Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
TBPN is a live tech talk show hosted by John Coogan and Jordi Hays, streaming weekdays from 11–2 PT on X and YouTube, with full episodes posted to Spotify immediately after airing.
Described by The New York Times as “Silicon Valley’s newest obsession,” TBPN has interviewed Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Mark Cuban, and Satya Nadella. Diet TBPN delivers the best moments from each episode in under 30 minutes.
Big news of the day of the week, this has been going on all week, is that Arm, the intellectual property developer that creates intellectual property designs for CPUs, is now getting into the chip game. And they got a big ARM pump Chip. In the stock market. So the company is up 15% over the last few days on the news that they will sell their own chips. This is new for ARM.
Speaker 1:ARM's a very old company. Fascinating history. I actually made a twenty five minute YouTube video all about the history of the company back in 2023, but we'll recap a little bit of it today. They normally just license out their intellectual property, and that is a phenomenal business, 97% gross margins. 97% gross margins.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Let's give it up. There we go. Let's give it up. That's amazing.
Speaker 1:And it's a big business, dollars 4,000,000,000 in revenue last year, nearly $800,000,000 of net income. This new move, they're expecting to ramp revenue to $15,000,000,000 by 2031. So they're expanding the market significantly. Now margins will be different, but the market cap for Arm is now around $166,000,000,000 So it's a big company. It trades at a very high multiple.
Speaker 2:Yeah. 4,000,000,000 last year, currently trading at 165 But
Speaker 1:very, very high gross margin. This is a big shift in strategy. ARM's not an AI loser by any means, but it hasn't gotten the attention that other GPU makers have received, like NVIDIA. CPUs are far from dead, though. In fact, we are currently in what seems like a little bit of a CPU crunch.
Speaker 1:Intel can't make CPUs fast enough. NVIDIA is starting to sell their Grace CPU that goes with their hopper, so you get the h100 and you pair it with the Grace CPU. You get the GPU and the CPU all on one system. Well, now you can buy the CPU by itself if you're CPU constrained. So you don't want to just be GPU rich and CPU poor.
Speaker 1:You got to be rich in both camps, and a lot of companies are jumping in to fill this gap. Agents, and a lot of this is because of agents. Agents need CPUs. You need to fill the GPUs constantly with new data and tasks. Also, all of the agents use CPUs to make web queries, search the web, run Python, spin up web servers, interact with anything.
Speaker 1:Uptime is going down for non GPU accelerated workloads. You go to a SaaS product that is basically just a web server that's running on a CPU somewhere in a data center, and you're like, oh, this thing isn't loading today, or there's downtime. And a lot of that's just because we're writing more software, we're using more software as a society, as a country, and we need more CPUs as well as GPUs, even though GPUs are like the hot thing to talk about. So ARM has a very interesting backstory, but you can think about it basically as a joint venture between three groups: Apple, Acorn Computer, and VLSI. And so they needed to design a low power CPU for mobile devices.
Speaker 1:Before phones, you know what was hot, Jordy? PDAs. And have you ever seen a PDA, Tyler? No. You've never seen a PDA?
Speaker 2:Don't Wow. Think
Speaker 1:Okay. So before the iPhone, you know, had flip phones. Before This
Speaker 2:is not a pager?
Speaker 1:It's not a pager. You don't know what this is either? No. Wow. So there's something called a PalmPilot.
Speaker 1:And basically, it was iPhone sized screen and it has stylus, and you could write on it, and you could make notes. And PDA stood for personal digital assistant. And I feel like that brand is just itching to come back in 2026.
Speaker 2:Everyone is working on a PDA.
Speaker 1:Yeah, personal super intelligence assistance. There's a whole bunch of things. We're building PDAs, folks. They just live in the cloud and it's not a physical device. But these PDAs back in the '90s were physical devices.
Speaker 1:This was post pager, pre smartphone. And it was the device that you carried to take notes and do things that you do today in apps you would do on your PDA. But it wasn't always on, Internet connected, none of that. It was a PalmPilot, and this was a fantastic business for a while. But there were a lot of problems with this because for the first time, you needed a CPU that could live within a plastic shell, basically.
Speaker 1:These were plastic enclosures. You need to run on a battery. You need to be able to do some things, not crazy compute. But the CPU industry in the '90s was very focused on mainframes, servers, desktops. There were a few laptops popping up, but it was not the mobile phone revolution that's happening now where you have Apple silicon chips and those are, of course, based on ARM architecture, but that's where all this came from.
Speaker 1:People said, Okay, we need a lower power chip that can actually run off a battery, not overheat and melt the plastic, do all of this, and it can be somebody can power a device that you carry with you as a personal digital assistant, a PDA.
Speaker 2:Chicken in the chat says PayPal started on PDAs.
Speaker 1:That's right. That's right. So PayPal started originally, the idea was these PDAs had they didn't have like tap to pay or anything like that, RFID. They had basically the same device that you'd see on a TV remote, so IR. And it would flash a light that could be seen by another sensor.
Speaker 1:And if you flash the light at a certain rate, you can send a message. You can basically, it's like advanced what's that SOS thing? Morse? Morse code. It's like a more advanced version of Morse code.
Speaker 1:And so you could send a specific packet of information from PDA to PDA, and this was the original idea for PayPal. That's correct. That's a great, great piece of lore, tech lore. Arm starts to build these. Later, there's Robin Saxby, who was the CEO of Arm at the time.
Speaker 1:He wanted Arm to become the global standard for CPUs, and so in the '90s, there were lots of different CPU makers, lots of different architectures. There's this whole CISC versus RISC debate. There's the architecture that Intel pioneers. And slight differences in architectures can limit interoperability. You see this with what's going on with Mac, where a whole bunch of applications have needed to be rewritten for Apple silicon because previously, you would have an Intel Mac before we got to the M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 chips.
Speaker 1:Those are Apple silicon. Those are ARM based. And sometimes, you'll go to a website and they'll be like, oh, do you want to download this for a Mac? Like, what do you have? Do you have an Intel Mac or do you have an Apple silicon Mac?
Speaker 1:Well, it's important because when you write the software that runs on the Mac, you need to use specific instruction sets. Now, are ways to abstract that and run on either, but there are lots of pieces of software that interact with the CPU at a low enough level that they need to be aware of the instruction set. So ARM sets out to be the global standard for CPUs, and they create the ISA, the instruction set architecture, and that ultimately let Apple design their own chips but within the architectural guidelines set forth by ARM. So Apple pays a license to ARM for every chip Apple sells. It's a very small license fee because Apple does a lot of design work.
Speaker 1:They do the manufacturing, the TSMC fabs it, and like there's a million other pieces of the value chain. But for this one little slice, they have to pay ARM, and ARM just takes that and says, thanks. Cool. Like, you used our intellectual property successfully. Do you know
Speaker 2:who else says thanks? Who? Masayoshi Son.
Speaker 1:That's true.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Huge arm in this They own 90%, roughly 90% of the company. It was a full buyout in 2016. That's right. They bought the entire company for something around $2,530,000,000,000 Yeah.
Speaker 2:US USD Yeah. By the entire company. They still own 90% today. So their purse they're like Yeah. SoftBank's holdings Yeah.
Speaker 2:Just in that one company are somewhere in the range of a 140,000,000,000 It's great. When I was looking at. It's the of course, they've The second time, it's made up
Speaker 1:a 100,000,000,000.
Speaker 2:Well, and they've massively levered up against that position. Yes, They've used they've they've raised debt against their holdings in ARM. Yep. But certainly, Mazda is somewhere out in the world seeing it go up 15% just
Speaker 1:Happy.
Speaker 2:Smashing a gong.
Speaker 1:Hope so. I hope so. Although everyone knows Apple, my clickbait for my YouTube video was like, did you know the iPhone is secretly British? I think it's funny because it uses ARM deep inside. But ARM licenses to a ton of different tech companies.
Speaker 1:So Amazon uses ARM for the Graviton chips. A lot of Android phone makers have ARM based chips. Tons of other tech companies license ARM's technology to build chips. But now ARM is going to be making the chips themselves, and they're going be working with Meta Platforms and OpenAI. This means a shift in the economics of the business.
Speaker 1:So 97% gross margins for just those licensing ISA contracts, this will be closer to 50%. But it should be offset by the huge gains in market size and revenue potential. So company has one of the highest multiples in semiconductors, roughly 90 times forward earnings. So there's a lot to live up to. But there's a lot of value coming from AI agents that have access to plentiful CPU resources.
Speaker 1:The industry dynamics are also particularly interesting. Ben Thompson pointed this out in So NVIDIA sells an ARM based CPU, that Grace CPU. NVIDIA is sort of competing with ARM. Jensen showed up and gave like a remote talk at this ARM event where they announced this chip. And so they're competing, but they're also in some ways working together because they're challenging x86 options from Intel and AMD that are still really popular.
Speaker 1:If NVIDIA sells a bunch of chips for AI workloads, well then that actually makes ARM more likely to sell their chips as well because whatever software is built for the NVIDIA ARM based chips will probably run on the ARM ARM based chips. So there's some sort of like integration there. The x86 moat is not as strong as CUDA moat, but there's still this dynamic of NVIDIA and ARM are going up against Intel and AMD in the same way that different GPU makers are going up against the CUDA moat. So there's all these different interactions there. But it'll all be interesting to follow.
Speaker 1:Let's move on. The big news that drove this was, of course, Meta, engineering at Meta. Today we're announcing a new partnership with Arm to collaborate on the development of multiple generations of purpose built CPUs to support compute and AI infrastructure. Arm called it the Arm AGI CPU. What a great name.
Speaker 1:The Wall Street Journal has another good write up of this story talking about how this The timing is good. There is a boom in CPUs right now, but the stock is already priced very highly and everything has to go perfectly because it's it trades at one of the highest multiples of all the semiconductor companies.
Speaker 2:Let's talk about this data center moratorium bill.
Speaker 1:Yes.
Speaker 2:I wrote in the newsletter today yesterday, senator Bernie Sanders and AOC introduced a new bill, the AI Datacenter Moratorium Act of 2026, that if enacted, would require all current and planned data centers to halt construction Mhmm. Slash production. It even it would even block upgrading existing datacenters. So if you have an asset and you wanna make changes to it as this bill is written today, it would be blocked. They they sort of like define datacenters based on power demands Mhmm.
Speaker 2:Cooling capabilities Mhmm. Like how much power you can get to each individual rack. Mhmm. So they have been fairly specific, but trying to be because I was
Speaker 1:I was thinking I was fine with this. I was thinking like, don't need any more AI data centers at this point. We can freeze those. I just wanna build a g a
Speaker 2:g I
Speaker 1:data. Data centers and a s I data centers. And so as long as I can just build tons of those, like, should be fine. But it is interesting that they they seem to have figured out the semantic loopholes that might happen
Speaker 2:if it's deflecting AI. Yeah. The bill would halt all new data center construction and upgrades until more legislation is put in place to guarantee the following. And these will be tough to guarantee. So from Sanders' site, they want AI to be safe and effective, preventing executives in the AI industry from releasing harmful products into the world that threaten the health and well-being of working families, our privacy and civil rights, and the future of humanity.
Speaker 2:The economic gains of AI and robotics will benefit workers, not just the wealthy owners of big tech. And AI does not increase electricity or utility prices, harm communities, or destroy the environment.
Speaker 1:So this stuff seems good.
Speaker 2:Yeah, all generally good.
Speaker 1:But one
Speaker 2:wants to
Speaker 1:find safe and ineffective AI.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah. And the bigger problem is any time you're creating I don't think we've created a technology ever that didn't have Some doubt. Some negative impact. Yeah. Car crashes, as example.
Speaker 2:I'm sure this will be rewritten and debated. And obviously, it has a long way to go before becoming law. But this set of requirements seems completely impossible to actually achieve.
Speaker 1:Well, it depends on how define it. AI does not increase electricity or utility prices. Like the ratepayer protection pledge and behind the meter stuff could
Speaker 2:actually I'm more talking about number one.
Speaker 1:Number one, safe and effective. It's all in how you define that. Like Some of the parental controls are a good example of how to take that overarching thesis and then boil it down into something tractable. And when I hear that, I think, oh, I don't know how we are defining safe. I don't know how we're defining effective.
Speaker 1:This feels like this could be some sort of very vague thing where if one particular administration likes this company, they just approve it or not or whatever. But then when we actually talk to lawmakers and you hear something like, oh, yeah, we're going to require parental controls. So if your offspring has an AI account, you can say, hey, they are this age. Don't show them anything that's inappropriate for that age. That seems good.
Speaker 1:So I
Speaker 2:don't know. Overall, at least this first bullet point preventing executives in the AI industry from releasing harmful products in the world, that feels like that you could end up having something like an FDA that's like every product you create needs to go through years of of studies True. In order in order for the government. Yeah. And and it's like, hey, I just wanted to create like a slightly more AI native version of the SaaS tool.
Speaker 2:Do I really? I want to make SaaS.
Speaker 1:I just
Speaker 2:want to make SaaS.
Speaker 1:At the same time, the bull case, I think the FDA model would really slow things down based on how long the FDA takes to approve things. At the same time, what is the definition of harmful here? Is it net harmful products? Because that is the goal of the FDA. They release drugs all the time that have side effects.
Speaker 1:You take this, it cures a cancer, but it's going to make you throw up or it's going to make you lose your hair. And people are like, yeah, I'll take that trade. And so if you went through the government and you said, Okay, yeah, I'm going to give you this tool that can write code, but sometimes it's going to hallucinate. And you might get some code that doesn't pass tests, I'd be like, yeah, Okay. It speeds me up.
Speaker 1:On average, I'm in. That's fine. And having some of those disclosures it's the same thing with knowledge retrieval. I do a deep research report. I get something that's 99% of the way there.
Speaker 1:Maybe there's something in there that's like, oh, that's actually misattributed. I know that that number is from this report online that was wrong, and the model doesn't. And so I need to fact check it. I still see that as net beneficial, but there are, of course, flaws in every system. So again, it's like, how does this get defined over time?
Speaker 1:That's important.
Speaker 2:One thing I noticed from the announcement was that they are using AI leaders' own statements against them, And it's easy to see how this would resonate with their constituents.
Speaker 1:It was really powerful.
Speaker 2:So they On Sanders websites, he included this quote.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:In December, Elon Musk, who leads xAI, said he had quote, a lot of AI nightmares and would quote certainly slow down AI and robotics if he could.
Speaker 1:It's so interesting because Elon doesn't talk about that with like the rollout of electric cars or the rollout of of space travel. He's not saying like, oh, yeah. Like, you know, twenty thirty is too soon to get to Mars. We need to slow down on the on the race to the moon. Like, let's really figure out the the spacesuits first.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:You know, he's like, let's just go.
Speaker 2:And then another one, in January, Demis, the head of Google's DeepMind, said he would support an AI positive. He knew other countries and companies also paused development. In February, Dari Amade, the head of Anthropics, said he was absolutely in favor of trying to slow down AI development if other countries also slowed down.
Speaker 1:That was Davos, I believe.
Speaker 2:January and February. So continuing Yeah. I wrote. But the problem, of course, is that there is zero movement on getting other countries to slow down. I can imagine some companies that would be like
Speaker 1:There's already comments in the chat about like, yeah, let China win.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I I I I'm not gonna name the countries that would be down to slow down, but I think we all know that China, even if they agreed to something like this, wouldn't just automatically
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Do anything about it. But the problem, of
Speaker 1:course Were there any countries that are like, yeah, we we definitely should. So we're ready to slow down. Like, we're France.
Speaker 2:Well, think if you're way behind Go ahead. If you're way behind, there's kind of a benefit.
Speaker 1:It's huge incentive.
Speaker 2:Elon had said, I think, in 2023 that he supported like a six month pause. At that moment, that would have been awesome. Yeah. Be because you hey, if I could just have six months Yeah.
Speaker 1:To like get my I feel like if you team pulled people in the South Of France or or the Amalfi Coast, like those folks would say, we should just slow down generally. Yeah. AI, but also just slow down our lives, enjoy a glass of wine, hit the bus.
Speaker 2:Yeah. Or even like a summer break.
Speaker 1:Just a summer break. Kinda like
Speaker 2:four weeks.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Or even like during the work day, taking a break, taking a nap, just taking just slowing
Speaker 2:down Yes.
Speaker 1:Generally. I think I think there's a lot of people that are just in favor of that.
Speaker 2:Doesn't that mean that China should be more in favor of slowing down? That is interesting. Well, I'm just saying, I can imagine in the same way that like, for as many chips as we give them, advanced GPUs as we give them, you can assume they're still going to put an immense amount of pressure to kind of stimulate Yeah. The local semiconductor industry.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:In the same way here, I'm sure they would love for The United States to just pause all new data center construction. I think it's possible that they would, like, gen generally say, like, yeah, like, this seems good, but then what would they actually do? They would just use that as an opportunity to catch up. Right?
Speaker 1:So my question is like, where does China actually stand on this? I'd be very interested to know, maybe you could look it up. Like, has the Chinese Communist Party actually put out any statements about whether they want to accelerate or pause AI development? Because they're I I think that they might refrain from taking that stance because it would discourage local, like indigenous development. If the government is coming out and saying like, we wanna slow down, then a lot of entrepreneurs are gonna be like, okay, I'll go back e commerce or I'll go back to manufacturing.
Speaker 1:Like, I'm not going work on this because the government doesn't want me to. And so I feel like there's this tug in like, even though I agree with you, like, it what we would be in their advantage to say, hey, we want to slow down. Everyone should slow down. We're pro slow down. If they actually said that, it would have an immediate slowdown effect on the local AI progress.
Speaker 1:Does that make sense? Yeah. Because even even if they even if they if they just take that stance because it's an authoritarian country, like there's like, this the like like the the Bernie Sanders comment stands in opposition to other politicians who are saying like, no, actually things are going well and here's how we're going to, you know, like advance energy and to build more. But if you don't have that and it comes down as like a dictate, like this is the stance from the government, it's much harder for local entrepreneurs and local AI labs to like push back against that because it feels like they're all of a sudden in opposition to the government.
Speaker 2:So just to kind of finish my thought Yeah. All these quotes Mhmm. Like must go extremely hard if you're not kind of acknowledging the full picture Totally. Which is that, yeah, leaders are saying, yeah, if you get other countries to agree to slow down, we'd be open to it.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:But that is like the big elephant in the room. They don't mention any even conversations or dialogue with other countries around slowing down. I don't think there's been any. So anyways, the act has a long way to go and it seems like the odds of it getting into law are low, but not zero. Safe to say that as written, the requirements in the bill would be an incredible gift to America's adversaries and catastrophic for overall AI progress.
Speaker 2:The question becomes, if anything like this were to become law Mhmm. What are the effects of that? Right? Space. Right?
Speaker 2:The space data center people
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Are are saying like Yeah.
Speaker 1:We were talking
Speaker 2:about Space data centers don't seem so silly now. Yeah. Taking that angle. Totally. Although I'm sure they would also be like, you can't put them up there either.
Speaker 2:Yeah. We're gonna we're gonna try
Speaker 1:to mean, there's also off
Speaker 2:the top.
Speaker 1:There's also just like the globalization process that happened based around environmentalism in the '90s, WTO ascension for China. The reason that a lot of the mining happened in China is because we said, we don't want that here. It's dirty. It's gross. There's chemicals.
Speaker 1:There's pollution. And so out of sight, out of mind, let's push it abroad. And we could do that again with data centers. We could just be like, they're all in Canada or Mexico or they're all in some, you know, Australia or, you know, there there could be a receptive country out there that just is like, we would love we we are an ally now, and we'd love to get all these data centers. And then you have to ask the question of, like
Speaker 2:Just remember
Speaker 1:does that look like in thirty years?
Speaker 2:Data centers generate a a they they don't create a lot of jobs, luckily. They create a meaningful amount of work during the development process. And certainly some jobs. Continue to generate massive amounts of tax rep local tax revenue.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I actually don't know how you tax Like,
Speaker 2:the data center that we blocked Yeah. I think in New Jersey
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Was gonna be generating like tens of millions of dollars Okay. Of local taxes
Speaker 1:That seems pretty good.
Speaker 2:Yeah. And the environmental concerns. Yeah. Think I think everybody should wanna make sure that if we're investing hundreds of billions of dollars Yeah. Into these things that that we're not destroying our lovely mother earth.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:But and and the the energy costs, again Yeah. Real concern, but we're making we're making progress there. Yeah. So
Speaker 1:Meta YouTube found addictive harmful. It's like one of the hardest hitting headlines I've ever seen on the front of The Wall Street Journal. For two companies that are usually relegated to the business and finance section, they made it to the front page because, they were found guilty or, you know, by California jurors. California jurors say the tech companies designed their apps to cause injury to kids. Very, very bad.
Speaker 1:But Brandon Guerrell had a take and a write up, and some explanation of what's actually going on here. The total, damages are 3,000,000 each company, roughly 6,000,000 total. And I had a friend who's a lawyer who texted me and sent me the number and was like, hey, I'm predicting that it will be like 3 ms. And I didn't read the m, and I was like, Okay, 3,000,000,000. Like, what will that do?
Speaker 1:This is not that big of a deal. And then it was $3,000,000 And I was like, that's extremely low compared to the numbers that we normally see from big tech companies. But this has much broader implications because this is precedent setting, and there will be a flood of other companies.
Speaker 2:And Zucks, like, I did spend all of my free cash flow on data centers. Yes. But if you give me another two seconds, I will have the I will have the cash flow to cover this.
Speaker 1:So just
Speaker 2:give me like two seconds.
Speaker 1:Yes. But it is it is a very important case, even though this particular ruling is not changing the cash flow structure of these businesses because it has a lot of ramifications and there's a lot more plaintiffs that are in the queue. So yesterday, a Los Angeles jury, both Meta and YouTube liable for a 20 year old woman's mental health crisis in a bellwether trial that treated platforms as quote defective products and potentially marks the end to the absolute immunity nature of section two thirty. In the case, the plaintiff's lawyer, Mark Lanier, argued that Meta and YouTube built, quote, digital casinos that use neurobiological techniques similar to those employed by slot machines. Fun fact about ARM throwback, the first chip that the company, the precursor company, ever built was a chip that went into a slot machine.
Speaker 1:They call them fruit machines in in England.
Speaker 2:Fruit machines?
Speaker 1:Fruit machines. They call them fruit machines because they have, like, the cherries and the strawberries and the bananas, you line them up. The jury found that specific features of Meta and YouTube are designed to be addictive. Infinite scroll creates an environment where there are no natural stopping points. Algorithmic recommendation feeds users feeds users highly engaging content.
Speaker 1:Autoplay removes users' agency in choosing whether or not to watch the next video. Notifications pull users back in by exploiting their need for validation. Instagram beauty filters contributed to the plaintiff's body dysmorphia. Features like the like button exploit users' biological need for societal approval. This is what the lawyer argued.
Speaker 2:Shake Shack exploited my biological need for food.
Speaker 1:Yes. There is this question. There was Taylor Lorenzen had some great takes here. She said
Speaker 2:So so Taylor has come out in the last, like, forty eight hours. Protech. I would say is, like, the number one defender of big technology.
Speaker 1:Yeah. She had a take that was like, is it Spotify addict you to music by playing like good songs for you on demand? And and
Speaker 2:This DJ this this AI DJ is simply too good.
Speaker 1:It's basically I mean, that's kind of the argument. They didn't obviously go after Spotify. They went after Meta and YouTube. But, yeah, there there's a question about, like, you know, what UI features what are dark patterns and how do we regulate those? And, it's very interesting.
Speaker 1:But the bellwether nature of the outcome has significant implications for social media. There are over ten thousand individual personal injury cases, almost 800 school district claims, and 40 state level cases pending nationwide that are similar to KGM versus Meta and YouTube. More broadly, the social media industry's reliance on section two thirty, which has up to now shielded them from liability for user generated content, may no longer be enough to protect them from litigation like this. To be clear, this case is not is not attacking section two thirty because it's not making the argument that someone uploaded a video to YouTube that said, you should be sad. You should be afraid.
Speaker 1:It's over. And that made someone sad. That is the content that is user generated. That is protected under section two thirty. You might be able to go after the individual creator of that video.
Speaker 1:If I make a video that says, like, Jordy Hayes sucks and should be sad, and then you get sad, you might be able to sue me, I think. But this is different because they went after the like button, the infinite scroll, the recommendation feeds, the features that are built by the platforms themselves. So if the decision makes it through appeals, and this might go all the way to the Supreme Court, we'll see, platforms may be forced to redesign their user experiences and algorithms, put up age verification, even deprecate infinite scroll. Obviously, changes like this would have an effect on both these platforms' ad based revenue models. Meta and Google plan to appeal the decision, and it's not hard to imagine this one making it to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1:We have to start apologizing to the schizophrenic community. There was a surveillance drone reportedly flown by infiltrator elements and disguised as a natural bird such as an eagle that has been spotted in Iran. This goes back to Taylor Lions because I believe she worked with the folks behind the viral stunt Birds aren't real that was sort of a commentary on the conspiratorial nature of the Internet. And in that stunt, they make the argument that birds need to be recharged and they're all spying on you and no birds are real. Of course, that is very satirical and funny.
Speaker 1:But apparently, someone made a drone. Some, you know, organization made a drone that looks like a bird so it can sneak behind enemy lines and spy during the the conflict, which is remarkable.
Speaker 2:Do you think there will ever be video games that are effectively Mhmm. You're just remote piloting something in the real world?
Speaker 1:So I have heard of this years and years ago that there was something along the along those lines that would allow you to hunt remotely. So you go to a website and you control a weapon that can hunt an animal.
Speaker 2:Do they close the loop? Like help you actually get Yes. Meat?
Speaker 1:Yes. They so after you down the animal, they will go and ship it to you so you can mount it on your wall. Dang. The reactions to the Meta and YouTube Trial continue. Ariel Grivner says or Gibner says, this is disgusting, and I can't wait for the appeals.
Speaker 1:The precedent set by YouTube being liable for screen time addiction is kind of scary. Treating algorithms like a defective product opens the door to endless lawsuits over addictive tech. What's next? Books, video games, junk food? Video games, we gotta do something about.
Speaker 1:Those things are too too fun. Too fun. Truly, we gotta make them we gotta
Speaker 2:Except make except you you ascended. You beat your addiction. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Might have been playing a game earlier this week. Got a sneaky little forty five minutes.
Speaker 2:Really?
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:Yeah. It was good.
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:Player obscura.
Speaker 2:I'm gonna go I'm gonna go look
Speaker 1:gotta pull me out. I'm addicted. I don't know. It's depressing. It's making me sad thinking about these these tech companies having to pay fines, and it's just it's just ruining my mood entirely.
Speaker 1:And it was like you can tell that the that the the the way the lawsuit was designed was designed to take an emotional toll on me, suck me in, make me read the all of the all of the transcripts from the court, all the all the reporting, all the research. Should he be held accountable for what he's doing? I don't know. We'll see. But there might be loss.
Speaker 2:Meta, of course, trading down massively today, almost 9%
Speaker 1:Woah.
Speaker 2:Off of this. And, you know, it it there's some real concerns. Right? If they there's new legal risk, there's thousands of other kind of lawsuits floating out there, you might get more copycat lawsuits, class actions. And then the real question is like, do you do they have to make any product level changes?
Speaker 2:Does that end up impacting time spent in the app which will impact the advertising business? Yeah. This is a weird one on a personal level because like on one hand, my kids, I'm gonna keep away the infinite scroll machine as Yeah. Long as I possibly can. Yeah.
Speaker 2:Right? And I will, you know, I don't I don't think back on the time that I've spent on social media and think, wow, I'm so glad I I put in those those long hours and I really put in the work. Yeah.
Speaker 1:It just doesn't seem that addictive to me. I can pull myself away, like, anytime. It's not a big deal. It's just not a big deal. Hey,
Speaker 2:mister Beast. I We lost it. Walter Almo It just sounds like it sounds
Speaker 1:This place.
Speaker 2:Our pics are honeymoon. Okay. You just gotta get more
Speaker 1:Ask you a question.
Speaker 2:If you follow me, I'll double your bank account. Wait. On Instagram? Okay.
Speaker 1:I mean, this is a good time. Yeah. Just follow me.
Speaker 2:The funny thing is how addictive are the apps themselves? Can they argue that the apps themselves Yeah. It's really not us.
Speaker 1:Yeah. Right? I've seen some people's channels not very addictive. Yeah. You know?
Speaker 1:Like, it's follow-up.
Speaker 2:In many in many ways, like, our our content. Right? We talk about niche subjects Yeah. Yeah. In technology and business.
Speaker 2:There's a lot of content on YouTube that is far, far, far more addictive. Yeah. But
Speaker 1:Yeah. No. I I I've I've generally had a good experience on social media. Thank you for watching. Please watch today.
Speaker 1:Apple Podcast and Spotify. Sign up for newsletter at tbpn.com, and we'll see you tomorrow at 11AM See you tomorrow. Goodbye.