Former Microsoft Executive on Apple’s Hidden China Problem

What if the rise of Apple also built modern China? a16z’s Erik Torenberg is joined by board partner and former Microsoft Windows chief Steven Sinofsky to unpack how Apple’s pursuit of design excellence and supply chain scale catalyzed China’s manufacturing superpower status - and why that partnership is now under intense scrutiny. Inspired by the book Apple in China (but not a book review), the episode dives deep into: - The early days of Apple’s shift to Chinese manufacturing - What experts got wrong in 1999 about trade, globalization, and China’s trajectory - How Tim Cook’s operational playbook reshaped the global tech industry - Behind-the-scenes stories from Microsoft’s own hardware battles and -Surface launch - Why Apple’s entanglement with China may now be a strategic liability - What COVID revealed about fragile global dependencies — and where innovation goes next - How national policy, intellectual property, and AI intersect in the new industrial era The episode opens with a few reactions to WWDC: Apple’s new UI, the iPad’s evolving role, and why Apple’s AI story still feels unfinished - before zooming out into one of the most consequential tech and geopolitical stories of our time. Timecodes: 00:00 Introduction 00:32 Reuniting with Steven 01:17 WWDC Highlights: Liquid Glass and iPad Updates 04:11 Apple's AI Strategy and Market Dynamics 05:35 Meta's AI Moves and Market Implications 12:26 Apple's Historical Manufacturing Journey 16:06 The Evolution of Apple's Manufacturing in China 21:22 The Rise of ODMs and the PC Industry 26:31 Inside China's ODM Factories 28:49 The Evolution of the MacBook Air 29:25 The Apple Manufacturing Miracle 30:46 Challenges with Windows PC Makers 31:49 The Rise of Surface and Metallurgy Innovations 32:58 China's Manufacturing Prowess 34:14 The Point of No Return for Apple 35:04 The Complexities of Global Trade 39:48 The Impact of COVID on Global Manufacturing 42:44 Navigating the Future of Manufacturing 51:18 The Role of Intellectual Property in US-China Competition Resources: Find Steven on X: https://x.com/stevesi Find Erik on X: https://x.com/eriktorenberg Stay Updated: Let us know what you think: https://ratethispodcast.com/a16z Find a16z on Twitter: https://twitter.com/a16z Find a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16z Subscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://a16z.simplecast.com/ Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures.

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

• 0:00Steven Sinofsky?

  If you look back in 1999, it's like completely upside down from today. As Tim Cook says, "People think that China is about cheap manufacturing." But it's the skills they have. For the global view of trade, it was working exactly as planned for everybody. All the experts in 1999 were like, "Two things. Yay for global trade. This is what we all want. And also, don't worry. China, they're going to stay a third world dictatorship forever." They couldn't have been more wrong.

• 0:34Speaker 01

  What if the rise of Apple also built modern China? Today's guest is Steven Sinofsky, board partner at A16Z and former president of Microsoft's Windows division. He led major efforts behind Office, Windows, and introduction of Surface, and he's one of the sharpest minds in tech. We kick off with reactions to WWDC, Apple's new UI, the iPad's big software shift, and why Apple's AI story still feels unfinished. Then we dive into the heart of the conversation: Apple's entanglement with China, how it started, what it enabled, and whether it's now a strategic liability. Let's get into it.

• 1:10Speaker 01

  As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only. Should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund. Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments, please see a16z.com/disclosures.

• 1:40Speaker 01

  Steven, I've been looking forward to this episode because this is a full-circle moment for me. You were how I got introduced to A16Z. You were on the board of Product Hunt over 11 years ago, which is how I was introduced to you and the firm, and I'm glad to be back in business together.

• 1:55Steven Sinofsky?

  I couldn't be more excited for us to be working together on this one and then more in the future, I hope.

• 2:00Erik Torenberg?

  Exactly.

• 2:00Steven Sinofsky?

  And yeah, definitely a reunion of sorts.

• 2:02Erik Torenberg?

  Absolutely. So for those who haven't been longtime fans of the podcast or the firm, you've been Aces and Z for over a decade as a board partner, et cetera. And before that, you spent many years at Microsoft, helping lead both Office and Windows. And you helped to introduce the Surface PCs, which is relevant to the conversation we're about to have. So we're here to talk about Apple, you know, inspired by the book, Apple in China. But first, let's briefly cover WWDC. What reactions or hot takes do we have from it?

• 2:27Steven Sinofsky?

  One of the exciting things about this book is that, you know, lots of interesting things to talk about with Apple. But WWC is, you know, they're a big yearly developer event. Of course, it's always disappointing, you know, we're here to talk about supply chains in China and gadgets, but there's never any gadgets at WBC really. But lots of big things to talk about. I mean, it's a remarkable event. It's a remarkable platform that's been doing yearly releases for 26 years.

• 2:52Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 2:52Steven Sinofsky?

  It blows my mind what they've done and the scale that they operate at. But I think there are three big things that came out of it. The first was, you know, obviously the big push. It was also the big reaction, which was called Liquid Glass. And it's the new user interface design. So having gone through multiple big user interface redesigns of widely used products, although to be humble about it, not one used by a billion people. The reaction is extremely predictable, which is a bunch of people, their heads just explode and they don't want it, they don't like it. You can always tell they dive in immediately to what problem does it solve? So if there's change, it must solve a problem. But there are lots of reasons that designs change.

• 3:37Steven Sinofsky?

  And then there's the reality, this was the developer conference. So it's not done. And Apple is very, very good at finishing these things. And all the bugs and all the issues, I can't read it, it's blurry, it's noisy, those will all get fixed. You know, and what's left is, is it great and is it unique enough? And time will tell. I basically am reserving judgment and not joining in the hysteria on either side. I have no need to defend it and no need to say it's the worst thing to happen to computing, you know, since ternary processors or something. The second thing that I thought was huge personally was just that the iPad gets Windows with a lowercase w. And I think that's just. Fascinating, like 12 different ways.

• 4:22Steven Sinofsky?

  You know, it goes back to the original toaster refrigerator comment, or the iPad is different, or Steve holding the iPad only like this because it was a book. And it's just a recognition of who uses it and what they use it for. I worry it's a little late. Like, I think a lot of people have made up their minds about what to use where. Now, the iPad sells an enormous number of units, and people who don't use them don't understand that. They sell more iPads, you know, than the laptop run rate in the US. It's a big number, and they're enormously popular with different segments. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. The weirdest thing about it is, you know, the iPad is a Mac. Yeah. The Mac is an iPad in terms of the hardware.

• 5:06Steven Sinofsky?

  And so you're really talking about a difference in software. And how they deal with that over time, and what apps run where, and where is the experience, is going to be super interesting. The third thing was more an act of omission than commission, and which was AI. Right. And the whole event sort of started with Craig apologizing, not really apologizing, but in an Apple way, which was like, it took more time than we planned, so we're not going to talk about it anymore. Yeah. And I personally think that, you know, months ago, when they, with a great fanfare, launched all these AI features, that was out of character for them. They announced a bunch of stuff that they weren't done with yet, that they hadn't baked. It was the right stuff, but they didn't capitalize on it, to be polite.

• 5:51Steven Sinofsky?

  And I think what they're probably doing is saying, we're not really good at this pre-announce, Right. catch-up-to-our-own-announcements thing, which, of course, I grew up doing. So I'm like completely comfortable in that world of just make stuff up and hope you catch up, or people forget. And so I think that they're back to like, we're not the first mover company. We're the first integrator company. And they're going to just sit back and watch the technology mature a little bit more. But they do have a whole, in a perception sense, which is Siri, and what they're going to do about that. And to not talk about it very much is interesting.

• 6:27Erik Torenberg?

  A lot of people have commented on the failures of Apple Intelligence or just Apple's inability to capitalize on this innovation. We just saw Meta purchase 49% of scale, so they're making some big moves. How do you make sense of Meta's move? And could we see Apple do a similar type of play where they buy the talent in-house? How do you think about that?

• 6:46Steven Sinofsky?

  I think what Meta is doing, at the very least, it's great for AI. I'll let Meta decide how great it is for Meta or whatever, but it's great for AI. And the reason is, is that if you go back, the way platforms have been evolving, in mainframes IBM had 100%, in PCs, Microsoft had 95%. Then you start getting out there, and then in servers, actually it ended up being, at best case, 50/50, and it's been downhill and it's all Linux now. In phones, you have this split, 80/20 globally, but you have to really dig down by country where it's 80/20 the other way. And in cloud, it's very likely we're going to end up in a 40/40/20 kind of world.

• 7:31Steven Sinofsky?

  And so AI, it's almost inconceivable that there'll be one winner.

• 7:36Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 7:37Steven Sinofsky?

  And the overlay is China and how that plays out. And the mobile industry is a really good example of how difficult it is. The smartphones, so to speak, Japan had this huge lead in this thing called iMode, but it only existed in Japan. And so they were leaders in technology and experience. They had all these micro-payments, all this stuff, but it didn't go anywhere outside of the country. And so the biggest risk to AI is that either someone tries to think it's only one player, which at times the federal government has acted like that, or one player says it should only be us, which there is a player claiming that, or it gets geographically constrained.

• 8:19Steven Sinofsky?

  It doesn't matter which one of those might happen. To prevent any one of them, you just need a lot of players operating at huge scale. And so in the startup world, you have Anthropic and you have OpenAI. You know, and you have in pure open source, you have Meta. Then you have Microsoft and Google. So we have like innovation happening on all cylinders and all fronts, which is great. Because the competition, you know, is basically making the call that it's going to be one. And it's sort of going to be this government driven approach. It might not be one company, but it will be one approach that's sort of sanctioned in some way. And it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. There's nothing better than more and open for AI right now.

• 9:03Erik Torenberg?

  It's worth just commenting on the market structure point because when we look back at the last few years of our sort of growth investing in this category. We've been very aggressive, but we regret not being even more aggressive. And because one of those principles was, hey, we want to back the market leader. And so when you see a second place company, we're like, hey, it's not the market leader. But in this market, as you mentioned, it's not winner take all, or just the market is so big. That even the second place, the third place can be, you know, generational companies.

• 9:27Steven Sinofsky?

  Right. And we're not even at the point yet where I believe we'll get, which is the initial go to market has all been this cloud based thing. But there's all these challenges with that, like privacy and security and cost. And so the idea that we would foist variable cost on the entire world of software. Very tough for me as a fixed cost, low price, volume mindset to think will sustain. So I think there's a whole wave of AI on the edge. That's going to happen, which only benefits from open.

• 9:57Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 9:57Steven Sinofsky?

  There's nothing but positive to say.

• 9:59Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah. Does it make sense to look this Alexander Wang or this sort of scale as something of like a $15 billion aqua hire of Alex plus the top talent at scale? And if you're advising Apple, do they or even some of the other big incumbents need to do something similar? Obviously, Microsoft is listed with OpenAI to begin with, but if you're Apple, how do you think about how to play here?

• 10:17Steven Sinofsky?

  Well, I think, you know, the two plays are, or three. One is going to be the sort of the weird partnership dance play that Microsoft and OpenAI have. It seems obvious that at some point. You know, Microsoft will have much more first-party software. There's the, we have always made our play by just having everything, which is Amazon. And so, anything that comes out, they're gonna end up supporting, which is just how retail works. Like, you get all the cereals, not just Fruit Loops. And then, I think there's just the, where we're gonna go at our own way, in a sense, which is Gemini

• 10:49Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 10:50Steven Sinofsky?

  taking their approach, or OpenAI itself, or Anthropic itself. And I, I think that Apple needs to pick one. You know, they did announce, like, hey, you can call any model through our API. But the real thing that Apple needs to do is figure out what model is gonna be tuned to run on their unique hardware on the edge. And their unique offering, or constraint, depending on, of privacy.

• 11:12Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 11:12Steven Sinofsky?

  And how that plays out.

• 11:14Erik Torenberg?

  And just to evaluate one of those paths, if Satya could go back in time, knowing what he knows now, do you think he might have done something, or would you have considered doing something different? How should we think about how this has worked out for Microsoft?

• 11:24Steven Sinofsky?

  Oh, these are tricky things. You can't ask me questions about my friends. But I, I wouldn't, putting aside his advice, I would say, I genuinely, to those listening, I do not know anything that's going on. But Microsoft has been involved in AI research.

• 11:39Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 11:39Steven Sinofsky?

  Since 1993, they were the first hires into Microsoft Research when the labs were formed. I was working for Bill way back then. And, you know, Satya worked closely with those researchers when he was the manager of the Bing team for a while, because that was the cornerstone of what Bing was doing, because that's what Google was doing in, say, 2006, '07, or something like that. And I think that I would not be at all surprised, I don't know anything, I swear, people, you know, that there's some first-party thing that they're just trying to figure out when, and how good does it have to be? Because if you are Microsoft, it turns out that, like, the strength of Microsoft is that you never have to be best. You just have to be included.

• 12:20Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 12:21Steven Sinofsky?

  And so it's likely that that will be their play. That's generally how enterprise software works. It's the inclusion and the bundle.

• 12:28Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 12:28Steven Sinofsky?

  That customers value and pay lots of money for.

• 12:31Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 12:31Steven Sinofsky?

  Not being the very, very best at any given moment.

• 12:34Erik Torenberg?

  Right. It's fascinating how all the big players have kind of crystallized their approaches in response to each other.

• 12:39Steven Sinofsky?

  Oh, yeah.

• 12:40Erik Torenberg?

  Sort of Metas approach, Google's approach, Microsoft's approach. Anyway, I want to segue to the main focus of our conversation today, which is not a book review of Apple in China, though it's a great book, but inspired by the book. There's a few things I just want to say. First, just the notion that I believe they said Apple invests $55 billion a year in China. And I think the author said that's equivalent or maybe even bigger than the entirety of the Marshall Plan. This is just astronomical. And this book talks about how Apple not only built its company in China, but also helped build China itself. China's sort of manufacturing economy and introduced the level of talent and knowledge, or sort of taught China not just how to build phones, but that same sort of knowledge then led then to help build Tesla, which are phones on wheels, and then led to other technologies used for the military, which we'll get to. But first, I just want to ask, was this inevitable?

• 13:25Erik Torenberg?

  Did this make sense at the time? How do we make sense of this 20 years later? How did this all happen?

• 13:30Steven Sinofsky?

  It is crazy how it all happened. I mean, I think you go back, of course, Apple, we all know it was in the garage in Palo Alto. They famously built the computers there. But the thing was, from the very beginning, Apple itself was all about super tight control. I mean, first you had WAS, basically creating works of art on the motherboard. And then they built a factory. There was the factory right here, and that's where they built computers. And they just kept doing more of that. Tight control, build the whole computer. Then Steve left Apple. Macintosh, of course, was famously the same thing. And Steve pushed and pushed on costs and the shape of it, made the famous toaster that you carry around and things like that. But after Steve left, the company had enormous difficulty competing with the IBM PC.

• 14:16Steven Sinofsky?

  One of the things that it did later in the late 1990s was a super innovative laptop. Now, everybody's like, what does a innovative laptop mean? Well, it turns out in the late 1990s, laptops, nobody bought them.

• 14:27Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 14:28Steven Sinofsky?

  They were slow, expensive, bad computers. They were just portable. That was their big thing. And if you had to have one, you did. But they built this thing that was the original portable for Mac called PowerBook. And

• 14:42Steven Sinofsky?

  They tried to cram a lot. They tried to make the best laptop possible. And in order to do that, they ultimately were hitting the limits of manufacturing in the US. And so Jean-Louis Gassé, who was running the Macintosh business at the time, he was very famous French executive for Apple that Steve hired to run Apple France, working for Scully. He actually pushed to do an experiment of partnering with Sony in Japan to build a PowerBook. And so the original PowerBook line had sort of three computers of different sizes, power and whatever. And the one model was done as a joint design effort, which was just incredibly brazen for Apple culture to like break out like that.

• 15:25Steven Sinofsky?

  And they did. And like it came back and the people at Apple were like, wow, man, this is not so bad. You know, and it wasn't the best selling model, a lot of complexity. And you could read all about it in this book or other places. But a light bulb went off. Maybe this helps us solve some of our constraints. Now they had other constraints, like the chips were wrong for the Mac. The PC was like half the price, like a lot of problems they had. But it was like a wow moment and that was really interesting. But they were failing at computers. Tim Cook joins Apple in like 1997 and he comes from IBM. And at IBM, he was about making PCs. And he shows up and he's already working this whole kind of world of supply chain and all this other stuff.

• 16:09Steven Sinofsky?

  He then later goes to Compaq, which was a famous Texas based computer maker. And really helps them drive that whole motion of building in China. And I'll talk about that maybe in a minute. But the thing that gets built by Apple then in 1999 is this iMac G3. Now, most people aren't old enough to remember it, but it was this sort of gumdrop shaped translucent Johnny Ive creation. And you look at that and you're like, wow, that's neat. And you're like, no, no, you don't understand. It was impossible. Like, every element of that computer couldn't be built.

• 16:44Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 16:45Steven Sinofsky?

  Not just the stuff that they left off. Like, it didn't have serial ports and parallel ports and all this other stuff. But it was like clear plastic. Computers came in gray stamped aluminum metal boxes with screws. And this was like a toolless, fanless, like amazing thing. And it was all done through this kind of China-based manufacturing stuff. But it was done in a very unique way at the time, which was the Apple people just went there and smothered the manufacturing line, every step and samples back and forth and this whole deal. And I'm glossing over a very complex timeline of events. It sounds a little bit more all or nothing and sudden, but it's a very gradual transition. But this product was huge. And then the next one was the iPod.

• 17:30Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 17:31Steven Sinofsky?

  And so now they're already comfortable with this model a little bit. But the iPod, all of a sudden, the assembly of it starts to look like almost a War Games screen of all these incoming things. Because it's like a disk drive invented in Japan, manufactured in Thailand, and all the stuff is coming together. And all the parts, the click wheel and everything, are in China. And it's all of a sudden being made in one place in this incredible form factor. If you were to look at the other media players at the time, they were these big honkin' plat- they looked like game console things. Like, not this solid deck of cards.

• 18:05Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 18:05Steven Sinofsky?

  Glued together with no tolerances. I mean, it's incredible. And so that was really the start of designed in Cupertino, manufactured in China.

• 18:15Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 18:16Steven Sinofsky?

  And that whole process.

• 18:17Erik Torenberg?

  And that was celebrated at the time, right? Because we were excited about sort of more integration with China. And so that wasn't seen as such a problematic thing at the time, right?

• 18:27Steven Sinofsky?

  Absolutely. It's even more than that. This was like hailed as like, this is the modern way to do business. An example of this that's just super close to home about how things have changed was that in 1999, the World Trade Organization gathered in Seattle to ratify China as a member of the World Trade Organization. And this is the organization that sort of navigates tariffs and trade rules between countries. All the cool countries were in it, but not like Communist Socialist China with, you know, a totalitarian government and all that. And so the Clinton administration had really pushed for-

• 19:03Steven Sinofsky?

  China, and it actually split the Democratic Party. People today, their heads would explode if you tried to sell. And it turns out, the Republicans were split too.

• 19:12Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 19:12Steven Sinofsky?

  Because half the Republicans were like, "Free trade, free trade, free trade." And the other half were like, "We hate communism."

• 19:17Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 19:17Steven Sinofsky?

  So the whole world, if you look back in 1999, it's like completely upside down.

• 19:22Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 19:22Steven Sinofsky?

  From today. And there were huge riots in Seattle. Like, the city was like a mess over this moment. Because it was viewed as this pro-business, anti-labor.

• 19:32Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 19:33Steven Sinofsky?

  Kind of thing, because it just meant cheap outsourcing in China. Now, the reason for that was because that was the whole direction of American business. There's a very famous book in the 80s called "In Search of Excellence." And "In Search of Excellence" is sort of this Jack Welch and GE management mantra of like, what you do, you stick to your knitting. Like, you do the stuff that you're good at, and you outsource everything else. And you figure out that core part of your company. And that was what you just did. Like, you don't have full-time people to water the plants. You don't have full-time people to cook in the kitchen. You don't have full-time people manufacturing. You just do that elsewhere. And that was the state of American business. It was like, "Let's get into China. We got the support of the president. It's the whole global market.

• 20:17Steven Sinofsky?

  Let's reduce trade barriers between countries." And so, it was celebrated.

• 20:23Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 20:23Steven Sinofsky?

  As the start of a whole new industrial era.

• 20:27Erik Torenberg?

  So at what point did that change, both for Apple as a company? That they realized, "Hey, maybe we have some risks here." But also, from a geopolitical standpoint? Was it when she came to power? Was it when Trump was elected? How did things start to change?

• 20:39Steven Sinofsky?

  It helps on this one to go a little bit backwards.

• 20:41Erik Torenberg?

  Sure.

• 20:41Steven Sinofsky?

  I think, because before we get to, like, when did Apple recognize? We should say, there are other examples of everybody doing this. And the reason it's important is because it contrasts with Apple. Which is, the PC industry created what... Enabled Apple to do what Apple did. So, Apple was on this path of let's manufacture in China and let's keep very tight control. But the PC industry had a whole different approach, which was this much more classical In Search of Excellence outsourcing method. So Dell and Compaq, which were the two big makers with IBM, were in Texas. And, you know, Michael was building PCs in his dorm room. And then they had a factory in Texas. Compaq were some business guys who like built a whole factory in Texas. And the parts were being flown in from wherever they came from.

• 21:24Steven Sinofsky?

  Disk drives from this country, CPUs from Intel in the US, whatever, cables from China and stuff like that, and assembling them in the US. But the problem was they were all standard parts. When you bought a computer from Dell and from Compaq, if you open them up, Intel processor, Seagate disk drive, also from US. And so they were really not competing on who could buy those parts and put them into a gray or beige box more quickly. They were competing on the other three Ps of the marketing mix, which is price, place, and promotion, not just product. And so if you go back to In Search of Excellence, well, the idea is, well, since we can't compete on manufacturing, let's just make it as cheap as possible. And so Compaq led.

• 22:07Steven Sinofsky?

  They were making the cases for Compaqs, which were these like 15-pound aluminum, like you could, they were like shipping containers, basically, that held the PC. They were making those in China. So it was the biggest, heaviest part. So it sort of made sense to see like, how many parts could we get in the box before we ship the box to the US, which was 2/3 of the market? And so they just started going to these assembly plants. And they went to one and said, we want you to build our PC. And they said, you got it. Because they are hungry. And they were just having the ability, because of WTO and all this other stuff, to open up and just do business. And so they were like the capitalists in South China. And so they were like, whatever you want us to do, we're going to do it. And so Compaq, they want secrecy and intellectual party. So they were like, we'll build you a building.

• 22:52Steven Sinofsky?

  And so all of a sudden, Compaq had a building. That was theirs. And then they went to Dell and they're like, we'll build you a building too. And also, there's this other company that makes music players. They have a building over here. And all these makers were starting to serve multiple PC companies. And then the PC companies were like, hey, this is kind of working for us because we're crushing Apple in the marketplace and our PCs are getting cheaper and people are buying more and the Windows 95 thing is taking off. Everything is just dandy. And so they started just like saying, hey, we don't even need engineers. Whereas Apple was like flying more and more people to do more and more advanced stuff. They were like more gray boxes, more interchangeable parts, more lower cost. We'll just keep selling more and making it up in volume.

• 23:37Steven Sinofsky?

  And that's exactly what was happening. And so these people, which were called ODMs, original design and manufacturers, were saying, you just tell us roughly what you want, we'll make it.

• 23:48Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 23:48Steven Sinofsky?

  And so you'd go to meetings with them and they would just show prototypes of all the computers they could build. And you pick, you want this one? And they're like, a little taller, smaller, thicker, thinner. We want to be able to swap out graphics cards. Yes, yes, yes, and yes. And here's the Dell logo on it. And then they got very, very good. So they were effectively moving up the stack and becoming product makers and designers. And the reason is very simple. They also couldn't compete on labor. Like the way that the government's working, the socialist part of this experiment was, you can't live anywhere you want in China. You live where you're born and if you want to move, it's a whole thing. You're not allowed to just move. But what China was doing was taking all the hundreds of millions of poor people

• 24:30Steven Sinofsky?

  and letting them live temporarily in all the factories of all kinds, clothes and cars and computers, where, and live for part of the year and then bring massive amounts of cash back to the world. And that's how China lifted a billion people out of poverty.

• 24:44Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 24:44Steven Sinofsky?

  Well, those are all the same workers. So you can't get a better deal on labor.

• 24:48Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 24:49Steven Sinofsky?

  And then you're all going to the same ODMs who are building the same factories. So it's hard to get a better deal on that. So the ODMs, in order to compete, they were moving up the food chain. And the American electronics world, whether it was TVs or whatever, we're like, yeah. Or Japan with doing it with Sony. We're like, we love this. Just keep showing us more stuff we can put our name on and we'll just focus on sales and marketing and distribution and branding. We're awesome. And by the way, like little things, like there were all of a sudden 50 different music players. Yeah. Because all that knowledge was distributed throughout all these makers. And so it was very, very interesting. Now, what's it like to visit one of these ODMs? These guys are crazy. So you think, like, when I first went. You've been there a few times? A bunch. Oh, I lived in China, like in 2004 even.

• 25:32Steven Sinofsky?

  And that's all I did was visit all these people all the time and the government and we go on forever. But the thing about these was, you know, you'd think you'd go and it's like a factory, like how exciting. And I've been to like car factories and washing machine factories because they're all Microsoft customers. So you go and you visit them and they all show you plants and stuff. And you go and all of a sudden you're like, oh my God, this is like a hospital. And I'd been to Intel, which is an operating room, like it's all bunny suits and all the, but they're just joining parts. It's the same thing I do in my living room when I buy a PC, like I'm just putting all the parts here. But these things are football fields, I say, and I should say, just for a baseline, I did summer jobs at the factory that built intercontinental ballistic missiles and surface to air missiles in Orlando. So I've seen big giant factory floors before.

• 26:13Steven Sinofsky?

  There are like thousands of people on hundreds of acres of assembly. And you just watch like computers flying off. And so the owners of these are very proud. You go and you meet the CEO, founder of these ODMs and they take you on the tour. They show you everything, they show you every step in the line. But, you know, they show you the one you're allowed to see. Yeah. So like I was at Microsoft, I couldn't see any of them. But I could see, he was very proud to always show me like one step in the process. And that was the step when they attached the Windows logo to the PC, something Steve Jobs would never have allowed. But the Windows logo meant it was a legal copy of Windows. The whole reason I moved to China was because they were stealing Windows in Office left and right. And my job was to sort of somehow help to see if we could stop that.

• 26:56Steven Sinofsky?

  But they were very proud and very legal about that step. And so I have lots of photos of stickers being put on computers. And then you go and you just go outside and he goes, that's where we make HP laptops. And this is where we make those other laptops that we're not allowed to tell you about. And that's the difference. And what was going on in the Apple building was just super important. Right. And that's where we get to the answer of your question. The Apple building, fast forward a little bit, and they're building what became the MacBook Air. Yeah. And so like the MacBook Air goes back to the original PowerBook 100 experiment, which was, how can we take what basically suck, which are laptops that Windows people use? Like, to give you an idea, like when the MacBook Air came out,

• 27:36Steven Sinofsky?

  the typical knowledge worker in a company was traveling with about six pounds of computer gear. Which was a laptop. It was probably an inch and a half thick, nine by 12. It had one of these padded laptop cases that you sometimes see. It was awful. I actually wouldn't even travel. I only used like Japanese laptops that were fit in envelopes and stuff. So Apple was building the MacBook Air. And so now we know it was this machine milled aluminum chassis in that building that they showed us. And it was like remarkable. Now, Steve held it up and put it in an envelope and everybody, woo, fits it. And I'm like, my Sony fits in an envelope, but my Sony was $3,500 made by hand in Japan. And this was kind of a miracle.

• 28:21Steven Sinofsky?

  And the problem was that the ODM, who was on tour with me. So this is what happens. You go on the tour, they take you up a secret elevator. And then it's like you're literally above the factory and all of a sudden I'm like in a Bond movie. The elevator door opens and you're in this football field side office with a tea ceremony room and like weird ancient suits of armor for art.

• 28:44Erik Torenberg?

  Were you ever terrified?

• 28:45Steven Sinofsky?

  I was completely terrified. And of course, no one ever gets hurt. But what the hell? Like, I'm like looking, is there a stairway that's gonna turn to a slide? And I'm gonna end up being eaten by Chinese sharks or something? But there's like ancient scrolls and we have to go through and every single piece of art, I'm getting the story. And I'm like, I'm jet lagged and I have to pee. And like, I'm here to just make sure the stickers are going on the laptops. But I'm getting the full deal. And then we sit down and he's like, the Windows people are losing. That's me.

• 29:11Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 29:11Steven Sinofsky?

  And because I am building these great things. And then he shows me prototypes for all these Windows computers. So these are the ones that he built without any help from the Apple people. And he's like, we could build these, but we can't convince Michael or Compaq or anybody to build them. They're too expensive or whatever. I can make them cheaper. Also, and this is where they get candid, he's like, it's very difficult to work with those people. They don't give them any degrees of freedom. He can't be creative, but he also can't move up the stack. And the PC people just wouldn't do it. And so two lessons from that. One is that Apple taught them how to do this. Now, they didn't plan on doing that.

• 29:50Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 29:51Steven Sinofsky?

  But osmosis happens.

• 29:53Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 29:54Steven Sinofsky?

  And they got all these skills. And then the other was, Apple was still gonna uniquely do it. And no one else was gonna come and invest that money. Now, we were there also at one point to help get Surface Build. We were actually doing it to solve the problem. The reason Surface exists is because the PC makers wouldn't build like an aluminum computer, basically. Or an all-in-one, for that matter. And so, we did a whole different approach to metal. We actually built a whole metallurgy plant to do injective magnesium alloy for the original Surface computer that ran Nvidia chips and all this other stuff. And we were willing to make cases of any size or shape for the OEMs, but they just saw it as a niche. And so, the PC makers just continued to stamp out routine things for at least three

• 30:38Steven Sinofsky?

  more years, until Intel finally invested a bunch of money in the OEMs via pricing to get them to build what today look like laptops for Windows called ultrabooks.

• 30:48Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 30:49Steven Sinofsky?

  But Apple just continued to do that, and they were building that expertise just inadvertently. And then Intel came in and piled on more. And so, more people knew, except in the sort of the slightly more open part of China. And so, it was like this slow-moving osmosis that gets us to the point where, as Tim Cook says, "People think that China is about cheap manufacturing, but it's the skills they have." Nobody else in the world could run 500 prototyping aluminum milling machines at one time and produce the right defect rate and save all the waste and develop all the stuff. When we're making Surface, you know, you have to use all this pressure-sensitive adhesive and keep all the things together to make it USB thickness. And like, nobody here knows how to do that.

• 31:32Steven Sinofsky?

  They were telling us what they were doing.

• 31:35Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 31:35Steven Sinofsky?

  And that is what happened. And it was not a design. And that's one of the differences I have with the book. The book is clear. It wasn't on purpose, but it still makes it seem like we could have stopped it at any point. Not only do I not see that we could have, there was no interest in stopping it. For the global view of trade, it was working exactly as planned for everybody.

• 31:57Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah. Let's now get back to when did that start to change? I don't know if it's going in the book or someone said, hey, China has Apple by the balls or has us by the balls. Let's talk about that and when did we realize that happened?

• 32:07Steven Sinofsky?

  At one point, it's the point of no return. So the point of no return was basically, I would say, two years into the iPhone. The scale was such, there was nowhere else. I'm sure Apple would just argue, oh, there was no way we could even have started the iPhone anywhere else. And I could tell you, like Surface, there was no chance. And that's a low volume product. There was no chance. And most things are very low volume, which makes the non-recurring engineering costs much higher. So even more impossible to build. All the startups, you can't even consider doing that. So the point of no return happened so long ago that it's sort of a weird thing to think about $50 billion a year in investment. Cause that's not what did it. What did it was this weird, no, that's definitely the wrong word.

• 32:50Steven Sinofsky?

  This unique blend of socialism or totalitarianism and entrepreneurship.

• 32:56Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 32:56Steven Sinofsky?

  And that's the thing that all the experts got wrong. All the experts in 1999 were like, two things. Yay for global trade. This is what we all want. And also, don't worry, China, they're going to stay a third world dictatorship forever. They couldn't have been more wrong. Frankly, that's how I felt living there.

• 33:16Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 33:17Steven Sinofsky?

  You know, like, yes, obviously it feels totalitarian. Like you turn on CNN and you're watching and then it vanishes. And you're like, well, that was weird. You try to connect to a website randomly from link and you can't see it anymore. And there are all these people that work for the government in our office and I can't talk to them. And I don't know why they're there and I'm their boss. It's super weird. Like, there's a lot of stuff that as an American, you're like, this is just kind of strange. But you go to the ODM. I could have been visiting Kimberly Clark in a plant or Kellogg's. It looked like a factory with a person who was like, just tell me what I can make and sell. I'm there for you. And so you're in this weird hybrid world that was completely predicted wrong.

• 33:57Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 33:57Steven Sinofsky?

  And so you wake up and you're like, oh, well, they were really working. And a great way to think of it is like the car industry. So the car industry, there was no auto industry when I was living in China. All the cars were Volkswagen or Mercedes. And that's what everybody drove around. If you owned a car, you owned a Volkswagen. If you got driven around, you got driven around in Mercedes. And that's just how it was. The way they got there was by doing these joint ventures with the China. And that was the mandated way. And the joint venture came with these terms that were onerous. Like you had to give them all your IP.

• 34:25Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 34:26Steven Sinofsky?

  And for us, like even to get a license to sell software, not that anyone was buying it legally, but to sell software, you had to sort of allow these inspectors to come in and see stuff. And like, we had to shut down Hotmail for forever because like, we wouldn't let them see the data center servers, which weren't even in China and all sorts of complexities. But if you wanted to sell into the world's largest population market, that was your choice, comply or not. In the meantime, the entrepreneurs in Southern China, they're not looking at Beijing for government direction. They're actually going, well, we have to beat Korea. We have to beat Japan. We have to beat Singapore. We have to beat Vietnam or Indonesia. And those are all their neighbors and they see them all. And so the car companies, if you just fast forward, they all are out of China now.

• 35:10Steven Sinofsky?

  These joint ventures, they could never get their money out. They lost all their IP, their manufacturing. It's just horrible. Volkswagen, Ford, Mercedes, it's just been a nightmare. Tesla didn't have to do a joint venture, which is sort of the modern thing, just like Apple, where they were allowed to operate. But it turns out there are all these soft ways that the company could be miserable. That's where it goes from entrepreneurship to the socialist totalitarianism, where, you know, the Communist Party could just say, we all need to have phones and we like this model from Huawei. Or we're picking a new 5G standard and it's going to step all over the Qualcomm patents, but it's only in China where we enforce the laws. And you're like, but the WTO says the what, says what? And you get really stuck on this kind of stuff.

• 35:53Steven Sinofsky?

  And I think what everybody learned was in, say, 2000s, 2010, was it very easy to pour money into China.

• 35:59Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 36:00Steven Sinofsky?

  But it doesn't come out. The returns just aren't there. And then it's also easy, if you're one of the blessed sort of companies, to sort of grow. But then all these soft things happen. Now, a lot of people love to say how that's just totalitarian governance, but they forget, like, the history of trade in America.

• 36:18Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 36:18Steven Sinofsky?

  Or we talk about the EU a lot, but, you know, we have a lot of these soft things, too. Like, when San Francisco County wants to buy fleet vehicles, they just say, well, they have to be American cars.

• 36:30Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 36:30Steven Sinofsky?

  They don't even think about it. They're like, step one has to be an American car.

• 36:33Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 36:34Steven Sinofsky?

  And when the Defense Department buys stuff, like, there's a massively thousand-page list of all the things that you have to check off in order to be sold to the Defense Department. To the outside world, that looks like safety and security, but it also could be viewed just as much as protectionism.

• 36:49Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 36:50Steven Sinofsky?

  It's just two sides of a coin.

• 36:51Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah. When we look at Apple's dependency on China, when does this go from this is great to, okay, this is actually an existential risk for the company? Or would you say we are there yet? Or how has this developed into the current era?

• 37:04Steven Sinofsky?

  The easiest way to view the wake-up call is through the lens of COVID.

• 37:08Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 37:09Steven Sinofsky?

  I think, which is, all of a sudden, the entire world learned that this global system, while great for prices, great for in search of excellence, focus on what you're knitting and what you do well, it turns out it's actually pretty fragile.

• 37:22Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 37:23Steven Sinofsky?

  And it's fragile because there's single points of failure all over the place.

• 37:27Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 37:27Steven Sinofsky?

  And in this case, the single point of failure turned out to be like, if this city is closed, no one can go into the factory.

• 37:33Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 37:34Steven Sinofsky?

  And then if transit is closed, then the stuff can't make it. And so I just think COVID was the wake-up call for the whole system. And of course, at a national security level, it's massively important now because you can't afford to have a nation shut down.

• 37:51Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 37:51Steven Sinofsky?

  Because of these things. And if all the technologies are based on chips, which are assembled in one place and packaged by these people who have all the skills to package them, you go, well, that's sort of a problem. Now, the Defense Department, long ago, figured this out for, like, guns and rockets. Like, those are all made in the US. The military sidearm is a Beretta pistol, which is the oldest company in the world, in Italy. And the first thing Italy did to win the bid was set up a factory in the US. And so, good news, we have plenty of sidearms.

• 38:20Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 38:20Steven Sinofsky?

  That we could throw at the drones or something. But drones is the opposite end of the spectrum. All of a sudden, drones are the most important thing. And like, all of a sudden, we were like, not just we don't make the drone, we don't make any of the parts for the drone.

• 38:32Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 38:33Steven Sinofsky?

  And the only person who makes them is our enemy, so to speak. So this seems to be a problem.

• 38:38Erik Torenberg?

  And so let's say Trump brings you in and says, hey, I've noticed that nearly all of computing, you know, every level of stack is done in China and Asia more broadly. And I'm trying to sort of decrease our dependencies. Microsoft, man, what should I do?

• 38:51Steven Sinofsky?

  Well, obviously, there are much smarter people who know more and have much more at stake than I do trying to solve this. I mean, you have to do it.

• 38:57Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 38:58Steven Sinofsky?

  The thing is, it goes against all these academics that were experts in 2000 that said it was good.

• 39:03Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 39:03Steven Sinofsky?

  But they didn't think about all of these, like, nobody thought that the dependency would be on sort of the replacement for the Soviet Union in terms of longtime enemy. No more would we be dependent on the Soviet Union for something than we would be on China. There's no choice in that matter. Now, hopefully, our detente with China is already vastly more open than anything that up until 1990 that the Soviet Union was. So we're in a very good, sort of peaceful situation there. But that doesn't change the posture.

• 39:37Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 39:38Steven Sinofsky?

  And so Apple is like doing this experiment. It's obviously more than an experiment to build in India, which solves their problem. It doesn't necessarily solve the current administration's view of the solution.

• 39:51Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 39:51Steven Sinofsky?

  I mean, because if you think of it, like, the other part of free trade that inverted, twisted, and split the political parties in half in the US was NAFTA in the early 1990s, which was like, free trade with Canada and Mexico. What could be more of a no-brainer? Well, it turns out, it was also the global view of things. Like, in fact, NAFTA, half the Democrats voted against it, half the Republicans voted against it, the same as WTO kind of stuff. And here we are, like, well, that meant that all the jobs just moved to Canada and Mexico.

• 40:21Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 40:22Steven Sinofsky?

  And, you know, long term, also not having employed people is a bad thing. It doesn't matter if it's manufactured or anything. It's just like, weird that just being across a border would so substantially change the economics of what's made.

• 40:34Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 40:35Steven Sinofsky?

  I mean, especially when you literally just drive the parts back and forth through Texas.

• 40:38Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 40:39Steven Sinofsky?

  It's kind of weird, or Minnesota or whatever. And so I think- This reset is happening broadly. I don't like the idea that the people who are very much in favor of this global world sort of ignore inherent risks of the polarized world, but also just immediately jump to no one's going to pay $5,000 for an iPhone. What an incredibly silly argument. Because if you were to look at an iPhone and think about making it by hand, you would go, well, it's going to cost $100,000 each one. It's like a fancy watch. And so the reason that it's $1,000 or $1,500 or whatever is because of the innovation in manufacturing. So all that needs to happen is like another step function change in manufacturing. And of course, for decades, that's all Apple woke up and thought about.

• 41:24Steven Sinofsky?

  So they remained that whole operating mode of Apple's of being sending zillions of people, being on the factory floor, that's what they do. They rely on skills, but they are there inventing these things. And so if you look at the Apple Vision Pro, like it has all these lenses and all, they made all of that stuff. And so what they're going to do is they're going to focus on, okay, if we have to do this, we're going to also end up with giant factories of robots or better automation or new packaging technologies that don't require as many steps. All this stuff that they have already the world leaders in.

• 42:00Erik Torenberg?

  So you're sort of optimistic that this is a solvable problem, that Apple can decrease its dependency and figure out whether it's French shoring or something.

• 42:07Steven Sinofsky?

  I think, you know, it's easy because of the book to focus on Apple.

• 42:09Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 42:09Steven Sinofsky?

  But like, everybody faces this problem. Like even if you make cars in Detroit that are really manufactured and assembled in Canada, like where do all the in-dash electronics and all the car computers come from?

• 42:21Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 42:22Steven Sinofsky?

  They're just flown in on a plane to be glued in. And so I'm not just optimistic. I mean, this is literally how innovation happens. Like innovation isn't invention. Invention is like was just sitting around thinking what would be really cool to make. But innovation is this is the constraint that I have to work in. Like I'm going to solve this problem and nobody loves to do that more than engineers. And so if you're a packaging engineer, like in the software, hardware motherboard, like this is like you live for this. How do we reduce the steps? How do we reduce the components? How do we cram more? This is like your whole focus in life. It's your mission. Yes, and they've been working on it. And so the way innovation happens is the people who've been working on stuff go, I have a totally better idea. And then you try it and oh, this one worked. The other thousand didn't work.

• 43:07Steven Sinofsky?

  I mean, that translucent case. Like, it's not like people haven't thought of making plastic cases before.

• 43:13Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 43:13Steven Sinofsky?

  And Translute plastic was like a thing. And then they sat down and they just made it.

• 43:17Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 43:17Steven Sinofsky?

  Because you can build things.

• 43:19Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 43:19Steven Sinofsky?

  Like, that's a thing that happens.

• 43:20Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 43:21Steven Sinofsky?

  And factories are things that can be built.

• 43:23Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 43:24Steven Sinofsky?

  And so, like, I don't see any reason why. I think that the mistake is either thinking that China is about cheap labor, or the mistake is thinking that for things to be made in the US, it has to recreate 300 million migrant workers on buses working

• 43:39Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 43:39Steven Sinofsky?

  temporarily and going back home. That was their constraint.

• 43:42Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 43:42Steven Sinofsky?

  Like, their constraint was, we have to employ all these people, but not let them move.

• 43:46Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 43:47Steven Sinofsky?

  That was their constraint. Like, we have an idea. Let's build the factories in Shenzhen and get a bunch of buses and dorms.

• 43:52Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 43:53Steven Sinofsky?

  Problem solved.

• 43:54Erik Torenberg?

  Right.

• 43:54Steven Sinofsky?

  We have a different one. We don't have 100 extra million people.

• 43:57Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 43:57Steven Sinofsky?

  We have a lot of money and a lot of intellectual power and a big desire to bring low-cost, high-tech products to people.

• 44:05Erik Torenberg?

  Yeah.

• 44:05Steven Sinofsky?

  Let's build things.

• 44:07Erik Torenberg?

  Geering towards closing here. You know, it felt inevitable to me, sort of, that Apple would become this even much bigger than it is today in the sense of, I remember reading the stat of like-

• 44:14Steven Sinofsky?

  Wait, I'm sorry, much bigger than, like, the hugest company in the world?

• 44:17Erik Torenberg?

  Only because nine out of 10, I think, high schoolers prefer Apple products. So when they get to college, when they graduate, like, why isn't, sort of, iPhone market share much bigger? Why wouldn't it just keep getting significantly bigger? Not just a phone, but also in, sort of, laptop desktop as well. But when you look at the risks, maybe the China situation just drastically increases prices if something were to materially happen in the short term. Or maybe there's a new form factor that Johnny Ive at OpenAI or someone else figures out that overplays the phone. That doesn't seem super likely in the short term. But how do you, sort of, react to that?

• 44:48Steven Sinofsky?

  People always think that you're either in the school that things are just going to keep going like they're going to go forever, or like, idiot, this thing is over, there's already a new thing, but you can't buy or touch the new thing. And we are in that in-between space right now. And I do think that- It's highly likely that new ways to make things will get figured out. Yeah. It's highly likely that it's going to get much more competitive in phones only because the target is a little bit more stable. Yeah. And the best way to think of it is, like, Macs are half the laptop market in the US at this point. You know, not quite, but with segments. And so, nobody thought that would ever happen. Yeah. But that's partially because, the reason that could happen is because the use case

• 45:31Steven Sinofsky?

  for laptops stagnated at about 2,000. And so, all of a sudden, I'm basically running a browser and Microsoft Office. Yeah. And if you're doing that, a Mac modulo the differences in Office is roughly the same. And so then, if the price is the same at $1,000, why not? Half the market is always going to view it as a price point. And $1,000 is $200 more than $700. And so, a certain amount of the market is going to buy the phone that's free with the plan. And that's just going to happen. But more and more of the market will see the phone as like, you know, a positive part of life and be willing to invest in it. Right. Like any branded item. I think that's going to happen.

• 46:15Steven Sinofsky?

  But I don't know what's going to happen on the device side. I think, generally speaking, the form factor is going to last much longer than even the most optimistic people think. I mean, there's like, a lot of people running PCs still, even though nobody in Silicon Valley knows that. But I think like, it's just going to be up for grabs. There's nothing written anywhere. Bill Gates used to always, always, always have to remind people that Microsoft, any day, somebody could just show up and do a better Yeah. version of everything Microsoft does, because it's software. And the economy of scale, all that stuff, isn't the barrier that people used to think. Manufacturing devices specifically has a barrier, but also because of the automation, because of all this work that's going, that barrier is just going to drop. In fact, it has dropped.

• 46:59Steven Sinofsky?

  The only reason that there are so many amazing Samsung phones is because they've all seen the movie. Yeah. Like, they know what to do.

• 47:06Speaker 01

  Is there anything else you want people to take either from this book or from this conversation in summary?

• 47:10Steven Sinofsky?

  I would sort of just drill down on one issue that I just think is super important for people to really consider in the competition between the US and China and also how it relates to AI, which is the difficulty we're all going to have collectively to navigating the world of intellectual property.

• 47:24Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 47:24Steven Sinofsky?

  I think it's very, very easy to say China doesn't respect intellectual property, so they can't be part of the world stage, flat out. I mean, they've crushed the pharmaceutical industry that way. What they've done with BYD and Tesla, arguably pretty rude and stuff like that. But on the other hand, it's just as easy to say, well, because of AI, all knowledge, all content, all information just needs to be free to train and to reuse. Neither of those are realistic positions. And I think that this issue is far more subtle and far more important than I think either China thinks or the sort of the digerati in the US think. And I believe that that's one that's going to need a lot. And I worry about wild cards.

• 48:06Steven Sinofsky?

  Like, I worry about the European Union going crazy in one direction or another and passing some rule, then all of a sudden, that market is weird. Or Japan, which was like, went the other way because they have a language challenge, which is Japanese, like, they could just, they're in control of Japanese. So they just said, yeah, we could train anything here.

• 48:22Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 48:22Steven Sinofsky?

  But it's like, yeah, but that's just Japanese. Or is it a loophole for English? We're not really sure.

• 48:27Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 48:27Steven Sinofsky?

  So I think that that issue is the one where policymakers need to spend the most time, but it's also structured in the US that it's just, it's a litigation issue. And there's no way around it. So we're in for years of kind of market uncertainty over how this plays out. And that's been a core part of Apple's advantage, has been their ability to maintain the intellectual property of components and manufacturing and assembly. And now that's dispersed.

• 48:53Speaker 01

  Yeah. That's a good place to end. Stephen, this has been a fantastic conversation. Thank you so much for coming on.

• 48:58Steven Sinofsky?

  Thank you. It was great to be back together.

• 49:02Speaker 01

  Thanks for listening to the A16Z Podcast. If you enjoyed the episode, let us know by leaving a review at ratethispodcast.com/a16z. We've got more great conversations coming your way. See you next time.