 |
|
|
|||||
Can ChatGPT dethrone Gemini? Is Tim Cook capable of leading Apple into the next wave of AI? As 2025 winds down, journalist and podcast host Kara Swisher cuts through the noise and decodes whats really happening across OpenAI, Meta, Google, and more. Then, Swisher sizes up the state of Disney, Netflix, and the escalating bidding war for Warner Bros. Discovery. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by former Fast Company editor-in-chief Robert Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. One of the twists in the AI wars has been Google sort of bouncing back, this surge by Gemini versus OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Sam Altman calling this code red. You’ve said before that it’s hard to know who a winner will be. Interestingly, on Pivot, we thought Google was going to do this because they had all the pieces. If they didn’t, what a bunch of idiots, that kind of thing. They were ahead. They just didn’t take the bet because they were afraid of it. Yeah, of course. Well, Sundar [Pichai] is a much more riskhe’s more risk-averse. I think Sergey Brin has re-arrived there. I think you can feel his influence. He’s one of the founders. So I think that they had all the elements in place to do it and just had to make the . . . it’s very hard to jump from one thing to the next and do it. The one company that does do it is Netflix. It’s like, “Now we’re this. We’re not doing advertising. Now we are. We’re mailing DVDs. Now we’re not.” I love these guys. Every time they’re, like, “Eh, today we’re not buying anything,” which was a head fake. “Oh, we’re going to buy the studio.” I love it. It’s like, great. So Google just took advantage of its obvious assets, and the fact that it wasn’t ahead was the story. Not that it should be by every . . . they’ve got the technology, they’ve got the people, they’ve got the data, they’ve got the right businesses. They’re the most set up for this era. Now, look, ChatGPT has gotten really far. OpenAI has gotten very far, but ultimately, what I kept asking myself, is it “Netscape” or is it “Google”? Is OpenAI “Netscape” or “Google”? It’s feeling a little Netscapey these days. Even though they’re way ahead, a lot of times in technology the plains are covered with the bodies of pioneers. There’s all kinds of that. You know that from being around. There are so many companies that were there and then weren’t, but were important. Jony Ive, the iconic Apple designer working with Altman and OpenAI on some new device or interface or form factor or whatever. Big deal, differentiator. I don’t care. I think these devices are stupid. I think the way I see it pulling out, it’s just going to be around you. It makes such a big deal about these devices you wear. I think probably what I would see more interestingthis is sort of an opportunity for Appleis your AirPods, which you wear now comfortably. Even though at the time, if you remember when it rolled out, everyone said how ugly they were. I think if you put a camera in those and they could see as you go through the worldthe glasses format is probably the way it’s going to go. But does it have to be glasses on your face? Because not everybody wants to wear those. But if there was something in your ear that could see as you move through the worldwho’s the company who is most able to do that? There are two of them: Google and Apple, right? Because people are very comfortable in the Apple environment. So to me, they have a lot of opportunity in this area. Apple is having a lot of trouble getting its AI action together. Although does it not need to because you carry it through . . . I don’t know. I don’t know if they need it. I think they have to integrate it into its products, that’s for sure. So they don’t necessarily have to own the AI. They didn’t have to own Maps, did they? No. They tried, and they sort of half failed. And then they used Google, or they didn’t have to make a lot of stuff. They didn’t have to make all those apps. Everybody else did, and they took advantage of it. To me, they’re a system. They can write up on things. I think the integration is what’s difficult here. And so how do you integrate AI into the things that already exist? To me, I keep obsessing on the AirPods. I’m, like, “What if they were just a little more functional?” I know it sounds crazy, but I still have my pair of Google glasseswhich I’m going to keep so I can sell them someday to send one of my kids to college. It was directionally the correct idea; it just didn’t have enough functionality. Same thing with the Meta glasses. What do they do? They take a picture. That’s pretty much it. How much functionality is that? Not much. And so, where can you get more functionality out of the things you might do every day? Which is information you need. It sounds dumb, but directions, ordering food, getting places, appointment making, things like that. To me, that’s where they should focus on, honestly . . . the software rather than the hardware. At Apple, do you feel like Tim Cook is doing a good job? He did. He should leave now. That’s what I would do if I were him. What about Disney? Bob Iger is another one who sort of declared victory and then had to come back, and now his contract is ending. I think, personally, they need to merge with someone or sell. Ultimately, I think he’s done an amazing job with that brand, for sure. Again, another person, that probably shouldn’t have come back. I think he was bored. I think he retired a little too early, because he’s so vibrant and intelligent and he looks great. At one point he was sending me a lot of texts from some boat in French Polynesia he was sailing or something. And I’m, like, “Oh, you’re coming back.” And I joke with him onstage about it. I’m, like, “You’re bored. You have more to give, essentially.” I think he probably should find the right person to take over. They’ve got plenty of people. I’ve always maintained it’s the biggest of the small things. It’s too small in today’s environment. Andso they really have to hook up with a tech. I would think Apple would be a very good merger with them, or Comcast, or they’re just going to have to, given the size problems. I think they’re number two in streaming, but if this one passes, that’ll be a problem for them. I’m just getting a note here that Paramount is potentially back in the action with the cash bid. It’s a hostile cash bid. What a bunch of losers, honestly. You don’t see it happening, huh? Maybe. Maybe. I don’t know. I just think their only argument was “we’re friends with Donald Trump.” That seems noneconomic to me. I’m sorry, but Big Daddy and nepo baby really have to have a better argument than we’re friends with Donald. I mean, how ridiculous a way to conduct business is that? And so look, by the way, from an existential point of view, they’re f*cked if they don’t get this. They’re going to have to merge with someone else. I don’t care how rich they are. There’s only so much money you’re throwing at the yacht. But one of the things that drove me crazy is they had a thing right when they did the deal, and they’re, like, “We’re going to take technology and make it better.” And I was, like, “Specifically what?” And they’re, like, “Technology and make it better.” And I was, like, “Yeah, I’d like a specific.” And they were, like, “Technology.” It ultimately comes back to they’re rich. They can spend it. They can buy, I don’t know, all of France and give everyone a glass of wine. That’s not really economics. They just want to own it. It’s just a toy. Then it’s just a toy. And then, “Okay, all right, that’s what you’re doing.” How much are you willing to pay for your toy is the question. Exactly. But they need it. Let me just tell you from a business point of view, these things need to merge. I know everybody’s all upset in Hollywood . . . getting back to that . . . but there is no other direction, largely because Hollywood didn’t innovate for so long.
Category:
E-Commerce
Imagine youve set the goal of running a marathon thats 90 days away. Youve hired a trainer who says this a less than optimal amount of time, but if you stick religiously to her fitness routine, nutrition plan, and sleep schedule, youll be ready come race day. Cheat in any of those three areas, she warns, and you wont be able to run 26.2 miles on three months notice. Lets assume you feel pretty good about your odds of following through in each area. You believe theres a 70% chance youll stick with the fitness routine, a 70% chance youll stick with the nutrition plan, and a 70% chance youll stick with the sleep schedule. What are your odds of doing all three and showing up ready to run? The answer, surprisingly, is only 34.3%. You have three prerequisites to success. Individually, each seems likely to happen. But you need all three to play out as planned. When we multiply your odds of completing each step in the process, the outlook isnt so rosy. This is a relatively simple goal. You only need three things to go right. Now imagine your odds in a more complex and challenging situationlike starting a successful business or winning a coveted promotion. Suddenly, its not surprising that nine out of ten businesses supposedly fail or that most people make a tradition out of falling short on their New Years resolutions. We arent getting unlucky. Were experiencing the predicted failures associated with big goals and bad odds. But this isnt a reason to give up. Its a reason to probability hack. Here are three steps you can take to tilt the odds in your favor. 1. Think negative: do everything you can to identify and prevent bad outcomes If you flip a coin and call heads, theres a 50% chance youll get the outcome you want and a 50% chance youll fail. Our real-life goals are more complex, but the same principle holds. The odds of all possible outcomes add up to 100%. That means, if we can make bad outcomes less likely, well automatically boost our chances of success. Many people avoid wondering about things that could go wrong. After all, were supposed to think positive, right? Unfortunately, positive thinking wont prevent bad outcomes, which means it wont improve our odds. Preparation will. By identifying threats to our success, we can get creative and systematically de-risk our goals. When I applied to become the product director of a growing health organization, shortly after graduating college, my odds of success werent great. I was competing against a lineup of more experienced candidates. But I didnt give up or resort to simply manifesting a good outcome. I took intentional steps to make it happen. To keep the hiring squad from rejecting me for my youth, I grew a beard to look older. To demonstrate I was up to the task of leading a demanding team, I typed up a spiral-bound plan for improving the department and gave it to everyone I met. To fit in like an existing team member, I read books I knew the team was familiar with, which allowed me to speak their language. The day after an important interview, I woke up to find an email from the CEO. He said I was the most prepared candidate hed ever seen. Soon after, I was a twenty-one year old department head, on my way to a successful career. 2. Multiply your odds with the power of multiple attempts An 80% chance of failure isnt necessarily bad. It means for every five attempts, you expect to succeed once. A door-to-door salesman would be absolutely thrilled with that success rate. Knocking on 200 doors per day would lead to 40 sales! For some goals, it isnt possible or practical to try multiple times. But for goals with a high degree of uncertainty, multiple attempts can actually be the most reliable way to break through. Sometimes you dont have to beat the odds, you only have to play them. Apoorva Mehta estimates that he launched around 20 businesses before founding Instacart, including an ad network for gaming companies and a social media site for lawyers. When COVID hit, his grocery delivery service was in exactly the right place at the right time. Over a span of 10 months, Instacarts valuation increased by over $9 billion. Thomas Edison outcompeted his peers and found a practical filament for the incandescent lamp by experimenting with 6,000 different plant materials. Through this inglorious process, he discovered an unlikely winnercarbonized bambooand won valuable patents. Historys most famous creatives took a similar approach to produce enduring works of art. Mozart composed over 600 pieces of music. Beethoven wrote over 700. Van Gogh painted and sketched so prolifically, he averaged roughly one new work of art every 36 hours for 10 years. And in the world of product development, Ben & Jerrys created over 300 discontinued flavors on the road to uncovering classics like Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough and becoming the top-selling ice cream brand in the United States. Contrary to popular belief, quantity is not the sworn enemy of quality. Its a clever way to up your odds of producing great work. 3. Prioritize low probability steps Your overall odds of success will never be higher than your most unlikely prerequisite step. For example, imagine you need four department managers approval to pursue a time-sensitive idea at work. You think the first three each have a 98% chance of saying yes. The fourth has a 10% chance of saying yes. Again, you need all four to approve. That puts your overall odds at 9.4% not good. One proactive step you can take is first talking to the manager who will probably say no. Why? If he says yes, your odds will skyrocket. If he rejects the idea, you wont have to waste time talking to the other three managers. This is a clever way to fail fast and focus your energy on projects that are likely to succeed. In a production mindset, we prioritize the longest pole in the tent. In a probability mindset, we prioritize the step with the longest odds. Doing so consistently is a reliable way to experience smaller setbacks and get more of what you want in life. Every goal that youre pursuing has two hidden numbers attached to ita probability of success and a probability of failure. If we can make the first number bigger and the second number smaller, we can rewrite your future. In the context of a single goal, it could change your outcome. Over the course of several goals, it could shift the trajectory of your career. Multiplied across a lifetime of goals, it could redefine your legacy.
Category:
E-Commerce
The fallout from the Trump administrations dramatic cuts to American public media is only just beginning. The governing group that oversees public educational TV in Arkansas voted on Thursday to split with PBS, the national public broadcast network best known for Sesame Street. The network formerly known as Arkansas PBS will rebrand as Arkansas TV, making it the first state public broadcast network to part with the national network synonymous with public access TV. The state network will officially sever its ties to PBS on July 1, 2026, at the beginning of Arkansas next fiscal year. Its commission framed the decision as a cost saving measure, citing a loss of the federal funds it relies on to pay annual dues of around $2.5 million to access PBS programming. The organizations commissioners, who voted six to two in favor of splitting from PBS, are appointed by the governor. The Arkansas network, which has already rebranded its website as ArkansasTV, says it is developing a new lineup of shows, including two shows for children, two food shows and two new series focused on history. Public television in Arkansas is not going away, ArkansasTV Executive Director and CEO Carlton Wing said in the announcement. In fact, we invite you to join our vision for an increased focus on local programming, continuing to safeguard Arkansans in times of emergency and supporting our K-12 educators and students. ArkansasTV paints an optimistic picture, but the states residents broadly support PBS according to recent surveying from YouGov. In a statement to Fast Company, PBS noted that 70% of Arkansas residents believe that PBS brings an excellent value to their community. The commissions decision to drop PBS membership is a blow to Arkansans who will lose free, over the air access to quality PBS programming they know and love, a PBS spokesperson said. It also goes against the will of Arkansas viewers. Decades of public media undone The decision to go it alone comes as the Trump administration targets public broadcasting with deep funding cuts, part of an aggressive campaign to defund agencies and initiatives it views as politically opposed to its priorities. Those cuts slashed $500 million in yearly funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private nonprofit authorized by Congress in 1967 to manage funds for public media. In light of a shortage of federal funding, the organization announced in August that it planned to end operations and shut its doors. Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country, CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison said at the time. The nonprofit historically doles out funds to PBS, NPR, and more than 1,000 local TV and radio stations. Sesame Street and Mister Rogers Neighborhood, two iconic public TV shows, were both made possible with funding from the CPB. On Truth Social, President Trump called PBS and NPR two horrible and completely biased platforms, urging Congress to defund what he characterized as a scam perpetrated by the Radical Left. The cascade of effects from the CPBs collapse will continue, but they arent the only threat to public broadcasting under the second Trump administration. This week, the conservative nonprofit law firm the Center for American Rights called on the FCC to revoke PBS and NPRs broadcast licenses. Trump himself has also suggested revoking broadcast licenses as a political weapon, declaring that ABC affiliates should have theirs taken away after an ABC News reporter asked a question about Jeffrey Epstein in an Oval Office event last month.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||