Rory Sutherland

I don't think that was exactly for the models.

Okay.

Look, the odd thing is they have 30% of OpenAI, which is the largest single investor other than the employee trust.

But it's really interesting, despite that, I saw numbers, they're giving literally billions a year in revenue to Entropic now.

I think 500 million plus in revenue to Entropic.

So it's hard to imagine over the medium term being a major compute player without having access to some kind of model yourself, I think, as I think about it.

I don't think this is a game of risk, right?

Where, you know, the person who covers most of the board wins.

I think the logic for some of those folks doing chips was in part your defense of trying to provide some leverage on their purchases to NVIDIA.

And yeah, while Microsoft has that issue, maybe I'd argue this way.

It's okay to begrudge your spend with NVIDIA, but you should begrudge more the fact that you don't have an LLM.

If you think about it, if you're up here in the software stack, it's more important to own one level down, which is that model layer, than to kind of start to optimize around chips.

That would be a diversion from the core thing.

In the end, I was thinking, one of the big picture soundbites here is, time was Microsoft literally made 70% to 80% of all the profits made in software.

and they were probably 60% of the revenue.

Jason's right.

They're doing $320 billion this year, but it's possible that in a year or two, there will be one or maybe even two companies doing $50 or $100 billion in the software space, which is open AI and entropic.

And simply letting that happen is just not great.

Now you get some recompense because you own a third of OpenAI or 30% of OpenAI.

You have effectively the big dog position on the entire software industry and you could extract all the profits.