>>From the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas, it's the queue covering UI path forward for brought to you by UI path. >>We'll go back to the cubes coverage of UI paths forward for big customer event. You know, this company has always bucked the trend and they're doing it again. They're having a live event, physical event. There are customers here, partners, technologists. I'm here with Lisa Martin, my co-host for the show. And we're going to talk about testing. It's a new market for UI path. If anybody knows anything about testing, it's kind of this mundane, repetitive process ripe for automation geared vice-chairs. Here's the senior vice president of testing products at UI path and Matt Elisa. Who's the product marketing lead at UI path. Gents. Welcome to the cube. Thanks for coming on. Thanks for having us feminists. Explain to us how you guys think about testing both from an internal perspective and how you're going to market. >>Yeah, well, testing has been around for a long time, right? 25 years or so when, when I came to UI pass, the first thing I looked at was like, how do our customers test RPA? And it's quite interesting. We did a survey actually with 1500 people and, uh, 27% said that they wouldn't test at all. And I thought that's really interesting. RPA is a business critical software that runs in your production environment and you probably have to test. So we came up with this idea that we create the test suite we're using, you know, proven technology from UI pass. And, and we built this offering and brought this into the market for RPA testing and for application testing. So we do both. And of course we use it internally as well. I mean, that will be, you know, eat your own dog food or drink your own champagne, I guess. Yeah. >>Well, think about it. If you, if you automate, if you, if there's an ROI to automate a process, there's gotta be an ROI to verify that it's going to work before it goes into production too. And so it's amazing that a lot of companies are not doing this and they're doing it manually, um, today. >>So, so, but so, but parts of testing have been automated, haven't they with regression testing. So can, can you guys take us through kind of the before and after and how you're approaching it versus the traditional way? >>Yeah, absolutely. I mean, like I said, testing is not new, right? Um, but still when you look at the customers, they're not out to meeting more than I would say, 30, 40% of the manual tests. So still a lot of Stan manually, which I think, and we talked about this right manual testing is the, the original RPA. It's a tedious, repetitive tasks that you should not do manually. Right? And so what we are trying to bring in is now we're talking about this new role, it's called a digital tester. The digital tester is an empowered. We could call a manual tester, who's able to build automation and we believe that this will truly increase the automation, even in the existing testing market. And it's going to be, I don't want to use the word game-changer, but it's gonna change. Uh, the way testing is done. Yeah. >>And we're, we're applying, um, all the capabilities of UI path and delivering those testers, just like we would for HR team or a, or a, a finance and accounting team. But testing even has they understand this more, they've been doing this for 20 years. They understand automation and we're going to get them things like process mining so they can figure out what tests they need to run from production data. We're going to give them task mining so they can make more human-like tests test. Exactly. Like I used to be a tester, uh, and I ran a test team. And what I used to do is I have to go out to a warehouse and I'd have to go watch people as they entered orders, to make sure I was testing it the right way. So they would like click. We usually thought they were clicking things, whether you're using hotkeys, that's just an example of what they were doing. But now we can do task, task mining to get that remotely, pull that data in and do tests and make more realistic tests. >>How much of the there's so much potential there? I think you were saying that only 27% are actually doing testing. So there's so much opportunity. I'm curious, where are your conversations within the customer organization? We know that automation is a board level investor topic. Where are you? Where are those discussions with the testing folks, the RPA folks, helping them come together? >>Well, that's interesting. The question we typically, on the IP side, we talked to the cos by the people that are professionally developing those RPAs, but very easily, we get introduced to the test side of the house. And then usually there's a joint meeting where the test people are there, the RPA people are there. And that's why we are talking about this is going to convert somehow, right? They are in different departments today. But if you think about it, if five years down the road, maybe 10 years, they might be an automation discipline for the entire enterprise. So if that answered your question about, >>Yeah, >>Yeah. And we have a customer coming presenting this afternoon, Chipola and they're gonna be talking about how they, both of the teams are using a test teams and the RPA teams. And they built a reusable component library that, so when they built RPA team built their automations, they put them in a reusable library and the test team is able to recreate their tests much faster, reusing about 70% of the components. And so when the, when you think of automation, they're thinking about automating the application, not automating a process or a test so that people can use those like Lego blocks and build it if they're doing so, they could even, even it automation, if they wanted to start doing it, automation, they could pull those components out and use those. >>This is game changing is quality because so often, because in this day and age of agile, it's like move fast and break things. A lot of things break. And when we heard this morning in the keynotes, how you guys are pushing code like a couple of times a week, I mean, it's just a constant. And then you do two big releases. Okay. I get, I get it for the on-prem. But when you're pushing code that fast, you don't have time to test everything. There's a lot of stuff that's unknown. And so to the extent that you can compress all those checkboxes, now I can focus on the really important things that sometimes are architectural. How do you expect applying RPA to testing is going to affect the quality? Or maybe you got some examples. Chipotle. You just mentioned what, >>First of all, I mean, when you say we pushing code like bi-weekly or so, right. We're talking about continuous development. That's what it's called. Right? It's agile. You have sprint cycles, you continue to bring new code, new code, new code, and you test all the increments with it. So it's not that you building up a huge backlog for the testing on the RPA side. What I see is that there will be a transformation about the process, how they develop RPA at the moment. It's still done very much, I would say, in a waterfall issue, which is agree, >>A big bang waterfall. >>Yeah. It will transition. We already have partners that apply agile methodologies to their actually RPA development. And that's going to change that. >>Okay. So it's not so it's quality for those that are in testing obviously, but, but it's, but for the waterfall guys, it's, it's compressing the time to value. Oh yeah. That's going to be the big key. Yeah. That's really where it's coming. >>But he said his Chipotle is, was able to reuse 70% of the automation components. Right. That's huge. I mean, you have to think about it. 70% can be reused from testing to RPA and vice versa. That's a huge acceleration. Also on the IPA side, you can automate more processes faster. If you have components that you can trust. >>So you were a tester. Yeah. So you were a cost center. Yes, exactly. >>Unnecessary. What's the budget. >>So could you think RPA and automation can flip that mindset? Yes, >>Totally. And that's one of the things we want to do is we want to turn testing from a cost center to a value center, give testers a new career paths, even because really testers before all you could do is you could be more technical. Maybe you become a developer or you could be a manager, but you couldn't really become like an automation architect or a senior automation person. And now we're giving them a whole different career path to go down. So it's really exciting >>Because I know when I came out of college, I had a job offer and I wanted to be a developer, a programmer. We call them back then. And the only job I could get was as a tester. And I was like, oh, this is miserable. I'm not doing this, but there's a, there was a growth path there. They were like, Hey, do this for two or three years, maybe five years. I was like, forget it. I'm going into sales and marketing. But so what's the, what's the growth path today for the tester. And how do you see this >>Changing? So you want to go, you want to, I can take that one. No, you take it. I mean, I did it, so really it's, I mean, we're going to be giving these guys, the testing market has been kind of not innovating for years and years and years. And so we're going to be giving these guys some new tools to make them more powerful, make even the cause. Testing is a kind of a practice that is, you know, like, like you said, you didn't like testing. I didn't like testing either. Actually I hate testing. So I automated it. Right. So, um, and so that was the first thing I did. And so I think we're going to give these guys some new tools, some ways to grow their career and some ways to be even better testers, but like, like, like we talked about process mining, test mining, like maybe they're maybe they're testing the wrong things. Maybe they're not testing, you know, maybe, you know, there, cause there's kind of this test, everything mentality where we need to test everything and the whole release instead of like focusing in on what changed. And so I think we'll be able to help them really focus on the testing and the quality to make it more efficient as well. However, >>So T to defend the testers, right test is a very skilled people. Yes. They know their business, they know what to test and how to test in a way that nobody else knows that it's something we sometimes underestimate. They are not developers, so they don't write code or they don't build automations typically. But if we can equip them with tools that they can build out information, you have the brain and the muscle together, you know what I mean? You don't have to delegate the automation to some, whatever team that is maybe outsourced even you can do it. In-house and I think to some extent, that was also the story of Chipotle, right? Yeah. Yeah. They were in sourcing again because they're building their own >>And it saved them time because they have deal is handoffs, you know, to an external third party to do the testing for them. And so they pulled it all in made things much more streamlined and efficient. How >>Is that? It seems like a big cultural shift within any type of organization in any industry we're using as an example here, how does UI path help facilitate that cultural shift? Cause that's big and we're talking about really reducing, um, or speeding time to value. >>Right. Right. And it is a lot of the agile methodology is like, we're starting. So it's kind of like, we're going back in time, you know, and we're teaching these people, you know, the RPA community, all of the things that we learned from software development. Right. And so we're going to bring applying that to this. And so all those agile mindset, the th the agile values, you know, those are the things that are going to help them kind of come together. And that's one of the things that Julie talked about is one of the things is they had a kind of agile mindset, a can-do attitude that pulled them together. >>I think one thing that will really helps with changing the culture is empowering the people. If you give them the tools that they can do, they will do, and that will change the culture. I don't think it can come from top down. It needs to come from within and from the people. And that's what we see also with RPA, by the way, is adopted on department level and D build automations. And then at some point it becomes maybe an enterprise wide initiative, right. But somebody in HR had this idea and started >>The other thing too, is Matt, you mentioned this, you could go to a third party. So what years ago? In the early two thousands, we had a software company. We would use a company called agile on. They were us. I don't know if you ever heard of them. They're basically, we're a job shop. And we would throw our code over the very waterfall, throw the code over the fence. It was a black box and it was very asynchronous. And it would come back, you know, weeks later. And they say, I fix this, fix this, but we didn't have the analytics we didn't have. There was no transparency. Had we had that. We would have maybe come up with new ideas or a way to improve it because we knew the product way better. And so if you can bring that, in-house now you've got much better visibility. So what, what analytics are analytics a piece of this? >>Is that something that is so, I mean, I'll give you an example, SAP systems, right? When you have SAP systems, customers apply transports like five or 10 a day. Every transport can change the system in a way that you might break the automation. We have the possibility to actually not only understand what's going on in this system with process mining, but we also have the possibility to do change, impact, money, and change impact. Mining tells me with every process, every transport I apply, what has changed, and we can pinpoint the test cases that you need to run. So instead of running a thousand test cases, every time we pinpoint 50 of them and you know exactly what has changed. Yeah. >>That's right. Cause a lot of times you don't know what you don't know. And you're saying the machine is basically saying focus on these areas that are going to give you the biggest, that's kind of Amdahl's law, isn't it focus on the areas that are going to get the most return. Yeah. So this is a new business for UI path. You guys are targeting this as a market segment. Can you tell us more about that? >>We joined about two years ago. It takes some time to build something, right. There was a lot of proven technology there. And then we lounged, uh, I think it wasn't July last year, which was more like a, uh, private lounge. We, we didn't make much noise around it and it's gaining a lot of traction. So it's several hundred customers have already jumped on their test bandwagon, if you can call it this way. And yeah, this, this year we were pushing full speed into the testing market as well, because we see the benefits that customers get when they use both like the story from Chipotle. It has other customers like Cisco and, and more, when you hear the stories, what they were able to achieve. I mean, that's a no-brainer I think for any customer who wants to improve the automation. Yeah. >>Well, and also we're taking production grade automation and giving it to the testers and we're giving them this advanced AI so they can automate things. They weren't able to automate before, like Citrix virtual virtualized machines, point of sale systems, like 12 layer, any other business would have, they can automate all those things now that they couldn't do before, as well as everything else. And then they can also the testing tools, they talked about fragmentation this morning. That's another problem is there's a tool for mobile. There's a tool for this. There's a tool for API APIs. You have all these tools, you have to learn all these languages. We're going to give them one. They can learn and use and apply to all their technologies. And it's easy to use and it's easy to use. Yeah. >>That's kind of been the mantra of UI path for very long time, easy to use making, making RPA simple. We've got 8,000 plus customers. You mentioned a few of them. We're going to have some of them on the program this week. How do you expect good question for you that stat that you mentioned from that survey in the very beginning of our conversation, how do you expect that needle to move in the next year? Because we're seeing so much acceleration because of the pandemic. >>That's a really good question because the questions that we had in the, after we had the first hundred, right? The values didn't change that much. So we have now 1500 and you would assume that is pretty stable from the data. It didn't change that much. So we're still at 27% that are not testing. And that's what we see as our mission. We want to change that no customer that has more than, I dunno, five processes in production should not like not test that's crazy and we can help. And that's our mission. So, but the data is not changing. That's the interesting part. >>I know, I know we're out of time, but, but we're how do you price this? Is it a, is it a set? Is it a subscription? Is it a usage based model? How, how do you, >>It's fully included in the UI pass tool suite. So it means it's on the cloud and on-prem the pricing is the same. We are using this. There >>It is. Yeah. >>It's the same components. Like, like we're using studio for automation, we're using orchestrator, but we're using robots. We have cloud test manager on prem test manager. It's just a part of the >>Value, add that you're putting into the platform. Yeah, yeah, >>Exactly. Yeah. There are components that are priced. Yes. But I mean, it's part of the platform, how it is delivered. >>Yeah. So I paid for that module and you turn it on and use it. So it's a subscription. It could be an annual term if I want multi-year term. I can do that. Exactly. Good. Great guys. Thanks so much for coming on the Cuban and good luck with this. Thank you. Great, great innovations. Okay. Keep it right there at Dave Volante for Lisa Martin, we'll be back with our coverage of UI path forward for, from the Bellagio in Las Vegas. Keep it right there.

>>From the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas, it's the cube covering UI path forward for brought to you by UI path. >>We'll go back to the cubes coverage of UI paths forward for big customer event. You know, this company has always bucked the trend and they're doing it again. They're having a live event, physical event. There are customers here, partners, technologists. I'm here with Lisa Martin, my co-host for the show. And we're going to talk about testing. It's a new market for UI path. If anybody knows anything about testing, it's kind of this mundane, repetitive process ripe for automation geared vice-chairs. Here's the senior vice president of testing products at UI path and Matt Elisa. Who's the product marketing lead at UI path. Gents. Welcome to the cube. Thanks for coming on. Thanks for having a feminist Likert. Explain to us how you guys think about testing both from an internal perspective and how you're going to market. >>Yeah, well, testing has been around for a long time, right? 20 twenty-five years or so when, when I came to UI pass, the first thing I looked at was like, how do our customers test RPA? And it's quite interesting. We did a survey actually with 1500 people and, uh, 27% said that they wouldn't test at all. And I thought that's really interesting. RPA is a business critical software that runs in your production environment and you probably have to test. So we came up with this idea that we create the test suite. We're using, you know, proven technology from UI pass. And, and we built this offering and brought us into market for RPA testing in for application testing. So we do both. And of course we use it internally as well. I mean, that will be, you know, eat your own dog food or drink your own champagne, I guess. So >>I want to think about it. If you, if you automate, if you, if there's an ROI to automate a process, there's gotta be an ROI to verify that it's going to work before it goes into production too. And so it's amazing that a lot of companies are not doing this and they're doing it manually, um, today. >>So, so, but so, but parts of testing have been automated, haven't they with regression testing. So can, can you guys take us through kind of the before and after and how you're approaching it versus the traditional? >>Yeah, absolutely. I mean, like I said, testing is not new, right? Um, but still when you look at the customers, they're not out to meeting more than I would say, 30, 40% of the manual tests. So still a lot of Stan manually, which I think, and we talked about this right manual testing is the, the original RPA. It's a tedious, repetitive tasks that you should not do manually. Right? And so what we are trying to bring in is now we're talking about this new role it's called the digital tester. The digital tester is an empowered. We could call a manual tester, who's able to build automation and we believe that this will truly increase the automation, even in the existing testing market. And it's going to be, I don't want to use the word game changer, but it's going change. Uh, the way testing is done. Yeah. >>And we're, we're applying, um, all the capabilities of UI path and delivering those to testers, just like we would for HR team or a, or a, a finance and accounting team. But testing even has they understand this more, they've been doing this for 20 years. They understand automation and we're going to give them things like process mining so they can figure out what tests they need to run from production data. We're going to give them task mining so they can make more human-like tests test. Exactly. Like I used to be a tester and I ran a test team. And what I used to do is I have to go out to a warehouse and I'd have to go watch people as they entered orders, to make sure I was testing it the right way. So they would like click. We usually thought they were clicking things, but they were using hotkeys. That's just an example of what they were doing. But now we can do task task mining to get that remotely, pull that data in and do tests and make more realistic tests. >>So much of the there's so much potential there. I think you were saying that only 27% are actually doing testing. So there's so much opportunity. I'm curious, where are your conversations within the customer organization? We know that automation is a board level investor topic. Where are you? Where are those discussions with the testing folks, the RPA folks, helping them come together? >>Well, that's interesting. The question, uh, we typically on the IPS, have we talked to the cos, right? The people that are professionally developing those RPAs, but very easily, we get introduced to the test side of the house. And then usually there's a joint meeting where the test people are there, the RPA people are there. And that's why we are talking about this is going to convert somehow, right? The are in different departments today. But if you think about it, five years down the road, maybe 10 years, they might be at an automation discipline for the entire enterprise. So if that answered your question about, >>Yeah. >>Going to require a cultural shift. Yeah. And we have a customer coming presenting this afternoon. and they're gonna be talking about how they, both of the teams are using a test teams and the RPA teams. And they built a reusable component library that, so when they built RPA team built their automations, they put them in a reusable library and the test team is able to recreate their test much faster reusing about 70% of the components. And so when the, when you think of automation, they're thinking about automating the application, not automating a process or a test so that people can use those like Lego blocks and build it if they're doing so, they could even, even it automation, if they wanted to start with an it automation, they could pull those components out and use those. >>I think this is game changing is quality because so often, because in this day and age of agile, it's like move fast and break things. A lot of things break. And when we heard this morning in the keynotes, how you guys are pushing code like a couple of times a week, I mean, it's just a constant. And then you do two big releases. Okay. I get, I get it for the on-prem. But when you're pushing code that fast, you don't have time to test everything. There's a lot of stuff that's unknown. And so to the extent that you can compress all those check boxes, now I can focus on the really important things that sometimes are architectural. How do you expect applying RPA to testing is going to affect the quality? Or maybe you've got some examples. Chipotle, you just mentioned, >>First of all, I mean, when you say we pushing code like bi-weekly or so, right. We're talking about continuous development. That's what it's called. Right? It's agile. You have sprint cycles, you continue to bring new code, new code, new code, and you test all the increments with it. So it's not that you building up a huge backlog for the testing on the IPA side. What I see is that there will be a transformation about the process, how they develop RPA at the moment. It's still done very much, I would say, in a waterfall way, which is agree. A big bang waterfall. Yeah. It will transition. We already have partners that apply agile methodologies to their actually RPA development. And that's going to change that. >>Okay. So it's not so it's quality for those that are in testing obviously, but, but it's, but for the waterfall guys, it's, it's compressing the time to value. Oh yeah. That's going to be the big key. That's really worth. >>I mean, what he said is Chipotle is, was able to reuse 70% of the automation components. Right. That's huge. I mean, you have to think about it. 70% can be reused from testing to RPA and vice versa. That's a huge acceleration. Also on the RPA side, you can automate more processes faster. If you have components that you can trust. >>So you were a tester. Yeah. So you were a cost center. Yes, exactly. >>Unnecessary. What's the budget. >>So could you think RPA and automation can flip that mindset? >>Yeah, totally. And that's one of the things we want to do is we want to turn testing from a cost center to a value center, give testers a new career paths, even because really testers before all you could do is you could be more technical. Maybe you become a developer or you can be a manager, but you couldn't really become like an automation architect or a senior automation person. And now we're giving them a whole different career path to go down. So it's really exciting. >>'cause I know when I came out of college, I had a job offer and I wanted to be a developer, a programmer. We called them back then. And the only job I could get was as a tester. And I was like, oh, this is miserable. I'm not doing this, but there's a, there was, there's a growth path there. They were like, Hey, do this for two or three years, maybe five years. I was like, forget it. I'm going into sales and marketing. But so what's the, what's the growth path today for the tester. And how do you see this changing? >>So you want to go, you want to, I can take that one. No, you take it. So that's a really, yeah. I mean, I did it, so really it's, I mean, we're going to be giving these guys, the testing market has been kind of not innovating for years and years and years. And so we're going to be giving these guys some new tools to make them more powerful, make even the cause. Testing is a kind of a practice that is, you know, like, like you said, you, you didn't like testing. I didn't like testing either. Actually I hate testing. So I automated it. So, um, and so that was the first thing I did. And so I think we're going to give these guys some new tools, some ways to grow their career and some ways to be even better testers, but like, like, like we've talked about process mining, test mining, like maybe they're maybe they're testing the wrong things. Maybe they're not testing, you know, maybe, you know, there, cause there's kind of this test, everything mentality we're we need to test everything and the whole release instead of like focusing in on what changed. And so I think we'll be able to help them really focus on the testing and the quality to make it more efficient as well. >>Go ahead. So do to defend the testers, right? Test is a very skilled people. Yes. They know their business, they know what to test and how to test in a way that nobody else knows that it's something we sometimes underestimate. They are not developers so that they don't write code and they don't build automations typically. But if we can equip them with tools that they can build out information, you have the brain and the muscle together, you know what I mean? You don't have to delegate the automation to some, whatever team that is maybe outsourced even you can do it. In-house and I think to some extent, that was also the story of Portland sourcing again, because they're building their own automation. Yeah. >>And it saved them time because they have deal is handoffs, you know, to an external third party to do the testing for them. And so they pulled it all in made things much more streamlined and efficient. How >>Is that? It seems like a big cultural shift within any type of organization in any industry we're using Chipola as an example here, how does your path help facilitate that cultural shift? Because that's big and we're talking about really reducing, um, or speeding time to value. >>Right. Right. And it is a lot of the agile methodologies like we're starting. So it's kind of like, we're going back in time, you know, and we're teaching these people, you know, the RPA community, all of the things that we learned from software development. Right. And so we're going to be applying that to this. And so all those agile mindset, the th the agile values, you know, those are the things that are going to help them kind of come together. And that's one of the things that Julie talked about is one of the things is they had a, kind of an agile mindset, a can-do attitude that pulled them down. >>And I think one thing that will really helps with changing the culture is empowering the people. If you give them the tools that they can do, they will do, and that will change the culture. I don't think it can come from top down. It needs to come from within and from the people. And that's what we see also with RPA, by the way, is adopted on department level and D build automations. And then at some point it becomes maybe an enterprise wide initiative, right. But somebody in HR had this idea and started >>The other thing too, is Matt, you mentioned this you'd go to a third party. So years ago in the early two thousands, we had a software company. We would use a company called agile on. They were, so I don't know if you ever heard of them. They're basically, we're a job shop. And we would throw our code over the very waterfall, throw the code over the fence. It was a black box and it was very asynchronous. And it would come back, you know, weeks later. And they say, oh, I fixed this, fixed this, but we didn't have the analytics we didn't have. There was no transparency had we had that. We would have maybe come up with new ideas or have way to improve it because we knew the product way better. And so if you can bring that, in-house now you've got much better visibility. So what, what analytics are our analytics a piece of this? And is that something? Yeah. >>Yeah. So, I mean, they'll give you an example, SAP systems, right? When you have SAP systems, customers apply transports like five or 10 a day. Every transport can change the system in a way that you might break the automation. We have the possibility to actually not only understand what's going on in this system with process mining, but we also have the possibility to do change, impact, money, and change impact. Mining tells me with every process, every transport I apply, what has changed, and we can pinpoint the test cases that you need to run. So instead of running a thousand test cases, every time we pinpoint 50 of them and you know exactly what has changed. Yeah. >>That's right. Because a lot of times you don't know what you don't know. And you're saying the machine is basically saying focus on these areas that are going to give you the biggest, that's kind of Amdahl's law. Isn't it focus on the areas that going to get the most return. Yeah. So this is a new business for UI path. You guys are targeting this as a market segment. Can you tell us more about that? >>We joined about two years ago. It takes some time to build something, right. There was a lot of proven technology there. And then we lounged, uh, I think it wasn't July last year, which was more like a private lounge. We, we didn't make much noise around it and it's gaining a lot of traction. So it's several hundred customers have already jumped on that test bandwagon, if you can call it this way. And yeah, this, this year we are pushing full speed into the testing market as well, because we see the benefits that customers get when they use both like the story from Chipotle. It has other customers like Cisco and, and more, when you hear the stories, what they were able to achieve. I mean, that's a no-brainer I think for any customer who wants to improve the automation. Yeah. >>Well, and also we're taking production grade automation and giving it to the testers and we're giving them this advanced AI so they can automate things. They weren't able to automate before, like Citrix virtual virtualized machines, point of sale systems, like 12 layer, any other business would have, they can automate all those things now that they couldn't do before, as well as everything else. And then they can also the testing tools, they talked about fragmentation this morning. That's another problem is there's a tool for mobile. There's a tool for this. There's a tool for API APIs and you have all these tools. You have to learn all these languages. We're going to give them one that they can learn and use and apply to all their technologies. And it's easy to use and it's easy to use. Yeah. >>That's kind of been the mantra of UiPath for very long time, easy to use making, making RPA simple. We've got 8,000 plus customers. You mentioned a few of them. We're going to have some of them on the program this week. How do you expect good question for you that stat that you mentioned from that survey in the very beginning of our conversation, how do you expect that needle to move in the next year? Because we're seeing so much acceleration because of the pandemic. >>A really good question, because the questions that we had in the beginning after we had the first hundred, right? The values didn't change that much. So we have now 1500 and you would assume that is pretty stable from the data. It didn't change that much. So we're still at 27% that are not testing. And that's what we see as our mission. We want to change that no customer that has more than, I dunno, five processes in production should not like not test that's crazy and we can help. And that's our mission. So, but the data is not changing. That's the interesting part. >>And I know, I know we're out of time, but, but we're how do you price this? Is it a, is it a set? Is it a subscription? Is it a usage based model? How >>It's fully included in the UI pass tool suite. So it means it's on the cloud and on-prem the pricing is the same. We are using this. There it is. Yeah. It's the same components. Like, like we're using studio for automation, we're using orchestrator, but we're using robots. We have cloud test manager on prem test manager. It's just a part of the, >>So it's a value add that you're putting into the platform. Yeah, yeah, exactly. >>Yeah. Th there are components that are priced. Yes. But I mean, it's part of the platform, how, >>But it's a module. So I paid for that module and you turn it on and then they can use it. So it's a subscription. It could be an annual term if I want multi-year term, I can do that. Exactly. Good. Great guys. Thanks so much for coming on the Cuban and good luck with this. Thank you. Great, great innovations. Okay. Keep it right there at Dave Volante for Lisa Martin, we'll be back with our coverage of UI path forward for, from the Bellagio in Las Vegas. Keep it right there.

(upbeat music) >> Narrator: From Austin, Texas it's theCUBE, covering Pure Storage Accelerate 2019. Brought to you by Pure Storage. >> Welcome back to theCUBE. Lisa Martin, Dave Vellante is my co-host. I'm at Pure accelerate 2019 in Austin, Texas and Dave and I are really pleased to welcome to theCUBE, for the first time, John Colgrove, Coz, CTO and founder of Pure Storage, Coz, welcome to theCUBE. >> Ah, I'm glad to be here thanks for having me. >> And happy 10th anniversary. So, 10 years ago I'm sure you couldn't have envisioned 3, 000 people, Austin being taken over by a sea of orange. But let's go back 10 years, Why did you found Pure Storage? >> Why did I found it? Well, I wasn't really ready to be retired yet. Flash, I started have seen from when I worked at Amdahl many years ago all the way through Veritas, I saw disks continuing to get bigger and bigger and effectively slower and slower. Cause when they don't get any faster and they get bigger, they get slower from by their data. And flash was a catalyst that was going to to change that. But it was the catalyst. What we really wanted to do was to completely change the storage industry. Everything that had annoyed me about the storage industries through all the years in Veritas, All the complexity, all the bad customer practices that the industry forced on people, I wanted to change all that. think of what you demand from your personal tech from your iphone or your laptop or your tablet. Customers should demand that kind of quality, service ability, ease of use from their enterprise IT gear. >> When I started my career in the early '80s I was at IDC and they didn't have a storage analyst. And I started following mainframes and I learned a lot about channel command words and IO subsystems and I came to the conclusion that this is a really hard thing, hard problem to solve. And, so, I got interested in it. You obviously did as well. I'm interested in when you went from Amdahl to Veritas, you had to do some unnatural acts with software to make IO better, 'cause of the spinning disk and understanding the latencies and the scatty chatty protocols and everything else. When you went and thought about Pure and when you think about great architects and I've obviously put you in that category, you chose flash, others like another great architect, Moshe have said you know what I can even squeeze more out of spinning disks. What led you to flash versus trying to squeeze more blood from the spinning disk stone? If I can phrase it that way. >> I think I tend to be more of an extremist on things like that. And I think that's been the key to Pure's success. We were not the first all flash startup. We were the first to focus on affordable flash. Right, if you're going to change the world you have to make something for everyone not for an elite few. But the other thing was we were all flash. There were a lot of other startups that were hybrids that were squeezing more out of the disk and we just went all flash from the beginning. Everything about us is all flash. So, as the future goes more and more towards all flash, we're in a stronger and stronger position. >> And you think that was the game changer that led Pure to be that unicorn that IPO'd four years ago versus those other startups who are trying to do similar things with flash? >> So, that focus helped us a lot with that. The biggest thing that, as I said before flash was a catalyst. The biggest thing we brought to the industry is the simplicity and the evergreen business model. And it's really cool to see all the big companies that we've competed against all these years mimicking a lot of that, but that's the differentiator. Flash was the catalyst that lets you do that. >> Well, so, I'm interested as a little bit of an industry historian and some of the factors that led to your ability to achieve escape velocity which used to be defined as an IPO. I mean, I would argue the 3PAR achieved its escape velocity, I was a $250 million company before it got acquired for 2.5 billion or whatever it was, never reached a billion never even came close. You were the first storage company since NetApp to achieve billion dollar revenue. And you're well on your way to 2 billion, you'll do probably 1.7 this year. In addition to what you've said are there other factors that we should consider in our B school case study on Pure? >> I think one of the things we've tried to do is we've tried to build a company that's going to be in it for that long term. So, we never wanted to settle for an acquisition. We want to build a long term enduring great brand and part of that you have to build more of a partnership with your customers. You have to be a good partner to your partners. Right, if you are short-term focused if you try to squeeze every dollar you can out of people, they don't like you, they don't want to come back. If you build something great and you partner well with the environment around you you can build something long lasting. And we wanted to do that from the beginning, we focused a lot on culture and things like that to help us do that. >> Well it's impressive, congratulations are in order, 'cause 3PAR couldn't do it, Compelling couldn't do it, Isilon, on and on and on. And and EMC at the time was really about EMC that's how you went after. They were able to do virtualization and freeze the market on 3PAR . They were able to do a low cost call it the compellant killer. They were never able to figure out, now maybe they got distracted with elliot management and everything else, but they were never able to figure out how to squash you guys. And that's impressive that you're able to live through that. >> Well, thanks. I mean one of the things we've always tried to do is be supremely disruptive, and that does make it harder for them. >> So, I got to ask I got to challenge you on a couple of things that have come out largely from your competitors but I want to get your take on it. The first one is scale out how come Pure doesn't scale out? I'll leave it there. I have my own thoughts that I've shared with Lisa but. Two controller design. >> Yeah one thing I'd point out is well, FLashBlade, one of our products, is scale out. Flash array, our first product, is not scale out. Scale out isn't a capability for a customer, it's an architecture in how you build the product. When I scale out I have more complicated software. I have more components. More components lead to more failures. Right, if I have a piece of memory and it's going to fail at a certain annual failure rate and I have 10 pieces of memory, I'm going to fail it 10 times that same rate. So, scale out introduces complexity, it introduces more components. And then you have to say what do you get from it. So, if our customers needed a lot more performance than we're delivering, if they needed a lot more scale than we're delivering in the flash array product, we'd then react to that and go build scale out. Where the flash array sells, we don't see that as a major market need, it's more of a niche. Where FlashBlade sells, then there is much more of a need for that and that's why FlashBlade was scale out from day one. >> Well my correct to that the other thing you get from scale out is non disruptive controller swaps but you've solved that in other ways right? >> You say you get non disruptive controller swaps, I will point out that if you look at these scale out architectures out there there's a set of them that do provide that, but actually the larger set of them don't provide it. Because what they're doing is they're making what they view and what the customer views as one monolithic array built from a set of scale out components. So, in those architectures you can't swap out one part of the scale out, you have to swap out the whole thing. >> The other thing I heard, I love this analogy is you don't really see planes anymore. You see them but you really don't want to fly 'em cause they're old with four engines versus two engines 'cause the two engine planes are so, much more reliable. All right the other question is on proprietary flash modules. You guys have chosen your philosophies, do things that you can't do with just off the shelf components. So, you've gone proprietary and this history there, I mean 3PAR with Custom ASICs but I'd like you to share with us your philosophy on what you're doing there. >> So, kind of, there's a couple dimensions to that. Number one, we have gone with proprietary flash modules but in our flash array, we could plug in off-the-shelf drives any time we want. And in fact today our XR2 line, the lower end models use off the shelf flash and the higher end models use the proprietary. What we get with the proprietary is our own firmware on there. Right, it's the same nanochips, the same nanocontrollers, it's all the same components but it's our firmware. And our firmware only has to support one application, our purity operating system. However the customer reads and writes data into the array, we write it the same way down to the flash. We read it back the same way from the flash. So, by making simpler firmware that only has to solve that one problem, we get better performance out of the flash. We get longer life out of the flash and we get order less that one third of the failures of flash drives. Now the flash drives we were using were already failing, a lot less than disk drives. But we've gotten better than three times the reliability by going to our own flash modules. >> Tiering, your philosophy on tiering. Five, 10 years ago there was a big thing on automated tiering, we're going to put the hot data on the high performance either disk or flash and the slow data on the cheap stuff. Your philosophy on tiering, I think I infer you don't believe in tiering. Why not? Or maybe I don't want to put words in our mouth. >> Well so, tiering is another thing that it adds complexity. So, why do you tier? You tier because you say oh I can't afford all of the better things so, I'm going to layer it in with something that's a little cheaper. If you can get by without tiering that's a better solution it's a simpler solution. >> Simplicity is a theme here. The copy of your acquisition your a file system guru to my knowledge what I've read about them, strong file system. What do you intend to do with that? it's concerned about it forking your existing products. How do you respond? >> So, the compuverde file system, we're going to put that on top of our flash array line and make that a unified architecture where you can support block in file. Compuverde is a very complete file protocol stack. And file protocols are a lot more complex than block protocols. Implementing all of the SMB protocol is not an easy thing it takes a bunch of time. So, it's a way to accelerate that and get a very complete protocol stack for that product. Flash blade will continue on with its own scale out file protocols, file and object protocols independent of that. >> Last question I had is on, there's some criticism that's been laid on you guys on the evergreen. The controller, performance of controller upgrades which I we have not heard, we didn't hear that from customers, we've asked some customers that, but I'd love to get your take on, why is there no guarantee of performance improvements as you go to subsequent controller swap outs. Your thoughts? >> So, what we guarantee is you'll get the like or better. So, you might get a new set of controllers that are perform about the same, you might get one a little better. Generally speaking every time we've done it so far it's moved to better. It doesn't move to radically better, but it moves to the better. So, we are guaranteeing that, it's just a question of how much do you chose to deliver with that. What you're doing is you're keeping the array new. It's not so much about making huge strides in the performance it's about keeping the array new. >> But there's another nuance there that I want to test I mean, just conceptionally it seems to me, because the way you ship software constantly that you're making incremental improvements throughout that three year period. First of all is that an accurate assertion? >> it's actually very accurate. The first time we started really looking at how much better we realized that we had moved the needle on the old gear about, I think it was about 60% up during the time period so, yeah there was sort of a little less gains. >> Okay, so, the proper measurement is okay from what's the performance from day one delta to the controller upgrade? That is more significant versus the controller swap day, whatever and plus one if that makes sense. >> Well, I think both are valid ways to look at it. The biggest thing is the customer doesn't have to migrate and the migrations are the most horrible event in storage. Right it's like moving your house for everyone who has moved, you got to pack everything up. Things could get broken things could get lost, it's just a mess. You don't have to do that and the array just gets bigger, denser, more power efficient it gets better and better over time. And you're on that forever, we are happy to do controller swaps after three years, six years, nine years, 12 years. We will continue to do that as long as customers are paying for that it's our job to keep improving it and to keep making it better. >> We've done a lot of research on array migrations. At a minimum, your anti to do a array migration is $50,000. That's what our data shows. We talk to a very large practitioner last night he said, "When I'm doing an array migration I start six "to eight months ahead of time because it takes that long "to do an array migration, array migrations are horrendous "and anything you can do to avoid those is worth it." So, that's all I had that awesome. Thank you for addressing those questions. >> So, the acceleration, pun intended, that Pure has achieved in its first 10 years we talk about customers all the time we've had a number on yesterday from law firms to utilities to F1, we'll have more on today. But in order to achieve what Pure has, you have had to build a culture that's pretty unique. One, this vibrant orange color that just screams energy, boldness too, we're in Austin, Texas, Dell Technology's backyard. Give us a little bit as we wrap here about how you and your co-founders have developed and really fostered this culture of passion that is delivering more than your competitors would like to see. >> Well, so, one of the things that was a key part of the culture is we didn't just hire a bunch of storage people. We had a few early on cause you need some experience in the history but an awful lot of the people we hired came from other backgrounds. Other engineers, marketing people, et cetera, they did not come from storage. And what we challenge people to do when they come in the door is we're hiring them because of their brain power, right. We don't own minimal rights somewhere, we don't have buildings we don't have a lot of assets. Our asset is our people and what they can produce. And obviously if you think back, well, when I was the only employee, right, I was doing every job. Ideally everyone we've hired since can do whatever we've hired them to do a lot better than I could do it. And that's a philosophy you want to keep going. Every person in Pure should be focused on using their brains, using their creativity to deliver the most value possible to disrupt things where they can, to always look for how we do things better, and to always be looking to hire better than them. >> So, it kind of gets into the next 10 years. Don't hate me for saying this but in retrospect the first 10 years you had it kind of easy. You caught EMC off guard, you drove a truck through their install base, NetApp miss flash. You guys executed obviously, we talked about that billion dollar company. Next 10 years, a little different. Where's the TAM expansion come from in the next 10 years? It's Multicloud, it's new AI workloads, it's lower cost solutions that get you more of the market, it's partnering with backup. But you got cloud, you got competitors that are starting to figure it out. How do you see the next 10 years to go from beyond where you are and that next pike. >> Well, so, I'll start by saying when you start a company, you dream of success and the first 10 years have been as good as you could possibly have dreamt. So, A, hopefully the next 10 years will continue that way. I think you touched upon one thing is the cloud. People have been through the hype cycle of saying the entire world is going to be cloud, there's only going to be three data centers in the world and it's going to be Amazon, Microsoft and Google. They now understand the cloud is a tool and you need to use it properly. So, one of the focuses we're going to be working on over the next several years is making sure that someone can have their data, their application on prem. They can decide I want to put it in the cloud. Move there seamlessly. Move there as easily as you move from one of your cell phones to the next model. Move from one cloud to another cloud. Move from that cloud back on prem. Whether you want to move the data, the applications, both and get the same kind of service, the same kind of experience. That's going to be a big thing. >> You got a lot of work to do there, but yeah. But there's an opportunity isn't there? >> It's the way everybody wants to run, it's the way everybody should run. Running an IT service to deliver value to your company, value to your organization should not be rocket science. And our job at Pure is to make that accessible to everybody so, everybody can deliver that kind of quality experience to their organization. >> And it's an obvious question but you see that as technically feasible over the next five to 10 years? >> Yeah it is technically feasible. This goes back to one of the things that I was mentioning before with flash as a catalyst. One of the thing flash helps do to make this simpler is it frees you from the geometry constraints of disk. You don't have to care as much. Another thing that's making it possible, is faster networking, right. And better networking. And then again you have all the compute and GPUs and co-processors and things pushing things. As you get to where resources are more plentiful, then you have the ability to trade off some of the I've got to get like every microsecond out of this thing for the simplicity, for that ease of use. And that lets you deliver something better in the long run. Right, if I perfectly tune something I might be able to do a little bit better but I'm not going to be able to keep it in tune and I'm going to spend my whole life retuning it and retuning it and finding it out of sync. Simplicity, that drives so much efficiency. Agility, that drives so, much value. >> Well, Coz, thank you so, much for joining Dave and me on theCUBE this morning from Accelerate day two. You talked about flash being a catalyst that sounds to me like Coz has been one of the major catalysts of Pure's success. Happy 10th anniversary, we look forward to the next 10. >> Thanks a lot and thanks for having me. >> For Coz and Dave Vellante, I am Lisa Martin, you're watching theCUBE from Pure Accelerate, 2019. (techno music)

>> From the SiliconANGLE Media office in Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE. Now here are your hosts, Dave Vellante and Stu Miniman. >> Hi everybody, Dave Vellante here with Stu Miniman. We're here to unpack the recent acquisition that IBM announced of Red Hat. $34 billon acquisition financed with cash and debt. And Stu, let me get us started. Why would IBM spend $34 billion on Red Hat? Its largest acquisition to date of a software company had been Cognos at $5 billion. This is a massive move. IBM's Ginni Rometty called this a game changer. And essentially, my take is that they're pivoting. Their public cloud strategy was not living up to expectations. They're pivoting to hybrid cloud. Their hybrid cloud strategy was limited because they didn't really have strong developer mojo, their Bluemix PaaS layer had really failed. And so they really needed to make a big move here, and this is a big move. And so IBM's intent, and Ginni Rometty laid out the strategy, is to become number one in hybrid cloud, the undisputed leader. And so we'll talk about that. But Stu, from Red Hat's perspective, it's a company you're very close to and you've observed for a number of years, Red Hat was on a path touting a $5 billion revenue plan, what happened? Why would they capitulate? >> Yeah Dave, on the face of it, Red Hat says that IBM will help it further its mission. We just listened to Arvin Krishna from IBM talking with Paul Cormier at Red Hat, and they talked about how they were gonna keep the Red Hat brand alive. IBM has a long history with open source. As you mentioned, I've been working with Red Hat, gosh, almost 20 years now, and we all think back to two decades ago, when IBM put a billion dollars into Linux and really pushed on open source. So these are not strangers, they know each other really well. Part of me looks at these from a cynicism standpoint. Somebody on Twitter said that Red Hat is hitting it at the peak of Kubernetes hype. And therefore, they're gonna get maximum valuation for where the stock is. Red Hat has positioned itself rather well in the hybrid cloud world, really the multicloud world, when you go to AWS, when you go to the Microsoft Azure environment, you talk to Google. Open source fits into that environment and Red Hat products specifically tie into those environments. Remember last year, in Boston, there's a video of Andy Jassy talking about a partnership with Red Hat. This year, up on stage, Microsoft with Azure partnering deeply with Red Hat. So Red Hat has done a nice job of moving beyond Linux. But Linux is still at its core. There definitely is concern that the operating system is less important today than it was in the past. It was actually Red Hat's acquisition of CoreOS for about $250 million earlier this year that really put a fine point on it. CoreOS was launched to be just enough Linux to live in this kind of container and Kubernetes world. And Red Hat, of course, like we've seen often, the company that is saying, "We're going to kill you", well you go and you buy them. So Red Hat wasn't looking to kill IBM, but definitely we've seen this trend of softwares eating the world, and open sources eating software. So IBM, hopefully, is a embracing that open source ethos. I have to say, Dave, for myself, a little sad to see the news. Red Hat being the paragon of open source. The one that we always go to for winning in this space. So we hope that they will be able to keep their culture. We've had a chance, many times, to interview Jim Whitehurst, really respected CEO. One that we think should stay involved in IBM deeply for this. But if they can keep and grow the culture, then it's a win for Red Hat. But still sorting through everything, and it feels like a little bit of a capitulation that Red Hat decides to sell off rather than keep its mission of getting to five billion and beyond, and be the leading company in the space. >> Well I think it is a bit of a capitulation. Because look, Red Hat is roughly a $3 billion company, growing at 20% a year, had that vision of five billion Its stock, in June, had hit $175. So while IBM's paying a 60% premium off of its current price, it's really only about 8 or 9% higher than where Red Hat was just a few months ago. And so I think, there's an old saying on Wall Street, the first disappointment is never the last. And so I think that Red Hat was looking at a long slog. They reduced expectations, they guided lower, and they were looking at the 90-day shot clock. And this probably wasn't going to be a good 'nother couple of years for Red Hat. And they're selling at the peak of the market, or roughly the peak of the market. They probably figured, hey, the window is closing, potentially, to do this deal. Maybe not such a bad time to get out, as opposed to trying to slog it out. Your thoughts. >> Yeah, Dave, I think you're absolutely right. When you look at where Red Hat is winning, they've done great in OpenStack but there's not a lot of excitement around OpenStack. Kubernetes was talked about lots in the announcement, in the briefings, and everything like that. I was actually surprised you didn't hear as much about just the core business. You would think you would be hearing about all the companies using Red Hat Enterprise Linux around the world. That ratable model that Red Hat really has a nice base of their environment. It was talking more about the future and where Kubernetes, and cloud-native, and all of that development will go. IBM has done middling okay with developers. They have a strong history in middleware, which is where a lot of the Red Hat development activity has been heading. It was interesting to hear, on the call, it's like, oh well, what about the customers that are using IBM too say, "Oh well, if customers want that, we'll still do it." What about IBM with Cloud Foundry? Well absolutely, if customers wanna still be doing it, they'll do that. So you don't hear the typical, "Oh well, we're going to take Red Hat technology "and push it through all of IBM's channel." This is in the IBM cloud group, and that's really their focus, as it is. I feel like they're almost limiting the potential for growth for Red Hat. >> Well so IBM's gonna pay for this, as I said, it's an all cash deal. IBM's got about 14 and a half billion dollars on the balance sheet. And so they gotta take out some debt. S&P downgraded IBM's rating from an A+ to an A. And so the ratings agency is going to be watching IBM's growth. IBM said this will add 200 basis points of revenue growth over the five year CAGR. But that means we're really not gonna see that for six, seven years. And Ginni Rometty stressed this is not a backend loaded thing. We're gonna find revenue opportunities through cross-selling and go-to-market. But we have a lot of questions on this deal, Stu. And I wanna sorta get into that. So first of all, again, I think it's the right move for IBM. It's a big move for IBM. Rumors were that Cisco might have been interested. I'm not sure if Microsoft was in the mix. So IBM went for it and, as I said, didn't pay a huge premium over where their stock was back in June. Now of course, back in June, the market was kind of inflated. But nonetheless, the strategy now is to go multi-cloud. The number one in the multi-cloud world. What is that multi-cloud leadership? How are we gonna measure multi-cloud? Is IBM, now, the steward of open source for the industry? To your point earlier, you're sad, Stu, I know. >> You bring up a great point. So I think back to three years ago, with the Wikibon we put together, our true private cloud forecast. And when we built that, we said, "Okay, here's the hardware, and software, "and services in private cloud." And we said, "Well let's try to measure hybrid cloud." And we spent like, six months looking at this. And it's like, well what is hybrid cloud? I've got my public cloud pieces, and I've got my private cloud pieces. Well there's some management layers and things that go in between. Do I count things like PaaS? So do you save people like Pivotal and Red Hat's OpenShift? Are those hybrid cloud? Well but they live either here or there. They're not usually necessarily helping with the migration and moving around. I can live in multiple environments. So Linux and containers live in the public, they live in the private, they don't just fly around in the ether. So measuring hybrid cloud, I think is really tough. Does IBM plus Red Hat make them a top leader in this hybrid multi-cloud world? Absolutely, they should be mentioned a lot more. When I go to the cloud shows, the public cloud shows, IBM isn't one of the first peak companies you think about. Red Hat absolutely is in the conversation. It actually should raise the profile of Red Hat because, while Red Hat plays in a lot of the conversations, they're also not the first company that comes to mind when you talk about them. Microsoft, middle of hybrid cloud. Oracle, positioning their applications in this multi-cloud world. Of course you can't talk about cloud, any cloud, without talking about Amazon's position in the marketplace. And SAS is the real place that it plays. So IBM, one of their biggest strengths is that they have applications. Dave, you know the space really well. What does this mean vis-à-vis Oracle? >> Well let's see, so Oracle, I think, is looking at this, saying, alright. I would say IBM is Oracle's number one competitor in the enterprise. You got SAP, and Amazon obviously in cloud, et cetera, et cetera. But let me put it this way, I think Oracle is IBM's number one competitor. Whether Oracle sees it that way or not. But they're clearly similar companies, in terms of their vertical integration. I think Oracle's looking at this, saying, hey. There's no way Oracle was gonna spend $34 billion on Red Hat. And I don't think they were interested in really spending any money on the alternatives. But does this put Canonical and SUSE in play? I think Oracle's gonna look at this and sort of message to its customers, "We're already number one in our world in hybrid cloud." But I wanna come back to the deal. I'm actually optimistic on the deal, from the standpoint of, I think IBM had to make a big move like this. Because it was largely just bumping along. But I'm not buying the narrative from Jim Whitehurst that, "Well we had to do this to scale." Why couldn't they scale with partners? I just don't understand that. They're open. This is largely, to me, a services deal. This is a big boon for IBM Services business. In fact, Jim Whitehurst, and Ginni even said that today on the financial analyst call, Jim said, "Our big constraint was "services scale and the industry expertise there." So what was that constraint? Why couldn't they partner with Accenture, and Ernie Young, and PwC, and the likes of Deloitte, to scale and preserve greater independence? And I think that the reason is, IBM sees an opportunity and they're going hard after it. So how will, or will, IBM change its posture relative to some of those big services plays? >> Yeah, Dave, I think you're absolutely right there. Because Red Hat should've been able to scale there. I wonder if it's just that all of those big service system integrators, they're working really closely with the public cloud providers. And while Red Hat was a piece of it, it wasn't the big piece of it. And therefore, I'm worried on the application migration. I'm worried about the adoption of infrastructure as a service. And Red Hat might be a piece in the puzzle, but it wasn't the driver for that change, and the move, and the modernization activities that were going on. That being said, OpenShift was a great opportunity. It plays in a lot of these environments. It'll be really interesting to see. And a huge opportunity for IBM to take and accelerate that business. From a services standpoint, do you think it'll change their position with regard to the SIs? >> I don't. I think IBM's gonna try to present, preserve Red Hat as an independent company. I would love to see IBM do what EMC did years ago with VMware, and float some portion of the company, and truly have it at least be quasi-independent. With an independent operating structure, and reporting structure from the standpoint of a public company. That would really signal to the partners that IBM's serious about maintaining independence. >> Yeah now, look Dave, IBM has said they will keep the brand, they will keep the products. Of all the companies that would buy Red Hat, I'm not super worried about kinda polluting open source. It was kinda nice that Jim Whitehurst would say, if it's a Red Hat thing, it is 100% open source. And IBM plays in a lot of these environments. A friend of mine on Twitter was like, "Oh hey, IBM's coming back to OpenDaylight or things like that." Because they'd been part of Cloud Foundry, they'd been part of OpenDaylight. There's certain ones that they are part of it and then they step back. So IBM, credibly open source space, if they can let Red Hat people still do their thing. But the concern is that lots of other companies are gonna be calling up project leads, and contributors in the open source community that might've felt that Red Hat was ideal place to live, and now they might go get their paycheck somewhere else. >> There's rumors that Jim Whitehurst eventually will take over IBM. I don't see it, I just don't think Jim Whitehurst wants to run Z mainframes and Services. That doesn't make any sense to me. Ginni's getting to the age where IBM CEOs typically retire, within the next couple of years. And so I think that it's more likely they'll bring in somebody from internally. Whether it's Arvin or, more likely, Jim Kavanaugh 'cause he's got the relationship with Wall Street. Let's talk about winners and losers. It's just, again, a huge strategic move for IBM. Frankly, I see the big winners is IBM and Red Hat. Because as we described before, IBM was struggling with its execution, and Red Hat was just basically, finally hitting a wall after 60-plus quarters of growth. And so the question is, will its customers win? The big concern I have for the customers is, IBM has this nasty habit of raising prices when it does acquisitions. We've seen it a number of times. And so you keep an eye on it, if I were a Red Hat customer, I'd be locking in some attractive pricing, longterm. And I would also be calling Mark Shuttleworth, and get his take, and get that Amdahl coffee cup on my desk, as it were. Other winners and losers, your thoughts on some of the partners, and the ecosystem. >> Yeah, when I look at this and say, compare it to Microsoft buying GitHub. We're all wondering, is this a real game changer for IBM? And if they embrace the direction. It's not like Red Hat culture is going to just take over IBM. In the Q&A with IBM, they said, "Will there be influence? Absolutely. "Is this a marriage of equals? No. "We're buying Red Hat and we will be "communicating and working together on this" But you can see how this can help IBM, as to the direction. Open source and the multi-cloud world is a huge, important piece. Cisco, I think, could've made a move like this. I would've been a little bit more worried about maintaining open source purity, if it was somebody like Cisco. There's other acquisitions, you mentioned Canonical and SUSE are out there. If somebody wanted to do this, the role of the operating system is much less important than it is today. You wouldn't have seen Microsoft up on stage at Red Hat Summit this year if Windows was the driver for Microsoft going forward. The cloud companies out there, to be honest, it really cements their presence out there. I don't think AWS is sitting there saying, "Oh jeez, we need to worry." They're saying, "Well IBM's capitulated." Realizing that, "Sure they have their own cloud, "and their environment, but they're going to be "successful only when they live in, "and around, and amongst our platform of Amazon." And Azure's gonna feel the same way, and same about Google. So there's that dynamic there. >> What about VMware? >> So I think VMware absolutely is a loser here. When I went back to say one of the biggest strengths of IBM is that they have applications. When you talk about Red Hat, they're really working, not only at the infrastructure layer, but working with developers, and working in that environment. The biggest weakness of VMware, is they don't own the applications. I'm paying licenses to VMware. And in a multi-cloud world, why do I need VMware? As opposed to Red Hat and IBM, or Amazon, or Microsoft, have a much more natural affinity for the applications and the data in the future. >> And what about the arms dealers? HPE and Dell, in particular, and of course, Lenovo. Wouldn't they prefer Red Hat being independent? >> Absolutely, they would prefer that they're gonna stay independent. As long as it doesn't seem to customers that IBM is trying to twist everybody's arms, and get you on to Z, or Power, or something like that. And continues to allow partnerships with the HPEs, Dells, Lenovos of the world. I think they'll be okay. So I'd say middling to impact. But absolutely, Red Hat, as an independent, was really the Switzerland of the marketplace. >> Ginni Rometty had sited three growth areas. One was Red Hat scale and go-to-market. I think there's no question about that. IBM could help with Red Hat's go-to-market. The other growth vector was IBM's products and software on the Red Hat stack. I'm less optimistic there, because I think that it's the strength of IBM's products, in and of themselves, that are largely gonna determine that success. And then the third was Services. I think IBM Services is a huge winner here. Having the bat phone into Red Hat is a big win for IBM Services. They can now differentiate. And this is where I think it's gonna be really interesting to see the posture of Accenture and those other big guys. I think IBM can now somewhat differentiate from those guys, saying, "Well wait, "we have exclusive, or not exclusive, "but inside baseball access to Red Hat." So that's gonna be an interesting dynamic to watch. Your final thoughts here. >> Yeah, yeah, Dave, absolutely. On the product integration piece, the question would be, you're gonna have OpenAPIs. This is all gonna work with the entire ecosystem. Couldn't IBM have done more of this without having to pay $34 billion and put things together? Services, absolutely, will be the measurement as to whether this is successful or not. That's probably gonna be the line out of them in financials, that we're gonna have to look at. Because, Dave, going back to, what is hybrid, and how do we measure it? What is success for this whole acquisition down the line? Any final pieces to what we should watch and how we measure that? >> So I think that, first of all, IBM's really good with acquisitions, so keep an eye on that. I'm not so concerned about the debt. IBM's got strong free cash flow. Red Hat throws off a billion dollars a year in free cash flow. This should be an accretive acquisition. In terms of operating profits, it might take a couple of years. But certainly from a standpoint of free cash flow and revenue growth, I think it's gonna help near-term. If it doesn't, that's something that's really important to watch. And then the last thing is culture. You know a lot of people at these companies. I know a lot of people at these companies. Look, the Red Hat culture drinks the Kool-Aid of open. You know this. Do they see IBM as the steward of open, and are they gonna face a brain drain? That's why it's no coincidence that Whitehurst and Rometty were down in North Carolina today. And Arvin and Paul Cormier were in Boston today. This is where a lot of employees are for Red Hat. And they're messaging. And so that's very, very important. IBM's not foolish. So that, to me, Stu, is a huge thing, is the culture. Dave, IBM is no longer the navy suit with the red tie, and everybody buttoned down. People are concerned about like, oh, IBM's gonna give the Red Hat people a dress code. Sure, the typical IBMer is not in a graphic tee and a hoodie. But, Dave, you've seen such a transformation in IBM over the last couple of decades. >> Yeah, definitely. And I think this really does, in my view, cement, now, the legacy of Ginny Rometty, which was kinda hanging on Watson, and Cognitive, and this sort of bespoke set of capabilities, and the SoftLayer acquisition. It, now, all comes together. This is a major pivot by IBM. I think, strategically, it's the right move for IBM. And I think, if in fact, IBM can maintain Red Hat's independence and that posture, and maintain its culture and employee base, I think it does change the game for IBM. So I would say, smart move, good move. Expensive but probably worth it. >> Yeah, where else would they have put their money, Dave? >> Yeah, right. Alright, Stu, thank you very much for unpacking this announcement. And thank you for watching. We'll see you next time. (mellow electronic music)

>> Announcer: Live from San Francisco, it's theCUBE, covering DevNet Create 2017, brought to you by Cisco. >> Welcome back everyone, we're here live in San Francisco for theCUBE's special exclusive coverage of Cisco's inaugural event, DevNet Create, a foray into the developer opensource world as they extend their classic DevNet core developer program, three years old now, going into the opensource world, this is theCUBE, I'm John Furrier with my cohost, Peter Burris, our next guest is Matt Howard, EVP and CMO of Sonatype, knows something about opensource, Matt, great to have you on theCUBE, thanks for joining us. >> Thanks for having me. >> So first, talk about Sonatype, what do you guys do? Give a quick minute to describe the company, then I got some pointed questions for you. >> Well, we provide tools and intelligence to modern development organizations to basically reinvent how opensource components are flowing through the pipeline, through the value chain, through the development lifecycle. >> You guys are a service, SaaS service, are you guys a subscription? >> It's a subscription service, and we provide two products, there's a product which is a repository manager called Nexus where you store, organize, and distribute software binaries into the development lifecycle, and then there's a second server product called Nexus IQ, which provides intelligence on top of those binary, so think of it as like FDA food labeling database, so if you're looking at a bag of potato chips as a consumer, you can see that there's calories, sugar, salt, it's gluten-free. If you're looking at a software binary, you're able to see metadata that we provide, which allows you as a developer to make intelligent decisions with respect to, this component's good for my application 'cause it's properly licensed, or this component's good for my application because it doesn't have any-- >> So you're a verifying code, basically, in a way. >> Yeah, absolutely. Verifying and qualifying the opensource-- >> John: And the problem you solve for the customer as well. >> The customer basically gets to build applications at scale, at speed, with quality opensource components. >> So you take the worries off, like, with the licensing, does it work well, you're like Yelp for software? There're comments? >> Sort of, more like Amazon reviews for opensource binaries. >> Okay, great, cool, thanks for taking the time. So we was just talking in our intro, opensource, I'm old enough to know when we used to pirate software, and then opensource, woo, this is great, and then it became a tier two in the enterprise player, Red Hat brought it to tier one. It's booming. Communities are changing. You're in the middle of it, what's happening? Give us your take on how opensource is evolving, because it's the classic case of cliche, opensource, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants before me, and now the next generation is standing on the current generations of shoulders, a new generation's happening, what's going on? >> So, just think of supply and demand, simple supply. We live in a world right now where development organizations are facing an infinite supply of opensource, there's a thousand new opensource projects a day, 10,000 new versions and 14 releases per year. The supply is massive. And in a world where supply is incredible, consumption is equally incredible, last year alone, there were 52 billion download requests from Maven Central for Java binaries, 50 billion-plus requests for NPM packages in the JavaScript ecosystem, so we are basically dealing with a world where software is no longer a marginal cost to doing business, it is the business. Developers are king, developers are the lifeblood that's flowing through every great enterprise today, because innovation is ultimately the thing that will allow companies to compete and win on a global playing field! >> I mean, it's almost intoxicating for these guys who are just drinking from the trough of free software, because if you compound the new projects with the fact that Google and these guys are donating awesome libraries, Amazons, machine-learning stuff, it's not something to shake a stick at, it's great software! >> Yeah! >> TensorFlow, Spanner, I mean, all this stuff-- >> It's great software, and just think, in a world of infinite choice, which is the world we're living in, how do you make the best choice? >> So where's the growth coming from? Peter and I were speculating that, in talking to Abby Kearns yesterday from Cloud Foundry, and then with the Cloud Native Foundation, a lot of money's coming in so the business model for players and vendors are coming in, and suppliers now helping out and donating software, but we're speculating that there's a whole growth area that's different than we've seen before. Are we on that? Your comment to that, your thoughts on where this evolution's coming from, the next wave, is it horizontal? >> Our view is that the devops transformation from waterfall-native development to devops-native software development is happening and it's real, and it's arguably in the early days, but it's no stopping that train now. As organizations continue to reconcile demand from board members and shareholders and CEOs, how do you remain relevant, how do you be, put yourself into a position where you're innovating with software fast enough to remain competitive? And that's a tremendous pressure, and it's driving transformational change like devops, and so as that demand for speed continues to grow, we think it only increases the appetite for opensource, and it creates opportunities for organizations like ours to basically automate how that opensource innovation happens. >> We do a lot of crowd chats, to surface the landscape and the common theme that comes up is, oh, your organizational mindset has to change, and were commenting, Peter and I were talking yesterday about, if your org's not set up, you'll have, what's the law? >> Conway's law. >> Conway's law, where the output matches the organization, but the bigger question is, Ford CEO got fired, he's been in the job for less than four years, he didn't have time to transform, so the question is, how does opensource help people transform faster, do you have any observations around that? Because that's the number one question we get is, okay, I need to configure resources to do that, and then the other theme that we're hearing, I'd love to get your reaction on is, "Oh my God, I'm going to lose my job through automation." And certainly Cisco has networking guys who are looking down the barrel of potentially being irrelevant if they don't make the network programmable, so this is, we've lived through cycles, is it the mainframe guys who kind of lose their jobs, kind of thing going on? Or is it a transformative opportunity for the people as well? >> Yeah, it's a great question, there's a lot there, but I think the notion that they say software eats the world, a different way of viewing is automation eats the world, and if you look at, we refer to the 100-10-1 rule, today, in every large IT organization, you got 100 developers for every 10 IT operations professionals for every one security professional. It's impossible for the application security professionals to maintain governance over 100 software developers. If the old way of doing something like application security in this world where we're talking about infinite supply of opensource, needs to be automated with machine intelligence, it needs to be scalable early, everywhere, and throughout the entire development lifecycle, and unless it's not, you're going to basically get some of the benefit of opensource, but not all of the benefit of opensource. >> I want to push you a little bit in this, Matt, because, one might argue, and I'm going to be a little bit apocryphal here for a second, but one might argue that we also have an infinite supply of different types of bubblegum. And at the end of the day, one can say, "Well, do we need another bubblegum?" And we may or may not, and yet we do. So the reason why I'm bringing that up is I want to square the infinite supply, which I don't disagree with, with the idea that, certainly our clients, especially the big data side, are still concerned about the fact that they can't find tooling, or combinations of opensource tooling, that can help them with their use case. And so as you think about, one of the things that intrigued me about what your company does is the idea of to what degree can you start with a business problem, use that business problem to do some design work, and then based on that, start finding the tooling that will be most appropriate for solving the problem. >> Yeah, it's a great question, and I think it goes back to this idea of automation, let's just give a real world use case, this is one of many, but if the demand for speed and innovation is what shareholders, boards, and CEOs are looking for out of their IT organizations and their development teams, then the first thing you do, in the theory of constraints is you look for where is the friction, right? So theory of constraints basically points to something like the process inside of a large financial organization that involves a developer requesting approval for using an opensource component. How long does that take? How many people are involved in that process? How many hours, how many dollars? Does it have to be that hard? Or can you basically create policy, and define policy, and build, effectively, a firewall that then automatically governs the flow of opensource, healthy opensource components, into the development lifecycle? With no human intervention at pace, right? And that's the idea of what we're doing when we talk about scaling opensource innovation early, everywhere, and across the entire development lifecycle, it starts at the perimeter, the moment the development requests the opensource component for use, it has to be automated, you can't afford to take three months to approve it, he needs it now! >> So let me turn that around, and see if this is a service that you are providing, or actually could provide. Given that you probably visibility into a lot of the problems that the developer's trying to solve, and therefore, their ability to check opensource in and out from a variety of different sources, are you also gaining visibility in the types of stuff that people can't find, and making that information available to the world about, here's some of the places where the opensource world could step up and do perhaps a better job of delivering that software? And I'm specifically thinking of the big data universe, because there's so many, for example, I got a client, big financial institution, who is tearing his hair out right now trying to come up with some standard components for complex machine-learning pipelines. Real, real hard job, a lot of different tools, they work together at some level, but they're not solving the problem, 'cause they're more focused on solving each other project's problem. Am I making this? >> You are making a lot of sense, and you should introduce us to your friend, because we would love to have a conversation and talk exactly how it is that you can create prescriptive architectures with opensource components to remove friction back to the theory of constraints concept, I mean, this process of innovation has to flatten out, and we are very narrowly focused on one particular piece of that pipeline, and it is the making sure that the development organization is benefiting from all of the greatness that opensource has to offer, but none of the bad, and you have to do that with automation. >> So just really quick, John, for those of you who don't know, the theory of constraints, to a computer science person, looks like Amdahl's law. Speed up that which you do most frequently, for those of you who've ever done computer design. >> Herbie the Boy Scout. >> Exactly, so it's speed up the thing that is causing the most pain. >> Right, right, right. >> So the question I have for you this, okay, given what you guys do, which is a great service, cutting edge, it's in the devops wheelhouse, so, what is, in your opinion, the most important metric for your customer's success, vis a vis devops, okay, I'm in, I've been hearing about this cloud native thing and devops, we've got to change to Agile, we wrote a manifesto, we changed the organization, what is the important metric that you think they should look for for success? >> You know, there's a lot of metrics, there's no one answer, but I'll give you a really great one, since you mentioned Red Hat earlier. Red Hat is an amazing company that has probably done more for the evolution of opensource than anyone. They have a phenomenal track record of managing RHEL, the Red Hat Enterprise Linux stack, upstream and downstream, to the point where today, they publicly tell that the Red Hat Summit just recently in Boston, I think it's a day or two meantime to repair for a zero-day vulnerability. They understand the supply chain for RHEL extremely well, and from our perspective, we are trying to create the same type of hygiene for custom software development that RHEL has long practiced in support of Red Hat, Red Hat has long practiced in support of RHEL, and so meantime to repair, for example. If a zero-day vulnerability hits, do you have a software bill of materials? Are you wondering where that particular component is? Do you even have the component? How many applications in production are affected? I mean, this is a real-world scenario, just two weeks ago, with Struts 2, how many organizations are still working today to figure out the answer to that question? You'd be surprised, it takes organizations months-- >> Peter: But this is more than a library. >> This is more than a library. >> So explain why it's more than a library. >> Struts 2? >> No, what you're doing. >> What we're basically doing is imagining a software supply chain, so step back and imagine a world where you could build software applications the same way that Toyota builds cars. You have Deming's principles, which says you basically take and source the components or the parts from the fewer suppliers, and you source the absolute best parts, and you track and trace the location of those parts to every step of the supply chain all the way into production, so that Toyota recently had to conduct an orderly and effective recall for four million Takata airbags. Right? In software terms, the next time you're basically sitting on top of a zero day, you need the equivalent of that orderly effective recall so you can in a matter of minutes, not months, patch that vulnerability. >> Hence why you use Goldratt's theory of constraints, so in many respects, this is a digital supply chain tool? >> We believe it's software supply chain automation. >> What about digital? Can I also think about how digital objects can be included in that? Again, going back-- >> Containers? >> Going back to the big data notion? >> Yeah, absolutely, this is, supply chain theory is well understood in a physical goods world, certainly, if you look at how physical goods move through a supply chain, and you come to grips with what's happening in digital transformation today and the evolution of devops and the proliferation of opensource, continuous integration, continuous delivery, speed is king, it's all going in the direction of a supply chain. >> So, when you have so much bubblegum, as Peter said, after it loses its flavor, you get a new piece, right? So, same with software. Final question for you. You guys are doing well, I can imagine that operationally, as coming to operational as opensource, you're a key component there, and that seems like a good opportunity. How early are you on that operational progress? I mean, you just get started, you're making some money, which is good. >> To be frank-- >> You're the customer on the journey, in other words, people realize, "I got a operation on," so they're just doing it, not having a checks and balance. >> Our business is really interesting in the sense that product market fit for any young company can take quite a while, and we're fortunate enough to have a CEO who is remarkably patient and savvy and experienced, his name is Wayne Jackson, for anybody knows, here at the Cisco conference, he was previously the CEO of Sourcefire, so an interesting connection there, but patience is key, and we're being rewarded right now because all of the trends that you guys have already talked about here, and everything we've talked about at Cisco DevNet point to a simple fact, which is that software is key to how companies will compete and win in the future, and as long as that's true, they're going to be looking for ways to improve innovation. Right now, our business is early, we're still creating budget in some situations, but that's increasingly changing, and I would say that you should expect our business to continue to grow-- >> So people are operationalizing opensource, and they're getting serious about some of these things-- >> We're seeing budget now that we didn't see last year, for operationalizing the flow of opensource into a devops-- >> Final, final question, since I want to get your take on the show, Cisco's moves here into this world, obviously, a good move in our opinion, I'm sure you agree, risky for them, a good move, progress, what should they do next? Your thoughts and reaction to DevNet Create, 'cause man, they got DevNet, a growing, robust community of Cisco developers. DevNet Create, a new opportunity, what's your thoughts? >> I've learned a lot, I'm glad to be here, and just saw some things yesterday that make it very, very clear that DevNet Create and what Cisco's doing with it is a great move, I mean, my personal belief is that developers are king, and as you expose core services, network services to developers, an innovation happens, and value gets created, and so they've done so much at the network layer for so many years, and if they're now exposing that network sort of innovation to developers, it'll be exciting to see what kind of innovation happens. >> Matt, thanks for coming on theCUBE, really appreciate it, I'm glad we got you in, great to meet you last night, and congratulations on your startup that you're working with, and growth, and been around the industry a long time, you've seen a lot of waves, and appreciate the insight here on theCUBE, appreciate it. >> Appreciate you having me. >> Alright, we are live in San Francisco for exclusive coverage of Cisco's inaugural event DevNet Create, I'm John Furrier, Peter Burris, stay with us for more day two coverage after this short break. >> Hi, I'm April Mitchell, and I'm the Senior Director of Strategy and Planning for Cisco.

>> Announcer: Live from New York, it's theCUBE covering BigData New York City 2016, brought to you by headline sponsors Cisco, IBM, Nvidia, and our ecosystem sponsors. Now here are your hosts, Dave Vellante and Peter Burris. >> Welcome back to theCUBE everybody. This is BigData NYC and we are covering wall to wall, we've been here since Monday evening. We we're with Nvidia, Nvidia talking about deep learning, machine learning. Yesterday we had a full slate, we had eight data scientists up on stage yesterday and then we covered the IBM event last night, the rooftop party. Saw David Richards there, hanging out with him, and wall to wall today and tomorrow. Jagane Sundar is here, he is the CTO of WANdisco, great to see you again Jagane. >> Thanks for having me Dave. >> You're welcome. It's been a while since you and I sat down and I know you were on theCUBE recently at Oracle Headquarters, which I was happy to see you there and see the deals that are going on you've got good stuff going on with IBM, good stuff going on with Oracle, the Cloud is eating the world as we sort of predicted and knew but everybody wanted to put their head in the sand but you guys had to accommodate that didn't you. >> We did and if you remember us from a few years ago we were very very interested in the Hadoop space but along the journey we realized that our replication platform is actually much bigger than Hadoop. And the Cloud is just a manifestation of that vision. We had this ability to replicate data, strongly consistent, across wide area networks in different data centers and across storage systems so you can go from HDFS to a Cloud storage system like S3 or Azure Wasabi and we will do it with strong consistency. And that turned out to be a bigger deal than actually providing just replication for the Hadoop platform. So we expanded beyond our initial Hadoop Forex and now we're big in the Cloud. We replicate data to many Cloud providers and customers use us for many use cases like disaster recovery, migration, active/active, Cloud bursting, all of those interesting use cases. >> So any time I get you on theCUBE I like to refresh the 101 for me and for the audience that may not be familiar with it but you say strongly consistent, versus you hear the term eventual consistency, >> Jugane: Correct. >> What's the difference, why is the latter inadequate for the applications that you're serving. >> Right so when people say eventually consistent, what they don't remember is that eventually consistent systems often have different data in the different replicas and once in a while, once every five minutes or 15 minutes, they have to run an anti-entropy process to reconcile the differences and entropy is the total randomness right if you go back to your physics, high school physics. What you're really talking about is having random data and once every 10 minutes making it reconcile and the reconciliation process is very messy, it's like last right winds and the notion of time becomes important, how do you keep time accurate between those. Companies like Google have wonderful infrastructure where they have GPS and atomic clocks and they can do a better job but for the regular enterprise user that's a hard problem so often you get wrong data that's reconciled. So asking the same query you may get different answers and your different replicas. That's a bad sign, you want it consistent enough so you can guarantee results. >> Dave: And you've done this with math, right? >> Exactly, our basis is an algorithm called Paxos, which was invented by a gentleman called Leslie Lamport back in '89 but it took many decades for that algorithm to be widely understood. Our own chief scientists spent over a decade developing those, adding enhancements to make it run over the wide area network. The end result is a strongly consistent system, mathematically proven, that runs over the wide area network and it's completely resistant to failure of all sorts. >> That allows you to sort of create the same type of availability, data consistency as you mentioned Google with the atomic clocks, Spanner I presume, is this fascinating, I mean when the paper came out I was, my eyes were bleeding reading it and but that's the type of capability that you're able to bring to enterprises right? >> That's exactly right, we can bring similar capabilities across diverse networks. You can have regular networking gear, time synchronized by NTP, out in the Cloud, things are running in a virtual machine where time adrift most of the time, people don't realize that VMs are pretty bad at keeping time and all you get up in the Cloud is VMS. Across all those enviroments we can give you strongly consistent replication at the same quality that Google does with their hardware. So that's the value that we bring to the Fortune 500. >> So increasingly enterprises are recognizing that data has an, I don't want to say intrinsic value but data is a source of value in context all by itself. Independent of any hardware, independent of any software. That it's something that needs to be taken care of and you guys have an approach for ensuring that important aspects of it are better taken care of. Not the least of which, is that you can provide an option to a customer who may make a bad technology choice one day to make a better technology choice the next day and not be too worried about dead ending themselves. I'm reminded of the old days when somebody who was negotiating an IBM main frame deal would put an Amdahl coffee cup in front of IBM or put an Oracle coffee cup in front of SAP. Do you find customers metaphorically putting a WANdisco coffee cup in front of those different options and say these guys are ensuring that our data remains ours? >> Customers are a lot more sophisticated now, the scenarios that you pointed out are very very funny but what customers come to us for is the exact same thing, the way they ask it is, I want to move to Cloud X, but I want to make sure that I can also run on Cloud Y and I want to do it seamlessly without any downtime on my on-prem applications that are running. We can give them that. Not only are they building a disaster recovery environment, often they're experimenting with multiple Clouds at the same time and may the better Cloud win. That puts a lot of competition and pressure on the actual Cloud applications they're trying. That's a manifestation in modern Cloud terms of the coffee cup competitor in the face that you just pointed out. Very funny but this how customers are doing it these days. >> So are you using or are they starting to, obviously you are able to replicate with high fidelity with strong fidelity, strong consistency, large volumes of data. Are you starting to see customers, based on that capability actually starting to redesign how they set up their technology plant? >> Absolutely, when customers were talking about hybrid Cloud which was pretty well hyped a year or so ago, they basically had some data on-prem and some other data in the Cloud and they were doing stuff but what we brought to them was the ability to have the same data both on-prem and in the Cloud, maybe you had a weekly analytics job that took a lot of resources. You'd burst that out into the Cloud and run it up there, move the result of that analytics job back on-prem. You'd have it with strong consistency. The result is that true hybrid Cloud is enabled when only when you have the same exact data available in all of your Cloud locations. We're the only company that can provide that so we've got customers that are expanding their Cloud options because of the data consistency we offer. >> And those Cloud options are obviously are increasing >> Jugane: They are. >> But there's also a recognition that it's as we gain more experience with Cloud, that different workloads are better than others as we move up there. Now Oracle with some of their announcements last week may start to push the envelope on that a little bit but as you think about where the need for moving large volumes of data with high, with strong consistency what types of applications do you think people are focusing on? Is it mainly big data or are there other application styles or job types that you think are going to become increasingly important? >> So we've got much more than big data, one of the big sources of leads for us now is our capability to migrate netapp filers up into the Cloud and that has suddenly become very important because an example I'd like to give is a big financial firm that has all of its binaries and applications and user data and netapp filers, the actual data is in HDFS on-prem. They're moving their binaries from the netapp up into the Cloud in a specific Cloud windows equal into the filer and the big data part of it from HDFS up into Cloud object store, we are the only platform that can deal with both in the strong consistent manner that I've talked about and we're a single replication platform so that gives them the ability to make the sort of a migration with very low risk. One of the attributes of our migration is that we do it with no downtime. You don't have to take your online, your on-prem environment offline in order to do the migration so they are doing that so we see a lot of business from that sort of migration efforts where people have data in mass filers, people have data in other non-HDFS storage systems. We're happy to migrate all of those. Our replication platform approach, which we've taken in the last year and a half or so is really paying off in that respect. >> And you couldn't do that with conventional migration techniques because it would take too long, you'd have to freeze the applications? >> A couple of things, one you'd probably have to take the applications offline, second you'd be using tools of periodic synchronization variety such as RSYNC and anybody in the devops or operations whose ever used RSYNC across the wide area network will tell you how bad that experience is. It really is a very bad experience. We've got capability to migrate netapp filer data without imposing a load on the netapp's on-prem so we can do it without pounding the crap out of the netapp's server such that they can't offer service to their existing customers. Very low impact on the network configuration, application configuration. We can go in, start the migration without downtime, maybe it takes two, three days for the data to get up over there because of mavenlink. After that is done, you can start playing with it up in the Cloud. And you can cut over seamlessly so there's so real downtime, that's the capability we've seen. >> But you've also mentioned one data type, binaries, they can't withstand error propagation. >> Jugane: Absolutely. >> And so being able to go to a customer and say you're going to have to move these a couple times over the course of the next n-months or years, as a consequence of the new technology that's now available and we can do so without error propagation is going to have a big impact on how well their IT infrastructure, their IT asset base runs in five years. >> Indeed, indeed. That's very important. Having the ability to actually start the application, having the data in a consistent and true form so you can start, for example, the data base and have it mount the actual data so you can use it up in the Cloud, those are capabilities that are very important to customers. >> So there's another application. If you think about, you tend to be more bulk, the question I'm going to ask is and at what point in time is the low threshold in terms of specific types of data movement. Here's why I'm asking. IOT data is a data source or is a use-case that has often the most stringent physical constraints possible. Time, speed of light, has an implication but also very importantly, this notion of error propagation really matters. If you go from a sensor to a gateway to another gateway to another gateway you will lose bits along the way if you're not very careful. >> Correct. >> And in a nuclear power plant, that doesn't work that way. >> Jugane: Yeah. >> Now we don't have to just look at a nuclear power plant as an example but there's increasingly industrial IOTs starting to dramatically impact not just life and death circumstances but business success or failure. What types of smaller batch use-cases do you guys find yourselves operating in, in places like IOT where this notion of error or air control strong consistency is so critical? >> So one of the most popular applications that use our replication is Spark and Spark Streaming which as you can imagine is a big part of most IOT infrastructure, we can do replication such that you ingest into the closest data center, you go from your server or your car or whatever to the closest data center, you don't have to go multiple hops. We will take care consistency from there on. What that gives you is the ability to say I have 12 data centers with my IOT infrastructure running, one data center goes down, you don't have a downtime at all. It's only the data that was generated inside the data center that's lost. All client machines connecting to that data center will simply connect to another data center, strong replication continues, this gives you the ability to ingest at very large volumes while still maintaining the consistency and IOT is a big deal for us, yes. >> We're out of time but I got a couple of last minute questions if I may. So when you integrate with IBM, Oracle, what kind of technical issues do you encounter, what kind of integration do you have to do, is it lightweight, heavyweight, middleweight? >> It's middleweight I would say. IBM is a great example, they have a deep integration with our product and some of the authentication technology they use was more advanced than what was available in open source at that time. We did a little of work, and they did a little bit of work to make that work, but other than that, it's a pretty straight forward process. The end result is that they have a number of their applications where this is a critical part of their infrastructure. >> Right, and then road map. What can you tell us about, what should we look for in the future, what kind of problems are you going to be solving? >> So we look at our platform as the best replication engine in the world. We're building an SDK, we expect custom plugins for different other applications, we expect more high-speed streaming data such as IOT data, we want to be the choice for replication. As for the plugins themselves, they're getting easier and easier to build so you'll see wide coverage from us. >> Jugane, thanks so much for coming to theCUBE, always a pleasure to have you. >> Thank you for having me. >> You're welcome. Alright keep it right there everybody, we'll be back to wrap. This is theCUBE, we're live from NYC. We'll be right back. (upbeat electronic music)

>>live from the Frederick P Rose Hall, home of jazz at Lincoln center in New York, New York. It's the queue at IBM Z. Next redefining digital business. Brought to you by headline sponsor. IBM. >>Hey everyone. We are here live in New York city for the IBM Z system. Special presentation of the cube. I'm John furrier, cofounder SiliconANGLE at my coast. Dave Alante co founder Wiki bond.org. Dave, we are here with gathering Corine, vice president of the Z systems technology. Welcome to the cube. Great to have you. >>Thank you. I'm really glad to be here. It's an exciting day for us. >>We had a great conversation last night. I wanted to just get you introduced to the crowd one year overseeing a lot of the technology side of it. You're involved in the announcement, but uh, you're super technical and uh, and, and the speeds and feeds of this thing are out there. It's in the news, it's in the press, but it's not really getting the justice. And we were talking earlier on our intro about how the main frame is back in modernize, but it's not your grandfather's mainframe. Tell us what's different, what's the performance tech involved, why is it different and what should people be aware of? >>Sure. So this machine really is unmatched. We have tremendous scale performance in multiple dimensions that we can talk through. The IO subsystem provides tremendous value security that's unmatched. So many of the features and attributes to the system just cannot be compared to other platforms. And the Z 13 what we're announcing today evolves and improves so many of those attributes. We really designed the system to support transaction growth from mobility, to do analytics in the system, integrated with the data and the transactions that we can drive insights when they really matter and support it. Cloud delivery. >>So there's two, two threads that are out there in the news that we've wanted to pivot on. One is the digital business model, and that's out in the press release is all the IBM marketing and action digital business. We believe as transformers, that's pretty much something that's gonna be transformative. But performance with the cloud has been touted, Hey, basically unlimited performance with cloud. Think of compute as a not a scarce resource anymore. How do you guys see that? Cause you guys are now pushing performance to a whole nother level. Why can't I just get scale out saying or scale out infrastructure, build data centers. What is this fitted with that mindset or is it, >>yeah, so I, there's, there's performance in so many different dimensions and I'll can talk you through a few of them. So at the, at the heart of the technology in this system, we have tremendous value in from the processor up. So starting at the base technology, we build the microprocessor in 22 nanometer technology, eight cores per chip. We've got four layers of cash integrate on this. More cash that can be accessed from these processor cores then can compare to anything else. Tremendous value. Don't have to go out through IO to memory as frequently as you would have to in other environments. We also have an iOS SIS subsystem that has hundreds of additional processing cores that allows you to drive workload fast through that. Um, so I think it's the, it's, it's the, the, the scale of this system that can allow you to do things in a single footprint that you have to do with a variety of distributed environments separately coupled with unique security features, embedded encryption capability on the processor, PCIE attached, tamper resistance, cryptography, compression engines as so many of these technologies that come together to build a system. >>So IBM went to the, went to the, went to the woodshed back and took all the good technology from the back room cobbled together. Cause you guys have done some pretty amazing things in the, what they call proprietary days, been mainframe back in the sixties seventies eighties and client server a lot of innovation. So you guys, is that true? Would that be an accurate statement? You guys kind of cobbled together and engineered this system with the best >>engineered from, from from soup to nuts, from the casters up. We live, we literally have made innovations at almost every level here in the system. Now it's evolved from previous generations and we have tremendous capabilities in the prior ones as well. But you see across almost every dimension we have improved performance scape scalability capability. Um, and we've done that while opening up the platform. So some of the new capabilities that we're discussing today include enterprise Linux. So Linux on the platform run Linux on many platforms. Linux is Linux, but it's even better on the Z 13 because now you have the scalability, the security, the availability behind it and new open support, we're announcing KVM will be supported on this platform later this year we have OpenStack supported, we're developing an ecosystem around this. We have renouncing Postgres, Docker, no JS support on the mainframe. And that's tremendously exciting because now we're really broadening a user base and allowing users to do a lot more with Linux on the main. >>So one of the big themes that we're hearing today is bringing marrying analytics and transaction systems together. You guys are very excited about that. Uh, one of the, even even the New York times article referenced this, people are somewhat confused about this because other people talk about doing it. We go to the Hadoop world, you know, we talked big data, spark in memory databases, SAP doing their stuff with Hannah. What's different about what Z systems are doing? >>That's a great question. So today many users are moving data off of platforms, including the mainframe to do their analytics. Moving back on this ETL process, extract, transform load. It's incredibly expensive, cumbersome copies of that data. You have redundancy, you have security risk, tremendous complexity to manage. And it's totally unnecessary today because you can do that analytics now on the system Z platform, driving tremendous capability insights that can be done within the transaction and integrated where the transactions and the data live. So much more value to do that. And we've built up a portfolio of capabilities and some of them are new. We're an announcing as part of today's event as well that can allow us to do transformation of the data analytics of that data. And it, and it's, it's at every level, right? We have embedded analytics, accelerators in the process or a new engine we call Cindy single instruction. Multiple data allows you to do, uh, a mathematical, uh, vector processing. >>Let's drill down on that. I want to get your particular on this. You have the in process or stuff is compelling to me. I like, I want to drill down on that. Get technical. Right now all the rage is in memory in memory. She's not even on the big data. Spark has got traction for the analytics. DTL thing is a huge problem. I think that's 100% accurate across the board. We hear that all the time. But what's going on in the process server because you guys have advanced not just in memory, it's in processor. What is that architecture, what are the, some of the tech features and why is that different than just saying, Hey, I'm doing a lot of in memory. >>So, so the process or has um, a deeper and richer cash hierarchy, um, than, than we see in other environments. That means we have four layers of cash. Two of those cash layers are embedded within the processor core itself. They're private to the core. The next layer is on the processor chip and it's shared amongst all those cores. And the fourth layer on a herder, right, is on a separate chip. It's huge. It's embedded DRAM technology. It's a tremendously large cash and we've expanded that, which means you don't have to go out to memory nearly as frequently because you, >>you stayed in the yard that stayed in the yard today in memory is state of the art today. You guys have taken it advanced inside the core. What kind of performances that dude, what's the, what's the advantage? >>There's huge performance advantages to that. We see, we see, we can do, uh, analytics. Numbers are something like 17 times faster than comparable solutions. Being able to bring those analytics into the system for insights when you need them, right? To be able to do faster of scoring of transactions, to be able to do faster fraud detection with so many applications. So many industries are looking to be able to bring these insights faster, more co-located with the data and not have to wait the latency associated with moving data off and, and, and doing some sort of analysis on data that's stale. How that's not interesting. We really want to be able to to integrate that where the data and the transactions live and we can now do that on the. >>So in memory obviously is awesome, right? You can go much faster. A best IO is no IO as gene Amdahl would say, but if something goes wrong and you have to flush the memory in reload >>everything, it's problematic. How does IBM address that? So to minimize that problem relative to we hear you hear complaints and other architectures that that that's problematic. How do you solve that problem or have you solved that problem? >>Well, you know, I think it's a combination of, of the cash, the memory and the analytics capabilities, the resiliency of the system. So you worry about machines going down, failures and we've built in security, reliability, redundancy at every level to prevent failures. We have diagnostic capabilities, things like the IBM Z aware solution, right? This is a solution that's been used to monitor the system behavior so that you can identify anomalous behaviors before you have a problem that's been available with cos. now we're extending that to Linux for the first time. We have solutions like disaster recovery, continuous availability solutions like the GDPs, uh, it's now extended to be a virtual appliance for Linux. So I, there's so many features and functions. This system allow you to have a much more robust, capable, >>popular is Linux. Can you quantify that? You guys talk a lot about Linux and can you give us some percentage? >>Linux has been around for 15 years on the mainframe and um, we have a very good user adoption. We're, we're, we're seeing a large fraction of our clients are running Linux either all by itself or in concert with Zoes. >>So double digit workloads. >>Yeah, it's a very, it's a very significant fraction of the myths in the field today. >>God, I don't want to get a personal perspective from you on some things. One, you went, uh, you have an applied physics degree from Yale, master's from an applied physics from Stanford, PhD, applied physics from Stanford and all the congratulations by the way, you're super smart means you, it means you can get to the schools you means you're, you're smart. But the rage is software defined, right? So I want you to tell us from your perspective being in applied physics, the advances in Silicon is really being engineered now. So is it the combination of that software defined? What's your perspective? What should people know about the tech at the physics side of it? Cause you can't change physics know the other day, but Silicon is doing some good stuff. So talk about that, that convergence between the physics, Silicon and software. >>Yeah, that's a, that's a great question. So I think what sets us apart here with the mainframe is our ability to integrate across that stack. So you're right, Silicon Silicon piece of 22 nanometers Silicon, we can all do similar things with it, but when you co optimize what you do with that Silicon with high-performance system design, with innovations at every level, from where operating systems software, you can build an end to end solution that's unmatched. And with an IBM, we, we, we do that. We really have an opportunity to collaborate across the stack. So can we put things in the operating system? It can take advantage of something that's in that hardware and being able to do that gives us a unique opportunity. And we've done that here, right? Whether it's the Cyndi accelerator and having our software capabilities or see Plex optimizes a Java, be able to take advantage of what's in that, uh, in that microprocessor, we see that with new instructions that we offer here that can be taken advantage of compilers that optimize for what's in the technology. So I think it's that, it's that co optimization across the stack. You're right, software as a user, you see the software, you see the solution, you see the capability at the machine. But to get that you need the infrastructure underneath it, you need the capabilities that can be exploited by the software. And that's why that, >>and we're seeing that in dev ops right now with the dev ops movement. You're seeing, I want to abstract away the complexities of infrastructure and have software be more optimized. And here you guys are changing the state of the art in with the in-memory to in processor architecture, but also you're enabling developers and software to work effectively. >>Right? And I think about cloud service delivery, right? You know, and we would love to be able to offer end users it as a service so we can access the mainframe. All of those qualities of service that we know and love about the mainframe without the complexity and can do that. Technologies like Zoes connect and Blumix with system Z mobile first platform, allowing you to connect from systems, engagements, the six systems of Rutgers deploy Z services. So you can, we were trying to help our clients to be able to not be cost centers for their, uh, for their firms but to provide value added services. And that can be done with the capabilities on the main. >>So no, Docker, OpenStack KVM, obviously we talked about Linux. What does that mean from a business standpoint, from the perspective of running applications? Can you sort of walk us through what you expect clients to do or what >>it's, it's, it's all about standardization and really expanding an ecosystem for users on the platform. And we want anybody running Linux anywhere to be able to run it on, run their applications, develop their applications on the mainframe. And to be able to take advantage of the consolidation opportunities driven by the scale the platform and be able to drive unmatched end to end security solutions on this plot. Right? It's, it's a combination of enabling an ecosystem to be able to do what users expect to be able to do. And that ecosystem continues to evolve. It's very rapidly changing. We know we have to respond, but we want to make sure that we are providing the capabilities that developers and users expect on the platform. And I think we've taken a tremendous leap at the Z 13 to be able to do that. >>So obviously Linux opened up. That was the starting point. Right? Um, what do you expect with the sort of new open innovations? Will you pull in more workloads, more applications or, >>I certainly believe we will. And you know, new workloads on the platform. This is, this is a, an evolution for us and we continue to see the opportunity to bring new workloads to the platform. Things, support of, of, of Linux. And the expanding ecosystem there helps us to do that effectively. We see that, whether it's um, the, the, the transaction growth from mobile and being able to say, what does that mean for the mainframe? How can we not just respond to that but take advantage, enable new opportunities there. And I, so I think absolutely Linux will help us to grow workloads to get into new spaces and really continue to modernize the mainframe. >>John and I were talking at the open Paul Moritz at the time, CEO of VMware in 2009. So we are going to build a software mainframe. Um, interesting, very bold statement. Don't, where's he working on pivotal? Do you have a software mainframe? Have you already built it? >>I don't think you can have software that running on something. And so the mainframe is not a piece of hardware. The mainframe's a solution. It's a platform that includes technology, infrastructure, hardware and the software capabilities that run on it. And as I said, I think it's the integration that the co optimization across that really provides value to clients. I don't know how you can have a software solution without some fundamental infrastructure that gives you the qualities of service. That's so much of the inherent security availability. All of that is >>that's a marketing. It didn't, it didn't pan out. The vision was beautiful and putting a great PowerPoint together. he went to pivotal now, but I think what's happening is what you're, what you're talking about is it's distributed mainframe capability. The scale out open source movement has driven the wannabe mainframe market to explode. And so what now you look at Amazon, you can Google look at these, these power data centers. They are mainframes. In essence, they are centralized places. Well, they want to say the cloud is a software mainframe. Software runs on these data centers. So instead of having rack and stack, uh, three x86 processors, you just drop into mainframe or God box as I call it. And you have this monster box that's highly optimized and then you could have clusters of other stuff around it. Your argument is the integration is what, what makes the difference that end. And so Amazon makes their own gear, right? We know that now they don't do open compute. They're making their own gear. So people who want to be Amazon would probably go to some kind of hybrid mainframe. Like they're not making their own. 70 makes sense of that cause Amazon, I mean they purpose built their own boxes. They are building their own point though, right? I mean to the outside of the box. Right. >>The way I see it as is for for mission critical applications where you cannot support any downtime, you want to have a system that's built from the ground up for pure availability for security and we have that right? We have a system that you can prevent failures, right? We have redundancy at so many levels. We have, we have, you know, if a transaction, different model rate, you win when you take money out of your account or when you transfer money more potently into your account, you need to make sure it's there, right? You want to know that with a hundred percent confidence and to do that I would expect you feel more confident running that >>credit card transactions, same game all over again. Mission critical versus non mission critical, I mean internet of things. But what's not mission critical is my follow up question here of things. Some sensors data that's passive. I, if it's running my airplane, ass running your temperature. Oh, you're down for 10 minutes. I mean, yeah, >>there were some times that we would accept, accepts and downs. >>Lumpy. No, it's really about lumpy SLA performing. Amazon gets away with that because the economics are fantastic, right? So you can't be lumpy and bank transaction. What about costs versus, Oh mainframe. So expensive, so expensive. You guys put out some TCO data that suggest it's less expensive. Help us get through that. >>Yeah, so, so I think when we look at total cost of ownership, we're often looking at the savings to administration and the management of the complexity of sprawl. And with the mainframe, because you have such scale and what you can include in it in a single footprint, you can now consolidate so much into this literally very small environment and the cost savings because of the integration capabilities, because of the performance that you can contain within this box, you see end-to-end cost savings for our clients. And in that, that the break even point is not so large. Right. And so you talked about mission critical. If you're doing your mission critical work on your mainframe and you have other things that you need to do that aren't, you don't consider perhaps as mission critical, you have an opportunity to consolidate. You can do that all on the same platform. You're, you're not, you know, we, we can run with tremendous utilization. You can, you want to use these machines for all their work. >>So sorry. So a follow up on that. So the stickiness then AKA lock-in used to be, I got a bunch of COBOL code that won't run anywhere else. He got me, I got to keep buying Mayfair. I was just saying now the stickiness is for the types of workloads that your clients are running. It is cheaper. That's your, >>it's cheaper. And I think it has unmatched capability, availability, security features that you can't find in other solutions. >>And if you had to, in theory you could replicate it, but it would just be so expensive with people. >>In theory, I, okay. But I think some the fundamental technologies and solutions across that stack, who else can do that? Right. Okay. Can integrate solutions in the hardware and all the way up that stack. And, and I, I don't know anyone else, >>tell me what, tell me what, in your opinion, what gets you most excited about this technology platform? I mean, is there a couple things? Just are one thing saying >>that is so game changing. I'm super excited by this. Um, I can't sleep at night. I'm intoxicated technically. I mean, what gets you jazzed up on this? >>Well, I, I'll tell you, it's, today's a really proud day. I have to say being here and being a part of this launch, you know, personally having been a part of the development, been an IBM for 15 years. I spent the last eight years doing hardware development, including building components and key parts of the system. And now to see us bring that to market and with the value that I know we're bringing to clients, it's, it get, I, I get a little choked up. I truly, honestly, I truly, honestly feel really, really proud about what we've done. Um, so in terms of what is most exciting, um, I think the analytics story is incredibly powerful and I think being able to take a bunch of the technologies that we've built up over time, including some of the new capabilities like in database transformation and advanced analytics that we'll be continuing to roll out over the course of this year. I think this can be really transformative and I think we can help our clients to take advantage of that. I think they will see tremendous value to their business. We'll be able to do things that we simply couldn't do with the old model of moving data off and, and having the latency that comes with that. So I'm really excited about that >>nice platform, not just a repackaging of mainframe. Okay, great. So second, final question from me I want to ask you is two perspectives on, um, the environment, the society we live in. So first let's talk it CIO, CEO, what mindset should they be in as this new transformation? The digital businesses upon them and they have the ability to rearchitect now with mainframe and cloud and data centers. What should they be thinking about as someone who has a PhD in applied physics, been working on this killer system? What is the, what's the moonshot for that CIO and, and how should they be thinking about their architecture right now? >>So I think CEO's need to be thinking about what is a good solution for the variety of problems that they have in their shops and not segment those as we've often seen. Um, you have the x86 distributed world and maybe you have a main frame this and that. I begin to think about this more holistically about the set of challenges you need to go address as a business. And what capabilities do you want to bring to bear to solve those problems? I think that when you think about it that way, you get away from good enough solutions. You get away from some of this, um, mindset that you have about this only plays over there. And this only plays over there. And I think you open yourself up for new possibilities that can drive tremendous value to their businesses. And we can think differently about how to use technology, drive efficiency, drive performance, and real value. >>Last night at dinner, we, we all, we all have families and kids. Um, and you know, even there's a lot of talk about software driving the world these days. And it is, software's amazing. It's great. Best time to be a software developer. Since I've been programming since I was in college and, and it's so much so awesome with open source. However, there's a real culture hacker culture now with hardware. So, um, what's your advice to young people out there? You know, middle schoolers or parents that have kids in middle school for women, young girls, young boys with this. Now you've got drones, you've got hackers, raspberry pie, these kinds of things are going on. You've got kind of this Homebrew computer mindset. These young kids, they don't even know what Apple butter >>I would say it is, it is so exciting. Uh, the, the, the engineering world, the technology challenges, hardware or software. And I wouldn't even differentiate. I think we have a tremendous opportunity to do new and exciting things here. Um, I would say to young girls and boys don't opt out too soon. That means take your classes, studying math and science in school and keep it as an option because you might find when you're in high school or college or beyond, that you really want to do this cool stuff. And if you haven't taken the basics, you, you find yourselves not in a position to be able to, to, to, to team and build great things and deliver new products and provide a lot of value. So I think it's a really exciting area. And I've been >>it's a research as I'm seeing like this. I mean I went to the 30th anniversary for apples Macintosh in Cupertino last year and that whole Homebrew computer club was a hacker culture. You know, the misfits, if you will. And a coder camp. >>I think that think there are people who grow up in, always know that they want to be the engineer, the software developer. And that's great. And then there are others of us, and I'll put myself in that in that space that you may have a lot of different interests. And what has drawn me to engineering and to the, the work that we do here is has been the, the ability to solve tough problems, to, to do something you've never, no one has ever done before, to team with fantastically smart people and to build new technology. I think it's an incredibly exciting space and I encourage people to think about that opportunity >>from a person who has a PhD in applied physics. That's awesome. Thank Kevin. Thanks for joining us here inside the queue, VP of systems. Again, great time to be a software build. Great time to be making hardware and solutions. This is the cue. We're excited to be live in New York city. I'm John furry with Dave Alante. We'll be right back. This rep break.