The ROT Economy: Ed Zitron's Unflinching Take on Tech's Broken Priorities

Okay. So, let's suppose that you're

right and open AI dies. I mean, so what,

right? I mean, if you go to Gemini now

and you ask a question, you don't get

the old Google sort of search results of

a quarter million links. You get an

answer as opposed to links. So, if

OpenAI died, so what? Well, I mean,

generative AI will stick around. We've

already got models that run on device.

They're not as good, but they're getting

there. My argument is not that

generative AI will die.

the hype cycle will because right now no

one wants to admit that generative AI is

not going to give the business returns

that they promised. It's not

revolutionary. It is an evolutionary

product of deep machine learning and

deep learning and stuff like that. It is

a next step. It has some functionality

that's useful. It has been trumpeted.

That's the thing as a product. Large

language models are kind of interesting.

I despise them for the environmental

damage they do and the fact they steal

from people. the actual things they can

do pretty cool. The problem is they're

not being sold as this is pretty cool.

They're being sold as this is the

revolution that will change everything

about business forever and

[Music]

ever. I'm Guy Kawasaki. This is the

Remarkable People podcast and we found

another remarkable person to help you be

remarkable, too. His name is Ed Zetron

and he is a media and PR expert and well

that's understating. He is so

opinionated about AI and what he calls

the rot economy that I just wanted a a

kind of new voice a new perspective on

AI and tech bros and all that stuff. So

welcome to the show Ed. Thank you for

having me guy. Listen, Ed. Um, I have

noticed in your podcast and your writing

and stuff that you don't exactly hold

yourself back.

So, so I I I got to ask you this

question. Um, I I kind of think I know

what you're going to say, but tell me

what you think of this Blue Origin

flight with the women into space. It's

one of those things where I think Katy

Perry came back and she was talking

about mother earth and loving mother

earth and it's like how much how many

fossil fuels were necessary to get you

up in debt? How many did you fly there

on a private jet? I think it was just it

was PR, it was marketing and it was just

kind of one of those meaningless things

that I think it it's cool that we send

people to space, but this this one was

unnecessary and a little strange,

frankly. And and let me ask you

something. I mean, do do you think that

this

advanced women in STEM and, you know,

kind of diversity in space at all? I

think that those are extremely important

issues like what women and uh people of

color,

LGBTQ, making sure that they have

presence in all industries and in STEM

and everything is extremely important. I

do not think the Blue Origin flight had

anything to do with that of the sort. I

think it was just a Blue Origin

marketing campaign and it sucks that it

was it really was

exploiting women in STEM far more than

it was helping. I don't think anyone saw

this and went, "Oh, that's a good idea

now." I I wasn't I wasn't into women in

STEM before, but I saw Katy Perry in

space and now I'm just gaga for it.

Well, and her quote was putting the ass

in astronaut. I mean, good stuff, Katie.

That's that's I mean good for her but

also what could have said anything could

have said anything if only I saw an

interview with her where she claimed she

was reading about string theory as well.

I mean I just I mean good for her again

but it's like what is this even about?

Is this about woman in STEM? Is this

just about feeling good in a kind of

vague and unattached way? I don't know.

It just all feels kind of cynical to me.

I I was talking to my wife about this

and I said, you know, if it was up to

me, the women I would include would be

people like Jane Goodall, Dolly Parton,

you know,

one of the one of the many women who

works at NASA. Yeah. Yeah. Like I don't

know like one of the one of the many

incredible woman in science. Like I'm

not saying like I don't know. I feel

like that felt like a fairly obvious

one, but it was the big name thing that

feels so cynical. It's not even like you

had a celebrity and a few actual

scientists. You just had celebs and it's

like, okay, what's this for? Who is this

for? Is this just for I I don't know. I

would have loved to see Jane Goodle and

Greta Tunberg on that. That would have

been That makes perfect. That would

actually make sense. This does not. I

mean it makes sense in a kind of

marketing sense and like we're just

doing things to get headlines cuz that's

what it was. But headlines for what?

That's the thing. It's just very kind of

specious like why are we doing this? I

don't know. So many better things we

could have done. Okay. And we have

better things to discuss. So I I have to

ask you I mean I have to ask you some

questions that I know the answer to. So

don't think I'm not prepared. Okay. No

worries.

But what is the gist of your analysis of

Open AI? My god, what a diet tribe. So,

OpenAI is a company that burned 5

billion. Sorry, they burned $9 billion

to lose $5 billion in 2024. They have no

path to profitability. Their software

does not have significant business

returns and they're on course to be

their estimates are like they'll burn

$320 billion in the next 5 years and

this generative AI has peted out like

there is we are not seeing significant

gains in any way and we're definitely

not getting AGI. So my view of open AI

is it's one of the most successful cons

of all time. I believe that Sam Alman

has successfully if you look at the way

it's structured it is an incredible con.

He has all of his infrastructure

provided by uh Microsoft, provided by

Coreweave if they ever build it.

Stargate as well is never going to

happen, but nevertheless, he has managed

to take all of the risk and put it on

other people, including Masiohi's son of

Softbank. My analysis is the entire

generative AI boom is open AI, and Open

AI itself is a runaway train of

overpromises. It is in reality probably

more like a $5 billion

valuation SAS business. It is a cloud.

It is the equivalent of Docker. I don't

know. I'm sure maybe they have a higher

valuation than that in the case of

Docker. It's cloud sto. It's cloud

software. It's cloud compute. That's all

it is. But it's been turned into this

massive meaningless empty hype bubble.

And I think you're seeing people pull

away from it. Johnson and Johnson has

reduced all of their generative AI

efforts. For example, Microsoft's

pulling back on data centers. Open AI is

just it's not a nothing burger, but it's

definitely much less than people claim

it is. So, are you impugning open AI

specifically or AI in general? So,

that's the thing. There's AI. There's

all sorts of AI over here. You've had

people on your show, you've talked about

AI. AI can mean a hell of a lot of

things and has been around for decades.

Open AI I'm referring to with generative

AI. The current AI hype boom is based on

that. There are lots of people that

conflate AI large with generative AI

because it allows them to sell things

and pretend they're in the future.

And and so I mean, do you use AI in your

podcast and in your writing and stuff at

all? No. Not one bit. No. Why would I?

Well, what like that's the thing like I

write my scripts. My scripts are edited

by someone. I speak into a microphone.

It's edited by a producer. I don't have

any reason to. Well, you know, okay, let

me tell you one of my use cases. So um I

was writing a book called Think

Remarkable. And I wanted examples of

people who really made big career

changes, you know, not not just going up

the hierarchy, but completely changing

what they did. So I asked Chad GPT that

question. Give me examples of successful

people who made really great career

changes. And and Chad GPT told me, well,

Julia Child was a spook working for the

OSS until her 30s. She got married. They

moved to Paris. She fell in love with

French food and she became the French

chef. I would have never have heard of

that example were it not for AI. I mean

this nicely guy, but did you try looking

otherwise? Like you could have just I I

don't see how that is an AI use case.

You're describing search. You're

describing search and also did you check

the citation? The reason I say this is

even here in this example of where you

give me an example of how AI changes

things. You basically refer to something

that already existed that I would love

to say it was better, but it's Google

search has become so mediocre that I

don't think it's possible to say it's

worse. But at the same time, the

propensity for hallucinations, but even

then the magic, this magical industry of

AI, this magical generative AI after all

of this, the best we've got is it's kind

of search. I feel like you also would

have come to that example had you looked

harder. I don't mean that as an insult,

but just had you not taken the first

thing that popped up when you typed it

into chat GPT. Now, I assume you went

and did in-depth research on her

afterwards, right? Yes, we we

definitely, you know, we So, that's the

thing, like why didn't AI do that for

you? Well, I mean, in a sense, if I am

worried about chat GPT hallucinating,

I'm not going to ask chat GPT, are you

hallucinating? Right. Oh, I I agree

fully. I'm just saying that shouldn't it

not do that? Shouldn't it be reliable?

This is the thing. We're 2 years into

this, hundreds of billions of dollars of

capex, all of these things. And you

yourself, you've been around in tech

pretty much since I started my career in

2008. You've been on the forefront of

these movements. You've been looking at

these things. It just feels like this

should be more than it is right now. And

that's because this is all generative AI

is. Even in these examples, I'm not even

criticizing. I'm just saying that why

would I use AI in my in my podcast? Why

would I use it in my work? Because you

can't trust it. You can't really It's a

better search engine now, I guess. But

even then, I used the search engine the

other day to look up earnings reports

and it didn't even give me the right. It

gave me an earnings report from 2023

when I asked for

2025. It's just it's frustrating seeing

everyone say this is the future when it

isn't or defin It's barely the present.

It's mostly the past but more

expensive. Wow.

I I can tell you we're we have a little

different opinions of AI, but hey, you

that's good. That's why I want you on my

podcast, right? I don't I don't want an

echo chamber. Indeed. What if somebody

said to you, going back a few minutes

here, that Yeah, Open AI at this point

doesn't look sustainable. It's burning

cash. You know, it it's losing money on

every even paid customer or 200 a month

or whatever. But but can't you make the

case that at the start of a revolution,

most revolutions don't look

sustainable? You can make that case as

long as you ignore history. So Jim

Cavllo for Goldman Sachs, the head of

global equities research, said in a

paper at the end of June of last year

that basically it's a trillion dollars

of capex to make this work, but where

where are the returns? One of his big

points he made was two parts of this.

The smartphone revolution and the

original internet. the original

internet. The argument people make is

yes, there were these uh $64,000 some

micros systemystems servers. And the

argument is, well, those existed and

thus this is the same thing. It isn't.

The amount of capital expenditures

behind anything to do with some micros

systemystems original servers, even the

basic cable outlays of the early 2000s

were minuscule compared to this. And on

top of that, you could still kind of see

what it was going for. There was a road

map. Furthermore, when it comes to the

smartphone revolution, people said the

same thing. Well, people said

smartphones wouldn't be a big deal.

That's also a historical. Cavell also

said that there were thousands of

presentations that showed you a road map

of okay, once we get smaller Bluetooth

radios, smaller GPS's, smaller cellular

modems, we will see this, this, this,

this, this, all the way up to the iPhone

and beyond. There's nothing like that

for AI. There's nothing. And on top of

that, the capex comparisons are

completely different. And even the

businesses are completely different. The

only comparison point of a company

that's burned as much as OpenAI is Uber.

Uber's largest burn was 2020, $6.2

billion if I'm correct. Now, they did

that because they literally could not

run their business. People could not get

in cars and go places due to co. There

is no historical comparison with OpenAI.

People have tried railroads. Doesn't

make sense. Doesn't make sense at all.

Just isn't a comparison. Electricity

grids doesn't make sense. There are no

historical comparisons with what OpenAI

is doing. On top of that, all of the

others, every single one, there was a

theoretical concept even of how this

would get cheaper. The only thing that

people have right now is they are saying

the cost of inference, so when you put a

prompt in is coming down. There's

actually there's proof that that's

happening, but even OpenAI has increased

their cost of inference with their new

image generator. It feels like a death

cult. It's genuinely like worrying that

society is not looking at this as a

problem. anthropic they burned $5

billion last year and they make a

minuscule com amount compared to open AI

it's frightening like this cannot

continue as it is it is not numerically

possible unless something completely

unprecedented happens but I see no sign

of that happening well but I could make

the case that the fact that you can't

see something unprecedented

happening doesn't mean it's not going to

happen. I mean, lots of unprecedented

things happen, right? Oh, but I could

become a wizard. I could learn to

teleport. We could if a frog had wings,

it could fly. There were all sorts of

things we could say that are just if

what if this happened. But what I mean

by unprecedented in all this is for

OpenAI to survive, they have raised $40

billion. What they've actually done is

they've got $10 billion up front from

SoftBank. Then they get another 30

billion by the end of the year. and they

only get 30 billion if they convert to a

for-profit entity, which means if they

don't do that, they'll only get 20

billion. The for-profit nonprofit thing

is dodgy enough, but SoftBank has to

borrow all of the money to fund them.

That's there are no private deals of

that size are rare. You've got a $35

million billion, pardon me, $35 billion

infrastructure loan happening with

Apollo and Meta right now, but that's

Meta. Meta has the creditworthiness to

stand this up. OpenAI doesn't and I the

fact that they are having to raise from

one company SoftBank is such a bad sign.

Nevertheless, putting all that

aside, how do they keep they keep

burning all this money? It's not

changing. It's getting worse. There's

only so much money in the world that is

going to go into this company,

especially as the AI trade is suffering.

It's just the unprecedented

unprecedented thing would have to be a

scientific breakthrough that would then

have to immediately become silicon

because even if they came up with

something that would make inference

dramatically cheaper on the silicon

side, it would take years to actually

file into physical silicon. I don't

know. It's just I realize that the idea

that a company of this size and of this

importance being this financially

unstable and this potentially

destructible is scary and it's hard for

people to get their heads around. But at

some point something has to change and I

have no idea what that could possibly be

and I've not had a single person come up

with an answer. Okay, so let's suppose

that you're right and open AI dies. I

mean so what right? I mean, if you go to

Gemini now and you ask a question, you

don't get the old Google sort of search

results of a quarter million links. You

get an answer as opposed to links. So,

if OpenAI died, so what? Well, I mean,

generative AI will stick around. We've

already got models that run on device.

They're not as good, but they're getting

there. My argument is not that

generative AI will die. the hype cycle

will because right now no one wants to

admit that generative AI is not going to

give the business returns that they

promised. It's not revolutionary. It is

an evolutionary product of deep machine

learning and deep learning and stuff

like that. It is a next step. It has

some functionality that's useful. It has

been trumpeted. That's the thing as a

product. Large language models are kind

of interesting. I despise them for the

environmental damage they do and the

fact they steal from people. the actual

things they can do pretty cool. The

problem is they're not being sold as

this is pretty cool. They're being sold

as this is the revolution that will

change everything about business forever

and ever. That is my problem with it.

That and literally the stealing of the

environmental damage. So, you'll see

Gemini hang around. I'm confident of

that. In fact, if Open AI collapses, I

wouldn't be surprised if it gets

absorbed into Copilot because Microsoft

owns all of their IP and all of their

research, their pre-AGI stuff, by the

way, which they're never going to make

it. But that's the other thing. Everyone

is talking about AGI now, and that is

just one of the most craven and

disgusting things I've seen in tech tech

and tech media in a while, cuz we are

not even close to the beginning of AGI.

It's a total it is a farce and a lie to

suggest otherwise. And it's nice to sit

there and dream about it and say, "Oh,

what if we had AGI? Wouldn't that be

interesting?" But we don't and we're not

going to. We may never. AGI is a cool

idea. The idea of like a conscious

computer is so cool. I love the idea.

But no one seems to want to actually

have that discussion. They don't want to

talk about the fact that we'd have to

give these things personage that we'd

have to give them rights potentially.

They don't want to do that. They just

want to vaguely say AGI is coming so

that Warario Mario Amadeday of Anthropic

can raise more money or so that Sam

Alman can get a third Koisig car. It's

just it's frustrating because you're

taking the cool stuff about tech, the

dreaming, the new innovations, the

things that change society, you're

putting that to the side so that you can

create something that can raise more

venture capital and you can hold up the

stock market. It's boring on top of

being not that

useful. Ed, you know, I I want you to

like don't feel constrained and tell us

what you really think. I know. I've been

holding back, guy. I'll be I I will I'll

be honest now.

So, so does the existence of deepseek

make you feel better because it's

cheaper? I think deepseek is a good

thing because if we're thinking about

the problems of the generative AI

bubble, it's the getting none of the

American companies have been pushed to

be efficient. They've been building

larger and fatter and nastier large

language models that burn more capital,

burn, use more energy. Deepseek,

however, has not done like I don't know

if it really cost them $5 million to

train. I don't necessarily buy that, but

it was definitely cheaper. I think

Deepseek has started pushing some of

these corporations to get cheaper.

Google, there's some Gemini stuff. I

don't mind Jeff Dean over at Google.

He's all right. Um, but they've been

pushing for cheaper models that can run

on a single H100. Even that's not

anyway. Deepseek has put pressure on a

lot of them to lower these costs, but it

also kind of shook the market and said,

"Hey, look, look, maybe it doesn't need

to have the latest Blackwell chips.

Maybe we don't need to give Jensen Hang

billions of dollars every single quarter

just in case the stock market gets

hurt." So, Deep Seek's good. I think

people got very xenophobic over it in a

disappointing way. I think people are

very quick to go, "Ah, it's the Chinese.

They're doing something boring and

honestly cowardly." If that's the best

you've got against deepseek is to just

be xenophobic. It's boring. It's just

dull. And it doesn't actually suggest

that anyone cares about technology. I

personally am very excited. I love my

tech. I really do. Cool stuff. It's why

I get up in the morning

and you see this and it's just dull. And

at least Deep Seek's pushing them to

make it cheaper. I don't know. It's just

disappointing to see that this is what

everyone's obsessed with.

Wow. All right. So, let's let's segue a

little bit into a little larger topic,

which is I love the concept of the rot

economy, rot for those of you listening.

So, please explain the rot economy. So,

our economy, the the public markets in

particular, but it's bled into the

private markets as well, has been

obsessed with growth. growth at all

costs. It's not about making sustainable

businesses. It's not about making

businesses that will last the test of

time. It's about each quarter showing a

high percentage growth. 10 10% would be

considered bad. 20% ideal, more than

that, more even more ideal. The rot

economy is something I refer to

specifically for the tech industry. It

fans out, but the tech industry is one

of the best and especially software. One

of the best vehicles for growth ever.

software can proliferate infinitely

theoretically and it as a result it can

create growth in all sorts of places

without having to build physical

physical things or have labor. It's

actually why the generative AI situation

is so bizarre. Nevertheless, when you

have companies that for decades have

been oriented around growth rather than

making happy customers, making making

people come back to the service because

it's good, not because they have a

monopoly over it, not because it has the

cheapest prices. You chase out the

people who innovate. You chase out those

people who are sitting there thinking,

"How can I solve someone's problems?"

You're thinking, "How can I solve a

problem?" And that problem is that my

stock needs to keep we need new crap to

sell here and there. And and thus, the

tech industry has been obsessed with

growth for years and years and years,

and they've been rewarded for it. Tech

stocks have never been worth more. It's

never been easier for these companies to

promote growth up until a few years ago.

So they got desperate and they thought

we don't have a new hyperrowth market

because they really haven't since

smartphones, the cloud computing boom.

There was a brief virtualization trend

didn't really work. AR VR didn't work.

Metaverse didn't work. Smartome didn't

work. Uh Amazon lost billions of dollars

off of that. They're still losing money.

Smartatches, IoT, 5G, these are all

things that they all wanted to be the

next hyperrowth thing. Except there

hasn't been one for a long long long

time. And thus they've got desperate.

And the people running these companies

all have MBAs. Sunda Pashai, uh Tim

Cook, Sachi Nadella, Andy Jasse, MBAs.

And no offense to MBAs. It's just when

you are a business growth man inspired

by Jack Welch of GE, who is the great

book David Gellis, the man who destroyed

capitalism. When the conditions are that

you must grow every quarter, you're no

longer thinking innovation. You're no

longer thinking value creation. And so

you don't really know what it looks like

anymore. You don't know. You stop, you

look at the smartphone generation, you

say, "Well, that was big because it had

lots of market opportunities." Versus

the fact that you remember very well the

first iPhone was incredible because it

combined all of these distinct devices.

You had this one thing. It kind of

brought home the idea that we saw in

Palm and Compact and things like that

with the miniature computer. It made

sense and it made sense for us as

people. You look at generative AI and

it's very much a square peg round hole

situation. But it makes sense if you

look at it that these companies were

trying to create something that would

sell software that would allow them to

sell cloud compute with Azure that would

allow them to sell API cores with open

AI that allowed them to sell

subscriptions with open AI. The problem

is the underlying costs are so severe

and they've it's always worked in the

past to throw money at stuff. So they're

all growthoriented. They're not

innovationoriented and I don't think

they know what to do.

And and do you hold any companies that

we would have heard of as positive

examples that are not the rot

economy? Not in tech. Truthfully, in

tech, it is just a slopfest. I Nvidia is

interesting. So Nvidia, Jensen Hang is

technical and he sounds like kind of

monstrous to work with at times, but he

is a technical guy. He is a hardworking

guy. Clean toilets as a kid. He is a

real working stiff. Nvidia, regardless

of the fact that Jensen jumps from trend

to trend, they at least make physical

things that are good. They've screwed

over consumers with GPUs right now.

They've done terrible things pretty much

because of the rot economy. Pretty much

the same thing. Growth at all costs,

which means melting melting wires

because they've sent all the powers down

2K for GPUs. Point is, Nvidia is about

one of the better ones, but right now

our crop of public tech stocks are

really horrifying. It's really an It's

really disappointing because I would

love it to be different. I want a better

tech industry. I deeply want tech to

make cool stuff that makes people's

lives better. I just don't see them

doing it. Costco's probably my my one

company that I don't I think is in line

with the idea that growth is not the

only thing. But in tech, and I

understand on some level, I understand

why. I understand if you're the CEO of a

public company and the market wants

growth, what are you meant to do there?

You could push back, but the push back

would include your stock going down,

which might lead to a board revolt. So,

you're kind of in this catch22

situation. But you look at people like

Sunda Pashai, who's a former McKenzie

guy, and that guy does not care. That

guy's not thinking innovation. He's

thinking money line go up, number go up.

Do you think that Dave and Bill are

turning over in their grave right now?

I think that if you look at the elder

generation tech founders, those live

living and living and those

not, you can really see that there is

something that shifted in the mindset of

the people that run these companies. I

also think that there are some of them

like Bill Gates who were always like

this. Microsoft had um an antitrust case

was it in the 90s over MS DOS and

Windows. There are some of these guys

like Eric Schmidt. They're rot

economists and they always were. I don't

think that that was I don't think that

was always the case. But at the same

time, it's kind of hard to tell because

look at the in was the manga quote. It's

like look at the incentives. I forget

the exact one, but the incentives back

then were to build stuff so that it

would be valuable. There was not the

inherent assumption that it always would

be. The early days of Apple, as horrible

as Steve Jobs was, the early days of

Apple were very much like crap. What do

we put together? What would be useful

for people? what problems can we solve?

And yes, Steve Jobs had his aesthetic

choices and his proclivities, but

ultimately it was about solving a

problem and then that would be value

bull. Now it's can I sell an idea? Now

can I put a concept together that will

convince the markets that something is

happening which is inherently different

to showing the markets that we have

created something of value which will

then grow. So I think that when you look

at the elder founders living in living

and dead, I can't say for certain

whether had they been born into a

different generation and founded their

companies today whether they would do

any different. It's the wills of the

markets and the incentives at play. They

are what dictate things. And I think

that it's hard to tell and I don't feel

much good for these executives, but I

understand why they're doing it. I just

can't speak to their what's up here. And

the why they're doing it is because they

believe they have shareholder

responsibility and their whole goal is

to up the stock and that shareholder

supremacy that is Jack Welch of GE where

he shareholder capitalism took hold

thanks to him and Milton Friedman. The

idea that we must show growth every well

we must make the shareholders happy. We

must improve the stock price. Stock

buybacks have become such a such a big

thing now. It's like it's it's anti-

business as well. The incentives are no

longer around creating businesses that

create value. It's around creating

businesses that provide value to a

non-exist to not the customer. And it's

so frustrating because it's it is going

to drag our economy down with it

eventually. It is going to drag society.

I'm not saying apocalypse, but it is

always going to be negative for society

when we have shareholder supremacy. And

I wrote a piece about this uh last year

as well. It's just it's frustrating

because you can see the direct results.

You can see the human capital. You see

the tens of thousands of people laid

off. Microsoft alone tens of thousands

of people in the last few years. And

that happens not because the companies

are unprofitable. These companies print

money. 10 billion in profit. I think a

quarter with Microsoft, probably more.

Yet they lay people off just so they can

make another number go up. Number go up

is all that's important. It's so

frustrating. Well, can I ask you

something?

Like, what do you think happens to

people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and

Mark Andre and Peter Teal? Like were

they good and they got corrupted or were

they're corrupted and now because

they're powerful their corruption can

come out

like what can you explain those kind of

changes that they seem to have gone

through? So I think there is a universal

theme with billionaires. I think there

are very few exceptions. Steve Wnjak, I

think, is probably an exception, a very,

very rich people that they get where

they get without ever enjoying a single

moment. They don't have anything that

they truly love and are attached to,

that brings them joy, that isn't money

related, that isn't um that isn't to do

with business, that isn't to do with

conquest. So, when they eventually get

to a point where they have everything,

they really feel like they have nothing.

I can't speak to whether Bezos or Musk.

Musk sounds like he's been pretty

horrific for a long time. I don't know

much about the history of Bezos, but I

know this. The way these men act is

depressed. These men are not happy.

They're not saying these things because

they have a deeply held ideology that

means something to them. They're saying

it out of grievance that they feel the

world has taken something from them when

they themselves have been arguably the

biggest beneficiaries of the world's

resources. They could go and do

anything.

and they choose to do what it is they're

doing. They don't act with kindness.

They act with malice and aggression and

judgment and hatred. And that comes from

a place of emptiness. That comes from a

place of not really enjoying a single

damn thing. When you have all the

choices in the world, you choose to go

online and get angry. You choose to go

online and attack women. You go go

online attack trans people and attack

minorities and attack DEI. You do that

because you are miserable and

isolationist. That's what it is at the

heart of these men. The way they're

acting is disgusting. It's really putrid

and it's also pathetic and cowardly and

the opposite of manly. It's the opposite

of

masculinity. It's c it's so cowardly.

It's the kind of thing that you when you

have power and you use that power to

attack people who are powerless or

marginalized, that is weakness. And

that's what these men are. They're weak.

They have all the power in the world,

but deep down in their hearts, they're

weak. Yeah. You know, I I have to say I

I I scratch my head. I scratch every

part of my body. I just do not

understand when you have infinite

resources and infinite money. Why are

you not taking the high road? I mean, if

there's a time to take the high road,

it's now, right? And like I said, you

could do anything. You could eat

whatever meal you want. cooked by your

favorite chef with your favorite band

playing anywhere. You could do any of

these things, but you choose this. And

that only comes from a place of deep

unhappiness. That only comes from a

place when there isn't anything you

actually want to do at all. When you

yourself feel this echoing emptiness

inside you. Cuz if you if they felt

anything for themselves, if they felt

anything joyous or happy that they could

attach to, they would attach themselves

to that. But they attached themselves to

anger. Mark Zuckerberg on Joe Rogan was

a joke. That's ridiculous. You're going

on there. It's not masculine enough

anymore. You got billions of dollars.

You own chunks of Hawaii. What are you

doing? Why are you here? Why are you on

a podcast? You could be in Hawaii doing

anything. Hawaii is an incredible

looking place. You should just be there

and stare into the the distance. There's

so much beauty there alone. You have all

of this stuff and you choose to do this.

And it must just not feel like much to

them. It just m it must just they must

just feel nothing but anger anger and

resentment. Resentment after they're

given everything everything they must

have more they must take more and it's

just a it must be the empty inside them

the

void. Well, but would you make the case

that if they were not like this they

would not have achieved success? I mean

which came first?

I think that you're right that there is

definitely a degree of if they did not

have actually no I take that a step

back. I don't know if I conflate the

two. I think the single-minded focus on

success absolute success. I mean in in

many of these cases when you look into

their actual path to success it wasn't

like they had great business acumen.

They stabbed a few backs a few

times. Musk is an incredible leverage

guy. That's really it. He knows how to

leverage assets. That's about it. Um,

Mark Zuckerberg was just kind of a

scumbag. Pretty good coder. Hasn't

written a line of code since 2006. Mark

Zuckerberg knew who to go to. Cheryl

Samberg is probably more responsible for

Mark Zuckerberg being a billionaire than

Mark Zuckerberg. There are people that

attach themselves to these people that

help. I think that sure that whether or

not billionaires should exist is pretty

obvious. They shouldn't. They should pay

like they you don't need a billion

dollars. Just come on. But I think that

what got them there was that to an

extent. But what did they do when they

weren't making money? Did they not have

fun? Do they ever watch Jojo's Bizarre

Adventure? Did they ever watch listen to

like J like Charles Mingus? Did they not

do anything cool or fun in between now

and then? Was there nothing that made

their heart sing? And I think the answer

is no. There wasn't. And I think it this

happens to millions, billions of people

all their lives. Plenty of people who

end up dirt poor who also find no joy.

It's just more obvious with these people

because they have so many more choices

that they don't choose.

So, if I am a young entrepreneur and I'm

listening to this podcast like like my

head is exploding right now. You're just

like you're basically ripping all my

tech heroes. So, what is a young

entrepreneur supposed to do? What is a

young entrepreneur's northlight?

Cling to helping people. And I don't

necessarily mean helping people in the

vocational way. I mean make something

that people need that works. Make

something that makes people be good to

your friends and family. Love the people

closer to you harder while working on

whatever you're doing. You can work

incredibly hard while also putting love

and joy into the world by being there

for your friends, by being an available

person. Go to therapy. It's the best

thing that best thing that most people

don't do. Exploring oneself is one of

the most beautiful things a human can

do. And young entrepreneurs are so

commonly told to aspire to be these

billionaire types. When you look at

their history and you say this isn't

something to aspire to, this is

something they fell into. So the advice

for young entrepreneurs is focus on the

most valuable thing you can do that's

easiest for you. That's the best I can

say. The closest you can get, something

you're naturally good at that pays well.

And I internally dial that in just as a

job thing. But if you're going to build

something, solve a real problem. Find

something that pisses people off or that

frustrates them within their life,

within their job, and truly solve that

in a way that involves them paying you.

Because there's nothing, that's the

thing. It's okay as long as you're

upfront with the

incentives. Not being like Mark

Zuckerberg, not being like Larry

Ellison, not being like Jeff Bezos isn't

a bad thing. And also, these men grew up

in vastly different times to today.

Their lessons, even if they were

positive, would not be relevant to a

society where it's harder to accumulate

wealth, where most young people can't

buy a house, where most h housing and

rent is way higher, where we as

Americans burn so much money on

healthcare. The world is different now.

So appending yourself to these people

isn't necessarily the right thing.

focusing on the reality, focusing on the

tangibles of helping people with good

software or hardware or what job you do.

Find a way, find a way to be useful and

monetize that. You can be a creative,

too. That will be a grind, but you can

do it. Just whatever you do, actually

give a crap.

You are you are basically rewriting

every business book written in the last

25 years there. Yeah, I've read a lot of

them too and a lot of them are written

like they were written 25 years ago. The

effective executive by Ducker is still

pretty good cuz a lot of his lessons

come down to hey when someone's good

under you treat them well. If you have

good people working for you and they

work on a product that people like,

people will buy it. Be a good boss. Be a

boss that respects the labor of other

people. These are timeless lessons. The

problem is that modern business writing

has got so far away from that and it's

got into this it's feeds into this

culture of easy answers of quick fixes.

I mean very obvious kind of try but it's

to try and get people away from having

to have responsibility for others and

themselves. Not to say that

circumstances don't happen that change

things, but it's there are no easy

answers. Sometimes the answers involve

you not making as much money cuz you're

spending on other people working for

you. Sometimes it means you work harder

and you have to spend more time working

and investing in the people and the

processes. Sometimes I mean I actually

really like Rework uh Rework by uh the

base camp guys. That's a that was a very

good book as well. But a lot of the

modern business books are just naff.

They're just they don't really say much.

They're trying to give you little tips

that you could hopefully copy, but you

can't copy someone else's homework. Um,

I may be part of that indictment, but I

I just haven't read it. I've not I've

not read read your books, guy. I'm very

sorry. At this moment, I would say I'm

lucky you haven't read some of my books.

But also, I should be clear. 10 20 years

ago, these books were written for 10, 20

years ago. And even then, when you write

a book, you well, it takes a year or so

to come out. Everything is going to time

out over time. Yeah, the idea that the

books might need to be rewritten is just

the process of history. Yeah, there are

some bad ones, but like yeah, of course,

old books are going to be like I wrote

two PR books and they are terribly out

of like they they make sense. The core

tips are good, but I there's there's

some social media stuff in there that

does not make any sense anymore.

Well, I I have to tell you that the

effective executive was I read that in

college and I loved I loved the writing

of Peter Ducker and his other book the

management that really thick book was

just formative in my life. It was like

an MBA one as well. It's funny. I

remember reading the effective executive

on one of the few books I read on the

subway when I was living in New York in

like 2010 I want 2009 actually. And it's

just I remember reading it on the on the

like crouched into a corner being like

this is good. A job I hated. I was so so

unhappy. I was just like this is there

anything in here that will help me. I

was just like oh these all make sense.

But

no nothing will help me from this book

to fix the situation because workers are

so often deprived of industry. But it's

good for I think for young people to

intern I my dream would be that young

people internalize lessons like this

because I think that the future of

business needs to involve more love for

the workers and workers need to be less

disposable. There needs to be more

training. Managers need to be fired on

mass and replaced with managers who

actually know what they're talking

about. There is just so much rot that

has crept into all businesses. And yeah,

I think my favorite lesson from the

effective executive and it it I use it,

you know, whenever people talk to me

about what what's the role or purpose of

a company is I believe Peter Ducker said

that the purpose of a company is to

create customers which is very different

than optimize shareholder return.

Mhm. I think that it's a great lesson,

but the meaning has been misinterpreted

because creating customers, it has been

turned into creating businesses,

creating problems and then creating

solutions for the problems versus what I

think Draa meant, which was finding

customers that need problems solved and

solving them. Exactly. And that

conflation is at the root of a lot of

our problems because when you really

look at what's happening, it is creating

customers, by which I mean forcing

something upon a new a current customer,

a new customer, making them have to work

with you rather than appealing to them

in any way. And I like how Dra put it.

It's just you should earn their

business. And I think that's really that

is the scary thing that I think has left

a lot of modern capitalism.

While we're on the subject of the

effective executive, you open a door

here. Do you have any other books you

would like my listeners to read to, you

know, provide a guiding light? So,

Rework, Jason Freed, I really, it's been

a long time since I read it, but that

book was really good and it was far, it

was like quite modernized and it a lot

of it is about doing the things that

make sense rather than doing the things

that people are telling you to do. I

have a small agency. Only a couple

people work with me. And I've always

kept it like that. And one of the big

things when I was starting out was

people would say to me, well, when are

you going to scale up? I'd always say to

them, why? To what end? Well, then

you'll be bigger. I'm like, why am I

going to make more money? Well, the

business will be bigger. It's like you

go back and forth with people. And there

are all these things that people do in

businesses, software they have, the

thing processes they choose, they do it

because they think they have to. And

rework is really good at focusing on,

hey, what do we actually need to do

here? What roles do we need in an

organization? What should each person in

an organization do? And it's very good

like that. It's been a while, but I

really I really love that book a lot. I

also like Atomic Habits. It's cliche,

but I think that over time, we all

develop habits and the ways we work kind

of by accident. We just kind of like

bumble our way through lives. Atomic

habits, it has some annoying bits. It's

quite repetitive, but the h it making

you a little more conscious of the way

you build the world around you

professionally and otherwise is really

something like that's a that's a good

one. My last topic for you because you

are a PR and media expert. Let us talk

about what it means to be in PR and

media today. It's a very different world

of pitching stories and getting coverage

and social media. So what is the state

of the business these days? So every

single year since 2008 someone has told

me that media relations is dying. My

business has been around since 2013,

2012, 2013 I think. Um yet to die yet

doing very well. Media relations is

still a big business. Pitching stories

to reporters is as well. The reason that

PR people want to kill it off is it's

difficult. You have to studiously read.

You have to keep up on everything

happening. You actually have to know

what you're talking about and you have

to read all the journalist stuff that

never goes out of style

because companies want third party

approval and they want it on honest

terms that people will read and then

approve of the company. That's a very

basic thing. Never really changed. The

thing is PR has bred it out of the

industry. PR people have been told not

to do media relations. They've been told

it doesn't work anymore that the company

is the media now. Never been true. Not

even once, Sky. these people it's like

oh every year they say the same things

like social media is taking over

content's taking over it's not 2013 but

they say the same things but real in

reality that media relations is one of

the few parts of PR that still works and

still gets paid the rest of it content

creation yeah it's probably the most at

threat thing from generative AI when it

comes to writing anodine business copy

that no one really reads but everyone

internally feels good about that's what

generative AI does you want slop we've

got slop PR has too much slop in it. So,

I think that really specialist PR is

going to continue ripping just because

as social communities get more

bifocated, as we have less media

outlets, as media outlets get more

specialized, you're going to have more

people that want to get in front of

specialized audiences, which requires a

specialist. And media relations are

specialists. They're the highest revenue

part of the business other than the

scammy parts where you just have someone

signed up for a 100 services and they

can't fire you. talking about Edelman

and it's a situation where PR people

don't know what to do. Less people are

going into PR. They go into it because

they think they're going to be running

events. I went into PR completely lied

to about what it would be. And I'm happy

I stayed. I love doing media relations.

I get to talk to journalists all day. I

get to know all their stuff. I get to

read constantly. I get to be smarter and

get paid for it. It's awesome. I think

that PR will keep going that way. I

think the PR is going to see some

astronomical changes in the next few

years though because what else is there

right now? Crisis management, great

specialist industry. The specialist PR

firms, the specialists, the people that

know those industries and the PR people

who are incentivized to learn them, not

these PR people who know a little bit

about a lot, they're unworthy. The

people that know what they're talking

about who really like look at the sports

people. Look at over at the Atlanta

Braves. you can see the people who are

really good in this industry and it's

because they know and love their

subjects and I think PR as an

industry has so many generalists and I

think that you're going to see that

shift or you're going to see agencies

die. So let me ask you something like

could you just for the people listening

to

this how do you define media relations?

Is it your ability to call up I Justine

or Marquez Brownley or TW? So I Justine

and Marquez are interesting because

they're so big now that you really can't

pitch them. You can, but you can't. Like

you have to have a thing specifically

for them. So media relations is getting

people to to write coverage about your

client or put your client on television

or put your client on a podcast. Now,

what this means in practice is PR people

think it means spamming them and just

hoping for the best. What it means is a

really tailored pitch for them, but also

knowing them. And I don't mean this kind

of nasty, greasy, oh, I'm going to be

pretend to be friends with you. I mean,

know them as I mates with a lot of them,

but they don't run anything extra cuz

I'm their mate. They run it because I

actually read their stuff studiously.

Media relations is getting coverage.

That really is it. It's the thing that

people have always paid for. I think

people always pay for it. It means

getting people on podcasts, on TV, in in

newspapers. It means finding the right

reporter for a story and getting them to

write it. There are the greasier kinds.

There are the people that do the kind of

place stories, the rumor mill stuff.

That's on the side of it. It's not what

I pedal in, but it's interactions with

journalists. But Ed, how do you how do

you make a judgment? Like on the one

hand, you are condemning the rot

economy. On the other hand, you're

pitching media stories.

Are aren't those two things overlapping

and in conflict? Sometimes I'm really

lucky to have clients that are I pick my

clients quite carefully and I don't work

with there's a reason I don't work with

any crypto companies as well. But look

at it like this journalists here from

hund I do the writing stuff the podcast

stuff I do it for the love of the game.

I had 300 subscribers when I started in

2020. I have 60,000 now. I did that

because I love writing and if I don't

write, I'll go crazy. The cats in my

brain will keep meowing. So, I think

that it helps that I do that. My clients

seem to really like it because they

understand that journalists are going to

connect with me because they understand

my work and they know who I am and they

know that I wouldn't bring them

something rubbish. Also, something that

wouldn't embarrass me. I don't want to

embarrass myself. I have a very public

profile, but even before when I didn't.

So, I think there is a challenge. I'm

sure there is definitely a degree of oh

god what like what if these two sides

touch, but I firewall them quite

aggressively. No client gets any

coverage on my newsletter or podcast. I

separate those worlds incredibly

carefully. I take on clients that I like

and I respect. And when I pitch

reporters, I'm very clear like, hey, if

you don't like this, that's totally

fine. And I get turned down for stories

all the time as any PR person does. It

the important thing is to not use one on

the other. I would never ever use

anything to do with the show to do with

my PR work. In fact, during CES, I had a

live radio show thing I did. And I

intentionally invited journalists on

before I pitched them. So that there was

never a chance where anything was

contingent. And then I had one that I

invited on that then said no. And I had

zero reaction to it because those are

two separate things. If you do things

with intentionality, things tend to work

out. So, are you are you saying to me

that if Amazon or Google or Apple or

Meta came to you and said, "We would

like to retain you for media relations,"

you would turn them down. I'd probably

take Apple. I like Apple's stuff. Like,

I'm a happy Apple customer. And I feel

like Tim Cook, despite him being like a

supply chain guy, I think that in

general, Apple products are very good. I

think the app store is an abomination.

And I think that the way that the way

that they promote horrifying

microtransactionfilled stuff is

disgusting. I think their physical

products, I think their silicon is

fantastic. I genuinely do. I think Meta

is Meta is horrifying. I think Microsoft

like I would never work with Meta,

Google or Microsoft like no absolutely

not. Like those companies, Microsoft

alone, the monopolies they hold do such

damage to and make they make software

worse. They make the software industry

worse with their monopolies. They make

millions, hundreds of millions of people

miserable every day with Microsoft

Teams. Like there are real consequences

to what Microsoft does. I think Apple by

and large does a good job. I think the

App Store is evil and I think that they

run it in an evil and craven way and

I'll keep saying that even if they did

hire me. I mean, what what is evil about

the App Store? Okay, open up the app

store and look at how they're monetizing

it. Because what they do is they promote

things like Hinge, uh, Bumble, and these

very microtransaction heavy dating apps.

They promote microtransaction heavy

gaming apps. They monetize heavily on

things that are built on the principles

of gambling and the principles of

addictionbased psychology. They monetize

misery and they do so with a deliberate

hand. Apple could have chosen at any

time to punish companies that monetize

in this manner. Instead, Apple chose to

make billions of dollars offer. You go

and look up anything around how gatcha

games referring to these games where you

give them a little money and then you

might get an item for your character.

Those games are based on actively

harmful psychological principles,

deliberate ones. Apple makes money off

them. Billions and billions and

billions. Apple, a company that

deliberately made the app store so that

they could claim there was some kind of

quality control that they could stop

consumers being harmed, actively they

profit off of consumer harm. And there's

no reason for them to do it other than

profit. What they could do, and Apple

has a history of doing this. Remember

what they did to Flash? They could crush

the life out of these businesses. They

could just go, "No, Supercell cannot do

this." I um Hinge, Tinder, they cannot

make money off of the way like Hinge for

example, they gate the best looking

people behind microtransactions. It's

insane. It's an insane company.

Apple could very easily just say we

don't allow you to make money like that

or we put a hard limit on these things.

We allow these principles but there is a

hard limit on what you can extract from

a customer. that would change these

that's the thing these incentives

trickle down trickle down economics I

don't think really works but trickle

down incentives do if Apple just said no

you can't make money in this manner they

wouldn't be able to that others would

copy or they would then theoretically

they'd go to Android sure but it's like

it's the question of do you want that

money and the answer is yeah they do

they're happy to they're really happy to

they are happy to take that money hand

over fist make the GDP of a small

country off of people putting money into

Clash of Clans or Candy Crush. It's

gratuitous.

You know, there's the concept of

entropic doom and I think what you're

describing is enroic doom. Yes. Right.

It's growth takes doom to rot.

Yeah. It's it's very frustrating

because a company like Apple, for

example, the Vision

Pro, I like it. I loved it at times. I

always describe it as when you put it on

and it works, it's magical, but it only

works like 20% of the time. It's

insanely broken. Had they left it a few

more years, that would have actually

been really good. But they rushed it out

because of growth. They had to show

something. They had to show a new a new

dad. And had they waited, I think it

would have been significantly better. I

think that there is promise there. It's

cool watching someone try. Like that's

the thing. I love seeing them try, but

even with the Vision Pro, you can kind

of see how they rushed it and they had

to rush it. And it's like these in the

this uh erotic entry. It's too close to

erotic for me, but it's I see like it

you see it crush the life out of joy.

You see it destroy things that could be

cool. Like the Vision Pro could be cool.

It's nowhere near there. You can see it

though sometimes. And it's like, god

damn it. If you weren't so rushed,

imagine how good this could have been. I

would say that, you know, because of my

history with Apple, very pe very few

people have had a relationship with

Apple like I have. I have loved the

company, right? And I have to tell you,

this is my last question for you because

I'm just so curious what you're going to

say. Like, what do you think when you

see Tim Cook donate a million dollars to

the inauguration and is in those

pictures on that stage? Diesel is like,

"Yeah, he's he's doing what's right so

that tariffs against China doesn't

affect him. He's representing the

shareholders. He's doing his fiduciary

duty.

Or has he basically sold out?" Like, h,

how do you wrap your mind around that?

All of the above. Tim Cook's a gay man.

The idea of donating to this

administration as a gay man, can't

imagine it was fun or easy. It's also

kind of craven. I don't feel any

sympathy for someone that rich and

powerful. But I can understand the value

judgment there must have been really

difficult. Really like quite tough. I

also think he shouldn't have done it.

But I can understand why he did. Like

what was he meant to do? It was a

shakedown. A classic mob shakedown. What

was he meant to do? I do think that

Apple as a company is in a better

direction than most. But man, when I saw

him do that, well actually when the

others did it first, I'm like Tim Cook's

absolutely going to do this and people

are saying he wouldn't. He wouldn't. It

would go against his morals and it's

like he'll do it. And it it sucks. It

sucks to see. But I think Steve Jobs

would have done it. I think Steve Jobs

would Steve Jobs would have absolutely

done it. He would have done it in two

seconds. Like I I think that that's

anyone who screams at a child is more

than willing to do that. And I think

that had he survived, had he beaten

cancer, he would have been only I think

I put him in the same bucket as if John

Lennon was still alive like except I

think that Jobs was far more noxious,

but Lennon would have been more

annoying. I think that Cook is in like

this bind where he has to deal with an

international concept of trade now on a

level that he's was the reason he took

over from Steve Jobs. So he had to make

this very difficult but necessary choice

that sucks. Sucks so bad. He shouldn't

have done it. It sucks. But also I get

why he did it. Yeah.

Yeah. Listen, uh on the other hand, you

know, uh Steve Waznjak gave quite a

powerful interview too, right?

Expressing basically the opposite of

that. What do you mean? I I didn't see

the Wnjak interview. Oh, you check out

what Waznjak said. He was I think in

Europe and he gave an interview

about let's just say the two of you are

aligned not not necessarily on Tim Cook

but about how people are you know taking

a knee wasak and I met Wnjak a year or

two ago and he gave me hope mostly

because I talked to him about just tech

in general. We were backstage for a

client thing and we were talking about

how Lucid Motors and he had a problem

with the car and he just turned to me

and he said, "You ever heard of IAB?"

I'm like, "What's that, Steve?" And he

goes, "It's a

open-source web browser that he uses."

And he it was this this like a€ 10 made

by a guy in Germany, I think. This

incredibly fast and slick web browser.

And the way he talked about it, he was

so excited. And it made me think it's

like you see people these rot economists

like like uh Sachin Nadella and

Sundapasha. You see the people in tech

like that who don't really care. There's

no joy in the computer. I'll never

forgive them what they've done for the

to the computer. And you see someone

like Wnjak you're like you know what

there are people who work in this

industry even though Wnjak has filed out

of it who do care and who do find the

computer

fascinating. And I they give me hope. I

believe genuinely there are more people

like that than there are Elon Musk and I

think long term they will win out. We

will win out too. Well, that's the way

to end this podcast because I think

Waznjak is the purest form of

engineering I have ever met. I mean he

is a tinker. He really is. you could and

I I I had never met him, but he seemed

so happy to talk about a little web

browser and it was so lovely. It was so

lovely to see like this guy didn't need

to do this, like have a conversation

even, but he didn't need to care about

this, but he was so happy to share it

with

someone and it's just like it really

does give you hope. Yeah. Yeah. I I

completely agree. Let's end on that high

note, you know, yahoo for Steve Waznjak.

Yes. Agreed.

Well, Ed, thank you so much for being on

my podcast. Let's just say that you

really make you're making my head

explode. I'm I'm going to have to uh

re-evaluate some of my perspectives and

values after this podcast. But that's

the whole point of a podcast, right?

Yeah. And I hope you find I hope you

found it interesting. I had a great

time. Thank you for having me. Oh, thank

you for being on this. And I'm Guy

Kawasaki. This is the Remarkable People

podcast. You've been listening to the

remarkable Ed Zetron

and lots to think about from this

podcast. So, let me thank the rest of

the remarkable people team. It's Madison

Nismer, Tessa Nismer, Shannon Hernandez,

and the one and only Jeff C. So, we're

the remarkable people team trying to

make you remarkable. Thank you very much

for listening.

[Music]