20VC: SpaceX Buys Cursor for $60BN | Stripe's $8BN OpenRouter Bet | Anthropic's First Profit & The Math Behind Reaching $600BN in Revenue? | Lovable and Higgsfield Raise Mega Rounds
发布时间 来源
Episode 设置
本周的20VC节目邀请了Rory O'Driscoll和Jason Lemkin，共同探讨科技界的重大新闻和趋势。核心议题包括重要的收购案、人工智能公司的快速发展以及传统SaaS格局的变化。
**SpaceX以600亿美元收购Cursor**
讨论以SpaceX最终以600亿美元全股票收购Cursor拉开序幕。这笔交易为早期投资者带来了1000倍的回报，凸显了Cursor从Claude Code出现后一度被认为是“已死”的公司，到如今成为领先的多模型（multi-model）参与者的非凡历程。Jason Lemkin称赞埃隆·马斯克是一位“精明的买家”，他以大约未来营收10倍的价格收购了一家曾受毛利率负增长困扰的公司。Rory O'Driscoll强调，在一个超高速增长的市场中，市场发展轨迹的积极因素很容易超越财务负面因素，印证了那句格言：“悲观者听起来很聪明，乐观者死时富有。” 小组讨论了Meta/扎克伯格为何没有采取类似举动，原因包括Meta面临的司法部问题、埃隆·马斯克高涨的股票作为收购筹码，以及马斯克“办成事”（getting shit done）无与伦比的效率。从创始人的角度看，考虑到埃隆的过往记录，Michael（Cursor首席执行官）可能更倾向于与他合作。这次收购对像Cognition这样的二线玩家的影响也引发了讨论，Jason认为这不一定会引发恐慌性的抢购潮，而是当第一名被买走后，第二名会成为目标。
**Stripe以70亿美元收购Open Router**
Stripe以70亿美元收购领先的LLM路由公司Open Router，是另一个热门话题。这笔交易为Menlo和Andreessen等公司带来了巨大的投资回报，也展示了Stripe管理多样化AI模型复杂性的战略举措，类似于他们处理支付流程的方式。Jason认为Open Router是一款“小众”产品，非常适合开发工具和聊天机器人，但由于在多个模型之间可能存在模型漂移（model drift）问题，它可能不太适合高推理能力的B2B工作流程。Rory承认了多云（multi-cloud）的相似性，并指出如果企业只需要在少数模型之间进行路由，则存在风险。两人都认为，该产品本身可能在五年内被Stripe整合，但它有可能成为一个重要的收入来源，证明了Stripe巧妙的并购策略，该策略结合了进入新市场和潜在的整合（比如传闻中的PayPal交易）。
**Anthropic的盈利能力和IPO前景**
Anthropic公布其第二季度营收115亿美元，首次实现盈利，鉴于其营收增长12倍远超费用增长，小组成员认为这一发展并不令人意外。随着Anthropic为潜在的IPO做准备，关于表外负债（off-balance sheet liabilities）（计算承诺）和股权激励（Stock-Based Compensation, SBC）的讨论也随之浮出水面。Jason认为，对于超高速增长的公司来说，巨额股权激励通常是“傻人有傻福”而非未来招聘的真正经济成本，只要营收持续飙升，就能给它们“开绿灯”。AI工具的总潜在市场（Total Addressable Market, TAM）是一个争议点，Jason驳斥了“十亿知识工作者”的估算。他和Rory估计，AI工具，尤其是面向开发者的AI工具的现实TAM在全球范围内约为2000亿至3500亿美元，这基于每位工程师假设花费10万美元代币（token）的估算，同时这也会导致团队规模的大幅缩减。这种积极的AI采纳正在推动公司将路线图规划到2027-2028年，并警告那些不这样做的人将面临落后的风险。Anthropic作为IPO“首发者”的潜力可能使其相对于OpenAI获得战略优势，尤其是在资本需求方面。
**Workday潜在的430亿美元私有化收购要约**
银湖（Silver Lake）对Workday提出的430亿美元私有化（take-private）收购传闻，是迄今为止最大规模的SaaS收购之一，这标志着SaaS行业进入成熟阶段。小组认为这是一项旨在获得可预测回报（约20%的内部收益率IRR）而非追求超高速增长的金融工程交易。Workday的优势在于其“封闭的”记录系统，提供了强大的护城河和可预测的收入，这与像Salesforce这样更“开放”的平台不同，后者面临着AI代理带来的更大风险和机遇。这笔交易为杠杆收购（LBO）估值设定了“高水位线”，Workday在13%增长率下的5.3倍营收倍数在其类别中属于顶级水平。
**其他市场动态**
节目还提到了Higgsfield和Lovable最近的融资，指出在相似ARR（年度经常性收入）下，两者的估值存在显著差异（55亿美元对133亿美元），但也承认它们正在发展成为拥有护城河的“划时代伟大”产品。Etched在几周内估值翻倍的速度，突显了当前市场的速度。最后，讨论了司法部根据《克莱顿法案》（Clayton Act）对Andreessen Horowitz因董事会席位重叠进行的审查，这被认为是合规上的“麻烦事”，但最终是一个“无关紧要的新闻”，很可能导致董事会成员辞职而非重大的法律问题，这提醒人们长期存在的法规如何影响现代科技。
总而言之，讨论强调了当前市场具有前所未有的速度、增长和战略并购的至关重要性，以及AI时代新的估值模型和护城河的出现。
This week's 20VC episode features Rory O'Driscoll and Jason Lemkin, discussing major news and trends in the tech world. Key topics included significant acquisitions, the rapid evolution of AI companies, and the shifting landscape for traditional SaaS.
**SpaceX's $60 Billion Acquisition of Cursor**
The conversation kicked off with the finalized $60 billion all-stock takeover of Cursor by SpaceX. This deal marked a 1000x return for early investors, highlighting Cursor's remarkable journey from being considered "dead" after Claude Code's emergence to becoming a dominant multi-model player. Jason Lemkin lauded Elon Musk as a "shrewd buyer," paying around 10x forward revenues for a company that once struggled with gross margin negativity. Rory O'Driscoll emphasized that in a hyper-growth market, the positives of market trajectory can easily outweigh financial negatives, proving the adage: "Pessimists sound smart, optimists die rich." The panel discussed why Meta/Zuck didn't make a similar move, citing Meta's DOJ issues, Elon's high-flying stock as currency, and Musk's unparalleled effectiveness in "getting shit done." From a founder's perspective, Michael (Cursor CEO) likely preferred working with Elon, given his track record. The acquisition's impact on second-tier players like Cognition was also debated, with Jason suggesting it doesn't necessarily create a panic-driven land rush, but rather makes #2 a target when #1 is off the table.
**Stripe's $7 Billion Acquisition of Open Router**
Stripe's $7 billion acquisition of Open Router, a leading LLM routing company, was another hot topic. The deal, which provided a massive return on investment for firms like Menlo and Andreessen, demonstrated Stripe's strategic move to manage the complexities of diverse AI models, akin to how they handle payment processing. Jason viewed Open Router as a "niche" product, excellent for developer tools and chatbots but potentially less suited for high-reasoning B2B workflows due to model drift concerns across many models. Rory acknowledged the multi-cloud parallel, noting the risk if enterprises only need to route between a few models. Both agreed the product itself might be subsumed within Stripe in five years, but it could become a significant revenue stream, proving Stripe's clever M&A strategy that combines new market entry with potential consolidation (like the rumored PayPal deal).
**Anthropic's Profitability and IPO Prospects**
Anthropic announced its first profit on $11.5 billion in Q2 revenue, a development the panel found unsurprising given its 12x revenue growth far outstripping expense increases. As Anthropic gears up for a potential IPO, discussions around off-balance sheet liabilities (compute commitments) and stock-based compensation (SBC) arose. Jason argued that for hyper-growth companies, large SBC numbers are often "dumb luck" rather than a true economic cost for future hires, granting them a "free pass" as long as revenue continues to soar. The Total Addressable Market (TAM) for AI tools was a point of contention, with Jason dismissing the "billion knowledge workers" estimate. He and Rory estimated the realistic TAM for AI tools, particularly for developers, to be around $200-350 billion worldwide, based on a hypothetical $100,000 in token spend per engineer, which would also lead to significant team reductions. This aggressive AI adoption is pushing companies to plan their roadmaps into 2027-2028, with the warning that those not doing so risk falling behind. Anthropic's potential as the "first to market" for an IPO could offer a strategic advantage over OpenAI, especially regarding capital needs.
**Workday's Potential $43 Billion Take-Private Bid**
Silver Lake's rumored $43 billion bid for Workday, one of the largest SaaS buyouts ever, signaled the mature phase of the SaaS industry. The panel saw this as a financially engineered deal for predictable returns (around 20% IRR) rather than hyper-growth. Workday's strength lies in its "closed" system of record, offering a strong moat and predictable revenue, unlike more "open" platforms like Salesforce that face greater risks and opportunities from AI agents. This deal sets a "high watermark" for LBO valuations, with Workday's 5.3x revenue multiple for 13% growth being top-tier for its category.
**Other Market Dynamics**
The episode also touched upon Higgsfield and Lovable's recent fundraisers, noting a significant valuation divergence ($5.5B vs $13.3B for similar ARR) but acknowledging their evolution into "generationally great" products with developing moats. Etched's rapid doubling of valuation in weeks underscored the current market's speed. Finally, the DOJ's scrutiny of Andreessen Horowitz for overlapping board seats under the Clayton Act was discussed, deemed a "pain in the ass" for compliance but ultimately a "non-story" that would likely result in board resignations rather than significant legal issues, serving as a reminder of how long-standing regulations can impact modern tech.
In essence, the discussion highlighted a market characterized by unprecedented speed, the critical importance of growth and strategic M&A, and the emergence of new valuation models and moats in the AI era.
摘要
AGENDA: 04:20 Elon's Deal of the Decade: SpaceX Buys Cursor for $60BN 06:10 Why Cursor Was Surprisingly Cheap at $60BN 07:00 Why Zuckerberg Failed to Buy the AI Prize Elon Secured 12:00 Elon vs Zuck: Who Would You Rather Work For? 14:00 Will Microsoft or Amazon Now Race to Buy Cognition? 17:05 Stripe's $7BN OpenRouter Deal Creates Huge VC Winners 25:00 OpenRouter's Fatal Risk: Enterprises Don't Want 10 Models 28:15 Anthropic Turns Its First Profit on $11.5BN of Quarterly Revenue 32:15 Can Anthropic Really Reach $600BN in Revenue? 37:00 Why Every Elite Engineer Could Soon Get $100K in AI Tokens 39:30 Would Rory Buy Anthropic at a $2.5TN Valuation? 44:50 Silver Lake's $43BN Workday Bet: SaaS Isn't Dead, It's Mature 53:00 How Silver Lake Could Make $30BN From Workday 57:00 Lovable vs Higgsfield: Similar Revenue, Radically Different Valuations 58:00 Is Lovable's $13.3BN Price Actually Cheap? 63:30 Why the DOJ Is Coming After Andreessen Horowitz 69:00 Why A16Z Has "50 Legal Battles" Happening at Once
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
你的毛利问题是我的Colossus集群中的收入机会。悲观者听起来聪明，而乐观者最终致富。只有傻瓜才不承认Elon Musk非常高效。——我宁愿一开始为Elon工作，而不是为Zuck。我觉得这会像大规模并购。我甚至不认为这个产品在五年内仍会存在。——你无论多快增加“以下项目”开支，也无法阻止自己赚钱。唯一重要的是增长率以及2027和2028年的收入预测。有个人在23年入职时获得了一百万美元的待遇，四年后赚了5100万美元。世界上的十亿知识工作者，简直是胡说八道。——我想我们会给每位最佳工程师十万美元的代币。我上周开了两次董事会会议，他们完成了年度计划，他们已经计划到2027年。如果到2026年8月，你的团队还没有深入制定到2027年的计划，那么在这个代理人活跃的世界中，你的团队实力不足以在当今竞争中生存下来。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Your gross margin problem is my revenue opportunity for my Colossus cluster. Pessimists sound smart, optimists die rich. Only a fool denies that Elon Musk is wildly effective. - I would much rather initially work for Elon than for Zuck. I think it'll be like the scale acquisition. I don't even think this product will exist in five years. - You can't add expenses below the line fast enough to stop yourself making money. The only thing that matters will be the growth rate and the 27 and 28 projected revenue. Someone who was hired with a million dollar package in 23 ended up making 51 million four years later. A billion knowledge workers in the world, absolute bollocks. - I think we'll give each of our best engineers a hundred thousand dollars of tokens. I had two board meetings in the last week where they finished the roadmap for the year. They're into 2027. If you're not into your 2027 roadmap, deep into it by August of 2026 in the agentic world, your team is not good enough to survive today.
这是《20VC》，我是Harry Stebbingson。今天是我本周最喜欢的一期节目。Rory O'Driscoll和Jason Lemkin将一起讨论过去七天中最大、最好的新闻。这是您每周唯一需要收听的播客，以便了解科技领域的重要动态。但在我们深入今天的节目之前，谈谈您的创意，大多数AI工具都会让您陷入困境。设置、配置，还有您想象的与实际成品之间的差距。然而，在Base 44，这些障碍消失了。您只需描述您的想法，Base 44就能将其实现。无论是应用程序、网站，还是AI代理，都可以用简单的语言在几分钟内打造出真正可用的产品，而且一切都包括在内。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
- This is 20VC with me, Harry Stebbingson. And today, it's my favorite show of the week. Rory O'Driscoll, Jason Lemkin coming together to discuss the biggest, best news that's happened in the last seven days. This is the only podcast that you need to listen to every week to stay up to date on what matters in tech. But before we dive into the show today, you have the idea, but with most AI tools, you hit a wall. The setup, the config, the gap between what you pictured and what you actually ship. Well, Base 44 is where that wall disappears. You describe it, yeah. Base 44 builds it. Apps, websites, AI agents, real working products, built in minutes using nothing but plain language. And it's all batteries included.
后端、数据库、认证、托管以及繁重的工作都已经处理完毕。这样你就可以专注于实际创作。这不仅能够减少你的繁琐工作，还给你带来优势，让你超越自己本以为无法单独完成的目标。在当今市场中，速度是基本要求。要取得胜利，你必须抢先一步。而 Base 44 正是那个优势所在，它让你绕过故障排查，直接迈向创新突破。在 base44.com 上构建你的下一个项目。是的，就是 base44.com。当 Base 44 将创意变为应用时，Plot 则将对话转化为深入洞察。创业者和运营者每周花太多时间在会议、投资讨论、头脑风暴以及客户交流之间来回奔波，然后还要费力地将所有信息重新整理。因此我一直在使用 Plot。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
The backend, the database, the authentication, the hosting, the heavy lifting is handled. So you just really stay in the flow. This doesn't just take the busy work off your plate, but it gives you an advantage and pushes you past what you thought you could build alone. So in this market, fast is the baseline. To win, you just have to be first. Base 44 is that edge, the move that skips the troubleshooting and gets you straight to the breakthrough. Build your next thing at base44.com. That's base44.com. While Base 44 turns ideas into apps, Plot turns conversations into insights. Founders and operators spend way too much time every week jumping between meetings, investicles, brainstorms, customer conversations, and then trying to piece everything back together afterwards. And that's why I've been using Plot.
Plot 通过简单的一键操作即时捕捉对话、语音记录、会议和随机想法，然后将它们转化为简洁的总结、行动事项、思维导图和可搜索的笔记，方便你日后查阅。坦白说，它更像是一个由人工智能驱动的思维记忆系统，而不仅仅是一个录音工具。令人惊讶的是它的硬件设计。Plot Note Pro 的大小和厚度就如同一张信用卡，让你在遇到重要事情时随时随地都能携带。已有超过200万创始人、运营者、投资者、顾问和专业人士在使用 Plot 来保持条理性，帮助理清思路，不再错失灵感和重要细节。访问 plot.ai/20vc 并使用代码 20VC 可享受9折优惠。网址是 P-L-A-U-D 点 A-I 斜杠 2-0-V-C，使用代码 2-0-V-C 可享9折优惠。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Plot instantly captures conversations, voice notes, meetings, random ideas with one press, and then turns them into clean summaries, action items, mind maps, and searchable notes that you can actually come back to later. Honestly, it feels less like a recorder and more like an AI powered like brain memory system. And the crazy part is the hardware itself. The Plot Note Pro is literally as small and thin as a credit card. So it's just always with you when something important comes up. There are already more than 2 million founders, operators, investors, consultants, and professionals using Plot to stay organized. So think more clearly and stop losing great ideas and important details. Go to plot.ai/20vc and use the code 20VC for 10% off. That's P-L-A-U-D dot A-I slash 2-0-V-C and use the code 2-0-V-C for 10% off.
Plot 负责记录对话，而 Finn 则用来推动对话的继续。随着 AI 智能助手在客户体验中的普及，团队通常需要使用多个独立的工具来完成各项工作。为了解决这一问题，Finn 应运而生。它是一个统一的智能助手，能够在整个客户体验过程中发挥作用，从服务到销售，再到成功以及更多方面。Finn 为成千上万的客户创造了完美的客户体验。它采用定制的模型，经过多年真实客户互动的训练，因此比其他助手更能理解客户服务的细微差别和复杂性。这意味着更快的解决方案、更一致的支持以及为每一位客户带来更好的体验。Finn 设计为完全自主管理，使您能够随业务发展轻松改进和调整它，无需依赖第三方。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
While Plot captures the conversation, Finn helps continue it. As AI agents become more common in customer experience, teams often end up juggling multiple silo tools for every job. Well, Finn was built to change that. It's a single unified agent that works across your entire customer experience, from service to sales to success and beyond. Finn is the agent making perfect customer experiences possible for thousands of customers. It's powered by custom models, trained on years of real customer interactions, so it understands the nuance and complexity of customer service better than any other agent. That means faster resolutions, more consistent support, and just better experiences for every customer. It's also designed to be fully self-manageable, so you can easily improve and adapt it as your business evolves. No third parties required.
像Gamma、Asana、DoorDash和Crypto.com这样的领先公司已经在使用并喜爱Finn，以此来提供更好的客户体验。因此，在有限的时间内，您可以在前三个月每月获得价值500美元的Finn信用，了解更多信息请访问Finn.ai/20VC。您已经到达目的地了。大家好，我们回来了。本周我们有一些重大新闻。SpaceX以全股票交易方式完成了对Cursor的600亿美元收购，使像Annie Partovia这样的人获得了1000倍的回报。NEO，即OpenAI的创业基金，是一个大赢家，非常早期便投资了600万至800万美元。Rory，当你之前提到Elon Musk勉强给予Sam数十亿美元时，我想到了你。还有其他许多像Thrive和Andreessen这样的机构也获得了巨大的回报。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Leading companies like Gamma, Asana, DoorDash, and Crypto.com already use and love Finn to deliver better customer experiences. So for a limited time, you can get $500 a month in Finn credits for your first three months, learn more at Finn dot A-I forward slash 2-0-V-C. You have now arrived at your destination. Guys, we are back. We have some mega news this week. SpaceX closes the $60 billion all stock takeover of Cursor, minting 1,000x returns for the likes of Annie Partovia. NEO, OpenAI's startup fund, is a mega winner who invested $6 to $8 million very early, which Rory, I thought of you when you said before about Elon Musk giving Sam billions of dollars through gritted teeth, and many others, Thrive and Andreessen, most importantly, netting huge returns.
我们对这件事情有什么要说的吗？这只是一个已经宣布的交易的结束。有什么想法吗？我这里有三点。首先，我们已经做了这个节目大概70多周，期间发生了很多变化。在这期间，或许是在三分之一的时候，曾经感觉像是Cursor几乎要消失了，因为没有投资组合的公司在使用它。我甚至都不记得当我们开始这个节目的时候Claude Code是否已经存在了，可能还没有。听起来有些不可思议，我不确定它是否已经发布了，对吧？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
What do we have to say on this one? It's the closing of an already announced deal. Thoughts? I just had three things. One is, it's just super, you know, we've been doing this show about 70 something weeks, you know, or so on. So much has changed. In the middle of it, or maybe a third of the way in, it almost seemed like Cursor was dead. You know, no one's portfolio companies were using it. I don't even remember if Claude Code existed when we started this show or not, right? It might not have. It sounds so crazy. I'm not sure it had launched, right?
翻译成中文：所以 Cursor 一开始非常简单。收入飙升至五亿。Claude Code 发布后，似乎所有人都转向了，像是 Cursor 已经不再被关注了。但 Cursor 非常早就开始转向多模型，这一改变彻底改写了一切，最终实现了600亿美元的成果。我是说，忘掉它最初只是一个电子邮件客户端吧，就是那个曾在 Hacker News 上引起注意的有趣小项目。我无法想象它背后经历了怎样的过山车般的变化。这并不是完全线性地增长到600亿的，真是相当疯狂。我想，这种变化的速度是惊人的。而我一直在想的是，这是一件很不易做到的事。因为在这个过程中需要超越敏捷的方法，很多团队可能在半路就放弃了，对吧？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So Cursor was super easy. Rockets to half a billion in revenue. Claude Code comes out, and it seems like everybody's moved. Like, Cursor's dead. Cursor goes multi-model really early. It changes everything. And Rockets to a $60 billion outcome. I mean, forget about that it started as an email client, right? That fun little thing from Hacker News. I can't imagine what a roller coaster it was on behind the scenes. This was not actually a hundred percent linear progress to 60 billion. Pretty, pretty crazy. I think the rate of the rate of change. And the one thing I just kept thinking is, and it's tough. It's how important it is to be beyond agile, because I think so many teams would have given up on that journey, right?
哦天哪，Claude Code 出来了。我得建立我自己的大型语言模型。我得去做，这简直太难跟上变化的速度了。在我们开始之前，除了电子邮件客户端之外，可能已经有三个不同的光标了。这是我的主要想法。第二个是，到交易结束的时候，结果竟然没那么贵。你这么说是因为到年底会达到60亿，还是说你是因为要支付10倍的预期收入？如果你知道，在节目早些时候看起来，它的毛利率会是负的，对吗？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Oh my God. Fucking Claude Code came out. I got to build my old LLM. I got to do like, and it's just, it's so hard to keep up with the rate of change. And there's probably been three different cursors since we started other than the email client. That was my main thought. The second one is how it ended up not even being that expensive by the time the deal closed. And you say that because it's going to be at six billion end of year, and then you're paying 10X or you mean it because you're paying 10X forward revenues, if you know, and it went from something earlier in the show, it looked like it would be gross margin negative, right?
当我们开始这个节目的时候，大家觉得这事情像个笑话，因为他们以低于价值的价格（用80美分甚至50美分）卖出价值一美元的代币。这样一来当然有效，对吧？这就是我们节目开始时风投们常常嘲笑的事情。而这是真的，一切都从开放权重和其他方面扭转过来了。这种以10倍预期收入出售的业务模式相当不错。我的意思是，Elon是个精明的买家。我很好奇为什么Zuck没有买下它。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
When we started the show be like, well, cursor is a joke because they're selling a dollar's worth of tokens for 80 cents or 50 cents to the world. Of course it works, right? This was the classic thing that VCs would mock when we started this show. And it was true, right? Turn around everything from open weights and everything. It's a pretty darn good business model selling at 10X forward revenue. I mean, that's a, Elon was a shrewd buyer, a shrewd buyer. I'm intrigued why Zuck didn't buy it.
他正在与Alex及其团队一起开发模型功能，但他缺少企业功能。这本可以用类似于为你解决问题的方式来解决这个问题。是的，这是一个有趣的偏题。如果你的逻辑是，“嘿，你有一大堆计算能力，但没有在其上建立显而易见的商业模式”，那么这种情况确实适用于Meta和SpaceX。不过，SpaceX做到了，而Meta没有。所以说，从总体来看，这是一个合理的观点。但我们在议程中指出的一点是，SpaceX本可以做得更多一点，但他们没有进行这种奇怪的人才收购。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
He's building the model capabilities with Alex & Co. He's missing the enterprise capabilities. This would have solved that in a similar way that it solved it for you on. Yeah. Interesting tangent. And yes, if the logic is, hey, you've got a whole bunch of compute, but not an obvious business on top, the two people for whom that's true are Meta and SpaceX. Anyway, SpaceX did it and Meta did not, right? So that's, yeah, at a high level, it's a fair point. But one of the things we pointed out in the agenda is SpaceX could move a little more, but they didn't do one of these weird aqua hire things.
他们就像普通的公司一样买下了它，没遇到什么反垄断的问题。我的意思是，他们确实提交了反垄断申请，并且很快就获得批准了。在这方面，他们没有遇到重大问题。我不知道卖家是否会同样自信地认为Meta会通过审查，因为他们的司法部（DOJ）可能会更加仔细地检查他们的行为。因此，这可能是一个理由。另外，直截了当地说，可能没有其他人像Elon那样有勇气去这样冒险。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
They just bought it like a regular old corporation. They didn't have any antitrust. I mean, they actually filed for antitrust. They got quick clearance. They didn't have any compelling issues with that. I don't know if the seller would have had the same confidence that Meta would have gotten through, right? Just given their DOJ. They just probably are going to have the DOJ more kind of crawling through what they do. So that would be one argument. It may also be, to be very direct, no one else had the stomach for the bed and the way Elon does.
当然，Meta在某种程度上是相关的，因为它符合大量计算、无计算业务附加的特点。但埃隆有一个最大的优势，那就是他的股票交易很高。他们在做什么，20？我的意思是，上个季度的收入是80亿，把它算成300亿并继续增长，凑成500亿。你知道吗，这仍然是收入的40倍。正如Jason所说，他在以当前收入的15倍价格收购一个大资产，可能到年底甚至不到10倍，对于他来说真是便宜。而且从第一天起就对净资产有好处，用在Meta身上可能就没有这么真实。实际上在你提到之前，我没有太多考虑这个问题。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And I mean, yes, Meta is relevant here in terms of fitting the characteristics of lots of compute, no compute business on top. But Elon has the biggest advantage, which is his stock is trading high. They're doing, what, 20? I mean, it's 8 billion last quarter in revenues, call it 30 billion growing, round up to 50. What the hell, you know, right? It's still 40 times revenues. Picking up a big asset, as Jason says, at 15 times current revenues, maybe less than 10 times year-end revenues, dirt cheap for him, right? And net a creed of day one in a way that probably wouldn't be as true for Matt. I haven't thought about it all that much because, frankly, until you mentioned it, I haven't thought of that.
但对我而言，其中一个方面是，如果我们放远视角来看，我只是在回顾一下Jason关于毛利率负面影响的评论，对吧？那是真的。当时的情况确实如此，现在依然如此。确实存在一些毛利挑战问题。当你回顾整个历程时，你会发现沿途提到的一些负面因素往往是真实存在的。那些问题是真实的。然而，当你在考虑一项投资时，市场发展的积极性往往会超过这些负面的影响。我的意思是，很容易用一种显得很有经济头脑的方式来说，哦，最终所有事情都必须产生自由现金流。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But one of the things for me is, if you zoom out, I'm just reflecting back on Jason's comment on the gross margin negativity, right? That's true. That story was true when it happened, and it's still true today. There are challenging margin issues, right? And when you reflect on the journey, the negatives that you can cite along the way tend to be true. They're correct. Those were real. And when you look at an investment, the positives in terms of market trajectory just outweighed the negatives. I mean, it's easy to sound very kind of financially smart and say, oh, in the end, everything has to generate free cash flow.
这没有毛利率。所以有人说最后它一文不值。但是这种说法是错误的，因为在一个像编程这样快速增长的市场中，这确实是一个巨大的市场。记住，这是人工智能最大的市场，Anthropic的万亿美元市值中有70%到80%是基于这个市场的。如果你是这个领域的第二大玩家，并且正在快速增长，那么即使你确实面临毛利率的挑战，特别是在一个充满乐观且面向未来的市场中，买家会忽略这一点，并认为在这个领域真正能够发挥作用的玩法只有一两种。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
This doesn't have gross margin. So, quote, in the end, it's worthless. But it's wrong because along the way, when you have a market that's exploding like coding, that's a huge market. Remember, this is the biggest market for AI, 70%, 80% of Antropic's trillion-dollar market cap is predicated on this. If you have the number two player in that space, and you're growing hyper-fast, then even though, yeah, you got gross margin challenges, especially in a kind of optimistic, forward-looking market, the buyer's going to look past that and say, there's only one or two ways to play in this space at a meaningful level.
这真是一个完美的契合。坦率地说，如果在一个非常不同的资本市场中，事情可能会截然不同。可能会有人感叹，“天哪，没有资本了！天哪，毛利率太低了！没有自由现金流！” 你可能不得不放慢脚步，采取完全不同的发展轨迹。但在这个市场中，他们能够全力以赴，面对那些棘手的毛利率问题，然后找到一个买家。这个买家不仅愿意看到这些问题，还具备解决问题的能力。因为他认为，“你的毛利率问题其实是我Colossus集群的营收机遇。”
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And it was just a perfect fit. Frankly, in a very different capital markets, it could have been a very different story. You know, oh, my God, there's no capital. Oh, my God, the gross margins. Oh, no free cash flow. Maybe you have to slow down and do a very different trajectory as a cursor. But in this market, they were able to go balls out, for lack of a better word, have those tough gross margin stories, and then find a buyer who not only was willing to look through it, but actually had every ability to solve it. Because he's like, your gross margin problem is my revenue opportunity for my Colossus cluster.
这表明那些负面问题并没有消失，只是被乐观的看法掩盖了。这就是为什么我们常说的老套话，悲观者听起来聪明，而乐观者富有。如杰森所说，可能经历了一些非常艰难的日子，但他们有勇气继续前进。由于市场庞大，而且坦率地说，目前环境支持冒险，他们取得了惊人的成果。祝他们好运。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So it just shows the negative issues didn't go away. They just got swamped by the optimistic take. And that's why, you know, it's the old cliche we talk about. Pessimists sound smart. Optimists die rich. Jason said it. There was probably some very tough days, but they had the guts to keep moving forward. And because the market's huge and because, frankly, the environment is risk-on, they've had an amazing result. Good luck to them.
关于元宇宙的事情，那只是个细节。我想这就像是一个平行宇宙的问题。但我的意思是，扎克伯格本来可能要在一周内支付800亿、700亿。那肯定是非常核心的，因为别忘了，事情的发展是Cursor公司即将以500亿的估值筹集大约20亿，对吧？是由Andreessen和他的朋友们投资。然后，埃隆在那种情况下做了他应该做的事情。他问需要多少，于是多出了100亿的报价，对吧？你已经有了50亿的交易。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And on the meta thing, it's just a detail. I guess it's a parallel universe question. But I mean, Zuck would have had to pay 80 billion, 70 billion in like a week. That'd have to be very core, because don't forget, what happened was Cursor was about to close around 2 billion at 50 billion, right? From Andreessen and friends. And Elon did what you have to do in that situation. What does it take? So he bid 10 billion more, right? You've got a deal at 50.
我想说，扎克伯格收购Instagram和WhatsApp就像是用餐巾纸在一个小时内搞定的，并且花了大价钱，对吧？但我觉得埃隆做得更好。他们已经在和Cursor合作了，对吧？计划以50进行融资，怎么样？51？不行。那50，60呢？60怎么样？好吧。交易可能不会成行。那如果交易不成，我们赔你100亿怎么样？好吧。我已经移除掉了所有关于这笔交易的异议，并且我会让你按照自己的方式管理公司，对吧？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I mean, Zuck did Instagram and WhatsApp like in an hour on the back of a napkin and paid high, right? But I think Elon did even better. What's it going to take? They were already working together with Cursor, right? They're already working together. We're going to do the round at 50. How about 51? No. How about 50, 60? How about 60? Okay. And well, the deal might not happen. Well, what if we pay you 10 billion if it doesn't happen? Well, okay. I've removed all the objections from the deal and I'll let you run the company the way you want, right?
我觉得是三点，他们握手达成了协议。我的意思是，扎克（小扎）也可以做到同样的事情。他至少做过两次，但是你必须非常渴望才能做到，对吧？在800亿的时候。他还得动作更快才行。我的意思是，Rory当然是对的。埃隆手里有最终的股票和资本来促成这个交易，对吧？而且是最佳的匹配。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I think it was three points and they shook hands and did the deal. I mean, Zuck can do the same thing. He's done it at least twice, but you got to want it bad to do it, right? At 80 billion. And he would have had to move even faster. I mean, Rory's of course, right. Elon had the ultimate stock in currency to do this deal, right? And the ultimate match.
要做任何这样的交易，我认为你必须像埃隆·马斯克或马克·扎克伯格那样的人，因为你必须在一周内达成价值600亿美元的交易。我的意思是，只有少数人能做到这一点，对吧？只有少数人。同意。我在读诺亚·史密斯的文章，他是个偏左但温和中立的博客作者，不太喜欢埃隆，但他大约一年前写了一篇很不错的文章，说只有傻子才会否认埃隆·马斯克是非常高效的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But to do any of these deals, I think you've got to be Elon or Zuck because you've got to just strike this deal in a week at 60 billion. I mean, it's only a handful of people can do this, right? Only a handful. Agreed. And I was reading Noah Smith, who's kind of a damn left to center, but moderate centrist blogger, who's not an Elon fan, just wrote a great piece about a year ago that says only a fool denies that Elon Musk is wildly effective.
无论你对这个角色的优劣有何看法，他可能是全球在实现工业化、实体AI和人工智能方面最有效率的人之一。你知道，从一年前的白手起家，他建立了这个集群，然后引进了仍然处于领先地位的产品。他将SpaceX从一年前还是个令人惊叹的火箭和卫星连接故事，变成了如其他人所说的，至少在“未来前景”方面，80%-90%是一个AI的故事。我是说，你看到了他一年前的推文，他提到，不要低估AI，低估AI的代价很大，是时候行动了。他从零开始，到在不到一年、刚刚一年多的时间里拥有了几乎最多的计算能力，并拥有了填补这计算能力的最重要产品。这简直是一种极其高效的管理，是世界一流的执行力。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
You know, regardless of your opinion on the merits of the part, he's one of possibly the most effective person on the planet at getting shit done when it comes to industrialization, physical AI and AI. And, you know, from a standing start a year ago, he built the cluster and then he bought the products that are still on top of it. And he took SpaceX from literally a year ago being a really amazing rocket and satellite connectivity story to being, as the rest of one says, at least in terms of the "future prospects", 80-90% an AI story. I mean, you saw his tweet, you mentioned it a year ago. You know, I've underestimated AI, some virtual underestimate AI, time to go. He went from a standing start to owning more compute than pretty much anyone else and owning the most important product to fill that compute in less than a year, just over a year. That's just wildly effective management. It's a world-class in getting shit done.
另一件小事，我只是想到这些，我们可以继续，但想象一下你是Michael，是个游标，对吧？而且一切进展得都很顺利。你拿到了一个条款清单，大概24岁吧。你在纸面上已经是个数百亿富翁，而且NVIDIA和Thrive想在50亿美元估值时入资，对吧？你并不是特别在意现金流，你可以套现十亿美元或者五亿美元，对吧？一切都挺顺利的。这种交易非常罕见，但即使与Elon合作一年后可能会变得很糟糕，我个人还是宁愿一开始就为Elon工作，而不是Zuck。我会去做，就像我会觉得，Elon是我想跟随的人。如果我必须为某人工作，那个人会是Elon。我是说，他比我强多了。他在做火箭、电动车，他什么都做，而Zuck到处解雇员工，变得疯狂，因为他没有一个大型语言模型。不是说他不是最伟大的企业家之一，但我不会想为Zuck工作，而我会想为Elon工作。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
The other small factor, just thinking about it, we can move on, but imagine you are Michael, a cursor, right? And things are going pretty well. You've got it, you've got a term sheet from your, what, 24. You're a paper decabillionaire and NVIDIA and Thrive want to put in money at 50, right? You're not that cash motivated. You could take out a billion, right? Or 500 million, right? Things are going okay. These are very rare deals, but even though working with Elon in a year might turn out to be terrible, I would much rather initially work for Elon than for Zuck, personally. I would do it. Like, I would be like, Elon is the guy I want. If I had to work for someone, it'd be Elon. I mean, he is better than me. This guy is fucking rockets, electric, he does everything and Zuck's firing everybody and going crazy because he doesn't have an LLM. Not that he isn't one of the greatest entrepreneurs, but I wouldn't want to work for Zuck, but I would want to work for Elon.
这真的很重要。这可能是并购中的一个错误，无论是作为并购目标还是CEO，因为我们都曾在创始人的另一面犯过错误，对吧？我告诉创始人们要忽略这些——忽略品牌，忽略你认为今天的工作，因为你完全不知道在24个月后，你会在做什么。但对于创始人来说，找到一个他们真正想要的落脚点在情感上是非常重要的。如果我是Alex，现在有一个价值240亿并且业务艰难的公司，也许会考虑，但今天我不想加入Meta。在这种情况下，我宁愿选择Elon的公司。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And that actually matters. It may be a mistake in M&A as a target, as a CEO, because we've all, when we've been founders on the other side, we've made mistakes here, right? I tell founders to ignore it, ignore the brand, ignore what you think the job is today, because you have no idea in 24 months, what the hell you're going to be doing. But it is incredibly emotionally important to founders to land in something they want to land in. And I would not want to land at Meta today. If I was Alex at scale and I got 24 billion and I had a tough business, maybe, but this one, man, I'll, I'll take Elon over that one.
你觉得亚马逊或Meta会选择认知公司作为替代吗？对于市场上的第二名玩家（现在可能可以说是认知公司）会有什么连锁反应吗？我觉得你提到的这两家公司很有意思。实际上，某些公司有绝对的必要去做某件事，比如SpaceX就不得不采取行动，因为他们有这么多计算资源，看起来必须要加以利用。后来，他们还成功将这些计算资源租给了Entropic和谷歌。我认为对你提到的那两家公司来说，这并不是那么迫切的事情，不过我可以说出一家确实有这个需求的公司。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Do you think Amazon or Meta go, we'll take cognition instead? Is there a knock on effect for the second player in market, which I think arguably now would be cognition? I think it's interesting you cite those two. There's actually a quality of absolute imperative to do something, you know, who has to. And I think SpaceX had to, because they had all this compute and it looked like they had to fill it. Now, subsequently, they've also been able to rent that compute to Entropic and Google. I don't think it's nearly as existential for different reasons to the two you named and I'll name one for whom it is.
亚马逊主要涉足于AWS业务，他们与Entropic有很多合同，基本上提供Cloud Code所需的计算能力。因此，他们基本从中获得推理方面的收入。虽说他们并不拥有模型，但这并非绝对必要的重要性。他们以前从未进行过600亿美元规模的交易，而这正是他们现在开始的。而对于Meta，我认为这更不太可能。这是因为他们的核心业务是广告，确实非常出色。基本上，他们有一个超过1000亿美元的广告业务。我选择涉足这个新的AI项目，可以说是战略性的，但实际上是因为我对它非常感兴趣。我不确定是否有必要再做一个600亿美元的交易，所以这并不是那么紧迫。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
For Amazon, you know, they're in the AWS business. They got lots of contracts with Entropic. They basically have the compute for Cloud Code. So they're basically getting the inference side revenue for that. They don't own the model, but it's important, but not imperative. They've never done a 60 billion dollar deal that they're starting now. Meta, that to me is more a, again, unlikely. And the reason they didn't do it earlier is their core business is an ads business. It's freaking amazing. This is literally, I have a wonderful ads business. It kicks off north of 100 billion. I've chosen to do this new AI thing. We can pretend it's strategic, but it's really, I just freaking really interested in it. I don't know if you have to do another 60 billion deal on top of that one. So not as imperative.
我想明确表达一下，我要点出一个重点。对微软来说，这个市场非常重要。你可能还记得，史蒂夫·鲍尔默曾经在舞台上挥汗如雨、激动地高喊：“开发者，开发者，开发者。” 但现在他们与开发者的联系已经不如从前，而 GitHub 也逐渐成为一个落后产品，这对我来说，在中期是个相当显著的损失。尽管从运营上看，微软的财务数据还不错，也是一家运营良好的公司。但在这个全新的世界里，如果要找一个应该拥有顶尖编码产品的公司，那么微软无疑是第一选择。至于反垄断的问题，这是个复杂的话题，需要更长时间讨论。但换句话说，我不认为控制开发者对 AWS 来说是生死攸关的事情。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I think just to put it out there, I'm going to name the one. The company for whom this market matters is Microsoft. Because you remember, he's now long since gone and owns a basketball team, but Steve Barber would jump around the stage sweating, screaming, it's developers, developers, developers. And the fact that they've lost that connection with developers, that GitHub is now a trailing edge product, is to me over the medium term, a pretty significant loss. I mean, operationally, the numbers are fine. It's a well-run company. But if you wanted to name people who should want to own a leading state of the art coding product in this brave new world, clearly the number one person is Microsoft. Now, the antitrust issues would be a longer discussion, but I don't think, in other words, I don't think owning the developer is existential for AWS.
我绝对不认为这对Meta是生死攸关的问题，但从中期来看，这对微软来说确实是100%的存在性问题。我看到一条很有意思的推文，说萨提亚应该买下它，然后让斯科特成为微软的CEO。我觉得这很荒谬，因为这意味着他要替换自己。但实际上，我认为斯科特会是一个非常出色的微软CEO。根据我在大型企业并购方面的经验，Harry，你说有人觉得必须要插手回应Cursor所有人的情况，确实是这样的感觉吗？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I definitely don't think it's existential for Meta. It's 100% existential over the medium term for Microsoft. I've got a fantastic tweet that said Satya should buy it and then make Scott we CEO of Microsoft. I thought that would be a rather ridiculous thing to replace himself. But I actually thought Scott would be a rather brilliant CEO of Microsoft. My experience with big company M&A is that the idea that, Harry, what did you say that someone else feels like you feel like they've got to, oh, the folks have to jump in to respond to Cursor that everyone else?
好的，我的经验是，这种情况并不常发生。大家不会因此纷纷决定购买Cognition。通常，情况正好相反。我本来想买Cursor，但因为Elon突然插手，我没能买到Cursor，甚至可能不知道自己错过了。这样一来，Cursor反而上升到我现有的优先级列表中。这就是第二和第三位被购买的原因，并不是因为大家急着抢市场，而是因为我没能得到自己想要的。这时作为第二位的企业就需要格外谨慎，因为这个时候你可能会被作为第二、第三选择而被收购。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yeah. My experience is that doesn't happen. It doesn't actually get everyone else to say, hey, I've got to go buy Cognition. My experience is that usually the other thing happens. I wanted to buy Cursor. I lost Cursor, or I didn't even know I lost Cursor because Elon swooped in. Now it pushes it up my existing priority list. That's how number two and number three get bought. Not because there's a panic for land grab, but because I didn't get what I wanted. That's when you've got to be really thoughtful as number two, because that's when you get bought as number two and number three.
当第一选择被排除时，并不总是引发一场抢购热潮。很多时候，收购方会觉得，"我以为我还有更多的时间。" 例如，他们可能认为自己对Cursor的收购还有时间，以为Andreessen会以50亿的价格收购，而我可以在明年以1000亿收购，我想再等等看。他们以为自己有更多的时间，但实际并没有。所以他们选择去购买第二选择。几次我在另一边观察到，我并不觉得这会引发一场战略竞赛，让所有选择立刻被抢购一空。这可能部分是风投界编织的神话。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
When just number one just gets taken off the table. It's not so much a land rush. A lot of times acquirers are like, I thought I had more time. Maybe such as like, I thought I had more time with Cursor. Andreessen would do it at 50. I could do it a hundred billion next year. I wanted to wait and see. And they thought I had more time and they didn't. So then they go buy number two. A couple of times I've said on the other side, I don't know that it creates such a strategic arm race that everyone just gets picked off instantly. That might be a VC partial myth.
本周又发生了一次大型收购事件。虽然不像报道的100亿美元那么多，但Open Router被爱尔兰的Paulson兄弟（Brewery或Brethren）以70亿美元收购。这真是一个令人难以置信的旅程。我刚刚在节目中采访过的CEO亚历克斯·阿塔拉之前创办了OpenSea，而Open Router显然是领先的LLM路由公司。就在四个月前，该公司在B轮融资中的估值为13亿美元。因此，这次的收购价是其估值的5倍甚至是12倍，对Menlo和Andreessen来说也是一个极大的资本回报。我们应该如何看待这件事呢？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
There's another mega acquisition that happened this week. It's not quite the $10 billion that was reported, but open router, $7 billion acquisition by the Irish Paulson brothers, Brewery or Brethren. I mean, what an incredible journey. Alex Atala, CEO, who I just had on the show. He founded OpenSea before. It's obviously the leading LLM routing company. It raised a series B that was at $1.3 billion valuation just four months ago. So it's five X that or capital G to 12 X for Menlo and Andreessen. How do we think about this?
据广泛报道，现在已得到确认。直观上你能理解Stripe是如何从这里发展到那一步的，对吧？就是说，当你看他们现有的业务时，他们通过管理用银行卡和ACH收款的复杂性来获得现金流的一小部分。而在现在的情境中，他们将通过管理选择模型和运营的复杂性来获得相应的收益，企业可以通过一个API运行几十甚至上百个不同的模型。所以从概念上来看，这完全说得通。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It's widely reported. Now it's confirmed. You can see intuitively how Stripe get there from here, right? Is that, you know, when you look at their existing business, they get paid a small percentage of the money flow to manage complexities in collecting cash via cards and also by ACH now. And here they're going to get a small amount of the money flow to manage the complexities of picking models and running, you know, as an enterprise using a single API to run, you know, tens and maybe hundreds of different models. So kind of, I can see at the conceptual level, it totally makes sense.
最近，他们的提升很大程度上来自于他们的支付业务，这得益于他们的客户群体对人工智能的高度关注。每当你用信用卡在OpenAI或Anthropic上消费时，他们都会从中获得一些收入。因此，我完全理解他们是如何做到这一点的。这类似于之前提到的光标评论中的某些内容。你可以用传统的方式来分析这项业务的进入壁垒，比如从中期来看，会有很多竞争者。如今有很多小型路由器公司，大家都在开发自己的产品。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And a lot of their lift recently has come from, even on their payments business has come from just their customer base being so AI forward that every time you spend money with open AI or Anthropic on a credit card, they get some of that money. So I can totally see how they get there. And again, it's some version of the same thing as the cursor comment. You can do the old intellectual, oh, what are the barriers to entry for this business? Oh, over the medium term, there'll be lots of people. And there's a ton of weenie router companies out there and everyone's building one.
当人们在早期土地争夺中移动时，我们看到，这里的元市场每年增长10倍。以Anthropic的增长率为整体背景，如果你早早进入并构建了有用的基础设施部分，你可能会以一个在贴现现金流模型下不合算的价格被收购，但对收购方来说，这个价格非常合理。就像埃隆·马斯克能够比游标器自己更快地将游标器转化为现金流一样，我敢打赌，Stripe会比开放路由器自己更快地将其转化为资金。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But it turns out in an early land grab when people are moving, you know, remember the metamarket here is growing 10x year on year, if you take Anthropic's growth rate as the big picture comment here, right? If you move early and you build a useful part of the infrastructure, you will probably find an acquisition at a price that doesn't make any sense on a DCFTU basis, but makes huge sense to the acquirer. Because just like Elon will turn cursor into money, cash flow far quicker than cursor could have turned cursor into cash flow, I'm willing to bet Stripe will turn open router into money probably quicker than open router could do on a standalone basis.
在一个疯狂的市场中会发生这样的情况：如果市场放缓，很多收购者可能会选择买与建之间的策略，认为没有必要着急，他们有五年的时间。然而，当市场如现在这般迅速变化时，在我看来，除非市场出现调整并且收购者的资金减少，否则你会看到很多公司像Anthropic一样，决定放手一搏，他们选择直接购买所需的资源，而不是花时间自己开发。比如，他们可能会想着，如果我想进入Stripe，或者我在支付领域已经很大了，想要快速进入AI领域最简单的方法就是花费70亿美元，其中一些以股票支付，然后在短短一周内将这些公司纳入自己的业务。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
This is what happens in a crazy market is that if things slow down, a lot of these, the acquirer would run the buy versus build and say, there's no hurry, we've got five years. When things are moving as fast as they are now, you're going to see, in my view, until such time as you see the correction and the acquirer currency diminishes, you're going to see a whole bunch of people like Anthropic say, screw it, I want to be in world models, I'm just going to buy the card, I don't have time. Screw it, I want to be in, you know, Stripe, screw it, I'm huge in payments, I want to be in the AI influence flow, quickest thing I can do is spend seven billion dollars, some of it stock, get these guys and be rolling in a week.
这是你所看到的，类似的现象你在互联网早期阶段就见过，甚至在那之前都见过。要是我提起这些，哈利，你可能都会感动得哭出来，对吧？当行业快速增长时，你会看到一些惊人的收购，这些收购的价值对收购方来说非常高，因此出价也很丰厚。这正是创业投资有效的原因之一，你敢于在风险的边缘行走，但如果时机把握得好，你就能获得这样的回报。A16、Menlo和Capital D，干得好！
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
This is what you see, you saw it at early internet stage, you saw it back in times even before that, that would make you cry, Harry, if I even mention it, right? When things are moving really quickly in a build out, you just see these kind of amazing acquisitions, where the value to the acquirer dictates a very healthy price. And it's one of the reasons why venture works, you go right out there in the risk continuum, but if you time it right, you know, you can get these kind of returns. And you know, well done A16, well done Menlo, well done Capital D.
这段话提醒我们，M&A（并购）中的收入是多么奇怪的一个因素。因为如果你被私募股权（PE）收购，企业的收入和利润非常重要，甚至精确到某个特定单元格的数据，比如G38。如果Workday变成私有公司，那么它在2032年的DCF（贴现现金流）究竟会是什么样子，就会显得非常重要。在大型公司的并购中，最奇怪的地方在于收入在设定倍数和价格时非常重要。虽然收入对于定价来说很重要，但实际上并不关键，因为关键在于像Stripe这样的公司能从一个开放的项目中获得多少价值。奇怪的是，在大型并购中，你的现有收入其实不重要，尽管它可能是价格的最大因素之一。但就像Stripe关心在开放路由中能产生什么价值一样，他们并不看重目前的70万或80万元的收入。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It's a reminder, you know, how weird revenue is in M&A, because if you're bought by PE, top and bottom line are incredibly important, down to the significant digit, down to cell G38, okay? If Workday goes private, exactly what its DCF will look like in 2032 is so important. The weirdest thing about M&A with big companies is revenue is so important to argue over multiples and the price. Like it's so important to price, but it's irrelevant because it's all about what Stripe can make out of open router. It's such a weird thing that your revenue going into big M&A actually doesn't matter at all, even though it's probably the biggest input to price, but then it's like Stripe literally, what's open router doing 70 million, 80 million today? Stripe does not care for that money.
因此，你经常会看到收购方会放弃现有的收入，对吧？为了追求新的收入。这确实是一个很奇怪的模式。有两点：首先，Rory 说得对，Stripe 在收购方面表现得很出色。通过收购，他们快速进入了加密货币领域，他们在这方面做得非常好。另一方面，你也可以说，他们也许应该更擅长自己开发这些东西，对吧？这是从挑剔的角度来看，为什么你不自己开发呢？但是，如果他们擅长并购，而这只占了他们市值加现金的5％并且他们希望在短期内得到它，那就很合乎逻辑。不过，你必须擅长并购。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And so you often see acquirers will abandon even the existing revenue, right? To do the revenue. It's just, it's such a weird paradigm. Two things, Rory's right, Stripe actually appears to be very good at acquisitions. It's how it accelerated into crypto and otherwise they're good at it. The flip side you could say is maybe they should be better at building these themselves, right? That's the grouchy version. Why didn't you build it? But if you're good at M&A and this is 5% of your market cap plus cash and you want it tomorrow, it makes sense. You have to be good at M&A though.
然后你就去做了。相对来说，我非常喜欢Open Router。我大约六个月前在节目中谈到过它。我是一个客户，也是一个用户。这个软件很棒，就像11 Labs一样，它的部署非常简单，设计优雅，是一个美丽的软件，但它属于比较小众的领域。Jason，你是怎么理解的？我真的很好奇。好的。据我了解，Open Router在开发者工具方面非常强大，特别是当你想简单地选择一个模型时。你可以选择任何模型，不需要使用额外的工具或进行复杂的设置。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And then you do it. The counterpoint is I love open router. I talked about it on the show like six months ago. I'm a customer, I'm a user. It was brilliant. It was one of these pieces of software like 11 labs, which is just instantly easier to deploy. It's just elegant. It was just a beautiful piece of software, but it's pretty niche. In what sense, Jason? Just a genuine curiosity. Okay. So open router, as I understand it, and I think it's right, is really strong in sort of developer type tools where you want a simple way to pick a model. Okay. Because you can pick any model. You don't need to get on fireworks. You don't need to set up anything.
这段话翻译成中文是：
这在聊天机器人中表现得非常非常强大，因为聊天机器人不需要完美。当你和我的数字化Harry或数字化Rory对话时，你不需要得到完美的输出，对吧？你可以根据可用性在不同模型之间切换，而这正是它们的两个特点。现在我们来谈谈需要高度准确性的BNB工作流程。当需要确保准确性时，你会简化选择到一或两个模型，因为不能有模型漂移现象。你不能在Kimmy到Quinn到4.6到Fable之间切换，否则本来需要完美的B2B工作流程的表现就会不稳定。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And it's really, really, really strong with chat bots where like they don't have to be perfect. When you're talking with my digital Harry or digital Rory, you don't need perfect outputs, right? You could route between models based on availability. And those are their two niches. Now let's talk about workflows with a lot of reasoning for BNB when it has to be accurate. You're going to down spec to one or two models because you can't have model drift. You can't be routing from Kimmy to Quinn to 4.6 to Fable. And all of a sudden you're like B2B workflow that has to be perfect drifts from all of them.
这段文字的中文翻译和简化表达如下：
从一个opus模型换到另一个模型时，也会出现偏差。你需要进行质量控制、重新确认、修复和测试。因此，对于高推理能力的模型，人们通常会追求前沿输出，而不是不停地在11个模型之间轮换。我认为Open Router并不适合这个应用，但这没关系。他们也明白这一点。然而，我认为Stripe的立场是：“听着，我们可以从地球上的任何交易中收取百分之二点几的手续费。”然而，这不适用于Open Router。它是一个不错的利基产品。但在路由领域，大家都在做，例如Databricks、Replit、Lovable和Vercel都在这样做。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It drifts even just going from like one opus model to another, you see drift. You have to QA it, re-qualify it, fix it, test it. So for high reasoning models, people do frontier-esque outputs, right? People don't rotate through 11 models. And I don't think open router is the right product for that. And that's fine. They get that too. But I think Stripe is, Hey, listen, any transaction on planet earth, we can take two point something percent of, right? But it's not going to be true for open router. It's a niche. It's a wonderful niche product. But in the world of routing, which everybody does, Databricks does, Replit does it, Lovable does it, Vercel does it.
这是一种小众产品，但在两个领域具有很好的市场。然而，这对 Stripe 来说是一种风险，因为他们可能最终只拥有一个小众且成功的产品。而这并不是他们的核心理念，Stripe 的基因并不是小众。首先，我认为这是合理的，因为我们内部对此领域非常苦恼，这正是我们所担心的问题。你的看法完全正确。积极的一面是，只要有前沿的模式试图从你这里提取一千亿美元的收入，而你是一家大型企业，你就会想要一个备用计划，对吧？至少用来保持公平竞争。因此，你会需要某种类型的路径管理。但是，正如 Jason 所说，这让我想起云计算刚兴起时，大家都想要多云策略。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It's a niche product with two really good niches. But this is the risk to Stripe is that they end up owning a niche, a successful niche product. And that's not their, their DNA is not niche. It's just not their DNA. First of all, I do think that's fair because, you know, we internally agonize about this space and that was exactly what we're angsty about. And your framing is exactly correct. Like the positive, let's spell out the positive, the positive trend is as long as you have the frontier models trying to extract a hundred billion in revenue from you this year, and you're an enterprise, you're going to want a plan B, right? At least to keep the thing honest. So you are going to want some kind of routing, but it's, it's what you said that resonated with me, Jason, a little bit, which is remember when cloud was starting, people were like, oh, I want to be multi-cloud.
多云管理真的很难。在这里，我可能想要做多模型管理，但也许我只需要两个或三个模型。因此，我不需要这类路由功能。这里的风险在于，如果你的企业客户决定只需要在三个模型之间切换，而不是十个，那么你的价值就会下降。我认为积极的一面是，如果你能够在选择一大堆选项的基础上进行标准化并试图将模型商品化，那么你的价值就会在企业中上升。这种矛盾在于，你越能做到这点，越能服务于那些对此不太在意的人，你的业务就越好。但你说得对，如果像摩根大通这样的公司说，他们需要的不仅仅是一个主题，但又不想使用十个模型，那么情况就会变得复杂。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It's really hard to be multi-cloud. Here, maybe I want to be multi-model, but maybe I only want two or three models. And therefore, I don't need this kind of routing functionality. That is the risk. If your enterprise customer decides, I need to flip between three models, but not 10, then you write your value here goes down. I would imagine the positive spin is your value here goes up to the enterprise. If you can build on top of just picking a whole bunch of normalization of all those options and try and commodify the model. So that's the kind of tension part. The more you can do that, and the more you can service the people who don't care all that much, the better your business. But you're right. If JP Morgan says, I want more than just on topic, but I'm not going to qualify 10 models.
我打算以靠近泳池的工作作为计划B，然后把其他的事情转给别的项目。这样就对了，这样你就有了一个小众市场，但不会获得那部分收入。举个例子，本周Rippling作为B2B公司分享了他们采用的模型。他们评估了全球范围内的情况，发现最适合他们的是Opus 4和8，这是一个N减一的模型，但经过了良好的训练。此外，他们还考虑到了价格表现和速度。最后，他们选择了GPT 5.5中等版本，并表示目前其他的对Rippling没有意义。当然，这在60到90天后可能会有所变化。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I'm just going to work with poolside as my plan B and then offload the rest to something else. Then you're right. Then you have niche and you don't get that revenue. Yeah. Like for example, like this week, Rippling posted their view as a B2B player of what models they use. Right. And they, they had it all. And they said in the world world across Rippling, we looked at two things that were best for us. Opus four, eight, it's an N minus one model, but it's well-trained with their harness. And then there's like, there's price performance and speed. And then I think they picked whatever GPT 5.5 medium or something. And they said the rest isn't worth it for Rippling today. Now that could change in 60, 90 days.
他们一次缩减到两个，然后必须管理这些的输出。你可以在这里调整一组工作流程，这些流程在另一个地方可能需要更长时间。即使你是像Rippling这样的大型企业，管理12个模型也太多了。如果你是开发工具并且让人们自己选择，那也可以。对于开放路由器来说，这是很棒的选择。或者如果你想在自己的产品中内置一个回退机制，开放路由器在这方面可以说是10分满分。比如说某些东西宕机了，开放路由器会自动回退。我认为这是一款小众产品，但它可能会在小众市场中变得非常庞大。我想起来我们之前的讨论内容了，因为你说得没错。核心的Stripe产品的优势在于所有支付都是平等的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So they downspec to two at a time, and then they have to manage the outputs from these. And you may tune one set of workflows here, right. That are long reason in another. And even if you're Rippling scale, you managing 12 models is too much. If you're a dev tool and let people pick, so be it. Right. That's great for open router. Or if you want to build into your own product, a fallback, open router is a 10 out of 10 for this. Like let's say something's down, right. Open router automatically falls back, but I think it's a niche product, but it could be a massive niche, you know? Yeah. I mean, I'm remembering the conversations now because you are right. The great thing about the core stripe product is all payments are equal.
"Visa 成为了万物的基础。这可能是真的。我会去看看那篇文章，因为我想弄清楚一个重要问题，那就是企业能够对封闭基金会模型公司施加多少定价压力，以及他们如何施加这种压力。我认为这对很多事情都有影响。对不起，哈利，继续。在五年内，这次收购会被认为是成功的吗？那是一个预测。我认为这会像是一个规模收购。它将成为某件更大事物的开端。这个品牌或这个产品在五年内是否还存在，我甚至不认为这个产品会在五年后存在，但我认为有很高的机会（超过 51% 的可能性），它会为 Stripe 带来 20% 或 30% 的收入流，而这就足够了。"
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And Visa is the rails for everything. That might be the case. I'm going to check out that post because I mean, one of the big questions will be how much pricing pressure enterprises can put on the closed foundation model companies, and how do they put that pressure on? Because I think it impacts a lot. Sorry, Harry, go on. In five years time, will this be considered a successful acquisition or not? That's on prediction. I think it'll be like the scale acquisition. It will be the start of something that gets bigger. Whether this brand exists or whether even this product exists five years, I don't even think this product will exist in five years, but I think there's a high chance, more than 51% chance it builds into a 20 or 30% revenue stream for Stripe and that's enough.
五年后，作为Stripe一部分的开放路由器还会存在吗？我敢打赌它会的。五年是很长的时间，而这又是一个很小众的产品。如果这个产品存在的话，它可能会深藏在Stripe顶层菜单的某个下拉选项中，大概在第11层，因为它会被整合进整个类似令牌管理平台中，对吧？他们的TMP。我不知道，但我认为Jason的回答让我很有共鸣，如果它成功的话，它将被视为一种时间扩展策略。Stripe现在有趣的地方在于，他们正在进行收购，这种做法有点类似于，他们之前从未涉足过这个领域，现在想在新的领域站稳脚跟。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But does open router as part of Stripe exist in five years? I'll bet you dollars to donuts. Five years is so much time and it's such a niche product. This, this product itself, if it does exist, it'll be deep in a drop down menu on the top of Stripe, like 11 layers down, because it'll be subsumed into the whole sort of token management platform, right? They're TMP. I don't know. I think that's, I think Jason's answer resonates with me is if it works, it'll be a, it'll be seen as a time expansion play. What's fun about Stripe right now is they're doing that acquisition, which is very much a, hey, we don't play in this space. Let's put a stake in the new ground.
同时，他们正在讨论收购PayPal，这对于他们来说意味着，我们已经在这个领域拥有了一席之地。让我们收购这些公司，然后将它们整合到我们现有的业务中，通过合并赚取大量金钱，对吧？实际上，我认为这是一个聪明的策略。我觉得他们确实在打一手精明的牌。他们有三分之一的可能性在五年内建立一个庞大的AI路由业务。如果成功的话，那将是一个重大的第二顶梁柱。同时，如果他们能够完成与PayPal的交易，这种交易就像Jason所说的那样，如果你在并购和整合方面很出色，你可能就能很清楚地预计到能保持这些收入，并且能有效削减整个管理和行政费用。这样还能形成一个双面网络，因为你还拥有消费者电子钱包，而这是Stripe所不具备的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And at the same time, they're talking about a PayPal acquisition, which is very much, we own this space already. Let's buy these guys, fold them into what we already have and just make a shit ton of money consolidating, right? And actually, I think that's a clever strategy. I mean, I think they're actually playing a very clever hand. There's probably a one in three chance that they have a massive AI routing business in five years. But if they do, that's a big second leg. While at the same time, if they get the PayPal deal done, that's the kind of deal you have a high, to Jason's point about, if you're good at M&A and good at consolidation, you probably have a high degree of visibility that you keep those revenues, that you remove the entire G&A. You get more of a two-sided network because you have consumer wallets, which Stripe doesn't have.
你已经进行了核心整合型的收购。如果你能同时将这两者做好，这在构建企业价值方面非常有趣。而且，他们是在全私有的情况下进行这些操作。再次回到之前的评论，在私有公司状态下，完成了看起来像上市公司规模的并购。我知道他们在Open Router的交易中让投资者接受Stripe的股票，我认为其中一部分是以股票形式进行的。而PayPal的交易则更加复杂，可能需要更多的思考。但再次强调，能够进行我认为价值400至500亿美元的交易以及70亿美元的交易，同时在私有状态下发行证券，实在令人叹为观止。Stripe的公司发展团队今年圣诞节是需要奖金的。他们今年非常忙碌，但不是每个人都忙碌吗？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And you've done core consolidation acquisitions. Doing them both together, provided you can pull them off, is super interesting in terms of building enterprise value. And they're doing it all private. Again, back to the comment, doing what looked like public company size M&A and pulling it off while private. I know they got the investors to take Stripe stock in the open router deal. I think some portion of it was stock. And you know, the PayPal deal is more complex and probably requires more thought. But again, being able to do what is I think a $40, $50 billion deal and a $7 billion deal, issuing paper while private is pretty impressive. Stripe's corp dev team need a bonus at Christmas time. They are busy this year. They are busy this year, but isn't everybody.
我们提到了基础模型所面临的利润压力。Anthropic在第二季度的收入达到115亿美元，并首次实现盈利。Dario的生意正在变得越来越好。在同一周，Gavin Baker提到Dario时说，他相信这可能是最后一家私营公司。你看到这个消息了吗？我们看到了。让我们从事实和当前情况入手，而不是被夸张的说辞和未来的预测分散注意力。他们开始赚钱并不令人惊讶，对吧？如果你回想一下去年，他们的收入是45亿美元。我认为他们的毛利率从前年为负增长到了大约正30%左右，对吧？预计年底大约会达到40%。当你的运营利润率比较不错，比如40%，并且从一年45亿美元增长到一个季度100亿美元时，这意味着你有40亿美元的毛利，对吧？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
We mentioned margin pressure on foundation models. Anthropic turns its first profit on $11.5 billion of Q2 revenue. The business is getting better for Dario. This is also in a week where Gavin Baker said about Dario saying he believes that they will be the final private company. Did you see this? We did. And let's separate the hyperbole and the future from the facts and the present. It's not surprising they're making money, right? If you just go back to last year, they did $4.5 billion last year. And I think the gross margins went from negative the year before to like positive 30 or something like that, right? On track, I think end of the year, roughly 40, right? When you have decent operating margins like 40% and you go from $4.5 billion in a year to $10 billion in a quarter, that means you have $4 billion of gross margin, right?
这就发生在两个季度以内。你无法迅速增加线下的开支来阻止自己盈利。所以这是不可避免的。我是说，他们的增长速度增加了12倍，这意味着如果毛利率持续增长甚至略微上涨，应该也会增长到14倍，而且增长趋势一直在上升。你不可能在六个月内增加14倍的员工数量或线下培训成本。所以我一点也不惊讶他们正在实现盈亏平衡。我们在年初做过一些数据分析，结论就是如此。我觉得有趣的是，随着他们的继续增长，尤其是在从埃隆那里购买昂贵的计算能力后，加上两个月后的大幅度涨价，我怀疑他们会在IPO时预测继续盈利作为基本情形。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And that's literally in two quarters. You can't add expenses below the line fast enough to stop yourself making money. So it's inevitable. I mean, yeah, they 12X'd growth, which means they probably 14X'd gross margin if it continued to increase even slightly and the trajectory has been increasing. You're not going to 14X headcount or below the line training costs in six months. So yes, I'm totally not surprised they are operating in income possible. We had run numbers at the start of the year and it kind of came to that conclusion. I mean, the interesting thing will be as they continue to grow, as they buy that expensive compute from Elon, if you remember, that has a big price increase two months in, I doubt they will forecast for their IPO a base case of continuing profitability.
我可能错了，但这个利润没有让我感到惊讶。我的意思是，这是一个惊人的表现，创收非常出色。收入加上任何像样的毛利几乎可以治愈所有问题。我认为另一个问题是，因为我们正准备进行可能很快就要发生的IPO，Anthropa能靠什么样的数字撑过去？你有表外负债，有大量承诺，还有可能是人类历史上前所未见的股票为基础的薪酬。所以，如果你的数据上有星号和匕首符号，结果可能会让人大跌眼镜。如果他们必须全面披露这些，尤其是一些非GAAP的表外负债，如果像Wix这样因为股票薪酬被打压，那么每个人都会关注潜在的严重负面影响。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I could be wrong, but this profit didn't surprise me. I mean, it's amazing performance. It's amazing revenue. I mean, revenue with any kind of decent gross margin cures almost all ills. I think the other question is, as we gear up for an IPO, which could be very imminent, right, is what numbers does Anthropa get away with, right? You've got off-balance sheet liabilities, right? You've got massive commits. You've got probably stock-based compensation like we've never seen in the history of mankind. So if you get asterisks and daggers on your numbers, they will be jaw-dropping, right? If they have to fully account for that, and some of that's non-GAAP, these off-balance sheets, if they're going to be hammered like a poor Wix or someone for SBC, and everyone's going to write up the horrific downside, right?
我觉得大家会忽略掉数据里那些死板消极的内容，对吧？他们都会不去理会这些。但我认为，忽略这些是很重要的。我认为Anthropica应该被忽略。用个术语来说，那些东西都不重要。唯一重要的是增长率和2027、2028年的预期收入。如果收入达到了，其他一切都会顺利。如果收入实现了，你就需要账外的那些东西，并且有收入去购买。换句话说，这些账外的东西基本上就是“两年后我承诺从你这购买大量的计算资源”，因为如果我的收入再增长十倍两年，它们就需要这么多的计算能力。那么如果收入增长，你就需要这些计算资源，你乐意拥有它们。实际上，你还会坚持要得到它们。如果收入放缓，那你就不再需要这些计算资源了，情况就会变得困难。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But I think everyone's going to look through all the nerdy negative things you could see in the numbers. They're just going to ignore it, right? But I do think it's important that it get ignored. I think it's important for Anthropica to get ignored. I think none of that shit will matter, to use a technical term. The only thing that matters will be the growth rate and the 27 and 28 projected revenue. Provided the revenue comes, everything else will be fine. If the revenue comes, then you'll need the off-balance sheet stuff and you'll have the revenue to buy it. In other words, all these off-balance sheet stuff are basically, I promise to buy a whole load of compute from you in two years' time, because if my revenue grows 10x for two more years, they're going to need all that compute. Well, if the revenue grows, you need the compute. You're happy to have it. In fact, you're insisting you get it. If the revenue slows down, then you don't need the compute. It all gets hard.
几乎所有的问题最终都会归结为你在未来两到三年内估算的数字是多少。接着，正如你所说的，股票薪酬其实没有人会真正关心。因为你担心股票薪酬的原因是，在一个稳定的状态下，比如说Workday，我们可以稍后谈谈，如果你每年给某个中层管理人员50万美元的报酬，他们通常会把这些限制性股票单位（RSU）视为他们薪资的一部分，心里想着自己是拿40万美元现金加上50万美元RSU。如果你开始停止给他们RSU，他们就会要求现金。所以这实际上就是一个现金的问题。因此，在一个成熟的公司，担心股票薪酬是完全正确的。但这里的股票薪酬数字会很大，因为所有这些人都获得了股权奖励，结果它们的价值大大超出了他们的预期。一个经典的例子是，一个人在2023年被聘用时的薪资包是一百万美元，四年后却赚到了5100万美元。这并不意味着你得付下一个人5100万美元。如果那个人拿到了他们签约时的一百万，所有的真正的经济性股票薪酬就只会占这一部分。剩下的5000万美元只是运气好。这不是一个常态。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So almost everything is going to boil down to what number do you underwrite for the next two or three years? And then, as you said, the stock-based comp, no one's going to care. Because the reason you worry about stock-based comp is because in a steady state, like Workday, we can talk about that in a second, if you're giving someone 500 grand every year to show up and be a middle manager. They're probably mentally putting those RSUs into their comp, and they think to themselves, I paid 400 in cash and 500 in RSUs. And if you start giving them the RSUs, they're going to want cash. So it really is a cash number. So in a mature business, it's totally correct to worry about SBC. But the SBC numbers here are going to be huge because all these people got grants and then it turned out to be worth way more than they ever thought. And yeah, the classic example, someone who was hired with a million-dollar package in '23 ended up making $51 million four years later. That doesn't mean you'd have to pay the next guy $51 million. If that person had gotten the million they signed up for, that's all the real economic stock-based comp would take. The other $50 million is just dumb luck. You got lucky. It's not a run rate.
我其实认为，在一个快速增长的公司中可以忽略一部分基于股票的薪酬（SBC），并将其正常化。但在一个成熟的公司中，这样做就不合适了。像Workday或Salesforce那样的公司的SBC，那是大家花出去的真金白银。有点不公平，因为你相当于对快速增长的公司网开一面，但他们就是会得到这样的机会。就像我们对Cursor说的那样，你可以在利润率上获得特权，可以在资产负债表外的项目上获得特权，也可以在SBC上获取特权，只要收入在增长。一旦收入不再增长，一切就不一样了。一旦收入增长，一切都不一样。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I actually think it is okay in a hyper-growth company to look past a good slug of the SBC and normalize it out. And conversely, it's not okay in a mature company. That SBC stock-based comp in Workday or Salesforce, that's real money that people are spending. And it's a little bit unfair because you're kind of giving the hyper-growth company a free pass, but they get a free pass. You get a free pass, and it's the same thing we said about Cursor. You get a free pass on margin. You get a free pass on off-balance sheet. You get a free pass on SBC provided revenue go up. Once revenue stop go up, all bets off. Once revenue goes up, all bets are off.
要实现Anthropic在2028年达到2000亿美元的年经常性收入（ARR）计划，然后在第二年达到6000亿美元，这需要怎样的使用量？简单来说，世界上有多少知识工作者，对吧？有多少人能订阅？如果我们乐观一点，可能有10亿人，对吧？如果Anthropic占有100%的市场份额，每人200美元，那就是2000亿美元。如果Anthropic占有300%的市场份额，那就是6000亿美元。我不太确定，Rory可能考虑得更多。达到6000亿美元似乎比较复杂，但我们对AI的需求才刚刚开始。你可以看到2000亿美元的目标，对吧？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
What would it take in usage for Anthropic to hit the $200 billion in ARR plan for 2028 and then $600 billion in the next year? The simple version is how many knowledge workers are in the world, all right? How many folks can take a subscription? Being generous, is it a billion human beings, right? If Anthropic has 100% market share at $200, that's $200 billion. If Anthropic has 300% market share, that's $600 billion. I don't know, Rory's thought more. The $600 billion seems complicated, but our demand for AI is only just begun. You can see $200 billion, which is the number, right?
一旦你开始考虑6000亿美元这个数字，就会变得非常困难，因为没有人真正去关注这个庞大的数字。我最近在这方面做了一些研究，发现确实如此。没有人退后一步去看这个大局。比如，你提到全球有十亿知识工作者，这完全是不对的。要说句实话，美国通常占全球软件预算的50%，因为我们有世界上50%的高端知识工作者。我们占全球GDP的25%。所以，最低限度来说，如果考虑Spentrak的GDP，那只是美国的四倍。但每个软件公司通常是美国的两倍。这是为什么呢？因为世界其他地方买不起和我们一样的软件，他们比较贫穷，而且有更多低工资的人，使用的软件也更少。这就是为什么当我们去欧洲时，网络体验不佳的原因。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Once you start getting the $600 billion number, it gets really hard because no one ever looks at the big number. And I've just been doing some work on this, right? No one ever steps back and looks at the big numbers. I mean, you said a billion knowledge workers in the world. Absolute bollocks. Hard-nosed comment here, US is typically 50% of the world's software budget because we're 50% of the world's high-end knowledge workers. We're 25% of the world's GDP. So at a minimum, if Spentrax GDP, it's only 4x the US. But every software company is typically 2x US. Why? Because the rest of the world can't afford the same software we do because they're poorer and they have more people at lower wages and less software. That's why we have crappy internet when we go to Europe.
其实，关键的问题是这样的：美国知识型工作者的支出可能要翻倍计算。美国大约有8300万知识型工作者，以及大约8600万体力劳动者。这是一个基础的数字，然后再开始缩小范围。我这个周末真的自己算了一下，发现可以很快缩小范围。事实上，知识型工作者包括了所有医疗行业的人。我认为我们不会替代护士。这也包括了老师，对吧？整个行业最大的关注点是美国大约有180万人从事编程工作，再加上质量保证和其他相关工作，大约有500万人从事与软件相关的工作、系统管理等等。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So the truth is, the hard-nosed comment is this. You probably take the US knowledge worker spend and double it. There are 83 million knowledge workers in the US and then roughly 86 physical labor workers. So that's what you start with. And you start cutting it down. And I literally was doing the math this weekend thinking about it. You start cutting it down real quickly. The truth is, you know, knowledge workers includes everyone in healthcare. I don't think we're going to, you know, we're not going to replace the nurses. It includes the teachers, right? The sweet spot, the ur-sweet spot of the whole damn thing is there are about 1.8 million people doing coding in the US, and then including then QA and all the other things. There's around 5 million people that do software-related shit, systems admin stuff, all the rest of that.
他们总共收入达到每年约6000亿。如果是2000亿，那就意味着三分之一的人被替代。这是一个很大的数字。我们之前提到过，最重要的比例是，在一个稳定的状态下，工资和AI的费用的比例是多少？因为如果是工资的50%，你很容易就可以达到2000亿。而6000亿用于编码是很难实现的。如果是10%的话，在整个过程中达到2000亿就很困难。所以最关键的问题在于在稳定状态下需要多少软件，因为如果软件是最大化采用的关键，那么你认为，每为一名工程师花费10万美元或20万美元，你将在AI上花多少？是10万、5万还是20万？这就是关键数字。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And they get paid in total, grossing up about 600 billion a year. 200 billion means you're replacing a third of them. That's a lot. And remember we said this before, the single most important ratio, and I asked you about what you thought it was, Jason, is in a steady state, what's the ratio of salary dollars to AI dollars? Because if it's 50% of salary dollars, you can easily get to 200 billion. And 600 billion is hard in coding, well, you can't get there. If it's 10%, then it's hard to get 200 billion across the whole thing. So it really boils down to, in the steady state, how much software, because if software is the tip of the spear in terms of max adoption, what do you think, for every $100,000 you spend on an engineer, or $200,000 you spend on an engineer, are you going to be spending 100K on AI, 50K on AI, or 200K on AI? That's the number.
好的，我们正在测试这个。过去的60天里，我们的每次扩展都真实地限制了他们的AI预算。这不仅仅是优步这样的公司，每个人都在限制，因为AI的增长真的是指数级的，对吧？所有人都在限制，每年600万，800万，对吧？我认为最后会稳定在每个工程师相当于10万美元。我想我们会给每个最优秀的工程师10万美元的代币作为回报，同时有效地减少我们的开发团队规模30%到40%。虽不能完全如愿，但大致就是这样运作。这里有10万美元用于24/7全天候运行推断，并行使用10个代理。说实话，我同意这个做法。我最初的想法也是这样的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yeah, we're testing it. The last 60 days, our every single scale up is capping their AI budget for real. It's not just Ubers of the world. Everyone's capping it because it's grown truly exponentially, right? Everyone's capping it. It's 6 million a year, 8 million a year, right? I think it'll land at 100 grand per engineer equivalent. I think that's what we'll, I think we'll give each of our best engineers $100,000 of tokens. And in return, we'll cut the size of our dev teams 30, 40% effectively. It won't exactly work out the way, but close enough is how it's going to work out. So there's a hundred grand here for running inference 24/7 with 10 agents in parallel. For what it's worth, I actually agree with it. That's what was my mental model too.
这段话的大致意思是：
这一点表明了一个总体情况，我们假设不仅仅是开发引擎。我们也给予系统管理员、QA人员同样的待遇，对每个人都这样处理。对于每个人来说，你可以得到20万美元的工资，全额，包括所有的福利，还有价值10万美元的AI，但我们裁掉了你们当中的30%。结果大约是一个可怕的2000亿（美元）左右的市场，在美国。明年？不，是永远如此。好吧，我是说，Anthropic公司预测明年会这样。我知道。我的观点是，如果你算上所有的人，按照Jason的方法计算，就会在美国得出2000亿的市场，这可能意味着全球范围内勉强达到3500亿。这就是这个行业的状况。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And that points to a total, and let's assume it's not just dev engine. Let's give the sys admins, the QA guy, let's do the same thing for everybody. Same thing for everybody. You get 200 grand of wages, fully loaded, including all the benefits, and a hundred grand worth of AI, but we cut 30% of you. That turns out to be terrifyingly about a 200 billion plus or minus market in the US. Next year? No, ever. Ever. Well, yeah. I mean, that's Anthropics estimate for next year. I know. My point is this, if you count all the heads and apply the Jason Matt, you get 200 billion in the US, which probably means you struggle to get 350 billion worldwide. That's the town.
然后你需要超越软件层面。显然，软件之外也有收入机会，但远没有那么丰厚，而且其比例也低得多。是的，但有趣的是，我得出的结论正好就是这个数字。因为你可以看到一些数据，这些数据表明他们样本中前1%的人，这些人显然是技术倾向强的群体，他们的花费是7千美元。而中位数的花费大约是100美元。这个差距真令人惊讶。就算7千乘以12也仅是84千美元。所以，在你能想象到的最具技术消费倾向的群体中，前1%的人，全部员工中只有1%达到这个消费水平。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And then you've got to go beyond software. And there is obviously revenue beyond software, but it's nowhere near as fertile. And the percentage isn't going to be anywhere near as high. Yeah. But it's funny. That's exactly the number I come out with. Because you see the ramp data that says the top 1% of their sample, which in turn, obviously, is a biased sample of tech-forward people are spending 7K. And then the median is spending like 100. It's amazing, the dispersion. And 7K times 12 is only 84K. So the top 1% of the most curated group you can imagine in terms of tech spend is spending, you know, that's 1% for all employees.
所以，在最乐观的支出方面，每支付一个工资美元就有50美分。我认为我们在我所做的投资中，尤其是那些增长更快，成立于2022年和2023年之前的最佳投资，将达到10万美元。它们有一个参考框架，现在的运输速度是以前的两到三倍。而这一切仅仅是最近才实现的。去年那种说法都是不靠谱的，大家只是说说而已，就像是装模作样的最大化代币。我在上周参加了两次董事会会议，他们已经完成了今年的规划，并计划到了2027年。这些是我增长最快的两个公司，但并不是全新的公司，它们已经完成了路线图的制定。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So that's the pointy edge of the most optimistic spend is 50 cents of salary dollar. I think we're going to get to 100,000 in the investments I've made that are the best ones, the ones growing faster, especially the ones that are pre-2022, 23. So they have a frame of reference. They literally are shipping two to three times faster. Only recently, only recently. That was kind of bullshit last year, right? People would say that, but it was all performative like token maxing. I had two board meetings in the last week where they finished the roadmap for the year. They're into 2027. These are my fastest growing, two fastest growing, but not brand new companies. They finished the roadmap.
他们已经深入到2027年的路线图中了。所以你打算花十万美元让你的团队去做这件事，但总共要花费几百万。这让人感到不堪重负。我确实认为这十万美元的支出很合理。你可以为这笔费用辩解，或多或少，可能会有不断调整的情况，但我认为这会成为新的常态。你会限制你的团队规模，这就是首席财务官们会做的事情。用十万美元的投资，你可以雇佣这么多的工程师。但是，他们正在提前实施2027年的路线图，这不仅仅是作秀，也不仅仅是公关策略。你想在可行的最大范围内进行投资，不是吗？但是最终的数字变得真的非常大。是的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
They're well into the 2027 roadmap. So you're going to spend a hundred grand on your team to do that, but it's adding up to so many millions. It's overwhelming. So I do really think there's some, this hundred thousand makes a lot of sense. You could justify more or less, people will ratchet it, but I think it'll be, it'll be the new normal and you'll cap your team and it'll all be, that's just what the CFOs will do. A hundred grand of inference and you get to hire this many engineers, but the idea that they're pulling their 2027 roadmaps in, it's not just performative. It's not just PRs. You want to invest in that up until the maximum where it works, right? But the absolute numbers are just getting really big. Yes.
我得说，如果你不是这样做的，你今天就已经落后了。如果到2026年8月，你还没有深入到你的2027年规划，那在这个智能化的世界里，你的团队就无法生存。这是你最后一次改变的机会。听着，如果你是那种随时随地调整计划的人，你可能连2027年的规划都没有，因为你每天都在重新制定。但是，如果你依旧在用那些常规的计划，每季度完成多少工作，每月完成多少任务，那你就没有真正面对2027年的挑战，你会输给竞争对手。你得诚实面对自己，你对2027年的规划有多深入？不够深入。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I got to say, man, if you're not that way, you're losing today. If no, if you're not into your 2027 roadmap deep into it by August of 2026 in the agentic world, your team is not good enough to survive today. This is your last chance to make changes. Listen, if you're, if you're open router, you didn't even have a 27 roadmap. It didn't even mean it because you're, you're, you're just remaking it day by day. But if you're running the classic playbooks of these, I can get this much done each quarter, this much done each month, then you're not into 2027. You're going to lose to the competition. You got to be honest. How deep into 27 are you? Not deep enough.
是的，Jason总是给我一些令我害怕的简短评论，让我回去反思。因为你知道，我们做了这个调查，我们倾向于以事实为基础。我们调查了所有公司，发现了一些类似于增长不一的情况：有些公司全力投入，有些公司开始采用，但人均支出却显著减少。我记不清平均数是多少，但显然减少了很多。你知道，我没有做的事情，其实现在想起来应该做、也将去做的，就是回过头来说，如果你能找到一个你相信应该存在的关于产出和支出之间的强相关性，那么你能否为支出辩护？然后应该对那些落后者说，你们将落后。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yeah. Jason always gives me these terrifying soundbites that I go back and think about, because I'm, you know, we did this survey, you know, we tend to be fact-based people. We did the survey of all our companies and we saw similar to the ramp dispersion, which is some companies all in, some companies adopting, but still, you know, dramatically less spend per head. I can't, I can't remember the average, but it was dramatically less. And you know, what I didn't do, and actually now that I think about it, I should do, and I will do, is go back and say, you know, if you can touch a strong correlation, which you believe you should be able to, between output and spend, you know, can you justify the spend? Then you should be saying to the laggards, you're just going to fall behind.
如果估值达到两万亿到两万五千亿美元，你会购买吗？首先，我想明确一点。我认为软件市场不是总可寻址市场（TAM）的最终边界。我认为普通知识工作者不会拿出50%的工资来投资，但他们会投入一个有意义的比例。所以总可寻址市场显然比仅仅包含开发者要大得多，因为你还有律师等其他职业。然而，我认为律师不会这样做，比如说，每年作为合伙人赚取两百万的律师不会投入二十万美元去买代币，他肯定不会投入一百万美元去买代币。一个律师宁愿死也不会用一百万美元的代币去代替一百万美元的薪水。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
If it goes out at two to two and a half trillion, would you be a buyer? First of all, I want to be clear. I don't think the software market is definitionally the end of the TAM. I think the average knowledge worker won't have 50% of salary and thing, but they'll have a meaningful percentage. So the TAM is, you know, significantly bigger than just developers, because you have lawyers, but I think lawyers won't, look, the K&E guy who's pulling two million a year as a partner isn't going to be doing 200Ks worth of tokens. He's definitely not going to be doing a million dollars worth of tokens. A lawyer would die before they gave a million dollars of tokens instead of a million dollars of take-home pay.
所以市场的规模超过了软件，但没有其他地方可以像软件这样成为一个理想的切入点。因此，我不想局限于200个选择。但我认为，真正具有挑战性的是，我绝对希望在公司上市时先发制人，而不是做第二家，尤其是当你有接近盈利或者刚刚盈利的故事可以讲时。我认为，以Antropic这样的身份在秋季上市是一种更具吸引力的战略位置，我们曾经盈利过，尽管现在又变得不盈利，但我们在企业领域是领先者，而不是等到明年再上市，那时可能Antropic和公共市场的增长速度都开始放缓了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So the market is bigger than software, but there's nowhere else that's such a sweet spot as software. So I don't want to be limited to 200. But I think the really challenging thing, I definitely want to be first out rather than second out in terms of going public, especially if you have some kind of near profitability story or bouncing around profitability. I think it's a far more attractive strategic position to be going out as Antropic in the fall with a, we've been profitable, okay, we're unprofitable again, but we're the winner in the enterprise than going out next year, where maybe the growth rates have started to slow both for Antropic and the public markets.
如果你看看OpenAI试图进入市场，我确实认为他们处在一个更具挑战性的战略环境中。我觉得他们已经向这个挑战让步。当然，你希望成为第一个，对吧？我认为OpenAI必须理清他们的内部事务，最近30天似乎表现不错，但今年上半年比它以前的竞争对手慢。而且他们已经做了很多准备，以表明他们将在第二步公开上市，然后会有一个对标对象。这个对标对象就是如此，我们可能不会像SpaceX和Anthropic那样炒得那么火，但世界不会因此崩溃。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And if you open AI trying to access the markets, then I definitely think they're in a strategically more challenging situation. I think they've just capitulated to it. Of course, you want to be first to your point, right? I think open AI has had to get their house together, more executive turmoil, apparently a great last 30 days, right? But first half of the year, slower than its previously junior competitor, right? And they've had to do so much to say, listen, we're going to go public second, and then we're going to have a comp out there. And the comp is what it is. And we may not trade with the hype that SpaceX and Antropic did, and the world will not end.
就像我们将在一个非常精确的数字上进行交易。我们会知道自己将以多少价格出场。如果我们以1.3万亿进行交易，世界也不会崩溃。我只是觉得他们已经不再担心这一点了。因为从根本上说，Rory是对的，先发制人总是更好。但从长远来看，这并不重要，对吧？如果你不需要资本，那也无所谓。然而，Jason，这是关键所在，我要强调一下。这就是关键。地球上没有哪两家公司比这两家公司更需要资本。在一个确实需要资本的世界中，第二名真的很糟糕。因为我同意，一般来说，你是对的，这不重要。你知道，两家公司前后相差一年上市，十年后谁也不在乎，对吗？这些年来我们肯定见过不少这样的情况。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Like we will trade at a very precise number. We will know what we're going to go out at it. And the world will not end if we trade at 1.3 trillion. I just think that they've given up on worrying about that. Because ultimately, Rory's right, it's much better to be first. But in the long run, it doesn't matter, right? If you don't need the capital, it is what it is. But Jason, that's the sentence. I'm going to push a little. That is the sentence. There are no two companies on the planet that need more capital than these guys. In a world where you do need the capital being second sucks. Because I agree, in general, you are correct. It doesn't matter. You know, two companies go public plus or minus a year, and a decade later, no one cares, right? We've definitely seen that over the years.
这个特定情况下的挑战在于，两家公司都仍然需要巨额的资金支持，达到数千亿美元。在这种情况下，我更愿意采取这种做法。我确实有些担心。我认为你是对的。但是，假设Anthropica的市值是2万亿，它是否上市其实并不重要，对吧？在Open AI上市之前，它可以以低于其隐性估值的折扣价格出售股票。资本依然充足。假设它们的估值都是2万亿，对吧？Open AI明年将能以1.8万亿的价格出售股票，人们依然会购买。尤其是如果你作为CEO在自己的公司中没有持有股票，以小幅的折扣出售也是可以的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
The thing that's challenging in this particular case is both companies still have enormous, many $100 billion capital needs. In that situation, I would much prefer it to be. I do. I'm putting an asking around fear there. I think you're right. But the thing is, let's say, and pick your number, let's say Anthropica is public at 2 trillion. It really doesn't matter, right? Open AI is going to be able to sell stock at a discount to its implicit valuation before it goes public. There's still enough capital. Let's say they're both worth 2 trillion, right? Implicitly. Open AI is going to be able to sell stock next year at 1.8. People will do it. And especially if you have no stock as CEO in your own company, it's okay to sell at a small discount.
好的，我同意。看，我并不是在危言耸听。但我认为有趣的是，如果你是一家市值较小的公司，却有更大的资本需求，比如现在OpenAI就是这种情况，因为他们的资本需求目标更高。现在，你是希望自己是那家市值1.5万亿且只需筹集1000亿的公司，还是那家市值1万亿却需要筹集300万亿的公司？在某种程度上，这些问题会变得不容忽视。是的，价格决定了一切市场。这可能是我们见过的最好的新技术市场。如果你是这个市场中的创始人，甚至是排名第二的公司，你一定能吸引到资本。但你不知道它会在什么条件下发生。回到我的观点上，我觉得你会后悔今年不能进入资本市场。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yes, I agree. And look, I'm not catastrophizing here. But I think the interesting thing is, if you're the smaller market cap company, and you have the bigger capital need, which right now, Open AI does, because they have a more ambitious capital need target. Now, would you prefer to be the guy trading at 1.5 trillion who only needs to raise 100 billion or the guy trading at a trillion who needs to raise 300 trillion? At some point, these things become troubling. And yeah, price clears all markets. This is the best new technology market we've seen ever, perhaps. And if you are the founder in that market, and even now the number two, you're going to be able to attract capital. But you just don't know the terms under which it happens. And going back to my comment, I think you will regret not being able to access the capital markets this year.
当然，我同意。而且我也不想花太多钱。我的意思是，这件事情被媒体和社交媒体炒得很热，对吧？谁先公开上市，谁表现得更好。我只是觉得 Sam 和 Open AI 团队已经认定了他们的命运。他们明天就可以公开上市，因为有足够的人愿意买他们的股票。但他们决定虽然这还不完美，但这是当前最好的选择。我们将带着疑虑继续前行。毕竟这不是世界末日，不可能在今晚解决所有问题。他们得去解决更大的问题，现在情况就是这样。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
No, no, of course, I agree. And I don't want to spend too much. My only point is the media and social media make a big deal out of this, right? Who goes public first and who does better. I just think Sam and the Open AI team have said, this is our fate. They could go public tomorrow, right? There are enough people to buy these shares to go public. They've decided that while this isn't perfect, right, this is the best on the board. And we're going to live with the doubt. Like it's not the end of the world. Like you can't solve every problem tonight. They got to solve bigger problems, right? The cards are the way they are, right?
Jason，你提到管理团队的变动，最近变动的主要是Denise Dresser，她是首席营收官(CRO)，离职后由Dali Rajic接替。对于不认识Dali的人，他是最受尊敬的首席营收官之一，在Wiz时表现非常出色。我认为业内最好的首席营收官或销售领导Chad Peets曾表示，Dali是顶尖中的顶尖。所以我对他们的Codex和企业部门今天更加有信心了。是啊，变化很多。我对内部具体情况不了解。我只是觉得Greg Brockman接手后，把Wiz的人带进来，是因为受够了Salesforce的那些问题，不管对错。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Jason, you said about management team churn, that the churn for those that don't know most recently was Denise Dresser, who was the CRO who left and Dali Rajic has replaced her. For those that don't know Dali, he's one of the most respected CROs. He was a freaking master at Wiz. And I think the best CRO or sales leader in the business, who's Chad Peets, says he's the best of the best. So I'm feeling a little bit more confident for their codex and enterprise division today. Yeah, it's just a lot of change. I don't know anything inside. I just think Greg Brockman took over, right? And brought in the Wiz guy. Just had enough of the Salesforce crap, right or wrong?
其实，如果你看看整个人工智能领域，很多Salesforce的高管都被招募过来协助。当然，你可以开个玩笑，比如我以前开玩笑说Salesforce挖了很多Oracle的高管，因为他们总是与Oracle较劲。但你确实需要那些知道怎样去扩展业务的人。Salesforce的收入规模是多少？450亿美元？500亿美元？我指得是Anthropic现在已经超过这个规模了，对吧？OpenAI也已经超过这个规模了。所以你不想雇一些新人，你需要雇佣一些有经验的人来撑场面。Salesforce在这方面确实不错，但如果你退一步来看，我更愿意找那些在技术前沿、竞争激烈领域的人，而不是只关心问你需要多少Slack账号的人。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Actually, if you look across all of AI, a ton of Salesforce executives have been recruited, right, to come in and help. And you can make fun of it. Like I used to make fun of how back in the day Salesforce hired Oracle executives because they took shots at Oracle. But you need folks to know how to scale. What is Salesforce at? 45 billion run, right? 50 billion run, right? I mean, Anthropic's past that now, right? Open AI has passed that. So you don't want to hire kids. You want to hire someone that has some idea how to play. So Salesforce is about it, right? But if you step back for a minute, I'd rather have someone from Wiz that is close to technology, that is in a hyper-competitive space, rather than asking how many seats of Slack you want.
这是一种非常不同的市场推广方式，对吧？确实很不同。杰森，你说如果你还没有达到今年年底的产品目标，并且没有在2027年取得长足进展，那你就落后了。我在做一些假设，我不认为Workday已经像你的两家公司一样在2027年取得那些目标的前沿地位。而Silver Lake则准备以430亿美元将Workday私有化，这是史上最大的软件即服务（SaaS）收购之一。我们这里有业内最顶尖的两位SaaS专家。朋友们，我们该如何看待这件事？SaaS没有消亡。这是最大的一家公司之一，也是最大的一次收购之一。股票之后上涨了18%。哇。我认为你可以得出这样的结论，因为说“SaaS没有消亡”过于简单化了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It's just a very different go-to-market motion, right? It's very different. Jason, you said if you have not already hit your end of the year goal in terms of products and you're not well into 2027, you're behind. I'm making assumptions. I don't imagine Workday is quite at the cutting edge like two of your companies at 2027 already hitting those goals. And Silver Lake circles a $43 billion take private bid for Workday, one of the biggest SaaS buyouts ever. We've got two of the best SaaS minds in the business here. Guys, what should we take from this? The SaaS isn't dead. One of the biggest firms, one of the biggest buyouts. The stock popped 18% afterwards. Wow. I think what you can take from this, because the SaaS isn't dead thing is just too simplistic.
我认为，一个非常注重财务、非常精明的买家愿意下注，他们可以以较低的价格购买这个项目，然后通过杠杆操作获得回报，因为这个项目的收入足够稳定，使他们能够在五年内偿还债务，并在市场估值保持稳定的情况下，以合理的倍数出售它，从而获得大约20%的内部收益率（IRR）。我的意思是，我计算过这些数字，这是他们的打算。所以说这个行业并不是"死掉"了。但它也并不是特别令人兴奋，这说明这个行业处于成熟阶段，已经不再追求快速增长。事实上，有人会说这个东西每年增长13%。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I think what you can take is a very financially oriented, wildly savvy buyer is willing to bet money that they can buy this at a constrained price, lever it and generate a return because the revenues are sticky enough to allow them to pay down the debt over five years and with reasonable multiple stability, sell it on and make a 20% IRR plus or minus. I mean, I ran the numbers. That's the bet. So it's not, quote, dead. But what it is not is wildly exciting. What it says is this is the mature phase of an industry when it's not about wild growth. It's not even about untempered growth. It's literally about someone saying this thing is growing at 13% year on year.
我们可以购买这项资产，大概是其收入的五倍，市盈率是16倍。我们可能会利用两到三倍，甚至四到五倍的EBITDA进行杠杆操作，但需要一大笔股权资金。然后，我们运用杠杆收购模型，根据这个模型，如果你能在五年内保持35%的营业利润率，并用所有的现金来支付债务和利息。这项资产的年收入大约是100亿美元，所以每年的现金流大约是30亿美元。只要你在购买时选择得当，四到五年后，可以获得约20%的回报，几乎是初始投资的两倍。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
We can buy this thing for, was it roughly five times revenues, 16 times trailing EBITDA. We'll probably leverage it, you know, two or three times, four or five times in EBITDA, but it's going to be a big equity check. And then you run the LBO model and you say, you know, you keep at a 35% operating margins for five years. You use all that cash. It's roughly $10 billion a year in revenue. So it's like $3 billion a year of cash. You pay down the debt and the interest. And, you know, provided you buy right, you can make 20% and almost a 2x over four or five years.
我看了那个交易，感觉很矛盾。首先，我认为这笔交易非常聪明，策略缜密。当你进行敏感性分析时，如果你多付了大约20%，收益率会降到中等水平。这几乎和风险投资完全相反。在风险投资中，如果你投对了项目，支付多少几乎无关紧要。而这个交易则完全相反，需要精细的金融工程。如果在定价上出错20%到30%，内部收益率（IRR）会从20%，一个规模上完全可以接受的水平，降到低得多的百分比，这时你可能就会后悔进行了这笔交易。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I look at that deal and I go, I'm torn. Because first of all, I think it's like a wily smart. It's very interesting when you run the sensitivities. If you pay like 20% too much, it dips down into the mid teens. It's almost the exact opposite of venture. In venture deals, if you're in the right thing, it almost doesn't matter what you paid. You see cursor for details, see open router for details, right? This is the exact opposite. This is fine, precise, financial engineering. If you're wrong by 20%, 30% on price, you know, your IRR dips from 20, which is totally acceptable at scale to low teens, in which case you wish you hadn't done the deal.
我可以问一个问题吗？在持有期为四到六年的情况下，进行精准的金融工程。六年前，ChatGPT 还不存在。在这个快速变化的世界中，你能否找到精准的金融工程？我认为“系统记录”是一种护城河，但我不认为它是增长的关键。这一点非常重要，而且很多人在 X 上都理解错了。拥有一个类似 Workday 的记录系统是很好的，甚至在有人工智能和 ALM 的帮助下也是如此。要么很难更换系统，要么你就是不想更换，但这绝不意味着我想在那个供应商上花更多钱。这就是他们面临的挑战。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Can I ask a question? Precise financial engineering for a four to six year hold period. Six years ago, ChatGPT didn't exist. Are you able to find precise financial engineering in a world where we move so fast? I don't think system of record is, I think it's a moat, but I don't think it's a ticket to growth. This is, I think, super important. And it's something that everyone on X gets wrong. It's great to have a system of record, which Workday has, even with AI and ALM's help. It's very hard to churn or you just don't want to churn, but it sure as hell doesn't mean I want to spend more money with that vendor. That's their challenge.
但可以肯定的是，在接下来的五年里，这些事情要比95%的不确定性更可预测，比我们热爱的可怜的Monday或其他公司都要更可预测。我们无法确切知道五年后Monday或甚至HubSpot在S和B级别上会处于什么位置。然而，我们清楚Workday在十年后会走向哪里，对吧？我认为人们对增长与留存的关系有些误解。这个交易中有一些潜在的好处，我不知道这是否是Silverlake考虑的一部分。首席执行官回归了，公司的联合创始人之一Anil回来了。他在局势稳定时找好了接班人。就在引入人工智能之前，他带来了一位出色的联席首席执行官，就像我们在UiPath的朋友Daniel等人一样，但意识到现在这种方式行不通，因此他决定重新出山。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But it sure as hell means the five years are far more predictable than 95% than poor Monday, which we love or others. We have no idea where Monday or even HubSpot will be in five years at the S and B level. We know pretty much where Workday is going to be 10 years, right? And so I think this growth versus retention is misunderstood. There is a little bit of upside in this deal, which may, I don't know if it's part of Silverlake's calculation. The CEO came back. One of the co-founders came back. Anil came back. He came back. He hired his successor when times were easy. Just before AI, he brought in a great knobs and dials co-CEO, you know, like our friends at Daniel at UiPath and others, and realized it ain't going to work today, came back.
所以，我认为Silverlake并不打算让Anil进行彻底的改变。但我觉得如果他真的这样做了，潜力是巨大的。也许他们的内部收益率（IRR）能够从20%变成一个更颠覆性的结果，如果他能打造出类似Workday的创新产品，至少创始人亲自回归领导，这会让我作为Silverlake感到更有希望。但这并不是预期中的基本情况。Jason，你对基本情况的描述完全正确。它是20乘以5.3。换句话说，这表示金融界人士愿意为一个年增长13%的记录系统支付相当于收入五倍的价格。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So I don't think Silverlake is planning on Anil like radically changing it. But I think if he does, there's real upside to that. Maybe instead of their 20% IRR could be a game changer, if he creates the agentic version of Workday, they at least have the founder back in the saddle doing it. And that would make me feel a lot better if I were Silverlake that I have upside. But it wouldn't be in the damn base case. Jason, you framed the base case exactly correctly. It's 5.3 times 20. In other words, what this says is financial minds will pay five times revenues for system of record growing at 13%.
任何不是记录系统的东西，或是增长速度不快的东西，都要根据情况进行定价。因为你是对的，你不会对待办事项、任务管理、项目管理软件或网站建设软件等应用施加同样的杠杆。这让你了解顶级杠杆收购中基本的估值标准。如果说Airtable和Bending Spoons能给你一些启示的话，如果你没有这种记录系统，你的倍数是2.7。如果你的收益勉强为正，并且所在的行业如Jason所说的无法预测未来五年，那么你也只能得到2.7倍的估值。而Workday给出的观点是，如果你的运营利润率达到30%，增长温和，但作为一个记录系统，未来五年你是可以寄予信任的，那么在幸运的情况下，你可以得到5.3倍的收入估值。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Anything that's not a system of record, anything that's not growing as fast, price accordingly. Because you're right, there's no way you'd apply the same kind of leverage to, for example, a to-do or a task management or a project management software, or a website building software. What this gives you is a sense of what the baseline is for best-in-class LBO takeouts. If the Airtable Bending Spoons give you an idea of what it is, if you just, you know, if you don't have that kind of system of record, you get 2.7. If you're vaguely profitable and in a space where, as Jason says, you can't predict five years, you get 2.7. And what Workday says is if you've got 30% operating margins, modest growth, but you're a system of record where you really can believe in the next five years, then if you're lucky, you get 5.3 times revenues.
这就是当前的买卖价差。和开放路由器的游戏对比一下，他们将获得可变的追踪收入，大约正负一百。你知道，你会获得70倍的追踪收入。你更愿意玩哪种游戏呢？我认为Workday对私募来说有一个更好的deal，因为它是一个相对封闭的记录系统。现在，Salesforce正在全力以赴地工作，因为他们是一个非常开放的平台。明天你就可以在Salesforce上构建自己的代理。许多热门的市场营销初创公司都是建立在Salesforce之上的。它们不一定只在Salesforce上，但很开放。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
That's the bid-ask spread right now. Contrast that with the game for open router where they're going to get, I think a trailing revenue, plus or minus a hundred. You know, you're going to get 70 times trailing revenues. Which game would you prefer to play? Workday has something that makes it a better deal for P that I think than anybody else on the target list, which is that it is a somewhat closed system of record. Now, Salesforce is out there working their frigging tails off because there are a muchly open platform. You can build your own agents on top of Salesforce tomorrow. And a lot of the hot GTM startups are built on top of Salesforce. They're not necessarily only on Salesforce, but it's open.
尝试在Workday上进行开发。是不是觉得不那么容易呢？这就像LinkedIn，对吗？它故意保持很封闭。这固然有一些不利因素，但也意味着你在这个生态系统中能够抓住更多的预算，相较于其他平台来说。所以，它对抗因开放生态系统带来的负面影响更有缓冲作用。如今，开放体系存在一些负面影响。因此，我希望这个记录系统能做到“绝对封闭”和“零流失”。我想要一个最封闭的系统，这样才能避免流失，因为记录系统之所以不那么出色是因为你需要使用它作为一种基础记录。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Try building on Workday. It ain't so easy, right? It is like LinkedIn, right? It is intentionally barely open. So there are negatives to that, right? But it also means you're going to capture more budget overall in your ecosystem than you would for others. So it has more of a buffer against agentic damage to your growth than an open ecosystem has, right? Open has negatives today. And so I would want system of record, churn impossible, closed AF. I want the most closed system that can't churn because the reason system of records aren't that great is because you need your system record.
如果你是开放的，并且能够自己或通过第三方提供一个更好的代理，价值将转移到那个代理上，即使记录系统仍然保留。但 Workday 非常封闭，所以他们有一定的优势，对吧？杰森，Salesforce 有多开放呢？他们像 Shopify 一样是一个收费门槛，但他们也很开放。Shopify 和 Salesforce 都相对开放。我们三个人可以使用 OAuth 明天就推出一个 Salesforce 应用。为了快速证明这一点，Harry，有很多公司，即使在大型语言模型（LLM）出现之前，比如 Gong、Outreach、Salesforce，实际上都是建立在 Salesforce 平台之上的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But if you're remotely open and you can produce a better agent yourself or a third party, the value will extract to the agent, even if the system of record is retained. But Workday is so closed, they've got a leg up, right? Jason, how open is Salesforce? They are a toll keeper, like a Shopify, but they're pretty open. Shopify and Salesforce are pretty open. The three of us, we can use OAuth to ship a Salesforce app tomorrow. Just to prove that, Harry, really quickly is that, look, there's a bunch of companies, even in pre-LLM world, like Gong, Outreach, Salesforce, that are all effectively built on top of the Salesforce platform.
在 Workday 中，你无法用任何包含“E”字母的词来描述类似的功能。虽然有一些工具，但还是比较困难的。有一些计划工具，但大多数情况下，它确实有意义。在财务会计系统中，一切都被吸引到总帐和会计系统中，对吧？所以我同意，这是个好观点，杰森。无论在这个生态系统中的资金有多少，如果他们足够谨慎和精明，Workday 会获得其中大部分。但另一方面，如果他们过于贪婪，不足够投资，那么客户就会开始想：“天啊，这简直没有进步。”
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
You can't name the equivalent with any E's in Workday. There's a few, but it's much harder. There's some of the planning tools, but pretty much most, and it makes sense. Within the financial accounting system, everything gets sucked into the gravitational pull that is the GL and the accounting system, right? So I agree. That's a good point, Jason. Whatever dollars are in that ecosystem, if they're careful and shrewd, Workday will get most of them. And on the other hand, if they get too greedy and they don't invest enough, then the customers start thinking, "Oh my God, this is just not advancing.
在五年内，也许我确实需要更多这种主动的工作流程。“或许小型客户会开始评估这一套件，甚至在非常小的范围内开始评估下一代产品。有现实派，有围炉者，还有类似的人群。在你的生态系统中，你不能贪得无厌到让人们想办法离开，对吧？但Silverlake是聪明的，Neil也是聪明的。你可以让这一切成为一个有利可图的自成一体的系统。但记住，最令人兴奋的版本是，在五年内还清所有债务，并能让你的投资翻倍，达到20%的回报率。”
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Over five years, maybe I do need more of this agentic workflow on top." Maybe the smaller customers start evaluating that suite, start evaluating the next generation, even at the very small end. You've got the realists, you've got the campfires, you've got the people like that. You can't be such a greedy bastard in your ecosystem that you incent people to start trying to move out, right? But Silverlake are smart and Neil's smart. You could have this be a profitable, self-contained universe. But remember, the most exciting version of that is, you pay down all the debt in five years, and you double your money for a 20%.
这就是目前的最佳状态了。涉及大量资金。你可能需要投入大约200亿到300亿美元的股本，因为无法获得无限的债务支持。可能需要20亿，你可能能借到180亿、150亿美元的债务，这意味着你需要有250亿到300亿美元的股本投入，这样你就能将300亿美元变成600亿美元。虽然从倍数来看不算特别优秀，但这表明你创造了300亿美元的收益，其中20%作为分成。所以，如果他们能够在接下来的六年中还清这笔债务并全力以赴，就可能赚到60亿美元。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
That's as good as it gets now. It's on a lot of money. You're probably putting in plus or minus a $20 to $30 billion equity check, because you're not going to get infinite debt. You know, maybe $20 billion, you might get $18, $15 billion of debt, which means you need a $25 to $30 billion equity check, so you're going to turn $30 billion into $60 billion, which on a multiple basis is not amazing, but it means you've generated $30 billion of gains and 20% of that in carry. So someone's about to make $6 billion if they can pay down this debt and just knuckle down for the next six years.
尼尔可以在非上市公司环境中重建他的公司，这具有一些优势。尽管他仍需达到基本指标，但这一方式比在上市公司体系内运作要好。而且，与其面对大量无谓的评论，他会收到来自全球最聪明投资者的一条专注建议。这可能是一种权衡。
另外，谈到与Salesforce的对比，我们的使用方式很有趣。我们完全无界面运作Salesforce，拥有自己的代理、人工智能营收副总裁，它在后台运行Salesforce。好处是它让Salesforce变得比以前更强大。比如，我七年来都没有登录过Salesforce，但现在因为有了代理每天都会登录。不过，也有弊端，就是它可以连接任何东西，甚至是竞争对手和其他数据源、数据湖等——代理对此毫无顾忌。作为记录系统或核心系统，这是一个非常奇怪的世界。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And Neil gets to rebuild his company outside of the public company I, which is slightly overrated because he has to hit the underlying numbers, but it's much better. And instead of large numbers of stupid comments, he will get one very focused comment from one of the world's smartest investors. It's probably a trade-off. Just one last thing on this versus Salesforce. I just, it's just interesting. So we run Salesforce entirely headless. So we have our own agent, 10K, our own AI VP of revenue. It runs Salesforce under the hood. Pro is it makes Salesforce much more powerful than it ever was. Like I didn't log into Salesforce for seven years. Now I log in every day because I have an agent. Con, it can connect anything. It literally can connect to any other agent, including competitors, including other data sources, data lakes, data, everything. The agent doesn't care. It's really a weird world as a system of record or a core system.
你想要变得可扩展和开放，对吗？Salesforce表示，你可以选择无头模式，这带来了风险和机遇，因为这样让抽象化变得更容易，也让竞争变得更激烈。即使你可能保留一些用户，虽然品牌保留率可能很高，但这逼迫你得更快速地运转。Workday就不用跑得那么快，因为不是每个人都能使用无头模式来整合系统，或者把所有员工数据提取出来，导入到自己的招聘系统、财务系统中去。这是个很精明的策略，因为在记录系统中，它是最好的模式。如果这是一笔精明的交易，那它也标志着未来交易的最高标准。所以大家要做好计划。你从“Ben Spoon”那得到2.7，从“Silver Lake”那得到5.7，他付了钱，你就有了选择。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Do you want to be extensible and open, right? Salesforce has said you can be headless risks and opportunities because you make it much easier to abstract you away or to compete with you. Even while you may retain a few seats, right? The logo retention may be high, but it makes you have to run faster. Workday doesn't have to run that fast. Everyone can't run it headless and integrate any single thing or pull out all your employee data and push it into my own ATS or my own system or own financials. It's a shrewd deal because it's the best mode out there with the system of record. And I go back to my comment. If it is a shrewd deal, it also, by definition means it's the high watermark of what deals are going to look like. Plan accordingly, people. You get 2.7 from the Ben Spoon and you get 5.7 from the Silver Lake guys, and he pays your money, he takes your choice.
莱布金，你有一家收购公司。下一个你会买哪种资产？我想知道是谁给了杰森钱去做收购。我会给杰森钱去做风险投资，但我不认为他适合那种细节琢磨的人。我不这样认为，哈里，我只是越来越意识到，数据记录系统将会留住他们的客户。但我认为我们低估了一点，那就是这还不足以实现增长。现在要么增长，要么死亡，对吧？要么增长，要么死亡。整个节目都是这样，要么增长，要么死亡。谁还关心Anthropic的股票补偿或其他东西？天啊，这是你的开放路线器，收入的192倍。就算你的客户被牢牢绑定，也不意味着在今天的世界里，他们愿意多花一分钱。实际上，首席信息官们想要减少被困时的支出，他们会说，"好吧，我今年想只花去年的90%或80%，我们能从那些我们被套牢的供应商那里削减哪些费用？"
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Lemkin, you have a buyout firm. Which other asset would you buy next? I'd want to know who gave Jason money for buyout. I would give Jason money for venture, but I don't see him as the spreadsheet guy. I don't, Harry, I just think more and more about the fact that systems of record are going to retain their customers. But I think we just underestimate that that's just not enough to grow. It's grow or die today, right? It's grow or die. This whole show, everything grow or die. Who cares about that stock-based comp or anything at Anthropic? My God, it's your open router, 192x revenue. Just because your customers are prisoners does not mean in today's world, they will spend one more dollar with you. In fact, the CIOs want to cut what they spend when they're hostage, right? They're like, okay, I want to spend 90%, 80% of last year. What can we cut from our bill from the vendors we're stuck with?
这段文字表达的意思是：“我需要思考一下，不过确实，Rory 说得对。我的确不擅长使用电子表格。不过，我想收回前面的评论并和自己意见相左。实际上，我认为你会非常出色，因为我了解到，很多私募股权买家忽视了其中的一个重要因素：增长的使命清晰度。如果没有某种增长，你只会陷入被债务追赶的尴尬处境，最高只能获得约中等水平的内部收益率。如果操作得当，就像以低价购买，记住，那相当于以5.7倍收益进行收购。 四五年前，一些私募股权交易用10到12倍的收益购买了质量远不如今天的 Workday 的资产。私募股权公司应该聘请你作为他们的运营合伙人，在每一笔新交易中，向他们解释这其中的关键要点。”
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It's a, I got to think, but yeah, Rory's right. I'm not the best at the spreadsheet. You know, I'm actually going to, I'm going to cancel my comment and disagree with myself. Actually, I think you'd be great because I'll tell you what you would bring to the table that I think a lot of these PE buyers missed. It's this idea of mission clarity around growth. If you don't have growth of some sort, you're in a desperate race against the debt. And the best you can get is a mid-teens IRR. If you work, then you buy cheap. And remember, that's when you buy at 5.7 times revenues. Some of these PE deals were done four or five years ago at 10 or 12 times revenues for not as good a quality asset as workday today. The PE firms should hire you as their operating partner, where for every new deal they do, you explain the facts of life.
在这里很清楚，人们。唯一重要的是，你不能对客户敷衍了事。如果你不给他们提供价值，最终会遭殃。在我看来，这里的恶性循环是那些对人工智能一无所知，却有一堆标志和中层管理人员的高管。而我觉得Jason会是最棒的。我同意。我改了主意，因为如果你不改变，你就完了。顺便说一下，你可以点击下面的链接给Silver Lake Lemkin Ventures的收购公司捐款。我不想在积极方面花钱。如果从更像是中小企业的角度看，我不是说这有多普遍，但如果你看看社交媒体，很多人都在说，好吧，我现在正在放弃Airtable。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It's really clear here, people. The only thing that matters, you can't just stick it to your customers. If you don't give them value, you're going to get shafted in the end. Rory, for me, the death spiral here is the exec guy who's got no idea about AI and has a load of logos and has a load of middle management. And I think Jason would be the freaking best. I agree. I changed my mind because you're done if you don't. By the way, you can click the link below to donate to Silver Lake Lemkin Ventures for the buyout firm. I don't want to spend money on the positive side. If you look at it like a more S&B version, I'm not saying how widespread it is, but if you look on social media, a lot of folks are like, okay, I'm lifting off Airtable now.
他们说，“Bending Spoons 要把我的价格提高三倍，对吧？那我现在就开始行动。”所以这就是一种需要在任何地方小心的极端情况。我是说，Bending Spoons 可能会失去 Airtable 20% 的客户，这些客户最终花了一周时间离开 Airtable，但当他们把价格提高三倍时，对于 Bending Spoons 来说，这是笔好交易，不过这会比 Workday 更快地发生。他们追求的就是不惜一切代价的增长。在消费应用程序方面，有来自 Higgs Field 的两个大型募资，DST 以 55 亿美元的估值投资，他们实现了 7 亿美元的年经常性收入。然后是 Lovable，他们从 Menlo 筹集了新一轮资金，年经常性收入也在 6 亿到 7 亿美元之间，估值达到了 133 亿美元。对于非常相似的收入数字，这种估值的巨大差异让我觉得很有趣。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And they're like, Bending Spoons is going to raise my prices 3x, right? Let me start doing it now. And so it's just an extreme version of what you have to be careful with everywhere, right? I mean, Bending Spoons may lose 20% of Airtable's customers who finally spend a week lifting off of Airtable, but when they triple prices, it's a good deal for Bending Spoons, but it's going to happen a lot faster than Workday. Growth at all costs. On the consumer application side, two big fundraisers from Higgs field who raised at a $5.5 billion price from DST and they hit 700 million in ARR. And then you have Lovable who raised a new round from Menlo. They're around the 600, 700 million ARR range too, raising at a $13.3 billion price. Big price divergence for very similar revenue numbers, which I find interesting.
大家，我们已经讨论了很多这些公司。我们是怎么看待它们的呢？关于Lovable那件事，我的想法是，自从我们开始这个节目以来，情况真是太疯狂了。当时Lovable和Replit都在进行大约20亿美元的融资，而它们的产品非常糟糕。现在它们的产品变得非常出色，真的可以说是跨时代的好产品。我确实认为今天的工程师和开发者可能会嘲笑我这么说，但我认为它们在粘性、实力和功能方面值得我们在讨论光标产品时将它们放在类似的位置。当我们开始这个节目时，它们并不是这样的。Menlo作为一个已有的投资者是否为了继续投资多花了一点呢，可能是这样，但这个倍数和我们刚刚看到的光标产品倍数差距也不算很大，不是吗？
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Guys, we've talked about these companies a lot. How do we think about them? Well, you know, on the Lovable thing, the thing I was thinking, I mean, it's so crazy since when we started the show, right? And Lovable and Replit were both raising like 2 billion and were really terrible products when we started the show. Now they're great products. They're truly generationally great. I do think today engineers and developers will mock me for saying this, but I do think that they deserve us arguably a somewhat similar to be in the cursor conversation in terms of stickiness, strength, capabilities. They were not when we started this show. Did Menlo pay up a little bit as an existing investor, right? Who was already in it for maybe, but is that multiple that far off the cursor multiple that we just saw? It's not radically off, is it?
好的。年末的时候价格可能会稍微贵一点，但也无所谓。不过它没有之前和Cursor比的时候那么离谱。这些平台正在变得非常强大。现在它们非常好用，对吧？Cursor变得非常出色，能做到比六个月前更多的事情，复杂性也大大增加。我是说，Cursor推出了Origin，还购买了Graphite之类的东西。几个月后，它将成为GitHub整个工作流程的替代品。我更加接近于可爱，但它们两个都刚刚推出了自动深度渗透作为产品的一部分，所以你可以深入到安全领域。因此，这些平台不再仅仅是像一年前的小技巧。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yeah. A lot of if at the end of the year, it's probably a little pricier, but whatever. But it's not as out of whack as it might've seen with cursor as a comp. These platforms are becoming, one thing is they're becoming very rich. They're very good now, right? Cursors, they're very good. They can do so much more than they could six months ago. There's so much more complexity. I mean, cursor launched origin, right? Which would bought graphite or whatever. It's going to become a GitHub entire workflow replacement in a couple months, right? I'm closer to lovable, but they both just launched automatic deep pen penetration as part of their products, right? So you can go really deep on security. So these aren't just little, like little hacks a year ago.
这段文字可以翻译成中文如下：
这也使得初创企业更难击败他们，对吗？因为随着这些技术变成真正的平台，比如光标和可爱的或者replets。他们今天都是很出色的软件。所以，当光标的交易宣布时，我们都惊讶得合不拢嘴。现在它是一种对比。这只是一个对比。我认为这对比光标可爱不算差。也许听起来有点疯狂，但那时候我觉得，希格斯场（Higgsfield）很便宜。虽然交易完成时市值是5亿，但很有趣的是在今天的世界里，等到交易宣布时，市值已经达到7亿。所以尽管仍然算便宜，但这就是如果你不在签署协议时就宣布交易会发生的事情。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And it also makes the startups harder to beat them out, right? As these become these cursor and lovables or replets become true platforms. They're great software today. So I, when the cursor deal was announced, our jaws dropped. Now it's a comp. It's just a comp. And I don't think this is such a bad comp for lovable to cursor. I mean, maybe, maybe that sounds wacky, but that was the one, when I thought, you know, Higgsfield's cheap. Although when the deal was done, it was at 500. So it's funny in today's world, by the time the deal announced, it's at 700 million. So it's still cheap, but like, that's what happens if you don't announce a deal, the hour of the term sheet is inked, right?
你们都知道，他们两个公司在各自领域都创造了巨大的底层需求。Lovable 在网站建设和编码方面，而 Higgsfield 则在视频领域。他们的策略都是从产品引领型增长（PLG）模式开始，然后逐步增加面向中型市场和企业的产品。这是一个非常成熟的路径，在 SaaS 时代已经被反复验证过。通过这个方法，你可以建立一个强大的市场入口，然后随着时间的推移，不断加入企业功能。他们两家公司都在这方面做得非常好。没错，Lovable 确实已经成长为一个重要的编码替代解决方案。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And you guys know what both of them have done really massive bottom end demand for AI in lovable's case for website building and coding in Higgsfield's case for video, you know, start with a PLG motion and then, you know, add mid market and enterprise products on top. It's, it's a well-trodden path. It was well-trodden in, in kind of the SaaS days. We did a bunch of that. It all works. You build your top of funnel. And then over time, you just add the enterprise features, but they've both done it really well. And you're right. Lovable have punched their way into being a big picture coding alternative.
你知道，有很多不同的方式可以外出。你可以选择认知风格、光标风格或者层次复制风格。这些虽然不能直接进行比较，但从整体来看，AI最擅长的就是编写代码。Lovable就是一种使用AI来编写大量代码的工具，所以它拥有很大的提升空间。是的，我认为他们都在你的优秀消费者基础上建立了很好的企业业务。虽然不如Higgsfield那个领域那么广泛，但我知道你们在那个领域，所以你比我更了解。我认为企业视频市场是明确存在的，这是一个不错的市场。可能没有编程市场那么深远，但看到他们这样做真的很不错。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
You know, there's different ways of going out. You got the cognition style. You got the cursor style. You got the level repli style. They're not direct comparables, but in the big picture comment of the thing AI does best is write code. Lovable is a tool that uses that to write a lot of code. So it's got a lot of lift. And yeah, so I think they both built good enterprise business on top of your good consumers. It's not as Higgsfield, and I know you guys are in them, so you know much better than me. I think there is clearly a market for enterprise video. It's a good market. It's, it's not as perhaps deep as the coding market, but you know, great to see them do it.
对我来说，一个重要的经验是，我确实花了一些时间才看明白这一点。我认为这些产品今天是有竞争力和护城河的，尽管可能不会永远持续，或许只会有六个月，谁知道呢？以Higgsfield为例，我是最早的10位客户之一。我可以用Kimmy或Quinn制作一个四秒的视频，虽然这听起来没什么特别，但这对我来说是一个很好的方式，因为我当时甚至不知道怎么使用中文模型。不过，这个优势并不明显。现在，你可以制作一部完整的电影，而且在其他方面也可以，这实在是太难得了，我对此感到非常满意。至于Repable，尽管我是用户，你可能会取笑这些产品在Harry投资、我们开始节目的时候。但现在情况不一样了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
The one meta learning for me is I do think took me a little while to see this. I do think these products today, not forever, maybe only for six months, right? Or who knows? I do think they now are defensible and have moats. I mean, for example, Higgsfield, I was one of the first 10 customers. I think, what could you do? Make a four second video using Kimmy or Quinn, who cares? It was a great way to do it because I didn't even know how to use a Chinese model. Okay. But that wasn't particularly defensible. Now you can make a full length motion picture and you can do it in other, it's just so hard. And now that I'm love it. Repable, which we, even though I'm a user for you, you could have made fun of these products when Harry invested, when we started the show.
现在，他们真的几乎可以构建出生产级别、高度安全的应用程序，包含了各个方面。我知道我们的开发速度很快，如果你没有在你的2028、2029年计划中努力前进，那你就可能会失败。但是，他们正在开始获得这些层层保护的竞争优势。这些公司里工作的人都非常聪明，对吧？Higgsfield汇聚了哈萨克斯坦最聪明的数学家。Lovable和Replit已经变成了人才磁铁。我比较了解Replit的团队，你走进去会发现这些都是Amjad多年来能够招募到的最聪明的人。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Now they really can almost build production grade, highly secure apps with everything across. Like, it's just some, I know we're building so quickly and you better be into your 28, 29 roadmap or you're failing, but they are starting to get these layers of moats. And the folks that work at these companies are so smart, right? Higgsfield is like the smartest mathematicians in Kazakhstan. Lovable and Replit have become talent magnets. I mean, I know the team at Replit better. You walk into, I mean, these are the smartest people that Amjad could recruit for years.
这些层不是无法穿透的，但它们开始变得厚重而坚硬，就像周围形成了一层外壳，对吧？坚持这一点，因为我认为你提到的护城河很对，因为当时很多人都在问，这护城河是什么？我认为，在任何新的软件市场中，一开始护城河都比较浅，但那些执行力强并能够取得成效的公司会随着时间的推移积累护城河。我想举两个历史例子说明，Netscape浏览器起初并不算难，但通过延伸到其他领域，最终它被以10亿美元的价格收购，虽然那时这被认为是失败，真是有点奇怪。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And so these layers are not impenetrable, but they start to get thick and crusty, this crust around them, right? And staying with that, because I think you had that moat come, I think you're exact, because there was a whole bunch of, oh, what's the moat? I think the truth is in any new software market, out of the gate moats are light, but the companies that execute and get traction, you accrete moat over time. I mean, just to give two historical examples, the Netscape browser wasn't that early on, it wasn't that hard, but as yet you parlay that into other things that ultimately you only got acquired for 10 billion, which at the time felt like a failure, oddly enough.
最初的东西相对简单，但后来变得复杂了。比如，MS-DOS 产品就是一个典型的例子。起初，MS-DOS 产品非常简单，但随着时间的推移，人们不断在上面增加更多功能。同样的事情也会在这里发生。当然，在这个过程中肯定会有人遇到困难。但你说得对，Jason。如果是在两年前，有人可能相对快速地开发出一个具有Ed功能的受欢迎的竞争产品，但随着越来越多的功能不断增加，这样的事情变得越来越难了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
But the initial thing was relatively simple and it got complex. I mean, the MS-DOS product, and the classic example is Magnet, the MS-DOS product was mind-blowingly simple, but over time you just accrete more and more value. And the same thing's going to happen here. Yeah, I mean, will there be some guys who stumble along the way? Of course there will. But you're right, Jason, if two years ago it is probable that someone could have built a lovable competitor with the features that Ed had relatively quickly, as they add more and more features, that just gets harder and harder.
是的，我不知道六个月前这件事情会发生，这是否很明显。我甚至不知道我们正在谈论的这些公司是否也觉得这很明显，对吧？是的。我觉得，回到Mike的话题，这只是表明，只要继续努力前进，为客户增加更多内容，收入就会增长，好事情就会发生。只要你比其他人更快。是的，完全正确。你只需要更快更好，仅此而已。只要更快更好，一切就会积累起来。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yeah, and I don't know that that was obvious six months ago that this would happen. I don't even know it was obvious to these companies we're talking about that it was obvious, right? Yeah. I think, going back to Mike, it just shows just push on forward, add more stuff for your customers, revenues grow, good things happen. If you're faster than everybody else. Yeah, no, absolutely. You just have to be faster and better, that's all. Just faster and better, then it will accrete.
“更快更好”是一件比单纯思考某种抽象概念更具体的事情。我是说，确实有一些企业依赖于强大的护城河，比如拥有大量知识产权的公司，或者像某些生物信息学公司。但是，也有一些企业会因为其“更快更好”的表现而成为出色的企业。正如Jason所说，你需要明白自己在玩哪种游戏。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Faster and better is a more tangible thing than thinking some kind of, I mean, yeah, there are businesses that are much more moat central, right? You know, massively high IP, you know, some obviously the model companies to some extent, and definitely things like the bioinformatics companies there. But there are also businesses that will become wonderful businesses where the moat is, as you say, Jason, faster and better. And you just got to know which game you're playing.
说到高知识产权的企业，就在大约三周前，Etched 的估值为100亿。今天，他们宣布已经从Jane Street、Kleiner、Sequoia 和 Andreessen筹集了7亿，估值达到210亿。短短四周后，估值翻了一番。这个月运气很好，Harry。无论你是在种子轮融资还是融资上亿，如今只需要一个卓越的月份就能筹集资金。过去你可能需要三到四个月的良好表现才能筹资，而现在仅需一个好月份就够了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Speaking of high IP businesses, literally like three weeks ago Etched raised at 10 billion. Today, they've announced they've raised 700 million at 21 billion from Jane Street, Kleiner, Sequoia, Andreessen. Four weeks after, double the price. It was a good month, Harry. You only need one great month to raise today, whether you're pre-seed or north of 30. You used to need three to four good months to raise, now you just raise on the one.
听着，我不太清楚这个交易的具体细节。我的意思是，Jane Street也想成为客户之类的，对吧？并不是说他们可疑，只是你永远无法完全知道这里面的联系。所以这是我对这个交易唯一的保留意见，但我真的不知道细节。我们是否错过了一些应该讨论的事情？有一个故事，我不知道你在度假时是否错过了，Harry，司法部正在因为这些重叠的董事会而盯上Paul Andreessen。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Listen, I don't know the details of the deal. I mean, Jane Street wants to be a customer too, or something, right? It's not that they're suspect, it's just you never quite know how it's all tied together. So that was the only asterisk I had in the deal, but I don't know the details. What story have I missed that we should discuss? There's one that, I don't know if you missed while you were vacating there, Harry, but the Department of Justice is picking on Paul Andreessen because of these overlapping boards.
我已经把它加入我的日程了。谢谢你提到这个假期。但为什么要这样？背后有什么故事？一定有原因。我做这个报道是因为，我常常觉得我们在这里的工作之一就是让大家了解现状，让关注的人知道本周有什么有趣的事情。我承认，就在昨天，我对这个情况感到疑惑。我看到这个新闻的时候想，为什么特朗普政府要针对Andreessen Horowitz呢？人们本以为在“同道中人”之间应该有某种理解和感激的，不是吗？一位“诚实”的政客通常是指，他一旦被“买下”，就会一直保持忠诚。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
I put it in. It's in my schedule. Thank you for mentioning the vacation. But what's, why is it? What's the story behind the story? There must be- And I did the story because, yeah, I, you know, I often think one of the jobs we try and do here is let everyone in now, you know, people who listen know what's interesting this week, right? And I will admit, this time yesterday, I knew exactly, Jack, I was like, huh, what gives? I looked at this and I'm like, why is, let me say something cynical and then retract it. Why is the Trump administration picking on Andreessen Horowitz? One would have thought that there is, you know, honor among thieves and gratitude. You know, the definition of an honest politician is when he gets bought, he stays bought.
好的。埃隆在几周内完成了他的交易，他的600亿美元交易完成了。于是我进行了调查。结果发现这个倡议——不用感到惊讶——实际上是在上一届政府的时候启动的。坦率地说，上届政府更倾向于所谓地参与到商业中去，并试图告诉他们该怎么做。这件事的背景是，有一个叫做《克莱顿法》的东西，是20世纪初的反垄断法，其中的第八条基本上规定，个人可以同时进入两家竞争公司的董事会。对于如何定义竞争，有各种各样的最低标准定义，这些都在法律条文中。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yeah. Elon got his deal done in weeks, his $60 billion deal done. So I did the research. And it turns out that this initiative, no surprise, was actually kicked off in the prior administration, which frankly was much more willing to quote unquote, you know, get involved in business and kind of try and tell them what to do. What's happening here is zoom out. There's something called the Clayton Act, which I think is the early 1900s, an antitrust act, section eight, that basically says individuals can sit on two boards of companies that are competing. And there's all sorts of definition of how you define compete as a de minimis threshold. And that's on the statute books.
事实证明，在拜登政府期间，司法部（我认为是在司法部下的FTC，不过我不太确定）确实对此采取了一些行动。有一些在多个公司董事会任职的商业人士。Toma Brava的情况比较有趣，他们有几家公司，其中一家是从现有公司分拆出来的，所以他们有许多重叠的董事会成员。司法部开始关注他们。最后，他们决定把这些重叠的董事会成员撤下来。这件事有些类似Wi-Fi，也就是已经很明显的事实。而且这件事影响不大，因为通常的做法是，如果政府部门介入调查，你只需要选择性地退出一个不太重要的董事会就好了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It turns out under the Biden administration, the DOJ, I think it's the FTC within the DOJ, but don't quote me, had actually made some actions on that. There was a couple of kind of general business folks who were in overlapping boards. And interestingly, Toma Brava, they had a couple of companies where in one case, I think they'd spun off a separate company from the existing company. So they had a lot of overlapping boards. The DOJ kind of got on them. And eventually they said, we just take the board members off, right? It was Wi-Fi. So this is a thing, right? This is apparent. And it's like, it's a low consequence thing, because what invariably happens is if the department comes around, you just pick the less interesting board and you come off it.
看起来这里发生的事情是，尽管我之前说过，你可能以为管理层的改变会使这件事夭折，但事实并非如此。大家还记得当时5TRAN和DBT合并时，由于存在反垄断问题，司法部必须对此进行审查，这个合并最终通过了。然而，在这个过程中，司法部的一位官员突然意识到，"嗯，我们在这里有没有违反克莱顿法案第8条的情况呢？"因为Andreessen在Databricks的董事会，同时也在另外一个公司（我想是5TRAN吧？）的董事会，而这两家公司现在是竞争对手。所以，这个问题一直在发酵，现在他们正在进行调查。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And what sounds like what happened here is, even though, as I say, you'd have thought the administration change would have killed this. Apparently as part, remember when 5TRAN and DBT were merging, the kind of DOJ had to look at that because there was antitrust issues and that got true and it was passed. But as part of that, the light went on in someone in the Department of Justice head that says, hmm, do we have a Section 8 Clayton Act violation here? Because Andreessen's on the board of Databricks and they're also on the board of, I think it's 5TRAN, right? And now they're competitors. So now this has been percolating and now they're investigating, right?
这就是其中之一那些事情，我明白这项法律最初为何存在。这可以追溯到摩根大通、董事会重合、反垄断法等等。你看到这个就会想，真的吗？这是你们要解决的最大问题吗？不过我猜想，最终这可能导致风险投资公司简单地表示，我们会从5TRANs中撤下一位董事会成员而已。不过有趣的是，你可以选择对其提出异议。如果你关心并愿意诉诸法律，有各种方式可以进行争辩，因为法规实际上指的是个人不能同时在两个董事会任职，但对于两个不同的个人能否分别在两个不同董事会任职并没有明确说明。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
This is one of those things where I know why the law originally exists. It's all back to JP Morgan and overlapping boards and the antitrust and whatever. You look at this and you go, really? Is this the biggest fish you have to fry? But my guess is it peers out into some version of the venture firm just saying, we'll take off the board member on 5TRANs, whatever. Now there are, it's interesting, there are ways you could contest it. If you gave a shit and wanted to litigate, there's all sorts of things because it actually said the legislation says individuals can't be on two boards, but it's not as clear on can two separate individuals be on two separate boards.
有很多理由让你决定是否有勇气进行诉讼，看看司法部是否会退缩。但实际上，没有人会去在意。我也不能完全这么说。我的感觉是，如果事情持续下去，司法部不退让，或者他们不认为竞争问题是微不足道的，那么事情可能会变得非常严重。但即便如此，也没有人会因此惹上麻烦。如果真的严重到那种程度，他们可能会决定撤掉一名董事会成员。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
There's a whole bunch of reasons why you could decide if you had the stomach for it to litigate and see would the Department of Justice back off. But the truth is no one's going to bother. I shouldn't say no one's going to bother. It feels to me like if this thing rumbles on and the Department of Justice doesn't back off or they don't decide the competition issue was the minimus at some point. If it got really serious is my point. No one's going to get into trouble for this. If it gets really serious, they'll go, okay, we'll take a board member off.
好的，翻译过来大意是：
是的，仔细想想，这可能根本不是什么大事，对吧？是的，挺麻烦的。其实有个解决办法，你可以辞职，对吧？是的，这并没有造成什么损害。作为Andreessen公司的合规官，如果你花太多时间在这件事上，那就不值得，不过你是对的，这确实没什么大不了的。唯一有点奇怪的是，你可能会问每个公司的创始人他们是否同意，按常理来说。但根据克莱顿法案，这种做法可能不被允许。事实上，是不允许的。
这段话主要是表达对某个问题的讨论，感觉是有些复杂但最终可能无需过度关注，因为没有实质性的法律问题。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Yeah. It's probably a non-story in the end, thinking through it more, right? Yeah. Pain in the ass. There is a remedy here. You resign, right? Yeah. It's not damage. If you're the compliance officer in Andreessen, you're wasting a lot of your time on this, but you're right. A non-story is a. The only weird niche thing, but classically, you might ask the founders if they're okay with it of each company. Maybe that's not even a permissible out under the Clayton Act. It's not, actually.
有趣的是，你说得非常对。这是一个非常有意思的例子，杰西卡。这是一个我们都知道的试金石，因为我们会担心创始人A是否对创始人B感到不满，或者我们是否因为错误信息而损害了另一家公司。但经典的反垄断关注点一直是消费者的损害。而他们荒谬地假设Databricks和Fivetran的人聚在一起，说：“我们为什么不提高AI工具的价格，然后对所有消费者下狠手，比如摩根大通和美国银行等等呢？”这与实际情况相差甚远。这正是问题所在。你通过一项法律是出于一个理由，例如在1909年防止美国钢铁公司抬高价格，而如今已经是2025、2026年了。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
The funny thing is, to your point, you're exactly right. And this is a very interesting example, Jessica. This is an example of you and I both know that that's the acid test because we would be worried about, is founder A pissed about founder B because they're. Are we damaging the other company by disinformation? But the classic antitrust thing is all about consumer damage. And what they're hypothesizing absurdly is that the Databricks guy and the Fivetran guy get together and they say, "Why don't we raise the price of tools, of AI tools, and we'll stick it to all our consumers, like JP Morgan and B of A and whatever, right?" And that's so far from what's happening. And this is the problem. You pass a law for one reason, to prevent US Steel from raising prices in 1909, and here we are in 2025, 2026.
我们是否真的认为Databricks和Fivetran以及我们的DBT在数据工具的定价上串通一气？你的看法没错。一个简单的检验方式是，如果创始人A对此表示认可，创始人B也同意，那我们就没有问题。但实际上，法律并不是这样制定的。是啊，我的意思是，如果Martin Cassato在以600亿美元退出Cursor后不得不离开Fivetran的董事会，那么考虑到他们在Databricks的地位，这可能是可以接受的。就像，没关系，那个人刚刚为我们带来了600亿美元的退出，我们在Databricks和Fivetran拥有2000亿美元的估值，祝好运。我们会改为观察员角色。是的，任何时候想这样做都可以。而不是说，我要转到观察员的身份。这样做也行不通。你明白的，这也行不通。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And do we really think that Databricks and Fivetran our DBT are colluding about the price of data tools? You're right. The logical test would be, founder A, are you cool with this for founder B? And if they're cool, we're cool. But it turns out that's not the way we write laws. Yeah. I mean, if Martin Cassato had to step off the board of Fivetran after exiting Cursor at $60 billion, it's probably okay, given their position in Databricks. Like, it's all right. That guy just got us a $60 billion exit. We're sitting on $200 billion at Databricks, Fivetran. Good luck. We'll switch to an observer seat. Yeah. Anytime you want. Not the, I'm going to move to observer status. Like, that doesn't work either. You got it. It doesn't work either.
他们确实考虑到了这一点。他们就像是在说，“摩根先生在1909年不能带着他那银行家的大鼻子进入任何会议。”对，我明白。这正是我们想要解决的问题。只要在更新时抄送给我就行。说真的，这就是为什么，当我们谈论这些针对其他事物的监管制度时，你必须提醒自己，这些制度是会一直存在的。如果我们现在通过有关AI监管的法律，你必须非常小心。因为一旦监管法律通过，它就不会消失，而你不知道几个月、几年甚至几十年后会有怎样的意外后果。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
They've actually thought of that. They're literally like, "Mr. JP Morgan can't bring his big banker nose in 1909 into any of the meetings." Yeah, I know. That's what we're trying to solve. That'll be it. Just CC me on the updates. Genuine comment here. It's why, and this is a serious comment, it's why when we talk about all these regulatory regimes for other things, you have to remind yourself, these regimes go on forever, right? And if we pass some law about AI regulation now, you've got to be really careful. The unintended consequences, you know, months, years, and decades later, these, once the regulatory law is passed, it doesn't leave.
你知道吗？说真的，最后说一件事，在Andreessen这个规模，每个人都必须参加系列62考试，而你又一贫如洗，随时都有大概40或50个法律事务在后台进行，对吧？可能甚至不止四个，可能有40个。他们甚至都不提这个，对吧？现在是时候提到这一点了。让我知道我是否需要做什么。我得去参加迈克尔的意面午餐，作为收官午餐。花费12美元。12美元。12美元。12美元。对。如果有什么问题请告诉我，因为还有其他50个诉讼。每个人都在找Andreessen的麻烦，对吧？对。这就是所谓的“没有冲突就没有利益”评论。正因为他们有很多利益，他们就有很多冲突。没问题的。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
You know what? One last thing in all seriousness, at Andreessen's scale and everyone has to take the series 62 and you're broke, there's probably 40 or 50 legal things going on in the background at any given time, right? It's probably not even four, it's probably like 40. They don't even talk about this one, right? It's time. It's mentioned it. Let me know if I got to do anything. I got to, I got to go to that pasta lunch with Michael for, for the closing lunch. For $12. $12. $12. $12. Yeah. Let me know if there's an issue because there's like 50 other lawsuits. Everyone's coming after Andreessen, right? Yeah. It's the old, no conflict, no interest comment. Exactly. They have lots of interests, so they have lots of conflicts. It'll be fine.
男孩们，非常感谢你们。那真是太棒了。我非常喜欢。不过，在我们今天结束之前，你们已经有了想法，但使用大多数人工智能工具时，会遇到瓶颈。配置、设置，以及你想象的和最终结果之间的差距。然而，在 Base44，这堵墙会消失。你只需描述你的想法，Base44 就能把它实现。无论是应用程序、网站还是 AI 代理，都能通过简单的语言在几分钟内构建出实际运作的产品。而且，它提供一切所需：后台、数据库、认证、托管等繁重工作都已处理好。所以你可以持续专注于创作。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Boys, thank you so much. That was awesome. I loved that. But before we leave you today, you have the idea, but with most AI tools, you hit a wall. The setup, the config, the gap between what you pictured and what you actually ship. Well, Base44 is where that wall disappears. You describe it. Yeah. Base44 builds it. Apps, websites, AI agents, real working products built in minutes using nothing but plain language. And it's all batteries included. The backend, the database, the authentication, the hosting, the heavy lifting is handled. So you just really stay in the flow.
这不仅能帮你卸下繁杂的工作，还能给你带来优势，让你超越仅凭一己之力能达到的高度。因此，在这个市场中，速度是基础条件。要想获胜，你必须领先一步。Base44就是你的优势，是直接跳过故障排查、直达突破点的捷径。在Base44.com打造你的下一个项目吧。那就是Base44.com。当Base44将创意变为应用时，Plaud则将对话转化为洞察。创始人和运营者每周花费太多时间在会议、投资者电话、头脑风暴、客户对话之间来回切换，然后再试图将所有信息整合在一起。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
This doesn't just take the busy work off your plate, but it gives you an advantage and pushes you past what you thought you could build alone. So in this market, fast is the baseline. To win, you just have to be first. Base44 is that edge, the move that skips the troubleshooting and gets you straight to the breakthrough. Build your next thing at Base44.com. That's Base44.com. While Base44 turns ideas into apps, Plaud turns conversations into insights. Founders and operators spend way too much time every week jumping between meetings, investor calls, brainstorms, customer conversations, and then trying to piece everything back together afterwards.
这就是为什么我一直在使用Plaud的原因。Plaud可以通过一次按键瞬间捕捉对话、语音笔记、会议记录以及各种随机想法，并将它们转化为干净的总结、行动项、思维导图和可搜索的笔记，方便你后来查阅。老实说，它更像是一个由人工智能驱动的记忆系统，而不仅仅是一个录音设备。最令人惊讶的是它的硬件。Plaud Note Pro的尺寸和厚度就像一张信用卡一样，所以每当有重要事情时，它总能随身携带。已有超过200万的企业创始人、运营者、投资者、顾问以及专业人士在使用Plaud保持井井有条。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
And that's why I've been using Plaud. Plaud instantly captures conversations, voice notes, meetings, random ideas with one press, and then turns them into clean summaries, action items, mind maps, and searchable notes that you can actually come back to later. Honestly, it feels less like a recorder and more like an AI-powered brain memory system. And the crazy part is the hardware itself. The Plaud Note Pro is literally as small and thin as a credit card, so it's just always with you when something important comes up. There are already more than 2 million founders, operators, investors, consultants, and professionals using Plaud to stay organized.
所以，为了更清晰地思考并避免丢失重要的想法和细节，请访问 Plaud.ai/20VC，并使用代码 20VC 获得 10% 的折扣。网址是 P-L-A-U-D 点 A-I 斜杠 20VC，并使用代码 20VC 获得 10% 的优惠。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So think more clearly and stop losing great ideas and important details. Go to Plaud.ai/20VC and use the code 20VC for 10% off. That's P-L-A-U-D dot A-I slash 20VC and use the code 20VC for 10% off.
Plaud 负责记录对话，而 Fin 则帮助继续对话。随着人工智能代理在客户体验中变得越来越普遍，各个团队通常需要为每项任务使用多个孤立的工具。而 Fin 的出现就是为了改变这一现状。Fin 是一个统一的代理，可以贯穿整个客户体验，从服务到销售再到客户成功等方方面面。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
While Plaud captures the conversation, Fin helps continue it. As AI agents become more common in customer experience, teams often end up juggling multiple silo tools for every job. Well, Fin was built to change that. It's a single unified agent that works across your entire customer experience, from service to sales to success and beyond.
Fin 是一个使数千名客户获得完美体验的智能代理。 它由定制模型驱动，这些模型经过多年的真实客户互动训练，因此它比其他任何代理都更能理解客户服务的细微差别和复杂性。这意味着可以更快地解决问题、更一致的支持，以及为每位客户带来更好的体验。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
Fin is the agent making perfect customer experiences possible for thousands of customers. It's powered by custom models, trained on years of real customer interactions, so it understands the nuance and complexity of customer service better than any other agent. That means faster resolutions, more consistent support, and just better experiences for every customer.
它也被设计为完全可自我管理，因此您可以随着业务的发展轻松改进和调整它，而无需第三方的参与。像 Gamma、Asana、DoorDash 和 Crypto.com 这样的领先公司已经在使用 Fin 来提供更出色的客户体验，并深受喜爱。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
It's also designed to be fully self-manageable, so you can easily improve and adapt it as your business evolves. No third parties required. Leading companies like Gamma, Asana, DoorDash, and Crypto.com already use and love Fin to deliver better customer experiences.
所以在有限的时间内，您可以每月获得500美元的Fin积分。在最初的三个月中，想了解更多信息，请访问fin.ai/20vc。
▶ 英文原文 ⏱
So for a limited time, you can get $500 a month in Fin credits. For your first three months, learn more at fin.ai/20vc.