大技术 (Big Technology)

OneZero is partnering with Big Technology, a newsletter and podcast by Alex Kantrowitz, to bring readers exclusive access to interviews with notable figures in and around the tech industry.

OneZero 与 Alex Kantrowitz的时事通讯和播客 Big Technology 合作 ，使读者可以独家访问科技行业内外的知名人物。

This week, Kantrowitz sits down with Box CEO Aaron Levie. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

本周，Kantrowitz与Box首席执行官Aaron Levie坐下。 这次采访经过了长度和清晰度的编辑。

To subscribe to the podcast and hear the interview for yourself, you can check it out on iTunes, Spotify, and Overcast.

要订阅播客并亲自收听采访， 您可以在 iTunes ， Spotify 和 Overcast 上签出 。

As the pandemic flattens much of the U.S. economy, many technology firms are doing just fine. Business is moving online, and they’re well positioned to benefit. For tech CEOs like Box’s Aaron Levie, the experience can be bewildering. While you’re riding a wave most companies can only dream about, you’re watching the rest of the economy — including many of your customers — struggle to get by.

随着大流行的变平多O至美国经济，许多科技公司都做得很好。 商业正在在线发展，他们已经做好了从中受益的准备。 对于像Box的Aaron Levie这样的技术首席执行官来说，这种经历可能会令人困惑。 当您乘风破浪时，大多数公司只能梦dream以求，而您在注视着经济的其余部分，包括许多客户，都在艰难地挣扎。

Levie, in this conversation, says this economy is “not sustainable” and offers a look into his mindset as he tries to make sense of where this is all heading.

列维在这次谈话中说，这种经济“不可持续”，并在他试图弄清一切发展方向的过程中探究了他的心态。

Alex Kantrowitz: Let’s start with politics. Your stock price was approximately $9 on March 13, and today it’s nearing $18. [Update: After the recording, it rose above $20.] So, it’s double where it was earlier in the year when the economy was crumbling. This is largely due to the fact that the Trump administration infused more than $2 trillion and essentially saved the stock market. How do you feel about the Trump administration today?

Alex Kantrowitz：让我们从政治开始。 3月13日，您的股价约为9美元，而今天，它已接近18美元。 [更新：录音后，它涨到了20美元以上。]因此，它是当年经济崩溃时的两倍。 这主要是由于特朗普政府注入了超过2万亿美元，并从根本上挽救了股市。 您对今天的特朗普政府有何感想？

Aaron Levie: This administration has mishandled almost every element of the pandemic, between the health response as well as the economic response, and to your exact point, I think way too much emphasis has been put on how the NASDAQ or the S&P is doing and not as much on how are actual small businesses doing. How are actual employees and workers doing throughout the country?

亚伦·列维(Aaron Levie)：本届政府在健康应对和经济应对之间，对流感大流行的几乎所有要素都进行了错误处理，就您的确切观点而言，我认为纳斯达克或标准普尔的表现已过分强调，与其说实际的小企业做得如何，不如说是。 全国各地的实际员工情况如何？

Unfortunately, I think we’ve got this massive distraction of the stock market’s performance, which as you know is heavily weighted toward a couple sectors—and importantly, within those sectors, a few companies that are really driving up the results of the overall market to a point of it almost being misleading around how well the economy is doing.

不幸的是，我认为我们对股票市场的表现产生了极大的干扰，众所周知，股票市场的表现主要集中在几个领域，而且重要的是，在这些领域中，确实有一些公司在推动整个市场的发展在某种程度上，它几乎误导了经济表现。

Ultimately the real essence of the problem is you have a health crisis and you have an economic crisis. In the health crisis, I think we’ve basically done almost everything possible to ensure that we don’t recover quickly and that we don’t create the right health standards, social norms, and infrastructure in the country to respond to the health crisis.

最终，问题的真正实质是您面临健康危机和经济危机。 在健康危机中，我认为我们基本上已经做了几乎所有可能的事情，以确保我们不能Swift康复，并且我们没有在该国制定正确的健康标准，社会规范和基础设施来应对健康危机。

That’s put the onus more on businesses and states and cities. For something like a health crisis, where there’s no boundary, there’s no territory, there’s no dividing line on politics, you really do need a federal response at some point, and that should have been done swiftly in the beginning of this crisis. And I think we know the playbook of what largely should have happened, between mask wearing, setting up the right kind of testing infrastructure, and making sure we had the right health norms throughout the country.

这使企业，州和城市承担更多责任。 对于像健康危机这样的事情，那里没有国界，没有疆域，政治上没有分界线，您确实确实需要联邦政府的回应，而这应该在危机爆发之初Swift采取。 而且我认为我们知道应该怎么做，包括戴口罩，建立正确的测试基础设施以及确保我们在全国拥有正确的健康规范之间发生了什么。

Then, on the economic response, I’m less close to all of the dynamics here. I think the loans to small affected businesses, I think that was absolutely a noble and important effort. We can point to a tremendous amount of flaws around who got money, who didn’t get money, all of those issues, but the swiftness, I think, was at least important.

然后，关于经济React，我不太了解这里的所有动态。 我认为向受影响小企业贷款是绝对的高尚而重要的努力。 我们可以指出，在所有这些问题上，谁有钱，谁没有钱都存在着巨大的缺陷，但是我认为Swift是最重要的。

But I do think that putting more money in the hands of individuals who are affected by this in terms of if they’ve had furloughs, job-hour reductions, or job loss completely, we do have to get money into the hands of citizens and people directly, and I think that’s ultimately where Congress needs to step up.

但是我确实认为，要把更多的钱投给受此影响的个人，例如他们是否已经休假，减少工作时间或完全失去工作，我们确实必须将钱交到公民和直接的人，我认为这最终是国会需要加强的地方。

So, I and many others in tech have been very conflicted, because our businesses are doing well because we happen to be digital platforms that are remaining successful during this time because we’re only technology companies. We don’t have much of a physical requirement or presence. And so our businesses are doing well, but at the same time, we know that the economy and the health care crisis are very severe in the country.

因此，我和许多其他技术方面的人一直存在很大的矛盾，因为我们的业务做得很好，因为我们碰巧是数字平台，由于我们只是技术公司，因此在此期间仍保持成功。 我们没有太多的身体需求或存在。 因此，我们的业务状况良好，但与此同时，我们知道该国的经济和医疗危机非常严重。

You’re a public sector CEO, you’re a critic of the administration, but your stock is doing great. How does that feel for you internally when you try to balance these two things?

您是公共部门首席执行官，是政府的批评者，但您的股票表现不错。 当您试图平衡这两件事时，内部感觉如何？

I think there is a little bit of conflicting tension there, which, again, is that our business is remaining stable and relatively strong right now, which I think is good on its own because we can keep people employed and continue to serve our customers. And we’ve had a very large portion of our customers fundamentally using our product because they have to enable remote work and keep their business operations running.

我认为那里存在一些矛盾的紧张局势，这又是我们的业务目前保持稳定且相对强劲，我认为这本身是一件好事，因为我们可以聘用员工并继续为客户提供服务。 而且，我们有很大一部分客户从根本上使用我们的产品，因为他们必须启用远程工作并保持其业务运作正常进行。

So, in many respects, our technology is critical to keeping organizations running. Again, to have a stock market that is somewhat or substantively disconnected from the broader economy, I think, does create that cognitive dissonance sometimes. But honestly, whether it’s today, where maybe our stock is doing well on a relative basis, or two years ago, where we maybe were underperforming in the market, our job is fundamentally not to pay much attention to the stock price and focus mostly on just execution, serving customers, making sure employees are staying safe and healthy right now. That’s, at least, how I think about it from a pure CEO standpoint.

因此，在许多方面，我们的技术对于保持组织运转至关重要。 同样，我认为，要使股票市场与整体经济在某种程度上或实质上脱离联系，有时确实会造成认知失调。 但说实话，无论是在今天，也许我们的股票在相对基础上表现良好，还是在两年前，我们可能在市场上表现不佳，我们的工作从根本上讲就是不要过多关注股价，而主要关注公正执行，服务客户，确保员工现在保持安全健康。 至少从纯粹的CEO角度来看，这就是我的想法。

“We have nonprofit customers that are unable to do the same level of fundraising or keep operations running because, obviously, there’s less money going into those areas.”

“我们的非营利客户无法进行同等水平的筹款或维持运营，因为显然，进入这些领域的资金较少。”

The administration has been so focused on keeping this market strong. And, of course, you’re the beneficiary of that. But then there are also the customers you serve. You need people buying your product in order to be a sustainable business. What is your sense in terms of how small-to-medium and then small businesses are doing right now?

政府一直专注于保持这个市场的强大。 而且，您当然是其中的受益者。 但是，还有您服务的客户。 您需要人们购买您的产品才能成为可持续发展的企业。 您对中小型然后小型企业目前的状况有何看法？

This is such a bizarre experience, because it’s so dependent on sector and where that organization is serving their customers in terms of geographically or where in the supply chain stack they exist. And so I think across small businesses, midsize companies, and large enterprises, it’s a very bimodal environment where you have some companies that are doing unbelievably well. You’ve seen some of the earnings from non-tech companies that are in retail, like Target, where they’re blowing up all of their numbers. They’re having record same-store sales.

这是一种奇异的体验，因为它非常依赖于部门以及该组织根据地理位置或供应链堆栈中的位置为客户提供服务的位置。 因此，我认为在小型企业，中型公司和大型企业中，这是一个非常双峰的环境，在这种环境中，有些公司的表现令人难以置信。 您已经看到零售业中非技术公司的一些收益，例如Target，它们炸毁了所有公司的收益。 他们的同店销售记录。

Equally, you’ll look at other retailers that maybe don’t have as much of a digital presence or maybe their products are a little more discretionary in nature. So, maybe fashion or some other kind of retailer, and their numbers are decimated. And so, in the exact same sector, with maybe even in some cases the exact same digital strategy, you can have two completely different outcomes.

同样，您会看到其他零售商可能没有那么多的数字化业务，或者他们的产品本质上更具自由裁量权。 因此，也许是时尚或其他类型的零售商，并且其数量已减少。 因此，在完全相同的行业中，甚至在某些情况下甚至可以使用完全相同的数字策略，您可以得到两个完全不同的结果。

The same is true for small and medium businesses. We have some small and medium businesses who happen to be in spaces that are on fire, and they’re growing rapidly. We have some small businesses, some in live entertainment, as an example, some in retail—

中小企业也是如此。 我们有一些中小型企业，它们恰好在着火的空间中，并且发展Swift。 我们有一些小型企业，有的是现场娱乐活动，有的是零售业，

They must be getting crushed.

他们一定被压垮了。

They’re completely crushed. And we’ve done our best to say, “Okay, hey, you don’t have to pay us right now. Just hang in there, we’re going to continue to support you.” We have nonprofit customers that are unable to do the same level of fundraising or keep operations running because, obviously, there’s less money going into those areas.

他们完全被压碎了。 我们竭尽全力地说：“好吧，嘿，您现在不必付钱给我们。 只要坚持下去，我们将继续为您提供支持。” 我们有非营利性客户，他们无法进行相同水平的筹款或保持运营正常运行，因为显然，进入这些领域的资金较少。

So, we’ve had to do our part to say, “Okay, if you have a really effective business, we’re going to do our part and make sure you can still use the technology.” But at the same time—again, this is this cognitive dissonance right now—if you’re in the tech sector, there’s probably been more net growth of technology irrespective of the sector-specific problems, because what’s happened is so many companies, even those that had been impacted, have to move to digital platforms to remain successful and keep their operations running.

因此，我们不得不做出自己的努力，说：“好的，如果您的业务非常有效，我们将尽自己的一份力量，并确保您仍然可以使用该技术。” 但是，与此同时，同样，这就是现在的认知失调，如果您在科技行业，则不管具体行业的问题如何，技术的净增长都可能会更多，因为发生的事情是如此之多，甚至那些受到影响的企业必须迁移到数字平台才能保持成功并保持其运营正常运转。

“It’s probably going to be harder to be a startup that’s competing with us right now”

“要成为现在与我们竞争的初创公司可能会更困难”

Right. So, is this a moment where the tech industry just takes over the economy and doesn’t look back?

对。 那么，这是科技行业刚刚接管经济并且不回头的时刻吗？

Well, I think there’s a real risk of that. And I think that—

好吧，我认为确实存在这种风险。 我认为-

It’s interesting to hear you call it a risk.

听到您称它为风险很有趣。

Well, the risk is that you basically have this dramatic acceleration of innovation and digital transformation, and it’s happening in a timescale that is completely unprecedented. So, normally what would happen is you would have technology get adopted over five years, 10 years, 15 years.

好吧，风险在于您基本上可以极大地加快创新和数字化转型的速度，并且这种变化的发生时间是前所未有的。 因此，通常情况是，您将在5年，10年，15年内采用技术。

There would be a certain pace to tell that adoption would happen and the competitive dynamics within the market as that played out. Right now what’s happening is that adoption is happening in a few quarters or a couple years. And so, more than anything, the companies that are going to benefit from that digital acceleration are going to be companies that already exist, that already have a customer base, that can serve their existing customers and be able to support them.

有一定的步伐可以证明采用率会发生，并且市场竞争会如日中天。 现在正在发生的事情是在几个季度或几年内就开始采用。 因此，最重要的是，将从数字加速中受益的公司将是已经存在，已经拥有客户群，可以为现有客户提供服务并能够为其提供支持的公司。

And so you are having a fairly artificial acceleration of a marketplace that really has never happened before in economic history. Even if you look at the case of shelter in place, well, who did shelter in place benefit the most, retail-wise?

因此，您正在相当虚构地加速市场的发展，这在经济历史上是从未有过的。 即使您看一看就地避难所的情况，那么就零售而言，就地避难所受益最大的人是谁？

Amazon.

亚马逊

You do have a situation where our existing patterns and the existing companies that are serving us, their positions are being reinforced and getting stronger every day. And again, to call it out, I mean, we benefit from that. It’s probably going to be harder to be a startup that’s competing with us right now, because our customers are going to be focused on “How do we go to reliable partners that we’re used to working with, that we understand and can trust?” And that’s going to benefit anybody who has been able to be well-timed for this market.

您确实遇到了这样的情况，我们的现有模式和为我们服务的现有公司的地位每天都在得到加强和增强。 再说一次，我的意思是，我们将从中受益。 成为现在与我们竞争的初创公司可能会变得更加困难，因为我们的客户将专注于“我们如何去寻找我们曾经与之合作，我们理解并信任的可靠合作伙伴？ ” 这将使任何能够及时适应这个市场的人受益。

I do think it’s a risk in terms of that it does reinforce and codify some of these market positions that existed pre-pandemic. But again, the counter to all of this risk is the fact that these companies are serving customers during an unbelievable time of crisis. And so I do think these are, in many cases, critical infrastructure, and it’s important that these products exist, and it’s important that they’re able to serve their customers successfully. So, I’m of two minds on this situation.

我确实认为这确实存在风险，因为它确实会巩固和整理大流行前存在的某些市场地位。 但是，与所有这些风险相反的是，这些公司在令人难以置信的危机时期为客户提供服务。 因此，我确实认为它们在许多情况下都是关键基础架构，这些产品的存在很重要，而且它们能够成功地为客户提供服务也很重要。 所以，我对这种情况有两种想法。

How is it possible that we have such a rough economy and yet the stock market is shooting up the way it is? We’ve all read explanations, but I’d love to hear it from your perspective, someone who runs a company who’s in the middle of this change.

我们怎么可能会有如此艰难的经济状况，而股市却以这种方式猛增呢？ 我们都读过解释，但是，从您的角度来看，我很乐意听取您的意见，这是一家运营公司的人，而公司正处于这种变化之中。

I probably got like a D-plus in microeconomics and macroeconomics in college, so I wouldn’t trust anything I’m saying in any kind of—

我可能在大学获得微观经济学和宏观经济学的D-plus学位，所以我不会相信我所说的任何事情，

You don’t want people to trade off of this.

您不希望人们以此为代价。

Don’t trade off of what I’m about to say, especially because I’m sure this podcast will go live and the market will collapse 30%, and so nothing I’m saying will make any sense. I think you have a few big factors. One, you have a flight from an investment standpoint into the things that actually can have returns.

不要折衷我要说的话，尤其是因为我确信此播客将上线并且市场将崩溃30％，所以我说的没有任何意义。 我认为您有几个大因素。 第一，从投资的角度出发，您需要逃避实际可以带来回报的事情。

Money is moving out from other places where you might invest where there might be really, really low interest rates. You want to move that into the stock market to drive better returns. And so you have money moving into the market in some cases just because it’s the only place where you can drive returns.

资金正在从可能投资于可能真的非常低的利率的其他地方转移出去。 您想将其转移到股票市场以提高回报。 因此，在某些情况下，您有钱进入市场，只是因为这是唯一可以带来回报的地方。

The second thing is the fact that big organizations are holding up better than anybody anticipated, and mostly it’s big organizations in the stock market because there’s just a certain kind of scale that you have to get to before you’re a public company.

第二件事是，大型组织的持股情况好于任何人的预期，而且多数情况下是股票市场中的大型组织，因为在成为上市公司之前，您必须达到某种规模。

If you think about Proctor & Gamble, Target, the large banks, these organizations are experiencing record revenues and profits in some cases simply because, in some cases, they offer necessary products that are staples. You just have to buy soap, and you have to buy food. Their businesses aren’t going away. And the government, again, has at times done a good job of making sure that individuals have enough money to be able to afford those things.

如果考虑一下宝洁公司，塔吉特公司，大型银行，这些组织在某些情况下正经历创纪录的收入和利润，这仅仅是因为在某些情况下，它们提供的必需产品是必需的。 您只需要购买肥皂，就必须购买食物。 他们的生意不会消失。 而且，政府有时有时会做得很好，以确保个人有足够的钱负担得起这些东西。

So you have money getting pumped into those organizations. And because so much of the S&P or NASDAQ is represented by a lot of these organizations that are selling these staples, and we continue to need them, and on a relative basis the airlines or the car companies make up a smaller portion of the overall stock market, you have a muted impact by the sectors that are most impacted relative to the sectors that are continuing to perform incredibly well. That’s category number two.

因此，您有大量资金投入这些组织。 而且，由于很多标普或纳斯达克的股票都来自大量出售这些必需品的组织，因此我们仍然需要它们，相对而言，航空公司或汽车公司在总库存中所占比例较小在市场上，相对于持续表现出色的行业，受影响最大的行业对您的影响很小。 那是第二类。

Then I think category three is specific to technology. Whether you’re looking at the big four or five technology companies that are above a trillion dollars or the rise of companies like Tesla or the NVIDIAs of the world or the cloud sector—Atlassian and Splunk and all these companies—I think there’s just a broader recognition, which is that the markets these companies are serving are potentially billions of consumers globally.

然后，我认为第三类特定于技术。 无论您是在看一万亿美元以上的四，五家大型科技公司，还是特斯拉，世界各地的NVIDIA或云计算行业的公司(Atlassian和Splunk以及所有这些公司)的崛起，我都认为更广泛的认识是，这些公司所服务的市场潜在地是全球数十亿消费者。

The barriers to getting to those billions of consumers have gone down dramatically in the past five or 10 years. And so the durability of those investments has gone up on a relative basis, because they’re all digital, they don’t [require] in-person interaction, and the markets for these organizations are just so much larger than ever before.

在过去的五到十年中，吸引到数十亿消费者的障碍已大大降低。 因此，这些投资的持久性相对而言有所提高，因为它们都是数字化的，不需要[需要]面对面的互动，而且这些组织的市场比以往任何时候都大得多。

It’s ironic, because if you went back five, or 10, or 15 years ago, and looked at, like, the Warren Buffet style of investing, which is what’s a very stable business where anybody can run the company? It’s going to survive, and it’s not very volatile. Well, actually, in some cases, those businesses have been the worst off in this environment, like airlines, where you imagine that every single year, people are going to take flights 1% more than last year, and it’s a just very stable business and you’ve got profits.

具有讽刺意味的是，如果您回溯五，十年或十五年前，然后看一下沃伦·巴菲特(Warren Buffet)的投资风格，这是一家非常稳定的业务，任何人都可以经营该公司？ 它会生存下来，而且波动性不是很大。 好吧，实际上，在某些情况下，这些业务在这种环境下表现最差，例如航空公司，您可以想象每年人们乘飞机的数量将比去年增加1％，这是非常稳定的业务而且你有利润。

It’s those businesses where you have the greatest risk, and the companies that we normally think of as being very volatile to innovation and disruption—the Apples, the Facebooks, the Googles of the world—those have been performing the best just because of the durability of their business models in this time.

那些风险最大的公司，以及我们通常认为对创新和破坏非常不稳定的公司，例如苹果，Facebook，世界上的Google，由于持久性而表现最佳这次他们的商业模式。

So, I think those three factors, and maybe others that you know of, allow for the market to exceed or be disconnected from the broader economy.

因此，我认为这三个因素，也许还有您所知道的其他因素，都会使市场超过或脱离整体经济。

If I’m hearing it right, what you’re saying is that we’re accelerating from a small- and medium-sized business-driven economy—or it wasn’t really even driven, it was definitely healthier operating — to one that is now going largely into technology, largely into big tech companies.

如果我没听错，您的意思是说我们正在从中小型企业驱动的经济中加速发展，或者甚至没有真正被驱动，而是绝对更健康的运营，到现在主要涉足技术领域，主要涉足大型科技公司。

Yeah. I think that that is absolutely a big part of it. And I think it’s interesting. There’s this connection back in some way to, interestingly enough, I think if you look at what Andrew Yang was pushing on, and obviously UBI, it was interesting because the biggest fear was that automation was going to start to drive out all these—

是的 我认为那绝对是其中很大的一部分。 我认为这很有趣。 有趣的是，这种连接可以追溯到某种程度上，我认为，如果您看看安德鲁·杨(Andrew Yang)正在推进什么，显然是UBI，这很有趣，因为最大的担心是自动化将开始淘汰所有这些东西，

Yet no one predicted a pandemic.

然而，没有人预言会大流行。

Exactly. Exactly. And so now—

究竟。 究竟。 所以现在

But they’ve had the same impact.

但是它们产生了相同的影响。

Same exact impact. It’s interesting. It’s almost a simulation of what does this state look like of a very technology-driven economy. We just got to it way faster than anybody imagined. The result is what, again, maybe we could have theorized about, but you can have a situation where some small set of companies does unbelievably well. And the companies that are in that supply chain can likely do very, very well, but then you’re going to have a lot of businesses that are impacted and a lot of jobs that are impacted because of that. So, by definition then, you do need some form of support and government safety net, because the jobs just don’t exist.

完全相同的影响。 这真有趣。 这几乎是对这种情况的模拟，这种状态看起来是由技术驱动的经济。 我们只是以前所未有的速度实现了它。 结果又是我们也许可以从理论上得出的结论，但是您可能会遇到这样的情况，即一些小型公司的表现令人难以置信。 供应链中的公司可能做得非常非常好，但是您将因此受到很多业务的影响，并因此而受到很多工作的影响。 因此，按照定义，您确实需要某种形式的支持和政府安全网，因为这些工作根本就不存在。

Right. Which is what we’ve had with the CARES Act. I think that what you’re describing now is the Trump economy, right? And so I’m curious, from your standpoint, is the Trump economy sustainable?

对。 这就是我们对《 CARES法案》的看法。 我认为您现在描述的是特朗普经济，对吗？ 因此，从您的角度来看，我很好奇，特朗普经济是否可持续？

Maybe you could just define Trump economy for me so I build on the right point.

也许您可以为我定义特朗普的经济状况，以便我以正确的观点为基础。

One that’s driven by technology. One where the market does well even if the rest of the economy isn’t doing great. One that’s led by a handful of companies at the top, and everybody else is just getting the downstream effects from that.

一种是由技术驱动的。 即使其他经济体表现不佳，市场表现也不错的国家。 由少数高层领导的公司，其他所有人都从中得到了下游影响。

Yeah. I guess I wouldn’t necessarily associate Trump with that.

是的 我想我不一定会将特朗普与之相关。

Forget the label.

忘记标签了。

This economy is definitely not sustainable, but again, it’s hard to separate the pandemic element of this. What would today’s natural economy be like if people could get out of their houses and go support businesses? I guess what I was saying is we’re simulating complete automation, but we’re not actually simulating what people want the economy to look like.

这种经济肯定是不可持续的，但同样，很难将这种流行病因素分开。 如果人们可以离开房屋去支持企业，今天的自然经济将会是什么样？ 我想我想说的是我们正在模拟完全自动化，但实际上并没有模拟人们希望经济发展的样子。

I think people want to go out to restaurants, and they want to go out to small businesses, and they want to be able to do a lot of these things that can’t get automated. We just happened to be forced into that right now. So, I don’t think that this, I mean, there’s no question that this economy can’t sustain what we’re experiencing right now. At the same time, I don’t think people want this to be the economy. I don’t think government or businesses want this to be what the economy looks like.

我认为人们想去餐馆，他们想去小型企业，他们希望能够做很多无法自动化的事情。 我们只是碰巧被迫进入了这一刻。 因此，我不认为这是毫无疑问的，这种经济无法维持我们目前正在经历的事情。 同时，我认为人们不希望这成为经济。 我不认为政府或企业希望这成为经济的面貌。

I think any of these large tech companies would probably trade some X% of their market cap to be able to return to a more normal environment where people could support more businesses, and you could be mobile, and we could have a little bit more normalcy. I don’t think anybody’s happy. I just think that the stock market happens to be disconnected from the lived experience of most people right now.

我认为这些大型科技公司中的任何一家都可能会交易其市值的X％，以便能够返回到更正常的环境，在此环境中人们可以支持更多的业务，并且您可以移动，我们可以有更多的常态。 我认为没有人高兴。 我只是认为，股市正好与大多数人的生活经验脱节。

To me, the nuance is basically separating the economy from the stock market. What we’ve mostly just talked about right now is why the stock market is at all-time highest.

对我而言，细微差别基本上是将经济与股票市场分开。 我们现在最常谈论的是为什么股市达到历史最高水平。

Yeah. I want to hear about the economy at large.

是的 我想听听整个经济。

You have to have government stimulus. You have to have higher taxes. You have to have job programs. I mean, there’s a lot of stuff you’d have to do to make sure we can support the broader economy.

您必须有政府刺激措施。 您必须提高税率。 您必须有工作计划。 我的意思是，您需要做很多事情来确保我们能够支持更广泛的经济。

I just wonder what happens when we come back from this, if we come back from it. Whether or not that is going to be evenly distributed. Because we’ve run the simulation, but now we’re living it.

我只是想知道，如果我们从中回来，当我们从中回来时会发生什么。 是否将其平均分配。 因为我们已经运行了模拟，但是现在我们可以进行模拟了。

Not to get overly political, but if a different administration enters and we end up having even more programs that can support workers, then we can start to model out what is the sustainable way to fund this? And where do those dollars come from—is it higher corporate taxes? Is it higher income taxes? And then you can get to a point where you can understand what’s a sustainable version of this.

不是要变得过于政治化，而是如果一个不同的政府加入进来，而我们最终有了更多可以支持工人的计划，那么我们就可以开始模拟出什么可持续的方式来为此提供资金？ 这些美元从何而来—是更高的公司税吗？ 是更高的所得税吗？ 然后，您可以了解到什么是可持续的版本。

Because right now we’re just printing money and the value of the dollar is dropping, something that’s not talked about very much, and it doesn’t seem like that’s a very good route. We have to create something that can last versus just increase the monetary supply. Okay. I want to ask you before we wrap up this segment on politics, what do you think happens in November?

因为现在我们只是在印钞票，而美元的价值却在下降，所以并没有太多讨论，这似乎不是一条好路。 我们必须创造一些可以持久而不只是增加货币供应量的东西。 好的。 我想问您，在我们结束对政治的讨论之前，您认为11月会发生什么？

Well, I was wrong last time, so I don’t have a great read on these things. What I would just say is that I think we need to return to a better model of governance in the country. We need to return to a better model of supporting all classes of citizens, and we need to return to a model where we get out of campaign mode all the time and we focus on building up the country for all of the people in the country. And so that’s what I’m hoping for.

好吧，我上次错了，所以我对这些东西没有很好的阅读。 我想说的是，我认为我们需要回到该国更好的治理模式。 我们需要返回一个更好的模型来支持所有阶层的公民，我们需要回到一种模型，使我们始终摆脱竞选模式，并专注于为国家中的所有人建设国家。 这就是我所希望的。

Okay. You sound like a Biden voter.

好的。 您听起来像拜登的选民。

That might be the case. Yeah.

可能是这种情况。 是的

Trump is trying to discredit the results of the election before a single vote is cast. What does that do from a business standpoint? Does that create some turbulence that makes your job more difficult?

特朗普试图在一次投票之前抹黑大选结果。 从业务角度来看，这有什么作用？ 这会引起某种动荡，使您的工作更加困难吗？

Right now that has not seemed to have seeped into the business community or the business context thus far. I mean, obviously if in November we have a protracted battle for who’s in charge of the government, that could be very disruptive in terms of world trade and overall how businesses are to think about what direction the country is going in. But right now that has not been a corporate issue. It’s obviously an issue of personal concern. But it hasn’t gone farther than that.

目前，到目前为止，似乎还没有渗入到商业社区或商业环境中。 我的意思是，很显然，如果在11月我们为谁负责政府而进行了一场旷日持久的战斗，那么在世界贸易以及企业如何思考国家的前进方向方面，这可能是非常破坏性的。但是现在尚未成为公司事务。 这显然是个人关注的问题。 但这没有比这更远的了。

与科技巨头竞争 (Competing with the tech giants)

Are the tech giants a frenemy? Have they been more helpful? More hurtful? What’s your relationship been like with them? And do you want to be competing in an economy where they control the way they do?

科技巨头是疯了吗？ 他们有帮助吗？ 更伤人吗？ 您与他们的关系如何？ 您是否想在他们控制自己的方式的经济中竞争？

We are in an environment where you simultaneously have to cooperate and partner with many of these large-scale technology companies, and you’re going to compete in particular categories against them for customer demand. We have a unique perspective because we’re enterprise-focused. And so, some of the things that play out in the outside world that are more pertinent to consumer companies, we don’t face directly.

在这样的环境中，您必须同时与许多大型技术公司进行合作和合作，并且您将针对客户需求在特定类别中与它们竞争。 我们具有独特的视角，因为我们专注于企业。 因此，在外部世界上发生的一些与消费者公司更相关的事情，我们不会直接面对。

You’re not worried about getting booted off the App Store.

您不必担心会从App Store启动。

For the most part, we adhere to all the policies, and we have a very pleasant experience and partnership on that front. So, for us, what we care deeply about, I think the number one angle we have is that we are very, very focused on a future state where customers have choice around the products they use, the ability to move their data between different products, and the ability to have some degree of interoperability between services from different technology providers that just fundamentally need to connect to one another.

在大多数情况下，我们遵守所有政策，在这方面我们拥有非常愉快的经验和合作伙伴关系。 因此，对于我们来说，我们深切关注的是，我们所面临的第一个角度是，我们非常非常关注未来的状态，即客户可以根据自己使用的产品进行选择，并可以在不同产品之间移动数据，以及从根本上需要相互连接的不同技术提供商的服务之间具有某种程度的互操作性的能力。

And so, that’s our stance on this. I think it’s very healthy to have a very competitive marketplace, which includes incumbents that can launch competitive products. I think it forces startups to be at their best; it forces companies to continue to innovate and better serve customers.

因此，这就是我们的立场。 我认为拥有一个竞争激烈的市场非常健康，其中包括可以推出具有竞争力的产品的现有公司。 我认为这会迫使初创公司达到最佳状态。 它迫使公司继续创新并更好地为客户服务。

So, by and large, I actually think the environment we’re in is a healthy one in terms of startups constantly trying to find the angles that the incumbent isn’t going to be able to go and solve for. The incumbent has the ability to try and catch up to better serve their customers, and you continue to have this back-and-forth that drives more innovation, drives better customer value over time.

因此，总的来说，我认为我们所处的环境是一个健康的环境，对于初创企业而言，它们一直试图寻找现有企业无法解决的问题。 任职者有能力尝试赶上来，以更好地为他们的客户服务，而您将继续拥有这种来回推动创新的能力，并随着时间的推移提高客户价值。

That’s, to me, the high-level view of the market. You have specific circumstances or situations where clearly the government probably needs to have some degree of consideration for. What I struggle with right now is that I haven’t yet seen any really great or logical proposals of what that would look like.

对我来说，这是对市场的高层次看法。 您有特定的情况或情况，显然政府可能需要对此进行某种程度的考虑。 我现在遇到的困难是，我还没有看到任何关于其外观的真正伟大或合乎逻辑的建议。

And so we have a lot of conversation and noise around the idea of big tech and you have to regulate big tech. But we don’t have a lot of more precise solutions that can be practical to adhere to and that would not over-engineer the regulation to the point where you hobble an incumbent, or even maybe worse in some cases, where you actually—

因此，关于大型技术的想法，我们充满了讨论和喧嚣，您必须规范大型技术。 但是，我们没有很多更精确的解决方案可付诸实践，并且不会过度制定法规，以至于使现有企业陷入困境，甚至在某些情况下甚至更糟，实际上，

The government can just level the economy with some poorly thought-out regulation.

政府可以通过一些经过深思熟虑的法规来平抑经济。

That’s exactly right. You could take the thing that is probably our greatest long-term competitiveness in America, which is our innovation economy, and you could decimate the ability to get to real scale on a global basis. And that would work against us as a country vastly more than for us.

没错 您可能认为这可能是我们在美国最大的长期竞争力，这就是我们的创新经济，而且您可能会削弱在全球范围内实现实际规模的能力。 作为一个国家，这对我们不利于我们，对我们而言远不止如此。

This is a very difficult and tricky situation, because you have a dimension of, in the U.S., you want companies to be able to be very competitive with one another and make sure consumers have choice and make sure that startups can emerge. On a global basis, you want to make sure you’re not hobbling your economy and effectively handicapping the success of these firms. And so I think there are a lot of considerations, and this is why I think the government has to tread very carefully on these topics.

这是一个非常困难和棘手的情况，因为在美国，您希望公司能够彼此非常具有竞争力，并确保消费者有选择权，并确保初创公司能够崛起。 在全球范围内，您想确保自己没有阻碍经济发展并有效地阻碍了这些公司的成功。 因此，我认为有很多考虑因素，这就是为什么我认为政府在这些主题上必须非常谨慎。

It’s a different perspective that you offer than one you typically hear about these companies, talking about how smaller companies find the gaps and push forward and innovate, and that pushes the tech giants, and the tech giants push them. Mostly what we hear in public is that the tech giants will squash smaller competitors. As soon as they find a business, they’re going to go in and grab it. Why do you think the way you do while it seems like the conventional wisdom thinks the other way?

您提供的视角与通常听到的关于这些公司的观点不同，谈论的是小型公司如何发现差距并不断创新，这推动了科技巨头，而科技巨头则推动了它们。 通常我们在公开场合听到的消息是，科技巨头将压制较小的竞争对手。 一旦找到生意，他们就会去抢它。 为什么您认为自己的方式却又似乎是传统观念的另一种方式呢？

I think—and again, this is not to say that I’m anti-regulation, because I think there are very particular problems—but I think you have to work backwards from what is the real problem we’re trying to solve, and then what is the right type of regulation to solve that problem?

我想-这并不是说我是反监管的，因为我认为这是非常特殊的问题-但我认为您必须从我们试图解决的真正问题上倒退，并且那么解决该问题的正确监管类型是什么？

Set that aside for one second, and we’re happy to loop back to what that could look like. I think the reality is that I’m not quite sure in some of the proposals that we’ve seen around breaking up big tech, or you can’t do acquisitions on a certain scale, the part I don’t quite understand is how we’re imagining that we want these companies to be able to continue to sustain their operations.

将其搁置一秒钟，我们很乐意返回到看起来像的样子。 我认为现实是，我不太确定我们在拆分大型技术方面提出的一些建议，或者您无法进行一定规模的收购，我不太了解的部分是如何我们在想，我们希望这些公司能够继续维持其运营。

I mean, is the idea that Facebook basically can’t own Instagram or can’t buy WhatsApp, and thus you basically can just guarantee their disruption over time? If you can’t match the functionality of your disruptive competitor, that could quite literally spell the fact that your businesses is not going to exist in the future. That’s how disruption works.

我的意思是，这样的想法是Facebook基本上不能拥有Instagram或不能购买WhatsApp，因此您基本上可以保证它们随着时间的推移会受到干扰吗？ 如果您无法与破坏性竞争对手的功能匹敌，那么这在字面上可以说明您的企业将来将不复存在的事实。 这就是破坏的方式。

I just don’t know how the government is anticipating simultaneously letting these companies continue to thrive and succeed over time and build great products that consumers like, while at the same time making sure they can never get into particular categories.

我只是不知道政府如何期待同时让这些公司随着时间的推移而蓬勃发展并取得成功，并打造出消费者喜欢的优质产品，同时确保它们永远不会进入特定类别。

You could also invent internally versus acquire externally.

您也可以在内部进行发明，而不是在外部进行发明。

You could, but in some cases it’s—

您可以，但是在某些情况下-

It’s harder.

很难。

Well, actually, you absolutely can do that, but in some cases I’m not clear that’s good for either consumers or the economy. If you think about what it would mean for big techs and not be able to make acquisitions, I’m not positive you’d get the same level of venture capital or the same volume of startups entering this.

好吧，实际上，您绝对可以做到这一点，但是在某些情况下，我不清楚这对消费者或经济都有利。 如果您想想这对大型科技企业意味着什么而无法进行收购，那么我不能肯定的是，您将获得同等水平的风险投资或同等数量的初创公司进入。

It cuts off the exit path.

它切断了出口路径。

Right. Now you have to basically believe that every category a startup enters is going to be able to be a sustained, long-term, independent company. And that’s not the case for all innovation. Sometimes you’re really just experimenting, because you know that maybe at the end of it, you have a path to get acquired by Facebook, or Google, or Apple.

对。 现在，您必须基本相信，初创公司进入的每个类别都将能够成为一个持续，长期，独立的公司。 并非所有创新都如此。 有时候，您实际上只是在尝试，因为您知道也许到了最后，您就有了被Facebook，Google或Apple收购的途径。

I think if you cut that off, you have a huge risk, which is are we going to be able to sustain the same volume of innovation and startups? This is why this is a topic I personally struggle with, because as an entrepreneur, you definitely always get really, really upset whenever a bigger company copies one of your features.

我认为，如果削减了这一点，您将面临巨大的风险，这就是我们将能够维持同样数量的创新和创业公司吗？ 这就是为什么这是我个人努力解决的话题，因为作为企业家，每当一家大公司复制您的一项功能时，您肯定总是感到非常沮丧。

Conversely, as an entrepreneur, I would hope that one day, if Box was ever considered so large that we had anti-trust concerns, that I would still be able to have a path where we could make sure we don’t get disrupted and that we can continue to build a viable company that can serve our customers. And you don’t want the government to effectively mandate that a company can’t remain competitive.

相反，作为一名企业家，我希望有一天，如果Box被认为过大而导致我们存在反托拉斯问题，那么我仍然可以找到一条确保我们不受干扰的道路。我们可以继续建立能够为客户服务的可行的公司。 而且您不希望政府有效地命令公司不能保持竞争力。

What about the other way around? Your market cap is in the 2.5 billion range. Cloud is a place where the tech giants are all fighting it out; Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon are in there. Could you ever see Box joining forces with one of those companies? And would something like the current anti-trust, anti–tech giant feelings right now cut that path off? You’d probably get a premium on your shares if one of those guys came knocking.

那反过来呢？ 您的市值在25亿范围内。 云是技术巨头都在奋斗的地方。 微软，苹果，谷歌，亚马逊都在那里。 您能看到Box与其中一家公司联手吗？ 像现在的反托拉斯，反技术巨人的感情会切断这种道路吗？ 如果这些家伙之一来敲门，您可能会获得溢价。

I probably can’t use this podcast to describe future business outcomes of that sort. But what I would say is that, Box aside, I do think it becomes very, very hard for some of these larger technology companies to enter categories where even they have customers that are saying, “Hey, we really need you to support us in this particular space.” And that company is looking out at the market and might have this really difficult choice of are they even able to buy something? And then conversely, if they go and compete with one of the independent companies in the market, is it going to be considered, “Oh, well, now you’re just building a copycat feature.”

我可能无法使用此播客来描述这种未来的业务成果。 但是我要说的是，除了Box之外，我确实认为，对于其中一些大型技术公司来说，进入甚至包括他们的客户都说“嘿，我们确实需要您的支持”的类别变得非常非常困难。这个特殊的空间。” 那家公司正在着眼于市场，他们可能真的很难选择吗？ 相反，如果他们去与市场中的一家独立公司竞争，是否会被考虑为：“哦，好吧，现在您正在构建模仿者功能。”

And so you almost impair the ability for the natural competitive forces to play out in the industry. It’s interesting, because I think there are a lot of problems with Facebook to be cleared, especially in the state of social media and online harassment, how Trump uses these platforms. I’m definitely not a Facebook apologist.

因此，您几乎破坏了自然竞争力在行业中发挥作用的能力。 有趣的是，因为我认为Facebook需要解决很多问题，尤其是在社交媒体和在线骚扰的状态下，特朗普如何使用这些平台。 我绝对不是Facebook辩护律师。

However, it was interesting in the congressional hearings, they read out some of the, either emails or text messages from Zuck talking about the Instagram acquisition, and there’s this innuendo, which is that we’re either going to have to compete with you or buy you. And the government saw that as a threat of, like, it’s extortion, which is like, “You either sell us this product or we have to go compete with you.” The interesting thing, though, is that despite what Zuck texted Systrom, the reality was that is actually his only option, right?

但是，在国会听证会上很有趣，他们宣读了来自Zuck的一些电子邮件或短信，谈论有关Instagram收购，这是一种影射，这意味着我们要么必须与您竞争，要么买你。 政府认为这是勒索的威胁，例如：“您要么向我们出售该产品，要么我们必须与您竞争。” 有趣的是，尽管扎克(Zuck)向西斯特罗姆(Systrom)发了短信，但实际上这是他唯一的选择，对吗？

True.

真正。

If photos are leaving the Facebook platform, and he needs to make sure that they are a great photo-sharing tool, they’re going to have to be competitive. And all he was giving Kevin the choice of is, “We’re going to have to compete, and that has certain implications for your business. You should know about those,” or, “We’re happy to try and figure out how to strike a deal.”

如果照片要离开Facebook平台，并且他需要确保它们是出色的照片共享工具，那么它们将必须具有竞争力。 他给Kevin的选择是：“我们将不得不竞争，这对您的业务有一定的影响。 您应该了解这些内容，或者，“我们很乐意尝试找出达成协议的方式。”

And again, you could read that as extortion of having to acquire a business, but I don’t really know any other practical way for that conversation to play out. Because the only alternative is that he doesn’t say that to Kevin, and they launch an Instagram competitor. Kevin then thinks, “Okay, well, you just copied me.” And it’s not clear how that one is supposed to end up.

再说一遍，您可以将其理解为必须收购公司的敲诈勒索，但是我真的不知道其他任何可行的对话方式。 因为唯一的选择就是他不对凯文说那句话，于是他们发起了Instagram竞争对手。 凯文然后想，“好吧，你只是抄袭了我。” 目前尚不清楚该如何结局。

So, I just think that some of these things, they end up feeling like, “Okay, we’ve got to go chase the most aggressive solution possible.” But it’s really, really important that you think through what are the possible implications downstream if you over-rotate toward regulation in some of these categories. And I don’t think that anybody would say what we want the technology industry to look like is the airline industry or the three or four big telecom giants that we have in the country.

因此，我只是认为其中的某些东西最终会感觉像：“好吧，我们必须追求最积极的解决方案。” 但是，非常重要的一点是，如果您过度转向某些类别中的监管，那么您必须仔细考虑下游可能带来的影响。 而且我认为没有人会说我们希望技术产业看起来像是航空业或该国拥有的三，四家大型电信巨头。

And that is the risk of overregulation, is you get to that point. So, I think we have to balance the very particular points of regulation that matters. When customers have their data in these platforms, do they have the ability to get the data out of these platforms? Is their privacy able to be controlled in a way that keeps them safe and protected? Are they able to have very clear choice when they don’t want to use one of the defaulted products of one of these vendors that comes for free in one of their offerings? That’s the type of regulation we should be looking at, not generic banning M&A or breaking up some of these technology companies.

这就是过度监管的风险，这就是你要达到的目的。 因此，我认为我们必须权衡重要的特定法规问题。 当客户在这些平台中拥有数据时，他们是否有能力从这些平台中获取数据？ 是否能够以确保他们安全和受到保护的方式来控制他们的隐私？ 当他们不想使用其中一个免费提供的这些供应商之一的默认产品时，是否能够有非常明确的选择？ 这是我们应该关注的监管类型，而不是通用的禁止并购或拆分其中一些技术公司的法规。

解码@levie的推文 (Decoding @levie’s Tweets)

Aaron, it’s time to read some of your tweets. It’s what I do all day long, read your tweets and try to think, “Hey, what’s he saying here?” Because I feel like you have no problem calling bullshit on the tech industry and probably to critics. I picked out a few that I thought we could just read out quickly, and maybe you can expand on them.

亚伦，是时候阅读一些推文了。 这就是我整天要做的，阅读您的推文，然后思考：“嘿，他在这里说什么？” 因为我觉得您毫无疑问地对技术行业和批评家说废话。 我挑选了一些我认为我们可以快速读出的书，也许您可​​以扩展一下。

This can be very dangerous, by the way. I have no idea where this is going.

顺便说一句，这可能非常危险。 我不知道这是怎么回事。

Oh, that’s why I decided to do it. I’ll give you a minute each to respond on each one of these. Okay, here’s the first one:

哦，这就是为什么我决定这样做。 我将分别给您一点时间来回答每一个问题。 好的，这是第一个：

If you remember the past 10 years or so, there was always this commentary of “Apple has to get into cars. They have to buy Tesla, they have to buy Disney, they have to buy Time Warner. These are the only ways that they’re going to be able to continue to grow.”

If you remember the past 10 years or so, there was always this commentary of “Apple has to get into cars. They have to buy Tesla, they have to buy Disney, they have to buy Time Warner. These are the only ways that they're going to be able to continue to grow.”

I think what Apple has proven out is, actually, continuing to build amazing products, build ecosystems around those products, whether those are in payments or media or just new underlying features in the OS. And they’ve been able to prove out that there’s a very, very large scale—in fact, the largest company in the world—a viable business model in just continuing to hone, continuing to optimize, build around adjacencies, without having to do what a lot of analysts were thinking they had to do, which is you have to enter a hundred billion-dollar market categories if you’re going to continue to scale and survive.

I think what Apple has proven out is, actually, continuing to build amazing products, build ecosystems around those products, whether those are in payments or media or just new underlying features in the OS. And they've been able to prove out that there's a very, very large scale—in fact, the largest company in the world—a viable business model in just continuing to hone, continuing to optimize, build around adjacencies, without having to do what a lot of analysts were thinking they had to do, which is you have to enter a hundred billion-dollar market categories if you're going to continue to scale and survive.

We’ll see what happens with that market cap, but it’s impressive. And it definitely has proven me wrong at least in the short term. Okay, how about this one:

We'll see what happens with that market cap, but it's impressive. And it definitely has proven me wrong at least in the short term. Okay, how about this one:

This is when it was rumored that Oracle was also looking at TikTok. It’s just a little bit of an esoteric point of Oracle and Microsoft, for about 25-plus years, actually probably more than maybe 30 years, have been battling in the database world and in infrastructure in general.

This is when it was rumored that Oracle was also looking at TikTok. It's just a little bit of an esoteric point of Oracle and Microsoft, for about 25-plus years, actually probably more than maybe 30 years, have been battling in the database world and in infrastructure in general.

It’s interesting at this point—I mean, it’s beyond interesting. It’s actually just absurd that the two primary bidders of TikTok, at least that are in the news, are enterprise software companies by and large. And so that’s just a very confusing mashup to me.

It's interesting at this point—I mean, it's beyond interesting. It's actually just absurd that the two primary bidders of TikTok, at least that are in the news, are enterprise software companies by and large. And so that's just a very confusing mashup to me.

Yeah. Have you guys looked into buying TikTok?

是的 Have you guys looked into buying TikTok?

Absolutely, and then we ended looking at it about three seconds later.

Absolutely, and then we ended looking at it about three seconds later.

This is a scoop. Box has considered it. We’ll make sure to make it the headline.

This is a scoop. Box has considered it. We'll make sure to make it the headline.

Next:

Next:

Well, I don’t want to offend any golfers, but I generally feel that’s the most boring sport on the planet. Somehow last week I was just driving around and it was like, “Wow, imagine being outside for a couple hours and just hitting a ball. That sounds actually enjoyable.” And then that was a very fleeting thought, much like the TikTok acquisition, and I moved on with my life.

Well, I don't want to offend any golfers, but I generally feel that's the most boring sport on the planet. Somehow last week I was just driving around and it was like, “Wow, imagine being outside for a couple hours and just hitting a ball. That sounds actually enjoyable.” And then that was a very fleeting thought, much like the TikTok acquisition, and I moved on with my life.

How about this one on Facebook Reels:

How about this one on Facebook Reels:

We’ve always talked about this idea of the innovator’s dilemma. The innovator’s dilemma is really simple: As you get bigger as a company, you begin to overbuild your product and overserve your customers, which then means some other competitor can come in and do something different or new or fresh and disrupt you.

We've always talked about this idea of the innovator's dilemma. The innovator's dilemma is really simple: As you get bigger as a company, you begin to overbuild your product and overserve your customers, which then means some other competitor can come in and do something different or new or fresh and disrupt you.

It’s interesting, because for decades we’ve talked about why is it that these incumbents continue to fail at the innovator’s dilemma? It’s an obvious problem. It’s a known thing. Why does Blockbuster get disrupted by Netflix? Why does Walmart get disrupted by Amazon?

It's interesting, because for decades we've talked about why is it that these incumbents continue to fail at the innovator's dilemma? It's an obvious problem. It's a known thing. Why does Blockbuster get disrupted by Netflix? Why does Walmart get disrupted by Amazon?

And so you’re finally seeing a crop of technology companies, between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others, that actually have this idea built into the DNA of the organization. They do not want to lose their position, and they know exactly how to lose their position, because they themselves got into their leading position because they were disruptive.

And so you're finally seeing a crop of technology companies, between Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others, that actually have this idea built into the DNA of the organization. They do not want to lose their position, and they know exactly how to lose their position, because they themselves got into their leading position because they were disruptive.

Somebody like Zuck doesn’t want to let that happen to Facebook. It’s when they really understand that there’s an existential threat to their product or a major market opportunity that they have to respond to—the banning of TikTok, as an example—they move very quickly and very swiftly. And I think as an entrepreneur, you look at that and you have a lot of respect for the organization’s ability to respond to those moments and then be able to remain successful and very competitive.

Somebody like Zuck doesn't want to let that happen to Facebook. It's when they really understand that there's an existential threat to their product or a major market opportunity that they have to respond to—the banning of TikTok, as an example—they move very quickly and very swiftly. And I think as an entrepreneur, you look at that and you have a lot of respect for the organization's ability to respond to those moments and then be able to remain successful and very competitive.

Totally. Facebook’s longevity is one of the most befuddling things to me as a reporter covering the tech giants, because it is in the most fickle of all industries, which is social media. A couple years ago, TikTok was the big thing—not TikTok, HQ Trivia, right? Everyone was saying, “HQ Trivia is the future of everything,” and now it’s gone. It happened in a blink of an eye.

Totally. Facebook's longevity is one of the most befuddling things to me as a reporter covering the tech giants, because it is in the most fickle of all industries, which is social media. A couple years ago, TikTok was the big thing—not TikTok, HQ Trivia, right? Everyone was saying, “HQ Trivia is the future of everything,” and now it's gone. It happened in a blink of an eye.

Okay, one last tweet:

Okay, one last tweet:

I just want to apologize on behalf of all listeners about which tweets you’ve chosen.

I just want to apologize on behalf of all listeners about which tweets you've chosen.

It’s a fun selection.

It's a fun selection.

I just happened to be leaving a Zoom corporate strategy review call where basically the solution to the strategy was we just drew out a pyramid, and that clarified our business problem to everybody on the call. Since then, I found myself putting everything into a pyramid shape strategically, and it’s actually solved so many of our internal problems. It’s amazing.

I just happened to be leaving a Zoom corporate strategy review call where basically the solution to the strategy was we just drew out a pyramid, and that clarified our business problem to everybody on the call. Since then, I found myself putting everything into a pyramid shape strategically, and it's actually solved so many of our internal problems. It's amazing.

The best part is that you can put the flywheel diagram into a pyramid, and then you’re really cooking with grease.

The best part is that you can put the flywheel diagram into a pyramid, and then you're really cooking with grease.

Actually, if you have pyramids that are components of the flywheel, that’s even better. I would actually recommend that one.

Actually, if you have pyramids that are components of the flywheel, that's even better. I would actually recommend that one.

I feel bad—I’ve left the future-of-work stuff for the end. But I’m just going to ask you: You’re a pretty hands-on CEO. I know you like to walk around the office and spend time with your employees. Now that you’re so distant from everyone, how can you keep your leadership style in play, and how do you keep morale up in the company?

I feel bad—I've left the future-of-work stuff for the end. But I'm just going to ask you: You're a pretty hands-on CEO. I know you like to walk around the office and spend time with your employees. Now that you're so distant from everyone, how can you keep your leadership style in play, and how do you keep morale up in the company?

Yeah, I think moving to completely virtual and remote has been a huge adjustment for so many of our employees and me, especially because I do like to walk around and get a sense of what’s going on in the organization, how people are doing, what they’re working on, all of that. And so you’ve had to move that to virtual.

Yeah, I think moving to completely virtual and remote has been a huge adjustment for so many of our employees and me, especially because I do like to walk around and get a sense of what's going on in the organization, how people are doing, what they're working on, all of that. And so you've had to move that to virtual.

Obviously, you can’t fully replicate a lot of that type of interaction style. I think the part that I’ve found to be compelling about virtual and remote is the fact that you can bring together disparate parts of the business in a much more seamless and interactive way. While there have been trade-offs of the ability to get everybody together in person, we’ve been able to pull together people from across the business that otherwise would not have come together.

Obviously, you can't fully replicate a lot of that type of interaction style. I think the part that I've found to be compelling about virtual and remote is the fact that you can bring together disparate parts of the business in a much more seamless and interactive way. While there have been trade-offs of the ability to get everybody together in person, we've been able to pull together people from across the business that otherwise would not have come together.

We’ve got many teams and many projects internally where you have things like 100 people in a Slack channel all working on a project, when normally you would have had maybe only five or 10 people on that project, and they’d be stuck in a conference room. And it would be the exact same five or 10 people working at the exact same problem from the same angle.

We've got many teams and many projects internally where you have things like 100 people in a Slack channel all working on a project, when normally you would have had maybe only five or 10 people on that project, and they'd be stuck in a conference room. And it would be the exact same five or 10 people working at the exact same problem from the same angle.

Now, all of a sudden, you’ve blown that out, and more people can participate and begin to work on that initiative. There are a lot of things about going virtual—not necessarily remote, but virtual—that I think are actually beneficial to collaboration, and productivity, and innovation.

Now, all of a sudden, you've blown that out, and more people can participate and begin to work on that initiative. There are a lot of things about going virtual—not necessarily remote, but virtual—that I think are actually beneficial to collaboration, and productivity, and innovation.

It would be great if you could experience this more voluntarily as opposed to out of a pandemic. But it has been meaningful in terms of how we work and how we operate at Box.

It would be great if you could experience this more voluntarily as opposed to out of a pandemic. But it has been meaningful in terms of how we work and how we operate at Box.