EP #24 Astro Teller’s AMA: Allocating Resources for Audacious Ideas

In this episode, recorded during the 2022 Abundance360 summit, Astro Teller answers questions regarding Google’s OKR framework (and how it doesn’t work for Moonshots), financial incentives vs. intellectual honesty, and resource allocation for endless new ideas. You will learn about: 01:58 | Pre-mortem exercise 07:30 | OKRs don’t work for Moonshots 09:49 | Moonshots vs. equity 19:11 | How to allocate capital for each idea Dr. Astro Teller's expertise lies in intelligent technology as the CEO of Alphabet's X, The Moonshot Factory. X is a company dedicated to bringing extraordinary, audacious ideas to reality through science and technology. He was previously the founding CEO of Cerebellum Capital. _____________ Resources Visit X’s website. Learn more about Abundance360. Read the Tech Blog. Learn more about Moonshots & Mindsets. _____________ This episode is brought to you by: My executive summit, Abundance360 Levels: Real-time feedback on how diet impacts your health. levels.link/peter Consider a journey to optimize your body with LifeForce. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:02Speaker 00

  Every mile matters. Whether you're driving your dream car or your daily commuter. The Mobile One team knows that. It's why we created Mobile One Advanced Clean Motor Oil. It cleans your engine in one oil change and helps extend engine life, delivering performance, protection, and cleanliness for vehicles of all ages. All to help keep your engine running like new, whatever you're driving. Visit mobileone.com/advancedclean to learn more.

• 0:30Speaker 01

  We're not interested in something where we're not going to find out for five or 10 years if we're on the right path. We're obsessed with tight learning loops. So tell us a story about how this would change the world. Sounds like you have that. And then, for a small amount of money and a small number of months, certainly under a year, how are we going to find out that we're, we have evidence? It's not progress. Evidence that we're on the right track. If you don't have, if your moonshot isn't structured that way, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, I guess. It just means it wouldn't fit at X because it's not, we're obsessed with efficiency and you can't drive efficiency if you don't have tight learning loops. Which by the way, makes a bunch of healthcare stuff pretty hard for us to do.

• 1:13Peter Diamandis?

  And a massive transform to purpose is what you're telling the world. It's like, this is who I am. This is what I'm going to do. This is the dent I'm going to make in the universe.

• 1:25Peter Diamandis?

  Astro, you do not disappoint, my friend. And it's so, I could listen to you and I have. And thank you for the wisdom. My pleasure. You know, it's wisdom that I want you all to internalize. If it were easy, it would have been done already. If you think you know how to do it, probably not a moonshot. Or else, you're really lucky. There's a couple of things, and please go to the mics, but I've got to pull out a few more things from you. One of the things I learned from you that I love is the idea of a pre-mortem. Do you want to share what that is? Sure. So...

• 2:03Speaker 01

  We get excited about what we're doing. And that is an emotional process that is hard to fight. And so finding intellectual architecture to give to teams to help them get out of those emotions for just a little bit and sort of structure their thinking differently. We have lots of those at X. I would recommend that you practice some of them. But one of the ways to do that is to ask them to come up ahead of time with what's going to go wrong. If you're really excited, you can end up with blinders about what's going to go wrong. So there are different ways to do pre-mortems, but here was an example that I really liked.

• 2:46Speaker 01

  It was about two months before Wing was going to do its first public launch. So this is maybe 2013, 2014. And I could feel that the team was suffering from launch fever, where they were just kind of excited about how great it was going. And maybe it was going to go great, maybe. And I got them in a room and there was pads of paper and pens in front of the seats. Everyone sat down. And I said, "It's three months from now, one month after our launch." And it was an unbelievable failure. I mean, just gut-wrenchingly bad, so bad we can't even look each other in the eyes when we walked down the hallway. And you know why it was so bad. You knew it the whole time.

• 3:28Speaker 01

  This is a test, two minutes, write down why the whole thing blew up in our face. And that like 16-year-old, "I want to get an A on the test" kicks in and everyone starts scribbling frantically all of the things that are going to go wrong. And afterwards, we spent several hours like organizing the thoughts and talking about it. And nothing went wrong. Maybe nothing would have gone wrong, but I seriously doubt it because we then did two months of work to get ahead of all those problems. That's an example. There are other ways to do pre-mortems, but that's an example.

• 4:01Peter Diamandis?

  And I love that. So simple. Is that a nugget you guys can bring back to your companies? It's extraordinary. One more thing, then we'll go to your questions here.

• 4:11Peter Diamandis?

  I asked you at our patron lunch, how many companies you've killed. Now, as entrepreneurs, we, you know, we love our darlings and being proud of how many companies you kill is not typically what people think about. What was that number again?

• 4:26Speaker 01

  Two thousand.

• 4:27Peter Diamandis?

  Two thousand.

• 4:27Speaker 01

  Roughly. And we have a graveyard, we keep track of them because they do come back. They've come back several times.

• 4:34Peter Diamandis?

  Technology changes.

• 4:36Speaker 01

  Technology changes. So, one of the ones that was the most painful for us to kill, the internal name for it was called Foghorn. We were so proud of this. We had a working system, it was about the size of a couch, for turning seawater into methanol using green energy. You could stick it right in a gas tank and it would go. Unbelievable, save the world kind of stuff. Except, we couldn't convince ourselves, this is about six years ago, that the cost gallon of gas equivalent was going to get down below fifteen dollars, even if we were kind of optimistic about a bunch of things. So, we shut it down. And the team was awesome about that. We published in the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, the service science side of what we did.

• 5:18Speaker 01

  We published in Fast Company, what the business side of why we killed it, so that other people could build on top of this. And then we went on with our lives. But we'd also been working on green hydrogen for a long time. And it's now turned out that we might have a real breakthrough in how to make green hydrogen way cheaper. But wait a second, the reason we killed that thing like five, six years ago, was that the single most expensive part of making a synthetic fuel was getting the hydrogen. Oh, wait a second, maybe we could go back there.

• 5:48Peter Diamandis?

  Amazing. Can you describe, is it weekly or monthly when you kill, you have your ceremony to kill your companies?

• 5:57Speaker 01

  It's more mixed now, there isn't a single day when we have it.

• 6:00Peter Diamandis?

  Describe, describe what it's like.

• 6:03Speaker 01

  Most typically, these are projects, sometimes we've closed down projects as big as, you know, 50 or 70 people. And there's a lot, you know, a 50-person team at X is usually functioning like something at least double its size because we have a lot of shared infrastructure so that we don't have to find jobs for, you know, 100 people if we closed down a 50-person team that was using a lot of that infrastructure. We only have to help 50 people find new jobs around X. More typically, it's three, four, or five people we're going to need to find jobs for that was sort of functionally, when they show all the people working on the teleporter project or whatever it is, there might be 20 faces on the slide, but only maybe three, four, or five people are going to need to find new jobs full-time.

• 6:47Speaker 01

  And we will, at our all hands, which happens every two weeks, celebrate them, give them a chance to describe what excited them about the idea in the first place, what experiments they ran, why they've decided to kill that thing, and then we celebrate them as part of that. That gets their, the failure into the moonshot compost. It also allows for people to see that a failure is not a bad thing. It is an experiment where we have successfully decided not to do more of it for good reasons. Awesome, kick-ass, it was a gorgeous idea, super well-executed, stopped at the right time, what could be better than that? But you have to practice that and celebrate that in front of everybody for people to

• 7:32Speaker 01

  start to feel it.

• 7:33Peter Diamandis?

  Yeah, so much wisdom. Ultimately, you're giving back to the company, the time you would have wasted going forward, all the money you would have wasted, so celebrating that is extraordinary. George, it's good of you first.

• 7:44Speaker 03

  Okay. Hey, Astro, that was awesome. Okay, great, the mic's on. So I run a emerging venture studio here in LA. We're just bringing to market our first two moonshots, so hearing everything you said was just totally awesome. I have a two-part question. So the first one is, as Google's kind of like the OKRs king, and you talked a lot about habits, not outcomes, so I imagine you've kind of reframed your OKRs around driving the habits. I'd love to hear how you approach that from top-down, what is Google X's OKRs and down to the individual? How have you guys reframed that from maybe the classic Google model? And then...

• 8:25Speaker 01

  Great question. I think there are probably situations in which OKRs can be a good way to drive things. I think it is a horrendous way to drive moonshots. What really an OKR is like something that you pretty much care about, but if you get 70 or 80% of the way, you celebrate it. I find that really bizarre. Especially with moonshots and I think maybe more generally in life, whatever you're trying to do. There are actually two buckets and neither of them is 70% is OK. There are like no messing around, we have to get these things done. Even if we're total experimental mode, if you want to run an experiment, but you're expecting something from me two months from now, like I need to deliver that to you, not like 70% deliver it to you, you can't run your experiment.

• 9:10Speaker 01

  There's like the no messing around stuff. That's not really an OKR like 70% is OK. That's like get it done. That's a should be a small set of things that are these non-negotiables. Beyond that, everything else should be on audacious goal. It should be an experiment. You don't even know what the right answer is. How can you set your key results most of the time? When the real thing is, I don't even know if we should go over there and I don't know what we're gonna find. You should have a reason to go looking over there, but you shouldn't be determined to find something. That just blinds you to the thing you're trying to learn. So we structure what we do around audacious goals and try to help people practice learning where they say, we're gonna try to do this thing, I bet it doesn't work.

• 9:53Speaker 01

  We're gonna bust our ass trying to accomplish this or learn this or head in this direction. And we're gonna report back to you all of X next quarter on how that went. And frequently they'll just give themselves a zero or say, you know what, halfway through the quarter, we realized that wasn't even the right thing to be working on and we just headed in this other direction instead. And that's OK. Patrick, mic three. Thank you, George.

• 10:16Speaker 04

  Thank you. Astro, that was awesome. As a bootstrapped company with the team having equity, I struggle with the balance between the moonshot. We drive habits to, hey, we actually need to succeed on a monthly basis. Why we grow into that? How do you find that balance? We choose not to go the VC route. So, you know, and they know the financials. There's full transparency. So, how do you find that balance?

• 10:47Speaker 01

  I mean, I'll give you the answer. I don't mean to be depressing, but I want to be transparent with you. I don't know that you can do a moonshot while people have to be worried about their kid's college fund at the same time. I think that that isn't rational. And so, as a result, while you're at X, five, six, seven years, probably till you're at least 100 people as a team, you don't have equity in what you're doing. If it turns out that this option, not a business, we're exploring, we're answering the question, we're buying options on the future for Alphabet. If we then decide to turn it into another bet, at that point, there can be equity and you, the founding team, can get equity alongside of Alphabet and own this business.

• 11:30Speaker 01

  Once a lot of the risk has been removed, because then your interests and their interests haven't diverged. But it doesn't make any sense for me to say, kill your darlings, and you've been paid for the last couple of years in darling stock options. Like, that becomes impossible to kill. But, but think about what that means. That means that intellectual honesty becomes harder in the face of financial incentives. So, you had better not give anyone financial incentives while the single most important thing is exploration and intellectual honesty. Once it's slipped and you've done more than 50% of your exploration and you want to harness entrepreneurial zeal, then stock options, then equity makes sense.

• 12:14Speaker 01

  There will still be some intellectual honesty, but it will go down some relative to the blast-through-the-walls attitude that stock options or equity drives.

• 12:24Peter Diamandis?

  Astro, we need to hit one other thing you've talked about in the past. We didn't touch on today, which is you have an organization, a number of people running medium and large-sized companies. And I want to do moonshots inside my organization. And it's like, no, no, no, no.

• 12:39Peter Diamandis?

  Need to put the moonshot organization on the outside. And your key point that you made and I'd like you to amplify on is this is my 10% people and this is my 10x people. Can you play on that a little bit?

• 12:49Speaker 01

  Sure. I mean, I don't think that's totally fair to Google. I think Google is still a very inventive organization in lots of ways.

• 12:57Peter Diamandis?

  Not saying Alphabet.

• 12:58Speaker 01

  Well, but I am, actually. I'm saying the reason that X can do what it can do is because we are part of a company that does have people working incredibly hard to make sure that over the next year or two, good things happen and the lights are kept on. And we are the 10%, not the only 10%, but one of the important 10% as it were for Alphabet. So if I were running a large company and I wanted to start up a moonshot factory within my company, what I would do isn't say to the people who aren't in that, like, "You stop being innovative now, that's not a thing." But to say to this relatively small group of people, relative to the size of my overall company, "I'm going to create a meaningful barrier between you and the rest of this

• 13:43Speaker 01

  company. Don't worry about what our company is now, and this barrier is to protect you from all of the antibodies and innovator's dilemma that can tend to kill organizations like this. I want you to go figure out what problems we should be solving in 10 years and how to solve them. That's your job, Moonshot Factory. That's my job for Alphabet, is to help them get into new areas where we have at least some, you know, the beginnings of some solution."

• 14:13Peter Diamandis?

  And one of the things I heard you say as well, which I want the membership here to hear is, if you're in the moonshot group, I don't want you thinking about 10%. I want you thinking about crazy, you know, the day before something is truly a breakthrough, it's a crazy idea.

• 14:28Speaker 01

  For sure. When someone brings an idea at X, the single most likely reason we would stop doing it is because it's too obvious and it will probably work. As soon as somebody brings something to us that doesn't sound crazy, we're like, "Yeah, that'd probably work." Nope, not interested. Because if we can all say, "Yeah, that'd probably work," everyone else in the world's gonna say, "Yeah, that would probably work." Once you've proposed something that fits with those three circles: huge problem with the world, radical proposed solution, breakthrough technology, you have a hypothesis we could go test, and it sounds bonkers, and I'm sure you're wrong, the answer is: awesome, gorgeous idea, you're probably wrong. What is the fastest, cheapest way you can explore that idea, verify that you're wrong,

• 15:13Speaker 01

  so we can move on to the next thing? Because if you have a 1% chance of being right, which is sort of typical of moonshots, if your pride is gonna be connected to being right, you have a 99% chance of being miserable at X. You like have to get into the mode of being proud of killing things for good reasons, not being proud because you were right about your idea, because you're probably not right about your idea. Mike?

• 15:39Speaker 05

  Yes, I was wondering, is that space elevator in your opening slide one of your moonshots?

• 15:46Speaker 01

  No, we did investigate it. Weirdly, we investigated it somewhat seriously after the New York Times erroneously, this is like 2011 or something, said we were making one. And so we just went a couple rounds sanity checking, can we make one? And the strength-to-weight ratio isn't there yet to make a space elevator. You'd need to have something that could make, you know, tens of thousands of miles of something as strong relative to its weight as carbon nanotubes. We're just not there yet, so. Let's go to Zoom. Francois, what's your question, my friend?

• 16:21Speaker 06

  Yeah, so wonderful presentation, we enjoyed it. We have started a company in the oncology space, and our moonshot is to cure head and neck cancer. And it's, you know, wonderful the opportunity, a lot of genetics behind it. A lot of very, very smart people helping us doing that from UC More Cancer Center and NYU. And we have a couple of platform technology that we're working on that are very promising, like a very super, uh, super animal model for head and leg cancer. Uh, my question to you as a startup, um, and, and looking at the world of possibilities

• 17:05Speaker 06

  here in terms of therapeutic development. You know, I understand, you know, maybe it's not the time for a moonshot, but if I really want to transform the world and develop something extraordinary in a very difficult cancer to treat, uh, that's what I like to do. I like to experiment and so on and so forth. Where do you find the source of money to do that? I suppose that this is difficult, but have you had opportunities with philanthropists to find the first part of, of the moonshot? How, how did it work?

• 17:35Speaker 01

  Well, I'm not sure if this is clear. I mean, we don't raise money from the outside. That's not really how it works. We get money from Alphabet and we run a process which, as, as I was describing it, produces a lot of what looks like waste, at least after the fact, because things didn't work out. But, you know, roughly once a year, we produce something that Alphabet's pretty excited about, like more recently, intrinsic or everyday robots, which have now become, uh, have graduated from X in the last year or two. So we don't go out and seek for money. If your effort was at X, and I'm not pulling you into X or telling you have to do it this

• 18:14Speaker 01

  way, but if your effort was at X, then we would say, we're not interested in something where we're not going to find out for five or 10 years if we're on the right path. We're obsessed with tight learning loops. So tell us a story about how this would change the world. Sounds like you have that. And then for a small amount of money and a small number of months, certainly under a year, how are we going to find out that we're, we have evidence as not progress, evidence that we're on the right track? If you don't have, if your moonshot isn't structured that way, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, I guess. It just means it wouldn't fit at X because it's not, we're obsessed with efficiency and you can't drive efficiency if you don't have tight learning loops, which by the way,

• 18:57Speaker 01

  makes a bunch of healthcare stuff pretty hard for us to do. Nora?

• 19:03Speaker 07

  When you take an idea out of the freezer, do you have a resurrection ceremony? And if so, what does that look like?

• 19:12Speaker 01

  We don't. What an awesome idea. God, it's a miss. Our love of the idea of a resurrection ceremony. Let's hear it, Mark and Nora's resurrection.

• 19:26Speaker 01

  I'll give you a hug afterwards, and we're going to do that at our next Dia de los Muertos.

• 19:33Speaker 01

  There you go. Happy Easter. You're right, we should do it at Easter. That's even better. Daniel, mic seven.

• 19:39Speaker 08

  Thank you. Loving this session. So you're an idea factory. How do you start to think about capital allocation on an idea-by-Idea basis? I get that there's kind of a meritocracy around the best ideas earning more weight, but you're allocating capital and focus with a lot of competing, new ideas to pursue. So how do you start thinking about capital allocation? And do you have any concentration concerns? Is there a certain point where you say, OK, we're too heavily weighted on this idea or this type of idea?

• 20:09Speaker 01

  Yes, certainly. The conversation, oh, how did we get to the place where almost a third of our total resources on one project? That has happened before, and that's not a good thing. It ends up being a little bit feeling too big to fail, which is dangerous, given the process I just described. That stopped being a problem for us. This is one of the many things we did wrong, learned about it, got ahead of, and now that doesn't happen anymore. I would say here's the most non-obvious and uncomfortable part of our capital allocation process. Everyone at X hears me say what I've just said to you, and they nod, they feel somewhat inspired, and they kind of go back and, at least sort of, do business as usual, because they're really used to just being an entrepreneur,

• 20:52Speaker 01

  and I'm really smart, and I'll build some cool stuff. And so we are purposefully under-resourcing the teams.

• 21:02Speaker 01

  Because I don't want them to do it the normal way. And it is crazy making for them because they think they have a great idea. And if me and Astro would just give me like twice the resources, I could do it. But I could do it is shorthand often for I could do it the normal way. I don't want them to do it the normal way. I would rather turn it off. It is our job to look for cheats in the video game of life. That is what we're being paid by Alphabet for, to find these kind of end runs around the problem, not to spend a huge amount of money blasting through the middle of the problem. But that is a very painful thing when you're on the receiving end of that capital allocation

• 21:44Speaker 01

  and have maybe intellectually, but not in your heart or in your gut, really gotten what we're doing yet. You can feel like, I don't love you, we're not supporting you because you're under resourced. That is an example tension that happens at X.

• 21:57Speaker 08

  Brilliant, thank you.

• 21:59Speaker 09

  Let's go to Edwin at Mike 4. This is, this is great, so refreshing. So I'm working on a moonshot to reinvent the broken recruitment industry with a blockchain smart contract, which is inevitable, it's gonna happen. But a leading crypto researcher with a million followers posted a tweet saying, well whoever does this is gonna be a unicorn within a year. And so I'm going through all of the respondents, I think there might be 50 teams all working on the same thing. The thing we're working on is a unification of an entire industry to align incentives. So I've written a white paper, people are all excited, but every time I'm talking to potential co-founders, they're posturing around why they're the best to do it and almost wanting to compete.

• 22:42Speaker 09

  And I want to try to unify and collaborate with people. So just what general advice do you have for me to how to take your talk to people who actually want to, in a way like posture and say like, you know, I'm the best person to do this alone?

• 22:57Speaker 01

  I don't know, I mean,

• 23:01Speaker 01

  collaboration is a very powerful tool that is massively underused in most of the world. I think exercising a lot of trust. You'll get hosed semi-regularly if you exercise what is thought considered too much trust. But I also think you'll get paid back. You will net to the positive with the opportunities for collaboration. So finding even a few people who will join that club might be a way to get the ball rolling. I would also say that at X, you know, you could look at Alphabet and say it's like the ultimate platform building business. Surely, everything that X is doing like could be very platform-y. So they're probably building a platform from the beginning. It's actually kind of not like that.

• 23:41Speaker 01

  What we would say on every single thing we're doing is let's aspire to a platform that can help the world. But let's also shoot for a beachhead where we don't have to boil the whole ocean to prove we can boil the first bucket of water. Let's get a bucket of water, let's boil it, show that we can do that, then we'll get a swimming pool, we'll boil that. So I would also try to design some way for you not to need everybody to participate in order to win. Like find a way where you can win, design it so that when one person joins you, you and they are better off. I think that'll be a faster path to everybody joining you than trying to get everyone to join you from the beginning.

• 24:21Peter Diamandis?

  Beautiful. Let's go to Zoom. Andrew.

• 24:25Speaker 10

  Thank you, Peter. Arthur, it's been one of the best talks I've heard in my whole career. It's been really amazing. Thank you for that.

• 24:33Peter Diamandis?

  Let's hear it for that.

• 24:43Speaker 10

  I mean, you inspired me for a lot of ideas for sure for me and my team. And I'll make sure that everybody in my team sees this call. I have a global team located in many countries, Brazil, Uruguay, San Francisco, China, Singapore. I wonder how you think about global talent in your case? And does X work mainly in one area of the country? Do you, how do you diversify across the globe to still keep, you know, the ideas flourishing? But at the same time harvest maybe a higher diversity?

• 25:14Speaker 01

  Great question. Great question. This is an awesome example of how we harvest, you know, open-mindedness and everyone having the opportunity to be right and to prove, and me in particular, but all of us at X, wrong. I've been on this thing for a long time. I wish we could have offices around the world, but I don't know how to do that. I can't even get people in the same floor of the same building that I'm in to be doing what I'm talking about. Like, what I've described to you is aspirational. We're doing a weak version of what I'm describing. It's probably better... Our joke is that we're the worst moonshot factory in the world, except for all the other ones. Which is like, you know, we could have some pride in what we're doing, but we have a long way to go still.

• 25:59Speaker 01

  So I've been resisting having offices... We have people sprinkled all over the place, but we haven't really set up a proper office. It's mostly been these sort of rogue groups, and I'm like, "Oh, fine, I won't fight that one." And finally, someone convinced me about a year ago that we needed to try it, and she was just so persistent, and she's been at X for a long time, and I said, "Fine." So she has now set up our first real X satellite office, which happens to be in Tel Aviv. And I told her, "I don't care what you do. I don't care what you produce. I don't... There's no measure of success for me in this experiment, other than how X-y are they?

• 26:40Speaker 01

  If you can get those people in Tel Aviv to be at least as X-y, at least with the program that I've described, as the people who are in our building, you win. And no matter what they produce, if that's not true, you lose. It wasn't a success... I'm not mad at you, but it won't be a success and we'll close the office down." It's only been nine months, and I was totally wrong. I think what I have learned is, I was right, big asterisk, unless a really X-y person goes to that office and opens it themselves. She was so personally sold on the things that I've been talking about, that she's actually been more successful than me, because she has like eight or 10 people right now, and day and night, she's with them, talking like this, and that's more successful than

• 27:24Speaker 01

  having like hundreds-plus times as many people.

• 27:26Peter Diamandis?

  Speaking of passionate Israelis, we go to our last question here, from Yali.

• 27:32Speaker 11

  Thank you, thank you for setting the office in Israel. You know, we really need it, so that's good for us. And unfortunately, in Israel, we all the time have to reinvent ourselves.

• 27:42Peter Diamandis?

  But, short question.

• 27:44Speaker 11

  Okay. I want you to tell us the story of the what happened with Google X, because I think it's coming back now, if I'm not mistaken. So, it's a resurrection story. So, can you tell us about that?

• 27:58Speaker 01

  You mean, literally, how the word "Google" left our brand?

• 28:03Speaker 11

  No, no, no, no, no, "Google Glass."

• 28:05Speaker 01

  Oh, "Google Glass"?

• 28:06Speaker 11

  Yes, sorry.

• 28:07Speaker 01

  I mean, the very short version of that is, we had a vision of how AR would work into people's lives, professional lives into their personal lives. And I think, and that's fine, that's how it is, we were too early. That part, I'm not at all sorry about. That's kind of our job, to be somewhat too early. The part that we got wrong was we pretended we were done when we weren't done. We had built an awesome learning platform, and somewhere along the way, because X was still young, we started kidding ourselves and kidding the rest of the world that it was a product, when it was not yet a product. And that then set expectations really high that we couldn't meet. That was really bad. So, it looked like "Google Glass" went away,

• 28:52Speaker 01

  but that's actually not what happened. It was focused on the B2B market. It's been at X for, on and off, actually, for the last like 10, 11 years. It's been in the rest of Google the rest of the time. "Google Glass" is still produced. It is being used in professional settings, like doctors' offices and wherever. It's actually being used in prototyping for some of our moonshots. And, um, yeah, I don't think it's dead. So, maybe that was what you're referring to. Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for Astro Teller! Thank you!

• 29:23Peter Diamandis?

  Everyone, this is Peter again. Before you take off, I want to take a moment to just invite you to subscribe to my weekly tech blog. Today, over 200,000 people receive this email twice per week. In the tech blog, I share with you my insights on converging exponential technologies, what's going on in AI, how longevity is transforming, adding decades to our life. In the tech blog, I often look at the 20 meta trends that are going to transform the decade ahead and share the conversations I've had with incredible tech thought leaders on how they're transforming industries. If that sounds cool to you and you want to try it, join me. Go to dmantis.com/blog, enter your email, and let's start this weekly conversation. Let me share with you the incredible progress we're seeing in the world of technology and

• 30:08Peter Diamandis?

  the positive impact it's having on our lives. Again, that's dmantis.com/blog. Looking forward to sharing my insights and incredible breakthroughs I'm seeing with you every single week.

• 30:33Speaker 00

  Every mile matters, whether you're driving your dream car or your daily commuter. The Mobile One team knows that. It's why we created Mobile One Advanced Clean Motor Oil. It cleans your engine in one oil change and helps extend engine life, delivering performance, protection, and cleanliness for vehicles of all ages. All to help keep your engine running like new, whatever you're driving. Visit mobileone.com/advancedclean to learn more.