How many interviews with Mark do you think you watched before tonight?

Oh, to prepare?

Yeah.

30 to 40. The best ones are the '04 to '06 vintage, but they're all so different. It's almost like every three to four years is a new era that is markedly different from all the previous eras.

Totally. I think we might have witnessed the beginning of a new era right in front of us on stage. Oh, yes.

Absolutely.

All right. Should we do this?

Let's do it.

Who got the truth? Is it you? Is it you? Is it you? Who got the truth now?

Is it you? Is it you?

Is it you?

Sit me down, say it straight.

Another story on the way.

Who got the truth? Welcome to the fall 2024 season of Acquired, the podcast about great companies and the stories and playbooks behind them. I'm Ben Gilbert.

I'm David Rosenthal.

And we are your hosts. Listeners, we have something very special for you today, our interview with Mark Zuckerberg from Acquired Live at Chase Center. Mark is the iconic founder CEO of our time, and this conversation was just too good to hold on to any longer. So we are getting it out quickly before we release the full video of the entire show.

Which, speaking of the full show, was utterly amazing. We had surprise appearances from Jensen Wong, Daniel Eck, Emily Chang, and of course, we had the one and only Mike Taylor, the artist who sings Who Got the Truth, performing live. It was incredible. We've got basically a whole film production that's now happening behind the scenes with another 90 minutes of content beyond just this Mark interview. We should have that out in the next couple of weeks, so stay tuned for that.

First, though, a huge thank you to our partners this season. You know our presenting partner, J. P. Morgan Payments.

And we are also pumped to have two more great returning sponsors this season, Statsig, the world's first product acceleration platform that thousands of companies from OpenAI to Series A startups, rely on to ship fast, learn more, and make smart decisions. You can find out more about them at statsig. Com/acquired.

Sounds a lot like meta. And Cruso, which is the world's best climate-aligned AI cloud and data center operator that is leading the industrial buildout of AI. Find out more about them at cruiso. Ai/acquired. As always, come discuss this afterwards with us in the Slack, acquired. Fm/slack. If you want to be notified when every new episode drops, sign up at acquired. Fm/email.

All right. One more thing before the interview. We need to say a huge, huge thank you to the entire J. P. Morgan Payments team for securing the Chase Center for this, for orchestrating the entire evening. Our partnership this year has been absolutely incredible and gone, I think, way beyond what either of us ever could have imagined.

Yeah, for those who don't know about J. P. Morgan Payments, they empower businesses to accept money, hold money, send money, protect money from fraud, and gain unique insights from money flows to help your company grow.

Yup. And the payments business, specifically, like most things at J. P. Morgan, is the largest and most trusted payments provider in the entire world. They move $10 trillion a day. That's almost 25% of all US dollar payment flows in the global economy. Pretty much every single company that we cover on Acquired works with J. P. Morgan payments in some way. You can never outgrow them. They partner with startups and small companies like us like you would be, Ben, all the way up to the largest enterprises in the Fortune 500.

We've got more to share about their new payments, products, and technologies this season, like the pay-by-face biometric payments that we saw live at Chase Center.

Yeah, that was super cool.

Yeah, so that you can learn which may be the right fit to solve your payments challenges and grow your business.

The other thing we got to say is Ben and I really worked side by side all year with their incredible team to make this evening happen. We really got to know them: Max, Umar, Dustin, Hannah, Vinnie, nick, Amy, Carly, and so many others. It's like we were one team. You guys rock.

Yeah, for the first time, we actually got to experience what it would be like if Acquired was a large, world-class organization and not just our little team. What happened at Chase Center is really the physical embodiment of that.

Thank you guys for being the best partners we could ever imagine. A very special shout out to Dustin Sedgwick, J. P. Morgan Payment CMO, who's a long-time listener of the show and a good friend of ours. He's just been the driving force behind all of this. Without him, Chase Center wouldn't have happened. We're so grateful for our incredible relationship with you and all of J. P. Morgan. Yeah.

So please enjoy our conversation with Mark Zuckerberg and to take us in, the chairman and CEO of J. P. Morgan Chase, Jamie Dimon.

Hello, Acquired listeners. Welcome to Chase Center and to Acquired Live. I'm Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of J. P. Morgan Chase. I'm happy to kick off the show tonight and welcome all of you to one of my favorite arenas. It's been a great partnership all year between J. P. Morgan Payments and Acquired, storytelling and educating about some of the greatest companies in the world. For many of them, just like many of you in the crowd, we're thrilled to call you friends and partners of the firm. Sorry I couldn't be there in person tonight, but I hope everyone enjoys the show. Ben and David, over to you.Mark.Hi..

It's great to have you here.

It's great to be here. I was watching Jensen's video, Correcting the Record, and I was thinking to myself, we might need to book the next one of these for all the things I'm going to have to apologize for that I'm going to say tonight. No, just kidding. I don't apologize anymore.

We've noticed.

Okay, wait, here's the question. If you knew what you knew today... What's up? If you knew what know today, would you have started Facebook?

Oh, God. I mean, look, I think...

Coming out hot, David.

Yeah, I mean...

He started it, literally.

I think there's something to Jensen's original sentiment, which is that The entrepreneurial journey is very challenging, especially the early days when you're running a startup and there's the sense that what you're doing could just die at any moment. The volatility, everything is just getting thrashed so much. Obviously, you look back, you have all these fond memories, but it was not the most fun part of the journey or the part of my life that I wish I could go back and relive. I do think that there's something to what Jensen was saying that I thought was very honest, and that when I heard him say it the first time, I was like, Yeah, I get that. I think there were a lot of people for whom if you knew painful it would be along the way you wouldn't get started. But then I think that that's one of the things that's good about human nature is you can underestimate how painful things are going to be, so that way you can go and do good things.

Well, on that topic, we have a lot to talk about. I think this is actually very appropriate. First, we have to ask you about your shirt and what you're wearing.

Yeah. I started working with people to design some my own clothes. I figured, Look, we're going to design eyewear, we're going to design other stuff that people wear. Let's get good at this. This one, actually, I worked with this great fashion designer, Mike Amiri, and he's got a great story. I wouldn't be surprised if you were doing one of these with him one Okay. This one is… I've started working on this series of shirts with some of my favorite classical sayings on them. This one is Pothémathos, Learning through suffering. It's a little family saying and also Escalus.

Was that your family saying growing up or is that your family now? I'm just doing my sister's thing.

Well, no, let's pull that thread. No pun intended, I promise. What does learning through suffering mean to you?

Well, I think you learn what matters to you and what's important and your place in the world through repeatedly hitting your head against different challenges. I think that that's the journey. I mean, that's the entrepreneurial journey. It's also, I think, part of the beauty of building things. But this is something that Jensen talks a lot about, too. I feel like when you go to start a company, everyone writes down what they would like their values to be. But values are not what you write down on the wall. It's like your lived behaviors. You only really learn what you care about when you have to make hard trade offs and face challenges. So, yeah, you learn the most important things through facing challenges.

Well, speaking of facing challenges, we want to talk about a number of those because we counted. By our count, I think you have faced more existential challenges than any meaningful company in history through your first 20 years. First, though…

It's a dubious distinction.

We will make our case to of why and enumerate them. You're still here. But first…

I think that old Nike Michael Jordan ad where he's talking about how he's failed over and over and over again, and that's how he succeeds. That one really resonates with me, too.

So thanks to you guys, I got a pair of these this summer, and I genuinely love them. Tell us the story of how these came to be.

Yeah, so Thanks. I'm excited about them, too. In Metta, we've been building social experiences for 20 years now. Originally, it took the form of a website than mobile apps. But the thing is, I never thought about us as a social media company. We're not a social app company. We are a social connection company. We talk about what we're doing is building the future of human connection. And that's not only going to be constrained over time to what you can do on a phone, right on a small screen. So when you think about when we got started, we're like a handful of kids. We weren't able, we didn't have the resources at the time to go define whatever the next computing platform is. And also Facebook originally got started around the same time as a bunch of the early smartphones and those platforms got started. So we didn't really get to play any role in developing that platform. One of the big themes, I think, for the next chapter of what we do is I want to be able to build what I think are the ideal experiences, not just what you're allowed to build on some platform that someone else built, but what is actually, if you can think from first principles, what is the ideal social experience?

I think what you would like to have is not a phone that you look down at that takes your attention away from the things and the people around you, not just a small screen. I think what you ideally have is glasses. Through the glasses, there's one part of it where the glasses you can They can see what you see and they can hear what you hear. In doing so, they can be the perfect AI assistant for you because they have context on what you're doing. But then part of that is also that the glasses can project images, basically like holograms, out into the world. That way, your social experiences with other people aren't constrained to these little interactions you can have on a phone screen. In the not-so-distant future, you can imagine, because you guys have demoed some of the stuff that we've done, a version of this where we're having a conversation like this, but maybe one of us isn't even here. They're just like a hologram and we have glasses. There's the question of delivering a realistic sense of presence. There's something magical in the realm of building social experiences around the feeling of human presence and being there with another person and this physical perception where we're very physical beings.

People like to intellectualize everything, but a lot of our experience is very physical. This physical sense of presence that you are with another person doing things in the physical world is something that you're going to be able to do through holograms, through glasses, without being taken away from whatever else you're doing. Just have that mixed in with the rest of the world. It's going to be, I think, the ultimate digital social experience. I think it's also going to be the ultimate incarnation of AI because you're going to have conversations where it's like, All right, there's some people. It's like maybe I'm physically here. There's a person, you're like a hologram there. There's an AI that is embodied as someone is there. The glasses will enable this. Okay, so how are we going after this, building this? This is like some huge project. We've been working on it for 10 years, and there are a lot of different challenges to solve to get there. You have to build a novel display stack. These aren't just screens, the kinds that are in phones. There's this long lineage. They're connected to the screens that have been in TVs and monitors and things for a long time.

There's been this massive optimization of the supply chain. There's like brand new display stack around holographic displays that basically need to get created. Then they need to be put into glasses. They need to be miniaturized. You also in the glasses need to fit chips, microphones, speakers, cameras, eye tracking to be able to understand what you're doing, batteries to make it last all day.

Operate on new novel RF protocols.

It's a pretty big challenge. We're like, All right, let's go try to go for the big thing. We've been working on that for a while, and we're pretty close to being able to show off the first prototype that we have of that, and I'm really excited about that. At the same time, we also came at it from this lens of, All right, so that's a lot of new technology that needs to get developed, a lot to pack into a form factor because the glasses have to be good-looking, too. What if we just constrain ourselves to we're going to work with a great partner, Essilor Luxottica? They make Rayban, they make a lot of the iconic glasses. Let's see what we can fit into glasses and make them as useful as possible. I actually thought when we were getting started with those that it was almost like a practice project for the ultimate AR.

Which, let's be clear, that's what you thought Facebook was.

That's true.

Yeah, I did. For your real startup someday.

That's true. No, let's go on a tangent there for a second. When I started Facebook in school, came out to Silicon Valley with Dustin and a handful of people working on it at the time. We did that because Silicon Valley is where all the startups came from. I remember we got off the plane, we were driving down 101. We're like, Wow, eBay, Yahoo. This is amazing. All these great companies. One day, maybe we'll build a company like this. I'd already started Facebook, and I was like, Surely the project that we're working on now is not a company.

Facebook had some scale at this point.

No, it was a great project. I just didn't have the ambition to turn it into a company at the time. That just happened. But anyway. Yeah, a lot of hard work, obviously. But just at the time, I was like, Yeah, I don't think this is it.

Well, that's your answer of would you have started... You actually didn't try to start Facebook.

I didn't know. The glasses, though, we thought that this was like, all right, we want to get working with Estalora Luxottica so we can start building more and more advanced glasses. Then They're really good. They look good. And then AI, the massive transformation in AI.

For listeners, let's just be really clear. You guys shipped this product that I'm holding before LLMs, or at least before the public consciousness was aware of the ChatGPT moment, and these were not manufactured and shipped as an AI device. That came later when they were already in market.

Yeah, a few years ago, I would have predicted that AR holograms would have been available before full scale AI. And now I think it's probably going to be the other order. So now it's like, all right, great. Well, this is actually a great product because it's got the cameras so it can see what you see. It's got the microphone, It's got the speakers, you can talk to it. I remember calling Alex Himmel, the guy who runs the product group. That's exactly the story. I'm like, Hey, I think we should probably pivot this and make it so that meta-AI is the primary feature of it. Then I remember I came in the next week and they'd build a prototype of it on Tuesday, and it was like, All right, good. Yeah, no, this is good. This is going to be a very successful product.

He told us a much more high-stakes version of that story.

I was on the highway with my kids, and I get this call on a Saturday from Mark, and he's like, Those glasses, could we put meta AI in them running on device and ship that soon so we can see if that's a good idea or not?

Yeah, that tracks. That's what I just said. Sounds right.

Okay, so thank you for opening up with a story. The question that I would like to try to answer tonight is why has Meta worked as spectacularly well as it has? I mean, one of the most valuable companies in the world, through multiple iterations, multiple technology waves, fighting off, maybe, let's name all the waves which people said, oh, Facebook and meta are so screwed, and yet that is not the way it looks today.

Myspace, Twitter Gen1, Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, TikTok, Apple, app tracking, transparency. You could put in its own whole category. And now ChatGPT.

That's nine. There is a widely held public narrative every single time Snapchat discover stories, or there's something where people are like, oh, the cool thing that Facebook, the company did is just obsolete now, and they're going to go away. You very much haven't gone away. What do you think is the through line of the DNA of the company that allows you to keep winning?

I think it's that we're a technology company that is focused on human connection, not not a specific type of app. We never thought about ourselves as a website or a social network or anything like that. For me, building this glasses to enable the future of people being able to feel present with another person, no matter where they actually physically are, is the natural continuation of the apps that we build today. But it depends on how you define what you are. Then you need to figure out, well, how do you How do you give yourself the competence to actually go do that? That's where I think being a strong technology company comes in. Because a lot of companies, I think, think about themselves too narrowly in terms of, okay, well, we're this one thing. The reason why we can build all these things is because we have a really strong technology foundation. Some of that is just me and how I think about stuff. I was an engineer before I got started. I mostly took systems engineering type classes when I was in college. You talk about friends during my space and all the scaling challenges they had doing the graph calculations of like, all right, do you know this person?

Should you show them their page? Friends of friends of friends.

Yeah. Actually, Can you take us back? We want to ask you the story of that time. I mean, it seems quaint now, friendster in my space, but you study computer science, graph, networking, social graphs. That is a very, very difficult computational calculation.

I think it's a combination of a product question and a technology question. I think you can define the product in such a general way that the technology becomes basically impossible to solve. You want to have a smart product definition mission, but then you want to be competent and better than everyone else at the technology. I think that that's something that we've held ourselves to and build a good organization around. It's one of the things that I observed as soon as I came out to the valley, that all these companies that called themselves technology companies were not really set up that way. The companies I was talking about, it's like the CEO wasn't technical, the board of directors had no one technical on it. They had one dude on the management team who was the head of engineering who was technical and everyone else wasn't. It's like, All right, if that's your team, then you're not a technology company. I think one of the things that I've always been pretty careful about is I actually want a lot of the people on our management team, it's split to mostly people running either these big product groups who come up through different technical pathways of the company.

I think that there's a balance. It's like, you don't want everyone to be an engineer because there's other things that matter, too. But if you don't have enough of your share of the company as engineers, then you're not a technology company. I think that that also is important to the board. I think just in terms of how you weigh decisions and culturally things inside the company matters a lot. But I think that that's one of the things that has been really fundamental. It's like we're able to go from platform to platform and do these different things because we've invested and cared about the underlying technology. The product experiences that we build on top of that are an implementation, and they matter. For that, I think we also, I think, are a pretty curious and learning-focused organization. Where I view the product strategy less as any one specific thing and more as how do we iterate and learn as quickly as possible how to make each thing better for the people we're trying to serve. I define our strategy as we can learn faster than every other company, we're going to win. We're going to build a better product than everyone else because we're going to get it out first or early.

We're going to have We're going to have a good feedback loop. We're going to get a bunch of feedback. We're going to learn what people like better than other people. Then over time, by the time you get to, whether it's version 3 or 4 or 5, they're not even discrete versions because you ship so frequently. You just you learn faster. I know that's basically the formula. Be a technology company, build good foundation, learn from what people are focused on in the world, and just iterate as quickly as you can.

In one of my research calls to prep this, someone described you as a master strategist, which we all acknowledge that at this point, but that the-I mean, except for all the stuff that I just thought was not going to be that important, that ended up actually being the most important.

But you're very generous. But that's the thing. Part of it is like, okay, you want to set up the game so that way you optimize, you create your luck.

This is what Jensen told us. The apple is going to fall from the tree in some direction. If you just set up the game that you have a hand close enough to catch it.

The comment that someone made to me was, the reason Mark is such a good strategist is because he plays the company as if it's a turn-based strategy game, and he just makes sure he gets more turns than anybody else, and he makes sure that he learns more from each turn than the next player does. Do you feel like that encapsulates like, Metta's product development?

I do like turn-based strategy.

But it does feel like the way that you make bets is like, well, if we have great engineering, then that can take care of the speed part. That's like many iterations or multiple at-bats. And then the...

Well, great engineering and speed and duration are actually two different values. They're not necessarily at odds, but I think there are a lot of great engineering organizations that try to build things that are super high quality and have good competence around that. But there's a certain personality that goes with taking taking your stuff and putting it out there before it's fully polished. Look, I'm not saying that our strategy or approach on this is the only one that works. I think in a lot of ways, we're the opposite of Apple, and clearly, their stuff has worked really well, too. But they take this approach. It's like, We're going to take a long time. We're going to polish it. We're going to put it out. Maybe for the stuff that they're doing that works, maybe that just fits with their culture. But for us, I think that there are a lot of conversations that we have internally where you're almost at the line of being embarrassed about what you put out because it's obviously not in the sense that it's like... You want to You want to put stuff out early enough so you can get good feedback.

You obviously want to test things that are reasonable hypotheses. If it's so ineffective, then you're not testing a good hypothesis. That doesn't work. But I do think a lot of the conversations that we have are like, Okay, well, we can get this to be a lot better if we work on it for another couple of months or whatever. I do just think that you want to really have a culture that values shipping and getting things out and getting feedback more than needing always to get great positive accolades from people when you put stuff out. Because I think if you want to wait until you get praised all the time, you're missing a bunch of the time when you could have learned a bunch of useful stuff and then incorporated that into the next version you were going to ship.

It's just about making sure that what the thing that the company is known for or its brand can withstand all the little damage that you do to it by shipping stuff that's not quite ready.

Well, I would like to hope that it's not damaging to the brand.

But innately, it is. When you're like, Oh, I feel bad because I shipped a product that wasn't good enough, you're...

Yeah, no, I don't want to overstate it. I mean, we don't ship things that we think are bad, but we also We want to make sure that we're shipping things that are early enough that we can get good feedback to see what they're going to be most used for. I think a lot of the AI stuff that we're building now, for example, it's pretty clear that AI is going to be transformative for a lot of different things. It is actually less clear what are going to be the initial use cases for a lot of these things that are super valuable. Okay, part of it is like, okay, you put something out, you want to collect feedback on what people are, where it's resonating. Now, if what you put out is bad, then you're not going to collect good data because people aren't going to use it for anything because it sucks. But I do think that you have hypotheses for what people might really want to use it for. They're not all going to be right, and you want to go early enough on that as more...

I'm building to this question of, to you, is product creation an act of invention or discovery? Is David always inside that marble, and you just need the very best tooling and ability to get things in market and get feedback to discover the statue of David? Or do you conceive of David in your head and I'm like, I'm going to make this and put it in the world?

Does it have to be one or the other? I think it's a combination. I think you're basically taking some values, either values that you have or a value for something that you believe should exist in world and trying to build something that's aligned with that while trying to match it up with what is going to resonate the most with people. I think if you just do the latter, then I think you just don't have enough conviction to see through hard things. If you just do the former, then you probably don't get to product-market fit or optimize what you do because you're not focused enough on your customers. I think both probably matter. Yeah.

As I pour through all these historical examples, the market discovers, some other participant in the market discovers the stories format, and suddenly the whole world is like, Oh, my God, that is the way that we all... That's the social interaction mechanism. And that's a pretty pure discovery where you have products that have stories. They perform very well. That's been discovered. But there's other times it feels like everything you're trying to do in reality labs, all 50 plus billion dollars that you've put into it is we're going to freaking will this thing into existence because I have an idea of the way that I want the world to be. I'm not really asking for that much feedback. I'm putting it in the world.

Well, it's a combination. I think that there's certainly a lot of things that we've invented or created for the first time. I mean, in 2006, when we built the first version of news feed, before that, social networks were basically profiles. And then we were like, Hey, people actually want to get the updates, and let's show them that. If we rank them, then we can... There's so many updates that this can help people parse through that quickly. Today, it's hard to imagine any social product without a feed. I think that that's obviously... Some of these things are seminal I don't want to call it an invention, but patterns that we basically established first. Then some of them are ones that other people did, where we take pride in learning from what is working in the world. We're not embarrassed about learning from things that other people discovered that were good first, and then we build the better version of it. I think that that's... No one company is going to invent everything. I think if you don't invent anything, then it's hard to be a successful company. But I do think that there's a mix of this.

There are more smart people outside of your company than inside your If you're not learning from what's going on in the market, then you're missing a lot of opportunities to get valuable signal from people in the community and customers about what they want you to be doing.

Which speaks to the thesis of Facebook as a technology company. Meta. Meta is a technology company. We'll get to that later. Ben and I have been having a conversation. I want to take this to open source and open source technology and its importance to you. Ben posited, first to me and then to many other people in our calls over the last couple of weeks, that Meta has been the largest beneficiary of open source technology in the modern world. I'm curious if you would agree with that and if you would comment on your relationship to open source.

I think almost all of the major technology companies at this point are primarily using open source stocks. Yeah, we wouldn't have been able to get built without open source. I think probably that's true for any new company that's been created since the late 1990s or something. For us, open source has been important and valuable.

You were the first big company built on the Lamp stack.

Yeah, it's great. It makes it super easy to develop stuff quickly and iterate quickly. But we've also had an interesting relationship with this because sequentially as a company, we came after Google. So Google was the first of the great companies that built this distributed computing infrastructure. So they came first. They were like, All right, let's keep this proprietary because it's a big advantage for us. And then we're like, All right, we need that, too. But we built it, and then we're like, Okay, not an advantage for us because Google already has that. So we might as well just make it open. And by making it open, then you basically get this whole community of people building around it. So it wasn't going to help us compete with Google for any of the stuff that we were doing to have that technology. But what we were able to do with things like Open Compute were get it to become the industry standard. So now you have all these other cloud service platforms that basically use Open Compute. Because of that, the supply chain is standardized around our designs, which means that it's way more supply, way cheaper to produce.

We save billions of dollars, and the quality of the stuff that we get to use goes up. All right, that's like a win-win. But I think in order for this to work, we do a lot of open-source stuff, we do a lot of closed-source stuff. I'm not like a zealot on this. I think open-source is very valuable, but I also think it makes sense for us because of our position in the market. The same for AI. I'm in a Rwanda.

Okay, this is where we were going with this.

Yeah, it's a similar deal. We want to make sure that we have access to a leading AI I think just like we want to build the hardware so that we can build the best social experiences for the next 20 years, I don't think that... For us, it's like we've been through too much stuff with the other platforms to fully depend on anyone else. We're a big enough company at this point that we don't have to. We can build our own core technology platforms, whether that's going to be AR glasses or mixed reality or AI. I think that's somewhat of an imperative for us to go do that. But these things are not pieces of software that are monolithic. They're ecosystems. They get better when other people use them. For us, there's a huge amount of good, and it philosophically lines up with where we are. We're like, I mean, I definitely, firsthand, have a lot of experiences. We were trying to build stuff on mobile platforms, and the platforms are just like, No, you can't build that. That's frustrating.

Can we take a real quick detour? What's up? I really want to ask you something.

We can take a detour. Okay.

You took a detour, we're going to take a detour. Help us with our research here. The Eve of the IPO.

This is quite a detour.Quite.

A detour.

David, did you just-I'm really grabbing the wheel here.

Is this connected or did you just decide that it was your turn to talk.

I'm sorry. I was really wound up. I know.

Open source and AI.

We are right in our small house.

I think it's related. I do. I really genuinely do. Face Facebook on mobile is HTML5.

In 2012.

Yeah. I want to ask you what you were thinking going into the IPO with Facebook on mobile being HTML5. What happened, you IPO at $100 billion market cap. Over the next three months, you have a 50% drawdown, probably because of that. But I guess the related question to what we're talking about now is, how much is that informing your approach here with AI?

It was a pretty different technical issue. Our legacy was building on web for websites, and we were very used to building one thing and being able to continuously deploy it, and it fits with our iteration style and all that. So now all of a sudden this app model comes along and it's like we have to build different ones for each phone, and you have to go through approval to get it shipped, and we have to wait weeks before it can ship. It's like, this sucks. So we're like, all right, we have an idea. Let's build this platform where we can get a web-based platform. So you basically build a native shell and you build this web-based platform in it, and we'll be able to just update our apps every day and we'll ship one thing once and we'll update our apps across Android and iPhone and Blackberry and Windows Mobile and all the stuff that existed at the time because it hadn't gotten consolidated yet. We're like, that's We're basically, whatever downside we are going to have from not having the most native thing, we're going to make up for in velocity and by having way more of our energy focused on one platform.

Well, we were wrong. It turned out that having the native integration was actually critical for having the interactions feel good. We basically went through this period where we had to go rewrite our apps from scratch. That coincided started with mobile growing dramatically. And mobile, we didn't have any revenue because it may seem like it's pretty similar, but there's a very big difference. On desktop, you basically have the app and you have a column on the side that we could put ads. And on mobile, we needed to figure out what does it mean to put ads into the experience.

Let's be clear, the feed ad had not been invented.

The ad unit of our time. That was the thing that the team did. And advertisers have specific formats that they like working with. The idea that we were just going to be like, All right, now your ad is going to look like a feed story, was a big challenge for advertisers. The idea that now for people, you were going to have this organic feed that was the most important part of the product, and now we're just going to start putting ads in it, was a challenge for the people who are using the product. We needed to figure that out, and we needed to get the apps to be better. We basically took, I think it must have been a year or something, we were just like, Look, we're going to pause development of the company because it's hard enough to do a rewrite. If you look at the history of the tech industry, there are all these examples like Netscape and all these things that they tried to do a rewrite. They needed to reestablish their technical platform, and they also tried to add features. They basically just never terminated. That's a real risk when you're completely changing your underlying platform that you're going to miss it.

I was like, All right, we got to minimize the chance that that happens. We're not going to ship any new features. We're just going to rewrite it, make it faster. But while we're doing this, basically mobile is growing. So the % of our traffic that is monetizable is shrinking because web is basically shrinking and mobile is growing.

And that's your only business model.

Yeah, and I was like, all right.

And you're now recently quarterly reporting.

The thing is, it was actually pretty clear what we needed to do. I think strategically, a lot of the time, it's somewhat harder to know what to do when you're winning. When stuff is going well, it's like, what is the next move to go from winning to winning more? But when you're losing, it's usually pretty clear what you have to do. I think a lot of it is just, do you have the pain tolerance to go do it? A lot of this was like, all right, the team was like, okay, well, we're going public and investors really aren't going to like this if we are not making money for a year and a half. It's like, well, a A Year and a half is short in the grand scheme of things. Let's do this. We did it, and it was a painful year and a half. Then we came out of that and we were in great shape. I think people inside the company had felt a lot better sooner because it was pretty clear to people that we were doing the right thing. They knew that we were executing in a responsible way. It basically focused and we're doing the right thing.

But I think it's actually when you have something that's working well and you're on one local hill and you need to jump to another hill, that's the stuff that's really culturally hard. But this one, I think, it was not fun. There have been a series of periods throughout the company that were not, I don't know, not the most fun periods. Although that one, in retrospect, looks pretty good in retrospect. It's not that bad. It's like your market cap only got cut in half for a year and a half. Great. Great. Yeah, I'll take that.

Anyway, where were we? So David asked, Hey, can you help with our research? Can I follow that thread that you just said, Hey, that one wasn't so bad. There's been a lot of amazing things the company has done. There's also been a lot of criticism. If you were to be self-critical of your own company, of your own creation, of all the criticisms that have happened over the years, which do you believe is the most legitimate and why?

There's so many things that we've messed up that there are many criticisms that are legitimate. But if that was a year and a half mistake, I think one of the things I reflect on over the last 10 years or so was the political environment just changed dramatically. It's like before 2016, there was not a month that went by, except for maybe this IPO period, where the sentiment about the company was anything but positive. Then after 2016, after the election, basically, there was not a month for a while where the sentiment about the company was positive. I think so much of this stuff is correctly understanding your place in the world and in history. We talked about before how it's like, I think we understood that we are a technology company and that you have to be a technology company to build this thing. I think we understood that we're not a social network company, we're a human connection company, and that will take different forms over time. The political environment, I think I didn't have much sophistication around, and I think I just fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem. I think that there was this basic challenge, and there were a lot of things.

I don't want to simplify this too much. There were a lot of things that we did wrong, there were some things that we did right. But I think one of the things that I look back on regret is I think we accepted other people's view of some of the things that they were asserting that we were doing wrong or were responsible for that I don't actually think we were. No, there are a lot of things we did mess up and we needed to fix. But I think that there's this view where when you're a company and someone says that there's an issue, I think the right instinct is to take ownership for it. Say, okay, maybe it's not all our thing, but we're going to fully own this problem. We're going to take responsibility for it. We're going to fix it. But when it's a political problem, I actually think a lot of the time, sometimes there are people who are operating in good faith who are identifying a problem that wants something to be fixed, and there are people who are just looking for someone to blame. I think to some degree, if you take responsibility for things because you think it's a corporate crisis, not a political crisis, and your view is like, Okay, I'm going to take responsibility for all this stuff.

People are basically blaming social media and the tech industry for all these different things in society. And if we're saying, Okay, we're going to really do our part to go fix this stuff. I know there were a bunch of people who just took that and were like, Oh, you're taking responsibility for that? Let me kick you for more stuff. And honestly, I think we should have been firmer and clearer about which of the things we actually felt like we had a part in and which ones we didn't. My guess is if the IPO was a year and a half mistake, I think that the political miscalculation was a 20-year mistake. It started in 2016, and I think that we have been working super hard to fix a lot of issues and to figure out what the right tone is for navigating what is a very fraught political cycle dynamic across both the country and multiplied across all these places around the world. I think we've found our footing on what the principles are, where we think we need to improve stuff, but where people make allegations about the impact of the tech industry or our company, which are just not founded in any fact that I think we should push back on harder.

I think it's going to take another 10 years or so for us to fully work through that cycle before our brand and all of that is back to the place that it maybe could have been if I hadn't messed that up in the first place. But look, in the grand scheme of things, 20 years isn't that bad either. We'll get through it, and I think we'll come out stronger. But I do think that is one of the more interesting critiques that I think people got. We get critiques on both sides on that. There are people who don't think we've taken enough responsibility. But I think certainly there's one line of critique, which is you bought into too much of the stuff that you shouldn't have. I think it's going to take us a long time to dig out about.

Do you have a reasonable framework at this point for like, Okay, here's the stuff where I feel like we actually do want to take responsibility for it. Here's the stuff where we're like, No, that's not our fault.

Yeah. At this point, I think a lot of this stuff has been studied. I don't want to go rehash all the different things, but I think at this point, there's been years of academic research on a lot of these things. Part of the thing that's challenging, and one of the things that we've learned, is we actually should be trying to support more academics and doing more of this research ahead of time. Because when you get to a point where you're being accused of something, you're not super credible. Just standing up yourself and being like, I don't think we did this one. But what has worked over time is you do the research in advance and you get third-party academics, respected folks who get to debate all these different issues. Then it's like, Oh, no, actually, the evidence just does not show that social media is correlated with this harm at all. I think that it cuts both ways.

To me, this brings up another topic we wanted to talk about with you, and you just said 20 years isn't that long.

I'm young.

You're young. We all are.

This is the advantage of being a college dropout founder.

When you start when you're 19, it's like, Hopefully we more than 20 years long.

Hopefully, you have like, Buffett duration.

Yeah, hopefully.

You set up the company in a, especially at the time, truly unique way, where you can operate the company and take that approach.

Do you mean Supervoting shares?

Supervoting shares is the technical aspect. I think there are a bunch of technical aspects to it that we're not going to get into in this conversation. But effectively, you can take that perspective in a that if you are a CEO, non founder, without a structure that you've set up, you just can't. I think in doing all the research for this, a thesis we've developed is that that is just one of the core fundamental advantages that Meta has. As you were setting up the company when you were so young, even when you went public, you were so young, why was that so important to you?

Well, in 2006, Yahoo wanted to buy the company for a billion dollars, and everyone on our management team wanted to sell it, and the board tried to fire me. Basically, in the next year, everyone else on the management team left because I hadn't done a good job communicating. I don't want to blame them. I hadn't done a good job communicating the long-term vision because I wasn't thinking about that at the time. I wasn't thinking in terms of this as a company. I was like, This is a great project. It's awesome. A lot of people like what we're doing. I think this will probably continue for a while. I think it's going to be pretty important in the world. But I I didn't know how to think in terms of long-term financial plans.

Make the case to them why it would be worth more than a billion.

Yeah, or just like, Look, we're doing this for the long term. We're not planning on selling the company. It's like, without having made that case, it was understandable that basically, Yahoo comes around. A lot of people, it's like, this is all their startup dreams come true. You got to take this offer. Because I just wasn't in a place where I had the sophistication to basically articulate a lot of the stuff around where we were going longer term. It probably wasn't super confidence-inspiring to them when I was like, Hey, I think we should turn this down because we're going to do this. After that, I was like, All right, well, I don't want to get fired from my own company for wanting to build it, so let's try to set up a governance structure that makes it somewhat harder to do that. Learning through suffering.

Wow. And being very cash-generative very early such that you had a very real-going concern on your hands, and you just didn't need to cut off your arm and sell it to someone in order to build your business.

Yeah, totally.

I think this is a fundamentally misunderstood thing about Facebook, the startup. It is the prototypical startup.

You are the iconic startup founder.

Of this century. And there's a lot of people that want to start a startup for a lot of the glamorous reasons of starting a startup. You hated being a startup and wanted to stop being a startup as fast as possible and be a going concern.

Yeah, I mean, I think we're having a lot more fun now. It's good to work on all the stuff. It's awesome.

What is your advice to all these founders who romanticize the idea of starting a company and raising all this money?

Obviously, starting a company is not bad. I think that there's different schools of thought on how to do it. I think some people think, Okay, I want to go start a company, so I'm going to go dive into this idea. I just think that that's a little bit dangerous because there's this issue, which is you have to be able to be nimble and pivot around until you can figure out what works. Part of the reason why I didn't think Facebook was going to be the company early on was because when I was in school, I built 12 different things that were just things that I wanted to exist. I was like, All right, this is fun. Okay, let's build another thing. It's like, Okay, this one's fun. People are still using that. I'll help up, keep this one. But I had a bunch of other ideas for stuff I was going to build, too. I didn't know how to think about what a company was going to be. There's something about maintaining flexibility that's helpful. Once you hire a bunch of people, it's a lot easier when you could just have meetings in your own head about what direction you want to go in.

There's a lot less pride and people dug in when you're just like, Okay, I'm going to change direction. It's like people haven't invested their ego in like, No, we were going in this direction, and now I must be convinced. It's like, No, I just... I do think that that's a thing where you want to keep things lean and be able to do that. That's one of the reasons why we tried to get the company back to being whatever the leanest version of a large company is that we can be. But I do think that there's something to that, where it's obviously not super fun not having the resources to do what you want to do. But I think it also is problematic to have more people working on something than you should have for the stage that it's at, because then the people who are working on it don't have the agency to actually make the changes and do the things that they need to, which is less fun. Then you can't attract the best people to go work on those things because it's less fun. I do think you just have to dial it right.

You're spending a gajillion dollars on Reality Labs It's a technical term. It's not making that much money. So I'm going to play Mark back to you. Sure. It's not appropriate to have all these people and resources working on things for more than the stage warrants. I'm being a little facetious here, but I'm curious why you categorize it differently.

I think some of the stuff by the time you're at the scale that we're at is also just about what do you want to do over the next 10 to 20 years and what do you think are going to be important? We were talking about making your own luck and all that and how... I think there are some broad strokes that we can have a sense of where things are going. I'm pretty sure glasses and holographic presence and AR is going to be a completely ubiquitous product. It's just like everyone had a phone before Or replaced it with a smartphone, and then a lot of more people got smartphones. If all we get is all the people in the world who already have glasses upgrading to glasses that have AI in them, then this is already going to be one of the most successful products in the history of the world. I think It's going to go a lot further than that. I know there's that. There is the thing about controlling our own destiny. It's strategically valuable. We did this calculation or estimate at some point where it's like, how much money do we lose from our core family of apps to the various taxes that the platforms have to when they tell us we can't run the ad business the way that we think we should be able to, when they tell us we can't ship certain products so that way people use the things less or like them less.

It's hard to exactly estimate it, but I think we might be twice as profitable if we own the platform or something. I think from that perspective, that's worth a lot. Just from a pure dollars perspective, which is not primarily how I come at this stuff. But even now, I've learned a thing, actually, since the Yahoo days, so now I at least am able to... I might not be able to convince all the investors that we should be investing to the extent that we are in reality labs if I didn't control the company, but at least I can articulate a case for why I am confident that it's going to be good over time. But for me, it's always been way more about the product experience and what you can enable and build. One of the shifts, and this is like a values shift over time, is one of the things that some of the early Oculus guys used to say to me that there's a difference between building good things and awesome things. Awesome things. Good is good. It's helpful, it's useful. It's things that people use on a day-to-day basis because it adds something to their lives.

But awesome is different. Awesome is uplifting and inspiring and just leads you to just be way more optimistic about the future. It's just this uplifting thing about humanity. I think a lot of what we've done with social media so far is very good. We've built these products, more than 3 billion people use them on a near daily basis.

It's like 3.3 billion on a daily basis.

Yeah. They use it because it is useful in their life in all these different ways. I mean, obviously, people vary, people use it for different things, but it's useful. It helps people stay connected. It helps people build businesses. It helps people form communities. It's good. There aren't that many people on a day-to-day basis who get out of bed and are like, Fuck, yeah, social media. I mean, that's not like I think for my next stage, for the next stage of the company, the next 15 years, I want us to build more things that are awesome in addition to things that are good. I think that they both matter. But to me, this is a little bit of the next stage of what I want our company to stand for and be. I think a lot of the Reality Lab stuff that we're doing is going to be in that bucket. A lot of the AI stuff that we're doing, I think, is going to be in that bucket. There are a bunch of things in the apps that are going to be in that bucket, too. New apps, too. But But I don't know. I think that there's just something that's fundamentally pretty good about that.

Maybe it's also just where I am in my life. I like to think I'm young, I'm a little older. But I do think that at this point, It's not just a meta thing. Also in my personal life, a lot of what I personally value is doing things that are inspiring with people who I find inspiring. There's the personal version of this. It's like I get to work on interesting science problems with Priscilla and my wife and a bunch of awesome people. I get to design shirts with some of the best fashion designers in the world.

It's like I... Statues.

Sculpture of my wife. Bring back the Roman tradition of designing sculptures of people you love.

I'm not at all being facetious.

It's really cool. No, but I think Daniel Arsham is a really talented guy, and I was like, That's a person who I'd love to work with on something. Let's go find a project. Building... I have one of my side projects is we have this cattle ranch in Kauai, and I'm trying to see if we can raise the highest quality beef in the world. There's all this stuff. It starts with... It's awesome. We got this Steer chunk. He's just the man. He's the man. We're having a hard time keeping him on the ranch because every time we put him in a steel enclosed and he sees a female cow, he busts through the steel enclosed. But I feel like that's the bull that you want to make the highest quality beef in the world. We're just working with, trying to do really high quality, awesome things with awesome people. If that's what I get to do for the next 15 or 20 years, then it's going to be a good 15 or 20 years.

Was there a moment... What changed? When did this become your priority and why? It feels so radical that how could it have possibly been gradual, or was this just like, Mark all the time and we just couldn't see the real mark.

I don't know. I think that there might have been something around the way the company shifted in operations around COVID. I mean, it's like the COVID, all these tech companies went remote temporarily early. It was an interesting period to just get some more time, a step back. I'm a pretty introverted person, and I do think it's... I need to be careful where I get a lot of value and energy and ideas from being around other people, but I also need time with myself. With COVID, I got that, and it was a time of reflection where I was able to think about this stuff. We were also going through this very difficult political time in the country, and our company was at the center of a lot of those things, so I think that that was a cause of a bunch of reflection. Then I think that a bunch of the things that we'd spun up earlier, but at smaller scale. The Reality Lab stuff that we started in 2014, really. The fair stuff around fundamental AI research.

2012, '13?

2012, '13. Alex and Ed,ish. Time before and then. These things, they got started and they were growing. It reached this moment, which is like, Are we going to double down on this and do this, or are we going to do this as a hobby? I was like, No, I think we should do this. All right? I mean, this is going to be a really important part of what we do. We had to make a really important set of decisions. What we knew it was going to be really painful to go double down on those things and build out the AI infrastructure that needed to and scale up some of the Reality Lab stuff. I knew that a lot of the investors would hate it, at least in the short term, before it's clearly the right thing to do. What I didn't know was that at the time, I thought they were going to not like it, but I thought it was going to be okay because I didn't think there was also going to be a recession at the same time. Really, it's like, I mean, look, you learn who you are through challenges. We had a really...

You It's like, okay, losing half of your market cap is quaint compared to losing 80% of your market cap or whatever it was. These are all intentional decisions. There are a lot of conversations that we had which are like, should we go forward with this? The answer that I came out with is yes. This is what I believe in. I think this is going to be important for the world. I think it's going to work time. We're no stranger to going through painful periods. In some ways, it makes the company better. Let's do it.

We're starting to enter, looking at the clock, like conclusion, lightning round territory. I've had one lurking in the back of my head. It makes sense to me that you would rebrand the company, something that is not Facebook, given how broad the family of apps was, that you've got... Let's imagine you were going to rebrand it today. You've got AI going on, you've got AR going on, you've got VR going on. Would you pick the Can you rename Metta if you were going to rename the company today?

I like Metta. It's a good name. Finding good short names. This actually was a thing that we talked about for a while because it was pretty clear that Facebook is continuing to grow in importance in the world, which I think a lot of people don't appreciate and it's mind boggling at the scale that it's at. But the others, we went through a period where it's like we had Facebook and a handful of small apps, and now we have four apps that have a billion people or more using them, hopefully in the next three years, five with threads if that continues scaling. This was a conversation that we had a bunch, where it's like, does it make sense for the name of the company to be one of the apps as the other apps as it's really becoming a family of apps. It was important to me. This was also coinciding with a lot of a lot of the challenges that we were having, the political brand challenges, different things. A lot of people were proposing that from the perspective of running away from the Facebook brand. They were like, Oh, well, does the Facebook brand have issues?

Do we need a new brand? I was like, We We don't run away from that. It might make sense one day to not have Facebook be the lead brand for the company because we do so many different things. But I'm only going to do this when we come up with a brand that is going to be evocative of the future that we're trying to build because we run towards something. We don't run away from things. When we got to Meta, then I was like, All right, we're here. It was around the time when we were doubling down on the investment and where there was all the controversy. It's like, Look, if we're doing this, we're going to lean into this and we're going to do it. So let's do it.

And if I were to make the case to you, I feel the core competency of Meta is you are able to discover products in the world. You have great ideas, you work on them, you discover interesting products, and you, Mark, are not someone who wants to define yourself by anything. You want to have your hands on a bunch of great controls and maximize your degrees of freedom, see where the world's going, and then have the best freaking spaceship possible to go maneuver your way over there. It seems like I would pick a brand that almost doesn't pigeonhole me into a specific future. I might be looking for something that's more like, Look, I want to maximize my maneuverability.

Yeah, I get it. But I don't know. We align around a vision and a mission of what we're trying to do, and we run towards it. That's always been how we've operated.

And in many ways, doing what I just suggested would be running. It's like, Well, we don't believe in it that much. You're like, No, we don't believe in it.

We're a company that puts a flag down around what we're doing, and we're going to go do it. It's like, put a wall in front of us, there's going to be a mark-shaped hole in the wall.

Speaking of lightning rounds and mark-shaped holes, you are accelerating what used to be your annual challenges. When we were all kids and we didn't know each other, I was so inspired. You would do your annual challenges, you would post about them, and I was like, Wow, that's pretty damn cool. Then we all get a little older, and we all have kids on the stage now, and we all have companies on the stage now. Some large, some small? The demands on your time, for me, especially, I think lots of people, that space gets sucked, and you have expanded it. How?

What do you mean?

Well, you used to do annual challenges, and I feel like you're now doing weekly I'm just doing annual challenges. You're designing T-shirts, you're making sculptures, you're raising cabal.

I'm just like, I'm trying to do inspiring things. I don't know. I'm also really competitive.

Who's your competition for this?

What do you mean? I was just thinking about other things that I'm doing. I'm like, What did I started doing? I got into all these more extreme sports and fighting and stuff. I'm like, I don't know. I mean, we face a lot of competition and a lot of different aspects of what we do. There's the social media competitors, there's the platform competitors. I think Apple is a bigger competitor than people realize. They think, Hey, they're doing a different type of I don't know, I think over the next 10, 15 years, I think that ideological battle over what should the architecture be of the next set of platforms? Are they going to be the closed integrated model that Apple has always done? Which, again, there are multiple good ways to build things. I think if you look at the different generations of computing, PCs, mobile, they've all had a closed, integrated version and an open version. The thing that I think there's just a ton of recency bias around is because iPhone basically won, I know that there are more Android phones out there, but iPhone is the intellectual leader and by far has all the-Let's take it as a concede.

Yeah.

I think that there's the recency bias, and probably almost everyone here has an iPhone. I think that because of the recency bias, there's this view that's like, Oh, no, this is just the superior way to do things. But I don't actually think that's a given. In the PC or Windows with the open ecosystem was the leader. And part of my goal for the next 10, 15 years, the next generation of platforms, is to build the next generation of open platforms and have the open platforms win. And I think that that's going to lead to a much more vibrant tech industry. Now, there are advantages of doing a closed and integrated model. I think Apple will have a place for sure. I expect them to be our primary competitor. I think it will not be just a product competition. I think it's in some ways very deeply values-driven and ideological competition around what the future of the tech industry should be and how open these platforms, whether it's things like LLaMA and AI or the glasses or different things, should be for developers, like an individual, someone getting started in their dorm room like me, to not have to ask for permission to go build the next set of awesome things.

I've got a closing question here.

Please. Thank you.

We have a lot of builders in the audience tonight, a lot of founders. We're in probably the most interesting technology environment since the early mobile days in terms of opportunity. It's been 20 years, you might have to go back a little bit, but what advice do you have for founders today on something that's different than trying to pattern match Mark Zuckerberg from 2004, given we live in a different world today?

Yeah, I don't know. Just do something that you care about. If you're trying to run our strategy, try to learn as quickly as you can. But I think part of what I'm trying to say is, I think there are There's so many ways to build stuff. It's like our way worked for me and our team. It's different things have clearly worked for other companies. I don't know. One day My daughter, we went to it, took her to a Taylor Swift concert, and she was like, You know, dad, I want to be like Taylor Swift when I grew up. Hell, yeah. I was like, But you can't. That's not available to you. I was like, But... And she thought about it and she's like, All right, when I grow up, I want people to want to be like August Chan Zuckerberg. I was like, Hell, yeah. Hell, yeah. I think that that's... Yeah, I don't know. I think it's like, look, learn from other people's successes and failures, but do your own thing.

I love that. I love that. That is the perfect place to leave things.

We made you something that... You already have a very amazing, well-designed shirt. I hope you have room in your life for more than one.

I do. I used to only wear one type of shirt. Now I've moved on.

David and I made you a custom one-of-one shirt that represents tonight. Thank you. It is sized Zuck, so no one else can... It can never be made again. We've got these coordinates on the back. The first one...GPS coordinates.GPS coordinates. The first one represents Kirkland House, where you wrote the first line of code for Facebook, and the second one is Chase Center. Awesome. So thank you for joining us here tonight.

Thank you for joining us. Wow. What a night.

Absolutely Really crazy. I mean, Mark has done many interviews this year, both with other podcasts and in traditional press, but that felt different. If for no other reason, then it happened live in front of a 6000 person audience in an arena, but I wasn't expecting it to feel that different.

Yeah. I mean, it was, I think, the wildest experience of my life being up there. I don't even know what else could compare.

Pretty insane. Well, listeners, as you may have noticed, thanks to our sponsors, this conversation was uninterrupted. We do want to reflect a little bit and share some of our thoughts and how we're feeling looking back on this conversation with you. But first, we do want to share a word on Statsig and Cruso.

Statsig. Mark's most famous catchphrase is probably move fast and break things. But like we talked about with him, despite instilling this in Facebook's engineering culture, Facebook doesn't actually break very often. How?

Certainly not anymore. And really, relative to its peers, not even throughout its past. Facebook invested hundreds of thousands of engineering hours in a set of internal tools. These tools let any engineer set up new metrics, ship new features, and measure performance in real time. That means anyone could just ship a new feature, but they always had metrics to use as guardrails, and they could always roll back a feature if anything broke.

Oh, man. There are legendary stories of engineers shipping features in their first week at boot camp as interns or new hires at Facebook and Metta over the years. You might wish that you could do the same on your team and build products like they build products at Facebook. Ship fast, make database decisions, iterate rapidly, but you need the right tools. So you're stuck, right?

Well, enter Statsig. Statsig has built the world's first product acceleration platform, combining tools like feature flags, product analytics, experimentation, and observability all in one place, helping you move faster and make smarter decisions. Versions.

Even better, Statsig was literally founded by an ex-metta team who wanted to help everyone build like the best and bring these same tools to the market. Today, many of the world's leading tech companies rely on Statsig, including OpenAI, Microsoft, Notion, and Topic, Figma, plus thousands of early-stage startups.

David, every time we work with Statsig, this list gets more and more impressive. Now it is purely A-list companies.

It's awesome. If you're ready to accelerate your growth and democratize product building at your company, go to statsig. Com/acquired. When you get in touch, just tell them that Ben and David sent you.

Thanks, Statsig.

Now for Cruso. Cruso is a climate-aligned cloud platform built specifically for AI workloads and powered by clean energy. They build and operate GPU data centers powered by low cost, stranded energy that otherwise goes to waste or, worse, gets emitted as greenhouse gasses.

It's crazy. When Acquired first started working with Cruso, this was a cool idea. Now they're one of the most important companies in the world with an AI cloud that's superior to the hyperscalers and a whole bunch of the largest companies in the world trusting their AI infrastructure to them.

It's easy to think about AI as like, Oh, that's a bunch of PhDs at Meta or OpenAI or Anthropicic or whatever, tinkering with model weights in their office and hitting compute. But there's this whole other industrial side of AI that's everything that happens after you press go on the model training, and that's energy, cooling, construction, all the physical infrastructure behind AI.

And Cruso is powering that by producing or repurposing huge amounts of power. We are talking gigawatts in their development pipeline, which is nuclear reactor amounts of power for less cost than other providers and with zero, or in some cases, actually negative emissions. It's super important. If you listen to Zuck and others talk about what the bottleneck to AI progress is, it's actually not compute, but energy. And Cruce is solving that problem.

It's just an awesome company. We are super proud to work with them and to be investors in the company. You can work with Cruce either through their managed AI cloud, which is great for startups and enterprises who want a complete end-to-end platform for AI, or directly as a data center customer, which several of the largest companies in the world are now doing. So just going over to cruce. Ai/acquired, that's C-R-U-S-O-E. Ai/acquired, or click the link in the show notes and tell them that Ben and David sent you.

Okay, so David, reflections on this conversation. The biggest thing that I kept thinking, going into the night, as we're talking with Mark, as we're talking with his team, people kept saying, We don't really do this. Mark doesn't really do this. I kept thinking, Yeah, he does because he's done all these podcasts this year.

He does Facebook Meta Connect. He's done big events before, of course.

Right. He does a good number of in-person press interviews, too. It's not like he doesn't talk to the traditional press, even though that has become a narrative. It's not really true. However, Mark has not done an external, several thousand person, live thing like this. This is a very unusual format and an uncomfortable one, even for you and I. We're so used to stopping, starting, being thoughtful in our answers. This is a show. You're performing. There are no breaks.

There's no retakes.

Yeah. Right. But Mark and all the meta-execs really embraced it. A bunch of the executive team came. They took off this whole day, and actually some stuff we did the night before, too.

A bunch of the board members were there. A lot of people important to Mark were there.

His family came.

They made it an event.

Right. I thought this was a big deal for us. I was shocked to the degree that Mark also thought it was a big deal for him.

Which is super cool. Totally agree.

That's one. I was also surprised and delighted that he was willing to dive into history with us.

Yes, we totally did not expect that. He's usually so maniacly focused on the future. And in our conversations to prep with him before the event, he was like, I think of you guys as a history podcast. Past. Let's talk about the future. I'm like, Okay, but we want to ground it in history. He showed up and was totally ready to go back. I think that made the talking about the present and the future even better.

Totally, because you could create these through lines. I mean, as funny as your interjection on, let's go back to the PO moment was, it opened up the door to have these comparative moments to, is what Metta doing today? Is that similar to something that you've done over and over? Should we be watching for a pattern here? Or are you very different today than you were historically? The way that he was talking about that stuff on stage felt very authentic, and I just haven't heard him speak in that way before, at least publicly.

I think it was also a great way to let us all get a window into his psyche, which brings us to another point, which is he is still in it. Oh, what other founders of companies like that? I mean, there's Jensen. Who else? It's the two of them.

Yeah, I I think the casual observer to Meadow might observe like, Mark's been running it for 20 years, and most of the time these founders go and do something else. They become executive chairman, or they like, stepped into a board role, or they own 4% of the companies. There's some pattern there. For Mark, I think it was plain as day on stage. He is more in it than ever. I don't think he thinks he's like halfway through his journey. I don't think he's 20 years in, at 40, I'll be done. I don't get that sense either. I think Metta is his vehicle by which he wants to live his entire life, and he wants to make things with this group of people that he wants to make, period. That is the product strategy.

I got chills when he said the 20-year mistake, and then I got even more chills when he said, But 20 years actually isn't that long.

Yeah, it's a pretty illustrative comment. Totally. I was appreciative that he engaged with us on the be critical of the company, because honestly, I was asking that as research for when we inevitably do our meta episode. I think he gave us a regret, not a criticism, but we were live on stage in front of 6,000 people, and it's not really the right format for that.

Yeah, totally.

That said, obviously a very interesting answer.

I think related, though, back to the he's still in it, in some sense, Reality Labs, you could look at his Blue Origin.

A hundred %. It's just within meta. I'm glad you I love that this, too. Other big tech CEO founders have their moment running the company. They take a board role, they go do another thing. And oftentimes it's big and important for the world and capital-intensive. Mark is doing that, but inside Meta with Reality Labs. I think it'll be super fascinating 20 to 50 years from now to reflect back and say, what were the unintended or perhaps intended outcomes of commingling multiple huge swings under one corporate umbrella versus having people who are either CEO of multiple companies concurrently or step down from one to run the other. For Mark, I feel like, again, Meta is his vehicle for executing the things that he thinks are awesome products. Of course, it's not just awesome products, but things that could let him have more control over his universe. He's clearly a guy who values having a lot of degrees of freedom and doesn't like being boxed in.

I loved your turn-based strategy game of get more turns, learn more on each turn. Like, oh, man, Starcraft Pro Player 101 there. Yes.

But it'll be interesting to see the knock-on effects of having Reality Labs in the meta-organization versus as a new venture.

Totally. All of that brings me to, frankly, just my biggest overwhelming takeaway from the whole experience, which is, Ben, you've developed a really great research interview question that you use all the sources that we talk to now, which is you ask, what is the one thing that is most misunderstood about this company, this organization, etc. Everybody at Metta for years always would say, Mark. I never totally got it until this evening. He's both a singular individual himself, but it's not just that. It's that a true superpower of the company is that it is architected from top bottom, legally, financially, organizationally.

Culturally.

Culturally, to reflect and amplify his immense strengths.

Which I think is probably true of Apple, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Microsoft, NVIDIA Jensen. Yes. But we are right up close to the ways in which meta is an amplifier, almost like it's a way for you to take the gain on Mark's output and turn it up 10,000 X.

Yes. I think what was so striking about it to me, versus you're absolutely right, all those other companies, it is generally accepted in the public narrative about Apple under Steve Jobs, about NVIDIA under Jensen, that that is the case. I don't think it is about Meta and Mark. I don't think people understand that. I didn't understand that until this experience.

Are you saying Meta is still very much a Mark Zuckerberg production?

I'll see myself out. Well put. There we go.

Well, listeners, thank you so much for joining us on this journey. Come talk about it with us in the Slack, acquired. Fm/slack. Would love to hear all of your thoughts as well. Join our email list, acquired. Fm/email. Com. Email that will let you basically know every single time a new episode drops or when we are doing something like Chase Center again to be the first to know about that. God, if we ever do something like that again. We've got a merch store. Check it out on acquired. Fm. We've got ACQ2, our second show where we are always interviewing earlier stage companies than meta, but where we think there are great insightful conversations with founders and CEOs. David, I know you've got some thank you.

One last thing, final thank yous. Thank you to Mark. Thank you to basically the entire Metta executive team who helped with the evening. Thank you to Hermes for dressing us, which was my favorite Easter egg of the night.

Yes, so fun. Thank you to Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase, and JPMorgan Payments for making it all all possible. It was truly a dream come true, and that is because of our incredible partnership.

Indeed it was. Well, listeners, we'll see you next time.

Yes. In a couple of weeks with the full show, we are pumped to drop it. We'll see you next time.

Who got the truth? Is it you, is it you? Is it you? Who got the truth now?