Latest / The Learning Corner by Precursor / Episode #83: Tony Fadell on Building Products That Last, SAFE Adjusted TVPI, Kirkland's $500M AI Bet

Transcript

Episode #83: Tony Fadell on Building Products That Last, SAFE Adjusted TVPI, Kirkland's $500M AI Bet · The Learning Corner by Precursor

• 0:00
  I think I've gone back to something that I used to spend a lot more time thinking about.
• 0:04
  There's pain, and then there's 10 x relief.
• 0:06
  If you have a deep cut on your forearm, you need a suture, not a band aid.
• 0:11
  A band aid will lessen the pain a tiny bit.
• 0:13
  And I feel like lately, I've met a lot of companies and, like, well, the thing you've
• 0:16
  built is a Band Aid.
• 0:17
  We need a 10 x better, undeniably superior product.
• 0:20
  And if your product is just incrementally better than the status quo, it's not gonna be
• 0:25
  enough to get people to change unless the environment changes.
• 0:29
  It's the week of June 8.
• 0:31
  Welcome to the Learning Corner, a Precursor Ventures podcast.
• 0:37
  Welcome to the Learning Corner by Precursor.
• 0:39
  I'm Mia Farnam, and I'm joined by our GP and managing partner, Charles Hudson, where we will
• 0:43
  be talking about the articles and Goodreads that caught our team's attention over the past
• 0:47
  week.
• 0:48
  For our first topic this week, Lenny Ruschitsky interviewed Tony Fidel on his podcast, Lenny's
• 0:53
  podcast.
• 0:54
  Tony is the person behind the iPod, the iPhone, and the Nest thermostat that nearly hour and a
• 1:00
  half long conversation went in so many great directions, but a large center point of it was
• 1:05
  Tony's argument that AI is making it easier than ever to build things, and that makes taste
• 1:10
  and craft far more important, not less.
• 1:12
  All things that we've talked about in weeks prior.
• 1:14
  He draws this analogy between fast fashion and what he calls fast software, where AI generated
• 1:20
  code can work and even look right, but it's brittle, it's hard to maintain, and accumulates
• 1:25
  technical debt fast.
• 1:26
  His line was, if you're gonna build a real company, it can't be a throwaway.
• 1:31
  He also gets into something he calls cognitive surrender, this idea that builders are
• 1:36
  outsourcing not just the execution, but the judgment itself to AI, which he sees as
• 1:40
  genuinely dangerous.
• 1:42
  The pieces anchored in real examples from Apple and Nest and how opinion based decisions get
• 1:47
  made when data isn't enough yet and why sometimes having singular informed points of
• 1:53
  view still matters even when you can generate a 100 options instantly.
• 1:58
  Going back to that analogy between fast fashion and what he calls fast software, his argument
• 2:03
  is that AI makes it easy to generate code that works on the surface but is really fragile
• 2:08
  underneath.
• 2:09
  He calls it the H and M versus luxury brand problem.
• 2:13
  You can get something that looks right very quickly, but it falls apart after one wash.
• 2:18
  And his broader point is that even if you can vibe code a product into existence, you still
• 2:23
  need all the other functions around it.
• 2:25
  You need marketing.
• 2:26
  You need sales, distribution to actually bring it to life and straight to the customer.
• 2:31
  Where do you feel like founders might be getting this wrong most of the time?
• 2:36
  Is it on short sight into the long term technical debt side, or is it this assumption
• 2:41
  that a great product will sell itself?
• 2:44
  I really liked this podcast.
• 2:46
  It reminded me in so many ways.
• 2:47
  You know, I I worked in online games for a long time.
• 2:51
  And when online games discovered AB testing, everyone was like, we don't need to think
• 2:55
  anymore.
• 2:56
  Just AB test everything and take the outcome of the test.
• 2:58
  And, like, well, that's not judgment.
• 3:00
  We didn't use the word taste.
• 3:01
  That's just letting the machines decide.
• 3:02
  And that did not produce engaging fun games.
• 3:06
  It produced lowest common denominator kind of slop.
• 3:09
  And I think in some ways, the Just AB Tested has turned into Just Ask Claude or ChatGPT and
• 3:15
  go with the results.
• 3:16
  And I think that also leads to, like, uninspired work.
• 3:20
  And it's funny.
• 3:21
  I just wrote a blog post this week about Yeah.
• 3:23
  This whole thing about my experience as a software developer and also just learning that
• 3:27
  you can vibe code just about anything.
• 3:29
  It doesn't mean it's gonna work or be easy to maintain or will be useful.
• 3:32
  I still don't think there are many great shortcuts to producing amazing quality work.
• 3:36
  I still think it takes a point of view.
• 3:37
  And again, I think this notion I talked to a lot of our portfolio companies.
• 3:40
  I almost wrote this post called doing things quickly versus doing things well.
• 3:44
  I think right now you can do a lot of things quickly.
• 3:46
  I And meet a lot of companies that are like, this is great.
• 3:47
  We've never shipped more features and products.
• 3:49
  I'm like, but are they the right features and products?
• 3:52
  Are you so quick to respond to customer requests that you're missing the opportunity to
• 3:57
  go deep and figure out, well, what's behind the ask?
• 3:59
  What is the thing that they're really searching for?
• 4:02
  And I worry that, like, a lot of this instant software stuff is companies are missing out on
• 4:07
  the chance to learn from what their customers are really trying to tell them.
• 4:11
  And so I thought the part about the iPod nano was, like, was like Yeah.
• 4:14
  Sometimes, like, if you have a point of view, the data will not always go your way right
• 4:18
  away.
• 4:18
  I I've lived through this at precursor.
• 4:19
  I've had a lot of beliefs about our firm and why we need to exist.
• 4:23
  And for a long time, people were like, I don't think you're right.
• 4:25
  I'm like, well, I think I'm right.
• 4:26
  Mhmm.
• 4:26
  So we're just gonna see what time has to say about that.
• 4:29
  And we've stuck with it, and and over time, people have been like, oh, you're more right
• 4:32
  about that.
• 4:33
  Well, there are many reasons to have quit along the way.
• 4:35
  It's just I had a point of view.
• 4:36
  I hope that, like, AI doesn't become a substitute for having a point of view and
• 4:39
  taking a stand on what good enough looks like or what the customer really needs.
• 4:44
  And I think it's very easy to just get lazy.
• 4:46
  He talks about the example of it's so easy to bring in a group of consultants to run market
• 4:50
  maps and data insights on thousands and thousands of rows of data, but he's a big
• 4:54
  supporter of just good marketing getting one singular point of view, and he's like,
• 4:59
  sometimes it's just really useful for you to purchase the product itself, become the
• 5:03
  customer, and tell us why you do or do not resonate with it.
• 5:06
  Point about the the iPod.
• 5:08
  I know that they walk through conversation around when do you know if a market isn't big
• 5:11
  enough?
• 5:12
  And Tony walks through the iPod saying that the first and second generations of the iPod were
• 5:17
  not a big enough market.
• 5:18
  They really only appeal to the Mac loyalists, the people who stand in line for anything that
• 5:23
  Apple drops.
• 5:24
  And a lot of it had to do with where are we meeting the customers that are outside of that
• 5:27
  circle and our and how can we make adjustments to it.
• 5:30
  He also talks about all these different Skunks Works projects that Steve Jobs didn't agree
• 5:35
  with at the time, but he's glad that he kept them kind of brewing in the corner of things
• 5:39
  like the Windows connectivity and then the the stylus itself.
• 5:42
  Yeah.
• 5:43
  Steve was so obsessed with only finger.
• 5:45
  I want finger only to be the way that we interface with our products.
• 5:49
  And Tony was really glad that he kept some of those things like the stylus in the background
• 5:52
  just working because he did believe in the long end it would be valuable.
• 5:55
  And turns out with the iPad, that's the preferred use case for the stylus.
• 5:59
  For, I guess, founders at the earliest stages, how can you make a more strategic or purposeful
• 6:05
  attempt at figuring out if the market isn't responding because the idea is wrong or just
• 6:10
  because the approach is wrong?
• 6:11
  And all saying that Apple now can kind of iterate on whatever they'd like to in as many
• 6:15
  runs.
• 6:15
  But previously, they almost went bankrupt.
• 6:17
  I think people forget about that in terms of pushing out the right product to meet people.
• 6:20
  It's a very narrow gap between persistence and foolishness.
• 6:26
  And I think oftentimes you don't know going back to the stylist, if you think about it,
• 6:30
  many people try to bring that, the Trio, the Palm Pilot, the Handspring.
• 6:35
  And finally, with the iPad, we have pretty good stylus based devices now.
• 6:40
  It only took many, many iterations of screen technology, stylus technology, battery, connect
• 6:46
  you needed, like, all of these things.
• 6:48
  Yeah.
• 6:48
  So I think you have to ask yourself, have I learned something about this that's
• 6:52
  directionally causing me to think this is not a good idea?
• 6:54
  Maybe you were just wrong about the art.
• 6:56
  In other cases, you're like, wow, this is just gonna take a lot longer.
• 6:59
  I think about the Vision Pro, like, I'm not sure if the Vision Pro is early or just it's
• 7:02
  not something people will ever want.
• 7:04
  I don't know.
• 7:05
  I don't own one, so I don't I'm not qualified.
• 7:07
  But I will say this.
• 7:07
  We invested in Fitbit when I was at Uncorked, and I was like, oh, people are gonna have
• 7:11
  things like a Fitbit.
• 7:12
  Well, Fitbit win it all.
• 7:13
  I don't know.
• 7:13
  But, like, people are gonna have these kinds of things.
• 7:16
  This is just like the v one.
• 7:18
  I think that's, like, largely turned out to be true.
• 7:20
  So think it takes a lot of conviction.
• 7:21
  Also, it sure does help to have the financial runway to stick with these things.
• 7:24
  Totally.
• 7:25
  I think that's like an important that's an important consideration.
• 7:27
  Like, is your company set up, basically, emotionally and financially to persist long
• 7:32
  enough for your dream to come true?
• 7:34
  So I don't know.
• 7:34
  I think about I think about that a lot.
• 7:36
  But I'll also ask founders directly, have we learned anything about the nature of our core
• 7:41
  hypothesis here that makes this a less good idea than it was when we first started?
• 7:45
  Going back to the wearable example, it also made me think about Aura, and I think some
• 7:49
  things that you're just out of your control.
• 7:50
  I really do think that they needed COVID to happen in order They did.
• 7:53
  To really get excited about it.
• 7:54
  I mean, I think about the NBA partnership that they made with the bubble of having every
• 7:58
  single person in that bubble wear an Aura ring to track their temperature as the mechanism to
• 8:02
  see if anyone has contracted COVID.
• 8:03
  Pre 2020, people knew what Aura was, but I think they thought it was a little weird.
• 8:07
  And especially if you weren't already wearing jewelry or things on your hands, I don't think
• 8:11
  it was interesting enough for people to spend the amount of money that they did on the
• 8:14
  hardware.
• 8:15
  Post that, I think people saw a use case, still some of that is just completely out of your
• 8:19
  control.
• 8:19
  I bought my whoop because I wanted basically early warning signs for COVID and sickness.
• 8:25
  Yeah.
• 8:25
  I'm like, I want respiratory I want like, there's a bunch of leading indicators.
• 8:29
  This is a pretty cheap and easy way for me to get ahead of anything.
• 8:32
  And I would to your point, I wouldn't have bought it if not for that.
• 8:35
  That was the trigger.
• 8:36
  A video company I work with also usually has some trigger event that's outside of their
• 8:40
  control that ends up being a tailwind.
• 8:42
  And then also knowing when to pivot out of that use case too.
• 8:44
  Think Aura's done a really great job of capturing women's health.
• 8:46
  I think now they're like, I don't know if I want all of this market.
• 8:49
  And I made a partnership with Natural Cycles in order to do it.
• 8:52
  Do I need that anymore?
• 8:53
  So they shed that.
• 8:54
  They have it built up inside of them.
• 8:55
  Wooboob is now trying to kind of build out that audience, but I think Or is purposely trying to
• 8:59
  move away from that audience too because they realize how siloed it can kind of be Yeah.
• 9:03
  While also making them successful at the same time.
• 9:05
  Yeah.
• 9:06
  So there's always just this constant reevaluation of where you are and saying like,
• 9:09
  is it enough today?
• 9:11
  And then when do I have to iterate on it?
• 9:12
  The last piece I will talk about, Tony's framework for finding what to build, is really
• 9:17
  simple.
• 9:17
  He really says, like, start with pain.
• 9:19
  Yep.
• 9:19
  And then ask what new technology now exists to solve it.
• 9:22
  Nest is a really good example of it.
• 9:23
  He was like, there was no way to really measure real life changes to make adjustments to things
• 9:28
  that could actually really change the financial output of your family, where it stands in the
• 9:32
  in the health of your home.
• 9:33
  And AI, while it wasn't spoken about as AI back then, that was a great application of how to do
• 9:39
  that and expedite the ROI there.
• 9:41
  In today's build very quickly environment.
• 9:44
  Do you feel like folks are starting with more of like a tech led instinct on we can build
• 9:49
  this, and then we'll figure it out, and then working backwards into a pain point?
• 9:52
  Because he also does talk about how movies are kind of done backwards where you have this
• 9:56
  idea, then you build backwards actors and the script.
• 9:58
  So it does work sometimes.
• 10:00
  How do you kind of decide where to actually start?
• 10:03
  I think I've gone back to something that I used to spend a lot more time thinking about.
• 10:07
  There's pain, and then there's like 10 x relief.
• 10:10
  If you have a deep cut on your forearm, you need a suture, not a band aid.
• 10:15
  A band aid will like lessen the pain a tiny bit.
• 10:17
  And is it better than no band aid?
• 10:19
  Sure.
• 10:19
  And I feel like lately I've met a lot of companies and like, well, the thing you've
• 10:22
  built is a band What we really need is a suture or a skin graft.
• 10:25
  Like, we need, like, a 10 x better, undeniably superior product.
• 10:29
  And I've met a lot of people, and I'm just like, you have, a two x better product.
• 10:32
  It is definitely an improvement, but probably not a big enough improvement.
• 10:35
  And it's funny, Mia.
• 10:36
  Like, a lot of times when I talk to portfolio companies, and they're like, oh, I'm struggling
• 10:39
  to get people to care.
• 10:40
  I'm like, it's because the perceived benefit isn't big enough to change.
• 10:44
  And if your product is just like incrementally better than the status quo, it's not gonna be
• 10:49
  enough to get people to change unless the environment changes.
• 10:52
  Yeah.
• 10:52
  And so I think I've met a lot lately where like AI allows them to quickly build something
• 10:56
  that's incrementally better.
• 10:58
  But because they don't fully understand the nature of the problem, the thing they end up
• 11:01
  building solves a 100% of 2% of the problem, if that makes sense.
• 11:04
  And I'm kinda like, well, yeah, great.
• 11:05
  You've you've, like, automated or solved this one part that was hard, but, like, what about
• 11:09
  the other 98% of the problem that also sucks that you haven't addressed?
• 11:12
  And in many cases, the breakthroughs aren't improving the way something works.
• 11:16
  It's just either rethinking it or removing the process altogether.
• 11:20
  I told my friend, you know, the best expense report would be one you never have to submit.
• 11:23
  It'd be one you don't have to submit.
• 11:25
  So make it, oh, I'm gonna make it easy, but actually the the job to be done is to get me
• 11:28
  reimbursed.
• 11:29
  And an expense report is one mechanism to do it.
• 11:31
  If you could just do it without having it.
• 11:33
  And I think Brex and Ramp, to some extent, understood that was sort of the job to be done
• 11:37
  for the person spending money, which is different than the job to be done for the
• 11:40
  person who's approving those expense reports.
• 11:43
  But I think the best solutions I see usually, like, reimagine the nature of the solution and
• 11:47
  don't just say, oh, we're gonna make this friction filled process suck less.
• 11:51
  It's not enough.
• 11:52
  And this is also not even talking about does your customer even care.
• 11:55
  It could be something that solves a real pain point.
• 11:57
  They talk about the smoke alarm through Nest, which they discontinued.
• 12:00
  There's so many things that we could change in that product, and they're in every home and you
• 12:04
  have a massive market.
• 12:05
  But do people care enough in order to wanna switch that out?
• 12:07
  And the answer ultimately was no.
• 12:09
  But like, great market.
• 12:11
  Yeah.
• 12:11
  I think about Orbi and Eero and like home mesh networking.
• 12:15
  Again, it becomes way more important when you have tons of devices trying to watch YouTube or
• 12:19
  you go cordless or you go you cut the cable.
• 12:23
  Again, like certain conditions oftentimes need to be true for problems to surface.
• 12:28
  And so, I don't know.
• 12:29
  I've become much more critical lately on is this thing that this person's building a
• 12:34
  significant enough improvement relative to the status quo that they're gonna actually get
• 12:38
  people to move?
• 12:39
  And in many cases, the answer is no.
• 12:40
  Well, our next read comes from our good friend Hunter Walk's blog, and it's a really timely
• 12:45
  and important topic for anyone operating in or around early stage venture.
• 12:49
  The topic's how to communicate portfolio value to LPs when your portfolio is full of safes.
• 12:54
  You haven't had a price equity round in a while.
• 12:56
  The traditional approach is to hold at the last price round, but Hunter's point is that the
• 13:00
  market has shifted.
• 13:01
  Seed is a phase now.
• 13:02
  It's not just a round, and companies are regularly raising multiple safe tranches at
• 13:06
  different caps before even touching a price round.
• 13:09
  His suggestion is a supplemental column he calls safe adjusted TVPI, basically using the
• 13:14
  most recent safe cap to recalculate the implied value of your ownership stake while being
• 13:18
  upfront that this isn't an auditor approved tactic and shouldn't be replacing standard TVPI
• 13:23
  in a vacuum.
• 13:24
  He's careful to note that this isn't the right call for every safe, not ones that feel more
• 13:28
  strategic than market driven, and the goal is honest progress reporting, not inflating the
• 13:33
  picture, of course.
• 13:34
  It is a small but meaningful idea for managers trying to tell an accurate story to their LPs
• 13:38
  without being penalized by accounting conventions that haven't quite kept up with how
• 13:42
  the market actually works.
• 13:43
  Obviously, Charles wanted your thoughts here and also reflections on why the market is
• 13:47
  calling for something like this now versus years ago.
• 13:50
  It's so funny.
• 13:51
  I read it, and I almost sat to Hunter and said, is this community adjusted EBITDA?
• 13:55
  I immediately thought of that.
• 13:56
  But we have this problem at Precursor, is many of our companies raise money on safes.
• 14:01
  And there have been many cases where, honestly, it used to not be a problem because you would
• 14:07
  raise one safe, maybe two, and then you would do a series a round, and they would all get
• 14:12
  converted.
• 14:12
  So maybe you had a three to four year window where you were sort of stuck with these
• 14:17
  valuations.
• 14:18
  You could explain it, but they resolved themselves.
• 14:20
  It doesn't work that way anymore.
• 14:22
  We have companies raising 10 plus million dollar rounds on safes, and we have companies
• 14:27
  going four to four and a half years between price rounds.
• 14:31
  And most people's valuation policies only allow them to take markups when there's a price
• 14:36
  round.
• 14:37
  So how do you, like, get credit for interim progress?
• 14:40
  You've gotta have some way to show people.
• 14:42
  So we we did a huge exercise this year.
• 14:44
  It was a lot to do to figure out, like, what are these companies actually worth?
• 14:48
  You know, when is the new SAFE round valuation indicative of progress?
• 14:52
  When is it indicative of momentum or heat?
• 14:54
  What do each of these things mean?
• 14:56
  And it's it's not easy.
• 14:58
  But I don't think we're going back to price rounds anytime.
• 14:59
  If anything, these problems are just gonna get worse.
• 15:01
  I think SAFEs are gonna continue to be a part of life later in companies' financing, and so
• 15:06
  it's just it's not gonna get better.
• 15:08
  And I think historically, safes were really only used for the initial funding rounds, and
• 15:13
  they were all capped at, like, reasonable values.
• 15:16
  Now it's not an uncommon thing to see, specifically folks at a YC.
• 15:21
  They'll raise at 30 and then they'll raise at a 100.
• 15:23
  All unsafe.
• 15:25
  Those are all unsafe caps.
• 15:27
  And I think people would be equally happy to be involved in each one of them.
• 15:30
  If you got to get in pre YC and come in at 30, which is high, but a great show if it goes to a
• 15:36
  150 in the next three weeks, like, the question is, you should get credit or not the question.
• 15:40
  The same is you brought likely should get credit because it shows access, but how do you
• 15:43
  communicate that to LPs in a way that they understand?
• 15:46
  Because that's just a market shift as well.
• 15:48
  And I think that leads into my last question about this piece, which is beyond doing
• 15:52
  something like safe adjusted TPPI, are there other ways that you can showcase progress and
• 15:57
  traction within your portfolio to LPs, or is that like an exercise that requires a little
• 16:01
  bit too much handholding than is allowed for a firm in their fundraising cycle?
• 16:05
  Yeah.
• 16:06
  I think one of the hard things is, you know, I talk to some LPs that have teams of people
• 16:11
  focused on early stage venture capital.
• 16:13
  You can have really nuanced conversations with those people because they understand the
• 16:17
  market.
• 16:17
  They're in it.
• 16:18
  And they know more companies than just Databricks, OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX.
• 16:23
  They have a a wider knowledge of the ecosystem.
• 16:25
  Then I meet people where I'm like, they have one person who's responsible for buyout,
• 16:29
  private credit, early stage, late stage, growth stage, venture capital, and real estate.
• 16:33
  You could argue that person's portfolio is too big, but that's what they're up against.
• 16:37
  And I've certainly had situations where I'm like, wow, this person just doesn't have the
• 16:41
  capacity for nuance.
• 16:42
  In some cases, they're gonna do the the Claude equivalent of what we talked about, which is
• 16:46
  they're gonna just pull the data from Cambridge, look at the benchmarks, look at your
• 16:52
  performance, and make a decision like, do I wanna spend time on this?
• 16:56
  And in many cases, the answer is gonna be I do not.
• 16:58
  It doesn't look interesting because the just to be clear, the effect of not taking the safe
• 17:03
  markups is that your performance looks worse relative to other people who've have a way to
• 17:07
  reflect those valuations in the valuation policy.
• 17:10
  And you can end up in a situation where people just go, this fund doesn't look interesting.
• 17:12
  I can spend any time on it.
• 17:13
  And you don't even get the chance to make the case.
• 17:16
  So I think this is important because I hope it allows people to get into the room and make the
• 17:19
  case.
• 17:20
  Well, our last piece is from Reuters, but it's reporting on a Financial Times article that
• 17:25
  Kirkland and Ellis, one of the most powerful law firms in the world, with over
• 17:29
  10,000,000,000 in annual revenue, is committing $500,000,000 over the next three to four years
• 17:34
  to build a proprietary AI platform from scratch.
• 17:37
  They're starting with a $100,000,000 this year, and the platform was designed based on input
• 17:41
  from 250 of their own lawyers alongside a 180 internal and external tech professionals.
• 17:47
  What makes this really interesting beyond the headline number is what it signals about the
• 17:51
  broader legal industry's relationship with AI.
• 17:54
  Kirkland isn't just licensing tools or partnering with one of the big AI companies.
• 17:58
  They're wanting to build something of their own or at least market it as such.
• 18:02
  Our other major firms are going a different route.
• 18:04
  Some have partnered with Anthropic to co develop AI tools for legal services.
• 18:08
  The liability risks are also very real and very present.
• 18:12
  We've talked about US judges sanctioning lawyers in dozens of cases for submitting AI
• 18:16
  generated content with fabricated citations.
• 18:19
  And even Sullivan and Cromwell apologized to a federal judge this last month after AI
• 18:23
  hallucinations made it into a court filing.
• 18:26
  $500,000,000 is a massive bet for a law firm no matter how much they bring in top line, and
• 18:31
  it's a really different approach than going to Harvey or Legora or co developing with
• 18:36
  Anthropic like some other firms did.
• 18:38
  What, Charles, does this tell you about Kirkland and specifically what they wanna own
• 18:43
  as a narrative by building it versus partnering.
• 18:46
  I thought it was interesting that, you know, they're hiring real people.
• 18:49
  $500,000,000 over multiple years is a real financial commitment.
• 18:52
  And the part of the article that stuck me is they just they said, you know, we think if the
• 18:56
  LLMs will raise the floor for law, but we don't get paid for the floor.
• 19:02
  And I read a couple of other takes in this article, and it seems to me that they're of the
• 19:06
  mind that, like, hey.
• 19:06
  We have a lot of specialty knowledge, particularly about they're starting with, you
• 19:09
  know, fund formation and private equity.
• 19:11
  We have a lot of, like, institutional knowledge that we believe gives us an edge, and we would
• 19:16
  rather capture that edge internally and and build our own tools rather than either have
• 19:21
  that knowledge leaked or distributed to other people through an LLM that we don't control.
• 19:26
  And I think it's inevitable that there will be industries where people say, we have a lot of
• 19:30
  proprietary stuff, and we wanna build a thing that we control that takes our best ideas and
• 19:36
  our best practices.
• 19:37
  And I think for a services firm, and a law firm's a services firm, to spend this amount of
• 19:42
  money on technology is a gigantic bet.
• 19:44
  Because in a private partnership, that $500,000,000, like, could have gone to the
• 19:47
  partners.
• 19:48
  Yeah.
• 19:48
  Could have kept it and shoot us profits.
• 19:50
  And to me, you know, it tells me that in some ways, I get it.
• 19:53
  One way is, like, it's offense.
• 19:55
  The other way is it's defense.
• 19:56
  Hey.
• 19:56
  We wanna have some control over our own destiny.
• 19:59
  If Anthropic you know, they're working with Palantir on this.
• 20:02
  But if Anthropic doesn't solve legal in the way we want, we don't wanna be beholden to them.
• 20:07
  If somebody acquires Harvey and we don't have access to Harvey or Legora, we wanna take our
• 20:11
  own destiny.
• 20:11
  And I think there are good open source models that they could probably train with their own
• 20:14
  insights and build something that works great for them.
• 20:17
  And I think you're gonna see more of this in fields where there's, like, specialty domain
• 20:21
  knowledge and where that knowledge is concentrated in relatively small number of
• 20:26
  firms.
• 20:26
  Really cool experiment, and I applaud them for having the courage to do it.
• 20:30
  In a big committed way.
• 20:31
  I think if they had just said some random number, I think you could call question, but
• 20:36
  it's clear it's a commitment.
• 20:37
  There's a whole team around it.
• 20:38
  I always thought with the services businesses, especially in the beginning of when we were
• 20:41
  talking about AI, always thought, oh, it's a race to the bottom on where your pricing is,
• 20:45
  and that's ultimately where people are gonna land from who they wanna partner with.
• 20:48
  But this is a good showcase of how you can kind of become more defensible over time if you
• 20:53
  wanna continue to charge the premium fees that Kirkland does and deserves them.
• 20:57
  Then you have to kind of create an infrastructure to protect it in this AI
• 21:00
  narrative era.
• 21:01
  And I think they said the reason you hire an expensive law firm is because you're gonna get
• 21:05
  above average advice.
• 21:07
  If you just need average advice, you don't need to hire a firm like that.
• 21:11
  Well, we are all out of time.
• 21:12
  Thank you, Charles, for stopping by.
• 21:13
  Thank you to our listeners for jumping in as well.
• 21:15
  Please like and subscribe, and we'll talk with you all in two weeks.
• 21:18
  We're taking off next week, so we'll see you in a couple weeks.
• 21:20
  Thank you.
• 21:21
  Bye.