Tech Deciphered

Robotics is a field that seemingly hasn’t really delivered on its promises. Sure, plenty of robot arms and other robotic solutions in logistics and industrial spaces, but what about the rest… including, Consumer?! Navigation:Intro (01:34)B2B RoboticsConsumer RoboticsLooking AheadConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

Nuno Goncalves PedroWelcome to Episode 64 of Tech DECIPHERED. Today, we will discuss robotics. Our new overlords are coming. Robotics is a field that seemingly hasn't really delivered on its promise. Sure, plenty of robot arms and other robotic solutions are out there. But somehow it feels like we should be actually already controlled and dominated by our robotic overlords.Today, we will discuss B2B Robotics, their growth, adoption, industry use cases, the drivers of innovation in that space, players in that space, challenges. We will also talk about consumer robotics, talking about also robots that have gone mainstream, personal and social robots, emerging trends that are happening in the home, market dynamics.Then we'll look ahead to the future of B2B, the future of consumer, and the societal and workforce impact, which obviously is going to be the last but not the least topic that we will address today. Let's start with B2B. B2B Robotics.Bertrand SchmittYes, thank you, Nuno. It's certainly a growing space. As you say, it might not feel like it, but at the end of the day, we already have quite a few millions robots in B2B. It's estimated that the stock of your operational robots, industrial robots, is around 4.28 million units in 2023, which was a 10% increase year-on-year.If we look at China, and I think we talk about the fact that we are installing around 400,000 robots a year. China alone by itself has been installing 276,000 units in 2023. China is definitely a leader in that space and that might come as a surprise to some. That number, to put it into perspective, is five times higher than the second place, Japan.Nuno Goncalves PedroI think China has recognized a long time ago that because of its population composition, that they're going to have a lack of people to produce, to be in factories, et cetera, so they actually have been adopting robots now for many, many years. I think now, you were joking with me just before we recorded this, but now that we're having trade tariffs and all that stuff, it might make sense to have a broad discussion around why robotics in an industrial environment are key.Bertrand SchmittDefinitely. I think that actually I was surprised to hear that, when we're making this recording on April 15, I was surprised to hear in the Trump administration, quite a lot of very positive support regarding AI and robotics. It looks like part of the plan is already acknowledging this is not like the old-school jobs that we are going to bring back. It would be a different type of jobs. There will be way more robotics than before. Obviously, more robotics is possible thanks to the latest advanced in AI.There is some consensus that, yeah, it's not just bring back the old jobs as they were, but it would be a new type of jobs. It would be a new type of industrial revolution and acknowledgment that robotics are here to make all of this not just more efficient, but even possible. Because it's clear that if you take the US, for instance, there is actually not so much unemployment in the US. For an industrial revolution to happen, we need to bring our new friends, the robots.Nuno Goncalves PedroIf we go through the use cases where we see robots coming in, obviously manufacturing, automotive and electronics will probably come to people's mind. A lot of robot arms are being used there. More than serve your classic solutions, et cetera. But it's a lot of robot arms using on specific pieces on the line, a lot of pieces of robotics that we don't recognize necessarily as robotics, but are actually roboticized systems used, in particular on automotive, again, in consumer electronics.Basically, it has to do with the fact that there's a tremendous lack of… One, there's going to be, at some point, the limitation on how fast you can produce, so that's very obvious. Two, there's actually even lack of people that can do some of these roles. Some of it is actually high precision work.In most of these environments, there are environments where humans need to coexist with the robots that are on the line, and that has led to the creation of this movement of cobots. Robots that are able to basically interact with the environment that they're in, obviously be very careful around safety procedures that they don't kill a human being that is around them. There's been a lot of innovation around that using computer vision, using sensors, and using a variety of other elements around that.That cobot segment in particular is growing quite rapidly, estimated to be 14.7 billion market by 2031. But obviously, we all recognize manufacturing, there's robots being used, so no shocks there. One of the largest markets by far.Bertrand SchmittDefinitely. Collaborative robots are a recent phenomenon made possible thanks to better activation of motors, electric motors possible thanks to new AI, vision AI. There is a lot of the latest technologies that makes this possible versus your big, bulky, robotic arms that used to be encaged. It's not to kill anyone. Yeah, it's a change from bigger to smaller. I mean, we can even say step by step, and we'll talk more about it, but more humanlike in terms of how it looks.Here we have around 113,000 professional services' robot for transportation and logistics sold in 2023 alone. That was a big increase of 35% year-on-year. I think we have all seen how Amazon is doing with some robots in their warehouse, logistics systems. What some might not have seen is as impressive in China. If you look at the efficiency of some of these warehouse in China, it can be very impressive. I don't think they're holding anything back actually in China.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, definitely not. There's a lot of amazing things happening on the logistics side. Obviously, Amazon bought one of the early granddaddies, which was Kiva Systems, which was bought by Amazon, and now it's Amazon Robotics. There's a lot of stuff happening on the lines, autonomous mobile robots for the transport of materials, robot extruders, mobile picking robots, automated forklifts, and a bunch of other things.It's also an environment where I know Amazon is obviously using a lot of co-robots, and there's a lot of people around as well still. Very interesting environment. I'd say probably Amazon has been the company on the logistics side that innovated the most, the earliest, certainly in the US.I still remember the Ocado ads where they use robots. In the UK, there's always been a lot of this debate whether that was actually very useful, very impactful in Ocado's operations or not. Also, retailer there. But definitely, I think we would recognize probably Amazon has been one of the players that has innovated the most in this space for a couple of decades now.Bertrand SchmittYes, it's definitely I mean, that has been key for them to grow, to expand their network. As you know, I mean, Amazon has a lot of people working in their warehouse, but they were still able to manage to grow so fast while not growing proportionally the number of people working there. It's thanks to advance in robotics.Nuno Goncalves PedroIndeed. One other area, obviously, of use has been in the healthcare and medical space, and particularly in high precision need environments. Surgical robots like Intuitive Surgical, their Da Vinci system, does provide the precision that you need for procedures that require minimally invasive play with high precision. Basically, things that you can't really… The human hand actually might not be precise enough for it, even if you're an amazing surgeon.Beyond that, medical robots have grown quite significantly. It's grown to the thousands units, which might not seem a lot compared to the hundreds of thousands that Bertrand, you were just mentioning. But obviously this is a much more specialized space, less mainstream in some ways of robotics. A lot of these devices are incredibly expensive, and then we've seen a lot of innovation around that.There's obviously the old-school players that are on the market, Johnson & Johnson's of the world, Medtronic, that have also entered that arena, the surgical robot arena. Then there's a bunch of other applications for robots that I would highlight. Hospitality or hospital delivery robots, so robots in hospitals that do deliveries.Rehabilitation exoskeletons, which is really, really cool. If you guys remember Aliens, the second exoskeleton that she has and stuff like that. Obviously this is for recovery for people that are rehabilitating. It supports them in their rehabilitation without having necessarily to have a human there all the time doing that. Then obviously diagnostic robots. A lot of players in this space, CMR surgical as well, Ethon, Exobionics, Cyberdine. There's a bunch of things happening right now that are quite cool.Bertrand SchmittYeah. If you look at rehabilitation robots, the growth was pretty amazing at more than 128%. You can call it a surge. Some of these metrics are pretty amazing. As you said in rehabilitation, for sure, if you need a human by the side all the time, it will be way more expensive,...

The current landscape of fundraising for start-ups, companies and VC funds, as well as best practices and hacks… and how to get those investors to giving you the money.Navigation:Intro (01:34)What is the current evolution and landscape for fundraising for start-ups?What is the current evolution and landscape for fundraising for VC firms?What are the best practices - strategies, processes, tactics and hacks - for fundraising overall … for start-ups?What are the best practices - strategies, processes, tactics and hacks - for fundraising overall … for VC firms?How to get investors (VCs and LPs) to commit to giving you money?ConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

BertrandHello and welcome to Tech Deciphered episode 63. In this episode, we are going to talk about the evolution and the current landscape of startups and VCs fundraising. We will talk about this evolution and landscape for fundraising, both from a startup and VC sides. We are going to talk about the best practices, strategies, process, tactics, and hacks for fundraising on both sides when you are a startup or when you are a VC firm. And ultimately, we will finish on how to get investors to commit to give you money. Hi, Nuno. How are you? NunoHey, Bertrand. We'll start with the evolution and current landscape of startup fundraising. It's been a couple of exciting years. We got to the height of it all, the bull of all bull markets, actually in 2021, post-COVID. Then we had 2022 and 2023. Very sharp correction, dramatic reduction in venture investments. '24 was a good year. It's a year that scaled back again, seems stabilizing. I think we'll see what '25 has on hold. My prediction is that it's going to be a great year. BertrandYeah, 2021 was pretty shockingly good post the start of COVID. After a sharp wait and see by end of 2020, things were going back not just to normal, but to overdrive. It's really by the end of 2021 that the music stopped. We had to worry about inflation with interest rates going up. 2022 was definitely bad for startups and VCs alike. But as you said, 2024, we are back to a better place. I would have the same bet for 2025, as you have, Nuno. NunoOne interesting piece is there's something that I think changed everything in 2024, which is AI. If we didn't have AI in 2024, I don't think we would have had this landscape. Important to note, and we'll talk about it later on when we talk about the landscape for actual VC fundraising, that the way that VCs work in their cycles and how they raise money, there's always a little bit of a lag around the table. It means there's still a lot of what we call dry powder with VC firms.  This means that VC firms have raised quite a lot of money from limited partners for 10-year funds with, for example, four-year investment periods. Therefore, they still need to deploy capital in whatever market they're in. The fact that there were a lot of AI opportunities means that they've been deploying a lot towards, for example, AI place. That's going to change as well. We'll talk later about, again, the VC fundraising landscape, but there's going to be a little bit of an adaptation on those two time lags around the table.  But for me, the big effect of 2024 was without a doubt, AI. BertrandYeah, and it's very interesting because when you think about it, the new AI revolution started with LLMs, with OpenAI launching ChatGPT. And this is an event that actually started end of 2022. So that AI revolution, financing, fundraising, actually started in 2023. But at that time, it was still so bad from an overall macro perspective that it was not enough to change the big trends. But at the same time, for sure in 2024, I think it had time to turn around. We'll talk more precisely about the numbers, but it's pretty clear that, as you say, AI has taken over. NunoThe height of it from the numbers we have in mind shows that on a global basis, 2021 was the all-time high in terms of startup investing at 750 billion. We've now had a significant reduction, basically around 349 billion, if the number is around correct, but certainly as deep as that in 2023, returning basically to levels that we saw back in 2018-2020. 2024, we went back up to around 370 billion. I think this year is going to be higher as we discussed before.  One clarification I would say, a lot of people would say, Is that true across the board? Is everything being equally dispersed? Not really. We've seen that early stage has suffered more. Mid to late stage, in particular in 2024, had another peak. Not peak year, but had a significant amount of capital was really deployed in mid to late stage investing. Last year, backing projects that either were already on their way or projects that are around what we would consider structurally AI, and therefore that are much more capital-intensive even if they're earlier stage. BertrandIt's also more going to the bigger firms, if I'm not wrong here. It's more to the bigger firms. In terms of investment, I guess it was also more to the bigger startups, if you pick an operator AI, for instance. I guess it has been actually pretty tough. If you are not one of the top 20 VC firm, if you are not one of the top 20-50 AI startups, what we're going to talk about might not feel the same. You can argue that the bar got much higher for VC firms as well as for startups. It's definitely a different world versus 2021, where things were good for mostly anyone. NunoBasically, if we look a little bit at funding sources to startups, obviously, traditional VCs have reduced dramatically, which is not surprising as we were talking about before. Angel investors and seed funds also had a reduction. Obviously, as you could imagine, if people, very high net worth individuals are normally angel investors and microfunds normally are smaller, they obviously had the tension of reducing their pace of investment, maybe in their own new fundraising cycles themselves for new funds.  Large corporations had reached very aggressive activity back in the day in 2021, but now there's a little bit more moderation happening to it. Then obviously, we've seen family offices coming more into the market in the last few years and being more aggressive around directs. How does that landscape look to you, Bertrand? BertrandI think it's definitely right. Maybe another piece of the puzzle is that if you look at some US investors going to Europe, for instance, expanding internationally or to China, it went back. Many firms, if you take in China, separated from their Chinese office. If you think about investment in Europe, so many reduced, actually, their investment in Europe. So quite typical that when things are good, you try to go pretty global, you try to expand, and when things are tough, you go back to your core. I guess China is a bit different story. It's more for geostrategic reason. But you could argue the landscape also has changed dramatically locally there. NunoIt's also true, obviously, of what we've seen in terms of the sectors. We've just talked about AI and deep tech in general, where it's been booming, and it's basically stood up. Some of the numbers would be that AI deals are 35.7% of all global VC deal value. By value, it's incredible, which is record. But it's not true of everything else. If we look at other sectors, for example, crypto, there was a bust and there's no recalibration, and it's not true across the board in terms of sectors. BertrandCrypto, for sure, went through a huge burst. This one, you could argue, was mostly caused, at least in the US, by the action of the regulators from the SEC and others casting a cloud on the industry. I wonder how much it will go back to a boom, actually. Right now, now that we have someone who might be the first pro-crypto president in the US. What do you think? NunoWell, I won't comment on the present being pro-crypto or not. I think we might see a re-acceleration of crypto this year, in particular because there's a lot of uncertainty geopolitically around the world, et cetera. Normally, I'd say that's a clear tailwind for it. The regulatory environment, at least in the US, seems like it's going to get further clarified. If it does, I think we'll see a great year for crypto in the US. BertrandWe have climate tech and clean energies. I guess this one, we have seen the number since the funding fell, actually, pretty significantly in 2023, 30-40% before the year before. My guess is that this is going to change very significantly for very different reasons in US and Europe. If you take the US, all this ESG stuff is going to decrease significantly for investment related to it, because definitely this is not something that's supported by the new administration.  We can remember the drill, baby drill mantra. It's not totally pro-climate tech or clean energy. I would expect much less investment there and actually a reallocation to more traditional energy source. But in Europe, it might be changing for very different reasons, simply because there is no money and there is a lot more actually investment that might go to defence spending. There have been a lot of talks in that direction the past few weeks. The last I was hearing actually is a willingness to dramatically change the meaning of ESG or potentially drop it all together in Europe.  Most people might know this movement started and has been extremely strong in Europe. I started hearing that, yes,...

Our analysis of the Space & Aeronautics, Defense and Homeland Security industries from key trends to investment landscape… to perhaps, more importantly, evil vs no evil? Where are we now?Navigation:Intro (01:34)Why now?GeopoliticsAerospace and AeronauticsDefense and Homeland SecurityConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

Nuno G. PedroWelcome to Tech DECIPHERED. In today's episode, Episode 62, we're going to discuss space and aeronautics, defense and online security. We are going to talk about key trends, why now is such a wonderful time to be looking at this space not only from a startup perspective but also from an investment landscape perspective. We'll also go into the whole evil versus no evil topic. Specifically, we will discuss why now, and the geopolitics of the industries, aerospace and aeronautics, defense and homeland security, and then we will conclude. Bertrand, why now? Bertrand SchmittWhy now? I think this industry, this sector, space, defense, homeland security has seen not just a lot of growth and quite a few very successful companies coming out, but it's an interesting complete turnaround, if you look at that from an entrepreneur or from a VC investor perspective. Why now? I think there has been, I would say, historically, there was a lot of scepticism, a lot of concerns by entrepreneurs, investors alike, centred around the military industrial complex. Bertrand SchmittWe probably all remember the famous Eisenhower's farewell address where he was sharing his distrust of that military industrial complex. And venture capital shunned these sectors also due to long sales cycle, in some cases only one client, the Department of defense for many startups, as well as ethical debates. Bertrand SchmittAt the same time, it's an evolving landscape. Startup came with disrupting legacy models. It's not just a cost-plus approach. It's a product approach. It's agile. It's innovation. The debate around, is it evil to is it something we must do in order to address global threats, basically coming to the forefront for investors and entrepreneurs alike. Nuno G. PedroIt's a supply and demand issue. It's not just that startups are not necessarily interested in it because it always creates this issue around, is it evil? Is it good? Are we doing something good or not? I think there's a lot of that. There's a lot of supply issue because of that angle. But it's also a demand issue. Contracts historically with military take a long time to be hashed out. They depend on doing trials and proofs of concept. Nuno G. PedroI think on the other hand, it's an industry that historically was very resilient and dominated by services. Particularly the US military want to own everything, and so, therefore, there was this notion that whoever was the provider provided it to provide it as a service for them. There are services that still need to be done today, but the industry has been largely productized, and there are a lot of products. I buy planes, I buy weaponry, I buy a bunch of different software systems that will allow me to operate, but they're productized. I think that's one of the big shifts that we've seen and why now is a good time to look at it. Nuno G. PedroIf I'm a startup, I don't need to go through 3, 4, 5-year cycles until I sell anything of scale. Then on the plus side, once I sell, it is at scale. There's a lot of money in the military. We'll talk a lot about the numbers later on, but there's definitely a lot of money in the military complex that warrants the focus of startups. Nuno G. PedroThe other part is venture capital firms. Venture capital firms, historically, maybe because of the whole evil versus no evil and perceived ethical issues have stayed away from it. But we have more and more active large firms in the space from Founders Fund, Andreessen Horowitz. We ourselves have invested in companies that are around both the Homeland Security and the military complex space. So as a venture capital investor, because then the cycles to sales are better, because then startups scale faster, the economic piece of it has been solved. Nuno G. PedroThen, on the other side, the whole ethical issue has been really put into perspective. There's clearly a lot of geopolitical tension right now. Defense as an industry. It's an industry that needs to scale properly where there are geopolitical interests at scale, but you need to put money where your mouth is. Bertrand SchmittWe will talk more about it, but I believe also we had one big example of an extremely successful company that really broke the dam in how you see these investments from an entrepreneur or investor perspective and how you can really win against these traditional companies, very entrenched companies. This is SpaceX. SpaceX really shown to everyone that, yes, you can build actually rockets. You can build better rockets. You can build cheaper rockets than everybody's. Bertrand SchmittThat was the poster child of, yes, there is a brand-new market opportunity that until now we thought was impossible to crack for young, talented tech entrepreneurs. Suddenly, everyone could see in some ways that the emperor was naked and that these big defense contractors were actually extremely weak. Bertrand SchmittFrom my perspective, they became weak. It was a two-way street. Also, the government makes them weak. You have only one supplier. You have only one buyer. At some point, it's about wining and dining clients. It's not about solving problem. At some point, it's garnering political support, not delivering great products. Bertrand SchmittI think there has been a slow path to extreme mediocrity, and mediocrity might be generous term, actually. I think there is, as a reaction to that, again, SpaceX example, shows that you cannot just make things 10% better, but you might make 10x or 100x cheaper and change the whole industry. Nuno G. PedroI do think the example you put forward is a great example on aeronautics and aerospace. On military and online security, Palantir was at that first breakthrough. You could argue it's still a relatively services-heavy company rather than a product, but it is a startup, it IPO-ed, etc. It's obviously a company that has done really, really well in the industry. We now have obviously the example of Anduril in the drone space and how that's scaling. Nuno G. PedroI think we have now a bunch of good examples to your point, Bertrand, as there has been an unbundling of pieces that were typically government-owned or only government pushed like NASA. With aerospace, you have this opportunity like SpaceX that just dramatically changes how things are done, where it eliminates all these inconsistencies and these inefficiencies. I think that's been true also of the defense and military complex side and how that has scaled. Nuno G. PedroMaybe moving to geopolitics, it's very clear that the US is the big player, spending a significant amount of its yearly budget on military by any admissions. Probably around 900 billion a year spent on defense in the US, which is incredible. The US GDP is 27.7 trillion as of 2023. This is a significant part of it, so obviously, the budget's much lower. The use of military in the US and defense is a huge percentage of its not only GDP, but also its yearly budget. US is clearly leading the way, obviously. We'll discuss other countries and where they're at. Nuno G. PedroEurope doesn't seem to have gotten the memo. I think the recent discussions happening around Ukraine and what's happening there show a little bit that not only it's lost the plot, but it's lost the power as well because it lost the plot. Bertrand SchmittI'm French. You're Portuguese from origin. For me, it's totally shocking why is Europe… It's been 35 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and it feels like the Europeans rushed to stop investing in their defense. There are some metrics in terms of German investments in defense spending, for instance, where we move from huge quantity of tanks to barely any tanks as Germany can bring into any battle. This is one example of how it moved from being a military superpower, same for France or the UK, to basically the shadows of their former self. It's quite unbelievable. Bertrand SchmittFor me, what's unbelievable is that even after 3 years of Ukraine war, some Eastern European countries have changed their defense spending. But the Western European countries have not changed much their spending. All these promises about increasing military productions, being able to provide military supplies to Ukraine. Bertrand SchmittYes, we sold them or gave them "some weapons", some typically older weapons, but at the end of the day, we are not even able to provide enough artillery shells, which is the bread and butter right now on the battlefield. Same with drones. Most of the parts are coming from China, on both sides of the conflict, by the way. It's a very, very scary situation. Bertrand SchmittI guess we are recording that one week after JD Vance spending some time in Europe and talking at a Munich conference about European security. It's very clear that the US is fed up from this perspective. As a result, I would expect actually a change in spending and priorities by Europeans. I guess they will buy some weapons from Europe, but also from the US. There have been some European initiatives like the JEDI initiative to stimulate faster tech adoptions....

Our review of 2024 and what 2025 holds for the world and the Tech industry. From geopolitical dynamics to M&A and IPOs, regulation, crypto winters and summers, to inflation and DOGE and many other things.Navigation:Intro (01:34)Review of 2024What’s next, 2025?ConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

Bertrand SchmittWelcome to Tech DECIPHERED Episode 61. It's at this time of the year where we look back what happened in the past year in 2024 in tech, as well as trying to put some thoughts into what 2025 might look like, what might be the next big things happening in global tech industry. Let's start with our review of 2024. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt's been an interesting year. A year of elections around the world, so maybe we start at that level. The landscape geopolitically has become very interesting. I'd seen some chart that shows the most gain on the right ever globally across elections. I think there's some message going on that people are really not happy about, status quo. Obviously, in the US, Donald Trump got elected, so he will again be the President of the United States next year or starting next year. Nuno Goncalves PedroIn Europe, we've had a lot of countries that went to the right. Austria, I believe the right wing party won. A lot of interesting and somehow shocking results in some cases with very populist views, for example, countries like my own Portugal, and all around that. Very significant geopolitical transition where it seems like populism is here to stay. Nuno Goncalves PedroThere are significant concerns around the world around immigration. There are significant concerns around the world around security. There are significant concerns around the world around economic growth. I think the elections that we saw this year, for the most, are reflecting upon the discontent of citizens across the world, of which the US is just but an example. Bertrand SchmittYes. Actually, I'm not sure anymore about that when we call populism, one side or the other, what it really means at some point, it doesn't sit right to me anymore. I think 10 years ago, maybe I had some concept about what it means. But today, I'm not really clear, to be frank, because when you see Trump and his alliance with people like Elon Musk or JFK, it's not clear they are populist at all. The same in Europe. I'm not really clear, what is true is for sure more right wing, moving away from left or centre. Bertrand SchmittYeah, this will have a significant impact on a lot of topics, and we'll go through that. France also went more right wing, at least in term of parliament. Germany, we will see next year, actually. They're preparing for election, the government in Germany. I think it was the day or the next day after the result of the US election, the government imploded. There are new elections scheduled for early next year. It looks like it will also go more right wing. It will make certainly for an interesting change of policies and politics. Nuno Goncalves PedroIndeed, all of all, I think a lot of renewed discussion around what is the role of countries, governments, different counties, provinces, states in the case of the US, local government, is the system fully broken or not? A lot of debate around precisely the incentives that people have to vote for a party versus another and what are the key issues that are on their mind. But as I mentioned, I feel it's clear that it's the economy, stupid back through the day, and security have been effectively the key considerations for this year. Nuno Goncalves PedroIn terms of the overall year, it was a year that was supposed to somehow be really awful. It wasn't. It wasn't a year that was awful. Stock markets have gone up, in particular in the US, driven mostly by technology, The Fed rates started to go down, so it seems like inflation now is more and more under control. We see a lot of movement around, in particular, the technology stack of the fence that has taken us to the next level. There's a lot of bright spots. I think we had anticipated maybe a very bleak 2024. It certainly was not in terms of equities, both on the public markets, but also on the private market side of the fence, including venture capital. Nuno Goncalves PedroWe'll come back to that later. I think there is somehow certainly on the private markets a huge impact of AI. AI is distorting the numbers. The markets are still a bit shaky, but AI and AI investment has changed how the markets look certainly for venture capital. We'll come back to that later. But basically, a year that was bad, and well, it wasn't. It wasn't bad. Bertrand SchmittI would mostly agree with you, Nuno. Maybe I would qualify that it's certainly true in the US. China also in terms of stock market, it did well thanks to a big stimulus. It's not clear how long it stays that way, but it looks like they plan to keep doing more stimulus. The European markets were pretty bad, or at least it was like zero or slightly negative. US, for sure, doing very well. Maybe also the European startups, at least with the ones in AI, are also doing well like in the US. Nuno Goncalves PedroIndeed. In terms of other pieces of the market, the M&A market have been very strained. There has obviously been some acquihires on the low end of the spectrum in terms of lower cap acquisitions in place. There's now a few large acquihires, as we mentioned in one of our last episodes, happening on the AI space. But a bunch of M&A activity that was basically blocked for big tech companies, and some of them silly blocks, I think in my mind. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt's been a tale of two outcomes. One, acquihires somehow seem to be working and getting around the system. Then on the larger M&A side, in particular, the beginning of the year, the first half of the year or so, a lot of blocks and a lot of things that didn't go through, even when… Some of them actually I don't understand why they didn't go through. A little bit surprising and shocking. Bertrand SchmittAs you say, some of the big tech companies tried to go around M&A getting blocked by doing some very surprising, very large acquihires, never done before, at least at this scale. One interesting one is actually OpenAI, because if you look at what Elon Musk is arguing that it has de facto become acquired by Microsoft, except it is not. That would be another one where will OpenAI have been acquired in a parallel universe by Microsoft, if there was not all these regulations already in place blocking a lot of acquisitions for big tech? Nuno Goncalves PedroThere might be acquisitions that maybe already happened that we just don't know yet. But we'll soon find out about them. Because the entrenched Trojan horse of participation in the company rights that the companies have while putting money to the company, et cetera, give them effectively right at some point to have ownership of IP and ownership of a bunch of things. Anyway, we won't know until we know is going to be the scenario for some of these plays. Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe moving to AI. AI is the gift that keeps on giving if you're trying to fundraise. It's like it reminds me of crypto and blockchain in Web3 in the heyday where you just had to put something in there, and you would raise money. Nuno Goncalves PedroI would say we are starting to see already this year in 2024, even before we go to 2025. I would call it actually the end of the beginning. It's the end of the beginning of this big AI leap forward that we've had. We're watching the last chapters of this, if this first chapter where there's been a ton of money, thrown on foundational models, large language model building platforms, as we discussed before in that episode that we dedicated to not starting a company around AI platforms at this stage. I think that cycle is coming to an end. Things are going to scale and continue scaling. There's going to be, I think, a lot of investment on the AI app side, on the applications that are AI-first. Nuno Goncalves PedroBut definitely 2024 has been a year where we're starting to see the end of that beginning, the end of that leap forward that we've watched over the last year and a half or so of the big AI momentum coming to bear. Nuno Goncalves PedroReally interesting. Really exciting. We're seeing all these acquihires in the space. I think we'll see more hardcore M&A, in particular in the US with President Trump being in office, I would say that's probably going to open even more the floodgates around M&A, like hardcore M&A, not just these funky deals on Trojan horse investment or acquihires that we were just mentioning before. Bertrand SchmittYeah, it's tough to say at this stage. I don't think they have been super, super clear on what they plan to do regarding M&A, especially if you look at JD Vance's positions, who are actually quite supportive of Lina Khan actions. Let's see until we see who they have named as head of FTC to get a sense of where it's going. Bertrand SchmittIn term of AI, I agree with you. I mean, it's the end of the beginning. The big AI platforms have consolidated their power, and they have consolidated also because there was such an arm race in term of getting the financing to build bigger, larger, better models that basically no one could keep going on if you don't have billions on the side to keep running. I mean, in a way, Elon Musk with xAI might have been the last entrant in the race,...

In a few decades, will Europe be good for anything beyond food and tourist experiences? With Europe lagging on innovation, productivity and with extremely costly decisions on the Energy side, and needing to defend itself, what is next?Navigation:Intro (01:34)New report out from Mario DraghiProfound mistakes in Energy initiatives increasing costs and competitivenessDalio and Lee Kuan Yew commentsLack of growth in Europe, lack of creation of new European championsToo much protection for employees?Too Complex regulations around companies and innovation initiatives are too bureaucraticConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

Nuno Goncalves PedroWelcome to Episode 60 of Tech DECIPHERED. Today, we will discuss European competitiveness. The competitiveness of all of Europe, not just the European Union, but the whole of Europe. It's been in the news recently. There's been a new report out from Mario Draghi a couple of months ago that really mentions what is happening in Europe, what are the things that need to be done for Europe to increase its competitiveness going forward. Nuno Goncalves PedroThere have been a lot of discussions around the world on Asia, in particular, and American dominance of the world economy. Europe is lagging behind. What do we make out of all of this? Maybe let's start with the report out from Mario Draghi and the conclusions of that report. Bertrand SchmittYes, I think it was for once, a pretty interesting and pretty lucid report from a commission by the European Commission and written by Mario Draghi with a lot of support from many CEOs and also entrepreneurs to provide feedback to try to explain what's happening, what's going on. I would agree with everything in terms of analysis or conclusion, but I must say it's a good read. Bertrand SchmittMaybe a few points that he's making is first acknowledging that there is an issue in European competitiveness and growth since the past 20, 25 years. This lack of competitiveness and growth has increased with a great financial crisis from 2008-2012. In 2012, there was a crisis around the euro. I think it is indeed time to try to look back at what happened and try to get some sense about what could be done differently going forward. Nuno Goncalves PedroA couple of really astute observations. Obviously, the GDP growth of Europe has lag behind that of the US and China. The period of time from 2002-2023, the US has grown 2% and both on constant prices and constant PPP prices. China, 8.3% and the EU, 27 at 1.4%. Obviously this report is on the EU. Clearly lagging, and the lag is significant. Nuno Goncalves PedroIf we look at GDP at constant prices, there was a 17% delta in 2002 between US and Europe, and now there's a 30% delta between US and Europe. It's lagging you further behind. Even more seriously, China has outpaced it on constant prices. If we look at constant PPP prices, the EU was actually 4% above the US back in 2002, and it is now below 12% of the US. Nuno Goncalves PedroChina has outpaced both of them at constant PPP prices. This is worrisome. I think Mario Draghi makes, or the report makes a bunch of very significant and strong statements, which basically are saying, "We cannot, as the European Union, continue like this and have the social welfare that we put in place in all these countries." something's got to give. Nuno Goncalves PedroHe goes on to make a couple of proposals and what he thinks needs to be done in Europe. But very significantly, what he's saying is this is a crisis. We need to address it. This is not just a nice report, please read it. It's like we cannot afford the lifestyle that we're having. Nuno Goncalves PedroIf Europe or European Union was a household, it would be going bankrupt, I think is what he's saying. We can't keep doing what we're doing. Something's got to break at some point. Either the social welfare construct that we have will not work any more, or we, as Europe, will need to really reassess how we behave, et cetera. Very interesting report. A lot of fear at the beginning of the report immediately. Then three areas that he recommends action on for Europe in order to reignite growth. Bertrand SchmittYes. First, I would like to say that, yes, some are doing analysis based on PPP, but there is a risk when you do that. Because PPP is cute when you try to estimate cost of food, if you go locally your food, for instance, or pay locally your services. But for anything you buy from outside your region, PPP doesn't work as well. That's a big issue for Europe, given that it's manufacturing less and less of what it's bringing. PPP can be providing some comfort in terms of things are bad, but maybe not as bad. I would be careful in terms of analysis where they push PPP so much. Nuno Goncalves PedroBut it's on both, Bertrand. They are showing it at constant prices. Bertrand SchmittIt's on both. It is just that the impact is way bigger when you did not choose PPP. Nuno Goncalves PedroJust to tell those that don't know what PPP is, is power purchasing parity. It's something to your point that aligns the power purchasing parity across different markets. It's an adjustment made to the numbers, basically. Bertrand SchmittYes, because what we see, for instance, is on a per capita basis, real disposable income has grown twice as much in the US since 2000. It's an absolutely huge difference. Nuno Goncalves PedroI always switch it, so I apologize. It's purchasing power parity. Purchasing power parity. Bertrand SchmittYes. Nuno Goncalves PedroApologies again. Bertrand SchmittI think one point that I believe is really important is the lack of innovation in Europe. That is, of course, very scary. They made a good point, it's the lack of tech companies in Europe. One number shared in the report, only four of the world's top 50 tech companies are European. Only four. How can you be one of the top three regions in the world and the future is not well represented in Europe? Bertrand SchmittFor sure, it's a big issue. It has big issue in terms of R&D. The three biggest spenders of R&D in Europe are actually automotive companies. Guess what? None of them is Tesla. I'm not sure where is this R&D going, but I will guess it didn't go in the right direction on top of it. But it's not just a question of how much you spend, but how well you use it. That part is something to be fixed. Bertrand SchmittAnother data point maybe around tech companies, but there is no EU company with a market cap over 100 billion that has been set up from scratch in the past 50 years. While all six US companies with a valuation above one trillion have been created in the past 50 years. That for me is just incredible because it's proof of a total lack of dynamism that is step by step self-fulfilling. I'm not saying individuals in Europe lack dynamism. I guess it's not the overall European system that is creating so much ball and chains behind your back. You cannot run. At best, you walk. At worst, you crawl.  If you have your operations in Europe. That's really probably the main issue. Bertrand SchmittOne could argue, has it been designed or proposed this way to help the incumbent? I don't know. But for sure, the result is that all of these regulations, all of this lack of competitiveness, or all of these constraints and cost are creating issues. The end result, whatever you agree or not, the end result is that you don't create with such a system highly successful companies. That's it. They were created a number of years ago. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt's even more significant than that. Obviously, if you look at startups, more recent startups, 2008-2021, close to 30% of the unicorns that were founded in Europe, so startups that went on to be valued over a billion dollars, relocated abroad, mostly to the US. It's even worse. When there is innovation in Europe, these guys want to raise money from the US They want to raise money from US venture capital. They want to expand into the US markets in many cases. Nuno Goncalves PedroIn a significant amount, we just saw 30% of unicorns, from 2008-2021, relocated their headquarters to the US, or most of them to the US It's incredible. It's like even the innovation doesn't stay in Europe. It's not just that the industrial complex is totally stale. To your point earlier, in the last 50 years, it's more than that. The new companies that are emerging are also not staying in Europe, or at least a significant part of them are not. Bertrand SchmittYes, that's a very good point. That one is really scary because even if you say, "Oh, you know what? We have some good programs to help create startups." At some point, the rational ones might discover that actually they better leave Europe because it would be more efficient for them to gain scale from the US. They will probably realize that most of their markets in the US in the first place, they will see that most of the exit opportunities, be it in terms of M&A or in terms of IPO, will probably be in the US if they are highly successful. Bertrand SchmittThere has not been a lot of successful acquisition of big tech companies in Europe or IPO of tech companies in Europe. There has been a few, of course, but certainly not to the level we've seen in the US. The US is still seen as the best path for exit for a lot of startups, especially the ones that have global appeal in terms of products and customer base and shareholder interest....

Do we need yet another new AI platform? Would new foundation models stand a chance in today’s market? Will OpenAI, Anthropic, etc be the new Tech winners … or will they just get acquired, at some point?Navigation:Intro (01:34)LandscapeRecent gigantic acqui-hiresThe Big PlayersHow will the hardware change?Will there be a next wave beyond GPT?Is it too late to come in and disrupt the big players?ConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

BertrandWelcome to Tech Deciphered episode 59. Again, this will be an episode on AI. This time we make the case for not starting yet a new AI platform and not investing in one either. What's happening in AI? I guess all of you have heard about all the massive investment made by some of the leading players, OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Meta, XAI, Oracle, as well as even some smaller startups from Anthropic to Mistral. BertrandOf course, Amazon has built its own frontier model as well as is providing infrastructure to a lot of players. But isn't there already too much capital going into AI platforms and isn't it going too fast? NunoWell, we think probably yes. That's going to be the thesis of our discussion today. Some of the startups you mentioned, by the way, they've raised a ton of money. I mean, Anthropic is well above 8 billion. Mistral is at a couple of billions as well, right, at this stage? BertrandI think we are closer to a billion. NunoIt's around a billion. Yeah, around a billion, several billion for Anthropic. Then there's a couple of companies we will talk about later that raised a few billion that are no longer independent. It feels like too much. It feels like there's a gold rush of sorts. It is probably a good analogy. A lot of investors putting capital into it. NunoBut at the same time, it's being matched by the big players, Microsoft, Google, Meta by pushing LLM, XAI, OpenAI, we could argue, is it a big player already or not? But they just raised a ton of money as well. At 150 billion valuation, right? I mean, it's like... BertrandYes, 150 billion valuation. NunoIt's like, okay. They've already said, well, we are going to continue raising money. We're going to continue spending a lot of money as well. It feels like a gold rush. It feels like there's too much capital deployed into it. Something's got to give, someone's going to fail. Maybe that's a good segue to the fact that we already start seeing some moments that are quite interesting. BertrandMaybe to OpenAI, to jump back, to be fair, they've reached more than 3 billion of annualized revenues, and that was based on numbers from June. This is very high valuation for sure. But it's also coming with one of the fastest growing business ever in terms of revenues. NunoYes. We will see if it's sustainable, the business that they're building, because there's no competition. People are using other services out there in tandem. I see a lot of people, for example, using perplexity rather than ChatGPT. We'll see if Gemini catches up at some point or not. I would argue they have grown very fast, but they have not faced as much competition as they're probably starting to face right now. At least that would be my thesis. NunoIn any case, we start seeing signals of companies that go to the market and get bought out, and they get bought out for amazing amounts. If we look at Google and there, I would argue, acquihire of Character.ai. It seems to 2.5 billion to get the team and I guess the tech as well. But it feels a bit like acquihire. They're trying to get the CEO back into the fold at Google. So interesting, I feel. NunoThe Inflection one was at least in the highest hundreds of millions. We heard 650 million for the IP licensing deal from Microsoft to get the founder and CEO to join Microsoft to head AI. Let's say it's around a billion and let's call it even, but that's like another gigantic acquihire. NunoWhat gives? And it's a little bit like it feels a little bit like free money. I've had a bit of a chance to think about this. It's not just that it feels a little bit like free money. It's some of these acquirers, like the Microsoft of the world, et cetera, might still be overvalued themselves, question mark, and therefore they're basically putting capital because they have the capital to deploy at this stage. NunoBut it feels a little bit abusive. It raises all these concerns. If I'm an investor, and I'm backing a company in the AI space that is doing yet another foundational model, or that it's playing at the limit between infrastructure and platform, and I know it's going to be capital-intensive, but I'm one of the early investors and I hope that they'll raise a bunch of money, well, there's no guarantee that at some point they won't just get bought out. NunoMaybe the early investors will make a pretty decent return or a pretty good return, certainly a very fast return. But maybe those who are coming later won't make a ton of money out of it because the company end up being just acquihired. NunoIt may also uncover a hidden secret, which is for you to scale, this is so capital-intensive in terms of consumption of compute, storage, other parts of infrastructure, etc, that at the end of the day, only a big, big guy can win. Therefore, either you raise tens of billions of dollars or you have no chance even to compete. What do you think, [inaudible 00:04:49] ? BertrandYeah, I think it's a mix of things that are happening right now. One is, as we know, the FCC has been blocking acquisitions from the big players. What we are seeing is companies that might have been properly acquired in the past, but suddenly the bigger companies cannot really acquire any more. So they have to find ways around current regulations or at least how the regulators is seeing the regulations and is using its power to block acquisitions and therefore are going around by doing this type of very weird acquihires with separate licensing deals. BertrandWe're in a pretty strange position. And it's not just AI. In general, there has been much less acquisitions from the, can call them the Fabulous 7, if you want, because their ability to acquire has been very restricted. I don't think, of course, it's a good thing for startups. So it's raising a lot of questions of how as a startup, can you keep ultimately providing liquidity to your business, especially when, as we know, there's also very little IPO these days. BertrandSo it's a very weird combination of you cannot really do an exit through the bigger guys, and only the bigger guys can afford to spend billions and billions in an acquisition, by the way. BertrandIf you don't provide the IPO opportunity, then what do you do? Maybe that's what we are seeing as well is what you end up doing is doing these weird acquihires, at least for the businesses that are not worthy of keep going at the rate they started. NunoYeah. Obviously, there's two sides to this There's the investment side of the play where if I'm an investor, I want to return, and therefore, I want the company to get acquired at some point, or for the company to IPO, that's the ideal scenario. But obviously, I wanted it to be acquired at a valuation that is beneficial to me. NunoIf I came into a round where the company was valued last, I don't know, 2 billion and the company gets bought for 2 billion, that's not much of a gain, right? There's that element of the piece of the puzzle. Then there's the element you're mentioning, which is really the M&A perspective of the big guys. Can I really acquire? Will I be allowed to acquire this asset and this team and this company? NunoBut in some ways, they're doing really under the disguise of acquihire. I'm getting the talent, the core talent in. For example, the deal with inflection was that, they got the talent, and then they did a licensing agreement with the company, though. I don't think formally they acquire the company. There's obviously other natural activity going on. AMD bought a startup, Silo AI for 665 million. NunoThere's activity going on not just on the platform foundational model side, but also around the chip capability side, infrastructure side. It's a little bit truly like a gold rush. If you remember in the gold rush, there was the whole pics and shovels. Our friends from Levi Strauss, the jeans makers were attached to that because people needed more comfortable trousers to do work on or in, rather. That's how Levi Strauss became a big name. NunoIn some ways, there's a lot of things happening around the ecosystem, not just in the core platform foundational models side, but also around infrastructure that needs to change. Some would say it's justified. There needs to be a ton of investment. My thesis is there's too much money being poured into it, and there's going to be a lot of people crying at some point, particularly on the investor side, because something does have to give. NunoIt's impossible that we will have at scale, assuming very high capital intensity, 10, 15 players fighting for the same broad foundational models. I don't see that happening. BertrandI think there are different perspectives here. One is as consumers, all this investment in AI or businesses that are going to benefit from AI is going to be great because I see the performance of all these models keep improving. I see their capacities keep improving. I see their abilities. I mean, the way now it's multimodal models. It's not just text, it's image,...

Another election year and it’s already a dramatic one. Biden vs Trump turned into Harris vs Trump. An attempt on Trump’s life. What’s next? This episode will focus on the implication of the elections for Tech and its ecosystem in the US and globally.

Navigation:

Intro (01:34)

Harris vs. Trump

Silicon Valley / Tech business at large views

Implications for Rest of the World

Our take

Conclusion

Our co-hosts:

Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt

Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro

Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

Welcome to Episode 58 of Tech DECIPHERED. Today, we will discuss the US election and what it means for tech. How will the upcoming US election affect tech and the entire ecosystem in the US and globally? To be clear, and just to put a disclaimer, this episode will not focus on policies by the candidates that do not relate to what we perceive to be implications to tech. For example, we will not be discussing topics like pro-choice versus pro-life, and other things that are obviously very central to the decisions that many of you will make in how you will vote for the next presidential elections in the US.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

At the same time, we will also share with you what we know to the best of our knowledge. Obviously, policies change with time, and proposed policies definitely change a lot with time, as you know, with politicians. There might be things that we will share with you today that might be different when you listen to our episode. We are not responsible for that. People and candidates change their minds all the time, even after they've been elected. That's not our fault. Just with those disclaimers, that's what we're going to share today.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

The third and final disclaimer, obviously, there will be tonality on how we discuss and evaluate some of the policies, and if they're good or bad or whatever. But from this, you cannot also take a conclusion on, "Oh, I should vote for Trump," or, "I should vote for Harris," because no, this is just a view around tech and tech ecosystem. We will share how we perceive the policies and the proposed policies, and that's literally it. We're not giving you advice on who to vote for.

Bertrand Schmitt

First, this is a recording made August 28. We'll try to be as precise and as relevant as of this date. This is before the first debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. As a reminder, a French politician once said that promises by candidates only engage those who listen to them. With that as a reminder, let's start the topic. Maybe first, we can talk about the official platform. As of today, there is an official platform if we go to the page of the candidate, Donald J. Trump, there is a 20-point page, and there is a more detailed PDF as well on the Trump Republican platform. Some of our points will try to leverage what is on this official platform page, and we will also, of course, try to leverage what was done when Donald Trump was president, because sometimes actions speak louder than words. We also pick what we have heard from the candidates on the trail, if it diverts or if it adds to that platform.

Bertrand Schmitt

On the other side, VP Harris' platform is not there. As of August 28, there is no official platform on her website, which, to be frank, it's scary because if you cannot hold a candidate to their promise after they are elected, that's a tough place to be. Obviously, she's part of the Biden-Harris administration, so we will leverage for discussion what was done by her administration, what was also planned by her administration, and we will highlight whatever has been shared by her, since she's running as a candidate.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

Well, okay. That's a great start. But based on speeches—obviously, Vice President Harris is in office right now, so she's been part of a platform—based on what analysts' say, we've looked at a bunch of comparisons across the board for where they stand on a variety of issues. Maybe we start with economic policy overall, and talk a little bit about how we see the Biden-Harris administration, and obviously what things have happened around there. We will later discuss other topics like taxes, labour, perspectives, for example, on gig working, immigration, antitrust, and a variety of other topics. The economic policy overall piece that we will share at the beginning is very high-level, as you will see, then we will go in details into a couple of other areas. Maybe starting on that, Bertrand.

Bertrand Schmitt

Actually, we have two, and when I say candidates, of course, we should think about the ticket, per se. If we take on Trump's side, what's interesting with both Trump and JD Vance is that they have both extensive experience in the private sector. Trump, obviously, as a businessman, who built a business empire. JD Vance, as an ex-VC, venture capitalist. Both have been in the trench of what it means to run a business, to be on the board of businesses, to be on the private side of things.

Bertrand Schmitt

On the other end, we have a stark contrast, because both Harris and Walz have actually never been on the private side of things. Harris has been on the legal side as a prosecutor, as attorney general. We have Walz, who had a long experience in the military, followed by running for different position at state level before becoming governor.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

I would say one parenthesis on JD Vance. He was in venture capital for a short period of time, three years and a half or four years, which is not very long, for venture capital funds are normally 10 years, et cetera. But he does obviously have private sector business experience before that as well. He did write the book, and the book was made into a movie. There's definitely a lot of private sector stuff in there.

Bertrand Schmitt

That's true. Actually, I forgot to say that JD Vance also has a military experience.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

Yeah, he was also in the military.

Bertrand Schmitt

The economic policy, if we look at what has happened under the Biden-Harris administration, I mean, obviously it has been hugely inflationary. The numbers have been terrible. I mean, if you have a basket of stuff to buy at the groceries, you have seen big price increase. Go to McDonald's or any other restaurant, you will have seen a huge difference in the past four years. Whatever the Inflation Reduction Act was supposed to do, I guess it did the opposite of the name of the act. It was a more inflationary act instead of a reduction one.

Bertrand Schmitt

The latest has been Kamala Harris has shared, or some of her spokesperson have shared that she wants to put in place some level of price controls, which is pretty scary, to be frank. In some ways, it's typical to first create inflation, and then to claim it's the fault of the capitalists. If prices are increasing, therefore we need to put in place price controls. I think the last time that there were some level of price controls in the US was a long time ago, in the '70s. It was not a good outcome, just to be very clear. It has rarely, if ever, be a good outcome if you go to price controls.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

Yeah, I mean, price controls, I don't think would be a great idea anywhere in the world. On economic policy, I would bring another element to the table, which is maybe stepping one step above. As you guys probably know, both Bertrand and myself are not American originally. I have since become an American citizen, so this will actually be the first presidential elections that I will have the pleasure and honor of voting in.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

Bertrand is not an American citizen, but he does live in the US and has lived in the US for a very long time. Coming from different countries, Bertrand's from France, I come from Portugal, with national health systems. We both lived in China, which is a bit funky in terms of health system. Again, different education systems, et cetera. I'd say the only point I would make is, at least from my perspective, coming out of Europe and having lived in Asia, there's very little structural support on things that I do think are critical. For me, the three things that are critical, I always mentioned these three things, are health, education, justice. The health, education, justice system in the US is, let's just say, very private sector-owned. It's very private sector-led, and it's uncommon for that in many countries in the world.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

It has its pluses and minuses. But if I were to look at the minuses, the fact is, if I'm an American citizen, the level of protection I have in terms of, for example, having a health scare or whatever is not really comparable to, for example, I'm a Portuguese citizen, I live in Portugal. I do think there are a lot of factors that are put into economic policy to make some of these elements work in the economy, which, to be honest, the Democrats have had probably a better track record than the Republicans have had.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

The whole notion of you take care of yourself, and if you have health issues, take care of yourself, and if you have diabetes, you take care of yourself, is very much a Republican speech motto thing. On the Democrats side, there's more of this level of protection for at least certain elements. Now, we can have, as Bertrand was saying, also an argument that there's been too much spend. The government is overspending dramatically. We have money that we don't have the right to spend. We're borrowing.

Nuno Goncalves Pedro

...

Did we go from a broad bubble to a gen AI bubble? What is the current state of AI and generative AI? What has been commoditized and what is still distinctive? What does the future hold?Navigation:Intro (01:34)The State of AI / gen AIOn the negative sideOn the positive sideOur takeConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

Bertrand SchmittWelcome to Tech Deciphered, episode 57. This episode will be about generative AI, and we will be asking the question, "Are we in a generative AI bubble?"Bertrand SchmittIn our last episode, we talked about AI, what was the latest happening in terms of endpoints, PCs, Macs, iPhones, and is it a risk? Is it a benefit? Today, we'll talk about what's happening with GenAI. Is it overhyped? Is it too much investment? On the plus side, we'll be wondering, okay, maybe it's not a bubble after all, or even if it's one, is it such an issue because basically is it laying the foundation for a new stage, a new scale of AI for an act two of generative AI. Good to talk to you today, Nuno.Nuno Goncalves PedroNice to talk to you as well, Bertrand. I'll start with my answer. It is a bubble and it isn't. I'll come back to that. I'll leave you guys on that cliffhanger. Let's start maybe a little bit with where we are in the state of AI and GenAI. Are we at commodity level or not? Adoption levels that we're seeing in the market. Interesting report from McKinsey. Some around the state of AI, they did over 1,300 interviews. It was really a survey format around AI and GenAI adoption.Nuno Goncalves PedroSome, like the conclusions, increased adoption of AI in at least one business function. Over the last year, this dramatic increase. I'm not really sure. Everyone that said, yes, we're using it is actually using it. I take that with a grain of salt. This is self-reported, again, and so everyone has to be using GenAI, but everyone's aware of it. I'm sure there's an increase in adoption for sure.Nuno Goncalves PedroThe second piece that I feel is a little bit more exciting is what are the functional areas of companies that are using AI and generative AI more actively? Maybe not super mega surprising marketing and sales, which is core to some companies, but relatively support function. A little bit surprising to me that people are seeing product in our service development as number two. Surprising to me that software engineering is so low. Again, maybe no software engineer has actually filled in anything around that. That's why it's so low or middle of the board, or they don't know what their engineers are doing, really, which is also interesting.Nuno Goncalves PedroThen very low on strategy and corporate finance were business analysis, triangulation of data, or using ChatGPT, et cetera, I would have taken a little bit for granted that people would be using it. A bit surprising on that. Just feel it's an interesting... Again, self-reported, it's a survey. Some interesting conclusions on both sides in terms of the functions, et cetera. Some the conclusions as well on the rapid ascendancy of generative AI.Bertrand SchmittYeah, for me, what I'm quite impressed, I must say, is how fast generative AI has picked up. I don't think I remember any new technologies that move so fast in terms of adoption, because here we are already talking about adoption metrics. I mean, it moved from nowhere in 2022, 33% in 2023, 65% in 2024. Basically, as high as the adoption of AI, the general AI adoption took seven years to get there.Bertrand SchmittHere it's two years. I'm not sure I remember any technologies that move so fast in terms of adoption. It took years and years for smartphone to get there. It took 5, 10 years for cloud computing to get there. It's really fast, I must say for me, is my first reaction.Bertrand SchmittIn terms of function, marketing, I'm not surprised. That's where you can use generative AI to generate content relatively easily. It's not mission-critical content, it's content you can review. At the same time, it can give you some clear benefits in terms of moving pretty fast and needing less resources. I guess for some other function like software engineering, I think right now, I guess the biggest issue is that you cannot trust it. It's not something that you are ready to deploy in production so quickly, very different from content for marketing.Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe perhaps a little bit more interesting is the article from Tomasz Tunguz from Redpoint. I hope he's still at Redpoint, and I didn't say anything wrong.Bertrand SchmittI'm not sure, actually.Nuno Goncalves PedroAround the evolution. He was at Redpoint.Bertrand SchmittHe was.Nuno Goncalves PedroAround the evolution of AI and this notion that it might be following the sigmoid logic, so log scale sometimes. Then sometimes exponential in terms of curves, so the exponential improvement and then log curve, which is flattening out for those who are not familiar with log curves. I would even say maybe it then looks a little bit linear, because if it's exponential and then log, then it's basically it looks a little bit linear. A little bit of argumentation around, are we going for the next S-curve? Are we going for the next log curve? Where are we on development? I think our intuition is probably telling us that there's more stuff to come still on this technology stack.Nuno Goncalves PedroAlthough this technology stack, as we know, the whole use of transformers to get us to where we got to buy OpenAI and all the other players is definitely, according to everyone that I talk to, not what's going to take us to AGI. It's definitely not what is going to take us to the big innovations, the big next themes and the next levels.Bertrand SchmittI really like the way OpenAI has categorized the different level of AI similar to self-driving cars. As a reminder, level one was a chatbot layer, robots that can chat with you. You could argue, interestingly enough, this level one is what used to be actually considered something very hard and the proof we have made AGI, I guess everyone now realize that Turing test is absolutely not enough.Bertrand SchmittLevel two: reasoners, robots that use logic to solve problems. Level three: agents, robots that act independently of humans. Level four: innovators, robots that create new ideas independently. Level five: organizations, robots that replicate the work of AI.Bertrand SchmittAt this stage, where are we? OpenAI say it's close to move from level one to level two. We will see. As you say, I tend to agree that at this stage, I feel that we are getting some plateau. Just to be clear, things keep improving. Don't get me wrong, there are very clear metrics that we improve stuff, but it feels more an improvement through brute force. Let's move from that many terabytes of data to 10X that terabytes of data. As a source, let's move from 1,000 GPUs to 10,000 GPUs.Bertrand SchmittYes, of course, you are improving stuff and the magic things with the current foundational models is that they scale very well with more data as long as quality stays good, and they scale very well with more GPUs. I guess the only issue at this stage is that it doesn't feel that there will be quantum leaps with this technology in terms of moving to level two, level three, without any separate breakthrough.Nuno Goncalves PedroYes. We know OpenAI is using other methods and other technology pieces into their technology stack beyond transformers, et cetera. It's already very apparent that they are. But still, the analogy of this with the self-driving car levels, which if you remember, is also level one through level five. Magically enough, it's very similar.Nuno Goncalves PedroFor those who are unaware, probably today, the best case scenarios that we see out there is like a level three. Some cars don't even have beyond level two. It's like they're telling you, there's a car on your lane or whatever, that's nothing. A little bit like the Tesla experience today is on the level three thing.Nuno Goncalves PedroWe're very far from level five. I'm sure, Bertrand, you've had similar stories. We've been promised self-driving cars for a long. I remember from my perspective, the penny dropped when I looked very heavily into the space, spent over a year looking at companies that were deeply embedded in the architecture of self-driving. Then at some point in time, I ended up spending time in this specific space with just simulation. The area where you simulate behaviour of cars to get those driving miles, but there are actually no cars on roads. It's actually a simulation.Nuno Goncalves PedroThe first thing is, 80% of the players I said was just BS. It looked like gaming simulations using Unreal, and there was no factoids to it. There was no physics to it. There was nothing that they were really testing. Then you got to the other 20%, and you realized these guys are a little bit more legit. Then you realize, well, there's things that they're not simulating, for example, like rain and snow, and what happens if there's ice on the road? At some point you're like, "But that's pretty critical, right?'Nuno Goncalves PedroThat's when you realize I spent probably a lot of time around this, 2016, 2017, when you were like, "Oh, my God, this is going to happen." You're like, "No, not anytime soon." Again, this promise that we're going to achieve AGI with a stack right now, I feel is totally overblown....

AI is literally everywhere… in our mobile phones, laptops, their chipsets, etc. As integrations increase, what are the implications for everyone? Why are all the announcements from Microsoft, Google, Apple, Open AI and others, important? One of those episodes that you really need to listen to, as this IMPACTS YOU and all of usNavigation:Intro (01:34)Getting us all on the same pageThis matters TO YOU!!!Open AI launching 4oThe responsesSo… What?ConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

Bertrand SchmittHi, welcome to episode 55 of Tech Deciphered. In this episode, we will talk about open versus closed and proprietary. What does it mean in technology to be an open or closed application? You have all heard about open-source, I guess. There is a saying in Silicon Valley, if you are first, you close it. If you come late, you open it.Bertrand SchmittBasically, it means that you might have an advantage being the first player on the field. You might afford to be able to close-source your product, your software, your application. But if you are late to the game, late to the party, and it's difficult to fight the leading player in the marketplace, maybe an alternative strategy in order to gain distribution is to open-source your product. There have been many examples of this through Silicon Valley history. Today, we are going to talk more about all of this. Good to see you, Nuno, today.Nuno Goncalves PedroNice to see you as well. Shall we start with history—the history of open-source? It's apparently the first known system that was supposedly open-source or in public domain was in the '50s, the A2 system in 1953. Basically, it was a compiler. A compiler is what turns source code into binary code that gets run by a machine.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt's what allows you to run apps on, for example, your phone and things like that, a compiler. I know some of you that are like, I'm a computer engineer. Is that a compiler really or is it an interpreter? Let's forget that for a second. Let's call it a compiler just to make life easier for everyone involved.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat was the first public domain open-source thing that we know. Then there isn't much, '50s, '60s, '70s, there isn't much. Obviously, there was the summer of love at some point in the late '60s, and maybe through the '70s, people started thinking through, shouldn't we be doing things that are more open? One of such people was a gentleman called Richard Stallman, who's still alive, so you'd shout out to him. He was part of this "let's call it hacker community" from those days and was doing some interesting things around it.Nuno Goncalves PedroThere was this belief that source code shouldn't be closed, that if you were monetising something quite a lot, and you were putting even certain things in your code, that if, for example, you were using unlicensed applications, so unlicensed binary, that you would run into trouble and have other issues. So he manifested himself against it and came up with something that we're still using till this day, the GNU or the GNU Project and GNU Manifesto. Now, GNU, this is the funny part—some of you will find it funny, others might not—stands for GNU's Not Unix, which is a recursive acronym. You have to appreciate computer scientists and computer engineers coming up with things like that.Nuno Goncalves PedroBut its GNU is GNU's not Unix, because at that time, Unix was a proprietary or had been made over time a proprietary platform by a couple of big companies in the market. There was this view that they wanted to, in some ways, get out of that space. The GNU project was born, and we, till this day, have what we call GNU general public licences, GPLs. You probably have heard about this. Now, it's in the '90s, early '90s, that we have the biggest movement, I think, in the history of open-source with a gentleman called Linus Torvald.Nuno Goncalves PedroI probably butchered his name. Linus Torvald, something like that, pushed a version of a kernel that he had. Actually, the first version he had was not open to the public, but then he released it to the public under a GNU licence. And that operating system was called Linux. And the rest is history. Linux has led to many other things after that. It's a wildly used operating system globally, in particular on the server side, with many variations, and we're off to the races.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat's the shortened version of how we got here in some ways. Then there's a lot of cool things that happen afterwards, but that's like seminal moments are GNU and Linux. That's the two things you need to remember.Bertrand SchmittYeah, and if I may say, Linux is really the kernel, and then you have by extension, Linux, the operating system are actually combining a kernel plus many tools from GNU or not GNU. Just to remind everyone, the Internet is running on Linux.Nuno Goncalves PedroOn Linux?Bertrand SchmittWe'll talk later about a lot of our other open-source software. It's not just Linux, but so many components of the Internet that are running on open-source software. Also, just to be clear, the first definition of open-source was coming from our friends at GNU, but ultimately, there has been competing initiatives to define or redefine what is open-source.Bertrand SchmittOne organisation in particular, the open-source Initiative, OSI, has tried to codify their own way and probably in a different way, what is considered open-source or not. They have this official definition they published in 2006, and they keep updating them for GNU, they keep generating new definitions and creating new or updating licences.Bertrand SchmittWe have multiple licences possible when we talk about open-source, which can create some misunderstanding about what is exactly open-source or not.Nuno Goncalves PedroWe'll come back to the more bad use of open later in this episode where obviously there are people that use open, and it's not open at all.Bertrand SchmittYes.Nuno Goncalves PedroBut these are seven moments in real open-source. It created a movement, it created a way of doing things. It created a mindset on how people can share each other's source code. At the very nature, open-source starts from there. It starts from the notion that source code, not the binary, not what's created by the compilers that then is run as an application, but the source code itself can be shared for free.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat's incredible. That's like the religion of the time was a religion of we have all these big monolithic companies like IBM, Microsoft emerging, etc. It's someone that's saying, "No, we don't accept the closed ecosystem play. We want to have code that is shared globally." In some ways, that movement is now probably the dominating movement in the world in terms of source code sharing.Nuno Goncalves PedroObviously, as we know, there's a lot of people profiting out of code today. There's ways of keeping your code intact and keeping things in-house. But the open-source movement has changed how things are done. It is a quasi-religious movement. It's this notion of you have… There's copyright. I enforce my copyright, the entitlement I have to this thing that I developed.Nuno Goncalves PedroThere's copyleft, which is a term that came from open-source, which you are obliged to share under certain licences all the stuff that you developed around it. To your point, there are coexistent pieces. We'll come back to that later when we talk about Android and Google and the Android open-source project versus Android itself. What is closed? What is open, and how do some companies do well in maintaining these two aspects working really well, like the openness and the closeness piece?Nuno Goncalves PedroI think Google does a decent job on Android. We'll argue later if that's the case or not. And yeah, it all started, similarly, with this gentleman Richard Stallman, and then with Linus just giving us Linux, and everything changed.Bertrand SchmittYeah, it's really amazing when you think about what was happening at the time. If you think about the '90s, it was the rise of Microsoft, from DOS to Windows, and Microsoft becoming at some point one of the most valued company and at the time certainly fighting tooth and nail against.Bertrand SchmittOpen-source was considered evil by some corporations when actually no, it was just a movement and a different approach to business and willingness to develop things in a different way and a way that was more open, transparent, collaborative, and especially important you could argue in the age of deploying applications everywhere, depending on these applications' stability over time. It is a significant evolution of the history of computers and programming.Nuno Goncalves PedroMicrosoft will keep popping up in this episode. Just to be very clear, this is not their first rodeo. They've been having these fights or antitrust cases, etc. In some ways, a lot of the reactions we saw, even with Linux, Linux becoming such an important operating system, certainly server-side globally, has to do with a fight to Microsoft.Nuno Goncalves PedroBecause obviously, as you said, Microsoft went DOS to Windows, and then they were really managing a closed ecosystem. There was this view like an operating system is critical. An operating system for those who are listening to us who are not computer scientists or computer engineers is what makes a specific device

When a company says they are launching a new product that is open, is it really? What does open even mean? The history behind open source, its successes and failures, and all the lies we are told all the time by some Tech players. The truth, unvarnishedNavigation:Intro (01:34)What is Open Source Software - history, definition and core innovations?Open Source ftw (for the win)Lies… when Open is not Open, but a Moat or the Bridge for ClosedConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news

Subscribe To Our Podcast

Bertrand SchmittHi, welcome to episode 55 of Tech Deciphered. In this episode, we will talk about open versus closed and proprietary. What does it mean in technology to be an open or closed application? You have all heard about open-source, I guess. There is a saying in Silicon Valley, if you are first, you close it. If you come late, you open it.Bertrand SchmittBasically, it means that you might have an advantage being the first player on the field. You might afford to be able to close-source your product, your software, your application. But if you are late to the game, late to the party, and it's difficult to fight the leading player in the marketplace, maybe an alternative strategy in order to gain distribution is to open-source your product. There have been many examples of this through Silicon Valley history. Today, we are going to talk more about all of this. Good to see you, Nuno, today.Nuno Goncalves PedroNice to see you as well. Shall we start with history—the history of open-source? It's apparently the first known system that was supposedly open-source or in public domain was in the '50s, the A2 system in 1953. Basically, it was a compiler. A compiler is what turns source code into binary code that gets run by a machine.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt's what allows you to run apps on, for example, your phone and things like that, a compiler. I know some of you that are like, I'm a computer engineer. Is that a compiler really or is it an interpreter? Let's forget that for a second. Let's call it a compiler just to make life easier for everyone involved.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat was the first public domain open-source thing that we know. Then there isn't much, '50s, '60s, '70s, there isn't much. Obviously, there was the summer of love at some point in the late '60s, and maybe through the '70s, people started thinking through, shouldn't we be doing things that are more open? One of such people was a gentleman called Richard Stallman, who's still alive, so you'd shout out to him. He was part of this "let's call it hacker community" from those days and was doing some interesting things around it.Nuno Goncalves PedroThere was this belief that source code shouldn't be closed, that if you were monetising something quite a lot, and you were putting even certain things in your code, that if, for example, you were using unlicensed applications, so unlicensed binary, that you would run into trouble and have other issues. So he manifested himself against it and came up with something that we're still using till this day, the GNU or the GNU Project and GNU Manifesto. Now, GNU, this is the funny part—some of you will find it funny, others might not—stands for GNU's Not Unix, which is a recursive acronym. You have to appreciate computer scientists and computer engineers coming up with things like that.Nuno Goncalves PedroBut its GNU is GNU's not Unix, because at that time, Unix was a proprietary or had been made over time a proprietary platform by a couple of big companies in the market. There was this view that they wanted to, in some ways, get out of that space. The GNU project was born, and we, till this day, have what we call GNU general public licences, GPLs. You probably have heard about this. Now, it's in the '90s, early '90s, that we have the biggest movement, I think, in the history of open-source with a gentleman called Linus Torvald.Nuno Goncalves PedroI probably butchered his name. Linus Torvald, something like that, pushed a version of a kernel that he had. Actually, the first version he had was not open to the public, but then he released it to the public under a GNU licence. And that operating system was called Linux. And the rest is history. Linux has led to many other things after that. It's a wildly used operating system globally, in particular on the server side, with many variations, and we're off to the races.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat's the shortened version of how we got here in some ways. Then there's a lot of cool things that happen afterwards, but that's like seminal moments are GNU and Linux. That's the two things you need to remember.Bertrand SchmittYeah, and if I may say, Linux is really the kernel, and then you have by extension, Linux, the operating system are actually combining a kernel plus many tools from GNU or not GNU. Just to remind everyone, the Internet is running on Linux.Nuno Goncalves PedroOn Linux?Bertrand SchmittWe'll talk later about a lot of our other open-source software. It's not just Linux, but so many components of the Internet that are running on open-source software. Also, just to be clear, the first definition of open-source was coming from our friends at GNU, but ultimately, there has been competing initiatives to define or redefine what is open-source.Bertrand SchmittOne organisation in particular, the open-source Initiative, OSI, has tried to codify their own way and probably in a different way, what is considered open-source or not. They have this official definition they published in 2006, and they keep updating them for GNU, they keep generating new definitions and creating new or updating licences.Bertrand SchmittWe have multiple licences possible when we talk about open-source, which can create some misunderstanding about what is exactly open-source or not.Nuno Goncalves PedroWe'll come back to the more bad use of open later in this episode where obviously there are people that use open, and it's not open at all.Bertrand SchmittYes.Nuno Goncalves PedroBut these are seven moments in real open-source. It created a movement, it created a way of doing things. It created a mindset on how people can share each other's source code. At the very nature, open-source starts from there. It starts from the notion that source code, not the binary, not what's created by the compilers that then is run as an application, but the source code itself can be shared for free.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat's incredible. That's like the religion of the time was a religion of we have all these big monolithic companies like IBM, Microsoft emerging, etc. It's someone that's saying, "No, we don't accept the closed ecosystem play. We want to have code that is shared globally." In some ways, that movement is now probably the dominating movement in the world in terms of source code sharing.Nuno Goncalves PedroObviously, as we know, there's a lot of people profiting out of code today. There's ways of keeping your code intact and keeping things in-house. But the open-source movement has changed how things are done. It is a quasi-religious movement. It's this notion of you have… There's copyright. I enforce my copyright, the entitlement I have to this thing that I developed.Nuno Goncalves PedroThere's copyleft, which is a term that came from open-source, which you are obliged to share under certain licences all the stuff that you developed around it. To your point, there are coexistent pieces. We'll come back to that later when we talk about Android and Google and the Android open-source project versus Android itself. What is closed? What is open, and how do some companies do well in maintaining these two aspects working really well, like the openness and the closeness piece?Nuno Goncalves PedroI think Google does a decent job on Android. We'll argue later if that's the case or not. And yeah, it all started, similarly, with this gentleman Richard Stallman, and then with Linus just giving us Linux, and everything changed.Bertrand SchmittYeah, it's really amazing when you think about what was happening at the time. If you think about the '90s, it was the rise of Microsoft, from DOS to Windows, and Microsoft becoming at some point one of the most valued company and at the time certainly fighting tooth and nail against.Bertrand SchmittOpen-source was considered evil by some corporations when actually no, it was just a movement and a different approach to business and willingness to develop things in a different way and a way that was more open, transparent, collaborative, and especially important you could argue in the age of deploying applications everywhere, depending on these applications' stability over time. It is a significant evolution of the history of computers and programming.Nuno Goncalves PedroMicrosoft will keep popping up in this episode. Just to be very clear, this is not their first rodeo. They've been having these fights or antitrust cases, etc. In some ways, a lot of the reactions we saw, even with Linux, Linux becoming such an important operating system, certainly server-side globally, has to do with a fight to Microsoft.Nuno Goncalves PedroBecause obviously, as you said, Microsoft went DOS to Windows, and then they were really managing a closed ecosystem. There was this view like an operating system is critical. An operating system for those who are listening to us who are not computer scientists or computer engineers is what makes a specific device work....