Panel: State of Digital

To moderate this conversation He is redefining how digital and physical worlds connect So, please welcome to the stage Gianfranco Thank you very much, Amelia Hello, everybody. I am very excited about this session. i'm going to invite my three fellow speakers on stage. We have Niels Hartvig, who's the founder in 2002 of Umbraco, an open source CMS, customer management, content management system. Then we have Des Traynor, who in 2011 co-founded and now is the chief strategy officer of Intercom, what we could call an AI-first help desk. And finally, Thomas Madsen-Mygdal, who in 2005 co-founded TwentyThree and is now the CEO. Welcome, gentlemen. Before we get into the discussion, a quick show of hands. Who is under 25 years old? Who is between 26 and 35? Who is between 36 and 45? And who's over 45, 46? Okay, so apart from the under 25, which is underrepresented, we have an even balance between people in their mid-20s to mid-30s, people between their mid-30s and mid-40s, and above 40s. 48, by the way. And I'm asking this because I come from Argentina, was born and raised in Argentina, and we have a saying. I think it's common in all of Latin America that the devil is wise because, duh, it's a devil. But it's even wiser because it's old. It has been around. It has seen things. And here we have people who have been in the early days of the Internet, of developing for the Internet. Actually, Thomas, you recently celebrated your 30th anniversary from what was your first company, the World Wide Web Production Company. Yeah, that's quite a mouthful. It's a mouthful. Commonly called the digital agency nowadays, but that was what it was called back then. Exactly. So what I would like to start with in this conversation on the state of digital is, what did you believe 20 years ago was true about the Internet and you felt very strongly about? And now, 20 years later, you've changed your mind. And let's start with you, Niels, but please chime in. Okay. It's a good question. The idea that on an open playing field, good would beat evil. I think it feels like that's been challenged over the years. Well, Google used to have their tagline, which was, don't be evil. And this was official, right? They printed everywhere, and then at a certain point, it disappeared. Not because this is an eternal evil, but because it stopped being a priority. I think when we started out, we assumed that people would be the primary customers of the Internet. And I think that was true for 20 years. But I think in this AI era, we're going to see an Internet designed around agents as opposed to designed around people. And I suspect the Internet will look extremely different in the next 10 years than it did for the previous 20. Yeah, I think 20 years back, we were just in this kind of fight against the centralization of the social web back then, right? It was basically a lot of people that lost. Back then, it was not that Facebook or these platforms invented anything. They aggregated all the ideas into a killer app, and then they scaled massively very fast. So I think I'm perhaps coming around to that idea that the idea of how we make the decentral web, as I guess you would call it, as exciting as the big tech platforms. And I think that's an area where we use tools and tool makers can make a difference. But I think it's been a very long ride on that one of sort of almost giving up at one point that we were not going to get there. So it's not something I've sort of given up on, but at some point, or I've changed my mind on, really, but it's more, I think, at one point, you just knew it was not really going to be... I mean, you just needed to accept that 2016, we lived in a YouTube world, and video was YouTube. I mean, there was no way. It was just about surviving before we got to the other side, right? And I think that side is really now, in terms of all the innovation happening both in AI, but also on really us understanding that we want this rich, beautiful web of all kinds of experiences. So perhaps something that hasn't changed, but at one point, I almost lost belief. I mean, in one sense, when we talk to people working on the internet, whatever that means, it feels very mature. It's been three decades, but mature compared to what? We were having a chat before we got on stage and compared that to other massive industries, automotive or advertising, and they've been around for much, much longer. And even those are changing, right? So nothing is static. We're not actually passive cells inside an organism. This was built by certain people, and that brought their intentions, their values into it. It could be better for some, worse for others, but it's something that's been built. And one, possibly the big difference is with some of the other massive industries is that smaller companies can make a difference. For example, AI is allowing people to vibe code on your website. And if they hit something which resonates with an audience, either a human or synthetic audience, that could have a massive impact, and you wouldn't see that in other industries. But how do you balance trends, exciting new technology, and this very rapid pace of changes with accountability, with responsibility? Thomas, you mentioned during the keynote that you're building lots of telcos great things because actually the three of your organizations that you've been involved with is building tools and platforms for others, right? Not the final user, but for clients that then have their own businesses. And if you move too fast and break things, that used to be the ethos 15 years ago, you break their businesses. But you don't want to stay fossilized and maybe not make certain changes which are now the norm. So how do you balance that exciting change speed with yes, but we have to be responsible? And I want to give two examples. One, I live in London. And a few years ago, there were a lot of e-bike companies coming from other countries, and we had five, six, seven all competing. And a few of them decided at a certain point that London was not a viable market. And they looked at the regulations, and they found that it was cheaper to abandon the e-bikes and close the app than actually collect them and pick them up and pay the fines, which from a business perspective makes sense. It's cheaper. You'll save money. But from a social perspective, I remember leaving my flat and having a dozen bikes thrown on the sidewalk, on the pavement. And it was there for a few weeks until the council picked them up. So how do you balance those things? So I think one way of attacking it could be a little bit to your idea of the age of people, right? In digital, just now, we have the challenge that there are people that are getting old, right? Older. Older. Yeah, sorry. They're right. Or younger. Thank you. They're still young. Hopefully in spirit and heart. And some of them also, the very old ones are even more wild, perhaps, than the younger ones. So I think that's also a challenge we're dealing with, right? We're starting to see people who have spent 30 years in digital that are 55, 60 years old. How is it to be wise? How is it to have a player role in this world, but also to not block or occupy space for the new to come, right? Because I think to your spirit about sort of the youth, I think we need to push more in digital and challenge the assumptions again, and that the 25-year-olds shouldn't accept the norms, how the world works, right? We should challenge it. I mean, that's the spirit of this. But I think we are just now in this sort of equilibrium of a little bit of blocking, a little bit on our mindset. A website is what it is, and a digital organization, how a marketing team works is sort of done. But perhaps we need to blow it up again, right? And I think that's perhaps where AI also comes in as sort of a great disruptor of triggering a lot of change. As you get older, hopefully you get wiser at understanding trends and hype and those things, which also gives you the possibility to be a little bit more kind of balanced on some things. There's going to be a huge AI backlash probably at some point, right? 18, 24 months from now, 36 months, whatever it's going to come. And then ultimately 10 years from now, it's going to be super interesting. We get to. But that's, for example, you are betting on a genetic AI, and that is hot right now. But it's also changing very quickly. You could deploy something, use certain models, and then that might change. So how do you serve that promise of building an amazing tool for your customers while also deciding what should we bet on? What is the right thing? What we believe is the right thing for our customers? So I think at the high level, even with your bikes example, it shouldn't be profitable for any company to do something that all of society agrees is a bad idea or harmful to society. I think that's almost like a government level challenge to make sure that people can't profit off negative behavior. And then when it comes to specifically like rolling out AI products, the best companies pay a lot of attention to what we would call an eval, which is short for evaluation, which basically means test the thing to make sure that it's actually works, which sounds shocking, right? But believe it or not, that's where the standard is at. I think like, so our product is called Finn. It's an AI agent that does customer service. So you put it in front of your CS team and it bats away 60, 70% of the issues because it does it immediately in all languages better than most humans would do it. But the reason we can do that is because we pay an absurd amount of attention to the performance and the actual like, you know, to ensuring the product actually works. I think there's going to be an AI backlash over the next one to two years. And I think it will be because a lot of these products have great demos, beautiful marketing sites, gorgeous videos, but they don't actually work. And that's going to be the challenge that we're going to see. It'll be like an AI winter of sorts whenever it realizes this. And the companies that emerge from that that survive it will be the ones who have put the time in to like do the pretty hardcore nerdy science of making sure that if we said we're going to do or generate a video of somebody, it actually generates the video of somebody. If we said we're going to answer a customer support question, it actually does it properly. And I think a lot of companies kind of chasing the hype and the buzz and the shiny sort of awards, they skip all that because it's kind of inconvenient to find out your product doesn't work. So it's a lot easier if you just ignore that step and ship it. And I think that's the challenge that we're going to go through with AI. It's like it's going to be a very destructive, creative, messy phase for the next year or two. And then much like mobile, much like the web, much like with social, much like the cloud, there'll be a lot of like, you know, dead famous companies. And then the winners will emerge from the ashes. Yeah, I mean, accountability becomes key. And the thing is, we saw this in other industries, you know, and some of them, of course, very, very old school. Recently, I had to fix a toilet at home on a Saturday. It was kind of a small domestic drama. And I went on Trustpilot and to see reviews of the plumbers because all of them, I called three different plumbers, all of them, knew it was an emergency on a weekend. So the first, the ones that replied the fastest, they went with a crazy price. And then luckily, I found a company run by Australians in London. So I think at least they're going to be nice, you know, in the penalty of the money. But I managed to have a chat with them, the beginning with a chatbot, then a human jumped on because the problem was specific. And they found a way to, you know, make a promise that seemed right at the right price or right enough price. But then I had to go and double check. And there was a place that gave them a rating. And that is very important, you know, finding those accountability measures. And sometimes it feels that, as you were mentioning, there's lots of promises being put out there. And we've almost discovered, and this applies in all fields of current life, from politics to, you know, school stuff. It's almost no consequence with lying. You know, even if you can go and double check, you can go and find a video of someone that said something that is not true. These days, you can get away with a lot of those things. Think about Umbraco, you know, the challenge of managing content 20 plus years ago was novel and quite complex. The world has changed. Now this has become common. Lots of people can do it. You don't need to have particular skills. But we still have that obsession with scale and size of things. What is your take on that balance between what matters and what you can add as a company, as a business? Accountability and being responsible and keeping, in a way, more of what you believe in into it than trying to write, you know, just a money-making machine. Good question. But I was also thinking about what you said earlier. If you look at a small organization compared to a large organization, one of your key strengths is also you have more courage. Maybe you have a slimmer organization, but essentially, often, it comes down to courage. And that's often also where you break things if you, you know, are maybe too courage, have too much courage. But you can also have the courage to say no. That if everybody else is running fast on scale and hyper AI and a lot of trends, maybe you don't have a chance of winning that battle. Because they have more money, they have more talent. But maybe you have the courage to actually focus on something and then do it very, very well. And I think if you're a smaller organization, that can be one of your key strengths. And of course, if you do less things, simpler things, then the chance of breaking them are also much, much better. And it brings resilience into play, right? But yes, the convenience price-wise of a lot of big tech, it is there. It's, you know, they can make even discounts and lose money for a while and lead everyone else out of business. But when they break, recently, there was one of the big LLM companies did a new launch. They make some decisions that their core users didn't think were wise. And they were running their business on those. So they broke lots of things. Often, what we forget is that, you know, big tech comes with concentration, but also with trusting what you do to someone else. And it might contravene the rules of the territory you operate in or certain beliefs. But if one of those big ones fall, there's sometimes no backup plan. Well, having a more diverse, more exciting. But I think, Nils, there's perhaps also an interesting, there's your perspective. I think also, it's also a challenge of Europe. How do we get up to speed? And how do we get more up to scale, right? Perhaps we don't need to build 100,000 people companies any longer, but there's another size that's a little bit more human scale. That is sort of the types of companies we want a lot of in Europe. But I think it's also still kind of, I mean, there's so much indie, there's so much beautiful things being built. But eventually, we lose, right? I mean, that's the rule. If you look at Europe, there are very few, I mean, default, you lose, right? So I think it's also, how do we balance that? And how do we challenge that? Obviously, the innovation comes from the edges, from small teams and all that. How do we also figure out how to get enough scale, right? Or the European paradox that we still think of it as separate markets, so we have one version of everything, right? Instead of having, you know, a few pan-European global players that could be global players, right? And I think also there's an area where you guys have obviously sort of out of Europe done a tremendous job, right? Yeah. I mean, it's hard. Like, the reality in Europe for tech anyway is we have no, no trillion dollar companies. And we're not even close. Now, the closest we are is probably Spotify, which I think is maybe 100 billion or so. And, you know, maybe in the fullness of time, like, you know, a lot of our companies are quite young. And our scene really started maybe 10 years later than America. So maybe we see the emergence of trillion dollar businesses over the next decade or so. But my big fear is that we have this weird penchant or fetish for regulating promising companies in bad, bad ways. And it's affecting everything from, like, AI companies to drone companies to, like, driverless cars. Like, it's, we're, like, we're making, these are all the, like, sort of primary areas that are, like, you know, if you think about what are the big areas in the future, it's not software. Software is going to go away because of AI. AI is going to be big. Robotics, logistics, space, AI and medicine or biohealth care, that, that, that area. And so we're, like, we're in a situation where, like, every single one of them, Europe celebrates and regulates, but it doesn't actually, like, you know, dominate. And, and I really fear for, like, it's almost like we're strangling these potential giants while they're still in the crib by, by basically regulating them in, in, like, ludicrous ways at times where we have, like, people like the EU guy, Thierry Breton, celebrating that, like, they produced a PDF that describes how AI can't really happen in Europe. And they celebrated it. Meanwhile, the future is happening in California. And companies like ours, we're not, like, We are like, these aren't academic points. It literally means there is technology that we don't get access to in Europe because of this framework or these people. And it really stalls any potential of being a great AI. We have AI competitors in California who get access to models ahead of us, who get access to tech, to products ahead of us. And we do our best to catch up, but it's galling to have to watch the EU celebrate themselves for their achievement of publishing frameworks while they can't actually help their own companies. So I'm not... Thank you. I'm not enthusiastic on that aspect of how the EU... I love Europe. I'll be in Europe all my life. Intercom will be in Europe. But we hurt ourselves. But I think, I mean, from Brussels, I think it is changing in the Draghi report, etc. But it is also peculiar that we basically spend sort of five, six years where our self-understanding was that our role in the digital world was to regulate, not to build, not to create. And we felt great about that, apparently. Our role was... Europe's role is to govern, to regulate technology. But it's like incredible narrative that we ended up in where that was our identity instead of us being responsible builders that in a functioning society and understanding a little bit the balances of life and democracies and behavior as companies can trust that we will spear ahead, right? You know, that's how dark it went. That at one point, our only identity was that we're the ones that are going to regulate, right? Niels? Yeah, but on the other hand, it's a race to the bottom. I mean, one thing is the US, but if you think US is evil, then go to China. Because then you can always experiment with, you know, drones in rural areas where people can't complain if they get hit. If we talk about, you know, less and less regulations, then I'm not sure. I'm not on the don't regulate team. But I think you have a great point that we regulate technology. We don't regulate the impact of the technology, which is really wrong. Like saying social media is... I mean, GDPR is fantastic in many ways. But the whole point of GDPR was respect for the privacy of people. That's a good thing. In the same way that maybe it's a good thing to look at regulation on social media in terms of age and, you know, have stronger requirements on how do we validate age now that it actually, you know, we realize that it's important in the digital age. But when we come down to regulate specific technology at the technology level, then I think it's very misunderstood. But it's almost like we need a new narrative, right? Because I think we're all pro-regulation, right? The idea of regulation, but how do we end up balancing? But also an idea that we are going to be the best at regulating because we're the best at building. So we're going to be best to understand the issues early on and collaborate and work together instead of also ending up... I mean, the European AI Act is basically one big black box that's going to be very hard to understand. I mean... And it's decided by people who, like, don't really understand what they're working on. Like, as in, I'm not against regulation, but I'm against, like, regulation by people who don't understand. I don't understand the underlying technologies. Like, I posed to an EU, you know, regulator person in Brussels once. Like, if we invented the car today, would we be able to put it live? And they're like, yeah, there's a lot you'd have to go through, actually, now that I think about it. Because it's like, this is a big petrol-carrying explosive device that regularly triggers its own explosions. And I'm like, yeah. I mean, like, but it's like, you'd be shocked how many inventions from the past would just not be allowed today. And again, we're celebrating it at that. There's an underlying, like, lack of innovative mindset and understanding of the technologies that we're trying to regulate. And you're right. Rather than regulating the frameworks or the code, it should be the outcome. Like, you should be held accountable for the outcome you deliver. But, like, I just think we strangle potential by outruling ideas at the idea phase. Yeah, I mean, first of all, the prompt for this session was, I didn't want to have the typical, I asked a question, and then you already asked one and the other. I said, let's try to have it a bit more like a pub. Now I'm saying, where are the beers? You know, because this is where, but I think one of the disconnects you see between, for example, the Silicon Valley culture that especially, you know, we were following very closely 30 years ago and today in Europe, is that the silos in Europe have become stronger. You know, in a way, we have a disconnect between who's regulating in different territories and who's creating. I do agree that we have to encourage more creation. You know, and I think that's one of the key goals of in-person gatherings, where you bring people together from this different area, and there's that cross-pollination between these sectors. Because it is very difficult to understand these technologies. Many of the people building them are not really sure what is going to happen with them, and that is part of the innovation process. If you know everything and you know the outcome, that's not innovation. But, of course, there's disconnect and there's fear on the other extreme that if you let people run around, you know, who's going to be responsible for the consequences? Who's going to go and pick up the bikes? You know, as in that example. So I think that creating more of these melting pots where you have a bit of this, interaction between these very different silos and audiences, and also creating sandboxes, literally sandboxes, where you could say, you know what? You cannot go and there's a lot of discussion in the UK about if we should privatize the National Health Service, if we should have AI to solve issues because there's lots of backlog, and the answer would be, yes, of course, it could bring a lot of benefit. But what if it goes wrong? What if, you know, we give this to a private organization that then loses interest? So why don't we create a sandbox? Why don't we do this? So there's certain territory or certain demographic or a specific series of illnesses as opposed to throwing it to the most serious things that we are dealing with. So there is a way. And one of the key words of this summit is change makers. So I often wonder how can, not just for the younger generation, but also to ourselves, where now we have a lot of decision power in the environments we are. How can we bring more of that change at its core? And also realizing that the silo, in this case, the regulators, are not the enemy. That's what they were built to do. That was their, you know, operating system in a way. So they're just executing that. It's just that we have stopped reviewing if this is still useful and valid. So actually, I believe that in person is one of the best ways to bring those people together and almost create the safe spaces for that interaction to happen. And we might discover that we might want to, in certain areas, regulate a bit more and in other ones, be a bit more loose. But let me give you, I think, Jim, I think that one of the areas, for example, one of the areas we're in, we're exploring a lot on the more kind of ecosystem level is that we need to stop in Europe being nationalists, where our identity is the country we were from, right? As opposed to having, you know, a Stockholm startup ecosystem, Berlin, Dublin, you know, I mean, how do we have a martech ecosystem, an AI healthcare ecosystem, a defense tech ecosystem that is defined by being Europeans and wherever city we're in, but not competing against each other, right? And that's where I think we also lost that. I mean, this whole nation city thing where everyone is fighting to claim the most unicorns and the most whatever, instead of us in the real world, it's going to be companies that are in the same field growing together, partnering, connecting, collaborating, moving a market, moving a field together, being strong as Europeans, right? So I think back to change making, I think that's, and I don't know how to do this. I mean, it's going to be incredibly hard to do. But I mean, that's back to the European reset that we need to, I mean, that's one of the, I mean, the Silicon Valley things is a lot about ecosystems and connections. And one of the, kind of old, you know, California hippie treasures that I think we should still keep around instead of pushing it away, right? I want to switch a bit the conversation into the craft of our work, because as I said before, we're all active here. We can change things. You don't like it. You don't like the video player. You know, you can change the brand. You announce that now you allow people not to have someone else's video experience, but their own. And, you know, this is part of the craft when we build things and the things could be actually coding to build and building the teams that allow those things, you know, having an accelerator or trying to change mindsets. How do you see your craft on the internet today? What are you trying to polish? Or what do you think is your specific talent that makes a difference? You know, for some people it's coding, even though a lot of that is going away. For some people it's being pixel perfect. For some it's understanding how organizations work and creating those. For others it's maybe understanding how people click and it's running the marketing. So I'm very curious. Both personally, but also in your organizations, what is the key to the craft of, well, you left Umbracco, but, you know, maybe what you embraced back then or what you embrace now into Intercom and TwentyThree? Well, I've always been fascinated by communities and the whole idea of creating together wisdom of the crowd, all these things, which is also why I fell in love with open source as this rather than an artificial intelligence. It was, you know, collective intelligence. And I really believed in that. And it was also, I mean, that was why Umbracco, you know, beat the market because we might have been a small hundred person company, but we had a really big, big community. And then technology just got more and more complex and innovation speed slowed down. And then that became a challenge. But I've, and for a couple of years, I've been sort of trying to avoid tech in general. I've kind of been tired of it, but I actually think that with AI, I'm getting fascinated by tech again, not as what AI can create as an end product. I think you had a great point in the keynote, but as a lot of interns or a lot of assistants for me. As I told you, I just create a small cinema for my local village. And I built an entire app because I hated administration. So I built a complete system for managing the cinema and making payment systems because I hate people bringing phones. So you're not allowed to bring a phone. Then people couldn't pay in the cafe. So I had to invent a payment system. And I, I mean, I had an AI creating 95% of the code. It was a project that I would never been able to afford or had time to. But the end product from the AI was crap, but then I could spend, you know, a week or two polishing it. And now it's, it looks really good. And it, to me, I get really positive by that because it means that again, someone like Thomas or me 20 years ago today can actually create something without having to, you know, spend a lot of time raising money, making very expensive prototypes, but can actually experiment again online. And to me, that's, that's really exciting. And I think, yeah, so again, the craft is ironically building communities, bringing people together. And now it's kind of ironic that I can use AI to bring people together. It's the ultimate thing, right? Because if we're not bringing people together, why are we here around? I mean, we're still made of meat, right? So we're not digital beings. So it's, it's great and exciting to have digital, but we should make, I call it part of the ineffable three, aliveness, things feel more alive and be beautiful, whatever beauty might mean for you. And then in good taste, which again, it's not something you, you, you learn from a manual, but you develop through a life well-lived with a lot of challenges. What about you gentlemen? What about your craft? I'd just say, first of all, plus one to all of that. I think a lot of people need to disconnect from the internet more often to actually experience life. And I think one of the challenges we have is just people are like, since COVID I've just been online way too much. The craft that I work in primarily is like taking AI and applying it to problem domains. And really like you can think of AI like a kind of a cocktail where you've got three ingredients. You've got agency, which is how much can this thing act on its own accord? You've got control, which is how much can you guardrail or limit it, making sure it doesn't kill you or whatever. And then you've got reliability, which is like given a situation, or given a problem, will it perform the same way every single time? And it's a three-sided trade-off. You can have full, like let the agent do what it wants, but then you won't be able to control it. And it will be pretty unpredictable. Or you can have total predictability, but you'll have no agency, right? So in any given problem domain, by the way, humans have this dynamic too. We all employ people who can be sometimes a little bit over the top, sometimes a little bit unreliable. Like it's the same dynamic, but for us, most of the time, what we're wrestling with is how do we do this in a way that is like the agent has enough freedom, enough creative freedom to surprise us and do great work, that we can put manners on it, and that given a situation, it'll behave properly all the time. And that's like what used to be for us, it was like UI design and just beautiful product and all that. All of that's faded away in this post-AI world where like that, the number one concern we always talk about is just agency control, reliability. That's it. Once upon a time, it used to be good, fast, cheap, and you can only pick two. So interesting. Area pick and tree. That's a different one. I think, I mean, craft would be design, but I think ultimately the big differentiator is sort of empathy towards humans and the future. Well, you call it the human side of digital, right? The human side of digital, yeah. I guess that, so, but more so perhaps the empathy for the designing for the future. But I think what Neil said is so beautiful that I think also that's perhaps where we got a little bit lost again, right? In the dot-com boom at that point, we required $10 million to do a startup, Oracle licenses, all kinds of stuff, right? And that had moved from 1995 where it was like a bunch of kids, 17 years old, coding HTML, right? I mean, so it very quickly matured to be something where the entry barrier was super high, right? And I think that's what we're seeing again now, that we're seeing a lot of young people starting to build beautiful things just for the sake of building them, not because they're building a startup or whatever, right? And that's also normally how the best companies essentially come out of things where there is passion in it, right? And I think that's so promising now that we are in a phase where we can, again, can get back to that of seeing beautiful things being built on the web, not yet for the commerce, right? I mean, I think Nils and I famously built Twitter in, I can't recall, 2002, 2003. And that was not very unique because there were hundreds of people around the world building microblogging platforms and we had an SMS gateway and, you know, whatever, right? We famously threw it away to Eclipse, made and declared that 160 characters would never be enough, right? You know, but everyone else did that, right? And I think it's that kind of open source vibe that we're getting with some of the AI coding, especially now again, that we can see this kind of experimentation that then eventually can become beautiful companies, but then you also go through a little bit more critical selection and what core ideas you have in your companies instead of them starting some sort of, you know, only the business side, right? I think we all love business, but ultimately it is the DNA of the companies, that very much kind of comes through that early phase. Jump into it. Yeah, don't wait for permission. We're friends in a pub, so. No, but it applies to organizations as well, existing organizations, because suddenly you can experiment again where the last 10 years has been, we'll do whatever new feature HubSpot or whatever SaaS platform you were, you know, subscribing to provide it for you because it was too expensive to experiment. And hopefully, we will now enter an age of experimentation again where you're not bound to just what your SaaS platforms can do for you, but you can actually, you know, build and be creative again because now you can actually afford to be creative again. And with that thought, to build and be creative again, respect agency and control and reliability, but also bring back the beauty. I want to thank the three speakers. Let's give them a big round of applause. Thank you very much. Thank you.