Connect with us

Published

on

Charter Communications Chief Executive Officer Tom Rutledge will be stepping down as the company’s CEO on Dec. 1. He will remain as executive chairman until November 2023, when his contract expires.

Rutledge referred to his decision to leave as “retirement,” but the almost 70-year-old executive, who has been in the industry for 50 years, told CNBC in an exclusive interview he isn’t ready to leave the business completely.

When Rutledge took over Charter in 2012, the company had just emerged from bankruptcy. At the time, it had a market valuation of less than $6 billion. By September 2021, fueled by the company’s acquisition of Time Warner Cable five years earlier, the company’s market capitalization hit about $130 billion.

This year hasn’t been as kind to Rutledge or Charter investors, as shares have fallen 47%. Charter’s current market valuation is about $55 billion.

In a wide-ranging interview, Rutledge discussed cable’s future, the industry’s recent valuation dip, the distressed futures of broadcast and cable TV, competition from fixed wireless and fiber, and why he felt bold enough to acquire Time Warner Cable in 2016.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

CNBC’s Alex Sherman: Why retire now?

Tom Rutledge: Well, that’s a good question. You know, a couple of years ago, I started this planning process. Fifty years ago, I’d actually had a family emergency. I was traveling the world and came home [instead of going to college] and started as a technician in cable, Aug. 15, 1972. I came home and worked my way through college as a tech. I wasn’t planning on getting into the cable business. But obviously I’ve spent my entire career in cable and I really like it, and I really think there’s a lot more to come in terms of opportunity. And so a couple of years ago, I thought that’d be an interesting date to sort of start thinking about retiring. I’m also going to be 70 at the end of this executive chairmanship period. So it seemed to me like it was time to pass the baton, and yet I would like to stay involved in the business and stay involved in the industry. But I think it’s appropriate at this point to turn it over.

You remember the exact date you started? Is there some significance to why you remembered that day?

You know, it’s an odd date. The only reason I remember it is because it’s the exact same day I started with Time Inc. in 1977, so because it’s the exact same day, I still know it after 50 years. It’s on some of my documents and I’m able to recollect it. And I remember why I went home, too, because we were having this family emergency. My father was terminally ill at the time, and so I remember the date.

Just to give people a little bit of context, can you describe what the cable industry looked like in this country when you first started?

Time Inc. was the second-biggest cable company. ATC was the company I went to work for. Actually, when I first started in 1972, we were building a small cable system in the suburbs of Pennsylvania — of Pittsburgh, Penn. The company I was involved with, Eastern Telecom, was a very small family controlled company that wanted to bid on the Pittsburgh franchise. Urban franchising was just coming along. There was no satellite TV. The only products we had at that time were off-air broadcast. The first cable system I worked on was actually a ground-up new build. We had 24 channels of capability, which was way more than we had channels to fill. That was built in anticipation of the kind of future that we thought we could get out of this industry. So, very small companies. The biggest cable company in the industry at that time had about a million customers. I think the whole industry had about 12 million, out of the whole United States, and it was primarily just in rural areas where there was no TV reception.

I want to ask what I think is the fundamental question moving forward for cable from an investor standpoint. We’re seeing the first major signs of broadband growth plateauing. Cable TV is clearly a dying industry, seemingly accelerating. Landline phone has already died to some degree. There is some growth in the wireless aspect of things. But for 10 years, I’ve been told by cable executives how the cable business fundamentally is a better business than the wireless industry, which has low margins and shrinking ARPUs. So if I’m an investor, why am I investing in cable today?

Well, sort of, for all the same reasons you ever invested in it. If you go back, we were a connectivity company right from the beginning. We were connecting broadcast signals to customers who couldn’t get them. It was an integrated product from the way it was sold, but from a technological point of view, we’ve been a connectivity company from the beginning. Through the years, we’ve managed to have a regulatory opportunity to get into telephony. We ended up owning the wireline telephony business essentially and became the major provider of that service. In the process we invented high speed broadband and took that connectivity to where we are today. The opportunity that we have going forward is to integrate wireless services — mobility, cellular service — into overall wireline connectivity and to sell that in a way that reduces customers bills and causes us to have a better product and a better price than our competitors, and a package for consumers that they can’t really replicate anywhere else.

When you look at where we are today in terms of penetration, you talk about businesses declining: Yes, video is coming apart to a certain extent because it’s overpriced, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a future video business. Wireline telephony has been substituted by mobile telephony. Broadband still has a lot of growth potential in it. But when you look at us as a company and look at our mobile piece and our broadband piece, and you look at all the revenue or costs that customers have for their connectivity services, the broadband piece of their connectivity bill is actually quite small relative to the mobile piece, and broadband capacity in terms of data throughput is quite large.

When you think about what the average broadband bill is, in our company with promotions and everything else, our average revenue per customer is about $64. The average mobile customer inside our footprint is spending about $135 a month on mobile service — multiple lines through for all members of the household. When you add up the individual line prices of $60 a line times the average number of people per household, you get that $135 number, approximately. So there’s a lot more money being spent on mobile than there is on broadband. And yet broadband is a significantly richer product from a data throughput perspective. And we can actually make the mobile product, which is used 85% of the time in the home or in the office and on the Wi-Fi system, we can make that an even faster service in the home and in the office, and we can make it a less expensive service.

I remember when we launched the triple play for wireline, data and video, the average phone bill in the New York metropolitan area was about $78 [per month]. We brought that down to $30 and ended up having the majority of the customers. I think we have the same opportunity in mobile. Mobile, yes, is a fully penetrated business in the country, not growing that fast, but if you look at where we are in mobile, we’re not well penetrated. And so we’ve got tremendous upside for years to come.

OK, two questions there. First, are you advocating, then, that the bull cable thesis is tied up in this wireless growth story — even though Charter doesn’t own a national network and, to your point, even if 85% of calls are in the home, 15% aren’t? So, wireless isn’t fundamentally a home product. And the second question is, very much related to that, for years now, the bull investor thesis has been broadband growth. But between fixed wireless and this burgeoning fiber play that we are seeing more investment in — you’re going to have more competition there than you’ve ever had before. So does that mean that broadband growth is no longer the big growth story it once was?

No, I think there’s plenty of broadband growth to get for us and there’s continued broadband adoption to get for the whole industry. There are still consumers that don’t use broadband. There are still people who substitute really high speed broadband with mobile-only broadband. They’re mostly income-related issues, but there’s still growth in share to get for us and there’s still significant growth in upside, and there’s significant growth in new construction. Don’t forget, we’re building out rural America and we’re building out continued growth in the housing stock in the United States on a regular basis. Over the last five years, we’ve built about a million homes a year. On top of that, going forward, I think we can build additional rural expansion. We already won commitments to build 1.1 million or more rural households with broadband service. We expect to get very high penetrations in those areas. So there’s lots of broadband growth going forward as well. But the combined opportunity to create a unified product between broadband and mobility has even more upside in aggregate than just broadband growth alone.

Just to put a pin on that last point, though, do you expect broadband growth to look anything like what it’s looked to the past, say, five, seven or nine years?

I think when you aggregate it all up, it’s got the potential to be like that. Yes. That’s still reasonable.

In other words, what we’ve seen this past year is a blip between pandemic pull-through effects and macroeconomic difficulty?

That’s my view. I mean, obviously, as you reach full penetration, you’re going to have some slowing down in growth. At some point, it gets to the household growth rate. But I don’t see that for five years or more. I think there’s continuous opportunity. I do think if you look at the trend lines, 2020 was a massive blip in terms of growth and even 2021 had growth associated with the pandemic that pulled forward a lot of growth.

Then you had a lot of consumer behavior changes as a result of the pandemic in terms of mobility, which still haven’t fully unwound. We’re seeing some signs that it’s unwinding. I think it’s more of the pull-forward issue and the lack of activity than it is our opportunity to grow. And so, yes, there’s new competition that you mentioned in terms of fixed wireless, and there are applications where that makes some sense as a market product. I think our products are much different. For anybody who wants to use video or any significant use of data, our products are much better. That doesn’t mean if you own an ice cream truck that you might want to have a fixed broadband service that looks at a cellphone tower. Or if you live in a rural area where there’s no service, and that cell tower can reach you, it’s better than the current satellite services that are provided in those areas.

So, not to say that there isn’t competition, and yes, there’s been fiber expansion, although it hasn’t really changed much over the last 10 years. The pace of that hasn’t changed much over the last 10 years, even notwithstanding all the announcements that have been made recently. It takes time to build out infrastructure. It’s very expensive. All of those who’ve done it in the past have failed. You know, if you look at Verizon‘s FiOS, they ended up selling most of it. Almost all overbuilders of physical infrastructure don’t do well in the long term. So I think the macroeconomic forces that have always affected overbuilders will continue to affect them and affect the pace of construction.

I think we’re in pretty good shape from a competitive point of view. But that’s not to say there won’t be continued competition from satellite companies like Elon Musk’s [Starlink] and Amazon‘s company and the fixed wireless providers. We’ve had satellite competition in the past, though that appears to have gone away to some extent. At one time broadcasting was considered our competitor. We’ve had different infrastructure competitors, communications, competitors, and we will in the future. But the beautiful thing about what we’ve built is that we have this massive infrastructure. It’s ubiquitously deployed and it’s very inexpensive on a relative basis to upgrade it to get more capacity out of it.

Does it make sense in this country to follow the path of what we have seen in Europe and other countries where there’s ultimately convergence between wireless existing wireless companies and cable companies in the form of mergers? Obviously regulators would have to OK it. But even in concept, does that make sense in this country?

Sure. At some level, right now, we have a set of wireless customers. As I said before, most of the bits are actually flowing through our network. Right now we lease space on a mobile carrier for the service that’s away from the home and away from the office, which increasingly is becoming less voice intensive. Just pure broadband in many ways. You can see where different companies might want to put assets together to make that work better and more efficiently in the future. But we don’t need to do that right now from our perspective.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t assets out there that we could use in combination with the other assets we have to bring an even better service to customers in the future. But right now, we’re in very good shape. We have a good MVNO [mobile virtual network operator]. We have good margins in our mobile business. We’re able to connect that into our wireline business and actually improve the offload onto our wireline business. And we have new frequencies in the terms of CBRS [citizens broadband radio service] spectrum which allows us to create an environment where we actually can offload some of the leased service onto our own network. So, I can see how assets can be mixed and matched in the future. But there’s no immediate need for us to do anything.

Still, is that where we’re going to be eventually going? At some point in the next five, 10 years, will we have merged wireless cable companies in this country?

Uh, you know, yes, I do think that. Some of the assets that are in each of those defined companies now will be in other companies.

What about cable consolidation? I’ve heard speculation that you guys are interested in the Suddenlink asset that’s being marketed by Altice right now. Do you expect to get significantly larger than where you are from a footprint standpoint in the coming years?

Well, I guess I would like to, because I think that cable assets are good assets for all the reasons I just said. And fundamentally, I think if you manage them in a good way and a coherent way and take advantage of all the natural opportunity that they present, that you can create a lot of value. And I think there’s some value in scale which can translate into consumer value as well. And so there’s no cable asset out in the country, anywhere, that I wouldn’t like to own if the situation was right to own it.

Obviously there’s a question of what you have to pay to get it. There’s also a question of most of the cable assets in this country that are not us are controlled by family businesses. And so the cadence of a family business is different than that of a public company and often unrelated to exact moments of time with the marketplace and value. So there is no real opportunity right now to do much. And so to the extent there are any assets available, they are quite small. They don’t move the needle much from Charter’s perspective.

Though, Suddenlink, that one’s not that small.

Well, you know, relative to Charter, it’s not large.

Can you take me back in time a little bit? Certainly at Charter, if not for your whole career, one of the defining moments for you was the Time Warner Cable acquisition, which was paired with Bright House. It was an enormous acquisition. Charter was a small company. What gave you the idea that Charter could pull this off and then the confidence to actually move forward with it? Because if you look at history, in any industry, the idea that a company that was the size of Charter trying to buy a company the size of Time Warner Cable, I mean, I’m not sure I can think of anything that comes to mind that rivals that. Correct me if I’m wrong.

No, I’m not aware of it. That was audacious in some ways. It seemed very natural to me, though, which I guess is good. I’ve been in the business a long time. I really have a lot of confidence in the business and its capabilities and our capabilities to create value over a long period of time. I had a lot of experience at Time Inc. I grew up at Time Warner. I spent 23 years there. I started as a manager trainee and ended up as president of the company. And then AOL bought it, and I was completely disillusioned by their purchase and their vision about what cable could be.

Which just, just to interrupt, which was what? What was their vision?

Well, I’m not sure what it was. I’m not sure they had one. From AOL’s perspective, they did a great deal. And obviously, Time Warner took [stock in the deal], which ended up not being worth very much for their own set of assets. But I remember talking Steve Case and [Barry Schuler], who was the official CEO at the time, down to look at video on demand in Austin, Texas. And one of them turned to the other and said, you know, what do we need a network for? We have dial up!

There were changes being made in the company then and there were managerial issues, and I wasn’t really connected to them, but I didn’t think that their vision of where cable was going and mine was going to work. And I left. I was offered a job, to stay as president. But I decided not to.

I ended up at Cablevision. And we had real success at Cablevision with the triple play. We mixed telephony, broadband and video together into a package, and it really worked. At Cablevision, I tried to do the Time Warner Cable deal, but there were control issues there, and it was a family business [then owned by the Dolan family]. But I believed that if we had more assets to manage, we could do more and make more and create more value. It was really that simple of a notion. It’s really a managerial approach that we were selling.

So I went to Charter because the rollup that I wanted Cablevision to do wasn’t going to happen for their own family needs and planning. The company backed off. And so I thought, I’ll go to Charter. Charter is a diamond in the rough. It had gone through bankruptcy. It was actually quite a mess, which made it quite an opportunity. We immediately had success at Charter and started growing the company rapidly. And we had a valuable piece of equity in terms of our stock price and our reputation as a company and our reputation as a management system. The vision to get Time Warner was in that. So first we did a deal for Bresnan, a company I actually bought twice. I bought it first at Cablevision and then they rebranded it to Optimum West, and then [in 2013] we bought it [from Cablevision]. And then [John Malone’s] Liberty [Media] came in.

Did you find John Malone, or did John Malone find you?

Well, I guess he found me. I mean, obviously I’ve known who he is my whole life. And at one point he tried to hire me to run DirecTV, but I didn’t really know John well. I mean, I knew him reputationally. I admired him, but I didn’t know him. But at Charter, he wanted to know why I did the Optimum West deal and what I was thinking about. And we had a discussion about that, and then they bought out the private equity people that took Charter out of bankruptcy. Today, they have about 26% of the company through Liberty Broadband, which is a public company.

I expressed my vision then, because they were part of the board, about what we could do with Time Warner. The board thought we could do it and it made sense. It was audacious. But, you know, look at the value we could create if we did it. It was a difficult process, obviously. And we had Comcast in there.

You hit my next question there. To remind people, originally, you were working with Comcast to split up the assets and then Comcast, for lack of a better word, kind of stabbed you guys in the back and ended up doing the deal, without informing you, on their own. What went through your mind when you found out that that happened?

Well, I was disappointed. I guess that would be the the mildest way to put it. But, then we were able to get the whole thing. So it all worked out.

I mentioned Altice USA earlier. Altice has taken a strategy where its management feels like it needs to upgrade its current network to fiber, at least, quite a large percentage of it. So they’re going through that process now. It’s expensive, but they have come to the conclusion they need to upgrade to fiber. Charter and Comcast don’t think so. Can you explain briefly why that is and if you think Altice is making a mistake?

We think we’re on the right course, which is not to fully upgrade fiber to the side of the house. We have very deep, rich fiber assets throughout our network. But there are a bunch of other technologies that can allow a translation of the fiber signal into an RF coaxial signal and then ultimately into a Wi-Fi or mobile signal or cellular signal from the network. The real question is, what does capacity to serve a customer cost? And we think that there are less expensive ways than doing an all fiber overbuild on your own network for a variety of reasons.

One, most of the cost of a fiber network is not the actual initial construction. It’s all the connections, which are much more expensive individually in a fiber build than they are in an upgrade situation like we have. When you think about underground construction, 35% of the country is underground serviced, and it’s much more expensive to build a whole new network. It’s very painstakingly slow. So when you look at the cost of actually getting 10 gigabit service out of a network and into a device that can actually handle it, it’s much less expensive to upgrade the kind of networks we have in this country, with the kind of topography we have with our networks — aerial and underground, fairly wide open spaces, low density construction — it makes a lot more sense to use developments in the DOCSIS platform and in the fiber platform together than by going all fiber.

Two TV questions for you. First one: How much longer does legacy pay TV have, and is it going to go away completely at some point?

I’ve always thought it would just slowly attrite. It just keeps getting more and more expensive. Programing costs are actually declining because customers are declining, which means that the whole ecosystem is shrinking from a value proposition. And there’s a lot of assets that are held up by that system. Sports programing, athletes’ pay, etc. The development of content. And most content is relatively inexpensive to develop, comparatively speaking, to sports. People still want the product. It’s a highly valuable service. It just costs a lot.

So, I think it will continue to slowly attrite. There will still be live TV, and there will still be on-demand premium services like we have, and there’ll be ad supported products that work. But getting wide distribution gets more and more difficult going forward. So whether we can reaggregate some of that in the direct-to-consumer products, which have will have low penetrations, relatively speaking, to the historic system, I’m not sure. But I think there’s an opportunity there. There’s also a whole need for search and discovery and how you find content and pulling content back together. So I can I can envision a reaggregation model going forward, but I think there’s a lot more pain to come before that happens.

Would Charter participate in the reaggregation model as a pay TV distributor?

Well, we do have a joint venture that we just formed with Comcast, which is going to be branded as Xumo. And it’s really a platform business that allows us to put app-based television out and to deploy that widely. If we do that well, we’ll be able to create an advertising platform which will defray some of the costs of content for consumers. I think one of the most significant things we could do and need to do if we’re going to be successful is create a successful advertising model. The only way you get that is pretty wide deployment.

We’re committed to deploying that business. There’s potential significant upside to it. And that’s a wireless business, by the way. It’s not going to be connected by wire. But it’s a platform that allows us to develop and work with app-based suppliers, including direct-to-consumer suppliers, and to help those direct-to consumer-suppliers do better because we can leverage our own relationships with consumers to help sell services.

So if I understood your answer, I think what you’re saying is legacy pay TV will continue to decline. There will eventually be some sort of reaggregation into a digital model, but it will be painful. So I’m assuming what you’re saying is at some point, legacy TV, pay TV as we know it, will stop existing and it will be part of this new thing. Again, just to try to pin you down, is that 10 years away?

Let me just tell you a story. In 1980, when I was the general manager of suburban Philadelphia’s cable system, a broadcaster from KGW, channel three in Philadelphia, came out and did an interview with me. We showed them all the technology and the anchor person or the reporter said to me, “One day, I’m going to be working for you.” And what he meant was that cable was going to replace broadcasting. But if you look around, broadcasting still exists — 40 years afterwards. So I’m not saying it’s going away by any means, but there will be rich bundled packages of linear video.

Now, I don’t know how broadcasting fares. You know, right now we spend, per customer, over $240 a year for retransmission rights for broadcast TV. And if you think about that, if you have an antenna, broadcast TV is free. So, over the air, all this content is being blasted into the air, unencrypted. That’s what broadcasting is. So I don’t know how that lasts with people paying for it at those kind of rates. I think it’ll last a number of years but it’s clearly in deep trouble.

And so that probably leads to a dramatic pivot or reforming of all of the companies that are in the broadcast TV station business?

 Something’s going to happen. Yeah. I don’t know what, exactly.

I want to ask you, because I don’t think you’ve talked about this at all: There was a recent $7 billion verdict against Charter stemming from the murder of an 83-year-old woman by a Charter cable repair man. That verdict was knocked down to $1.15 billion by a judge. Do you have any comments on that?

No, other than we don’t think we have any liability in the case. We’ve been saying that we will exercise all the legal rights we have going forward, and we expect to prevail.

Last question: You’ve spent so much of your life working in the cable industry, as we’ve discussed. Is there a new product or revenue stream that down the road will be associated with cable companies as a standard part of a consumer’s monthly cable bill? Every few years, cable rolls out home security or telehealth, but nothing outside of the wireless MVNO business has really stuck recently.

I do think that in the long term there’ll be much richer data products, immersive data products — entertainment and work and play and things like medicine — that our networks lend themselves to. We can get our networks in shape to do that very quickly [through upgrades]. I think there will be an immersive world not withstanding what’s going on with the metaverse and other attempts to create that world. But clearly, the capability of of communications is going to continue to expand. And you can envision a world of three dimensional products, holographic displays and all of the implications of that provides to creating businesses. And I think we’ll be part of that.

If you look at all the money being spent today in the United States on communications, mobile is where most of it is. And so that’s a real opportunity from a growth perspective for the next decade. But in the grand scheme of things, I think our skill set as a mass provider of services is better at the big products than it is at the niche products. It’s difficult to develop niche businesses like security, which are not broad. Devices like Ring doorbells may become ubiquitous, but the traditional high touch security business is a niche business. And we have not done that well in the niche businesses and aggregating a bunch of niche businesses that use communication services. That’s not to say we won’t find them and we won’t put them together. But I think the big opportunities for us are the big mass services and the ubiquitously deployed services, and that’s where the the infrastructure we’ve built really is valuable.

One more — you mentioned you wanted to hang around the industry. Seventy is not that old. Are you sure this is real retirement?

I’m not really sure what I’m going to do. You know, I really like all this stuff and want to build and compete. But I’ve been CEO 10 years here and I think it’s good to renew management and the way you think. I don’t want to start mailing it in, so I think it’s right for me to move. But I also think the industry has got tremendous opportunity and I understand a lot of how it all fits together. And so, yes, I’d like to find a way to stay connected and create value, but I’m not sure how that’s going to happen.

That sounds like a ‘no’ to me.

Disclosure: Comcast is the owner of NBCUniversal, CNBC’s parent company.

Continue Reading

Technology

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy says AI costs will come down over time even as company invests ‘aggressively’

Published

on

By

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy says AI costs will come down over time even as company invests 'aggressively'

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy on Thursday released his annual shareholder letter where he predicted that rapid advancements around artificial intelligence, along with a more competitive chip market, will eventually bring down costs around the technology.

“AI does not have to be as expensive as it is today, and it won’t be in the future,” Jassy wrote.

Jassy said more price-performant chips, along with improvements in “model distillation, prompt catching, computing infrastructure, and model architectures” will over time reduce the “cost per unit in AI,” which will “unleash AI being used as expansively as customers desire.”

He likened it to the company’s cloud juggernaut, which brought down the cost of compute and storage, leading to “more invention, better customer experiences, and more absolute infrastructure spend.”

Amazon has earmarked up to $100 billion this year on capital expenditures, with the lion’s share going to AI-related projects. The company has been rushing to invest in data centers, networking gear and hardware to meet vast demand for generative AI, which has exploded in popularity since OpenAI released its ChatGPT assistant in late 2022. Amazon has introduced a flurry of AI products, including its own set of Nova models, Trainium chips, a shopping chatbot, and a marketplace for third-party models called Bedrock. It also overhauled its decade-old Alexa digital assistant with generative AI features.

Jassy, who became CEO in 2021 when founder Jeff Bezos stepped down, has sought to streamline the company’s vast business footprint and bring costs in check, at the same time that he’s deepened investments in some areas.

The company laid off more than 27,000 employees in 2022 and 2023. It had smaller rounds of job cuts in 2024 that are stretching into this year. The company has also continued to wind down some of its more experimental or unprofitable initiatives, such as a “Try Before You Buy” clothing service, a TikTok-like video feed and a speedy brick-and-mortar delivery program.

Jassy said Amazon must continue to operate like the “world’s largest startup” that moves quickly without bureaucracy, is “scrappy” and is willing to take risks.

Last September, as part of a broader return-to-work mandate, Jassy said Amazon would simplify its corporate structure. He set a goal to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by 15% by the end of this year’s first quarter.

As part of that, Jassy also created a “bureaucracy mailbox.” He said on Thursday that he’s received almost 1,000 emails from employees describing bureaucracy examples, and the company has made more than 375 changes based on that feedback.

“Builders hate bureaucracy,” Jassy wrote. “It slows them down, frustrates them, and keeps them from doing what they came here to do. As leaders, we don’t always see the red tape buried deep in our organizations, but we can sure as heck eliminate it when we do. We’ve already made over 375 changes based on this feedback.”

Dear Shareholders:

2024 was a strong year for Amazon.

Our total revenue grew 11% year-over-year (“YoY”) from $575B to $638B. By segment, North America revenue increased 10% YoY from $353B to $387B, International revenue grew 9% YoY from $131B to $143B, and AWS revenue increased 19% YoY, from $91B to $108B. For perspective, just 10 years ago, AWS revenue was $4.6B; and in that same year, Amazon’s total revenue was $89B.

Amazon’s operating income in 2024 improved 86% YoY, from $36.9B (an operating margin of 6.4%) to $68.6B (an operating margin of 10.8%). Free Cash Flow, adjusted for equipment finance leases improved from $35.5B in 2023 to $36.2B.

Apart from the financial results, we made our customers’ lives meaningfully better and easier. In our Stores business, we substantially expanded selection, continued lowering prices (independent research firm, Profitero, found Amazon the lowest-priced online U.S. Retailer for the eighth year in a row), and for the second year in a row, we shipped at record speed to our Prime members. AWS launched a slew of new infrastructure and AI services that make it even easier to build remarkable customer experiences, including our latest custom AI silicon (Trainium2), a new set of frontier foundation models in Amazon Nova, and significant expansion of available models and features in our leading Generative AI (“GenAI”) services Amazon SageMaker and Amazon Bedrock. Prime Video continued to offer compelling original shows, including new seasons for Fallout, Reacher, The Boys, and The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power, movies like Road House, The Idea of You, and Red One, live sports like Thursday Night Football and UEFA Champions League in Europe (with the NBA and NASCAR coming in 2025), and new selection, highlighted by Apple TV+ joining Prime Video Channels. We launched a series of new Kindle devices that included a new color version, a larger Scribe option, and our fastest Paperwhites ever (the collection of which drove the highest Kindle unit sales for a single quarter in over a decade). And, we continued to add more selection, price transparency, and same day shipping for Amazon Pharmacy.

These accomplishments are a subset of what the team launched in 2024, but represent a lot of invention, hard work, and thoughtful execution across Amazon. I’m thankful for my teammates and their delivery this past year (some of which you can see in our 2024 results, others of which won’t be visible for the next few years).

A Why Culture
Every year in my annual letter, I try to share insight into what makes Amazon tick. At the highest level, we’re aiming to be Earth’s most customer-centric company, making customers’ lives better and easier every day. This is not easy to do in general, let alone year after year. In fact, it’s actually quite hard, especially with the rapid rate of change in technology, customer habits, and new products from large and small companies alike. If we want to have a chance at succeeding in our mission, we have to constantly question everything around us.

We’ve had this long-held philosophy at Amazon about two-way and one-way door decisions. A two-way door decision is one where if you get the decision wrong, you can walk back through that door, revert to where you were, and there are few (if any) ramifications. You can make these decisions quickly and locally. A one-way door decision is one where it’s quite difficult (if not impossible) to walk back through that door if you get the decision wrong, so these decisions are made more methodically. But, both of these constructs assume the door is unlocked. A lot of invention is about trying to open doors that have historically seemed bolted shut. And, over the past 30 years, we’ve found one of the most important keys to unlock these doors has been a simple question: “Why?”

“Why does this customer experience have to be this way?” “Why can’t it be better?” “What are the constraints—why must we accept them?” “Why can’t we invent around that?” “Why will it take so long to get to customers?” Why?

My Dad has told me that I was the kind of kid who kept asking why, perhaps to an annoying extent. He’s also reminded me how shortly after I joined Amazon in 1997, he tried to persuade me to work somewhere more traditional (and on the east coast closer to family)—only to realize that I’d already found the perfect fit.

That’s because Amazon is a Why company. We ask why, and why not, constantly. It helps us deconstruct problems, get to root causes, understand blockers, and unlock doors that might have previously seemed impenetrable. Amazon has an unusually high quotient of this WhyQ (let’s call it “YQ”), and it frames the way we think about everything that we do.

Starting in 1995, we asked why can’t we offer customers every in-print book?

Then, we asked, why limit ourselves to in-print—why can’t we also offer every out-of-print book?

Why not offer every book, ever written, in any language—all available within 60 seconds on a device that’s light and fits in the palm of your hand (Kindle)?

When we offer reviews, why must they all come from professional “experts?” Customers are great resources and will be brutally honest. Why not include customer reviews even if they sometimes dissuade a purchase?

Why not offer more than Books? What about Music, Video, Electronics, Tools, Kitchen, Apparel, Home Furnishings?

Why not practically everything?

Why should we be the only sellers of these items? Millions of third-party merchants and small sellers offer similar or unique items. Why not let customers choose the selection, price, and delivery speed they prefer from among these millions of sellers?

After struggling for a couple years to create awareness for sellers’ selection, we asked ourselves why not show their selection on the same product detail pages as our first-party selection (where all the traffic was)?

Why not allow our sellers to also store items in our fulfillment network, enable those items to have fast, Prime delivery, and fulfill those items for sellers (a program called Fulfillment by Amazon)?

Why not experiment with relevant advertisements in our store to expose customers to new sellers and items (versus only what our algorithms might surface based on past purchases)?

Why does every company need their own capital-intensive datacenters and infrastructure? Why should every development team keep reinventing services like compute, storage, database, and analytics? Why should builders spend 80% of their time on the undifferentiated heavy lifting vs. their unique customer experience? Why not build a set of services (AWS) to solve that for internal and external builders?

Why do I have to buy a physical video to watch a movie? Why do I need cable or linear TV to watch amazing TV shows (Prime Video)?

Why can’t I get my Prime shipping benefits on other websites than just Amazon (Buy with Prime)?

I can go on. But, you get the idea. Every one of these Whys have led to significant invention, and every one of them have made customers’ lives better and easier. Some of these seem obvious now. But at the time, these were provocative questions that required curiosity, risk-taking, experimentation, and persistence to make these into success stories.

Enabling a Why Culture
If you believe having high YQ is critical to inventing for customers, how do you enable it? In my opinion, it’s not solved with one mechanism. It needs to be built deeply into your culture and leadership team, and has to be fiercely protected over time if you’re lucky enough to be successful. Here are a few of the strategies we employ.

Create leadership principles that set the tone. We have 16 Leadership Principles that guide our behavior. They’re all integral underpinnings to our YQ, but I’ll touch on three in particular:

Are Right a Lot
“Leaders are right a lot. They have strong judgment and good instincts. They seek diverse perspectives and work to disconfirm their beliefs.”

When we first instituted this leadership principle, some people incorrectly assumed it meant that the best leaders were the ones whose ideas were chosen (i.e. they were right, a lot). It led to some people overly digging in and fighting for their ideas. There’s nothing wrong with pushing for what you believe. But, in my experience, the best leaders want to hear others’ views. They don’t wilt or bristle when challenged; they’re intrigued. Effective leaders change their minds when presented with new compelling information (which makes it ironic how people dismiss politicians as “flip-floppers” when they change their position). Ultimately, leaders are responsible for getting to the best answer for customers, regardless of whose original idea is chosen.

Learn and be Curious
“Leaders are never done learning and always seek to improve themselves. They are curious about new possibilities and act to explore them.”

In the nearly 28 years I’ve been at Amazon, the biggest difference in the relative growth of companies and individuals has been their aptitude to learn. At a certain point, some leaders seem to lose their thirst to learn. It’s hard to know the reason in each case, but it’s as if some people find it too exhausting, too time-consuming, or too threatening to not have all the answers. Regardless, the day we stop learning at Amazon is the day we risk undermining what we’re capable of building in the future. People with high YQ are always curious how they can get better, become wiser, and incorporate their new knowledge into better customer experiences.

Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit
“Leaders are obligated to respectfully challenge decisions when they disagree, even when doing so is uncomfortable or exhausting. Leaders have conviction and are tenacious. They do not compromise for the sake of social cohesion. Once a decision is determined, they commit wholly.”

We don’t just empower people to challenge one another, we obligate them to do so if they disagree. Questioning, asking the hard questions, forcing the discussion (versus silently thinking a mistake is being made) is necessary to getting to better answers for customers. “I told you so” has no currency at Amazon. It’s also important to focus on the second part of this leadership principle: disagree and commit. While constructive debate is useful; at some point, teams need to make a decision and take action. From that point on, everybody—even those who advocated for a different solution than the one chosen—must commit to making that decision a success. That means the team goes all in—no pocket-vetoing nor hedging between other options. That’s the only way we can preserve speed and confidence that if an issue is heavily debated, the team will ultimately pull together.

Create norms that support the Why. Similar to how our Leadership Principles guide our behavior, we’ve built norms over the years that guide how we work. Here are a few examples:

Narratives. We stopped presenting information to each other inside the company via powerpoint in 2004. Given how high level powerpoints are, we found that powerpoint was easy for the presenter to prepare, but harder for the audience to understand the substantive issues. Instead, we moved to writing narratives with a maximum of six pages in the body. Narratives are harder for the presenter (it’s hard to write a thoughtful six-page document that highlights the key issues in enough detail to be crisp and clear), but much easier for the audience to engage with and ask the right Why questions.

Working backwards documents. When we build services or features, before we start coding, we write Press Release and Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) documents. The Press Release is intended to ensure that what we’re proposing building is remarkable to customers (so we don’t get to launch and ask “wait, why did we think customers would find this interesting?”). And, the FAQ is designed to force ourselves to ask the hard questions about which customers will use this capability, what they’ll like most, what they’ll be most disappointed with, why are we drawing the launch line where we are, why is it better than current alternatives, how should we think about pricing, what pricing dimensions we recommend, and why have we made the architectural decisions we have. The Press Release and FAQ are how we work backwards from customers, and how we push ourselves to ask questions customers would if they were in these meetings.

Be together whenever possible. There are many paths that can lead to breakthrough innovation. Occasionally, a lone genius comes up with a brilliant idea, and everyone else simply executes it. While that can work, it’s not how we typically operate. Amazon invention is deeply collaborative. It starts with a seed of an idea, then a group of smart, mission-driven people refine, challenge, and build on it together. And, we’ve found that this process is far more effective in person than remote. Of course, you can invent with everybody remote (and some cultures seem to prefer that). However, in my experience, it doesn’t compare to being in the same room. The energy, the pace, the spontaneous brainstorming, the willingness for people to jump in, the way ideas evolve in real time, and the post-meeting iteration is much better when in the same room—and yields better outcomes for our customers and teams. With what’s happening in AI right now, and the likelihood that every customer experience we’ve ever known will be reinvented, there has never been a more important time, in my opinion, to optimize to invent well.

Tolerating messy meetings. It’s hard to “schedule” innovation. You can’t book 60 minutes to invent Amazon Prime, or AWS, or Alexa+, or Fulfillment by Amazon, or Regionalization in our Fulfillment Network, or Project Kuiper. These inventions are borne out of somebody asking why we can’t change what’s possible for customers, and then they take on a life of their own, often meandering down multiple dead ends before getting to a final destination. This might bother some regimented folks. But, when we’re inventing, we accept the process being beautifully imperfect.

Operate like a startup (in our case, the world’s largest startup). We strive to operate like the world’s largest startup. What does that mean?

First, whatever we’re contemplating building has to be focused on solving a real customer problem or meaningfully improving a customer experience. Companies can get off track prioritizing technology because they’re excited about the technology. Great startups are on a mission to change what’s possible for customers.

Second, we have a disproportionate need for builders. These are inventors. They’re people constantly dissecting customer experiences, even ones that seem pretty good today, and asking why they can’t be better. They’re divinely discontent (maybe annoyingly so for team members proud of what they’ve previously built), and never feel like the job is done.

Third, we want owners. One of the strengths of Amazon over the first 30 years is that we’ve hired really smart, motivated, inventive, ambitious people who have been great owners. And, that means that our teammates are constantly asking themselves, “What would I do if this was my own money?” “What would I do if I started this company and I was the majority owner?” “Hey, I know I’ve only been asked to own a part of this project, but I’m not sure if the other parts are being driven well—should I stick my nose into this and make sure or just trust somebody’s got it?” Owners feel accountable. They care deeply about the quality and effectiveness of what they own, and view the company’s mission as their mission (we want missionaries, not mercenaries). That’s part of what our effort to increase the ratio of individual contributors versus managers is about. We want flatter organizations where our owners doing the work feel like they own the two-way door decisions (which are the vast majority), can move rapidly, and are fully accountable for solving the Whys of their customer experiences.

Fourth, speed disproportionately matters for every business, in every industry, at all times. It’s a false binary to argue that you can move fast or deliver high standards. If you want to be fast, you can be fast, and still be high quality. We’ve done it for many years (though we can still be faster). Speed is a leadership decision. The leadership team has to believe it’s a priority, reinforce it constantly, organize and remove structural barriers, and build in modular ways that enable pace. But, speed does not happen unless the entire company and culture embrace it. We have this persistent feeling, throughout the company and in every business in which we operate, that there are closing windows all around us. We operate in fiercely competitive market segments, with highly talented, well-funded, ambitious companies at every turn. Customers are always looking for something better. We spend a lot of time identifying how to unlock these experiences for them as quickly as possible, and know if we don’t, somebody else will.

Another way to gain speed is to eliminate bureaucracy. There is a difference between process and bureaucracy. When you’re running something at scale, you need mechanisms to deliver the right experience and constant improvement for customers. However, as companies grow and add more managers, unneeded processes get layered on that add little value. Last fall, I asked teammates across the company to send me bureaucracy examples that they were experiencing. I’ve received almost 1,000 of these emails, and read every single one. Builders hate bureaucracy. It slows them down, frustrates them, and keeps them from doing what they came here to do. As leaders, we don’t always see the red tape buried deep in our organizations, but we can sure as heck eliminate it when we do. We’ve already made over 375 changes based on this feedback. We need to move fast, and we are committed to rooting out bureaucracy that ties up time and dispirits our teammates.

Fifth, you have to be scrappy. As businesses succeed and get larger, they sometimes forget how things got started. We built Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3) with 13 people; Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) with 11 people. Managers can confuse themselves that the way to grow and get ahead is to accumulate large teams. Historically, we’ve had periods where we’ve allowed this thinking to hold sway. But, it’s not the way we fundamentally think about building teams and products, and have adjusted to reflect that again. Our best leaders get the most done with the least number of resources required to do the job. They pride themselves on being lean.

Sixth, you have to be willing to take risks. This sounds easier than it is. You need clever enough people to identify worthwhile bets. And if you have these inventive, ambitious builders with high standards, they’re not used to failure. They suspect external (and maybe internal) ridicule awaits them if they try something very different that doesn’t work out. So, people often play it safe. But, you can’t achieve something extraordinary for customers by playing “not to lose.” If your Whys take you down an invention path that delivers an experience that doesn’t look like what’s been done before, let customer obsession be your compass. You rarely, if ever, change the world by doing the same thing as everybody else.

And finally, you have to care most about delivering compelling results for customers. It’s not how charismatic you are. It’s not whether you’re really good at managing up or sideways. What matters is what we actually get done for customers. That’s what we want to reward.

Next generation Whys
While the team and I feel quite optimistic about the progress and potential of our existing businesses, we have plenty of new Whys we’re asking. Below are a few of them and some quick thoughts.

Why is AI so important? Will it really have as much impact as some claim and when?
Generative AI is going to reinvent virtually every customer experience we know, and enable altogether new ones about which we’ve only fantasized. The early AI workloads being deployed focus on productivity and cost avoidance (e.g. customer service, business process orchestration, workflow, translation, etc.). This is saving companies a lot of money. Increasingly, you’ll see AI change the norms in coding, search, shopping, personal assistants, primary care, cancer and drug research, biology, robotics, space, financial services, neighborhood networks—everything. Some of these areas are already seeing rapid progress; others are still in their infancy. But, if your customer experiences aren’t planning to leverage these intelligent models, their ability to query giant corpuses of data and quickly find your needle in the haystack, their ability to keep getting smarter with more feedback and data, and their future agentic capabilities, you will not be competitive. How soon? It won’t all happen in a year or two, but, it won’t take ten either. It’s moving faster than almost anything technology has ever seen.

OK, I buy AI is big; but why invest this much this quickly?
Fundamentally, if your mission is to make customers’ lives better and easier every day, and you believe every customer experience will be reinvented by AI, you’re going to invest deeply and broadly in AI. That’s why there are more than 1,000 GenAI applications being built across Amazon, aiming to meaningfully change customer experiences in shopping, coding, personal assistants, streaming video and music, advertising, healthcare, reading, and home devices, to name a few. It’s also why AWS is quickly developing the key primitives (or building blocks) for AI development, such as custom silicon AI chips in Amazon Trainium to provide better price-performance on training and inference, highly flexible model-building and inference services in Amazon SageMaker and Amazon Bedrock, our own frontier models in Amazon Nova to provide lower cost and latency for customers’ applications, and agent creation and management capabilities.

There is also substantial capital investment required. In AWS, the faster demand grows, the more datacenters, chips, and hardware we need to procure (and AI chips are much more expensive than CPU chips). We spend this capital upfront, even though these assets are useful for many years (in the case of datacenters, for at least 15-20 years). We only start monetizing this capital investment many months after we spend the capital, and over many years—which leads to attractive long-term FCF and ROIC (as people have seen in AWS over the last several years). But in periods, like now, of unusually high demand (our AI revenue is growing at triple digit YoY percentages and represents a multi-billion-dollar annual revenue run rate), you’re deploying a lot of capital. We continue to believe AI is a once-in-a-lifetime reinvention of everything we know, the demand is unlike anything we’ve seen before, and our customers, shareholders, and business will be well-served by our investing aggressively now.

Why do chips and AI have to be this expensive for customers?
AI does not have to be as expensive as it is today, and it won’t be in the future. Chips are the biggest culprit. Most AI to date has been built on one chip provider. It’s pricey. Trainium should help, as our new Trainium2 chips offer 30-40% better price-performance than the current GPU-powered compute instances generally available today. While model training still accounts for a large amount of the total AI spend, inference (which are the predictions or outputs of the models) will represent the overwhelming majority of future AI cost because customers train their models periodically, but produce inferences constantly in large-scale AI applications. Inference will become another building block service, along with compute, storage, database, and others. We feel strong urgency to make inference less expensive for customers. More price-performant chips will help. But, inference will also get meaningfully more efficient in the next couple of years with improvements in model distillation, prompt caching, computing infrastructure, and model architectures. Reducing the cost per unit in AI will unleash AI being used as expansively as customers desire, and also lead to more overall AI spending. It’s like what happened with AWS. Revolutionizing the cost of compute and storage happily led to lower cost per unit, and more invention, better customer experiences, and more absolute infrastructure spend.

Why have personal assistants not yet taken off? How can Alexa help?
A great personal assistant can answer virtually any question and get things done on your behalf. There have been no digital solutions that can do both yet. That is, until Alexa+ arrived. Alexa+ is not only comparably intelligent to the leading chatbots, but can take a plethora of real actions for you. She can play music, play video, move media from one of your devices to another, set alarms and timers, control your smart home, order across hundreds of millions of ecommerce items, make reservations for restaurants or Ubers, order concert tickets, alert you when your favorite artist announces a tour, find a plumber to fix your sink, and memorize whatever you’ve done on Amazon. This is pretty game-changing for consumers, and just the start of what Alexa+ will do. We have over 600 million Alexa devices out there today, and expect Alexa+ to play an even more vital role in the lives of these hundreds of millions of customers in the future.

Why can’t we get items to customers even faster? Does it matter?
Every year, people ask whether we’ve reached the law of diminishing returns on speed of delivery. Our data shows this not to be the case. When we promise faster delivery times, customers complete purchases at a meaningfully higher rate and shop with us more frequently. Amazon Prime started with unlimited, free, two-day delivery for a million products; it’s now grown to over 300 million items, with tens of millions available in one day (or better). An increasing number of deliveries happen same day. This speed improvement is primarily due to our regionalization redesign of our fulfillment network, our new placement algorithms, and the introduction of our innovative same-day fulfillment centers. Although we’ve set speed records for two consecutive years, we’re still honing these innovations, and have others planned. And, don’t forget Prime Air, our drones that will get items to customers inside an hour. We are not done improving speed.

Why can’t people in small towns enjoy the same fast delivery speeds as people in cities?
As some other companies are abandoning small-town customers due to cost to serve, we’re going the other way—we’re investing to serve our rural customers even better. We’ve already expanded Same-Day and Overnight Delivery to dozens of smaller cities and towns across the U.S., with more coming. This expansion will provide even faster Amazon delivery speeds for many millions of customers, particularly in less densely populated areas, enabling us to deliver over a billion packages each year to customers living in 13,000 zip codes spanning 1.2 million square miles.

Related, why can’t we help the hundreds of millions of people without broadband connectivity?
There are about 400-500 million households around the world, most in small, rural towns that don’t have access to broadband connectivity. They can’t leverage the Internet to learn, shop, do business, access entertainment, and communicate the same way people take for granted in bigger cities. This digital divide is what Project Kuiper, our low Earth orbit satellite network, aims to solve. We’re just launching our first production satellites, and will ultimately have over 3,200 in orbit over the next few years. While capital-intensive to launch, we believe Kuiper will be a meaningful operating income and ROIC business for us.

Why does healthcare have to be so stressful?
Healthcare, especially in the U.S., is quite frustrating. It’s hard to get fast appointments with primary care physicians, often harder with specialists. There’s a lot of waiting around. Physicians spend only a few minutes with patients. Then, patients have to drive somewhere (often not close) to get their medications. And, when they get to the pharmacy, they’re often surprised by the pricing, what’s covered by their insurance, and what you can easily access that’s not behind a locked shelf. Customers deserve better. It’s why you see such positive customer sentiment and growth for Amazon Pharmacy and Amazon One Medical, and we continue to iterate quickly on selection and transparency for Amazon Pharmacy, and physical clinic capacity for One Medical.

These are some of the Why questions we’re asking ourselves right now, and I’m excited about the future inventions to come. We’re not going to be bored any time soon.

When I first started working, I thought it was unfathomable that my Dad worked at the same place for 45 years. How could that be? That’s so long. I used to tell my friends that would never be me. Now, with almost 28 years and counting at Amazon, I have to answer those same friends with their own Why question.

After all these years, why are you still at Amazon?

I’m obviously a Superfan, but there are several compelling parts to working at Amazon. First, I’m not sure that any company prioritizes customers as relentlessly as we do. Lots of companies say they will; few follow through. Second, it’s challenging to find a company where you can make a bigger impact on the world than you can at Amazon. Third, we make significant long-term investments and bets in both inventions and people. This allows our teams to iterate on ideas, and make the right long-term decisions for customers and the company. And, I’ve never encountered a more intelligent, creative, ambitious, hungry, hard-working, and missionary group of teammates than we have at Amazon. In my opinion, this is a remarkable set of qualities to have at a company. And, for builders who want to change the world, and who have fire in their belly, there’s no better place to be than Amazon.

We operate like the world’s largest startup in large part because of our culture of Why. We don’t always get everything right, and we learn and iterate like crazy. But, we’re constantly choosing to prioritize customers, delivery, invention, ownership, speed, scrappiness, curiosity, and building a company that outlasts us all. It remains Day One.

Sincerely,

Andy Jassy
President and Chief Executive Officer
Amazon.com, Inc.

P.S. As we have always done, our original 1997 Shareholder Letter follows. What’s written there is as true today as it was in 1997.

Continue Reading

Technology

Bitcoin to hit $250,000 this year and Magnificent 7 to adopt stablecoins, Cardano founder predicts

Published

on

By

Bitcoin to hit 0,000 this year and Magnificent 7 to adopt stablecoins, Cardano founder predicts

Crypto to benefit in the long term from geopolitical conflict, says IOHK co-founder

Bitcoin could hit $250,000 as early as this year with technology giants such as Microsoft and Apple entering the cryptocurrency space, industry veteran and founder of the Cardano blockchain Charles Hoskinson told CNBC.

Crypto markets have been hammered amid a sell-off of risk assets stoked by U.S. President Donald Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” on countries across the world. Bitcoin traded below the $77,000 mark on over the last week, but on Wednesday spiked above $82,000 as Trump dropped levies to 10% for 90 days for most countries to allow for trade negotiations.

Sill, bitcoin has fallen far from its more than $100,000 record high hit in January — even as industry players remain bullish on the cryptocurrency.

Hoskinson, who has been in the crypto industry for more than a decade and helped co-found the Ethereum blockchain, said he believes bitcoin will reach $250,000 “by the end of this year or next year.”

“What will happen is that the tariff stuff will be a dud, and that people will realize that the world is willing to negotiate, and it’s really just U.S. versus China. And a lot of people will side with us. Some people side with China,” Hoskinson told CNBC during a recording of the “Beyond The Valley” podcast on Tuesday.

“The markets will stabilize a little bit, and they’ll get used to the new normal, and then the Fed[eral Reserve] will lower interest rates, and then you’ll have a lot of fast, cheap money, and then it’ll pour into crypto.”

Hoskinson, who is also the founder of Input Output, or IOHK, made his comments before Trump’s temporary pause on full-blown reciprocal tariffs.

Hoskinson highlighted a number of reasons that could drive bitcoin to that price.

First, he pointed to there currently being more users of cryptocurrencies. Owners of cryptocurrencies rose 13% year-on-year in 2024 to 659 million people, according to Crypto.com.

Secondly, Hoskinson said that the geopolitical situation is moving from a “rules-based international order to a great powers conflict.”

“If Russia wants to invade Ukraine, it invades Ukraine. If China wants to invade Taiwan, it’s going to do that. So treaties don’t really work so well, and global business doesn’t really work so well there. So your only option for globalization is crypto,” Hoskinson said.

Ripple president says crypto 'here to stay' regardless of short-term volatility

Third, Hoskinson said that there will be new stablecoin legislation and the Digital Asset Market Structure and Investor Protection Act will also likely get passed, which will help the crypto market. The law aims to address the regulatory treatment of various digital assets. Both bills are currently working their way through the U.S. legislative process.

Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency pegged to a fiat currency but backed with real-world assets.

The stablecoin bill in particular could lead the “Magnificent 7” companies to begin adopting the assets too, according to Hoskinson. The Magnificent 7 is a group of seven mega-cap technology stocks including Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. Stablecoins could be used by these technology giants to pay workers in different countries or even facilitate small transactions on their platforms which ordinarily would be expensive on existing payments rail, Hoskinson said. Stablecoins can be sent quickly from one wallet to another across the world.

Hoskinson said the crypto market will be “reignited” by these factors, in particular the passing of the regulation and the adoption of stablecoins by the Magnificent 7.

“[The crypto market] will stall for probably the next three to five months, and then you’ll have a huge wave of speculative interest come, probably [in] August or September, into the markets, and that’ll carry through probably another six to 12 month,” Hoskinson said.

The conversation with Charles Hoskinson will be published in full as an episode of CNBC’s Beyond The Valley podcast soon.

Continue Reading

Technology

Amazon delays first Kuiper internet satellite launch due to bad weather

Published

on

By

Amazon delays first Kuiper internet satellite launch due to bad weather

United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket carrying the first two demonstration satellites for Amazon’s Project Kuiper broadband internet constellation stands ready for launch on pad 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on October 5, 2023 in Cape Canaveral, Florida, United States.

Paul Hennessey | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

Amazon delayed the launch of its Kuiper internet satellites due to poor weather conditions on Wednesday night.

A United Launch Alliance rocket carrying 27 Kuiper satellites was set to lift off from a launchpad in Cape Canaveral, Florida, but ULA said it couldn’t continue countdown operations as “stubborn cumulus clouds” and heavy winds pushed the launch outside its planned window, according to a livestream.

“Weather is observed and forecast NO GO for liftoff within the remaining launch window at Cape Canaveral this evening,” ULA said. The company said it will provide a new launch date at a later point.

Six years ago Amazon unveiled its plans to build a constellation of internet satellites in low Earth orbit, a region of space that’s within 1,200 miles of Earth’s surface. The company aims to sell high-speed, low-latency internet to consumers, corporations and governments, offering connections through square-shaped terminals. Commercial service is expected to come online later this year.

Amazon is racing to compete with SpaceX’s Starlink, the dominant player in the market, with 8,000 satellites already up in the air. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk now has a central role in the White House as one of President Donald Trump’s top advisors, overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Since Musk took on the role, Starlink’s footprint has increased within the federal government.

The clock is ticking for Amazon to meet a deadline set by the Federal Communications Commission, which requires the company to have half of its total constellation, or 1,618 satellites, up in the air by July 2026.

Once it completes its first launch, Amazon expects to ramp up its production, processing and deployment rates. It’s begun prepping satellites for its next mission, which will also hitch a ride on one of ULA’s Atlas V rockets.

WATCH: Amazon launches Project Kuiper

Amazon launches Project Kuiper prototypes to low orbit as tech giant enters satellite internet race

Continue Reading

Trending