Gurman on Apple, OpenAI’s Deal Terms, Forbes vs. Perplexity

26:04And then you start to think OpenAI is gonna have to show some serious revenue growth. And I've never thought it's going to be on the consumer chat GPT plus side. I don't think they do, especially given they're giving away access to model 4.0 for free now. So I think this raised so many more questions for me around how is OpenAI actually going to make enough money to just fit into its valuation. Right. And so let me sort of make the argument that OpenAI would be making here, right? Which is that they launched 100 million people use ChatGPT within two months. Today, they haven't updated that number.

26:43The whisper number that people are sort of talking about behind closed doors is 200 million. So think about it this way. they created the innovation that sort of launched a multi-trillion dollar revolution they can't get more than 100 or 200 million users on it for them even if they're not getting paid like people are giving them shit for getting paid by exposure by apple like right it's like the true loser move but for them this is going to introduce chat gpt to so many more people and there are different use cases for when you're on mobile and need something quick to when you're on desktop and And if you get introduced to the capabilities, then you might be interested in more.

27:21And the fact that they are going to get to ride on Apple's operating system as the only choice is a deal that even if you're not getting paid, maybe you have to take. I think that sounds fine at this exact moment. But I do think, OK, if two years from now, it's still just CHAP GPT as the only alternative, I think that was a great move by OpenAI. But I think if pretty quickly, and I'm curious if within the deal terms, there is some kind of exclusivity factor or exclusivity term, and whether it's like six to 12 months or something like that. But I still think, I cannot picture the amount of conversion to chat GPT +, unless they start really locking down the service and pushing you into that funnel.

28:10I just don't see it being a massive moneymaker for them to the scale that it needs to be. To me, it's always been about the enterprise. It's been about actually charging for the compute and usage of the models. and these things, obviously this deal doesn't really reflect that. So this is kind of the point that you're making. I thought this was interesting. It's from Sam Lesson in one of his traditional screenshots, although the text is bigger, which thank you, Sam. I can read your stuff now. Okay, he said, Apple just put ChatGPT in a tiny, tiny box. If you didn't already realize it was over, you now can't ignore it.

28:49The deal is just terrible for OpenAI, really spells the N for ChatGPT. chatgpt they just got appled. How? Well it's one thing to be Google and have a super strong economy so you can pay Apple for search and distribution but opening eye can't possibly afford that shit because they don't have a business model that works. So what happens? Apple puts them in a teeny tiny box as an optional upsell sometimes which they can charge at will and offer alongside anything else they want. You know what that does? That makes chatgpt nothing more than a dumb content provider. And you know what quickly commoditizing content providers are worth?

29:23BuzzFeed. I mean, that to me is way over the top, but it sort of illustrates the point. That is savage. But I think Sam Lesson, why I like following him is sometimes I vehemently disagree with him, but this is one of those moments. He captured exactly what I'm saying here. And Apple has done this to startups over and over and over again. Even, you know, there's like during the WWDC, I kept seeing these threads like here are the startups Apple just killed. And I mean, password managers and other like image creation on device, all these other things. This is what Apple does. And as he said, startups can get appled.

30:06And I think OpenAI is basically setting themselves up to get appled. And it just feels like they were so desperate for some big splashy partnership that they went for this because they wanted to be part of the Apple partnership. They knew it would drive interest, especially if people didn't really question it. But I don't know. I still think this does not look good for open AI. I want to get your reaction to this because this was another sort of tweet about this news. Max Wolfe, who I used to work with at BuzzFeed, says, this is the best argument yet that we're in a generative AI bubble. I don't quite understand that part of it in terms of the bubble side.

30:46I think to me, it shows, this is specifically an open AI story. I think it shows that like, it actually on the flip side, I would say how Apple demonstrated what their goals are for generative AI and really making it solve genuine consumer problems. I think it was a pretty compelling vision. And I think people are buying into it a bit. Certainly the stock market is coming around to that idea. But I think it showed this. Actually, I was excited about this because this is the first genuine big generative AI show that really showed specific problems that can be solved and just understandable things rather than OpenAI debuting Sora and saying that at some point you might be able to create movies using generative AI.

31:37or even Google showing demos that aren't ready yet, like, and knowing that these products aren't ready yet and will be released over time. And I was a little disappointed that it's not all going to be available in September. It was supposed to be rolled out over a few months. But I think this actually almost shows that this is where generative AI is going and the true potential of it, rather than it's some kind of vague thing that people talk about in grandiose terms that's either going to kill us, transform all of business, allow for one person billion dollar companies, and the list goes on and on.

32:14This is more, you can find your flight and check the status of it just by asking Siri. And that's more compelling to me. I don't know, Ranjan. I almost feel like this is an emperor's new clothes situation where everyone's like, this is so great for Apple. And I wonder how much of that is driven by the stock market. And they're like, Like, oh, all the investors are saying that it's going to work out. And so it will work out. But we also know that, as you mentioned, we have like a very long wait time before we start to see some of these demos come out. Why is that? Obviously, they're not fully baked yet.

32:49And then the idea that this is going to drive this big super cycle for folks, I just don't think it's a big enough, like my gut tells me it's not a big enough improvement to drive this upgrade as Apple has struggled to sell phones at the rate that it used to as people hold on to their devices longer. What's wrong with that? Okay, well, that allows me to give you my larger thoughts on WWDC. I think that it is a big moment for Apple, and I don't think it's the stock market driving it. What I liked was this was the most Apple-y vision of generative AI imaginable. it's again how do we make a difficult to understand technology that's niche and growing accessible to everyone in the world it's like this is what they've always done well and this is what they're selling again i agree that until i see and as regular listeners know i am the least enthusiastic fan of siri in the world i think that's true i still use mostly apple products But they told me they're going to fix Siri.

33:59They told me that I'm going to be able to actually execute complex actions just using Siri that span across different apps. And if that actually works, I'm going to be incredibly excited. And I think it's going to be very powerful for Apple. If I find out that Spotify is still not available via Siri, I'm going to be pretty annoyed. And I think that the whole thing is going to be all for naught. I'm so with you. I was like on my phone today, like this week while I was driving through the Bay Area. And I was like, we have all this AI, but I can't just kind of hit a button on my phone and say, I mean, maybe I can, but I've still given up on Siri.

34:37Play Spotify, you know, play this song from Spotify. It's annoying. Spotify now is the one resistant to being on Siri or they have been. This is like one of my biggest pet peeves. So I've looked into this before. Apple, it actually opened up the API to allow for Spotify. At first it was blocked when they launched Apple Music and pushed it very heavily. But now Spotify is the one resistant to actually going on Siri, which I get because the whole battle over the 30 % tax slash, you know, in store fee. So I think, but now the whole thing becomes a lot more compelling for everyone. So no one's going to be resistant to being on Siri, ideally, because if this works like it's supposed to, every app is going to build in actions directly.

35:24And that's actually one of the most exciting parts, because this is what shortcuts kind of foretold. It was that there's already developer actions that can be built into apps that could connect to Siri, like this command will allow for this specific app action. Now that's going to become a more core part of how people think about building apps. Like you can imagine apps where the app itself you barely use, like no one actually presses the app. The entire thing is a bunch of Siri actions that allow for different things to happen. And which I'm basically describing the rabbit R1 vision of a large action model.

35:59Yeah, that worked out. I was thinking large action model the whole time I was watching the keynote, but sorry, go ahead. Imagine if they just said it, they're like, Apple has invented a new type of model. It's called the large action model. Voiced by Scarlett Johansson and enhanced with the stories of Forbes, the large action model is an original Apple feature. Okay, the last thing I want to say here is that I stand by what I said on Monday right after the event, which is that it is catch up and an interesting set of features with a strategy, which is personalized AI. But there's a story I also read this week that has sort of put this week in context for me, and I'm curious what you think about it.

36:41Last year at this time, of course, we were talking about the Vision Pro. It was pretty hyped. And this is Kevin Ruse in the New York Times. He says, Today I barely use the Vision Pro at all. Every few weeks, I strap it onto my head to do some focused writing or watch a movie in bed while my wife sleeps. Otherwise, it sits on a shelf collecting dust. Apple hasn't released sales figures, but analysts' estimates suggest that the device has been a flop, selling fewer units than expected. Social media isn't buzzing with videos of enthusiastic Vision Bros wearing their headsets in public as it was in the days after the device's release.

37:17Some early adopters returned their Vision Pros for refunds and lightly used headsets are selling for as little as$2 ,500 on retail websites. My perspective on VR, it is an enterprise thing. AI right now at the core is an enterprise thing. do you think that in a year from now we could be looking back and saying oh same trajectory for both big releases well first i don't think this was catch-up for apple i think this was like the applification of ai for them i think they again presented a pretty compelling vision in a very apple way but you don't agree with german that like where he said that the vision Pro drove the format forward.

37:59The iPhone drove the format forward. All these Apple devices, even the AirPods drove the format forward, but we didn't see it necessarily with these personalized AI things. It felt like a Google event. No, no, no. See, that's what I think. I think it very much drove the vision forward. I think, or the technology forward. I think this is the genuine use, like all the talk now, agentic AI, all the hype around generative AI that people don't really feel and see in their day-to-day lives, that's what this can potentially do. I think that I really think that this is what made it so interesting versus if it was, and again, I agree that a lot of this does feel a bit like the things Google has sold, but has not delivered on.

38:50And I think I have more faith that Apple on this specific consumer-facing utility vision of generative AI, they're the ones, if anyone can do it, they're much better positioned to. Where does this leave Microsoft? Let's close with this, let's close this segment with this. Where does this leave Microsoft? Because Microsoft, of course, has been effectively providing the service for OpenAI, but funding it. and now OpenAI is giving away the ChatGPT on Apple devices, although it is giving it away to everybody for free on the web as well, baked in there. There's a ChatGPT Mac app. There's no ChatGPT Windows app.

39:28Is Microsoft in this weird position to kind of be like footing the bill as OpenAI enhances Apple's products? Meanwhile, they have this recall function where it sort of follows along as you use the use your computer and tells you and has is basically this built-in memory for you and that's delayed because i think of privacy concerns so where does this leave microsoft well yes the the microsoft recall function was recalled i saw that tweet a few times and i i just had to go with it but i think microsoft i they the rollout of recall in their most recent like here's our next phase of generative AI, I think was very poor.

40:09If we remember, we were all bing boys a year and a half ago, like Microsoft was commanding the lead in terms of exciting people around this, both on the consumer and enterprise side. And I'm not sure what they're thinking or doing right now. However, again, Microsoft, if they're what they will win at potentially what the only thing that they're going to really win at is the enterprise. And And I don't think their position on that side has been hurt at all. Every Office 365 subscriber, every Azure customer is going to lean towards Microsoft products and generative AI products. And this doesn't change any of that.

40:49Let's do one of our favorite little segments here, which is beginning of the week, end of the week. So how did you do you feel better or worse about Apple today than you did at the beginning of the week? I think better. I think that this was, I actually liked this because it was not over the top. Wow, this is life changing. It was solid and good. And I think that actually has a, that is what's needed in generative AI right now, rather than over the top futuristic visions. Yeah, I'll go with better, despite like the line of questioning I've had today. I think that going into the event, I felt we needed to see Apple question some of the fundamentals.

41:30We needed it to say, can we put Gen AI in our operating system? Check. Can we do things that we don't usually do working with an outside partner like OpenAI? Check. I think the ChatGPT integration, despite the fact that it might not be a great deal for OpenAI, although there's a chance it will be, will be absolutely good for Apple. And it articulated a vision. Again, it didn't fully blow me away, but there's something to be said about, I think, MG's headline, and we used the headline on Wednesday, Apple doesn't overreact to the AI revolution. So it seems right on line. I'm definitely better on Apple, though maybe not as bullish as you are.

42:04Okay, OpenAI, better or worse today than at the beginning of the week? I think much worse is clear from everything I've been saying. I'm neutral. I think that OpenAI is just in the hits business. Like, we're going to see probably agents reasoning gpt5 and video generation and maybe 3d generation and maybe robotics come from them and it's just becoming clear that they are like not just the chat gpt company and they still have the leading model so i'm neutral on them and maybe this is even a boost okay let's talk about this forbes perplexity thing it's very interesting so do you want to set it up have you been following it.

42:47And you also are the one that introduced Perplexity to us. So talk about what's happening here. So Perplexity has a feature called Pages, as the CEO would explain, that basically kind of like is like a presentation of a topic that's much, it's almost Wikipedia-like, and it's very, very structured versus more kind of like quick summary type, the way our chat or answering specific questions. It really is an information tool. Forbes had realized that there's a story about Eric Schmidt and his new startup or investment on drones. And basically, it's a hard paywalled story. So the only way to access and read it is if you're a subscriber.

43:31And it published some of the words verbatim. I mean, it really rewrote the story and summarized it very nicely. and this is a hard paywalled story. It even took the artwork from the original story and it uses a kind of a preview image, no different than like Google News or whatever else, but it's still kind of prominent and big. So it really is this perfect case study of how hard paywall journalism that takes deep research and true journalistic work can be quickly summarized and taken by a system like perplexity. Yeah. And not only that, this is from Randall Lane. So first of all, I should just shout out my conflicts here.

44:17I used to play softball. I mean, I used to be a Forbes contributor and I played softball on the Forbes softball team. So I know Randall Lane, who's the editor in chief there. And John Paczkowski, who was the editor on this tech story was also my editor at Buzzfeed. So those are my conflicts. I'm shouting them out. But anyway, this was interesting from him. He said, perplexity sent this knockoff story to its subscribers via a mobile push. It created an AI generated podcast using the same reporting without any credit to Forbes. And that became a YouTube video that outranks all of Forbes content on this topic within Google search, which is pretty egregious.

44:54Perplexity hit back, right? First of all, Arvin Cernivas, who's been on the show. So there's another connection to this one. He said that perplexity was the number two referral source for Forbes. And also it looks like the company went to Semaphore and said that it is working on revenue share deals with high quality publishers. And this is from Reed. I have also lost count of the Times reputable publications simply refuse to credit my and others work. and any local news reporter can tell you what it feels like to be a victim of parachute journalism when a national outlet swoops in, rips off your reporting and pretends to own the story.

45:31For decades, media outlets have tacitly gone along with this kind of quote-unquote plagiarism mainly because as long as the aggregated article included a link, it would send traffic back to the original publication. And so effectively implicit in that argument is, is this any different? What do you think? Yeah, this to me is such an interesting story. And I think there's two parts of it is first and I to me, I want to be clear, the paywall part of it is what makes it extra juicy and interesting is because it's one thing even Semaphore and Reid Albergati, how he kind of stated like people aggregating other news stories is I'll get to that.

46:11But this is something that no one should technically have access to unless they pay for it. This is not publicly on the Internet. And I'm actually surprised that Perplexity would scrape and use paywalled content like that, not even metered paywall. Because to me, there is something to say about like anyone in the it's a much easier case claim to make that anyone in the world can read this story. And with our systems have scraped it and used it and ingested it and are putting outputting something around it and, you know, using fair use or whatever. But again, the fact that this is no one other than a Forbes subscriber can technically read this makes this extra interesting.

46:53But on the flip side, I actually agreed with this. And I will say it's a little rich coming because Forbes has actually gotten a lot better recently. But like for years, they were the model of pure aggregation rewriting. I mean, this is stuff that Business Insider kind of was like the the OG in this in terms of like aggregating and rewrite, not rewriting, but, you know, quickly summarizing and taking stories as their own. Like this has been a regular model in journalism for a long time. So the idea that this is something completely new to the news business model, I don't think is the case. But then the third thing, it was interesting on the referral traffic because Arvind, he had cited another tweet that I think it used either Comscore or SimpleReach data to say that it was the number two referral source for Forbes.

47:48What was interesting for me is Forbes, they said it was maybe 3 % of their total audience. Referral traffic is 3 % of their audience. Oh, sorry. Referral traffic overall. But I think they had an even smaller number for perplexity. It's like the 45th. And to me, this is the kind of moment that if you really want to get behind this story, yeah, show us. I know it's proprietary info, but that becomes a lot more powerful if you show me 41, 2, and 3, and 1, 2, and 3. and I think like make clear that you have genuine data rather than you're just saying this because at least the whether it's com score or simple reach that was something that was at least public and someone had pulled from a report directly yeah and I was kind of so I obviously publish big technology it's my part it's my property I've been aggregated I've been ripped off by AI in the past and so I know how it feels and I was kind of thinking like well what would the trade-off be here for me?

48:45And on one hand, like, yeah, I mean, if I worked for months on a story and it got ripped off like this, I would be pissed. I think that the indignation from Forbes is righteous. On the other side of things, I think perplexity has a way to fix this, which is with a product tweak. And that is that if I had a hard paywall story, I worked really hard on it, and perplexity, let's say, took a little bit less. So gave the summary and showed that I was the publication that did this and then prominently linked back. That's good marketing for a publication, right? I think that's good marketing. I think basically they're doing the distribution for you.

49:29That's how I would have reacted if I was perplexity as opposed to like we might pay publishers sometime in the future. I would have simply said, this is a good point. It's our duty to send more traffic back to the original source. So we'll slim down some of these summaries. We're not going to rewrite stories and we'll prominently link. And the economic value that Forbes will get will be significant from that. Yeah, I completely agree with that. I think the thing that's been the most interesting about this to me is we've talked about this before that, like, is this the death of the web? And I think this is actually like going to be probably remembered as like, you know, a central early case around this that has a lot of nuance and complexity to it.

50:09Because to me, this is a perfect example. Like if this is allowed, then there's no incentive to economic incentive to continue creating more deep content. and then even if as of today everything that's happened in the past can be summarized and reused by like via an AI system like perplexity then why there's going to be no more new information and I've been thinking about that a lot in terms of like what will those incentives be and like would perplexity at some point have to create a newsroom or you know whatever else like start creating the content if no one else is. And I think that's going to be one of the more interesting parts of this, because the more they disincentivize any kind of content creation, the more they hurt themselves, but only about new things.

51:03Anything in the past will be fine. Right. And it's interesting that we're looking at Forbes and not the New York Times. And the New York Times has been so litigious that people wouldn't dare do that to them because they'll get suit and maybe that's actually the the path forward because they're gonna have to preserve their economic gains well do you think from like a pure tactical standpoint new york times just sues you forbes is definitely kind of taking uh uh taking it to the streets to town square burn the bridges like uh i don't know like but then in doing so even that whole thing around referral track like they're creating a lot of potential i don't know legal complication if they do choose to sue would do which do you think is the more effective uh path to try to remedy this kind of thing lawsuits but it costs money like i couldn't potentially bring a lawsuit like i'm just at the mercy of tech platforms i mean forbes is much bigger but it's a the times has a massive legal department so they can do it it's harder for forbes yeah but we have the big technology audience to stand up for us if we exactly we know that you guys will and gals will will rise up and help us fight a big ai if needed but so far so far it's been pretty fine all right there's one more part of this that i want to talk about which is that it does seem that as opposed to like aggregation and you know snippets in search or whatever social media um instant articles like this ai thing is sparking a much more intense fight over intellectual property than anything else i've seen before in the history of the internet and i like said on a recent podcast that the user gets what the user wants um but i might be rethinking that because it does seem that that this has sort of gone to a new level where this generative stuff will take remix and then effectively copy you know whether it's a forbes article or scarlett johansson's voice or a new York Times perspective.

53:08And it's actually much harder for the folks doing this to get away with it than I thought. What do you think is the case there? Is that a right observation? And if so, why? No, I think this is an overall good thing because we are at a point where for the first, let's call it like, you know, like late 90s to the late 2000s, there's just tech was an unadulterated good. And anything that happened, everyone celebrated. No one questioned what the negative potential implications are. Now we've clearly made that a central part of the conversation. And I think it's good. I think this is simply, rather than people on the other side, the publishers in this case, just assuming everything will work out and it could only be good for them, there's at least a heated and litigious discussion around what the future of this could look like.

54:00And I think that's a good thing. I think this is a nuanced thing that, again, perplexity provides me an immense amount of value in a lot of ways. I love the app right now. Watching the NBA playoffs, I've actually been using perplexity to look up different players. And I mean, it's just like something I have on and quickly gets me information now. So it's very valuable, but without some underlying content somewhere, perplexity doesn't provide value. So something's going to have to be figured out. Yep. All right. We have one more story we want to cover this week, which is Elon Musk's pay package.

54:38So let's take a quick break and do that right after this. Did you know your credit card points and miles can lose value to inflation? Credit card companies often reduce the redemption value of your points and miles. Now, imagine a credit card with rewards that can grow in value. With the Gemini credit card, you can earn Bitcoin or one of over 50 other cryptos instantly with no annual fee. Every swipe at the store or gas pump earns you instant rewards deposited straight to your account. Plus, sign up now for a$200 Bitcoin bonus to kickstart your rewards. Visit Gemini.com slash card today. Check out the link in the description for more information on rates.

55:18Again, if you're looking to invest in Bitcoin but don't know where to start, the Gemini credit card makes it easy. The Gemini credit card is issued by WebBank. In order to qualify for the$200 crypto intro bonus, you must spend$3 ,000 in your first 90 days. Some exclusions apply to instant rewards in which rewards are deposited when the transaction posts. This content is not investment advice and trading crypto involves risk. The Gemini credit card cannot be used to make gambling-related purchases.

55:49You're used to hearing my voice on the world bringing you interviews from around the globe. And you hear me reporting environment and climate news. I'm Carolyn Beeler. And I'm Marco Werman. We're now with you hosting The World Together. More global journalism with a fresh new sound. Listen to The World on your local public radio station and wherever you find your podcasts.

56:16and we're back here on big technology podcast friday edition breaking down the week's news all right there's one more big story ron john why don't you uh talk us through what happened with elon's pay package i'm sure that you're celebrating the fact that he's getting this money so um let's hear why it's been elon there's been things that have been he's been doing recently that I actually think are positive, but this brought me back to classic Elon and just the absurdity of Tesla, the stock. So I'm sure readers, most of our readers know there was this pay package debate. It was a 2018 pay package that a judge had invalidated and said was like in illegally constructed because it was essentially Elon had publicly said he was negotiating with himself in deposition.

57:05So this package was worth$56 billion when the stock was at the highest, $46 billion right now. It's one of the largest corporate pay deals in history. It allowed him 304 million. It gives him options to buy 304 million Tesla shares, which would be 12 % of outstanding shares. And what makes this so just crazy to watch me, I was watching these videos of the shareholders meeting. People are cheering him this going through. Meanwhile, this is so insanely dilutive for shareholders. And Elon already owns a significant chunk of the company. So this is only giving him more ownership. And he himself has said he wants to own 25%.

57:48Otherwise, he does not feel he has the incentive to work or do whatever, make Tesla as successful as it has been. So you get into this point where people are celebrating being diluted, which other than GameStop shareholders, normally the typical investor does not do. Then you have Elon, who has been threatening if he did not get this, would not say exactly what he would do, but very strongly hinting that he would move away from Tesla. He's already said he's going to be diverting, and it's been reported, diverting resources to XAI, even though the future of Tesla is dependent on AI to at least achieve this valuation.

58:31And then the interesting thing to me about the scale of this is it's such a perfect representation of the stock versus the company because Elon has created an incredibly valuable rich shareholder base. So it's up to, I think it hit a trillion at one point. The stock price appreciation since the implementation of this package has been astronomical. The company has grown, but it's grown nowhere near that valuation. And this stock, this pay package, the company itself has generated around$20 billion in cash flow since its existence. It's been around the net income since it's been in existence has also been significantly less.

59:19So I think I'd read somewhere that this is more than their net income generated since inception. Meanwhile, you have like a Ford motor company generates$6 billion cash a year. And their CEO, I'm sure, is making, I think, probably like the tens of millions probably. But it's so outsized relative to the actual economic impact of the company. So it's a tough one because you get why without Elon shareholders understand that Tesla will collapse, the stock will, because the entire stock value is based around these grandiose promises and the personality of Elon. But it's also a reminder that the stock price is based around the personality of Elon.

1:00:03Right. But OK, let me ask you this, because this has been the counterpoint. Elon had this approved. He met the numbers that a lot of people were skeptical about. The courts threw it out. The shareholders again voted to reinstate it. So what's the problem here? No, I think it's a reminder of the, like, this was done without any true board oversight. The largest, one of the largest pay packages in history when he's essentially negotiating with himself in his own words. I think, again, the stock price appreciation, and they did hit some of the profit targets as well. So I definitely can see that.

1:00:44But like, it's such a perfect case study on, yes, certain things can be met and make sense. But the way these things are done in terms of precedent, especially legally, should not be allowed. And again, shareholders, they can create a new pay package for him, if they want to, they can give him more of the company. It's just that this specific pay package, the way it was done and only looking at it in that kind of at that time period in the actual manner in which it was executed it it really is something that a judge in Delaware has deemed to be illegal well look that being said doesn't Tesla still win here like they're going to get a more engaged Elon it seems like the shareholders wanted this so I guess where's the loss is it just I mean, if you think about it, you can think about broadly, but like when it comes to Tesla in particular, and that's what we should be focused on because it's a Tesla issue, doesn't Tesla win, even if it's an unusual situation?

1:01:44I think we will see as shares continue to decline and margins continue to decline. We'll see if it's the right decision. But I agree that shareholders did vote it through. It's a bad legal precedent. And I think that was the concern of the judge, especially because Delaware is supposed to be the most, not even strict. It's the most business friendly state in the country. That's why it exists. You know, like every company is incorporated there. But and that's why Tesla also already just moved to Texas. But I think we will. It's one of those cases that we will see play out over a much longer time frame.

1:02:24Well, Tesla is down 2.36 percent today. So I guess that gives you kind of an answer of like how this has really helped the business. Doesn't seem like the market really appreciates it. But have no worries because there's a headline in Fortune that says, Cathie Wood's ARK Invest predicts Tesla stock will surge 1 ,350 % over the next five years. Elon talking about robots, Cathie Wood saying$30 trillion valuation. This was a fun week. This one's good. Great speaking with you, Ranjan. Very big week in tech, so I'm glad we were able to recap it. Thanks to Mark Gurman for coming and sharing his thoughts on Apple and OpenAI and WWDC.

1:03:03we'll be back next Friday with a new show breaking down the news and in the meantime I'm pretty sure next week's Wednesday episode is going to be a conversation with Peter Diamandis we're going to talk about AI hype, we're going to talk about longevity, it really is going to be a fun and his relationship with Elon actually so it should be a fun one. Alright thank you Ronjan, great speaking with you as always see you next week alright everybody, we'll see you next week on Big Technology Podcast