Anthropic的代际优势，OpenAI恐慌，AI护城河，Meta败诉

那么你认为消费者领域会发生什么？

So what do you think is gonna happen on the consumer side?

消费者通常不会为服务付费。

Consumers generally don't pay for services.

通常只有5%到20%的市场是付费服务，其余都是免费且由广告支持的。

That's usually five to 20% of the market is paid services, and everything else is free and ad supported.

但看起来苹果和谷歌就要放手大干了。

But it looks like Apple and and Google are going to just let it rip.

这可能会让ChatGPT失去收入来源。

So that could take the revenue oxygen away from Chattypie T.

那么你认为谁会在消费者领域胜出？

So what is your thought here on who wins consumer?

我认为这不会是免费的。

I don't think that it's gonna be free.

我认为Spotify有2.9亿订阅用户。

I think there's 290,000,000 subscribers for Spotify.

他们在支付什么？他们付多少钱？

They're paying what are they paying?

每个月20美元左右？

$20 a month or something?

可能低于平均水平，因为这是全球数据，但没错。

Probably less than average because it's global number, but yeah.

Netflix拥有3.25亿付费用户，而能够为你预订旅行、回答问题、管理日程、处理邮件等的AI，很可能成为消费者见过的最有价值的‘元服务’。

Netflix has 325,000,000 paid subscribers and AI that can book your travel, answer questions for you, track your calendar, do your email, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera is likely gonna be the most valuable, call it, meta service that consumers have ever seen.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我认为，很可能我们会看到比有线电视用户数量更多的消费者订阅消费级AI服务。

And I think it's very likely that we're gonna end up seeing many more consumers subscribe to a consumer AI service than we've seen even with cable television.

想想你的手机吧。

I mean, think about your cell phone.

每个人都在为手机支付50到60美元每月。

Everyone's paying $50.60 bucks a month for a cell phone.

为什么不多付一点呢？

Why not pay Maybe more.

一个月。

A month.

更多。

More.

你支付

You pay

几十美元。

a bucks.

你支付100美元。

You pay a $100.

顺便说一下，疫情期间，你还记得我们看到了什么吗？

And by the way, in the pandemic, remember what we saw?

人们坚决不取消的两笔付款，不是房贷，也不是车贷。

The two things that people refused to cancel was not your mortgage payment or any car payment.

你愿意拖欠款项并违约。

You were willing to go into arrears and into default.

人们始终不会取消的两件事是手机号码1和电费2。

The two things that people would would always keep was the cell phone number 1 and then electricity number 2.

ChatGPT会在那里。

ChatGPT will be there.

所以我认为这些消费类应用也会是这种情况，JKL。

So I think that's gonna be the case with these consumer apps, JKL.

我认为它们都会变得极其有价值，并且会在其上叠加各种服务。

I think that they're all gonna be, like, ultra valuable and they're gonna layer in services on top of them.

比如，你希望在你的消费型AI应用中观看视频吗？

Like, for example, do you wanna watch video embedded in your consumer AI app?

你希望你的消费型AI应用帮你处理财务吗？

Do you want your consumer AI app to, you know, do your finances for you?

而且消费型AI应用有可能成为新的平台，就像iPhone之于应用经济一样。

And it could be that the consumer AI app becomes the new platform much like the iPhone was for the app economy.

可能会通过某种连接器或嵌入式工具，形成一个庞大的生态系统，传统广告商愿意付费嵌入并出现在AI应用中，消费者可以选择付费，或者由广告商付费。

There could almost be, whether it's through kind of connectors or embedded tools, an incredible ecosystem that were traditionally advertisers actually pay to be embedded and show up inside of the AI app, and the consumer can either pay for it or the advertiser can pay for it.

所以我认为这将是一种完全不同的商业模式，而且目前还处于非常早期的阶段。

So I think there's gonna be a very different economic model and still very early days.

萨克斯，以我的估计，现在的数字会更高。

Sacks, the numbers right now would be more in my estimation.

大约有五千万人订阅了ChatGPT。

About 50,000,000 people subscribe to ChatGPT.

他们拥有一十亿用户，或者正朝着十亿用户的方向发展。

They got a billion users or they're they're trended to a billion.

我认为他们可能在下个月或下下个月就能达到这个数字。

I think they'll probably hit it in the next month or two.

当然，两三个月前他们的数据就已经达到九千亿了。

Certainly, they had 900,000,000,000 two or three months ago.

所以大约是5%。

So it's about 5%.

你觉得最终会发展成什么样？

Where do where do you think this winds up?

你认为会有三亿、四亿、五亿消费者愿意每月支付20美元使用这项服务，还是说它会更偏向免费模式，依靠数据和广告，走Meta和Google的路子？

Do you think it becomes, you know, 300, 400, 500,000,000 consumers are willing to pay $20 a month for this, or do you think it's more free and the data and the ad supportedness of it go the Meta and the Google route?

我认为有可能会有几亿用户订阅高级版本。

I think it's possible that you could get a few 100,000,000 subscribers for the premium tier.

你看。

Look.

我认为大多数消费者会选择免费服务，作为交换，接受广告，也就是某种广告支持的模式，顺便说一句，我认为这种模式可能会非常成功。

I think most consumers will take the free service in exchange for advertising, right, some ad supported model, which by the way I think could be quite successful.

当ChatGPT开始取代Google进行搜索时，很多人预测Google的模式将走向终结，因为谁还想看那十个蓝色链接呢？

When ChatGPT started displacing Google for search, a lot of people were predicting the death of Google's model because who'd want to look at 10 blue links?

我认为这确实没错，但我相信在AI聊天中，你可以做出比单纯列出链接更吸引人的东西。

I think that's true, but I think you can do something much more compelling in AI chat compared to just a list of links.

所以无论如何，我认为除了高级订阅模式外，广告支持的模式也可能重新崛起。

So in any event, I think ad supported models might make a comeback here in addition to premium models.

不过话又说回来，作为投资者，我一向更喜欢B2B业务而不是B2C，因为向消费者收费很难。

All that being said though, you know, as an investor, I always liked b to b businesses better than b to c because it is hard to monetize consumers.

消费者的付费意愿不高，而且他们的流失率通常很高。

Their willingness to pay is not that high and they tend to have high churn rates.

而企业客户则非常忠诚，你可以向他们推销更多产品，并实现超过100%的年度净美元留存率。

Whereas businesses tend to be very sticky and you can upsell them and you can get more than 100% net dollar retention year over year.

所以，如果你能做好一个企业级业务，这一直是我偏爱的模式。

So if you can make an enterprise business work, it's always been a model I've liked.

但话说回来，显然世界上一些最有价值的公司都是消费类公司。

But, you know, that being said, obviously some of the most valuable companies in the world are consumer companies.

Meta、Google、Apple，这些全都是以消费者为中心的公司。

Meta, Google, Apple, these are all consumer first companies.

而且说实话，我认为这两种模式最终都能成功。

And look, I think ultimately both models can work.

显然两种模式都能行得通。

Obviously both can work.

问题是哪一个？

Question is which one?

我想这最终取决于我们认为谷歌和Facebook有多大的动力去搭建从其广告网络到AI产品的桥梁。

I guess it really comes down to how motivated do we think Google and Facebook will be to build that bridge from their ad networks to their AI offerings.

显然，Facebook在这场博弈中几乎缺席，但谷歌并没有。

Obviously Facebook is kinda MIA in all of this, but Google is not.

我认为这将是决定性的因素。

And I think that will be the determinant.

这里是

Here is

谷歌会非常积极地争夺消费者，因为这对他们来说关乎生死存亡。

Well, Google is gonna compete very vigorously for the consumer because it is existential to them.

很明显，搜索和AI聊天正在逐渐融合为一个领域。

I mean, it's very clear that search and AI chat are kinda merging into one space.

这意味着广告链接将逐渐融入聊天广告中。

That means that ad links will kind of merge into being in chat advertising.

所以他们必须适应这一点，并与消费者竞争。

So they have to adapt with that and compete for the consumer.

我也认为谷歌在做整个Open Claw项目上处于绝佳位置，因为他们已经可以访问你的日历、文档和邮件。

I also think that Google is in an outstanding position to do the whole Open Claw thing because they already have access to your calendar, your documents, your email.

因此，这个代理不需要真正赢得你的信任，因为你已经信任谷歌，把所有东西都交给了它。

So the agent doesn't really have to earn your trust because you already trust Google with all of your stuff.

对。

Right.

所以我一直在等谷歌版的OpenClaw，因为我并不想把我的所有文档都分享给某个新服务。

So I'm kinda waiting for the Google version of OpenClaw because I don't really wanna share all my documents with some new service.

他们是唯一拥有如此庞大自由现金流的公司，几乎可以把这件事看作两个独立的公司，而事实上也确实如此。

They're the only one that has so much free cash flow that they can almost view it as two separate companies, which it effectively is.

你看，GCP这边负责企业市场，而谷歌消费者端则负责消费者聊天机器人业务，它们可以保持分离。

You know, GCP over here runs the enterprise play and then Google consumer over here runs the consumer chatbot play, and they can keep them segregated.

这对初创公司来说要难得多，因为除了要维持团队有序运转外，你还面临融资问题——你必须不断筹集更多资金，因为你还没有一个能持续产生现金的盈利引擎。

That's so much harder for a startup to do because on top of just keeping everybody organized, you have the financing problem of constantly having to raise more money because you don't yet have a profit engine that spits out cash.

他们可能是唯一的一个。

They're probably the only one.

你实际上可以从估值中看出来，我稍后会谈到这一点，人们更相信谷歌的持久性，而不是其他任何东西的持久性。

And you can see it in the valuations, actually, which I'm gonna get to in a second, but people believe the durability of Google more than they believe the durability of anything else.

而且，萨克斯，我认为你上周或者两三周前没参加这个播客，但谷歌已经发布了Google Workspace Studio来实现AI自动化，而且它已经上线了，人们已经在使用了。

And, Sacks, I think you weren't on the pod last week or maybe two or three weeks ago, but Google has announced Google work pay Workspace Studio to do AI automation, and it's, yeah, it's online, and people are playing with it already.

所以他们也加入了OpenClaw的阵营。

So they have joined the OpenCLaw party.

顺便说一下，杰斯塔尔，你之前问了一个不同的问题，是关于私募股权的故事，我认为私募股权的故事反映了更广泛市场的状况。

By the way, Jaystal, you asked a different question earlier as well, which is around the PE story, and I think the PE story is a window into the rest of the broader market.

真正悬而未决的问题是：这些公司到底值多少钱？

The real open question is, what are these companies worth?

这其实是一个非常根本性的问题。

There's, like, a very threshold question.

这就像在一开始就面临一个至关重要的分岔路口：你是相信我们正走向超级智能，一切都会变得不可思议，资源取之不尽，只需描述一下，美妙的事物、复杂的事物、突破性的事物就会神奇地出现；还是相信这只是下一代优秀的软件？

It's sort of like a very important fork in the road right at the outset, which is, do you believe that we're on a path to superintelligence where everything is incredible, where there's infinite abundance, where you can magically describe things and beautiful things appear, complex things appear, groundbreaking things appear, or do you believe that it's good next generational software?

而这个问题的答案非常重要，因为我们正在以前者为前提进行融资。

And the answer to that question is really important because we're financing things like it's the former.

而且，GC 在这方面有大动作。

And, GC has a big move in this.

查莫斯在一月份参加我们的访谈节目时提到，他正让 GC 收购并整合会计公司、医疗公司、医院等。

Chamath was on the program in January when we did the interview show, and he's got GC buying up and rolling up accounting firms, etcetera, health care firms, hospitals, etcetera.

这似乎是风险投资未来的趋势：将 AI 应用于收购，更准确地说，大型风投正逐渐像私募股权一样，收购医院、会计公司、印度的业务处理公司，将它们整合起来，再用 AI 运营。

This seems to be part of the future of venture capital is taking AI Sacks and actually buying out, or I should say big VC, kinda starting to look like private equity, buying out hospitals, accounting firms, business processing firms in India, putting them all together, and then running them with AI.

那么，Sacks，作为一项商业策略，你对此有什么最终看法吗？

So any any final thoughts on that, Sacks, as a business strategy?

我觉得这很有趣。

Well, think it's interesting.

他们实际上是在押注自己能够掌控 AI 带来的变革管理。

They're kind of betting on the idea that they can own the change management around AI.

关键在于，大家都默认只要把 AI 抛给企业，企业就能自动学会使用它并提升效率，但根据我们的观察，这其实非常困难。

And this is the thing is everyone just kind of assumes that you throw AI over a wall and the business just automatically knows how to use it drive efficiency And from what we're seeing is it's pretty difficult.

查马斯，你见过这种情况。

Chamath, you've seen that.

麦肯锡的研究显示，高达95%的企业AI试点项目并不成功。

There's McKinsey studies showing that like 95% of enterprise pilots aren't successful.

AI蕴含着巨大的潜在价值，但目前我们还不清楚该如何确切地部署它。

There's tremendous value, latent value in AI, but it's hard to know exactly how to deploy it at this point in time.

所以我想，这些私募股权公司想表达的是：我们知道如何从AI中创造价值，如果我们同时拥有企业本身和变革管理，就能以这种方式创造价值。

So I guess what these private equity firms are saying is that we know how to drive value from this and if we own the business and then own the change management, then we'll be able to, you know, create value that way.

他们的商业模式使解决这个问题变得生死攸关，这与我写过的一篇文章思路一致。

Their business model makes solving this problem existential, and this was sort of along the lines of this essay that I wrote.

让我做个思想实验，你们来回应一下。

Let me just give you the thought exercise and you guys react.

如今，整个市场都在争论你愿意接受什么样的市盈率。

Today we live in a world where the whole market is trying to debate what is the PE ratio that you'd be willing to pay.

Facebook具有极强的持久性。

So Facebook is incredibly durable.

我愿意支付30倍。

I'm willing to pay 30 times.

英伟达非常持久。

NVIDIA is really durable.

我愿意支付40倍。

I'm willing to pay 40 times.

特斯拉在上涨方面具有极强的不对称性。

Tesla is incredibly asymmetric to the upside.

我愿意支付200倍。

I'm willing to pay 200 times.

而卡特彼勒或约翰迪尔，我愿意支付15倍。

And then Caterpillar or John Deere, I'm willing to pay 15 times.

我只是用这些作为例子。

I'm just using these as an example.

这实际上向你传递的信息是，所有这些现金流的持久性如何。

And what it's effectively signaling to you is how durable all of these cash flows are.

在公开市场进行投资时，我们所做的只是在猜测。

And all we do in the public markets when we make an investment is we're just guessing.

现金流什么时候会耗尽？

When do the cash flows run out?

我们试图说，这是它的价值，而我今天愿意为它支付多少钱。

And we try to say, well, here's how much it's worth, and here's how much I'd be willing to pay for today.

但如果你回到这个例子，想想如果未来出现超级智能会怎样？

But if you go back to this example and you say, well, what if there's this superintelligence on the horizon?

我认为有理由问一个问题：任何东西到底值多少钱？

I think it's fair to ask the question, what is anything worth?

十年、十五年或二十年后，任何东西又值多少钱？

And what is anything worth in year ten or year fifteen or year twenty?

因为如果你拥有无限的丰裕和巨大的创造力，难道所有公司都不会被颠覆吗？

Because if you have infinite abundance and you have all this creativity, won't all companies be disrupted?

难道我们不会陷入一种持续不断的、一切不断被颠覆的动荡之中吗？

And won't we be in this constant churn of everything getting disrupted all the time?

如果你在公开市场面临这个问题，你会如何应对？

And if you were faced with that problem in the public markets, how would you react?

我认为煤矿中的金丝雀就是那些Sass演讲。

And I think the canary in the coal mine are the sass talks.

是的。

Yes.

我们开玩笑地称之为Sass末日，但我认为这重要得多。

We jokingly call it the sasspocalypse, but I think it's much more important.

我认为这是一个重大的社会问题。

I think it's a big societal question.

你如何看待资本市场？

How do you view capital markets?

在一个我们被告知即将出现超级智能、使一切比以往更加脆弱的世界里，你如何看待一家公司的健康状况？

How do you view the health of a company in a world where we've been told there's a superintelligence on the horizon that makes everything much more fragile than it was before?

市场反应是将这些公司放在一个连续谱上，它们最初从软件领域开始，现在正在全面下调估值。

And the market reaction is to put all these companies on a spectrum, and they started here in software, and they're rerating everything down.

他们正在改变事物的定位方式，从价格转向股权，再转向你手头现金的倍数。

And they're changing the way that things are being framed from price to equity to a multiple of the cash that you have on hand.

我认为这会对硅谷产生巨大影响，尤其是对员工，因为我们都在推销这个梦想。

And I think that has huge implications mostly to Silicon Valley and largely to employees because we all sell the dream.

我们创办公司时，会说：好吧。

We start a company, and we're like, okay.

低工资，高股权回报。

Small salary, big equity upside.

但这隐含的意思是，十五年或二十年后，这家公司会值一大笔钱。

But that's implicitly saying in fifteen or twenty years, this thing is gonna be worth some gigantic number.

但如果每个企业每五六年就被颠覆一次，你最终得到的就只有现金。

But if instead every business gets disrupted every five or six years, all you're gonna end up with is just the cash.

那么员工应该怎么做？

And so what should employees do?

员工的理性反应会说：你知道吗？

The rational reaction from employees will say, you know what?

我不想要你的股权。

I don't want your equity.

多给我点钱。

Give me more money.

如果突然间你这么做了，估值倍数和复杂性又会改变。

And if all of a sudden you do that, the valuation multiples and the complexity changes again.

所以我让我的团队整理了这张图表。

So I had my team put this chart together.

好的。

Okay.

这是什么？

What is this?

我挑选了一些SaaS公司，取了它们的六项关键数据。

Took a handful of SaaS companies and took the mag six.

然后我就说，好吧。

And I just said, okay.

如果你用市值除以年度自由现金流，这告诉你的是，买入一股股票后需要多少年才能回本。

If you take the market cap and you divide it by the annual free cash flow, what that tells you is how many years does it take to get back if you bought a share of stock?

从自由现金流来看，需要多少年才能收回一股股票的成本？

How many years does it take from the free cash flow to come back so that you've earned back the cost of one share?

2023年，Snowflake的回本时间几乎需要一百年。

Snowflake in 2023, it would have taken you almost a hundred years.

那现在呢？

And where is it now?

已经减半了。

It's been cut in half.

ServiceNow、Atlassian、Workday。

ServiceNow, Atlassian, Workday.

你看到了吧。

You see it.

我认为这反映的是公开市场开始重新理性评估：如果超级智能即将到来，我们必须谨慎对待愿意为这些公司支付的价格。

And I think what this speaks to is the beginning of this re rationalization in the public markets of saying if superintelligence is coming, we have to be very careful about what we're willing to pay for these things.

但如果你看右边的MAG七家公司，有趣的是苹果、微软、Meta和谷歌，市场已经完全转向了另一个方向。

But if you look on the right hand side and the MAG seven, what's so interesting is Apple, Microsoft Meta, and Alphabet, the market has completely flipped the other way.

他们想表达的是，我们认为这些现金流本质上是垄断性的、持久不变的。

And what they're saying is we believe that these cash flows are essentially monopolistically durable forever.

这正是你为什么会如此高估它们的唯一原因，除了英伟达——它是令人难以置信地具有增值性、管理卓越、利润率最高的公司，年利润高达两千亿美元，但他们却像对待ServiceNow和Snowflake一样对待它。

That's the only reason why you would walk them up like this, except NVIDIA, which is the most unbelievably accretive, well run company, highest margins, you know, making $200,000,000,000, and they're treating it like they're treating ServiceNow and Snowflake.

我觉得正在发生的事情实在太有意思了。

I just think it's so interesting what's happening.

我无法解释这一点，但这里的数据显示了我们正在经历的一次reset，一次资本市场的复杂调整。

I can't explain this, but here, this data shows this reset that we're going through, a very complicated reset in the capital.

弗里德伯格，你对查马斯描述的这次调整有什么看法？

Friedberg, what's your take on this reset as Chamath describes it?

你认为这仅仅是资金流向MAG六家公司的高质量自由现金流，以及它们创造巨额现金的能力吗？

Do you think this is just a flight to the quality of the free cash flow of the mag six and just how much cash they print.

而其他公司规模较小，更容易被颠覆。

And then maybe the other ones are smaller footprints, and they're just more disruptible.

我们多年前就讨论过，谷歌、苹果、微软、Facebook 都会在某个时刻被颠覆，但这种情况根本就没有发生。

We had this discussion many years that Google and Apple, Microsoft, they would all be disrupted at some point, Facebook, and that just simply hasn't happened.

它们在模仿产品或把功能和产品整合进核心业务方面变得灵活多了。

They've gotten much more nimble at copying products or incorporating, you know, features and products into their core offering.

你对此有什么看法？

So your thoughts?

一般来说，确实可能会出现下滑，但同时也存在选择性的机会。

It's probably generally correct that there will be a decline, but there's also the selective opportunity.

你们有没有看到托马·布拉瓦的有限合伙人会议上传到网上的LP演示文稿？

Do you guys see the LP slides that went on the Internet from Toma Brava's LP conference?

是的。

Yeah.

那些内容很棒。

Those are great.

尼克，也许你能找一下那份材料。

Nick, maybe you could find that.

它们在广阔的市场格局中凸显出一点：有些公司不会坐视不管，任由人工智能抹去它们的商业价值，而是主动整合人工智能，并拥有高素质的人才来推动这一进程，重新打造自己的产品。

They kind of highlight that within the broad market scape, there are companies that are not just gonna sit idly by and let AI kind of delete their business value, but they're integrating AI themselves and they've got high quality people to do so and they're reinventing their product themselves.

因此，它们已经占据了立足之地。

So they've already got a beachhead.

它们已经拥有客户渠道。

They've already got customer access.

它们已经拥有企业用户。

They've already got enterprise users.

事实上，如果它们能将人工智能融入产品和工具中，市场上就会出现一种近乎选择性的分化。

And in fact, if they can integrate AI into their products and into their tools, there's almost this, like, selective dispersion that happens in the market.

因此，我认为，赢家将在每个市场中真正胜出，不仅限于软件领域，而是涵盖所有市场，包括工业供应链中谁将实施和利用人工智能工具与代理来完成工作。

And so the winners are gonna win, I think, truly in every market, not just in software, but across every market, including in industrial supply chains on who is gonna implement and utilize AI tools and agents to do work.

这将提升该组织的工作效率，而不仅仅是增加新功能——我们谈论软件公司时往往只关注这一点，但真正想象一下，一个复杂的商业实体能在相同资本设备和劳动力的情况下，实现十倍于今天的产出。

And it's gonna expand the work productivity of that organization, not just create new features, which is what we focus on when we talk about software companies, but really imagine a complex business being able to do 10 times the output it can do today with the same capital equipment and the same labor force.

弗里德伯格，在超级智能的世界里，与非超级智能的世界相比，你在企业持久性方面更愿意支付多少溢价？

Friedberg, what do you pay for in a world of superintelligence versus in a world of nonsuperintelligence in terms of the durability of a business?

是的

Yeah.

这很难说啊。

It's hard to say, man.

我的意思是，我们也不知道。

I mean, we we don't know.

对吧？

Right?

这就是为什么所有的折现率都在飙升，为什么估值正在崩溃，因为我们根本不知道该用什么样的市盈率、什么样的折现率、什么样的终值增长率，而这实际上意味着什么。

And that's why all the discount rates are going through the roof, and that's why the valuations are collapsing because we just don't know what multiple or what discount rate you apply or what terminal growth rate or which which effectively implies.

你在你的个人助理里都做些什么？

What do you do in your PA?

比如，你会说

Like, do you say

我不认为迪士尼乐园会消失。

I don't think Disneyland is going anywhere.

你知道的吧？

You know?

我觉得有些东西可以被称为反人工智能投资组合。

I think there's some stuff that you could say is the counter AI portfolio.

而这个反人工智能投资组合，我觉得是实体体验。

And the counter AI portfolio, I think it's like physical experiences.

光环。

Halo.

他们称之为光环。

They call it halo.

高资产、低过时性。

High asset, low obsolescence.

好的。

Okay.

这是个很好的例子，是的。

That's a great ex yeah.

我不是像你们这样的大投资者或交易员，但这个说法很有道理。

I'm not a big investor trader like you guys, but that makes a lot of sense.

我的意思是，对我来说，直觉上这似乎是一个人们会投入大量时间、并且这些企业具有持久性的领域。

I mean, I think that's, like, intuitively to me, that seems to be an area where people are gonna be spending a lot of time and they're gonna they're gonna have durability in those businesses.

我觉得像Nat这样的企业，我查过它。

I I think businesses like Nat this business, and I checked it out.

这是一门好生意。

Business.

这是一门非常棒的生意。

It's a great business.

这是一家管理得非常好的企业。

It's really well run business.

所以我认为它具有持久性。

So I think that's got durability.

显然，除非被某个对手摧毁，否则这会是个问题。

Obviously, unless it gets blown up by some enemy, that that would be a problem.

所以亚当斯的理论，关于TK股票

So the Adams thesis, that TK share

亚当斯的现实采矿业务真是个好项目。

Adams real life mining is a great one.

我认为航天产业的规模将远超我们的认知。

Obviously, I think the space industry is gonna be a lot bigger than we recognize.

我认为，月球上可能存在着每年一万五千亿到三万亿美元的经济机会。

I actually think there's probably a 15 to $30,000,000,000,000 a year economic opportunity on the moon.

像SpaceX上市这样的业务，将会获得惊人的估值倍数。

That kind of a business, like you're gonna see with SpaceX's IPO, is gonna have an insane multiple.

所以，查马斯，我认为你的观点是对的，这里有很多东西正被极高的折现率压垮，而我们根本无从判断。

So I think to your point, Chamath, there's a lot of stuff getting steamrolled here with crazy high discount rates where you just don't know.

有些领域在未来十五到三十年的发展路径可能因人工智能而独立或被解锁，但也有很多领域根本不受影响。

And there's a bunch of stuff where the pathway over the next fifteen to thirty years is maybe independent or unlocked because of AI, and then there's a bunch of stuff that's just unaffected.

而那些领域将获得更高的估值倍数，因为资本会开始流向那里。

That and that that starts to get a higher multiple because that's where capital starts to flow.

萨克斯，我们可能一致认为企业有三大护城河：品牌、网络效应和管理团队。

Sacks, there are probably three things that we would agree are great moats for businesses, brands, network effects, and the management team.

这些因素在这里也同样适用。

Those come into play here as well.

是的？

Yeah?

我不确定是否应该把管理团队视为护城河。

I don't know if I would consider management team to be a moat.

我的意思是，就像沃伦·巴菲特说的，你想要的是那种强大到即使交给一群猴子也能运转的企业，因为总有一天它们确实会交给猴子来管。

I mean, it's like Warren Buffett says that you want businesses that are so strong that they could be run by a bunch of monkeys because one day they probably will be.

我想到的更像是，马斯克和特斯拉肯定会持续不断地创新。

Well, was thinking more like obviously Elon and Tesla is gonna just relentlessly innovate.

这个观点非常好，而且确实如此，尤其是在智能代理AI的时代。

It's a great point by the way and it's true, especially in the age of agentic AI.

对。

Yeah.

我的意思是，如果稍微提升一下视角，我认为你说得对，关键问题确实是护城河。

I mean, I think though that just up leveling a bit, I think you are right that the key question is moats.

因为我确实认为，在许多不同类型的企业中仍然存在强大的护城河，而且很多都非常微妙。

Because I do think that there are still strong moats in a lot of different kinds of businesses and a lot of them are very subtle.

就像你所说的，有些是网络效应，有些则是生产实体产品的难度之类的问题。

Like you said, some are network effects, some of them are the difficulty of producing physical world products, things like that.

因此，存在着多种类型的护城河，当我们进入一个所谓的数字过剩时代时，这正是关键问题。

So there's a lot of different types of moats out there and that is the key question as we enter a world of, let's call it, digital abundance.

是的。

Yeah.

苹果生态系统带来的网络效应，以及他们拥有硬件。

The the network effect of Apple's ecosystem and they have hardware.

对吧？

Right?

而且他们一直走在自主研发芯片的道路上。

And they've been just on that path of making their own silicon.

这具有极强的防御性，而且他们还有品牌优势。

That's incredibly defensive, and they have brand.

对吧？

Right?

所以这对苹果来说相当强大。

So that that is pretty strong for Apple.

然后你看看特斯拉，情况也一样。

And then you'd take Tesla, the same thing.

埃隆持续不断地创新，而且涉及的是硬科技产品。

You got Elon relentlessly innovating, and it's hard hardware stuff.

再看Meta和谷歌，它们都是拥有卓越管理团队的顶级品牌，我假设它们也在持续创新。

And then if you look at Meta and Google, these are incredible brands with great management teams My assumption constantly innovating.

如果让我下注，我会押注品牌会归零。

If I had to bet, I'm gonna bet that brands go to zero.

真的吗？

Really?

是的。

Yeah.

因为我认为，当你能以更便宜、更快、更好的方式制造出同样好甚至更好的产品时，人们更渴望这种丰富性，而不是对某个品牌的归属感。

Because I think that when you can make things that are as good or better and you can make them in a cheaper, faster, better way, people want that abundance more than they want an affiliation to a brand.

举个例子？

Example?

最完美的例子就是特斯拉对宝马、对奔驰、对保时捷所做的事情，以及比亚迪和吉利在中国汽车制造周期中所做的事情。

So the perfect example is actually what Tesla did to BMW, you know, what Tesla did to Mercedes, what Tesla did to Porsche, what BYD and Geely have done to the car manufacturing cycle in China.

这是一种从根本上更便宜、更快、更好的产品。

This is a fundamentally cheaper, faster, better product.

对。

Yes.

它确实有强大的品牌，但没人愿意为这些产品支付溢价。

It's got a great brand, but nobody's gonna pay a premium for these products.

Model Y之所以销量远超其他车型，是因为它的定价更优，并且在所有对比的操作维度上都更出色。

The reason why Y has outsold everything else is because the Model Y is priced better, and it's superior on every operational dimension of comparison.

在中国的汽车市场也是如此。

That's also true for the cars in China.

所以我认为情况恰恰相反。

So I think it's the opposite.

我认为，除了可能的高端奢侈品之外，品牌及其定价能力都在减弱，甚至连那也在消退。

I think that brands and the pricing power brands other than maybe premium luxury goods, but even that's eroding.

比如，看看股价。

Like, look at the stock.

嗯，我不知道，尼克。

Like, I don't know, Nick.

看看路易威登或法拉利的股价走势。

Show the stock chart of LVMH or Ferrari.

这并不是在评论产品的实际质量，而是表明定价能力正在衰退。

This is not a commentary on the quality of the actual product, but what this shows an erosion of pricing power.

所有这些都在逐渐消失。

All of these things are being eroded away.

是的

Yeah.

这正是大多数品牌人士会说的价值主张。

This would be the value prop most people in brands would just say value propositioning.

捷蓝航空是一个价值型品牌。

So JetBlue is a value brand.

特斯拉Model Y是价值型品牌的完美例子。

Tesla Model y, perfect example of a value brand.

如果你看看苹果最近的产品线，他们重点推出了什么？

And if you look at Apple's recent cohort, what did they focus on?

苹果MacBook Neo，

The Apple MacBook Neo,

这款

which

是一款价值型笔记本电脑，售价600到700美元。

is a value laptop, $600, $700.

所以他们甚至在向低端市场下沉，以捕捉这种价值。

So they're even going down market to try to capture that value.

而且正如你所说，也许正确的词是‘充裕’。

And to your point, maybe the right word is abundance.

比如那些带来充裕感、比竞争对手提供更多价值的品牌，他们能在相同或更低的单位成本下提供更多信息，从而赢得市场份额。

Like, the brands that bring abundance, that bring more to the table than their competitors, and they are able to bring more at the same unit cost or less capture share.

这可能是对的。

That's probably true.

你知道吗，查马斯，当我们扩大这个话题的视野时，有一件事很有趣。

You know what's interesting about that, Chamath, as we open up the aperture of this?

如果我们回顾几年前我们讨论过的一个论点，说：嘿。

If you one of the thesis we talked about here a couple years ago, say, hey.

人工智能颠覆、就业颠覆等情况会怎样？

What happens with AI disruption, job disruption, etcetera?

随着Model Y价格下降，Cyber Cab即将推出，BYD更是如此——如果你去任何一个外国国家，BYD随处可见，而且只要15美元。

Cost coming down on cars with Model y getting cheaper, cyber cab coming in, BYD, obviously, if you go to any foreign country, BYDs are everywhere and they cost $15.

然后你看看苹果推出的Neo，那是一款600美元的笔记本电脑。

Then you look at Apple making the Neo, that's a $600 laptop.

所有东西都在变得更便宜，这似乎正在发生。

Everything getting cheaper seems to be happening.

我只是觉得很难知道这些公司中哪一家会被颠覆。

I just think it's very hard to know which of these companies is gonna be disrupted.

一年前在这个播客里，我们曾说谷歌可能会完蛋，或者有些人这么说，因为我当时

A year ago on this pod, we were saying that Google was gonna be toast or some of us were saying it because I took

很多

lot of

是的。

yeah.

好吧。

Okay.

行。

Fine.

但是，是的。

But Yeah.

你知道，我们当时觉得ChatGPT正在从Google搜索和AdWords模式中夺取大量市场份额。

You know, it looked to us like ChatGPT was taking a massive share from Google search and the AdWords model was becoming obsolete.

现在，由于Gemini的成功以及个人数字助手、个人代理的潜力，我认为我们对这家公司的前景相当乐观。

Now, because of the success of Gemini and the potential for personal digital assistants, personal agents, I think we're probably pretty bullish on that company.

看看他们的股价走势，这已经反映出来了。

And look at their stock chart, it reflects that.

我的意思是，我认为它在过去一年里翻了一倍。

I mean, I think it's doubled in the last year.

另一方面，以苹果为例，我并不是说这一定会发生，但我只是提出一个反事实假设：如果你的个人数字助手或个人代理变得足够优秀，以至于你不再需要查看手机，只需告诉它该做什么，就不再需要那一堆应用了。

Now you take something like Apple on the other hand, and I'm not saying this is gonna happen, but I'll just throw out a counterfactual, which is what if your personal digital assistant or a personal agent gets so good that you don't need to check your phone, you just tell it what to do and you don't need the wall of apps anymore.

也就是说，你叫Uber的方式不再是点几个按钮，而是直接告诉它该怎么做。

I mean, way that you call an Uber won't be to punch a few buttons, you'll just tell it what to do.

所以，如果这些代理足够强大，你完全可以想象手机操作系统会被颠覆。

So you could imagine the phone operating system getting disrupted if the agents are good enough.

你抓住了一个巨大的机会，因为你说的这一点我可以向你确认。

You're onto something huge because what you're saying is I can confirm this to you.

八十九，我们卖企业软件吗？

Eighty nine, do we sell enterprise software?

我告诉你，有三场与大型企业的对话，他们问的正是你刚才说的那番话，我们开玩笑地称之为‘窒息即服务’，他们都说了同样的话，就是你刚才说的那些。

I'll tell you three conversations with huge enterprises asked exactly what you just said, and we jokingly called it strangulation as a service, which is they all say the same thing, what you just said.

好的。

Okay.

听好了。

Look.

把所有这些复杂的用户界面都去掉。

Get all this complicated UI out of the way.

把所有这些产品都抛开。

Get all of these products out of the way.

找到一种方法，搭建一个中间层，让我可以直接写下我的需求，告诉它我需要它做什么。

Find a way to create a shim where I can just write what I need, tell it what I need it to do.

它在后台处理所有这些复杂性。

It deals with all this complexity in the background.

我再也不想看到这些东西了。

I never wanna see these things ever again.

正如你所说，这正是人们想要的。

And that's what people want, to your point.

他们希望可以简单地说：好吧。

They want they wanna be able to, like, say, okay.

用我的Venmo付款，或在这种情况下使用我的美国运通卡，或者以某种方式帮我订到那趟航班，让所有这些智能代理在后台完成所有工作。

Pay this with my Venmo or use my Amex in this situation or get me that flight in some way and have all these wonderfully smart agents do all the work behind the scenes.

这实际上与我在OpenAI、Perplexity Computer和Claude Cowork中看到的情况完全一致。

And that's actually tracks with exactly what I've seen with OpenAI, Perplexity Computer, Claude Cowork.

你不需要打开Notion，不需要进入Gmail，也不需要调出日历，你只需向它提问。

Instead of going to your Notion, instead of going into your Gmail, instead of pulling up your calendar, you ask it.

嘿。

Hey.

这周我的日程安排是什么？

What's on my schedule this week?

它会把信息直接呈现给你。

It brings it to you.

所以，你完全可以使用一个简单的、普通的终端，或者一个价值100美元设备上的聊天界面，效果也一样好。

So you could you could have a dumb, you know, flat terminal, you know, chat interface on the $100 device, and it would do just as good.

为了反驳一下我自己的观点，是的。

Just to make the counterargument against myself, I mean Yeah.

尽管我认为你将来会越来越倾向于直接告诉你的代理该做什么，而不是到处点击或触摸屏幕，但你仍然需要一个仪表板或用户界面，来查看状态和获取信息摘要。

Even though I think that you'll just increasingly tell your agent what to do instead of be clicking around or, you know, touching the screen, you still need a a dashboard or a user interface to, like, check on it and just see readouts of information.

你仍然需要能够可视化这些信息。

You still need to be able to visualize it.

我叫的优步现在在哪里？离我还有多远？

Where is the Uber that I've asked to be sent to me, how far away is it?

你还是想在地图上看到它吧？

Still wanna see it on a map?

所以，我可以想象，即使假设Siri Plus Plus成为与iPhone交互的主要方式，你仍然会想要那个苹果用户界面。

So I could imagine that even if let's say, you know, Siri plus plus becomes the dominant way of interacting with your iPhone, you'll still want that Apple user interface.

很难说。

Hard to say.

我的意思是，我看到很多人在推特上说，苹果因为错过了整个AI浪潮，没有在数据中心或资本支出上投入大量资金，这其实很聪明。

I mean, I see a lot of people out there tweeting that Apple is brilliant for kind of missing the whole AI wave and not spending a lot of money on data centers or capex.

但还有其他人说，等等，他们正在错过一些关键功能。

And then there's other people who say, wait a second, they're they're missing critical capabilities.

然后就出现了一个问题：他们能否达成协议，获得一个AI驱动的Siri？

Then there's a question, will they be able to make deals for, you know, an AI powered Siri?

我不知道。

I don't know.

我认为在现阶段，这非常难以判断。

Think this is very hard to know at this point in time.

好的。

Alright.

我们将在Liquidity会议上讨论所有这些难题。

And we will be discussing all these hard topics at Liquidity.

5月31日至6月3日，查马斯。

May 31 through June 3, Chamath.

你这里会有一些重大宣布。

Some big announcements here from you.

你已经掌控了局面。

You have taken control.

这就像《权力的游戏》中所谓的‘孤注一掷公司’所发生的情况。

This is what happens in the Game of Thrones known as the All In Corporation

合作关系。

The partnership.

有限责任公司。

LLC.

合作关系，如果我们能达成的话，这个合作关系。

The partnership, if we can The partnership.

混乱的合伙关系。

The chaotic partnership.

没有中间地带。

No mids.

那里简直就是混乱。

There it literally is chaos.

等等。

So Wait.

等等。

Wait.

为什么我们要在加利福尼亚做这件事？

Why are we doing this in California?

我现在甚至都不确定我还能不能回到那个州？

I don't even think I can I can go back to the state at this point in time?

你可以来待48小时，露个面，不行。

You can come for forty eight hours, make an appearance No.

我对这个一无所知。

I don't know to this.

税收

Tax

飞进来。

that fly in.

此时此刻，你在该州一天都没有待过。

Zero days in state at this point in time.

我太喜欢了。

I love it.

我太喜欢了。

I love it.

你可以待四十八个小时。

You can do forty eight hours.

没关系。

It's okay.

对了，加文·纽森说不定会去机场接你

Well, Gavin Newsom might meet you at the airport.

他完全可以去机场迎你

Could get up at the airport.

顺带说一句，机场离活动场地大概只有十分钟的路程

The air by the way, the airport is about ten minutes from the venue.

你完全可以当天飞过来再飞回去，都不用在这里过夜

You could fly in and fly out same day, and you don't have an overnight.

不行。

No.

那目前的统计规则是这样的吗？

For now, is that how it's counted?

在加州，过夜停留的统计标准就是这样的。

That's how it it's counted as an overnight in California.

脑袋沾到枕头就算。

Head on pillow.

是的。

Yeah.

你可以周一进来，然后飞去我们朋友家过夜，第二天再飞回来，然后再飞走。

You can come in on Monday, then fly out to fly out to incline sleep, you know, at our friend's house, and then fly back in on Tuesday and then fly back out.

你会没事的。

You'll be fine.

或者你可以飞去拉斯维加斯，

Or you could fly to Vegas, do

进行一场通宵赌 blackjack 的活动，然后第二天早上回来。

a blackjack run, overnight blackjack run, and then you come back in the morning.

我们只是简单整理一下。

We just freshen up.

不。

No.

换件干净衬衫。

Getting fresh shirt.

漂亮又生锈了。

Nice and rusted.

让我介绍一下接下来的两位演讲者。

Let me announce the next two speakers.

天哪。

Oh my god.

我太兴奋了。

I'm so excited.

但先说一下背景，查马斯参与了这件事。

But just for background, Chamath comes into this thing.

流动性是我之前办的一个小型会议。

Liquidity was this little conference I did.

现在它已经成为“All In”的一部分，我开始安排所有演讲者。

It's now part of all in, and I start setting up all the speakers.

然后查马斯说，还不够好。

And then Chamath goes, not good enough.

除非我来挑选所有演讲者，否则我不出席。

I'm not showing up unless I pick all speakers.

你知道弗里德伯格和我做了什么吗？

And you know what Friedberg and I did?

好吧，终于这个瓜农要真正干点活了。

Well, finally, this this melon farmer's gonna actually do some work.

太好了。

Great.

你叫我什么？

What did you call me?

你叫什么？

What did

你

you

叫瓜农。

call Melon farmer.

当电视上播放昆汀·塔伦蒂诺的电影时，他们不会说‘他妈的’，而是说‘西瓜农夫’。

It's a when they play a Quentin Tarantino movie on, like, TV, instead of saying mother effer, Samuel L.

塞缪尔·L·杰克逊会说‘西瓜农夫’。

Jackson says melon farmer.

哦，我明白了。

Oh, I see.

于是这位西瓜农夫独自掌控了全部十个发言者名额。

So this melon farmer took unilateral control of the 10 speakers.

十个发言席位。

10 speaker slots.

非常抢手。

Very coveted.

好的。

Okay.

所以我们已经宣布了丹·勒布。

So we've announced Dan Loeb.

我们已经宣布了莎拉·弗莱尔。

We've announced Sarah Fryer.

太棒了。

Incredible.

我非常、非常、非常荣幸且激动地宣布，比尔·阿克曼和安德烈·卡帕西也将出席流动性大会并发表演讲。

And I'm very, very, very honored and excited to announce that Bill Ackman and Andre Carpathi will also be speaking at Liquidity.

四位重量级人物，还剩六个。

Four heavy hitters, six to go.

名单上又多了两位传奇人物。

Two more GOATs on the roster of GOATs.

真是传奇满满。

So GOATed.

我们还有一小部分其他

And we have a handful of other

是的。

Yeah.

可能会有一些惊喜嘉宾突然现身。

It might be some surprise guests, unannounced guests show up.

待定。

TBD.

待定。

TBD.

更多嘉宾将很快公布，但我们正在安排

More announced soon, but we're making

让我们请达里奥来吧。

Let's get Dario to show up.

嘿，达里奥，来参加节目吧。

Hey, Dario, come to the show.

来和全体成员一起放松一下吧。

Come hang out with the all in boys.

我真的很期待。

I'm really excited.

你知道安德烈要做什么吗？

I'm you know what Andre's gonna do?

安德烈同意做的事情是，他会做五到十分钟的幻灯片，讲讲人工智能时代的未来，然后我们再进行一场炉边对话。

What Andre agreed to do is he's gonna do, like, five or ten minutes of slides on, like, the future of the world with AI, and then we'll do a fireside.

太棒了。

Love it.

这一定会非常精彩。

That's gonna be tremendous.

而且你知道吗，他自己在递归GitHub上也势头正猛。

And, you know, he's he's been on a heater himself with his recursive GitHub.

天哪。

Oh, dude.

Auto Research 简直太厉害了。

Auto Research is incredible.

比尔·阿克曼对这些话题有很多见解，我们会听到他很多想法。

And Bill Ackman has a ton of points of view on all of this stuff, so we'll get a lot of his thoughts.

我想特别感谢弗里德伯格，因为当我们采访詹森的时候，他说：伙计们，我周日喝了一杯葡萄酒。

I wanna give a shout out to Friedberg because when we did the interview with Jensen, he's like, guys, I was like I, like, had a glass of wine on a Sunday.

我用一个替代系统来替换我的HR IS系统。

I, vibe a replacement to my HR IS system.

我让我的整个团队都去用了。

I asked all my team to do it.

我当时想：天啊。

And I was like, oh my god.

这太棒了。

This is incredible.

所以我问了我们的人。

So I asked our folks.

我对他们说：嘿。

I'm like, hey.

我不喜欢这个网站。

I don't like the website.

它是八九十。

It's eighty ninety.

第二天，他们说，是的。

And the next day, they're like, yeah.

我们用共鸣编码了一个新的。

We vibe coded a new one.

我们会把它上线。

We'll have it up.

然后我说，那你们喜欢这些行动号召按钮和它的表现吗？

And then I'm like, well, do you like the CTAs and how it's doing?

他们说，不喜欢。

They're like, no.

不喜欢。

No.

不喜欢。

No.

不。

No.

我们把它投入自动研究，点击率翻了一倍。

We put it into auto research, and we doubled the click through rate.

我当时想，正如弗里德伯格所说，这原本需要成百上千人月的工作量，几十个人参与。

And I was like, to Friedberg's point, this was this would have been many man months, tens of people.

但相反，所有这些方法——顺便说一下，这些操作手册——比如OpenAI负责增长的人会公开他的方法。

And instead, all these recipes, by the way, these playbooks, you know, like the person that runs Growth at OpenAI publishes his recipes.

是的。

Yeah.

你已经被堆叠了。

You've been claw piled.

就这样。

That's it.

你已经被一击淘汰了。

You've been one shotted.

这真的太不可思议了。

It's really incredible.

这就是为什么，我的意思是，你昨天评论了我的帖子。

This is why, like, I I mean, you commented on my post yesterday.

我每天醒来都头晕目眩。

I wake up every day and my head spins.

我在想，这个世界到底发生了什么？

I'm like, what is what is going on in the world?

太疯狂了。

It's crazy.

感觉每一天都像是一个新时代。

Like, every day feels like a new era right now.

是的。

Yeah.

这让人感到迷失。

It's it's disoriented.

这让人感到迷失方向。

It's disoriented.

我觉得真正有趣的是，你把原本需要一年或两年才能完成的事情，直接缩短了时间，可以说，我三天就能搞定，根本不需要雇人。

I I think what's really interesting is you pull what would have normally been something that's, call it, a period of time out, like a year out or two years out, And you can pull it in and say, I can get that done in three days and I don't need to hire people.

原本完成一件事所需的全部流程和阶段安排都被压缩了，于是时间迅速填满。

All the sequencing and staging that would normally go into accomplishing something has been reduced and then the time rushes in.

所以你的所有想法都涌向你，而且全都立刻可触及。

So all your ideas rush into you and they're all, like, immediately accessible.

这就是为什么每天都会让人惊呼：天哪。

And that's why it's, like, so every day is like, oh my god.

就像这样

Like, this

这是有方向感的。

is like orientated.

是的。

Yeah.

是的

Yeah.

是的

Yeah.

我确实买了annotated.com这个域名，十五年前花了4美元，当时我想创建一个类似Chamath的书签服务，你可以高亮《纽约时报》的一段文字，然后写下你的评论，保存下来，形成一个服务。

That is I I have I bought the domain name annotated.com, like, fifteen years ago for $4, and I wanted to create a service, like a bookmark service Chamath where you, like, highlight a paragraph from the New York Times and then you write your comments on it, saves it, and you basically have the service.

上周我跟一个开发者讨论了如何实现它，我 literally 用 vibe coding 做出了这个 Chrome 扩展。

And I was talking to some developer about making it, and I literally vibe coded it and the Chrome extension this past week.

我当时想，好吧。

And I was like, okay.

我搁置这个域名和项目整整十五年，结果一个周末就做完了。

I've been sitting on this domain and project for, like, fifteen years, and I did it in a weekend.

这不是很疯狂吗？

Isn't it crazy?

真奇怪。

Weird.

这感觉真的很奇怪。

It's like very weird.

真的让人觉得

It's really really makes

一切都能自行显现，这让我觉得像是个模拟世界。

it feel like a simulation to me that everything can just manifest itself.

这就像星际迷航版本的世界。

It's the Star Trek version of the world.

还记得《星际迷航》里复制器吗？你只要说‘来杯温度这样的伯爵茶’？

Like, remember the replicator of Sacks where you just say Earl Grey tea at this temperature?

现在商业中就是这样了。

That's happening in business now.

你一说：‘CRM系统，建个annotated.com网站，预算八九十美元。’

You're like, CRM system, buildannotated.com, build this new website for eighty, ninety.

搞定。

Boop.

而且这个复制器直接就把东西给你了。

And it's a replicator just gives it to you.

这太奇怪了。

It's very strange.

我只经历过两次这种感觉。

I've only felt this feeling twice.

有一次我站在外面旁观，当时我在多伦多做衍生品交易。

Once I was on the outside looking in, I was a derivatives trader in Toronto.

我看着第一次.com浪潮，心想：我必须参与其中。

I was looking at the first.com wave, and I was like, I gotta be a part of this.

我该怎么加入呢？

How do I get to be a part of this?

于是我去了Winamp工作，之后的事情就顺理成章了。

And I got a job in at Winamp, and kind of the rest was history.

WinAmp。

WinAmp.

也就是原版的iTunes。

The original iTunes.

但我没能赶上那波浪潮。

But I missed the wave.

从财富层面来说，那段经历没给我带来任何收益，但至少我站对了风口。

Financially, it didn't do anything for me, but I was in the right place.

你好歹是带着冲浪板赶到海滩了。

You got to the beach with a surfboard.

这才是最重要的。

That's all that matters.

然后第二次浪潮来的时候，我把握了机会，之后转型进入了移动和社交领域。

Then the second wave, I crushed and then moved to mobile and social.

但这次浪潮感觉比那一次要大上一百倍。

But this wave feels like a 100 times bigger than that.

相比之下，这完全就是一场海啸。

It's a tsunami by comparison.

我有三个这样的东西。

I I I had three of these.

这大概就是去葡萄牙纳扎雷时的感觉。

It's probably what it's like to be at Nazare in Portugal.

你们有没有看过那些视频，就是那个疯狂的地方，那里有

You guys ever see those clips of, like, that crazy place where, like, there's,

一米高的浪。

a foot waves.

一百英尺高的浪之类的，你只是被拖进去，然后你就想，好吧。

100 foot waves or whatever, and you're just towed in, and you're like, okay.

我们来吧。

Let's Here

我们走。

we go.

这件事可能有两种结局。

This could end one of two ways.

放手吧。

Let it go.

我们开始吧。

Let's do it.

再见。

Goodbye.

不。

No.

我记得很清楚，当我第一次看到电脑、第一次上网并看到Mosaic浏览器的时候，那是在九十年代初，然后后来又看到iPhone，我觉得那三个时刻

I it was, like, literally when I first saw a PC, when I first got on the Internet and then saw Mosaic, like, those two moments in the early nineties, and then seeing the iPhone, I think that, like, those three moments

非常特别。

was very special.

好的。

Alright.

扎克这周过得真不容易。

Rough week for Zach.