Ep 9: Apple's Vision Pro and Competing Against Non-Consumption
Watch the YouTube video version above or listen to the podcast below!
Ep 9: Apple's Vision Pro and Competing Against Non-Consumption Podcast and Video Transcript
Dave Dougherty: Hello and welcome to the latest episode of Enterprising Minds. Alex, Ruthi and Dave are all here. We're all checked in. What's up with you guys? What have you done recently? What are you up to? Anything fun?
Alex Pokorny: Got a bunch of blank faces here.
Dave Dougherty: Yeah, exactly. All right, so our lives are uninteresting.
Let's segue into something that.
Alex Pokorny: That's awesome.
Teaser: Ruthi's Game and Today's Topics
Dave Dougherty: Alright, so Ruthi, you said you had a game that you wanna introduce and play at the end, so there's the teaser for everybody. What's your what's your topic for today?
Ruthi Corcoran: Maybe a bit cliche, but the Vision Pro. I wanna talk about it.
Dave Dougherty: I was wondering if anybody would come in like that. Alex, what you got?
Alex Pokorny: It's actually another Clayton Christensen thing, but talking about basically untapped demand, it was just something that hit me pretty hard and I realized how many situations basically have that. I bet whatever business or industry or client that you're working on or working with is probably the exact same boat.
So it's a great way to get outside of that box, but also I'll put a little SEO spin on it as well.
Dave Dougherty: Cool. I'm still working on how to frame this, so I, it's gonna be a softball to both of you guys, but my, my topic is the fact that I'm struggling to buy into how big a lot of people think AI is going to be.
I think I'm going through that, sadness, depression, anger, acceptance, stages of things. Just as we talk about it more and I reflect on it more yeah, just, we'll just talk about it and we'll see what happens. 'cause it is, ever evolving and wanna challenge some assumptions.
Ruthi's Take on Apple's Vision Pro
Dave Dougherty: I think so Ruthi, since yours is timely, why don't you start us off?
Ruthi Corcoran: Mostly timely. I finally watched the video yesterday, so I'm even a little bit late on the ball, but it's very, it's cool demo to watch, sparked a lot of ideas, a lot of the what ifs. And so what I wanted to pose to you guys is, there's certainly the, is this the iPad of the ar vr, right?
Apple came out with the iPad, it is the tablet and there's not a lot of competition. So there's that piece of it. And then there's also the, at what point will you buy it and is it more of a personal collaborate or business type tool? And what are the things that set it apart or what are the things that are gonna need to be an important piece of this technology to really make it something where you go, yep, that's gonna make a difference for me.
Alex Pokorny: Do you mind actually starting on also with setting the stage a bit about what is Apple's Vision Pro and kind what it does?
Ruthi Corcoran: Absolutely. And I'll highlight some of the things that stuck out to me as I go to.
Vision Pro: Features and Potential
Ruthi Corcoran: So Apple's Vision Pro is their ar vr headset mask, I suppose you'd call it. It is, it has a battery pack so you don't have to connect into a computer.
Of course you wear it over your face. But the thing that sets it apart from say, the Oculus Rift VR systems, is that you can also see the space, you can toggle between being in total VR mode or in ar You're seeing the space around you. So it merges the two technologies in an interesting way and from what they've demoed, you're seeing a lot of the Apple interface that you might see on an iPhone or an iPad in terms of how the apps are laid out.
But when you are working with the apps or you're watching a movie or something, it's as though it's projecting a very large screen in front of you that can either take up the space of the entire room you're in or be shrunk down to size. And so it's a different way of looking at the ar vr experience, not just that you're in an immersive different environment, but it's taking the technology we're familiar with on screens and putting it in a virtual space which has some potential cool implications.
Discussion: VR vs AR
Alex Pokorny: And I'm gonna dumb down even a little further with AR and vr. So VR is basically your kind of inside a video game where everything's virtual and created, and AR is where you're looking at maybe your living room or your office, but there's stuff on top of it, being overlaid on top of it.
Is that a good VR is virtual playground AR is where you're sitting or where you're looking with stuff on top. Is that,
Ruthi Corcoran: yeah, VR is fully immersive is how I think about it. Ar is you have a blending of the digital and the real, the analog world so that you have sort of an information layer on top.
Price and Market Potential
Dave Dougherty: I will say my two like first thoughts with it was, oh my God, the price, that was not what I was expecting. Or I think anybody in. The media or the space was expecting it to be that expensive
Ruthi Corcoran: too. Low Dave.
Alex Pokorny: Way too high. Way too high. $3,500 is not what you have in your pocket right now. Just to drop on new tech.
Dave Dougherty: Sorry. Even if I did have the money, I'm not sure that I would be an early adopter for it. My second thought, just based on the shape and the way they pitched it, was this is gonna make snowboarding videos really cool.
It does. If you could overlay like racing video games, you have that like perfect path down the hill and the speed and the, altitude and stuff. If you could overlay that during the recording process, that would make, yeah, that's gonna make Red Bull videos so much cooler than they already are.
Alex Pokorny: Man, that's your untapped market. You can be like, here, here's your personal record, your PR is like on this route, and you're getting, your skis are chattering or your snowboard's a little off, so now you're off that route. You're, one millisecond behind your PR and Yeah, there you go.
Untapped market. If the thing could handle snow and movement at speed
Dave Dougherty: it would be really cool if you did the same route twice. If you had the ghost you like in the racing games, oh, you're four-tenths behind yourself.
Ruthi Corcoran: This is like the stadium Nike setup where you could race against yourself.
Or was it basketball? Either way. Point is, it's a cool concept I'm in.
Future Applications and Untapped Markets
Dave Dougherty: Other than making Pokemon Go even more immersive what do you think people will use it for?
Ruthi Corcoran: All right. Maybe I'll chime in a little bit here of some of the things I'm excited about. 'cause clearly I brought this up for a reason.
Like I'm a bit, it's not so much this particular product, so much as this version of the technology is opening up new ideas and spaces for me, I think is where I'm at. One, I think that some of the things they did, which are gonna be table stakes in the future, is you can't be tied to a computer. You cannot have a cord plugged into the wall with this sort of thing.
It just we're over that. We don't wanna, we, I barely like my laptop to be connected to the wall, let alone my face. So I think that's table stakes. But what's I'm always interested in is technologies that allow us to connect with other people in different ways. So I think the idea that we might be sitting on a couch watching movies with our headsets on, I get a little shaky on that.
That's an. That maybe doesn't bring people together as much as I'd like, but I think what I'm excited about is right now when we collaborate in virtual spaces, it's very much within one box of a screen. And that screen might be big in terms of a monitor or it might be very small, and there's only so much of a sort of shared environment you can create there.
But I can see this sort of technology enabling remote work in a way where, you know, you and your teams that are in different spaces truly have a shared immersive environment where you're working on, different whiteboards, different applications, or you're seeing the same things in a way that it's hard to do when you're just sharing a screen on a computer.
And I think that's where I go this is doing a different thing that we have in the space now that might be worth paying attention to.
Alex Pokorny: I like that that helps actually me frame it a lot better in my mind as well. I'm gonna pull from an older episode, but another Clayton Christensen thing about the j to be done thing.
Basically how humanity's j to be done really haven't changed. The, just the technology's changed, so we like to share information, we get to spoke signals to letters, to telegrams, to emails, like jobs to be done didn't change. Just the tech did. I like that because that, that is, there's a lot of elements there which this could enable.
So we want to learn new skills and do new things. So I'm thinking of the amateur DIY auto mechanic. You pop the trunk of your car or open the hood of your car. You look at, my gosh, there's a lot of parts here. I'm overwhelmed. I guess I'll just go to an autobody shop. You put on your goggles instead, or you watch some YouTube videos.
YouTube videos help, but it doesn't really quite help quite enough because you don't have quite the kind of lower level skills that need to be built up enough to be able to do the thing that the YouTube video is showing. So you're not comfortable yet with what it's showing. This could help you jump over that gap of that's the right tool.
This is how to put the socket on. The socket wrench. Here's exactly where you have to put it. Here's where your hand should be. Here's what, basically that kind of what that would help those little elements like that versus somebody in the garage with their not great lighting setup showing, Hey, you just, you remove this and you get this out of there.
It's okay, but there's so much more I need to know before I can now get to what you just described, and I don't have the skills to do that, this. This could potentially bridge some of those gaps. And I'm thinking about that not just in like a DIY sense, but that could be so many other things as well, including on job, on the job training.
You could even be doing, let's say a manager and direct report. Direct report wants to, has a sexual harassment complaint. How do you handle it? You could watch a video about, how two people might, do that scenario and what the correct, responses and policies and that kind of thing are, or maybe you could put on something like this and have a much more in the chair realistic environment and say, I need to get comfortable in case this were happened.
Or my employee's doing great and they're looking for a race. How do I handle that conversation? There's a lot of awkward little things that they don't train well by just watching a video. Yes. You have to just role play it. You have to just do it. And once you have your hands on the tool, once you sit in the chair and you get those questions pushed at you, now you have a response.
And now you have some way to actually like really learn it, not just watch. And I might remember, but now I'm gonna do and I will remember.
Ruthi Corcoran: I think your point about that, some things, a video goes a long way, but it doesn't go the hallway. That's a really important point. And different technologies might enable a new level of being able to train or learn than we have currently, which is already phenomenal.
For sure. And another thing, Alex, you brought up in the past is this idea about what the different two Gs, three Gs, four Gs, five Gs enable, and part of the reason this technology is starting to come online is because we finally have the, we have the infrastructure to enable it,
Alex Pokorny: right? Yeah. That was my main question.
I was just thinking what kind of computer do I need to run to? Basically what kind of internet connection do I need to have to basically have the bandwidth, the processing power, a lot of that stuff, if that's getting offloaded onto a different machine or something like that. What's the, requirements or constraints.
I'm sure those will improve over time.
Ruthi Corcoran: Yeah.
Alex Pokorny: But. Is this a standalone device? Do you know that? Or is It's full
Ruthi Corcoran: standalone. The M two chip enables it to be standalone, which is also a game changer.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah, because that was a major thing also with vr, was latency basically, that a lot of people got sick from it because what your eye is perceiving, what you think you should be doing with your movement doesn't match because the screen basically doesn't refresh fast enough.
And that's because the processing power wasn't there. And the faster that's gotten, now we're actually at frames per second. Even with video games, that's beyond what humans can basically usually understand. So it's gone beyond that. So it, instead of being too slow and jutting and making yourself sick, now it's smooth.
Very smooth. So that's pretty amazing. 3,500 bucks. I could see it from a business perspective. I'm still with Dave on a personal perspective of you really would have to have quite the. The games, the reason, everything else for me to then pick one up. Think about it like introducing computers to people.
They will have it absolutely at work, but will they buy one personally? Once they start to realize the value of it, then yes.
Ruthi Corcoran: I think two things on that point, and then I'll give it to Dave because I'm just excited to chat about this one. Obviously. One is the fact that it's all contained in one makes a big difference.
So this in theory could be your personal computer as well as this immersive computer experience provider. And the quick other note on that is they called it the Vision Pro. And if you look at the pricing, it's not too far off from what a Mac Pro is gonna cost you.
Alex Pokorny: That's an interesting one.
Dave Dougherty: Yeah, it is.
It is on par with the. The kind of studio, audio, video, studio level kind of computers which is a very kind of niche market at this point. I've wondered with their entrance into it, whether or not, okay, so you start with the high price thing, it becomes that kind of status symbol. Apple's known for quality, so you just trust it way more than you would trust Facebook for.
Oculus right there, there's no level of quality with Facebook in anything that it produces. So the early adopters will then subsidize and build kind of that app store like they did with iPhone, right? That's at least how I'm making sense of it. One of the best use cases that I've heard for the ar vr is occupational training, right?
In like scenarios where it would be either too dangerous to do it in real life or you have a scalability problem in terms of getting enough people in the space to do those things. Another one that is more intriguing to me is architectural design, where it's okay, go walk through the house that I designed for you before we start building it so that you can, rearrange the window placement before we buy the materials and whatever else, right?
That to me is intriguing. But again, those are all up market kind of things. So I'm very interested to see what happens with it. But yeah, however many days out it's been since the conference, I'm still behind and making sense of the new world.
Alex Pokorny: Have you guys, oh, Ruthi, you have mute. Go ahead.
Ruthi Corcoran: Oh, I always have to remind myself to that point exactly. There's this great Kevin Kelly quote from his advice book. Don't confuse a clear vision of the future with the short term.
I can see this being powerful and amazing. I don't know that's gonna be an overnight.
Yep. We're all gonna be using pool vr ar next year.
Alex Pokorny: That's true of anything. Think about that with mobile phones too. There was a point where I knew some people in college who had an old phone. They basically, they're broke college students, so they had an old phone, but they had no network set up basically on it.
They would just use it purely for this, the campus school campus's wifi, and that was one of their main devices outside of basically like a computer lab that was set up by the school, was their old phone that had no actual active network connection on it and they could make wifi enabled calls. There was some sub ability basically what they had off of it, but they were able to use it, which was a pretty big shift too from a prayer generation who is basically like laptops are required or a prayer generation of that where no laptops are not required.
School campus computers are like what you have to do all the time. So there, yeah, there's again, those transition points. This could be yet another transition point, so I'm trying to keep an open mind to it, even though it looks pretty different than what we do today. From the video game standpoint, have you guys seen the trailer, any videos for Unrecord?
It's a photo realistic video game.
Ruthi Corcoran: No.
Alex Pokorny: Okay. This
Ruthi Corcoran: checking it out.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah, we could bring it up also in a later episode because it is speaking of vr, but it's a first person shooter. It looks exactly like it's a, somebody strapped a GoPro to their head and went through a building, shooting enemies.
Perfectly realistic. And there's exactly. This is this ugh, uncomfortability line where we have how realistic is too realistic, are retraining people for the wrong purpose, getting them desensitized the wrong things. Or is this the next advent like clear kind of trend line of where video games were going from, everywhere from, Tetris to, first person shooters to
Dave Dougherty: this.
Do you remember the game to rock? Yeah, sure. You have to run away from dinosaurs.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah. Yeah. I saw someone just do a speed run of that. It was pretty funny. Very buggy game as it turns out. A lot of hacks.
Dave Dougherty: The the first experience in surround sound gaming that I ever had was with that one.
Yeah. And when you're walking through a world with, five one surround and you're expecting a velociraptor to jump out at you, that's a very intense experience. Now throw that with the goggles and photorealism and then the spatial audio on the vr
Make has it
Ruthi Corcoran: better.
That's a, I do not think it, does that actually make it a better experience? Is there a thrill and like an excitement effect? Sure. And you might do it like one time and be like, that's sweet. But I don't know that makes better games. And here I'm referencing a bit Yi Zero Punctuation. He is been around forever, has a recent video, I think it's recent on this topic, which is yeah, we're getting more and more realistic, but the games aren't necessarily more fun or more engaging and they're not, we don't try out as many things because the amount of time it takes to put together one of these big budget super realistic things means we can't experiment as much, which means we don't get as many enjoyable things in the world.
So I don't know that's a net positive direction that we're going.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah, this is a pretty, let
Ruthi Corcoran: alone the ick factor.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah, this is a pretty small studio produ being able to produce it too. There's, the AAA gaming aspect, I don't know if that's quite there with this one, but I'm with you in terms of this, is this really fun?
I feel like this is more aligned to, people slowing down, driving past a car accident, wondering, wanting to look and there's that is basically, that's not enough for a game. I don't think that's enough for a game. It's enough for to make people interested and hear about it, and maybe watch some YouTube videos about someone else playing it, but I don't know if they'll necessarily pick it up themselves.
Dave Dougherty: Analogy, I just think of not just to rock, but also the first photorealistic resident evil would be a no thank you.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah. I don't know. There's some extremes with this stuff that I.
Dave Dougherty: They're fun to explore for sure, the extreme side of things. But at least early days with the headset, I do think it it, it'll remain B2B, enterprise.
Like those are the only people that can afford to do anything with it.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah. Getting back to the Apple product, what about Google? Google Glass went the same way where it was supposed to be a consumer product that didn't really go so well, but then it got into occupational, basically value where it was manufacturing lines, doing quick training some kind of basic engineering aspects, had experience of being a little bit more three DA little bit more, augmented reality.
Didn't
Dave Dougherty: Snap had some glasses too.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah.
Ruthi Corcoran: I think what's maybe just one last thought on this. What strikes me as a bit different is Apple is bringing entertainment to the forefront of these as well. So there's the utility pieces, but they've clearly pushed very strongly on that entertainment and creating a world of entertainment even if you're in a hotel room.
I thought that emphasis was interesting maybe to try and separate from the Google glass and the snaps.
Dave Dougherty: Actually, so this topic does kind of segue nicely into mine.
AI's Impact and Adoption
Dave Dougherty: Where are, again, I'm trying to understand the full momentum of it, just because, it's so easy to get caught up in bubbles these days online.
Looking at all the content that the thought leaders on LinkedIn, posting, at least in the SEO community. And I know everybody's trying to make sense of it, but then I think it was p PEW Research recently came out with only 14% of people have actually tried AI or are using it.
Yeah. Which, for a country like the US that percentage of people is a lot. But to your point, Alex, with the two G 3G examples that you've brought up previously, a headset and generative AI in, markets like India or Guatemala or some of these places that still don't have that level of connectivity.
Is gonna look very different, right? The use cases of AI are going to be very different because the utility of it will be very different. I know Google has their next billion initiative or at least they used to. I'll see, I'll see if the website's still up and running put it in the show notes.
But the concepts that they had there were really interesting to me where, there was there was a mom who was trying to help her kids do homework, but she couldn't read. So she was able to use, a Google phone with the AI to basically read aloud what was on the page. Those types of use cases are more intriguing to me, being able to lift up more people there.
One thing with the Vision Pro that I'm thinking of too, and we've talked about this in previous discussions. If you, for those of us in, in, in marketing roles in the West, if we're designing experiences for Vision Pro and markets that use Vision Pros, are you then also creating these secondary sites and experiences for everybody else?
Or are you just immediately saying, strategically we're just gonna not focus on that because all of our people are actually using this Vision Pro experience now, and obviously the timeline here, this is a hypothetical. I think it'll be too easy to focus on the cool, shiny new thing and then leave just a huge amount of potential market to the wayside.
Yeah. Anyway, that's my first thought and then I'll formulate my second thought and present that after you talk.
Any reaction,
Alex Pokorny: Alex? Yeah, I was wondering, Ruth, if you wanna go first.
Ruthi Corcoran: I think what your question is a good one, and this idea of being caught up in bubbles for sure. I worry about that all the time. I think, in some cases it can be nice to live in a nice bubble and sometimes you gotta get outta your bubble because to your point, there's a whole big world out there and it's looks very different than our own.
I don't know. I think in terms of how big AI is going to be, I think the way I think about it right, is like it's like a snowball effect. We're seeing the beginnings of the snowball. We're not seeing. And because we're right there in the focused on the snowball, it looks really big to us.
The 14% puts it in context. That maybe it's not as big as we think it is, but I think it's growing and I think that the productivity gains we've seen early on from our neck of the woods in terms of people able to, check their code, people able to create code very quickly from scratch.
People able to do this with copy creating information. I think that the accumulation of all those productivity gains. Spread out to the larger market is going to have a very large impact. But I think of it in the same way that social media has had an impact where it's at first, yeah, we're all using this thing.
We don't like, we know it's cool, it's interesting, we're connecting differently with people, but the secondary and tertiary effects of it on us, in our society don't quite play themselves out for a number of years. And so the impact of this new, these new sets of technologies and these ais plural I think we're gonna see how they impact us.
And it's not gonna be a big bang. It's I doubt it. It's gonna be like all of a sudden everything's different. It's gonna be the slow accumulation of a lot of different things, which, in five years we'll look back and go, oh, things were quite different then. And we won't necessarily notice all the differences along the way.
Similarly with cell phones in our pocket. Just to add on to that, right? When I was thinking back, like when I was even in college, didn't have a smartphone, how world different was my world then than it is today having a smartphone in my pocket and it wasn't like an A dropped. All of a sudden my world has changed.
It's, I just look back now and see, okay, there's been a lot of changes that have happened that now make my day-to-day interactions with every everybody around me and the information around me very different than they were 10 years ago, 12 years ago, et cetera.
Alex Pokorny: That's a good point. Just about the progression of technology and kinda how it actually impacts you.
The AI is an interesting one because. Unlike the VR tech, which you have to be, physically interfacing with AI generated content is already out there. So for somebody, even if they're downloading it via two G connection, there's a fair chance they're reading something that was probably AI created.
So there's an impact already being affected to individuals who are not even knowing what AI is or, being able to even make use of it based upon the, technology constraints or even just their interest, which that was the other part of the Pew research was, I think it was majority of people, which was only at 14% of those who had used it.
14% was the largest percentage, and that was for entertainment. And there was like 12% used it for like work. Most people, even if they have tried it. Majority of people have used it for random reasons. And even though it's in any kind of like bucket, it's, they're just playing around with it.
They're just testing it out. So those who are going to make use of it right away, I feel like it's almost, if we wanna continue with this two G four, G 5G kind of question, if you are in the cell phone industry, those Gs are a big deal because there's an infrastructure aspect to them from a B2B market standpoint of building the tech to even enable those things. That's stuff they've been seeing for 10 years ahead of schedule and they've been all over it. Are we in that bubble? I don't know that's the one I'm still questioning. Are we a part of that bubble that's we see this think of the fiber optic providers and manufacturers.
They know of course about two G, 4G, 5G and they have been a, a part of that for such a long time. And then us, the three of us as consumers. We realized it as it started to affect us. So what side are we on? Are we on the fiber optic manufacturer side who sees this 10 years down the road and sees like this will impact a tons of things?
We know it will. We don't know exactly how it will, we can't imagine TikTok, but TikTok happened because of the increase in bandwidth and you can't download videos with a bad connection. But from the consumer standpoint, then there's that whole realization of the technology, there's two sides to it.
And what side of the bubble are we on? I don't know. I feel like we're on the edge of it because we're peering in. We're not the ones who are developing it and creating it. We're those who are on the early, maybe the early adopter side of it, but Right. It's gonna hit everybody else eventually.
And the impact based upon this kind of technology. I think we'll be just like those connection speed kind of differences where it's gonna impact a lot of stuff, enable a bunch of stuff. We don't know exactly what it will do yet. I think that was a cool thing actually with chat. GPT was, a lot of people think of it from a text standpoint, but it's a large language model.
Large language models are basically just looking at pattern recognition of language, which means music is just as good as code, which is just as good as the English language, which is just as good as the Portuguese language. They're all patterns, they're all texts, they're all able to be generated.
So chat GPT can create music, it can create code, it can create Portuguese or English text because the system basically is just meant for all of those purposes. What I'm starting to hear now that this is June and chat BT came out six to eight months ago, depending on, when you start playing around with it, connecting to it I'm starting to get people who know that I'm interested in this space.
Challenges and Ethical Considerations
Alex Pokorny: Talking to me about Hey, did you hear about that lawyer? And did you hear about this? And hear about that. And it's all around these hallucination cases and they're starting to understand, poking some holes in the bubble. And it's from some unique perspective. So the lawyer thing, just to give a quick recap, there's a lawyer who was doing some research for another lawyer in his firm used chat.
GBT didn't realize that it could make up stuff. It can't hallucinate information. So it made up a bunch of cases. And he even asked it like, are these real? And it said yes. And he thought that was good enough. And then he used that research for this lawyer who put it up. And then of course the, I can't remember, prosecution, defense, the other side of it looked at him like, these cases don't exist.
So it became this, right? It became a rather large embarrassment and a large didn't realize. And he has to say that he's not gonna use AI in the future and a bunch of stuff like that. This has been these kind of, the interesting thing about this is that we're starting to see some of those holes in the bubble.
The popping in the bubble is starting to happen where it's, we're starting to get a further grasp of this technology, the good and the bad, what it can and what it can't do. And that allows people to get their hands around it and their mind around it and actually be able to start using it themselves and trusting what it can do because they feel like they know what it can do.
Like the Turing test is crap at this point because most people, when they see something that's generated they don't, it's good enough that they don't know if it was a machine that created or was a human being that created it. So there's this trust factor that's overly applied, but when you start to understand the technology behind it, you start to say, okay.
No, this doesn't seem quite right. And for those who have been using chat GPT, anytime it says at the end like, you should check yourself, that's a great way to say it actually doesn't know. And it's really trying, but it's not doing great here. You might wanna redo your prompt and try to make it till it has a confident answer.
'cause it, it will have those kind of exit clause kind of pieces that I'll always try to throw in there. But I think the more holes we see in the bubble is actually a positive thing because there's the pessimists who always just hate the new technology. That's fine. And there's those who are also are trying to understand the technology.
That's good. There's gonna be aspects of that and the more that conversation happens, the more the technology will get then realized.
Ruthi Corcoran: And on that point, just a quick add too, it's forcing all of us to think more about what do we consider as the truth and what is the evidence we require for something to be true?
Which I think is an important conversation for all of us to have and to be thinking about.
Education and AI: A New Era
Alex Pokorny: I was thinking about this from the university perspective. And what I can think of is basically is technology is like a running bull. You can throw a last seal around it and try to dig in your heels, but that's a really stupid idea.
You either get on top of it or you get in front of it or you run away from it. It doesn't matter what you try to do. Trying to dig your heels in is not a good approach. And trying to think what was it Sony that came up with a statement that's saying that, we'll, the future will see us, kindly would because the idea that we're gonna pull away from AI created music and trying to like, stop that, just, it's a really stupid idea because you can't stop technology that's not something that's possible.
That's not an option. And those who try are just always going to be laughing stock in just a number of years. It's just a question of how many years. So I was thinking from the university perspective, what do you do? How do you handle this when your students are gonna be obviously using this?
And I gotta think of it as, again, I love my analogies, right? But I gotta think of this as like a personal calculator of saying you have a calculator. Of course, if you, a student has a math problem and they're not inside a classroom where they're not, allowed to take one, if they're at home or outside of it, they're going to whip out a calculator or calculator app or Google or AI to help them with the problem.
They're going to use it. So the assumption then has to be this is already in place, which is a really big assumption to somehow place that 14% of adults haven't, have played around with it to say that all students might be using it and to then say all students are using it, and now we need to create a policy based upon the idea that they will be using it.
That I realize that's a jump and maybe I'm ahead of. Head of where we actually are in the timeline, but
Dave Dougherty: I don't,
Alex Pokorny: oh, go ahead Dave.
Dave Dougherty: I don't think so. I was at a a barbecue recently and was talking to someone I know who works at a local community college or used to work at a local community college. And they were complaining about since November the amount of assignments that they've had to put up with that are clearly ai and one of, one of the problems is the students.
Like when you are there and you are spending three months with a group of people, you learn generally what to expect from each person. So then when all of a sudden the quality of their papers skyrockets, or all of a sudden they seem to understand how to use a semicolon that's a giant red flag.
Maybe learning actually occurred, but did it really? No, probably not. At least not that massive of a jump.
Embracing Technology in Education
Ruthi Corcoran: I think there is a role for professors and teachers to teach their students and that includes the new technology. Can you imagine having math class where they don't include, here's how you might use a calculator or, you get more statistics, excel on the various statistical software to do this.
That's part of the gig. We embrace technology and, we say, here's how we use technology as part of how we learn.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah, that would be my, actually, this is my recommendation for universities is to basically, one, think about basically the different ways that this technology exists.
So image creation, music composition, come up with basically what your internal policies are gonna be. Basically around that and think about a few things. One is educating the students on what an AI hallucination is and to basically be critical of the information that they're getting back and just say, no, what you get back is not truth.
What you get back is a guess that you now have to verify. It's hearsay at best, basically. And now you need to go verify. Except for from external. For years
Dave Dougherty: we've been teaching kids that there's a right answer because we've been treating education as if it were creating widgets and not depth of thought, right?
Because now all of a sudden you have to get humanity professors back to actually teach you how to think. Which we haven't prioritized, so oops.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah, the critical thinking piece is huge there.
Personalizing Assignments for Students
Alex Pokorny: And then the professor standpoint as well of understanding the assignments and how do you rework your assignments to work around that.
So one piece of advice would be, require your students to use, write this paper, but also take two examples from your personal background and apply it within the paper. Make it personalized. Put yourself inside of this audience and inside of this character. And then, react as they would in this particular situation.
Relying upon what you've discussed personally with your, classmates or something like personalize it, make it you know about them and bring them into it and bring it outside of something that's rewrite what's on patch, chapter three in your terms. Come on. That's a way which is.
Google's Perspective Search and AI
Dave Dougherty: Interesting because that is exactly what I think Google is doing with the perspectives surf result, knowing full well with the GPT stuff coming out, or the automated generat whatever. Having the perspectives and the short videos and the, person actually speaking plays to that because then it provides a level of trust, just the way that humans work that somebody actually experienced that trip to New York and they can tell you whether or not the ice cream's good there.
I also feel like when we've talked previously about when Google first came out, or even Yahoo, when Yahoo came out, you had to learn how to search. People weren't used to searching, in a particular way. You always say restaurants near me, but that, that's a good example.
We are learn relearning because we are so used to just typing in the terms in that way for the last 25 years or whatever it is. Now we're going to be doing that with AI and the generated things. The, the way that you search with a generative AI is much different, especially when you ask that follow-up question, right?
Because that actually drops the results even more further down the screen. 'cause now you have multiple AI generated results under the same query. All of my profiles now have access to to Google Labs. So I've been playing around with the new serp. That's a more recent example, but for the sake of time, Alex, you brought up Clay Christensen again.
Clay Christensen's Theory of Non-Consumption
Dave Dougherty: I think you and I both have been down a massive rabbit hole with this guy. And his untapped demand or is it fighting against no demand, I think is what he said in some of the presentations. But why don't you queue up what you're thinking? Yeah. Non-consumption.
Alex Pokorny: That was it.
Dave Dougherty: There you go. There you go.
Alex Pokorny: It actually plays into both of these kinda ar, vr, and AI discussions. Pretty well.
Luxury Products and Market Disruption
Alex Pokorny: So basically what the idea is, think of a luxury product. That's probably the best example. Think of a luxury product. How many people want it? Thousands. How many people are actually going to afford it and buy it?
Hundreds. If you're a luxury company, who do you think are your customers? The hundreds? Who do you focus on the hundreds? And when those hundreds say, Hey, I want it personalized, I want a little bit different. I wanted white and black and blue and green and whatever else. The companies get very focused on those demands and they stop realizing that there's a much, much larger market out there that is basically the ones who are not consuming their current product.
The non-consumption, as Clay Christensen puts it and they give up on looking at this population. To the detriment of the future of their company. So what that really means is that there will be a disruptive new company that comes in and takes the bottom of the barrel and their product will probably be crap.
It'll be a junky watch, not a luxury watch. And people will buy it because people will buy it because it's better than the alternative. The alternative is nothing. So even a junky version of it is worth something. The knockoff Rolex. Why do people buy knockoff Rolexes? It's better than having a Timex or no watch on your hand, and you're trying to show off that you have, this taste or part of this, community.
You name it, whatever the purpose of, maybe you just like it, but the alternative is nothing. And a two buck Rolexes or knockoff Rolex is worth that. And they basically, that enables some profit and some money into these small companies and the luxury ones say whatever. We never wanted this bottom market anyways.
Even if it was a market that we sold something to, it was crap margins. We wanted to, stick with the high stuff. So they reach, start to retreat back and the disruptor starts to get money and funding and starts to say, we can make this product a little bit better. And they move up a little bit.
And the luxury brand, even if they were had like a lower quality brand, a sub brand or something, a fighter brand, they're like, it was crap margin. Anyways, we'll move back. And they basically move back and now this little one comes back up and up and up. Clinton Christensen has a great video about basically the steel industry running through this.
There's a funny point just to add to it. Just I just love this piece because it just happened continually and it happens consistently in other markets as well. Basically as the big company, the last big company retreats. The price point of this lower tier product drops significantly because they're no longer competing against this high price competitor.
They're actually just competing against other low price competitors. So it becomes commoditized and the price just drops. So it really hurts, and it actually kicks out a lot of them. And then those who, persist and are the lasting ones, they're able to then continue up basically the value chain and keep taking in higher quality products.
And eventually the ones at the top are squeezed out and they fail, which has quite a few examples of companies constantly doing this. And they do it, everybody does it for the right reasons. They're gaining market share, they're responding to their customers. They're, concerned about the profitability and margins.
Everybody's making smart decisions across the board. But it ends up killing off a bunch of companies that were, seen as untouchable companies. So I think of this as being true with so many different markets and so many different industries. And that's the point that I just wanted to bring up was basically is you have this much larger group that's out there that probably is a customer base that you're not touching, but is also one that your competitors aren't touching.
And if you're the first one to realize that even if it's a inferior product, it's probably good enough for this group because the alternative is nothing. So something is better than nothing, therefore there's a good chance they'll buy it. And if you start tapping into that market, the margins will not be great.
But my gosh, you'll be taking on a massive amount of income.
The Rise of Online Education
Alex Pokorny: And I keep thinking of this clay Christians even brought this up with higher ed saying that at Harvard we looked down at our noses that all these people who don't make it into the program, the 900 students who are able to make it into their management program.
It's like what's happening right now is online universities are eating our lunch. They're just killing it because there's a giant market out there who want to go to college, who want a degree, but there's a giant market who can't afford it. And we're not focused on it. We're just focused on the ones who are, and we're fighting all these other universities for this exact same student population, which is actually just a drop in the bucket.
And these other companies are doing better. And if you think of online degrees, refutation was crap before. It's pretty decent. Now. It's getting better online. Certificates used to be just a joke. Now they're being useful. Now they're starting to see a value. Even large universities like Harvard and Yale are starting to have online certificates because they're starting to get into that market.
They've realized it, which gives it even more credibility to them, which also really attacks, the what's leftover of, the high paying customer group. But I think of this with SE O2, and this is my last piece before I throw it to you guys of, have you seen this? And other areas.
Have you experienced this as well as, do you think it's true? Do you think this is a good theory or not? The last one is basically from an SEO standpoint, is we're getting really wrapped up into our current customers, what they currently search for. These ones rank on spot number five, we're gonna try to move it up to one.
You're really focused on these really small markets and yes, that's what the competitors are going after. Yes, that's what your company is going after. But try to zoom out a little bit and try to say, okay, what's another way that someone might be searching for this? Who isn't a customer, who isn't someone we're going after?
Maybe it's cheap degree online versus, private MBA degree, and maybe we're all focused on the private MBA degree. But if you look at the chief online degree, wow, that's a big population. Maybe we should be doing something. Maybe it's a sub-brand, we won't touch the reputation of us Harvard.
Instead we'll create a sub-brand and we'll, star University will start taking on, this group, start thinking outside of that, because there's also a pretty big population there that might be in the position point. So that you want,
Ruthi Corcoran: I wish I did the pre-read.
Dave Dougherty: So I'll say this is a great video. I know which presentation you're talking about. It was from like eight or nine years ago, so that would've been, yeah. 2014 or something when Christiansen was still alive. Yeah, it's a wonderful video. Yeah, I, the his point of the 20% collapse every time.
The high end person, it was a 20% collapse in pricing power that occurred each time the high price incumbent left the market. Was an interesting insight because yeah, having a low price offering really does depend on having that higher priced comparison because otherwise Okay, cool. Everybody is that price.
So what makes you special, yeah, that was a good one. There was another point that he brought up, but I'm blanking. I have seen it and one of the things that I've. I've thought of, even with the AI pieces and, for those of us who are using it already and the impacts that it is having already with his model of disruption or disruptive innovation, I should say, there are three different types of innovation.
One of which was a disruption for productivity and the outcome of the productivity disruption is an increase in capital for the organizations. And that's one thing that I've been thinking of with the AI piece is, okay, cool, we're more productive. We're spending less money producing the marketing capital or the sales sales assets.
What are organizations actually going to do with that? Saved money. If we go by what they do historically it'll go back to either shareholder value share buybacks or strengthening the position of incumbents. And I'm not super stoked about that, if that's the way it turns out. But I do think, if you look at AI versus other innovations, it really is going to play to the incumbents more so than the new guys, right?
I think open AI is making a good case, but look at what happened. Microsoft owns their soul now. And
Ruthi Corcoran: it's a bleak
Dave Dougherty: No. Go read the contract terms for what Microsoft did for them it's, nah, it's like it, yeah. Read the fine print as in anything in life, read the fine print. But that, it's going to the models that we've been talking about are, Google's bar Microsoft, and some of the image generation is cool.
Copyright lawsuits aside. Once those get figured out, it'll be really cool to see. But I do think, see ai, AI likes what I said. It made Ruthi, give me a thumbs up.
Ruthi Corcoran: I don't understand that. I wasn't touching my keyboard. How did this happen? The, for those listening, the thumbs up on Zoom just turned on without me touching my keyboard.
I don't know if I made the right facial expression at it. I wasn't aware that gestures were part of Zoom functionality, but we're gonna have to look into this. We'll report back later.
Dave Dougherty: Exactly. Exactly. No finish. Go ahead. Should I jump
Ruthi Corcoran: in? Go ahead.
Dave Dougherty: Yes.
Ruthi Corcoran: Okay.
Dave Dougherty: Absolutely. That's the whole point of the show.
Ruthi Corcoran: Awesome. I'm gonna have to go and watch this video and I'm very interested in this idea because I can think of a couple examples of what you describe Alex, but I'd like to hear more, to get a better sense.
My mind immediately jumps to the fashion industry when you were talking about this, and I think. Maybe there's something that, the Harvards of the world could look to. And I, it fits in nicely with that sub-brand idea. What's interesting about the fashion industry is, and especially if we talk high-end luxury, the Dior, the Chanels the less so with Hermes, but in any case, some of the high-end Gucci is another one.
They've done something brilliant, which is they have maintained their very high-end luxury, their high-end prices, while also opening up the market to the thousands who are the aspirational consumers. So if you want a piece of Chanel. You do not have three grand or more to drop on a bag or a blazer or something.
You can spend just over a hundred dollars and wear Chanel perfume every single day. And it can be part of your identity and part of what you do and how you get dressed in the morning and you have a piece of Chanel in a way that doesn't detract from Chanel's price, po power in the market. And what's interesting about that, so we live in Minnesota near the Mall of America.
Chanel has a boutique within Nordstrom. You, there's big bodyguard, like guys standing outside. It looks like you have to in order to get into this space, you have to be someone is the persona that they've set up with this boutique. But just across the hall in the mall, they're opening up the, one of the first Chanel cosmetic stores so that me aspirational consumer can go into a Chanel store, have a piece of that without.
Sort of detracting from the allure that is the boutique in the Nordstrom. And I think that's an interesting way that they've solved for this over and over again is by having that more accessible part to speak to the aspirational consumers. I don't think this looks the same across all different industries.
I don't know how you do that for steel for example, but there's something about, maybe you keep Harvard on a pedestal and you have Harvard do what it does best in terms of research and a long lineage of faculty and prestige, but then also have that sort of sub-brand for the aspirational, who can wear the Harvard sweatshirt?
Like what is the thing they can engage with in order to feel that they are part of the club while not detracting from Harvard, the institution, to keep that as something that is something you want to aspire towards. That's where my mind goes when you talk about the different levels of consumers and how maybe different startups come in and subtract from the pricing in the market.
Fast Fashion and Market Adaptation
Alex Pokorny: I'm not that familiar with the fashion industry, but I would actually also use the example of the fast fashion and basically how quick turnaround, massive number of products from, companies like Shine have pulled down. A lot of larger companies that may have been maybe this, they're just going after the aspirational group and I bet they're actually going after a bit more than that.
Then maybe some of those larger companies realize. But if shine in the fast fashion industry, basically the quality improves and improves, then I start to think that they're gonna start to threaten some of those incumbents. Yes, there we will be some copyright line between that, but depending on the country that's manufacturing it, maybe they don't care about those copyrights.
I don't know. I feel like that one might be disrupted as well. There's also like this, another piece of this kind of non-consumption thesis, basically the good enough idea. And there was so I think I can name the companies that were involved, but there was a company that was basically doing a lot of manufacturing and they started to look at a competitor that was coming in.
They asked basically their key opinion leaders is this new technology worth anything? 'cause of course they know about it. They're in the industry. Then the key opinion leaders say, no, it's not that good. Our product, when it's implemented, gets people a hundred percent of what they want.
This product may be, at best we'll get 'em to 80%. So don't worry about it. It's not that big of a deal. And of course, that new company came in and basically just destroyed that other one's market because they took over a huge amount of population that. 80% was good enough and there was also really no alternative.
And it was a far cheaper, option. So it worked great. And now that's a household brand. And the other one finally has released a product to compute against it because the intellectual property basically patent, ran out on the cheaper brand and now they're fighting to try to come back into this market.
It's just one of these, again, these examples of they're not looking at this product or not looking at these other options, being like, oh, they're not great. That's fine. It's fine that they're not great. That's actually good enough or just. An option for a huge amount of population, which means now there's a bunch of revenue coming into these companies, which means those companies can start to move up that ladder, that value chain ladder.
That's where I can then go back to the fast fashion piece of, yeah, a lot of this stuff is crap. It's junk. It absolutely is. The quality's really poor. You can wear it two times, three, Times's gonna rip, like it's junk. But as that starts to move up and there starts to be more money and more funding, and people in that group start to have aspirations of a little bit higher, a little bit more, what's going to stop those incumbents from retreating?
And maybe there's a line there with luxury goods where that, that, that breaks down. I don't know. I really like this example.
Dave Dougherty: I would be interested, you talk about the lifecycle of the organizations and the markets in general.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah. If
Dave Dougherty: you took fast fashion as an industry and maybe somebody who's listening knows, a case study around this, if you were to look at Google trends for secondary or secondarily related terms towards the end of fast fashion's hype cycle, do you start seeing an increase in sewing kits or how to mend a shirt or, things like that where it's the, you know what, I'm going to repair the cheap stuff that I bought because it keeps it keeps breaking.
Or, you know what, I'm going to pay a little more on the front end and so that I can have a high enough quality to be able to repair it and the repairs will last if I get a small hole in the seam. Do you start seeing that and then you get that increase in quality? You get the decrease in sales in the fast fashion, you get, people start caring about other things.
During that lifecycle. And then we have the data for that with the trends and the searches and whatever else.
Alex Pokorny: Okay. But there's disruptors. The disruptors, basically it just starts to cycle where basically, one of the main complaints against fast ration has basically been the environmental damage that's doing.
So how many companies have started up in the last five years? Have we having a strong environmental message around fashion? I would imagine most of those have seen a boost because of the reaction to the disruptor who disrupted the other one. There, there starts to be a line there, of sub-markets and break offs of related things as well, based on consumer, groups and interests.
Ruthi Corcoran: Case in point, the rise of luxury consignment that you can purchase online, the realreal.com man. That is something that didn't exist and now it does. And those types of services are growing. Dramatically in popularity. Markets are a process. This is the thing. This is not stagnant. It's complex adaptive system. It's not something where it's this thing, then this thing, something happens. Other companies react to it and they evolve. New companies pop up again. You have that same reaction. It's complicated.
Alex Pokorny: Makes
Dave Dougherty: it fun.
I think that's a great place to end. Yes. What is your game? It's gonna be play, gonna play
Black Hat vs. White Hat SEO
Ruthi Corcoran: black hat or white hat.
Dave Dougherty: Okay.
Ruthi Corcoran: All right. So I'm gonna give a scenario and we're gonna decide black hat or white hat. I've only got one scenario though, so if we like it, we'll do more. Okay. Publish if you
Dave Dougherty: like it or not.
Ruthi Corcoran: That's right.
Dave Dougherty: Yeah.
Ruthi Corcoran: Vice recently published a short news article about 800,000 Maryland license plates, which have a URL on them, which now direct anyone visiting that URL to online casino in the Philippines, black hat or white hat.
Alex Pokorny: So basically they've lost their, the ownership of that domain in this offshore or Philippine based casino bought the domain.
Ruthi Corcoran: That's right.
Oh,
Alex Pokorny: that's actually an interesting line. That, that's a good question. I don't know, I honestly, I maybe for those
Ruthi Corcoran: listening, we should explain what black hat and white hat is.
Alex Pokorny: Ooh, this is actually a good question. That's a debate. I like to explain it two ways. One is Black Cat is against Google's terms of service. Basically whenever they call your site or you use Google, you're agreeing to their terms of service, which means basically that you will not spam, you will not hack, you'll won't do a bunch of other things.
And anything that basically disregards that is considered largely black hat, spammy activities, hacking activities, anything like that absolutely is black hat. It can be illegal, but there's also a whole lot of it that just isn't illegal, but it's just unethical. Scraping email addresses off websites and just.
Sending people emails without them opting in, illegal in some countries, legal in others, unethical across the board, that kind of thing. The other way I like to explain it, which is also, this is a fun one, which adds to this game, is basically it's kind of short-term versus long-term investments. So black cat, you can get a site pump, a bunch of bad links to the thing, and Google will rank that thing, number one for an hour or maybe a day.
And then after that they ban you. And that domain is basically pretty scarred. And you just buy another domain, you do it again. So you're burning domains potentially on an hourly basis or even faster. Which is money making. And depending on the volume of that particular search term that you ranked number one for, you may make a whole bunch of money or enough to basically continue your profession.
Supplements rs, what's that? Supplements rs? Yeah, basically. And all the other hacked ones that are out there. You do the fun search of free Viagra. Thank God the company finally started actually sending out free pills because if you search for that, and you probably can search for it now, you'll find a bunch of hacked usually edu sites that, some college blog pages have been hacked.
It's a constant spam page. It has been for like, a decade or two long-term investing would be like having a site like target.com or walmart.com, and you basically never want to get the thing banned. You always want to do policies that are in line with Google and all the other terms of service to basically never touch and destroy your rankings.
So you're very careful about it. Long-term investing, very slow, incremental gains, though it's not fast. So there's always that. Quick versus slow, because this becomes an ethical question, but also a business question. So that's why I like to explain it two ways. One is ethical, the other one is a business standpoint.
All right.
Dave Dougherty: Okay. So after that, honestly, I don't know, I don't feel any way about it. Other than when you shut something down or you shut a program down. Enterprise companies pay attention to everything.
Alex Pokorny: There's a lot of stories like this of Uhhuh companies, for a minute.
I can't remember some of the big ones, but they'd almost be like Disney size, like losing disney.com for a day or an hour, and somebody picked it up and they suddenly have to pay out to some random guy from who knows where a whole bunch of money to try to get it back.
Dave Dougherty: Honestly I'm less concerned if it's white hat or black hat.
I am far more interested in what was the process for which they, A, had the idea that they could do this and B, found out that it was the license. Like what happens in your environment where you start going, where does that URL go, on a license plate. How many states even have license plate URLs or QR codes or anything else like that?
Thing one. Thing two is then, okay, you followed that and you realize it's available. Okay? I'm more interested in that process than I am.
Ruthi Corcoran: Avoiding the question.
Dave Dougherty: I know that's the wonderful world, but that's where I am. I don't know. I'm much more interested in the creative process and the thought process around it than I am.
If it was good or bad, that might put me on a chopping block for more ethics training. But I don't know.
Alex Pokorny: There are some fascinating stories if you look into the world of domaining, like there's one guy who's a, he has a medical doctor, quit his job because he made a heck of a lot more money selling and buying domains than he did as a doc.
There's some really interesting ones out there. As to my response to the question, there's nothing illegal technically about what they're doing. Ethically, it depends on what that site does. So I would say if it goes to a site that's trying to spam or hack that person's device, something like that, or they're doing something, basically nefarious against their customer, that clearly is unethical.
So that would be a black hat thing. White hat standpoint I think is pretty clear because they bought a domain that's available and they're making use out of it. And if it happens to be a whole bunch of old customers to that old domain, so be it. If they redirect it to theirs, knowing that basically there's a bunch of people accidentally getting to it, they're gonna get a bunch of bounce traffic.
Great. That probably wasn't the best move, but maybe they made enough of money off it. That's it's worth something. So overall, yeah. If you ended up buying, let's say disney.com and you owned it for a day and you've redirected to your personal blog, go for it. Disney's gonna have fun field day trying to explain.
Then the right four IT team is gonna be really apologetic. Saying We messed up, we forgot to renew that little check. So final PSA
Ruthi Corcoran: for everyone out there, check your domains, watch what's expiring.
Dave Dougherty: Final thought as Alex was talking, I think context is everything because if it was like a children's hospital brochure, I would feel a lot worse. Sure. Than a license plate. There's something about the big sort of nebulous behemoth that is a government or an enterprise like Disney that you go, nah.
But if it was a charity or a kid's thing, or, that feels a lot worse. Yeah.
Alex Pokorny: Because you're hijacking traffic in that stance that could have been used for kinda a more positive reason and has no intention of going to you. So you're hijacking traffic in that way. So that does, that sounds pretty black hatty if it goes to the emotional, I think ethical black
Ruthi Corcoran: hat territory generally, but yes.
Dave Dougherty: Yeah. Yeah. Do you remember the commercials where they would late night, maybe you guys have always just slept well and you've never seen these commercials, but you have the, like charity sites growing up where it's here's all these kids that are starving around the world.
Give us $20 a month to Yeah. Feed these kids. Okay, if your intention is good, but you're like manipulating, emotionally, manipulating the sleep, deprived that. To me feels bad. But I'm not saying it's a, an equivalent to this. I'm thinking out loud. So again, the question, I feel like we
Ruthi Corcoran: had a really good ending on the PSA, Dave.
Dave Dougherty: I can cut it. I can cut it. There's an editing process for a reason.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah, I don't know. I'd say leave it in because I think next time we'll talk about some ethics and marketing as well as some weird and random cases of when big corporations made really stupid plans. Like when JC Penney got a blackhead ban at one point. There's others out there too, so there's really some fun cases to talk about to
Ruthi Corcoran: be continued.
Alex Pokorny: Yeah, exactly.
Dave Dougherty: Okay. This was definitely a longer one. But I've enjoyed it. I hope anybody who's listening has enjoyed it and, consider yourself given a an imaginary award that will never actually give you in real life for making it through the length of this episode. Thank you all.
Please subscribe, share, hit us up on the email that's, you'll find in the description. Any thoughts, comments, questions, show ideas we want, any kind of feedback you have. Any ideas for the show, for the discussion. And actually I do have a bit of feedback from one of our previous episodes that I have to talk to you guys about.
'cause it'll require some homework before we do a rebuttal to our own ideas. So take care. Enjoy your time and see you in the next episode. Bye.
