Parker Harris, a co-founder of Salesforce, speaks during a keynote at the company’s Dreamforce conference in San Francisco on Sept. 12, 2023.
Marlena Sloss | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Each year, Salesforce updates its V2MOM, a planning document laying out vision, values, methods, obstacles and measures. CEO Marc Benioff has said it’s “been used to guide every decision at Salesforce” since the software company’s founding 25 years ago this week.
But in early 2023, there was a problem. ChatGPT was going viral, and Salesforce’s strategy didn’t account for it.
“The V2MOM had nothing about generative AI,” Parker Harris, who co-founded the company with Benioff, told CNBC in an interview.
It was a first for Salesforce, which had never been caught so off-guard about an emerging technology trend. If Salesforce was to become a leader in generative artificial intelligence, the company would need to quickly revise its guiding document to redirect the company — and its 73,000 employees — toward the technology that’s sweeping across Silicon Valley and making its way into every industry, from manufacturing to medicine.
Salesforce would have to go to battle with tech giants Amazon, Google and Microsoft, as well as red-hot and well-capitalized startups. But following a handful of hefty acquisitions and a run-in with activist investors that led Salesforce to disband its M&A committee, a splashy deal was likely off the table.
Salesforce would have to build. And that’s when Benioff turns to his longtime sidekick, Harris.
Well known in the software industry but largely unfamiliar outside of it, Harris has always been core to the fabric of Salesforce. In the past six years, Benioff has elevated two different top lieutenants to the role of co-CEO, but neither lasted in the job longer than 18 months. Harris, a Salesforce board member and now the technology chief of Slack, which Salesforce bought in 2021, said he’d rather avoid the limelight.
“I don’t like being front and center,” Harris said, in an interview tied to the company’s 25th anniversary, which was officially March 8. “I don’t like the articles necessarily to be written about me. I like being behind the scenes.”
Internally, Harris is in the thick of it. After generative AI made its way into the revised V2MOM last year, Harris supervised its brisk insertion into the company’s sales, customer service, marketing and commerce applications. He studied new techniques such as retrieval-augmented generation, which involves feeding information outside of an AI model’s training set to yield a better answer.
Questions swirled about whether Salesforce should spend billions of dollars to assemble its own general-purpose large language model for spitting out text in response to a few words of human input, Harris said. But the company started seeing clients use multiple LLMs.
Salesforce slashed its investment in some areas while doubling the size of its research group, which was fleshing out its own AI models. At the same time, it started drawing on models from AI startup Anthropic, as well as GPT-4, the model powering OpenAI’s ChatGPT. In September, Benioff brought OpenAI CEO Sam Altman onstage at Salesforce’s annual Dreamforce conference, which takes over a chunk of downtown San Francisco.
At past Dreamforce shows, Harris has appeared in superhero costumes, entertaining the audience of tens of thousands. But 2023 was not a time for jokes. Harris was busy repositioning the company. He chose a professional look: a checked blue suit that matched his glasses with thin blue frames.
Marc Benioff, chairman and CEO of Salesforce, right, and Parker Harris, co-founder of Salesforce, introduce Salesforce 1 Lightning during the company’s Dreamforce conference in San Francisco on Oct. 14, 2014.
Noah Berger | Bloomberg | Getty Images
In his keynote, Harris talked about the Data Cloud, a product originally called Genie that surfaces real-time information. In about 2016 he had decided to push much of Salesforce’s IT infrastructure into the public cloud, enabling tighter integration of many assets the company had acquired over the years. That helped Salesforce launch the Data Cloud.
Without the Data Cloud, Harris told CNBC, “I think we would have been in a much worse place.” It’s such a critical part of the company that Benioff mentioned it 58 times on the company’s earnings call in February.
A Robin for Batman
Despite his status as the most decorated technical leader at one of the world’s largest software companies, Harris was an English major. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Middlebury College in Vermont.
His love of computers came early, though. He told Business Insider in 2015 that he started programming on an Apple II as a kid growing up in North Carolina.
In the early 1990s, he moved to the San Francisco Bay Area and took a software-engineering job at a company called Metropolis Software, where he got to know developers Frank Dominguez and Dave Moellenhoff. The trio founded a Java consulting firm called Left Coast Software.
They were contracting at Saba Software, an online learning company co-founded by former Oracle executive Bobby Yazdani. Benioff, who was still working at Oracle under Larry Ellison at the time, told Yazdani that he had this idea to build web-based sales software. Yazdani told Benioff he needed to meet Harris, Dominguez and Moellenhoff.
“He was a very abstract thinker,” Yazdani said about Harris, in an interview with CNBC. “He had clarity around capability of what’s possible.”
In the fall of 1998, Benioff and Harris met for lunch at Kincaid’s, a seafood and steak restaurant in Burlingame overlooking the San Francisco Bay. It was an uneven match. Benioff is hard to miss at 6 feet, 5 inches tall. He’s loud and loves to talk.
Harris is scrawny and quieter. He said he’s averse to conflict. He defuses the drama, said Brett Queener, a former Salesforce executive who’s now a venture capitalist.
“Every Batman needs their Robin,” Queener said.
After the lunch meeting, Benioff had Harris, Dominguez and Moellenhoff over to his home in San Francisco’s Telegraph Hill neighborhood. They were all in.
Salesforce.com was born on March 8, 1999. Harris was 32. His parents, wife and young daughter came by corporate headquarters — a one-bedroom apartment next to Benioff’s home — to commemorate the moment, which Harris posted to YouTube eight years later.
“We are going to probably work here for six months to a year, and we’re going to just really enjoy it,” he told his father, who was behind the camera. Salesforce played the clip for employees this week during a celebration.
While Harris shared the title of co-founder with Benioff, his partner held much more of the equity. That’s why Benioff is now worth around $11 billion, with a current stake in Salesforce that exceeds $7 billion, while Harris’ holdings are worth nearly $600 million.
Though he’s relatively soft spoken, Harris has his indulgences. He’s spent money on red wine from France and Italy, works of art by Ruth Asawa and Josef Albers, a home in Nantucket and a renovation of the family home in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights.
“We really shifted it to a focus on sunlight,” Harris said.
In his office at the top of the house, he likes to put on headphones and crank up the music. He listens to the Avett Brothers, Radiohead and Miles Davis. He plays golf and surfs. A coworker said Harris is an “enthusiastic” dancer. He belongs to Middlebury’s board of trustees.
At Salesforce, Harris led the development of the platform that enables companies to build on top of its software, along with an initiative to make Salesforce work well on mobile devices. There was also the push to build the next-generation Salesforce Lightning, as well as Chatter, an enterprise social network.
He talked about AI way back at Dreamforce 2009, suggesting that the technology might one day help Chatter identify in-house experts on different topics. He admitted to his shortcomings.
“I don’t understand that area,” Harris told a group of journalists, regarding AI. “I understand we have to solve it. I have hired some people in that area that do understand it.”
Tough time in social
At the time, social was the big buzzword. Facebook was still private but taking off.
A startup called Yammer was being described as the Facebook for the workplace. A few Salesforce employees started discussing the potential for information to go viral among salespeople and customer-service agents. Benioff was intrigued. He insisted that it become the top priority.
After Harris allocated eight engineers to the new project, Benioff demanded he go bigger. Harris checked in with engineering leaders and secured a headcount of 75.
That wasn’t enough. At a briefing on the updated status, Benioff was dissatisfied, according to a meeting attendee who asked not to be named to speak candidly about the matter. Harris was silent. His face went pale. He told Benioff he’d redo the plan, the person said.
Marc Benioff, co-founder and CEO of Salesforce, sits in the audience ahead of the special address by U.S. President Donald Trump on the opening day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, 2020.
Jason Alden | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Harris eventually got 80% of Salesforce’s engineers to start working on Chatter. But the product never took off.
“We didn’t take it far enough,” Harris said. Microsoft was also hot to get into the market, snapping up Yammer in 2012 for $1.2 billion, a huge multiple for a company with a small revenue base.
Salesforce wound up buying the big prize in the space, purchasing Slack in 2021 for $27.1 billion, by far the company’s priciest deal.
But perhaps Harris’ biggest swing in his decades at Salesforce was the push to the public cloud. It wasn’t an easy choice.
“Half the engineers, the brightest people, were like, ‘We’re going to run the company if we do this,'” Harris recalled. “The great fear was that we would ruin our cost model because the cost would be much more expensive on public cloud, and then we would be able to hire less salespeople or less engineers or whatever.”
The other half of the engineering staff, Harris said, was petrified that if Salesforce didn’t move to the cloud, everyone else will “innovate faster than us.'”
Benioff didn’t have much to contribute for a change.
“Marc was like, ‘This is crazy, that these are some of the smartest people I know, and you guys can’t agree,'” Harris said.
Marc Benioff, chairman and CEO of Salesforce, left, speaks as Parker Harris, co-founder of Salesforce, center, and Kara Swisher, executive editor of Re/Code, listen during a keynote address at the Dreamforce conference in San Francisco on Sept. 17, 2015. Salesforce.com Inc. aims to cut the time its customers spend plugging data into its systems by weaving machine-learning technology from acquisition RelateIQ into its software for managing sales accounts.
David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Harris saw the advantage that startups gained by outsourcing data center needs to Amazon Web Services. And he knew Salesforce had failed to build a viable platform for easily developing apps while partnering with VMware. Harris concluded that not pushing Salesforce to public cloud services like AWS would be an existential threat.
“That was a very lonely decision,” he said. But as it became a part of the V2MOM, it rippled out to thousands.
While Salesforce might have saved money when it ditched its Equinix colocation facilities, leaning more on the cloudhasn’t been cheap. Last year, after activist investors called for more profitability from Salesforce, the company signed up for longer-term cloud commitments. It agreed to spend at least $16.8 billion on infrastructure service providers as of January, up from $6.5 billion in January 2023, according to regulatory filings.
The biggest beneficiary of that spending is AWS, which is run by former Salesforce executive Adam Selipsky. Harris said Salesforce is looking at other providers as additional partners.
“Oracle has done a great job around their platform, so technically, it’s actually quite good,” he said.
‘Try to build something great’
Harris recently gave up the CTO title at Salesforce that he’d held for seven years. The company hasn’t yet named a successor.
Now he’s onto Slack.
In 2022, Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield left the company he founded in 2009. He was replaced by Lidiane Jones. She departed a year later to run dating app developer Bumble. And in January of this year, Slack co-founder and CTO Cal Henderson said he was stepping down.
“I thought, ‘I can have an impact there,'” Harris said. ‘But I can also — I would love to do that job, I would love to go back and run some engineering teams and really try to build something great.'”
Harris visited Benioff’s home in the Sea Cliff neighborhood of San Francisco, and the two co-founders were in agreement that it was the right call.
“I’m excited for this next chapter with Parker as Slack’s CTO, continuing his legacy as one of our industry’s greats,” Benioff said in an email.
Harris flew to New York to hang out with Noah Weiss, Slack’s product chief. Harris moved his desk to the Slack floor in San Francisco’s Salesforce Tower, where he’s near new unit CEO Denise Dresser. He comes in two to four days a week, and attends Monday meetings to review Slack metrics.
“People, probably fairly, had a lot of apprehension,” Weiss said.
Some of Slack’s employees suspected Harris would try to apply the Salesforce approach to Slack. But instead, Harris sought to understand how Slack had become successful.
Weiss said that at Salesforce’s new fiscal year kickoff in Las Vegas last month, Harris talked at an executive meeting about one of Slack’s product principles called prototype the path. And Harris has started writing documents in Slack’s collaborative Canvas tool.
“He’s been showing up extremely well, definitely winning hearts and minds, for sure, including mine,” Weiss said.
Employees sometimes add flair to Slack chats with a Parker Harris emoji, he said.
When it comes to keeping up with Benioff, who spends a healthy amount of time at his palatial estate in Hawaii, Harris uses other services.
“Marc is all mobile and all text and FaceTime,” Harris said.
The men talk once every few weeks. They’ll be talking more frequently, as Harris said they’re about to kick off weekly meetings on Slack and Salesforce integrations.
Harris hopes that his presence can convince Slack employees to stay after the executive exodus.
“I don’t want to talk too much about myself, but I think it is helping,” Harris said.
Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX.
Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.
Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit.
“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.
To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.
Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.
Carlos Barria | Reuters
X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform.
The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much.
The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms.
“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.
“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”
It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.
Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively.
X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.
Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.
Artificial intelligence training
X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.
“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.
Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually.
X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.
“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.
Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different.
The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center.
Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.
Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training.
“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.
Liquidated damages
Another unusual aspect of X’s new terms is its “liquidated damages” clause. The terms state that if users request, view or access more than 1 million posts – including replies, videos, images and others – in any 24-hour period they are liable for damages of $15,000.
While most individual users won’t easily approach that threshold, the clause is concerning for some, including digital researchers. They rely on the analysis of larger numbers of public posts from services like X to do their work.
X’s new terms of service are a “disturbing move that the company should reverse,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in an October statement.
“The public relies on journalists and researchers to understand whether and how the platforms are shaping public discourse, affecting our elections, and warping our relationships,” Abdo wrote. “One effect of X Corp.’s new terms of service will be to stifle that research when we need it most.”
Neither Threads nor Bluesky have anything similar to X’s liquidated damages clause.
Meta and X did not respond to requests for comment.
A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”
The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.
“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.
The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.
Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.
Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.
Concern with Congress and a changing White House
The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.
As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.
Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.
Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.
Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military
John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.
Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.
In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.
Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.
Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.
Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.
Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.
“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.
He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.
Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.