75. 30,000 employees gone overnight: What can we learn from Oracle’s cull?

Jonathan: Welcome to the Difference Engine, the show for tech founders, investors and innovators. So Paul, what's coming up Today, Paul: we're swapping our beautiful green bottles of mythos for Claude Mythos. Is it the end of the cybersecurity boom or just fantastic pr, Jonathan: but first are 30,000 jobs, simply collateral damage in the race. The US AI dominance.

One company certainly seems to think so. Paul: So, um, Oracle's one of those companies that you, uh, if you didn't know, you didn't know, but it silently became one of the largest companies in the world, uh, Jonathan and I have been dealing with. Um, its, its markets, its competitors, its categories for years. Something interesting happened the other day at six o'clock in the morning, 30,000 employees of Oracle, six o'clock in the morning, 30,000 Oracle employees.

Fired. No warning, no manager chat. Nada. Just your role is gone.

And if you'd like any money from us, sign here immediately. Now, um, to put this into context, Oracle has just hit record profits. Say that again. 30,000 people sacked.

Oracle has just hit record profits. The stock rose on this news, 5% up, but their CEO an all round interesting bond villain. Larry Ellison needed eight to $10 billion cash. 'cause this man has built up $156 billion AI data center gamble.

Um, that's the sort of overdraft which, uh, even Jonathan would, would block at. And it's gone on to fire nearly one in five workers. For the simple purpose. Some would say, allegedly to make the balance sheet with this large debt look investible.

That's not innovation guys. That's financial engineering, which has human collateral, I'm afraid to say. Jonathan: Well, also wonders, you know, while we talking about this, um, well, what about, you know, UK and European tech leaders Paul: can't happen here. Can it, could it happen here?

It might do, Jonathan: uh, anything's possible in this particular world. So that 300. Billion open AI deal have done justified $50 billion in debt. Um, OpenAI walked away 'cause the chips were already obsolete, resulting in a negative $10 billion cash flow.

So what would you do about it? Um, might fired 30,000 people, not because the tech replaced them. No matter, you know, what the message to Wall Street, but because Larry's mother load just collapsed, you know, the press release said Investing in AI's future, oh, come on. The truth, we borrowed more than we could service.

Hmm. Perhaps that's a lessons to certain national economy is not too far from here anyway, sitting here in our, our little concrete tower in, in West London and having. Dealt very happily with American tech firms for well over 40 years, or you know, 70 to 80 between us. This to us, and certainly to me, looks like American Tech at its worst, right?

So the shareholders went. Stock was at 5% on, on layoff day. Ex executives went. So Larry's fortune now about $200 billion.

And the workers sort of phrase that I never thought would come outta my mind, but the people that actually make the company run lose, and that's 30,000, 30, imagine 30,000 people, you know, that's, that's about at least 10 English villages worth, you know, and their, their careers vaporized. Before breakfast. What must have that felt like? What did they tell their families?

Paul: Well, I know what they've been saying on LinkedIn and it ain't good. Jonathan: Somebody say it's, uh, casino capitalism dressed up as disruption. The US loves to moralize about innovation, but when debt calls come home or workers of the collateral. Paul: Yeah.

And we are beginning to sound a little bit like, um, you know, fully paid up members of the, of the union. However, I'm gonna try and take the, the opposite side of this. So, um. You know, these are big bets which accompany, uh, at the age of Oracle.

And dare I say, uh, a gentleman with the vulnerability of Mr. Ellison would not typically make, you know, the typical wisdom is you made your money, you know, vest in peace, uh, and go and enjoy your spoils. But this is a big, bold move. And yes, uh, there was a kerfuffle with the data center, which, um, which was being built for OpenAI, and the deal is looking a little bit flaky.

But the, the, you know that the bets are down. Um, you know that money has been borrowed and it needs paying back. So, um, if you were a startup, you could suck one in five. People from your business and, um, you know, let's look at it.

X sucked 80% of their workforce in a similar business. So, um, you know, is this the US model or is this something even bigger? Um, the end of times, thanks to ai, the US model is all about. Over leveraging betting big, uh, and unfortunately that sometimes means firing on mass.

Now over here, we, we don't do that. We have, um, very much these days tighter, lower, uh, labor laws. Some would say strong worker prediction. Other would say.

Uh, over strong worker protections. And we do have a, we do have cul a culture that values transparency. Um, like look me in the eyes when you're shooting me in the back sort of thing. Um, the temptation is real.

Um, 'cause UK scale ups are looking, uh, as you said at what goes on in the us. We're chasing AI hype. We've had a lot of venture debt and we are as a. Country signing lots of very large cloud contracts, Jonathan: UK venture debts equals fixed repayments, missed covenants, lender seize assets.

Paul: Yeah, I mean, I guess if you've got checks and balances, you can, Jonathan: yeah, so if you're a, if you're a US and you make a single customer bet a UK reality check, you know, if you're 50% revenues from one hyperscaler. They pivot, you are sunk. And, and you know that thing about email layoffs out the blue? Well, you know, if you're based in the uk, UK law, and this is, you know, pretty much reflected across Europe needs 90 days of consultation for, you know, more than a hundred redundancies, you know, do it very email.

Well, you've been for about 2.7 billion in unfair dismissal awards. Paul: There are a lot of unfair dismissal awards, as you say. Um, so the US treats these layoffs, um.

Rather cruelly, I would say, as financial instruments in the uk. That's not just unethical, it's sort of illegal. You know, that sort of answers the question, why don't we let Wall Street efficiency creep back into British boardrooms? Be careful what you wish for, right?

Jonathan: You know, US Tech in 2026 is a bubble. Um, you know, the OBR, which is the Office of Budget Responsibility, um, warns of a 26 billion tax hole if it bursts. You know, the Bank of England says valuations are the most stretched since 2008. You know.

Are we in Europe following America off the cliff? Paul: Yeah. Or ironically, could a nice recession reset everything for us? I mean, these, these are interesting points all brought up from this one sort of severe, uh, act of corporate decisiveness.

Jonathan: So what should UK leaders do instead, Paul? Paul: Well, it'd be nice if they didn't send everyone a six o'clock in the morning, uh, pink slip. Um, I think there's three things they can do. One is to let's audit the capital.

Um. You have before you bet. Um, because we know a lot of this, um. BET was put on with, you know, the, uh, let's just say, um, the scenarios weren't fully planned out.

There was a lot of risk in that. Um, if you are gonna bet big, you do need to look at things, um, from a, you know, in terms of negative cash flow and, um, how many months of burn do you have if the bet goes wrong. It's just an obvious thing to think about, right? Uh, it it, you know, have you tied your debt?

To what you hope are, um, future outputs of ai or are you spending so much on CapEx and, and when we talk about ai CapEx, let's be really clear, we're talking about Nvidia mostly. Is your debt tied to that? And, and, and, you know, uh, we've seen people. Who will not take on customers, um, unless they can promise in a legal document, they have the Nvidia chips that they say they've got.

So, you know, this is very, very risky stuff and classically for any business, why would you let a single customer equal more than 30% of your revenue? That's how you get in trouble. Jonathan: Yeah. And you know, from sort of one, one soft idea, the idea of money to another soft idea, which is the idea of people.

Um, and, uh, you know, we would, we would advocate that, that certainly in the UK you need to build human-centric redundancy protocols. Um, you know, that is about giving, this is about. Being decent, I think from, from our point of view. So, you know, give 60 to 90 days, uh, notice absolutely not an outta the blue 6:00 AM email, you know, give out placement support.

If, if it is the case that your company structure has to change radically, the least you can do, it's help the people that have got you there in the first place, uh, to support them as they move on. And that means career coaching, um, you know, funding, networking and so on. I, I think the other thing is. Can you just be honest?

You know, we're pivoting to ai. This role no longer fits versus you're obsolete. Paul: Yeah. And I think, you know, if they were being completely honest.

What's wrong with we overhire during COVID and we need to reign it back a bit just as a, as a demonstration of honesty and, um, allegedly I have no proof of this. I read on LinkedIn, this isn't something that, um, may or may not be true, but allegedly, um, there was some, uh, discrimination against those. Folks who have the most amount of RSU still to vest. So those guys whose, whose, um, had a potential, uh, liability on the company, um, some say allegedly on LinkedIn.

Those were the, the folks that it would be most beneficial for Oracle to, um, to get, to get rid of first. And, uh, if, if that is true, we have no proof. It's true. Were that true?

That would be a, a reason that would, would sort your balance sheet out faster than just letting people go. But with 60 to 90 days, as Jonathan said over here, then um, you know, it's, it's only one quarters worth of money. Surely, um, that's a more human way to deal with things. Jonathan: I think there's a, there's another issue here, which I think is, you know, starts to become moral.

Paul: Gosh, look at us all higher by Jonathan: teeth. I know, I know. How could, how could we be talking this way? It is not only moral, but it's, um, it can be an element of, of productivity and motivation and ultimately company success to align executive pay with the rest of the company.

And of course the Japanese have been doing this for years, so, you know, align the pay. As a multiple of what your average worker, uh, takes home or your less paid worker, not just stock. Um, so CEO compensation also aligned with cash flow, not just that stock price. Paul: The casino starts with the stock price.

Isn't it really Jonathan: of costs? It does. And, and, you know, people become much more focused on that than they do on all the things which are supposed to influence that stock price. So I think also some of the personal guarantees should be capped.

You know, you, you don't mortgage your home for, for company debt. I mean, really do not. Um, and, and be honest with the employees about the risks. Not just the investors.

I mean, if you are asking your employees to, to shoulder risk in terms of, you know, their salary, their career, their future, their savings and so on, be absolutely clear about the risks. Paul: In summary then, um, you know, I didn't think this, this, uh, would lend us here. We're sounding like, um, you know, some, something between, um, some like, uh, union conveners. And, uh, sort of gospel preachers.

But, um, the fact is these layoffs, these Oracle layoffs, were not despite what anyone says about ai. They are about collateral. They're about, uh, leverage. They're about chips on the board.

They're about taking risk and ultimately, perhaps paying for a bet that the people affected by the outcome of the bet. Weren't up for, didn't bet on, didn't see 34 years of their career ending this way. Any advice then for all European listeners Jonathan: weirdly, um, as, as the world appears to be tearing itself apart, um, you know, we have, we have in the UK definitely benefited from. And, um, from, from US Tech and, you know, have really followed on its tail coats.

But as things have got a bit more extreme, um, the better a view for UK tech is don't copy the US playbook. You know, all get your debt, respect your people, and build things to last. Not to speculate, and we've talked about that in terms of where Europe should go in terms of building its business. You know, go into specialist niches, build moats that will last for a long time and add real value.

Um, because, um, the next time a tech giant far as masses of employees, it shouldn't be shocking. It should be unthinkable. Paul: So Jono, if I say the word mythos to you, Jonathan: yeah, Paul: you're probably maning imagining your toes in the sand. Jonathan: Oh, yes.

Paul: Those golden Greek. Oh yes. Sun. Sun rays burning into your skin.

Jonathan: Oh, a lovely green can with condensation falling down it. Paul: Beautiful. But no, we're talking about a different type of mythos. Jonathan: Oh God.

Sorry, my, I've woken out. My bubble has gone. Paul: Which brings me to my question is Claude Mythos the end of the cybersecurity boom or just. Fantastic pr.

Jonathan: That's sort of interesting, isn't it? I mean, you know, is it, is it um, you know, a self-selected all American group of vendors, you know, tipped off by the anti-Trump current AI sweetheart and tropic, are these the winners in the, the cyber race? You know, and until recently it seemed the only fast growing Uber category outside of ai. Now, uh, they could be looking like they're included in the also rans.

Um, so is the consolidation of cyber now or. No, no, the, no, the fact AI has tipped the arms race to the bad guys is not new. Uh, just making it more obvious, you know, no need to behave as a, uh, anthropic has, it's, its leadership is looking for PR Q dos to build on the anti open AI sentiment. You know, um, wasn't Sam Elman's house actually fire firebombs in recent days?

Yes. Paul: That's ridiculous. Why are people's fire bombing, uh, people's houses with their babies in them? That's crazy.

Right? Jonathan: You know, this is probably just. Performative scaremongering to try and capture momentum, you know, tip public and lawmaker opinions into anthropics favor. Paul: Right.

So we've got a debate here, haven't we? Like, you know, as you said, is it, is this just, um, the best guys in AI doing the best thing for the world? 'cause they're the best it ever. Or is it just county PR and one, uh, company, uh, albeit, you know, the guys that seem to win the race at the moment, anthropic basically creating the scenario that they win, uh, the new category of, um, post AI cybersecurity or whatever they call it.

Um, so you know, one could say that what, uh, philanthropic is done with Claude Mythos. Um, and in fact the broader positioning around Claude is a security aware AI system. I see a new, uh, version out to. That, uh, recently what they're saying here is it's not just about incremental improvement.

As you know, the cyber arms race sort of has been. It's, this is a moment in the sand. It implies a shift from all types of cybersecurity, uh, tooling, which is fragmented, and that is the message. That, um, people like CrowdStrike have been saying for years, and that's maybe why they made it, made the cut for the anthropic, uh, special attention people alongside Google, Microsoft, Palo Alto, and a few others.

It, it may be that that that this incremental shift to consolidate to platforms, uh, has now been superseded. By a one-time shift that this mythos product and the, um, the, the project that goes, uh, alongside it has now pointed out, and this threatens the promise that has kept lots of cyber vendors growing for the last few years, that the pie is growing and that the complexity requires many specialized tools. And if you're a big player in this market, that all of the specialist tools you need are available on my platform and not somebody else's.

Jonathan: Right. So let's break all this down and, and, and see, and see what this scenario means. So I think the first thing, you know, if we, if we do subscribe to the idea that, you know, suddenly, uh, cybersecurity is now part of ai and, and all those cybersecurity firms have. You know, it can just disappear.

Um, what we're seeing here is a self-selected winners circle. Yeah. Paul: Bully for them. Jonathan: Yeah.

Well, the optics matter on this. Um, you know, if the ecosystem is being high highlighted as largely US vendors already well capitalized, closely aligned with Frontier AI labs like anthropic, then it starts to look less like an open market and more like a curated inner circle. Yeah. You know what you said earlier, this group was effectively tipped off or at least aligned early.

Reinforces the idea that the next phase of cybersecurity isn't being competed for. It's already pre allocated. Now, that has to be toxic for a long tail of vendors. If buyers believe the real future is, is concentrated amongst a handful of AI aligned players, everybody else immediately looks second tier.

Paul: They do. And, um, let's not forget what Peter Thiel's advice is here. He hates competition in markets, hates it. You, you know, be different but be in a market of one.

So this is looking a little bit like a self-selected, uh, winner circle. I do agree. Um, now the, the second way to look at this, uh, from, uh, what Philanthropics trying to do here is, is, is trying to achieve what they call narrative. Capture and it's using, its, its friends in the media and experts, and of course, uh, a lot of those, um, media friends do, uh, back anthropic and it's anti-Trump, let's say anti-D, defense department, or Department of War, whatever the hell you wanna call it.

Uh, stance. Uh, and so on BBC News Night, we've got these so-called experts, um, and forgive me, they are largely academics, Jonathan. Um, so, you know, talking about what, where this takes us all, but, um. If the experts only seek to validate that IA led, um, this AI led consolidation thesis, what's the point of that?

Uh, because that'll just frame these vendors as the inevitable winners, as appointed by one player in the market. And as you say, it will kill innovation and stop new cybersecurity categories breaking out because don, that, you know, independent or at least non. US ecosystem. Bearing in mind all of these guys are us, um, will be excluded.

That's when you get narrative lock-in and that's the point. It's not just technology driving solidation anymore, it's perception. And in enterprise tech markets says we can both attest perceptions move. Budgets faster than reality.

Jonathan: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. And, and I think the third thing we, we need to, to, to think of in, in, in this scenario is, is that AI does indeed collapse the category. So if you think about cybersecurity's growth, it, it's depended on ever expanding threat surfaces.

Um, tool sprawl, you know, from EDR to soar, et cetera. And the need for human analysts to stitch it all together. But if AI systems like c Claude Unified Detection, reasoning, and Response, you know, reduce the need for multiple vendors and abstract away complexity, then cybersecurity stops being a tool chain market and becomes a. Platform market right now.

That's the inflection point when booms end, when dozens of categories collapse into three to five dominant platforms. Paul: Yeah. And, and yeah, another possibility, the fourth possibility, if you will, from all of this is those not included now look like also runs. And that is, um, you know, it's almost sounds, sounds like a, a famous world leader that we know that.

Um, never denies and, and, and always, um, believes their own story with what you see there. And, and this is classic pattern of hypergrowth consolidation is explosive growth at phase one, hundreds of vendors. Uh, lots of categories. Second phase platform, uh, emergence and some sort of consolidation.

Um, might be a few vendors. It could be one. And then finally, uh, and this is with your investment hat on the, the capital flight to those perceived category winners. Now, if buyers investors stop believing that, then only these AI native anthropic approved model, integrated, secure security players matter and everyone else fades out or gets acquired.

And that means, unfortunately funding dries up for. All the rest of us. Uh, and that alone can end a boom. Jonathan: Yeah.

Re regardless of actual demand, I suspect. And then of course we've got this sort of, you know, nastier thing, which is, is, has come in, um, as technology has matured. And that's the sort of political and ideological undertones on this. So, you know, bringing in the idea of anthropic as, as the current AI sweetheart of anti-Trump circles adds a more controversial, uh, but may I say it rhetorically.

More powerful layer. So it sort of suggests alignment between political media and tech elites, which we've seen assembling. I mean, it implies a gatekeeping of which companies are legitimized and it ultimately frames the outcome, uh, as orchestrated rather than in, in some way organic. Now, even if that's overstated as an idea, to me it strengthens the argument that this is, is less a, a data-driven shift and more a coordinative.

Coordinated narrative shaping the market. Paul: Alright, so the bottom line on all of this Yes. Case meaning, the meaning, meaning the yes. This is the end of the cybersecurity boom.

What's the bottom line on Jonathan: this, do you think? Uh, right. I guess if, if I guess if you put all this together, then the argument sort of becomes like this. So AI via players like anthropic.

It's collapsing cybersecurity complexity. Now a small aligned group of vendors is being positioned as the future media and expert narratives are enforcing that position and everybody else is being implicitly downgraded or exclusive. Paul: And in conclusion then, uh, if we believe that, yes. This is, uh, the end of the cybersecurity boom.

This isn't just good pr then it's the moment where the cybersecurity boom peaks and flips into consolidation, where growth concentrates, vendor diversity shrinks, and the category loses its status as the last end of the security. Boom. It's a dramatic story, but I'm not sure it holds up well because it's a stronger case. That's what's actually going on here is excellent positioning by Anthropic, and this is not in fact a structural, um, turning point.

So let's now examine the case for Claude is not the end of the cybersecurity boom. Jonathan: Yeah, no, I think so. I think a stronger case that this is an excellent, this is just frankly, excellent positioning by Anthropic and it's not a structural. Uh, turning point.

Um, I mean, to start with you, this idea that AI tip, the balance to attackers sort of isn't new. The, the, the notion that AI advantage is bad actors, it has been circulating for years. You know, we, we've, we've, you know, we've seen things like, you know, automated phishing, mal, malware generation and social engineering, and they have been sort of, you know, if this is a thing you can say, been improving steadily since. Early, you know, GPT, air Era Systems and you know, ransomware groups were already operating like efficient SaaS businesses before, you know, cloud scale models even appeared.

And you know, the reality, and you know, we've seen this and it's a core message for many of the security firms we've worked with. It's security teams have always been outnumbered. And reactive. So to this extent, Claude Mythos doesn't reveal a new reality.

It, it makes an existing asymmetry more visible and therefore easier to communicate, right? So to me, that's a messaging win, not a market ending shift. Paul: Speaking about messaging, um. I'd say also fair narratives are just a classic way to shape markets.

This is a familiar fla, uh, FUD playbook here. So ECI emphasize a fast escalating threat. Oh my god, frame the current defenses is inadequate. What is that shit?

And then position your approach. As the obvious, unnecessary evolution. Um, now Anthropics is leading heavily into that platform by, uh, amplifying the AI driven risk and talking about how the current, uh, crop of cybersecurity was built pre ai. And then that means you, you know, by deduction, surely you need something from Anthropic to fix all that.

It's not unusual, it's just how, um, you know, major platform shifts get, take hold, and, and it is though a classic. Strategic piece of pr. Jonathan: Again, you know, much closer to strategic PR than evidence of a, of a collapse or collapsing industry. This performative scaremongering angle, it's plausible to think this is about, uh, momentum building.

I mean, anthropic sits in a competitive triangle with players like open AI, where differentiation is hard and, and. You know, they can lean into safety governance, responsible deployment sort of gives, it gives it a distinctive lane, you know, uh, framing AI as a dangerous but manageable if done their way, does two things. I mean, it, it nudges public opinion and policy makers towards stricter controls. Good.

Get them in harness and positions, Andros. They're the trusted vendor, uh, in that regulated future that, that's not accidental. I think it's narrative shaping. Aimed at regulatory advantage.

Paul: Yeah, I agree. And I think the timing here is odd. Um, just after it's had, its, um, run-ins, shall we say, with the Department of War. Uh, and the fact that it wants to be perceived by certain folks in the market as being on the, uh, moral high ground.

Uh, which brings us on to the anti open AI undercurrent which we live in. Um, and again, uh, nobody. Nobody is, um, standing up for folks that throw fire bombs at, at folks houses with, with kids and silence. It's ridiculous.

But, uh, there is a bunch of turbulence and, you know, Sam Altman's, um, been man enough to talk about this, which would amplify, amplify the fact that this is the time when an open ai, um, undercurrent would push you further in the further in the market. So whether or not the specific in incidents are directly relevant, there's definitely increased scrutiny on AI firms. Um, all, even in good old Mery, old England, um, this gives an opening, this cracks a little bit of a chin of light for arrivals to contrast themselves and philanthropic benefits from leaning into, we take risks more seriously and others are moving too fast.

Hence the, you know, hence the, uh, alleged stopping of, um, the model being proliferated. That's classic competitive positioning from a, from a sense of power. Uh, but it's not evidence that cybersecurity as a sector is obsolete or anything like it. Jonathan: So why doesn't this end the cyber boom then?

So even if AI increases hacker attacker capability, as of course it will, it doesn't eliminate demand, it does the opposite. So more sophisticated attacks means more spending on defense from those attacks. Faster. Cyber, faster attack cycles means a greater need for automation tools.

AI generated threats means AI driven detection and response. So, you know, if you think about history, which we're very fond of doing here on the difference engine, uh, every escalation in cyber defense has expanded the markets, you know, cloud, more security vendors mobile. More security vendors, zero trust, more security vendors, right? So there's no reason AI would break that pattern.

If anything, it just widens the attack surface and increases budgets. Paul: And if I could move from history to economics for a second, I heard this today, I thought this was genius. Um, A CEO, um, who somebody will have on the, on, on the pod very shortly, um, mentioned this, um, if a problem is worth solving. Because it's such a bad cybersecurity problem, the market would solve it.

The reason that there are still cybersecurity holes is for good reason or bad, the market has decided that stuff ain't worth fixing. And if what, soon as it becomes worth fixing, that's when there's a cybersecurity need and that's when some new innovation starts. Let's move on to, uh. The fragmentation that this is designed to cause.

This whole announcement and this whole framing of the haves and the have nots in cybersecurity. So the idea that AI is gonna collapse cybersecurity into a few platforms is very appealing, especially if those guys on the right side of the red rope, if you see what I mean. Um, because it's unrealistic. Though, and also because enterprises have already today got deeply embedded heterogeneous cybersecurity attacks, they ain't going out and changing those tomorrow.

Um, the regulations that have to be dealt with vary. From, uh, region to region in some cases, making entire cybersecurity solutions not fit for that region. So this is not a one time in, in, uh, in life, uh, you know, stake in the, uh, shift in the sand, whatever the, the phrase I'm looking for is. Um, but, um, threats.

Vary a lot and by industry and by how much they matter, et cetera. So even the most powerful AI systems, and it is sort of sort of shameless this, this move, um, don't magically unify all of that. There is no such thing people as silver bullets. What happens is, uh, as we know, this category will layer into various types of existing tools and we think the underlying.

Vendor ecosystem with some shifts, with some of the zombies perhaps, um, shaken out will sustain and definitely not die off. Jonathan: Yeah. So what do we think is the bottom line on, on, on this no case? Well, you know, Claude Mythos isn't the end of the cybersecurity boom.

It's, I guess, at best it's a highly effective narrative device. Yeah, we like that. Yeah, that's it, you know. Well done guys.

Um. But it is highlighting risks we already understand or understood. Um, and it's just been a master stroke, I think, by anthropic to shape perception, policy and competitive positioning. So the AI has tipped the arms.

Race claim is directionally. It's true, but it's, it's old news. What's new is how forcefully it's being packaged. So I think we think in the end this is, this is less a market inflection point and more a well time blend of good old fear branding and strategic positioning.

And it's designed to capture momentum, uh, in a market where it's very difficult to differentiate between many of these ai, big AI players now. So, you know, capturing market momentum, but it's not a signal. Uh, of the collapse of cybersecurity as a growth industry. Paul: Just to conclude.

This is definitely not the end of the cybersecurity boom. And if it's gonna just pick one positive piece out of this, at least it further explains to the wider world why AI and cyber are so important for our future success. Um, but when it comes to mythos. We far prefer the beer than the hype.

Jonathan: Thank you for listening. If you wanna learn more about category design, head to be categorical.com. If you need help designing and dominating your category, then get in touch.

Contact details are in the show notes.