>> from Cambridge, Massachusetts. It's the Cube covering M I T. Chief data officer and information quality Symposium 2019. Brought to you by Silicon Angle Media. >> Welcome back to Cambridge, Massachusetts. Everybody, You're watching the Cube, the leader in live tech coverage, and we're covering the M I t CDO conference M I t. CDO. My name is David Monty in here with my co host, Paul Galen. Mike Stone breakers here. The legend is founder CTO of Of Tamer, as well as many other companies. Inventor Michael. Thanks for coming back in the Cube. Good to see again. Nice to be here. So this is kind of ah, repeat pattern for all of us. We kind of gather here in August that the CDO conference You're always the highlight of the show. You gave a talk this week on the top 10. Big data mistakes. You and I are one of the few. You were the few people who still use the term big data. I happen to like it. Sad that it's out of vogue already, but people associated with the doo doop it's kind of waning, but regardless, so welcome. How'd the talk go? What were you talking about. >> So I talked to a lot of people who were doing analytics. We're doing operation Offer operational day of data at scale, and they always make most of them make a collection of bad mistakes. And so the talk waas a litany of the blunders that I've seen people make, and so the audience could relate to the blunders about most. Most of the enterprise is represented. Make a bunch of the blunders. So I think no. One blunder is not planning on moving most everything to the cloud. >> So that's interesting, because a lot of people would would would love to debate that, but and I would imagine you probably could have done this 10 years ago in a lot of the blunders would be the same, but that's one that wouldn't have been there. But so I tend to agree. I was one of the two hands that went up this morning, and vocalist talk when he asked, Is the cloud cheaper for us? It is anyway. But so what? Why should everybody move everything? The cloud aren't there laws of physics, laws of economics, laws of the land that suggest maybe you >> shouldn't? Well, I guess 22 things and then a comment. First thing is James Hamilton, who's no techies. Techie works for Amazon. We know James. So he claims that he could stand up a server for 25% of your cost. I have no reason to disbelieve him. That number has been pretty constant for a few years, so his cost is 1/4 of your cost. Sooner or later, prices are gonna reflect costs as there's a race to the bottom of cloud servers. So >> So can I just stop you there for a second? Because you're some other date on that. All you have to do is look at a W S is operating margin and you'll see how profitable they are. They have software like economics. Now we're deploying servers. So sorry to interrupt, but so carry. So >> anyway, sooner or later, they're gonna have their gonna be wildly cheaper than you are. The second, then yet is from Dave DeWitt, whose database wizard. And here's the current technology that that Microsoft Azure is using. As of 18 months ago, it's shipping containers and parking lots, chilled water in power in Internet, Ian otherwise sealed roof and walls optional. So if you're doing raised flooring in Cambridge versus I'm doing shipping containers in the Columbia River Valley, who's gonna be a lot cheaper? And so you know the economies of scale? I mean, that, uh, big, big cloud guys are building data centers as fast as they can, using the cheapest technology around. You put up the data center every 10 years on dhe. You do it on raised flooring in Cambridge. So sooner or later, the cloud guys are gonna be a lot cheaper. And the only thing that isn't gonna the only thing that will change that equation is For example, my lab is up the street with Frank Gehry building, and we have we have an I t i t department who runs servers in Cambridge. Uh, and they claim they're cheaper than the cloud. And they don't pay rent for square footage and they don't pay for electricity. So yeah, if if think externalities, If there are no externalities, the cloud is assuredly going to be cheaper. And then the other thing is that most everybody tonight that I talk thio including me, has very skewed resource demands. So in the cloud finding three servers, except for the last day of the month on the last day of the month. I need 20 servers. I just do it. If I'm doing on Prem, I've got a provision for peak load. And so again, I'm just way more expensive. So I think sooner or later these combinations of effects was going to send everybody to the cloud for most everything, >> and my point about the operating margins is difference in price and cost. I think James Hamilton's right on it. If he If you look at the actual cost of deploying, it's even lower than the price with the market allows them to their growing at 40 plus percent a year and a 35 $40,000,000,000 run rate company sooner, Sooner or >> later, it's gonna be a race to the lot of you >> and the only guys are gonna win. You have guys have the best cost structure. A >> couple other highlights from your talk. >> Sure, I think 2nd 2nd thing like Thio Thio, no stress is that machine learning is going to be a game is going to be a game changer for essentially everybody. And not only is it going to be autonomous vehicles. It's gonna be automatic. Check out. It's going to be drone delivery of most everything. Uh, and so you can, either. And it's gonna affect essentially everybody gonna concert of, say, categorically. Any job that is easy to understand is going to get automated. And I think that's it's gonna be majorly impactful to most everybody. So if you're in Enterprise, you have two choices. You can be a disrupt or or you could be a disruptive. And so you can either be a taxi company or you can be you over, and it's gonna be a I machine learning that's going going to be determined which side of that equation you're on. So I was a big blunder that I see people not taking ml incredibly seriously. >> Do you see that? In fact, everyone I talked who seems to be bought in that this is we've got to get on the bandwagon. Yeah, >> I'm just pointing out the obvious. Yeah, yeah, I think, But one that's not quite so obvious you're is a lot of a lot of people I talked to say, uh, I'm on top of data science. I've hired a group of of 10 data scientists, and they're doing great. And when I talked, one vignette that's kind of fun is I talked to a data scientist from iRobot, which is the guys that have the vacuum cleaner that runs around your living room. So, uh, she said, I spend 90% of my time locating the data. I want to analyze getting my hands on it and cleaning it, leaving the 10% to do data science job for which I was hired. Of the 10% I spend 90% fixing the data cleaning errors in my data so that my models work. So she spends 99% of her time on what you call data preparation 1% of her time doing the job for which he was hired. So data science is not about data science. It's about data integration, data cleaning, data, discovery. >> But your new latest venture, >> so tamer does that sort of stuff. And so that's But that's the rial data science problem. And a lot of people don't realize that yet, And, uh, you know they will. I >> want to ask you because you've been involved in this by my count and starting up at least a dozen companies. Um, 99 Okay, It's a lot. >> It's not overstated. You estimated high fall. How do you How >> do you >> decide what challenge to move on? Because they're really not. You're not solving the same problems. You're You're moving on to new problems. How do you decide? What's the next thing that interests you? Enough to actually start a company. Okay, >> that's really easy. You know, I'm on the faculty of M i t. My job is to think of news new ship and investigate it, and I come up. No, I'm paid to come up with new ideas, some of which have commercial value, some of which don't and the ones that have commercial value, like, commercialized on. So it's whatever I'm doing at the time on. And that's why all the things I've commercialized, you're different >> s so going back to tamer data integration platform is a lot of companies out there claim to do it day to get integration right now. What did you see? What? That was the deficit in the market that you could address. >> Okay, great question. So there's the traditional data. Integration is extract transforming load systems and so called Master Data management systems brought to you by IBM in from Attica. Talent that class of folks. So a dirty little secret is that that technology does not scale Okay, in the following sense that it's all well, e t l doesn't scale for a different reason with an m d l e t l doesn't scale because e t. L is based on the premise that somebody really smart comes up with a global data model For all the data sources you want put together. You then send a human out to interview each business unit to figure out exactly what data they've got and then how to transform it into the global data model. How to load it into your data warehouse. That's very human intensive. And it doesn't scale because it's so human intensive. So I've never talked to a data warehouse operator who who says I integrate the average I talk to says they they integrate less than 10 data sources. Some people 20. If you twist my arm hard, I'll give you 50. So a Here. Here's a real world problem, which is Toyota Motor Europe. I want you right now. They have a distributor in Spain, another distributor in France. They have a country by country distributor, sometimes canton by Canton. Distribute distribution. So if you buy a Toyota and Spain and move to France, Toyota develops amnesia. The French French guys know nothing about you. So they've got 250 separate customer databases with 40,000,000 total records in 50 languages. And they're in the process of integrating that. It was single customer database so that they can Duke custom. They could do the customer service we expect when you cross cross and you boundary. I've never seen an e t l system capable of dealing with that kind of scale. E t l dozen scale to this level of problem. >> So how do you solve that problem? >> I'll tell you that they're a tamer customer. I'll tell you all about it. Let me first tell you why MGM doesn't scare. >> Okay. Great. >> So e t l says I now have all your data in one place in the same format, but now you've got following problems. You've got a d duplicated because if if I if I bought it, I bought a Toyota in Spain, I bought another Toyota in France. I'm both databases. So if you want to avoid double counting customers, you got a dupe. Uh, you know, got Duke 30,000,000 records. And so MGM says Okay, you write some rules. It's a rule based technology. So you write a rule. That's so, for example, my favorite example of a rule. I don't know if you guys like to downhill downhill skiing, All right? I love downhill skiing. So ski areas, Aaron, all kinds of public databases assemble those all together. Now you gotta figure out which ones are the same the same ski area, and they're called different names in different addresses and so forth. However, a vertical drop from bottom to the top is the same. Chances are they're the same ski area. So that's a rule that says how to how to put how to put data together in clusters. And so I now have a cluster for mount sanity, and I have a problem which is, uh, one address says something rather another address as something else. Which one is right or both? Right, so now you want. Now you have a gold. Let's call the golden Record problem to basically decide which, which, which data elements among a variety that maybe all associated with the same entity are in fact correct. So again, MDM, that's a rule's a rule based system. So it's a rule based technology and rule systems don't scale the best example I can give you for why Rules systems don't scale. His tamer has another customer. General Electric probably heard of them, and G wanted to do spend analytics, and so they had 20,000,000 spend transactions. Frank the year before last and spend transaction is I paid $12 to take a cab from here here to the airport, and I charged it to cost center X Y Z 20,000,000 of those so G has a pre built classification system for spend, so they have parts and underneath parts or computers underneath computers and memory and so forth. So pre existing preexisting class classifications for spend they want to simply classified 20,000,000 spent transactions into this pre existing hierarchy. So the traditional technology is, well, let's write some rules. So G wrote 500 rules, which is about the most any single human I can get there, their arms around so that classified 2,000,000 of the 20,000,000 transactions. You've now got 18 to go and another 500 rules is not going to give you 2,000,000 more. It's gonna give you love diminishing returns, right? So you have to write a huge number of rules and no one can possibly understand. So the technology simply doesn't scale, right? So in the case of G, uh, they had tamer health. Um, solve this. Solved this classification problem. Tamer used their 2,000,000 rule based, uh, tag records as training data. They used an ML model, then work off the training data classifies remaining 18,000,000. So the answer is machine learning. If you don't use machine learning, you're absolutely toast. So the answer to MDM the answer to MGM doesn't scale. You've got to use them. L The answer to each yell doesn't scale. You gotta You're putting together disparate records can. The answer is ml So you've got to replace humans by machine learning. And so that's that seems, at least in this conference, that seems to be resonating, which is people are understanding that at scale tradition, traditional data integration, technology's just don't work >> well and you got you got a great shot out on yesterday from the former G S K Mark Grams, a leader Mark Ramsay. Exactly. Guys. And how they solve their problem. He basically laid it out. BTW didn't work and GM didn't work, All right. I mean, kick it, kick the can top down data modelling, didn't work, kicked the candid governance That's not going to solve the problem. And But Tamer did, along with some other tooling. Obviously, of course, >> the Well, the other thing is No. One technology. There's no silver bullet here. It's going to be a bunch of technologies working together, right? Mark Ramsay is a great example. He used his stream sets and a bunch of other a bunch of other startup technology operating together and that traditional guys >> Okay, we're good >> question. I want to show we have time. >> So with traditional vendors by and large or 10 years behind the times, And if you want cutting edge stuff, you've got to go to start ups. >> I want to jump. It's a different topic, but I know that you in the past were critic of know of the no sequel movement, and no sequel isn't going away. It seems to be a uh uh, it seems to be actually gaining steam right now. What what are the flaws in no sequel? It has your opinion changed >> all? No. So so no sequel originally meant no sequel. Don't use it then. Then the marketing message changed to not only sequel, So sequel is fine, but no sequel does others. >> Now it's all sequel, right? >> And my point of view is now. No sequel means not yet sequel because high level language, high level data languages, air good. Mongo is inventing one Cassandra's inventing one. Those unless you squint, look like sequel. And so I think the answer is no sequel. Guys are drifting towards sequel. Meanwhile, Jason is That's a great idea. If you've got your regular data sequel, guys were saying, Sure, let's have Jason is the data type, and I think the only place where this a fair amount of argument is schema later versus schema first, and I pretty much think schema later is a bad idea because schema later really means you're creating a data swamp exactly on. So if you >> have to fix it and then you get a feel of >> salary, so you're storing employees and salaries. So, Paul salaries recorded as dollars per month. Uh, Dave, salary is in euros per week with a lunch allowance minds. So if you if you don't, If you don't deal with irregularities up front on data that you care about, you're gonna create a mess. >> No scheme on right. Was convenient of larger store, a lot of data cheaply. But then what? Hard to get value out of it created. >> So So I think the I'm not opposed to scheme later. As long as you realize that you were kicking the can down the road and you're just you're just going to give your successor a big mess. >> Yeah, right. Michael, we gotta jump. But thank you so much. Sure appreciate it. All right. Keep it right there, everybody. We'll be back with our next guest right into the short break. You watching the cue from M i t cdo Ike, you right back