Monday, October 27, 2025

ZZ25061 Growing UK Food Businesses - 2 Sisters Group. V01 271025

 ‘Chicken King’ with a plan for UK food chain

Ranjit Singh Boparan is into more than poultry now, but still focuses on his ‘brilliant basics’, Richard Fletcher writes
Ranjit Singh Boparan

Ranjit Singh Boparan is standing in the middle of one of the food aisles in the M&S store in the Birmingham Bullring.

He has grabbed a pack of M&S Collection 8 Hours Slow Cooked Black Dal off the shelf. “There is a lot of debate about homemade versus shop curry.

This matches homemade,” he boasts as he waves the packet in the air.

Boparan was nicknamed the “Chicken King” in the 2000s, but a few minutes in the food aisle of M&S reveals the true breadth of his 2 Sisters Food Group today. The media, which Boparan has usually shunned throughout his career, will have to find a new sobriquet.

Pizzas, produced in a custom-built, 12-metre, £6.6 million wood fired oven in Nottingham, hot cross buns and Boparan’s favourite sweet and sour chicken, not to mention the entire fresh chicken aisle. It is easier to find the food not supplied by Boparan in M&S than to pick out everything that is.

The black dal is one of the items produced in the 2 Sisters Food Group factory in Rogerstone, Gwent, which after a £7.5 million investment last year now produces 1.7 million ready meals a week exclusively for M&S including Chinese, Thai, Indian and British classics.

When Boparan acquired the factory as part of a wider deal with rival Premier Foods in 2011 it was producing 900,000 meals.

The entrepreneur, who now owns and runs one of the UK’s largest private companies, has a similar tale to tell about the former Fox’s biscuit factory in Elkes, Uttoxeter, which he also acquired in 2011.

The site looked set to close in 2021 until Boparan persuaded Stuart Machin, M&S’s chief executive, and Alex Freudmann, head of M&S food, to partner with him the following year to produce a new range of own-label biscuits while on a tour of the factory.

“It is up to M&S to push us and us to push M&S,” says Boparan, who insists on describing M&S as a partner, rather than a customer.

This is very different from the frozen poultry cutting operation that Boparan, who left school at 16 to become a butcher, founded in West Bromwich in 1993. He has since built a family fortune of more than £1 billion, according to The Sunday Times Rich List.

The 2 Sisters group now employs more than 15,000 people across 24 sites in the UK and Europe. Other customers include Aldi, Asda, Co-op, KFC, Lidl, Morrison’s, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose. Turnover topped £3 billion in 2025 and operating profit rose to £101.3 million.

The family’s private office business employs a further 10,000, many of them in hatcheries, feed mills and farms as well as restaurants.

Ten years after a string of acquisitions that transformed 2 Sisters — but also took it to the brink of collapse as interest rates rose and lenders lost confidence — Boparan is laying out a plan to invest more than £1.75 billion in the business. He has dubbed the plan “NextGen”.

“We spent £2 billion on acquisitions in the last 15 years, now we are going to spend £1.75 billion on investment,” he explained.

The plan is driven by Boparan’s belief that the food system isn’t working for people or the planet.

“The next generation of consumers will be more savvy about what they eat, where it comes from, how it’s made and how it was treated.”

On welfare, 2 Sisters birds already have 20 per cent more space and the group is on track to be the biggest provider of higher-welfare poultry in the UK within the next two years.

Having developed a new diet for chickens, which replaces about 20 per cent of the usual South American soya feed with UK-grown peas and beans, Boparan is confident that the group will be able to claim early next year that its chickens are raised on a diet that does not cause deforestation (and in the process support UK farmers).

He is also investing in automation. A new £100 million factory in Coupar Angus, Perthshire, will have capacity to process 1.4 million birds a week thanks to a state of the art food processing fa- cility that incorporates AI and robotics.

That is almost double the capacity of the existing factory.

This confidence is a far cry from 2018, when ratings agency Moody’s downgraded the company’s debt into junk territory. The group’s debt traded for as little as 50p in the pound at the time.

Leverage was then more than seven times earnings. By the end of this year it will fall below two and debt now trades at a premium, 105p in the pound.

The acquisition spree began with a deal to buy Northern Foods in January 2011. “It was badly run, sleepy and corporate, but it had good products and a great customer in M&S,” says Boparan.

“It had forgotten about colleagues and forgotten about its customers.”

Later that year he bought RF Brookes, a chilled food and bakery business, from Premier Foods. Two years later came Vion’s UK poultry and red meat businesses, and in 2016 a deal to buy Bernard Matthews.

So did he do one too many deals? Was the group over indebted? “When you buy a broken business it takes you three years to turn it around. I bought four consecutively,” he says.

“But you can’t time when a business is going to come up for sale. Did I buy more than I could chew? I don’t know. We’ve got through.”

“Some days were pretty tough days,” he concedes. But he quickly adds: “I don’t do regrets, because it just eats you up.”

Boparan would like to be recognised as a turnaround specialist rather than a dealmaker. He takes pride in the number of jobs, 15,000, that he believes he has saved. And he stresses that all of the acquisitions fitted into a longer term plan for the group. Buy, fix, sell and reduce debt, is the mantra. “Eighty five per cent of what I bought have all been turnarounds, in some shape or form,” he said.

And as the business has grown he insists that his management style has changed. “I’ve learnt to stand on the sideline and manage the team.”

It is an impressive team that includes Trevor Strain, the former finance director of Morrisons, along with former senior executives from M&S, Tesco and Sainsbury. “I say, it’s your business, you run it. I’m here to challenge it and support it. But if you get into trouble ... I’m available. Come and ask me and I’ll help you if I can or I’ll get someone who hopefully knows.”

His longstanding chief of staff, who has worked with Boparan since 1997, is charged with making sure his diary includes at least ten hours a week of thinking time and he no longer visits factories every week. “I’ve stopped doing that ... They know you are coming and you get the red carpet. They will waste a day preparing. I really don’t want that.”

Richard Pennycook, the former chief executive of the Co-op, chairs the 2 Sisters holding business. “You have an entrepreneur sitting at the top with a chairman who tries to keep me in order,” says Boparan.

So what is his advice to entrepreneurs starting out now? “Think big, act small and protect your reputation.”

But the key to the group’s success, argues Boparan, is what he describes as the “brilliant basics”. “Brilliant basics are boring. But boring is good. Keep doing it every day. Every hour.

“Everybody wants to do someone else’s job. But they don’t want to do their own. Do your brilliant basics. Once you’ve done your brilliant basics you can do other things.”

So at 59, how much longer will he keep doing his brilliant and boring basics? “The day I get out of bed in the morning and I don’t want to go to work. I will stop. I enjoy what I do. It is a bit like you’re blessed. It’s a bit like a professional athlete who can continue doing what they do and get paid for it.”

Friday, October 24, 2025

ZZ25060 Google invests in THG V01 241025

 Google backs Ingenuity 

NEWS IN BRIEF

Google has invested in the Ingenuity platform spun off by THG in a deal reportedly valuing the business at $1 billion. The internet giant has invested through an instrument that could be converted into equity stake in the ecommerce platform, according to Sky News. Ingenuity supports the online operations of retailers including Holland & Barrett, The Range and L’Orรฉal. Its demerger has left THG holding the beauty and nutrition business behind the brands MyProtein and Cult Beauty. THG, which was co-founded by Matt Moulding in 2004, pressed ahead with the demerger after a turbulent period as a public company.

ZZ25059 Satellite Developments V01 241025

 European satellite alliance to take on might of Musk


Tom Saunders 

Airbus, Leonardo and Thales have agreed to merge their satellite operations to create a European joint venture to compete with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

The three aerospace companies have been in talks for months to form a single company that will employ 25,000 people with annual revenues of €6.5 billion, based on 2024 figures.

The venture is expected to become operational as early as 2027 and draws inspiration from the successful MBDA tie-up, which involved BAE Systems, Leonardo and Airbus combining to design and manufacture missiles.

Airbus will own 35 per cent, while Leonardo and Thales will each take 32.5 per cent stakes. The business will be based in Toulouse in France.

The trio said this structure would deliver savings amounting to “mid-tripledigit millions” of euros in operating income five years after closing. Each home country will keep its existing capabilities, with no site closures planned. Executives said the decision was made in response to the disruption in the satellite sector made by the likes of SpaceX, as well as a big increase in government spending on space, particularly by the United States and China.

The shift from satellites in geostationary orbit, 22,250 miles above Earth, an area where Europe has led, to lowearth orbit, 100 to 1,200 miles above Earth, which has been championed by SpaceX’s Starlink among others, has been another driver behind the merger.

Europe has struggled to compete in the low-earth orbit sector. Both Airbus and Thales Alenia Space, a joint venture by Thales and Leonardo that makes satellites and related equipment, have had to restructure their space businesses, with heavy job losses.

OneWeb, one of Europe’s main competitors to Starlink, has seen its revenues rise over the past year, but Eutelsat, its French owner, has struggled to realise value from the service.

A spokesman for Airbus said: “If you really want to grow at the rate that we see the opportunity for, we think we can achieve much more by scaling and collaborating across Europe, more formally than we do currently.”

The new company will develop technologies and solutions for space infrastructure and services. Launch operations into space, an area in which Europe struggles to compete with the US, will not be part of the effort.

Shares in Leonardo rose by €0.84, or 1.7 per cent, to €51.34 in Milan; in Paris Thales was up by €1.50, or 0.6 per cent, to €260.70, and Airbus rose by €1.45, or 0.7 per cent, to €207.25.

Tuesday, October 21, 2025

ZZ25058 William Hague on Innovation V01 211025

 William Hague’s article in The Times on the 21/10/25. Impressive insight and rightly identifies the need to invest in and focus up on innovation for the UK to succeed. 

Boris Johnson’s support for HS2 would have been better directed at research

In all the fuss about the Nobel peace prize and whether it would be awarded to President Trump, you might not have noticed last week’s announcement of the Nobel prize for economics. It is an important prize, since it highlights vital discoveries about how economies work. Without such understanding, living standards go backwards and governments fall.

Just as Labour MPs know that their entire fate will probably rest on whether Rachel Reeves can get her budget right next month, so almost everything in politics rests on good economics.

This year the prize has gone to three economists who have demonstrated how sustained economic growth is driven by innovation. One of them, Joel Mokyr, has shown why the British economy stagnated for 400 years up to the 18th century, despite many inventions taking place, and then took off dramatically in the Industrial Revolution after modern science emerged and new technologies were invented at the same time. Sustained growth, he has shown, depends on science and technology evolving together, a high level of mechanical competence to make the most of them, and a society open to disruptive change.

The other two winners, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt, also showed how innovation is the key driver of growth, through a process of “creative destruction” of established companies by new products and processes. While the work of all three economists is about how innovation unfolds, it is clear from their conclusions that such innovation is the main and overwhelmingly important determinant of whether we live in a growing or a stagnating economy.

Isn’t this obvious, you might think? Isn’t it clear that US growth this century has resulted from a mass of innovation in Silicon Valley, not from the average shop or factory in America? Don’t all governments say they favour innovation? Well yes, it should be obvious, and yes, they do all say that. But what they then do is entirely different. In Britain and the rest of Europe, while governments have many initiatives that support innovation, much of their activity fails to give it sufficient priority and most of their policies actively stifle it. That is why they are stuck in stagnation and running out of money.

Ministers continue to believe that building infrastructure and spending more money creates growth. But if innovation is the key driver of growth, they are wrong. Take HS2 as an example. It will cost, ultimately, over £100 billion. If it had been a well-managed project that actually reached most of the intended places, we could expect that people could travel more quickly and move more easily for work. That is assumed to be growth because, short-term, it is more activity. But in reality, all we will have done is spent scarce money and allowed a lot of running around within a stagnating economy.

£40m innovation fund is equal to three hours’ debt interest payments

Now imagine that we truly understood that innovation drives growth. Think what would have happened if we had taken that £100 billion and spent it on much more funding for Aria (the advanced research agency), paying higher salaries to scientific researchers, slashing capital gains tax for young entrepreneurs, training far more people with technical skills, giving visas free of charge to the cleverest people working in AI, and supporting firms developing new types of batteries or rare earths processing who cannot compete against Chinese subsidies.

Would we have a better chance of a growing economy if we had thrown our resources at such things? Clearly, successive governments have not thought so. But according to the logic of the Nobel prize winners, yes, we would. I think they are right.

Ministers like to “build, build, build”, because new towns and infrastructure are things you can touch, point at and for which they can claim credit. The trouble with putting effort into new ideas is that they are uncertain, you can’t see them, they are risky and the National Audit Office finds it hard to measure them. Yet the only hope of growth is to encourage people to “think, think, think”.

I never want to be unfair to the government. It has rightly embarked on several initiatives to encourage innovation: a new global talent fund to attract researchers, a “concierge” service to help finance firms locate in Britain, reform of pension schemes to promote investment in UK firms, longer-term ten-year budgets for research funding, a new health data research service and more such items.

The Treasury is now frantically looking for new ideas, such as cheaper patents benefiting start-up firms, to persuade the Office for Budget Responsibility to soften the coming downgrade of future growth.

But if it is true that innovation is the critical factor in future prosperity, then it needs to be a far higher priority, not to be inhibited by the rest of government policy and not thought of only at the last minute before a budget.

A good example of government support for innovation is the £40 million announced in the last budget to support university spin-outs — a prime source of future growth. Yet the initial tranche of this funding was heavily oversubscribed, which suggests many ideas need more support. And £40 million is what we spend on debt interest every three hours. It is the total spent on health and disability benefits every six hours — a rapidly increasing sum that ministers have failed to reform.

This is a hopeless sense of priorities, yet it is only an innovative economy that will be able to afford the vast benefit and pension bills of future decades.

Ministers often support innovation with one hand and frustrate it with another. Monday’s pages of The Times revealed how the vital work to develop SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors) had been delayed and made more expensive in an excessively bureaucratic process.

Firms bidding to supply the new technology have been asked to demonstrate the “social value” of their supply chains, including employment of refugees. Such rules have contributed to a two-year process while other countries forge ahead. Real social value would come from having a growing economy, with cheaper energy, in which everyone has a better chance of finding work.

While the Nobel prize is the clearest evidence yet that innovation decides our future, ministers, government departments and regulators are light years away from behaving as if that is true. We are a country of extraordinary talent with endless ideas. Yet many of those ideas are flattened by the grinding, dull uniformity of regulation; or cannot find the capital as wealthy investors are pushed abroad and public money for growth goes overwhelmingly into infrastructure instead.

Listen to many economists and political leaders and you might think growth comes from government spending, or entirely depends on interest rates, small tax changes, stability or consumer confidence.

These things do matter, day to day.

But to grow sustainably we need the freedom to have new ideas and implement them. Literally everything will depend on it.

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

ZZ25057 AI update newsletter. V01 151025

 Copied from a Newsletter from www.decodingdatascience.com

This week was all about infrastructure and alliances: enterprise platforms got more centralized, compute supply chains diversified beyond a single vendor, and new tooling lowered the operational burden of fine-tuning. For builders and startups, the signal is clear—optimize for governance, hardware agility (CUDA + ROCm), and faster data/agent iteration.

IBM × Anthropic (enterprise IDE + governance):

IBM will embed Anthropic’s Claude across parts of its enterprise software stack, starting with an AI-first IDE aimed at upgrades, migrations, and refactoring—framed with security/governance guidance for production AI agents. Early previews report significant developer productivity gains and a push to make agents a first-class part of the SDLC.

Google launches Gemini Enterprise (central AI interface):

Google introduced a company-wide conversational layer with a no/low-code workbench to build agents that can safely access data across Workspace, Microsoft 365, Salesforce, SAP, and more—shifting focus from one-off pilots to operating fleets of task-specific agents with access control and observability. 

OpenAI × AMD (6 GW compute + equity warrants)

OpenAI signed a multi-year deal to deploy 6 GW of AMD Instinct MI450 GPUs (first 1 GW in 2H 2026) and received warrants to buy up to ~10% of AMD upon milestones—diversifying beyond NVIDIA and signaling falling long-run compute costs; plan for ROCm and heterogeneous clusters.

Tuesday, October 14, 2025

ZZ25056 Wayve an AI Start Up. V01 141025

 Wayve aims to wheel in Microsoft


Katie Prescott - Technology Business Editor

Wayve, one of the UK’s top artificial intelligence start-ups, is in early discussions with Microsoft and SoftBank to raise up to $2 billion of new funding.

In a sign of the deal-making frenzy around leading AI businesses, the London-based driverless car company would be valued at $8 billion if the investment went ahead, according to a report in the Financial Times.

Wayve was founded in a garage in 2017 by Cambridge University PhD students Alex Kendall and Amar Shah.

The pair, who researched machine learning, computer vision and robotics, wanted to explore a different approach to developing driverless cars.

Rather than feeding rules into computers to account for every driving eventuality, Wayve’s technology “teaches” autonomous vehicles how to drive using videos and data from real life collected by partners including Asda and Ocado. This means vehicles can navigate any environment and are more responsive to unexpected incidents such as another vehicle swerving.

Last year SoftBank, the Japanese investment company, led a $1 billion funding round for Wayve, along with Nvidia and Microsoft, to help develop the start-up’s AI software, which can make any vehicle hands-free.

Nvidia, the American AI company, ploughed in a further $500 million in September as part of a series of investments made by Jensen Huang, its chief executive, in some of London’s most successful AI companies.

Other investors over the years have included Ilya Sutskever, the OpenAI co-founder, and Yann LeCun, the chief AI scientist at Meta. Since SoftBank’s 2024 round, Wayve has expanded around the world and employs 800 people, with offices in six countries.

It has signed a deal with Nissan to put its software into the carmaker’s vehicles by 2027, and has partnered with Uber with a view to deploying its tech across its ride-hailing network. They will be trialled in the UK next spring.

It is hoped driverless cars will cut the number of road accidents by removing human error, drunk driving and road rage. Wayve declined to comment.

ZZ25055 Oracle’s Oxford University Research Investment V01 141025

 Ellison to pump cash into Oxford

Oracle tycoon commits to science park extension

Alex Ralph - Chief Business Correspondent

Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest tycoons, has agreed to invest a further £890 million to expand his technology institute in Oxford amid recent concerns about its trajectory.

The founder and chairman of Oracle, the American software giant, has committed to a significant extension of the Oxford Science Park, with plans to now build a complex covering 2 million sq ft and accommodating up to 7,000 people.

The deeper investment in the Norman Foster-designed campus marks a near six-fold expansion of plans unveiled two years ago to cover 300,000 sq ft by 2027.

Ellison, 81, has vowed to concentrate his resources on the institute to combat some of humanity’s most “challenging and enduring problems” such as health, food security and climate change.

The government has made life sciences and technology key parts of its industrial strategy to grow the economy, and Ellison and his senior leadership have been working closely with Sir Tony Blair, a friend of the tycoon, as well as ministers and officials.

In an exclusive interview at the institute’s St James’s Square office, Santa Ono, appointed global president of the Ellison Institute of Technology in August, told The Times it was “the most exciting investment in research and innovation anywhere in the world”.

Ono, a former head of the universities of British Columbia and Michigan, said the economic benefit would eventually amount to billions of pounds.

“A research enterprise of this size with the spin-off companies, the licensing deals or the exits of start-up companies, they’re in the billions. We anticipate there’ll be multiple spin-offs in the not too distant future. And so if you aggregate that together with all the activity of thousands of people who are living and working there, it’s usually billions.”

The renewed commitment follows the emergence of internal problems and upheaval in senior leadership this year. Concerns raised last month included a “toxic” culture; a “cavalier attitude” of hiring and quickly letting staff go; frustrations from scientists over “cumbersome” HR and building delays; and bullying allegations.

There have also been fears that the institute’s fundamental vision had shifted away from commercialising science and uncertainty over the longterm financing of the institute, with no endowment believed to be in place.

However, Ono, 62, and Lisa Flashner, the US chief operating officer, said Ellison remained committed to having a commercial impact soon and played down internal concerns. “Larry has succeeded over the years because he expects people to be focused and dedicated and to deliver … I think that that expectation is appropriate,” Ono said.

Flashner, who has relocated to Oxford and was previously chief operating officer of the Ellison Medical Institute in Los Angeles, said: “We’ve been growing very rapidly in the last 18 months. It’s a very short time. It’s natural to have some people who love the place and some [who find change hard].


A computer-generated image of the Ellison Institute of Technology in Oxford, set for completion in 2027.

In a luxurious townhouse in St James’s Square in London, the leaders of Larry Ellison’s technology institute are accelerating plans for a new multibillionpound campus in Oxford.

Sitting at the foot of the fourth-floor boardroom table in front of screens projecting Norman Foster-designed architectural images, Santa Ono, the newly appointed global president of the Ellison Institute of Technology, has flown in to oversee a major expansion of the “vision” of the world’s secondrichest person.

Two years ago Ellison, 81, founder and chairman of Oracle, the US technology giant, launched his mission to solve some of humanity’s most “challenging and enduring problems” — spanning health, food security and climate change — through a new institute at the Oxford Science Park in the south of the city, to be completed in 2027.

Amid recent, abrupt changes in senior leadership and concerns about the culture, direction and future of the institute, the billionaire tycoon now plans to invest another £890 million in the Oxford campus to build a laboratories and office complex covering 2 million sq ft and employing up to 7,000 people.

Ono, a former head of the universities of British Columbia and Michigan who was appointed in August, tells The Times: “I’ve seen nothing like it anywhere in the world.

“He’s putting together, primarily in Oxford, a set of world-class scientists that are supported by an extraordinary infrastructure of what ultimately will be unparalleled strengths in robotics, artificial intelligence and machine learning.”

Following the surprise departure of Professor Sir John Bell — former regius professor of medicine at Oxford — as president of the institute last month, there have been concerns that the institute’s fundamental vision has shifted away from commercialising science towards being more of a traditional research institute.

Ono, speaking alongside Lisa Flashner, the institute’s American chief operating officer, insists, though, there has been “no backpedalling”, and that having “impact” through commercialising science “will always be the founding principle. It’ll be integrated into the collective DNA of everyone recruited to the institute.”

He adds: “We anticipate multiple spin-offs in the not too distant future.”

The plans also include co-investing and collaborating with other companies, with profits invested back into the institute.

Current investments include becoming the largest shareholder in Oxford Nanopore Technologies, the FTSE 250 company that is a neighbour at the science park, through EIT Oxford Holdings, a California-based parent company.

Professor Hagan Bayley, a founder of Oxford Nanopore, is joining the institute as a principal scientist.

One ambition is to address the “valley of death”, where start-ups fail or progress slowly because of a lack of scale-up capital. The funding gap has forced many of the UK’s most promising technologies and ventures to turn to the United States for finance and growth.

The institute signed a “long-term strategic alliance” with the University of Oxford last December but also plans to collaborate with other UK institutions, including across the “Oxford- Cambridge corridor” and in London, via its St James’s office — areas that combine to form the so-called Golden Triangle.

“I used to be a professor at University College London, and the postgraduate medical institutions in the London universities — UCL, Imperial, King’s — are world-class,” Ono says.

As part of its hiring spree it is seeking to attract the brightest globally, including from the US, where the Trump administration is making sweeping cuts to federal research budgets.

In Oxford, the institute is conscious of not “taking away” from the univers- ity, but of aiming to create a “synergistic relationship”.

Ono says: “Some of the scientists who are coming in are at or near retirement age at the university and so it makes sense.

“It’s a win-win to keep them in the ecosystem, to invest in them, to continue investing in their science, which is still continuing to pay dividends, and they’re still adjacent to Oxford University.”

Similarly, the institute plans to work with Oxford Science Enterprises (OSE), an investment company that is already building ventures from promising technology and science from the university.

“You need lots of different players in this ecosystem to make it successful,” says Flashner, who spent 15 years in the same role at the Ellison Medical Institute in Los Angeles and has a background in venture capital. “I do think a lot of Silicon Valley.

“You need spin-outs, you need multiple entrepreneurs, you need venture and private [capital] across the spectrum. And so we look at OSE as a really great partner to us.”

As part of the institute’s plans to create creative hubs, Ellison is also investing in refurbishing the grade II listed Eagle and Child pub, which was purchased from St John’s College. Planning permission and listed building consent have now been granted for the restoration, which is being led by architects Foster + Partners, alongside the firm’s work at the campus.

Ono says: “You need to have hubs. Some of the greatest ideas come from just ad hoc, spontaneous conversations, bringing people together from different perspectives, and an idea germinates.”

As part of its effort to develop the next generation of innovators and leaders, the first cohort of the Ellison scholars programme enjoyed a recent “welcome” retreat at Elcot Park in west Berkshire. They were met by Sir Tony Blair, a friend of Ellison and among a “faculty of fellows” at the institute.

The “long-term strategy” is to work closely with the Tony Blair Institute (TBI).

Flashner says: “We’re going to need to look globally and TBI has such great relationships around the world. So you can see that as an important piece of what we’re doing.”

The institute has been engaging with government officials and ministers. Further meetings are planned in November.

Lord Vallance of Balham, the science minister and a former senior executive at GSK, one of Britain’s two big pharma companies, has been “very supportive”, Flashner adds.

The institute has co-founded a campaign to reopen the Cowley branch line to rail passengers, to link the city centre to the campus, and also to create a new direct service to London Marylebone.

The campaign groups have committed almost £25 million in funding for the project and are lobbying for government support.

The infrastructure, should it receive authorisation from Westminster, is likely to take many years.

Among the other concerns of current and former staff has been the long-term financing commitment of the institute, with no endowment believed to be in place.

Both Ono and Flashner seek to reassure the doubters.

“This is important to him [Ellison]. This is his legacy. This is something that he wants to survive long beyond all of us are around, for millennia.”

Monday, October 13, 2025

ZZ25054 Brands being built by influences. V01 131025

 Content creators building their own brands in a $250bn industry


Meagan Loyst

Jimmy Donaldson, aka Mr Beast, is YouTube’s most popular creator with 444 million subscribers. He has been creating video content for 13 years to build such huge influence.

Donaldson is worth an estimated $2.6 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth, helped by his business empire, Beast Inc, being valued at $5.2 billion. He now makes more money, however, selling chocolate than he does from making videos.

The line between creator and founder has blurred in the past few years as more creators realise that real value lies in the ownership of brands versus doing temporary brand deals for other companies or relying solely on platform income.

Donaldson, 27, has seen this first hand through setting up his successful chocolate bar company, Feastables, which made $250 million in profitable sales last year and is responsible for more net revenue than his entire YouTube business.

The creator economy is a $250 billion industry and venture capitalists have been betting on the space for more than a decade but the tides are starting to shift. Many firms initially believed that the value would be in the “picks and shovels” of the industry: selling software to creators. Patreon is an example of this in practice, giving creators the tools to build community around paywalled content.

Some have realised, however, that the value is not in the software but in the creators themselves and in owning a piece of their many businesses. We have seen this play out for some of the world’s biggest celebrities. Take Kim Kardashian, who has 355 million followers on Instagram and the Skims shapewear empire, valued at $4 billion, or Rihanna, who has 149 million Instagram followers and the Fenty Beauty venture, worth $2.8 billion.

Imagine you could turn back the clock knowing that Mr Beast would become a raging success and could invest directly in him. You could then own, say, 10 per cent of any of the businesses he started.

“Some investors have realised that the value is not in the software but in the creators

This idea has become more common as the broader ecosystem has evolved. One of my favorite examples is Grace Beverley, a UK creator with 1.1 million followers on Instagram who has not one but four companies including her the venture-backed clothing brand Tala.

Beverley, 28, has raised money from traditional early-stage investors such as Pembroke VCT for Tala, but we are starting to see a new model emerge to take advantage of this trend of creators leveraging their audience to start several brands instead of one and capture all the upside as a result.

One fund at the centre of this movement is Slow Ventures, which has raised a $64 million fund to invest directly into creators. Megan Lightcap, who leads the fund, told me that investors in the company’s funds would watch their children run into Walmart and beg them to buy Feastables or spend hours watching YouTube at home, so the bet to invest in their new creatorfocused fund felt like a no-brainer.

Slow will identify a creator with an engaged community and then work with that creator to set up a holding company so Slow will then own a percentage of any business the creator starts in exchange for upfront investment.

Lightcap said: “Follower counts don’t matter as much. We’ve met creators who have 100,000 followers ... but are doing $2 million to $3 million of product sales, and then we meet creators with millions of followers and they can’t sell a single thing. So it’s really about relevancy and engagement.”

Slow recently announced its first investment in the woodworking creator Jonathan Katz-Moses, backing him with $2 million.

Direct creator investing is a frontier area of venture capital but it highlights an enormous shift in taking creators and the marketing power they wield seriously.

It is no longer everyday people just making videos online. They are building distribution businesses that can rival any of those set up in the traditional way. With venture capitalists now fuelling their growth, brands should think hard about how they build affinity with customers, as those same creators they are paying to advertise their wares may very well become competitors.

 Meagan Loyst is the founder of Gen Z VCs, a community of Gen Z founders and investors

Sunday, October 12, 2025

ZZ25053 ChatGPT to be only web User Interface. V01 121025

 

AI bosses: Mira Murati 

You have to wonder whether Sam Altman ever sleeps. In the past four weeks, the billionaire chief executive of OpenAI — and father to a newborn baby — has signed chips and data-centre deals worth more than $500 billion with Oracle, Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).

He also rolled out a new social media app, Sora 2, that allows people (in America and Canada) to make AIgenerated videos of themselves, a shot across the bow of TikTok. Meanwhile, a new “Instant Checkout” feature, launched at the end of September, allows users to buy products from five million shops managed by ecommerce giant Shopify — without ever leaving OpenAI’s ChatGPT app.

Days after this, it unveiled a capability to integrate other apps, allowing users to create a Spotify playlist or search for homes with Zillow (the US equivalent of Rightmove) from inside ChatGPT. It even rivals YouTube by serving up videos in its search results.

While some of the features, announced at OpenAI’s demo day in San Francisco last week, roll out gradually, the plan is coming into focus: to collapse the chaos of the web into a single interface.

Marc Andreessen, the billionaire tech investor, wrote in 2011 that “software is eating the world”. Altman appears to be trying to eat the internet, by turning ChatGPT into the “everything app” to rule them all — a tool that people can turn to as their personal assistant, travel agent, confidant, legal adviser, doctor and personal shopper. “Most people will want to have one AI service, and that needs to be useful to them across their whole life,” he said last week to Ben Thompson of the tech site Stratechery. “I do feel like this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for all of us and we’ll take the run at it.”

Thompson said Altman is apeing Bill Gates by trying to turn ChatGPT into the dominant “operating system” of this new age. “OpenAI is making a play to be the Windows of AI,” he said.

Under that vision, “agents” — autonomous applications — would spring up by the billions, doing in seconds what would take humans hours or days, and for a fraction of the cost. Everyone would be endowed, in effect, with a personal AI workforce marshalled by their preferred chatbot, diverting money from the humans whom you might once have paid for that work.

“If you have a couple of entities that actually crack artificial general intelligence, these will make more profit than anything we’ve ever seen,” said Alex Blania, chief executive of World, the digital identity start-up, in 2023. “You’re talking about a significant percentage of global GDP.”

That belief is why the AI bubble inflated so quickly. It is why Thinking Machines Lab — a revenue-free start-up, launched by OpenAI cofounder Mira Murati, that launched its first product just days ago — can be valued at $12 billion.

Ruchir Sharma, at the equity research firm Rockefeller International, estimated that 40 per cent of America’s GDP growth this year was due to AI spending.

For Altman, the tip of the spear is forging the dominant AI super app. “We’ve gone from people’s entire world [being] social media, which was pretty awful but at least there was a chance of diversity,” said Hany Farid, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Information.

“The thing about these large language models is that there are going to be a relatively small number of winners, because you need massive computing, data and infrastructure. Your entire online existence is going to be funnelled through four or five billionaires. I worry about that consolidation of power. I think it’s dangerous.”

What makes this moment different is the nature of AI itself. It is a conversational engine inviting intimacy and trust; that one of the uses of these systems is therapy shows how different the technology is from what has come before.

There is, of course, a cost. Disturbing anecdotal evidence is mounting that chatbots are assuming outsized roles in people’s lives, with sometimes devastating results. The parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine sued OpenAI in August, alleging that the chatbot pushed him toward suicide. Meanwhile graduates are finding it harder to land jobs because companies are using bots to handle rote tasks.

Yet the prize is so vast that Altman and his ilk are ploughing ahead regardless. “We’re basically doing the same thing we did with social media,” Farid said. “Early on, there were signs that something was not right, but we kept moving fast and breaking things.”

OpenAI has argued that safety is central to everything it does, and Altman appears undeterred. He is eyeing something more fundamental than crafting the AI age’s operating system. “My favourite historical analogy [for AI] is the transistor,” he said. “I think it will just kind of seep everywhere into every consumer product and every enterprise product.”

Thursday, October 9, 2025

ZZ25052 Aviation not going to be a disrupter. V01 091025

 ๐Ÿ›ซ No New Commercial Airplanes in the Near Future: Boeing & Airbus Explain Why the Skies Will Stay Familiar

✈️ A Future Without “New” Planes — For Now

Imagine stepping into an airplane in 2030 and realizing it’s the same model you flew in 2025. No sleek new fuselage, no radical design changes — just upgraded interiors and slightly quieter engines. That’s not a lack of innovation, but a deliberate pause. Both Boeing and Airbus — the world’s two aerospace giants — have made it clear: there will be no brand-new commercial jet designs in the near future.

The reason? A complex mix of economics, technology, and safety that defines the modern aviation landscape. Let’s dive deep into why your next flight might look a lot like your last one. 

๐Ÿงฉ What Counts as a “New Plane”?

When industry leaders like Boeing and Airbus talk about “new airplanes,” they’re not referring to updated versions of the 737 MAX or the A321neo. They mean clean-sheet aircraft — completely new designs built from the ground up, with fresh airframes, revolutionary engines, and next-generation fuel systems.

These projects are massive undertakings. Developing a new aircraft can take over a decade and cost tens of billions of dollars. Add to that years of testing, safety certification, and regulatory approval — and you begin to see why the two giants are cautious about jumping in too soon.

⚙️ What Boeing Is Saying

Boeing, still managing the aftermath of the 737 MAX crisis and heavy debt, has chosen to focus on completing its current projects rather than launching a new one. Its priority now lies in delivering the remaining MAX variants and bringing the 777X — the company’s latest long-haul twin jet — into full service.

Executives admit that a true 737 successor, or any new-generation narrowbody, is still years away. Boeing’s leadership has stated that technological advancements haven’t yet reached the point where a new design would justify its cost. And given its current financial reality, launching a clean-sheet program could be too risky.

๐Ÿ›ซ Airbus’ Perspective: The Bar Is Set High

Across the Atlantic, Airbus holds a similar view — but for different reasons. The company has been studying new propulsion methods like hydrogen, hybrid-electric systems, and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). However, Airbus insists that it won’t begin a new aircraft project until it can achieve at least 25–30% better efficiency than today’s models.

That’s a massive leap in performance, one that current engine and fuel technologies simply cannot deliver yet. Instead, Airbus is focusing on smaller but significant improvements: lighter materials, aerodynamic tweaks, and fuel optimization.

In short, Airbus isn’t standing still — it’s just biding its time until technology truly matures.

⚠️ Why the Delay? The Big Challenges Ahead

The truth is, building a brand-new airplane isn’t just about design — it’s about mastering multiple frontiers at once. Here’s why the wait makes sense:

Technological barriers: The leap in efficiency required for a new generation of aircraft depends on breakthroughs in materials science, propulsion systems, and fuel technology. The research is ongoing, but results aren’t yet production-ready.

Certification and safety: Since the 737 MAX crisis, global aviation authorities have become far stricter. A new design must meet incredibly high safety and environmental standards, making certification slower and more expensive than ever.

Financial risk: The cost of developing a new jet could exceed $20–30 billion. Both manufacturers are cautious — they want to ensure there’s enough market demand and technological maturity before committing.

Market timing: Airlines today are focusing on recovering from post-pandemic challenges, optimizing fleets, and meeting emissions goals. There isn’t yet a clear demand for brand-new aircraft when improved versions of existing ones still perform well.

๐Ÿ”ฎ What’s Next for the Industry?

In the coming years, expect to see incremental progress, not revolution. Airlines will continue flying modernized versions of current jets — like the Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320neo families — which are already highly fuel-efficient.

In the mid-2030s, we might begin to see the first signs of a new generation of aircraft, possibly featuring hybrid propulsion or even limited hydrogen-powered flight. But these will likely start as smaller, regional aircraft before scaling up to major international routes.

The true clean-sheet airliners, the kind that redefine commercial aviation the way the 707 or A320 once did, are unlikely to appear before the late 2030s or early 2040s.

๐ŸŒ The Ripple Effect: What It Means for You

For airlines: They’ll keep their current fleets longer, investing in refurbishments and fuel-saving retrofits. Fleet renewal strategies will focus on sustainability rather than expansion.

For passengers: You might not see radically new planes, but you’ll enjoy better interiors, quieter cabins, and improved comfort as airlines modernize their existing jets.

For the planet: The delay means a slower reduction in carbon emissions, though the growing use of sustainable aviation fuels and smarter flight operations will still bring progress toward greener skies.

๐Ÿš€ What Needs to Happen to See a New Jet Sooner

To accelerate a new generation of aircraft, the world needs:

Major breakthroughs in engine technology — either ultra-efficient turbofans or viable hydrogen propulsion.

Expanded infrastructure for alternative fuels like hydrogen and SAF.

Stronger policy incentives for cleaner aviation innovation.

A stable global economy that gives manufacturers confidence to invest tens of billions in long-term development.

Until those pieces align, the next “big leap” will remain just beyond the horizon.

✈️ Final Thoughts

So yes — the skies will stay familiar for a while. Boeing and Airbus aren’t being conservative; they’re being realistic. The technological and financial challenges of creating a new generation of jets are enormous, and the stakes — safety, sustainability, and profitability — couldn’t be higher.

The world’s next truly new airplane will come. But not today, not tomorrow. It will arrive when aviation is ready for the next leap — when technology, environment, and economics finally meet at cruising altitude. ๐ŸŒค️

Friday, October 3, 2025

ZZ25051 Quantum Computing Careers V01 031025

 Quantum careers to shape future

Opportunities exist for people with experience in pharma, finance or manufacturing, Jane Hamilton writes

Named as a pillar of the government’s industrial strategy, quantum computing is one of the few areas outpacing artificial intelligence. With plans to invest £2.5 billion in the emerging technology, Professor Sheila Rowan, chair of the Quantum Skills Taskforce, said “we are at a pivot point for the sector”.

While only 8,000 quantum-skilled professionals are employed nationwide, the results so far are promising.

The average productivity of the UK quantum sector is £128,020 per worker, more than twice the national average of £61,900. Oxford Economics says the overall value of the sector could increase to £706 million by 2034, and up to £3.8 billion by 2045, lifting UK productivity by the equivalent of £7,500 per household.

The breakthrough tech uses qubits, allowing quantum computers to explore numerous possibilities simultaneously, rather than sequentially, making them exponentially more powerful.

“Quantum computing is at the stage AI was five years ago, early but accelerating fast,” Liz Durst, vice-president of quantum error correction at Riverlane, a specialist firm, said. “The UK has an opportunity to lead, but only if we grow the talent pool. This is a field where you can build a career that will shape the future of science, technology, and industry.”

With 76 quantum firms operating nationally — the largest number in Europe — the UK is a global hub. One of the key players is Universal Quantum, founded by Professor Sebastian Weidt and which includes Rosemary Leith, wife of the world wide web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, as its senior strategic adviser.

Traditionally, the sector has employed physicists, but as the technology develops from the innovative but errorprone “noisy intermediate-scale quantum” computers to more reliable and powerful next-generation machines, the type of workers needed is changing.

The sector is projected to create about 250,000 jobs worldwide by 2030, rising to 840,000 by 2035. In the UK, the most optimistic outlook suggests growth from 5,000 annual new jobs currently to as many as 148,100 by 2055.

The roles most in demand include software engineers to link quantum machines with conventional computers, hardware engineers developing control systems, application specialists translating capabilities into industry use cases, as well as manufacturing experts scaling production.

“Scaling quantum computers is primarily an engineering challenge rather than a physics one. The field needs people who can work across disciplines,” Weidt said. “Some of the most valuable progress comes from those who combine quantum knowledge with a deep understanding of industry challenges.”

With average salaries ranging from £80,000 to £120,000 for senior staff, the sector is attracting the best, from graduates to career-changers. Staff with experience in pharmaceuticals, finance or manufacturing are particularly valued for identifying quantum applications that pure physicists might miss.

Durst added: “It is a field where persistence matters as much as brilliance, and where diverse perspectives will be essential to making the technology useful and trusted. If you are curious and willing to learn, there is a place for you.”