本集简介
双语字幕
仅展示文本字幕，不包含中文音频；想边听边看，请使用 Bayt 播客 App。
大约十八个月前，肖恩把Alphabet列为七巨头中最便宜的一家，那时候市场还在忙着给搜索业务判死刑。
About eighteen months ago, Shawn pitched Alphabet as the cheapest of the mag seven, back when the market was busy pricing in the death of search.
但自从那期节目之后，股价差不多翻了一倍，而搜索业务其实并没有死。
But since that episode, the stock has roughly doubled, and the death of search never actually showed up.
真正发生的是，这家公司现在计划一年内花大约两千亿美元在数据中心上，完全停止回购自己的股票，并且筹集了超过一千亿美元的资金来支持这些支出。
What did show up is a company that now plans to spend around $200,000,000,000 in a single year on data centers, has stopped buying back its own stock entirely, and has raised over a $100,000,000,000 in capital to fund this spending.
所以业务变得更好了，但资产负债表也变得越来越奇怪。
So the business got better and the balance sheet got a lot stranger over time.
今天，我们想讨论的是，我们现在持有的Alphabet，还是不是去年我们买的那一家。
Today, we wanna discuss whether the Alphabet we own is still the one that we bought last year.
你正在收听的是投资者播客网络旗下的内在价值播客。
You're listening to the Intrinsic Value podcast by The Investor's Podcast Network.
自2014年以来，下载量超过一亿八千万次，我们直接向全球最优秀的投资者学习。
Since 2014, with over 180,000,000 downloads, we've learned directly from the world's best investors.
现在，我们每周将这些经验应用于分析企业和投资机会，帮助你发现内在价值。
Now we're applying those lessons to analyze businesses and investment opportunities every week, helping you uncover intrinsic value.
本节目不构成投资建议。
This show is not investment advice.
内容仅供信息和娱乐用途。
It's intended for informational and entertainment purposes only.
主持人和嘉宾表达的观点仅代表个人意见，他们可能持有讨论中提到的证券。
All opinions expressed by hosts and guests are solely their own, and they may have investments in the securities discussed.
现在，有请本期主持人肖恩·奥马利和凯尔·格里夫。
And now here are your hosts, Shawn O'Malley and Kyle Grieve.
我对这期节目非常期待，因为Alphabet实际上是内在价值投资组合中的第二大持仓，权重约为14%。
So I'm really excited about this one as Alphabet is actually the second largest position inside of the Intrinsic Value Portfolio with a weighting of around 14%.
Alphabet一直让我感兴趣，原因很简单，我每天都会用到它的很多产品。
Now, Alphabet has always been a business that interested me simply because I just use so many of its products daily.
作为用户，我真的找不到什么理由去换用其他产品。
And as a user, I just don't really actually see much of a reason to switch to anything else.
每天，我都会用Gmail、搜索引擎、浏览器、网页版办公应用，甚至还有Google Home。
So on a daily basis, you know, I'm using things like Gmail, I'm using their search engine, their browser, their web based office applications, and even Google Home.
所以，你知道，我觉得说我是谷歌产品的忠实用户一点也不夸张，但我其实从来没买过谷歌的股票。
So, you know, I think it's pretty safe to say that I'm a pretty diehard user of Google products and yet I've never actually owned any Google shares.
这确实有点奇怪。
So it's a bit of a strange conundrum.
但让我特别惊讶的是，你十八个月前把Alphabet加入投资组合，而在这段时间里，这家公司其实发生了很大的变化。
But what really struck me when I was prepping for this episode is that the Alphabet that you added to the portfolio eighteen months ago has actually evolved pretty dramatically in that timeframe.
我说的不只是股价。
And I don't just mean the stock price.
这家公司做出了一些我没想到的选择，至少在规模上让我意外。
The business has made choices that I just didn't really expect, at least in terms of scale.
我正好找了一个人来跟我聊聊，帮我搞清楚，我在个人账户里连一点底仓都没建，这错误犯得有多大。
And I have just the person to chat with me to help me understand just how big of a mistake I'm making by not at least having a starter position in my personal account.
凯尔，我不会因为你没买谷歌就太为难你。
I I won't give you too much of a hard time, Kyle, for for not owning Google.
也许我就在背后逗逗你吧。
Maybe I'll just tease you behind your back.
不过说真的，开玩笑归开玩笑，我们都有自己希望当初多买点的赢家股，也希望能让所有朋友都跟着买，但事情往往没那么简单，这也很正常。
But no, all jokes aside, we all have our winners that we wish we had had more of and wish that we were able to get all of our friends to buy into, but it just doesn't always work out that easily, and that's perfectly fine.
但你知道吗，在我看来，谷歌最棒的一点就是它不会消失。
But, you know, the beautiful part of Google, in my view, is that it's not going anywhere.
我的意思是，这家公司可是真正的巨头。
I mean, this is a company that is a real titan.
也就是说，再过五到十年，我认为Alphabet——也就是我们今天会跟谷歌混着用的母公司名称——的内在价值会比现在高得多。
That's to say in five to ten more years, I think Alphabet, which is the parent company name that we'll use interchangeably today for Google, will have a much higher intrinsic value than it does today.
不过我也了解你作为投资者的一些偏好，凯尔，也就是说你通常不会投资大盘股，更不用说超大盘股了。
But I've also gotten to know some of your preferences as an investor, Kyle, and and that is to say you typically are not one to invest in large caps, certainly not mega caps.
那么，如果我们想象一个缩小版的谷歌，比如说市值一千亿美元，而不是现在这个四万亿美元的庞然大物，你是不是就会买它的股票了？
So is it fair to say that if maybe we imagined a scaled down version of Google with, I don't know, maybe a a $10,000,000,000 market cap instead of this being this $4,000,000,000,000 behemoth, you probably would own shares in it.
这样说对吗？
Is that fair?
我觉得你说得完全对。
I would say that you're completely correct there.
我确实更偏向于小公司，主要是因为，你知道，我特别专注于寻找那些能翻好几倍的股票。
I'm definitely biased towards smaller businesses mainly because, you know, I'm just really focused on finding multi baggers.
但自从你第一次把谷歌加入内在价值投资组合以来，它已经涨了将近100%，我觉得这恰恰是一个非常非常好的例子，说明即使是市值数万亿美元的公司，你也能获得类似翻几倍的回报。
But as Google has gone up nearly a 100% since you first added it to the Intrinsic Value Portfolio, I think that it's just a simply a really, really good example that you can still make multi bagger like returns from businesses with multi trillion dollar market caps.
谷歌挺有意思的，因为当你看看科技巨头和标普500的顶端时，它通常看起来是定价最合理的公司。
And Google is an interesting one because when you look at the top of the tech titans and the S and P 500, it's usually a business that seems to be the most reasonably priced.
也许，你知道，Meta有时候会便宜一点或者价格差不多，但谷歌的市盈率我觉得不算便宜，但考虑到公司的质量和增长，也不算贵。
Maybe, you know, Meta has had periods where it's a little bit cheaper or similarly priced, but Google always seems to have a multiple that I think is not necessarily cheap, but also just not that expensive when you consider the quality and growth of the business.
所以，我觉得深入研究Alphabet时最让我惊讶的是，他们的资本配置方式随时间变化很大。
So, I'd say the thing that surprised me the most when digging into Alphabet was how their capital allocations changed over time.
他们今年计划在数据中心上花费大约2000亿美元，我真的很想更好地理解这些投资，以及这些投资将如何影响他们未来出色的资本效率数据。
With them set now to spend somewhere around $200,000,000,000 on data center just this year, I really wanted to better understand these investments and how are these investments gonna impact their impressive capital efficiency numbers going forward.
我们稍后会详细讨论这个，但让我们先从你最初的投资论点开始吧。
And we're gonna get into that a lot more in detail a little later, but let's just start here with your original thesis.
我觉得大多数人对Alphabet都很熟悉，但为了让大家达成共识，这个投资论点主要基于Alphabet是一系列世界级企业的集合，拥有数十亿用户，这绝不是夸张。
I think most people are are pretty familiar with Alphabet, but just to to get everybody on the same page, the bulk of the thesis was built upon the fact that Alphabet is a collection of world class businesses with literally billions of users, not exaggerating.
不管你看的是谷歌搜索、YouTube、谷歌云还是安卓，你过去和现在看到的都是一些非常了不起的资产，单独拿出来价值都很高。
And whether you're looking at Google Search, YouTube, Google Cloud, or Android, you were and still are looking at some really incredible assets with very high standalone value.
比如说YouTube，很多很多年前以16亿美元收购的，现在每年能产生大约360亿美元的收入。
And so YouTube, for example, was purchased for $1,600,000,000 many, many years ago, Now it generates something like $36,000,000,000 in annual revenue.
然后还有风险投资组合和他们的登月计划。
Then you get to the venture capital portfolio and they're moonshot bets.
谷歌风投管理着超过100亿美元的资产，大约有400家活跃的投资组合公司。
Google Ventures manages over $10,000,000,000 in assets with roughly 400 active portfolio companies.
这包括从登月实验室出来的不太受欢迎的谷歌眼镜，还有他们的掌上明珠——Waymo。
So that includes, you know, the less popular Google Glass that came out of Moonshot Labs, but also their crown jewel, Waymo.
去年二月我推荐Alphabet的时候，市场给谷歌的定价就好像搜索是唯一重要的业务板块，而且搜索因为AI的威胁正面临困境。
And at the time when I pitched Alphabet last February, the market was pricing Google as if search was the only business segment that mattered and search was in trouble because of the incoming threat of AI.
所以基本上，当时的观点是用户会越来越多地用ChatGPT这样的工具来回答问题，而不是用传统的谷歌搜索。
So, basically, the argument was that users would increasingly use things like ChatGPT to answer their questions rather than using traditional Google search.
我觉得公平地说，这确实是谷歌搜索垄断地位十多年来，甚至可能是有史以来，面临的第一个真正的重大威胁。
And I think to be fair, this was really truly the first major threat to Google's search monopoly in probably more than a decade and maybe ever.
这个业务我们过去甚至称它为资本主义历史上最好的业务之一。
And that's a business that we have referred to in the past as perhaps even one of the best in the history of capitalism.
然而，我觉得ChatGPT确实给搜索的未来带来了真正的不确定性，尤其是在2024年和2025年初。
And yet, ChatGuty, I think, created this genuine uncertainty around what the future of search would look like, especially back in 2024 and early twenty twenty five.
我得说，情况变得模糊多了。
I would say things are much foggier.
从那以后，情况变得清晰了，AI实际上可以推动谷歌搜索量的增长，而且像AI概览和搜索结果这样的东西可以像传统搜索一样变现，但我们可能要在这一集里更详细地讨论这个。
And in the time since, it has become clearer how AI can actually drive more search volume on Google and that things like AI overviews and search results could be monetized similarly to traditional search, but we'll probably get into that over the course of the episode more.
有趣的是，在你录制的时候，我记得和其他一些投资者聊过这个。
It's funny because at the time that you recorded, I remember chatting about this with some other investors.
所以普遍的共识是，投资者普遍有些担忧，因为人们是否还会用谷歌搜索引擎来回答问题已经不再明确了。
So the general consensus was that investors were generally kind of fearful because it was no longer clear that people would use Google search engine to answer their questions anymore.
我那时候个人是ChatGPT的重度用户，实际上我大幅减少了使用谷歌的频率。
I personally was a very heavy chat GPT user back then, and I actually cut my Google usage very, very significantly.
所以从谷歌业务的角度来看，这让我有点担心，因为我觉得自己可能再也不会像以前那样需要回到谷歌了。
And so looking at it through the lens of the business of Google, that kind of concerned me as, you know, I just didn't really feel like I would ever really have the need to go back to Google the way that I used to use it.
但几个月前，我发现自己用这些AI搜索引擎和谷歌的方式有点变了。
But a few months ago, I realized there was a bit of a shift in how I was using some of these AI search engines, as well as Google.
基本上我注意到，我越来越倾向于用谷歌，而不是像现在这样用Claude而不是ChatGPT。
So I basically noticed that I was going back more and more towards using Google compared to now I'm more using Cloud compared to ChatGPT.
区别在于，当我想用谷歌或通过Gemini快速得到一个事实性答案时，几乎立刻就能得到。
And with that difference being when I would go to use Google or through Gemini, if I just wanted a very, very quick factual answer to a question, I would get that answer nearly instantly.
而且答案还会附带一堆来源。
And I would also get a bunch of sources that came with that answer.
现在用Claude，我虽然也能得到不错的答案，但有时候得费劲去找信息到底是从哪来的。
Now with Claude, I still get a pretty good answer, but I sometimes have to hunt to where that information is actually coming from.
而且经常就是错的。
And oftentimes it's just wrong.
所以我觉得用谷歌的时候，至少在一定程度上——我不想太纠结于具体怎么用的——但确实更容易、更简单，有时候也快得多，就能得到这些答案。
So I feel like when I use Google, at least to some degree, again, I don't wanna get too much in the weeds of how I'm using this, but it makes it easier, simpler, and sometimes a lot faster just to get these answers.
所以，你知道，我觉得市场甚至我当时都以为搜索已经死了，但至少对我来说，今天显然不是这样。
So, you know, I think the market and even me back then was thinking that search was dead, but to me, at least today, it clearly isn't.
我记得在2024年的时候，我其实还挺相信谷歌搜索会被颠覆的，当时我跟别人说，ChatGPT肯定会冲击谷歌。
I remember actually being a bit of a Google search truther back in 2024, telling folks that ChatGPT was obviously going to disrupt Google.
后来我的想法又绕回来了，而且我觉得我一直都是这么认为的：之前大家说AI会杀死搜索，但现实恰恰相反。
And then, actually, my thinking came full circle on that, and I I think it's continued to be my my belief that, you had this narrative that AI would kill search, but it's just really the opposite is what has manifested.
我觉得正是因为这个，我们才有了这个特别难得的机会，能以低于标普500指数的估值，投资像Alphabet这样全球数一数二的大公司。
And I think that is what gave us this really special opportunity in the first place to be able to invest in Alphabet as big of a company as any in the world at a discount to the broader S and P 500 index.
我们第一次看Alphabet的时候，它的市盈率大概在17倍左右。
When we first looked at Alphabet, it was trading at around 17 times earnings.
而一年前，投资者还愿意为Alphabet的股票支付30倍的市盈率。
A year before, investors had been paying 30 times earnings for shares in Alphabet.
我当时的问题是，核心搜索业务面临的颠覆威胁，是否严重到足以让Alphabet的估值倍数出现如此大幅度的下调，尤其是在它业务已经相当多元化的情况下。
And The question to me was whether the core search business faced a serious enough threat of disruption within context of Alphabet's already pretty diversified business model to justify a rerating of the valuation multiple that dramatically.
每当不确定性大幅上升时，估值倍数就应该下降，因为盈利质量下降了。
Whenever you do have fundamental increases in uncertainty, the valuation multiple should decrease because the earnings quality has declined.
未来可能不像以前看起来那么可预测了。
The future is maybe less predictable than it seemed.
但话说回来，你还是在拿这个跟自己对现实的判断做权衡。
But again, you're sort of trying to weigh that against your assessment of reality.
而且，你知道，我还是觉得市场对Alphabet整体的情绪，特别是对搜索业务的情绪，摆动得有点太悲观了。
And, you know, I, again, I felt like the market had seen its sentiment swing a little too dramatically toward pessimism about Alphabet overall and, in particular, the search business.
有意思的是，Alphabet现在又回到了17倍市盈率。
And interestingly, Alphabet today, again, trades at 17 times earnings.
但我觉得现在的情况跟当时很不一样了。
But I think the circumstances are very different.
上次也是17倍市盈率，但之后股价翻了一倍。
We've seen the stock double since the last time it traded at 17 times earnings.
我觉得这次不是因为竞争方面的担忧，而更多是因为他们在AI上巨额投入的回报存在不确定性。
And I don't think it's because of concerns on competition, but really more about the uncertainty around the returns on what their massive AI investments will yield.
真正的问题是，他们能在多大程度上证明这些投入是值得的。
That is really the question of, you know, what degree will they be able to justify this spending?
关于这一点，AI带来的一个比较实际的影响是，Alphabet在把它的语言模型Gemini整合到全线产品中，这可能有助于守住他们的市场份额。
And on that point, one of the more tangible impacts of AI is that as Alphabet invests to integrate its LLM, Gemini, across its suite of products, this may help to defend their market share.
由于AI计算成本高昂，很多新闻都在讨论它有多贵，而且AI比传统的谷歌搜索更贵，随着公司越来越多地将AI整合到业务中，公司实际上可能在结构上变得不那么盈利。
Due to the cost of AI compute, which lots of news articles talking about how expensive that is, and AI just being more expensive than traditional Google search, the company could actually become structurally less profitable as they integrate AI more and more into the business.
所以我认为，对我来说，这是一个我更认真对待的风险，绝对比大家抛弃谷歌搜索这个想法更认真。
And so I do think that is, to me, a risk that I take more seriously and definitely more seriously than the idea of just everyone abandoning Google search.
但实际上，自从大约一年半前我第一次真正认真研究Alphabet以来，除了自由现金流这一块，其他方面的利润率都明显改善了。
But in reality, since I looked at Alphabet about a year and a half ago for the first time really seriously, margins have definitely improved across the board except for one area, and that's in free cash flow.
你知道，Kyle，原因是这个指标反映的是运营现金流减去资本支出，而资本支出是对业务未来的投资。
And the reason so, as you know, Kyle, is that that is a metric that reflects operating cash flow minus capital expenditures, where capital expenditures are investments in the future of the business.
所以考虑到所有在建和租赁数据中心空间的持续承诺，看到自由现金流大幅下降，甚至对某些超大规模企业来说转为负值，或者至少预计在未来几年会这样，也就不足为奇了。
So given all the ongoing commitments to constructing and leasing space at data centers, it's really not a surprise to seek free cash flow being dramatically lower and and actually swinging negative for some of the hyperscalers and or at least projected to in the coming years.
是的，我记得是美国银行发布了一张在金融推特上疯传的图表，展示了市场的一个深刻转变，像Alphabet和亚马逊这样的超大规模企业，它们的自由现金流集体转为负值。
And, yeah, I think it was Bank of America that had this really incredible chart that went viral on FinTwit, showing sort of this profound shift in markets where the hyperscalers like the Alphabet and Amazons of the world, they were collectively seeing their free cash flow turn negative.
而设计并制造驱动这场AI革命芯片的半导体公司，它们成了受益者，现金流也相应地飙升了。
While semiconductor companies that are designing and manufacturing the chips powering this AI revolution, they're the beneficiaries, and their cash flows have correspondingly skyrocketed.
所以资本密集度正在上升。
So the capital intensity is scaling up.
我觉得这会是今天这期节目的一个主题。
That'll be a theme in today's episode, I think.
而且，你知道，Alphabet现在维持业务所需的资本，比十八个月前要多得多。
And, you know, much more capital is being required for Alphabet to maintain its business than even was just the case eighteen months ago.
目前还不清楚这些支出是防御性的，也就是为了防止竞争对手抢占市场，这对股东来说不太有利；还是进攻性的，也就是为了开拓新市场和新领域，为Alphabet的持续盈利增长铺就更长的路。对于一家市值四万亿美元的公司来说，这想想都让人觉得不可思议。
And it remains to be seen whether that spending is being done defensively, which would be less positive for shareholders as they try to prevent seeding ground to competitors, or if it's more offensive where they're looking to capture new markets and new verticals that will unlock an even longer runway for Alphabet to keep growing profitably, which is sort of mind boggling to think about for a company with a $4,000,000,000,000 market cap.
你知道，我第一次看这个的时候，真的非常惊讶，Alphabet的利润率在整个扩张阶段居然保持得这么好。
And, you know, when I first kinda looked at this, I was actually really, really surprised at just how well Alphabet's margins have held up during this kind of entire expansion phase.
我们稍后会详细讨论他们是怎么做到的。
And we'll get more into how kind of how they did that later.
不过，对Alphabet的投资者来说，另一个重要主题就是监管环境。
But another major theme for investors with Alphabet has been this kind of regulatory environment.
很明显，谷歌在很多很多领域都算是垄断。
With Google being quite clearly, I would say a monopoly in many, many different areas.
这家公司基本上一直处于监管机构的密切关注之下。
It's a business that's just basically under constant regulatory scrutiny.
评估这种监管下的真实风险，最难的部分在于你需要至少在一定程度上了解大量的监管机构，因为这不仅仅是美国的问题，而是全球性的问题。
The hardest part about evaluating the real risk under this scrutiny is just the sheer number of regulators that you kind of need to understand at least to some degree, because, you know, it's not just a U S issue, it's a global issue.
而且通常欧洲那边更严格。
And well, usually it's more in Europe.
由于谷歌的服务覆盖全球，他们得不断地在法庭上为自己辩护。
And since Google reaches the entire world, they're constantly, constantly defending themselves in court.
所以截至最近一个季度，他们短期计提的法律和监管罚款及和解费用大约有160亿美元。
So as of the latest quarter, they have short term accrued legal and regulatory fines and settlements of about $16,000,000,000.
比如像美国司法部这样的监管机构，就曾决定要求谷歌剥离其某个业务部门的所有权，以削弱其垄断地位。
Well, for regulatory body, like the Department of Justice decided that Google had to spin off ownership of one of its business segments to reduce Google's monopolistic power.
这显然对谷歌的股东来说是个坏消息。
I mean, that would obviously be a bad thing for Google's shareholders.
一年前风险最大的领域是他们的网络浏览器，也就是谷歌Chrome。
And the areas most at risk a year ago was their web browser, so Google Chrome.
另外，当时也有一些关于安卓操作系统的讨论。
And then there was also some chatter around the Android operating system.
不过说实话，过去四十年里，美国反垄断执法中强制拆分公司的情况非常罕见。
But structural breakups have been exceedingly rare in US antitrust enforcement over the past four decades, I would say.
监管机构更多时候是限制占主导地位的公司如何行事，而不是真的去拆分它们。
And regulators have more often ended up relying on restrictions for how dominant companies can behave than actually going for breakups.
所以谷歌的情况就是这样。
And so that's exactly what we saw with Google.
司法部确实试图强制谷歌出售Chrome，但法院驳回了这个补救措施。
The justice department actually sought to force Google to sell Chrome, but the court rejected that remedy.
相反，法院对谷歌的分销协议施加了限制。
And instead, it placed restrictions on Google's distribution agreements.
所以谷歌仍然可以付钱给苹果，让谷歌成为Safari的默认搜索引擎，但这些协议不能再像以前那样锁定苹果的分销渠道。
And so Google can still pay Apple to make Google the default search engine in Safari, but those agreements can no longer lock up Apple's distribution in the same way.
协议期限被限制为一年。
So they're limited to one year agreements.
他们不能把谷歌的默认状态绑定到不同的设备和访问点上，而且必须允许苹果推广竞争对手的搜索和AI产品，哪怕只是名义上的。
They can't tie Google's default status across different devices and access points, and they have to allow Apple to promote competing search and AI products even if it's, just done so in theory.
我觉得我们可能应该在这里多花点时间，因为我觉得理解监管对于理解谷歌的投资逻辑非常重要。
And I think we should probably spend a little more time here because I think understanding regulations is quite important for understanding the Google thesis.
那么，你觉得现在说谷歌基本上安全了，相比去年他们面临的更紧迫的监管风险，这样说公平吗？
Now, do you think it's fair to say that Google is largely safe for now compared with the more maybe acute regulatory risks that they were facing last year?
如果是这样的话，那可能实际上就是Alphabet应该获得更高市盈率的一个理由，因为一些更密集的监管迷雾现在正在散去。
And if so, that would actually maybe be an argument for Alphabet potentially deserving an even higher PE multiple with some of the more dense regulatory fog now clearing up.
这确实是个很好的观点。
It's a really great point.
从宏观层面看，就像我刚才提到的，大型科技公司及其股东通常都从监管执法中受益，这些执法通常远不是最坏的情况，说得客气一点。
At a high level, as I was mentioning, big tech companies and shareholders in those companies have broadly benefited from regulatory enforcements that are usually pretty far from the worst case scenario, to put it nicely.
而且，无论Alphabet是被迫最终分拆部分业务，还是自己选择这么做，不管是Chrome、YouTube、Android还是其他什么，今天的Alphabet股东当然会从这些分拆业务中获得相应的股份。
And whether Alphabet is forced to eventually spin off some of its businesses or chooses to do so on its own, whether that be with Chrome, YouTube, Android, or whatever it is, shareholders in Alphabet today would, of course, get a proportional stake in these spin off businesses.
所以，对股东来说，风险不在于Alphabet旗下某个价值数千亿美元的子公司会完全消失，而在于如果这些业务被迫真正独立运营，它们是否会因为无法再受益于Alphabet在整个企业范围内的数据和关系，而导致护城河缩小。
So the risk for shareholders is not that one of Alphabet's subsidiaries worth hundreds of billions of dollars is just gonna disappear from the picture entirely, but it's that if these businesses are forced to operate truly independently, whether they will see their moat shrink because they can no longer benefit from the data and relationships that Alphabet has across their entire enterprise.
对我来说，当我最初开始认真研究Alphabet时，我很快就接受了这样一个现实：这些高昂的法律费用和开支只是做生意的成本，当你像七巨头公司那样大规模运营时，最近我们就看到Meta与司法部达成了巨额和解。
And for me, when I first began really looking at Alphabet, I came to terms pretty quickly with the reality that these hefty legal expenses and fees are just a cost of doing business when you operate at the scale that Mag-seven companies who just recently we saw Meta have a massive settlement with the Department of Justice.
不过总体来说，这在他们业务中占的比例其实很小，至少对Alphabet来说是这样。
So that really is overall though a pretty small percentage of their business, at least for Alphabet.
所以你也可以换个角度想，他们之所以不断面临诉讼，恰恰说明他们是一家真正了不起的企业。
And so another way you could think about this too is that the fact that they're subjected to this constant litigation is really a sign that they are truly an extraordinary business.
彼得·蒂尔在他的书《从0到1》里就说过这个著名的观点，那本书也是我们最喜欢推荐的书之一。
And so Peter Thiel talks about that famously in his book Zero to One, one of our favorites to recommend.
一家企业花越多时间在法庭上应对反垄断问题，并且公开努力淡化自己享有的垄断优势，这恰恰说明它是一家极其强势的企业。
The more time a business spends in court fighting over antitrust concerns and all the efforts they go through publicly to try and downplay some of the monopolistic benefits that they enjoy, that is actually a sign of an incredibly dominant business.
反而是那些没有安全感的企业，才会到处吹嘘自己的竞争优势。
It's the insecure companies that are trying to brag about their competitive dominance.
讽刺的是，这些企业最不可能为股东带来垄断利润。
Those are the ones that are ironically the least likely to yield the benefits of monopoly for shareholders.
我完全同意你关于蒂尔的那个观点。
And I completely agree with your point there on Teal.
如果一家公司像Alphabet这样频繁为自己辩护，我觉得这本身就是一个非常明确的信号，说明它肯定有非常非常强的竞争优势。
If a company is defending itself as much as a business like Alphabet is, I think it's a very clear signal that there's something going on, and they probably have some very, very strong competitive advantages.
当然，他们肯定会把这些事轻描淡写，好像只是些小问题。
And, of course, they're gonna just play them off like there's some sort of minor issue.
但实际上，我觉得他们心里清楚自己有多强。
But in reality, I think they know exactly how strong they are.
所以，你知道，他们得尽量摆出一副不那么有威胁性的姿态。
So, you know, they have to kinda try to address their positioning in a way that appears as least threatening as possible.
但我觉得实际上很明显，Alphabet确实有这些垄断性的优势。
But I think in reality, it's very clear that Alphabet does have these monopolistic benefits.
而且目前看来，他们的优势还在不断加强，而不是在削弱。
And as of now, it kind of appears they're just continuing to strengthen and not actually weaken.
我们继续聊聊关于Alphabet和苹果关系的监管问题吧，我觉得这是值得关注的重点。
Just to continue the conversation here about the regulatory enforcements around Alphabet and Apple's relationship in particular, I think that's a good area for us to focus.
Alphabet每年付给苹果大约200亿美元，让谷歌搜索成为苹果设备的默认搜索引擎。
Alphabet pays Apple something like $20,000,000,000 a year to have Google search be the default on Apple devices.
之前我们稍微提到过这一点。
It kind of alluded to that earlier.
而且当法院最终裁定这个协议有效之后，Alphabet的股价表现其实非常好，在短短一年多的时间里上涨了超过50%。
And once the conclusion in court was reached about the validity of this, Alphabet shares actually did really well and increased by more than 50 in over just a year's time.
所以，想想看，像这种有监管压力的投资，竟然还能蕴含这么多机会，而这家公司按理说应该是市场上定价最有效的公司之一，这真的很疯狂。
And so it's crazy how much opportunity could still be baked into these kinds of overhang investments for what you would expect to be the most efficiently priced company in markets, basically.
所以，在我们的内在价值投资组合中——我们会在节目说明里放一个链接，方便大家查看我们的持仓并跟进投资组合——当股价跌到大约150美元的时候，我们买入了更多股票，因为我们的平均成本足够低，我觉得下行风险已经得到了很好的保护。
And so in our Intrinsic Value Portfolio, which we'll have a link to in the show notes for anyone who wants to see our holdings and keep up with their portfolio, we ended up buying more shares when the price dropped down toward about a $150, where our average cost basis was low enough that I felt the downside was pretty well protected.
换句话说，我们可能获得的收益远大于可能承担的损失，至少当时是这么想的。
And so in other words, we had much more to gain than we'd likely lose, or that was the thinking at least.
关于潜在的拆分，有趣的是，负责此案的法官阿米特·梅塔最终做出这个决定，是因为他实际上认为，强制Alphabet拆分Chrome会对整个生态系统不利，而不仅仅是对谷歌不利。
And the interesting thing about the potential divestiture was the judge that was overlooking it, judge Amit Mehta, actually ended up with this decision because he actually felt that forcing Alphabet to divest Chrome would have been bad for the entire ecosystem and not just for Google.
所以他指出，这也会伤害苹果。
So he noted that it would also harm Apple.
还会伤害依赖谷歌这笔收入的Mozilla。
It would harm Mozilla who depended on that revenue specifically from Google.
你提到Alphabet每年向苹果支付大约200亿美元的稳定现金，作为收入分成，这部分是基于谷歌通过苹果设备上的Safari浏览器（也就是他们自己的浏览器）进行的搜索所产生的广告收入。
Now you mentioned that Alphabet pays a steady stream of about 20,000,000,000 in cash annually to Apple as a revenue share based on the amount of advertising revenue that Google generates from those searches on Apple devices using Safari, that their browser specifically.
换句话说，法官认为让Chrome继续留在谷歌旗下，其好处实际上超过了强制剥离该业务部门对竞争对手造成的间接影响。
But in other words, the judge decided that the benefits of allowing Chrome to stay under Google's ownership actually outweighed the second order impacts on competitors of forcing a divestiture of that business segment.
看到监管机构会考虑他们的执法是否弊大于利，这确实让人耳目一新。
It's actually pretty refreshing to see regulators being mindful of of whether their enforcements will do more harm than good.
李，我这是开玩笑说的。
I say that tongue in cheek, Lee.
所以Alphabet现在与苹果的关系不再享有同等程度的合同保障，未来能延续多久也不确定，因为他们现在基本上每年都要重新谈判这项协议。
And so Alphabet doesn't quite enjoy the same level of contractual guarantees anymore around their relationship with Apple and how far that will extend into the future because now they're basically required to renegotiate that deal every year.
但最重要的是，经过监管审查后，这项协议仍然有效。
But what matters most is that the deal is still in place after regulatory review.
那曾是个大问号。
That was the big question mark.
因此，与苹果的这项安排对双方来说都是双赢，这也让挑战者更难撼动谷歌在信息搜索领域的主导地位。
And so having this arrangement with Apple is very much a win win for both sides, and it makes it all the more difficult for a challenger to disrupt Google's dominance over informational searches.
我的意思是，你怎么能打败谷歌搜索已经内置在人们购买的每一部iPhone里这个事实呢？
I mean, how do you beat the fact that Google search is baked into every iPhone that people buy?
你之前提到，谷歌的搜索业务之所以被市场重创，主要是因为像ChatGPT或Claude这样的LLM带来的AI风险。
So you mentioned earlier that the search part of Google was being heavily punished by the market simply because of the AI risk that LLMs like ChatGPT or Cloud were offering.
也许有一段时间，看起来电商的未来会是通过ChatGPT的集成直接完成所有购物。
Where maybe for a time it looked like the future of e commerce would be doing all of our shopping directly through integrations on ChatGPT.
比如，直接从Target或Walmart订购一篮子商品，直接通过ChatGPT完成。
So ordering a basket of goods from Target or Walmart directly would go right through ChatGPT, for example.
但我觉得，这种说法很快就销声匿迹了。
But the narrative, I think, fizzled out pretty quickly.
现在你也看到OpenAI在某种程度上收回了那些野心。
And now you've seen OpenAI kind of scale back some of those ambitions.
现在他们向投资者做出的承诺不再那么宏大，因为他们不得不做出某些竞争上的让步。
Now the promises that they're making to investors have become less grandiose as they've had to make certain competitive concessions.
就像我之前提到的，他们撤回了即时结账的购物集成。
Like I was mentioning with them rolling back their instant checkout shopping integration.
现在，真正对未来变革做出惊人宣称的，似乎是Anthropic。
It's actually Anthropic that seems to be making the really dramatic claims about how they'll change the future now.
但Anthropic的Cloud更专注于成为企业对企业（B2B）的生产力工具，而不是像谷歌那样，让数亿甚至数十亿人用来进行基本查询的搜索引擎。
But Anthropic with Cloud is much more focused on being a business to business productivity tool than something that hundreds of millions of people or even billions of people use for search on basic queries.
现在，和ChatGPT不同，ChatGPT早期的成功让它陷入了一个相当棘手的境地——用户采纳率惊人，但运营成本却完全不可持续，因为服务大众所需的计算资源非常昂贵。
Now, unlike ChatGPT where their early success has put them in a pretty tough situation where the user adoption is incredible, but they're operating with completely unsustainable economics just because the compute needed to serve the masses is very, very costly.
而大多数用户并不愿意为高级AI工具支付超过几美元的费用。
While most customers just aren't willing to pay more than a few dollars for premium AI tools.
所以至少目前来看，我认为谷歌在回答大多数查询方面似乎具有巨大的效率和成本优势，而更复杂的问题往往会被引导到付费的大型语言模型上，这实际上是一种与谷歌核心搜索业务所玩的规模游戏截然不同的商业模式。
So at least for the time being, I think Google seems to be vastly more efficient and cost advantage in answering most inquiries while more of the complex questions tend to get routed to paid LLMs, which is really a separate business model from the volume game that Google's playing in its core search business.
虽然公司没有完全清晰地单独列出搜索业务，但你知道，他们的报告分部——谷歌搜索及其他收入——在过去两年里仍然保持了14%的复合年增长率，而且似乎没有任何放缓的迹象。
Now the company doesn't break out the search business completely cleanly for us, but still, you know, their reporting segment, Google search and other revenue has continued to grow at a really nice 14% compound annual growth rate over the last two years and doesn't really show any signs of slowing down.
所以，我认为最初的恐惧——至少我当时的恐惧——是用户会越来越少使用谷歌搜索，从而导致搜索收入下降。
So, think the initial fear that at least I had was that users would use less and less of Google search and their search revenue would suffer as a result.
但正如数据所显示的，这种情况显然并没有发生。
And that just clearly, as the numbers say, is not panning out.
事后看来，我觉得这很合理，因为谷歌仍然是地球上最好的搜索引擎。
And in hindsight, I think it makes sense because Google is still very much the best search engine on earth.
所以，如果我只是想快速得到一个简单问题的答案，我还是会回到谷歌，先看看他们的AI摘要。
So if I just, you know, want to get a quick answer to a simple question, I still find myself just going back to Google, getting started by reading their AI summaries.
如果我觉得需要深入探讨，或者想用Claude这样的工具，去深入研究某个特定话题，我才会转移。
And just if I feel the need deepening the conversation from there or moving to something like Claude, if I want to go super in-depth on a specific subject.
但我能理解为什么谷歌没有在搜索上遭受重创，因为每天有很多事情，谷歌就是最适合我需求的工具。
But I can see why Google, you know, hasn't taken this big hit and search simply because there's just so many things I do daily where Google is just simply the best tool for what I need.
比如邮件、日历，甚至地图，这些都不是大语言模型能真正改变的。
Think emails, calendars, or even maps, which are things that LLMs just don't really change.
如果你像我一样是基本面投资者，你需要真正跟得上你的财务数据。
If you're a fundamental investor like me, you need financial data that actually keeps up with you.
这就是为什么我和我的同事Daniel Mahncke在每一期《内在价值播客》中都使用fiscal.ai。
That's why me and my colleague Daniel Mahncke use fiscal.ai for every episode of the Intrinsic Value Podcast.
Fiscal.ai是一家为全球股票提供现代财务数据的供应商。
Fiscal.ai is a modern financial data provider for global stocks.
我们在节目中经常使用他们的网页版终端。
We use their web based terminal all the time on the show.
它把简洁现代的界面和机构级数据结合起来，有超过二十年的财务报表，还有我非常喜欢深入研究的公司特定板块和关键指标。
It pairs a clean modern interface with institutional grade data, over twenty years of financial statements, plus company specific segments and KPIs that I love digging into.
你想看优步的总预订量吗？
You want Uber's gross bookings?
那里就有。
It's there.
你想看Kaspi的支付量吗？
You wanna see Kaspi's payment volumes?
那里也有。
It's there.
我知道，因为我们在做优步和Kaspi的播客时就用过这些数据。
And I know because we pulled these metrics for our podcasts on Uber and Kaspi.
但新的是，他们刚刚推出了自己的AI连接器。
But what's new is that they've just launched their own AI connector.
这意味着你可以把所有这些数据——二十年的财务数据、财报电话会议记录、基金信函、新闻、文件等等——直接接入Cloud、ChatGPT，或者你用来做投资研究的任何AI工具。
What that means is you can plug all of that data, twenty years of financials, earnings call transcripts, fund letters, news, filings, and much more directly into Cloud, ChatGPT, or whatever AI you use for investment research.
所以你的AI用的是来自源头、机构级别的数据。
So your AI is working from institutional quality data straight from the source.
无论你是想要一个功能强大的现成股票研究终端，还是想用数据连接器来增强你的AI，都可以通过我们的链接fiscal.aitivp享受15%的折扣。
Whether you want a powerful out of the box stock research terminal or a data connector to supercharge your AI, use our link fiscal.aitivp to get 15% off.
再说一次，网址是fiscal.ai/tivp，你也会在节目笔记里找到这个链接。
Again, that's fiscal.ai/tivp, and you'll find the link in the show notes as well.
嘿，大家好。
Hey, folks.
这里有个简短但令人兴奋的更新。
Quick but exciting update here.
9月19日星期六，Daniel、Kyle和我将在纽约市举办内在价值大会。
On Saturday, September 19, Daniel, Kyle, and myself will be hosting the Intrinsic Value Conference, New York City.
这将是曼哈顿中城一整天关于价值投资的演讲、股票推介和小组讨论，也是我们9月18日至20日周末活动的一部分，我们希望把它办成类似Value X和TED演讲的结合体。
This will be a full day of value investing talks, stock pitches, and panels in Midtown Manhattan as part of a bigger weekend with our Mastermind Community from September 18 through the twentieth, and we're hoping to make it something like Value X and TED Talks combined.
所以，我们大师圈社区的成员，无论是核心圈还是内在价值大师圈，作为会员的一部分，都可以免费预留大会的座位，另外还有周五和周六晚上的私人社区晚宴，以及周日早餐。
And so members of our Mastermind Community, both the Inner Circle and our Intrinsic Value Mastermind, will have spots reserved at the conference as part of their membership for free, plus private community dinners on Friday and Saturday night, and breakfast on Sunday.
对于其他人来说，如果你感兴趣，有两种方式可以加入我们。
And for everyone else, there's two ways you can join us if you're interested.
普通门票可以让你完全参加大会本身，包括Kyle的股票推介演讲，以及我和Daniel一起做的内在价值投资组合，还有我们接下来几周会公布的嘉宾演讲者。
A general admission ticket gets you full access to the conference itself, a stock pitch presentation from Kyle and an Intrinsic Value Portfolio with Daniel and me, plus guest speakers that we'll be announcing in the coming weeks.
或者，如果你想要完整体验，我们的VIP门票套餐可以让你全天参加大会，还能参加我们周六晚上与William Green以及我们核心圈子的其他成员一起的独家晚宴，那肯定会是我们今年举办的最特别的夜晚之一。
Or if you want the full experience, our VIP ticket package that gets you all day conference access plus a seat at our Saturday night exclusive dinner with William Green and the rest of our inner circle community, and it will definitely be one of the more special evenings we host all year.
如果你一直想在世界金融之都跟认真的投资者一起度过一个周末，聊聊天，那就是这个机会了。
If you've ever wanted to spend a weekend talking shop with serious investors in the financial capital of the world, this is it.
门票和完整议程请访问theintrinsicvalueconference.com。
Find tickets and the full agenda at theintrinsicvalueconference.com.
如果你更想以会员身份加入我们，把大会和整个周末都包括在内，请申请加入Intrinsic Value Mastermind，网址是theinvestorspodcast.com/mastermindapplication。
And if you'd rather join us as a member and get the conference plus the full weekend included, apply to the Intrinsic Value Mastermind at theinvestorspodcast.com/mastermindapplication.
所有链接都在下面的节目说明里。
All the links are in the show notes below.
希望能在纽约见到你。
Hope to see you in New York.
你的收件箱有多少次跟着你回家，你合上笔记本电脑，坐下来吃晚饭，却还有那封你一直拖延的邮件，那个你得往回翻三周才能搞明白的邮件线程？
How many times has your inbox followed you home, you close a laptop, sit down to dinner, and there's still that one email you've been putting off, the thread you'd have to scroll back three weeks to even make sense of?
这正是我用Superhuman Mail的原因。
That is exactly what I use Superhuman Mail for.
它是有史以来最高效的邮件应用，而且是Superhuman生产力套件的一部分，可以直接在你已经使用的工具和网站中运行。
It is the most productive email app ever made, and it's part of the Superhuman Productivity Suite, which works right inside the tools and sites you already use.
所以AI会主动来找你。
So the AI comes to you.
你不需要再打开另一个标签页，重新解释一遍自己。
You're not opening another tab and re explaining yourself.
我经常依赖两件事：用AI提问，而不是翻看冗长的邮件线程。
Two things I lean on constantly, ask AI instead of digging through a long thread.
我只要问一下，几秒钟内就能得到我需要的细节，然后在移动应用上用语音写作。
I just ask and the details I need come back in seconds, and then write with voice on the mobile app.
我大声说出我的想法，它就会变成一封措辞得体、听起来像我自己的邮件。
I say what I mean out loud, and it comes back as a polished route that actually sounds like me.
我能在还没离开车道前就处理完一封回复，而不会又陷入工作状态。
I can clear a reply before I've left the driveway without getting pulled back into work mode.
更少的干扰，更好的日常，更多属于你的夜晚时间。
Less friction, better routine, more of your evening back.
从收件箱里抽身，回到真正重要的事情上。
Get out of your inbox and back to what matters.
通过我的链接注册，就能免费获得一个月的Superhuman Mail，链接是superhuman.com/tivp。
Sign up and get one month of Superhuman mail free with my link, superhuman.com/tivp.
现实是，并不是所有类型的搜索都有同等的价值。
The reality is that all types of searches are not equally valuable.
有些问题带有很高的商业价值，比如询问你所在城市最好的意大利餐厅，或者查看运动鞋的产品评价。
So some questions have lots of commercial value, like maybe asking for the best Italian restaurants in your city or for product reviews of sneakers.
但其他一些搜索，从广告的角度来看，确实无法变现。
But other searches really are not monetizable from an advertising perspective.
比如，我和Claude以及Chad Grieve D的对话，在研究这些节目内容时，内容非常技术性和小众，它们并不直接关联到我在寻找购买信息或消费意图，因此很难与广告产生联系。
And so the conversations that I'm having with Claude and and Chad Grieve D, for example, I mean, when researching these episodes, it's very technical and niche, and They don't directly relate to me looking for information about some purchase or spending that I'm hoping to do that would anchor them into having an advertising connection.
如果没有付费订阅，广告商可以付费在那些大语言模型对话中投放广告，我可能会看到，但跟谷歌搜索相比，这真的不是一个好模式，因为你没有同样规模的精准定位。
An advertiser could pay to put up a billboard that I might see during one of those LLM conversations if I didn't have a paid subscription, but it's really just not a great model compared to Google Search because you don't have the same targeting at scale.
一家意大利餐厅可以付费，让你在谷歌搜索“附近的餐厅”时，它成为你所在城市的第一个结果。
An Italian restaurant can pay to be the very first result that shows up in your town when you Google restaurants near me.
这是非常有价值的数字广告位，因为它与可能发生的真实经济活动挂钩，比如你出门去餐厅点餐。
And that's very valuable digital real estate because it's linked to real economic activity that may happen, like you going out in the world and ordering food at a restaurant.
而像我说的，这些与大语言模型的更抽象的对话，对广告商来说真的没什么吸引力，因为他们有很多更好的选择来更精准地定位理想客户，无论是通过谷歌搜索、脸书、亚马逊还是红迪，等等。
Whereas, like I said, these more abstract conversations with LLMs are really not particularly appealing to advertisers who have lots of better options for more accurately targeting their ideal customer, whether that be via Google search or Facebook, Amazon or Reddit, whatever it is.
他们手头有大量工具。
They have tons of tools at their disposal.
我不想让人觉得大语言模型客观上不是做精准广告的好方式，但我们确实需要放在背景下看，它们跟谷歌搜索相比到底有多强，以及有哪些局限。
And I don't wanna make it sound like LLMs are objectively not a good way to do targeted advertising, but we certainly have to put into context just how well they can stack up against something like Google Search and what the limitations are.
再看看Alphabet的搜索增长，主要来自两个领域。
And looking at the growth in search for Alphabet, it's kinda come from two main areas.
一个是AI概览，一个是AI模式。
So we got AI overviews and AI mode.
我刚才说的那种找非常简单问题答案的情况，正是这个意思。
So when I was just speaking there about finding answers to very, very simple questions, this is exactly kinda what I'm talking about.
虽然我听说谷歌的Gemini 3.5不如Claude或ChatGPT，但我实际用下来发现答案质量差不多，只是回复速度快很多。
And while I've heard that Google's model Gemini three and a half isn't as good as Claude or ChatGPT, I've actually found the answers to be a pretty equal quality, just delivered in a much shorter time.
但当我想到AI概览和AI模式的使用时，我脑子里还是会想谷歌怎么靠这个赚钱，因为不像ChatGPT或Claude的付费订阅，我用这些服务时谷歌一分钱都没从我这赚到。
But when I think about the use of AI overviews and AI mode, my mind still wanders to just how Google makes money from this because unlike a premium subscription to Chatty, Vittier, Claude, Google isn't getting any money from me when I use these services.
所以，我就一直往下深挖，结果发现了一些很有意思的东西。
So, you know, I just kept going down the rabbit hole and I found some very interesting things.
首先，我觉得谷歌可能最擅长把搜索的变现和AI结合起来。
First, I think Google has probably done the best job of meshing the monetization of search with AI.
我记得ChatGPT刚出来的时候，我挺惊讶的，他们居然不展示任何广告，你知道吗。
So I remember when ChatGPT came out, I was just kind of amazed that they just weren't showing ads of some sort, you know.
我觉得谷歌在这方面做得非常好。
Google, I think, figured that out very, very well.
所以，当你在谷歌上搜索某个问题时，你会得到一个AI概览。
So whenever you do a Google query for some sort of question, you'll get an AI overview.
谷歌会在AI概览的上方或下方显示广告，也会直接在AI概览里面放广告。
Google has ads that will show above or below the AI overview, as well as just inside of the AI overview.
AI概览里放广告的好处是，企业可以根据你刚才说的那种非传统搜索路径来精准定位客户，肖恩。
Now, the benefits of the ad inside the AI overview are that the businesses can target customers to what you were just talking about, Shawn, using kind of these non traditional paths during search.
如果有人想用AI模式深入提问，那么广告就能更好地作为下一步的清晰指引，帮助用户找到解决方案。
If someone wants to use the AI mode to deepen their questions, then ads can be better placed to be the clear next step in trying to figure out that solution.
这其实是对他们现有搜索界面的一个补充，和ChatGPT那种模式形成对比。
And that exists as a compliment to their existing search interface in contrast to something like ChatGPT.
而且凭借谷歌的流量分发优势，这基本上是稳赢的局面，因为他们可以立刻把AI模式推给超过十亿的月活用户，从而收集更多关于消费者如何使用AI购物等行为的数据，这对广告主来说显然是非常非常有帮助的。
And with Google's distribution advantage, it's sort of their game to lose because they could immediately just roll out AI mode to over a billion monthly active users, allowing them to collect even more data on how consumers are using AI for things like shopping, which obviously is a great, great help for advertisers.
实际上，在最近的财报电话会议上，Alphabet的CEO桑达尔·皮查伊特别强调了这一策略的成功。
And actually on the latest earnings call, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai really focused on just how successful this has been.
他指出，谷歌每周通过搜索中嵌入的AI功能，向网站发送数十亿次点击。
He noted that Google is actually sending billions of clicks to websites each week from the AI features embedded in search.
对我来说，这很好地反驳了那些看空者的担忧——他们担心AI回答会让用户不再需要访问底层网站，导致大量出版商被困在与谷歌的剥削性关系中：网站内容被抓取来生成搜索结果顶部的AI概览，但出版商却失去了那部分不再需要访问底层网站的流量。
To me, that's a pretty strong counter argument to the bearish fears that AI answers would make it unnecessary to visit underlying websites, then therefore you'd have all these stranded publishers trapped in a sort of exploitive relationship with Google where their sites are being scraped to feed answers into AI overviews at the top of the search results, but they're losing out on a chunk of that traffic that no longer needs to go to the underlying website.
某种程度上，这确实是个真实存在的现象，但我觉得它的规模可能被夸大了。
Mean, to some extent that is a real phenomenon, but the scale of which I think could be exaggerated.
另外，我可能还想提一下成本方面的问题。
And so the other detail I would probably flag is the cost side.
他们大幅降低了在AI模式下生成回答、解决查询的成本，已经降到了推出以来的最低水平，这非常令人鼓舞。
They've dramatically reduced the cost of what it takes for them to generate a response in AI mode to solve a query down to the lowest level since their launch, and that's very promising.
确实如此。
It is.
我从你那里了解到的关于Alphabet的最令人惊讶的事情之一，就是大多数搜索基本上都不带任何广告。
And one of the most surprising things I learned from you about Alphabet is that the majority of searches basically carry no ads at all.
你提到，根据谷歌2020年的数据，只有大约20%的搜索带有广告。
So you mentioned that only about 20% of searches have ads accorded data from Google in 2020.
最近，谷歌搜索副总裁在一个播客中确认，目前仍然只有不到25%的搜索带有广告。
And more recently, Google's vice president of search went on a podcast and confirmed that less than 25 percentages have ads still.
所以谷歌花了很长时间来研究，在不流失用户、不惹恼用户的情况下，到底能展示多少广告。
So Google has spent a long time just learning how many ads it can show without losing users and bothering people or pissing them off.
所以我觉得，利用AI摘要和AI模式，谷歌就能继续把这些发现用到更远的未来。
So I think it seems like using AI summaries and AI mode will just help them to continue to leverage these findings longer into the future.
不过，还有一个我最初看Alphabet时没想到的转折，因为当时还不清楚苹果会在AI竞赛中采取更被动的姿态，选择其他公司的模型。
Well, there's also another twist that I didn't anticipate when I first looked at Alphabet because it wasn't clear yet that Apple would take a more passive role in the AI race and choose these other companies' models.
但背景是，一月份苹果宣布每年向谷歌支付约10亿美元，以获得Gemini底层技术的使用权，用来驱动Siri，持续几年。
But for context, in January, Apple announced that it would pay Google something about $1,000,000,000 per year for access to the technology that underlies Gemini to use that to power Siri for the next few years.
这也意味着苹果会更加依赖谷歌云。
And what that also means is that Apple is going to rely more on Google Cloud too.
所以，显然，每年10亿美元的现金对Alphabet的利润来说不算什么，虽然这么说有点疯狂。
And so, obviously, that $1,000,000,000 in cash annually is not material to Alphabet's bottom line as crazy as that is to say.
但我觉得，这揭示了苹果的AI策略，也显示了两家公司正以不同方式变得更加紧密相连。
But I I think it's revealing in what it shows about Apple's AI strategy and also in how the two companies are becoming even more intertwined and in different ways.
我觉得这对谷歌来说是个相当令人印象深刻的转变。
I would say it's a pretty impressive turn of event for Google.
说到云服务，那可能是整个公司目前最令人印象深刻、最激动人心的部分了。
And speaking of cloud, that's maybe the most impressive and exciting part of the entire company right now.
所以，云部门最近实现了正营业收入的转折，这表明虽然增长迅猛，但Alphabet实际上能从这个部门赚到真金白银，因为他们在云业务上几乎整个发展过程中都在亏损，他们一直在努力从亚马逊和微软那里抢占市场份额。
So the cloud division recently inflected into earning positive operating income showing that while growth has been off the charts, this is actually a segment that Alphabet can make real money on because they actually lost money on cloud for nearly its entire existence that they scaled it, and they've tried to take share from Amazon and Microsoft.
我们说的是去年云业务收入580亿美元，营业利润率24%。
We're talking about $58,000,000,000 in cloud revenue last year at a 24% operating profit margin.
这些都是巨大的数字，但更有前景的是，与亚马逊相比，Alphabet的云业务去年的盈利能力大约是亚马逊的三分之二。
And so these are huge numbers, but what's even more promising is that compared to Amazon, Alphabet's cloud business was about two thirds as profitable last year.
这听起来可能不一定是好事。
And that doesn't necessarily sound like a good thing at face value.
但亚马逊在云领域已经比Alphabet多运营了两年。
But Amazon has been operating in the cloud space for two years longer than Alphabet.
两年可能看起来也不长，但在尖端科技领域，这段时间意义重大。
And that may not seem long either, but that is a meaningful amount of time in cutting edge tech.
而且亚马逊的云收入大约是Alphabet的两倍，关键是，我们可以把亚马逊AWS的盈利能力看作是谷歌云未来可能达到的近似水平的指标。
And then it also does about twice as much in revenue with the point being that we can actually look to Amazon's profitability with AWS as perhaps an indicator of what Google Cloud may be able to approximately accomplish.
这是我去年第一次研究这家公司时经常讨论的一点。
That was something that I really talked a lot about when I first looked at the company last year.
从这个角度看，谷歌云在过去十年里以每年40%的速度增长，收入增长非常惊人。
So through that lens, Google Cloud is a business that's been compounding revenues at these impressive rates, 40% a year over the last decade.
而且，实际上，随着利润率扩大，未来营业收入的增长应该会比收入增长更有杠杆效应。
And, actually, operating income growth should be more leveraged than revenue growth going forward as margins expand.
这基本上就是在收入增长的基础上，再放大盈利增长。
That's basically an amplifier of earnings growth on top of the revenue growth that you get.
所以最疯狂的是，我甚至低估了谷歌云的增长。
And so the crazy thing is that if anything, I actually underestimated Google Cloud's growth.
事实上，今年第一和第二季度，云业务同比增长了63%和82%。
And so actually, the first and second quarters of this year, Cloud grew at a rate of 63% and then 82% year over year.
如果按第二季度的收入年化计算，那运行率在1000亿美元左右，这比去年初翻了一番。
And if we annualize their second quarter revenue, that run rate on that is in the $100,000,000,000 range, and that would be a double from where they were early last year.
而且，谷歌云的盈利能力比预期提前了好几年实现。
And so on top of that, Google Cloud's profitability is coming in just years ahead of schedule.
他们上个季度的利润率接近36%，这使得他们从2025年AWS盈利能力的2/3，变成了与亚马逊2025年云盈利能力持平。
And so their margins last quarter were nearly 36%, which moves them from being two thirds as profitable as AWS was in 2025 to being on par with Amazon's 2025 cloud profitability.
所以，你看，在很短的时间内，我觉得我们看到谷歌云从只是AWS的次要竞争对手，变成了几乎和它平起平坐。
So, you know, in pretty short order, I think we've seen Google Cloud go from being just secondary competitor with AWS to really being almost on the same level.
所以，你知道，也许这个行业会形成某种寡头垄断，至少在北美是这样。
So, you know, perhaps this is an industry where it will be somewhat of an oligopoly, at least in North America.
但是，你知道，谷歌现在增长得比AWS还快。
But, you know, Google is growing even faster than AWS is right now.
所以，接下来几年这场竞争会怎么发展，会很有意思。
So it's gonna be interesting to see how that battle plays out over the next few years.
不过，我们其实有一些线索，能看出谷歌云未来几年的收入会具体来自哪里，因为Alphabet给我们提供了一个非常重要的数据。
But we actually do have some clues as to where revenue is gonna show up specifically for Google Cloud in the next few years because Alphabet gives us a very, very important figure.
对。
Yes.
这个数据就是积压订单。
That figure is the backlog.
我猜你也是这么想的。
I figured that's what you're assuming too.
Alphabet还有超过五千亿美元的剩余履约义务。
Alphabet has more than $500,000,000,000 of remaining performance obligations.
这其实就是他们云业务积压订单的另一种说法。
That's another way to say backlog for their cloud segment.
如果不太了解积压订单是什么意思，它指的是Alphabet和客户签下的未来交易合同，但工作还没完成。
And so for those unfamiliar with what backlog means, it reflects the contracts Alphabet has signed with customers for future deals where the work has not yet been delivered.
所以这些收入还没出现在财务报表上，但我们很有把握这些订单会在未来带来收入。
And so therefore, the revenue has not shown up yet on their financial statements, but we know with fairly high confidence that it will come in the future thanks to these order requests.
这有点像面包店可能接到一堆明年婚礼蛋糕的订单。
And so it'd be sort of like a bakery maybe having a a bunch of orders for wedding cakes next year.
他们还没收到钱，蛋糕也还没交付。
They haven't been paid for those yet, and they haven't delivered the cakes yet either.
除非婚礼取消，否则这些生意肯定会来。
And unless the weddings are canceled, that business will come through.
所以这也许可以粗略地理解Alphabet的订单积压情况。
And so maybe that's a crude proxy for how to think about Alphabet's order backlog.
再给你举个例子，让你感受一下这个增长有多快，谷歌的云积压订单去年第二季度是1060亿美元。
And and just to give you an idea of of how fast this is growing, Google's cloud backlog was a $106,000,000,000 in q two of last year.
所以，大约十二个月内，积压订单增长了五倍。
So we're talking about five times growth in the order backlog in about twelve months.
凯尔，这简直太离谱了。
I mean, that is that's just absurd, Kyle.
确实如此，肖恩。
It really is, Shawn.
那我们来从另一个角度看这个问题。
So just to take the other side of this argument.
我和肖恩之前聊到Comfort Systems的时候，我提到过我个人对过度依赖积压订单数据不是特别热衷，因为我在其他业务中见过收入确认的问题。
So when Shawn and I were talking about Comfort Systems, I mentioned that I personally am not the craziest about taking too much data from backlogs simply because of the revenue recognition issues that I've seen before in other businesses.
比如，积压订单可能在一两年内才能实现。
So an example of that would be where backlog might be realized in let's say a year or two.
然后你可能会试着推算，好吧，这些积压订单中有多少能真正转化为实际收入？
And then maybe you try to extrapolate, okay, well, how much of that backlog is gonna turn to real revenue?
然后你就可以大致推算出那个数字了。
And then you can kind of back into a number.
但就我个人经验来说，我这么做的时候确实遇到过一些麻烦。
But from my personal experience, at least I've kind of gotten into a little bit of trouble doing that.
但在Alphabet的案例中，云收入在增长的同时积压订单也在增加，这仍然是一个非常强劲的信号。
But in Alphabet's case, the fact that cloud revenue is exploding while the backlog grows is still a very strong signal.
Alphabet表示，他们预计未来两年云收入将增长约50%。
Alphabet says they expect about 50% of cloud revenue growth over the next two years.
所以未来一年还会有大约1300亿美元的增长，这比目前的运行率所显示的要高。
So that's another 130,000,000,000 or so over the next year, which would be higher than the current run rate is showing.
然后你还要考虑到，对谷歌云产品的需求似乎并没有消失。
Then you have to layer on the fact that the demand for Google Cloud's products doesn't appear to be going away.
他们在这个业务领域投入如此巨大，这很好地表明Alphabet相信他们的云服务需求会随着时间不断增长。
The fact that they're investing so heavily into that area of their business is a pretty good suggestion that Alphabet believes that the demand for their cloud services is just improving with time.
我在最初推荐Alphabet时可能遗漏的另一件事是，这些需求中有很大一部分来自他们的计算机芯片。
The other thing I probably missed in my original pitch for Alphabet is where a chunk of this demand was coming from, and that's specifically for their computer chips.
所以谷歌自己设计AI处理器，叫做张量处理单元，也就是TPU，而且他们已经做到第七代了。
And so Google designs its own AI processors called tensor processing units or TPUs, and they're already on their seventh generation of the technology.
在TPU的大部分历史里，它们主要是作为谷歌内部的成本节省工具来用的。
And so for much of TPU history, they were used as an internal cost saving tool, specifically for Google.
这样一来，他们就不用从英伟达买芯片了，或者至少减少了对英伟达的依赖。
And so that has allowed them to bypass buying chips from NVIDIA or or to at least reduce their dependency on NVIDIA.
但是因为TPU被证明很成功，所以有一些特定的公司其实已经有机会直接从谷歌购买TPU了。
But since the TPU has proven successful, you've had select companies that have actually been offered the opportunity to purchase Google's TPUs outright from them.
你刚才提到的TPU卖给其他公司这一点，我觉得其实有助于分散积压订单，因为如果我要挑刺的话，积压订单里的集中度对我来说不是特别理想，尤其是对谷歌来说。
And so that point that you just made about the TPUs going to other companies, I think actually kind of helps with diversifying the backlog because it's actually the concentration inside of that backlog that if I'm nitpicking, isn't really my favorite setup specifically for Google.
所以，你知道，如果让我在两种积压订单里选，一种是客户基础多样化，没有一个客户占总积压订单的10%以上，另一种是只有几个关键客户，比如一个客户就占了50%的积压订单，那我肯定选前者。
So, you know, if I had to choose between a backlog with a diverse customer base where no one customer is making up more than 10%, let's say of the total backlog, I take that any day over a backlog that only has a few key customers where let's say one customer is making up 50% of that backlog.
现在很难确切知道谷歌云积压订单的结构是什么样的。
Now it's impossible to say exactly what the structure of Google Cloud's backlog looks like.
很可能非常集中，因为他们刚宣布和Anthropic签了一个五年2000亿美元的合同，让他们使用谷歌云。
It's likely very concentrated given that they just announced a five year $200,000,000,000 deal with Anthropic to use Google Cloud.
所以这意味着Anthropic大约占了那个积压订单的40%。
So that implies that Anthropic makes up somewhere around 40% of that backlog.
所以，别误会我的意思。
So, you know, don't get me wrong.
你知道，云积压订单增长确实惊人，但这也带来了客户集中度的权衡，比如说，万一Anthropic出了什么事。
You know, cloud backlog growth is incredible, but it comes with this trade off in customer concentration where, you know, let's say something were to happen to Anthropic.
比如说他们的业务下滑，毕竟他们还在AI这个新兴行业的早期阶段。
Let's say their business falls off since, you know, after all, they're still in the very early innings of AI as an emerging industry.
如果发生那样的事情，那很多积压订单的增长就会像马修·麦康纳在《华尔街之狼》里说的那样，看起来有点假。
And so if an event like that were to happen, well then a lot of that backlog growth would just appear to be kind of Fugazi to quote Matthew McConaughey from The Wolf of Wall Street.
嗯，那部电影很棒，那句台词也很经典。
Well, it's a great movie and a great quote.
而且，继续用之前的烘焙比喻，如果一个客户占了你的婚礼蛋糕积压订单价值的40%，那确实很让人担心。
And, to keep using that bakery metaphor from before, if one customer made up 40% of the value of your wedding cake backlog, that would be very concerning.
这是个极端的例子，因为Anthropic现在正朝着数万亿美元的IPO迈进，而且会筹集大量新资金。
It's an extreme example because Anthropic is right now on path to do a multi trillion dollar IPO and will be raising lots of fresh capital.
展开剩余字幕（还有 397 条）
他们短期内不会消失，但理想情况下，你最大的客户不应该在烧掉数十亿美元的同时，还占你积压订单这么大比例。
It's not like they're going anywhere anytime soon, but ideally, your biggest customer would not be burning billions in cash while making up such a hefty percentage of your backlog.
不过，如果我们能换个话题，聊聊公司里另一个我也觉得很有前景的部分，虽然它不像云业务那么惊艳，那就是谷歌的订阅业务。
But if we can pivot to highlighting a part of the company that I I have found to also be very promising, even if it's not as breathtaking as the cloud business, that would be the Google subscription segment.
基本上，谷歌在Google One这类付费订阅之上，还收取各种许可和广告费用，比如你可以用Google One增加Google Drive和Gmail的存储空间。
And so, basically, Google has a bunch of different licensing and advertising fees that it earns on top of paid subscriptions like Google One that allow you to, for example, increase your storage space on on Google Drive and and in Gmail.
所以我觉得，大多数人想到平台时，可能会想到像苹果这样的公司，它可以说是全球最优秀的平台公司之一。
So I think when most people think of a platform, they might think of a business like Apple, which is arguably one of the best platform companies on the entire planet.
但谷歌的订阅业务是一个非常非常强劲的板块，我个人也经常使用。
But Google subscriptions are a very, very strong segment, and I use it very heavily personally.
当你使用Drive或Gmail时，随着文件和邮件不断积累，某天你可能会收到通知说，你的存储空间快满了。
So when you're using something like Drive or Gmail and your files and emails accumulate, one day you might get a notification saying, okay, well, you're running out of space.
这时候你有几个选择。
So you have a couple of options here.
你可以删除一些东西，这当然可以，我以前也这么干过。
You can delete things, which you can certainly do, but I've done it before.
相信我，这很费时间，而且很麻烦。
And believe me, it's time consuming and offers a lot of friction.
或者你可以走捷径，就是多付点钱给谷歌，买那个空间，以后还能继续用。
Or you could just take the simple route, which is to just pay Google a little more money for that space that you can fill up again into the future.
再比如，YouTube也是一个例子。
So, you know, another example would be YouTube.
如果你厌倦了看广告，那你可以买YouTube Premium，就能去掉广告，还能离线下载和后台播放。
You know, if you're sick of watching ads, well, then you can purchase YouTube premium and just do away with ads while also being able to do offline downloads and background playback.
我个人挺喜欢后台播放的，比如我可以一边看视频一边回短信。
I personally like the background playback a bit as it allows me to watch content while answering text messages, for instance.
订阅业务的好处是，这些服务的价格都不高。
And the cool part about the subscription business is that they're all relatively low priced.
所以说到转换成本，通常低到你都懒得去考虑取消或换服务。
So when you think of switching costs, they're generally low enough where you just don't really give it that much thought when you think about canceling or switching.
然而，这个业务在2026年上半年为Alphabet带来了超过250亿美元的收入。
And yet this business generated over 25,000,000,000 in revenue for Alphabet in the first half of twenty twenty six.
多年以来我一直抗拒为YouTube付费，因为我已经习惯了它一直免费提供。丹尼尔最终说服了我，让我觉得为高级版付费和为Netflix这样的其他流媒体服务付费没什么两样。
After years of resisting paying for YouTube because I had just gotten accustomed to it always being available for free, Daniel actually finally convinced me to see paying for premium as not being so different from maybe paying for any other streaming service like Netflix.
所以我现在是YouTube Premium的骄傲用户，而且我选择了稍微便宜一点的方案，不包括YouTube Music。
So I'm now a proud YouTube Premium user, and I actually opted for the slightly cheaper plan that doesn't include YouTube Music.
我不知道大多数人是否知道这个选项，但我们在几个月前的Spotify那期节目里聊过这个。
I don't know if most people know whether that's available, but we talked about that in our Spotify episode from a few months ago.
但我用的是Spotify，所以我不需要为音乐流媒体付两次钱。
But I use Spotify instead, so I don't need to pay for music streaming twice.
YouTube现在实际上是全球最大的流媒体服务，而且他们为平台上最热门的内容支付的费用远低于Netflix，后者要么自己制作热门剧集，要么支付高额许可费。
YouTube is now effectively the largest streaming service on the planet where they also pay much less for the most popular content on their platform than, say, maybe Netflix, where they either have to make the hit shows themselves, produce it themselves, or pay a premium to license them.
所以YouTube规模更大，可能也更赚钱，因为它的盈利模式是广告和付费订阅双管齐下。
And so YouTube is bigger and probably more profitable inherently with monetization being split across ads and paid subscriptions.
YouTube广告的增长远没有其他业务领域那么爆炸性，但我认为要发展这部分业务也不需要太多投入。
And so YouTube ads are seeing nowhere near the explosive growth that other areas of the business are, but I don't think it requires much spending to grow this part of the business either.
所以只要YouTube吸引更多内容创作者，进而吸引更多用户，就会源源不断地有广告受众。
So as long as YouTube attracts more content creators, that in turn attracts more users, there'll be a steady stream of people to advertise to.
所以这就是YouTube商业模式背后飞轮效应的真正美妙之处。
And so that's really the beauty of the flywheel behind that YouTube business model.
相信我，我们可没拿Alphabet的钱来推销他们的产品，但我确实注意到他们在让PowerPoint制作更快更简洁方面的能力，这真的对提升演示质量和加快准备速度帮助很大。
Now believe me, we aren't being paid by Alphabet to push any of their products here, but I've even noticed their ability in making things like PowerPoints faster and cleaner, and that's really, really helped with just giving better presentations and preparing them in a quicker manner.
所以，你知道，我能轻松创建模板、快速编辑、随便放几张图片，听起来很简单，但真的帮我省了很多时间，也让我优化了工作流程。
So, you know, the fact that I could just create a template and edit it easily and just get some images up sounds simple, but it really saves me a lot of time and helps me just to optimize my work processes.
然后回到你刚才提到的YouTube，我喜欢YouTube的地方就在于它的商业模式。
And then kind of touching to your point on YouTube there, the thing I love about YouTube is just how the business model works.
你知道，它不像Netflix或Disney+那样，花几十亿美元去制作内容。
You know, it's not like Netflix or Disney plus, which they're spending billions of dollars to create that content.
YouTube基本上是让内容创作者自己搞定几乎所有内容。
YouTube has basically empowered its own content creators to handle almost all of that on their own.
然后，是的，没错。
And then yes, okay.
他们确实会分给创作者大约55%的广告收入，但我觉得这真的是一个非常精简高效的商业模式。
They do pay them about a 55% spread on that advertising revenue, but I think it's just a really, really good lean business model.
就像你说的，YouTube不需要电影制片厂这类东西。
And as you said, YouTube doesn't need things like movie studios.
他们不需要找资金来融资。
They don't need to find capital to finance.
他们不需要制作内容。
They don't need to produce.
他们不需要购买电影或剧集的版权。
They don't need to license movies or series.
这真的很酷。
It's it's pretty cool.
而且如果你把YouTube和像Netflix这样的公开市场同类公司比较，你知道，那些公司大概以销售额的七倍左右交易，那YouTube的价值大约是三千亿美元。说实话，可能还更多，也许高达五千亿美元。
And if you look at YouTube versus public market comps like Netflix, you know, which trade out somewhere around seven times sales, that makes YouTube worth something like $300,000,000,000 And honestly, probably a lot more, maybe as much as 500,000,000,000.
所以当你把这一切放在一起看，对于最初十七亿美元的投资来说，这已经很不错了。
So when you put that all into context, that's not too bad for an initial $1,700,000,000 investment.
对。
No.
一点都不差。
Not not bad at all.
而且YouTube现在也在测试一个新功能，叫做“问问YouTube”。
And and YouTube is now also testing out a new feature called Ask YouTube.
它利用谷歌的Gemini模型，让人们可以针对单个视频提问。
And so it uses Google's Gemini models to let people ask questions about individual videos.
我觉得这个想法就是让你能快速得到一些要点，或者帮你找到视频中最相关的部分，更快地筛选视频内容。
I guess the idea being you get some fast maybe takeaways or you can use it to help you find the most relevant moments in a video, be able to filter through the video more quickly.
我确实觉得这是个挺有意思的增值点。
I actually think that is a pretty interesting value add.
桑达尔·皮查伊提到，仅今年六月，就有超过一亿四千万人使用了这项服务。
And so Sundar Pichai noted that more than a hundred hundred and forty million people have used that service in June of this year alone.
这显然不会直接带来收入，但理论上能提升用户体验。
And so that doesn't obviously drive revenue directly, in theory, it makes the user experience better.
也许人们会在YouTube上花更多时间，这样就能通过播放更多广告来提高变现能力，而且这正好说明了这些AI投资如何能改善整个业务，而不仅仅是直接归因于AI的部分，比如有人每月花几十美元订阅Gemini。
Maybe people spend more time on the YouTube platform, So that increases monetization by allowing them to run more ads and, really just illustrates the rationale behind how some of these AI investments can improve the entire business beyond what's just obviously directly attributable to AI where somebody's paying, you know, x dollars a month for a Gemini subscription.
好的。
Alright.
那我们聊聊Alphabet最大的押注之一，Waymo，我知道肖恩对它很有看法。
Well, let's talk here about one of Alphabet's biggest moonshot bets, Waymo, which I know Shawn has pretty strong feelings of.
在你最初的节目里，你提到Waymo刚以约500亿美元的估值融资，这实际上比早先约2000亿美元的估值低了不少。
So in your original episode, you noted that Waymo just raised money at an evaluation of about $50,000,000,000, which was actually down considerably from an earlier estimate about $200,000,000,000.
但看起来Waymo的价值其实在上升，今年2月的最新一轮融资中，它的估值接近1300亿美元。
But it actually appears Waymo is increasing in value as it's valued at nearly 130,000,000,000 in its last funding round in February of this year.
所以Alphabet的这个部分，曾经可能被视为一个零头，虽然有很多可能性，但在一年半内价值几乎翻了三倍。
So this piece of Alphabet, which at one point could have been seen as, you know, just a rounding error, albeit with a lot of optionality has nearly tripled in value over a year and a half.
我知道你更看好Uber而不是Waymo，至少在商业模式上是这样，但Waymo确实有一些相当扎实的基本面。
Now I know that you prefer Uber to Waymo, at least in terms of business models, but Waymo definitely has some pretty strong fundamentals.
他们已经完成了1.27亿英里的完全自动驾驶，并且报告显示，在同样的里程下，严重受伤事故比人类司机少了90%。
They've now driven a 127,000,000 fully autonomous miles and are reporting 90% fewer serious injury related crashes versus human drivers on that exact same mileage.
他们在2025年完成了5000万次出行，是2024年的三倍，目前每周大约运行50万次出行，目标是到年底达到每周100万次。
They did 50,000,000 rides in 2025, three times as in 2024, and they're currently running about 500,000 rides a week with a target of a million rides by the end of the year.
所以，如果有谁错过了，我和丹尼尔前两天刚做了一期节目，重新聊了聊优步。
So for anybody who missed it, Daniel and I just did an episode the other day revisiting Uber.
而且，我记得我说过，Waymo和优步估值一样，这挺离谱的。
And, I think I said that it was pretty obscene for Waymo to have the same valuation as Uber.
我的意思是，优步每天要跑几千万单，还能赚几十亿美元的利润，商业模式非常成熟，而且还在快速扩张。
I mean, Uber is doing tens of millions of rides per day and generating billions of dollars in profits with a very proven and quickly scaling business model.
而Waymo还在烧钱阶段，亏得厉害，它的商业模式到底行不行，还没得到验证。
While Waymo is still in the cash burn phase, it's losing a ton of money, and its viability as a business model has not been proven.
这完全是靠想象。
It's entirely speculative.
而且，某种程度上，这也取决于竞争对手能不能在自动驾驶技术上取得突破，从而抵消Waymo可能拥有的先发优势。
And then to some extent, it's also dependent on whether competitors are able to make breakthroughs in AV tech that offset some of the first mover benefits that Waymo may have.
所以，作为Alphabet的股东，如果他们能通过未来Waymo的IPO，部分或全部套现，来利用Waymo的价值，我觉得这对我们来说都是额外的收益。
So as an Alphabet shareholder, to the extent that they can capitalize on Waymo by maybe monetizing their stake partially or fully from a Waymo IPO down the road, I think that's sort of all gravy for us.
作为优步的股东，我得说，我对Waymo能否撑起这个估值，挺怀疑的。
As an Uber shareholder, I would say I'm pretty skeptical of Waymo being able to grow into this valuation.
但客观来说，这技术确实很酷。
But objectively, the technology is really cool.
我在德克萨斯州的奥斯汀亲眼见过。
I saw it for myself in Austin, Texas.
所以真的，让你感觉像是生活在未来。
So it's it's really, makes you feel like you live in the future.
确实如此。
It does.
我还没机会用过，但Alphabet在2015年又下了一个大赌注，花了大约9亿美元投资一家正在成长中的太空公司。
I haven't gotten a chance to use it yet, but Alphabet made another big bet in 2015 for about $900,000,000 in a growing space company.
我敢打赌你能猜到是哪家公司。
Now I bet you can guess what that company was.
我觉得能猜到。
I think so.
我想大多数人都会知道，它刚刚让SpaceX上市了。
I think most people will know that it just IPO ed SpaceX.
就是那家。
That's the one.
所以今天，Alphabet那5%的股份价值950亿美元。
So today, Alphabet's 5% stake is worth $95,000,000,000.
所以，像Waymo和SpaceX这样的业务，Alphabet在其其他投注领域有一些巨大的赢家。
So between businesses like Waymo and SpaceX, Alphabet has some monster winners in its other bet segment.
但是，你知道，我也完全同意你原始研究中的观点，尤其是你指出的，评估Alphabet一些更具投机性的技术投注确实非常困难。
But, you know, I also totally agree with your points from the original research, especially your point that it's just really difficult to evaluate some of Alphabet's more speculative technology bets.
但是，你知道，至少对于像SpaceX这样的业务，我们可以对市场看法有所了解，这或许能为其其他投注（如Waymo）提供更多清晰度。
But, you know, at least with a business like SpaceX, we can get some idea of what the market thinks, which can maybe provide a little more clarity on some of its other bets such as Waymo.
Alphabet有一个部分，我觉得我还没有完全理解，而且我仍然觉得它很吸引人。
There is one part of Alphabet that I don't think I fully wrapped my head around and that I still find fascinating.
公平地说，我认为市场也没有真正理解这一点。
And to be fair, I don't think the market has really wrapped its head around this either.
那就是他们数据中心投资的回报率会是多少。
And that's what the ROI from their data center commitments is going to be.
这就是今天节目里反复出现的问题。
Is the recurring question in today's episode.
所以，如果Alphabet要拿出数千亿美元直接或间接投资数据中心，我觉得现在正是时候去搞清楚这些支出大概能带来什么样的回报，尤其是因为预估的支出规模每个季度都在往上调。
And so if Alphabet is going to part ways with hundreds of billions of dollars to directly and indirectly invest in data centers, I think it's very timely to try and figure out what kind of returns this spending is likely to generate, especially since the magnitude of this estimated spending seems to just get revised higher every quarter.
所以我想说，这更像是在尝试把握一个大方向。
And so I will say maybe it's more of an exercise of trying to be directionally correct.
要理清这个有点复杂，因为数据中心不仅仅是利润中心，比如谷歌云的积压订单，它们也是Alphabet内部的一项重大投资，几乎支撑着整个业务各个方面的生产力。
It's a little complicated to disentangle because the data centers are not only profit centers when we look at Google Cloud's backlog, but they also are a big internal investment inside of Alphabet, helping to power nearly every aspect of the business's overall productivity.
所以我不确定我们能不能得到一个非常清晰的答案，甚至可能根本得不到，但我真的很期待你能试着去算一算。
So I'm not sure that we're gonna get a perfectly clear answer or that it's even possible to get one, but I am really excited for you to kind of take a shot at doing so.
让我来试试。
Let me take a swing.
所以我要强调一下肖恩的提醒，我的答案只是基于经验的猜测，希望是个靠谱的猜测。
So I'll double down on Shawn's warning here that my answer is just an educated guess, and hopefully, it's a decent guess.
所以，第一件事，闭上眼睛想象一下，到底在建什么。
So the first thing I want you to do, close your eyes for a second and imagine what is actually being built.
想象一个没有窗户的盒子，大小相当于大约50个美式足球场。
Imagine a windowless box the size of about 50 American football fields.
这个数据中心有趣的地方在于，它实际上是世界第三大的，而且归谷歌所有。
Now the interesting thing about this data center is that it's actually the third largest in the world, and it's actually owned by Google.
它位于爱荷华州的康瑟尔布拉夫斯，有趣的是，那里离我去年参加伯克希尔·哈撒韦年度股东大会时住的酒店只有几英里远。
And it's actually located in Council Bluffs, Iowa, which funny enough is actually just a few miles away from the hotel that I stayed at in last year's Berkshire Hathaway's Annual General Meeting.
虽然这个设施的规模显然非常非常大，但那还不是最重要的部分。
While the size of this facility is clearly very, very large, that's not even the most important part.
最近的热门话题是数据中心的电力消耗。
What has been a hot topic of late is the electricity usage of data centers.
早在2024年，谷歌数据中心的用电量就几乎相当于整个爱尔兰国家的用电量。
Back in 2024, Google data centers power use nearly equaled the entire country of Ireland.
而如今谷歌的数据量比那时还要大得多。
And Google's data is much more bigger than that today.
这个重新定义问题的角度挺有意思的。
It's a pretty interesting way of reframing things.
与其把这些数据中心看作纯粹的技术设施，我觉得你描述的是它们更像是一种公用事业。
And instead of looking at these data centers as just being a pure technology outlet, I think what you're describing is that they're almost like a utility.
而且很明显，AI数据中心作为公用事业，其能源消耗数字相当惊人。
And clearly, AI data centers as a utility has some pretty massive energy consumption numbers.
确实如此。
They really do.
而且，你知道，我本身对这些投资整体上持相当怀疑的态度。
And, you know, I'm naturally pretty skeptical of these investments overall.
所以我们不妨先从反对谷歌AI数据中心扩张的理由说起，稍后再回到能源消耗这个话题。
So maybe let's start here with the case against Google's AI data center build out, and we'll get back to that energy consumption part shortly here.
我认为毫无疑问，这些投资会给谷歌带来回报，因为谷歌自身业务的运营就需要不断增长的算力。
So I think there's no doubt that the investment will bear fruit for Google as it requires this kind of growing amount of compute power just to operate the business of Google.
更不用说，他们租给其他企业的所有产能显然也在产生回报。
Not to mention that, you know, all the capacity that they're leasing out to other businesses is obviously bearing fruit as well.
但问题在于要弄清楚，谷歌从这些投资中到底能获得什么样的经济效益，以及一旦全部建成后情况会怎样。
But the problem is understanding, okay, well, what kind of economics is Google getting from these investments and once they're all complete?
所以如果我看Alphabet的投入资本回报率，这个数字有点在往不好的方向发展。
So if I'm looking at Alphabet's return on invested capital, that number is kind of trending in the wrong direction.
如果我们看财年。
So if we look here at Fiscal.
AI，我们非常非常喜欢用这个词，在他们最近十二个月里，投入资本回报率现在是公司上市以来第二低的。
AI, which we like to use very, very often in their last twelve months, their returns on invested capital is now the second lowest that it's been since the business went public.
但有趣的是，Alphabet仍然在赚很多钱。
But the interesting part about this equation is that Alphabet is still making a ton of money.
他们的营业利润率实际上还上升了，但资本效率数字下降的原因是投入资本的增加。
Know, their operating profit margin has actually gone up, but the reason their capital efficiency numbers are trending downwards is actually this increase in invested capital.
考虑到谷歌今年的资本支出估计是2023年的六倍，我想那些资本带来的增量回报还没有显现出来，或者明显高于过去，这并不太令人惊讶。
Given that Google's CapEx this year is estimated to be six times more than what they spent in 2023, I guess it's not all that surprising that the incremental returns on some of that capital are not yet manifesting or are clearly higher than in the past.
但不管怎样，我们确实还不知道。
But for better or worse, we still really don't know yet.
所以Alphabet正在从一家围绕数字世界、以软件为核心的公司，逐渐在某种程度上转向以实体世界为重心。
And so Alphabet is going from a company built around the digital world with its software to increasingly being anchored in the physical world to an extent.
所以，公司价值不再主要靠算法和软件创造，也不只是靠那些开发这些技术的人类知识工作者。
And so rather than just purely being algorithms and software that are creating most of the company's value and and maybe the human knowledge workers that produce those technologies.
他们越来越多的业务，就是直接跟物理世界挂钩，比如电脑芯片、电力消耗、数据中心建设和维护。
More and more of what they do is is just simply tied tangibly to the physical world, computer chips, electricity consumption, data center construction, and maintenance.
所以，这带来的影响是非常深远的。
And so the implications of that are pretty profound.
二十年来，软件一直推动着市场的回报，而现在，那些最大的软件公司的经济模式正在发生变化。
Software has driven the market's returns for two decades now, and the economics of the biggest software companies are changing.
我这么说，并不是因为担心SaaS的末日，虽然市场上确实有这种说法，但真正的原因是，这些业务正在变得越来越不数字化。
And I'm not saying that because of SaaS apocalypse concerns, even though that is a narrative in markets right now, but really just simply that the businesses are becoming a whole lot less digital.
所以我觉得，在这个时刻保持谦逊非常重要，要认识到这是一场范式转变，没有人能确切知道未来会怎样。
So I think it's really important to be humble at this moment and recognize that this is a paradigm shift, and no one knows with much confidence what that is gonna mean going forward.
没错。
Exactly.
还有一点，Alphabet的财报，尤其是云业务，可能掩盖了一些问题，那就是Alphabet的资产负债表上还有一些尚未折旧的资产。
And another thing that kind of off escapes Alphabet's numbers and Cloud in particular is that Alphabet is carrying some of its assets on the balance sheets that are yet to depreciate in value.
所以这实际上会抬高谷歌云的利润率。
So this actually serves to inflate Google Cloud's margins.
而且根据他们最近一个季度的数据，Alphabet账上还有大约1220亿美元的未投入使用资产。我不是说他们在做什么不合规的事，但我觉得如果你真的想深入研究他们的财务状况，你肯定得在一定程度上考虑这一点。
And as of their latest quarter, Alphabet carries assets not yet in service valued at about $122,000,000,000 Now, I'm not saying that they're trying to do anything that's not above board, but I think if you really wanna dig into their financials in-depth, you definitely have to account for this to some extent.
你知道，你可以说这些资产将来某个时候会投入使用。
You know, you can make the argument that these assets will be in service at some point.
到那时候，一旦投入使用，它们就会被纳入折旧计划。
And then at that point, once they're in service, they'll be added to the depreciation schedule.
也许这意味着谷歌云目前的利润率长期来看并不是真的可持续的。
And perhaps that means that Google Cloud's margins at the current levels are not really sustainable over the long term.
对我来说，这可能是Alphabet最大的一个黑箱。
To me, this is probably the biggest black box at Alphabet.
迈克尔·伯里，我相信听众们肯定都知道他，就是《大空头》里的那位，他说过，尤其是计算机芯片的折旧会计处理，是21世纪最常见的欺诈形式，也可能是欺骗股东的方式。
And Michael Burry, who who listeners will, I'm sure, know from The Big Short, has said that depreciation accounting for computer chips in particular is the most common form of fraud and maybe shareholder deception in the twenty first century.
所以会计是基于假设的，比如假设一项资产的所谓“使用寿命”有多长。
And so accounting is based on assumptions and assumptions like how long the quote unquote useful life of an asset is.
所以，你的数据中心里的服务器是每三年还是每六年更换一次，这是一个非常重大的会计决策。
So whether you have to replace the servers in your data center every three or six years is a very consequential accounting decision to make.
如果答案是它们每三年就需要更换，因为它们过时得那么快，但你却把成本分摊到六年折旧，那你就会严重低估这些芯片的真实经济成本，并在短期内人为地抬高利润。
And so if the answer is that they need to turn over every three years because that's how quickly they get outdated, but you depreciate those costs over six years, then you're gonna be hugely underestimating the real economic cost of those chips and artificially inflating earnings on the short term.
我们前几天在YouTube直播里聊过这个，迈克尔·伯里说过，超大规模数据中心运营商在未来几年内集体低估折旧的金额可能高达1750亿美元。
So we talked about this in one of our YouTube livestreams the other day, and and Michael Burry has stated that hyperscalers are collectively understating depreciation by as much as a 175,000,000,000 over the next few years.
不管我读多少关于这个话题的资料，我对半导体的了解永远都不足以让我有信心告诉你合适的折旧时间表是什么。
And no matter how much reading I do on the topic, I will never know enough about semiconductors to tell you what the appropriate depreciation schedule is with any confidence.
但你实际上是在对管理层寄予很大的信任。
But what you're doing is you're putting a lot of trust into management.
而且，显然，至少像迈克尔·伯里这样的一些聪明人正在对这些假设提出质疑。
And, clearly, you have some smart people like Michael Burry at least raising questions about those assumptions.
而且，你知道，如果我说我花了那么多时间和精力去研究数据中心使用寿命的折旧时间表，那我也是在撒谎。
And, you know, I'd also be lying if I said that I'd put that much time and effort into figuring out depreciation schedules for data center lives.
所以，我想我可能会把这个问题留给那些比我更懂行的人去争论。
So, you know, I think I'll probably leave that argument to people who are more knowledgeable in that area than I am.
不过我还是觉得你提出来这点挺好的。
But I still think it's great that you brought it up.
你知道吗，这可能意味着你在给这个业务建模的时候，得在几种不同的折旧率上做不同的假设，这会影响GAAP利润。
You know, perhaps it means when you're modeling this business, you have to make a few different assumptions on different depreciation scales, which could affect GAAP profits.
不过，我还想补充一些关于数据中心的担忧。
But, you know, I would just add a few other concerns with the data center here as well.
我之前已经说过，Anthropic似乎占了谷歌积压订单的很大一部分，但这里的收入也有一种循环的性质，这点已经被广泛讨论了。
So, I already discussed how Anthropic appears to be taking up a large share of Google's backlog, but there's also this kind of circular nature of the revenue here, which has been widely, widely shared.
举个例子，一个真实的例子就是Anthropic和Alphabet的交易。
So, just to give you an example here, a real example of Anthropic's deal with Alphabet.
Alphabet在这次交易中承诺向Anthropic投入高达400亿美元。
So, Alphabet committed up to about 40,000,000,000 into Anthropic as part of the deal.
简单来说，就是谷歌投资客户，客户购买谷歌的计算服务，然后谷歌再记入积压订单。
So, you know, to put it simply, Google invests in the customer, the customer buys Google Compute, then Google then books the backlog.
所以，看Alphabet的时候，它历来是一家每股价值持续增长的公司。
So, when looking at Alphabet, they've traditionally been a business that has compounded their per share value.
其中一部分是通过股票回购完成的，回购金额在2023年到2025年间大约在450亿到600亿美元之间。
And part of this was completed through buybacks, which ran between, say, 45,000,000,000 to about $60,000,000,000 between the years of 2023 until 2025.
但到了2026年上半年，回购金额直接降到了零。
But as of the first half of twenty twenty six, they're literally zero.
另外，资本支出几乎吃掉了Alphabet所有的自由现金流。
And additionally, CapEx has eaten up almost all of Alphabet's free cash flow.
而且在2026年第二季度，他们实际上出现了很长时间以来的首次负自由现金流季度。
And in q two of twenty twenty six, they actually had their first negative free cash flow quarter in a very, very long time.
现在我们有点在批评Alphabet，但我认为这样做是有益的，因为毕竟我们对谷歌还是相当看好的。
Now we're now we're bashing Alphabet a little bit here, but I do think that it's a productive exercise to do that because after all, we're we're pretty bullish on on Google.
否则它也不会是我们投资组合中最大的持仓。
Otherwise, it wouldn't be the largest holding in our portfolio.
所以，批判性地审视自己的投资对象是非常重要的。
And and so it's very important to look at your businesses critically.
不过，关于AI支出的构成，再多说一些背景信息：Alphabet的首席财务官Anat Ashkenazi曾表示，他们进行的AI基础设施投资中，大约60%用于服务器，另外40%投入数据中心和网络设备。
But just as maybe some more context on the composition of this AI spending, Alphabet's CFO, Anat Ashkenazi, has said the mix of the AI infrastructure investments that they're undertaking is approximately 60% in servers and then about 40% into the data centers and and networking equipment.
这个数字看起来挺吻合的，不过我想回到电力消耗这个话题。
And that number seems to track quite well, but I'd like to get back to the power consumption side of things.
我注意到数据中心有一个重要的指标，叫做电力使用效率，简称PUE。
So an important metric that I've seen mentioned for data centers is something called power usage effectiveness or PUE.
这是一个标准比率，通过比较整个设施的总能耗和IT设备专用的能耗，来衡量数据中心的能源效率。
It's a standard ratio that measures how energy efficient a data center is by comparing the total energy used by the whole facility to the energy used strictly by the IT equipment.
谷歌的PUE是1.09。
So in Google's case, has a 1.09 PUE.
这据说远低于行业平均的1.3左右，意味着谷歌的运营效率比一般的数据中心高得多。
And this is supposedly much lower than the industry average of around 1.3, meaning that Google is just basically running much more efficiently than the average data center is.
谷歌在这方面更高效，这确实很棒，也给他们带来了很多规模上的优势。
Now, it's great that Google is more efficient here, which gives them a number of scale advantages.
这些优势包括成本节约、每兆瓦更大的计算能力，以及更低的碳足迹。
These are advantages including cost savings, greater computing capacity per megawatt, and a reduced carbon footprint.
如果有人想知道一兆瓦是什么概念，它大约能供600户家庭用电。
And for anyone wondering what a megawatt is, it's enough electricity to power about 600 homes or so.
有趣的是，尽管电力只占AI算力年成本的约6%，但它却是扩展规模的最大瓶颈。
And the interesting thing is that even though power makes up only about 6% of the annual cost of this AI capacity, it is the largest bottleneck to scaling up.
所以Alphabet在电力、土地和供应链方面受到限制，但如果能源需求无法满足，其他一切都无关紧要。
And so Alphabet is supply constrained with power and land and supply chain, but everything else is irrelevant if the energy needs cannot be met.
所以显然，如果数据中心无法供电，那么建多少数据中心都无所谓。
And so it does not matter how many data centers exist, obviously, if they can't be powered.
没错。
Exactly.
这就是为什么我认为，你知道，SpaceX和特斯拉的看多者对我们讨论过的太空AI数据中心如此兴奋。
And that's why I think you know, SpaceX and Tesla bulls are just so excited about these AI data centers in space, which we discussed on my SpaceX pitch.
所以，你知道，可再生能源显然是一个巨大的竞争优势，而且将数据中心建在太空也能解决大部分必须非常小心管理的冷却问题。
So, you know, renewable energy is clearly a massive competitive advantage, and having data centers in space also takes care of much of the cooling that must be very, very carefully managed.
但让我们看看Alphabet在AI数据中心领域的竞争对手的一些经济情况。
But let's look at some of the economics of Alphabet's competitors in the AI data center space.
所以有几家企业在价值链中竞争。
So there are a few businesses that compete in the value chain.
我找到的最好的两家是CoreWeave和Nebius，主要是因为它们是纯做这个的，不像Oracle、亚马逊或微软那样，财务数据会被其他业务线干扰。
The two best ones that I came over were CoreWeave and Nebius simply because they're kind of pure play and don't have financials that are ob by other business lines such as, know, an Oracle and Amazon or a Microsoft.
但这两家公司现在的问题就是，它们目前都还没盈利。
Now the problem with both businesses is that they just today remain unprofitable.
所以，即使你觉得谷歌的估值被低估了，它们现在可能还是比Nebius或CoreWeave要赚钱得多。
So, you know, even if you are making a complaint about Google's appreciation being artificially low, they're still probably much more profitable than either Nebious or Web is today.
这些数据确实很有意思，但我个人还在琢磨一件事，就是为什么Alphabet能比那些竞争对手有这么大的盈利优势？
Some really interesting data points there for sure, but, it's something I'm I'm still reflecting on personally is how come Alphabet does have this large profitability edge over some of those comps?
凯尔，你怎么看这个问题？
How do you think about that, Kyle?
我觉得最大的原因可能是垂直整合。
I think the biggest one is probably the vertical integration part.
肖恩，你之前提到过，Alphabet自己开发了很多芯片，包括张量处理单元。
So you mentioned here earlier, Shawn, that Alphabet has developed many of its own chips, including the tensor processing units.
正因为如此，它在某种程度上避开了那种英伟达税，而其他公司几乎都得被迫交这个税。
Now because of this, it skips to some degree this kind of Nvidia tax that pretty much all of these other companies are forced to pay.
不过要记住，英伟达是一家非常非常优秀的公司。
Now, keep in mind, Nvidia is a very, very good company.
它的营业利润率高达65%，而且还有定价权。
It has 65% operating margins as well as pricing power.
所以，这对英伟达来说当然很好，但对它的客户来说显然就没那么好了。
So, you know, that's great for Nvidia, but obviously it's not so great for its customers.
而谷歌就不太会有这个问题。
Now, Google doesn't necessarily have that same issue.
谷歌的张量处理单元比英伟达的同类产品便宜大约40%。
So, Google's tensor processing units come in at about a 40% discount to the NVIDIA equivalent.
而且我们从Anthropic和谷歌的合作中可以看到，对很多AI企业来说，直接租用谷歌的算力比自己搭建基础设施要划算得多。
And as we've seen with Anthropic's deal with Google, it just makes more sense for many of these AI businesses just to rent CompuPower from Google rather than building it out on their own.
Alphabet还有一个简单的优势，就是他们有能力自己填满自己的产能。
Another simple advantage that Alphabet has as well is they have the ability to fill up their capacity themselves.
比如CoreWeave是按小时向客户出租算力的，而Alphabet除了有自然流入的客户基础之外，还可以根据需要把算力分配给谷歌搜索、YouTube和Gemini。
CoreWeave, for instance, rents by the hour to their customers, and Alphabet can allocate compute capacity toward Google Search and YouTube and Gemini as needed on top of the baseline of customers that they have just naturally coming in.
所以Alphabet真的很少浪费算力。
So Alphabet really has very little capacity being wasted.
他们有很大的灵活性。
They have a lot of flexibility.
如果客户需求短暂下滑，这些算力可以内部调配。
If there's a brief shortfall in customer demand, that compute can be redirected internally.
这就像一家没有空房的酒店。
And it's sort of like a hotel that doesn't have any room occupancies.
你明白吗？
You know?
所有房间都住满了，这对酒店的边际利润影响巨大。
All the rooms are are filled, and that makes a huge difference for the incremental profitability of the hotel.
这确实可能是一个竞争优势。
And that really is something of a perhaps a competitive advantage.
而且目前来看，对CoreWeave和Nebius这样的Neo Cloud来说，这可能还不是问题。
And as of now, it's probably is not a problem for Neo Clouds like CoreWeave and Nebius.
但如果Alphabet的优势继续扩大，总有一天这些公司可能会因为闲置产能太多而难以维持运营。
But if Alphabet's advantages continue to grow, there may come a time when these businesses find it difficult to keep the lights on with too much unused capacity.
但这只是我们可能在这个AI周期或泡沫的另一边去探讨的一个推测性话题，随便你怎么称呼它。
But that is a a speculative tangent for us to go on perhaps on the other side of this, AI cycle or or bubble or whatever you wanna call it.
不过回到数据中心及其对资本效率的影响这个话题，这一切最终都归结为我们今天整期节目一直在讨论的那个问题：那2000亿美元需要赚多少钱，才能让这些投资在事后看来是值得的？
But just getting back to the angle of data centers and their impact on capital efficiency, it all really comes back down to this one question that we have been touching on throughout the entire course of today's episode, and that is how much does that $200,000,000,000 need to earn for those investments to have made any sense in hindsight?
我觉得这确实就是核心所在，我会尽力把它拆解得尽可能简单。
I mean, I think that's really all it boils down to, and I'm gonna do my best here to break it down as simply as possible.
所以，我们把那2000亿美元的投资想象成买一栋大型公寓楼。
So let's think of the $200,000,000,000 investment like buying a giant apartment building.
在你们争论这是否是一笔好买卖之前，显然得先弄清楚几件事，比如每年持有它要花多少钱。
Before you guys argue about whether that's a good buy, you obviously have to work out a few things such as what it costs you to own it every year.
然后你还需要问，好吧，那要收多少租金才值得做呢？
And then you need to also ask, okay, well, what rent do you need to charge in order to make it worth doing?
现在对Alphabet来说，拥有一年份的数据中心，一旦全部启用，运营成本大约是300亿美元。
Now for Alphabet, owning one year's worth of data centers runs about $30,000,000,000 in expenses once it's all switched on.
这其中包括大约250亿美元的芯片，这些芯片在慢慢老化，剩下的则是电力和维护费用。
And that composes of about 25,000,000,000 in chips that are slowly wearing out and the rest in power and upkeep.
但显然，仅仅覆盖成本并不是目标。
But just covering your costs obviously is not the goal.
你还想要可观的利润。
You also want a nice profit as well.
所以，我们从合理的利润倒推，大概会得出这样的结论：一年的投入每年必须带来700亿到1000亿美元的全新销售额。
So, we work backwards from a decent profit, you land somewhere around here, which is one year spending has to bring in somewhere between 70 and $100,000,000,000 of brand new sales every single year.
简化一下，规则就是每花一美元，就要产生大约40美分的新增年收入。
If you simplify that, the rule is about 40¢ of new annual revenue for every dollar spent.
这就是门槛所在。
That's kind of where the bar sits.
但接下来，你得知道这个门槛是高还是低，因为40美分本身说明不了太多。
But then, okay, you wanna know whether that bar is high or low because, you know, 40¢ by itself just doesn't mean that much.
在这里，我得说实话，因为我试图找一个像样的对比，但真的没找到。
And here, have to be pretty honest because I went looking for a somewhat decent comparison and couldn't really find one.
显然，这个市场是存在的。
Obviously, there's a marketplace for this stuff.
Nebius和CoreWeave，你知道，他们也在做相关的事情。
Nebius and CoreWeave, you know, they do things.
他们购买AI算力。
They're buying AI compute.
然后出租出去，再披露这些合同的金额。
They're renting it out, then they're disclosing what those contacts are worth.
但这里有一个问题，让事情变得非常非常难以理解。
But there's one kind of flag here that makes it really, really hard to really understand.
问题在于，他们按每兆瓦来报价，像每兆瓦2000万美元这样的数字，可能意味着两种截然不同的情况。
The trouble is they quote it per megawatt and a figure like 20,000,000 per megawatt can mean two very, very different things.
如果这是客户每年支付的费用，那就是每年2000万美元。
If that's what the customer pays every year, it's $20,000,000 a year.
但如果这是整个合同的总价值，而这些交易不幸可能持续四五年，那实际上每年就只有400万到500万美元。
But if that's the value of the entire contract and these deals unfortunately can run four or five years, then it's more like 4 or $5,000,000 a year.
所以你看，虽然表面数字差不多，但实际能看出来的东西并不多。
So, know, you're getting the same kind of headline number, but you don't actually get too much clarity.
而且说实话，我发现不同来源对它的描述方式还不一样。
I And actually unfortunately found it described in both ways by different sources.
所以这个对比，我真的没法太当真。
So it's just not a comparison that I can really put any conviction into.
不过，我们还是可以从这两家公司获取一些信息，至少能得出一个大概方向正确的数字。
But, you know, we can still use some information from these two businesses to at least develop a number where we are hopefully directionally correct.
我们知道的是，Neveus的定价在过去六个月里差不多翻了一倍。
So, what we do know is that Neveus' pricing is roughly doubled in the last six months.
而Corrieve在七月份就单独提价了大约25%。
And Corrieve raised prices by about 25% alone in July.
他们还说，近期的产能实际上已经卖光了。
And they actually said that their near term capacity is effectively sold out.
所以，关键就是回本周期，也就是一笔交易需要多久才能回本。
So, it's payback period or how long it takes until a deal repays.
建设成本实际上已经降到了两年以内。
What it costs to build has actually dropped to under two years.
除此之外，Nebius表示，如果他们愿意的话，基本上现在就能把2027年的产能全部预定出去。
On top of that, Nebius says that it could basically settle its entire twenty twenty seven capacity today if they wanted to.
现在，你当然不可能在一个产能过剩的市场里这样大幅提价。
Now, you know, you certainly don't get to raise prices this much into a market with spare capacity.
所以目前来看，我认为Alphabet在这里要获得良好回报还远没有保障。
So as of now, I think Alphabet is far from guaranteed to making good returns here.
但是，你知道，从Nevis和CoreWeave得到的这些数据来看，我觉得这告诉我们一些有用的信息，那就是需求明显远远超过了供应。
But, you know, with all the numbers that we're getting here from Nevis and CoreWeave, I think it's telling us something useful, which is that demand is definitely running well ahead of supply.
而这显然是Google认为有必要进行如此大规模支出的一个条件。
And that's obviously a condition that Google feels it makes sense for them to justify this amount of spending.
有道理。
Makes sense.
而且，作为Alphabet的股东，看到这种情况当然很高兴。
And and clearly as an Alphabet shareholder, it's it's great to see this.
但这里还有另一个关键点需要注意，我们得看看这些涨价能不能持续。
But there's another crucial thing to be aware of here, and we have to look at the durability of those price rises.
而且，我觉得这个产品最终可能会被大规模商品化，所以不能简单地把现在的价格趋势直接推到未来。
And since this is a product that I think at the end of the day could be mostly commodified, it doesn't mean we can necessarily extrapolate it very far into the future.
现在这个时点，产能确实非常紧张，所以价格可以一路往上走。
In terms of just linearly drawing price hikes up and to the right, clearly, we're at this moment in time now where capacity is very scarce.
因为需求远远超过供给，算力拥有者就能多收钱，毕竟市场上有人愿意买单。
Because demand exceeds supply so dramatically, the owners of compute power can charge more because there's a willing buyer out there.
但供需失衡不会永远持续下去，因为我们整个下午都在讨论数据中心投资，这些投资正在增加供给端。
But supply and demand won't remain this imbalanced forever because, well, we've been talking all afternoon here about the data center investments that are going into building out the supply side of this equation.
所以，你提到的那个4000万到5000万的数字，我也一直觉得不太踏实。
And so I've also been pretty uneasy about that 40 to $50,000,000 number you you mentioned from Nebious.
我们在那期节目里讨论过，关于AI投资周期中我们处于什么位置，这种不确定性可能会导致对后续支出增长和盈利能力的过度乐观。
And so we talked about this uncertainty with comfort systems in that episode of how where we sit in the AI investment cycle that may be leading to excess optimism about how much more spending will continue to increase by and and how profitable it'll be.
顺便说一下，那家公司是专门做数据中心维护和服务的。
And that is a company, for context, that specializes in the maintenance of servicing data centers.
所以股价直线飙升，但当一切回归正常时，我们真的不知道这项业务会有多好。
So the stock has gone off in a straight line, but we really don't know how good the business will be when things normalize.
而且，在某种程度上，Alphabet 也是如此。
And and to a lesser extent, the same is true for Alphabet.
随着 Alphabet 变得越来越资本密集，我真的很惊讶，沃伦·巴菲特，那个以偏爱不需要太多资本就能产生现金流的业务而闻名的人，竟然选择现在投资 Alphabet，而他在大约二十年前第一次接触这家公司时，是通过为 GEICO 投放搜索广告才发现的。
And as Alphabet has become more capital intensive, it really actually surprises me that Warren Buffet, who's kinda known for preferring businesses that don't require much capital to generate these cash flows, has now chosen now to be the time to invest in Alphabet after he first discovered the business, you know, twenty years or so ago while running search ads for GEICO.
现在，这是另一个你可能首次报道时论点已经有所改变的领域。
Now this is another area where the thesis may have changed a little bit since you first covered it.
我记得你在最初的节目中强调过，Alphabet 有太多现金，以至于他们都不知道该怎么处理。
I remember you highlighting in the original episode how Alphabet just had so much cash that they didn't really know what to do with it.
他们有那么多现金，以至于他们通过回购股票将现金返还给股东，我认为这对当时一家资本过剩的公司来说是合适的。
They had so much cash that they were just returning it to shareholders through buybacks, which I think felt right for a company at that time with excess capital.
关于巴菲特和伯克希尔，他们不仅动用了自己的现金储备，还越来越多地利用债务市场融资，现在他们又开始出售股票来筹集足够的资本。
To your point on Buffet and Berkshire, they're not only have they used their own cash piles, but they've increasingly tapped the debt markets for more financing, and now they're turning to selling equity to raise enough capital.
没错。
That's right.
他们说今年要在AI数据中心上花大约两千亿美元。
So they said they were gonna spend about 200,000,000,000 on AI data centers this year.
然后他们又说，我们需要更多钱。
Then they said, we need more money.
所以他们出去筹集了数十亿美元。
So they went out and raised many, many billions of dollars.
我觉得这表明Alphabet不再只是专注于管理多余现金，而是可能找到了值得投入所有这些多余现金甚至更多资金的地方。
And I think this shows that Alphabet isn't focused on just managing their excess cash anymore, but maybe they found something worth deploying all that excess cash into and even more.
不过，我觉得这一切中有个值得注意的地方。
So here's what I find noteworthy about all this though.
自2018年以来，由于我刚才提到的回购，股票数量一直在稳步下降。
So the share count has declined pretty steadily since 2018 because of those buybacks that I just discussed.
但截至2026年第二季度，他们有123亿股流通股，这实际上是自2024年以来的最高数字。
But as of Q two twenty twenty six, they have 12,300,000,000 shares outstanding, and that's actually the highest number since 2024.
这种转变表明他们有多重视这笔数据中心的开支。
That kind of shift shows you how much they're prioritizing this data center spend.
你想想看，假设Alphabet会继续需要资金来支持它的AI数据中心，那他们很可能会动用所有可用的融资渠道，这很可能意味着会发行更多新股，从而增加流通股的数量。
If you think about it, assuming Alphabet is going to continue to need funding for its AI data centers, there is a good chance that they'll use all avenues available to them, which likely means more net share issuance that increases the number of shares outstanding.
这在技术上是否算稀释，取决于通过增发股票筹集的资金被如何有效地运用。
Whether that is technically dilutive depends on how effectively the capital raised from selling more shares is deployed.
但从最根本的层面来看，你是把公司的内在价值分摊到了更多的股票和股东身上。
But at a really simple level, you've spread the business' intrinsic value across more shares and shareholders.
这至少会在短期内给股价带来压力，因为你增加了市场上的股票供应，而且长期来看，你还得证明这次融资是合理的。
And that is, at a minimum, going to put pressure on the stock in the short term because you're increasing the supply of shares to the market, and then you have to be able to justify that raising of capital longer term.
所以，虽然伯克希尔直接向Alphabet投资了100亿美元，但Alphabet今年早些时候的总股权融资规模是850亿美元。
And so while Berkshire invested $10,000,000,000 into Alphabet directly, Alphabet's total equity raise earlier this year was for $85,000,000,000.
显然市场很乐意为此买单，但这是他们自IPO以来第一次进行大规模的股权融资。
And so the market was happy to fund that evidently, but it's the first major equity raise we've seen from them since they IPO ed.
理论上，Alphabet应该已经达到了一个规模和成熟度，不需要依赖卖股票来筹集资金。
And in theory, Alphabet should be at a scale and a maturity where they don't need to rely on selling stock to raise money.
这通常是初创公司和不盈利的科技公司才会做的事，因为这是一种成本非常高的融资方式。
That's something you associate with startups and unprofitable tech companies because it's a very costly form of financing.
没错。
That's right.
而且，他们二十年来都没发行过股票，这本身就说明Alphabet的业务有多好，也充分体现了他们创造现金的能力。
And the fact they haven't had to issue equity for two decades, I think, is a pretty obvious signal of just how good of a business Alphabet is and speaks volumes about their ability to generate cash.
但发行股票其实只是他们融资计划的开始。
But the share issuance is actually just the beginning of their capital raising effort.
截至2026年第二季度，长期债务已经达到980亿美元，大约是2024财年结束时的九倍。
So as of Q two twenty twenty six, long term debt is now $98,000,000,000 or about nine times since the fiscal twenty twenty four year ended.
考虑到Alphabet一直以来的融资方式非常保守，连我都对这个数字的增长感到有点意外。
With how conservatively financed Alphabet has been, even I was a little surprised at how much this figure has grown.
债务增加的一部分原因是在国内外债券市场筹集资金。
And part of the increase in debt has been from raising money in both domestic and global bond markets.
所以我想，如果国内筹不够，为什么不看看其他地方呢？
So I guess, you know, if you can't raise it all from home, why not look elsewhere?
而且市场对这些债券的需求非常非常高。
And the appetite for these bonds is very, very high.
所以二月份他们发行了大约200亿美元的美元计价债券，期限从三年到四十年不等，而且发行规模从150亿美元上调了。
So in February, they issued about 20,000,000,000 of US dollar denominated bonds ranging from three to forty years, and this was upsized from 15,000,000,000.
我读到这次发行吸引了超过1000亿美元的订单。
And I read the offer drew more than 100,000,000,000 in orders.
除此之外，他们也在全球范围内寻找机会。
And then outside of that, they've also just looked around the world.
他们通过其他货币筹集了超过500亿美元，包括英镑、瑞士法郎、欧元、加元、日元，甚至澳元。
They've raised over $50,000,000,000 in other currencies such the sterling, Swiss franc, euro, Canadian dollar, Japanese yen, and even Australian dollars.
那么在股权融资和这些债券发行之后，你能不能给听众们讲讲，他们现在的现金状况怎么样？
So between the equity raise and all the bond issuance that we're seeing, maybe you can paint some color for the audience where they sit with the cash position now.
他们目前持有2420亿美元的现金及现金等价物。
So they currently have $242,000,000,000 in cash and cash equivalents.
所以即使有了这些新债务，他们显然还是净现金状态，但按照他们目前的支出速度，这2420亿美元可能很快就会用完。
So even with all this new debt, there's still obviously net cash, but that 242,000,000,000 is probably gonna get depleted very quickly given their current spending rate.
而且根据管理层的说法，他们短期内并不打算放慢支出。
And based on what management has said, they're not planning on slowing that down anytime soon.
《华尔街日报》前几天有篇很有意思的文章，讲的是大型科技公司隐藏的负债，他们签了合同要建数据中心、租数据中心，或者买多少多少芯片之类的。
The Wall Street Journal had a really interesting article the other day about hidden liabilities for big tech companies where they've made these contractual agreements to build data centers or or lease data centers or buy x y z number of computer chips and so on.
但这些承诺都是2028年、2029年、2030年甚至更往后的事情。
But these commitments are for 2028, 2029, 2030, and and beyond.
所以我们知道这些承诺肯定会来，而且规模巨大，有点像积压的订单。
So we know they're coming, and they're massive, sort of like the the backlog.
光Alphabet一家，未来几年就有超过8000亿美元的资产负债表外负债。
And with Alphabet alone, we're talking about more than $800,000,000,000 in off balance sheet liabilities over the next few years.
我这么说可不是在夸大其词。
And I'm not misspeaking when I say that.
真的是将近一万亿美元的负债，目前还没反映在资产负债表上，这在几年前根本想都不敢想。
Literally almost a trillion dollars in liabilities that are not at present reflected on the balance sheet that weren't even conceivable a few years ago.
当时谁都没注意到这些。
They weren't on anybody's radar.
所以，当然，现在的业务比过去风险更大，因为没办法回避一个事实，就是这些负债给业务和未来的财务前景注入了巨大的不确定性。
So, of course, the business is riskier today than it was in the recent past because there's just no way to get around the fact that a tremendous amount of financial uncertainty has been injected into the business and their future financial prospects because of these different liabilities.
但话说回来，你也可以说，如果人工智能真的像硅谷认为的那样具有革命性，那么Alphabet这样大规模投入，可能是在为自己买下未来几十年的主导地位，继续稳坐全球最大科技公司之一的宝座。
But also, think you could argue that if AI is even remotely as revolutionary of a technology as Silicon Valley thinks it is, then Alphabet's ability to do all this spending is is buying them maybe several more decades of dominance and being one of the world's biggest tech companies.
这大概就是那种极度看好的论调了。
That would be sort of like the ultra bull narrative.
所以，就事论事地看，风险确实增加了。
And so just kinda looking at the facts plain and simple, the risks have increased.
而且风险的性质也变了。
They've changed also.
现在讨论的重点，从监管和竞争，更多转向了这些资本投入能带来什么样的回报。
A little bit less of a regulatory discussion and a competitive discussion and, more about how the returns on this capital will look like.
但另一方面，Alphabet的企业生命周期可能被彻底重置了，而且重置得很厉害。
But on the flip side of that, Alphabet's corporate life cycle has potentially been reset pretty dramatically.
这样一来，Alphabet突然看起来像是一家年轻得多的公司，未来增长潜力更大，而不是那种正在慢慢僵化的停滞不前的巨型企业集团。
And so all of a sudden, Alphabet looks to be a much younger company with more dramatic growth possibilities ahead instead of being some kind of stagnant mega conglomerate that was just slowly in the process of of hardening.
说得太对了。
That's a great point.
这些停滞不前的巨型企业集团的问题，就像你刚才说的那样。
And the problem with these stagnant mega conglomerates is what you just said.
有时候会到一种几乎找不到新增长点的地步，然后你就只能靠这种现金流机器，把百分之百的现金流都返还给股东。
Sometimes it gets to a point where it's nearly impossible to find a new growth lever, and then you turn to basically this kind of cash flow generator that just returns 100% of its cash flow back to shareholders.
虽然这些公司作为投资标的可能还算不错，至少是我们考虑放进内在价值投资组合的那种，但就是没什么意思。
And, know, while those can make a decent business in terms of an interesting investment case, at least those that we look forward to put into our Intrinsic Value Portfolio, it's just not that interesting.
我们希望找到那些有增长潜力的公司，因为大家都想找有上涨空间的企业，而不是那些只跟着GDP增速走的公司。
We want businesses that have hopefully some sort of growth aspect to it, because, you know, we're all looking for businesses that have a decent upside and we're not really particularly concerned with businesses that are, you know, just gonna grow at the same rate as GDP growth.
不过我也想聊聊你刚才提到的风险角度。
But I also kind of wanted to look at some of your points here on the risk angle that you just discussed here.
我觉得第一个想深入探讨的风险是，现在可能不应该太相信利润表。
So I think the first risk that I'd wanna dig a little more deeper into is probably that you shouldn't give the income statement too much credit right now.
Alphabet第二季度报告了1120亿美元的利润。
So Alphabet reported a 112,000,000,000 in profits in its second quarter.
但仔细一看，其中990亿美元是来自对SpaceX和Anthropic等私营公司股权重估的非现金收益。
But when you dig in, 99,000,000,000 of that was a noncash gain from marking up its equity stake in private companies like SpaceX and Anthropic.
所以，你可以这么想。
So, you know, think of it this way.
如果我告诉你你能赚100美元，你可能会很惊讶，肖恩。
If I told you you could make a $100 in profit, you'd probably pretty impressed, Shawn.
但如果我说其中99美元并不是我能花的实际现金呢？
But then what if I said that $99 of that wasn't actual cash I could spend?
那只是我持有的一只股票的未实现收益，也许将来某天能卖掉。
It was just unrealized gains on, let's say, a stock that I own that I might be able to sell someday.
你可能会说，那其实不算真正的利润。
You'd probably say, well, that's not really a profit.
这一项收益让每股收益增加了6美元多，但实际上没有一分钱真正进入公司。
And that single gain added over $6 in EPS, but it's zero actual dollars coming into the business.
随着Anthropic计划在2026年某个时候上市，我们可能还会继续在利润表上看到这些大额的非现金收益。
With Anthropic planning to IPO at some point in 2026, we're probably gonna continue to keep seeing these large non cash gains on the income statement.
这只会让分析这家公司变得更加复杂。
It all just kind of serves to add complexity when analyzing this business.
所以我觉得这里的关键点很简单。
So I think the flag here is simple.
别被那些表面的数字冲昏了头。
Don't too excited by the headline numbers.
评估Alphabet的时候，要关注营业利润或者现金流。
Focus on operating income or cash flows when you're evaluating Alphabet.
当然，CNBC的头条总是会拿那个净利润数字来说事。
Of course, the headlines on CNBC are always gonna lead with that net income number.
但就像你说的，会计上的收益可能会让一家公司在账面上看起来比实际表现好很多，这就是为什么我们要谈盈利质量。
But as you said, accounting gains can make a business look a lot better on paper than it's actually performing, and that's why we talk about quality of earnings.
这也是为什么这个概念对听众来说这么重要。
That's why that's such an important concept for listeners to know.
但除了利润表和折旧会计之外，我想回到一个现实，就是云积压订单既体现了Alphabet的上升潜力，也体现了它面临的风险。
But beyond the income statement and depreciation accounting, I would come back to the reality that the cloud backlog sort of epitomizes both the upside here as well as the risks facing Alphabet.
所以，5000亿美元的收入被承诺进积压订单确实很棒，但不管Anthropic和OpenAI今天承诺什么，他们最终必须真的有能力用现金支付给Alphabet这笔钱。
So $500,000,000,000 in revenue is being committed into the backlog is really great, but Anthropic and OpenAI have to actually be able to afford to pay that money in cash to Alphabet regardless of whatever they promise today.
所以现金必须从某个地方来，我对这两家公司远没有那么乐观，无法确信地说它们会成为Alphabet多年来的稳定客户。
And so the cash has to come from somewhere, and I'm nowhere near optimistic enough about either of those companies to say with conviction that they will be solid customers of Alphabet for many, many years to come.
我同意你的看法。
I agree with you.
而且，你知道，我们并不是说这些企业快要破产了。
And, you know, we're not here saying that these businesses are at the edge of bankruptcy by any means.
显然，投资者对这个领域有极大的兴趣。
There's clearly a ton of investor interest in this space.
所以我猜它们在一段时间内还能找到融资。
So my guess is that they'll find financing for a while.
再加上其他一些超大规模云服务商也在其中，这在一定程度上提高了承诺收入的质量底线。
And with some of these other hyperscalers in there too, it kind of just raises the floor for committed revenue quality.
接下来我要提到的另一个风险是关于利润率的。
Now, the next risk that I raise here is on the margins.
目前利润率看起来确实非常好。
So the margins obviously look really, really good right now.
营业利润率目前保持在百分之三十出头，但我觉得很多人对这笔巨额资本开支的理解有偏差。
Operating margins is sitting in the low thirties, but here's where I think many people miss about this massive capex.
Alphabet今天花在数据中心上的每一块钱，都会在明年或者很多年后变成折旧费用。
Every dollar that Alphabet spends on these data centers today is gonna become depreciation expenses next year or the year many years from now.
所以即使他们的收入保持不变，甚至完全不增长，利润率也会因为新增的折旧费用而自动下降。
So even if their revenue just stays flat, even if they don't grow at all, margins automatically will compress from that added depreciation expense.
而且当你一年花两千亿美元的时候，折旧带来的冲击会相当大。
And when you're spending $200,000,000,000 a year, well, that depreciation hit is gonna be quite substantial.
最后我要指出的一个风险是，Alphabet的股票在我看来并没有太大的预期差，我说的是股票，不是实际业务。
Now, the final risk that I'd flag right now is that Alphabet doesn't really seem to me to have a variant perception as in the stock, not the actual business.
你知道，分析师们现在非常看好这只股票，给出强烈买入评级，平均目标价在430美元左右，而当前股价大约是3.40美元。
You know, analysts currently love the stock and are issuing strong buy recommendations with an average target price around $430 versus the current price of about $3.40.
我觉得肖恩做得对，在它完全不受待见的时候大量买入这家公司。
Now I think Shawn did the right thing, adding this business very, very heavily when it was completely out of favor.
你知道，这家公司现在可一点都不受冷落。
You know, this business right now is not out of favor at all at this time.
所以，咱们不深入估值细节的话，我得说，回顾你去年对Alphabet做的模型，稍微更新一下，然后思考市场是否真的给了我们一个很划算的买入机会，这对我来说真的是一次很有用的练习。
So without getting into the weeds of valuation too much, I will say it was a really useful exercise for me to go through your model from last year on Alphabet, update it a little bit, and think about whether the market is offering us a really attractive bargain with that stock.
简单来说，我觉得我们俩都会同意，这是一家非常出色的公司，但现在的估值比一年前更接近合理水平了。
Well, in short, I think we'd both say that we see this as an exceptional business, but one that is much closer to being fairly valued today than probably was a year ago.
这有一部分是因为股价已经涨了很多，但也因为公司面临的新变化和不确定性，这些我个人信心不太足。
And that's partly because of the run up that the stock has had, but also because of the changes, these new uncertainties that are facing the company that, personally, I have less confidence in.
以前我更有底气说，我不同意市场认为ChatGPT会真正颠覆谷歌搜索的看法，但现在对于他们这些大规模投资会不会低于或超出预期，我真的没有特别强烈的、与市场不同的观点。
I felt more comfortable saying that I disagreed with the market about chat GBT being a a real disruptor of Google search, I'm really not sure that I have a strong opinion that differs from the market where I feel strongly one way or another about whether these massive investments that they're making are gonna underperform or outperform expectations.
说到底，如果你在网上搜索东西，很有可能你会用到谷歌的产品。
And so if you're searching for something on the Internet at the end of the day, there is a very good chance that you're gonna touch one of Google's products.
我自己几乎每天都用YouTube，真的想不出有什么替代品能让我转移注意力。
I use YouTube pretty much every day myself, and I just can't think of any substitute that would turn my attention elsewhere.
所以Alphabet不会消失。
And so Alphabet's not going anywhere.
这是一家了不起的公司。
This is an incredible company.
我们很乐意让赢家继续跑，我不想过度思考。
We're very happy to kind of let our winners run here, and I don't wanna overthink things.
但是，是的，我看不出有什么令人信服的理由能让我诚实地认为Alphabet的股票像去年这个时候那样被低估，尽管市盈率相同，这很讽刺。
But, yeah, I don't see as compelling of an argument that I can make in good faith that that Alphabet stock is as undervalued as it was this time last year despite ironically having the same PE ratio.
我在这里真的没有任何异议。
I really don't have any arguments here.
我觉得我对谷歌的立场很简单。
I think my stance on Google is quite simple.
我只是觉得现在不是加仓的好时机。
I just don't think it's the right time to add to the position.
你知道，如果我们严格理性地讲，卖出可能确实是正确的决定，因为我们已经差不多翻倍了，但我们是长期投资者。
You know, if we were speaking strictly rationally, then selling is actually probably the right decision due to the fact that we already made nearly a double, but, you know, we are long term investors.
所以有时候表面上看最理性的决定实际上并不是正确的做法。
So sometimes the most optically rational decision isn't actually the correct move.
说到可能减持，我们其实不太做市场择时。
And then speaking of maybe potentially trimming, well, we aren't really into market timing.
所以我觉得，卖掉一部分股份，想着以后还能用更便宜的价格买回来，这其实没什么道理。
So I think selling pieces of the stake, assuming that we can buy more for later at an even cheaper price, just doesn't really make that much sense.
所以在我看来，既然我们已经持有谷歌的股票，最好的做法就是什么都不做，让这笔投资自然发展。
So in my view, I think the best move with Google, given that we already own it, is to just do nothing and let the position play out.
嗯，我完全同意你的看法。
Well, I I completely agree with you there.
对，你知道，这有点奇怪。
And, yeah, you know, it's sort of a weird concept.
我记得我第一次在节目里推荐Alphabet的时候，我当时的结论其实是它估值合理。
I remember when I first pitched Alphabet on the show, I concluded that it was about fairly valued, actually.
我甚至没有说它被严重低估。
I I didn't even make the case for being super undervalued.
所以当我说它当时真的很便宜的时候，那是事后诸葛。
So when I say that it was really undervalued, I say that in hindsight.
有个听众写信问我，既然结论是估值合理，那我们为什么还要投资Alphabet。
And we had a listener write to me and ask me why we would decide to invest in Alphabet if the conclusion was that it was fairly valued.
当时主要是因为，我说它估值合理的时候，我知道我在建模时已经非常非常保守了。
And back then, mostly it was because I knew I'd been like very, very conservative in the modeling when I said that it was fairly valued.
但这又回到了那个想法，就是想要拥有优秀的企业，因为它们通常会给你带来惊喜，然后让它们随时间复利增长，你就坐着不动，什么都不做。
But again, it kind of goes into this idea of just wanting to own wonderful businesses because they will surprise you to the upside typically and just letting them compound over time and just sitting on your hands and not doing anything about it.
所以我觉得，如果能以合理的价格买到一家优秀的企业，那真是太好了。
So I felt like if I could get a wonderful business at a fair price, that was a great arrangement.
过去一年，Alphabet 多次让我感到惊喜。
Alphabet has surprised me to the upside a number of times in the last year.
所以我对过去一年股价的上涨持这种温和甚至更平静的看法，我不想赌未来三十到六十天股价会怎么走。
And that's why I'm I'm sort of take this benign and maybe more, like, tranquil view on the run up in the stock in the last year where I wouldn't wanna bet on where the stock price is gonna go in the next thirty to sixty days.
但如果用十年、二十年的视角来看，如果你能想象那么远的话，我觉得这些波动回头看都是小问题。
But looking at this with a ten year, twenty year perspective, if you can even fathom thinking that far out, I think these are rounding errors in hindsight.
最简单的事情就是坐下来看着，因为如果你试图把握市场的每一次波动，买进卖出，买进卖出，你会把自己逼疯的。
And the simplest thing is to just sit back and watch because you'll drive yourself crazy if you're trying to time every single swing in the market and buy and sell and buy and sell.
那根本不是制胜之道。
It's just not a winning formula.
这不是成功的秘诀。
It's not a recipe for success.
没错。
Exactly.
那今天我们就聊到这里。
So that's all we have for you today.
但像往常一样，我想用一句话来结束今天的节目，这句话来自奥马哈的先知沃伦·巴菲特，是他在2012年说的。
But as usual, I think I'd like to leave you here with a quote, and this one's coming from the Oracle of Omaha himself, Warren Buffet, back in 2012.
他说，对于IBM的判断出错的可能性，至少对我们来说，比对于谷歌或苹果出错的可能性要小。
So he said the chances of being way wrong in IBM are probably less, at least for us, than being way wrong with Google or Apple.
但这并不意味着后面这两家公司不会比IBM表现得好得多。
But that doesn't mean that those, the latter two companies, aren't going to do say far better than IBM.
这句话真的很棒，因为我觉得它展示了巴菲特的思考过程。
Now, this is just such a great quote because I think it showcases Buffett's thinking process.
短短几句话，你就能看到他是如何考虑机会成本的，以及为什么上行空间不是唯一重要的因素。
In just a few sentences, you can see how he thinks about opportunity cost and why upside isn't the only thing that matters.
当然，他完全说对了，这两家公司后来的回报都比IBM好得多，但他当时对苹果和谷歌的理解还不够深入，所以没有投资。
And of course, he was completely correct that both of those businesses provided much better returns than IBM, but he just didn't have the competence in his understanding of Apple and Google at that time to make an investment.
但现在他两家都投了。
But now he's invested in both.
也许你可以说，他觉得自己已经足够了解了，或者在他买入的时候，这些业务的风险已经降低了一些，下行风险得到了很好的保护。
And perhaps you can argue that maybe he feels like he's gotten competent enough or that, you know, at the time that he bought them, the businesses just had been derisked to some extent and that downside was well protected.
今天的内容就到这里，我们下次见。
That's all we have for you today and see you next
深入挖掘分部数据，从最新的财报电话会议中获取引述，实时机构级数据，一应俱全。
digging into segment level data, and grabbing quotes from the latest earnings calls, real time institutional grade data all in one place.
现在，借助我们新的AI连接器，你可以将同样的数据——财务数据、会议记录、基金信函、新闻、文件等——直接接入Cloud Chat GVT或你用于研究的任何AI。
And now with our new AI connector, you can plug that same data, financials, transcripts, fund letters, news, filings, and more straight into Cloud Chat GVT or whatever AI you use for your own research.
如果你想亲自尝试，请访问fiscal.ai/tivp，享受15%的折扣。
If you wanna try it yourself, head to fiscal.ai/tivp to get 15% off.
链接在节目说明中。
The link is in the show notes.
网址是 fiscal.ai/tivp。
That's fiscal.ai/tivp.
感谢收听。
Thanks for listening.
感谢收听 TIP。
Thanks for listening to TIP.
请在您常用的播客应用中关注《内在价值播客》，并访问 investorspodcast.com 获取节目笔记和教育资源。
Follow the Intrinsic Value Podcast on your favorite podcast app, and visit the investorspodcast.com for show notes and educational resources.
本播客仅供信息和娱乐之用，不提供财务、投资、税务或法律建议。
This podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not provide financial, investment, tax, or legal advice.
内容不针对个人情况，未考虑您的目标、财务状况或需求。
The content is impersonal and does not consider your objectives, financial situation, or needs.
投资有风险，包括可能损失本金，过往业绩不代表未来表现。
Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal, and past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
听众应自行研究，并在做出任何财务决策前咨询合格的专业人士。
Listeners should do their own research and consult a qualified professional before making any financial decisions.
本节目中的任何内容都不构成对买卖任何证券或其他金融产品的推荐或招揽。
Nothing on this show is a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any security or other financial product.
主持人、嘉宾以及The Investor's Podcast Network可能持有节目中讨论的证券头寸，并可能随时更改这些头寸，恕不另行通知。
Hosts, guests, and The Investor's Podcast Network may hold positions in securities discussed and may change those positions at any time without notice.
提及任何第三方产品、服务或广告商并不构成背书，The Investor's Podcast Network对其所作的任何声明概不负责。
References to any third party products, services, or advertisers do not constitute endorsements, and The Investor's Podcast Network is not responsible for any claims made by them.
版权所有：The Investor's Podcast Network。
Copyright by The Investor's Podcast Network.
保留所有权利。
All rights reserved.
关于 Bayt 播客
Bayt 提供中文+原文双语音频和字幕，帮助你打破语言障碍，轻松听懂全球优质播客。