AI时代:前所未有的技术变革
Alex Rampel: 大家好,对于我之前没有见过的人,我是Apps Fund的Alex Rampel。我在这家公司工作了十年。我从Chris Dixon那里借鉴了这个想法,他大概在12或13年前发表过一篇类似的文章。整个前提是产品周期推动增长。图表顶部是1977年至今的纳斯达克指数。它有时上涨,有时下跌,但从长远来看,它一直在上涨。不过也出现过一些非常可怕的下跌点。所以,实际上有四个主要的产品周期。首先是PC。显然,在PC之前还有半导体,但我们总要从某个地方开始,就从PC开始吧。总会有一个基础设施层面的公司在构建后端,还有一个应用层面的公司在构建实际使用的东西。例如,Lotus是首批基础设施公司之一,抱歉,是应用公司之一。Adobe、Semantic,所有这些公司都是在1980年代发展起来的。但基础设施的参与者是苹果和微软。然后是互联网,它规模巨大,一路上也出现了很多泡沫,但也诞生了一些非常持久的基础设施公司,比如思科和Okami,以及应用领域的持久公司,比如eBay和亚马逊,它们都是建立在互联网之上的。接着是云计算,AWS占据了亚马逊绝大部分的市值,还有Workday、Shopify、Viva等应用层面的公司。移动技术则将所有这些先前的技术整合起来,现在把一台超级计算机放进了每个人的口袋。地球上绝大多数人都拥有智能手机,这相当惊人,这就是移动时代,它实际上仍在发展。我刚买了一部40美元的安卓手机来测试,它的性能比1946年(或ENIAC问世的任何时候)的ENIAC超级计算机还要强大。大约两年前,AI时代也随之到来。纳斯达克指数更高了,我们都知道。但AI时代确实正在展开。最酷的是,这并非全新的事物,它建立在之前所有技术的基础之上。如果当初没有智能手机,没有云计算,只有ENIAC,那么AI可能会很酷,你可以在博物馆里看到它。但事实是,现在地球上有80亿人,其中绝大多数拥有智能手机。这项新技术的普及速度前所未有。所以,AI层,AI时代已经到来。软件领域绝大部分新增收入实际上都来自AI,无论是应用层还是基础设施层。
Original English
Alex Rampel: So for everyone that I haven't met before, I'm Alex Rampel on the Apps Fund. I've been at the firm for 10 years. I stole this from Chris Dixon who published a post like this about probably 12 or 13 years ago. And the whole premise is that product cycles drive growth. And the top of the chart here is the NASDAQ from 1977 to present. It goes up sometimes, it goes down sometimes. Over the long run, it has gone up. But there have been some very scary down points. So there really there have been four major product cycles. There was the PC. Obviously before the PC, there was the semiconductor. But we got to start somewhere. We'll start with the PC. There's always an infrastructure layer of companies that are building the back end. There's the application layer of people that are building things that actually are used. So, Lotus was one of the first infrastructure, sorry, application companies. Adobe, Semantic, all of these companies that kind of grew out of the 1980s. But the infra players, if you were Apple and Microsoft, then you had the internet that was enormous. Lots of bubbles along the way but some very very enduring infrastructure companies like Cisco and Okami enduring companies in the application space like eBay and Amazon that were built on top of that then you had cloud so AWS accounts for the vast majority of market cap of Amazon you've got Workday Shopify Viva others that were the application layer. Mobile took all of these things that came before and now put a supercomputer in everybody's pocket so the vast majority of humans on planet earth have a smartphone which is pretty amazing and that was the mobile era which is still still actually kind of playing out. I just bought an Android phone to test things with. It was $40 and this was more powerful than the ENIAC in 1946 or whenever the ENIAC came out. And then two years ago was that this AI era is coming out as well. And the NASDAQ is higher. We know that. But the AI era really is playing out. And the cool thing is this is not a net new thing. This is building on everything before. If we didn't have smartphones and we didn't have cloud, but we just had the ENIAC AI would be pretty cool. You could go check it out in a museum. But the fact is you now have 8 billion humans on planet Earth, the vast majority of whom have smartphones. And the adoption of this new technology is taking off like never before. So the AI layer, the AI era is here. The vast majority of net new revenue that's happening in software land is actually coming from AI both at the application layer and the infrastructure layer.
Jen: 确实很难回溯到两年前。当时,当然,ChatGPT 3 已经发布了,我想 ChatGPT 4 也发布了,但它都只是文本、图像和一些基本推理,显然还没有原生的音频功能、实时的交互。所有这些都还没有发生。很难想象我们在这短短两年内取得了多大的进步。
Original English
Jen: It's hard to actually think back two years ago. At that point in time, of course, Chat GPT 3 had launched. I think Chat GPT 4 had also launched, but it was all just text and imaging and some basic reasoning, but none of the native audio stuff, obviously, real life real-time interaction, none of that actually had happened yet. It's hard to even imagine how far we've come even in just the two-year time frame as a part of that.
Alex Rampel: 是的,我的意思是,这些东西所做的一切确实非常了不起。我们开玩笑说,我们曾有通用人工智能或图灵测试的概念,比如当我们不知道对话者是谁时,如何区分计算机和人类?答案是,如果你把一个人带回到10年前、20年前或30年前,给他们看现在的东西,他们会惊呼:“天哪,这简直是完全有知觉的,它比任何人类都聪明!”我们一直在稍微改变AGI的定义,但这里的创新速度确实非常惊人,重要的是它所开启的机遇。总是在牛市和非常激动人心的科技出现时,会有人说这是泡沫,或者它不起作用,或者被过度炒作了。我想麻省理工学院曾发表过一篇论文,说大多数企业部署的AI实际上并不奏效。我们看到的恰恰相反。我将展示两件事。有一家名为RAMP的公司,他们提供信用卡费用管理产品。你会看到2025年1月出现了一个巨大的增长,这表明企业,尤其是那些更具前瞻性的公司(不一定是初创公司,也不是通用电气,而是拥有数千名员工,可能在湾区或纽约,希望更具科技前瞻性的公司),他们意识到:哇,这些东西,就像你说的,GPT-3.5已经相当不错了,而GPT-4则令人惊叹。我可以用它写一集新的《宋飞正传》,做一些令人惊叹的事情,几乎是为了让朋友们惊叹,就像一个魔术。但现在,这个魔术已经进入了企业领域,为人们节省了时间和金钱。你可能会从我的这次演讲中得到一个主题,那就是我对人类行为有一种普遍的看法,即每个人都想要两样东西:他们想变得更富有,也想变得更懒惰。所以他们想做更少的工作,获得更多的经济价值。这正是生成式AI所能解锁的,而且它现在确实正在发生。这条曲线之前有些平坦,但现在已经大幅度上扬。你可以在支出数据中看到这一点,在所有公司(无论是基础设施层还是应用层)的增长中也能看到。再次强调,它们是被高估还是低估,这几乎不是重点。在这些事情上把握市场时机很难。它们所创造的价值是巨大的,我们稍后会深入探讨。
Original English
Alex Rampel: Yeah. I mean, it's really remarkable what these things have done. I mean, one of the ways of kind of joking about this is that, we had this idea of artificial general intelligence or the Turing test. When can we tell the difference between a computer and a human if we don't know who our interlocutor is? And the answer is if you were to take a person 10 years ago and show them or 20 years ago or 30, like, oh my god, this is like a fully sentient, this is smarter than any kind of human out there. We kind of keep changing the goalpost a little bit on what exactly is AGI but yes, the pace of innovation here is just remarkable and the important thing is just the opportunity set that it unlocks. So there was a paper very there's always whenever you have a bull market and very very exciting tech there's always somebody saying it's a bubble or it doesn't work or it's all overhyped and I think there was some MIT paper that came out. This is not faulty MIT, this is somebody who published the paper. It's like, oh, most enterprise deployments really really aren't working in terms of AI. We're seeing the exact opposite and I'll show two things. So there's a company called RAMP and they are credit card expense management products. And you see this giant tick up in January of 2025 which is when did enterprises and these are much more like who uses RAMP. This is not necessarily a startup but it's a more forward thinking company. It's not necessarily GE. It's a company with thousands of employees, maybe in the Bay Area or New York, that wants to be more tech forward. And they've just realized like, wow, this stuff, Jen, to your point, like GPT 3.5, pretty good. Four. I was like, wow, it's pretty amazing. I could write a new episode of Seinfeld with it. Amazing things that I could do almost to kind of wow my friends, like a magic trick. But now the magic trick has actually gone into the enterprise and is saving people time and money. And one of the themes that you'll potentially get out of this presentation from me is that I have this prevailing view of human behavior which is everybody wants two things. They want to be richer and lazier. So they want to do less work and get more economic value. And this is really what Gen AI unlocks. And it's really starting to happen right now. And this has been a little bit of a flat curve but it has been inflecting a lot. And you see this in the expense data. You see it in the growth of all of the companies both at the infrastructure layer and at the app layer. And again whether they're overvalued or undervalued is almost not the point. It's hard to time the market on these things. The amount of value that they are generating is just tremendous and we're going to get into this in a second. So there's a if anybody knows Maslow's hierarchy of needs like this is like this philosophical tome of what is it that humans need at the base of the pyramid you know people would joke is Wi-Fi. So, it's like, okay, I need all these things that have been true for hundreds of years. And at the very very top of that pyramid is this self-actualization concept, but what I really really need, if you talk to any teenager, it's like, where's my Wi-Fi? Where's my Wi-Fi? And what's starting to happen now next is it's actually AI. So obviously you can't have AI without the Wi-Fi, but something like 15% of adults on planet Earth now use Chat GPT every single week. And why are they using it? It's just part of their daily routine. Whether it's settling a bet with their friends over how does this work or that work or I want directions to this thing or I'm really puzzled. My wife just used it to complain to the school because our kid missed the bus and the bus driver said he can't open the door because it's against the law to open the door. This is the true story. So, my wife had Chat GPT scan all the laws in California and the US federal system at large even though our government is closed down. Nope. That was completely made up. Send a very very polite note. I'm sure that the school is going to start adopting Chat GBT2 to start responding to people like my wife saying, apologizing on behalf of the bus driver. But they did they did send an apology. Sorry, we made that up. Next time we could open the door for your child if he is on time when the bus has already closed the door. It's like a countably infinite number of use cases for these things. And the growth of minutes per user in the US, I mean, this is just astronomical. And as these things work better and as they unlock more use cases, it's kind of obvious that the growth in minutes will go up. This is happening at a break neck speed. So the key paper which was co-written by this very very smart guy Nom Shazir in 2017, Attention Is All You Need. It introduced the transformer model. I remember we have a partner here, Frank Chen, who's been here for a very, very long time, and he demoed Chat GPT or GPT2. And it didn't really work that well. It reminded me of this thing called Eliza, which was like a famous Marov chain based thing. It was basically a therapist that came out. It was an AI based therapist in the 1960s or 1970s. It's still around. You could try it. And basically, you say like, doctor, I'm not feeling well. And then it just kind of says, and why is it, Jen, that you aren't feeling well? It just basically takes the words that you say, turns it into a question. It feels kind of sentient until you ask it like, "Hey, I want to complain to the school about the bus driving." And then it says, "And why do you want to complain to the school about the bus driving?" It doesn't actually give you an answer or anything that you need. So, OpenAI, it's hard to imagine that this just happened a couple years ago, but from 2023 until now, we really have entered the golden age of apps. And I base that purely numerically. I mean like the number of I'm used to companies that will grow from I don't know like we used to talk talk about like double double triple or triple triple double or all these different ways of measuring revenue growth because normally if you're selling a software product and let's just say that you're selling a software product to an enterprise and it's $100,000 a year you might sell a couple one year a couple the next year a couple the next year but very very rarely have we ever seen a software company go from zero to $100 million in revenue in a year or two and we are seeing this right now and that that's why and this is not like oh we're seeing it because people have too much money and they're buying these things. These are companies that are buying these things because it unlocks so much value for them. They want to be lazier, they want to be richer and this is unlocking that. So I'm going to talk about three broader themes that we're seeing in AI applications. Really more broadly these are the types of companies that we're investing in. And partially this is when we ask ourselves what is defensible? What is it that the labs aren't going to do? Because this is a very very good question. It's not like OpenAI just wants to be this backend layer for everything. They have a leading consumer app like they just launched arguably a competitor to TikTok. So Microsoft is getting into the space in a meaningful way and if you look at the history of software I mean this firm was started by Mark Andre. He started a company called Netscape. Netscape became roadkill due to this company called Microsoft that went into an antitrust case because of making Netscape roadkill and whatnot. But how do you build an enduring company and what are the areas that potentially have the most enduring growth? And there are three that I'm going to lay out. So the first is basically traditional software is going AI native. And this is no different than if you could have built a time machine if you built a time machine right now go back 15 20 years and say I'm just going to invest in every single cloudnative company that pops up. You would have an incredible portfolio. You'd have Shopify. You'd have Viva. You'd have Netswuite when Netswuite's a little bit older. You'd have Salesforce when it went first went public because it turned out that the incumbents couldn't really respond to that because they were selling on premise software or shrink wrap software for a lot of money upfront and they didn't really know how to go for like less money every single month as a subscription. So, category one is Trad software that's going AI native. Category two is arguably the biggest, which is basically it's not competing with the software market at all. This is if any of you saw my talk that I gave in May, software is starting to eat labor. You're basically selling software that does the job of what people would do before. This is arguably a much much bigger market. The laws of business still apply. You have to build real modes. You can't just build something that's a little widget that somebody underprices your widget by a dollar tomorrow. We're going to talk about that in a second. And then lastly, I call this the walled garden, but basically really really interesting proprietary data models where the value of this business because you're able to deliver the finished product thanks to AI becomes much more valuable. And I'll talk about number one. So existing categories are going AI native.
传统软件的AI原生化
Alex Rampel: 我们实际上几天后会发布一篇关于这个的帖子。我相信在座的各位都听说过或玩过宾果游戏。我来自佛罗里达州,那里有很多宾果游戏。这个列表上有很多不同的名字。作为一名投资者,我学到的一个重要教训是,Mercury就是一个很好的例子,它就像一只乌龟,击败了兔子,而且现在仍在击败兔子。Mercury为初创公司建立了一个新银行。他们说:“当你创办公司时,我们将成为你更好的资金存放来源。我们将帮助你支付账单,跟踪开支,并提供基本的会计系统。”Mercury从未从硅谷银行那里抢走任何现有客户,直到硅谷银行倒闭的那个周末。这就是我所说的典型的“绿地机会”与“棕地机会”。“棕地”是指你向现有市场销售产品。举个例子,你使用Mailchimp进行电子邮件营销,我想向你推销一个具有AI功能的Mailchimp竞争产品,这会非常困难。或者你使用Netsuite,我却说:“嘿,放弃你的Netsuite吧,我给你一个AI版的Netsuite。”这也会非常困难。如果你是一家全新的公司,这就是我所说的“绿地”。你没有现有产品,什么都不用,你是一家全新的公司。或者有时你会遇到一个转折点。我以Netsuite为例。转折点是:我现在有50名员工,有三个实体和两种货币。我一辈子都在用QuickBooks。然而,QuickBooks出于某种原因无法很好地支持多实体和多货币。毕马威说:“嘿,你必须转用一个更好的ERP系统来支持这些。”现在我有了机会选择市场上更好的产品,而Netsuite就是市场上的一个产品,或者我可以尝试我们公司的一个产品,叫做Real,它基本上就像Netsuite,但它能为你结账,内置了50个AI功能。这就是一个“绿地”的例子。当然,这些东西不会像野草一样生长,因为你必须等待新公司的创建。你完全针对“绿地”而非“棕地”。但这个宾果板上的每一个位置,现有公司都在采用AI,他们将通过AI使自己的业务变得更好。比如bill.com会成为更强大的业务,SAP会成为更强大的业务,Adobe会成为更强大的业务,都因为AI。他们将能够为新功能收费。Workday将开始收费,我在几个月前的演讲中提到过这一点。Workday会说:“嘿,你希望我们对你系统中输入的每位新员工进行背景调查吗?每次背景调查收费500美元。为什么不能有人以4.99美元的价格完成呢?”因为你已经被Workday绑住了。我经常说一句话,最好的公司拥有的是“人质”,而不是客户。我将在这里举几个例子。RPA领域有一家现有公司叫UiPath,是一家上市公司。客户支持领域有一家现有公司叫Zendesk,现在是一家私营公司。ERP领域有SAP、Netsuite。在某些情况下,比如Zendesk按每个席位每月收费。这种商业模式对于支持软件来说几乎已经过时了,因为等等,我不想按每个席位每月付费,当99%的查询都可以由支持软件回答时,我希望按结果付费。所以我们一直在积极地押注这个宾果板,评估我们在这个领域看到的每一家公司。无论是薪资、支持还是ERP,重要的是这些都是“记录系统”。这就是我所说的“最好的公司拥有人质,而不是客户”。我们不想投资那些拥有“人质”的公司。我们不想投资那些NPS为负100的公司。我们想投资那些仍然拥有非常强大护城河的公司。这就是我使用这个表达时的意思。所以我们在这里关注的所有公司,“记录系统”是什么意思?它意味着它运行着整个业务。宾果板上的所有东西,比如你如何摆脱Netsuite?这基本上是不可能的。你可以通过AI楔子进入,或者,通常情况下,很多这些宾果类别我们只是在构建新的“记录系统”。现有的公司也在这样做,但当你刚进入市场或处于这个转折点时,选择是使用旧的还是需要新的,这仍然是一个无需思考的选择。
Original English
Alex Rampel: So this is a little we actually have a post coming out about this in a couple days. I'm sure everybody here has heard of bingo or played bingo. I'm from Florida. There's lots of bingo in Florida. Lots of different names on this list. And one of the key lessons that I had as an investor is Mercury is kind of a great example of the tortoise that beat and is still beating the hair. Mercury built a neo bank for startups. So, they said, "We're going to be the better source for you when you start your company to go deposit your money with us. We're going to help you pay your bills, track your expenses, be a basic accounting system." Mercury never stole an existing customer from Silicon Valley Bank until the weekend that Silicon Valley Bank failed. And it is what I would call the canonical greenfield opportunity versus brownfield opportunity. So, brownfield is you're selling to an existing market. So, let's just take an example here. Email marketing, you use Mailchimp, I want to go sell you a competitor to Mailchimp because it has AI. That's going to be really hard. Or you use Netswuite and I'm going to say like, hey, ditch your Netswuite. I'm going to give you AI Netswuite. That's going to be really hard. If you're a net new company, and this is what I mean by greenfield. You have no existing product. You're not using anything. You're a brand new company. Or sometimes you hit an inflection point. So the inflection point, I'll pick on Netswuite here for a second. The inflection point is I have 50 employees now. I have three entities and two currencies. I've been using QuickBooks my entire life. QuickBooks can't handle for whatever reason they cannot handle multi-entity multicurrency support very well. KPMG says, "Hey, you got to go move to a better ERP system that supports that." And now I have an opportunity to pick the better product in the market and Netswuite is a product in the market or I can try this thing called Real which is one of our companies which is basically like Netswuite but it closes the books for you. It has 50 AI features built in. That is a Greenfield example. Now, these things don't grow like weeds because you have to wait for the new company creation. You're going entirely for greenfield and not for brownfield. But every single one of these spots on this bingo board, the incumbents are all adopting AI and they're going to make their businesses much much better with AI. Like bill.com is going to be a stronger business or SAP is going to be a stronger business or Adobe is going to be a stronger business because of AI. They're just going to be able to charge for new things. Workday will start charging, and I mentioned this in my presentation that I gave a couple months ago. Workday will say, "Hey, do you want us to do reference checks on every new employee that you enter into our system? That's $500 per reference check. Why can't somebody do it for $4.99?" Because you're stuck with Workday. And there's a saying that I use a lot, which is the best companies have hostages, not customers. And I'll talk about a couple examples here. So RPA, there's an existing company called UiPath, public company. Customer support, there's an existing company called Zenesk. It's now a private company. ERP, SAP, Netswuite or in some cases like Zenesk charges per seat per month. That is almost an extinct business model for support software because well wait a minute I don't want to pay per seat per month when 99% of all queries can be answered by the support software I want to pay per outcome. So we've been aggressively betting on the bingo board let's evaluate every company that we see in this space. So if it's payroll, if it's support, if it's ERP and the important thing is that these are systems of record. So this is the the best companies take hostages, not customers. Like we don't want to invest in hostage companies. We don't want to invest in companies that have negative 100 NPS. We want to invest in companies that still have a very very strong mo. And that's what I mean when I use that expression. So all of the companies that we're looking at here, what is a system of record? It just means like it runs the entire business. Everything on that bingo board like how do you get rid of Netswuite? It's basically impossible. You can enter in with an AI wedge or more often than not a lot of these bingo categories are we're just building the new system of record. The existing incumbent is doing that as well but it still is a no-brainer whenever you're brand new in the market or at this inflection point of do I use this old one or do I need this new one.
软件取代劳动力
Alex Rampel: 接下来,第二个主题是我个人最兴奋的,那就是新的类别正在涌现,其中劳动力就是软件,而且对此根本没有宾果板。原因是没有软件公司以前做过这个。主要的主题是,有很多事情你以前会雇佣一个人来做,但你现在无法雇佣那个人,或者你原本要雇佣的那个人不会说21种不同的外语,也不会一天工作24小时。但软件可以完成人类90%的工作。现在,你会为软件付费,不一定以你支付劳动力的相同费率,但这并不是你以前会雇佣软件产品来做的事情。这并不是你以前会拥有软件产品来做的事情。所以,我将在这里举几个例子。显然,我提到过这一点,我可能会一直提到,但劳动力市场比软件市场大得多。
Original English
Alex Rampel: So next here. So the second theme here which I am personally most excited about is where new categories are emerging where labor is software and there's no bingo board for this at all. And the reason why is because there weren't software companies that did this before. And the predominant theme is that you have a lot of things where you would hire a person, you can't hire that person or that person that you were going to hire doesn't speak 21 different foreign languages and won't work 24 hours a day. But software can do 90% of what that human would do. Now, you will pay for software, not necessarily at the same rate that you would pay for labor, but this is not something that you would hire a software product for. This is not something you would ever have a software product for before. So, I'll talk about a couple examples here. And obviously, I mentioned this, I can mention this ad nauseium, but the labor market is astronomically bigger than the software market.
Alex Rampel: 再次强调,这是这里的指导原则。你去看一份工作,比如Plaza Lane Optometry的前台接待员。Plaza Lane Optometry在软件方面也有一个宾果板,他们在这上面花钱。他们可能会花钱购买Microsoft Office,可能会花钱购买Squarespace或Wix。这大约每年500美元。如果你能提供一个软件产品,完成这份招聘启事上八项工作中的五项,他们就会雇佣这个软件产品。他们会为这个软件产品支付多少钱?这部分市场几乎是未知的。因为他们几乎肯定不会支付他们为这份工作广告的每年47,000美元,或者他们为这份工作支付的任何费率。他们可能也不会为软件支付500美元。但是这个软件产品的推广者、创造者、开发者,一家应用软件公司,可能会说:“我们将向你收取每年20,000美元。”他们需要谨慎地这样做。我们通常希望看到它们成为一个“记录系统”,这样如果它们承担了这八项工作职责中的五项,就不会有人突然出现说:“我们将收取每年19,999美元。”我们想确保这是一个对Plaza Lane Optometry来说非常非常粘性的最终解决方案。我相信,你会在现有软件产品的宾果板上看到大量的市值创造,这些产品有了新的、更好的替代品,正在追逐“绿地”机会。但在这里,你可以追逐“棕地”机会。你可以追逐现有公司。你可能会收取更高的费用。这有一条通往更爆炸性收入增长的道路。
Original English
Alex Rampel: So again, this is kind of the governing principle here. You go look at a job, front desk receptionist, Plaza Lane Optometry. Plaza Lane Optometry has like they have a bingo board as well in terms of software that they spend money on. They probably spend money on Microsoft Office. They probably spend money on Squarespace or Wix. That's on the order of $500 a year. If you can deliver them a software product that does, call it five out of the eight things on this job posting, they will hire that software product. What do they pay for that software product? This is the part of the market that is almost unknown. Because they're probably they're almost definitely not going to pay the $47,000 a year that they're advertising for this job or whatever the rate is that they're paying for the job. They're probably not going to pay $500 for software. But the promoter, the creator, developer of this software product, an application software company, might say, we're going to charge you $20,000 a year. They need to be careful about how they do this. We often want to see them turn into a system of records so that if they are doing, five of these eight job responsibilities, somebody doesn't pop up and say, "We're going to charge $19,999 a year." We want to make sure that this is a very, very sticky end solution for Plaza Lane Optometry. You're going to see, I believe, a lot of market cap creation on the bingo board of existing software products that have a new better alternative that are going after Greenfield. But here, you can go after Brownfield. You can go after existing companies. You could probably charge a lot more. There was a path to much much more explosive revenue growth.
David: 也许我们退一步看,你可能已经听过很多关于法律AI的事情。鉴于这个行业对文档的密集程度,LLM在这个领域有很多应用。你可能听过的大部分是关于像Harvey这样的公司,服务于辩护和公司方面。你可能不太熟悉的是原告方,它主要是代表个人处理就业法或人身伤害等领域的案件。我们花了很多时间研究原告方的不同公司。部分原因在于,这个市场的一个独特特点是,这些律师是按胜诉分成收费的,这意味着他们只有在胜诉后才能获得报酬。因此,他们与客户的利益高度一致。他们不是按小时计费,而是从实际案件结果中抽取一定比例。因此,对于原告律师收到的每100个潜在客户,他们通常只接手一个案件,因为任何时候接手一个案件,都是对你时间和劳动力的投资。所以,这与AI对其核心商业模式的影响有着惊人的一致性,对吧?相比之下,如果你是一名公司律师,如果你的初级律师生产力提高了50倍,你就会侵蚀一部分你可以向最终客户收取的收入。而在这个案例中,如果你能让你的律师生产力提高5倍,你就有可能将收入提高5倍或更多。所以,EVE的团队从产品角度来看,有一个特别有趣的观点,他们真的想拥有从案件受理到结果的全程工作流程。所以,就像Alex之前提到的语音功能,他们最近推出了一款语音代理,它实际上正在从潜在客户那里收集证据,筛选大量的医疗记录或就业文件,并帮助这些律师决定接手哪些案件,因为它正在生成一个关于案件特征的数据集,这样它就可以说:“嘿,这个案件可能价值5万美元,这个案件可能价值500万美元。你可能应该把时间花在这个案件上。”然后它会帮助律师们完成诉讼前和诉讼的所有不同阶段。所以,它会起草医疗时间表,起草这些案件的核心文件,也就是所谓的“索赔函”。它还会提交诉状。最终,我认为这个业务最有趣的地方,也说明了为什么“护城河”很重要,就是这些律师整天都在使用这个产品。我们在尽职调查这家公司时听到的一个核心反馈是,实际上100%的案件都通过这个产品处理。但有趣的是,随着EVE开始生成关于结果的数据,这些数据并不是公开的,大型实验室无法用这些数据来训练模型,而这些数据实际上正在为更好的案件受理提供信息。这样他们就可以回过头来说,在案件受理阶段,考虑到我们在EVE平台上处理的所有案件中看到的特征,这些案件有三个变量,使得这个案件可能价值更高。或者,就像Alex所说,它可以降低接手案件的成本。以前,律师只接手那些至少可能为他们带来5万美元收入的案件,而现在他们可以负担得起接手5000美元的案件。市场扩大了,对吧?原告方存在巨大的供需不平衡,而EVE正在解决这个问题。因此,这个产品的市场吸引力坦率地说比我们预期的还要强。我希望它具有许多我们将持续投资的特点,即AI与业务高度一致,既能推动收入增长,又能为这些人节省资金。
Original English
David: But just to maybe to take a step back, you've probably heard a ton about what's happening in legal AI. Just given how document intensive the industry is, there's tons of applications for LLMs in the space. Most of what you've probably heard are around companies like Harvey, serving the defense and the corporate side. Maybe less familiar to you might be the plaintiff side, which is really about representing the individuals in areas like employment law or personal injury. And we spent a bunch of time looking at the different companies on the plaintiff side. In part because one of the unique characteristics about that side of the market is that these attorneys operate on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if they win. And so they're incredibly aligned with their clients. They don't they don't build by the hour, they take a percentage of the actual case outcome. And so as a result, for every hundred leads that a plaintiff attorney gets, they often take one case because anytime you take a case, it's an investment in your time and your labor. So just incredible alignment with AI's impact on their core business model, right? To contrast that, if you're a corporate attorney, and your junior attorney is 50 times more productive, you just eroded some of the revenue that you can actually charge to your end client. Again, in this case, if you can make your attorneys 5x more productive, you can potentially increase your revenue by 5x or more. And so, the EVE guys had a particular particularly interesting kind of point of view from a product perspective, they really wanted to own the end-to-end workflow from intake all the way to outcomes. And so to Alex's point earlier around voice, they recently launched a voice agent which is actually collecting evidence from their prospective clients and it's sifting through mountains of medical records or employment documents and helping these attorneys figure out which cases to take because it is generating sort of this data set of case characteristics such that it can say hey this case is potentially worth 50k you know this case is worth $5 million. You should probably spend time on this case over here. And then it'll just help step through all the different phases of prelitigation and litigation for these attorneys. So, it'll draft a medical chronology. It'll draft a kind of core artifact of these cases, which is known as a demand letter. It'll file complaints. And ultimately, I think what's so interesting about this business, and it speaks to, I think, why Moes matter, one is these attorneys are living in this product all day long. One of the core pieces of feedback that we heard when we were diligencing the business was that literally 100% of the cases were flowing through the product but interestingly as Eve begins to generate data on outcomes that data isn't public right that's not something that the large labs can train models against and that data is actually informing better intake right so that they can then go back and say at intake hey given the characteristics that we've seen in all the cases that we prosecuted across all the EVE platform you know, these have these three variables that make this case potentially worth a lot more money. Or to Alex's point, it can reduce the cost of taking on a case. Before an attorney was only taking a case that, at minimum, could potentially make them 50k and suddenly they can afford to take cases at 5k. The market expands, right? And there's a big sort of supply and demand imbalance on the plaintiff side that EVE is unlocking. And as a result, just the market pull for this product has been candidly stronger than we even anticipated. My hope is that it has a lot of characteristics that we'll be continuously investing in where AI is just incredibly aligned with the business, both driving revenue and saving these folks money.
Alex Rampel: 谢谢Jen。是的,我之所以想谈论这个,是因为我觉得EVE非常酷,但它也是我们认为引人注目的商业模式的一种比喻。为什么从0到30,或者从2到30的增长并非不寻常,而是如果你能非常迅速地行动,并再次兑现“让你更懒惰、更富有”的承诺,那么它实际上是正常的。我们来回答一些问题。
Original English
Alex Rampel: Well, thanks J. Yeah. And the reason why I wanted to talk about that is I think it's really cool as Eve, but it's a metaphor for the types of businesses that we find compelling and why, 0 to 30 certainly or 2 to 30 is not normal, but it actually is normal if you're able to move very very quickly and just deliver again this this promise of I'm going to make you lazier and richer. So let's go to the next slide. Actually before we go to to salient Alex why don't we just take some of these questions here because they're relevant in the context of an example and then also before we switch to salient exemplify why why we find these to be particularly compelling. So there's a good question here from Brian.
AI应用的护城河与粘性
Jen: Brian这里有一个很好的问题。很多基于消费的AI应用很难成为任务关键型应用。作为更广泛套件的一部分,它们很容易打开或关闭。你们在尽职调查中如何评估这一点?也许David,如果你想用EVE作为例子,或者我们投资组合中的其他公司。你们如何评估这种智能,以及你们看到了哪些应用真正成为必需品的模式?
Original English
Jen: A lot of consumptionbased AI apps have found it hard to become mission critical. They're easy to switch on or off as a part of the broader suite. How do you evaluate that in diligence? Maybe David if you want to use Eve as an example or other others that we have in the portfolio. How do you evaluate that intelligence and what patterns have you seen around in which apps actually graduate to being essential?
David: 是的,我经常区分“差异化”和“可防御性”。我认为AI通常是实现差异化的绝佳工具,对吧?比如语音代理可以用50种语言与人交流并收集证据,这与人类相比具有高度差异化,显然能带来价值。但仅凭这种能力,在我看来,并不是其可防御性的来源。EVE可防御性的来源在于它拥有端到端的工作流程,它实际上是构建了一个与律师所有工作相关的产品。然后,我认为,虽然不限于EVE,但一个“X因素”是该业务正在生成的数据,Alex稍后会在“围墙花园”部分提到,它具有“围墙花园”的一些特征,这些数据不是公开的,它为产品本身创造了一种复合的竞争优势,对吧?所以,EVE为不同客户处理的案件越多,产品就越智能,这实际上强化了这种循环。它就像,你带着枪去参加一场刀战,对吧?所以很快,它将成为任何原告律师必不可少的操作工具。这使得它非常难以被取代,对吧?所以,它不仅仅是AI,比如语音或总结文档的能力,它实际上是成为了“记录系统”,这个端到端的工作流程。
Original English
David: Yeah, I mean one of the distinctions that I often draw is this notion of differentiation versus defensibility. And I think AI is an incredible tool often for differentiation, right? So the idea that the voice agent can speak to folks in 50 languages and gather that evidence, highly differentiated versus the human, right? Obviously delivering value but that capability alone in my opinion is not a source of their defensibility right the source of defensibility for Eve is in owning the end workflow right it is actually in building a product that is contextual to all the work that that attorney has to do and then I think not unique to EVE but one of the kind of x factors is that the data that that business is generating which Alex will get into a bit in this sort of walled garden it has a bit of these characteristics of this sort of walled garden is not public and it sort of creates a source of compounding competitive advantage, for the product itself, right? So, the more cases that Eve can prosecute for all their different clients, the smarter that the product becomes and it actually kind of reinforces that loop. It becomes sort of, you know, you're showing you're showing up to a knife fight with a gun, right? And so soon it's going to become an essential tool for any plaintiff attorney to operate with. And that just becomes very difficult to displace, right? So, it's not so much the AIS, right, in the voice or the ability to summarize documents. It's actually in becoming kind of the system record this end workflow.
Jen: 当然。事实上,是的,这里有多个线索可以探讨,但也许我先问这个问题,关于这些公司在劳动力与垂直软件类别中市场规模的潜在上行空间,以及这类公司如何构建可防御的护城河,尤其是在AI普及和成本持续下降的情况下,如何获得有吸引力的利润。
Original English
Jen: For sure. And in fact actually yeah there's multiple threats to pull on it but maybe I'll answer ask this question first relatedly around talking about the potential upside of market size of these companies around labor versus vertical software bucket and how do companies in this category build defensible most and particularly earn attractive margins as AI proliferates and costs continue to scale down.
Alex Rampel: 是的,我们最后再回到这个问题,因为我希望你从中得到的不是我们只投资那些做劳务的公司,然后就结束了。护城河比以往任何时候都更重要,因为软件领域发生的一件事是,曾几何时有一家公司叫Word Perfect,它在很长一段时间内持续增长。或者曾几何时有一家公司叫VisiCalc,然后拥有最多分销渠道的人说“我也应该做那个”,然后就复制了它。显然,Word Perfect完蛋了,VisiCalc也完蛋了。击败VisiCalc的Lotus 1-2-3也完蛋了。但通常需要五年时间,面包才会变成烤面包。而且速度非常快。我的意思是,现在Anish、David、我和Jen可以去构建一个软件产品,我们可以“vibe code”(如果你听过这个词),我们可以非常迅速地构建软件。这实际上增加了任何构建了拥有巨大利润池的软件产品的人的风险。你知道,“你的利润就是我的机会”,我可以“vibe code”来对抗你的机会。它必须非常非常粘性。它必须拥有一些独特的竞争优势,而数据通常就是其中之一。所以,如果我与每一家原告律师事务所合作,或者,我们为什么不直接看下一张幻灯片,我来谈谈Saliant。
Original English
Alex Rampel: Yeah. Why don't we come back to that one at the end because I think hopefully what you'll get from it's not like we're just investing in companies that do labor and then the end. There modes matter if in fact more than ever because the one thing that's happened in software is once upon a time there was a company called Word Perfect and Word Perfect kind of kept growing for a very very long time or once upon a time there was a company called VisiCal and then whoever had the most distribution said I should do that copies it and obviously Word Perfect is toast, Visical is toast. Lotus 123 which was the one that beat Visical that became toast but it would normally take 5 years for the the bread to become toast and there was a very very high level of prolific speed I mean now Anish David and I and Jen can go build a software product we can vibe code if you've heard that term we can go build software very very quickly what makes it actually increases the peril for anybody who's built a software product that has an enormous margin pool you know your margin is my opportunity well I can vibe Well, I could vibe code against your opportunity. It has to be very very sticky. It has to have some unique competitive advantage and data is often one of those. So, if I work with every plaintiff law firm or actually why don't we go to the next slide here and I'll just talk about Saliant a little bit.
Saliant:AI驱动的价值创造
Alex Rampel: Saliant与EVE的模式类似。我知道我们也有一个问题,关于每个人都失去工作对社会的影响。我认为这不会很快发生。1789年,98%的美国人是农民,显然拖拉机让他们中的一些人失业,去做其他事情。但坦率地说,我们看到的大部分情况并不是为了消除工作。我的意思是,我确实认为有350万卡车司机,在某个时候,我们会有比卡车司机更好的解决方案,让AI来做这项工作。但大多数这些事情,它们实际上是这样的:你这里有成本,你这里有价值,你永远不会雇佣一个产出价值低于其成本的人,这根本不合理。但如果你现在可以有效地雇佣AI,你可以雇佣AI,它的成本下降了,而价值保持不变。你会雇佣大量的AI。你不会解雇大量的人类。而且,如果有什么不同的话,我们永远不知道。这太难预测了,但人类会做什么?我的意思是,75年前,软件公司里没有“产品经理”或“设计师”这样的工作。所有今天存在的工作,对于1800年的人来说,都是毫无意义的。所以,很难对此进行推测。但我们看到很多事情,它们本身并不是在取代人。我知道说“软件正在吞噬劳动力”听起来很夸张,但实际上软件正在增强劳动力,或者它正在解决我无法雇佣的所有这些人,无论是工作短缺还是技能短缺,或者其他什么。我现在可以部署能够接电话的人,比如我永远不会雇佣一个人在凌晨2点接电话。我会在下午4点雇佣人,但不会在凌晨2点。这只是价值与成本的等式颠倒了。一个很好的例子就是Saliant。是的,他们针对的是那些收取汽车贷款服务费的人。所以,你去找汽车贷款机构,他们必须确保他们正在收取账单,或者如果有人出了车祸,保险公司应该赔付你。我如何确保保险公司按时支付我,并把支票开给正确的人?在这种情况下,因为我有租约,他们需要把支票开给我,而不是实际的,你知道,不是那个人的实际名字。我如何处理所有这些事情?我会雇佣很多人。我会培训很多人。很多人讨厌他们的工作,因为事实证明,人们整天对他们大喊大叫,说:“我不会为这辆车还钱”,或者保险公司让你等待四个小时,那整个音乐简直糟透了,如果你每天要听12个小时,你会想自杀。人类不想做这些事情,或者你无法雇佣人类来做这些事情,所有这些原因。Saliant的关键不是他们为你省钱。Saliant的关键是他们多收取了50%的款项。这是关键,因为首席执行官Arya一直推销说:“我会为你省钱,我会为你省钱,我会为你省钱。”人们喜欢省钱,但如果你对某人说:“我每个月会为你多收取50%的收入,而且我会确保你不会坐牢,因为你雇佣的那些没有受过良好培训,每天必须听四个小时糟糕等待音乐的人,他们不会说不该说的话,我可以确保AI不会做这些事情。”这就是为什么这家公司增长如此迅猛的原因。它更多地是关于价值创造。是的,成本确实低得多。这是关于他们如何为产品收费的问题之一。他们去找了他们的第一个客户,这个客户有一个每年5000万美元的呼叫中心,员工年流失率在40%到70%之间。这只是,不是因为他们解雇人,而是没有人想做这份工作。所以他们现在说:“我将用软件为你完成这项工作。我将为你提供一个‘记录系统’。我将确保我们抓取每一条新的联邦和州法规,因为你在密苏里州说的话与你在加利福尼亚州说的话非常不同,与你在爱荷华州说的话也非常不同。我们将完成所有这些事情。没有人能同时记住这些。就像,好吧,我正在和David说话。糟糕。我该说什么?他来自圣塔,你知道,他在加利福尼亚州的某个地方。哦,等等,但他实际上正在去堪萨斯州旅行。我不知道该说什么。”Saliant知道该说什么,它知道如何用21种语言表达,这就是为什么收款率高出50%的原因。所以,像“我们将为你赚更多的钱,而且成本更低”的整个类别,这真的很难摆脱。对我们来说,关键问题,我认为这是一个很好的问题,是如何确保我们支持了正确的公司,以及如何确保Saliant不是,我的意思是,这是Ari来找我时我的头号问题,我说:“好吧,假设有一家公司叫Taliant,一家公司叫Saliant,为什么Saliant会击败Taliant和Saliant?”Ari,首席执行官Ari,对此有一个非常好的答案,并不是说他查了ChatGPT如何回答VC的这个难题,但再次强调,护城河很重要。我们确切地知道该说什么脚本。这是一个数据护城河的例子。因为我们打了数百万个电话,我们确切地知道该说什么。我们对每一条新法规的延迟更低,比如他们实际上有一个非常好的产品,可以摄取每一条法律,甚至是在所有50个州被提议为法规的法律。有时它是在县级。他们正在做所有这些事情,使得竞争变得更加困难,这样他们就不会失去一笔交易。护城河比以往任何时候都更重要,因为你能够更轻松地创建软件。实际上,这也许是本节的一个很好的过渡,那就是这是否意味着软件在某些类别中变得越来越具体,它不需要赢得许多不同的类别就能成为一个巨大的业务?我认为这可能是一个很好的过渡,来讨论你想要涵盖的这个主题。
Original English
Alex Rampel: So Saliant is in the EVE mold. And I know we also had a question about like what is the societal impact of everybody losing their job. I don't think that's actually going to happen very quickly. 98% of Americans were farmers in 1789 and obviously the tractor made some of them unemployed and made them do other things but most of what we're seeing candidly is not about eliminating work. I mean I do think that the three and a half million people that drive trucks at some point in time like we have a better solution than the truck the truck driving human you have AI doing that but most of these things they're really it's like you have cost here you have value here you would never hire a human where they are producing less value than their cost it just does not make sense but if you can now hire AI effectively you can hire AI where the amount of value that like the cost is has gone down, the value has stayed the same. You're going to hire a lot of AI. You're not going to get rid of a lot of humans. And if anything, we never know. This is so hard to predict, but what will humans do? I mean, like there was no job of like product manager 75 years ago at a software company or designer. All of these jobs that exist today, they wouldn't have made any sense to somebody in 1800. So, it's hard to it's hard to kind of pontificate on that. But a lot of the things that we're seeing, they're not displacing people per se. Okay. I mean, I know it sounds piffy to say software is eating labor, but really software is augmenting labor or it's like all of these people that I can't hire, whether there's a job shortage or a skill shortage or whatever. I can now deploy people that will answer a phone like I I would just never hire somebody to go answer the phone for me at 2 a.m. I would hire somebody at 4 p.m. but not at 2 a.m. It's just the value to cost equation is inverted. And kind of a great example of this is like the Saliant, yes, they are going to people that collect it's called autoloan servicing. So, you go to an auto lender, they have to go make sure that they're collecting on their bills or if the person's in a car accident and the insurance carrier is at, you know, supposed to pay you. How do I make sure that that insurance carrier is paying me on time and writing the check to the right person? In this case, because I have the lease, like they need to write it to me and not the actual, not not the person in in their actual name. How do I do all of that kind of stuff? I would hire lots of people. I would train lots of people. A lot of these people hate their jobs because it turns out people yell at them all day and say, "I'm not paying you back for this car or the insurance carrier keeps you on hold for four hours and that whole music is just terrible and you're gonna want to kill yourself if you have to listen to that 12 hours a day." Like all these reasons why humans don't want to do this or you can't hire humans for this. The key thing with Saliant is not that they're saving you money. The key thing with Saliant is that they collect 50% more. Like this is the key thing because Arya the CEO, he kept pitching like I'm going to save you money. I'm going to save you money. I'm going to save you money. People like saving money, but if you go to somebody and say, "I will collect 50% more revenue for you every single month, and I will make sure that you don't go to jail because none of these people that you hire that aren't very well trained that have to listen to this horrible hold music for four hours a day, they don't say something that they're not supposed to say, I can make sure that AI doesn't do any of these things." Like, that's why that company is growing so explosively. It really is. It's much more about the value generation. I mean, yes, the cost is much lower. And this is one of the questions around like how do they figure out how to how to charge for the product? They went to their first client had a $50 million a year call center with I think a 40 to 70% annualized churn rate per employee. So it's just and not because they're firing people. It's just like nobody wants this job. So they now say I will do it for you with software. I will give you a system of record. I will make sure that we're scraping every single new federal and state statute because what you say in Missouri is very, very different than what you have to say in California is very different than what you say in Iowa. We're going to do all of these things. No human can keep that in their head at the same time. It's like, all right, I'm talking to David. Shoot. What do I say? He's from Santa, you know, he's somewhere in California. Oh, wait, but actually he's traveling to like Kansas. I don't know what to say. Saliant knows exactly what to say and it knows how to say it in 21 languages and that's why the collections rate is 50% higher. So like this whole category of like we are going to make you more money and it's going to cost you less like it's just it's a very very hard thing to move away from. The key question for us which I think is a very good question is how do we make sure that we're backing the right one and how do we make sure that Saliant is not I mean this was my number one question when Ari came in I was like well how are imagine that there's a company called Taliant and a company called Saliant why is it that Saliant is going to be Taliant and Saliant and Ari actually had Ari the CEO had a very very good answer to this not to like you know he looked up on Chat GPT how do I answer this difficult question from a VC but again modes matter we know exactly what script to say this is an example of kind of a data mode. It's like because we've done millions of phone calls, we know exactly what to say. We have lower latency on every single like statute that comes out from like we they actually have like a very very good product that ingests every single law like as it is even proposed as a statute in all 50 states. Sometimes it's at the county level. Like they're doing all of these things that make it so much harder to compete so that they will not lose a deal. You know, modes matter more than ever because you're able to create software so much more readily. Actually, maybe this is a good dub to to this section, which is does this then mean software becomes way way way more specific in certain categories and it doesn't need to win a bunch of different categories and to become a huge business and and I think that might actually be a good dubtail to this theme that that you want to cover here.
Jen: 是的,我的意思是,这是我们不知道的事情。我的意思是,我们显然有很多垂直软件公司变得非常大的例子。Service Titan就是一家垂直软件公司。MindBody是一家垂直软件公司。Toast,那是一家非常大的垂直软件公司。Toast旨在帮助餐馆经营者管理业务,与DoorDash集成,支付服务员薪水,处理土地,以及经营业务的一切。它是一个垂直操作系统。要取代其中之一是非常非常困难的。人们可能曾怀疑它能发展到多大。事实上,很多人确实怀疑过,Toast很难筹集到B轮融资,因为人们会说:“我看餐饮业,每年有一半的餐馆倒闭。我看他们购买多少软件。嗯,他们根本不买任何软件,所以这是一家糟糕的公司。我不会投资它。”然后,你知道,十年过去了。但之所以会发生这种情况,是因为事实证明,在这种情况下,业务规模要大得多,因为他们增加了金融服务。金融服务包括向餐馆提供贷款,为餐馆处理支付,我们通过提供一个完整的软件平台使其非常粘性,而First Data或Global Payments或任何传统上做支付处理的公司都无法附加某种软件解决方案。所以这就是为什么Toast,你知道,人们对Toast的判断是错误的。它今天是一家非常有价值的上市公司。我认为同样适用于我所说的增加劳动力。它不仅仅是我提供劳动力,然后有人以便宜一分钱的价格提供劳动力。我需要为你构建某种“记录系统”,某种垂直操作系统,这样你就不能轻易地转向更便宜的竞争对手。也许这是进入第三个主题的好方法。
Original English
Jen: Yeah, I mean this is the thing that we don't know. I mean like we obviously have many examples of vertical software companies that have become very big. So Service Titan is a vertical software company. MindBody is a vertical software company. Toast, that's a very large vertical software company. Toast is designed for restaurant tours to run their business, to integrate with DoorDash, to pay their weight staff, to do land, like everything around operating a business. It's a vertical operating system. It's very, very hard to displace one of those. People would have doubted how big that could become. And actually, a lot of people did like it was very hard for Toast to raise their B- round because people would say, "Well, I look at the the restaurant space and like, you know, half these restaurants go out of business every year. I look at how much software they buy. Well, they don't buy any software, so therefore this is a bad company. I'm not going to invest in it." And and you know, fast forward 10 years. But the reason why that happened was it turned out the business was much bigger in this case because they added financial services. And the financial services were we're going to do lending to restaurants. We're going to do payment processing for restaurants and we make it very very sticky because it's an entire software platform and there's no way for First Data or Global Payments or any of these companies that traditionally do software to go append a sorry that traditionally do payment processing to append some kind of software solution. So that's why Toast you know people got Toast wrong. It's a very valuable company and a public company today. I think the same thing applies for I'm adding in labor. Like it's not just I do labor and then somebody does labor for a penny cheaper. I have I I need to build some kind of system of record for you, some kind of vertical operating system for you so that you can't just go switch out for the cheaper player. And maybe this is a good way to kind of go into theme three here.
主题三:围墙花园(专有数据模型)
Alex Rampel: 我非常兴奋的第三个主题,我称之为“围墙花园”。这在今天非常重要,因为如果你看一个比喻,一家名为OpenAI的了不起的公司出现了,他们说:“嘿,我们是一个蔬菜农场,我们正在种植代币,我们将出售代币。我们将向所有正在构建应用程序的人收取代币费用。”所以它完全按照我所说的发展,OpenAI是一家基础设施公司。我们投资所有这些应用公司。但后来OpenAI说:“你知道吗?我们应该在我们的农场上开一些餐馆,因为很多人来我们的农场。我们就在这里开餐馆吧。”然后所有这些餐馆老板都说:“等等,你现在卖我蔬菜,又和我竞争。这不好。”我之所以举这个例子,是因为它确实正在发生,它是一个蓝图,说明了如何应对这样一个世界:原材料的来源实际上是稀缺的。所以,我们来看下一张幻灯片,我会让这一点更清楚一些。正如我所提到的,这有点像世界上第二古老的职业。在很多情况下,我建造一些实体财产,我在它周围建一堵墙,然后我向你收取进入我财产的费用。你也可以在数据世界中这样做。我将在这里的这个小宾果板上举一个FlightAware的例子。我不确定有多少人听说过FlightAware。他们如何获取数据?顺便说一下,他们的数据是什么?它没有任何专有性。它都是公开的。你可以在亚马逊上购买一个天线来接收所谓的ADSB应答器数据。所以,在马来西亚飞机失踪后,每一架飞机上都有一个小的应答器,显示它的高度、速度、所有这些不同的属性,并将其发送到地球。天线可以接收这些数据,并找出这个尾号在这个地方。我可以买一个,它是免费的。FlightAware我认为他们在世界各地有大约一百个天线。他们收集所有这些信息,然后他们可以收费。那是一块数据,我可以问ChatGPT,但他们不知道。只有FlightAware知道。或者Pitchbook为融资轮次做这个。谁知道1992年一家公司的B轮价格是多少?Pitchbook不知何故拥有这些数据。或者Lexus Nexus知道这些。Co-Star知道房地产数据。Bloomberg知道各种奇特的金融数据。在很多情况下,它都是免费的。Ancestry.com通过从摩门教购买家谱记录来建立他们的整个数据护城河。所有这些东西在ChatGPT上都不可用。在Anthropic上也不可用。当然,他们可以授权使用,但我之所以提到这一点,是因为你如何处理FlightAware数据?或者你如何处理Bloomberg数据?或者你如何处理?我告诉你我如何处理Pitchbook数据?我雇佣一名分析师,我说:“分析师,去给我写一份关于EVE这家公司的备忘录,并将其与法律领域所有做过类似事情的公司进行比较。”Pitchbook只是向我们出售订阅,提供自1992年以来所有法律科技公司的B轮融资信息。好吧,这很有价值。他们可以每月收取20美元或200美元或任何他们收取的费用。更有价值的是,因为他们是唯一拥有那条信息的人。他们可能应该收取2000美元,这可能意味着,我的意思是,这可能会让你紧张。我们可能需要少一名分析师,因为我们现在有了成品。因为我们不只是想要Pitchbook数据的订阅。我们实际上想用它做点什么。我们想以某种方式将那种蔬菜(如果你理解我的比喻)变成一顿成品餐。我最喜欢的例子之一是Domain Tools。Domain Tools做了一件非常有趣的事情。他们运行一个“whois”查询,显示谁拥有某个域名。这家公司已经存在很长时间了。如果我想找出1998年谁拥有一个域名,只有一个地方可以去,那就是Domain Tools。所以这种模式在AI出现之前就已经存在很长时间了。这个领域存在着非常非常大的公司。当你加入AI时,它会使其价值大大增加。所以我将给你三个例子,希望能很好地说明这一点。有一家公司叫Open Evidence,如果你使用它,显然美国三分之二的医生几乎每周都使用它。Open Evidence与ChatGPT完全一样。界面看起来与ChatGPT完全一样,除了你知道谁拥有《新英格兰医学杂志》和所有其他医学期刊的独家许可吗?Open Evidence。所以,如果我跟腱断裂,我想阅读我应该怎么做,所有基于证据的护理都在那里,我可以去ChatGPT。它适度有用。没有理由不这样做。但Open Evidence要好得多,因为他们是唯一真正拥有这些数据的公司。在这种情况下,他们找到了所有数据。他们找到了所有独特的“蔬菜”。他们说服了蔬菜销售商不要将它卖给任何其他餐馆,而且他们有一家餐馆提供整个服务。还有一家26年历史的公司叫Vlex。这是一家刚刚被收购的了不起的公司。首席执行官告诉我这家公司的起源故事。他来自西班牙。他买下了西班牙所有的法律记录。为什么要购买法律记录?因为Wilson Cinci想知道西班牙的判例法,以防Andre Horowitz投资一家公司,需要弄清楚一些事情。所以VLEX会聚合和数字化这些信息,然后将其出售给需要法律信息的律师事务所和其他人。毛利率很高,但规模非常小,主要在欧洲和西班牙。然后他们想:“你知道吗?我们应该给它添加AI。”结果它的收入翻了五倍。为什么会翻五倍?我可能喜欢Harvey。我为Harvey付费,它是一个很棒的产品,但如果我想在早上7点为我的客户准备一份完整的备忘录,我无法让律师助理去做。而且我知道它需要包含一些西班牙法律数据,那么VLEX是我唯一的解决方案。他们不再按每月2美元或每篇文章2美元或每月200美元或任何他们可以收取的原材料费用收费,而是收取更高的费用。Ask Leo是一个采购产品。所以,如果我是一家公司,每家公司的每个员工都或多或少讨厌他们的采购部门,因为一方面,采购部门应该通过确保某个不守规矩的员工不会以过高的价格从未经批准的供应商那里购买昂贵的部件来为公司省钱。但另一方面,他们又给流程带来了各种复杂性。所以想象一下,我与Deote签订了一份合同,让他们为我提供AI,并以某种方式振兴我的公司。谁有Deote的50份其他合同,我可以从中了解我应该在哪些方面进行反驳?这实际上是非常非常有用的专有信息。我希望我能向ChatGPT询问这些,但他们没有世界的宝藏。他们永远不会得到50份旧的Deote合同。你在哪里能找到它们?我想你可以提出信息公开请求之类的,但你找不到它们。而Ask Leo拥有这些。所以它只是让产品变得更好。回到上一张幻灯片。很难说我们会在哪里找到这些东西,但我们发现的最引人注目的那些是:所有信息都是免费的。就像ADSB飞行应答器数据一样,那是免费的,但你发现了一些以前不那么有价值的东西,因为你如何处理飞行数据?你如何处理互联网上的“whois”记录数据?我最近和一位企业家谈过。他说:“哦,是的,你知道吗?我喜欢找出YouTube播主的历史订阅数据。”YouTube不会发布Mr. Beast在2017年8月4日有多少订阅者。你在哪里能找到这些?有一些公司会整理、收集这些数据,他们只是在出售数据。这些数据在其他任何地方都不可用。我们刚刚发布了一篇文章。我鼓励大家阅读,内容关于“围墙花园”,或者我们称之为“围墙花园的果实”。所有这些东西,比如创意档案、物流,你可以去县级记录办公室,查看谁拥有什么财产记录,但你必须去县级记录办公室才能找到。所有这些都是免费的,但你可以将其数字化,使其可用,然后添加AI。这听起来像是“哦,只是添加AI”。它的价值要大得多。原因在于你说:“我拥有别人没有的东西。”人们以前购买这些东西是有原因的,因为他们试图在最终创造出更高价值的东西,而你现在可以做到这一点。所以,你可以去每个博物馆,或者实际上我刚刚与一位企业家交谈,他找到了所有旧手册。这是一个很好的例子。他找到了1980年代、1990年代制造的搅拌机的所有旧手册。你可以在eBay上以几乎免费的价格买到这些东西。你在哪里能找到1999年旧搅拌机的手册?我不知道。但显然eBay是你能找到的地方。但这只是表明你可以用数据构建这些“围墙花园”。你以前可以构建这些,但今天你可以构建一个价值高出10倍或100倍的公司。
Original English
Alex Rampel: Um, which I'm I'm very excited about. And I I call this the walled garden. And this is really important today because if you look at like take take a metaphor here where this amazing company called OpenAI shows up and they're like, "Hey, we're a vegetable farm and we're we're farming tokens and we're going to sell tokens. We're going to charge for tokens to all these people out there that are building applications. So it plays out exactly as I talked about like OpenAI is an infrastructure company. We invest in all these application companies. But then OpenAI is like you know what we should put some restaurants on our farm because a lot of people come to our farm. Let's just have restaurants here. And then all these restaurant turns are like wait a minute like you're selling me vegetables now you're competing with me. Like that that that's not good. The reason why I bring this up as an example is because it actually is happening and it's a blueprint for how to potentially deal with a world where the source of the raw material is actually what is rare. So, let's go to the next slide and I'll show you like I'll make this a little bit clearer, but as I mentioned, this is kind of like the world's second oldest profession. There are lots of cases where I I I kind of construct some physical property, I build a wall around it and I charge you for access to my property. You can do this in the data world as well. And I'll pick an example on this little this this little bingo board here of FlightAware. I'm not sure how many people have heard of FlightAware. How do they get their data? And their their data, by the way, what is their data? There's nothing proprietary about it. It's all public. You can buy an antenna on Amazon to receive it's called ADSB transponder data. So, every single airplane after that Malaysian plane went missing. Has a little transponder on it that shows its height, its speed, all these different attributes on it, beams it down to planet Earth. Antennas can pick this up and figure out, you know, this tail number is at this place. I can buy one. It's free. Flight I think they have something like a hundred antennas around the world. They pick up all this information and they can char that. That's a piece of data like I can ask Chat GPT that. They don't know that. Only FlightAware knows that or Pitchbook does this for funding rounds. Who know who knew what the, you know, series B price of a company in 1992 was? Like Pitchbook somehow has that or Lexus Nexus knows this. Co-Star knows this for real estate data. Bloomberg knows this for all sorts of exotic financial stuff. Like it's in many cases it's all free. Ancestry.com built their entire data mode by buying genealogical records from the Mormon church. All of this stuff is not available on Chat GPT. It's not available on Anthropic. Of course, they can license it, but the reason why I mention this is what do you do with FlightAware data or what do you do with Bloomberg data or what do you like I'll tell you what I do with Pitchbook data? I hire an analyst and I say analyst go write me a memo about this company called EVE and compare it to every other company in the legal space that had ever done something before. And PitchBook just sells us a subscription for here's every single series B of legal tech company since 1992. Okay, that's valuable. They can charge $20 or $200 or whatever they charge per month for that. What would be more valuable is saying because they're the only ones that actually have that piece of information. They should probably charge $2,000 for that, which might mean, I mean, maybe this makes you nervous. We might need one less analyst because now we have a finished product because we, what we don't want is we don't just want a subscription to Pitchbook data. We actually want to do something with it. We want to somehow take that vegetable, if you follow my metaphor, and turn it into a finished meal. One of my favorite examples here is Domain Tools. Domain Tools does, they have one thing which is very interesting. They run a whois query which says who owns a particular domain name. This company has been around for a very very long time. If I want to figure out who owned a domain in 1998, there's one place to go and that's Domain Tools. So like this model has been around for a very very long time before AI. Very very large companies exist in this space. When you add AI, it makes it tremendously more valuable. So I'll give you three examples that hopefully kind of hammer this point home. So there's a company called Open Evidence, which if you use it, apparently two-thirds of doctors in America use this thing pretty much every week. Open Evidence is exactly like ChatGpt. The interface looks exactly like ChatGpt, except you know who has exclusive license to the New England Journal of Medicine and every other medical journal out there, Open Evidence. So if I I tore my Achilles if I want to read about what I should do, all of the evidence-based care out there, I can go to Chat GBT. It's it's moderately useful. There's no reason not to do that. Open Evidence is so much better because they're the only ones that actually have. They've built in this case, they found all the data. They found all the unique vegetables out there. They convinced the vegetable seller not to sell it to any other restaurant and they have a restaurant that delivers the whole thing where there's a 26-y old company called Vlex. Incredible company that just got bought. The CEO was telling me that the origin story of this company. He's from Spain. He bought up every single legal record in Spain. Why would you want to buy up legal records? Because I don't know, Wilson Cinci wants to know, Spanish case law in case Andre Horowitz goes invest in a company and figure you needs to figure something out. So VLEX would aggregate and digitize this information, sell it to law firms and other people that need legal information. Pretty high gross margin, but very very low scale and predominantly European and Spain. Then they were like, you know what, we should add AI to this. And apparently it quintupled their revenue. And why would it quintuple their revenue? I might love Harvey. I pay for Harvey, amazing product, but if I want to have a finished memo for my client at 7 a.m. I can't get a parallegal to go do this. And I know that it needs to incorporate some element of Spanish legal data like VLEx is my only solution and instead of charging $2 a month or $2 an article or $200 a month or whatever they can charge for the raw material and what Ask Leo does is it's a procurement product. So if I'm a company and every company, every employee at every company kind of hates their procurement department because on the one hand the procurement department is supposed to save the company money by making sure that some rogue employee doesn't buy, expensive widgets at an at an overpriced price from a unapproved vendor. But on the other hand, they they introduce all sorts of complexity into the process. So imagine that I've got a contract from Deote to give me AI and and and you know somehow revitalize my company. Who has 50 other contracts from Deote where I can understand what I push back on like that. That is actually very very useful proprietary information. I wish I could go ask Chat GPT for this but they don't have the world's treasure trove like what what is the information they will never get. They're never going to get 50 old Deote contracts. Like where would you find them? I guess you could do a foyer request or something but you're not going to find them. And Ask Leo has these. So it just makes the product so much better. And go go back one slide here. It's hard to say where we're going to find these things, but the the the most compelling of the ones that we found are it's like all of the information is free. Just like ADSB flight transponder data, that's free, but you find something that just like it wasn't worth that much before because like what do you do with flight data? What do you do with whois record data on the internet? I actually talked to an entrepreneur recently. He was like, "Oh yeah, you know what? I like to figure out historical subscriber data on of YouTubers." Is like YouTube doesn't publish like how many subscribers Mr. Beast had on August 4th, 2017. Like where would you find that? There's some company that collates that, collects that, and that's just they're just selling the data. It's not available anywhere else. And these are some we just published a post. I would encourage people to read it on like, the walled garden or we called it fruits of the walled garden. All of these things like creative archives, logistics, like you go to like some county recorders office and you can see who owns what property record, but you have to go to the county recorders office to to find that. It's all free, but you can digitize that, make that available, and then add AI to that. And this sounds like, oh, just a add AI. It's much more valuable. The reason why is because you're saying, I have something that nobody else has. There's a reason why people are buying this before because they're trying to create something that that is of higher value at the end and you can now do this. So, go to every museum or actually I just talked to an entrepreneur who found every old manual. This is a great example. Found every old manual for like blenders made in the 1980s, 1990s. Like just you can buy this stuff for pretty much nothing on eBay. Where would you find a manual for an old blender in 1999? I have no idea. But apparently eBay is where you find it. But it just shows like these these walled gardens that you can build with data. You could have built this before you could build a 10 or 100 times more valuable company today.
Jen: Alex,我可以在这里暂停一下吗?部分原因在于,你知道,在过去的投资时代,你为世界提供了一个很好的框架,来思考初创公司和现有企业之间的竞争。你知道,如果初创公司能在现有企业实现创新之前找到分销渠道,那就是他们成功的秘诀。你能否带我们了解一下,当你们考虑投资哪些公司时,这种动态是如何运作的?哪些公司显然可以颠覆现有企业?又有哪些例子表明,建立一家拥有专有“围墙花园”的公司可能意义不大,因为这个“围墙花园”很难被撼动?
Original English
Jen: So Alex, can I pause you here in part because you know the last era of investing you gave a great framework in the world a great framework for thinking about the battle between startups and incumbents and you know if startups could figure out distribution before incumbents can figure out innovation that was you know their their success win like how how take us through the dynamic of when you're thinking about which companies to invest into where it's very clear that they can disrupt you know the incumbents in the category and where you know what are the examples where it probably doesn't make a lot of sense for someone to build a company like and that has a a proprietary walled garden that is going to be very difficult to unseat.
Alex Rampel: 是的,我的意思是,我认为有两种思考方式。第一种情况是,就像eBay上的二手搅拌机或手册一样,以前根本没有公司会为订阅服务收费,比如“我将按每篇文章数据向你收费”或“我将每月向你收取20美元”。这些可能不太有趣。但现在,如果你有一个可以收取1000美元的成品,而原材料只收取1美元,那么现在这项业务可能就可行了。所以,一个类别是你找到一个新的数据源,这就是为什么在风险投资学校,我们总是学习问“为什么是现在?”如果这是一个如此好的主意,为什么它在十年前不存在?Uber刚出现时,这个问题有了很好的答案:当时没有iPhone,也没有内置GPS应答器的设备。一旦有了这些,现在你就可以拥有Uber了。对于一些更深奥的事情,“为什么是现在”有点微妙。比如,为什么VLEX在挣扎了26年后,现在才成为一家价值1亿美元的公司,而不是2000万美元?因为你能够提供成品。当然,我敢说,很多旧事物,比如Ancestry.com,是一家有价值的公司。他们将LDS数据数字化,很多人想知道自己的出身,NBC有一个节目叫“你的根在哪里”,人们喜欢看这些。这是一家有价值的公司,但很难说你如何通过AI使其显著变得更好。也许是这样:我想说:“嘿,我快要死了,我想找出我的哪个继承人可以继承我所有的钱,请给他们发邮件,并与我安排会面,这样我就可以弄清楚。”这可能就是你用这些专有数据所做的增值。这就是为什么我是一名投资者,而不是企业家了。我没有好主意了。但这会是这样一种情况:存在一个现有数据存储。也许我像Open Evidence一样获得了许可。他们没有创建新的医学期刊条目。他们只是想:“嘿,我们去分发给医生。我们知道医生对这些东西非常感兴趣。我们知道所有信息都在这些旧医学期刊中,而且这些旧期刊非常有用。”就像事实证明,我认为迈克尔·杰克逊做对和做错的所有事情中,从经济角度来看,最正确的大概是购买披头士乐队的版权目录,或者他购买了其中很大一部分,结果价值连城,因为在版权到期之前,很多人喜欢听披头士乐队的音乐,它会变得更有价值。所以你可以购买现有的东西,这些东西已经存在,已经有业务,就像Open Evidence一样。或者你可以尝试创造全新的东西,这更像是Ask Leo。所以我不知道这是否完美地回答了你的问题,但我对目前AI领域发生的一切的看法是,这是一种奇怪的情况,它与云计算非常不同。在云计算时代,大多数本地部署软件提供商都认为云计算很愚蠢。大多数潜在客户也认为云计算很愚蠢。它不安全,我不信任它。我希望自己托管东西。你的整个IT团队都说:“我不信任那些东西。”所以现有的公司没有构建云计算提供商,比如PeopleSoft没有说:“我们来构建PeopleSoft Cloud。”他们现在有了。但那是Workday的来源。他们说:“我们要构建这个。”业务花了一段时间才赶上。我非常非常看好现有企业。我希望我能这么说,因为我不认为Netsuite会找出15种不同的方式通过AI变现。我认为QuickBooks手里有一座金矿,他们将开始向所有使用QuickBooks的现有“人质”收取每笔收款的费用。但这仍然不意味着你没有这些“绿地机会”。你没有这些新的数据机会。有很多新的机会涌现,很大程度上是因为这种价值-成本关系。就像有很多无限多的事情,比如我找到一些每个人都想要5美元的东西,但它目前只以10美元出售。因此,没有人想要它。因此,它不是一门生意。等等。AI让我可以以5美元的价格出售它。所以,这确实是少数几种情况之一,它对双方都有利。而我认为移动,大多数人喜欢黑莓很棒,iPhone很蠢。这就是为什么现有企业没有,你知道,为什么Booking.com没有构建Airbnb?为什么出租车公司没有构建Uber?只是大多数人认为这很愚蠢。每个人都认为这是一个好主意,因为当然,智能,你知道,每个人口袋里的AGI都是一个非常好的主意。没有人能反驳这一点。它更多的是,现有的公司。这就是为什么我对宾果板上的“棕地机会”持悲观态度。抱歉,我对“围墙花园”和“软件取代劳动力”的“棕地机会”非常看好。
Original English
Alex Rampel: Yeah. I mean, I think there are two ways of thinking about this. Number one is in the case of the used blenders on eBay or the manuals like there just wasn't a company before charging for access to the subscription of like I'm going to sell you, per data article that I've digitized or I'm going to charge you $20 a month. Like, probably not that interesting. But now if you have this finished product that you can charge a thousand dollars for versus like the raw material that you charge a dollar for, maybe now the business is tenable. So, so one category is you just find a new data source and there's a reason why like you know in venture capital school we learn to always ask why now? Like if this is such a great idea, why didn't this exist 10 years ago? Great answer for Uber when it came out. There was no iPhone and no GPS transponder in every device. Once you have that, now you can have Uber. The why now for some of these more esoteric things is it's kind of like a little bit of a why now. Like why isn't this a $20 million business like VLEX after struggling for 26 years? Why is it now a hundred million dollar business? It's because you can deliver the finished product. And of course like there are I I would argue like a lot of the old things that were out there like Ancestry.com is a valuable company. They digitized LDS data and a lot of people want to figure out where they came from and there's an NBC show that says you know what are your roots and people like watching that and all these kinds of things you know it's a valuable company that would be one where it's like I would be hardressed to say how do you make that dramatically better with AI maybe it's like I want to say hey please I'm about to die I want to figure out which one of my errors to leave all of my money to please email them and set up dates with me so I can figure that out and like that's the value ad that you do with this proprietary data this is why I'm an investor, not an entrepreneur anymore. I'm out of good ideas. But that would be something where, you know, there is an existing data store. Maybe I licensed that like Open Evidence. They didn't create new medical journal entries. They were just like, "Hey, let's go distribute to doctors. We know that doctors are really interested in this stuff. We know that all of the information is in these old medical journals and the back catalog is very very very useful." Like it turned out like I think of all the the things that Michael Jackson did right and wrong probably the the most right from an economics perspective was buying the back catalog of the Beatles or like he he bought a big chunk of that that ended up being worth a lot because until the copyright runs out like Beatles catalog a lot of people like listening to the Beatles that's going to become more valuable. So you can buy existing stuff that is already out there that already has a business and that's like Open Evidence or you can try to create something net new which is kind of more of the Ask Leo. So I I I don't know if that perfectly answers your question, but my view on on everything that's happening in AI right now is it's one of these weird situations where it's very different than cloud where most on-prem software providers were like cloud is stupid. Most potential customers were like cloud is stupid. It's not safe. I don't trust it. I want to host things like you'd have your entire IT staff is like I don't trust that stuff. So the the existing incumbents did not build cloud providers like Peopleoft did not say let's go build Peopleoft Cloud. They have it now. But that's where Workday came from. They were like, "We're going to build this." It took a while for the business to c for the for the for everything to catch up. I'm very very bullish on incumbents. I I I hope I can say that because I don't think that I think Netswuite is going to figure out 15 different ways to monetize with AI. I think that Quickbook in it has this gold mine on their hands where they're they're just going to start charging per collections that they make to all of their existing hostages that use QuickBooks. But that still does not mean that you don't have these greenfield opportunities. You don't have these new data opport like there's so many new opportunities that have popped up largely because of this value cost thing. It's like you have so many like it's this infinite number of things where it's like I find something where everybody would want this at $5, but it is currently only sold for $10. Therefore, nobody wants it. Therefore, it's not a business. Wait a minute. AI allows me to sell it for $5. So, it's it's really one of these rare situations where it's good for both. Whereas I think mobile, like most people love, Blackberry was great. iPhone was stupid. That's why the incumbents didn't, you know, that's why, why didn't Booking.com build Airbnb? Why why didn't a taxi cab company build Uber? It's just most people thought this was stupid. Everybody thinks that this is a good idea because of course intelligent like, AGI and everybody's pocket is a very good idea. No, nobody can argue against that. It's more of the existing incumbents. This is why I'm just I'm I'm bearish on the brownfield opportunity on the bingo board. I'm very very bearish on I'm sorry. I'm very bullish on the brownfield opportunity for the for like walled gardens and for kind of software that does the job of labor.
David: 当然。顺便说一句,我以为你会说迈克尔·杰克逊做过的最聪明的事情是让他的家人利用他的肖像来制作迈克尔·杰克逊的现场表演,据Ben说,那场表演现在产生的收入比他作为表演者的一生还要多。但无论如何。
Original English
David: For sure. By the way, I thought you were gonna say the smartest thing Michael Jackson did was let his family use his likeness for the Michael Jackson live show, which I according to Ben has now generated more revenue from that show than his entire existence as a performer. But anyway,
Alex Rampel: 但我更看重的是,我认为显然发生的事情是有人说:“你知道钱在哪里吗?”就像电影《毕业生》里说的:“是塑料!”有人说:“把迈克尔·杰克逊放一边。你知道钱在哪里吗?是版权目录。”
Original English
Alex Rampel: But I give him more credit for like I I think apparently what happened was somebody was like, "You know what? You know where the money is?" It's like that it's it's like that movie The Graduate. It's like Plastics, right? Somebody was like put Michael Jackson aside. You know where the money is? Back cataloges.
David: 说得好。我有很多,我要去买披头士乐队的版权目录,然后从中赚钱,因为CD会出来,流媒体会出来,有很多不同的方式可以变现。
Original English
David: Good point. I have a lot of I'm going to I'm going to go buy the Beatles back catalog and then I'll make money from it because this, you know, CDs are going to come out and streaming is going to come out and there's so many different ways of monetizing this. So,
Jen: 聪明的举动,聪明的需求。
Original English
Jen: Smart move smart move by demand. Uh
Jen: 实际上,我们来回答Daniel关于“围墙花园”比喻的问题。所以,这意味着新餐馆是直接面向消费者的。为什么公司不直接卖给最终用户,而不是通过中间商呢?
Original English
Jen: Well actually let's cover some of the the there was question about the walled garden metaphor that Daniel had here. So, the implication is that the new restaurant is direct to consumer. Why wouldn't the company sell to the end user rather than a business that is ultimately the intermediary?
Alex Rampel: 这是一个很好的问题。VLEX就是一个很好的例子,对吧?VLEX本可以把他们的数据卖给Harvey。但他们意识到了这一点。他们应该直接向最终用户销售,他们不应该再卖给Wilson Cinci了,或者如果他们卖,他们应该大幅改变产品的定价。他们应该改变他们的定价策略,而不是收取微薄的订阅费,让大部分价值创造发生在其他地方。他们应该像OpenAI一样,OpenAI对每百万个代币收费非常非常少。我们只是消费这些代币,然后丰富我们拥有的专有数据,然后直接销售。所以,这是一个很好的问题,但我认为从投资角度来看,很多企业家现在正在寻找,有时是现有公司,他们不知道发生了什么,他们可以直接购买这些数据。如果这些现有公司由一位有创业精神的首席执行官管理,他们会意识到:“哇,我可以让我的业务好10倍。”我们就会投资这些公司。最后,我只是去亚马逊买一些天线,然后监听马来西亚航空的航班,然后聚合这些完全免费的信息,但这并不是过去的免费。比如,Mr. Beast五年前的订阅人数,今天的订阅人数,你只要去YouTube就能看到。但如果我想知道十年前的订阅人数,那才是真正的专有信息。所以有时,如果你愿意,专有性在于一切都是免费的。任何人都可以去收集这些免费的东西。价值只会随着时间积累。有很多这样的例子。比如,我可以去摩门教那里获取我的家谱信息,他们可能会给我,我不需要付费购买Ancestry.com的账户,但使用Ancestry.com比飞到犹他州要方便得多,也更有用。所以,有时只是因为有人已经数字化并以更容易理解的形式呈现了这些信息,这就是为什么人们会去Lexus Nexus。这就是为什么人们会去很多这些提供商,因为有时他们是唯一的选择,有时他们是最好的选择。但如今,他们越来越多地是那些能够给我提供成品的人,而且实际上也为最终客户省钱,因为我并不真的想购买Lexus Nexus的数据。我只是想知道我是否应该接受或拒绝这笔交易。我对数据进行了大量的丰富处理。有很多工作流程。有很多分析师。如果我是一家金融服务公司,我会雇佣欺诈分析师来告诉我发生了什么。而我需要弄清楚的原始“蔬菜”就是Lexus Nexus的信息。但Lexus Nexus,这对于一个现有企业来说是看涨的,如果他们是唯一拥有这些信息的公司,他们可能会做很多事情。
Original English
Alex Rampel: This is a great question. So this is like VLEX is a good example of this, right? Like VLEX could have sold their data to Harvey. Instead they realize this exact point. It's like they should just be in this business of selling directly to they they they shouldn't be selling to to Wilson Cinci anymore or if they are they should dramatically change the pricing of their product. They should change their pricing strategy and instead of saying we're going to charge you know this like tiny subscription fee and allow so much of the value creation to occur elsewhere we're going like OpenAAI on their you know OpenAI charges very very little per million tokens we're just going to consume that and then enrich everything that we have that is proprietary to us and then go sell that directly so um you know it's a good question but I think the point from an investment lens is we a lot of entrepreneurs are now looking for sometimes it's like existing companies where it's like they don't know what's going on they can just buy that data those existing companies if they're run by an entrepreneurial CEO like they realize wow I can make my business 10 times better and we're going to go invest in those and then lastly I'm just going to buy some antenna from Amazon and like listen to Malaysian Airlines flights or whatever and then aggregate this information that's completely free but it's not free past tense right like the number of subscribers that Mr. Beast had 5 years ago, like the number of subscribers today, you just go to YouTube, you see exactly what that is. If I wanted to see what that was 10 years ago, that's what is actually proprietary. So sometimes the proprietariness, if you will, everything is free. Anybody can go collect this stuff that's free. The value only accrews over time. And there are a lot of examples of this. Like, you know, I can go to the Mormon church and get my genealogical information. And they'll probably give it to me and I don't have to go pay for an Ancestry.com account, but it's kind of useful and easier to just do it with Ancestry.com than to go fly to Utah. So, so sometimes just the the ease of going to somebody who's already digitized and put this this information in an easier to digest form. That's one of the reasons why like people go to Lexus Nexus. That's one of the reasons why people go to a lot of these providers because sometimes they're the only game in town, sometimes they're the best game in town. But increasingly today they're the ones that can actually give me a finished product and actually it saves the end customer money as well because I don't really want to buy Lexus Nexus data. I just want to know if I should accept or reject this transaction. And there's a lot of enrichment that I do of the data. There's a lot of workflow. There are a lot of analysts. Like if I'm a financial services company, I hire fraud analysts to go tell me what's going on. And the raw vegetable that I I need to figure this out is this Lexus Nexus information. But Lexus Nexus like this is this would be kind of bullishness for an incumbent probably can do a lot of things if they're the only ones that have that information.
Jen: 太棒了。Alex,我觉得你付钱给Joe问这个问题了,但我会在这里回答,然后我们转向Anish,你的两个部分。你对白领服务AI整合,也就是完全垂直化的软件加服务公司,有什么看法?
Original English
Jen: Great. Alex, I feel like you paid Joe to to ask this question, but I'm going to take it here and then we'll switch gears to to Anish your your two sections here. What is your view on white collar services AI roll-ups, i.e. fully verticalized software plus services companies that are popping up.
Alex Rampel: 是的,我两年前写过一篇文章,叫做《门口的野蛮人》(Barbarians at the Gate),但这里的“Barbarians”是用AI拼写的,以纪念1980年代的RJR Nabisco交易和一本关于那本书的书。我的意思是,我认为非常有趣的是,我们擅长的是:“这里有两个人将改变世界。他们不知道如何做到。我们正在购买一个虚值看涨期权。”有很多私募股权公司,他们擅长解雇所有人,然后把人转移到菲律宾,做这个做那个,所有这些事情。私募股权公司也在关注这一点。同时,我们确实在这个领域有一些投资,而且,你知道,都是非常非常聪明的企业家,但从来没有一个问题是:“作为一名会计师,我能否获得更多客户?”因为我无法雇佣更多的注册会计师来做报税。最难的部分是获得客户。所以你必须去商会会议。很难购买一家会计师事务所,然后通过各种成本协同效应,你现在可以接纳1万名新客户。这就像,你必须玩的游戏方式是,你购买一家会计师事务所,整合它九个月,然后你再购买另一家会计师事务所,然后你再购买另一家会计师事务所。是的,最终有价值吗?绝对有。但你可能需要购买200家会计师事务所,然后你才能拥有一家相当有趣的业务。而且可能有一个强大的竞争对手,叫做中型市场私募股权公司,他们已经这样做了500年(不是500年,而是500次),他们会更好地执行这个策略。另一方面,我们认为有一个非常有趣的策略,那就是不组建销售团队,而是直接购买一个。所以,举个例子,债务催收。我可以购买一家上市公司债务催收公司,它有很多员工,但做得不好,不遵守很多法律。我想以某种方式开始。我建立了一个我非常相信的伟大工具。我想自己先用它。我现在没有任何客户。我知道了,我将购买一家收入下降但拥有五个蓝筹客户的公司。我将以三倍EBITDA的价格购买这家公司。现在我将用AI改造它。现在我不需要购买第二家,不需要购买第三家,不需要购买第四家。我可以说我的催收率更高。我拥有五个喜欢我的蓝筹客户,而且我更便宜。所以你想更懒惰、更富有吗?是的,我已经有客户支持,我现在可以将一千个客户纳入我现有的收购中。这实际上非常有趣。所以问题是你在做哪一种?我认为我们将会整合一百家牙科诊所,或者我们将整合皮肤科诊所。我有一个朋友整合皮肤科诊所。我只是不认为我们擅长那种游戏。问题是,皮肤科诊所就像,仅仅因为我在圣卡洛斯买了一家,它并不能帮助我在佛罗里达州做任何事情。我必须在那里购买更多。会计师事务所也是如此。相比之下,债务催收是全国性的。你可以购买一家,然后,你知道,那就是你的切入点。这有点像机会成本。我是否雇佣销售人员去销售,或者如果最好的公司拥有的是人质而不是客户,我是否购买一家停滞不甚至萎缩的公司,因为他们不知道如何应对AI?因为顺便说一句,所有这些公司,比如每家债务催收公司,如果他们不考虑自己做AI,那他们就疯了。所以这是初创公司和现有企业之间的竞争,但这里有一个有趣的机会。我们已经在MSP(IT托管服务提供商)领域做了一次。因为现在很多事情不再是“嘿,来我的律师事务所办公室,有50个人,修理我的打印机。”而是“把我纳入Microsoft Office”,所有这些事情都可以在远程完成。这是一种非常数字化的体验。这是一个千亿美元的市场。这更有趣一些,因为我实际上可以以这种方式吸纳更多的客户,而不是我必须购买数百个这样的东西。所以希望这能说得通。
Original English
Alex Rampel: Yeah. So, I wrote an article about this two years ago. I called it Barbarians at the Gate, but where the the Barbarians is spelled with an AI in homage to the RJR Noiscoco deal in the 1980s and a book that was written about that. I mean, I think it's very interesting is what we're great at is like here are two people that are going to change the world. They don't know how they're going to do it. We're buying an out-of-the-m call option. There are a lot of private equity firms out there that are like we're good at firing everybody and like moving people to the Philippines and doing this and doing that and all of these kinds of things like this is a big thing that private equity is looking at the same time we do have a couple bets in this space and it's it's you know very very smart entrepreneur but there's never a question of can I get more clients as an accountant because I can't hire more CPAs to do tax returns. It's like the hardest part is to get the clients. So you have to go to the Chamber of Commerce meetings. Like it's just very very hard to buy one accounting firm and then by virtue of like all sorts of cost synergies, you can now onboard 10,000 more clients. Like that's just like the way that you would have to play that game is you buy one accounting firm, you like integrate it for nine months, then you go buy another accounting firm, then you buy another accounting firm. And yes, is there value at the end? Absolutely. But you probably have to buy 200 accounting firms and then you're left with a pretty interesting business. And there's probably a big competitor called, you know, mid-market PE who's done this for 500, you know, years, not yours, but has done this 500 times and they're going to do a better job of that playbook. On the other hand, there is a strategy that we think is very interesting, which is instead of having a sales team, you buy one. So, you know, take the example of debt collection. I could buy a publicly traded debt collector that has lots of people, that doesn't do a very good job, that doesn't follow lots of laws. And I want to get started somehow. I I I built this great tool that I believe in. I want to dog food it. I don't have any customers right now. I know I'll buy a company that has declining revenue but five blue chip clients. I'll buy this company for three times EBITDA. And now I'll transform it with AI. And now I don't have to buy a second one. I don't have to buy a third one. I don't have to buy a fourth one. I can just say I have better collections rates. I have five blue chip customers that love me and I'm cheaper. So do you want to be lazier and richer? Like yes I already have the customers to back this up and I can now onboard a thousand customers into the existing acquisition that I made. That's actually quite interesting. So the question is which one are you doing? And I think the we're going to go roll up you know a hundred dental clinics or we're going to and we're going to make it better. We're going to roll up you know dermat I have a friend that rolls up dermatology clinics. It's like I just don't think we're good at that game. And the problem is that dermatology clinics are like just because I bought one in San Carlos, it doesn't help me like do anything in Florida. I got to go buy more there. Same with accountants. Versus, you know, debt collection that's very very national. You could buy one and then, you know, that is your entry point. And it's kind of an opportunity cost. Do I hire salespeople to go sell or if the best companies have hostages, not customers, do I buy some company that is stagnant and even shrinking because they don't know how to respond to AI? Because by the way all of these companies like every debt collection company like they'd be crazy not to look into doing AI on their own. So it is this battle between startup and incumbent but there there is an interesting opportunity and we've done one in the MSP space managed service provider for IT because a lot of it now is not he hey come into my law firm office with 50 people and fix my printers. It's like onboard me into Microsoft Office and like all of that stuff can be done remotely. It's a very very digital experience. It's a hundred billion dollar market. Like that's a little bit more interesting because I can actually ingest more clients that way as opposed to I have to buy hundreds of these things. So hopefully that that makes sense.
Jen: 太棒了。好吧。我们换个话题吧?
Original English
Jen: Awesome. All right. Should we switch gears?
Alex Rampel: 我想把时间交给Anish,因为我们谈论的所有这些事情,它们也适用于消费者领域。所以,也许我们可以谈谈为什么以及如何将这些应用于消费者领域。
Original English
Alex Rampel: So so I want to turn it over to Anish because all of these things that we're talking about, they also apply to consumer. So so maybe with that, why don't we talk why and how this applies to consumer.
消费者AI应用
Anish: 太好了。实际上,如果我们要这样做,我们为什么不跳过一页幻灯片,然后我们再回到这里。所以,太好了。这就是Alex概述的所有类别在消费者AI中的应用。它完全是相同的模式。所以,第一个也是非常重要的一点是,传统类别正在走向AI原生化。这正在发生。所以,如果你看Photoshop,它是一个非常棒的业务。那么,如果你是一个年轻的设计师,刚开始职业生涯,你会怎么做?你会想使用AI原生的Photoshop。AI原生的Photoshop是Korea。那是在18个月前。所以它是一个非常棒的产品,它内置了所有AI原语,它是那些首次采用设计工具并处于职业生涯早期的人所选择的产品。所以这种现有类别的转型肯定正在发生。你知道,第二个是类别创造。11 Labs就是一个绝佳的例子。这种语音和音频模型市场在五年前根本不存在。我的意思是,可能有一些人做配音演员和语音听写,作为一个小众市场,但它根本不有趣。11 Labs做了一些更具雄心的事情。他们是一个模型提供商,他们同时拥有消费者和企业SKU,因为他们垂直整合,他们能够真正抓住这个机会,在非常短的时间内创造出这个类别。最后,专有数据。Alex谈到了专有数据。它实际上与我心心相印,因为我曾在一家大型消费者公司工作多年,这家公司就是基于专有数据的Credit Karma。所以我见过这种玩法,而且它非常有效。我们实际上在我们的一项投资中看到了它的应用,那是一家名为Slingshot的公司。Slingshot是一个AI治疗师。他们如何收集专有数据?他们实际上是去找现有的治疗师,并提供一个AI速记员,一个笔记员。当这些治疗师为他们的病人提供咨询时,笔记员会做笔记。然后它使用生成的笔记来训练一个基础模型。然后基础模型训练一个名为Ash的消费者产品,然后直接销售给消费者。当然,OpenAI和ChatGPT非常强大,但他们根本没有Slingshot拥有的数据。因此,Slingshot能够提供差异化且高价的产品,而且效果很好。所以Alex提出的所有观察结果都绝对正在消费者AI中上演,我们对这三个方面的处理方式非常一致。你想回到上一页吗?
Original English
Anish: Great. Actually, if we're going to do that, why don't we skip ahead a slide and then we'll come back to this. So, great. So, this is the application of all the categories that Alex outlined to consumer AI. It's it's the exact same pattern. So, the first and very important one is traditional categories are going AI native. This is happening. So, if you look at Photoshop, it's a fantastic business. Well, what do you do if you're a young designer coming up in their career? You want to use the AI native Photoshop. The AI native Photoshop is Korea. That's over 18 months. So it's a fabulous product and it has all the AI primitives built in and it's the one that's being chosen by people that are adopting a first design tool and are early in their career. So this sort of transformation of existing categories is definitely happening. You know the second is category creation. 11 Labs is a fabulous example of this. This sort of market for voice and audio models really didn't exist 5 years ago. There was no I mean perhaps people doing voice actors and voice dictation as a niche market. It just wasn't interesting. 11's done something much more ambitious. They're a model a model provider and they have both consumer and enterprise SKUs and because they vertically integrate, they're able to really go after this opportunity, create the category in a very short period of time. Finally, proprietary data. Alex talked about proprietary data. It's actually near and dear to my heart because I I worked at a large-scale consumer company that was based on proprietary data, which is Credit Karma, for many years. So I I've seen this playbook and it works extraordinarily well. The area that we've actually seen it applied in one of our investments is a company called Slingshot. Slingshot is an AI therapist. How do they collect their proprietary data? Well, they actually go to existing therapists and they provide an AI scribe, a notetaker. And the notetaker takes notes while those therapists counsel their patients. It then uses the generated notes to train a foundation model. And the foundation model trains a consumer product called Ash, which is then sold directly to consumers. Of course, OpenAI and Chhat GPT are formidable, but they simply don't have the data that Slingshot has. And as a result, Slingshot's able to provide a differentiated and high-priced product and it's working well. So each of the sort of observations Alex made is absolutely playing out in consumer AI and we're very consistent in our approach to the three. Do you want to go back one?
模型聚合器与投资策略
Anish: 我认为这一页幻灯片也很重要,也是一个重要的概念,因为一个非常合理的问题是,为什么实验室或者像谷歌这样拥有真正模型的大型科技公司不会赢得一切?原因在于,在许多类别中,作为模型的聚合器实际上比仅仅消费单一模型更可取。我们都熟悉这里的比喻当然是航空公司。在Kayak上搜索从旧金山到纽约的航班要有用得多,因为我可以查看所有航空公司的库存,而不仅仅是查看达美航空或联合航空的库存。在像“vibe coding”或创意工具这样的类别中也是如此,你确实需要访问所有模型。原因在于每个模型都有其各自的专业化。所以它们不是完全的替代品。你希望与它们都合作。你想要一个“单一管理界面”。而实验室和大型科技公司从定义上来说只能使用他们自己的第一方模型。所以这就是为什么我们看到聚合器正在获胜,这是一个重要的趋势,也是消费者AI的一个投资原则。关键是,我的意思是,每个人以前都听过这个框架,但我们的工作是找到、挑选和赢得交易,然后一旦我们赢得交易,就帮助这些公司实际实现他们的目标,最重要的是不要通过给他们糟糕的建议和告诉他们该做什么来搞砸他们。首席执行官知道该做什么,我们在这里提供建议和同意。但是我们这样做的方式是,我们努力成为每个市场的领导者和专家。我们正在发布更多的基准。实际上,我们正在推出一个非常酷的基准。它就像一个AI产品AI生产力基准。所以对于所有这些不同的类别,这实际上非常酷。所以团队中的每个人,我这样说吧,我们有一个“流程中断”的工作。所以我们的中断是,有一个非常非常棒的交易。我就会说:“太棒了,太棒了,太棒了!我们去和他们见面,放下一切。”不幸的是,从我的妻子和孩子的角度来看,这现在每周都会发生,就像:“啊,必须取消这个。我必须和这位企业家共进晚餐,他发现了青春之泉,不,是永恒运动之泉。”或者他们是这么认为的。所以去见他们。那是中断部分。流程部分是,我给你举个好例子。有人要去超越Salesforce,不是为了他们拥有的“人质”,而是要去构建Salesforce的“绿地”版本,因为这怎么可能呢?每个人都讨厌使用Salesforce。会有一家新公司做得更好,它将是AI原生的。我们如何确保我们擅长发现、挑选、赢得和支持这项投资?我们相信“逆向选择”而不是“正向选择”。所以,一个非常便宜的交易,已经在那里徘徊了六个月,那可能很糟糕。我们不想和他们见面。我们想和最好的公司见面。如果它是最好的公司,其他所有风险投资公司也想和最好的公司见面。显然,他们会派出他们的大人物去争取赢得那笔交易。而赢得这些好交易是非常困难的。所以开始做这件事最好的方法是写这篇文章,我们还制作了一个视频,点击量达到了几十万次。这相当不可思议。《Salesforce之死:AI将如何改变销售》。我们团队的Joe Schmidt和Mark Andrusco写了那篇文章。每个人都想和他们谈谈。但最终,了解你在谈论什么真的非常重要。或者,你知道,死亡、税收和AI。我们已经涵盖了所有关于税收的方方面面。那么陪伴呢?我们做了一些我们刚刚想到的事情,比如前50个企业应用是什么?前50个消费者应用是什么?你知道,我们经常听到一个有点贬义的笑话,尽管我认为这是一种赞美。我们是一家通过风险投资变现的媒体公司,但这种疯狂是有方法的,这种方法就是它帮助我们找到交易,帮助我们挑选交易,并帮助我们赢得交易。
Original English
Anish: I think this is an important slide as well and an important concept because a very fair question is well why aren't either labs or sort of big tech big tech who have real model efforts like Google going to win it all well the reason is that in many categories being an aggregator of models is actually preferable to consuming just a single model and the metaphor that we're all familiar with here of course is airlines it's much more useful to search for a flight from SF to New York on Kayak because I can look across the inventory of every airline versus just going to Delta United and looking at their inventory alone. The same thing is true in categories like vibe coding or creative tools where you really want access to all of the models. And the reason for that is the models each have their respective specializations. So they're not exact substitutes. You want to work with them all. You want a single pane of glass. And the labs and big tech companies can sort of definitionally only use their own firstparty models. So this is why we see the aggregators winning and it's an important trend and and sort of investing principle for consumer AI. The key thing I mean everybody's heard this this framework before but our job is to find pick and win deals and then once we win deals to help these companies actually achieve their objectives and and most importantly don't screw them up by by giving them bad advice and and telling them what to do. The CEO knows what to do and and we're there to advise and consent. But the way that we do this is we try to be the leader and the expert on on every market. We're putting out more benchmarks. Like there's actually a really cool benchmark that we're we're coming out with. It's like an AI product AI productivity benchmark. So for all these different categories actually this is pretty cool. So everybody on the team and the way that I would kind of phrase this is we have a process interrupt job. So our interrupt is there's a very very incredible deal. I'm like incredible, incredible, incredible. Like let's go meet with them, drop everything. This is unfortunately from my wife and children's perspective like a weekly occurrence right now where it's like ah got to cancel this. I have to have dinner with this entrepreneur who who has discovered that the fountain not of youth but of perpetual emotion or so they think. So go meet with them. That's the interrupt part. The process part is like I'll give you a good example. Somebody is going to out Salesforce Salesforce not for the hostages that they have but is going to build the green field version of Salesforce because how is that possible? Everybody hates using Salesforce. There is a new company that's going to do this better that's going to be AI native. How do we make sure that we are adept at finding picking and winning and supporting that investment? Well, we believe in adverse selection versus positive selection. So, a very inexpensive deal that has been hanging around the hoop for six months, that's probably bad. We don't want to meet with them. We want to meet with the best company. If it's the best company, every other venture firm also wants to meet with the best company. Obviously, they're going to send out their big guns to go try to win that deal. And it's very hard to win these great deals. So the best way of starting with this is to write this article and we made a video about this as well which has had like it's hundreds of thousands of views. It's pretty incredible. Death of a Salesforce, why AI will transform sales. Joe Schmidt and Mark Andrusco on our team wrote that. Everybody wants to talk to them. But ultimately knowing what you're talking about really really matters or you know death taxes and AI. We've done we've covered the gamut on everything around taxes. What about companionship? What about like we we do something that we just came up with like what are the top 50 enterprise applications, the top 50 consumer applications? You know, we often get a somewhat a porative joke, although I think it's it's a compliment. We're we're a media firm that monetizes with venture capital, but there's a method to this madness and the method is it's helping us find deals, it's helping us pick deals, and it's helping us win deals.
Anish: 接下来,这就是做这件事的团队。所以每个人,再次强调,我们有“流程中断”。但是,你知道,我们有一个非常非常多产的流程日历,我们正在发布东西。我们正在成为某些类别的专家,并试图找到那些具有“正向选择”的企业家,他们正在构建最好的东西,我们总是能见到他们。一个很好的例子是,如果你和Sema的首席执行官Nick Cop交谈,Mark Andrew对这个类别了解更多。我们当时正在进行一个竞争非常激烈的B轮融资过程。是的,我的意思是,如果你看这张图表,我们有很多员工。很多公司需要什么?他们会说:“好吧,我们需要会计方面的帮助,因为每个人都想购买我们的产品。”我不是说会计方面,而是如何扩大业务规模,并确保非常重要的收入大于支出,以及如何组建销售团队。另一方面,我们有内容创作者,比如Mark、Olivia、Joe、Kimberly和Gabe。Kimberly,我要在这里点名她。有一家公司叫Decagon。她介绍了两位联合创始人。Joe写了一些很棒的内容,有很多很棒的人来找他。我们想确保,如果有人离开,或者有人出了车祸,或者发生了什么,我们想确保企业家的体验非常好。如果你想想公司的起源,公司最初的规定是,只有那些经营过公司或创办过公司的人才能开支票。实际上,我就是作为这项任务的一部分加入的,因为我,无论好坏,都经营过一家公司并创办了这家公司。但后来我们意识到,一些最擅长寻找交易的人,比如Olivia,在寻找好交易和成为语音AI专家方面的能力是无与伦比的。所以,不让她作为先锋,寻找很多这些好交易,并与很多这些企业家合作,那将是疯狂的。
Original English
Anish: So, next, and this is the team that does that. So everybody, again, we've we've got process interrupt. But you know, we have a very very prolific process calendar where we're publishing things. We're we're becoming experts in certain categories and trying to find entrepreneurs that are positive selection that are building the best things here and we always see them and like a good example of this is where if you talk to to Nick Cop who's the CEO of Sema and Mark Andrew just knew more about this category. We were in a very very competitive series B process. Yeah I mean so if you look at this chart we have a bunch of people like what are the two things that a lot of companies need they're like okay we need help on the accounting side because it's like yeah everybody wants to buy our product I shouldn't say the accounting side but just how do I scale a business and make sure that you know very important revenue is more than expenses and also how do I go build out a sales team and on the other side you have people as I mentioned kind of the content generators So like Mark and Olivia and Joe and Kimberly and Gabe, you know, Kimberly, I'll call her out here. Like there's a company called Decagon. She introduced the two co-founders. Joe has written some great content and has a lot of great people coming to him. We want to make sure that if somebody leaves or somebody gets hit by a bus or whatever happens, we want to make sure that the entrepreneur experience is very good. If you think about the origin of the firm, the firm originally was the only people that we will have write checks are people that have run a company or started a company. And actually I I joined as part of that that mandate because I you know for better or for worse run a company and started the company. But then we realized that some of the best people to find deals like Olivia is just nonparel in terms of her ability to find great deals and be an expert as I mentioned in voice AI. So it would be insane not to have her who's like the the the front of the spear finding a lot of these great deals to be working with a lot of these entrepreneurs.
Jen: 太棒了。关于那个问题的后续是,如果人们想了解,投资决策过程是怎样的?以及一个正确的假设是,每个合伙人都有一个投资预算,而不是需要投资批准,或者这是否有所改变?
Original English
Jen: Great. The follow on to that question is is there a process in case folks want to check out what's the process for investment decision-m and and is the right assumption is that each partner is given a budget to invest rather than needing investment approval or how how has that changed if at all?
Alex Rampel: 是的,我们努力做到高度信念导向。我觉得我的工作,David的工作,Anish的工作,就是确保遵循正确的流程。因为风险投资的错误,自动的错误是:“我老了。我不使用社交应用。为什么会有人想发送阅后即焚的消息?那太蠢了。我们放弃那笔交易吧。”与此同时,你有一个非常非常聪明的,不是年龄歧视,而是24岁的年轻人,他每天都在使用这个工具,他认识那个企业家,他说:“这是我见过最棒的东西。”然后那个老人,你知道,我就是这里的老人,否决了那笔交易。而正确的流程是,是的,我们确实有一些预算。我们的投资委员会实际上是确保我们非常坚信流程得到了遵循,你已经见过了所有竞争对手,工作是一流的,我们通常会听取在场个人的意见。我们的工作只是确保流程,以及,你知道,打开第二把钥匙。所以,这是一种两把钥匙的流程,再次强调,它更注重信念。我知道这不能完美地回答,但我们没有一个委员会,每个人都投票,然后你必须获得这么多票,然后就是所有的政治交易。对于种子轮尤其如此,我们让很多年轻人专注于做种子轮,这有点棘手,但对于我们主要关注的小额投资,我们只是听取那些有高度信念的人的意见,但要确保我们的整个流程是端到端完成的,而且这个人是专家,他们来自内容领域,他们知道自己在说什么,等等。
Original English
Alex Rampel: Yeah, so we we try to be highly highly conviction oriented. And I feel like my job and David's job and Anisha's job is to make sure that the right process is followed because what what the mistake, the automatic mistake of venture capital is I'm old. I don't use social apps. Why would anybody want to send disappearing messages? That's stupid. Let's pass on that deal. And meanwhile, you have like the really really smart not to be agist like 24y old who actually uses this tool every day who knows the entrepreneur and says, "This is the greatest thing that I've ever seen." And then the old person, you know, the I'm the old person here, you know, vetos that deal versus the right process is yes, we do have somewhat of a budget. And our investment committee is effectively like making sure that we believe very strongly that the process was followed, that you've met every competitor, that the work is topnotch, and we will often defer to the individual who, you know, is in the arena. And our job is to just make sure process and you know, kind of turn that second key. So, it's kind of a it's a it's a two key process and you know again much more convictionoriented. I I know that that doesn't perfectly answer the but we don't have a committee where we everybody votes and then you have to have this many votes and then it's all this political horse trading. It's all right for especially for seeds where a lot of the younger people we have them focused on doing seeds where it's a little bit trickier but for the for the smaller checks which we are predominantly focused on let's just defer to the the person with high conviction but make sure that our entire process is done end to end and that this is the expert it came from the content you know what you're talking about and so on and so forth.
Jen: 对,嗯,也许我们总体谈谈团队的演变和变化,你们如何考虑团队中支票撰写人的增强,你们如何评估人们的晋升路径,无论是否,你知道,鉴于最近的一些晋升,以及支票撰写人的演变,你们是否会雇佣任何增量人员。
Original English
Jen: Right, um may just generally talk about team evolution and changes how you're thinking about the augmentation of kind of check writers on the team how you are evaluating the path to promotion for folks whether or not you know in light of some of the recent promotions and also evolution of check writers if you will hire any incremental people as well.
Alex Rampel: 是的,我的意思是,我认为我们经常非常坦率地讨论的主要事情是,我们最想要的大概是更多的杠杆,而不是产能。所以我们有能力处理大量的交易。但如果它是世界上最好的交易,我们需要假设我们的对手是红杉资本的Rolof,或者是Excel的顶级合伙人,或者是Greylock的Reed Hoffman。所有这些人都很活跃,但如果这是一笔大交易,企业家会想和尽可能多的人交谈,并且经常会被那些创办了数十亿美元公司的人所吸引,他们也应该如此。这很有道理。所以,我想说,我们可能会增加的一个领域是,你知道,可能有人建立了一家准世代公司,但作为投资者仍然非常渴望。这不是一份退休工作。这是一份反退休工作。这会把人逼疯到他们想退休的地步,因为你有时需要一天工作20小时,而我孩子们会嘲笑我一天工作20小时。他们会说:“你只是和人喝咖啡。那算什么工作?”就像你必须喝很多咖啡。你必须对咖啡有很高的耐受性,然后你必须在下午5点左右改喝酒精。做这些事情需要大量的工作。但你知道,玩笑归玩笑,你真的需要能够与每个人见面,当它是一笔大交易时,因为我们如何知道,这就像是“作为错误”与“不作为错误”。我们需要确保有五个,这实际上发生在ERP领域。如果我们做错了其中一个,我们不仅会因为错了而损失金钱,而且会损失无限的金钱,因为我们没有投资正确的那个。所以,我们必须确保我们掌握所有这些人的情况,并且我们的团队由所有这些企业家都想见面的专家组成。所以,我不知道这是否回答了你的问题,Jen,但我想我唯一可能补充的是,你知道,当需要赢得一笔超级交易时,我们都会一起出现。顺便说一句,你知道,我开玩笑地称Mark为“空军”,因为如果我们需要一次大打击,我们怎么办?我们呼叫F-35。Mark有几架。我们会在Mark家吃晚饭。Ben会出现。我们所有人都会出现,不仅仅是这个团队。但有其他几个人可以,你知道,领导赢得交易。而且拥有董事会的权威性是有帮助的。当然,这就是我们使用Brian的方式。这就是我们使用Andy的方式。我主要也在这样做。我们希望获得尽可能多的所有权。而且,你知道,我们可能需要更多高级别的人员,不是为了寻找交易,不是为了挑选交易。当然,你知道,我们不想只是说:“嘿,你只是一个帮助我们赢得交易的猴子。”但这确实是一件非常有帮助的事情。那是一个产能视角。
Original English
Alex Rampel: Yeah, I mean I think the main thing that we often debate about just very candidly is what we want the most is probably more leverage as opposed to capacity. So we have the capacity to do lots and lots of deals. But if it's the best deal in the world, we need to assume that our counterparty is Rolof at Sequoia or is a top partner at Excel or Reed Hoffman at Greylock. Like all of these people are active, but if it's a great deal, the entrepreneur wants to talk to as many people as possible and will often be starruck by the person that started a multi-billion dollar company as as they should. That makes a lot of sense. So I would say the the one the one area that we might look to add to is you know somebody who probably has built a you know quasi generational company that is still very very hungry as an investor. This is not like you go play this is not a retirement job. This is an anti-retirement job. This will drive somebody crazy to the point where they want to retire because you have to work 20 hours a day sometimes and the working 20 hours a day is something that my my kids make fun of. It's like you just have coffee with people. How is that working? It's like you have to have a lot of coffee. You have to have a very high tolerance for coffee and then you have to switch to alcohol at like 5:00 p.m. It's a lot of work to do this stuff. But you know, joking aside, you really need to be able to meet with everybody and when it is a great like because how do we how do we know like this is the errors of commission versus omission. We need to make sure there are five this actually happened with the ERP space. If we get one of those wrong, not only do we lose our money because we were wrong, but we lose like infinite money because we didn't we didn't actually invest in the right one. So, we have to make sure that we are on top of all of these people and that our team is made up of experts that all of these entrepreneurs want to meet with. So, I don't know if that that answers your your question, Jen, but the I think the only thing that I would potentially add is um you know, when it's time to go win a superpower deal, like we all show up together. And by the way, like you know, I I jokingly call Mark the Air Force because like if we need a big strike, like we what do we do? We we call in the F-35s. Like Mark's got a few of those. We'll have dinner at Mark's house. Ben will show like we all show up beyond just this team. But having a few other people that can kind of, you know, lead the charge on winning deals. And have board gravitas is helpful. Of course, that is how we use Brian. That is how we use Andy. Like I'm I'm doing that too largely. We want to get as much ownership as possible. And you know, we we might need more people at a senior level not to find the deals, not to pick the deals. Of course, you know, we don't want to just say like, "Hey, you're just a monkey that helps us win deals." But that that is a very very helpful thing to go do. And that's a capacity perspective.
Jen: 顺便说一句,我知道这可能会让在座的各位感到非常沮丧,因为我们无法清晰地将某个交易归因于某个普通合伙人,但希望这也代表了我们多么将这项运动视为一项团队运动,以及我们如何将整个公司的力量投入其中。嗯,另外,以防有人没听出来,Mark实际上没有F-35,但他就是那个会来赢得交易的F-35。好的,我们还有最后两个问题。也许我们可以把它们捆绑在一起。这与AI原生公司的客户留存情况以及这类公司企业销售所需的支出规模有关。也许David或Anish,你们想回答这个问题吗?我可以谈谈客户留存点。我的意思是,到目前为止,我们还没有看到大量的价格比较和转换。我认为重要的是,那些向这些公司销售的初创公司,围绕着原语构建一个丰富的软件生态系统。这就是David谈论语音时所说的,提供语音能力是必要的,但不足够。你必须围绕这种语音能力构建很多东西。所以,我认为,构建丰富生态系统的公司在留存客户方面做得更好。我认为另一件事是,AI发展得如此之快。许多客户将这些初创公司视为他们的AI解决方案提供商,他们希望这些初创公司提供更全面的服务。而且由于每天都有新的原语发布,初创公司正在帮助他们走向未来,并帮助他们从新技术中获取大量的顶线收益。所以我想说,到目前为止,至少在企业方面,客户留存不是问题,然后我也很乐意谈谈消费者方面,我们也看到了强劲的留存迹象。
Original English
Jen: By the way, I know it frustrates folks probably on this call to no end because we can't cleanly attribute a certain deal to a certain GP and all all fronts, but hopefully that also represents how much we think about this sport as as a team sport and one in which we bring the entire you know kind of force of the firm to to bear as a part of that. And also just in case people did not pick up, Mark does not actually have an F-35, but he's the F-35 that comes in to to win deals as a as a part of that. Okay, we have two kind of last questions. Maybe we can bundle them together and it this was in reference to any observations on customer retention to date on AI native companies and then just a scale of spending required for enterprise sales for these type of companies. Maybe David or Anish, you want to take this one? I can talk a little bit about the customer retention point. I mean I we so far we haven't seen a bunch of sort of price shopping and switching and I think it's important that the companies that are selling in the startups that are selling into these companies build a rich software ecosystem around the primitive. This is what David was talking about with voice like it's it's necessary but not sufficient to provide a voice capability. You've got to build a lot of things around that voice capability. So I think one is the companies that are building rich ecosystems have do a better job of retaining their customers. I think the other thing is that AI is moving so quickly. Many of these customers are looking to these startups as their sort of AI solutions provider and they're looking to them for a much more holistic set of things. And because new primitives are being released every day, the startups are kind of helping drive them into the future and and helping them sort of capture a lot of the topline gains from the new technology. So I'd say so far certainly on the enterprise side retention has not been an issue and then happy to speak to consumer as well where we've also seen strong retention signs.
Anish: 说实话,我认为从企业销售的角度来看,我们没有看到巨大的差异。我的意思是,如果说有什么不同的话,那就是我们看到的内向销售比以往任何时候都多。我的意思是,EVE甚至不需要进行外向销售,考虑到他们运营的规模,这有点不可思议。所以,很多这些类别都有很大的市场拉力,但最终我认为他们都需要,你知道,大量的企业销售,而且我认为,如果说有什么不同的话,我们看到的是,尤其是在公司向大型企业销售时,工程方面更多地采用了“前置部署”模式。我认为许多大公司都在寻求初创公司,以更好地了解如何在他们的组织内部应用AI。所以,如果说有什么不同的话,我们看到人们在“前置部署工程”方面投入更多,而不是在销售方面。
Original English
Anish: Honestly I don't think we're seeing a tremendous difference from an enterprise sales perspective. I mean if anything we're seeing more inbound than ever. I mean Eve hasn't had to have an outbound motion which is kind of insane given you know the scale with which they're operating. So there is a lot of sort of market pull for a bunch of these categories but at the limit I think that they will all need you know you know significant kind of enterprise sales and I I think if anything what we're seeing especially when companies are selling to larger corporates is is more of a forward deployed motion on the engineering side. I think many large companies are looking to startups to better understand where and how to apply AI within their organizations. And so if anything we're seeing people invest more kind of on the forward deployed engineering side than than necessarily on the sales side.
Alex Rampel: 我的意思是,这是一种非常文化性的东西,那就是,在你雇佣某人之前,这在很多初创公司中正在发生,但在通用电气却没有。你能否用AI来完成这项工作?事实上,你知道,Injuries and Horror的首席执行官Ben在雇佣员工之前就会问这个问题。我认为这种思维方式,如果你做得正确,就像如果你是EVE,你会说:“哦,我只是雇佣那些和律师打高尔夫球的人,这就是我的整个销售流程,我永远不会用AI做任何事情,我只会用Netsuite,我只会用QuickBooks。”那不是这些公司实际运作的方式。他们真的理解AI在成本和收入两方面的变革力量,他们正在内部进行自我转型。
Original English
Alex Rampel: I mean it's a very cultural thing which is before you hire somebody this is kind of happening in a lot of startups it's not happening at GE can you use AI for this job. In fact you know Ben is the CEO of Injuries and Horror it's like he's asking that before we hire people here. And I think that mindset actually if you do it correctly, like if you're Eve and you're like, "Oh, I'm just going to hire people that play golf with lawyers and that's my entire sales process and I'll never use AI for anything and I'm just going to use Netswuite and I'm just going to use QuickBooks." Like that that's not how these companies are actually orchestrated. Like they they really they understand the transformative power both on a cost side and a revenue side and they're they're transforming themselves internally.
Jen: 好的,就此打住,感谢大家的加入,我们很快再聊。谢谢。
Original English
Jen: All right, with that note, thank you all for joining and talk to you all soon. Thank you.
Alex Rampel: 谢谢。
Original English
Alex Rampel: Thank you.
📌 文中提及的人物和组织
公司/组织: OpenAI, Microsoft, Amazon, Workday, Shopify, RAMP, Netswuite, QuickBooks, UiPath, Zenesk, SAP, Saliant, Toast, FlightAware, Pitchbook, Lexus Nexus, Co-Star, Bloomberg, Ancestry.com, Domain Tools, Open Evidence, VLEX, Ask Leo, Slingshot, 11 Labs, Credit Karma
产品/模型: ChatGPT, GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, Photoshop, Korea, Ash, Eliza, ADSB transponder data
媒体/书籍: Barbarians at the Gate