Advertise on podcast: Tech Deciphered

“You’re too early for us”. “We have doubts on your market”. These are some of the things VCs say, but what do they really mean? If there was a VC-to-English Dictionary, what would it look like? In this episode of Tech Deciphered, we will offer you explanations on some of the most used expressions VCs use, but we will also go further and discuss their actions. What are the meanings behind them? Are these all machiavellian or could there be valid reasons for these? Navigation: Intro The Dictionary The Machinery Interlude – “Things Founders Say” The Courtship When Translation Fails: The War Stories The Decoder Ring + Confession Booth Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Introduction Welcome to episode 81 of Tech DECIPHERED. In this episode, we’re going to provide you with the VC to English Dictionary, the things that VCs do and say, and what they actually mean to you if you’re a founder when you’re talking to these different venture capitalists. You may hear, “You’re too early for us.” “We have doubts on your market.” What does that actually mean? What is real, what is b******t, and everything in between. Today, we’ll go through not only the dictionary, but also the machinery of how VCs process these deals. We will take a little bit of a stab on what actual founders say as well, because it’s good to be equitable in this sense. Then we’ll talk about the courtship. We’ll talk about war stories when actual translation fails miserably post-investment, the narrative economy. Finally, we’ll provide you with a little bit of a decoder ring or a confession booth, so to speak, that we can actually share, myself and Bertrand, on what we see in the market or things that we’ve done, things that we’ve seen being done, and all of the above. Bertrand, oh my God. If you got $5 for every pass you ever got, you’d be rich. Actually, you maybe not because you didn’t probably have as many passes as most entrepreneurs in general. Bertrand Schmitt I will argue on top of it, it’s not just that it’s always difficult to understand how VCs speak and to translate that into normal English. But on top of it, if you are a European or Asian entrepreneur, it may be even more difficult because you have truly a language barrier. On top of it, you will have to get a sense from euphemisms used in the US. As you said, definitely a lot of rejections. It happens to all of us. I think personally, I don’t mind the rejections. What I probably like less is when you get ghosted. As an entrepreneur, you have no news. Some have the belief maybe that it’s better to ghost us than to reject. I would probably say I don’t think so as an entrepreneur. I prefer a rejection, even if it feels a bit b******t. I prefer clearly a why. One thing I’ve learned is that actually sometimes it can be real in the sense that if you correct, if you come back at a later stage, some investors are actually changing their mind. As they say they might do. I’m coming from a relatively positive perspective on some of this. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro The Dictionary Maybe this is a good time to start the dictionary section and start with ghosting. Ghosting is probably the most used non-word in venture capital, which is VCs stop answering your emails. You thought you were talking to them. You’ve gone maybe even to a partner meeting at some point, and they don’t say anything back. We don’t do that. If we do, you guys should call us out, whoever ghosts Chamaeleon, and then you don’t actually get an answer, be it to pass or something else. That’s one of the things we’re proud of trying to sustain over time, and we process a lot of deals, so it has a bit of a cost for us. But the way to understand a ghosting piece is basically saying, “Hey, we’re not really sure,” or, “We’re actually sure we don’t want to invest, but we don’t want to create a bad relationship with you.” Normally, it falls into one of those two sides. It’s either, “We’re not sure right now, we want to wait and see how your round goes, and maybe we’re not a lead investor, so we don’t want to necessarily build high conviction until we see other players coming on board,” or, “We are negative about it, and we just don’t want to tell you because we want to make friends.” This is one thing that we will get through the entire episode is this notion that VCs are in a sales business as well. Obviously, definitely in a sales business with their investors, with their limited partners that give them capital to manage funds on their behalf. But more importantly, they’re also a little bit in the sales business with entrepreneurs, in the sense that it’s a repeat business. An entrepreneur might do a stupid company today, but might be doing a great company tomorrow. I don’t want to have pissed off that entrepreneur that did the stupid company in the past. I want to actually invest in this great company today. There’s a little bit of this notion of optional value that will go throughout this whole episode. That’s, I think, what leads to this language that creates this necessity for translation, which is almost like a sales process in general. It’s like the entrepreneur trying to sell the VC on something, and then the VC at some point may be trying to sell the entrepreneur on something. Bertrand Schmitt I would say it’s not just repeat entrepreneurs. What I’ve seen also in the past, and I guess what many VCs have seen, is that once in a while, they make a pretty grave mistake on the business, on their evaluation, and suddenly something they could have said no becomes a rocket ship, and you would look like an idiot. The rocket ship might be simply because the business was much stronger than they thought, because there is a change in the market environment. Let’s not forget COVID or the rise of AI. Then suddenly you’re in that situation where you give some strong deep explanation about why, and everything falls flat on its face, and the business is suddenly a rocket. I guess you also want to be careful in that situation as an investor, not to have been too strong in your opinion. I guess this is also a situation where the entrepreneur is really strong. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro We’ll talk in the second section about the machinery of venture capital, the funnel management of venture capital, and we’ll talk a little bit more about false positives, false negatives. The industry, that’s the key thing that the industry lives on, false positives and false negatives. We’ll go into a little bit more detail. Maybe going into the next category. Ghosting is one. The second category is more around what people would consider stage or price passing, which is to say the classic ones are, “You’re too early for us,” or, “You’re too late for us.” I think the too early for us is generally one, for example, a lot of people come to us, we’re a Series Seed, Series A investor, and they come to us when they have an idea, and they’re starting to develop some stuff, but they have nothing. We’re not a pre-seed investor, so too early for us actually is something we use quite a bit, which is warranted. Stage mandates are real. Our focus showing that we don’t have style drift as an investor, that we are really always investing in seed and A is meaningful to us. We can’t just say, “Hey, we’re just going to write pre-seed checks left and right.” We can write pre-seed checks, but it’s the exception, not the rule. When we say it’s too early for us, it’s normally too early for us. It might be too early for us for that opportunity, for that market, for that kind of team. It might be BS. It might be basically the VC firm saying, “Hey, we’re not convinced, but we’d like the free option to see how you progress on your fundraising, or how you progress as a company. Come and talk to us later.” If you fail miserably, and you don’t do very well, great. We were right. This would have been a false positive for you, if you decided to invest. Otherwise, if you become a rocket ship, we’d still have the right to talk to you because we haven’t really aggressively passed. These stage passes, that too early or too late, are never super aggressive. They’re never perceived very personally by the founders. It’s never about their baby or themselves. It’s more about the stage and the thesis of the VC firm. It’s a little bit of a cop-out for certain VCs on saying, “Hey, we’re just not stage aligned with this.” “Too late,” it’s a little bit like, or, “Your price is too high.” “It’s too late for us,” meaning you’re raising too much capital, therefore your valuation is too high. Again, it could be very true. It could be that, again, from a stage perspective, if you’re a Series Seed, Series A-focused VC, which the classic VCs are in many cases focused on seed and A, and this looks a bit like a Series B or a Series C, you’re raising 50 million or something like that at 250, 300 million valuation. It just doesn’t make sense. Again, the cop-out, the translation element of this when it’s a bit of BS is, “At this price, you would have needed to attain more product-market fit,” is the other way to translate. “It’s too late for us,” if you are meeting a firm that you think could actually invest at that val

In June, the most capable American AI models stopped shipping as public launches and started shipping through a government gate. Six weeks later the gate is open again — and the real fight has moved to the layer no gate can touch. A Chinese open-weight model rattled trillions out of chip stocks, Washington pivoted from gating American closed models to threatening bans on Chinese open ones, the industry mounted its largest-ever policy counter-mobilization, and an American frontier model literally broke out of its lab and hacked another company. Knee-jerk reactions, or the beginning of real AI governance? Navigation: Intro The Gate Opens The Kimi Shock The Escape The Counterstrike and the Petition Interlude — The Low-Background Books The Investor Reckoning Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered Episode 80. This one, once again, will be all about AI, government, frontier models, and open weight counterstrike. A lot has been happening in the regulation space, in cybersecurity, in the launch of new models in the past, maybe just 6–8 weeks. It’s actually pretty insane how much happened. We believe it was time to do an episode to talk about where we are and maybe where all of this is going. Maybe let’s start with a summary of where we stand, all that June and July saga, so you, our listeners, can get up to speed if you are not already there. You want to start with some points? Nuno The Gate Opens Yeah. Again, to your point, the gate swings. The gate had closed. We had to prepare an episode for the gate closing, and then the gate reopened. Now we have a different episode. This will probably change again as we’re seeing there’s news every day. Let’s start maybe with the first 19 days of the gate closing. There was an executive order on June 2nd from President Trump that asked frontier labs to share models with the government, 30 days pre-release. It inferred the protected frontier model designation into that. Basically, it was effectively a de facto licensing agreement defined by an executive order of the President as of June 2nd. On June 9th, Anthropic launched Fable 5 and the famous Mythos 5 or Mythos. I’m not sure how you actually say it in English. Then on June 12th, there was an export control directive banning access by any foreign national. Since there’s no way to verify nationality in real-time, Anthropic had to switch the models off for everyone worldwide. Bertrand On this point, you could argue that there are possibilities to check IDs. Many services let you check IDs online. You can pre-check a flight by showing your ID. There are ways, it’s just that if you don’t want to follow what’s already available, because guess what? Maybe it slowed down your revenue growth, maybe it looks bad on you or whatever. My point is that there was actually an option. I think it’s already a decision from Anthropic to say it’s either on or off, but nothing in between. Nuno I think the point is they had no way implemented of doing it. If they implemented it, to your point, it would have hampered use in general. A lot of people wouldn’t have gone through that trouble of doing it. Anyway, long story short, in June 26th, the White House apparently asked OpenAI to limit GPT-5.6, so Sol, Terra, Luna, to only 20 vetted partners. Now, apparently, the trigger for a lot of these things that have been going on was that there was a jailbreak that was found by Amazon researchers. All of that led to this jumping around of, let’s close the gates. You have foreign nationals, and therefore, Anthropic got it out and said, “Hey, then we’re going to switch the models off until we can sort this out.” OpenAI was asked also to only allow it for certain vetted partners, et cetera. The government came in, closed the gates effectively, and said, “From now on, we need to be involved in this thing.” De facto regulation, there’s no doubt that this has imposed de facto regulation, certainly on the top players in the market. But then came the reversal. Bertrand, do you want to talk about the reversal, the gate swinging the other side? Bertrand Maybe I just wanted to say that as a user of Anthropic products, ChatGPT products, for the brief moments, a few days where Fable 5 was made available to the public before it was closed the first time, I immediately started using it. I must say it was a real issue to use it because the guardrails were pretty crazy. It would keep saying that my code was not okay, there was cybersecurity risk and stuff when I was doing absolutely reasonable development with absolutely no connection whatsoever to any cybersecurity risk, attack, detection, anything. Still, it would keep blocking me, degrading me to Opus 4.8 at the time. I just want to say this was already very hardcore what they were implementing, and not just hardcore, but in some ways, plain stupid for something that’s supposed to be super smart. It was totally unable to classify properly some of my work. I must say I was already disappointed. On top of it, the costs were insane. Half a day, I would reach my limits when I had the best plan you can get from Anthropic. My point is that there were some real serious issues when they launched Fable 5, even at that point. Nuno I had a similar issue. I used Fable 5 as well before they had to take it offline or take it off. I think the issue was really not that the guardrails failed. As you said, maybe the guardrails were actually too aggressive, but it was this jailbreak that caused the recall, apparently caused this knee-jerk reaction. Bertrand But my point is that it seems that it was not working either way. It would either overclassify something that’s absolutely not doing anything wrong, and it might fail to classify something that is actively trying to do some cybersecurity work. It’s a real issue of quality for a company that’s supposed to be at the forefront of quality of AI and everything. I think for me, there are already signs that something is deeply wrong. Nuno Then it’s reversed, right? We went the other way around. The government came out on June 26th and approved redeploying Mythos 5 to US organizations defending critical infrastructure, and then the export controls were effectively lifted on June 30th. July 1st, Fable 5 came back online for all of us to use. Shocking enough, with strings attached, that were different. They had some time to revise their commercial deployment of it along the way because it came back with some, “Now you have usage credits, but you have some limits on plan use, et cetera.” I’m like, “You guys, this was blocked. But meanwhile, you did have some time to do some commercial stuff around it.” Bertrand It was crazy. I’ve never witnessed any such crappy launch of any service whatsoever in 30 years in tech, it was so bad. Every day, they would change the terms of service. They would tell you it’s part of the plan. It’s not part of the plan. It’s part of the plan for three more days, and then it’s excluded. You have a special discount now, but then it goes back to full price. It was a total nightmare. I’ve never felt myself being so much mistreated by a company. I guess you saw the same, but when I started using the newest version of Fable 5, it was even worse, actually, I think. I couldn’t do any work with this crap. I let it go and work on the work I wanted it to do. It was simply not working. On top of it, you never know how long you are supposed to lose your credit, how fast. It was burning credit like crazy. Me, personally, I can say, very quickly, I actually stopped using it. I was like, “No, I cannot deal with this shit. My main model is back to Opus 4.8. I’m going to use Fable 5 for code review, but not anymore to control anything because I cannot trust it would do the job without stopping or changing models and stuff. I just cannot trust it.” Back to Opus 4.8 as my main model, I can say that my life was much easier. I use Fable 5 as a review mechanism, as a support mechanism, but not as the main mechanism. Suddenly, the guardrails were not so horrible anymore because it was used in a much lighter way, I guess. As a pain as a user, I think it was really bad. I don’t know your experience, but me, for me, it was unacceptable. Nuno I wouldn’t say it was as bad as yours in terms of just end-user experience. I think the terms of service switching back and forth, which went one further step, because then when they then launched Opus 5, they started making comparisons between Opus 5 and Fable so that people would migrate more and more to Opus 5 themselves, which is interesting. It’s like they’re saying “This is much cheaper. This is whatever. You’re not going to run of credits. You should use Opus 5,” kind of thing effectively. To your point, I don’t think they managed well the launch. They didn’t really manage it well. We’re moving people around. A lot of people are using this for stuff that’s like daily tasks, hourly tasks, anything that relates to code and co-work. It’s like, we need to have visibility on what your terms of service are going to be. Should I be using this new model or not? What’s happening to the other model? I don’t see it as negatively as you, Bertrand, but I see your point. It was clearly mishandled in terms of how they deployed it, how they were

Competing in a Future World of Infinite Intelligence Navigation: Intro From Knowledge Workers to Judgment Workers The AI-Native Company: Org, Hiring, Culture The Human Element: Are We Underestimating It? Scenarios Our Take Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show:   Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Introduction Welcome to episode 79 of Tech DECIPHERED. Today, we take a leap into the big unknown. This is a thesis episode, not your classic analysis, in-depth sharing episode. The big idea for this episode is that we may be approaching the cognitive age, and how would one, or how would a company compete in a world of infinite intelligence? The big idea, again, is that intelligence, which has been mostly scarce and expensive for all of human history, might become abundant and cheap. If that happens, what happens to work, what happens to companies, what happens to society? This episode will be really framing a lot of these discussions. From knowledge workers to judgment workers, addressing the AI native company and how does that change, going into the human element and whether or not we’re underestimating it, and finally, ending up going into scenarios, feasible scenarios of a future where, well, intelligence is abundant. Intelligence is quasi-infinite or infinite itself.Bertrand Schmitt Yes. Big questions for this episode 79. From Knowledge Workers to Judgment Workers We can start with from knowledge workers to judgment workers. Let’s go back first to how came the knowledge worker. It’s a 20th-century invention from Peter Drucker in 1959. The idea here is that that category might be splitting. The production of knowledge itself is on its way to being commoditized by AI. However, our perspective is that judgment around production of knowledge is not disappearing and is staying for a bit control managed by humans. What’s your take on this, Nuno? Do you agree with this split?Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I think it’s a little bit more profound than that. It’s not just judgment. Definitely, human judgment will be needed. We’ve seen agents perform all sorts of funny things in the wrong way when left alone to their own devices. Even some very well-known AI researchers coming forward and saying, “Hey, I tried to use this myself, and actually I messed up some of my systems,” or “I messed some of my code. I messed up some of my flows for a period of time.” I think just having human-in-the-loop from a judgment standpoint will be needed for a significant amount of time. That is something you can’t just delegate into machines, into algorithms, et cetera. The second part is, ultimately, there needs to be contextualization, and that contextualization, I think, comes from two forms. One from actual data, where the machine, I think, at some point will catch up, or the machines will catch up. The algorithms, at some point, on the data analysis will get better and better and have probably the closest to the truth that you can get, minus all the biases that are in the data, just to be clear, because data has a ton of biases. We’ve looked at this in the past and discussed it at prior episodes. But maybe on that, I think the machine has a chance to catch up, or the machines have a chance to catch up, so there’s less of distinctiveness from the human standpoint. But then, on just the attributes, the ability when you’re judging some situation, you’re in the middle of the situation. You’re judging the person and how it’s acting, in some ways, a lot of the things that end up happening, end up happening because there’s human interaction. There’s someone on the other side. I see how they’re delivering the message, how they’re implicating. We’ll talk about it later in the context of the organization and what changes in companies. I don’t think it’s just judgment. I think there’s a little bit more than that. One of the reasons I went to the dark side of management early on in my career from being an engineer was Peter Drucker and this notion of the knowledge worker, which he later on reemphasized with the publishing of his book, which for me was seminal and defined a lot of my career in life, the post-capitalist society, which is this notion that information rich and information poor is going to be the key distinctiveness that will happen in the world. The two big camps, information rich, information poor, which links back to this invention of the term knowledge worker, that knowledge is going to be key in some ways. I think that’s what we’ve seen for the last decades. Again, I think judgment is not going anywhere, but I think it’s beyond judgment. There’s elements of humanity and involvement that won’t go away anytime soon, where human-in-the-loop are particularly critical. We’ll discuss later some scenarios, but for me, that’s my stick in the ground. I think human-in-the-loop is going to be critical for many decades to come.Bertrand Schmitt While we are talking about all of this, and we share some possible scenarios, there is always that question. This is moving so fast right now. If you think about AI 10 years ago, AI 5 years ago, AI with the launch of ChatGPT 3, and then AI the past 2 years, now we have agents that are running at scale. Things are moving very fast. I can tell you, me in 6 months, the change has been pretty dramatic in terms of what I can use AI for. There is always that question that whatever we are thinking about cannot just be connected to what we were able to do 6 months ago or even today, we have to think and project ourselves at least in the next 6–12 months. Of course, we can go beyond that, and we will do that with some future scenarios, but it’s a very fast-moving, and it’s not clear yet where are the limits.Nuno Gonçalves Pedro I think that’s a very fair point. Let me try to analyze things that I don’t think will change anytime soon for the next few years. Agreed with you that many things will change, and we’ll have a lot better tools, platforms out there. That will be difficult to predict what exactly won’t change. I think there’s elements of humanity, and some of them do relate to judgment, like having good or bad taste, having a view on it, on whether something looks good or bad. Obviously, all of this sometimes is subjective, but some of it may not be as subjective as people think it is. The elements of contextualization. I think a little bit going back to what we did at Chamaeleon ourselves, where we built this platform, Mantis, and the objective of building Mantis was not really to replace us, was that it was a core augmentation layer in some ways that we would use investment or investor judgment as humans in the loop to systematize pattern recognition and a variety of other things, but that Mantis would really elevate all that judgment, not just in terms of timing, us being more productive, but also in terms of the quality of the decisions we’re making. Think of it as a little bit like having our human judgment in the context of operating Chamaeleon at a higher altitude, where we are more aware of the things that are happening and how they actually happen. The ability to really get to the data pieces and then make decisions on top of that that generate the needed alpha in our case for investors. What I mean by this is I think there’s always going to be core elements of humanity that I do think are going to be difficult for the machines to replace. For example, the taste piece people are like, “I can figure out what’s the taste in the market.” Yeah, but that’s mainstream. That doesn’t identify what’s the next big thing, which normally doesn’t start from mainstream. It starts from something else. It could start from opinion leaders and influencers. It could start by someone having a different way of addressing a problem and having a solution that hasn’t been thought through. For example, elements of creativity, I think, in human judgment and in human operations is something that I feel the machine will still have difficulty to replace.Bertrand Schmitt Let’s not forget how today current algorithms are working by feeding them enormous quantity of data, actually as much data as we can find. Finding more data is becoming a limitation these days. What it means is that it’s very hard for AI to think beyond its training data. There is some level of logic that’s being added, but at the same time, take the launch of the iPhone. What was the opinion before launch? Is that no, it doesn’t make sense. Not enough battery life, no keyboard, no this, no that. If you just base your analysis on what’s written out there, what’s being sold out there, you would just say, “It’s going to fail.” AI might really follow that more generic advice and perspective because that’s what in the training data and that’s what they’re in volume. It’s, of course, raising a lot of questions of, how do you improve the quality of the training data? How do you separate the weed from the chaff? There are a lot of questions there, and obviously, it will get better over time. But it’s still a critical part of how it’s working today. It won’t be that easy to change. I really like your point regarding Mantis, and I will say in general, platforms that you build with AI or leveraging AI capacity. Because when we say knowledge production is going to disappear, but we’ll keep judgment, i

Dead On Arrival: What was just Hype and what was just wrong Timing? Some technologies and products get over-hyped, and never seem to come to fruition? Some just come to fruition, but years or even decades later? In this episode of Tech Deciphered, what is Dead On Arrival versus just wrong timing Navigation: Intro The Fork Cold Open General Magic The Metaverse Dead on Arrival The soon to be Resurrected… Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Schmitt Introduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered episode 78, Dead on Arrival. Was it just hype or just wrong timing? In this episode, we are going to discuss two different types of businesses that as an investor, as an entrepreneur, you want to think carefully about. Looking back, you want to understand better what happened. If we take dead on arrival, we’re talking about businesses, technologies that maybe the tech work fine, but actually no one cared about it, no one wanted it. It’s really a mismatch in terms of what consumer want versus what you are trying to deliver. It’s a classic example of a solution finding for a problem. On the other hand, will it happen but not like that, not now? It’s a type of business where we were too early. We tried to make it work, but actually the technology is not ready now, but it might become ready in the future. As an entrepreneur, as an investor, obviously, you want to make sure you are not in one of these two technologies, one of these two categories. But it’s really a useful lesson to learn which situation you might be in because it will help you make better decision and pick better industries going forward. Nuno, what’s your take on this tough analysis? Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yeah, in hindsight, everything looks like, “Oh, of course, this wasn’t meant to work,” etc. But here we’re going to take a stab, as you mentioned, at things that are just wrong timing. They might have failed miserably in the past, but they might work in the future. The Fork To have this stake on the ground approach to it, as we’ve had in previous episodes, of defining exactly what we think will happen, but just not like that, versus the dead-on-arrival, which is a little bit more of a hardcore view on it. To your point, we want to really split between those two things because in some ways people are like, “Well, are we ever going to go and have different ways of interacting, for example, in terms of input and output, like with glasses or things like that, that really scale to become pretty pervasive?” We probably would agree that, “Yes, that will happen”. Maybe not in the way that we’ve anticipated until now, and certainly it’s going to take longer than we’ve expected. In some ways, the “will happen, not like that” is a little bit like Amara’s law or Nuno’s law, as referred to in the past. We tend to overestimate the speed at which we get to a revolution, underestimate impact. The “will happen, not like that” will probably fit into that. They will have probably bigger impact than we thought they would, but they will just take longer. Therefore, the solutions we’ve had until now are not great solutions. Whereas the dead-on-arrival, we’re saying, “Hey, we don’t think actually this works.” It’s to your point, not solving a problem that actually needs to be solved, or it’s solving it in the wrong way. Yeah, it’s basically an attempt to really frame, if you’re an entrepreneur, if you’re a venture capitalist, if you’re someone who is an angel investor and is looking at the market right now, what things should you put some real money and real resources, real time behind versus not, and really share that with you guys: our audience. Bertrand Schmitt Cold Open I always like to go back to a company called General Magic, a company that was legendary in Silicon Valley, spun out of Apple in the 1990s. There was even a movie made about General Magic. It’s a company that tried to basically build the first modern smartphone with touchscreens, app ecosystem. The only issue was it was years before the technology existed to support it. But Nokia at the time was less ambitious and more practical with what the technology was able to do at the time. But what’s interesting with this company is that obviously the smartphone was coming, just took 10 more years, 15 more years. Interestingly enough, some of the people in the team ended up being very successful in that exact space. Tony Fadell, for instance, who ended up creating the iPhone, co-create at least, and Andy Rubin, who end up building up Android, selling that to Google and leading the charge with Google Android. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yeah, a very successful team. Tony Fadell, obviously, later on did Nest as well. Megan Smith, who was later the Chief Technology Officer of the US. A lot of people that came out of it that did a lot of important things. To be honest, I think a lot of the technology that was developed that was in some way a capacity or that are reused later on by some of these team members. I’m not saying they were infringing on any IP, but definitely there was a lot of reuse of tech. But it was too soon, right? They were doing something that was truly ambitious too soon. But a lot of these principles, a lot of these things ended up manifesting themselves, and particularly in the iPhone later on and in that deployment. Another such example is actually the metaverse. We did two episodes back in the day, a long time ago, on the metaverse. We debunked it a little bit. Back then, I think it was a very nuanced debunking, if I recall it correctly, Bertrand, because we were saying, “Hey, it’s going to happen in some ways, but it’s an evolution, not a revolution,” not in the way that we saw definitionally. We were huge fans of Matthew Ball and his analysis around media, but somehow we disagreed, I remember, with his definition of what the metaverse is and how it will look like. There’s no doubt that there’s going to be a metaverse in the future, probably metaverses in the future before there’s any given unification. In those metaverses, we do believe. But this whole hype cycle around metaverse and what’s happening clearly didn’t work out well, as proven also by all the write-offs done by Meta on their metaverse stuff. That much must have hurt. It’s related to AR and VR as well and to the enriched reality positioning of a lot of these technologies, which we’ll talk about later. But, again, it was probably something that’s going to happen. It’s going to happen likely in a different product manifestation as the one that was anticipated by a lot of the pundits that opined on what’s happening around metaverse in the future. But it’s going to happen. It’s just going to take longer. It’s going to probably come from angles of entry that are likely not what people had anticipated earlier on. Maybe it’s from gaming, maybe from something else. But definitely it’s going to happen. Bertrand Schmitt Yes, and you could argue that Apple did a similar mistake with the Vision Pro. I think the Vision Pro is the worst launch of an Apple product. When we say launch, it’s been three years maybe? Nuno Goncalves Pedro Since the Newton, maybe? Bertrand Schmitt Yes, that’s my point. You have to go back a really long time to have such a disastrous launch. I think for me, it’s very interesting because it’s really a category where on one side there is a metaverse of some sort. You should argue if you are just using Twitter, or Facebook, these are some parallel universe in parallel to your real life. But the full on metaverse where you need some extra super heavy glasses to make it work, that simply has not worked. Don’t get me wrong, there are some super small, narrow cases where your heavy VR glasses makes sense for some training, for some simulation, for some light gaming. But given the weight, the disconnection from the real world, it has really never taken fire. Even at cheaper price like Meta was able to do, at more expensive price, much higher quality like the Vision Pro did. It looks like people have an issue with putting heavy glasses on top of them. We’ll talk later about the other side: AR glasses. But the traditional metaverse, heavy glasses, VR glasses, yes, it’s not feeling right, and I don’t think it will ever be right. It needs a different form factor to go at scale. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Definitely fundamental shifts on the metaverse. Just a quick reminder, Meta actually changed their name because of metaverse. Bertrand Schmitt Yes. Nuno Goncalves Pedro It’s not just that they’re writing off the investments, it’s their name is apparently wrong. It didn’t really happen in that way. You are saying that this persistent embodied virtual world, which was the early definitions of what a metaverse was, didn’t really happen until now. It might happen at some point, but not in that way. But, obviously, a lot of the enablement layers are still work in progress, right? Real-time 3D, presence, avatars, all of these things are moving on. A lot of these enablers will be ready once there is a time where these technologies and businesses that are fundamentally anchored around these technologies will emerge. It’s, again, right components, wrong product alignment, but at the same time, it will happen, just not yet. Bertrand Schmitt Again, I think we’r

The Great Talent Redistribution: Where is Talent Actually Going in 2026 and beyond?  Is the start-up compensation model broken? How about big Big Tech? How about non-tech small & medium businesses? What is happening to talent, going forward? This and many other topics in this episode of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The Broken Contract? The Great Unbundling The Three (?) Destinations Alternative Cap Tables, Alternative Compensation Models Investor Landscape Fragmentation Operator Playbook and Predictions Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Nuno Goncalves Pedro Introduction Welcome to episode 77 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will focus on the great talent redistribution. Where’s talent actually going in 2026 and beyond? The Silicon Valley deal of the last 30 years, very low salary, stock options, you will either sell for a ton of money or IPO, and everyone gets rich, is seemingly broken. Or is it really? The dominant narrative says the tech middle class is dying. We disagree. There is obviously a lot of stuff going on whereby big tech is partially barbelling. There’s a superstar concentration on the top. There’s a bit of a seemingly allowing of the belly. We’ll come back to that. We don’t quite believe that is totally true. There’s a collapse at entry level. The belly is migrating into three, potentially even more, very different destinations: AI native startups, human-verified premium businesses, and the read the industrialized middle of the S&P 500 and SMB world. Each has its own cap table, each will have its own compensation model, and each will have its own investor profile. In some ways, this is the third episode in our Reset trilogy. We started with episode 75 on the SaaS-apocalypse. We talked about the great private capital reset in episode 76, and now we talk about talent redistributions. Bertrand, exciting times, not always positive times.   Bertrand Schmitt Yeah, it’s exciting times because it’s a time of change. Of course, we have the doomsayers. If you listen to Dario Amodei of Anthropic, every white-collar job on Earth is going to disappear. I think I strongly disagree, and I suppose you too as well, we strongly disagree. It’s going to be more of a redistribution. If you look at the history of technology, this is what always happened. We forget how many jobs have disappeared over the past 150 years. We move from a time of 150 years ago. People were mostly in agriculture. Then you had a lot of weird jobs that disappeared from people transporting water to people bringing ice from the pools to people doing the job of computers. People forget that computer was a title given to human beings. We’re doing calculations. Then, of course, secretory jobs in the ’80s, ’90s, where suddenly anyone can type using a word processor, the rise of Excel, that sort of stuff. Many things have changed. Some jobs have indeed disappeared. Some jobs have totally transformed. Where you do these jobs have changed. I think we are at a similar stage where, thanks to AI, and I would say for now, or at least the rise of AI coding, there is a dramatic change happening. I don’t think it means that people will be without a job. It just means, from my perspective, that jobs are changing. You are not just doing a lowly coding level task that actually indeed could be replaced, but you are going to have more of builder type of mindset, a product manager type of mindset going forward. We also expect that the distribution of jobs, depending on the type of business, will be quite different.   Nuno Goncalves Pedro The Broken Contract? Maybe let’s reset a little bit to the broken contract, or if it’s really a broken contract. There’s been this image in technology and tech that basically you get paid very little to work in tech. You get a bunch of stock options. The earlier you are in the company, the higher the level of stock option grants you get. Then you make a ton of money at some point because the company will either sell or IPO, and that’s heard of it. Obviously, there’s a lot of movements happening right now that are changing how these dynamics work. The first part is obviously AI, and in some ways, AI is shrinking companies. It’s not unheard of that companies with as little as four or five people reach 50 million in ARR. There’s companies with one person that have gotten bought for hundreds of millions of dollars or billion of dollars. Obviously, things are moving very, very fast, and therefore, there isn’t a large employee cap table. How would you share the upside? Would you actually give a couple of percentage points to an early employee rather than your 0.2-0.5% kind of thing for early employees? The second part is a little bit the other side of the table, which is the IPO market is seemingly in a drought. There’s not much happening in IPOs. Maybe 2026, at some point, there will be an unlock, but right now, it’s seemingly difficult to get your upside. Even if you’re an employee, you have to wait a long time. The median time of IPO has climbed over 10, 11 years, the longest in over a decade. Basically, not only you have to wait a long time as if there is an IPO drought, like we might be going through right now, when do I actually get my cash back? Unless the company gets bought, maybe there are secondary transactions along the way, maybe there’s something else. But obviously there’s a little bit of a reduction and lowering of the upside seemingly for this contract and for this place. The easy conclusion that I think many are taking is, because of all of this and all the layoffs that are happening, even in big tech, that serve the tech middle class is dying, that basically AI screwing the workers, et cetera, there’s also a lot of discussion that even it might be affecting the entry-level jobs as well. Everyone coming out of undergrad right now can’t get a job, et cetera. There’s this doomsday scenario that you’re alluding to that everything is changing. We have a slightly different perspective. We think there’s a realignment of market. In layoffs, there was a lot of layoffs that were warranted. Big tech, in particular, had actually hoarded a lot of engineering capacity over the last decade or so. There’s a little bit of a realignment that needed to happen in any case. When everyone’s saying, “Well, AI is compressing everything,” well, it’s compressing right now, but we don’t think actually it’s going to compress over time. You’ll still need engineering and science talent to come on board for you to be able to scale up. It’s not like AI is going to take care of everything and teams are going to be five people for companies that are worth a trillion dollars. That’s not happening. Today’s thesis, I think a little bit of this doomsday scenario needs to be seen with a more nuanced lens. I think that’s how we’re framing today’s episode, that there’s a bit of a nuance, there are some extremes happening. We’re going to talk about those extremes, but ultimately, it’s not quite as simple as saying that the tech middle class is disappearing in early jobs are going to be a thing of the past.   Bertrand Schmitt At the same time, what you started with is true. I mean, that 50 million ARR company, just five people. At a bigger scale, that’s exactly the matrix for Anthropic. They have reached a stage where they are at a range of 12 million ARR per staff per employee. It’s metrics that are definitely never seen before. I don’t think any company raised to this level. Best in class, best run companies, one, two million per employees. I mean, that was your target if you can make it. We are definitely in a different game. But I think what matters at the end of the day, and that’s what we’re arguing, is that you have to see the big pictures. Yes, some positions might disappear inside some companies, but some other positions will be created in other companies. Usually, what people do is keep talking about the jobs who disappear and not looking at the bigger picture of jobs that are being created as well. What is true, and I think you alluded to that, is that the big tech the past 10, 15 years had some strategy of hoarding talent in a war where having the best talented people will make the difference in numbers, will make the difference between winning or losing. The Google of the world, the Microsoft of the world, the Amazon of the world, they were hoarding talent. They would try to make sure that they might not have such needs in talented number of people. But if they have the talent, it means their competitors didn’t have the talent. It means that the startup trying to reach scale couldn’t pay the giant salaries that the Google of the world were paying. There was definitely some hoarding. But it went so far in the 2020, 2021, that I think since then there has been a coming back to normal. There is also now in 2026, the recognition that it’s not true anymore. Yes, talent can be very valuable, but there is now a bigger and bigger gap between the extremely talented versus the rest that are merely talented because of AI. AI is able to replace at scale your software engineers, your software managers. I would say it’s quite new. I don’t think it was true a year ago. We’re really talking about a recent dramatic change in what can be achieved thanks to AI. We can s

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiati

The SaaS multiples run was long, but it had to come to an end. Or Had it? Navigation: Intro Setting The Scene The Roots — This Didn’t Happen Overnight The Structural Thesis — Why This Isn’t Just A Sell-Off The Private Market Fallout The Bull Case — Is The Market Wrong? Separating The Wheat From The Chaff — Who Survives? Wrap-Up & Key Takeaways Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Introduction Nuno Goncalves Pedro Welcome to Episode 75 of Tech DECIPHERED, the SaaS Apocalypse: Why AI Breaks or has Broken or Broke the Software Business Model. In today’s episode, we will talk about what’s been going on in SaaS. SaaS, also known as Software as a Service, as a sector, has just had its worst month since the 2008 financial crisis. Give or take, around 1 trillion in software stock market cap has evaporated this year, and it was triggered in many ways by the rise of a lot of the things we’re seeing, in particular, agentic AI. We’ll talk about it later. One of the key triggers seems to have been the launch of Claude or Claude Cowork. There’s a lot of fears that the model that is taken as SaaS to be the darling of investors, both VCs, private equity funds, and also retail investors, has now evaporated. The sweetheart industry no longer works. Bertrand, what happened to SaaS? What’s happening? Bertrand Schmitt Setting The Scene We are in the middle of what some are calling the SaaSpocalypse. I think that was a coined term early this year. It’s pretty bad. We are recording that March 13th. Definitely January, February of this year, 2026, were really terrible. There is no question about it. Strangely enough, since the start of the war with Iran, there has been a small rebound, so we will see how it goes. But also to give some context, we are still not worse than what happened in 2022. We are still in a better place so far. I would say the difference, there is clearly a focus in terms of SaaS versus tech in general for that down term. Nuno Goncalves Pedro We’ve seen obviously a lot of things happening, right? A lot of announcements. The iShares expanded Tech-Software ETF down 25% year-to-date. Everyone seems to be running into panic, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs. Basically, Jefferies, I think, as you said, originally termed this the SaaSpocalypse. But definitely, it seems like everyone’s trying to sell stock and saying, “Hey, SaaS is going to die.” We’ve seen a lot of interesting elements to this, we’ll talk about it later, around AI eats software. Software eats the world. AI now eats software. I guess AI eats the world. But the reality is, we’ll discuss it later in the episode, it might be just a lot of stuff that’s reacting to what’s actually happening in the market, that there was a couple of misses in terms of numbers, that the growth of some of the key SaaS players that are driving a lot of the public stock wasn’t that great recently. That adding to some launches like we mentioned, the Claude Cowork launch, et cetera, has led people to say, “Hey, maybe some entire spaces of SaaS don’t make much sense going forward.” Bertrand Schmitt Actually, I don’t know if you noticed, but I think it was yesterday, it was announced that the CEO of Adobe just resigned. I was shocked how bad they managed the transition to AI. I guess it’s one of the first victims of what has been happening. From my perspective, and I will go deeper, but there is a bit of an overreaction. Claude is amazing as a tool, but the launch of Claude Cowork, a few plugins decimating the market, I think that’s an overreaction in the sense that many of these SaaS companies will be able to actually benefit from AI as well. Or some of the new AI tools really, really depend on the existence of an underlying SaaS layer that’s controlling some processes, some data. So I think we have to be careful about the extremes. At the same time, what is true, the growth rate has been going down for SaaS. If you look in the 2021 to these days, we move maybe from 30-11%, 12% average growth rate. It’s a dramatic difference in growth rate, and you cannot keep the same valuation when your growth rate has been divided by three. I mean, that’s just not possible. I think that there might be some overreaction about what company like Claude can truly achieve. At the same time, the reality is there that while SaaS companies are usually relatively strong companies, the growth rate has diminished, and as a result, so should the valuation. The Roots — This Didn’t Happen Overnight But maybe we can move deeper about what happened the past 2 years about SaaS. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Indeed. Some things going back as much as 2024 when Salesforce had its worst trading day. By then, in 2 decades, and went down by 20% on a rare revenue miss. So some early people, a lot of analysts, see this as an early warning of what was to come. Late last year, a huge shift as the different labs of a bunch of different players started launching agentic solutions, which in some ways started eating into a lot of the functionality, not just of vertical SaaS, but also of horizontal SaaS. As a distinction for some of our listeners who are not familiar with that distinction, vertical SaaS is normally SaaS that’s very specific to a specific industry or sub-industry or specific arena, whereas horizontal SaaS is normally SaaS that doesn’t require much adaptation to work across industries. A good example of that might be HR management systems. But basically, because of some of the early developments in those labs and a lot of the solutions that we started seeing around agentic tools, the market started being less positive on SaaS players and trying to readjust it. Those are the historic moments, 2024, 2025. Then all of a sudden, we see the growth rates of SaaS companies coming down, because obviously this doesn’t only have manifestations in the public equity markets. This has manifestations in clients. People, at this moment in time, we’ll talk about it later, are reconsidering their options. They’re like, “Why should I have a SaaS tool? Should I buy it from another player? Should I have a more holistic solution or an integration with Claude, for example? Should I develop in-house?” We’ll talk at length on what’s in customers’ minds, but customers started changing their views and stop buying some solutions that were out there from the large players that are public equities today. Bertrand Schmitt Yeah, it’s clear that there has been also just overall industry-wide tendency to try to cut on the SaaS subscriptions. Maybe there was too much interest buying too many software solutions, not rationalizing enough, not being careful about the spend. It makes sense that this has hurt overall SaaS growth rate. At the same time, there has been a transfer from IT spending from SaaS tools to AI, so we create a smaller budget for buying SaaS software. But going back, when you look at the change in revenue multiples, it’s crazy. In 2021, we were close to 20X EV, enterprise value to revenues. Now we are talking about 6-7X entering 2026, and we will see later on it does crunch even more. Right now, we are at 4X revenues. So from 20 to 6 to 4, and that’s the lowest in terms of multiples since 2016. That’s 10 years ago. P/E multiple for what multiples also comprise from close to 40 to close to 20. Talking about Adobe, Adobe trades at 5-year average of 30X, now at 12X. No wonder the CEO resigned. I don’t want to be mean, but I think it’s clear some CEO were very strong leading their companies into a SaaS paradigm, but were not as strong leading their company to a new AI paradigm. I think the markets are going to be brutal. If you are good at showing that you can transition to AI, you’re an important piece of the puzzle for AI, that’s one thing. But if the markets believe your products have not kept up, then it’s truly big trouble. I mean, they are not the only one. Intuit 34% decline in a month. Atlassian, minus 35 in a week. ServiceNow also down a third. They are not the only one, but definitely companies have to show some proof of either the lack of vulnerability in an AI world or their capacity to really move strong to a brand-new AI world. Nuno Goncalves Pedro The Structural Thesis — Why This Isn’t Just A Sell-Off What are the structural issues? Why wasn’t this just a sell-off? Why is this structurally a problem? The first thing is really around monetization and business model. SaaS 1.0 or 2.0, however we want to call it, was based on seat-based licensing. Seat-based licensing was the notion that with more employees and more users on the platform, there would be more revenue for the SaaS company. Very simple, very clear, very lucrative. Now, obviously, AI agents don’t occupy seats. An agent can do the work of 10 people, can do the work of 20 people, 30 people, 100 people, whatever it is. Therefore, if I’m a company, and I’m using agents, and not necessarily a human user, I’m not going to buy 10 licenses for the work of 10. I have one license, and it’s used by an agent that basically has access to that tool. That’s the first issue. The first issue is that the seat-based pricing, assuming humans, assuming a certain degree of productivity, et cetera, all of a sudden is under stress. Bertrand Schmitt Maybe to highlight some point, not every SaaS company was focused on per-seat pricing.

Who dares to make predictions in the current landscape? We do!  Our Predictions are back. Will our track-record continue on a high or will we be fundamentally wrong? Listen in to our Predictions for 2026 Navigation: Intro What will 2026 be all about? AI, AI and … more AI The big Hardware movements Of Start-ups and VCs Regulatory & Geopolitical Headwinds… and the Wars Fintech, Crypto and Frontier Tech Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show:   Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Schmitt Introduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered Episode 74. That would be an episode about some predictions about 2026. What will be 2026 all about? I guess this year is probably starting with a bang. We saw the acquisition of xAI by SpaceX. We saw an acquisition from Grok by NVIDIA. What’s your take about what would be the big themes in 2026? I guess it would be for sure about AI and space. Nuno Goncalves Pedro What will 2026 be all about? Yeah. I predict a year that will be a little bit more of a year of reckoning in some way. There will be a lot of things that I think we’ll start seeing through. The fact that we are in the midst of an amazing transformational era for technology, the use of AI, but at the same time, obviously, a ridiculous bubble that is going alongside it as we’ve discussed in previous episodes. I think that we’ll start seeing some early reckonings of that, companies that might start failing, floundering, maybe a couple of frauds along the way, etc. I’ll tell you what I will not make many predictions about today, which is geopolitics. Geopolitics, I will not make predictions at all. Who the hell knows what’s going to happen to the world this year in 2026? I don’t dare making any predictions on that. Back to things where I would make predictions. I think on AI, we’ll have a little bit of reckoning. We’ll talk about it a little bit more in detail during this episode. Interesting elements around the hardware and physical space. Physical space, we just dedicated a full episode to it. We won’t go into a lot of details on that, but definitely on the hardware side, we’ll talk a little bit more about it. The VC landscape is going through an incredible transformation. We’ll talk about it today as well and some of our predictions for this year. What will happen to the asset class? It seems to be transforming itself dramatically. Obviously, that has a very direct impact on startups, so we’ll talk about that as well. And then to close a little bit the chapter on this, we will address some regulatory and geopolitical, let’s call it, headwinds without making maybe too many complex predictions. We shall see. Maybe by that time of the episode, we will be making some predictions. You guys should stay and listen to us, and maybe we will actually make some predictions about the geopolitical transformations that we will see this year in the world. Then last but not the least, we’ll talk about fintech, crypto, frontier tech, and a couple of other areas before concluding the episode. A classic predictions’ episode. We normally have a pretty good track record on some of these, but right now, the world is going a bit interesting, not to say insane. Bertrand Schmitt Yes, and going back to some news, Groq technically was not acquired, but, practically, it’s as if it got acquired. I’m talking about Groq, G-R-O-Q. The AI semiconductor company focused on inference AI, and it was late December. It was a way to end the year. This year, we started again with an acquisition of xAI by its sister company, SpaceX. I guess that’s where we are starting. AI, AI and … more AI We are going to start on AI. That’s definitely the big stuff. Everything these days, I guess, is about AI or has to have some connection with AI, or it doesn’t matter. I think every company in the world has seen that. You have to have the absolute minimum on AI strategy. You better execute on this strategy and show results, I would say. For the companies that were not AI native, you truly have to have a way to transform yourself. I guess at some point, the stretch might be too much, and it’s not really reasonable. Then you maybe better stay on what you are doing, especially if you’re in tech, you better be moving faster to AI. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Just to highlight, and I think throughout the episode, you’ll see that there’re obviously a lot of implications that would manifest themselves into capital markets. I mean, we’ll specifically talk about VCs and startups later on. But the fact that everything needs to be AI, the fact that there’s so much innovation happening right now, in my opinion, and this is maybe the first pre-topic to AI, is we’ll see a tremendous increase in M&A activity this year across the board. I mean, we’ve seen already some big acquihires we mentioned in some of our previous episodes, but we’ll see a lot more activity on M&A this year. Normally, that’s a precursor to the opening of capital markets. I predict also that there will be a reopening of the IPO market that never really reopened last year, to be honest. M&A, a lot more, reopening of the IPO market. Normally, it happens in the second or third quarter of the year. That’s what my M&A friends tell me. First quarter of year, everyone’s figuring out stuff. Then last quarter of the year, things should be more or less closed. Maybe the third quarter is the big quarter. We shall see. But definitely, as a precursor to our conversation today, I think we’ll see a lot of M&A, and we’ll see reopening of the IPO mark. Bertrand Schmitt I guess last year was not as big as you could expect on M&A given the tariff situation announced in April and May. I mean, it became quite tough to do IPO in such market conditions. Definitely, we can hope for something dramatically different in 2026. I guess talking about public markets and IPO, I guess the big one everyone is waiting for is SpaceX. SpaceX getting even more interesting with its xAI acquisition. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Do you think that because of the acquisition, it’s more likely that it will happen this year, or because of the acquisition, it’s less likely that it will happen this year? Bertrand Schmitt That’s a good question. My guess is the acquisition of xAI is all about xAI needing more financing and cheaper financing. This acquisition is a pathway to that. SpaceX being a much bigger company, a company that is also making much more revenues. I could bet that there is higher probability that, actually, SpaceX will go public in order to finance itself. At the same time, will it have enough time to prepare itself for the IPO given this acquisition just happened? Can they do that in 6 months? I mean, if anyone can do it, I guess it’s Elon Musk. It’s a strategy to present an even more attractive company with an even more interesting story, a story of vertical integration from AI to space. I guess the story as it’s presented itself right now, it’s one about having your AI data centers in space. Because in space, you have much better solar energy production with solar panels. You have a perfect cooling situation because you are in space. Thanks to Starlink, you have the mean to communicate between the satellites and with Earth itself. I think if someone can pull up a story like AI data center in space, I guess Elon Musk can. There is, of course, a lot of questions about is it practical? Is it economical? Yes. I certainly agree. I’m not clear on the mass, and can you make it work? Again, I mean, Elon Musk single-handedly, with SpaceX, managed to transform the space market on its head. I mean, they are the biggest satellite launching company in the world. They have the most satellites in the world. I mean, I’m not sure I would bet against him, and I guess I would probably believe that he could pull up something. Time frames, different story. The 2-3 years data center in space for AI as cheap as on Earth, I have more trouble with that one. I mean, it’s a usual suspect with Elon Musk. You promise something unachievable in a few years, but, ultimately, you still manage to reach it in 5 or 10. Again, I would not bet against the strategy. Nuno Goncalves Pedro Yeah. I’ve talked to a couple of space experts, people that have launched rockets, and have worked JPL, NASA, and a couple of other places, etc. For what it’s worth, their feedback is, “No way in hell, and we’re decades away.” We’ll see. I mean, to your point, Elon has pulled very dramatic stuff. Not as fast as he normally says he’s going to pull it, but within a time span that we all see it. Difficult to bet against him. In terms of actually the prediction, maybe to respond to the prediction as well, will SpaceX IPO? I’m going to make a prediction that has a very high likelihood of missing the mark, but I think Tesla’s going to buy and merge them both into it. It’s going to become a public company through Tesla. That’s my hypothesis. Bertrand Schmitt No. That’s supposed to be it. That’s how you solve that. Nuno Goncalves Pedro And Elon controls the whole universe. X, xAI, Tesla, SpaceX, all under one umbrella beautifully run. And SolarCity is well in there, of course, so wonderful. Bertrand Schmitt That’s possible. Certainly, you are not the only one thinking Tesla will acquire or merge with SpaceX. To remind everyone, Tesla is around 1.3, 1.5 trillion market

Infrastructure was passé…uncool. Difficult to get dollars from Private Equity and Growth funds, and almost impossible to get a VC fund interested. Now?! Now, it’s cool. Infrastructure seems to be having a Renaissance, a full on Rebirth, not just fueled by commercial interests (e.g. advent of AI), but also by industrial policy and geopolitical considerations. In this episode of Tech Deciphered, we explore what’s cool in the infrastructure spaces, including mega trends in semiconductors, energy, networking & connectivity, manufacturing Navigation: Intro We’re back to building things Why now: the 5 forces behind the renaissance Semiconductors: compute is the new oil Networking & connectivity: digital highways get rebuilt Energy: rebuilding the power stack (not just renewables) Manufacturing: the return of “atoms + bits” Wrap: what it means for startups, incumbents, and investors Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Introduction Welcome to episode 73 of Tech Deciphered, Infrastructure, the Rebirth or Renaissance. Infrastructure was passé, it wasn’t cool, but all of a sudden now everyone’s talking about network, talking about compute and semiconductors, talking about logistics, talking about energy. What gives? What’s happened? It was impossible in the past to get any funds, venture capital, even, to be honest, some private equity funds or growth funds interested in some of these areas, but now all of a sudden everyone thinks it’s cool. The infrastructure seems to be having a renaissance, a full-on rebirth. In this episode, we will explore in which cool ways the infrastructure spaces are moving and what’s leading to it. We will deep dive into the forces that are leading us to this. We will deep dive into semiconductors, networking and connectivity, energy, manufacturing, and then we’ll wrap up. Bertrand, so infrastructure is cool now. Bertrand Schmitt We’re back to building things Yes. I thought software was going to eat the world. I cannot believe it was then, maybe even 15 years ago, from Andreessen, that quote about software eating the world. I guess it’s an eternal balance. Sometimes you go ahead of yourself, you build a lot of software stack, and at some point, you need the hardware to run this software stack, and there is only so much the bits can do in a world of atoms. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro Obviously, we’ve gone through some of this before. I think what we’re going through right now is AI is eating the world, and because AI is eating the world, it’s driving a lot of this infrastructure building that we need. We don’t have enough energy to be consumed by all these big data centers and hyperscalers. We need to be innovative around network as well because of the consumption in terms of network bandwidth that is linked to that consumption as well. In some ways, it’s not software eating the world, AI is eating the world. Because AI is eating the world, we need to rethink everything around infrastructure and infrastructure becoming cool again. Bertrand Schmitt There is something deeper in this. It’s that the past 10, even 15 years were all about SaaS before AI. SaaS, interestingly enough, was very energy-efficient. When I say SaaS, I mean cloud computing at large. What I mean by energy-efficient is that actually cloud computing help make energy use more efficient because instead of companies having their own separate data centers in many locations, sometimes poorly run from an industrial perspective, replace their own privately run data center with data center run by the super scalers, the hyperscalers of the world. These data centers were run much better in terms of how you manage the coolings, the energy efficiency, the rack density, all of this stuff. Actually, the cloud revolution didn’t increase the use of electricity. The cloud revolution was actually a replacement from your private data center to the hyperscaler data center, which was energy efficient. That’s why we didn’t, even if we are always talking about that growth of cloud computing, we were never feeling the pinch in term of electricity. As you say, we say it all changed because with AI, it was not a simple “Replacement” of locally run infrastructure to a hyperscaler run infrastructure. It was truly adding on top of an existing infrastructure, a new computing infrastructure in a way out of nowhere. Not just any computing infrastructure, an energy infrastructure that was really, really voracious in term of energy use. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro There was one other effect. Obviously, we’ve discussed before, we are in a bubble. We won’t go too much into that today. But the previous big bubble in tech, which is in the late ’90s, there was a lot of infrastructure built. We thought the internet was going to take over back then. It didn’t take over immediately, but there was a lot of network connectivity, bandwidth built back in the day. Companies imploded because of that as well, or had to restructure and go in their chapter 11. A lot of the big telco companies had their own issues back then, etc., but a lot of infrastructure was built back then for this advent of the internet, which would then take a long time to come. In some ways, to your point, there was a lot of latent supply that was built that was around that for a while wasn’t used, but then it was. Now it’s been used, and now we need new stuff. That’s why I feel now we’re having the new moment of infrastructure, new moment of moving forward, aligned a little bit with what you just said around cloud computing and the advent of SaaS, but also around the fact that we had a lot of buildup back in the late ’90s, early ’90s, which we’re now still reaping the benefits on in today’s world. Bertrand Schmitt Yeah, that’s actually a great point because what was built in the late ’90s, there was a lot of fibre that was built. Laying out the fibre either across countries, inside countries. This fibre, interestingly enough, you could just change the computing on both sides of the fibre, the routing, the modems, and upgrade the capacity of the fibre. But the fibre was the same in between. The big investment, CapEx investment, was really lying down that fibre, but then you could really upgrade easily. Even if both ends of the fibre were either using very old infrastructure from the ’90s or were actually dark and not being put to use, step by step, it was being put to use, equipment was replaced, and step by step, you could keep using more and more of this fibre. It was a very interesting development, as you say, because it could be expanded over the years, where if we talk about GPUs, use for AI, GPUs, the interesting part is actually it’s totally the opposite. After a few years, it’s useless. Some like Google, will argue that they can depreciate over 5, 6 years, even some GPUs. But at the end of the day, the difference in perf and energy efficiency of the GPUs means that if you are energy constrained, you just want to replace the old one even as young as three-year-old. You have to look at Nvidia increasing spec, generation after generation. It’s pretty insane. It’s usually at least 3X year over year in term of performance. Nuno Gonçalves Pedro At this moment in time, it’s very clear that it’s happening. Why now: the 5 forces behind the renaissance Maybe let’s deep dive into why it’s happening now. What are the key forces around this? We’ve identified, I think, five forces that are particularly vital that lead to the world we’re in right now. One we’ve already talked about, which is AI, the demand shock and everything that’s happened because of AI. Data centers drive power demand, drive grid upgrades, drive innovative ways of getting energy, drive chips, drive networking, drive cooling, drive manufacturing, drive all the things that we’re going to talk in just a bit. One second element that we could probably highlight in terms of the forces that are behind this is obviously where we are in terms of cost curves around technology. Obviously, a lot of things are becoming much cheaper. The simulation of physical behaviours has become a lot more cheap, which in itself, this becomes almost a vicious cycle in of itself, then drives the adoption of more and more AI and stuff. But anyway, the simulation is becoming more and more accessible, so you can do a lot of simulation with digital twins and other things off the real world before you go into the real world. Robotics itself is becoming, obviously, cheaper. Hardware, a lot of the hardware is becoming cheaper. Computer has become cheaper as well. Obviously, there’s a lot of cost curves that have aligned that, and that’s maybe the second force that I would highlight. Obviously, funds are catching up. We’ll leave that a little bit to the end. We’ll do a wrap-up and talk a little bit about the implications to investors. But there’s a lot of capital out there, some capital related to industrial policy, other capital related to private initiative, private equity, growth funds, even venture capital, to be honest, and a few other elements on that. That would be a third force that I would highlight. Bertrand Schmitt Yes. Interestingly enough, in terms of capital use, and we’ll talk more about this, but some firms, if we are talking about energy investment, it wa

IWhat is our children’s future? What skills should they be developing? How should schools be adapting? What will the fully functioning citizens and workers of the future look like? A look into the landscape of the next 15 years, the future of work with human and AI interactions, the transformation of education, the safety and privacy landscapes, and a parental playbook. Navigation: Intro The Landscape: 2026–2040 The Future of Work: Human + AI The Transformation of Education The Ethics, Safety, and Privacy Landscape The Parental Playbook: Actionable Strategies Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand Schmitt Introduction Welcome to Episode 72 of Tech Deciphered, about our children’s future. What is our children’s future? What skills should they be developing? How should school be adapting to AI? What would be the functioning citizens and workers of the future look like, especially in the context of the AI revolution? Nuno, what’s your take? Maybe we start with the landscape. Nuno Goncalves Pedro The Landscape: 2026–2040 Let’s first frame it. What do people think is going to happen? Firstly, that there’s going to be a dramatic increase in productivity, and because of that dramatic increase in productivity, there are a lot of numbers that show that there’s going to be… AI will enable some labour productivity growth of 0.1 to 0.6% through 2040, which would be a figure that would be potentially rising even more depending on use of other technologies beyond generative AI, as much as 0.5 to 3.4% points annually, which would be ridiculous in terms of productivity enhancement. To be clear, we haven’t seen it yet. But if there are those dramatic increases in productivity expected by the market, then there will be job displacement. There will be people losing their jobs. There will be people that will need to be reskilled, and there will be a big shift that is similar to what happens when there’s a significant industrial revolution, like the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century into the 20th century. Other numbers quoted would say that 30% of US jobs could be automated by 2030, which is a silly number, 30%, and that another 60% would see tremendously being altered. A lot of their tasks would be altered for those jobs. There’s also views that this is obviously fundamentally a global phenomenon, that as much as 9% of jobs could be lost to AI by 2030. I think question mark if this is a net number or a gross number, so it might be 9% our loss, but then maybe there’re other jobs that will emerge. It’s very clear that the landscape we have ahead of us is if there are any significant increases in productivity, there will be job displacement. There will be job shifting. There will be the need for reskilling. Therefore, I think on the downside, you would say there’s going to be job losses. We’ll have to reevaluate whether people should still work in general 5 days a week or not. Will we actually work in 10, 20, 30 years? I think that’s the doomsday scenario and what happens on that side of the fence. I think on the positive side, there’s also a discussion around there’ll be new jobs that emerge. There’ll be new jobs that maybe we don’t understand today, new job descriptions that actually don’t even exist yet that will emerge out this brave new world of AI. Bertrand Schmitt Yeah. I mean, let’s not forget how we get to a growing economy. I mean, there’s a measurement of a growing economy is GDP growth. Typically, you can simplify in two elements. One is the growth of the labour force, two, the rise of the productivity of that labour force, and that’s about it. Either you grow the economy by increasing the number of people, which in most of the Western world is not really happening, or you increase productivity. I think that we should not forget that growth of productivity is a backbone of growth for our economies, and that has been what has enabled the rise in prosperity across countries. I always take that as a win, personally. That growth in productivity has happened over the past decades through all the technological revolutions, from more efficient factories to oil and gas to computers, to network computers, to internet, to mobile and all the improvement in science, usually on the back of technological improvement. Personally, I welcome any rise in improvement we can get in productivity because there is at this stage simply no other choice for a growing world in terms of growing prosperity. In terms of change, we can already have a look at the past. There are so many jobs today you could not imagine they would exist 30 years ago. Take the rise of the influencer, for instance, who could have imagined that 30 years ago. Take the rise of the small mom-and-pop e-commerce owner, who could have imagined that. Of course, all the rise of IT as a profession. I mean, how few of us were there 30 years ago compared to today. I mean, this is what it was 30 years ago. I think there is a lot of change that already happened. I think as a society, we need to welcome that. If we go back even longer, 100 years ago, 150 years ago, let’s not forget, if I take a city like Paris, we used to have tens of thousands of people transporting water manually. Before we have running water in every home, we used to have boats going to the North Pole or to the northern region to bring back ice and basically pushing ice all the way to the Western world because we didn’t have fridges at the time. I think that when we look back in time about all the jobs that got displaced, I would say, Thank you. Thank you because these were not such easy jobs. Change is coming, but change is part of the human equation, at least. Industrial revolution, the past 250 years, it’s thanks to that that we have some improvement in living conditions everywhere. AI is changing stuff, but change is a constant, and we need to adapt and adjust. At least on my side, I’m glad that AI will be able to displace some jobs that were not so interesting to do in the first place in many situations. Maybe not dangerous like in the past because we are talking about replacing white job collars, but at least repetitive jobs are definitely going to be on the chopping block. Nuno Goncalves Pedro What happens in terms of shift? We were talking about some numbers earlier. The World Economic Forum also has some numbers that predicts that there is a gross job creation rate of 14% from 2025 to 2030 and a displacement rate of 8%, so I guess they’re being optimistic, so a net growth in employment. I think that optimism relates to this thesis that, for example, efficiency, in particular in production and industrial environments, et cetera, might reduce labour there while increasing the demand for labour elsewhere because there is a natural lower cost base. If there’s more automation in production, therefore there’s more disposable income for people to do other things and to focus more on their side activities. Maybe, as I said before, not work 5 days a week, but maybe work four or three or whatever it is. What are the jobs of the future? What are the jobs that we see increasing in the future? Obviously, there’re a lot of jobs that relate to the technology side, that relate obviously to AI, that’s a little bit self-serving, and everything that relates to information technology, computer science, computer technology, computer engineering, et cetera. More broadly in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, that might actually be more needed. Because there is a broadening of all of these elements of contact with digital, with AI over time also with robots and robotics, that those jobs will increase. There’s a thesis that actually other jobs that are a little bit more related to agriculture, education, et cetera, might not see a dramatic impact, that will still need for, I guess, teachers and the need for people working in farms, et cetera. I think this assumes that probably the AI revolution will come much before the fundamental evolution that will come from robotics afterwards. Then there’s obviously this discussion around declining roles. Anything that’s fundamentally routine, like data entry, clinical roles, paralegals, for example, routine manufacturing, anything that’s very repetitive in nature will be taken away. I have the personal thesis that there are jobs that are actually very blue-collar jobs, like HVAC installation, maintenance, et cetera, plumbing, that will be still done by humans for a very long time because there are actually, they appear to be repetitive, but they’re actually complex, and they require manual labour that cannot be easily, I think, right now done by robots and replacements of humans. Actually, I think there’re blue-collar roles that will be on the increase rather than on decrease that will demand a premium, because obviously, they are apprenticeship roles, certification roles, and that will demand a premium. Maybe we’re at the two ends. There’s an end that is very technologically driven of jobs that will need to necessarily increase, and there’s at the other end, jobs that are very menial but necessarily need to be done by humans, and therefore will also command a premium on the other end. Bertrand Schmitt I think what you say make a lot of sense. If you think about AI as a stack, my guess is that for the foreseeable futur

Can AI be a co-founder? Do you need a technical co-founder, any more? How about a business co-founder? What can AI do for you as co-founder? Will this become the “brave new world” of start-ups, small and medium businesses? For this and much more discussion, a no BS perspective on AI as a potential co-founder.Our co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand SchmittIntro  Welcome to episode 70 of Tech DECIPHERED. Today, we'll talk about AI as a co-founder. Can AI be your co-founder? Do you need a technical co-founder anymore? Or do you need a business co-founder anymore? What can AI do for you as a co-founder? Will this become the brave new world of startup and small businesses? Nuno, what's your take on this topic? Have you started seeing that for early stage startups, the AI co-founder? Nuno Gonçalves PedroYeah. We start seeing this notion of people now—"Oh, I could be a single founder." I mean, single founders have existed for a long time. We'll come back to a little bit the taxonomies of founding teams. But definitely, is now a little bit of a trend where people are like, "Well, I don't need a co-founder. I'm just going to go do my own thing." Normally, the case is made more for, "Oh, I don't need a technical co-founder. I can vibe code and put some stuff together and go through things."  As we go through the episode today, I think we'll go into the details on why technical co-founders might still matter and why there are certain areas of technical founding that might not matter as much where AI can really be your co-pilot, so to speak.  The Classic Case for Co-Founders  But maybe let's start with what is the case for co-founders? Why do you need to have a co-founder? Why can't you just do it yourself? Historically, there's been really sort of an angle where there's sort of these two entities in the founding team. Right? The business founder and the technical founder.  The business founder is the person that runs business related activities. If you're doing, for example, enterprise software, SaaS, et cetera, your business co-founder is responsible for go-to-market like hiring sales—in particular, at the beginning actually being the person who does sales, establishing partnerships, creating and managing elements that are more related to admin with the help maybe of third parties around finance, et cetera. The business founder is more the person who's focused on the business aspects of the company, which would be go-to-market, which includes sales, channel partnerships, marketing, et cetera. Might include, as I said, the admin side, et cetera.  Then the technical co-founder is more focused on elements that are connected to the technology stack, development of the code base. If it's just software, development of software, could be more on the product side as well, someone who's more of a product manager, et cetera. That's why you need those two entities. Because you need these two entities, so to speak, these two people. Because you need someone who has more knowledge of how to develop a code base, how to get it off the ground, how to develop the MVP, the minimum viable product early on.  On the other side, you need someone who figures out: how do we get this thing to market, how do we actually deploy it, how do we monetise it, how do we create partnerships if they apply. That's why we've had this classic case for founding teams. Now just to be very clear, it is also true that we've also had single founding teams for a long time. We have companies that have been founding only for one person. But at the end of the day, the ethos has been, let's have two co-founders, one on the technical side at least and one or more on the technical side and one or more on the business side at the very least. Bertrand SchmittThat's true. That's what you have typically seen. Maybe, going back historically, maybe the most famous example of this technical co-founder plus business co-founder has been the founding team of Apple—Steve Jobs with Mr Wozniak. Steve, on the business side; Woz, as he was called, on the technical side. That has been that maybe that's reference point for all of Silicon Valley for decades. At the same time, it has not been true for every successful company. If I take HP, for instance—if I remember well, they were both technical co-founders: Bill Hewlett, Dave Packard. If you take Microsoft, Bill Gates had, in some ways, a lesser co-founder, but both were technical. Paul Allen was technical like Bill Gates. Nuno Gonçalves PedroI would say Gates was more incredibly technical, but he became a business guy. I think that was part of the secrets of Microsoft early on. He was very business-savvy in some ways. He was very technical. Until this day, I think he's extremely technical and extremely intelligent, but he was definitely very business-savvy. Bertrand SchmittHe was able to wear two hats in some ways. If you think about HP, it's probably a similar story. When we talk about the one-person founder alone by himself, the question would be, is it a technical co-founder or business co-founder or a mix of both? Someone who can do both even early on or who learned to do both pretty quickly. Probably, Bill Gates would be a good example if we assume Paul Allen was less critical. Nuno Gonçalves PedroYeah. I think that's a good point, and you went back to one of the OGs like Wozniak and Jobs. I'd say Jobs was business clearly, great marketeer, et cetera. But he was also very deeply involved in product. Interestingly enough, think maybe not as involved on product early on as he became later on with NeXT and then his second coming, so to speak, to Apple. Where you get much more involved in product management and how products were deployed. But to your point, he wasn't a technical co-founder. Clearly, that was not the role.  I think if we look at some of the great success like Google, Sergei and Larry were both very technical. I guess they brought in Eric Schmidt very early on to be the CEO. But at the end of the day, the definition of founders in Silicon Valley, maybe we'll come back to that later, is at least you need to have technical founders early on. Then maybe the business people will come along or maybe one of the technical people will go more onto the business side. But you need to have this duality of role that you, Bertrand, we were just talking about. Someone who either becomes more business-savvy, more business side, but definitely someone who's more on the technical side. I think that's how the Silicon Valley has emerged over the last many decades. Right? Bertrand SchmittYeah. It's interesting you brought in the story of Google with Eric Schmidt because you could argue they brought him in as a CEO, but he used to be CTO at—was it Novell? I forgot. Nuno Gonçalves PedroNovell. Yeah. I think he was CEO of Novell at some point. Yeah. Bertrand SchmittHe was CEO at some point because I was going to say, clearly, he has also a technical background. Able to do the business side. No question. But he was also coming from the technical side. Nuno Gonçalves PedroHe was definitely technical at the beginning of his career, and he was also at PARC, Bell Labs, and a variety of other organisations. He was in software engineering at Sun Microsystems, to your point. Then he became the CEO and chairman of Novell. But he is a technical guy by background, for sure. No doubt. He has a PhD. But he was brought in to be the CEO. He was brought in to be more the business guy. I think, very honestly, Silicon Valley loves the story of actually the technical CEO. The person who has at least very product or deep product knowledge and understanding of technology, so it doesn't get bullshitted necessarily by the rest of the engineering team, so to speak.  Now there's notable exceptions to that. There are companies that were built very heavily on people that were incredibly business-savvy and very much on the go-to-market side. But, again, justifying why you have co-founders, why you have the technical person and the business person at the very least early on in the structure of the company. Bertrand SchmittIf we look at more recently, of course, we have the exception of Elon Musk starting and running so many companies in parallel. Some he didn't technically funded. He was early on investor, took over very quickly. But he's also an interesting example of a very deeply technical person with very strong business acumen, obviously. That's another example. Do you have examples of many successful companies just started by a very business co-person in the tech industry? Obviously, outside tech, it's a different story. Yeah? Nuno Gonçalves PedroNot a lot, but I feel like in the enterprise software side, there are people that have managed to be great at doing it because they are amazing at building sales teams, and amazing at then building engineering teams around them. I'm not sure I can start giving as many examples as we've given on the other side of people that did have a very strong technical background so to speak. I don't know if he's a technical guy. I do think he had the bachelor's in electrical engineering. One guy is David Duffield. He was the guy who founded PeopleSoft and then later on founded Workday. Bertrand SchmittYeah. I was looking for him, actually. Nuno Gonçalves PedroDavid Duffield, to my knowledge, I think he has a bac

What do we travel with? How do we prefer to travel? What are our travel hacks? If you are seasoned travel or just getting into that hamster wheel, this is the episode for you. Our thoughts, best practices and hacks on traveling.Share with us yours on LinkedIn or X.Our co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Nuno Goncalves PedroINTRODUCTIONWelcome to Episode 69 of Tech DECIPHERED. Today we'll go on a slightly softer note and discuss our travel hacks and preferences. Bertrand and I often are asked, "What do you guys travel with? What do you prefer to travel with? What are your travel hacks?" And a few other questions in this world of hamster wheel travelling.Today we'll share a bunch of our preferences. We'll share a lot of the things we travel with, from luggage to electronics to other services and devices. We will share to the best of our knowledge, how to really do it in style, if that's at all possible, once you're in that hamster wheel. We'll share some of our hacks, not only for business travelling, but also for leisure travelling. Interesting stuff. We all have our hacks. We all have our stuff going on.PREFERENCES TRAVELAirlines, alliances, loyalty programsMaybe we start with airlines and all the things around that. Bertrand.Bertrand SchmittYeah, sure. Don't get me started on Air France, who cancelled on me a huge quantity of miles without alerting me, without notice, just a few weeks before I was supposed to take a flight. I will try my best to never use them again.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt was that bad. Air France is out, so that's the beginning. Let's maybe talk about the guys who are in. I'll give you my top airlines around the world. Obviously this depends. Depends if you have to travel through that region or if you're travelling to that region. My favourites, I think maybe not sure if it's in full order, but I would say Emirates, obviously, Qatar Airways. If you're hubbing through Middle East or if you're going to the Middle East, two amazing airlines, probably two of the best in the world.I would say maybe Emirates is my favourite now. I have to be thoughtful in how I put that forward. Qatar is also exceptional, obviously if you're hubbing through Doha. Incredible airline as well. The Asian ones in general, we'll leave the Chinese for a second because that's a different ballgame all together. Let's not say all Asian ones and obviously different ones are great.I'd say Singapore Airlines continues being systematically an exceptional airline. They've become very expensive, but an exceptional airline. A little bit SOP driven, only airline in the world, true story, that I complained not once or twice, but three times on the same incident, and I actually never got a response from them on an incident which is interesting. In general, service is exceptional. Their facilities at Changi Airport are exceptional. The planes are really well-kept, the food is great, very attentious, and really like them.Cathay, I haven't flown with them in a while. They went through a bit of a slump at some point. They were my favourite for a long time. Then they went through a bit of a slump in terms of product in particular, in terms of the quality of the product, in terms of the quality of the seats, service on board, et cetera. I've heard positive things recently, so maybe worthwhile putting them back on my Top 5 list around the world.Then the Korean Airlines in general are pretty strong on service. Depends a little bit on the plane. I've had always better experiences with Korean Air than with Asiana. Maybe Korean Air gets that last Top 5 thing.Talking about the negative ones for me that I try to avoid. I try to avoid as much as possible some of the European ones. TAP Air Portugal, the Portuguese one, is actually pretty decent by European standards. British Airways depends on the format of the plane. I find their business class service and product not to be as compelling as other airlines right now. I always found the service on British Airways, you only get great service on reshares if you're in first class. On long haul, even in business, it's a little bit matron. It's like, "Sit down and just stay put, and we'll serve you, but we won't really be particularly paying attention to you." In some ways, TAP Air Portugal, I think they're a little bit more thoughtful and nicer.Lufthansa is similar to British Airways. I've had very mixed experiences, but in general not great. The service, they got a lot of bad rap on their first class stuff. In Europe, I'm not sure there's anyone that I'm excited about. I haven't flown with Air France a long time. Apparently I shouldn't. Iberia I've flown with and it's okay-ish. I don't remember any airline in Europe that I'm particularly fond of. Maybe I'm missing someone. SAS is okay, I guess in the Nordics, but not a great deal of amazing airlines in there.Then negative Chinese. Most of the Chinese airlines, I haven't flown with them in a long time, so I obviously have to be careful in not pushing it forward. Not a huge fan of JAL and ANA in Japan. When in doubt, I would go ANA. Then in Taiwan, also not particularly excited about any of the Taiwanese airlines, but they're not bad either, so it's okay kind of thing. Then on the American Airlines, which I'm sure people are excited to know about, I'm really not a fan of United. Sadly, they're on Star AllianceBertrand SchmittDo you remember this video on United? There was this guy being dragged out of the plane, bloodied and everything.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt sounds about right, I think.Bertrand SchmittI think it's just before COVID or at the beginning of COVID. I forgot. It was bad. It was so bad.Nuno Goncalves PedroMy favourite was only domestic flights with Virgin America. By the way, Virgin Atlantic, I'm going to fly again with them in a couple of months and I remember them fondly. Their upper class product was really cool back in the day. Their lounge was really cool at Heathrow. This was many years ago. Looking forward to experimenting with it again. Virgin America was really strong and then obviously they merged with Alaska. Alaska is okay. It's good. I feel it still has a little bit of the Continental and Virgin America ethos, which is pretty good.I'd say of the big ones in the US, the only one that I think has improved quite a bit in terms of service has been Delta Air Lines, although their hub is Atlanta, which as I call it, is where you get lost in space in general. It's a black hole, I guess. We'll come back to airports later. American is okay-ish, but I've had some really bad experiences as well in American. United is the bottom for me. Southwest, I haven't flown in a while. They're quite expensive now, Southwest, actually.Bertrand SchmittI think they have changed dramatically, Southwest, from what I read in terms of what you get, what is included, not included, how they work. It's not the same.Nuno Goncalves PedroTop 5 guys that I would make an effort to fly with: Qatar Airways, Emirates. Emirates obviously doesn't really belong to any of the alliances, which makes it a little bit more cumbersome for points gathering and all that stuff, but I think they're really top end. I think Singapore Airlines belongs in that group. Then just below for me, Korean Air Lines and Cathay and then the rest.There's preferences. I have preferences as I said. If I have a chance, I'll go Delta rather than American or United. If it's to Europe, then I prefer a European airline to American and to United. To Asia, the same thing. I prefer an Asian airline to American and United. Delta, it depends a little bit on the plane and all that stuff. That's my rough preferences. I've had my worst experiences with United. My worst experience I think probably were all with United, delayed flights issues and all that stuff, bad service.Bertrand SchmittIf I have to fly to Europe, I used to try to use Air France, but two issues again, they take away your miles. That was during COVID. Two, you run the risk to have a strike in France. That's obviously the risk. Now I'm probably more trying to fly Delta if I go to Europe. Asia, I will try to stay away from Air China, that's for sure. I got some memorable experience when they were so scared away I would bring down a plane by using my tablet. It was just as crazy. I would say the Taiwanese airlines, I have overall positive experience. Not great, not bad, I would say.Nuno Goncalves PedroWhich is your favourite of the two?Bertrand SchmittLet me be careful. It's China Airways, China Air. There is a new one, actually, a third one that started recently. I cannot say I have a big preference, a clear-cut preference between the Taiwanese airlines. Taipei Airport is quite convenient to branch from in Asia.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt's EVA Air or EVA Air and China Airlines?Bertrand SchmittYeah, EVA Air is one of them, China Airlines, and there is a third one now that just launched.Nuno Goncalves PedroSTARLUX, is that the one? STARLUX Airlines?Bertrand SchmittMaybe. Yes. In the US, living in Seattle, this is a hub for Alaska. We use Alaska quite a bit. I will use Delta as well, and United if no other choice.Nuno Goncalves PedroAnd American? Do you have a perspective on American?Bertrand SchmittI have never used them, actually.Nuno Goncalves PedroReally? It's American Airlines.Bertrand SchmittSame for the other one we talk about, Southwest. I've rarely, rarely use it....

America’s AI action plan … “Winning the AI race” has just been announced. What is it all about? What are the implications? How will the rest of the world react? A deep dive into the announcement, approaches by EU and China, and overall implications of these action plans.Navigation:Intro (01:34)Context of the White House AI SummitPillar I – Accelerating AI InnovationPillar II – Building American AI InfrastructurePillar III – Leading in International AI Diplomacy & SecurityComparing Approaches – U.S. Action Plan vs. EU AI Act vs. China’s StrategyImplications and SynthesisConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Nuno G. PedroWelcome to episode 68 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will focus on America's AI action plan, winning the AI race, which has just been announced a couple of weeks in by President Trump in the White House. Today, we'll be discussing the pillars of this plan, from pillar I, the acceleration of AI innovation, to pillar II, building of American AI infrastructure, to pillar III, leading in international AI diplomacy and security.We'll also further contextualise it, as well as compare the approaches between the US Action plan, and what we see from the EU and China strategy at this point in time. We'll finalise with implications and synthesis. Bertrand, is this a watershed moment for the industry? Is this the moment we were all waiting for in terms of clarity for AI in the US?Bertrand SchmittYeah, that's a great question. I must say I'm quite excited. I'm not sure I can remember anything like it since basically John F. Kennedy announcing the race to go to the moon in the early '60s. It feels, as you say, a watershed moment because suddenly you can see that there is a grand vision, a grand plan, that AI is not just important, but critical to the future success of America. It looks like the White House is putting all the ducks in order in order to make it happen. There is, like in the '60s with JFK, a realisation that there is an adversary, there is a competitor, and you want to beat them to that race. Except this time it's not Russia, it's China. A lot of similarities, I would say.Nuno G. PedroYeah. It seems relatively comprehensive. Obviously, we'll deep dive into it today across a variety of elements like regulation, investments, view in relation to exports and imports and the rest of the world. So, relatively comprehensive from what we can see. Obviously, we don't know all the details. We know from the announcement that the plan has identified 90 federal policy actions across the three pillars. Obviously, we'll see how these come into practice over the next few months, few years.To your point, it is a defining moment. It feels a little bit like the space race of '60s, et cetera. It's probably warranted. We know that, obviously, AI platforms, AI services and products are changing the world as we speak. It's pretty important to figure out what is the US response to it.Also interesting to know that we normally don't talk about the US too much in terms of industrial policy. The US seems to have a private sector that, in and of itself, actually stands up to the game, and in particular in tech and high-tech, normally fulfils or fills the gaps that are introduced by big generational shifts in terms of technology. But in this case, there seems to be an industrial policy. This seems to set the stage for that industrial policy and how it moves forward, which, as you said, we haven't seen in quite a long time.Bertrand SchmittYes. At the same time, on one side, yes, there is some level of industrial policy, but I feel quite a big part is getting the government out of the way so that private companies can truly innovate. Because America, like many other countries, have accumulated over decades regulations, you could call it over-regulations of many sectors and industries. I would say part of it is showing the way, but part of it is really a lot about just removing obstacles along the way that were posed by decades of government regulations and acknowledging that if these regulations are not removed, it could truly impede America's chances to win the AI race.Nuno G. PedroHow did we get here? Obviously, there was an executive order in January this year, 2025, on removing barriers to American leadership in AI, the directive being the US to become the world capital of AI, so to speak. We had this announcement at the White House in late July 2025, the White House AI summit, which set the stage for this, winning the AI race, America's AI action plan piece. That's how we got here in the first place. Shall we jump into the pillars and get into the meat of this?Bertrand SchmittYes. Maybe to finish on setting the context, what was interesting with this announcement, it was not done the usual way. It was more done in the context and format of a podcast co-hosted by Olin Podcast. Some of our listeners may know that David Sachs, who used to be part of the Olin podcast, is now the AI and crypto Czar of the White House.Nuno G. PedroYes. It was done with much pomp and circumstance in the good old days of empire-making in some ways. Let's jump into the first pillar, accelerating AI innovation. It feels like this pillar, there are a couple of interesting elements to it, but one of the key elements to it, I'd say the overarching element that we can see is removing onerous regulations that would hinder the development of AI. So, having a very light-touch regulatory approach and proactive support for AI development all across the board in terms of R&D, also across the elements of data that are put at the table. The plan apparently does call for the identification of rules to eliminate and even pre-empt state AI laws.Where the federal government would, in some ways, try to make sure that the state AI laws don't come in and destroy a lot of these elements. We've discussed some of the stuff in the past; if our listeners remember, we talked about this, several onerous laws that were put forward in particular in California. It feels that the federal government is, in this case, sort of saying, actually we have to go in and be top down about this, and we want to remove onerous regulations across the board and make sure that they're not put in place then by states.Bertrand SchmittI'm very excited by all of this. Removing red tape and onerous regulations, I think, is critical to move forward, especially at such an early stage where we don't really know where it's going to go. As you said, California was preparing some very onerous regulations. Luckily, they were not signed into law by the governor, Gavin Newsom. But I think that was a very clear signal that states might decide to go crazy. We need to do something about it.Personally, I think it's good to have the states being able to define some of their own regulation. But I would make an exception in the digital domain where things are pretty different across much more easily the borders. There is no border to the Internet in some ways. I think when it goes digital, it's a much bigger issue, especially at such an early stage. If you look at startup companies, they cannot deal with a plethora of state regulations depending on which state the user is in. This would be a nightmare, to be frank. Not just regulations, but the multitude of regulations state by state. Personally, I'm pretty excited about that.The other piece of the puzzle is, of course, repealing the previous administration's AI regulations that are just way too far-fetched, unnecessary, just going to hinder innovation. I'm very excited that this was removed, and I also believe they were a threat to free speech.Nuno G. PedroThere are elements here just to be a little bit even-handed, that we need to see how they play in action. One of them is this notion that this should not be acting as a Ministry of AI Truth, and that basically, there shouldn't be ideological bias, so to speak.There's been some mentions in general about preventing so-called woke AI, et cetera, et cetera, in federal use. It could go the other way as well. We know that a lot of the data out there has biases because of the way it was built. I think that part on the data side and the ideological bias side, interesting thoughts, put at the table in the plan. We'll need to see how it pans out. I still have at least a couple of concerns on that. The second element that I feel we have to be moderately optimistic about, we'll need to see how it pans out as well, is almost this notion of, if we eliminate almost all the key onerous regulations out there, that in some ways, self-regulation and market forces will compensate for us. We also know that that's not been historically true in many cases. We'll also need to see how that pans out.Obviously, just overregulating upfront, we've discussed it also in past episodes, like for example, the EU has done in the past, regulating upfront technologies without even understanding what the use cases are, is also not fruitful. It's also not good. The US has had a long history of being lighter on regulatory environment, which has served it well in terms of technology advancements.In this case, we'll need to see how the regulatory environment actually evolves. I'm also moderately optimistic on that topic, but we'll see how it actually evolves. It could be a big issue if we start seeing some elements of exaggeration in terms of how data is colle

Nintendo Switch, the Nokia 7110… what are the tech devices and gadgets that changed your life? How about you biggest disappointments?In this episode of Tech Deciphered, we will share ours. We look forward to hearing yours. Share on LinkedIn or via email or XNavigation:Intro (01:34)Tech That Changed Our LivesOur Worst Tech PurchasesReflection & TakeawaysConclusionOur co-hosts:Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmittNuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedroOur show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand SchmittWelcome to Tech Deciphered, episode 67. This will be a lighter episode as summer is upon us. We will discuss and talk about tech that changed our lives, as well as tech that disappointed.Some of you might know, some of you might not know, but both me and Nuno are tech nerds. We have played with tech most of our lives, always looking for the next available new piece of technology to use or collect. We are going to talk about that and maybe start on the positive side. The tech that changed our lives.Nuno Goncalves PedroI'm sure everyone has their stories. Even if you're not a nerd, there's going to be that piece of equipment, that mobile phone, that gaming console, that whatever, that dramatically changed you, made you more productive, or allowed you to do something that you'd never done before, et cetera.It's always an interesting conversation to have, and it creates a lot of wonderful memories. It brings you back to places, it brings you back to that moment where you bought the device, that first time that you used it, the experiences you had, some of them maybe actually, not necessarily positive. We'll come back to the worst tech purchases of all time. Shall I launch Austilities, Bertrand? Shall I tell my first one?Bertrand SchmittSure, Nuno, feel free.Nuno Goncalves PedroGood stuff. I'll start with maybe the one that I've had the longest memory on, which is the Philips Videopac. Now, many of you will have no clue what I'm talking about.Bertrand SchmittNo idea.Nuno Goncalves PedroThe Videopac. Even Bertrand, which is impressive. The Videopac was a video game console that worked with cartridges, launched obviously via Philips. I'm not sure if the one I had was actually from Philips, question mark. It was the same format and I remember it very fondly.It was really a gaming console with a little joystick. Very basic thing. The Videopac was actually launched first thing in '83. I'm not sure when I first started using it, but I suspect I was 7 or 8 years old, so that would have been a couple of years thereafter.I remember it fondly. We got it from Andorra. If you guys know, I was born in Portugal. Andorra is this small-owned country between Spain and France, and they had no sales taxes back then, so you'd go there and buy stuff really cheaply. I think that's what we bought when I went there with my parents.I remember it very fondly. I remember playing games on it. Strangely enough, I don't remember any of the games I played on it, but I remember it very fondly as one of my first computer experiences and stuff. That was pretty cool.Bertrand SchmittNice. I think in France. I'm not sure this one was available. At least it doesn't ring a bell. I think we had some Atari consoles in France. Me, actually, I didn't start with a console. I started with a regular computer. Not the PC kind. It was an Atari computer. Actually Atari 520ST, very popular in Europe.There was also Amiga that had similar computers. It was Motorola CPU 68000 if I remember. It was my first computer. Also, could be used for gaming, of course, 3.5-inch disk, if I remember well, some colors, I would say 320 times 200 pixels. It was great.It was a start for me of understanding computers, starting to program them. I might have started before actually to program computers, but it was not a computer I own. That was the first computer I owned. That was quite amazing at the time. I remember doing quite a bit with it.Nuno Goncalves PedroMy first computer was actually the Schneider Euro PC. I'd played before with the ZX Spectrum and with an Amstrad computer. Those did not belong to me. They were not my purchases. They were not for me. They belonged to my uncle.Bertrand SchmittNot the same.Nuno Goncalves PedroMy first one that I owned was the Schneider Euro PC. It's the first computer ever that I coded in. People probably don't remember Schneider at all. It was a computer division.Bertrand SchmittThey do washing machines.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt was a little keyboard with the floppy drive, and then you had to connect a monitor. I had to get a monitor. Mine was color. It was really cool. It's the first, as I said, first computer I ever coded on. I think that's the first code I ever wrote was in basic. I played games on it.There was this volleyball game, like beach volleyball game that I remember playing on it. It was really, really, really cool. Very fond memories of it. I still have that computer somewhere back in Portugal in storage. Probably the first defining computer experience for me.Bertrand SchmittDoes it still work?Nuno Goncalves PedroThat I do not know. I'm intrigued by it. I do not know. I suspect not, but because of wear and tear, but I'm not sure. It was last time I played with it. I don't know. Maybe it still does.Bertrand SchmittMaybe it does value as an antique, actually. You never know this kind of stuff.Nuno Goncalves PedroYes.Bertrand SchmittMy second big one was actually a handheld calculator, HP48X and then a later model, GX. The HP48 was really my entry, my start in the mobile computing world. It was amazing. For me, it Was my first computing device always in my pocket. It was in the mid-90s, I guess.It was great to do basic science, maths, physics, that sort of stuff. I also use it extensively to program in assembly language, which was not supported by HP. There was a small community of crazy people like me having fun programming in assemblies or their small handheld calculator doing stuff that was supposedly impossible to do on the calculator. The funny part is that some in our group ended up working for HP, developing the next follow on calculators for HP.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat's very, very cool. I have done HP48GX and I remember it fondly. I used it in college quite heavily. I did do some coding on it at some point in time. Very cumbersome device to do any coding on, but it was like the top of all the freaking calculators, graphical stuff, et cetera, et cetera. It's like an unfair advantage back then when computers weren't around.Bertrand SchmittMaybe one more point was a great RPL, the Reverse Polish Lisp language, which was very special to this model of HP. You have to enter your calculation in a very different way compared to the calculators. I love this approach of RPL.Nuno Goncalves PedroDefinitely an amazing device. Following up maybe with a couple of PCs from my end. Two that come to mind, the Compact Deskpro 386S. It was a 386 from Intel. Super overengineered device. Expensive as hell. When Compaq was in their heyday, it was like a pretty chunky desktop. Did a lot of stuff on it. It's where my coding evolved. A lot of desktop publishing, writing stuff, et cetera.It was a significant device for me. The other one, probably immediately thereafter was my first custom-made Tower PC. I bought a Tower, and then I had my own motherboard that I bought and my own hard drive and whatever. Making just work together was in and of itself complex. I remember that fondly as well.It's probably the first PC where I did heavy-duty gaming, the Deskpro being more the first that I did a lot of desktop publishing in. I remember the Tower one more because of gaming actually, shockingly enough. It went with me, I think through college, if I'm not mistaken, the tower one.Those two were my next PCs that I remember very, very, very fondly. Compaq went to hell at some point in time. They merged I think with someone. Was it Gateway or something more did they merge with?Bertrand SchmittI think so. Long ago.Nuno Goncalves PedroThey did go to hell at some point.Bertrand SchmittYes. I think they got killed by the new approach pushed by Dell to make computers on demand. Actually, I was also a customer of Compaq. My first PC was a Compaq. It was a Compaq laptop, Compaq 286 SLT. It was a huge brick. I was just checking £14. That was my first IBM compatible PC. That was great. Technically it was my dad's computer, but I was using it.Then like you, at some point I made my own tower PC. Did some PC gaming from that point as well, and other stuff, of course. When you make your first Tower, that's a special moment because you start to realize it's all adding components that work well together. That's a special stage in the journey.Nuno Goncalves PedroCompaq was bought for $25 billion in 2002 by HP. They were Texas-based as well, so was Dell. I think Compaq was global PC maker for a while, and then Dell overtook it, and the rest, as you said, is history.Maybe my next one was, I bought it, I think I was on vacation in England. I had saved some money and this was in the '90s still. I'm going back in time for my Tower PC, which was the SEGA Game Gear. I never had a Game Boy, actually. I played with other people's Game Boys, but I wanted like a graphics thing.I know this is going to be pissing off a bunch of people. I always preferred Sonic to Super Mario, so who would have said that I would become a race car driver? I always actually preferred it. I remember it for Sonic,...