Introducing Working Smarter from Dropbox

Dead On Arrival: What was just Hype and what was just wrong Timing? Some technologies and products get over-hyped, and never seem to come to fruition? Some just come to fruition, but years or even decades later? In this episode of Tech Deciphered, what is Dead On Arrival versus just wrong timing Navigation: Intro The Fork Cold Open General Magic The Metaverse Dead on Arrival The soon to be Resurrected… Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand SchmittIntroduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered episode 78, Dead on Arrival. Was it just hype or just wrong timing? In this episode, we are going to discuss two different types of businesses that as an investor, as an entrepreneur, you want to think carefully about. Looking back, you want to understand better what happened. If we take dead on arrival, we’re talking about businesses, technologies that maybe the tech work fine, but actually no one cared about it, no one wanted it. It’s really a mismatch in terms of what consumer want versus what you are trying to deliver. It’s a classic example of a solution finding for a problem. On the other hand, will it happen but not like that, not now? It’s a type of business where we were too early. We tried to make it work, but actually the technology is not ready now, but it might become ready in the future. As an entrepreneur, as an investor, obviously, you want to make sure you are not in one of these two technologies, one of these two categories. But it’s really a useful lesson to learn which situation you might be in because it will help you make better decision and pick better industries going forward. Nuno, what’s your take on this tough analysis?Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, in hindsight, everything looks like, “Oh, of course, this wasn’t meant to work,” etc. But here we’re going to take a stab, as you mentioned, at things that are just wrong timing. They might have failed miserably in the past, but they might work in the future. The Fork To have this stake on the ground approach to it, as we’ve had in previous episodes, of defining exactly what we think will happen, but just not like that, versus the dead-on-arrival, which is a little bit more of a hardcore view on it. To your point, we want to really split between those two things because in some ways people are like, “Well, are we ever going to go and have different ways of interacting, for example, in terms of input and output, like with glasses or things like that, that really scale to become pretty pervasive?” We probably would agree that, “Yes, that will happen”. Maybe not in the way that we’ve anticipated until now, and certainly it’s going to take longer than we’ve expected. In some ways, the “will happen, not like that” is a little bit like Amara’s law or Nuno’s law, as referred to in the past. We tend to overestimate the speed at which we get to a revolution, underestimate impact. The “will happen, not like that” will probably fit into that. They will have probably bigger impact than we thought they would, but they will just take longer. Therefore, the solutions we’ve had until now are not great solutions. Whereas the dead-on-arrival, we’re saying, “Hey, we don’t think actually this works.” It’s to your point, not solving a problem that actually needs to be solved, or it’s solving it in the wrong way. Yeah, it’s basically an attempt to really frame, if you’re an entrepreneur, if you’re a venture capitalist, if you’re someone who is an angel investor and is looking at the market right now, what things should you put some real money and real resources, real time behind versus not, and really share that with you guys: our audience.Bertrand SchmittCold Open I always like to go back to a company called General Magic, a company that was legendary in Silicon Valley, spun out of Apple in the 1990s. There was even a movie made about General Magic. It’s a company that tried to basically build the first modern smartphone with touchscreens, app ecosystem. The only issue was it was years before the technology existed to support it. But Nokia at the time was less ambitious and more practical with what the technology was able to do at the time. But what’s interesting with this company is that obviously the smartphone was coming, just took 10 more years, 15 more years. Interestingly enough, some of the people in the team ended up being very successful in that exact space. Tony Fadell, for instance, who ended up creating the iPhone, co-create at least, and Andy Rubin, who end up building up Android, selling that to Google and leading the charge with Google Android.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, a very successful team. Tony Fadell, obviously, later on did Nest as well. Megan Smith, who was later the Chief Technology Officer of the US. A lot of people that came out of it that did a lot of important things. To be honest, I think a lot of the technology that was developed that was in some way a capacity or that are reused later on by some of these team members. I’m not saying they were infringing on any IP, but definitely there was a lot of reuse of tech. But it was too soon, right? They were doing something that was truly ambitious too soon. But a lot of these principles, a lot of these things ended up manifesting themselves, and particularly in the iPhone later on and in that deployment. Another such example is actually the metaverse. We did two episodes back in the day, a long time ago, on the metaverse. We debunked it a little bit. Back then, I think it was a very nuanced debunking, if I recall it correctly, Bertrand, because we were saying, “Hey, it’s going to happen in some ways, but it’s an evolution, not a revolution,” not in the way that we saw definitionally. We were huge fans of Matthew Ball and his analysis around media, but somehow we disagreed, I remember, with his definition of what the metaverse is and how it will look like. There’s no doubt that there’s going to be a metaverse in the future, probably metaverses in the future before there’s any given unification. In those metaverses, we do believe. But this whole hype cycle around metaverse and what’s happening clearly didn’t work out well, as proven also by all the write-offs done by Meta on their metaverse stuff. That much must have hurt. It’s related to AR and VR as well and to the enriched reality positioning of a lot of these technologies, which we’ll talk about later. But, again, it was probably something that’s going to happen. It’s going to happen likely in a different product manifestation as the one that was anticipated by a lot of the pundits that opined on what’s happening around metaverse in the future. But it’s going to happen. It’s just going to take longer. It’s going to probably come from angles of entry that are likely not what people had anticipated earlier on. Maybe it’s from gaming, maybe from something else. But definitely it’s going to happen.Bertrand SchmittYes, and you could argue that Apple did a similar mistake with the Vision Pro. I think the Vision Pro is the worst launch of an Apple product. When we say launch, it’s been three years maybe?Nuno Goncalves PedroSince the Newton, maybe?Bertrand SchmittYes, that’s my point. You have to go back a really long time to have such a disastrous launch. I think for me, it’s very interesting because it’s really a category where on one side there is a metaverse of some sort. You should argue if you are just using Twitter, or Facebook, these are some parallel universe in parallel to your real life. But the full on metaverse where you need some extra super heavy glasses to make it work, that simply has not worked. Don’t get me wrong, there are some super small, narrow cases where your heavy VR glasses makes sense for some training, for some simulation, for some light gaming. But given the weight, the disconnection from the real world, it has really never taken fire. Even at cheaper price like Meta was able to do, at more expensive price, much higher quality like the Vision Pro did. It looks like people have an issue with putting heavy glasses on top of them. We’ll talk later about the other side: AR glasses. But the traditional metaverse, heavy glasses, VR glasses, yes, it’s not feeling right, and I don’t think it will ever be right. It needs a different form factor to go at scale.Nuno Goncalves PedroDefinitely fundamental shifts on the metaverse. Just a quick reminder, Meta actually changed their name because of metaverse.Bertrand SchmittYes. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s not just that they’re writing off the investments, it’s their name is apparently wrong. It didn’t really happen in that way. You are saying that this persistent embodied virtual world, which was the early definitions of what a metaverse was, didn’t really happen until now. It might happen at some point, but not in that way. But, obviously, a lot of the enablement layers are still work in progress, right? Real-time 3D, presence, avatars, all of these things are moving on. A lot of these enablers will be ready once there is a time where these technologies and businesses that are fundamentally anchored around these technologies will emerge. It’s, again, right components, wrong product alignment, but at the same time, it will happen, just not yet.Bertrand SchmittAgain, I think we’re going to face a split of a virtual reality light that you can call AR with very light glasses that are not a pain to wear, that are more limited, especially today or the next 5 years. The VR glasses that will stay a niche product that are useful for some use cases. Do you want to do a flight simulation? You want to do military training? There will be use for that. But beyond that, it’s more limited. We forgot to talk about the Google Glass. This one was an early, early AR glasses. But, again, here we go back to the capabilities. Simply, we were not there at the time.Nuno Goncalves PedroDead on Arrival We’re moving to Dead on Arrival. What things do we think are relatively dead on arrival? We’ll be nuanced on a couple of these aspects. Not everything is totally dead on arrival. But maybe let’s start with a good one, which is some of the crypto summer promises, particularly around NFTs, non-fungible tokens, and the decentralization of everything, the tokenization of everything. That didn’t quite work the way people thought it would. A lot of people were very happy for a period of time that they had some NFT that was worth a ton of money. Good for them. I hope they sold it back then. Some did actually, fortunately for them, but most of them did not. As an asset and the tokenization element, we’re not questioning that tokenization itself doesn’t make any sense. But from my perspective, a lot of the elements of tokenization plus the tokenization of everything don’t make necessarily imminent sense. I think we’re going to have a world that not everything is going to be tokenized, and a world where, to be honest, having the latest ape token as an NFT is maybe not something I really need. It’s dead on arrival in some ways. What do you think, Bertrand?Bertrand SchmittIt feels like it’s a tale of two worlds. On one side, there was clearly exuberance and bullshit. All these cryptocurrencies that make no sense, have no values. The NFTs are the same: no values, no sense, no logic in them. At the same time, we can see that Bitcoin, Ethereum, and few others were significant products, invention, that have a current total market value that is significant. I would say we can see that step by step, little by little, there is some tokenization happening, but it has been much more narrow than what was initially thought, expected. But it’s happening step by step. I think there is value in tokenization, but definitely not as much value as people expected. I think for one simple reason: it’s very expensive to set up in the sense that it doesn’t work so well, actually. It requires a lot of computing power for stuff that might not justify it as simple as that. Why do you want to replace a very efficient, superfast database by something slow, expensive to maintain? Why? You need to have real reason for that. I think in most situations, there was not a real justification to make that switch. I think, again, there is a niche for tokenization. It’s getting used. Obviously, there is stablecoin as well that are working and provide value. But definitely, the use cases have narrowed. The success stories have been few and far between. It’s definitely a space, but I don’t think it has lived up to the expectations. The expectations were simply quite insane in terms of what to expect, and it failed to achieve that. I don’t think it qualifies as a true revolution. It has been successful again in our situation: in Bitcoin, in Ethereum, in some tokenization. But beyond that, it was not the dramatic change that people were picturing.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, it’s been successful and there is a security, in this case, a currency of types, that links to the value of that specific network and the utility of that specific network. But on this case, in particular, the NFT stuff, I think there were two core premises that were very valuable about it. One was the premise of digital collectibles, the element itself being collectible and the fact that I have a unique one was only minted one. It’s a unique thing out there. I think at some point people forgot that actually digital collectibles are not as valuable as people think they are. Physical collectibles are more valuable. The reason for that is just human nature. I want to have something in physicality. I want to have something that I can show people, etc, that has a physicality to it. Digital collectibles, I think there was a problem fundamentally in part of the articulation of NFTs that reside in the value of digitization of these collectibles in and of themselves. I think that was part of the problem. The second problem was really the notion of provenance, the notion of certification, the notion of “this is what it says it is, and nobody can say this is something else.” This notion of provenance. That, I think, fits more into the point you were making, which is the point around use cases. This doesn’t fit all use cases. The provenance piece and the certification piece doesn’t fit for all use cases. Probably it might fit actually even more for actual physical assets where you want to have a certificate, that thing is what it says it is, but it’s actually maybe a physical asset rather than a digital asset. Again, lo and behold, it doesn’t apply to all the use cases that relate to provenance. I don’t think we need to tokenize all the provenance ledgers in the world for this to be working well. Again, it was a little bit of an overreach. In some ways, all these players were very happy. There was a lot of bullshit. To be honest, this is an area that I do think there was actual active fraud. All due respect to a lot of the players in the market, but there was active fraud. Honestly, there was bullshit.Bertrand SchmittI agree with you. I was going to say that it’s one of the rare sector in technology where I think frauds, scams were prevalent. Yes, you might have some shitty startups in general and stuff, and there might be fraud. I think true fraud is rare. True scam is rare. But here for NFTs, for cryptocurrencies, that was the majority you could argue. That’s the part that I never really liked in all that industry. If you look at NFT, personally, I never understood the concept. For me, it made simply no sense because, yes, you can say, “Oh, I have created this rare digital token.” But sure, so what? Who cares? Who cares? You can have hundreds, thousands, millions of unique digital tokens. How does it matter? What’s the use case? What’s the connection? You can show it on your screen, but then how is it unique anymore? It’s not like people have to come to your house and check stuff on site or something like physical art. No, not at all. I don’t know. I think it was surprisingly true bullshit. Again, I’m still a believer in Bitcoin. I think there is true logic to have a separate virtual digital currency. But you don’t need hundreds of them. You just need one, maybe two for some variation. The same for tokenization, it doesn’t need to happen everywhere. Just need to happen where there is really strong real logical value. Beyond that, there is no point.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, makes sense. Maybe moving to our next one. I think we discussed this in a previous episode, which was the whole 3D TV stuff. We just don’t think that’s the product, right? It’s not going to be a 3D TV. I believe when we discussed this in the episode—I don’t want to lie too much—but I believe that’s what we came up with… It looks a bit more holographic or the manifestation comes through other mechanisms like glasses, etc. But we thought it was just dead on arrival. Nobody wanted to have glasses on the couch to watch the 3D TV, but also the 3D TVs themselves they tried to develop were very holographic, were super clunky and very heavy. In some ways, I think TV manifestation somehow is not a great manifestation for this. I put it on the dead-on-arrival pile. I have one, just to be clear. I still have one.Bertrand SchmittYeah, but it’s a weird one because if you remember, it suddenly happened. I remember being shocked as a consumer. Suddenly everyone talks about 3D TV. In a few months, 3D TVs are all out everywhere. Then after a few years, no one bothered to keep adding that because consumers didn’t care. I think one issue was, I think it has only worked with Blu-rays. I don’t think any streaming service supported that. With the rise of streaming, that was certainly a pretty big issue in the first place. Interestingly, in the movie theaters, do we still have movies being shown in 3D? I think we still have a few, but it’s really few and far between the movie theater.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, IMAX won on that format, the high-end format, IMAX won, not the 3D thing.Bertrand SchmittBut, yeah, if you’re on the TV at home, you don’t want to bother. Maybe if you’re in the movie theater, more high-end experience, you are willing to wear special glasses. I think it makes sense. I think, I guess at home, we are just too busy doing multiple things at once. Rarely sitting all around 2 hours for a movie, so you watch your phone, you check on something else. You don’t want to have these glasses on top that block you from the rest of what’s happening at home.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, it just didn’t work. I’m not sure it will work in any case, so we’ll see. But definitely, I don’t think that’s the right form factor.Bertrand SchmittIt technically worked, but practically, it was not accepted by consumers.Nuno Goncalves PedroLet me rephrase. I think it was a solution to a problem nobody thought they had. The execution of the product was the wrong one. It’s like that’s not what people wanted. Maybe we do want some 3D immersive experience, but that’s not the 3D immersive experience that we want, not manifested like that in effect, with its limitations, etc.Bertrand SchmittI want to say that we are not denigrating some of these experiments. Me, I still remember putting a Vision Pro and watching some content that is natively created by Apple for the Vision Pro. It’s an amazing magical experience, truly. But at the same time, I’m always worrying to have to think I’m going to spend 30 minutes putting my Vision Pro on my head. It’s heavy, it’s painful. Again, we go back to, I’m disconnected from everything else, and I don’t like that.Nuno Goncalves PedroWhen there was real technological development, like the case of 3D TVs, that technology development may have served other purposes. Again, we applaud those that put the money where their mouth was, the companies, the individuals that wanted to move forward some of these technology stacks, maybe less so the people that just decided to create NFTs for the sake of it with apes. No attack on those guys specifically, but just to create a specific view on that. But there’s a lot of stuff we’re talking about today which is actually great technological development. There’s stuff that came out of it that is very, very valuable technological development. Maybe to our next one on mobility, physical mobility. The Segway. Everyone’s like, “Oh, this is going to change how we move around the world, in particular for shorter distances, etc.” Well, apparently no. Apparently, it’s not super intuitive. There are still Segways out there for use by police forces, tours, and all that stuff. People say, “Oh, it’s…” No, well, it never scaled. It wasn’t changed. It didn’t change how relatively short local mobility was going to be done. I think part of it is actually the problem with the product. The product is not as intuitive as people thought it would be, and it has other issues around that in terms of security and safety. If you’re going to have a device or something that moves you around, what’s the minimum-accepted level of security that you would have. The fact that you have to incline to move it is actually not super as initially some probably people thought it’s actually not as intuitive as some might have thought it was. I think it’s a dead-on-arrival play. The vehicles of the future, I’m not sure, look like that at all. Happy to eat my words down the road, but I don’t think so.Bertrand SchmittYes, and I remember the massive hype at the start of this product. They were hiding it, but still telling you, We have seen it. That’s true. It’s going to totally change how cities are planned. I mean, the level of hype and bullshit was insane before the launch of the product and before anyone outside of a few knew what it looked like. Then we saw what it looked like, and it was on one side, an engineering marvel, the self-stabilization system was new. I mean, very few people had seen something like this before. At the same time, as you said, the issue was what happens if it loses battery? What happens if you fall from it? Quite frankly, if you look at today’s modern electric scooter, you have 95% of the value of a Segway without any of the downsides. You don’t need to learn a new way to do things. If you lose battery, it still works. I guess you can still push it. It’s not too expensive. You don’t have massive computers to just make it work. You don’t have massive robotics. It’s clearly an impressive engineering solution. But the exact example of a solution to a problem people didn’t have, when ultimately a much more simple and elegant solution was there for people who care. To be clear, you still could use a regular bike. The alternative was still your regular bike. But now you have electric scooters that are a clear, closer alternative, I guess, in spirit to what was supposed to be the Segway. Sometimes, let’s be careful. Overengineering might not be the answer.Nuno Goncalves PedroEven scooters, which are, to be honest, I would argue a much easier philosophical view of how mobility should be done and a much easier form factor, so to speak, in terms of mobility, even those won’t have wide adoption to everyone. It’s not like everyone’s going to use a scooter. The bar for a scooter is much less than a bar for a Segway.Bertrand SchmittYes. I think in a way, the electric scooter is showing us in some ways that the limit of the dream is that even well-executed, even cheap, even easy to use, even low-risk in a way, there is still only so much that people are willing to use it because it’s a pain to bring with you everywhere. Actually, in some ways, you could argue it has only worked with this distributed platform, like lime and others that let you take one and drop it when you are done using it. But that was not a model that was workable for the Segway. I totally agree. You could argue that bikes are still the gold standard or now electric bikes are still the gold standard for who want that level of mobility.Nuno Goncalves PedroWell, the next one is to be a favorite of, I guess, everyone that didn’t invest in them, which is Juicero, which was the machine that basically created Juices out of squeezing a bag. I’m going to be nice here to… There were a bunch of well-known investors. They raised, I think, 120 million or something like that.Bertrand SchmittThat’s insane.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt is insane. But maybe the vision was not that vision. It was something grandiose and the complexity around dealing with liquids and whatever. I’m not really sure we didn’t pass or invest on the company.Bertrand SchmittBig old juice bags.Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe. You’re being facetious. Anyway, I’m not trying to attack the guys who actually invested in this, the investors that put money into this. But it was basically one of these examples that we’re trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist. It’s like a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. I can just squeeze a bag of concentrated thing and make a juice. I can do something around the juice. As I said, maybe the big vision was well beyond that, and I’m not sure many of us will ever know what the big vision actually was. But yes, it was a solution, a $400 machine to a problem that nobody really had. That didn’t work.Bertrand SchmittI think the most crazy part of the story is that the business exploded when there was this Bloomberg reporter that showed that you could squeeze the bag with your hands without a machine and get the same juice. That’s pretty insane. That’s just so unbelievable.Nuno Goncalves PedroThe funny part of the story is MSCHF, this company that does all their on-point, slightly artistic, whatever, one-off, drops, etc, etc. Shout out to Gabriel. Gabe Wally, who was the founder there. This is funny. They actually did a collectible series of figurines of that startup toys, of which Juicero was one of them. Jibo, which I don’t think you’d appreciate. Bertrand, and the Theranos minilab. So someone is also making money on that, which is funny. So well done, MSCHF.Bertrand SchmittWhy not? Why not? Maybe we can go quickly over Lytro. This one was, I would say, brilliant technology. It was a camera able to capture light in a different way. You could actually dynamically change focus after the picture was taken. So something quite impressive, and I still remember looking at their products and thinking, should I get one? At the same time where it didn’t work, it was too limited in terms of image quality versus shooting the real picture. It was very tough to sell as an independent device because either you’re in the phone or you are in a DSLR, but there was no spot in between. In some ways, phones solved the issue not directly, but they kept adding cameras. At some point, you had not one, but two, but three, but four, but five cameras in your phone. You had a specific mode for anything you needed, and that’s it. Phone manufacturers managed to convince people they should pay for all these cameras, or provide a low-end version if you don’t want to pay for all these cameras. But yes, very interesting technology that did not manage to find a go-to market.Nuno Goncalves PedroYes, it’s falling in love with a technology solution that, as you said, was incredible, and not falling in love with what problem you are actually trying to solve. Because a lot of the elements of the problem that you’re trying to solve, either you take another picture. All due respect, instead of me trying to change the field of view, etc, and the focus, post picture taken, I take another picture. To be honest, you can take thousands of pictures now with different setups. Also, ignoring the fact that this was pre this whole AI boom. So obviously, that one I will be kind on. But with the AI boom, you can do a lot of things to pictures and changes and stuff like that. All of that changes the game in and of itself. Obviously, Lytro or Lytro, not sure how you spell them, or how you say their name, but they failed before that. So again, this was super great tech, great investors, good investors on board, but just nobody wanted that device. Why would I want this thing? A total failure on arrival. I think one also other aspect of it that may have been misinterpreted and underestimated by some of the early investors, certainly in the company, is the value chain. There is a value chain for cameras, for SLRs, DSLRs, etc, etc. They know what they’re doing, and they’re doing their own level of innovation. In some ways, that fits squarely into that value chain, which I’m sure is a complex value chain to manage in and of itself. Maybe that’s created its own dynamics as well.Bertrand SchmittI think they try to insert themselves in the value chain, but I’m not sure first that they managed to get technology as small as it should have been. They simply didn’t convince anyone. The Sony or Nikon of the world, or the Apple or Google of the world, to use their technology in their phones, because no one really saw the value, per se. One thing to keep in mind, using their technology means you had a big trade-off in terms of megapixels. Actually, you will benefit from that great effect around the focus that can move anywhere after the fact. But in exchange, you had to lose dramatically the number of megapixels. At the time, all the rage was about how do I get more megapixels for my phone with good image quality. That was all that you were selling to consumers. Consumers would not have bought 10 times less megapixels for a weird benefit that at the time no one cared about. I think you are very right to introduce the fact that, of course, they could not have guessed at the time, but today you can get for free this refocusing effect with AI, actually.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat’s exactly the point I was making on the value chain. They went into a value chain that has a lot of players in it, and they got kicked in the butt anyway, because people were like, Why would I adopt it? They didn’t serve the purpose of the use case or the user flow. They didn’t anticipate competitive dynamics to it. Then they actually went straight up into a technology plus IP logic on a value chain that would be like, “Hey, dudes, just get out of here.” What would be the incentive for people to bring them on board? It’s like in some ways, they did all the mistakes under the book in that sense. Again, I’m not trying to diss the company, the founders, the investors, but it feels that was the problem in the end.Bertrand SchmittYes.Nuno Goncalves PedroShall we do some rapid fire dead-on-arrivals?Bertrand SchmittYes. A fan favorite. Have you tried a keyboard projector on?Nuno Goncalves PedroYes. I think I mentioned that in a previous episode, I did have one of the early ones and whatever. Yes, somehow we forgot that there’s other best, better ways of input, maybe voice would be a better way of input if that’s the problem, but anyway.Bertrand SchmittThis one is interesting because you just use it for one minute, and you discover it’s horrible.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s a horrible experience.Bertrand SchmittYou have to type on it. You don’t see exactly where you type. Each time you type, you are hurting your fingers because it’s not a smooth keyboard feeling, but you are tapping a solid surface. That’s amazing that it went to manufacturing, and basically no one gave feedback. There is no way it’s working. No way technically working, but practically, no one would want to use that.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s bad in all aspects. The finger’s touching. It needs to be a very over-engineered experience for it to actually detect the key stroking and all that stuff. It’s an over-engineered solution by default. It’s not private because once you have the keyboard projector, you’re like, “Where am I keyboarding projecting on?” It’s something that others can see. There are other alternatives that are better. The keyboards on our phones are pretty good these days, with autocorrection in most cases, I wouldn’t say all cases. Voice can also be an interesting replacement to that. If that’s what you’re going for, voice recognition has improved dramatically over the last few years. Again, it’s one of these, “Yeah, cool.”Bertrand SchmittIt’s clear that, first, touch has replaced a physical keyboard where you need one. And two, now voice recognition is getting better for sure.Nuno Goncalves PedroThe opposite side is that voice assistants were going to take over everything, that everything was going to be voice assistant-led. Alexa is going to run your life. You’re going to have games for voice. I actually have a good friend of mine who did a startup in that space. Actually, the company got acquired, and everything’s going to be voice, which, as we know, is also not true. We need to visualize sometimes. Sometimes we still want to write because we want either the added value of privacy or of expression at some standpoint. There are a lot of things that are happening around voice that are exciting. We just mentioned voice recognition, but not everything is going to be voice. Certainly not for the foreseeable future, and so that doesn’t work. Also, as the ultimate platform, we also want some visuals. We also want to have other kinds of interactions. There are limitations to voice assistants, for example. Voice assistants were not quite the next platform that people said they were going to be. I would say they’re a channel, but they’re definitely not a platform. That’s how, at least I see them.Bertrand SchmittYes, a channel versus a platform. I would agree with you. I must say I start to feel that we could be close to the future we have seen in Her. This movie, Her, I guess you saw it as well, where these guy keep talking to his personal assistants, and it’s becoming his friend, maybe even his love. I start to feel we are getting close enough with AI that this becomes a possibility. But again, it’s not your only way to interact. You want to type, you want to see stuff. There are many situations where you don’t want to be seen talking with someone. It’s more of a channel versus a platform. Yes, Alexa, it’s quite amazing how it went to the roof and crashed and burned. It moved up very quickly. Amazon invested billions, hired thousands of people, which was the right move. I mean, you have something that seems to work well enough and could be game changer, why not? But it was quite impressive as a crash and burn. It’s pretty rare to move that fast up and down.Nuno Goncalves PedroI agree. A lot of money is put into this stuff. I mean, Google went after it as well. I think Google probably executed better. Their tools and their hub tools, etc, were better in their devices. But to be honest, it was the beginning of something, it wasn’t really there. It’s shocking because a lot of people have Alexa at home, and Google Hubs at home, and whatever at home. But it’s really not that powerful. I have a bunch of Google stuff at home, and I still use it for very basic information. It’s not really doing much for me. It’s not like magically now with AI, it’s going to be much better. It’s not. It’s a legacy device now. Maybe in the future, we’ll have some stuff that will be cool, but definitely not the voice assistant manifestation that we saw in the past. I know the next is exciting to you, so I’ll let you go for it, Bertrand.Bertrand SchmittNetbooks. If you remember Netbooks, this was a horribly underpowered PC device. I kept buying one after the other, hoping that the next one would be fast enough. Trying to be a small, lightweight portable PC, they were called netbooks. Usually, they also had a small screen, like 10, 12-inch, 9-inch, and each time it was horrible. Very poor battery life, 2-3 hours, super, super, super slow. They were equipped typically with a full Windows OS, and they were killed overnight by the iPad. After 2 years of the iPad, no more netbooks. Oh, yes, and they had this… Typically, they would be equipped with… What was this name of the CPU? It was an Intel Atom CPU, I believe, or Celeron. Again, the root cause why, it was so slow. It was horribly slow.Nuno Goncalves PedroSo netbooks didn’t work. We didn’t want to go back to that. The iPad won and all [inaudible 00:34:05].Bertrand SchmittI think it has been proven at this stage. There are some small mini PCs these days. You have, for instance, the ROG Ally for gaming. There has been some revival with some Chinese manufacturers making some small PCs. I have to admit, I bought some, so I kept trying. It’s much more powerful, no question. Better battery life also. But we go back to the fact that if you have a very limited screen size, 7, 8, 10 inch, it’s just tough to put a full desktop operating system to good use. You need something more simplified, more touch friendly for it to be really practical. Yes, you can run the full desktop Excel on it, but will you do it on an 8-inch screen? Probably not.Nuno Goncalves PedroNetbooks, and maybe we’ll end with Google Glass. I mean, obviously, we’re going to talk about AR and VR in just a bit. I think it’s a good segue to our next section, and we’re not necessarily saying AR, VR is dead on arrival. We actually think they’re going to be out there for us in the future. But Google Glass, in the way that a lot of the first wave wearables were developed, was cool, but not enough. I think even the recent ones, the Meta Ray-Bans. I see a lot of friends of mine now, you’re wearing Meta Ray-Bans, and they’re like, “Oh, this is so cool”. It’s like, “How is that different from the Google Glass, but now a little bit nicer?” It still feels to me that’s the wrong way to approach it. Either we go with a more comprehensive solution for glasses or a solution for glasses that’s a little bit more easily integrated into existing frames, etc, for those of us, like the two of us, who have actual eyeglasses, or I don’t see it quite happening this way. I think just as a formality in how it was deployed, it seems to me it’s been the wrong angle a couple of times, even, to be honest, beyond the first wave of wearables. It’s been a little bit the wrong way to approach this, the wrong paradigm.Bertrand SchmittIf you remember the Google Glass, initially, they were launched in… Again, overhyped. You couldn’t even buy them, but still, it was overhyped. You could see a marketing department going crazy when they were showcasing models wearing Google Glass, that sort of stuff, fashion shows. That was insane. How is it connected to the value proposition of the Google Glass? Absolutely not. But you remember what killed the Google Glass?Nuno Goncalves PedroThis is the Robert Scoble in the shower thing. The whole lack of privacy thing.Bertrand SchmittYou tried to have this vision of the Google Glass that models are wearing and stuff in fashion shows. You have this guy, Robert Scoble, taking his picture with his Google Glass in the show, half-naked. Oh, wow, that quickly dropped. In the interest into Google Glass.Nuno Goncalves PedroRobert’s a good guy for the most part, so we’ll let him get away with it. But yes, it was not a good moment for the use of Google Glass. But to your point, it was overhyped. I don’t even recall that I had to do so many things to actually get access to one. I still have it. Then in the end, it was just totally underwhelming. I do think the meta Ray-Ban solutions, etc, etc, now they’re doing it with other brands as well, are more elegant because it’s around voice activation and stuff like that. But still, it’s not this. The soon to be Resurrected… I think these kinds of solutions are dead on arrival, which may be a good segue to the resurrection pile, so to speak, that will happen, just not like that pile that we have to share today.Bertrand SchmittYes. That’s the question. Are we in resurrection mode with AR glasses? The Ray-Ban, Oakley glasses, are the way to go? There are also some other brands like XREAL, for instance, that are a different approach. It’s more fun to watch movies that I personally like a lot and use a lot. I know quite a few fans for this. There is a market for either the XREAL for movies, meta, or Ray-Ban, for light information on top of your glasses. There are niches. I don’t know if it’s full resurrection mode yet, but I can see again, with AI, that there is the ability to do more and more. Will it be connected to your phone, will be independent from a phone? That’s also stuff to see. I guess at this stage, connection to a phone has some value. It’s making a comeback.Nuno Goncalves PedroI think it’s suffering from being overhyped. It makes sense that the category comes back. The use of glasses, a lot of people actually have eyeglasses. The use of different mechanisms that really expand your view. We’ve seen that with the advent of foldables in mobile phones. People want bigger screens. They want to get as close as they can to the tablet experience without necessarily having to go to laptops, etc. Definitely, I think the use cases make sense. It’s just how do you deploy it, and who’s going to deploy it best? I don’t think we’ve seen anyone that’s been particularly enlightened about doing it. All the great developments with Android XR from Google, Samsung doing a bunch of things in terms of deployment out there as well at the same time. I mean, are these guys going to redefine this category and create the first ever wearable, at least AR great experience or VR category of experience, or are we going to have much of the same? In the same way, it took several years for the smartphone category to be recategorized as a smartphone category under the iPhone. That was the category-defining moment. It was the vision of a bunch of people, obviously led by Steve, but a bunch of people that went to market and said, This is how we view the market to be, and they just nailed it. We haven’t seen the guys who’ve nailed it, I think, is the issue thus far, either on the VR side or the AR side. We just haven’t seen it.Bertrand SchmittDefinitely, we have not seen that. There are, of course, rumors that Apple is ending their Vision Pro program, and at the same time, is full-on on AR glasses, an alternative to the Meta Ray-Ban. We will see. I start to think I have trouble to see Apple pull this off because it starts to feel that, yes, they are great at making more efficient supply chain these days, but I feel after 10 years plus of Tim Cook leading the business, that’s all there is to Apple these days: thinner phones, pink colors for your latest device.Nuno Goncalves PedroVariations.Bertrand SchmittMore efficient chips, for sure. They have great chips. But beyond that, they canceled their car program, the Vision Pro was not successful in the marketplace. They have trouble to find the next story and to execute on the next story, quite frankly. You could argue that their most successful recent launch has been the AirPods.Nuno Goncalves PedroI think that’s absolutely spot on. We’ve discussed it in previous episodes how much… It’s taken much longer than I thought it would. I always said after Steve’s passing, that it would take maybe 5 to 10 years for the beginning of the demise of Apple, and it is taking longer. There was definitely some gravity created. Steve passed away in 2011, right? They’ve been hanging on to their time, so it’s now 15 years. It seems that only now Apple is really suffering in terms of product lines. Probably they started 1 or 2 years ago. They have a new CEO coming in September, so we’ll see if John will do a better job, if he’s really a product guy, and that’s how he’s going to go for it. He’s going to go for a few products really nicely done that can have great experiences, which is Steve’s hallmark, instead of what you said was the milking of the cow, so to speak, under Tim Cook. There’s nothing wrong with it created in a hugely valuable company with a huge amount of still innovations around the edges, but it’s like now they need real product innovation, a new category definition, play, and is John going to be the guy for that or not?Bertrand SchmittYes. Positively, Tim increased market cap of Apple. He didn’t destroy the business. We are not trying to tell that Tim Cook was a failure, but definitely it was not Steve Jobs. It was more a caretaker, optimizer type of CEO. But to go to the next level, you need another type of CEO. Quite frankly, it’s hard to find when it’s not a founder CEO.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, I think it will be difficult to find, but we’ll give John a chance once his time comes in September 2026, as one would. Moving to another topic that we’ve discussed in the past, self-driving. It’s going to happen. We all are waiting for it to happen. Self-driving cars, self-driving vehicles that we don’t need to drive in this mess of traffic, in particular spending a lot of my time in Southern California where traffic is incessant. The driving is… How can I put it in a nice way? Awful. People don’t seem to know what they’re doing. I think we all want to have self-driving cars. It’s taking longer than we thought it would, but I do think it’s going to happen. I wouldn’t put a mark on the sand on how long to get this world of self-driving cars. It’s going to coexist with non-self-driving cars for sure for a period of time. But I, for one, know deeply that it will happen, and I look forward to it. I love driving, but not in horrible traffic with horrible drivers.Bertrand SchmittWe are for sure very close. I mean, now, Tesla self-driving is extremely good. I have taken Waymo many times with great experience. It’s not going too fast, it’s not going on the highway, so there are some limits. But I would say really impressive all in all. I think we are pretty close. I don’t know if you know, but Waymo is working on expanding to many, many more cities, actually. I think we might be at a tipping point there. Quite frankly, I expect that teenagers in 10 years from now are not going to bother to learn driving. I mean, we’ll see, but I think many won’t.Nuno Goncalves PedroI mean, Waymo is now doing also stuff on freeways, certainly in the Bay Area. I had a friend of mine who took one recently, and he was scared. He was scared shitless—I think that would be the right way to put it—because the car wasn’t going that fast, people are aggressive on the freeway around your car. But to your point, I’ve used it in city. In the city, it’s great, and it’s aggressive enough. That’s one of the things I was a bit afraid about Waymo, that it wasn’t going to be aggressive enough in city driving, it is pretty aggressive. Yeah, maybe we’re closer than we think. Maybe it’s a couple of years rather than a decade, which is normally where we put the stake on the ground. But it’s definitely going to happen. I think there was an overhype too soon. There were great movements around level 3 and level 4 autonomy that in some ways were misconstrued early on as full autonomy. But now we will likely get what we ask for. Then at some point someone’s saying, “Hey, but why don’t we just have the flying objects instead?” We’ll get back to that. The flying car stuff, the eVTOLs and all that stuff, we’ll see.Bertrand Schmitt10 years ago, I remember the overhyping was very, very strong with self-driving. I nearly believed the bullshit. It was so strong in 2015, 2016 that nearly everyone thought it’s here in the next 12 months, basically. I think that was a lesson for quite a lot of people. Don’t trust the Silicon Valley bullshit machine, hype machine. It can go way too strong, way too fast. You absolutely need to spend time to understand realistically where we truly are. You cannot just buy the premise.Nuno Goncalves PedroMoving maybe to robotics and humanoids. Again, it’s going to happen both for consumer and for industrial. The humanoid form, I think, at some point will be important. Just not yet. I think we’re behind now the big buzz sentence is embodied AI, where you have physical AI manifestations. AI manifested through robots and other kinds of devices. It’s going to start happening in certain beachheads. But, hey, we’ve had this offer for a long time, and I know you still have your frustrations, Bertrand, with the Sony AIBO. I won’t traumatize you more than that, but definitely it will happen. We will have humanoids at some point. We’ll have different specialty devices that will help us in activities that we do both as consumers and also in the B2B and enterprise space, even in the industrial space. The writing’s on the wall that definitely is going to happen.Bertrand SchmittYes. I think the question, as always, is how do you get there? I think the intermediate steps of your optimized robot, a physically optimized robot, like a Roomba to clean your home or some other robots to mow your grass, a good example, I think initially you have to start a small, practical, not too technology advanced and progress your way. Truly humanoid robots are very disruptive because technically, if they work, they can do everything a human could do. But practically, I don’t think it’s that true because a lot of constraints. You have to have enough weight, you have to have enough force, you have to have enough vision, you have to have enough AI to just understand commands and move around. But, again, with all the progress in AI, the progress in electric motors, I am optimistic that there is a chance for the humanoid robot, but it’s not 3 years. It’s probably not even 5. It’s probably more like 10. Let’s not forget that a lot of demos with humanoid robots today are fake. It’s a remote operator, remotely controlling a robot. It’s not a robot working by himself in many, many, many situations. That, I think, is another thing hurting the reputation of some of these companies because these fake demos, they look great, but once you dig a bit, you realize it was a fake demo because it certainly didn’t come with a warning that it’s remotely operated.Nuno Goncalves PedroMoving maybe to the next one that it will happen, but not exactly like that. Quantum computing, I think for the most, it’s been in many cases a solution looking for problems. It’s beautiful, but it’s like, “What’s the problems we’re trying to solve?” I think we’re going to start having beachheads into problem solution and apps. I’m sure a lot of people out there would say, “Well, there’s already killer apps for this, a lot of the scientific modulation, cryptography, breaking, all that stuff.” But I’m like, “Yeah, cool.” It still feels very much like a bunch of pieces and hardware in effect that is trying to solve a problem that needs to be very much defined into several problems, several areas of problem solution going forward. Will it happen? For sure. I’ve been hearing about quantum computing since I was in college, since I was 17 when I got into college. I’m sure it will happen. It will have manifestations. There’s a lot of stuff probably already residing on some of these instances. But a full mainstream view of what quantum computing can do for us is still quite ways out.Bertrand SchmittYes, I mean, there has been some reports that some key steps in the technology starts to be working and that potentially the technology could start to deliver results in the coming 2-3 years. What I mean by results, results that will dramatically change how you need to encrypt because a lot about quantum computing is actually trying to decrypt the current technologies that are used to protect your information online. This one is big. If we manage to have a limited use of quantum computing things that work in a few years, that will have a dramatic impact on how we encrypt data. That’s the one piece I’m looking for: do we really manage to solve encryption with computing? If yes, then we need to make a lot of changes how we encrypt things.Nuno Goncalves PedroFusion energy, the gift that keeps on giving, but this somehow doesn’t fully happen. I know you’re a big fan.Bertrand SchmittI would say, practically, I’m a big fan of nuclear fusion energy because in a way, it’s working. It’s solved in terms of safety. Latest Gen5 reactors are ultra-safe. They cannot go out of control anymore. China has a working reactor. In some ways, part of me would say, “Why bother with fusion when we have fission that is working extremely well, and we know how to make?” If we are efficient about the process, we could make for really cheap. Having a better source of energy today will already be great for the world. I would like to see scale with fission. It’s great to research fusion. Fusion is near a limitless form of energy. This is exciting. I think what’s interesting with fusion these days, it’s not just the big governments working on spending billions before seeing any potential returns, but there is a lot of startups that are working on it. The bar went lower in terms of researching fusion. That part gets me excited. But again, I think we should go fission first and parallel with some fission investment, fusion research, and hopefully, fusion comes at some point, but we should not wait for fusion would be my big take.Nuno Goncalves PedroGood point. Last but not the least, we’ve dedicated episodes on this, so maybe today we’ll just do the little teaser. If you guys haven’t heard our episodes on AI and the bubble and all those things. The last big one that’s just not like that, it will happen is AI itself, and in particular, AGI, so generalized AI that will be just like a human. Obviously, it’s happening. We’ve discussed in previous episodes, there’s a lot of breakthroughs in terms of methodological approach beyond the GPT curse of actual hallucinations that doesn’t seem to be solvable. There’s a lot of things happening around reinforcement learning, evolutionary computation, and other methodological approaches to AI that we think will create tremendous breakthroughs. There’s definitely a lot of funding going into it. We quantified it recently. I think 63, the number probably has changed in the last couple of weeks, but 63 new AI labs that have raised significant rounds upfront, just getting into the market, some of them as high as hundreds of millions or even over a billion dollars for the first round of funding. Obviously, there’s a lot of dramatic things happening in that space. There’s a lot of capital going to that space. It’s going to happen. It’s going to take much longer than, I think, we think it’s going to take. I just saw, I think, Marc Andreessen recently saying, AGI is already upon us. Maybe it is. Maybe he knows something we don’t know. But I suspect we’re still ways to go in a lot of the developments on AI. For now, it will continue its complications and its limitations. But definitely it will untap a lot of great productivity enhancements, technological enhancements, even in the short term that at least I’m very excited about. Then the AGI story, I think, will be a story that will be told later.Bertrand SchmittI might actually disagree on this one. I actually believe, like Marc Andreessen, that we are at AGI. We reached AGI a few months ago with the latest ChatGPT 5.5 with Claude Anthropic, Opus 4.7, 4.6 even. For me, in some specific space, let’s say coding, for instance, I truly believe we have reached AGI. It is totally replacing people for development, testing, writing, specifications, doing design. Yes, there are some use cases where it’s not working as well. But for at least the coding side, I think AGI is truly there. Is it better than the best human experts at every piece of the puzzle? No. I think if you go to some very specialized development stuff like a CUDA development, for instance, or some kernel development, it might not be at the level of the top human experts. But as we can hear about stories around security to the new versions that are unreleased yet of Anthropic and others seem to be at the level of the best human experts at cybersecurity. I think we are actually there. I think that’s why there is an acceleration the past six months in terms of investments in data centers. There was a big question in 2023, 2024, 2025, “Are we investing too much? Is it a bubble?” And so on. That was true because revenues were increasing, but not that fast. The increase in the growth in revenues for Anthropic is insane. No one has ever seen that in the whole history of technology, what happened to them the past six months. Growing so fast at such a scale, no one has seen. I think that’s truly because they have stumbled upon AGI for coding. Coding is such a huge, large market that even if we are just solving coding, even if we never solve more than that, I think it’s already one of the biggest markets in the world, full stop.Nuno Goncalves PedroBut that, for me, I think maybe it’s a definitional thing. That, for me, is still narrow AI. AGI, as defined, is a type of AI that can match or surpass human capabilities across virtually all cognitive and intellectual tasks. Coding is just one of them. I think there’s a lot of narrow AI right there, to your point, that can replace humans maybe today. Coding may be a great example of that. But I don’t think we are at the AGI. I haven’t seen any agents out there that can replace fully human beings, where I would not understand that they’re actually AI. Anyway, again, maybe you guys have seen stuff that I haven’t seen. I just feel there’s a lot of overhype on what the AGI actually is. But the ability to surpass us as human beings, I haven’t seen it yet across the board, not on a specific domain.Bertrand SchmittYes, I think my point is that I have seen it on a few domains. If you look at mathematics, for instance, and there are more and more examples of people who are using AI to solve math problems that only the very top people in the world were able to solve that are now being solved by AI. I start to feel that we are getting a few examples in different fields where AI is matching the absolute best experts in the world. I would just go back in terms of market size. Already what we got today, and today is not the limit, but what we got today, and especially AI combined with all these agents, harness agents, that’s also that specific combo that makes a difference. This is, for me at this stage, huge market. Does it solve everything? Does it replace a human for everything? No, you still need the human in the loop. You don’t let your AI go wild for weeks and just check once in a while. But you could argue very few humans are able to do that, quite frankly, to run by themselves for weeks without control.Nuno Goncalves PedroI feel there’s still a great deal of confusion because there’s dramatic impact on narrow AI domains where things are being done that weren’t done before, where there’s these great mathematical proofing, coding stuff is being done very easily, etc, etc. But still that, for me, is not the definition of AGI. AGI is a human being. It’s like someone who can really be a human being. Ideally, become top end of what a human being will look intellectually across domains. I don’t think that’s where we are. Again, maybe definitional, maybe that’s what Marc means, but I mean-Bertrand SchmittYeah, the question is, what does it mean? I would argue it’s beating 80% of humanity today pretty easily. Most of humanity doesn’t know how to code. It will be unable to do coding at the level AI is doing. It will be unable to do math at the level AI is doing. Use ChatGPT to check for medical issues and stuff. It’s not perfect for sure, but, again, it still beats most humans. I don’t know. I feel that we are reaching a level where it’s truly beating most of humans, many experts in many fields. I feel the definition of, “Hey, it has reached the level of an average human being.” I would say it passed that one. Is it the same as a human being? No. But reaching the level of your average human being, I think we are there in a lot of fields.Nuno Goncalves PedroConclusion Well, in conclusion, in episode 78 of Tech Deciphered, we went into two piles: the pile of dead-on-arrival products, technologies, businesses, and the pile of “it will happen, but not like that” or “not yet” pile of technologies, business out there as well. We went into a bunch of topics today that were of extreme importance back in the past where we thought the world was going to change, anywhere from self-driving to fusion in the nuclear space. We also went into some dramatic, dramatic mistakes like Juicero and other deployments like Segway that seem to be really very much dead on arrival. With that, I would ask you if you’re excited, and you want to share with us some of your agreements or disagreements on today’s episode, as well as your own dead-on-arrival versus merely-early examples, feel free to do so on LinkedIn, X, or via email. Thank you, Bertrand.Bertrand SchmittThank you, Nuno.

The Working Smarter podcast from Dropbox is a show about AI in the modern workplace. It is a great show for our listeners who want to go deeper and hear from the engineers who are actually building cutting edge AI software. We hope you enjoy!

The Working Smarter podcast from Dropbox is a show about AI in the modern workplace. It is a great show for our listeners who want to go deeper and hear from the engineers who are actually building cutting edge AI software. We hope you enjoy!

The Working Smarter podcast from Dropbox is a show about AI in the modern workplace. It is a great show for our listeners who want to go deeper and hear from the engineers who are actually building cutting edge AI software. We hope you enjoy!

The Great Talent Redistribution: Where is Talent Actually Going in 2026 and beyond?  Is the start-up compensation model broken? How about big Big Tech? How about non-tech small & medium businesses? What is happening to talent, going forward? This and many other topics in this episode of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The Broken Contract? The Great Unbundling The Three (?) Destinations Alternative Cap Tables, Alternative Compensation Models Investor Landscape Fragmentation Operator Playbook and Predictions Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Nuno Goncalves Pedro Introduction Welcome to episode 77 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will focus on the great talent redistribution. Where’s talent actually going in 2026 and beyond? The Silicon Valley deal of the last 30 years, very low salary, stock options, you will either sell for a ton of money or IPO, and everyone gets rich, is seemingly broken. Or is it really? The dominant narrative says the tech middle class is dying. We disagree. There is obviously a lot of stuff going on whereby big tech is partially barbelling. There’s a superstar concentration on the top. There’s a bit of a seemingly allowing of the belly. We’ll come back to that. We don’t quite believe that is totally true. There’s a collapse at entry level. The belly is migrating into three, potentially even more, very different destinations: AI native startups, human-verified premium businesses, and the read the industrialized middle of the S&P 500 and SMB world. Each has its own cap table, each will have its own compensation model, and each will have its own investor profile. In some ways, this is the third episode in our Reset trilogy. We started with episode 75 on the SaaS-apocalypse. We talked about the great private capital reset in episode 76, and now we talk about talent redistributions. Bertrand, exciting times, not always positive times.   Bertrand Schmitt Yeah, it’s exciting times because it’s a time of change. Of course, we have the doomsayers. If you listen to Dario Amodei of Anthropic, every white-collar job on Earth is going to disappear. I think I strongly disagree, and I suppose you too as well, we strongly disagree. It’s going to be more of a redistribution. If you look at the history of technology, this is what always happened. We forget how many jobs have disappeared over the past 150 years. We move from a time of 150 years ago. People were mostly in agriculture. Then you had a lot of weird jobs that disappeared from people transporting water to people bringing ice from the pools to people doing the job of computers. People forget that computer was a title given to human beings. We’re doing calculations. Then, of course, secretory jobs in the ’80s, ’90s, where suddenly anyone can type using a word processor, the rise of Excel, that sort of stuff. Many things have changed. Some jobs have indeed disappeared. Some jobs have totally transformed. Where you do these jobs have changed. I think we are at a similar stage where, thanks to AI, and I would say for now, or at least the rise of AI coding, there is a dramatic change happening. I don’t think it means that people will be without a job. It just means, from my perspective, that jobs are changing. You are not just doing a lowly coding level task that actually indeed could be replaced, but you are going to have more of builder type of mindset, a product manager type of mindset going forward. We also expect that the distribution of jobs, depending on the type of business, will be quite different.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro The Broken Contract? Maybe let’s reset a little bit to the broken contract, or if it’s really a broken contract. There’s been this image in technology and tech that basically you get paid very little to work in tech. You get a bunch of stock options. The earlier you are in the company, the higher the level of stock option grants you get. Then you make a ton of money at some point because the company will either sell or IPO, and that’s heard of it. Obviously, there’s a lot of movements happening right now that are changing how these dynamics work. The first part is obviously AI, and in some ways, AI is shrinking companies. It’s not unheard of that companies with as little as four or five people reach 50 million in ARR. There’s companies with one person that have gotten bought for hundreds of millions of dollars or billion of dollars. Obviously, things are moving very, very fast, and therefore, there isn’t a large employee cap table. How would you share the upside? Would you actually give a couple of percentage points to an early employee rather than your 0.2-0.5% kind of thing for early employees? The second part is a little bit the other side of the table, which is the IPO market is seemingly in a drought. There’s not much happening in IPOs. Maybe 2026, at some point, there will be an unlock, but right now, it’s seemingly difficult to get your upside. Even if you’re an employee, you have to wait a long time. The median time of IPO has climbed over 10, 11 years, the longest in over a decade. Basically, not only you have to wait a long time as if there is an IPO drought, like we might be going through right now, when do I actually get my cash back? Unless the company gets bought, maybe there are secondary transactions along the way, maybe there’s something else. But obviously there’s a little bit of a reduction and lowering of the upside seemingly for this contract and for this place. The easy conclusion that I think many are taking is, because of all of this and all the layoffs that are happening, even in big tech, that serve the tech middle class is dying, that basically AI screwing the workers, et cetera, there’s also a lot of discussion that even it might be affecting the entry-level jobs as well. Everyone coming out of undergrad right now can’t get a job, et cetera. There’s this doomsday scenario that you’re alluding to that everything is changing. We have a slightly different perspective. We think there’s a realignment of market. In layoffs, there was a lot of layoffs that were warranted. Big tech, in particular, had actually hoarded a lot of engineering capacity over the last decade or so. There’s a little bit of a realignment that needed to happen in any case. When everyone’s saying, “Well, AI is compressing everything,” well, it’s compressing right now, but we don’t think actually it’s going to compress over time. You’ll still need engineering and science talent to come on board for you to be able to scale up. It’s not like AI is going to take care of everything and teams are going to be five people for companies that are worth a trillion dollars. That’s not happening. Today’s thesis, I think a little bit of this doomsday scenario needs to be seen with a more nuanced lens. I think that’s how we’re framing today’s episode, that there’s a bit of a nuance, there are some extremes happening. We’re going to talk about those extremes, but ultimately, it’s not quite as simple as saying that the tech middle class is disappearing in early jobs are going to be a thing of the past.   Bertrand Schmitt At the same time, what you started with is true. I mean, that 50 million ARR company, just five people. At a bigger scale, that’s exactly the matrix for Anthropic. They have reached a stage where they are at a range of 12 million ARR per staff per employee. It’s metrics that are definitely never seen before. I don’t think any company raised to this level. Best in class, best run companies, one, two million per employees. I mean, that was your target if you can make it. We are definitely in a different game. But I think what matters at the end of the day, and that’s what we’re arguing, is that you have to see the big pictures. Yes, some positions might disappear inside some companies, but some other positions will be created in other companies. Usually, what people do is keep talking about the jobs who disappear and not looking at the bigger picture of jobs that are being created as well. What is true, and I think you alluded to that, is that the big tech the past 10, 15 years had some strategy of hoarding talent in a war where having the best talented people will make the difference in numbers, will make the difference between winning or losing. The Google of the world, the Microsoft of the world, the Amazon of the world, they were hoarding talent. They would try to make sure that they might not have such needs in talented number of people. But if they have the talent, it means their competitors didn’t have the talent. It means that the startup trying to reach scale couldn’t pay the giant salaries that the Google of the world were paying. There was definitely some hoarding. But it went so far in the 2020, 2021, that I think since then there has been a coming back to normal. There is also now in 2026, the recognition that it’s not true anymore. Yes, talent can be very valuable, but there is now a bigger and bigger gap between the extremely talented versus the rest that are merely talented because of AI. AI is able to replace at scale your software engineers, your software managers. I would say it’s quite new. I don’t think it was true a year ago. We’re really talking about a recent dramatic change in what can be achieved thanks to AI. We can see most of the big AI companies are moving to coding. It was started by Anthropic as a trend, OpenAI has followed through. Obviously, the Cursor of the world existed before, but they were not as successful. All the Chinese open-source models are moving very fast to coding optimization the past few weeks. It’s quite an incredible change. I think there is that dramatic change, recognition that coding can be done differently. As a result, we are going to see change in the distribution of jobs. I think it will start from the top because we see the news of the big Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and others who used to hold talented software developers to a change in realization that no, we actually need to invest in AI. We need to invest in compute because compute is going to do the job of most of these people. Therefore, we can’t pay for both at the same time, even us with all our money, we cannot. Wall Street is not going to let us do that. They start by removing a lot of position. I think we see that accelerating, quite frankly. We have only seen the beginning, but in the next 2 years, we see a dramatic shift. But I think my position, I guess yours, and you know as well, is that there will be a lot more opportunities created as well, probably by also entities.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro The Great Unbundling Yeah, there will be more opportunities created. The hoarding is just taken also a little bit of a different view. To your point, there’s hoarding of resources, compute, et cetera. But there’s also hoarding of top talent. We are seeing people getting paid, packages all in that could run up to 100 million, in some cases even over 100 million over several years. This is unheard of. I mean, an officer of Meta would make, I don’t know, maybe 20, 25 million a year. It’s like now there are people that are on the top end of AI researchers that are getting paid around that amount just to join some of these companies. There’s a little bit of a different hoarding. It’s very selective hoarding of certain talent. We’ve seen some acqui-hires. We’ve talked about it in previous episodes that are just literally about getting one or two people specifically to come on board. Alexander Wang, again, going to Meta to lead their intelligence labs there. I feel, I don’t know what you feel, but I feel this is a transition moment where there is overpaying for certain talent on the top of the market. At some point, this will stabilize. You can’t keep paying people 100 million over 4 years or something like that across the board. To your point, a lot of this is actually going to scale up quickly also on the AI side. There’s a little bit of a different hoarding happening on the top end, not just the resources, but also of people, which seems to give further this notion of barbell, that there’s two extremes, the haves and have-nots, the super-duper talented people that get paid a ton of money, tens of millions of dollars a year at the very least. Then the emptying of the middle where there’s a ton of tech layoffs going on in some ways, the belly, as they would call it, is being expelled. The middle market, the managers are being fired because there’s nothing to manage. There’s a lot of positions going away. In some cases, you might keep some of the more junior talent, but with a little bit of experience. But even the talent coming out of colleges is not getting hired either. It’s a little bit of a weird thing where there’s hoarding at the top, there’s an emptying of the belly, the middle, and then the early, early, early is also not getting recruited. It’s like what gives? How is this going to look in the future? I agree fully with you, Bertrand, that there’s a migration of this talent, not only to other companies, but also to other jobs. There will be new jobs that will emerge out of this. The DevOps, dev tools market didn’t exist until maybe 20 years ago at scale, and it got created. In some ways, we’re seeing there will be new markets, there will be new roles and new jobs that will be created around engineering teams going forward. We can’t anticipate all of them. But basically, the emptying of the belly is true as it’s happening right now. The low hiring on the early and the top end, getting tons of money. We think this is a transition to something else. There’s the hoarding of engineering in general is coming to an end at momentum. Now it’s time to rightsize teams, to get the right at the table, et cetera, and start figuring out what works and what doesn’t work. We’ve already had some horror stories coming out even from Amazon where they were breaking systems with their use of AI tools, and I’m sure it’s happening across the board. I’m on a board of a company and been tremendously affected by Meta and its algorithms, where basically because of advertising, there have been people served with ads for this specific company where the ad doesn’t match the company, so basic stuff like that. It’s been actually very, very difficult because in some ways, the company goes back to Meta. It’s like, “Hey, dudes, you guys are serving ads that are not even our ads with our copyright and stuff. How does this work?” They’re like, “Oh, it’s AI.” It’s like, “Well, it’s AI but can you give me my money back?” They’re like, “No, we won’t give you money back.” This creates huge issues for companies, for example, that are very dependent on advertising, which obviously there’s a lot of industries that are. They’re actually in production systems at scale. Meta is, I think now, the largest digital advertising in the world. I think they outgrew Google in one of the last quarters. Basically, this has a tremendous effect that systems that are in production at scale are getting inputs and changes driven by AI tooling, and somehow nobody can say what the hell is happening. Again, there will be a reckoning, there will be a redistribution, there will be a rightsizing of teams and an adequacy of teams going forward. I personally think this is a transition period.   Bertrand Schmitt I think we are moving from hoarding or software engineering to hoarding the top of the top scientists in AI and hoarding of GPUs, GPUs/data center. For me, it was quite interesting to see the deal of Cursor with xAI, where basically they couldn’t get access to computing resources to run their model. But xAI had, I forgot the exact numbers, but close to half a million GPUs that no one, I mean, “no one was using” because their services are not so successful yet in terms of AI chatbot and the like. Basically, suddenly they are like, “You know what? We control access to resource.” But the new resource is, again, a mix of extremely talented AI engineering or AI scientists versus GPUs/data center. There is this race of controlling boss and everything else is going to be collateral damage. Some examples, I think, are quite interesting. You talk about some example of Amazon, even some production issues. I remember reading a quick post-mortem of one of the issues, and the conclusion was it was AI, definitely part of the issue. But the other part of the issue was AI used by junior engineers. For me, it’s interesting. It shows that actually junior plus AI is actually a danger zone. That’s why many companies are going to be way more careful. “Why do we need the junior people if they are just playing with fire?” I think we go back to that situation of barbell, as you call it. The top talents are extremely valuable because they know how a production system works. They are here to develop better AI systems. But the junior guys playing with fires, yeah, maybe it’s cute in startups, but in a big time production environment, a different story.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro There will be a barbell with top-end talent super-mega paid and then mid-level talent that is individual contributors still doing a lot of great work, et cetera. Along the way, a lot of emptying of entry, a lot of emptying of the middle. Where does the talent go? The Three (?) Destinations I think we could say there’s three destinations for this talent. Maybe there’s four, maybe there’s more. Three that we can immediately identify. One is the AI native startup piece, where we have smaller teams that potentially get to a lot of revenue or top line over time, and where the Series Seed is the primary round, where we’re seeing Series Seed being raised of tens of millions of dollars, actually even hundreds of millions of dollars in Series Seed. In some ways, the stars there can get incredible compensations in terms of stock. They will stay for private and selling in secondaries later down the road because there’s so much capital at the table. Actually, in some ways, salaries are very high as well in some of these companies. It’s not like you’re trading off anything. You can get paid a lot of money. If your company at Series Seed for 10 or 15 employees has raised 50-$100 million, you can pay great salaries. In some ways, this is the extreme destination. The AI native startups that can make it is the extreme destination. Now, there aren’t a ton of AI native startups that can raise 50-100 million to 400 million in Series Seed, just to be clear. There’s a handful of hot deals in that space, but that’s one clear destination for top-end talent going through that. In that market, I think that’s one of the destinations. The second one is more what we would call the human-verified premium. It’s more of a play of companies that has still the need of human in the loop, either in terms of development, also in terms of activity, either because go-to markets are very intensive, and so therefore you need to have sales forces, partnership teams, et cetera. Or on the engineering side, it needs to have a lot of customization, integration. Companies are not just going to the, “Oh, you can come in and just apply your AI tooling and somehow magically the systems all work.” there needs to be quite a lot of and work and high touch work in getting stuff done. A significant part of that market, I’m not sure, is super VC investible. Maybe it’s a hybrid of private equity in VC, more PE style in many cases. It’s a PE-hold, sell to someone else market. As we’ve discussed in a previous episode on the SaaS-apocalypse, that hasn’t quite worked out for PEs. Question marks on how that human-verified premium market is going to evolve. But obviously, there’s a lot of work still to be done there, even on the engineering and science side. That’s the second potential destination. Then the third more aggressive destination is the reindustrialized middle companies that have a lot of specificity in going after small and medium businesses, local or regional affectations like ERPs or CRMs for specific markets, et cetera. Those are the three natural destinations. I would add the fourth, which is big tech. I mean, big tech doesn’t magically disappear, and I don’t think it fits neatly into any of these three markets. In some ways, big tech is now looking at the extreme for top talent a little bit like the AI native startup because they can pay. They can pay the 100 million every four years, et cetera. I do think it will typify taxonomically into a fourth type emerging, where, as we discussed, you’ll have top-end individual contributor talent. You’ll have the absolute top-end of the market because they can get paid. Then you’ll start having the emergence of earlier talent that is highly capable, et cetera. That will go back to a bit of a normal distribution in terms of talent on big tech. For me, those are the four destinations that I would put at the table.   Bertrand Schmitt For me, big tech moving to big tech, I’m not sure if it’s really a destination. I mean, yes, in some ways it’s a reshuffle between the big tech companies. They are definitely all fighting in some ways for some of the same people. I can see that dramatic shift where big tech has to remove a lot of positions in order to replace by AI. Again, I think at this stage, it’s mostly driven by AI coding. We are still at the beginning because this is brand-new phenomenon that AI coding is so successful at its task. I don’t think it was true even 6 months ago. Some companies, take Anthropic, take OpenAI, are definitely there or close to be there in terms of no more writing of a single line of code by a human, zero. This is, again, 6, 12 months ago. Not true. But now it’s true in a few top companies. Take OpenClaw as well, most successful GitHub project of all time, not a single line written by its author. It would have been impossible. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of line of code in a few months. It’s impossible to achieve that manually. If you look at the other big tech companies, the Google of the world, the Meta of the world, the Microsoft of the world, they are absolutely not there yet. They are going to be there because they have no choice. It’s you either go fast there or you die. You are not going to be able to survive competitors that are shipping 10, 50, 100 times faster than you are shipping. It’s a life and death situation. All the big tech companies are going to move, and mark my word, in the next 2 years from 10, 20% of AI-written code to 100%. During that transition, the next 2 years max, if you don’t do it in 2 years, you are going to die. Your stock price is going to crash. Then, of course, you will have to make changes. You will have to invest more in GPUs. You will have to invest less in your standard typical software engineer employees. Like you, I’m very optimistic that there are new buckets. AI-native startups definitely will be there. It will be transformational. Human-verified premium, very interesting category. In a way, it will be businesses that are inevitably less scalable through AI, and there is definitely a spot from there. I think the biggest would be the reindustrialized middle SMBs. Most of S&P 500 type of business are going to dramatically offer new software opportunities, new opportunity story to talented software employees because they will need to implement AI in everything they do. They will do it. They will need people who have software engineering knowledge in order to implement these systems. For them, what’s changing dramatically really is that thanks to much cheaper cost as thanks to AI coding, a lot of software projects that they couldn’t afford to do, that they couldn’t imagine doing by themselves, they are able to do it. They will invest in a lot more software capabilities than ever before. That will be a big game changer. And software, very tuned to their business model. There might be less buying of your traditional off-the-shelf SAF software and a lot more investment in a highly custom software by their own team, assisted with AI. I think that would be the part that is most transformed by all of this in a positive way.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro Alternative Cap Tables, Alternative Compensation Models This will lead to a very fundamental shift, right back to the broken contract. What does the new contract look like? It looks like alternative cap tables depending on which bucket are you transitioning into. If you’re going into your AI-native bucket, and you’re a top-end talent, you’re like, “Dude, I’m worth 100 million over 4 years, so just compensate me accordingly with a mix of options in the company plus my salary.” If you’re top 1%, you can probably get away with salaries that you’d get anyway at mid-level from 300K, 400K and above, and you can get actually a lot of options already in the company. A lot of this is happening right now. There’s a premium for AI, we know that. There’s a premium for AI at the top end of AI researching, in particular on companies that are doing hardcore research on staff AI engineers, so companies that require actual AI engineering. There is a premium that is significant. It could be as high as 18% over non-AI peers, and it widens actually with seniority, shockingly enough. This is more of an average than anything else. Now, for me, and it’s for debate, but the perspective is this extreme comp will need to compress at some point. There will still be the haves and have-nots paid much better than the have-nots, so to speak, but there will be a compression. The variance can’t be the variance we’re seeing today for absolute top-end talent. That said, there will be variants. We know that big tech for over a decade, decade and a half, for example, in the Bay Area, has been paying a lot of money for director and above levels that used to be the VPs, so a million, a million and a half a year, all in compensations. It’s not unheard of that this will actually increase after this stage. That said, I do think that the compensation extreme that we’re in will get diluted down the middle. It will actually come down at some point. It’s part of where we are today. As we know, it is still a bubble.   Bertrand Schmitt Yeah, it’s an interesting point. I think it’s possible. At the same time, that compression coming 2, 3, 5 years. At the same time, we have examples where there is no such compression. Take the top sports players in the world, golfing, basketball, NBA players. There has not really been any compression at all. For me, it’s interesting. If you look at the big tech companies, each being one of this top NBA team, why would such compression happen? As long as they are competing against each other and generating plenty of cash, I think there will be some fair question. We will see. I don’t have a strong opinion, but for me, it’s not a total given.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro For me, the shocking thing is the faster AI becomes better, the more that compression will happen, because at some point, it’s like, why do you need the top talent as well? I don’t know. It feels like you’re trying to evolve a system that’s there to replace you. It’s like, “Okay, I’m getting paid 100 million over the next 4 years”, and then you develop something that’s so good that replaces you. Thank you. That’s cool.   Bertrand Schmitt That’s a total possibility, yes, because we are in that very unusual market where the game is to only replace yourself and people like yourself. At some point, it is a possibility, I guess this one. Right now, we’re talking about replacing your “average software talent”. In 2 years, could we absolutely replace the absolute best top experts in the world? Probably. I think it’s just that at some point we’ll be reaching the stage where we strictly have no control anymore on our AI systems because no human is able to challenge and understand what’s produced. It’s not just a question of scale anymore. We’re talking about a gap in IQ, basically.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro Exactly. It will happen at some point in history. We don’t know exactly when. For the second bucket, the human-verified premium bucket, it’s difficult to see how an HVAC company or an HVAC roll-up of scale or a regional health care platform or high touch go-to-market, B2B, SaaS play, et cetera, for a vertical will compete. At the same end, they have to compete and they will compete. There will be more and more jobs, we believe, for engineering talent in these companies. They’ll have to be more and more AI-enabled themselves. The cash salaries will have to be competitive within the local markets, not necessarily with Silicon Valley. There will be potentially profit sharing and revenue sharing and actual dividends played at the table. The model there on the cap table needs to change a little bit, needs to be probably propped up more on salary and on some way of doing profit sharing or actually having dividends paid to employees and figuring out employee to equity in a more aggressive manner. This is the market that probably was already very attacked, so to speak, or let’s say, occupied by private equity firms. There are still obviously part of that model that would work well. There needs to be a fundamental shift, certainly on the quantum of salary compensation, dividend compensation, profit sharing, and all of that. Then last but not the least, obviously, we had the bucket around basically the reindustrialization of the middle, so everything else, which will take most of the belly that we were talking about. This is probably a poor analogy, the belly fat. It’s not belly fat, it’s people that were doing their jobs that now are getting disrupted. In some ways, that bucket will absorb a lot of that belly, will absorb a lot of talent. The small and medium businesses that Bertrand was saying will need to crucially become more AI, software-enabled by themselves, even with some core stuff and underpinnings that actually might not even require AI in terms of infrastructure platforms. There, you need to get properly paid. Again, how many people do you need in your engineering team if you’re a small business? Probably not a lot. It’s maybe you need one or two people and that’s it. They’ll need to be very nicely paid because they’re running the stuff in the rails. This is probably a market that over time, as AI gets more and more competent, will also be disrupted, but let’s not talk about the disruption to the disruption because otherwise, we’ll stay here the whole day, but certainly a market that has a lot of potential to shift and to absorb a lot of the moments that we’re seeing in terms of layoffs happening in the US in particular.   Bertrand Schmitt This category was a category that historically could not compete with Silicon Valley salaries, could not attract the most talented engineers. It’s not a category that didn’t want to bring these people on board. It’s a category that just couldn’t afford to bring this talent on board, typically. I think it would be a dramatic shift for them when suddenly there are opportunities to hire these people. There is an opportunity to hire them at maybe more reasonable prices from this company’s perspective. You talk about small companies, the great thing is that there are millions of small companies at some point. I think things could be truly transformational. Of course, some of these engineers, software engineers, might decide to become entrepreneurs on their own. Solo entrepreneurs, small businesses, build their own, easier to build their own product to market so to serve other companies. I think there will be quite dramatic changes because not all companies will be disrupted by AI as much, but not every company will benefit from improving processes, improving software through AI. At least early on, you will need this human touch to make it work inside a business. Interestingly enough, I was hearing that some companies like IBM were hiring more younger people to do the work of going to the client, understand their needs, propose implementation plans. That forward deployed engineer, those positions, I think there will be more and more available.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro Investor Landscape Fragmentation What happens to investor into the landscape? We already had an episode, the previous one, Episode 76, where we talked quite a lot about the big capital reset on the private equity and private reset, including venture capital. Just maybe to summarize, how does it align with the buckets that we’ve just been discussing? I think the AI-native bucket clearly is going to be the key bucket. There, we’re going to see two movements. One movement, which is the mega funds, as we discussed in the last episode, are no longer just VC funds. They’re really mostly multi-asset private equity funds, maybe even private equity hedge funds in some cases. Those funds will be all over the high-growth AI-native companies and will be pouring money into companies that are scaling really, really quickly. The early stage, so to speak, VCs, the actual VCs that will stay in the market will be the guys probably identifying the next big wave of AI-native companies. We’ve discussed that as well in the last episode, some research that we did at Chamaeleon that I shared in episode 76. We’ll see that as emerging. What happens to the second bucket, the bucket around human premium, human in the loop? Likely we’ll have more and more private equity capital going into it and the large-scale VC guys, the Thrives of the world, they’ve just announced Thrive Holdings, and others going after those markets as well. It’s trying to converge into the private equity market, which aligns with the point we made in the previous episode that the VC mega funds are no longer VC, that they are private equity, multi-asset class. They’re going after a bunch of things. There’s a conversion happening from VC into private equity. It was going to happen anyway because the private equity guys were coming into VC as well and the hedge funds were coming to VC as well. There’s a convergence in the middle of very, very large funds and large assets under management happening to go after some of these opportunities, certainly in Bucket B. Then this Bucket C, so to speak, the bucket of reindustrialization, as Bertrand was saying, very well, likely will be self-funded for a significant period of time. Will self-fund with their own cash flow. Doesn’t need to have a ton of capital intensity. Maybe you need one or two engineers to do stuff, but that’s it. You don’t need tons of capital. You didn’t need in the past, you won’t need it today. Not sure there’s going to be a fundamental shift to that market.   Bertrand Schmitt Yes, I certainly, overall, agree with you. That last pocket, probably little change to the capital and capital structure. Again, I see that as the biggest opportunity for a lot of people who might be less needed by big tech and also top tech companies. What is sure for the first category, the high native startups? I would say more overall in the VC ecosystem, there is no space left for SaaS anymore. I think SaaS, as we used to know it, is dead in some ways in the sense that new pure SaaS software startup are definitely out. Existing ones that are critical to run your infrastructure, the Salesforce of the world, I think they’re in a decent spot. Actually, interestingly, they changed their pricing model to now sell to AI agents, not just per seat. There is a change in pricing there. But this day and age of funding a pure SaaS software startup through VC money, no way. VC money going to AI-native startups, AI-focused startups, to biotech, to deep tech, to defense tech, yes. SaaS as a fundable category early on, I think it’s over.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro I’m a bit more nuanced as we shared in The SaaS Apocalypse episode. We can call it whatever we call. It’s applied AI is the new SaaS thing. Horizontal applied AI is the new horizontal SaaS or vertical applied AI is the new vertical SaaS. I agree in common with your point that very specific point solutions around SaaS will be disrupted by nature with all the easy stuff you can do today with AI. It will take a while. This is not something that’s going to happen this year. It’s going to happen over the next years. Maybe interesting to also talk about the exit markets. I think the IPO market, as we’ve also discussed in the past, there is, in my view, going to be a reopening of the IPO market, I think this year, probably later in the year, third or fourth quarter. The median time to IPO actually is going to be really weird because there’s going to be potentially some companies in the current landscape, bubble or no bubble, that are going to IPO, the OpenAIs of the world, Anthropics of the world, et cetera. There will be more and more aggression, I think, on M&A. Big tech has already shown it, that they want to buy into markets. Large non-tech companies have also started doing acquisitions in space. To prop up their IT teams, their engineering teams with this world that we’ve also discussed in previous episodes that I’m going to own my own engineering stack for now. As we see, that normally doesn’t withstand the test of time. At some point it will get unbundled and served by someone else. Then finally, the secondary market is very hot right now. Obviously, there’s heavy discounting on some areas, high premiums on others. The exit market, strangely enough, is going to be propped up, in my opinion, over the next year to 2 years, dramatically. Then we’ll see if there’s a big reckoning around the bubble that we are clearly in or not, if it’s a soft landing or hard landing. Definitely, there’s going to be a lot of exit paths over the next year to 2 years.   Bertrand Schmitt Concerning the “bubble”, I have two perspectives on this. One is it’s a bubble in the sense that money is going to a lot of players and some players are going to blow it up. There will be a concentration of players at the end, like it usually happens. If you look at, for instance, long time ago, the railway revolution, there was that intense influx of capital. At the end of the day, there was a dramatic change in transportation in the US and a complete railway system put in place. Yes, some investors lost money, some companies went bankrupt, but the transformation was fully real. There were a lot of top leaders at the end of this revolution. The change after that only happened, we guess, post-World War II, with the construction of the highway system and the rise of airlines and plane transportation overall. Here I feel it’s similar in the sense that, yes, there is a lot of money going in. Some players are going to blow it. They will misuse the money in different ways, but that’s part of dynamic allocation of capital. Of course, you make mistakes. That’s what happens. At the same time, I feel it’s a similar level in the sense of this is a dramatic change in the US infrastructure. This buildup of AI data centers filled with GPUs, integrated at scale with some of the best software in the world and running it, supported by a dramatic shift in energy infrastructure. This is for me similar to the Railroad Revolution. Some players might not own the data center they build because they didn’t manage well their debt, they didn’t manage to run proper software. You know what? They will get acquired by somebody else. I think we are at this level of fundamental transformation. The fact that in a matter of maybe 2 years, the move from 0% of code written by AI to 100 % written by AI is an insane dramatic shift. Just to be clear, when you move from manually coded to AI coded, we’re talking about a 100X difference in terms of speed at similar, if not better level of quality. The shift is dramatic, and on top of it, you don’t pay salaries anymore to achieve that. You pay CapEx, and with GPUs and OpEx with electricity. It’s a very big shift, positive shift in business model. New unions, no management over it, AI working 24/7. Personally, I think for me, bubble has a bad connotation in the sense of it was all for a waste. I don’t think it’s all for a waste. I think we are witnessing a dramatic revolution of our lifetimes, quite frankly, bigger than SaaS, bigger than mobile. From my perspective, it’s exciting times.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro Operator Playbook and Predictions Let’s move to if you are this person, what would you do in the future? Let’s start with two extremes and go from there. One is you’re non-tech, so you’re not an engineer, et cetera. You’re trying to figure out, how do I scale my activity? Maybe physical labor is where I want to go. It’s not, “Go west” anymore. Definitely not necessarily go west. You should go to, I guess, the states that have no sales tax with very cheap energy because that’s where the data centers are being built if you want to be in that market. Obviously, there’s a lot of stuff that needs to be done: HVAC, electricity work, et cetera. Don’t go west. Go low sales taxes, low cost of energy. That’s likely where the data centers are being built. You probably can just follow. There’s, I’m sure, some way for you to follow where the data centers are being built, but that’s next, I think on that extreme of the table. The other extreme of the table, let’s say you are super ambitious, maybe you’re no longer an engineer, but you’re a product manager in your prompt engineering. You could do prompt engineering all day long. You’re 28, 29-year-old superstar. What do you go and do? Likely either you start your own thing, start your own company because you’re so good at prompt engineering, you probably can do a lot of the code yourself, particularly if you have an engineering background, or you go and join very early an AI-native startup that you think has the chance of going through the roof, and you take a pretty good salary early on, a ton of upside on the company because guess what? Companies like that need product managers. They need people to figure out UX, UI. It’s not going to be, at least for now, yet AI figuring that out for you. Those are two extremes, just to give two of the extremes, like engineering, product management persona, and physical labor at the other extreme, non-tech, et cetera.   Bertrand Schmitt In some ways, every software engineering job is going to become the equivalent of a software engineering manager or a product manager, because suddenly you don’t have to do the coding anymore. You’re managing AI that is coding for you. Either you start to have some manager hat, but we saw the humans, so it’s a very different type of manager, obviously, or you are going to be really an empowered product manager. You’re skipping the middleman. You’re skipping the traditional engineering organization because your engineering organization is AI running and doing the work for you. I still believe that it requires some serious skills. I don’t believe in the vibe coder type of value proposition. I don’t believe in the prompt engineer becoming suddenly super incredible, able to manage that. I still think it requires some serious chops to do the best from all of this and to do it in a safe and sane way. It’s very easy to have poor taste, make mistakes. I don’t know you, but keep reading these stories on the heads of companies who lost everything because of the AI agents. That deleted stuff in production, and they had no backups or the backups weren’t deleted as well. Crazy situation. You cannot run companies like this if you let your agents running wild. You could argue it’s the early days. I would argue it that that issues would be there for a while. You need to have some engineering discipline at core in the company running the business to make sure things don’t go sideways because it would be easy for things to go sideways.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro I totally agree. If you’re thinking, Oh, should my kid go into science and engineering and computer science, et cetera? Absolutely, still, because of everything that Bertrand just said. You need to understand actually what code does and what technology does and what all of that does. That’s still a skill of the future. It’s not a skill of the past. In some ways, it’s still a skill of the future very much. Maybe let’s try two more extremes. Around the same level, the person that decided to do an AI native company bootstrapped initially, having difficulty raising a mega round, but could probably get away with raising a 2-3 million seed round, et cetera. Is that still viable? The answer is yes. There’s tremendous capital efficiency right now happening in the market still, 10 plus higher than if you were doing a SaaS company, and you were a founder in 2019 or something like that. That capital efficiency is going to reverberate. You can run a tighter team, smaller team. Actually, you don’t need that many salaries. If you’re a decent engineer as a founder or if you understand enough as a product manager to just generate that code, you can do a lot of stuff yourself, can bring in maybe one or two technical elements to the team early on as you would have done if you were bootstrapped anyway. There’s obviously a path for that. The other extreme is you’re in big tech, you’re level five, individual contributor, making a ton of money, or you were a manager, and you’re now out of a job, where do you go? You can go to a big company that is non-tech, S&P 500 company that’s non-tech, something like that. You join the company, you’ll probably get paid pretty well, maybe not as high as you were paid in big tech. There’s some stock at the table, but guess what? You’ll have probably more work-life balance than you ever did. That’s the trade-off. You’ll have a better job. On the upside, you can transform the company. You can help and be part of transforming a company from non-AI to AI-first or AI-enabled in the future, whatever BS that will look like in terms of the argumentation to the board. You can actually create tremendous productivity enhancements in a big non-tech company if you come with that background. Again, you’ll have certainly a better work-life balance, so not a bad deal, to be honest.   Bertrand Schmitt Also, to be clear, I talk a lot about AI coding because it’s truly transformational. You could argue that it’s going to be self-improving. We are in the situation of a self-improving AI that keeps improving itself thanks to automated coding. It’s a dramatic, virtuous loop. Obviously, AI is also going to improve everything else. It’s going to improve your marketing, it’s going to improve your search process, it’s going to improve your DNA. Improvements will be everywhere. It’s just that right now we are at a point in the quote-unquote revolution where there is one clear piece of the puzzle that is moving faster than the rest.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro Bertrand, the senior executives at non-tech don’t know anything about that. It could be just a great prompt engineer. That’s the only job you do. “I’m the chief marketing officer. I have someone below me that’s doing the whole work.” Nobody knows. Nobody’s the wiser, I guess. I’m being facetious, but not fully.   Bertrand Schmitt Yeah. There would be a transition period where what you described happen. I want to say, going back to AI coding, I think that the part of AI that as of today has reached a stage of limited AGI. We have reached, from my perspective, a limited type of AGI for coding. If you take coding as a discipline today, I think we reach AGI. If you go beyond coding, that’s true. If we are talking about coding, leveraging the latest LLMs: OPUS 4.7, ChatGPT 5.5, combined with Claude Code, Codex, and OpenCode for harness, I think we’ve reached AGI in the context of coding. I’m not sure everyone fully realize that and the consequence of that. I think the rest is going to come as well. We are going to see that category by category, usually categories that are more scientific in nature, where you can replicate, where you can test easily, where you can create clear success. Metrics will be the “easiest” to follow in that direction of self-improvement. I just want to highlight that this part is truly transformational, the root cause of everything we’re talking about today. At the same time, it’s coming beyond coding.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro I think it is true. There are a couple of markets where that might not hold true, which is maybe the final path. If you’re thinking of starting your own business in plumbing and in HVAC maintenance and installation, this is a pretty good time for the reasons we already said before. There’s a lot of buildup of data centers and all that stuff, but also for other reasons, because it’s an activity that won’t be disrupted by AI yet. You need them embodied AI. You need physicality to AI to do stuff like actually fixing pipes.   Bertrand Schmitt Until Optimus replace you.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yeah, but if we’re 3, 4 years out in terms of a lot of these optimizations that we’re talking about at the software layer, we’re 10 years plus out on embodied AI, right?   Bertrand Schmitt Oh, yeah, it’s 10 years.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro We’ll probably be optimistic as we speak. That’s a nice business. I’m thinking of starting to go into that market. If you guys are interested in listening to this, just reach out to me. What’s the angle? I think there’s a lot of stuff you can do in the buildup of some of these businesses, plumbing, HVAC, all sorts of maintenance. There are markets that are just totally messed up. Handyman market in the US is totally messed up. There’s a bunch of companies out there that try to go after it with marketplaces and stuff. I honestly just start something from scratch, a small business, and go from there.   Bertrand Schmitt Yes. They’re an interesting middle. Think about accounting firms, consulting firms. I think they are not as easy to replace, but at the same time, there is no way on what they do is not going to be dramatically changed with AI. I don’t know if it’s 50, 80, 90% of the job, but this is changing quite dramatically, would be my expectation in the coming few years. Conclusion Thanks for listening episode 77 of Tech Deciphered about that great talent redistribution. As you heard it from us, we believe there is a dramatic change in play, enabled by AI coding, and that ultimately a lot of the big tech companies are changing their employee distribution, way more focused on the top talents and bringing more GPUs. As a result, we will see a change in their staffing. Some of this change will benefit AI-focused startups, but probably more likely will benefit the bigger SMBs, the S&P 500 companies of the world that will finally be able to bring inside and afford some of the talent that were in some ways trapped by the top 5, 10, 20 software companies of the world. Thank you, Nuno.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro Thank you, Bertrand

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

The SaaS multiples run was long, but it had to come to an end. Or Had it? Navigation: Intro Setting The Scene The Roots — This Didn’t Happen Overnight The Structural Thesis — Why This Isn’t Just A Sell-Off The Private Market Fallout The Bull Case — Is The Market Wrong? Separating The Wheat From The Chaff — Who Survives? Wrap-Up & Key Takeaways Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Introduction Nuno Goncalves PedroWelcome to Episode 75 of Tech DECIPHERED, the SaaS Apocalypse: Why AI Breaks or has Broken or Broke the Software Business Model. In today’s episode, we will talk about what’s been going on in SaaS. SaaS, also known as Software as a Service, as a sector, has just had its worst month since the 2008 financial crisis. Give or take, around 1 trillion in software stock market cap has evaporated this year, and it was triggered in many ways by the rise of a lot of the things we’re seeing, in particular, agentic AI. We’ll talk about it later.One of the key triggers seems to have been the launch of Claude or Claude Cowork. There’s a lot of fears that the model that is taken as SaaS to be the darling of investors, both VCs, private equity funds, and also retail investors, has now evaporated. The sweetheart industry no longer works. Bertrand, what happened to SaaS? What’s happening? Bertrand SchmittSetting The SceneWe are in the middle of what some are calling the SaaSpocalypse. I think that was a coined term early this year. It’s pretty bad. We are recording that March 13th. Definitely January, February of this year, 2026, were really terrible. There is no question about it. Strangely enough, since the start of the war with Iran, there has been a small rebound, so we will see how it goes. But also to give some context, we are still not worse than what happened in 2022. We are still in a better place so far. I would say the difference, there is clearly a focus in terms of SaaS versus tech in general for that down term. Nuno Goncalves PedroWe’ve seen obviously a lot of things happening, right? A lot of announcements. The iShares expanded Tech-Software ETF down 25% year-to-date. Everyone seems to be running into panic, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs. Basically, Jefferies, I think, as you said, originally termed this the SaaSpocalypse. But definitely, it seems like everyone’s trying to sell stock and saying, “Hey, SaaS is going to die.” We’ve seen a lot of interesting elements to this, we’ll talk about it later, around AI eats software. Software eats the world. AI now eats software. I guess AI eats the world.But the reality is, we’ll discuss it later in the episode, it might be just a lot of stuff that’s reacting to what’s actually happening in the market, that there was a couple of misses in terms of numbers, that the growth of some of the key SaaS players that are driving a lot of the public stock wasn’t that great recently. That adding to some launches like we mentioned, the Claude Cowork launch, et cetera, has led people to say, “Hey, maybe some entire spaces of SaaS don’t make much sense going forward.” Bertrand SchmittActually, I don’t know if you noticed, but I think it was yesterday, it was announced that the CEO of Adobe just resigned. I was shocked how bad they managed the transition to AI. I guess it’s one of the first victims of what has been happening. From my perspective, and I will go deeper, but there is a bit of an overreaction. Claude is amazing as a tool, but the launch of Claude Cowork, a few plugins decimating the market, I think that’s an overreaction in the sense that many of these SaaS companies will be able to actually benefit from AI as well. Or some of the new AI tools really, really depend on the existence of an underlying SaaS layer that’s controlling some processes, some data. So I think we have to be careful about the extremes.At the same time, what is true, the growth rate has been going down for SaaS. If you look in the 2021 to these days, we move maybe from 30-11%, 12% average growth rate. It’s a dramatic difference in growth rate, and you cannot keep the same valuation when your growth rate has been divided by three. I mean, that’s just not possible.I think that there might be some overreaction about what company like Claude can truly achieve. At the same time, the reality is there that while SaaS companies are usually relatively strong companies, the growth rate has diminished, and as a result, so should the valuation.The Roots — This Didn’t Happen OvernightBut maybe we can move deeper about what happened the past 2 years about SaaS. Nuno Goncalves PedroIndeed. Some things going back as much as 2024 when Salesforce had its worst trading day. By then, in 2 decades, and went down by 20% on a rare revenue miss. So some early people, a lot of analysts, see this as an early warning of what was to come. Late last year, a huge shift as the different labs of a bunch of different players started launching agentic solutions, which in some ways started eating into a lot of the functionality, not just of vertical SaaS, but also of horizontal SaaS. As a distinction for some of our listeners who are not familiar with that distinction, vertical SaaS is normally SaaS that’s very specific to a specific industry or sub-industry or specific arena, whereas horizontal SaaS is normally SaaS that doesn’t require much adaptation to work across industries. A good example of that might be HR management systems.But basically, because of some of the early developments in those labs and a lot of the solutions that we started seeing around agentic tools, the market started being less positive on SaaS players and trying to readjust it. Those are the historic moments, 2024, 2025. Then all of a sudden, we see the growth rates of SaaS companies coming down, because obviously this doesn’t only have manifestations in the public equity markets. This has manifestations in clients.People, at this moment in time, we’ll talk about it later, are reconsidering their options. They’re like, “Why should I have a SaaS tool? Should I buy it from another player? Should I have a more holistic solution or an integration with Claude, for example? Should I develop in-house?” We’ll talk at length on what’s in customers’ minds, but customers started changing their views and stop buying some solutions that were out there from the large players that are public equities today. Bertrand SchmittYeah, it’s clear that there has been also just overall industry-wide tendency to try to cut on the SaaS subscriptions. Maybe there was too much interest buying too many software solutions, not rationalizing enough, not being careful about the spend. It makes sense that this has hurt overall SaaS growth rate. At the same time, there has been a transfer from IT spending from SaaS tools to AI, so we create a smaller budget for buying SaaS software.But going back, when you look at the change in revenue multiples, it’s crazy. In 2021, we were close to 20X EV, enterprise value to revenues. Now we are talking about 6-7X entering 2026, and we will see later on it does crunch even more. Right now, we are at 4X revenues. So from 20 to 6 to 4, and that’s the lowest in terms of multiples since 2016. That’s 10 years ago. P/E multiple for what multiples also comprise from close to 40 to close to 20.Talking about Adobe, Adobe trades at 5-year average of 30X, now at 12X. No wonder the CEO resigned. I don’t want to be mean, but I think it’s clear some CEO were very strong leading their companies into a SaaS paradigm, but were not as strong leading their company to a new AI paradigm. I think the markets are going to be brutal. If you are good at showing that you can transition to AI, you’re an important piece of the puzzle for AI, that’s one thing. But if the markets believe your products have not kept up, then it’s truly big trouble.I mean, they are not the only one. Intuit 34% decline in a month. Atlassian, minus 35 in a week. ServiceNow also down a third. They are not the only one, but definitely companies have to show some proof of either the lack of vulnerability in an AI world or their capacity to really move strong to a brand-new AI world. Nuno Goncalves PedroThe Structural Thesis — Why This Isn’t Just A Sell-OffWhat are the structural issues? Why wasn’t this just a sell-off? Why is this structurally a problem? The first thing is really around monetization and business model. SaaS 1.0 or 2.0, however we want to call it, was based on seat-based licensing. Seat-based licensing was the notion that with more employees and more users on the platform, there would be more revenue for the SaaS company. Very simple, very clear, very lucrative.Now, obviously, AI agents don’t occupy seats. An agent can do the work of 10 people, can do the work of 20 people, 30 people, 100 people, whatever it is. Therefore, if I’m a company, and I’m using agents, and not necessarily a human user, I’m not going to buy 10 licenses for the work of 10. I have one license, and it’s used by an agent that basically has access to that tool. That’s the first issue. The first issue is that the seat-based pricing, assuming humans, assuming a certain degree of productivity, et cetera, all of a sudden is under stress. Bertrand SchmittMaybe to highlight some point, not every SaaS company was focused on per-seat pricing. Me, when I led App Annie, we didn’t have a per-seat licensing or pricing at all, so we were focused on value-based pricing. But that’s true that around us, we have seen that quite a lot of your typical SaaS business was run on a per-seat pricing. Anytime there is a market downturn, you pay a dear price for your per-seat pricing. On top of it, these days, as you said, we have AI. In an AI world, the per-seat pricing model breaks down. Nuno Goncalves PedroIndeed. Now people are asking for other kinds of pricing schema, right? Either flat pricing based on certain usage patterns or, for example, outcome-based pricing. So depending on the outcome of what I’m trying to achieve, is it a booking of a sales call, is it something else? Whatever it is, I pay for that. But I do not pay for seats because that doesn’t work anymore.There have been a lot of movements around these licensing agreements and these basic elements. Some have actually now tried to create agentic licensing agreements. It’s like, “Okay, I have licensing agreements now for your agents, not for your end users.” It used to be end user licensing agreements. It’s now agentic licensing agreements. Obviously, there’s a shift.Part of the shift is, I believe people want to be in a measurement scale that is different. They don’t want just to pay for a seat. They want to pay for either specific outcomes that are very clearly measurable or have flat fees across the board on a variety of things. I think we’ll see the emergence of a couple of these business models and these monetization models more significantly. I do think we’re still to see some innovation around some of these monetization models, which will occur over the next probably few years as people are getting used to it. Okay, now it makes more sense for me to pay by this rather than by that.Again, because it’s a disruption, we’re still getting and nailing down what effectively the new monetization models and business models will look like for some of these players, but it still will be served as a service. We’ll come back to that later as well. Agents can do a lot of stuff and whatever, but it’s like agents and AI are software. AI is software, whatever you want to call it. AI is software at its base and its profound meaning and what it does, et cetera. Bertrand SchmittSeat-based pricing, usage-based pricing, yes, it’s too simple. Yes, it has its flaw. But at the same time, when the industry started, it made a lot of sense. That’s easy to manage, easy to control, at least from the SaaS company perspective. But definitely now that the industry is maturing, I can see that rise and the benefit and value of moving to an outcome-based pricing or to a value-based pricing. What I like with that also, it’s more truly win-win for both sides, for the SaaS companies as well as for the customer of the SaaS company. If you are more win-win, more aligned, I think it’s a better situation, more frictionless. I think it would be a big change.Another interesting piece of the puzzle, obviously, of all the changes we’re seeing is that one of the best assumptions in SaaS was you have 80% to 90% gross margin. If you are below 80%, there were serious questions coming your way in terms of what’s wrong with your business model as a SaaS business. Below 80% was blinking yellow light, below 70, blinking red lights. But now, it’s very different because AI-native companies, you’re expecting more a 50-60% gross margin.Obviously, if you’re SaaS companies, you better move fast to more AI-native tools and services. That will impact your margin. When you decrease so much your margins, of course, it will impact your valuation. There is no other way around that. You cannot value the same way a 90% gross margin business and a 50% gross margin business. That’s simply not reasonable. I think that one is part of the change and part of a different way to value companies. It’s very reasonable. Nuno Goncalves PedroThe first two structural issues is, one, obviously the per-seat pricing piece is potentially dying or at least becoming less pervasive in the market, added to these emerging pricing and monetization models that we just discussed, value-based, outcome-based, some usage-based pricing, some hybrid models that are also out there with some base subscriptions and then other kinds of things and tiers on top of it, either usage or outcome-based.The third big structural shift that we are seeing is, and I already alluded to it earlier, this notion of build-versus-buy. In the past, I think the market went fully into buy. In some ways, even beyond the, “I will buy one” solution that solves all the problems, we went into best in class. We went to unbundled buying: I’ll buy the best solutions for what I need in my corporation and enterprise needs.Now we’re getting a shift back into building: I’ll build my own stuff. I think a lot of it is relating to two things. One, there’s coding agents out there like Claude Code, Codex from OpenAI, and a bunch of other coding agents that have emerged. There’s a lot of solutions out there, like we mentioned already, Claude Cowork, that really managed to have agentic solutions into workflows that are deeply embedded into some of the enterprises.At the end of the day, I think there’s a lot more of this notion of, I have all my data in-house. I want to really leverage all the data I have. I don’t want to just use a third-party solution that has generic data. I want to use my data set, I want to use my stuff, and I want to basically fit that into ongoing improvements in terms of workflow.The other piece, I think, what’s happening with IT departments in some large corporations that’s leading to this build mindset rather than this buy mindset is also the notion of maybe we have too many people. How do we really express our productivity if we don’t have solutions that are at the core of our processes? If we have solutions at the core of the processes that we develop ourselves or that we develop in partnership with integrators, et cetera, but using some of these new AI platforms, we also have more visibility on the people that we can let go.Now, I know this is quite negative, but I think this has also been leading to all the layoffs that we’ve been seeing across industries recently, where people are like, “Well, I can just extract productivity.” We’ve seen some of those very visible ones. We were talking about Amazon and what’s happening at Amazon with the layoffs recently. A significant amount of layoffs recently announced.Then some other issues on the other side where apparently the junior engineers that were still working on stuff using Claude and other tools that they were using internally started breaking platforms and breaking systems. Anyway, definitely there’s a lot of that going into this build mindset. I want to have control. I want to make sure I understand where the productivity enhancements are, and that will give me more visibility on the people that I need to keep and the people that I need to let go. Bertrand SchmittI’m not so convinced about this part of the puzzle. I think that for many, AI is a convenient demand, but I’m more thinking that some companies, Amazon included, Microsoft, truly, truly over-hired in 2020, 2021. Yes, they scaled back a bit, 2022, 2023. But I don’t think they ever scaled back to what was reasonable given their needs. So it’s quite convenient to say, “No, it’s not management mistake of efficiency, it’s something new AI, and we have to adjust to that.”What I believe is true, however, is that you cannot fund both at the same time in the sense of you cannot finance an over-bloated workforce, and two, significant extremely large AI investment. At some point, these companies were faced with a choice, and they took a reasonable decision on this to be more efficient with their workforce.But personally, I think that actually the ability to do so much more with AI will make more companies think more about their teams and building things because when suddenly your engineers can be way more efficient, can build way more, the value increases. So you could argue that there is an opportunity for companies to deliver more, and as a result, I can see if you’re a good engineer, then there will be opportunities to build more value, potentially across more companies.So we might see a shift where you have more growth in software-related jobs outside the core top 10 bigger software companies, but growing more widely across your typical S&P 500 and even SMBs who could never afford to really deliver value with typical software engineering. But now suddenly, software engineering equipped with AI can be more dramatic in terms of value for them. Nuno Goncalves PedroI agree this is a scapegoat. I agreed that there’s a lot of posturing as well. If someone can lay off a significant percentage of their… It’s almost like the percentage of people you can lay off becomes your new pattern as a CEO, your new, “Basically, I’m saying right now to the market, I can cut…” I mean, Block, I think, cut off 40% of their workforce.At this point in time, seems a bit dehumanized. I think the tech companies are the worst cases, in particular because AI also does disrupt them a lot in their own processes internally. But it feels to me right now, it’s a little bit this one-upmanship of, “Okay, I can lay off more people than you can, kind of thing.” It’s precisely all the fears that a lot of people have around AI. It’s like you’re dehumanizing work. It’s like at the end of the day, people are still needed to work, et cetera. Bertrand SchmittBut I think Block might be one of these companies that completely over-hired over the past few years and never took the pill to reoptimize the business. Nuno Goncalves PedroI think we mentioned it at a previous episode that there was an estimate at some point in time that… For example, even Google had more than double the number of engineers they needed at any given point in time. So obviously, they did hoard engineering resources in other capacities. But at this point in time, it feels a little bit like up to you since being a software engineer right now is a kiss of death kind of thing. Which is weird because at the same time, we are seeing tremendous reallocation of capital overall in the industry towards infrastructure and platforms, where hyperscalers are at 660-690 billion in infrastructure CapEx for this year alone, and 75% of that being AI, where we are seeing a lot of movements around how do I budget accordingly if I’m a corporation.To your point, I think you made that point earlier, Bertrand, how if I’m the CIO of a company, do I allocate my resources more clearly, in particular, if I’m taking into account that I need to spend more money on AI and AI tooling and AI platforms. Obviously, at the end of the day, the CFOs are still there, and the CFOs are basically saying, “Hey, guys, we went into an unbundled world. We had all these agreements with all these people. I want more concentration.” At the same time, the CEO is telling me we need AI, “So whatever it is, you guys tell me what it is, but we can’t increase our budget for this stuff. We need to decrease it, and there needs to be AI in it.” Obviously, there’s a lot of reallocation also at a micro level within the corporate world. Bertrand SchmittYes, you cannot say it will be more built versus buy. At the same time, we are going to need less engineers to do the build. You see what I mean? Even with AI helping you, building which still cost you more, require more software engineering than just a buy decision. For me, what’s interesting is that not so many of these stories can be true at the same time. You require a next workforce, but at the same time, you’re going to rebuild your whole software stack from zero just because of the AI God that you just brought in from cloud. This is not reasonable, simply not reasonable. Nuno Goncalves PedroI think the thesis is that your top engineer is I think, in particular, the more senior engineers, can now do the job of 10. Therefore, what I am switching in terms of cost, I’m not saying I’m agreeing with the thesis, but the thesis is that. What I’m reallocating in terms of budget is, I’m reallocating towards spend at infrastructure platform level, on tokens, et cetera. That’s basically, I think, the thesis of what we’re seeing happening right now. Bertrand SchmittYes, but if you were just, quote, unquote, buying software, you’re not building software. You didn’t need software engineering to just buy software. Your software engineer that becomes as valuable as 10, yeah, but you had zero if you were just buying software. You see what I mean? Nuno Goncalves PedroNo, IT departments have always had engineers, the larger corporations. Yeah, for sure. Bertrand SchmittIt’s a very different game if you are moving from buying to building. It’s my point, I guess. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt is. Just to be clear, Bertrand, this whole build-versus-buy, the build is going to be done with a lot of use of outsourcing and a lot of use of service providers and a lot of use of integrators, et cetera. This whole bullshit of build-versus-buy, in effect, it’s a misnomer because at the same time, you’re going to have to hire, to your point, you’re going to have to hire companies, et cetera, to help you do this. It’s not magically that you can do it off the existing IT departments that you have. Bertrand SchmittExactly. The question will also be, is your first priority of business to rebuild Salesforce from scratch so that it better fits your internal need as a corporation because you have rebuilt from scratch with AI? I don’t think so. That for me is total overhyped bullshit. Klarna was big on that, this is total BS, quite frankly. Not only it didn’t work, but it makes zero business sense. Zero business sense. You’re not going to rebuild a CRM just for the fun of it while your software engineering could be focused on your core value proposition as a business. If you’re a company just starting, you have processes from scratch, you still don’t have solution, yeah, maybe you could consider that.But even then, is it really your priority versus building your core value proposition? For me, that’s a big question. But what I would expect, however, is that this overall trend mindset and stuff is going to keep the pressure on two software companies in terms of reducing tiers of cost, in terms of delivering more value, in terms of being more aligned to the business, and in terms of overall growth rates that are simply not the same as they used to be. Nuno Goncalves PedroBefore maybe we move to another topic, I think it’s clear, we’ll come back to that later, that there are a lot of overblown elements in this. You can never disregard a couple of very, very core elements. A lot of these software companies have very deep tooling into significant enterprise customers. You can’t just rebuild it from scratch yourself to your point. Not only does it make sense, but you can’t. It would take you years to do it. Good luck to you.Secondly, they have also distribution. They are pervasive in the market. They have sales forces. They have people that are selling out there. They have go-to-market teams. Again, we’ll talk about that in maybe one of our penultimate sections today. But maybe to move forward, we talked a lot about the public equity markets and how there’s been a reckoning by institutional and retail investors, et cetera.The Private Market FalloutBut also there’s been a private market fallout. The first one is very obvious to understand. Private equity firms loaded themselves with SaaS. Some even went after roll-up strategies in SaaS, like bringing a bunch of companies together and trying to attack a market and really getting a significant part of that. Software accounts for roughly 25% of the private credit market, which is incredible. Just that’s private credit alone, significant again. They’re loaded with a bunch of companies that have nowhere to go. They can’t IPO, nobody else is interested in buying them unless it’s for a huge write-off or write-down. That’s the first problem right now that we’re seeing in this fallout, which is the private equity market itself. Not only the buyout market, but also we saw a lot of growth funds loading themselves with private equity stock, with a rather SaaS stock, private SaaS stock.Right now, there’s nowhere for that to go. They’re stuck between rock and a hard place with a lot of solutions that are not growing at the rates they were growing before, with a public market that’s not really interesting right now to IPO in, because as we were mentioning earlier, the multiples have gone downhill dramatically, so it’s not interesting. Basically, it’s a chicken-and-egg issue. I would love to sell this now, but I can’t because I have awful market. I can’t IPO it either, so what do I do with all these assets? That’s the first issue here. Bertrand SchmittIt’s clear that you have to be pretty delusional to think that what’s happening in the software public markets is not impacting the private markets. We don’t know why it will be in six months. In six months, it could keep getting worse in the public markets. Six months, at some point, maybe there is a recognition it went too far in terms of adjustment. It’s always tough. But at the same time, you have to be prudent. For sure, what it means is that if I’m a private equity investor in a SaaS business, you have to be a very, very, very special SaaS company to get more financing these days at good terms.Sometimes it’s a very simple math. If you fundraise at 20X, even 10X, how do you go to get to another round of financing if now your multiples are at 4X? That simply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Or you need to have grown into your valuation enough that it’s not crazy anymore. If you raise at 20X, and now you’re in 4X multiple, then you need to have grown 5X in your revenues so that you simply stay at the same valuation, or maybe you have to accept a different valuation. But again, quite frankly, the tough part would be convincing investors that it make any sense to put money in a SaaS business. Nuno Goncalves PedroJust to rub it in, just to make it even worse, the secondary market, which was a great market for exits or partial liquidations, et cetera, is demanding now huge discounts. There’s no way I’m going to buy into a stock if it’s not growing at the same pace. I’m like, “I’m sorry.” I will buy your stock at a significant discount. In some cases, it might be what would be a lesser price per share than your last round or your last two rounds. Not just, I want a discount on what you think you’re worth, but it’s like, I want a discount on your last round.Because there’s liquidity issues also in some parts of the market, we were talking just about the private equity firms, some of these deals will go through. If all of this wasn’t quite enough, we have what’s happening in venture capital, which is very close to my heart, of course, because that’s where I play. If you come to me, it’s like I’m a SaaS player immediately off the game. I’m like, “Really? You’re a SaaS, tell me more.” I was just talking to a player recently, SaaS play, there was nothing around AI in their pitch.It’s not just because you have AI in your pitch that I’m going to give you money, clear, but if you’re doing a SaaS play and there’s no AI in your pitch, I’m like, “Am I missing something?” If it looks very classic, I’m like, “Oh.” There’s been a huge, huge reduction in confidence in the VC space in investing in SaaS. There’s a tremendous hyper focus on AI, and in AI investing, AI apps, platforms, infrastructure by most VC firms at this moment in time. And so at this point in time, if you’re a non-AI SaaS player trying to raise money, where’s your AI play? I think that’s the question you’re going to get. It’s going to be very difficult to raise, very difficult to raise. Bertrand SchmittI agree with you. Myself, I saw that SaaS startups with absolutely no AI in their deck, and I was so shocked. I was like, “Guys, where are you living? Are you living in a parallel universe? Are you living under a rock? What’s going on?” Then they are like, “Yeah, but we’re preparing something like that, I come back and prepare.”But even then, as you say, it’s not just leaving AI in your deck. It’s what are your proof points? What have you delivered? How do you make sure that it’s truly differentiator? And how does it make sense versus a pure AI native companies? How are you going to find the new cloud tools that are going to get out in a few weeks and more or ChatGPT or whatever? You have to have a very different proof point. There is nothing new in the past. It’s how are you going to survive against Google? How are you going to survive against Salesforce? How are you going to survive against Microsoft? So nothing is new.Software universe is changing. There’s always that big guys that can destroy you in a matter of weeks. So the question is more, how are you going to be smart enough not to be killed too easily and to find your way in a space that’s probably moving faster than ever? That is probably the difference is that it’s weeks after weeks, you have big change. I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen in that space before because I’ve seen there, I’ve seen that, and it’s moving faster than ever. But it’s nothing new that there is this big company potentially destroying your business. You have to be smart.I feel in some ways, maybe it’s the 2020s, but people stopped being smart, quite frankly. They just raised easy at very large valuation and think that you just do something sometimes pretty basic in terms of software development and that’s good enough. Your GTM is traditional, and you think you made it, and you deserve some investment. I think you must have seen some of this. I have seen a lot of this. In some ways, it’s good. The market is becoming more discerning. Nuno Goncalves PedroThe Bull Case — Is The Market Wrong?But is the market wrong? Maybe shifting to that, at least my perspective is it’s wrong. It’s not fully wrong, but it’s wrong. There’s a right sizing of multiples, but maybe 4X is not the right multiple either. This whole 20X on actuals and 40X on forward stuff didn’t make any sense. There is an argumentation to say that the market is oversold. All the banks have come forward. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Jeffries, Morgan Stanley. Everyone’s come forward and said there’s been definitely, Bank of America, whatever, there’s been an overselling of stock, a dramatic overselling of stock. There’s been a panic that wasn’t warranted. The price has gone down too dramatically for some of these key players.I think part of it, in some ways, is what we were alluding to earlier, the fact that some of these players have built really important stacks that are fitting their customers in a significant on core processes. You can’t just rip it off and put something new. Magically, it will work. It will be around building things around it rather than building things that replace it. Will there be over the long term potential disruption of some of these players around CRM and other solutions? For sure, we’ll see it.But definitely, some of the existing players, public companies that are large, are here to stay, and they themselves will buy into these markets. They’ll acquire positions into other service providers into toolmakers, into other platforms that allow them to be fully AI-enabled and to make their platforms more AI-enabled. I do think there was a huge amount of overselling. The second thing we already alluded to as well as go-to-market. If I’m selling something to someone, there’s a salesperson involved or there are a couple of salespeople involved, they’re not going anywhere. So in some ways, that relationship building with CIOs, with their teams, with procurement teams, all of that is still there.And a lot of the large SaaS players have been doing this for decades. So they have the surface of attack and go-to-market that will take a long time to build for even some of these startups that are disrupting, so to speak, the market. My view is there has been too much panic and the modes of the large players that are already public, in some cases, haven’t been considered at all. Bertrand SchmittThere’s definitely some truth in that. Another piece of the puzzle is that if SaaS is not growing as fast as it used to be, it’s still growing. Many companies are still very good cash generation machines. Many of these companies are moving to AI full speed, improving their tools, changing how you can search their data, how you can leverage their data. They are very close to the data, so they know best how to deliver value on this data. They can integrate existing AI tools. There are a lot of ways for them to capture part of the value that native AI companies are claiming they will get. I think it’s definitely going to, and we’ll talk more later on. I think there will be a question around how do you differentiate the best SaaS companies from the worst SaaS companies in that context.But maybe I just felt we moved a bit quickly on one big event that’s shaping the software industry, it’s the current crash in private credit. Do you have some thoughts about that? Because what’s happening there is pretty crazy, to be frank. Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, we’ve seen a lot of these players like KKR and Apollo getting slaughtered. Basically, Blue Owl, TPG, Ares, KKR all fell double this in one day on private credit exposure fears. Overall, Apollo has fell 7% as the date of as we were recording BlackRock, 5%. These guys were walking on water and all of a sudden, there was like, “What happened?” And what happened was private credit exposure. A lot of the concerns in the market is private credit is super sexy, and for those who don’t understand what it means is I’m giving credit to a private company in exchange for something, either warrants in the company or revenue sharing in the future, or I’ll get your revenues in advance from you, or I’ll take, whatever it is. There’s over exposure.There’s this potential logic that all these guys are scaling, all the companies that they give private credit to are scaling. And now there are concerns that there might be some dramatic credit in the market, that some of these companies are actually going to die, they’re going to implode, or they’re not going to really fulfill their covenants in their private credit agreements. Bertrand SchmittIt was hidden in plain sight, but that some of these private credit funds at 25, 35% exposure to software, IT, and SaaS, so a huge chunk in an industry where you bet on the long term revenues and cash flow to pay back your loans, while at the same time there is a discovery that this business may be at risk in the next three, five years or even one year because of AI.I think that was the first big chink in the armor that suddenly the creditworthiness of these companies might not have been evaluated properly. But two, it looks like there is also fraud that has been happening. I was reading stories how three, four people, accounting companies, were valuing and estimating loans for hundreds of SaaS business. Good luck, this is crazy. It looks like there is another layer to that story. Nuno Goncalves PedroWhen there are industries building a lot of wealth or apparent wealth that’s coming a little bit from out of nowhere, the likelihood that there’s fraud and things that were not properly done is, it sadly increases dramatically or exponentially. I think we’re seeing just maybe the first effects of that. Bertrand SchmittI was reading, for instance, that one of these big funds was no haircut across the portfolio, ever seen value that was 100%, whatever. One quarter after that, one of their clients going out of business and they lost everything. In three months, you move from no haircut to 100% haircut, decent enough part of your portfolio. This is crazy for a credit business. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s ostrich syndrome. You just put your head under the ground, and you’re like, “Hey, whatever.” I don’t know. Bertrand SchmittYeah, it’s zero mark-to-market in an industry that should be relatively conservative. This is private credit. This is not VC, this is not startup, this is not equity, this is credit, so pretty scary. Another piece was like, some of them were supposedly senior on the debt, but they were not so senior after all, this is insane. You claim seniority, but you don’t have it.My point, I think what’s happening in private credit is maybe it all started with that what’s going on, a lot of software exposure. It’s risky because of AI, but the more investor dig into it, that’s when they started to realize that maybe there is more than just that software issue. I guess, all of this is going to be an issue for software business because if suddenly you cannot get loans anymore or the loans you add, you have to pay them back or when it’s time to pay them off, you cannot renew the loan. There is nobody else to turn yourself to get another loan to replace it. That’s not going to be fun and that’s going to impact your growth rates. That could potentially also even be worse than that, be dramatic for your own business survival. Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe now switching back to the positive part for the bull case. We think the market’s wrong, not fully, but wrong. The other side is still things move on. We’ve also had the same issues in credits in several industries in the past when markets imploded and credit came back. In some cases, it took a while. In other cases, it came back relatively quickly. One great analogy on making a bull case on why all of this stock that was sold was oversold, there’s too much stock being sold on SaaS and at prices that don’t make any sense is an analogy, precisely, for example, with retail. Amazon was going to destroy everyone their mother in 2010, and it did not. It was going to destroy Walmart. Walmart passed the $1 trillion market cap. Bertrand SchmittNot too bad. Nuno Goncalves PedroSo what happened? They adapted. They had huge advantages. They had huge advantages in terms of their customer base, presence, relationship with their suppliers, with the offerings they had, et cetera. They had huge advantages of economies of scale, and they leverage those advantages. And those advantages ultimately materialized in tremendous increase in revenue, tremendous increase in market capital as well.Amazon has done really well as well. It’s not like Amazon didn’t do well. Again, I think this notion, people sometimes have this difficulty in separating the notion of disruption from the notion of replacement. Disruption doesn’t mean necessarily full replacement. You can disrupt industries, disrupt players in that industry, and still those players will exist 10, 20 years later, and they’ll be much bigger because they adapted. The ones that don’t adapt may be killed.But the disruption doesn’t necessarily mean replacement or killing. It means just that effectively the rules of the game, the business model, which we already talked about, monetization models, the way that capital flows in that industry, et cetera, all of that shifts. It doesn’t mean that necessarily the existing players are not going to exist tomorrow. In some cases, they will exist and they’ll be even stronger tomorrow. Bertrand SchmittI think what’s happening is truly a disruption of the SaaS business model, of the SaaS valuations, of the SaaS analysis, because now you need a new prism to analyze it. What are the markets doing in the meantime? They are just dumping it, waiting for, “Okay, how do we look at it in a different way? Who are going to be the winners and the losers?” For now, we don’t care, they’re all losers. But I think that the next piece of the puzzle for us in this episode, but for the market is, how are we going to separate the wheat from the chaff? Who is going to survive? Who is going to more than just survive? Who is going to thrive in that new industry. Nuno Goncalves PedroThere I feel the ones that survive, there’s a couple of obvious ones we can go into. Two that immediately come to my mind are data infrastructure, the Snowflakes, Databricks of the world, because this is the underpinning of everything that’s happening around AI. I don’t see the data infrastructure fundamentally shifting right now. It might in the future, but right now I don’t see it fundamentally shift. Those guys have, if anything, tailwinds rather than headwinds.Then the other one that’s very obvious to me is cybersecurity, where I think AI is very additive to it rather than just necessarily replacing everything that exists. In some ways, that already been used for a while, certainly by the top players. Definitely, those are two immediate categories and areas that come to mind that have maybe more headwinds and tailwinds where really AI is adding rather than subtracting to it. Bertrand SchmittNo, I totally agree with you concerning data infrastructure, cybersecurity. You could argue if you take cybersecurity, that with the rise of AI attacks, with AI making it easier than ever to generate attacks, you better build up your security. Nuno Goncalves PedroWith AI? No, but you have to have AI on your side defending as well. The only way to defend AI is AI. Bertrand SchmittThat’s my point. Your cybersecurity vendors will become AI-enabled, will leverage AI at scale in order to defend you, else they won’t be able to defend you, just quite frankly. Nuno Goncalves PedroCorrect. Bertrand SchmittThat’s part of the game. Data infrastructure, no questions. Again, I don’t think you want to redo your infrastructure with brand-new tools, brand-new stuff is the current tools are working great and doing the job. Maybe another piece of the puzzle is that vertical SaaS, domain-specific tools, healthcare, manufacturing, if you have proprietary data, regulatory modes, it will be much harder for AI to disrupt quickly. If you are not disrupted quickly, you have more time to readjust your business model, to adjust your business model, to leverage AI to improve your business model.Again, of course, some companies, we have seen with Adobe, for instance, have not proven great skills at adjusting to AI. Not everyone is going to get out as a winner. I think some categories have better chance to actually not just survive, but potentially thrive. Another piece are systems of record. If you are holding proprietary non-scrapable data that AI needs to function, that you have deep switching costs protecting you, you are not going to disappear right away. I think you will probably survive. If you are smart enough, you might be able to even adjust and leverage AI.But I can see some might just stick to their revenues and hold companies hostage and might not innovate a lot. I guess we’ll do well on the short run, but on the medium to long I would definitely more worried. Nuno Goncalves PedroOne point I would like to make is at the end of the day, there’s more than that. The algorithmic methodologies you should use for specific industries, for specific verticals, for specific use cases could vary. We’re still very early in a lot of the application of some of these AI methodologies. We’re not early in the development of the research around them. They’ve been around for decades, but the application of them is still relatively early. I think that’s one of the advantages why vertical SaaS companies and vertical SaaS solutions right now might have an advantage, because the domain in which you’re operating, even algorithmically, is actually different, and you need to really right purpose it for those environments and for those domains.For me, that’s an important point to make. It’s not just any vertical SaaS. I think vertical SaaS, where there’s algorithmic distinctiveness, definitely has a shot at it. Other might not. We just saw a lot of discussions around legal tech and how legal tech got slaughtered with the launch of Claude Cowork, for example. Definitely, it will depend a little bit on the verticals. Bertrand SchmittTake the legal side. There has been some interesting decision recently where basically, if you use AI for legal advice, then this data, this discussion is not privileged. You are at big risk of discovery. There is a lot of issues that if you are working with real lawyers, will not be there. Your data is not discoverable, your discussion stay private, so it cannot be used against you. I think companies have to be very careful and very worried about how some of these tools are being used because it’s creating new risk. Some of these tools are not going to get privileged in the coming few months, I don’t think so.You could argue most of these companies in the first place claim a right to access your data and leverage it. I think that even in legal, it would be interesting to see how it evolved. AI will be able to claim some privilege at some point? Maybe, I don’t know. But on the short run, I can imagine how the legal profession, for instance, will not let it happen too quickly, and how you have to be very careful. It’s great to move fast, but you have to be careful with what is it that you are getting into. Nuno Goncalves PedroLet me guess, the last company you’re going to say or the last type of companies that you’re going to say are like the survive, thrive are AI-first or AI-native companies. Is that correct? Bertrand SchmittYeah, I guess. Yes. They are going to be less disrupted by AI, given that they’re already AI native. Nuno Goncalves PedroThey are AI. Bertrand SchmittWe are going into another territory. Even if you are AI-native, are you going to still get killed by Claude because you don’t have enough technology or ChatGPT because you don’t have enough technology? You are just that basic rapper around another AI tools. Here my perspective and what I share more and more with some entrepreneurs is you have to be careful if you are just an AI native company, but ultimately you are a very AI light in the sense that, yes, you are a native, but you are just reusing other LLMs and stuff, and you have not built any proprietary tech or moat with your data or in your industry. That’s going to be trouble. That’s going to be trouble.I’m not sure the market discriminated well enough at this stage, but I think there will be quickly some premium around, have you built a real technology mode? Are you really in such a situation that you are not going to get killed by a Claude or ChatGPT in a few weeks? I think there will be some discrimination that’s going to happen. Ai native won’t be enough to save you, basically. Nuno Goncalves PedroI think there’s one thing. One is what you’re saying. Is there fundamental technology differentiation and/or product differentiation that will sustain itself as a moat? The second thing is, even if it’s an AI app at a higher level, the reality is the guys that are in the market today, the OpenAIs, the Googles, the Anthropics, etc., they’re not going to address all use cases. There are places where some use cases will still exist. We saw that in the mobile app economy.In some of these use cases, you’d be like, why hasn’t, for example, Apple addressed the need for this kind of solution, whatever, and maybe it took them a decade to do it. Then, when they did it, they almost killed the market. But you have some of these AI apps that I think will still be in the market that will emerge and will address use cases that for some time, for some reason, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc., won’t go after. To Bertrand’s point, and I think importantly, if you’re an entrepreneur, if you’re writing on a very specific use case, and there’s seemingly a high likelihood that any of these players are going to address at some point, you’re not in a sustainable place. You’re not going to be around very long. Bertrand SchmittOr you have to take that initial leadership position and transform it into a deeper technology mode, a business mode. You have to leverage that first mover advantage, maybe, to something deeper than that, something more defensible. Maybe you pivot also in term of industry. You started in industry A, but you realize industry B is really the good one. You have to really optimize your way and not take anything for granted. Nuno Goncalves PedroBertrand, do you remember when it’s like every release of iOS and whatever, we were like, what industry is Apple going to kill now? What are they integrating? There was a period of time where it was literally like every big release, every major release, the yearly one, you’d be like, what industry are they going to kill now? Bertrand SchmittTotally. Totally. I think the same is happening. Definitely, we say AI, but I think some players have been smart enough to zigzag around that onslaught from Apple, from Google. But some will stay put. We think it’s not going to happen to them. Yes, they got into trouble pretty quickly. I think also what we have seen is that a lot of value could be from players who are simply more neutral and independent vis-à-vis a platform. If you need someone in the middle, your three or four mobile platform, or now your three or four LLMs or AI platforms, there might be value you can extract because companies are not… That’s another piece of the puzzle.You don’t want to just depend on Claude. You don’t know in three months, ChatGPT has a better model. You will want to make sure that whatever you are running can adjust to a change of LLM providers, for instance, or tool providers. I think, for instance, one position could be that mutual player, the one gives you the ability to adjust quickly to different technical AI development. We will see. But I think there are different strategies you can go through to make sure you end up not being killed, and that will require smart entrepreneurs. Nuno Goncalves PedroSeparating The Wheat From The Chaff — Who Survives?We talked about who survives, who doesn’t survive. Let me start with one. Or where I think will be categories that will be incredibly under attack, so a lot of players, I think, will disappear or will become very, very small. One obvious for me is anything that relates to the small, medium business markets, so very SMB-focused SaaS, a lot of regional SaaS stuff that has emerged, copycatting in certain markets because the larger players didn’t want to expand in some of those markets.I think a lot of that stuff gets just replaced because a lot of the SMB markets are price sensitive. A lot of these markets are also best effort-driven. It’s like it doesn’t need to be perfect, it just needs to do the basic stuff. Therefore, I see that market as a market that’s going to get, in all honesty, over the next 3-5 years, slaughtered. It’s not going to be rapid death, but some of them are just going to be totally replaced. Bertrand SchmittI agree with you. If you don’t have a big enough moat, if it’s very shallow, if your clients are moving quickly, you can easily switch based on a small price difference. That’s definitely trouble. Nuno Goncalves PedroI’ll let an anecdote just so people I don’t understand. Because people say, but these regional SaaS solutions normally because of their specificities to the markets and stuff like that, whatever. I literally drafted the other day an agreement, a semi-agreement relating to Portuguese law on Claude in Portuguese, from Portugal, not Brazil and Portuguese. It drafted an agreement from scratch based on my prompting, and it took into account specificities of the Portuguese legal system and taxation. Guys, it’s like, this is a freaking consumer tool. Localization of what? The tax regime and whatever? Who gives a shit? It’s like, again, I think that’s the market that definitely will get a pretty significant beating. Bertrand SchmittAnother market for me, we talk about Adobe, but content creation tools. Here, I think there is a dramatic shift in how you use them. Before you use another Photoshop to replace something in a picture, change a slightly picture stuff. Now, you just say, hey, remove this guy from the picture. Hey, replace. Hey, create that picture from scratch. I have five photo IDs, put these guys in context, put them in your meeting room, and go for it. This is such transformational versus how you used to work before that I think some of this industry is getting destroyed.There will be simply no point of using these tools anymore because something else is just 10X better. That is not even a question. You could argue there is still a niche of professionals doing stuff in an always because it guarantees a bit more higher quality or this or that. Sure. But overall, this is getting disrupted big time and the much bigger business might be totally new and totally AI native. Nuno Goncalves PedroI will do a parochial comment. We have two investments in the content creation space, one more on the marketing side and the other one more on the hardcore content creation side. They’re both AI from inception, so they’re both AI native. One of them is called LetsEnhance, the other one is called blaze.ai. I feel it’s true that there’s going to be a lot of replacement of some of the content creation tools in certain markets like consumer and prosumer, driven by the Nano Bananas of the world and all that stuff.But on the top end and in enterprise and all that stuff, we feel that AI native content creation tools are there to be. It’s actually one of the areas of what I would call use cases or AI apps/platforms where I feel being AI native will give you an advantage. Just being a cross-cut play around the market being Anthropic or OpenAI, whatever, actually won’t solve the problem for some of the markets that need to be served in. Bertrand SchmittMakes sense. I agree with you. Maybe more quickly, some point solutions, relatively high risk. If you have a single function tool, then could be easily replaced potentially by an AI agent. We already talk about it. If you are too SMB-focused, that’s not the best segment of the market, typically. Maybe you can have a single test to check if that company is at risk. If you were to replace that tool, can a $20 a month AI agent do this task? If switch it cost are low, then maybe that’s not a good business opportunity. Maybe you should not invest, or you should sell the stock.Again, maybe you have to focus more on regulated niches, hardware dependent, critical private data, solutions where there is already outcome or value-based pricing in place. You have to put some rules and analysis to help you understand, is this business at risk of significant disruption or not? Not all business are the same. As an investor, that might mean that there would be some good opportunities. SaaS businesses that are going to emerge even stronger right now are at a cheap discount. Nuno Goncalves PedroAbsolutely. I think at the end of the day, certain basic workflow tools that are out there to simplify CRM, some very basic ERP modules, anything that’s very, very simple in terms of if this then that, all those tools are also going to be slaughtered relatively soon, sadly. If you’re in that space, maybe time, as Bertrand was saying earlier, to pivot, to go after some fundamental differentiation, or to do something else. You want to conclude, Bertrand? Bertrand SchmittConclusionSure. I guess we could see that from a trade perspective, from an investor perspective. I think it’s creating quite genuinely some opportunities. Some stocks are in the bargain, some of those are value traps, so you better get your investment skills in order. PE, private credit, definitely a lot of risk, not just from AI, I think from basic fraud as well.Secondary market, as you just say, it’s not an easy one. It’s a canary in the coal mine. I think you will agree, but this is before getting between AI native versus everything else these days, especially if you are more early stage. A more established business, it’s a different thing. But right now, just starting a regular SaaS company, that’s a tough one. From an investor perspective, you need to pivot as fast as you can from seed-based pricing, hybrid, outcome-based, value-based pricing. You have to do the move quickly. You don’t want to be pushed when it’s too late.Build-versus-buy is real, and that will only accelerate as coding agents mature. Vertical specialization, proprietary data are strong moat. They were before as well, so it’s nothing new. But I think the importance of having a true moat is more critical than ever. Lots of companies have received investment with not enough moat, and that’s the one getting destroyed in the private and public market. If you have strong matrix, there is a question of when is a good time to exit? I don’t know if the relations will ever come back. I think it truly depends as well on your business, a strategic fit with acquisition opportunities.Anecdotally, I have seen some businesses who look at exit opportunities and now are finding attractive options. It’s not all that dark, I would say. Maybe to answer to the question, do we have a SaaS apocalypse? Yes and no. Some companies are going to end badly, some companies are going to emerge stronger. I think that’s it for today. Thank you, Nino. Nuno Goncalves PedroThank you, Bertrand.

Who dares to make predictions in the current landscape? We do!  Our Predictions are back. Will our track-record continue on a high or will we be fundamentally wrong? Listen in to our Predictions for 2026 Navigation: Intro What will 2026 be all about? AI, AI and … more AI The big Hardware movements Of Start-ups and VCs Regulatory & Geopolitical Headwinds… and the Wars Fintech, Crypto and Frontier Tech Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show:   Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Schmitt Introduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered Episode 74. That would be an episode about some predictions about 2026. What will be 2026 all about? I guess this year is probably starting with a bang. We saw the acquisition of xAI by SpaceX. We saw an acquisition from Grok by NVIDIA. What’s your take about what would be the big themes in 2026? I guess it would be for sure about AI and space. Nuno Goncalves Pedro What will 2026 be all about? Yeah. I predict a year that will be a little bit more of a year of reckoning in some way. There will be a lot of things that I think we’ll start seeing through. The fact that we are in the midst of an amazing transformational era for technology, the use of AI, but at the same time, obviously, a ridiculous bubble that is going alongside it as we’ve discussed in previous episodes. I think that we’ll start seeing some early reckonings of that, companies that might start failing, floundering, maybe a couple of frauds along the way, etc. I’ll tell you what I will not make many predictions about today, which is geopolitics. Geopolitics, I will not make predictions at all. Who the hell knows what’s going to happen to the world this year in 2026? I don’t dare making any predictions on that. Back to things where I would make predictions. I think on AI, we’ll have a little bit of reckoning. We’ll talk about it a little bit more in detail during this episode. Interesting elements around the hardware and physical space. Physical space, we just dedicated a full episode to it. We won’t go into a lot of details on that, but definitely on the hardware side, we’ll talk a little bit more about it. The VC landscape is going through an incredible transformation. We’ll talk about it today as well and some of our predictions for this year. What will happen to the asset class? It seems to be transforming itself dramatically. Obviously, that has a very direct impact on startups, so we’ll talk about that as well. And then to close a little bit the chapter on this, we will address some regulatory and geopolitical, let’s call it, headwinds without making maybe too many complex predictions. We shall see. Maybe by that time of the episode, we will be making some predictions. You guys should stay and listen to us, and maybe we will actually make some predictions about the geopolitical transformations that we will see this year in the world. Then last but not the least, we’ll talk about fintech, crypto, frontier tech, and a couple of other areas before concluding the episode. A classic predictions’ episode. We normally have a pretty good track record on some of these, but right now, the world is going a bit interesting, not to say insane. Bertrand Schmitt Yes, and going back to some news, Groq technically was not acquired, but, practically, it’s as if it got acquired. I’m talking about Groq, G-R-O-Q. The AI semiconductor company focused on inference AI, and it was late December. It was a way to end the year. This year, we started again with an acquisition of xAI by its sister company, SpaceX. I guess that’s where we are starting. AI, AI and … more AI We are going to start on AI. That’s definitely the big stuff. Everything these days, I guess, is about AI or has to have some connection with AI, or it doesn’t matter. I think every company in the world has seen that. You have to have the absolute minimum on AI strategy. You better execute on this strategy and show results, I would say. For the companies that were not AI native, you truly have to have a way to transform yourself. I guess at some point, the stretch might be too much, and it’s not really reasonable. Then you maybe better stay on what you are doing, especially if you’re in tech, you better be moving faster to AI. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Just to highlight, and I think throughout the episode, you’ll see that there’re obviously a lot of implications that would manifest themselves into capital markets. I mean, we’ll specifically talk about VCs and startups later on. But the fact that everything needs to be AI, the fact that there’s so much innovation happening right now, in my opinion, and this is maybe the first pre-topic to AI, is we’ll see a tremendous increase in M&A activity this year across the board. I mean, we’ve seen already some big acquihires we mentioned in some of our previous episodes, but we’ll see a lot more activity on M&A this year. Normally, that’s a precursor to the opening of capital markets. I predict also that there will be a reopening of the IPO market that never really reopened last year, to be honest. M&A, a lot more, reopening of the IPO market. Normally, it happens in the second or third quarter of the year. That’s what my M&A friends tell me. First quarter of year, everyone’s figuring out stuff. Then last quarter of the year, things should be more or less closed. Maybe the third quarter is the big quarter. We shall see. But definitely, as a precursor to our conversation today, I think we’ll see a lot of M&A, and we’ll see reopening of the IPO mark. Bertrand Schmitt I guess last year was not as big as you could expect on M&A given the tariff situation announced in April and May. I mean, it became quite tough to do IPO in such market conditions. Definitely, we can hope for something dramatically different in 2026. I guess talking about public markets and IPO, I guess the big one everyone is waiting for is SpaceX. SpaceX getting even more interesting with its xAI acquisition. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Do you think that because of the acquisition, it’s more likely that it will happen this year, or because of the acquisition, it’s less likely that it will happen this year? Bertrand Schmitt That’s a good question. My guess is the acquisition of xAI is all about xAI needing more financing and cheaper financing. This acquisition is a pathway to that. SpaceX being a much bigger company, a company that is also making much more revenues. I could bet that there is higher probability that, actually, SpaceX will go public in order to finance itself. At the same time, will it have enough time to prepare itself for the IPO given this acquisition just happened? Can they do that in 6 months? I mean, if anyone can do it, I guess it’s Elon Musk. It’s a strategy to present an even more attractive company with an even more interesting story, a story of vertical integration from AI to space. I guess the story as it’s presented itself right now, it’s one about having your AI data centers in space. Because in space, you have much better solar energy production with solar panels. You have a perfect cooling situation because you are in space. Thanks to Starlink, you have the mean to communicate between the satellites and with Earth itself. I think if someone can pull up a story like AI data center in space, I guess Elon Musk can. There is, of course, a lot of questions about is it practical? Is it economical? Yes. I certainly agree. I’m not clear on the mass, and can you make it work? Again, I mean, Elon Musk single-handedly, with SpaceX, managed to transform the space market on its head. I mean, they are the biggest satellite launching company in the world. They have the most satellites in the world. I mean, I’m not sure I would bet against him, and I guess I would probably believe that he could pull up something. Time frames, different story. The 2-3 years data center in space for AI as cheap as on Earth, I have more trouble with that one. I mean, it’s a usual suspect with Elon Musk. You promise something unachievable in a few years, but, ultimately, you still manage to reach it in 5 or 10. Again, I would not bet against the strategy. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yeah. I’ve talked to a couple of space experts, people that have launched rockets, and have worked JPL, NASA, and a couple of other places, etc. For what it’s worth, their feedback is, “No way in hell, and we’re decades away.” We’ll see. I mean, to your point, Elon has pulled very dramatic stuff. Not as fast as he normally says he’s going to pull it, but within a time span that we all see it. Difficult to bet against him. In terms of actually the prediction, maybe to respond to the prediction as well, will SpaceX IPO? I’m going to make a prediction that has a very high likelihood of missing the mark, but I think Tesla’s going to buy and merge them both into it. It’s going to become a public company through Tesla. That’s my hypothesis. Bertrand Schmitt No. That’s supposed to be it. That’s how you solve that. Nuno Goncalves Pedro And Elon controls the whole universe. X, xAI, Tesla, SpaceX, all under one umbrella beautifully run. And SolarCity is well in there, of course, so wonderful. Bertrand Schmitt That’s possible. Certainly, you are not the only one thinking Tesla will acquire or merge with SpaceX. To remind everyone, Tesla is around 1.3, 1.5 trillion market cap. Depending on the day, SpaceX seems to be valued at similar range, 1.2, 1.3 trillion. It looks like it’s the most valued private company at this stage. These are companies of similar size, so that’s one piece of the puzzle. When you think about the combined company, we could be talking about a 3 trillion entity. Playing right here with the biggest companies in the marketplace today. Nuno Goncalves Pedro With a couple of tweets from Elon, it will rapidly get to 4 to 5 trillion. Bertrand Schmitt That’s so tricky. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yes. On AI and back to AI, one thing I think that we’re about to see is this will probably be the year of agentic AI. Obviously, we predict a lot of growth on that side of the fence, in particular on the enterprise B2B side. We see a lot of opportunities coming through. From our perspective, at least at Chamaeleon, we generally believe that there’s going to be a lot of movements on agentic AI. It’s also going to be probably the year of the first big fails of agentic AI that will be newsworthy. There will be some elements about that loop and how it gets closed that will happen. I think we might see some scandals already. We’re already seeing the social network of bots talking to bots. We will see other scandals going on this year even in the consumer space and in the bot to bot space, which we now can talk about or in the AI agent to AI agent space. My prediction is we will see some move forwards. There’ll be some dramatic funding rounds along the way. We’ll see a couple of really cool things out of the gates coming out that are really impressive, but we’ll also see the first big misses of the technology stack. I don’t think we’ll go fully mainstream yet this year, so it’s probably maybe something more for 2027 along the way. That would be my prediction again. I think enterprise will lead the way. We’ll definitely see a lot of stuff on consumer as well that is cool. Then we’ll all have our own personal assistance in our hands, basically, literally in our phones. Bertrand Schmitt Going back to agentic AI, we also started the year with some pretty dramatic move. I mean, the launch of Clawdbot, renamed OpenClaw. I mean, this stuff took fire in like a week or 2. It was coded by just one person who actually didn’t even code the product but used AI to build the product, 100% used AI, proposing some new ways also to leverage AI to do coding. He has a pretty unique approach. It’s not vibe coding. I would say it’s a better way to do that. Then the surprising evolution with the launch of a social network for AI agents, Moltbook. I mean, this stuff, probably there is some fake in it. But at the same time, I think it’s quite impressive because it’s the first time we see truly 100,000 plus agents communicating directly to each other. Yeah. I mean, that’s the first time we see surfacing the possibility of some sort of hive mind on the Internet. It’s pretty surprising. Right now, all of this is a hack done in a few days. By end of year, by 2 years, 3 years, we might discover that, actually, the best approach to AI might not be the AI assistant like we are doing today, but a combination of hundreds of thousands of AI working closely together. We might be witnessing the first sign of new intelligence in a way. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Things like this social network might either be Skynet, the beginning of Skynet. They might be the beginning of Her, or they might just be a fad and nothing really happens. It’s just interesting to see what these agents are doing. Bertrand Schmitt Totally. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Obviously, there are real and clear and present dangers of some of the integrations of AI we’re seeing in the market. Interesting enough, and I’ll ask you for your prediction a bit, Bertrand. I think we’ll probably see the first big mishap of AI being used in some infrastructural decision in the age of AI. I mean, we’ve seen AI issues in the past and software issues in the past. We talked in previous episodes about that as well. Mishaps of software that have led to people dying. But I think probably the first big mishap will happen this year as well. Very public mishap of the use of AI and serve its interactions with infrastructure or something that’s very platform related, etc, that will have big impact that everyone will notice. That’s my prediction for the year as well. We’ll have the first big oops moment, as I would call it, for AI in this new age of full on AI. Bertrand Schmitt I would say first some perspective. I think today, people are not using AI directly for life and death decision, at least not that I’m aware. We’re not going to let AI fly a plane, for instance, tomorrow so you can be, reassured. At the same time, given there is such a race to AI, there definitely might be some mistakes. We were talking about the social network for AI agents, Moltbook. Apparently, all the keys used to secure the AI were shared by mistake because it was not properly locked down. We can see that indirectly, mistakes will be made for sure. Two, it’s highly probable that some people will trust AI too much to do some stuff, and this stuff might not work and might have some grave consequence. Hopefully, there is not so much of this. Hopefully, it’s mostly AI used for the good. But you’re right. I mean, at some point, the more we use the technology, the more there would be issue. I mean, it’s highly probable. Nuno Goncalves Pedro That will lead me to another prediction, which is, and we’ll talk about more of it later, but it probably will lead to the first significant movement in terms of regulatory environment certainly in the US at some point if it happens in the US in particular, where there will be some movement that will be like, “Hey, you guys can’t do this anymore.” Because this will probably emerge from mismanaged interfaces. From systems having access to stuff that they shouldn’t have access to in the first place. Talking a little bit more about what’s happening in AI. You’ve already mentioned some of the issues that relate actually to security and cybersecurity. We keep talking about AI. We keep talking about all these infrastructure pieces and platforms that are being built. I think we’ll have a lot more incidents like the one you just mentioned where things will be shared that shouldn’t have been shared, where people will break systems and get into it, etc. Let’s see where that takes us, which is a little bit ironic because, obviously, with AI, the promise is that cybersecurity becomes more robust as well because there’re agents working on our behalf on the cybersecurity side. There’s also agents working on the other side. Bertrand Schmitt It’s a constant race. It’s the attackers, defenders. Each time you have new technology, you have a new race to who is going to attack or defend the best. Each new wave of technology, it’s an opportunity to challenge the status quo. Nuno Goncalves Pedro The attackers have been winning, and I feel they’ll continue winning in 2026. I think it’s going to still be a year of attack. We’ll see more and more breaches, more and more stuff that will happen. Bertrand Schmitt I don’t know if they will win. I mean, it’s normal that they win once in a while. For sure, some infrastructure is not updated as it should. Some stuff are not managed as it should, so there will always be breaches. I don’t know if things are dramatically going to change because, again, everyone who cares who is going to update his infrastructure with AI for defense. There is no question that you have no choice. We will see. That I don’t know. For sure, AI will be used to attack directly with AI. Maybe you’re able to do bigger, larger scale attack. Or thanks to AI, you are simply able to create new type of attacks more easily. AI can be used behind the scene as a way to prepare and organise new type of attacks, even if it’s not used directly live in the battle. Nuno Goncalves Pedro One topic that we’ll come back to later is the geopolitics of everything, but maybe more broadly. On the geopolitics of AI, it’s very clear that we have an arms race going on. Obviously, the US on the one hand, China on the other hand is the two extremes, putting tremendous amount of capital into data centers just at the base of that infrastructure. Chipset development, chipset access, a huge theme in terms of the export restrictions, etc, that are being forced by the US. I think it will continue. From a European standpoint, obviously, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place, to be very honest. Let’s see what happens on that side of the fence. My view of the world is that certainly from a US and China perspective, we’re going to see a lot more movements in 2026, like big movements. The Chinese movements we always see in delay.  It takes us a couple of months, sometimes even more than that to understand exactly what’s going on. I think we’re going to see some huge moves this year in terms of the States, the United States of America, and China really pouring capital into the creation of the next big winners around AI. I think the US is obviously more visible. We see a lot of these companies. We’ve just discussed xAI and its acquisition by SpaceX or merger. I don’t know what they’re calling it exactly. Effectively, on the China side, the movements I think are already very big. As I said, it will take a while to figure out exactly what those moves are. One thing that I propose is that at some point, China will have very little dependency on chipsets from the US. I’m not sure it’s going to happen this year, but I think the writing is on the wall. Irrespective of any other geopolitical issues that is coming to the fore at this moment in time. That’s one of the key areas or in arenas of fight. Bertrand Schmitt It makes sense. If you are China, you will look at what happened. You would think that you cannot just depend on the largest of one country. It makes rational sense, the same way it makes rational sense for the US to limit exports to China because there is value to delay some peer pressure that could use these technologies for good but also for bad. If you were an ally of the US, that would be one thing. But when you are not an ally of the US, that certainly should be a different perspective. Maybe one last point concerning agents, I think there will be a lot that will revolve around coding. We can see OpenAI with Codex. We can see Cloud with code. There was, of course, [inaudible 00:18:28] that was trying to be big on agentic coding. I think agentic coding was one of the big transformation in 2025 and is going to get bigger in 2026. I think for a lot of people who do coding, there was a radical transformation in terms of what you can achieve, what you can do, how much you can trust AI to help you code. I start to think we might see this year, the replacement of not just one AI replace one coder, but one AI replace a full team because of the new ability to manage that at scale. Coding might be a common activity where you are going to think about outcomes, think about objective, think about how you organise, but not really coding by itself anymore. A big change, like you used to code, directly your hand on the stuff, but step by step, everyone is going to become a manager of agent. I think in one year, we saw enough transformation to think that in the coming year, the transformation can be even more dramatic. Nuno Goncalves Pedro The big Hardware movements Now switching gears to hardware. Obviously, a lot of movements in 2025 and over the last few years. One piece of thesis that we’ve had long-standing at Chamaeleon is that we will see the emergence of AI devices. Some of them have been tremendous failures as we discussed in the past. I predict that we’ll have a couple of really interesting full stack AI devices in the market this year. Why does that matter? Because, as many of you know, obviously, there’s compute that can happen in data centers and cloud infrastructure all over the world, but also there’s compute that can happen at the edges. The more you can move to the edges and the more you can create devices that actually allow you to have user experiences that are very distinctive at the edge, the more powerful some of these devices might become. I predict Apple will not be the first to launch anything on this. I predict probably OpenAI, after the acquisition of IO, will maybe not launch something this year, but will announce something this year. I’ll step back on that prediction. They’ll announce something this year, but maybe not launch. But we’ll start seeing some devices that have some interesting value in the market, probably devices that are AI devices, but they are very focused on very specific user flows, and so very much adequate to specific activities. I won’t make a prediction on that, but I think areas that would make sense for that to happen would be obviously around fitness, health, et cetera, et cetera, where we already have the ascendancy of products like Oura Ring and others out there. Definitely, that’s one area that might have quite a lot of developments. I think AI-first devices, devices that are very focused on compute at the edges, providing user flows that are AI-enabled to end users, we’ll see a lot more of that and a lot more activity this year. Again, I don’t think Apple will be necessarily ahead of the game. Again, maybe OpenAI will give us something to at least think about and look forward to. Bertrand Schmitt First, I’m not sure it will be that transformational because if it’s not in your phone, in your pocket, there is only so much you can do with it, and there is only so much computing power you will have. I’m doubtful it would be really impactful this year. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I feel we’ve been discussing this shift of paradigm in input and output. For me, some of these devices could lead to that shift. Because, again, a mobile phone is not a great long-term paradigm for the usage that we have because it’s really constrained by the screen. The screen is really what takes most of the battery life away. If we didn’t have that screen, what could we do? If we have the block that is as big as a mobile phone, and it didn’t have a screen, it was just compute, that’s a mini computer, a microcomputer. Bertrand Schmitt That’s a fair point, but I don’t see that transformation this year. That’s really more my point. I can see that you can have AI-enabled smart glasses, and it’s clear there is a race to AI-enabled smart glasses. My point is more to go beyond the gadget, it would take quite a while. It would need to have cameras. It would need to analyse what you see. It would need to hear what you hear. Again, it might come, but then at some point, it would be okay, what do you do with it? We have the example of the movie Her. That’s showing Her what it could be. There are definitely possibilities. It’s clear that if you take the big VR headset like the Apple Vision Pro, there is a failure from that perspective in the sense that I think it’s a great, amazing device. The big problem is that it’s doing way more that makes sense. I think there will be a clearer separation between your smart AR glasses that has to be light, that has to be always unconnected, and that’s primarily there to help you make sense of the world around you. The true VR headset that doesn’t really require much in terms of AI, and it’s just there to immerse you in a different world. For this, we know, unfortunately, in some ways, that there is not a lot of demand for it. Maybe there is little demand because you are too hidden in your own world. The technology is not working well enough yet. There are a lot of reasons. But I think Apple trying to do both at the same time, AR and VR, with the Vision Pro, was a pretty grave structural mistake. I think we would see a clearer line of separation between the two. There is bigger market opportunity for AR glasses. That, I certainly agree. There is opportunity to connect that to a computing device. As you talk about, your glasses are your screen, your phone becomes something in your pocket connected to your glasses. Nuno Goncalves Pedro For me, Apple has their way of doing things. From the perspective of what you said, they normally really plan their devices. Even if it’s a big shift in terms of a new area, like they tried with the Vision Pro, and we criticised them for launching it as a device that should have been more of a dev device that they really launched as a full-on device, but that’s their playbook, classically. I think Apple needs to change how they put products out and how they experiment with those products, et cetera. I think they have enough money to be doing everything all the time and figuring it out. If they don’t want to put it out, then they need to do a lot more hell of testing internally with their silos, but they should be playing across all these arenas, VR, AR, everything. They just should put devices out that are either ready for prime time, or they should call it something else. They should call it like this is a dev device or whatever it is. Bertrand Schmitt I agree with you. My complaint is more that it was marketed as a consumer device when it was not. It was a true developer device. Two, they tried to mix the two at once, and it made no sense. No one is going to walk in their home or in the street with their Vision Pro on their head. You have to be deranged, quite frankly, to have use cases like this. I think that for me is a crazy mistake from a company like Apple that prides itself in pure UI, pure user interface, very well-designed device for one specific use case, not mixing the two use cases. We still don’t have Macs with a touchscreen, you know?  We still don’t have an iPad with a good OS that makes use of this great hardware. For some strange reason, they decided to mix everything in the Vision Pro with a device that weighs a ton on your head and is so uncomfortable. That’s why, for me, I’m like, “Guys, what is wrong? Why did you let this team run crazy?” I hope at some point, Apple will go back to the drawing board. My understanding is that that’s what they are doing. They are going to have two devices, one smart glasses, an evolution of the Vision Pro, just focus on VR. They might actually abandon the concept of the pure VR-oriented headset. Because, from a market size perspective, it might not be big enough for Apple, quite frankly. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I read on all of the above, and people at this point was like, “Why are then players like Samsung and others not doing it. LG, et cetera?” Because those players historically have not invented new categories. They’re amazing at catching up once the category is invented, and then they scale the hell out of it, and that’s what these companies have been exceptional at. I wouldn’t see a dramatic innovation, I think, in terms of devices coming from any of the big ones on that side of the fence. Not to disrespect them in any way, but I think that’s not been their playbook ever. Again, if the origination doesn’t come from a start-up or from an Apple, I don’t see those guys going after it. My bet is that we’ll see some start-up activity and, again, hopefully, some announcement from IO now within the OpenAI world. Bertrand Schmitt I would slightly disagree with you. I see where you are coming from. But take the Samsung Galaxy Note, that sudden much bigger headphone that no one was doing that was launched by Samsung, at some point, it forced Apple to launch an iPhone Max. Let’s look at the Z Fold that Samsung launched 7 years ago, copied by everyone. Now Samsung launching a trifold. Apple has still not launched their foldable phone. I think there is a mix, actually, of sometimes- Nuno Goncalves Pedro For me, that’s not a proper new category. It’s still a mobile phone. It just happens to have a screen that folds in half. Bertrand Schmitt The iPhone was still a mobile phone, you could argue.  Nuno Goncalves Pedro No. I think the iPhone was…  I could actually agree with you on that point. Maybe Apple is not as innovative in that case. I think what Steve Jobs was exceptionally good at in terms of his ability as this master product manager was to be an exceptional curator of user flows and user experiences, and creating incredible experiences from devices based on that. That was his secret sauce. Could you say, “Wasn’t all of this stuff already around?” It was. You just put it all together very neatly and very nicely. But if you’re talking about significant shifts in how a category is done, the iPhone was a significant shift in how the category was done. The Fold is still an interesting device. I actually have a Fold right now in front of me. The 7 that you highly recommended to me that we both got, the Z Fold 7. I think they do amazing devices. I don’t think they normally are the most innovative players. Then, when they come to innovation, it comes from technology edges. Obviously, they have Samsung Display, there’s a bunch of other things. They had the ability to do foldable screens in-house themselves. Bertrand Schmitt I don’t disagree with you. I think there is an interesting situation where some companies have some strengths, another one has some strengths. My worry with Apple is that this was not demonstrated with the Vision Pro. The Vision Pro was a hot pot of technologies barely integrated together, with use cases absolutely not well-defined and certainly not something that makes sense for most of us. There is a question of has Apple lost it? While Samsung actually keeps doing their own stuff, that, yes, might be more minor improvements, but at least they are doing it. Because it looks like Apple is missing the train on even the minor improvements. By the way, you might not be aware, but Samsung launched its Vision Pro competitor. Interestingly enough, it might be a better product in some ways, being much lighter and much more comfortable. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We should play around with that and report back to our listeners. Of Start-ups and VCs Moving to venture capital and the startup ecosystem and what’s happening there, I think it is very much a bifurcated environment, and it’s bifurcated for both VCs and for startups. If you’re a startup in the AI space, and you have the hottest team since sliced bread, and you can create FOMO at the speed of light, you can raise ridiculous rounds. Five hundred million at the $3 billion, or $4 billion, or $5 billion valuation, and you still haven’t really even started. First round, you can raise 500 million. That’s back to the whole discussion on Bubble and where are we, et cetera. Some of these companies might actually become huge, some of them might not. But definitely, we are seeing really the haves and have-nots on the startup ecosystem with incredible teams raising a lot of money very, very early on or mid-stage if they’ve already existed for a while, and then the rest not being able to raise. We see a lot of non-necessarily AI sectors, some of the areas of SaaS that don’t necessarily have AI in it, or fintech, or the consumer space that are really, really struggling. If you don’t have an AI story for your startup right now, it’s extremely difficult to raise money unless your numbers are just the best numbers ever. That’s, I think, the first part of the element of bifurcation that we’re seeing today. The second element of bifurcation that we’re seeing today in terms of fundraising is for VCs themselves, and really propelled by the large VC firms raising more and more capital in recent orbits, announcing 15 billion across funds raised. Lightspeed, I think, had made an announcement a couple of weeks ago as well. They’ve raised a bunch of money as well. The big guys are all raising a lot of money. At some point in time, the question some of you might ask is, “These VCs are redeploying more and more money if they have a couple of billion for a VC fund. How does that look like? Is that still VC?” My perspective, I’ve shared before in some of our previous episodes, is that that’s no longer venture capital. At that point in time, we’re talking about something else. Private equity hedge funds, if you want to call them, maybe funds that are really driven by growth investment or late-stage investment. If you have a couple of billion under management, you’re not going to make your returns by writing a $3 million check in a series seed and leading that round.  That has implications for everyone in the ecosystem. It has implications for smaller funds that obviously have a lot more difficulty in raising capital. It’s difficult to differentiate. Last but not least, also for startups that really continue searching for that capital that is out there. Andreessen Horowitz, for example, runs Speedrun, which is a great program for companies around consumer in particular. Initially, it was a lot for gaming. But at some point in time, Andreessen Horowitz could decide that they don’t want to invest more in you. They just put money from Speedrun, which is obviously a very small check compared to the very large checks they could write mid to late stage and that will have an effect on you as a startup. What happens at that point in time if Andreessen Horowitz is not backing you up in later stages? More than that, what happens if I can’t get these big funds interested in me? Are the small funds still valuable to me? Punchline, my view is yes. Obviously, we’re a smaller fund, so there’s parochial interest in what I’m saying. Small funds can still create a ton of value for you, also in terms of credibility, ability to accompany you in those first stages of investment, and the ability to bring other larger investors later down the road as well. There’s definitely a big movement happening in terms of the fundraising for VC funds, which we shouldn’t neglect, which is the big guys are raising a lot more capital and are therefore emptying the market to smaller funds that are having more and more difficult raising at this point in time. We had discussed that there would be a need for concentration in the industry, that micro funds would need to concentrate, and we didn’t have the space for so many micro funds as we had around. But the way it’s happening is extremely dramatic at this moment in time. I think it will continue through 2026. Bertrand Schmitt Remember a few years ago, with the rise of AI, there was more and more of the question about, “What’s the point of SaaS at this stage?” Because SaaS was around for 15 years. Basically, how do you come up with something new that was not already tested, validated by the market? How do you bring something new? We say this was reinforced to the power of 10. If your product is not clearly built from the ground up for a new use case enabled by AI, anyone could then might have built your product 5, 10 years ago, and therefore, why now has no clear answer, and it’s a big problem. I’m still surprised myself to still see some entrepreneurs where you talk to them about AI because you don’t see them in the deck, and they explain to you, “It’s not yet there,” and you’re like, “What’s wrong with you guys?” Fine. Do whatever you want. Do a small business and whatever, but don’t think you can come up pitch and raise without an AI story. The second category is people who come with an AI story, but you can feel very quickly, I guess you saw that many times, Nuno, where just a story layered on top with little credibility. It’s not better. It’s not enough to just have a story. Your business needs to be radically built differently or radically proposing some brand-new use cases that were impossible to solve 5 years ago. Nuno Goncalves Pedro To stack up on that, absolutely in agreement. If you’re just adding to the story, and it’s an afterthought, and you’re just trying to make the story somehow gel, once you go into one or two layers of due diligence, your investors will very quickly realise that you’re not really AI-first or dramatically AI-enabled or whatever. It’s just you’re sort of stacking something on top of another thesis. It needs to make sense from the product onwards. It’s not just, let’s just put it together with chewing gum, and magically, people will give you money. It was true also if we remember the good old crypto blockchain days, where everyone’s investing in crypto. A lot of stories that didn’t make much sense. In that sense, it’s not very different. I would go one step further. I think in the world of the VC winter that we’re a little bit in, where it’s more and more difficult if you’re a smaller fund to raise your fund at this moment in time, there’s a lot of sources of distinctiveness still talked about, like proprietary networks, access to deal flow, fast track record, all that stuff that really, really matters. But our bet continues at Chamaeleon continues being that you need to be AI-first as a VC fund yourself. You need to have core advantages in using not only readily-available AI tools or third-party available AI tools, data sources, technology stacks, but actually building your own stack over time, which is what we did with Mantis at Chamaeleon. Again, just to reinforce that, I think we’re at the beginning of that stage. We, Chamaeleon, are ahead of the game, but we think that the rest of the market will have to move towards that as well. Still, to be honest, very surprising to me to see that many significant large players are doing very little still around some of these spaces. They have data scientists. They’re running some tools. They’re running some analysis and all that stuff, but it’s still, again, back to the point I was making for startups, all glued up with chewing gum. It doesn’t all come together nicely, which it does need to from a platform standpoint. Bertrand Schmitt It’s quite surprising. I agree with you that some VC funds might think that they can do business as usual in that brand-new world. It’s difficult to believe. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Maybe moving a little bit toward the capital formation piece. We already discussed the M&A space really accelerating. We’ve also discussed the IPO market and some predictions on that. Secondaries, there’s obviously a lot of liquidity coming from secondaries from mid to late stage. I think it will continue throughout the rest of 2026. A lot of activity in buying, selling in secondaries as some asset managers are becoming more distressed, as some very high net worth individuals and family offices are becoming more distressed as well, at the same time, where there’s a lot of opportunities to potentially arbitrage around some investments. I believe a lot of money will be made and lost this year by decisions made this year, just to be very, very clear in terms of equity, purchases, et cetera. Exciting year ahead of us. Definitely a very, very interesting market ahead of us. Secondaries, M&A, growth, and late-stage investing, also, early-stage investing will continue just for those that were wondering. Last but not least, the public markets, the IPO market as well. Bertrand Schmitt One of the big questions for the IPO market would be, will SpaceX go public? Would it be good for the startup ecosystem? Because suddenly that they go public, it would be to raise money. If they raise money, will there be any money left for anybody else? That would be an interesting test of the market. For sure, it would be proof that market are risk on financing a new IPO like this one. Or as you said, maybe there is no IPO, and it’s a merger with Tesla. Time will tell. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Regulatory & Geopolitical Headwinds… and the Wars Moving maybe to our topic of regulation and geopolitical headwinds, as we’re seeing … definitely not tailwinds. The Google antitrust verdict and, obviously, the remedies are expected to come forward now, and a lot of people are saying, “There are some risks of structural separation.” What do you think? Is it cool, but nothing will happen in the end dramatically? Alphabet or Google? I’m not sure, actually. It’s Google LLC. I think that’s the case. It’s The United States versus Google LLC. Bertrand Schmitt I’m not sure. Personally, I’m not a big fan. I think there needs to be a better way to manage some anticompetitive behavior. I’m not a big fan. There was this temptation to do that for Microsoft 25 years ago. Look at what happened. No one needed to buy Microsoft to leave space for others. I see the same with Google, and I guess they are happy to not be the number 1 in AI today, but to have an open AI in front of them. Even if they are doing a great job, by the way, to move forward and go faster and faster. Personally, quite impressed now with some of what they have released. Gemini 3 is doing great from my perspective. I’m not a big fan of this. I think to be clear, it’s important that bigger companies don’t behave anticompetitively, but at the same time, we need to find the right approach where it’s not about breaking these companies, and it’s also not about forbidding them to do acquisitions. Because then you end up with what NVIDIA just did with a $20 billion acquihire IP licensing type of acquisition, because they didn’t want to have the uncertainties. They didn’t want to wait 1–2 years in order to acquire the people and the technology, so they organised it in a different way. But I don’t like that. I think they should be able to acquire companies without facing so much uncertainty. To be clear, it’s not new. Uncertainty when you are Google, NVIDIA, or others, it happens. It has happened for a decade plus, 2 decades. I think there needs to be, for sure, some safety valves. At the same time, we want an efficient capital market. An efficient capital market need companies that can acquire other companies. If you don’t do that efficiently, it will be worse for the entrepreneurs, it will be worse for the investors, it will be worse for everybody. I think we have not reached a good equilibrium from my perspective. We need more efficient acquisition process. And at the same time, we need to also enforce faster anticompetitive behavior. Because what you talk about concerning Google, this is a case that was what? That is 10 years old. You see what I mean? This is way too long. If you’re a startup, you are dead by then. It’s like the story of Netscape facing Microsoft. They were dead long after the fact. I think we need a different approach. I’m not sure the best answer. I’m not sure we’ll get a better approach. There are probably too many vested interest. My hope is that it will get better with this current administration because, certainly, the past administration was very anti acquisition and efficient markets. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We’ve talked about the European Union AI Act a bunch of times, so I don’t want to spend too many cycles on that. The only effect that I would say is we are seeing in very slow motion the splitting of the Internet. I once had Tim Berners-Lee, by the way, shouting at me that we were going to break the Internet when we were applying for the .mobi top-level domain. I was part of that consortium that eventually did get the .mobi top-level domain, and I had him shouting at us. But, apparently, this is going to split the Internet, Tim. So in case you’re listening. Because it will create all these different rules. If your data is relating to consumers there, then it’s treated in a different way, and The US is… Well, obviously, we have the case of California with its own rules and laws. I don’t know. I feel we’re having a moment of siloing that goes beyond economic and geopolitical siloing. It will also apply to the digital world, and we’ll start having different landscapes around it. We’ll see how this affects global expansion of services, for example, around AI, particularly for consumer, but I don’t foresee anything dramatically positive. Recently, we had the whole deal around TikTok finally having a solution for their US problem where there’s now a US conglomerate magically that owns it. The conglomerate doesn’t magically own it, they just straight up own it for the US. But it was driven by many of these concerns around data ownership. Where’s the data? Where is it based? I think a lot of other concerns that have to do with the geopolitics of China, obviously, being the basis of ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, that still is a significant owner, by the way, in TikTok in US. Then also the interest in the economics of making money out of something as powerful as TikTok, to be honest, in The US. Just to be clear, I don’t think this was all about the best interests of consumers. It was also about money. Just follow the money. Bertrand Schmitt There are for sure, some powerful interest at play. But let’s be clear. I think one is data, as you rightfully said, but the other one is algorithm. It’s not as if China is authorising any competitor on its territory. They have blocked access to most of the Internet platforms from the US, either finding new rules or just trade blocking them. So I don’t think it’s fair competition. You don’t want some of that data in China about the US or European consumer. Three, it’s about the algorithm. If suddenly, you are a foreign power, and you can as we know in China, you better follow what’s required of you from the Chinese Communist Party. You cannot take a chance with influencing other stuff like elections in other countries. It’s fair from the US perspective. One could even argue it’s fair from a Chinese perspective to want that. I think the only one in the middle who doesn’t really know what they want is Europe because on one side, they want to benefit from American platforms, on the other end, they want to have some controls. On the other end, they don’t create the environment for startups to flourish. So in that weird situation where they have to accept some control by the big US providers and either provider of underlying infrastructure or provider of consumer business facing services. Then they try to regulate them. But I think they are misunderstanding the power relationship, and I think some of this regulation would get some blowback, at least by the current administration. Just, I believe, this morning, there was some news around X being under a criminal investigation in France. This is not going to end well for the French startup and VC ecosystem. This is not going to end well for France and Europe when you depend so much from your American friends. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Regulation will be weaponised. Regulation constraints around exports, all of this will be weaponised geopolitically, and the bigger guys will normally win. I think that’s normally what we’ve seen. Just on TikTok just to… And you guys, if you’re listening to us, just see if you see a pattern here, but obviously, 19.9% still owned by ByteDance of the TikTok entity in the US. It was initially said that 80% of the TikTok entity is owned by non-Chinese investors. Initially, people were saying US investors, and then they changed it to non-Chinese because MGX, I think, has 15% of it. MGX is based in the UAE, connected obviously to Mubadala, the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund. Silver Lake is in there, I think, with 15% as well. Oracle as well with 15%. Those three are the big bucket owners together, 45%. Silver Lake having collaborated with MGX before, and I’m sure a lot of connectivity there. Then you still see a pattern in this in terms of shareholders. If you don’t, then just Google it. Dell Family Office, Vastmir Strategic Investments, which is owned by billionaire Jeff Yass, Alpha Wave Partners, obviously involved with a bunch of things like SpaceX and Klarna, Virgoli, Revolution, which is Steve Case’s, a former founder of AOL, is also in there. Meritway, which is managed by partners, I think, of Dragonair. Vinova from General Atlantic, an affiliate of General Atlantic. Also, NJJ Capital, which I believe is Xavier Nil, the French billionaire that founded Iliad. Mostly American, I think, if the math is correct. 80% non-Chinese, which was what mattered, I think, in many cases. But do see if you saw a pattern in most of those investors. I won’t say anything more than that. Maybe moving to other topics, maybe just to finalise on regulation and geopolitics. In geopolitics, we should talk about wars if we predict anything. Not that we are nasty and one want to be negative, but what the hell is going on? Will we have ending to the wars we already have ongoing or not? But before that, the struggles on the App Stores, I think, will continue both for Apple and for Google Play Store. The writing’s on the wall, the EU keeps pushing it dramatically and Apple keeps just doing stuff. I’m on the board of an App Store company. Apple just creates all these things that basically make you not really… It doesn’t work. You can’t provision then an App Store on Apple devices. On iPhones, et cetera. We’ll see how that will continue going, but I feel the writing’s on the wall. Both Apple and Google will have to open up a bit more of their platforms. I’m not sure it will have a huge impact in the medium to long term, but definitely we need to see more openness in access to apps as given by the two big platform owners, Apple and Google, out there. Bertrand Schmitt Let’s be clear. Google is way more open than Apple. We both have Android devices. You can install alternative app stores. It’s a different ballgame by very far. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Google does other nasty stuff. It’s public. You can check which board I’m a part of. You can see what that company has done towards Google over time. But to your point, yes. It is true that Google has been more open than Apple, but Google has done their own things. Just to be very clear, so I’ll just leave that caveat bracketed there for people to think about it and maybe read a little bit about it as well. Bertrand Schmitt I can say that, me, from my perspective, that path of total control that Apple has been going through on all their devices, that includes macOS, pushed me to, over the past 2, 3 years, to completely live and abandon the Apple ecosystem. I just couldn’t accept that level of control, that golden handcuff approach of the Apple ecosystem, each their own obviously, they are golden, their handcuffs, but they are still handcuffs. Personally, that pushed me way more to Linux, Android, Windows, back to Windows after all these years. I just couldn’t stand it anymore. I want to pick my devices. I want to pick what I install on them, and I don’t want to be controlled like this by just one entity for all my tech devices. For me, at some point, it was just not acceptable anymore. It’s still very warm, very golden handcuffs, but for me, they were just handcuffs at this stage. Yes, what they are doing with the App Store is very typical of that mindset. I think it’s quite sad because I think it started with good intention in some ways. “We need a new computing paradigm, we need to make things smoother and safer,” but it has really become a way to control your clients. For me, it has reached a point where it’s just way too much. Nuno Goncalves Pedro There’s obviously the great power comes great responsibility that uncle Ben told Spider-Man or Peter Parker. But there’s also with great power comes shitload of money, and control. So it’s like, “Yeah. Should we open the server? Do we want to delay opening it up?” “Yeah.” Anyway, it is what it is. Maybe let’s end on the more difficult note of the episode, which is going to be around wars. What’s our prediction? Will we have an end to the Gaza situation with Israel? Will we have an end to Ukraine and, obviously, Russia? What will happen in Iran? Those are the three big, big conflicts right now. Then, obviously, if we want to add just bonus points, what’s going to happen to Greenland, and what’s going to happen to Taiwan, and what’s going to happen to Venezuela? Let’s throw the whole basket in there. We’ve never had like… Let’s talk about all these territories and all these countries. At some point in time, I’m saying this in a light manner, but it’s obviously more tragic than it should be light, and people are dying, and there’s a lot of implications of all of that that is happening right now. Do you have any predictions, Bertrand, for this year? Bertrand Schmitt No. It’s tough to predict on an individual basis. I think on a more bigger picture basis is on one side, obviously, the rise of China on one side. You have also the rise of other countries like India, while very indirectly connected to some of these conflicts are still part of the game, buying oil from Russia, for instance. At the same time, I think overall, the US is more clear about with the sheriff in town. I think it’s good because in some ways, you cannot pay for the goods, you cannot have such a massive advantage versus nearly every other country on earth and just not be clear about who is the boss in some ways. As a result, what are the rules of the game and how it should be played? The US is not alone, obviously, you have China, you have Russia, you have India, you have Europe. You have different other countries. But at some point, it’s not good when countries are not rational and are not clear. I think I prefer the current situation where things are more clear and where you have to assume responsibilities about what you are doing. It’s time to be rational again about how the world behave. Yes, the concept of power and balance of power. I think there has been that dream, maybe mostly coming from Europe, about the end of history. I think that’s simply not the case. It’s not the end of history. It’s still about the balance of power. It has always been about the balance of power. If you are dumb enough to think it was not about that anymore, I just have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. I don’t have specific prediction, but I think it’s clear there is a new sheriff in town. There is a new doctrine about the Western Hemisphere that has been in some ways resurrected on the [inaudible 00:51:35] train, and I think we’ll see more of it. I think at this point, the biggest question is for the Europeans. What do they want to do? Because right now, their position of being a dwarf militarily while being a pretty big giant economically, I don’t think it works. Nuno Goncalves Pedro I agreed on everything that you said. I do have predictions. I’ll stick a flag on the ground just with my predictions. Bertrand Schmitt Good luck. Nuno Goncalves Pedro They are mostly positive. I do think we’ll see an end or, for the most, end to the two big conflicts, the one in Gaza and the one in Ukraine. I think Ukraine will end up in readjustment of territory and splitting between Russia and the Ukraine, but the end of hostilities, I think that we will see an end to the conflict in Gaza also with a readjustment on what that will mean for the Palestinian territories and the Palestinians in general. That I’m not sure, but I feel that there will be an end to those two big conflicts. Iran, I have no clue. I will not put a stick on the ground that I have no clue. There are so many things that could go wrong there. I’ve been reading some really interesting thoughts about even some aggressive thoughts that this might be the time to really change regimes in Iran and for the US to have a bit more of an aggressive stance. I really don’t have a perspective. Obviously, there’s a lot at stake there. Then, if we talk about the other parts, Greenland, I will not opine too much on. Maybe we’re done for now. Maybe there’ll be some other concessions to the US that weren’t already there in the ’50s. Taiwan, I won’t bet either. I’m sad to say I think it might happen at some point in time, but I’m not sure when and what would drive it. Last but not the least, Venezuela is my only really negative prediction. I feel it will continue to be a significant dictatorship as it was before managed enough by other people with the difference now that it has a tax to be paid to the US in the form of oil of some sort, etcetera, and maybe gas, maybe other things as well that it didn’t have before. That’s probably my most negative prediction for the coming year on the geopolitical side. Bertrand Schmitt Without going into detail, I would mostly agree with what you shared. At least that makes sense. But as we know, it’s not always what makes sense, but what might happen. I can tell you 100% I would not have guessed this operation against Maduro. This was so well done, well executed, and shocking at the same time that it’s… I think it shows that it’s hard to guess some of this stuff because there are certainly some new ways to wage limited war, for instance. So it’s certainly interesting, and we certainly need to get used to pretty bombastic statements. But for Venezuela, I don’t think it can be worse than what it was before. I’m probably more optimistic that gradually it can get better. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Just to put perspective on why we’re not making predictions on some of these elements, I think this is a funny story, but I was in Madeira. Actually, first time I was in Madeira, although I’m originally from Portugal. I’ve never been to the islands. Obviously, as you guys know, or some of you might know, there’s a lot of connection between Madeira and Venezuela. There’s a lot of immigration from Madeira Islands to Venezuela. One of my Uber or Bolt drivers there in Madeira was Venezuelan. Was born in Venezuela, but Portuguese descent, et cetera. He was telling me this was still last year. Late last year. Because I told him I lived in US, et cetera, and he was like, “Oh, hopefully, Trump will get Maduro out of there.” In my mind, I was like, “Dude.” No disrespect to the gentleman, but it’s like, “Okay. Mike, your perspective on geopolitics is maybe a little bit exaggerated.” And a couple of days later, we know what happened. When geopolitical decisions are better predicted by some probably very astute Uber drivers, you’re like, “Maybe I shouldn’t make a bet. I have no clue what’s going to happen, no clue what’s going to happen in Greenland, et cetera.” Anyway, a couple of predictions on that element. Bertrand Schmitt That’s why it’s so right. You have to be careful with the prediction, but it doesn’t remove the fact that I think nations and companies that have to play a global game have to understand in some ways what is the game, what are the powers in place, what could happen potentially, but also be realistic. Not be about wish and dreams, but more about, what’s the power relationship? Who has the money? Who has the means? Who has the capacity to do this or that? Because if you start that way, at least the scope of what’s possible, what’s reasonable is more and more clear more quickly. Some stuff like happened with Maduro, I would never have predicted, but for sure, if there’s one country that can do this sort of stuff, it’s the US. I’m not sure anyone has a technology and the means in terms of support infrastructure to do something like this. It’s tough to predict what will happen a year from now for any specific country, but I think that even trying to get a better understanding about the forces in play and their capacity and understanding and accepting that at some point, it’s all about real politic and relationship of power, the more your eyes would be wide open about what’s possible versus simple, wishful thinking. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Fintech, Crypto and Frontier Tech Moving maybe to our last section around fintech, crypto, and frontier tech. For me, just two very quick predictions, views of the world. I think on the frontier tech side, I won’t make a prediction. I will just tell you all to go and listen to our episodes, the one on infrastructure, which is immediately prior to this one, and the episodes that we’ve had around a couple of other topics including AI, what’s the future of your children, because I think they illustrate a lot of the points that we’re seeing and manifesting themselves over the next year and over the next 2 or 3 years as well beyond that. I feel those tomes are complete in and out of themselves, so you can just go and listen to them. Then my second comment is on crypto. I feel crypto has become of the essence, particularly under the current administration in the US, very favored. Obviously, we are now in a world where crypto is just part of the economic system, and I think we’ll see more and more of that emerging, and in some ways, crypto is becoming mainstream. Question is what blockchains will be the blockchains of the future? Obviously, there’s a bunch of bets put out there. We, ourselves, as Chamaeleon, have one investment in one of the significant bets in the space. But besides that, who’s going to win or not, we feel that we’re past the crypto winter. It’s now mainstream days, and we’ll see a lot more activity in there. Bertrand Schmitt I must say with crypto, I’m a bit confused. As you say, we are past the crypto winter. There is much less uncertainty in regulations and stuff. I guess how crypto and Bitcoin in specific have evolved over the past 12 months has been a bit weird to me, I must say. It’s not clear from my perspective what’s happening right now. I guess, who knows? But we are at the price point at the lowest since November 2024, so since Trump become president, basically. It’s pretty surprising given that it should have removed the uncertainty in the market a lot. Provided clear regulations, let’s risk for the players in the market. I’m not clear personally about what’s happening. It seems that there has been probably way too much leverage and some players lost a lot. But it will be interesting to follow. In terms of tokenisation of assets, we will see what’s going. I’m I’m quite hopeful things are opening up from a regulatory perspective. But there is also the question with crypto about which part is too much. Do we need these thousands of crypto projects? Do we need hundreds of them? Do we need a dozen? Or do we even just need Bitcoin? For me, that one is a big question, and I don’t think I have a clear answer personally, except that I’m relatively a big believer in Bitcoin. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Indeed. Conclusion So it’s time to conclude today’s episode. In summary, we’re predicting a very positive 2026 with tremendous and continuous innovation around AI, albeit in this really very, very frothy bubble. Tremendous amount of new applications and tools out there driven a lot by agentic AI. We see a movement more and more to sovereign AI and global computational and infrastructure races. So no change there, but, obviously, this will drive a lot of innovation. It will drive a lot of capital moving into these ecosystems. Some interesting changes on hardware, couple of points of disagreement between Bertrand and I on how much we will see this year or not. Maybe less excitement from Bertrand, more excitement for me on AI driven devices and their advent in 2026. Maybe I’m ahead of schedule in some ways. Around venture capital and startup ecosystem, the haves and the have-nots will continue throughout the year. Very difficult markets for both VC fundraising and startup fundraising. On the startup side, either you’re AI or, well, tough luck. Even if you’re AI, you might not raise, and on the VC side, either you’re a mega fund or it’s tough. The silver lining is we do see that there’s some movement around, actually, AI enabled VCs that now is becoming du jour and will move forward accordingly. A lot of positive movements around the IPO market and M&A, and then on the regulatory and geopolitical side, just go and listen to the episode. A lot of thoughts around it and a lot of dramatic nuances that are worthwhile listening to. Thank you so much for listening to us. Thank you, Bertrand. Bertrand Schmitt Thank you, Nuno.

Infrastructure was passé…uncool. Difficult to get dollars from Private Equity and Growth funds, and almost impossible to get a VC fund interested. Now?! Now, it’s cool. Infrastructure seems to be having a Renaissance, a full on Rebirth, not just fueled by commercial interests (e.g. advent of AI), but also by industrial policy and geopolitical considerations. In this episode of Tech Deciphered, we explore what’s cool in the infrastructure spaces, including mega trends in semiconductors, energy, networking & connectivity, manufacturing Navigation: Intro We’re back to building things Why now: the 5 forces behind the renaissance Semiconductors: compute is the new oil Networking & connectivity: digital highways get rebuilt Energy: rebuilding the power stack (not just renewables) Manufacturing: the return of “atoms + bits” Wrap: what it means for startups, incumbents, and investors Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Introduction Welcome to episode 73 of Tech Deciphered, Infrastructure, the Rebirth or Renaissance. Infrastructure was passé, it wasn’t cool, but all of a sudden now everyone’s talking about network, talking about compute and semiconductors, talking about logistics, talking about energy. What gives? What’s happened? It was impossible in the past to get any funds, venture capital, even, to be honest, some private equity funds or growth funds interested in some of these areas, but now all of a sudden everyone thinks it’s cool. The infrastructure seems to be having a renaissance, a full-on rebirth. In this episode, we will explore in which cool ways the infrastructure spaces are moving and what’s leading to it. We will deep dive into the forces that are leading us to this. We will deep dive into semiconductors, networking and connectivity, energy, manufacturing, and then we’ll wrap up. Bertrand, so infrastructure is cool now. Bertrand Schmitt We’re back to building things Yes. I thought software was going to eat the world. I cannot believe it was then, maybe even 15 years ago, from Andreessen, that quote about software eating the world. I guess it’s an eternal balance. Sometimes you go ahead of yourself, you build a lot of software stack, and at some point, you need the hardware to run this software stack, and there is only so much the bits can do in a world of atoms. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Obviously, we’ve gone through some of this before. I think what we’re going through right now is AI is eating the world, and because AI is eating the world, it’s driving a lot of this infrastructure building that we need. We don’t have enough energy to be consumed by all these big data centers and hyperscalers. We need to be innovative around network as well because of the consumption in terms of network bandwidth that is linked to that consumption as well. In some ways, it’s not software eating the world, AI is eating the world. Because AI is eating the world, we need to rethink everything around infrastructure and infrastructure becoming cool again. Bertrand Schmitt There is something deeper in this. It’s that the past 10, even 15 years were all about SaaS before AI. SaaS, interestingly enough, was very energy-efficient. When I say SaaS, I mean cloud computing at large. What I mean by energy-efficient is that actually cloud computing help make energy use more efficient because instead of companies having their own separate data centers in many locations, sometimes poorly run from an industrial perspective, replace their own privately run data center with data center run by the super scalers, the hyperscalers of the world. These data centers were run much better in terms of how you manage the coolings, the energy efficiency, the rack density, all of this stuff. Actually, the cloud revolution didn’t increase the use of electricity. The cloud revolution was actually a replacement from your private data center to the hyperscaler data center, which was energy efficient. That’s why we didn’t, even if we are always talking about that growth of cloud computing, we were never feeling the pinch in term of electricity. As you say, we say it all changed because with AI, it was not a simple “Replacement” of locally run infrastructure to a hyperscaler run infrastructure. It was truly adding on top of an existing infrastructure, a new computing infrastructure in a way out of nowhere. Not just any computing infrastructure, an energy infrastructure that was really, really voracious in term of energy use. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro There was one other effect. Obviously, we’ve discussed before, we are in a bubble. We won’t go too much into that today. But the previous big bubble in tech, which is in the late ’90s, there was a lot of infrastructure built. We thought the internet was going to take over back then. It didn’t take over immediately, but there was a lot of network connectivity, bandwidth built back in the day. Companies imploded because of that as well, or had to restructure and go in their chapter 11. A lot of the big telco companies had their own issues back then, etc., but a lot of infrastructure was built back then for this advent of the internet, which would then take a long time to come. In some ways, to your point, there was a lot of latent supply that was built that was around that for a while wasn’t used, but then it was. Now it’s been used, and now we need new stuff. That’s why I feel now we’re having the new moment of infrastructure, new moment of moving forward, aligned a little bit with what you just said around cloud computing and the advent of SaaS, but also around the fact that we had a lot of buildup back in the late ’90s, early ’90s, which we’re now still reaping the benefits on in today’s world. Bertrand Schmitt Yeah, that’s actually a great point because what was built in the late ’90s, there was a lot of fibre that was built. Laying out the fibre either across countries, inside countries. This fibre, interestingly enough, you could just change the computing on both sides of the fibre, the routing, the modems, and upgrade the capacity of the fibre. But the fibre was the same in between. The big investment, CapEx investment, was really lying down that fibre, but then you could really upgrade easily. Even if both ends of the fibre were either using very old infrastructure from the ’90s or were actually dark and not being put to use, step by step, it was being put to use, equipment was replaced, and step by step, you could keep using more and more of this fibre. It was a very interesting development, as you say, because it could be expanded over the years, where if we talk about GPUs, use for AI, GPUs, the interesting part is actually it’s totally the opposite. After a few years, it’s useless. Some like Google, will argue that they can depreciate over 5, 6 years, even some GPUs. But at the end of the day, the difference in perf and energy efficiency of the GPUs means that if you are energy constrained, you just want to replace the old one even as young as three-year-old. You have to look at Nvidia increasing spec, generation after generation. It’s pretty insane. It’s usually at least 3X year over year in term of performance. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro At this moment in time, it’s very clear that it’s happening. Why now: the 5 forces behind the renaissance Maybe let’s deep dive into why it’s happening now. What are the key forces around this? We’ve identified, I think, five forces that are particularly vital that lead to the world we’re in right now. One we’ve already talked about, which is AI, the demand shock and everything that’s happened because of AI. Data centers drive power demand, drive grid upgrades, drive innovative ways of getting energy, drive chips, drive networking, drive cooling, drive manufacturing, drive all the things that we’re going to talk in just a bit. One second element that we could probably highlight in terms of the forces that are behind this is obviously where we are in terms of cost curves around technology. Obviously, a lot of things are becoming much cheaper. The simulation of physical behaviours has become a lot more cheap, which in itself, this becomes almost a vicious cycle in of itself, then drives the adoption of more and more AI and stuff. But anyway, the simulation is becoming more and more accessible, so you can do a lot of simulation with digital twins and other things off the real world before you go into the real world. Robotics itself is becoming, obviously, cheaper. Hardware, a lot of the hardware is becoming cheaper. Computer has become cheaper as well. Obviously, there’s a lot of cost curves that have aligned that, and that’s maybe the second force that I would highlight. Obviously, funds are catching up. We’ll leave that a little bit to the end. We’ll do a wrap-up and talk a little bit about the implications to investors. But there’s a lot of capital out there, some capital related to industrial policy, other capital related to private initiative, private equity, growth funds, even venture capital, to be honest, and a few other elements on that. That would be a third force that I would highlight. Bertrand Schmitt Yes. Interestingly enough, in terms of capital use, and we’ll talk more about this, but some firms, if we are talking about energy investment, it was very difficult to invest if you are not investing in green energy. Now I think more and more firms and banks are willing to invest or support different type of energy infrastructure, not just, “Green energy.” That’s an interesting development because at some point it became near impossible to invest more in gas development, in oil development in the US or in most Western countries. At least in the US, this is dramatically changing the framework. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Maybe to add the two last forces that I think we see behind the renaissance of what’s happening in infrastructure. They go hand in hand. One is the geopolitics of the world right now. Obviously, the world was global flat, and now it’s becoming increasingly siloed, so people are playing it to their own interests. There’s a lot of replication of infrastructure as well because people want to be autonomous, and they want to drive their own ability to serve end consumers, businesses, etc., in terms of data centers and everything else. That ability has led to things like, for example, chips shortage. The fact that there are semiconductors, there are shortages across the board, like memory shortages, where everything is packed up until 2027 of 2028. A lot of the memory that was being produced is already spoken for, which is shocking. There’s obviously generation of supply chain fragilities, obviously, some of it because of policies, for example, in the US with tariffs, etc, security of energy, etc. Then the last force directly linked to the geopolitics is the opposite of it, which is the policy as an accelerant, so to speak, as something that is accelerating development, where because of those silos, individual countries, as part their industrial policy, then want to put capital behind their local ecosystems, their local companies, so that their local companies and their local systems are for sure the winners, or at least, at the very least, serve their own local markets. I think that’s true of a lot of the things we’re seeing, for example, in the US with the Chips Act, for semiconductors, with IGA, IRA, and other elements of what we’ve seen in terms of practices, policies that have been implemented even in Europe, China, and other parts of the world. Bertrand Schmitt Talking about chips shortages, it’s pretty insane what has been happening with memory. Just the past few weeks, I have seen a close to 3X increase in price in memory prices in a matter of weeks. Apparently, it started with a huge order from OpenAI. Apparently, they have tried to corner the memory market. Interestingly enough, it has flat-footed the entire industry, and that includes Google, that includes Microsoft. There are rumours of their teams now having moved to South Korea, so they are closer to the action in terms of memory factories and memory decision-making. There are rumours of execs who got fired because they didn’t prepare for this type of eventuality or didn’t lock in some of the supply chain because that memory was initially for AI, but obviously, it impacts everything because factories making memories, you have to plan years in advance to build memories. You cannot open new lines of manufacturing like this. All factories that are going to open, we know when they are going to open because they’ve been built up for years. There is no extra capacity suddenly. At the very best, you can change a bit your line of production from one type of memory to another type. But that’s probably about it. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Just to be clear, all these transformations we’re seeing isn’t to say just hardware is back, right? It’s not just hardware. There’s physicality. The buildings are coming back, right? It’s full stack. Software is here. That’s why everything is happening. Policy is here. Finance is here. It’s a little bit like the name of the movie, right? Everything everywhere all at once. Everything’s happening. It was in some ways driven by the upper stacks, by the app layers, by the platform layers. But now we need new infrastructure. We need more infrastructure. We need it very, very quickly. We need it today. We’re already lacking in it. Semiconductors: compute is the new oil Maybe that’s a good segue into the first piece of the whole infrastructure thing that’s driving now the most valuable company in the world, NVIDIA, which is semiconductors. Semiconductors are driving compute. Semis are the foundation of infrastructure as a compute. Everyone needs it for every thing, for every activity, not just for compute, but even for sensors, for actuators, everything else. That’s the beginning of it all. Semiconductor is one of the key pieces around the infrastructure stack that’s being built at scale at this moment in time. Bertrand Schmitt Yes. What’s interesting is that if we look at the market gap of Semis versus software as a service, cloud companies, there has been a widening gap the past year. I forgot the exact numbers, but we were talking about plus 20, 25% for Semis in term of market gap and minus 5, minus 10 for SaaS companies. That’s another trend that’s happening. Why is this happening? One, because semiconductors are core to the AI build-up, you cannot go around without them. But two, it’s also raising a lot of questions about the durability of the SaaS, a software-as-a-service business model. Because if suddenly we have better AI, and that’s all everyone is talking about to justify the investment in AI, that it keeps getting better, and it keeps improving, and it’s going to replace your engineers, your software engineers. Then maybe all of this moat that software companies built up over the years or decades, sometimes, might unravel under the pressure of newly coded, newly built, cheaper alternatives built from the ground up with AI support. It’s not just that, yes, semiconductors are doing great. It’s also as a result of that AI underlying trend that software is doing worse right now. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro At the end of the day, this foundational piece of infrastructure, semiconductor, is obviously getting manifest to many things, fabrication, manufacturing, packaging, materials, equipment. Everything’s being driven, ASML, etc. There are all these different players around the world that are having skyrocket valuations now, it’s because they’re all part of the value chain. Just to be very, very clear, there’s two elements of this that I think are very important for us to remember at this point in time. One, it’s the entire value chains are being shifted. It’s not just the chips that basically lead to computing in the strict sense of it. It’s like chips, for example, that drive, for example, network switching. We’re going to talk about networking a bit, but you need chips to drive better network switching. That’s getting revolutionised as well. For example, we have an investment in that space, a company called the eridu.ai, and they’re revolutionising one of the pieces around that stack. Second part of the puzzle, so obviously, besides the holistic view of the world that’s changing in terms of value change, the second piece of the puzzle is, as we discussed before, there’s industrial policy. We already mentioned the CHIPS Act, which is something, for example, that has been done in the US, which I think is 52 billion in incentives across a variety of things, grants, loans, and other mechanisms to incentivise players to scale capacity quick and to scale capacity locally in the US. One of the effects of that now is obviously we had the TSMC, US expansion with a factory here in the US. We have other levels of expansion going on with Intel, Samsung, and others that are happening as we speak. Again, it’s this two by two. It’s market forces that drive the need for fundamental shifts in the value chain. On the other industrial policy and actual money put forward by states, by governments, by entities that want to revolutionise their own local markets. Bertrand Schmitt Yes. When you talk about networking, it makes me think about what NVIDIA did more than six years ago when they acquired Mellanox. At the time, it was largest acquisition for NVIDIA in 2019, and it was networking for the data center. Not networking across data center, but inside the data center, and basically making sure that your GPUs, the different computers, can talk as fast as possible between each of them. I think that’s one piece of the puzzle that a lot of companies are missing, by the way, about NVIDIA is that they are truly providing full systems. They are not just providing a GPU. Some of their competitors are just providing GPUs. But NVIDIA can provide you the full rack. Now, they move to liquid-cool computing as well. They design their systems with liquid cooling in mind. They have a very different approach in the industry. It’s a systematic system-level approach to how do you optimize your data center. Quite frankly, that’s a bit hard to beat. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro For those listening, you’d be like, this is all very different. Semiconductors, networking, energy, manufacturing, this is all different. Then all of a sudden, as Bertrand is saying, well, there are some players that are acting across the stack. Then you see in the same sentence, you’re talking about nuclear power in Microsoft or nuclear power in Google, and you’re like, what happened? Why are these guys in the same sentence? It’s like they’re tech companies. Why are they talking about energy? It’s the nature of that. These ecosystems need to go hand in hand. The value chains are very deep. For you to actually reap the benefits of more and more, for example, semiconductor availability, you have to have better and better networking connectivity, and you have to have more and more energy at lower and lower costs, and all of that. All these things are intrinsically linked. That’s why you see all these big tech companies working across stack, NVIDIA being a great example of that in trying to create truly a systems approach to the world, as Bertrand was mentioning. Networking & connectivity: digital highways get rebuilt On the networking and connectivity side, as we said, we had a lot of fibre that was put down, etc, but there’s still more build-out needs to be done. 5G in terms of its densification is still happening. We’re now starting to talk, obviously, about 6G. I’m not sure most telcos are very happy about that because they just have been doing all this CapEx and all this deployment into 5G, and now people already started talking about 6G and what’s next. Obviously, data center interconnect is quite important, and all the hubbing that needs to happen around data centers is very, very important. We are seeing a lot movements around connectivity that are particularly important. Network gear and the emergence of players like Broadcom in terms of the semiconductor side of the fence, obviously, Cisco, Juniper, Arista, and others that are very much present in this space. As I said, we made an investment on the semiconductor side of networking as well, realizing that there’s still a lot of bottlenecks happening there. But obviously, the networking and connectivity stack still needs to be built at all levels within the data centers, outside of the data centers in terms of last mile, across the board in terms of fibre. We’re seeing a lot of movements still around the space. It’s what connects everything. At the end of the day, if there’s too much latency in these systems, if the bandwidths are not high enough, then we’re going to have huge bottlenecks that are going to be put at the table by a networking providers. Obviously, that doesn’t help anyone. If there’s a button like anywhere, it doesn’t work. All of this doesn’t work. Bertrand Schmitt Yes. Interestingly enough, I know we said for this episode, we not talk too much about space, but when you talk about 6G, it make me think about, of course, Starlink. That’s really your last mile delivery that’s being built as well. It’s a massive investment. We’re talking about thousands of satellites that are interconnected between each other through laser system. This is changing dramatically how companies can operate, how individuals can operate. For companies, you can have great connectivity from anywhere in the world. For military, it’s the same. For individuals, suddenly, you won’t have dead space, wide zones. This is also a part of changing how we could do things. It’s quite important even in the development of AI because, yes, you can have AI at the edge, but that interconnect to the rest of the system is quite critical. Having that availability of a network link, high-quality network link from anywhere is a great combo. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Then you start seeing regions of the world that want to differentiate to attract digital nomads by saying, “We have submarine cables that come and hub through us, and therefore, our connectivity is amazing.” I was just in Madeira, and they were talking about that in Portugal. One of the islands of Portugal. We have some Marine cables. You have great connectivity. We’re getting into that discussion where people are like, I don’t care. I mean, I don’t know. I assume I have decent connectivity. People actually care about decent connectivity. This discussion is not just happening at corporate level, at enterprise level? Etc. Even consumers, even people that want to work remotely or be based somewhere else in the world. It’s like, This is important Where is there a great connectivity for me so that I can have access to the services I need? Etc. Everyone becomes aware of everything. We had a cloud flare mishap more recently that the CEO had to jump online and explain deeply, technically and deeply, what happened. Because we’re in their heads. If Cloudflare goes down, there’s a lot of websites that don’t work. All of this, I think, is now becoming du jour rather than just an afterthought. Maybe we’ll think about that in the future. Bertrand Schmitt Totally. I think your life is being changed for network connectivity, so life of individuals, companies. I mean, everything. Look at airlines and ships and cruise ships. Now is the advent of satellite connectivity. It’s dramatically changing our experience. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Indeed. Energy: rebuilding the power stack (not just renewables) Moving maybe to energy. We’ve talked about energy quite a bit in the past. Maybe we start with the one that we didn’t talk as much, although we did mention it, which was, let’s call it the fossil infrastructure, what’s happening around there. Everyone was saying, it’s all going to be renewables and green. We’ve had a shift of power, geopolitics. Honestly, I the writing was on the wall that we needed a lot more energy creation. It wasn’t either or. We needed other sources to be as efficient as possible. Obviously, we see a lot of work happening around there that many would have thought, Well, all this infrastructure doesn’t matter anymore. Now we’re seeing LNG terminals, pipelines, petrochemical capacity being pushed up, a lot of stuff happening around markets in terms of export, and not only around export, but also around overall distribution and increases and improvements so that there’s less leakage, distribution of energy, etc. In some ways, people say, it’s controversial, but it’s like we don’t have enough energy to spare. We’re already behind, so we need as much as we can. We need to figure out the way to really extract as much as we can from even natural resources, which In many people’s mind, it’s almost like blasphemous to talk about, but it is where we are. Obviously, there’s a lot of renaissance also happening on the fossil infrastructure basis, so to speak. Bertrand Schmitt Personally, I’m ecstatic that there is a renaissance going regarding what is called fossil infrastructure. Oil and gas, it’s critical to humanity well-being. You never had growth of countries without energy growth and nothing else can come close. Nuclear could come close, but it takes decades to deploy. I think it’s great. It’s great for developed economies so that they do better, they can expand faster. It’s great for third-world countries who have no realistic other choice. I really don’t know what happened the past 10, 15 years and why this was suddenly blasphemous. But I’m glad that, strangely, thanks to AI, we are back to a more rational mindset about energy and making sure we get efficient energy where we can. Obviously, nuclear is getting a second act. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I know you would be. We’ve been talking about for a long time, and you’ve been talking about it in particular for a very long time. Bertrand Schmitt Yes, definitely. It’s been one area of interest of mine for 25 years. I don’t know. I’ve been shocked about what happened in Europe, that willingness destruction of energy infrastructure, especially in Germany. Just a few months ago, they keep destroying on live TV some nuclear station in perfect working condition and replacing them with coal. I’m not sure there is a better definition of insanity at this stage. It looks like it’s only the Germans going that hardcore for some reason, but at least the French have stopped their program of decommissioning. America, it seems to be doing the same, so it’s great. On top of it, there are new generations that could be put to use. The Chinese are building up a very large nuclear reactor program, more than 100 reactors in construction for the next 10 years. I think everybody has to catch up because at some point, this is the most efficient energy solution. Especially if you don’t build crazy constraints around the construction of these nuclear reactors. If we are rational about permits, about energy, about safety, there are great things we could be doing with nuclear. That might be one of the only solution if we want to be competitive, because when energy prices go down like crazy, like in China, they will do once they have reach delivery of their significant build-up of nuclear reactors, we better be ready to have similar options from a cost perspective. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro From the outside, at the very least, nuclear seems to be probably in the energy one of the areas that’s more being innovated at this moment in time. You have startups in the space, you have a lot really money going into it, not just your classic industrial development. That’s very exciting. Moving maybe to the carbonization and what’s happening. The CCUS, and for those who don’t know what it is, carbon capture, utilization, and storage. There’s a lot of stuff happening around that space. That’s the area that deals with the ability to capture CO₂ emissions from industrial sources and/or the atmosphere and preventing their release. There’s a lot of things happening in that space. There’s also a lot of things happening around hydrogen and geothermal and really creating the ability to storage or to store, rather, energy that then can be put back into the grids at the right time. There’s a lot of interesting pieces happening around this. There’s some startup movement in the space. It’s been a long time coming, the reuse of a lot of these industrial sources. Not sure it’s as much on the news as nuclear, and oil and gas, but certainly there’s a lot of exciting things happening there. Bertrand Schmitt I’m a bit more dubious here, but I think geothermal makes sense if it’s available at reasonable price. I don’t think hydrogen technology has proven its value. Concerning carbon capture, I’m not sure how much it’s really going to provide in terms of energy needs, but why not? Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Fuels niche, again, from the outside, we’re not energy experts, but certainly, there are movements in the space. We’ll see what’s happening. One area where there’s definitely a lot of movement is this notion of grid and storage. On the one hand, that transmission needs to be built out. It needs to be better. We’ve had issues of blackouts in the US. We’ve had issues of blackouts all around the world, almost. Portugal as well, for a significant part of the time. The ability to work around transmission lines, transformers, substations, the modernization of some of this infrastructure, and the move forward of it is pretty critical. But at the other end, there’s the edge. Then, on the edge, you have the ability to store. We should have, better mechanisms to store energy that are less leaky in terms of energy storage. Obviously, there’s a lot of movement around that. Some of it driven just by commercial stuff, like Tesla a lot with their storage stuff, etc. Some of it really driven at scale by energy players that have the interest that, for example, some of the storage starts happening closer to the consumption as well. But there’s a lot of exciting things happening in that space, and that is a transformative space. In some ways, the bottleneck of energy is also around transmission and then ultimately the access to energy by homes, by businesses, by industries, etc. Bertrand Schmitt I would say some of the blackout are truly man-made. If I pick on California, for instance. That’s the logical conclusion of the regulatory system in place in California. On one side, you limit price that energy supplier can sell. The utility company can sell, too. On the other side, you force them to decommission the most energy-efficient and least expensive energy source. That means you cap the revenues, you make the cost increase. What is the result? The result is you cannot invest anymore to support a grid and to support transmission. That’s 100% obvious. That’s what happened, at least in many places. The solution is stop crazy regulations that makes no economic sense whatsoever. Then, strangely enough, you can invest again in transmission, in maintenance, and all I love this stuff. Maybe another piece, if we pick in California, if you authorize building construction in areas where fires are easy, that’s also a very costly to support from utility perspective, because then you are creating more risk. You are forced buy the state to connect these new constructions to the grid. You have more maintenance. If it fails, you can create fire. If you create fire, you have to pay billions of fees. I just want to highlight that some of this is not a technological issue, is not per se an investment issue, but it’s simply the result of very bad regulations. I hope that some will learn, and some change will be made so that utilities can do their job better. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Then last, but not the least, on the energy side, energy is becoming more and more digitally defined in some ways. It’s like the analogy to networks that they’ve become more, and more software defined, where you have, at the edge is things like smart meters. There’s a lot of things you can do around the key elements of the business model, like dynamic pricing and other elements. Demand response, one of the areas that I invested in, I invest in a company called Omconnect that’s now merged with what used to be Google Nest. Where to deploy that ability to do demand response and also pass it to consumers so that consumers can reduce their consumption at times where is the least price effective or the less green or the less good for the energy companies to produce energy. We have other things that are happening, which are interesting. Obviously, we have a lot more electric vehicles in cars, etc. These are also elements of storage. They don’t look like elements of storage, but the car has electricity in it once you charge it. Once it’s charged, what do you do with it? Could you do something else? Like the whole reverse charging piece that we also see now today in mobile devices and other edge devices, so to speak. That also changes the architecture of what we’re seeing around the space. With AI, there’s a lot of elements that change around the value chain. The ability to do forecasting, the ability to have, for example, virtual power plans because of just designated storage out there, etc. Interesting times happening. Not sure all utilities around the world, all energy providers around the world are innovating at the same pace and in the same way. But certainly just looking at the industry and talking to a lot of players that are CEOs of some of these companies. That are leading innovation for some of these companies, there’s definitely a lot more happening now in the last few years than maybe over the last few decades. Very exciting times. Bertrand Schmitt I think there are two interesting points in what you say. Talking about EVs, for instance, a Cybertruck is able to send electricity back to your home if your home is able to receive electricity from that source. Usually, you have some changes to make to the meter system, to your panel. That’s one great way to potentially use your car battery. Another piece of the puzzle is that, strangely enough, most strangely enough, there has been a big push to EV, but at the same time, there has not been a push to provide more electricity. But if you replace cars that use gasoline by electric vehicles that use electricity, you need to deliver more electricity. It doesn’t require a PhD to get that. But, strangely enough, nothing was done. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Apparently, it does. Bertrand Schmitt I remember that study in France where they say that, if people were all to switch to EV, we will need 10 more nuclear reactors just on the way from Paris to Nice to the Côte d’Azur, the French Rivière, in order to provide electricity to the cars going there during the summer vacation. But I mean, guess what? No nuclear plant is being built along the way. Good luck charging your vehicles. I think that’s another limit that has been happening to the grid is more electric vehicles that require charging when the related infrastructure has not been upgraded to support more. Actually, it has quite the opposite. In many cases, we had situation of nuclear reactors closing down, so other facilities closing down. Obviously, the end result is an increase in price of electricity, at least in some states and countries that have not sold that fully out. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Manufacturing: the return of “atoms + bits” Moving to manufacturing and what’s happening around manufacturing, manufacturing technology. There’s maybe the case to be made that manufacturing is getting replatformed, right? It’s getting redefined. Some of it is very obvious, and it’s already been ongoing for a couple of decades, which is the advent of and more and more either robotic augmented factories or just fully roboticized factories, where there’s very little presence of human beings. There’s elements of that. There’s the element of software definition on top of it, like simulation. A lot of automation is going on. A lot of AI has been applied to some lines in terms of vision, safety. We have an investment in a company called Sauter Analytics that is very focused on that from the perspective of employees and when they’re still humans in the loop, so to speak, and the ability to really figure out when people are at risk and other elements of what’s happening occurring from that. But there’s more than that. There’s a little bit of a renaissance in and of itself. Factories are, initially, if we go back a couple of decades ago, factories were, and manufacturing was very much defined from the setup. Now it’s difficult to innovate, it’s difficult to shift the line, it’s difficult to change how things are done in the line. With the advent of new factories that have less legacy, that have more flexible systems, not only in terms of software, but also in terms of hardware and robotics, it allows us to, for example, change and shift lines much more easily to different functions, which will hopefully, over time, not only reduce dramatically the cost of production. But also increase dramatically the yield, it increases dramatically the production itself. A lot of cool stuff happening in that space. Bertrand Schmitt It’s exciting to see that. One thing this current administration in the US has been betting on is not just hoping for construction renaissance. Especially on the factory side, up of factories, but their mindset was two things. One, should I force more companies to build locally because it would be cheaper? Two, increase output and supply of energy so that running factories here in the US would be cheaper than anywhere else. Maybe not cheaper than China, but certainly we get is cheaper than Europe. But three, it’s also the belief that thanks to AI, we will be able to have more efficient factories. There is always that question, do Americans to still keep making clothes, for instance, in factories. That used to be the case maybe 50 years ago, but this move to China, this move to Bangladesh, this move to different places. That’s not the goal. But it can make sense that indeed there is ability, thanks to robots and AI, to have more automated factories, and these factories could be run more efficiently, and as a result, it would be priced-competitive, even if run in the US. When you want to think about it, that has been, for instance, the South Korean playbook. More automated factories, robotics, all of this, because that was the only way to compete against China, which has a near infinite or used to have a near infinite supply of cheaper labour. I think that all of this combined can make a lot of sense. In a way, it’s probably creating a perfect storm. Maybe another piece of the puzzle this administration has been working on pretty hard is simplifying all the permitting process. Because a big chunk of the problem is that if your permitting is very complex, very expensive, what take two years to build become four years, five years, 10 years. The investment mass is not the same in that situation. I think that’s a very important part of the puzzle. It’s use this opportunity to reduce regulatory state, make sure that things are more efficient. Also, things are less at risk of bribery and fraud because all these regulations, there might be ways around. I think it’s quite critical to really be careful about this. Maybe last piece of the puzzle is the way accounting works. There are new rules now in 2026 in the US where you can fully depreciate your CapEx much faster than before. That’s a big win for manufacturing in the US. Suddenly, you can depreciate much faster some of your CapEx investment in manufacturing. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Just going back to a point you made and then moving it forward, even China, with being now probably the country in the world with the highest rate of innovation and take up of industrial robots. Because of demographic issues a little bit what led Japan the first place to be one of the real big innovators around robots in general. The fact that demographics, you’re having an aging population, less and less children. How are you going to replace all these people? Moving that into big winners, who becomes a big winner in a space where manufacturing is fundamentally changing? Obviously, there’s the big four of robots, which is ABB, FANUC, KUKA, and Yaskawa. Epson, I think, is now in there, although it’s not considered one of the big four. Kawasaki, Denso, Universal Robots. There’s a really big robotics, industrial robotic companies in the space from different origins, FANUC and Yaskawa, and Epson from Japan, KUKA from Germany, ABB from Switzerland, Sweden. A lot of now emerging companies from China, and what’s happening in that space is quite interesting. On the other hand, also, other winners will include players that will be integrators that will build some of the rest of the infrastructure that goes into manufacturing, the Siemens of the world, the Schneider’s, the Rockwell’s that will lead to fundamental industrial automation. Some big winners in there that whose names are well known, so probably not a huge amount of surprises there. There’s movements. As I said, we’re still going to see the big Chinese players emerging in the world. There are startups that are innovating around a lot of the edges that are significant in this space. We’ll see if this is a space that will just be continued to be dominated by the big foreign robotics and by a couple of others and by the big integrators or not. Bertrand Schmitt I think you are right to remind about China because China has been moving very fast in robotics. Some Chinese companies are world-class in their use of robotics. You have this strange mix of some older industries where robotics might not be so much put to use and typically state-owned, versus some private companies, typically some tech companies that are reconverting into hardware in some situation. That went all in terms of robotics use and their demonstrations, an example of what’s happening in China. Definitely, the Chinese are not resting. Everyone smart enough is playing that game from the Americans, the Chinese, Japanese, the South Koreans. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Exciting things are manufacturing, and maybe to bring it all together, what does it mean for all the big players out there? If we talk with startups and talk about startups, we didn’t mention a ton of startups today, right? Maybe incumbent wind across the board. But on a more serious note, we did mention a few. For example, in nuclear energy, there’s a lot of startups that have been, some of them, incredibly well-funded at this moment in time. Wrap: what it means for startups, incumbents, and investors There might be some big disruptions that will come out of startups, for example, in that space. On the chipset side, we talked about the big gorillas, the NVIDIAs, AMDs, Intel, etc., of the world. But we didn’t quite talk about the fact that there’s a lot of innovation, again, happening on the edges with new players going after very large niches, be it in networking and switching. Be it in compute and other areas that will need different, more specialized solutions. Potentially in terms of compute or in terms of semiconductor deployments. I think there’s still some opportunities there, maybe not to be the winner takes all thing, but certainly around a lot of very significant niches that might grow very fast. Manufacturing, we mentioned the same. Some of the incumbents seem to be in the driving seat. We’ll see what happens if some startups will come in and take some of the momentum there, probably less likely. There are spaces where the value chains are very tightly built around the OEMs and then the suppliers overall, classically the tier one suppliers across value chains. Maybe there is some startup investment play. We certainly have played in the couple of the spaces. I mentioned already some of them today, but this is maybe where the incumbents have it all to lose. It’s more for them to lose rather than for the startups to win just because of the scale of what needs to be done and what needs to be deployed. Bertrand Schmitt I know. That’s interesting point. I think some players in energy production, for instance, are moving very fast and behaving not only like startups. Usually, it’s independent energy suppliers who are not kept by too much regulations that get moved faster. Utility companies, as we just discussed, have more constraints. I would like to say that if you take semiconductor space, there has been quite a lot of startup activities way more than usual, and there have been some incredible success. Just a few weeks ago, Rock got more or less acquired. Now, you have to play games. It’s not an outright acquisition, but $20 billion for an IP licensing agreement that’s close to an acquisition. That’s an incredible success for a company. Started maybe 10 years ago. You have another Cerebras, one of the competitor valued, I believe, quite a lot in similar range. I think there is definitely some activity. It’s definitely a different game compared to your software startup in terms of investment. But as we have seen with AI in general, the need for investment might be larger these days. Yes, it might be either traditional players if they can move fast enough, to be frank, because some of them, when you have decades of being run as a slow-moving company, it’s hard to change things. At the same time, it looks like VCs are getting bigger. Wall Street is getting more ready to finance some of these companies. I think there will be opportunities for startups, but definitely different types of startups in terms of profile. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Exactly. From an investor standpoint, I think on the VC side, at least our core belief is that it’s more niche. It’s more around big niches that need to be fundamentally disrupted or solutions that require fundamental interoperability and integration where the incumbents have no motivation to do it. Things that are a little bit more either packaging on the semiconductor side or other elements of actual interoperability. Even at the software layer side that feeds into infrastructure. If you’re a growth investor, a private equity investor, there’s other plays that are available to you. A lot of these projects need to be funded and need to be scaled. Now we’re seeing projects being funded even for a very large, we mentioned it in one of the previous episodes, for a very large tech companies. When Meta, for example, is going to the market to get funding for data centers, etc. There’s projects to be funded there because just the quantum and scale of some of these projects, either because of financial interest for specifically the tech companies or for other reasons, but they need to be funded by the market. There’s other place right now, certainly if you’re a larger private equity growth investor, and you want to come into the market and do projects. Even public-private financing is now available for a lot of things. Definitely, there’s a lot of things emanating that require a lot of funding, even for large-scale projects. Which means the advent of some of these projects and where realization is hopefully more of a given than in other circumstances, because there’s actual commercial capital behind it and private capital behind it to fuel it as well, not just industrial policy and money from governments. Bertrand Schmitt There was this quite incredible stat. I guess everyone heard about that incredible growth in GDP in Q3 in the US at 4.4%. Apparently, half of that growth, so around 2.2% point, has been coming from AI and related infrastructure investment. That’s pretty massive. Half of your GDP growth coming from something that was not there three years ago or there, but not at this intensity of investment. That’s the numbers we are talking about. I’m hearing that there is a good chance that in 2026, we’re talking about five, even potentially 6% GDP growth. Again, half of it potentially coming from AI and all the related infrastructure growth that’s coming with AI. As a conclusion for this episode on infrastructure, as we just said, it’s not just AI, it’s a whole stack, and it’s manufacturing in general as well. Definitely in the US, in China, there is a lot going on. As we have seen, computing needs connectivity, networks, need power, energy and grid, and all of this needs production capacity and manufacturing. Manufacturing can benefit from AI as well. That way the loop is fully going back on itself. Infrastructure is the next big thing. It’s an opportunity, probably more for incumbents, but certainly, as usual, with such big growth opportunities for startups as well. Thank you, Nuno. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Thank you, Bertrand.

IWhat is our children’s future? What skills should they be developing? How should schools be adapting? What will the fully functioning citizens and workers of the future look like? A look into the landscape of the next 15 years, the future of work with human and AI interactions, the transformation of education, the safety and privacy landscapes, and a parental playbook. Navigation: Intro The Landscape: 2026–2040 The Future of Work: Human + AI The Transformation of Education The Ethics, Safety, and Privacy Landscape The Parental Playbook: Actionable Strategies Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand SchmittIntroduction Welcome to Episode 72 of Tech Deciphered, about our children’s future. What is our children’s future? What skills should they be developing? How should school be adapting to AI? What would be the functioning citizens and workers of the future look like, especially in the context of the AI revolution? Nuno, what’s your take? Maybe we start with the landscape. Nuno Goncalves PedroThe Landscape: 2026–2040 Let’s first frame it. What do people think is going to happen? Firstly, that there’s going to be a dramatic increase in productivity, and because of that dramatic increase in productivity, there are a lot of numbers that show that there’s going to be… AI will enable some labour productivity growth of 0.1 to 0.6% through 2040, which would be a figure that would be potentially rising even more depending on use of other technologies beyond generative AI, as much as 0.5 to 3.4% points annually, which would be ridiculous in terms of productivity enhancement. To be clear, we haven’t seen it yet. But if there are those dramatic increases in productivity expected by the market, then there will be job displacement. There will be people losing their jobs. There will be people that will need to be reskilled, and there will be a big shift that is similar to what happens when there’s a significant industrial revolution, like the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century into the 20th century. Other numbers quoted would say that 30% of US jobs could be automated by 2030, which is a silly number, 30%, and that another 60% would see tremendously being altered. A lot of their tasks would be altered for those jobs. There’s also views that this is obviously fundamentally a global phenomenon, that as much as 9% of jobs could be lost to AI by 2030. I think question mark if this is a net number or a gross number, so it might be 9% our loss, but then maybe there’re other jobs that will emerge. It’s very clear that the landscape we have ahead of us is if there are any significant increases in productivity, there will be job displacement. There will be job shifting. There will be the need for reskilling. Therefore, I think on the downside, you would say there’s going to be job losses. We’ll have to reevaluate whether people should still work in general 5 days a week or not. Will we actually work in 10, 20, 30 years? I think that’s the doomsday scenario and what happens on that side of the fence. I think on the positive side, there’s also a discussion around there’ll be new jobs that emerge. There’ll be new jobs that maybe we don’t understand today, new job descriptions that actually don’t even exist yet that will emerge out this brave new world of AI. Bertrand SchmittYeah. I mean, let’s not forget how we get to a growing economy. I mean, there’s a measurement of a growing economy is GDP growth. Typically, you can simplify in two elements. One is the growth of the labour force, two, the rise of the productivity of that labour force, and that’s about it. Either you grow the economy by increasing the number of people, which in most of the Western world is not really happening, or you increase productivity. I think that we should not forget that growth of productivity is a backbone of growth for our economies, and that has been what has enabled the rise in prosperity across countries. I always take that as a win, personally. That growth in productivity has happened over the past decades through all the technological revolutions, from more efficient factories to oil and gas to computers, to network computers, to internet, to mobile and all the improvement in science, usually on the back of technological improvement. Personally, I welcome any rise in improvement we can get in productivity because there is at this stage simply no other choice for a growing world in terms of growing prosperity. In terms of change, we can already have a look at the past. There are so many jobs today you could not imagine they would exist 30 years ago. Take the rise of the influencer, for instance, who could have imagined that 30 years ago. Take the rise of the small mom-and-pop e-commerce owner, who could have imagined that. Of course, all the rise of IT as a profession. I mean, how few of us were there 30 years ago compared to today. I mean, this is what it was 30 years ago. I think there is a lot of change that already happened. I think as a society, we need to welcome that. If we go back even longer, 100 years ago, 150 years ago, let’s not forget, if I take a city like Paris, we used to have tens of thousands of people transporting water manually. Before we have running water in every home, we used to have boats going to the North Pole or to the northern region to bring back ice and basically pushing ice all the way to the Western world because we didn’t have fridges at the time. I think that when we look back in time about all the jobs that got displaced, I would say, Thank you. Thank you because these were not such easy jobs. Change is coming, but change is part of the human equation, at least. Industrial revolution, the past 250 years, it’s thanks to that that we have some improvement in living conditions everywhere. AI is changing stuff, but change is a constant, and we need to adapt and adjust. At least on my side, I’m glad that AI will be able to displace some jobs that were not so interesting to do in the first place in many situations. Maybe not dangerous like in the past because we are talking about replacing white job collars, but at least repetitive jobs are definitely going to be on the chopping block. Nuno Goncalves PedroWhat happens in terms of shift? We were talking about some numbers earlier. The World Economic Forum also has some numbers that predicts that there is a gross job creation rate of 14% from 2025 to 2030 and a displacement rate of 8%, so I guess they’re being optimistic, so a net growth in employment. I think that optimism relates to this thesis that, for example, efficiency, in particular in production and industrial environments, et cetera, might reduce labour there while increasing the demand for labour elsewhere because there is a natural lower cost base. If there’s more automation in production, therefore there’s more disposable income for people to do other things and to focus more on their side activities. Maybe, as I said before, not work 5 days a week, but maybe work four or three or whatever it is. What are the jobs of the future? What are the jobs that we see increasing in the future? Obviously, there’re a lot of jobs that relate to the technology side, that relate obviously to AI, that’s a little bit self-serving, and everything that relates to information technology, computer science, computer technology, computer engineering, et cetera. More broadly in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, that might actually be more needed. Because there is a broadening of all of these elements of contact with digital, with AI over time also with robots and robotics, that those jobs will increase. There’s a thesis that actually other jobs that are a little bit more related to agriculture, education, et cetera, might not see a dramatic impact, that will still need for, I guess, teachers and the need for people working in farms, et cetera. I think this assumes that probably the AI revolution will come much before the fundamental evolution that will come from robotics afterwards. Then there’s obviously this discussion around declining roles. Anything that’s fundamentally routine, like data entry, clinical roles, paralegals, for example, routine manufacturing, anything that’s very repetitive in nature will be taken away. I have the personal thesis that there are jobs that are actually very blue-collar jobs, like HVAC installation, maintenance, et cetera, plumbing, that will be still done by humans for a very long time because there are actually, they appear to be repetitive, but they’re actually complex, and they require manual labour that cannot be easily, I think, right now done by robots and replacements of humans. Actually, I think there’re blue-collar roles that will be on the increase rather than on decrease that will demand a premium, because obviously, they are apprenticeship roles, certification roles, and that will demand a premium. Maybe we’re at the two ends. There’s an end that is very technologically driven of jobs that will need to necessarily increase, and there’s at the other end, jobs that are very menial but necessarily need to be done by humans, and therefore will also command a premium on the other end. Bertrand SchmittI think what you say make a lot of sense. If you think about AI as a stack, my guess is that for the foreseeable future, on the whole stack, and when I say stack, I mean from basic energy production because we need a lot of energy for AI, maybe to going up to all the computing infrastructure, to AI models, to AI training, to robotics. All this stack, we see an increase in expertise in workers and everything. Even if a lot of this work will benefit from AI improvement, the boom is so large that it will bring a lot of demand for anyone working on any part of the stack. Some of it is definitely blue-collar. When you have to build a data centre or energy power station, this requires a lot of blue-collar work. I would say, personally, I’m absolutely not a believer of the 3 or 4 days a week work week. I don’t believe a single second in that socialist paradise. If you want to call it that way. I think that’s not going to change. I would say today we can already see that breaking. I mean, if you take Europe, most European countries have a big issue with pension. The question is more to increase how long you are going to work because financially speaking, the equation is not there. Personally, I don’t think AI would change any of that. I agree with you in terms of some jobs from electricians to gas piping and stuff. There will still be demand and robots are not going to help soon on this job. There will be a big divergence between and all those that can be automated, done by AI and robots and becoming cheaper and cheaper and stuff that requires a lot of human work, manual work. I don’t know if it will become more expensive, but definitely, proportionally, in comparison, we look so expensive that you will have second thoughts about doing that investment to add this, to add that. I can see that when you have your own home, so many costs, some cost our product. You buy this new product, you add it to your home. It can be a water heater or something, built in a factory, relatively cheap. You see the installation cost, the maintenance cost. It’s many times the cost of the product itself. Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe it’s a good time to put a caveat into our conversation. I mean, there’s a… Roy Amara was a futurist who came up with the Amara’s Law. We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and overestimate the effect in the long run. I prefer my own law, which is, we tend to overestimate the speed at which we get to a technological revolution and underestimate its impact. I think it’s a little bit like that. I think everyone now is like, “Oh, my God, we’re going to be having the AI overlords taking over us, and AGI is going to happen pretty quickly,” and all of that. I mean, AGI will probably happen at some point. We’re not really sure when. I don’t think anyone can tell you. I mean, there’re obviously a lot of ranges going on. Back to your point, for example, on the shift of the work week and how we work. I mean, just to be very clear, we didn’t use to have 5 days a week and 2 days a weekend. If we go back to religions, there was definitely Sabbath back in the day, and there was one day off, the day of the Lord and the day of God. Then we went to 2 days of weekend. I remember going to Korea back in 2005, and I think Korea shifted officially to 5 days a week, working week and 2 days weekend for some of the larger business, et cetera, in 2004. Actually, it took another whatever years for it to be pervasive in society. This is South Korea, so this is a developed market. We might be at some point moving to 4 days a week. Maybe France was ahead of the game. I know Bertrand doesn’t like this, the 35-hour week. Maybe we will have another shift in what defines the working week versus not. What defines what people need to do in terms of efficiency and how they work and all of that. I think it’s probably just going to take longer than we think. I think there’re some countries already doing it. I was reading maybe Finland was already thinking about moving to 4 days a week. There’re a couple of countries already working on it. Certainly, there’re companies already doing it as well. Bertrand SchmittYeah, I don’t know. I’m just looking at the financial equation of most countries. The disaster is so big in Western Europe, in the US. So much debt is out that needs to get paid that I don’t think any country today, unless there is a complete reversal of the finance, will be able to make a big change. You could argue maybe if we are in such a situation, it might be because we went too far in benefits, in vacation, in work days versus weekends. I’m not saying we should roll back, but I feel that at this stage, the proof is in the pudding. The finance of most developed countries are broken, so I don’t see a change coming up. Potentially, the other way around, people leaving to work more, unfortunately. We will see. My point is that AI will have to be so transformational for the productivity for countries, and countries will have to go back to finding their ways in terms of financial discipline to reach a level where we can truly profit from that. I think from my perspective, we have time to think about it in 10, 20 years. Right now, it’s BS at this stage of this discussion. Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, there’s a dependency, Bertrand, which is there needs to be dramatic increases in productivity that need to happen that create an expansion of economy. Once that expansion is captured by, let’s say, government or let’s say by the state, it needs to be willingly fed back into society, which is not a given. There’re some governments who are going to be like, “No, you need to work for a living.” Tough luck. There’re no handouts, there’s nothing. There’s going to be other governments that will be pressured as well. I mean, even in a more socialist Europe, so to speak. There’re now a lot of pressures from very far-right, even extreme positions on what people need to do for a living and how much should the state actually intervene in terms of minimum salaries, et cetera, and social security. To your point, the economies are not doing well in and of themselves. Anyway, there would need to be tremendous expansion of economy and willingness by the state to give back to its citizens, which is also not a given. Bertrand SchmittAnd good financial discipline as well. Before we reach all these three. Reaping the benefits in a tremendous way, way above trend line, good financial discipline, and then some willingness to send back. I mean, we can talk about a dream. I think that some of this discussion was, in some ways, to have a discussion so early about this. It’s like, let’s start to talk about the benefits of the aeroplane industries in 1915 or 1910, a few years after the Wright brothers flight, and let’s make a decision based on what the world will be in 30 years from now when we reap this benefit. This is just not reasonable. This is not reasonable thinking. I remember seeing companies from OpenAI and others trying to push this narrative. It was just political agenda. It was nothing else. It was, “Let’s try to make look like AI so nice and great in the future, so you don’t complain on the short term about what’s happening.” I don’t think this is a good discussion to have for now. Let’s be realistic. Nuno Goncalves PedroJust for the sake of sharing it with our listeners, apparently there’re a couple of countries that have moved towards something a bit lower than 5 days a week. Belgium, I think, has legislated the ability for you to compress your work week into 4 days, where you could do 10 hours for 4 days, so 40 hours. UAE has some policy for government workers, 4.5 days. Iceland has some stuff around 35 to 36 hours, which is France has had that 35 hour thing. Lithuania for parents. Then just trials, it’s all over the shop. United Kingdom, my own Portugal, of course, Germany, Brazil, and South Africa, and a bunch of other countries, so interesting. There’s stuff going on. Bertrand SchmittFor sure. I mean, France managed to bankrupt itself playing the 75 hours work week since what, 2000 or something. I mean, yeah, it’s a choice of financial suicide, I would say. Nuno Goncalves PedroWonderful. The Future of Work: Human + AI Maybe moving a little bit towards the future of work and the coexistence of work of human and AI, I think the thesis that exists a little bit in the market is that the more positive thesis that leads to net employment growth and net employment creation, as we were saying, there’s shifting of professions, they’re rescaling, and there’s the new professions that will emerge, is the notion that human will need to continue working alongside with machine. I’m talking about robots, I’m also talking about software. Basically software can’t just always run on its own, and therefore, software serves as a layer of augmentation, that humans become augmented by AI, and therefore, they can be a lot more productive, and we can be a lot more productive. All of that would actually lead to a world where the efficiencies and the economic creation are incredible. We’ll have an unparalleled industrial evolution in our hands through AI. That’s one way of looking at it. We certainly at Chameleon, that’s how we think through AI and the AI layers that we’re creating with Mantis, which is our in-house platform at Chameleon, is that it’s augmenting us. Obviously, the human is still running the show at the end, making the toughest decisions, the more significant impact with entrepreneurs that we back, et cetera. AI augments us, but we run the show. Bertrand SchmittI totally agree with that perspective that first AI will bring a new approach, a human plus AI. Here in that situation, you really have two situations. Are you a knowledgeable user? Do you know your field well? Are you an expert? Are you an IT expert? Are you a medical doctor? Do you find your best way to optimise your work with AI? Are you knowledgeable enough to understand and challenge AI when you see weird output? You have to be knowledgeable in your field, but also knowledgeable in how to handle AI, because even experts might say, “Whatever AI says.” My guess is that will be the users that will benefit most from AI. Novice, I think, are in a bit tougher situation because if you use AI without truly understanding it, it’s like laying foundations on sand. Your stuff might crumble down the way, and you will have no clue what’s happening. Hopefully, you don’t put anyone in physical danger, but that’s more worrisome to me. I think some people will talk about the rise of vibe coding, for instance. I’ve seen AI so useful to improve coding in so many ways, but personally, I don’t think vibe coding is helpful. I mean, beyond doing a quick prototype or some stuff, but to put some serious foundation, I think it’s near useless if you have a pure vibe coding approach, obviously to each their own. I think the other piece of the puzzle, it’s not just to look at human plus AI. I think definitely there will be the other side as well, which is pure AI. Pure AI replacement. I think we start to see that with autonomous cars. We are close to be there. Here we’ll be in situation of maybe there is some remote control by some humans, maybe there is local control. We are talking about a huge scale replacement of some human activities. I think in some situation, let’s talk about work farms, for instance. That’s quite a special term, but basically is to describe work that is very repetitive in nature, requires a lot of humans. Today, if you do a loan approval, if you do an insurance claim analysis, you have hundreds, thousands, millions of people who are doing this job in Europe, in the US, or remotely outsourced to other countries like India. I think some of these jobs are fully at risk to be replaced. Would it be 100% replacement? Probably not. But a 9:1, 10:1 replacement? I think it’s definitely possible because these jobs have been designed, by the way, to be repetitive, to follow some very clear set of rules, to improve the rules, to remove any doubt if you are not sure. I think some of these jobs will be transformed significantly. I think we see two sides. People will become more efficient controlling an AI, being able to do the job of two people at once. On the other side, we see people who have much less control about their life, basically, and whose job will simply disappear. Nuno Goncalves PedroTwo points I would like to make. The first point is we’re talking about a state of AI that we got here, and we mentioned this in previous episodes of Tech Deciphered, through brute force, dramatically increased data availability, a lot of compute, lower network latencies, and all of that that has led us to where we are today. But it’s brute force. The key thing here is brute force. Therefore, when AI acts really well, it acts well through brute force, through seeing a bunch of things that have happened before. For example, in the case of coding, it might still outperform many humans in coding in many different scenarios, but it might miss hedge cases. It might actually not be as perfect and as great as one of these developers that has been doing it for decades who has this intuition and is a 10X developer. In some ways, I think what got us here is not maybe what’s going to get us to the next level of productivity as well, which is the unsupervised learning piece, the actually no learning piece, where you go into the world and figure stuff out. That world is emerging now, but it’s still not there in terms of AI algorithms and what’s happening. Again, a lot of what we’re seeing today is the outcome of the brute force movement that we’ve had over the last decade, decade and a half. The second point I’d like to make is to your point, Bertrand, you were going really well through, okay, if you’re a super experienced subject-matter expert, the way you can use AI is like, wow! Right? I mean, you are much more efficient, right? I was asked to do a presentation recently. When I do things in public, I don’t like to do it. If it’s a keynote, because I like to use my package stuff, there’s like six, seven presentations that I have prepackaged, and I can adapt around that. But if it’s a totally new thing, I don’t like to do it as a keynote because it requires a lot of preparation. Therefore, I’m like, I prefer to do a fire set chat or a panel or whatever. I got asked to do something, a little bit what is taking us to this topic today around what’s happening to our children and all of that is like, “God! I need to develop this from scratch.” The honest truth is if you have domain expertise around many areas, you can do it very quickly with the aid of different tools in AI. Anything from Gemini, even with Nana Banana, to ChatGPT and other tools that are out there for you and framing, how would you do that? But the problem then exists with people that are just at the beginning of their careers, people that have very little expertise and experience, and people that are maybe coming out of college where their knowledge is mostly theoretical. What happens to those people? Even in computer engineering, even in computer science, even in software development, how do those people get to the next level? I think that’s one of the interesting conversations to be had. What happens to the recent graduate or the recent undergrad? How do those people get the expertise they need to go to the next level? Can they just be replaced by AI agents today? What’s their role in terms of the workforce, and how do they fit into that workforce? Bertrand SchmittNo, I mean, that’s definitely the biggest question. I think that a lot of positions, if you are really knowledgeable, good at your job, if you are that 10X developer, I don’t think your job is at risk. Overall, you always have some exceptions, some companies going through tough times, but I don’t think it’s an issue. On the other end, that’s for sure, the recent new graduates will face some more trouble to learn on their own, start their career, and go to that 10X productivity level. But at the same time, let’s also not kid ourselves. If we take software development, this is a profession that increase in number of graduates tremendously over the past 30 years. I don’t think everyone basically has the talent to really make it. Now that you have AI, for sure, the bar to justify why you should be there, why you should join this company is getting higher and higher. Being just okay won’t be enough to get you a career in IT. You will need to show that you are great or potential to be great. That might make things tough for some jobs. At the same time, I certainly believe there will be new opportunities that were not there before. People will have to definitely adjust to that new reality, learn and understand what’s going on, what are the options, and also try to be very early on, very confident at using AI as much as they can because for sure, companies are going to only hire workers that have shown their capacity to work well with AI. Nuno Goncalves PedroMy belief is that it generates new opportunities for recent undergrads, et cetera, of building their own microbusinesses or nano businesses. To your point, maybe getting jobs because they’ll be forced to move faster within their jobs and do less menial and repetitive activities and be more focused on actual dramatic intellectual activities immediately from the get go, which is not a bad thing. Their acceleration into knowledge will be even faster. I don’t know. It feels to me maybe there’s a positivity to it. Obviously, if you’ve stayed in a big school, et cetera, that there will be some positivity coming out of that. The Transformation of Education Maybe this is a good segue to education. How does education change to adapt to a new world where AI is a given? It’s not like I can check if you’re faking it on your homework or if you’re doing a remote examination or whatever, if you’re using or not tools, it’s like you’re going to use these tools. What happens in that case, and how does education need to shift in this brave new world of AI augmentation and AI enhancements to students? Bertrand SchmittYes, I agree with you. There will be new opportunities. I think people need to be adaptable. What used to be an absolute perfect career choice might not be anymore. You need to learn what changes are happening in the industry, and you need to adjust to that, especially if you’re a new graduate. Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe we’ll talk a little bit about education, Bertrand, and how education would fundamentally shift. I think one of the things that’s been really discussed is what are the core skills that need to be developed? What are the core skills that will be important in the future? I think critical thinking is probably most important than ever. The ability to actually assimilate information and discern which information is correct or incorrect and which information can lead you to a conclusion or not, for example, I think is more important than ever. The ability to assimilate a bunch of pieces of information, make a decision or have an insight or foresight out of that information is very, very critical. The ability to be analytical around how you look at information and to really distinguish what’s fact from what’s opinion, I think is probably quite important. Maybe moving away more and more from memorisation from just cramming information into your brain like we used to do it in college, you have to know every single algorithm for whatever. It’s like, “Who gives a shit? I can just go and search it.” There’s these shifts that are not simple because I think education, in particular in the last century, has maybe been too focused on knowing more and more knowledge, on learning this knowledge. Now it’s more about learning how to process the knowledge rather than learning how to apprehend it. Because the apprehension doesn’t matter as much because you can have this information at any point in time. The information is available to you at the touch of a finger or voice or whatever. But the ability to then use the information to do something with it is not. That’s maybe where you start distinguishing the different level degrees of education and how things are taught. Bertrand SchmittHonestly, what you just say or describe could apply of the changes we went through the past 30 years. Just using internet search has for sure tremendously changed how you can do any knowledge worker job. Suddenly you have the internet at your fingertips. You can search about any topics. You have direct access to a Wikipedia or something equivalent in any field. I think some of this, we already went through it, and I hope we learned the consequence of these changes. I would say what is new is the way AI itself is working, because when you use AI, you realise that it can utter to you complete bullshit in a very self-assured way of explaining something. It’s a bit more scary than it used to be, because in the past, that algorithm trying to present you the most relevant stuff based on some algorithm was not trying to present you the truth. It’s a list of links. Maybe it was more the number one link versus number 100. But ultimately, it’s for you to make your own opinion. Now you have some chatbot that’s going to tell you that for sure this is the way you should do it. Then you check more, and you realise, no, it’s totally wrong. It’s definitely a slight change in how you have to apprehend this brave new world. Also, this AI tool, the big change, especially with generative AI, is the ability for them to give you the impression they can do the job at hand by themselves when usually they cannot. Nuno Goncalves PedroIndeed. There’s definitely a lot of things happening right now that need to fundamentally shift. Honestly, I think in the education system the problem is the education system is barely adapted to the digital world. Even today, if you studied at a top school like Stanford, et cetera, there’s stuff you can do online, there’s more and more tools online. But the teaching process has been very centred on syllabus, the teachers, later on the professors, and everything that’s around it. In class presence, there’s been minor adaptations. People sometimes allow to use their laptops in the classroom, et cetera, or their mobile phones. But it’s been done the other way around. It’s like the tools came later, and they got fed into the process. Now I think there needs to be readjustments. If we did this ground up from a digital first or a mobile first perspective and an AI first perspective, how would we do it? That changes how teachers and professors should interact with the classrooms, with the role of the classroom, the role of the class itself, the role of homework. A lot of people have been debating that. What do you want out of homework? It’s just that people cram information and whatever, or do you want people to show critical thinking in a specific different manner, or some people even go one step further. It’s like, there should be no homework. People should just show up in class and homework should move to the class in some ways. Then what happens outside of the class? What are people doing at home? Are they learning tools? Are they learning something else? Are they learning to be productive in responding to teachers? But obviously, AI augmented in doing so. I mean, still very unclear what this looks like. We’re still halfway through the revolution, as we said earlier. The revolution is still in motion. It’s not realised yet. Bertrand SchmittI would quite separate higher education, university and beyond, versus lower education, teenager, kids. Because I think the core up to the point you are a teenager or so, I think the school system should still be there to guide you, discovering and learning and being with your peers. I think what is new is that, again, at some point, AI could potentially do your job, do your homework. We faced similar situation in the past with the rise of Wikipedia, online encyclopedias and the stuff. But this is quite dramatically different. Then someone could write your essays, could answer your maths work. I can see some changes where you talk about homework, it’s going to be classwork instead. No work at home because no one can trust that you did it yourself anymore going forward, but you will have to do it in the classroom, maybe spend more time at school so that we can verify that you really did your job. I think there is real value to make sure that you can still think by yourself. The same way with the rise of calculators 40 years ago, I think it was the right thing to do to say, “You know what? You still need to learn the basics of doing calculations by hand.” Yes, I remember myself a kid thinking, “What the hell? I have a calculator. It’s working very well.” But it was still very useful because you can think in your head, you can solve complex problems in your head, you can check some output that it’s right or wrong if it’s coming from a calculator. There was a real value to still learn the basics. At the same point, it was also right to say, “You know what? Once you know the basics, yes, for sure, the calculator will take over because we’re at the point.” I think that was the right balance that was put in place with the rise of calculators. We need something similar with AI. You need to be able to write by yourself, to do stuff by yourself. At some point, you have to say, “Yeah, you know what? That long essays that we asked you to do for the sake of doing long essays? What’s the point?” At some point, yeah, that would be a true question. For higher education, I think personally, it’s totally ripe for full disruption. You talk about the traditional system trying to adapt. I think we start to be at the stage where “It should be the other way around.” It should be we should be restarted from the ground up because we simply have different tools, different ways. I think at this stage, many companies if you take, [inaudible 00:33:01] for instance, started to recruit people after high school. They say, “You know what? Don’t waste your time in universities. Don’t spend crazy shitload of money to pay for an education that’s more or less worthless.” Because it used to be a way to filter people. You go to good school, you have a stamp that say, “This guy is good enough, knows how to think.” But is it so true anymore? I mean, now that universities have increased the enrolment so many times over, and your university degree doesn’t prove much in terms of your intelligence or your capacity to work hard, quite frankly. If the universities are losing the value of their stamp and keep costing more and more and more, I think it’s a fair question to say, “Okay, maybe this is not needed anymore.” Maybe now companies can directly find the best talents out there, train them themselves, make sure that ultimately it’s a win-win situation. If kids don’t have to have big loans anymore, companies don’t have to pay them as much, and everyone is winning. I think we have reached a point of no return in terms of value of university degrees, quite frankly. Of course, there are some exceptions. Some universities have incredible programs, incredible degrees. But as a whole, I think we are reaching a point of no return. Too expensive, not enough value in the degree, not a filter anymore. Ultimately, I think there is a case to be made for companies to go back directly to the source and to high school. Nuno Goncalves PedroI’m still not ready to eliminate and just say higher education doesn’t have a role. I agree with the notion that it’s continuous education role that needs to be filled in a very different way. Going back to K-12, I think the learning of things is pretty vital that you learn, for example, how to write, that you learn cursive and all these things is important. I think the role of the teacher, and maybe actually even later on of the professors in higher education, is to teach people the critical information they need to know for the area they’re in. Basic math, advanced math, the big thinkers in philosophy, whatever is that you’re studying, and then actually teach the students how to use the tools that they need, in particular, K-12, so that they more rapidly apprehend knowledge, that they more rapidly can do exercises, that they more rapidly do things. I think we’ve had a static view on what you need to learn for a while. That’s, for example, in the US, where you have AP classes, like advanced placement classes, where you could be doing math and you could be doing AP math. You’re like, dude. In some ways, I think the role of the teacher and the interaction with the students needs to go beyond just the apprehension of knowledge. It also has to have apprehension of knowledge, but it needs to go to the apprehension of tools. Then the application of, as we discussed before, critical thinking, analytical thinking, creative thinking. We haven’t talked about creativity for all, but obviously the creativity that you need to have around certain problems and the induction of that into the process is critical. It’s particular in young kids and how they’re developing their learning skills and then actually accelerate learning. In that way, what I’m saying, I’m not sure I’m willing to say higher education is dead. I do think this mass production of higher education that we have, in particular in the US. That’s incredibly costly. A lot of people in Europe probably don’t see how costly higher education is because we’re educated in Europe, they paid some fee. A lot of the higher education in Europe is still, to a certain extent, subsidised or done by the state. There is high degree of subsidisation in it, so it’s not really as expensive as you’d see in the US. But someone spending 200-300K to go to a top school in the US to study for four years for an undergrad, that doesn’t make sense. For tuition alone, we’re talking about tuition alone. How does that work? Why is it so expensive? Even if I’m a Stanford or a Harvard or a University of Pennsylvania or whatever, whatever, Ivy League school, if I’m any of those, to command that premium, I don’t think makes much sense. To your point, maybe it is about thinking through higher education in a different way. Technical schools also make sense. Your ability to learn and learn and continue to education also makes sense. You can be certified. There are certifications all around that also makes sense. I do think there’s still a case for higher education, but it needs to be done in a different mould, and obviously the cost needs to be reassessed. Because it doesn’t make sense for you to be in debt that dramatically as you are today in the US. Bertrand SchmittI mean, for me, that’s where I’m starting when I’m saying it’s broken. You cannot justify this amount of money except in a very rare and stratified job opportunities. That means for a lot of people, the value of this equation will be negative. It’s like some new, indented class of people who owe a lot of money and have no way to get rid of this loan. Sorry. There are some ways, like join the government Task Force, work for the government, that at some point you will be forgiven your loans. Some people are going to just go after government jobs just for that reason, which is quite sad, frankly. I think we need a different approach. Education can be done, has to be done cheaper, should be done differently. Maybe it’s just regular on the job training, maybe it is on the side, long by night type of approach. I think there are different ways to think about. Also, it can be very practical. I don’t know you, but there are a lot of classes that are not really practical or not very tailored to the path you have chosen. Don’t get me wrong, there is always value to see all the stuff, to get a sense of the world around you. But this has a cost. If it was for free, different story. But nothing is free. I mean, your parents might think it’s free, but at the end of the day, it’s their taxes paying for all of this. The reality is that it’s not free. It’s costing a lot of money at the end of the day. I think we absolutely need to do a better job here. I think internet and now AI makes this a possibility. I don’t know you, but personally, I’ve learned so much through online classes, YouTube videos, and the like, that it never cease to amaze me how much you can learn, thanks to the internet, and keep up to date in so many ways on some topics. Quite frankly, there are some topics that there is not a single university that can teach you what’s going on because we’re talking about stuff that is so precise, so focused that no one is building a degree around that. There is no way. Nuno Goncalves PedroI think that makes sense. Maybe bring it back to core skills. We’ve talked about a couple of core skills, but maybe just to structure it a little bit for you, our listener. I think there’s a big belief that critical thinking will be more important than ever. We already talked a little bit about that. I think there’s a belief that analytical thinking, the ability to, again, distinguish fact from opinion, ability to distinguish elements from different data sources and make sure that you see what those elements actually are in a relatively analytical manner. Actually the ability to extract data in some ways. Active learning, proactive learning and learning strategies. I mean, the ability to proactively learn, proactively search, be curious and search for knowledge. Complex problem-solving, we also talked a little bit about it. That goes hand in hand normally with critical thinking and analysis. Creativity, we also talked about. I think originality, initiative, I think will be very important for a long time. I’m not saying AI at some point won’t be able to emulate genuine creativity. I wouldn’t go as far as saying that, but for the time being, it has tremendous difficulty doing so. Bertrand SchmittBut you can use AI in creative endeavours. Nuno Goncalves PedroOf course, no doubt. Bertrand SchmittYou can do stuff you will be unable to do, create music, create videos, create stuff that will be very difficult. I see that as an evolution of tools. It’s like now cameras are so cheap to create world-class quality videos, for instance. That if you’re a student, you want to learn cinema, you can do it truly on the cheap. But now that’s the next level. You don’t even need actors, you don’t even need the real camera. You can start to make movies. It’s amazing as a learning tool, as a creative tool. It’s for sure a new art form in a way that we have seen expanding on YouTube and other places, and the same for creating new images, new music. I think that AI can be actually a tool for expression and for creativity, even in its current form. Nuno Goncalves PedroAbsolutely. A couple of other skills that people would say maybe are soft skills, but I think are incredibly powerful and very distinctive from machines. Empathy, the ability to figure out how the other person’s feeling and why they’re feeling like that. Adaptability, openness, the flexibility, the ability to drop something and go a different route, to maybe be intellectually honest and recognise this is the wrong way and the wrong angle. Last but not the least, I think on the positive side, tech literacy. I mean, a lot of people are, oh, we don’t need to be tech literate. Actually, I think this is a moment in time where you need to be more tech literate than ever. It’s almost a given. It’s almost like table stakes, that you are at some tech literacy. What matters less? I think memorisation and just the cramming of information and using your brain as a library just for the sake of it, I think probably will matter less and less. If you are a subject or a class that’s just solely focused on cramming your information, I feel that’s probably the wrong way to go. I saw some analysis that the management of people is less and less important. I actually disagree with that. I think in the interim, because of what we were discussing earlier, that subject-matter experts at the top end can do a lot of stuff by themselves and therefore maybe need to less… They have less people working for them because they become a little bit more like superpowered individual contributors. But I feel that’s a blip rather than what’s going to happen over time. I think collaboration is going to be a key element of what needs to be done in the future. Still, I don’t see that changing, and therefore, management needs to be embedded in it. What other skills should disappear or what other skills are less important to be developed, I guess? Bertrand SchmittWorld learning, I’ve never, ever been a fan. I think that one for sure. But at the same time, I want to make sure that we still need to learn about history or geography. What we don’t want to learn is that stupid word learning. I still remember as a teenager having to learn the list of all the 100 French departments. I mean, who cared? I didn’t care about knowing the biggest cities of each French department. It was useless to me. But at the same time, geography in general, history in general, there is a lot to learn from the past from the current world. I think we need to find that right balance. The details, the long list might not be that necessary. At the same time, the long arc of history, our world where it is today, I think there is a lot of value. I think you talk about analysing data. I think this one is critical because the world is generating more and more data. We need to benefit from it. There is no way we can benefit from it if we don’t understand how data is produced, what data means. If we don’t understand the base of statistical analysis. I think some of this is definitely critical. But for stuff, we have to do less. It’s beyond world learning. I don’t know, honestly. I don’t think the core should change so much. But the tools we use to learn the core, yes, probably should definitely improve. Nuno Goncalves PedroOne final debate, maybe just to close, I think this chapter on education and skill building and all of that. There’s been a lot of discussion around specialisation versus generalisation, specialists versus generalists. I think for a very long time, the world has gone into a route that basically frames specialisation as a great thing. I think both of us have lived in Silicon Valley. I still do, but we both lived in Silicon Valley for a significant period of time. The centre of the universe in terms of specialisation, you get more and more specialised. I think we’re going into a world that becomes a little bit different. It becomes a little bit like what Amazon calls athletes, right? The T-Pi-shaped people get the most value, where you’re brought on top, you’re a very strong generalist on top, and you have a lot of great soft skills around management and empathy and all that stuff. Then you might have one or two subject matter expertise areas. Could be like business development and sales or corporate development and business development or product management and something else. I think those are the winners of the future. The young winners of the future are going to be more and more T-pi-shaped, if I had to make a guess. Specialisation matters, but maybe not as much as it matters today. It matters from the perspective that you still have to have spikes in certain areas of focus. But I’m not sure that you get more and more specialised in the area you’re in. I’m not sure that’s necessarily how humans create most value in their arena of deployment and development. Professionally, and therefore, I’m not sure education should be more and more specialised just for the sake of it. What do you think? Bertrand SchmittI think that that’s a great point. I would say I could see an argument for both. I think there is always some value in being truly an expert on a topic so that you can keep digging around, keep developing the field. You cannot develop a field without people focused on developing a field. I think that one is there to stay. At the same time, I can see how in many situations, combining knowledge of multiple fields can bring tremendous value. I think it’s very clear as well. I think it’s a balance. We still need some experts. At the same time, there is value to be quite horizontal in terms of knowledge. I think what is still very valuable is the ability to drill through whenever you need. I think that we say it’s actually much easier than before. That for me is a big difference. I can see how now you can drill through on topics that would have been very complex to go into. You will have to read a lot of books, watch a lot of videos, potentially do a new education before you grasp much about a topic. Well, now, thanks to AI, you can drill very quickly on topic of interest to you. I think that can be very valuable. Again, if you just do that blindly, that’s calling for trouble. But if you have some knowledge in the area, if you know how to deal with AI, at least today’s AI and its constraints, I think there is real value you can deliver thanks to an ability to drill through when you don’t. For me, personally, one thing I’ve seen is some people who are generalists have lost this ability. They have lost this ability to drill through on a topic, become expert on some topic very quickly. I think you need that. If you’re a VC, you need to analyse opportunity, you need to discover a new space very quickly. We say, I think some stuff can move much quicker than before. I’m always careful now when I see some pure generalists, because one thing I notice is that they don’t know how to do much anything any more. That’s a risk. We have example of very, very, very successful people. Take an Elon Musk, take a Steve Jobs. They have this ability to drill through to the very end of any topic, and that’s a real skill. Sometimes I see people, you should trust the people below. They know better on this and that, and you should not question experts and stuff. Hey, guys, how is it that they managed to build such successful companies? Is their ability to drill through and challenge hardcore experts. Yes, they will bring top people in the field, but they have an ability to learn quickly a new space and to drill through on some very technical topics and challenge people the right way. Challenge, don’t smart me. Not the, I don’t care, just do it in 10 days. No, going smartly, showing people those options, learning enough in the field to be dangerous. I think that’s a very, very important skill to have. Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe switching to the dark side and talking a little bit about the bad stuff. I think a lot of people have these questions. There’s been a lot of debate around ChatGPT. I think there’s still a couple of court cases going on, a suicide case that I recently a bit privy to of a young man that killed himself, and OpenAI and ChatGPT as a tool currently really under the magnifying glass for, are people getting confused about AI and AI looks so similar to us, et cetera. The Ethics, Safety, and Privacy Landscape Maybe let’s talk about the ethics and safety and privacy landscape a little bit and what’s happening. Sadly, AI will also create the advent of a world that has still a lot of biases at scale. I mean, let’s not forget the AI is using data and data has biases. The models that are being trained on this data will have also biases that we’re seeing with AI, the ability to do things that are fake, deep fakes in video and pictures, et cetera. How do we, as a society, start dealing with that? How do we, as a society, start dealing with all the attacks that are going on? On the privacy side, the ability for these models and for these tools that we have today to actually have memory of the conversations we’ve had with them already and have context on what we said before and be able to act on that on us, and how is that information being farmed and that data being farmed? How is it being used? For what purposes is it being used? As I said, the dark side of our conversation today. I think we’ve been pretty positive until now. But in this world, I think things are going to get worse before they get better. Obviously, there’s a lot of money being thrown at rapid evolution of these tools. I don’t see moratoriums coming anytime soon or bans on tools coming anytime soon. The world will need to adapt very, very quickly. As we’ve talked in previous episodes, regulation takes a long time to adapt, except Europe, which obviously regulates maybe way too fast on technology and maybe not really on use cases and user flows. But how do we deal with this world that is clearly becoming more complex? Bertrand SchmittI mean, on the European topic, I believe Europe should focus on building versus trying to sensor and to control and to regulate. But going back to your point, I think there are some, I mean, very tough use case when you see about voice cloning, for instance. Grandparents believing that their kids are calling them, have been kidnapped when there is nothing to it, and they’re being extorted. AI generating deepfakes that enable sextortion, that stuff. I mean, it’s horrible stuff, obviously. I’m not for regulation here, to be frank. I think that we should for sure prosecute to the full extent of the law. The law has already a lot of tools to deal with this type of situation. But I can see some value to try to prevent that in some tools. If you are great at building tools to generate a fake voice, maybe you should make sure that you are not helping scammers. If you can generate easily images, you might want to make sure that you cannot easily generate tools that can be used for creating deep fakes and sex extortion. I think there are things that should be done by some providers to limit such terrible use cases. At the same time, the genie is out. There is also that part around, okay, the world will need to adapt. But yeah, you cannot trust everything that is done. What could have looked like horrible might not be true. You need to think twice about some of this, what you see, what you hear. We need to adjust how we live, how we work, but also how we prevent that. New tools, I believe, will appear. We will learn maybe to be less trustful on some stuff, but that is what it is. Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe to follow up on that, I fully agree with everything you just said. We need to have these tools that will create boundary conditions around it as well. I think tech will need to fight tech in some ways, or we’ll need to find flaws in tech, but I think a lot of money needs to be put in it as well. I think my shout-out here, if people are listening to us, are entrepreneurs, et cetera, I think that’s an area that needs more and more investment, an area that needs more and more tooling platforms that are helpful to this. It’s interesting because that’s a little bit like how OpenAI was born. OpenAI was born to be a positive AI platform into the future. Then all of a sudden we’re like, “Can we have tools to control ChatGPT and all these things that are out there now?” How things have changed, I guess. But we definitely need to have, I think, a much more significant investment into these toolings and platforms than we do have today. Otherwise, I don’t see things evolving much better. There’s going to be more and more of this. There’s going to be more and more deep fakes, more and more, lack of contextualisation. There’s countries now that allow you to get married with not a human. It’s like you can get married to an algorithm or a robot or whatever. It’s like, what the hell? What’s happening now? It’s crazy. Hopefully, we’ll have more and more boundary conditions. Bertrand SchmittYeah, I think it will be a boom for cybersecurity. No question here. Tools to make sure that is there a better trust system or detecting the fake. It’s not going to be easy, but it has been the game in cybersecurity for a long time. You have some new Internet tools, some new Internet products. You need to find a difference against it and the constant war between the attackers and the defender. Nuno Goncalves PedroThe Parental Playbook: Actionable Strategies Maybe last but not the least in today’s episode, the parent playbook I’m a parent, what should I do I’ll actually let you start first. Bertrand, I’m parent-alike, but I am, sadly, not a parent, so I’ll let you start first, and then I’ll share some of my perspectives as well as a parent-like figure. Bertrand SchmittYeah, as a parent to an 8-year, I would say so far, no real difference than before. She will do some homework on an iPad. But beyond that, I cannot say I’ve seen at this stage so much difference. I think it will come up later when you have different type of homeworks when the kids start to be able to use computers on their own. What I’ve seen, however, is some interesting use cases. When my daughter is not sure about the spelling, she simply asks, Siri. “Hey, Siri, how do you spell this or this or that?” I didn’t teach her that. All of this came on her own. She’s using Siri for a few stuff for work, and I’m quite surprised in a very smart, useful way. It’s like, that’s great. She doesn’t need to ask me. She can ask by herself. She’s more autonomous. Why not? It’s a very efficient way for her to work and learn about the world. I probably feel sad when she asks Siri if she’s her friend. That does not feel right to me. But I would say so far, so good. I’ve seen only AI as a useful tool and with absolutely very limited risk. At the same time, for sure, we don’t let our kid close to any social media or the like. I think some of this stuff is for sure dangerous. I think as a parent, you have to be very careful before authorising any social media. I guess at some point you have no choice, but I think you have to be very careful, very gradual, and putting a lot of controls and safety mechanism I mean, you talk about kids committing suicide. It’s horrible. As a parent, I don’t think you can have a bigger worry than that. Suddenly your kids going crazy because someone bullied them online, because someone tried to extort them online. This person online could be someone in the same school or some scammer on the other side of the world. This is very scary. I think we need to have a lot of control on our kids’ digital life as well as being there for them on a lot of topics and keep drilling into them how a lot of this stuff online is not true, is fake, is not important, and being careful, yes, to raise them, to be critical of stuff, and to share as much as possible with our parents. I think We have to be very careful. But I would say some of the most dangerous stuff so far, I don’t think it’s really coming from AI. It’s a lot more social media in general, I would say, but definitely AI is adding another layer of risk. Nuno Goncalves PedroFrom my perspective, having helped raise three kids, having been a parent-like role today, what I would say is I would highlight against the skills that I was talking about before, and I would work on developing those skills. Skills that relate to curiosity, to analytical behaviours at the same time as being creative, allowing for both, allowing for the left brain, right brain, allowing for the discipline and structure that comes with analytical thinking to go hand in hand with doing things in a very, very different way and experimenting and failing and doing things and repeating them again. All the skills that I mentioned before, focusing on those skills. I was very fortunate to have a parental unit. My father and my mother were together all their lives: my father, sadly, passing away 5 years ago that were very, very different, my mother, more of a hacker in mindset. Someone was very curious, medical doctor, allowing me to experiment and to be curious about things around me and not simplifying interactions with me, saying it as it was with a language that was used for that particular purpose, allowing me to interact with her friends, who were obviously adults. And then on the other side, I have my father, someone who was more disciplined, someone who was more ethical, I think that becomes more important. The ability to be ethical, the ability to have moral standing. I’m Catholic. There is a religious and more overlay to how I do things. Having the ability to portray that and pass that to the next generation and sharing with them what’s acceptable and what’s not acceptable, I think is pretty critical and even more critical than it was before. The ability to be structured, to say and to do what you say, not just actually say a bunch of stuff and not do it. So, I think those things don’t go out of use, but I would really spend a lot more focus on the ability to do critical thinking, analytical thinking, having creative ideas, obviously, creating a little bit of a hacker mindset, how to cut corners to get to something is actually really more and more important. The second part is with all of this, the overlay of growth mindset. I feel having a more flexible mindset rather than a fixed mindset. What I mean by that is not praising your kids or your grandchildren for being very intelligent or very beautiful, which are fixed things, they’re static things, but praising them for the effort they put into something, for the learning that they put into something, for the process, raising the process rather than just necessarily the outcome. I feel that’s more important than it ever was. I think growth mindset is critical in the world that we are in today. Then obviously, last but not the least, the ability to It creates some ground rules around this connection, around the offline world, around socialising without having your phone around you, be it not having your phone at the table when you’re having a meal or having specific times of the day where there is no plugged in, there’s no mobile phone, there’s no whatever. The ability to have families, I think, interact in an environment where the mobile phone is not there. There is no technology necessarily there. The hikes in nature, the interactions with other people in sports, et cetera, et cetera, not esports, but sports. All those, I feel, should be greatly emphasised going forward because that, I think, is what will create these humans that we want to be successful, that would want to bring us into the future in a positive manner. Bertrand SchmittI think that’s very good point. I certainly love the growth mindset. I also think that you have to find a balance between respect for authorities, your parents, for instance, versus at the same time questioning enough authorities, Because not all authorities might have your best interest at heart. I guess your parents usually have. But beyond your parents, I think that’s a really big question. From teachers to the government, they might not all have your best interest at heart. You have to be- Nuno Goncalves PedroTo influencers. Bertrand SchmittTo influencers, for sure. Nuno Goncalves PedroTo influencers, definitely not. Bertrand SchmittNot even a question. But yeah, you have to find the right balance because there is a lot of evil masquerading as a figure of authority or abusing their figure of authority. So, that part, I think, is quite critical. As you say, that limit on the digital self. Digital self is part of your future and part of how you grow and learn and be a successful person in your life. But at the same time, you have to find the right balance. You have to be careful about red or blue pill that you’re going to take, I guess. My personal take is that I think it’s a balance you have to control. You cannot be oblivious to new technologies. You have to learn them. You have to be You have to be comfortable with them. You have to understand them and their limits. At the same time, be careful going all the way. Be careful losing yourself. The real world is important and critical. Nuno Goncalves PedroConclusion In conclusion, our children’s future is, we still believe, bright. A lot of shifting will happen. A lot of job displacement, reskilling will be needed, but new jobs will emerge. We’re positive. We are optimistic about the future that our children will have. In the words of the great passed Whitney Houston, “We believe that children are our future, and they should be taught well, and that they will lead the way.” Thank you, Bertrand. Bertrand SchmittThank you, Nuno.