Host: spent a long time at Intel.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah.

Host: And uh

Pat Gelsinger: only 34 years.

Host: 34 years.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah.

Host: Probably one of the greatest American companies uh ever. And then absolutely went off the rails and got absolutely demolished by Nvidia, TSMC, uh and I guess Apple to a certain extent. So you had this incredible Intel inside moment. We bought our computers based on, you know, hey, the Pentium and that sound

Pat Gelsinger: Intel inside, baby. Intel insideum. And so, let's talk about how things went wrong. What went right and then

Host: how did it and and you were there for a long time. You took a break and then you came back. But there seemed to be have been some critical mistakes that we can learn from. So, let's just embrace it and go right into it. tremendous success as an American company coming back now I think uh reasonably but when you when we look back on it and we do our post-mortem what were the mistakes a and what would we change in terms of the direction of that company

Ad: if you were building a global financial system from first principles today you wouldn't build it on 50-year-old legacy rails you'd build airwalls one AI native platform for global accounts cards and payments it's designed to make the entire entire world feel like a local market. Others are bolting AI onto broken infrastructure, but Airwall was built for the intelligent era from day one. Stop paying the legacy tax and start building the future at airwall.com/allin. Airwall built for the future.

Pat Gelsinger: Having spent so much of my life there, you know, I view it. I joined when I was 18. I went through puberty at Intel, right? I joke, right? I was just like, you know, I am so early. uh Grove, Noise, Bar uh Barrett, right? Uh and uh uh you know, they they were the people I grew up at, right? You know, so on. They were my mentors. They were the people I adored uh for it and they were deeply technical.

Host: Andy Grove,

Pat Gelsinger: Andy Grove, Gordon Moore, Bob, you know, co-inventor, you know, these were deeply technical leaders. I remember when I joined the executive staff for the first time, you know, there was, you know, probably 15 of the 20 people that were in the room were PhDs, right? You know, it was just that technical. And, you know, I view one of the things that went off the rail was when it started to be run by business people

Host: as opposed to technical,

Pat Gelsinger: the bean counters, the finance people.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah. And you know when I became uh CEO uh in 2001 that was the first technical leader in essentially 15 years

Host: right you know associated with it you know and if you have a business leader who does he promote business leaders and you know right you know so I think one of the fundamental things is and you know as you look at the great technology companies uh today you know they're deeply technical

Host: and founderled typically

Pat Gelsinger: you know and even if they're not you know Satcha is not a founder no right? You know, Sundar is not a founder as well, but they're deeply technical individuals. And when you're making these hardcore technical, you know, decisions that affect billions of dollars, you don't do that through a spreadsheet. That's a lousy investment, right? Unless the technology trends make it the right investment. And I think that's one of the fundamental things. And obviously you know in the five years uh five six years before I came back you know Intel gave $100 billion to shareholders.

Host: Oh the dividends

Pat Gelsinger: and stock buybacks

Host: a hundred. What I wouldn't have done for another hundred billion dollar on the uh what would you have done? You probably would have made chips for iPhone which Intel passed on. Yeah.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah. you know, but you know, it hadn't built a new factory in a decade when I got there. It's like, you know, how can you not be building? How could you not buy EUV machines? You know, there's just all of these things, you know, that you would only do as a technologist because the economics behind them by themselves were not good.

Pat Gelsinger: So, you know, it's getting back to the core of technology to me that was, you know, the fundamental thing. You know, you make good decisions, you make bad decisions as leaders. Every business uh does that uh as they go along but uh you know fundamentally this is a technology business and you need technologists running technology uh that then hires technologists that are sitting at the staff that then hire the best technologist you know you know

Host: and take big swings at you know categories that could matter in the future like skating to where the puck's going. If you look at Apple, they did the same thing for the past 15 years, buying back the stock, tremendous amount of dividends. They're the largest holder of capital of any company, I believe, to this date. And what if what companies do they buy? They buy little tiny acquisitions on the margins. I think the largest ones was was Beats cuz they wanted to get inroads into, you know, certain uh demographic segments like in the Android space that they couldn't get into. But my god, what a colossal waste of time. Like you said, they could have done so many amazing things. Tell me about Steve Jobs in 2008, 2009 deciding, I think we're going to make our own silicon and that impact because was that a covert product project or did you guys know he was doing that? Did he inform you?

Pat Gelsinger: Well, that seemed to be another one of those forks in the road.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah, you know, Steve was an incredible leader. You know, he was also a ruthless leader, right? You know, very difficult. you know, read Walder Isaxson's book on him uh as well. I had many many conversations with Steve over the years uh you know, for it. Um but you know, when they moved to Intel and the Centrino chip, it was a big deal.

Host: Yeah.

Pat Gelsinger: Right. And they were putting extraordinary demands on Intel. You know, make the chip smaller, drive lower power. They're demanding uh customer. And when he was no longer convinced that we could continue to do that, you know, he started the project, right? You know, and if you remember what was it, you know, you know, uh, P semi, you know, they acquired some small companies, started to build some competency, but, you know, they did a few little chips internally. It wasn't a big deal and then the little chips got a little bit bigger, you know, and Steve was a master of this, you know, just starting, you know, these small efforts to build core competence inside the company. Uh I remember when we had the first conversation with Steve about uh porting the uh operating system to the Intel chip from the power chip that they were running on before they moved to Intel. And we were quite proud of the silicon software competencies that we had and compilers and operating systems, you know. So Steve, we'll help you port the operating system to the x86. And I remember that Steve said, "I've been working on that for the last four releases."

Pat Gelsinger: He had been preparing the core technologies inside of Apple for something that might happen uh in the future, you know, and he was already, you know, to me, I just remember I was just shocked. I, you know, I've ported the last four releases

Host: Yeah.

Pat Gelsinger: Right. You know, it was that kind of thing. And that's how they got into the semiconductor, you know, doing their own semiconductor. Hm. I'm not sure I can rely on Intel to be that much ahead of the industry and I can start optimizing the system design with the silicon design as opposed to relying on one that's been somewhat optimized for a Windows environment versus an iOS environment, you know, in their uh operating system. And you know, it was just, you know, uh, you know, it was never that kind of thing. They sort of said, you know, right, you failed as a supplier. No, I can supply myself better.

Host: Yeah. and Jensen uh decides, hey, he's going to go all in making these video cards and talk about just incredible uh serendipity that these happen to be also very applicable for cryptocurrency and running these AI jobs.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah.

Host: Was that luck or skill or combination of both there?

Pat Gelsinger: Well, you know, when you think about that progression, you know, Jensen, he was just building high performance computers, you know, throughput machines. You know, when we were at the height of our strength on CPUs, uh, at Intel, we sort of scoffed at his machines. Yeah.

Host: Right. You like, oh, that's a graphic machine. You, you know, there's some gamers who want to use that kind of stuff, right? You know, it was always the big CPU and those little GPUs. But when they started to build a real software stack, Yes. with it, right?

Pat Gelsinger: you know, sort of, okay, this CUDA thing and SIMT as a technology, you know, uh, you know, uh, multi-threading and so on. And it just sort of kept getting a little bit better and a little bit better and it was a little bit jobslike in that way. You know, we're just making it better every release and it's becoming more robust and all of a sudden, you know, the crazy, you know, uh, Japanese HPC guys said, "Hey, we could take those graphics cards and maybe start using them in HPC." H,

Host: right?

Pat Gelsinger: you know, and that was sort of defining moment where it wasn't just about doing graphics anymore. This was a more computationally dense platform to start attacking some of the world's most interesting workloads. And I think Jensen would agree that was a defining moment and them sort of saying, "Oh, these aren't just graphics cards anymore. You know, these are generalpurpose computing devices that can start applying to these other uh workloads." And you know AI was you know had gone through what its fifth nuclear winter by that point. We're just like man you know you know this is never going to matter right we're never going to you know get the breakthroughs but the community around it was continuing to develop uh you know for it and the CUDA software kept getting better uh generation by generation and uh you know I had a project at Intel Larabe right where we were trying to take the x86 and essentially do the same thing right you know for it and you know in my first departure from Intel the project was killed a week after I left

Host: huh

Host: and the world would have been so much different right I

Host: I mean it really I think it's illustrative of illustrative of what continuous innovation taking some risks and doing that fundamental research and the compounding power of technology because I think it was William Gibson who said the street finds its own use for technology like Nvidia did not predict that this Bitcoin project would take over and that this would be the best way to do those computations, nor did they anticipate, I think, you know, that AI would take off, but because it was the best solution, the hacker community could kind of figure that out. Well, as we wrap on the Intel portion of your uh career, um, okay, Apple Silicon, that's one. Uh, and then you have Nvidia, and then you have this Taiwanese company, uh, that starts making, you know, really great at fabricating the these chips. Um and Intel missed that as well. Yeah. And and maybe you could talk a little bit about TSMC and their surging and we can even get into a little bit of the the politics of it now and then we'll get into some of these AI chips and venture investing. You know the thing with TSMC was they started with a vision of foundry

Pat Gelsinger: right you know they were going to become the factory for the industry and again these factories are so expensive 20 billion 30 billion and uh the engineering and the continuous investment required to do it and you know it was a stunning you know vision uh at that point in time Intel was IDM as we called it the integrated design and manufacturing you We never worked to make our process and our factories available for third parties

Host: right you know it was always this thing hey it's you know we do enough CPUs oursel you know we reuse it for chipsets and some of the other things that we're doing but it was never standardized in a way that it could be made available for a broad ecosystem

Pat Gelsinger: using PDKs and all the design tools you know we did a lot of our own EDA tools ourself you know one of the projects that I started early in my career was the foundations of EDA, right? Uh as well, the first place and route, you know, the first standard cells, the first highle description language, you know, it was so proprietary and TSMC basically cut that in half and says, I don't care whose chip it is. I don't care what you're designing, I'll be your manufacturing partner. And at the time, that was such a trivial piece of the business, Intel didn't even care,

Pat Gelsinger: right? You know, so on. And then over steady progress over a long period of time and Apple as a customer driving them to be could be become really meaningful. You know obviously the world changed and when I came back uh to uh Intel in 2001 TSMC was producing 5x the wafers of Intel.

Host: Wow.

Pat Gelsinger: Right. Not 10% more 5x.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah. And all of a sudden that model of foundry became the model of the semiconductor industry with two exceptions Intel and memory. you know, memory design and manufacture, right, for you know, that is uniquely different. And obviously, you know, we're seeing the, you know, $3 trillion memory companies just extraordinary, you know, and, you know, trillion dollar foundry company uh in TSMC. You know, the industry has said, I want a lot of wafers. I want a lot of innovation of different designs. I have a layer of standardization and EDA tools. And the world changed. And obviously as I came back to Intel that was one of the core thesis of the new strategy. Yeah. We must become a foundry as well five to one and now it's more like seven to one in terms of wafers you know to TSMC to and

Host: are we going to be able to onshore that obviously we had the chips act and just give us broad strokes what you think is going to happen here in terms of obviously Taiwan is in play. Some people in the administration believe um it's going to happen the year after Trump's out unless he takes his third term. Other people believe like it was going to happen as early as 27 uh or maybe going into 28. So, are we going to be able to replicate that here in America in a reasonable amount of time, or is this like truly could be a cataclysmic event if, you know, god forbid, China decides, hey, we're going to blockade um Taiwan and and the Taiwanese decide, yeah, we're going to burn the fabs and we're going to fly out all of the engineers and ship them to America.

Pat Gelsinger: Well, there's a lot in that question, you know. Do we have an hour to talk about this question?

Host: Well, I mean we have six minutes, but Okay. Um, yeah, do the best you can.

Pat Gelsinger: Okay.

Host: I want to talk also about the AI bubble.

Pat Gelsinger: So, super, you know, three things about this super quick. You know, one is the chips act is having benefit.

Host: Yeah.

Pat Gelsinger: Right. You know, when we started the chips act in, you know, in 2001 when I came back, the US was building about 12% of leading edge. Today, that number is more like 18%.

Host: Okay.

Pat Gelsinger: You know, we're making progress. It's not 50%. We have a long way to go, right? You know, Intel is starting to be a real foundry. Okay, that's real progress. Uh, and TSMC's factories are up and operating at scale, right? We have Samsung as well.

Host: Okay.

Pat Gelsinger: And third, you know, the geopolitics say, you know, hey, Taiwan is a geopolitical choke point. You know, the vast majority of advanced silicon is produced in a, you know, in a geography that, you know, if you ever fly into Taiwan, there is no oil.

Host: No oil." Yes.

Pat Gelsinger: Right. No LG, right? You know, that's how the island run. That is scary, you know, to me. We need more resilient supply chains uh associated, you know, with it. And I don't think this is an alternative for the world because if it really does go bad over there, the economic consequence to the globe is cataclysmic.

Host: Yeah.

Pat Gelsinger: This isn't a theory.

Host: No, no. They're running exercises. They're being pernitious and

Pat Gelsinger: right

Host: pretty provocative in terms of

Pat Gelsinger: Is that 2027? Is that 2030? Is that 2035? their intentions have been clear over a sustained period of time. We need more resilient uh supply chains, you know, forward. So, something, you know, I put a lot of my time and energy into and we're making progress, but we need to go faster, need to go more meaningful.

Host: Yeah. And let's talk a little bit about the AI buildout. I mean, you watched the PC revolution, servers, the internet. These were all extraordinary buildouts. And then this is the buildout to end all buildouts. the amount of data centers, the amount of chips, the amount of inference needed. Do you think it's a bubble? I think I've heard you say like it's it's obviously a bubble, but what what's the risk factor here? That we build too much uh or that the technology doesn't solve enough problems and we are swimming in tokens? What what worries you about what you're seeing now?

Host: the valuations of these companies has gotten quite extraordinary. And you know, if they build too much and they spend too much money and they don't make enough money, well, based on your experience with running a company, a public one, that's a lot of tension on it. When you don't make as much money as you're spending, people tend to fall out of love with these stocks.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah. Well, I do think there, you know, there there is a silver lining here that guarantees we don't get too far ahead of oursel in terms of bubble, you know, and that is energy capacity.

Host: Right.

Pat Gelsinger: Right. You know, energy capacity in the world is expanding four 5%. You know, in the US we had a decade at 1%. Right. You know, I mean, it's just hideous what we did to our energy grid, you know, over about a decade and a half. But now that's getting built out. But essentially, nobody's going to build and buy GPUs and build data centers if they don't have energy.

Pat Gelsinger: So essentially, you have an upper bound on how aggressive and how hyped and bubbled that we get. So I take a lot of soloulless in that.

Host: Yeah.

Pat Gelsinger: Right. You know, for it because what then is the incremental value of a token and if it's a measure of intelligence, it's somewhat infinite, right? You know, in the sense if I have more intelligence, I will do, you know, better supply chain. I will do better finance. I will do more, you know, efficient logistics. I will, you know, all of those things. So to me, the the potential value that we unleash in a token economic world is somewhat infinite, right? And particularly with labor shortages and so on that we see right in uh developed countries, I am an optimist, you know, that we're in a couple of decade buildout.

Host: Wow.

Pat Gelsinger: Right. Not a couple of years, a couple of decades. One of the big objectives I've said is that I have to make AI 10,000x better,

Host: right?

Pat Gelsinger: You know, it's way too expensive today. you know, we want to drop, you know, by five orders of magnitude the cost per token, you know, the energy, you know, per token so that we really do have Jevans law that we just explode the access to AI, right, in much more economic uh ways,

Host: which it does seem like Jevans uh paradox has been at play over the last year, like, oh my lord, these tokens are so cheap and the tools are getting so good. Yeah, I'm just going to start using these tools all day long until the bill comes in and you're like, "Okay, yeah, maybe I need to get some ROI out of this." But you do have these incredible companies, Cerebrris, Grock, etc. making inference

Pat Gelsinger: dematrix silicon and so you know, and you know, if we accomplish right, you know, these orders of magnitude improving and token economics, availability, reduction in energy costs associated with it. You know, we just have a fantastic couple of decades in front of us. There has not been a time in human history where it's been better to be a technologist than the one we're in right now. We will solve chemistry. We will solve language. We will, you know, invent new materials, re, you know, new forms of, you know, uh, interaction, you know, uh, killing cancer, right? Lifting people out of poverty. There is not a better time to be alive than the one that we're in right now. And as technologists, we get to sit in the driver's seat of it.

Host: Pretty amazing. and you're investing uh and that's your passion. Now what do you think of these valuations? It's quite seems a you know if you live through the dotcom bubble we did see a disconnect there. These companies slightly different. We just had 11 labs up 600 million in revenue. Lovable I think they're at five or 600 million. So that's quite different than the do speculation. Yeah.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah. Well fundamentally we have real revenues you know real margins coming out of these businesses as well. You know that said anytime the multiples get too high okay some corrections you know and to me periodic corrections that keep the multiple you know earnings multiples and you know so on in reasonable things is good because this will not be a smooth curve you know I'm predicting two decades of goodness and there's going to be lots of disruptions along the way it's not going to be a smooth curve and every time we have one of those corrections say thank you right we're not letting the bubble get ahead of itself right you know hey we had the SAS apocalypse there's going to be other apocalypses on that journey when when industries get impacted by the capabilities that will be unleashed and that's even before it gets exciting and what I call the trinity of computing classical computing AI computing and quantum computing and when those three come together okay that's when things get really exciting

Host: quantum's been about 5 years away for 25 years um when is it actually going to do anything meaningful

Pat Gelsinger: this decade this decade. So by 2030,

Host: yep,

Host: it'll be meaningful. What should we expect in terms of its impact in 2030? Like

Pat Gelsinger: you know, you're going to be able to start doing things that cannot be computed today.

Pat Gelsinger: You know, chemistry, you know, biology, there will be things that can't be computed today. You know, some of the easy things will be some of like the logistics where I will compute the best answer to get this thing to you, right?

Host: Traveling salesman problem,

Pat Gelsinger: right? you know all of a sudden all of those problems uh obviously it's probably going to be you know 2020 2032 2033 when we solve you know things like encryption right yo you know where you know you'll have the fundamental Qday you know kind of implications but this decade we will see quantum supremacy uh results across multiple industries you know we know how to build cubits we know how to error correct cubits we now have algorithmics right against uh quantum and you know now it's just about engineering scale.

Host: Who's going to win?

Pat Gelsinger: Well, obviously I'm a SI quantum guy, right? Since that's one of our portfolio companies. But the thing that you're seeing is that you now have like four, five, six modalities of quantum that are demonstrating pretty good results, right? You know, across trapped ions, across, you know, photonic uh approaches, spin uh approaches. So, you now say modality is not an issue. Error correction's been proven uh across them. And you know, I think the race will be on and my prediction is meaningful results before 2030.

Host: Wow. You realize thats about 40 months from now.

Pat Gelsinger: Yeah.

Host: Okay. Meaningful results. Thanks so much, Pat, for sharing all this incredible uh information and knowledge. Great to see him.

Pat Gelsinger: Very good.

Ad: Your most valuable conversations rarely happen at a desk. The hallway sink, the dinner, the quick founder call. Plaude no pins clips on and captures all of it hands-free.

Host (Jason): Oika is one of my favorite founders. He's the founder of Lovable. Why do I love this founder? Uh well he's built a product that people are addicted to primarily Anton the

Anton Osika: essentially that's the mission of lovable

Host (Jason): mission I talk about empowering humans. empowering humans

Anton Osika: and the first gap is to build a product.

Host (Jason): The second gap is to build a business around that product, right?

Anton Osika: And now at everyone at Lovable, we're we're working on both of these two gaps, right?

Anton Osika: The first one, we got very far. We're seeing a million new projects built every single week on the

Host (Jason): incredible.

Anton Osika: And on the on the second one, we're investing a lot in making it easier to run your business and to get people to care, people to discover what you build and to

Host (Jason): How many years has lovable been in market or how many months now?

Anton Osika: 20 months since 20.

Host (Jason): Yeah. And and again we're seeing people who are first-time founders. We're seeing enterprise leaders move much faster together with their teams on this

Anton Osika: Yeah, we're seeing people use Lovable both with a technical background. about 20% are technical or some type of engineer and they they love that we're quite opinionated.

Anton Osika: from the nontechnical people which is four out of five are are nontechnical uh and they're building uh often first to figure out what is the right thing to build

Anton Osika: which is where lovable has always been exceptionally good and uh now what we're seeing is that people are running businesses making more than million dollars of revenue on

Host (Jason): Yeah. And this is like the really interesting thing about vibe coding. If we were sitting here last year, people would look at it and say it's a great way to make a mockup

Anton Osika: very much so. So um I would say many engineers they don't look at the code they don't write code anymore and that means that you don't need to be an engineer to create so

Host (Jason): Yeah. And I can tell you internally I gave my team all the different tools they could possibly want to use and somebody had started with lovable. I think I told you the story

Host (Jason): So I said, "Hey, I have an idea. Can you make for me an economic impact of the 50 companies that are in the program?" She asked Lovable to do it. I gave her some, you know

Anton Osika: $50 a month, I think. Yeah. That's if you're on a business plan. Yeah. It starts at 25.

Host (Jason): Yeah. So, uh, the economic impact of what you're building is I would equate for what you built to us, it would have cost me $500,000 2 years ago. It was built in 4 hours

Host (Jason): in a year. It's extraordinary. I I'd love to hear more about the progress of the of the internet. Anything that you asked for that you want to forward directed to me.

Anton Osika: Uh well, right now, you know, my concern was security and making sure that data didn't leak and they talked to your team and they went through it and it's secure. So, we feel good about it.

Host (Jason): Well, look, um I'm now asking people who do penetration testing to say, I want you to compare all the tools. Yeah. and uh make sure that there's a all the work that we're

Host (Jason): a year ago we were at mock-ups. Now we're at functionality and secure and super viable for deployment. Where will you be in a year?

Anton Osika: Yeah. So, what we're seeing is that there's a gap in build being able to build the product, right? And and you built an entire internet on the platform. That's great. Um,

Host (Jason): AWS competitor.

Anton Osika: It it lets you it lets you run all your software and then we're working with companies like AWS under the hood as well. But but what you also want to have is um to use lovable a partner that you talk to about everything in your business. And if you're running your apps, your tools are on the platform, then just talking to Lovable has access to

Host (Jason): for your business to build the software but you stay to build the business

Anton Osika: yes to operate your business and um what we're already doing I've been doing for a very long time is to compound from everything we're learning every time lovable makes a

Host (Jason): Is software going to become 100% bespoke even like the internal tools. I was looking at Slack and our bill for Slack even on the highest version is maybe $10,000 a year.

Anton Osika: I I like this question let let me ask answer it but I'll just give you a story about someone I recently heard who's going on this journey. They're quite advanced. So,

Anton Osika: NAD, he works at a pretty large company in the US, Nursa, and uh he came to our platform because he wanted to build out a new product lines, nurse study for educating more

Host (Jason): right?

Anton Osika: So that's that's huge, right? But it's also the case that in some cases you have specific requirements where the tools that you've been using to date they aren't suited for you will have more more bespoke solutions. Yeah,

Anton Osika: but we're I also expect us to see that lovable continues to interoperate with all of those tools. And uh I'm not sure if you tried this if if you ask for connecting to an

Host (Jason): Okay. Growth is a phenomenal.

Host (Jason): So you're dying again by another 100 million in annual revenue.

Anton Osika: Exactly.

Host (Jason): So but underneath the hood you're using some of these.

Anton Osika: Yeah. Let me explain. Yeah. So we've always had this strategy that we do whatever is best for our customers. And in terms of the intelligence that means that we're using

Anton Osika: and increasingly it's open weight models where our team when whenever it's get gets routed to an to our own model that model becomes more intelligent for our agent harness

Host (Jason): Right. So, you're all in on open source. You believe that's the future of Lovable. I I'm reading into it. So we have multiple partnerships and we're investing heavily to

Anton Osika: right

Anton Osika: and uh we have a really really strong research team up in Stockholm who is working on what's called post training so and we're applying all the best practices to do that

Host (Jason): Are you doing or are you using any of the data labeling data training companies to help you understand the most common businesses and build that proprietary data? So, so

Anton Osika: We are. Yes. And that's and that's a lot of signals for making the system both the agent harness

Anton Osika: and um what we've been refining over the last two years which is the skills that we have have this like internal type of skills that the agent knows when to remember the facts from our software engineers that know how to build really really good software. We're modifying both of those on every every single week.

Host (Jason): It makes total sense. And somebody told me some companies are doing token dumping. They're, you know, selling $100 worth of tokens for $50. Um, you know, basically they become token resellers in some ways and they're money losing businesses. You have to you're money you're profitable I believe now or close to it. Um, we we always monitor our margins, but again um we're doing what's best for our customers and that means that often means more intelligence. So we're not we're not looking at oh let's use a we've never had the decision to say let's use a cheaper model here if it's measurably worse for our customers and we can measure that what's best for

Host (Jason): but are they is it unlimited for the 50 or you have caps now

Anton Osika: we have caps overages and caps are people starting to hit them

Host (Jason): yeah our customers definitely hit caps and then you can top up you can have a we have multiple subscription tiers

Host (Jason): what number I'm just curious like what percentage of people need to top up. They're so addicted to it that they're blowing past the the

Anton Osika: so from the lowest subscription tier.

Host (Jason): Yeah.

Anton Osika: Um I I think it's the

Anton Osika: uh m it's something like 60% of our customers I think

Host (Jason): I'm hearing that more and more often that people are willing to pay the overages because they're getting so much value. And I think that's the future of the business is people are looking at it going like I am. Well, if I'm paying $600 and if you token max to 6,000 a year, but this is a $500,000 piece of software, I don't care. I'm still paying somewhere between.1% and 1% of what I would have paid 3 years ago. Who cares?

Anton Osika: Go for it. Um, so

Anton Osika: yeah, what we're seeing is everything is about moving moving fast these days and and AI more AI usually lets you move much faster. So the spend is usually worth it.

Host (Jason): Do your customers a final question for you because I'm starting to see this now where multiple people in the organization try to solve the same software problem and they're competing with each other. So like this internet I'm talking about, we built one for Japan.

Anton Osika: Yeah.

Host (Jason): But somebody built the US one. So now I have two pieces of software. So I said to the two different people or do we have did you guys fork each other's code or they're like no we just built two different lovable projects. And I'm like is that the right thing to do because you went faster and I had two swings at bat two different intelligent brilliant people making their version of the software.

Anton Osika: But you would never have done that

Host (Jason): in the previous way of building software. You would have one track of software and you would be building Franken software where you'd be trying to get all the needs into it from the two different groups.

Anton Osika: I Yeah, I I'm actually a huge fan of very rapid experimentation and I I have a story where for a while I worked at a a place called CERN where they do particle physics. It's it's pretty here in Europe, right? Uh and that's where I was introduced to this concept of co-opetition where they have two actually quite isolated teams working on the same um particle accelerator but different places on it and then they don't share the results until they publish and that way they uh they can kind of over time learn what's working best in the different organizations but you don't get stuck in a local minimum and it's you know free markets work extremely well because of competition and they they they do that in academia as well and now since the engineering is less of the bottleneck. It's more the question of what is the right thing to build. I think it's a great thing to have if you have the sufficiently many humans right to do to try to attempt solving the same problem in different ways. And then if you do that on lovable, what I like to do is I I take I bring up a new project or one of the projects and I I say, "Hey, can you go and just check out this other one and take this these three things that I really like and and bring them bring them over here and maybe even run an a split test, run an experiment to see if it's if it's improves improving the metrics for for our customers we're trying to serve.

Host (Jason): Did you see somebody used Fable to build Fortnite

Anton Osika: and uh

Host (Jason): I've seen the 3D some of the 3D games?" Yeah.

Host (Jason): Yeah. What is your take on, you know, this latest version from Anthropic Fable? I know they're a part or I assume they're a partner. I don't know that.

Anton Osika: Yeah, we use Fable as well as one of the models.

Host (Jason): What do you think of it in terms of compared to the last generation faster, better, both? Yeah. Is it a massive step function? Yeah.

Anton Osika: What I've seen is that it can in the first attempt create very sophisticated things that look really good. Then when as you're evolving right it's it's still the same thing where you as a human you have to think you often should be planning together with your agent about what is the right thing to do and and that's more of that's again more of the bottleneck uh whereas more intelligence is on some tasks it's great yeah like it creates really beautiful things 3D games for example but on figuring what to what to build figuring out figuring out what are the right strategic directions or experiments you should run to improve outcomes for your business. That's um uh that's not changing as fast is the humans knowing how to use the tool to get and to plug in all the right data to be able to take the right decisions for taking your product forward and to take your business forward.

Host (Jason): Um listen, I love the product, but even more than I love the product and you as a founder, I love the outcome. The outcome for business is extraordinary. So, anybody who's listening, Lovable is absolutely worth your time. Don't wait. Just put it on your corporate card and start building. That's my message. Just start building with Lovable. It's an incredible product. And uh congratulations on being reborn six times cuz every 6 months you add 100 million in revenue it seems. And then everybody says Lovable's dead because the new foundation model is so good. But you keep studying your customer and and you keep somehow surviving and thriving. So congratulations as an entrepreneur. Thank you so much, Jason. I enjoyed that chat. I hope you enjoy the rest of your stay here in Paris.

Host (Jason): It's pretty great. And the Palace of Versailles is so impressive, huh? Uh someday we'll be building this with lovable and optimist robots. I

Anton Osika: I'm looking forward to it. I'm going all in. I'm going all in. [TRANSCRIPT_END]