>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> After a two-year epic run in tech, 2022 has been an epically bad year. Through yesterday, The NASDAQ composite is down 30%. The S$P 500 is off 21%. And the Dow Jones Industrial average 16% down. And the poor holders at Bitcoin have had to endure a nearly 60% decline year to date. But judging by the attendance and enthusiasm, in major in-person tech events this spring. You'd never know that tech was in the tank. Moreover, walking around the streets of Las Vegas, where most tech conferences are held these days. One can't help but notice that the good folks of Main Street, don't seem the least bit concerned that the economy is headed for a recession. Hello, and welcome to this weeks Wiki Bond Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis we'll share our main takeaways from the first half of 2022. And talk about the outlook for tech going forward, and why despite some pretty concerning headwinds we remain sanguine about tech generally, but especially enterprise tech. Look, here's the bumper sticker on why many folks are really bearish at the moment. Of course, inflation is high, other than last year, the previous inflation high this century was in July of 2008, it was 5.6%. Inflation has proven to be very, very hard to tame. You got gas at $7 dollars a gallon. Energy prices they're not going to suddenly drop. Interest rates are climbing, which will eventually damage housing. Going to have that ripple effect, no doubt. We're seeing layoffs at companies like Tesla and the crypto names are also trimming staff. Workers, however are still in short supply. So wages are going up. Companies in retail are really struggling with the right inventory, and they can't even accurately guide on their earnings. We've seen a version of this movie before. Now, as it pertains to tech, Crawford Del Prete, who's the CEO of IDC explained this on theCUBE this very week. And I thought he did a really good job. He said the following, >> Matt, you have a great statistic that 80% of companies used COVID as their point to pivot into digital transformation. And to invest in a different way. And so what we saw now is that tech is now where I think companies need to focus. They need to invest in tech. They need to make people more productive with tech and it played out in the numbers. Now so this year what's fascinating is we're looking at two vastly different markets. We got gasoline at $7 a gallon. We've got that affecting food prices. Interesting fun fact recently it now costs over $1,000 to fill an 18 wheeler. All right, based on, I mean, this just kind of can't continue. So you think about it. >> Don't put the boat in the water. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good luck if ya, yeah exactly. So a family has kind of this bag of money, and that bag of money goes up by maybe three, 4% every year, depending upon earnings. So that is sort of sloshing around. So if food and fuel and rent is taking up more, gadgets and consumer tech are not, you're going to use that iPhone a little longer. You're going to use that Android phone a little longer. You're going to use that TV a little longer. So consumer tech is getting crushed, really it's very, very, and you saw it immediately in ad spending. You've seen it in Meta, you've seen it in Facebook. Consumer tech is doing very, very, it is tough. Enterprise tech, we haven't been in the office for two and a half years. We haven't upgraded whether that be campus wifi, whether that be servers, whether that be commercial PCs as much as we would have. So enterprise tech, we're seeing double digit order rates. We're seeing strong, strong demand. We have combined that with a component shortage, and you're seeing some enterprise companies with a quarter of backlog, I mean that's really unheard of. >> And higher prices, which also profit. >> And therefore that drives up the prices. >> And this is a theme that we've heard this year at major tech events, they've really come roaring back. Last year, theCUBE had a huge presence at AWS Reinvent. The first Reinvent since 2019, it was really well attended. Now this was before the effects of the omicron variant, before they were really well understood. And in the first quarter of 2022, things were pretty quiet as far as tech events go But theCUBE'a been really busy this spring and early into the summer. We did 12 physical events as we're showing here in the slide. Coupa, did Women in Data Science at Stanford, Coupa Inspire was in Las Vegas. Now these are both smaller events, but they were well attended and beat expectations. San Francisco Summit, the AWS San Francisco Summit was a bit off, frankly 'cause of the COVID concerns. They were on the rise, then we hit Dell Tech World which was packed, it had probably around 7,000 attendees. Now Dockercon was virtual, but we decided to include it here because it was a huge global event with watch parties and many, many tens of thousands of people attending. Now the Red Hat Summit was really interesting. The choice that Red Hat made this year. It was purposefully scaled down and turned into a smaller VIP event in Boston at the Western, a couple thousand people only. It was very intimate with a much larger virtual presence. VeeamON was very well attended, not as large as previous VeeamON events, but again beat expectations. KubeCon and Cloud Native Con was really successful in Spain, Valencia, Spain. PagerDuty Summit was again a smaller intimate event in San Francisco. And then MongoDB World was at the new Javits Center and really well attended over the three day period. There were lots of developers there, lots of business people, lots of ecosystem partners. And then the Snowflake summit in Las Vegas, it was the most vibrant from the standpoint of the ecosystem with nearly 10,000 attendees. And I'll come back to that in a moment. Amazon re:Mars is the Amazon AI robotic event, it's smaller but very, very cool, a lot of innovation. And just last week we were at HPE Discover. They had around 8,000 people attending which was really good. Now I've been to over a dozen HPE or HPE Discover events, within Europe and the United States over the past decade. And this was by far the most vibrant, lot of action. HPE had a little spring in its step because the company's much more focused now but people was really well attended and people were excited to be there, not only to be back at physical events, but also to hear about some of the new innovations that are coming and HPE has a long way to go in terms of building out that ecosystem, but it's starting to form. So we saw that last week. So tech events are back, but they are smaller. And of course now a virtual overlay, they're hybrid. And just to give you some context, theCUBE did, as I said 12 physical events in the first half of 2022. Just to compare that in 2019, through June of that year we had done 35 physical events. Yeah, 35. And what's perhaps more interesting is we had our largest first half ever in our 12 year history because we're doing so much hybrid and virtual to compliment the physical. So that's the new format is CUBE plus digital or sometimes just digital but that's really what's happening in our business. So I think it's a reflection of what's happening in the broader tech community. So everyone's still trying to figure that out but it's clear that events are back and there's no replacing face to face. Or as I like to say, belly to belly, because deals are done at physical events. All these events we've been to, the sales people are so excited. They're saying we're closing business. Pipelines coming out of these events are much stronger, than they are out of the virtual events but the post virtual event continues to deliver that long tail effect. So that's not going to go away. The bottom line is hybrid is the new model. Okay let's look at some of the big themes that we've taken away from the first half of 2022. Now of course, this is all happening under the umbrella of digital transformation. I'm not going to talk about that too much, you've had plenty of DX Kool-Aid injected into your veins over the last 27 months. But one of the first observations I'll share is that the so-called big data ecosystem that was forming during the hoop and around, the hadoop infrastructure days and years. then remember it dispersed, right when the cloud came in and kind of you know, not wiped out but definitely dampened the hadoop enthusiasm for on-prem, the ecosystem dispersed, but now it's reforming. There are large pockets that are obviously seen in the various clouds. And we definitely see a ecosystem forming around MongoDB and the open source community gathering in the data bricks ecosystem. But the most notable momentum is within the Snowflake ecosystem. Snowflake is moving fast to win the day in the data ecosystem. They're providing a single platform that's bringing different data types together. Live data from systems of record, systems of engagement together with so-called systems of insight. These are converging and while others notably, Oracle are architecting for this new reality, Snowflake is leading with the ecosystem momentum and a new stack is emerging that comprises cloud infrastructure at the bottom layer. Data PaaS layer for app dev and is enabling an ecosystem of partners to build data products and data services that can be monetized. That's the key, that's the top of the stack. So let's dig into that further in a moment but you're seeing machine intelligence and data being driven into applications and the data and application stacks they're coming together to support the acceleration of physical into digital. It's happening right before our eyes in every industry. We're also seeing the evolution of cloud. It started with the SaaS-ification of the enterprise where organizations realized that they didn't have to run their own software on-prem and it made sense to move to SaaS for CRM or HR, certainly email and collaboration and certain parts of ERP and early IS was really about getting out of the data center infrastructure management business called that cloud 1.0, and then 2.0 was really about changing the operating model. And now we're seeing that operating model spill into on-prem workloads finally. We're talking about here about initiatives like HPE's Green Lake, which we heard a lot about last week at Discover and Dell's Apex, which we heard about in May, in Las Vegas. John Furrier had a really interesting observation that basically this is HPE's and Dell's version of outposts. And I found that interesting because outpost was kind of a wake up call in 2018 and a shot across the bow at the legacy enterprise infrastructure players. And they initially responded with these flexible financial schemes, but finally we're seeing real platforms emerge. Again, we saw this at Discover and at Dell Tech World, early implementations of the cloud operating model on-prem. I mean, honestly, you're seeing things like consoles and billing, similar to AWS circa 2014, but players like Dell and HPE they have a distinct advantage with respect to their customer bases, their service organizations, their very large portfolios, especially in the case of Dell and the fact that they have more mature stacks and knowhow to run mission critical enterprise applications on-prem. So John's comment was quite interesting that these firms are basically building their own version of outposts. Outposts obviously came into their wheelhouse and now they've finally responded. And this is setting up cloud 3.0 or Supercloud, as we like to call it, an abstraction layer, that sits above the clouds that serves as a unifying experience across a continuum of on-prem across clouds, whether it's AWS, Azure, or Google. And out to both the near and far edge, near edge being a Lowes or a Home Depot, but far edge could be space. And that edge again is fragmented. You've got the examples like the retail stores at the near edge. Outer space maybe is the far edge and IOT devices is perhaps the tiny edge. No one really knows how the tiny edge is going to play out but it's pretty clear that it's not going to comprise traditional X86 systems with a cool name tossed out to the edge. Rather, it's likely going to require a new low cost, low power, high performance architecture, most likely RM based that will enable things like realtime AI inferencing at that edge. Now we've talked about this a lot on Breaking Analysis, so I'm not going to double click on it. But suffice to say that it's very possible that new innovations are going to emerge from the tiny edge that could really disrupt the enterprise in terms of price performance. Okay, two other quick observations. One is that data protection is becoming a much closer cohort to the security stack where data immutability and air gaps and fast recovery are increasingly becoming a fundamental component of the security strategy to combat ransomware and recover from other potential hacks or disasters. And I got to say from our observation, Veeam is leading the pack here. It's now claiming the number one revenue spot in a statistical dead heat with the Dell's data protection business. That's according to Veeam, according to IDC. And so that space continues to be of interest. And finally, Broadcom's acquisition of Dell. It's going to have ripple effects throughout the enterprise technology business. And there of course, there are a lot of questions that remain, but the one other thing that John Furrier and I were discussing last night John looked at me and said, "Dave imagine if VMware runs better on Broadcom components and OEMs that use Broadcom run VMware better, maybe Broadcom doesn't even have to raise prices on on VMware licenses. Maybe they'll just raise prices on the OEMs and let them raise prices to the end customer." Interesting thought, I think because Broadcom is so P&L focused that it's probably not going to be the prevailing model but we'll see what happens to some of the strategic projects rather like Monterey and Capitola and Thunder. We've talked a lot about project Monterey, the others we'll see if they can make the cut. That's one of the big concerns because it's how OEMs like the ones that are building their versions of outposts are going to compete with the cloud vendors, namely AWS in the future. I want to come back to the comment on the data stack for a moment that we were talking about earlier, we talked about how the big data ecosystem that was once coalescing around hadoop dispersed. Well, the data value chain is reforming and we think it looks something like this picture, where cloud infrastructure lives at the bottom. We've said many times the cloud is expanding and evolving. And if companies like Dell and HPE can truly build a super cloud infrastructure experience then they will be in a position to capture more of the data value. If not, then it's going to go to the cloud players. And there's a live data layer that is increasingly being converged into platforms that not only simplify the movement in ELTing of data but also allow organizations to compress the time to value. Now there's a layer above that, we sometimes call it the super PaaS layer if you will, that must comprise open source tooling, partners are going to write applications and leverage platform APIs and build data products and services that can be monetized at the top of the stack. So when you observe the battle for the data future it's unlikely that any one company is going to be able to do this all on their own, which is why I often joke that the 2020s version of a sweaty Steve Bomber running around the stage, screaming, developers, developers developers, and getting the whole audience into it is now about ecosystem ecosystem ecosystem. Because when you need to fill gaps and accelerate features and provide optionality a list of capabilities on the left hand side of this chart, that's going to come from a variety of different companies and places, we're talking about catalogs and AI tools and data science capabilities, data quality, governance tools and it should be of no surprise to followers of Breaking Analysis that on the right hand side of this chart we're including the four principles of data mesh, which of course were popularized by Zhamak Dehghani. So decentralized data ownership, data as products, self-serve platform and automated or computational governance. Now whether this vision becomes a reality via a proprietary platform like Snowflake or somehow is replicated by an open source remains to be seen but history generally shows that a defacto standard for more complex problems like this is often going to emerge prior to an open source alternative. And that would be where I would place my bets. Although even that proprietary platform has to include open source optionality. But it's not a winner take all market. It's plenty of room for multiple players and ecosystem innovators, but winner will definitely take more in my opinion. Okay, let's close with some ETR data that looks at some of those major platform plays who talk a lot about digital transformation and world changing impactful missions. And they have the resources really to compete. This is an XY graphic. It's a view that we often show, it's got net score on the vertical access. That's a measure of spending momentum, and overlap or presence in the ETR survey. That red, that's the horizontal access. The red dotted line at 40% indicates that the platform is among the highest in terms of spending velocity. Which is why I always point out how impressive that makes AWS and Azure because not only are they large on the horizontal axis, the spending momentum on those two platforms rivals even that of Snowflake which continues to lead all on the vertical access. Now, while Google has momentum, given its goals and resources, it's well behind the two leaders. We've added Service Now and Salesforce, two platform names that have become the next great software companies. Joining likes of Oracle, which we show here and SAP not shown along with IBM, you can see them on this chart. We've also plotted MongoDB, which we think has real momentum as a company generally but also with Atlas, it's managed cloud database as a service specifically and Red Hat with trying to become the standard for app dev in Kubernetes environments, which is the hottest trend right now in application development and application modernization. Everybody's doing something with Kubernetes and of course, Red Hat with OpenShift wants to make that a better experience than do it yourself. The DYI brings a lot more complexity. And finally, we've got HPE and Dell both of which we've talked about pretty extensively here and VMware and Cisco. Now Cisco is executing on its portfolio strategy. It's got a lot of diverse components to its company. And it's coming at the cloud of course from a networking and security perspective. And that's their position of strength. And VMware is a staple of the enterprise. Yes, there's some uncertainty with regards to the Broadcom acquisition, but one thing is clear vSphere isn't going anywhere. It's entrenched and will continue to run lots of IT for years to come because it's the best platform on the planet. Now, of course, these are just some of the players in the mix. We expect that numerous non-traditional technology companies this is important to emerge as new cloud players. We've put a lot of emphasis on the data ecosystem because to us that's really going to be the main spring of digital, i.e., a digital company is a data company and that means an ecosystem of data partners that can advance outcomes like better healthcare, faster drug discovery, less fraud, cleaner energy, autonomous vehicles that are safer, smarter, more efficient grids and factories, better government and virtually endless litany of societal improvements that can be addressed. And these companies will be building innovations on top of cloud platforms creating their own super clouds, if you will. And they'll come from non-traditional places, industries, finance that take their data, their software, their tooling bring them to their customers and run them on various clouds. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks to Alex Myerson, who is on production and does the podcast for Breaking Analysis, Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight, they help get the word out. And Rob Hoofe is our editor and chief over at Silicon Angle who helps edit our posts. Remember all these episodes are available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. You can email me directly at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me at dvellante, or comment on my LinkedIn posts. And please do check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE's Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching be well. And we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (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)