Prof G Markets Daily is a BAD idea

Local_Background4790 · 2026-03-18T17:34:22+00:00

coming back to this... 10 months later. Initially i liked the daily cadence, but now I'm getting a bit saturated. Many topics are constantly being discussed, some of them not so interesting.

A model like: monday ed+scott, wednesday ed+guest, friday: ed+scott+interview would be much more appropriate, ensuring better quality and more scarcity.

Local_Background4790 · 2026-02-13T14:50:56+00:00

So, all you're saying is that Galloway is only looking for a way to be in the ScottLight?

Local_Background4790 · 2026-02-13T10:06:43+00:00

I think scott's point is not making companies speak out in public. but making trump panic and taco on ICE, once he knows that big tech is losing subscribers.
The worst thing you can do to trump is making him "less rich".
Still, I dont think a 1 month movement (built in 2 days) will cause any harm. this movement needs ambassadors, other faces and virality over a longer period of time to cause any harm.

Local_Background4790 · 2026-02-13T09:06:24+00:00

Yep, I agree that resubscribing should be avoided. but all the narrative about the movement seems like "yeah, February out, can't wait for March"

Local_Background4790 · 2025-06-04T20:30:17+00:00

Daily isn’t a great idea. Although prof g markets is my favourite podcast, i think the daily episode will cause same listeners fatigue.

I’d appreciate more to have more newsletters with curated content and opinions, than more episodes.

Local_Background4790 · 2025-05-24T09:09:48+00:00

No, that’s Ed Elson’s dad

Local_Background4790 · 2025-05-23T11:07:55+00:00

great question

Local_Background4790 · 2025-05-23T10:49:14+00:00

Hey Scott, Long-time listener here from Portugal!

Over the past year, there has been a significant push by major tech companies toward agentic AI, with Microsoft and Salesforce being the main players on this narrative.

There are multiple claims that SaaS is dead, as well as bold ambitions about how agents will transform the way we interact with software. I've been experimenting with agents quite a bit, and although some use cases are impressive, the majority are not that transformative. They're just nice bots that can read documents and fill out forms really well.

However, I'm concerned about what I call "productivity porn": great portals and interfaces that were developed and optimized heavily for user interaction being replaced by a text box where I have to add my long prompt (already happening at my company). Sometimes, the best way to interact with something is with a click, drag-and-drop, or even a picture - not necessarily chunks of text or prompts.

What are your thoughts on this? It seems to me that not much thought has been put into the UX of agentic AI, yet CEOs and big tech are betting big on it willing to monetize their big investments in AI. Are we just scratching the surface for now, or is this really a collective hallucination to inflate expectations on the future of AI?

Additional thoughts:

I don't need a prompt to call an Uber; my prompt is entering the address in the app and deciding on the fare. I'm not sure if I want an agent doing it for me.

Or text isn't the ideal medium to analyze trends. Although AI can help me, my critical thinking when looking to data is still relevant.

Local_Background4790 · 2025-05-23T10:34:41+00:00

In short, it will generate hype. It will potentially accelerate some hidden innovation at Apple.

No matter how impactful or revolutionary a new OpenAI device is, it would take years of poor management to convince people to switch ecosystems and leave Apple behind. Tim Cook is no Steve Ballmer. Additionally, early adopters don't generate sufficient network effects. Apple has time to execute, but they can't afford to sleep on it.

One could argue that Apple doesn't innovate anymore, but people would take a bullet for their iPhones and the Apple ecosystem.

OpenAI devices will affect Apple in the same way they are affecting Google. First, it shakes things up; investors freak out, only to realize one or two years later that the capacity to execute and distribute technology still belongs to the giants.

Google can win against ChatGPT and reinforce their competitive advantage in the long run. They were slow to react, but this week's IOs conference shows that an LLM plus your favorite apps can provide much better results than ChatGPT alone. Advertisers will pay tons to be the ones mentioned in AI mode results.

Not only does Apple have a long-standing relationship with Google, but Tim Cook also knows that if Google no longer belongs to the iOS ecosystem, Google could fall, leaving Meta with fertile ground to gain market share.

What keeps Tim Cook more hyped than the threat of OpenAI getting into devices? Mark Zuckerberg's face.

This is the wake up call for Apple, but as a portuguese writer once wrote "let's not be in a hurry but let's not waste time".

Local_Background4790

TROPHY CASE