David Friedberg: The Billionaire Entrepreneur Who Wants To Save Planet Earth

David Friedberg

All the work we do at TPB is oriented around how we can change systems of production on planet Earth. Our goal is to make things using less energy, less land, and fewer natural resources. I'm a big believer that sustainability in the 21st century does not arise from convincing consumers to consume less. I think sustainability arises from building technology-based solutions that allow consumers to consume more while dropping the price and reducing the environmental impact. That's what technology enables us to do. If you go back to the industrial revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, we built factories. We put all this technology into a big machine in a large facility and used it to make stuff over and over again. This automation in a big factory dropped the price for consumers. It turns out that the technology of that factory, as all technology does, shrinks, gets faster, gets cheaper, and gets better.

Shaan Puri

Let me brag about you for a second because you're a very humble guy. You're not a very brag-worthy guy. When I first started hearing you talk, which was not on the All In podcast, I went on YouTube and I heard you give a talk back when you were at Climate Corporation. I remember thinking, "This guy's pretty smart." You were giving a talk at some school; I don't know what it was. I started Googling you then and saw, "Wow, this guy actually did that," and then he did some impressive stuff since then. So let me just brag on you for a second. You were at Google from 2004 to 2006, some range like that. So, fairly early at Google, like I think that's around the IPO time, just post-IPO, is that right?

David Friedberg

I joined probably 7 months before the IPO. So, yeah, we were working on the IPO or just started working on it when I joined.

Shaan Puri

And then, didn't Climate Corporation sell for like $1 billion to Monsanto? After that, you did Metromile, which is a pretty cool insurance company that's backed. I think it ultimately ended up selling for a little less than its SPAC price to Lemonade. Then you have this thing called TPB, The Production Board. What do you call it? A studio? Or what do you call TPB?

David Friedberg

Yeah, we're technically a holding company and we're a foundry. So, we spend time kind of doing R&D, research, and founding or building businesses. We kind of call it a foundry.

Shaan Puri

and I feel like people know you now

David Friedberg

we do some investing as well but really our focus is on foundry work

Shaan Puri

I want to start with this: you are known for being a sort of scientist or a "science guy," but I looked at your LinkedIn and your first job was investment banker. So where did... how did you go from investment banker to, as you're called on the All-In Pod, "the Sultan of Science"?

David Friedberg

well I went to school at uc berkeley my major was astrophysics I spent some time as an intern at the lawrence berkeley national lab which is a department of energy physics lab up the hill from uc berkeley and I spent you know a lot of time doing mathematical modeling of stuff in a basement and generally found it to be kinda just pretty disparaging in the sense that like you could spend years working on a project that never sees the light of day at the same time that I was at school the dotcom bubble was kind of blowing up all around me I mean there was even a kid in my dorm who started a company selling dvds online and sold the business for a $1,000,000 and that was such an amazing thing to happen you know I was mostly making money by playing poker and working you know jobs around school and getting paid for my internship and stuff so you know it was extraordinary kind of seeing just in the bay area the world changing because of the internet and so I got really kind of inclined and interested in not going to grad school and really going to go work in silicon valley so I you know I applied for a bunch of investment banking jobs that was kind of the hot job to get out of school where I could focus on the tech industry and learn about it and you know I guess I had never taken a finance accounting business class so I guess my poker experience paid off because that's how I put that on my resume I got a bunch of interviews and you know kinda ended up getting a job working in a technology investment bank so focused on the tech industry and so I got to work with lots of tech companies for a 2 year analyst program while I was there and learned about business and finance and so on so that was kind of my first foray into the world of business I tried to start a business when I was in college I never really talked about this publicly publicly raised some money from some family members some friends of the family but never really did anything with it never really got off the ground the idea was to let you buy all of your services on a website so your you know everything from your cell phone bill to your you know your long distance provider which was kind of important at the time and so on and what what

Shaan Puri

Did you get wrong with that? Because that's actually not a bad idea, especially during that time. I don't think it was probably the idea. You just did you not know? I still...

David Friedberg

have I still have the business plan I keep it in my office I printed it up like from 1999 or 2000

Shaan Puri

as a as a reminder or what

David Friedberg

Yeah, as a reminder, it was originally called **Telebomb.com**. It kind of bombed, and then I renamed it **Infone Services**. I registered it and set up a Wells Fargo account. There was a whole experience of starting a business. Ultimately, I kind of got caught up in trying to get a job out of school and transitioning to focus on what's next in my life. Before I joined Google, I started another business, which was kind of like a research Q&A site online called **Kadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangakadangak.com**. I basically taught myself PHP, JavaScript, HTML, CSS, and I programmed the whole site myself using MySQL. I set up my own server, registered the domain, and set up bank accounts. It actually made money! I advertised on AdWords and got users to come to the website, ask questions, and get answers. They'd pay for the answers. This experience ultimately helped me get my job at Google because I was coding on my own until like 5 in the morning and then going to work at 7 AM. Building this service and the whole site was significant. Google had a service at the time called something like **Google Research**—I forgot what it was called—but it was very similar to this. I think I got the job at Google in part because of that experience.

Shaan Puri

So, when you were doing that, you were like, "Okay, listen. Today, I think you've built companies." I'm just going to use round numbers; you can correct me if I'm way off. But you've built companies now that I think, in aggregate, are worth more than $2.5 billion. Now, if I went and told you when you were building Condonga or when you were in college, and I said, "Hey, that could happen," would you have been like, "Was that even an ambition of yours?" Would you have been shocked that that's even possible? Or were you like, "Oh, it all worked. My plan could have worked," if I had told you that that's how it played out?

David Friedberg

No, I don't think I would have thought about it in that framework. I probably would have been disappointed if I did. If I think about it, why I still am generally... I mean, I feel, I guess, you know, maybe ambition is an expectation that I've set for myself, probably greater than what I've experienced. But I would say that, you know, my intention wasn't on that.

Shaan Puri

Stand there for a second. So, you're saying you're a college kid and you had expectations of yourself that grand? Do you remember kind of what you were thinking back then?

David Friedberg

Not specifically. I mean, I just feel like when you're young, you have kind of unbounded ambition. You don't know the realities of, you know, when you build stuff and you face challenges and hiccups. Everything from team to technology to markets and all the issues that arise as you navigate your way through complexity and uncertainty. You're naive in the sense that the whole world can and should be different. So, we should change the whole world and let's go fix it and make it different, make it better. That blind optimism is where a lot of energy comes from, and I think it drives great entrepreneurial success stories. Ultimately, there's friction, and the rubber hits the road. In retrospect, I think a lot of what's gone on in my life and my career is probably understandable in hindsight. But blind ambition gives you unlimited vision. If you're not challenged along the way, that can and should persist. I would say that my orientation was never about starting a bunch of companies or making a bunch of money. It was much more about impact—solving big problems, having great breakthroughs, and seeing those breakthroughs really change the world. That's still, I think, really core to my sense of energy and the things that I do.

Shaan Puri

When you were at Google, it was a time when Google was very ambitious. I think I've read or heard that Larry Page is kind of a fan of yours. I believe he's invested in TPB, and it sounds like you were there doing corp dev, so you were in a different role. Can you give me a Google story? What was it like at that time? What was it like around those founders? Give me a sort of story around ambition or your time at Google.

David Friedberg

Well, so I joined Google when there were just under 1,000 people, I believe. We all kind of worked pretty close together. There were like 2 or 3 main buildings on campus at 1600 Amphitheater. When I joined, there were 3 of us that started this corporate development group, which was really focused on strategy and identifying things we could acquire, invest in, and grow the business. We had pretty much free reign to look at various opportunities. I really focused on the advertiser or business side of Google. I wasn't interested in consumer products; I was more interested in understanding our business. In that context, I worked on all sorts of ideas about how to take what we offered advertisers, which at the time was really just AdWords, and think about other media we could make available to those advertisers. For example, could we do print ads? Could we do radio ads? Could we do TV ads? Could our advertisers use AdWords as an interface to access media across all these different properties and channels? I did a few acquisitions and found a few companies. One was called DMarc, which we turned into a radio advertising business. So, you could go to AdWords, click on audio ads, create an audio ad, and then publish it to actual radio stations. It would play in-stream on radio stations, and you could see the impressions and all this data.

Shaan Puri

that's not a thing now right that didn't end up becoming part of that

David Friedberg

it stayed for a long time there ended up being a really nasty lawsuit with the founders and a very difficult set of circumstances that arose after the acquisition I mean I'll tell you this story now given how many years it's been I think that was 15 16 17 years ago holy shit 17 years ago at this. But you know I had real issues with negotiating with the founders and doing the transaction and you know we thought it was such a great plug and play for Google these guys went out and all djs and radio stations buy these servers that they put into the radio station and they put the mp3 files of the ads on the servers at midnight every night and then when the dj says okay time for ads they press the play button and starts playing the ads off the server so what these guys did is they bought the company that has all those servers for like $4,000,000 and they connected it to the internet and they set it up so that advertisers could remotely create dynamic content and fill in the unsold ad spots on that server every night at midnight and so they were buying what's called remnant inventory and making money on it and so it was brilliant but for the $4,000,000 acquisition and not a lot of technology development thereafter you know they were trying to sell the business to us for $100,000,000 so they thought it was worth a 1,000,000,000 I mean the whole thing was crazy how we negotiated the deal so it ended up being like effectively a $50,000,000 or $72,000,000 upfront cash payment a $50,000,000 milestone payment if they hit a bunch of technical milestones and then up to $1,200,000,000 in earn outs based on the advertising revenue generated from all these stations and so that earn out structure was the only way I could really bridge the gap on the deal I had to go talk to google's board about it we eventually got them to sign off on it and the whole thing ended up being like a really ugly negotiation and and I didn't wanna do the deal and I told eric schmidt I'm like look I don't think we should do this deal I don't think these guys are gonna work out for us I think it's gonna be ugly and eric said we have to be in radio to $60,000,000,000 market push the whole thing through despite my push against it we did the deal and sure enough we ended up in this nasty lawsuit that lasted for years I wasn't around for all that but you know I think eventually it all went away and audio ads kinda died down so that was the sort of stuff I also worked on Google analytics so I pitched larry and sergei early on on the idea of like look our advertisers should be able to have analytics on their web pages to see you know how people are converting and why and why not we didn't have a conversion tracker at the time or anything so you know that tell me

Shaan Puri

what that means I pitched larry and sergei so like you know larry and sergei are the founders of Google they are

David Friedberg

so I work with an amazing person named megan smith she's really well known in silicon valley she was obama's cto she's an incredible personality and a tour de force and megan was really my mentor at Google and kinda showed me how I can just walk into larry and sergei's office and walk into eric's office she's like let's go talk to them about this and I'd be talking to her about it and she's like let's go see what eric thinks and she'd drag me over to eric's office and he'd be like sitting there on his computer doing emails and she'd like barge in and be like david's got this idea let's talk about it and then like sit down and you know like and so she really kinda showed me that we can and should have this kind of dialogue with these execs because our job was to really help push and think about things that we can take Google you know what direction we can take Google and so you know I really had I think great mentorship there and so I you know was in a meeting with larry and sergey saying like I think we should be in analytics and we should offer advertisers the ability to see stuff and I met wesley chan who was a product manager at the time and so wesley and I kind of started working together after that because the first thing larry and sergey said to me was that's evil 3rd party cookies are evil we don't wanna track users across different web pages and you know because then they'll know that we're tracking them and so it was fairly prescient at the time that larry and sergey saw that this might be kind of an evil or viewed evilly by kind of consumers down the road and they were absolutely right I mean that's what's going on in the eu and with apple and facebook and all the cookie tracking and so on that's being kind of taken apart right now but we showed them that like look if an advertiser can get analytics they can see an incredible improvement in conversion efficiency which means that the user is having a better experience on the webpage so rather than the user getting frustrated and leaving the website and wasting their time if the user is happy the user will buy more they will convert better and the internet is a better place one of our guiding principles at adwords was like our advertisements should be so good and the advertisers website should be so good that a 100% of the time when people are looking at search results they click on the first ad and then a 100% of the time they don't come back so the bounce back rate is 0 and that shows you that you've shown the perfect ad that's even better than organic search results and it's such a good result that the consumer stays there all the way and never comes back and searches again so that's kind of the guiding principle so everything is all about how do you improve the quality of the ads how do you improve the user's experience when they go to the advertiser site and and how do you get the advertiser to pay for that value and so analytics ultimately turned into you know we found a company called urchin I took wesley to ses search engine strategies we walked around we met a bunch of analytics companies we had 4 of them come in and talk to us and we picked urchin and convinced them to join convince larry and sergey to do the deal within a year I think we had shown through hal varian who was our chief economist we had demonstrated that Google analytics increased adwords revenue by half a 1,000,000,000 because so many advertisers were using it to improve their websites and make the conversions better that they were spending more on adwords and so you could kind of economically show the benefit of analytics and that was like a $25,000,000 acquisition so it turned into a great product I mean I don't know any web pages that don't have you know Google analytics on them

Shaan Puri

you're like where's my bonus

David Friedberg

it was all good

Shaan Puri

Yeah, I mean, if you could show that... Alright, I'm buying a visitor. It costs me a dollar to get the click, but now that I can improve my funnel so that customer's worth more to me, I can convert more of those customers. Then I'll spend more, right? That makes a lot of sense.

David Friedberg

And the customer's happier because people are going to a web page that gets them what they want, as opposed to going to a web page and getting lost in the content and not clicking through.

Shaan Puri

Dead end. So, my last Google question: when we got acquired, I got acquired by Twitch, which is kind of part of Amazon. I remember the first or second meeting where all the execs were in a room. As a startup founder, I always felt a little bit... not like imposter syndrome, but sort of always curious. This is how I lead the company, but I have no idea how anyone else does it, right? Even my founder friends, I don't actually get to see them in meetings, so I really had no idea what they were doing. In my first meeting at Twitch, I remember looking at Emmett, who is somebody I really respect and was kind of my boss. He’s the original founder. He was sitting there, and there were about 20 people in the room. Somebody presented a 6-page paper, and I remember he was done reading it in like half the time of anybody else. He had scribbled down some questions on it, and the first question he asked cut straight to the heart of the issue. I remember just thinking, "Oh, this is what it would be like if my brain was twice the size. I could read twice as fast, and I could get to the heart of the issue twice as fast." I was just so impressed by him. You know, I think great leaders, in some ways, almost feel like aliens. They just have some superpowers that others don't. What was it like with the Google founders? Were they just normal people to you, or did you notice any special traits or abilities that impressed you at the time or made an impression on you?

David Friedberg

No, I mean look, you know the culture is set at the top. The team that Larry and Sergey built around them remains some of the most important and impactful people in Silicon Valley. You know, Susan Wojcicki, Salar Kamangar, Urs Hölzle—Urs is still SVP of Engineering there. He built all of the data center infrastructure, which by the way, I don't think a lot of people realize is probably the core advantage of Google, or was originally. Like...

Shaan Puri

Tell me about this... My cofounder, who's super technical, at my past company used to say that people don't ever talk about this, but it was Google's server architecture or their choices that allowed them to win. What did that mean? I never got his answer out.

David Friedberg

Yeah, so if you go back to 1998 or 1999, in order to search the web, you had to have what are called web crawlers. These are servers that go out and scan all the web pages on the internet. Then there are indexing servers that take all that data, classify and organize it, and figure out what search term each web page can represent. They also determine the ranking that would show up. Finally, there are the web servers, which are the website-serving servers. So when you go to Google.com and do a search, you need to search the web extensively and have a high refresh rate. This means you have to have more servers to search more frequently. At the time, everyone was using Oracle servers that cost around $3,000. They had a pretty case, were purple, used a lot of power, and looked really nice. They were said to last forever, along with all those kinds of nonsense claims. So, Google set out to build a really cheap web server or web crawling server and indexing server. They built their own servers by taking commodity hardware and essentially breadboarding this thing. They used super cheap RAM, super cheap hard drives, and jammed them all together without even putting a case or cover on them, using super cheap power supplies.

Shaan Puri

no purple

David Friedberg

And then they said, "Look, no purple, no casing," and they made them redundant. They were like, "Look, we'll make lots of these. We'll be able to search more of the web, have a higher refresh rate, and index stuff better. We'll have a bigger index than anyone else because we're making it so cheap to do this." Their cost was like $15,200 instead of $3,000. Their servers broke every couple of months, but guess what? It was so cheap to make that when it broke, they threw the thing away. So it didn't matter. They didn't need to have a 5-year server. They didn't need to have a high-performance server. They didn't need to have the fastest CPU. In fact, when I joined Google, they had a team that was working on a 10,000-port switch. They were making their own ASICs to do that, their own chips. The depth that the hardware engineering team and the data center and infrastructure engineering team went into at Google to create a full stack of technology that was advantaged from the ground up meant that they would always be able to search more of the internet, always do it better, always do it faster, and always have a higher refresh rate. That advantage, combined with making their website super simple, meant they didn't have to sell ads against it because it cost so little to run the website. When you add all that up, they created this huge advantage, this huge structural moat. More people came, the network effect increased, and they now had more people to sell ads to. They could reinvest in building more servers, searching more of the web, and so on. The AdWords architecture was just perfect. It was an auction, so advertisers would bid for search terms. They wouldn't do paid insertion or paid inclusion, which was big at the time. They said, "That's evil," so they showed ads really clearly and cleanly on the side. If users wanted to click on an ad, they knew they were clicking on an ad; otherwise, they would just search the internet. It just created this unparalleled moat. The hardware advantage that Google built from the beginning was really core to their success.

David Friedberg

Of success... and so, sorry, going back to your question. Look, Larry's page is one of the most impressive individuals you'll ever meet. It's really sad he's not more public because I think Larry could offer a lot to the world in the way he thinks and the way he talks about things. He always takes a bigger view and a bigger picture perspective on things. You know, when people would suggest products or ideas, he wouldn't get into the technical details or the near-term roadmaps. He would always zoom out a hundred times and be like, "Why can't we do X?" For example, one of the things they proposed doing in 2003 was to search all the world's books, which was a crazy concept, but they actually went and did it. Right? No one would have done that if not for that suggestion and that audacity of perspective. They always pushed and challenged every team to think bigger, to think more grand, to think more aggressively. I think that's a common trait with great leaders in technology businesses. It's the same with coaches on sports teams. Your team is only as good as you challenge them to be. So, you know, if you're not challenging your team and you're asking them, "What do you think you can do?" they're only going to achieve a fraction of what's possible. Great coaches and great leaders, particularly in technology, have this unique ability to understand the technology and leap several iterations forward. They can speak to the team about where we're headed and then bring the timelines in. That makes for an incredible sense of urgency and outcome.

Shaan Puri

And why do you think most people don't do that? So, thinking big... that sounds easy enough to understand, sounds fun to do. You know, I could hear that advice. Why do you think that's hard advice to follow in practice?

David Friedberg

it's a really important question so one of our principles at tpb is dare to dream so it's all about creating that audacious perspective you know how big can this be how big should we be and what happens when you set a big goal like let's say I have to go climb to the top of a mountain and I can't see the path from here to the top of the mountain there's a 100 permutations or a 1000 permutations on how you might get up that mountain and you don't know which path is gonna work most people that are smart have been successful and most people that have been successful are not used to not succeeding and so the orientation at that. Is that success is all about doing something and getting an action that you expect out of what you just did and so you are inclined naturally as a smart person as a successful person to only do things that you know what you're gonna get as an outcome and guess what that does that limits your horizon so then you end up saying I'm not gonna take the more circuitous challenging route or path that might get me to the top of the mountain but I can see that this particular path gets me you know a quarter of the way up the mountain and that may not mess and you might know however that that means you're giving up going to the top of the mountain but at least you know for sure that if you do x you're gonna get y and I see this all the time I see this all the time at businesses where the teams end up compromising on their big vision and they compromise on the moonshot because they're more likely to succeed and they feel more comfortable taking a shorter range narrower horizon and minimizing the opportunity set significantly and saying I'm just gonna go do this because I know if I do x I'm gonna get y and that feels comfortable and I know it's gonna happen and so they minimize the dare to dream circumstance and then they always say well you know what we'll come back and dream big later but guess what happens let's say you're thinking about I'll give you a very specific example because this relates to the business we're announcing this week canna.com which is our our molecular beverage printer but early on there was a hard push to say look we know restaurant owners will buy this device I don't know if every consumer is gonna buy this device it might be too expensive it might not taste good enough consumers are so you know fickle if we make a device for restaurants we know that there's an economic advantage there's an economic advantage there's an roi enterprise based sale let's go sell in restaurants and we'll make a bigger device so it can hold more and we don't have to worry about shrinking and getting all the technology into a tiny form factor that fits on a kitchen countertop the problem is if you do that and you start selling to restaurants you've now significantly minimized the opportunity to go into the consumer channel because you now have a customer and the customer is the restaurant and the restaurant's gonna say I want this feature and I want this feature and I want this feature and I want you to do this for me and all of a sudden your whole team is gonna be inundated with product and feature requests that focus on that much smaller much narrower market and you're gonna end up going deeper and deeper into that market and you're gonna lose out on the opportunity to go build for the big market to go build for the 100x market that can actually change the world and improve the problems that we're trying to address with this business and so you know I've seen this at many different businesses where taking on a lot of technical risk taking on a moonshot project is often foregone and you end up trading into a much smaller pie and a much smaller opportunity and then you often miss out on that bigger opportunity and so I think it's really important for entrepreneurs to continue to dream big and find aligned capital and aligned shareholders to let you dream big and shoot for those bigger higher risk opportunities because if they work they're a 100 x spec

Shaan Puri

I couldn't agree more. I can think of two examples in my own career where I've been guilty of that. We did that, and I was just talking to a company I invested in. They pitched me this amazing self-driving car—single passenger vehicles that were electric and self-driving. It was this really fantastic vision of what the future might look like. I feel like, in many ways, they've made a lot of progress, but also, they did the restaurant thing. Basically, they found a customer who showed them a near path to some validation. In doing that, they sort of beat down the vision and tried to cram the vision into it. Okay, some of the vision doesn't fit here. Alright, it's just going to get sort of left behind, and we'll just do this one thing that might actually net a much smaller overall opportunity and smaller impact. If you're going to spend your whole life doing this, well, you know, why not go for the one that actually might work? This also isn't limited to technical. Have you heard about the Airbnb, Brian Chesky's thing, like the 12-star experience? Have you heard this?

David Friedberg

no maybe but it doesn't ring

Shaan Puri

A bell? You'll like this. So, basically, he sat down with his team and said, "Okay, you know we're in the hospitality business. We want to give our guests a great experience, a 5-star experience." He said, "First, let's just define it, right? Just humor me, what's a one-star experience?" They responded, "Ah, you get to the house, it's locked. There are cockroaches outside. You can't get in, you're out in the cold..." He encouraged them to be vivid about it. Then he said, "Alright, give me a 3-star experience. Give me a 5-star experience." The team got excited and said, "Oh, a 5-star experience is, you know, you get there, it's easy to get in, the place is nice, it looks just like the photos, and you have a great stay. Everything works, nothing breaks, and on the way out, the host leaves you a nice little gift basket." He said, "Awesome! So what's a 7-star experience?" Now the team started to tighten up; they didn't expect that. They thought 5 was the maximum number of stars you could have. He said, "Right, totally. So give me more." They said, "Well, I guess you could get there, and there's somebody at the airport to pick you up. They've got your name on a sign." He said, "Yes, yes! Give me more!" So they started to define a 7-star experience, and he kept pushing for more: 9-star, 10-star, 12-star. They got to this ridiculous extreme, like, "You get there, not only do they have to stay, but they say, 'Hey, you're going to be up at 9 AM tomorrow. I got something special for you.' Somebody picks you up, takes you on an adventure surfing outside because they're an expert..." That type of thinking is what gets you to do Airbnb experiences, which are like local activities to go do. This wouldn't have really been in a "go book a place to stay" type of website necessarily, right? You can apply that same thinking to user experience and customer experience just as much as you can on the technical side. I think that pairs pretty well with your framework there.

David Friedberg

totally

Shaan Puri

So, let's talk about Canna. This is cool. I heard this... Actually, when I think I reached out to somebody on your team, I said, "I want to..." I actually didn't want you on the pod. I said, "I want to make a drink." So, can I explain it in simple terms of what I think it is, and then you correct me?

David Friedberg

go for it

Shaan Puri

Alright, so you basically made a printer—like a home printer—but instead of printing out sheets of paper with ink on it, you could print out a drink. Any drink. For example, my wife is vegan. She doesn't drink alcohol; she never has had a drop in her life. But she loves certain types of teas and coffees. So she could take her favorite tea and have it exactly the way she wants it. One of the reasons she loves Starbucks is because she can go in and say, "I want a light ice oat milk, decaf with no sugar, blah blah blah." She can customize her whole drink. Similarly, we're going to have a device, and if I fast forward 10 to 15 years—I don't know, you tell me the timeline—but we're going to have a device in our house that we can just push a button, and it'll dispense the drink we want. It'll print a drink for you that is exactly the drink you want. That same machine that she's going to use for her teas, I can go use for a lime Gatorade-like drink that I could print out. Or I might even be able to print a drink that somebody creates—someone on the internet just creates a recipe, and then my printer can just print that recipe out. I can try that drink at home. So instead of shipping cans of beverages or going to a store where there are beverages on a shelf, and then I drive it home and put it on my shelf, instead of that whole process, we just combine the water that we already have in our homes with a kind of printer cartridge of flavors. You can print whatever drink you want. So, alright, tell me if I butchered it.

David Friedberg

You did great! I love the use cases; those are perfect and awesome. That was great, and I mean, I think that's exactly right. The big discovery, the big kind of revelation with this business, is based on the idea that **99% of beverages** are water, or maybe water plus sugar, or maybe water plus alcohol. Only **1%** of all beverages is the chemistry that makes the flavor, the smell, the color, and the texture of the beverage. That **1%** is all that we really need to turn water into all these different beverages.

Shaan Puri

chemical literally water into wine

David Friedberg

Water into wine... Cana, by the way, is the town in Galilee where Jesus turned water into wine. That's the name—a little known fact, now becoming a better known fact. Friends that went to Sunday school, by the way, tend to know that. Basically, if you take wine, it has about 500 flavor compounds. That's all the stuff that comes from the grape, the skin, the branch, the leaves, the oak, and all this stuff. It turns out that of those 500 compounds, chemically speaking, only about 30 to 40 really matter to your sensory palate. Your nose and mouth can only really pick up and care about those 30 to 40 compounds. The same is true in coffee, tea, juice, soda, liquor, and beer. All of these beverages are 99% water, or water and sugar and alcohol, and 1% are compounds. You might have 100 compounds in the organic state, but you really only need a few dozen of them. When you look at the chemical composition, it turns out that those few dozen compounds can be very overlapping from one beverage to the other. Only a few tweaks of a few chemicals can change a white wine into a red one, or a Chardonnay to a soft block. So the idea is, let's get those compounds—those ingredients—into a cartridge, just like an inkjet printer where you might have CMYK, right? Four colors. We could have 80 compounds, and we think that with 80 compounds, we can recreate all the beverage flavors that make up everything from orange juice to Gatorade, to beer, to iced tea, to iced coffee, to a margarita. That's the idea with the business. So, you know, Canada.com has just launched, right? We spent about three years on this project. The first was all the chemical work. So, you know, does the chemistry make sense? Can we actually decompose all the beverages? So we've... at this?

David Friedberg

Used what's called a **GCMS** or a **Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometer** to analyze the molecular components of literally thousands of beverages.

Shaan Puri

it's like a 23 and b for drinks

David Friedberg

yeah and like this is really scanning the world's

Shaan Puri

or digitizing the world's beverages and so we've got

David Friedberg

all the sodas all beverages and so we've got all the sodas all the

Shaan Puri

bottles of wine all the liquor all the tequila everything you can

David Friedberg

Come up with... has gone through this device. Then, based on that chemical composition, we've built software that uses heuristics or master combinations to try and reduce the number of compounds down and create a common overlapping set that we can recreate all the beverages.

Shaan Puri

So, give me the origin story. Were you just sitting around one day and you're like, "You know what? All these drinks are 99% water and then just 1% is the differentiation. Why don't I do..." How does an idea like this even come into your brain? What do you see? What are you reading? What happened? Where did the epiphany happen?

David Friedberg

well a couple things one is I I had a good sense for that for a while I was at dinner with a professor from uc davis back in late 2019 or so and so or 2018 2019 and so he was telling me about this research paper published by the scientist in germany at the technical university of munich and the scientist runs a flavor science lab and he basically took a glass of wine and he reduced it from 500 compounds down to like 37 or 40 or something and gave it to a consumer sensory panel and they couldn't tell the difference between that wine and the original wine and then he did it with another wine another wine and he's kind of made these declarative statements that he thinks we could recreate all beverages with just a few dozen compounds and so that was kinda I said to the guy at dinner I'm like why don't we just make the start direct replicator for beverages like we could just print any beverage if we could just get those few dozen compounds to people's homes and so there's a guy working with us as a scientist in residence at tbb which is a foundry we run kind of r and d programs internally and if we feel confident that the r and d yields an opportunity we'll build a business around it so in this particular case we said hey lance why don't we read these papers try and recreate these experiments and see if we can come up with a good orientation around is it really feasible that we can create thousands of beverages using just a few dozen compounds that they make economic sense that we could put them in a flavor cartridge and turn this into a machine and so you know after about a year year and a half we actually you know convinced ourselves that this is gonna work we separately ran a chemistry program analytical chemistry program as well as a hardware program and you know we had spreadsheet models that showed that the math could work and that we could actually make this device and we had a bunch of different technical challenges on how do you actually dispense right you know micro liter and sub micro liter volumes of these flavoring compounds into the water stream you gotta make sure you can do the whole thing in 15 seconds or 20 seconds because otherwise consumers are gonna get annoyed it's gotta taste incredible you gotta have high precision it's gotta be cheap you gotta make it really cold I mean all the product that you know we had all these prds we were trying to iterate on and then we yield our kind of estimated cost model and then we had to prove the tech work so you know very iterative cycle for the last 3 years to get to this.

David Friedberg

So, we now have fully working prototypes of **Gen 1** of the device. We're going to production on **Gen 1** and hope to ship early next year. We're starting pre-orders today for **$99**. You can reserve a fully refundable **$99** reservation fee. The first **10,000** orders are **$4.99** for the device, and **$7.99** after the first **10,000**. So, that's the setup.

Shaan Puri

So, let me just do two things. I want to first ask about the kind of drinks I’m going to be able to get out of this. Just what the average person wants to know. Secondly, I want to talk about the impact of that. My sense is that if you're making the divide—if you're making what you eat and drink in your own home, like literally producing it at home—you cut out a bunch of trucking, storage, and packaging stuff that doesn't need to happen. That might actually help the environment. So, I want to talk about the environment in a second, but let's first do the fun stuff: the drinks. Okay, so I have water in my house. Your drinks are going to be... you have a way to basically cool down the water. Can you also carbonate it? What are the limitations here?

David Friedberg

Yep, it's chilled and carbonated. Optional, obviously, in the device. You don't need to worry about any of that.

Shaan Puri

or you can go hot

David Friedberg

we don't do heating so we don't do hot beverages in gen 1 so just to be clear you're not gonna have hot coffee or hot tea but there is cold brew there is iced teas flavored iced teas there's a whole variety of stuff there but the idea is there are 3 cartridges so there's the master flavor cartridge you put it in it should last anywhere from 1 to 3 months before you need to kind of replace it there's a sugar cartridge because a lot of beverages people wanna have sugar and so there's a separate cartridge for sugar it should last about a month and a separate cartridge for alcohol it should last about a month and you don't have to buy cartridges they're free they auto ship to your home and you just put them in when they arrive the device senses when you're running low and we send you a new cartridge we charge per drink so the price per drink is gonna be 25 to 50% on average cheaper than what you would pay in retail for that same beverage so you know at the end of each month your card or your account is charged for the beverages you consume but you don't need to go to the store you don't need to buy cartridges you don't need to deal with all the nonsense we take care of all that it's really supposed to be hassle free and then the idea is there's beverages that range from morning till night so iced coffee iced tea sparkling soda juice hydration or energy drinks there's hard seltzers cocktails wine and so there's a range of kind of add ons and features like there's caffeination there's nutrient boost so you can actually have vitamin boost there's electrolyte boosts and so you could have low alcohol hard seltzer you could have low sugar juice for your kids you could have you know add caffeine have an extra boost of caffeine or low caffeine iced tea so there's all this variation around what you can do ultimately from a personalization perspective and as a user what you're gonna experience is literally 100 or 1000 of brands available to you on this device and they're all gonna be new brands so we're not yet revealing who the brands are I think a few of them will start to announce this week but if you think about where this goes as a consumer today you really have a very limited number of choices when it comes to brands because there's only about 150 slots in a retail store for wine beer coffee tea juice soda and so you know minute maid coca cola pepsi 7 up these are nameless faceless corporate brands in the future you're gonna have your own brand right so you and your podcast can make a branded beverage put it on cana and your followers can buy your beverage and it can be your favorite blueberry hard seltzer or your wife's favorite tea and she's kind of you know and so you guys can build your own brands at a cost of nothing to you and so I think that the future is a lot like what we saw in media where people are consuming tiktok and youtube and netflix and you know there's a long tail of content there's a long tail of things that are associated with individuals now and influencers I think the same will happen in brands

Shaan Puri

Yeah, so basically, just to kind of explain that again because I think it's important. So you're saying, you know, the same way that if you wanted to watch TV or listen to the radio, there was just a fixed number of slots. When there were three channels, they would show the most general thing that would appeal to the common denominator type of audience. Then, when we got cable, we got more channels. Now you have a fishing channel and a golf channel, but those are still pretty broad actually. When you compare it to YouTube, where it's like I can watch somebody who just likes to binge eat food, and that's just what I want to watch right now. Or I can watch a guy who does some CrossFit thing that may not have made it onto ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN3, or ESPN... you know, like it would have never made it on the air.

David Friedberg

You can't binge-watch chess matches on ESPN, but you can on YouTube. So you're now watching way more media than you would have otherwise because you love chess matches.

Shaan Puri

And this podcast is a good example. Not only does it give the consumer more choice, but it also gives the creator a way to just push a button and try their hand at it. If we're good—like, we kind of sucked at the beginning, and now we're good—we get a few hundred thousand downloads a month. Well, that's great because it was permissionless. Nobody had to audition anywhere and get selected in order to be on stage. So what you're saying is the same thing is going to happen in drinks. The consumer is going to have this infinite selection of flavors that fit their needs. For example, the low-sugar orange juice or whatever sparkling beverage will be appealing to that person. They will be able to print that beverage even though it may not be sold on the shelves because it's not the kind of mass popular drink choice. The other thing is, Sam and I have already started brainstorming. Sam wants to do a root beer, and I'm interested in more of a sparkling water sort of thing—a non-alcoholic refreshing option. So, we're... you know.

David Friedberg

let's do it you got you guys wanna do it

Shaan Puri

no I'm serious yeah we wanna do it

David Friedberg

So, come to Redwood City, try the device, and we'll get you guys set up. You can make your own brand, and... well, that's it.

Shaan Puri

The question, right? We were... and people got started DMing us because they were like, "Yeah, dude, we were told..." Because we like to make up fake name brands on the show, we're like, "Oh, Southern Sam's Root Beer" and then, you know, "Sean's... whatever." I like to... I said this idea. I said somebody should make a brand of water that's just called **Lucky Water**, and it's just... you might have good luck if you drink this water. So I'll just have Lucky Water, right? Placebo water. And just say, "There is no... this is a total placebo, but hey, it never hurts."

David Friedberg

you can put a hint of something in there just a hint

Shaan Puri

Well, it's gonna have some flavor, but the... you know, the luck is why. So anyways, that's my drink. But the question was, is it gonna taste the same? Right? For example, I lived in China for a bunch of years, and you would get these sodas. There's this phrase for expats living in China called "NQR," which stands for "not quite right." It's like it almost tastes like KFC, but it doesn't taste like KFC totally. That was a common problem when they tried to export these kinds of flavors to another country. So I know you're kind of biased, but give me your thoughts. You seem like a pretty honest guy; I don't think you're trying to sell stuff.

David Friedberg

No, I mean, we're pretty technical about this. So, here's an important point. I made this earlier today, so it's fresh in my mind. There's a difference between **taste** and **flavor**. Flavor is the sensory experience that you have, you know, biochemically and biologically, as you experience a bunch of chemistry in your mouth. Taste is how you psychologically interpret that and find it appealing. We've all heard stories about taking expensive wine and cheap wine, blindfolding people, and giving it to them. They can't tell the difference. I can give you really cheap $2 wine in a two Michelin star restaurant, and you taste it and you're like, "Oh my gosh, this is amazing!" Conversely, I can give you really expensive wine in a McDonald's, and you kind of chug it down. So, taste is a function of the overall sensory experience when you engage with a product. A big part of what we're trying to get right is that the experience is more than just the flavor. We have to ensure that there's something to substitute for the affinity you have with a brand. You have an affinity with KFC or Coca-Cola, and there's some benefit to that being ingrained in your mind. You taste something, it's good enough, and you're like, "Okay, cool." So, what we do from a flavor perspective... that's number one. There's a whole digital experience on the device.

Shaan Puri

that we think is really important

David Friedberg

Brands are no longer static; it's not just a logo. Brands are visual, right? So there's a video or some audio that comes through as you're exploring and trying things through the device. Flavor is really straightforward. Our chemistry team prints beverages. We take the best in the market for that category. For example, we'll take Sprite, a lemon-lime soda, and we will print one of our lemon-lime sodas. We have a sensory panel where we bring in consumers. They blind taste and we score the products. Then we get iterative feedback on what's working and what's not. This allows us to craft our formula. So, you know, that is a big part of our analytical chemistry process: the sensory feedback that we do blind. We don't graduate formulas; we don't say that these ingredients work until we hit and exceed the best in market comparables. By the way, there's a really interesting statistic. You'll see that things like cold brew coffee are fascinating because it's so complex and can be so different, just like dark chocolate. You can take Starbucks and Blue Bottle, and one group of people will passionately love Starbucks while another group will passionately love Blue Bottle. So, you know, you'll see that we will score really well with one group with one of our formulas and really well with the other group with another one of our formulas. This goes to the...

David Friedberg

Earlier, if you take a Coca-Cola, it's got 44 grams of sugar or whatever in it. That's what Coca-Cola decided was going to be the lowest common denominator. That's how they get the biggest audience to buy Coca-Cola. But it turns out some people would buy more Coca-Cola if it had 20 grams of sugar, and some people would buy more if it had 60 grams of sugar. So, if Coca-Cola had a 20 gram, 30 gram, 40 gram, 50 gram, and 60 gram version, they would sell a lot more in aggregate of all those versions than if they sold just the 44 gram sugar version. And so, sugar is a terrible example because it's evil and awful, but we all love it. But you know, like my...

Shaan Puri

Have you seen the TED Talk by Malcolm Gladwell about the perfect pasta sauce? It's got like a million reviews! Yeah, you gotta listen to this. So, Malcolm Gladwell goes on, and in his style, he tells this great story about a guy who gets hired by Pepsi, then by Coke, and then by Prego. I think it is. They're like, "We want the perfect pasta sauce. What is the perfect flavor for consumers?" He discovers there is no perfect pasta sauce; there are only perfect pasta sauces. He's like, "That's..."

David Friedberg

right

Shaan Puri

Some people want the chunky version, and there is a perfect version of the chunky that will appeal to the most people. Then, some people want the one that's different. That's why you see the aisle today with options like the super garlicky one, the super chunky one, and the one that's not chunky. Those people feel very passionately that chunky is better than non-chunky; it's not close for them. On the other hand, another group of people will feel the exact opposite. However, they are limited in some ways because they can only bottle 5, 7, or 12 variations and then put them on shelves, which can only hold a certain number of options. In contrast, you're not limited in the same way that YouTube is not limited by the number of channels on your TV.

David Friedberg

That's right, exactly right. I think that's where it's not about whether we are better than Coca-Cola. It's about can everyone find a product in Canada that they like more than Coca-Cola?

Shaan Puri

you can't use their name right so what are you gonna do are you like smoka shmola like what how are you gonna

David Friedberg

Are you wasting their brands? No, we're not using any of those brands. It's all new brands. So, your Lucky Water is going to be a brand. We're going to get that done. Okay, great! And so, you'll find hundreds of new brands available on Cana that you don't find on the store shelves.

Shaan Puri

and you're gonna have like your house brands basically of the popular things yourselves to to see me

David Friedberg

We may... yeah, I'm not interested. I'm more interested in finding partners that are going to be passionate promoters and want to, you know, be creators on this platform. I think it's likely going to be the case that folks who want to be creators are going to be bringing...

Shaan Puri

brands to market through the device well you know this has

David Friedberg

happened with alcohol right so like the rock I think is

Shaan Puri

I think he's exactly right. He sold, I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of cases of his tequila. The Rock is going to be a billionaire, not from wrestling, not from movies, but from...

David Friedberg

same with 50¢ same with george clooney

Shaan Puri

right I mean

David Friedberg

all these

Shaan Puri

guys are but you have they've

David Friedberg

All beverage brands, by the way, have to be huge. That's the thing. Only 3% of beverage brands that launch and get retail space actually make it to $10,000,000 in sales. So, you know, if you're someone with less than 100,000 followers—let's say you have 3,000,000 followers—you're a great YouTube creator. People know you, they love you, they're passionate about you, but you're never going to go make a beverage brand. It's going to cost $5,000,000 to do that. You have to formulate it, make packaging, create a logo, and box it. Then you have to convince retail stores to carry it. I mean, the whole process is generally speaking an insurmountable task. You have to be huge, like The Rock, to get that. There are probably 90,000 times more people in the middle who are really influential, have a lot of followers, but aren't as big as George Clooney or The Rock. They could make a brand that doesn't require any investment, that doesn't require any capital. They don't have to take any risk. And look, if it's digital, it's permissionless. So if it works, great! They've got a nice revenue stream.

Shaan Puri

And you give a share. So, let's say, I don't know, what do you think the average drink's going to sell for? Like a dollar or less than a dollar?

David Friedberg

So, it ranges from **$2.29** for a sparkling water, like a flavored water or a LaCroix competitor, up to **$2.99** for a really nice cocktail. You know, you'll find that a mojito or mimosa will generally be about **$1.99**. The price will be about **25% to 50%** less than at the store.

Shaan Puri

Right, so let's say I'm selling my 30¢ lucky water. What is the standard out-of-the-box, like an app store's 30% cut type of thing? What is the business model? Because this will let more people do the "Rock thing." This will let people like me do the Rock thing where we can just formulate a drink, sell it virtually and digitally to everybody who has a printer. It's now available, and then we get a small income stream... royalty stream coming through this.

David Friedberg

Yeah, by the way, the royalty stream for someone like 50 Cent is going to be around 2 to 6%. You know, they're participating on net, right? So there's a very different kind of model there. We offer a much higher share of revenue. Obviously, this is a very difficult business to operate. We've got to get cartridges made, we have to get them to people's homes, and we auto-renew. So there's a whole services component. You know, we've got a pretty good pitch today for brand partners. We haven't launched commercially, so I'm not going to commit to what the number's going to be, but I think it's a really, really compelling opportunity. And they're all going to be real. They're going to own their brand. So if they want to take that brand and use it elsewhere, it doesn't have exclusivity. We don't own the brand; it's your brand. So you can take your brand, Lucky Water, and if it takes off and you've got 10 million people that want to buy it in stores, go launch it in stores. You know, it's your brand. So, yeah, I think it's a platform for letting people kind of create, ideate, and see if they can develop value there.

Shaan Puri

and the thing

David Friedberg

it's almost like it's like merch right like I mean just monetize yourself

Shaan Puri

The device cost... is that $4.99, or is it going to cost $4.99? That's the pre-order price for the first 10,000 orders.

David Friedberg

so once we hit 10,000 the the price is going up to 7.99 yeah

Shaan Puri

And then, is this like the Tesla Roadster model? Where do you want to drive this down to? What do you think is the thing you need where this actually is not just my, you know, cool thing in my house when people come over and I can do a magic trick? Like, when does this become standard, where it's not a magic trick and everyone’s got one?

David Friedberg

So, it's a great question. You know, there's about **35 million** Keurigs installed in the world. There are like **3.5 to 4 million** SodaStreams. These devices have prices that range from about **$70** up to **$299** for a nice Nespresso. So, **$299** maybe gets you kind of a **10%** market share, while **$199** gets you **30%**. I don't know the exact numbers because part of what we're doing is we're not just a single product and a single daypart. Keurig, Nespresso, and SodaStream are all **1 product, 1 daypart**. So, will people pay more for more dayparts? Will people pay more for more variety? Hopefully, our prices are going to be lower than what you pay for some other alternative products. The value we can provide to consumers, I think, will ultimately dictate how the market expands as a function of price, right? And then, form factor. So, can we get it smaller? Can we add heating to it? You know, there are a bunch of features on the roadmap and then the trade-offs on price. If we add heating, it costs a lot more and it's going to get bigger. Can we make a technology leap where we can actually get everything to be smaller, add heat, and drop the price? As we go from **Gen 1**—we're calling this our **Gen 1 device, Mechana 1**—to **Gen 3**, we really think **Gen 3** ends up being kind of like it's got everything for everyone at an accessible price.

David Friedberg

For the mass market

Shaan Puri

And I don't know if you're fully out of time, but I did want to give you a chance to talk about the environment for a second, if you have it.

David Friedberg

great thank you

Shaan Puri

probably pretty major or like at least one of the big drivers for you here

David Friedberg

pretty much all the work we do at tpb is oriented around how do we change systems of production on planet earth so that we can make things using less energy less land less natural resources I'm a big believer that sustainability in the 21st century does not arise from convincing consumers to consume less I think sustainability arises from building technology based solutions that let consumers consume more and dropping the price and dropping the environmental impact and that's what technology allows us to do so if you go back to the industrial revolutions you know of the 19th 20th century we built factories right we put all this technology in a big machine in a big facility and we used it to make stuff over and over again and that dropped the price for consumers because we automated it in a big factory turns out that the technology of that factory as all technology does shrinks gets faster gets cheaper gets better and so theoretically technology like what exists in a factory a technology that's better than what exists in a factory to make beverages can be put in your home and so you know the idea is how do you decentralize manufacturing because it takes about 600 liters of water to make a single liter of wine it takes about 40 liters of water to make a liter of orange juice and we take all of this water and by the way orange juice is 93% water 7% sugar only 1% is the flavor compounds right wine is 88% water 11% alcohol less than 1% flavor compounds so you know how do we so we've taken all this water grown all these crops that basically turn into water put them into glass and plastic and cans that we use carbon dioxide to make then we put them on trucks which use carbon dioxide to go to warehouses that then go into stores they can go into your home and then you store them in your home and you're basically drinking water and every industrialized home has water it's about half a 1000000000 tons of co2 that are put into the atmosphere every year to make bottled cans and beverages it is about bottled and canned beverages it is about 400,000,000,000,000 liters of water that are used in the whole production cycle of bottled beverages and consumers are spending $2,300,000,000,000 a year on this archaic insane system of centralized manufacturing to use a ton of energy and a ton of carbon and a ton of land to just move water into your home when you already have water in your home 120,000,000 acres of farmland that could be reduced and returned back to the natural ecosystems that we would stop using to grow all this stuff so that's our long term incentive right the incentive is can we take that carbon out of the atmosphere can we reduce the waste on water can we return the land to natural ecosystems and at the same time make it cheaper and better experience for consumers by decentralizing manufacturing and putting these devices in homes and giving people better options and so that's why we're so excited about this you know I think we have an opportunity to do something that has an impact but also hopefully gives consumers something that's better than what they have today

Shaan Puri

Yeah, I don't know if you're hiring, but this is one of those companies where I would look at and say, "Wow, that'd be a cool place to work," if I was out there in the job market. You have a hard tech problem. You have a device that, if it works, is going to be like a household name. Everybody's going to know it. It's going to be like Netflix or an iPad or something. It's going to be something that everybody knows if this actually pulls it off. I mean, you're on some Willy Wonka shit. You know, you're basically creating this magical device that lets you create whatever you want—your own little candy, your own little beverage in your home. I think that's pretty inspiring. And, you know, to do that while also having a big impact on the environment, right? Most people would look at that environmental supply chain you talked about and say, "How do we make this 20% more efficient at this step? How do we make the trucks emit a little less carbon dioxide? Alright, how do we just reduce this by 15%?" What you've done is said, "Why are we doing this in the first place? Why don't we eliminate the whole chain?" So, why are we using all this water, all this plastic, and all this fuel just to move water from here to there and add a little bit of flavor to it? Even worse, when there's already water piped into people's homes. We already built the core infrastructure—the pipe into the home with water. All we gotta do is sort of like, at the last, last mile—not even the last mile—sort of like the last two feet of counter space, just convert it into the product people want. So, I think it's...

David Friedberg

Pretty good, yeah. And like all the refrigerator space and energy to run the refrigerator to store all that stuff. And like the stuff in your cabinets. Yeah, so that's exactly right. I mean, you nailed it. That's why it's so awesome. So, yeah, we are hiring and we got great offices. People go to work in the office and so on.

Shaan Puri

That’s a perk nowadays. That’s a perk! Yeah, you can see humans if you work with us. Yeah, you know, I’m going to go out on...

David Friedberg

the come and meet people irl

Shaan Puri

I think, you know, Climate Corp is cool. The insurance companies are... it's not that cool, but you know, I guess it made some money. This is cool. This is gonna be your biggest thing, hopefully. This will be the thing that, you know, college version of you would be like, "Alright, that was sweet." Not underwhelmed by that one.

David Friedberg

as long as my as long as my kids are proud down the road I'll I'll be happy so that's all good alright

Shaan Puri

tell people where to go to so canada.com go go is

David Friedberg

That what you're saying? Canada.com, Cana.com. And yeah, you can check out the product specs, the product video, and sign up for a $99 pre-order reservation.

Shaan Puri

thanks for coming on man I really appreciate this I'm a fan of yours

David Friedberg

It's been awesome to chat. Yeah, it's been a great conversation. I think you really nailed it, and I appreciate you listening. So, that's been great. Thank you.