WSJ : Ferrari’s F1 Superteam Gets Left in the Dust

Ferrari’s F1 Superteam Gets Left in the Dust
With seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton behind the wheel, this was supposed to be the year the most storied team in motor racing got back on top. Instead it’s turned into a complete nightmare.

The Italian Grand Prix at Monza is a Ferrari celebration, but the team is struggling this season.
Ferrari signed Lewis Hamilton, but the team has not met expectations, with internal issues and car troubles.
Despite challenges, Ferrari hopes home support in Italy will boost confidence, even with Hamilton’s penalty.

Officially, the Italian Grand Prix is the 16th race on the Formula One calendar, a late-summer stop between an event in the Netherlands and one in Azerbaijan.

But inside the sport, everyone knows that the trip to the outskirts of Milan represents much more than that.

The annual visit to Monza is a celebration of all things Ferrari—an unapologetically Italian festival dedicated to the most storied, most glamorous team in motor racing. The tide of expectant tifosi, the home fans who live and die with the team, washes over the ancient circuit, bathing the whole place in red.

Except this year, the local faithful arrived feeling more anxious than usual. That’s because Ferrari’s season has turned into a complete nightmare.

The team, which hasn’t won a constructors’ title since 2008, is in the longest championship drought in its history. Its drivers haven’t managed a single race victory this season. And at the most recent Grand Prix, last week in Zandvoort, neither of its two cars made it to the finish line.

Monza was supposed to be a return to Ferrari’s happy place. This weekend, it’s more like coming home with a report card full of Fs.

“For sure, it’s not the best preparation,” team principal Frederic Vasseur said after watching both of his cars crash out last week. “But on the other hand we don’t need to have extra motivation for Monza.”

What the team does need is results. Ferrari started the season with more fanfare than any outfit in F1 history after signing seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton. Pulling on the famous red overalls for the first time, he spoke about living out every driver’s childhood dream. And, as he launched his bid for a record eighth championship, he had every reason to believe that his Ferrari would be competitive.

The Scuderia, as the team is known, had just finished a close second in the constructors’ championship. After years of frustration, Ferrari finally seemed to be on the right track.

The first two-thirds of the 2025 campaign have proven otherwise. Not only is Hamilton miles from contention in the drivers’ standings, where he sits in sixth place. The man who holds the all-time record for race wins isn’t even posting the best results on his own team. Ferrari’s other driver, Charles Leclerc, has finished ahead of Hamilton in all but two of the 14 races that both cars have completed.

The nadir for Hamilton came at the Hungarian Grand Prix last month when he didn’t even make it out of the second round of qualifying.

“I’m useless, absolutely useless,” he said at the time. “Just drove terribly.”

The sad state of affairs was so depressing that Hamilton, now 40, even suggested that Ferrari would need to replace him—although the team has no such designs.

More urgent is Ferrari’s desperation for some consistency. All season, the cars have dealt with issues surrounding the distance between the floor of the car and the track, known as the ride height, leaving the drivers to spend as much time battling their own machines as the rest of the field. The team has also had its fair share of pratfalls due to internal disagreements over in-race strategy. The latest blowup came in the Netherlands where Leclerc openly second-guessed his bosses over the radio.

“We are so f—unlucky!” he yelled in the middle of the race for all to hear. “Unbelievable!”

Yet Leclerc knows that the reasons McLaren has racked up more than twice as many points as Ferrari this year go far beyond rotten luck or the odd misstep. The title fight is already over and there is no telling how competitive the team might be next season, when the introduction of wholesale changes to the sport’s technical regulations could shake up the field. Mercedes, for instance, is widely believed to be leading the way in 2026 development.

In the meantime, Ferrari can only do its best to soak in some love at home, the one place where F1 fans still see everything through red-colored spectacles. That much was clear on Wednesday as Hamilton and Leclerc greeted a throng of tifosi from a balcony overlooking Milan’s Piazzetta Reale in a scene orchestrated to echo a papal audience.

“Being a Ferrari driver is the most special thing ever,” Hamilton said.

Hamilton rewarding the supporters’ faith with a win will be unlikely on Sunday, when he will start with a five-place grid penalty. But the lift of returning to Italy is undeniable: in Friday’s first practice session, the Ferraris were the quickest car on track.

“Trust me, when they are in front of the crowd in Milano and you have thousands and thousands of people pushing for the team,” Vasseur said, “this is a mega-huge push in terms of self-confidence.”

WSJ : Can MTV Be Cool Again? Paramount’s New Owner Plots Cable Revival

Can MTV Be Cool Again? Paramount’s New Owner Plots Cable Revival
The newly combined media company is exploring ways to revive MTV and other once-mighty channels while rivals spin them off

Paramount Skydance plans to revitalize its cable networks, including MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon
Executives aim to revamp cable networks without increasing spending on them

Skydance Chief Executive David Ellison posed a challenge to several former MTV executives gathered this spring inside a private room at an Italian restaurant in West Los Angeles. How might they rescue and reinvent a channel that once defined America’s pop culture?

Ellison, whose company was in the midst of merging with MTV owner Paramount, and his top executive, Jeff Shell, told the group that they realized the network was in bad shape. Still, they wondered whether it could become a “music tastemaker” again.

The CEO said he had received calls from people with ideas for the cable network and some interested in partnering with MTV, including longtime music executive Irving Azoff, and Lucian Grainge, CEO of Universal Music Group UMG 0.12%increase; green up pointing triangle, as well as some artists, people familiar with the matter said.

The dinner guests put forward ideas to help MTV, such as holding live events and taking advantage of its archive of interviews and music documentaries with bands from the ’80s and ’90s.

Comcast CMCSA -0.12%decrease; red down pointing triangle hived off many of its cable networks into a new company called Versant. Warner Bros. Discovery WBD 2.89%increase; green up pointing triangle is planning to split itself in two, separating its studio and streaming business from its legacy cable networks.

Ellison, who now officially controls Paramount, is hugging its networks tighter—for now.

He aims to keep and revitalize networks like MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon as part of a revamp of the struggling entertainment company. The company also plans to improve Paramount’s streaming offering, cut more than $2 billion in costs and build up its studio and videogame business.

In recent weeks, Paramount Skydance’s PSKY 1.76%increase; green up pointing triangle new leaders have called employees back to the office five days a week, signed a $7.7 billion deal for Ultimate Fighting Championship rights and signed a multiyear deal with “Stranger Things” creators Matt and Ross Duffer.

Its cable business is particularly challenging. Executives intend to revive the networks without increasing spending on them, people familiar with the plans said. Among the options Paramount is discussing, those people said: increasing the cable networks’ digital presence.

Paramount Skydance has also discussed investing further in the networks’ brands and finding ways to make money from them outside of the cable TV business.

“There is probably a place outside the linear world where these brands exist and flourish,” Andy Gordon, chief strategy officer and chief operating officer of Paramount, told reporters at a briefing in August.

Shell, the company president who used to run NBCUniversal, has in internal conversations pointed to Bravo’s reinvention as an example of what Skydance could pursue, according to a person familiar with the matter. Bravo has become a lifestyle network with events such as Bravocon, the network’s fan convention that includes stars from the likes of its reality show franchise “Real Housewives.”

Paramount Skydance executives have discussed making MTV’s website a digital destination for fans who want to go deeper than they can on Spotify SPOT 0.47%increase; green up pointing triangle or YouTube in sampling music or learning about artists and genres, the person said.

The median age of MTV viewers is 56, according to Nielsen. And making cable-network brands relevant to younger viewers is a challenge.

Viewers of all ages are turning away from pay television, cutting the cord in favor of streaming services and spending increasing time watching or listening to podcasts and scrolling through videos.


“Even if you revitalize the MTV brand, it doesn’t mean people will all of a sudden sign up for pay TV again,” said Robert Fishman, an analyst with MoffettNathanson.

Still, the networks generate a large share of Paramount’s earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation, said people close to the situation. Also, splitting off the networks could require potentially costly renegotiation of distribution agreements with cable operators.

Content that airs on cable networks such as Nickelodeon can also feed Paramount’s streaming services.

Paramount Skydance might trim the number of networks it keeps. Executives have discussed selling BET, said a person familiar with the situation, something Paramount tried to do a few years ago and scrapped.

However, if they keep it, former Netflix NFLX -1.09%decrease; red down pointing triangle executive Cindy Holland, who now heads streaming at Paramount Skydance, has said internally that she wants more premium shows for BET+ even if it means spending more money, a person familiar with the matter said.

Instead of greenlighting the next seasons of popular BET+ originals like Tyler Perry’s “Divorced Sistas,” Holland has floated the idea of asking the creator to make originals that would cost more than $7 million an episode, according to people familiar with the discussions. That is more than double what such shows typically cost.

BET has a deal with Perry until 2028 and, as part of it, has guaranteed around $200 million a year to Perry for him to make shows, according to people familiar with the situation.

TechCrunch : OpenAI reorganizes research team behind ChatGPT’s personality

OpenAI reorganizes research team behind ChatGPT’s personality

OpenAI is reorganizing its Model Behavior team, a small but influential group of researchers who shape how the company’s AI models interact with people, TechCrunch has learned.

In an August memo to staff seen by TechCrunch, OpenAI’s chief research officer Mark Chen said the Model Behavior team — which consists of roughly 14 researchers — would be joining the Post Training team, a larger research group responsible for improving the company’s AI models after their initial pre-training.

As part of the changes, the Model Behavior team will now report to OpenAI’s Post Training lead Max Schwarzer. An OpenAI spokesperson confirmed these changes to TechCrunch.

The Model Behavior team’s founding leader, Joanne Jang, is also moving on to start a new project at the company. In an interview with TechCrunch, Jang says she’s building out a new research team called OAI Labs, which will be responsible for “inventing and prototyping new interfaces for how people collaborate with AI.”

The Model Behavior team has become one of OpenAI’s key research groups, responsible for shaping the personality of the company’s AI models and for reducing sycophancy — which occurs when AI models simply agree with and reinforce user beliefs, even unhealthy ones, rather than offering balanced responses. The team has also worked on navigating political bias in model responses and helped OpenAI define its stance on AI consciousness.

In the memo to staff, Chen said that now is the time to bring the work of OpenAI’s Model Behavior team closer to core model development. By doing so, the company is signaling that the “personality” of its AI is now considered a critical factor in how the technology evolves.

In recent months, OpenAI has faced increased scrutiny over the behavior of its AI models. Users strongly objected to personality changes made to GPT-5, which the company said exhibited lower rates of sycophancy but seemed colder to some users. This led OpenAI to restore access to some of its legacy models, such as GPT-4o, and to release an update to make the newer GPT-5 responses feel “warmer and friendlier” without increasing sycophancy.

OpenAI and all AI model developers have to walk a fine line to make their AI chatbots friendly to talk to but not sycophantic. In August, the parents of a 16-year-old boy sued OpenAI over ChatGPT’s alleged role in their son’s suicide. The boy, Adam Raine, confided some of his suicidal thoughts and plans to ChatGPT (specifically a version powered by GPT-4o), according to court documents, in the months leading up to his death. The lawsuit alleges that GPT-4o failed to push back on his suicidal ideations.

The Model Behavior team has worked on every OpenAI model since GPT-4, including GPT-4o, GPT-4.5, and GPT-5. Before starting the unit, Jang previously worked on projects such as Dall-E 2, OpenAI’s early image-generation tool.

Jang announced in a post on X last week that she’s leaving the team to “begin something new at OpenAI.” The former head of Model Behavior has been with OpenAI for nearly four years.

Jang told TechCrunch she will serve as the general manager of OAI Labs, which will report to Chen for now. However, it’s early days, and it’s not clear yet what those novel interfaces will be, she said.

“I’m really excited to explore patterns that move us beyond the chat paradigm, which is currently associated more with companionship, or even agents, where there’s an emphasis on autonomy,” said Jang. “I’ve been thinking of [AI systems] as instruments for thinking, making, playing, doing, learning, and connecting.”

When asked whether OAI Labs will collaborate on these novel interfaces with former Apple design chief Jony Ive — who’s now working with OpenAI on a family of AI hardware devices — Jang said she’s open to lots of ideas. However, she said she’ll likely start with research areas she’s more familiar with.

(ZH) Vietnam Replacing China As Key Link In Global Supply Chains

Vietnam Replacing China As Key Link In Global Supply Chains

Vietnam is turning into a production powerhouse for the world as a result of the U.S. trade war, , according to Caixin.
For example, once a farming region, Bac Ninh has become northern Vietnam’s industrial hub, driven by Chinese manufacturers relocating operations south to avoid U.S. tariffs and diversify supply chains.
The shift began with the U.S.-China trade war and has accelerated as clients pressure suppliers to set up in Vietnam. “When the trade tensions began in 2018, one client suggested we look into Vietnam,” said Li Fangting of Mingjie, a Dongguan-based plastics maker. “After the pandemic, those suggestions turned into demands. Some clients said we wouldn't be considered for new orders unless we had a presence in Vietnam.” Mingjie now produces in Bac Ninh for U.S. and European markets.
But costs are rising. Industrial land in Bac Ninh is pricier than in many Chinese regions, and wages are catching up. Some firms now produce goods costlier than their Chinese equivalents, relying on tariff gaps that could vanish overnight. In April, the U.S. slapped a 46% tariff on Vietnamese exports, later trimmed to 20%.
Despite these pressures, northern Vietnam is emerging as a “world assembler.” Samsung, which has invested over $23 billion since 2008, anchors a cluster of electronics producers, joined by Apple suppliers like Foxconn, Goertek, and Luxshare. “Over the past few years, we’ve seen a surge in supply chain companies, logistics providers, and packaging firms entering Vietnam, following in the footsteps of their major clients,” said Anchalee Prasertchand of Thailand’s WHA Group.
Caixin writes that supply chains remain incomplete, forcing many manufacturers to import components from China. In textiles, 80% of yarn still comes from China, said Tian of Hechang Threads Dyeing. Furniture is more self-sufficient, with 90% of inputs sourced locally, though steel and panels remain scarce. As one factory owner put it: “In fact, the global center of furniture production shifted from Dongguan to Binh Duong by 2018. This industry won’t be going back to China.”
Even with higher costs, Vietnam’s tariff advantage sustains momentum. Executives estimate Vietnamese goods are 15% more expensive than Chinese ones, but with U.S. tariffs averaging 57.6% on Chinese products versus 20% on Vietnamese, the gap is decisive.
Chinese firms are also eyeing Vietnam’s domestic market of 100 million people. “Trade wars may be the spark, but going overseas is really about tapping global markets — not just the U.S., but also Europe and Southeast Asia,” said Niu Qiang of KCN Investment Consulting. “For Chinese companies, this is the true start of globalization.”
Automakers highlight the shift. Shineray Motors, which entered in 2018, adapted trucks for local roads and weather. Its mini-commercial vehicles now hold 30% of Vietnam’s market. “Now is a good time to lay the groundwork for the passenger car and new energy vehicle market,” said general manager Wang Lu. Giants like Geely and Great Wall are also investing, cementing Vietnam’s role as both a manufacturing hub and consumer battleground.

CrunchBase : The Week’s 10 Biggest Funding Rounds: Anthropic Leads A Busy Week F

The Week’s 10 Biggest Funding Rounds: Anthropic Leads A Busy Week For Big Deals

Investor enthusiasm for AI once again drove the bulk of funding for the week’s largest rounds, led by Anthropic’s $13 billion mega-financing. However, companies across a number of industries attracted large investments, including biotech, security and medical devices.

1. Anthropic, $13B, generative AI: San Francisco-based generative AI unicorn Anthropic raised a $13 billion Series F round at a $183 billion valuation, making it the fourth-most valuable private company in the world, per Crunchbase data. Iconiq Capital led the round, with Fidelity Management & Research Co. and Lightspeed Venture Partners co-leading.

2. Sierra, $350M, enterprise AI: Sierra, a provider of AI-enabled customer experience technology, raised $350 million at a $10 billion valuation. The San Francisco-headquartered company was founded in 2023 by former Salesforce co-CEO and current OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor and former Google executive Clay Bavor.

3. Treeline Biosciences, $200M, biotech: Watertown, Massachusetts-based Treeline Biosciences, a developer of medicines for cancer and other serious diseases, announced the close of a $200 million Series A extension round, bringing total funding to $1.1 billion, per Crunchbase data. The 4-year-old company also says it will begin trials for multiple cancer drugs.

4. (tied) Enveda Biosciences, $150M, drug discovery: Enveda, a startup that is working to discover new drugs by studying the chemistry of plants, raised $150 million in a Series D led by Premji Invest. The financing set a unicorn valuation for the 6-year-old, Boulder, Colorado-based company.

4. (tied) Baseten, $150M, AI: Baseten, a provider of technology for AI application developers, raised $150 million in a Series D led by Bond. The round brings funding to date for the San Francisco-based startup to $285 million, per Crunchbase data.

6. (tied) Galvenize Therapeutics, $100M, medical devices: Galvenize Therapeutics, a developer of pulsed electric field therapies for oncology and chronic lung disease, secured a $100 million Series C round. Sofinnova Partners led the financing for the Redwood City, California-based company.

6. (tied) You.com, $100M, AI: You.com locked up $100 million in Series C funding at a $1.5 billion valuation, led by Cox Enterprises. The Palo Alto, California-based company develops AI infrastructure with an eye to helping agentic AI applications access the information they need.

8. (tied) Exa, $85M, AI search: Exa, a startup that bills itself as the search engine for AI, picked up $70 million in Series B funding at a $700 million valuation. Benchmark led the financing for the 4-year-old San Francisco-based company.

8. (tied) Augment, $85M, AI logistics: San Francisco-based Augment, developer of an AI tool called Augie that was built to handle shipments for the logistics industry, landed $85 million in a Series A round led by Redpoint.

10. (tied) Shift5, $75M, cybersecurity: Arlington, Virginia-based Shift5, developer of an intelligence platform for U.S. defense and transportation systems, closed on $75 million in a Series C financing led by Hedosophia.

10. (tied) Mojo Vision, $75M, micro-LED technology: Mojo Vision, developer of a flexible micro-LED platform for use in multiple industries, raised $75 million in what it called a Series B Prime funding round. Vanedge Capital led the financing for the Cupertino, California-based company.

WSJ : Inside Spotify’s Plot to Take Down Apple

Inside Spotify’s Plot to Take Down Apple
The music service’s rebellion against an App Store ‘tax’ over the past decade has significantly weakened Apple’s grip on the mobile world

When Tim Cook takes center stage next week to show off the latest iPhones, he is trumpeting the future of a company that’s been severely weakened from just a few years ago.

Yes, Apple AAPL -0.04%decrease; red down pointing triangle continues to pump out dizzying amounts of profit—squeezing every penny possible from the iPhone empire it created almost 20 years ago. But its place as the powerful gateway to the digital world is severely imperiled. Its lucrative future as a toll-taker at the center of the App Economy is unclear, especially in an era where rapid advancements in artificial intelligence threaten to displace the smartphone at the center of daily lives.

A rebellion by rival tech companies helped bring that change. They worked in loose coordination for years to chip away at Apple’s iconic image and paint the company—fairly or not—as a 21st-century monopolist on par with the Robber Barons of the 19th century. Or, more recently, the Microsoft of the ’90s.

Tim Sweeney, the founder of Epic Games, was the public face in the U.S. fighting Apple’s control over third-party apps that want to do business on the iPhone and through its App Store. He won a huge victory in April with a court order allowing apps, like his “Fortnite,” to direct users beyond the reach of Apple’s payment system to make purchases on the internet.

That saves Epic from having to hand over 30% of its U.S. sales to Apple. And, in theory, it gives users cheaper ways to buy digital goods to consume on their iPhones.

Equally important—and less understood—was the role Daniel Ek’s Spotify SPOT 0.47%increase; green up pointing triangle played, whipping up lawmakers and regulators around the world against Apple, including in Europe. The European Commission in March 2024 leveled a $2 billion fine, one of the largest ever, against Apple for conduct against Spotify and others, and shepherded sweeping new laws to limit its control of the App Store, a move that’s being copied in other parts of the world.

Combined, the results of the U.S. court case and the efforts in Europe are threatening a major driver of Apple’s valuation, putting billions of dollars of profit at risk of evaporating. App Store sales accounted for an estimated 8% of the company’s revenue in the past fiscal year but punched above its weight in terms of profitability. While the company doesn’t publicly report profits from the App Store, previously released court records revealed store operating margins exceeding 75%, far greater than what’s estimated for its hardware sales.

The uncertainty comes at a time when its iPhone sales are under pressure and investors are worried that Apple is failing to keep up with AI innovations that rivals are betting will unleash a new computing paradigm that could displace the iPhone.

Just as Rome didn’t fall in a day, the crumbling of Apple’s walled garden didn’t happen overnight. Spotify’s efforts began in earnest a decade ago. This account is based on interviews I conducted and records I reviewed around the world.

From Spotify’s early days, it became clear that Ek’s vision for business was at odds with Apple, which upended the music industry with the idea of selling individual digital songs for 99 cents through the iTunes store. Instead, Ek was basically giving access to an all-you-can-eat buffet of music through a streaming service—an offering that would seem perfect with the arrival of the mobile, on-the-go computing world made popular with Apple’s iPhone.

The bad blood between Spotify and Apple only intensified when Cook launched a rival streaming service in 2015 called Apple Music. Spotify executives fumed when they saw the rival service priced at $9.99 a month—undercutting their App Store offering of $12.99. The entire difference between the two was the 30% cut that Spotify was forced to pay to Apple, under the rules that companies had to follow if they wanted to appear in Apple’s App Store.

All of this was occurring as Ek was eyeing a plan to take his startup public. That Apple “tax,” as opponents called it, posed a risk to a company already paying a huge proportion of its sales to music licenses.

In 2016, Ek hired Horacio Gutierrez from Microsoft as general counsel to prepare Spotify for the initial public offering. Years earlier, Gutierrez had begun his Microsoft career shortly after the Justice Department brought its antitrust claims against that tech giant. He played a role in the defense, before being dispatched to Brussels to defend against a similar legal battle being waged by the European Commission.

His experience in corporate combat would soon be tested. A few weeks after Gutierrez began at Spotify, engineers sent an updated version of the app to Apple’s App Store that included a dramatic change: New Spotify users could no longer upgrade inside the app to paid subscriptions.

Spotify was turning off Apple’s vaunted in-app purchase system for new users in a move to avoid handing over a commission to Apple. Instead, it created an “email me” button for users to click to be sent information about an opportunity to upgrade at a discount.

In response, Apple rejected Spotify’s app update. What followed was a standoff between the companies as Spotify kept trying different approaches only to run up against continued rejection.

Thinking he might be able to negotiate a truce, Gutierrez traveled to Apple headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., to meet directly with Bruce Sewell, then the iPhone maker’s top lawyer.

Sewell had been a firefighter before becoming a lawyer. He oversaw a legal department that spanned about 900 people and had an annual budget of almost $1 billion—a good portion of which he used for litigation.

Unlike some lawyers, Sewell subscribed to a theory that a general counsel was there to embrace risk—not avoid it. Or, as he described it, he didn’t mind sailing close to the wind.

“You want to get to the point where you can use risk as a competitive advantage—that’s the point at which law actually becomes a commercial asset to the company,” Sewell would one day tell law school students. In other words, he wanted to get close to the line without crossing it.

Given that philosophy, it’s probably not surprising that the Apple-Spotify meeting didn’t resolve their differences. Later, Gutierrez sent a blistering letter to Sewell about Spotify’s update being rejected. “This latest episode raises serious concerns under both U.S. and EU competition law,” Gutierrez wrote. “It continues a troubling pattern of behavior by Apple to exclude and diminish the competitiveness of Spotify.”

Apple responded forcefully. In its own letter, Apple accused the streaming service of wanting special treatment—an assertion it often used against developers who spoke out against its rules.

“We find it troubling that you are asking for exemptions to the rules we apply to all developers, and are publicly resorting to rumors and half-truths about our service,” Sewell wrote. “Spotify’s app was again rejected for attempting to circumvent in-app purchase rules, and not, as you claim, because Spotify was simply seeking to communicate with its customers.”

Months later, Apple’s stonewalling on approving Spotify’s app stopped.

A call from Apple suggesting a minor tweak unlocked things.

It would be a brief reprieve.

Even before Gutierrez had been hired, Spotify had been seeking help dealing with Apple from Washington, D.C., including going to the Federal Trade Commission, to present their argument for why Apple’s behavior was a violation of antitrust law.

The overall theory was similar to the one the Justice Department pursued against Microsoft years earlier: that Apple had an ecosystem that was leveraging dominance in one space to distort competition in another.

But Spotify left disappointed. They felt there was either a lack of understanding of the power of the App Economy or a lack of an appetite to go after Apple. The iPhone maker was seen as an innovator, and the Spotify team kept hearing: Why can’t Apple charge money?

With Gutierrez at the helm, Spotify intensified efforts to seek help from regulators in Europe. Spotify, after all, was founded in Sweden, a member of the European Union. “As a victim of a crime, it’s easier to go to the authority where you reside,” one Spotify executive said.

In Brussels, Gutierrez found an ally in a Danish politician named Margrethe Vestager, then head of the bloc’s powerful antitrust office. She was probably the closest thing to a celebrity in Brussels, becoming known in the U.S. as the “tax lady” for a bruising public fight with Apple over her claim that the company owed more than $14 billion in unpaid taxes.

Vestager had grown up in a small town, the daughter of two Lutheran rectors whose early lessons of right and wrong resonated for a lifetime. She framed antitrust law in almost biblical terms. And she was more than willing to be David in a fight against the U.S. tech Goliaths.

As Apple fought Vestager over claims it had improperly dodged taxes, Cook himself traveled to Brussels in 2016 to meet face to face with her.

The meeting didn’t go well. Cook lectured her on tax laws in a way that the Europeans saw as trying to intimidate, people familiar with the meeting said. “Widely known in Brussels as the worst tech meeting to ever occur,” a lawyer close to the commission said later. “People say it was pretty damn ugly.”

Vestager’s team was more than willing to hear what Spotify had to say about Apple’s alleged abuses. She’d been looking for a poster child in a broader fight against Apple’s power.

Spotify was more than eager to play that role. And it was ready to offer something even more important: a smoking gun.

Because Spotify operated in both Apple’s App Store and the parallel universe of Google’s app store, which at the time was more permissive, Spotify came up with a clever way of showing how things might be different if not for Apple’s rules.

Using the Android platform, Spotify essentially created an A/B test to show how Apple-like rules affected upgrades compared with more permissive rules allowing customers to be steered to alternative payment methods.

The first experiment was conducted in May 2018 on users in Spotify’s five largest European markets—France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K. A second experiment was run in December with different variables and on a wider group—not just the five largest European markets, but also Australia, Brazil, Mexico and the United States.

Both experiments, according to results that were later revealed in legal records, showed fewer people upgrading under the Apple-like rules.

Armed with data, Spotify was ready to attack. The company filed an official complaint in March 2019 with the European Commission, alleging that Apple had abused its control over which apps appear in the App Store to limit competition against its own streaming music service. It took issue with Apple blocking efforts to inform customers of ways to upgrade its service outside Apple’s reach.

Using Spotify’s data, the commission conservatively estimated that Apple’s restrictions were resulting in Spotify losing out on 20% of its in-app users upgrading. Put another way, millions of “users got lost in the subscription process and did not end up subscribing,” and millions more had “an inferior user experience.”

Apple would strongly deny wrongdoing in a lengthy statement, essentially accusing Spotify of being a freeloader. “Spotify wouldn’t be the business they are today without the App Store ecosystem, but now they’re leveraging their scale to avoid contributing to maintaining that ecosystem for the next generation of app entrepreneurs,” the company said. “We think that’s wrong.”

Ultimately, the commission would agree with Spotify, leveling the giant fine last year that’s under appeal.

That was just one part of Gutierrez’s strategy. The second part was to push the European Union to pass new laws targeted at reining in Apple’s power over the App Economy.

Gutierrez, who left Spotify in early 2022, and other Apple rivals would argue that the bloc needed updated antitrust laws to give Vestager’s office the ability to move faster as technology evolved, an argument helped by the fact that the EU’s investigation into Apple was taking so long.

The culmination was the adoption in 2022 of the Digital Markets Act, aimed at large tech companies like Apple. For the iPhone maker, the law loosens its grip on the App Store, including by prohibiting it from banning developers from steering European users outside of the app to make purchases—Spotify’s original complaint.

Earlier this year, Apple was hit with a more than $500 million fine for failing to comply with the new law. The company is appealing, arguing it is working to fulfill the new requirements. Its latest plans for fulfilling those requirements fall short of what Spotify had hoped, however. “Apple is still proposing new fees that perpetuate the status quo—despite being told to stop its illegal conduct,” Avery Gardiner, director of global competition policy at Spotify, said.

All of which puts more pressure on Cook next week to deliver iPhones that juice sales while Apple continues to sail close to the wind in its App Economy war.

WSJ : Larry Ellison Is Spending Billions to Reshape Oxford and His Own Legacy

Larry Ellison Is Spending Billions to Reshape Oxford and His Own Legacy
Oracle’s founder is spending big around the 900-year-old university campus and even bought a famous local pub. His Silicon Valley management style is already raising hackles.

Larry Ellison purchased the Eagle and Child pub for $10.7 million, signaling his growing interest in Oxford University.
Ellison is building a $1.3 billion research campus and attracting Oxford academics with high salaries.
Ellison aims to transform Oxford into a hub for commercializing research, sparking debate about its public mission.

OXFORD, England—When the American tech titan Larry Ellison showed up here wanting to buy a historic pub called the Eagle and Child that was a beloved hangout of J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, he was told it wasn’t for sale.

The response from the billionaire’s camp: Everything’s for sale.

And it was. Ellison now owns the pub after ponying up £8 million, or $10.7 million now, far above its market value, according to records and people familiar with the matter.

Trustees of the University of Oxford college that owned the pub for two decades debated the sale. They touched on the reputational risks of selling a famous British treasure, especially to an American billionaire. But the offer, described by college financiers as unsolicited and “exceptional,” easily prevailed.

Ellison’s pub purchase, in October 2023, turned out to be a modest indicator of his ambitions for linking up with one of the world’s most famous universities and reshaping his own philanthropic legacy.

About 4 miles from the pub, in a science office park outside the city center, the Oracle ORCL 4.39%increase; green up pointing triangle founder is bankrolling a massive for-profit research campus costing upward of $1.3 billion, the planned home of his Ellison Institute of Technology by 2027.

Ellison announced two years ago his plans to shift the institute’s hub to Oxford from its smaller site in Los Angeles. The venture aims to tackle issues ranging from food security and healthcare to artificial intelligence and robotics, operating as a sustainable private business powered by Oracle technology.

Since then, Ellison has been splashing out hundreds of millions on real estate in and around Oxford and luring top academics from the publicly funded university to come work for him for outsize salaries.

The spending has only intensified suspicions among some Oxford insiders and university supporters that the 900-year-old institution’s elite faculty and valuable research could be hollowed out by a man whose roughly $275 billion in wealth is mind-boggling even by U.S. standards.

The alliance has had something of a rocky start.

In early 2024, Ellison tapped an influential, longtime Oxford academic to oversee his institute—the twice-knighted Canadian-born geneticist John Bell. His presence helped give the project a sheen of academic prestige and insights into university politics. It lent Oxford the comfort of an insider crossing over who would still look out for the university.

But Bell stepped down recently, after clashing with Ellison over operations and staffing for months, people close to the matter say. They say tensions flared over the mix of people being brought into the institute with academic backgrounds versus entrepreneurs experienced at building profitable companies on ambitious timelines.

Bell has complained to colleagues in recent weeks about Ellison’s decisions to fire senior staff in strategy, finance and other areas without involving him.

Bell didn’t respond to requests for comment. In a statement Monday, he called it a “very challenging project” and said he was handing the reins to Dr. Santa Ono, former president of the University of Michigan, who last month was named the institute’s new global president.

The Oxford institute’s sleek, modern plans, from the firm of renowned British architect Norman Foster, include an oncology clinic, auditorium, laboratories, library, classrooms and park space with a formal pond surrounded by trees, all designed to host as many as 7,000 scientists.

That rivals the size of Oxford University’s entire academic research staff.

By showering Silicon Valley cash on Oxford, Ellison is aiming to transform a tradition-bound, often parochial place that has long strived to produce even a fraction of the fast-growing spinoffs that emerge from Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Ellison said he is just getting started. The 81-year-old announced in July that he is now directing more of his fortune—the world’s second largest—to the institute, after years ago pledging to give away at least half of his money to charity.

Ellison said he will now concentrate his wealth on his Oxford institute, funding technologies that could be spun out into businesses that he controls.

“I believe this will improve our chances of delivering practical solutions to the problems of hunger, healthcare and climate change,” Ellison said in a post on X.

Terms of the Oxford-Ellison agreement aren’t public. But according to people familiar with the arrangement, Oxford stands to gain from £20 million or more a year toward joint research projects through 2030. It could earn around 1% of profits generated by EIT through the partnership, depending on the commercial success of research programs and spinouts.

The deal allows Ellison to bring on Oxford academics, including senior department faculty and startup founders, as part-time employees. Ellison is also funding scholarships for students to attend Oxford.

“This could completely revolutionize Oxford,” said Jane Khedair, who runs the Institute of Entrepreneurship and Private Capital at London Business School.

But Khedair cautioned that balancing Ellison’s commercial interests with Oxford’s public obligations will be tricky.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a foregone conclusion that this is the right way forward,” Khedair said. “The more money that’s at stake, the bigger the gun you have to your head.”

An Oxford spokesman said the Ellison Institute partnership is aligned with Oxford’s public mission and that the university maintains academic and institutional independence.

This week, Oxford and the institute announced funding of £118 million for Oxford University medical researchers to work alongside the institute on using artificial intelligence and Oracle technology to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of vaccines. Intellectual property developed through the project will belong to the Ellison Institute, people familiar with the agreement say.

The funding rivals some of the biggest grants Oxford University has received.

Ellison’s net worth has surged with the AI boom, catapulting him to behind only his friend Elon Musk on the world’s rich lists. Ellison owns more than 40% of Oracle shares.

Ellison initially showed up in Oxford in the early days of the pandemic, according to people familiar with the matter. Ellison was introduced around town by his friend Tony Blair, the former British prime minister.

Around that time, Ellison and his wife, Jolin, also known as Keren Zhu, set about putting down roots in Oxford. They told people around town that they were making arrangements for a family member to attend an elite private school in town, the eventual target being England’s famed Eton College. They shopped for country estates.

Ellison later dropped £162 million on a listed office building on London’s upscale St. James’s Square—in the city’s priciest office-property corridor. The space is earmarked for the Ellison Institute, according to the lawyers who handled the purchase.

Among other appealing aspects of the U.K., Ellison sees its brainpower as a bargain. He has told scientists and university supporters that for every single software engineer he could hire in Silicon Valley, he can get four or five in the U.K. for the same money.

The institute caused ripples in U.K. academic circles earlier this year when it recruited a star chemistry and biology professor named Jason Chin from Cambridge, with senior Oxford administrators buzzing that the university couldn’t have afforded him without Ellison’s money. Chin, founder of a biotech startup, is now also part-time faculty at Oxford, where he studied as an undergraduate.

Strategic and financial partnerships between universities and companies and private interests aren’t unusual. Many tech and drug companies, as well as individual megadonors, have sponsored specific research or funded academic institutes. In the U.S., companies recently have been stepping in to backfill funding holes left by sweeping cuts to government grants.

But the scale of Ellison’s plans and his explicit focus on creating for-profit companies place the Oxford experiment in a different field. In recent months, he has been hands-on with the institute’s development, getting involved in such minutiae as selecting wall decor and office furniture for the yet-to-be-built campus.

More than 40% of publicly-funded universities in England ran a budget deficit last year, a figure that has been rising. Oxford fares better than most, but remains constrained by a government-imposed cap on tuition for U.K. full-time undergraduates and the country’s own fiscal woes.

At a July meeting welcoming senior business-school faculty this summer, the university’s top administrator in charge of innovation, Chas Bountra, told the group that Oxford has to attract more wealthy funders to compete on the world stage, according to a person who was present.

“We’ve got to make this Ellison project a success,” he said.

If Ellison and other outsiders make money in the process, Bountra has told colleagues, that is fine, and maybe will bring more billionaires to Oxford’s doorstep.

Scaffolding envelopes the Bird and Baby—the longtime nickname of the Eagle and Child—wrapped in a decorative screen depicting the pub’s historic features. The Ellison Institute has said the upstairs will be meeting space for Ellison-funded scholars and academics.

Downstairs, Ellison has promised to safeguard the property’s 300-year legacy as a public watering hole, but with better food. The refurbishment is being overseen by Foster, his firm’s first pub job.

The Information Survey: More Than Half of Respondents Take a GLP-1

The Information Survey: More Than Half of Respondents Take a GLP-1


It’s not exactly news that Ozempic, Wegovy and other GLP-1 drugs are catching on, with some surveys showing nearly 12% of Americans have used the weight loss medications. The Information’s audience seems to be even more gung-ho about taking GLP-1s than the broader population.

More than 50% of the respondents to our recent survey on the topic said they’re currently on a GLP-1 and an additional 4% said they had taken one of the drugs in the past. Those are eye-popping figures that likely reflect the fact that many people in and around Silicon Valley are more affluent than the general population, which makes them less sensitive to the out-of-pocket expense of GLP-1 drugs. And techies also tend to be enthusiastic early adopters of new wellness trends (see our related story here).

It’s possible that people taking the drugs were more inclined to participate in this survey, since they clearly have an interest in the topic. More than 930 people responded to The Information’s survey question about whether they’re taking a GLP-1. The respondents included a mix of subscribers to The Information and non-subscribers who have signed up to receive email alerts for our news articles.

Of those respondents who are currently taking a GLP-1, weight loss is by far the primary motivation for doing so, followed by other goals like disease prevention and anti-inflammatory benefits.

A significant number of respondents to the survey also said they have taken non-standard, low doses of GLP-1s. This practice, known as microdosing, has caught on among people who believe it’s an effective way to avoid negative side-effects from the drugs, such as nausea.

More than half of respondents to our survey said they’re experiencing negative side effects from taking the drug.

And for those respondents who told us they aren’t taking a GLP-1, three-quarters said they’ve thought about doing so in the past. Clearly, the drugs have penetrated the minds of The Information’s audience, even if they’re not actually taking them.

The Information : Why Silicon Valley Believes GLP-1s Are All-Purpose Wonder Drug

Why Silicon Valley Believes GLP-1s Are All-Purpose Wonder Drugs
A sizable group of the tech elite see the medication as the natural next thing to try in the never-ending quest for optimization and longevity.

Over the past year, investor Brian Sugar has developed what he considers a “superpower,” finding it newly possible to push himself harder than ever before at home, in the gym—and in the office.

What’s given him this boost? He attributes it to a recently acquired prescription for semaglutide, which places him among a sizable portion of the Silicon Valley elite who’ve come to value GLP-1 drugs as more than just weight loss aids. “It’s like you’re almost programming your brain for what you want to feel good about,” Sugar said.

GLP-1s are indeed part of life for many in the tech world. In fact, 50.5% of the nearly 1,000 people who responded to a reader survey by The Information last week said they were currently taking some kind of GLP-1. That suggests the drugs are far more widely used among the technorati than in the general population. For context, an August survey by think tank Rand found an estimated 12% of Americans have tried GLP-1s.

Quite a few people have embraced a microdosing-style approach to Ozempic and other similar medications, staying on lower doses rather than following the general medical recommendation to gradually increase them. Those taking the smaller doses believe they get enough of the benefits while avoiding the more intense side effects now closely associated with the drugs, such as nausea.

Roughly 20% of respondents to The Information’s survey who have taken GLP-1 drugs before said they have taken a lower dose than recommended of the drugs to help manage negative side effects or for other reasons.

Some, like marketing executive Craig Atkinson, said they saw sufficient results with the starter doses and didn’t see the need to up their intake. Atkinson says he’s lost about 15 pounds, but the main benefit has been that he has found it easier to make healthy decisions.

“A lot of what I do is putting myself culinarily and entertainment-wise into dangerous situations requiring a lot of willpower,” said Atkinson, who’s the CEO of digital marketing agency Code3. In other words, he spends most nights dining out with clients like Paramount and Dior. “I just stayed on the small dose, and it was all I needed to just shift the balance of that desire,” he said.

The main effect of the tirzepatide he’s taking, Atkinson said, is the disappearance of the desire to reach for a snack in the middle of the day, even his former favorite, peanut butter–stuffed pretzels. That restraint shows up at work gatherings as well. “I literally cannot do a tasting menu anymore,” he added. (Tirzepatides are another subclass of GLP-1s similar to semaglutide, sold under the brand names Zepbound and Mounjaro.)

Since the Food and Drug Administration approved GLP-1s like semaglutide for weight loss in mid-2021, the drugs have become wildly popular. Brands such as Ozempic, originally sold by Novo Nordisk as a diabetes medication, and Wegovy, the manufacturer’s version tailored for obesity management, are now nearly as recognizable as bathroom-cabinet staples like Tylenol or Claritin.

To many of the founders, investors and executives taking a GLP-1, it’s the natural next thing to try in Silicon Valley’s relentless pursuit of greater mental and physical optimization. It imbues them with more energy for days of back-to-back-to-back meetings, confidence during investor pitches and other perceived benefits.

GLP-1s are a particular favorite of the biohacking set, who are adding the drugs to their stacks of supplements and peptides for a boost of energy and potential longevity benefits.

In many ways, techies are primed to adopt GLP-1s. They’re less cost sensitive than typical Americans and likely more willing to navigate paying out of pocket for the drugs. They’re also more into the notion of health optimization—extending their longevity and experimenting on themselves to stay on the front lines of health and wellness trends.

GLP-1s, or glucagon-like peptides, were used to treat diabetes before doctors started prescribing them as weight-loss drugs over the past few years. They work by mimicking the GLP-1 hormone the body makes naturally, which regulates insulin levels, digestion and the feeling of satiety. Growing research shows other benefits of the popular drugs include a lower risk of dementia and decreased inflammation.

But they aren’t without risks. Taking them requires patients to diligently manage their protein intake and exercise to ensure they’re not losing too much muscle mass, which can lead to the phenomenon now known as “Ozempic face,” where a person’s face sags from losing too much volume. Meanwhile, media coverage and perceived widespread use among celebrities have stoked worries that the drugs will further exacerbate an unhealthy obsession with thinness.

Trying to guess who among friends and colleagues is taking a GLP-1 has become a favorite Silicon Valley guessing game. Sugar, the investor, has assembled a list of telltale signs.

“You won’t be able to tell by the amount of food they’re eating—they’ll be smart about that, obviously,” he said. “But if you look at their fingers—their fingers will look like they were in the pool for a while, because you’re dehydrated, and a lot of people don’t take care of that. And then the other thing is, your epidermis becomes thinner.” That makes lots of people taking the drugs feel colder, Sugar says—but that’s often easy to hide in the land of fleece vests and company hoodies.

“I think a ton of people are just keeping it really, really quiet,” Sugar said. “It was actually hard for me to find people that would want to talk about it.”

One venture capitalist who frequents an Equinox gym in San Francisco’s Marina District told me about noticing a curious uptick in ripped physiques at the gym in recent months. (Doctors warn their patients a lot of the pounds they shed on GLP-1s can come from muscle loss, so many of them make a concerted effort to counteract that by hitting the gym.)

“This is San Francisco. Where the hell are these people coming from? We don’t have people here like that—that’s an LA thing,” the venture capitalist said.

Among the founders who aren’t bashful about discussing their GLP-1 use, Taylor Offer is blunt about why he’s taking the drugs. “I want to get every edge I can,” he said.

Offer, who started and ran Feat Clothing before selling the apparel startup to a private equity firm last year, considers himself fit and active. And he hadn’t ever thought about taking a GLP-1 until a recommendation to take one came from the same doctor who has counseled him on peptides and other supplements, like creatine and MOTS-c, a peptide that ostensibly improves metabolism and energy.

He said the small dose of GLP-1 makes him feel “like a superhero” and frees up mental bandwidth he used to expend thinking about meals and snacks.

“I spent a lot of my mental energy thinking about food—when my next meal would be, what I’d be eating,” he said. “And when I started thinking about how to optimize myself even more during the workday, I was really like, if I don’t snack or go for those foods—if I don’t eat a large lunch and feel sluggish—those are optimizations.”

In the past, Offer, who’s currently working on a stealth project backed by Andreessen Horowitz’s Speedrun incubator, had tried Adderall and other stimulants for focus, which left him dealing with ups and downs. With the GLP-1, “I don’t go up and down. I feel good all day, every day, which just feels nice,” he said.

Dan Freed has been taking a GLP-1, too—a weekly microdose roughly half the size of the typical starting dose of 0.25 milligrams—as an experimental addition to his ever-changing peptide lineup. That array also currently includes pinealon, which aims to help with cognitive function and provide anti-aging benefits, and selank, which some users say can help treat anxiety and enhance the body’s natural mood-boosting mechanisms.

“It quiets noise around unhealthy behaviors,” said Freed, founder and CEO of Thesis, which makes a line of nootropic supplements to support cognitive function. “I could expend that mental bandwidth on other things.”

But Freed plans to stop soon because his weight is dipping too low. “It’s hard—like, if you’re just not hungry, it’s hard to make yourself eat, especially when you’re short on time,” he said.

Freed only bought one vial, but he said that even if he were to continue with the dosage he’s currently taking, the supply would still last him around a year. While he considers taking GLP-1 an interesting trial, he’s already looking into other peptides that could produce slightly different results, like glutathione, which can help with tissue repair and immune system function, and tesofensine, a drug originally developed to help treat Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases that’s now in clinical trials as a weight loss drug.

Others have found that GPL-1s provide a critical missing piece for managing other health conditions.

Fatemeh Khatibloo started taking a GLP-1 a few years ago to help keep her blood sugar levels in check after a diabetes diagnosis. Khatibloo, an executive leading Salesforce’s responsible AI strategy, said doctors didn’t realize that her weight gain and diabetes were the result of perimenopause until taking Wegovy helped her lower her A1C levels, demonstrating that insulin resistance was the underlying problem.

“I had done everything. I had made the lifestyle choices and the diet choices and all of that stuff,” she said. “But it turns out that insulin resistance is a huge part of perimenopause and menopause.”

Monji Dolon, founder of Measured, a New York–based telemedicine startup, hopes his weekly 0.2 mg microdose of GLP-1, which he thinks has already sharpened his mental acuity by allowing him to “read and focus and write more effectively,” can also reduce his risk of future heart issues.

“As a South Asian male, I’m predestined to take statins at some point in my life because of cholesterol issues,” he said. “I’m supercurious to see if this can help prolong or delay…having to take statins or completely reduce that.”

As it happens, Dolon doesn’t just take a GLP-1. He sells them, too.

While he originally founded Measured as a coaching app for diet and exercise routines in 2021, the startup expanded into a GLP-1 telemedicine offering that offers access to prescriptions for the drugs and help navigating insurance coverage for them. The company doesn’t yet have an official microdosing option, but Dolon says Measured is considering launching one to help expand access to the drugs.

“I’ve met many people who were reluctant to take GLP-1s because of some of these reasons, who, when hearing about microdosing, are OK with it and are excited about it and actually want to try it,” he said.

Measured and a host of other telehealth startups are trying to get in on the sales boom GLP-1s have created for the big pharma companies that make the brand-name versions of the drugs. Hims, a Thrive Capital– and IVP-backed startup that went public through a 2021 special purpose acquisition company deal, is perhaps the best-known competitor. GLP-1s accounted for an estimated 30% of its $481 million in revenue in the fourth quarter of 2024, according to a Morgan Stanley analysis.

Noom, a Sequoia Capital–backed telehealth company, added GLP-1s last year and recently launched a GLP-1 microdosing offering, which the company says can help patients keep costs down and manage side effects while still seeing results. Noom has refocused its mission to emphasize the role weight loss plays in overall health and longevity and aims to help users develop other healthy habits like increased exercise and protein intake, CEO Geoff Cook said.

“Motivation—that’s the one thing that really we try to be differentiated on and to impart to the member,” Cook said. “When you think about what a GLP-1 is doing, it’s affecting your motivation. Reduction of food noise is changing your motivation.”

Most doctors stress that microdosing GLP-1s is experimental and something they don’t officially recommend, since the approach’s safety and efficacy haven’t been fully researched.Anne Komé, a clinical pharmacist for the University of North Carolina’s health system, wrote a letter in the journal Diabetes Care earlier this year arguing that microdosing could make sense for some patients, but only in specific scenarios under close supervision.

Alloy Women’s Health, which focuses on telehealth services and prescriptions for women in perimenopause and menopause, launched GLP-1s recently as a complement to the company’s core hormone replacement therapy offering, which helps treat menopausal symptoms by replacing hormones such as estrogen that dip as menopause progresses.

“HRT solves all of the symptoms of menopause except weight gain,” Alloy co-founder Anne Fulenwider said. “It’s not just about getting as small as possible. Most people that we hear from—the weight loss is a very important element, but it almost becomes secondary to kind of a new lease on life in so many different ways.”

Sugar, the venture capitalist, finds himself thinking often about the commercial potential in the GLP-1 craze. Roughly one in five companies Sugar meets with these days is making a product that could address GLP-1 side effects or changes, he says. That focus is part of his effort to bet on the changes in consumer behavior he anticipates will result from increased adoption of the drugs. Sugar is already an investor in fast-growing gummy vitamin brand Grüns, which touts itself as an easy way to get daily vitamins and minerals, and which has marketed itself as “Ozempic’s new bestie.”

Despite the benefits he’s seen personally, Sugar is planning to gradually taper off and stop taking the drug. While most of the side effects have been fairly manageable, in large part because of the low doses he’s been taking, he said, some of his hair has started to thin recently, which he fears might be a side effect.

“I have a pretty thick head of hair,” Sugar said. “That’s, like, my identity.”

Still, he thinks the drug has definitely boosted his self-confidence, which he has especially appreciated lately as he’s been pitching potential investors for Sugar Capital’s third fund. Besides, health markers like triglyceride levels and metabolic age have improved, and he has been able to stop taking prescriptions for conditions such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure.

“After I went to the doctor and my numbers came back, it was like, ‘Wow, this is a secret that shouldn’t be a secret, because it’s not only for vanity,’” he said.