The product is Sonos, not Arc. Maybe the OS2 is called Sonos.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And then it&#8217;s like, “Well, what companion moniker can we give it to drive that idea home?” Obviously we talked about version numbers and any number of other things, but we decided that we&#8217;d like to take advantage of this. Once a year, we&#8217;ll stand up in front of our audience and tell them about how the platform is evolving, and using the year as a descriptor for that was a better mechanism than almost anything else that was available to us.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Those software cycles, yearly big releases… Apple is basically the only company that sticks to it. Even if it doesn’t do it, it announces all the features, and then they slowly dribble them out over the course of the year as they come into focus.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Again, I have a lot of questions about the nature of software development in 2027, but the idea that there&#8217;s one monolithic release once a year — the industry&#8217;s gotten away from that. Is that your idea, or are you going to do something different?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, no, no. Fortunately, the industry has gotten away from that, and our intention is to have a moment where we can tell the story of the operating system roadmap for the next six or 10 months. As you&#8217;ll see, even in this moment, the things that we&#8217;re announcing — many of them will be available in what we&#8217;re calling early access, which is the chance for us to put them out into the product as opt-ins for our customers. That way, we can do the perspective collecting, real-world data collecting sort of work. All of these products will continue to evolve through the year.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Frankly, I think as we go into the event, we will talk about all of this. I know that I&#8217;m going to get questions from customers and observers like, “What about this feature?” I think really the answer is just going to be like, “We know the stuff.” There&#8217;s very little that you can say, &#8220;Hey, someone should do this,&#8221; that isn’t on our list.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So to be able to say, “Look, part of what we&#8217;re communicating with the 27 of it all is that this stuff will come in 2027, and if it doesn&#8217;t, it&#8217;ll come in 2028 or beyond.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the big ideas here is obviously that this is an operating system that addresses a bunch of hardware in your home. That thing mostly looks like speakers, but some of it is connected to your TVs. You&#8217;ve got command and control. You&#8217;ve got other assistants, which I want to talk about, and that operating system should gain more capabilities over time.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What does the far version of that look like? Is it just that there will be an ambient assistant in your house that is addressing the fabric through MCP? Is it that you&#8217;ll interoperate with other speakers that might be in the house? What does the biggest vision of this look like?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I mean, I think in some ways you&#8217;ll have to stay tuned to see where we take this, but I&#8217;ll start with this: I think that every home deserves this infrastructure. I think sound is an incredible mood stabilizer, if you like. Take the audio track out of your favorite movie or television show, and so much of the life comes out of it. And I think having an out-loud audio experience in your home is something that everybody should enjoy. So part of the big picture is we want to spread this far and wide and make it accessible to everyone.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A running joke about the first generation of assistants is that they&#8217;ve ended up being for timers. I think you really do, when you&#8217;re building out this next generation of voice-centric experiences, have to look at not just what the technology can do, but also what the customer wants. And one of the new capabilities in Sonos 27 is our new voice assistant.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Our voice assistant is built on modern generative technology, but it&#8217;s really inspired by what people tell us that they like to see in the home. I&#8217;ll tell you, the killer app of the assistant is that they just want to be able to talk to it like a normal person, full stop. With the first-generation assistants, you just had to guess what to say every time, and even then maybe it took two or three attempts to get there.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s such a game changer to be able to say, &#8220;Play that album I loved in college, the one with the Cocteau Twins singer. I think the song ended up as the theme song for that show. It was on Fox. It was about the curmudgeonly Doctor House… It&#8217;s ‘Teardrop’ by Massive Attack.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I know. They </strong><a href="https://screenrant.com/house-md-intro-songs-different-change-streaming-explainer/"><strong>took it off the [streaming version of </strong><strong><em>House</em></strong><strong>]</strong></a><strong>. It&#8217;s sad.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is. It is. So that&#8217;s job one, if you like. The first-generation assistants didn&#8217;t do it at all. Sonos Voice in the new OS is exceptional at this. So that&#8217;s meeting the customer where they are.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What else should they say? Well, they say a little bit about what I would call mood and ambiance. So lighting. Let&#8217;s bring lighting into the environment so that you can express a scene through both sound and light.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">My wife and I are constantly settling little bets in the kitchen: &#8220;What was this thing called? Who is that actor?&#8221; They do want comprehensive world knowledge. They want to get an answer to the kid&#8217;s homework assignment or whatever, and so these agents do need to be able to hand off to comprehensive frontier models to get perspectives on the world.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In some instances, those perspectives allow them to use the frontier model to manipulate the audio environment to play some music that people are talking about on TikTok and pick some stuff that sounds like the shoegaze music that I liked when I was in college. We can leverage the power of a frontier model to understand what&#8217;s being talked about on TikTok to sort that against my musical preferences, and deliver it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I guess while we&#8217;re enumerating what I think a modern voice assistant has to do, it has to be fast, it has to be reliable, and it has to be responsible and affordable to run. I do think that customers want this as a fundamental capability of a product like Sonos, and we built an architecture that allows us to deliver it to every one of our customers as well.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a lot of big </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>, big </strong><strong><em>Verge</em></strong><strong> ideas in all of there, all the way down to where does the compute live? Where is the computer in your house supposed to be? You&#8217;re describing a lot of command and control. There&#8217;s integration with smart home stuff. I think it&#8217;s a Lutron partnership you have now.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But there&#8217;s an infinite number of smart light switches that might help you control your lighting. Your company is part of the Matter standard, but you don&#8217;t actually enable Matter on Sonos speakers. I think </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/2/24332848/speakers-matter-smart-home-apple-google-amazon-legato"><strong>our reporting from the wonderful Jenn Tuohy</strong></a><strong>, as our smart home reporter, has suggested that you don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s ready.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is a lot of stacked problems. I&#8217;m just going to read your press release to you. It says, &#8220;Sonos 27 MCP allows you to connect any outside AI assistant or agent to your system, including ChatGPT.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Well, I&#8217;m a customer, and I&#8217;ll tell you that the one that I want to use is Gemini for Home, Google&#8217;s assistant, and that&#8217;s been broken on Sonos for ages </strong><a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/sonos-wins-ruling-revive-us-patent-case-against-google-2025-08-28/"><strong>because of an ongoing lawsuit</strong></a><strong>. Is that fixed? Is Google on your list? Because there&#8217;s a lot of competitive dimension here.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So in many ways we have a strong relationship with Google to this day, despite the lawsuit. YouTube Music is one of the most-listened-to music services on the platform. We do have a long history of a first-generation Google Assistant on many of our products. We&#8217;d love to continue to work with them on all of these things, and those conversations continue.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I guess I&#8217;m just going to push on this idea of connecting any AI assistant or agent. There are two big ones. There&#8217;s Alexa, and there&#8217;s Google. You might be in third place. Siri exists. Those are the ones, right? Maybe there&#8217;s going to be a ChatGPT product in the future.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Well, listen. I want to tease apart two different things.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sure.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Let&#8217;s talk about command and control of the Sonos system through external agentic interfaces, just to use every buzzword. What I really mean is that we think there&#8217;s a lot of utility in showing up inside of ChatGPT on the web, on your phone, on the desktop in the same way that Slack or your calendar shows up in those environments.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So with Sonos 27 MCP, we&#8217;ll show up in the directory of connectable services in all of those environments: in Gemini, in Claude, in ChatGPT, in Grok. By connecting that tool into your experience, however you access it, you&#8217;ll be able to summon Sonos. So maybe you&#8217;re working on something, and you want some music to play; you can just tell Claude to make it play or just tell Gemini to make it play from the desktop or mobile surface that you&#8217;re sitting in front of.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s a pretty powerful building block as we see these OpenClaw-style agentic, proactive, asynchronous agents evolve. Now they have access to Sonos in a supportable way. There&#8217;s been a bunch of hack MCPs and CLIs for Sonos around, and a lot of reporting about how they&#8217;re among the most utilized examples for these things. We&#8217;re excited to officially support such a thing. As much as fun it is to see the mainstream use cases, I&#8217;m very excited to see what hobbyists are going to do with Sonos MCP.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So let&#8217;s now talk about on-device, though. So we&#8217;ve been working closely with Amazon for some time to bring Alexa Plus to our platform. That work continues. I&#8217;m excited about it. We don’t have anything to announce today, but we&#8217;ve had a long and really successful relationship with Amazon through the years. Panos was on the board with me for many of our years at Sonos.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>By the way, just so people know, that&#8217;s Panos Panay, </strong><a href="http://google.com/search?q=panos+panay+the+verge+decodefr&amp;oq=panos+panay+the+verge+decodefr&amp;gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQLhiABDINCAIQLhivARjHARiABDIHCAMQLhiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQLhiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABNIBCDIwMjVqMGo3qAIAsAIA&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;source=chrome.ob&amp;ie=UTF-8"><strong>who now runs hardware and Alexa at Amazon</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s right, that&#8217;s right. He’s a friend of the show.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yes. Panos and I are buds.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But one thing we&#8217;ve demonstrated is something we call Sonos Custom Agents, which lets you take any of these inference engines — the Anthropic engine, the OpenAI engine, the Gemini engine, the Grok engine — and invoke it from Sonos. You&#8217;ll be able to give it a unique voice, give it a name, and give it a context that has it show up in a particular way.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So imagine that you&#8217;d like to have a personality that lives inside of Sonos, and it’s the John Cusack character from <em>High Fidelity</em>,<em> </em>an opinionated record store geek who is interested in subtly shading your perspectives in music, but also making recommendations.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You&#8217;ll be able to go in and set up a custom agent in Sonos that says, &#8220;Let&#8217;s use OpenAI inference. Let&#8217;s use this voice I pick, and let&#8217;s give it this personality, and let&#8217;s have it live alongside an agent that&#8217;s powered by Anthropic inference that is going to give me advice on cooking. And let&#8217;s do another one that is only interested in connecting me with opportunities to see live music.&#8221;&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All of these tools will be able to show up inside of Sonos, invoked by the name you give it, like, &#8220;Hey, Sonos, connect me to the curator,&#8221; and talk to you only about that topic, have a point of view, and be able to access the Sonos context so that they can hand off from one to the other.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s super fun. It&#8217;s super creative. It lets our customers become participants in the Sonos platform. We&#8217;re just showing it off as a technology preview because there are still a lot of details to work out here, but it&#8217;s a lot of fun to play with in the lab.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Let me bring some of these ideas together. There&#8217;s the idea that there&#8217;s external command and control. I have an Echo Dot, and I say, &#8220;Turn on the Sonos,&#8221; and it just does that.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Then there&#8217;s the idea that there&#8217;s the assistant that lives on your device that is either the Sonos voice assistant or maybe you&#8217;re going to keep working with Amazon and Alexa+ being there. And then we&#8217;re going to make new custom ones out of building blocks that are enabled in lots of different ways.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When I asked where the computer is, this is, to me, the big question: where does all this ambient agentic AI actually live? Where does it have control? Is it going to happen locally? Are we sending everything to the cloud?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Somewhere in your home, if you&#8217;re going to control lights, music, and everything else, there needs to be some logic happening in your home. There are a lot of standards to do that. Some of them are good, some of them are bad. Some of them have names that connect directly to the word fabric, like Thread.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sure.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a lot going on here in terms of just the names and schemes of what could happen. Where do you see this view? Who is your competition here?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is it that Apple is going to launch a new HomePod with an AI-enabled Siri, and they already have a HomeKit, which is a pretty well-built and pretty popular smart home platform? Is it, “Well, OpenAI is going to have a hardware device, and maybe their first one&#8217;s going to be in the home, and you need to stave that off and make sure people are talking directly to you, and you have the customer relationship”?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That seems not only undeveloped, but even the foundations of how you build the products — like Matter and smart home standards — are messy and political in very specific ways. So how do you see the competition, victory, and success there? And then how do you solve just the capability gap that every other company has run into?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So one thing that I&#8217;m reminded of in this moment is that we, as an industry, have these platform shifts that unlock opportunities for companies who get lucky on timing. For example, the original dot-com era was really powered by Oracle and Sun Solaris boxes and data centers that you owned and operated yourself. We then went through a chapter where the infrastructure became Linux and open source for your data tier.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Of course, we&#8217;ve had this huge long run of cloud infrastructure. I think that if you&#8217;re a company that builds your stack on Solaris and Oracle, it&#8217;s really that there&#8217;s an opportunity for a company to come along and build a stack on Linux and Postgres in that moment and suddenly find efficiencies that are very, very hard for you to claim.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think something very similar is happening in voice assistants. When I hear you talk on the show about your experience with voice assistants that are going through the transition from first generation to second generation, it feels to me like so much of the challenge there is about how we drag along all of the committed relationships that we have for the internet-connected toaster, back massager, and all of the things that are connected into those existing historical ecosystems.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Honestly, even in the world of AI, with just how much has changed in the last couple of years underneath the companies as they&#8217;re building out their answers here, it really feels to me like we are stepping into a moment where agentic tool use powered by protocols, like MCP, is going to disintermediate a lot of that stuff that you&#8217;re talking about.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think that in the immediate term, we&#8217;re really excited about what we can do in the use cases that our customers are telling us they care about. Give me mood and audio in the home. We have great solutions for that today. And I think we can take advantage of this shift to a truly next-generation architecture without the baggage of a decade of internet-connected light switches from 17 different protocols with 17 different hubs in the closet.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Well, I mean, part of the opportunity there is that you don&#8217;t have a big voice assistant. I don&#8217;t think the current Sonos voice assistant is at the scale of Alexa or Google Assistant. I&#8217;m just guessing. They do have that problem. The light switches in my house, they&#8217;re in the walls. They&#8217;re going to be there. That Lutron hub is there. It&#8217;s not great. However, Lutron is the best one.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is. It is the best one.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a box in my house, and there are a lot of those little weird little boxes in my house because I have a smart home, and all of those dependencies exist for those platforms for reasons. If you show up and say, &#8220;Use my voice assistant instead,” and it can&#8217;t operate all of the lights, well, I&#8217;m just going to fall back to Amazon, or I&#8217;m going to fall back to Google. They know it, and they know they can&#8217;t break those things. Panos and I have talked about it a lot, actually in the context of Alexa Plus.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The promise of AI, at least from my very abstract vantage point, is, boy, I should not care about any of this. There&#8217;s a network in my house. There are lots of devices on that network. They have some access points on that network, and maybe they&#8217;re API-driven access points, maybe they&#8217;re MCP-driven. It should not matter. There&#8217;s just a bunch of devices in my network that you can control somehow, and this all-seeing robot that is going to replace every job in America should be able to traverse my network and turn on the lights without any help. That&#8217;s what it should do.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Some of the </strong><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-founder-andrej-karpathy-chores-dobby-ai-claw-2026-3"><strong>very first big vibe coding shockwaves</strong></a><strong> were AI researchers, bleeding-edge AI researchers, being like, &#8220;I figured out how to control my shades. They walked through my network, and the shades go up and down now,” right? We&#8217;re not there at the consumer level. The promise is not there. I&#8217;m still here talking to you about Matter, Thread, HomeKit, and whether or not Google Assistant can control my Sonos Amp, which, by the way, it can&#8217;t, and that is my one ticket to you that I didn&#8217;t submit on Threads.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s the promise, but the gap to that seems really, really huge. Are you able to close it? Is that the opportunity?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think we&#8217;re just still in the Apple II days of the home automation space. So while there is, as you point out, this incredible, wild, heterogeneous world of different light switch controllers, I think when you talk to mainstream consumers about their homes, they&#8217;re not there yet.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I do think that because of the profound technological step function of agentic control of these kinds of services and things like tool use, as the consumer catches up with the industry&#8217;s ambition to solve these problems, new technological solutions will emerge. I&#8217;m really excited about how we&#8217;re positioned to ride that transition and not be encumbered by the decade of early adopter internet-connected light switches.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What are you going to do about the light switches that are already in the walls?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I just don&#8217;t think that there&#8217;s enough of them to matter in the final answer. Of course, Lutron&#8217;s a great partner, and they do a great job with this.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They do. I mean, we have them. We’ve got all kinds of light switches. We mostly have Lutron ones. But that&#8217;s my question. The first natural customer for something like what you&#8217;re describing is somebody who is already using these products in some way. If you show up to my house and there&#8217;s no Matter support or whatever, I&#8217;m like, &#8220;Well, I can&#8217;t use it.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Is it though, or is it more like the difference between the people that were adopting Creative Labs MP3 players before the iPod came along?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sure</strong>.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Was the iPod really for those people, or was it for people that had that problem but were nowhere near the people that had been early adopters? Or was the iPhone for people that were using Windows CE, or was it for people that were using flip phones who were ready for the transition? I think we&#8217;re making-</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is that the idea here “iPhone for smart home control” or “iPhone for audio in the home”?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The turn there that I think is really interesting is: who are you going to talk to? Where is the computer? What is the computer? You&#8217;re describing a situation where if you want music, you&#8217;re going to talk to Sonos. But you also have a general-purpose assistant like Claude or ChatGPT, and they can talk to Sonos, too.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s unclear to me — and it may be one of the most fascinating questions at this moment in tech — where the interface goes. Are we all going to have one chatbot that does everything, and all the demand is aggregated there, and OpenAI becomes more powerful than ever? Or are we going to have lots and lots of assistants that we address in lots and lots of different ways?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It seems like your bet is Sonos will have a personality in your home, maybe multiple personalities in your home, and customers will address that, and all the other stuff will go somewhere else.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For 20 years, we&#8217;ve found a lot of success around the idea of embracing every dimension of the problem. Yes, there&#8217;s an app, but you&#8217;re welcome to engage with us through AirPlay or Spotify Connect. Yes, we have a voice assistant that lives side by side with Alexa. Yes, we have proprietary mesh, but it integrates with Bluetooth and even line-in. I think we bet that we&#8217;re of a size and scale that allows us to both be nimble and react to these changes, but also have enough horsepower to keep up technologically with what the best in the category are doing. So I think some of this just plays out on the field.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Just one last idea, since you said it a couple of times, this question about where the compute lives. I think one incredibly powerful opportunity for Sonos is that we do place compute in millions and millions of homes. People don&#8217;t think of them as computers often, but they are. They create a seamless experience that is really the integration of a set of cloud services and local services in a way that looks like just one surface area to the customer.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think that the answer to your questions, “Does this live in the cloud? Does this live in the home? Does this live in a box?” is yes. I think we&#8217;re pretty uniquely situated to take advantage of an architecture where it&#8217;s not cloud-only, it&#8217;s not home-only, but it&#8217;s an integrated system that combines all of that together. And at the end of the day, that is what Sonos 27 is.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Just to make that really reductive, when I say “where is the computer” in the home context, what I mean is maybe in the &#8217;90s to early 2000s, there was a vision that we would all have home servers in our basements, and they would do all the logic of our home. They would have all the storage, and Microsoft would sell you a Windows home server in the basement and a Windows Media Center in the living room, and you and I probably both watched all of those Bill Gates keynotes at CES.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>None of that really ever came to pass. Instead, we put a lot of cheap computers near all the TVs, and they connected to cloud services, and they&#8217;re basically just running web browsers, as you well know. That is a very different version of what needed to happen and how the market played out.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>In the smart home, I&#8217;ve got a bunch of automations in my house. When the garage is open, the lights turn on, and other stuff happens. At night, the doors all lock if they&#8217;re not locked. That logic has to live somewhere. My perspective on it is that it should live in my house. If the internet goes down, the lights should still turn on.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is not anything to do with big AI integrations or the new MCP way to address the Sonos system. Those are big ideas, and I&#8217;m just insistently dragging you back down into the dirt of: if the internet goes out, are the lights still going to turn on?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You don&#8217;t want to be the partner that puts in the internet-connected light switches that don&#8217;t work when the internet is down.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But it&#8217;s not just the internet-connected light switches; it&#8217;s the logic of making it all work together.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I understand. Yeah, fair. Here&#8217;s what I&#8217;ll say about that. For 40 years now, we&#8217;ve been talking about technology for the home, starting with the personal computer, which is supposed to be the center of the technological household, but we didn&#8217;t really get that. We got laptops that people mostly use at work and use a bit at home.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then we got mobile, and mobile is supposed to be the thing that you engage with when you leave your house on your way to work. Of course, the fundamental media of mobile is so addicting that it&#8217;s all-consuming. We use it at work, we use it at home — we use it all the time. But my observation about our use of it in the home is that nobody loves it. No spouse has ever said, &#8220;I wish my husband was on his phone more. I wish my kid used their iPad more,&#8221; and so we&#8217;re looking for ways to get beyond that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To your point, the other compute that&#8217;s in the home, like I said, is the set-top box, which is largely just a web browser to a bunch of services that live in the cloud. I think it&#8217;s pretty interesting, actually, that in 17 million homes Sonos is an actual mesh of compute in your house with real horsepower, real memory, real CPU, real capability, a real operating system — all just waiting to be the container for some of the kinds of things you&#8217;re talking about. So it’s super interesting. We&#8217;ll figure it out over time.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I feel like you&#8217;re this close to being like, &#8220;And then the Teslas will be a data center.&#8221; There&#8217;s something there that is maybe the line. Actually, I want to talk about that. I actually want to push on that a little bit.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The initial Sonos innovation 100 years ago, when the company started, was, “Oh, we can build a mesh network. We can do wireless audio at scale. We can synchronize the latency of all the speakers so it sounds like the same music playing at the same time.” This was a lot of big engineering back in the day.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Still, I mean, candidly, still. A lot of what our software team does day in and day out is extend and maintain that infrastructure.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There are features you&#8217;re announcing here as part of Sonos Fabric that I think are interesting. If you have surrounds, you can just place them, and they&#8217;ll figure out that they&#8217;re surrounds and immediately start being the surround speakers in a home theater.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s just a lot of potential, as you&#8217;re describing, in the notion that, “Oh, there&#8217;s a big network of small computers in my house that can come together and do things you would not expect.” Is your focus that they will always do audio things? Or is it the focus that they will have many more capabilities?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think any thoughtful product leader is going to tell you the focus is an important part of success. I do feel like there&#8217;s so much interesting work for us to do around creating an audio system that sets the mood for your home that I don&#8217;t want us to take our eye off of that opportunity. We are doing some really exciting things in Sonos Fabric and Sonos 27 that we should talk about, that get to some of the work that you&#8217;re describing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But certainly in the moments where you allow yourself to think about what the company is in five years and what it will be in 10 years, you can&#8217;t help but interrogate what the opportunity is for a mesh — a fabric of compute that lives in the home.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I want to end by talking about headphones really quickly. We just had the CEO of Bose on. She and I had a </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/975732/bose-ceo-lila-snyder-ai-wearables-licensing-headphones-audio"><strong>pretty searching conversation about what happens to the headphone market</strong></a><strong> in the time of AI wearables.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>My fear, my anxiety, about audio is always that consumers will always pick convenience over quality. It&#8217;s just the history of the&#8230; I&#8217;ve got a set of AirPods on this desk, and they don&#8217;t sound great, but boy, are they convenient. And that&#8217;s just the way it goes. It has always been what the market has demanded: convenience over quality.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;re going to enter a time when Apple puts cameras on AirPods, and you can talk to them with Siri. When Google and Samsung ship very similar products, there&#8217;s undoubtedly going to be a flood of AI hardware startups that want to put something in your ears or in your body in some way.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You are in the headphone market. You&#8217;re talking a lot about AI; you&#8217;re talking a lot about Fabric. That seems like a cataclysm coming for headphones. The same way that the removal of the headphone jack was a cataclysm in the headphone market, this seems like the next one.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How are you preparing for that? Do you think there&#8217;s going to be a range of voice assistants on headphones, or do you think what you would call the first-party vendors are going to just grab more and more of that share?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before we jump to the hypotheticals about where headphones are, can I tell you a little bit about the new headphones?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah, of course.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All right. So one of the things that you get from entering a new market is the opportunity to build something and put it in customers&#8217; homes and learn a lot about what matters and what doesn&#8217;t matter.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So we launched Sonos Ace two years ago. I think measured against any of the other premium over-the-ear noise-canceling headphones in the market, they&#8217;re a great product. They&#8217;ve got great reviews; they have great noise cancelling. They&#8217;re super comfortable, and they look great. We’re really proud of the product, but they weren&#8217;t thoughtfully integrated into the Sonos ecosystem.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I mean, at launch you could swap to one of our soundbars, not even all of our soundbars. I think it was the most visible expression of the missed opportunity of that moment for the company to always remember that the products that we make are part of the Sonos system, not individual offerings.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So we ended up with a great pair of headphones, but honestly, I mean, you review them all the time; there are lots of great headphones. When we set out to take all the lessons that we learned from Ace to design Ace Ultra, at the very top of that list is that we have to do the hard thing. These headphones have to be able to show up in your home as a part of the system, and the model through which you invoke your headphones has to be completely seamless and delightful.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We built an entirely new hardware platform for Ace Ultra called Headphone Engine 2, and it unlocks this capability at the hardware level. And then in Sonos OS 27, we built virtualization so that any one of the speakers in your home can deliver the audio platform to that speaker but can also act as a proxy for your headphones, which don&#8217;t have the horsepower to run the full stack — it would kill battery life, et cetera.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Now with Ace Ultra, you&#8217;ll be able to link your headphones to your Sonos system, walk up to a speaker that&#8217;s playing, press a button on your headphones, and the music will jump from the speaker into your headphones. No Bluetooth, no phone. You&#8217;ll be able to walk around your whole house, enjoy the music, come to another speaker, press the button again, and it will jump to that speaker using some BLA location-sensing stuff that we&#8217;ve developed. It’s super magical. It&#8217;s the one job that we had and didn&#8217;t deliver on with Ace. We&#8217;re really excited to get it out into the market.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Analogous to that on the home theater side is, as you mentioned, that we&#8217;re making all of our portable speakers — Sonos Play, Sonos Move — capable of being rear channels for home theater. That sounds really easy. Maybe people will even be like, &#8220;Why wasn&#8217;t that always possible?&#8221; But to your point about the deep technology of it, the way that we achieve high-fidelity, low-latency surround experiences in the living room is by directly bonding our rear channel speakers and subwoofer to the soundbar on a proprietary network, not through your access point. So for a speaker to seamlessly hop between being part of your Sonos system as a music node and part of your Sonos system as a surround channel means that you have to do a real-time reconfiguration of that networking stack, and you have to know when to do it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re using accelerometers in the product to actually know that you&#8217;ve picked it up and set it down in a new location. We&#8217;re using Sonos’ positioning system, which is ultrasonic signaling, to broadcast to the room, &#8220;Hey, is there a soundbar here?&#8221; Ultrasonic comes back saying, &#8220;I&#8217;m here.&#8221; They negotiate position, left and right, and distance, so that they can optimize the surround sound experience. You pick it up again, you take it back to the kitchen, and it&#8217;s a regular speaker again. All happens magically, no use of the app. It&#8217;s pretty cool.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Answer my question on headphones, though. This is my big worry. You&#8217;ve got really cool headphones. They have a feature that no one else can ship, and Apple&#8217;s going to say, &#8220;Look, our new AirPods have Siri AI in them.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You can just say, &#8220;Show me what I&#8217;m looking at,&#8221; and a picture will be taken automatically and something will happen. We&#8217;ll get over the privacy implications of that, but that&#8217;s a collapse of the headphone market.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Maybe. I mean, headphones come in all kinds of form factors today: over-ear, in-ear, cuffs, wireless, wired. So I do think it&#8217;s a market where people choose different form factors for different tasks. We&#8217;re really focused on this personal in-the-home listening — what do you do when the baby&#8217;s asleep? What do you do when you want to move the party from the kitchen to the den while you relax for the evening? We think that there&#8217;s a bunch of really interesting use cases there that other people aren&#8217;t paying attention to.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think, broadly, over the course of the next couple of years, we&#8217;re going to get all kinds of adventurous wackadoodle consumer electronics that are connected to this new emerging AI universe. Most of them will be a swing and a miss. Of course, we&#8217;ve already seen some of those. So it&#8217;s a little hard to speculate, I think, about which of these things, if any, is going to have its iPod moment or its iPhone moment or whatever.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What do you think is going to happen?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think we&#8217;re going to see a replay of what happened when the headphone jack got taken away. The headphone jack was an open interconnect. There was a really vibrant market for all kinds of headphones, and a bunch of those companies don&#8217;t exist anymore. The high-end wired headphones, for phones anyway, have mostly gone away, and you have a bunch of medium Bluetooth competitors, but the phone makers have largely taken that with first-party products.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Now, you have your products at the high end competing with really high-end noise-canceling products from Bose and Sony and whoever, and that is the airplane set. The lack of the open interconnect has really killed the vibrancy of the low and middle end of the market.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Okay, well, there&#8217;s one big thing they can do to make sure the high end belongs to them, and it&#8217;s to integrate AI in very specific ways directly into their operating system. We&#8217;ll see how that plays out. There&#8217;s also a thing that&#8217;s different this time: there&#8217;s a vastly more energized European regulatory environment. Who knows how this will play out?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sure.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I can&#8217;t tell you, but all that stuff is a swirl, and you&#8217;re a headphone maker, and it seems like different headphone makers are taking different approaches to this.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The only counter that I might offer is that there&#8217;s a lot of talk about the walled garden of the Bluetooth advantages that the platform companies have. But I would say even without the European regulators, it&#8217;s notable that something like the Meta Glasses can have a reasonable, I think, commercially viable set of experiences that are principally powered by compute that lives on your phone and still deliver conversational AI that is mediated by a Bluetooth connection, admittedly behind some of the obstacles that you&#8217;re describing. But those obstacles aren&#8217;t so profound that clever companies aren&#8217;t figuring out how to work within those constraints.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m very curious to see how that plays out. It doesn&#8217;t seem like it&#8217;s in focus. Again, probably because, as you say, none of the products are in focus. No one knows what a hit product here looks like, so you might as well let a thousand flowers bloom and then radically constrict the market.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, sure.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tom, I&#8217;ve burned just a ton of your time. I think you can tell I could talk to you for ages and ages about all kinds of things.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Super fun.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tell us what&#8217;s next for Sonos. When does all this stuff ship?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I think by the time this airs, we&#8217;ll have announced all of this to the world. We&#8217;re having a big event in New York to share Sonos OS 27, Sonos Voice 27, and the Ace Ultra and Beam Ultra. We can’t wait to get this stuff out into the world and begin to hear what our customers do with all of these exciting new products.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Many of the software features are going to be available in early access, which will mean our customers will opt into them, be able to give us feedback, and we&#8217;ll be able to observe the telemetry that comes back from their homes and make sure that we&#8217;re delivering exactly the experience that we want. We&#8217;re excited about the moment of co-creation that&#8217;s around the corner for us.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As we talked about at the top of the hour, Sonos 27 is absolutely a nod to the fact that we intend to keep doing this until the sun burns out. There&#8217;ll be Sonos 28 and 29 and 30 and beyond.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s great. All right, I&#8217;ve got to ask you at the end: I have ceiling speakers in my kitchen. They&#8217;re connected to a Sonos Amp. There&#8217;s a Google Home Hub right there, and it&#8217;s broken. I can&#8217;t ask it to play music in the kitchen.</strong> <strong>When are you going to fix that for me? I&#8217;m ending on tech support.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All right. I don&#8217;t know the answer, but I&#8217;d love to figure it out for you. I know the right folks to call, so let&#8217;s get you connected.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;re going to have a </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> roundtable.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If your listeners have similar kinds of problems, we&#8217;ve got great people to help them, and we always like to hear from you. You can find me on social pretty easily.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Usually I end by inviting people back, but I&#8217;m saying we&#8217;ve got to fix it, and then we&#8217;re going to talk about what it took to fix it. That&#8217;s the plan.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All right. Right on.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tom, this is great. Thank you so much, man.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This was super fun. Thank you.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[New York Governor Kathy Hochul thinks AI should be ‘less evil’]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/986661/ny-gov-kathy-hochul-ai-data-centers-ban-3d-printed-guns-flock-cameras" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=986661</id>
			<updated>2026-09-02T13:47:36-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-08-31T10:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Policy" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Politics" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Regulation" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today, I’m talking with New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and I’ll just warn you — this episode moves really fast. It’s an election year, after all, with a shocking amount of tech policy at stake, and Governor Hochul has taken strong positions on almost every major tech issue there is. For example, Meta just reached [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A stylized illustration of New York governor Kathy Hochul in a podcast studio" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: The Verge " data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/08/DCD_Hochul.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today, I’m talking with New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and I’ll just warn you — this episode moves really fast. It’s an election year, after all, with a shocking amount of tech policy at stake, and Governor Hochul has taken strong positions on almost every major tech issue there is.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, Meta just <a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/985032/meta-state-ag-kids-online-safety-settlement">reached a settlement</a> with dozens of states, including New York, which will restrict how teens use platforms like Instagram in very specific ways. Governor Hochul is a strong supporter of those restrictions and more, as you’ll hear. But those come with a cost — widespread age verification means adults will also have to show ID to use the internet, which will essentially make it impossible to be anonymous online.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24792604/The_Verge_Decoder_Tileart.jpg?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don&#8217;t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Decoder</em> wherever you get your podcasts. Head <a href="https://www.theverge.com/account/podcasts">here</a>. Not a subscriber? You can <a href="https://www.theverge.com/subscribe">sign up here</a>. </p>
</div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I asked about that, and if these new restrictions amount to Meta conceding in a lawsuit that these kinds of regulations on speech might not pass First Amendment scrutiny if the governor were to try and impose them in a law.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I had similar questions about New York’s restrictions on ghost guns, which prevent 3D printers from printing gun parts. That law is already being challenged — not in courts, but by activists like Cody Wilson, who runs the largest database of 3D-printable gun files and who has <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/983244/3d-printed-guns-hashes-hochul">started altering those files in a process he calls “Hochulization”</a> in order to show the ban is technically toothless. I asked the governor about this, and, well, you’ll hear her challenge Cody right back.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oh, but there’s more: We also talked about surveillance and Flock cameras, and, of course, the politics of AI and data centers in an election year. Governor Hochul <a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/944041/new-york-data-center-moratorium">signed a one-year moratorium</a> on data center construction in July, and I wanted to know what she’s looking for when that expires to make data centers a workable proposition.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We also talked a little about Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City and, of course, her org chart for the state government. This one is a lot, I think you’re going to like it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: New York Governor Kathy Hochul, here we go.</p>

<iframe frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP2475724315" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Governor Kathy Hochul, you are the governor of the state of New York! Welcome to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thank you. Happy to be on.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I have so much to talk to you about. We don&#8217;t have a ton of time, so we&#8217;re going to move fast. Are you up for it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m up.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>All right. I want to start with what I call the </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>questions, lightning round style. I think the operation of your office and state government is really opaque to most people. So I ask everybody this question. How is the governor&#8217;s office structured? How did you make decisions about how to structure that office? How did you organize it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Governor at the top. Then there&#8217;s a leadership team, senior leadership team. There&#8217;s a secretary to the governor who is the top advisor. It sounds like the person taking notes at meetings, but the secretary of the governor is the most powerful non-elected position in the state. When I first became governor five years ago, I said, &#8220;I want the smartest, the best, the brightest people I could surround myself with.&#8221; I didn&#8217;t know a lot of these individuals, but they were highly recommended from having business experience, government experience, or technological experience. I said, &#8220;Bring me the smartest.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s a layer of senior team members. There&#8217;s one individual who oversees all the agencies. There are 45 different agencies for everything from the Department of Transportation to the environment to our housing development agency, economic development. It all trickles down to a pretty large bureaucracy. I&#8217;m the decision maker, but I take input from a lot of different levels of government before I make a final decision. But I&#8217;m a fairly quick decision-maker. Show me the facts and I can make a decision instantaneously.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You took over in a complicated way from your predecessor and then you won reelection. Did you sit down and make an org chart of how you wanted your office to work?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes, I did.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How long did that take?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I inherited one in a sense, but also early on I didn&#8217;t have a lot of tools. In fact, we had a hurricane in my first week. I didn&#8217;t know how to declare a disaster. I hadn&#8217;t hired that person yet, the head of emergency services. We were caught off-guard a little bit. The state still functioned, but I knew I needed to do more.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m always in search of talent, smart people, and trying to rotate people in. Sometimes I start commissions like the Future Works Commission to bring in experts, not just from my administration but around the country, who understand the displacement of jobs because of AI: who&#8217;s most vulnerable, how we deal with that, and how we train people to be able to overcome those obstacles or to embrace AI as a possible career. I&#8217;m always finding ways to supplement my team with industry- or issue-specific experts.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This question&#8217;s going to sound ridiculous, but I&#8217;ve asked a lot of people a variation of this question. Almost no one ever is going to sit down and say, &#8220;I need to write a new org chart for the governor&#8217;s office of New York.&#8221; Did you do that on a whiteboard? Did you open PowerPoint? Was it just you alone with a laptop? What was it actually like?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Can I tell you something I&#8217;m embarrassed of, since you phrased it that way? I did it on a legal pad.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Nice.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Old school. Sorry.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah, pen and paper. No, it&#8217;s great. Very few people do that. You would be surprised at some of the answers we&#8217;ve gotten to questions like that.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I just laid out, “This is what I need, this is the team I need.” Now that was five years ago. I&#8217;ve gotten a little better. I&#8217;d probably ask Claude or ChatGPT for some recommendations.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Oh boy. We&#8217;re going to come to that. Don&#8217;t worry about it. You started answering this question, but this is the other </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>question. How do you make decisions? What&#8217;s your framework?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Bring in all the information as quickly as possible, pressure-test it, and then go with my gut.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the more unique parts about structure in New York government is the relationship between the state and the city. We&#8217;re talking here in person in New York City. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been pretty aggressive about going after billionaires and tech companies. Most recently the city went after Amazon for its labor practices. Do you think that&#8217;s been effective here?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I need to make sure that New York City and the state overall continue to be a place where we support innovation, new jobs. Technology is leading the forefront right now. I&#8217;m really proud that we now have been named the number-one job creator for tech jobs in the country, surpassing California, which has always dominated in this space. That says something about our ecosystem and I want to foster that. I want people who have just an idea who can use technology to create something that no one else had ever conceived of and be successful in marketing it. That is what I&#8217;m leaning hard into.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The mayor has his own approach, but I think overall we both want New York City to succeed. To me, success also means creating more opportunities for jobs because of the spinoff effect. Five guys in an office right in this building could lead to 500 jobs in a couple of years. Those opportunities help lift people out of their circumstances and achieve what I&#8217;m hoping for is more opportunity for more people.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a WeWork just above us. We got to go find those five guys.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m asking specifically about the more aggressive approach the mayor has taken. He&#8217;s taken a very aggressive approach. And like you said, the numbers show that the billionaires didn&#8217;t run, they&#8217;re actually investing; the tech companies didn&#8217;t run, they&#8217;re actually hiring at a rate that surpasses San Francisco. Is that emboldening you to take a harsher regulatory approach to tech companies?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t just take a regulatory approach for the sake of doing it. I don&#8217;t raise taxes for the sake of doing it. I do things in a smart way when it&#8217;s necessary. For example, we have regulations on tech companies when it comes to social media for young people under the age of 18. My job is to protect the young people of our state because they have been spiraling with mental health challenges — exacerbated by the pandemic, yes, but many of them have not overcome that sense of doom and anxiety. It is pervasive in our teenagers particularly.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I look at my role to regulate tech companies in that space. Before the Meta settlement, we had innovated and come up with probably three years’ worth of reforms to force the companies to do things that they are otherwise not doing on their own, and one would wish they would but that&#8217;s probably being too optimistic. We have in place, for example, no notifications to someone under the age of 18 between midnight and 6:00 AM. These kids need to sleep.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We’re saying addictive algorithms can no longer bombard young people, having — this is a big deal — automatic privacy controls that are already set. Parents aren&#8217;t expected to understand every platform where their kids may go or any gaming site and have to get ahead of them. That it&#8217;s automatic using age verification is really important.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Limiting access to AI chatbots for young people and making sure there are disclaimers so they understand this is not a real person that you think you&#8217;re having a relationship with: that&#8217;s an example where I think tech needs to be regulated. It went out of control and now the government has to perform a function to protect our residents and our young people, the most vulnerable. I don&#8217;t just regulate to stifle their growth. I want them to grow. It&#8217;s a smart, strategic, more surgical approach to regulations.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m glad you brought up the Meta settlement. That&#8217;s obviously the big news this week. </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/985032/meta-state-ag-kids-online-safety-settlement"><strong>Meta settled with 47 states</strong></a><strong>, including New York. I look at that settlement, I look at </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/985329/instagram-facebook-meta-settlement-changes"><strong>the list of controls</strong></a><strong> that Meta has agreed to and my initial reaction was this is a bunch of stuff that, if passed as a law, would run into the teeth of the First Amendment. They are effectively speech restrictions, right? We&#8217;re going to prevent young people from using these platforms to speak at certain hours of the day.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And maybe there&#8217;s some argument that overcomes the First Amendment objection, right? The teen health risk is so high that this is actually a narrowly crafted, strict scrutiny-abiding restriction, but we don&#8217;t know that. That actually hasn&#8217;t been challenged in court. Meta just gave that to you. Then there&#8217;s age verification to prove that you&#8217;re over 18. Even if you&#8217;re an adult, you still have to show the internet your ID, which is a big ask for people who are not covered by the restrictions. That&#8217;s a big swirl. Do you think you got concessions from Meta that you otherwise would not have been able to get if you just passed the law?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/972007/new-york-safe-for-kids-act-age-verification">we actually have laws in New York that are more restrictive</a> than some of what Meta has agreed to.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Are you worried about the First Amendment implications of some of those laws?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, I&#8217;m not. And here&#8217;s why: we have an opportunity and the responsibility to protect our residents. The First Amendment is when the government says that we&#8217;re limiting your speech. Not having notifications that keep you awake all night when you&#8217;re a 13-year-old is not restricting your First Amendment right to free speech. There is a difference.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sometimes the First Amendment is used as any kind of government regulation. People will say, &#8220;Oh my God, you&#8217;re violating the First Amendment” or any of the other amendments. I&#8217;m an attorney. I look at it closely. I don&#8217;t do things to violate amendments or any laws. It&#8217;s not my practice. We&#8217;re smart about how we structure these and make sure that we&#8217;re protecting First Amendment rights as well as protecting young people from having their mental health monetized by companies who have a profit motive. It&#8217;s almost like cigarette smoking. The earlier you get them, the longer you&#8217;re going to keep them hooked.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Young people should not be bombarded with the addictive algorithms or be subjected to the bullying that goes on. Someone who&#8217;s thinking about suicide searches for “suicide” and is now told different ways to commit suicide. That is terrifying for parents. Parents actually appreciate the fact that they have a voice in government. Maybe it&#8217;s because I&#8217;m the first mom governor in New York that I understand this. I&#8217;ve raised kids. I know the pressures they&#8217;re under.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Something else we did: I&#8217;m really proud of the fact that we&#8217;re the biggest state in the nation to have come up with a full ban on cell phones in schools. Now you can say it&#8217;s violating their First Amendment rights. I&#8217;m saying I&#8217;m protecting them from a lifetime of addiction to a device where they no longer have human relationships.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You asked how I make decisions. Sometimes I go with my gut, sometimes I want confirmation from the real world and I go out there and talk to people in schools and in cafeterias and have a lot of conversations with young people. When I did round tables around the state of New York for about a solid year to get information, [students] were so anxious about missing a notification. “The girls are meeting in the restroom to plan activities for Friday night and I just got excluded and I&#8217;m also getting knocked out because of what I&#8217;m wearing. And now they&#8217;ve got a picture of me in an inappropriate way being sent around the school.” These kids are paralyzed. One young person, probably a sixth grader, said to me, &#8220;You&#8217;ve got to save us from ourselves. We can&#8217;t put these down. We&#8217;ll be ostracized.&#8221; That&#8217;s when I took it to heart and I said, &#8220;I will protect you. I&#8217;ll protect these kids.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We literally instituted this in September. The survey results from just this past May show anywhere from 75% to 80% of the schools surveyed have been overwhelmingly positive. The kids who resisted at first are now making friends in person. There&#8217;s more communication. They&#8217;re learning the interpersonal skills that you&#8217;d want your future workforce to have, and they&#8217;re playing games at lunchtime. They&#8217;re playing cards. They have baseball cards they&#8217;re trading. They&#8217;re playing chess, bingo. It&#8217;s almost silly, but they&#8217;re just being kids again. And so they&#8217;ve got plenty of time for the stresses of the real world. They can become hooked on social media later on in life. They can get hooked on their device. They can do all this later, but why do we rob their childhood from them?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sure. I&#8217;ve got kids in New York public schools. I&#8217;m reasonably happy about the bans. I&#8217;m not excited about my daughter ever getting a phone. But if you were to do this straightforwardly in a legislative way, particularly the restrictions that Meta has agreed to, you would have to build out some record and you would have to do some balance of harms analysis.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Here, Meta agreeing to age verification means that I, an adult, have to tell them how old I am with some tool, probably by showing them my ID. That is a big burden on me, an adult, that has nothing to do with the safety of the kids.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That to me feels like it might not pass the scrutiny that the courts would provide if Meta was like, &#8220;Actually, this is too much of a burden.&#8221; How do you address that? Because the big concern here is that you&#8217;ve actually, instead of saying age verification for teens, de-anonymized the internet.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The proof is the fact that Meta agreed to this in a settlement.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Meta&#8217;s looking out for its corporate interest. I&#8217;m looking out for my interests as a citizen.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Meta’s looking out for its ability to get more citizens like you to be engaged with it so it can make more money off of you and sell you more products. It&#8217;s in Meta’s interest to have you engage. The fact that they&#8217;re willing to step back—</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Right. They don&#8217;t care if I have to de-anonymize myself to look at Instagram ads for things I don&#8217;t need to buy. I&#8217;m saying I would like to be anonymous on the internet and if we put age verification everywhere, which is one of the consequences of this agreement, that every platform is going to have to start doing age verification at scale. I won&#8217;t be able to use the internet without constantly identifying myself to prove my age.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m sure there&#8217;s a path forward that doesn&#8217;t require you to do this constantly. I&#8217;m not aware that you&#8217;d have to do it every single time you participate, every time you go to a site. I&#8217;m not aware that you&#8217;d have to do it that way. Let me find that out. I&#8217;m not going to say something without knowing that answer, but it&#8217;s an interesting point you raise. It really is. But I&#8217;m focused on the fact that we did gather data around the country to find out what is happening to our young people today. I cannot rely on parents to know how to stop this from happening, because the parents are the ones telling me, &#8220;Please do something. I don&#8217;t know how to stop this. My kid is spiraling.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One mom told me that she has her husband leave work every day at three to make sure their son, who&#8217;s being bullied in school and harassed and going to dark sites, doesn&#8217;t commit suicide when he goes home. Who wants to live with that specter? That was not the case when I was a kid, or my kids were kids.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The world has changed and again, it is not a no to progress or innovation. I have thousands of examples of me inviting tech companies here. Even Micron, the largest private-sector investment in American history. 50,000 jobs are happening up in Syracuse because I went after them aggressively. They&#8217;ll be open in two years. This is extraordinary, building the memory chips that are necessary to power AI in New York state. My credentials are impeccable when it comes to inviting innovation in, but when there are areas where we need guardrails to protect individuals, I&#8217;m going to step in and do this. I feel good about this. This is a decision that we&#8217;ve made and I think it&#8217;s overwhelmingly supported by many parents. Young people someday will appreciate the fact that they were spared from this, and other people who adapt to this, this is the way it is.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So much tech regulation, particularly for the last decade, has run into the First Amendment. Again, my view of it is we&#8217;ve avoided the First Amendment conversation by talking about Section 230 or other red herrings that allow us to not talk about the fact that a lot of this looks like speech regulation and expression regulation in important ways. Another good example of this, which I think will be developed, is the restriction on ghost guns in New York state. The idea is that you should not be able to 3D-print gun parts in New York state.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We have a </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/983244/3d-printed-guns-hashes-hochul"><strong>story just this week about Cody Wilson</strong></a><strong>, who printed the first 3D-printed gun. He’s put out a tool to defeat the way that the law is designed to work. He calls it “Hochulization,” where he&#8217;s going to de-fingerprint the hashes of 3D-printed gun files so that whatever tool is scanning at the 3D printer level will not see that it&#8217;s a gun and print it anyway. That&#8217;s a cat and mouse game. That is a technological arms race.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You can tell Cody I will get ahead of him next. I can&#8217;t always be on the forefront when I see someone intentionally thwarting a law. It is the law that you cannot have 3D-printed guns in the state of New York. And if you think it&#8217;s okay to have someone in their kitchen who may have severe mental health problems who wants to shoot up kids in your school, make a ghost gun at their kitchen table or create a munitions factory where there was none, with no regulations, no background checks, no nothing, and people broadcast that as if it&#8217;s a proper thing to do is challenge me on that, then I say go for it. Because you&#8217;re trampling in the wrong space.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The question I&#8217;m asking is about implementation. I understand the desire to prevent guns from being 3D-printed and I understand that probably a lot of people would prefer that not happen.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, it&#8217;s bad. It sucks. It&#8217;s wrong.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But implementing that means at some point the printer itself has to know “this thing is a gun and I’m not allowed to do this.”</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That is a kind of regulation on expression. We have a case for an open source e-reader that looks like a gun that people have made just to see if it will trip the software detector. Even though it&#8217;s not a gun, it looks like a gun, and there&#8217;s some line in there that is very complicated for a government regulation to address. How do you view that? Do you want the printers to literally look at things that look like guns or do you want it to be more technical, more like a database or a registry?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I want to make sure that we&#8217;re getting the objective I&#8217;m looking for and I&#8217;ll figure it out. As I said, I assemble the smartest people when I make decisions, especially in the area of technology where the typical government employee is not proficient. So I&#8217;m going to use the foundation I have, but then go out there and say, &#8220;Tell me how to make sure that no one can thwart what I&#8217;m trying to do here,&#8221; and I&#8217;ll get it done. If we miss the first time, I&#8217;ll do it the second time and I&#8217;ll do it the third time because I&#8217;m not going to allow this to happen. Yes, there are other restrictions that occur. I get that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s not ideal, but I also didn&#8217;t think it was a smart idea for people to manufacture weapons of mass destruction at their kitchen table and kill kids. So I&#8217;m going to be the one who says no. I&#8217;d rather have the regulation that protects and prevents it. Use 3D printers for any kind of good. You can make all kinds of things with 3D printers. It&#8217;s not a ban on 3D printing. It is a use that is illegal because you cannot have a gun in the state of New York without having had a background check, having regulation, having it registered. We have all kinds of rules, which is one of the reasons why we are one of the safest states in America. Lowest gun homicide deaths in America. It&#8217;s extraordinary, because the rules are working. So not everyone loves rules. I get it. This is not the wild west. This is New York. We&#8217;re going to do it right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>If there&#8217;s a theme emerging in this conversation, it&#8217;s how much can the government watch what happens on my computer and how much can it tell me what I can do with my computer? Which is maybe a 40-year-old conversation, but it&#8217;s more and more relevant over time. We&#8217;re saying we&#8217;re going to restrict how teenagers can use their phones. We&#8217;re going to restrict what you can print on a 3D printer. The flip side of that is&#8230; I would say the backlash to surveillance is bipartisan. The backlash to Flock cameras is deeply bipartisan. It&#8217;s scrambling party lines.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;ve allocated budget for police departments to modernize, to install Flock cameras. How are you viewing that backlash to surveillance?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I understand the anxiety around this. I truly do.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But you see how it&#8217;s all the same, right?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I do not have complete regulation over someone&#8217;s use of their computer. That&#8217;s an overstatement. It just is. We have a very narrow, specific purpose and a government objective to protect young people, because the companies have gone too far. If they had put these controls in place themselves, when the data was starting to show them that this is harmful to kids, [but they didn’t]. They stopped letting their own kids use this, but let everybody else be subjected to this, knowing the harms. That&#8217;s when the government has to step in and regulate business. We don&#8217;t do it as a first position.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">My view is more hands off. Innovate, do good things, sell your product. Great. This is called capitalism in America. A 3D printer, those are great. Until I find out they&#8217;re making guns that can kill people from them or be able to convert a Glock. Maybe it&#8217;s a legal Glock that you have registered to you, that&#8217;s great, but you can get this little piece of plastic that&#8217;s the size of a Lego and insert that and all of a sudden it can fire countless rounds per minute. Now it&#8217;s a weapon of mass destruction.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The government has to be watching to an extent. Watch for excesses, but not to stifle personal use, not to stifle innovation, not to stifle the companies. When they go too far or they don&#8217;t self-regulate, using data that they have internally and ignoring it, thinking they can get away with it, that&#8217;s where we are today.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m just connecting the dots between “I want to use my printer in some way,” “there&#8217;s a connection to the government that says yes or no,” and how people feel about technology like Flock — “I want to drive my car too fast on the highway and an automated license plate reader is going to track that and send me a ticket in the mail.” Or “cops are going to use this in ways, good and bad, and sometimes they&#8217;re going to go over the line and there&#8217;s not enough regulation,” or “I don&#8217;t want these cameras at all.” Which is what we hear from so many people in so many communities, across party lines. Actually let me read you a quote —</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To the extent that they&#8217;re being abused, that has to stop.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sure. The CEO of Flock recently said to a lot of people, </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/979339/flock-ceo-audits-data-retention"><strong>including </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong></a><strong>, that he was wrong to assume that the regulatory process would provide protections for civil liberties. He assumed that state and local governments would provide controls for Flock to prevent things like cops over-searching the database or tracking people. Tracking a lot of ex-girlfriends, for example, is a thing that we hear about cops using Flock for. That&#8217;s a pretty stunning indictment. The state is rolling out cameras to track people without the necessary controls, and the company providing the camera is saying, &#8220;Well actually you were wrong about this.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The state is not rolling these out. I give money for all kinds of technology. The localities are the ones that decide how they want that spent. I do not have a contract with Flock. That is a mischaracterization.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But the money provided does not come with controls?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I use the money for overtime for police. Computers in police vehicles is primarily the main focus of this. And to the extent that there are license plate readers, that&#8217;s different from the Flock cameras which are automatically transmitting information without human intervention, which is what I object to.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Okay.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If there&#8217;s a police officer that says, &#8220;This person is wanted for murder, let&#8217;s go get them,&#8221; you&#8217;d be happy if we went after them. But this is not just to have AI or a machine make an automatic referral of information to other agencies, whether it&#8217;s ICE or anybody else. That&#8217;s not what we&#8217;re talking about here in the state of New York. That&#8217;s not what we want to happen. If I need to tighten up regulations in that space, I will. I have no trouble looking—</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Can you connect that to the money that you&#8217;re allocating for this technology and say, &#8220;You have to use it this way?&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes, we can. We can look at it. That&#8217;s an observation. That&#8217;s new information to me, that we should be having restrictions on and how they&#8217;re using it. Absolutely.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What would you ask of the CEO of Flock in order to make that job easier?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I’d tell him to make sure that the information can only be amassed a certain way. It has to be reviewed with human eyes to make a decision on whether or not this has to be forwarded to another law enforcement agency, the FBI or someone&#8217;s wanted list. That&#8217;s basically the purpose we want it for.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t want Big Brother. I don&#8217;t want unfettered surveillance of Americans that makes them anxious. It goes against the sense of liberty that we all have and deserve to have living in this country. This is not a country where the government should be monitoring everything you do, but to the extent that we have to stop crime and thwart the criminals who are always trying to take steps ahead of us, I have to get ahead of that as well, and try to manage that or else we have a lawless society. People are getting harmed and then it&#8217;s a failure of government to intercede.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;ll come to data centers, but I think data centers are doing this as well. There is some kind of realignment happening. These are not right- or left-coded issues. They&#8217;re not Democratic or Republican issues. They are scrambling that traditional very, very strong party ties that have existed for almost a decade in this country. Surveillance is one, data centers are another. Do you see that — that there&#8217;s a scrambling here?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s nothing wrong with that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I welcome that. I have been waiting a long time for there to be more issues that people, all Americans, can galvanize behind and find some commonality. When I&#8217;m doing roundtables around the state, and I&#8217;ve done many, I don&#8217;t know if I&#8217;m talking to Democrats or Republicans. All I know is these are people worried about what&#8217;s happening in their communities with hyperscale data centers being built, making noise, causing disruption, and consuming energy. Is that driving up their own utility bills? They&#8217;re anxious about this.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, this is important. It&#8217;s an important time in our history to find that there are common interests and maybe that&#8217;s a breakthrough if you can have elected officials remind people like that: &#8220;Listen, you&#8217;re agreeing with your Republican neighbor and you&#8217;re a Democrat or vice versa.&#8221; That&#8217;s good.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/03/texas-data-center-project-audit-greg-abbott/">followed our leadership on the moratorium</a> on hyperscale data centers — not the smaller ones for university research or educational institutions or healthcare institutions. We are very specific and these are the large-scale data centers. But to have the state of Texas follow our lead, that says something. That says something — that Americans overall are saying enough is enough.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The rudest version of this question is: Doesn&#8217;t that just say that it&#8217;s an election year?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You don&#8217;t think so?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No. This only became an issue fairly recently in the state of New York. We were recently bombarded with 30 applications. That was the aha moment for me to say, &#8220;Wait a minute, if we powered all of these requests for approvals, how much power would I have left for everybody else in the state?&#8221; I’ll give one example: in upstate New York, there&#8217;s a county, St. Lawrence County. Five applications for data centers are pending right now. I said, “How much power would all those consume?” The equivalent of everything I would generate with one nuclear reactor.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I&#8217;m trying to build more nuclear power. I want to get ahead of the game and try to reduce the cost of power, make sure we never have shortages. All the work to get one nuclear reactor would be consumed by five data centers in one of my 62 counties. You expect your government to say, “Wait a minute.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If this had come up to me five years ago, I would have done it five years ago. This has nothing to do with electoral politics at all. In fact, my opponent embraces data centers. The President embraces data centers. They&#8217;re the ones on the wrong side of history on this one. If they were smart, they&#8217;d say, &#8220;You know what, the governor&#8217;s right. Let&#8217;s just stand out on this issue because our constituents are not with us on this.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is what I mean by a realignment issue. The President does embrace the data centers. He calls them, &#8220;Money printing machines,&#8221; which I think is very funny. Unclear if he knows what actually happens at a data center. But then you have, right in Texas, a similar moratorium.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We just ran </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/969667/humans-first-data-center-protest-hernando-county-florida-republicans"><strong>a story about Republican voters in Florida</strong></a><strong>, hardcore MAGA voters, people who organized the Stop the Steal rally saying they would not vote for Byron Donalds if he won the primary. He won the primary, he&#8217;s going to run on data centers. We&#8217;ll see if he adjusts his position, but that&#8217;s a realignment. And I&#8217;m wondering if the answer is just in a year&#8217;s time when your moratorium expires, it&#8217;ll be over and we&#8217;ll start building again, or if there&#8217;s something specific you&#8217;re looking for as a solution to bring construction back online.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A couple of points. In one year from now, the communities in the state of New York that want to host hyperscale data centers will have far more tools at their disposal than they do today, which is what I&#8217;m trying to give them. I want them to have what I call my community investments framework. I have studied what data centers have done for communities all over America. I have a list. I know that in South Bend, Indiana, the community received $143 million of benefits. Other areas have had bonuses for teachers and supporting roads and infrastructure, energy infrastructure.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I want our residents to know that their local elected officials have gotten the best deal they possibly can because right now, think about the negotiation that goes on between a small-town, maybe a part-time mayor, a small economic development staff, and they&#8217;re supposed to negotiate against a tech giant.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s not going well. I want to help them out. Why are there tax breaks in the state of New York for a data center? They have more money than God. They don&#8217;t need tax breaks that hurt my small farmers and my small towns. This is where they&#8217;re going. They&#8217;re not coming to New York City. These are going to rural areas, generally Republican areas, which is very interesting. But also the water consumption. Are they all using the hyperloop? Are they doing something else? Do they need to make the noise they do? Do they need to be this size? I&#8217;ve asked these questions.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In fact, I posed a challenge to the data companies: “You&#8217;ve created a powerful force that is changing civilization as we know it, the way we communicate, the way we work, the way we live with AI. Why don&#8217;t you ask AI how to create power that uses less energy, uses less space? Can you go vertical? Maybe you can go vertical, take up less farmland, less space, but it costs more. Well, then pay more.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They&#8217;re trying to go vertical. They&#8217;re trying to go all the way up to space.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>[Laughs]</em> Maybe the whole thing should go up to space.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s the other question. We are talking about one that&#8217;s seven miles large. Seven miles, I can&#8217;t even conceive of that. We have some already that I&#8217;ve looked at in the East Coast and they’re huge. What happens when the technology changes and they do this underwater or in space or they figure out a way to make it much smaller? Nuclear reactors can now be small modular reactors. Things change and what happens to the community when they&#8217;re left with this monstrosity left behind? You have to be thinking about this in advance.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I told the people who work at the big AI labs that I was talking to you and I said, &#8220;What do you want to know?&#8221; Now I will concede they all think AI is a net good. They all think it&#8217;s going to be great. We have some people in our audience who do not agree with them, but speaking for them, they all think AI will be a net good. It will improve humanity. The question was, “What do you want the hyperscalers to give?” If you believe that AI progress will be a net good and inevitable, what is the ask that enables that development to happen?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I will restate my challenge.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I understand you need the power. I have harnessed AI in the state of New York, in state government in a way no other governor has. I have used AI to look at every single rule, regulation, policy, board, and commission.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Has that been effective? Is that just you alone with Claude? How does that work?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t do it myself. <em>[Laughs]</em> I have smarter people than me that do.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>All right. Fair enough.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Literally I said, &#8220;What would it take for us to look at every rule in the books? And are they smart? Are they obsolete? Are they too expensive? Are they too burdensome?&#8221; Let&#8217;s ask those questions. I like to rethink. I&#8217;m always challenging the status quo. It&#8217;s how I&#8217;m hardwired.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Let&#8217;s look at the state government. People think it&#8217;s intractable. I say we can make it leaner, smarter, more efficient. And in literally a month, I had a list of thousands of recommendations, what would have taken five to 10 years for humans to do. I announced the first 50 already: we saved over a million and a half hours for New York businesses and individuals when it comes to filling out redundant forms. My first 50 out of thousands, saving millions of dollars in other areas.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There was a $25 fee to take your dog hunting with you. You had to pay for a $25,000 bond to move a mobile home on a highway. Why? Get rid of that. Why does someone have to do that? A woman could not work after midnight if she was pregnant. You had to have special permission to do that. Sending information by telegraph and telegram. I just looked at this and said, &#8220;I used AI as a force of good to rethink state government.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I&#8217;m not opposed, but I&#8217;m saying to them, &#8220;You already know what a next-generation data center looks like. It does not have to be this big. It does not have to use this much power. Figure it out now before there&#8217;s even more hostility towards you. Your public relations are dreadful by the way. No one understands what you&#8217;re trying to do and you come in like big bullies and you think you can run all over a little community, maybe you did in the early years.” They&#8217;re getting a little smarter now. They&#8217;re starting to give more community benefits, but they’ll figure it out.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Let me ask you about this. You&#8217;re a politician in a campaign year. I hear so much from the AI labs that what they have is a marketing problem, that if people could only understand the benefits, if they communicated them more broadly, they would win far more hearts and minds and people would be all behind this build out. I personally disagree with that. Everybody sees AI overviews in Google all day long. A billion people have used ChatGPT. The products are known to people and the capabilities are known to people. Maybe there&#8217;s some set of very advanced capabilities like the things you&#8217;ve described you&#8217;ve done in government that would unlock even more.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But I don&#8217;t think they have a marketing problem. They have an attitude problem. To some extent they have a product problem. I don&#8217;t think the products are good enough to support the asks, and these are enormous asks as you&#8217;ve been describing. How would you handle that for them? How would you say, &#8220;Look, these are big build outs, the potential benefits to humanity are high and from the government side, here&#8217;s what you actually need to say and promise to people in order to work on this productively&#8221;?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s not that. People know the benefits. Your kid gets a bite, you&#8217;re going to take a picture and ask Claude, &#8220;Is this a tick bite or a mosquito bite? Do I need to worry about this?&#8221; The way that medicine has even been integrated into people&#8217;s lives, asking questions. It&#8217;s already being employed in a positive way for the people who want to use it in a positive way, as you&#8217;ve said.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The data centers, the hyperscalers, have become the physical manifestation of people&#8217;s anxiety about the future. Think about all the young people that I literally spent years myself telling, &#8220;Go into STEM careers, kids, learn science and math. You&#8217;ll have a job forever. Oh yes, study coding and computer science. The jobs are going to be there.&#8221; Guess what? Those are the jobs that are going first. People are anxious about displacement. They&#8217;re worried. They&#8217;re not opposed to advancement and technology in the future, but where do they fit into it? Government has to be addressing that anxiety. When people see the data centers, they&#8217;re thinking, &#8220;Oh geez, that&#8217;s my job that could be gone.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">[AI labs] have to do a better job addressing the concerns that people have. Don&#8217;t make a big show about laying off 10,000 people in your company and literally tell them it’s because of AI. I had people who were displaced sitting in my office. They&#8217;re told they&#8217;re gone because of AI. That was more of a shareholders’ play to show your shareholders you&#8217;re streamlining and saving money, but that&#8217;s a lot of people&#8217;s lives you just ruined. That&#8217;s what&#8217;s going on.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those are the conversations that I&#8217;m hearing in places where they&#8217;ll never see a data center, like here in New York City. Their challenge is to help people see that this is not [negative]. If they can&#8217;t prove this proposition, then they&#8217;re probably going to lose the battle for the hearts and minds. But show us the jobs that can be created. What other jobs should people be going to?&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When I&#8217;m told that, &#8220;81% of the jobs likely to be displaced are held by women” — Women took this long to finally make it into the workplace and in significant positions or positions where it&#8217;s administrative or legal secretaries or legal assistants, even new lawyers. All the jobs that you can think of are held by women. A woman might be the primary breadwinner. If she thinks her job&#8217;s going to be gone because of AI, she&#8217;s not going to love an AI company. She&#8217;s going to say, &#8220;Wait a minute, what about me?&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They need to figure out what the AI future looks like. Tell us right now the skills that are required. What should I be teaching in schools? What should we say the state education department should be teaching? What courses should students be taking in college to prepare the next generation of workers, so they will not be in that displacement? We have a whole lot of people who are already in that vulnerable spot. The individuals just getting out of college, those who are mid-career, what are they supposed to do?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I saw this personally. I&#8217;m from Buffalo. Buffalo Bills fan. I&#8217;ll put that right out here now.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We haven&#8217;t talked about </strong><a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/bills/2026/06/23/new-highmark-stadium-open-inside-bills-new-home/90659592007/"><strong>the stadium</strong></a><strong>, but we can get there.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;ll get to the stadium. We saved the Bills. That&#8217;s all you need to know. They&#8217;re not in another state.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There you go.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They are the Buffalo Bills, and they weren&#8217;t going to be. But not far from there, my parents used to live in a trailer park near the steel mill. Everybody worked at the steel plant, Bethlehem Steel. It was the best job you could get. My dad worked there, my grandpa worked there, my uncles worked there. In 1982, they picked up and left town. No one thought about the workers, the 20,000 workers in my town that now just lost their livelihoods. They left.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">My point is that I lived through that. I will not let that happen now. That&#8217;s what people are anxious about, losing their livelihoods.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I just want to connect two dots here right at the end, because I&#8217;m really happy you brought up the idea that it&#8217;s the physical manifestation of anxiety. This is a trope, I think, in the tech industry. It&#8217;s true: data centers are big, they&#8217;re noisy. You can look at them and you can say stop. But we started out talking about all the things you might want to keep people from doing on computers, or keep computers from doing to people, maybe more importantly. Again, it&#8217;s been a decade of attempts to do this. We don&#8217;t have a privacy law in this country. There are all these things that we don&#8217;t have because of the First Amendment. We were unable to overcome the First Amendment to regulate social media in some very big, important ways.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You can stop a data center. The power of NIMBYism is strong in America, and the tools exist to stop it. Is this the wrong tool for the job to say we&#8217;re going to do land use and NIMBYism instead of regulating labor and employment and the future of young people more directly?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are two different dynamics here, a big difference. One is the application of AI and how it&#8217;s being utilized.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m asking about the mechanism. I understand the goals, but it&#8217;s the mechanism that I&#8217;m really thinking about here.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The mechanism of the data centers, of the power they&#8217;re creating?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We might want to regulate AI to make sure there are more and better jobs, or protect women in the workplace. The mechanism that we&#8217;re using to get to that outcome is we&#8217;re going to stop the data centers until they make better promises.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">See, I don&#8217;t see it as one or the other. Both are occurring right now. But stopping the data centers is not my objective here. It is to make sure that they do it right for the communities that want it. There&#8217;s a big difference. Maybe the companies will negotiate in a way, or they might say, &#8220;I guess we didn&#8217;t need that much space,&#8221; or &#8220;Yeah, we figured out a way to make it not noisy at all. You won&#8217;t even know we&#8217;re there,&#8221; or &#8220;We&#8217;re going to do a better job shielding this.&#8221; Everyone <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000011066777/inside-the-data-center-capital-of-the-world.html?smid=nytcore-android-share">talks about</a> Loudoun County, Virginia…</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We have a big story about Loudoun County coming next week.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You know why I know Loudoun County? Because when I said my family had to leave Buffalo because there were no jobs, guess where they went to? I&#8217;m one of six kids; four of my siblings landed in Loudoun County many years ago when it was all farmland. Now they have in the backyard of their homes these massive data centers. For a while it was like, &#8220;Wow, look at this. Our taxes can go down. We&#8217;re benefiting from this.&#8221;&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But do you know what? After a while, the tax abatement stopped, or the benefits stopped over a length of time. Now they&#8217;re starting to see their utility bills and property taxes go up. What they were sold years ago when they were the test case of a community that had lots of data centers, believe me, there&#8217;s buyer&#8217;s remorse. Not just for my siblings, but for many people who are saying, &#8220;You know what? We didn&#8217;t get the best deal after all. What are we doing here?&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I learned from other examples around the state, around the country, around the world, and I want to make sure that what we do in New York is based on the soundest, smartest practices. We embrace AI. Do there have to be data centers? If they have to be there, are they doing it in the best way? I&#8217;m going to challenge them.I know I&#8217;m going to keep pushing them to do better.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When I first became an elected official in my small town, that&#8217;s when all the tech comms came and they all wanted their own cell tower. “Everybody&#8217;s going to want their own cell phone. We have to have our own freestanding tower.” I said, &#8220;Those are ugly. I don&#8217;t want these giant cell towers in neighborhoods and everywhere. They&#8217;re horrific.&#8221; So I said to them, &#8220;Why don&#8217;t you co-locate? Can&#8217;t you all go on one tower, you and your five competitors?&#8221; &#8220;No, that&#8217;s not possible.&#8221; &#8220;Okay. Can you go on top of a water tower? Can you go on top of a tall building?&#8221; &#8220;No, no, no. We have to&#8230;&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I passed the toughest law regulating cell towers in the entire state in my small town, and I forced them to pay me for the ability. I said, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to challenge you. I&#8217;m going to get outside experts when you tell me you can&#8217;t do something, and you&#8217;re going to pay for the cost of that consultant.&#8221; They did. Guess what? They co-locate. They&#8217;re on top of water towers. My town does not have cell towers everywhere, but we were told it had to be that way because I presume it was the cheapest, the best for them, the easiest for them to just throw these up. I said, &#8220;What happens when the technology changes and you&#8217;re bouncing this off of satellites?&#8221; This was a long time ago. I said, &#8220;I don&#8217;t want to be looking at any kind of towers here.&#8221; I made them put in a bond. They had to pay money for us to be able to dismantle this and take it down, even if it&#8217;s 50 years from now.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I know how to do this. I&#8217;ve done it before. And that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m trying to do for New York: use my experiences on how to manage this. We didn&#8217;t say no to cell phones. We said yes to cell phones. We say yes to AI, but in a way that the companies have to be challenged by the government to do it better because their own profit motives will let them do whatever&#8217;s cheapest and fastest for them. That&#8217;s not necessarily serving the public good. That&#8217;s what I have to protect.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Governor, you&#8217;ve given us a ton of time. You&#8217;ve answered a lot of questions here. We did go fast.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s an election year. I am very curious about this big realignment scramble. Give people your view of what to expect in this election year as surveillance, data centers, and AI scramble our traditional party lines. How do you think that&#8217;s going to play out?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What is top of mind is very much the data centers nationally, and it&#8217;s fascinating to me to see that in races for Congress and governor in other states, they&#8217;re using this as a political point. I could not have foreseen that six months ago. Public opinion has shifted so quickly. But again, regardless of what happens in the election, I do think Democrats will prevail for many, many reasons. There&#8217;s so much going on, and we can get to other topics on trade wars with Canada and how it&#8217;s having an effect.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You brought up the Bills. I want to talk about the NFL&#8217;s antitrust exemption. But that&#8217;s for another time. </strong><strong><em>[Laughs]</em></strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Can we just talk about the fact that the Buffalo Bills stayed in Buffalo? I fought hard.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Look, I&#8217;m a Packers fan. What do you think the Bears should do? We got another hour on that.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I actually like small-town markets. I like the Packers. I used to follow them closely. Way before you were born, I was a big AFC fan. The Bills used to play the Packers all the time. So we can talk sports anytime.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But I just want to leave people with this sense. I believe that Democrats will take back the House and the Senate and position themselves to take back the White House, but we have to do it in a smart way that shows that we are attuned to the anxieties of Americans. I know that people are very anxious about their future, their jobs, how they&#8217;re going to take care of their families in a world where AI seems to be so ever-present, and it is that data center that scares them. We can do more to shape that, make sure that people understand that&#8217;s in one sense a necessary evil, but that evil doesn&#8217;t have to be as evil as it is. Make it less evil, and people will adapt and adjust and understand this.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The companies are complicit in this sense of, &#8220;We can do what we want because we&#8217;re so big.&#8221; Americans, when they go to vote, want people who are going to stand up and not just roll over. They have a president and Republicans in Congress, my Republican opponent, who are rolling over trying to convince people that, &#8220;No, this is good,&#8221; when in fact you have people like me and some others who are saying, &#8220;Let&#8217;s do this smart. Let&#8217;s be thoughtful about this. I&#8217;m not going to roll over. I don&#8217;t roll over for anybody.&#8221; That&#8217;s the impact on the elections. Democrats are going to win.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Governor, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for implying that I&#8217;m young. That was very nice of you. I really appreciate it.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>[Laughs]</em> It&#8217;s all relative, right?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[OpenAI&#8217;s executive exodus has one big winner]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/985332/openai-greg-brockman-sam-altman-leader-executive-exodus" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=985332</id>
			<updated>2026-08-31T09:08:56-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-08-27T10:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Business" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="OpenAI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today on Decoder, I’m talking to Verge senior AI reporter Hayden Field about some pure Decoder bait: the seemingly-endless org chart changes at OpenAI, and how all of them seem to consolidate power under cofounder Greg Brockman, the company’s president. While Sam Altman is the CEO and still OpenAI’s most public face, Brockman has amassed [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A photo illustration of OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/08/VRG_DCD_082726_site.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today on <em>Decoder, </em>I’m talking to <em>Verge</em> senior AI reporter Hayden Field about some pure <em>Decoder</em> bait: the seemingly-endless org chart changes at OpenAI, and how all of them seem to consolidate power under cofounder Greg Brockman, the company’s president.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While Sam Altman is the CEO and still OpenAI’s most public face, Brockman has amassed enormous power and influence within the top ranks of the company as other senior leaders have left in rapid succession these past few months.</p>

<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24792604/The_Verge_Decoder_Tileart.jpg?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don&#8217;t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Decoder</em> wherever you get your podcasts. Head <a href="https://www.theverge.com/account/podcasts">here</a>. Not a subscriber? You can <a href="https://www.theverge.com/subscribe">sign up here</a>. </p>
</div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Brockman now oversees the company’s entire consumer and enterprise product teams, including ChatGPT, Codex, and its major infrastructure build out. As Hayden <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/982774/greg-brockman-openai-role-expansion">recently reported</a>, he is effectively now the day-to-day operational leader of OpenAI.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This will have major effects on OpenAI as a company and its product strategy, at a time when it continues to cede ground to Anthropic in the enterprise and is preparing for a historic IPO. This is all against the backdrop of needing to turn a profit in the next few years and the company’s huge ambitions to replace both Google Search and the iPhone in the consumer market.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I wanted Hayden to break down for me what’s going on at OpenAI, and the increasingly important role Greg Brockman will play in its future.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: <em>Verge</em> senior AI reporter Hayden Field on Greg Brockman’s consolidation of power at OpenAI. Here we go.</p>

<iframe frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP2439617861" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.&nbsp;</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Hayden Field, you&#8217;re </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong>&#8216;s senior AI reporter. Welcome back to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thanks. It&#8217;s great to be here.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Always, always chaos when you&#8217;re here, Hayden.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Absolutely. There&#8217;s never a calm week. If there&#8217;s a calm week coming up, I know something even crazier is coming the next week.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We should just rename the show </strong><strong><em>The Real Housewives of AI</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>[Laughs]</em> Honestly, that would be fitting.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Straight up, that&#8217;s what we should do. A lot of personalities, a lot of feelings, a lot of relationships that people have really come to value over a long period of time.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And a lot of lore. A lot of lore that goes between all these people for years and years and years. It&#8217;s crazy. And now they&#8217;re even putting out profiles on some of their spouses. The circles and the people themselves are really interesting.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Today the drama is about OpenAI and specifically Greg Brockman, who seems to be consolidating even more power at OpenAI. You just </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/982774/greg-brockman-openai-role-expansion"><strong>wrote a long story about this</strong></a><strong>. It seems very clear that Greg is emerging as the central decision maker at OpenAI. Describe what&#8217;s going on.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Greg has obviously been pretty influential at OpenAI for a really long time, but what&#8217;s different now is that he has so much control over the day-to-day operations in a way he didn&#8217;t before. He was always a cofounder. He was always heavily involved. It was him, Ilya Sutskever, and Sam Altman for a long time, all in these <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/920775/evidence-exhibits-elon-musk-sam-altman-openai-trial">email threads that came out during the <em>Musk v. Altman</em> trial</a>.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We saw them all talking about the future of OpenAI, what it should look like, and all their strange dynamics with Elon Musk. But Brockman was in a big-picture role before, and now he&#8217;s increasingly taking on so much power in the day-to-day. Altman has been focusing more on the big picture, the IPO stuff, and the direction of the company at large.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Meanwhile, Brockman is amassing all this power day-to-day as other executives leave. He&#8217;s been in control now of Codex, of its enterprise business, the consumer side. There are four arms of the company right now and he&#8217;s in control of all of them. It&#8217;s been really interesting to see how that&#8217;s happened over the last few months.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Greg is a character in the AI story. Certainly inside of OpenAI, he&#8217;s been a central figure in a lot of the company&#8217;s drama over time. So if you&#8217;ve been paying attention to the AI industry, you&#8217;re familiar with him. But if someone haven&#8217;t, explain who Greg is and why he&#8217;s such a notable figure both in AI and at OpenAI.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He has been on my radar for seven years now. He&#8217;s been on other people&#8217;s for even longer. He dropped out of MIT to join Stripe way back in the day. He was Stripe&#8217;s CTO during its really early explosive growth phase. He left in 2015 to cofound OpenAI. That&#8217;s how he came on the AI radar.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ever since then, he&#8217;s been a really influential figure. He, Ilya Sutskever, and Sam Altman were all heavily involved in the drama with Elon Musk really early on, raising money, trying to lure people over to OpenAI, hire top talent, and figure out who was going to control AGI in the event they ever made it. There’s a lot going on there. In the years following, Mira Murati joined and Brockman, Sutskever, Murati, and Altman became the four main players here.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These were the most talked-about people at OpenAI. You saw them in the headlines the most. They had the most power at the company. And then when the <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/17/23965982/openai-ceo-sam-altman-fired">board coup happened in 2023</a>, that&#8217;s when Brockman flew onto the scene in a new way. He had been behind the scenes a little bit, under the radar. He was not really doing that many public interviews. I interviewed him in 2020, but it&#8217;s not like he was a talking head. You weren&#8217;t seeing that much of him unless you were really watching the company and the industry.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But when Sam Altman got fired by the board, Brockman was so incensed that <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/17/23966277/openai-co-founder-greg-brockman-leaving">he quit immediately</a>. He and Altman were going to start their own thing, or were potentially going to <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968829/microsoft-hires-sam-altman-greg-brockman-employees-openai">lead a department at Microsoft</a>. That&#8217;s when he was making waves in a new way because he was hellbent on the drama.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Brockman said, &#8220;Okay, if Sam goes, I go.&#8221; That&#8217;s when he became Sam&#8217;s right hand in a new way. Before that, he was just one of the many execs. They were close, but the board coup made them closer than ever. That&#8217;s also what made Sam know that he could trust him in a new way and thereby later greenlight him getting more power.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This was a big bet in the politics of the organization. Mira was going to </strong><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/17/who-is-mira-murati-openais-new-interim-ceo/"><strong>become the new CEO for five minutes</strong></a><strong>. Then there was going to be </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968848/openai-new-ceo-emmett-shear-twitch-co-founder-hiring"><strong>another new CEO</strong></a><strong> and it was unclear who would stay and who would go. Justifiably, Altman did not know who he could trust in that moment, except Greg Brockman was ride or die. He said, &#8220;I&#8217;m leaving. I&#8217;m going.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The five minutes that they were going to start a new division of Microsoft were some of the most hilarious five minutes in tech history. But Brockman had basically made it clear he was ride or die for Sam. Over time, that bet has paid off. That move has paid off. Even during that board coup moment, it was not clear that Sam would ever come back.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I remember I was backpacking in Patagonia at the time and I didn&#8217;t have a laptop, but I wrote six articles on my phone. It was a crazy time. It seemed like Brockman and Altman were going to be fine, but just be on their own. Of course, all the hundreds of employees <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/20/23968988/openai-employees-resignation-letter-microsoft-sam-altman">signing a letter that they would leave</a> if Sam was not reinstated is what got the ball rolling on him coming back and then pulling an <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/29/23981848/sam-altman-back-open-ai-ceo-microsoft-board">UNO reverse on all the board members</a> who had voted to oust him, except one. That was a big moment where he didn&#8217;t know who he could trust.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some of the people who he had trusted the most were the ones who voted for him to be fired. That went a long way with him that Brockman quit as well. Ever since then, we&#8217;ve seen Brockman positioned in the public eye a little bit more. He&#8217;s been in the press more. This summer is when he really amassed a lot more power after a couple other executives left, and he&#8217;s now in control of quite a lot of pillars of the company.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What&#8217;s really striking is, yes, we can talk about 2023 and the board coup and Sam going and coming back and who was going to stay or go then, but actually this year has been more dramatic in terms of executive departures from OpenAI.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Just since April, the list is staggering. I&#8217;m just going to run down it: Bill Peebles who ran Sora; Kevin Weil, who was head of product at Instagram and then VP of OpenAI&#8217;s science arm; Fidji Simo, who was supposed to be head of product and was at one point the AGI chief, </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/963738/openai-fidji-simo-steps-down-ceo-advisor"><strong>left on health leave</strong></a><strong> and then just never came back; Kate Rouch, the Chief Marketing Officer; Srinivas Narayanan, the CTO of B2B; Brad Lightcap, who was the former CEO and the head of special projects; and then just recently Denise Dresser, the Chief Revenue Officer, who is an important character if your company&#8217;s about to IPO.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That is a lot of people, and it seems like Brockman just took all of their roles as all of those people left. Is that what&#8217;s happening here?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">More or less. Some of them definitely affected his position less than others. For some of them, like CMO Kate Rouch, leaving didn&#8217;t really give him that much more power. But what was interesting is Simo, the ex-chief of AI at the company, is the one whose absence left a huge gap for Brockman to fill. He took over a ton of different aspects.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As you just alluded to, a lot of the people who had just left the company had also recently changed roles. Through one way or another, a lot of these people leaving created a power vacuum that Brockman could then capitalize on. It&#8217;s not like he had this master plan of amassing power, but either way, he ended up with a lot of power.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What is interesting is when Brad Lightcap transitioned roles, for example, one of these other people took over his COO responsibilities. Guess who it was? Dresser. Then she leaves. Now some of those responsibilities fall to Brockman. It didn&#8217;t all happen cut and dry, but in one way or another, people switching roles and then leaving the company, he ended up with a ton more power. I can&#8217;t even calculate the ratio really of how much power he ended up with.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Now he&#8217;s in control — to give you some context — of the entire product strategy of the company, which is obviously incredibly important when you&#8217;re about to IPO and you&#8217;re getting a lot of pressure to turn a profit. He’s in charge of the company&#8217;s entire scaling arm, as well as core product and platform; all of consumer, which includes health, commerce, personal finance, ChatGPT, and other consumer-facing stuff; and core infrastructure, ads, data science, and growth. What isn&#8217;t he in charge of, really? You know what I mean?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I want to talk about Fidji Simo for one more second here. She was the former CEO of Instacart, but before that she was a really high-ranking executive at Meta. She ran the Facebook app. She was in charge of a lot of monetization.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When she came to OpenAI, it felt like her role was to turn the consumer version of ChatGPT into a product. There were lots and lots of people leaving Meta to go to OpenAI for a while, such that basically we had reported that every all hands at Meta was about, &#8220;What are you going to do about OpenAI? They&#8217;re taking all of our people.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You just saw this exodus of people from Meta going to OpenAI in various ways, led by Fidji Simo, in a moment where it felt like what they wanted to do was take on Google as a big consumer product supported by ads.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s funny, Altman actually copped to that ambition on the David Senra’s show last week — here he is, giving Peter Thiel credit for saying </strong><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG8AoExkX40"><strong>OpenAI should compete directly with Google</strong></a><strong>:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sam Altman:</strong> He&#8217;s like, ‘The power of this is the power of the Google text box, it’s a text box you can type anything into and it does the right thing. Clearly, the empty text box worked for Google so why don&#8217;t you just double down on that?’</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That’s pretty straightforward and that’s what they did. Altman says they went super hard at it — being the empty text box, taking the Google business model, which is one of the best business models in internet history. That was a big bet, and they hired Fidji Simo to go run that bet. But she left, and that does not seem to be the emphasis anymore. The emphasis is on Codex, on enterprise, on competing with Anthropic.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What&#8217;s left of that? Was that just a misfire and she had the wrong ideas? Is it still the plan? This seems like </strong><strong><em>the</em></strong><strong> question about OpenAI.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some of it has fallen by the wayside, which we&#8217;ve seen for a bunch of stuff that OpenAI has tried in the past year or two. They <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/895835/openai-cuts-back-on-side-quests">vowed to stop doing all their side quests</a>, which is ironically something that Simo herself wrote in an internal memo.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Several episodes ago, you were on and we just talked about the </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/news/836212/openai-code-red-chatgpt"><strong>series of code reds at OpenAI</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Right now they&#8217;re focused on the key revenue drivers, which are enterprise and coding. That&#8217;s really what they&#8217;re all-in on. They&#8217;re also, of course, really focused on building a “<a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/945683/chat-is-dead">super app</a>,“ which is supposed to incorporate all this stuff together, and making that super app better.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Besides that, they&#8217;re trying to cut the fat and operate as a leaner business, which has been helped by some of these executive salaries being cut. They&#8217;re trying to look better on their balance sheet when they IPO. There&#8217;s a lot of pressure to do that, especially when SpaceX just IPOed at a crazy valuation and Anthropic is apparently gunning to exceed that. We&#8217;ll see if that actually happens.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When they changed Simo&#8217;s title from CEO of applications to CEO of AGI deployment, that was the most </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> thing of all. I looked at their org chart changing and I thought, &#8220;This isn&#8217;t going to last.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Over and over and over again, they keep reassigning people. And then as you say, they leave and we see one person take over those roles and consolidate power. We&#8217;ll come to the IPO in a second, but where is Sam Altman in all of this? It seems like he should be running OpenAI.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He really likes focusing on the long-term stuff. The events of the last couple of years and all of the lawsuits have shown him that maybe he isn&#8217;t supposed to lead direct teams in a huge way. He has a few direct reports, but should he really be involved in the minutiae of the day-to-day operations? Maybe not.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Altman has said before, and in blog posts that the company put out years ago, that this is the trend that they&#8217;ve been following. I remember a year or two years ago, the company would put out summer blog posts saying that different C-suite executives&#8217; roles would be changing slightly, and Sam would be focusing a little bit on the longer term, on research. This is just a continuation of that trend, in my opinion. As we know — and this is a big <em>Decoder</em> thing as well — the more power you have at a company, the higher your title, the less you probably are involved in the actual day-to-day operations, especially at a tech company.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is another example of that. Sam has always been interested in the research and the long-term stuff. Brockman is an engineer. He was described really early on at the company as an “engineering workhorse that pushed to build scaled-up systems that would train the AI and make it work.” So he&#8217;s always been seen internally by employees as a can-do person. He makes things happen and he has the engineering training that is required to scale a system. So I could see investors being thrilled about this.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I could also see Altman saying, &#8220;I know this guy&#8217;s in my corner.&#8221; Altman already cleaned out the board. He&#8217;s surrounded by people that are going to support him. He trusts Brockman. So he says, &#8220;I actually don&#8217;t really want to be involved in the operational stuff quite as much. I want to be focused on the direction of the company. So you handle that. You&#8217;re an extension of me. I can trust you. Go ahead.&#8221; That&#8217;s what I think is happening here.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;ve talked to Brockman before. I&#8217;ve met him. He just did a </strong><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_44Ra8msls"><strong>video with our friend Joanna Stern</strong></a><strong>. You can see he&#8217;s pretty direct. He answers the questions. What kind of character do you think he&#8217;s going to be as a person who&#8217;s operationalizing OpenAI? Is this “get stuff done, make the numbers go up” situation? Or is this more expansive of an approach?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s going to be interesting to see how he handles this much responsibility, especially this many disparate arms of the company. He&#8217;s a really can-do person. He has a lot of engineering training. He&#8217;s pretty respected within the company, but I do think there&#8217;s going to be a lot of natural tension here because consumer, enterprise, health, and personal finance are really, really intense departments that handle data extremely differently. And then you&#8217;ve got all the core infrastructure stuff and the behind-the-scenes stuff that makes everything work. We&#8217;re going to see a lot of natural tension arise, especially because this company has a limited amount of funds.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Even if it&#8217;s a huge number, it&#8217;s still limited in some way, especially now compared to a few years ago. They have a limited amount of compute. That&#8217;s something that every executive at OpenAI has run into problems with — allocating the compute. The research side of things says they don&#8217;t get enough sometimes, or the product side says they need all of it. It&#8217;s going to be really interesting to see how he squares all this, especially as someone who&#8217;s probably trying to make everyone happy. He&#8217;s not going to be able to, and so he&#8217;s going to have to make some hard decisions.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This brings us to the IPO, because the IPO is where those hard decisions have to pay off. There&#8217;s been a lot of talk about OpenAI playing catch-up to Anthropic, particularly in the enterprise and with coding. There was a </strong><a href="https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openais-second-quarter-sales-show-tepid-growth-compared-with-anthropic-5cb42998"><strong><em>Wall Street Journal</em></strong><strong> story last week</strong></a><strong> that said OpenAI&#8217;s revenue in Q2 lagged behind Anthropic&#8217;s.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Obviously, Anthropic will tell you they&#8217;re profitable even though we haven&#8217;t actually seen their numbers and we don’t know how they calculate it. You&#8217;ve mentioned the IPO several times now. SpaceX just went public. Big IPOs are all the rage. What role is the IPO playing in all these changes? Is it focusing the company down? Is it making that equity pay off? Is it needing to raise more capital? What&#8217;s the shape of it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s absolutely behind a ton of these changes. It is normal to see a lot of changes in the C-suite ahead of an IPO. But some of the sources I spoke to within the industry, who study the way these IPOs typically happen in tech, said that the interesting and unusual thing here is how many C-suite execs left in such a short timeframe, because they know that looks bad for the company.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s one thing if you need to cut salaries, make the balance sheet look a little bit different, make the company leaner. That&#8217;s normal. It is an easy way to do that, to not replace someone. We can only speculate how much each of these people&#8217;s salaries was. This is an easy way, cut and dry, to help out the balance sheet.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But doing all of this in this amount of time reminds me of what <a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/979370/google-deepmind-ai-race-lose-jeff-dean-demis-hassabis">we were talking about last time on <em>Decoder</em></a><em> </em>about Google and DeepMind and how maybe Demis Hassabis didn’t leave when Jeff Dean did because they didn&#8217;t want to make the company look bad. Now at OpenAI, people are leaving left and right — sometimes within 24 or 48 hours.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Brad Lightcap, for instance, just got a new job as special projects head. Then <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/11/longtime-openai-executive-brad-lightcap-leaves-as-shakeup-at-ai-lab-continues.html">a couple months later he&#8217;s out</a>, even after being at the company for so many years. Part of it&#8217;s probably just cashing out. You can make a lot of money if you&#8217;re an exec and the company&#8217;s about to IPO and you have a lot of stock options. But it is unusual, my sources said, that it&#8217;s happening in this short amount of time.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The IPO is interesting for a number of reasons, but to me, the most clarifying is that OpenAI is up against Anthropic. There are numbers coming out, reported numbers, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-14/anthropic-revenue-ahead-of-ipo-surges-over-14-fold-in-second-quarter">about Anthropic&#8217;s finances that make that company look pretty good</a>. The company hasn&#8217;t really challenged them in public. So we have to assume that they&#8217;re happy that there&#8217;s reporting out there that the numbers look good for them.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But all of that is enterprise. They&#8217;re selling Claude to big enterprises, to the government. It&#8217;s effective. Maybe their token prices have high margins. It&#8217;s unclear what the internals of Anthropic&#8217;s business look like, but the numbers that we can get look pretty good and they support a big IPO.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a lot of excitement around Anthropic for that reason. That&#8217;s Anthropic as an enterprise software provider. That&#8217;s their business. It&#8217;s a thing it’s focused on. It&#8217;s all they do. OpenAI has taken a lot of shots. You&#8217;re talking about cost-cutting ahead of an IPO. Are they shutting some things down? Are they closing the aperture on all the things they&#8217;re trying to do to compete with Anthropic ahead of this IPO?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s interesting because I&#8217;ve seen a slight shift from OpenAI. Earlier this year, the company was saying, &#8220;Enterprise and coding. That&#8217;s what we’ve got to focus on. We have to make money. We have to compete with Anthropic.&#8221; Now, however, ahead of the IPO, OpenAI is getting a little bit of different advice.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes, the company needs to focus on those things because obviously that&#8217;s where the money is. But now it’s also being told, &#8220;You also have to differentiate yourself from Anthropic. You can&#8217;t just be a copy that&#8217;s lagging behind. You have to be doing something different.&#8221; OpenAI is going to really lean into consumer and hardware as well.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One attorney told me that for OpenAI to be successful in the public eye and in investors&#8217; eyes, the company needs “hardware and consumer products to sell to consumers, and luckily, that&#8217;s something that Brockman has experience with.” It&#8217;s hard to do everything, but they&#8217;ve had to narrow a ton and then slightly widen again and say, “Consumer is what we&#8217;re really known for.”&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;re saying, &#8220;We&#8217;re the Kleenex of AI right now because of how we&#8217;re known in the consumer world.&#8221; People say, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to ask ChatGPT,” or, &#8220;I ChatGPT&#8217;d it.&#8221; And they&#8217;re talking about just using AI in general. Maybe they weren&#8217;t actually using ChatGPT, but that&#8217;s the way they&#8217;re referring to things a lot of the time. So OpenAI knows they need to capitalize on that. That&#8217;s one way they can be different from Anthropic. Of course, Anthropic also offers that, but they&#8217;re much more known for enterprise and that is why they&#8217;re making so much money.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But OpenAI is leaning into hardware. The company has Jony Ive. It has to not cut some of this stuff entirely because then it’s going to look like Mark Zuckerberg with Meta. It can&#8217;t go all-in on something and then just completely cut it, or they&#8217;re probably worried about being a laughingstock. You have to really cut the true fat, which they did with a lot of their side projects. But as far as consumer, hardware, enterprise, and coding, those are their main bets right now. We&#8217;re going to see them really double down on that heading into the IPO.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Come on, Hayden. Aren&#8217;t we actually in the metaverse right now? Technically, you and I are in the Metaverse together right this second. It worked.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Absolutely.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It happened.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Should have made an avatar.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Technically we&#8217;re here in our bodies on the internet.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yep, that&#8217;s true.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What argument can you have except that the metaverse definitely worked and Mark Zuckerberg was super right about all of it?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The consumer business is really hard. The scale of the play you need to make the consumer business work is on the order of fully overtaking Google, which seems very challenging. In hardware, you have to replace the iPhone. If you do anything other than replace the iPhone, people still have their iPhones. And then you&#8217;re going to lose to Instagram every single time.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Have they said anything about how they plan to do either one of these things? Because replacing Google with a Google-level monetization engine seems very hard. Replacing the iPhone — even if you have Jony Ive — such that people don&#8217;t still have their iPhones, seems very hard. Neither one of these things has been in any kind of focus for me at least.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Like <a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/968787/apple-openai-trade-secrets-lawsuit-ai-hardware-smartphone-jony-ive">we talked about last time</a>, I really am skeptical. Hardware is hard. I&#8217;ve seen way too many companies crash and burn when they try to make an AI hardware device. It&#8217;s going to look beautiful because Jony Ive is in charge.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But as for how useful it&#8217;s really going to be, especially in the era of AI populism when there&#8217;s a huge backlash against using AI, I don&#8217;t know how excited people are going to be on a broad scale to have something visible pinned to them or in their ears or on their table where you can tell they are using AI. It&#8217;s going to be really exciting for a subset of people, but for the broader public, Meta’s glasses are still uncool, still being called pervert glasses. With AI hardware, you&#8217;ve got a steep hill to climb.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Let&#8217;s talk about what happens next with OpenAI, because those are the challenges. What you have now is a new leader who is, as you said, running most of the company. Greg Brockman was </strong><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/17/openai-brockman-leadership-changes.html"><strong>just on CNBC last week</strong></a><strong>. He basically defended the turnover. He said this:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Greg Brockman:</strong> “I’d say fundamentally, we’re a very resilient organization… If you look over the years, there have been different eras where we have different sets of leaders in place. I’m constant, Sam is a constant. I think that we are stronger because of that resilience and diversity.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So this might be what Greg Brockman has to say: &#8220;All these people are gone, but I&#8217;m still here. Sam&#8217;s still here, and the company&#8217;s still the same.” Do you think it&#8217;s just the thing that he has to say? Or do you think there&#8217;s something more real about OpenAI as a company, where you have these two leaders who are clearly ride or die for each other and you can swap in and out all these other executives and the company will still have its own unique vision?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He would like us to think the latter, but it&#8217;s more of the former. It&#8217;s never good when you have a bunch of people leaving at once. It&#8217;s never good when you&#8217;re constantly restructuring or reorganizing the company. It&#8217;s bad all the way down. Employees are probably feeling weird. They have a new person in charge. They&#8217;re being shuffled between different teams. Their teams are headed by one person and then their boss&#8217;s boss is someone else, which probably means their bosses are weird.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s not great for productivity, especially heading into such an important time for OpenAI. Even if it&#8217;s a move that makes sense and is good long term, it&#8217;s still going to be weird for people in the short term.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In some ways the latter is true in terms of Brockman and Altman having been at the helm from the start. Someone who’s been there for eight months who leaves is not going to have as much of an impact. But we&#8217;re seeing some people that have been there for a really long time leave as well, like Brad Lightcap. He was someone that I had tracked for years and years. All of a sudden he&#8217;s out, after switching roles, and now he says he&#8217;s going to start something new. He says he&#8217;s implying he&#8217;s still going to work with OpenAI in some way, shape or form. He and Altman <a href="https://x.com/sama/status/2087243765765509185">had a really friendly exchange on X after he left</a>, but a lot of it&#8217;s for show.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;ve got to make sure that people aren&#8217;t skittish about the company right now. It&#8217;s something he just has to say. But it&#8217;s also true that if there were two people that would be the most influential if they left, and luckily those two are still there, Brockman and Altman.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;ve mentioned the public antipathy towards AI several times now. There is just a lot of anti-AI sentiment out in the world. And it&#8217;s pretty politically coded, although it </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/971855/ai-data-center-backlash-protests-florida-bipartisan"><strong>scrambled some political lines</strong></a><strong>. Hating AI is pretty bipartisan. Hating data centers is pretty bipartisan. We&#8217;ve got </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/902546/data-centers-ai-energy-power-grids-controversy"><strong>a lot of reporting about that on the site</strong></a><strong>.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Brockman is into politics. He </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/867947/openai-president-greg-brockman-trump-super-pac"><strong>donated $25 million to MAGA Inc.</strong></a><strong> He&#8217;s one of the top donors to Trump overall. Do you think him being so openly political will help or hurt him as he becomes more of a character, more of a visible leader of OpenAI?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s going to help the company from the outside, because they&#8217;re trying to push a lot of stuff through during the Trump administration and they really want a voluntary regulation framework. They want to be in Trump&#8217;s ear in a good way. It&#8217;s going to hurt Brockman internally, because a lot of employees at tech companies that I&#8217;ve interviewed in the past year, no matter what company they work at, are incredibly angry if their CEO or their C-suite isn&#8217;t doing enough to speak out against some of the Trump administration&#8217;s decisions.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Now, Brockman isn&#8217;t just not speaking out against them, he&#8217;s also supporting the admin with tens of millions of dollars. I could see this really hurting him from the inside. Maybe some people don&#8217;t take him seriously. Maybe we will see some departures. It&#8217;s going to help the company from the outside, just because when you&#8217;re giving a lot of money to Trump, he seems to let you curry favor with him. We&#8217;ll see.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>To be clear, we&#8217;ve seen Sam Altman </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/21/24348816/openai-softbank-ai-data-center-stargate-project"><strong>stand next to Trump and announce data center projects</strong></a><strong>. So whatever reputation OpenAI was going to have because of its leaders, it might already have, but the specific political giving seems new. And as we head towards the midterms, it seems like a new challenge for the leaders of the company to be openly associated with. Do you think it&#8217;ll change any of the valence around data centers and AI, how the public feels about them?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t know that it&#8217;ll change that because we&#8217;ve been careening towards this for a while. People are really mad about data centers and it&#8217;s a bipartisan feeling, like you mentioned, and same with AI. Sam Altman and other AI CEOs have said in the past month that they feel like AI has a big PR problem and that they haven&#8217;t done a good job of showing people the good parts of AI and how they need to do better to show people why they&#8217;re even building it in the first place.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Maybe they do, but people have been told a lot of the good things about it and they&#8217;re still not thinking that they&#8217;re as good as the bad is bad. The AI industry is in for a rude awakening there. But as for what you mentioned about Altman, yes, he and every other AI CEO have been at Trump&#8217;s dining table. They&#8217;ve been <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/hot-mic-catches-mark-zuckerberg-170531448.html">caught on hot mics praising him</a>.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s not something hugely new that Brockman&#8217;s giving this money, but what is new is that he&#8217;s giving it so much of it in a personal capacity, so much so that <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5091930-sam-altman-claps-back-at-senate-inquiry-into-trump-inaugural-fund-donation/">Altman even had to come out and say</a> at some point, &#8220;Brockman only did this in a personal capacity. We&#8217;re not saying that we&#8217;re super behind him.&#8221;&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He also couldn&#8217;t really say they weren&#8217;t behind him, but <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-greg-brockman-political-donations-super-pac-statement-leading-future-2026-6">OpenAI had to separate themselves a little</a>. That&#8217;s what&#8217;s interesting to me about this. It&#8217;s like the personal capacity of his giving has made so many headlines and OpenAI tried to distance itself a little bit, but not too much. Now they&#8217;re not going to be able to do that because he&#8217;s essentially running day-to-day operations.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m very curious to see how that plays out. I don&#8217;t think we quite know yet, but as he becomes a more visible leader of the company, being that open about his politics, even in the context of the other big tech CEOs, is different. We don&#8217;t quite see that from all of them. We see it from Elon, but everyone else plays it pretty safe. This is new, especially for a leader at OpenAI.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>All right, let&#8217;s end here. Let&#8217;s say it&#8217;s two years from now, OpenAI is public. Do we think Greg Brockman is the CEO and Sam is just the “chairman of raising money,” or whatever it is that he&#8217;s doing?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I could see that happening. It would take a couple of big things to make that happen. Altman really likes being in charge, so I don&#8217;t think he&#8217;s going to go super quietly. But if he ever needs to move on to a more big-picture chairman role, if the IPO doesn&#8217;t go so well or he gets dragged in the public eye or something and still needs to be part of the company but not the CEO, I could definitely see that happening.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Especially because Brockman has a lot of ambitions. We saw his <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/05/open-ai-altman-musk-trial-brockman-testimony.html">journal entries come out during discovery</a>, during <em>Musk v. Altman</em>, and he was writing some pretty ambitious things.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>&#8220;What will get me to a billion dollars?&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He&#8217;s saying, &#8220;This is my one chance to be in charge.&#8221; There are a lot of entries that he&#8217;s writing about how he&#8217;s put his blood, sweat, and tears into the company and how he needs to be in charge in some way, shape, or form. He will probably be gunning for a role like that and he&#8217;d be happy to take it on.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;ll see what happens in the next few years. But I definitely don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s out of the question, especially because he’s been there since the beginning. He has a lot of product experience and he&#8217;s clearly ambitious. The other thing that is interesting is, way back in the day, he wasn&#8217;t always so aligned with Altman all the time.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In fact, Brockman and Sutskever, OpenAI&#8217;s chief scientist, were pretty aligned against Sam every once in a while. Not against him, but they were questioning him and pushing back. They were saying things like, &#8220;It seems like you really care about this CEO role. It seems like you really care about being in charge and having a lot of power in this way and that way. How does this relate to your political ambitions? How does this relate to who&#8217;s going to control AGI? We really don&#8217;t want it to be a dictatorship.&#8221;&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Altman would probably be hard-pressed to give up the CEO title when he fought so hard for it, even 10 or 11 years ago. But if he ever does, it seems like Brockman would be happy to take it on.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I will end by stating my prediction that I&#8217;ve been making almost the whole year now. I don&#8217;t think we will end 2026 with OpenAI as the same kind of company as when the year started. Actually I would say, given all of this turnover, that prediction has already come true. Structurally, it is a very different company with very different goals than the year started.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But I&#8217;ll just put that prediction to you. You cover the company way more closely than I do. Do you think there&#8217;s any way that OpenAI looks the same at the end of the year as it did at the top of the year?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Absolutely not. When a company goes public, so many things change. Especially when the end of the year is only five months away.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s a scary number of months away. It&#8217;s tomorrow.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Let&#8217;s say maybe not by December 31st, but six months from now, 100 percent it&#8217;s going to look different and probably sooner than that. They&#8217;re going to have to make a lot of changes. They&#8217;re going to be listening to their investors in a new way and they&#8217;re going to be beholden to them in a new way. There are only certain parts of this industry that make money and OpenAI is not in the lead in those parts.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;re going to have to go all-in on that type of stuff. The type of research that they want to do to stay at the frontier, they can make a case for that. Money-wise, they can say, &#8220;Look, in order to stay in the lead, we have to do this long-term stuff a little bit.&#8221; But they&#8217;re not going to be able to go all-in on it all the time because it costs a lot of money — and they have a limited amount.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re going to see a lot of the anxieties that we saw Brockman and Altman voice a year ago, two years ago. I&#8217;ve been in the room with them where <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/812455/ai-industry-earnings-bubble-fomo-hype">they&#8217;re talking about their fear that they&#8217;re running out of compute</a> and how they’re going to scale. Their whole job for the next six months, the next year, et cetera, is scaling.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;ve had so many concerns about this. They&#8217;ve had so many fears about how they&#8217;re going to do this with their limited compute, especially now that they&#8217;re going public and they&#8217;re beholden to investors in a new way. There&#8217;s no way the company is going to look the same.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Hayden, this has been great. Thank you so much for being on </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> again. We&#8217;ll have you back when another season of </strong><strong><em>The Real Housewives of AI</em></strong><strong> kicks off, which is probably going to be tomorrow at the rate we&#8217;re going.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>[Laughs]</em> Absolutely. Thanks.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[How GoFundMe became America’s backup plan]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/982901/gofundme-ceo-tim-cadogan-fundraising-healthcare-medical-expenses" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=982901</id>
			<updated>2026-08-24T12:53:56-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-08-24T10:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Business" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Web" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today on Decoder, I’m talking with Tim Cadogan, the CEO of GoFundMe. You know GoFundMe — it’s a major fundraising platform where you can donate to help people with everything from medical expenses to Little League uniforms to starting a new business. Tim took over as CEO in March 2020 — a fascinating and chaotic [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A stylized portrait of GoFundMe CEO Tim Cadogan." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: The Verge / Photo: GoFundMe" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/08/DCD_20260824_TimCadogan.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today on <em>Decoder</em>, I’m talking with Tim Cadogan, the CEO of GoFundMe. You know GoFundMe — it’s a major fundraising platform where you can donate to help people with everything from medical expenses to Little League uniforms to starting a new business.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Tim took over as CEO in March 2020 — a fascinating and chaotic moment in the United States, and the moment, you’ll hear me argue, I think GoFundMe became a load-bearing part of American culture.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24792604/The_Verge_Decoder_Tileart.jpg?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don&#8217;t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Decoder</em> wherever you get your podcasts. Head <a href="https://www.theverge.com/account/podcasts">here</a>. Not a subscriber? You can <a href="https://www.theverge.com/subscribe">sign up here</a>. </p>
</div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It wasn’t just the pandemic that changed the nature of fundraising platforms like GoFundMe. 2020 was a major turning point in the history of political unrest in the US, and GoFundMe has become a central player in many contentious news events since — not just in the US, but all over the world.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The platform is also now a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/02/gofundme-health-care-hospitals/677353/">kind of proxy for the broken healthcare system</a> — medical expenses are the most popular category of fundraising on GoFundMe. You might be surprised to hear Tim say this is not just in America, but in every market GoFundMe operates in.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All of this means GoFundMe sits inside a ton of big, messy ideas: wealth distribution, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/29/24085175/gofundme-gaza-palestine-fundraiser-under-review-esims">geopolitical conflict</a>, the holes in the social safety net. And that’s also in direct tension with the platform being a for-profit company, collecting fees and tips and feeling the pressure to grow as a business.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So you can imagine I had a lot of questions for Tim: how he thinks about all this, and how he makes some very tough decisions about what money to make and what money not to make. To his credit, he was game to go there and talked about it all pretty openly.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: Tim Cadogan, CEO of GoFundMe. Here we go.</p>

<iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP8004251532" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.&nbsp;</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tim Cadogan, you&#8217;re the CEO of GoFundMe. Welcome to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Hey, thank you very much for having me, Nilay.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I am very excited to talk to you. GoFundMe occupies an incredibly unique place, I think, in our culture, particularly in American culture and American society. It&#8217;s a for-profit company, and I have a lot of questions about how you think about its place in our culture and the need to grow and deliver returns.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I was also doing the research. You joined this company in the pandemic, in the heart of the pandemic, when it felt like everything changed. Now, we&#8217;re six years later; maybe things have settled, maybe they haven&#8217;t.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But I actually just want to start there. You became the CEO when the idea that the public health system — how we think about healthcare in America — got flipped upside down. I know that healthcare expenses are, I think, the single biggest category on GoFundMe. How do you think about the platform, and how do you think about that path from 2020 to now?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Well, yes, there&#8217;s a lot in there. So I started on March the 2nd, 2020, which was about a week before it became very clear in the US that the pandemic was going to have major implications, but it was already becoming clear in other parts of the world.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We operate in 20 countries, and we did back then. For instance, Italy is an important country for us, and that was probably the first European country that experienced a big impact. So it was just becoming evident; in fact, by the end of the first week, we went remote. Things came at us, all of us in the world, very quickly. It certainly came very quickly for me, trying to figure out a new company, a new space, and all this stuff happening.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The root of what we do is extremely simple. We help people help each other. And we are there to help people in whatever situation they need help. Sometimes those are the most consequential, the most significant thing that is happening in someone&#8217;s life and has ever happened in their life. And sometimes they&#8217;re very lighthearted and fun and forward-looking, like going to college or sending your kids&#8217; sports team on tour because they&#8217;ve made the state championships, you name it. Everything in between: if someone thinks they need help, we&#8217;re here to help them mobilize support from friends, family, and networks.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So when you talk about the pandemic, that is a time when millions of people needed a lot of help. In some cases, for medical situations and everything related to that, some cases because they weren&#8217;t able to work anymore. Or we had a phenomenon that was not expected — and we could not have anticipated this — when hundreds of thousands of small businesses were shutting down: restaurants, bars, music venues. They were all having to shut down for a while and didn&#8217;t know how long they had to furlough employees.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We had tens of thousands of fundraisers that were often being set up by really loyal customers who said, &#8220;I love my local restaurant. I really feel bad for the wait staff and the kitchen staff. I want to set up a GoFundMe for them.&#8221; And we had so many of those, and it was such a different use case that it was a struggle to figure out how we handle the volume.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, when you raise money into a fundraiser, to take the money out, you have to go through a [know your customer] process to verify that you&#8217;re the right person. If you&#8217;re a business, you have to go through a KYB process. And that&#8217;s different and more complicated. It means you need paperwork. And if people are no longer at their place of business, how do you get the paperwork?&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So, we and our payment processors who we work with — all money goes through our third-party payment processors, not through us — had to figure out how to get through this huge amount of new fundraisers to navigate the situation. Those are a couple of examples of this kind of thing, but it goes back to helping people help each other in whatever situation they&#8217;re dealing with.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think the reason I wanted to start there, and you can disagree with me on this, is because that feels, to me, like the moment when GoFundMe became a load-bearing part of American culture in very specific ways. The same way that Zoom maybe became a load-bearing part of American business for five minutes.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Everything changed, and what are the resources, what is the infrastructure, and what are the tools? And GoFundMe emerged as one of those things. Obviously, you were the new CEO at the moment, so maybe you just had to react and put one foot in front of the other. But I&#8217;m wondering if you feel the same way about what GoFundMe has become after that time.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah. I think your phrase there, which I haven&#8217;t heard before, but I think is a really interesting part of it, is [calling GoFundMe] load-bearing. We definitely were used by more people. Awareness was already reasonably high, but it has increased. To give you a sense, our unaided awareness was sort of in the mid-30s. It&#8217;s now about 70 percent. Aided awareness is in the low 90s.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So almost everyone has heard of GoFundMe. And yes, I do think that along with a lot of digital services in that time period, the awareness and usage elevated and has continued to grow since then. I think, well, more than a third of American adults have used GoFundMe now.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Also, I think it&#8217;s not just America, though. So we&#8217;re in 20 other countries: the UK, Ireland, Italy, France, all the European countries, Australia, Canada. A similar thing has happened there, where doing a GoFundMe has become an expression in the vernacular. And it&#8217;s become something that people definitely relate to. It&#8217;s like, that is a way that I can do something.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;ll give you a personal example. I was telling your producer before we got on. We were talking about where we are in the country. I&#8217;m in Altadena, as I mentioned. In January last year, our town burned down: 6,000 homes, and about two-thirds of the population displaced. GoFundMe was an incredibly important part of the response. The response involved many things: national agencies, local agencies, and nonprofit organizations. GoFundMe was the way that over 10,000 families here in the Palisades could mobilize support and love from friends and family immediately. That&#8217;s one part of the response.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As I mentioned, there are many parts, but the thing that I think maybe people don&#8217;t realize until you&#8217;re doing a GoFundMe is that it is actually about a lot more than the money. The money is obviously important, critical, but what comes with that is the expression of support. So when you&#8217;re dealing with a tough situation, many times people feel alone.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you do a fundraiser, or someone does one on your behalf, suddenly you start to see, here are all these people, some of whom I know really well, some of them are friends I might not have seen for a few years, who are like, &#8220;Hang on a minute. I want to help. I&#8217;m thinking of you, Nilay. Here&#8217;s $50, but more importantly, I&#8217;m thinking of you, and I&#8217;m hoping you get through that.&#8221; So it’s that — the sense that a GoFundMe can be the catalyst for that. Yes, you are right. That has become much more significant.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m curious about that dynamic. I think there are a lot of different ways I want to come at it through the course of this conversation. But just to make the comparison to Zoom, for example, another service that sort of exploded in use during that time and became a phenomenon. Zoom is business software. The idea that a bunch of businesses needed to use Zoom so that everybody could talk to each other. And then that became consumer software because we&#8217;re, I don&#8217;t know, going to run elementary schools over Zoom.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The idea that Zoom is a for-profit business that expanded its market and then that changed, that feels simple in one specific way. This is enterprise software for businesses that people are going to use in different ways, and they&#8217;re going to charge you money too. The thing you&#8217;re describing with GoFundMe is far more cultural. It echoes deep into how society is structured.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How should our communities help one another? What is the expression of that help? How should you feel about asking for that help? That echoes differently through time, through situations, through our politics.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;ve mentioned several times that GoFundMe operates in different countries. Different countries have different social safety nets. They have different cultures. They have different attitudes toward asking and receiving help from the government, and from one another. How has that changed? Because that feels like maybe the most important part of a for-profit service where you&#8217;re taking fees from people who are sending money to one another, but the mission you&#8217;re describing is more of a social good mission.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I mean, look, there are a couple of things. One, help is part of what makes us human. We are a social species. We&#8217;ve always lived together in groups, starting with little villages and on up. Anything great that we create, we do it together. So the help is timeless; it&#8217;s inherent. To your point, it&#8217;s universal.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So what I have found — I&#8217;ve been to 10 or more of our countries, a bunch of them even just over the last year — is the patterns. What&#8217;s fascinating is that every country you go to, whether it’s Australia, Italy, Germany, Canada, or the UK, everyone asks, &#8220;What&#8217;s different about us?&#8221; And also, you go within those countries to diaspora populations. It can be Nepalis in Australia or the Turkish community in Germany, or you name it. And everyone&#8217;s like, &#8220;The similarities are actually a lot stronger than the differences.&#8221; One, everyone finds it hard to ask for help. I haven&#8217;t met anyone yet who said, &#8220;That was easy for me to ask for help.&#8221; The paradox is that help is so powerful, but it&#8217;s difficult and takes courage to open the door. And I want to come back to that.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But you&#8217;re asking me about what it means to do this work, but to do it as a business? So a couple of things. One, how does the business work? We&#8217;ve thought very carefully about this. Our goal is to get as much help to the recipient as possible. So how do we structure the business? When you give money, the only fees that we take are the transaction processing fees, which in the US for our consumer fundraiser are 2.9 percent, 30 cents per transaction.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s the same as when you use a credit card or a debit card anywhere in the world, pumping gas, going to the supermarket. All of those businesses have those fees. That&#8217;s it. We have to do that because we have to use third-party payment processors to make sure that money flows in the right way, as verified, and so on.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">After that, we ask the donor if they want to give us a voluntary contribution, a tip. Totally up to them. Make a suggestion; people change it. A good chunk of people do give us a tip, a good chunk of donors. I think last year, 15 to 20 million people didn&#8217;t give us anything, which is fine because the donor is the person in this equation who&#8217;s bringing the financial resources. And we want to leave it up to them whether they want to compensate us for the service or not. That&#8217;s it.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So we feel that that&#8217;s very well aligned. Now, the reason that we ask for a contribution is that we have 850 people here working extremely hard. They’re running servers, building the websites, doing the marketing, doing the trust and safety, running the company, running the organization that enabled 80 million people last year to donate and has generated over $40 billion of help over the last 10 to 15 years.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That takes real work. Those people need to be compensated, and the third-party services that we use, whether it be AWS and so on, OpenAI, those cost money. And we need that, but we make it, and I think it&#8217;s very unusual; we give people the choice of how much they want to pay us. It&#8217;s really powerful.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is that a stable line of revenue? It&#8217;s a for-profit company. I imagine at some point you have to go in front of a board of directors and say the revenue line is going up.</strong> <strong>Are voluntary donations a stable line of revenue? Is it growing?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, it&#8217;s highly variable at the individual level. But at the scale that we&#8217;re talking about, tens of millions of donations, it aggregates to a fairly steady average. And our growth comes from helping more people help each other. Everything we focus on is: how do we generate more help in the world?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I mean, it&#8217;s literally my True North objective. I start every meeting with that. It&#8217;s like if we&#8217;re making a decision, the first dimension of making that decision is: Will this thing that we&#8217;re thinking about doing help more people help each other? If it does, let&#8217;s lean into it. If it doesn&#8217;t, probably not as important as something that does.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Can I just sit in the idea that it aggregates out to a pretty steady percentage across the tens of millions of people? That is a huge insight. On the individual level, it varies. I&#8217;m sure most people listening to this have participated in GoFundMe and decided whether or not to donate, and whether to click the box or not.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To everyone listening who has, thank you for the help. And if you&#8217;ve contributed to us, thank you for that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a part of that where you&#8217;re saying, if you can get to tens of millions of people, there will be a steady state of donations, and there will be an amount of revenue that will track linearly with the growth of the platform overall. We can come to how the platform might grow in the future, but you&#8217;re saying that there&#8217;s something predictable there that lets you grow and generate profit in return.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What is the mechanism that goes from an individual decision to donate or not, to “in the aggregate it&#8217;s steady”? Because that feels like a big insight, almost like a bet — that the company would&#8217;ve had to make at some point, that it would aggregate over time at scale — which doesn&#8217;t seem intuitive to me, at least.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I mean, it&#8217;s the aggregate average behavior. You can see that as more and more people use any feature, your ability to predict how that feature will be used gets more precise. Essentially, your path to statistical significance gets improved. This is the same for anything about what we design that more and more people use.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As you get more people, you run more people in the experiment, you start to see, okay, the volatility of usage is going down, and we can now see that we think it&#8217;s going to settle in here even though there are large variations. So it&#8217;s really a law of large numbers.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What is the average donation that people give when they participate in the platform?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So today I was looking at that, and it&#8217;s between $80 and $100. I say that because it&#8217;s moved in interesting ways over the last year. It varies a lot based on the category, and it varies a bit by country as well. But somewhere in the $80 to $100 range. For personal fundraising, it varies a little bit more.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Another side of our business is called GoFundMe Pro. We offer fundraising software to nonprofit organizations. These are folks like World Central Kitchen, Salvation Army, the Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, and so on. And there are two different kinds of donations. There&#8217;s a one-time donation, which is somewhat similar, sometimes higher. And there&#8217;s a recurring donation, which is much lower. That&#8217;s someone committing to give monthly.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s a very important source of revenue to nonprofits, one that we&#8217;re spending a lot of time investing in because it gives those nonprofits predictable revenue. And that&#8217;s more in the sort of $25 to $30 range. But if you think personal fundraising, roughly $80 to $100 is what people are contributing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Are they contributing to one another or contributing to GoFundMe? </strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oh, I&#8217;m sorry. This is a donation to the person or cause that they&#8217;re helping.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong> I&#8217;m curious about that too. That&#8217;s a fascinating number. I&#8217;m asking more specifically when they choose to pay GoFundMe for the services. “Please pay us.” How much are they paying you?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s just a few dollars typically, if they&#8217;re choosing. And a lot of people are choosing not to. That&#8217;s fine. For the folks that are, it&#8217;d be a few bucks, depending.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The law of large numbers part is really interesting to me. I look at other big services that take percentages of payments over time. I&#8217;ll just pick on </strong><strong><em>Candy Crush</em></strong><strong> because I love picking on </strong><strong><em>Candy Crush</em></strong><strong>.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Apple makes a lot of service revenue, and probably some huge amount of it is from </strong><strong><em>Candy Crush</em></strong><strong> whales. People who spend tens of thousands of dollars buying loot boxes in Candy Crush, and Apple just collects 30 percent. There&#8217;s a long tail of the rest of us who understand that it&#8217;s a 30 percent fee to do an app purchase, and maybe we do one or two a month, and that&#8217;s it. There&#8217;s some enormous disparity between who generates the bulk of the fees and the sort of long tail. Do you have that same disparity?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is there a class of people that pays more money?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, no. Ours is much more in the center of the bell curve because most donations sit in that area. And unsurprisingly, when people are donating more, if they choose to contribute to us to tip us, they do much less as a percentage. So people are definitely looking at that and saying, &#8220;Hey, what&#8217;s a reasonable number to give to GoFundMe?” They’re making those choices.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m guessing there&#8217;s a lot of software design in there. You can dark-pattern yourself into getting more money if you wanted to. You could write more heart-pulling copy to say, “GoFundMe won&#8217;t survive unless you pay us some money along the way.”</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What&#8217;s the pull there? I mean, it seems that if you want to optimize a business result, there are a lot of levers to pull around the check-box that says give us some money.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Well, we&#8217;ve gone in exactly the opposite direction from anything like that. When I came in, the tipping experience was a stepper. It&#8217;s like a little thing saying, “Here&#8217;s the suggestion.” And if you wanted to change it, it was a couple of clicks. I was like, &#8220;I want us to be far more transparent than that.&#8221; So we tested our way into what we now use, which is the slider. It’s right there; it has a suggested amount, and it just went “boom.”&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Obviously, people are mostly doing it on their phones. You can move [the slider] without any clicks, in less than two seconds. It&#8217;s right there, and it&#8217;s called out. It&#8217;s called out in the main experience. It&#8217;s called out as you&#8217;re checking out. It&#8217;s called out in your receipt. Multiple ways to do it. So it&#8217;s super clear, super transparent, and that gives people choice and control.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m asking about the revenue side and the ability to optimize that revenue because these are the pressures every for-profit company faces. The number has to go up. And the idea that you can layer in dark patterns, you can do what my friend Corey Doctorow calls enshitfification and collect more fees along the way. That pull exists when you are a for-profit company.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Why be structured that way and have all of those bad incentives exist as opposed to being a nonprofit, a B Corp, or any of these other kinds of structures that might reduce that pressure?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Because as a company, we can invest a lot more, very simply. We work for some very significant nonprofits, some of the biggest in the world, but the biggest doesn&#8217;t have a technology team of more than about 50 or 60 people. And to do what we are doing, at the scale we&#8217;re doing it in a big chunk of the world, you need more technology, you need more people, and you need the capacity to be able to innovate, which is what we have done.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To do that, you need to be able to run as a company. It&#8217;s really hard to do that as a nonprofit. So that&#8217;s the biggest reason. And it is elegant in the sense that our objective is 100 percent aligned with what our customers are trying to achieve. We are trying to make it easier for more people to ask for help and then more people to come in response to that help.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That takes a lot of thought, a lot of innovation, a lot of software development. We&#8217;ll talk about the [AI] coach and the things that we&#8217;re doing there. And therefore, it is us who have done this. We invented this thing. We have scaled it. We have helped now many, many tens of millions of people, actually hundreds of millions of people, to help each other, and we&#8217;re continuing to do that. So it is working. The way we think about growth is directly linked to how to help more people mobilize support for each other right now.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Customer is a really interesting word there. You&#8217;ve kind of brought me to the </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> questions quite naturally. Well done. But I want to just ask about customers. I understand that on the pro side, the customers are big nonprofits, and that probably feels more like a traditional SaaS business in some way. But on the consumer side and the individual side, who&#8217;s the customer? Is it the person raising the funds? Is the person paying the money? How do you evaluate that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Both. They are both our customers. We start with the person asking for help because they are the source of everything. The paradox of help is that it&#8217;s really hard to ask for help. And helping feels great. So I do a thing when I&#8217;m talking at a conference; sometimes I&#8217;ll ask a little question. I&#8217;ll say, &#8220;Hey, who in the room likes helping? Everyone&#8217;s hand gets up.&#8221; I say, &#8220;Who here likes asking for help?&#8221; And usually less than 10 percent of the room put their hand up. Then I say, &#8220;That&#8217;s awesome. Who of you likes asking for help in public?&#8221; Most of those people put their hands down.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We don&#8217;t like it. This is not a cultural thing. It&#8217;s a human thing. We don&#8217;t like asking for help, but the paradox is that for help to flow, someone has to ask. Because we&#8217;ve also been in that situation where we think our friend needs some help — or a relative, or a child, heaven forbid —&nbsp; and say, &#8220;I want to help you with this,&#8221; but they haven&#8217;t asked. Often it doesn&#8217;t work. It&#8217;s awkward. It can be resisted.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But when someone has asked for help and had the courage to do that, they open this door, and then the goodness flows in, and then the experience flows. So we start with: how do we help people? We know there are so many people who are considering asking for help, but they are inhibited by many emotional and societal factors. The sense of, like, &#8220;Can I do this? How would I do this? I&#8217;ve never done this before. What will my friends think of me?&#8221; All of these different things.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A lot of our work and the software, the smart fundraising coach, is geared to help with those problems. So that&#8217;s the first set of things. And then it&#8217;s like, okay, how do we give them a great experience? Then, how do we give the people who want to come in and help a great experience of helping their friend, their family member, or their local nonprofit? And then also give them other experiences on top, like, &#8220;Hey, you did a great thing here, and that felt great. Would you like to do more? How do we connect you into other experiences where maybe the friend of a friend, or maybe there&#8217;s another local nonprofit or fundraiser in your area that you would like to help with?&#8221; Doing more on that. So we think of both as customers.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m curious about that. I want to push on the sort of redistribution aspect that you&#8217;re describing. There might be more people to help. That&#8217;s a fascinating concept. You mentioned that GoFundMe has 850 people. How is that structured?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah. So as I mentioned, we have one mission, two approaches. We are here to help people fundraise successfully and get help. We do that for consumers, and we do that for nonprofit organizations. The latter is called Pro. Our company is organized, largely, functionally. So about half the company is in product technology, design, and data science. That&#8217;s the biggest chunk.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then the rest of the company is focused on how we support the people using our platform. So that&#8217;s customer care, trust and safety, risk and compliance, making sure the money is moving in the right way. And then operations. Of course, we have our go-to-market team, which is our relatively small sales team reaching out to nonprofits, and marketing. And a really important part for us is our communications team. Because a lot of what we do, which is very unusual, is that we invest heavily in taking our customers&#8217; stories and getting them attention in the local, national, and international media.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s a very important part of the service we provide to them. And it also builds awareness of GoFundMe because what we&#8217;re trying to do is show more and more people that you can do this too. That help works, and this is a powerful way to do it in the digital world. So that&#8217;s roughly how we&#8217;re structured.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That communications piece is really interesting to me. It sort of tracks intuitively that if you start a GoFundMe, you want a lot of people to see it.</strong> <strong>There&#8217;s some fractional percentage of all the people who have ever seen your GoFundMe who will donate. If you just increase the total number, you&#8217;re going to get a larger number in the end.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That communications piece, there&#8217;s an element that is curated by you. You&#8217;re going to pick the ones that are the most heartwarming that might play in the local media the best. Then there&#8217;s a sort of platform aspect to it. You can write a GoFundMe that&#8217;s going to go the most viral on Facebook. Somewhere in there is your AI coach.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The new tool. I was playing with it today. I almost just started a GoFundMe for the fun of it today. I was right at the end, about to click on the last button. But the tool writes you a GoFundMe campaign. You say, “I&#8217;m starting whatever, a shelter for puppies. Help me write the copy for the GoFundMe,” and it will just do it for you.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s something about AI in that context and then having a human comms team in the other context that seems like the same idea, pointing at the same goal. But the AI might, because it is sort of the average of every successful GoFundMe, pull everyone in the same direction, while your human comms team is trying to show how different everything is. Does that track? There&#8217;s something in there that I find particularly interesting.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, so the most important thing about creating and running a GoFundMe is that you can&#8217;t just put it on the platform and expect people to come to it. You, as the fundraiser, have to tell people about it.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So on our coach, we&#8217;re doing two things. We break it into two main chunks. There is creating the fundraiser, which is what you just went through, and then there is managing it. So, when creating it, there are a lot of big decisions when you create a GoFundMe. First, am I going to do this a lot? Second, how exactly do I want to write my story? What do I want the title of that story to be? What do I want the pictures to be, particularly the hero image? What do I want the goal to be? Every one of those decisions is a point at which people drop off because I&#8217;ve written my story, but not the title.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You&#8217;re a journalist, right? Title writing is hard. That&#8217;s why media organizations have title writing departments. So we identified all of these very difficult blockers. We think, “How do we make that easier?” The way we started a couple of years ago is helping with those components. We would say, “Okay, we see the people are getting stuck with titles. Let&#8217;s take what they&#8217;ve created and suggest three titles. If they like them, pick one, modify one, run with it.” It turns out a lot of people use that. In fact, we&#8217;ve had over 90 million uses of these different components. The same is true of goals.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Where we moved to this year… Earlier this year, we launched Smart Fundraising Coach, which said, “Actually, you can choose to have an agentic experience, a chat experience of creating your GoFundMe that&#8217;s going to do all of those things with you holistically in the creation process.” The key is that it’s you, your story, that we&#8217;re helping you put together.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Let me give you an example. We do a lot of checking people&#8217;s experience and looking at sample flow. We had a lady whose close friend&#8217;s son had passed away, and she wanted to create a GoFundMe for her. She was so emotionally affected that, in the interaction, she was struggling to string together coherent sentences and was just talking about how stressed she was. And the coach could interact with her to take the substance of what she was trying to say in this very difficult time, put it together, and explain what she felt about her friend, about the son, what he&#8217;d been about, what they were trying to do; it was this very particular difficult situation. And she was able, with the assistance of the coach, to create that. That&#8217;s what we&#8217;re talking about.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For a GoFundMe to work, it has to be you. It has to be your situation because most people that you fundraise from are your friends and family. Over 80 percent of the donors are people who know you, first-degree connections. And then yes, there are friends of friends and so on. So people know that GoFundMe is a coherent point for that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So the coach is helping people get through these steps. Another example would be picking the goal. Most people haven&#8217;t ever fundraised before. Do I pick a big number, a little number? Do I start low? Does it grow over time? So those are the kinds of choices. And then you get to manage, which is the part that you&#8217;re asking about, communications.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A lot of that is like, how do you share? Who do you share with? When do you share? How often? So, for example, we know that the most effective way is to reach out to people one-on-one. Text them or WhatsApp them. One-on-one, not groups, because it&#8217;s easier to sort of go quiet in the group. Much harder not to engage. If you text me, “Tim, I was inspired. I set up the GoFundMe that I was talking about.” You’re texting me directly, and I&#8217;m going to say, “Okay.” Whereas if you text a group, it&#8217;s like, “Ah, someone else will do that.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But that coaching will create prompts based on your fundraiser: “Here&#8217;s a quick little snippet. Here&#8217;s the URL that&#8217;s done for you.” You can modify it and send it to your 10 best friends first, get momentum, and then start reaching out and then start posting on social media.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So the model we have now is sort of a daily plan. It&#8217;s a program: “Okay. It&#8217;s day one. Here&#8217;s what you do. Find 10 people, get it going, get momentum. Day two, you got three donations. Great. Follow it with the other seven. Do this, do this, do this, and we&#8217;ll do pieces for you.” And then our comms is a sort of umbrella on top of that. But the most important thing is to empower and enable the thousands of people starting every day to have a successful fundraiser.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I want to ask the other </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>question here because I think it&#8217;s going to flow into everything else. You have a lot of decisions to make. Those decisions can go in a lot of different directions with a platform like this. How do you make decisions? What&#8217;s your framework?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I love the fact that you used the word framework because there are two really important things that I focus on. The first is that before we make a decision, we try to frame the decision. This is so critical because what we&#8217;re trying to do — what any of the tech companies you&#8217;re talking to are trying to do — is create a future that doesn&#8217;t exist, by definition.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think a lot of them are just trying to make money, but I&#8217;ll grant you that. Fair enough.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In our case, we&#8217;re trying to help people do something that is ancient, but do it in a new way and have more people do it. And that doesn&#8217;t exist right now. So that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m trying to do.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you&#8217;re trying to innovate and create something new, the questions from the future are murky. It isn&#8217;t like in business school where you can say, “Hey, there was this challenge.” You have to think very carefully to distill what the question is. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For example, should we deploy a more sophisticated recurring giving program on our personal fundraisers? That&#8217;s a clear question with an answer. So part one is to frame the question because what I find is that when we don&#8217;t frame the question, and it&#8217;s sort of like we&#8217;re talking about a topic, you get mushy decision-making because you have a mushy question or no question at all. That&#8217;s one. Two, how do we make decisions? First thing, will this generate more help in the world?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When you say help, does that mean money? I just want to be very clear about that.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes. I focus on help because help is the thing that we&#8217;re doing, and there is so much more around the experience than the money. Yes, we count it by looking at the money. It&#8217;s a simple, easy way, but the implications of that — the emotional and societal consequences — are far bigger.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;ll give you an example. I went to Liverpool in the UK because they were the most generous city in the UK. About two years ago, there were a bunch of riots in reaction to a murder, and there were riots around immigration, and so on. A bunch of things in Liverpool were destroyed. One was a local library called Spellow Lane, and it was ransacked, burned, severely damaged, and left unusable. A local woman, a local mom, named Alex McCormick <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/books-for-spellow-lane">set up a fundraiser</a>: “I just want to do something. I want to raise £500.”&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Well, it took off; she <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/aug/06/liverpool-library-torched-by-far-right-rioters-raises-repair-funds-spellow-hub">raised £250,000</a>. The local council got that library rebuilt in less than a year. I went and met the mayor, met Alex, and went to see that. I met the community full of books, full of kids, and people using the workstations to get jobs because it&#8217;s a dual-purpose place. Yeah, you could say that was about the £250,000, but it&#8217;s not. It&#8217;s about a lot more than that. It&#8217;s about the community saying, “No, this is not right. We&#8217;re going to do something.” It&#8217;s about the country coming together. You have Matt Hay, the author, and the queen donating books. It&#8217;s just a lot bigger.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But yes, we count through the [gross donation volume], but that&#8217;s why I focus on help. So will it generate more help? That&#8217;s number one. And then pulling in the right people to pressure-test the logic of, okay, how are we going to go about it? But that is the essence. Frame the key questions, make the decisions, and keep the eye on the singular objective that we exist to do.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We have no other businesses. We don&#8217;t do advertising. We don&#8217;t sell data. We don&#8217;t do any of those other things. We exist to help individuals organize and mobilize more support for what they need.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What strikes me about your answer is that there&#8217;s a very important values component to what you&#8217;re describing here.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>If the target is just money, there are a lot of ways for you to make more money. You could do algorithmic discovery on the GoFundMe platform, and you would probably generate more money because you would have the most heartwarming pictures of puppy shelters possible right on the front page, but that&#8217;s not there. There&#8217;s very little of that going on.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;re saying that the fundraisers are on their own and you&#8217;re going to help them raise money. There are many, many other things you could do to make money. You&#8217;re also saying that your values, the company&#8217;s values inside of decisions, prevent you from doing those things.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I just want to push on this a little bit more, and then I want to bring it more practically to some of the areas that you raise a lot of money in. Are the values enough to keep you from the pressures of having to make money? Because that seems like where most businesses are failing, at least in America in 2026. There are things they said they wouldn&#8217;t do. I&#8217;ll point to the AI companies. They all said they wouldn&#8217;t do military and defense work, and the money showed up, and now they&#8217;re all doing military and defense work.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Are the values at GoFundMe so enshrined, so inbuilt, that they will prevent you from saying, actually, the dollar should be the target? Because when I talk to our audience about your platform, that&#8217;s the thing they worry about the most.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Well, so far it&#8217;s worked. We only focus on help, which we count through a measure called GDV, which is gross donation volume. That is the amount of money that people are giving to one another and to organizations. And that is the thing. We talk about it every meeting, at every company meeting. We tell stories like the ones I&#8217;ve just shared with you about how that is.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;ve been here six and a half years; we haven&#8217;t gotten into other areas. The thing we have added is that we bought a company that did fundraising for nonprofits because we said, &#8220;Hey, look, we&#8217;re doing well at helping individuals, and we want to continue to grow that, but we know that a lot of the consumers that are giving to our individual fundraiser are also helping nonprofits.&#8221; So that seems like a natural extension. But every opportunity we think about is like, how do we do more of this?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the things I love about being here is that singularity of purpose and clarity. I&#8217;ve never felt pulled into a different direction because this is why we are here. This is it. This is the whole point of this organization. There are a lot of other organizations doing a lot of other things, but we are, I think, put on this world to do this one thing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Let&#8217;s put this into practice. I want to start with healthcare because I think GoFundMe&#8217;s relationship to the healthcare system in America is fascinating. As you have said, you operate in many different countries with many different versions of healthcare systems.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When I say many different versions of healthcare systems, what I specifically mean is that they almost all have nationalized healthcare. The United States is a particular outlier in not having that. Maybe that&#8217;s going to change, maybe it won&#8217;t, but that is the state of affairs in America today. In 2024, GoFundMe </strong><a href="https://kffhealthnews.org/health-care-costs/gofundme-health-care-funding-hospitals-surprise-bills/"><strong>said</strong></a><strong> medical expenses are the most common fundraising category. Is that still true today?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It raises the largest amount. Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s interesting and may surprise you. It&#8217;s actually the number one category in terms of fundraising dollars in every country we operate in. I mean, obviously I&#8217;m British originally. I&#8217;m familiar with that system. There are a lot of different systems, hybrids, and so on, but it&#8217;s actually number one everywhere.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So, why is that? There are a couple of reasons. One, when a significant medical issue occurs, we face our mortality. When we&#8217;re facing our mortality or that of a loved one, whether that be a friend or a relative, that&#8217;s the biggest thing. That is the moment when, more than any other moment, people want to support and show their love for someone more than anything else. And when you think about it that way, maybe that&#8217;s not surprising. The second thing is that there is no medical system on earth that takes care of everything.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Now, even though there are systems in other countries that take care of the medical costs, none of those systems take care of all of the different things that happen when someone is dealing with a major health issue. I’ll give you an example. When a parent has to go for cancer treatment, they have to travel. They can no longer work. They may be looking after their kids or looking after their older parents, and they may no longer be able to do that.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So there are a lot of other expenses that come along with a health situation, and those are the moments when folks want to pitch in. And so quite often it will be a friend or relative who does the fundraiser. I&#8217;m looking to help to make sure all these other things are taken care of. Because they are hugely consequential moments in our lives. I say our lives; it is true for all of us. We are human. We are mortal. All of us will go through this cycle at one point or another. And it&#8217;s the moment when people most want to help.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The third thing is when your aunt or your best friend is going through something in a health-related area; there&#8217;s actually not much we can do. We&#8217;re not doctors. We&#8217;re not cancer researchers. And we feel a bit helpless. What can I do? How often do you hear that? Or do you say that when you see that happening and say, “Well, how can I help?” This is a way that you can help. You can set up a fundraiser, or you can give to a fundraiser. You can mobilize; you can follow up. It builds community.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Can I give you another example? I know I&#8217;m telling you, but I just want to make it real because it&#8217;s very, very real. I recently got to know a young girl named Harlow who&#8217;s about five years old — she might just have turned six — and her mom, Daphne. Harlow has a very, very rare genetic disease. Her parents figured out how to get treatment through an amazing foundation based in San Diego called the n-Lorem Foundation.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That foundation would cover the medical treatment, but that medical treatment had to be done at a hospital. There were a lot of administrative costs related to the hospital, and those weren&#8217;t covered. It&#8217;s about $120,000. They also lived in a different state. So Daphne, who&#8217;s Harlow&#8217;s mom, set up a fundraiser with a lot of hesitation. It actually worked amazingly well. In four days, they raised the funds they needed, and a whole community of people, including her Peloton moms group, made it happen.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I got to meet Harlow in June. She came to one of our company events, actually one of our hackathons. She&#8217;s doing so much better, and she&#8217;s got a little stroller, and was zooming around the stage, and I was trying to make sure she wouldn&#8217;t fall off the edge. But for people with, for example, ultra-rare or nano-rare diseases, a GoFundMe can be a really important part of supplementing what is already happening, and it&#8217;s life-changing. Absolutely.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Harlow has received a unique gene therapy, and it is helping, and it&#8217;s life-changing for her and her family. And so I could tell you many, many stories like that. But I think overall, because we&#8217;re human, those moments matter more than anything else. No system is perfect, and we can supplement that. It gives people a way to come together that is different from an institution supporting you. An institution can do a lot. The NHS can do a lot. Medicare in Australia can do a lot, but it&#8217;s not coming with love, right?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is very interesting. I&#8217;m very curious about that aspect of it. “It&#8217;s not coming with love” is fascinating to me. Maybe it&#8217;s because I&#8217;m American and I exist in this cultural context and have mostly existed in this cultural context, and you have a much broader context. But I would say, broadly, Americans do not trust the government.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It feels like a thing I can say. It&#8217;s a claim I can make, and you can disagree about how much we should trust the government or not. But I think, broadly, in 2026, trust in our government is very low. And even if you could provide a great healthcare service, Medicare for All, whatever form that takes, you&#8217;re saying there&#8217;s something else the government cannot provide for you.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>At the same time, I&#8217;m just listening to what you&#8217;re describing in these individual stories that are very powerful, and I&#8217;m thinking about them in the abstract. In the abstract, all we&#8217;re doing is redistributing money. The Peloton moms group has some capital that they can allocate to this problem, and they&#8217;re going to allocate it to this problem, and that person&#8217;s going to feel great and be taken care of. And that is what our government should be doing.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That is actually the function of all of this: to redistribute resources across the society in some way that makes sense for everyone. Some governments do it well, some governments do it poorly. And somewhere in there is GoFundMe, creating a different redistribution structure and process. It works so well that some people, in aggregate, give you enough money to have 850 people, most of whom work in product.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Something about that in relation to healthcare specifically strikes me, at least, as absurd. And maybe that&#8217;s just the American context where we&#8217;ve gotten it so wrong for so long. I just look at healthcare, and I think about how wealthy the healthcare companies are, how people feel about pharmaceutical profits, and the fact that they can&#8217;t get care. And there are studies saying the vast majority of people who have donated to a crowdfunding campaign in America did it because of healthcare expenses.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a </strong><a href="https://www.washington.edu/news/2022/02/03/for-the-uninsured-crowdfunding-provides-little-help-in-paying-for-health-care-and-deepens-inequities/"><strong>University of Washington study</strong></a><strong> that I&#8217;m looking at here, with over half a million medical expense campaigns, that found that 30 percent of them raised $0. And the more medical debt a state has, the less money the campaigns in those states raise. So it&#8217;s not actually equalized. There&#8217;s actually a great disparity in the average outcome of the medical campaigns.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That is what government spending and tax policy should accomplish — a more equitable policy. I&#8217;m just asking how you feel about GoFundMe&#8217;s role in that. Because as a business that has to make money, any change to that structure, at least in the United States, would have an outsized impact on your business. There&#8217;s some relationship between how broken the United States healthcare system is and your profits. And I can&#8217;t quite bring those together. I&#8217;m wondering how you think about it.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I would love for people to be taken care of more in whatever way works. So I think you&#8217;re making some connections that I agree with. But I think there&#8217;s a dimension here that I&#8217;ll just reiterate, which is that I think you&#8217;re being very rational about it in the sense that the thing I have learned — and I&#8217;ve shared these stories because I&#8217;ve met so many people now who&#8217;ve used GoFundMe to help them in their lives — is how it makes them feel and how it makes the people who contribute feel. Our business and our platform are about emotion.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When we help each other, we do not do it in expectation of return. It&#8217;s not a product or a service. You&#8217;re not buying anything. You are helping because you care and, in many cases, because you love someone else. I think that is intrinsic and permanent. I think it will be valid on top of whatever system we have because I think that is something that a big system can&#8217;t inherently provide. It&#8217;s just different.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So yes, I would love for more people to have more access. And I would also… I&#8217;m very hopeful… My big hope for AI, actually, is that the first thing is medical breakthroughs. That more people like Harlow — and there are a lot of other people dealing with similar situations — have better pathways to earlier identification and cures.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think we have something that can help people come together, support each other, and realize there are stronger communities. I have seen it shifting away from medical. I&#8217;ve seen it in crisis now in my own town. Pretty much everyone I meet has had a GoFundMe. They’ve lost their home. And it&#8217;s not enough to replace your home. You need insurance, and you need support for that. But it was enough to get that first month&#8217;s rent in the place that you had to stay. And God, it made people feel better. Well, we&#8217;re not alone.<br></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m pushing on this because you have brought up the values of the company and your values and your resistance to profit several times now. And so I&#8217;m going to —</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I wouldn&#8217;t say resistance. I think profit is derivative.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sure.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Our job, as I&#8217;ve hopefully made pretty clear, is people help each other. And then if we do that well, they will be more successful, and more people will think I can do that too. That means we&#8217;ll be able to, and hopefully the laws of scale that I mentioned in terms of people contributing to us will continue.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But about the thing you just said — we&#8217;ve interviewed many, many politicians on this show. In some way, what you&#8217;ve just described is what every politician hopes tax policy will do. We&#8217;re going to help more people with better education; they&#8217;re going to make more money, and tax revenue will go up. Whether you think taxes should go up or down to do that, that is the goal. I&#8217;m just wondering if you see the connection. It&#8217;s fascinating.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah. I had not. I mean, I do now that you mentioned it. I&#8217;d never thought of it quite that way. But it&#8217;s just a personal perspective, and people are very different. For me, being able to run the company in a disciplined way such that we can make investments and continue — that&#8217;s an important financial discipline. But the purpose is this big purpose. It&#8217;s the same purpose, and it is consistent. I feel incredibly lucky to be able to work at an organization where I can do CEO-type stuff and work on really interesting tech things, but do it for this purpose.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Let me push on that just one more time, on healthcare, and then I want to talk about platform moderation with you just to wrap this up. I appreciate that you&#8217;re saying the platform is more emotional and I&#8217;m operating in this very abstract, aggregate way. Being rational, as you keep saying.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m looking at a </strong><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268122004218"><strong>study here from a bunch of economists</strong></a><strong> that found that whenever there&#8217;s ACA Medicaid expansion, there&#8217;s a significantly meaningful effect in reducing health-related GoFundMe campaigns. So if a state expands Medicaid, the number of GoFundMe campaigns in the state goes down.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This suggests the demand for crowdfunding campaigns is actually driven by gaps in insurance coverage. And so maybe there&#8217;s the emotional component and all the stuff around you&#8217;ve lost a job, you just need living expenses. But there&#8217;s also just a statistically meaningful connection to healthcare costs on their face. This, again, suggests to me that if there is more Medicaid expansion, you will have some impact on your revenue.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is that a problem? Is that something you think about? Do you lobby against it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How do you approach that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, we definitely don&#8217;t lobby against that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;ve had people on this show lobby against things that would harm their business; that&#8217;s why I wanted to ask.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If that&#8217;s going to help people, that is great. We think there are a lot of ways that people want to help each other. And we are constantly focused on helping people become aware of all the different things that you can use GoFundMe for. So no, if that&#8217;s the case and people are getting more care and they&#8217;re… well, that&#8217;s awesome.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Again, the thing that I&#8217;m pushing on here, as you&#8217;ve described, even in your decision-making process, is a value-based approach that another CEO might say, &#8220;Actually, I need to lobby against tax reform,&#8221; which is a real thing that has happened on the show. It’s a real conversation I&#8217;ve had before.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;re saying somewhere embedded in the company is something that will prevent you from maximizing profit. Not making profit, but maximizing profit.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And it obviously seems like that&#8217;s very important to you. Is there pressure to change that? Because that&#8217;s the one that I look at. Where, okay, ACA expansion would reduce the biggest bucket of dollars that comes through the platform. A more craven capitalist would take a hard look at that in a different way.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No. I mean, I&#8217;ll give you a different example from during COVID: rent. There were some government programs to support people with rent, and we tried to make people aware — those who were using our [platform] — that they could avail themselves of these services. Because a lot of times with programs that are there, folks just don&#8217;t know that they&#8217;re eligible for them, or may not know how to access them. So we have tried to tell people that other programs are available.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Similarly, we will sometimes work with some of our nonprofits who are providing services, with a lot of them being medical nonprofits, homelessness-focused, or food insecurity, and so on. And so we&#8217;ll work with them. There are services that are available to you if you have these needs, because we want to make sure that we can direct people to those services if they&#8217;re available.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This brings me, I think, to platform moderation. GoFundMe is a platform. Every platform CEO has to make big moderation decisions. You mentioned you have a sizable trust and safety team. If the theme of this conversation is, what are the things you won&#8217;t do? There&#8217;s actually a long list of things GoFundMe won&#8217;t let you raise money for. Tell me about that list: what&#8217;s on it, what&#8217;s off it, and how you make those decisions.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So we have a set of terms of service, which it sounds like you checked them out. They&#8217;re actually readable. We put a lot of work into writing them in English that anyone can read. And they&#8217;re pretty practical. There&#8217;s a bunch of things, frankly, most of them are illegal, that if you do a fundraiser for, you want to spend it on drugs or guns, you can&#8217;t do that. A lot of these also are a representation of our payment processor’s terms as well, so those are reflected there.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We think they&#8217;re a common-sense set of guardrails, which is, &#8220;Hey, we fundraise for everybody. We want anybody to be able to come here, fundraise for help for themselves, a friend, or an organization. And here are some simple, we think they&#8217;re very pragmatic, guardrails.&#8221; They&#8217;re like, &#8220;Hey, just stay within the guardrails. You&#8217;re good to go.&#8221; That&#8217;s it. Now, those have served us really well. And fortunately, I don&#8217;t really get very involved in decisions around that because they&#8217;re clear, the team&#8217;s well set up, and off we go.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Clear in the context of content moderation is simple for the CEO to say. And I would suspect if you go ask your trust and safety team, it&#8217;s much more complicated.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s why they&#8217;re the great professionals they are.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You have a rule against funding defenses of people who are alleged to commit violent crimes.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes. We don&#8217;t allow fundraising for the legal defense of violent and financial crimes. So murder, fraud, a list of a bunch of nasty things. Yes, we decided that no, we&#8217;re not going to play in that particular area for the betterment of the community.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And that&#8217;s a values-based decision, right? That&#8217;s just GoFundMe&#8217;s decision.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is GoFundMe&#8217;s decision, yes. And just to be clear, it doesn&#8217;t reflect on the innocence or guilt of people in those situations. It&#8217;s just like, &#8220;Hey, look, that gets very complicated. It&#8217;s just better for us to… For fundraising purposes on GoFundMe, it doesn&#8217;t make sense for us.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Right next to that, there has been ongoing controversy since 2023 — </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong> has covered it — around the freezing of payments and an </strong><a href="http://u"><strong>alleged disproportionate rejection of fundraisers</strong></a><strong> for humanitarian causes in Gaza, in Palestine. Again, we&#8217;ve covered that these things have just gotten frozen, and that people are complaining about it. Is that a values-based decision at GoFundMe? Is that something else?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Not at all. I mean, it&#8217;s just trying to find the right line in terms of the policy. So we, through individual fundraising and fundraising for nonprofits, have enabled over half a billion dollars of support to go into the Israel-Gaza conflict, which is a very large amount of help.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But we are also working, and again, I want to stress this, we work together with the payment processors to make sure that we&#8217;re adhering to national and international regulations and laws. And in some cases, some of those fundraisers didn&#8217;t meet the criteria to allow them to proceed, and that is a shame, but we have to adhere to them. It&#8217;s the right thing to do to adhere to those, but in no way does it reflect a policy of we don&#8217;t want to enable people to help. It just has to be legitimate.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So, of course, what you hear is people bringing it up when things were frozen. You don&#8217;t hear from all of the stuff that is actually happening. But they&#8217;re important decisions; they have to be made. We have to do that in a way that upholds our commitments, keeps the platform safe and secure, and follows laws and regulations. So that&#8217;s the case.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the themes that comes up in every conversation I have with a platform CEO when it comes to trust and safety is the payment processor. In some cases, the payment processors are a much more shadowy figure in the scheme of content moderation. In your case, you&#8217;re talking with them quite openly. You&#8217;re saying, &#8220;Well, we accept a lot of payments. We move a lot of money. Their rules are important.&#8221; What is that dynamic like? Do you push back on their rules?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We work with Adyen, Stripe, and PayPal Giving Fund. And actually, all funds to personal fundraisers go through our payment processors. We never actually touch the money. And that&#8217;s important because it creates another layer of checks and balances.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you think about a fundraising journey, we do a bunch of steps to validate that the fundraiser is legitimate. We&#8217;re doing risk assessment of donations coming in, and then when the time comes for someone to verify that they are the beneficiary — and that can often be someone different than the person who&#8217;s fundraising — they go through the [know your customer] process. I talked about it in the context of small businesses during COVID, in the first part of the interview.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They have to be verified. And then the processor can unlock funds and begin to disperse those funds. So they&#8217;re an important part of our infrastructure and the design of the system to ensure that it&#8217;s as safe and secure as possible.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a pattern that plays out with every platform that has tight moderation rules — another platform shows up with looser moderation rules. Twitch bans a streamer; they go to Kick, YouTube, or Rumble. With GoFundMe, it&#8217;s other platforms. There&#8217;s GiveSendGo, and they </strong><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/christian-crowdfunding-givesendgo-white-power-problem-1234809799/"><strong>will allow all the things you don&#8217;t allow</strong></a><strong>.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>In the context of, well, this has become infrastructure, and there are things you won&#8217;t do. And then you have competitors who will do all kinds of things. Do you think about the dynamic, or does the payment processor set a floor and you&#8217;re just interpreting based on your values?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No. I mean, there are terms of service. We&#8217;re obviously looking at what makes sense in the world of money movement, but they are ours, and we take full ownership of those. And we&#8217;re head and shoulders ahead of where anyone else is.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We tend to have smaller companies that offer a service a bit like ours in every country we operate in. But we focus on what the right thing is for legitimate customers. And how do we craft a coherent, sensible, easy-to-understand set of rules that are rules of the road for everybody? And we go from there.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Every platform, including yours, is now caught in the dynamic of wanting to help regular people make better things with AI, with an AI coach that helps you get through the process of starting a fundraiser, marketing it, and then being flooded with enormous amounts of slop.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>In your case, the enormous amounts of AI slop might be scams. It might be people trying to raise money through fake fundraisers or fake people. How do you balance that? Because that seems like the hardest problem for every kind of platform to solve right now.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I would say we have not seen that as much as maybe some other platforms, because the process of setting up a fundraiser has to be so authentic. It doesn&#8217;t work. So people call it crowdfunding. I don&#8217;t like that term because a crowd implies a large group of strangers. It wouldn&#8217;t work as well, but it&#8217;s more like friends and family fundraising.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Fundraisers that don&#8217;t resonate with your network, your community, or your friends and family don&#8217;t work. It&#8217;s very hard to get a fundraiser to go viral unless it has some initial momentum. And that initial momentum comes from the people who know you, know your situation, want to help, and create that. So maybe it&#8217;s just a bit of a different dynamic.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Are you on guard against it? Are you seeing it pop up?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oh yeah, we&#8217;re absolutely on guard against it. But in terms of massive spikes in fundraiser starts, we haven&#8217;t seen crazy spikes like that. We are very much on guard against that. We are certainly using AI in our tooling to help our folks make the right judgments and so on. So we&#8217;re doing those things.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Not to continue to just be ruthlessly rational about your platform, but if I look at it, and if you have more fundraisers, that will lead to more outcomes. You got in a little bit of trouble recently on the nonprofit side.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You set up pages for nonprofits that had not signed up for GoFundMe. A bunch of state attorneys general had accused you of plagiarizing the charity pages and setting up nonprofits. </strong><a href="https://abc7news.com/post/gofundme-apologizes-creating-donation-pages-nonprofits-consent-vows-make-changes/18082313/"><strong>You apologized</strong></a><strong>; you took them down. There&#8217;s a </strong><a href="https://www.centraloregondaily.com/news/regional/bend-nonprofit-gofundme-lawsuit-oregon/article_4be0b0db-6928-44b0-a40d-beaae64259de.html"><strong>class action lawsuit</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That, to me, looks like we need to increase the number of inputs. Yelp ran into the same thing. If you&#8217;re going to be the platform for all charitable giving, you need to have all the charities. For Yelp, it was: you need to have all the businesses. We&#8217;re just going to set up the listings and go. What led to that decision?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So it&#8217;s a classic: you have your overarching principle, which is, hey, we want to mobilize more help in the world. Our thought process was that we have more than a hundred million people coming to GoFundMe a month. Many of them are helping something directly.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But we also know that a lot of those people are interested in supporting local and national charities. So why don&#8217;t we make it a little bit easier for them to find those organizations? Because we know those organizations want more supporters and are trying to work through an increasingly fragmented digital environment. We&#8217;re a place that people are coming to help. Wouldn&#8217;t it be great to just give more people that opportunity?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Now, classic tech company thing, we moved a little bit too quickly. We didn&#8217;t think carefully enough about how to bring people into that and give them control. And we got that reaction, and we&#8217;re like, you know what? You&#8217;re right. We did go too quickly. We made a couple of mistakes. We are sorry for that. That&#8217;s not our intent. Our intent is to get more people supporting your organizations. But let&#8217;s take a beat, change our approach — which we have — and lean into that, because if you don&#8217;t like it, it&#8217;s not working.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I just want to connect that to the AI piece. I understand there&#8217;s a lawsuit there, and that&#8217;s probably all I can get out of you on that one. But let me connect that to the AI piece.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It’s a classic tech company move: “We see demand.” What you&#8217;re describing is that GoFundMe is an aggregator. You have the demand, the same way that Google has demand or Instagram has demand.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We have a lot of people coming who want to help.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>People who want to help, and then you can redistribute the demand. That&#8217;s an aggregator move. The response on the other platforms has been, “Oh, we&#8217;re going to put more stuff here. I&#8217;m going to use AI, and I&#8217;m going to make 500 YouTube videos a day to try to capture pieces of that demand.”</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You can see it happening on the web and Google Search in a thousand different ways. You can also see it happening on Instagram. I know people who have fully automated their Instagram accounts to post hundreds of reels a day using Claude and MCP connectors. Why hasn&#8217;t that happened to you if you&#8217;re the aggregator of demand?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So if you&#8217;re talking about nonprofits, well, we have-</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Well, the connection I&#8217;m making more specifically is that you saw the demand to give to nonprofits and, in a very manual way, you set up a bunch of pages for them. And maybe that was the right thing or the wrong thing to do, and that will come to whatever regulatory conclusion it&#8217;s going to come to. But that was the response: to see the demand and then do something about it.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>On every other platform, AI has stepped into the middle of that cycle, and the response is, &#8220;Oh, we&#8217;re going to overfill the demand because the cost of production is so low.&#8221; I can just say, &#8220;Go make five million YouTube clips of this episode and just fire them into the algorithm all day and all night and let&#8217;s see what happens.&#8221; You can just see it happening all over the place on all of those platforms.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Here you have demand. If I were an unscrupulous actor, I would say, “Boy, there&#8217;s a bunch of demand for people who want to give help and give money on that platform. I will use AI to go get it, in whatever way that occurs. I&#8217;m going to go get literal money, not clicks, but actual money. I&#8217;m going to find a way to get it.”</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What is keeping that happening right now? You&#8217;re saying it&#8217;s not happening. And what might prevent it from happening? Because that strikes me as a pretty huge risk.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think probably the reason that that&#8217;s maybe not happening is that when you give, you have to have an emotional connection. That comes from some sense of relationship. Either a relationship with a person who&#8217;s fundraising or a relationship with a cause or an organization that resonates with you.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That really can&#8217;t be manufactured. People feel it, and it has to be real, and it&#8217;s fundamentally human. And I just think it&#8217;s a lot harder to maybe try and synthesize that versus just having it stay real. So that&#8217;s the way we use AI for the folks who are fundraising, who are asking for help, is to assist them in telling their story, their way to their people. And it just has to be completely real and genuine for it to work.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m curious how that goes over time. I&#8217;m reliably told that AI can be your girlfriend. So we&#8217;re going to find out. Again, we&#8217;ve had CEOs on the show tell me that you can marry an AI. That emotional connection is coming in one way or another. We&#8217;ll see how it goes. Thank you so much for all this time.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;ll just leave you with this. The more powerful the technology, the more significant and unknown the implications. So I&#8217;m sure some of those guys are right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That is a big question. I don&#8217;t think we have nearly enough time to dive into it. Tim, thank you so much. What&#8217;s next for GoFundMe? What should people be looking for?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We are focused very heavily on evolving the coach. Just to give you a sense, very quickly, it&#8217;s helped people be more successful. We thought it would help raise about $125 million more this year, but it&#8217;s on track to double that to a quarter of a billion, so that&#8217;s a lot more help.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s making people feel better. Two-thirds of the folks who are using it feel less stressed, more confident, and critically less alone. So from a consumer point of view, we are leaning very heavily into that. And we hope over time to be able to show more people that we will help them take the brave step, ask for help, and unlock the support that will come out. So that&#8217;s a big focus for us.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;ll have to have you back soon to see how all of these things go. Tim, thank you so much. This has been great.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I would love to. Great conversation. Good, really searching questions. Thank you for that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Welcome to the AI crisis in math]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/982434/ai-math-openai-astra-existential-crisis" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=982434</id>
			<updated>2026-08-20T14:32:18-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-08-20T10:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="OpenAI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today on Decoder, I’m talking with Robert Hart, The Verge’s London-based AI reporter, about what AI is doing to the field of mathematics and the existential crisis many lead mathematicians are having about it. OpenAI just published a set of solutions to longstanding problems in math that went off like a bombshell in the field. [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/08/DCD_082026_Site.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today on <em>Decoder</em>, I’m talking with Robert Hart, <em>The Verge</em>’s London-based AI reporter, about what AI is doing to the field of mathematics and the existential crisis many lead mathematicians are having about it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI just <a href="https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/">published</a> a set of solutions to longstanding problems in math that went off like a bombshell in the field. It caused a huge debate in the math community, and Rob spent some time <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/977273/the-ai-takeover-of-mathematics-has-begun">talking to some of the most accomplished mathematicians</a> of our time about it.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s funny that AI systems are all still pretty bad at elementary school arithmetic, but getting increasingly good at very high-end abstract math. That raises some big questions for the field of advanced math.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If AI can do math of this caliber, does that mean AI labs can transfer those skills to other domains? What good are academic grants and university programs training new generations of human mathematicians to identify new problems as they try to solve existing ones, if frontier models simply answer all the outstanding questions?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What if all this attention around math is just a big marketing exercise for frontier AI labs, which couldn&#8217;t care less what happens to one of the oldest and most fundamental academic disciplines there is?&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There’s a lot here, and Robert has talked to a lot of people with a lot of views on all of it.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: <em>Verge</em> AI reporter Robert Hart on what AI is doing to math. Here we go.</p>

<iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP8302427769" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.&nbsp;</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Robert Hart, you&#8217;re our London-based AI reporter here at </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong>. Welcome to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thank you for having me.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I am very excited to talk to you. There&#8217;s a lot going on in particular with AI and math that </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/977273/the-ai-takeover-of-mathematics-has-begun"><strong>you recently dove into</strong></a><strong>. You spoke to a lot of leading mathematicians about the crisis in mathematics due to AI.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It feels like a lot, and also like there&#8217;s a lot yet to know and discover about the interaction of these two things. A full existential crisis, which is pure </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> bait. Broadly tell us what&#8217;s going on.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think “a lot” sums it up quite well. Basically a bit of an existential crisis within, “what is mathematics? What are mathematicians doing, and what is the role of mathematicians going forward?”&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A lot of that has been spurred by a phrase transition in what AI is capable of that has exploded in the last six months to a year. AI went from being very terrible to seemingly genuinely quite good at a professional level in a very short space of time. It&#8217;s a lot of what these other fields have been struggling to deal with for the last five years in a very compressed period of time.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I would put that next to software engineering. We&#8217;ve been living through the AI crisis in software engineering for some amount of time. But as recently as 2024, even last year, the conventional wisdom was that AI models were particularly bad at math. The famous example is that these models </strong><a href="https://medium.com/@JerryCuomo/why-ai-gets-the-strawberry-question-wrong-eba66c7dedd2"><strong>could not count the number of R’s in the word strawberry</strong></a><strong>. Even just counting eluded them.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What has happened to make them better at math? Are they still bad at general arithmetic and they&#8217;re good at advanced math, or is it something in between?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They are still truly, truly terrible at some areas of math. I did check, they can do strawberries now. I think someone&#8217;s tweaked it.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think strawberry&#8217;s hard-coded. I want to be very clear, my conspiracy theory is that the strawberry thing is hard-coded into all the models.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think so too. That is a conspiracy I&#8217;ll buy into.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But yeah, it&#8217;s still terrible at those kinds of things — math, arithmetic, even the days of the week. My boyfriend was saying the other day, &#8220;It keeps thinking it&#8217;s Wednesday. It&#8217;s not Wednesday.&#8221; Or time. Elissa Welle for us a few months ago wrote that <a href="https://www.theverge.com/report/829137/openai-chatgpt-time-date">ChatGPT can&#8217;t tell time</a>. Still can&#8217;t. That&#8217;s not all of math.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So there&#8217;s this disconnect. To be good at math, you&#8217;ve got to be good at counting, or adding, or multiplying. A lot of it is actually reasoning. If you look at academic math papers, a lot of the time you won&#8217;t see numbers, which sums that one up, I think. So they&#8217;re still terrible, but they&#8217;re now also very good at this other part.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As to why, at some point you reach a critical mass of what these systems can do. We saw it with writing, we&#8217;ve seen it with programming. They&#8217;re very good at forging connections between different areas, applying old methods in new ways, those kinds of things. It appears that the newer models they&#8217;re training have apparently reached that level where it clicks, and now it can do math.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s important to say as well that we speak of math as a unitary discipline, especially from the outside. But imagine, say, biology. You&#8217;ve got something that would range from literally watching animals and describing behavior all the way through to cellular mechanisms and biochemistry. Math is not a unitary discipline either. AI is really good at some bits. Some bits like counting, it’s still really bad at.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Even on the more abstract levels, mathematicians have floated topology as one area that AI apparently still quite bad at. I can&#8217;t verify that, to be honest. It&#8217;s beyond my area of expertise. Still, it&#8217;s a bit of a mixed bag.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So you’ve described mathematics as a huge field, obviously, with many, many academic areas of interest. There are some parts where the models have gotten quite good. There are other parts, maybe the basic parts that people think of as math, which is simply counting, where they&#8217;re still struggling, and then there&#8217;s a wide range in the middle.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is it the wide range in the middle where the existential crisis is, people don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s going to happen? Or is it at the parts where it&#8217;s really good?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A bit of both, which I feel is going to be a running theme through this. No one&#8217;s really afraid of it being a mediocre mathematician, but obviously there&#8217;s a huge element of what this field does. In terms of the research elements or the cutting edge, as we see with a lot of the results that generate hype, what can it do? There are areas now where it seems to be producing work that is on par with good mathematicians, alongside other parts where yeah, it can&#8217;t count.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">All caught up in that is whether it&#8217;s going to rewrite employment structures or funding structures. You also raised the murky question of, what is mathematical knowledge? And the roles that these workers will be doing as well. It&#8217;s all of that wrapped into one.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think that tracks broadly with the rise of AI in every field. Where you can just add horsepower or compute to a problem, and there&#8217;s some kind of verifiability, it seems like the models continue to get better. Everything in the middle where you might need some world knowledge or the models might need some actual intelligence about the world itself, they seem to struggle.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Those parts of math, at least reported out in your piece and what the labs are talking about, seem to be almost entirely self-contained theoretical problems. That’s where the models can generate a proof or solve a problem that no one&#8217;s been able to solve, and then try to verify that that has existed and they can just run it again and again and again.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That brings us, I think, to May of this year where an internal OpenAI model, which we have not really seen, disproved the unit distance conjecture, which is an 80-year-old problem. And then just recently we heard about Astra from OpenAI. Astra is the one where it seemed like the switch flipped, and everyone decided it was an existential crisis.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What did Astra achieve, and why is it a big deal?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m also pretty sure that Astra was probably behind the early one as well. OpenAI just listed it as an unnamed internal model. It&#8217;s probably Astra. They didn&#8217;t answer me when I asked.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">OpenAI a few weeks ago <a href="https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/">dropped a blog</a> along with a lot of paperwork proving it, I think several hundred pages. They called it “10 Advances in Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science.” It was basically an array of disciplines that they claimed the newest model Astra had solved in some capacity. I think one was in quantum game theory, which I don&#8217;t know how to begin to explain. Even harder to explain is there was sphere packing in higher dimensions, so more than three dimensions, and there were a lot of other different disciplines as well.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It caused a lot of stir in the community. It was a bit of a bombshell. As we&#8217;d said, there&#8217;d been these individual breakthroughs that had happened, but OpenAI dropped 10 in one go, and they were quite big ones. Researchers had told me that if a human had solved these, we would be impressed. If a human had solved all 10, we probably wouldn&#8217;t believe it.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;re problems mathematicians actually care about as well, which is an important point. A lot of previous breakthroughs have been accused of being in areas mathematicians didn&#8217;t really bother with. These are ones that mathematicians, good mathematicians, have spent a lot of time trying to solve and hadn&#8217;t.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Let&#8217;s talk about these 10. You reported them out. OpenAI did produce some documentation. But they&#8217;re not all entirely horsepowered out of nothing, right?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They&#8217;re based on previous work. There&#8217;s some question of attribution. What was the response? Is it, “Oh, the models did this?” Or was it the response we see to so much AI work, which basically boils down to, &#8220;Well you stole this and didn&#8217;t attribute anyone, and you&#8217;ve built on the shoulders of giants without mentioning it.&#8221; How did the response land?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">By and large, the reaction was generally one of being quite impressed, from the people I spoke to. As I said, these are problems mathematicians care about. There was one that drew particular attention for how they credited it and also how they&#8217;d announced all of this in their blog post. OpenAI initially had said that these are 10 problems, and there had been no progress in the last 10 years. And then if you actually read the papers, one of them quite clearly says, &#8220;Oh, we build on progress from these two researchers.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So that was later changed quite quietly. But a few of the researchers I spoke to were quite unimpressed, and they did feel it was an element of, “Well, yeah, you&#8217;ve not credited something that you&#8217;ve used heavily here, and by your own acknowledgement.” That said, one of the researchers I did speak to who was one of the ones named, and who was a bit ambivalent on the whole thing as well, so it was a real mixed bag.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The general impression was that it was quite impressive. These were actual breakthroughs that bothered people, and it did move the field forward in a way that, if a human mathematician had done these, several researchers actually said that, &#8220;Well, if a researcher had done any one of these problems, they&#8217;d probably be set for an academic career.&#8221;&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s funny, credit and attribution in academia is the whole game. And it seems like the AI companies get away with being sloppy in a way that no human would be able to get away with being sloppy.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Did the scale of the discovery or the work overcome the sloppiness? If a human had accomplished the same goals and had been as sloppy, would the reaction be the same?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Part of me always wants to lean on the whole, &#8220;Oh, it looks like plagiarism,&#8221; element. But if you actually read the papers they produced — and one of the researchers I spoke to said there&#8217;s probably about 50 people in the world who are going to bother reading through this in depth — it is very clear. It doesn&#8217;t attempt to plagiarize. I think it was just a poor press release, to be honest.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And as much as I love to go in on it sometimes, having covered science for a decade-plus, I find the press releases are often overselling what discovery has actually been made and the import of it and the novelty of it. I think that&#8217;s just another case of what happened here.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Does this seem repeatable? There&#8217;s some proof that they provided that they solved 10 problems that were unsolvable. Do they provide any proof that they can solve another 10?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s the question. So the big unknown from the near-dozen people I spoke to for this was, &#8220;Well how many did they try to get these 10?&#8221; Who knows? They know, but they won&#8217;t say.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But that is the big question here. It&#8217;s unclear quite how many attempts it took to get these 10. I would be very impressed if it was the first thing they went after, and then out come these 10 impressive results.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s unclear what areas they would focus on next and why. There are, I imagine, business reasons behind which problems they are choosing to publicize that their models can do. All the AI labs have been hiring a cohort of senior mathematicians behind the scenes, so it&#8217;s anyone&#8217;s guess as to whether they do it again.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the question of proof, math is a bit of an odd discipline in that repeatability is not the same as in the experimental sciences. A proof is a proof, and if it works, it works. The problem here is, well, can people follow through what they&#8217;ve done? Each field is quite highly specialized, so there&#8217;ll be individual mathematicians who are in those fields that go through the work. Those I spoke to that worked in some of the fields that were covered here say it all looks very legit.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In math, there&#8217;s a programming and computational proving language called Lean, where you can basically codify the mathematical proofs and run them through and it, well, proves it. I keep saying prove a lot here. But it will test the rigor and the assumptions of everything going on there, and they&#8217;ve published that as well. So it does appear to hold. Whilst they may say that the press release has a lot of hype or there&#8217;s a lot of hype around it, no one I&#8217;ve spoken to seems to be doubting the essential breakthroughs that they&#8217;re claiming here.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I want to stay on this subject for one more second. There&#8217;s the mathematical proof. We&#8217;ve generated a proof, and that is, as you say, just repeatable in a way that math is just logic. You can just go through the steps and say, &#8220;This proof worked,&#8221; and anybody listening to this who had to suffer through writing a proof in calculus in high school probably remembers that process. There&#8217;s something there that&#8217;s pure logic.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Then there&#8217;s a part of it that is software code, as you&#8217;re describing in Lean, where you can take the pure logic, you can express it in code, and you can run it to see if it works. I understand how AI is theoretically good at all of that. You&#8217;re just going to run the reasoning, and the reasoning is going to generate some code. You&#8217;re going to run the code, you&#8217;re going to get some verifiability. We&#8217;ve seen this play out in software engineering, where the code runs or not, it&#8217;s verifiable or not, and the models can just reason out about it.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Then there&#8217;s, to me, the big question that you alluded to. How many times do you have to run this? Can we verify that the models did this, and they weren&#8217;t directed by human mathematicians who&#8217;ve been hired at high rates by the labs in a way that suggests the field is going topsy-turvy?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You have a quote here from James Maynard, who has won the Fields Medal, the highest prize in mathematics, who said he&#8217;s been soul-searching. I keep looking at that quote. You&#8217;ve got similar quotes from all these other mathematicians in the piece, and it seems like they&#8217;re soul-searching against a thing that hilariously they cannot verify, which is, &#8220;How did the models do this, and is that thing scalable in a way that threatens mathematics?” What do we know about how the models did this?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;d say as much as we normally do and do not know about this. There are a few issues there. One is the nature of the models. Well, this is an unreleased model, so good luck to anyone wanting to independently test it. The same goes with anything proprietary really. That said, I am inclined to almost give the benefit of the doubt that they&#8217;re not lying in some capacity about the models they&#8217;re using.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As for the other part, it&#8217;s perhaps more noteworthy to ask how did we prompt the model, or how is it being guided? Is that by a mathematician who knows what they&#8217;re doing? That&#8217;s probably a key factor here, according to a lot of mathematicians I&#8217;ve spoken with who’ve tried using these. This is often the consumer models, but still it peaks to a broader landscape.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They say that if you know what you&#8217;re doing and you can point things out, it&#8217;s good. Or you can use it as a tool in a way that you want, and in a way that you wouldn&#8217;t be able to if you didn&#8217;t really know how to fact-check it. I&#8217;ve had situations where I&#8217;ve had ChatGPT doing a basic sum, and I say, &#8220;That number is not right.&#8221; It responds, &#8220;Wait, so sorry. You&#8217;re right, it&#8217;s this,&#8221; and it&#8217;s still wrong. But that&#8217;s still needed at this level as well.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It does allude to a broader problem. As you said, this almost soul-searching of, &#8220;Well, what if we can automate that away, and what if it gets to a point where we don&#8217;t understand it?&#8221; And that really cuts to a deeper question of, &#8220;Well, what is mathematics? Why do we do it? Why do we value it as a field?&#8221;&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Everyone will have different answers to that. But a fear of a lot of people I spoke to was that this might move beyond a realm of human interest, and in which case, well, maybe we just won&#8217;t engage with it. Or it&#8217;ll be something that interested people will go through, and then the rest will continue as normal.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You’ve got a quote here from a researcher in Zurich named Johannes Schmitt who says, &#8220;We might be headed toward a situation where the math problems get &#8216;mowed down&#8217; by AI, but we don&#8217;t actually push the field forward because humans are taken out of the loop and they&#8217;re not either checking, or they don&#8217;t understand it, or they don&#8217;t know what the future breakthroughs might be.&#8221; How likely does that feel? Is that a big concern?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is an element of the mowing down of the problems. Especially those that are used as a training field for younger mathematicians coming up and cutting their teeth, so to speak. But I also think that this idea, that math is problem-solving, is very much an outsider&#8217;s perspective of the mathematical endeavor.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So a lot of the mathematicians I spoke to found that the ticking boxes part is the least interesting and valuable part of the field. The areas that are valuable for them aren&#8217;t the, &#8220;Oh, you&#8217;ve solved something, or you&#8217;ve proven something.&#8221; It&#8217;s what happens from that.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think it was James Maynard that said that the most interesting discoveries in the field aren’t that you&#8217;ve solved something, it&#8217;s what evolves from that. Sometimes those solutions open entire new fields of research that no one ever thought were possible, or, &#8220;Oh, this is a new tool that you can apply everywhere in fun and exciting ways.&#8221;&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think if we look at the popularization of math — even what I&#8217;m thinking of as those theorems that people have posed — it&#8217;s the questions that endure, not the solutions. It&#8217;s always <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem">Fermat&#8217;s Last Theorem</a>, not like, &#8220;Well, here&#8217;s the solution to whatever the last guy proposed.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think the concern here is that well, they&#8217;re going to tick off all of these questions. Normally in the process of doing so, one would hope they would branch out into all of these new exciting areas or pose new questions. But AI won&#8217;t do that, and that&#8217;s the concern. And then that would leave the field quite sterile, and it will have all of these things that have been done, and maybe nothing left to pursue.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The general consensus was, well, the jury&#8217;s out. It&#8217;s too early to tell. Even with human mathematicians, it takes a lot of time to realize the impact of these kinds of things. As I said, it&#8217;s exploded in the last six months to a year, and&nbsp; math is not a fast-moving discipline at the best of times. But it&#8217;s too early to tell really whether that will be a concern. But it is a concern, and a big one.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You have another quote from Maynard here saying, &#8220;If the standard for a publishable paper in math is something that an AI cannot do, particularly when a PhD is typically four years, the challenge is you&#8217;re not trying to come up with a problem that AI can&#8217;t do now, it&#8217;s an AI in four years&#8217; time.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So this is really related to the rate of improvement of the models, which as you say, particularly in math, seems to be increasing, but not at an even rate across all of the domains of mathematics.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That appears to be what is causing the soul-searching. If you&#8217;re a student and you start today, and you pick some obscure domain that maybe the AI isn&#8217;t good at, sometime halfway through your PhD thesis or your PhD research, the AI will just solve it and you&#8217;ll be done. That is a real problem for you.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Has the field reacted to that yet, or are they just still in the shock of, &#8220;Oh, the models can start to do things that we didn&#8217;t think they were capable of”?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, I think it&#8217;s shock, really. I keep a little notebook to the side to just write down broad feelings whenever I do these interviews, and I&#8217;ve written &#8220;shell shock” in it. It&#8217;s far from universal, but it feels like it&#8217;s happened so quickly that it has just taken a lot of people by surprise. Even if they knew in theory that, well, this is coming.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;ve seen all these AI math startups going. They&#8217;ve seen colleagues moving around to different labs or areas of work. But it just happened very, very quickly. So it&#8217;s given them very little time to figure it out. It’s not necessarily even the fields that it might be good at, it&#8217;s more just like, &#8220;What can it do?&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But I can&#8217;t imagine if something like this had come out when I was studying and literally in the space of half a year, it just upended what was possible. And over the summer as well. So students are possibly coming back to a completely different discipline after a break.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s some skepticism here in the world. Gary Marcus is a reliable skeptic of AI, and he pointed out that over and over again, what you see is that AI accomplishes something in one domain and then it&#8217;s used to generalize AI&#8217;s ability across every domain.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There’s a </strong><a href="https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/openais-amazing-but-vastly-oversold"><strong>good quote from Marcus here</strong></a><strong>: &#8220;As we learned a decade ago from AI&#8217;s shambolic and ultimately failed attempt to turn Jeopardy-winning Watson into a cancer-fighting machine, success in one domain does not guarantee success in all.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I can read this two ways. One, “AI has solved math,” which is not true as you&#8217;ve pointed out in several ways, all the way down to how it&#8217;s still bad at counting. And then there&#8217;s, “AI has solved math, and that means necessarily it&#8217;s going to come for everything else.” It will come for physics. It will come for law. It will come for whatever you want in the world. You can see if there&#8217;s any verifiability, AI can solve it, because you can just run it in this way.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I understand both sides of that argument, that obviously success in one domain does not guarantee success in every domain. And then the arc of AI is, well, it keeps collecting domains. If there is any verifiability, it is more likely to connect those domains than not. How do you see it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m not entirely sure that the people that Marcus is criticizing here have actually said quite what he says they are saying. There&#8217;s a lot to say about the hype. But yeah, success in one domain does not even equal success throughout that domain, let alone in other domains.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That said, there has been an undeniable trajectory in the last few years of a broadening capability increase. I don&#8217;t think you need to be on the whole AGI train to acknowledge that, and to acknowledge that that will have an impact.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think it was Andras Juhasz, one of the professors at Oxford, that I quoted in the story. Something else he&#8217;d said to me was that he&#8217;s been toying around with ChatGPT a bit, and he&#8217;s like, &#8220;I don&#8217;t think it has any geometric intuition whatsoever. Which might explain why there has been a very limited amount of progress in fields like topology.&#8221; I am in no position to verify that claim in terms of the math of it, but I think it illustrates it quite well. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/15/technology/how-jagged-intelligence-can-reframe-the-ai-debate.html">They call it the jagged edge</a>.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It felt like an easy argument for me: “Let&#8217;s criticize the whole ‘the singularity is near.’” That&#8217;s <a href="https://medium.com/neuralnotions/elon-musk-says-we-are-in-the-singularity-f2bc60da079c">what Elon Musk said in response to Astra</a>, which is a lot. I also think it&#8217;s perhaps the least generous interpretation of that argument you can take to argue against. If you take a more nuanced element that does acknowledge that there has been clear progress here, and quite quickly, and as you said, it is racking up domains, I feel there&#8217;s a trajectory there that is a reasonable one to consider, rather than just dismiss out of hand.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the bigger arguments about AI in general is that it democratizes access. I was not a great software developer in my days trying to write software code, and now I can vibe-code apps at will to do all kinds of dumb stuff in my house.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is there a similar argument here where a bunch of people who have mathematical intuition, but did not have the formalized language or training of academic mathematics, can now access a model and push the field forward? Because that is usually the thing that undercuts the criticism from the professionals is, well, many, many more people now have access to this thing that only you had access to because of your money and your training.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Annoyingly, I am going to say it&#8217;s a two-pronged thing again. But yes, in a broad sense, yes, it is. A lot of the mathematicians I spoke to were almost quite weary of this, actually. They love the idea, in theory, of democratizing access. They&#8217;re also quite fed up with AI-generated or -assisted papers that are flooding every publication imaginable, as well as the pre-print servers that they use in these fields.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some of those I spoke to said things like, &#8220;Oh, I got three emails this week alone with people being like, &#8216;Hey, is this legit?'&#8221; Because they thought they&#8217;d solved something with ChatGPT or with Claude, and they also don&#8217;t have the mathematical skills to check whether they&#8217;ve actually solved something.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the flip side, there are parts where they said, &#8220;Well, we&#8217;ve got a talented undergrad who&#8217;s done something that a talented undergrad would probably have never managed, and here they are doing grad-level work and they&#8217;ve produced a paper that is legit.&#8221; And in the bigger scheme of things, a few I spoke to said, &#8220;Well yeah, a lot of these are in the ivory tower. Having access to this kind of thing globally could really boost access to the kind of things here.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the flip side, the cost. These things cost a lot to run. It&#8217;s always easy to forget when you use, say, a free version of ChatGPT or Claude or something. At the higher levels, these things cost money. They may not necessarily cost a lot of money — OpenAI claimed, I think it was $2,000 for these 10 results, but that doesn&#8217;t factor in literally anything else once they&#8217;ve got these, so it&#8217;s a very generous number. But even taking that figure, math is quite a poor discipline, even at very well-off institutions.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Colva Roney-Dougal at St. Andrews, who I spoke to, said, &#8220;Well, a lot of the time I don&#8217;t bother getting a research grant. I don&#8217;t need one. I just have a blackboard.&#8221; And so if you&#8217;re not even getting a research grant, $2,000 is a lot to put up. So it could lock out researchers that way, even at quite well-funded institutions. Not to mention the speed at which this is happening, that virtually no one would&#8217;ve been able to bake any of this into a grant proposal yet, was another theme that I came across a lot.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Actually, Roney-Dougal has another great quote in your piece about the nature of the AI labs and how they are talking about math. She said, &#8220;They&#8217;re treating our discipline as an advertising playground.&#8221; A bunch of mathematicians have signed something called the </strong><a href="https://leidendeclaration.ai/"><strong>Leiden Declaration</strong></a><strong>, which is an open letter to then pledge not to buy into hype around AI.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>These things are running right at each other. The AI labs are not going to stop using every discipline as an advertising playground. And a bunch of mathematicians saying, &#8220;We refuse to buy the hype,&#8221; certainly does not seem to be stopping the hype.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s just a piece of this that is organized professional resistance to a thing that is upending a field that has, as you say, been pretty cheap to operate, and now might be getting cheaper or easier to access or easier to upend, day by day. Do mathematicians feel that that is going to be effective? Historically, mathematicians are not savvy political operators. There&#8217;s a part of me that says, &#8220;Oh, they&#8217;re just going to get run over.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t know. In the history of math, actually, I think a lot of them were quite savvy. Isaac Newton is the one that always comes to mind for that — though quite a petty political operator as well. But yeah, that is the fear. A few that I spoke to, and one really comes to mind, mentioned that there&#8217;s often this belief that math is the pinnacle of knowledge. But he was like, &#8220;Well, that&#8217;s bullshit.” And he wasn&#8217;t alone in illustrating that sentiment.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But it is good for showcasing, and it&#8217;s a lot neater as a discipline, and a lot cheaper. You mentioned Marcus referencing IBM&#8217;s Watson and the curing cancer ambition. Well, that involves lots of messy experiments, including on people. You don&#8217;t need that in math, so it&#8217;s a really easy discipline to come in, throw your weight around, and then move to somewhere more lucrative if that&#8217;s what you want.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m not saying that that&#8217;s what they’re doing. A lot of the people at these companies have been hired. I don&#8217;t doubt their credentials for sure, and I don&#8217;t doubt their motivations as well. It does raise a question long-term as to how viable this is. Because let&#8217;s be clear, as a field goes, I cannot imagine mathematicians being a very lucrative enterprise customer for these companies.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The thing that might be lucrative is pushing a field forward to turn it into something economically viable. We push mathematics forward as a field, that turns into some engineering or physics breakthrough based on that mathematics, and that turns into, I don&#8217;t know, yet another way to launch rockets.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Some circle happens there that I don&#8217;t quite understand, but that is the history of innovation, from research, to engineering, to products or services that make money. Is that on the minds of any of these mathematicians, that pushing the boundaries here is upstream of something radically economically lucrative?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The immediate counter that would come to mind here is that a lot are scared that it&#8217;s closing off the field. So by definition, those breakthroughs that lead to something surprising and new that you can say, &#8220;Oh, this works here,&#8221; may not be happening anymore. If anything, that lucrative endeavor of applying math to this entire new field that may have a lot of money in it remains an open question as to whether anything like that would be possible if we&#8217;re closing off avenues, rather than opening them up.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Right, if the economic incentive of solving the unsolved problem is reduced because you personally won&#8217;t get rich if a computer is just solving every unsolved problem, something very fundamental breaks there.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A lot of it comes down to the fact that it&#8217;s not just solving problems. With a lot of these things, as we said, it&#8217;s about what solving that problem tells you elsewhere. If these were very lucrative problems to be solving, I imagine that more people would be trying to solve them than have left them for decades.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the nature of a lot of pure science, and it&#8217;s a broader criticism of what is going on perhaps with the Trump administration&#8217;s approach to science policy at the moment, in that it&#8217;s very applications-focused. There is something to doing pure research that can yield potentially very big dividends that is, by definition, utterly unpredictable as well.You cannot plan for it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The fear I think with math is that in solving all of these problems, and then also doing so without opening up new areas of research, what are you left with? Even if it&#8217;s from a more lucrative, &#8220;What are you going after,&#8221; point of view, if you&#8217;re not opening up new areas of research and you&#8217;re just ticking off old ones, it just leaves a big question mark as to what might be left in its wake.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Even from those I spoke to that were very excited about what&#8217;s happening, they said that even they don&#8217;t really know what&#8217;s happening. And they&#8217;re excited from a personal level because, &#8220;Oh, we might be able to do this, might be to do that.&#8221; But there was still this lingering uncertainty of like, well, where does this leave the field?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Especially for more pure disciplines like research mathematics, it&#8217;s tougher to say what comes next. Because in a lot of the other sciences you can say, &#8220;Well okay, well they&#8217;d shift onto more engineering problems, or applying that.&#8221; But if you solve all the problems at the ground and there&#8217;s nothing being built up from that, where do you go from there?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One great thing about </strong><strong><em>The Verge </em></strong><strong>is our commenters are vast, they&#8217;re very knowledgeable, and there was a </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/977273/the-ai-takeover-of-mathematics-has-begun?commentID=e263ccd3-a129-4177-92ca-d7efc221e68b"><strong>comment</strong></a><strong> from a mathematics researcher on your story that I just want to read to you, and see if you think this is the right framework.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Here it is: &#8220;I have no doubt these models will bring massive change in the field, but in their current state, they won&#8217;t yet drive us to obsolescence. Just occupy a particularly useful spot in our bag of tricks. My apprehension comes from not knowing where these things will peak, but overall I remain optimistic. I think AI will be a net boon for math when used properly.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I feel like “AI will be a net boon for X when used properly” is just where you land in life in a lot of things, but that&#8217;s the most optimistic response that I&#8217;ve heard: “If we get it right, it&#8217;s going to be great.” Is that the vibe, or is it still more shell-shocked than that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;d say shell shock is still the overriding impression. I think perhaps the gut response to that is like, &#8220;Well, it will be a net positive for whom, and what is ‘properly’?&#8221; All of those are quite legitimate questions here.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There were some bleak responses from graduate students I saw in essays posted online.Where&#8217;s their place in this as future researchers? Do they have a place in this? Is it as glorified AI proof checkers? That will be quite an unsatisfying career, I imagine.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Or maybe not, I don&#8217;t know. We will see. I think anything used properly will be a net boon. But yeah, I think it all comes down to what “properly” means, and for whom we&#8217;re talking about.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I feel like, oddly, that is an excellent place to leave it. Because I don&#8217;t think either one of us knows, and I suspect over the next year or so, things will come into focus. Because at some point, OpenAI will have to show people how they did the things of the models. And perhaps more importantly, the other labs are going to want to either replicate these results or show that they can push farther, which will necessarily have to lead to a little bit more transparency and yet more mathematicians having a crisis with you.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Robert, thank you so much for being on the show. We&#8217;ll have you back very soon.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thank you for having me.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[It’s about ethics in journalism, with Ben Smith]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/980759/ben-smith-semafor-ethics-journalism-ai-events-buzzfeed-media-news" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=980759</id>
			<updated>2026-08-17T09:35:41-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-08-17T10:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Business" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Facebook" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Meta" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Social Media" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today I’m talking to Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of Semafor. Everywhere you go, people say they don’t trust the media — and yet they’ve never consumed more of it. Audiences have moved on from legacy names in favor of Substacks and podcasts and TikTok news influencers that seem to be everywhere in our feeds.&#160; Why [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A photo illustration of Semafor editor-in-chief Ben Smith." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: The Verge / Photo: Semafor" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/08/DCD_BenSmith.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today I’m talking to Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of <em>Semafor</em>.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Everywhere you go, people say they don’t trust the media — and yet they’ve never consumed more of it. Audiences have moved on from legacy names in favor of Substacks and podcasts and TikTok news influencers that seem to be everywhere in our feeds.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Why would anyone want to start a new global news organization in the middle of all that, when even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/business/cbs-60-minutes-scott-pelley-bari-weiss.html">once-storied brands like <em>CBS News</em></a><em> </em>can’t seem to figure it out?&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Well, that’s what Ben did four years ago. He’s the guy who ran <em>BuzzFeed News</em> at the height of the Facebook traffic boom, and even wrote a book about it, called <em>Traffic</em>, which he <a href="https://www.theverge.com/23706621/social-media-buzzfeed-news-traffic-semafor-ben-smith">discussed with me on <em>Decoder</em> back in 2023</a>.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24792604/The_Verge_Decoder_Tileart.jpg?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don&#8217;t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Decoder</em> wherever you get your podcasts. Head <a href="https://www.theverge.com/account/podcasts">here</a>. Not a subscriber? You can <a href="https://www.theverge.com/subscribe">sign up here</a>. </p>
</div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Around that same time, he cofounded <em>Semafor</em>, which launched in 2022 with a stated goal of <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/10/the-media-startup-semafor-launches-with-a-more-honest-article-format-and-lots-of-global-ambition/">reaching 200 million college-educated readers</a>.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You’re going to hear Ben say that since then, <em>Semafor</em> has evolved into what he calls an anti-scale company. It still doesn’t have a website paywall, but it makes about half its money in the convening business — that’s what media types have taken to calling events lately.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And <em>Semafor</em> throws some big events. It actually has a new one called <a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/04/30/2026/semafor-launches-silicon-valley-the-world">Silicon Valley &amp; The World</a>, which will feature some of the biggest names in tech and AI. That’s part of the events business: hosting the subjects you cover on your big event stage.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I wanted to know how that all works, and what it feels like to navigate the ethical conflicts that seem to be everywhere in media right now. In particular, I wanted to dig into how <em>Semafor’</em>s newsroom is approaching AI,&nbsp; the ethics and optics of <a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/04/30/2026/semafor-launches-silicon-valley-the-world">putting people you cover on your conference advisory boards</a>, and whether independence is still something an audience is willing to pay for.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Ben and I usually hash this stuff out over beers, and I think you can tell we really enjoy getting into all this together.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: <em>Semafor</em> editor-in-chief Ben Smith. Here we go.&nbsp;</p>

<iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP6659291274" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.&nbsp;</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Ben Smith, you&#8217;re the co-founder and editor in chief of </strong><strong><em>Semafor</em></strong><strong>. Welcome back to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is really nice to be back.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m excited to talk to you. You were on the show three years ago, just as </strong><strong><em>Semafor</em></strong><strong> was launching. It was right as </strong><strong><em>Buzzfeed News</em></strong><strong>, which you founded and ran for a long time, </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/20/23691169/buzzfeed-news-shut-down-jonah-peretti-memo"><strong>was shutting down</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I keep talking to media CEOs about what is going to happen. It feels like you have figured something out at </strong><strong><em>Semafor</em></strong><strong>. How are things going over there?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Things are going incredibly well, and knock on wood as I say that, but I think we figured something out. There are a lot of different things to figure out, and we&#8217;re in this unbelievably strange and unstable moment in media.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But I do think we&#8217;ve figured out a model that is quality journalism built around great journalists, paired with really large scale convening that is building both great journalism and a really good business, a profitable business — which is something that is, to me as a former <em>BuzzFeed</em> executive, novel.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>A profitable digital media business is in short supply these days. It&#8217;s funny, I was looking over </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/23706621/social-media-buzzfeed-news-traffic-semafor-ben-smith"><strong>our conversation from three years ago</strong></a><strong>. You had just published your book </strong><strong><em>Traffic</em></strong><strong>, which was basically about what I would call the millennial digital media moment and everyone chasing massive scale.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>“The platforms are going to deliver tons of traffic to us and then we&#8217;ll collect pennies and we&#8217;ll all get rich.” This was a pretty common thesis. It feels like you&#8217;re saying you&#8217;ve turned away from that. You&#8217;ve learned the lesson of that time.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Our chief revenue officer, Rachel Oppenheim, likes to joke that my next book will be called <em>No Traffic</em>, but we are really building an anti-scale business. The luxury of starting in that moment, in the rubble of the traffic apocalypse, was obviously not the path to success.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We had to think a lot about targeting and building a very specific audience. The thing that I have kind of come to realize in all these conversations… I listen to your show. We have a show about media that we yap about this on. What&#8217;s the future of media? Is it live? We were just talking about it. Who knows?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But in journalism, I have a lot of conviction that great stories aren&#8217;t going anywhere. The need for high-quality insight isn&#8217;t going anywhere. Great reporters aren&#8217;t going anywhere. What surface this all lives on is up for grabs, and you can&#8217;t be too ideological about that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You say surface, I always say distribution.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>A theme on </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> that we come back to over and over again is your distribution shapes what you make. It&#8217;s just inevitable. The medium is the message, to borrow that framing. If surfaces — if distribution — are up for grabs, what are you holding onto?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I actually don&#8217;t buy that thesis, or at least I&#8217;m resisting that thesis because for the audience, the pull of distribution is incredibly powerful. The core thesis of <em>BuzzFeed</em> was we cracked the distribution and built for the distribution. Maybe I&#8217;m overreacting a little to that, but we definitely think all the time about how we want to reach political leaders and business leaders. We want to reach nonprofit leaders, and we want to reach people making decisions.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We want to reach them in person. We reach them a lot in email. We reach them on the web, we reach them in video, but we&#8217;re thinking about that same audience across media, and in fact, I think video is particularly interesting because of the pull. Videos are placed on the web in terms of the place you can get massive scale.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then conversely, where there&#8217;s a pull of massive scale to create the biggest pull is just to be hyper-polarizing and find ways to create polarizing confrontation. That&#8217;s how you go viral, or one of the best ways at least, and we&#8217;re trying hard to build the discipline to resist that pull of distribution.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;re already deep into the weeds. I hope that listeners can tell Ben and I like talking to each other about these things.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Please visit Semafor.com.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>[Laughs] I&#8217;m excited to play some clips for you. So I&#8217;m glad that you said you were reacting to <em>BuzzFeed</em>. A few months ago <a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/932154/peretti-allen-buzzfeed-ai-slop-social-media">we had Jonah Peretti on the show</a>, and right after he had <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/928345/buzzfeed-ceo-jonah-peretti-is-getting-a-new-job-president-of-buzzfeed-ai">sold <em>BuzzFeed</em> to Byron Allen</a> and the <em>Weather Channel</em>. There’s a lot going on there. In full disclosure to the audience, I literally had a beer with you just before I sat down with Jonah.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I remember.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I did not ask the questions you told me to ask, but he said—</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Were they about running? That&#8217;s another show.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I didn&#8217;t do it. I was quickly in the weeds of Jonah as well, and I put to him what I think of as the original sin of digital media, which is that I think Jonah thought he could go so viral so consistently that he could crack distribution and that Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook would pay him money.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m going to play for you what he said to me in response to that, and I just want to get your reaction to it. Can we go ahead and play it?</strong></p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Jonah Peretti: </strong>Yeah. I mean, first, just as a factual matter, we did get paid millions of dollars by Mark Zuckerberg. The prediction that they would pay for content was accurate, but it was just short-lived. So we got paid for that exploding watermelon.</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Okay, so he said that to me and I said, &#8220;Yeah.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That was a good day in the office.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It was a great day in the office, I&#8217;m guessing, but everyone knew that Mark Zuckerberg wasn&#8217;t going to pay forever.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I agree with Jonah on this. Looking back, we all say the social platforms were obviously going to always be dependent on UGC and never pay for anything, and these media companies building on social platforms never made any sense.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s worth remembering these investors’ experience had been shaped by cable, which was a different distribution platform in which companies like Viacom, ESPN, CNN, and MTV had built huge businesses on the back of this new distribution. So they said, &#8220;Here&#8217;s another new distribution. We&#8217;re going to build big businesses on the back of it.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We now look back and say it was inevitable that Facebook would never pay for content, but it wasn&#8217;t. Facebook executives made choices at various times. They experimented with different things. If you are the person in charge of the success of the blue Facebook app, do you think, “It was a great decision to continually rely on low-quality YouTube generated content”? No, that thing is dying, obviously. They should have found a different path. It was a mistake.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Jonah made this argument to me as well, and this is the other—</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Obviously I&#8217;m brainwashed by Jonah. I worked with him for a long time.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>No, I&#8217;m just curious. Your paths have diverged and you are building a very different business.&nbsp; I&#8217;m just curious. This is the other clip from Jonah that I want to play for you. It is an argument that Facebook made a mistake. Here&#8217;s that clip:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Jonah Peretti: </strong>I actually believe that it was a mistake for Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg to not continue with the news tab, to not continue to pay professional content creators. These platforms have tons of resources and could have spent a couple of billion dollars a year on that, sustained a vibrant media ecosystem, really owned media in a way that would have been incredibly powerful for them and given them charisma, relevance, and authority that they just don&#8217;t have today.</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The claim there is if Mark Zuckerberg had continued to fund </strong><strong><em>BuzzFeed</em></strong><strong>, he would have more charisma.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That the Facebook blue app would be more successful had they done different things? That&#8217;s pretty obvious. You could argue which things. That&#8217;s true, and then if you look at whether you would rather be Netflix or the blue Facebook app? You&#8217;d rather be Netflix, right?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Netflix famously doesn&#8217;t invest in these either.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Netflix pays a lot for content.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They pay a lot for content, but they don&#8217;t invest in news.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">News, I agree. News is a complicated business. We&#8217;re a separate question. But they pay for a lot of professional content. YouTube is the biggest and most interesting story here because YouTube has found a way for individuals to build businesses on top of it in a really impressive way. There are occasional news creators like Johnny Harris, but he’s almost the exception that proves the rule, but <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MebLshHMyyM">we just had Kareem Rahma on our show</a>.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These people are building real businesses, real careers, on top of YouTube, paying producers, increasingly moving up market. I guess the thing that I give Neal Mohan, the YouTube CEO, a hard time about, is I do think YouTube with the idea of the creator and the development of the word creator built a system in which media companies, middlemen, can&#8217;t really survive.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There was a company called <a href="https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/disney-maker-studios/">Maker Studios which Disney bought for half a billion dollars</a>. It was supposed to be a middleman between YouTube and creators, and that&#8217;s one way to give a group of media people leverage against the platform. YouTube has designed a system in which it&#8217;s sort of like Uber. It deals with atomized individuals, not with collectives who have any kind of power, and there are all sorts of different collectives.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But a media company is one kind, and YouTube has, probably to its own benefit — and to certainly to the detriment of the media industry — built a system where it&#8217;s built for individuals, and no one has any leverage except for YouTube.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is the big question I&#8217;m getting at. You&#8217;re building a new kind of business, you&#8217;re profitable. You&#8217;re saying you&#8217;re anti-scale, no more chasing traffic.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m still personally looking at the traffic.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Who doesn&#8217;t?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s just a personality flaw.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>If you were raised in the swamp, you will always be a creature of the swamp. But I look at some of the other big success stories of our time. TBPN is a big success story of our time. These are not huge numbers that they&#8217;re driving.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They&#8217;re driving massive influence and they&#8217;re charging high rates to advertisers that are integrated into their content, and now they&#8217;re owned by OpenAI, who they cover on their show.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You look at big YouTubers, and Kareem Rahma is a great example. I saw him speak in and around Cannes and he was very much like, &#8220;Yeah, I make advertising for our partners. I make videos. The advertising is the thing that I make, it&#8217;s the revenue.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Somewhere in there is a big tension for the news, for media companies, where we can&#8217;t say, “We probably shouldn&#8217;t make the advertising for the companies we cover,” but that is actually how you monetize all these platforms at scale. I haven&#8217;t found anyone who solved it. I&#8217;m curious if you&#8217;ve taken runs at it.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In the entertainment business, which Kareem is in, that&#8217;s always how it&#8217;s been. James Bond is wearing whatever kind of watch he&#8217;s wearing. Although the fact that I don&#8217;t remember is a real failure of marketing. There&#8217;s not that inherent tension in the entertainment business that you&#8217;re going to sell out by doing a product placement, or cutting, or appearing in an advertisement.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But for news there really is, and you need to be careful. The answer to that is actually the audience. The traditional advertising business is that you are reaching an audience who the advertiser values. For the scaled advertising business, Google and Meta — and increasingly TikTok — built the best mousetraps, and it&#8217;s impossible for publishers to compete on that scale.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you&#8217;re reaching people in a very focused way in various particular environments — in person, in email, in video — that&#8217;s a case you can really credibly make to advertisers. We&#8217;ve built a big advertising and related convening business that way, and that&#8217;s one answer. It&#8217;s not the only answer, but it is one.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When you say convening business, that&#8217;s your events business.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah. Max Tani always gives me a hard time about the word “convening.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Everyone loves the word “convening.” It&#8217;s good. You&#8217;ve gotten pilled by the revenue people because they love to say it. Everyone else says, &#8220;It&#8217;s parties.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;re going to come to it because there&#8217;s a relationship between needing to get everyone in the room and then covering them, which I personally find fascinating.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s booking. You had to not insult me for weeks to get me here.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>[Laughs] Or did I nag you every single day until you showed up?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tell me about the revenue split between those things. Are you mostly making money on journalism? Are you mostly making money in events? Which is higher?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s just about 50/50.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is there a pull in either direction or are you trying to grow them both the same way?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re a startup. We&#8217;re opportunistic. The convening business grew a lot faster. My partner, Justin Smith, has been building businesses like that. He was CEO of <em>The Atlantic</em> and <em>Bloomberg</em>. I&#8217;s much more his experience than mine.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But he came in with this thesis, which I bought into, that basically convening was the business that you could stand up fastest and make profitable fastest, that was a journalism business. We launched hard into that space because it takes longer to build a digital advertising business: you&#8217;ve got to build that digital audience. We launched with that and then it&#8217;s just taken off in a way we, or at least I, didn&#8217;t see. I didn&#8217;t imagine that we&#8217;d be really competing with Davos this soon.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I want to come back to that, too. When you launched, I remember part of the plan was to go to subscriptions. You were going to build this elite audience. You&#8217;re going to charge them lots of money. It was there in the very beginning.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Was that part of the plan?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It was early on, it was part of the plan.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Startups, yeah.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You also said, &#8220;We barely need a website. It&#8217;s all going to be newsletters.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oh, we did talk about that. You were one of those website people.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>To this day.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The last.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The last website on earth, that&#8217;s TheVerge.com. That all changed for reasons that things change with startups, but the media industry and distribution changed around it. Was there a moment where you said, &#8220;We can keep it free,&#8221; because you are one of the last free websites?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my memory, we always thought at some point we&#8217;d do subscriptions, but in my experience you just cannot be ideological about revenue. It&#8217;s hard enough to build a business in news without getting all hung up on the values of the different revenue streams.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Advertising-based publishers will tell you that democracy can only survive in a world where there aren&#8217;t paywalls. Subscription publishers will tell you that advertising is corrupting. At some point you realize everyone&#8217;s just talking about their book and that sometimes they&#8217;re already in a tough business and they&#8217;re talking themselves out of incremental opportunities and really successful media companies.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you look at Disney or <em>The New York Times</em>, what business are they in? They&#8217;re actually in a bunch of different businesses. They&#8217;re managing them all really carefully. Our view is that if at some point it makes sense to do subscriptions, we&#8217;ll totally do them, but we don&#8217;t really see it as an ideological choice. When you&#8217;re starting a company, you just can&#8217;t do that many things at the same time.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Also, I would say more broadly, and I got mocked for this at some point, but we are insanely ambitious about our long-term growth. We really are trying to build, over decades, a huge global company, and subscriptions are a trade-off that caps your growth in some ways. That&#8217;s something we think about too. But that said, we&#8217;re really trying to build a good business, and if subscriptions are a part of that, at some point we&#8217;ll certainly be a part of that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You launched with a lot of ambition. You&#8217;re the first news organization of your kind to say, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to cover Africa a lot, we&#8217;re going to cover the Gulf a lot in various ways.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That ambition was that those markets are under-covered, and you’re going to provide new information that readers aren’t necessarily getting from other places. You’ll build up that audience and then monetize them in some specific way. Has that thesis proved out?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes, and I would say when we launched, this was the thing that was most confusing to people. That Justin and I had worked in global news and had these real ambitions for it, but also were very careful about sequencing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When we launched, we were in the US, Brooklyn, Washington, on Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Africa. I remember it would be like me, Justin, and our great Africa editor, Yinka Adegoke doing an interview, and it&#8217;d be like, &#8220;Oh yeah, we&#8217;re American and he&#8217;s African,&#8221; and people are like, &#8220;What are you talking about?&#8221; It doesn&#8217;t make any sense, but I think we saw there was an opportunity to be very competitive very quickly in Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, with great journalists led by Yinka and his colleague Alexis, to figure out that model.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re now in the Gulf, and we&#8217;re going to launch in Europe and Asia. Those are growing businesses and they&#8217;re part of a network. We see it less as a colonial hub-and-spoke model. They&#8217;re not reporting back to New York for what people in New York care about. We&#8217;re trying to build a network of audiences in each of these places.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is that pulling you in different directions in terms of resourcing? If your audience in Africa grows faster than the audience in the United States, are you going to put more resources there?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, we&#8217;re definitely very attentive to what&#8217;s working. I would say it&#8217;s just a truth that the US is the biggest media market in the world by far. It depends on how you count, but more than half of all revenue associated with media in the world is in the US.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah, that was the pull.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Actually the pull is mostly always here. We fight against it a bit because we think this is a really good long-term investment.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is ancient history, but when I worked at AOL of all places, there was a lot of pull that—</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Oh, <em>Engadget</em>.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We ran </strong><strong><em>Engadget China</em></strong><strong>. We wanted to be in all these other countries. We would resource and run those operations against much cheaper advertising revenue. Pennies to dollars in some cases.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But the audience was there.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But the audience was there.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We had this experience at <em>BuzzFeed</em>. This is part of why I was so excited to do some of it with Justin, because Justin had successfully built businesses in these other markets. At <em>BuzzFeed</em> we&#8217;d gone in, built big audiences, and we’d seen in Brazil, in the UK, in Japan this very intense engagement. People wanted independent journalism of this new digital and independent kind.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I remember in the first meeting we were talking about this, Eric Hippeau, this very smart, long-time digital investor was like, &#8220;Do not do this. You will never make any money and you&#8217;ll have to shut it all down.&#8221; We said, &#8220;Ah, forget it, old timer.&#8221; He was totally correct. We just never figured out how to reliably monetize them.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Even when you could, you&#8217;d say, &#8220;The Brazilian edition was profitable this year, but bad news, they have currency controls, so the money stays in Brazil.&#8221; &#8220;Oh, nobody told us that.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How have you solved for it now?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re pretty careful about keeping the costs low and growing the verticals with local revenue. There&#8217;s also a lot of value in these huge gatherings that we&#8217;re building, that they are fundamentally global, whether it&#8217;s in Silicon Valley or in Washington. Building these global networks of CEOs and political leaders feeds that network. That&#8217;s been valuable. But I don&#8217;t know, we&#8217;re careful as part of it. That&#8217;s one thing I learned from <em>BuzzFeed</em>.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The high-flying VC era has produced a generation of very conservative media operators.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think that’s fascinating. The other big innovation I want to talk to you about from the beginning of </strong><strong><em>Semafor</em></strong><strong>, and then I want to start talking about what you&#8217;re doing now, the Semaform.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You launched with this way of writing an article. You still use it to this day. I see it all the time. The thesis was that it would just sort of make it simpler to understand what all the different pieces are. I always thought that was funny because you were chasing the most elite audience possible, and presumably they could already understand what was going on.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s the problem. They could understand what was going on. And what is going on in a newspaper article is we have a who, what, where, why sentence.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And then you have another sentence that says the same thing. And then you have a paragraph, and then you have a quote that is from an expert, but it just reflects whatever the reporter thinks and they&#8217;ve picked the expert with their bias to repeat. And then you have an unsupported paragraph of random theories called the nut graf.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Everything else is just chronological order. Particularly the “an expert in disinformation says this” or “an expert in democracy says this,” any reader sees, &#8220;This is what the publication thinks, this what the journalist thinks. Why don&#8217;t they just say it rather than do this weird move of filtering your biases through an expert?&#8221; And particularly with a sophisticated audience, they&#8217;re in on the joke a bit. There are two sides to it because one is that the journalist is required to smuggle their opinion or their analysis in other people&#8217;s voices. The other is that really good beat reporters are real experts.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A sophisticated reader actually wants to know what Maggie Haberman thinks to a really high degree. Because the other deal in the newspaper is that you conceal your own analysis and opinion. On both sides of that, the reader is sort of losing out. You&#8217;re treating them like an idiot because you&#8217;re smuggling bias and opinion in, and then also — and this is particularly true of really senior experienced beat reporters — people read Reed Albergotti or Burgess Everett and want to know what they think. So tell me what you actually think.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Semaform is an attempt to separate “here are the facts of the story we can all agree on” and “here&#8217;s the journalist&#8217;s analysis.” For an analysis to be interesting, there&#8217;s got to be some chance it can be wrong. Otherwise, it&#8217;s totally banal. We go out of our way to try to find somebody who disagrees with us to include that, too. People like that. It&#8217;s a bit of humility also.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Back in my day, we just called this blogging.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">[Laughs] Blogging, yes.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I would just write down what I thought all the time.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I would say this was influenced by blogging. I know, we&#8217;re all old bloggers now. It&#8217;s so embarrassing to explain to people that you used to have a blog.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What do I run to this day? It&#8217;s still fundamentally the reporters saying what they think.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Someday you&#8217;ll be explaining to people you had a podcast.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;ll just be my VR avatar talking to your VR avatar.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">[Laughs] It will be another silly word, yeah.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong><a href="https://www.wired.com/story/fake-metaverse-good-real-metaverse-bad/">No legs</a>. It&#8217;ll be great. The reason I ask about the format in particular is that my thesis is that distribution and formats shape each other. Semaform was a new format. It was a way to reach an audience and say, &#8220;We know you&#8217;re not stupid. We&#8217;re going to show you the structure of the story out loud.&#8221; Has it been successful? Has it actually succeeded in attracting an audience or is it just the trademark of how you do things now?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We hear a lot about it from our audience. People really like it. We also do a lot of shorter form stuff, and so that&#8217;s not always broken out that way. But that value of, “We&#8217;re going to be really humble, we&#8217;re going to be assertive about what we think, but also very, very open to disagreement, very clear about the difference between a fact and analysis,” is core to our DNA and everything we do, including in the events.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Let me ask you </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> questions. I want to just talk about what&#8217;s going on in this industry now. Because you&#8217;ve learned a lot and it&#8217;s been almost four years that </strong><strong><em>Semafor</em></strong><strong> has been going. Those are all the big early bets and I just want to check in on them. How big is Semafor now?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;ve got about 60 journalists, and more than 100 employees.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How is all that structured?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;d say more than 100. It&#8217;s probably about half journalists, half a commercial team that includes revenue and a great events production team. We do all that stuff in-house. Part of the luxury of a startup and part of the challenge in news is that — and I think you&#8217;re inside at the moment one or two companies that have cracked this — there&#8217;s not a lot of talent on the business side of news for obvious reasons. It&#8217;s a terrible business.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You go to Harvard Business School and 30 percent of those people go into enterprise sales and .01 percent go into media, for the obvious reason that they like to make money. They look around for where the money is and it&#8217;s not in media.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;ve been incredibly aggressive about trying to recruit really, really great commercial operators and people on our revenue side. It&#8217;s fun to be in a place where the wattage on the business side is really, really high. That&#8217;s been a real luxury for us. We have bookers, we have producers, we have people thinking about the vibes and the music. We take all that stuff really seriously.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do you have an in-house DJ?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Would I call Brigitte Anders-Kraus an in-house DJ? I think that would be a reasonable thing to say.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s pretty good.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think she would object. She does a lot of other stuff too. She&#8217;s very efficient.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>When we did the code conference, I spent a lot of time thinking about the Spotify playlist.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You got to think about that stuff.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Actually, that brings me to the other </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> question I ask everybody. You have a lot of decisions to make. You&#8217;ve grown up a lot over the past four years at </strong><strong><em>Semafor</em></strong><strong>. How do you make decisions? What&#8217;s your framework?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I personally make decisions very, very, very fast at very high volume. But I am very attentive to the people around me when they think it&#8217;s a mistake, and I’m quick to reverse them</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I care a lot about hiring great journalists and having people who I really trust and I rarely jam a decision down anybody&#8217;s throat. I want to be surrounded by people who are deep experts in what they&#8217;re doing, whether it&#8217;s managing or building AI tools or reporting. But I&#8217;m very happy to lose fights.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is a new kind of business you&#8217;re describing. You want to make a lot of decisions fast. You&#8217;re growing in a lot of different areas. Every time I see you in person, I bring you a new journalism ethics problem. This is a real recurring theme in our relationship. I&#8217;m always struggling to be pure of heart.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You come from the most corrupt corner of journalism, which is gadget reviews. You&#8217;ve appropriately figured out that in that dark cave, ethics is this incredible way for <em>The Verge</em> to distinguish itself.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s literally what we say to our audience: “We are selling you this policy that we can&#8217;t be bought.” Maybe that&#8217;s the right thing. I look at some of the creators and I look at some of their Lamborghinis and I think maybe that&#8217;s the wrong thing. But that&#8217;s the way it goes.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I started by playing you that clip of Jonah Peretti saying if Facebook had only paid for news, the tech CEOs would&#8217;ve retained relevance and charisma. Maybe the blue app would be better. I&#8217;m looking at a media ecosystem where it feels like actually there&#8217;s elite capture of traditional media.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>David Ellison bought </strong><strong><em>CBS News</em></strong><strong>, to whatever success or failure that&#8217;s going to be. He&#8217;s, depending on your point of view, either trying to get out of his Warner Bros. deal or he&#8217;s dead set on owning CNN and changing it however he wants to change it. Through his family, there&#8217;s ownership of TikTok.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Brendan Carr is fulminating at the FCC about what happens on the broadcast stations. He wrote an entire chapter of Project 2025 about regulating content moderation on platforms. I see more influence on the media from that side of the house than ever before.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s the audience that you aggressively try to go out and attract and monetize in different ways. How do you view all of that right now?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These are really different things. We&#8217;re in this moment of politicized wealthy individuals buying media companies and using them to curry favor with the White House. That&#8217;s just a very specific thing that is incredible.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In some sense, my view of the media has always been that if you actually are delivering something your audience wants, that gives you independence. They want you to be asking tough questions. They want you to be delivering them true facts and insight. That&#8217;s the path. There&#8217;s a temptation, particularly for places that don&#8217;t have strong business models, to start making ethical compromises and you see it all over the place.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In a way, because you&#8217;re in the gadget review space, you see it so clearly. I think it&#8217;s true in every space. The core thing of journalism and what makes it interesting is the adversarial quality and the independence and the independence of the people you&#8217;re asking questions of, the people you&#8217;re covering. Businesses like advertising complicate that, but if you don&#8217;t hold onto that independence, you&#8217;re giving away the whole story.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We think obsessively about that. For businesses that like innovating, it&#8217;s so important that you actually do not want to innovate in the field of ethics. That&#8217;s the one space where nobody should be innovating or you should be very, very careful, because if you think about why marketing conferences are so boring, it&#8217;s because they aren&#8217;t doing tough independent interviews with the people. Our events are interesting because we&#8217;re doing tough independent interviews and giving that away would be an enormous mistake.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Can I ask you a really direct question about that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;re doing Silicon Valley &amp; The World, which is the big new conference. This is you saying you&#8217;re going to compete with Davos. You&#8217;re going to put on a bunch of conferences like this that compete on the biggest stage. You&#8217;re convening people, as I&#8217;ve been told.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I looked at your announcement, and you were kind enough to invite me to it. On the board are Jensen Huang and Satya Nadella, and they&#8217;re advisors, but you’re going to do challenging journalism. How does that work?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s a reasonable question and it&#8217;s a feature of the convening business that is somewhat new business to me, too. But first of all, we&#8217;re thrilled that Jensen and Andy Jassy are going to be there and we&#8217;re going to be doing newsy on-stage interviews with them. It is a feature of that business.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you look at the way <em>The New York Times</em> and <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> and our other competitors like <em>Bloomberg</em> do it, part of building a community around these events and getting excitement around them is pulling the newsmakers you&#8217;ll be interviewing into the event in some way. <em>The New York Times</em> calls them task forces. <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> calls them a council. <em>Bloomberg</em> actually also calls them an advisory board. But the journalism is totally independent of them.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But how does that work? I did Code Conference and I remember thinking, &#8220;I really need to get so-and-so CEO to show up on stage.&#8221; If the day before they get on the jet to show up in California, we say, &#8220;So-and-so&#8217;s CEO is deeply corrupt. Here&#8217;s our eight-month investigation…”</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;re probably going to cancel on you.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They&#8217;re probably going to cancel. And I thought, &#8220;That&#8217;s going to be fine. That&#8217;d be great actually.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, totally.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Because I&#8217;ll get on stage and say, &#8220;They canceled because they can&#8217;t take it.&#8221; But at the same time, I knew that the people buying the tickets probably were buying the tickets to see so-and-so appear on stage. This never actually came to a head. This was never actually a problem. It was just always in my mind.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Maybe you weren&#8217;t doing enough exposés.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I thought, &#8220;Should I be causing this problem more?&#8221; How do you think about that? You cover these companies at a really high level.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We do obviously write stories that they don&#8217;t like all the time. We try really, really hard to be fair. We try not to sandbag people, but there are two different things. One is, “Did you write a story that upset them and they canceled on you?” You just have to be willing. That&#8217;s just the cost of doing business in journalism and that&#8217;ll happen and you just can&#8217;t think about it. We are trying to be grown up and fair.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the things that I&#8217;ve noticed is there&#8217;s a sense, particularly if you go to these conferences that are not run by journalists, that you don&#8217;t want to ask the hard question. You&#8217;re a little nervous about there being this core question in the CEO&#8217;s business or in this politician&#8217;s leadership that is awkward to ask. But of course that&#8217;s the question that the CEO spends all his or her time thinking about. Not only are they ready for it, they&#8217;ve also thought about it more than anybody else. They&#8217;re eager to engage on it.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s like a weird illusion that senior leaders don&#8217;t want to be asked hard questions. That&#8217;s crazy. The reason they&#8217;re in those gigs is because they find it really interesting. They&#8217;re much more relaxing jobs.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you&#8217;re interviewing the CEO of Ford and you&#8217;re not asking him — and how are you not? — about this crisis of China swallowing their business, what are you doing? There is an impulse, which I think is totally wrong, to tiptoe around the hard questions. I actually think for CEOs, for political leaders, it&#8217;s boring for them to go on stage and tell the same canned anecdotes about their personal biographies they&#8217;ve told a thousand times. It’s their job to answer hard questions.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m always asked by various comms people, “Why do the CEOs come on the show?” In our YouTube comments, people ask, “Why would they show up?” The answer I&#8217;ve most commonly gotten is this is the only way their own employees will listen to them.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They want to see the challenge and the stakes and the conflict as you&#8217;ve described are present in this format, whereas no one&#8217;s listening to the all-hands.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s important that you be respectful. There&#8217;s a slice of tech journalism that really concluded that the people they cover are monsters. It&#8217;s probably hard to get those folks to talk to you then. Conversely, there&#8217;s a slice of the tech industry that has concluded all journalists are in a deep conspiracy to destroy them.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Both of those slices of media culture have run their course and are both toxic and boring at this point. Everybody should stop and just cover these people like important decision makers in the middle of great stories. That&#8217;s just the news business.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We care a lot about our independence and other journalists&#8217; independence and build it deeply into the events.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s more than a slice on either side. Our own audience says, “All of these people are monsters,” and they&#8217;re reading a tech website. I look at most of the politicians in America. They&#8217;ve come around to, “Maybe we should stop the data centers, or we should at least talk about it because people will like us if we talk about it.” After a decade of talking about regulating social media—</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And not doing it.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>—and clamping down on Big Tech and doing nothing, we&#8217;ve never passed a privacy law in this country.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You see there&#8217;s a lot of heat around “these guys are monsters, we can just throw sticks and stones at them.” And then on the other side, they own the distribution channels. They&#8217;re on X, doing whatever they want to do. There&#8217;s a sense that they don&#8217;t need the accountability.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Mark Zuckerberg just </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/977395/meta-mark-zuckerberg-superintelligent-ai-ramble"><strong>published a 6,500 word manifesto</strong></a><strong> that in my estimation is freshman year political science thinking. He&#8217;s going to get away with it because there&#8217;s literally no one around him to say, &#8220;Try being smarter than this.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do you see that connection at your events, where the thing you need to challenge some of these executives on is people think you have bad values, not your business decisions?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you are interviewing somebody where there&#8217;s a core critique of the thing they&#8217;re doing that is the values, you should definitely ask. You always ask them. That&#8217;s the question they&#8217;ve been thinking about, too.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I actually disagree with you on the AI CEOs though. We&#8217;re moving out of an era where you had business leaders. Marc Andreessen is patient zero of this — very, very smart guy, very influential and influenced a lot of people to think this way, but who had this deep paranoia about the media and the sense that it wasn’t relevant.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you look at the really great business figures of this era, of the new ones — I would say Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Jensen Huang — these are classic showmen who love the media. Or I don&#8217;t know if they love the media or they hate the media, but they, like Steve Jobs, understand it, like Donald Trump.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They&#8217;re selling something.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;re salesmen who see the media as a very important sales channel, which is how business leaders have always been. They&#8217;re running circles around the guys and the women who are sitting paranoid, saying, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know if we can talk to this reporter.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They just pick up the phone and they&#8217;re on the cover and they wear the leather jacket and they do whatever the slightly corny but incredibly effective <em>Time</em> magazine cover style thing is. Obviously the legacy media is diminished and there are new outlets, but fundamentally they&#8217;re showmen who aren&#8217;t operating out of some kind of deep theoretical relationship with media that they plan to change.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Elon is obviously the big exception to this rule, as of many, but the rest of this new generation of business leaders have a much more normal relationship with the media.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the things that I think is really interesting in that context is the rise of the news creator, the news influencer, where they aren&#8217;t of the machine the way that you are of the machine. They don&#8217;t have a Justin Smith saying, &#8220;I&#8217;ve built a global news operation. You just do the great reporting, I&#8217;ll find new business. By the way, all the big print newspapers have task forces. We will have a global conference and solve independence.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The influencers and creators I talk to, this is all a first impression for them. The idea that they can be plied with gifts or access or made to seem more important, they feel it.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They struggle with it on a deep level. A lot of our industrialists and politicians now understand that that is a faster route to a bigger audience and that there&#8217;s more influence to be had there over the content, over the editorial. How do you compete with that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You have to have courage in your conviction that people want journalism, that people actually would like true facts rather than lies and independent voices rather than ones that are corrupt. That&#8217;s a very optimistic view, but that&#8217;s broadly true. You&#8217;re seeing that the most interesting and most successful creators are also finding that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The great Silicon Valley podcaster Dwarkesh Patel’s questions have gotten tougher and tougher because he&#8217;s very sophisticated and I think he realizes his audience knows that, if you&#8217;re interviewing Jensen Huang about how he thinks about chips in China, <a href="https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/scoring-the-jensen-dwarkesh-debate">you should ask him the hard questions</a>, not the easy ones, and that&#8217;s more interesting. It&#8217;s so obvious. For journalists who admire or worry about creators, there&#8217;s some lacking in the courage of their own convictions that it is more interesting to ask hard questions than easy ones.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Don&#8217;t you need the person to show up to be asked the questions of? This is the dynamic that I see in so many places. With the podcasters and the creators, what they&#8217;re learning is that their audiences are durable. You don&#8217;t need the famous person. You don&#8217;t need Apple access to get your big audience. If you have a big audience, you can do whatever you want. My formulation of that is the less access you need, the more you get. But that&#8217;s a hard lesson to learn at the beginning.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s an old saying that access is a curse, too.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Oh, access is poisonous.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I follow politics very closely, and you see this in Washington. I don&#8217;t know if you remember, but in the beginning of the Trump administration, there were all these influencers in the White House press conferences asking Karoline Leavitt how she does her hair. The thing is I think they and their audiences found that that was extremely boring, and they wandered off to talk instead about having paranoid fights with Candace Owens or whatever.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Similarly, the Pentagon in particular brought in all these what they saw as allied, pliable, right-wing influencers to replace the hated mainstream media. And then when the Iran war started, <em>Gateway Pundit </em>is grilling Pete Hegseth about the war and he doesn&#8217;t have answers because there are a lot of toxic things about audience capture and you can be pulled all sorts of crazy places by your audience, but also you can be pulled toward journalism by your audience.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What you saw in that Pentagon press room was that their audiences were nervous about the war and did not like it. So suddenly Pete Hegseth is being grilled by these pet outlets that he&#8217;d put in there to avoid dealing with real questions. There was some sense that journalism isn&#8217;t a trade that you learned at journalism school. It is actually a service to your audience that anybody can figure out if you are paying attention.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the really interesting things to me about that dynamic in particular at the Pentagon is so many of the journalists they put in there were video first. They were making clips. I could see them in those press conferences trying to get a clip. They knew the video would play and then the platforms reward conflict, and the comments were, &#8220;Why did you ask this question?”</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What do you think Sam Donaldson was doing in the White House press room in the 1980s? These are stages for performance.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sure. Who was it? It was Newt Gingrich who figured out </strong><a href="https://www.brandeis.edu/magazine/2020/fall/arts-and-culture/gingrich.html"><strong>C-SPAN was the stage for him</strong></a><strong>. I understand, but the clip economy in particular.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They&#8217;re going to manufacture a clip, and maybe it&#8217;s the audience pulling you towards journalism or maybe it&#8217;s just the algorithm pulling you towards conflict.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are good pulls and there are bad pulls, for sure.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sometimes it&#8217;s hard to tell the difference. You&#8217;re doing more video now, and that&#8217;s right next to the fact that the Semaform</strong><strong><em> </em></strong><strong>is there to expose the structure of journalism because its audience is really smart and some of them are CEOs. And then you&#8217;re going to go make video on video platforms and you&#8217;re going to experience that other pull. How do you think about managing that? Are you not chasing scale?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, we think about it a lot, about not chasing scale on video, but trying to have really high-level conversations. That there&#8217;s a big — but not the biggest — audience for really sophisticated conversations with leaders in media or in <em>Compound Interest</em>, our business show; CEOs on our <em>CEO Signal</em> show; and other stuff we&#8217;re going to be launching.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Video reminds me so much of the social web, and the allure of infinite scale if you just follow it toward this fixed point that everyone else is also going toward. It&#8217;s this incredibly homogenizing force. Everybody on the left is doing Bari Weiss outrage this week, and it&#8217;s very, very hyper partisan. No, we just have really had a lot of internal conversations about resisting that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How do you make money if you don&#8217;t chase scale on video?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You have to reach a really high-quality audience.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And you&#8217;re just going to bake the ads in? Are you going to do the ad reads? This is the other big problem of the creator world is the platforms don&#8217;t pay you any money, and they&#8217;ve certainly learned to pay people less money.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes, we do integrated campaigns with direct-sold advertisers. I don&#8217;t know. You do host reads. I noticed that <em>Odd Lots</em>, my second favorite show, is doing host reads these days.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is the biggest concept in all of media.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The principle of journalistic independence is incredibly important. The forms change when you&#8217;re in these moments. What I remember is that on Google, the ads used to be in yellow and they had a yellow overlay. At <em>BuzzFeed</em>, we said, &#8220;Okay, that&#8217;s the convention. We&#8217;ll have a yellow overlay on our ads. That&#8217;s how you know it&#8217;s an ad.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Then Google removed it, and we said, &#8220;I guess that&#8217;s not the convention. I guess ads can be the same color as everything else.&#8221; These things are signals to the audience and the forms change through time. Again, you don&#8217;t want to be innovating the field of ethics, but you have to realize that the forms are changing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>My harshest take about all these platforms is Google made the ads not yellow and then it made them look like the content, and then it changed the economics of the web such that the only profitable thing to publish on the web is marketing content and listicles about what shoes to buy when you go hiking, and now that&#8217;s all that shows up in AI Overviews.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And then Meta started charging you to distribute those rather than letting them go viral on their own if they were good.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So everything became advertising. YouTube just </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/streaming/977474/youtube-partner-program-new-requirements"><strong>made it harder to make money on YouTube</strong></a><strong>. They changed the rules of their partner program. The only way you can make real money as a creator on YouTube and have your big staff is if you do the integrated brand campaign — if you become an advertiser or an ad agency.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That is the pull of all these platforms: “We&#8217;re not going to pay you anything, we&#8217;re going to take the content for free, maybe we&#8217;ll even train our AI on it, and you will integrate advertising it somewhere.” I get what you&#8217;re saying about not innovating in ethics, but as someone who has resisted the many, many, many demands that I do the host reads and the checks that come along with it, that&#8217;s the innovation is we&#8217;re making the reporters read the ads now.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In the old days of TV and radio, the hosts read the ads, and then they stopped. Now they do it again. Maybe there&#8217;s some study saying they were more corrupt.&nbsp; But I haven&#8217;t really seen any evidence of that. I just think these are different kinds of forms.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It used to be that front page advertising in newspapers was considered horrifically corrupt and now they do it all the time. Some of this stuff is people get caught up on the forms in a medium that&#8217;s just changing really, really fast. No, we want to create amazing advertising that our advertisers are really happy with and works for them. That&#8217;s just core to the business. It is another nice thing about starting from scratch.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s a difference between when you&#8217;re building a media company, as you have done, thinking about, “This is a product that our audience is going to love and that our advertisers are going to love.” And in that neonatal state, church and state can talk to each other a lot. Once you launch the thing, they&#8217;ve got to be really independent.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is the core challenge of our time, especially if you want to make something that gets wide distribution. If you want to start a newsletter on Substack or Ghost or Beehiiv and charge a lot of money to a small audience, I think you can do pretty well. Your ability to have a massive impact gets immediately limited, as you&#8217;ve said. There&#8217;s a cap on your audience size. It seems like Semafor wants to have the big impact, but retain the elite audience.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is a way to build a big business without reaching a huge scale is to reach a very, very valuable audience. Again, that&#8217;s not the only way to build a media company, you wouldn&#8217;t want to be in a world where that was the only kind of media company, but we are totally, totally focused on that. It is working and it is allowing us to hire great journalists to break stories.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the things that I consider with our audience all the time, because we were free until about a year ago, is that we had a huge audience and they were very aware of any of our potential biases. Maybe this is just the tech audience, and we have lots of commenters. But if you love Apple, everything is going to be pro-Apple. That is just the firmament in which a tech publication stands.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But also Comcast was an investor in Vox Media and Vox, and we would have to disclose it. Comcast didn&#8217;t like me, but we would disclose it all the time. There&#8217;s just some part of, “Well, we think the audience is smart, they&#8217;re an elite audience, they understand the structure, they might understand the biases that come with having Jensen on the board of advisors, having a bunch of Saudi royalty on your board of advisors.” How do you feel about that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, they understand what we&#8217;re doing quite clearly.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do they think that that gets some influence? Because that&#8217;s what the consumer audience definitely believes.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t know what they think, but our promise to them is that it doesn&#8217;t, and that we&#8217;re covering these people very independently. In fact, a lot of the people on these advisory boards have diametrically opposed interests to one another.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s no journalistic followthrough, not any more than I think being on the <em>DealBook </em>task force influences what you see in <em>The New York Times</em>. I do think though, in the biggest sense like this, as you said, just to go back to something you said earlier, that everything is marketing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Everything is corrupt.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In corners of media, including our corner, we&#8217;ve managed to really hold the line on this, but if you look at a lot of social video in particular and platforms like TikTok, totally undisclosed advertising is everywhere and it really distorts how people see the world. Just in terms of people&#8217;s judgment about what&#8217;s working, what&#8217;s real, what&#8217;s not real.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think about this a lot in the AI space actually, because there are so many anecdotes out there or videos of people doing incredibly cool things with this tool or that tool, and you just never really know. It&#8217;s just hard to know what&#8217;s marketing and what&#8217;s not, what&#8217;s just literally paid for and what&#8217;s not. We are doing a project that I&#8217;m very excited about called the Semafor Innovation Atlas. It&#8217;s just literally trying to report, “Here are some cool particularly public sector AI projects that are real.” Because there&#8217;s so much out there that&#8217;s just unreal but that tells a good story, which is in a way the job of marketing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I had a partner at a very, very large consulting firm tell me they had done hundreds of AI deployments and less than two dozen had yielded positive ROI.&nbsp; I said, &#8220;Can you just tell me that on the record?&#8221; And he said, &#8220;Absolutely not. We want hundreds more.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;re in that moment where everything feels marketing, everything feels corrupt. The thing I&#8217;m just pushing at is the audience, their base assumption, regardless of how elite the audience is, is that everything is corrupt. I find the higher up we go, the assumption that things can be bought and paid for increases.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We live in a very populist moment, in this widespread belief that everything is corrupt. It just diffuses through society and it&#8217;s partly justified. It&#8217;s partly not. My favorite example of this is the congressional stock trading thing, where there&#8217;s been a lot of research. There are, I&#8217;m sure, corrupt Congress people front-running stocks. It&#8217;s never been a big problem and there&#8217;s no study showing that it&#8217;s widespread.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To try to disabuse people of this, they passed a law several years ago saying that members of Congress have to disclose their stock trades. And now there are all these accounts. There&#8217;s 400 whatever members of Congress, some of them are winning, some of them are losing. If you only look at the ones who are doing well, you can tell a story about widespread corruption.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Now, everyone believes it&#8217;s incredibly corrupt as a result of a transparency measure that actually showed it wasn&#8217;t. We&#8217;re in a moment where there&#8217;s this deeply baked-in sense that every institution is corrupt. We try by being really transparent and really direct and, by not compromising on this stuff, sending a message to counter that. But you&#8217;re swimming against a big cultural tide right now.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For us, a big part of the marketing of our events and the way we make them good is that it&#8217;s going to be a festival of news, we&#8217;re going to ask real questions, it&#8217;s going to be exciting. Justin at some point I think called Semafor World Economy “Davos with follow-up questions.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s pretty good.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That to me is like you guys saying, &#8220;We don&#8217;t take freebies in reviewing gadgets.&#8221; That&#8217;s a huge selling point for you. You got to really lean into that, not away from it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The thing that gets me now, the reason I think we can market it, is that if this was 10 years ago saying, &#8220;</strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong> has an ethics policy,&#8221; all of my competitors would say, &#8220;So do we.&#8221; I think </strong><strong><em>Wired</em></strong><strong> is doing great reporting.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>A lot of the way they market their great reporting is they just say out loud, &#8220;Look at all this reporting, we do it. Buy our subscription.&#8221; It&#8217;s totally effective. They&#8217;ve cracked some code there by just saying out loud that they do the reporting, people will pay for it.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Turns out people like journalism.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think that&#8217;s very smart. What has occurred to me in all of that is particularly our youngest audience does not know. They did not come up the same way. The water they&#8217;ve been swimming in their entire lives is social media, integrated brand campaigns by creators, and a feed that is increasingly fake and bought and paid for. I&#8217;m not sure about us showing up and saying, &#8220;There&#8217;s an old way of doing this.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">See, I disagree. People don&#8217;t want to be lied to and don&#8217;t want to be fed slop. We&#8217;re headed for some kind of reckoning like the big payola scandals in the radio industry.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Everybody inside the radio industry knew and it was a totally open secret that the way you got your song on the radio is you pay off the DJ, but it turned out the audience was not in on the joke. So when Congress held hearings into it totally blew up the industry and upended everything.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Particularly with political influencer marketing, people hate that. You’ve got to think Congress is going to come in and crack down on it. I&#8217;m actually optimistic about that. Adam Schiff just <a href="https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-introduces-bill-to-improve-transparency-of-paid-influencers-promoting-political-campaigns/">recently introduced a bill on it</a>. That probably won&#8217;t be the one, but everybody hates this. The idea that your favorite influencer is being bribed by some politician to lie to you, people do not like that.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That disclosure, which is mostly in effect or somewhat in effect with big brand marketing, if PepsiCo buys an ad, they&#8217;re going to disclose it. There&#8217;s a lot of shady stuff happening around the margins. And then politics, because there&#8217;s this chasm between the Federal Elections Commission, which sort of collapsed, and the FTC, which regulates other advertising. There&#8217;s all this undisclosed and undisclosable political advertising. I just do not think people like that. That&#8217;s going to wind up having to be regulated. It makes people angry. It makes <em>you</em> angry.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m curious about this. There was a recent story, </strong><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/08/01/heritage-foundation-young-republicans-groypers-hiring-01006937"><strong>I think it was </strong><strong><em>Politico</em></strong></a><strong>, saying all of the young staffers on the right have no idea how to do anything, because they&#8217;re all comms people. They&#8217;re all influencers and there&#8217;s a talent shortage.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think </strong><a href="https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a35364914/madison-cawthorn-future-republican-politics-staff-legislating/"><strong>Madison Cawthorn was the bellwether</strong></a><strong>. He came into office and he said, &#8220;I&#8217;ve got more comms people than policy people.&#8221; And then it very quickly became clear that wasn&#8217;t going to be great. But now that&#8217;s the norm that we&#8217;re all just tweeting policy into existence. We&#8217;re going to stop the Iran war with tweets. It&#8217;s a real thing that happens once a week in this country.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s something there that&#8217;s broken. Political influence operations, maybe we hate when they&#8217;re paid for, but they are politics now. And they&#8217;re part of the feed in a very real way.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Sometimes in really damaging ways, this administration is incredibly responsive to social media. A story goes viral on Twitter and somebody gets their immigration status pulled — I just <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/society/maryam-tahmasebi-iran-ice-essay/">read a piece</a> from a woman who&#8217;s in ICE holding because there was a sort of misleading campaign saying her husband&#8217;s mother had been a translator for the Iranians in the &#8217;70s, and so she&#8217;s now in an ICE holding cell. The administration acted because this went viral on social media.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s always been a very intense relationship between the media and the politicians. <em>The New York Times</em> publishes a story and then Chuck Schumer the next day introduces a piece of legislation, which is the oldest trick in the book.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Actually, it’s not been my experience that Republican staffers in Washington are incompetent. I live in New York and often go to Washington, and I&#8217;m in Washington a lot. People in my liberal Brooklyn neighborhood will say, &#8220;God, it must be so horrible to deal with those Trump people.&#8221; The reality is actually they&#8217;re incredibly polite and responsive.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It was a nightmare often to deal with the Biden people, because Democrats think that journalists work for them. That writing something independent is an act of betrayal. I suppose Republicans have either appropriate or lower expectations. That&#8217;s sort of always been true.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Communication has always been a pretty important part of politics, but there&#8217;s a way in which the disorganization of this administration in particular just means that they&#8217;re totally reactive to random pieces of media that somebody plays Donald Trump on an iPad. That is really different.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I just see that we&#8217;re going to tweet policy into reality as a feature of this administration. There&#8217;s not a lot of rigor under that policy often.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Or often somebody else just tweets something and it goes viral. This was the story of DOGE. Musk was just seeing tweets and making policy based on it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do you think that has come to an end? We&#8217;re saying people hate these political influence operations, that probably they will get regulated in some way because both sides hate the idea that all the influencers are getting paid by politicians.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, right now we&#8217;re in the worst part of it. Although you&#8217;ve seen a federal government that had had a lot of momentum and ability to execute things, it lost all of that. At the White House, there&#8217;s much less able to do anything right now, so there&#8217;s less happening.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is where I wanted to wrap up. It&#8217;s going to break somehow. There&#8217;s some kind of reckoning coming where people want the truth. People don&#8217;t trust the tech companies. The antipathy towards AI in particular is high, but the tech companies and a bunch of billionaires own all our distribution in very significant and serious ways. Something is going to happen. The audiences are going to change in some way. There will be some reaction somehow. Do you have a view of that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This stuff keeps changing. There is a temptation to validate the populist impulses of the moment that I actually think journalists should probably resist sometimes. I heard your <a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/971855/ai-data-center-backlash-protests-florida-bipartisan">interview with Gaby Del Valle about data center politics</a>. I loved her anecdote about a rumor going around that the data centers were killing cattle, and she tracked it down to one Texas farmer who had lost one cow.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I actually think the role of journalism is not always to amplify the populist reaction, even though it&#8217;s so easy and social media validates that. It&#8217;s a little more complicated. I actually hesitate to predict whether things are getting better or worse.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Your event Silicon Valley &amp; The World is coming up. If I had to make one prediction about the midterms, it would be that surveillance and data centers will cause some sort of left-right realignment. They scramble the lines in very populist ways.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But they also cause alignment. They bring together very disparate groups of people. How do you expect that class of billionaires, which all want things, to react to what I feel like will be a surprising story in the midterms?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are different strains of this. The data center story is so hot right now, and I&#8217;m in the minority here. Most people think this will be a huge political issue for a long time. Companies try to build facilities in people&#8217;s neighborhoods and then they go in and they sponsor the Little League team and they pay a bunch of carpenters and they sponsor the parade. That is actually something corporate America is pretty good at. And it&#8217;s unbelievable how badly they screwed this up, these data centers.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah, it&#8217;s very bad.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But that is because they aren&#8217;t actually causing stillborn cattle. Fundamentally, with the exception that they&#8217;re going to have to navigate the energy issue, they&#8217;re going to have to find a way to not elevate energy prices. But some of that probably does fade as companies figure out how to do this without infuriating neighborhoods and doing it in places people want it. Maybe it will become less of an issue.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The big questions around regulating AI are just fascinating. And you&#8217;re right, after, as you said, not regulating social media and then beginning the [second] Trump administration with this incredibly accelerationist point of view, they are now just doing it. They&#8217;re just regulating this technology day to day. They&#8217;re going to have to figure out a framework for it. Every political candidate will have to have some point of view on it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s pretty unpredictable what this is going to be, but I do think we&#8217;re in a new era. Particularly the biggest part of the new era is just that the federal government is now this huge participant in the economy and in the economy of tech. It owns a big chunk of intel and is trying to shape technological policies and picking winners and losers. Executives are in Washington constantly trying to make their case. I think that whoever the next president is, that probably doesn&#8217;t change. And that&#8217;s a really massive structural shift that we&#8217;re all going to be covering.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do you think that you can run as a populist if you want to take a big stake in our AI companies? Or is that a redistributive move?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t think populism is necessarily that. I wouldn&#8217;t get too far into the details. It just depends how you talk about it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That does seem like the theme of the day in Washington.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What do they say about simple solutions to complex problems?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah, Trump has compared those stakes in companies to the sovereign wealth funds.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, that&#8217;s reasonable.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>A lot of Gulf states have that. I actually wanted to ask you about this. You cover the Gulf deeply, you&#8217;ve got events in the Gulf. The United States, I would say, is in some kind of free speech crisis that is modeled a lot after the control that Gulf states have over their media and what people are not allowed to say. The Kushner family is all wrapped up into that.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How do you think about all of the things you talked about independence when you have that money in your organization, when you have those folks on your various boards at events, when you have journalists on the ground in those places?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We cover Saudi and the Emirates in particular a lot and pretty aggressively. We hired the great reporters from <em>Bloomberg</em> and <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> and places like that in the region. We don&#8217;t have any investment money from the Gulf and for many sovereigns. I&#8217;m not sure that&#8217;s what you meant, but just to be clear about that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They&#8217;re on your board for these events.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;re advisors. There are some executives from that part of the world on advisory boards. But we cover them independently. The same as the <em>Financial Times</em> and <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> and others do in that region, and in <em>The New York Times</em>. If you talk to reporters who work in the region, it&#8217;s very, very hard and complicated. And there are local laws that you have to be careful about.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We were the only ones to write about a very interesting story, the way in which the Emirates, I believe, were preventing photojournalists from distributing images. That&#8217;s just the law. If your photographer goes and takes a picture of a drone that hit a building, they will arrest them. Every news organization that operates in that region, that operates in China, you just have to be really, really careful and thoughtful about it, but you can&#8217;t let it compromise the reporting.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do you feel like it compromises the reporting here in the United States?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No. I think that global news organizations actually — and if you think about <em>The New York Times</em>, which has reporters in Tehran — have thought really hard about this. There are stories that you have your correspondent in Washington write that you wouldn&#8217;t have somebody on the ground in Tehran write. And obviously, we think a lot about the safety of our reporters, but it&#8217;s a complicated question.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I asked that question because I see what the Trump administration does to journalists here.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s funny, because I think that we obviously are in this, as you said, free speech crisis here in all sorts of ways. I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s like a monarchy that doesn&#8217;t have the First Amendment. I think we&#8217;re a long way from that.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To me, the closer parallel to the Gulf is <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-rise-of-personalist-rule/">personalist rule</a>. People talk a lot about corruption, but when you think about these relationships, often it&#8217;s a totally different style of doing business where you&#8217;re helping your friends and family. But it&#8217;s like a totally different modality that obviously in the American tradition is incredibly corrupt. In other parts of the world, that&#8217;s just the nature of business. I think that&#8217;s how parts of the Trump administration operate.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The Trump family in particular sees that as a model. That was the comparison I was making. You can see them enriching themselves, particularly in that part of the world.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I do think that elements of that style of doing business are more like other parts of the world. Obviously a lot of the speech stuff here is terrible, but it&#8217;s really not like… I mean, just as somebody who operates there, it&#8217;s not like being in a country without the First Amendment.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Fair enough. Lastly, I just want to talk about AI in your newsroom for one second. We&#8217;ve talked a lot about AI in the industry. You make a lot of stuff. The pull, especially when you go make a bunch of video, is to fire ever more content into these algorithms. We haven&#8217;t really talked about it. Maybe the only journalistic ethics crisis I&#8217;ve never brought to you is, how should we use AI?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Because I know that you&#8217;re such a purist. It&#8217;s funny, I go back and forth on how high impact it will be, but right now I&#8217;m like all the way forth on this. A colleague of mine built this great internal tool that is too boring to explain, but it&#8217;s going to totally change all of our lives internally. And I&#8217;m now a huge believer in the SaaSpocalypse. It&#8217;s all going away.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You cancel your Trello contract and you&#8217;re done.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some of this internal tooling is amazing. We also produced this report out of Semafor World Economy where it was a five-day event with three simultaneous stages and 300 interviews.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On Saturday morning, I texted the team, &#8220;Hey, I know you&#8217;re all tired, but could everybody write a little like ‘what I learned at Semafor World Economy’?&#8221; And everyone said, &#8220;Ugh.&#8221; And then Reed Albergotti, our great tech editor, said, &#8220;Give me a couple of hours.&#8221; He dropped all the transcripts into Codex or Cowork and then produced something that said, &#8220;Here are the most commonly made statements. Here are some disagreements.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We then spent a week hammering through that and actually wound up creating a lot more work for humans. But the notion of, &#8220;What&#8217;s the takeaway from these 300 conversations?&#8221; That&#8217;s a job for AI basically. It&#8217;s a very hard thing, because no one was in all of them. They were simultaneous.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That was a great product that we then released and will continue to build on. I&#8217;m actually very bullish about AI, but fundamentally the best parts of reporting are gathering new information that isn&#8217;t on the internet and then communicating it with people. Everything in between is production and is very vulnerable to AI. Those things I think are pretty defensible.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s a good argument. I&#8217;m going to come around to it, I promise. I&#8217;m going to come around to it. This very much was a conversation exactly like the conversation we have over beers all the time.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay. I have an AI question for you.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s a tool that allows you, on a podcast — if you screwed something up, if you&#8217;ve mispronounced somebody&#8217;s name — to drop it in with your own voice so you don&#8217;t have to go back into the studio and rerecord that sentence. Is that okay or not? This is an argument we&#8217;re having internally.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It depends on exactly how misleading you think you&#8217;re going to be.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, just like you mispronounced my name in the intro, and your producer said, &#8220;Hey, can you come back into the studio?&#8221; It&#8217;s Saturday morning.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So if I mispronounced your name to you on air?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, in your intro.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>No, because then that&#8217;s just an edit. I would just pick it up.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, I know, but you have to go into the studio and rerecord that. But you&#8217;re on a boat doing whatever it is you do. And your producer can just take your voice and redo it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s fine. I honestly think that&#8217;s fine.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think that&#8217;s fine too. Okay, good.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The deception comes if I mispronounce your name to you here, and then you leave, and then I make it better. If I&#8217;ve done something misleading. If I&#8217;m just picking up audio that you would have never heard and we&#8217;re just going to do an edit, we&#8217;re editing that anyway.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay, good. I feel the same way.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>To me, the line always comes down to who is being deceived. And if you&#8217;re literally going to deceive the guest and you&#8217;re going to create a moment that never happened, probably you&#8217;re way over the line.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Although honestly, that&#8217;s a standard practice in television. They&#8217;ll recut the questions.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;ve heard this. Although, now they&#8217;re all getting in trouble and I have to publish the full transcript, or the </strong><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/02/business/media/paramount-trump-60-minutes-lawsuit.html"><strong>Trump administration sues them</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Ben, this has been great. Like I said, this is very much like many of the conversations we&#8217;ve had in private. I hope the audience can feel it. Thank you so much.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I really enjoyed it. I love the show, and thank you for having me on.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Does Google even want to win at AI?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/979370/google-deepmind-ai-race-lose-jeff-dean-demis-hassabis" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=979370</id>
			<updated>2026-08-20T12:51:05-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-08-13T10:10:31-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Business" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Google" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today on Decoder, I’m talking with Hayden Field, The Verge’s senior AI reporter, about a question that’s been rocketing around the tech industry for the past week: Is Google losing the AI race? That’s because last week Google announced a bombshell reorganization of its AI division, Google DeepMind. Jeff Dean, the company’s chief scientist, is [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A photo illustration featuring Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Deepmind cofounder Demis Hassabis." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: The Verge" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/08/VRG_DCD_081226.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today on <em>Decoder</em>, I’m talking with Hayden Field, <em>The Verge</em>’s senior AI reporter, about a question that’s been rocketing around the tech industry for the past week: Is Google losing the AI race?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s because last week Google announced a bombshell reorganization of its AI division, Google DeepMind. Jeff Dean, the company’s chief scientist, is leaving to form his own startup and DeepMind cofounder and CEO Demis Hassabis is stepping aside to focus on longer-term research.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You can read these moves, and Google’s reaction, in a lot of different ways. So I really wanted to sit down with Hayden to dig into some of the smartest analysis we’ve seen this past week, and what we think is really going on here.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Also: At its core, this is an org chart story — and what is <em>Decoder </em>about if not org charts?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: <em>Verge</em> senior AI reporter Hayden Field on what’s happening at Google DeepMind and the future of AI research. Here we go.</p>

<iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP2773717777" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This interview had been lightly edited for length and clarity.&nbsp;</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Hayden Field, you&#8217;re </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong>&#8216;s senior AI reporter. Welcome back to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thanks. It&#8217;s great to be here.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s always chaos when you&#8217;re here, Hayden.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It really is. There&#8217;s no week off. Every week something crazy is happening.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This time is a little bit different. The news happened last week. Google reorganized its AI division, Google DeepMind. Demis Hassabis, who was the head of DeepMind, has ascended into Google heaven where he&#8217;s now the chairman of DeepMind. He&#8217;s going to focus on bigger research. Jeff Dean, who had started Google Brain, left with a bunch of other people from Google to start a new lab that will run on Google Cloud.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is a big reshuffle of Google&#8217;s AI efforts. It comes as Google is not competitive on the frontier anymore. There&#8217;s a lot of reactions to this news. I wanted to just go through some of that reaction with you — you&#8217;ve done a lot of reporting on what&#8217;s going on with Google, what&#8217;s going on in the industry — and try to put this all into context for people.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So let&#8217;s just start at the start. Google is by and large the best-positioned company to win AI. If you just look at what it is, how it makes money, its distribution power to put AI in front of people, putting AI in Search, its resources, it feels like it should have always been the winner.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>As you reported from the Elon Musk-Sam Altman trial, </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/923518/musk-altman-trial-openai-demis-hassabis-google-deepmind"><strong>everyone was afraid of Demis Hassabis the whole time</strong></a><strong>. You look at all of these ingredients and you think, &#8220;Google should be the runaway winner.&#8221; Instead, I would say over the last week, a lot of people have said, &#8220;Google&#8217;s going to lose,&#8221; which I find fascinating.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is that your diagnosis of what&#8217;s going on with Google? Is this just a catastrophe for its bleeding-edge efforts?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s really bad, but I do think people are forgetting how powerful Google is and how much they own. All of the integration they can do, all of the tools, all of the data they have on us — they have a huge safety net, is what I&#8217;m saying. A huge cushion.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Even if they make huge mistakes and are falling behind, I still think you can&#8217;t count them out completely because they have so much power. However, it&#8217;s crazy to me that they have that much power and all that going for the company, and they&#8217;re still not in the lead, let alone being behind as of right now. That&#8217;s what I think is crazy.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And Sundar and Demis both made that point in their statements last week. Sundar wrote that the company&#8217;s committed to being at the frontier and they&#8217;re focused on the areas they need to improve, which is CEO-speak for, &#8220;We know we need to get our shit together.&#8221; And then Demis wrote that the company&#8217;s &#8220;entering a next chapter” and that “it has the ingredients to lead from here, and I firmly believe we will,&#8221; AKA, &#8220;we aren&#8217;t yet, but we have the ingredients to do it sometime in the future.&#8221; Both of them acknowledging that is pretty crazy.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s not looking good for them, but it reminds me of someone with a trust fund. They have a fallback. Don&#8217;t count them out yet.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That trust fund is Google Search. They have a product that billions of people use and that they&#8217;re putting AI into. As you and I have discussed many, many times, that is a consumer product. Consumer AI has not yet reached a point of making a bunch of money for a bunch of people, but everyone sees that as the prize. All of the action is in enterprise AI right now, and you can see Anthropic is out to a big lead because of their focus on enterprise AI and in particular coding.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the things I want to come back to is whether Google made the wrong bet on multimodality and world models, which Demis is really focused on, instead of these core enterprise use cases and whether they even want to be at the frontier. They&#8217;re saying they want to be, but maybe they don&#8217;t. Maybe they just want to sell cloud services to Anthropic, which is a business that is growing for Google.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But hold that thought. I want to come back to that. Just put that in your brain. This is part of the framework that I&#8217;m thinking about. You just said Sundar said, &#8220;It&#8217;s the next chapter. We&#8217;re committed to it.&#8221; They&#8217;re making changes.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But Hayden, a few months ago I was </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/936445/sundar-pichai-ai-search-google-zero-youtube-web"><strong>sitting with Sundar Pichai</strong></a><strong> and I asked him, &#8220;Hey, you just restructured this entire company. You got rid of all of your senior executives. You have all new ones. You made DeepMind.&#8221; He said, &#8220;Yeah, that was hard.&#8221; Here&#8217;s a clip:</strong></p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sundar Pichai: </strong>It was tough to convey it outside, but I pivoted the company to be AI-first. We had all the ingredients, so in some ways I felt like the Overton window had changed. People were adopting these technologies faster than we had expected. To me it was a way to go and actually express ourselves through our products, but I realized we had to organize ourselves for it. And going back to my earlier point, I realized we need a core model and a core infrastructure team to power everything we are doing across Google. A lot of my initial energy was to go set that up.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To get one AI team, we had world-class research teams in Brain and DeepMind and brought those together as Google DeepMind, which was harder than it sounds because it’s like saying, “Go put Stanford and MIT together and create a department out of it or a university out of it.” So I think we’re doing that well.&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s Sundar saying, &#8220;My company wasn&#8217;t organized for the AI moment. We were slow to react to ChatGPT. I made this huge change to build a central infrastructure team.&#8221; It&#8217;s three months later, four months later, and the head of Google Brain is leaving. The head of Google DeepMind is becoming the chief scientist.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Now, Google DeepMind doesn&#8217;t have a CEO anymore. It has an SVP. What do you read into that? Is that yet another reset or is it just more of the same?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s another reset, but it&#8217;s hard because I really do think it&#8217;s both. It&#8217;s a result of the fact that Demis has never been interested in the productization stuff. He&#8217;s, like you mentioned, really into world models, research, curing disease, and drug discovery. And Jeff Dean is similar. So I&#8217;m not surprised.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you&#8217;re being optimistic, you could view this as just the ripple effects of the conversation you had with Sundar, but I also don&#8217;t think this bodes very well for the company because, as we&#8217;re seeing with OpenAI literally right now, whenever there are a bunch of executive shakeups, people get nervous. People below them leave. People don&#8217;t work as hard because they&#8217;re thinking too much about things. Plus, a lot of the people that are working on AI at Google are there because of Jeff Dean or Demis. So what&#8217;s going to happen now?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;re thinking about this solely on the page, logistical. &#8220;Okay, who is best positioned to speed up our productization?&#8221; Maybe that&#8217;s the best decision. But when you take into account all the minds that are leaving and all the minds that will leave in the next couple of months, it&#8217;s going to be rough.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a lot of controversy, or I guess curiosity, around Gemini 4, which is not yet out. They announced it at Google I/O. They put all their emphasis on the 3.5 class models. The 3.5 class models are not at the top of the leaderboards. They&#8217;ve actually fallen quite far behind.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Does this strike you as the actions of a bunch of executives who think Gemini 4 is going to vault them back into the lead? Or do you think people are getting out because Google isn&#8217;t as committed or focused on being on the frontier?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As <a href="https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/gemini-is-cooked-but-gcp-is-cooking"><em>SemiAnalysis</em> wrote in its blog</a>, &#8220;These are not the actions of people excited about Gemini 4 Pro.&#8221; So definitely not. Google is pretty committed to being a frontier lab. It&#8217;s more, is it going to reach its goal? Though my answer to that a few months ago would&#8217;ve been that it was a frontier lab, right now it&#8217;s more of a wait-and-see. It is right now, but is it going to fall out of favor?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>SemiAnalysis</em> put it more heavily. They said in their release, &#8220;We believe DeepMind is no longer a frontier lab.&#8221; To me, it&#8217;s still got that designation, but in a few months that might be very different and I didn&#8217;t anticipate that changing so quickly. There&#8217;s a chance it could go the way of Meta where they suddenly get pretty behind and they keep promising things and then taking a while to deliver. Same with Apple, actually. We&#8217;ll see.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m glad you brought up SemiAnalysis. It&#8217;s an investment research firm. They do great work across AI and chips and thinking about how the math of all this should work out. That post really struck me as well.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I just want to reuse some other parts of it. There&#8217;s a lot of this in which </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong> has covered Google for a long time and there are echoes of this throughout our coverage of Google, and there are some parts of this which feel new to me — they&#8217;re new problems for Google.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So I&#8217;ll just read you the longer version of the quote you just said. As Hayden said, they wrote, &#8220;For all intents and purposes, we believe DeepMind is no longer a frontier lab. Google will continue meandering on and releasing models, but their odds of reaching the state of the art again have dropped to zero.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This strikes me as an incredible claim. We see the model race twist and turn all the time. And to say, &#8220;Google will never once again hit the state of the art&#8221; feels like an enormous claim. That&#8217;s the part that feels new to me. Week to week in AI, anything could happen. Do you think there&#8217;s evidence for that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s really putting the cart before the horse. It&#8217;s been a few months since we ourselves wrote about Gemini 3&#8217;s hype. It was winning the model race for a few weeks until something else came along. I definitely don&#8217;t think the odds have dropped to zero for them reaching state of the art again. In a way, they&#8217;re cutting out some of their research focus and just going all in on products. If they&#8217;re really going all in on that and they find a way to put all their efforts behind that, they will reach state of the art again.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, what this will be is them constantly catching up right after another frontier lab. And then the other frontier labs that invest in research more and long-term stuff are going to be pulling ahead. It&#8217;s kind of the same thing as if you&#8217;re a writer and someone keeps copying you, they&#8217;re always going to be right behind you. They&#8217;re not going to be thinking of the next thing like you are.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s what I foresee ending up happening here. If you&#8217;re not really investing quite as much in the longer-term research and all these niche areas that, for example, Jeff Dean&#8217;s startup is going to be looking at, I feel like they could reach state of the art again. But it&#8217;s not going to be them coming in the lead over and over again.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s the part that felt new to me. I don&#8217;t really know how to evaluate that claim, especially as Google&#8217;s AI division changes leadership. I can&#8217;t read Sundar&#8217;s mind. I&#8217;ve tried many times. It&#8217;s very difficult to see what&#8217;s going on in his head. I don&#8217;t know if he wants to win that race or if he thinks Gemini is good enough now to make a bunch of money inside of Google&#8217;s products. I really don&#8217;t know how to evaluate, “They&#8217;ll never be at the state of the art again.”</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The part I do know how to evaluate is the second part of the SemiAnalysis claim here, which anybody who has paid attention to Google will immediately understand and immediately agree with this, I think.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>They go on to say, &#8220;Perhaps there&#8217;s some world in which Google reaches the state of the art again, but we think the odds are basically zero… The issue with Google was not Jeff Dean or Noam Shazeer,&#8221; who we should talk about, &#8220;but rather their extremely bureaucratic, painfully slow, and strategically timid culture.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s Google. I literally sit with Sundar once a year and say, &#8220;Tell me about your culture and tell me about this bureaucracy.&#8221; There&#8217;s something about Sundar saying to me at I/O, &#8220;I made DeepMind the center of the company and then everything else is productizing their development,&#8221; and then all the people leaving and SemiAnalysis saying they&#8217;ll never be at the frontier again because their culture is so bureaucratic, that is uniquely Google to me. It feels very familiar.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I know you&#8217;ve talked to people at Google since all these announcements. Is there a sense that Google&#8217;s culture needs to change even more to go and compete?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s a reason that so many people are flocking to Anthropic right now. Anthropic is not perfect by any means. They have a lot of red flags as well. But I&#8217;m seeing a lot of people from OpenAI, from Google, from Meta flock there because, as we’ve reported a bunch, people in this space are a little bit post-money. A lot of times they don&#8217;t care just about the salary or what they&#8217;re making. They care about working for a place that aligns with their values that they believe in. Google has really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way when it comes to that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Jeff Dean and Demis had both signed a public letter in 2018, saying that <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/7/17439310/google-ai-ethics-principles-warfare-weapons-military-project-maven">AI shouldn&#8217;t be used for lethal autonomous weapons</a>. Jeff Dean had been tweeting in the months before he left Google about the fact that <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/07/nearly-a-thousand-google-workers-sign-letter-urging-company-to-divest-from-ice-cbp.html">mass surveillance could be a really big problem with AI</a>. Jeff Dean even <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/891514/anthropic-pentagon-lawsuit-amicus-brief-openai-google">signed an amicus brief in support of Anthropic</a> with the whole Department of War situation, which Google ended up signing and just kind of letting the Department of War do whatever with their AI.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I could see a lot of people fleeing in the next few months because Jeff Dean seemed to be, according to my sources that I spoke with there, the person keeping a lot of people at Google. I could see a big exodus happening in the next few months.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is one of the bigger questions. Who was the keeper of the morals and values of this team inside of a Google that seems to be more willing to play ball with the Trump administration? With the Department of War, and with the uses of AI that some people are very, very skeptical or very, very skittish about?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s been a lot of reporting about the fact that when Google acquired DeepMind and Demis, they signed a pledge to never use DeepMind technology for military purposes. That has been watered down. In fact, Jeff Dean recently said, &#8220;We should not use AI for these purposes.&#8221; There are people inside of Google who&#8217;ve sent a letter. There seems to be a lot of big-name talents who are saying, &#8220;We don&#8217;t want to commercialize this stuff in the way it&#8217;s being commercialized right away.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The problem is that it&#8217;s the governments and the militaries who are spending all the money right now, and Google is good at making money. It wants to fund AI development with actual revenue instead of raising endless amounts of debt like the startup frontier labs are doing. Is that conflict navigable for Sundar and whoever&#8217;s running AI now, or is it just the reality of being a huge corporation that funds its efforts with revenue?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s unfortunately not surprising to me, for a huge corporation in the US where you have to maximize shareholder value. They&#8217;re subsidizing a lot of their AI efforts right now, it seems like, to me. For example, the other day I vibe coded a new website for myself and Gemini was the only tool that I could use the free version of for nine hours. I was trying to do it as an everyman, so I wasn&#8217;t signing into any of them. I just said, &#8220;Which one will let me go with the free version and do a ton of stuff?&#8221; It was only Gemini.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;re really trying to get people in their corner here and trying to change developers&#8217; loyalty, change engineers&#8217; loyalty over to them. So they need money. And to be fair, I do think they could do this a lot differently if they wanted. They&#8217;re one of the largest corporations in the world and they&#8217;re making a lot of money in other areas. They don&#8217;t have to be doing this, but that doesn&#8217;t mean they won&#8217;t. And I think they will continue.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But I also think, like I mentioned, that&#8217;s going to lead to a lot of brain drain. One of the current Google employees I spoke with said that a lot of people around him felt like losing Jeff Dean was a big blow for morality at Google, and that it also continues a brain drain they&#8217;ve been seeing and that mediocrity is the likely result. So like what you were saying, they may be always catching up from now on and never forging a path ahead like they had been six months ago.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think this brings me back to that framework I mentioned at the very beginning that I wanted to put a pin in. Does Google want to win at the frontier or can they just sell Google Cloud at enormous high rates to Anthropic and OpenAI while maintaining usable models for its consumer products at high rates?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a world in which Gemini is there for you to search your Gmail and provide AI overviews and be cheap enough to run to let consumers vibe code websites for nine hours at a time. But the real money is in selling TPUs in Google Cloud to Anthropic and Anthropic is going to go collect the government money and Google is just there as a vendor. They&#8217;re just selling to Anthropic and OpenAI and whoever else needs data center capacity.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We can see Google Cloud as a business that is exploding. They don&#8217;t seem to mind that they&#8217;re selling their own capacity to Anthropic instead of Google&#8217;s own products, which is one of the challenges of running a company that has frenemies as customers.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How do you see that playing out? Do you see Google ever saying, &#8220;Look, we have to win at the frontier. We have to win at AGI. We have to make sure recursive self-improvement of coding occurs so the next model works,&#8221; which is a religious belief inside of OpenAI and Anthropic? Or do you see them saying, &#8220;Actually, being one or two steps behind the frontier is fine because that&#8217;ll make our products work well enough and we&#8217;ll just sell capacity to the people chasing the AGI dream&#8221;?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The way they are right now, they&#8217;re going to keep chasing it because their investors want that. It makes their stock go up to say, &#8220;Hey, we&#8217;re chasing this. We&#8217;re at the frontier. We&#8217;re the only large corporation that&#8217;s almost or nearly or equally caught up with OpenAI and Anthropic.&#8221; They don&#8217;t need to go the way of Amazon and, in my opinion, Meta right now.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In a year or two, if they continue the brain drain and they keep falling behind, then yeah, maybe they&#8217;re going to do what you said in situation two. But for now, there&#8217;s no reason for them not to keep chasing, especially because that&#8217;s a great thing to talk about on an earnings call and it makes all your investors happy.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The AGI piece is really interesting to me, especially in the context of Google. Demis Hassabis was the final speaker at Google I/O. After an hour and a half of very practical demonstrations of AI inside of Google products, Demis came out and he talked about protein folding and drug discovery, which are the things that he really cares about.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And then he ended the entire presentation by saying very confidently, </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/934260/google-io-ai-singularity-demis-hassabis"><strong>&#8220;We are at the foothills of the singularity.&#8221;</strong></a><strong> Google doesn&#8217;t say, &#8220;AGI.” It says, &#8220;the foothills of the singularity,&#8221; which is an enormous claim.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I thought, &#8220;Boy, that&#8217;s an incredible way to end Google I/O.&#8221; And then later I sat down with Sundar and I said, &#8220;Do you agree we&#8217;re at the foothills of singularity? What does this mean to you?&#8221; Here&#8217;s what Sundar said to me.</strong></p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sundar Pichai</strong>: Demis and I have had long, deep conversations on this topic.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Nilay Patel: I figured.&nbsp;</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In this context, for him, the advent of AGI is what he thinks of as the singularity and I think—</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do you have a definition of AGI? Have you debated? Do you have an agreement?</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We debated a lot. Both Demis and I are very close to how we think about AGI &#8230; There is a harder definition of AGI, which is that it has to more comprehensively do the wide range of tasks, including cognitive tasks, in a way that&#8217;s comparable. We&#8217;ll at some point actually put it out as a company, and we are working on that. But that&#8217;s what he&#8217;s talking about in this context.</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;ve been thinking about that answer since it happened. Do you know what Sundar&#8217;s definition of AGI or the singularity is based on that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s the exact same as everyone else&#8217;s. In the OpenAI lawsuit, in the materials, we saw the definition of AGI come out of that. It was published and it sounds like he&#8217;s talking about the exact same thing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In Microsoft and OpenAI&#8217;s 2019 contract that was made public as part of the Musk v. Altman trial, it&#8217;s a 36-page agreement, but luckily, finally, we&#8217;re finding out their definition of AGI, which is, &#8220;A highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work.&#8221; It seems similar to what Sundar is saying in terms of cognitive tasks. It&#8217;s just a highly autonomous system that can do a ton of economically valuable knowledge work at the same level or surpass the level of humans.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s the definition I&#8217;ve been working with for the past six years on the beat, and it seems like that tracks with what he&#8217;s saying.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>He said to me that Google would put out a definition of the singularity or AGI and they&#8217;re working on it. As far as I know, they have not yet released this definition. I don&#8217;t know if it tracks the OpenAI one. I do know that&#8217;s basically what the industry says, right? That it&#8217;ll be better than you and me at economically viable tasks. They&#8217;ve stopped saying that.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Equal or better.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Either way, we&#8217;re losing our jobs, right? They&#8217;ve stopped talking about it because that means we&#8217;re all losing our jobs. So that&#8217;s just faded into the background.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I bring this up because Demis is so focused on science, and in particular health outcomes, and in this announcement about him moving on to be chief scientist, Sundar repeated the phrase, &#8220;We&#8217;re at the foothills of the singularity.&#8221; It feels like Demis wanted to chase AGI, world models, protein folding, and all of the next things.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The thing that makes AI economically viable today is writing software code or automating business processes inside of Fortune 500 companies or agentic shopping or whatever boring thing Google needs to do to make money, and those things are getting ever farther apart. If you want to chase the foothills of the singularity in AGI, maybe that has nothing to do with how Google needs AI to make money today.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s a big part of the Google culture clash, right? That&#8217;s, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to chase money and shareholder value instead of holding fast to our ideals.&#8221; That&#8217;s a big part of the AI industry&#8217;s general chaos. How is OpenAI going to make a dollar? Who knows? It&#8217;s </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/news/836212/openai-code-red-chatgpt"><strong>a code red</strong></a><strong>. We&#8217;re right back at the beginning.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How do you see it? Is it that Demis </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/9/24265962/google-deepmind-ai-nobel-prize-winners-chemistry-protein"><strong>wanted another Nobel Prize</strong></a><strong>, so he led them astray and now he&#8217;s getting kicked upstairs and they&#8217;re going to focus on money? Or is there real validity to, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to let him chase the singularity while we work on Gmail Search&#8221;?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s a big difference between, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to let him chase the singularity,&#8221; and, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to let him do a lot of research into biology, drug discovery, and the other stuff he&#8217;s into,&#8221; and that seems to be what he&#8217;s going to be doing. It seems like he and Jeff Dean are going to be doing similar things, but in very different places.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s a tale as old as time. I&#8217;ve been writing about this for so many years, product versus research. The big clashes, the funding, the resources. Companies want products immediately and they don&#8217;t want to invest in the long-term research that sometimes leads to those products. They only want the quick, &#8220;What are we going to turn this into? What&#8217;s the timeline? Let&#8217;s speed it up for products and let&#8217;s compete with all of our three competitors and not really do these long side projects that may lead to something or may not.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The tension&#8217;s building and building, especially as OpenAI and Anthropic are about to go public. Google has a lot of investors to answer to. This is a building of the tension we&#8217;ve been seeing for so many years. And for what it&#8217;s worth, I do think the Demis situation was probably mutual.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;ve heard rumors that <a href="https://pathfounders.com/p/pathfounders-newsletter-our-sources-say-hassabis-wants-out">maybe he wanted to leave completely</a>, but it would be too dramatic for him and Jeff Dean to leave at the same time. So he said, &#8220;Yeah, I&#8217;ll go to this other role and then I&#8217;ll leave later.&#8221; That&#8217;s just a rumor. We&#8217;re not sure. But either way, it doesn&#8217;t seem like he was totally kicked to the curb or kicked upstairs. It&#8217;s more probably a mutual parting where he really is not that interested in products and he wants to do the long-term research, and a lot of these guys are like that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It feels like a real situation where you have to be careful what you wish for, because when Sundar created Google DeepMind, he had to pick a winner, and he picked Demis over Jeff Dean. We were all waiting to see if and when Jeff Dean would leave because he didn&#8217;t win, and now they&#8217;re both leaving because Demis realized that actually operating inside of Google is a very different job than just doing the research.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the questions I have here in general is about DeepMind itself, which is famously headquartered in London and answers to no one. It&#8217;s Google&#8217;s big, fancy AI research arm with the big fancy CEO. That&#8217;s getting pulled down. It&#8217;s being led by an SVP who reports to Sundar now. There are some reports that maybe the center of gravity and the authority is going to move back to Mountain View to Sundar himself. How do you see that playing out inside of Google?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I can definitely see the winds might be changing and the Bay Area might be the headquarters again, at least in terms of power. London&#8217;s autonomy has been going on for a long time. I&#8217;ve visited that office multiple times. It did have a different feeling to it. It felt like there was a lot less urgency in a good way. It was really collaborative. There were a lot of long-term research questions and it was a very different feeling than the tension and the urgency I feel when I visit other AI labs&#8217; offices.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Maybe Sundar got tired of that and said, &#8220;You know what? I need the pressure to rise. I need products quickly. The research can only be done if it&#8217;s going to lead to something that&#8217;s trackable.&#8221; I could definitely see the center of gravity moving to the Bay Area.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The reporting from inside of Google that I&#8217;m most curious about is how that culture changes without these leaders. As you were saying before, Jeff Dean and Demis Hassabis were moral leaders in addition to technical leaders and research innovators. They kept Google from doing a lot of things. They&#8217;re gone now. In some of your own reporting and your story on our site, there are people saying, &#8220;Who will we sell out to next?”&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Sergey Brin, who&#8217;s deeply involved in AI efforts, supports the Trump administration. Sundar obviously stood behind Trump at the inauguration. The questions from the staff about, &#8220;What will we sell it next? What values are up for sale next without the culture carriers of a Demis or a Jeff Dean?&#8221; seem open.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Are there answers? Who&#8217;s taking over DeepMind now and what kind of person do we think they are?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s Koray Kavukcuoglu, and these questions are super valid because I don&#8217;t think Koray&#8217;s going to be speaking up on this stuff. He&#8217;s a product guy. He&#8217;s focused on speeding up the product. I&#8217;m sure he and Sundar have had a bunch of conversations about focusing on the short term.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Over the past few months, early this year, I was chatting with a bunch of AI employees at a ton of different companies, and they all, including employees at Google, felt like the messaging from their companies was, &#8220;Shut up and focus on the mission. Keep your head down. Roll stuff out. Don&#8217;t worry about what&#8217;s going on in the outside world politically.&#8221; It seems like that&#8217;s going to be even more of a thing now.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the sources I was speaking with at Google said, “Speaking out on moral issues like ICE agents and AI surveillance and autonomous lethal weapons, Jeff Dean was one of the last people who was willing to do that.” And it doesn&#8217;t seem like Koray&#8217;s going to be really eager to take that place. These questions are really valid and I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if a lot more DeepMind people left after all these changes.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Let me ask you the hardest question of all to wrap it up. There&#8217;s a lot of noise in the ecosystem right now saying that Google has lost the AI race. But as we said from the beginning, Google has a ton of advantages here.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It’s making money, which most of the other companies aren&#8217;t. It’s selling Google Cloud infrastructure to its own best competitors. It has massive distribution advantages in Search, in Gmail, in the fact that Apple appears to have distilled Google&#8217;s models for Siri. There&#8217;s a lot here where Google just has structural advantages. It’s playing with house money. It’s a trust fund baby, as you&#8217;ve said several times here.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is it possible to lose the AI race from that vantage point? Or is it really just about if Anthropic gets to a point at recursive self-improvement that they can call AGI, everyone else has to lose by default?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s not possible for them to fail. It&#8217;s possible for them to change up their strategy. Like we were talking about earlier, maybe they become an Apple where they&#8217;re running on Google AI and they&#8217;re fine with that, but they&#8217;re picking a different company. Same with Amazon. They&#8217;ve given up a little bit, it seems like. I&#8217;m going to get some flack for that. Meta&#8217;s still really desperately trying, but they&#8217;re behind.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t think Google can fail. It&#8217;s more, do they eventually realize it&#8217;s not worth their time? Does the brain drain continue? Do they realize, &#8220;Look, there&#8217;s no amount of money we can offer to get some of the best minds back here. Let&#8217;s just cut our losses&#8221;? That&#8217;s a little ways off. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s going to happen in the next few months or even the next year.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But it&#8217;s important for these execs to remember that a lot of the people that are most involved and really pivotal in building this technology and keeping them at the frontier are extremely serious about their morals and what they&#8217;re doing. They don&#8217;t just do it for the money. It&#8217;s going to be tough to resell that dream to some of them if they&#8217;re trying to rehire after they lose people. OpenAI is experiencing the same thing. So we&#8217;ll see.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s worth noting Demis is still there. He&#8217;s the chief scientist. Presumably he will still be going to the London office and be charming, and Demis is very charming. You can see all that continuing to happen, but what are we shipping? What are the roadmaps? Who gets the GPU access? That seems like it will change and that will have some downstream effect.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>If you had to look for signs, is Google succeeding or failing, is the culture a problem or are they just retrenching to go and be even more aggressive? What kinds of things would you look for right now?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What I typically look for is what they&#8217;re really offering every time they have a big release and how pivotal it really is. Are they doing something that their competitors did six months ago? And are they even doing that well? That&#8217;s how I think about these things sometimes. There will be a big release from an AI company or a big tech company that&#8217;s trying to catch up in the AI race. Sometimes it&#8217;s six months behind OpenAI or Anthropic, and sometimes the stuff that they&#8217;re really excited about is pretty bad.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s what I would be watching from Google. With Gemini 4, what can it really do? Does it have that <a href="https://www.theverge.com/report/827555/google-gemini-3-is-winning-the-ai-race-for-now">same effect that Gemini 3 had on the industry</a>, where it&#8217;s leading for at least a week or two? Or does it not even have an hour of lead time and it just falls flat and it&#8217;s used by the enterprises that they work with and no one&#8217;s really excited about it? That&#8217;s the type of thing I&#8217;d be looking for.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;d also be looking for the exodus. If a ton of the DeepMind engineers leave, if they&#8217;re desperately trying to hire and offering more and more desperate pay packages, that&#8217;s another sign. Whenever Demis leaves — and that will eventually happen — that&#8217;s a huge sign.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;ll be looking out for all that. I&#8217;m confident that the chaos in the AI industry will continue, and Hayden, you&#8217;ll be back on </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>. Thank you so much for joining me today.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thanks so much.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[What happens to Bose when headphones become AI?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/975732/bose-ceo-lila-snyder-ai-wearables-licensing-headphones-audio" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=975732</id>
			<updated>2026-08-10T22:26:34-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-08-10T10:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Audio" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Bose" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Business" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Gadgets" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Headphones" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Wearable" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today, I’m talking with Lila Snyder, who is the CEO of Bose. You certainly know Bose — it’s one of the most famous brands in all of consumer tech. The company started 60 years ago selling speakers to consumers, and its focus on research and development has led it to be a leader in both [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A photo illustration of Bose CEO Lila Snyder." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/08/DCD-Lila-Snyder.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today, I’m talking with Lila Snyder, who is the CEO of Bose.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You certainly know Bose — it’s one of the most famous brands in all of consumer tech. The company started 60 years ago selling speakers to consumers, and its focus on research and development has led it to be a leader in both car audio and noise-canceling headphones.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Lila was <a href="https://www.theverge.com/23482627/bose-ceo-lila-snyder-interview-headphones-noise-control-apple-airpods-bluetooth-cars">last on the show about four years ago</a>, and since then she’s dramatically rearchitected the company. The focus on research is still there, but she’s <a href="https://www.bose.com/pressroom/bose-pro-announcement">sold off Bose Professional</a>, acquired the high-end audio brands <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/19/24300618/bose-mcintosh-group-audio-acquisition">McIntosh Labs and Sonus faber</a>, and, perhaps most importantly, started licensing all that core Bose technology to other companies.</p>

<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24792604/The_Verge_Decoder_Tileart.jpg?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don&#8217;t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Decoder</em> wherever you get your podcasts. Head <a href="https://www.theverge.com/account/podcasts">here</a>. Not a subscriber? You can <a href="https://www.theverge.com/subscribe">sign up here</a>. </p>
</div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That means that while you can still go buy a Bose soundbar or Bose headphones, the company is also turning into a B2B business, and you can <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/966022/skullcandy-cruser-1080-anc-bose-tuning-noise-cancelling-wireless-headphones">get Bose technology in Skullcandy headphones</a> and Epson projectors, among many other products.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That big change in the business comes with a big change in structure. Becoming a software company in addition to a product company comes with a whole new set of challenges, and Lila and I talked about how it’s all working out. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I also wanted to know if this is all a reaction to the potential rise of AI wearables — products that might end up looking a lot like headphones, and which need all kinds of audio processing to enable voice input.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Is Bose just trying to sell tech to a range of new companies that might disrupt headphones entirely? Or does Lila have a plan for a headphones market that was already disrupted when phone vendors like Apple and Samsung made their own products like AirPods and Galaxy Buds work better than the competition? </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We got deep on this, and Lila was pretty open about the challenges and the opportunities here. As <em>Decoder </em>listeners know, I’m a huge audio nerd, so I loved every minute of this conversation. I hope you do too.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: Bose CEO Lila Snyder. Here we go.</p>

<iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP3937727395" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.&nbsp;</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Lila Snyder, you&#8217;re CEO of Bose. Welcome back to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thank you so much.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I am really excited to talk to you. It&#8217;s been four years since you were last on the show, which seems entirely too long.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>A lot of things have happened. Bose has bought some companies. You&#8217;ve sold some divisions. The idea of what headphones are is largely the same in one important way, but maybe going to be very different in another important way. How are you thinking about Bose today?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We are having a lot of fun in what I would describe as our second chapter of the transformation of Bose since I joined. In some ways, many things are the same. We&#8217;re still making amazing products for our customers. We&#8217;re still excited about bringing that new technology forward in both our consumer business and our automotive business. But I would say two things fundamentally have changed as we&#8217;ve thought about growth for Bose for the future.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">For 60 years, it was all Bose, and we&#8217;re now a multi-brand company. So as you said, we&#8217;ve made a couple of acquisitions. One of those was the McIntosh brand, a legendary 75-year-old audiophile brand that we absolutely love, and also Sonus faber, which is an Italian craftsmanship heritage brand that&#8217;s also been around for over 40 years. And so that brought us two things: from one brand to multiple brands, but also into the luxury audio space.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The second change for us is that we&#8217;ve always been an amazing products company where we developed technology through research and a lot of development cycles, and all of that technology went into Bose products. And today what&#8217;s different is we&#8217;re still doing that, and we&#8217;ve added a technology business we call Audio Tech, where we&#8217;re taking that technology and starting to put it into other places.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The big insight for us was that sound is really important. It&#8217;s getting more important, we think, given everything that&#8217;s going on in the world around us. There are so many products and devices out there that are using sound — whether that&#8217;s audio, voice, or even noise-canceling, where those things are incredibly relevant — but they&#8217;re not products that Bose would make. They&#8217;re not targeted at our customer set. But we really have a strong belief in bringing great audio to as many places as we can.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The last time we talked, you were in the middle of becoming a more functional company. In particular, you had said the last step was the engineering organization, which is really the heart of Bose. It had been very divisional, very organized into products. You were centralizing that.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Having an audio tech division that sells core technology feels like a very natural offshoot of that. &#8220;We&#8217;re going to have a big central engineering team. It&#8217;s going to feed into our products and other products,” and then you can abstract that a little bit and sell it to other people. Who are the customers for the audio tech division?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So it&#8217;s a B2B2C business, if you will. So our customers are large companies that are putting products into the market. So I&#8217;ll give you a couple of examples. We&#8217;ve partnered with Motorola on a series of products from earbuds to making the phone itself sound better.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So Motorola is a good example. We&#8217;re partnered with Xreal. They&#8217;re making pretty awesome XR glasses, right? So that&#8217;s an experience where sound really matters a lot. We&#8217;ve had a lot of fun partnering with them. You&#8217;re starting to see Bose technology show up in a lot of different verticals, from mobile to compute, to other people&#8217;s headphones and audio products for sure.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We just released, with a partner called Sena, a motorcycle helmet communications device. And we&#8217;re excited about all the places we&#8217;re bringing our technology. It&#8217;s actually creating a broader aperture for how we think about invention and research at Bose as well, which is really exciting.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I want to come to that because that seems like a big change. And the reason I asked about customers is that having a new set of customers really changes the focus of the company. A lot of us are familiar with audio brands in particular partnering with device makers, partnering with automakers.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Maybe it&#8217;s just a logo. I think you have been very proud that Bose has not been just a logo in many places, but for a lot of people it&#8217;s just a logo. What&#8217;s the difference between, okay, there&#8217;s Xreal glasses powered by Bose with a Bose logo on the side, and selling the technology without the Bose logo? Or does a Bose logo always come with it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you said this is new for Bose, in a way, yes, but in a way it&#8217;s exactly what we&#8217;ve been doing in automotive for over 40 years. And so we do have a model for doing this inside the company, and it&#8217;s just broadening that thinking into new spaces. First and foremost, we&#8217;re selling technology, and the technology is the key. And then in some cases, we&#8217;re also selling the brand. So you might get technology in a product without a Sound by Bose or Powered by Bose logo on it, or you might get the logo as well, but you&#8217;ll never get the logo without the tech, if that makes sense.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some of our partners are interested in the brand, some are not. Sometimes we&#8217;re interested in having our brand connected to their brand, and sometimes we&#8217;re not. And so that&#8217;s part of the discussion we have with each of our customers, about whether it makes sense for them and for us. And so when you see it, know that it&#8217;s been really thoughtful, but it&#8217;s also attached to a lot of great technology that&#8217;s inside that product.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tell me about those conversations. Is it cheaper to take the brand? Is it more expensive to take the brand? This is one of those places where Bose has maybe a bigger, more famous brand than maybe some of the customers. How are you thinking about that, and how does the cost change?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">As you would expect, the technology has a licensing fee to it, and so does the brand. We&#8217;ve invested over 60 years in our brand. We&#8217;re incredibly proud of it. It is, I think, one of the most iconic brands in the world, full stop, and certainly within the audio space. And so we are incredibly careful about where we put the brand, and it certainly isn&#8217;t free when you put it on a product.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Right next to that is McIntosh. As you know, I grew up a total stereo nerd, just reading the magazines, dreaming about having the blue meters in my house someday. Still working on it. I&#8217;m going to get there. I did have a Jeep with a McIntosh sound system several years ago. The blue meters were&#8230; It was a very fake Android app that ran on a very slow Android infotainment system, but I still loved it.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s a brand that has a real halo. You can&#8217;t make cheaper McIntosh products. That&#8217;s not good for that brand.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No way.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You need to stay way up there. How are you thinking about that relationship to Bose, which is much more of a premium mass market brand?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We think of them as two completely separate brands. And then think about Sonus faber as yet another third brand, all of which are targeting really passionate fans of those brands for what they stand for. So when we thought about getting into the luxury space and acquiring those two brands, we spent a lot of time saying, &#8220;What is it that we&#8217;re going to do internally to protect the brands?&#8221;&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We do not want to Bose-ify anything that is happening in those brands. And so we&#8217;ve set it up as a separate business unit. We have a luxury audio business unit that houses those two brands. We are very careful. As you said, we have no intention of bringing products down-market. We believe both markets are exciting. We&#8217;ve been in that premium audio space for a long time.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When we looked at what we&#8217;re calling luxury audio, we had two really important insights, I think. One is that as we&#8217;re doing our own technology work, there&#8217;s a lot of really exciting technology we develop that just isn&#8217;t right for a premium audio product. It&#8217;s right for something that sits at a higher level. We just didn&#8217;t have anywhere to put it. And that was true on the consumer product side, and it&#8217;s certainly true on the automotive side where we felt like we were bumping up against what you could put in a premium product, and the ceiling of what we wanted to do was much higher.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So the first reason we&#8217;re excited about it is that it sort of unleashes the creativity of our engineers to think about what you could do at those higher price points with just a different type of customer, a different type of experience. So we were excited on the technology side.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We were equally excited, I think, about this idea of luxury. If you look at the luxury market writ large across all categories, what you find is that audio is really underrepresented compared to the role luxury plays in automotive, hospitality and travel, fashion, or leather goods. And when we really sat back and thought about it, given how much music is a passion point for people, it didn&#8217;t make sense to us.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We think there&#8217;s a huge opportunity to attract new customers to the category if the experience feels more like a luxury experience. And so when you think about those products, it&#8217;s certainly about how they sound, but you went right to it. It&#8217;s the iconic design, it&#8217;s the artistry, it&#8217;s the craftsmanship. All of our luxury products, whether it&#8217;s McIntosh or Sonus faber, are handmade. They are crafted one by one for you as the customer. And there&#8217;s something incredibly special about that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>These weren&#8217;t your decisions, so I feel like I can be a little bit rude about them. When I saw McIntosh was licensing to Stellantis to be in Jeeps, I thought, &#8220;This company has to be desperate for money. That&#8217;s not actually a match.&#8221; It was fun that I had a Jeep with blue meters in it. It was great.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But I thought to myself, &#8220;This is a total mismatch, and they should be in Maybachs,&#8221; or whatever it is, whatever luxury sector that you want to be in, because that&#8217;s the brand. Was this just opportunistic for you that this was a company that needed the help, that was in trouble, that you could go and you could push your products upmarket without having to take the Bose brand there? Or was there some other opportunity that presented itself to you?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We weren&#8217;t actually shopping for brands first. The first thing was, strategically, we saw the opportunity in the luxury space. We saw an opportunity to create something new around luxury audio, and we were really excited about that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So once we had made the strategic decision to go there, we had a lot of conversations about buying a brand or creating a brand. But the reality is, in luxury, at those price points, history and heritage are part of what you&#8217;re buying. And so we sort of intuitively knew we wanted to find a brand or brands that really had that strong history that we felt like we could build on top of.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We thought those were both brands that had incredibly passionate fans, and we saw an opportunity for us to take them to a new level. So that was how we ended up acquiring the McIntosh group.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Bringing in their engineering organization, they have a lot of technology. How integrated has that become over time, or are you leaving them alone?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;ve brought it into our engineering organization, but we&#8217;ve also kept a lot of the aspects a little bit separate. So probably the best example of that is Bose has a Bose sound. Everybody knows that. You buy a Bose product… You buy one, the headphones I&#8217;m wearing, the speaker in your house, your car. There is a sound signature to brands that consumers expect. That comes from the engineers.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The engineers are tuning products to sound like they should. And so we&#8217;re very careful on the engineering side to protect the sound signature of McIntosh. What we don&#8217;t want is for you to hear a McIntosh product or a Sonus faber product and imagine that it sounds different. So that&#8217;s one.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Initially — as you do with, I think, any acquisition — you want to be careful to protect what you bought. We&#8217;ve integrated it, yes, but we have a separate team that is doing the engineering for luxury, and we&#8217;re slowly adding Bose technology to it where it makes sense. So there are things, for example, on the Bose side where we can be incredibly helpful in terms of the software aspects, the connectivity, those sorts of things. Those are things that we do really well, and they&#8217;re not the most important part of those products, but they have to work. There are aspects that we&#8217;ve started to add into the products, and you&#8217;ll see more of that over time.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m really curious about that luxury aspect. The knock on high-end audio for years, and I&#8217;m not saying this is McIntosh, but the knock on high-end audio for years is that it&#8217;s the same stuff, all dressed up fancy. There are headphones that are famous for having weights in them to feel heavier even though there are commodity parts inside.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is one of those places where you could just say, “We&#8217;re just going to make more expensive versions of the same thing.” And some buyers are totally price-insensitive, in that they will always just buy the most expensive thing. Then there&#8217;s, “We&#8217;re going to make it worth it. We&#8217;re going to make it worth 10X the price of whatever Bluetooth speakers are at Best Buy.”&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Where are you falling on that? Because it&#8217;s very tempting, especially in luxury, to just make it expensive.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The value comes from the sound. You should come visit us at Bose in Framingham and listen to a McIntosh system, a Sonus faber system. They&#8217;re incredible. They&#8217;re not anything like what you would get at a Best Buy in a premium product from Bose or anyone else. And that&#8217;s incredibly special.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Part of that is the technology itself. Part of that is that it&#8217;s more analog, so it has a different sound signature to it. It&#8217;s got a lot more power behind it because that&#8217;s what McIntosh is known for, and that&#8217;s what you need to power a Sonus faber set of speakers. You&#8217;re also paying for design. In a way, it&#8217;s a little bit of art.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We just launched a new integrated amplifier, the <a href="https://www.gramophone.com/blog/review-mcintosh-ma-2375-all-tube-integrated-amplifier">MA2375</a>, for McIntosh. I&#8217;m so excited about it. It&#8217;s sort of got that retro look with the vacuum tubes. It is a design piece. I want to sit it on my desk. I want it to be a part of the decor. You would say the same thing on the Sonus faber side. It&#8217;s like buying an incredible piece of Italian furniture that has been handmade with natural materials and just feels like art that also sounds beautiful.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So there&#8217;s more to the value proposition in the luxury space. It&#8217;s true in the premium space too. Design really matters, color matters, feel, touch, comfort, all those things matter in addition to the sound. I think it&#8217;s just even that much more elevated in the luxury space.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m really curious about all the different sets of new customers you&#8217;re describing. There&#8217;s the B2B business, which is growing in audio tech. Then there are luxury customers who have a lot of money, but they&#8217;re fickle. And particularly in high-end AV — and I&#8217;m a high-end AV nerd through and through — convincing people it&#8217;s worth it because they can hear it has always been the hardest problem.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Maybe the most fun problem, because you can convince a lot of people they&#8217;re hearing a lot of things that aren&#8217;t there. You can sell expensive cables at a hundred times the price of the regular cables, even if they don&#8217;t do anything different. This is a lot of new customers for Bose. Do you think the B2B business is going to distract your core technology roadmap? How are you holding that all together?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is more complex for sure. It is a broader mission, and I think we&#8217;re ready for it. When I was here last time, we were in the middle of the transformation that I would say was solidifying the foundation of Bose, and now we&#8217;re building on top of that. We&#8217;ve built an amazing marketing and brand infrastructure that we&#8217;re now using to power three brands instead of one, but a lot of that capability can be put in the direction of all three.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So the key is real clarity about who the customer is, which we&#8217;ve done a lot of work on the Bose brand for sure. We talk about the music lover for Bose, but we&#8217;ve done the same work for McIntosh and the same work for Sonus faber so that we are one thousand percent clear about who the customer is and how we want to talk to that customer.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the kind of products side of our company, I think we’re really clear about what the mission is for each one of those brands. On the technology side, interestingly, as we become more of a B2B technology company, it&#8217;s actually creating advantages back to the Bose brand and our luxury business as well. And what I mean by that is that it&#8217;s caused us to completely rethink the way that we do research and we develop our tech.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In the past, if you think about Bose developing products, we were developing purpose-built technology for a pair of headphones or a car audio system. And I think last time we talked about the tech franchises. We care a lot about noise cancellation. We care about immersive, lifelike audio, and we care about this idea of hearing what you want. And those are all experiences that are built on some basic building blocks of technology that we&#8217;ve been developing for a long time.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But because we were developing them for our own products, we&#8217;ve had to do a complete shift in the way that we think about it so that we&#8217;re now developing, from the ground up, those building blocks. Now we&#8217;re able to say, with common platforms, common algorithms, AI — think of them as sort of AI units — we can create different experiences for our own products, and we can port that same technology through the same platform tech into other people&#8217;s products.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What that&#8217;s creating is a lot of efficiency at the research and development level. It&#8217;s creating more breadth because now that we&#8217;re thinking about things like noise cancellation for different spaces, spatial audio, or hearing what you want, it is actually creating more innovation and more invention at the core. It&#8217;s making us faster because we&#8217;ve made these building blocks a lot more consumable for our B2B customers; it makes us faster at bringing our own products to market, too.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think this is a great place to ask the Decoder questions because you&#8217;re describing the endpoint of a pretty big culture and structure shift at Bose that you&#8217;ve been architecting for several years. So how is Bose structured today?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s a business unit structure, there&#8217;s a functional structure, and we are living in what I would describe as a hybrid. So for the core functions that matter deeply to what we deliver, like engineering, marketing, and supply chain, those are global functions that support all of our businesses. But because we&#8217;ve added new customer sets and really two new businesses with luxury and audio tech, we&#8217;re also running four business units. So those four business units have business unit presidents, and they draw on the global functions for the work that they need.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How many people is Bose today?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">About 2,500.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And you&#8217;re mostly in Framingham, or are you all over the place?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re global. All over. Yep.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You said you&#8217;re a hybrid. How&#8217;s that split between engineering, sales, all that sort of thing?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t actually think about it that way, but the one thing that I do know — sort of the most important statistic to me — is that half of our employees are engineers.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;re describing AWS, you&#8217;re describing Amazon. You&#8217;ve modularized a bunch of components inside the company; now you can build new products faster. This is really great. Every company that goes through this transition ends up hiring more and more engineers over time because you just need to build more and more components. Has that been growing? Are you investing more in that kind of engineering?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We are for sure. I think it&#8217;s probably not unique to us. We&#8217;ve been in this transition of hardware long, long ago. It was just hardware, and then hardware and software, and then more and more software. And now as we&#8217;re building the technology pieces, those are truly just software products that are an algorithm- or AI-based product that we&#8217;re selling with.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You see that mixed shift continuing. We&#8217;re certainly seeing growth in our engineering ranks. And we&#8217;re getting a lot more productivity out of engineering as we start to have more sophisticated tools, as we use AI and other things to help with some of that development. So yes, growing. And I think more productivity per engineer, if you will, as we start to use more sophisticated tools to do the development.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You said it&#8217;s pure software products, right? When you sell out to B2B, you&#8217;re just selling the algorithms. Do those feel protectable? This is one of the things that I think about all the time. What is the actual thing you&#8217;re selling, and how easily can it be copied by a Chinese firm that does not respect our intellectual property laws or something like that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah. I&#8217;m probably oversimplifying. We&#8217;re really selling three things. We&#8217;re definitely selling software, algorithms, et cetera. I&#8217;ll come back to your “how do you protect it?” question. One of the very special things about Bose is actually systems engineering, which is an underappreciated discipline in my view. So software&#8217;s great, but software has to run on hardware in our world. Ultimately, that software has to get delivered through something.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The magic at Bose, the secret sauce, has always been systems engineering and how you&#8217;re marrying together hardware and software elements for an experience that feels unified across the device and that&#8217;s optimized to provide the best experiences. So we&#8217;re certainly doing that on our own products, but you see that kind of a service as we start to sell more and more technology into our B2B customers.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s also a lot of desire for help on that system side because our expertise there is real. That&#8217;s always been true in our automotive business, and it is increasingly true in our partnerships and our customers on the audio tech side as well. So I think that the second piece, which is really important to call out, is that it&#8217;s not just software for software&#8217;s sake. It&#8217;s software that has to be integrated into a system where everything comes together to work. And then you&#8217;ve got kind of the idea of systems engineering and then services on top of that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So, how you tune a product. Some of our partners and customers need help with that, want help with that; some don&#8217;t. There are a lot of services that get married along. Sometimes it&#8217;s systems engineering. Sometimes it&#8217;s things like tuning, et cetera. So three pieces.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Can I play devil&#8217;s advocate here for one second? What you&#8217;re describing here, if you wanted to poke at it as hard as you could, is a process of a little bit of commodification. There are a lot of common components here, and then it&#8217;s the layers on top that differentiate in the market.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>If you&#8217;re an audio nerd, the magazines are all saying one engineer in their garage innovated on speaker technology, and they made the speaker cones out of waffle paper, and now they&#8217;re more transparent than ever. Whatever that myth was that sold a lot of speakers back in the day.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>If we&#8217;re not starting from the products back, but you&#8217;re starting from the components up, there&#8217;s a risk that everything kind of becomes the same, and it&#8217;s branding and marketing, and maybe the sound signature that&#8217;s tuned into it is artificial now — it&#8217;s not from the components themselves. How do you balance that? Or is that just not a worry with modern consumers?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think what you&#8217;re describing is that if we&#8217;re putting Bose technology in other headphones, doesn&#8217;t that just revert to the mean? I think there&#8217;s a second, bigger market for us that is not audio products. Things that we call audio second. So for example, the XR glasses, the main function is not audio, but audio is really important. You don&#8217;t usually buy a car because it has a Bose sound system, but when you buy the car, the sound system is actually one of the most important features of the car.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A projector that you buy for your house, you&#8217;re buying because it&#8217;s a great projector. We&#8217;re partnering with Epson, and the sound is also really important there. So it&#8217;s a little bit different, I think, when you get into audio second. In the audio market, I think that the key is that there are so many different customers who want different things.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you think about products that have ingredient technology that&#8217;s the same, it&#8217;s really enabling you to do things for your customer and the experience that you&#8217;re trying to create. I&#8217;ll just use Skullcandy as an example. Skullcandy just launched a pair of headphones with Sound by Bose, and you couldn&#8217;t have two more diverse customer sets between who they&#8217;re targeting and who we&#8217;re targeting. We helped them with the technology. So there&#8217;s Bose technology inside to help make that sound better, but the design choices of what they want for their customer are incredibly different from what you would find [with Bose].&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I don&#8217;t think you would ever put those two products, a Bose headphone and a Skullcandy headphone, side by side and say, &#8220;Wow, this is really commoditized. It sounds the same. It is the same.&#8221; They&#8217;re very, very, very different.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think I&#8217;m asking slightly more about the audio-second product. If all of your audio-first products come from the same technology base, the same modular components that can be remixed into all the products you want, do you lose the ability to innovate at the product level? If everything is made out of the same Legos, at some point you can&#8217;t be like, &#8220;Actually what I need is all new Legos.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think the answer is no, because the product is so much bigger than just those ingredients. So if you think about headphone design, the comfort and all of the other features, right? There may be a lot of ingredient technology, but the ones that you choose may be different.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the things that we talk a lot about now is being at the intelligent edge. Everything Bose does is what we would describe as at the intelligent edge. And as you know, it&#8217;s a pretty hostile environment. You have limited compute, you have limited power. You&#8217;re always making trade-offs between what I am putting in this product and how does that impact my ability to do that? Because there&#8217;s just not enough room to put everything in it.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I think the reason why you still see so much differentiation among products, even if some of the ingredients are the same, is because all of those product choices that you&#8217;re making are really critical, and you have to make a lot of them to fit inside that constrained environment that you&#8217;re working with.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This brings me to the other </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong> question about decisions. You&#8217;ve obviously made a lot of them, and you&#8217;ve got a few big ones to make that I want to come to concerning AI. How do you make decisions? What&#8217;s your framework?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I am a believer that you get the right people in the room, you have an intense debate that isn&#8217;t always comfortable, that sometimes makes people a little bit queasy, and you move as fast as you can to decide, knowing that if it&#8217;s wrong, you can pivot. That is, in my simplest terms, the way I think about it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We get a lot of type one and type two decisions, move fast, in that we had an ex-Amazon employee write to us and say, &#8220;Every decision is reversible if you have enough money.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">[Laughs] That might be true for Amazon.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That&#8217;s a very Amazon perspective. The reason I bring this up in the context of AI is that I&#8217;m looking at the sweep of things you&#8217;re doing, and I&#8217;m looking at where, in particular, the big tech companies think their headphones are going to go.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I was reviewing our conversation from four years ago. Boy, did we talk about Bluetooth a lot. We did. This is a core limiting technology. It&#8217;s an enabling technology in an important way, but they hold onto what Bluetooth can and can&#8217;t do on their platforms very tightly. And then their products, their first-party products, get to extend that standard in different ways — and they all do it.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This broadly means if you have an iPhone, the best working headphones that will do all the things the platform wants you to do are probably AirPods. If you have a Pixel, it&#8217;s probably Pixel Buds. If you have a Samsung phone, it&#8217;s probably their buds.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And this is because they have reduced the capability of the interconnect. One of the reasons they&#8217;re doing that is because they want your earbuds in your ears 24/7 so you can talk to their AI systems on the back end. And this is their future. Maybe the answer is that we&#8217;re all going to wear Meta Glasses, or we&#8217;re all going to wear Xreal glasses. It seems up for grabs in big particular ways. What&#8217;s your view of that? What&#8217;s your view of AI wearables? And do you think there&#8217;s room for third-party players here?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We absolutely think wearables are critical to the AI future. I think that we&#8217;re clear on that. The form factor, if you work backwards from that, we&#8217;re going to use our wearable devices to communicate with our AI agents. And that is going to become more and more important and more and more natural. We strongly believe that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The second thing we believe is that it is more likely to be conversational and sound-based than anything else. At least we think that is probably the primary mode. And so the types of technologies we&#8217;re focused on are around voice pickup, clarity, speech enablement, and we think all are incredibly important. What form factor you want to use as your wearable, I think the jury is still out. I think the answer is going to be a whole proliferation of them. Some people will like glasses because they like the glasses.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Some people will like open earbuds, which we hadn&#8217;t launched when you and I talked last time. We talked a lot about open ear audio, but not yet about that form factor, that clip-on form factor that Bose invented and launched into the world. We think that is a really powerful form factor that will be for some. Others might want a watch, a pin, a ring, or 18 variations of how those work together.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Part of the reason we think being in the audio tech business is important is that it gives us the ability to participate in a lot of those different places that we might not naturally be able to go on our own. So we think form factor is going to matter, but I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s a single winner there. At least that&#8217;s my current view. I think that there will be multiple types of devices that consumers will choose based on their own personal preferences.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We know there are going to be a limited number of LLMs, right? We know that those are going to converge to the large ecosystems that already exist. New ones may emerge, as we&#8217;re seeing, but there won&#8217;t be hundreds of those. There will be few of those. And yes, there may be some advantages if you stay within that ecosystem for your earbuds. But fundamentally, I think even though a lot of people choose earbuds, headphones, and other devices in their ecosystem, a lot of people don&#8217;t.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think consumers still want choice. And I think it is important for those ecosystems. In our conversations with them, they need third-party players to interface with their AI as well. They need third-party players to produce devices that work with what they&#8217;re doing because they recognize that they&#8217;re not going to have a full share of the market and that choice matters.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So we believe we&#8217;ve got a couple of ways to compete now. Our own devices, for sure, need to be compatible across the different LLMs and the ability to interface with them. And we need our technology starting to crop up in other places where that interface will happen.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is this a way to just hedge the bet that no one actually knows what&#8217;s going to happen with AI? If you&#8217;re selling Bose beamforming technology to a handful of Silicon Valley startups making pendants, that means you&#8217;re not making the big bet on pendants being a form factor yourself. You can wait and see. Is this just a way to make sure the technology is available and being monetized while you wait for the answers to emerge?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s certainly a diversification play, absolutely. And I wouldn&#8217;t shy away from betting on a few, and if one becomes a winner, awesome. I also think that it&#8217;s important not to lose sight of what your brand is. The Bose brand is: we are for music lovers. And if we start to branch out and create some of those other devices that are not core to who we are, I just don&#8217;t think it works. So it is a way to participate because we don&#8217;t think those are areas that it makes sense for the Bose brand to go.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the things I worry about, again, as a music fan, as an audio nerd, is every single time the tech companies come to music, convenience wins, and quality suffers. This is the pattern that has been repeating since MP3s first came out. We&#8217;re going to go from CD quality audio, which in 2026 is still what people refer to as the best audio you can get. CD quality — that&#8217;s the bar.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But we went from that to, I don&#8217;t know, 128 kilobit MP3s on iPods. We stayed there for a long time. We got a little bit better. The headphones got worse. The interconnect went from wired to a compressed Bluetooth interconnect. At every point, the market picks convenience. There&#8217;s some point here, even in luxury, where you just walk in, and the music is playing because the AI has determined the music should be playing, and the endpoint of the music is the least important thing. It&#8217;s just that it&#8217;s happening to you.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s not this focus on listening intently because you&#8217;re probably also watching TikTok at the same time. Or maybe you&#8217;re only listening to music on TikTok, and that&#8217;s where all your discovery happens, and all of your music money is spent at concerts and live experiences. Somewhere in there is the audio industry. It&#8217;s been going through this convulsion.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s another turn coming here where Apple, OpenAI, Samsung, and whoever else are going to launch AI-first devices that are conversational, that have audio input and output capabilities. And they will say, &#8220;And you can also listen to music.&#8221; They will commodify it even further, and the idea of a music lover gets even more squeezed. How do you view that? Because as a music lover myself, I&#8217;m like, &#8220;This is only getting worse. It&#8217;s only becoming. It&#8217;s not audio second. It&#8217;s like audio 15th.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay. So it&#8217;s a complicated web there that you just spun.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah. I&#8217;m having an existential crisis here.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m going to try to help you. In some ways, what we find with our luxury customers is that what they&#8217;re looking for are moments of clarity, quiet moments where you put down the phone, you put on a record, right? You listen to it the way that it was supposed to be heard on an amazing sound system. And the quiet nature of that, the ability to step away from what is a chaotic digital world — that trend is picking up. It&#8217;s picking up. We see it in the luxury space. We actually see more of it in the premium space a little bit now too.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I do think that the appreciation of music, just appreciating it for the emotional state that it puts you in and what it does for your mental health. I actually think that is a trend we&#8217;re seeing. And I actually think that&#8217;s going to continue to grow.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Our belief and part of the reason that we started this audio tech business is that we want you to have the best sound experience no matter what. Even if you&#8217;re listening in a hostile environment, you&#8217;re listening on a lower-cost pair of headphones, or you&#8217;re listening to a crappier format, let&#8217;s at least make sure you have the best experience possible and that you can tell the difference between what good and better sounds like, or what better and best sounds like. So I think that&#8217;s the second thing.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The other thing that I think is positive about what you said is there&#8217;s just so much music discovery because it&#8217;s everywhere. And not everyone is going to turn into a music lover, and that&#8217;s okay. But I think for young people who are discovering, I&#8217;m always amazed at the songs my kids are excited about because I&#8217;m like, &#8220;You know that&#8217;s not a new song, right? That&#8217;s from when I was a teenager.&#8221; I think that&#8217;s great.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The way that the younger generation is doing music discovery is creating a love of music that is not bound by time or genre. I think that&#8217;s really cool. And our belief is that if you help people listen to that as best you can, they will get an appreciation for what better sound sounds like, and over time they will graduate into the formats and the products that actually bring that to life in an amazing way.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But that’s music. I appreciate that this is happening in music. I think the question I&#8217;m asking is about AI and the almost religious belief in Silicon Valley that AI, in particular natural language input, will usher in a platform shift. Mark Zuckerberg has a religious belief that you&#8217;re going to talk to Muse Spark through Meta Glasses.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Whether or not you believe him, he is laser-focused on that because he wants to stop being constrained by Apple&#8217;s platform policies. That is the story that plays out in the pages of Verge every single day.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Apple probably believes this, right? Apple believes natural language input is some kind of enormous threat to the iPhone. They&#8217;re reacting to it. Somewhere in there is, are you wearing headphones to talk to this? And can Bose headphones meaningfully participate in those ecosystems? Or will all of these companies create more first-party opportunities for themselves?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think both can be true. So I think we&#8217;ll see if Mark is right, but that doesn&#8217;t mean you want to have a crappy listening experience when you&#8217;re listening to music. Do you take the glasses off and put on headphones? Do you make the glasses sound better? I don&#8217;t think that just because we have a utility, which is AI on the&#8230; I&#8217;ll just use phone calls. It&#8217;s an old school example. Just because you can take phone calls on your headphones, if they didn&#8217;t sound good to play your music, most people who love music would not wear those to listen to music. It&#8217;s just the reality. And I think the same is true. It&#8217;s a utility.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you&#8217;re someone who doesn&#8217;t care so much about music and it&#8217;s not part of your personal brand or your identity, you may say, &#8220;That&#8217;s good enough for me. I can&#8217;t tell the difference.&#8221; But I think for most people, they will choose multiple devices or they will choose one device that can do all of it really, really well. And I still think there&#8217;s room for high-quality listening experiences, even in a world where we&#8217;re all chained to our AI.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So I&#8217;ll just paint a picture for you. If Xreal wins the AI race and all of us interact with Claude all day long through our Xreal glasses, and the sound is powered by Bose through an audio tech partnership, is that victory? Is that success? Or is there more to be done?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think there&#8217;s always more to be done. When you think about how fast technology is moving, I think we&#8217;re imagining experiences today that can be had at the edge, that live within the compute constraints and the battery constraints that we have. Two years from now, those constraints are going to still be there, but the amount of capability you have will be larger. I think we&#8217;re going to continue to see innovation and invention in the space that&#8217;s going to create experiences we haven&#8217;t imagined yet.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the things that I&#8217;m really curious about is just the amount of audio input all of these companies want to do. We had the CEO of Zoom on Decoder, and he was like, &#8220;Everyone will talk to AI avatars in Zoom and all of us will be mediated by Zoom. And that means we’ve got to record the in-person meeting. Everyone has to wear the rings or the pendants, and we&#8217;re going to record everything all day long so the AI can fully know us.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I have a lot of thoughts about that, but that&#8217;s one vision in the world. We&#8217;re going to record everything, which sort of puts a lot of pressure on noise cancellation, on rehabilitating the audio once you have it. There&#8217;s not just a lot of noise, but damage that happens in the compression process and transmitting over the internet. That all seems like an opportunity for a company like Bose.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is that where the investment is to help the AI hardware companies deal with lossy streaming and TikTok audio? What do you think about that opportunity?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One of the things that we&#8217;re learning as we further venture into this space is that the core problems are the same. If you take something like speech clarity, voice pickup, that is a world we&#8217;ve done a lot of research on, a lot of work on. It&#8217;s an incredibly important part of a Bose headphone, for example, but it’s also important in a dozen other places where the same type of technology, at its core, can be expanded and extended.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So think about driving 70 miles an hour down the highway in my car. That same speech clarity technology is really relevant in the car in the same way it is in a headphone, in the same way that it is in a motorcycle helmet, where you can imagine that&#8217;s maybe the most hostile sound environment you could get.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think the same is true. Noise-canceling has all sorts of varieties that, I think, are incredibly important in the AI examples that you talked about and in a lot of other everyday life examples where noise cancellation hasn&#8217;t gone yet. A great example of that is hearing aids. As you know, we&#8217;ve been working on hearing aid technology at Bose for over a decade. Just this year, we launched the world&#8217;s first hearing aid with a customer and partner called ORKA in China that has noise cancellation. </p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It actually now solves what I think is the biggest problem that hearing aids have had for decades, which is that my most challenging environment, if I have some hearing loss, is a noisy restaurant, for example. And traditional hearing aids amplify all of that sound. Noise canceling has always been the dream of hearing aids because if you could take the noise of the environment down and amplify the speaker, the person you&#8217;re trying to have a conversation with, that&#8217;s sort of the holy grail now because you&#8217;re doing exactly what the customer really wants and needs.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That, up until now, has been impossible to do because in a hearing aid, you need 15 to 18 hours of battery life. You have very limited compute. It&#8217;s been a really tricky problem. For us, solving that problem was both about hardware — a new driver that actually fits in the ear canal, but can power noise canceling — and the platform that we built to enable that at a low enough compute level that you could do it inside of a hearing aid over a period of 15 to 18 hours in a day. That&#8217;s the kind of innovation for noise canceling, for example, where it&#8217;s an obvious use case, but to get there required a considerable number of building blocks.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m glad you brought up hearing aids. The last time you were on the show, you had a partnership, I believe, with Lexie. And after our conversation, I ran out and bought my dad those hearing aids. After four years, he won&#8217;t wear them because he says everything is too loud. Exactly the problem you&#8217;re describing.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But you exited that partnership with Lexie, and the parent company — just asked a couple of weeks ago — is leaving the US market. They&#8217;re out. You&#8217;re describing hearing aids that you&#8217;re making in China. Is there something particular about the US market that just makes it too hard, or are you going to reenter?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, we&#8217;ve been here with Lexie, and they&#8217;re going through some challenges, and so we&#8217;ll find the right partner for us in the US. I think the over-the-counter hearing aid market has struggled more than any of us thought. If you go back four years, it hasn&#8217;t taken off at the rate we had hoped that it would. But I still see a ton of opportunity in the hearing aid space. And this hearing aid happens to be in China, but there&#8217;s no reason that you won&#8217;t see it in other places around the world.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Why do you think it hasn&#8217;t taken off?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think it hasn&#8217;t worked yet. There are a couple of factors. And again, we&#8217;ve been partnering into it, so we&#8217;re not as close to the day-to-day. But I think there are really two things. It&#8217;s definitely cheaper and more accessible than it was in a prescription environment, but these are still very expensive products. So, rounding about a thousand dollars, which is a lot of money.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think in an over-the-counter space, most customers are expecting something that looks and feels more like what they would be willing to pay for a consumer electronics product, which is more like two, three, or maybe $400. While it&#8217;s more affordable, it is not as affordable as I think the consumer wants, needs, or expects. I still think there&#8217;s some work to do there from a technology standpoint to figure out how you bring it down.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s also not really in the insurance space yet. If I get a prescription hearing aid that&#8217;s covered by Medicare or that&#8217;s covered by my insurance company, but that&#8217;s not the case for over-the-counter. And so I think there&#8217;s just some affordability challenges we haven&#8217;t quite fully solved yet — ones that the industry has not solved. That&#8217;s one piece of it. I also think there&#8217;s still a stigma part of it. There&#8217;s just still a, I don&#8217;t want to look old. I don&#8217;t want to feel old. I don&#8217;t want to wear a hearing aid. And until we figure out the right industrial design and make it more palatable, I think you still have resistance no matter the price point.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The hearing aids my dad was most resistant to were when I tried to get him to wear AirPods, after Apple had released that feature. He looked at me and said, &#8220;Absolutely not.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So this is a particular area of convergence. What is an augmented reality hearing device except a hearing aid? Except a hearing aid with intense noise cancellation that can focus on the speaker in front of you and maybe translate them in real time if you don&#8217;t speak the same language? You&#8217;re talking to an AI, and you just want to whisper so no one can hear you, and it&#8217;s talking to you, but you&#8217;re still hearing everything that goes on.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is the convergence, right? The idea of headphones, the idea of augmented reality, and the idea of hearing aids, they&#8217;re in a Venn diagram. And the center of that Venn diagram, I think, is getting bigger and bigger over time.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I just keep coming back to the same question: Is the culture of Bose designed to provide technology to all of the players in that ecosystem? Or are you still trying to win with the best product that hits the middle of that Venn diagram?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We are always focused on who the Bose customer is and what the features they want are. As I&#8217;ve said a couple of times, you can&#8217;t fit everything in. That Venn diagram is getting bigger as compute is getting more powerful at the edge, but it&#8217;s still limited.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When it comes to adding AI, we talk about it at Bose as tiny AI. A lot of companies are good at really big AI. What we&#8217;re good at is taking really complex algorithms and then figuring out how to shrink them down and take as little power and compute as they possibly can so that they can fit in our devices. But you&#8217;re always constrained. So we&#8217;re looking at what our customers are asking us for, what they need, what they want in that Venn diagram. Where do they want the emphasis to be? And that&#8217;s where we&#8217;re pushing our products. You&#8217;ll continue to see us do that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Other companies will choose a slightly different variation of that Venn diagram, and they&#8217;ll look for a different feature set. And I think that&#8217;s what makes the industry go. It is competitive by nature, and it is important to have a deep understanding of what the customer needs are.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do you think that there&#8217;s any pressure on Bose just from the product manufacturing side? There are tariffs, there&#8217;s a lot of focus on what gets made in China. We talked briefly about protectability and whether or not you even want to sell into Chinese companies or Chinese OEMs who might turn around and take your technology, which we have seen at scale with Apple, Tesla, and others. Is it worth it to be chasing hardware at this time?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think, since COVID, the supply chain has become a more exciting environment.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>[Laughs] Sure.</strong>&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So it&#8217;s been a series of things. I think our perspective back then was that we said, “Look, it&#8217;s clear we&#8217;re going to need to be more flexible and more agile in our supply chain.” That, I think, became clear. We&#8217;ve done a lot of work to get ourselves into a position where we expect curveballs now; we just don&#8217;t know what they&#8217;re going to be. And when they come, we&#8217;ve designed ourselves in a way that we can adjust quickly, and we think we&#8217;re flexible enough to handle it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The world needs hardware. As much as everyone is enamored with software and AI, and those are the things creating the magic, perhaps, on the hardware these days, you still need physical things. We are a physical world. You need physical things, and we are going to continue to make physical things and roll with the curveballs that come our way.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Have you moved manufacturing, meaningfully, out of China?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We have, yeah. So we&#8217;re diversified across Asia. We also have manufacturing in North America for some of our products as well.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Have you moved anything, meaningfully, back into the United States?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The only thing we have in the US is McIntosh. So all of our McIntosh products are built in Binghamton, New York.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It’s funny, because those are the only products you have that also wouldn&#8217;t benefit from the price cut of not having tariffs. You need to keep those prices really high. Have you thought about moving anything back to the United States to avoid whatever tariffs and bring prices down?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;ll always look at it. It&#8217;s a fulsome economic equation of not just economics, but also expertise. Consumer electronics expertise from a manufacturing perspective moved to Asia a long time ago. And so it&#8217;s both a cost and an expertise question. We look at it, we talk about it. If it ever makes sense, we&#8217;ll do it. Right now, those things don&#8217;t play out for us.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I feel like I have to ask you about Bluetooth one more time here at the end of our conversation. I&#8217;ve waited.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It is the limiting factor of so many things you are doing. It&#8217;s the limiting factor of how you can connect to phones. It will almost certainly be the limiting factor of how all these AI devices work.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The manufacturers have really put Bluetooth in a box. There is a wall around what it can do and what they will ever allow it to do on their platforms. And then there are their extensions. And this is across the board. I&#8217;m not even singling out one manufacturer. I used to always single out Apple, but now they&#8217;re all doing it. So it&#8217;s like, great, there&#8217;s a wall around Bluetooth.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>For a company like Bose, which has to connect to phones, that is the limit. Have you tried to push hard to overcome that limit? Have the antics of the European Union helped you open up and overcome the limit? How has this played out over the last four years?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Probably not terribly different from what we talked about last time. We partner, we push, we ask for what we want, and we work with what we have. So I think we are always trying to test and push the limits as much as we can, and we&#8217;re incredibly good at not using that as an excuse. So how do we create amazing experiences with the advantages that we have? And we think we&#8217;re pretty great at doing that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>On the other side of this, you&#8217;ve got McIntosh products, your premium home products, and people are disconnected. A lot of people still want to play Spotify off their phone onto their home stereo system. There&#8217;s a joke we tell in our other show, the Vergecast, where we just try to locate the computer. Where is the computer supposed to be here?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>If you&#8217;re playing music off your phone, is the computer your phone, and you&#8217;re just Bluetooth streaming to your speakers? In the context of McIntosh, that is just like a heartbreaking crime. Don&#8217;t stream Bluetooth to your McIntosh system. So that means the McIntosh system needs a computer. It needs to run some variant of a Spotify app that has Wi-Fi that pulls lossless  down. That means it needs a ramp. The whole thing immediately becomes a computer. Maybe a somewhat low-powered computer that&#8217;s only focused on a handful of apps, but a computer.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You also have all the carrying costs of a computer. Software updates, application updates, Spotify changes its file formats. Whatever is going to happen, you&#8217;ve got some problem there. How do you think about that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Across all of your products, the amount of compute going into them is going up, as you&#8217;ve described. Maybe in tiny ways, but it&#8217;s going up. And then you&#8217;re not charging service fees. How does that all work as more and more of your products fundamentally become network computers?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think consumers are subscription’d out. I think that the idea that you&#8217;re going to create a subscription service over an over-the-air update that they&#8217;re going to pay for on a monthly basis, I think that&#8217;s not coming in our space. So we have to kind of think long term as we&#8217;re selling products today: what is the software, compute, cloud storage, all of the security, all of the costs that live across the life cycle of that product that we&#8217;re going to have to support. We have to build that into the cost of maintaining that product, right? Which is different from what you would have done in the past.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;ve made some design choices, I think, that are important as well. We don&#8217;t need to duplicate what Spotify is doing either. So as we think about the lifestyle collection products that we just launched, what we heard overwhelmingly from our customers was, &#8220;I just want to go to my music. I don&#8217;t understand why I have to deal with you. I love how this sounds, but please just get me to my music faster.&#8221; We thought for a long time about how best to do that in the home. And we think about it in our wearables too. We want you to be able to control your home speakers through Spotify, AirPlay, or however you want to do that. And that offloads some of that from Bose, which is good.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We also just made an <a href="https://www.bose.com/pressroom/bose-acquires-streamunlimited-announcement?srsltid=AfmBOooMR-eslMjLYq53uzy5H-DSQTCDwoWqf3yj7NBIK5po2iQx0UXp">acquisition of a company called Stream Unlimited</a>. Their business is to connect to all of the streaming apps, devices, et cetera, that allow a smart home device to have those easy connections. That gives us some scalability and some participation in that orchestration layer, which is also helpful for us. So we come at the problem in a couple of different ways.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There are rumors, in a few months or weeks here, that Apple will put out a whole bunch of new smart home devices. OpenAI might put out a smart home device. Obviously, I have Google ones, and there are Amazon ones. You ask any of those companies, what are the number one and two things people ask for from their assistants in their house? And it&#8217;s setting timers and playing music. Then everything else is a long tail of almost nothing. The drop-off is enormous.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>If you want to play music and you&#8217;ve got a great stereo in your house, you&#8217;ve got to go connect to their smart home system. Now you&#8217;re on their network, and now you&#8217;re just another endpoint for whatever forthcoming successful consumer AI agent will exist. Big question mark there, but let&#8217;s say it happens.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That further commodifies you, right? That&#8217;s yet another time when they&#8217;re not going to use your interface or your streaming; they&#8217;re just going to say [a command] out loud in their home, and the OpenAI device will be like, &#8220;I found some speakers on your network. I&#8217;m playing the music for you.&#8221; Do you need to participate there? Do you need the OpenAI agent to say, &#8220;I&#8217;m playing it on your Bose speakers,&#8221; and then you collect a tiny little licensing check back, or how should that work?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t think so. I think we understand there are a lot of components in this chain, and customers think about Bose for amazing sound. And when they&#8217;re playing the speaker, and they&#8217;re asking whatever agent they&#8217;re asking to play it, there is an appreciation. There is going to be a logo on that speaker. If you have a new Bose Lifestyle speaker, there&#8217;s going to be a logo right on the front of it. You&#8217;re going to look at it every day in your kitchen, living room, or wherever it&#8217;s placed.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I get the feeling those logos are about to get bigger and start lighting up. You can see it coming.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">[Laughs] We&#8217;re not going to make them that big.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So that chain is long. And in fact, you launched another piece of the chain of music, which is that you launched Studios, which feels like a record label, a marketing venture for new artists. How does that play into it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So bigger than a record label, not just a record label, but that&#8217;s a piece of it. Think about Bose Studios as a way to connect with our customers and give them new avenues to participate with us. The announcement may feel like a sudden thing, but if you sort of look at what we&#8217;ve been doing at Bose over the last four or five years, we&#8217;ve been moving in this direction.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Getting the attention of consumers is hard. You don&#8217;t do that with traditional advertising anymore. Consumers are engaging with content, and that&#8217;s it. And so we&#8217;ve been building more and more content. We&#8217;ve been partnering with more and more creators. We&#8217;ve been dipping our toe in this water for the last several years.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I&#8217;ll give you a couple of examples. We&#8217;ve been partnering with NME to do their mixtape, where we&#8217;re helping them bring undiscovered, up-and-coming artists to the forefront and helping bring and celebrate those artists. We&#8217;ve learned a lot from doing that. The connection and the participation of our customers with that content and with those artists has been incredible.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;ve been sponsoring an event, the Chris Brickley Invitational, which is this amazing basketball event for high school basketball players. It is becoming <em>the</em> place to go if you&#8217;re an All-American type high school basketball player, both on the men&#8217;s and the women&#8217;s side. And that event has turned into something so special. We&#8217;re not putting on a new Super Bowl over here, but we are participating in content creation in a way that connects with our customers. We think that&#8217;s really important.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We also like this idea of up-and-coming creators who need support to launch their careers. At Bose, we say fiercely independent. There&#8217;s something so unique about our structure and the independence that we have. We kind of like the idea of supporting this up-and-coming group. It supports our connection with our customers, and we think we&#8217;re helping them along the way as well.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I feel like I could spend another full hour just talking about the economics of the music business and brands supporting creators in this way. But sadly, you&#8217;ve already given us too much time. Lila, thank you so much for being on Decoder.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thank you for having me back.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[The left and right agree on one thing: no data centers]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/971855/ai-data-center-backlash-protests-florida-bipartisan" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=971855</id>
			<updated>2026-08-06T10:18:27-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-08-06T10:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Policy" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Politics" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today, I’m talking with Gaby Del Valle, a policy reporter here at The Verge, about the growing backlash against AI data centers.&#160; Gaby recently reported a fantastic piece about Hernando County, Florida, where last month the county commission unanimously approved a yearlong moratorium on data center construction. She attended a protest there organized by a [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A photo illustration featuring data center protesters." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/07/VRG_DCD_0730.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today, I’m talking with Gaby Del Valle, a policy reporter here at <em>The Verge</em>, about the growing backlash against AI data centers.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Gaby recently <a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/969667/humans-first-data-center-protest-hernando-county-florida-republicans">reported a fantastic piece</a> about Hernando County, Florida, where last month the county commission unanimously approved a yearlong moratorium on data center construction. She attended a protest there organized by a group called <a href="https://www.humansfirst.com/">Humans First</a>, a conservative grassroots movement focused on combating AI data center build-outs.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24792604/The_Verge_Decoder_Tileart.jpg?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don&#8217;t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Decoder</em> wherever you get your podcasts. Head <a href="https://www.theverge.com/account/podcasts">here</a>. Not a subscriber? You can <a href="https://www.theverge.com/subscribe">sign up here</a>. </p>
</div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You’ll hear Gaby explain that it was part of a bigger, broader, and bipartisan opposition to data centers. Not only as physical buildings, but as infrastructure that powers an AI boom that takes local jobs and fills feeds with slop.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Data center construction has become a proxy for the public’s feelings about AI: something physical they can aim their fear and frustration at — and even create enough pressure to stop through community organizing and protests.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I wanted Gaby to talk me through what these protests look like on the ground, from voters whose party affiliations have typically aligned them with big business. You’ll hear Gaby say data centers are scrambling party lines, turning diehard Trump voters into protesters who care about left-coded issues like groundwater contamination and forever chemicals.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It’s a confusing time, and data centers are going to play a major role in electoral politics going forward. So I suspect this won’t be the last we hear from Gaby on movements like Humans First.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: <em>Verge</em> policy reporter Gaby Del Valle on the bipartisan data center backlash. Here we go.</p>

<iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP1649694623" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.&nbsp;</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Gaby Del Valle, you&#8217;re a policy reporter here at </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong>. Welcome back to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thank you. Happy to be here.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m excited to talk to you. You were on previously with our friend Alex Heath, but this is the first time I&#8217;ve gotten to talk to you in </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>. I think the </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/policy/969667/humans-first-data-center-protest-hernando-county-florida-republicans"><strong>story you just wrote about data centers and conservative backlash in Florida</strong></a><strong> is just a real preview of what tech policy going into the midterm elections is going to be like.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You were just there. You talked to a bunch of people who are protesting data centers. It is a real alignment scramble in terms of our politics. Tell us what you found.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What I found was people are really, really, really, really mad. And the reasons why they&#8217;re mad are different depending on the community, but they&#8217;re also all the same, if that makes sense. They have localized concerns. They were telling me Florida&#8217;s really humid. It doesn&#8217;t make sense to build a data center that needs to be kept very cool and dry in such a humid place. A lot of them were concerned about their groundwater. They were concerned about PFAS getting dumped into the water.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But I&#8217;ve also talked to people in Arizona who have the opposite concern. Arizona is not very humid. Arizona&#8217;s very dry. And they&#8217;re also like, &#8220;It doesn&#8217;t make sense to build a data center in the desert.&#8221; So whatever your community is, you&#8217;re like, &#8220;It doesn&#8217;t make sense to build a data center here because of X reason,&#8221; basically.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The thing that really strikes me in reading your piece and hearing about the other reporting you&#8217;re doing for pieces to come is that data center build-outs and data center protests do not neatly map to the usual right-left culture war alignment that we have seen play out for so long. And I&#8217;m curious about your view on that. Why can&#8217;t Elon Musk just command his army of followers to be pro-data centers?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is so interesting to me. So this is a little bit of backstory that&#8217;s going to answer your question. The woman who organized Humans First, which was bipartisan and now is focusing only on organizing conservatives, was an early founder or organizer with the Tea Party way back when. And this has a similar vibe to me. It&#8217;s not a left-right thing. It&#8217;s a populous technocrat divide.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You&#8217;re seeing that on the right and the left. So for example, at the Abundance Conference last year, it was center-right to center-left-ish. And everybody was pro-nuclear, pro-AI. And we were hearing that, &#8220;These things are here to stay. We have to figure out how to do it smartly.&#8221; At the same time, the populist left and the populist right are both skeptical of tech development, to put it lightly.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That skepticism plays out across a number of dimensions. I couldn&#8217;t help but be struck as I read your story by how many strains of conspiracy thinking there are about data centers.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m curious if they&#8217;re just visible. They&#8217;re so big, and they require so much development and so much build-out that you can just glue any concerns you have onto them. &#8220;This big thing is happening, and I don&#8217;t feel any control. And I&#8217;m also worried about 5G, Chinese government interference, and X, Y, Z. And I can just point it all at this very big thing by which there&#8217;s a process to say no. I can go to my local town board meeting and literally say no.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I mean, I think that&#8217;s part of it. It&#8217;s interesting because I think there&#8217;s a spectrum of conspiratorial thinking to, I guess, misinformed thinking on the water use question. We now know that they <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/07/how-much-water-data-centers-use/687934/">don&#8217;t use as much water as we previously thought</a>, et cetera, et cetera. But on the far end of the spectrum, one of the people I talked to told me that cattle born near data centers are all stillborn. I tried to track that down. I was like, &#8220;Where did this come from?&#8221; And it was <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546162433462444/posts/1782623276483024/">one farmer in Texas</a> who claims he had one stillborn calf on his cattle farm.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So that got spun out via the internet rumor, social media mill. I think that&#8217;s part of it. There&#8217;s this issue of social collapse that comes out once you talk to people a little bit. One of the women I talked to said, &#8220;I had this friend. ChatGPT told her she couldn&#8217;t be friends with me anymore.&#8221; You have all of these stories of people harming themselves, going off their medication, or whatever because they&#8217;ve been talking to a chatbot and it goes awry.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think this gives people a feeling of control. Where I can go to my community board meeting or my council members&#8217; meeting, and I can say, &#8220;I don&#8217;t want this big building that houses the scary thing that is fracturing my community here.&#8221; So it&#8217;s not just the actual building. I think it&#8217;s a broader backlash to generative AI and to LLMs specifically.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of my ideas that I&#8217;ve been pushing on lately is that the AI products are not winning over hearts and minds in the market. So if the data centers just said Netflix on them, maybe people would like them more.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But instead, that&#8217;s where the slop is coming from, and it’s why the jobs are going to go away. It’s also where Mark Zuckerberg is just going to get even wealthier. Is there a dynamic of that — that people just don&#8217;t like the thing that the data centers make?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes, absolutely. They don&#8217;t like a lot of the things that the data centers make. It&#8217;s not just AI. I think AI is a big part of it, but this is a little preview of a different story I&#8217;m working on&#8230; In Tucson, there&#8217;s a data center project that&#8217;s getting built out. The people I talked to there said, &#8220;Yeah, this might be an Amazon Web Services facility, and Amazon works with ICE.” So this technology is fueling mass deportations through, not directly, but creating the non-sexy infrastructure that surveillance is built on.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are two things to it. Part of it is a NIMBY, &#8220;I don&#8217;t want this thing in my backyard, literally. I don&#8217;t want my town to get polluted. I don&#8217;t want this. I don&#8217;t want that. I don&#8217;t want to see it. I don&#8217;t want the noise pollution.&#8221; And then the other part is, &#8220;I do not like what this big building represents and what it has wrought on society.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Does that cut across bipartisan lines? Or is that more culture war coded?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s both. It cuts across culture war lines in that people have different concerns about what LLMs do. So one woman I spoke to was talking about the fracturing of social bonds. On the construction front, she was like, &#8220;We&#8217;re a rural-ish community. We don&#8217;t want this big blight on our nice rolling hills.&#8221; So that&#8217;s a right-coded thing. And there was a lot of anti-development stuff that is neither right nor left.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the left, I would say there&#8217;s similar culture war concerns, but it&#8217;s&#8230; I don&#8217;t know if this is necessarily a culture war concern, but fueling deportations. Both sides, I think, are concerned about the job losses because of AI. And both sides have caught on to the fact that these facilities don&#8217;t really have a lot of long-term job prospects. There&#8217;s the big construction boom. There&#8217;s an HVAC situation. But to actually maintain these facilities, it doesn&#8217;t require that many people.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think people have caught onto that. The promises of the AI data job, or that the AI boom will lead to jobs related to data centers, are not actually true.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah. At most, it&#8217;s a few hundred jobs for each of these facilities, at least in the data centers we have now. Why do you think some of the protests make national news? The </strong><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/14/us/elections/kevin-oleary-utah-data-center.html"><strong>Kevin O&#8217;Leary data center in Utah</strong></a><strong> is a national story. Maybe it&#8217;s just because he&#8217;s a cartoon character.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And then there&#8217;s a </strong><a href="https://openai.com/index/building-ai-infrastructure-with-the-effingham-county-community/"><strong>new project in Georgia where there might be a huge OpenAI facility</strong></a><strong> that seems to go under the radar. There are all of the projects in Florida that you are reporting on, but don&#8217;t seem to be explosive in the way that some of the other ones are.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, I think that&#8217;s a good question. There was one in Florida that was explosive, and it was <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/palm-beach-florida-ai-data-center-trump-mar-a-lago-2026-7">just because it was near Mar-a-Lago</a>. I think that one pretty obviously made the national news because it&#8217;s related to the president. I honestly think a cartoon character at the center of it is the deciding factor a lot of the time on whether it&#8217;ll become a national story or not. And then also the numbers. The Utah one, I don&#8217;t remember off the top of my head how big it&#8217;s supposed to be, but it&#8217;s supposed to be huge. So then that becomes a proxy for all data center development.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They&#8217;re being planned everywhere. And I think what&#8217;s so interesting is that the backlash exists everywhere too. I relied a lot on, for example, the <em>Tampa Bay Times</em> to figure out the background for this story. They&#8217;re on top of it. They&#8217;re going to these meetings and watching people get yelled at and asked, <a href="https://www.citizen.org/news/the-secret-data-center-buildout-how-states-can-stop-big-techs-abuse-of-ndas/">&#8220;Did you sign an NDA? Yes or no?&#8221;</a></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do you think the local governments are being responsive? You&#8217;ve now gone to some of these protests; you&#8217;ve talked to people on the ground in various counties across the country. The basic unit of democracy is supposed to be your local government because you know those people and you can yell at them in the grocery store and the town board meeting.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;re seeing there&#8217;s a wall going up in some of these cases where the local governments are saying, &#8220;No, we have to do this development. This is the only economic development available.&#8221; And the people are saying, &#8220;No, we&#8217;re going to throw you out.&#8221; Do you think local governments on the whole are being responsive or not responsive at all?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think it really depends. In Hernando County, they did pass a moratorium. There are a lot of counties in Florida where moratoriums have passed. But in Tucson, again, the city government is responsive to what the people want and the county government isn&#8217;t, and they&#8217;re at odds with each other. There are all these videos of people yelling at their representatives about NDAs again. And then them being like, &#8220;We cannot say whether we signed an NDA,” which is an answer, but whatever.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think it really depends on a lot of things. How small the communities are, for one. How vulnerable the people in office feel to getting voted out, I think, is another big one. In Florida, the Republican primary for governor, I think, might be affected by this issue. The primary is in a few weeks and the front-runner, Byron Donalds, has taken a lot of money from the AI industry and data center development groups. And people are mad. People are really mad.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He was endorsed by Trump, and everyone I spoke to, as proud Trump voters, said things like, &#8220;I don&#8217;t understand why Trump would endorse him. I&#8217;m not going to vote for him.&#8221; One woman I talked to who told me she was opposed to everything Democrat said she would vote for a Democrat or an independent if Donalds won the primary. And Donalds has also changed… not his stance on data center development, but the way that he talks about it in response to a lot of this backlash.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How has he changed the stance? How is he talking about it now?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">He says his vision is to make Florida the financial capital of the world. And to a lot of people, that would sound great, but these people are really upset by this, both because they&#8230; I mean, there are a lot of other things at play here. Housing costs in Florida have gone up exponentially. Not only in big cities like Miami, but in the suburbs of Tampa, for example. Housing prices have shot up to levels that I, as somebody who grew up there, just don&#8217;t understand. I literally can&#8217;t wrap my head around it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I think a lot of the backlash to development and to data centers is also related to people&#8217;s cost of living going up and to these, in their words, outside developers coming in and changing a community that&#8217;s already changing. He has since said that we need data center development, but we need to do it responsibly.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is another great example of this. He supported a bill that would require data centers to pay their own utilities and also let counties require them to use reclaimed water, which would address the water issue. But the Tampa Bay Times reported that he also supported legislation that gives massive tax breaks to data centers. And that he pushed to amend that law, which I think was signed in 2017, to only apply to hyperscale data centers, which are the ones that people have problems with.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The people I talk to, they know that there are currently data centers in Florida, and they&#8217;re smaller. There are no hyperscale data centers, but there are around one hundred smaller ones for Netflix or whatever. And they&#8217;re okay with that. One woman I talked to works in IT. She said, &#8220;I understand that data centers are a boogeyman, and we need them for stuff. But I don&#8217;t want this massive facility using all of our power, emitting these frequencies, et cetera, et cetera.&#8221; Another thing that I think is really interesting-</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Wait, can you just explain what “emitting these frequencies” means?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">[Laughs] Just the noise. I talked to these guys at the Border Security Expo who work for a data center company, and they all live in Virginia. Even they were like, &#8220;Yeah, it sucks.&#8221; They said, &#8220;I hate walking around my neighborhood because I just hear it all the time.&#8221; And they work in data centers. I don&#8217;t think she meant 5G.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s a real element of this, right next to China being a villain of whatever persuasion you need China to be a villain for. Again, there&#8217;s just a piece of all this where it&#8217;s a big thing that you can stop. The power of NIMBYism can stop this. Maybe we can&#8217;t stop everything else. We can&#8217;t stop Facebook from doing targeted advertising that feels like it&#8217;s listening to you. No one knows how to stop this. It&#8217;s bad. We don&#8217;t like it, but no one knows how to stop it.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>“I can stop this building from being built” seems like it not only scrambles our culture war lines, but it&#8217;s scrambling politics, too. Byron Donalds </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/TheHillEvents/videos/my-goal-is-to-make-florida-the-financial-capital-of-the-world-were-ranked-1-in-s/1674737633225957/"><strong>saying</strong></a><strong> he wants Florida to be the financial capital of the world. One, it’s very funny in that he has to contend with the existence of New York, London, Beijing, and Amsterdam. Go down the line.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There are a lot of places that can compete for that title where Miami might not be in the running. But doing it via building data centers is not the path to that result. It&#8217;s just a bunch of economic development that might result in some short-term gains.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It feels like people have clocked it, and they&#8217;ve clocked that it&#8217;s a thing you can stop. I&#8217;m curious if there&#8217;s anything else. You&#8217;ve spent a lot of time covering the right, and I wonder if there&#8217;s anything else that scrambles the lines like that. Because in almost every other case, “let&#8217;s build stuff, let&#8217;s tear down the White House and build a ballroom” is fine. Building things is better, and it is coded in one side of the culture war.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah. I mean, this is, again, so Florida specific, but it really surprised me how much of the politics around this were scrambled. One of the women was talking about this ballot initiative that&#8217;s going to pass. It&#8217;s going to give more tax exemptions to homeowners, which I feel is a standard Republican thing — lower taxes for homeowners. People would like that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">She said, &#8220;This is terrible. It&#8217;s going to deprive county governments of funds that they would otherwise get from homeowners, which will then entice the counties even further to have data centers come into our communities.&#8221; So she was thinking of the second- and third-order effects of this, even though that&#8217;s a pretty populist initiative. But yeah, it&#8217;s all so scrambled.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How do you see the scramble inside of the right and then carrying over to the populist left? The idea that a bunch of billionaires threw all of their weight behind Donald Trump in 2024, and that led to, I don&#8217;t know, a bunch of podcast bros throwing their weight behind Donald Trump in 2024. There was a cultural wave of Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk, and the All-In podcast about building and tech and the future. It feels like that has come to one kind of end.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I don&#8217;t think that that wave is driving the culture anymore because of the backlash to AI. We can all see the college students booing at graduation. If the backlash is there against the data centers, against AI taking the jobs, against billionaires in general, what does that turn into on the right? Because that was the animating force of the right for so long.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think that is still an open question. I think the question is whether this backlash is strong enough to shake people&#8217;s other partisan concerns.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you&#8217;ve got a Democrat candidate who is anti-data center development, but also not super gung-ho about deputizing all Florida police officers to do ICE arrests, where does that leave someone who supports Trump&#8217;s immigration policies but doesn&#8217;t want a data center in their neighborhood? I don&#8217;t know. I think that&#8217;s what the party is struggling with right now.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I mean, I think Trump is this perfect avatar for people because he somehow stands for anti-elite sentiment, but also for hard work and capitalism. He&#8217;s just this perfect blend of, I don&#8217;t even know how to describe it. He contains multitudes, I guess. And nobody else can contain multitudes like him. They don&#8217;t have the juice. They just don&#8217;t have it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Can I make the argument?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I think I can make the argument. I grew up in Wisconsin, which has many similar dynamics to maybe Florida, in that people in Wisconsin remember a time when there were big factories. In the town I grew up in, Racine, there used to be a Case factory that made tractors. There was a Chrysler factory in Kenosha that made Jeep Wranglers. This is a real thing that occurred, and all those things are gone.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So Trump would promise all of this huge economic development that basically looked like manufacturing. I think what his version of this, even with tariffs, was, &#8220;We will bring manufacturing back to all of these places. And that manufacturing will require a lot of hard work, but there will be dignity in that hard work.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>At the end of it, you&#8217;re going to get to point to a Modine air conditioner and be like, &#8220;I made that thing. My community made that thing.&#8221; I think that is very seductive. I mean, Trump spent years promising that we would build iPhones in America, and </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/23030465/foxconn-lcd-factory-wisconsin-alan-yeung-trump-scott-walker-wisconn-valley-dome-decoder-interview"><strong>that&#8217;s Wisconsin and Foxconn and all this stuff</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Maybe none of those things were ever going to come true because that&#8217;s not how anything gets made anymore. And that&#8217;s not even the kind of work people actually want to do in America anymore. But you take all of that energy, and you&#8217;re like, &#8220;Actually, what we&#8217;re going to make is data centers.&#8221; And no one can see at the end of that, &#8220;I made a Jeep Wrangler.&#8221; They get to see that Elon Musk got richer; they just lost their jobs, their children feel like they have no future, and their feeds are full of slop.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And I feel like something gets disconnected in the multitudes where you can tell everyone, &#8220;Yeah, the best I can do for you is make you the world&#8217;s richest factory foreman.&#8221; So people are like, &#8220;That sounds awesome. That&#8217;s better than whatever nonsense I&#8217;m doing online.&#8221; But you can&#8217;t be like, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to make Sam Altman richer,&#8221; because that doesn&#8217;t mean anything to anyone. All of this construction doesn&#8217;t do anything for anyone.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I<strong> look at the backlash, and all I see is that a lot of people across the political spectrum have come to that realization. You can tear down our communities to build bridges and factories, and you can pollute the skies with smokestacks as long as we all get jobs. But if you&#8217;re going to do all that and all I get is more AI-generated movie posters on Amazon Prime whose price keeps going up every month, screw you. And I&#8217;m wondering if that connection is&#8230; That&#8217;s my guess. I&#8217;m wondering if you see any hints of that connection in your reporting as you talk to all these people.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think so. I think the Florida version of making a Jeep Wrangler is like, there were orange groves and cattle ranches, and now there are not. I used to drive past an orange grove when I was a kid. That orange grove is gone. It&#8217;s a Publix now. There was an old cow field. Now that&#8217;s a mall.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the one hand, that&#8217;s what people want. People want consumption, but they also, at least in Florida, liked thinking that they lived near an orange grove. Like, &#8220;Oh, maybe the guy&#8217;s using tons of pesticides. Maybe the orange grove is worse for your health than the data center.” I don&#8217;t know. I don&#8217;t have the stats on this. But you could see the tangible effects of what your economy was producing.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Now it&#8217;s just like, &#8220;There&#8217;s a building that none of us can go in. It makes a horrible noise. And I think it&#8217;s drinking all my water?&#8221; And then it&#8217;s also making your kids dumb and alienated, and making everybody lose their jobs. People don&#8217;t like that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Again, these aren&#8217;t Luddites. The woman I talked to said, &#8220;I found out about the Humans First organizing [efforts] via Facebook. I know there&#8217;s an irony in that. I know there&#8217;s an irony in me working in IT and opposing this data center.&#8221; They&#8217;re not dumb. They understand that all of these things that we&#8217;ve built our lives around require something to power them. They just don&#8217;t want that something to be within driving distance of their house. They want it somewhere else.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>And it&#8217;s unclear where that somewhere else should be apart from space.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Apart from space.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>That is a very different episode of </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>. But that&#8217;s one answer the industry has: &#8220;These people, their stupid concerns are too annoying. We&#8217;ll just put the data centers in space,” and maybe they&#8217;ll solve that problem. Who knows?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The other answer is, &#8220;We&#8217;ll just horsepower over their concerns. This is too important. We&#8217;re going to do it anyway. And maybe we&#8217;ll just subsidize a bunch of education in some community. Maybe we&#8217;ll just pay a bunch of extra money. Maybe we&#8217;ll pay for everyone&#8217;s electricity.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I don&#8217;t know if those have gotten any traction. Is there anything that the tech companies or the neoclouds could do in these communities to overcome the objections? Could they just pay for healthcare? Or is that just a non-starter?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t know about paying for healthcare, but something that I didn&#8217;t include in the piece,&nbsp; because it was extremely dry and very technical, was that the small protest ended with about an hour and a half long presentation from a land use expert on how to write local zoning ordinances to prevent hyperscale data centers from being built. It was really specific stuff, like &#8220;You could have them on multiple small parcels of land.&#8221; It was really dry. &#8220;You could require them to use this amount of reclaimed water, et cetera, et cetera.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think what people want more than the data centers not being there is a degree of community input on how they&#8217;re built — if they&#8217;re going to be built. I think if they got that, they would maybe not be pacified, but they would at least not feel like there&#8217;s a big external force coming in and steamrolling their community, especially when they already feel like that in every other aspect of their life.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is the thing that I&#8217;m most curious about. So much of our politics and our culture has been nationalized. Everything happens at the national level. The fact that the mayor of New York is a national political figure is at once very silly and also just the funniest thing that has happened in a long time.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Data centers are very local. They&#8217;re happening to people in their backyards, and a data center being built in Florida, Georgia, or Tucson has nothing to do with me in New York. It&#8217;s far away enough.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Maybe what you&#8217;re hearing from everybody is just, &#8220;Somewhere else, and as we get to somewhere else, I won&#8217;t care.&#8221; But it is very local. And then it is very in person. People are going to the meetings; they&#8217;re encountering one another. There have been stories of bridges across party lines from people who would never like each other normally because they both hate the data centers.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Is there an element of a return to actual local politics and actual community building here that could be catalyzed by opposition to data centers?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I really think so. Again, I&#8217;m talking to organizers in multiple states who are going to these community, town council, or county council meetings and yelling at their representatives. And sometimes it&#8217;s hundreds of people. I think this is maybe a weird analogy, but it reminds me of the local backlash to right-wing organizing and local education policy, which is where a lot of the anti-trans backlash started. You&#8217;d go into the school board, and you&#8217;d be like, &#8220;I don&#8217;t want this gender stuff being taught to my child. I don&#8217;t want my kids to know that slavery was bad.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m not comparing them in terms of value judgment. I just think it&#8217;s at a level of local engagement that is at the same time a national issue. It&#8217;s these really, really, really localized policies that may end up driving, if not national policy change and national policy discussions, but at least national political vibes. Whoever wins the Democratic and Republican primaries and runs for president in 2028, what are they going to be saying about data centers? I don&#8217;t know, but I know it&#8217;s going to be informed by what happens this year and next year.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m actually very curious how Trump handles it. As you said, he contains multitudes. He&#8217;s very good at reading his own base. It feels like the Trump base is very much polarized around data centers. There are a lot of people who love Donald Trump but hate data centers. And then there&#8217;s his money, which loves the AI build-out and loves data centers. That is a fracture as deep as anything.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>A lot of those folks will say, &#8220;AI just has a marketing problem. If only we could convince people of the benefits of this build-out and the super intelligence to come, they would be on board.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>The best marketer they could have for that would be Donald Trump. But he doesn&#8217;t seem to be willing to make those claims at the level that they might need. And certainly he is very attuned to his base hating AI. How do you think he&#8217;s going to play it? And how do you think the MAGA coalition will respond to it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay, so do you remember when Trump was talking about H-1B visas? Or not even when he was talking about it, but just the whole swirl around what we’re going to do about these?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Trump said, &#8220;I think we should stamp an H-1B visa to every foreign student&#8217;s college graduation diploma.&#8221; And I thought, &#8220;What are you talking about? Your administration is charging $100,000 for these visas.&#8221; He kept saying things like, &#8220;These kids are really smart. We need them in America building chips.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think he&#8217;s just going to do it like that. The thing about Trump is that he can say literally whatever, and he can do literally whatever, and the people who like him will continue to like him. Sometimes they&#8217;ll be like, &#8220;Oh, well, I don&#8217;t like this particular policy of his. I don&#8217;t know why he endorsed this candidate,” but they&#8217;re still going to back the guy.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But enough to split the difference on this issue? In every other issue, he could polarize the electorate, and he would get there, but, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to put a data center in the backyard, and it&#8217;s going to make that noise.&#8221; Maybe not enough.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But the thing is that they don&#8217;t see it as coming from Trump. They&#8217;re thinking, &#8220;These companies are coming into our community.&#8221; And if you connect the dots, it&#8217;s like, &#8220;Who supports those companies? The president. Who is giving the president a lot of money? All these different companies.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s not how people see it. They see it as these tech oligarchs who are just disconnected from politics and disconnected from anything because of all their money. They don&#8217;t see that as having a connection to the president. Instead, they see that as having a connection to the governor, to the board of commissioners, or whatever. But Trump is floating above it all. I don&#8217;t know why.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Well, I&#8217;m curious, and maybe we should end it here. The Florida gubernatorial primaries are coming up. If Donalds loses, even with that Trump endorsement over the data center issue, do you think that will be a signal or a predictor of what will happen in the midterms?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think it would be a massive signal, if only because Donalds is polling so much further ahead than everybody else. He&#8217;s the clear frontrunner, and the lieutenant governor who&#8217;s polling second is also pro-data centers. If any of the anti-data center candidates win the Republican primary, that is going to be huge and completely unexpected by everybody in the state. But it could happen. Crazier things have happened.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;re going to be doing a lot of coverage of this in the months to come, especially ahead of the midterms, because this scrambling of party lines, this scrambling of the culture war, seems very important. The politics we&#8217;ve had for so long, they don&#8217;t seem like they can hold up to everyone hating the same thing.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Maybe that&#8217;s all America needs. It does seem like every American hating these big buildings that make loud noises might be the thing that unifies us, which is good or bad. You can make your own decisions, but I can&#8217;t think of anything else. There&#8217;s nothing else that&#8217;s cutting across party lines this way. Can you?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Literally nothing. Nothing at all. And it&#8217;s cutting across party lines, I think, not just in that people hate it, but I had these deeply conservative women talking to me about local environmental and ecological issues. They were talking about pesticides and forever chemicals in their water, which you wouldn&#8217;t expect looking at Republican politics five to 10 years ago, that this is where we have ended up.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;re still doing climate change hoaxes at the national level, and on the ground we&#8217;re talking about pesticides. There&#8217;s something there.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Gaby, we&#8217;re going to have to have you back as the story develops and certainly as we go into all these elections. Thank you so much for being at </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, thanks for having me. This was fun.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Bluesky’s new CEO wants a big tent, not a bubble]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/974387/bluesky-toni-schneider-interview-ai-atproto-atmosphere" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=974387</id>
			<updated>2026-08-03T15:21:36-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-08-03T11:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Social Media" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today, I’m talking with Toni Schneider, who is the brand new CEO of the social platform Bluesky — he formally took over after a short stint as interim CEO. This is one of my favorite kinds of interviews to do on Decoder, because a couple years ago, we had Bluesky’s prior CEO, Jay Graber, on [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A stylized illustration of Bluesky CEO Toni Schneider" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/08/DCD_20260803_Schneider.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap wp-block-paragraph">Today, I’m talking with Toni Schneider, who is the brand new CEO of the social platform Bluesky — he formally took over after a short stint as interim CEO.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is one of my favorite kinds of interviews to do on <em>Decoder</em>, because a couple years ago, we had Bluesky’s prior CEO, Jay Graber, on the show — she’s now the company’s chief innovation officer, and all of that kind of shuffle is pure <em>Decoder </em>bait. And a new CEO often brings with them new priorities, which is perhaps the most <em>Decoder </em>subject of all.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Bluesky in particular is a company pulling in a lot of different directions: There’s a Twitter-like social media app, which is what most people are familiar with, and then there’s the underlying technology behind that app call AT Protocol, which allows anyone to build social networking products that interoperate with Bluesky. As you’ll hear Toni say, that ecosystem is vibrant and growing — it’s called the ATmosphere, which is adorable.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">But the users of Bluesky the app are not the same as the people building on AT Protocol, and the goals of a company founded to push forward the ideas of open and interoperable social standards are not necessarily aligned with the things all those users might need or want. This is a fight that bursts into view on Bluesky itself all the time, and I wanted to know how Toni thinks about balancing all of that with what remains a fairly small team.</p>

<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24792604/The_Verge_Decoder_Tileart.jpg?quality=90&amp;strip=all&amp;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don&#8217;t forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Decoder</em> wherever you get your podcasts. Head <a href="https://www.theverge.com/account/podcasts">here</a>. Not a subscriber? You can <a href="https://www.theverge.com/subscribe">sign up here</a>. </p>
</div>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Toni was formerly the CEO of Automattic, which makes the huge WordPress web content management platform, and you’ll hear him make the case that this period in social networking feels a lot like the early days of the web, and that success looks like a vibrant ecosystem with lots of big players that might take a decade to fully develop.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That’s quite a vision, but here and now, the open web is falling apart, and the social products of today are fragmenting and in many cases either get smaller or full of AI slop. So we talked about all of that, and about Bluesky’s reputation as a bastion of leftists insulated in their own little bubble sitting next to the increasingly hard right bubble of X. And of course, we talked about how Bluesky might start to generate revenue — and interestingly enough, it’s not just ads.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is a fun one that touches on almost every <em>Decoder </em>theme there is. I think you’re gonna like it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Okay: Bluesky CEO Toni Schneider. Here we go.</p>

<iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP2631794244" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.</em></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Toni Schneider, you are a venture partner at True Ventures, and more importantly, the </strong><a href="https://bsky.social/about/blog/07-10-2026-toni-schneider-ceo"><strong>now permanent CEO</strong></a><strong> of Bluesky. Welcome to </strong><strong><em>Decoder.</em></strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thank you. Thanks for having me.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I am very excited to talk to you. What is happening with the open social web is maybe the most important thing happening for media. It does not get as much attention as AI, but there&#8217;s something very big happening on these interoperable social networks. I know that you are a believer in it in the same way that you believed in the web when you were the CEO of Automattic, which is the company that makes WordPress. So let&#8217;s just start at the very start. Describe what you think Bluesky is today and what you think the opportunities with these new kinds of networks are.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Bluesky today is really two things. There&#8217;s the Bluesky app, which is what a lot of people are familiar with. It&#8217;s a social network. We think it&#8217;s a better social network. It&#8217;s more human focused, doesn&#8217;t have ads. It doesn&#8217;t have algorithms. But more importantly, underneath Bluesky is an open protocol called AT Protocol. And Bluesky is only one of now over a thousand apps built on that protocol.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The whole point of Bluesky was to demonstrate that this open protocol could scale and attract other builders, building lots of apps, lots of social experiences that all interoperate and connect with each other, which is what we believe the future of social media should look like. It’s what is actually going to make social media something that we believe in, which is that the future of social media should serve the public good. That is what motivates us, and that&#8217;s why we built the protocol first and then the app.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a lot in there already that is just pure </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>bait, including the notion that Bluesky, the product, and the ATmosphere and AT Protocol, the standard, are all intermixed in one company that you now run. Right next to that is maybe the purest </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>bait of all: the fact that Jay Graber, who was the CEO of Bluesky – </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/25/24108872/bluesky-ceo-graber-federation-social-media-decoder-interview"><strong>she was on the show</strong></a><strong> about two years ago – </strong><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/09/bluesky-ceo-jay-graber-steps-down/"><strong>stepped down</strong></a><strong> into the role of chief innovation officer. You were the interim CEO, and now after four months, you are the full-time CEO. Fundamentally, that is just the story that </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>loves to tell the most. Talk me through that. What made you step in as the interim CEO, and why did you decide to become the full-time CEO?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s actually really cool and inspiring that a founder, after she worked on this for six years, got it off the ground. She started inside Twitter, got it out of there, made it an independent thing. There are a lot of reasons why Bluesky is facing long odds and she got into this place, and then felt like it&#8217;s at a scale now where [it’s in] her sweet spot, the things that she loves working on, which is vision, innovation, new ideas. She felt pulled back towards building, especially also because of the advent of AI and how AI and AT Proto can interoperate. She felt like that&#8217;s what she wants to go work on, and it&#8217;s time to find somebody else for the CEO job.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I was already involved with this project because I met the team a little bit over two years ago, probably around the same time Jay was on your podcast. We became investors through True Ventures. So I&#8217;ve been following it as an investor, supporting it. The team approached me and said that my background with WordPress and open source was a really good fit. And so I agreed to be interim CEO initially because I was still a general partner at True and it&#8217;s a firm I helped build. It&#8217;s an amazing firm that I didn&#8217;t want to leave behind. But also, at True, we&#8217;ve had this model where we&#8217;ve moved back and forth between operator and investor. I did that while I was running Automattic.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So I stepped into it. After working on it hands-on for a few months, it just got more and more fun, more and more energizing. You just feel the momentum. Also, True just switched to a new fund. So actually the timing was good where I could say, “Okay, I will switch my true role to part-time, become a venture partner,” which is what I used to be when I ran Automattic, “and I&#8217;ll go all in at Bluesky.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Tell me about the difference between being the interim CEO and the full-time CEO. When you&#8217;re the interim CEO, it feels like there are probably some boundaries in what you can do. And then the full-time CEO can obviously do everything that a full-time CEO can do. What did you feel like the boundaries were as interim CEO?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">On the inside, it hasn&#8217;t felt very different. I actually think the move to drop the “interim” is more important on the outside, especially for the ATmosphere and the AT Proto community, and people building on this platform and in this ecosystem just to say, &#8220;No, I&#8217;m here for the duration. This isn&#8217;t just some interim gig and then somebody else is going to show up.&#8221; So I felt like, to the outside, that makes a big difference. On the inside, the job really hasn&#8217;t changed much..</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So many of my conversations here in </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>are really about the timescale of decisions. I&#8217;ll make the comparison to my newsroom because it&#8217;s easy and it&#8217;s easy to understand. Our reporters make decisions in like 30-minute increments. A story comes up, they write it, they publish it, they move on to the next thing. I make decisions maybe in like week- or month-long increments. What are we going to cover? Where are the resources going to go?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It seems like in the interim CEO role, the timescale of those decisions is necessarily short or it has the appearance of being short. And then I&#8217;m reading </strong><a href="https://toni.org/2026/07/10/staying-in-the-game/"><strong>your note</strong></a><strong> that you published when you became the full-time CEO. In the very beginning of it, you say we&#8217;re at the very beginning of the story with a decade of exciting work ahead. And I&#8217;m wondering if the timescale of the decisions you&#8217;re making now are a decade.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah. It touches on something really fascinating with this project. In general with decision making, one of the frameworks I really like is the reversible and irreversible decisions. A lot of decisions we make are actually reversible. I like to optimize to just make those decisions quickly and then make sure you can undo the decisions if you need to change them.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">And then there are a few decisions that really do have very long-term implications. They&#8217;re much harder to reverse. With this project in particular, there are decisions made at this protocol level that we&#8217;re going to have to live with for a long time. There&#8217;s a part of the company in this community that thinks very, very, very long term. This is a protocol that is going to be around for decades already. It&#8217;s in enough use that it&#8217;s going to be around for a long time. Those decisions you really need to be careful about. Then it goes all the way to things we try in the product that work or don&#8217;t work.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I wasn&#8217;t in the interim mindset as much because I am also an investor in the company, so I care very much about the long-term picture. What attracts me to this whole endeavor is that it can have a really important long-term impact. I always think about, okay, how will this play out? Does this truly serve the core mission? It&#8217;s okay to make some of these harder decisions now that won&#8217;t pay off for a long time because this is going to take a while.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s not just one company. It&#8217;s already thousands of others that are building together. That&#8217;s just a different timeframe and decision-making process than your typical just “go fast, scale as quickly as possible” [methodology]. I like it. I&#8217;m comfortable with it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I just want to stick with Bluesky, the company that is both responsible for the standard and the protocol, and the product that a lot of end users love and sometimes hate. That is the core tension of the company. The user base of Bluesky is or is not interested in the development of AT Protocol, is or is not interested in the wider ATmosphere.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Under Jay&#8217;s tenure, the company was very focused on building out the protocol because the product literally could not exist unless the protocol was robust enough to stand up the product. You could see that back and forth. I have always felt that the company is far more interested in the protocol than the product, that the product was merely there to show what people could do.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But now the product is big. It might be waxing or waning. It will come to whether you need to turn it into TikTok or not. Tell me where you, as a CEO with a decade-long vision for all of this, see the balance inside of Bluesky between the product, the thing that looks like a Twitter app, and the protocol, the thing that should enable thousands upon thousands of other social experiences?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I see the Bluesky app and the product as enabling the ATmosphere. It&#8217;s an on-ramp, or maybe a lobby to the ATmosphere where it&#8217;s just a great way to get lots of people in, get people exposed to the idea, and then realize as you use the product, &#8220;Oh, there are other things here. This isn&#8217;t just a microblogging app.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An example from the last couple of months that&#8217;s gone super well is this format called Standard Site that emerged. The history of that is that Bluesky&#8217;s a microblogging app. People are asking for longer-form posting. A bunch of other apps started popping up that were for newsletters and blogging. In particular, three apps called <a href="https://leaflet.pub/">Leaflet</a>, <a href="https://pckt.blog/">Pckt</a>, and <a href="https://offprint.app/">Offprint</a>. They got together and said, &#8220;Hey, why don&#8217;t we define a format for all of us to work together on the ATmosphere for all of the posts that we publish?&#8221; We looked at it and said, &#8220;Great, we can now take that and surface it in our app.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So now, if you&#8217;re posting a blog post on Leaflet, it just shows up in the Bluesky app and we can make that a seamless experience. This went over really well to the point where now WordPress is supporting Standard Site and lots of other publishing platforms. They&#8217;re realizing the benefit of, &#8220;If I just publish to this new format now, it&#8217;s going to show up and work across all these other platforms without me having to do anything.&#8221; It&#8217;s caused this really nice ripple effect throughout the ecosystem where people can work together just by using this format. Nobody has to do deals with each other. Nobody has to get permissions and no money has to change hands. And it&#8217;s just taken off.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I&#8217;m hoping more and more Bluesky users will see those kinds of integrations and go, &#8220;Oh, cool. I&#8217;m not just getting Bluesky content here. I&#8217;m getting content from all these other apps, all these other networks. And it just works. I don&#8217;t have to do anything. I don&#8217;t have to go sign up for 10 different apps. It&#8217;s just one signup, one account, and it just works.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;re describing two different kinds of things. There&#8217;s a lot of work to be done at the protocol level. There&#8217;s a lot of work to be done to support new kinds of experiences like Standard Site. Then there&#8217;s Bluesky, a product which has 45 million people, and probably needs to be substantially bigger if it wants to be the aggregator for a massive network that can displace some of the other social products out there. That needs to be a lot of things to a lot of people. It needs to find different kinds of product market fit. How big is Bluesky the company now, and how is it structured to point in two different directions?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re now at 50 people, still very small. The biggest challenge is clearly trying to do everything you&#8217;ve described with a small team. We do have an ecosystem of hundreds and thousands of others working on it, so that helps. We do our best to coordinate everyone.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I would say we&#8217;re making good progress. We&#8217;re seeing good momentum, especially on the ATmosphere side. The things we look at are the number of daily active apps on the network, which has doubled since the beginning of the year. It&#8217;s about to hit a thousand. We look at SDK downloads for our tools that have tripled. It&#8217;s going to hit a million downloads a month by later this year. Those are the numbers that show that not only is it scaling, but we&#8217;re able to scale it with the team that we have.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>How is that team structured?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">About 50 people, all remote, structured into small teams. I’m a big believer that six to eight person teams, highly aligned, highly incentivized, and motivated are the way to get things done. Probably the only way to get things done. There are three core product teams. There&#8217;s the app team that deals with the Bluesky app. There&#8217;s the ATmosphere team that does all the developer-facing stuff. And then there&#8217;s a third product team called the exploration team, and that&#8217;s a new team that Jay has stood up and is running. We actually just launched a new version of the product they&#8217;re working on, Attie. Think of it as AI layered on top of the ATmosphere and what you can do with that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those are our three core product teams, and they&#8217;re each customer-facing. Consumer-facing, developer-facing, and then we&#8217;ll find out from the AI product what the market fit is there. We have a bunch of support teams that support those three core teams and that are pretty typical. We&#8217;ve got a legal team, et cetera, et cetera. I would say it&#8217;s a team that&#8217;s a very low ego, high agency. That is kind of the ethos. Low drama, just a lot of get-shit-done energy. Really collaborative.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Whenever I think about new social products and how they might scale, especially with explosive user growth – up until recently, the conventional wisdom is you&#8217;ve got to scale trust and safety and moderation linearly with the size of your user base. Maybe we&#8217;re going to add AI to this and that linear relationship will break, or maybe it&#8217;ll actually get even more costly because token spend will get more costly than having human moderators, or there&#8217;ll be more false positives and we&#8217;re going to be even angrier. So you have to have more humans in the loop.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s really unclear to me how that&#8217;s going to work. You&#8217;ve obviously been scaling Bluesky as a consumer social product. Then you have the complexity of, “We&#8217;re hooking onto lots and lots of other products that are putting content in front of people.” How does the moderation layer work? And have you seen it be a linear increase in cost with the size of the network and the user base?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Moderation is huge in any social product. In addition to our 50-person team, we do have contractors that help us with moderation. What we&#8217;ve done differently is that our whole moderation system is composable or pluggable. It&#8217;s not just us that can label content and moderate it. Anybody can do it and add labels. It&#8217;s part of the protocol. Anybody else who builds products can decide if they want to use those labels or not. So if somebody on our moderation team labels something as, let&#8217;s say, AI slop, everybody else who&#8217;s building in this ecosystem can take advantage of that piece of data. They don&#8217;t have to, but they can.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So what we&#8217;re seeing and what we&#8217;ve seen is we have our moderation team, but then there are other teams that have decided to moderate label content the way they want. For example, maybe the first non-Bluesky project on the protocol was Blacksky. And it&#8217;s now become a thriving company on its own. It&#8217;s a team building all kinds of interesting things. And they started out by saying, &#8220;Hey, we want to build a version of this network that is optimized for Black users and their needs. And we want to have our own moderation policies.&#8221; And they are able to do that and plug that in. But everything they&#8217;re doing is still part of the larger network. And now there are hundreds and thousands of these kinds of systems.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This has really helped where the moderation burden isn&#8217;t all on one team that has to scale and look at everything. There should be lots of different teams and lots of different systems because each network, each community has its own idea of what moderation should look like. So we feel like this kind of distributed moderation approach is more powerful. That said, yes, we&#8217;re continuing to scale up ours, but it&#8217;s manageable. It&#8217;s a lot of work, but it&#8217;s manageable. It&#8217;s worth it when the whole network can benefit from it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The next part of that story that&#8217;s going to be really interesting is that the biggest thing we&#8217;re actually working on with AT Proto, the next evolution of the protocol, is private data. We all know that the public square, public social networking has reached a certain scale. And there are a lot of people who want to retreat into more private spaces. We&#8217;ve seen explosive growth in group chats. We&#8217;re all in a million group chats. This has been the number-one request from our community, from our developers: “Let us build more private, membership-based, various versions of private spaces on this protocol.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re in the middle of building that. It&#8217;s a community effort. It&#8217;s rolling out very soon. Now, moderation moves and gets broken up into even more and smaller spaces. People can decide, “If I don&#8217;t like a network or I don&#8217;t like the way it&#8217;s moderated, [I can] go start my own.” Go start your own community. That&#8217;s the most interesting thing ahead of us, because right now everything on AT Proto is public. It can only be used for a completely public product. Once we enable private data, I think that it&#8217;s like 10 or 100X the number of use cases we can serve.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Not to be reductive, but I think it&#8217;s useful to talk about this in comparison to other social products people might be more familiar with. With AT Protocol right now and the ATmosphere, everything is very public. The models in my head are Twitter, and RSS, and massive broad-based publishing platforms, right? One-to-many. I think what you&#8217;re describing is much more like a Reddit style approach, where you have smaller, closed communities. Some of them can be totally private unless you&#8217;re invited in. And yet, they&#8217;re still on the ATmosphere in some way. Is that right?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That&#8217;s right. The trade-off has traditionally been that if you want to be on a launch network, you have to be on a public network. Or if you want to control, have ownership over your own community, you have to set up your own thing. You have to run your own server or you have to run your own forum. There&#8217;s clearly a need for that because there are lots of those out there. But the challenge is each one of those is now a little island. And you have to convince people.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We think we can pull off as the best of both worlds. When you build a community or private space on AT Proto, it&#8217;s absolutely 100% owned by you. It&#8217;s not owned by Bluesky or by any company. It&#8217;s just like everything else on a protocol. It&#8217;s owned by the users, not by the platform. So it&#8217;s really truly yours. You can move it around. You can make all the decisions. But because it&#8217;s on a shared protocol, all of these communities plug together. You can go to a place like Bluesky and get all your notifications in one place. You can see what&#8217;s going on across everything. You just need one login, one place to check, but you still have the independence and the identity of these individual communities.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">That is something that no other platform can do right now. You&#8217;re either on the large platform owned and controlled place, or you run your own and you&#8217;re a little siloed. We think we can solve that. We see the energy behind this idea and the number of things people are already prototyping is very palpable.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I have to ask you the other </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>question because I&#8217;m very curious where this idea came from and how you decided to bet on it. How do you make decisions? What&#8217;s your framework for making decisions?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I already talked a little bit earlier about the reversible and irreversible decisions. The hardest thing about running any project is that, especially if it&#8217;s successful, it&#8217;s just an endless flow of things you have to prioritize and decide on. I find you could make that a lot less daunting and exhausting if you move a lot of decisions into this category of “they&#8217;re not that big a deal.” Let&#8217;s make it easy to experiment and reverse things, and really only focus on the truly long-term impactful things that we have to get right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">You have this lightness or almost playfulness about some of these things, where it&#8217;s just not that big a deal. Let&#8217;s just try something. Let&#8217;s be creative and improvisational about it. This is a lot of how Automattic runs. I actually credit a lot of that to Matt Mullenweg&#8217;s approach to first running an open-source project. Inside Automattic, there are a lot of jazz analogies because Matt started out as a jazz musician. Just this improvisational, “don&#8217;t take it so seriously if you don&#8217;t have to.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There are very serious decisions we have to make as well. For those, I like spending a lot of one-on-one time with the leaders, and then gathering and going through the list and talking through the trade-offs. Making sure that at least in a good cadence, monthly or maybe quarterly, we go through and make those hard trade-off decisions and don&#8217;t leave the room until we say, &#8220;No, we&#8217;re only doing these two things on the important list. We can&#8217;t do everything. Let&#8217;s voice all the ideas, but get to agreement on the few things we&#8217;re trying to get done. If we get those done, then we&#8217;re actually in good shape and we keep making forward progress.” That&#8217;s the ongoing flow that we go through, and it seems to be working.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I have to call out an email I got from a listener, ex-Amazon, who said, &#8220;Everyone always comes on your show and talks about reversible decisions and irreversible decisions. And I just want to point out that if you have enough money and time, every decision is reversible.&#8221; And I said, &#8220;Yeah, that&#8217;s right. Especially at Amazon scale, that&#8217;s certainly right.&#8221; What&#8217;s the line for you? What makes the decision irreversible? How much money and how much time does it take to reverse it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">To me, it&#8217;s less about the money. It&#8217;s more the time. Some things just take years to unwind. I think anything that has – let&#8217;s call it a five-year time horizon,&nbsp; where it&#8217;d be really painful to change course. Or maybe on the positive framing, it&#8217;s more like, &#8220;If we get this right, we don&#8217;t have to think about it again for five years.&#8221; That&#8217;s the category of things where – people talk a lot about, for example, with startups, it&#8217;s your investors. Especially early on, the first investors you work with are going to be with you for five or 10 years. And that&#8217;s a pretty big decision. You shouldn&#8217;t just take the first check that comes along. You should really think that through because I&#8217;ve lived that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">True has invested in 500 startups over the last 20 years, and we&#8217;ve seen every possible way that that plays out. That&#8217;s a good thing to really pay attention to early on, not just rush. Early in my career, I was like, &#8220;I just need money. Just give me a check and I&#8217;ll keep building. I just want to build things.&#8221; That&#8217;s an example of the timeframe where I feel like it&#8217;s really nice when it just works for several years. You [don’t] have to go back and invest more time, more money to reverse something.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So I want to put two decisions in practice here. And your framing here is perfect for this question. You decided to be the CEO of Bluesky, to become the permanent CEO of Bluesky. You&#8217;re calling that a 10-year decision, right? It&#8217;s in your note. We&#8217;ve talked about it here. How did you make that decision? Did they come to you and say, &#8220;You&#8217;re going to be the CEO now. Sorry, we&#8217;re stripping the title away&#8221;? Did you have to write a memo? How did that all happen?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It was a gradual process. The job is great. The team is great. The mission is what I want to work on for the next 10 years. So that was not a hard decision. It was really that I already had a job, and just figuring out a way to make those two pieces work together and to make a transition work. From early on, the Bluesky team and board said, &#8220;We think this is working really well. Can we make this permanent?&#8221; It was probably a couple months of just working through how a transition would work.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So you were the interim CEO for two months, and you spent two months figuring out how the transition worked and then you became the permanent CEO?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah. Yeah, that sounds about right.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s quite a timeline. The second one, maybe much more importantly is, “We&#8217;re going to make this big bet on private communities. We&#8217;re going to extend the protocol.” Logically, you&#8217;re going to have to extend the Bluesky app itself. You&#8217;re going to have to make a big bet on both the standard itself and how the consumer app will work. I would say, and maybe this is too reductive, the community on the Bluesky app does not like change, so you&#8217;re going to have to endure some change with them. “This is a bet. This is a big decision. This has to be the future of the protocol, the future of the ATmosphere.” How did you make that decision, and what made you convinced that it was the right one?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The decision to extend the protocol has been underway. A year or two years ago, or maybe even from the very beginnings of the protocol, people said, &#8220;What are we going to do about private data?&#8221; So that&#8217;s been building, and it&#8217;s natural. Once people start building on your protocol, it&#8217;s the first question. &#8220;This is great, but I do have some private data.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Even inside the Bluesky app, we have DMs. Those aren&#8217;t on the protocol. We don&#8217;t want those out in the public. We have features inside the app that we had to build off protocol because it couldn&#8217;t support private data. So we have our own use cases. We got lots of them. That&#8217;s an obvious “we just have to do it.” How it affects the community, that&#8217;s what our app team is working through right now. One of the things that I feel like we&#8217;ve gotten better at in the last few months is to do that out in the open.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Alex Benzer, who&#8217;s our head of product, who makes those decisions around what goes in the app and what doesn&#8217;t, has been posting about it and inviting feedback and saying, &#8220;Look, this is coming. What do you think? What kind of communities do you want? Do you want them? How similar should they be to the current app? How different?&#8221; I think we have 500 people who&#8217;ve signed up to give us feedback. We&#8217;re going through user interviews.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">People are already building communities on Bluesky actually because we have this functionality where people can make custom feeds. One of the huge differences in Bluesky is no algorithms. You get to make your own. You can plug in your own. People have made over 100,000 feeds. Some of those are really communities themselves. There are things like BookSky and AstroSky, where it&#8217;s just communities of people talking about a certain topic within a custom feed. People have taken what we have to bend it into a community shape.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s already happening on a network. That makes it a lot less scary. It&#8217;s not like we&#8217;re going to stop one thing and pivot somewhere else. We&#8217;re just doing more of a thing that some users are already doing. I think we can do it in a way that doesn&#8217;t disrupt. If you never want to join a private community, you don&#8217;t have to. Bluesky the app as it stands today isn&#8217;t going to change. The public part of it is popular, it&#8217;s growing. So we&#8217;re not going to mess with that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Let me ask you about Bluesky the app not changing, because I think that&#8217;s the thing that I&#8217;m poking at. It feels like every other social network evolves </strong><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-animals-keep-evolving-into-crabs/"><strong>into a crab</strong></a><strong>. Everything is evolving into TikTok. We can see it happening every single day. Meta today announced a test in which the big blue Facebook app will open for some set of users into full-screen video. “Screw it. We&#8217;re just going to turn Facebook into TikTok.” Everything heads in that direction. X has headed in that direction. That&#8217;s the competition, and maybe that&#8217;s the thing the market wants.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;re saying, “We&#8217;re going to build private data. We&#8217;ll have a more Reddit-like experience.” Bluesky may be the last really text-first social platform of its kind that exists. Do you feel that pull into different directions, into different formats? Because that&#8217;s a thing that your user base also pushes against.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This is the beauty of an open protocol. Let somebody else build the TikTok of AT Proto. Let somebody else go push into new formats. We&#8217;re perfectly happy with a text-first, microblogging network. We love it. Honestly, I&#8217;m glad if others are chasing off in other directions because we like what we have.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We talked earlier about traffic. A lot of these other networks, as you know… You&#8217;ve coined the term Google Zero right there. All these walled gardens, all these other platforms are getting more and more walled. They say, “Once we&#8217;re open enough to attract an audience, and then once you&#8217;re here, we&#8217;re not going to let you go. We&#8217;re just going to keep trying to find ways to keep you in there.”</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Bluesky&#8217;s the opposite. Because of the protocol, it&#8217;s locked open by default. We couldn&#8217;t keep you in it even if we wanted to. We want people to build other apps and experiment with other things. We want people to find great content on Bluesky and leave. We&#8217;re still a place where we don&#8217;t downrank links. We love sending traffic to people. We send two million clicks a day to publishers. We&#8217;re the number-one referrer to a bunch of publishers, and we want to do more of that. We love the way that the open web works and people come to Bluesky to connect, to learn, to have fun, and then to find interesting things to go to. There&#8217;s no way we&#8217;re going to change that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I&#8217;m curious, if someone wants to build the TikTok of the ATmosphere, is there a bunch of protocol-level work that needs to be done to support it? I know there are attempts to do this. Skylight, I think, is a TikTok-like app on the ATmosphere. There are others. But all of your technical innovation on the standard itself is pointed at text. I&#8217;m wondering if there&#8217;s something you need to do to be better at video to compete with what all of the closed platforms are chasing at a much larger scale.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, I think at the protocol level, it&#8217;s easy to do. You can define your own records on the protocol. Yes, ours are text-focused or posts, they&#8217;re follows, they’re likes, things like that. But there are already people publishing all kinds of different things within a protocol. I saw yesterday that somebody&#8217;s publishing a patent database onto AT Proto, so everybody else can just tap into that patent information. There&#8217;s somebody who&#8217;s publishing the health data off of their Apple Watch onto their PDS. So they&#8217;re just live-streaming their health data onto the protocol. People are putting out all kinds of things.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The protocol can be used for anything. What&#8217;s harder is that you need people there, so that when you build the next TikTok on AT Proto and you launch that app, it launches into millions and millions of people who are already there. That&#8217;s what we&#8217;re working on, to just keep getting more and more people onto the ATmosphere so that you don&#8217;t have that cold start problem as a new developer where you want enough people. Eventually our 10-year goal is a billion people on AT Proto. You don&#8217;t need a billion to have success with a new product, but you need a critical mass so that when people show up, then they ask, &#8220;Oh, where are my friends?&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is the dynamic that I&#8217;m really interested in with the Bluesky app and then the protocol itself. It&#8217;s no secret that I&#8217;ve been talking about federating </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong> for like a hundred years, and we&#8217;re going to do it one of these days. One of the issues here is we publish in a lot of formats in a lot of different places. If I just immediately federate </strong><strong><em>The Verge </em></strong><strong>tomorrow, we have a lot of video. Where&#8217;s the video going to go? It&#8217;s going to go out on the network. Maybe I can convince a lot of people to download a </strong><strong><em>Verge </em></strong><strong>app and they&#8217;ll see a bunch of stuff in it, and that would be great.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But if what you&#8217;re describing is that Bluesky the app will be the entrance point for a lot of different people, and Bluesky the app has not prioritized video as part of the core part of the user experience – for any number of reasons why you might not prioritize video – then that part of the network won&#8217;t get that effect. It won&#8217;t get what feels like a network effect, which is, &#8220;Oh, there are lots of people here.&#8221; The way that if I federate </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong>, I’d say, &#8220;Look at all these great posts from other tech writers,” I could do that tomorrow.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It&#8217;s almost easy to do. It&#8217;s easy to vibe-code that prototype, I will tell you. It&#8217;s hard to get it all the way to the finish line. That&#8217;s the dynamic. If you want Bluesky, the consumer app, to be the entry point to the diversity of the network, the app itself has to be diverse in a way that might dilute the app and make it lose its product market fit. How do you think about that back and forth?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I think what we&#8217;re seeing works well, and I&#8217;ll go back to the Standard Site example. If the other piece of content that&#8217;s not text is something that can show up inside a post, we call them link cards, and that could be a video. It could be a game. It could be something where somebody can post about it and say, &#8220;Hey, check out this new game.&#8221; Somebody can see it and then go there. That&#8217;s a perfect fit because then it fits our mode of how people discover things. But then when they want to engage with it, we send them off to that place.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Same with video. As long as somebody can embed it and promote it on our end, we&#8217;re not going to try and become a video network where we then say, &#8220;Oh, all video has to be watched on Bluesky.&#8221; No, no, no. Go off to <em>The Verge</em>, go somewhere else, go explore. I think Bluesky as an app is a great place to surface things and notify people of new things, but it does have to somehow fit inside the post. You can give people a preview essentially and say, &#8220;Okay, now go play this game. Go subscribe to this publication. Go donate to this cause.&#8221; That&#8217;s the kind of action we&#8217;re trying to surface for everybody else in the ATmosphere and then just send people off on their way.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I want to ask you to compare your role at Bluesky to when you were the CEO of Automattic. These are big companies, or we want them to be big companies that operate on standards and protocols and the open web in different ways. At Bluesky, you control the standard itself. This is a very important piece of the puzzle that the standard is in development. And you&#8217;re making products on top of it and you want other people to build on top of the standard.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>A lot of people can say a lot of things about Automattic&#8217;s relationship to the web, but technically you don&#8217;t control the standard. And maybe it has enough scale so that the way Automattic does it becomes the way everyone else does it. But at Automattic, you didn&#8217;t make the browsers. You weren&#8217;t on the steering committees of the big standards in a way that allowed you to actually dictate what they were. You were making a web-server product that interacted with an ecosystem of other open products. Do you want Bluesky to get there where it&#8217;s just one player among many, or do you want to retain control of the standard too? And how do you think that&#8217;s different from how Automattic exists in the web ecosystem?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We 100% do not want to control the standard at Bluesky. We are actually very actively doing everything in our power to divest control of it. First was to design the network in a way that if Bluesky goes down or goes away, the rest of the network is fine. That&#8217;s a big test case for us. It actually got tested a couple of months ago, not the way we had hoped, but we got a DDoS attack on the Bluesky network. A very, very massive one. It did take us down for several hours. Other parts of the network, like I mentioned Blacksky earlier, operated just fine, totally independently. That&#8217;s a big part. Just the practicality of it is, can other nodes in this network operate independently? Are there things left that Bluesky runs that everybody else is dependent on? And if so, what can we do to fix that?</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A big part of that, too, is that – this gets a little nerdy into the whole stack and the protocol – when people look at the design of this network and they like to find out, is it truly decentralized or not? There is one thing at the heart of it that absolutely no company should control, and that&#8217;s the identity directory, the lookup. When you log in your identity in the ATmosphere, where does that lookup actually happen? It&#8217;s like DNS on the web when somebody looks up a URL. We have been running that core directory, and we&#8217;re actually in the process of setting up a Swiss nonprofit with a separate board, a completely separate entity, to which we&#8217;ve handed over that directory. We&#8217;re in the process of handing over the domain to it. So that&#8217;s one example.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We’re also handing the protocol spec itself to the IETF. Last week, the IETF met in Vienna, and AT Proto is now a work stream, an official work stream to take that out of Bluesky and hand it to the IETF. It&#8217;s going to become a blessed internet standard run by a completely separate entity. We&#8217;re constantly taking all the pieces that we had to bootstrap and handing them off to other entities. We&#8217;re super serious about that. The end state is that, yes, we are one app of many, one company of many running in this protocol, and we won&#8217;t control the protocol.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The parallel to Automattic is that WordPress, the core software that Automattic is hosting, is open source and it&#8217;s GPL. Anybody can use it, but anybody who uses it and changes it has to give back to open source. In our case, it&#8217;s AT Protocol where anybody can build on AT Protocol. The beauty of building on AT Proto as a developer is all the data is owned by users and it&#8217;s accessible to any other app. But as an app, then your data also goes into those user repositories. So it makes it better for everybody else on the network. It&#8217;s similar to the way open source gets better through collaboration. This network gets better through everybody having their data shared and remixable and interoperable.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">When you get that balance right – or you have a company that helps bootstrap the whole thing, but by definition keeps itself separate and makes sure it can&#8217;t control the shared resource – then it can work. We did this successfully with Automattic and WordPress. Automattic became a big company. WordPress became a huge open source ecosystem, and then tons of other companies formed around it. Our test case was always, “What if Automattic goes out of business or gets acquired by somebody evil? Is WordPress going to be okay?” That&#8217;s why we put the WordPress trademark into a foundation so the company couldn&#8217;t mess with it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s complicated to set those things up. This is one of those, not even five years, like 20 years out decisions. If this thing gets big, will it be truly independent? Or could somebody come in and change their mind and mess with it? We think about that constantly at Bluesky and getting that balance right. Handing off pieces so that this – because it&#8217;s not going to work if one company tries to control it, we&#8217;re right back at square one and we&#8217;re just another walled garden, which is completely the opposite of what we&#8217;re trying to achieve.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There&#8217;s a lot of drama with WordPress and the open-source community and other companies monetizing open-source in different ways. There&#8217;s </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/27/24256361/wordpress-wp-engine-drama-explained-matt-mullenweg"><strong>drama with the foundation</strong></a><strong>. I&#8217;ll set that all aside. People can go listen to </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/decoder-podcast-with-nilay-patel/693052/automattic-ceo-matt-mullenweg-wordpress-drama-wp-engine-open-source"><strong>Matt&#8217;s</strong></a><strong> </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/23506085/wordpress-twitter-tumblr-ceo-matt-mullenweg-elon-musk"><strong>episodes</strong></a><strong>. We did it in detail, and certainly will have him back. I like talking to Matt a lot. But that&#8217;s all coming for you too, because at some point all of this has to make money.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>A real theme on </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>is we&#8217;ve set up complicated structures so that capitalism can&#8217;t ruin everything. We </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/966074/proton-cto-bart-butler-privacy-encryption-surveillance-age-verification"><strong>just had Proton on the show</strong></a><strong>. Complicated Swiss foundation structure so that capitalism can&#8217;t ruin everything and all the promises they make to their customers. You don&#8217;t have that problem yet. As far as I can tell, there&#8217;s no revenue flowing into this and probably thus no push to make that revenue number go up in bad ways. At some point there is going to have to be some revenue. You&#8217;re an investor. I&#8217;m assuming you want to get paid out into your own fund. How is Bluesky going to make money on the app level, and how is the protocol going to make any money?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The way we&#8217;re going to make money as a company, we&#8217;re only interested if that economic model works for the entire ATmosphere. We make money when everybody else makes money. That rules out a bunch of things that will be purely app-based. I&#8217;m not ready to announce the specifics, but we will start monetizing this year. The way I look at it is there&#8217;s already money being made on this network. We&#8217;re sending lots of traffic to people who then convert that traffic into subscriptions.. I think our job is to just help more of that happen. Right now it&#8217;s just organic, and we can build things into our app and into the protocol that make it easier for people to start making a livelihood on this protocol and start doing ecommerce with each other. That&#8217;s the direction we&#8217;re headed in. We&#8217;re going to do it in a way where the whole idea is for the pie to get huge and for us to be a small slice of a big pie and for everybody to make money. If we can help you as a publisher make more money, then we can do business together.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I know you said you weren&#8217;t going to do specifics, but I have to poke at this a little bit. Your options, if you want a small piece of a big pie, are “We&#8217;re going to let you run ads for your subscription newsletter and then that&#8217;ll convert.” That&#8217;s Facebook&#8217;s model, right? “We&#8217;re going to let you run ads at whatever CPM, and your return on ad spend will be high enough so that enough subscribers signed up based on how many ads you were on.” And the other one is, “We&#8217;re just going to take a percentage of every signup fee.” Which direction do you think you&#8217;re headed in?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It would definitely be the latter, but we would only take a percentage of anything that we actually enable. If we send extra traffic to you, then it would be a percentage of that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>So basically affiliate-style monetization. If I&#8217;m selling a newsletter for $10 a month and you send me a new subscriber, you&#8217;re going to get some of that back.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Affiliate style and in a way that works for the entire network. Anybody on the network that sends you traffic can participate. We want everybody to have a part in it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Can you decentralize the billing and financial layer of that?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We can make it work in a decentralized network. Billing does require some centralized trust, and that&#8217;s certainly something we&#8217;re looking at.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I asked you that question because I was terrified of a crypto scheme basically, but it does not sound like you&#8217;re going to do crypto schemes.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, no. Similar intentions, but definitely not a crypto approach.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>One of the things that you&#8217;ve been describing is, “We have to build all these structures to withstand the bad incentives. If somebody shows up and buys Bluesky, and they&#8217;ve got bad intentions or they just want to use it to do crypto schemes, we have to build the structure that will withstand it.” Adding monetization in whatever form – and I agree the network should be monetized in some way – creates a bunch of these incentives at first launch. It will be your first contact with those incentives. You have some experience with this, certainly even thinking about it. How do you expect that to go both with your team and with the user base of Bluesky itself?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The team is eager to figure this out because we realize that there has to be an economic model for this network. Otherwise, we&#8217;re in the early bootstrap phase still and lots of people are getting excited to build on this. But it&#8217;s the number-one question for my team, from all the people building. “What&#8217;s that model going to be?” Everybody&#8217;s eager to figure this out and to do it in a way that we don&#8217;t fall into the traps of trying to create the incentives that we&#8217;ve seen in other networks, which just cause all kinds of unintended consequences.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Looping back on the WordPress example, it can work really nicely. WordPress is a slightly different model because it&#8217;s a hosting model. But there are thousands and thousands of WordPress hosts out there that are doing just fine and it just works. You can host your site anywhere, you can move it anywhere. They compete to be the best host for your content, but it&#8217;s a very good model. As far as I can tell, it hasn&#8217;t created anybody to take all the market share or create these weird incentives where the product gets worse.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There&#8217;s a very nice dividing line there between “I&#8217;m your host” and “you go and do whatever you want.” You can build an ad network if you want. You can build a store, you can build something else. Our business model doesn&#8217;t dictate what your business model should be, which is kind of what happens in these other networks when it&#8217;s only ads. &#8220;Oh yeah, come here, build your following on here and then we&#8217;re going to put ads on it. If you want to do anything else, no, no, no, it&#8217;s going to be ads.&#8221;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Those are the kinds of things we think about. Talking about irreversible decisions, that&#8217;s going to be a huge one when we start to zero in on the right model to make sure that we can picture this scaling to billions of users and all kinds of businesses emerging on this network, not just one type that we happen to think about.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;ve mentioned Blacksky a handful of times in this conversation. I&#8217;ve been lucky enough to be at a dinner with Rudy [Fraser] who runs Blacksky. He&#8217;s </strong><a href="https://www.themaybe.org/podcast/nodestar-building-blacksky-w-rudy-fraser"><strong>prolific in talking about</strong></a><strong> </strong><a href="https://www.techpolicy.press/podcast-rudy-fraser-on-building-blacksky-and-the-future-of-middleware/"><strong>what it&#8217;s like</strong></a><strong> to actually build on the ATmosphere and what a lot of the challenges have been. Because it hasn&#8217;t yet really, truly been decentralized.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Now it&#8217;s my turn to say, I won&#8217;t go into the weeds of the protocol, but there are parts of the Bluesky stack and parts of the ATmosphere that have been pretty heavily centralized up until fairly recently. Is it easy to stand up a competitor, in the way that you&#8217;re describing people can stand up competitors to WordPress and operate in their own universe using the same tools and same access to end customers? Or is there still work to be done there? Because it hasn&#8217;t been easy up until now, at least using the example of Blacksky.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Rudy deserves a lot of credit for taking those early risks when it was much harder to build and being the first to prove that it can be done, but it&#8217;s getting easier and easier. We are seeing more and more Bluesky- and Blacksky-style networks pop up pretty often. We&#8217;re actually seeing a whole bunch of energy in Europe. We&#8217;ve got Eurosky. W Social just launched. There&#8217;s another one I think that&#8217;s about to launch.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It&#8217;s getting easier, and we&#8217;re investing a lot to make it as easy as possible. In addition to being an open protocol, all of Bluesky&#8217;s open source. You can take the Bluesky app and just fork it and go do your own Bluesky. That&#8217;s great, but we&#8217;re really also interested in people building other things that are microblogging on the network and making that super easy.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We&#8217;re seeing Tangled as an example that a lot of people like to use recently because it&#8217;s a great project. They raised VC funding. It&#8217;s a social coding platform, like a social GitHub that&#8217;s growing really nicely using AT Proto for the social layer of the social coding aspect. Has nothing to do with microblogging, but it&#8217;s another thing that we can collaborate and integrate. People use both Tangled and Bluesky. It all just works together. But those are examples where it&#8217;s getting really easy to just build a new app on AT Proto and have it have social functionality. It doesn&#8217;t have to be an entire Bluesky-style network that you have to run.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We put effort into making it easier. When Blacksky started two or three years ago, it was a big lift. You had to be very technical to do it. Now it&#8217;s gotten easier and easier.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Finally, we haven&#8217;t talked about AI yet. AI makes it even easier. A lot of the growth we&#8217;re seeing now is that you can point to one of the AI coding tools on AT Proto and say, &#8220;Hey, build me a social app, build me a community.&#8221; And that makes it that much easier. Those are some of the tools and integrations that we&#8217;re working on on Jay&#8217;s new team, but that really changes the game pretty substantially for just how easy all this stuff is getting.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I do have to ask you the AI question. You’re a software CEO again. How do software companies work in the age of AI? Have you rethought your teams? Do you have the traditional product-manager-designer-engineer trio? Or is everybody doing everything? It&#8217;s a small team and you&#8217;re the new CEO. So you have lots of opportunity to rethink everything.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">It is very empowering once you get it right. We have to use our exploration team as an example. That&#8217;s a three- to four-person team that&#8217;s launching at very high velocity, launching brand new products. It&#8217;s really fun when you have an existing company with existing resources and very senior talented people can then go after a new greenfield opportunity with these new tools. That&#8217;s when you see a ton of velocity.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">If you have an existing product with all the complexity of how it&#8217;s been built, AI helps, but you&#8217;re still dealing with that same complexity for a while. I see it accelerate everything in terms of the development pace. You still need great product managers, you need great designers. You need [to know] how to build. The building part is faster than what to build. The ideas are just as hard as ever, in a way harder because there&#8217;s so much noise out there and so many things popping up every day. Setting yourself apart, building something really great that lasts. Just because it&#8217;s faster with AI doesn&#8217;t make it any easier.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>We&#8217;ve talked a lot about standards and making AT Protocol and the ATmosphere a more standardized project at the IETF and whatever Swiss foundation is going to do name lookups. It feels like we&#8217;re going to recapitulate ICANN. But that&#8217;s a totally different episode of </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>, and we&#8217;ll come to that drama when everything is successful.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>There is another standard that has already gone through all this. There&#8217;s ActivityPub. Mastodon runs an ActivityPub. Famously, Threads runs an ActivityPub, to whatever extent Threads runs on ActivityPub. There&#8217;s an argument that Meta did all of that just to satisfy European regulators, and that&#8217;s all it&#8217;s there for.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Have you talked to the Threads team about integrating with ActivityPub or moving them to the ATmosphere? Once you become an official standard, I imagine that must be easier for them to continue throwing bones to European regulators. That would be the big unlock, right? That is the hundreds of millions of users on a nominally open network. Have they shown any interest?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We have not talked to Threads. We&#8217;re definitely talking to Mastodon and ActivityPub. They definitely feel we&#8217;re very aligned. Our missions are very aligned. We&#8217;re all on Team Open together. These are two different standards that do slightly different things. And some use cases for ActivityPub are great and some are great for AT Proto.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>What are use cases that are good in ActivityPub and what are use cases that are better in AT Protocol?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">ActivityPub is based around this notion of a server. At the heart of it, you set up your own server, you control it, you run it, that&#8217;s your community, and then all the servers can federate if you want. You don&#8217;t have to, you can just run it by yourself, or you can plug into the federation, into the Fediverse. That&#8217;s how their system works. It works really well. They have a lot of successful governments who want to set up their own server infrastructure and run their own community infrastructure.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">AT Proto has a different goal. We don&#8217;t have a server at the heart of it. We have the PDS, the personal data server that is your data. The heart of AT Proto is personal identity and portability and ownership of that so that whatever you create and the social graph that you create is owned by you and lifts wherever you want to host it. It&#8217;s really a federation of millions and millions of these tiny little personal servers that can all talk to each other. That works if your social product is focused on people, not on an entire server with a community on it.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">So a slightly different shape. They interoperate too. There&#8217;s something called Bridgy Fed that connects these two worlds together. So if you&#8217;ve built products on this yourself, if you want to post or publish across all of it, you can and the end user doesn&#8217;t even have to know. That&#8217;s the beauty of an open protocol: you shouldn&#8217;t have to. Consumers of this should never even hear about these new protocols. Because it&#8217;s one of these things where you have to get the protocol right and it has to be open, but then people should just forget about it. It should just disappear.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The examples we use a lot are email and websites. If I&#8217;m on Outlook and you&#8217;re on Gmail, we can just email each other. You never think about the fact that those are two completely separate systems. It just works. But on social media, it just doesn&#8217;t work that way. If you&#8217;re on Instagram and I&#8217;m on TikTok, we can&#8217;t talk to each other. You have to do everything five different times and on five different apps, and it&#8217;s crazy making. If we get this right at the protocol level, that just goes away. All this stuff just works just like email does or just like websites do.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Our job is to make all of that work under the hood, but nobody has to think about it. In the end, you just have one account, you log in anywhere and it just works, and all your friends are there and all your data&#8217;s there. And you never have to be locked in again into somebody&#8217;s system [where] you can&#8217;t leave.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>This is very nice, but it&#8217;s rare that two standards that nominally seek to achieve the same thing coexist forever. There are not two Bluetooths, there are not two Wi-Fis. There are not even two webs. People can argue with me about how many webs there are, but there are not even two webs. Do you expect ActivityPub and AT Protocol to coexist? Do you expect, I don&#8217;t know, Bluesky to be able to show content from Mastodon servers and then slowly eat ActivityPub as a protocol? That&#8217;s one very common pattern that happens in these situations. Or do you expect long-term coexistence?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I expect long-term coexistence because both of these protocols have enough users and use cases that want to continue on. They can talk to each other when you want, but that&#8217;s not the main use of it. There are a lot of people who run ActivityPub instances who don&#8217;t even want to talk to other Mastodon servers. They just want to run their own thing. They don&#8217;t want to talk to AT Proto, but they can if they want.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">I don&#8217;t know what a good example is from other platforms. But they&#8217;re both going to be around for a long time and they&#8217;re just slightly different tools. They&#8217;re both in the social space, but they&#8217;re different tools that you reach to for different types of use cases. I&#8217;ll put it this way: In my mind, both can be wildly successful, and it&#8217;s not one or the other. AT Proto doesn&#8217;t need to eat ActivityPub to be successful, or vice versa. We&#8217;ve already seen that.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>I want to end by talking about the consumer app a little bit more. We&#8217;ve talked a lot about the protocol, the ATmosphere, the standards. We&#8217;ve gotten all the way to the internet engineering task force in this conversation. We&#8217;ve been in the weeds of how the technology works and how it&#8217;s governed. And right next to that is, well, it&#8217;s an election year here in the United States. And a lot of people truly believe that Bluesky is the wild progressive social media network and it is a bubble of one kind. X is a very different kind of bubble. It&#8217;s the hard-right network that has vastly more AI-generated anime porn on it. There&#8217;s not some thing that is actually the global town square. That thing has maybe gone away and all the social networks have fragmented.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Do you want Bluesky to have the reputation it has? Do you want it to get bigger? Do you think that the right answer is someone starts a MAGA Bluesky and it interoperates the way that it needs to? This is the perception of the consumer product. Do you want that to change, and how would you change it?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes, we definitely want that to change. It is already changing. It certainly wasn&#8217;t designed to attract one specific group of people. It works for anyone. What we see is there is a lot of political discourse on Bluesky and any of these open networks. People are very engaged. What we&#8217;ve seen in the lead up to the election so far – we&#8217;ve hosted a lot of live election feeds, and we see a lot of really good feedback from our users, a lot of engagement, a lot of, &#8220;This is actually really interesting content about this topic.&#8221; Whereas on other platforms, I think these election topics just get completely overwhelmed by slop and spam. It&#8217;s just noise and chaos. What we&#8217;re focusing on is to deliver a live experience.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">We do it around elections. We do it around sports as well, very successfully, where the people on the network that participate get a really good experience and get really good content. Once we have that, then hopefully we can just keep expanding to more and more types of users and use cases. We&#8217;re an open network for anyone and we don&#8217;t want to serve just one type of user base. I&#8217;ve seen it already in the last few months, really trend in the right direction where we just have more and more people show up and build their own corners of the network. It sort of balances out over time. We don&#8217;t just have a few topics you&#8217;re super deep on, but it just gets more and more diverse.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In my opinion, yes, it&#8217;s a public square, but we don&#8217;t need everybody talking at the same time. Policy is very loaded, but if you&#8217;re super into sports, you&#8217;re not going to be into all sports. I&#8217;m super into the San Francisco Giants, so that&#8217;s what I want to follow. I don&#8217;t need to follow all of sports, and that&#8217;s fine. It can be like that with all topics. It just needs to be civil and positive and we need to have the tools that if it goes off the rails, people can regulate it and can have a good experience instead of it just devolving into a shouting match.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>By “people can regulate it,” you mean people can moderate their own feeds, not regulators can moderate speech?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">100%, yes.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Just checking. That&#8217;s important.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Build their own feeds, pick their own feeds. We have very good tools for people to mute and block. We spend a lot of energy on making sure it stays positive because again, we&#8217;re interested in social media that actually serves the common or the public good. That&#8217;s not going to work if it&#8217;s just people yelling.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>You&#8217;ve talked a lot about the network. Even in this answer, I said Bluesky the app has this reputation, and you started talking about the network. It&#8217;s true, the network can serve everybody. Anybody can start whatever kind of app on the ATmosphere they want and they can go target the users they want.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>But I want to push you again on Bluesky the app. The thing that has a brand that exists out in the world that is totally divorced from the technical specifications of the ATmosphere. There is Bluesky the app and it does have a reputation. Do you want more users from X to leave X and join Bluesky and expand what that brand is for people?</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yes. It can stay on X too. You don&#8217;t have to pick one or the other, but yes.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Have you talked to Elon about federating X? I suspect he&#8217;s not interested.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">No, same answer with Threads. It would be full circle, right? Bluesky started inside Twitter, and then Twitter went away and became X. And then if X adopted AT Proto, then the whole original idea of the project would actually come to fruition.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>Yeah. This is Jack Dorsey saying Twitter wants to be AT Protocol, not a product. Here we are, and that&#8217;s Bluesky in big ways, but it is also a product. People know what that logo means. Political pundits say “the Bluesky crowd,” and that signifies whatever they want it to signify. I&#8217;m just wondering if you want to break that branding in any meaningful way.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Yeah, we want to expand it. “Breaking” is maybe the wrong word, but yes, we want to expand more and more so that Bluesky means not just one thing, not just liberal politics, for example. I will point to sports as an example from the last year. We&#8217;ve made a very concerted effort to bring on sports leagues and sports writers, and it&#8217;s worked really well. There are a ton of sports conversations now on the app, and those people come here for the sports, not for the liberal politics. It&#8217;s possible to expand.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In politics, it&#8217;s probably our hardest challenge because we have one type of user base there that&#8217;s very active. That&#8217;s good too. They are super active, and they&#8217;re very much at the forefront of politics and very engaged and very informed. But we can just keep adding more communities so that it balances out.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><strong>It feels like we&#8217;re going to have to have you back, particularly as these private communities launch, to talk about where things go from here. But this has been great. Thank you so much for being on </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Thank you very much for having me.</p>

<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em><sub>Questions or comments? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
	</feed>
