No. 61·中文精读

100个新用户95个流失,Gamma把“AI做PPT”做成了5000万美元的生意

Scaling the ‘Cursor for Slides’ to $50M ARR: Gamma founder Jon Noronha

Gamma创始人Jon Noronha谈如何在ChatGPT之前押注AI生成幻灯片,通过数百次模型实验摸索Claude、Gemini等模型的差异化能力。

节目音频00:00 / 30:05
中文精读由 AI 基于原始访谈改写,非官方翻译,可能存在偏差或错误;表述以原节目为准。

先说一个数字。Gamma早期统计过激活数据:100个人注册,大约95个会在头几分钟内离开。他们打开这个号称“重新发明幻灯片”的工具,迎面一张空白页,然后转身就走。

把时间快进到现在:这家公司只有30个人,年经常性收入(ARR)超过5000万美元,用户5000万,现金流为正,平台上累计生成了2.5亿份作品。安德烈·卡帕西(Andrej Karpathy)之前在推特上问“什么是幻灯片界的Cursor”,评论区齐刷刷写着同一个名字:Gamma。

2025年8月19日,红杉资本的播客Training Data请来Gamma联合创始人乔恩·诺罗尼亚(Jon Noronha),把这五年的账摊开算了一遍。有起死回生的故事,有一堆跟流行叙事唱反调的实测结论,还有一套应用层创业的土办法。下面挑重点说。

差点死在AI爆发前夜

Gamma成立于2020年,比ChatGPT早了整整两年。起因很生活化:联合创始人Grant Lee疫情期间家里唯一的书桌被妻子占了,只能坐在公园长椅上,举着小手机开Zoom会,盯着别人投屏的PPT一页页翻。

乔恩听完就入伙了。幻灯片是商业世界的通用语言,融资要放PPT,汇报要放PPT,可几乎没人享受做幻灯片。他总结过大家最普遍的抱怨:90%的时间花在排版上,只有10%花在内容上,最后别人记住的还是你的排版有多丑。

但2020年的AI帮不上忙。乔恩是最早拿到GPT-3测试资格的一批人,他当时就想验证两件事:给模型一份文档,能不能提炼出要点?反过来,给要点,能不能扩写成段落?结论都是不行。他觉得挺新鲜,然后把它放下了。

接下来两年,他们按“远程异步办公”的思路做产品:更互动、更像网页、能自适应屏幕,想给幻灯片换一种形态。方向不算错,就是长得太慢,卡在一个不上不下的位置:有些用户爱用,增长始终起不来,撑不起一家VC规模的公司。账上的钱越来越少,外面通胀飙升、利率飙升,连他们自己的开户行硅谷银行都倒闭了。

救了他们的,是一群图像模型。2022年夏天Stable Diffusion开源,推特上所有人都在晒自己生成的图。乔恩盯着这些图想通了一件事:PowerPoint三十年前最伟大的发明其实是剪贴画(clip art),此后再没人回答过“下一代剪贴画是什么”。图像模型就是答案。

更有意思的是连锁反应:图像模型的爆发让他们回头重测文本模型,结果发现两年前失败的提示词,突然都能用了。OpenAI这两年一直在做的指令微调(instruction tuning),让人可以用自然语言指挥模型。材料凑齐了,产品定位从此变了,从“帮你做幻灯片的工具”变成“直接给你成品”。顺带修正一个流行误会:所有人都把ChatGPT当成一夜爆红,乔恩提醒,OpenAI那两年一直在默默改进模型,爆发底下是两年没人看见的积累。

“说实话,救了我们的是生成式AI,它刚好及时变强了。”

把“开始”变成“编辑”

回到开头那个数字。早期Gamma的激活流程是这样的:用户注册,被扔进一个陌生的新工具,面前一张空白页。团队在旁边着急:“你看它功能多强。”用户心里想的是:“那我到底能用它做什么?”然后95个人里的大多数就走了,留下来的全是硬扛过空白页的死硬派。

他们做AI的初衷很功利,就是想用AI填上这张空白页,把激活率拉起来。产品上线后才发现,事情比想的大一层:AI填上的其实是用户自己的空白页。

每个做过汇报的人都懂这种恐惧。打开PowerPoint,光标在“输入演示标题”那里闪,脑子里同时涌来一串问题:故事线怎么搭?钩子在哪?哪些是关键点?什么字体?什么配色?要不要配图?乔恩把这种状态描述得很准:

“你会陷进一个螺旋,所有事情搅在一起,最后干脆卡死在第一步。”

AI生成初稿之后,一切变了。用户的工作从“从零开始”变成“编辑修改”,从一句模糊的想法到一份能看的完整草稿,中间只隔一次生成。衡量一个AI产品值不值,可以看它把用户的起点往前挪了几步。Gamma把起点从“空白页”挪到了“草稿”,就这一步,撑起了5000万ARR。

主持人索尼娅(Sonya Huang)自己就是Gamma的重度用户,经常要讲AI主题的演讲,她的用法是把文档丢给Gamma,一句话让它变成幻灯片。乔恩说这也是他们能活下来的原因之一:产品自己每天都在用,哪里掉链子当天就知道。

应用层的价值:设计、测试和模型选型

绕不开的问题是:底层模型都那么强了,应用公司的价值在哪?乔恩的答案分两块,一块跟模型无关,一块全靠模型。

先说跟模型无关的那块:媒介本身。Gamma从一开始就没打算做PowerPoint克隆,用户对它的描述是“Notion和Canva生的孩子”。Notion那一半,指它以打字为核心,块状结构,你只管写,不用拖拽文本框;Canva那一半,指它有完整的视觉能力,图表、示意图、主题、模板全都有。关键在于视觉工作全部由Gamma替你完成,你只负责打字。

为了做到这一点,他们下了笨功夫。公司一度12个人里有4个是设计师,占三分之一,这在早期硅谷创业公司里相当罕见。他们还用AI分析了几千份真实世界里流传的幻灯片,总结常见的版式和设计规律。乔恩说,这部分工作跟提示词、微调都无关,就是打磨最基础的积木:最好的图表、最好的版式、最好的主题。这些积木是AI的弹药库。

“我们的理念是,我们替你把好设计做完,你就不必懂设计。”

做幻灯片有两道坎,先是结构和故事,然后是排版和设计。第二道坎上AI的优势最明显,因为很多技巧对人极繁琐,对AI极简单。他举了两个例子:

  • 一次生成10个设计方案,挑最好的那个。AI三秒搞定,人类排10版会疯。
  • 把整套幻灯片里的图片统一成同一个色板。AI可以直接按色板生成图片,人类靠Google图片搜索根本做不到。

单看每条都是小聪明,堆起来就是人类手工做不出的成品。应用层的护城河,就是把这些技巧一层层叠上去。

再说靠模型的那块:测试。乔恩来Gamma之前在Optimizely做产品,那家公司把A/B测试变成了营销和产品的通用实践,这套DNA被原样带进了Gamma。录制这期节目的当天,山姆·奥尔特曼正在台上发布GPT-5,而Gamma团队里此刻就有人在改代码,准备接入GPT-5跑测试。当天下午,GPT-5对Claude、对Gemini的A/B测试开跑。

为什么不直接看评测榜单?乔恩的解释很实在:创意领域经常没有标准答案,跑不出“GPT-5比Claude好2.7%”这种结论。榜单指标全是编程和推理,Gamma是视觉表达平台,那些基准基本没用,只能自己测。

他们测的是真实用户行为:生成后让用户打分,同时追踪四个硬指标,用户改了多少、导出了没有、分享了吗、有没有从免费转成付费。这类实验跑了几百次,精确到知道哪个模型擅长哪类任务,产品里那些相当复杂的提示词和编排逻辑,每一块都是实验的产物。索尼娅听完补了一句:没有谁比Optimizely出身的人更适合搭数据飞轮。

几百次实验跑下来,有四个结论跟行业流行叙事不太一样:

  • 微调被高估了。乔恩说,微调的热度很大一部分来自靠微调赚钱的公司。他们自己的体验是,微调会削弱模型本身的智力。开源社区爱微调,但开源模型离闭源基座的差距依然明显。
  • 推理模型没带来提升。实验结论是:模型想得越久,创造力越差。推理擅长有标准答案的题,比如数学证明、编程;创意写作就不灵了。被吹上天的DeepSeek,在他们的用例里“完全不行”。
  • Claude有品味,但榜单看不见。乔恩自称Claude铁粉。编程是当下AI的头号用例,各家都在围绕编程优化模型,可Gamma要的是视觉表达,Claude生成的视觉内容有种说不清的创造力,这个优势在任何基准里都体现不出来。还有个细节:因为新版本越来越朝编程优化,Claude有时旧版本反而比新版本好用。
  • 最被低估的是Gemini。它其实是Gamma用量最大的模型,原因是性价比。论每一美元能买到的智能,Gemini Flash无敌,是日常主力。

这些选择背后有个共同的账本:他们在意毛利。Gamma从接入AI起就按现金流为正的标准运营。乔恩说,这可能是他们跟很多AI公司最大的区别,别家先烧钱换增长,他们先算每一美元能买到多少智能。

图像模型那边,他们接了大约20个,同样全部A/B测试。用得最多的是Ideogram和Flux,OpenAI的GPT Image在文字和信息图类内容上强得惊人,也在想办法用起来,难点是成本。

提示词的管理上,他们试过斯坦福的DSPy,放弃了。理由两条:一是他们把提示词当成用户体验的一部分,设计师和产品经理都要能读、能改;二是他们极度在意跨模型的可移植性,任何时候都可能有一个模型挂掉,得随时换。DSPy擅长把某个特定组合调到极致,他们要的是通用性。现在的做法是用Claude Code起草和迭代提示词,人来审核把关。乔恩的原话:“可以说是Claude在帮我们手写提示词。”

10亿用户的盘子,和两个意外的市场

竞争是绕不开的话题。PowerPoint和Google Slides各自的月活都有5亿,加起来约10亿用户。Gamma的几百万月活在这个盘子面前还是零头。乔恩的定位很清醒:他们仍然是挑战者。

好消息有两个。一是大公司动作慢,智能体编程(agentic coding)吸走了巨头几乎全部注意力,生产力场景反而被冷落。二是ChatGPT Agent虽然已经能生成PPT,乔恩的原话是“谢天谢地,做得还不怎么样”,但他也承认这只是时间问题。

所以Gamma的策略走钢丝:一头要差异化。他们想成为最好的Gamma生成器,至于PowerPoint生成器这件事,PowerPoint自己迟早会做好。差异化有代价,Gamma的格式自成一派,有些用户因为导出体验发过火,乔恩认为值得。另一头要熟悉,前5000万用户是爱尝鲜的早期采用者,接下来的1亿用户属于早期大众,他们要的是顺手、熟悉、能嵌进现有工作流,尤其公司正从纯C端往B端走。

谈到Canva,乔恩给的定位是灵感来源。Canva证明了两件事:产品驱动增长(PLG)可以撑到巨大规模,据说它做到5亿美元ARR之前一个销售都没雇;模板库加中小客户策略能走通。但路径不同,Canva的基因是拖拽式设计工具,Gamma的基因从疫情期间就是写作工具,更接近Notion:完全不会设计的人也能做出漂亮的东西。

至于当年同场竞技的那批AI幻灯片工具为什么掉队了,乔恩给了两个解释。第一,他们始终保持精干和偏执,团队规模相对业务量小得反常,因为AI世界变化太快,决定生死的能力是转向和适应的速度。第二,成本纪律。很多同行拿着融资烧推理成本,用最贵的模型换增长,乔恩称之为“75美分卖一美元”的生意,增长好看,撑不住。Gamma从接入AI的第一天起就要求现金流为正,成本效率被写进了公司基因。

平台上累计的2.5亿份作品里,还藏着两条他们没计划过的增长曲线。第一条是文档,指PDF提案、宣传册、白皮书、给客户的精美报告,纯文本的Google Docs反倒在其次。乔恩的估算:PowerPoint覆盖5亿人,PDF覆盖的可能是10亿人。用户自发用Gamma做这些东西,拉力大到他们专门建了产品线。第二条是网站,很多用户做完Gamma直接拿去当个人主页或小公司官网,跟Notion文档被当成迷你网站是一个逻辑。网站粘性高,又是一个人的公开门面,他们去年顺势上线了sites产品。

所以Gamma对自己的定义升级了:视觉叙事平台(visual storytelling platform)。只要一件事足够重要、会被“以貌取人”,就适合Gamma,载体可以是幻灯片、文档,也可以是网页。

短期路线图上,9月有几个大动作:重做核心编辑体验,扩大视觉风格覆盖面,目标是让每一份Gamma看起来都截然不同;上线更多智能体编辑,用户可以直接下指令,“这5页应该扩成20页,第三节展开讲讲,那边的视觉重做一下”;还有一个被需求倒逼出来的API,销售团队把CRM里的客户记录接进去,自动生成一份套用自家模板的提案,省掉销售一小时的排版时间。乔恩说很多投资人听完的反应是“我组合里至少有10家公司需要这个”。至于更远的规划,他没给宏大叙事,反复提到的思路是相邻市场:先服务好眼前的用例,用户会用脚投票,告诉你下一步该做什么。

明天就能用的行动清单

节目最后,乔恩给应用层创业者提了几条建议,每一条都带着Gamma自己的伤疤。

  • 找到你独有的市场视角。Gamma的视角是改造媒介本身,从第一天起目标就是创造取代幻灯片的新格式,这个判断指导了无数产品选择,有时甚至惹恼用户。小心又一个vibe coding创业公司,那个赛道挤满了做同样事情的人。可以考虑逆着基座模型的训练方向走:编程工具火,正因为模型在拼命优化编程,找一个它们没在优化、但相邻的领域,被巨头碾到的概率小一些。
  • 把实验机制建进产品里。别锁定任何一家模型供应商,模型创新的节奏又快又不均匀,得做好“每周不同日子有不同最强模型”的准备。
  • 算清每一美元的账。现金流为正的意义很实际,它让你比别人跑得更久。

最后落回每个普通用户都能用的东西。下次面对空白页,别再从标题开始憋,把已有的文档、笔记、要点直接丢给AI,让它先出一份完整的糙稿。从编辑一份60分的草稿开始,永远比从0分开始快。这是Gamma用5000万美元ARR验证过的事,明天开会前就能用上。

文稿来源:sequoiacap.com;机器转写可能有识别错误,人名与数字请以音频为准。
id="podcast-transcript" data-framer-component-type="RichTextContainer" style="transform:none">Jon Noronha: We all start some new project with this blank page saying “Enter presentation title,” and it’s like, “My God, where do I start? I have to outline all the slides. I gotta figure out my story, what’s the hook? What are the key moments, what it’s gonna look like, what fonts am I gonna use, what colors, what imagery do I need?” And you get stuck in this spiral of, like, thinking through all these things. Sonya Huang: Totally. Jon Noronha: And so when we actually built AI that solved our blank page problem, it turned out that it solved everybody else’s blank page problem, too. Suddenly they could just go from a vague idea to a fully worked out rough draft and suddenly their job was editing, not starting from scratch. Sonya Huang: Today we’re joined by Jon Noronha, founder of Gamma, a Cursor for slides. Gamma is a canonical example of application layer success in AI. Image generation models were the initial product breakthrough, and these AI tailwinds have now carried Gamma to 50 million plus in ARR, 50 million users and cash flow positive. Jon discusses practical lessons for builders on multimodal orchestration, running extensive A/B tests, fine tuning versus prompt engineering, cost efficiency and more. He also shares thoughts on how Gamma is solving the cold start problem, and their future roadmap towards more agentic editing experiences. Enjoy the show. Sonya Huang: Jon, thank you so much for joining us on Training Data today. Jon Noronha: It’s great to be here. Thanks for having me. What is Gamma?Sonya Huang: Let’s start with what is Gamma? Why’d you start the company? Jon Noronha: So we started the company back in 2020, and the original vision has not really changed up ‘til now: We wanted to reinvent presentations. My co-founder, Grant, came to me with the idea back in 2020, and he was talking about how he was just spending all of his time sitting outside on a park bench trying to call into conference calls because his wife was using the one spot in their house with a desk. This was the depths of COVID when we were all in our houses, and he was joining all these conference calls, staring at his little tiny phone, trying to follow along to these PowerPoint decks people were doing on Zoom. Sonya Huang: Wow, the good old days. Jon Noronha: I know. I was like, “That’s all I do too. All I do is just sit on Zoom calls all day and look at Google Slides decks alternating with maybe making Google Slides decks along the way.” Neither one’s very fun for me. And so as soon as he mentioned it, I was like, “Man, this is such an exciting opportunity to reinvent this thing.” Which on the one hand, slides are the language of business. They are the way that we all communicate at work, especially around high stakes ideas. Like, for you, anytime somebody pitches you, I’m sure it’s with a slide deck. And yet, if you ask anybody in almost any walk of life, “Do you enjoy making slides? This is how you want to communicate?” You generally get some kind of ick reaction, like a, “Ugh, I hate having to do that. I hate—I hate how slides make me look bad. I hate how I spend 90 percent of the time on formatting and just 10 percent on the content. I hate how everyone’s judging me for how they look and not what I’m saying.” And so Gamma’s vision came out of this almost universal problem. People need to do visual communication, they want to look great, but current tools don’t cut it. And so we wanted to reinvent that not just by making a new editor for making PowerPoints, but for actually rethinking the format itself. Sonya Huang: That’s so cool. By the way, I’m one of those shameful people that actually likes making slides. So I guess I’ve now realized that I’m a weirdo. Jon Noronha: Yeah, you are the one percent. Congratulations. Sonya Huang: [laughs] So Gamma today is an amazing success story in the AI application layer. I think you guys announced you’re at 50 million-plus of ARR, cash flow positive, team of 30 people. So congratulations. Jon Noronha: Thank you. Sonya Huang: Did it always feel like this? The long road to get hereJon Noronha: No, absolutely not. It’s been a long road to get here. There are no overnight successes. As I said, we started the company in 2020, before all this AI stuff had taken off. Sonya Huang: And did you know the AI stuff was going to happen when you started the company? Jon Noronha: Absolutely not. I actually remember trying the first version of GPT-3, which actually also came out in 2020, and I was one of the first people, I think, to get access. And we tried it out, and I just wanted to see could this make slides? We were already working on it. I wanted to see if I gave it a document, could it summarize the key bullet points? Could it do the opposite? Take bullet points and, you know, turn it into paragraphs of text? And the answer was no at the time. It just wasn’t there yet. And so I kind of thought, wow, this is neat. But I dismissed it. And for several years we went down a very different path. We were very much focused on this future of work thesis, thinking about remote async work, trying to build an alternative to slides that was more interactive, more webpage-like, more responsive. And we ended up in this zone of sort of medium traction, some product market fit, but not enough to be probably like a VC-scale business, not enough to really take off with exponential growth. And got to a pretty difficult point maybe two years into our journey where we had that middling product market fit, we had a dwindling runway, and we probably wouldn’t have made it, especially because the economy around us was just going crazy. It was a period of inflation going up, interest rates going up, banks crashing—including our own Silicon Valley Bank. So we had some very rough periods along the way. And frankly, I would say what saved us was generative AI getting good just in time. So we were already at this point of facing some, I’ll say, existential angst of are we going to make it as a company? But we started checking back in on all this AI stuff over a period of two years. And for me, what really caught my eye was actually not language models, it was image models. Stable diffusion had come out that summer, and I was seeing everybody on Twitter posting these silly little things they were making in stable diffusion. It wasn’t serious work yet, but there was this magic and this virality to seeing what AI could do. I think Dall-E was also taking off at the same time. And I started to realize this is the thing that can really change presentations, because what are we doing when we’re presenting our ideas? We’re doing a lot of visual designs, and we’re often decorating things sort of pointlessly to fill space. Probably PowerPoint’s key innovation was actually clip art maybe 30 years ago, but nobody’s really come up with what’s the next clip art? And I saw stable diffusion in Dall-E and I’m like, this is by far the most compelling thing I’ve ever seen that could do it. The image models took offSonya Huang: That’s a really interesting insight. So it wasn’t even the language model side that made you think there’s a why now for your business, it was the visual—the image model side. Jon Noronha: Absolutely. They’re just so magnetic, so magical. But ironically, the image models taking off made us revisit the text models and say, “What’s been happening with this GPT-3 thing that we heard about a while ago?” And I remember trying it out and just trying some of the same early prompts I tried two years earlier, and suddenly they worked. And they actually worked quite well. Everyone sees ChatGPT as an overnight success as well. But it turns out OpenAI had been improving the models all that time as well. And in particular, the thing they’d been working on was instruction tuning, so making it so that you could actually give a prompt the way a human would, like, “Please write this thing,” or “Format this thing,” and it would listen to you. Sonya Huang: Yeah. Jon Noronha: Very simple innovation that I think underlied the whole ChatGPT takeoff. And so suddenly we realized we had all the ingredients to not just be a tool for making presentations, but actually just make the presentation for you. The blank page problemSonya Huang: That’s super cool. Can you say a word on—you know, I think you guys mentioned pre-AI, you had this cold start problem. How do you think AI is changing that problem for you all? Jon Noronha: Well, it’s funny you say that, because yes, we had a cold start problem, which was that we had launched this product into beta with middling traction. And the reason it wasn’t taking off was the activation rate at the very start. So a hundred people would sign up, and 95 or so would fall off in the first few minutes of using the product, because they get dropped into this new innovative tool that was actually just a blank page. And we’d say, “Look how cool it is. It’s got so many features.” And they’d say, “Yeah, but what can I make? What can I do with it?” Sonya Huang: Yeah. Jon Noronha: And they would pretty much all fall off along the way, except for the few diehards who would manage to power through that blank page. And so the reason we seized on AI early on was we thought it could solve our blank page problem. We thought it could speed us through showing something magical where a user would get it. I think what we failed to appreciate until we actually launched it was that it wasn’t our blank page problem being solved, it was the user’s blank page problem. And if you then think back to, like, why are presentations so intimidating and frustrating, it’s because we all start some new project with this blank page saying, “Enter presentation title,” and it’s like, “My God, where do I start? I have to outline all the slides. I gotta figure out my story. What’s the hook? What are the key moments, what it’s gonna look like, what fonts am I gonna use, what colors, what imagery do I need?” And you get stuck in this spiral of, like, thinking through all these things. Sonya Huang: Totally. Jon Noronha: And so when we actually built AI that solved our blank page problem, it turned out that it solved everybody else’s blank page problem, too. Suddenly they could just go from a vague idea to a fully worked out rough draft. And suddenly their job was editing, not starting from scratch. Sonya Huang: Yeah. No, I’ve loved that. And I’ve actually used Gamma a lot. I get asked to give a lot of presentations about AI, and it’s so refreshing to just give Gamma a document and be like, “Turn this into a slide deck,” versus having to sit there in front of a blank page and figure out what I’m going to talk about. Jon Noronha: Well, thank you for trying it. We always appreciate it. And yeah, that’s the magic, too. We use it every day internally, and that’s part of our success is I love having a dog food-able product, a thing you can use every day. Sonya Huang: Totally. Tell me about the hard work that goes into—and this plays into the whole debate of how much value is in the application layer. Tell me about the stuff that you do in between the foundation models and your users. Adding value in the application layerJon Noronha: Yeah, really good question. I think this is where so much of our work the last few years has gone. And I would say there’s a couple of different categories of it. The first is actually the medium itself. So I mentioned that where we started was we didn’t want to just be a presentation clone, a PowerPoint clone, we wanted to be our own unique format. And so we came up with something that our users describe as if Notion and Canva had a baby. So what does that mean? The Notion part is it’s block based and writing based. So you’re not actually dragging boxes around and moving them the way you are in Google Slides. You’re actually just typing. And we try to bring whatever you type to life and feel visual. But the Canva side is we have all this visual range. So we have diagrams and charts and visuals and crazy theming and templates that sort of all make it feel a bit more magical. But the key thing is that we do that part for you. You don’t need to actually know what’s going to look right. You just type and you get something great out. And so actually a huge part of what we do as a company is not anything to do with prompts or fine tuning, it’s just actually tuning those core building blocks. How do we have the best diagrams, the best layouts, the best visual themes? And those become our arsenal that AI has let loose on. It’s the building blocks that it works on. Sonya Huang: And what goes into that? Like, what allows you to create the best visual themes or the best diagrams? Jon Noronha: Well, one thing that goes in is taste. So this is probably a big difference from when, you know, people think about, “What if I just type the same thing into, say, ChatGPT?” We actually have a pretty big team of designers. In fact, for a while, our company was one-third designers. It was four out of twelve designers, which is very unusual, I think, in Silicon Valley, especially at the early stage. But we put a ton of care into what will great output look like. Our whole philosophy is that we do the great design so that you don’t have to. But it’s also quite data driven. We spend a lot of time looking at what users are trying to do in our product and where things get lost. And also a lot of analysis of, like, what do presentations out there in the world have? AI is great for this, by the way, at churning through, for example, thousands of external slide decks and telling us what are the common layouts and designs and things that are there? Sonya Huang: Yeah. What are some of the insights you’ve learned from the data of where people tend to get lost and where you’ve solved that with your product? Jon Noronha: You know, if you think about the process of making a presentation, there’s actually this whole series of hurdles that come along the way. There’s sort of a storytelling and structure phase where it’s like, how do I even want to say this? And then there’s a formatting and design phase. And we are certainly looking to improve on both, but in particular in the formatting and design phase, there’s actually just certain common tricks that for an AI are so easy, but for a human are so tedious. One simple trick is don’t just try one thing, try ten different designs and pick the best one. Easy to say when you’re an AI that can do it all in about three seconds. For a human, that’s incredibly time consuming. Sonya Huang: Yeah. Jon Noronha: Another simple trick is with imagery, making all the images in your presentation the same color palette. Easy to say when you’re an AI that can generate the image from scratch. Hard to do when you’re a human pulling from Google image search or your own library, and making everything just perfectly tuned. So I would say that we’re trying to stack up a lot of those tricks into something that actually no human could do. Sonya Huang: And when you generate ten different options, how do you figure out what’s the best one? A/B testing everythingJon Noronha: Oh, such a good question. So my background—I don’t think I shared—is before Gamma, I worked at Optimizely in a product role. Optimizely, for those who don’t know, was A/B testing you’ll actually use. So we sort of pioneered A/B testing as a universal practice in how marketers tune their ideas, and then also how products get launched. And that’s actually been a throughline through my whole career in product management. I did a ton of A/B testing before that at Microsoft. And now we do a huge amount of it at Gamma. So every time a new model comes out, so for example, as we’re recording this today, Sam Altman is on stage announcing GPT-5. Sonya Huang: Yeah. Jon Noronha: Literally right now, there’s somebody on our team who’s actually making a code update on our side so that we can implement GPT-5 and run a test on it. And we go through a couple different phases of testing when a new model comes out. We do have evals, so we try to automatically measure is this thing better than previous models. But it turns out we’re in a creative domain where there’s often no right answer. And so it’s really hard to run evals and just say, “Oh, GPT-5 is better than Claude Sonnet by 2.7 percent.” There’s actually not a metric for that. But what we do have are a bunch of real users, and we’re lucky to now have millions of users that we can actually run these experiments on. And so sometime this afternoon, we’re going to start an A/B test of GPT-5 against Claude, against Gemini, and we’re going to actually measure a whole series of user behaviors when we generate a presentation. We’re going to actually ask users what they think through ratings, but we’re also going to measure how much did they edit the final output, how much did they export it to other tools, did they share it, and finally did they convert from a free customer to a paying customer? And we have run probably hundreds of these experiments, and we have learned very carefully which models work well for which tasks, and on top of that, what aspects of our prompts work well. So I would say we skew pretty heavily on the idea of prompt engineering. We have quite complex prompts in our products, and quite complex orchestration of prompts. And every piece of those is the product of some degree of A/B testing and experimentation to find out what actually resonates. Sonya Huang: Data flywheel in action. Nobody better to build the data flywheel than the Optimizely guys. Jon Noronha: Absolutely. Evaluating modelsSonya Huang: So it’s primarily prompt engineering as opposed to fine tuning. Is there a reason for that? Jon Noronha: Honestly, we just haven’t found that fine tuning works all that well. Fine tuning is something that I’ve seen so much hype around in the industry, but mostly coming frankly from companies that do fine tuning for you. But in our own experience, fine tuning seems to hobble the model’s actual intelligence. And also, frankly, what we found is that fine tuning seems to be popular among open source models, but we actually have not seen the open source models come nearly close to the closed source foundation models. Sonya Huang: Interesting. Jon Noronha: So for us, our daily drivers are, like, Claude, Gemini and GPT, rather than some of these open source models that get a lot of news. Sonya Huang: Okay, so name your favorite child: Claude, Gemini, GPT. Like, what is each best at? Jon Noronha: You know, if I had to choose, I’m a Claude-stan. I would say we are very, very heavy Claude users. And in particular, I think what we found about Claude was it just has a certain taste to it about what actually looks good. There’s this creativity, and it’s remarkable because it doesn’t show up in any benchmark. When all these companies talk about their models, first of all, they’re always talking about software engineering. At this point, coding is the dominant use case of AI. It’s the killer app. And so all these companies are optimizing for, like, reasoning, tool use and coding. We are not a coding platform; we are a visual expression platform. And so all the benchmarks are useless. We have to throw them out and run our own experiments. Claude has been the best, although funnily enough, earlier versions of Claude sometimes work better than new ones as they’ve kind of gone down this coding-optimized path. I think the one that’s most slept on is probably Gemini, though. Gemini is by far our most heavily-used model. And that’s because they really win on cost efficiency. When it comes to intelligence per dollar, nothing beats Gemini Flash, which is probably our daily driver. And maybe this ties into another thing about our company, which is we actually really care about margins, unlike maybe a lot of other AI companies in this space. We have always tried to operate, since we had AI, at cash flow positive, and think about how we can offer these things sustainably. Sonya Huang: Yeah. What are the reasoning models? Have those been an unlock for you all? Jon Noronha: Surprisingly, no. We’ve actually run these experiments, and what we’ve found is that the longer a model thinks, the less creative it gets. I think reasoning works really well on questions that have a right answer, like creating a math proof or solving a coding problem. They really don’t seem to work well in any kind of creative writing domain. Sonya Huang: Huh. That’s so interesting. Jon Noronha: And in particular, an unfavorite child, we just found that DeepSeek was a total dud for our use case, despite all the hype of, like, “Oh my God! These open source models can reason.” Sonya Huang: Huh. Jon Noronha: Yeah. Sonya Huang: What about on the image generation side? Any favorite models? Jon Noronha: We have a lot of favorite children in image generation. I think we have around 20 different image models that we support in our product, and we take a similar approach of A/B testing them all. I think in image models, there’s not as much of one right answer. I think our most heavily-used models come from Ideogram and Flux. They have some really great models and amazing progress. But we’ve also been really amazed by what OpenAI’s GPT image can do. It is so powerful at text and infographic type content. And so we’re mixing in where we can, but also trying to figure out how to serve it cost effectively. Sonya Huang: Totally. I want to go back to this data flywheel and kind of prompt tuning concept. Are you familiar with DSPy? Jon Noronha: Yeah. Sonya Huang: Are you guys using that, or any other methods to kind of automatically engineer your prompts? Jon Noronha: We’re actually not, no. We’ve tried DSPy a little bit, but we haven’t found it helpful for us. I think there’s a couple reasons for that. We’ve actually really valued sort of the legibility and readability of our own prompts. We almost view prompts as a user experience, as things that a designer can work on, things that a PM can work on, not just things that engineers write and optimize. I think another thing is that we really care about cross-model reusability. So I mentioned that, for example, Claude and Gemini and GPT each have their own strengths. We use all those models in concert. We test them against each other constantly. Also, at any given time, one of these models is broken and you have to use a different one. And so we care a lot about that portability. And we found that tools like DSPy are really good at micro optimizing one very specific, sensitive combination. But we care a lot about generality. Sonya Huang: Hmm. And so are you handcrafting your prompts then? Jon Noronha: Well, Claude is handcrafting them for us, I would say. We use a lot of Claude code to iterate on our prompts, but we do a lot of human review and iteration and guidance of what to do. Sonya Huang: Yeah, super interesting. I want to ask about the elephant in the room, which I think is competition. Jon Noronha: Yeah. The 800-pound gorillasSonya Huang: Like, I mean, Slides, I agree with you. Visual communication, it’s one of the most pervasive forms of communication, especially in the business world. And therefore you have a lot of 800-pound gorillas in the room that are going to be competing with you. Who scares you? Jon Noronha: The one that scares us most is still PowerPoint and to a lesser extent Google Slides because they are still the dominant incumbents. We’re proud to have millions of monthly active users, but the stat that I heard is that PowerPoint and Google Slides each have 500 million monthly active users. So there’s, like, a billion or so slides users out there, and we are still only the tiniest fraction of that. So we still view ourselves very much as an insurgent trying to take on these very big incumbents. Luckily for us, those companies have been fairly slow moving with AI. I think we’re actually lucky that agentic coding has taken up so much of everyone’s attention, because these productivity use cases have actually been neglected by some of the big players. I think the other big source of competition for us is the foundation models themselves. So we saw ChatGPT agent come out just a few weeks ago. It makes PowerPoints. Thankfully for us, not very good ones. But we know that’ll change, and we know these will get better. And so I think for us, we’re still trying to lean into our differentiation. How can we be as distinct as possible from PowerPoint, from ChatGPT? How can we bring a huge amount of our own taste on top of just what the models can do? But it’s this delicate dance, because on the one hand, we care a lot about being different. We don’t want to just be a PowerPoint builder at the end of the day, because PowerPoint will eventually become a great PowerPoint builder. We want to become a great Gamma builder. We want to be our own visual storytelling platform, and really our own medium. And yet we also have to be familiar, because we’re kind of crossing this chasm where our first 50 million users were early adopters who want to try the newest thing. I think our next hundred million or so users are going to be maybe this early majority that need things to be convenient, need things to be familiar, need things to fit into existing workflows, especially as we also make this transition from pure B2C to start to do B2B as well. And so we’re kind of on this tightrope, trying to figure out how to be familiar and yet innovative. Sonya Huang: Totally. What about Canva? I view them as somebody that’s been beloved for their taste in design. Obviously, some of their usage is slide driven. How do you think about them? Jon Noronha: First and foremost, I would say we view them as an inspiration. I think they’re a very inspiring company in terms of what they’ve achieved. They’ve really paved a path that we’re trying to follow. I think they’ve proven a couple really interesting things about how you can build a company. They’ve proven that PLG can work at enormous scale. So they have—the stat that I’ve heard about Canva is that they didn’t hire a single salesperson until they had $500 million of ARR. Which is crazy, because I think most companies aspire to ever reach 500 million using any strategy whatsoever. Certainly we do. And yet they’ve managed it with this sort of SMB-focused strategy, and a huge library of sort of templates. And so we want to follow that trail that they blazed. I think we’re taking a somewhat different path than they are though, because Canva is first and foremost a design tool where you drag and drop things into place and use templates to do it. We’ve always had this different DNA from where we started in the pandemic of actually being a writing-based tool. And that’s why we kind of also compare ourselves to Notion as maybe another index point of this company, where you didn’t need to have any design skill whatsoever to make something really beautiful and magical. And I think Notion’s also an inspiration to integrating AI into their platform as well. And so yes, I think we’ll compete with Canva more and more head on over time, but I’m hoping we can forge our own path versus just trying to be a copycat. Sonya Huang: Totally. I remember at some point a couple years ago there were three or four of these AI slide creation tools, for lack of a better word, and you guys really won out, and a couple of others have pivoted or gone sideways. Why do you think that is? Jon Noronha: That’s true. It’s been a very competitive space in the past, and I think we’ve managed to make it a little bit less competitive for now at least. I would point to a couple differentiators. The first one is that we’ve just always had a pretty lean, paranoid mindset. So I think some of the other companies you’re referring to raised quite a lot of money and built pretty big teams. And we always had the mindset that AI world is changing really, really fast, and the most important trait that will determine our success is our ability to pivot and adapt. And so that’s led us to have quite a small team, I would say, relative to our traction. We’ve cared a lot about keeping that sort of lean mechanic. It’s also impacted our spending just in a very tactical way in terms of how many dollars we’re willing to spend on inference. So many AI companies now are operating at a loss. I think that includes many of our competitors who were running these tools like GPT-4 and DALL-E that were just tremendously expensive when they came out. And I think it’s this classic mechanic of selling dollars for 75 cents. You can get a lot of growth, but it’s not sustainable. And I think a lot of companies really hit the crunch of doing something unsustainable. And so that’s also become a part of our DNA is we really care a lot about cost efficiency in everything that we do. We really care about maintaining that cash flow positivity, because we think it’s the foundation that will propel us to keep moving faster than everyone else. Advice for AI foundersSonya Huang: What advice do you have for other founders building in the application layer? Jon Noronha: First and foremost, I would think about what is your unique perspective on the market that you’re tackling? For us at Gamma, our unique perspective is all about differentiating the medium itself. So we’ve always been very clear to ourselves: We are not just trying to make a PowerPoint builder, we’re trying to create a new format to replace the slide deck. And that’s guided many, many of our product choices. It’s also angered our users sometimes. It’s not sort of a panacea, but I think it’s helped us to navigate what is a very competitive market. And so I would definitely encourage other founders in this space to think about their unique lens. So for example, I’d be wary of making yet another vibe coding startup. There are so many companies that are doing pretty much the same thing in this space. I would think about what is the neglected area where people are not applying AI? And even potentially you want to go against the grain of what the foundation models are training for. So the reason these vibe coding tools are taking off is that the foundation models themselves are so good at coding, and it’s so clear that the foundation models are optimizing for that. I think if you work on something they’re not optimizing for as much but is still adjacent, you’ll have a little bit better luck at making progress, without being smushed by the giant dinosaurs out there. I would also really try to incorporate some form of experimentation, and really encourage trying multiple different models. I think people tend to lock into one model provider and just assume that it’s the best out there. But the innovation out there is so rapid and uneven and unpredictable that I think you have to plan for a world where on any given day of the week, there’s a different best model out there. The road ahead for GammaSonya Huang: Yeah, we got the Optimizely DNA coming out here. I’d love to close by talking a bit about the future of how you see Gamma. So right now you all have something like 250 million Gammas have been created on your platform. What are you seeing in terms of the usage so far? What are folks using you for, and how has that evolved over time as the underlying models have gotten better and as your platform has gotten better? Jon Noronha: Yeah. So, you know, we started and really reached product market fit with this use case of presentations. And even presentations turn out to be a very wide world. Everything from a very visual TED Talk type presentation to a very wordy consulting or iBanking slide. And so we actually see quite a lot of room within presentations to just keep improving and doing better. But we also discovered all these interesting adjacencies that we hadn’t necessarily planned on from the start. The first one was simply documents. And when I say documents, I don’t mean, like, plain text Google Docs. I mean things like PDF proposals and brochures and shiny reports that you give to a customer and white papers. There’s actually all of these things. You know, if the market share of PowerPoint is like 500 million people, I think for PDF it’s like a billion people. I think there’s just an enormous number of these visual outputs people are creating that don’t quite fit the classification of a slide deck. And we’ve actually seen tremendous pull there and built out a lot of product for that. The next one that really surprised us was websites. So a lot of people started making these things in Gamma, and realizing that the Gamma they made worked well as a personal website or their small company or agency website, similar to how Notion docs actually kind of get used as these little mini … [CROSSTALK] Sonya Huang: I was going to make the exact same comparison. Jon Noronha: Yeah, yeah. Again, they’re a big inspiration to us. And we realized this is a great market to compete in because websites are so sticky, and they’re so meaningful to people in terms of being their public face to the world. And so we launched a sites product last year as well. And so we keep finding these adjacencies and pulling, and it’s making us realize that we are much more than an AI presentation tool. We’re still thinking about how to formulate it, but I think our latest mindset is that we’re a visual storytelling platform. And what that means is that anytime you have something high stakes and important you want to convey, and especially when you’re kind of like a book being judged for your cover, where people really care how it looks, Gamma is a really great place to go. So we want to serve that through many different use cases. Sonya Huang: I love that. Say a word on what should users expect from you over the near to medium term? How will the products evolve? Jon Noronha: We have some really big things coming out just next month. So in September, maybe just to give a bit of a tease of what’s coming, we are doing a lot to improve our core editing experience, really expanding our visual range and variety. So we have this goal of making every Gamma feel wildly different, and anything that you sort of imagine that you want to achieve with it, you can just get through easy prompting. So that’s a big one for us. We’re building a lot more agentic editing, so you can just delegate to the AI and say, “You know, this five-slide presentation should really be twenty. And can you expand more on section three, and maybe redo the visuals in this other part?” just by talking to it. And then a big one that I’m really excited about is that we’re launching an API. So we’ve had a really surprising amount of interest in this. I think there are so many companies that as part of their work just need to create some kind of visual output based on some sort of workflow. So a simple example is a sales team where a new prospect comes in and you want to tee up a pitch to that prospect. And so what if you could just take your CRM, pipe in all the notes you’ve had from them and get a pre-canned pitch deck in your template that you can just go and take to that prospect without the hour of salesperson time, and let’s just say mangling that might have gone on when they did it. And I’m actually surprised by how many investors I hear from that say, “Actually, I have, like, 10 startups in my portfolio that need something like this,” because there’s so many startups that do really valuable work for people and just need a way to show it off. So we’re really excited for that to launch, too. Sonya Huang: Super exciting. I remember Karpathy tweeted, “What is the Cursor for slides?” Jon Noronha: That’s right. Sonya Huang: Everybody showed up in the comments saying Gamma. It’s really cool to hear the story of both how you guys have gotten so far, the combination of vision, of scrappiness, of everything you’re doing in the model orchestration and experimentation layer, and also kind of how you see the future of agentic editing and what’s to come. So thank you so much for sharing the story of Gamma today, and I can’t wait to see you guys continue to change the future of visual communication. Jon Noronha: Thanks so much for having me. It was so great to be here. Mentioned in this episode:Mentioned in this episode: Language Models are Few-Shot Learners: Original paper for GPT‑3 that Jon tried early for slide generation and found lacking at the time. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback: Cited as the key improvement that made models follow natural prompts and unlocked Gamma’s AI path. Ideogram: Image-generation service; one of Gamma’s most-used image models. FLUX (Black Forest Labs): State-of-the-art image model family; another top performer in Gamma’s image stack. DSPy: Stanford framework for programmatic prompt/chain optimization. Gamma tested it but prefers human-legible, cross-model prompts for portability. <div class="framer-mcvrsd" id="

Before ChatGPT made AI mainstream, John Noronha was building Gamma with a simple insight: everyone hates making slides but needs visual communication for high-stakes ideas. His background at Optimizely proved crucial as Gamma became a testing laboratory for AI models, running hundreds of experiments to discover that Claude excels at creative taste, Gemini wins on cost efficiency, and reasoning models actually hurt creativity. John explains how solving their own blank page problem inadvertently solved it for millions of users, turning a near-failing startup into a cash flow positive platform with 250 million presentations created. He discusses competing with PowerPoint's 500 million users while expanding beyond slides into documents, websites and visual storytelling.

Hosted by Sonya Huang, Sequoia Capital

本集资源与出处