>> From "theCUBE" studios in Palo Alto, in Boston, bringing you data driven insights from "theCUBE" and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> There are very few political issues that get bipartisan support these days, nevermind consensus spanning geopolitical boundaries. But whether we're talking across the aisle or over the pond, there seems to be common agreement that the power of big tech firms should be regulated. But the government's track record when it comes to antitrust aimed at big tech is actually really mixed, mixed at best. History has shown that market forces rather than public policy have been much more effective at curbing monopoly power in the technology industry. Hello, and welcome to this week's "Wikibon CUBE" insights powered by ETR. In this "Breaking Analysis" we welcome in frequent "CUBE" contributor Dave Moschella, author and senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Dave, welcome, good to see you again. >> Hey, thanks Dave, good to be here. >> So you just recently published an article, we're going to bring it up here and I'll read the title, "Theory Aside, Antitrust Advocates Should Keep Their "Big Tech" Ambitions Narrow". And in this post you argue that big sweeping changes like breaking apart companies to moderate monopoly power in the tech industry have been ineffective compared to market forces, but you're not saying government shouldn't be involved rather you're suggesting that more targeted measures combined with market forces are the right answer. Can you maybe explain a little bit more the premise behind your research and some of your conclusions? >> Sure, and first let's go back to that title, when I said, theory aside, that is referring to a huge debate that's going on in global antitrust circles these days about whether antitrust should follow the traditional path of being invoked when there's real harm, demonstrable harm to consumers or a new theory that says that any sort of vast monopoly power inevitably will be bad for competition and consumers at some point, so your best to intervene now to avoid harms later. And that school, which was a very minor part of the antitrust world for many, many years is now quite ascendant and the debate goes on doesn't matter which side of that you're on the questions sort of there well, all right, well, if you're going to do something to take on big tech and clearly many politicians, regulators are sort of issuing to do something, what would you actually do? And what are the odds that that'll do more good than harm? And that was really the origins of the piece and trying to take a historical view of that. >> Yeah, I learned a new word, thank you. Neo-brandzian had to look it up, but basically you're saying that traditionally it was proving consumer harm versus being proactive about the possibility or likelihood of consumer harm. >> Correct, and that's a really big shift that a lot of traditional antitrust people strongly object to, but is now sort of the trendy and more send and view. >> Got it, okay, let's look a little deeper into the history of tech monopolies and government action and see what we can learn from that. We put together this slide that we can reference. It shows the three historical targets in the tech business and now the new ones. In 1969, the DOJ went after IBM, Big Blue and it's 13 years later, dropped its suit. And then in 1984 the government broke Ma Bell apart and in the late 1990s, went after Microsoft, I think it was 1998 in the Wintel monopoly. And recently in an interview with tech journalist, Kara Swisher, the FTC chair Lena Khan claimed that the government played a major role in moderating the power of tech giants historically. And I think she even specifically referenced Microsoft or maybe Kara did and basically said the industry and consumers from the dominance of companies like Microsoft. So Dave, let's briefly talk about and Kara by the way, didn't really challenge that, she kind of let it slide. But let's talk about each of these and test this concept a bit. Were the government actions in these instances necessary? What were the outcomes and the consequences? Maybe you could start with IBM and AT&T. >> Yeah, it's a big topic and there's a lot there and a lot of history, but I might just sort of introduce by saying for whatever reasons antitrust has been part of the entire information technology industry history from mainframe to the current period and that slide sort of gives you that. And the reasons for that are I think once that we sort of know the economies of scale, network effects, lock in safe choices, lot of things that explain it, but the good bit about that is we actually have so much history of this and we can at least see what's happened in the past and when you look at IBM and AT&T they both were massive antitrust cases. The one against IBM was dropped and it was dropped in as you say, in 1980. Well, what was going on in at that time, IBM was sort of considered invincible and unbeatable, but it was 1981 that the personal computer came around and within just a couple of years the world could see that the computing paradigm had change from main frames and minis to PCs lines client server and what have you. So IBM in just a couple of years went from being unbeatable, you can't compete with them, we have to break up with them to being incredibly vulnerable and in trouble and never fully recovered and is sort of a shell of what it once was. And so the market took care of that and no action was really necessary just by everybody thinking there was. The case of AT&T, they did act and they broke up the company and I would say, first question is, was that necessary? Well, lots of countries didn't do that and the reality is 1980 breaking it up into long distance and regional may have made some sense, but by the 1990 it was pretty clear that the telecom world was going to change dramatically from long distance and fixed wires services to internet services, data services, wireless services and all of these things that we're going to restructure the industry anyways. But AT& T one to me is very interesting because of the unintended consequences. And I would say that the main unintended consequence of that was America's competitiveness in telecommunications took a huge hit. And today, to this day telecommunications is dominated by European, Chinese and other firms. And the big American sort of players of the time AT&T which Western Electric became Lucent, Lucent is now owned by Nokia and is really out of it completely and most notably and compellingly Bell Labs, the Bell Labs once the world's most prominent research institution now also a shell of itself and as it was part of Lucent is also now owned by the Finnish company Nokia. So that restructuring greatly damaged America's core strength in telecommunications hardware and research and one can argue we've never recovered right through this 5IG today. So it's a very good example of the market taking care of, the big problem, but meddling leading to some unintended consequences that have hurt the American competitiveness and as we'll talk about, probably later, you can see some of that going on again today and in the past with Microsoft and Intel. >> Right, yeah, Bell Labs was an American gem, kind of like Xerox PARC and basically gone now. You mentioned Intel and Microsoft, Microsoft and Intel. As many people know, some young people don't, IBM unwillingly handed its monopoly to Intel and Microsoft by outsourcing the micro processor and operating system, respectively. Those two companies ended up with IBM ironically, agreeing to take OS2 which was its proprietary operating system and giving Intel, Microsoft Windows not realizing that its ability to dominate a new disruptive market like PCs and operating systems had been vaporized to your earlier point by the new Wintel ecosystem. Now Dave, the government wanted to break Microsoft apart and split its OS business from its application software, in the case of Intel, Intel only had one business. You pointed out microprocessors so it couldn't bust it up, but take us through the history here and the consequences of each. >> Well, the Microsoft one is sort of a classic because the antitrust case which was raging in the sort of mid nineties and 1998 when it finally ended, those were the very, once again, everybody said, Bill Gates was unstoppable, no one could compete with Microsoft they'd buy them, destroy them, predatory pricing, whatever they were accusing of the attacks on Netscape all these sort of things. But those the very years where it was becoming clear first that Microsoft basically missed the early big years of the internet and then again, later missed all the early years of the mobile phone business going back to BlackBerrys and pilots and all those sorts of things. So here we are the government making the case that this company is unstoppable and you can't compete with them the very moment they're entirely on the defensive. And therefore wasn't surprising that that suit eventually was dropped with some minor concessions about Microsoft making it a little bit easier for third parties to work with them and treating people a little bit more, even handling perfectly good things that they did. But again, the more market took care of the problem far more than the antitrust activities did. The Intel one is also interesting cause it's sort of like the AT& T one. On the one hand antitrust actions made Intel much more likely and in fact, required to work with AMD enough to keep that company in business and having AMD lowered prices for consumers certainly probably sped up innovation in the personal computer business and appeared to have a lot of benefits for those early years. But when you look at it from a longer point of view and particularly when look at it again from a global point of view you see that, wow, they not so clear because that very presence of AMD meant that there's a lot more pressure on Intel in terms of its pricing, its profitability, its flexibility and its volumes. All the things that have made it harder for them to A, compete with chips made in Taiwan, let alone build them in the United States and therefore that long term effect of essentially requiring Intel to allow AMD to exist has undermined Intel's position globally and arguably has undermined America's position in the long run. And certainly Intel today is far more vulnerable to an ARM and Invidia to other specialized chips to China, to Taiwan all of these things are going on out there, they're less capable of resisting that than they would've been otherwise. So, you thought we had some real benefits with AMD and lower prices for consumers, but the long term unintended consequences are arguably pretty bad. >> Yeah, that's why we recently wrote in Intel two "Strategic To Fail", we'll see, Okay. now we come to 2022 and there are five companies with anti-trust targets on their backs. Although Microsoft seems to be the least susceptible to US government ironically intervention at this this point, but maybe not and we show "The Cincos Comas Club" in a homage to Russ Hanneman of the show "Silicon Valley" Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all with trillion dollar plus valuations. But meta briefly crossed that threshold like Mr. Hanneman lost a comma and is now well under that market cap probably around five or 600 million, sorry, billion. But under serious fire nonetheless Dave, people often don't realize the immense monopoly power that IBM had which relatively speaking when measured its percent of industry revenue or profit dwarf that of any company in tech ever, but the industry is much smaller then, no internet, no cloud. Does it call for a different approach this time around? How should we think about these five companies their market power, the implications of government action and maybe what you suggested more narrow action versus broad sweeping changes. >> Yeah, and there's a lot there. I mean, if you go back to the old days IBM had what, 70% of the computer business globally and AT&T had 90% or so of the American telecom market. So market shares that today's players can only dream of. Intel and Microsoft had 90% of the personal computer market. And then you look at today the big five and as wealthy and as incredibly successful as they've been, you sort of have almost the argument that's wrong on the face of it. How can five companies all of which compete with each other to at least some degree, how can they all be monopolies? And the reality is they're not monopolies, they're all oligopolies that are very powerful firms, but none of them have an outright monopoly on anything. There are competitors in all the spaces that they're in and increasing and probably increasingly so. And so, yeah, I think people conflate the extraordinary success of the companies with this belief that therefore they are monopolist and I think they're far less so than those in the past. >> Great, all right, I want to do a quick drill down to cloud computing, it's a key component of digital business infrastructure in his book, "Seeing Digital", Dave Moschella coined a term the matrix or the key which is really referred to the key technology platforms on which people are going to build digital businesses. Dave, we joke you should have called it the metaverse you were way ahead of your time. But I want to look at this ETR chart, we show spending momentum or net score on the vertical access market share or pervasiveness in the dataset on the horizontal axis. We show this view a lot, we put a dotted line at the 40% mark which indicates highly elevated spending. And you can sort of see Microsoft in the upper right, it's so far up to the right it's hidden behind the January 22 and AWS is right there. Those two dominate the cloud far ahead of the pack including Google Cloud. Microsoft and to a lesser extent AWS they dominate in a lot of other businesses, productivity, collaboration, database, security, video conferencing. MarTech with LinkedIn PC software et cetera, et cetera, Googles or alphabets of business of course is ads and we don't have similar spending data on Apple and Facebook, but we know these companies dominate their respective business. But just to give you a sense of the magnitude of these companies, here's some financial data that's worth looking at briefly. The table ranks companies by market cap in trillions that's the second column and everyone in the club, but meta and each has revenue well over a hundred billion dollars, Amazon approaching half a trillion dollars in revenue. The operating income and cash positions are just mind boggling and the cash equivalents are comparable or well above the revenues of highly successful tech companies like Cisco, Dell, HPE, Oracle, and Salesforce. They're extremely profitable from an operating income standpoint with the clear exception of Amazon and we'll come back to that in a moment and we show the revenue multiples in the last column, Apple, Microsoft, and Google, just insane. Dave, there are other equally important metrics, CapX is one which kind of sets the stage for future scale and there are other measures. >> Yeah, including our research and development where those companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the years. And I think it's easy to look at those numbers and just say, this doesn't seem right, how can any companies have so much and spend so much? But if you think of what they're actually doing, those companies are building out the digital infrastructure of essentially the entire world. And I remember once meeting some folks at Google, and they said, beyond AI, beyond Search, beyond Android, beyond all the specific things we do, the biggest thing we're actually doing is building a physical infrastructure that can deliver search results on any topic in microseconds and the physical capacity they built costs those sorts of money. And when people start saying, well, we should have lots and lots of smaller companies well, that sounds good, yeah, it's all right, but where are those companies going to get the money to build out what needs to be built out? And every country in the world is trying to build out its digital infrastructure and some are going to do it much better than others. >> I want to just come back to that chart on Amazon for a bit, notice their comparatively tiny operating profit as a percentage of revenue, Amazon is like Bezos giant lifestyle business, it's really never been that profitable like most retail. However, there's one other financial data point around Amazon's business that we want to share and this chart here shows Amazon's operating profit in the blue bars and AWS's in the orange. And the gray line is the percentage of Amazon's overall operating profit that comes from AWS. That's the right most access, so last quarter we were well over a hundred percent underscoring the power of AWS and the horrendous margins in retail. But AWS is essentially funding Amazon's entrance into new markets, whether it's grocery or movies, Bezos moves into space. Dave, a while back you collaborated with us and we asked our audience, what could disrupt Amazon? And we came up with your detailed help, a number of scenarios as shown here. And we asked the audience to rate the likelihood of each scenario in terms of its likelihood of disrupting Amazon with a 10 being highly likely on average the score was six with complacency, arrogance, blindness, you know, self-inflicted wounds really taking the top spot with 6.5. So Dave is breaking up Amazon the right formula in your view, why or why not? >> Yeah, there's a couple of things there. The first is sort of the irony that when people in the sort of regulatory world talk about the power of Amazon, they almost always talk about their power in consumer markets, whether it's books or retail or impact on malls or main street shops or whatever and as you say that they make very little money doing that. The interest people almost never look at the big cloud battle between Amazon, Microsoft and lesser extent Google, Alibaba others, even though that's where they're by far highest market share and pricing power and all those things are. So the regulatory focus is sort of weird, but you know, the consumer stuff obviously gets more appeal to the general public. But that survey you referred to me was interesting because one of the challenges I sort of sent myself I was like okay, well, if I'm going to say that IBM case, AT&T case, Microsoft's case in all those situations the market was the one that actually minimized the power of those firms and therefore the antitrust stuff wasn't really necessary. Well, how true is that going to be again, just cause it's been true in the past doesn't mean it's true now. So what are the possible scenarios over the 2020s that might make it all happen again? And so each of those were sort of questions that we put out to others, but the ones that to me by far are the most likely I mean, they have the traditional one of company cultures sort of getting fat and happy and all, that's always the case, but the more specific ones, first of all by far I think is China. You know, Amazon retail is a low margin business. It would be vulnerable if it didn't have the cloud profits behind it, but imagine a year from now two years from now trade tensions with China get worse and Christmas comes along and China just says, well, you know, American consumers if you want that new exercise bike or that new shoes or clothing, well, anything that we make well, actually that's not available on Amazon right now, but you can get that from Alibaba. And maybe in America that's a little more farfetched, but in many countries all over the world it's not farfetched at all. And so the retail divisions vulnerability to China just seems pretty obvious. Another possible disruption, Amazon has spent billions and billions with their warehouses and their robots and their automated inventory systems and all the efficiencies that they've done there, but you could argue that maybe someday that's not really necessary that you have Search which finds where a good is made and a logistical system that picks that up and delivers it to customers and why do you need all those warehouses anyways? So those are probably the two top one, but there are others. I mean, a lot of retailers as they get stronger online, maybe they start pulling back some of the premium products from Amazon and Amazon takes their cut of whatever 30% or so people might want to keep more of that in house. You see some of that going on today. So the idea that the Amazon is in vulnerable disruption is probably is wrong and as part of the work that I'm doing, as part of stuff that I do with Dave and SiliconANGLE is how's that true for the others too? What are the scenarios for Google or Apple or Microsoft and the scenarios are all there. And so, will these companies be disrupted as they have in the past? Well, you can't say for sure, but the scenarios are certainly plausible and I certainly wouldn't bet against it and that's what history tells us. And it could easily happen once again and therefore, the antitrust should at least be cautionary and humble and realize that maybe they don't need to act as much as they think. >> Yeah, now, one of the things that you mentioned in your piece was felt like narrow remedies, were more logical. So you're not arguing for totally Les Affaire you're pushing for remedies that are more targeted in scope. And while the EU just yesterday announced new rules to limit the power of tech companies and we showed the article, some comments here the regulators they took the social media to announce a victory and they had a press conference. I know you watched that it was sort of a back slapping fest. The comments however, that we've sort of listed here are mixed, some people applauded, but we saw many comments that were, hey, this is a horrible idea, this was rushed together. And these are going to result as you say in unintended consequences, but this is serious stuff they're talking about applying would appear to be to your point or your prescription more narrowly defined restrictions although a lot of them to any company with a market cap of more than 75 billion Euro or turnover of more than 77.5 billion Euro which is a lot of companies and imposing huge penalties for violations up to 20% of annual revenue for repeat offenders, wow. So again, you've taken a brief look at these developments, you watched the press conference, what do you make of this? This is an application of more narrow restrictions, but in your quick assessment did they get it right? >> Yeah, let's break that down a little bit, start a little bit of history again and then get to Europe because although big sweeping breakups of the type that were proposed for IBM, Microsoft and all weren't necessary that doesn't mean that the government didn't do some useful things because they did. In the case of IBM government forces in Europe and America basically required IBM to make it easier for companies to make peripherals type drives, disc drives, printers that worked with IBM mainframes. They made them un-bundle their software pricing that made it easier for database companies and others to sell their of products. With AT&T it was the government that required AT&T to actually allow other phones to connect to the network, something they argued at the time would destroy security or whatever that it was the government that required them to allow MCI the long distance carrier to connect to the AT network for local deliveries. And with that Microsoft and Intel the government required them to at least treat their suppliers more even handly in terms of pricing and policies and support and such things. So the lessons out there is the big stuff wasn't really necessary, but the little stuff actually helped a lot and I think you can see the scenarios and argue in the piece that there's little stuff that can be done today in all the cases for the big five, there are things that you might want to consider the companies aren't saints they take advantage of their power, they use it in ways that sometimes can be reigned in and make for better off overall. And so that's how it brings us to the European piece of it. And to me, the European piece is much more the bad scenario of doing too much than the wiser course of trying to be narrow and specific. What they've basically done is they have a whole long list of narrow things that they're all trying to do at once. So they want Amazon not to be able to share data about its selling partners and they want Apple to open up their app store and they don't want people Google to be able to share data across its different services, Android, Search, Mail or whatever. And they don't want Facebook to be able to, they want to force Facebook to open up to other messaging services. And they want to do all these things for all the big companies all of which are American, and they want to do all that starting next year. And to me that looks like a scenario of a lot of difficult problems done quickly all of which might have some value if done really, really well, but all of which have all kinds of risks for the unintended consequence we've talked before and therefore they seem to me being too much too soon and the sort of problems we've seen in the past and frankly to really say that, I mean, the Europeans would never have done this to the companies if they're European firms, they're doing this because they're all American firms and the sort of frustration of Americans dominance of the European tech industry has always been there going back to IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and all of them. But it's particularly strong now because the tech business is so big. And so I think the politics of this at a time where we're supposedly all this great unity of America and NATO and Europe in regards to Ukraine, having the Europeans essentially go after the most important American industry brings in the geopolitics in I think an unavoidable way. And I would think the story is going to get pretty tense over the next year or so and as you say, the Europeans think that they're taking massive actions, they think they're doing the right thing. They think this is the natural follow on to the GDPR stuff and even a bigger version of that and they think they have more to come and they see themselves as the people taming big tech not just within Europe, but for the world and absent any other rules that they may pull that off. I mean, GDPR has indeed spread despite all of its flaws. So the European thing which it doesn't necessarily get huge attention here in America is certainly getting attention around the world and I would think it would get more, even more going forward. >> And the caution there is US public policy makers, maybe they can provide, they will provide a tailwind maybe it's a blind spot for them and it could be a template like you say, just like GDPR. Okay, Dave, we got to leave it there. Thanks for coming on the program today, always appreciate your insight and your views, thank you. >> Hey, thanks a lot, Dave. >> All right, don't forget these episodes are all available as podcast, wherever you listen. All you got to do is search, "Breaking Analysis Podcast". Check out ETR website, etr.ai. We publish every week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. And you can email me david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @davevellante. Comment on my LinkedIn post. This is Dave Vellante for Dave Michelle for "theCUBE Insights" powered by ETR. Have a great week, stay safe, be well and we'll see you next time. (slow tempo music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, this is Braking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Intel's big announcement this week underscores the threat that the United States faces from China. The US needs to lead in semiconductor design and manufacturing. And that lead is slipping because Intel has been fumbling the ball over the past several years, a mere two months into the job, new CEO Pat Gelsinger wasted no time in setting a new course for perhaps, the most strategically important American technology company. We believe that Gelsinger has only shown us part of his plan. This is the beginning of a long and highly complex journey. Despite Gelsinger's clear vision, his deep understanding of technology and execution ethos, in order to regain its number one position, Intel we believe we'll need to have help from partners, competitors and very importantly, the US government. Hello everyone and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis we'll peel the onion Intel's announcement of this week and explain why we're perhaps not as sanguine as was Wall Street on Intel's prospects. And we'll lay out what we think needs to take place for Intel to once again, become top gun and for us to gain more confidence. By the way this is the first time we're broadcasting live with Braking Analysis. We're broadcasting on the CUBE handles on Twitch, Periscope and YouTube and going forward we'll do this regularly as a live program and we'll bring in the community perspective into the conversation through chat. Now you may recall that in January, we kind of dismissed analysis that said Intel didn't have to make any major strategic changes to its business when they brought on Pat Gelsinger. Rather we said the exact opposite. Our view at time was that the root of Intel's problems could be traced to the fact that it wasn't no longer the volume leader. Because mobile volumes dwarf those of x86. As such we said that Intel couldn't go up the learning curve for next gen technologies as fast as its competitors and it needed to shed its dogma of being highly vertically integrated. We said Intel needed to more heavily leverage outsourced foundries. But more specifically, we suggested that in order for Intel to regain its volume lead, it needed to, we said at the time, spin out its manufacturing, create a joint venture sure with a volume leader, leveraging Intel's US manufacturing presence. This, we still believe with some slight refreshes to our thinking based on what Gelsinger has announced. And we'll talk about that today. Now specifically there were three main pieces and a lot of details to Intel's announcement. Gelsinger made it clear that Intel is not giving up its IDM or integrated device manufacturing ethos. He called this IDM 2.0, which comprises Intel's internal manufacturing, leveraging external Foundries and creating a new business unit called Intel Foundry Services. It's okay. Gelsinger said, "We are not giving up on integrated manufacturing." However, we think this is somewhat nuanced. Clearly Intel can't, won't and shouldn't give up on IDM. However, we believe Intel is entering a new era where it's giving designers more choice. This was not explicitly stated. However we feel like Intel's internal manufacturing arm will have increased pressure to serve its designers in a more competitive manner. We've already seen this with Intel finally embracing EUV or extreme ultraviolet lithography. Gelsinger basically said that Intel didn't lean into EUV early on and that it created more complexity in its 10 nanometer process, which dominoed into seven nanometer and as you know the rest of the story and Intel's delays. But since mid last year, it's embraced the technology. Now as a point of reference, Samsung started applying EUV for its seven nanometer technology in 2018. And it began shipping in early 2020. So as you can see, it takes years to get this technology into volume production. The point is that Intel realizes it needs to be more competitive. And we suspect, it will give more freedom to designers to leverage outsource manufacturing. But Gelsinger clearly signaled that IDM is not going away. But the really big news is that Intel is setting up a new division with a separate PNL that's going to report directly to Pat. Essentially it's hanging out a shingle and saying, we're open for business to make your chips. Intel is building two new Fabs in Arizona and investing $20 billion as part of this initiative. Now well Intel has tried this before earlier last decade. Gelsinger says that this time we're serious and we're going to do it right. We'll come back to that. This organizational move while not a spin out or a joint venture, it's part of the recipe that we saw as necessary for Intel to be more competitive. Let's talk about why Intel is doing this. Look at lots has changed in the world of semiconductors. When you think about it back when Pat was at Intel in the '90s, Intel was the volume leader. It crushed the competition with x86. And the competition at the time was coming from risk chips. And when Apple changed the game with iPod and iPhone and iPad, the volume equation flipped to mobile. And that led to big changes in the industry. Specifically, the world started to separate design from manufacturing. We now see firms going from design to tape out in 12 months versus taking three years. A good example is Tesla and his deal with ARM and Samsung. And what's happened is Intel has gone from number one in Foundry in terms of clock speed, wafer density, volume, lowest cost, highest margin to falling behind. TSMC, Samsung and alternative processor competitors like NVIDIA. Volume is still the maker of kings in this business. That hasn't changed and it confers advantage in terms of cost, speed and efficiency. But ARM wafer volumes, we estimate are 10x those of x86. That's a big change since Pat left Intel more than a decade ago. There's also a major chip shortage today. But you know this time, it feels a little different than the typical semiconductor boom and bust cycles. Semiconductor consumption is entering a new era and new use cases emerging from automobiles to factories, to every imaginable device piece of equipment, infrastructure, silicon is everywhere. But the biggest threat of all is China. China wants to be self-sufficient in semiconductors by 2025. It's putting approximately $60 billion into new chip Fabs, and there's more to come. China wants to be the new economic leader of the world and semiconductors are critical to that goal. Now there are those poopoo the China threat. This recent article from Scott Foster lays out some really good information. But the one thing that caught our attention is a statement that China's semiconductor industry is nowhere near being a major competitor in the global market. Let alone an existential threat to the international order and the American way of life. I think Scotty is stuck in the engine room and can't see the forest of the trees, wake up. Sure. You can say China is way behind. Let's take an example. NAND. Today China is at about 64 3D layers whereas Micron they're at 172. By 2022 China's going to be at 128. Micron, it's going to be well over 200. So what's the big deal? We say talk to us in 2025 because we think China will be at parody. That's just one example. Now the type of thinking that says don't worry about China and semi's reminds me of the epic lecture series that Clay Christiansen gave as a visiting professor at Oxford University on the history of, and the economics of the steel industry. Now if you haven't watched this series, you should. Basically Christiansen took the audience through the dynamics of steel production. And he asked the question, "Who told the steel manufacturers that gross margin was the number one measure of profitability? Was it God?" he joked. His point was, when new entrance came into the market in the '70s, they were bottom feeders going after the low margin, low quality, easiest to make rebar sector. And the incumbents nearly pulled back and their mix shifted to higher margin products and their gross margins went up and life was good. Until they lost the next layer. And then the next, and then the next, until it was game over. Now, one of the things that got lost in Pat's big announcement on the 23rd of March was that Intel guided the street below consensus on revenue and earnings. But the stock went up the next day. Now when asked about gross margin in the Q&A segment of the announcement, yes, gross margin is a if not the key metric in semi's in terms of measuring profitability. When asked Intel CFO George Davis explained that with the uptick in PCs last year there was a product shift to the lower margin PC sector and that put pressure on gross margins. It was a product mix thing. And revenue because PC chips are less expensive than server chips was affected as were margins. Now we shared this chart in our last Intel update showing, spending momentum over time for Dell's laptop business from ETR. And you can see in the inset, the unit growth and the market data from IDC, yes, Dell's laptop business is growing, everybody's laptop business is growing. Thank you COVID. But you see the numbers from IDC, Gartner, et cetera. Now, as we pointed out last time, PC volumes had peaked in 2011 and that's when the long arm of rights law began to eat into Intel's dominance. Today ARM wafer production as we said is far greater than Intel's and well, you know the story. Here's the irony, the very bucket that conferred volume adventures to Intel PCs, yes, it had a slight uptick last year, which was great news for Dell. But according to Intel it pulled down its margins. The point is Intel is loving the high end of the market because it's higher margin and more profitable. I wonder what Clay Christensen would say to that. Now there's more to this story. Intel's CFO blame the supply constraints on Intel's revenue and profit pressures yet AMD's revenue and profits are booming. So RTSMCs. Only Intel can't seem to thrive when there's this massive chip shortage. Now let's get back to Pat's announcement. Intel is for sure, going forward investing $20 billion in two new US-based fabrication facilities. This chart shows Intel's investments in US R&D, US CapEx and the job growth that's created as a result, as well as R&D and CapEx investments in Ireland and Israel. Now we added the bar on the right hand side from a Wall Street journal article that compares TSMC CapEx in the dark green to that of Intel and the light green. You can see TSMC surpass the CapEx investment of Intel in 2015, and then Intel took the lead back again. And in 2017 was, hey it on in 2018. But last year TSMC took the lead, again. And appears to be widening that lead quite substantially. Leading us to our conclusion that this will not be enough. These moves by Intel will not be enough. They need to do more. And a big part of this announcement was partnerships and packaging. Okay. So here's where it gets interesting. Intel, as you may know was late to the party with SOC system on a chip. And it's going to use its packaging prowess to try and leap frog the competition. SOC bundles things like GPU, NPU, DSUs, accelerators caches on a single chip. So better use the real estate if you will. Now Intel wants to build system on package which will dis-aggregate memory from compute. Now remember today, memory is very poorly utilized. What Intel is going to do is to create a package with literally thousands of nodes comprising small processors, big processors, alternative processors, ARM processors, custom Silicon all sharing a pool of memory. This is a huge innovation and we'll come back to this in a moment. Now as part of the announcement, Intel trotted out some big name customers, prospects and even competitors that it wants to turn into prospects and customers. Amazon, Google, Satya Nadella gave a quick talk from Microsoft to Cisco. All those guys are designing their own chips as does Ericsson and look even Qualcomm is on the list, a competitor. Intel wants to earn the right to make chips for these firms. Now many on the list like Microsoft and Google they'd be happy to do so because they want more competition. And Qualcomm, well look if Intel can do a good job and be a strong second sourced, why not? Well, one reason is they compete aggressively with Intel but we don't like Intel so much but it's very possible. But the two most important partners on this slide are one IBM and two, the US government. Now many people were going to gloss over IBM in this announcement, but we think it's one of the most important pieces of the puzzle. Yes. IBM and semiconductors. IBM actually has some of the best semiconductor technology in the world. It's got great architecture and is two to three years ahead of Intel with POWER10. Yes, POWER. IBM is the world's leader in terms of dis-aggregating compute from memory with the ability to scale to thousands of nodes, sound familiar? IBM leads in power density, efficiency and it can put more stuff closer together. And it's looking now at a 20x increase in AI inference performance. We think Pat has been thinking about this for a while and he said, how can I leave leap frog system on chip. And we think he thought and said, I'll use our outstanding process manufacturing and I'll tap IBM as a partner for R&D and architectural chips to build the next generation of systems that are more flexible and performant than anything that's out there. Now look, this is super high end stuff. And guess who needs really high end massive supercomputing capabilities? Well, the US military. Pat said straight up, "We've talked to the government and we're honored to be competing for the government/military chips boundary." I mean, look Intel in my view was going to have to fall down into face not win this business. And by making the commitment to Foundry Services we think they will get a huge contract from the government, as large, perhaps as $10 billion or more to build a secure government Foundry and serve the military for decades to come. Now Pat was specifically asked in the Q&A section is this Foundry strategy that you're embarking on viable without the help of the US government? Kind of implying that it was a handout or a bailout. And Pat of course said all the right things. He said, "This is the right thing for Intel. Independent of the government, we haven't received any commitment or subsidies or anything like that from the US government." Okay, cool. But they have had conversations and I have no doubt, and Pat confirmed this, that those conversations were very, very positive that Intel should head in this direction. Well, we know what's happening here. The US government wants Intel to win. It needs Intel to win and its participation greatly increases the probability of success. But unfortunately, we still don't think it's enough for Intel to regain its number one position. Let's look at that in a little bit more detail. The headwinds for Intel are many. Look it can't just flick a switch and catch up on manufacturing leadership. It's going to take four years. And lots can change in that time. It tells market momentum as well as we pointed out earlier is headed in the wrong direction from a financial perspective. Moreover, where is the volume going to come from? It's going to take years for Intel to catch up for ARMS if it never can. And it's going to have to fight to win that business from its current competitors. Now I have no doubt. It will fight hard under Pat's excellent leadership. But the Foundry business is different. Consider this, Intel's annual CapEx expenditures, if you divide that by their yearly revenue it comes out to about 20% of revenue. TSMC spends 50% of its revenue each year on CapEx. This is a different animal, very service oriented. So look, we're not pounding the table saying Intel's worst days are over. We don't think they are. Now, there are some positives, I'm showing those in the right-hand side. Pat Gelsinger was born for this job. He proved that the other day, even though we already knew it. I have never seen him more excited and more clearheaded. And we agreed that the chip demand dynamic is going to have legs in this decade and beyond with Digital, Edge, AI and new use cases that are going to power that demand. And Intel is too strategic to fail. And the US government has huge incentives to make sure that it succeeds. But it's still not enough in our opinion because like the steel manufacturers Intel's real advantage today is increasingly in the high end high margin business. And without volume, China is going to win this battle. So we continue to believe that a new joint venture is going to emerge. Here's our prediction. We see a triumvirate emerging in a new joint venture that is led by Intel. It brings x86, that volume associated with that. It brings cash, manufacturing prowess, R&D. It brings global resources, so much more than we show in this chart. IBM as we laid out brings architecture, it's R&D, it's longstanding relationships. It's deal flow, it can funnel its business to the joint venture as can of course, parts of Intel. We see IBM getting a nice licensed deal from Intel and or the JV. And it has to get paid for its contribution and we think it'll also get a sweet deal and the manufacturing fees from this Intel Foundry. But it's still not enough to beat China. Intel needs volume. And that's where Samsung comes in. It has the volume with ARM, has the experience and a complete offering across products. We also think that South Korea is a more geographically appealing spot in the globe than Taiwan with its proximity to China. Not to mention that TSMC, it doesn't need Intel. It's already number one. Intel can get a better deal from number two, Samsung. And together these three we think, in this unique structure could give it a chance to become number one by the end of the decade or early in the 2030s. We think what's happening is our take, is that Intel is going to fight hard to win that government business, put itself in a stronger negotiating position and then cut a deal with some supplier. We think Samsung makes more sense than anybody else. Now finally, we want to leave you with some comments and some thoughts from the community. First, I want to thank David Foyer. His decade plus of work and knowledge of this industry along with this collaboration made this work possible. His fingerprints are all over this research in case you didn't notice. And next I want to share comments from two of my colleagues. The first is Serbjeet Johal. He sent this to me last night. He said, "We are not in our grandfather's compute era anymore. Compute is getting spread into every aspect of our economy and lives. The use of processors is getting more and more specialized and will intensify with the rise in edge computing, AI inference and new workloads." Yes, I totally agree with Sarbjeet. And that's the dynamic which Pat is betting and betting big. But the bottom line is summed up by my friend and former IDC mentor, Dave Moschella. He says, "This is all about China. History suggests that there are very few second acts, you know other than Microsoft and Apple. History also will say that the antitrust pressures that enabled AMD to thrive are the ones, the very ones that starved Intel's cash. Microsoft made the shift it's PC software cash cows proved impervious to competition. The irony is the same government that attacked Intel's monopoly now wants to be Intel's protector because of China. Perhaps it's a cautionary tale to those who want to break up big tech." Wow. What more can I add to that? Okay. That's it for now. Remember I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. These episodes are all available as podcasts. All you got to do is search for Braking Analysis podcasts and you can always connect with me on Twitter @dvellante or email me at david.vellante, siliconangle.com As always I appreciate the comments on LinkedIn and in clubhouse please follow me so that you're notified when we start a room and start riffing on these topics. And don't forget to check out etr.plus for all the survey data. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE insights powered by ETR, be well, and we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is breaking analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Robotic process automation solutions remain one of the most attractive investments for IT buyers. This is despite our overall 2020 IT spending forecast, which remained depressed at minus four to minus 5% for the year. Relative to previous surveys, we do see some softness in traditional RPA strongholds such as large financial services and big insurance and giant public and privates. But RPA relative to other IT investments remains at the top as a sector with the highest spending momentum ahead of machine learning, ahead of AI, ahead of containers, and ahead of cloud computing. Hello, everyone, this is Dave Vellante, and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we want to update you on the latest RPA trends and share fresh ETR data with our community. So let's get right into it with a quick summary. Now, as I said, despite our pretty tepid IT spending outlook for the entire year in 2020, demand for RPA software continues to grow at a 60 to 70% clip. Now remember, RPA mimics human computer interactions, it uses software scripts or robots that execute human tasks in a runtime assembly of discrete steps. The practice first became popular for back office functions mostly, is unattended bots. The pandemic appears to be accelerating front office adoption and this is creating a bit of a schism between front and back office. Digital transformation initiatives in many ways, they're going to create the connective tissue between front and back of the house. Now competitive dynamics are heating up. The two emergent leaders Automation Anywhere and UiPath are separating from the pack. Large incumbent software vendors like Microsoft, IBM and SAP are entering the market and positioning RPA as a feature. Meanwhile, legacy business process automation players continue to focus on taking their install bases on a broader automation journey. However, all three of these constituents are on a collision course in our view, where deeper automation objective is kind of the North Star. Now there are two material changes to our previous scenario. First, we've expanded our thinking on the RPA TAM, and we're extending this toward a broader automation agenda more consistent with buyer goals. In other words, the TAM is much larger than we initially thought, and we'll explain why. Second, we no longer see this as a winner take all or even winner take most market. In this segment, we'll look deeper into the leaders and share some new data. In particular, well, it appeared in our previous analysis that UiPath was running the table in the market, we see a much more textured, competitive dynamic setting up. And the data suggests that other players including Automation Anywhere, and even some of the larger incumbents will challenge UiPath for leadership in this space. Now, as with many developing software markets, the ultimate leader is not crystal clear at this point. Let's talk about the effects of the pandemic. A conventional wisdom really suggests and by the way, we would agree that the automation mandate has accelerated by several years due to Coronavirus. It's three points here. One is that yes, COVID has put digital transformation on the front burner of executives priority lists. Second is automation isn't trivial. So there's a real difference between wanting and achieving. And third, we believe there's another driver for the automation mandate, which will survive a vaccine or herd immunity, and that is the productivity gap. So this chart here underscores that point and was brought to our attention by a friend of ours, Dave Moschella. Specifically, we've seen a noticeable decline in productivity in the US and EU, since remember the personal productivity boom from the personal computer? The PC and the internet brought forth those trends in Moschella's premise and we agree is that in order to solve the grand challenges of the 2020s and beyond automation is going to be necessary. Think about climate change, global competitiveness, aging populations and infrastructure, massive deficits, mass immigration, sustainable food sources, healthcare. These are all going to require huge injections of automation into the system to solve problems associated with these areas. Human labor just isn't the answer. So this in part has influenced our expanded thinking on the total available market. The diagram we're showing here updates our expectations on the TAM for RPA. The first takeaway is that we're envisioning a market for business automation well beyond software bots, which are represented really in the first two layers, that back office and front office divide, if you will. And we see that coming together in the third layer, those two are really going to happen through digital transformation initiatives. But we also envision a massive market for automated decision making, and very deep business integration where systems are communicating to each other, system to system, machine to machine, and also making real time decisions on behalf of humans. Sometimes we call that systems of agency. Now, I won't go deep into this TAM, as it's a bit academic, but suffice it to say this is an enormous market comprising many layers of the tech stack and services stacks. And this represents a serious opportunities for multiple players, both vendors and buyers. Okay, let's get a little bit more tactical and look at the spending data, the latest spending data, from the ETR survey. The chart we're showing here is one of our favorites. And it compares leading RPA vendors on two dimensions. The y-axis is net score or spending momentum. It's a simple metric, that for this last survey asked buyers are you spending more or less in the second half of the year than you had originally planned. Net score is derived by subtracting the lesses from the mores, and is really shown in the upper right of this chart. You can see that in the green highlights. Note that the total N in the survey is around 1200. And you can see that the number of responses for each vendor is shown in the upper right in that gray area. We eliminated any RPA vendor that didn't get at least 25 mentions in responses in the survey. And you can see that Automation Anywhere and UiPath have essentially traded positions on the vertical axis. Indicating that Automation Anywhere customers expect greater spending momentum with the company than UiPath customers for the second half of this year, than they did in the first half. UiPath at 62% net score is still very, very high but this marks the first time since our reporting that AA, has taken the lead ahead of UiPath in net score. And the small arrow show the general direction of their respective momentum over the last couple of surveys, and I'll discuss this later on. Now on this chart, you can also see Blue Prism and Pegasystems and, while they're significantly below Automation Anywhere and UiPath, these are very respectable net scores for more mature players like these. But I don't really consider them RPA specialists, and especially Pega. I mean, they have an automation play well beyond RPA and have built really an awesome business and in many ways are benefiting from the hype being created by the newbies. I have to say I'm in awe of the business that Alan Trefler and his team have built. We're talking about a billion dollar company here. They've got a valuation, over 9 billion, the stock's near an all time high, and they never took a dime of outside capital prior to their IPO, which is just unreal. Oh, yeah, one more thing I want to call your attention to. There's Microsoft with power automate, and kind of crashing the party with a 1.0 product that is making some noise in the marketplace. Now on the y-axis, you can see UiPath has the market share lead, but I want to remind you what this is. Market shares I mentioned of pervasiveness in the data set in the survey and is, calculated by dividing the number of mentions for a vendor in a sector by the total mentions in the survey. So you can see that UiPath has the share of voice lead, but it's still under 10% of the total survey base. So lots of room for this market to grow. But I want to make an important note here because UiPath has historically been a collection of point products, whereas Automation Anywhere their go to market typically involves going to larger accounts and selling this sort of Mongo and digital transformation project to the line of business. As I said earlier, these two and other companies are on a collision course because that is the big prize. UiPath has restructured its product and pricing strategy, done some acquisitions to go after this. But it stands to reason that UiPath has a bigger presence in the ETR data set as measured by market share. So it makes sense that Automation Anywhere, their number one net score position, it makes it even more impressive. Now the other nuance is that ETR tends to be somewhat weighted to the IT side of the house. And although it most certainly picks up line of business spending, there's a bias in the data toward IT. So that means RPA is most likely even stronger in the context of spending initiatives, and it's already number one relative to other sectors. So that's pretty impressive. Now let's look at how net score has changed over time. This chart shows the change in net score or spending momentum for Automation Anywhere, UiPath, Blue Prism and Pegasystems over the last three survey periods. You see last October, this past April, the height of the lockdown in the US and the most recent July survey. And here you see that Automation Anywhere is accelerating and taking the lead over UiPath. And is the only one in the chart growing net score. Again, UiPath remains elevated despite the relative decline from previous surveys. The other two, I have to caution you again, the Pegasystems for example, and they're killing it in the market. The stock is up nearly 40% year to date, it's over 60% in the last 12 months. So because they're not so RPA only focused and they really are not an IT play per se, the survey data has to be digested in that context. But you do see them coming down from elevated levels last October. Now here's a time series view of that net score. This chart really what it does is it just extends the timeframe and shows more granularity of survey data back to January 2018. So we're talking about 11, quarterly survey data points and snapshots here. This really underscores the power of the ETR platform, because you can stretch the data over time. And you'll see Automation Anywhere overtakes UiPath for the first time since we started capturing the segment. UiPath along with the other shows a noticeable decline in net score in this survey, except for Microsoft, who's, you know, they're just showing up, as I said, they're elbowing their way into the marketplace. Now let's take that same sort of time series view but let's flip to market share. And this next chart shows that other favorite metric that we use all the time as market share or pervasiveness in the dataset, over a time series. Now remember, this is really mentions as a percent of the total. It's not an indication of spending amount, but it's a data point and we pay attention to this. And you can see how UiPath broke away from the pack. They did this back in October 2018, and that coincides with their big push on things like, events, and training, they really have done a good job of building a presence and awareness in the market. I've superimposed on the chart the upper left corner for context that shows net scores in the green and shared N in the gray. It's sorted off of that shared N. This refers to the number of mentions in the dataset for each vendor out of the 1192 total responses. So some of these have small Ns. So I'm not going to put too much emphasis on this except, that UiPath escalation is notable and hopefully I've explain that sufficiently. Okay, let's wrap. So we talked about the automation mandate, and the COVID wrecking ball effect. But it's more than that. The productivity pressures on the US and EU in particular make it exceedingly difficult to just throw labor at the world's grand problems. So this has opened up an enormous opportunity for technology companies and practitioners to drive automation. You know, we said this during the initial in the early days of the big data era. In fact, Peter Goldmacher, had this discussion with us on theCUBE really in the early part of last decade, that those companies that can implement automation at the time he was talking about big data are going to be the big big winners. So it's not just the tech players. Now of course, as we've seen, many of the big tech companies are benefiting enormously from the mega automation trend, but the broader set of industries has massive, massive upside. Now what this sets up is a multi-dimensional competitive environment. We have Automation Anywhere and UiPath battling it out to achieve escape velocity. Automation Anywhere just brought in Chris Riley to run go to market. So you know they're serious. He's a player who understands complex enterprise selling. And now you have UiPath, they're hiring engineers as fast as they can. And the other dimension is a classic battle of best of breed specialists like Automation Anywhere and UiPath, up against the bundlers, selling RPA as a feature of their services. Microsoft, IBM, SAP, etc, all see automation is a huge opportunity and everyone's going to hop on the bandwagon because this is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, at least. Okay. Thanks for watching this episode of theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Remember all these episodes are available as podcasts wherever you listen. Check it out, we've also put up an archive of all the breaking analysis segments on wikibon.com. There's a link on the menu bar right at the top of the homepage that has all 46 episodes that we've done since inception. I write weekly on that wikibon.com platform and I also publish on siliconangle.com where you can find all the relevant news. And don't forget to check out etr.plus for all the survey data and analysis. Go there and sign up for a trial of the software. It's awesome. Okay, this is Dave Vellante, be well, and we'll see you next time. (bright music)

>> From the SiliconANGLE Media office in Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE. Now, here's your host, Dave Vellante. >> Hello everyone and welcome this week's episode of theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. And welcome to the Trillionaire's Club. In this Breaking Analysis, I want to look at how the big tech companies have really changed the recipe for innovation in the Enterprise. And as we enter the next decade, I think it's important to sort of reset and re-look at how innovation will determine the winners and losers going forward, including not only the sellers of technology but how technology applied will set the stage for the next 50 years of economic growth. Here's the premise that I want to put forth to you. The source of innovation in the technology business has been permanently altered. There's a new cocktail of innovation, if you will, that will far surpass Moore's Law in terms of it's impact on the industry. For 50 years we've marched to the cadence of that Moore's Law, that is the doubling of transistor counts every 18 months, as shown in the left-hand side of this chart. And of course this translated as we know, into a chasing of the chips, where by being first with the latest and greatest microprocessor brought competitive advantage. We saw Moore's Law drive the PC era, the client server era, and it even powered the internet, notwithstanding the effects of Metcalfe's Law. But there's a new engine of innovation or what John Furrier calls the "Innovation Cocktail," and that's shown in the right-hand of this slide where data plus machine intelligence or AI and Cloud are combinatorial technologies that will power innovation for the next 20 plus years. 10 years of gathering big data have put us in a position to now apply AI. Data is plentiful but insights are not and AI unlocks those insights. The Cloud brings three things, agility, scale, and the ability to fail quickly and cheaply. So, it's these three elements and how they are packaged and applied that will in my view determine winners and losers in the next decade and beyond. Now why is this era now suddenly upon us? Well I would argue there are three main factors. One is cheap storage and compute combined with alternative processor types, like GPUs that can power AI. And the era of data is here to stay. This next chart from Dave Moschella's book, "Seeing Digital," really underscores this point. Incumbent organizations born in the last century organized largely around human expertise or processes or hard assets like factories. These were the engines of competitive advantage. But today's successful organizations put data at the core. They live by the mantra of data driven. It is foundational to them. And they organize expertise, processes and people around the data. All you got to do to drive this point home is look at the market caps of the top five public companies in the U.S. Stock Market, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook. I call this chart the Cuatro Comas! as a shout out to Russ Hanneman, the crazy billionaire supporting, was a supporting character in the Silicon Valley series. Now each of these companies, with the exception of Facebook, has hit the trillion dollar club. AWS, like Mr. Hanneman, hit the trillion dollar club status back in September 2018 but fell back down and lost a comma. These five data-driven companies have surpassed big oil and big finance. I mean, the next closest company is Berkshire at 566 billion. And I would argue that if it hadn't been for the fake news scandal, Facebook probably would be right there with these others. Now, with the exception of Apple, these companies, they're not highly valued because of the goods they pump out, rather, and I would argue even in the case of Apple, their highly valued because they're leaders in digital and in the best position to apply machine intelligence to massive stores of data that they've collected. And they have massive scale, thanks to the Cloud. Now, I get that the success of some of these companies is largely driven by the consumer but the consumerization of IT makes this even more relevant, in my opinion. Let's bring in some ETR data to see how this translates into the Enterprise tech world. This chart shows market share from Microsoft, AWS, Apple iPhone, and Google in the Enterprise all the way back to 2010. Now I get that the iPhone is a bit of a stretch here but stick with me. Remember, market share in ETR terms is a measure of pervasiveness in the data set. Look at how Microsoft has held it's ground. And you can see the steady rise of AWS and Google. Now if I superimpose traditional Enterprise players like Cisco, IBM, or Hewlett or even Dell, that is companies that aren't competing with data at the core of their business, you would see a steady decline. I am required to black out January 2020 as you probably remember, but that data will be out soon and made public shortly after ETR exits its self-imposed quiet period. Now Apple iPhone is not a great proxy but Apple, they're not an Enterprise tech company, but it's data that I can show but now I would argue again that Apple's real value and a key determinate of their success going forward, lies in how it uses data and applies machine intelligence at scale over the next decade to compete in apps and digital services, content, and other adjacencies. And I would say these five leaders and virtually any company in the next decade, this applies. Look, digital means data and digital businesses are data driven. Data changes how we think about competition. Just look at Amazon's moves in content, grocery, logistics. Look at Google in automobiles, Apple and Amazon in music. You know, interestingly Microsoft positions this as a competitive advantage, especially in retail. For instance, touting Walmart as a partner, not a competitor, a la Amazon. The point is, that digital data, AI, and Cloud bring forth highly disruptive possibilities and are enabling these giants to enter businesses that previously were insulated from the outsiders. And in the case of the Cloud, it's paying the way. Just look at the data from Amazon. The left bar shows Amazon's revenue. AWS represents only 12% of the total company's turnover. But as you can see on the right-hand side, it accounts for almost half of the company's operating income. So, the Cloud is essentially funding Amazon's entrance into all these other businesses and powering its scale. Now let's bring in some ETR data to show what's happening in the Enterprise in the terms of share shifts. This chart is a double-Y axis that shows spending levels on the left-hand side, represented by the bars, and the average change in spending, represented by the dots. Focus for a second on the dots and the percentages. Container orchestrations at 29% change. Container platforms at 19.7%. These are Cloud-native technologies and customers are voting with their wallets. Machine learning and AI, nearly 18% change. Cloud computing itself still in the 16% range, 10 plus years on. Look at analytics and big data in the double digits still, 10 years into the big data movement. So, you can see the ETR data shows that the spending action is in and around Cloud, AI, and data. And in the red, look at the Moore's Law techs like servers and storage. Now, this isn't to say that those go away. I fully understand you need servers, and storage, and networking, and database, and software to power the Cloud but this data shows that right now, these discreet cocktail technologies are gaining spending momentum. So, the question I want to leave you with is, what does this mean for incumbents? Those that are not digital-natives or not born in the Cloud? Well, the first thing I'd point out is that while the trillionaires, they look invincible today, history suggests that they are not invulnerable. The rise of China, India, open-source, peer-to-peer models, open models, could coalesce and disrupt these big guys if they miss a step or a cycle. The second point I would make is that incumbents are often too complacent. More often than not, in my experience, there is complacency and there will be a fallout. I hear a lot of lip service given to digital and data driven but often I see companies that talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. Change will come and the incumbents will be disrupted and that is going to cause action at the top. The good news is that the incumbents, they don't have to build the tech. They can compete with the disruptors by applying machine intelligence to their unique data sets and they can buy technologies like AI and the Cloud from suppliers. The degree to which they are comfortable buying from these supplies, who may also be competitors, will play out over time but I would argue that building that competitive advantage sooner rather than later with data and learning to apply machine intelligence and AI to their unique businesses, will allow them to thrive and protect their existing businesses and grow. These markets are large and the incumbents have inherent advantages in terms of resources, relationships, brand value, customer affinity, and domain knowledge that if they apply and transform from the top with strong leadership, they will do very, very well in my view. This is Dave Vellante signing out from this latest episode of theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching everybody. We'll see you next time and please feel free to comment. In my LinkedIn, you can DM me @dvellante and don't forget we turned this into a podcast so check that out at your favorite podcast player. Thanks again.