Welcome, everyone, to The Information's TITV. My name is Akash Pasricha. It is Thursday, May 14th. First up today, The Information published exclusive reporting that Apple is exploring ways to better incorporate AI agents into its App Store. Our Apple reporter will join us shortly to share with us what he learned. Plus, we have more exclusive reporting around the Cerebrus IPO. The company is making its debut on the NASDAQ today. Our VC reporter is going to join us to discuss who the big winners are in the IPO. We'll then get to our daily update from RocketDrew around the Elon Musk OpenAI trial. We will also discuss startup Modal's big funding discussions and wrap with a conversation with Gokul Rajaram. a well-known name in Silicon Valley. It's going to be a fun show, so let's get right on into it. Apple is trying to figure out its approach to agentic AI on its App Store. My colleague Aaron Tilly published exclusive reporting on that topic this week. I want to bring him on to talk all about it. Aaron, welcome back to the show. How is Apple dealing with the agentic AI platform and technology on its App Store? Yeah, so it has a team working on ways of incorporating AI agents better into its app store. It's going to be trying to be a much more safer and secure way of deploying agents. These are things that can take action on behalf, take instruction and orchestrate sort of actions on its platform. So that's doing things like planning a trip and scheduling hotels and flights. And yeah, it's certainly one of the, you know, the currently awesome thing going on in AI. And they've really taken off on the Mac platform. So OpenClaw, a really popular open source tool for agentic AI, has really taken off on the Mac platform and the hardware. But Apple's looking for ways to open this up on its platform, a very closed platform, the iPhone. So a couple weeks ago, you came on the show and you told us about your reporting that a number of apps, iPhone apps, I should say, on the App Store, they were having trouble getting approved because they offered vibe coding tools in their functionality and this was a discussion that you and i had about basically apple was a little concerned about you know how much power these apps could have you know potentially creating new apps that could then make the app store obsolete altogether uh you know that was one concern that came up. Is that still the case or, you know, have we come around, has Apple come around to approving these apps? Yeah, so these Vibe coding apps, they're certainly, you know, a type of agentic AI. You ask these Vibe coding apps to do something, build something, and it'll go off and do it. The problem for Apple is this is all a little too freewheeling. You know, these vibe coding apps could build anything you wanted, stuff that Apple would consider improper for its platform or dangerous for its users. So it's a little bit too open for them and they want more control over it. So I think it's a balancing act where they're going to have to kind of open the door a bit to allow some sort of agentic AI to be functioning on its platform. We're also not allowing a user to do anything they want with a vibe coding app, which is, you know, they could, again, introduce some sort of security risk or improper material that they just don't want running on the iPhone. So, and I just want to make clear, we were talking about vibe coding apps. We're talking about agentic AI tools in your story out this week. Are we talking about the same group of apps right now, or are these different groups insofar as how Apple thinks about them? I mean, I'm not sure exactly how Apple is thinking about these Vibe coding apps at this very moment, but I think it's a subset of sort of like AI agents. Like AI coding has been a really key explosion for the current AI companies, and it's, again, a form of agentic AI. But I don't think it's the only kind of thing we're talking about here. Right, right. And the point you make in your story is that one of the things that Apple gets nervous about is the idea that if I have an app that can then assert control over other parts of the operating system, you know, or other apps even to do the task that, you know, it prescribes to do, So that is one of the things that is concerning for Apple just based on security guidelines and how they've traditionally thought about it, right? For sure. I mean, I think Apple's always their sort of like line they go back to is our platform is more private and secure than any other sort of consumer hardware platform on the planet. And that's why we deserve a massive cut of the transactions that take place on this platform. Right. Now, let's talk about the flip side to this argument, which is that then what is the risk if Apple does not go with where everyone else is going, certainly developers, right? If they say that we're not going to allow these tools and functionalities on our platforms, then the risk is that they will stop becoming sort of the developer ecosystem of choice, right? That's the concern? I think that's 100% right. I mean, you know, they may never end up kind of opening the door for a genetic AI. I'm just talking about, like, there is efforts internally to do this, move in this direction. But maybe it doesn't gain traction. Maybe they think it's too insecure for them to move forward with. And that is definitely top of mind risk for them is do they become irrelevant in this new generation of software, of AI? So I think, I mean, I think they're really thinking about this as like, Apple makes the best hardware and they need to be the best platform for this new generation of AI, even if it's not something they do internally in-house. How do they make this accessible for developers outside the company? Last question for you. Let's talk about Siri. So we are expecting the revamped Siri. what implications do these discussions around how to handle AI agents on the Apple operating system what implications does that have for Siri and and inevitably how good it could be because you and I have talked I mean this this is the thing to watch right is Siri going to be good or not Yeah, Siri is like the thing that Apple has to do well on at this upcoming developers conference next month. I mean, they've been promising for the past two years, more personalized, agentic type of chatbot that they've been promising since it launched in 2011. But this is their first party experience that they need to nail. um but yeah as far as how it affects this other conversation we're having like this is the this is opening the door for third-party agents to be more um you know functional on the ios platform so but they need to nail this first-party experience they've been promising for the past two years to work to launch something more more meaningful and um there's a lot of pressure but I think they also know that they can't do all on their own. Like, this is a company that is not making the kind of investments it needs to make to do something world-class AI. They're working with Google Gemini now to kind of bring up its capabilities, but they're going to have to work with outsiders more. Great. Well, Aaron, I want to thank you for coming on. That is Aaron Tilly, our Apple reporter, here at The Information. Cerebris is going public today, pricing its IPO at $185 a share, well above the initial expectation of between $115 and $125 a share. As is tradition with big IPOs, the information has exclusive reporting on who the big winners are in this IPO. This has been a staple of our coverage for a long time. And so for the Cerebrus edition, I want to bring on Julia Hornstein, who was one of the reporters on that story this week. Julia, welcome to the show. It's great to have you here. Thanks for having me. So let's talk about the, well, actually, before we get into the names, and we're going to talk about the specific winners in a second here broadly speaking you went out you did all this reporting you talked to some VCs What was the you know What were the broader observations you got from who stands to gain in this IPO I think that one of my biggest takeaways was just the excitement around AI infrastructure and inference. I mean, we can see, as you just mentioned, the IPO priced at $185 a share, though it's indicating that it may trade up to $350 today. So I think that there's just broad investor excitement for AI inference, not only on the VC side, but also among retail investors as well. Okay, so let's talk about the big winners then. Who did you find in your reporting stands to gain the most here? I think one of the first ones that stood out is Benchmark. Cerebrus wasn't a typical investment for Benchmark, a firm known for its early bets in Uber and Snap. But the firm was intrigued by Cerebrus' moonshot idea of running AI faster and better and redesigning chips. Benchmark first invested in Cerebrus in 2016. It co-led the chipmaker Series A with Foundation Capital. Its stake at the IPO is nearly 10% after it purchased an additional three or so million shares last year and this year. That makes it more valuable than Benchmark's stake in Snap at the time of the social media app's 2017 IPO. We expect the firm to 12x its $268 million investment, turning it into roughly $3.3 billion. Benchmark also quietly puts some money into later rounds and special purpose vehicles, which we learned through our reporting, meaning that its returns could be higher than what we expect based off security filings. It could also be higher if the IPO pops today and trades at 350 plus a share. Another firm that stood out to us was Foundation Capital. We expect the firm to have a staggering 76% or 76x return on a $37 million investment. And we estimate that their stake at the time of the IPO at that 185 share price will be worth $2.8 billion. They've also been in the company since the Series A. They even let Cerebris employees actually work out of their office back when they first invested. They backed the 2018 fundraise as well. So those were the two firms that stood out the most to us. Now, what about the founder, Andrew Feldman? He's a name that we've talked about on the show. How much does he stand to gain? So Andrew Feldman owns a 5.5% stake in the company. And at that $185 share price, his personal stake would be worth roughly $1.9 billion. He's also not – he's one of a few people on the cap table. Some other ones that stuck out to us are some OpenAI co-founders, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman. They each own tens of thousands of shares, which we now know from court filings from the Musk-Altman trial. We know that Cerebro has kind of struck this interesting deal with OpenAI at the end of last year. Those two are sitting on stakes worth $16 million and $14 million apiece. So the founder stakes are much larger, but still there's some other people on the cap table as well. I wonder, you know, as you think about reporting questions, what comes next in this story? Obviously, there is the question of the share price and how that will oscillate or how it will fare after the IPO. There's also sort of the question around, you know, Cerebris and how whether or not the technology potentially could get bought by another big chip firm. But for the venture investors, like I'm just thinking, you know, what do you think comes next for them? What's the next big opportunity? This was chips. You know, these are firms that probably invest in AI applications too. What's sort of hot on their mind right now? I think there's so much that's hot on their mind right now. I mean, chief among them is still inference. I think that investors are really excited not only about inference, but also AI infrastructure. I mean, there's so much talk about compute and data centers and what these smaller neolabs will, and even big players like Anthropic and OpenAI will need in terms of compute. So I think that's really hot on investors' minds as well. I think that we'll see some more talk of consolidation in this market, as you were kind of alluding to. I mean, we can point to Grok late last year. So I think that we'll see some more interesting themes play out kind of around the inference era. Great. Well, Julia, I want to thank you for coming on. That is Julia Hornstein, our venture capital reporter here at The Information. The Information's Rocket drew is covering the Elon Musk OpenAI trial from the courtroom all week long. here is Rocket's latest update. All of the evidence is now before the jury in Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI. Both sides were running low on time by the end, so OpenAI's lawyers rushed through questioning their last few witnesses before resting their case. Those witnesses included an accountant, a business professor, and a legal expert, a professor who said that in his view, OpenAI has acted in ways that are consistent with the best practices and customs for non-profit governance. Maybe the most interesting witness of the day was Josh Achiam, who is OpenAI's chief futurist. That's his actual title. He was previously head of OpenAI's mission alignment team, and he has an interesting perspective because he's been at OpenAI since 2017. So he was even at OpenAI while Musk was still there. And in fact, he told a story, a story that has come out before, that on Musk's last day, Sam Altman hosted him for a Q&A session at an all-hands. So basically, most of OpenAI's employees attended, 50 or 60 people. Sam Altman asked some questions, and then employees had the opportunity to ask questions. And Josh asked Elon at the time, why is it that you care so much about seemingly recklessly catching up to Google in AI so bad when you think that AI could also be a risky thing to pursue? Aren't those things kind of inconsistent? Doesn't it create risks to try to race so quickly with Google? And Elon was not sympathetic to the question and called Josh a jackass. So that resonated with some people at the company. And a month later at the next All Hands, some other employees, one of them was Dario Amadei, who went on to found Anthropic, presented Josh with a trophy, an actual trophy of the lower half of a donkey that said, never stop being a jackass for safety. And this trophy was present in the courtroom because OpenAI's lawyers held it up to the judge in the morning and sought to admit it into evidence. Ultimately, they didn't show the trophy to the jury, but they discussed this anecdote and they discussed the trophy and a photo of it was admitted, which was something that did not please Elon Musk's lawyers, as you can imagine. So it ended up being an interesting day, if for that reason alone. Up next in Elon Musk's trial, both sides will deliver their closing arguments, which is something that will really benefit the jury, because the jury has just been flooded with all sorts of old email threads and mountains of evidence from across the history of OpenAI. And now the lawyers and their closing statements have the opportunity to take these pieces of the puzzle and assemble them in such a way that they depict a clear picture to the jury that the jury can then follow in their deliberations, which could begin as early as Thursday and could even begin on Monday as well. So that's what's up next. And then on Monday, the judge will begin to hear a short remedies period of the trial at which other experts, damages experts, economists will testify about what sort of remedies would be fair in a trial like this if the jury does end up finding that Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, OpenAI, or Microsoft are liable. Another company that rents GPUs out is looking to raise money at a steep valuation. My colleagues Stephanie Palazzolo and Anissa Gardizi have reporting on Modal, and I want to bring on Stephanie to tell us more about what she's learned about the startup. Stephanie, welcome back to the show. What did we learn about modal? Thanks, Akash. Yeah, so first is that modal on the back of pretty strong revenue growth is in talks to raise a new round of funding. And so this round would value it at around $4.5 billion. Excel and Redpoint are in talks to invest. And of course, all this comes on their revenue increasing by, you know, more than fivefold since last fall. So last fall, it was at around $60 million in annualized revenue, and now it's at around $300 million. And so that's obviously pretty impressive growth there. And what exactly does this $4.5 billion, $300 million annual recurring revenue, whatever, big numbers, what does it do? Yeah, so Model does a couple of things. I think Chiefly what it does is it you know rents out GPUs which are the very important AI chips that people need to run and train models It rents those out from bigger cloud providers and then leases those out to AI developers that want to then use those chips to either run or train their own AI models So lots of people have referred to this kind of model as like a GPU reseller, as an inference provider. But they also offer a lot of other software that these developers might need. And so they offer software that will help you, you know, run your model faster. Or, you know, a big driver behind their growth is one of their products called Sandboxes. And so this is basically a way for companies to run their AI agents in this kind of closed-off, safe, isolated environment. So that way those AI agents, if they make a mistake, don't, you know, kind of wreak havoc and mess up a lot of other things on your computer or in your actual company's code base. So inference provider, GPU reseller, does this classify them as a NeoCloud or are they not a NeoCloud? So I would say they definitely do fall in that NeoCloud kind of category or area. I would say that Modal itself probably would argue that they are more than just a reseller of GPUs and that they offer a lot of software to developers in addition to those chips themselves that either help them, you know, run or train those models faster. or, again, any other helpful software like these sandboxes that helps companies run their AI agents, for instance. And then if we think about competition here, I mean, the names that come to mind on the NeoCloud side, we certainly have names like CoreWeave and Nebius, but then on the inference provider side, it's companies like Base10 and Fireworks. Is that right? Yeah, so companies like Together, Base10, Fireworks, Many of these companies have really seen their revenue skyrocket in the last year as, you know, developers are, you know, using AI models a lot more. These AI models are generating a lot more tokens because they're being used for things like AI agents. So they're really part of this just super fast growing, you know, space more broadly that has seen a really big uplift from the AI boom at the last year or so. So, Stephanie, are we at a point now, do you think, where winners are going to get picked? Or are we still at a point where there's so much demand for compute and for GPUs, as we've reported on? You know, the GPU crunch is very – it's a real issue. You know, is there still way more demand than supply? You know, because at some point, I think, look, does the world need 10 different inference providers or GPU resellers? I don't know. I mean, I think they're either going to consolidate or they're going to get acquired. The question is when. And if there's so much excess demand right now, I don't know. Maybe this goes on for a couple more years. Like, what's your read on this? Yeah, so that's the big question that I think a lot of investors are asking, too. because, you know, as you're saying, these investors are trying to back the winner in these categories. But I do think right now it's very, it's still pretty hard to tell which one's going to come out on top, which is like kind of funny because you literally see these companies raising at, you know, four, five, six, seven billion dollars, which used to be kind of a sign that you were the winner of your category. But now it just kind of feels like every startup is getting these multi-billion dollar prices. So in this case, it does feel like because the demand for chips and for, you know, using AI models is just so strong that all of these inference providers, all these companies are really seeing their revenue grow. I do think that in some cases, like modal, for instance, there is still room for differentiation. So with the sandbox product, for instance, it's something that they offer that not every inference provider offers. And as I mentioned before, it's really important for things like AI agents. And so I do think that there are things that these inference providers can offer to make them kind of stand out a bit more from the rest of the crowd. But in general, we're just going to really see, you know, the rising tide lift all of these boats in the AI inference sector. If you had an interview with the modal CEO right now, what would be some of the questions you would ask him? Yeah, so I think a big question that's on our mind is this kind of GPU crunch that we've been writing about a lot. So, you know, there's been just insane demand for these chips from the biggest model developers like Anthropic and OpenAI. And that has really pushed up the price on GPUs for everyone. And so that can be a problem for inference providers like modal because they, you know, they're basically going out, renting those GPUs from cloud providers, and then renting those GPUs out to other developers. So if the prices are going up for them, that's going to be kind of squeezing their margins. And it's going to be making it harder for them to make a profit on those GPUs that they're going to go out and rent out to other developers. So I'd be curious what this GPU crunch is doing to their margins and if that makes that part of their business maybe less attractive. And what are they going to do about it? Are they going to move into other areas? Are they going to consider maybe buying those chips themselves as we've seen other inference providers like Together do? So yeah, lots of questions around margins and the compute crunch that I'd be very curious to ask them about. Great. Well, Stephanie, I want to thank you for coming on. That is Stephanie Palazzolo, author of our AI Agenda newsletter here on TITV. Our next guest has firmly planted himself in many different corners of the tech sector. Gokul Rajaram is the founding partner at Marathon Management Partners. He has invested in a number of big names, including Figma, Deal, Vercel, and Rubrik, to name just a few. He is also on the boards of Coinbase and Pinterest, which sets us up for a wide-ranging conversation today. Gokul, welcome to the show. It's great to have you here. Thanks, Akash. It's great to be here. Thanks for having me. So we've got a whole host of topics to get through with you, given all the areas you play in. I do want to start with crypto, because crypto, it's very newsy this week. We've got this bill, which we are waiting to see if it gets approval from the Senate Banking Committee. You're on the board of Coinbase. And so I just want to get your framework for how you think about this bill. And specifically, I'm hoping you can sort of explain to us from your perspective the ripple effects of this bill if it inevitably gets approved and then the ripple effects if it doesn't. So I think the digital, I think it's called the Clarity Act. Clarity Act. That's right. That's right. And so Coinbase is a big supporter of it. And I think ultimately, you know, the key thing that we care about is that stable coins are basically treated in a way that allow stable coin issuers and others to reward consumers who hold stable coins. And I think this in general has been opposed by a bunch of folks. And so I think if the bill passes with where we feel it should pass in the way it should pass, I think I personally think it will be a huge opportunity for consumers, not just in the US, but globally to hold stable coins and to get the rewards and yield from holding stable coins. So it should be a strong tailwind for stable coins if the bill passes. And what if it doesn't? What happens then? Yeah, I don't want to, you know, it's hard to know. I do think it's going to set back innovation if it doesn't pass us. And it's also going to set back the average American consumer because consumers want choice. And all the people today who are holding stable coins, I think they are basically expecting the rewards and yields they have been getting. And so you're disenfranchising a large segment of consumers, increasing number of consumers in the US who want to hold stable coins, who want to get rewarded and yields from stable coins. You know, I also was sort of curious what impact you think this regulation could have on crypto venture capital. That's something that we've been tracking here on the show. And look, VC investment is sort of, in many ways, directly tied to the crypto market. And, you know, so I guess it's maybe more the question is if you think the policy will lead to sort of a recovery in the markets, and if that will lead to sort of a recovery in venture capital, how do you see that playing out? I think it's obviously anything that gets people to use stablecoins more is good broadly for the ecosystem. I do think the stablecoin train has kind of left the station, In other words, because it is even regardless of the yield and so on, because stablecoins are so efficient at moving money with minimum friction, minimum cost, extremely fast. We're seeing them used for all kinds of use cases. I would say it's probably one of the single biggest drivers of VC investment in crypto, where it really the place where traditional financial systems and crypto have collided and I come together and where we can see the impact of tokenization the impact of blockchain directly on the financial system that has essentially if you send money from 0.1 to 0.2, either as a business or a consumer, there is, especially if you're doing cross-border transactions, there is a massive delay and also friction in terms of costs, et cetera. Flavor coins have removed that. And so I don't think that explosion in startups, and venture capital can be stopped. So I think it will have some impact, but if I look at the companies I personally am looking at, whether it's next generation financial apps built on top of stable coins, those are going to go forward regardless of this bill passing or not. Now, your fund, I mean, you do a lot of writing on X and on LinkedIn, and I want to get to some of the essays that you've written in a second. And before we get there, advertising is an area that you have spent quite a bit of time in your career. And so I wanted to get your assessment of, you know, the chatbot advertising landscape right now. And let's start very directly. I mean, OpenAI has been the loudest about launching ads. What do you think of their ads strategy and rollout? I think it's going to be one of the most successful. I would not be surprised if in five years it rivals Meta and Google. Meta and Google together are 80-90%, I think, of the overall first-party publisher market. OpenAI has this unique opportunity to transform advertising. Why? Because on one side, a lot of us treat it like a search engine where we have queries that we put into it. So they have search data similar to Google. But on the other hand, we also give a lot of behavioral data to OpenAI because they know exactly things about us. Obviously, if any of us have asked OpenAI to or chat GPT to tell us what it knows about us, it paints a pretty good picture. So they have behavioral data like Meta does. So they can combine the best of search intent and behavioral data from the two best advertising platforms, the two large advertising platforms, Google and Meta. And I think they're following a well-worn path that everyone has followed. Both Google and Meta, when they started out many years ago, they both started out with things that looked similar to banner ads. They didn't really have sophisticated systems. They were mostly CPM-based, and you could buy based on a CPM. And it turns out that was inefficient, but it got people a taste of that inventory. More recently, Vijay, who's the CTO of the advertising business, they announced that they have released self-serve bidding. That, I think, is going to open up the floodgates, CPC bidding and self-serve bidding. and then you'll slowly start them, start to see them offer things like conversion optimization, better targeting, et cetera, et cetera. So I think it's a well-worn path and I think they're going to build, I'd not be surprised if the opportunity is 10 billion within five years. It could be even much larger than that probably. I think it's going to be a $100 billion revenue opportunity. It also allows them to subsidize all the markets where they don't have subscriptions. Obviously, a lot of the subscription revenue comes from the US and Western markets, but countries like India and other countries the global south, where it's hard to make money off subscription, they're going to do really well as an ads business. Is there any part of the advertising discussion with respect to chatbots you think people don't talk about enough, whether it's product discussions, whether it's the ad tech part of this market, whether it's the user experience? I mean, what part of this discussion, given that you spent so much time in it, do you think people are not paying enough attention to? I think the biggest one, I think, is how the ad is presented vis-a-vis the conversation. I think Facebook is more of a passive consumption newsfeed. So you don't really think of the ad unit. It just is naturally interspersed within the newsfeed while within the chatbot, you're actually engaging like search, but it's in a very personal way. So it doesn't give a long string of search results. Google was able to just give a long string of, say, 10 search results, organic search results, and add a paid search result. Here, since the chatbot returns exactly one most likely piece of content for every search you make, and there is not a long stream of a long news feed, where to present the sponsored content? I call it sponsored content by experience. and how to present it are going to, I think, determine a lot on how successful it is. And I think- So basically not necessarily at the, I mean, when I do a Google search, I see the sponsored results at the top. You're saying that might not be the right approach for the chatbot. Maybe it comes halfway down the page as a hyperlink or something like that. Exactly. Because with Google, you can present at the top because there's 10 organic search results. So it's one out of 10. Now, if there's only one result, I mean, it's not a result, it's one piece of content that is returned. Now, if you present one at the top, you're basically saying it's almost a one-to-one ratio of paid to organic content right there. And so you've got to be very, very careful how to present it. And then similarly with Meta, typically there's a ratio for these things where for every X piece of organic content, you have Y pieces of paid content. So that's ratio. The second is how to present it, how to actually, what is the ad format? What does it look like? What does it feel like? Does it feel like it's being suggested by the AI? Or is it the sponsor presenting it? Even how it's titled and how the first few words feel like and how it's labeled are going to be a huge difference in perception. Let me ask you a question. Why isn't it as simple as, you know, when I do my Google searches, I see the sponsored ad at the top And I have been trained now to sort of know that, okay, you know, it's, it's, I think it's colored slightly differently. There's maybe some shading. And I know to sort of skip it, you know, in many cases and just go down. I mean, why, why is, why, couldn't that just be the simple solution for ChatGPT is just put a little bar at the top and, and, you know, put a sponsored link there? I think the reason is because many of those ads might not be relevant to the exact search because the searches you might make in chat gp are not always commercial searches there's probably going to be some commercial searches more of the searches are about myself etc so you've got to be very careful uh because google the the content that the the sponsored content is going to be a lot about based on what you know so labeling it properly um or not properly could really be the difference between uh someone who's really creeped out and i think i remember very well when we were doing AdSense many years ago. I think if you're too contextual within a website, there was a luggage manufacturer who was advertising luggage and we were running the ad and it unfortunately showed next to an article that had a serial killer who had chopped up parts of the victims and put them into luggage. And that was extremely challenging from a brand perspective and I consume my perspective. So balance in those is quite challenging. Let me ask you one more question before you go. I saw on LinkedIn, you made a remark about using, I think it was using Codex to maybe review your Claude code, or maybe it was the other way around. I can't remember which way it was, but you're using both the products. And this is kind of the rivalry that is very top of mind for Silicon Valley right now. Which do you like better? I like both, to be honest. I think I like, one of the things I've seen is that they give a good balance to each other. So I've actually, even on the AI, on the website, I use both of them. Okay, but if you were to pick one, pick one. I'm going to push you here, pick one. Codex for coding, Claude for better design. Claude seems to do much better design, front-end design. I feel they have a good set of skills there, but Codex for coding itself. it just it is yeah yeah and if you look at sort of the commercial opportunity for both i mean if one is design one is the coding itself uh the commercial opportunity i i would guess for coding is a little bit more than design or what do you think i think it is but that said cloud code has it just has done a great job of getting uh ecosystem and a set of connectors around it so i do think codex is right now maybe slightly ahead but this is the thing i think these are both as consumers, as programmers, as developers, as builders. I feel very lucky that we have two companies competing head-to-head because the only winner here is all of us, people who are using these products. Great. Well, Gokul, I want to thank you for coming on. That is Gokul Rajaram, the founding partner of Marathon Management Partners here on TITV. That does it for today's show. A reminder, we are on this stream Monday through Friday at 10 a.m. Pacific, 1 p.m. Eastern. If you can't make it then, episodes are available on theinformation.com, on our YouTube channel, or wherever you get your podcasts. Make sure to follow us on social media on X, Instagram, and TikTok. I'm already excited for our next show tomorrow. Have a great rest of your Thursday. Bye-bye for now.
