Dialogue. AI SaaS Risk (again), Atlassian, Duolingo, & Uber

(upbeat music) Welcome to the Synopsis, a business and investing podcast. This is take two of, we were already 10 minutes in, we were having a lot of great content going on and Drew had the wrong mic port and so it sounded horrible and now Drew's making me redo it. And I'm not really in the mood to redo it. I feel like we already kind of, I gotta make the same joke so I can't recreate the magic tree. I don't know what you want from me. I don't want anything other than I guess the sound to be there because apparently the people care about the sound more than the content. And you know, maybe we can hear about that. Sound or content, I'm more of a content guy, but the sound bothers me, you need both. It is what it is, you need both. Can't miss one more. I mean, we are a podcast, I feel like the audio should work. Yeah, it's kind of like, man, the movie was great, but it was just, you know, you really was blurry most of the time. (laughing) It's kind of a tough one. All right, so go ahead, make your jokes about how you can't pronounce it at last year. Okay, so here's the synopsis of what's going on in the synopsis. We're talking a little Atlassian. We're talking a little Duolingo consolation software. And we're talking a little Warren Buffett, who's still kicking in there. 95 years old Becky Quick still interviewing him. And I'm worried about Becky Quick's career. For those of you guys who don't know, Becky Quick was the exclusive interviewer of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. I think that's really the backbone of her career. And as you know, she sadly lost 50% of her interviewing duo here. So, you know, with Charlie Munger's passing. So I'm a little concerned about her longevity after Warren Buffett inevitably goes that direction. But he's 95, he's in good shape. We'll see where it goes. He sounds pretty good on four times speed. You know, he sounds pretty coherent. Anything less important. That's too rough. You're coming out here real hot. You know, you're throwing shade up Becky. You're throwing shade up Buffett. Buffett doesn't need to be listened to any faster than two times. Two times, and it sounds good. And that's it. That is a man blinded by his love for Warren Buffett. The guy's lost it a little bit, you know. And listen, I've got a special place in my heart for, you know, the original, the original Oracle of Omaha. But at 95, I don't know how much he has left to say. I'm going to be honest. That's a hot take. I don't think it's that hot of a take. I think it's a pretty reasonable take. No comment. No comment, no comment. And today we're talking about, let's get into Ad Lasting a little bit, which we're going to mispronounce five times. Because Drew's done three things that I don't like here. He's got a software, AI software, a thematic topic where we can get all these thoughts out. So that's step one. This is the ninth conversation we've had on this. This one's kind of interesting though. And then secondly, it's a business that I don't think will have made it past any of my initial screens for getting of the AI. It just seems like a not a very high quality company. But there's some interesting. I would say I did have some emotional roller coasters because I'd hear a fact and I go, ooh, that peaks my interest. Then I'd hear another fact and I go, why do I know anything about this company? So that's step two. And step three, it's hard to pronounce. So now through those whole podcast, whole discussion, it's going to be ad legion, is it ad lasian, is it ad lasian? I'm going to mess it up eight or nine times and I'm going to get someone in the comments mad at me. So that's what you got going for me today Drew. - And right off the bat, he's already setting his conditions for failure, saying he's not going to even try to pronounce ad lasian. And then on top of that, you're right though that this is a business that was picked not for its business quality but because it seemed kind of like a crappy business to be honest. So right now, Speedbole research is working on this thematic report and we're looking at all these different software companies. And the reports basically trying to figure out what software companies are at risk of AI and what is the ramifications of AI overall for software. And I kind of specifically in order to kind of fill out the research more wanted to find a software company that I thought was a lower quality. And I'm sorry to say ad lasian was the one that I picked and I think even through my research, I kind of confirmed that that was the case. And so that was the real reason why I was picked. It's not that there was a choir of people sort of screaming for me to cover ad lasian. There was many, many, many, many other businesses that would have been picked ahead of that if I let the YouTube audience pick. - And we're going to get into it. But first, what is and before we start talking about it because I'll just make this point quickly, which is I don't think this is a bad business because of AI. I think that this is just a bad business for other reasons. But it is interesting in a context of why you chose this as an example of a company that could be disrupted from AI versus all the other software companies. But why don't you get into a quick overview of what ad lasian does because I don't think it's a household name by any stretch of the imagination. - Yeah, I mean, first of all, say right off the bat. In some ways, it's competitively a challenged business but in other ways, it's good business as it is a software company with, you know, some of the best in-class gross margins. It's 80 plus percent gross margins. You have retention rates that are, you know, 98, 99 percent net revenue retention. That's like 120. So there's a lot of stats, a lot of financial stats that are going for it. Other things in competitive factors, less so, which we'll get into. But just kind of a quick overall brief introduction of what ad lasian is, is it's basically work productivity software. So one of their core products is called JIRA. That started as basically helping software developers coordinate software development. And so you'll have different tasks to assign within a project. You'll have different coordination. You'll have, you know, basically making sure certain subtasks within a project are getting done. Certain things addressed. And so that's their core product called JIRA. Over time, it moved out from just being on software developers to being more for general business use. Now, there is a lot of competition in that segment. A lot of alternatives and competitors there as well. And then they have several other products. Confluence is the name of one JIRA service management, which is going to be IT ticket management. Very much a direct competitor to service now's, IT service management. They have Trello, they have Loom, some other kind of acquisitions that they've done. But everything is within this family of work productivity software. And it's worth mentioning that this is an older business. So it was founded in 2002. So, you know, a lot of the software is still on premise. So that's another part of the story. Is there still transitioning people from on-prem to SaaS cloud-based software, basically? And all of this is, you know, kind of just another kind of factor that supports this idea that it is kind of legacy software in a way, a lot of customers complain. That JIRA doesn't always work very well. Not a lot has changed in the past decade, other than some of the new features they've added. Haven't worked very well. Some integration issues with some of the other apps and all that. So, it's a product that it shouldn't be understated, that it's very hard to rip out. And it is critical to the workflows of people who use it every day. So there are software developers, people who are general business employees. Right now, this splits about one third software developers to general business or intelligent employees, so whatever they call it. And it's critical to their workflows. And so you have this whole history of all of your work you've done, you're coordinating across all your teams. And so, once you have projects based on there, and you're doing it constantly, it's not that expensive. It doesn't make that much of a sense to rip it out or replace it. And so that's kind of the reason why, even though there are a lot of competitors, a lot of alternatives. If you're ready on it, kind of pretty unlikely, you're gonna switch. It's not that expensive. So they do still have a little bit of a pricing power there. But to your point, was there a lot of risk in this business before AI? Yes, there was. But I think AI compounds that. And yeah, again, initially looking at this business to me, it just, it seems, there's two sides to this, right? Which is there are an immense number of very competent competitors in the space, right? And so I look at it and I go, man, it's hard to win incremental business here. And then you look at it and you go, okay, but it is also on the flip side very difficult to rip out if you have training and all the systems and all the projects on a certain platform. That is difficult to switch. So that's one side. And then the second side is I look at, well, it's hard to win market share, but then I go, well, they grew revenue 5x, net retention's over 100%. So not only are they maintaining customers, but those customers are increasing their spend on an annual basis. So then I'm kind of like, okay, well, high level, it seems like a bad business. I wouldn't get into my filters because I don't really know what the durable competitive advantages are other than that. You know, it's kind of a pain to move, but people aren't exceedingly happy with it, but you know, how unhappy with it. It's kind of the constellation thing, which is it's a mission critical, vertically integrated software that is very important to them, not a lot of money. And how much better is the next software company that might be 30% better, right? So now here's a great point because we get to talk about the difference between vertical software and horizontal software. And when you're dealing with constellation software and specific, the verticals are very niche. And as a result of that, there's not a lot of alternatives that exist, whereas when you're dealing with horizontal software, the market's much bigger, and there's much more reason for a competitor to want to enter that business, which is exactly what's happened. And you know, they have different products and different companies compete across different products, but you know, competitors include Monday.com, Asana, which is now my turn to mispronounce a company name, maybe, linear, Microsoft, ServiceNow, Notion, a lot of other businesses are competing against their core markets and a lot of probably new startups will continue to as well. And there's more of a possibility of someone at, you know, an enterprise company, something like that, using AI in my opinion to create some sort of in-house solution for this because it just doesn't seem like it's gonna be that complicated and maybe it's cheap enough that they don't bother to do it, but it just seems kind of possible because then you could customize it exactly to your workflows and get exactly what you want. Whereas, you know, if you're dealing with vertical market software and constellation software, you can't rip it out because it's mission-critical, you have all your data there, you have all your workflows there, and whatever customization you would theoretically want, you would just contract consolation to do that. And they were doing that before AI vibe coding was a thing. Consolation software is the professional service revenue, which was them going in there and building out revenues for them. And so the fact that you do for Atlassian, you have the workflows, you have the work history, it makes it a sticky product, but I just don't think many new up-and-coming startups are going to gravitate towards it. They have a lot of other options to go towards it. And so that does make it kind of like a legacy business hanging in there, doing the best they can from their existing customer group. It just doesn't seem like it's going to be a real share gain are there. Well, a good point in my misuse of vertical market. I guess I was using it vertical in the sense that it's a kind of a narrow-- I guess not that narrow. I mean, I know a lot of people who use a sauna in the project, and that is like really their main workflow. I mean, a lot of it stems from that. So you're right, vertical is just the wrong word to use there. It's definitely a horizontal platform. And again, makes sense. They attract more competitors and things of that nature. One thing which I agree with you-- when you have a legacy component, and you have a lot of the new, motivated, well-funded startups moving in, sauna, workday, some of those things you mentioned. But the narrative that I was kind of a melting ice cube to me, which was where immediately my mind went, was negated by the fact that their revenue growth is so significant, and has been for many years. So how do you reconcile those two things? And then I'm going to get into the AI argument with you. But first, just on their business level, how do you reconcile the melting ice cube argument with the revenue growth? Yeah, I mean, that is good pushback. Because they are still getting new customers. It's not like new customer growth is zero. They talk about total number of customers. And most recently, that was like a mid-teens growth rate. If you go back, though, to around-- let's say pre-COVID, that was 40%. In a couple of years before that, that was a high 20%, a 30% percent. So it's definitely been falling a lot. And then they also have this other number, which is number of customers with over $10,000 in ARR. And that's been consistently decreasing as well. That was 20%. If you go back a couple of years, and now it's about 10%. And so it's not like they're not gaining any new customers, but it's a growing market still for software, for work productivity, software, and all that. I imagine they're losing market share, and others are growing faster than them. But a lot of the revenue growth, too, has just been price increases, because it is a pretty sticky product as well. And then they also have had some acquisitions where they may not have necessarily acquired revenue, but once they acquired those businesses, they had these cross-sell opportunities. So it's selling different products, more products, to existing customers. So yes, there is still some customer growth, but it just hasn't been a ton, and I imagine moving forward. It just continues to get harder as well. I mean, a fair. I could see that. I think the AI argument, though, is still-- I'm not-- Let me give it to you. Let's see in it. Yeah, so right now, when you're coordinating different project tasks and stuff, you're starting your workflow in JIRA. And the question is, what if you start that instead in AI? So instead of going into this manual doc, manually doing the sub-tasking, what other people are working on and all of that, you instead go to your company's AI. And you say, hey, can you pull up information from this project I'm working on? What's remaining to be done? And the AI is the one that captures all of that information. And it has that repository. And it talks to the other employees. And all of that information is being pulled through the AI. So maybe the AI works with JIRA, and JIRA is kind of recording where all of that data is held. But maybe they also don't need JIRA at all. And maybe it's just able to do it without that. So that's one form of it, is the form function, basically, is changing the user interface, where the user interacts with the software, it moves to the AI. And so now it could be an AI talking to someone else's AI. Hey, I completed all of this stuff in this project. As I complete it, just go ahead and continue to alert the other employees in the project. What I've done, can you pass along these couple questions or something like that? When this other employee goes and sits down for the day and asks about this project, the AI has all this updated information. It's not someone needing to go into JIRA, type all of this in manually. And so maybe it's a little hard to picture right now, but that's one of the AI risks. There's other AI risks, too. One of the bigger ones I think is also that if you are a company like Microsoft and you have copilot, you say, hey, this kind of seems tangential to the thing we're building. Why don't we also go ahead and build something like this? Or maybe an individual company, a lot of these different software development platforms like ServiceNow, Salesforce, and Microsoft have the ability for an enterprise to create their own application on their platform. And so I think that's something else that can happen. Maybe it integrates very easily with teams. And so now you're chatting into AI, you could chat to teams. And at the same time, it's recording and pulling a lot of this information. It's coordinating with Outlook. And it's able to say what work progress has been done on a given project. And so all of these are, they're kind of open-ended risk. But it just seems like the vectors of competition could be changing over time. And it's just not that like you need Jira. And there's no alternatives. It's not that great of a pull of a product that I just couldn't see workflows changing. And there's different ways around this. And by the way, there's a lot of freemium competition too, which is I guess a little tangential to that. But that's another kind of factor floating in there where now you have an AI and you could use like a free tool to access that AI. It's kind of reminding me of, I think it was last week where I was kind of like, oh, they're going to have this AI product and you're like, what is that? And I'm like, well, they could, you know, and you were kind of pinning me down on that. And it feels like you're kind of making that argument right now, which is-- I feel like I described what it could look like though. Yeah, but to me, it just seems like why? So you're saying, oh, the whole workflow is going to go away because you'll have this AI agent. I mean, but all of this needs to live somewhere and you want it to look up somewhere. Right. So why would they not layer on an AI, which are already doing? Why would they? They're doing that. So they have their own AI agent that they're layering on. And they'll say, you know, people use the AI agent. AR is twice as high as those that don't. The question is, how does an employee's interaction with their work change across time? Is every employee going to an individual app and using that individual apps AI agent? Or is there going to be one company level AI agent that orchestrates a lot of this? Or is it going to be co-pilot? Is it going to be Claude? Is there going to be one AI agent that is connecting to all of these other apps and can actually connect to other AI agents? It's capable of doing that as well. I don't know is what I'm saying. And that's a new risk. I would imagine that if you're thinking of what company is going to really own an AI agent, someone like Jira is just in the weakest position. I see that someone like Microsoft with co-pilot a much better position, even service now. I think their idea of being the AI control tower and the platform, that makes more sense to me, or a Salesforce. Someone like Jira, it just seems to me is a weaker position for that. I get that a lot of people do a lot of daily work in that. It just doesn't seem like that's going to be that AI agent that is going to be that go to one. And it's going to then send work to other AI agents. I don't even know if you're capable of doing that right now with their current AI agent, which, by the way, is called Rovo, is capable of doing that. I know, for instance, that Claude co-work is capable of plugging into Salesforce API and vice versa. Salesforce's agent force is capable of calling up Claude. And so these are things that make more sense to me as one possible way you're dealing and interacting with the AI layer. I just, maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see Rovo as being like the center of workflows in directing AI work to other sub-AI agents. I see them as being more likely to be a sub-AI agent, which means there's another layer on top of that last year, which means reduce visibility, reduce visibility, reduce customer interaction, the potential for your workloads to basically be circumvented over time. Maybe you don't actually need your own. Maybe it just becomes kind of a system of record or something like that, where it has a bunch of history, but it becomes used less and less over time as more future work gets stored in this AI's new AI's memory layer. And so I don't know. This is kind of how I'm describing it. So here's, again, breaking this down to me, the AI agent's always complicated, because one, you have the software interactions who can just layer on AI. And this is the other thing, you look at the billions of dollars in R&D and stock comp, right, that's an argument. So we're making the argument that an AI agent, cloud or internal, is going to be able to completely replace the entire stack of billions of dollars of software hours. And again, if that's the base case of AI, I just feel like the issues in society are so much broader than Atlassian being down 20%. Like the AI would have to be so good to completely-- - Well, let me put this question to you in a place. - Let me put this question to you instead. Maybe this will help. Do you see Atlassian being in a different competitive position than ServiceNow or Salesforce? 'Cause the question you post is too blanket, in my opinion. Do I see Atlassian in a worse position? A different competitive position than Salesforce or ServiceNow. 'Cause you're painting the picture, like these are all the same software companies, and it's the same argument. But me, Atlassian's in a worse position. But Atlassian was in a worse position, 'cause it's a board's business than those businesses. It's already in a worse position. - And you think AI doesn't change that, though? - There's no significant thing worth pointing out, though, with this new AI vector. - I think it was in a very compelling business before AI. It's not a compelling business after AI. And yeah, it's at least compelling now. But I don't think it's like, that's the reason it's not compelling as AI. That's not the reason to me. But it's less. - Like I don't think a narrative should have been, - Oh, at last June was an investment, but now because of AI, it's not. To me, you get what I'm saying? It doesn't seem like that was the straw. - I don't disagree with that. I think that AI still made it a worse business, though. I think that if you were looking at the way the stock price traded and all that before, it did assume a lot of growth in the future. Since it's been down some 75%, now it trades at an EV to sales of four times. So, I guess before that would have been closer to like a mid teens to around 20 times EV to sales figure, at least on trailing. So, yeah, that did assume a lot of growth and that was probably the wrong valuation, just given how competitively challenged this market has been. A lot of new entrants and not a great business in that regard. I hear you there. On the other end, you could point to the fact that, it's still at 80% plus gross margins, very high retention, high net revenue retention and all of that look fine. It just seemed like it was mismanaged in terms of the PNL. R&D has always been very high. And I think that still though, AI's made this a worse business nevertheless. I think that this is a new competitive vector that challenges them in a new way, has to make them address it in a new way. And it makes some a worse business because it's less likely they're able to continue to grow and get that tam. And I know this AI agent thing in way of working, it's still kind of theoretical, it's not here yet. But I do think that there's a real risk that it basically gets subsumed, where people are not going directly to a Jared Dashboard to do all this, and instead it's happening on the AI agent layer, which makes it easier in the future for people to either switch to someone else or to never have them in the first place, all of that becomes more of a potential over time. If you're interacting with this AI layer and it's pulling all your information, it has all this data and maybe four years from now, all of the data and information is already stored at the AI layer and they're like, and it doesn't really matter what we did that much before four years on Jared. And by the way, there's new ways that we could move that data over if we really wanted to save it. And it's just not important to our workflow anymore, or the way we're working is changing. And I get that part's a little theoretical and I get your point that it was a bad business before. I still think it's a worst business after AI. I'll concede that, it's worse, it's worse. I'll give it to you that. Here's my rule of thumb now for AI, which I think is reasonable, which is there's kind of two outcomes here. One is that we reach superhuman level intelligence and that an AI can recode everything at last, he has spent billions of dollars and all of his effort on and that AI can recode that platform and everyone's gonna have their own. Okay, that's one outcome. That's a draconian outcome for humanity. I don't know what that looks like, right? That's like superhuman level intelligence at every layer of a thousand engineers and they can build whatever. In that world, I don't know. I don't know what we're investing in all that. The second kind of outcome here is that to me, the software companies that are in trouble are software companies that if I had a full time human sitting next to me, who could solve certain problems for me, then that would be a problem. And I think of Cheg as a prime example, which is if I had a hyper-confident tutor in every subject sitting next to me, what's the point of Cheg? It's a homework helper. Okay, same thing, I look at QuickBooks as an example of something that I thought would be useless, but as like a CFO or someone entering data, if I had a full time human doing that and I'm actually the one who needs to has the knowledge of the expenses and needs to categorize and I'm interested in how money is flowing in and out, a full time human's not really going to necessarily help me. I need to sit with the data. I need to look through the profit and losses. I need to look at what statements are coming out and how am I going to do that? QuickBooks is a good example of how I'm going to do that and I don't necessarily see if I had a full time CFO or the right of me, maybe I'd interact with it on top of QuickBooks, but I wouldn't rip it out. And so to me, that's kind of my heuristic about software. Like at last, and it seems like if I want to see what Joe's doing, I still want some type of software interface to determine, well, where am I in this project? Where is this happening? I don't need to necessarily be talking to someone the whole time, like I want a platform to see everything. And again, whether that's at last scene or something else, but that seems like if humans are involved at all, there needs to be somewhere that this is interacted with. Yeah, and I agree with that. And it remains to be seen though, whether or not these AI agents can spin up dashboards, graphics, tables, maybe a recurring user sort of interface exactly the way you want it to look like. And it could just stabilize that and keep showing you the same thing over time. You're capable of doing that. And that gets a little bit more into the argument of kind of vibe coding your own software. But that's still kind of one of the ways that I think that they could be at risk. I guess when you are dealing with anything you've used a lot, you get used to the UI. And so that's definitely protection against them there. So I think generally speaking, it's more a new competitive vector that makes it harder for them to win new customers, win new market share, and also get into new businesses as well, whereas an old legacy business that is just used to using it pretty unlikely it switches or changes anytime soon. But it's just a new competitive vector for new businesses, something weighing on growth even more. And look, I'm with you on that. I would, like I said, I would concede at last scene as a worst business after AI. Not a worst business necessarily, but this is my other argument with all these software companies. The distribution outcome has widened. And I think that it's widened in a negative way for them, in that there are more scenarios in which things don't work out with the advent of AI. But it doesn't mean that their future necessarily is going to be horrible. But I think it's gotten wider, the distribution. Yeah, and we keep calling it a bad business, but I feel like there's a few other things. Facts we need a surface in order to really make that claim. So I'm going to take over as host and direct this part right here, which is that if you look at their PNL, it is pretty gross. So this is a company that is 24 years old. This is a 24 year old software company. And their operating margins are negative. They have a negative 4% operating margin. They were just a little bit profitable. If we go back to 2022, and then they haven't been profitable since on a gap basis. If you look at R&D as a percent of revenue, it is 50%. Now, I don't like to be the guy that's looking at a company and saying, oh, you're spending too much money on research and all that, but I kind of am going to say that in this case because customer critiques are that the product has barely changed. So I don't understand how you're spending 50% on R&D. And some of the scuttle butt we got from AlphaSense with these expert called transcripts was that for whatever reason got this idea that they needed to hire a lot of people from Google and Meta and Microsoft, like Feng Talent. And as a result of that, they were paying a very, very high premium of that. But also, the only people that were leaving were not the best performers, we'll say. And so they not only paid up a lot for them, it also may not have been the best talent. And either way, they're spending half of the revenues on revenue, which is just an insane amount. You had no operating leverage on the R&D line. Item, basically, ever, if we go to 2017, it was still 50%, now it's 52%. So it's jacked up even higher. If we look at marketing and sales, also, no negative operating leverage on that line then went from 21% to 23, from 2017 to the last 12 months. So you would want to see a software company that goes from $600 million in revenue in 2017 to over $6 billion in revenue. So 10X in revenue, show at least a little bit of operating leverage, but you didn't get any of that from the business. If you're looking at stock-based comp, it is 25% of revenue, so very, very high. So all of those, it just seems like a very poorly managed business from a P&L perspective. I'm not sure what they're spending so much money on R&D for because customers don't seem to be that enthused with product developments. And on top of that, they've made some dubious acquisitions. Most recently, they made an acquisition of a browser company. But yeah, it is funny because a lot of the software company guys will say, "Oh, mature margins." And we've been into this argument before, you and I, about mature margins and whether they're ever materialized and a CEO, especially a founder, CEO is ever going to admit, "Oh, we're a mature company now." And it's time to show cashflow, even though in your video, which I think you made a great point, most other software companies kind of heard the writing and saw the writing on the wall that, "Hey, it's time 2021 was growth at all costs, 2023." Really, after the rate hike was show money because people want to see the money now. Now with AI, I guess people don't want to see the money again, they're kind of over it. You know, "Oh, blow all your money on." As long as you're blowing it on NVIDIA chips, I guess that's a fine way to spend money, but that's the only exception. Yeah, I mean, if you're looking at even Salesforce, which for the long time was kind of, you know, the stock, the market made fun of for being like an unprofitable mature software company because they're also a pretty old business. Even they went from, you know, 2022 from 3% margins to now they have 20% margins. So, you know, they got the note, they've also clamped down on stock-based comp as well. You know, and in terms of, you know, stock-based comp, they went from a company that used to have, you know, stock-based comp is a percent of revenue and like the midteens, which is still by the way lower than we're at last year is today, till like mid single digits, maybe mid to high single digits, something like 67%. So still high, but, you know, that's progress, whereas you just didn't see that with that last year. Despite the fact they had this revenue growth, and so all of that was, you know, kind of problematic on the mature margin discussion, not to rehash the whole thing, but in theory, this is a business that should be able to generate solid gap profitability. I don't see any reason why that's not the case, and I think it's because they're kind of wasting money, if you will, on quote-unquote growth expenses that don't actually lead to real growth, or that are unnecessary, that's why they're ultimately not profitable. That's my suspicion. Now, the browser company acquisition is interesting, because it's kind of, to me, a sort of evidence point that what I was saying about the fear of AI was correct. Because the reason why they want to own a browser is because they're saying, oh, hey, everyone accesses ChatGPT and Cloud in their Chrome or Internet Explorer browser. And if we own the browser, then we would control that customer interface. And we could create an AI browser that is tied to JIRA and our other apps. And then enterprises, we'd be able to sell these browsers to. And that way, we don't have to worry about being displaced by an AI agent, which is what their strategy was with that. So they spent over $600 million on this thing. And I really don't like making a lot of confident predictions, but I'm pretty confident this is going to be a right off of an acquisition. Because it just makes no sense to me very simply because this is not something I don't think customers want. I don't think a customer wants a brand new Internet browser. It's notoriously hard to get people to use a different Internet browser. ChatGPT just failed with Atlas. That hadn't gone well at all. And so I don't see that JIRA or Atlassian is going to be the one to all set and break that mold. And I don't see people switching because they want to help solve a business problem at Atlassian. And this is kind of getting back to one of the key mistakes that businesses make all the time, which is that they are thinking what helps them and what helps them from their strategic position, from an issue with their business. They're not thinking about what is an issue the consumer needs to solve. They're thinking what's an issue with our business can we solve? And because of that and not understanding that distinction, it leads them to bad strategic decisions. And I think that's what this is. They're trying to solve a business problem. They're worried that they're going to lose the direct customer interface. They're worried that they're going to lose their direct customer relationship. And so they bought this browser to try to solve for that. This doesn't solve for a customer problem, though. And I predict it will be very hard to convince enterprises to try a new browser, not least of which is because of security reasons, but also customers, but also employees are just used to using an individual browser. And by the way, all these different AI features and the ability to have an AI browser and all that, if there's any advantage to that, I think that it's going to be Chrome and Internet Explorer with Microsoft that are going to better be able to embed all of their tools into that browser. And so the idea that somehow this is a big benefit to a customer. If you're using Gira through a browser and it's tied together, I just-- I don't see it. It doesn't make any sense to me. You know what I'm seeing? I'm seeing the makings of Portfolio, or Portfolio that is software companies that have been oversold, not Atlassian, because I don't-- I think there's better software companies out there that have been re-rated because of AI. And then almost another portion of Portfolio that is a real world, kind of the anti-AI trade-- not the anti-AI trade, but just real world stuff. I'm thinking flooring to core. I'm talking co-port, I'm talking those types of things, and that's a nice merger, because if AI goes superhuman, well, we've got some real world stuff, if AI doesn't go superhuman, still great companies, and then we got the software upside. So, you know, it's what I'm seeing here, crew. I have no idea how you went on that tangent from what I just said, but-- No, no, no, this was completely unrelated. I heard what you had to say. They're talking browsers, you're talking capital allocation, but this is where my mind is. How are we going to take some action? This is why we're a good duo, because instead of working together, we're just often different directions, completely off. I stopped listening to the ad-Lasian discussion as soon as we started having it. So, to me, I'm on to the next thing. All right, well, maybe that's a good time to then move on to the next thing. So, everyone's on to the next thing. No, I'm going to wrap this up with Ad-Lasian. I think overall, I've been kind of harsh on it. That's unfair. I think that it's a company that's been around since 2002. There are some compelling stats. There are some uncompelling stats. It's trading, as you mentioned, at the valuation, there's a reasonable thesis to be had around Ad-Lasian keeping its place or layering on AI and not being this kind of complete casualty of this AI transition, right? Well, there's actually one other thing I want to bring into the discussion. Last point, which is that there's co-CEOs of Ad-Lasian. And one of the CEOs recently stepped down. It was kind of reported that probably was because of strategic differences, but also because apparently one of them bought like $100 million home and then the other one bought 80 or 100 whatever it was, $1 million home right next to him. And then renovated this $100 million home without getting his permission or something. And so, they fought over this. And that was another thing floating around there. And at the same time, this CEO, whose name is Mike Cannonbrooks, he's also been very active with social issues and stuff. And this is at a time where business could use a little more attention. And so that was kind of another weird thing. I didn't like to see co-CEOs of over two decades like getting a fight over what should happen with their $100 million properties that just happened to be next to each other. Yeah, another kind of layered in that saga, right? So it's an interesting company for sure. But let's get into our next topic, which is Dualingo. Another company where, I gotta say, like I just mentioned, where if I had a full-time, very comprehensive Spanish tutor that could AI straight directly to me, that seems better than Dualingo. So in my little heuristic I've developed, Dualingo's not in good shape. But what's up? You know what's funny? I've never, I don't actually ever recall you being excited to talk about any of the topics we've talked about on the podcast. I mean, you know, I get a little, I get excited about co-part, I get excited. I, we haven't talked about Gary in a while. It's Gary Binov too. I mean, where is he on our age job? That's Gary Binov, RH for those wondering right there. Yeah, where's Gary Bin? I mean, you know what? I mean, has the luxury housing market still down? Or what's up? That's all you want is unhinged CEOs of real world businesses. That's what I want. I want the, I want the cavalier, I want the trailblazers. But okay, Dualingo. To me, using my heuristic of, would I rather have a full-time custom Spanish tutor sitting next to me or have Dualingo? I'd rather have my Spanish tutor sitting next to me. So, Dualingo is not a lot of great company using my-- Yeah, that's just an awful take, awful take. So, let's break down one, it's just such a fat take. So, really? Yeah, I think that's very bad. I don't think AI is actually a risk to Dualingo at all. I don't think that's the reason why they're down. You and I, we're going to have to meet outside for this because we're having some huge disagreements that are not getting resolved right here. Well, you know, I thought that's what the podcast was for, but I guess we're entering new levels of the synopsis in season four. New levels, yeah, UFC ultimate fighting. Maybe we could get it outside the White House too. Yeah, there we go. So, yeah, I don't agree with that take, and here's why. So, if you're thinking about what Dualingo's actually serving, I don't think it's to learn an education. I don't think many people download the app with the explicit purpose of I'm going to learn to become fluent in this app. I think instead, a lot of people, they see the marketing for it. Maybe they want to brush up a little on a language, learn a few words, maybe they have travel coming up. And so, they download the app, they play around with it. It's like a gamified social learning experience, right? There's all of those elements going on. It's not like you're sitting down with like a book or maybe some AI version of this to really learn a language. Instead, I want to look at some graphics. I like the noises. I have score streaks. I share them with my friends. It's kind of a fun thing. And by the way, the top 10% of users spend under three minutes a day on the app. So a very, very small portion of your day is spent on that. So, you're not going to learn a language or become fluent spending a couple minutes a day, yet that's the vast majority of usage. And so, I think that understanding why users actually use DuoLingo is kind of key to this. And I don't think most of them come with very serious intent to learn a language. I think if they do, they kind of learn after some period of time that this isn't going to be the best way to do that. I think instead, it is more because it's gamified. There's a social element to it. It's kind of fun. And you could feel good. You learn a couple words or something like that. And that's your experience. Now, that's why I don't think AI is actually competitive to it. I don't think this idea that, oh, I'm going to go spend my time in chat GPT with talking to AI or something or have it create me a custom course. I think the person that was going to do that was not going to go and think of DuoLingo as a replacement. So, that's the first thing. The second thing is, yes, AI allows you to create more apps and all that. But there's already a lot of language apps out there, the real problems distribution. And somehow DuoLingo has been able to crack that with their superior marketing strategy, the so-called unhinged marketing, which I'll talk about in a moment. Respond, the unhinged marketing strategy. I just, I fundamentally just don't understand how you're going to make this argument about Atlassian about, oh, we're going to have a general AI. And we're going to have internal spinups. And it's how can you not see this company getting disrupted and then DuoLingo, which is the most basic app. I just, I don't get it. It just, that feels like the app that's very easily taken about take-- oh, it's fine. You know, everyone's got their opinion, right? So the thing is that it's not that AI can't make this app. It's more that there's been a lot of alternatives to language learning apps currently, right? And then the question is, why did one kind of succeed whether others haven't? And once you get that level of distribution, you get the brand and all that, it does become a little bit-- Well, let me ask Cycle because you've tried to learn Mandarin. It hasn't gone well, but you've tried. This is that contentious podcast. (laughs) You know what I blame? I blame it being 100 degrees in the valley. That's what I blame it on. - Yeah, there you go, that's-- - Making us feisty. - Yeah, it's making us feisty, but you try to learn Mandarin. Duolingo was an option, but what did you do? You went to hire a Mandarin tutor. - So I used to-- - What was the better experience? Mandarin tutor or Duolingo? - So this makes my point, in my opinion. I thought Duolingo would help me learn the language better and it didn't. It would teach me to like a couple random words and it just wasn't a great way for me to learn. And I preferred to use a book and kind of a more traditional means to brush up. And so that's to me making my point because I don't think the average person goes to Duolingo to become seriously fluent. They do it for some token language before they land in their foreign country for their vacation, that's what you're saying. I think there's an element to it where the fact that it's gamified, it's fun, it's a little bit like a game. You learn a little bit which can feel good and can feel rewarding and you get a nice sound when you get something correct. Then you have the score streaks, which is a big reason why people continue to do it every day. They're like the score streaks. And I do think they did a good job with these notifications, the apps getting people to return to it. But the fact that people are spending under three minutes a day on it, the top 10% of people are spending under three minutes a day. So I'm somewhere I've seen even two minutes. This is coming from the rap data. That suggests that the vast majority of users are not serious in trying to learn a language. You're not serious trying to learn a language if you're spending under 15 minutes a week on it. - So I, this is where I'm not. So you have a bunch of un-serious, unmotivated people as the core user of your apps who don't, like how is that a good business? You have a, like we talk about-- - I'm not making an argument, it's a good business. I'm making an argument that AI is not going to replace that. - Oh, okay, sorry. We're having you want discussions here. Whether AI, you're right, you're right. - 'Cause your whole thing is if you have a person next to you that can do it, then it's going to replace it. And I'm saying that that's the wrong model here because people are not using this app in order to replace a tutor. They're using it for these other reasons. - Okay, well, if we're going to say the distribution curve has increased. Okay, so you can say that AI can make it a human tutor or we have metaglasses that can do live translation or something of that nature or an AI agent who can do live translation. Would you agree that AI has made Duolingo a worse business? - Again, I don't think that people are going there because I need to learn a language to learn how to translate something quickly before I go on. This stuff existed for years. There's the ability for Google Translate for a long time. They had the headphones that would automatically do that. There's portable translators you could get that would translate stuff. I saw those when I was in Japan and some of those are like a decade old. So again, I just don't think that's the core reason why people learn. People learn a language because they want to speak it. They find something self-gradifying about it. And those are the reasons why you learn a language, but you don't necessarily go to Duolingo to learn a language. You go for kind of these other reasons. That some of them, they overlap a little bit with wanting to learn a language, but it's just not that serious of a person who's there. And I don't mean to offend anyone. This is just based off of my experience and my friends' experiences who have used it where they'll use it for some period of time. They'll pick up a couple dozen words. And if they're really serious about learning language, they'll do something else. If they're not, they're going to turn from the app. So let me ask you the golden question, Drew, which is if you're drawing a distribution curves of outcomes for Duolingo, will you not admit that AI has given some increased outcomes, increased negative outcomes to Duolingo? Or you think there's been no change? I'm sure there's some, but that to me is not the problem with the business. I think the market narrative and the reason, the stock's been down 75%, and a lot of people in the market think it has something to do with AI. I think it's just a more prosaic business problem, having to do with the fact that your customer acquisition strategy kind of broke as you churned through a lot of users. And then you had existing users leaving, and now you need to change your value prop in order to get users to come back. Because you're out of users that have basically never tried the app before, and now you need to try to re-acquire users that have tried the app before. So you need to change your marketing message, but you also need to change your product. I think this is a more prosaic issue. That happens with businesses, and it's not the AI-related thing. Yes, this is a far out risk, but this hasn't happened yet. And we're already seeing deteriorations and growth. We're already seeing issues with the business today. So it's not the case, like when the software companies were, even with that last year, you know, you could say they're still growing and all of that. Right now, what we've seen is a slowing of growth, a big deceleration where they were growing, you know, bookings 40% a year a couple of years ago. Now they're guiding to 6% next quarter. And so the question is, why that deceleration? I think it's a more prosaic business problem. It doesn't have to do with AI. AI could be a potential future risk, but that's not what we're seeing here now, and it's kind of muddling what's going on when people confuse the two. This is kind of a funny discussion we're having in general, because you're kind of like, oh, it's not a blood bath because of AI. It's a blood bath because it's just not a good business, which is kind of like, oh, they didn't lose the war because the general made a mistake. They lost the war because the lieutenant made it. Yeah, I don't know. It's what's the point. (laughing) I think these things matter. I think these things absolutely matter because if you're under the assumption that it's because of AI, then you're stuck disputing the AI risk case, and you're totally missing the underlying business deterioration. So I think that trying to understand a reason to attribute to a business's deterioration is absolutely critical, especially if you're counting on a turnaround, because there's probably a lot of people out there right now that are maybe owning the stock thinking, oh, I'm not worried about AI. Well, let's point to this. Are you worried about this, this other thing going on there? And that's not to say it's a good or bad stock or any of that, we could talk more about that. But I think the key issue with DuLingo is not actually being surfaced, which has to do with the fact that their customer acquisition strategy is not working. Their customer acquisition strategy is changing. They talked about the fact that they're not going to do unhinged marketing. They're not going to do that in domestic markets anymore. They kind of give this reason that, oh, it's not exactly what we want or brand to be known as, but at the same time, they're still using that strategy internationally, so that does not comport. Instead, I think it's really because getting someone to download an app on an unhinged marketing strategy will work once. It won't work twice. And so once someone's already downloaded the app, and DuLingo didn't really give them the experience they wanted and they churned, they're not going to re-download the app because they get an unhinged marketing ad. And so now they have to change their message. And when they change their message, they have to change their value prop, too, which is exactly what CEO Louis Bonon has talked about. He's talked about the fact that they need to actually make it basically a better educational app. And if we are talking about AI, I actually think AI, for them, could be an enabler of this. And I could see it kind of in a simple way where you're talking to one of these characters or something in the app, and it's all AI led. And so for the ability for AI to actually have you converse live in an app, I think is a very cool new feature to actually help teach and educate. They've also talked about how AI has helped the number of courses grow, and so a lot more lessons and all of that. So that's one way AI could be helpful. But again, the big theme is that I don't think the key issue with what is going on with DuLingo has anything to do with AI or anything to do with competition that currently exists today. I think it's just a more prosaic go-to-market strategy issue and value prop misalignment. Well, I see your argument. I do see your argument as to the decline matters, I suppose. I suppose it matters. To me, it kind of we're going back to Adlesi and Atlassian and then I've already mispronounced an Adlesi and whatever it is called. I'm taking the opposite take, which is I think that all the things you mentioned about capital allocation and stock-based comp and where's their growth coming from and the competitive dynamic. To me, those are, again, fundamental business risks more than the AI risk. You're taking more of an AI risk opinion. To me, DuLingo's a little bit of both, but I do think that the overall statement that AI has made DuLingo worse business, I don't think I would die on the hill that it hasn't. Obviously, you are dying on the hill. What's just fine? That's fine. So what's your argument? I don't see how you made it a worse business. I don't see how you make your argument. No, I just like you're making your argument that, oh, yeah. Well, AI, you can vibe could all these things and there's all these new-- Are you talking prospectively like in the future about it becoming a worse business because of AI? Or currently, as of today, it's a worse business because of AI. Are you-- well, again, let's go back to that. Atlassian discussion. So Atlassian? Because of AI, Atlassian is a better business today. But I think it's a future risk. I think AI's had no impact on DuLingo's existing business and negative impact. And it could have had a little bit of a positive impact because it's allowed them to roll out a lot more categories. And I think in the future, I don't see it as being a big risk. That's a take. I disagree with the take, but it's a take. What's your take? My take is similar to what I said, which is I think that the outcomes for DuLingo have worse. And I know you're saying, oh, well, there's all these other language competitors. But if you look at what-- In the future. Sure, in the future. I can't-- we can't argue that. That's a-- we don't know what's going to happen in the future. But today, do you think DuLingo's business model got worse today because of AI? No, but I think the market-- Financials were hit. Not what the stocks pricing and like the actual financials have been hit because of AI, which was what I was saying. Unless, again, this is where I don't fall DuLingo closely enough, but I would assume unless there's some computation increase cost from all the AI features that they've added. That's a lower margin service. Then I guess I'm sure it is. I'm sure it's it's weighed on like gross profit margins like buy a point or two But that's very minimal and then you could push back on that other end and say well that helped increase retention They were able to charge more for all of that etcetera. All right. Well, it's just good that you have very very strong opinions on a business You've self-professed to never have looked at But I could be wrong too. Well, that's one thing you got to know about me, which is I can have strong opinions about anything with Delimited information, but that's what makes me a good host true That's that's what makes you a good host All right, well, I'm gonna take over hosting again I'm gonna move on from the dual-lingo topic and let's get to these these last news items of Waymo Uber and Both it. Yeah, look good good hosting drew way to way to take it over for me I think I needed that you know, you're right the heat the heat's getting to my head Make getting getting me feisty over here, but this Uber news doesn't make it any better Which is so the news came out uber is favoring autonomous vehicle regulations to protect uber drivers I don't know what legislator is take. I mean that I can't see a more shameless backing of trying to just Intrench your business and regulations and if that's kind of ubers I don't know how much eggs are throwing in this basket, but the hey, we got a We got to nationalize the uber drivers for job protection if that's kind of the route they're going I mean, I'm not really feeling I don't think they're feeling too optimistic about their future if that's I don't know How many if that's their strategy at the moment? You know, that was kind of my first take to be honest is that if they're supporting this legislation to Protect uber drivers, you know, I get part of the legislation is You can't like have an autonomous vehicle without like someone inside of it or something like that and Obviously not good for a V at least in the in the short term. Maybe that legislation is and That was my take is like it can't be a good thing that they're supporting this It kind of suggests that maybe they do have a crack or they're worried about AV and all that in their business model My now current take though is like if you're uber like why not like yeah? Why not support that legislation and you know pushback AV if you can and if it works like all the benefit to you if it doesn't work then You know, you'll deal with what's there? And so I it does suggest they are you know a little worried about autonomous vehicles for sure But the other side of that is like the status quo is pretty good for them right now And so if something helps entrench the status quo then you know it makes sense. Why not support it? I mean, I get that too. Yeah, why not shoot or shoot right? Yeah, so if it helps great, I respect that you know, I think it's prudent of them again Not giving me a lot of confidence in this narrative that they're going to somehow integrate all of these AI You know integrate all the autonomous vehicles onto the uber app and sit on top of them which is a future You know, I find to be unlikely. So yeah We'll see where that lands with uber but not giving me an immense amount of confidence in that business So another uber news since we're hitting this they acquired delivery hero for 15 billion so that's giving them kind of some access to European food delivery markets any take on that or just what you know diving more into food delivery Yeah, I mean, you know, it makes sense You know that they need to basically get more volume more customers more Restaurants on to their uber eats platform. I don't know much about the specifics evaluation or anything like that But you know, they're trying to catch up to DoorDash There's a lot of other competitors markets are consolidating and that I think food delivery is a better business than Ride Hill is just because it's a three-side marketplace instead of two and Less you know risk that there's all a sudden and become suppliers that become aggregated and have some sort of power leverage Which was the whole AV discussion that we did prior so Really no notes that that's the highest praise you could receive from true no notes That's enough of our uber quick update. Let's get into Buffett who we alluded to so Buffett kind of spoke about how he was the main perpetrator of the Google investment from Berkshire so if Buffett was the main perpetrator of the Google perpetrator the main Yeah, is that not right? I think that's not bad. I guess it's usually is a negative connotation But the main is a gator individual commits a crime illegal hot act or harmful or immoral deed All right That was the wrong word. We'll say main instigator main decision Whatever he was the main guy behind the Google investment. Does that change anything for you? That this was a Buffett not a Greg Able or I guess Todd doesn't work there anymore, right? Or Ted doesn't work there Which one doesn't work there? I don't remember do they both not work? Todd Combs left Todd Combs left. Okay, so Todd and Ted the end of the end of the Todd Combs error, but regardless Does that mean anything incrementally to you that was buffing himself that made that investment? A little I mean, I don't know how Greg invests really and it's kind of a little odd that now they have like more capital than ever before And it's going to be someone that we've never seen actually allocate capital and I guess he's been running the business as an argument He's been allocating capital Organically as he's been running the businesses, but we've never seen how he invests investment stakes in public markets And so it gives me a little more confidence But it was also a little odd. I don't know. It just seemed a little weird to be honest. Buffett usually doesn't buy companies That you know are trading near all times highs when he was doing that You know, the Google stake was already up a lot. It kind of felt like he was sitting on the sidelines all long time And it was just weird timing to all of a sudden be like okay, they're doing an equity offering like we'll take a big bite of that I don't know that that just all seems a little weird to me And then he's also talking about how they're going to deploy so much capital and he's saying you know a great business Is one that can deploy a lot of capital at a high rate of return But if anything is kind of in question right now, I feel like is what is the rate of return of some of this capex? And you know more so I think for maybe Google than meta. That's more my opinion Certainly, you know Google's been a great business. You know that they have cloud They have you know the AI models and they're in a good position and all of that But I don't know it's still a lot of money that they're spending and they're spending it at an increasing rate and It's not that I have anything wrong with someone taking that opinion. It's just a little odd that You're going to say Google wasn't obvious for maybe the past 20 years and then at this moment today It all of a sudden becomes an obvious thing for you. That's the weird thing to me is I think it was a much cleaner case to be made You know 10 years ago or something then it would be today at this this price evaluation with all of a sudden them moving to a very You know heavy cap axe bend So you're telling me the man born in 1930 is not necessarily making the most apt technology investments in 206 I think he had again I don't mean to sound disparaging towards about it. Obviously, he's an icon. Yeah, you should invest in community, you know, I sure am but I just feel I just don't get I'm not taking the same signals that I was from him, you know looking you know Watching the annual meeting and night, you know the 1998 annual meeting or the two that like he just not the same It's just not the same anymore. I don't I don't say not the same I just for someone who for so long considered technology outside of the circle of competence and that's fine You know, I can respect that it just seems weird that in this moment right here He considers it now to be within his circle of competence and that to me is just odd because it it seems like you know This would have been a better business for him to understand even five years ago because five years ago He was also talking about how much Geico spent on search ads and how much you know the return on ad spend was for that business And how was a big mistake but even back then it wasn't trading at that high of a multiple And so I don't know why you know, he passed on it then, but now it's like when they're going into negative free cashflow And they're spending all of this money on catbacks and AI is such a big question mark that all of a sudden it's like now the future is clear for me and Look he's he's the best he will always be the best investor I think it's something like you know Berkshire could go down 99% he's still beat the S&P 500 so no one can say anything against him, but I don't know. It's a little weird to me Say one thing also with the buffet you know buffet people live by these buffet axioms and he will be the first You know always say don't buy commodities and then that won't be only oh I spent not two hundred million on silver because I think that a Supply and a man mechanic that you know the supply and demand was off and so he always does these things which are I think people live by what he says a lot more intensely than he does and so Which I by the way I think is the right thing for him to do I think you know You have general rules, but sometimes you know situations change and you need to make exceptions and I think that's actually the right way to do it But yeah, I don't know it's a little odd too because I remember his interview when he's talking about paramount when they made that investment And someone was asking him on the investment thesis there and though the whole you know time he's talking about it It's basically why was such a bad investment and this is while he owned it Why it could be a bad investment why competition you know is picking up? Why could be a bad industry content spends hard customer acquisitions expensive yada yada yada and yeah that ended up being right and it was just I don't know I thought that was weird because he spent so long talking about like why it wasn't a good business and then you know I hear him talk about you know Google right now where he's saying you know great business is one that could deploy a lot of capital to very high-rate a return And then you know of course a lot of people the question they have is what is that return going to be we don't really know you know Historically, it's been pretty good, but it's it seems to me a little bit more skeptical especially when a lot of the spend a lot of these Companies are doing are like we know on like kind of artificially priced you know memory and semi-conductors and you know they're hoping to get a premium in order to continue to sell more compute You know to anthropic and to open AI and They need to buy that compute because they need to continue to generate more revenues and they need to generate more revenues to show more growth Because they're trying to go public because they want to continue to get a higher valuation, but all of this It's still a little bit of a question marked to me and I fully you know, it's not like I don't believe in AI or anything like that. I just think when you have multiple companies that very quickly get, you know, truly in plus dollar valuations for, you know, being AI companies, there's still a lot to be proven out in terms of the economics of that. And that means downstream of that, the infrastructure providers of all of this, there's also a little bit of a question market in terms of how sustainable their economics are. I don't see how all of these companies can just continue to build out, you know, data centers with basically, you know, off the shelf purchase parts and not that it's not hard to do it, but there's a lot of players that are able to make data centers and just by virtue of creating one, you're able to get, you know, a pretty high margin business. That just doesn't seem sustainable to me. And so at some point, there could be another shoe to drop there. And so, you know, I don't talk about really what I own or anything like that, but I'm not negative on Google. I could disclose that I have a position in Google, but that's just kind of a little pushback on kind of, what seemed to be a little odd from Buffett. - Yeah, I mean, again, I'm not, I'm done hanging on his every word. That's all I say. I still love the man. He'll always have a big place in my heart, but I'm not hanging on his every word and at this time in my career. But I think we covered a lot here, talked a little at Leesian, at Lazian, I had him in his pronounce a two more times before we left. And we did a little dual linga, little Buffett, little updates. So I think we'll leave the listeners there. And, well, this has been a more contentious podcast recording than usual, but, you know, maybe that makes for entertainment. Who knows? - Well, you know, it is what it is. It's 100 degrees. The air conditioning's not working super well. My internet's cutting in and out. We had to re-record this. It's been an uphill battle this episode. So sorry, I got a little testy, but I regret nothing. And dual linga has a lot of AI concerns and I'll die by that. (laughing) - All right, until next time. - Until next time. (upbeat music)