Did Apple Get AI Spending Right?, Microsoft & OpenAI’s New Reality, Where’s Stargate?

Channel: Alex Kantrowitz

Published at: 2026-05-05

YouTube video id: 1OIYs4QJ2xY

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIYs4QJ2xY

Was Apple right all along to stay away
from the AI spending race? And is that
about to change? Microsoft and Open AAI
are where exactly after their latest new
agreement. And where is OpenAI's
Stargate program? That's coming up with
MG Seagler right after this. Welcome to
Big Technology Podcast. It is the first
Monday of the month, which means MG
[music] Mondays are back. And we're here
with MG Seagler to talk about everything
going on in the world of tech. We have a
lot to recap on the bigger picture
talking about uh Apple's AI spending,
whether it's about to ramp up capex
expenses. There are some signals that
[music] it might be. Microsoft and
OpenAI have a new new agreement. It
seems like there's another one every
week, [music] but this one might
actually be a meaningful step towards
letting OpenAI work with everybody else.
And then of course, we [music] have an
update on Stargate. What is it? Did it
actually ever exist? And is OpenAI
meeting expectations there or [music]
never actually going to build those data
centers that it promised? Uh so a lot to
talk about today. We might even cover
the Musk Altman case because we have
some [music] uh breaking news on that
front and it's great to welcome you back
to the show MG. Good to see you.
>> Great to be back, Alex. And we joke
about this every time that there's like
an unending stream of news, but it feels
like the fact that the Cook and Turnis
transition happened what, like a week
and a half ago or something like that,
maybe not even. And it feels like it was
months ago, which is wild. Like that's
how that's how wild the news is is
moving at this pace right now.
>> Yeah. It's we're like fully into the
turnest era. It's like when there's a
new presidentelect and then all of a
sudden you go from like calling this guy
like by his name to like president-elect
or president whatever it is and it's
like that feels weird for like a couple
weeks and then all of a sudden it just
settles in.
>> Um and we're we're definitely there
because we're getting some indications
of where Turnis is going. And to set it
up I think that we should talk about
this great piece that you have about
Apple's capital expenditures. And of
course to our listeners and viewers,
it's no secret that big tech has been
spending a lot of money on capex. Uh we
might see a trillion dollars in AI capex
this year, but you look at Apple and
their capital expenditures are actually
going down. And I don't think I've seen
anyone illustrate just how stark the
divide is um as well as you've done in
this recent piece called Apple's binary
bet. Uh Apple you say is on track to
spend nine bill 9 9 to 10 billion in
capex this year. Uh compare that with
Meta which just raised its expectation
to 145 billion. Um and it's clear that
Apple just is not in the foundational
model game. I always thought that this
was a liability but now maybe it's a
strength. I'm open to it. What do you
think about this divergence? So this um
quarter and this time of year was
interesting specifically because four of
the technology of the big tech companies
all reported on the exact same day,
right? Um I think it was Amazon,
Microsoft, Meta and Google, Alphabet all
reported at the same time. And so it
was, you know, some people called it
earnings apocalypse. Um and Apple was
the very next day. And so it was a a
unique sort of aligning of the stars
moment where you could more uh easily um
sort of do the comparison of of uh the
capex spend. It's still a little bit
tricky because they're on different
physical calendars. Microsoft famously
is different from I think the rest of
them. Um but still the fact that Apple
who again reported the day after those
other four they came in with their Q2
numbers and as a part of that they don't
break out capex in the way that the
others do because they're not spending
as you noted like to the extent that the
others are. So, I don't think that that
Wall Street sort of demands it, but um
they did give the CFO did give an update
on the the half year since it's again
the end of Q2. And yeah, the number was
insanely low compared to obviously what
everyone else is spending. And it's as
you noted, it's basically it was three
to four maybe four and a half trillion,
sorry, billion. And um what it ends up
being is that it's probably going to
come in below what it's even was last
year. And then I I went in I went ahead
and just did the obvious thing which is
porting those numbers and asking um you
know in this case Claude to go back and
look at the past 5 years of of capex
spend um and chart it out and sort of
normalize again for those different
fiscal um time periods. And it looks the
chart is fun because it's basically
everyone obviously starting around 2022.
So obviously that was uh you know a
little bit after the chat GBT moment. Um
starting in 2022 all of those companies
basically started to really ramp up.
Amazon as you know better than most was
already ahead because they have huge
capex spends related to their um you
know core business of obviously
delivering goods and they need
warehouses and whatnot. And then they
had AWS of course which they also needed
um you know capex spend for but the
others including Amazon too all start
really start to ramp up and Apple it
just stays the same. It's always like in
this line that's around 10 billion
sometime one year they jumped up a
little bit from like seven and but this
was like 5 years ago from like 7 till 9
and everyone's like whoa what's going on
there and it's like I mean that's
hilarious to look back up on now uh
compared to where things are but again
Apple's in the same place. They're down
slightly this year. Um, and it's it's
just a wild discrepancy when you compare
it to, you noted what Microsoft
spending, but Amazon and Google, I
think, are both guiding towards 190
billion now. Um, and and that's this get
updated every single quarter. So, they
very well could spend well over 200
billion um, for what ends up being the
year and Microsoft will be right there.
Meta is a little bit lower, but Meta, as
you know, as you know, is getting hit
left and right as from a stock
perspective because they don't have the
obvious returns because they don't have
a cloud business, right? They're saying
it's doing well for their for their ads
business. And certainly their numbers
look good, but it's not as
straightforward as it is for the other
uh other players, it seems, right?
>> They don't have an AI product either,
Meta. No AI.
>> I mean, they they sort of just rolled
out their new models and Yeah. Um and
>> what have they done? Nothing. So,
>> they've done nothing. So, they're baking
it into everything. And again, they're
baking it into their their ads product.
But again, back to Apple, even compared
to Meta, like Apple, if they do 10
billion this year and Meta does 140 or
130 140 billion, I mean, that's just an
incredible incredible discrepancy. Um,
regardless of what you think about, you
know, the future in AI, it it's just
like it's wild how far how much lower it
actually is right now.
>> Yeah. And you have this paragraph that I
highlighted from your piece uh that sort
of says that puts this in relief. You
write, "Everyone thinks AI is going to
be a core bit of technology that they
each need to control less they be
beholden to someone else. This is
exactly why Microsoft shoved open AI
aside despite their early extremely
preient bent on the startup that remains
the leader in the field. Even though
Microsoft owns 25% of the company with
IP rights and access, they're now
spending billions to build out AI on
their own. So, let's tackle this
question. Uh because I also was on this
path of like, well, if this is such a
transformative technology, you would be
best to have your own models and not
rely on somebody else. And even if you,
you know, made a great deal with Google,
let's say you got Gemini for free, which
you won't. You're going to pay u you,
you have less control over it because
you're you're you're a step removed from
the technology and it's going to be much
more difficult to productize it. But the
other side of the um the other side of
this argument is it seems sound now
which is basically that like we are
seeing this that you know if Apple is
right you would say that they've seen
that all these models are going to
commoditize the compute will
commoditize. We talked about this a
little bit on the Friday show. There's
going to be a price war. Apple can just
wait until the technology matures, the
price war happens and then implement it.
Maybe they can even implement it on
device. Um, how much credence do you
give if that is the bet? And it sounds
like that might be the Tim Cook Apple
bet. U, how much credence do you give to
this idea that they might be right?
>> Yeah. I mean, hence the title, the
binary bet, like and and that's um
[gasps] I I think that there is a
chance, right? I mean, obviously I think
in the short term it's a lot uh more
straightforward for that to, you know,
if that plays out that way because it's
so relative. Everyone believes that it's
relatively early in this in the AI game.
And so there's a world there's a world
in which there's a few avenues where it
works out for Apple and it's not just um
you know the lack of of spend on on
training these models. I mean we you
know we've talked about it before. What
if LLMs don't end up being the end all
beall of AI that gets us to AGI, right?
What if you need to sort of even not
fully pivot, but you need to basically
then ramp up sort of these other massive
um infrastructure um arrangements in
order to to build up, you know, world
models and and whatever else comes next
down the pike and robotics and and
everything else in order to get us to uh
what many would consider to be the sort
of holy grail of AI. And so if even just
in not choosing to participate in this
LLM buildout, maybe Apple's wise in that
they're realizing or you know lucking
into even if you you don't necessarily
believe in their um vision of this to
date um that it's not just going to be
LLM that the LLM are step one of of many
steps to get us towards um the future of
AI. And so maybe Apple's bet is like
they're okay sitting out the LLM part of
it, but then they're going to come in
hard on the robotics part of it, right?
like the actual physical robots part,
but then you would say like, okay, but
they still need models or something to
run on those. Um, and so even if they're
getting unique data because they have
hardware out there in the world, um,
they still need, you know, to be in
charge of their models. Um, but you
could also say like, yeah, they're
they're making, um, a bet that they can
partner on it, much like they've done,
uh, you know, with things like Google
Maps, which ends up being an interesting
analogy to that, right? because of f
famously of course they had to go uh
against Apple at one point and and
launch their own product because they
wouldn't agree to the terms that Google
put out there um in order to keep that
deal going and that's the [snorts]
downside right of being beholden to
someone else at the end of the day and
this is Tim Cook doctrine right they
Apple wants to build their own
technologies they don't want to be
beholden to anyone else this dates to
the jobs days and even uh you know very
early iterations of Apple when various
software players Adobe and and everyone
else didn't want to make software ware
for the Mac and for other earlier
versions of Apple products and so Apple
decided like that they needed to
ultimately be in charge of that. That's
not to say that they always do that. I
mean the most famous counter example is
Google search, right? Apple decided they
didn't need to build a search engine and
that's worked out great for them, right?
Microsoft famously has spent billions
and billions building up Bing and what
have they gotten out of I mean they it
makes money now but it's not it's not
Google and it's not it's not uh you know
something that I think is is absolutely
vital to Microsoft and so uh what did
they ultimately get out of those
billions spent and all that time and all
those resources and engineers and
whatnot being devoted to that and so I
think you would say that Apple made the
right bet in that regard by partnering
and getting billions of dollars sent to
them right with famously as we've seen
now play out over the antitrust lawsuits
getting paid by Google to use Google
search and So maybe Apple in their head
is thinking this will play out similarly
to the way that Google search has where
um you know we can basically just ride
off of this and we don't need to own
this and it won't end up coming to hurt
us. I think most people at least right
now would think that that's a little bit
too risky of a bet to make. Again
speaking of what we we already talked
about with what they're spending in the
capex number but you can see why they're
at least trying you could back into why
they're trying to do this or why they're
okay doing this.
>> Yeah. Let let me throw out like the
where this goes really well and where
this goes really poorly for Apple. The
way I could see this going really poorly
is that AI becomes so powerful that we
just sort of converge on this one sort
of you know Star Trek computer-like AI
uh interface where you know the open AI
device really works. The assistant is
amazing. We access all information like
we would through you know a screen that
is effectively powered by AI and
probably some audio only or perceptry
devices like headphones and a pin right
so basically in that world the only
thing that matters is how good your AI
model is how it can operate all the
programs and be your agent for you um
and then Apple doesn't really have this
opportunity to lease that technology
because let's say it's open AAI that's
built the best version of this or Google
that's built the best version of this
you're like sitting there as Apple,
you're this like you'll become a legacy
device maker without access to the
technology that is the most important
thing of any device. And I think that's
a real risk for Apple. And that's sort
of like it's far further away than I
think many people anticipated. I think a
lot of people expected AI devices to be
more farther along here. And we're going
to definitely talk about that on the
show in the next couple weeks. Like
where are the AI devices? um that is
that and and Apple could be in some
serious trouble because it will
effectively have to beg Open AI or
Google for the technology that will
enable that set of devices experiences
that that's where it could go poorly. Uh
where it goes well for Apple is
basically you know unlike um let's say
the the the um the software battles that
it's had in the past or the times that
it's been forced to build its own
technology. there is a powerful and
almost equal uh open-source uh uh AI
development movement going on right now.
They can definitely take advantage of
that. And then if you look at those who
have tried to develop proprietary models
outside of that open-source uh world, it
actually isn't as simple as we thought
it was. Like we used to think it was
spend uh spend a hundred billion dollars
and you have a world-class model. Well,
if you look at if you think about it,
uh, Amazon, obviously they have the
infrastructure, but Amazon Nova has gone
nowhere. Most people don't even realize
that Amazon has a foundational model.
Uh, Google's done a good job of it.
Microsoft, after separating from OpenAI,
has not been able to do it. Meta has not
been able to do it. XAI has not been
able to do it. So, it's not just throw
money at the problem and build build
your own AI. And then it's it would be
almost the ultimate wise move from Apple
to be like we we are not winning that
race. Uh we're just going to rely on
licensing or open source and we don't
think that this you know universal AI
device moment is going to happen.
>> What do you think is more likely of
those two scenarios or will we see a
combination of both? Um, so first first
of all just to hit on the point you just
made because I think it's a good one and
an important one that Apple might just
be it may be as simple as Apple
recognizing like look guys we're behind
in AI. The reality is like in order to
try to catch up we would have to spend
like Elon has been doing right and and
building these massive data centers in a
hurry and as Zuck has been doing. But
it's it's tens of billions and it's
ultimately hundreds of billions of
dollars. And as you just noted, I've
written about this too, like the
throwing the money at it, it seemed like
when Elon was ramping up the the
quoteunquote colossus data center that
maybe he could just all of a sudden jump
back into the race because, you know, he
was able to build a data center that
that could train an XAI model in in
record time in record speed. Ultimately
though, it didn't work like it just
didn't matter, right? And so Apple might
be looking at those that situation, the
meta situation, obviously famously, you
know, acquiring scale AI and and
bringing in this new team and trying to
get up to speed as fast as possible and
that's sort of not really working yet.
Um, and they just may be realizing, you
know, in a in a self-recognition way
that look, we're not going to be able to
do this. No, we might have all the
money, all the resources in the world,
but that's not all that matters. We
don't have the right talent, right? and
and what what we would need to do in
order to get that would be like as we've
previously talked about acquiring
anthropic or something wild that would
take hundreds of billions if not
trillions of dollars to potentially do.
And so again, they could just recognize
like we're just not going to get there.
And so what's the point of burning these
billions and billions of dollars whereas
again we can go down the path of making
sort of these later bets that it's not
just LLMs and that we can sort of ride
out the coattails of the others who are
doing that well for the time being while
we work behind the scenes of course and
build our own stuff um internally um but
behind the scenes but to go back to your
question um which one is is more likely
I do still think that there is a very
good chance that Apple ends up a quote
unquote winner of the AI movement simply
because of the iPhone because it's the
best device out there to run models
potentially and to run these
applications and I do think that that's
the major fear obviously of Meta
Zuckerberg has famously sort of
complained you know about the fact that
they're beholden to Apple with any
devices obviously the smart glasses um
but anything else that they want to do
and then I think it's a problem
obviously for open AI if and when they
come out with their device with famously
Johnny IV uh you know designed device um
I do think that there's a real scenar
scenario in which the iPhone ends up
being the key device for AI and at the
very least Macs uh fall back to you know
Mac computers um with obviously the the
Mac Mini and the and the Mac Studio it
seems like they can't keep them in stock
because uh of all the all the fun things
that the fun work that people are doing
with the agenda capabilities now but
anyway Apple makes great the best
hardware and so the fact that they can't
uh they can keep doing that they would
still benefit from it and I I think it's
a matter of timets right it's a matter
Is this a decadel long uh situation
where the iPhone remains um you know and
I framed it in writing about Turnis like
it's very possible that Turnis's entire
tenure is still dominated by the iPhone
like Apple is still the iPhone company
by the time his 15 years is ending right
and again the the world that you're
laying out that first scenario is uh the
sort of the opposite of that where it's
like yeah this this OpenAI device these
meta devices and even potentially some
new devices from Apple come in and take
over that mantle from the iPhone. I
still just think the iPhone is probably
going to be the central computing hub
and maybe even more so. Um, and again,
that's a big part of that bet and why
Apple maybe can afford to make that that
type of bet.
>> Quick diversion on this. I mean, if that
is the case, right, that the iPhone
becomes the uh device of record for AI.
Uh, that seems kind of bearish for
OpenAI. Now, this is like a caveman
brain take, but like if you can serve AI
models that are just as good or almost
as good on device, then maybe spending
$1.3 trillion on a hard or an
infrastructure buildout is not the best
bet.
>> And I mean, there's, you know, yeah,
that's that's a that may be the Caveman
argument, but you're that's not the only
it's not only caveman making that
argument right now, right? Certainly on
Wall Street. And um and there's there's
bets, tangential bets to open eyes since
you can't bet directly on it since it's
not a public company, but there's
tangential bets being made left and
right right now, you know, in order to
to believe that that's sort of the way
that it plays out. A couple other points
to to your your question. One, I do
think that there is also the world you
talked about how yeah the other players
are having a hard time at the frontier.
The open- source uh question is is
interesting, right? Because we just saw
the new Deep Seek get launched out
there, right? V4 after you and I had a
had a had a good podcast a year plus ago
when when the deepseek moment the quote
unquote deepseek moment happened and it
seemed like everything was changed and
really what has changed in the
intervening time. I mean certainly
there's been um a lot of talk about all
of the the open source movement and how
you build and how you train these models
and can you do it for much cheaper and
and all of the all the talking points
over the past year. But the fact that
DeepSeek now has their new version out,
it's gotten very little buzz compared
certainly compared to what uh you know
the last version was and now the sort of
the papers are starting to come out sort
of comparing it and it's definitely
everyone acknowledges that it's behind
still the frontier. But the real
question is is it actually diverging
where where uh it feels like the
frontier is accelerating faster than
where the open- source sort of community
is at right now and I think that that's
like sort of an interesting way to look
at this as well. like what if it's just
not playing out that way that open
source is is doing it. Now the counter
to that would be we'll get to a point
where yes like the the gains just keep
getting more incremental on the frontier
models, right? And open source is is
quote unquote good enough. Uh but who
knows? I mean this could this in some
ways in an odd way this might go back to
the old iPhone versus Android and and
Clayton Christensen's sort of debates of
like is you know good enough good enough
like you know the commoditized hardware
and commoditized sort of features are
they do they end up being good enough
and with the iPhone versus Android it's
the case where the iPhone is making just
as much of the the profit share and is
more popular you know in many metrics
than it's ever been before even though
we have the proliferation of all these
other devices thanks to the Android
ecosystem out there and So there are
worlds in which um it doesn't play out
that way. The last point I would make is
just the the notion of Apple's other big
bet and I think a lot of people have
been dancing around this and and we
maybe have have danced around this a
little bit and you hit on it just now is
that ondevice models um could be good
enough for almost everything that we're
going to we're going to need. And with
what point does that do we hit that and
how many years out do we get from there?
Because if that ends up being the case
and again Apple has the best hardware
that makes it a really really different
sort of conversation I feel like.
>> Yeah. Oh my goodness. The Apple chip
versus the Nvidia chip will be a very
interesting battle.
>> The ultimate battle like could you
imagine if it goes back to that like
those two companies famously have a a
sort of a a history where they don't
like each other. They wouldn't let uh
Nvidia GPUs for gaming run in in Apple
systems. And Apple famously is the one
company not buying up uh as many Nvidia
GPUs for these training runs left and
right as much as possible, you know, and
even when they're doing them, they were
using potentially TPUs and whatnot. But
anyway, yeah, if that becomes that that
ultimate thing and and there's lots of
talk, right, that that Nvidia wants to
potentially obviously build CPUs, which
they've been doing for the the flip side
for inference and everything else that
they're going to be needed for in the
future of AI, but there's even talk that
they would build their own, you know,
potential actual PC systems, right, to
go after sort of more of those markets
and presumably go after more of the
hardware front end because right now,
obviously, they're they're the biggest
company in the world, but a massive
player on the backside of all this AI
work that's being done, but if they
really want to be a front-facing company
and brand again, like do they go for it
and start to build their own machines um
you know with with their capabilities?
>> Yeah, that'll be interesting. All right,
so let me just deliver the the punchline
to the beginning of our conversation
here, which is you know um is is Apple
making the the right bet on uh you know
with with spending much less on capex?
Um obviously new CEO coming in and we
have signals that he believes in some
part that they've been going too light
on the AI spending. Um first when he
came in when John Turnis came in first
thing he said was this is the most
exciting time to develop products uh
highlighted artificial intelligence
right at the top. Then last week he was
on Apple's earnings call and signaled
that Apple would take a somewhat
different approach financially than it
did under Cook. I'm just going to read a
little bit from Bloomberg uh an article
by Mark German about this and it's a
little bit financial. I'll try to go go
through it at a high level and then we
can talk about what it means. German
writes underturn buybacks and or
dividend hikes could potentially slow in
size or frequency based off of the
conversation that he had on the earnings
call and that may alter Apple's
long-standing pitch to investors will
gen will generate enormous cash flow and
return it to you. Now they have the
optionality to do it less. Evercore
analyst Ahmed Dani said um in other
words Turnis could spring for a
blockbuster acquisition or dial up
spending on R&D he could expand the
company's AI infrastructure something it
Silicon Valley peers are doing at a
furious pace. Uh I I I think that these
things don't happen by accident. I don't
think it's like let me you know create
the option for myself. Obviously we know
Turnis has been preparing to take over
the CEO position for probably a year or
longer. he had to have been thinking
about this. This is one of his first
major financial signals. Maybe the AI
spending is coming.
>> At the very least, I feel like this is
optionality, right? Like this gives him
the ability to basically go out and
spend uh far more to a far greater
extent than Apple has to date because to
that that point like this is a big
moment. Apple has a famous policy in
place to try to be, you know, cash
neutral as you're noting. They don't do
they don't actually do that because they
generate so much so much profit that
they still hold a bunch of money on
their balance sheet. But remember there
was a time I guess under the in the
Steve Jobs days where their cash balance
was ballooning to the point where it was
just way out of line out of band versus
what everyone else had in the industry
because they were generating so much
profit and holding it all and not not
doing major M&A and not doing stock
buybacks. Tim Cook changed that and I do
think that that's a big part of why the
stock has has done so well right under
him and and it's become a $4 trillion
company because he does dividends and he
does stock buybacks and basically
they're signaling now not necessarily
that they're going to stop it entirely
and I think that there's still some
mechanisms in place to do some of the
buybacks that have been promised already
and so they're going to continue that at
least for the somewhat foreseeable
future but they are sending a signal and
it's an explicit signal they wouldn't
say it if it wasn't something there that
they might not they they don't have that
policy anymore that they want to remain
sort of that cash neutral position and
instead they could start hoarding cash
again and they that could be used for a
few things as you noted either either
they do M&A they start to do some M&A
they start to do more R&D and by the way
in the in the binary bet piece I note
like they did hit a record in R&D spend
last quarter and um that signals
something interesting that they're
spending and you know looking into more
and more uh future technologies At the
same time, all their peer group is also
spending more. You know, everyone's of
course focused on on the capex because
the number is is immen is much much
greater, but still they're all spending
record amounts on R&D and Apple is in
that group too. They're spending records
amount and this might help them to
further accelerate that. Um they could
also sort of retire some debt, I guess.
You know, there's other more wonky sort
of financial reasons why they might want
to do this, but to me again, I think
it's sending a signal. I think they're
doing it now for a very good reason,
which is that even though Curtis has now
been uh, you know, announced in place,
it's still Tim Cook running the company.
And so this sort of gives them a little
bit of cover. So it's like when when uh
Turnis actually takes over in in the
fall, he's not his first order of
business isn't to to blow up Apple's
capital sheet and and freak out Wall
Street. It's like, look, guys, we're
guiding towards this. Like there might
be a time in the future where we're
going to need to spend more. And again
to your exact question, I think that
it's a reasonable assumption to make
that they're going to start spending
more on capex too. Um even if they're
not going to train models, they're not
going to train an LLM inference and and
doing other things that you need to do.
We already know that they're doing work
behind the scenes. And another key part
of this remember of this entire
announcement was Johnny Suji who's
Apple's chips chief and obviously a very
vital part of the company given that
they announced on the same day that
they're announcing a new CEO they
announced that he has a new title a new
seuite level title um and I don't think
that those two things are are unrelated
and I do think that the fact that he's
working on um you know arguably the most
important um thing that Apple has done
over the past decade which is their
silicon and um if they're also as has
been sort whispered about and rumored.
If they're working on their own chips
and able to do inference and be able to
do more AI workloads, um they need capex
in order to do that. And so again, all
these things potentially are related and
I think this is signaling that more
spend is coming for sure.
>> Yeah, I agree. I think Apple's going to
make some big acquisitions in turn his
first year for him to set the tone that
it's going to be different and I think
that's good. I'm I'm in favor of that.
Uh two more Apple things before we go.
First of all, uh, you know, looking at
the calendar, we are going to, you know,
right now we are saying maybe Apple's
making the right move. Um, but even
still, they have a ter they have a
terrible AI product. Like nothing. Uh,
we're going to find out in a month about
whether all this like, you know, sort of
>> um,
what would you call it? uh uh wise uh
restraint uh is actually wise or whether
they're just being stupid and they have
no idea how to build these products cuz
new series supposed to come next month.
>> Yeah. And I mean I think it's wild that
it's that quick already that it's
happening. At the same time like if you
believe the the reporting by you know
Mark German, it's basically like they've
still delayed it a couple of times right
from when it was going to roll out in
potentially beta form um to get it out
there early. And you know, maybe it's
just wanting to to keep it back in order
to make a big big wow moment at at WWDC
when they do actually launch these
things and unveil them to the world.
Like, look, we finally did it. Sirius
finally fixed and we can make a big
to-do of it. You hope that's the case.
It's also possible that it's the
opposite of that, that they're having
still some troubles integrating it and
and the edge cases, right? Because much
like Amazon, as you brought up with with
sort of, you know, their own work and
and Alexa and whatnot on AI, dating back
to the Siri days, the earlier Siri days
too, it they they've had a hell of a
time and Google has as well sort of
transitioning from their original
models, Google Assistant to Gemini to
Bard and then to Gemini and then Alexa
to Alexa Plus and Apple Siri to I assume
it's still going to be called Siri.
Maybe it shouldn't still be called Siri,
but it's still like, you know, there's a
world in which Apple is having a hard
time uh sort of making that transition
just as the others have before them.
>> I think Alexa Plus is the best of the
bunch, I have to say. I really I really
like using it.
>> It is good. Um, you know, relative, I
think, to where it was at. It's it's a
good sort of conversational AI. Do you
use it though for any of the things that
Amazon, you know, hopes to use it for?
Do you shop with it, for example?
>> Sometimes. Uh, but I was shopping with
old Alexa, but what I really use it for
is to settle arguments in the house.
Like when we're debating things, like my
wife and I, I think I've said this
before, but I'm American, she's
European, we have strong opinions on
which system is better. Um, so we'll
just sort of get into a debate and then
all of a sudden we'll just summon we we
changed it name to Ziggy like it has
some other name. So we'll summon Ziggy
and that tends to settle the uh settle
the argument for us. And I mean that
sort of speaks directly to what you know
the iPhone point earlier. It's like it
sounds like you use it basically because
you have devices around your house,
right? And it's a it's a good
conversational AI and so you can use it
instead of taking out your phone and and
bringing up chat GPT or claude or
whatnot. Um and I think that that's
again a case in in Apple's court like
what's the best AI device? It's the one
you have on you.
>> Exactly. The one in your hand.
>> It's not the one that it's not the
theoretical one out there. It's the one
that billions of people already have.
>> That's right. Okay. Last thing and then
we're going to go to break and then talk
about Microsoft and OpenAI. Uh I think
we can spike the football for a moment
and you in particular that when this
Turnist talk was starting to surface I
think we both felt strongly that there
was something there and there were
voices out there that said nope Tim Cook
is going to stay for a while and uh and
and here it happened. The transition is
underway.
>> Yeah. I mean again I we had talked about
this and I feel like beyond sort of the
reporting I think Financial Times right
ends up looking really good in the way
that they framed it and I think that you
know that was accurate and I think it
was accurate for a reason. I think that
there was you know that someone wanted
it to be known uh that Cook was very
seriously weighing this decision and
maybe it wasn't a slam dunk you know
that it was going to happen for sure.
Maybe he wanted to take the holiday time
to think it through and and make sure
that uh you know like unlike Bob Iger in
the past that uh when he handed off that
first goaround to Bob JPEC and then
COVID hit and and the world blew up and
and it ended up being a really bad
situation for Disney, you know, maybe
Cook also wanted some optionality and
just to see, you know, what what it was.
But we had talked about it seemed like
it was there was some smoke to you know
some fire behind that smoke because it
just was a perfect time for for him to
do it if he chose to do it because of
the way that um the earnings were going
to play out which they did in Q1 record
all-time record earnings for Apple and
because of the way that the stock was
likely to react and it's $4 trillion now
and because of Apple's 50th anniversary
in April 1 and you know Cook obviously
that was important to him he made it
very clear and and so all of these
things came into place. The one thing
that I think was downplayed um for the
most part that I didn't read about too
much, but I think was in my mind at
least a big indicator of this was the
the sort of board minations of and maybe
this is just cuz this is sort of you
know my my world of of investing in VC
and and whatnot and board dynamics where
when the Apple announced that Arthur
Levenson and Ronald Sugar would be able
to stay on board after their 75th
birthdays which is the historic um step
down time for Apple board members.
and the fact that Eleven was the um the
board chair, that to me indicated that
it was very likely that they were
waiting on something, right? They didn't
want to appoint a new board chair if Tim
Cook was going to come in within a very
short amount of time and become that
board chair. And I think that that's uh
you know in some ways it might be as
simple as that that they basically
extended you know the the contract of
those folks and allowed them to stay on
but because they needed a good
transition um you know for the overall
company there's been a lot of turnover
as has been uh clear over the past many
months um beyond just the cook stuff
there's a lot of executive turnover and
even some on the board and so they
wanted uh steady steady hands but you
also want steady hands when you're doing
a CEO transition and I think again you
could read into a lot into at uh tea
leaves wise and I think that that ended
up being the case.
>> All right, let's go to break. We're
going to talk about Microsoft and OpenAI
doing away with the AGI clause and
Microsoft allowing OpenAI to work with
any cloud provider which is fairly big
news uh that I don't think has been
played up enough um as far as the Open
AI story goes. Of course, there's been a
lot of stuff in the news, so hard to
follow everything, but we'll try to
cover this story and also give you the
latest on the Stargate infrastructure
buildout when we come back right after
this. And we're back here on Big
Technology Podcast with MG Seagler of
Spyglass. You can find it at
spyglass.org. Highly recommend you go
check it out and sign up for the
newsletter. One of my favorite reads. Uh
MG, let's talk a little bit about the
clause, right? So, Microsoft and OpenAI
famously um have had very interesting
and weird iterations of their tie-up uh
including this one clause in the
contract that if OpenAI uh sort of
reached AGI then uh Microsoft lost all
rights to its technology after that and
last week basically what happened was
Microsoft and OpenAI came to this
agreement where uh first of all open AAI
could work with any cloud provider and
then it immediately ran and announced
this deal with AWS. Uh so it's now
available on on Amazon for Amazon cloud
customers and I anticipate and you know
given my conversations that I've had
with Thomas Curry and the head of Google
Cloud Platform that it will come to
Google fairly soon as well. He wants it
there. Uh so that's one. But then the
second and the maybe the weirder thing
was this AGI clause uh is now gone and
basically Microsoft has access to
OpenAI's IP till 2032 and that is the
state of the partnership today. Uh, is
it is is it too simple to read this as
um Microsoft has been kind of annoyed
working with OpenAI and has this huge
stake in the company realized that two
companies would basically be better as
far apart as they could be. Uh, and
meanwhile wants OpenAI to grow because
it has such a large stake in the company
that it says go ahead and work with
anybody. you're not helping our Azure
business as much as we thought you would
and so we'd rather just you kind of get
out of here, be big, be be as big as you
can and we'll just take the money.
>> Uh, nope. Not too simple to read it that
way. That's the way I read it.
[laughter] I mean, this is fun. It's
just following this whole drama and this
saga has been fun, especially because
they keep insisting that there's, you
know, nothing to this. like everything
is great and you know we'll get the Sam
and Satcha picture tweeted out every
once in a while but obviously at this
point like there's been enough reports
there's been enough just of these weird
deals the fact that this deal this new
this new update to their agreement is
happening 6 months after the last one
which was this massive undertaking right
in in and with a lot of changes made so
that openai could clear the path to
eventually become uh you know the the
public benefit corporation and get
actual equity uh holders in the company
and that of course would pave the way
for them to eventually go public which
they're obviously still working towards.
The fact that the AGI clause didn't go
away in those negotiations was
interesting, right? Like they tweaked
it, but they didn't kill it outright.
And presumably that still annoyed
Microsoft because at the end of the day,
they still had this weird thing hanging
over their heads where even though they
tweaked it to the point where
previously, if I have it right, uh the
OpenAI board uh could have announced AGI
and just torpedoed the deal. basically
ended the the relationship with
Microsoft and they were able to do
whatever they wanted and so they had
this unilateral power over over the
deal. Um so Microsoft got away did away
with that in the last goound of those
negotiations but it's still there. They
just had to sort of co-agree and so it
seemed like a deacto going away of it,
right? Like is was Microsoft ever going
to agree to let them go away uh from
their obligations uh from a B business
perspective? Probably not. But now it's
much cleaner. Now there's no more AGI
clause. I don't know when I when I wrote
about this, I didn't know if to read
into that that uh if there was anything
to read into it to the notion that maybe
OpenAI thought uh it was coming sooner
or thought it was coming later, right?
Like that they felt like that they could
do this now because they didn't care.
But ultimately, I'm not sure that that
matters at all. I think that all that
matters is they had a deal that they
wanted to do with Amazon. They had
famously taken a huge investment from
Amazon which we had talked about
previously. Um Microsoft
>> Microsoft almost sued them about right
they were going to sue them and uh
because it was a question of the
definition of uh you know like state
state versus stateless models or you
know getting into the weeds of of what
the um what they could legally do. Um
and so that was obviously going to be
another headache and battle going
forward. And at the same time, open AI,
I think that there's a very real case to
be made that part of the reason why
Anthropic has seen this the sort of
incredible surge by all accounts that
they've been seeing is because they have
this path where they can sell their
models via Amazon and via Google, right?
And now via Microsoft as well. And so
they have a much um much more green
field opportunity because they have all
of the major cloud providers that they
could sell on whereas OpenAI was
restricted and that they could only
really do it through uh through
Microsoft. And so I think that the two
sides, it sounds like Satcha and Sam got
together and basically hashed out a
simple at least relatively speaking more
simple agreement, get rid of the AGI
clause and allow us to run our models
anywhere. Oh, and by the way, the most
interesting thing to me about this
entire announcement was uh while
Microsoft no longer has to pay revenue
share back to OpenAI, OpenAI still has
to pay it to Microsoft and they have to
pay it even when they're using AWS or
potentially Google in the future. And so
beyond what your point about um
Microsoft being incentivized with the um
you know with their equity holding which
obviously they care about and want that
to be as as big of a company as possible
so that their percentage of that big
company is bigger. Um, the fact that
they're going to be making more and more
money off of their chief rivals in the
cloud potentially obviously help grease
those wheels and make that happen. I
feel like
>> what's more valuable to Microsoft? I
mean, it's hard to know exactly, but
having OpenAI grow, let's say 50% bigger
and having your 25%
stake, you know, you know, grow in that
in that same nature or uh if you believe
because I think in your recent pieces
you've stated OpenAI has the best
models. It certainly seems like uh in
terms of released models, GPT 5.5 is the
best on the market right now.
>> Mhm.
>> I think you know maybe being the only
place making Azure the only place you
can get those models is so is just even
if it I mean I'm thinking from a
Microsoft standpoint even if it hampers
Open AAI a bit uh it's almost like no
matter how annoying Sam might be to you
like going and working with Amazon that
is a tough thing to give up. That
exclusivity is a tough thing to give up.
And while I can understand how like, you
know, physiologically the Microsoft
might have been like kind of like to
hell with it, go do what you want. I
still kind of think that it might be a
mistake to let open AI go everywhere.
>> So, and this speaks to, you know, my the
point of my piece writing about the the
end of the clause is that there's
another potential clause in here which I
think was downplayed a little bit in
that and I can just read this part of
it. uh Microsoft remains OpenAI's
primary cloud partner and OpenAI
products will ship first on Azure unless
Microsoft cannot and chooses not to
support the necessary capabilities. So
to me that's that and is very important
right because it's basically saying
assuming that they worded this like in
very direct very deliberately in this
way which you have to believe that many
lawyers poured over poured over such a
statement. This was a statement in the
blog post
>> co-pilot
>> co-pilot maybe co-pilot hallucinated the
entire thing the agreement but but if
this is to be believed it's basically
that
>> Microsoft still has a right of first
refusal on these new models and new
capabilities that openai puts out there.
So say you know when they roll out uh
GPT 5.5 for the first time there might
be a world in which they could say like
hey we want this to be exclusive on
Azure for a set period of time. I'd love
to know what those terms look like how
long they could actually you know keep
such exclusivity if they're allowed to.
Um could be something you know like and
if they roll out a new product um if
open rolls out a new product they have
to offer it you know first on on Azure
as well. Um and it's basically open eyes
only out in that situation is again if
Microsoft cannot support whatever it is
or they choose not to. So it's not even
the fact that they would say like yeah
but you guys don't have X Y and Z
capabilities in Azure and so therefore
we're going to roll this out on AWS.
We're going to roll this out on Google
Cloud. They have to Microsoft has to
explicitly say we will not roll out
whatever X Y and Z is. Now, who knows,
you know, if they ever get to that
point, but you could see a world in
which, you know, say OpenAI and Amazon
come up with some new uh amazing product
offering that they're saying is only
available, only able to be done on AWS.
And Microsoft getting again mad because
they would say like, well, look, we can
roll that out on Azure, too. Like, so I
don't I don't agree with your uh your
ability to roll this out exclusively on
AWS. You know, this is going to come up
again. like there's no way this is the
end of this uh of this conversation and
the end of like uh the animosity between
all the parties here like because to
your point m the fact that Microsoft is
is okaying
uh open AAI their 25 27 whatever it is
now percent holder uh you know giant
equity portion of the company working
with their chief rival the biggest cloud
provider in the world uh is is sort of
incredible and so obviously this is
still going to come up time and time
again But there's there's new clauses to
be to be had here.
>> It seems like anybody who can say the
sentence, "Open AI would not exist
without us," tends to get very annoyed
at Open AI, whether it's Elon or
Microsoft or
>> Yep.
>> whoever it might be.
>> Yep. It's never going to end. And this
is um Yeah. [laughter] I this whole when
they do a deal, to your point, they're
obviously going to do a deal with
Google. They're going to be in GCP at
some point. And then it sort of becomes
uh you bring up an interesting point
around Azure and Microsoft's game plan.
You know, historically I think uh Amazon
has more run the game plan, but now to
the point that all the clouds are doing
it. They all want to offer all the
models, right? They're saying like we
want the customer to choose whatever
model they want. We want them to be
operating on our cloud, but we want them
to choose. We don't care if it's our own
model. We don't care if it's a OpenAI
model, if it's an anthropic model. So
they're reaching to the point now with
the with OpenAI's cap new new unlock
that they'll all be able to offer
basically all of the models and
Microsoft I guess with this with these
newer smaller clauses might be able to
say you should pick Azure because even
if um you can run all of the other
players you know models on the other
clouds we're going to get uh the first
look at the new uh the latest OpenAI
models and maybe that's enough to sway
some companies uh you know to go you can
still choose choose Claude if you want.
You can still choose uh maybe not
Gemini, but you can still choose
something else. Uh some of these other
models, DeepSeek and whatnot if you
want. Um but we're going to have the the
First Look Advantage. Um still, even if
we don't have the exclusivity uh
fulltime, it's almost like movie
windowing. It's a weird It's a weird new
uh weird new world we're entering
[laughter]
>> now in theaters. GPD 5.5 before it comes
to DVD
AWS in uh in early April. And yeah.
>> Oh my goodness. Yeah. No, there is
there's truth to that. Uh, all right. I
I definitely want to cover this Stargate
story uh because it's one of those big
stories where uh if folks if you recall
OpenAI announced this 500 billion dollar
buildout of AI infrastructure um Elon
Musk famously said they don't have the
money and then Stargate there were
reports that like oh the Stargate
company never formed and Stargate itself
uh didn't didn't uh you know get started
and now Stargate is kind of this like
catch-all word uh encapsul ating all of
OpenAI's infrastructure and MGI, you
know, let me know if you think this is
this makes sense. This is like a good
window into uh OpenAI's infrastructure
as a whole. Uh because I think the
conventional wisdom that OpenAI was
going to go out and build a lot of its
own infrastructure and actually it's
shifted to OpenAI has secured those data
centers as opposed to building those
data centers. And this has kind of
happened in a really quiet way that uh
the headlines in the beginning were very
loud and you know obviously got a lot of
attention but what's happened afterwards
uh certainly has not. So take us into
that story.
>> Yeah and it got loud to the point where
remember this was President Trump's
first day back in office. He has Elon
Musk sorry not Elon Musk famously not
Elon Musk there even though he's a part
of the new Doge part of the whole
administration. He is not there but
there with him is Sam Alman Elon's big
rival um Masaasan and Larry Ellison. So
the three of them are there alongside
President Trump in the in the White
House announcing the Stargate Project
Stargate which was going to be a $500
billion which you know uh was a massive
deal. It even it looks sort of quaint
almost now uh when you when you talk
about these numbers given where these
companies are valued at. But it was a
massive infrastructure deal and
obviously it was a big win for the Trump
administration. We could argue that a
lot of these deals were maybe already in
place and maybe they were repurposing
things and and whatnot, but that's
that's sort of part for the course it
seems like with with some of these
announcements. But still, it was
regardless it was a great PR moment and
a great uh moment for all these
companies and it looked like a great
moment, you know, potentially for
America. we were going to have this huge
huge new AI initiative backed by these
major companies um and and in including
obviously the government. And so fast
forward um over the next year, it
basically went into place that the first
Stargate which was going to be in a in a
data center in Abalene, Texas, which by
the way did not start out as a Stargate
project. It started out oddly as an Elon
Musk project that Oracle was building. A
whole range of people were building.
Blue's Blue Capital is involved with it.
a lot of other players are involved with
it, but basically uh OpenAI was able to
bring this in with Oracle to make it now
a uh the first Stargates and it was
going to go from there. But fast forward
again over the next year, there were
just a lot of weird reports about deals
getting backed out of and nothing sort
of coming online in the in the way that
they had hoped. They again had talked
about of the 500 billion a 100red
billion was committed right out of the
gates and they were going to come out
swinging and again it was just really
slowgoing and the subsequent reports had
it that like yeah well maybe we're not
going to use this um this facility and
maybe SoftBank was having a hard time
raising the debt needed to get this
facility off the ground. Maybe Oracle
was having a hard time raising the debt
needed to get out. Oh, by the way,
Oracle and and OpenAI are backing out of
this facility, the the extension of the
Abalene site, and who's coming in?
Microsoft, oddly. And so, all of these
weird things going on, but you're
exactly right that to me, this basically
encapsulates uh the change that OpenAI
has made um over that time. And I think
that there's other plays in here which
are sort of tangential but related,
including the big deal with Nvidia,
which is another interesting deal,
right? We had talked about it previously
where Nvidia announced with much much
pomp and circumstance with with Jensen
and Greg Brockman and Sam Olman that
they were going to invest a hundred
billion dollars into open AAI over an
extended period of time and then all of
a sudden that quietly went away. Well,
what was a big part of that deal? A big
part of that deal was clearly in order
to secure the debt required for Open AI
to continue these buildouts. Open has
been talking about in blo various blog
posts over the time span since Stargate
came out that they needed to come up
with interesting and mysterious new ways
of doing capital financing for these the
data center buildouts. And yes, to your
exact point, the thought process seemed
to be that they felt like they needed to
own these. They weren't going to own the
Abene site because that was already sort
of again backed into that was already in
place. But going forward, they wanted to
own a lot of these. And to me, that just
read like they realized that their real
threat was Google. Google of course
famously owns you know their data
centers and owns all of the
infrastructure that they need and so how
was open a going to be able to compete
with that well they couldn't as a
massively money losing startup be able
to raise the debt needed in order to
build out these facilities and so they
were partnering with Oracle with
SoftBank eventually with Nvidia but
again all of these sort of came back and
were pulled back to varying degrees and
now the narrative it seems like has
shifted fully um and I've written about
this because it felt like that was an
easy thing to read in between the lines
of that they were changing the that
narrative that it was no longer going to
be project Stargate building up you know
these these massive infrastructure for
uh open AI whereas it's going to be now
we're going to figure out how to build
up this massive infrastructure
individually all these companies and
maybe we'll rope them into Stargate and
Stargate will just be the catch-all term
exactly as you laid out and now that
seems to be the world and the only thing
I would say the other layer of this is
the weirdness is is related to sort of
the PR the evolving PR strategy of uh of
Open AAI where they now write blog posts
that are sort of gaslighting in the way
that they're basically saying like yeah
as you know we announced this as a it
was always going to be the plan that
this was this was sort of going to play
out this way and that's just not the
case. Like if you look at those old blog
posts, they were not they were not laid
out in the way that they're currently
laying out the current Stargate
initiative. And you see it in the in the
pullback again of Stargate, not just in
the US either, in the UK and all around
the world. Like they have these
initiatives and it's all tied to it
seems like it's all tied to obviously
the need for them to corral spending a
little bit if and when they're going to
really try to go public.
>> Yeah. I mean, one thing I'll say is that
this new strategy also shifts all the
risk to like the partners. Yes. through
the oracles and Nvidia and a lot of the
neoclouds that kind of exist like the
Nebus and the core weaves we had
coreweave on and the one thing I
couldn't you know I thought they did a
great job explaining their business when
they were here on the show and obviously
I think their stock popped like 12%
after their appearance so folks put your
put your people on big technology
podcast but um but I I think the the
weakness in the whole story is um your
whole business is based off of open AI
keeping this promise of a uh of building
out the infrastructure and last week in
particular when there was that Wall
Street Journal report which OpenAI
pushed back on very uh strongly that
like Sarah Frier the CFO was like if we
don't make more money we're not going to
build more data centers. Uh that caused
a real reaction in in these these
partners in the Neoclouds um the the
whole wave of them got hit pretty hard
and that's that is like if you're
looking for areas of risk or weakness in
this whole AI story that's the place I
would look. Yeah. And and going forward,
the the question is going back to their
old strategy or what seemed to be their
old strategy where they felt like maybe
they had to combat Google, right? And
Google again owns the infrastructure.
And why what's the reason why you'd want
it? Why wouldn't you just want to
offload all this, right? Because it'd be
great. Well, at the end of the day, like
you're still like you're paying people
in order to do this this work, right?
And if you own and control it
completely, just like we talked about
with Apple owning owning, you know, the
whole stack and whatnot, you're going to
have better uh cost advantages over, you
know, the people who don't. And so
Google's in a much better position, it
feels like at the highest level of being
able to do all of the AI work that they
need to do um because of their massive
infrastructure uh capabilities, whereas
OpenAI just doesn't have that. and look
at now what's happening even with
Anthropic where they're scrambling to
ramp up in on the infrastructure side
because I think OpenAI is a good point
that you know for all the all the talk
of uh of the past many months that maybe
um you [snorts] know uh I don't remember
how exactly they framed it but that open
AI was spending like drunken sailors or
whatnot you know like in terms of their
their infrastructure plans there was a
upside to that in that they now have the
capacity to to meet the demands whereas
anthropic it feels like does Not. And so
again, does Google have those problems?
No. Uh does Microsoft I mean all the
cloud providers are saying that they're
capacity constrained and they are to
certain degrees, right? Because it comes
down to ultimately chips andor power.
But still, if we believe that we're
going to get to a world where those
those issues are eventually resolved, uh
Google's just overall owning of again
that entire stack when it comes to the
infrastructure is going to give them
massive cost advantages over what OpenAI
is going to be able to offer up at that
steady state. We're not in that steady
state right now. Um and so it's sort of
masked a little bit, but there's a
reason why they wanted to get there,
right? they're not are they going to be
able to compete on a on a cost basis
with um with the Googles of the world
and you know increasingly the Microsofts
Amazon's uh of the world as we go
forward with these massive clouds and so
that's what it comes down to and that's
going to be but that's like that's a few
years down the road it feels like right
and maybe OpenAI is public already by
then maybe they get in a situation where
it ends up playing out okay from them
because they're now a public company
they're able to sort of they were able
to corral spending a bit focus. I'm
laying out a, you know, a good case
scenario for them and and they're able
to sort of use different uh monetary
instruments to raise what they need to
raise debt and whatnot um to build out
their own infrastructure and because of
the way that the things are constantly
evolving, maybe it doesn't matter so
much that they don't control the
infrastructure at Abolene and it does it
doesn't matter so much they control, you
know, the first few Stargates. what's
matters is the Stargates going forward
because those are the ones with the the
latest chips and the the better
inference and able to do the better
inference and and whatnot. And so
there's a world I guess that they can do
that but still it's going to be there's
going to be so much money needed to get
from A to B where that's going to be the
story of the next, you know, couple
years, few years at least.
>> Most definitely. Uh this hour went by
extremely fast. We I we we're talking
about potentially covering the Musk
[music] Alman trial, but I think when
you're on in June, we'll actually maybe
have a verdict to discuss. So, we'll
leave it till June.
>> Think about talk about things that are
moving fast. Like that's going to change
10 times in between now and then.
>> Yeah, exactly. So, uh we'll keep an eye
out on that. That'll be interesting.
[music] And uh and again, folks,
definitely recommend you go check out
Spyglass at spyglass.org. MG, great to
see you again. Thanks for coming on.
>> Thank you, Alex.
>> All right, everybody. Thank you so much
for listening and watching and we'll see
you next time on Big Technology Podcast.