十亿美元级别的失败,与十亿美元级别的成功 | Tom Conrad (Quibi, Pandora, Pets.com, Zero)
Billion dollar failures, and billion dollar success | Tom Conrad (Quibi, Pandora, Pets.com, Zero)
Tom Conrad: There’s this belief that everybody needs to be a founder. I think, in some ways, our industry would be much better off if there were fewer founders. There’s an entire category of smart, creative, hardworking, talented, borderline visionary people who can raise that $2 million seed and go off and build some stupid company that’s never going to go anywhere. That would be so much better off finding a team that needs their skillset and working on a problem that has a mathematical formula that’s going to win on any metric. Whatever metric you care about. You want the acclaim of your peers, you want financial reward, you want outside impact on culture, whatever the thing is that gets you out of bed every morning, you can achieve that in collaboration with others. You don’t have to be the person that raises the seed round.
Speaker 1 (00:00:52): Today, my guest is Tom Conrad. Tom was an engineer at Apple, CTO of Pandora, which he helped take from zero to 80 million users. He’s also VP of product at Snap, where he was the right-hand man to Evan Spiegel for two years. He’s been on the Board of Sonos for over seven years. He was also part of two infamous product failures, Quibi, where he was chief product officer, which raised over $2 billion and died less than a year after launch.
He was also a senior engineering leader at Pets.com, which famously went from nothing to a public company, to completely out of business in 19 months. Today, Tom is the CEO of Zero Longevity Science, which is on a mission to extend the lifespan and the health span of the human race. In our conversation, we dig into what Tom’s learned from these famous product failures, also, what he’s learned from the many product successes. Tom also shares what he’s learned about how to pick where to go work and what to avoid. How important understanding the math formula of the business model is. Also, lessons on burnout and health and leadership and contrarian corner. With that, I bring you Tom Conrad, after a short word from our sponsors.
The Apple Years and Drag-and-Drop
Lenny:
Within that post, they shared a dozen templates that they use internally to run their product team. Including managing the roadmap, their OKI process, getting internal feedback, and essentially their whole product development process is done within Coda. If your team’s work is spread out across different documents and spreadsheets and a stack of workflow tools, that’s why you need Coda. Coda puts data in one centralized location regardless of format, eliminating roadblocks that can slow your team down.
Coda allows your team to operate on the same information and collaborate in one place. Take advantage of this special limited time offer just for startups. Sign up today at coda.io/lenny and get a thousand dollars startup credit on your first statement. That’s C-O-D-A.io/lenny to sign up and get a startup credit of $1,000. Coda.io/lenny.
Speaker 1 (00:03:17): You fell in love with building products for a reason, but sometimes the day-to-day reality is a little different than you imagined. Instead of dreaming up big ideas, talking to customers and crafting a strategy, you’re drowning in spreadsheets and roadmap updates, and you’re spending your days basically putting out fires. A better way is possible. Introducing Jira Product Discovery, the new prioritization and road mapping tool built for product teams by Atlassian.
With Jira Product Discovery, you can gather all your product ideas and insights in one place and prioritize confidently, finally replacing those endless spreadsheets. Create and share custom product roadmaps with any stakeholder in seconds. It’s all built on Jira where your engineering team’s already working. True collaboration is finally possible. Great products are built by great teams, not just engineers. Sales support, leadership, even Greg from Finance.
Anyone that you want can contribute ideas, feedback, and insights in Jira Product Discovery for free. No catch. It’s only $10 a month for you. Say goodbye to your spreadsheets and the never ending alignment efforts. The old way of doing product management is over. Rediscover what’s possible with Jira product discovery. Try it for free at atlassian.com/lenny. That’s atlassian.com/lenny.
Tom, thank you so much for being here and welcome to the podcast.
The Spring-Loaded Folders Feature
Tom Conrad: Thank you. It’s so fun that I get to be a part of this.
Advice on Choosing a Workplace
Lenny: I thought it’d be fun to start with a story about your time at Apple and you building this now very ubiquitous feature of dragging and dropping something into a folder. Which I saw you tweet about or talk about at a talk and the fact that it’s still around. Can you just share that story and maybe a lesson from that experience that you’ve taken away?
Tom Conrad: Sure. Let’s see. I was 15 years old when the Macintosh came out. I remember really clearly my entire teenage years. All I wanted to do was to move from Columbus, Ohio to Cupertino and work for Apple. My heroes were that team of people that had written their signatures on the inside of the Macintosh. We cracked open the first Macintosh case. You would find the signatures of the 20 people or so who worked on the Mac. That was my only ambition, truly.
This was a period where no one wanted to work for Apple. That wasn’t a thing. It seems like maybe a little obvious today, but it wasn’t an obvious ambition at all back then. Anyway, I went to college. It’s all I wanted to do. Studied computer engineering at University of Michigan, and as we talk about my career, it is just over and over and over. I’m going to say an incredibly lucky thing happened. The first incredibly lucky thing that happened for me in my career probably was that University of Michigan happened to be a place that Apple recruited from.
I didn’t know that when I chose the school, but it made it reasonably easy to connect to a hiring manager at Apple. I wrote an actual letter and put it in an actual envelope and put it in the mail and got an internship and drove out in my dad’s Pontiac from the Midwest to California. Spent a summer interning and my last day of the internship, I was thinking about really what I wanted to do when I came back. Hopefully came back to Apple after I graduated.
I had worked on a product that became shipped. It was called the QuickDraw GX. It was earlier second generation rendering system for the Mac. I’d been that team’s intern for the summer. But what I really wanted to do is I wanted to work on the Finder. This is the only thing in the whole world I really wanted to do. I went and found Ron Lichty, who is the manager of the Finder team and said, “I graduate in 10 months. I’d love to be a part of your team.”
I think he was like, why are you coming and talking to me now? You’re literally going back to Michigan tomorrow. I go back to Michigan in May, the phone rings and Ron says, “The college recruiting department just told me that I have a college hiring rep and if I don’t use it by tomorrow, I lose it.” He’s like, “I can’t even interview you, you can’t meet the team, but you’re basically a freebie for me. Do you want this job?”
Just insanely lucky moment, got this job. I get to Apple in the summer of 1992 and I have a laundry list of things that I would like to do to make the Finder more usable. I remember sitting in Ron’s office and saying, “At the grocery store, when you’re carrying bags of groceries out, the door’s automatically open for you? I think the Finder should do the same thing. When you’re dragging an icon around and you want to put it in a folder, you should be able to hover maybe over the folder icons and drill down into the file system to get to where you’re going.
Then when you drop the file, all of the folders that opened up between you and your source and your destination would close for you.” Ron thought that was a fine idea, so that was the way Apple worked in those days. I just went off and started coding that up. I got to the point late one night, two in the morning at Apple, no one else was there, where I needed some kind of animation to indicate that the folder was about to open.
I’m certainly not an animator and I certainly wasn’t going to do anything thoughtful in the middle of the night. I just wrote some code that blinked the folder, like selected unselected, selected unselected five times and thought, oh, I’ll email one of the really talented visual designers to do something much more interesting. Long story short, apple finally shipped that feature four years later. Sat in the source code repository forever while we did other things.
When it shipped four years later, it blinked five times. Roll the clock forward six or seven years, Mac plus 10 comes out, entirely new Finder rewritten from scratch. No spring-loaded folders anywhere to be seen. People complained about it. It got re-implemented. All of the code, brand new. Folder blinks five times when you hover over it. Roll the clock forward another decade, IOS comes along and they added folders. When you drag an icon around, it blinks a few times.
I’m not sure what the point of this story is other than maybe it’s something about, I think we all do this as designers and product people. We take these shortcuts that we think that we’ll go back later and clean up. Sometimes, it’s literally been 30 years that little design detail lingers three implementations later and now it’s just a part of the way that these Apple products work. Pretty bizarre.
Evaluating Teams and Talent
Lenny: As you were talking, I’m on a Mac right now recording this and I just did it just to make sure it’s still there and it is indeed still there. I think it blinks three times and then just opens up for you.
Tom Conrad: There you go.
A Famous Failure Experience
Lenny: Full engineers got royalties on features they build that continue to live on in our product.
Tom Conrad: Okay, I’ll tell you just one other little thing to center you in time about what the Finder was like in 1992. We didn’t get royalties, but our names were in the About box. You would go to About the Finder and the seven of us, there were seven engineers at Apple that worked on The Finder. Our names would scroll by the Finder, copyright 1992, yada, yada, yada, one name after another. Totally different era.
Turning Point: Joining Quibi
Lenny: It feels like you got what you wanted with the name scribbled on the motherboard.
The Math Behind the Business
Tom Conrad: For sure. I’ve gotten a lot of the things I wanted as a kid.
Lenny: Along the same lines, I want to talk a bit about picking where to go work. Clearly you had a sense you wanted to go work at Apple. Over your career, you’ve landed at a lot of really successful places. You’ve also landed at a lot of very famous failures that we’re going to talk about. What advice would you give people for helping them pick where to go work based on your experience?
Hollywood Marketing vs. Silicon Valley
Tom Conrad: When I was a kid, my ambition to work at Apple was entirely about the product, so probably that version of me would say, find a product that you’re passionate about and go spend your time and energy on that thing. Pretty quickly you learn that an awful lot of your development and day-to-day satisfaction really comes from the people that you get to collaborate with. Can you learn from them? Do you like them? Do they challenge you in the right ways?
Do they give you latitude in the right ways? It’s so much about not just what, but who. For a very long time, my advice would’ve been entirely in the category of life, find something that you love with people that you think are amazing and the rest will take care of itself. Interestingly, I have been lucky enough to have some things that were successful on the metrics, get talked about the most, big audiences, big financial return, et cetera, et cetera. I’ve also worked on some things that were really notable disasters. When I look back on my career and think about the things that I’ve done, my professional satisfaction is not well correlated with those external metrics and very, very coordinated with do I love the thing we were building and do I love the people I was working with?
The NewTV Recruiting Email
Lenny: Following the thread of the people. I think one of the hardest things is really knowing what the people are like until you join. I think as a chief product officer joining or VP of product, you have a lot of time that you spend with the team. Most people don’t. They have an interview and then they’re like, all right, I got to make a decision. Do you have any advice for how to help people get a sense if the people are the kind of people they want to work with?
A Notable Success Story
Tom Conrad: I think people are really, really good at this. Every single time I’ve taken a job where it turned out that I was working with people who had a different set of values or working styles than I had, I knew. You tell yourself that, at least in my case, I tell myself a story about why the thing I suspect might be the case isn’t the case. But you do this in your personal life all the time. You meet people out at dinner, so you get seated next to them at some industry event or something, and sometimes you come home and say to your partner, oh my gosh, the person next to me was just the worst. Then sometimes you’re like, I think I made a permanent lifelong connection with this total stranger who just happened to sit next to me.
Lenny: It’s a very simple piece of advice that I think people don’t fully appreciate is just trust your instinct, trust your gut. Just pay attention to what comes up when you’re around people at a certain company. Okay, you brought up this phrase of notable disasters, and I want to talk about that. You’ve worked at two of the most famous notable disasters of product companies, pets.com and Quibi. I think it’s really rare someone sees the inside of so much hype and then such a fall at a company. I just want to spend some time in these two areas. Maybe the way to set it up is, what’s a lesson you took away from each of these two experiences that you’ve taken with you to future work and maybe advice you share with people?
Cross-Functional Experience at Apple
Tom Conrad: Probably the biggest lesson, it’s not really about the specifics of the business. The biggest lesson really is these things make you better. In some instances, actually, I think in both instances they became dominoes that opened doors for me in my own ambition and my own professional life that maybe just wouldn’t have opened at all if I hadn’t gone to those companies and learned those things and had those experiences. Frankly, even in the case of pets.com, even the high profile nature of it.
I could have worked at one of a thousand E-commerce websites in 1999. When I went on to some subsequent job interview or something and talked about my experience, they were like, I never heard of the thing that you worked on. But everybody certainly heard about pets.com. It’s a pretty funny example too, of how some struggles are timeless. That was 23, 24 years ago now. While as a leadership team, we made I’m sure all kinds of mistakes.
One of the things that happened was that there were three overfunded pet E-commerce sites. We all raised in excess of 9 billion today. They were a private company and bought by PetSmart and then spun back out. But when they were bought by PetSmart, they were acquired for three billion dollars. Biggest E-commerce acquisition of all time. Well, I think it’s probably unfair to compare Chewy who executed exceptionally well over a decade, grew their business brick by brick and turned it into something really remarkable.
To pets.com, which was in a very, very different moment in time and tried to go to market in a really different way. The critique that is often leveled at pets.com, or at least at the time, was like, this is just a stupid business. They’re shipping dog food around. You could never make that work. That’s just wrong. You absolutely can make it work. Probably can’t make it work when 80% of the country on the internet is still on dial up. It was really, really early.
You Don’t Know Jack and Deep Dives
Lenny: I saw a stat, I think you shared somewhere, that you took pets.com from nothing to a public company to completely out of business in 19 months.
Spotify’s Capital and Benchmarking Logic
Tom Conrad: Yeah, I think that’s about right. The other thing that’s forgotten in the tale is that we actually didn’t go bankrupt. We shut the company down and returned the remaining balance to the investors, which no public company had ever done before. The leadership team just reached the conclusion that given the way market conditions had evolved, there was just no way we were going to be able to get more capital into the company. It was a company that required additional investment to get to profitability. It was better to wind down early, take the money that we had in the bank and get it back to investors than to just spend every last penny on what was a fruitless attempt to salvage it.
Lenny: Did not know that. Let’s talk about Quibi. What went wrong there? Do you think there was a path to Quibi having worked out? Any big lessons that you took away from that experience that you bring with you?
Misjudging Radio and Streaming’s Inevitability
Tom Conrad: The miraculous thing about Quibi for me was it re-lit my enthusiasm for the industry for doing this work. I had left in, I think it was December of 2018, and I thought that maybe I was just done making software. I had done it for a really long time, for 25 years or something. I had changed a lot. The industry had changed a lot. I thought maybe I just didn’t have the same passion for it that I had a decade before. It also seemed like maybe it’d be fun to have another chapter of my life that was just completely different.
I had a whole list of things that I thought I might want to do. They’re ridiculous. It’s like maybe I want to be a pastry chef. Maybe I want to be a landscape photographer. Maybe I want to learn to make bad music to put up on SoundCloud or something. Really the only thing they had in common were they all things that I knew nothing about. People would be like, “Oh, you think you might want to be a pastry chef? Do you like to bake?”
I’d be like, “No, I don’t know anything about baking.” “Oh, you like landscape photography. Do you take photos?” “No, I don’t take photos.” But I was committed to the bit, actually to the point where when Techwrench interviewed me about my departure from Snapchat, I was like, I’m out. I’m going to do something else entirely. That story is very much out there. But a few months after my last day at Snap, I got a call from Meg Whitman and Jeffrey Katzenberg who were starting up, it was for New TV at the time.
The pitch was, we’re going to try to take the best of mobile and Silicon Valley and consumer tech and weld it to the best of Hollywood style content production. To build something completely bespoke and purpose made for consumption on the phone. They were looking for both technology leadership and product leadership and wanted to know if I was interested in one or both. I took the meeting, even though I wasn’t really taking these kinds of calls from anybody, it just seemed like who’s going to pass up the opportunity to have lunch with the two of them?
I listened to the pitch and politely declined and told them that I was going to be a pastry chef or something. We kept doing that every couple of months for seven months. We’d go to lunch, they would give me an update on the progress they were making, and I would decline the invitation to get involved somehow. Then late in that year, I went to lunch one more time, and Meg explained that they brought on someone to lead technology and they brought another person to lead product.
Both of them really truly for reasons that are completely disconnected from Quibi itself. Both of them had left after about six weeks. Meg’s like, “We’ve raised all this money and we told the world that we’re shipping this product in about a year. We got an awful lot to do, and I really could use some help. I would consider it a personal favor if you were to come and spend just a couple of days a week helping.” She’s like, “I’ll continue to look for someone who actually wants the job, but it’d be great if you could help me get this off the ground.” My wife is a freelance writer, marketing strategist, and loves her life as a freelance contributor. She’s like, “You should do this. Why not? It’s two days a week. It’s just a few months. What’s the worst thing that could happen? Maybe you’ll like it?” I’m like, “No. Here’s the thing that will happen. I won’t do it two days a week. It will immediately be three days, then four days, then five days, then six days. I just know myself.”
She’s like, “No.” She’s like, “Just on Wednesday night at six o’clock, close your Quibi laptop and be like, all they’re paying me for is for Tuesday and Wednesday and then open it back up on Tuesday morning. That’s all you’ve got to do.” Well, she’s right about most things and she’s wrong about this. I fell deeply into it right away. It was just so fun to get to build a team from scratch and to design and build a product from scratch.
To take advantage of all of the modern software architecture stuff that had come into being over the course of the 15 years since we had started Pandora. I’m embarrassed about some of what happened with Quibi for sure, but I’m super grateful for the experience. I just really fell in love with the industry again, and was reminded of just how rewarding it can be to build something and to try to put it out there even if you stumble pretty mightily along the way.
Premature Ideas Repeated at Quibi
Lenny: Is there something that you took away from that experience that taught you what to try to avoid? What to try to pull towards?
Management Experience at Pandora
Tom Conrad: I think I misunderstood or misjudged companies sometimes by thinking about them really focused on the product execution. If you find an interesting problem that people care about and you solve that problem in a really beautiful, elegant, delightful way, that’s 10 times better than anything else that they can get in that same space, they’ll tell their friends and all the rest will take care of itself. That was always my ambition.
Find a thing that I cared about building, do a great job building it really delightful way. Go really deep on listening to people and their feedback and iterate your way to success and breaking through that membrane that we all strive to get across. The really great word of mouth. But I think the thing I’ve come to better appreciate is that companies are also like a math problem that describes how you take investment and pour them into the equation and out the other side comes returns on some time horizon.
Yes, there are variables in that equation that are influenced by the product that you build and all of the little details and decisions that you make about making that product great. But if the equation is fundamentally broken or a big swing in and of itself, no amount of iteration and execution can get you out of the failed outputs of the broken equation. I think Quibi made a bet that you could build an entirely bespoke content library that was sufficiently scaled to get people to subscribe and retain for a couple billion dollars. It was a huge amount of money. But we made 70 shows in 18 months, which is more content than all of the major broadcast networks combined made in a single year. It was a pretty major accomplishment. We made a bet that we would augment those sort of-
And we made a bet that we would augment those sort of episodic and serialized or Hollywood style shows with a bunch of daily content that we produce at the level of network television, nightly news, and so forth, that would be an alternative to some of the sort of daily content that you might otherwise get on YouTube. And that was going to be about a third of the content spend.
One super interesting thing that no one talks about is that all of that content was designed to be made day of or day before it aired, so there was no back catalog of it. And it was all designed to be shot in these professional studios that we built out. It was really expensive, like I said, it was like a third of the investment we were going to making content, almost half the investment we were going to be making content.
And we launched two weeks into Covid and we couldn’t make any of that content, except literally in the garages of the host’s homes. And so we had this thing that was supposed to seem really set apart from YouTube, that literally now was being made exactly YouTube content, which is sort of like self-produced at home with very little sort of the support infrastructure of Hollywood. Now, you can argue, I think the content on YouTube is really, really exceptional in this category, and maybe we were never going to do better than that.
But I think what was really fundamentally broken with Quibi was that the actual foundational equation of can you make enough premium content that’s totally bespoke and made for the service and takes advantage of the nature of the phone, it is enough content to get people to sign up and retain, and can you do that for a couple billion dollars? And I think the answer is no. The library has to be much, much bigger, and you have to have, like any company, you have to have sufficient time and energy to iterate on the content format itself, because our roadmap really wanted to innovate on the content format.
And so I think part of what happened is pretty quickly it became clear that the math was just wrong. It wasn’t going to take 2 billion, it was going to take 6 or 8 or 10 billion. And the risk reward profile of betting 10 billion on the format was just more than anyone could stomach.
Lenny: Wow. I really like this metaphor and this mental model of the math formula of the entire business and thinking of it that way. I knew Covid changed the way people consumed content and that hurt. Quibi I think it was meant to be on the go, not sitting at home where you could watch anything you want. But also the fact that the content couldn’t be made as well, as you were hoping to make.
Meeting Evan and Joining Snap
Tom Conrad: Yeah, for sure.
Learning Risk Management at Snap
Lenny: As a CPO, one of the biggest challenges is pushing back, trying to convince the founders of their mistakes, of doing what they want and just powering through it and dealing with it sometimes I guess is there anything you think you could have done looking back, or was the math formula set up for failure from the beginning and it’s probably just not going to work out almost no matter what you did?
Tom Conrad: One of the bets was that we weren’t going to just use the apparatus of Hollywood to make the content. In part, we are going to use the apparatus of Hollywood to market the content. So Jeffrey had recruited this incredible Rolodex of literally the world’s most famous celebrities to make shows for Quibi. We kind of had everyone either made something for launch or was going to make something.
And part of what they’re going to do is turn up in culture and talk about their shows. We’ve heard a lot in the last six months about how hard it’s to market movies because the stars can’t go out and talk about the movies during the strike.
There was this theory that you could apply the marketing technique of Hollywood to get 20, 30 million people into the theater on opening weekend for Quibi. And that was always a very, very audacious take, I thought. Uber has all the money in the world to experiment with paid user acquisition, and they’re not consistently a top 10 most downloaded app in the app store.
But the theory of Quibi, the math of Quibi, did require us to from day one land in the top 10 and stay there forever. The model would have worked if we could do that. And to the Hollywood marketing apparatus, the numbers that it takes to get there felt kind of small. If you can get 20 million people in to see Shrek on opening night new IP, surely you can get them to take their phone out of their pocket and download this thing and start a free trial.
Now, those of us who have spent our life in Silicon Valley making software and really, really tried to get people to show up and download new IP in large numbers know just how hard that is.
So maybe if I critique my own contribution to the math equation, maybe I should have beat the drum a little harder about just how unlikely it was that we were going to land the kind of distribution in month one that the model sort of required. If I had to go back and do it again, I think I would spend maybe more time investing and illuminating that aspect of the digital universe.
Managing as a Product CEO
Lenny: That is such a good takeaway of just showing the leaders, here’s the data, here’s the assumptions that we’re all betting on, and do you believe this can happen? And they probably would’ve said, “Yes, this will happen. I’m so confident.”
Seeking New Direction Amid Health Crisis
Tom Conrad: What made it hard was, it wasn’t structurally impossible. If you had to be bigger than any app that had ever been made, then you could probably make the case it’s impossible. But since you only sort of had the land in the top 10, you couldn’t quite say it was impossible, you could just say it was highly improbable.
And maybe one of my mistakes was, I guess I imagined that we would launch, and when the likely thing happened that we got millions of people to download the app, which we did, and then when we inevitably struggled to retain those users at high percentages, and we retained at what I think of as a good industry starting point, but we weren’t setting any records on retention. I just imagined that what would happen next is the thing that happens in all young companies, you would iterate. You would grind on the funnel until a year later, two years later, six months later, whatever it is. You figured the formula out to get people in and get them to stay and get them to retain.
And what I didn’t appreciate was just how quickly you go back to the foundational math and then the math really says you just can’t. You can’t spend two years iterating your way on optimizing the funnels like you would in a startup that had a different cost structure. In a world where you have to spend a billion dollars a year of making content, you just can’t afford to not be a hit.
Lenny: I think it’s also important to just remind us, it’s okay for these things to happen. People take a bet, as you said, we’re going to try this thing, here’s our bet, here’s our experiment. We’re betting on this sort of format in this business. We’re going to raise money from investors that know they might lose all their money. And it sometimes doesn’t work out. It’s part of the game.
Connecting with Zero
Tom Conrad: It’s certainly painful to take money from investors even if they know what they’re doing and to not get them a return. I feel a real responsibility to investors to do better than we did at Quibi.
But yeah, I mean, there is a risk reward thing that goes along with these investments, and part of the reason they get all the riches on the upside is that they’re going to bet on some Quibis along the way too.
Lenny: So as you were talking, you said that it was called NewTV, and that sparked a memory, and I searched my email. And I actually got an email from a recruiter in 2018, we just kicked off a very special executive opportunity, the CPO at NewTV, a new venture in Los Angeles, with Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman, raising a billion dollars, working with top talent. Are you interested in exploring this opportunity?
Unit Economics and Company Equations
Tom Conrad: Lenny, Lenny, Lenny. Your story could have been so much different.
Success in Consumer Subscription Apps
Lenny: This could have been Thomas podcast. Lenny, tell me about what happened at Quibi.
Tom Conrad: I would take that free.
Maintaining Mental Health and Avoiding Burnout
Lenny: I don’t know. There’s pros and cons. They even sent this whole PDF, a TV in your pocket, NewTV. Amazing. All right. I’m going to read through this and see what they pitched back in the day.
Okay, let’s move on to things that worked out really well, let’s call it notable successes, other products you worked on that worked out great. So I’ll list a few of them. And maybe what might be helpful is just we’ll just go through each one and share what you took away from that experience, a lesson you learned from working on those products.
The ones that come to mind for me are Snap, Pandora, Apple if we want to go there. Also, you built, I don’t know exactly what you did there, but you worked on You Don’t Know Jack, this game that I loved. I think if you’re an elder millennial, you’re just going to like, “Oh my God, I love that game.” I don’t even remember it exactly, but I just remember the visceral feeling of playing that game and it was so much fun. So that’s cool. I didn’t know that you worked on that. And then there’s also Sonos, which you’re on the board.
So whatever order you think might be most interesting, just going through those and what did you learn from that experience?
The Power of Contrarian Thinking
Tom Conrad: I worked at Apple in the interval where Steve was gone, John Skelly, that kind of period, so System 7, System 8, Power Macintosh, that whole era. And we were doing a lot. We shipped a bunch of great hardware. We transitioned the company from Motorola 68,000 CPUs to the Power PC architecture.
But, particularly in that transition, we really struggled to ship consumer software features. I mentioned that I wrote three LAN folders and some other consumer features in my first six months at Apple, and they shipped four years later, actually after I’d left the company. I was a little surprised they were still in the software repository even, candidly.
But I’ll tell you that one of the things culturally about Apple in that moment was, at least I felt like, a person was really rewarded if they could make a kind of broad contribution across functions. So if you were a talented software engineer, but also a thoughtful product designer, and maybe also had interesting input on product marketing, that you could build a really great reputation inside the company by playing all of those positions a little bit day to day.
And so when I left Apple after four years, I look back on my time, I didn’t ship as much software as I had hoped, and I felt like a little bit like a professional gadfly. I was six miles wide and a centimeter deep.
And I went to work for this company called Berkeley Systems. In addition to You Don’t Know Jack, they made a flying toaster screensaver, if you remember. You remember the nineties?
Lightning Round Q&A
Lenny: How could you forget that?
Tom Conrad: And when I met them, they were picking off this game development for this trivia game, and were looking for someone to lead the technical team. And so I joined as technical director for the You Don’t Know Jack franchise, managed a team of engineers, and it was a completely different culture than what I was used to at Apple.
It was certainly the case that I was welcome to weigh in on the game design or the marketing or some other aspect of the deliverables, but my job was to build the software on time with high quality, period. And if I did those things, I’d be rewarded. And if I didn’t, I would not be successful. And no amount of insightful feedback on the gameplay or the packaging, or whatever else I might want to do, was going to benefit me and my career at all.
And it was such a blessing to be forced to go deep on something, because I spent a lot of time developing chops as an engineering manager, but I also wrote a ton of software. And that’s really honestly when I became a software engineer. My college education was insufficient to get me there, and the amount of software I wrote at Apple was insufficient to get me there. But I came out of my Berkeley Systems You Don’t Know Jack experience feeling like I could really hold my own technically in a way that just wouldn’t have happened.
And so I do think that there’s something to be said for a culture where there are swim lanes and people are encouraged to be really, really exceptional in their lane. And so I feel really lucky that I stumbled into You Don’t Know Jack When I did.
And it was also, I mean, it was the first thing that I worked on that had just huge cultural awareness for a couple of years. I mean, it’s crazy, they’re still making sequels. It has been nearly 30 years, and there are versions of You Don’t Know Jack that are in all of the stores, in the PlayStation store, in the Xbox store, in the iOS store. You can play new versions of You Don’t Know Jack to this day. It’s crazy.
Thoughts on Interviewing
Lenny: Did not know that. I see the website now and it’s a little different, but basically the same.
Tom Conrad: So I’d say my lesson from You Don’t Know Jack was definitely, it really does pay to get good at something and not just be a generalist.
And then, I mean Pandora, it wasn’t quite the next thing that happened. After You Don’t Know Jack was Pets.com, and then after Pets.com there was nuclear winter in the industry and I worked in enterprise software for a while.
And after nuclear winter I had this idea that I was going to build a destination for music discovery on the web. And I’ve been doing enterprise software, the consumer intranet was non-existent for those years, early aughts.
But around 2004, things started to thaw a little bit and you started to hear the first signs of the companies that we came to call Web 2.0, Flickr would’ve been one of the early examples. And one of the enterprise software things I did was a personalization recommendation engine that used a vector space. It’s like a lot of the things that we’re talking about now in AI, albeit 20 years ago.
And so I knew something about recommendation systems in the enterprise space, and I was super passionate about music. I’m not a musician, but I was that kid in college who would corner you and be like, oh, if you like this band, I got to play this for you and [inaudible 00:41:37] with stereo until you would beg to leave.
And so I had this idea that maybe I can use the internet to do that at scale, not with just one person, but with hundreds of thousands of people or millions of people maybe. Introduce them to music that they would love but otherwise would miss out on.
And I promised that I was going to tell stories about luck in my career, there’s been a gazillion of them. But one really dramatic incidence of that is I was sort of biding my time to exit this enterprise software company. I was VP of engineering, a whole team that reported to me. I felt a lot of responsibility to exit in a responsible way. But I was really excited about this digital music company that I was going to start. But I wasn’t telling anyone at all because I didn’t want ti to get back to the team.
So I flew down to Los Angeles to go out to Coachella in the spring of 2004, and completely randomly physically bumped into a guy that I had gone to high school with on the polo field, and hadn’t seen him in a decade. And the thing that we had in common in high school was we loved music. And so I tell them the story of, I’m going to start this company to do personalized digital music on the internet. And he said, there’s this woman I work with who just left our company to move to Oakland to work for this little company called Savage Beast that are also doing something in music recommendation. Do you want to talk to them? And I said, “Sure, why not?”
So I got introduced to Tim Westergren, who was the founder of Savage Beast. Savage Beast was like a seven or eight full-time employees at that point. They made a music recommendation engine that they licensed to other companies to put in consumer products. So Savage Beast’s customers were Best Buy, who put it in kiosks, and AOL, who used it on the AOL Music website. And they were looking for a VP of engineering. And I got the offer, thought about it a little bit. I declined because it was kind of this B2B2C thing and I really wanted to do something consumer and I had an idea about the app.
And a month later, they called again and said, “We keep talking to people. We really think that you’re the person.” And interestingly, one of the reasons they thought that I was the person is they were really impressed by the fact that I had run engineering at Pets.com. So I mean, it’s just one of those things where these things do pay dividends, even when they’re a disaster.
And honestly, what I would really say was almost like a lapse in judgment, I said yes, even though it wasn’t the product that I wanted to build. And I won’t bore you with all of the details, but 90 days later, after some typical early stage founder drama stuff, the founding head of technology and product had resigned completely unrelated to my arrival. And the company had a new CEO, Joe Kennedy, and Joe had this idea for what he called the 1-Click Personal Radio. And Joe is a product marketer and just the best CEO in the whole world. We spent 10 years together building Pandora.
And he sort of gave me the keys and just said, “As long as it fits the brief for 1-Click Personal Radio, it’s all yours.” And I got to build the team and the culture, in collaboration with him and Tim the founder, over the course of the next 10 years, and just every good thing.
So I mean, there’s just a million billion lessons from Pandora, and everything I am as a product leader and then an engineering leader comes from things that happen at Pandora.
But maybe the thing that I think of first is, I think we met our early audience in an incredibly genuine way. For example, when we launched the support@pandora.com was an alias for all@pandora.com. So if you sent a customer service request to Pandora, every single person in the company received it. And because we made a decision to have no customer support team in the first year, the expectation was that whoever sees the request first should respond to it.
And so you would write to us and you would get the founder or you’d get me or you’d get the engineer who wrote the feature or you’d get the CEO. And there were no macros to respond to commonly asked question. There was no read the FAQ. And there were no rules about what you could and couldn’t say. If the person’s like, “I think this feature is stupid and broken,” we would encourage people to say, “You know what? I think you’re right and I’m really struggling to get our stupid head of product to agree with me. I’m going to CC Tom and maybe we can convince him that this was a bad decision.”
And we did all of that because we thought one of our superpowers as a young company was that we could just engage with our audience as real human beings, not as a shiny brand that was trying to be something that we could just never be. This period is where the iPod and iTunes are at the peak of their powers. And so there was no way we could sort of out-Apple Apple on the brand front.
And so we were just ourselves, and I think it really, really was a catalyst for the word of mouth that developed around Pandora. And we never spent any money on paid user acquisition, literally no dollars in the entire time I was there, because people loved the product and they told their friends about it and that’s how it grew.
Favorite Products Right Now
Lenny: I saw a stat that you grew Pandora from 0 to 80 million users, from 10 employees to 3000 employees, from 0 basically to a multi-billion dollar company.
Tom Conrad: We did those things. We did.
Also, I think my product stewardship in some ways set the scene for Spotify to walk through the digital streaming door and show us the exit. So Pandora is, again, such a privilege to be able to work on something that touched and continues to touch tens of millions of people’s lives every month. But it’s bittersweet from the standpoint that I think we had an opportunity that in some ways we misplayed.
My Personal Life Motto
Lenny: My mom is still a huge fan of Pandora, uses it every day for whatever choice.
Tom Conrad: I mean, it’s still going. And the numbers are still tens of millions of people in the US listen every month. So it’s a thing. But yeah, it’s a little sad that it didn’t have quite the staying power that some of these other things that have come along since have.
Conclusion and Contact Info
Lenny: Just on that topic, do you think there’s something that you could have done, someone could have done? Do you think there was an opportunity to become Spotify? Or is it the business model and the math formula was set up in such a way that it was near impossible?
Tom Conrad: One of the things that was tough for Pandora was that when we started it, digital music was a category that no investor wanted to touch. It was lawsuits. There was no money to be made. There were relationships with the labels that were completely impossible to nurture. And there had been no big outcomes. I think the biggest exit in digital music when we got going was I think Yahoo had bought Musicmatch for like $400 million. And so that was seen as kind of the ceiling on the opportunity.
And along the way we found investors who believed in our vision and invested ultimately hundreds of millions of dollars in the company over its pre-public years. But there was never investor enthusiasm for the company in the category that was anything like the investor enthusiasm that a company like Spotify enjoyed just six, seven years later, Snap enjoyed for its pre-public tenure.
And I think part of what was different for Spotify is that the comps were not… Musicmatch was 400 million, they were Pandora at 8 billion, but even above that they were Netflix at 100 billion. And so investors just had this new sort of optimism about what you could do in subscription and in streaming, and Spotify really played that to their advantage in a way that we couldn’t because we had gone public and the public market investors were still trying to figure us out. So we didn’t have access to capital. It was very hard for us to take the same kind of risks that Spotify took.
But then I think we just completely misjudged one really important thing, which is that we were really inspired by disrupting terrestrial radio. Terrestrial radio is the predominant form of music consumption in the country. People spend, I can’t remember the exact stats, but by minutes consumed, it’s something like 10 times more music minutes a month on radio in the aughts and early tens than on owned music. And the advertising supported sort of radio market was a 8 billion.
And so we had this idea that we’re going to reinvent radio, and Spotify and Rdio and Apple Music and the 14 others, Rhapsody, which was Spotify before Spotify, they were all going to chase this smaller owned recorded music opportunity, and that we could be left relatively alone over here going after the less sexy but actually bigger market. And I think we just got it wrong. It should have been obvious that inevitably all of your music in any format was going to be delivered as a stream from the cloud. And that the record labels in particular, they were going to set the terms on what the structure was. And the structure that they preferred was the Spotify structure. And we operated under a different licensing…
And we operated under a different licensing regime that they hated, that was a statutory license that we got from the government. And it would’ve been exceptionally risky for us to come out from under the statutory license and do direct deals with the labels, but it was a requirement to play in the world that they imagined as the future, and we should have imagined as the future, too. And eventually, the company got around to it, but it was too late.
Lenny: It’s interesting that so much of this was rooted in that original vision that you shared of Pandora of the radio, smart radio in your pocket, [inaudible 00:52:37] personal radio that you just stayed on that track, even though there was this other track. But I think it’s important to point out, you said it was seven years later. And I feel like there’s this interesting trend with the companies you’ve worked at, pets.com and Pandora, that it’s too early, you just come too early at these ideas. And I feel like that tells me Quibi might still happen. There’s a Quibi coming seven years from now.
Tom Conrad: You know what’s really funny about that? Just today, there’s a headline about a Hollywood-produced show that’s launching on Instagram Reels and TikTok that was shot vertical. And the headline is literally something like, “Is TikTok the new TV?” And it’s pretty funny that literally, that’s what Jeffrey and Meg called it when they were incubating the idea. I mean, I think it’s pretty clear that purpose-built video for mobile looks a lot like TikTok. And I don’t want to take anything away from all of the innovation in that space that they and the other players are driving that Quibi didn’t capture in its initial product definition. But I mean, obviously, we stare at our phones consuming video of all kinds all day every day. So there there’s definitely something there.
Lenny: The PDF that I mentioned that I got from the recruiter, the first page again says, “You have a TV in your pocket.” So it’s exactly what they’re pitching. That’s amazing. All right. I think what I’ve learned, I need to bet all my money on this new Quibi clone because the timing might be right.
The best products today use command-K for in-app search and navigation. HelpBar makes that readily available within your app without engineering or new code. Give users a faster and more delightful self-serve experience that reduces friction and increases in-app engagement. Upgrade your user experience with this modern component and supercharge your product-led motion. Sign up for HelpBar today. It’s free and easy to set up in minutes. Check it out at helpbar.ai/lenny. That’s helpbar.ai/lenny.
Let’s talk about Snap briefly, and then I want to have a couple more questions.
Tom Conrad: At Pandora, I was the head of product and was head of engineering. And our CEO was brilliant, but he was a product marketer. I mean, Joe was all things. He was an engineer by education, and a great marketer, and a great finance person, and just such a utility player at a very, very high level across every discipline. But he was also really, really good at letting his team do their jobs. He really let me run product and engineering. And so not only did I have tremendous latitude to make good and bad decisions about product, I also really got a seat at the table to help lead the company. So rewarding, so gratifying. Best professional experience that one could have.
So I leave Pandora after a decade. I take a year trying to figure out what I’m going to do next. But after about a year, I got introduced to Evan. And it’s kind of a funny story. A mutual friend sent this introduction over. Evan immediately responded and said, “Why don’t you come down to Los Angeles and have a coffee with me?” So I fly down. It’s not clear if it’s a job interview or what it is really. I mean, I was just lightly exploring things that were out there and was a big fan of what he was doing with Snapchat. So I spent 45 minutes with him, and then I spent 45 minutes with the head of engineering, and another 45 minutes with the head of legal, and then they tossed me into a conference room with a dozen product designers, all in their mid to late 20s, many of which had gone to school at Stanford with Evan.
I would come to learn all really, really, really impressive super, super talented people, but it was just 10 of us sitting around a conference table. And it wasn’t really clear that they knew why they were talking to me, but we had an hour long free ranging conversation. And so I left, and I thought it was a totally fascinating morning, but I wasn’t sure what had happened, really. It was like “Well, with these interviews, it all seemed very ad hoc. Is there a job opening?” It was a little odd. And I went to lunch on Abbott Kinney and got a text from Evan’s admin saying, “Can you come back to the office? Have you gotten on your plane yet?” I was like, “I was just ordering lunch. I’ll just come back right away.”
So I go back. Now, it’s one o’clock in the afternoon. This entire thing started at nine o’clock in the morning. I sit down in the conference room. Evan comes in with a manila envelope and says, ” We loved you. We’d like for you to be our VP of product,” and handed me a written offer, all the terms, the stock compensation, the whole thing. I’m gobsmacked. I’m flattered, that this is really playing to my ego. I can’t believe that this company that feels like maybe the most interesting thing that’s happening in consumer tech, that their notoriously brilliant and mercurial founder has taken enough of a shine to me that he wants to give at least some of the keys to the product kingdom over after such a short courtship.
So I leave, and when some of that buzz wears off, I start to wonder if there’s some red flags here maybe. So I tell Evan, “Listen, I’d like to come back and meet more of the leadership team and spend more time with you, go a little deeper on what this means.” And so we extend our courtship by another week or so, and I’m super impressed by the rest of the leadership team and the product thinkers and the designers and things that I was going to get to work with on a daily basis. And so I take the job full knowing that it’s going to be wildly different than Pandora, where I had all of this latitude to do whatever I might want to do, and in the context of Snapchat, at best, I was going to be Evan’s right hand, a person that principally executed his vision.
And that’s certainly what it was. I mean, Evan and I ended up having a really great collaboration, but it was certainly most days, I was executing on his vision, both at a high level, and very much in the details. And Evan’s truly brilliant, I mean, and he’s also actually a really nice guy. I think in some ways, he gets a bad rep for… He has very high standards, but he’s a very kind person, in my experiences with him. But it was a super exhausting job and not as soul satisfying as I wanted it to be. And after a couple of years, like I said, I thought maybe I just wanted to make croissants or something.
But one really, really big important lesson that I learned at Snap is about risk taking. And when you have the financial support and the foundational relationship with your investors that Evan has, it really allowed him to take these really big swings, acquire a technology that he thought was game changing, build features speculatively that maybe would be pruned in any other product roadmap planning process because the odds of them having an outsized impact were modest. And it just allowed him time after time to make bets that paid off, and we forget about the ones that don’t work when there are so many home runs in those years. And we didn’t have… Environmentally, we weren’t set up for that at Pandora, but I think in some ways, I wasn’t temperamentally inclined to those kinds of big swings. And I think I take bigger risks and encourage bigger swings now because of things I learned from Evan and Snap.
Lenny: That is an awesome story. It resonates a lot with what Brian shared about how he thinks about product now and just telling people what to build versus very bottom up, “Tell us ideas you have.” That impact, the way you run, we’re going to talk a bit about you as CEO now, but I guess, do you have a place that you try to be of CEO as, “Here’s what we’re building”?
Tom Conrad: As a product-oriented CEO, how much you should lean in to the details versus set direction and create an environment where great people can do great work, I suspect there’s not one answer that applies to every company stage. When I was at Apple, one of the reasons that we struggled to ship things is that Apple did a great job of assembling incredibly, incredibly smart and talented people. Just everyone around me at that early stage in my career was so, so inspiring. But one of the side effects of that is we would get in a room and we would turn over some problem or opportunity, and we would talk ourselves out of every good solution because it wasn’t perfect. I used to joke that Apple was the only place in the world where a vote of a thousand to one was a tie because that one person would be so thoughtful in their critique that the other thousand people would be like, “Hmm, that’s right, that’s right.” And even though there’s been this huge consensus of what the right answer was, we would talk ourselves out of making decisions.
Lenny: That one wasn’t Steve Jobs, necessarily? It could be somebody else?
Tom Conrad: He wasn’t there.
Lenny: Wow.
Tom Conrad: So I think what broke Apple out of that mode was Steve came back and they didn’t vote anymore. Steve was just making the call. And so I have some sympathy for Brian and Evan, who have these big, thousands of people working for them. And as they delegate, they grow frustrated that there’s not progress at the pace that they’re looking for, and that there’s indecision, and the people on the teams report that there’s just churn and no progress, and there’s fiefdoms and politics and all the rest, and that as the CEO, as a brilliant product-oriented CEO, they are uniquely situated to come in and cut through all of that garbage and get the trains running on time again.
Having said all of that, I also think that it can be a mistake to be that kind of leader in a smaller org because part of the opportunity in a small org is to assemble a group of people that are incredibly talented that believe in your mission and where who you can easily influence with a much lighter touch and set them up to build a culture in an organization that can execute. And so I see my job as CEO is to try to surf that edge of I’m really in the details. So I deeply understand the business and the product decisions that we’re making and the processes that we’re using to run the business, but not overplay my hand with respect to dictating outcomes.
The one thing you’ll always have as CEO is, no matter how much you tell the team that when I swing by their virtual desk and say, “I’ve been thinking about this little detail that’s not important right now, but what do you think?” It’s like nine out of 10 times, that person is going to go and start working on that thing. And so you do have to be just really careful about the way you engage in some of those details, I think.
Lenny: There’s a really good episode I had with Lane Shackleton from Coda, and he shared this framework called flash tags that they use at Coda, and I think it comes from HubSpot, of you tell people, “Here’s what the subpoena is. Is it an FYI? Is it a suggestion? Is it a do this?” There’s four of them and one’s like, “I will die on this hill. You need to do this.”
Tom Conrad: I try to do a lot of that. I wish I could say that in my experience that that pays off. I spend an awful lot of time, even the stuff I say very clearly, just one person’s opinion, focus group of one, “Don’t change your priorities to go work on this,” it has more of an outsized impact on people’s behavior than I intended.
Lenny: Yeah. Easier said than done. Coming back to your journey, we’ve talked through the story up until getting to Quibi, but two years ago, you went in a whole new direction, and you’re now the CEO of a company called Zero. What is it like to move from just being a product leader or engi leader at a company to being the CEO for the first time? Why did you choose Zero as that role? And what have you learned as CEO that you wish you knew as a product leader or engi leader at a company that listeners might find useful?
Tom Conrad: It’s been a really, really incredible couple of years. In the aftermath of Quibi, I spent a lot of time, as we all do, soul-searching about what I learned and what I might want to do next. And as I thought about it, I realized that I really wanted to move on to something where I can have a direct impact on the culture and values of the company that I was involved in. I really got that opportunity at Pandora in a big way. And I had spent the five years of Snapchat and Quibi working for Evan and Meg and Jeffrey who are all incredible business leaders, but have their own very specific style and approach, and that leaves a mark on the culture that’s unique to the founder.
And then as we’ve discussed, I’m always really interested in building things that are near and dear to me, and I was particularly thinking about what can I do that could have a really positive impact on the world in my next chapter. I’ve built an awful lot of media stuff through the years, video games and streaming services and so forth, and it seemed like maybe there was something that had a little bit more weight to it that I could spend my time on. And so my first thought was I would start something, a company idea I was quietly workshopping for some months. And completely independent from all of that, it’s eight months into the pandemic, and my own personal health was at an all time low. I was 50 or 60 pounds overweight, my cholesterol was in the red zone. I mean, I was out of breath climbing stairs, which is something that I had never encountered in my life before.
I’m a bit of a yo-yo dieter and I’m always critical of looking in the mirror, but I was never ever really worried about my health, my longevity, and suddenly, I was. And so my solution to that was to go really deep on metabolic health, just thousands of hours of podcasts and videos and glucose monitoring patches and Oura Rings and digital fitness gear and just to try to understand the things that impact health and longevity. And as much as I would like to report that what I learned is that there’s some magic pill that you can take, maybe some off label rapamycin or something, the truth is, is that to live a longer and healthier life, you really have to attack what I would call metabolic disease, which will manifest in overweight and obesity and pre-diabetes and diabetes and high cholesterol and all of these things that impact your long-term health.
And so I found Zero in this path and was using it to help with my own health journey. And Mike Maser founded the company four and a half years ago, and he and I were talking in this interval about my own experience with the product. I was just giving him product feedback and so forth, and he was telling me a little bit about his own entrepreneurial journey. And somewhere in the conversation, Mike said, “My intention is to step up into the executive chair role and to find a CEO for the company.” So again, in my story, just over and over and over, this incredibly fortuitous thing happened. I just knew immediately that it ticked all the boxes, “Here’s a chance to lead something that already had some momentum to impact the culture and values in a really direct way and was really, really close to my own personal journey.”
And so we know we’ve got a great little company and 27 people, we’ve got more than a million users on the platform every month. Over a hundred thousand of them pay us with tens of millions of dollars of revenue through the years, and have had double-digit growth even coming out of the pandemic when lots of health and fitness companies saw retreats. And most importantly, it actually works. 75% of the people who use the platform lose weight. People lose, on average, five to 10% of their body weight in the first 60 days. And because of the success that people have, we grow just completely organically. We have no paid user acquisition at all. It’s really a word of mouth business.
But that’s not to say that it’s not challenging. All startups are challenging. And what we’ve really focused on for the last couple of years is we’ve been really focused on unit economics, really trying to understand how much value can we derive and deliver for every person who downloads and installs the app, how do we convert them through all of the funnels efficiently and get them engaged with the product and get them to retain and drive that up in a really systematic way. And with my whole career, I’m definitely a person who started off thinking software development was mostly an art form, you find brilliant visionaries who have a deep understanding of human behavior, and they craft solutions for problems that other people don’t see, and they make them delightful, and they get all the little details right. And when you found product market fit for the art, then you optimize them through a really quantitative take.
And so I’m definitely a person that sees both sides of that left brain and right brain equation that’s important in software. But here’s the thing my eyes have really opened to in the last two years. While companies are definitely the software that they make and the products that they deliver and that there is an art and science to that, as I described, there is also, if you step back, there is an equation that describes the business. It talks about how you turn investment into returns. And I suppose if I had come up with finance and been a business major that maybe that’s the way that I would’ve conceived of companies to begin with. So maybe it’s a little embarrassing that I had to be 53 years old before, I think, the scales fell through my eyes and I was like, “Oh, companies are equations.”
And so when we first started talking about lifetime value and customer acquisition costs and getting those two things balanced and just the thinking about the unit economics of the business, my natural instinct was to go immediately to the leaf nodes of the equation like, “Oh, what percentage of people do we convert from install to registered and from registered to trial,” and these very way down at the bottom of all the funnels and to ask the product team like, “Let’s try to optimize these.” And in the process though of trying to understand where we could take the business as we optimize those various dimensions and trying to understand too which of the dimensions had the most leverage, I started building these ever more sophisticated models that describe the whole business.
I mean, in startups, you get to wear a lot of hats. And definitely a hat that I’m wearing that I didn’t anticipate at all is I’m the full-time FP&A guy for Zero. And so I built this spreadsheet that aggregates data from all of our business intelligence tools and raw data from our subscription transactions and looks at all of our historical results and all of our expenses and spend and then could use that to predict future scenarios by manipulating all of these variables. And it’s just not at all the way I ever thought about products before. And I know that you’ve got lots of listeners like, “This guy’s an idiot. This is a fundamental way to contemplate product work.”
But if there’s anybody out there like me who thought of it as art first and then optimization in the details, it is really, really powerful to spend the time to create the model that describes the whole thing so you can identify what are the high leverage points to focus on. So been doing a lot of that at the company in the last two years and it’s really starting to deliver incredible results. Like everything in life, I mean, you sign up for things so you can learn, and that’s the big one for me in the last year.
Lenny: I really love that takeaway of as a CEO coming back to share, here’s what you should be thinking about that the CEO is probably thinking about, as a product leader, you may not be, of trying to actually spend the time to think about the business model and understand it deeply because your founders are thinking about it all the time. And so if you’re not, you’re missing out on here’s a way to influence them, here’s a way to…
Tom Conrad: It’s so funny too because it’s a thing I suddenly understand something that mystified me through my entire career, which was I’d go to board meetings and the investors would ask these probing questions, but they were really never about the product and what the product did and what the product roadmap was and what the features were and what this… It all seemed to operate at this level that was almost completely independent of the details of the “what is the solution you put into the world”, which as a product-oriented thinker, was just completely baffling to me. And I now realize that they were tilling the soil that I’m talking about, they were tilling.
It doesn’t really matter what the screens are and what the features are. I mean, it certainly matters, but that there’s another higher order way to look at a company, which is really about the optimization of this equation. And I think particularly, if you sit on 25 boards, it’s probably a much more efficient way to evaluate how your companies are doing and where to spend your time and how to help by thinking about them abstracted up at that layer. So I will never stop thinking about software development as being an art form and I will never stop enjoying the days when I get to lean in on the details, but it’s been pretty eyeopening.
Lenny: The other thing that stands out here, one is I think this is especially true for consumer subscription apps, which I’ve done some research on. And basically, they never work. There’s Duolingo, there’s Zero, which I didn’t know how much scale you guys reached. My math here real quick. So you have a million users, a hundred thousand paying users. You charge at 10 bucks a month. I know there’s a discount for an annual plan, but basically, you’re making somewhere around a million dollars a month, which you don’t have to confirm or deny it, but that’s the math I just did, and that’s crazy. So congrats. That’s a rare successful consumer subscription app. It never happens.
Tom Conrad: And like I said, every startup is hard, and I never stop being surprised at the new hard things that pop up every day. But we’re on a really great run. We’ve had a tremendous year, and I’m just so, so proud of the team we’ve assembled. They’re incredible for the last.
Lenny: Part of the reason you’re so successful is exactly what you said. There’s a huge focus on LTV/CAC, the math formula, because for these sorts of businesses, the crux of it is can you acquire people for less money than you need to spend?
Tom Conrad: One thing that’s really fortunate for Zero is Mike Maser, who founded the company, and I have both been around the block long enough and enough times that we remember 2008, we remember 2000. And so in these moments in the pandemic, there were companies in our category that were raising hundreds of billions of dollars with the intention of throwing it at paid user acquisition. And we made a conscious decision to optimize the value of the organic traffic that we were getting and to drive our growth through LTV expansion rather than top of funnel expansion, which was candidly not in fashion in 2021, 2022.
… in 2021, 2022. It turns out it’s much more in fashion these days as companies are called upon to be much more capital efficient than they were during the pandemic era. I guess I feel somewhat fortunate that my natural inclination as an entrepreneur is more in sync with the expectations of the market than it was for a while.
Lenny: Okay. So you’ve probably had the longest career arc of anyone I’ve had on this podcast. You’ve worked at all of these different companies in a lot of different phases. You’re still at it. And I’m curious what you’ve learned about how to maintain your mental health and avoid burnout essentially through this journey. You mentioned you take some time off. Is there anything else you found or is that a trick of just how to not burnout?
Tom Conrad: Do you know this Japanese concept called Ikigai?
Lenny: Mm-hmm. Yeah, but share it. Share it for folks that may not be familiar.
Tom Conrad: So the idea is it’s a Venn diagram and there are four spheres. There’s a sphere that’s labeled what you love. There’s a sphere labeled what you’re good at. There’s a sphere labeled what the world needs, and there’s a sphere called what you can be paid for, and where they all intersect is this Japanese idea, Ikigai. It’s the intersection of what you’re good at, what you love, what the world needs, and what you can be paid for. If you find that, it’s Ikigai. And interestingly, your listeners should go and find this because there are interesting ways to label the other intersections, the intersections where all four don’t come together. And what’s really interesting is that the ones that are three but not four, I think because they’re the ones that are close but not quite to this really satisfying thing. And so it’s like when you find those, it’s really easy to choose a job or to choose a path where you have three but not four, which is a really great recipe if you’re feeling like there’s something just out of your reach that’s really important.
Anyway, it’s a great framework to think about your life and your career. So to start, I’m incredibly lucky that it’s all Ikigai for me. What I’m good at, what I love, what the world needs, what I get paid for, they have always overlapped. And a big part of it is just what I love is this world. I love software, I love building software, I love writing software, I love using software. People are like, “What are your hobbies?” I don’t think I have any hobbies and I think about, “Well, what kinds of things do I do on the weekend for fun?” And it’s like I’m teaching myself After Effects or something, which I will immediately forget, but it’s just fun to go really deep on some piece of interesting software.
So I’m very lucky. And so I think that has been super sustaining for me. One of the reasons I’ve been able to do it as long as I have without really burning out is that just, it’s what I do. And in some ways it’s why I come back to it. It’s easy to say, “I’m going to become a pastry chef,” but left to my own devices, I use software, I make software. It’s my hobby, it’s my passion, it’s all the things.
But a couple of thoughts about how one engages with their work. One thing is I’m really not a #hustling kind of leader. There was a woman that I worked with on the Finder just out of college that left a really big mark on me. My own style of work then, I think I mentioned my memory of flashing, blinking the folder animation was a 2: 00 AM kind of thing. I was 23 years old. I woke up at 11 o’clock in the morning. I went to the office, I screwed around and played video games in the Apple Arcade and went to a couple of meetings and had lunch and stood at the whiteboard and pontificated about some nonsense. And then about four o’clock every day I would start writing software and I would write software until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning and then I would go out to dinner with people from the team in the middle of it and whatever.
And so it kind of looked like I spent 14 hours a day, six or seven days a week at Apple, and I was celebrated for this. There was lots of nights where I would work clear through the night and my boss would come in the next morning, he’d be like, “Are you still here?” And I’m like, “I’m still here. Look at this cool thing I did.” And I got a lot of attention for that. And then there’s this woman on the team who showed up every single morning at 8:30, sat at her desk, wrote a ton of great software, and every night packed her stuff up and left. And she contributed more than I ever did. And I don’t think she got the same kind of recognition that I got because of the way she did the work.
And when we were building the team and culture at Pandora, I thought about her a lot and really made a point of saying that I just wasn’t interested in performative contribution, that it’s the work that matters and what I want to celebrate is if you can show up and do it and go home and have other things in your life, because I think that’s a recipe for being able to do it on a sustained basis rather than burning yourself out.
I think there’s some nuance in this. I think 22 year old me was always going to want to work through the night. And so I think creating space that that’s okay too is important. And I think maybe in some ways at Pandora it was almost like that wasn’t okay. It was like, “You should be taking more breaks. Why are you going this hard?” But I do try to create environments where people have a reasonable balance between their regular life and their technology life or room for that if they choose it. And I do think that that has through the years, has helped me keep at it, but I still work a lot of nights and weekends because I love it. It’s what I do.
Here’s the other thing. I got very, very lucky with the Pandora experience and got this outsized, probably inappropriate financial reward for being a part of it and gave me options that I never imagined that I would have. And so after 10 years I left and I didn’t know what I would do, but I did really need a break. It was a really hard job and that was definitely a moment where I needed some time to recover. But I think if you had asked me on that first day, I would say, “I don’t know why these people find success and then start another company right away. Why? There’s so many things you could do in the world, why would you start another company? It’s so hard.”
And I was particularly in love with the idea that I had access to experience. I didn’t really care about things, I didn’t want a fancy watch or whatever, a car, but I wanted to see the world. And so I thought, “I’m going to just go and I’m going to live in London for three months, then I come back to San Francisco for a month. I’m going to go live in Mexico City for three months and I’m going to just have this life where I’m soaking up experiences.” And after doing that for six months, the thing that I came to realize is that what I care about way more than experiences is relationships. If you’re the person who is constantly on a plane seeking out some new experience, it’s really hard to form and maintain intimate, satisfying relationships.
So I went back to San Francisco, I’m like, “I can’t be all over the world if I want to be engaged with friends and like-minded people.” And you know what people do on Monday morning? They go to work. And so if you want to be engaged with humanity, where they are on Monday morning is at work. And so more than I had the itch to build things, which I do very much have, I had the itch to collaborate, to be in the game with other people. So that was what took me to Snapchat, took me out of chasing experiences and took me back to building again. And then as we’ve already described, at a point I thought, “Well, I care about this collaboration, but maybe it doesn’t need to be software that I’m creating in the world.” And Quibi gave me a chance to fall back in love with that process again. And here we are, more software.
Lenny: Plus being on a board of a hardware company. What you just shared reminds me of Mark Manson’s book, The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck. Have you read this book?
Tom Conrad: I have not.
Lenny: Okay. It sold a bazillion copies, and the core of it is that we get joy out of solving problems and we think we’ll be happy when we have freedom to do nothing. But it turns out freedom is only helpful to help us discover the problems we just want to keep solving.
Tom Conrad: Yeah, totally. I think that’s exactly right. Yeah.
Lenny: It sounds like that’s the experience you went on. Last question, this new segment, I’m going to call Contrarian Corner. And the question is, is there something that you have a contrarian opinion about, something that you believe that most other people don’t?
Tom Conrad: There’s a segment in our industry that believes this very intensely, which is there’s this belief that everybody needs to be a founder. And I think in some ways our industry would be much better off if there were fewer founders. I use an entire category of smart, creative, hardworking, talented, borderline visionary people who can raise that $2 million seed and go off and build some stupid company that’s never going to go anywhere, that would be so much better off finding a team that needs their skillset and working on a problem that has, as I described, the mathematical formula that’s going to win, that has the market opportunity that’s the right size, that has the 10X thinking that can really… And I’m a little biased here because while I am a CEO for the first time now, I’ve never been a founder and I’ve been lucky enough to find a bunch of young teams that could benefit from my skills and enthusiasms, and sometimes to some success and sometimes to some embarrassment, but always really, really interesting.
Yeah. If you’re out there and you think that the only possible way you can be successful in this industry on any metric, whatever metric you care about: you want the acclaim of your peers, you want financial reward, you want any of the things that people aspire to, outside impact on culture, whatever the thing is that gets you out of bed every morning, you can achieve that in collaboration with others. You don’t have to be the person that raises the seed round.
Lenny: I 100% agree with that. I’m always telling people, “Don’t start a company. It’s super painful, very rarely works out. It’s so hard.” I don’t know what’s harder, being a product manager or being a founder, probably being a founder. They’re both very hard.
Tom Conrad: Yeah, it is quite hard too. Yeah. Yeah. And just to be perfectly clear, there’s something really special about founders. At both Pandora and now at Zero, the actual founders have from time to time said, “Well, you’re like a founder.” And I’m like, “I’m nothing like a founder. You took all the risk. When I showed up, there was a team and there was momentum and there was money in the bank. I appreciate your desire to say complimentary things, but ‘You’re like a founder’ is not one that I’ll take.”
Lenny: With that, we’ve reached our very exciting lightning round. Are you ready?
Tom Conrad: I am ready.
Lenny: What are two or three books that you’ve recommended most to other people?
Tom Conrad: I really love Elad Gil’s High Growth Handbook. It’s organized into chapters about foundational company building, building a leadership team, building a board, and in addition to the thoughtful synthesis on that topic from Elad, he has an interview of someone that he does relevant to that section on each of the chapters. Really, really great read and super actionable if you’re a leader in a young company. In a completely different end of the spectrum, I love big, complicated science fiction and there’s a lot of garbage science fiction out there to be sure, but when you find something special, it’s the best. So probably through the years in that category, there’s a book called Hyperion by Dan Simmons. That’s just a total classic. Everybody should read it.
Lenny: I read that. I think I read the first couple in the first one.
Tom Conrad: Yeah. There is a sequel that’s exceptional as well. And it’s probably worth warning your readers that Hyperion is quite long and has an absolute cliffhanger.
Lenny: I think they’re making a show out of it, which is going to be wild. I don’t know how they do a show around that book. I thought you were going to say this other book, A Fire Upon the Deep. Have you heard of this book?
Tom Conrad: Oh, that’s so good too.
Lenny: Okay. That’s also very complicated, but incredible.
Tom Conrad: Yeah, I had completely forgotten about that. That’s a very special book. There’s a couple in that series too.
Lenny: Yeah, I think I only read the first one. Also, Three-Body Problem is the other one that I always think about. It’s come up a couple of times on this podcast. Let’s move on to the next question. Do you have a favorite recent movie or a TV show?
Tom Conrad: I consume a lot of video content, both stuff that I’m very proud to talk about and stuff that I’m less proud to talk about, but I really liked the new Damon Lindelof show that’s on Peacock called Mrs. Davis. So Lindelof, of course, from Lost and the new Watchmen on HBO, and Mrs. Davis is about an AI that you wear in your ear, like the HER AI and a nun that is hell-bent on the AI’s destruction, and it reads like an early Coen brothers movie. It’s super darkly funny and really, really thoughtful and unlike too much streaming, I think it’s seven episodes, and it is a perfectly encapsulated story that has a beginning, middle, and an end and doesn’t need to ever have another episode. It’s amazing. Get yourself a Peacock subscription for at least a month to watch Mrs. Davis.
Lenny: Favorite interview question you like to ask candidates that you’re interviewing?
Tom Conrad: There are two things about interviews. The first is I always encourage people when they’re thinking about their interview questions to take any question that they’re tempted to pull from their own current experience with the goal of trying to, how would this person solve this thing that I’m working through right now? Because just causing the other person to speculate and oftentimes about your own business, I think you know really well that they don’t actually know anything about, it creates this imbalance between the interviewer and the interviewee that feels out of sync with how I think about the collaborative nature of a great interview. So I tell people that almost every interview question should start with, “Tell me about a time in your career when…” to give them permission or to set their expectation that I’m asking them to tell me about something they’ve actually done that is relevant to the topic that I’m probing.
So that’s just a structural thing that I try to do. And then usually towards the end of the interview, I ask almost everybody, “Imagine that you had a really great day at work. What was it that you did on that day?” Because what I’m trying to figure out is left to their own devices, what do they go to naturally because it rewards them? Because I think it’s really important to find the highest best use of everyone you hire. And sometimes you can get a little bit to the bottom of what’s the highest best use if you understand the things where there’s a natural reward mechanism because it’s like, “Well, I had this great day. I’m going to do more of that tomorrow.” “What was the thing?” And it’s just pretty illuminating.
Lenny: Is there a favorite product you’ve recently discovered that you really love?
Tom Conrad: I have bought every pair of headphones on the planet, in part because Apple’s headphones do not stay in my ears. I’ve sneezed one across the room, I’ve lost one down a drainpipe. They don’t stay, none of them, the wired ones, the not wired ones, the in-ear ones, and it’s left me feeling honestly like I am some kind of anatomical freak. I look at other people wearing them, I’m like, “What is going on with their ear that it’s just staying there perfect?” It seems inconceivable to me. Nonetheless, I have a pair of AirPods Pro’s that I want to love and put up with the fact that I’m going to drop them, lose them, sneeze them across the room.
But recently I came across this product from a company called Eartune that they’re replacement tips and they just have the littlest bit of compression foam on them. They don’t make the AirPods so big that they won’t fit in the recharging case or anything, and they work. Miraculously, they stay in my ear. And Apple has this feature called Size Fit or something, go in settings, find your AirPods, scroll all the way down in the settings, and you can run this test where they play some audio and they tell you how good the seal is. And that revealed that my right ear is weirder than my left ear. So I actually have to use different tips in either sizes. Suddenly this sounds like a vaguely disgusting conversation that we’re having. Anyway, I’m just really thrilled about my ability to wear Apple’s AirPods after all these years.
Lenny: I think what we’re learning is you are a mutant, your ears are different. Cool. We’ll link to that product in the show notes.
Tom Conrad: Okay.
Lenny: Do you have a favorite life motto that you often come back to or share with friends, either in work or in life that you find useful?
Tom Conrad: You can’t be a product person without having an eye rolly Charles Eames quote that’s at the center of your existence. And for me, the Charles Eames quote is, “The details are not the details. They make the design.” And I just really absolutely believe that, that the devil is in the details when you’re a product designer and be uninterested in nuance at your peril.
Lenny: Final question. You worked with the creator of the GIF format. How does he pronounce, giff or jiff?
Tom Conrad: Yeah. So before all of this, I worked at a company called CompuServe when I was in high school.
Lenny: CompuServe, I used CompuServe. I didn’t know that. That’s amazing.
Tom Conrad: There was a guy on the team named Steve Wilhite who invented Graphics Interchange Format, GIF, and he was a straight out of central casting, 1960s neck beard programmer type, and the first I had ever encountered and very prickly. And it’s crazy, but at the time, Steve would take all comers in the fight that it was pronounced jiff. Now he’s obviously wrong. It’s obviously pronounced giff. It’s crazy to me now 35 years later, this is still a topic that pops up on the internet every once in a while. It’s somehow like Zelig, I cross paths with the guy who created Graphics Interchange Format and I know his opinion on the topic even though it’s an unpopular one.
Lenny: Got it. So he likes jiff, but you agree it’s giff?
Tom Conrad: It’s definitely giff. It’s obviously giff.
Lenny: Okay, great. We’re on the same page. We’ve decided. Let it be known.
Tom Conrad: Let it be known.
Lenny: Tom, we’ve talked about successes, we’ve talked about failures, mental health, general health, all kinds of awesome stories. Two final questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to reach out and maybe ask some other questions that I didn’t ask, and how can listeners be useful to you?
Tom Conrad: I’m @tconrad on all the socials, from Twitter to Threads to Instagram. My DMs are open everywhere, and I would absolutely be delighted to hear from any of your listeners on any topic that they choose. And what can you do for me? I would love for folks to download Zero and give it a try and send me some feedback about what we’re doing right and what we’re doing wrong, and we’d love to have our little product be part of your life.
Lenny: Awesome. Tom, thank you so much for being here.
Tom Conrad: Thank you.
Lenny: Bye everyone. Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.
Glossary
| English | 中文 |
|---|---|
| 1-Click Personal Radio | 一键个人电台(1-Click Personal Radio) |
| 10X thinking | 十倍思考(10X thinking) |
| A Fire Upon the Deep | 《A Fire Upon the Deep》 |
| AirPods Pro | AirPods Pro |
| Berkeley Systems | Berkeley Systems |
| Brian | Brian |
| Charles Eames | Charles Eames |
| Coda | Coda |
| Coen brothers | 科恩兄弟(Coen brothers) |
| CompuServe | CompuServe |
| contrarian corner | 逆向思维 |
| Damon Lindelof | Damon Lindelof |
| Dan Simmons | Dan Simmons |
| Eartune | Eartune |
| Elad Gil | Elad Gil |
| FP&A | FP&A |
| GIF | GIF |
| Graphics Interchange Format | 图形交换格式(Graphics Interchange Format) |
| HBO | HBO |
| High Growth Handbook | 《High Growth Handbook》 |
| HubSpot | HubSpot |
| Hyperion | 《Hyperion》 |
| Jeffrey Katzenberg | Jeffrey Katzenberg |
| Joe Kennedy | Joe Kennedy |
| John Skelly | John Skelly |
| LAN folders | LAN folders |
| Lane Shackleton | Lane Shackleton |
| Lost | 《Lost》 |
| Mark Manson | Mark Manson |
| Meg Whitman | Meg Whitman |
| Mike Maser | Mike Maser |
| Motorola 68000 CPU | Motorola 68000 CPU |
| Mrs. Davis | 《Mrs. Davis》 |
| NewTV | NewTV |
| Oura Ring | Oura Ring |
| paid user acquisition | 付费获客(paid user acquisition) |
| Pandora | Pandora |
| Peacock | Peacock |
| Power Macintosh | Power Macintosh |
| Power PC | Power PC |
| product stewardship | 产品管理(product stewardship) |
| Quibi | Quibi |
| rapamycin | rapamycin |
| seed round | 种子轮 |
| Size Fit | Size Fit |
| Snap | Snap |
| Sonos | Sonos |
| spring-loaded folders | 弹簧式文件夹 |
| Steve | Steve |
| Steve Wilhite | Steve Wilhite |
| System 7 | System 7 |
| System 8 | System 8 |
| The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck | 《The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck》 |
| Three-Body Problem | 《Three-Body Problem》 |
| Tim Westergren | Tim Westergren |
| vector space | 向量空间(vector space) |
| Watchmen | 《Watchmen》 |
| You Don’t Know Jack | 《You Don’t Know Jack》 |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
在当前的创业热潮中,每个人都渴望成为创始人,但Tom Conrad提出了一个反直觉却极具洞察力的观点:并非所有聪明人都应该去创业,盲目追逐光环往往会导致资源的浪费。作为曾亲历Pets.com和Quibi这两个十亿美元级惨败,又在Pandora取得巨大成功的资深产品人,Conrad在本文中深度剖析了商业模式底层数学公式的重要性。从早年苹果时代一个无心插柳却沿用三十年的“弹簧式文件夹”设计,到如今执掌抗衰老科技公司Zero,他结合自身跌宕起伏的职业生涯,真诚分享了如何理性选择赛道、避开产品与商业的致命陷阱。这不仅是一场关于硅谷兴衰的内部复盘,更是一份写给所有产品人与从业者的清醒指南,引导读者重新思考个人价值与团队协作的真正意义。
十亿美元级别的失败,与十亿美元级别的成功 | Tom Conrad (Quibi, Pandora, Pets.com, Zero)
访谈记录
Tom Conrad: 现在有一种信念,认为每个人都必须成为创始人。我认为,在某些方面,如果创始人少一些,我们的行业处境会好得多。有一大类聪明、有创造力、勤奋、有天赋、近乎有远见的人,他们能筹集到那 200 万美元的种子资金,然后跑去建一些永远不会有结果的愚蠢公司。如果他们能找到一个需要他们技能的团队,去解决一个在各项指标上都有数学公式保证能获胜的问题,情况会好得多。无论你关心什么指标。无论是想要同行的赞誉,还是想要财务回报,亦或是想对文化产生外部影响,无论每天早晨叫醒你的是什么,你都可以通过与他人的合作来实现。你不必非得是那个筹集种子轮(seed round)的人。
主持人: 今天我的嘉宾是 Tom Conrad。Tom 曾是苹果公司的工程师,也是 Pandora 的 CTO,帮助其从零发展到 8000 万用户。他还在 Snap 担任过产品副总裁,作为 Evan Spiegel 的得力助手工作了两年。他在 Sonos 董事会任职超过七年。他也参与过两个臭名昭著的产品失败案例,一个是 Quibi,他在其中担任首席产品官,该公司筹集了超过 20 亿美元,但在推出不到一年后就死掉了。
他也是 Pets.com 的高级工程负责人,这家公司出名地经历了从无到有上市,再到 18 个月内完全倒闭的过程。如今,Tom 是 Zero Longevity Science 的 CEO,该公司的使命是延长人类的寿命和健康寿命。在对话中,我们深入探讨了 Tom 从这些著名的产品失败中学到了什么,以及从许多产品成功中学到了什么。Tom 还分享了关于如何选择工作地点和避免什么的心得。理解商业模式的数学公式有多重要。以及关于职业倦怠、健康、领导力和逆向思维(contrarian corner)的教训。话不多说,为大家带来 Tom Conrad。
苹果岁月与拖放功能的诞生
Lenny: Tom,非常感谢你能来到这里,欢迎来到播客。
Tom Conrad: 谢谢。能参与其中真的很有趣。
Lenny: 我想从你在苹果的时期开始聊起会很有趣,讲讲你构建的那个现在非常普遍的功能,即把东西拖放到文件夹中。我在推特上看到你提到过,或者在某个演讲中听你说过,而且它至今仍然存在。你能分享一下那个故事吗,或许再分享一下你从那次经历中汲取的教训?
Tom Conrad: 当然。让我想想。Macintosh 发布时我 15 岁。我非常清楚地记得我的整个青春期。我唯一想做的就是从俄亥俄州哥伦布市搬到库比蒂诺,然后为苹果工作。我的英雄是那群在 Macintosh 内部签下名字的人。我们拆开第一台 Macintosh 的机箱。你会发现大约 20 个参与 Mac 开发的人的签名。那真的是我唯一的抱负。
那是一个没人想为苹果工作的时期。这不是一件顺理成章的事。今天看来也许有点理所当然,但在当时,这绝对不是一个显而易见的志向。不管怎样,我上了大学。这就是我想做的一切。我在密歇根大学学习计算机工程,当我们谈论我的职业生涯时,我会一次又一次地说,一件难以置信的幸运事发生了。我职业生涯中发生的第一个极其幸运的事,大概是密歇根大学恰好是苹果招聘的据点之一。
我选学校时并不知道这一点,但这使得联系到苹果的招聘经理变得相当容易。我写了一封真正的信,装进一个真正的信封,投进邮筒,然后得到了一个实习机会,开着我爸的庞蒂亚克从中西部开到了加州。度过了一个夏天的实习期,在实习的最后一天,我真正在思考我回来后想做什么。希望毕业后能回到苹果。
我参与了一个最终发布的产品。它叫 QuickDraw GX。那是 Mac 早期的第二代渲染系统。那个夏天我一直是那个团队的实习生。但我真正想做的是参与 Finder 的开发。这是全世界我唯一真正想做的事。我找到 Finder 团队的经理 Ron Lichty,对他说:“我 10 个月后毕业。我很想加入你的团队。”
我觉得他当时的反应是,你怎么现在来找我?你明天明明就要回密歇根了。五月我回到密歇根,电话响了,Ron 说:“大学招聘部门刚告诉我,我有一个大学招聘名额,如果明天之前不用掉,我就失去了它。”他说:“我甚至不能面试你,你也不能见团队,但对我来说你基本上是免费的。你想要这份工作吗?”
弹簧式文件夹功能
Tom Conrad: 简直是极其幸运的时刻,我得到了这份工作。1992 年夏天我来到苹果,脑子里有一长串我想做的事,想让 Finder 更好用。我记得坐在 Ron 的办公室里说:“在杂货店,当你提着几袋杂货往外走时,门会自动为你打开?我觉得 Finder 也应该做同样的事。当你拖动一个图标,想把它放进一个文件夹时,你应该能够将鼠标悬停在文件夹图标上,然后向下钻入文件系统,直达你的目的地。然后当你放下文件时,在你和你的起点与终点之间打开的所有文件夹都会自动为你关闭。”Ron 认为这是个好主意,那就是苹果当年的运作方式。我就直接离开去开始写代码了。到了一天深夜,凌晨两点在苹果,没有其他人在,我到了需要某种动画来指示文件夹即将打开的阶段。
我当然不是动画师,我也肯定不会在半夜做出什么深思熟虑的东西。我只是写了一些让文件夹闪烁的代码,就像选中、取消选中、选中、取消选中重复了五次,然后想,哦,我会发邮件给一位非常有才华的视觉设计师,做一些更有趣的东西。长话短说,苹果终于在四年后发布了那个功能。它在源代码仓库里躺了很久,而我们都在做其他事情。当它四年后发布时,它闪烁了五次。时钟快进六七年,Mac plus 10 问世,全新的 Finder 从头重写。到处都看不到 spring-loaded folders。人们抱怨这件事。它被重新实现了。所有的代码,全是新的。当你将鼠标悬停在它上面时,文件夹会闪烁五次。时钟再快进十年,iOS 出现了,他们添加了文件夹。当你拖动图标时,它会闪烁几次。除了可能关于某些事情之外,我不确定这个故事的重点是什么,我认为作为设计师和产品人员,我们都会这样做。我们采取了这些我们认为以后会回去清理的捷径。有时候,整整 30 年过去了,那个小设计细节在经历了三次实现后依然存在,现在它只是这些苹果产品运作方式的一部分。相当离奇。
Lenny: 你说话的时候,我现在正用 Mac 录制这段内容,我刚刚试了一下,只是想确认它还在那里,它确实还在那里。我觉得它闪烁了三次,然后就自动为你打开了。
Tom Conrad: 就是如此。
Lenny: 全职工程师能从他们构建的、在我们产品中延续下来的功能中获得版税。
Tom Conrad: 好的,我只再告诉你一件小事,让你对 1992 年 Finder 是什么样有个时间概念。我们没有拿到版税,但我们的名字在“关于”框里。你会去“关于 Finder”,我们七个人,苹果有七个工程师参与了这个 Finder 的开发。我们的名字会在 Finder 旁边滚动,版权 1992,云云,一个名字接一个名字。完全不同的时代。
Lenny: 感觉就像你得到了你想要的,名字被写在了主板上。
Tom Conrad: 当然。我得到了很多我小时候想要的东西。
选择工作场所的建议
Lenny: 沿着同样的思路,我想谈谈选择去哪里工作。很明显,你有一种直觉,想去苹果工作。在你的职业生涯中,你落脚过很多非常成功的地方。你也落脚过一些非常著名的失败企业,我们稍后会谈到。基于你的经验,你会给人们什么建议,帮助他们选择去哪里工作?
Tom Conrad: 当我还是个孩子的时候,我想在苹果工作的抱负完全是因为产品,所以那个版本的我可能会说,找一个你充满热情的产品,把你的时间和精力花在那上面。很快你就会学到,你的成长和日常满足感很大程度上来自于你有幸与之合作的人。你能从他们身上学到东西吗?你喜欢他们吗?他们是否以正确的方式挑战你?他们是否在正确的方面给予你自由度?这不仅仅是做什么,还有和谁一起做的问题。在很长的一段时间里,我的建议完全属于生活范畴,找到你热爱的东西,和你认为很棒的人在一起,剩下的事情自然会迎刃而解。有趣的是,我有幸在一些指标上取得成功的事情上,被谈论得最多,庞大的受众,巨大的财务回报等等。我也参与过一些真正著名的灾难级项目。当我回顾我的职业生涯,思考我做过的事情时,我的职业满足感与那些外部指标并不怎么相关,而是与“我是否热爱我们正在构建的东西”以及“我是否热爱和我一起工作的人”高度一致。
判断团队与识人
Lenny: 顺着人的话题说下去。我觉得最难的事情之一是,在加入之前真正了解这些人是什么样的。我认为作为加入的首席产品官或产品副总裁,你会花很多时间与团队在一起。大多数人不会。他们参加了一次面试,然后就想,好吧,我得做一个决定了。关于如何帮助人们判断这些人是否是他们想共事的那种人,你有什么建议吗?
Tom Conrad: 我认为人们非常、非常擅长这个。每一次我接受了一份工作,结果却发现我在和与我有一套不同价值观或工作风格的人共事时,我其实都是知道的。你会告诉自己,至少在我的情况下,我会给自己编个故事,解释为什么我怀疑可能是那样的事情其实不是那样。但是你在个人生活中一直都在做这种事。你出去吃晚饭遇到人,所以你在某个行业活动或其他场合被安排坐在他们旁边,有时你回到家对你的伴侣说,天哪,坐在我旁边的那个人简直糟透了。然后有时你会觉得,我想我和这个刚好坐在我旁边的完全陌生的人建立了一种终生联系。
著名的失败经历
Lenny: 这是一个非常简单的建议,我认为人们没有完全体会到,那就是相信你的直觉,相信你的直觉感受。只要注意当你和某个公司的人在一起时你的感受是什么。好吧,你提到了“著名的灾难”这个词组,我想谈谈这个。你在产品公司两个最著名的灾难中工作过,pets.com 和 Quibi。我觉得很少有人能在一个公司里看到内部如此多的炒作,然后又看到如此惨烈的跌落。我只想在这两个方面花点时间。也许切入的方式是,从这两次经历中,你分别带走了什么教训运用到了未来的工作中,也许还有你分享给人们的建议?
Tom Conrad: 可能最大的教训是,它其实不关乎业务的具体细节。最大的教训真的是这些东西让你变得更好。在某些情况下,实际上,我认为在这两种情况下,它们都成了多米诺骨牌,为我自己的抱负和职业生活打开了大门,如果我没有去那些公司,没有学到那些东西,没有那些经历,这些门也许根本就不会打开。坦白说,即使是 pets.com 的情况,甚至是它的高调性质。
1999年我本可以去成千上万个电商网站中的任何一个工作。当我去参加后续的求职面试之类,谈起我的经历时,他们会说,我从没听说过你做过的那个东西。但大家肯定都听说过pets.com。这也是一个相当有趣的例子,说明有些挣扎是超越时代的。那已经是23、24年前的事了,当然,作为领导团队,我敢肯定我们犯了各种各样的错误。
发生的一件事是,当时有三家资金过剩的宠物电商网站。我们每家都筹集了超过5000万美元,这在现在是一笔巨款,在当时更是一笔巨款。我们都认为这是一场零和博弈。当一个参与者开始花钱做推广,或者不理性地在全国广播电视广告上砸钱时,我们也都照做了。这变成了一场无法取胜的军备竞赛。我认为,这里有一个根本的教训,那就是资金过剩本身就是一种沉重的负担,或者会促使你做出可能并不明智的决定。
当然,还有就是时机真的非常重要。Chewy是如今价值90亿美元的在线宠物商店。他们曾是一家私营公司,被PetSmart收购,随后又被剥离出来。但当PetSmart收购他们时,斥资30亿美元,这是有史以来最大的一笔电商收购案。不过,我认为把Chewy拿来比较可能不太公平,因为他们在十多年里执行得极其出色,一步一个脚印地发展业务,并将其变成了一个真正非凡的成就。而pets.com则处于一个非常、非常不同的时代,并尝试以一种截然不同的方式推向市场。当时经常对pets.com提出的批评是,这只是一门愚蠢的生意。他们到处运送狗粮,你永远不可能让这行得通。这种说法完全错误。你绝对可以让它行得通。但当这个国家80%的网民还在使用拨号上网时,你大概没法让它行得通。那真的、真的太早了。
Lenny: 我看到一个数据,我想你应该在某个地方分享过,你把pets.com从无到有变成一家上市公司,再到彻底倒闭,只用了19个月。
Tom Conrad: 是的,我想大概差不多。这个故事中常被遗忘的另一件事是,我们实际上并没有破产。我们关闭了公司,并将剩余的资金退还给了投资者,这是以前没有任何一家上市公司做过的。领导团队只是得出结论,鉴于市场条件的演变,我们根本不可能再为公司筹集到更多资金。这是一家需要额外投资才能实现盈利的公司。与其把每一分钱都花在徒劳的挽救尝试上,不如尽早清算,把我们在银行里的钱拿回来还给投资者。
转折点:加入 Quibi
Lenny: 这个我倒不知道。我们来谈谈Quibi吧。那里出了什么问题?你认为Quibi有走通的可能吗?你从那次经历中带走了什么至今受用的重大教训吗?
Tom Conrad: 对我来说,Quibi的神奇之处在于它重新点燃了我对这个行业、对这份工作的热情。我是在2018年12月左右离开的,当时我想也许我做完软件了。我做这行已经很久了,大概25年左右。我变了很多,行业也变了很多。我想也许我只是没有了十年前对它的那种热情。当时看来,开启一个完全不同的人生新篇章似乎也很有趣。我列了一整张清单,写着我觉得可能想做的事。它们都很荒谬。比如也许我想当个糕点师。也许我想当个风景摄影师。也许我想学着做点烂音乐发到SoundCloud上什么的。它们唯一的共同点就是,全都是我完全不懂的事。人们会问:“哦,你觉得你想当糕点师?你喜欢烘焙吗?”我会说:“不,我对烘焙一无所知。”“哦,你喜欢风景摄影。你拍照吗?”“不,我不拍照。”但我对这个人设很坚持,实际上到了Techwrench就我离开Snapchat一事采访我时,我表示,我退出了,我要去做完全不同的事情。这个故事现在广为人知。但在我离开Snap的最后一天几个月后,我接到了Meg Whitman和Jeffrey Katzenberg的电话,他们当时正在创业,项目还叫New TV。
他们的游说是,我们要尝试把移动端、硅谷和消费科技的精华,与好莱坞风格内容制作的精华融合在一起。去构建一个完全定制化、专为手机端消费而生的产品。他们同时在寻找技术负责人和产品负责人,想知道我是否有兴趣担任其中一个或两个职位。我同意见面了,尽管我当时并没有真的接听任何人的这类电话,但这感觉就像是,谁会放弃和这两个人共进午餐的机会呢?我听了他们的游说,礼貌地拒绝了,并告诉他们我打算去当糕点师什么的。在接下来的七个月里,我们每隔一两个月就会重复一次这种流程。我们会去吃午饭,他们会向我通报他们取得的进展,然后我会拒绝他们让我以某种方式参与的邀请。到了那年晚些时候,我又去吃了一次午饭,Meg解释说他们已经请了一个人来领导技术,又请了另一个人来领导产品。他们两人真正离开的原因,其实与Quibi本身完全无关。他们都在大约六周后离开了。Meg说:“我们融了这么多钱,也向世界宣布了大约一年内要发布这款产品。我们有太多事情要做,我真的需要一些帮助。如果你能过来每周花个两三天帮帮忙,我会把它当作个人的人情。”她还说:“我会继续寻找真正想要这份工作的人,但如果你能帮我把它起步,那就太好了。”我的妻子是一名自由撰稿人、营销策略师,她很享受作为自由撰稿人的生活。她说:“你应该做这个。为什么不呢?每周就两天。也就几个月。最坏的情况能是什么?说不定你会喜欢呢?”我说:“不。结果肯定是这样的。我不会只做一周两天的。它会立刻变成三天,然后四天,然后五天,然后六天。我太了解我自己了。”
她说:“不。”她说:“只要在周三晚上六点,合上你的Quibi笔记本电脑,告诉自己,他们付钱给我只是为了周二和周三,然后等周二早上再打开它。你只需要做到这些就好。”好吧,她在大多数事情上都是对的,但在这件事上她错了。我立刻就深深陷了进去。从零开始组建团队,从零开始设计和构建一个产品,这真的太有趣了。去利用自从我们创立Pandora以来的15年间涌现的所有现代软件架构技术。对于Quibi发生的一些事情我确实感到尴尬,但我对这次经历超级感激。我真的又一次爱上了这个行业,并再次体会到,去构建一些东西并努力将其推向世界是何等有成就感,即使你在沿途跌得非常惨重。
Lenny: 从那次经历中,你有没有带回来什么教训,让你知道以后该尽量避免什么?又该尽量追求什么?
商业本质的数学等式
Tom Conrad: 我有时会因为过于关注产品执行而误解或误判公司。如果你找到一个人们关心的有趣问题,并用一种非常优美、优雅、令人愉悦的方式解决它,比他们在同一领域得到的任何其他东西都要好十倍,他们就会告诉朋友,剩下的一切都会水到渠成。这始终是我的抱负。找到一件我关心构建的东西,以令人愉悦的方式出色地完成构建。非常深入地倾听人们及其反馈,通过迭代走向成功,突破我们都渴望跨越的那层膜,即真正出色的口碑。但我认为我逐渐更好地认识到的一点是,公司也像一个数学问题,它描述了你如何将投资倒入等式,而在另一端在某个时间范围内产生回报。
确实,这个等式中有一些变量会受到你构建的产品以及你为打造该产品所做的所有细节和决策的影响。但如果这个等式从根本上就是错的,或者其本身就是一个巨大的冒险,那么再多的迭代和执行也无法让你摆脱错误等式带来的失败结果。我认为Quibi打了一个赌,认为你可以花费几十亿美元构建一个完全定制化的内容库,并且规模大到足以让人们订阅并留存。这是一笔巨款。但我们在18个月内制作了70档节目,这比所有主要广播电视网络在一年内制作的内容总和还要多,这是一个相当了不起的成就。我们打赌,我们将会用一批以广播电视网和夜间新闻等水平制作的每日内容,来补充那些剧集式的、连续剧式的或好莱坞风格的节目,这将作为你在YouTube上可能获取的某些每日内容的替代品,而这将占内容支出的约三分之一。
一个没人谈论的超级有趣的事情是,所有这些内容都被设计为在播出当天或前一天制作的,所以没有它的存档库。而且它们全都被设计为在我们建成的专业演播室里拍摄。这真的非常昂贵,就像我说的,它大约是我们计划用于内容投资的三分之一,几乎是我们计划用于内容投资的一半。我们在新冠疫情爆发两周后推出,我们无法制作任何这类内容,除了真的在主持人家的车库里制作。所以我们有这样一个本应看起来与YouTube截然不同的东西,现在却实实在在地被制作成了完全像YouTube的内容,这有点像是在家里自制,几乎没有好莱坞的支持基础设施。现在,你可能会争辩说,我认为YouTube在这个类别上的内容真的非常非常出色,也许我们永远不可能做得比那更好。
但我认为Quibi真正从根本上出问题的地方在于这个实际的基础等式:你能否制作出足够的、完全定制化的、为该服务制作的、并利用手机特性的高级内容,这些内容足以让人们注册并留存,并且你能否在几十亿美元内做到这一点?我认为答案是否定的。内容库必须大得多,而且你必须像任何公司一样,有足够的时间和精力对内容格式本身进行迭代,因为我们的路线图真的很想在内容格式上进行创新。因此我认为发生的一部分事情是,很快就很清楚,这个算术完全错了。它不会只花20亿,它将花费60亿、80亿或100亿。而在这种格式上押注100亿的风险回报特征,是任何人都无法承受的。
Lenny: 哇。我真的很喜欢这个隐喻,以及把整个业务看作一个数学公式的这种心智模型,并这样去思考它。我知道新冠疫情改变了人们消费内容的方式,这也造成了伤害。我认为Quibi本意是供移动中使用的,而不是坐在家里想看什么就看什么。而且内容也无法像你们希望的那样被精良地制作出来。
Tom Conrad: 是的,毫无疑问。
Lenny: 作为首席产品官,最大的挑战之一是提出异议,试图说服创始人他们的错误,做他们想做的事,有时只能硬着头皮去应对它。我想知道回过头看,有没有什么是你觉得你本可以做的?还是说这个数学公式从一开始就注定失败,无论你做什么,它很可能都不会成功?
好莱坞营销与硅谷现实
Tom Conrad: 我们的赌注之一是,我们不仅要用好莱坞的机器来制作内容。在某种程度上,我们将利用好莱坞的机器来营销内容。所以Jeffrey Katzenberg招募了这令人难以置信的名录,字面意义上世界上最著名的名人来为Quibi制作节目。我们基本上让每个人要么为发布制作了东西,要么将要制作东西。而他们要做的一部分事情就是出现在文化视野中,谈论他们的节目。在过去六个月里,我们听说了很多关于营销电影有多难,因为在罢工期间明星们不能出来谈论电影。有一种理论认为,你可以将好莱坞的营销技术应用于Quibi,在首周末让2000万、3000万人进入“剧院”。我一直认为这是一个非常、非常大胆的观点。Uber拥有世界上所有的钱来试验付费用户获取,但他们并没有始终如一地成为应用商店下载量前10的应用。但是Quibi的理论,Quibi的算术,确实要求我们从第一天起就进入前10名并永远留在那里。如果我们能做到这一点,这个模型就会奏效。而对于好莱坞的营销机器来说,达到那个目标所需的数字感觉有点少。如果你能让2000万人在首映之夜来看《怪物史莱克》这样的新IP,你肯定能让他们从口袋里拿出手机,下载这个东西,并开始免费试用。现在,我们这些在硅谷度过一生制作软件,并真正、真正试图让人们大量出现并下载新IP的人,都知道这有多难。
所以,也许如果我来批评自己对那个数学公式的贡献,也许我应该在这一点上更强烈地敲响警钟:我们能够在第一个月获得模型所需要的那种分发渠道,这是多么不可能。如果我必须回过头重新做一次,我想我可能会花更多时间来投资和阐明数字宇宙的这一方面。
Lenny: 这是一个非常好的经验教训,就是向领导者展示,这是数据,这是我们都押注的假设,你相信这会发生吗?而他们可能会说,“是的,这会发生。我非常有信心。”
Tom Conrad: 让这件事变得困难的是,它在结构上并非不可能。如果你必须比有史以来制作过的任何应用都大,那么你大概可以说这是不可能的。但既然你只需要进入前10名,你就不能完全说这是不可能的,你只能说它是极不可能的。
Tom Conrad: 也许我的一个错误是,我设想我们会发布应用,然后当大概率发生的事情发生时——我们确实让数百万人下载了这款应用——接着当我们不可避免地难以高比例留住这些用户时,我们达到了我认为的行业良好起步留存率,但并没有创下留存记录。我只是设想接下来会发生的事情就是所有年轻公司都会经历的事情,那就是迭代。你会去死磕漏斗,直到一年后、两年后、六个月后,无论多久。你最终会找出把人引进来、让他们留下来并保持留存的公式。
而我没能意识到的是,你会这么快地回到基础数学面前,然后数学真的告诉你,你做不到。你不能像在具有不同成本结构的初创公司那样,花两年时间迭代来优化漏斗。在一个你每年必须花费十亿美元制作内容的世界里,你根本承担不起不成为爆款的代价。
Lenny: 我认为同样重要的是提醒我们,发生这些事情是没关系的。人们下了赌注,正如你所说,我们要尝试这件事,这是我们的赌注,这是我们的实验。我们在这个业务上押注这种格式。我们要从投资者那里筹集资金,而他们知道可能会失去所有的钱。有时事情就是行不通。这是游戏的一部分。
Tom Conrad: 从投资者那里拿钱,即使他们知道自己做的是什么,却没有给他们带来回报,这无疑是痛苦的。我对投资者感到一种真正的责任,觉得我们应该比在 Quibi 做得更好。但是的,我的意思是,这些投资伴随着风险回报的考量,他们之所以能在上行时获得所有丰厚回报的部分原因,就是他们在沿途也会押注一些像 Quibi 这样的项目。
NewTV的招募邮件
Lenny: 就在刚才你讲的时候,你说它原来叫 NewTV,这唤起了一段记忆,于是我去搜索了我的邮件。我其实在2018年收到了一封猎头发来的邮件:“我们刚刚启动了一个非常特别的高管机会,NewTV 的 CPO,这是洛杉矶的一个新风险项目,由 Jeffrey Katzenberg 和 Meg Whitman 领衔,融资十亿美元,与顶级人才合作。你有兴趣探索这个机会吗?”
Tom Conrad: Lenny,Lenny,Lenny。你的故事本可以完全不同。
Lenny: 这本来可能就是 Thomas 的播客了。“Lenny,告诉我 Quibi 到底发生了什么。”
Tom Conrad: 我会免费接下那个的。
Lenny: 我不知道。这有利有弊。他们甚至发来了这整份 PDF,“你口袋里的电视,NewTV”。太棒了。好吧。我要通读一下这个,看看他们当年到底推销的是什么。
值得瞩目的成功经验
好了,让我们转向那些进展非常顺利的事情,我们称之为值得瞩目的成功吧,也就是你参与过的那些表现出色的其他产品。我会列出其中的几个。也许更有帮助的做法是,我们逐一过一遍,分享你从那次经历中收获了什么,也就是你从做那些产品中学到的教训。我想到的有 Snap、Pandora,如果愿意往前追溯的话还有苹果。另外,你制作了——我不太清楚你在那里具体做了什么——但你参与了《You Don’t Know Jack》,那款我很喜欢的游戏。我想如果你是年长一点的千禧一代,你会直接说,“天哪,我太爱那个游戏了。”我甚至记不清它的具体细节了,但我只记得玩那个游戏时那种发自内心的感觉,太好玩了。所以这很酷。我不知道你参与了那个游戏。然后还有 Sonos,你在它的董事会里。所以,按你认为最有趣的顺序,过一遍这些产品,你从那段经历中学到了什么?
在苹果的跨职能经历
Tom Conrad: 我在苹果工作的时候,正好是 Steve 离开的那个阶段,John Skelly 之类的那段时期,所以是 System 7、System 8、Power Macintosh,整个那个时代。我们做了很多事情。我们发布了许多出色的硬件。我们将公司从 Motorola 68000 CPU 过渡到了 Power PC 架构。但是,特别是在那次过渡期间,我们在交付消费者软件功能方面真的非常挣扎。我提到过,我在苹果的前六个月里写了三个 LAN folders 和其他一些消费者功能,而它们在四年后才发布,实际上是在我离开公司之后。坦白说,我甚至有点惊讶它们居然还留在软件仓库里。
但我会告诉你,那个时候苹果在文化上的一点是,至少我感觉是,如果一个人能够跨职能做出广泛的贡献,他是真的会得到奖励的。所以,如果你是一个有才华的软件工程师,同时也是一个深思熟虑的产品设计师,也许还能在产品营销方面提出有趣的见解,你就可以通过每天在所有这些位置上稍微发挥一点作用,在公司内部建立起非常好的声誉。因此,当我在四年后离开苹果时,我回顾我的时间,我没有像我希望的那样发布了那么多软件,我感觉自己有点像一个专业的横跳者。我宽六英里,却只有一厘米深。
《You Don’t Know Jack》与深钻的价值
然后我去了一家叫 Berkeley Systems 的公司工作。除了《You Don’t Know Jack》之外,他们还做了一个会飞的烤面包机屏幕保护程序,如果你还记得的话。你记得九十年代吗?
Lenny: 怎么可能忘得了呢?
Tom Conrad: 当我见到他们时,他们正在为这个问答游戏进行游戏开发,并且在寻找一个人来领导技术团队。所以我作为《You Don’t Know Jack》系列的技术总监加入了,管理着一个工程师团队,那是一种与我习惯的苹果完全不同的文化。我当然可以对游戏设计或营销或交付物的其他方面发表意见,但我的工作就是按时高质量地构建软件,仅此而已。如果我做到了这些,我就会得到奖励。如果我没做到,我就不会成功。无论我对游戏玩法或包装等我想做的任何其他事情提出多少有见地的反馈,都根本不会对我个人的职业生涯有任何好处。
被迫在某一件事上深入钻研真是一种福分,因为我花了很多时间来培养作为工程经理的技能,但我也写了大量的软件。说实话,那才是我真正成为一名软件工程师的时候。我的大学教育不足以让我达到那个水平,我在苹果写的软件数量也不足以让我达到那个水平。但我从 Berkeley Systems 的《You Don’t Know Jack》经历中走出来时,感觉自己真的能够在技术上独当一面了,这在以前是绝不会发生的。因此,我确实认为,有一种文化是值得称道的,那就是有明确的泳道,并且鼓励人们在自己的泳道里做到真正的、真正的卓越。所以我真的觉得自己很幸运,能在那个时候偶然撞进了《You Don’t Know Jack》。
而且,我的意思是,这也是我参与过的第一件在几年内拥有巨大文化认知度的事情。我是说,这太疯狂了,他们还在出续作。已经快30年了,《You Don’t Know Jack》的版本存在于所有的商店里,PlayStation 商店、Xbox 商店、iOS 商店。直到今天,你还可以玩到新版本的《You Don’t Know Jack》。太疯狂了。
Lenny: 以前不知道这个。我现在看了他们的网站,有点不同了,但基本还是一样的。
Tom Conrad: 所以我想说,我从《You Don’t Know Jack》得到的教训绝对是,真正在某件事上变得擅长是会有回报的,而不仅仅是做一个通才。
而且,我的意思是 Pandora,它并不是紧接着发生的那件事。在《You Don’t Know Jack》之后是 Pets.com,然后在 Pets.com 之后,行业进入了核冬天,我做了一阵子企业软件。核冬天之后,我产生了一个想法,要在网络上建立一个发现音乐的站点。我当时一直在做企业软件,而在那些年,也就是世纪初,面向消费者的互联网几乎是不存在的。
但到了2004年左右,情况开始有点解冻,你开始听到后来我们称之为 Web 2.0 的公司的最初迹象,Flickr 算是早期的例子之一。我做过的企业软件之一是一个使用向量空间(vector space)的个性化推荐引擎。这就像我们现在在 AI 领域讨论的很多东西一样,只不过是在20年前。
所以我对企业领域的推荐系统有所了解,而且我对音乐极其狂热。我不是音乐家,但在大学里我是那种会把你堵在角落里跟你说,哦,如果你喜欢这个乐队,我必须得放给你听,然后用立体声音响一直放,直到你求着离开的那种孩子。
所以我有了这样一个想法,也许我可以用互联网来大规模地做这件事,不是只针对一个人,而是针对几十万甚至可能几百万人。向他们介绍他们会喜欢但本来会错过的音乐。
在 Coachella 的偶遇
我之前说过要在职业生涯中的运气方面讲些故事,这样的例子有成千上万。但其中一个非常戏剧性的例子是,我当时在等待时机,想以一种负责任的方式离开这家企业软件公司。我是工程副总裁,有一个完整的团队向我汇报。我觉得有责任以负责任的方式离开。但我对我即将创办的这家数字音乐公司感到非常兴奋。但我完全没有告诉任何人,因为我不想让这件事传回团队耳朵里。
所以在2004年春天,我飞到洛杉矶去参加 Coachella 音乐节,在马球场极其偶然地撞见了一个我高中的同学,我已经十年没见过他了。我们在高中时的共同点就是我们都热爱音乐。所以我把这个故事告诉了他,我要创办一家在互联网上做个性化数字音乐的公司。他说,我工作的公司有个女同事刚辞职搬到奥克兰,去了一家叫 Savage Beast 的小公司,他们也在做音乐推荐方面的东西。你想和他们谈谈吗?我说:“当然,为什么不呢?”
于是我认识了 Savage Beast 的创始人 Tim Westergren。Savage Beast 当时大约有七八名全职员工。他们做了一个音乐推荐引擎,授权给其他公司放在消费品中。所以 Savage Beast 的客户是 Best Buy,把它放在了自助服务站里,还有 AOL,用在了 AOL Music 网站上。他们当时正在寻找一位工程副总裁。我拿到了录用通知,考虑了一下。我拒绝了,因为这有点像 B2B2C 的模式,而我真的很想做面向消费者的东西,而且我对这个应用有想法。
一个月后,他们又打来电话说:“我们一直在面试别人。我们真的认为你就是合适的人选。”有趣的是,他们认为我是合适人选的原因之一是,他们对我在 Pets.com 负责工程管理的经历印象深刻。所以我的意思是,这就是那种即使是一场灾难,也能带来回报的事情。
Pandora 的诞生与运营
坦白说,我当时的决定简直像是一时糊涂,尽管那不是我想要打造的产品,我还是答应了。我就不拿所有细节来烦你了,但90天后,在经历了一些典型的早期创始人戏剧性事件后,创始的技术和产品负责人辞职了,这和我的到来完全无关。公司有了一位新的 CEO,Joe Kennedy,Joe 有一个他称之为一键个人电台(1-Click Personal Radio)的想法。Joe 是一位产品营销人员,而且是全世界最棒的 CEO。我们花了10年时间一起打造 Pandora。
他基本上把钥匙交给了我,只是说:“只要符合一键个人电台的需求说明,它就是你的了。”在接下来的10年里,我与他和创始人 Tim 合作,得以建立团队和文化,一切都非常好。
所以我的意思是,关于 Pandora 有无数的经验教训,我作为产品负责人和后来的工程负责人的所有一切,都来自于在 Pandora 发生的事情。但也许我首先想到的是,我认为我们以一种难以置信的真实方式接触了我们的早期受众。例如,当我们发布时,support@pandora.com 是 all@pandora.com 的别名。所以如果你向 Pandora 发送客户服务请求,公司里的每个人都会收到。
真诚的用户互动
因为我们在第一年做出了不设客户支持团队的决定,所以预期是任何最先看到请求的人都应该回复它。所以你写信给我们,可能会收到创始人的回复,或者我的回复,或者编写该功能的工程师的回复,或者是 CEO 的回复。没有用于回复常见问题的宏。没有“请阅读常见问题解答”。也没有关于你能说什么和不能说什么的规定。
如果那个人说,“我觉得这个功能很蠢而且坏了”,我们会鼓励人们说,“你知道吗?我觉得你是对的,而我正非常努力地想让我们那个愚蠢的产品负责人同意我的看法。我会抄送 Tom,也许我们能说服他这是个糟糕的决定。”我们这样做,是因为我们认为作为一家年轻公司,我们的超能力之一就是我们可以作为真实的人类与受众互动,而不是作为一个试图成为我们永远无法成为的那种光鲜亮丽的品牌。在这个时期,iPod 和 iTunes 正处于它们力量的巅峰。所以在品牌方面,我们根本不可能超越 Apple。
所以我们就是我们自己,我认为这确实、确实成为了围绕 Pandora 发展起来的口碑的催化剂。我们在付费获客(paid user acquisition)上从来没有花过一分钱,我在那里的整个期间确实一分钱都没花,因为人们喜欢这个产品,他们把它告诉了朋友,它就是这样发展起来的。
Lenny: 我看到一个数据,你把 Pandora 从0增长到8000万用户,从10名员工增长到3000名员工,基本上从0做到了一家价值数十亿美元的公司。
Tom Conrad: 我们做到了这些。我们做到了。
另外,我认为我的产品管理(product stewardship)在某种程度上为 Spotify 敲开数字流媒体的大门并把我们也请了出去铺平了道路。所以 Pandora,再说一次,能够参与一个每个月触及并继续触及数千万人生活的东西,是一种特权。但从这个角度来看,这多少有些苦乐参半,因为我认为我们曾拥有一个在某些方面被我们错失的机会。
Lenny: 我妈妈仍然是 Pandora 的超级粉丝,无论选什么,她每天都会用。
Tom Conrad: 我的意思是,它还在继续。数据上,美国每个月仍有数千万人收听。所以它依然存在。但是,是的,它并没有后来出现的其他一些东西那样的持久力,这有点令人伤感。
Lenny: 就在这个话题上,你认为你或者其他人本可以做些什么吗?你认为曾经有机会成为 Spotify 吗?还是说商业模式和数学公式被设定成了一种几乎不可能的方式?
Tom Conrad: 对 Pandora 来说,困难之一在于我们起步时,数字音乐是一个没有投资者愿意涉足的领域。那里只有诉讼,无利可图,与唱片公司的关系也完全无法培养,并且从未出现过重大的成功退出。我记得我们刚开始时,数字音乐领域最大的退出案例是雅虎以大约 4 亿美元收购了 Musicmatch。因此,那被视为这个行业机会的天花板。在此过程中,我们找到了相信我们愿景的投资者,在公司上市前的那些年里最终向公司投资了数亿美元。但是,无论是对我们公司还是对这个领域,投资者的热情从未像仅仅六七年后 Spotify 所享受到的那样,也不像 Snap 在其上市前阶段所享受到的那样。
Spotify 的资本优势与对标逻辑
Tom Conrad: 我认为 Spotify 的不同之处部分在于,他们的可比公司不一样…… Musicmatch 是 4 亿,Pandora 是 80 亿,但再往上还有 1000 亿的 Netflix。因此,投资者对订阅和流媒体业务能做些什么产生了一种新的乐观情绪。Spotify 真正利用了这一点为自己谋利,而我们却做不到,因为我们已经上市了,公开市场投资者仍在努力摸透我们。所以我们无法获得资本,很难采取与 Spotify 相同的冒险举措。
误判广播市场与流媒体必然性
Tom Conrad: 但我认为我们在一件非常重要的事情上完全误判了,那就是我们真的受到了颠覆地面广播的启发。地面广播是这个国家音乐消费的主要形式。人们花费的时间,具体数据我记不清了,但按消费分钟数计算,在零零年代和一零年代早期,人们在广播上每月消费的音乐分钟数大约是个人拥有音乐的 10 倍。广告支持的广播市场是一个 300 亿美元的类别,而录制音乐是 80 亿美元。因此我们有一种想法,我们要重新发明广播,而 Spotify、Rdio、Apple Music 以及其他十几家公司,还有作为 Spotify 前身的 Rhapsody,它们都将去追逐那个较小的个人拥有录制音乐的机会,而我们可以在相对不受打扰的情况下,去追求那个不那么性感但实际上更大的市场。我认为我们完全错了。很明显,不可避免的是,你所有的音乐,无论什么格式,最终都将作为云端的流媒体传输。特别是唱片公司,它们将决定这种结构的条款。而他们偏好的结构就是 Spotify 的结构。
Tom Conrad: 我们是在一种不同的许可制度下运作的,一种他们非常讨厌的、我们从政府那里获得的法定许可。对于我们来说,摆脱法定许可并与唱片公司直接交易将是极其冒险的,但这是参与他们想象中、也是我们本应想象中的未来世界的前提条件。最终,公司还是着手去做了,但为时已晚。
“早产”的商业设想与 Quibi 的重演
Lenny: 有趣的是,这些很大程度上都根植于你最初分享的 Pandora 愿景,即口袋里的智能广播、个人广播,即使存在另一条轨道,你依然坚持在那条轨道上。但我认为需要指出的是,你说是七年后。我觉得在你工作过的公司中有一个有趣的趋势,pets.com 和 Pandora,就是太早了,你只是在这些想法上出现得太早了。我觉得这告诉我 Quibi 可能仍然会发生。七年后会有一个 Quibi 出现。
Tom Conrad: 你知道这有什么真正好笑的吗?就在今天,有一条关于好莱坞制作的节目在 Instagram Reels 和 TikTok 上首发的头条新闻,而且是竖屏拍摄的。标题简直就是类似“TikTok 是新的电视吗?”这样的内容。非常好笑的是,这简直就是 Jeffrey 和 Meg 在孵化这个想法时对它的称呼。我的意思是,我认为很明显,为移动端量身定制的视频看起来非常像 TikTok。我不想贬低他们和其他参与者在那个领域推动的所有创新,那是 Quibi 在其最初的产品定义中没有捕捉到的。但我的意思是,显然,我们每天整天盯着手机消费各种视频。所以那里绝对是有东西的。
Lenny: 我提到的那份从招聘人员那里拿到的 PDF,第一页再次写道,“你的口袋里有一台电视。”所以这正是他们推销的东西。太棒了。好吧,我想我学到了,我需要把所有的钱都押在这个新的 Quibi 克隆产品上,因为时机可能刚刚好。
Lenny: 我们简短地聊聊 Snap 吧,然后我还有几个问题想问。
在 Pandora 的管理体验
Tom Conrad: 在 Pandora,我是产品负责人,也是工程负责人。我们的首席执行官很出色,但他是个产品营销人员。我的意思是,Joe 是全能的。他受过工程学教育,也是一位伟大的营销人员,出色的财务人员,在各个学科中都是非常高水平的全能选手。但他也非常非常擅长让他的团队做好他们的工作。他真的让我去负责产品和工程。所以我不仅拥有巨大的自由度来对产品做出好的和坏的决定,我也真正获得了一席之地来帮助领导公司。如此有回报,如此令人满足。这是一个人所能拥有的最好的职业经历。
结识 Evan 与加入 Snap
Tom Conrad: 所以在十年后我离开了 Pandora。我花了一年时间试图弄清楚下一步要做什么。但大约一年后,我被人介绍给了 Evan。这其实是个挺好笑的故事。一个共同的朋友发来了这个介绍。Evan 立刻回复说:“你为什么不飞到洛杉矶来和我喝杯咖啡呢?”所以我飞了过去。当时不清楚这是不是一场工作面试,或者到底算什么。我的意思是,我当时只是随性地探索外面的机会,并且非常欣赏他在 Snapchat 上所做的工作。所以我和他待了 45 分钟,然后和工程主管待了 45 分钟,又和法务主管待了 45 分钟,然后他们把我安排进了一个会议室,里面有一打产品设计师,都在二十岁中后期,其中很多人是和 Evan 一起在斯坦福上过学的。
Tom Conrad: 我后来才了解到,他们全都是令人印象极其深刻的、超级有才华的人,但当时就只有我们十个人围坐在会议桌旁。其实并不清楚他们是否知道自己为什么要和我谈话,但我们就那样进行了一个小时漫无边际的交谈。于是我离开了,我觉得那是一个绝对迷人的早晨,但我并不确定到底发生了什么。感觉就像是,“嗯,这些面试看起来都非常随意。到底有没有职位空缺啊?”这有点奇怪。后来我去阿伯特金尼街吃午饭,收到了 Evan 助理发来的短信:“你能回办公室一趟吗?你上飞机了吗?”我当时想,“我正准备点午餐呢。我马上就回来。”
所以我回去了。当时是下午一点。而整个事情是从早上九点开始的。我在会议室坐下。Evan 拿着一个牛皮纸信封走进来,说:“我们很喜欢你。我们希望你来做我们的产品副总裁,”然后递给我一份书面录用通知,所有的条款,股票薪酬,应有尽有。我惊呆了。我受宠若惊,这极大地满足了我的自尊心。我简直不敢相信,这家感觉可能是消费科技领域最有趣的公司,其以才华横溢和性情多变而闻名的创始人,居然在如此短暂的接触后就对我如此赏识,甚至愿意把产品王国的一部分钥匙交给我。
于是我离开了,当那种兴奋感稍微褪去后,我开始想这里是不是有什么危险信号。所以我告诉 Evan:“听着,我想再回来见见领导团队的其他人,多花点时间和你在一起,更深入地探讨一下这意味着什么。”于是我们把接触期又延长了一周左右,我对领导团队的其他成员、产品思考者、设计师以及我即将每天共事的人感到非常钦佩。所以我接受了这份工作,并充分意识到这将与 Pandora 截然不同,在 Pandora 我拥有所有的自由度去做任何我想做的事,而在 Snapchat 中,充其量我也只是 Evan 的得力助手,一个主要执行他愿景的人。
事实也确实如此。我的意思是,Evan 和我最终建立了非常棒的合作关系,但在大多数日子里,我当然是在执行他的愿景,无论是在宏观层面,还是在非常微观的细节上。Evan 确实才华横溢,而且他其实是个非常好的人。我觉得在某些方面,他的名声不好是因为……他有极高的标准,但根据我与他的经验,他是一个非常善良的人。但这确实是一份超级耗费精力的工作,并没有达到我想要的灵魂上的满足感。两年后,就像我说的,我想也许我只想做做牛角包什么的。
在 Snap 学到的风险管理
但我在 Snap 学到的非常重要的一个教训是关于承担风险的。当你拥有 Evan 那样的资金支持以及与投资者的基础关系时,这真的让他能够采取这些非常大的举措,收购他认为能改变游戏规则的技术,试探性地构建一些功能,而在任何其他产品路线图规划过程中,这些功能可能因为产生巨大影响的几率不大而被砍掉。这就让他一次又一次地做出得到回报的押注,而当那些年里有这么多本垒打时,我们就会忘记那些失败的尝试。我们在 Pandora 没有这样的……从环境上来说,我们没有为此做好准备,但我想在某些方面,我在性情上并不倾向于那种大的举措。我想我现在之所以能承担更大的风险并鼓励更大的举措,是因为我从 Evan 和 Snap 身上学到的东西。
作为产品型 CEO 的管理之道
Lenny: 这个故事太棒了。它与 Brian 分享的他现在对产品的看法产生了很大共鸣,就是直接告诉人们该做什么,而不是非常自下而上地说“告诉我们你的想法”。那种影响力,你的管理方式,我们现在要谈谈你作为 CEO 的角色,但我猜想,你是否有一个作为 CEO 的定位,就是“这就是我们要构建的东西”?
Tom Conrad: 作为一个产品导向的 CEO,你到底应该在多大程度上深入细节,而不是设定方向并创造一个让优秀的人能做出优秀成绩的环境,我怀疑没有一个适用于所有公司阶段的答案。当我在 Apple 时,我们难以交付产品的原因之一是 Apple 在聚集极其聪明和有才华的人这方面做得太好了。在我职业生涯早期,我周围的每个人都非常非常令人振奋。但这样做的一个副作用是,我们会走进一个房间,反复讨论某个问题或机会,然后因为解决方案不够完美,我们就会说服自己放弃每一个好的解决方案。我过去常开玩笑说,Apple 是世界上唯一一个一千比一的投票结果是平局的地方,因为那一个人在批评时会非常有见地,以至于其他一千个人都会想:“嗯,对,对。”即使对于正确答案已经有如此巨大的共识,我们还是会说服自己不去做出决定。
Lenny: 那一个人不一定是 Steve 吧?也可能是别人?
Tom Conrad: 他不在那儿。
Lenny: 哇。
Tom Conrad: 所以我认为让 Apple 摆脱那种模式的是 Steve 回来了,然后他们不再投票了。Steve 直接做决定。因此,我对 Brian 和 Evan 抱有一些同情,他们手下有庞大的、成千上万的人为他们工作。当他们下放权力时,他们会感到沮丧,因为没有以他们期望的节奏取得进展,而且存在优柔寡断的情况,团队中的人报告说只是在内耗而没有进展,存在诸侯割据和政治斗争等等,而作为 CEO,作为才华横溢的产品导向型 CEO,他们处于独特的位置,可以介入并斩断所有这些垃圾,让火车重新准点运行。
话虽如此,我也认为在较小的组织中成为那种领导者可能是一个错误,因为小型组织的一部分机会在于聚集一群令人难以置信的有才华的人,他们相信你的使命,你可以用更轻巧的方式轻松影响他们,并为他们建立一个能够执行的组织文化。因此,我认为我作为 CEO 的工作是尝试在边缘冲浪,即我真的在细节之中。所以我深刻理解我们的业务和我们正在做出的产品决策,以及我们用来运营业务的流程,但在决定结果方面不要过度施展我的权力。
作为 CEO 你永远拥有的一件事是,不管你多么告诉团队,当我顺道经过他们的虚拟办公桌并说“我一直在想现在并不重要的这个小细节,但你认为呢?”这就像是十次中有九次,那个人会去开始做那件事。因此,我认为你确实必须非常小心你参与某些细节的方式。
Lenny: 我和 Coda 的 Lane Shackleton 录过一期非常好的节目,他分享了他们在 Coda 使用的一个叫做 flash tags 的框架,我认为这来源于 HubSpot,就是告诉人们,“这里的传票是什么。是供你参考吗?是个建议吗?还是个必须做的事?”一共有四个标签,其中一个就像是“我会在这件事上死磕到底。你需要做这个。”
Tom Conrad: 我尝试做很多这样的事。我希望我能说根据我的经验这是有效果的。我花费了大量的时间,即使是我非常清楚地说只是个人的意见,一个人的焦点小组,“不要改变你的优先级去做这个”,它对人们行为产生的影响也比我预期的要大得多。
Lenny: 是的,说起来容易做起来难。回到你的经历,我们聊到了你加入 Quibi 之前的故事,但两年前,你走向了一个全新的方向,现在是一家名为 Zero 的公司的 CEO。从仅仅做公司的产品负责人或工程负责人,到首次担任 CEO,这是一种怎样的体验?你为什么选择 Zero 来承担这个角色?作为 CEO 你学到了哪些你希望在做产品负责人或工程负责人时就能知道的东西,且听众可能会觉得有用?
Tom Conrad: 这真的是令人难以置信的两年。在 Quibi 之后,像我们所有人一样,我花了大量时间进行灵魂拷问,思考我学到了什么,以及接下来可能想做什么。在思考的过程中,我意识到我真的很想转向一个能对我所参与公司的文化和价值观产生直接影响的事情。在 Pandora,我很大程度上确实得到了这个机会。而在 Snap 和 Quibi 的五年里,我是在为 Evan、Meg 和 Jeffrey 工作,他们都是令人难以置信的商业领袖,但都有自己非常特定的风格和方法,这会在公司文化上留下属于创始人独有的印记。
寻找新方向与个人健康危机
正如我们讨论过的,我总是对构建那些我深切关心的事物很感兴趣,我当时特别在想,在下一个阶段我能做些什么来对世界产生真正积极的影响。多年来我构建了大量的媒体产品,电子游戏、流媒体服务等等,似乎也许有更具分量的事情值得我花时间。所以我最初的想法是自己创业,一个我已经悄悄酝酿了几个月的公司构想。但与这一切完全无关的是,在疫情期间的第八个月,我个人的健康状况跌到了谷底。我超重了五六十磅,胆固醇处于红色警戒区。我是说,我爬楼梯就会气喘吁吁,这是我一生中从未遇到过的情况。
我有点像溜溜球式的节食者,而且照镜子时总是很挑剔,但我以前从未真正担心过自己的健康、我的寿命,突然之间,我开始担心了。所以我对此的解决方案是深入研究代谢健康,听了成千上万小时的播客和视频,用了葡萄糖监测贴片、Oura Ring 和数字健身设备,试图去理解那些影响健康和寿命的因素。尽管我很想告诉你们,我发现了一种可以服用的神奇药丸,也许是某种超说明书使用的 rapamycin 之类的东西,但事实是,要想活得更长、更健康,你真的必须去对付我所谓的代谢疾病,它表现为超重和肥胖、前驱糖尿病和糖尿病、高胆固醇以及所有这些影响你长期健康的问题。
结缘 Zero
于是在这条路上我发现了 Zero,并用它来帮助我自己的健康之旅。Mike Maser 在四年半前创立了这家公司,在此期间,我们一直在聊我自己使用该产品的体验。我当时只是给他提供一些产品反馈之类的,他也跟我讲了一点他自己的创业历程。在谈话的某个时刻,Mike 说:“我的打算是退居执行董事长职位,为公司找一位 CEO。”所以,在我的故事里,又一次一次又一次地,这种难以置信的幸运之事发生了。我立刻就知道它满足了我所有的条件:“这是一个机会,去领导一个已经具备一些势能的东西,以一种非常直接的方式影响文化和价值观,而且与我个人的经历真的非常贴近。”
我们知道我们有一家很棒的小公司,27 个人,我们每月有超过一百万的用户在平台上使用。其中有十多万人向我们付费,多年来创造了数千万美元的收入,甚至在疫情结束时,当许多健康和健身公司出现倒退时,我们依然实现了两位数的增长。最重要的是,它确实有效。75% 使用该平台的人减轻了体重。人们在最初的 60 天内平均减掉 5% 到 10% 的体重。正是因为人们取得了成功,我们完全是自然增长的。我们根本没有任何付费获客。这真的是一门靠口碑驱动的生意。
单体经济学与公司方程
但这并不是说它没有挑战。所有的初创公司都充满挑战。过去几年我们真正关注的是,我们非常关注单体经济学,真正试图了解对于每个下载并安装应用程序的人,我们能从中获取和交付多少价值,我们如何高效地通过所有漏斗转化他们,让他们参与产品,让他们留下来,并以非常系统的方式推动这些指标提升。纵观我的整个职业生涯,我绝对是一个一开始认为软件开发主要是一门艺术的人,你寻找那些对人类行为有深刻理解的杰出远见者,他们为别人看不到的问题精心打造解决方案,让这些方案令人愉悦,把所有的小细节都处理妥当。当你的艺术找到了产品市场契合度时,你就可以通过一种真正定量的方法来优化它们。
所以我绝对是一个能看到软件中重要的左脑和右脑方程两边的人。但在过去两年里,有一件事真的让我大开眼界。虽然公司毫无疑问就是他们制造的软件和交付的产品,正如我所描述的,这其中既有艺术也有科学,但如果你退后一步看,还有一个方程式在描述这家公司。它讲的是你如何将投资转化为回报。我想,如果我学的是金融,是个商科专业,也许我一开始就会用这种方式来构想公司。所以,可能有点尴尬,我不得不到了 53 岁,才觉得仿佛眼里的障翳被拨开,恍然大悟:“哦,公司就是方程式。”
因此,当我们最初开始讨论生命周期价值和客户获取成本,并试图平衡这两者,仅仅是思考业务的单体经济学时,我的本能反应是立刻转向方程式的叶子节点,比如“哦,我们把多少人从安装转化为了注册,从注册转化为了试用”,这些处于所有漏斗最底端的东西,然后去问产品团队:“我们试着优化一下这些吧。”然而,在试图理解当我们优化这些不同维度时能把业务带到什么程度,以及试图理解哪些维度具有最大杠杆作用的过程中,我开始构建这些越来越复杂的、描述整个业务的模型。
我的意思是,在初创公司,你要身兼多职。我绝对戴上了一顶我完全没有预料到的帽子,那就是我是 Zero 的全职 FP&A 负责人。所以我建了这个电子表格,它汇总了我们所有商业智能工具的数据和订阅交易的原始数据,查看我们所有的历史结果、所有的费用和支出,然后可以通过操纵所有这些变量来预测未来的场景。这完全不是我以前思考产品的方式。我知道你的很多听众会觉得,“这家伙是个白痴,这明明是思考产品工作的基本方式。”
但如果还有人和我一样,一开始把这看作艺术,然后才去优化细节,那么花时间去创建一个描述整体的模型,以便你能识别出哪些是需要关注的高杠杆点,这真的、真的非常有效。所以在过去两年里,我在公司做了很多这方面的工作,它真的开始带来不可思议的成果。就像生活中的一切,我的意思是,你参与其中是为了学习,而这正是过去一年里对我而言最大的一课。
Lenny: 我真的很喜欢你作为 CEO 回来分享的这个收获,也就是告诉你应该去思考那些 CEO 可能正在思考的事情,作为产品领导者,你可能并没有去思考,也就是试着真正花时间去思考商业模式并深刻理解它,因为你的创始人们一直在思考这些。所以如果你没有,你就错失了一种影响他们的方式,错失了一种……
Tom Conrad: 这也很有趣,因为我突然理解了一件在我整个职业生涯中一直让我感到困惑的事情,那就是我去参加董事会,投资者们会问这些尖锐的问题,但它们真的从来不是关于产品、产品的作用、产品路线图、功能以及这个那个……这一切似乎都在一个层面上运作,几乎完全独立于“你推向世界的解决方案是什么”这些细节,而作为一个以产品为导向的思考者,这让我完全感到困惑。我现在意识到,他们当时正在耕作我正在谈论的这片土壤,他们当时在耕作。
界面是什么、功能是什么,其实并不那么重要。我的意思是,这当然重要,但还有另一种更高阶的看待公司的方式,它真正关乎的是这个方程式的优化。我认为特别是,如果你在 25 个董事会任职,通过在那个抽象层面上思考公司,来评估你的公司表现如何、把时间花在哪里以及如何提供帮助,可能是一种效率高得多的方式。所以我永远不会停止把软件开发看作一种艺术形式,也永远不会停止享受那些我能深入细节的日子,但这确实让人大开眼界。
消费级订阅应用的成功
Lenny: 这里另一个突出的点,一是我认为这对于消费级订阅应用来说尤其正确,我对此做过一些研究。基本上,它们从来都行不通。有 Duolingo,还有 Zero,我之前不知道你们达到了多大的规模。我快速算一下。所以你们有一百万用户,十万付费用户。你们每月收费 10 美元。我知道年度计划有折扣,但基本上,你们每个月大约赚一百万美元,你不必确认或否认,这只是我刚算出来的,这太疯狂了。所以恭喜。这是一个罕见的成功的消费级订阅应用。这从来不发生。
Tom Conrad: 就像我说的,每家初创公司都很难,我每天都对新出现的困难感到惊讶。但我们正处于一个非常好的阶段。我们度过了极好的一年,我真的为我们组建的团队感到非常、非常自豪。他们太不可思议了,一直以来。
Lenny: 你如此成功的部分原因正是你所说的。对 LTV/CAC 这个数学公式有着巨大的关注,因为对于这类业务来说,关键在于你能否以低于你需要花费的钱来获取用户?
Tom Conrad: Zero 真正幸运的一点是,创立公司的 Mike Maser 和我都在这个圈子里待得足够久、经历的足够多,我们记得 2008 年,记得 2000 年。所以在疫情期间的这些时刻,我们同类别的公司有筹集数千亿美元的,意图将其砸向付费获客(paid user acquisition)。而我们做出了一个有意识的决定,去优化我们获得的自然流量的价值,并通过 LTV 扩张而不是漏斗顶端的扩张来驱动我们的增长,坦白说,这在 2021、2022 年是不流行的。事实证明,如今这要流行得多,因为公司被要求比在疫情期间表现出更高的资本效率。我想我感到有些幸运,作为企业家的我的自然倾向,比前一段时间更符合市场的期望。
保持心理健康与避免精疲力竭
Lenny: 好的。所以你可能是上过我播客的人里职业生涯最长的一位。你在许多不同阶段的不同公司工作过。你仍然在做这件事。我很好奇,关于在这个旅程中如何保持心理健康并避免彻底精疲力竭,你学到了什么。你提到你会休息一段时间。你还有什么其他发现吗,或者那仅仅是避免精疲力竭的诀窍?
Tom Conrad: 你知道这个叫做 Ikigai 的日本概念吗?
Lenny: 嗯。知道,但请讲讲。为那些可能不熟悉的人分享一下吧。
Tom Conrad: 这个概念是一个韦恩图,有四个圆。一个圆标着你热爱什么。一个圆标着你擅长什么。一个圆标着世界需要什么,还有一个圆叫做你能为什么获得报酬,它们全部相交的地方就是这个日本概念,Ikigai。它是你擅长的、你热爱的、世界需要的以及你能获得报酬的事物之间的交集。如果你找到了,那就是 Ikigai。有趣的是,你的听众应该去找找看,因为对于其他交集,即并非四个全凑在一起的交集,有一些有趣的标注方式。真正有趣的是那些有三个但没有第四个的交集,我认为因为它们接近但并不完全是那个真正令人满足的东西。所以就像当你发现那些时,很容易选择一份工作或一条只有三个而没有第四个的道路,如果你感觉有某种真正重要的东西就在你触手可及之外,这真的是一个绝佳的配方。
无论如何,这是一个思考你的生活和职业生涯的绝佳框架。所以首先,我无比幸运,对我来说这一切都是 Ikigai。我擅长的、我热爱的、世界需要的、我获得报酬的,它们总是重叠的。其中很大一部分只是因为我热爱的就是这个世界。我热爱软件,我热爱构建软件,我热爱编写软件,我热爱使用软件。人们会问:“你的爱好是什么?”我不觉得我有什么爱好,我会想,“嗯,周末我会做些什么样的有趣事情?”结果就是我自学 After Effects 之类的东西,我马上就会忘掉,但只是对某款有趣的软件钻研得很深,就很有趣。所以我非常幸运。因此我认为这对我来说非常具有可持续性。我能够做这么久而没有真正精疲力竭的原因之一就是,这就是我做的事。并且在某种程度上,这也是我回归它的原因。说“我要成为一名糕点师”很容易,但如果任由我自己支配时间,我使用软件,我制作软件。它是我的爱好,我的热情,它是一切。
关于人们如何对待自己的工作,我有一些想法。首先,我真的不是那种“拼命”类型的领导者。大学刚毕业时,我在 Finder 团队和一位女同事共事,她给我留下了极深的印象。那时我自己的工作风格,我想我提到过,对闪烁、眨眼的文件夹动画的记忆通常是凌晨2点的事情。我那时23岁,早上11点起床,去办公室,在 Apple Arcade 里瞎混打电子游戏,开几个会,吃个午饭,站在白板前对一些无稽之谈高谈阔论。然后每天大概到下午4点,我开始写软件,一直写到凌晨2点或3点,中间还会和团队里的人出去吃个晚饭什么的。
所以表面上看起来,我每周在苹果工作六七天,每天待14个小时,我还因此受到了表扬。有很多晚上我会通宵工作,第二天早上老板走进来会说:“你还在这里?”我就说:“我还在,看看我做出来的这个酷东西。”我因为这样得到了很多关注。而团队里有这位女同事,她每天早上8点半准时出现,坐在办公桌前,写出大量优秀的软件,然后每天晚上收拾东西离开。她的贡献比我大得多。但我认为她并没有得到像我那样的认可,仅仅是因为她工作的方式。
后来在 Pandora 打造团队和文化时,我经常想起她,并特意强调我根本对表演式的贡献不感兴趣,重要的是工作本身。我想要赞扬的是,如果你能来上班、把活干完、然后回家、去享受你生活中的其他事物,因为我认为这才是能够持续工作而不至于精疲力竭的秘诀。
我认为这其中有些微妙之处。我觉得22岁的我无论如何都会想要通宵工作。所以我认为留出空间让这种行为也被允许是很重要的。而且我认为在某些方面,在 Pandora 的时候好像这变得不被允许了。那感觉就像是,“你应该多休息休息,为什么要这么拼?”但我确实努力创造一种环境,让人们在自己的日常生活和技术生活之间有合理的平衡,或者如果他们选择的话,有这个空间。我确实认为,这些年来这帮助我坚持了下来,但我仍然在很多晚上和周末工作,因为我热爱它。这就是我做的事。
从追逐体验到回归协作
另外一件事是,我在 Pandora 的经历极其幸运,作为其中的一员获得了这种不成比例的、可能有些不合理的财务回报,这给了我从未想象过的选择权。所以10年后我离开了,我不知道我会做什么,但我确实需要休息一下。那是一份非常辛苦的工作,那绝对是一个我需要一些时间来恢复的时刻。但我认为如果你在我离开的第一天问我,我会说:“我不明白为什么这些人成功了之后马上又去创办另一家公司。为什么?你在世界上可以做那么多事情,为什么要再创办一家公司?这太难了。”
我当时特别迷恋一种观念,那就是我有条件去体验。我不太在乎物质,不想要什么名贵手表之类的东西,或者汽车,但我想要看看这个世界。所以我想,“我就要去伦敦住三个月,然后回旧金山一个月。我要去墨西哥城住三个月,我就是要过这种不断吸收体验的生活。”在这样做了六个月之后,我意识到的是,比起体验,我更在乎的是人际关系。如果你是一个不断坐飞机寻找新体验的人,就很难建立并维持亲密、令人满意的关系。
所以我回到了旧金山,我想,“如果我想和朋友以及志同道合的人保持联系,我就不能满世界跑。”你知道人们周一早上在做什么吗?他们在工作。所以如果你想和人类产生连结,他们周一早上所在的地方就是工作场所。所以,比起想要构建东西的冲动——我确实非常渴望构建东西——我更渴望的是协作,是和其他人一起参与这场游戏。这就是带我去 Snap 的原因,让我停止了追逐体验,重新回到了构建之中。然后正如我们已经描述过的,在某个时刻我想,“好吧,我在乎这种协作,但也许我不需要在世界上创造软件了。”而 Quibi 给了我一次重新爱上那个过程的机会。结果到了现在,又是更多的软件。
Lenny: 此外还担任了一家硬件公司的董事会成员。你刚才分享的让我想起了 Mark Manson 的书,《The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck》。你读过这本书吗?
Tom Conrad: 我没有。
Lenny: 好的。这本书卖出了无数本,其核心观点是我们从解决问题中获得快乐,我们以为当有不做任何事的自由时就会快乐。但结果证明,自由的作用仅仅在于帮助我们发现自己想要持续解决的问题。
Tom Conrad: 是的,完全同意。我觉得一点没错。
Lenny: 听起来这就是你走过的历程。最后一个问题,这个新环节,我打算叫逆向思维。问题是,有没有什么是你持有逆向观点的事情,也就是你相信而大多数其他人不相信的东西?
逆向思维
Tom Conrad: 我们行业中有一些人非常强烈地相信这一点,也就是有一种信念认为每个人都必须是创始人。我认为在某些方面,如果创始人少一些,我们的行业会好得多。有一大类的聪明、有创造力、勤奋、有才华、近乎有远见的人,他们能够筹集到那200万的种子轮(seed round),然后跑去建立一些永远不会有结果的愚蠢公司。如果他们能找到一个需要他们技能的团队,去解决一个正如我描述的、拥有能赢的数学公式、拥有合适规模的市场机会、拥有能够真正发挥作用的十倍思考(10X thinking)的问题,他们的处境会好得多。我在这里有点偏见,因为虽然我现在是第一次担任 CEO,但我从未做过创始人,而且我很幸运地找到了一些能从我的技能和热情中受益的年轻团队,有时取得了一些成功,有时则有些尴尬,但总是非常非常有趣。
是的。如果你在外面,认为在这个行业中取得成功的唯一可能途径就是达到任何你关心的指标:无论你想要同行的赞誉,还是想要财务回报,还是人们渴望的任何东西,对文化产生外部影响,或者无论是什么每天早上叫醒你的东西,你都可以通过与他人合作来实现它。你不必成为那个去筹集种子轮的人。
Lenny: 我百分之百同意。我总是告诉人们,“不要创业。这超级痛苦,极少能成功。太难了。”我不知道哪个更难,是做产品经理还是做创始人,大概是做创始人吧。这两个都非常难。
Tom Conrad: 是的,确实也非常难。不过为了完全表达清楚,创始人确实有某种非常特别的地方。在 Pandora 以及现在的 Zero,真正的创始人时不时会说:“嗯,你就像个创始人。”而我会说:“我一点都不像创始人。你承担了所有的风险。我出现的时候,团队已经有了,势头已经有了,银行里也有钱了。我很感激你想说些赞美的话,但‘你像个创始人’这种赞誉我可担当不起。”
闪电问答
Lenny: 说到这里,我们已经到了非常令人兴奋的闪电问答环节。你准备好了吗? Tom Conrad: 我准备好了。
Lenny: 你最常向别人推荐的两三本书是什么?
Tom Conrad: 我非常喜欢 Elad Gil 的《High Growth Handbook》。它按章节组织,内容涉及基础公司建设、组建领导团队、组建董事会,除了 Elad 对该主题富有见地的综合分析外,他在每个章节还会对一位与该部分相关的人进行访谈。如果你是年轻公司的领导者,这真的是一本非常棒的读物,而且极具可操作性。在完全不同的另一个领域,我喜欢宏大、复杂的科幻小说,虽然市面上确实有很多垃圾科幻小说,但当你找到特别的作品时,那就是最好的。所以多年来在这个类别中,有一本 Dan Simmons 写的叫《Hyperion》的书。那绝对是一部经典之作。每个人都应该读一读。
Lenny: 我读过那本。我想我读了第一部的前几本。 Tom Conrad: 是的。它的续集也非常出色。也许有必要提醒一下你的读者,《Hyperion》相当长,而且结尾绝对是一个巨大的悬念。 Lenny: 我觉得他们要把那本书改编成剧集了,这肯定会很疯狂。我不知道他们怎么围绕那本书做一档节目。我以为你会提到另一本书,《A Fire Upon the Deep》。你听说过这本书吗?
Tom Conrad: 噢,那本也非常好。 Lenny: 好的。那本书也非常复杂,但不可思议。 Tom Conrad: 是的,我完全把那本忘了。那是一本非常特别的书。那个系列也有好几本。 Lenny: 是的,我想我只读了第一部。另外,《Three-Body Problem》是我经常想到的另一本书。它在这个播客里已经出现过好几次了。我们进入下一个问题。你最近有喜欢的一部电影或电视剧吗?
Tom Conrad: 我消费大量的视频内容,既有我很自豪能谈及的,也有我不太好意思提及的,但我真的非常喜欢 Peacock 上 Damon Lindelof 的新剧《Mrs. Davis》。Lindelof 当然出自《Lost》和 HBO 的新版《Watchmen》,而《Mrs. Davis》讲的是一个你戴在耳朵里的 AI,就像《HER》里的 AI,以及一个誓要摧毁这个 AI 的修女的故事,读起来就像早期的科恩兄弟电影。它超级黑色幽默,非常非常有思想,而且与太多流媒体剧集不同,我想它只有七集,是一个完美封装的故事,有开头、中间和结尾,不需要再有另一集。它太棒了。至少去开一个月的 Peacock 订阅来看看《Mrs. Davis》吧。
面试心得
Lenny: 你在面试候选人时,最喜欢问的面试问题是什么?
Tom Conrad: 关于面试有两件事。第一件是,我总是鼓励人们在思考面试问题时,克制住从自己当前经验中提取问题的冲动,那种目的是为了“这个人将如何解决我目前正在处理的事情”的问题。因为仅仅是让对方去猜测,而且通常是关于你自己的业务,你很清楚他们实际上对此一无所知,这会在面试官和面试者之间造成一种不平衡,这种不平衡与我认为的出色面试所应具有的协作本质相悖。所以我告诉人们,几乎每个面试问题都应该以“告诉我你职业生涯中的一次经历,当时……”开头,以此给他们一种许可,或者设定他们的期望,即我是在要求他们告诉我他们实际做过的事情,并且与我正在探究的主题相关。
所以这只是我试图做到的一个结构性事情。然后通常在面试快结束时,我几乎会问每个人:“想象你在工作中度过了非常棒的一天。你那天做了什么?”因为我试图弄清楚的是,如果任由他们自己发挥,他们会自然而然地去做什么,因为那能给他们带来回报?因为我认为找到每个你雇佣的人的最高最佳用途真的很重要。有时如果你理解了那些存在自然回报机制的事情,你就能稍微探究出什么是最高最佳用途,因为就像,“嗯,我度过了这么棒的一天。我明天还要做更多这样的事。”“那件事是什么?”这真的很有启发性。
近期爱用的产品
Lenny: 有没有你最近发现并非常喜欢的最爱产品?
Tom Conrad: 我买过这个星球上的每一副耳机,部分原因是苹果的耳机戴不住我的耳朵。我打喷嚏把一个喷到了房间对面,我把一个掉进了排水管里。它们就是戴不住,没有一个戴得住的,有线的、无线的、入耳式的,这让我老实说觉得自己像是某种解剖学上的怪胎。我看着别人戴着它们,我就会想,“他们的耳朵到底是怎么回事,能戴得那么稳?”这对我来说似乎不可思议。尽管如此,我有一副我很想喜欢的 AirPods Pro,我只能忍受我会把它们掉落、弄丢、打喷嚏喷到房间对面的事实。
但最近我遇到了一家叫 Eartune 的公司的产品,它们是替换耳塞头,上面只有一点点压缩海绵。它们不会让 AirPods 变大而导致放不进充电盒之类的,而且它们管用。奇迹般地,它们能留在我的耳朵里。苹果有一个叫 Size Fit 之类的功能,进入设置,找到你的 AirPods,一直往下拉设置,你就可以运行这个测试,它会播放一些音频,然后告诉你密封性有多好。这揭示了我的右耳比左耳更奇怪。所以我实际上不得不在两边使用不同尺寸的耳塞头。突然之间,我们的谈话听起来有点隐约的恶心。不管怎样,在这么多年之后,我对能够戴上苹果的 AirPods 感到非常兴奋。
Lenny: 我想我们了解到的是你是个变种人,你的耳朵不一样。酷。我们会在节目笔记中附上那个产品的链接。 Tom Conrad: 好的。
人生座右铭
Lenny: 你有没有一句最喜欢的、经常回想或与朋友分享的人生座右铭,无论是在工作中还是生活中,你觉得很有用的?
Tom Conrad: 作为一个产品人,如果你没有一句让人翻白眼的 Charles Eames 名言作为你存在的核心,那是不合格的。对我来说,Charles Eames 的名言是:“细节不是细节。它们成就了设计。”我真的绝对相信这一点,当你是一名产品设计师时,魔鬼就在细节中,如果不关注细微之处,那后果自负。
Lenny: 最后一个问题。你和 GIF 格式的创造者一起工作过。他是怎么发音的,giff 还是 jiff?
Tom Conrad: 是的。所以在所有这些之前,我在高中时在一家叫 CompuServe 的公司工作过。 Lenny: CompuServe,我用过 CompuServe。我都不知道这个。太神奇了。
Tom Conrad: 团队里有个叫 Steve Wilhite 的人发明了图形交换格式(Graphics Interchange Format),他简直就是 20 世纪 60 年代那种留着络腮胡的程序员的标准写照,我是第一次遇到这种人,脾气非常古怪。很疯狂的是,当时 Steve 会接受所有挑战,坚决认为它的发音是 jiff。现在他显然错了。显然应该发音为 giff。35 年后的今天,让我觉得不可思议的是,这个话题依然时不时会出现在互联网上。这就像《变色龙》里的情节一样,我竟然与发明了图形交换格式的人有过交集,而且我知道他对这个话题的看法,尽管这个看法并不受欢迎。
Lenny: 明白了。所以他认为应该读作 jiff,但你同意读作 giff?
Tom Conrad: 绝对是 giff。显然是 giff。
Lenny: 好的,太棒了。我们达成共识了。我们做出了决定。就此公布。
Tom Conrad: 就此公布。
结语与联系方式
Lenny: Tom,我们聊了成功,聊了失败,聊了心理健康、整体健康,还有各种精彩的故事。最后两个问题。如果大家想联系你,或者想问一些我没问到的其他问题,可以在网上哪里找到你?另外,听众怎么能帮到你?
Tom Conrad: 在所有的社交平台上我都是 @tconrad,从 Twitter 到 Threads 再到 Instagram。我所有平台的私信都是敞开的,如果收到你听众的来信,无论他们想聊什么话题,我都会非常高兴。至于大家能为我做什么?我很希望大家能下载 Zero 试用一下,并向我发送一些反馈,告诉我们哪里做得好,哪里做得不好,我们很希望我们这个小产品能成为你生活的一部分。
Lenny: 太棒了。Tom,非常感谢你来到这里。
Tom Conrad: 谢谢。
Lenny: 大家再见。非常感谢大家的收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你最喜欢的播客应用上订阅本节目。此外,请考虑给我们打分或留下评论,这真的能帮助其他听众找到这个播客。你可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到往期的所有节目,或了解更多关于本节目的信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| 1-Click Personal Radio | 一键个人电台(1-Click Personal Radio) |
| 10X thinking | 十倍思考(10X thinking) |
| A Fire Upon the Deep | 《A Fire Upon the Deep》 |
| AirPods Pro | AirPods Pro |
| Berkeley Systems | Berkeley Systems |
| Brian | Brian |
| Charles Eames | Charles Eames |
| Coda | Coda |
| Coen brothers | 科恩兄弟(Coen brothers) |
| CompuServe | CompuServe |
| contrarian corner | 逆向思维 |
| Damon Lindelof | Damon Lindelof |
| Dan Simmons | Dan Simmons |
| Eartune | Eartune |
| Elad Gil | Elad Gil |
| FP&A | FP&A |
| GIF | GIF |
| Graphics Interchange Format | 图形交换格式(Graphics Interchange Format) |
| HBO | HBO |
| High Growth Handbook | 《High Growth Handbook》 |
| HubSpot | HubSpot |
| Hyperion | 《Hyperion》 |
| Jeffrey Katzenberg | Jeffrey Katzenberg |
| Joe Kennedy | Joe Kennedy |
| John Skelly | John Skelly |
| LAN folders | LAN folders |
| Lane Shackleton | Lane Shackleton |
| Lost | 《Lost》 |
| Mark Manson | Mark Manson |
| Meg Whitman | Meg Whitman |
| Mike Maser | Mike Maser |
| Motorola 68000 CPU | Motorola 68000 CPU |
| Mrs. Davis | 《Mrs. Davis》 |
| NewTV | NewTV |
| Oura Ring | Oura Ring |
| paid user acquisition | 付费获客(paid user acquisition) |
| Pandora | Pandora |
| Peacock | Peacock |
| Power Macintosh | Power Macintosh |
| Power PC | Power PC |
| product stewardship | 产品管理(product stewardship) |
| Quibi | Quibi |
| rapamycin | rapamycin |
| seed round | 种子轮 |
| Size Fit | Size Fit |
| Snap | Snap |
| Sonos | Sonos |
| spring-loaded folders | 弹簧式文件夹 |
| Steve | Steve |
| Steve Wilhite | Steve Wilhite |
| System 7 | System 7 |
| System 8 | System 8 |
| The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck | 《The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck》 |
| Three-Body Problem | 《Three-Body Problem》 |
| Tim Westergren | Tim Westergren |
| vector space | 向量空间(vector space) |
| Watchmen | 《Watchmen》 |
| You Don’t Know Jack | 《You Don’t Know Jack》 |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)