(upbeat music) (upbeat music) >> Hi everybody, welcome back to our coverage of the Cloud Native Security Con. I'm Dave Vellante, here in our Boston studio. We're connecting today with Palo Alto, with John Furrier and Lisa Martin. We're also live from the show floor in Seattle. But right now, I'm here with Andy Thurai who's from Constellation Research, friend of theCUBE, and we're going to discuss the intersection of AI and security, the potential of AI, the risks and the future. Andy, welcome, good to see you again. >> Good to be here again. >> Hey, so let's get into it, can you talk a little bit about, I know this is a passion of yours, the ethical considerations surrounding AI. I mean, it's front and center in the news, and you've got accountability, privacy, security, biases. Should we be worried about AI from a security perspective? >> Absolutely, man, you should be worried. See the problem is, people don't realize this, right? I mean, the ChatGPT being a new shiny object, it's all the craze that's about. But the problem is, most of the content that's produced either by ChatGPT or even by others, it's an access, no warranties, no accountability, no whatsoever. Particularly, if it is content, it's okay. But if it is something like a code that you use for example, one of their site projects that GitHub's co-pilot, which is actually, open AI + Microsoft + GitHub's combo, they allow you to produce code, AI writes code basically, right? But when you write code, problem with that is, it's not exactly stolen, but the models are created by using the GitHub code. Actually, they're getting sued for that, saying that, "You can't use our code". Actually there's a guy, Tim Davidson, I think he's named the professor, he actually demonstrated how AI produces exact copy of the code that he has written. So right now, it's a lot of security, accountability, privacy issues. Use it either to train or to learn. But in my view, it's not ready for enterprise grade yet. >> So, Brian Behlendorf today in his keynotes said he's really worried about ChatGPT being used to automate spearfishing. So I'm like, okay, so let's unpack that a little bit. Is the concern there that it just, the ChatGPT writes such compelling phishing content, it's going to increase the probability of somebody clicking on it, or are there other dimensions? >> It could, it's not necessarily just ChatGPT for that matter, right? AI can, actually, the hackers are using it to an extent already, can use to individualize content. For example, one of the things that you are able to easily identify when you're looking at the emails that are coming in, the phishing attack is, you look at some of the key elements in it, whether it's a human or even if it's an automated AI based system. They look at certain things and they say, "Okay, this is phishing". But if you were to read an email that looks exact copy of what I would've sent to you saying that, "Hey Dave, are you on for tomorrow? Or click on this link to do whatever. It could individualize the message. That's where the volume at scale to individual to masses, that can be done using AI, which is what scares me. >> Is there a flip side to AI? How is it being utilized to help cybersecurity? And maybe you could talk about some of the more successful examples of AI in security. Like, are there use cases or are there companies out there, Andy, that you find, I know you're close to a lot of firms that are leading in this area. You and I have talked about CrowdStrike, I know Palo Alto Network, so is there a positive side to this story? >> Yeah, I mean, absolutely right. Those are some of the good companies you mentioned, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto, Darktrace is another one that I closely follow, which is a good company as well, that they're using AI for security purposes. So, here's the thing, right, when people say, when they're using malware detection systems, most of the malware detection systems that are in today's security and malware systems, use some sort of a signature and pattern scanning in the malware. You know how many identified malwares are there today in the repository, in the library? More than a billion, a billion. So, if you are to check for every malware in your repository, that's not going to work. The pattern based recognition is not going to work. So, you got to figure out a different way of identification of pattern of usage, not just a signature in a malware, right? Or there are other areas you could use, things like the usage patterns. For example, if Andy is coming in to work at a certain time, you could combine a facial recognition saying, that should he be in here at that time, and should he be doing things, what he is supposed to be doing. There are a lot of things you could do using that, right? And the AIOps use cases, which is one of my favorite areas that I work, do a lot of work, right? That it has use cases for detecting things that are anomaly, that are not supposed to be done in a way that's supposed to be, reducing the noise so it can escalate only the things what you're supposed to. So, AIOps is a great use case to use in security areas which they're not using it to an extent yet. Incident management is another area. >> So, in your malware example, you're saying, okay, known malware, pretty much anybody can deal with that now. That's sort of yesterday's problem. >> The unknown is the problem. >> It's the unknown malware really trying to understand the patterns, and the patterns are going to change. It's not like you're saying a common signature 'cause they're going to use AI to change things up at scale. >> So, here's the problem, right? The malware writers are also using AI now, right? So, they're not going to write the old malware, send it to you. They are actually creating malware on the fly. It is possible entirely in today's world that they can create a malware, drop in your systems and it'll it look for the, let me get that name right. It's called, what are we using here? It's called the TTPs, Tactics, Techniques and procedures. It'll look for that to figure out, okay, am I doing the right pattern? And then malware can sense it saying that, okay, that's the one they're detecting. I'm going to change it on the fly. So, AI can code itself on the fly, rather malware can code itself on the fly, which is going to be hard to detect. >> Well, and when you talk about TTP, when you talk to folks like Kevin Mandia of Mandiant, recently purchased by Google or other of those, the ones that have the big observation space, they'll talk about the most malicious hacks that they see, involve lateral movement. So, that's obviously something that people are looking for, AI's looking for that. And of course, the hackers are going to try to mask that lateral movement, living off the land and other things. How do you see AI impacting the future of cyber? We talked about the risks and the good. One of the things that Brian Behlendorf also mentioned is that, he pointed out that in the early days of the internet, the protocols had an inherent element of trust involved. So, things like SMTP, they didn't have security built in. So, they built up a lot of technical debt. Do you see AI being able to help with that? What steps do you see being taken to ensure that AI based systems are secure? >> So, the major difference between the older systems and the newer systems is the older systems, sadly even today, a lot of them are rules-based. If it's a rules-based systems, you are dead in the water and not able, right? So, the AI-based systems can somewhat learn from the patterns as I was talking about, for example... >> When you say rules-based systems, you mean here's the policy, here's the rule, if it's not followed but then you're saying, AI will blow that away, >> AI will blow that away, you don't have to necessarily codify things saying that, okay, if this, then do this. You don't have to necessarily do that. AI can somewhat to an extent self-learn saying that, okay, if that doesn't happen, if this is not a pattern that I know which is supposed to happen, who should I escalate this to? Who does this system belong to? And the other thing, the AIOps use case we talked about, right, the anomalies. When an anomaly happens, then the system can closely look at, saying that, okay, this is not normal behavior or usage. Is that because system's being overused or is it because somebody's trying to access something, could look at the anomaly detection, anomaly prevention or even prediction to an extent. And that's where AI could be very useful. >> So, how about the developer angle? 'Cause CNCF, the event in Seattle is all around developers, how can AI be integrated? We did a lot of talk at the conference about shift-left, we talked about shift-left and protect right. Meaning, protect the run time. So, both are important, so what steps should be taken to ensure that the AI systems are being developed in a secure and ethically sound way? What's the role of developers in that regard? >> How long do you got? (Both laughing) I think it could go for base on that. So, here's the problem, right? Lot of these companies are trying to see, I mean, you might have seen that in the news that Buzzfeed is trying to hire all of the writers to create the thing that ChatGPT is creating, a lot of enterprises... >> How, they're going to fire their writers? >> Yeah, they replace the writers. >> It's like automated automated vehicles and automated Uber drivers. >> So, the problem is a lot of enterprises still haven't done that, at least the ones I'm speaking to, are thinking about saying, "Hey, you know what, can I replace my developers because they are so expensive? Can I replace them with AI generated code?" There are a few issues with that. One, AI generated code is based on some sort of a snippet of a code that has been already available. So, you get into copyright issues, that's issue number one, right? Issue number two, if AI creates code and if something were to go wrong, who's responsible for that? There's no accountability right now. Or you as a company that's creating a system that's responsible, or is it ChatGPT, Microsoft is responsible. >> Or is the developer? >> Or the developer. >> The individual developer might be. So, they're going to be cautious about that liability. >> Well, so one of the areas where I'm seeing a lot of enterprises using this is they are using it to teach developers to learn things. You know what, if you're to code, this is a good way to code. That area, it's okay because you are just teaching them. But if you are to put an actual production code, this is what I advise companies, look, if somebody's using even to create a code, whether with or without your permission, make sure that once the code is committed, you validate that the 100%, whether it's a code or a model, or even make sure that the data what you're feeding in it is completely out of bias or no bias, right? Because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who, what, when did that, if you put out a service or a system out there, it is involving your company liability and system, and code in place. You're going to be screwed regardless of what, if something were to go wrong, you are the first person who's liable for it. >> Andy, when you think about the dangers of AI, and what keeps you up at night if you're a security professional AI and security professional. We talked about ChatGPT doing things, we don't even, the hackers are going to get creative. But what worries you the most when you think about this topic? >> A lot, a lot, right? Let's start off with an example, actually, I don't know if you had a chance to see that or not. The hackers used a bank of Hong Kong, used a defect mechanism to fool Bank of Hong Kong to transfer $35 million to a fake account, the money is gone, right? And the problem that is, what they did was, they interacted with a manager and they learned this executive who can control a big account and cloned his voice, and clone his patterns on how he calls and what he talks and the whole name he has, after learning that, they call the branch manager or bank manager and say, "Hey, you know what, hey, move this much money to whatever." So, that's one way of kind of phishing, kind of deep fake that can come. So, that's just one example. Imagine whether business is conducted by just using voice or phone calls itself. That's an area of concern if you were to do that. And imagine this became an uproar a few years back when deepfakes put out the video of Tom Cruise and others we talked about in the past, right? And Tom Cruise looked at the video, he said that he couldn't distinguish that he didn't do it. It is so close, that close, right? And they are doing things like they're using gems... >> Awesome Instagram account by the way, the guy's hilarious, right? >> So, they they're using a lot of this fake videos and fake stuff. As long as it's only for entertainment purposes, good. But imagine doing... >> That's right there but... >> But during the election season when people were to put out saying that, okay, this current president or ex-president, he said what? And the masses believe right now whatever they're seeing in TV, that's unfortunate thing. I mean, there's no fact checking involved, and you could change governments and elections using that, which is scary shit, right? >> When you think about 2016, that was when we really first saw, the weaponization of social, the heavy use of social and then 2020 was like, wow. >> To the next level. >> It was crazy. The polarization, 2024, would deepfakes... >> Could be the next level, yeah. >> I mean, it's just going to escalate. What about public policy? I want to pick your brain on this because I I've seen situations where the EU, for example, is going to restrict the ability to ship certain code if it's involved with critical infrastructure. So, let's say, example, you're running a nuclear facility and you've got the code that protects that facility, and it can be useful against some other malware that's outside of that country, but you're restricted from sending that for whatever reason, data sovereignty. Is public policy, is it aligned with the objectives in this new world? Or, I mean, normally they have to catch up. Is that going to be a problem in your view? >> It is because, when it comes to laws it's always miles behind when a new innovation happens. It's not just for AI, right? I mean, the same thing happened with IOT. Same thing happened with whatever else new emerging tech you have. The laws have to understand if there's an issue and they have to see a continued pattern of misuse of the technology, then they'll come up with that. Use in ways they are ahead of things. So, they put a lot of restrictions in place and about what AI can or cannot do, US is way behind on that, right? But California has done some things, for example, if you are talking to a chat bot, then you have to basically disclose that to the customer, saying that you're talking to a chat bot, not to a human. And that's just a very basic rule that they have in place. I mean, there are times that when a decision is made by the, problem is, AI is a black box now. The decision making is also a black box now, and we don't tell people. And the problem is if you tell people, you'll get sued immediately because every single time, we talked about that last time, there are cases involving AI making decisions, it gets thrown out the window all the time. If you can't substantiate that. So, the bottom line is that, yes, AI can assist and help you in making decisions but just use that as a assistant mechanism. A human has to be always in all the loop, right? >> Will AI help with, in your view, with supply chain, the software supply chain security or is it, it's always a balance, right? I mean, I feel like the attackers are more advanced in some ways, it's like they're on offense, let's say, right? So, when you're calling the plays, you know where you're going, the defense has to respond to it. So in that sense, the hackers have an advantage. So, what's the balance with software supply chain? Are the hackers have the advantage because they can use AI to accelerate their penetration of the software supply chain? Or will AI in your view be a good defensive mechanism? >> It could be but the problem is, the velocity and veracity of things can be done using AI, whether it's fishing, or malware, or other security and the vulnerability scanning the whole nine yards. It's scary because the hackers have a full advantage right now. And actually, I think ChatGPT recently put out two things. One is, it's able to direct the code if it is generated by ChatGPT. So basically, if you're trying to fake because a lot of schools were complaining about it, that's why they came up with the mechanism. So, if you're trying to create a fake, there's a mechanism for them to identify. But that's a step behind still, right? And the hackers are using things to their advantage. Actually ChatGPT made a rule, if you go there and read the terms and conditions, it's basically honor rule suggesting, you can't use this for certain purposes, to create a model where it creates a security threat, as that people are going to listen. So, if there's a way or mechanism to restrict hackers from using these technologies, that would be great. But I don't see that happening. So, know that these guys have an advantage, know that they're using AI, and you have to do things to be prepared. One thing I was mentioning about is, if somebody writes a code, if somebody commits a code right now, the problem is with the agile methodologies. If somebody writes a code, if they commit a code, you assume that's right and legit, you immediately push it out into production because need for speed is there, right? But if you continue to do that with the AI produced code, you're screwed. >> So, bottom line is, AI's going to speed us up in a security context or is it going to slow us down? >> Well, in the current version, the AI systems are flawed because even the ChatGPT, if you look at the the large language models, you look at the core piece of data that's available in the world as of today and then train them using that model, using the data, right? But people are forgetting that's based on today's data. The data changes on a second basis or on a minute basis. So, if I want to do something based on tomorrow or a day after, you have to retrain the models. So, the data already have a stale. So, that in itself is stale and the cost for retraining is going to be a problem too. So overall, AI is a good first step. Use that with a caution, is what I want to say. The system is flawed now, if you use it as is, you'll be screwed, it's dangerous. >> Andy, you got to go, thanks so much for coming in, appreciate it. >> Thanks for having me. >> You're very welcome, so we're going wall to wall with our coverage of the Cloud Native Security Con. I'm Dave Vellante in the Boston Studio, John Furrier, Lisa Martin and Palo Alto. We're going to be live on the show floor as well, bringing in keynote speakers and others on the ground. Keep it right there for more coverage on theCUBE. (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)

The Cube Presents UI Path Forward five. Brought to you by UI Path. >>I Ready, Dave Ante with David Nicholson. We're back at UI Path forward. Five. We're getting ready for the big guns to come in, the two co CEOs, but we have a really special analyst panel now. We're excited to have Daniel Newman here. He's the Principal analyst at Future and Research. And Andy Dai, who's the Vice president and Principal Analyst at Constellation Research. Guys, good to see you. Thanks for making some time to come on the queue. >>Glad to be here. Always >>Good. So, >>Andy, you're deep into ai. You and I have been talking about having you come to our maor office. I'm, I'm really excited that we're able to meet here. What have you seen at the show so far? What are your big takeaways? You know, day one and a half? >>Yeah, well, so first of all, I'm d AI because my last name has AI and I >>Already talk about, >>So, but, but all jokes aside, there are a lot of good things I heard from the conference, right? I mean, one is the last two years because of the pandemic, the growth has been phenomenal for, for a lot of those robotic automation intelligent automation companies, right? So because the low hanging through position making processes have been already taken care of where they going to find the next growth spot, right? That was the question I was looking answers to. And they have some inverse, one good acquisition. They had intelligent document processing, but more importantly they're trying to move from detrimental rules based RPA automation into AI based, more probabilistic subjective decision making areas. That's a huge market, tons of money involved in it, but it's going to be a harder problem to solve. Love to see the execut. >>Well, it's also a big pivot for the, for the company. It started out as sort of a a point product and now is moving to, to platform. But to end of the macro is not in UI pass favor. It's not really in any, you know, tech company's favor, but especially, you know, a company that's going into a transition transitioning to go to market cetera. What are you seeing, what's your take on the macro? I mean, I know you follow the financial markets very closely. There's a lot of negative sentiment right now. Are you as negative as the sentiment? >>Well, the, the broad sentiment comes with some pretty good historical data, right? We've had probably one of the worst market years in multiple decades. And of course we're coming into a situation where all the, the factors are really not in our favor. You've got in interest rates climbing, you've got wildly high inflation, you've had a, you know, helicopters dumping money on the economy for a period of time. And we're, we're gonna get into this great reset is what I keep talking about. But, you know, I had the opportunity to talk to Bill McDermott recently on one of my shows and Bill's CEO of ServiceNow, in case anybody there doesn't know, but >>Former, >>Yeah, really well spoken guy. But you know, him and I kind of went back and forth and we came up with this kind of concept that we were gonna have to tech our way out of what's about to come. You can almost be certain recession is gonna come. But for companies like UiPath, I actually think there's a tremendous opportunity because the bottom line is companies are gonna be looking at their bottom line. A year ago it was all about growth a deal, like the Adobe Figma deal would've been, been lauded, people would've been excited. Now everybody's looking at going, how are they paying that price? Everybody's discounting the future growth. They're looking at the situation, say, what's gonna happen next? Well, bottom line is now they're looking at that. How profitable are we? Are you making money? Are you growing that bottom line? Are you creating earnings? We're >>Gonna come in >>Era, we're gonna come into an era where companies are gonna say, you know what? People are expensive. The inflationary cost of hiring is expensive. You know, what's less expensive? Investing in the cloud, investing in ai, investing in workflow and automation and things that actually enable businesses to expand, keep costs somewhat contained fixed costs, and scale their businesses and get themselves in a good position for when the economy turns to return to >>Grow. So since prior to the pandemic cloud containers, m l and RPA slash automation have been the big four that from a spending data standpoint have been above the line above all kind of the rest in terms of spending momentum up until last quarter, AI and RPA slash automation declined. So my question is, are those two areas discretionary or more discretionary than other technology investments you heard? >>Well, I, I think we're in a, a period where companies are, I won't say they've stopped spending, but you listened to Mark Benioff, you talked about the elongated sales cycle, right? I think companies right now are being very reflective and they're doing a lot of introspection. They're looking at their business and saying, We hired a lot of people. We hired really fast. Do we need to cut? Do we need to freeze? We've made investments in technology, are we getting a return on 'em? We all know that the analytics, whether it's you know, digital adoption platforms or just analytics in the business, say, What is all this money we've been spending doing for us and how productive are we? But I will tell you universally, the companies are looking at workflow automations that enable things. Whether that's onboarding customers, whether that's delivering experiences, whether that's, you know, full, you know, price to quote technologies, automate, automate, automate. By doing that, they're gonna bring down the cost, they're gonna control themselves as best as possible in a tough macro. And then when they come out of it, these processes are gonna be beneficiary in a, in a growth environment even more so, >>Andy UiPath rocketed to a leadership position, largely due to the, the product and the simplicity of the product relative to the competition. And then as you well know, they expanded into, you know, platform. So how do you see the competitive environment? A UI path is again focusing on that platform play Automation Anywhere couldn't get to public market. They had turnover at the go to market level. Chris Riley joined a lot of, lot of hope left Microsoft joined into the fray, obviously is having an impact that you're certainly seeing spending momentum around Microsoft. Then SAP service Now Salesforce, every software company the planet thinks they should get every dollar spent on software. You know, they, they see UI pass momentum and they say, Hey, we can, we can take some of that off the table. How do you see the competitive environment right now? >>So first of all, in in my mind, UI path is slightly better because of a couple of reasons. One, as you said, it's ease of use. >>They're able to customize it variable to what they want. So that's a real easy development advantage. And then the, when you develop the bots and equal, it takes on an average anywhere between two to maybe six weeks, generally speaking, in some industries regulated government might take more so that it's faster, quicker, easier than others in a sense. So people love using that. The second advantage of what they have in my mind is that not only they are available as a managed SA solution on, on cloud, on Azure Cloud, but also they have this version that you can install, maintain, manage any way you want, whether it's a public cloud or, or your own data center and so on so forth. That's not available with almost, not all of them have it, Few have it, but not all of the competitors have it. So they have an advantage there as well. Where it could become useful would be one of the areas that they haven't even expanded is the government. >>Government is the what, >>Sorry? The government. Yeah, related solutions, right? Defense, government, all of those areas when you go, which haven't even started for various reasons. For example, they're worried about laying off people, worried about cost, worried about automating things. There's a lot of hurdles to overcome. But once you overcome that, if you want to go there, nobody's going to use, or most of them will be very of using something on the cloud. So they have a solution for version variation of that. So they are set up to come to that next level. I mean, I don't know if you guys were at the keynote, the CEO talked about how their plans to go from 1 billion to 5 billion in ar. So they're set up to capture the market. But again, as you said, every big software company saw their momentum, they want to get into it, they want to compete with them. So >>Well, to get to 5 billion, they've gotta accelerate growth. I mean, if you do 20% cer over the next, you know, through the end of the decade, they don't quite get there. So they're gonna have to, you know, they lowered their forecast out of the high 20 or mid twenties to 18%. They're gonna have to accelerate that. And we've seen that before. We see it in cloud where cloud, you know, accelerates growth even though you got the lower large numbers. Go ahead Dave. >>Yeah, so Daniel, then how do we, how do we think of this market? How do we measure the TAM for total addressable market for automation? I mean, you know, what's that? What's that metric that shows how unautomated are we, how inefficient are we? Is there a, is there a 5% efficiency that can be gained? Is there a 40% efficiency that can be gained? Because if you're talking about, you know, how much much of the market can UI path capture, first of all, how big is the market? And then is UI path poised to take advantage of that compared to the actual purveyors of the software that people are interacting with? I'm interacting with an E R p, an ER P system that has built into it the ability to automate processes. Then why do I need 'EM UI path? So first, how do you evaluate TAM? Second, how do you evaluate whether UI Path is gonna have a chance in this market where RPAs built into the applications that we actually use? Yeah, >>I think that TAM is evolving, and I don't have it in front of me right now, but what I'll tell you about the TAM is there's sort of the legacy RPA tam and then there's what I would sort of evolve to call the IPA and workflow automation tam that is being addressed by many of these software companies that you asked in the competitive equation. In the, in the, in the question, what we're seeing is a world where companies are gonna say, if we can automate it, we will automate it. That's, it's actually non-negotiable. Now, the process in the ability to a arrive at automation at scale has long been a battle front within the nor every organization. We've been able to automate things for a long time. Why has it more been done? It's the same thing with analytics. There's been numerous studies in analytics that have basically shown companies that have been able to embrace, adopt, and implement analytics, have significantly better performances, better performances on revenue growth, better performances and operational cost management, better performances with customer experience. >>Guess what? Not everybody, every company can get to this. Now there's a couple of things behind this and I'm gonna, I'm gonna try to close my answer out cause I'm getting a little long winded here. But the first thing is automation is a cultural challenge in most organizations. We've done endless research on companies digitally transforming and automating their business. And what we've found is largely the technology are somewhat comparable. Meaning, you know, I, I've heard what he is saying about some of the advantages of partnership with Microsoft, very compelling. But you know what, all these companies that have automation offerings, whether it's you know, through a Salesforce, Microsoft, whether it's a specialized rpa like an Automation Anywhere or a UI path, their solutions can be deployed and successful. The company's ability to take the investment, implement it successfully and get buy in across the organization tends to always be the hurdle. An old CIO stat, 50% of IT projects fail. That stat is still almost accurate today. It's not 50% of technology is bad, but those failures are because the culture doesn't get behind it. And automation's a tricky one because there's a lot of people that feel on the outside rather than the inside of an automation transformation. >>So, Andy, so how do you think about the, to Dave's question, the SAPs the service nows trying to, you know, at least take some red crumbs off the table. They, they're gonna, they're gonna create these automation stove pipes, but in Automation Anywhere or, or UI path is a horizontal play, are they not? And so how do you think about that progression? Well, so >>First of all, all of this other companies, when they, they, whether it's a build, acquire, what have you, these guys already have what, five, seven years on them. So it's gonna be difficult for them to catch up with the Center of Excellence knowledge on the use cases, what they got to catch up with them. That's gonna be a lot of catch up. Just to give you an idea, Microsoft Power Automate has been there for a while, right? They're supposedly doing well as well, but they still choose to partner with the UiPath as well to get them to the next level. So there's going to be competition coming from all areas, but it's, it's about, you know, highlights. >>So, so who is the competition? Is it Microsoft chipping away an individual productivity? Is it a service now? Who's got a platform play? Is it themselves just being able to execute >>All plus also, but I think the, the most, I wouldn't say competition, but it's more people are not aware of what areas need to be automated, right? For example, one of the things I was talking about with a couple of customers is, so they have a automation hub where you can put the, the process and and task that need to be automated and then you prioritize and start working on it. And, and almost all of them that I speak to, they keep saying that most of the process and task identification that they need to do for automation, it's manual right now. So, which means it's limited, you have to go and execute it. When people find out and tell you that's what need to be fixed, you try to go and fix that. But imagine if there is a way, I mean the have solutions they're showcasing now if it becomes popular, if you're able to identify tasks that are very inefficient or or process that's very inefficient, automatically score them up saying that, you know what, this is what is going to be ROI and you execute on it. That's going to be huge. So >>I think ts right, there's no shortage of, of a market. I would, I would agree with you Rob Sland this morning talked about the progression. He sort of compared it to e R P of the early days. I sort of have a love hate with E R P cuz of the complexity of the implementation and the, and the cost. However, first of all, a couple points and I love to get your thoughts for you. If you went back, I know 25 years, you, you wouldn't have been able to pick SAP out of a lineup and say that's gonna be the leader in E R P and they ended up, you know, doing really, really well. But the more interesting angle is if you could have figured out the customers that were implementing e r p in, in a really high quality fashion, those are the companies that really did well. You buy their stocks, they really took off cuz they were killing their other industry competitors. So, fast forward to automation. Will automation live up to its hype and your opinion, will it be as transformative and will the, the practitioners of automation see the same type of uplift in their markets, in their market caps, in their competitiveness as did sort of the early adopters and the excellent adopters of brp? What are your thoughts? Well, >>I think it's an interesting comparison. Maybe answer it slightly different way. I think the future is that automation is a non-negotiable in every enterprise organization. I think if you're a large organization, we have absolutely filled our, our organizations with waste too much overhead, too much expense, too much technical debt and automation is an answer. This is the way we want to interact, right? We want a chat bot that actually gives us good answers that can answer on a Tuesday at 11:00 PM at night when we want to know if the right dog food, you know, and I'm saying that, you know, that's what we want. That's the outcome we want. And businesses have to be driven by the outcome. Here's what I'm not sure about, Dave, is we have an era where over the last three to five years, a lot of products have become companies and a lot of 'EM products became companies ended up in public markets. >>And so the RPA space is one of those areas that got this explosive amount of growth. And you look at it and there's two ways. Is this horizontally a business rpa or is this going to be something that's gonna be a target of those Microsofts and those SAPs and say, Look, we need hyper automation to be deeply integrated at the E R P crm, hcm SCM level. We're gonna build by this or we're gonna build this. And you're already hearing it in the partnerships, but this is how I think the story ends. I I think either the companies like UiPath get much bigger, they get much more rounded in their, in their offerings. Or you're gonna have a large company like a Microsoft come in and say, you know what? Buy it rather >>Than build can they can, they can, can this company, maybe not so much here, but can a company like Automation Anywhere stay acquisition? Well, >>I use the, I use the Service now as an, as a parallel because they're a company that I thought would always end up inside of a bigger company and now you're like, I think they're too big. I think they've they've dropped >>That, that chart. Yeah, they're acquisition proof. I would agree. But these guys aren't yet Nora's automation. They work for >>A while and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes getting bit bought is good, but what I mean is it's gonna be core and these big companies know it cuz they're all talking >>About, but as independent analysts, we want to see independent companies. >>I wanna see the right thing. >>It just makes it fun. >>The right thing >>Customers. Yeah, but you know, okay, Oracle buy more customers, more >>Customers. >>I'm kidding. Yeah, I guess it's the right thing. It just makes it more fun when you have really good independent competitors that >>We >>Absolutely so, and, and spend way more on r and d than these big companies who spend a lot more on stock buyback. But I know you gotta go. Thanks so much for spending some time, making time for Cube Andy. Great to see you. Good to see as well. All right, we are wrapping up day one, Dave Blan and Dave Nicholson live. You can hear the action behind us, forward in five on the Cube, right back.

(upbeat music) >> Okay, welcome back everyone. CUBE's coverage of re:MARS, here in Las Vegas, in person. I'm John Furrier, host of theCUBE. This is the analyst panel wrap up analysis of the keynote, the show, past one and a half days. We got two great guests here. We got Andy Thurai, Vice President, Principal Consultant, Constellation Research. Larry Carvalho, Principal Consultant at RobustCloud LLC. Congratulations going out on your own. >> Thank you. >> Andy, great to see you. >> Great to see you as well. >> Guys, thanks for coming out. So this is the session where we break down and analyze, you guys are analysts, industry analysts, you go to all the shows, we see each other. You guys are analyzing the landscape. What does this show mean to you guys? 'Cause this is not obvious to the normal tech follower. The insiders see the confluence of robotics, space, automation and machine learning. Obviously, it's IoTs, industrials, it's a bunch of things. But there's some dots to connect. Let's start with you, Larry. What do you see here happening at this show? >> So you got to see how Amazon started, right? When AWS started. When AWS started, it primarily took the compute storage, networking of Amazon.com and put it as a cloud service, as a service, and started selling the heck out of it. This is a stage later now that Amazon.com has done a lot of physical activity, and using AIML and the robotics, et cetera, it's now the second phase of innovation, which is beyond digital transformation of back office processes, to the transformation of physical processes where people are now actually delivering remotely and it's an amazing area. >> So back office's IT data center kind of vibe. >> Yeah. >> You're saying front end, industrial life. >> Yes. >> Life as we know it. >> Right, right. I mean, I just stopped at a booth here and they have something that helps anybody who's stuck in the house who cannot move around. But with Alexa, order some water to bring them wherever they are in the house where they're stuck in their bed. But look at the innovation that's going on there right at the edge. So I think those are... >> John: And you got the Lunar, got the sex appeal of the space, Lunar Outpost interview, >> Yes. >> those guys. They got Rover on Mars. They're going to have be colonizing the moon. >> Yes. >> I made a joke, I'm like, "Well, I left a part back on earth, I'll be right back." (Larry and Andy laugh) >> You can't drive back to the office. So a lot of challenges. Andy, what's your take of the show? Take us your analysis. What's the vibe, what's your analysis so far? >> It's a great show. So, as Larry was saying, one of the thing was that when Amazon started, right? So they were more about cloud computing. So, which means is they try to commoditize more of data center components or compute components. So that was working really well for what I call it as a compute economy, right? >> John: Mm hmm. >> And I call the newer economy as more of a AIML-based data economy. So when you move from a compute economy into a data economy, there are things that come into the forefront that never existed before, never popular before. Things like your AIML model creation, model training, model movement, model influencing, all of the above, right? And then of course the robotics has come long way since then. And then some of what they do at the store, or the charging, the whole nine yards. So, the whole concept of all of these components, when you put them on re:Invent, such a big show, it was getting lost. So that's why they don't have it for a couple of years. They had it one year. And now all of a sudden they woke up and say, "You know what? We got to do this!" >> John: Yeah. >> To bring out this critical components that we have, that's ripe, mature for the world to next component. So that's why- I think they're pretty good stuff. And some of the robotics things I saw in there, like one of them I posted on my Twitter, it's about the robot dog, sniffing out the robot rover, which I thought was pretty hilarious. (All laugh) >> Yeah, this is the thing. You're seeing like the pandemic put everything on hold on the last re:Mars, and then the whole world was upside down. But a lot of stuff pulled forward. You saw the call center stuff booming. You saw the Zoomification of our workplace. And I think a lot of people got to the realization that this hybrid, steady-state's here. And so, okay. That settles that. But the digital transformation of actually physical work? >> Andy: Yeah. >> Location, the walk in and out store right over here we've seen that's the ghost store in Seattle. We've all been there. In fact, I was kind of challenged, try to steal something. I'm like, okay- (Larry laughs) I'm pulling all my best New Jersey moves on everyone. You know? >> Andy: You'll get charged for it. >> I couldn't get away with it. Two double packs, drop it, it's smart as hell. Can't beat the system. But, you bring that to where the AI machine learning, and the robotics meet, robots. I mean, we had robots here on theCUBE. So, I think this robotics piece is a huge IoT, 'cause we've been covering industrial IoT for how many years, guys? And you could know what's going on there. Huge cyber threats. >> Mm hmm. >> Huge challenges, old antiquated OT technology. So I see a confluence in the collision between that OT getting decimated, to your point. And so, do you guys see that? I mean, am I just kind of seeing mirage? >> I don't see it'll get decimated, it'll get replaced with a newer- >> John: Dave would call me out on that. (Larry laughs) >> Decimated- >> Microsoft's going to get killed. >> I think it's going to have to be reworked. And just right now, you want do anything in a shop floor, you have to have a physical wire connected to it. Now you think about 5G coming in, and without a wire, you get minute details, you get low latency, high bandwidth. And the possibilities are endless at the edge. And I think with AWS, they got Outposts, they got Snowcone. >> John: There's a threat to them at the edge. Outpost is not doing well. You talk to anyone out there, it's like, you can't find success stories. >> Larry: Yeah. >> I'm going to get hammered by Amazon people, "Oh, what're you're saying that?" You know, EKS for example, with serverless is kicking ass too. So, I mean I'm not saying Outpost was wrong answer, it was a right at the time, what, four years ago that came out? >> Yeah. >> Okay, so, but that doesn't mean it's just theirs. You got Dell Technologies want some edge action. >> Yeah. >> So does HPE. >> Yes. >> So you got a competitive edge situation. >> I agree with that and I think that's definitely not Amazon's strong point, but like everything, they try to make it easy to use. >> John: Yeah. >> You know, you look at the AIML and they got Canvas. So Canvas says, hey, anybody can do AIML. If they can do that for the physical robotic processes, or even like with Outpost and Snowcone, that'll be good. I don't think they're there yet, and they don't have the presence in the market, >> John: Yeah. >> like HPE and, >> John: Well, let me ask you guys this question, because I think this brings up the next point. Will the best technology win or will the best solution win? Because if cloud's a platform and all software's open source, which you can make those assumptions, you then say, hey, they got this killer robotics thing going on with Artemis and Moonshot, they're trying to colonize the moon, but oh, they discovered a killer way to solve a big problem. Does something fall out of this kind of re:Mars environment, that cracks the code and radically changes and disrupts the IoT game? That's my open question. I don't know the answer. I'd love to get your take on what might be possible, what wild card's out there around, disrupting the edge. >> So one thing I see the way, so when IoT came into the world of play, it's when you're digitizing the physical world, it's IoT that does digitalization part of that actually, right? >> But then it has its own set of problems. >> John: Yeah. >> You're talking about you installing sensor everywhere, right? And not only installing your own sensor, but also you're installing competitor sensors. So in a given square feet how many sensors can you accommodate? So there are physical limitations on liabilities of bandwidth and networking all of that. >> John: And integration. >> As well. >> John: Your point. >> Right? So when that became an issue, this is where I was talking to the robotic guys here, a couple of companies, and one of the use cases they were talking about, which I thought was pretty cool, is, rather than going the sensor route, you go the robot route. So if you have either a factor that you want to map out, you put as many sensors on your robot, whatever that is, and then you make it go around, map the whole thing, and then you also do a surveillance in the whole nine yards. So, you can either have a fixed sensors or you can have moving sensors. So you can have three or four robots. So initially, when I was asking them about the price of it, when they were saying about a hundred thousand dollars, I was like, "Who would buy that?" (John and Larry laugh) >> When they then explained that, this is the use case, oh, that makes sense, because if you had to install, entire factory floor sensors, you're talking about millions of dollars. >> John: Yeah. >> But if you do the moveable sensors in this way, it's a lot cheaper. >> John: Yeah, yeah. >> So it's based on your use case, what are your use cases? What are you trying to achieve? >> The general purpose is over. >> Yeah. >> Which you're getting at, and that the enablement, this is again, this is the cloud scale open question- >> Yep. >> it's, okay, the differentiations isn't going to be open source software. That's open. >> It's going to be in the, how you configure it. >> Yes. >> What workflows you might have, the data streams. >> I think, John, you're bringing up a very good point about general purpose versus special purpose. Yesterday Zoox was on the stage and when they talked about their vehicle, it's made just for self-driving. You walk around in Vegas, over here, you see a bunch of old fashioned cars, whether they're Ford or GM- >> and they put all these devices around it, but you're still driving the same car. >> John: Yeah, exactly. >> You can retrofit those, but I don't think that kind of IoT is going to work. But if you redo the whole thing, we are going to see a significant change in how IoT delivers value all the way from the industrial to home, to healthcare, mining, agriculture, it's going to have to redo. I'll go back to the OT question. There are some OT guys, I know Rockwell and Siemens, some of them are innovating faster. The ones who innovate faster to keep up with the IT side, as well as the MLAI model are going to be the winners on that one. >> John: Yeah, I agree. Andy, your thoughts on manufacturing, you brought up the sensor thing. Robotics ultimately is, end of the day, an opportunity there. Obviously machine learning, we know what that does. As we move into these more autonomous builds, what does that look like? And is Amazon positioned well there? Obviously they have big manufacturers. Some are saying that they might want to get out of that business too, that Jassy's evaluating that some are saying. So, where does this all lead for that robotics manufacturing lifestyle, walk in, grab my food? 'Cause it's all robotics and AI at the end of the day, I got sensors, I got cameras, I got non-humans moving heavy lifting stuff, fixing the moon will be done by robots, not humans. So it's all coming. What's your analysis? >> Well, so, the point about robotics is on how far it has come, it is unbelievable, right? Couple of examples. One was that I was just talking to somebody, was explaining to them, to see that robot dog over there at the Boston Dynamics one- >> John: Yeah. >> climbing up and down the stairs. >> Larry: Yeah. >> That's more like the dinosaur movie opening the doors scene. (John and Larry laugh) It's like that for me, because the coordinated things, it is able to go walk up and down, that's unbelievable. But okay, it does that, and then there was also another video which is going on viral on the internet. This guy kicks the dog, robot dog, and then it falls down and it gets back up, and the sentiment that people were feeling for the dog, (Larry laughs) >> you can't, it's a robot, but people, it just comes at that level- >> John: Empathy, for a non-human. >> Yeah. >> But you see him, hey you, get off my lawn, you know? It's like, where are we? >> It has come to that level that people are able to kind of not look at that as a robot, but as more like a functioning, almost like a pet-level, human-level being. >> John: Yeah. >> And you saw that the human-like walking robot there as well. But to an extent, in my view, they are all still in an experimentation, innovation phase. It doesn't made it in the industrial terms yet. >> John: Yeah, not yet, it's coming. >> But, the problem- >> John: It's coming fast. That's what I'm trying to figure out is where you guys see Amazon and the industry relative to what from the fantasy coming reality- >> Right. >> of space in Mars, which is, it's intoxicating, let's face it. People love this. The nerds are all here. The geeks are all here. It's a celebration. James Hamilton's here- >> Yep. >> trying to get him on theCUBE. And he's here as a civilian. Jeff Barr, same thing. I'm here, not for Amazon, I bought a ticket. No, you didn't buy a ticket. (Larry laughs) >> I'm going to check on that. But, he's geeking out. >> Yeah. >> They're there because they want to be here. >> Yeah. >> Not because they have to work here. >> Well, I mean, the thing is, the innovation velocity has increased, because, in the past, remember, the smaller companies couldn't innovate because they don't have the platform. Now Compute is a platform available at the scale you want, AI is available at the scale. Every one of them is available at the scale you want. So if you have an idea, it's easy to innovate. The innovation velocity is high. But where I see most of the companies failing, whether startup or big company, is that you don't find the appropriate use case to solve, and then don't sell it to the right people to buy that. So if you don't find the right use case or don't sell the right value proposition to the actual buyer, >> John: Mm hmm. >> then why are you here? What are you doing? (John laughs) I mean, you're not just an invention, >> John: Eh, yeah. >> like a telephone kind of thing. >> Now, let's get into next talk track. I want to get your thoughts on the experience here at re:Mars. Obviously AWS and the Amazon people kind of combined effort between their teams. The event team does a great job. I thought the event, personally, was first class. The coffee didn't come in late today, I was complaining about that, (Larry laughs) >> people complaining out there, at CUBE reviews. But world class, high bar on the quality of the event. But you guys were involved in the analyst program. You've been through the walkthrough, some of the briefings. I couldn't do that 'cause I'm doing theCUBE interviews. What would you guys learn? What were some of the key walkaways, impressions? Amazon's putting all new teams together, seems on the analyst relations. >> Larry: Yeah. >> They got their mojo booming. They got three shows now, re:Mars, re:inforce, re:invent. >> Andy: Yeah. >> Which will be at theCUBE at all three. Now we got that coverage going, what's it like? What was the experience like? Did you feel it was good? Where do they need to improve? How would you grade the Amazon team? >> I think they did a great job over here in just bringing all the physical elements of the show. Even on the stage, where they had robots in there. It made it real and it's not just fake stuff. And every, or most of the booths out there are actually having- >> John: High quality demos. >> high quality demos. (John laughs) >> John: Not vaporware. >> Yeah, exactly. Not vaporware. >> John: I won't say the name of the company. (all laugh) >> And even the sessions were very good. They went through details. One thing that stood out, which is good, and I cover Low Code/No Code, and Low Code/No Code goes across everything. You know, you got DevOps No Low-Code Low-Code. You got AI Low Code/No Code. You got application development Low Code/No Code. What they have done with AI with Low Code/No Code is very powerful with Canvas. And I think that has really grown the adoption of AI. Because you don't have to go and train people what to do. And then, people are just saying, Hey, let me kick the tires, let me use it. Let me try it. >> John: It's going to be very interesting to see how Amazon, on that point, handles this, AWS handles this data tsunami. It's cause of Snowflake. Snowflake especially running the table >> Larry: Yeah. >> on the old Hadoop world. I think Dave had a great analysis with other colleagues last week at Snowflake Summit. But still, just scratching the surface. >> Larry: Yeah. >> The question is, how shared that ecosystem, how will that morph? 'Cause right now you've got Data Bricks, you've got Snowflake and a handful of others. Teradata's got some new chops going on there and a bunch of other folks. Some are going to win and lose in this downturn, but still, the scale that's needed is massive. >> So you got data growing so much, you were talking earlier about the growth of data and they were talking about the growth. That is a big pie and the pie can be shared by a lot of folks. I don't think- >> John: And snowflake pays AWS, remember that? >> Right, I get it. (John laughs) >> I get it. But they got very unique capabilities, just like Netflix has very unique capabilities. >> John: Yeah. >> They also pay AWS. >> John: Yeah. >> Right? But they're competing on prime. So I really think the cooperation is going to be there. >> John: Yeah. >> The pie is so big >> John: Yeah. >> that there's not going to be losers, but everybody could be winners. >> John: I'd be interested to follow up with you guys after next time we have an event together, we'll get you back on and figure out how do you measure this transitions? You went to IDC, so they had all kinds of ways to measure shipments. >> Larry: Yep. >> Even Gartner had fumbled for years, the Magic Quadrant on IaaS and PaaS when they had the market share. (Larry laughs) And then they finally bundled PaaS and IaaS together after years of my suggesting, thank you very much Gartner. (Larry laughs) But that just performs as the landscape changes so does the scoreboard. >> Yep. >> Right so, how do you measure who's winning and who's losing? How can we be critical of Amazon so they can get better? I mean, Andy Jassy always said to me, and Adam Salassi same way, we want to hear how bad we're doing so we can get better. >> Yeah. >> So they're open-minded to feedback. I mean, not (beep) posting on them, but they're open to critical feedback. What do you guys, what feedback would you give Amazon? Are they winning? I see them number one clearly over Azure, by miles. And even though Azure's kicking ass and taking names, getting back in the game, Microsoft's still behind, by a long ways, in some areas. >> Andy: Yes. In some ways. >> So, the scoreboard's changing. What's your thoughts on that? >> So, look, I mean, at the end of the day, when it comes to compute, right, Amazon is a clear winner. I mean, there are others who are catching up to it, but still, they are the established leader. And it comes with its own advantages because when you're trying to do innovation, when you're trying to do anything else, whether it's a data collection, we were talking about the data sensors, the amount of data they are collecting, whether it's the store, that self-serving store or other innovation projects, what they have going on. The storage compute and process of that requires a ton of compute. And they have that advantage with them. And, as I mentioned in my last article, one of my articles, when it comes to AIML and data programs, there is a rich and there is a poor. And the rich always gets richer because they, they have one leg up already. >> John: Yeah. >> I mean the amount of model training they have done, the billion or trillion dollar trillion parametrization, fine tuning of the model training and everything. They could do it faster. >> John: Yeah. >> Which means they have a leg up to begin with. So unless you are given an opportunity as a smaller, mid-size company to compete at them at the same level, you're going to start at the negative level to begin with. You have a lot of catch up to do. So, the other thing about Amazon is that they, when it comes to a lot of areas, they admit that they have to improve in certain areas and they're open and willing and listen to the people. >> Where are you, let's get critical. Let's do some critical analysis. Where does Amazon Websters need to get better? In your opinion, what criticism would you, in a constructive way, share? >> I think on the open source side, they need to be more proactive in, they are already, but they got to get even better than what they are. They got to engage with the community. They got to be able to talk on the open source side, hey, what are we doing? Maybe on the hardware side, can they do some open-sourcing of that? They got graviton. They got a lot of stuff. Will they be able to share the wealth with other folks, other than just being on an Amazon site, on the edge with their partners. >> John: Got it. >> If they can now take that, like you said, compute with what they have with a very end-to-end solution, the full stack. And if they can extend it, that's going to be really beneficial for them. >> Awesome. Andy, final word here. >> So one area where I think they could improve, which would be a game changer would be, right now, if you look at all of their solutions, if you look at the way they suggest implementation, the innovations, everything that comes out, comes out across very techy-oriented. The persona is very techy-oriented. Very rarely their solutions are built to the business audience or to the decision makers. So if I'm, say, an analyst, if I want to build, a business analyst rather, if I want to build a model, and then I want to deploy that or do some sort of application, mobile application, or what have you, it's a little bit hard. It's more techy-oriented. >> John: Yeah, yeah. >> So, if they could appeal or build a higher level abstraction of how to build and deploy applications for business users, or even build something industry specific, that's where a lot of the legacy companies succeeded. >> John: Yeah. >> Go after manufacturing specific or education. >> Well, we coined the term 'Supercloud' last re:Invent, and that's what we see. And Jerry Chen at Greylock calls it Castles in the Cloud, you can create these moats >> Yep. >> on top of the CapEx >> Yep. >> of Amazon. >> Exactly. >> And ride their back. >> Yep. >> And the difference in what you're paying and what you're charging, if you're good, like a Snowflake or a Mongo. I mean, Mongo's, they're just as big as Snow, if not bigger on Amazon than Snowflake is. 'Cause they use a lot of compute. No one turns off their database. (John laughs) >> Snowflake a little bit different, a little nuanced point, but, this is the new thing. You see Goldman Sachs, you got Capital One. They're building their own kind of, I call them sub clouds, but Dave Vellante says it's a Supercloud. And that essentially is the model. And then once you have a Supercloud, you say, great, I'm going to make sure it works on Azure and Google. >> Andy: Yep. >> And Alibaba if I have to. So, we're kind of seeing a playbook. >> Andy: Mm hmm. >> But you can't get it wrong 'cause it scales. >> Larry: Yeah, yeah. >> You can't scale the wrong answer. >> Andy: Yeah. >> So that seems to be what I'm watching is, who gets it right? Product market fit. Then if they roll it out to the cloud, then it becomes a Supercloud, and that's pure product market fit. So I think that's something that I've seen some people trying to figure out. And then, are you a supplier to the Superclouds? Like a Dell? Or you become an enabler? >> Andy: Yeah. >> You know, what's Dell Technologies do? >> Larry: Yeah. >> I mean, how do the box movers compete? >> Larry: I, the whole thing is now hybrid and you're going to have to see just, you said. (Larry laughs) >> John: Hybrid's a steady-state. I don't need to. >> Andy: I mean, >> By the way we're (indistinct), we can't get the chips, cause Broadcom and Apple bought 'em all. (Larry laughs) I mean there's a huge chip problem going on. >> Yes. I agree. >> Right now. >> I agree. >> I mean all these problems when you attract to a much higher level, a lot of those problems go away because you don't care about what they're using underlying as long as you deliver my solution. >> Larry: Yes. >> Yeah, it could be significantly, a little bit faster than what it used to be. But at the end of the day, are you solving my specific use case? >> John: Yeah. >> Then I'm willing to wait a little bit longer. >> John: Yeah. Time's on our side and now they're getting the right answers. Larry, Andy, thanks for coming on. This great analyst session turned into more of a podcast vibe, but you know what? (Larry laughs) To chill here at re:Mars, thanks for coming on, and we unpacked a lot. Thanks for sharing. >> Both: Thank you. >> Appreciate it. We'll get you back on. We'll get you in the rotation. We'll take it virtual. Do a panel. Do a panel, do some panels around this. >> Larry: Absolutely. >> Andy: Oh this not virtual, this physical. >> No we're live right now! (all laugh) We get back to Palo Alto. You guys are influencers. Thanks for coming on. You guys are moving the market, congratulations. Take a minute, quick minute each to plug any work you're doing for the people watching. Larry, what are you working on? Andy? You go after Larry, what you're working on. >> Yeah. So since I started my company, RobustCloud, since I left IDC about a year ago, I'm focused on edge computing, cloud-native technologies, and Low Code/No Code. And basically I help companies put their business value together. >> All right, Andy, what are you working on? >> I do a lot of work on the AIML areas. Particularly, last few of my reports are in the AI Ops incident management and ML Ops areas of how to generally improve your operations. >> John: Got it, yeah. >> In other words, how do you use the AIML to improve your IT operations? How do you use IT Ops to improve your AIML efficiency? So those are the- >> John: The real hardcore business transformation. >> Yep. >> All right. Guys, thanks so much for coming on the analyst session. We do keynote review, breaking down re:Mars after day two. We got a full day tomorrow. I'm John Furrier with theCUBE. See you next time. (pleasant music)

(upbeat music) >> Welcome back to Supercloud 2. This is Dave Vellante. We're here exploring the intersection of data and analytics in the future of cloud and data. In this segment, we're going to look deeper into the life sciences business with Jesse Cugliotta, who leads the Healthcare and Life Sciences industry practice at Snowflake. And Nicholas Nick Taylor, who's the executive director of Informatics at Ionis Pharmaceuticals. Gentlemen, thanks for coming in theCUBE and participating in the program. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you for having us- >> Thanks for having me. >> You're very welcome, okay, we're go really try to look at data sharing as a use case and try to understand what's happening in the healthcare industry generally and specifically, how Nick thinks about sharing data in a governed fashion whether tapping the capabilities of multiple clouds is advantageous long term or presents more challenges than the effort is worth. And to start, Jesse, you lead this industry practice for Snowflake and it's a challenging and vibrant area. It's one that's hyper-focused on data privacy. So the first question is, you know there was a time when healthcare and other regulated industries wouldn't go near the cloud. What are you seeing today in the industry around cloud adoption and specifically multi-cloud adoption? >> Yeah, for years I've heard that healthcare and life sciences has been cloud diverse, but in spite of all of that if you look at a lot of aspects of this industry today, they've been running in the cloud for over 10 years now. Particularly when you look at CRM technologies or HR or HCM, even clinical technologies like EDC or ETMF. And it's interesting that you mentioned multi-cloud as well because this has always been an underlying reality especially within life sciences. This industry grows through acquisition where companies are looking to boost their future development pipeline either by buying up smaller biotechs, they may have like a late or a mid-stage promising candidate. And what typically happens is the larger pharma could then use their commercial muscle and their regulatory experience to move it to approvals and into the market. And I think the last few decades of cheap capital certainly accelerated that trend over the last couple of years. But this typically means that these new combined institutions may have technologies that are running on multiple clouds or multiple cloud strategies in various different regions to your point. And what we've often found is that they're not planning to standardize everything onto a single cloud provider. They're often looking for technologies that embrace this multi-cloud approach and work seamlessly across them. And I think this is a big reason why we, here at Snowflake, we've seen such strong momentum and growth across this industry because healthcare and life science has actually been one of our fastest growing sectors over the last couple of years. And a big part of that is in fact that we run on not only all three major cloud providers, but individual accounts within each and any one of them, they had the ability to communicate and interoperate with one another, like a globally interconnected database. >> Great, thank you for that setup. And so Nick, tell us more about your role and Ionis Pharma please. >> Sure. So I've been at Ionis for around five years now. You know, when when I joined it was, the IT department was pretty small. There wasn't a lot of warehousing, there wasn't a lot of kind of big data there. We saw an opportunity with Snowflake pretty early on as a provider that would be a lot of benefit for us, you know, 'cause we're small, wanted something that was fairly hands off. You know, I remember the days where you had to get a lot of DBAs in to fine tune your databases, make sure everything was running really, really well. The notion that there's, you know, no indexes to tune, right? There's very few knobs and dials, you can turn on Snowflake. That was appealing that, you know, it just kind of worked. So we found a use case to bring the platform in. We basically used it as a logging replacement as a Splunk kind of replacement with a platform called Elysium Analytics as a way to just get it in the door and give us the opportunity to solve a real world use case, but also to help us start to experiment using Snowflake as a platform. It took us a while to A, get the funding to bring it in, but B, build the momentum behind it. But, you know, as we experimented we added more data in there, we ran a few more experiments, we piloted in few more applications, we really saw the power of the platform and now, we are becoming a commercial organization. And with that comes a lot of major datasets. And so, you know, we really see Snowflake as being a very important part of our ecology going forward to help us build out our infrastructure. >> Okay, and you are running, your group runs on Azure, it's kind of mono cloud, single cloud, but others within Ionis are using other clouds, but you're not currently, you know, collaborating in terms of data sharing. And I wonder if you could talk about how your data needs have evolved over the past decade. I know you came from another highly regulated industry in financial services. So what's changed? You sort of touched on this before, you had these, you know, very specialized individuals who were, you know, DBAs, and, you know, could tune databases and the like, so that's evolved, but how has generally your needs evolved? Just kind of make an observation over the last, you know, five or seven years. What have you seen? >> Well, we, I wasn't in a group that did a lot of warehousing. It was more like online trade capture, but, you know, it was very much on-prem. You know, being in the cloud is very much a dirty word back then. I know that's changed since I've left. But in, you know, we had major, major teams of everyone who could do everything, right. As I mentioned in the pharma organization, there's a lot fewer of us. So the data needs there are very different, right? It's, we have a lot of SaaS applications. One of the difficulties with bringing a lot of SaaS applications on board is obviously data integration. So making sure the data is the same between them. But one of the big problems is joining the data across those SaaS applications. So one of the benefits, one of the things that we use Snowflake for is to basically take data out of these SaaS applications and load them into a warehouse so we can do those joins. So we use technologies like Boomi, we use technologies like Fivetran, like DBT to bring this data all into one place and start to kind of join that basically, allow us to do, run experiments, do analysis, basically take better, find better use for our data that was siloed in the past. You mentioned- >> Yeah. And just to add on to Nick's point there. >> Go ahead. >> That's actually something very common that we're seeing across the industry is because a lot of these SaaS applications that you mentioned, Nick, they're with from vendors that are trying to build their own ecosystem in walled garden. And by definition, many of them do not want to integrate with one another. So from a, you know, from a data platform vendor's perspective, we see this as a huge opportunity to help organizations like Ionis and others kind of deal with the challenges that Nick is speaking about because if the individual platform vendors are never going to make that part of their strategy, we see it as a great way to add additional value to these customers. >> Well, this data sharing thing is interesting. There's a lot of walled gardens out there. Oracle is a walled garden, AWS in many ways is a walled garden. You know, Microsoft has its walled garden. You could argue Snowflake is a walled garden. But the, what we're seeing and the whole reason behind the notion of super-cloud is we're creating an abstraction layer where you actually, in this case for this use case, can share data in a governed manner. Let's forget about the cross-cloud for a moment. I'll come back to that, but I wonder, Nick, if you could talk about how you are sharing data, again, Snowflake sort of, it's, I look at Snowflake like the app store, Apple, we're going to control everything, we're going to guarantee with data clean rooms and governance and the standards that we've created within that platform, we're going to make sure that it's safe for you to share data in this highly regulated industry. Are you doing that today? And take us through, you know, the considerations that you have in that regard. >> So it's kind of early days for us in Snowflake in general, but certainly in data sharing, we have a couple of examples. So data marketplace, you know, that's a great invention. It's, I've been a small IT shop again, right? The fact that we are able to just bring down terabyte size datasets straight into our Snowflake and run analytics directly on that is huge, right? The fact that we don't have to FTP these massive files around run jobs that may break, being able to just have that on tap is huge for us. We've recently been talking to one of our CRO feeds- CRO organizations about getting their data feeds in. Historically, this clinical trial data that comes in on an FTP file, we have to process it, take it through the platforms, put it into the warehouse. But one of the CROs that we talked to recently when we were reinvestigate in what data opportunities they have, they were a Snowflake customer and we are, I think, the first production customer they have, have taken that feed. So they're basically exposing their tables of data that historically came in these FTP files directly into our Snowflake instance now. We haven't taken advantage of that. It only actually flipped the switch about three or four weeks ago. But that's pretty big for us again, right? We don't have to worry about maintaining those jobs that take those files in. We don't have to worry about the jobs that take those and shove them on the warehouse. We now have a feed that's directly there that we can use a tool like DBT to push through directly into our model. And then the third avenue that's came up, actually fairly recently as well was genetics data. So genetics data that's highly, highly regulated. We had to be very careful with that. And we had a conversation with Snowflake about the data white rooms practice, and we see that as a pretty interesting opportunity. We are having one organization run genetic analysis being able to send us those genetic datasets, but then there's another organization that's actually has the in quotes "metadata" around that, so age, ethnicity, location, et cetera. And being able to join those two datasets through some kind of mechanism would be really beneficial to the organization. Being able to build a data white room so we can put that genetic data in a secure place, anonymize it, and then share the amalgamated data back out in a way that's able to be joined to the anonymized metadata, that could be pretty huge for us as well. >> Okay, so this is interesting. So you talk about FTP, which was the common way to share data. And so you basically, it's so, I got it now you take it and do whatever you want with it. Now we're talking, Jesse, about sharing the same copy of live data. How common is that use case in your industry? >> It's become very common over the last couple of years. And I think a big part of it is having the right technology to do it effectively. You know, as Nick mentioned, historically, this was done by people sending files around. And the challenge with that approach, of course, while there are multiple challenges, one, every time you send a file around your, by definition creating a copy of the data because you have to pull it out of your system of record, put it into a file, put it on some server where somebody else picks it up. And by definition at that point you've lost governance. So this creates challenges in general hesitation to doing so. It's not that it hasn't happened, but the other challenge with it is that the data's no longer real time. You know, you're working with a copy of data that was as fresh as at the time at that when that was actually extracted. And that creates limitations in terms of how effective this can be. What we're starting to see now with some of our customers is live sharing of information. And there's two aspects of that that are important. One is that you're not actually physically creating the copy and sending it to someone else, you're actually exposing it from where it exists and allowing another consumer to interact with it from their own account that could be in another region, some are running in another cloud. So this concept of super-cloud or cross-cloud could becoming realized here. But the other important aspect of it is that when that other- when that other entity is querying your data, they're seeing it in a real time state. And this is particularly important when you think about use cases like supply chain planning, where you're leveraging data across various different enterprises. If I'm a manufacturer or if I'm a contract manufacturer and I can see the actual inventory positions of my clients, of my distributors, of the levels of consumption at the pharmacy or the hospital that gives me a lot of indication as to how my demand profile is changing over time versus working with a static picture that may have been from three weeks ago. And this has become incredibly important as supply chains are becoming more constrained and the ability to plan accurately has never been more important. >> Yeah. So the race is on to solve these problems. So it start, we started with, hey, okay, cloud, Dave, we're going to simplify database, we're going to put it in the cloud, give virtually infinite resources, separate compute from storage. Okay, check, we got that. Now we've moved into sort of data clean rooms and governance and you've got an ecosystem that's forming around this to make it safer to share data. And then, you know, nirvana, at least near term nirvana is we're going to build data applications and we're going to be able to share live data and then you start to get into monetization. Do you see, Nick, in the near future where I know you've got relationships with, for instance, big pharma like AstraZeneca, do you see a situation where you start sharing data with them? Is that in the near term? Is that more long term? What are the considerations in that regard? >> I mean, it's something we've been thinking about. We haven't actually addressed that yet. Yeah, I could see situations where, you know, some of these big relationships where we do need to share a lot of data, it would be very nice to be able to just flick a switch and share our data assets across to those organizations. But, you know, that's a ways off for us now. We're mainly looking at bringing data in at the moment. >> One of the things that we've seen in financial services in particular, and Jesse, I'd love to get your thoughts on this, is companies like Goldman or Capital One or Nasdaq taking their stack, their software, their tooling actually putting it on the cloud and facing it to their customers and selling that as a new monetization vector as part of their digital or business transformation. Are you seeing that Jesse at all in healthcare or is it happening today or do you see a day when that happens or is healthier or just too scary to do that? >> No, we're seeing the early stages of this as well. And I think it's for some of the reasons we talked about earlier. You know, it's a much more secure way to work with a colleague if you don't have to copy your data and potentially expose it. And some of the reasons that people have historically copied that data is that they needed to leverage some sort of algorithm or application that a third party was providing. So maybe someone was predicting the ideal location and run a clinical trial for this particular rare disease category where there are only so many patients around the world that may actually be candidates for this disease. So you have to pick the ideal location. Well, sending the dataset to do so, you know, would involve a fairly complicated process similar to what Nick was mentioning earlier. If the company who was providing the logic or the algorithm to determine that location could bring that algorithm to you and you run it against your own data, that's a much more ideal and a much safer and more secure way for this industry to actually start to work with some of these partners and vendors. And that's one of the things that we're looking to enable going into this year is that, you know, the whole concept should be bring the logic to your data versus your data to the logic and the underlying sharing mechanisms that we've spoken about are actually what are powering that today. >> And so thank you for that, Jesse. >> Yes, Dave. >> And so Nick- Go ahead please. >> Yeah, if I could add, yeah, if I could add to that, that's something certainly we've been thinking about. In fact, we'd started talking to Snowflake about that a couple of years ago. We saw the power there again of the platform to be able to say, well, could we, we were thinking in more of a data share, but could we share our data out to say an AI/ML vendor, have them do the analytics and then share the data, the results back to us. Now, you know, there's more powerful mechanisms to do that within the Snowflake ecosystem now, but you know, we probably wouldn't need to have onsite AI/ML people, right? Some of that stuff's very sophisticated, expensive resources, hard to find, you know, it's much better for us to find a company that would be able to build those analytics, maintain those analytics for us. And you know, we saw an opportunity to do that a couple years ago and we're kind of excited about the opportunity there that we can just basically do it with a no op, right? We share the data route, we have the analytics done, we get the result back and it's just fairly seamless. >> I mean, I could have a whole another Cube session on this, guys, but I mean, I just did a a session with Andy Thurai, a Constellation research about how difficult it's been for organization to get ROI because they don't have the expertise in house so they want to either outsource it or rely on vendor R&D companies to inject that AI and machine intelligence directly into applications. My follow-up question to you Nick is, when you think about, 'cause Jesse was talking about, you know, let the data basically stay where it is and you know bring the compute to that data. If that data lives on different clouds, and maybe it's not your group, but maybe it's other parts of Ionis or maybe it's your partners like AstraZeneca, or you know, the AI/ML partners and they're potentially on other clouds or that data is on other clouds. Do you see that, again, coming back to super-cloud, do you see it as an advantage to be able to have a consistent experience across those clouds? Or is that just kind of get in the way and make things more complex? What's your take on that, Nick? >> Well, from the vendors, so from the client side, it's kind of seamless with Snowflake for us. So we know for a fact that one of the datasets we have at the moment, Compile, which is a, the large multi terabyte dataset I was talking about. They're on AWS on the East Coast and we are on Azure on the West Coast. And they had to do a few tweaks in the background to make sure the data was pushed over from, but from my point of view, the data just exists, right? So for me, I think it's hugely beneficial that Snowflake supports this kind of infrastructure, right? We don't have to jump through hoops to like, okay, well, we'll download it here and then re-upload it here. They already have the mechanism in the background to do these multi-cloud shares. So it's not important for us internally at the moment. I could see potentially at some point where we start linking across different groups in the organization that do have maybe Amazon or Google Cloud, but certainly within our providers. We know for a fact that they're on different services at the moment and it just works. >> Yeah, and we learned from Benoit Dageville, who came into the studio on August 9th with first Supercloud in 2022 that Snowflake uses a single global instance across regions and across clouds, yeah, whether or not you can query across you know, big regions, it just depends, right? It depends on latency. You might have to make a copy or maybe do some tweaks in the background. But guys, we got to jump, I really appreciate your time. Really thoughtful discussion on the future of data and cloud, specifically within healthcare and pharma. Thank you for your time. >> Thanks- >> Thanks for having us. >> All right, this is Dave Vellante for theCUBE team and my co-host, John Furrier. Keep it right there for more action at Supercloud 2. (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, this is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> A decade of big data investments combined with cloud scale, the rise of much more cost effective processing power. And the introduction of advanced tooling has catapulted machine intelligence to the forefront of technology investments. No matter what job you have, your operation will be AI powered within five years and machines may actually even be doing your job. Artificial intelligence is being infused into applications, infrastructure, equipment, and virtually every aspect of our lives. AI is proving to be extremely helpful at things like controlling vehicles, speeding up medical diagnoses, processing language, advancing science, and generally raising the stakes on what it means to apply technology for business advantage. But business value realization has been a challenge for most organizations due to lack of skills, complexity of programming models, immature technology integration, sizable upfront investments, ethical concerns, and lack of business alignment. Mastering AI technology will not be a requirement for success in our view. However, figuring out how and where to apply AI to your business will be crucial. That means understanding the business case, picking the right technology partner, experimenting in bite-sized chunks, and quickly identifying winners to double down on from an investment standpoint. Hello and welcome to this week's Wiki-bond CUBE Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we update you on the state of AI and what it means for the competition. And to do so, we invite into our studios Andy Thurai of Constellation Research. Andy covers AI deeply. He knows the players, he knows the pitfalls of AI investment, and he's a collaborator. Andy, great to have you on the program. Thanks for coming into our CUBE studios. >> Thanks for having me on. >> You're very welcome. Okay, let's set the table with a premise and a series of assertions we want to test with Andy. I'm going to lay 'em out. And then Andy, I'd love for you to comment. So, first of all, according to McKinsey, AI adoption has more than doubled since 2017, but only 10% of organizations report seeing significant ROI. That's a BCG and MIT study. And part of that challenge of AI is it requires data, is requires good data, data proficiency, which is not trivial, as you know. Firms that can master both data and AI, we believe are going to have a competitive advantage this decade. Hyperscalers, as we show you dominate AI and ML. We'll show you some data on that. And having said that, there's plenty of room for specialists. They need to partner with the cloud vendors for go to market productivity. And finally, organizations increasingly have to put data and AI at the center of their enterprises. And to do that, most are going to rely on vendor R&D to leverage AI and ML. In other words, Andy, they're going to buy it and apply it as opposed to build it. What are your thoughts on that setup and that premise? >> Yeah, I see that a lot happening in the field, right? So first of all, the only 10% of realizing a return on investment. That's so true because we talked about this earlier, the most companies are still in the innovation cycle. So they're trying to innovate and see what they can do to apply. A lot of these times when you look at the solutions, what they come up with or the models they create, the experimentation they do, most times they don't even have a good business case to solve, right? So they just experiment and then they figure it out, "Oh my God, this model is working. Can we do something to solve it?" So it's like you found a hammer and then you're trying to find the needle kind of thing, right? That never works. >> 'Cause it's cool or whatever it is. >> It is, right? So that's why, I always advise, when they come to me and ask me things like, "Hey, what's the right way to do it? What is the secret sauce?" And, we talked about this. The first thing I tell them is, "Find out what is the business case that's having the most amount of problems, that that can be solved using some of the AI use cases," right? Not all of them can be solved. Even after you experiment, do the whole nine yards, spend millions of dollars on that, right? And later on you make it efficient only by saving maybe $50,000 for the company or a $100,000 for the company, is it really even worth the experiment, right? So you got to start with the saying that, you know, where's the base for this happening? Where's the need? What's a business use case? It doesn't have to be about cost efficient and saving money in the existing processes. It could be a new thing. You want to bring in a new revenue stream, but figure out what is a business use case, how much money potentially I can make off of that. The same way that start-ups go after. Right? >> Yeah. Pretty straightforward. All right, let's take a look at where ML and AI fit relative to the other hot sectors of the ETR dataset. This XY graph shows net score spending velocity in the vertical axis and presence in the survey, they call it sector perversion for the October survey, the January survey's in the field. Then that squiggly line on ML/AI represents the progression. Since the January 21 survey, you can see the downward trajectory. And we position ML and AI relative to the other big four hot sectors or big three, including, ML/AI is four. Containers, cloud and RPA. These have consistently performed above that magic 40% red dotted line for most of the past two years. Anything above 40%, we think is highly elevated. And we've just included analytics and big data for context and relevant adjacentness, if you will. Now note that green arrow moving toward, you know, the 40% mark on ML/AI. I got a glimpse of the January survey, which is in the field. It's got more than a thousand responses already, and it's trending up for the current survey. So Andy, what do you make of this downward trajectory over the past seven quarters and the presumed uptick in the coming months? >> So one of the things you have to keep in mind is when the pandemic happened, it's about survival mode, right? So when somebody's in a survival mode, what happens, the luxury and the innovations get cut. That's what happens. And this is exactly what happened in the situation. So as you can see in the last seven quarters, which is almost dating back close to pandemic, everybody was trying to keep their operations alive, especially digital operations. How do I keep the lights on? That's the most important thing for them. So while the numbers spent on AI, ML is less overall, I still think the AI ML to spend to sort of like a employee experience or the IT ops, AI ops, ML ops, as we talked about, some of those areas actually went up. There are companies, we talked about it, Atlassian had a lot of platform issues till the amount of money people are spending on that is exorbitant and simply because they are offering the solution that was not available other way. So there are companies out there, you can take AoPS or incident management for that matter, right? A lot of companies have a digital insurance, they don't know how to properly manage it. How do you find an intern solve it immediately? That's all using AI ML and some of those areas actually growing unbelievable, the companies in that area. >> So this is a really good point. If you can you bring up that chart again, what Andy's saying is a lot of the companies in the ETR taxonomy that are doing things with AI might not necessarily show up in a granular fashion. And I think the other point I would make is, these are still highly elevated numbers. If you put on like storage and servers, they would read way, way down the list. And, look in the pandemic, we had to deal with work from home, we had to re-architect the network, we had to worry about security. So those are really good points that you made there. Let's, unpack this a little bit and look at the ML AI sector and the ETR data and specifically at the players and get Andy to comment on this. This chart here shows the same x y dimensions, and it just notes some of the players that are specifically have services and products that people spend money on, that CIOs and IT buyers can comment on. So the table insert shows how the companies are plotted, it's net score, and then the ends in the survey. And Andy, the hyperscalers are dominant, as you can see. You see Databricks there showing strong as a specialist, and then you got to pack a six or seven in there. And then Oracle and IBM, kind of the big whales of yester year are in the mix. And to your point, companies like Salesforce that you mentioned to me offline aren't in that mix, but they do a lot in AI. But what are your takeaways from that data? >> If you could put the slide back on please. I want to make quick comments on a couple of those. So the first one is, it's surprising other hyperscalers, right? As you and I talked about this earlier, AWS is more about logo blocks. We discussed that, right? >> Like what? Like a SageMaker as an example. >> We'll give you all the components what do you need. Whether it's MLOps component or whether it's, CodeWhisperer that we talked about, or a oral platform or data or data, whatever you want. They'll give you the blocks and then you'll build things on top of it, right? But Google took a different way. Matter of fact, if we did those numbers a few years ago, Google would've been number one because they did a lot of work with their acquisition of DeepMind and other things. They're way ahead of the pack when it comes to AI for longest time. Now, I think Microsoft's move of partnering and taking a huge competitor out would open the eyes is unbelievable. You saw that everybody is talking about chat GPI, right? And the open AI tool and ChatGPT rather. Remember as Warren Buffet is saying that, when my laundry lady comes and talk to me about stock market, it's heated up. So that's how it's heated up. Everybody's using ChatGPT. What that means is at the end of the day is they're creating, it's still in beta, keep in mind. It's not fully... >> Can you play with it a little bit? >> I have a little bit. >> I have, but it's good and it's not good. You know what I mean? >> Look, so at the end of the day, you take the massive text of all the available text in the world today, mass them all together. And then you ask a question, it's going to basically search through that and figure it out and answer that back. Yes, it's good. But again, as we discussed, if there's no business use case of what problem you're going to solve. This is building hype. But then eventually they'll figure out, for example, all your chats, online chats, could be aided by your AI chat bots, which is already there, which is not there at that level. This could build help that, right? Or the other thing we talked about is one of the areas where I'm more concerned about is that it is able to produce equal enough original text at the level that humans can produce, for example, ChatGPT or the equal enough, the large language transformer can help you write stories as of Shakespeare wrote it. Pretty close to it. It'll learn from that. So when it comes down to it, talk about creating messages, articles, blogs, especially during political seasons, not necessarily just in US, but anywhere for that matter. If people are able to produce at the emission speed and throw it at the consumers and confuse them, the elections can be won, the governments can be toppled. >> Because to your point about chatbots is chatbots have obviously, reduced the number of bodies that you need to support chat. But they haven't solved the problem of serving consumers. Most of the chat bots are conditioned response, which of the following best describes your problem? >> The current chatbot. >> Yeah. Hey, did we solve your problem? No. Is the answer. So that has some real potential. But if you could bring up that slide again, Ken, I mean you've got the hyperscalers that are dominant. You talked about Google and Microsoft is ubiquitous, they seem to be dominant in every ETR category. But then you have these other specialists. How do those guys compete? And maybe you could even, cite some of the guys that you know, how do they compete with the hyperscalers? What's the key there for like a C3 ai or some of the others that are on there? >> So I've spoken with at least two of the CEOs of the smaller companies that you have on the list. One of the things they're worried about is that if they continue to operate independently without being part of hyperscaler, either the hyperscalers will develop something to compete against them full scale, or they'll become irrelevant. Because at the end of the day, look, cloud is dominant. Not many companies are going to do like AI modeling and training and deployment the whole nine yards by independent by themselves. They're going to depend on one of the clouds, right? So if they're already going to be in the cloud, by taking them out to come to you, it's going to be extremely difficult issue to solve. So all these companies are going and saying, "You know what? We need to be in hyperscalers." For example, you could have looked at DataRobot recently, they made announcements, Google and AWS, and they are all over the place. So you need to go where the customers are. Right? >> All right, before we go on, I want to share some other data from ETR and why people adopt AI and get your feedback. So the data historically shows that feature breadth and technical capabilities were the main decision points for AI adoption, historically. What says to me that it's too much focus on technology. In your view, is that changing? Does it have to change? Will it change? >> Yes. Simple answer is yes. So here's the thing. The data you're speaking from is from previous years. >> Yes >> I can guarantee you, if you look at the latest data that's coming in now, those two will be a secondary and tertiary points. The number one would be about ROI. And how do I achieve? I've spent ton of money on all of my experiments. This is the same thing theme I'm seeing across when talking to everybody who's spending money on AI. I've spent so much money on it. When can I get it live in production? How much, how can I quickly get it? Because you know, the board is breathing down their neck. You already spend this much money. Show me something that's valuable. So the ROI is going to become, take it from me, I'm predicting this for 2023, that's going to become number one. >> Yeah, and if people focus on it, they'll figure it out. Okay. Let's take a look at some of the top players that won, some of the names we just looked at and double click on that and break down their spending profile. So the chart here shows the net score, how net score is calculated. So pay attention to the second set of bars that Databricks, who was pretty prominent on the previous chart. And we've annotated the colors. The lime green is, we're bringing the platform in new. The forest green is, we're going to spend 6% or more relative to last year. And the gray is flat spending. The pinkish is our spending's going to be down on AI and ML, 6% or worse. And the red is churn. So you don't want big red. You subtract the reds from the greens and you get net score, which is shown by those blue dots that you see there. So AWS has the highest net score and very little churn. I mean, single low single digit churn. But notably, you see Databricks and DataRobot are next in line within Microsoft and Google also, they've got very low churn. Andy, what are your thoughts on this data? >> So a couple of things that stands out to me. Most of them are in line with my conversation with customers. Couple of them stood out to me on how bad IBM Watson is doing. >> Yeah, bring that back up if you would. Let's take a look at that. IBM Watson is the far right and the red, that bright red is churning and again, you want low red here. Why do you think that is? >> Well, so look, IBM has been in the forefront of innovating things for many, many years now, right? And over the course of years we talked about this, they moved from a product innovation centric company into more of a services company. And over the years they were making, as at one point, you know that they were making about majority of that money from services. Now things have changed Arvind has taken over, he came from research. So he's doing a great job of trying to reinvent themselves as a company. But it's going to have a long way to catch up. IBM Watson, if you think about it, that played what, jeopardy and chess years ago, like 15 years ago? >> It was jaw dropping when you first saw it. And then they weren't able to commercialize that. >> Yeah. >> And you're making a good point. When Gerstner took over IBM at the time, John Akers wanted to split the company up. He wanted to have a database company, he wanted to have a storage company. Because that's where the industry trend was, Gerstner said no, he came from AMEX, right? He came from American Express. He said, "No, we're going to have a single throat to choke for the customer." They bought PWC for relatively short money. I think it was $15 billion, completely transformed and I would argue saved IBM. But the trade off was, it sort of took them out of product leadership. And so from Gerstner to Palmisano to Remedi, it was really a services led company. And I think Arvind is really bringing it back to a product company with strong consulting. I mean, that's one of the pillars. And so I think that's, they've got a strong story in data and AI. They just got to sort of bring it together and better. Bring that chart up one more time. I want to, the other point is Oracle, Oracle sort of has the dominant lock-in for mission critical database and they're sort of applying AI there. But to your point, they're really not an AI company in the sense that they're taking unstructured data and doing sort of new things. It's really about how to make Oracle better, right? >> Well, you got to remember, Oracle is about database for the structure data. So in yesterday's world, they were dominant database. But you know, if you are to start storing like videos and texts and audio and other things, and then start doing search of vector search and all that, Oracle is not necessarily the database company of choice. And they're strongest thing being apps and building AI into the apps? They are kind of surviving in that area. But again, I wouldn't name them as an AI company, right? But the other thing that that surprised me in that list, what you showed me is yes, AWS is number one. >> Bring that back up if you would, Ken. >> AWS is number one as you, it should be. But what what actually caught me by surprise is how DataRobot is holding, you know? I mean, look at that. The either net new addition and or expansion, DataRobot seem to be doing equally well, even better than Microsoft and Google. That surprises me. >> DataRobot's, and again, this is a function of spending momentum. So remember from the previous chart that Microsoft and Google, much, much larger than DataRobot. DataRobot more niche. But with spending velocity and has always had strong spending velocity, despite some of the recent challenges, organizational challenges. And then you see these other specialists, H2O.ai, Anaconda, dataiku, little bit of red showing there C3.ai. But these again, to stress are the sort of specialists other than obviously the hyperscalers. These are the specialists in AI. All right, so we hit the bigger names in the sector. Now let's take a look at the emerging technology companies. And one of the gems of the ETR dataset is the emerging technology survey. It's called ETS. They used to just do it like twice a year. It's now run four times a year. I just discovered it kind of mid-2022. And it's exclusively focused on private companies that are potential disruptors, they might be M&A candidates and if they've raised enough money, they could be acquirers of companies as well. So Databricks would be an example. They've made a number of investments in companies. SNEAK would be another good example. Companies that are private, but they're buyers, they hope to go IPO at some point in time. So this chart here, shows the emerging companies in the ML AI sector of the ETR dataset. So the dimensions of this are similar, they're net sentiment on the Y axis and mind share on the X axis. Basically, the ETS study measures awareness on the x axis and intent to do something with, evaluate or implement or not, on that vertical axis. So it's like net score on the vertical where negatives are subtracted from the positives. And again, mind share is vendor awareness. That's the horizontal axis. Now that inserted table shows net sentiment and the ends in the survey, which informs the position of the dots. And you'll notice we're plotting TensorFlow as well. We know that's not a company, but it's there for reference as open source tooling is an option for customers. And ETR sometimes like to show that as a reference point. Now we've also drawn a line for Databricks to show how relatively dominant they've become in the past 10 ETS surveys and sort of mind share going back to late 2018. And you can see a dozen or so other emerging tech vendors. So Andy, I want you to share your thoughts on these players, who were the ones to watch, name some names. We'll bring that data back up as you as you comment. >> So Databricks, as you said, remember we talked about how Oracle is not necessarily the database of the choice, you know? So Databricks is kind of trying to solve some of the issue for AI/ML workloads, right? And the problem is also there is no one company that could solve all of the problems. For example, if you look at the names in here, some of them are database names, some of them are platform names, some of them are like MLOps companies like, DataRobot (indistinct) and others. And some of them are like future based companies like, you know, the Techton and stuff. >> So it's a mix of those sub sectors? >> It's a mix of those companies. >> We'll talk to ETR about that. They'd be interested in your input on how to make this more granular and these sub-sectors. You got Hugging Face in here, >> Which is NLP, yeah. >> Okay. So your take, are these companies going to get acquired? Are they going to go IPO? Are they going to merge? >> Well, most of them going to get acquired. My prediction would be most of them will get acquired because look, at the end of the day, hyperscalers need these capabilities, right? So they're going to either create their own, AWS is very good at doing that. They have done a lot of those things. But the other ones, like for particularly Azure, they're going to look at it and saying that, "You know what, it's going to take time for me to build this. Why don't I just go and buy you?" Right? Or or even the smaller players like Oracle or IBM Cloud, this will exist. They might even take a look at them, right? So at the end of the day, a lot of these companies are going to get acquired or merged with others. >> Yeah. All right, let's wrap with some final thoughts. I'm going to make some comments Andy, and then ask you to dig in here. Look, despite the challenge of leveraging AI, you know, Ken, if you could bring up the next chart. We're not repeating, we're not predicting the AI winter of the 1990s. Machine intelligence. It's a superpower that's going to permeate every aspect of the technology industry. AI and data strategies have to be connected. Leveraging first party data is going to increase AI competitiveness and shorten time to value. Andy, I'd love your thoughts on that. I know you've got some thoughts on governance and AI ethics. You know, we talked about ChatGBT, Deepfakes, help us unpack all these trends. >> So there's so much information packed up there, right? The AI and data strategy, that's very, very, very important. If you don't have a proper data, people don't realize that AI is, your AI is the morals that you built on, it's predominantly based on the data what you have. It's not, AI cannot predict something that's going to happen without knowing what it is. It need to be trained, it need to understand what is it you're talking about. So 99% of the time you got to have a good data for you to train. So this where I mentioned to you, the problem is a lot of these companies can't afford to collect the real world data because it takes too long, it's too expensive. So a lot of these companies are trying to do the synthetic data way. It has its own set of issues because you can't use all... >> What's that synthetic data? Explain that. >> Synthetic data is basically not a real world data, but it's a created or simulated data equal and based on real data. It looks, feels, smells, taste like a real data, but it's not exactly real data, right? This is particularly useful in the financial and healthcare industry for world. So you don't have to, at the end of the day, if you have real data about your and my medical history data, if you redact it, you can still reverse this. It's fairly easy, right? >> Yeah, yeah. >> So by creating a synthetic data, there is no correlation between the real data and the synthetic data. >> So that's part of AI ethics and privacy and, okay. >> So the synthetic data, the issue with that is that when you're trying to commingle that with that, you can't create models based on just on synthetic data because synthetic data, as I said is artificial data. So basically you're creating artificial models, so you got to blend in properly that that blend is the problem. And you know how much of real data, how much of synthetic data you could use. You got to use judgment between efficiency cost and the time duration stuff. So that's one-- >> And risk >> And the risk involved with that. And the secondary issues which we talked about is that when you're creating, okay, you take a business use case, okay, you think about investing things, you build the whole thing out and you're trying to put it out into the market. Most companies that I talk to don't have a proper governance in place. They don't have ethics standards in place. They don't worry about the biases in data, they just go on trying to solve a business case >> It's wild west. >> 'Cause that's what they start. It's a wild west! And then at the end of the day when they are close to some legal litigation action or something or something else happens and that's when the Oh Shit! moments happens, right? And then they come in and say, "You know what, how do I fix this?" The governance, security and all of those things, ethics bias, data bias, de-biasing, none of them can be an afterthought. It got to start with the, from the get-go. So you got to start at the beginning saying that, "You know what, I'm going to do all of those AI programs, but before we get into this, we got to set some framework for doing all these things properly." Right? And then the-- >> Yeah. So let's go back to the key points. I want to bring up the cloud again. Because you got to get cloud right. Getting that right matters in AI to the points that you were making earlier. You can't just be out on an island and hyperscalers, they're going to obviously continue to do well. They get more and more data's going into the cloud and they have the native tools. To your point, in the case of AWS, Microsoft's obviously ubiquitous. Google's got great capabilities here. They've got integrated ecosystems partners that are going to continue to strengthen through the decade. What are your thoughts here? >> So a couple of things. One is the last mile ML or last mile AI that nobody's talking about. So that need to be attended to. There are lot of players in the market that coming up, when I talk about last mile, I'm talking about after you're done with the experimentation of the model, how fast and quickly and efficiently can you get it to production? So that's production being-- >> Compressing that time is going to put dollars in your pocket. >> Exactly. Right. >> So once, >> If you got it right. >> If you get it right, of course. So there are, there are a couple of issues with that. Once you figure out that model is working, that's perfect. People don't realize, the moment you decide that moment when the decision is made, it's like a new car. After you purchase the value decreases on a minute basis. Same thing with the models. Once the model is created, you need to be in production right away because it starts losing it value on a seconds minute basis. So issue number one, how fast can I get it over there? So your deployment, you are inferencing efficiently at the edge locations, your optimization, your security, all of this is at issue. But you know what is more important than that in the last mile? You keep the model up, you continue to work on, again, going back to the car analogy, at one point you got to figure out your car is costing more than to operate. So you got to get a new car, right? And that's the same thing with the models as well. If your model has reached a stage, it is actually a potential risk for your operation. To give you an idea, if Uber has a model, the first time when you get a car from going from point A to B cost you $60. If the model decayed the next time I might give you a $40 rate, I would take it definitely. But it's lost for the company. The business risk associated with operating on a bad model, you should realize it immediately, pull the model out, retrain it, redeploy it. That's is key. >> And that's got to be huge in security model recency and security to the extent that you can get real time is big. I mean you, you see Palo Alto, CrowdStrike, a lot of other security companies are injecting AI. Again, they won't show up in the ETR ML/AI taxonomy per se as a pure play. But ServiceNow is another company that you have have mentioned to me, offline. AI is just getting embedded everywhere. >> Yep. >> And then I'm glad you brought up, kind of real-time inferencing 'cause a lot of the modeling, if we can go back to the last point that we're going to make, a lot of the AI today is modeling done in the cloud. The last point we wanted to make here, I'd love to get your thoughts on this, is real-time AI inferencing for instance at the edge is going to become increasingly important for us. It's going to usher in new economics, new types of silicon, particularly arm-based. We've covered that a lot on "Breaking Analysis", new tooling, new companies and that could disrupt the sort of cloud model if new economics emerge. 'Cause cloud obviously very centralized, they're trying to decentralize it. But over the course of this decade we could see some real disruption there. Andy, give us your final thoughts on that. >> Yes and no. I mean at the end of the day, cloud is kind of centralized now, but a lot of this companies including, AWS is kind of trying to decentralize that by putting their own sub-centers and edge locations. >> Local zones, outposts. >> Yeah, exactly. Particularly the outpost concept. And if it can even become like a micro center and stuff, it won't go to the localized level of, I go to a single IOT level. But again, the cloud extends itself to that level. So if there is an opportunity need for it, the hyperscalers will figure out a way to fit that model. So I wouldn't too much worry about that, about deployment and where to have it and what to do with that. But you know, figure out the right business use case, get the right data, get the ethics and governance place and make sure they get it to production and make sure you pull the model out when it's not operating well. >> Excellent advice. Andy, I got to thank you for coming into the studio today, helping us with this "Breaking Analysis" segment. Outstanding collaboration and insights and input in today's episode. Hope we can do more. >> Thank you. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. >> You're very welcome. All right. I want to thank Alex Marson who's on production and manages the podcast. Ken Schiffman as well. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight helped get the word out on social media and our newsletters. And Rob Hoof is our editor-in-chief over at Silicon Angle. He does some great editing for us. Thank you all. Remember all these episodes are available as podcast. Wherever you listen, all you got to do is search "Breaking Analysis" podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and silicon angle.com or you can email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com to get in touch, or DM me at dvellante or comment on our LinkedIn posts. Please check out ETR.AI for the best survey data and the enterprise tech business, Constellation Research. Andy publishes there some awesome information on AI and data. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching everybody and we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis". (gentle closing tune plays)