>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE in ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Snowflake is not going to grow into its valuation by stealing the croissant from the breakfast table of the on-prem data warehouse vendors. Look, even if snowflake got 100% of the data warehouse business, it wouldn't come close to justifying its market cap. Rather Snowflake has to create an entirely new market based on completely changing the way organizations think about monetizing data. Every organization I talk to says it wants to be, or many say they already are data-driven. why wouldn't you aspire to that goal? There's probably nothing more strategic than leveraging data to power your digital business and creating competitive advantage. But many businesses are failing, or I predict, will fail to create a true data-driven culture because they're relying on a flawed architectural model formed by decades of building centralized data platforms. Welcome everyone to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, I want to share some new thoughts and fresh ETR data on how organizations can transform their businesses through data by reinventing their data architectures. And I want to share our thoughts on why we think Snowflake is currently in a very strong position to lead this effort. Now, on November 17th, theCUBE is hosting the Snowflake Data Cloud Summit. Snowflake's ascendancy and its blockbuster IPO has been widely covered by us and many others. Now, since Snowflake went public, we've been inundated with outreach from investors, customers, and competitors that wanted to either better understand the opportunities or explain why their approach is better or different. And in this segment, ahead of Snowflake's big event, we want to share some of what we learned and how we see it. Now, theCUBE is getting paid to host this event, so I need you to know that, and you draw your own conclusions from my remarks. But neither Snowflake nor any other sponsor of theCUBE or client of SiliconANGLE Media has editorial influence over Breaking Analysis. The opinions here are mine, and I would encourage you to read my ethics statement in this regard. I want to talk about the failed data model. The problem is complex, I'm not debating that. Organizations have to integrate data and platforms with existing operational systems, many of which were developed decades ago. And as a culture and a set of processes that have been built around these systems, and they've been hardened over the years. This chart here tries to depict the progression of the monolithic data source, which, for me, began in the 1980s when Decision Support Systems or DSS promised to solve our data problems. The data warehouse became very popular and data marts sprung up all over the place. This created more proprietary stovepipes with data locked inside. The Enron collapse led to Sarbanes-Oxley. Now, this tightened up reporting. The requirements associated with that, it breathed new life into the data warehouse model. But it remained expensive and cumbersome, I've talked about that a lot, like a snake swallowing a basketball. The 2010s ushered in the big data movement, and Data Lakes emerged. With a dupe, we saw the idea of no schema online, where you put structured and unstructured data into a repository, and figure it all out on the read. What emerged was a fairly complex data pipeline that involved ingesting, cleaning, processing, analyzing, preparing, and ultimately serving data to the lines of business. And this is where we are today with very hyper specialized roles around data engineering, data quality, data science. There's lots of batch of processing going on, and Spark has emerged to improve the complexity associated with MapReduce, and it definitely helped improve the situation. We're also seeing attempts to blend in real time stream processing with the emergence of tools like Kafka and others. But I'll argue that in a strange way, these innovations actually compound the problem. And I want to discuss that because what they do is they heighten the need for more specialization, more fragmentation, and more stovepipes within the data life cycle. Now, in reality, and it pains me to say this, it's the outcome of the big data movement, as we sit here in 2020, that we've created thousands of complicated science projects that have once again failed to live up to the promise of rapid cost-effective time to insights. So, what will the 2020s bring? What's the next silver bullet? You hear terms like the lakehouse, which Databricks is trying to popularize. And I'm going to talk today about data mesh. These are other efforts they look to modernize datalakes and sometimes merge the best of data warehouse and second-generation systems into a new paradigm, that might unify batch and stream frameworks. And this definitely addresses some of the gaps, but in our view, still suffers from some of the underlying problems of previous generation data architectures. In other words, if the next gen data architecture is incremental, centralized, rigid, and primarily focuses on making the technology to get data in and out of the pipeline work, we predict it's going to fail to live up to expectations again. Rather, what we're envisioning is an architecture based on the principles of distributed data, where domain knowledge is the primary target citizen, and data is not seen as a by-product, i.e, the exhaust of an operational system, but rather as a service that can be delivered in multiple forms and use cases across an ecosystem. This is why we often say the data is not the new oil. We don't like that phrase. A specific gallon of oil can either fuel my home or can lubricate my car engine, but it can't do both. Data does not follow the same laws of scarcity like natural resources. Again, what we're envisioning is a rethinking of the data pipeline and the associated cultures to put data needs of the domain owner at the core and provide automated, governed, and secure access to data as a service at scale. Now, how is this different? Let's take a look and unpack the data pipeline today and look deeper into the situation. You all know this picture that I'm showing. There's nothing really new here. The data comes from inside and outside the enterprise. It gets processed, cleanse or augmented so that it can be trusted and made useful. Nobody wants to use data that they can't trust. And then we can add machine intelligence and do more analysis, and finally deliver the data so that domain specific consumers can essentially build data products and services or reports and dashboards or content services, for instance, an insurance policy, a financial product, a loan, that these are packaged and made available for someone to make decisions on or to make a purchase. And all the metadata associated with this data is packaged along with the dataset. Now, we've broken down these steps into atomic components over time so we can optimize on each and make them as efficient as possible. And down below, you have these happy stick figures. Sometimes they're happy. But they're highly specialized individuals and they each do their job and they do it well to make sure that the data gets in, it gets processed and delivered in a timely manner. Now, while these individual pieces seemingly are autonomous and can be optimized and scaled, they're all encompassed within the centralized big data platform. And it's generally accepted that this platform is domain agnostic. Meaning the platform is the data owner, not the domain specific experts. Now there are a number of problems with this model. The first, while it's fine for organizations with smaller number of domains, organizations with a large number of data sources and complex domain structures, they struggle to create a common data parlance, for example, in a data culture. Another problem is that, as the number of data sources grows, organizing and harmonizing them in a centralized platform becomes increasingly difficult, because the context of the domain and the line of business gets lost. Moreover, as ecosystems grow and you add more data, the processes associated with the centralized platform tend to get further genericized. They again lose that domain specific context. Wait (chuckling), there are more problems. Now, while in theory organizations are optimizing on the piece parts of the pipeline, the reality is, as the domain requires a change, for example, a new data source or an ecosystem partnership requires a change in access or processes that can benefit a domain consumer, the reality is the change is subservient to the dependencies and the need to synchronize across these discrete parts of the pipeline or actually, orthogonal to each of those parts. In other words, in actuality, the monolithic data platform itself remains the most granular part of the system. Now, when I complain about this faulty structure, some folks tell me this problem has been solved. That there are services that allow new data sources to really easily be added. A good example of this is Databricks Ingest, which is, it's an auto loader. And what it does is it simplifies the ingestion into the company's Delta Lake offering. And rather than centralizing in a data warehouse, which struggles to efficiently allow things like Machine Learning frameworks to be incorporated, this feature allows you to put all the data into a centralized datalake. More so the argument goes, that the problem that I see with this, is while the approach does definitely minimizes the complexities of adding new data sources, it still relies on this linear end-to-end process that slows down the introduction of data sources from the domain consumer beside of the pipeline. In other words, the domain experts still has to elbow her way into the front of the line or the pipeline, in this case, to get stuff done. And finally, the way we are organizing teams is a point of contention, and I believe is going to continue to cause problems down the road. Specifically, we've again, we've optimized on technology expertise, where for example, data engineers, well, really good at what they do, they're often removed from the operations of the business. Essentially, we created more silos and organized around technical expertise versus domain knowledge. As an example, a data team has to work with data that is delivered with very little domain specificity, and serves a variety of highly specialized consumption use cases. All right. I want to step back for a minute and talk about some of the problems that people bring up with Snowflake and then I'll relate it back to the basic premise here. As I said earlier, we've been hammered by dozens and dozens of data points, opinions, criticisms of Snowflake. And I'll share a few here. But I'll post a deeper technical analysis from a software engineer that I found to be fairly balanced. There's five Snowflake criticisms that I'll highlight. And there are many more, but here are some that I want to call out. Price transparency. I've had more than a few customers telling me they chose an alternative database because of the unpredictable nature of Snowflake's pricing model. Snowflake, as you probably know, prices based on consumption, just like AWS and other cloud providers. So just like AWS, for example, the bill at the end of the month is sometimes unpredictable. Is this a problem? Yes. But like AWS, I would say, "Kill me with that problem." Look, if users are creating value by using Snowflake, then that's good for the business. But clearly this is a sore point for some users, especially for procurement and finance, which don't like unpredictability. And Snowflake needs to do a better job communicating and managing this issue with tooling that can predict and help better manage costs. Next, workload manage or lack thereof. Look, if you want to isolate higher performance workloads with Snowflake, you just spin up a separate virtual warehouse. It's kind of a brute force approach. It works generally, but it will add expense. I'm kind of reminded of Pure Storage and its approach to storage management. The engineers at Pure, they always design for simplicity, and this is the approach that Snowflake is taking. Usually, Pure and Snowflake, as I have discussed in a moment, is Pure's ascendancy was really based largely on stealing share from Legacy EMC systems. Snowflake, in my view, has a much, much larger incremental market opportunity. Next is caching architecture. You hear this a lot. At the end of the day, Snowflake is based on a caching architecture. And a caching architecture has to be working for some time to optimize performance. Caches work well when the size of the working set is small. Caches generally don't work well when the working set is very, very large. In general, transactional databases have pretty small datasets. And in general, analytics datasets are potentially much larger. Is it Snowflake in the analytics business? Yes. But the good thing that Snowflake has done is they've enabled data sharing, and it's caching architecture serves its customers well because it allows domain experts, you're going to hear this a lot from me today, to isolate and analyze problems or go after opportunities based on tactical needs. That said, very big queries across whole datasets or badly written queries that scan the entire database are not the sweet spot for Snowflake. Another good example would be if you're doing a large audit and you need to analyze a huge, huge dataset. Snowflake's probably not the best solution. Complex joins, you hear this a lot. The working set of complex joins, by definition, are larger. So, see my previous explanation. Read only. Snowflake is pretty much optimized for read only data. Maybe stateless data is a better way of thinking about this. Heavily right intensive workloads are not the wheelhouse of Snowflake. So where this is maybe an issue is real-time decision-making and AI influencing. A number of times, Snowflake, I've talked about this, they might be able to develop products or acquire technology to address this opportunity. Now, I want to explain. These issues would be problematic if Snowflake were just a data warehouse vendor. If that were the case, this company, in my opinion, would hit a wall just like the NPP vendors that proceeded them by building a better mouse trap for certain use cases hit a wall. Rather, my promise in this episode is that the future of data architectures will be really to move away from large centralized warehouses or datalake models to a highly distributed data sharing system that puts power in the hands of domain experts at the line of business. Snowflake is less computationally efficient and less optimized for classic data warehouse work. But it's designed to serve the domain user much more effectively in our view. We believe that Snowflake is optimizing for business effectiveness, essentially. And as I said before, the company can probably do a better job at keeping passionate end users from breaking the bank. But as long as these end users are making money for their companies, I don't think this is going to be a problem. Let's look at the attributes of what we're proposing around this new architecture. We believe we'll see the emergence of a total flip of the centralized and monolithic big data systems that we've known for decades. In this architecture, data is owned by domain-specific business leaders, not technologists. Today, it's not much different in most organizations than it was 20 years ago. If I want to create something of value that requires data, I need to cajole, beg or bribe the technology and the data team to accommodate. The data consumers are subservient to the data pipeline. Whereas in the future, we see the pipeline as a second class citizen, with a domain expert is elevated. In other words, getting the technology and the components of the pipeline to be more efficient is not the key outcome. Rather, the time it takes to envision, create, and monetize a data service is the primary measure. The data teams are cross-functional and live inside the domain versus today's structure where the data team is largely disconnected from the domain consumer. Data in this model, as I said, is not the exhaust coming out of an operational system or an external source that is treated as generic and stuffed into a big data platform. Rather, it's a key ingredient of a service that is domain-driven and monetizable. And the target system is not a warehouse or a lake. It's a collection of connected domain-specific datasets that live in a global mesh. What is a distributed global data mesh? A data mesh is a decentralized architecture that is domain aware. The datasets in the system are purposely designed to support a data service or data product, if you prefer. The ownership of the data resides with the domain experts because they have the most detailed knowledge of the data requirement and its end use. Data in this global mesh is governed and secured, and every user in the mesh can have access to any dataset as long as it's governed according to the edicts of the organization. Now, in this model, the domain expert has access to a self-service and obstructed infrastructure layer that is supported by a cross-functional technology team. Again, the primary measure of success is the time it takes to conceive and deliver a data service that could be monetized. Now, by monetize, we mean a data product or data service that it either cuts cost, it drives revenue, it saves lives, whatever the mission is of the organization. The power of this model is it accelerates the creation of value by putting authority in the hands of those individuals who are closest to the customer and have the most intimate knowledge of how to monetize data. It reduces the diseconomies at scale of having a centralized or a monolithic data architecture. And it scales much better than legacy approaches because the atomic unit is a data domain, not a monolithic warehouse or a lake. Zhamak Dehghani is a software engineer who is attempting to popularize the concept of a global mesh. Her work is outstanding, and it's strengthened our belief that practitioners see this the same way that we do. And to paraphrase her view, "A domain centric system must be secure and governed with standard policies across domains." It has to be trusted. As I said, nobody's going to use data they don't trust. It's got to be discoverable via a data catalog with rich metadata. The data sets have to be self-describing and designed for self-service. Accessibility for all users is crucial as is interoperability, without which distributed systems, as we know, fail. So what does this all have to do with Snowflake? As I said, Snowflake is not just a data warehouse. In our view, it's always had the potential to be more. Our assessment is that attacking the data warehouse use cases, it gave Snowflake a straightforward easy-to-understand narrative that allowed it to get a foothold in the market. Data warehouses are notoriously expensive, cumbersome, and resource intensive, but they're a critical aspect to reporting and analytics. So it was logical for Snowflake to target on-premise legacy data warehouses and their smaller cousins, the datalakes, as early use cases. By putting forth and demonstrating a simple data warehouse alternative that can be spun up quickly, Snowflake was able to gain traction, demonstrate repeatability, and attract the capital necessary to scale to its vision. This chart shows the three layers of Snowflake's architecture that have been well-documented. The separation of compute and storage, and the outer layer of cloud services. But I want to call your attention to the bottom part of the chart, the so-called Cloud Agnostic Layer that Snowflake introduced in 2018. This layer is somewhat misunderstood. Not only did Snowflake make its Cloud-native database compatible to run on AWS than Azure in the 2020 GCP, what Snowflake has done is to obstruct cloud infrastructure complexity and create what it calls the data cloud. What's the data cloud? We don't believe the data cloud is just a marketing term that doesn't have any substance. Just as SAS is Simplified Application Software and iOS made it possible to eliminate the value drain associated with provisioning infrastructure, a data cloud, in concept, can simplify data access, and break down fragmentation and enable shared data across the globe. Snowflake, they have a first mover advantage in this space, and we see a number of fundamental aspects that comprise a data cloud. First, massive scale with virtually unlimited compute and storage resource that are enabled by the public cloud. We talk about this a lot. Second is a data or database architecture that's built to take advantage of native public cloud services. This is why Frank Slootman says, "We've burned the boats. We're not ever doing on-prem. We're all in on cloud and cloud native." Third is an obstruction layer that hides the complexity of infrastructure. and fourth is a governed and secured shared access system where any user in the system, if allowed, can get access to any data in the cloud. So a key enabler of the data cloud is this thing called the global data mesh. Now, earlier this year, Snowflake introduced its global data mesh. Over the course of its recent history, Snowflake has been building out its data cloud by creating data regions, strategically tapping key locations of AWS regions and then adding Azure and GCP. The complexity of the underlying cloud infrastructure has been stripped away to enable self-service, and any Snowflake user becomes part of this global mesh, independent of the cloud that they're on. Okay. So now, let's go back to what we were talking about earlier. Users in this mesh will be our domain owners. They're building monetizable services and products around data. They're most likely dealing with relatively small read only datasets. They can adjust data from any source very easily and quickly set up security and governance to enable data sharing across different parts of an organization, or, very importantly, an ecosystem. Access control and governance is automated. The data sets are addressable. The data owners have clearly defined missions and they own the data through the life cycle. Data that is specific and purposely shaped for their missions. Now, you're probably asking, "What happens to the technical team and the underlying infrastructure and the cluster it's in? How do I get the compute close to the data? And what about data sovereignty and the physical storage later, and the costs?" All these are good questions, and I'm not saying these are trivial. But the answer is these are implementation details that are pushed to a self-service layer managed by a group of engineers that serves the data owners. And as long as the domain expert/data owner is driving monetization, this piece of the puzzle becomes self-funding. As I said before, Snowflake has to help these users to optimize their spend with predictive tooling that aligns spend with value and shows ROI. While there may not be a strong motivation for Snowflake to do this, my belief is that they'd better get good at it or someone else will do it for them and steal their ideas. All right. Let me end with some ETR data to show you just how Snowflake is getting a foothold on the market. Followers of this program know that ETR uses a consistent methodology to go to its practitioner base, its buyer base each quarter and ask them a series of questions. They focus on the areas that the technology buyer is most familiar with, and they ask a series of questions to determine the spending momentum around a company within a specific domain. This chart shows one of my favorite examples. It shows data from the October ETR survey of 1,438 respondents. And it isolates on the data warehouse and database sector. I know I just got through telling you that the world is going to change and Snowflake's not a data warehouse vendor, but there's no construct today in the ETR dataset to cut a data cloud or globally distributed data mesh. So you're going to have to deal with this. What this chart shows is net score in the y-axis. That's a measure of spending velocity, and it's calculated by asking customers, "Are you spending more or less on a particular platform?" And then subtracting the lesses from the mores. It's more granular than that, but that's the basic concept. Now, on the x-axis is market share, which is ETR's measure of pervasiveness in the survey. You can see superimposed in the upper right-hand corner, a table that shows the net score and the shared N for each company. Now, shared N is the number of mentions in the dataset within, in this case, the data warehousing sector. Snowflake, once again, leads all players with a 75% net score. This is a very elevated number and is higher than that of all other players, including the big cloud companies. Now, we've been tracking this for a while, and Snowflake is holding firm on both dimensions. When Snowflake first hit the dataset, it was in the single digits along the horizontal axis and continues to creep to the right as it adds more customers. Now, here's another chart. I call it the wheel chart that breaks down the components of Snowflake's net score or spending momentum. The lime green is new adoption, the forest green is customers spending more than 5%, the gray is flat spend, the pink is declining by more than 5%, and the bright red is retiring the platform. So you can see the trend. It's all momentum for this company. Now, what Snowflake has done is they grabbed a hold of the market by simplifying data warehouse. But the strategic aspect of that is that it enables the data cloud leveraging the global mesh concept. And the company has introduced a data marketplace to facilitate data sharing across ecosystems. This is all about network effects. In the mid to late 1990s, as the internet was being built out, I worked at IDG with Bob Metcalfe, who was the publisher of InfoWorld. During that time, we'd go on speaking tours all over the world, and I would listen very carefully as he applied Metcalfe's law to the internet. Metcalfe's law states that the value of the network is proportional to the square of the number of connected nodes or users on that system. Said another way, while the cost of adding new nodes to a network scales linearly, the consequent value scores scales exponentially. Now, apply that to the data cloud. The marginal cost of adding a user is negligible, practically zero, but the value of being able to access any dataset in the cloud... Well, let me just say this. There's no limitation to the magnitude of the market. My prediction is that this idea of a global mesh will completely change the way leading companies structure their businesses and, particularly, their data architectures. It will be the technologists that serve domain specialists as it should be. Okay. Well, what do you think? DM me @dvellante or email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or comment on my LinkedIn? Remember, these episodes are all available as podcasts, so please subscribe wherever you listen. I publish weekly on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com, and don't forget to check out etr.plus for all the survey analysis. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. Be well, and we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

>> From the SiliconANGLE Media office in Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCube! (funky electronic music) Now, here's your host, Dave Vellante! >> Welcome, everybody, to this Cube conversation here in our Marlborough offices. I am very excited today, I spent a number of years at IDC, which, of course, is owned by IDG. And there's a new book out, relatively new, called Future Forward: Leadership Lessons from Patrick McGovern, the Visionary Who Circled the Globe and Built a Technology Media Empire. And it's a great book, lotta stories that I didn't know, many that I did know, and the author of that book, Glenn Rifkin, is here to talk about not only Pat McGovern but also some of the lessons that he put forth to help us as entrepreneurs and leaders apply to create better businesses and change the world. Glenn, thanks so much for comin' on theCube. >> Thank you, Dave, great to see ya. >> So let me start with, why did you write this book? >> Well, a couple reasons. The main reason was Patrick McGovern III, Pat's son, came to me at the end of 2016 and said, "My father had died in 2014 and I feel like his legacy deserves a book, and many people told me you were the guy to do it." So the background on that I, myself, worked at IDG back in the 1980s, I was an editor at Computerworld, got to know Pat during that time, did some work for him after I left Computerworld, on a one-on-one basis. Then I would see him over the years, interview him for the New York Times or other magazines, and every time I'd see Pat, I'd end our conversation by saying, "Pat, when are we gonna do your book?" And he would laugh, and he would say, "I'm not ready to do that yet, there's just still too much to do." And so it became sort of an inside joke for us, but I always really did wanna write this book about him because I felt he deserved a book. He was just one of these game-changing pioneers in the tech industry. >> He really was, of course, the book was even more meaningful for me, we, you and I started right in the same time, 1983-- >> Yeah. >> And by that time, IDG was almost 20 years old and it was quite a powerhouse then, but boy, we saw, really the ascendancy of IDG as a brand and, you know, the book reviews on, you know, the back covers are tech elite: Benioff wrote the forward, Mark Benioff, you had Bill Gates in there, Walter Isaacson was in there, Guy Kawasaki, Bob Metcalfe, George Colony-- >> Right. >> Who actually worked for a little stint at IDC for a while. John Markoff of The New York Times, so, you know, the elite of tech really sort of blessed this book and it was really a lot to do with Pat McGovern, right? >> Oh, absolutely, I think that the people on the inside understood how important he was to the history of the tech industry. He was not, you know, a household name, first of all, you didn't think of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and then Pat McGovern, however, those who are in the know realize that he was as important in his own way as they were. Because somebody had to chronicle this story, somebody had to share the story of the evolution of this amazing information technology and how it changed the world. And Pat was never a front-of-the-TV-camera guy-- >> Right. >> He was a guy who put his people forward, he put his products forward, for sure, which is why IDG, as a corporate name, you know, most people don't know what that means, but people did know Macworld, people did know PCWorld, they knew IDC, they knew Computerworld for sure. So that was Pat's view of the world, he didn't care whether he had the spotlight on him or not. >> When you listen to leaders like Reed Hoffman or Eric Schmidt talk about, you know, great companies and how to build great companies, they always come back to culture. >> Yup. >> The book opens with a scene of, and we all, that I usually remember this, well, we're just hangin' around, waitin' for Pat to come in and hand out what was then called the Christmas bonus-- >> Right. >> Back when that wasn't politically incorrect to say. Now, of course, it's the holiday bonus. But it was, it was the Christmas bonus time and Pat was coming around and he was gonna personally hand a bonus, which was a substantial bonus, to every single employee at the company. I mean, and he did that, really, literally, forever. >> Forever, yeah. >> Throughout his career. >> Yeah, it was unheard of, CEOs just didn't do that and still don't do that, you were lucky, you got a message on the, you know, in the lunchroom from the CEO, "Good work, troops! Keep up the good work!" Pat just had a really different view of the culture of this company, as you know from having been there, and I know. It was very familial, there was a sense that we were all in this together, and it really was important for him to let every employee know that. The idea that he went to every desk in every office for IDG around the United States, when we were there in the '80s there were probably 5,000 employees in the US, he had to devote substantial amount-- >> Weeks and weeks! >> Weeks at a time to come to every building and do this, but year after year he insisted on doing it, his assistant at the time, Mary Dolaher told me she wanted to sign the cards, the Christmas cards, and he insisted that he ensign every one of them personally. This was the kind of view he had of how you keep employees happy, if your employees are happy, the customers are gonna be happy, and you're gonna make a lot of money. And that's what he did. >> And it wasn't just that. He had this awesome holiday party that you described, which was epic, and during the party, they would actually take pictures of every single person at the party and then they would load the carousel, you remember the 35-mm. carousel, and then, you know, toward the end of the evening, they would play that and everybody was transfixed 'cause they wanted to see their, the picture of themselves! >> Yeah, yeah. (laughs) >> I mean, it was ge-- and to actually pull that off in the 1980s was not trivial! Today, it would be a piece of cake. And then there was the IDG update, you know, the Good News memos, there was the 10-year lunch, the 20-year trips around the world, there were a lot of really rich benefits that, you know, in and of themselves maybe not a huge deal, but that was the culture that he set. >> Yeah, there was no question that if you talked to anybody who worked in this company over, say, the last 50 years, you were gonna get the same kind of stories. I've been kind of amazed, I'm going around, you know, marketing the book, talking about the book at various events, and the deep affection for this guy that still holds five years after he died, it's just remarkable. You don't really see that with the CEO class, there's a couple, you know, Steve Jobs left a great legacy of creativity, he was not a wonderful guy to his employees, but Pat McGovern, people loved this guy, and they st-- I would be signing books and somebody'd say, "Oh, I've been at IDG for 27 years and I remember all of this," and "I've been there 33 years," and there's a real longevity to this impact that he had on people. >> Now, the book was just, it was not just sort of a biography on McGovern, it was really about lessons from a leader and an entrepreneur and a media mogul who grew this great company in this culture that we can apply, you know, as business people and business leaders. Just to give you a sense of what Pat McGovern did, he really didn't take any outside capital, he did a little bit of, you know, public offering with IDG Books, but, really, you know, no outside capital, it was completely self-funded. He built a $3.8 billion empire, 300 publications, 280 million readers, and I think it was almost 100 or maybe even more, 100 countries. And so, that's an-- like you were, used the word remarkable, that is a remarkable achievement for a self-funded company. >> Yeah, Pat had a very clear vision of how, first of all, Pat had a photographic memory and if you were a manager in the company, you got a chance to sit in meetings with Pat and if you didn't know the numbers better than he did, which was a tough challenge, you were in trouble! 'Cause he knew everything, and so, he was really a numbers-focused guy and he understood that, you know, his best way to make profit was to not be looking for outside funding, not to have to share the wealth with investors, that you could do this yourself if you ran it tightly, you know, I called it in the book a 'loose-tight organization,' loose meaning he was a deep believer in decentralization, that every market needed its own leadership because they knew the market, you know, in Austria or in Russia or wherever, better than you would know it from a headquarters in Boston, but you also needed that tightness, a firm grip on the finances, you needed to know what was going on with each of the budgets or you were gonna end up in big trouble, which a lot of companies find themselves in. >> Well, and, you know, having worked there, I mean, essentially, if you made your numbers and did so ethically, and if you just kind of followed some of the corporate rules, which we'll talk about, he kind of left you alone. You know, you could, you could pretty much do whatever you wanted, you could stay in any hotel, you really couldn't fly first class, and we'll maybe talk about that-- >> Right. >> But he was a complex man, I mean, he was obviously wealthy, he was a billionaire, he was very generous, but at the same time he was frugal, you know, he drove, you know, a little, a car that was, you know, unremarkable, and we had buy him a car. He flew coach, and I remember one time, I was at a United flight, and I was, I had upgraded, you know, using my miles, and I sat down and right there was Lore McGovern, and we both looked at each other and said right at the same time, "I upgraded!" (laughs) Because Pat never flew up front, but he would always fly with a stack of newspapers in the seat next to him. >> Yeah, well, woe to, you were lucky he wasn't on the plane and spotted you as he was walking past you into coach, because he was not real forgiving when he saw people, people would hide and, you know, try to avoid him at all cost. And, I mean, he was a big man, Pat was 6'3", you know, 250 lbs. at least, built like a linebacker, so he didn't fit into coach that well, and he wasn't flying, you know, the shuttle to New York, he was flyin' to Beijing, he was flyin' to Moscow, he was going all over the world, squeezing himself into these seats. Now, you know, full disclosure, as he got older and had, like, probably 10 million air miles at his disposal, he would upgrade too, occasionally, for those long-haul flights, just 'cause he wanted to be fresh when he would get off the plane. But, yeah, these are legends about Pat that his frugality was just pure legend in the company, he owned this, you know, several versions of that dark blue suit, and that's what you would see him in. He would never deviate from that. And, but, he had his patterns, but he understood the impact those patterns had on his employees and on his customers. >> I wanna get into some of the lessons, because, really, this is what the book is all about, the heart of it. And you mentioned, you know, one, and we're gonna tell from others, but you really gotta stay close to the customer, that was one of the 10 corporate values, and you remember, he used to go to the meetings and he'd sometimes randomly ask people to recite, "What's number eight?" (laughs) And you'd be like, oh, you'd have your cheat sheet there. And so, so, just to give you a sense, this man was an entrepreneur, he started the company in 1964 with a database that he kind of pre-sold, he was kind of the sell, design, build type of mentality, he would pre-sold this thing, and then he started Computerworld in 1967, so it was really only a few years after he launched the company that he started the Computerworld, and other than Data Nation, there was nothing there, huge pent-up demand for that type of publication, and he caught lightning in a bottle, and that's really how he funded, you know, the growth. >> Yeah, oh, no question. Computerworld became, you know, the bible of the industry, it became a cash cow for IDG, you know, but at the time, it's so easy to look in hindsight and say, oh, well, obviously. But when Pat was doing this, one little-known fact is he was an editor at a publication called Computers and Automation that was based in Newton, Massachusetts and he kept that job even after he started IDC, which was the original company in 1964. It was gonna be a research company, and it was doing great, he was seeing the build-up, but it wasn't 'til '67 when he started Computerworld, that he said, "Okay, now this is gonna be a full-time gig for me," and he left the other publication for good. But, you know, he was sorta hedging his bets there for a little while. >> And that's where he really gained respect for what we'll call the 'Chinese Wallet,' the, you know, editorial versus advertising. We're gonna talk about that some more. So I mentioned, 1967, Computerworld. So he launched in 1964, by 1971, he was goin' to Japan, we're gonna talk about the China Stories as well, so, he named the company International Data Corp, where he was at a little spot in Newton, Mass.-- >> Right, right. >> So, he had a vision. You said in your book, you mention, how did this gentleman get it so right for so long? And that really leads to some of the leadership lessons, and one of them in the book was, sort of, have a mission, have a vision, and really, Pat was always talking about information, about information technology, in fact, when Wine for Dummies came out, it kind of created a little friction, that was really off the center. >> Or Wine for Dummies, or Sex for Dummies! >> Yeah, Sex for Dummies, boy, yeah! >> With, that's right, Ruth Westheimer-- >> Dr. Ruth Westheimer. >> But generally speaking, Glenn, he was on that mark, he really didn't deviate from that vision. >> Yeah, no, it was very crucial to the development of the company that he got people to, you know, buy into that mission, because the mission was everything. And he understood, you know, he had the numbers, but he also saw what was happening out there, from the 1960s, when IBM mainframes filled a room, and, you know, only the high priests of data centers could touch them. He had a vision for, you know, what was coming next and he started to understand that there would be many facets to this information about information technology, it wasn't gonna be boring, if anything, it was gonna be the story of our age and he was gonna stick to it and sell it. >> And, you know, timing is everything, but so is, you know, Pat was a workaholic and had an amazing mind, but one of the things I learned from the book, and you said this, Pat Kenealy mentioned it, all American industrial and social revolutions have had a media company linked to them, Crane and automobiles, Penton and energy, McGraw-Hill and aerospace, Annenberg, of course, and TV, and in technology, it was IDG. >> Yeah, he, like I said earlier, he really was a key figure in the development of this industry and it was, you know, one of the key things about that, a lot publications that came and went made the mistake of being platform or, you know, vertical market specific. And if that market changed, and it was inevitably gonna change in high tech, you were done. He never, you know, he never married himself to some specific technology cycle. His idea was the audience was not gonna change, the audience was gonna have to roll with this, so, the company, IDG, would produce publications that got that, you know, Computerworld was actually a little bit late to the PC game, but eventually got into it and we tracked the different cycles, you know, things in tech move in sine waves, they come and go. And Pat never was, you know, flustered by that, he could handle any kind of changes from the mainframes down to the smartphone when it came. And so, that kind of flexibility, and ability to adjust to markets, really was unprecedented in that particular part of the market. >> One of the other lessons in the book, I call it 'nation-building,' and Pat shared with you that, look, that you shared, actually, with your readers, if you wanna do it right, you've gotta be on the ground, you've gotta be there. And the China story is one that I didn't know about how Pat kind of talked his way into China, tell us, give us a little summary of that story. >> Sure, I love that story because it's so Pat. It was 1978, Pat was in Tokyo on a business trip, one of his many business trips, and he was gonna be flying to Moscow for a trade show. And he got a flight that was gonna make a stopover in Beijing, which in those days was called Peking, and was not open to Americans. There were no US and China diplomatic relations then. But Pat had it in mind that he was going to get off that plane in Beijing and see what he could see. So that meant that he had to leave the flight when it landed in Beijing and talk his way through the customs as they were in China at the time with folks in the, wherever, the Quonset hut that served for the airport, speaking no English, and him speaking no Chinese, he somehow convinced these folks to give him a day pass, 'cause he kept saying to them, "I'm only in transit, it's okay!" (laughs) Like, he wasn't coming, you know, to spy on them on them or anything. So here's this massive American businessman in his dark suit, and he somehow gets into downtown Beijing, which at the time was mostly bicycles, very few cars, there were camels walking down the street, they'd come with traders from Mongolia. The people were still wearing the drab outfits from the Mao era, and Pat just spent the whole day wandering around the city, just soaking it in. He was that kind of a world traveler. He loved different cultures, mostly eastern cultures, and he would pop his head into bookstores. And what he saw were people just clamoring to get their hands on anything, a newspaper, a magazine, and it just, it didn't take long for the light bulb to go on and said, this is a market we need to play in. >> He was fascinated with China, I, you know, as an employee and a business P&L manager, I never understood it, I said, you know, the per capita spending on IT in China was like a dollar, you know? >> Right. >> And I remember my lunch with him, my 10-year lunch, he said, "Yeah, but, you know, there's gonna be a huge opportunity there, and yeah, I don't know how we're gonna get the money out, maybe we'll buy a bunch of tea and ship it over, but I'm not worried about that." And, of course, he meets Hugo Shong, which is a huge player in the book, and the home run out of China was, of course, the venture capital, which he started before there was even a stock market, really, to exit in China. >> Right, yeah. No, he was really a visionary, I mean, that word gets tossed around maybe more than it should, but Pat was a bonafide visionary and he saw things in China that were developing that others didn't see, including, for example, his own board, who told him he was crazy because in 1980, he went back to China without telling them and within days he had a meeting with the ministry of technology and set up a joint venture, cost IDG $250,000, and six months later, the first issue of China Computerworld was being published and within a couple of years it was the biggest publication in China. He said, told me at some point that $250,0000 investment turned into $85 million and when he got home, that first trip, the board was furious, they said, "How can you do business with the commies? You're gonna ruin our brand!" And Pat said, "Just, you know, stick with me on this one, you're gonna see." And the venture capital story was just an offshoot, he saw the opportunity in the early '90s, that venture in China could in fact be a huge market, why not help build it? And that's what he did. >> What's your take on, so, IDG sold to, basically, Chinese investors. >> Yeah. >> It's kind of bittersweet, but in the same time, it's symbolic given Pat's love for China and the Chinese people. There's been a little bit of criticism about that, I know that the US government required IDC to spin out its supercomputer division because of concerns there. I'm always teasing Michael Dow that at the next IDG board meeting, those Lenovo numbers, they're gonna look kinda law. (laughs) But what are your, what's your, what are your thoughts on that, in terms of, you know, people criticize China in terms of IP protections, etc. What would Pat have said to that, do you think? >> You know, Pat made 130 trips to China in his life, that's, we calculated at some point that just the air time in planes would have been something like three and a half to four years of his life on planes going to China and back. I think Pat would, today, acknowledge, as he did then, that China has issues, there's not, you can't be that naive. He got that. But he also understood that these were people, at the end of the day, who were thirsty and hungry for information and that they were gonna be a player in the world economy at some point, and that it was crucial for IDG to be at the forefront of that, not just play later, but let's get in early, let's lead the parade. And I think that, you know, some part of him would have been okay with the sale of the company to this conglomerate there, called China Oceanwide. Clearly controversial, I mean, but once Pat died, everyone knew that the company was never gonna be the same with the leader who had been at the helm for 50 years, it was gonna be a tough transition for whoever took over. And I think, you know, it's hard to say, certainly there's criticism of things going on with China. China's gonna be the hot topic page one of the New York Times almost every single day for a long time to come. I think Pat would have said, this was appropriate given my love of China, the kind of return on investment he got from China, I think he would have been okay with it. >> Yeah, and to invoke the Ben Franklin maxim, "Trading partners seldom wage war," and so, you know, I think Pat would have probably looked at it that way, but, huge home run, I mean, I think he was early on into Baidu and Alibaba and Tencent and amazing story. I wanna talk about decentralization because that was always something that was just on our minds as employees of IDG, it was keep the corporate staff lean, have a flat organization, if you had eight, 10, 12 direct reports, that was okay, Pat really meant it when he said, "You're the CEO of your own business!" Whether that business was, you know, IDC, big company, or a manager at IDC, where you might have, you know, done tens of millions of dollars, but you felt like a CEO, you were encouraged to try new things, you were encouraged to fail, and fail fast. Their arch nemesis of IDG was Ziff Davis, they were a command and control, sort of Bill Ziff, CMP to a certain extent was kind of the same way out of Manhasset, totally different philosophies and I think Pat never, ever even came close to wavering from that decentralization philosophy, did he? >> No, no, I mean, I think that the story that he told me that I found fascinating was, he didn't have an epiphany that decentralization would be the mechanism for success, it was more that he had started traveling, and when he'd come back to his office, the memos and requests and papers to sign were stacked up two feet high. And he realized that he was holding up the company because he wasn't there to do this and that at some point, he couldn't do it all, it was gonna be too big for that, and that's when the light came on and said this decentralization concept really makes sense for us, if we're gonna be an international company, which clearly was his mission from the beginning, we have to say the people on the ground in those markets are the people who are gonna make the decisions because we can't make 'em from Boston. And I talked to many people who, were, you know, did a trip to Europe, met the folks in London, met the folks in Munich, and they said to a person, you know, it was so ahead of its time, today it just seems obvious, but in the 1960s, early '70s, it was really not a, you know, a regular leadership tenet in most companies. The command and control that you talked about was the way that you did business. >> And, you know, they both worked, but, you know, from a cultural standpoint, clearly IDG and IDC have had staying power, and he had the three-quarter rule, you talked about it in your book, if you missed your numbers three quarters in a row, you were in trouble. >> Right. >> You know, one quarter, hey, let's talk, two quarters, we maybe make some changes, three quarters, you're gone. >> Right. >> And so, as I said, if you were makin' your numbers, you had wide latitude. One of the things you didn't have latitude on was I'll call it 'pay to play,' you know, crossing that line between editorial and advertising. And Pat would, I remember I was at a meeting one time, I'm sorry to tell these stories, but-- >> That's okay. (laughs) >> But we were at an offsite meeting at a woods meeting and, you know, they give you a exercise, go off and tell us what the customer wants. Bill Laberis, who's the editor-in-chief at Computerworld at the time, said, "Who's the customer?" And Pat said, "That's a great question! To the publisher, it's the advertiser. To you, Bill, and the editorial staff, it's the reader. And both are equally important." And Pat would never allow the editorial to be compromised by the advertiser. >> Yeah, no, he, there was a clear barrier between church and state in that company and he, you know, consistently backed editorial on that issue because, you know, keep in mind when we started then, and I was, you know, a journalist hoping to, you know, change the world, the trade press then was considered, like, a little below the mainstream business press. The trade press had a reputation for being a little too cozy with the advertisers, so, and Pat said early on, "We can't do that, because everything we have, our product is built, the brand is built on integrity. And if the reader doesn't believe that what we're reporting is actually true and factual and unbiased, we're gonna lose to the advertisers in the long run anyway." So he was clear that that had to be the case and time and again, there would be conflict that would come up, it was just, as you just described it, the publishers, the sales guys, they wanted to bring in money, and if it, you know, occasionally, hey, we could nudge the editor of this particular publication, "Take it a little bit easier on this vendor because they're gonna advertise big with us," Pat just would always back the editor and say, "That's not gonna happen." And it caused, you know, friction for sure, but he was unwavering in his support. >> Well, it's interesting because, you know, Macworld, I think, is an interesting case study because there were sort of some backroom dealings and Pat maneuvered to be able to get the Macworld, you know, brand, the license for that. >> Right. >> But it caused friction between Steve Jobs and the writers of Macworld, they would write something that Steve Jobs, who was a control freak, couldn't control! >> Yeah. (laughs) >> And he regretted giving IDG the license. >> Yeah, yeah, he once said that was the worst decision he ever made was to give the license to Pat to, you know, Macworlld was published on the day that Mac was introduced in 1984, that was the deal that they had and it was, what Jobs forgot was how important it was to the development of that product to have a whole magazine devoted to it on day one, and a really good magazine that, you know, a lot of people still lament the glory days of Macworld. But yeah, he was, he and Steve Jobs did not get along, and I think that almost says a lot more about Jobs because Pat pretty much got along with everybody. >> That church and state dynamic seems to be changing, across the industry, I mean, in tech journalism, there aren't any more tech journalists in the United States, I mean, I'm overstating that, but there are far fewer than there were when we were at IDG. You're seeing all kinds of publications and media companies struggling, you know, Kara Swisher, who's the greatest journalist, and Walt Mossberg, in the tech industry, try to make it, you know, on their own, and they couldn't. So, those lines are somewhat blurring, not that Kara Swisher is blurring those lines, she's, you know, I think, very, very solid in that regard, but it seems like the business model is changing. As an observer of the markets, what do you think's happening in the publishing world? >> Well, I, you know, as a journalist, I'm sort of aghast at what's goin' on these days, a lot of my, I've been around a long time, and seeing former colleagues who are no longer in journalism because the jobs just started drying up is, it's a scary prospect, you know, unlike being the enemy of the people, the first amendment is pretty important to the future of the democracy, so to see these, you know, cutbacks and newspapers going out of business is difficult. At the same time, the internet was inevitable and it was going to change that dynamic dramatically, so how does that play out? Well, the problem is, anybody can post anything they want on social media and call it news, and the challenge is to maintain some level of integrity in the kind of reporting that you do, and it's more important now than ever, so I think that, you know, somebody like Pat would be an important figure if he was still around, in trying to keep that going. >> Well, Facebook and Google have cut the heart out of, you know, a lot of the business models of many media companies, and you're seeing sort of a pendulum swing back to nonprofits, which, I understand, speaking of folks back in the mid to early 1900s, nonprofits were the way in which, you know, journalism got funded, you know, maybe it's billionaires buying things like the Washington Post that help fund it, but clearly the model's shifting and it's somewhat unclear, you know, what's happening there. I wanted to talk about another lesson, which, Pat was the head cheerleader. So, I remember, it was kind of just after we started, the Computerworld's 20th anniversary, and they hired the marching band and they walked Pat and Mary Dolaher walked from 5 Speen Street, you know, IDG headquarters, they walked to Computerworld, which was up Old, I guess Old Connecticut Path, or maybe it was-- >> It was actually on Route 30-- >> Route 30 at the time, yeah. And Pat was dressed up as the drum major and Mary as well, (laughs) and he would do crazy things like that, he'd jump out of a plane with IDG is number one again, he'd post a, you know, a flag in Antarctica, IDG is number one again! It was just a, it was an amazing dynamic that he had, always cheering people on. >> Yeah, he was, he was, when he called himself the CEO, the Chief Encouragement Officer, you mentioned earlier the Good News notes. Everyone who worked there, at some point received this 8x10" piece of paper with a rainbow logo on it and it said, "Good News!" And there was a personal note from Pat McGovern, out of the blue, totally unexpected, to thank you and congratulate you on some bit of work, whatever it was, if you were a reporter, some article you wrote, if you were a sales guy, a sale that you made, and people all over the world would get these from him and put them up in their cubicles because it was like a badge of honor to have them, and people, I still have 'em, (laughs) you know, in a folder somewhere. And he was just unrelenting in supporting the people who worked there, and it was, the impact of that is something you can't put a price tag on, it's just, it stays with people for all their lives, people who have left there and gone on to four or five different jobs always think fondly back to the days at IDG and having, knowing that the CEO had your back in that manner. >> The legend of, and the legacy of Patrick J. McGovern is not just in IDG and IDC, which you were interested in in your book, I mean, you weren't at IDC, I was, and I was started when I saw the sort of downturn and then now it's very, very successful company, you know, whatever, $3-400 million, throwin' off a lot of profits, just to decide, I worked for every single CEO at IDC with the exception of Pat McGovern, and now, Kirk Campbell, the current CEO, is moving on Crawford del Prete's moving into the role of president, it's just a matter of time before he gets CEO, so I will, and I hired Crawford-- >> Oh, you did? (laughs) >> So, I've worked for and/or hired every CEO of IDC except for Pat McGovern, so, but, the legacy goes beyond IDG and IDC, great brands. The McGovern Brain Institute, 350 million, is that right? >> That's right. >> He dedicated to studying, you know, the human brain, he and Lore, very much involved. >> Yup. >> Typical of Pat, he wasn't just, "Hey, here's the check," and disappear. He was goin' in, "Hey, I have some ideas"-- >> Oh yeah. >> Talk about that a little. >> Yeah, well, this was a guy who spent his whole life fascinated by the human brain and the impact technology would have on the human brain, so when he had enough money, he and Lore, in 2000, gave a $350 million gift to MIT to create the McGovern Institute for Brain Research. At the time, the largest academic gift ever given to any university. And, as you said, Pat wasn't a guy who was gonna write a check and leave and wave goodbye. Pat was involved from day one. He and Lore would come and sit in day-long seminars listening to researchers talk about about the most esoteric research going on, and he would take notes, and he wasn't a brain scientist, but he wanted to know more, and he would talk to researchers, he would send Good News notes to them, just like he did with IDG, and it had same impact. People said, "This guy is a serious supporter here, he's not just showin' up with a checkbook." Bob Desimone, who's the director of the Brain Institute, just marveled at this guy's energy level, that he would come in and for days, just sit there and listen and take it all in. And it just, it was an indicator of what kind of person he was, this insatiable curiosity to learn more and more about the world. And he wanted his legacy to be this intersection of technology and brain research, he felt that this institute could cure all sorts of brain-related diseases, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. And it would then just make a better future for mankind, and as corny as that might sound, that was really the motivator for Pat McGovern. >> Well, it's funny that you mention the word corny, 'cause a lot of people saw Pat as somewhat corny, but, as you got to know him, you're like, wow, he really means this, he loves his company, the company was his extended family. When Pat met his untimely demise, we held a crowd chat, crowdchat.net/thankspat, and there's a voting mechanism in there, and the number one vote was from Paul Gillen, who posted, "Leo Durocher said that nice guys finish last, Pat McGovern proved that wrong." >> Yeah. >> And I think that's very true and, again, awesome legacy. What number book is this for you? You've written a lot of books. >> This is number 13. >> 13, well, congratulations, lucky 13. >> Thank you. >> The book is Fast Forward-- >> Future Forward. >> I'm sorry, Future Forward! (laughs) Future Forward by Glenn Rifkin. Check out, there's a link in the YouTube down below, check that out and there's some additional information there. Glenn, congratulations on getting the book done, and thanks so much for-- >> Thank you for having me, this is great, really enjoyed it. It's always good to chat with another former IDGer who gets it. (laughs) >> Brought back a lot of memories, so, again, thanks for writing the book. All right, thanks for watching, everybody, we'll see you next time. This is Dave Vellante. You're watchin' theCube. (electronic music)

>> Narrator: Live from New York, it's the Cube. Covering Machine Learning Everywhere: Build Your Ladder to AI. Brought to you by IBM. >> And welcome back here to New York City. We're at IBM's Machine Learning Everywhere: Build Your Ladder to AI, along with Dave Vellante, John Walls, and we're now joined by Sam Lightstone, who is an IBM fellow in analytics. And Sam, good morning. Thanks for joining us here once again on the Cube. >> Yeah, thanks a lot. Great to be back. >> Yeah, great. Yeah, good to have you here on kind of a moldy New York day here in late February. So we're talking, obviously data is the new norm, is what certainly, have heard a lot about here today and of late here from IBM. Talk to me about, in your terms, of just when you look at data and evolution and to where it's now become so central to what every enterprise is doing and must do. I mean, how do you do it? Give me a 30,000-foot level right now from your prism. >> Sure, I mean, from a super, if you just stand back, like way far back, and look at what data means to us today, it's really the thing that is separating companies one from the other. How much data do they have and can they make excellent use of it to achieve competitive advantage? And so many companies today are about data and only data. I mean, I'll give you some like really striking, disruptive examples of companies that are tremendously successful household names and it's all about the data. So the world's largest transportation company, or personal taxi, can't call it taxi, but (laughs) but, you know, Uber-- >> Yeah, right. >> Owns no cars, right? The world's largest accommodation company, Airbnb, owns no hotels, right? The world's largest distributor of motion pictures owns no movie theaters. So these companies are disrupting because they're focused on data, not on the material stuff. Material stuff is important, obviously. Somebody needs to own a car, somebody needs to own a way to view a motion picture, and so on. But data is what differentiates companies more than anything else today. And can they tap into the data, can they make sense of it for competitive advantage? And that's not only true for companies that are, you know, cloud companies. That's true for every company, whether you're a bricks and mortars organization or not. Now, one level of that data is to simply look at the data and ask questions of the data, the kinds of data that you already have in your mind. Generating reports, understanding who your customers are, and so on. That's sort of a fundamental level. But the deeper level, the exciting transformation that's going on right now, is the transformation from reporting and what we'll call business intelligence, the ability to take those reports and that insight on data and to visualize it in the way that human beings can understand it, and go much deeper into machine learning and AI, cognitive computing where we can start to learn from this data and learn at the pace of machines, and to drill into the data in a way that a human being cannot because we can't look at bajillions of bytes of data on our own, but machines can do that and they're very good at doing that. So it is a huge, that's one level. The other level is, there's so much more data now than there ever was because there's so many more devices that are now collecting data. And all of us, you know, every one of our phones is collecting data right now. Your cars are collecting data. I think there's something like 60 sensors on every car that rolls of the manufacturing line today. 60. So it's just a wild time and a very exciting time because there's so much untapped potential. And that's what we're here about today, you know. Machine learning, tapping into that unbelievable potential that's there in that data. >> So you're absolutely right on. I mean the data is foundational, or must be foundational in order to succeed in this sort of data-driven world. But it's not necessarily the center of the universe for a lot of companies. I mean, it is for the big data, you know, guys that we all know. You know, the top market cap companies. But so many organizations, they're sort of, human expertise is at the center of their universe, and data is sort of, oh yeah, bolt on, and like you say, reporting. >> Right. >> So how do they deal with that? Do they get one big giant DB2 instance and stuff all the data in there, and infuse it with MI? Is that even practical? How do they solve this problem? >> Yeah, that's a great question. And there's, again, there's a multi-layered answer to that. But let me start with the most, you know, one of the big changes, one of the massive shifts that's been going on over the last decade is the shift to cloud. And people think of the shift to cloud as, well, I don't have to own the server. Someone else will own the server. That's actually not the right way to look at it. I mean, that is one element of cloud computing, but it's not, for me, the most transformative. The big thing about the cloud is the introduction of fully-managed services. It's not just you don't own the server. You don't have to install, configure, or tune anything. Now that's directly related to the topic that you just raised, because people have expertise, domains of expertise in their business. Maybe you're a manufacturer and you have expertise in manufacturing. If you're a bank, you have expertise in banking. You may not be a high-tech expert. You may not have deep skills in tech. So one of the great elements of the cloud is that now you can use these fully managed services and you don't have to be a database expert anymore. You don't have to be an expert in tuning SQL or JSON, or yadda yadda. Someone else takes care of that for you, and that's the elegance of a fully managed service, not just that someone else has got the hardware, but they're taking care of all the complexity. And that's huge. The other thing that I would say is, you know, the companies that are really like the big data houses, they got lots of data, they've spent the last 20 years working so hard to converge their data into larger and larger data lakes. And some have been more successful than others. But everybody has found that that's quite hard to do. Data is coming in many places, in many different repositories, and trying to consolidate, you know, rip the data out, constantly ripping it out and replicating into some data lake where you, or data warehouse where you can do your analytics, is complicated. And it means in some ways you're multiplying your costs because you have the data in its original location and now you're copying it into yet another location. You've got to pay for that, too. So you're multiplying costs. So one of the things I'm very excited about at IBM is we've been working on this new technology that we've now branded it as IBM Queryplex. And that gives us the ability to query data across all of these myriad sources as if they are in one place. As if they are a single consolidated data lake, and make it all look like (snaps) one repository. And not only to the application appear as one repository, but actually tap into the processing power of every one of those data sources. So if you have 1,000 of them, we'll bring to bear the power 1,000 data sources and all that computing and all that memory on these analytics problems. >> Well, give me an example why that matters, of what would be a real-world application of that. >> Oh, sure, so there, you know, there's a couple of examples. I'll give you two extremes, two different extremes. One extreme would be what I'll call enterprise, enterprise data consolidation or virtualization, where you're a large institution and you have several of these repositories. Maybe you got some IBM repositories like DB2. Maybe you've got a little bit of Oracle and a little bit of SQL Server. Maybe you've got some open source stuff like Postgres or MySQL. You got a bunch of these and different departments use different things, and it develops over decades and to some extent you can't even control it, (laughs) right? And now you just want to get analytics on that. You just, what's this data telling me? And as long as all that data is sitting in these, you know, dozens or hundreds of different repositories, you can't tell, unless you copy it all out into a big data lake, which is expensive and complicated. So Queryplex will solve that problem. >> So it's sort of a virtual data store. >> Yeah, and one of the terms, many different terms that are used, but one of the terms that's used in the industry is data virtualization. So that would be a suitable terminology here as well. To make all that data in hundreds, thousands, even millions of possible data sources, appear as one thing, it has to tap into the processing power of all of them at once. Now, that's one extreme. Let's take another extreme, which is even more extreme, which is the IoT scenario, Internet of Things, right? Internet of Things. Imagine you've, have devices, you know, shipping containers and smart meters on buildings. You could literally have 100,000 of these or a million of these things. They're usually small; they don't usually have a lot of data on them. But they can store, usually, couple of months of data. And what's fascinating about that is that most analytics today are really on the most recent you know, 48 hours or four weeks, maybe. And that time is getting shorter and shorter, because people are doing analytics more regularly and they're interested in, just tell me what's going on recently. >> I got to geek out here, for a second. >> Please, well thanks for the warning. (laughs) >> And I know you know things, but I'm not a, I'm not a technical person, but I've been a molt. I've been around a long time. A lot of questions on data virtualization, but let me start with Queryplex. The name is really interesting to me. When I, and you're a database expert, so I'm going to tap your expertise. When I read the Google Spanner paper, I called up my colleague David Floyer, who's an ex-IBM, I said, "This is like global Sysplex. "It's a global distributed thing," And he goes, "Yeah, kind of." And I got very excited. And then my eyes started bleeding when I read the paper, but the name, Queryplex, is it a play on Sysplex? Is there-- >> It's actually, there's a long story. I don't think I can say the story on-air, but we, suffice it to say we wanted to get a name that was legally usable and also descriptive. >> Dave: Okay. >> And we went through literally hundreds and hundreds of permutations of words and we finally landed on Queryplex. But, you know, you mentioned Google Spanner. I probably should spend a moment to differentiate how what we're doing is-- >> Great, if you would. >> A different kind of thing. You know, on Google Spanner, you put data into Google Spanner. With Queryplex, you don't put data into it. >> Dave: Don't have to move it. >> You don't have to move it. You leave it where it is. You can have your data in DB2, you can have it in Oracle, you can have it in a flat file, you can have an Excel spreadsheet, and you know, think about that. An Excel spreadsheet, a collection of text files, comma delimited text files, SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, Netezza, all these things suddenly appear as one database. So that's the transformation. It's not about we'll take your data and copy it into our system, this is about leave your data where it is, and we're going to tap into your (snaps) existing systems for you and help you see them in a unified way. So it's a very different paradigm than what others have done. Part of the reason why we're so excited about it is we're, as far as we know, nobody else is really doing anything quite like this. >> And is that what gets people to the 21st century, basically, is that they have all these legacy systems and yet the conversion is much simpler, much more economical for them? >> Yeah, exactly. It's economical, it's fast. (snaps) You can deploy this in, you know, a very small amount of time. And we're here today talking about machine learning and it's a very good segue to point out in order to get to high-quality AI, you need to have a really strong foundation of an information architecture. And for the industry to show up, as some have done over the past decade, and keep telling people to re-architect their data infrastructure, keep modifying their databases and creating new databases and data lakes and warehouses, you know, it's just not realistic. And so we want to provide a different path. A path that says we're going to make it possible for you to have superb machine learning, cognitive computing, artificial intelligence, and you don't have to rebuild your information architecture. We're going to make it possible for you to leverage what you have and do something special. >> This is exciting. I wasn't aware of this capability. And we were talking earlier about the cloud and the managed service component of that as a major driver of lowering cost and complexity. There's another factor here, which is, we talked about moving data-- >> Right. >> And that's one of the most expensive components of any infrastructure. If I got to move data and the transmission costs and the latency, it's virtually impossible. Speed of light's still up. I know you guys are working on speed of light, but (Sam laughs) you'll eventually get there. >> Right. >> Maybe. But the other thing about cloud economics, and this relates to sort of Queryplex. There's this API economy. You've got virtually zero marginal costs. When you were talking, I was writing these down. You got global scale, it's never down, you've got this network effect working for you. Are you able to, are the standards there? Are you able to replicate those sort of cloud economics the APIs, the standards, that scale, even though you're not in control of this, there's not a single point of control? Can you explain sort of how that magic works? >> Yeah, well I think the API economy is for real and it's very important for us. And it's very important that, you know, we talk about API standards. There's a beautiful quote I once heard. The beautiful thing about standards is there's so many to choose from. (All laugh) And the reality is that, you know, you have standards that are official standards, and then you have the de facto standards because something just catches on and nobody blessed it. It just got popular. So that's a big part of what we're doing at IBM is being at the forefront of adopting the standards that matter. We made a big, a big investment in being Spark compatible, and, in fact, even with Queryplex. You can issue Spark SQL against Queryplex even though it's not a Spark engine, per se, but we make it look and feel like it can be Spark SQL. Another critical point here, when we talk about the API economy, and the speed of light, and movement to the cloud, and these topics you just raised, the friction of the Internet is an unbelievable friction. (John laughs) It's unbelievable. I mean, you know, when you go and watch a movie over the Internet, your home connection is just barely keeping up. I mean, you're pushing it, man. So a gigabyte, you know, a gigabyte an hour or something like that, right? Okay, and if you're a big company, maybe you have a fatter pipe. But not a lot fatter. I mean, not orders of, you're talking incredible friction. And what that means is that it is difficult for people, for companies, to en masse, move everything to the cloud. It's just not happening overnight. And, again, in the interest of doing the best possible service to our customers, that's why we've made it a fundamental element of our strategy in IBM to be a hybrid, what we call hybrid data management company, so that the APIs that we use on the cloud, they are compatible with the APIs that we use on premises. And whether that's software or private cloud. You've got software, you've got private cloud, you've got public cloud. And our APIs are going to be consistent across, and applications that you code for one will run on the other. And you can, that makes it a lot easier to migrate at your leisure when you're ready. >> Makes a lot of sense. That way you can bring cloud economics and the cloud operating model to your data, wherever the data exists. Listening to you speak, Sam, it reminds me, do you remember when Bob Metcalfe who I used to work with at IDG, predicted the collapse of the Internet? He predicted that year after year after year, in speech after speech, that it was so fragile, and you're bringing back that point of, guys, it's still, you know, a lot of friction. So that's very interesting, (laughs) as an architect. >> You think Bob's going to be happy that you brought up that he predicted the Internet was going to be its own demise? (Sam laughs) >> Well, he did it in-- >> I'm just saying. >> I'm staying out of it, man. >> He did it as a lightning rod. >> As a talking-- >> To get the industry to respond, and he had a big enough voice so he could do that. >> That it worked, right. But so I want to get back to Queryplex and the secret sauce. Somehow you're creating this data virtualization capability. What's the secret sauce behind it? >> Yeah, so I think, we're not the first to try, by the way. Actually this problem-- >> Hard problem. >> Of all these data sources all over the place, you try to make them look like one thing. People have been trying to figure out how to do that since like the '70s, okay, so, but-- >> Dave: Really hasn't worked. >> And it hasn't worked. And really, the reason why it hasn't worked is that there's been two fundamental strategies. One strategy is, you have a central coordinator that tries to speak to each of these data sources. So I've got, let's say, 10,000 data sources. I want to have one coordinator tap into each of them and have a dialogue. And what happens is that that coordinator, a server, an agent somewhere, becomes a network bottleneck. You were talking about the friction of the Internet. This is a great example of friction. One coordinator trying to speak to, you know, and collaborators becomes a point of friction. And it also becomes a point of friction not only in the Internet, but also in the computation, because he ends up doing too much of the work. There's too many things that cannot be done at the, at these edge repositories, aggregations, and joins, and so on. So all the aggregations and joins get done by this one sucker who can't keep up. >> Dave: The queue. >> Yeah, so there's a big queue, right. So that's one strategy that didn't work. The other strategy that people tried was sort of an end squared topology where every data source tries to speak to every other data source. And that doesn't scale as well. So what we've done in Queryplex is something that we think is unique and much more organic where we try to organize the universe or constellation of these data sources so that every data source speaks to a small number of peers but not a large number of peers. And that way no single source is a bottleneck, either in network or in computation. That's one trick. And the second trick is we've designed algorithms that can truly be distributed. So you can do joins in a distributed manner. You can do aggregation in a distributed manner. These are things, you know, when I say aggregation, I'm talking about simple things like a sum or an average or a median. These are super popular in, in analytic queries. Everybody wants to do a sum or an average or a median, right? But in the past, those things were hard to do in a distributed manner, getting all the participants in this universe to do some small incremental piece of the computation. So it's really these two things. Number one, this organic, dynamically forming constellation of devices. Dynamically forming a way that is latency aware. So if I'm a, if I represent a data source that's joining this universe or constellation, I'm going to try to find peers who I have a fast connection with. If all the universe of peers were out there, I'll try to find ones that are fast. And the second is having algorithms that we can all collaborate on. Those two things change the game. >> We're getting the two minute sign, and this is fascinating stuff. But so, how do you deal with the data consistency problem? You hear about eventual consistency and people using atomic clocks and-- Right, so Queryplex, you know, there's a reason we call it Queryplex not Dataplex. Queryplex is really a read-only operation. >> Dave: Oh, there you go. >> You've got all these-- >> Problem solved. (laughs) >> Problem solved. You've got all these data sources. They're already doing their, they already have data's coming in how it's coming in. >> Dave: Simple and brilliant. >> Right, and we're not changing any of that. All we're saying is, if you want to query them as one, you can query them as one. I should say a few words about the machine learning that we're doing here at the conference. We've talked about the importance of an information architecture and how that lays a foundation for machine learning. But one of the things that we're showing and demonstrating at the conference today, or at the showcase today, is how we're actually putting machine learning into the database. Create databases that learn and improve over time, learn from experience. In 1952, Arthur Samuel was a researcher at IBM who first, had one of the most fundamental breakthroughs in machine learning when he created a machine learning algorithm that will play checkers. And he programmed this checker playing game of his so it would learn over time. And then he had a great idea. He programmed it so it would play itself, thousands and thousands and thousands of times over, so it would actually learn from its own mistakes. And, you know, the evolution since then. Deep Blue playing chess and so on. The Watson Jeopardy game. We've seen tremendous potential in machine learning. We're putting into the database so databases can be smarter, faster, more consistent, and really just out of the box (snaps) performing. >> I'm glad you brought that up. I was going to ask you, because the legend Steve Mills once said to me, I had asked him a question about in-memory databases. He said ever databases have been around, in-memory databases have been around. But ML-infused databases are new. >> Sam: That's right, something totally new. >> Dave: Yeah, great. >> Well, you mentioned Deep Blue. Looking forward to having Garry Kasparov on a little bit later on here. And I know he's speaking as well. But fascinating stuff that you've covered here, Sam. We appreciate the time here. >> Thank you, thanks for having me. >> And wish you continued success, as well. >> Thank you very much. >> Sam Lightstone, IBM fellow joining us here live on the Cube. We're back with more here from New York City right after this. (electronic music)

>> Announcer: Live, from Madrid, Spain, it's theCUBE covering HPE Discover Madrid 2017 brought to you by, Hewlett Packard Enterprise (techno music) >> We're back in Madrid, Spain everybody, this is theCUBE. My name is Dave Vellante, and I'm here with my cohost Peter Burris. Keerti Melkote is here. He's a co-founder and CTO of Aruba. Keerti, good to see you again, thanks for coming on theCUBE. >> Absolutely, my pleasure to be here again. >> So I want to go back to when you co-founded Aruba what was your vision, what was the outcome that you were, you were perceiving for your customers and how has that journey manifested itself to where you are today? >> Wow that, it goes back a long time, 15 years ago. >> And do it in 15 minute increments. >> Right, so you know I, I spent my early days of my career at Cisco in fact, building land switches and the big rage then, was to plug into the network, into the internet and we sold a boatload of these catalyst boxes to all sorts of enterprise customers throughout the world and around 2002 when I started Aruba, I spoke to a few customers about what's next for them around the horizon, it was very clear that it was not the next ethernet standard it's not about going from 100 megabytes to a thousand megabytes. Like, you have a lot of bandwidth going to everybody's desks what they wanted to talk about was how can I connect my people when they're away from their desks and that naturally led to more of a wireless solution. And WiFi, which was still very early back in 2002, was the answer, but when I asked them why are they not adopting WiFi and they said, "Hey, its not secure "it doesn't have the performance I need, "it's not manageable" in other words, it's simply not ready for enterprise. It could be good for the home, in the consumer world, but not for the enterprise. Yeah I took that as a challenge and say, "Hey, looks like a business opportunity, "let's see if I can convince someone "to pay me or at least fund my idea "and to solve those problems." and you know, when when you go with a business plan to venture capitalists they ask for two things. They say, "Hey, whats your technology differentiation?" which are all the things I talk about, we solve the security problem, the manageability problem, the deployment problem, and the like, but they also ask you, "Why can't Cisco do this and kill you guys" and "What gives you the right to exist?" and the thing that I learned about business is, if you're disruptive it's a good thing, especially to the incumbent. And wireless was fundamentally disruptive to Cisco because we were basically, our value prop was, "You don't need all these wires" and if you built a business on connecting people on wires, my business was about unplugging and still staying connected. So it was naturally disruptive and it led to we didn't foresee the boom in mobility that we had seen. At at that time we didn't even have an iPhone or an iPad, >> Dave: Right. >> It was about laptops. So we had a fun time connecting the laptop-carrying workforce in university campuses, in enterprises, and the like, and, but our business changed dramatically in two ways. One was when the iPad was introduced, our customers said here is a personal device and the idea of bring your own device became popular with the iPad. Where employees bring their own devices and there's no security model to connect them into the enterprise. So we allowed them to connect over wireless, and there's no Ethernet on an iPad, you can't plug it in even if you want to. So that made WiFi more of a pervasive technology and at the same time we were coming out of the 2008 economic recession, so there was a lot of, uh I would say, demand for new ways to accomplish more of the same with reduced budgets. And so we said with wireless you can really cut out the wires, and lower your cost, and yet keep people connected. And so that sort of gave us the boom. >> So, so it started as a technical challenge, >> Keerti: Yeah. >> And, and one that you just said okay, I'm going to just dive in >> Keerti: Yeah. >> And we'll see what, I remember Bob Metcalfe, Peter, at one point was asked the question, we used to used to work with him at IDG, you know, "Wireless or wired?" that was you know business back in the late 90s right, >> Keerti: Yeah. >> And he said well, the ethernet guy, so, he invented it, so he said "Well wireless is always going to be 'better'" he said, "but I can't predict "what's going to happen in the future, "it's hard to believe that wireless isn't just going to "explode at some point, I don't know why." And then this is, of course, before the iPad, before the smartphones, you as well when you started the company, and then, and and I would imagine the VCs were asking about the market potential. And now you fast forward to you know the days when HPE saw the opportunity, I mean, it just seems so blatantly obvious now with the intelligent edge, so take us forward to where we are today whats that, obviously the TAM has changed completely and the wind is at your back so maybe, talk about that. >> Absolutely, so last year alone we have grown the business 21% which is three times the market in terms of growth and it's profitable growth because we are really a software-defined architecture. That's one of the core differentiators of the businesses it's not really about wired or wireless, it's what do you enable the customer to do with this technology and how agile can they be to use the technology to meet their business needs. And you know there's a lot of conversation obviously as part of HP around the data center and what's happening there with hybrid IT. The intelligent edge is the complement of that. The simple way to think about the intelligent edge is IT technology, which is hardware, software, services, that goes outside the data center that's closer to the user and delivers basically on the business outcomes with digital initiatives that our customers are looking at. So I'll give you some examples. One is in the enterprise itself, the most simple example is take a workplace, take an office and transform the office in some way, and the easiest way to do it is, get it off your cubicle farms with desktops and mobile devices, make it an open collaborative workplace which is what everybody wants and oh by the way, as you start to do this not only do you raise the productivity of your workforce, but you make it more attractive to attract and retain the best and brightest from the new workforce that is graduating from colleges that are looking for these work environments. And the other upshot is that you have an idea of where people are, not only who is getting onto the network but with wireless you know where they are that gives you a sense of how your real estate is being utilized which, I didn't know this, but it was basically you used to hire people to watch how people moved around and do like six months studies of if your real estate is being used appropriately or not. Now you get it real time with analytics. And you can use that location to really create new workflows within the enterprise that are completely not known. An example is conference rooms. If you look at how people book conference rooms, you go to your calendar in exchange and book it, the meeting may or may not happen but the meeting is booked anyway and so we flip the model and I say instead instead of booking meetings two weeks in advance before they happen, how about we turn it around and make it just in time, just like taxi cabs or limousine rides right, they used to be you had to book it in advance, now with Uber you just hail it right whenever you want. You can do the same thing with conference rooms. Another example was not only do you book the conference room but you can turn up the lights, turn up the AC. So a lot of IOT elements to the workplace, so a very simple prosaic things like a workplace can be completely modernized using this technology. So that's an example of an intelligent edge. Another is in retail, where customers want to, our customers in that industry want to use the network, the wireless channel, to increase the engagement for the shoppers when they enter the stores. Today if you look at a bricks-and-mortar experience, you walk into a store, it is totally disconnected. Whereas if you're shopping online, on Amazon let's say right it has your shopping history, it'll give you recommendations its a very modern sort of shopping experience. So how do you bring that online experience to the offline world, and make it real time when you're out there, when you're touching and feeling the products you get information about the products, you get, you might get some promotions, you might be asked to consider accessories that go with the product that you might be buying. So it gives the retailer an ability to really engage with the shopper in real time, and that modernizes their business right, so now you're talking about using IT to enhance revenue, so IT is no longer just a back office thing that you do it's really to enhance the business itself. And we are seeing this in industrial settings as well, where the factory floor is being modernized to ensure that new workflows are coming in, to the to ensure the plant equipment is being maintained correctly before things break down. So we see so much action frankly at the intelligent edge that the in terms of just the market demand and the TAM, it's growing dramatically. >> Well Peter, Keerti's describing, when HPE bought Aruba, I said "Is this a strategic infrastructure or "is it just a great business?" and you're, what you're describing is a strategic infrastructure so >> Yeah, but it's also a great business so it's you, you weren't, HP might have originally thought that it was buying Aruba to buttress itself in the networking business, to help make the networking business happen. But whats occurred is, Keerti and his team, have helped catalyze this whole competency around the intelligent edge and it's, you mentioned a couple things that I think are really interesting. First off, what the, when we talk to CIOs and business people today, what they keep telling us is "I need to think in terms of the event "that I need to support, and put processing, compute, "right there, at the moment, "and I can't do that without great networking." So number one, network is a crucial feature of thinking differently about process and data, compute and data, right there when the customer wants it. You mentioned the whole notion of retail, well I do this, I think we all do this, we go into the store, we get the tactile experience, we look at the price, and we decide to go home and buy it somewhere else 'cause its more convenient. Lost opportunity for the retailer >> Keerti: Yeah. >> You put compute and data right there, and marry it with the tactile experience and you need Aruba-like technologies to make that happen, so talk a little bit about this idea of how it changes the way a businessperson thinks how the intelligent edge is not just a technologist talking about stuff but it's, turn around, how is it a new way of thinking about business that then translates into the intelligent edge? >> Yeah, so I think today when you talk about digital right, it's all about, I don't see in the future any business that is going to be independent of IT. IT used to be a support function, but every business in the world, can >> Peter: can I pick up on that really quick before you go? >> Yeah. >> We talk about the difference between business and digital business is data, full stop, that's it. Data as an asset is the basis of digital business. Otherwise it's all the same. What do you think? >> Exactly so and data for powering experiences that's kind of how we put it, right, that's really what it's about. You talked about the moment right, so what they want to capture, the you know, if you look at retail, they want to capture the shopping experience, when you're in there. The data is about what they're interested in, is, in aggregate, where do my shoppers spend most of their time when they walk into my store, how long do they hang out, do they come back, how often do they come back? This is analytics information that they can use to craft their campaigns, to bring more shoppers into the stores right, this is data. The data comes based on when you walk into the store and the asset that allows this data to be built is the network. The moment you walk in, the network recognizes you, that you walked in, by your device. And it now knows how, the path you're taking. I don't need to know you, Peter, walked, but I know that a shopper took this particular path. And I collect enough data, I get patterns out of it, and based on the patterns, I then monetize it to bring the shoppers back. Now I marry this data to my prior existing data like a loyalty card database, if you are in my loyalty card database, then I know more about you, about your shopping habits, and that allows me to cross-sell and upsell to you. So they look at this whole shopping experience. Ultimately it's about business, it's about how do you increase the wallet share of your spend when you walk into the store, and also to convert the sale when you're there. Not just do window shopping, walk off, and purchase on Amazon, but make the sale happen. To do all of that you need to crunch the data, you need to have super fast networking to engage the customer, and all that needs to happen in real time, right at that point in time. And that's what the edge is about. >> Do you know, have you heard the name, I'm going to throw something out, have you heard the name Christopher Alexander? >> Yeah. >> Timeless way building? >> Yeah. >> The whole notion that architecture is about creating spaces that are functional to people, and make them convenient and attractive and useful. And in many respects what we're talking about is creating digital and real spaces combined at the same time, that allows people to do things that are valuable to them. Fundamentally, do you agree with that? Is that kind of where we're going with this? >> Completely. Digital as I said right, today we think of digital as an add-on to the space. In the future it'll be embedded, you wont even think about it, it'll just be there, and you'll just experience as a digital space. >> It's putting the capabilities into the space that the customer, the employee, whoever needs to make that moment most valuable. >> And voice interfaces, if you think about Alexa and all these new things that are coming out right, they're much more natural, you're not going like this right, you're just walking in, you might have an Apple watch on you that's as good of a mobile device as a mobile phone right. So I don't need to you to be looking at anything I just, walk in, I can buzz your Apple watch and say, "Hey, here's a coupon for you" or you can just talk to a display and say, "Hey, tell me more about this product" and you'll get information back, beamed to you. >> Keerti, bring it back to Discover, what are we going to hear this week from, >> So one of the big big things you'll hear from us is as you think about all these digital experiences that we're creating, in whatever setting, there's one huge barrier to all of it and, guess what that is. >> Peter: Security! >> Absolutely, security is the number one issue. And if you don't have a secure foundation your digital business is at risk. And we have seen that in headlines, in bold headlines, in the last year or two years right, so how do you build security from the ground up, and give you a super robust infrastructure that gives you what you want but doesn't compromise your business? That's fundamental, security is a boardroom topic. The CEO has to respond to how you're ensuring consumer data is not being compromised, patient data is not being compromised, or whatever the sacrosanct data is that the enterprise owns about its customers. So we are talking about security and how you provide advanced machine learning and behavioral analytics capabilities to give you advanced warning about security threats that may be already inside the enterprise. Because there is no such enterprise today, that is digital and not vulnerable, everybody is vulnerable, and everybody knows there's a threat. The key is how long does it take you to figure out you have a threat and fix it. And we are helping them figure out faster and fix it faster. >> And you brought in some assets to do that, Niara, >> They're going to be introducing this, this idea this product called Introspect, we acquired Niara, which brings us to the AI machine learning world into the enterprise, and the key idea there is that security doesn't stop at the perimeter. You really have this in corporate security from the internal from the inside out, not just from the outside in. >> Great, Keerti, thanks so much for coming in theCUBE and good luck this week, we appreciate your time. >> Thank you very much. >> Oh you're welcome. Alright, keep it right there everybody, Peter and I will be back with our next guest. We're live from HPE Discover Madrid, this is theCUBE. (techno music)