<?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">Podcasts | 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>2026-04-24T14:43:07+00:00</updated>

	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast" />
	<id>https://www.theverge.com/rss/podcast/index.xml</id>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.theverge.com/rss/podcast/index.xml" />

	<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>David Pierce</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[AirPods, Touch Bars, and the rest of Tim Cook&#8217;s legacy]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/917965/apple-ceo-cook-ternus-transition" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=917965</id>
			<updated>2026-04-24T10:43:07-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-24T10:43:07-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Apple" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Gaming" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Vergecast" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Xbox" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[We knew at some point Tim Cook would step down from his position as Apple's CEO. Over the last year, it has become increasingly obvious that John Ternus was his likely successor. The news this week was still a surprise, though - and this year's succession could lead to some important changes at the most [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: Alex Parkin / The Verge" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/VRG_VST_0424_Site.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-text-align-none">We knew at some point Tim Cook would step down from his position as Apple's CEO. Over the last year, it has become increasingly obvious that John Ternus was his likely successor. The news this week was still a surprise, though - and this year's succession could lead to <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/916585/tim-cook-apple-new-era">some important changes</a> at the most influential company in tech.</p>
<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/11/Vergecast-Tile-Large.jpeg?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="has-text-align-none"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don't forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Vergecast</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="has-text-align-none">On <a href="https://pod.link/vergecast">this episode of <em>The Vergecast</em></a>, David and Nilay are joined by <em><a href="https://daringfireball.net/">Daring Fireball</a></em>'s John Gruber to talk about their reactions to the news, the (<a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/916228/tim-cook-i-am-healthy-my-energy-is-high-and-i-plan-to-be-in-this-new-role-for-a-long-time">mostly</a> …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/917965/apple-ceo-cook-ternus-transition">Read the full story at The Verge.</a></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[THE PEOPLE DO NOT YEARN FOR AUTOMATION]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/917029/software-brain-ai-backlash-databases-automation" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=917029</id>
			<updated>2026-04-24T10:26:17-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-23T10:00:00-04:00</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 want to lay out an idea that&#8217;s been banging around my head for weeks now as we&#8217;ve been reporting on AI and having conversations here on this show. I&#8217;ve been calling it software brain, and it&#8217;s a particular way of seeing the world that fits everything into algorithms, databases and loops [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="An illustration of a brain covered in software code." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: The Verge" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/VRG_DCD_Software_Brain.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap has-text-align-none">Today on <em>Decoder</em>, I want to lay out an idea that&#8217;s been banging around my head for weeks now as we&#8217;ve been reporting on AI and having conversations here on this show. I&#8217;ve been calling it software brain, and it&#8217;s a particular way of seeing the world that fits everything into algorithms, databases and loops — software.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Software brain is powerful stuff. It&#8217;s a way of thinking that basically created our modern world. Marc Andreessen, the literal embodiment of software brain, called it in 2011 when he wrote the piece <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460">&#8220;Why software is eating the world&#8221;</a> as an op-ed in <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>. But software thinking has been turbocharged by AI in a way that I think helps explain the enormous gap between how excited the tech industry is about the technology and how regular people are growing to dislike it more and more over time.</p>

<iframe frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP6832768709" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="has-text-align-none">In fact, the polling on this is so strong, I think it&#8217;s fair to say that a lot of people <em>hate</em> AI, and that <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/909687/gen-z-doesnt-like-ai-gallup">Gen Z in particular seems to hate AI</a> more and more as they encounter it. There&#8217;s that <em>NBC News</em> poll <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/891724/nbc-news-march-2026-poll-ai-ice">showing AI with worse favorability than ICE</a> and only a little bit above the war in Iran and the Democrats generally. That&#8217;s with nearly two thirds of respondents saying they used ChatGPT or Copilot in the last month. Quinnipiac just found that <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3955">over half of Americans think AI will do more harm than good</a>, while more than 80 percent of people were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about the technology. Only 35 percent of people were excited about it.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Poll after poll shows that Gen Z uses AI the most and has the most negative feelings about it. A <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/style/gen-z-ai-gallup-study.html">recent Gallup poll</a> found that only 18 percent of Gen Z was hopeful about AI, down from an already-bad 27 percent last year. At the same time, anger is growing: 31 percent of those Gen Z respondents said they feel angry about AI, up from 22 percent last year.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Now, I obviously talk to a lot of tech executives and policy people here on <em>Decoder</em>, and I will tell you, they all know AI isn&#8217;t popular, and they can all see how that&#8217;s playing out in real life. Here&#8217;s Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella talking about how the tech industry <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JapZJVcA1B4">needs to make the case</a> for the investments it&#8217;s making in AI:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong><em>Satya Nadella: </em></strong>At the end of the day, I think this industry, to which I belong, needs to earn the social permission to consume energy because we’re doing good in the world. </p>
</blockquote>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think it&#8217;s safe to say that the tech industry and AI have not earned any of that social permission yet. Politicians from both sides of the aisle are opposing data center buildouts. Politicians in local communities that support data centers are getting voted out of office. And in the most depressing reminder of how much political violence has become a part of everyday American life, politicians who&#8217;ve supported data centers have <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/indianapolis-councilman-says-shots-fired-at-home-and-no-data-centers-note-left-at-door">had their houses shot at</a>. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/911778/ai-violence-sam-altman-home">had Molotov cocktails thrown at his house</a>.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It&#8217;s sad that I&#8217;m going to have to say this again on the show, and it&#8217;s sad that we&#8217;re going to have commenters who disagree, but this violence is unacceptable. If you want to meaningfully oppose AI in a way that lasts, you should speak loudly with your dollars in the market and your attention on the internet, and you should speak loudly with your votes. You should participate in the democratic regulatory and political process. Anything else will get dismissed and perpetuate the cycle. That dismissal is already happening.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I also think it&#8217;s incredibly important for our politicians and tech executives to make sure our political process makes people feel empowered, not helpless, which is a specific kind of nihilism they have all greatly contributed to. The violence is a result of that helplessness and nihilism, and the most powerful people in our society ought to reckon with that, especially as they run around saying AI will wipe out all the jobs. I&#8217;m not even exaggerating about that — here&#8217;s Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei <a href="https://www.thestreet.com/technology/anthropic-ceo-makes-shocking-admission-about-ai">saying he thinks AI will wipe out all the jobs</a>:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Dario Amodei: </strong>Entry-level jobs in areas like finance, consulting, tech and many other areas like that —- entry-level white-collar work — I worry that those things are going to be first augmented, but before long replaced by AI systems. We may indeed — it’s hard to predict the future — but we may indeed have a serious employment crisis on our hands as the pipeline for this early-stage, white-collar work starts to contract and dry up.</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="has-text-align-none">What I see when I encounter clips like this is the true gap between the tech industry and regular people when it comes to AI — the limit of software brain. Like I said, everyone in tech understands how much regular people dislike AI. What I think they&#8217;re missing is <em>why</em>. They think this is a <em>marketing</em> problem. OpenAI just spent $200 million on the TBPN podcast because the company thinks it will help make people like AI more. <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/sam-altman-calls-tbpn-hosts-151929898.html">Sam Altman has said so explicitly</a>:&nbsp;</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Sam Altman: </strong>Oh, they are genius marketers and I would love to have better marketing. Somebody said to me recently that if AI were a political candidate, it would be the least popular political candidate in history. And given the amazing things AI can do, I think there’s got to be better marketing for AI.&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It feels like someone just needs to say this clearly, so I&#8217;m just going to do it. <strong>AI doesn&#8217;t have a marketing problem.</strong> People experience these tools every single day! ChatGPT has 900 million weekly users, trending to a billion, and everyone has seen AI Overviews in Google Search and massive amounts of slop on their feeds. </p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You can&#8217;t advertise people out of reacting to their own experiences. This is a fundamental disconnect between how tech people with software brains see the world and how regular people are living their lives.</p>
<img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/VRG_DCD_Software_Brain.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="An illustration of a brain covered in software code." title="An illustration of a brain covered in software code." data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: The Verge" />
<p class="has-drop-cap has-text-align-none">So what is software brain? The simplest definition I&#8217;ve come up with is that it&#8217;s when you see the whole world as a series of databases that can be controlled with the structured language of software code. Like I said, this is a powerful way of seeing things. So much of our lives run through databases, and a bunch of important companies have been built around maintaining those databases and providing access to them.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Zillow is a database of houses. Uber is a database of cars and riders. YouTube is a database of videos. <em>The Verge</em>&#8216;s website is a database of stories. You can go on and on and on. Once you start seeing the world as a bunch of databases, it&#8217;s a small jump to feeling like you can control everything if you can just control the data.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But that doesn&#8217;t always work. Here&#8217;s an example: Elon Musk and DOGE showed up in the government, and the first thing they did was <a href="https://www.theverge.com/the-vergecast/608189/elon-musk-doge-coup-goverment-vergecast">take control of a bunch of databases</a>. And they ran into the undeniable fact that the databases aren&#8217;t reality, and DOGE <a href="https://www.theverge.com/news/827390/doge-is-no-more-and-in-its-wake-only-chaos">ended in hilarious failure</a>. It turns out software brain has a limit — the government isn&#8217;t software. People aren&#8217;t computers, and they don&#8217;t live in automatable loops that can be neatly captured in databases.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Anyone who&#8217;s actually ever run a database knows this. At some point, the database stops matching reality. At that point, we usually end up tweaking the database, not the world. But the AI industry has fully lost sight of this, because AI thrives on data. It&#8217;s just software, after all. And so the ask is for more and more of us to conform our lives to the database, not the other way around.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Let me offer you another example that I think about all the time, especially as AI finds real fit as a business tool. It&#8217;s the idea that AI is coming for lawyers and the legal system. The AI industry loves to talk about not needing lawyers anymore, which is already getting all kinds of people into <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/21/nyregion/sullivan-cromwell-ai-hallucination.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/21/nyregion/sullivan-cromwell-ai-hallucination.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share">all kinds of trouble</a>. But I get it. I&#8217;ve spent a lot of time with lawyers. I used to be a lawyer. My wife is still a lawyer. Some of my best friends are lawyers.</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&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p><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="has-text-align-none">I also spend all of my time at work talking to tech people. And so over time, I&#8217;ve learned that the overlap between software brain and lawyer brain is very, very deep. Alluringly deep. If the heart of software brain is the idea that thinking in the structured language of code can make things happen in the real world, well, the heart of lawyer brain is that thinking in the structured legal language of statutes and citations can also make things happen. Hell, it can give you power over society.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">There are other commonalities. Both software development and the law depend heavily on precedent. We have a body of case law in this country, and we use it over and over again to help us resolve disputes, just like software engineers have libraries of code that they turn to repeatedly to build the foundations of their products. The similarities run deep: at the end of the day, both lawyers and engineers do their best to use formal, structured language to guide the behavior of complicated systems in predictable and potentially profitable ways. </p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">(I am far from the first person with this idea, by the way. Larry Lessig wrote a book called <a href="https://lessig.org/images/resources/1999-Code.pdf">Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace in 2000</a>. It&#8217;s just as relevant today as it was a quarter century ago.)</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">This intoxicating similarity between law and code trips people up all the time. People are constantly trying to issue commands to society at large like it&#8217;s a computer that will obey instructions. There are examples of this big and small — my favorite are those <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-facebook-rule-meta/">Facebook forwards</a> insisting Mark Zuckerberg does not have the right to publish people&#8217;s photos. Honestly, I look at these, and I think it would be <em>great</em> if the law was actually code. Maybe things would be more predictable. Maybe we&#8217;d feel more in control.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But law isn&#8217;t actually code, and society and courts aren&#8217;t computers. I have to remind our fairly technical audience on <em>Decoder </em>and at <em>The Verge</em> all the time that the law is not deterministic. You simply cannot take the facts of a case, the law as written, and predict the outcome of that case with any real certainty, even though the formality of the legal system makes people think it works like a computer — that it&#8217;s predictable.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But at the end of the day, it&#8217;s actually <em>ambiguity</em> that&#8217;s at the very heart of our legal system. It&#8217;s ambiguity that makes lawyers <em>lawyers</em>. Honestly, it&#8217;s ambiguity that makes people <em>hate</em> lawyers because it&#8217;s always possible to argue the other side, and it&#8217;s always possible to find the gray area in the law. That&#8217;s why prosecutors end up working as defense attorneys and why our regulators tend to end up working for big corporations.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You can see the obvious collision between software brain and lawyer brain here. This thing that <em>looks</em> like a computer isn&#8217;t actually <em>anything at all</em> like a computer. A lot of people even argue that the law should be <em>more</em> like a computer, that the system should be verifiable and consistent, and that merely issuing the right commands at the right times should lead to objectively correct outcomes.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Bridget McCormack, who used to be the chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/877299/ai-arbitrator-bridget-mccormack-aaa-arbitration-interview">was on <em>Decoder </em>a few months ago</a> pitching a fully automated AI arbitration system. Her argument to me was that people perceive the traditional legal system to be so unfair that they will accept a worse outcome from an automated system as more fair as long as they feel heard. And if there&#8217;s one thing AI can do, it&#8217;s sit there and listen all day and night. </p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I don&#8217;t know if any of that is correct or even workable, but I do know software brain, and that is pure software brain: the idea that we can force the real world to act like a computer and then have AI issue that computer instructions.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You can see the same thing happening in every other kind of industry. You don&#8217;t hire a big consulting firm to actually come in and study your business and make it more efficient. You hire them to make slide decks that justify layoffs to your board and shareholders. Big consulting firms are great at this, and now they&#8217;re just going to generate those decks with AI. They are already doing this and <a href="https://www.inc.com/fast-company-2/mckinsey-layoffs-warning-sign-consulting-ai-technology/91282903" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.inc.com/fast-company-2/mckinsey-layoffs-warning-sign-consulting-ai-technology/91282903">the layoffs have already begun</a>.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Any business process that looks like code talking to a database in a repetitive way is up for grabs. That&#8217;s why Anthropic has been so relentlessly focused on enterprise customers, and it&#8217;s why OpenAI is now pivoting to business use. There&#8217;s real value in introducing AI to business, because so much of modern business is already software: collecting data, analyzing it, and taking action on it over and over again in a loop. Businesses also control their data, and they can demand that all their databases work together. </p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">In this way, software brain has ruled the business world for a long time. AI has just made it easier than ever for more people to make more software than ever before — for every kind of business to automate big chunks of itself with software. It’s everywhere: the absolute cutting edge of advertising and marketing is automation with AI. It&#8217;s not being a creative.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But: not everything is a business. Not everything is a loop! The entire human experience cannot be captured in a database. <em>That&#8217;s</em> the limit of software brain. That&#8217;s why people hate AI. It <em>flattens</em> them. </p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Regular people don&#8217;t see the opportunity to write code as an opportunity at <em>all</em>. The people do not yearn for automation. I&#8217;m a full-on smart home sicko; the lights and shades and climate controls of my house are automated in dozens of ways. But huge companies like Apple, Google and Amazon have struggled for over a decade now to make regular people care about smart home automation at all. And they just don&#8217;t.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">AI isn&#8217;t going to fix that. Most people are not collecting data about every single thing that they do. And if they&#8217;re collecting any at all, it&#8217;s stored across lots of different systems — your email in Gmail, your messages in iMessage, your work schedule in Outlook, your workouts in Peloton. Those systems don&#8217;t talk to each other and maybe they never will, because there&#8217;s no reason for them to. Asking people to connect them all freaks them out.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Even taking the time to consider how much of your life is captured in databases makes people unhappy. No one wants to be surveilled constantly, and especially not in a way that makes tech companies even more powerful. But getting everything in a database so software can see it is a preoccupation of the AI industry. It&#8217;s why all the meeting systems have AI note takers in them now. It&#8217;s why Canva, which is design software, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/913793/melanie-perkins-canva-ai-adobe-affinity-design" data-type="link" data-id="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/913793/melanie-perkins-canva-ai-adobe-affinity-design">now connects to corporate email systems</a>. My friend Ezra Klein just went to Silicon Valley, and he <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/29/opinion/ai-claude-chatgpt-gemini-mcluhan.html">described the people that are actively trying to flatten themselves into a database</a>:</p>

<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Ezra Klein: </strong>You might think that A.I. types in Silicon Valley, flush with cash, are on top of the world right now. I found them notably insecure. They think the A.I. age has arrived and its winners and losers will be determined, in part, by speed of adoption. The argument is simple enough: The advantages of working atop an army of A.I. assistants and coders will compound over time, and to begin that process now is to launch yourself far ahead of your competition later. And so they are racing one another to fully integrate A.I. into their lives and into their companies. But that doesn’t just mean using A.I. It means making themselves legible to the A.I.</p>



<p class="has-text-align-none">You can give it access to everything that’s there: your files, your email, your calendar, your messages. It operates continuously in the background, building a persistent memory of your preferences and patterns so it can better act on your behalf. The cybersecurity risks are glaring, but there’s a reason&nbsp;millions&nbsp;of people are using it: The more of your life you open to A.I., the more valuable the A.I. becomes.</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;ve reviewed a lot of tech products over the past decade and a half, and all I can tell you is that it is a failure when you ask people to adapt to computers. <em>Computers should adapt to people</em>. Asking people to make themselves more legible to software — to turn themselves into a database — is a doomed idea.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It&#8217;s an ask so big that I can&#8217;t imagine a reward that would make it worth it for anyone, even if the tech industry wasn&#8217;t constantly talking about how AI will eliminate all the jobs, require a wholesale rethinking of the social contract and — oops — also the latest models might cause catastrophic cybersecurity problems that might lead to the end of the world.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Does this <em>sound</em> like a good deal to you? Can you <em>market</em> your way out of this? This only makes sense if you have software brain — if your operative framework is to flatten everything into databases that you can control with structured language. The people paying thousands of dollars a month to set up swarms of OpenClaw agents and write thousands of lines of code are people who look at the world and see opportunities for automation, to repeat tasks, to collect data. To <em>build software</em>. AI is great for them. It&#8217;s even exciting in ways that I think are important and will probably change our relationship to computers forever.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">For everyone else, AI is just a demanding slop monster. It&#8217;s a <em>threat</em>. I&#8217;m not saying regular people don&#8217;t use Excel or Airtable to plan their weddings or have fun throwing PowerPoint parties, or even that AI won&#8217;t be useful to regular people over time. I think a lot of people enjoy data and tracking different parts of their lives. I’m wearing a Whoop band as I write this. I&#8217;m just saying these things aren&#8217;t <em>everything</em>. Not everything about our lives can be measured and automated and optimized, and it shouldn&#8217;t be.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And so the tech industry is rushing forward to put AI everywhere at enormous cost — energy, emissions, manufacturing capacity, the ability to buy RAM — and locked into the narrow framework of software brain without realizing they are also asking people to be fundamentally less human. They then sit around wondering why everyone hates them. </p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I don&#8217;t think a couple haircuts are going to fix it.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><em><sub>Questions or comments about this episode? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>David Pierce</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[The Vergecast Vergecast, 2026 edition]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/915682/how-the-verge-works-vergecast" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=915682</id>
			<updated>2026-04-21T09:41:38-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-21T09:41:38-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Vergecast" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[We get a lot of questions about how The Verge works. And how The Vergecast works. And how we make money. And whether some of that money helps Nilay buy more jackets, several yachts, or something else entirely. So, every once in a while, we spend an episode of the podcast answering as many questions [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: Alex Parkin / The Verge" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/VRG_VST_0421_Site.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-text-align-none">We get a lot of questions about how <em>The Verge </em>works. And how <em>The Vergecast </em>works. And how we make money. And whether some of that money helps Nilay buy more jackets, several yachts, or something else entirely. So, every once in a while, we spend an episode of the podcast answering as many questions as we can.</p>
<p class="has-text-align-none">On <a href="https://pod.link/vergecast">this episode of <em>The Vergecast</em></a>, Nilay and David are joined by <em>The Verge</em>'s publisher, Helen Havlak, to talk about ads, subscriptions, our website, our audience, and more. Then, Nilay and David answer some more questions about how we think about journalism, our relationship with <em>Verge </em>alumni, video podcasts, and (of course) Brendan Car …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/915682/how-the-verge-works-vergecast">Read the full story at The Verge.</a></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Canva’s CEO on its big pivot to AI enterprise software]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/913793/melanie-perkins-canva-ai-adobe-affinity-design" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=913793</id>
			<updated>2026-04-20T10:27:50-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-20T11:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Adobe" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Creators" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Design" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today, I’m talking with Melanie Perkins, founder and CEO of Canva, a popular online design tool. I always enjoy talking with Melanie. She was last on the show a couple of years ago, just as the AI revolution was coming to the worlds of art and design. At the time, Canva had escaped a lot [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A stylized illustration of Canva CEO Melanie Perkins" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/DCD_Perkins_Canva.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap has-text-align-none">Today, I’m talking with Melanie Perkins, founder and CEO of Canva, a popular online design tool.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I always enjoy talking with Melanie. She was <a href="https://www.theverge.com/24191080/canva-ceo-melanie-perkins-design-ai-adobe-competition-decoder-podcast-interview">last on the show</a> a couple of years ago, just as the AI revolution was coming to the worlds of art and design. At the time, Canva had escaped a lot of the criticism being leveled at its competitors for adding AI tools. Melanie attributed that both to how much Canva users love the product and also the huge inroads it was making into the business world. Canva is a tool that empowers non-designers to design, and that group of people was just trying to get work done. They didn’t seem nearly as threatened by AI as professionals using other creative software — they may have even felt empowered.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It’s been two years, and it’s safe to say that AI is <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/912287/adobe-firefly-ai-assistant-announcement-editing">all over design software</a> now — and a lot more people have a lot more feelings about AI in general. But Melanie and Canva are pushing even more aggressively into integrating AI. The company <a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/913068/canva-ai-2-update-prompt-based-editing-availability">just announced a big new update</a> that allows people to simply tell Canva what to make and have it go through various data sources like Slack and email to build presentations, documents, and other design materials. Those projects arrive as regular old Canva files, which you can edit at will. You’ll hear Melanie come back to that idea several times — having the output of the AI system be in a format you can edit, so that you can refine it, is a big deal.</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&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p><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="has-text-align-none">The idea here, as Canva says, is to move “from a design platform with AI tools to an AI platform with design tools.”&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I’ll let you all sit with that for a moment.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Obviously I dug into that with Melanie, as well as how she’s thinking about Canva’s relationship to the AI model providers, the cost of the tokens required to automate an app like Canva in this way, and the kinds of pricing that might lead to for users. These new AI tools are still in beta, so there’s a lot to be worked out, but you’ll hear Melanie say she’s confident that Canva’s growth in enterprise will continue to accelerate as more and more companies look for tools that automate tasks like making presentations.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But that’s the same idea as a lot of other big AI players aiming for corporate dollars, and so Melanie and I talked a lot about whether Canva is the right platform to bring everything all together. Unsurprisingly, she thinks it is — not least because she runs Canva using Canva.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Of course, I also asked Melanie for an updated vibe check on AI and design. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/891724/nbc-news-march-2026-poll-ai-ice">Poll</a> after <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/11/06/republicans-democrats-now-equally-concerned-about-ai-in-daily-life-but-views-on-regulation-differ/">poll</a> shows that people really do not like AI right now, and the fears around job displacement and being overrun by slop all come to a head in a piece of creative software that doesn’t require creatives anymore. Melanie had some thoughts here as well — and I did my best to get her to talk about Adobe, which is also adding AI tools and raising prices, a deadly combination for the biggest player in the space. You tell me if I got her to bite.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">There’s a lot in this one — like I said, I always enjoy talking to Melanie.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Okay: Canva CEO Melanie Perkins. Here we go.</p>

<iframe frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP8000339561" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.</em></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Melanie Perkins, you are the founder and CEO of Canva! Welcome back to <em>Decoder</em>.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Thank you so much for having me. It&#8217;s great to be here.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I am very excited to talk to you again. It&#8217;s been a couple years. You were last on the show in 2024. We talked about AI and design and the feelings people have about AI and design. And I was looking at that interview again just to prepare for this one. And a lot of the themes are all the same. And then the facts surrounding those themes have changed so dramatically in the past two years. And on top of it, you have big news that I really want to dig into.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>So let&#8217;s just start at the start. The last time you were on the show, I said, &#8220;What is Canva?&#8221; And you said, &#8220;Canva is an online design platform.&#8221; And your news this week is, I believe, that the company is changing its own conception of itself. Tell us about that change and what led into it.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">There are some things that are changing and there are many things that remain the same. So our mission is still to empower the world to design, and we&#8217;re going to be doing that very much over the years to come. But something that we&#8217;ve always believed is that we should take the latest and greatest technology. We should build the latest and greatest technology and put that into our community&#8217;s hands and enable them to achieve their goals. And what is the latest and greatest technology has certainly changed over the last few years. And so obviously AI is at the center of that change. And so we&#8217;re really excited to be bringing the best of technology and putting that into our customers&#8217; hands as we&#8217;ve done for the last decade. But obviously the latest and greatest technology today is AI. And so we&#8217;re really excited to be doubling down into that space.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>All right. But I&#8217;m looking at a press release that says, &#8220;We&#8217;re moving from a design platform with AI tools to an AI platform with design tools.&#8221; That seems like more than bringing the latest and greatest technology. It seems like a rethinking of what Canva&#8217;s product is. Unpack that a little bit for me.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Let&#8217;s get into it. So when we launched Canva for the very first time, one of the huge innovations that we had was moving from pixels where everything was very granular and required deep expertise to be able to move anything around to be able to design anything to objects, where you could lay out a design. You could just have ideas for different objects. You could search our stock photography library, our illustration library, you could drag it onto the page, you start with a template or start from scratch, you could collaborate and design. And now what we&#8217;re really excited about is with AI, we&#8217;re moving into the concept layer. So you can just take an idea, you can write it in, and then something can get created for you. But very importantly, you can still move into the Canva&#8217;s object editor and lay things out, collaborate, edit away.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And so we&#8217;re really excited about bringing it to this third tier of concept editing, which we think will be extraordinarily exciting. So it&#8217;s our biggest launch ever and becoming the system where work happens end to end. But still very importantly with design at its core, being able to take it &#8230; I was going deep the other day into the definition of design and to design is to mock an idea. And really to mock an idea is at the essence of design. So we&#8217;re really excited about bringing new tools and capabilities to be able to do exactly that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I have to ask you: I&#8217;m looking at the presentation about all of this. And it was obviously made in Canva. I know you told me last time that the whole company works in Canva. Did you automate the creation of your own deck announcing the AI tools or did you make it all by hand?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">What&#8217;s really cool about this new product release, it can be one shot generation and that is awesome, but the really exciting thing is it&#8217;s actually also iterative. So it can lay out pages. So for example, you can take huge passages of text and then you can just lay that out with Canva AI. So you can actually be your companion, your creative partner as you&#8217;re going through the process. So we didn&#8217;t do it to just one shot generation for the entire deck, I have to say. But what we were able to do is use it for all the fine grain edits, the laying out of boxes and that sort of thing. So it really, it helped with the deck.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But I think that&#8217;s the exciting thing is that I think one shot generation is like AI 1.0 and being able to do iterative, agentic orchestration is really 2.0. So we&#8217;re really excited about that. And then turn it into the press release doc. And it&#8217;s really great at helping to create that first draft for us. And then we can use that to iterate, to collaborate because I think we both certainly know and everyone knows that that one shot generation might be a helpful starting point, but that really is the draft to then be able to iterate and refine from there.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m curious for this. I&#8217;m just looking at pictures of the interface. It looks like a chatbot. You can ask it all kinds of questions, as you showed off, make me a content plan, do a bunch of stuff for me out on these platforms. You can connect directly to the platforms and have it published for you.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That feels like, in particular, the cutting edge of marketing is automating the creation of assets and the publishing to platforms and collecting the data and iterating through that. But the interface is still a chatbot and it feels like maybe that&#8217;s going to be the interface for everything forever. Did you experiment with other kinds of interfaces or is it just the open end text box as the end all, be all of AI?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think that&#8217;s where I was going through those three tiers of pixels, objects, and concepts. I think that&#8217;s what&#8217;s really exciting to me is that in most chatbots out there, you&#8217;re in a chat and you go backwards and forwards asking for the same thing and it will regenerate the entire thing over and over again. It&#8217;s annoying. But with Canva AI, you&#8217;ve got the ability to have conversational editing, which is extraordinarily powerful and brings completely new capabilities. But then you have the normal Canva that you know and love, where you can just drag and drop, you can collaborate, you can do all your iterative editing, you can go and change a word here and update that and not having to prompt to do that. So it actually helps to make complex things simple by bringing it all together into one spot.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You&#8217;ll see in the interfaces, Canva AI, it&#8217;s a brand new tab inside the editor. And so you can go there, you can dictate into your phone, you can do it on the fly, get that first pass, and then it&#8217;ll lay it out just in the normal Canva that you know and love, and then you can just edit that as you would typically do. So after a lot of experimentation, that was where we landed, that it&#8217;s so powerful to be able to dictate for everyone&#8217;s different accessibility needs, even accessibility needs on a day to day basis. Sometimes now I can just be talking to my phone, ask it to generate something and you can just do that on the fly, but then that creates a normal Canva design that you can collaborate, you can edit, you can use our hundred million plus stock photos and illustrations and drag and drop and design that. So really, the huge opportunity is this end to end workflow of being able to take an idea and turn that into a finished, usable work in one seamless platform. Yeah.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Can I ask just a question about the relationship of the AI to the tools in Canva, and I&#8217;m going to basically just do personal tech support with you.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, go for it!</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>So I used Canva this week. My daughter&#8217;s having a detective themed birthday party. And so we took photos of all her friends and we&#8217;re going to make wanted posters.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Awesome.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I was like, &#8220;I&#8217;m going to talk to Melanie and I better use Canva to do this.&#8221; It seemed very natural, so I could ask you very weedsy tech support questions. And just in the version of Canva that I was using, it was clear that the AI tools operated in some places and not others. They weren&#8217;t seeing the whole Canva tool palette. And very simply it&#8217;s background remover, which I believe is one of your most popular tools. It&#8217;s everyone&#8217;s most popular tool. I could do it in some parts of Canva, not the other. I couldn&#8217;t look at my finished layout and say, &#8220;Actually, can you just go ahead and remove the background from this photo?&#8221; I had to get to where I needed to be and then ask the question. Is the new Canva AI, can it address the whole set of tools? Is it using Canva as a whole or is it still narrowly sliced?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You hit the nail on the head with what we were doing with Canva AI 2.0. You were using Canva AI 1.0. I&#8217;m very excited to get your hands on Canva AI 2.0. We&#8217;ll have to get you into the million, because it&#8217;ll help you with exactly that. And so you can say for your example, for your wanted posters, create me the wanted poster. And you can upload the photos and it can actually orchestrate all of the different tools in Canva to be able to create that on the fly, without you having to go to the different spots. But you can still go and edit the different particular parts, the element editing if you want, but it actually is able to orchestrate it and then create a layered file in Canva&#8217;s standard format.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I think I understand how the user will see it. Architecturally, I&#8217;m very curious how you build the product that way, because it doesn&#8217;t seem like there&#8217;s some industry standard way of saying, &#8220;Now you can use this software.&#8221; About half of the attempts I see are just taking screenshots of everything and very slowly clicking around. And there&#8217;s an infinite number of variations on that approach. There&#8217;s </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/news/867673/claude-mcp-app-interactive-slack-figma-canva"><strong>the MCP approach</strong></a><strong>, which everyone was really high on and seems to have arrived at whatever point it&#8217;s going to arrive at, and now maybe half the industry is back at, well, we should just do APIs. What approach did you land on?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think the reason we&#8217;ve been able to make so much progress in this space, firstly was the decade of investment in this interoperable format. So being able to have this design format that spans presentations and whiteboards and docs and videos, the full gamut has been a really powerful part of why, when we launched the foundational model, the design foundational model, it actually is able to create across all of these different formats and is that layered file. Which means that you can operate at a full design level, you can operate on a page level, you can operate on a photo level or text. And so the huge investment in that space is why we&#8217;ve been able to bring this to life with Canva AI 2.0. And there&#8217;s an extraordinary amount of complexity behind the scenes.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We&#8217;ve had hundreds of people working on this project for some years to get to this point in time. But I think that the really important part is one of our engineers described it as an orchestra because there&#8217;s so many tools and systems under the hood that need to talk together to be able to bring that thing to life. So when you say, &#8220;I want to create a wanted poster for my daughter&#8217;s birthday party,&#8221; it will then be able to go and use background remover. It will be able to go and use all of the different tools to be able to assemble that. But from a user standpoint, they just get to say what they want and then we go and do the hard work to achieve that goal.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m just curious what bet you made there, because it feels like the industry is not coalesced on a strategy. So is it actually clicking around Canva or is there some other way of the AI addressing the tools?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I won&#8217;t go into technical detail there, because I think that we have had a few breakthroughs that made this all possible.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The other question I have is who the model providers that you have doing this are. Because we are hearing every single day that token use rates for agentic software through the roof, or watching Anthropic have to modify its pricing. There&#8217;s all kinds of stuff happening in that world, and you&#8217;re launching an agentic AI product that, just from the interface alone, makes you want to use it a lot.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;m happy to hear that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>And Anthropic literally has, in Claude, there&#8217;s a usage meter and it will tell you, &#8220;You&#8217;re done now or pay us more money.&#8221; Are you going to have a token usage meter in Canva in the same way?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You asked so many questions in that very short space of time.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>There&#8217;s more to come, don&#8217;t worry.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We have been investing in the areas that we really need to. Becoming domain experts in design has been a really critical part of our research strategy, but then partnering with incredible companies that are spending billions of dollars to build the best in their own areas and then bringing that technology onto Canva is also a key part of the way we&#8217;re approaching this, being experts in design, because that&#8217;s where we really need to specialize because there isn&#8217;t great technology in that space. And then we&#8217;ve got a 100-person research team working very specifically on these problems themselves.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">On the AI credit front, we have different tiering available for each of the different packages. So in free, you get limited credits and then in pro, we get much more generous. And then in our business package, you get far more generous, then enterprise even more so. But actually for the first million users, we&#8217;re giving everyone an AI pass, which we&#8217;re really excited about. So it&#8217;s a $100 monthly pass. We&#8217;re going to be giving everyone in that first million so they can just go completely wild and test out all of these new products. So we&#8217;re really excited to see how that is used and see where it takes them.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I want to come back to pricing, because I have a lot of questions about it, but first I just want to understand the product a little bit more. The </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/24191080/canva-ceo-melanie-perkins-design-ai-adobe-competition-decoder-podcast-interview"><strong>last time</strong></a><strong> you were on the show, you were making the inroads to enterprise. You would relaunch for enterprise and we talked a lot about how what you needed to do for enterprise was not necessarily product focused, but just workflow focused. You needed user authentication systems and management systems and dashboards and all that stuff, and you built it out. And that seems to be going really well. I think the numbers I have here are you&#8217;re at $4 billion in annualized revenue, $500 million of which is enterprise. So in two years you&#8217;ve grown. Is that the part of the business that&#8217;s growing the most?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The whole company is growing very rapidly, but yes, enterprise has been growing extremely rapidly. We grew by 100% over the last year, 95% of Fortune 500 companies and getting really deep footprints with thousands of people at companies now, which is extraordinary to see. We think that with Canva AI 2.0, we&#8217;ll radically change that. It will be a huge step change again, and become the system at the center of work and really bring things together.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think a lot of people can relate right now. It feels like there are a lot of fragmented systems, things that are in lots of different places. We think being able to have that all on one platform, all of the work and all of the designs and presentations and documents, all in one place and with connectors being able to go even further and pull in context and information from your Gmail or your Slack, is going to be a huge step change for the way work gets done.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s the part I&#8217;m really interested in, the idea that a company is just a collection of disparate databases that are not well organized or managed and that there&#8217;s truth in those databases, if only we could read them all at the same time. That&#8217;s a big part of the AI thesis in general. You hear it all over the place. I work with a bunch of cranky reporters. I don&#8217;t think they put all their ideas in the databases, but I get it. There&#8217;s a sense that there&#8217;s a lot of opportunity in the disparate data sources in a company and you can bring them together to platform and then take action on it and achieve some results.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Is Canva the right tool to do that work? You&#8217;re </strong><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/04/17/anthropic-launches-claude-design-a-new-product-for-creating-quick-visuals/"><strong>right up against Claude</strong></a><strong>. Or you&#8217;re right up against, I don&#8217;t know, Oracle, whatever big enterprise business process automation vendor is going to say, &#8220;AI will connect all your databases,&#8221; and then there&#8217;s Canva. And I&#8217;m wondering if you want the whole opportunity or just the design opportunity.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Well, to me, design, as we&#8217;ve just talked about before, is bringing creativity and productivity together and being able to do that in a way that we think is pretty extraordinarily powerful. I had my own experience of this the other day, which blew my mind. I had to answer a whole bunch of questions that were going into all sorts of different questions over the last decade. And then I was able to just type it into Canva AI 2.0 each of the questions and I was able to construct answers based on all of my designs and all of my documents from the last decade.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And it blew my mind that I was like, this is the only place that actually has this information about me. And so being able to have that full visual suite from docs to sheets, whiteboards, presentations, all of that context. And then I guess the other thing is that, when you think about it, most things end up in a design format of some description at the end of the process. And so being able to have all of that context right there beside the AI tools, we think is pretty powerful.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I think that the thing I&#8217;m curious about is where the primary interface for that lives. And you&#8217;re obviously making the case that it should be Canva. For the CEO of Canva, it clearly is inside of Canva, but I could bring the CEO of Slack on here and they would happily tell you that that is Slack. Or I don&#8217;t know, Microsoft will tell you that they&#8217;re going to force-feed Copilot to you wherever you are, using a Microsoft product and that&#8217;s where that should be. There are a lot of ideas about this.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>One of the things that makes that messy, in my mind, is that all of these products can now talk to each other in very specific ways. So Canva itself is a plugin for the other chatbots and it seems like the usage of that plugin is very high. How do you think about who owns the interface in a world where the core tool set might be usable somewhere else entirely that also has access to all that data and all that information that the company might have generated?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The key focus for us is always: How do we empower our community the most? How do we help them to achieve their goals? So we&#8217;re already embedded in organizations and businesses all around the world. And when they&#8217;re creating a design today in Canva, it&#8217;s quite a manual process. You have to go to all these different fragmented tools, collect all the information. And so being able to have that just inside the design tools, we think, will make a great deal of sense because it means that you&#8217;re not&#8230; It&#8217;s just cutting down manual and busy work, which is always the thing that we&#8217;re doing for our customers. Like in 2019, we launched background remover and the whole point of that was you click the background remove button and then the background was removed, and that reduced a lot of manual work.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Again, with this release, it&#8217;s the same thing. There&#8217;s a lot of manual work to go and collect all the information, collect all of the context, all in different places. And so having that just there where you&#8217;re designing, we think, makes a lot of sense, where you&#8217;ve already got huge repositories of your images across your company, where you&#8217;ve already got all your brand templates, where you&#8217;re already doing the collaboration. We think that makes a lot of sense. But really, we just want to be putting the tools that help to reduce busy work in the hands of our community and helping them to achieve their goals with less clicks.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>A few weeks ago, we </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/902264/oktas-ceo-is-betting-big-on-ai-agent-identity"><strong>had the CEO of Okta on the show</strong></a><strong>, Todd McKinnon, and he was like, &#8220;The future of Okta is managing agent permissions because this is a security nightmare and I will sell kill switches to every enterprise that has agents running rampant over its networks and databases.&#8221; And so I hear what you&#8217;re saying. It&#8217;s like, okay, Slack is going to have a bunch of agents that can go talk to Canva&#8217;s database of images. Canva will have a bunch of agents that can go talk to Slack&#8217;s database of conversations, something else is going to happen over here. Does that seem like a workable picture of a company of the future, where all of these tools are accessing one another independently or do you think it will naturally land on just one?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think the cool thing is, for consumers, there&#8217;s going to be choice about how they want to have their work stack set up. And I think it&#8217;s a really exciting time in technology because there&#8217;s just so many new possibilities for the way work gets done to reduce fragmentation. We&#8217;ve got a quarter of a billion people using Canva today, so we think there&#8217;s a huge opportunity to make AI simple and accessible, just like we did with design, but very importantly, helping to empower people to achieve their goals and to communicate their ideas. So we think we&#8217;re pretty excited about what we&#8217;re going to be able to bring out into the world.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>How does it work for you? What&#8217;s the dynamic inside of Canva? Obviously you’re on the bleeding edge of this technology and you obviously have your own tool. How does it work for you? Do all of your tools have AI access to all the other tools? Or do you work only in Canva and let Canva AI go talk to all the other tools? What&#8217;s your setup?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Obviously Canva&#8217;s always had all my designs and my presentations and my documents, but being able to get connectors and being able to pull in information has been pretty astonishing. So for example, being able to say, &#8220;Hey, create me a plan for my next week and how I can optimize my time.&#8221; And it being able to go and read my calendar and then create me a document about my upcoming week, it was like, &#8220;There&#8217;s a lot going on.&#8221; It told me I had a massage booked and I was really surprised about that because I didn&#8217;t actually know until I read that in my Canva doc. And then I was like, &#8220;Oh, I think there&#8217;s a bug here,&#8221; and then I realized that my partner had organized that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The bug is, it&#8217;s booking self-care for you whenever it wants.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And so I think it&#8217;s really cool because there&#8217;s a lot of things that would be very manual, like going and doing a calendar audit, and that all of a sudden can actually just happen inside the one thing and it can actually create the presentation or it can create the document and then you can have people collaborating on that as you go.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">People talk about AI slop, and I think the AI slop is often one shot generation, you just take that and you put it somewhere else. I think what’s really exciting with Canva is that that’s really just the draft. That&#8217;s the starting point. And then you can use it to iterate, you can use that through manual editing or you can use that through being able to iteratively edit through Canva AI inside the editor itself and to refine it to really be able to clearly articulate your idea. So we&#8217;re pretty excited about the possibilities that it unlocks.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I feel like it&#8217;s time for the </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>questions, because you&#8217;ve talked about how much you use Canva internally. The last time I asked you how you make decisions. You said you had a process called decision decks, where you literally made Canva documents with all the pros and cons and you mocked up the products. Is that still the process?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">That is still the process. Prototyping has become a very key part of it. So often now there&#8217;s a workable prototype before anything gets launched. I think the really fun thing about, I don&#8217;t know if I talked to you about the complex decision making framework.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>No, this is new.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Okay. Well, this, for anyone that needs to make complex decisions, I find this extremely helpful plitting it out into like, what are the goals, then what are the options, what are the pros and cons for each of the options? But it&#8217;s really fun because now we have a template inside Canva, which is the complex decision making framework doc. And you can literally just dictate using dictation through Canva AI and it will actually go and fill out this template. So there&#8217;s a lot of really exciting ways you can take your ideas and the thoughts in your head and then have that distilled in a way that other people can see and understand, which I guess is the essence of design.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">If you think about design in the sense that previously, design can sometimes be thought of as making things look pretty, but really design is about expressing ideas and being able to communicate that effectively and being able to turn something from an idea into reality. And so we think all these new tools really help to facilitate that. I use Canva Code all the time. I used to do a lot of mockups and now I use Canva Code to create prototypes all the time for every idea that I have, which is pretty powerful because it takes the idea far further than it could before.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The other </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>question is how the companies are structured. Last time, you were about 4,500 people and you described your structure as a very centralized product team and then lots and lots of local teams. And the metaphor you used was a cupcake and you said, &#8220;We work on the cupcake and we make the cupcake bigger and all the local teams work on the icing.&#8221; Is that still the metaphor?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, that&#8217;s a fair metaphor. That one&#8217;s been around for&#8230; The cupcake and the icing is actually so applicable in so many different ways. Small empowered teams are really the essence of how we get things done. And we&#8217;re very much a goal-oriented structure.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So for example, with Canva AI 2.0, we really brought everyone together across the company to achieve that goal and bring Canva AI 2.0 out into the world. We do show and tells every week so everyone can share and get deep context on what&#8217;s happening. I think that “goal” has really been the essence of how we&#8217;ve achieved anything over the last decade, being able to rally around goals and have different team formations in order to achieve that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>How many people is Canva now?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Latest stat, about 5,000.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>So you&#8217;ve been growing. I&#8217;m really curious about, just in that context, decisions and structure, how you made the decision to say, &#8220;Okay, we&#8217;re going to do Canva 2.0 and we&#8217;re going to lean heavily into AI the way that we&#8217;re going to lean into AI.&#8221; That&#8217;s a lot of people. It&#8217;s a big decision. I imagine that there was a decision making slide or a deck and then this feels like it inherently is a top-down decision. We&#8217;re all doing this. Melanie says we&#8217;re all doing this, we&#8217;re all doing this. Walk me through that decision and walk me through any structure changes you had to make in order to accomplish it.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, absolutely. So I&#8217;m going to take us back to 2011 and to a deck that we had, which was called Canva&#8217;s Chef, before Canva was even called Canva. And the first slide, when you go onto it, it&#8217;s like, &#8220;What do you want to chef up today?&#8221; And then you could type into a search box and the idea was you could type whatever you wanted and then you&#8217;d pop into the editor and you could collaborate and you could have the editing tools. If we shared it with you after this, you’d see it&#8217;s bizarrely similar to what we&#8217;re launching today. So I guess this has been the dream for a really long time, but the technical ability to do this has been&#8230; hard. I&#8217;d say in 2017, we had this document. We called it Getting Smart and we&#8217;re like, &#8220;In the future, future, future, there&#8217;s going to be search-driven design. Rather than going to the buffet and getting something, it&#8217;ll be able to happen on the fly, like a chef cooking something up from the raw ingredients.&#8221;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And now it feels like we can actually do that. Back in October, we&#8217;d been researching this space for some years with the foundational model that was a huge step, the design foundational model, that was a huge key piece. But then in October, there was a significant breakthrough in the company that meant that we could actually do it. So as soon as we saw that, we were all like, &#8220;Oh my goodness, this is really exciting and groundbreaking for what Canva can unlock.&#8221; And so that was when we really started to go all-in and realize that that technology needed to be pushed as far as it could go, which is what we&#8217;re launching today.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Did you send out an email? Did you send out a Canva deck saying, &#8220;We&#8217;re doing this now, decision made?&#8221; How did that work?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">That is a great question. So there was a team working on it already, and then we really bolstered up that team. So then we said, &#8220;Okay, we need to get every single person that can possibly help bring this to life onto the project.&#8221; We started the weekly show-and-tell’s, and we turned it into a more of a centralized AI team with hundreds of people. It went from a smaller team to then many hundreds of people to bring it to life, with everyone working on the different parts that needed to become part of this orchestra.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m curious. That structure part seems really interesting to me: “We have a software tool, a standard deterministic software tool with a select box and all that stuff, and we&#8217;re going to build an AI that can use that tool. Now we&#8217;ve got to take all the engineers we had and point them at that problem.”</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Did you have to rethink your product team, or did you just make the team that was working on that part larger?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think a little bit of both. Once the team had this big breakthrough, and we all saw it in action, we said, &#8220;My goodness, this is the coolest thing ever.&#8221; We then had to figure out who could actually help from across the company. I think that&#8217;s the goal-oriented structure I was mentioning before: when there&#8217;s a goal, you need to figure out who are the people that can help bring this to life. And then we were doing a weekly show-and-tell so everyone could get a really clear understanding of where everything was at and all the pieces that needed to be orchestrated to come together.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think Canva already being interoperable meant that there were a lot of these things that had already been built and that then could just come together in an exciting way. We do something called the Canva jigsaw. We&#8217;ve been doing different variations of the Canva jigsaw since the earliest days, which is often a goal and then all the pieces that need to be worked on independently to be able to bring that to life. That was exactly what we had at the center of this project again.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You&#8217;re fundamentally a software CEO. I think that&#8217;s a fair description. I think you make software. The nature of software development itself seems to be undergoing some kind of existential crisis. One of our designers here at </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong> and Vox Media described all software development now as calibrating yourself to a database and just talking and seeing what happens and maybe that&#8217;ll turn your brain to mush.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Are you using as much Claude Code or Codex to make Canva, as it seems like every other company is racing to do?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, I use Canva Code really extensively from the perspective of–</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>When you say Canva Code, that&#8217;s your own coding product? You&#8217;re not using Claude Code or Codex?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, because it&#8217;s so cool. I used to create mockups all the time. Anytime I had an idea, I would create a mockup. And now anytime I have an idea, I can use Canva Code. But with this latest release, you can actually go in and edit the text. So you can actually code something, you can edit the text, you can drag and drop, you can move things around. We&#8217;ve been really investing heavily on the AI front and upskilling our team.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>So can you make Canva with Canva Code?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, we do make Canva with Canva Code, not deployed. We have many incredible engineers that actually make it sound to go out to hundreds of millions of people, but we use it for prototyping all the time.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Yeah, I think the question I&#8217;m asking is more about those folks and how you think about the costs associated with those folks. The nature of software engineering is changing in some big, meaningful way due, in particular, to the coding tools that are available.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Are you rethinking how that works inside of Canva, as you ship new versions of Canva? Because for every other software CEO I talk to, their minds are exploding. They don&#8217;t quite know how it&#8217;s going to go, but they know it&#8217;s definitely going to change forever.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think one of the things that we&#8217;ve invested really heavily in is continuously upskilling our team and systems. So we&#8217;ve taken a very intentional approach to give all of our team access to all of the latest and greatest tools. So we actually have not selected a winner. We have just given them everything. And it&#8217;s been very intentional because we want everyone to be playing with the latest and greatest and to be upskilling all the time. We need to be upskilling every one of our systems.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We need to be upskilling because the way we build product is completely different today. The way we do [quality assurance] is completely different today. The way we do actually every system and process inside the companies had to have an AI-native transformation. And so every specialty inside the company has had to have an AI-native transformation — what a designer does today, what an engineer does today, across every single part of the company.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So it&#8217;s been a huge area of investment on the tooling, on giving our team time, and on the specialties. We&#8217;ve had this focus on AI everywhere and then AI impact and now AI-native because we really want to be rethinking everything in this AI era.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>There&#8217;s some rebalancing of power between product managers, designers, and engineers because AI lets them all do each other&#8217;s jobs. Where have you landed on that inside of Canva?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think we&#8217;re all here to build the best experience we can. I think having really solid expertise has never been the best way to build product. In fact, great PMs often think about things from a design perspective. Great engineers often think about things from a design perspective. So really, it&#8217;s about the team that is there to just create the best thing possible. And having people in their separate siloed, isolated lanes and saying, &#8220;That&#8217;s my territory,&#8221; was never a great way to build product.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">With AI, it&#8217;s really leaning further into that. It&#8217;s everyone thinking about what is the best product experience that we can build. And everyone will bring different skills to the fore. So a designer will obviously have a certain expertise, a PM will have certain expertise, an engineer will have certain expertise, but we&#8217;ve always thought of it as a bit of a team sport where the best idea should be winning and everyone should be collaborating to create the best outcome that they possibly can for our community.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>So I understand this positive case for AI, and why you made the decision. I understand that the product promise of just “tell this box what to make and it will make you a first draft and you can go on from there,” based on the data you have. There&#8217;s a pretty significant downside to AI, particularly as it relates to branding.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>There&#8217;s polling here in the United States, at least, that basically is just bad vibes around AI. The last </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/891724/nbc-news-march-2026-poll-ai-ice"><strong><em>NBC News</em></strong><strong> poll</strong></a><strong> that we are constantly citing is AI is polling under ICE in terms of favorability and just above the war in Iran. That&#8217;s not a great place for AI to be.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>People are voting against data centers in their communities. AI is widely associated with job loss and maybe now you&#8217;re going to cause some enterprise job loss because social media teams don&#8217;t need to be as big as they needed to be anymore. There&#8217;s </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/885710/jack-dorsey-block-layoffs-job-cuts-ai"><strong>a lot of layoffs</strong></a><strong> that are being </strong><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/31/oracle-layoffs-ai-spending.html"><strong>blamed on AI across the board</strong></a><strong>.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You&#8217;re leaning into AI with Canva. You&#8217;re rebranding the whole product as having AI in it. How do you think about that downside risk, that people don&#8217;t like it? The more they&#8217;re exposed to it, the more they&#8217;re saying, &#8220;Wait, stop. I don&#8217;t want this around me.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think it&#8217;s like any tool. It will be whatever you want it to be. And so if you want it to help empower people, if you want it to help deliver better experiences for your customers, if you want it to uplift students and to give them great quality education materials, it can do that.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Wait, can it do that? I&#8217;m actually not so certain about the student thing.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We launched something called <a href="https://www.canva.com/learn-grid/">LearnGrid</a> and LearnGrid enables, across many countries, to be able to have the curriculum aligned content created. That can be worksheets and immediate feedback. So we&#8217;re really excited about being able to put these tools in teachers&#8217; and students&#8217; hands around the world.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We&#8217;ve got 100 million teachers and students using Canva today, but the access to great tools is very divergent, depending on the wealth of a school, for example. So we&#8217;re really excited about being able to bring that accessibility to students around the world.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Right. But I think my question is more about slop, right? People are experiencing the tools that exist today, and maybe mostly they&#8217;re experiencing the free version of ChatGPT or whatever AI Overview Google puts in front of them, running on the cheapest possible model at the biggest possible scale. And they&#8217;re having these experiences. I know that the industry likes to say most people have never used AI and certainly no one&#8217;s paying for it, but like a billion people have used ChatGPT and then the polling is the polling.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m just wondering how you&#8217;re thinking about communicating this is an AI product because, to me, it feels like it comes with all kinds of baggage. I&#8217;m watching OpenAI </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/906022/openai-buys-tbpn"><strong>buy TBPN</strong></a><strong> because they think they have a marketing problem. I&#8217;m watching all the venture capitalists say, &#8220;The media is lying about AI and it&#8217;s going to change everything for the better.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>And then you&#8217;re racing into being like, &#8220;Canva&#8217;s AI now.&#8221; I think you know that a bunch of designers are going to be very unhappy about this. There&#8217;re some people who are going to just say, &#8220;This is bad. They&#8217;re ruining the product.&#8221; I&#8217;m just wondering how you are thinking about navigating that balance.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think there&#8217;s going to be a plethora of opinions on any topic. What we always do is just put what our community wants and needs at the center of it. So we&#8217;ve had a lot of people asking, even yourself quite specifically, like, &#8220;I&#8217;ve got this goal. Why can&#8217;t Canva AI just know everything about it and be able to help me with that first draft?&#8221; So helping people to achieve their goals is always going to be at the center of what we do and that&#8217;s exactly what drives these sorts of decisions.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It is about being able to take out a lot of the manual work from being able to create and lay things out. So I really believe that AI should accelerate your vision and creativity, not override it. I think that it&#8217;s really important that AI is just another tool in our toolkit and it will help achieve our goals, if we choose to use it. So we&#8217;ve been really intentional about the product design, like Canva AI is a new tab. So if you just come in and you love templates, you can use that. If you come in and you just love the elements and just creating things from scratch, that&#8217;s totally fine. That&#8217;s totally cool.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But if you want to be able to express an idea just by dictation or through typing, you can do that too. So I think it&#8217;s really important that we understand that every one of our community members is at different stages and different scales of comfort with AI. We want to be making sure that we&#8217;re helping to facilitate that. So I think this is the full spectrum and it&#8217;s really important that Canva isn&#8217;t turning into a chatbot by any stretch of the imagination, but if you do want to be able to just chat to something and have it help you out, you can do that too. So it’s about really enabling all of that.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I can&#8217;t speak for other companies out there in the world. But Canva has benefited greatly from an incredible community. We&#8217;ve got a quarter billion people that use Canva each month. There&#8217;s a lot of love for our product. I think that that love really comes from being able to have Canva be the thing that helps people to express their ideas and turn that into reality. We take that extremely seriously. So with all of these product developments, we are continuing to keep that at our core and empowerment is such a critical principle for us that is very much through everything that you&#8217;ll hopefully be seeing and touching very soon.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Let me ask you about the competition because you&#8217;re describing goals and when I talk to executives and they describe goals and what people really want, you often realize you&#8217;re talking about business software. Your enterprise is growing for you and this very much feels like an enterprise offering to me. You&#8217;re going to connect to all these other systems and you&#8217;re going to get some work done and you&#8217;re going to do work.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s what this feels like to me. And I know Canva has a big consumer base and a lot of people have fun with it. This feels like a work product. Is AI fundamentally enterprise software? To me, I don&#8217;t think that people yearn for automation in their personal lives. I think you want to get rid of busy work at work so you can do something more important and a lot of work is inherently repetitive and AI just makes a lot of sense in this zone. Do you think AI is fundamentally enterprise software?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think you&#8217;re right. Canva AI will totally be the system at the center of how work gets done, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that if you&#8217;re creating those wanted posters for your daughter&#8217;s party, you can&#8217;t be like, &#8220;Pull the invite list from the party coming up.&#8221; And just wanting it to connect to that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>This implies that I have good access to the database of the eight-year-old girls coming to my house next weekend, but I&#8217;ll grant you that.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But yeah, it often will be about work and work means many different things to many different people. So work can mean a teacher in a classroom, work can mean at a large company, work can mean a small business trying to just get their marketing collateral created. I think we&#8217;ve shifted away from broadcast communication, where everything is one to many, to maybe having a hairdresser be able to send out a campaign on someone&#8217;s birthday to say, &#8220;Here&#8217;s a special voucher for your birthday. We have that particular thing that you like.&#8221; Being able to have that much more personal communication, I think is another aspect.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>It does feel to me like the cutting edge of social media marketing in particular is automation in this way. I probably watched more TikToks and Instagram Reels of social media managers explaining how they have built incredible dashboards using AI tools, and automated entire workflows and built content pipelines. You can see it. There&#8217;s something very important happening there. Presumably Canva will participate in that and they will build those tools inside of Canva.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Right next to that is Meta itself and TikTok and YouTube, which are all working on tools exactly like this. Mark Zuckerberg last year — I&#8217;m just going to read you this quote — </strong><a href="https://stratechery.com/2025/an-interview-with-meta-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-about-ai-and-the-evolution-of-social-media/"><strong>said this to Ben Thompson</strong></a><strong>: &#8220;In general, we&#8217;re going to get to a point where, if you&#8217;re a business, you come to us, you tell us what your objective is, you connect to your bank account, you don&#8217;t need any creative, you don&#8217;t need any targeting, you don&#8217;t need any measurement. You tell us the results you want and we will give them to you. You expect to be able to read the results that we spit out.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s a redefinition of advertising. They&#8217;re describing, to some extent, your product. You tell it what you want to achieve and AI is going to make a bunch of creative and schedule it across their platform. I know TikTok is working on this. I know YouTube is working on this. They all see this thing that they can sell to their biggest clients, their advertisers. How do you think about competing with the platform&#8217;s own native capabilities that look a lot like what Canva&#8217;s trying to make for marketers?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It&#8217;s actually funny. Back in 2012, we had this pitch and we called it the design engine. And we said all these other platforms are going to have tools and they did. Lots of companies have lots of different tools for a specific platform, but it&#8217;s annoying because as a company, you probably want to be advertising in lots of different places. You probably want to be having your pitch decks and your docs and all the different things and you don&#8217;t want to have that fragmented across lots of different tools and systems.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So Canva is everything in one place, rather than having to go and have your knowledge in lots of different places. So that&#8217;s, I guess, one of the key things that we&#8217;ve been leaning into for the last decade is that Canva can be that thing that is at the center of your work.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>So the back and forth there is these platforms either have bad analytics or are not very generous in sharing their analytics or make you pay extra to access their analytics. Meta obviously has its own models. Google obviously has its own models. They might say, &#8220;Look, if you want to run this creative, you have to make it in our tools. If you want to use this stuff, we will throttle you if you come to us with creative made elsewhere. We&#8217;re going to push you towards our tools. So you use our models and we get two bites of the apple on token pricing.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;ve heard this from a bunch of AI CEOs, that database access in general is going to become a new pricing vector. We&#8217;re going to charge for tools. If you want to connect to our system, the customer will have to pay some higher access fee. Have you seen any glimmers of this yet or is it too early to say?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;d say, A, it&#8217;s too early, but B, I think that hopefully the customer wins out of all of this.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s very optimistic.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Hopefully the customer is able to achieve their goals and use the tools that they want to use. I guess at the end of the day, why I&#8217;ve been so infatuated with design is that design is imagining the future and then willing it into existence. And so, design really radically helps that process. You mentioned optimism. I think that&#8217;s why I love design so much is because you do have to imagine the future that you want and then you can work to bring it into reality.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The reality is Mark Zuckerberg exists and he&#8217;s very, very, very competitive. There&#8217;s also that piece of it.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think they also like money. I think from our experience, they love to have creative because creative is the blocker.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong><em>[Laughs]</em></strong><strong> Did you say they like money? I heard you. Well, I mean, look… I know a lot of social media people who take it as an article of faith–</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><em>[Laughs] </em>Let me give a little clarity on that. They&#8217;re not going to stop advertising. Their company is built on advertising, so they&#8217;re going to want to take creative from wherever to have it on their platform. In fact, the lack of companies being able to create great advertising materials has been a huge blocker from people being able to advertise on their platform. And so I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re going to be sad about creating it in Canva.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m curious how this one plays out because the other thing that I see at Meta doing is investing heavily in AI themselves. Every week, Zuck has spent another $200 trillion hiring three AI researchers who are going to build him the best model. Who knows how that will pay off. The same way who knows how any of this will pay off.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>But one way it could pay off is for Zuckerberg to say, &#8220;If you want to buy advertising on our platform, you&#8217;re going to generate it with our AI models. And because we own the model, we can charge you less than Melanie, who has to go buy tokens from someone else and pay their margin and pay her margin.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I know a lot of social media managers who are fully convinced that they need to make their videos in Instagram&#8217;s Edits app because Instagram will promote it more heavily, even if they&#8217;re not actually making the videos, even if they&#8217;re just feeding it through to get whatever little metadata that says “Edits.”</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Maybe that&#8217;s true and maybe it&#8217;s not, but the perception of Meta as a platform, the perception of YouTube as a platform, is that they will self preference in this way. So if they&#8217;re also the model providers and they can have lower pricing and the perception of self-preferencing, how do you expect to come up against that?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Let&#8217;s check back in a few years.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Okay. I thought that&#8217;s what you would say, but I just see it coming. Especially for Meta, which has to find some way to make money with the models they&#8217;re building. As of yet, I don&#8217;t know what it is except for maybe they&#8217;re doing Reels targeting on GPUs.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I can&#8217;t speak for them and their business model, but I can certainly say, from a customer&#8217;s perspective, being able to create all of the content that you want in one place, having little friction between that, being able to deploy into lots of places is what we&#8217;ve been specializing in for, I’d say, the last decade. And certainly being able to take that to other platforms has been great for our customers, but then also great for the other platforms because then they&#8217;re able to have all these people that can do their marketing on those platforms.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The last time we talked to your model provider was OpenAI, I believe. Is that still the primary partner?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We partner with OpenAI and Anthropic and then, of course, our own internal models. We love to collaborate with everyone.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Are their models interchangeable? Or do you use them for specific tasks inside of Canva AI?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We always take the best model for the best task, continuously. So it&#8217;s been great to have so many great partners in the space, from Google to Anthropic and OpenAI.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>My sense of the situation is that every token costs the big company&#8217;s money, that they&#8217;re all subsidizing token use. At some point that&#8217;s going to turn, right? They&#8217;re going to want to make a penny of profit on every token. What does that do to your pricing when that happens?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Investing in our own models has been a really core part of our strategy and we were able to bring the cost down, the latency down. And the price is being driven down radically. If you look at the price of LLM queries, it&#8217;s gone down 50 times in the last three years. So it&#8217;s pretty exciting from that standpoint of having so many big companies racing to provide the cheapest models.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>When you say your own models, actually, are you in the fight for GPUs? Are you training them on someone else&#8217;s cloud? How&#8217;s that working?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, it&#8217;s been a really important area of investment, which is why we&#8217;ve got our own research team of 100 people that are investing in the areas that we need. So for example, I was mentioning the design side — like Magic Layers was from our own research org. It&#8217;s been really exciting to invest in the areas that other companies aren&#8217;t.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We don&#8217;t need to go and compete in areas where there are billions of dollars of investment already happening, but in the areas that we know we can give great advantage to our customers, we certainly do that. So Magic Layers lets you now take any image from wherever you might generate it into Canva and then it will actually split it out into layers, so you can just edit it like a Canva template, which is pretty exciting.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Does Magic Layers happen on your models or are you going out?&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, that&#8217;s certainly our models.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s really cool. When you&#8217;ve made the decisions to invest in your own models versus going out to other providers, is there a cost performance ratio? How do you make that decision? Because investing in your own models is expensive.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It is expensive, but for example, Magic Layers has had eight million uses in the four weeks since launching. It really hit a pain point that people had, which was that you generate something and you have to go and reprompt the LLM over and over again to be able to do it. So being able to just go in and make that tiny little text tweak or to be able to collaborate or whatever it might be has been really important.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So I guess every time we&#8217;re choosing a model, it’s about “what is the best in the world?” We want to have price brackets for each of the different areas of our company. So you&#8217;ve got different models, you can choose your premium models or you can choose standard models. So we are domain experts in design and visual AI. And so that&#8217;s been really the focus of our research and development.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You said you don&#8217;t want to talk about your competitors, but I want to wrap up by talking about your biggest competitor. We spent some time on it the last time you were on the show.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;m actually curious, I don&#8217;t even know who you&#8217;re going to name. Who&#8217;s our biggest competitor?</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I think it&#8217;s Adobe. I think in the world of creative software for professionals, it&#8217;s obviously Adobe. And maybe Canva&#8217;s more consumer than that. Who do you think your biggest competitor is?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I shouldn&#8217;t have opened that question up, should I? I should have let you go on–</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong><em>[Laughs]</em></strong><strong> You walked right into this.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I know, I know. When we set out years ago, we were like, there&#8217;s this huge gap in the market. There weren&#8217;t tools that enabled easy design and that were rapid and enabled creative freedom. And I think that that&#8217;s exactly what we want to do, with Canva AI 2.0 bringing creativity and productivity together, being this place where you can get all of your work done in one place.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I don&#8217;t really think of them as competitors. There are our community of a quarter billion people that we need to satisfy and help them achieve their goals. We really focus on running our own race and filling the gap in the market.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>No, but you have to answer. Who&#8217;s your biggest competitor?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Who&#8217;s our biggest competitor?</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You can&#8217;t say no one. You can&#8217;t be a $4 billion company with no competitors. That&#8217;s not a choice.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think the way we think about it, it would be actually a bad business decision to be like, &#8220;You know what I&#8217;m going to do? I&#8217;m going to go and create this product that another company has created.&#8221; That wouldn&#8217;t make any sense. We literally go in and we say, &#8220;Where is the gap in the market? Where are users currently having friction?&#8221;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I like what you&#8217;re doing, and I appreciate it and it&#8217;s very good, but it has to be someone. Who do you want to take market share from and who might take market share from you?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I don&#8217;t know that I have a great answer for you. I think there&#8217;s a lot of fragmented tools right now and having that in one place, I think, is going to be the gap in the market that we fill.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Were you born this way? You&#8217;re such a pro. It&#8217;s very good. It&#8217;s incredible. I&#8217;m impressed.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You can name some. Who do you think? I&#8217;ll let you say whoever you think.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I do think it&#8217;s Adobe. And specifically, when I think about the Canva community, it&#8217;s a lot of people who need to make something as consumers or as a one-off at their company and they graduate to the full suite. I think we have talked about that journey for a lot of folks. And when I was young, getting my first legal Photoshop license was a marker. And I think that is still a marker for a lot of people. I think Premier is a marker for a lot of creators, being able to afford that software.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I think Adobe is a different company, and maybe you don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re a competitor, but they occupy the same space for a lot of creatives, in a lot of ways. Their products line up right with yours. You can prompt Photoshop in exactly the way that you were talking about prompting Canva, and Adobe will tell you that its PDF business is the best business database that has ever existed in the history of the world, and they&#8217;re going to line it all up. I know what they&#8217;re going to do.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>One of the things that I think is the most interesting, when I line up these two companies, is, in general, people love Canva. I think that, on balance, is true. I&#8217;m very curious to see how that goes once you put AI in front of everybody.&nbsp; I think that there&#8217;s some risk there, and in general, people </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/913765/adobe-rivals-free-creative-software-app-updates"><strong>are really mad at Adobe all the time</strong></a><strong>. That is just the nature of those two companies, the way they&#8217;re situated right now.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>So I’ve got to ask you this. Shantanu Narayen is leaving Adobe. He announced he&#8217;s going. We don&#8217;t know who the new CEO is going to be. Who do you think the next CEO of Adobe should be?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><em>[Laughs] </em>I definitely can&#8217;t comment on that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Yeah you can. Should it be you?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">No, definitely not. Maybe you can, but then we-</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>No. Nobody wants me to be in charge of PDFs in the world. You don&#8217;t want that at all. But I&#8217;m asking, if you&#8217;re looking at this, there&#8217;s a leadership change coming. Do you see that as an opportunity? Do you see that as, I will say, your competitor, retrenching? But I&#8217;m curious how you are perceiving that changeover there.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Honestly, we really have been pretty busy just focusing on our quarter billion users to try to make sure that we&#8217;re putting great products in their hands.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Very good.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I just genuinely haven&#8217;t given that any consideration.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Really? No one sent you a text, like, “He&#8217;s leaving”?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I was aware of it, but it&#8217;s not where my mind is focused. I&#8217;ll give you the way I think about the world. I always think it&#8217;s an internal locus of control and external locus of control. Things that you can control, that actually have an impact and then things that are completely outside your control. I really focus on the things that are within our control and that&#8217;s delivering a great product to our customers that is helping to close our community&#8217;s wishes. And then the things that are outside of my control, I literally just don&#8217;t focus my time and energy on because there&#8217;s quite a bit inside the internal locus of control.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>One of the reasons that I think designers are always mad at Adobe is their pricing goes up; they change the plans, they charge for more, and features go away. You&#8217;re at a scale with Canva now where you have what I would call the Microsoft Word problem, where the toolbar has to have every button in it because you&#8217;re so big that even if it&#8217;s only 1 percent of users who use the button, it&#8217;s still millions of people and you can&#8217;t have millions of people mad at you because you remove the button.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That feels like Canva&#8217;s at this scale, which is why AI is in a tab, right? You can&#8217;t change it too much. How do you think about making sure your Canva customers, who all use the product every day, seem to be very happy with you and stay happy with you, even as you roll out these products that might fundamentally threaten their jobs or how they work?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think all of those considerations you said are absolutely very much something we focus greatly on. So for example, when we launched Canva AI, what we&#8217;re really excited about is there&#8217;s so much breadth and depth in Canva&#8217;s product now that a casual user might not be aware of all of the different things and capabilities that Canva can do. Many users are very deeply aware of every single button in Canva, but Canva AI really brings that all together.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So you could just say whatever it is that you want and you might not know the specific tools that you need to be able to use to bring that to life, but it can do it for you. So we&#8217;re really excited about how that will be able to make complex things simple even from the perspective of being able to create your first design in Canva.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We also do an extraordinary amount of user testing and we do that with existing Canva community members, and with new users, and that really helps to refine the products before we&#8217;re getting them out the door and into our community&#8217;s hands. We get <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/canva/comments/1lw5pt0/icymi_canva_granted_a_bunch_of_features_from_the/">more than one million wishes a year</a> from our community and so we have actually just granted 40 of them at Canva Create.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So all of these things that we&#8217;re doing are very much in partnership with our community. And I think that&#8217;s a really key part for us, is that we want to be building Canva in partnership with our community, getting their feedback, helping to learn from what they want, what they need to do to achieve their goals. And that&#8217;s very much at the center of how we think about it.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>All right. I need to ask you one very important question right at the end.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Sure.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Do you promise to keep Affinity free?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yes, absolutely. We&#8217;ve made that absolutely key commitment.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Just checking. I feel like every time I talk to you, someone tells me, &#8220;Make sure you ask her if Affinity&#8217;s going to stay free.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I can very much say Affinity is going to be staying free. It&#8217;s a critical thing. We knew that that was a really critical part of why Affinity was created in the first place — being able to make it more accessible. And then a key part of Canva has always been having our free product. We&#8217;ve got hundreds of millions of people using our free product. Affinity itself has had more than 5 million downloads since we announced it. So yeah, it&#8217;s a really key part. Affinity is free and will be.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s great. Canva 2.0 is basically in beta, right? You&#8217;ve announced it, but it&#8217;s in a small beta.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, in a research preview.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>When does it go big?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">At Canva Create, we gave one million people access to Canva AI 2.0. And so we&#8217;re really excited to be watching how everyone is using it and how it&#8217;s helping them to achieve their goals.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Great. Well, I look forward to getting secret access to it so I can make even more silly posters for birthday parties. Melanie, it&#8217;s always so much fun talking to you. Thank you so much for being on </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Thank you so much for having me. Thanks for your great questions.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><em><sub>Questions or comments about this episode? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>David Pierce</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[The ‘AI is inevitable’ trap]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/913792/ai-divide-sam-altman-vergecast" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=913792</id>
			<updated>2026-04-17T09:24:34-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-17T09:24:34-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="OpenAI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Policy" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Vergecast" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[In the latest sign of AI silly season, Allbirds, the shoe company, told the world it was now an AI company and briefly managed to septuple its stock price. The Newbird AI story is really just one of a bunch of things this week that made us wonder: have we reached the peak of AI, [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: Alex Parkin / The Verge" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/VRG_VST_0417_Site.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-text-align-none">In the latest sign of AI silly season, Allbirds, the shoe company, told the world it was now an AI company and briefly managed to <a href="https://www.theverge.com/news/912484/allbirds-ai-hyperscale">septuple its stock price</a>. The Newbird AI story is really just one of a bunch of things this week that made us wonder: have we reached the peak of AI, or at least <em>a </em>peak of AI? </p>
<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/11/Vergecast-Tile-Large.jpeg?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="has-text-align-none"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don't forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Vergecast</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="has-text-align-none">On <a href="https://pod.link/vergecast">this episode of <em>The Vergecast</em></a>, we look at both the data and the vibes. David and Nilay explore <a href="https://hai.stanford.edu/news/inside-the-ai-index-12-takeaways-from-the-2026-report">a new study from Stanford</a> that says AI is getting better at lots of things, a …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/913792/ai-divide-sam-altman-vergecast">Read the full story at The Verge.</a></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Ronan Farrow on Sam Altman&#8217;s ‘unconstrained’ relationship with the truth]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/911753/sam-altman-openai-ronan-farrow-new-yorker-feature-trust-liar-ai-industry" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=911753</id>
			<updated>2026-04-16T15:18:11-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-16T10:00:00-04:00</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 Ronan Farrow, one of the biggest stars of investigative reporting working today. He broke the Harvey Weinstein story, among many, many others. And just last week, he and co-author Andrew Marantz published an incredible deep-dive feature in The New Yorker about OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, his trustworthiness, and the [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A photo illustration of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: The Verge" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/altman_illo.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap has-text-align-none">Today on <em>Decoder,</em> I’m talking with Ronan Farrow, one of the biggest stars of investigative reporting working today. He <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories">broke the Harvey Weinstein story</a>, among many, many others. And just last week, he and co-author Andrew Marantz <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may-control-our-future-can-he-be-trusted">published</a> an incredible deep-dive feature in <em>The New Yorker</em> about OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, his trustworthiness, and the rise of OpenAI itself.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">One note before we go any further here —<em>The New Yorker</em> published that story and Ronan and I had this conversation before we knew the <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/910890/openai-sam-altman-second-home-attack-shooting">full extent of the attacks</a> on Altman’s home, so you won’t hear us talk about that directly. But just to say it: I think violence of any kind is unacceptable, these attacks on Sam were unacceptable, and that the kind of <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/911778/ai-violence-sam-altman-home">helplessness that people feel</a>, which leads to this kind of violence, is itself unacceptable and also worth a lot more scrutiny from both the industry and our political leaders. I hope that’s clear.</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&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p><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="has-text-align-none">All that said, there is a lot swirling around Altman that’s fair game for rigorous reporting — the kind of reporting Ronan and Andrew set out to do. Thanks to the popularity of ChatGPT, Altman has emerged as the most visible figurehead of the AI industry, having turned a once nonprofit research lab into an almost trillion-dollar private company in just a few years. But the myth of Altman is deeply conflicted, equally defined both by his obvious dealmaking ability and his reported tendency to… well, lie to everyone around him.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The story is over 17,000 words long, and it contains arguably the definitive account of what happened in 2023 when the OpenAI board of directors <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/17/23965982/openai-ceo-sam-altman-fired">very suddenly fired Altman</a> over his alleged lying, only for him to be almost instantly rehired. It’s also a deep dive into Altman’s personal life, his investments, his courting of Middle Eastern money, and his own reflections on his past behavior and character traits that led one source to say he was &#8220;unconstrained by the truth.” I really suggest you read the entire story; I suspect it will be referenced for many years to come.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Ronan talked to Altman many times over the 18 months he spent reporting this piece, and so one of the main things I was curious about was whether he sensed any change in Altman over that time. After all, a lot has happened in AI, in tech, and in the world over the past year and a half.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You’ll hear Ronan talk about that very directly, as well as his sense that people have become much more willing to talk about Altman’s ability to stretch the truth. People are starting to wonder, out loud and on the record, whether the behavior of people like Altman is concerning, not just for AI or tech but also for society’s collective future.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Okay: Ronan Farrow on Sam Altman, AI, and the truth. Here we go.&nbsp;</p>

<iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP7344474300" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.&nbsp;</em></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Ronan Farrow, you&#8217;re an investigative reporter and contributor to </strong><strong><em>The New Yorker</em></strong><strong>. Welcome to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Glad to be here. Thanks for having me.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I am very excited to talk to you. You just wrote a big piece for </strong><strong><em>The New Yorker</em></strong><strong>. It&#8217;s a profile of Sam Altman and, sort of with it, OpenAI. My read of it is that, as all great features do, it, with rigorous reporting, validates a lot of feelings people have had about Sam Altman for a very long time. You&#8217;ve obviously published it, you&#8217;ve gotten reactions to it. How are you feeling about it right now?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Well, I&#8217;ve been heartened, actually, by the extent to which it&#8217;s broken through in a time where the attention economy is so kind of schizophrenic and shallow. This is a story that, in my view, affects all of us. And when I spent a year and a half of my life, and my co-author, Andrew Marantz, also spent that time of his, really trying to do something forensic and meticulous, it’s always because I feel like there are bigger structural issues that affect people beyond the individual and company at the heart of the story.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Sam Altman, against the backdrop of Silicon Valley hype culture and startups that balloon to massive valuations based on promises that may or may not come to pass in the future, and an increasing embrace of a founder culture that thinks telling different groups different conflicting things is a feature, not a bug…Even against that backdrop, Sam Altman is an extraordinary case where everyone in Silicon Valley who expects those things can&#8217;t stop talking about this question of his trustworthiness and his honesty.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We knew already that he was fired over some version of allegations of dishonesty or serial alleged lying. But extraordinarily, despite the fact that there&#8217;s been wonderful reporting, Keach Hagey has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/books/review/empire-of-ai-karen-hao-the-optimist-keach-hagey.html">done great work on this</a>. Karen Hao has <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/743569/empire-of-ai-by-karen-hao/">done great work on this</a>. There really wasn&#8217;t a definitive understanding of the actual alleged proof points and the reasons why those have stayed out of the public eye.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So point number one is that I feel heartened by the fact that some of those gaps in our public knowledge, and even in the knowledge of Silicon Valley insiders, have now been filled a little bit more. Some of the reasons that there were gaps have been filled in a little bit more.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We report on cases where people inside this company really felt like things were covered up or deliberately not documented. One of the new things in this story is a pivotal law firm investigation by WilmerHale, which is obviously a fancy, credible, big law firm that did investigations of Enron and WorldCom, which, by the way, were all voluminous, like hundreds of pages published. WilmerHale did this investigation that was demanded by board members who had fired Altman as a condition of their departure when he got rid of them, and he came back. And extraordinarily — in the eyes of many legal experts I spoke to, and shockingly in the eyes of many people in this company — they kept it out of writing. All that ever emerged from that was an 800-word press release from OpenAI that described what happened as a breakdown in trust. And we confirmed that this was kept to oral briefings.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">There are cases where, for instance, a board member seemingly wants to vote against the conversion from OpenAI&#8217;s original nonprofit form into a for-profit entity, and it&#8217;s recorded as an abstention. There&#8217;s like a lawyer in the meeting saying, &#8220;Well, that could trigger too much scrutiny.&#8221; And the person who wants to vote against gets recorded as an abstention to all appearances. There&#8217;s a factual dispute. OpenAI claims otherwise, as you might imagine. These are all cases where you have a company that, by its own account, holds our future in its hands.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The safety stakes are so acute that they have not gone away. This is the reason this company was founded as a nonprofit focused on safety, and where things were being obscured in a way that credible people around this found it less than professional. And you couple that with a backdrop where there&#8217;s so little political appetite for meaningful regulation. I think it&#8217;s a very combustible situation.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The point for me is not just that Sam Altman deserves these questions so acutely. It&#8217;s also that any of these guys in this field, and many of the key figures, exhibit, if not this particular idiosyncratic, alleged lying-all-the-time trait, certainly some degree of a race-to-the-bottom mentality, where the people who were safetyists have watered down those commitments and everyone-is-in-a-race posture.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think, as we look at recent leaks out of Anthropic, there&#8217;s a person who poses the question of who should have their finger on the button in this piece. The answer is, if we don&#8217;t have meaningful oversight, I think we have to be asking serious questions and trying to surface as much information as we can about all of these guys. So I&#8217;ve been heartened by what feels like a meaningful conversation about that, or the beginnings of one.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The reason I asked it that way is that you worked on this for a year and a half. You talked to, I believe, 100 people with your co-author, Andrew. That&#8217;s a long time for a story to cook. I think about the last year and a half in AI in particular, and boy, have the attitudes and values of all these characters shifted very quickly.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Maybe none more so than Sam Altman, who started off as the default winner because they had released ChatGPT and everyone thought that would just take over for Google. And then Google responded, which seemed to surprise them that Google would try to protect its business, maybe one of the best businesses in tech history, if not business history. Anthropic decided that it would focus on the enterprise. It seems to be taking a commanding lead there because the enterprise use of AI is so high.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Now, OpenAI is </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/908513/the-vibes-are-off-at-openai"><strong>refocusing its product away</strong></a><strong> from “we&#8217;re going to take on Google&#8221; to Codex, and they&#8217;re going to take on the enterprise. I just can&#8217;t quite tell whether, during the course of your reporting over the last year and a half, if it feels like the characters you were talking to changed? Like their attitudes and their values, did those change?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yes. I think first of all, that the critique that is explored in this piece, coming from many people inside these companies at this point — that this is an industry that, despite the existential stakes, is descending into something of a race to the bottom on safety and where speed is trumping everything else — that concern has grown more acute. And I think those concerns have been more validated as the past year and a half has transpired. Simultaneously, attitudes about Sam Altman have specifically changed. When we started talking to sources for this, people were really, really leery of being quoted about this and going on the record about this.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">By the end of our reporting, you have a body of reporting where people are talking about this very openly and explicitly, and you have board members saying things like, &#8220;He&#8217;s a pathological liar. He&#8217;s a sociopath.” There’s a range of perspectives from, &#8220;This is dangerous given the safety stakes, and we need leaders of this tech that have elevated integrity,&#8221; all the way up to like, &#8220;Forget the safety stakes, this is behavior that is untenable for any executive of any major company, that it just creates too much dysfunction.&#8221;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So the conversation has become much more explicit in a way that feels maybe belated, but is heartening in one sense. And Sam Altman, to his credit… The piece is very fair and even generous, I would say, to Sam. This is not the kind of piece where there was a lot of “got you” stuff. I spent many, many hours on the phone with him as we were finishing this up and really heard him out.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">As you can imagine, in a piece like this, not everything makes it in. Some of those cases in this one were because I was listening sincerely. And if Sam was actually making an argument that I felt carried water, that something, even if it was true, could be sensationalist, I really erred on the side of keeping this forensic and measured. So I think that is being received rightly, and I just hope this factual record that&#8217;s accumulated over this period of time can trigger a more bracing conversation about the need for oversight.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s actually my next question. I think you talked to Sam a dozen times over the course of reporting this story. Again, that&#8217;s a lot of conversations over a long period of time. Did you think Sam changed over the course of the reporting over the past year and a half?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah. I think one of the most interesting subplots in this is that Sam Altman is also talking about this trait more explicitly than he has in the past. The posture of Sam in this piece is not like, “There&#8217;s nothing there, this is not true; I don&#8217;t know what you&#8217;re talking about.” The posture he has is that he says this is attributable to a people-pleasing tendency and a kind of conflict aversion. He&#8217;s acknowledging that it caused problems for him, particularly earlier in his career.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">He is saying, &#8220;Well, I am moving past that, or have to some extent moved past that.&#8221; I think what&#8217;s really interesting to me is the contingent of people we talked to who were not just sort of safety advocates, not just the underlying technical researchers who very often tend to have these acute safety concerns, but also pragmatic, big-time investors. They are backers of Sam&#8217;s, who, in some cases, look at this question and talk about even having played a key role in his coming back after the firing. Now, on this question of whether he’s reformed, and to what extent is that change meaningful, they say, “Well, we gave him the benefit of the doubt at the time.”</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;m thinking of one prominent investor in particular who said, &#8220;But since then, it seems clear he wasn&#8217;t taken out behind the woodshed,&#8221; which was the phrase that this one used, to the extent that was necessary. As a result, it seems like this is now a stable trait. We&#8217;re seeing this in an ongoing way. You can look at some of OpenAI&#8217;s biggest business relationships and the way they kind of carry the weight of that mistrust in an ongoing way.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Like with Microsoft, you talk to executives over there, and they have really acute and recently catalyzed concerns. There&#8217;s this instance where, on the same day OpenAI is reaffirming its exclusivity with Microsoft with respect to underlying stateless AI models it’s also <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/885958/openai-amazon-nvidia-softback-110-billion-investment">announcing a new deal with Amazon</a> that&#8217;s to do with selling enterprise solutions for building AI agents that are stateful, meaning they have memory.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You talk to Microsoft people, and they&#8217;re like, &#8220;That&#8217;s not possible to do without interacting with the underlying stuff that we have an exclusivity deal on.&#8221; So that&#8217;s just one of many small examples where this trait has tendrils into ongoing business activity all the time and is a subject of active concern within OpenAI&#8217;s board, within its executive suite, and in the wider tech community.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You keep saying that “trait.” There&#8217;s a line in the story that to me feels like the thesis, and it&#8217;s a description of the trait you&#8217;re describing. It&#8217;s that “Sam Altman is unconstrained by the truth” and that he has “two traits that are almost never seen in the same person: the first is a strong desire to please people, to be liked in any given interaction, and the second is an almost sociopathic lack of concern for the consequences that may come from deceiving someone.”</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I have to tell you, I read that sentence 500 times, and I tried to imagine always saying what people wanted to be liked and then not being upset when they felt lied to. And I could not make my emotional state understand how those things can exist in the same person. You&#8217;ve talked to Sam a lot, and you&#8217;ve talked to people who have experienced these traits. How does he do it?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah. It&#8217;s interesting on a human level because I do approach bodies of reporting like this with a real focus on humanizing whoever&#8217;s at the heart of it and seeking deep understanding and empathy. When I kind of tried to approach this from a more human standpoint and say, &#8220;Hey, this would be devastating for me if so many people that I&#8217;ve worked with said I&#8217;m a pathological liar. How do you carry that weight? How do you talk about that in therapy? What is the story you tell yourself about that?&#8221;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I got some sort of, in my view, maybe West Coast platitudes about that like, &#8220;Yeah, I like breath work.” But not a lot of the kind of bracing sense of deep self-confrontation that I think a lot of us would probably have if we were seeing this kind of feedback about our behavior and our treatment of people.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think that actually goes to the broader answer to the question, too. Sam asserts that this trait has caused problems, but also that it&#8217;s part of what has empowered him to accelerate OpenAI&#8217;s growth so much that he is able to unite and please different groups of people. He&#8217;s constantly convincing all of these conflicting constituencies that what they care about is what he cares about. And that can be a really useful skill for a founder. I&#8217;ve talked to investors who then say, &#8220;Well, maybe it&#8217;s a less useful skill for actually running a company because it sows so much discord.&#8221;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But on the Sam personal side, I think the thing that I pick up on when I try to connect on a human level is the apparent lack of deeper confrontation, reflection, and self-accountability, which also informs that superpower or liability for a company preparing for an IPO.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">He is someone who, in the words of one former board member named Sue Yoon, who&#8217;s on the record in the piece saying that to the point of “fecklessness&#8221; is the phrase she uses, is able to really believe the shifting reality of his sales pitches or is able to convince himself of them. Or at least if he doesn&#8217;t believe them, he is able to bluster through them without meaningful self-doubt.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think the thing that you&#8217;re talking about, where you or I might, as we&#8217;re saying the thing and realizing that it conflicts with the other assurance we&#8217;ve made, kind of have a moment of freezing up or checking ourselves. I think that doesn&#8217;t happen with him. And there&#8217;s a wider Silicon Valley hype culture and founder culture that kind of embraces that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>It&#8217;s funny. </strong><strong><em>The Verge</em></strong><strong> is built on what amounts to a product reviews program. It&#8217;s the heart of what we do here. I hold a trillion dollars of Apple R&amp;D once a year and say, &#8220;This phone is a seven.&#8221; And it sort of legitimizes all of our reporting and our opinions elsewhere. We have an evaluative function, and we spend so much time just looking at the AI products and saying, &#8220;Do they work?&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That feels like it’s missing from a lot of the conversation about AI as it is today. There&#8217;s endless conversation about what it might be able to do, how dangerous it might be. And then you drill down, and you say, &#8220;Does it actually do the thing it&#8217;s supposed to do today?&#8221; In some cases, the answer is yes. But in many, many cases, the answer is no.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That feels like it connects to the hype culture you&#8217;re describing and also to the sense that, well, if you say it&#8217;s going to do something and it doesn&#8217;t, and someone feels bad, that&#8217;s fine because we&#8217;re onto the next thing. That&#8217;s in the past. And in AI in particular, Sam is so good at making the grand promises.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Just this week, I think the same day as your story was published, OpenAI </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/column/908880/openai-made-economic-proposals-heres-what-dc-thinks-of-them"><strong>released a policy document</strong></a><strong> that said we have to rethink the social contract and have AI efficiency stipends from the government. This is a grand promise about how some technology might shape the future of the world and how we live, and all of that relies on the technology working in exactly the way that maybe it&#8217;s promised to work or it should work.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Did you ever find Sam doubting AI turning into AGI or superintelligence or getting to the finish line? Because that&#8217;s the thing that I wonder about the most. Is there any reflection about whether this core technology can do all of the things that they say it can do?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It&#8217;s exactly the right set of questions. There are credible technologists that we spoke to in this body of reporting — and obviously Sam Altman is not one; he&#8217;s a business person — who say the way that Sam talks about the timeline for this tech is just way off. There are blog posts going back a few years where Sam is saying, &#8220;We&#8217;ve already reached the event horizon. AGI is basically here. Superintelligence is around the corner. We&#8217;re going to be on other planets. We&#8217;re going to be <a href="https://blog.samaltman.com/abundant-intelligence">curing all forms of cancer</a>.&#8221; Truly, I&#8217;m not embellishing.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The cancer one is actually interesting, that Sam is hyping up the person who </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/896878/ai-did-not-cure-this-dogs-cancer"><strong>theoretically cured their dog&#8217;s cancer with ChatGPT</strong></a><strong>, and that simply did not happen. They talked to ChatGPT, and that helped them guide some researchers who actually did the work, but the one-to-one, this tool cured this dog is not actually the story.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;m glad you raised that point because I want to go on to this bigger point about when both the potential and the risk of the technology are really going to vest. But it&#8217;s worth mentioning these little asides that constantly happen from Sam Altman, where he seems to embody this trait all over again.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I mean, to use the example of the WilmerHale report, where we had this information that had been kept out of writing, and wanted to know whether the oral brief along the way was given to anyone other than the two board members Sam helped install to oversee it. And he said, &#8220;Yeah, yeah, no, I believe it was given to everyone who joined the board after.&#8221; And we have a person with direct knowledge of the situation saying that it is simply a lie. And that really does appear to be the case, that it is untrue. If we want to be generous, perhaps he was misinformed.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">There are a lot of these casual assurances. And I use that example in part because that&#8217;s a great example of dissembling, let&#8217;s call it, that can have real consequences legally. I don&#8217;t need to tell you, under Delaware corporate law, if this company IPOs, shareholders could, under section 220, complain about this and demand underlying documentation. There are already board members saying things like, &#8220;Well, wait a minute, that briefing should have happened.&#8221;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So these things that seem to jump out of his mouth all the time, they can have real market-moving effects, real effects for OpenAI. Bringing it back to the kind of <a href="https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440601/Industrial%20Policy%20for%20the%20Intelligence%20Age.pdf">utopian hype language</a> that&#8217;s resurfaced, I think not coincidentally on the day this piece came out, it also effects all of us, because the dangers are so acute with respect to the way it&#8217;s being deployed in weaponry, the way it&#8217;s being used to identify chemical warfare agents, the disinformation potential, and because of the way in which the utopian hype does seem to be prompting a lot of credible economists to say, &#8220;This has all the signs of a bubble.&#8221;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Even <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/759965/sam-altman-openai-ai-bubble-interview">Sam Altman has said</a>, &#8220;Someone&#8217;s going to lose a lot of money here.&#8221; That could really crater a lot of American and global economic growth, if there&#8217;s like a true puncturing of a bubble involving all of these companies doing deals with each other, going all in on AI while borrowing so heavily. So what Sam Altman says matters, and I think the preponderance of people around him, you mentioned we talked to more than a hundred, it was actually well over a hundred. We had a conversation at the finish line where it&#8217;s like, &#8220;Would it be too petty to say it&#8217;s like this much higher number?&#8221; And we were like, &#8220;Yeah, let’s downplay. We&#8217;ll play it cool.&#8221; But there were so many people and such a significant majority of them saying, &#8220;This is a concern.&#8221; And I think that&#8217;s all why.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Let me ask you about that number. As you mentioned, people got more and more open with the concerns as time went on. It feels like the pressure around the bubble — the race to win, to pay off all this investment, to emerge as the winner, to IPO — has changed a lot of attitudes. It certainly created more pressure on Sam and OpenAI.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>We published a story this week just </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/908513/the-vibes-are-off-at-openai"><strong>about the vibes of OpenAI</strong></a><strong>. Your story is part of it, but massive staffing changes in the executive ranks at OpenAI — people are coming and going. The researchers are all headed away, largely to Anthropic, which I think is really interesting. You can just see this company is feeling the pressure, and it is responding to that pressure in some way.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>But then I think back to Sam getting fired. This is just memorable for me. It&#8217;s memorable for no one else, but I took a source call at the Bronx Zoo at 7PM on a Friday, and it was someone saying they&#8217;re going to try to get Sam back. And then </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/18/23967199/breaking-openai-board-in-discussions-with-sam-altman-to-return-as-ceo"><strong>we spent the weekend chasing that story down</strong></a><strong>. And I was just like, &#8220;I&#8217;m at the zoo. What do you want me to do here?&#8221; And the answer was, &#8220;Stay on the phone.&#8221; Well, my daughter was like, &#8220;Get off the phone.&#8221; And that&#8217;s what I did.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>It was ride or die to get Sam back. That company was like, &#8220;No, we&#8217;re not letting the board fire Sam Altman.&#8221; The investors, they&#8217;re quoted in your piece, &#8220;We went to war,&#8221; I think, is the Thrive Capital position, “to get Sam back.” Microsoft went to war to get Sam back. It&#8217;s later, and now everyone&#8217;s like, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to IPO. We got to the finish line. We got our guy back, and he&#8217;s going to get us to the finish line. We&#8217;re concerned he&#8217;s a liar.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Why was it a war to get him back then? Because it doesn&#8217;t seem like anything has actually changed. You talk about the memos that Ilya Sutskever and [Anthropic CEO] Dario Amodei kept while they were contemporaries of Sam Altman. Ilya&#8217;s number one concern was that Sam is a liar.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>None of that has changed. So why was it war to bring him back then? And now that we&#8217;re at the finish line, it seems like all the concerns are out in the open.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Well, first of all, sorry to your daughter and my partner and all the other people around the journalists.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>[Laughs] It was quite a weekend for everyone.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, it does take over one&#8217;s life, and this story definitely has mine, over the last period of time. It actually relates to this theme of journalism and access to information, I think. The investors who went to war for Sam and all played roles in making sure he came back, and the board that had been specifically designed to protect a nonprofit&#8217;s mission to put safety over growth and to fire an executive if they couldn&#8217;t be trusted with that, they went away. That was all because, yes, the market incentives were there, right?</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Sam was able to convince people, &#8220;Well, the company&#8217;s just going to fall apart.&#8221; But the reason he had support was a lack of information. Those investors, in many cases, now say, &#8220;I look back, and I think I should have had more concerns if I had known fully what the claims were and what the concerns were.&#8221;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Not all of them; opinions vary, and we quote a range of opinions, but there are significant ones who were acting on very partial info. The board that fired Sam was, in the words of one person who used to be on the board, “very JV,” and they fumbled the ball hard. And we document the underlying complaints, and people can decide for themselves whether it accumulates into the kind of urgent concern they felt it was, but that argument and that information were not being presented.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">They received what some of them now acknowledge as bad legal advice. To describe it, you&#8217;ll remember the quote, and probably a lot of your listeners and viewers will remember the quote as <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/17/23965982/openai-ceo-sam-altman-fired">a lack of candor</a>. That was what it was reduced to, and then they essentially wouldn&#8217;t take calls.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>They would not take calls. I&#8217;m sure you tried. Everyone I know tried, and it got to the point where, as a journalist, you&#8217;re not supposed to give your sources advice, but I was like, &#8220;This will go away if you don&#8217;t start explaining yourself.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And that&#8217;s what happened. Forget journalists. You had Satya Nadella saying, &#8220;What the hell happened? I can&#8217;t get anyone to explain to me.&#8221; And that&#8217;s the company&#8217;s major financial backer. And then you have Satya calling [LinkedIn co-founder] Reid Hoffman and Reid calling around and saying, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know what the fuck happened.&#8221;&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">They&#8217;re understandably in that void of information, looking for the traditional non-AI indicators that would justify such an urgent, sudden firing. Like, okay, was it sex crimes? Was it embezzlement? And the entire subtle, but I think meaningful, argument that this tech is different and that this kind of a steady accumulation of smaller betrayals could have meaningful stakes both for this business and maybe for the world, was largely lost. So capitalist incentives won out, but also the people who made it went out and were not always operating with complete information.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I want to just ask about the “what everyone thought it was&#8221; aspect for one moment, because I certainly saw the news, and I said, &#8220;Oh, something bad must have happened.&#8221; You&#8217;ve done a lot of #MeToo reporting, famously. You </strong><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories"><strong>broke the Harvey Weinstein story</strong></a><strong>.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You spent a lot of time reporting on these claims that I think you decided were ultimately unfounded: that Altman sexually assaulted minors or hired sex workers, or even murdered an OpenAI whistleblower. I mean, you are the person who can report this stuff the most rigorously. Did you decide that it came to nothing?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Well, look, I&#8217;m not in the business of saying something has come to nothing. What I can say is I spent months looking at these claims and did not find corroboration for them. And it was striking to me that these guys, these companies that have so much power over our futures, truly are spending a disproportionate amount of their time and resources <a href="https://www.theverge.com/column/863319/highlights-musk-v-altman-openai">in a childish mud fight</a>.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">One executive describes it as “Shakespearean.” The amount of private investigator money and the opposition dossiers being compiled is relentless. And the unfortunate thing is that the kind of salacious stuff, which gets parroted by Sam&#8217;s competitors, is just assumed fact, right? There&#8217;s this allegation that he pursues underage boys, and at many cocktail parties in Silicon Valley, you hear this. On the conference circuit, I&#8217;ve heard it just repeated by credible, prominent executives: “Everybody knows this is a fact.”</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The sad thing is that I talk about where this comes from, the various vectors by which it&#8217;s transmitted. Elon Musk and his associates are seemingly pushing really hardcore dossiers that kind of amount to nothing. They&#8217;re vaporous when you actually start to look at the underlying claims. The sad thing is that it really obscures the more evidence-based critiques here that I think really deserve urgent oversight and consideration.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The other theme that really comes through in the story is almost a sense of fear that Sam has so many friends — he&#8217;s invested in so many companies from his previous role as CEO of Y Combinator, just to his personal investing, some of which are in direct conflict with his role as CEO of OpenAI — and there&#8217;s silence around him.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>It struck me as I was reading one line in particular. You describe Ilya Sutskever&#8217;s memos, and they&#8217;re just out in Silicon Valley. Everyone calls them the Ilya memos. But there&#8217;s even silence around that. They&#8217;re passed around, but they&#8217;re not discussed. Where do you think that comes from? Is it fear? Is it a desire to get angel investment? Where does that come from?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think it&#8217;s a lot of cowardice, I&#8217;ll be honest. Having reported on national security stories where the sources are whistleblowers who stand to lose everything and face prosecution, they still do the right thing and talk about things to create accountability. I&#8217;ve worked on the sex crimes-related stories that you mentioned, where sources are deeply traumatized and fear a very personal kind of retribution.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">In many cases around this beat, you&#8217;re dealing with people with their own profile and power. They&#8217;re either famous people themselves or they&#8217;re surrounded by famous people. They have robust business lives. In my view, it is actually very low exposure for them to talk about this stuff. And thankfully, the needle is moving as we talked about earlier, and people are now talking more.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But for such a long time, people really just shut up about it because I think the Silicon Valley culture is just so ruthlessly self-interested and ruthlessly business and growth-oriented. So I think this afflicts even some of the people who were involved in firing Sam, where you saw in the days after, yes, one factor that led to him coming back and the firing of old board members was that he rallied investors who were confused to his cause.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But another is that so many other people around it who had the concerns and voiced them urgently just folded like napkins and changed their tune the moment they saw the wind was blowing the other way, and they wanted in on the profit train.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It&#8217;s pretty dark, honestly, from my standpoint as a reporter.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Some of those people are Mira Murati, who, I believe, for 20 minutes was the new CEO of OpenAI. She was then replaced. It was a very complicated dynamic, and obviously, Sam came back. The other person is Ilya Sutskever, who was one of the votes to remove Sam, and then he changed his mind, or at least said he changed his mind, and then </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/14/24156920/openai-chief-scientist-ilya-sutskever-leaves"><strong>he left to start his own company</strong></a><strong>. Do you know what made him change his mind? Was it just money?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Well, and to be clear, I&#8217;m not singling those two out. There are other board members who were involved in the firing who also fell very silent after. I think it&#8217;s like a wider collective problem. These are, in some cases, people who had the moral fiber to sound alarms and take radical action, and that is to be commended. And that&#8217;s how you assure accountability. That could have helped a lot of people who are affected by this technology. It could have helped an industry to remain more meaningfully safety-focused.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But dealing with whistleblowers and people who try to prompt that accountability a lot, you also see that it takes the fiber of sticking it out and standing by your convictions. And this industry is truly full of people who just do not stand by their convictions.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Even though they think that they&#8217;re building a digital God that will somehow either eliminate all labor or create more labor, or something will happen.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Well, that&#8217;s the thing. So the culture of not standing by your convictions and all ethical concerns falling by the wayside the moment there&#8217;s any heat or anything that could threaten your own standing in the business is maybe all well and good to some extent for business-as-usual companies that are making whatever kind of widget.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But these are also the same people who are saying, &#8220;This could literally kill us all.&#8221; And again, you don&#8217;t have to go to the <em>Terminator</em> Skynet extreme. There is a set of risks that are already materializing. It is real, and they are right to warn about that, but you&#8217;d have to have someone else armchair psychologize how those two things can live in the same people where they&#8217;re sounding the urgent warnings, they&#8217;re maybe putting a toe in and trying to do something, and then they&#8217;re just folding and falling silent.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">That is precisely why you can have these kinds of instances of things being kept out of writing and things being swept under the rug, and no one talking about it this openly for years after the fact.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The natural, responsible party here would not be the CEOs of these companies; it would be governments. In the United States, maybe it&#8217;s state governments, maybe it&#8217;s the federal government.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Certainly, these companies all want to be global. There are lots of global implications here. I watched OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic all </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/30/23914507/biden-ai-executive-order-regulation-standards"><strong>goad the Biden administration into releasing an AI executive order</strong></a><strong>. It was pretty toothless in the end. It just said they had to talk about what their models were capable of and release some safety testing. And then they all backed Trump, and Trump came in and </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/21/24348504/donald-trump-ai-safety-executive-order-rescind"><strong>wiped all that out</strong></a><strong> and said, &#8220;We have to be competitive. It&#8217;s a free-for-all. Go for it.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>At the same time, they&#8217;re all trying to raise funds from Middle Eastern countries that have lots of oil money and want to change their economies. Those are politicians. I feel like politicians should definitely understand someone is talking out of both sides of their mouth, and they&#8217;re not going to be too upset if someone&#8217;s disappointed in the end, but the politicians are getting taken for a ride, too. Why do you think that is?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">This is really, I think, why the piece matters in my view and why it was worth spending all this time and detail on. We are in an environment where the systems that, as you say, should be providing oversight are just hollowed out. That&#8217;s a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC">post-<em>Citizens United</em> America</a>, where the flow of money is so unfettered, and it&#8217;s a particular concentration of that problem around AI, where there are these PACs that are proliferating and flooding money into quashing meaningful regulation at both a state and a federal level.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You have [OpenAI co-founder] Greg Brockman, Sam&#8217;s second in command, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/867947/openai-president-greg-brockman-trump-super-pac">directly contributing</a> in a major way to a couple of those. It leads to a situation where there really is capture of legislators and potential regulators, and that is a hard spiral to get out of. The sad thing is, I think that there are simple policy moves, some of which are being trialed elsewhere in the world, that would help with some of these accountability problems.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You could have more mandatory pre-deployment safety testing, which is something that is already happening in Europe for frontier models. You could have more stringent written public record requirements for the kinds of internal investigations where we saw things being kept out of writing in this case. You could have a more robust set of national security review mechanisms for the kinds of Middle Eastern infrastructure ambitions that Sam Altman was pushing.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">As you say, he was doing this bait and switch with the Biden administration, saying, &#8220;Regulate us, regulate us,&#8221; and helping them craft an executive order, and then the moment Trump gets in, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2025/1/21/24348816/openai-softbank-ai-data-center-stargate-project">truly in the very first days</a>, just going no holds barred, “Let&#8217;s accelerate and let&#8217;s build a massive data center campus in Abu Dhabi.&#8221; You could have, this is a really simple one, like whistleblower protections. There is no federal statute protecting AI company employees who disclose these kinds of safety concerns that are being aired in this piece.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We have cases where Jan Leike, who was a senior safety guy at OpenAI, was leading super alignment at the company. He writes to the board, essentially whistleblower material, saying the company is going off the rails on its safety mission. Those are the kinds of people who should actually have an oversight body they can go to, and they should have explicit statutory protections of the kinds we see in other sectors. This is simple to replicate a Sarbanes-Oxley-style regime.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think that despite how acute the problem is of Silicon Valley assuming control of all of the levers of power, and despite how hollowed out some of these institutions that might provide oversight and guardrails are, I still do believe in the basic math of democracy and of self-interested politicians. And there is more and more polling data emerging that a majority of Americans think that the concerns, questions, or risks of AI currently outweigh the benefits.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So I think the flood of money into politics from AI, it&#8217;s within all of our power to make that a source of a question mark with respect to politicians. When Americans go to vote, they should be scrutinizing whether the people they vote for, especially if they are uncritical and anti-regulation, given all these concerns, are bankrolled by big tech special interests. So I think if people can read pieces like this, listen to podcasts like this, and care enough to think critically about their decisions as voters, there is a real opportunity to generate a constituency in Washington of representatives who keep an eye on and force oversight.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That might be one of the most optimistic things I&#8217;ve ever heard anyone say about the current AI industry. I appreciate it. I&#8217;m obsessed with the </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/891724/nbc-news-march-2026-poll-ai-ice"><strong>polling that you&#8217;re talking about</strong></a><strong>. There&#8217;s a lot of it now. It&#8217;s all pretty consistent, and it looks like the more young people, in particular, are exposed to AI, the </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/909687/gen-z-doesnt-like-ai-gallup"><strong>more distrustful and angry they are about it</strong></a><strong>. That&#8217;s the valence of all the polling. And I look at that, and I think, well, yeah, smart politicians would just run against that. They would just say, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to hold big tech accountable.&#8221;&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Then I think about the past 20 years, a politician saying they&#8217;re going to hold big tech accountable, and I&#8217;m struggling to find even one moment of big tech being held accountable. The only thing that makes me think this might be different is, well, you actually have to build the data centers, and you can vote against that, and you can petition against that, and you can protest against that.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I think there&#8217;s a politician who just had their house shot at </strong><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/indianapolis-data-center-city-councilor-home-shot-rcna267156"><strong>because they voted for a data center</strong></a><strong>. The tension is reaching, I would call it, a fever pitch. You&#8217;ve described the insularity of Silicon Valley. This is a closed ecosystem. It feels like they think they can run the world. They&#8217;re putting a ton of money into politics, and they&#8217;re running up against the reality that people don&#8217;t love the products, which doesn&#8217;t give them a lot of cover. The more they use the products, the more upset they are, and the politicians are beginning to see there are real consequences to supporting the tech industry over the people they represent.&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You&#8217;ve talked to so many people. Do you think it is possible for the tech industry to learn the lesson that is right in front of them?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You say it feels like they think they can run the world without accountability. I don&#8217;t even think that needs the “feels like” qualifier. I mean, you look at the language Peter Thiel is using, it&#8217;s explicit. Of course, that&#8217;s an extreme example. And Sam Altman, though he is close with and informed by Thiel&#8217;s ideology to some extent, is a very different kind of person who might sound different and more measured up to a point.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But I do think the wider ideology that you get from Thiel, which is basically: We&#8217;re done with democracy, we don&#8217;t need it anymore. We have so much that we just want to build our own little bunkers. We&#8217;re not dealing with the Carnegies anymore or the Rockefellers anymore, where they&#8217;re bad guys, but they feel they need to participate in a social contract and build things for people. There&#8217;s a real nihilism that&#8217;s set in.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And I do think it&#8217;s just been a mutually reinforcing spiral in recent American history of moguls and private companies acquiring super governmental power while democratic institutions that might hold them accountable are hollowed out. I do not feel optimistic about the idea that those guys might just wake up one day and think, &#8220;Huh, actually maybe we do need to participate in society and help build things for people.”</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I mean, you look at like the microcosmic example of The Giving Pledge, where there was a moment where it was seemly to be charitable, and that moment is now past and even ridiculed. That is a problem, the broader problem of lack of accountability that I think can only be solved extrinsically. That has to be voters mobilizing and resurrecting the power of government oversight. And you&#8217;re exactly right to say that the main vector through which people could maybe achieve that is local. It&#8217;s to do with where infrastructure is being built.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You mentioned some of the white-hot tension around this that&#8217;s leading to violence and threats, and obviously, nobody should be violent or threatening. And I&#8217;m also not here to make specific policy recommendations other than to just present some of the policy steps that seem basic and are working elsewhere in the world, right? Or those who have worked in other sectors. I&#8217;m not here to say which of those should be executed and how.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I do think something needs to happen, and it needs to be external, not just trusting these companies. Because right now we have a situation where the companies that are developing the tech and are equipped best to understand the risks, and in fact are the ones warning us of the risks, are also the ones with nothing but incentive to go fast and ignore those risks. And you just don&#8217;t have anything to counterbalance that. So whatever reforms might take in terms of specifics, something has to run up against that. And I do still return to that optimism that the people still matter.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I generally buy your argument. Let me just make the one tiny counterargument that I think I can articulate. The other thing that could happen outside of the ballot box is that the bubble pops, right? That not all these companies get to the finish line, and that there isn&#8217;t product market fit for consumer AI applications. And again, I don&#8217;t quite see it yet, but I&#8217;m a consumer tech reviewer, and maybe I just have higher standards than everybody else.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>There is product market fit in the business world, right? Having a bunch of AI agents write a bunch of software seems to be a real market for these tools. And you can read the arguments from these companies saying, &#8220;We&#8217;ve solved coding, and that means we can solve anything. If we can make software, we can solve any problems.&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I think there are real limits to the things software can do. That&#8217;s great in the business world. Software can&#8217;t solve every problem in reality, but they have to get there. They got to finish the job, and maybe not everybody makes it to the finish line. And there is a crash, and this bubble pops, and maybe OpenAI or Anthropic or xAI, one of these companies fails, and all this investment goes away.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Do you think that would affect this? Actually, let me ask the first question first. OpenAI is right on the cusp of an IPO. There are a lot of doubts about Sam as a leader. Do you think they&#8217;re going to make it to the finish line?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;m not going to prognosticate, but I think you raise an important point, which is that market incentives do matter internally to Silicon Valley, and the precarity of the current bubble dynamics does stand to interrupt the, again, potentially, according to critics, race to the bottom on safety.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I would also add to that, if you look at historical precedence where there&#8217;s a similarly and seemingly impenetrable set of market incentives and potentially deleterious effects for the public, there&#8217;s impact litigation. And you see that as an area of concern lately. Sam Altman is out there this week <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/openai-backs-bill-exempt-ai-firms-model-harm-lawsuits/">endorsing legislation that would shield AI companies</a> from some of the types of liability that OpenAI has been exposed to in wrongful death suits, for instance. Of course, there&#8217;s a desire to have that shield from liability.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think that the courts can still be a meaningful mechanism, and it&#8217;ll be really interesting to see how these suits shape up. You already saw, for instance, the class-action suit, of which I and many, many other authors I know are members, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/news/775230/anthropic-piracy-class-action-lawsuit-settlement-rejected">against Anthropic for their use of books that were under copyright</a>. If there are smart legal minds and plaintiffs who care, as we’ve historically seen in cases from big tobacco to big energy, you can also get some guardrails and some incentives to slow down, be careful, or protect people that way.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>It does feel like the entire cost structure of the AI industry hangs on a very, very charitable interpretation of fair use. Doesn&#8217;t come up enough. The cost structure of these companies could spiral out of control if they have to pay you and everyone else whose work they&#8217;ve taken, but it&#8217;s inconvenient to think about, so we just don&#8217;t think about it. Right next to that, all of these products are now running at a loss. Like today, they&#8217;re all running at a loss. They&#8217;re burning more money than they can make. At some point, they have to flip the switch.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Sam is a businessman. As you&#8217;ve mentioned several times, he&#8217;s not a technologist. He&#8217;s a business person. Do you think he&#8217;s ready to flip the switch and say, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to make a dollar?&#8221; Because when I ask, “Do you think OpenAI is going to make it?” It’s when they’ve got to make a dollar. And so far, Sam has made all of his dollars by asking other people for their money instead of having his companies make money.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Well, that&#8217;s a big lingering question for Silicon Valley, for investors, for the public. You see some statements and moves out of OpenAI that seem to evince a kind of panic about that. Shutting down Sora, shutting down some ancillary projects, trying to zero in on the core product. But then on the other hand, you still see, at the same time, tons of mission creep, right? Even a small example — it&#8217;s obviously not core to their business — is the<a href="http://evince"> TBPN acquisition</a>.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">By the way, right as we were reaching the finish line and fact-checking, the company facing this kind of journalistic scrutiny acquires a platform where they can have more direct control over the conversation. I think that there are a lot of investors who are concerned, based on the conversations I&#8217;ve had, that this problem of promising all things to all people also extends to this lack of focus in the core business model. And I mean, you&#8217;re closer to the kind of prognosticating and watching the market than I am probably. I&#8217;ll leave you and the listeners to be the judge of whether they think OpenAI can flip the switch.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Well, I asked the question because you&#8217;ve got a quote in the piece from a senior Microsoft executive, and it is that, &#8220;Sam&#8217;s legacy might end up more similar to Bernie Madoff or Sam Bankman-Fried,” rather than Steve Jobs. That is quite a comparison. What&#8217;d you make of that comparison?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think that’s a paraphrase. The Steve Jobs part wasn’t part of the quote. But there&#8217;s an interesting sort of sobriety to it because it&#8217;s phrased as like, “I think there&#8217;s a small but real chance that he winds up being an SBF or a Madoff-level scammer.” Meaning, to my mind, not that Sam is being accused of those specific types of fraud or crimes, but that the degree of dissembling and deception from Sam may have a chance of ultimately being remembered at that scale.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, I think what&#8217;s most striking about that quote, honestly, is that you call around at Microsoft and you don&#8217;t get a like, &#8220;That&#8217;s crazy. We&#8217;ve never heard that.&#8221; You get a lot of like, &#8220;Yep, a lot of people here think that” which is remarkable. And I think it does go to these nuts and bolts business questions.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">One investor told me, for instance, in light of the way in which this trait has persisted in the years after the firing” — and this also thought this was an interesting sober thought — that it&#8217;s not necessarily that Sam should be at the absolute bottom of the list, like should be the lowest of the low in terms of the people that absolutely must not build this technology, for what it&#8217;s worth. There are several people who said Elon Musk is that person. But that this trait puts him maybe at the bottom of the list of people who should build AGI, and beneath several other leading figures in this field.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So I thought that was an interesting appraisal, and that&#8217;s the kind of thinking I think that you get from the real pragmatists who maybe aren&#8217;t buying into the safety concerns as much. They&#8217;re just growth-oriented, and they think that OpenAI now has a problem with Sam Altman.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The Microsoft piece is really interesting. That company thought they were on top of the world. That they had made this investment and they were going to leapfrog everyone, especially and most importantly, Google, and get back into the good graces of consumers. The level to which they feel burned by this adventure — this is a very soberly run company — I don&#8217;t think can be overstated.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You mentioned the characters and the personality traits. I want to end here with a question from our listeners. I said on our other show, </strong><strong><em>The Vergecast</em></strong><strong>, that I was going to be talking to you, and I said, &#8220;If you have questions for Ronan about this story, let me know.&#8221; So we have one here that I think ties in neatly with what you&#8217;re describing. I&#8217;m just going to read it to you:</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>&#8220;How do the justifications for bad behavior, cutthroat actions of Altman and other AI leaders, differ from the justifications Ronan has heard from other high-profile leaders in politics and media? Don&#8217;t they all justify their actions by saying this is how the world gets changed? If I don&#8217;t do this, someone else will?&#8221;</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, there&#8217;s a lot of that going around. I would say what is distinctive to AI is that the existential stakes being so uniquely high means both the statements of risk are extreme, right? You have Sam Altman saying, &#8220;This could be lights out for all of us.&#8221; And also, critics might say, the mania that the questioner is referring to is extreme, right?&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The thing that Sam accused Elon of, on the record, was that maybe he wants to save humanity, but only if it&#8217;s him. The kind of ego component of wanting to win, which is a framing Sam uses all the time, and that this is one for the history books, this could change everything. So therefore, even above and beyond the &#8220;you&#8217;ve got to break a few eggs&#8221; mindset of most Silicon Valley enterprises, there is, in the minds of some figures leading AI, I think, a complete rationalization for any and all fallout.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And forget breaking eggs. I/ think a lot of the underlying safety researchers would say potentially risking breaking the country, breaking the world, and breaking millions of people whose jobs and safety hang in the balance — that&#8217;s what&#8217;s unique about it. That&#8217;s where I close, reflecting on this body of reporting, really believing this is about more than Sam Altman. This is about an industry that is unconstrained and a spiraling problem of America being unable to constrain it.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Yeah. Well, we had some optimism there, but I think that&#8217;s a good place to leave it.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">[Laughs] End on a downbeat.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Of course. That&#8217;s every great story, really. The Musk-Altman trial is upcoming. I think we&#8217;re going to learn a lot more here. I suspect I will want to talk to you again. Ronan Farrow, thank you so much for being on </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Thank you.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><em><sub>Questions or comments about this episode? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>David Pierce</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Ben McKenzie vs. crypto]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/911605/ben-mckenzie-crypto-cgm-wearables-vergecast" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=911605</id>
			<updated>2026-04-17T09:08:23-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-14T09:34:32-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Crypto" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Gadgets" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Vergecast" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Wearable" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[A few years ago, during the absolute peak of the cryptocurrency craze, a somewhat surprising skeptic emerged. Most people know Ben McKenzie from his acting work on Southland or Gotham, or would recognize him instantly as Ryan Atwood from The O.C. While seemingly everyone else was buying Bitcoin, McKenzie decided to figure out what Bitcoin [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: Alex Parkin / The Verge" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/VRG_VST_0414_Site.png?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-text-align-none">A few years ago, during the absolute peak of the cryptocurrency craze, a somewhat surprising skeptic emerged. Most people know Ben McKenzie from his acting work on <em>Southland </em>or <em>Gotham, </em>or would recognize him instantly as Ryan Atwood from <em>The O.C. </em>While seemingly everyone else was buying Bitcoin, McKenzie decided to figure out what Bitcoin was actually all about. And, of course, he decided to film it.</p>
<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/11/Vergecast-Tile-Large.jpeg?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="has-text-align-none"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don't forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Vergecast</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="has-text-align-none">On <a href="https://pod.link/vergecast">this episode of <em>The Vergecast</em></a>, McKenzie takes us into his many adventures i …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/911605/ben-mckenzie-crypto-cgm-wearables-vergecast">Read the full story at The Verge.</a></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>Nilay Patel</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Can Puck reinvent the news business for the influencer age?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/910443/can-puck-reinvent-the-news-business-for-the-influencer-age" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=910443</id>
			<updated>2026-04-15T15:18:55-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-13T10:00:00-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Creators" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Decoder" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Today, I’m talking with Sarah Personette, CEO of Puck, which is a fancy new media company that’s been around for just about five years now. Puck hires big stars and gives them newsletters that are all mostly part of a subscription bundle. These newsletters are often must-reads in their categories — everyone in Hollywood reads [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A stylized portrait of Puck CEO Sarah Personette" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: The Verge / Photo: Puck" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/DCD_Personette_Puck.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-drop-cap has-text-align-none">Today, I’m talking with Sarah Personette, CEO of Puck, which is a fancy new media company that’s been around for just about five years now.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Puck hires big stars and gives them newsletters that are all mostly part of a subscription bundle. These newsletters are often must-reads in their categories — everyone in Hollywood reads Puck’s Matt Belloni, for instance. Those reporters then get equity in Puck and a share of the company’s revenue.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The idea is to combine the financial incentives of the influencer economy with the rigor of old-school journalism — you’ll hear Sarah say journalists were the original influencers, which is Puck’s catchphrase. <em>Decoder </em>listeners know that I have a lot of questions about that, and how it all fits into the modern media landscape.&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&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" alt="" title="" data-has-syndication-rights="1" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="" />


<p><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="has-text-align-none">The creator and influencer economy works very differently than journalism does. If you take a high-level look at the business of most creators, they all kind of look like little ad agencies, doing brand deals and negotiating rates in a way that has always felt incompatible with journalism, at least to me. I don’t begrudge anyone this reality; that’s where the money is, especially since the big platforms that distribute content tend to pay very little for it, if they pay anything at all. And since the biggest audiences are on the platforms, finding a way to bridge the gap is basically <em>the</em> challenge in media — how do you find new readers who are willing to pay without accidentally giving your work away for free on platforms that don’t seem to value it very much?</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I’ve had versions of this conversation with a lot of media people over the years: everyone from the CEO of <em>The New York Times</em> and the publisher of <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> to streaming service executives, digital media folks, and, of course, a bunch of creators. Usually these conversations are pretty loose and pretty fun, because, well, I’m also in the media, and we all have this same basic problem. I was hoping to get a fresh view from Sarah, because before she became CEO of Puck, she spent a long time working first for Facebook and then for Twitter.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So I really wanted to get into all that with Sarah, and I asked her a lot of questions about it. I have to admit, though: I’m not sure I got the answers I was looking for.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Have a listen, and let us know what you think. We really do read all the emails.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Okay: Puck CEO Sarah Personette. Here we go.</p>

<iframe loading="lazy" frameborder="0" height="200" src="https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=VMP6369079890" width="100%"></iframe>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><em>This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.</em></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Sarah Personette, you&#8217;re the CEO of Puck. Welcome to </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Thank you, Nilay. What a pleasure to be here.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m really excited to talk to you. I have a million thoughts about the creator economy and journalism and the information ecosystem. You&#8217;re a fascinating person to talk to about all that, because you worked at the big platforms — Twitter and Facebook — and now you&#8217;re at Puck, which is a media company that has an interesting perspective on being integrated with the creator and influencer world.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I just want to start at the start. You&#8217;ve been the CEO at Puck for a little over two years now?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Correct. About two and a half.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Before that, again, you were at Facebook and Twitter during some periods of pretty rapid change there. You spent a minute at Refinery 29. Quickly describe your experiences at the platform companies.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Very different actually. When I first started at Facebook, that was back in around 2009, 2010. And so the company was around 1,000 people. And even though that sounds like a large company, it actually was more of a startup and operated with a startup mentality. You used to hear Mark Zuckerberg say a lot, &#8220;Move fast and break things.&#8221; Then fast-forward three or four years post-IPO, it was, “Move fast and build good infrastructure.” Just even in that small amount of time, seeing the maturation of the company, the growth of the company, it moved from being a singular big blue app to also being a family of apps and services. We had acquired Instagram, and we had to integrate that appropriately. We spun out Messenger into a singular application. We acquired WhatsApp. We acquired Atlas and used that as our measurement tool and foundation.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And then with that, you also had this massive technological shift, which is really applicable, I think, to the rise of the creator economy and the impact on publishers and media companies that I know we&#8217;ll get into. But during the time that I was at Facebook, which was over about an eight-year period, we also had the shift from desktop to mobile. That was a really profound technological change that had an impact, certainly on employees and the way that the company was run, and it also had a significant impact on the way that businesses operated, the way that they became mobile-first, the way that they interacted and communicated with consumers in a totally new and direct-to-consumer way. That was my Facebook experience.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">At Twitter, I was the chief customer officer for about five years through to the sale of the company to the current ownership. That was really interesting because of the pattern recognition of having gone through so many different stages of growth [at Facebook] — To zoom out for a second, when you think about organizational change and organizational change theory, there&#8217;s a belief that systems, structures, and processes break in threes and 10s. When a company grows from three people to 10 people, 10 people to 30 people, 30 people to 100 people, et cetera, those systems, tools, and structures essentially need to be rewritten.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Within the Twitter sphere, I came in where we had the opportunity to rewrite a lot of those systems and structures and really rebuild the ad tech stack. We had the opportunity to really think holistically about how we were serving the public conversation in each and every engagement. We also were able to really think through how we serve and deliver value for our advertisers when they&#8217;re trying to launch a brand or connect with what&#8217;s happening in the world. That shift was really powerful because the evolution and the stages in gating that I experienced in the Facebook world were some of the things and the best practices I was able to bring to my Twitter experience, which was just truly one of the greatest honors of my life, to be able to be a leader in that company during that time.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You mentioned Twitter&#8217;s current ownership. Obviously it&#8217;s X now. It&#8217;s owned by Elon Musk. You left when Elon bought it. What was that like?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Excellent question. I can&#8217;t really speak about the current state of the company for several reasons, but what I can share with you is that during that acquisition, which was obviously a very public acquisition, I talk about it being one of the greatest honors of my life and truly it was. I think in so many ways we live in a very volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world, and that acronym is not by mistake. VUCA is a type of leadership structure that I&#8217;ve used in almost the entirety of my career to help lead teams.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">During that time [at Twitter], my team was around 2,000 people around the world. I was able to communicate with them about what was happening, why it was happening, how we helped customers understand the value of the acquisition and the reason to stay on the platform. Being able to navigate those types of changes is something that makes every single individual a much better leader. And as those folks have both stayed at the company and as clients have continued to stay on with the company, as well as those folks that have moved on to other roles inside of the industry, I know that they look at that time and they look at the way that I try to communicate with real deep transparency and empathy and surround things around evidence-based decisioning that has stayed with them and made them stronger leaders over the course of time. It was a powerful part of my career.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Wait, can you say what that acronym is again?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It&#8217;s called <a href="https://www.pmi.org/disciplined-agile/vuca-volatility-uncertainty-complexity-and-ambiguity">VUCA, V-U-C-A</a>. The origins of VUCA actually come from the <a href="https://usawc.libanswers.com/ahec/faq/84869">National War College</a> following the Cold War. There was a realization that there&#8217;s no longer this stability in a bipolar world. When you were thinking about how to structure for a new system of enemy, if you will, you needed to be more planful and more capable of navigating within a highly volatile, again, very complex, ambiguous world.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;ve taken that philosophy and applied that at significant moments in time in my career with my teams, because if you&#8217;re operating in a VUCA world and you&#8217;re leading in a VUCA world, you&#8217;re always really mindful of establishing a plan, communicating clearly with each other, developing trust inside of your organization so that when things like Cambridge Analytica occur or things like a public acquisition occur, that you&#8217;re ready for it. Those things can be large and globally proliferated [or] really small because in so many ways, work and business is the most personal thing and how we manage ourselves is a big part of how we also collectively manage a team.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I do like the idea that your approach to the Twitter acquisition by Elon Musk was to compare it to Cold War, bipolar power dynamics.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Not at all a comparison. I have been using VUCA well before. I actually was introduced to the concept by the CEO of Build-A-Bear, Sharon John. She&#8217;s an exceptional human and an exceptional leader. She was introduced to it at some conference and I used to sit on her board and she brought that back to a meeting and I was like, &#8220;This is something that really certainly has had staying power for me.&#8221;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Okay, now I&#8217;m just dying to know why the Build-A-Bear CEO thinks that she needs Cold War-era political philosophy, but we will do that episode. The producers will book that another time.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You should book her as a guest. She is phenomenal.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You mentioned the idea that some customers stayed on. I&#8217;m curious about this. Your roles have been more advertising focused, I would say broadly. Making people spend money on the platforms. Elon&#8217;s approach to advertisers who had concerns about that platform after he bought it was to sue them, and to threaten them, and to tear down their brand safety initiatives. That&#8217;s all stuff that, in the administration that you were a part of, Twitter actually built up, and that Facebook at some point was a big part of. The idea that “We&#8217;re going to have a wide open spread of content from our users, we will build the tools to make sure you&#8217;re in the right places at the right time, you&#8217;re not next to the bad stuff. We&#8217;ll have content moderation to make sure that people don&#8217;t see the bad stuff at high rates.”</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s all basically been torn down, particularly on X, but even maybe on Facebook. How do you see that world playing out? Because the idea of a company like Puck or any other premium media organization, the pitch to advertisers is like, &#8220;We&#8217;re special. And X and Facebook are bad. It&#8217;s, very bluntly, noise and full of garbage and they&#8217;re tearing down the things that make your brand special. You should come over here where you have a smaller audience that cares for the kind of premium journalism we make.” But you built all that up and now it&#8217;s being torn down and now you&#8217;re at Puck trying to make that sale. How do you feel about all that stuff being torn down?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I can&#8217;t comment on the current state of the company, but what I would love to zoom out and talk about is some of the technological shifts that impacted and have impacted where we are today as a talent-led journalism organization. I&#8217;ll start you with these five numbers: 38, 14, seven, four, and months. 38 is the number of years that it took radio to hit 100 million listeners. 14 is the number of years it took TV to hit 100 million viewers. Seven is 100 million for the desktop internet. Four is the migration of 100 million to mobile, and then months is the adoption of AI by 100 million people. The reason why I bring that up and why I think those numbers matter and the progression of how they get incrementally and deeply smaller is that we have lived through in our lifetime, and certainly in our careers, some of the fastest technological shifts that have ever occurred.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Now, you might be like, &#8220;That&#8217;s great. And yes, the different platforms go through that, but why does it matter for news and media?&#8221; If you go back to the 1970s, which was the industrial media model, you had a really interesting, very neat landscape. You had 90% of viewership for news concentrated in ABC, CBS, and NBC. You had local newspapers thriving, like absolutely thriving from a circulation perspective, and it was actually a good business model to be in. And you had trust at an all time high. Trust was at 72% when Gallup was doing the research at the time. That&#8217;s particularly interesting because distribution was really scarce. It was quite controlled, but you also had a lot of these very clear shared experiences between people. When I walked through those changes and those shifts from a technological perspective, the first thing that happened was really the rise of the internet.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The internet and digital disruption didn&#8217;t just dismantle journalism. It actually rebuilt and reshaped journalism layer by layer. That&#8217;s only the first shift because that&#8217;s where new voices emerged, that&#8217;s where local stories traveled faster. I&#8217;m not sure if you&#8217;re familiar with the Panama Papers, but that was like a great example of the internet and journalism at its best. You had reporters from multiple different countries coming together to report on corruption. But at the same time, you had some challenges. You had the systems starting to break. That very capital-intensive world now no longer was capital-intensive. With a keyboard and with access to wifi, you could be a journalist and that was awesome, but you also had scarcity disappear, you had attention fragment, you had the gatekeepers, the editors of the world move from being capable of editing to editing being dominated by algorithms.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Just quick numbers. During a 15-year period, 2,500 local newspapers closed and 36,000 newsroom jobs disappeared. That rebuilding was just starting to get under control and then mobile disruption occurred and now all of a sudden information is in our pockets and there&#8217;s so much power in that. But what also comes with that is that now news and media, which used to be invited into our homes for the 10 o&#8217;clock or 11 o&#8217;clock news became a little bit more disruptive and interruptive. The rise of AI has experienced the steepest acceleration curve out of any technological shift and presents many powerful and very positive aspects of what it can do for workflow, what it can do for operational excellence. There are many positives, but at the same time, there was another challenge in that if anything, any object, any article can be created by something that is artificial, then who can we trust?</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">In 2023, Gallup did another poll, and trust had declined from that 72% in the 1970s to 32%. It’s seemingly obvious that the answer to “Who can we trust?” is “People.” That is why for Puck, being a talent-led organization, Jon Kelly, the founder of our company, had this thesis years ago. I don&#8217;t know if he went through the technological shifts that my mind goes through, but he knew that journalists were the original influencers and he knew that in order to reclaim trust for the reader, it required putting talent at the center for so many different reasons. But in particular, I think that reclaiming of trust was really, really important.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">This is why Puck&#8217;s talent-first model is so influential, why we actually see others trying to copy it, because when you hear from Matt Belloni, you know that he has deep-seated relationships in Hollywood and in entertainment. You know he is extremely well-sourced. You also know that because we have a primary distribution model of newsletters, you can respond to his email and he&#8217;s going to respond back to you.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Wait, is he? Is he going to respond?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, he does.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>He responds to every single email?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I can&#8217;t speak for him. I don&#8217;t have access to his inbox, but he prides himself on both listening to all of his readership as well as responding to his leadership. And it&#8217;s not just Matt. Within the Puck ecosystem, we have eight different franchises that serve the professional elite. We have the entertainment franchise under Matt Belloni. We have Lauren Sherman, who leads our fashion content and our fashion franchise, and Marion Maneker, who leads our art content. We have Bill Cohan, who leads all of our finance content. Ian Krietzberg, who we just brought on last year for the introduction of our AI and technology franchise, is exceptional. All of these individuals are people who have points of view and relationships and sourcing capabilities that put the personality and the person at the center so that our subscribers, that direct reader relationship can really thrive in a high-trust community.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And that&#8217;s I think the story of how we got to a talent-led business and a talent-led business model where journalists are at the center and equity incentives are aligned. Each of our journalists have ownership inside of the company, which is not anything that used to exist in legacy media before. That is a really, really powerful sentiment and a really powerful point in where, to the top of the question, all of these technology shifts have really driven us today and why I wanted to be CEO of this company. Because you don&#8217;t have a lot of CEOs in media companies that come from technology companies, but the pattern recognition that comes in that scale and the influence of what we tried to do inside of those companies matters so much today in what we&#8217;re designing.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You&#8217;ve kind of gotten to my structure question. I ask everybody on </strong><strong><em>Decoder </em></strong><strong>to describe the structure of the company. It seems like you&#8217;ve got Jon Kelly, he&#8217;s the editor-in-chief, and so he operates deputy editors, it sounds like, in a bunch of verticals. And do they have reporters?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;ll zoom out. Jon Kelly is both editor-in-chief as well as the founder of the company. He is really just one of the smartest individuals that I&#8217;ve ever worked with and I say that having worked with Jack Dorsey and Sheryl [Sandberg], and so many others. He&#8217;s really exceptional. He oversees the entirety of our content organization. That&#8217;s inclusive of Puck as a media brand and that&#8217;s inclusive of Air Mail as a media brand.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s with the acquisition?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah, we <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/puck-acquires-air-mail-graydon-carter-steps-down/">acquired Air Mail</a> back at the end of October, so I know you&#8217;ll have questions around that. But Air Mail is run by Editor-In-Chief Julia Vitale, who grew up underneath Graydon [Carter]. She is absolutely exceptional and she&#8217;s come over to lead that team.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>One of the things that&#8217;s really interesting here is we have a young audience, a big audience. I&#8217;m not sure that they know what Puck is or what that history is, and I think this is one of the bigger questions I have for you as a whole.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>This is a pretty storied legacy that you&#8217;re trading on. Buying Air Mail is a big deal that I do want to talk about because it was Graydon Carter’s venture after Vanity Fair. I&#8217;ve read his memoir, it was very fun. But I know my audience doesn&#8217;t know any of these things.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Actually, the dynamic between “Do I follow Matt Belloni,” or “Do I care about Puck as an institution?” is one of the most challenging dynamics in all of media. I will tell you, I actually disagree with a few things you&#8217;ve said already. One, I think it&#8217;s the platforms that have torn down the institutions. I don&#8217;t think that they are a good partner for any media brand. And I think the idea that journalists and influencers are the same or should be the same is actually quite dangerous.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Interesting.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I would pull those ideas as far apart as I can because I think journalism is a process, it&#8217;s a way of working.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Being an influencer is a way of making money. Those things are not aligned. And I&#8217;m very curious how you can pull all these ideas together and try to have the cost structure of the old way, the prestige of the old way, the Graydon Carter way, with the economics that are pulling everyone towards integrated brand deals and influencer world. Because it doesn&#8217;t matter if the journalists are influencers if they&#8217;re not doing the direct brand integrations the influencers are actually doing to support that level of work.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">While I appreciate your disagreement and it makes for a very good podcast, I would disagree with your disagreement.&nbsp;</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The thing that I would say is challenged in legacy media. You can&#8217;t really say that legacy media had it figured out because, as you look around, we&#8217;ve seen just constant layoffs happening inside of the industry for the last five to ten years. Dylan Byers, who runs our media content, has written about it.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">One of the challenges with that is that the majority of layoffs were not coming from the sales teams or from the operations side. The people that were being laid off were the people that made the product, the people that influenced society. The people that helped to create a world that ideally would define what trust looked like in journalism. That was the journalist. For me, on the technology side, when I think of heroes inside of the organization, it&#8217;s usually the product and engineering folks. But for whatever reason, the way that media grew up, it wasn&#8217;t the people that were making the product, it wasn&#8217;t the journalists. It was actually those were the people that were ultimately being let go.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Right, but the reason they were being let go is because they cost money and there was no money associated with their product because their distribution was torn down by platforms.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>My biggest problem in my cost structure — and my reporters know, I say this to them all the time — is that I pay them money and then they tweet for free. This is the dynamic in every newsroom in the world is that we give our work to other people&#8217;s distribution for free all the time. And I know that you have a subscription model and that&#8217;s different, but that is specifically the dynamic that has led to the hollowing out of newsrooms, that we don&#8217;t control our distribution.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Can we put the platform piece to the side for one second and just finish up the influencer?</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>We can try. I&#8217;m really not sure how.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">No, I will address that, but I don&#8217;t think those two things are connected. And the reason for that is we do have a subscriber-based model. Our subscription revenue grew over 50% last year and that is really critical. We do control our distribution and our journalists are not a cost center. The way that we look at each franchise is thinking through the economics of each of those franchises and we do a biannual business review with each of those reporters who anchor each of our franchises.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">So the operating leverage that we bring into this system still allows for the job to be done. The job to be done is not… I wouldn&#8217;t define influencers and creators only as those that do integrated brand partnerships.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>But that&#8217;s how they all make their money.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">That might be how they make their money, but Matt Belloni is very influential in the world of Hollywood because he&#8217;s reporting on it, and that influence matters. But so does the relationship that he has. This is why I started out by saying he goes so deep into his sourcing and this is not… Matt&#8217;s an illustration of all of our journalists. But when you are in that industry, you know you have to read him because he is reporting on the inside story. He&#8217;s giving you access to information that you would not normally have access to and he does that with a high margin business. So yes, our revenue model is two-fold. We have a subscriber revenue model and we have a commercial revenue model, an advertising model.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Those things that you&#8217;re describing, that you can&#8217;t have a profitable business that is talent-led and journalist-led, I would disagree with. I think that is absolutely possible and that is the reason why each of our journalists have equity and ownership in the company, because we want them to be incentivized to make hard decisions around cost. We are very diligent in those things. We also have the luxury of being 4.5 years old and not having been built for the last 20 years.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I consistently say that it is a real honor to be able to lead this company and to lead it through significant advancements in growth from a revenue perspective, from a content perspective, from a talent perspective and also from a subscriber growth perspective. We just hit over 100,000 paying subscribers, we have upwards of a million folks overall that are reading the publication and that&#8217;s significant.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">To get to your platform piece—</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Actually, can I just ask you? The last public number from 2025 was 45,000. So the 55,000 is from the Air Mail acquisition?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It is the last public number we announced with Brian Morrissey and the rebooting, I announced that we had hit 100,000. We don&#8217;t actually break out the difference between them. That 45,000 was a 2024 number. With the acquisition of Air Mail, we will exceed 100,000.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Okay. So you can just back into it. You had one public number, you made an acquisition, you had a big jump to another public number. Does Air Mail have the same structure? Do they have equity, do they have a revenue share?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yeah. So right now with the acquisition, we&#8217;re working through all of the employee-based comp for equity and ownership. It&#8217;s all one collective company and all one same compensation structure.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Air Mail was a brand, Graydon Carter is a brand person, Vanity Fair is a brand. You were not really supposed to know who Graydon Carter was unless you were the sort of person who needed to know who Graydon Carter was and then he was very important. Air Mail was built on that model. How many people worked at Air Mail?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We have 45 to 50 people from Air Mail and 45 to 50 people from Puck. We&#8217;re about 50-50 in terms of talent overall. Although just for your listener base, as you do an acquisition, one thing that you think about is the post-merger integration and how you bring two companies together, how you think about centers of excellence where you might have four finance people on one side and you have four finance people on the other side. We did a lot of that synergy work.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Usually when people say synergy work, they mean layoffs. Did you lay people off?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We laid off a few people from the Air Mail side and a few people from the Puck side. Yes, absolutely, we did. We were thoughtful and really careful. We communicated that within the first 24 hours of the acquisition and reviewed where we felt like we had too many people within one team and then where we would port folks over from either side of the business.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>And then the total split between the talent who is supposed to go out and be the face of the company and make all the money and the management is what now?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Management, we have nine people on our leadership team and then we have, across our journalist and editorial teams, probably 40. And then maybe, yeah, 40 to 50. And then the rest are in sales, marketing, our technology team. We have a very small strategy and ops team.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>One of the reasons I&#8217;m asking this is I have friends who&#8217;ve left big media jobs to go to Substack or Ghost, or whatever. And then I have friends who have left Substack to go to another email provider because they think Substack&#8217;s 10% revenue cut is too much. They&#8217;re not getting the value out of Substack. You&#8217;re taking more than 10%. Just describing that overhead for an individual journalist, that&#8217;s a lot to pay into to support a sales team or whatever else you might have, compared to the revenue you might get back. How do you justify the split you&#8217;re taking from the individual reporters?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">From a compensation perspective and we do, on an annual basis, we look our comps on compensation relative to the industry, and our journalists and editors—</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Wait. “The industry” is the media industry, or the Substack industry, or the Instagram influencer industry…?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The media industry. And our comps are at or very much above the current comps. And then also, our journalists, but all of our employees, have equity and ownership in the company. I feel very confident that the way we pay our people is very much aligned and incentivized with the holistic company.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think on the Substack side—</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Wait, can I just ask about that equity? Are you paying dividends on that equity? Or is that just paper money?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">No, we are not because we&#8217;re not a public company right now.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Sure. I&#8217;m asking what the equity is worth. I am the person who owns a bunch of paper equity in a media company, it&#8217;s great. Sometimes I think about it, it doesn&#8217;t pay the bills. Does it pay the bills for your people?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Well, I appreciate that. Not at the current moment, but the value and especially with the recent acquisition, as well as what everything was built on prior to that, has made the value of the equity significantly higher. And as someone who was also at another company pre-IPO, I believe in ownership as a component part of a compensation structure.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">For your listeners, I would also encourage them to really consider that as well. There is a ton of value to think about your TTC, your total compensation package. So really, while I appreciate your point, I just want to make sure you&#8217;re guiding your young listeners to be thoughtful.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Well, sure. If you&#8217;re going to equity and it&#8217;s going to pay off a huge number, you need an exit event. What&#8217;s your exit event look like?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">That&#8217;s a really good question. Right now, we are completely focused on continuing to grow the successful company that we&#8217;ve built thus far. I feel really good about that. So no exit strategy at the current—</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Right. So I just want to stay focused on this for one second. We are saying, &#8220;We&#8217;re doing better than the media industry,&#8221; which is dying and pays at low rates. We&#8217;re not maybe doing as well as the influencer industry and the Substack industry which, if you&#8217;re a winner at the level that you might need people to be a winner at, pays at extraordinarily high rates. And you&#8217;re making up the gap with equity that is not liquid and there is no stated plan to be liquid. So should your employees expect an exit to pay that off?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Let me just clarify because that is not what I said. I said that the base compensation is at or above the industry level.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The media industry.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The media industry, correct.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>People leave the media industry because they can get more money on Substack, that&#8217;s what I&#8217;m asking.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">That&#8217;s very interesting because two of our acquihires prior to came from Substack and that&#8217;s because they don&#8217;t feel like they&#8217;re capable of monetizing the platform as well. It&#8217;s also because the world of Substack — I actually think Substack&#8217;s a very interesting platform; I don&#8217;t have a ton of internal knowledge about the company. What they&#8217;re trying to do in terms of democratization is really interesting. But what we&#8217;ve found is that Substack tends to be a platform of solo operators and many journalists are actually looking to be able to be independent and really be free to express the stories that they want to express. But also, to have infrastructure around them where they do have a sales team, they do have a growth marketing team and that&#8217;s the part that we&#8217;ve built out.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">A lot of the calculations that you just went through are incorrect. And another example of that is each of our authors get bonused based on the subscribers that they acquire and that they retain. They are incentivized to continue to grow. We&#8217;re incentivized as a company to help them grow. And that comes back to them. So your total compensation package, I think you oriented a little bit too much around equity, but again, the purpose of ownership is that everyone should feel like they have a voice in the company. And that&#8217;s a big part of what we&#8217;re trying to create. But I think that the challenges that you&#8217;re painting relative to the broader industry are very real and I can appreciate that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m just trying to understand what the value of being a part of the organization is. Matt Belloni — we&#8217;ve talked about him several times here. Hi, Matt. We&#8217;re big fans over here — he was </strong><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/16/business/matthew-belloni-puck-hollywood.html"><strong>profiled in the New York Times</strong></a><strong> in November. And this is a quote. He said, &#8220;It&#8217;s safe to say I could make a lot more money if I were independent, at least in the short term, but I don&#8217;t know. Do I want to be on Substack?&#8221; That&#8217;s some ambiguity, right? The thing that you could do on that platform — and I have a lot of problems with that platform as listeners of this show know very well — but the thing you can do on that platform is collect a lot more revenue without the overhead.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>All of my friends who go there say, &#8220;I don&#8217;t need all this stuff. I have fans on social media and I can convert them to get paid over here and I will make all the money for myself.&#8221; So I&#8217;m trying to really just nail down what&#8217;s the value of being part of the greater organization and paying a higher cut even than you would pay to Substack for their marketing. Is it your sales team? Is it the growth marketing team? Is it product? How does that work?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think it&#8217;s the collective whole. And again, I don&#8217;t agree with your calculations, but that&#8217;s okay.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m sorry, what calculations have I made that you disagree with?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Well, I don&#8217;t think that we take a greater cut.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You don&#8217;t think the overhead of working for Puck is greater than Substack&#8217;s 10%?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I think that what we provide relative to scale from an advertising perspective and a subscriber perspective, as well as paying benefits, as well as providing bonuses. is higher. So that&#8217;s where I&#8217;m coming at it from. I appreciate you continuing to pick at it, but I disagree with that statement.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I mean, if you just said “we provide health insurance,” I think that&#8217;s meaningful for a lot of people.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Yes.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I get it.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We provide health insurance.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I have two kids and that&#8217;s always on my mind. Whenever someone asks me about going independent, I&#8217;m like, &#8220;No, I have two kids and I love running my newsroom.&#8221; But the dynamic for a lot of people I know thinking about this isn&#8217;t, “I should go work for another company.” It&#8217;s, “The rewards for me are very high if I go out on my own.”</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I think you&#8217;re trying to sit in the middle of that and I&#8217;m just trying to find the edges of how that model works because if you end up in a traditional cost structure, it won&#8217;t work. And if you end up all the way over here, you&#8217;re competing with a cost structure where the platforms get all the content for free. Or in Substack&#8217;s case, people pay them for the content, which is maybe the best business model of them all. Somewhere in the middle is Puck and I&#8217;m just trying to figure out how that model actually works.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You are correct. We do sit in the middle. That&#8217;s why we are able to get the incredible, generationally talented individuals that we have because we support journalists. Not just Matt, but Bill Cohan. I mentioned Ian Kreitzberg on the AI front, Lauren Sherman, we just brought on Kim Masters a year ago, Marion Maneker, Dylan Byers. These are incredible journalists that have some of the foremost voices inside of the industries that they write about and that they lead. They&#8217;re a part of an organization, but they&#8217;re also able to be independent. They do get healthcare. And that does matter. And they do have bonuses and they do have feedback that they get, but they&#8217;re also not told what stories to chase. And the benefit of moving from a large media organization to a Substack of it all, the motivation for some might be money, but the motivation for many is independence.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We try to capture the balance between being able to be independent, but also having a support infrastructure in place that allows you to take some of those risks. It&#8217;s quite special. The reason why we have a subscriber base that&#8217;s also incredibly loyal and growing is that they can feel that in the authors.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>When I talk to people at Substack or the people who have moved to Substack about that 10%, the justification is generally that Substack drives more subscriber growth than any other platform. And the people who&#8217;ve left Substack have seen a pretty rapid decline in how fast their subscribers grow. Substack has turned its app basically into a walled garden. They say they do email, but now you open it and it looks like Twitter and there are podcasts inside of it. They&#8217;ve made a little social network, even though they claim they haven&#8217;t made a social network. That&#8217;s fine and it&#8217;s working because it&#8217;s driving a lot of subscriber growth for a lot of their people.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>When you subscribe to one Substack, they sign you up for like seven more. They have dark patterns in that app. That is their 10%. They will look you in the eye and say, &#8220;We know people think this is a high number. And we say, ‘If you leave, your rate of new subscribers will go down and that&#8217;s worth the 10%. And the second we stop delivering that, we know people are going to turn off.’&#8221; Is that the same for Puck? Is it health insurance plus subscriber growth? What&#8217;s the mechanism for subscriber growth for you?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Again, I&#8217;m not an expert in Substack. What I can say is that many of the subscribers on Substack, at least from the acquihires that we have made, are not paying subscribers. The subscription revenue that I mentioned before is from paying subscribers, and the growth is from paying subscribers. [You have] great base comp and then also equity and healthcare and health insurance and a vacation policy and all of that good stuff and folks to support you when you do want to go on vacation. Aside from all of those things, it goes back to the incentive around the subscriber bonus. As I mentioned before, our growth is driven by marketing. Our growth is driven by the content that our journalists create and the stories that they are selling. It&#8217;s also created now because we are building multimodal franchises around these individuals through event businesses.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Also, all of our talent gets bonused on the events that they are a part of. You have the subscriber acquisition bonus, you have a retention bonus, you have an events bonus, and that is our talent getting incentivized and paid for the work and the time and the energy that they&#8217;re putting in. That&#8217;s really the crux of the value proposition. But again, I would go back to like, if you have any aspiring journalists on your pod, what&#8217;s the motivation that they have around wanting to be a journalist? And if it is to be capable of reporting and telling independent stories and also being able to be financially compensated, I think that we are a rare breed of trying to create a company that fosters that. When I think about the career choice to come here versus going to another big technology company, a strong motivator for me was that mission.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Where does your growth come from? If your folks are getting paid more, if they&#8217;re getting bonuses on subscriber growth, where does the net new customer come from?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">The net new subscribers come from content that is interesting and breakthrough. I think a lot of the work that has been done with—</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Sub scoops. Right. I understand, but you have to distribute the scoop somewhere. Where does it come from?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Are you getting back to the platform piece where that content is distributed?</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Yeah. Where is the top of the funnel? When Julia Alexander has a great story, is it search traffic that converts? Is it her tweeting about it? Is it Facebook reels? Where does the net new subscriber come from?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I would imagine you would understand this as well. It does not come from one singular place. We have the organic side of leveraging social platforms. We absolutely encourage our authors to tweet about the stories that they have. We also have a social team that develops all the organic content and leverages the various platforms for that. We also have an incredible comms team that also helps to distribute the stories that are coming out of all of our political content all the way through to all the other franchises. And then also on the experiential side, whenever we are doing any type of event that obviously is talent-centric, we&#8217;re talking about the work that they do and that those interviews are coming to life. In this environment, and I walked through at the top of the hour, the transitions that have occurred, there&#8217;s no longer a world where distribution is centralized into one, two, or three places.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">There&#8217;s not a singular television network that you can advertise on and drive product and growth. There is not a singular platform that you can advertise on and drive growth. That fragmentation and disruption has been happening for over 20 years. If there&#8217;s anyone that is saying it comes from a singular source, that&#8217;s amazing. But we leverage each of the various platforms and we leverage paid and we leverage organic in order to get the work out in front of net new subscribers. Other examples of that, we—</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Wait, what&#8217;s your biggest channel? If I go and ask a YouTuber, “What&#8217;s your biggest channel?” They will say, “The YouTube algorithm.” If you ask a Substacker, &#8220;What&#8217;s your biggest channel?&#8221; They will say, &#8220;Substack.&#8221; They&#8217;re integrated with their distribution in very particular ways. They don&#8217;t always love it. My joke is that every YouTuber gets their wings when they make a video about how mad they are at YouTube, right? This is a tense relationship between creators and their platforms, but if you ask them where the followers come from, it is the platforms themselves. What&#8217;s your biggest channel?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I would say our biggest paid channel would be social platforms as well as SEO. Now within the industry and the migration to zero click, we are transforming a lot of the way that even our site is developed and the way that we optimize for GEO. I mean, that&#8217;s a big shift in the industry that&#8217;s—</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I just want to define some terms. I&#8217;m the person who came up with the phrase Google Zero, so I think—</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">You did?</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>That&#8217;s me. They love it.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Did you really?</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I sure did. On this show, as a matter of fact; </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/24167865/google-zero-search-crash-housefresh-ai-overviews-traffic-data-audience"><strong>there&#8217;s an episode about it</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Awesome.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I think our listeners understand Google Zero is when Google stops sending search traffic to publishers. You&#8217;ve heard me talk about it a lot. GEO is generative search optimization, which is, I would say, </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/tech/900302/ai-seo-industry-google-search-chatgpt-gemini-marketing"><strong>as yet unproven and mostly snake oil</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s snake oil, but I do remember when I was at Facebook and many people across marketing and businesses said that social was snake oil. And then I remember that same shift happening with mobile and that no one — great example — no one would ever watch video on their mobile phones and now it&#8217;s one of the number one consumption formats. I can tell you this, as a business leader, I can&#8217;t ignore the changes that AI is driving more broadly, not just in the industry, but in consumption. You&#8217;re very correct in saying that it&#8217;s not proven out yet. It&#8217;s not the singular channel and/or the singular investment, but we are continuing to work on what it means to be organically discovered in a world that&#8217;s Google Zero. Again, that&#8217;s really neat that you actually came up with that language because it&#8217;s widespread across the industry.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You can watch Sundar Pichai react to me saying the words “Google Zero” </strong><a href="https://www.theverge.com/24158374/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-ai-search-gemini-future-of-the-internet-web-openai-decoder-interview"><strong>on this very show</strong></a><strong>. It was a fun moment for everyone.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I guess my question there is, you don&#8217;t have a singular top of funnel like a platform does. You don&#8217;t have the bad model the old media companies do. I&#8217;m not in any way saying that was a good model. They&#8217;re dying. We&#8217;re watching them die. You can read Matt describe how Hollywood is dying, very specifically. The cost structure there is bad. Somewhere in the middle is your cost structure, and I&#8217;m just trying to figure out where you find the big growth from, or if the plan is to remain small, because it feels like there are two choices to be made right now.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Our primary distribution model is newsletters. We&#8217;re not a technology platform. The comparisons to YouTube or Facebook or Substack — we&#8217;re not a technology company. We are absolutely a media company, a news and information company, a journalist-centric company. The primary distribution is that our talent anchors a private email or private newsletter that gets distributed to an audience that is consistently growing related to paying subscribers. And then we also have a long leads list and we use channels like CRM in order to continue to market to hot leads, new leads that come in through discovery, whether it is through our social platform leverage or through a referral that&#8217;s coming from another reader that is excited and intrigued about a story and wants somebody else in their industry to understand what&#8217;s going on. All of those things fill the top of the funnel that ultimately drive to ideally conversion of becoming a paying subscriber.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">That top of funnel, the way that I think about it is really that there are paying and unpaid, and the conversion of unpaid to paid so it leads to subscribers is also a component of that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You talked about social channels. One of the dynamics I think is really interesting in the world you&#8217;re describing is whether or not the institution is important or the talent&#8217;s important. It very much feels like your emphasis is on the talent. Do you run paid social on your talent’s social media feeds because that&#8217;s where the followers are, or do you have the Puck channel and you want people to follow that?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It&#8217;s a great question. Right now, we do not run paid social on the individual talents. And as I&#8217;m processing it, that&#8217;s a really interesting conversation to come back around on with talent internally. The way that we&#8217;ve managed in the past and through conversations with them is that a lot of talent wants to own and run their own channel. When they have questions or when they need support, they have a person that they can call on for that. Our primary growth has been through our owned and operated channels, but I like the provocation. That is something I certainly will take back if folks are open and interested in that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>This is the dynamic that I think it just is for everyone. The reason that a reporter leaves is they say, &#8220;I have however many tens of thousands of Twitter followers, I can monetize 2,000 of them and I&#8217;ll make more money than you ever paid me.&#8221; I&#8217;ve had this conversation, I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ve had this conversation. There&#8217;s a lot of this in the world and the platforms incentivize the people to participate, right? There&#8217;s an infinite supply of teenagers who will make content for Instagram for free. They don&#8217;t want the institutions to be powerful because there&#8217;s not an infinite supply of news organizations. Once you have a little bit of power there, you might have to pay some rates.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The original sin of digital media is Jonah Peretti believing he could go so viral that Facebook would pay him money. That&#8217;s what you&#8217;re talking about, the pivot to video. That was that moment right there and it was not going to happen. And I think a lot of people knew it wasn&#8217;t going to happen and we all lived through it anyway.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>How do you operate in a world where you want the brand to be central to do the audience acquisition, and the subscriber acquisition you&#8217;re describing with the methods you&#8217;re describing, when all of the platforms want all the action to be by the people?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I can&#8217;t speak to the motivation of platforms today. I think you&#8217;re correct when I was at both of those platforms. What I saw is actually a real deep desire to actually support publishers. But again, I don&#8217;t work at those companies. I can&#8217;t speak to the motivations of them today.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I think we can all see their motivations pretty plainly.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">What I can say is, for us from a Puck perspective, I&#8217;m not trying to compete with YouTube. I know I&#8217;ve already said this, that we&#8217;re not a technology platform. We are focused on covering the stories inside of the industries that have the opinion elite and people that deeply care about what&#8217;s happening. That is what we are doing. And we distribute those stories, yes, through newsletters, and then also through a variety of other marketing channels. I know I&#8217;m not completely and totally answering your question.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Not really. I think you might be talking about the audience. I&#8217;m talking about the people who make the work and the economic incentives of the people who make the work.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>And I mean, you&#8217;re describing Puck as the fanciest collection of trade publications that has ever existed in the world. I don&#8217;t know if that&#8217;s what people want to do. I think people want big audiences. I think every reporter wants to be the most famous reporter in the world, and that&#8217;s great. That is a perfectly aligned incentive with, go get scoops, go get attention, write the best analysis, go be famous. And that&#8217;s going to make everybody a lot of money.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>A collection of small trade verticals for the opinion elite is very different from that impact. Media organizations are losing people to platforms because that impact is so alluring. There is the opportunity to do things that are not journalism, to do integrated brand marketing, to do sponsorships, to go on the job. All the stuff I won&#8217;t let my people do that I won&#8217;t do. I won&#8217;t even read the podcast ads.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>But it&#8217;s all right there. You can get the big audience and you can get the big payday. And again, I&#8217;m just trying to find the boundary for Puck. You&#8217;re kind of making it smaller. I&#8217;m just wondering if that size is as lucrative, is impactful, and is incentivizing across all the metrics, as maybe the big platform exit.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">For the journalists in your world, it sounds like you&#8217;re trying to encourage them to go to the platforms.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m just seeing what&#8217;s happening all around me. I&#8217;ve run this newsroom for like 15 years. We sell what we sell here. My joke is that we sell our ethics policy, and that&#8217;s what people subscribe to us for. Again, we just won&#8217;t do the sponsor reads. It drives my company crazy that I won&#8217;t do the sponsor reads. Everyone can see the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, labeled, &#8220;Nilay does a sponsor,&#8221; but I won&#8217;t do it, because I think what the audience pays us money for is the fact that you can&#8217;t tell the newsroom what to do. I would like to believe my newsroom is bought into this, and then the economics makes sense inside of that.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>But you&#8217;re describing this talent-led, “journalists as influencers” model, without the corresponding payoff that the influencers get. And that&#8217;s the tension I&#8217;m just sitting on.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I appreciate that tension. I think you&#8217;re describing a world — and again, if your listenership is relatively young — it would [tell] everybody [that] the only career that they should have is to be an influencer. And I fundamentally disagree with that.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">An appropriate stat to consider: what I do know of Substack is that their top 10% of authors make 90% of the revenue. I want everyone to hear that. The model that you are describing, that everyone is getting massive paydays from these other platforms, the top 10% are making 90% of the revenue. What we provide is a &#8220;platform,&#8221; in quotes, not a technology platform, but a company that does support journalists. And yes, I would say that journalists are the original influencers, but influencers oftentimes just pop up a phone and make content about anything.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Journalism is a fundamentally different profession. You make the point from an ethics perspective, from a fact-checking perspective, from a legal perspective, knowing that if you write a story and somebody else comes after you, and that you have legal support, those things matter in journalism. That, in addition to being able to have audience growth that is a core focus of the company, being able to have commercial growth, being able to get paid for the events that you are a part of, for the subscribers that you are bringing in, I don&#8217;t think is small. I actually think it is quite exciting and can be quite large.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">If you look at the various categories, within Puck, Air Mail is a little bit different. That&#8217;s the brand that drives cultural advantage. Puck is the brand that drives professional advantage, because it does go through each of these categories or industries that are anchored by our lead talent, they&#8217;re telling stories, and they&#8217;re reporting on what&#8217;s happening at the top of the companies that drive these industries and the people that are making the decisions within it.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">But I don&#8217;t think any of these industries, in and of themselves, are small. The Puck portfolio is one that is not just about the individual industries, but actually about the interplay and the intersection of power and decisions that occur across each of those franchises.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And that&#8217;s also the unique value proposition that Puck, as a brand, brings. That is very much supported by our talent. I continue to be incredibly proud of the fact that I appreciate the tension between brand and talent, but I don&#8217;t feel that tension internally. I feel like we are a brand and a company that supports talent so that they can do their job, which is to report.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>You mentioned Air Mail is a little different. How is Air Mail a little different?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Air Mail&#8217;s a little bit different in that it is not focused on the professionals inside of an industry. Puck will report on, again, the business of fashion, the business of art economics, things like that, for the professionals that ultimately are in those spaces, and/or those that are very curious across those industries.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Air Mail, from a cultural advantage perspective, is reporting on style, fashion, wellness. It has a global perspective on what is happening in the world, and that audience base is certainly opinionally, intellectually curious, but it&#8217;s less of a B2P, a business to professional offering, and more of a B2C, a business to consumer offering. And that was one of the reasons why, from an investment thesis perspective, it made so much sense. We had less than 6% audience overlap, even though both are very affluent and elite audiences, but they’re very limited in terms of overlap overall. It&#8217;s an awesome add to the portfolio.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Puck is a collection of trade publications that people will pay high rates for. There&#8217;s a lot of value in that. I love a good trade publication. I won&#8217;t rattle off all my favorites, but there are some very small, very focused trade publications that I think are maybe the best in the entire industry.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Air Mail is not that. Air Mail is like a big fancy culture magazine. It&#8217;s called Air Mail because I think it was </strong><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/style/what-is-graydon-carter-doing-now.html"><strong>meant to be read</strong></a><strong> on airplanes. There is a moment for that kind of magazine to exist in first class on an airplane. Are you trying to move audience between them?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The thing you don&#8217;t have here is a bundle, right? You have a collection of individual newsletters and you can&#8217;t actually bundle them all up and say, &#8220;Here&#8217;s the whole stack of value we provide.&#8221; How do you move audience between individual trade publications where there might not be overlap, and then from that world to Air Mail, which is a glossy culture magazine?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">It&#8217;s a great question. On the Puck side, we actually do have a Puck subscription that gets you access to each of the individual franchise categories that organically came up through Puck or that we&#8217;ve acquired and launched.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">On the Air Mail side, you&#8217;re right that currently it&#8217;s a separate subscription, and we&#8217;re working through the product roadmap to figure out, essentially, what the bundle offering is, the sample offering. Those are all underway. Probably within the next few months, you&#8217;ll see more from us on that side.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Last few questions, we&#8217;re running out of time. Thank you for being so generous. Are you profitable right now?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We are very close to profitable.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>Like a dollar away or like a million dollars away?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;m not going to answer that question, but we&#8217;re very close to profitable. I feel very good about our operating leverage as well.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>What&#8217;s the runway to being profitable?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;m not going to answer that question, but I feel really good about where we are at, and what we will deliver this year.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>The reason I ask about profitability is that profitability is usually what allows you to drive growth, or you can choose to be really unprofitable and drive a lot more growth. Are you looking at more acquisitions? Are you looking to be acquired? How is this going to work for you?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">On the acquisition side — well, one on the growth side, I think it&#8217;s just good to state. For growth, total revenue, we grew at 40% last year. Ads, we grew at over 35%; sub-revenue, we grew at over 50%. And when we look at our fixed cost to recurring revenue, we&#8217;re in a really solid place.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">And we also look at revenue per head, just to think about structurally whether or not the organization is lean and driving operational excellence.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We&#8217;re able to drive top line growth with real cost discipline in order to create a system that is scalable over the course of time. That&#8217;s why I feel good about being very close to profitable and the goal of that this year. Related to acquisitions, we&#8217;re actually always thinking about various brands that could be additive to the overall portfolio. As I mentioned before, we&#8217;ve done a few acquihires prior to in order, and the investment thesis behind those acquihires was really to break into a new category.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">We did that with Marion Maneker coming over from Substack in order to break into the business of art, through to the acquisition of retail diaries in order to drive more coverage for the readers and the subscribers that we had with Lauren Sherman&#8217;s line sheet. Those are more like tuck-ins and smaller acquisitions.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">There are transformational acquisitions like Air Mail where that is additive to the collective portfolio, and to the piece that you were getting at before, where we see that there&#8217;s opportunity certainly for bundling and for access of readership across the various media brands.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>One of the reasons I ask about acquisitions is we live in a time of media mergers, like massive earth-shattering media mergers. In acquiring Air Mail, I think you have Jeff Zucker on your cap table now, because he was an investor in Air Mail. There are rumors that he wants to build a big thing. He wants to buy Versant and have a newsletter division and run a big news operation again, like he had at CNN. Is that something you&#8217;ve talked about? Is that something you would entertain?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I&#8217;m not going to talk about who&#8217;s on our cap table.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I&#8217;m just curious.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">I love the curiosity.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>What&#8217;s next for Puck? What should people be looking for?</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">A few different things. First, the investments that we&#8217;ve made in DC around both our Washington correspondent with Leigh Ann [Caldwell], the experiential business that we have there, you&#8217;re going to continue to see more and more emphasis in our dedication to that market. Same thing with AI and with tech, the launch of that vertical this past year, at a moment in time that we went AI-first instead of tech-first for very specific reasons. You&#8217;ll continue to see more from us there. A lot of folks in the industry all migrated really quickly to video. I&#8217;ve been in the media landscape for quite some time and I believe deeply in video, but I also believe deeply in doing it right and doing it well. We&#8217;re spending time thinking about what that means for our talent. What does it mean for our brand? What does it mean for our portfolio? So more to come there.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><strong>I can do another full hour on how you plan to monetize video, but I won&#8217;t keep you any longer. You have been very generous and very game to answer the questions. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much for being on </strong><strong><em>Decoder</em></strong><strong>, Sarah.</strong></p>

<p class="has-text-align-none">Thank you. I appreciate it as well. Have a great day.</p>

<p class="has-text-align-none"><em><sub>Questions or comments about this episode? Hit us up at decoder@theverge.com. We really do read every email!</sub></em></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>David Pierce</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[How AT&#038;T created the most iconic phone ever]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/910725/western-electric-500-att-version-history" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=910725</id>
			<updated>2026-04-13T05:44:01-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-12T09:28:46-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AT&amp;T" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Gadgets" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Mobile" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Version History" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[For years, even decades, virtually everyone in the United States had the same phone. Nobody really thought about it, it didn't even matter what it was called - it was just The Phone. Well, The Phone was called the Western Electric 500, and when landline phones ruled the world, the Western Electric 500 ruled the [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="A photo of a pink landline phone on a gray background." data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Photo: Amelia Holowaty Krales / The Verge" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/WE500_Site.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-text-align-none">For years, even decades, virtually everyone in the United States had the same phone. Nobody really thought about it, it didn't even matter what it was called - it was just The Phone. Well, The Phone was called the <a href="https://www.telephonearchive.com/phones/we-500">Western Electric 500</a>, and when landline phones ruled the world, the Western Electric 500 ruled the landlines. It was so ubiquitous for so long that even if you've never touched a landline, you've encountered the 500. The Phone app on your iPhone? Looks like a 500.</p>
<p class="has-text-align-none">On <a href="https://pod.link/1840983742">this episode of <em>Version History</em></a>, we tell the story of the Western Electric 500, and the deeply strange world it came to represent. David Pierce, Nilay Patel, and prof …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/910725/western-electric-500-att-version-history">Read the full story at The Verge.</a></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
			<entry>
			
			<author>
				<name>David Pierce</name>
			</author>
			
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Fear and loathing at OpenAI]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/909621/openai-sam-altman-drama-vergecast" />
			<id>https://www.theverge.com/?p=909621</id>
			<updated>2026-04-10T08:23:18-04:00</updated>
			<published>2026-04-10T08:23:18-04:00</published>
			<category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="AI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="OpenAI" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Podcasts" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Tech" /><category scheme="https://www.theverge.com" term="Vergecast" />
							<summary type="html"><![CDATA[Sam Altman's tenure at OpenAI has been… messy. Messy to the point where Altman was briefly fired from his role as CEO, only to be reinstated days later, at which point he began reshaping the organization permanently. This week, The New Yorker published a deep look at Altman, his time at OpenAI, and the questions [&#8230;]]]></summary>
			
							<content type="html">
											<![CDATA[

						
<figure>

<img alt="" data-caption="" data-portal-copyright="Image: Alex Parkin / The Verge" data-has-syndication-rights="1" src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/04/VRG_VST_0410_Site.jpg?quality=90&#038;strip=all&#038;crop=0,0,100,100" />
	<figcaption>
		</figcaption>
</figure>
<p class="has-text-align-none">Sam Altman's tenure at OpenAI has been… messy. Messy to the point where Altman was briefly fired from his role as CEO, only to be reinstated days later, at which point he began reshaping the organization permanently. This week, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may-control-our-future-can-he-be-trusted"><em>The New Yorker </em>published a deep look at Altman</a>, his time at OpenAI, and the questions about whether he's the right person to be in charge of a technology as important and transformative as artificial intelligence.</p>
<div class="wp-block-vox-media-highlight vox-media-highlight"><img src="https://platform.theverge.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/11/Vergecast-Tile-Large.jpeg?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="has-text-align-none"><em>Verge</em> subscribers, don't forget you get exclusive access to ad-free <em>Vergecast</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="has-text-align-none">On <a href="https://pod.link/vergecast">this episode of <em>The Vergecast</em></a>, David  …</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/podcast/909621/openai-sam-altman-drama-vergecast">Read the full story at The Verge.</a></p>
						]]>
									</content>
			
					</entry>
	</feed>
