>> Announcer: From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto, in Boston, connecting with thought leaders all around the world. This is theCUBE conversation. >> Hi everyone, this is Dave Vellante and welcome to this CUBE conversation where we're going to dig in to this, the area of cloud databases. And Gartner just published a series of research in this space. And it's really a growing market, rapidly growing, a lot of new players, obviously the big three cloud players. And with me are three experts in the field, two long time industry analysts. Marc Staimer is the founder, president, and key principal at Dragon Slayer Consulting. And he's joined by David Floyer, the CTO of Wikibon. Gentlemen great to see you. Thanks for coming on theCUBE. >> Good to be here. >> Great to see you too Dave. >> Marc, coming from the great Northwest, I think first time on theCUBE, and so it's really great to have you. So let me set this up, as I said, you know, Gartner published these, you know, three giant tomes. These are, you know, publicly available documents on the web. I know you guys have been through them, you know, several hours of reading. And so, night... (Dave chuckles) Good night time reading. The three documents where they identify critical capabilities for cloud database management systems. And the first one we're going to talk about is, operational use cases. So we're talking about, you know, transaction oriented workloads, ERP financials. The second one was analytical use cases, sort of an emerging space to really try to, you know, the data warehouse space and the like. And, of course, the third is the famous Gartner Magic Quadrant, which we're going to talk about. So, Marc, let me start with you, you've dug into this research just at a high level, you know, what did you take away from it? >> Generally, if you look at all the players in the space they all have some basic good capabilities. What I mean by that is ultimately when you have, a transactional or an analytical database in the cloud, the goal is not to have to manage the database. Now they have different levels of where that goes to as how much you have to manage or what you have to manage. But ultimately, they all manage the basic administrative, or the pedantic tasks that DBAs have to do, the patching, the tuning, the upgrading, all of that is done by the service provider. So that's the number one thing they all aim at, from that point on every database has different capabilities and some will automate a whole bunch more than others, and will have different primary focuses. So it comes down to what you're looking for or what you need. And ultimately what I've learned from end users is what they think they need upfront, is not what they end up needing as they implement. >> David, anything you'd add to that, based on your reading of the Gartner work. >> Yes. It's a thorough piece of work. It's taking on a huge number of different types of uses and size of companies. And I think those are two parameters which really change how companies would look at it. If you're a Fortune 500 or Fortune 2000 type company, you're going to need a broader range of features, and you will need to deal with size and complexity in a much greater sense, and a lot of probably higher levels of availability, and reliability, and recoverability. Again, on the workload side, there are different types of workload and there're... There is as well as having the two transactional and analytic workloads, I think there's an emerging type of workload which is going to be very important for future applications where you want to combine transactional with analytic in real time, in order to automate business processes at a higher level, to make the business processes synchronous as opposed to asynchronous. And that degree of granularity, I think is missed, in a broader view of these companies and what they offer. It's in my view trying in some ways to not compare like with like from a customer point of view. So the very nuance, what you talked about, let's get into it, maybe that'll become clear to the audience. So like I said, these are very detailed research notes. There were several, I'll say analysts cooks in the kitchen, including Henry Cook, whom I don't know, but four other contributing analysts, two of whom are CUBE alum, Don Feinberg, and Merv Adrian, both really, you know, awesome researchers. And Rick Greenwald, along with Adam Ronthal. And these are public documents, you can go on the web and search for these. So I wonder if we could just look at some of the data and bring up... Guys, bring up the slide one here. And so we'll first look at the operational side and they broke it into four use cases. The traditional transaction use cases, the augmented transaction processing, stream/event processing and operational intelligence. And so we're going to show you there's a lot of data here. So what Gartner did is they essentially evaluated critical capabilities, or think of features and functions, and gave them a weighting, or a weighting, and then a rating. It was a weighting and rating methodology. On a s... The rating was on a scale of one to five, and then they weighted the importance of the features based on their assessment, and talking to the many customers they talk to. So you can see here on the first chart, we're showing both the traditional transactions and the augmented transactions and, you know, the thing... The first thing that jumps out at you guys is that, you know, Oracle with Autonomous is off the charts, far ahead of anybody else on this. And actually guys, if you just bring up slide number two, we'll take a look at the stream/event processing and operational intelligence use cases. And you can see, again, you know, Oracle has a big lead. And I don't want to necessarily go through every vendor here, but guys, if you don't mind going back to the first slide 'cause I think this is really, you know, the core of transaction processing. So let's look at this, you've got Oracle, you've got SAP HANA. You know, right there interestingly Amazon Web Services with the Aurora, you know, IBM Db2, which, you know, it goes back to the good old days, you know, down the list. But so, let me again start with Marc. So why is that? I mean, I guess this is no surprise, Oracle still owns the Mission-Critical for the database space. They earned that years ago. One that, you know, over the likes of Db2 and, you know, Informix and Sybase, and, you know, they emerged as number one there. But what do you make of this data Marc? >> If you look at this data in a vacuum, you're looking at specific functionality, I think you need to look at all the slides in total. And the reason I bring that up is because I agree with what David said earlier, in that the use case that's becoming more prevalent is the integration of transaction and analytics. And more importantly, it's not just your traditional data warehouse, but it's AI analytics. It's big data analytics. It's users are finding that they need more than just simple reporting. They need more in-depth analytics so that they can get more actionable insights into their data where they can react in real time. And so if you look at it just as a transaction, that's great. If you're going to just as a data warehouse, that's great, or analytics, that's fine. If you have a very narrow use case, yes. But I think today what we're looking at is... It's not so narrow. It's sort of like, if you bought a streaming device and it only streams Netflix and then you need to get another streaming device 'cause you want to watch Amazon Prime. You're not going to do that, you want one, that does all of it, and that's kind of what's missing from this data. So I agree that the data is good, but I don't think it's looking at it in a total encompassing manner. >> Well, so before we get off the horses on the track 'cause I love to do that. (Dave chuckles) I just kind of let's talk about that. So Marc, you're putting forth the... You guys seem to agree on that premise that the database that can do more than just one thing is of appeal to customers. I suppose that makes, certainly makes sense from a cost standpoint. But, you know, guys feel free to flip back and forth between slides one and two. But you can see SAP HANA, and I'm not sure what cloud that's running on, it's probably running on a combination of clouds, but, you know, scoring very strongly. I thought, you know, Aurora, you know, given AWS says it's one of the fastest growing services in history and they've got it ahead of Db2 just on functionality, which is pretty impressive. I love Google Spanner, you know, love the... What they're trying to accomplish there. You know, you go down to Microsoft is, they're kind of the... They're always good enough a database and that's how they succeed and et cetera, et cetera. But David, it sounds like you agree with Marc. I would say, I would think though, Amazon kind of doesn't agree 'cause they're like a horses for courses. >> I agree. >> Yeah, yeah. >> So I wonder if you could comment on that. >> Well, I want to comment on two vectors. The first vector is that the size of customer and, you know, a mid-sized customer versus a global $2,000 or global 500 customer. For the smaller customer that's the heart of AWS, and they are taking their applications and putting pretty well everything into their cloud, the one cloud, and Aurora is a good choice. But when you start to get to a requirements, as you do in larger companies have very high levels of availability, the functionality is not there. You're not comparing apples and... Apples with apples, it's two very different things. So from a tier one functionality point of view, IBM Db2 and Oracle have far greater capability for recovery and all the features that they've built in over there. >> Because of their... You mean 'cause of the maturity, right? maturity and... >> Because of their... Because of their focus on transaction and recovery, et cetera. >> So SAP though HANA, I mean, that's, you know... (David talks indistinctly) And then... >> Yeah, yeah. >> And then I wanted your comments on that, either of you or both of you. I mean, SAP, I think has a stated goal of basically getting its customers off Oracle that's, you know, there's always this urinary limping >> Yes, yes. >> between the two companies by 2024. Larry has said that ain't going to happen. You know, Amazon, we know still runs on Oracle. It's very hard to migrate Mission-Critical, David, you and I know this well, Marc you as well. So, you know, people often say, well, everybody wants to get off Oracle, it's too expensive, blah, blah, blah. But we talked to a lot of Oracle customers there, they're very happy with the reliability, availability, recoverability feature set. I mean, the core of Oracle seems pretty stable. >> Yes. >> But I wonder if you guys could comment on that, maybe Marc you go first. >> Sure. I've recently done some in-depth comparisons of Oracle and Aurora, and all their other RDS services and Snowflake and Google and a variety of them. And ultimately what surprised me is you made a statement it costs too much. It actually comes in half of Aurora for in most cases. And it comes in less than half of Snowflake in most cases, which surprised me. But no matter how you configure it, ultimately based on a couple of things, each vendor is focused on different aspects of what they do. Let's say Snowflake, for example, they're on the analytical side, they don't do any transaction processing. But... >> Yeah, so if I can... Sorry to interrupt. Guys if you could bring up the next slide that would be great. So that would be slide three, because now we get into the analytical piece Marc that you're talking about that's what Snowflake specialty is. So please carry on. >> Yeah, and what they're focused on is sharing data among customers. So if, for example, you're an automobile manufacturer and you've got a huge supply chain, you can supply... You can share the data without copying the data with any of your suppliers that are on Snowflake. Now, can you do that with the other data warehouses? Yes, you can. But the focal point is for Snowflake, that's where they're aiming it. And whereas let's say the focal point for Oracle is going to be performance. So their performance affects cost 'cause the higher the performance, the less you're paying for the performing part of the payment scale. Because you're paying per second for the CPUs that you're using. Same thing on Snowflake, but the performance is higher, therefore you use less. I mean, there's a whole bunch of things to come into this but at the end of the day what I've found is Oracle tends to be a lot less expensive than the prevailing wisdom. So let's talk value for a second because you said something, that yeah the other databases can do that, what Snowflake is doing there. But my understanding of what Snowflake is doing is they built this global data mesh across multiple clouds. So not only are they compatible with Google or AWS or Azure, but essentially you sign up for Snowflake and then you can share data with anybody else in the Snowflake cloud, that I think is unique. And I know, >> Marc: Yes. >> Redshift, for instance just announced, you know, Redshift data sharing, and I believe it's just within, you know, clusters within a customer, as opposed to across an ecosystem. And I think that's where the network effect is pretty compelling for Snowflake. So independent of costs, you and I can debate about costs and, you know, the tra... The lack of transparency of, because AWS you don't know what the bill is going to be at the end of the month. And that's the same thing with Snowflake, but I find that... And by the way guys, you can flip through slides three and four, because we've got... Let me just take a quick break and you have data warehouse, logical data warehouse. And then the next slide four you got data science, deep learning and operational intelligent use cases. And you can see, you know, Teradata, you know, law... Teradata came up in the mid 1980s and dominated in that space. Oracle does very well there. You can see Snowflake pop-up, SAP with the Data Warehouse, Amazon with Redshift. You know, Google with BigQuery gets a lot of high marks from people. You know, Cloud Data is in there, you know, so you see some of those names. But so Marc and David, to me, that's a different strategy. They're not trying to be just a better data warehouse, easier data warehouse. They're trying to create, Snowflake that is, an incremental opportunity as opposed to necessarily going after, for example, Oracle. David, your thoughts. >> Yeah, I absolutely agree. I mean, ease of use is a primary benefit for Snowflake. It enables you to do stuff very easily. It enables you to take data without ETL, without any of the complexity. It enables you to share a number of resources across many different users and know... And be able to bring in what that particular user wants or part of the company wants. So in terms of where they're focusing, they've got a tremendous ease of use, tremendous focus on what the customer wants. And you pointed out yourself the restrictions there are of doing that both within Oracle and AWS. So yes, they have really focused very, very hard on that. Again, for the future, they are bringing in a lot of additional functions. They're bringing in Python into it, not Python, JSON into the database. They can extend the database itself, whether they go the whole hog and put in transaction as well, that's probably something they may be thinking about but not at the moment. >> Well, but they, you know, they obviously have to have TAM expansion designs because Marc, I mean, you know, if they just get a 100% of the data warehouse market, they're probably at a third of their stock market valuation. So they had better have, you know, a roadmap and plans to extend there. But I want to come back Marc to this notion of, you know, the right tool for the right job, or, you know, best of breed for a specific, the right specific, you know horse for course, versus this kind of notion of all in one, I mean, they're two different ends of the spectrum. You're seeing, you know, Oracle obviously very successful based on these ratings and based on, you know their track record. And Amazon, I think I lost count of the number of data stores (Dave chuckles) with Redshift and Aurora and Dynamo, and, you know, on and on and on. (Marc talks indistinctly) So they clearly want to have that, you know, primitive, you know, different APIs for each access, completely different philosophies it's like Democrats or Republicans. Marc your thoughts as to who ultimately wins in the marketplace. >> Well, it's hard to say who is ultimately going to win, but if I look at Amazon, Amazon is an all-cart type of system. If you need time series, you go with their time series database. If you need a data warehouse, you go with Redshift. If you need transaction, you go with one of the RDS databases. If you need JSON, you go with a different database. Everything is a different, unique database. Moving data between these databases is far from simple. If you need to do a analytics on one database from another, you're going to use other services that cost money. So yeah, each one will do what they say it's going to do but it's going to end up costing you a lot of money when you do any kind of integration. And you're going to add complexity and you're going to have errors. There's all sorts of issues there. So if you need more than one, probably not your best route to go, but if you need just one, it's fine. And if, and on Snowflake, you raise the issue that they're going to have to add transactions, they're going to have to rewrite their database. They have no indexes whatsoever in Snowflake. I mean, part of the simplicity that David talked about is because they had to cut corners, which makes sense. If you're focused on the data warehouse you cut out the indexes, great. You don't need them. But if you're going to do transactions, you kind of need them. So you're going to have to do some more work there. So... >> Well... So, you know, I don't know. I have a different take on that guys. I think that, I'm not sure if Snowflake will add transactions. I think maybe, you know, their hope is that the market that they're creating is big enough. I mean, I have a different view of this in that, I think the data architecture is going to change over the next 10 years. As opposed to having a monolithic system where everything goes through that big data platform, the data warehouse and the data lake. I actually see what Snowflake is trying to do and, you know, I'm sure others will join them, is to put data in the hands of product builders, data product builders or data service builders. I think they're betting that that market is incremental and maybe they don't try to take on... I think it would maybe be a mistake to try to take on Oracle. Oracle is just too strong. I wonder David, if you could comment. So it's interesting to see how strong Gartner rated Oracle in cloud database, 'cause you don't... I mean, okay, Oracle has got OCI, but you know, you think a cloud, you think Google, or Amazon, Microsoft and Google. But if I have a transaction database running on Oracle, very risky to move that, right? And so we've seen that, it's interesting. Amazon's a big customer of Oracle, Salesforce is a big customer of Oracle. You know, Larry is very outspoken about those companies. SAP customers are many, most are using Oracle. I don't, you know, it's not likely that they're going anywhere. My question to you, David, is first of all, why do they want to go to the cloud? And if they do go to the cloud, is it logical that the least risky approach is to stay with Oracle, if you're an Oracle customer, or Db2, if you're an IBM customer, and then move those other workloads that can move whether it's more data warehouse oriented or incremental transaction work that could be done in a Aurora? >> I think the first point, why should Oracle go to the cloud? Why has it gone to the cloud? And if there is a... >> Moreso... Moreso why would customers of Oracle... >> Why would customers want to... >> That's really the question. >> Well, Oracle have got Oracle Cloud@Customer and that is a very powerful way of doing it. Where exactly the same Oracle system is running on premise or in the cloud. You can have it where you want, you can have them joined together. That's unique. That's unique in the marketplace. So that gives them a very special place in large customers that have data in many different places. The second point is that moving data is very expensive. Marc was making that point earlier on. Moving data from one place to another place between two different databases is a very expensive architecture. Having the data in one place where you don't have to move it where you can go directly to it, gives you enormous capabilities for a single database, single database type. And I'm sure that from a transact... From an analytic point of view, that's where Snowflake is going, to a large single database. But where Oracle is going to is where, you combine both the transactional and the other one. And as you say, the cost of migration of databases is incredibly high, especially transaction databases, especially large complex transaction databases. >> So... >> And it takes a long time. So at least a two year... And it took five years for Amazon to actually succeed in getting a lot of their stuff over. And five years they could have been doing an awful lot more with the people that they used to bring it over. So it was a marketing decision as opposed to a rational business decision. >> It's the holy grail of the vendors, they all want your data in their database. That's why Amazon puts so much effort into it. Oracle is, you know, in obviously a very strong position. It's got growth and it's new stuff, it's old stuff. It's, you know... The problem with Oracle it has like many of the legacy vendors, it's the size of the install base is so large and it's shrinking. And the new stuff is.... The legacy stuff is shrinking. The new stuff is growing very, very fast but it's not large enough yet to offset that, you see that in all the learnings. So very positive news on, you know, the cloud database, and they just got to work through that transition. Let's bring up slide number five, because Marc, this is to me the most interesting. So we've just shown all these detailed analysis from Gartner. And then you look at the Magic Quadrant for cloud databases. And, you know, despite Amazon being behind, you know, Oracle, or Teradata, or whomever in every one of these ratings, they're up to the right. Now, of course, Gartner will caveat this and say, it doesn't necessarily mean you're the best, but of course, everybody wants to be in the upper, right. We all know that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you should go by that database, I agree with what Gartner is saying. But look at Amazon, Microsoft and Google are like one, two and three. And then of course, you've got Oracle up there and then, you know, the others. So that I found that very curious, it is like there was a dissonance between the hardcore ratings and then the positions in the Magic Quadrant. Why do you think that is Marc? >> It, you know, it didn't surprise me in the least because of the way that Gartner does its Magic Quadrants. The higher up you go in the vertical is very much tied to the amount of revenue you get in that specific category which they're doing the Magic Quadrant. It doesn't have to do with any of the revenue from anywhere else. Just that specific quadrant is with that specific type of market. So when I look at it, Oracle's revenue still a big chunk of the revenue comes from on-prem, not in the cloud. So you're looking just at the cloud revenue. Now on the right side, moving to the right of the quadrant that's based on functionality, capabilities, the resilience, other things other than revenue. So visionary says, hey how far are you on the visionary side? Now, how they weight that again comes down to Gartner's experts and how they want to weight it and what makes more sense to them. But from my point of view, the right side is as important as the vertical side, 'cause the vertical side doesn't measure the growth rate either. And if we look at these, some of these are growing much faster than the others. For example, Snowflake is growing incredibly fast, and that doesn't reflect in these numbers from my perspective. >> Dave: I agree. >> Oracle is growing incredibly fast in the cloud. As David pointed out earlier, it's not just in their cloud where they're growing, but it's Cloud@Customer, which is basically an extension of their cloud. I don't know if that's included these numbers or not in the revenue side. So there's... There're a number of factors... >> Should it be in your opinion, Marc, would you include that in your definition of cloud? >> Yeah. >> The things that are hybrid and on-prem would that cloud... >> Yes. >> Well especially... Well, again, it depends on the hybrid. For example, if you have your own license, in your own hardware, but it connects to the cloud, no, I wouldn't include that. If you have a subscription license and subscription hardware that you don't own, but it's owned by the cloud provider, but it connects with the cloud as well, that I would. >> Interesting. Well, you know, to your point about growth, you're right. I mean, it's probably looking at, you know, revenues looking, you know, backwards from guys like Snowflake, it will be double, you know, the next one of these. It's also interesting to me on the horizontal axis to see Cloud Data and Databricks further to the right, than Snowflake, because that's kind of the data lake cloud. >> It is. >> And then of course, you've got, you know, the other... I mean, database used to be boring, so... (David laughs) It's such a hot market space here. (Marc talks indistinctly) David, your final thoughts on all this stuff. What does the customer take away here? What should I... What should my cloud database management strategy be? >> Well, I was positive about Oracle, let's take some of the negatives of Oracle. First of all, they don't make it very easy to rum on other platforms. So they have put in terms and conditions which make it very difficult to run on AWS, for example, you get double counts on the licenses, et cetera. So they haven't played well... >> Those are negotiable by the way. Those... You bring it up on the customer. You can negotiate that one. >> Can be, yes, They can be. Yes. If you're big enough they are negotiable. But Aurora certainly hasn't made it easy to work with other plat... Other clouds. What they did very... >> How about Microsoft? >> Well, no, that is exactly what I was going to say. Oracle with adjacent workloads have been working very well with Microsoft and you can then use Microsoft Azure and use a database adjacent in the same data center, working with integrated very nicely indeed. And I think Oracle has got to do that with AWS, it's got to do that with Google as well. It's got to provide a service for people to run where they want to run things not just on the Oracle cloud. If they did that, that would in my term, and my my opinion be a very strong move and would make make the capabilities available in many more places. >> Right. Awesome. Hey Marc, thanks so much for coming to theCUBE. Thank you, David, as well, and thanks to Gartner for doing all this great research and making it public on the web. You can... If you just search critical capabilities for cloud database management systems for operational use cases, that's a mouthful, and then do the same for analytical use cases, and the Magic Quadrant. There's the third doc for cloud database management systems. You'll get about two hours of reading and I learned a lot and I learned a lot here too. I appreciate the context guys. Thanks so much. >> My pleasure. All right, thank you for watching everybody. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE. We'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> The ascendancy of cloud and SAS has shown new light on how organizations think about, pay for, and value hardware. Once sought after skills for practitioners with expertise in hardware troubleshooting, configuring ports, tuning storage arrays, and maximizing server utilization has been superseded by demand for cloud architects, DevOps pros, developers with expertise in microservices, container, application development, and like. Even a company like Dell, the largest hardware company in enterprise tech touts that it has more software engineers than those working in hardware. Begs the question, is hardware going the way of Coball? Well, not likely. Software has to run on something, but the labor needed to deploy, and troubleshoot, and manage hardware infrastructure is shifting. At the same time, we've seen the value flow also shifting in hardware. Once a world dominated by X86 processors value is flowing to alternatives like Nvidia and arm based designs. Moreover, other componentry like NICs, accelerators, and storage controllers are becoming more advanced, integrated, and increasingly important. The question is, does it matter? And if so, why does it matter and to whom? What does it mean to customers, workloads, OEMs, and the broader society? Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we've organized a special power panel of industry analysts and experts to address the question, does hardware still matter? Allow me to introduce the panel. Bob O'Donnell is president and chief analyst at TECHnalysis Research. Zeus Kerravala is the founder and principal analyst at ZK Research. David Nicholson is a CTO and tech expert. Keith Townson is CEO and founder of CTO Advisor. And Marc Staimer is the chief dragon slayer at Dragon Slayer Consulting and oftentimes a Wikibon contributor. Guys, welcome to theCUBE. Thanks so much for spending some time here. >> Good to be here. >> Thanks. >> Thanks for having us. >> Okay before we get into it, I just want to bring up some data from ETR. This is a survey that ETR does every quarter. It's a survey of about 1200 to 1500 CIOs and IT buyers and I'm showing a subset of the taxonomy here. This XY axis and the vertical axis is something called net score. That's a measure of spending momentum. It's essentially the percentage of customers that are spending more on a particular area than those spending less. You subtract the lesses from the mores and you get a net score. Anything the horizontal axis is pervasion in the data set. Sometimes they call it market share. It's not like IDC market share. It's just the percentage of activity in the data set as a percentage of the total. That red 40% line, anything over that is considered highly elevated. And for the past, I don't know, eight to 12 quarters, the big four have been AI and machine learning, containers, RPA and cloud and cloud of course is very impressive because not only is it elevated in the vertical access, but you know it's very highly pervasive on the horizontal. So what I've done is highlighted in red that historical hardware sector. The server, the storage, the networking, and even PCs despite the work from home are depressed in relative terms. And of course, data center collocation services. Okay so you're seeing obviously hardware is not... People don't have the spending momentum today that they used to. They've got other priorities, et cetera, but I want to start and go kind of around the horn with each of you, what is the number one trend that each of you sees in hardware and why does it matter? Bob O'Donnell, can you please start us off? >> Sure Dave, so look, I mean, hardware is incredibly important and one comment first I'll make on that slide is let's not forget that hardware, even though it may not be growing, the amount of money spent on hardware continues to be very, very high. It's just a little bit more stable. It's not as subject to big jumps as we see certainly in other software areas. But look, the important thing that's happening in hardware is the diversification of the types of chip architectures we're seeing and how and where they're being deployed, right? You refer to this in your opening. We've moved from a world of x86 CPUs from Intel and AMD to things like obviously GPUs, DPUs. We've got VPU for, you know, computer vision processing. We've got AI-dedicated accelerators, we've got all kinds of other network acceleration tools and AI-powered tools. There's an incredible diversification of these chip architectures and that's been happening for a while but now we're seeing them more widely deployed and it's being done that way because workloads are evolving. The kinds of workloads that we're seeing in some of these software areas require different types of compute engines than traditionally we've had. The other thing is (coughs), excuse me, the power requirements based on where geographically that compute happens is also evolving. This whole notion of the edge, which I'm sure we'll get into a little bit more detail later is driven by the fact that where the compute actually sits closer to in theory the edge and where edge devices are, depending on your definition, changes the power requirements. It changes the kind of connectivity that connects the applications to those edge devices and those applications. So all of those things are being impacted by this growing diversity in chip architectures. And that's a very long-term trend that I think we're going to continue to see play out through this decade and well into the 2030s as well. >> Excellent, great, great points. Thank you, Bob. Zeus up next, please. >> Yeah, and I think the other thing when you look at this chart to remember too is, you know, through the pandemic and the work from home period a lot of companies did put their office modernization projects on hold and you heard that echoed, you know, from really all the network manufacturers anyways. They always had projects underway to upgrade networks. They put 'em on hold. Now that people are starting to come back to the office, they're looking at that now. So we might see some change there, but Bob's right. The size of those market are quite a bit different. I think the other big trend here is the hardware companies, at least in the areas that I look at networking are understanding now that it's a combination of hardware and software and silicon that works together that creates that optimum type of performance and experience, right? So some things are best done in silicon. Some like data forwarding and things like that. Historically when you look at the way network devices were built, you did everything in hardware. You configured in hardware, they did all the data for you, and did all the management. And that's been decoupled now. So more and more of the control element has been placed in software. A lot of the high-performance things, encryption, and as I mentioned, data forwarding, packet analysis, stuff like that is still done in hardware, but not everything is done in hardware. And so it's a combination of the two. I think, for the people that work with the equipment as well, there's been more shift to understanding how to work with software. And this is a mistake I think the industry made for a while is we had everybody convinced they had to become a programmer. It's really more a software power user. Can you pull things out of software? Can you through API calls and things like that. But I think the big frame here is, David, it's a combination of hardware, software working together that really make a difference. And you know how much you invest in hardware versus software kind of depends on the performance requirements you have. And I'll talk about that later but that's really the big shift that's happened here. It's the vendors that figured out how to optimize performance by leveraging the best of all of those. >> Excellent. You guys both brought up some really good themes that we can tap into Dave Nicholson, please. >> Yeah, so just kind of picking up where Bob started off. Not only are we seeing the rise of a variety of CPU designs, but I think increasingly the connectivity that's involved from a hardware perspective, from a kind of a server or service design perspective has become increasingly important. I think we'll get a chance to look at this in more depth a little bit later but when you look at what happens on the motherboard, you know we're not in so much a CPU-centric world anymore. Various application environments have various demands and you can meet them by using a variety of components. And it's extremely significant when you start looking down at the component level. It's really important that you optimize around those components. So I guess my summary would be, I think we are moving out of the CPU-centric hardware model into more of a connectivity-centric model. We can talk more about that later. >> Yeah, great. And thank you, David, and Keith Townsend I really interested in your perspectives on this. I mean, for years you worked in a data center surrounded by hardware. Now that we have the software defined data center, please chime in here. >> Well, you know, I'm going to dig deeper into that software-defined data center nature of what's happening with hardware. Hardware is meeting software infrastructure as code is a thing. What does that code look like? We're still trying to figure out but servicing up these capabilities that the previous analysts have brought up, how do I ensure that I can get the level of services needed for the applications that I need? Whether they're legacy, traditional data center, workloads, AI ML, workloads, workloads at the edge. How do I codify that and consume that as a service? And hardware vendors are figuring this out. HPE, the big push into GreenLake as a service. Dale now with Apex taking what we need, these bare bone components, moving it forward with DDR five, six CXL, et cetera, and surfacing that as cold or as services. This is a very tough problem. As we transition from consuming a hardware-based configuration to this infrastructure as cold paradigm shift. >> Yeah, programmable infrastructure, really attacking that sort of labor discussion that we were having earlier, okay. Last but not least Marc Staimer, please. >> Thanks, Dave. My peers raised really good points. I agree with most of them, but I'm going to disagree with the title of this session, which is, does hardware matter? It absolutely matters. You can't run software on the air. You can't run it in an ephemeral cloud, although there's the technical cloud and that's a different issue. The cloud is kind of changed everything. And from a market perspective in the 40 plus years I've been in this business, I've seen this perception that hardware has to go down in price every year. And part of that was driven by Moore's law. And we're coming to, let's say a lag or an end, depending on who you talk to Moore's law. So we're not doubling our transistors every 18 to 24 months in a chip and as a result of that, there's been a higher emphasis on software. From a market perception, there's no penalty. They don't put the same pressure on software from the market to reduce the cost every year that they do on hardware, which kind of bass ackwards when you think about it. Hardware costs are fixed. Software costs tend to be very low. It's kind of a weird thing that we do in the market. And what's changing is we're now starting to treat hardware like software from an OPEX versus CapEx perspective. So yes, hardware matters. And we'll talk about that more in length. >> You know, I want to follow up on that. And I wonder if you guys have a thought on this, Bob O'Donnell, you and I have talked about this a little bit. Marc, you just pointed out that Moore's laws could have waning. Pat Gelsinger recently at their investor meeting said that he promised that Moore's law is alive and well. And the point I made in breaking analysis was okay, great. You know, Pat said, doubling transistors every 18 to 24 months, let's say that Intel can do that. Even though we know it's waning somewhat. Look at the M1 Ultra from Apple (chuckles). In about 15 months increased transistor density on their package by 6X. So to your earlier point, Bob, we have this sort of these alternative processors that are really changing things. And to Dave Nicholson's point, there's a whole lot of supporting components as well. Do you have a comment on that, Bob? >> Yeah, I mean, it's a great point, Dave. And one thing to bear in mind as well, not only are we seeing a diversity of these different chip architectures and different types of components as a number of us have raised the other big point and I think it was Keith that mentioned it. CXL and interconnect on the chip itself is dramatically changing it. And a lot of the more interesting advances that are going to continue to drive Moore's law forward in terms of the way we think about performance, if perhaps not number of transistors per se, is the interconnects that become available. You're seeing the development of chiplets or tiles, people use different names, but the idea is you can have different components being put together eventually in sort of a Lego block style. And what that's also going to allow, not only is that going to give interesting performance possibilities 'cause of the faster interconnect. So you can share, have shared memory between things which for big workloads like AI, huge data sets can make a huge difference in terms of how you talk to memory over a network connection, for example, but not only that you're going to see more diversity in the types of solutions that can be built. So we're going to see even more choices in hardware from a silicon perspective because you'll be able to piece together different elements. And oh, by the way, the other benefit of that is we've reached a point in chip architectures where not everything benefits from being smaller. We've been so focused and so obsessed when it comes to Moore's law, to the size of each individual transistor and yes, for certain architecture types, CPUs and GPUs in particular, that's absolutely true, but we've already hit the point where things like RF for 5g and wifi and other wireless technologies and a whole bunch of other things actually don't get any better with a smaller transistor size. They actually get worse. So the beauty of these chiplet architectures is you could actually combine different chip manufacturing sizes. You know you hear about four nanometer and five nanometer along with 14 nanometer on a single chip, each one optimized for its specific application yet together, they can give you the best of all worlds. And so we're just at the very beginning of that era, which I think is going to drive a ton of innovation. Again, gets back to my comment about different types of devices located geographically different places at the edge, in the data center, you know, in a private cloud versus a public cloud. All of those things are going to be impacted and there'll be a lot more options because of this silicon diversity and this interconnect diversity that we're just starting to see. >> Yeah, David. David Nicholson's got a graphic on that. They're going to show later. Before we do that, I want to introduce some data. I actually want to ask Keith to comment on this before we, you know, go on. This next slide is some data from ETR that shows the percent of customers that cited difficulty procuring hardware. And you can see the red is they had significant issues and it's most pronounced in laptops and networking hardware on the far right-hand side, but virtually all categories, firewalls, peripheral servers, storage are having moderately difficult procurement issues. That's the sort of pinkish or significant challenges. So Keith, I mean, what are you seeing with your customers in the hardware supply chains and bottlenecks? And you know we're seeing it with automobiles and appliances but so it goes beyond IT. The semiconductor, you know, challenges. What's been the impact on the buyer community and society and do you have any sense as to when it will subside? >> You know, I was just asked this question yesterday and I'm feeling the pain. People question, kind of a side project within the CTO advisor, we built a hybrid infrastructure, traditional IT data center that we're walking with the traditional customer and modernizing that data center. So it was, you know, kind of a snapshot of time in 2016, 2017, 10 gigabit, ARISTA switches, some older Dell's 730 XD switches, you know, speeds and feeds. And we said we would modern that with the latest Intel stack and connected to the public cloud and then the pandemic hit and we are experiencing a lot of the same challenges. I thought we'd easily migrate from 10 gig networking to 25 gig networking path that customers are going on. The 10 gig network switches that I bought used are now double the price because you can't get legacy 10 gig network switches because all of the manufacturers are focusing on the more profitable 25 gig for capacity, even the 25 gig switches. And we're focused on networking right now. It's hard to procure. We're talking about nine to 12 months or more lead time. So we're seeing customers adjust by adopting cloud. But if you remember early on in the pandemic, Microsoft Azure kind of gated customers that didn't have a capacity agreement. So customers are keeping an eye on that. There's a desire to abstract away from the underlying vendor to be able to control or provision your IT services in a way that we do with VMware VP or some other virtualization technology where it doesn't matter who can get me the hardware, they can just get me the hardware because it's critically impacting projects and timelines. >> So that's a great setup Zeus for you with Keith mentioned the earlier the software-defined data center with software-defined networking and cloud. Do you see a day where networking hardware is monetized and it's all about the software, or are we there already? >> No, we're not there already. And I don't see that really happening any time in the near future. I do think it's changed though. And just to be clear, I mean, when you look at that data, this is saying customers have had problems procuring the equipment, right? And there's not a network vendor out there. I've talked to Norman Rice at Extreme, and I've talked to the folks at Cisco and ARISTA about this. They all said they could have had blowout quarters had they had the inventory to ship. So it's not like customers aren't buying this anymore. Right? I do think though, when it comes to networking network has certainly changed some because there's a lot more controls as I mentioned before that you can do in software. And I think the customers need to start thinking about the types of hardware they buy and you know, where they're going to use it and, you know, what its purpose is. Because I've talked to customers that have tried to run software and commodity hardware and where the performance requirements are very high and it's bogged down, right? It just doesn't have the horsepower to run it. And, you know, even when you do that, you have to start thinking of the components you use. The NICs you buy. And I've talked to customers that have simply just gone through the process replacing a NIC card and a commodity box and had some performance problems and, you know, things like that. So if agility is more important than performance, then by all means try running software on commodity hardware. I think that works in some cases. If performance though is more important, that's when you need that kind of turnkey hardware system. And I've actually seen more and more customers reverting back to that model. In fact, when you talk to even some startups I think today about when they come to market, they're delivering things more on appliances because that's what customers want. And so there's this kind of app pivot this pendulum of agility and performance. And if performance absolutely matters, that's when you do need to buy these kind of turnkey, prebuilt hardware systems. If agility matters more, that's when you can go more to software, but the underlying hardware still does matter. So I think, you know, will we ever have a day where you can just run it on whatever hardware? Maybe but I'll long be retired by that point. So I don't care. >> Well, you bring up a good point Zeus. And I remember the early days of cloud, the narrative was, oh, the cloud vendors. They don't use EMC storage, they just run on commodity storage. And then of course, low and behold, you know, they've trot out James Hamilton to talk about all the custom hardware that they were building. And you saw Google and Microsoft follow suit. >> Well, (indistinct) been falling for this forever. Right? And I mean, all the way back to the turn of the century, we were calling for the commodity of hardware. And it's never really happened because you can still drive. As long as you can drive innovation into it, customers will always lean towards the innovation cycles 'cause they get more features faster and things. And so the vendors have done a good job of keeping that cycle up but it'll be a long time before. >> Yeah, and that's why you see companies like Pure Storage. A storage company has 69% gross margins. All right. I want to go jump ahead. We're going to bring up the slide four. I want to go back to something that Bob O'Donnell was talking about, the sort of supporting act. The diversity of silicon and we've marched to the cadence of Moore's law for decades. You know, we asked, you know, is Moore's law dead? We say it's moderating. Dave Nicholson. You want to talk about those supporting components. And you shared with us a slide that shift. You call it a shift from a processor-centric world to a connect-centric world. What do you mean by that? And let's bring up slide four and you can talk to that. >> Yeah, yeah. So first, I want to echo this sentiment that the question does hardware matter is sort of the answer is of course it matters. Maybe the real question should be, should you care about it? And the answer to that is it depends who you are. If you're an end user using an application on your mobile device, maybe you don't care how the architecture is put together. You just care that the service is delivered but as you back away from that and you get closer and closer to the source, someone needs to care about the hardware and it should matter. Why? Because essentially what hardware is doing is it's consuming electricity and dollars and the more efficiently you can configure hardware, the more bang you're going to get for your buck. So it's not only a quantitative question in terms of how much can you deliver? But it also ends up being a qualitative change as capabilities allow for things we couldn't do before, because we just didn't have the aggregate horsepower to do it. So this chart actually comes out of some performance tests that were done. So it happens to be Dell servers with Broadcom components. And the point here was to peel back, you know, peel off the top of the server and look at what's in that server, starting with, you know, the PCI interconnect. So PCIE gen three, gen four, moving forward. What are the effects on from an interconnect versus on performance application performance, translating into new orders per minute, processed per dollar, et cetera, et cetera? If you look at the advances in CPU architecture mapped against the advances in interconnect and storage subsystem performance, you can see that CPU architecture is sort of lagging behind in a way. And Bob mentioned this idea of tiling and all of the different ways to get around that. When we do performance testing, we can actually peg CPUs, just running the performance tests without any actual database environments working. So right now we're at this sort of imbalance point where you have to make sure you design things properly to get the most bang per kilowatt hour of power per dollar input. So the key thing here what this is highlighting is just as a very specific example, you take a card that's designed as a gen three PCIE device, and you plug it into a gen four slot. Now the card is the bottleneck. You plug a gen four card into a gen four slot. Now the gen four slot is the bottleneck. So we're constantly chasing these bottlenecks. Someone has to be focused on that from an architectural perspective, it's critically important. So there's no question that it matters. But of course, various people in this food chain won't care where it comes from. I guess a good analogy might be, where does our food come from? If I get a steak, it's a pink thing wrapped in plastic, right? Well, there are a lot of inputs that a lot of people have to care about to get that to me. Do I care about all of those things? No. Are they important? They're critically important. >> So, okay. So all I want to get to the, okay. So what does this all mean to customers? And so what I'm hearing from you is to balance a system it's becoming, you know, more complicated. And I kind of been waiting for this day for a long time, because as we all know the bottleneck was always the spinning disc, the last mechanical. So people who wrote software knew that when they were doing it right, the disc had to go and do stuff. And so they were doing other things in the software. And now with all these new interconnects and flash and things like you could do atomic rights. And so that opens up new software possibilities and combine that with alternative processes. But what's the so what on this to the customer and the application impact? Can anybody address that? >> Yeah, let me address that for a moment. I want to leverage some of the things that Bob said, Keith said, Zeus said, and David said, yeah. So I'm a bit of a contrarian in some of this. For example, on the chip side. As the chips get smaller, 14 nanometer, 10 nanometer, five nanometer, soon three nanometer, we talk about more cores, but the biggest problem on the chip is the interconnect from the chip 'cause the wires get smaller. People don't realize in 2004 the latency on those wires in the chips was 80 picoseconds. Today it's 1300 picoseconds. That's on the chip. This is why they're not getting faster. So we maybe getting a little bit slowing down in Moore's law. But even as we kind of conquer that you still have the interconnect problem and the interconnect problem goes beyond the chip. It goes within the system, composable architectures. It goes to the point where Keith made, ultimately you need a hybrid because what we're seeing, what I'm seeing and I'm talking to customers, the biggest issue they have is moving data. Whether it be in a chip, in a system, in a data center, between data centers, moving data is now the biggest gating item in performance. So if you want to move it from, let's say your transactional database to your machine learning, it's the bottleneck, it's moving the data. And so when you look at it from a distributed environment, now you've got to move the compute to the data. The only way to get around these bottlenecks today is to spend less time in trying to move the data and more time in taking the compute, the software, running on hardware closer to the data. Go ahead. >> So is this what you mean when Nicholson was talking about a shift from a processor centric world to a connectivity centric world? You're talking about moving the bits across all the different components, not having the processor you're saying is essentially becoming the bottleneck or the memory, I guess. >> Well, that's one of them and there's a lot of different bottlenecks, but it's the data movement itself. It's moving away from, wait, why do we need to move the data? Can we move the compute, the processing closer to the data? Because if we keep them separate and this has been a trend now where people are moving processing away from it. It's like the edge. I think it was Zeus or David. You were talking about the edge earlier. As you look at the edge, who defines the edge, right? Is the edge a closet or is it a sensor? If it's a sensor, how do you do AI at the edge? When you don't have enough power, you don't have enough computable. People were inventing chips to do that. To do all that at the edge, to do AI within the sensor, instead of moving the data to a data center or a cloud to do the processing. Because the lag in latency is always limited by speed of light. How fast can you move the electrons? And all this interconnecting, all the processing, and all the improvement we're seeing in the PCIE bus from three, to four, to five, to CXL, to a higher bandwidth on the network. And that's all great but none of that deals with the speed of light latency. And that's an-- Go ahead. >> You know Marc, no, I just want to just because what you're referring to could be looked at at a macro level, which I think is what you're describing. You can also look at it at a more micro level from a systems design perspective, right? I'm going to be the resident knuckle dragging hardware guy on the panel today. But it's exactly right. You moving compute closer to data includes concepts like peripheral cards that have built in intelligence, right? So again, in some of this testing that I'm referring to, we saw dramatic improvements when you basically took the horsepower instead of using the CPU horsepower for the like IO. Now you have essentially offload engines in the form of storage controllers, rate controllers, of course, for ethernet NICs, smart NICs. And so when you can have these sort of offload engines and we've gone through these waves over time. People think, well, wait a minute, raid controller and NVMe? You know, flash storage devices. Does that make sense? It turns out it does. Why? Because you're actually at a micro level doing exactly what you're referring to. You're bringing compute closer to the data. Now, closer to the data meaning closer to the data storage subsystem. It doesn't solve the macro issue that you're referring to but it is important. Again, going back to this idea of system design optimization, always chasing the bottleneck, plugging the holes. Someone needs to do that in this value chain in order to get the best value for every kilowatt hour of power and every dollar. >> Yeah. >> Well this whole drive performance has created some really interesting architectural designs, right? Like Nickelson, the rise of the DPU right? Brings more processing power into systems that already had a lot of processing power. There's also been some really interesting, you know, kind of innovation in the area of systems architecture too. If you look at the way Nvidia goes to market, their drive kit is a prebuilt piece of hardware, you know, optimized for self-driving cars, right? They partnered with Pure Storage and ARISTA to build that AI-ready infrastructure. I remember when I talked to Charlie Giancarlo, the CEO of Pure about when the three companies rolled that out. He said, "Look, if you're going to do AI, "you need good store. "You need fast storage, fast processor and fast network." And so for customers to be able to put that together themselves was very, very difficult. There's a lot of software that needs tuning as well. So the three companies partner together to create a fully integrated turnkey hardware system with a bunch of optimized software that runs on it. And so in that case, in some ways the hardware was leading the software innovation. And so, the variety of different architectures we have today around hardware has really exploded. And I think it, part of the what Bob brought up at the beginning about the different chip design. >> Yeah, Bob talked about that earlier. Bob, I mean, most AI today is modeling, you know, and a lot of that's done in the cloud and it looks from my standpoint anyway that the future is going to be a lot of AI inferencing at the edge. And that's a radically different architecture, Bob, isn't it? >> It is, it's a completely different architecture. And just to follow up on a couple points, excellent conversation guys. Dave talked about system architecture and really this that's what this boils down to, right? But it's looking at architecture at every level. I was talking about the individual different components the new interconnect methods. There's this new thing called UCIE universal connection. I forget what it stands answer for, but it's a mechanism for doing chiplet architectures, but then again, you have to take it up to the system level, 'cause it's all fine and good. If you have this SOC that's tuned and optimized, but it has to talk to the rest of the system. And that's where you see other issues. And you've seen things like CXL and other interconnect standards, you know, and nobody likes to talk about interconnect 'cause it's really wonky and really technical and not that sexy, but at the end of the day it's incredibly important exactly. To the other points that were being raised like mark raised, for example, about getting that compute closer to where the data is and that's where again, a diversity of chip architectures help and exactly to your last comment there Dave, putting that ability in an edge device is really at the cutting edge of what we're seeing on a semiconductor design and the ability to, for example, maybe it's an FPGA, maybe it's a dedicated AI chip. It's another kind of chip architecture that's being created to do that inferencing on the edge. Because again, it's that the cost and the challenges of moving lots of data, whether it be from say a smartphone to a cloud-based application or whether it be from a private network to a cloud or any other kinds of permutations we can think of really matters. And the other thing is we're tackling bigger problems. So architecturally, not even just architecturally within a system, but when we think about DPUs and the sort of the east west data center movement conversation that we hear Nvidia and others talk about, it's about combining multiple sets of these systems to function together more efficiently again with even bigger sets of data. So really is about tackling where the processing is needed, having the interconnect and the ability to get where the data you need to the right place at the right time. And because those needs are diversifying, we're just going to continue to see an explosion of different choices and options, which is going to make hardware even more essential I would argue than it is today. And so I think what we're going to see not only does hardware matter, it's going to matter even more in the future than it does now. >> Great, yeah. Great discussion, guys. I want to bring Keith back into the conversation here. Keith, if your main expertise in tech is provisioning LUNs, you probably you want to look for another job. So maybe clearly hardware matters, but with software defined everything, do people with hardware expertise matter outside of for instance, component manufacturers or cloud companies? I mean, VMware certainly changed the dynamic in servers. Dell just spun off its most profitable asset and VMware. So it obviously thinks hardware can stand alone. How does an enterprise architect view the shift to software defined hyperscale cloud and how do you see the shifting demand for skills in enterprise IT? >> So I love the question and I'll take a different view of it. If you're a data analyst and your primary value add is that you do ETL transformation, talk to a CDO, a chief data officer over midsize bank a little bit ago. He said 80% of his data scientists' time is done on ETL. Super not value ad. He wants his data scientists to do data science work. Chances are if your only value is that you do LUN provisioning, then you probably don't have a job now. The technologies have gotten much more intelligent. As infrastructure pros, we want to give infrastructure pros the opportunities to shine and I think the software defined nature and the automation that we're seeing vendors undertake, whether it's Dell, HP, Lenovo take your pick that Pure Storage, NetApp that are doing the automation and the ML needed so that these practitioners don't spend 80% of their time doing LUN provisioning and focusing on their true expertise, which is ensuring that data is stored. Data is retrievable, data's protected, et cetera. I think the shift is to focus on that part of the job that you're ensuring no matter where the data's at, because as my data is spread across the enterprise hybrid different types, you know, Dave, you talk about the super cloud a lot. If my data is in the super cloud, protecting that data and securing that data becomes much more complicated when than when it was me just procuring or provisioning LUNs. So when you say, where should the shift be, or look be, you know, focusing on the real value, which is making sure that customers can access data, can recover data, can get data at performance levels that they need within the price point. They need to get at those datasets and where they need it. We talked a lot about where they need out. One last point about this interconnecting. I have this vision and I think we all do of composable infrastructure. This idea that scaled out does not solve every problem. The cloud can give me infinite scale out. Sometimes I just need a single OS with 64 terabytes of RAM and 204 GPUs or GPU instances that single OS does not exist today. And the opportunity is to create composable infrastructure so that we solve a lot of these problems that just simply don't scale out. >> You know, wow. So many interesting points there. I had just interviewed Zhamak Dehghani, who's the founder of Data Mesh last week. And she made a really interesting point. She said, "Think about, we have separate stacks. "We have an application stack and we have "a data pipeline stack and the transaction systems, "the transaction database, we extract data from that," to your point, "We ETL it in, you know, it takes forever. "And then we have this separate sort of data stack." If we're going to inject more intelligence and data and AI into applications, those two stacks, her contention is they have to come together. And when you think about, you know, super cloud bringing compute to data, that was what Haduck was supposed to be. It ended up all sort of going into a central location, but it's almost a rhetorical question. I mean, it seems that that necessitates new thinking around hardware architectures as it kind of everything's the edge. And the other point is to your point, Keith, it's really hard to secure that. So when you can think about offloads, right, you've heard the stats, you know, Nvidia talks about it. Broadcom talks about it that, you know, that 30%, 25 to 30% of the CPU cycles are wasted on doing things like storage offloads, or networking or security. It seems like maybe Zeus you have a comment on this. It seems like new architectures need to come other to support, you know, all of that stuff that Keith and I just dispute. >> Yeah, and by the way, I do want to Keith, the question you just asked. Keith, it's the point I made at the beginning too about engineers do need to be more software-centric, right? They do need to have better software skills. In fact, I remember talking to Cisco about this last year when they surveyed their engineer base, only about a third of 'em had ever made an API call, which you know that that kind of shows this big skillset change, you know, that has to come. But on the point of architectures, I think the big change here is edge because it brings in distributed compute models. Historically, when you think about compute, even with multi-cloud, we never really had multi-cloud. We'd use multiple centralized clouds, but compute was always centralized, right? It was in a branch office, in a data center, in a cloud. With edge what we creates is the rise of distributed computing where we'll have an application that actually accesses different resources and at different edge locations. And I think Marc, you were talking about this, like the edge could be in your IoT device. It could be your campus edge. It could be cellular edge, it could be your car, right? And so we need to start thinkin' about how our applications interact with all those different parts of that edge ecosystem, you know, to create a single experience. The consumer apps, a lot of consumer apps largely works that way. If you think of like app like Uber, right? It pulls in information from all kinds of different edge application, edge services. And, you know, it creates pretty cool experience. We're just starting to get to that point in the business world now. There's a lot of security implications and things like that, but I do think it drives more architectural decisions to be made about how I deploy what data where and where I do my processing, where I do my AI and things like that. It actually makes the world more complicated. In some ways we can do so much more with it, but I think it does drive us more towards turnkey systems, at least initially in order to, you know, ensure performance and security. >> Right. Marc, I wanted to go to you. You had indicated to me that you wanted to chat about this a little bit. You've written quite a bit about the integration of hardware and software. You know, we've watched Oracle's move from, you know, buying Sun and then basically using that in a highly differentiated approach. Engineered systems. What's your take on all that? I know you also have some thoughts on the shift from CapEx to OPEX chime in on that. >> Sure. When you look at it, there are advantages to having one vendor who has the software and hardware. They can synergistically make them work together that you can't do in a commodity basis. If you own the software and somebody else has the hardware, I'll give you an example would be Oracle. As you talked about with their exit data platform, they literally are leveraging microcode in the Intel chips. And now in AMD chips and all the way down to Optane, they make basically AMD database servers work with Optane memory PMM in their storage systems, not MVME, SSD PMM. I'm talking about the cards itself. So there are advantages you can take advantage of if you own the stack, as you were putting out earlier, Dave, of both the software and the hardware. Okay, that's great. But on the other side of that, that tends to give you better performance, but it tends to cost a little more. On the commodity side it costs less but you get less performance. What Zeus had said earlier, it depends where you're running your application. How much performance do you need? What kind of performance do you need? One of the things about moving to the edge and I'll get to the OPEX CapEx in a second. One of the issues about moving to the edge is what kind of processing do you need? If you're running in a CCTV camera on top of a traffic light, how much power do you have? How much cooling do you have that you can run this? And more importantly, do you have to take the data you're getting and move it somewhere else and get processed and the information is sent back? I mean, there are companies out there like Brain Chip that have developed AI chips that can run on the sensor without a CPU. Without any additional memory. So, I mean, there's innovation going on to deal with this question of data movement. There's companies out there like Tachyon that are combining GPUs, CPUs, and DPUs in a single chip. Think of it as super composable architecture. They're looking at being able to do more in less. On the OPEX and CapEx issue. >> Hold that thought, hold that thought on the OPEX CapEx, 'cause we're running out of time and maybe you can wrap on that. I just wanted to pick up on something you said about the integrated hardware software. I mean, other than the fact that, you know, Michael Dell unlocked whatever $40 billion for himself and Silverlake, I was always a fan of a spin in with VMware basically become the Oracle of hardware. Now I know it would've been a nightmare for the ecosystem and culturally, they probably would've had a VMware brain drain, but what does anybody have any thoughts on that as a sort of a thought exercise? I was always a fan of that on paper. >> I got to eat a little crow. I did not like the Dale VMware acquisition for the industry in general. And I think it hurt the industry in general, HPE, Cisco walked away a little bit from that VMware relationship. But when I talked to customers, they loved it. You know, I got to be honest. They absolutely loved the integration. The VxRail, VxRack solution exploded. Nutanix became kind of a afterthought when it came to competing. So that spin in, when we talk about the ability to innovate and the ability to create solutions that you just simply can't create because you don't have the full stack. Dell was well positioned to do that with a potential span in of VMware. >> Yeah, we're going to be-- Go ahead please. >> Yeah, in fact, I think you're right, Keith, it was terrible for the industry. Great for Dell. And I remember talking to Chad Sakac when he was running, you know, VCE, which became Rack and Rail, their ability to stay in lockstep with what VMware was doing. What was the number one workload running on hyperconverged forever? It was VMware. So their ability to remain in lockstep with VMware gave them a huge competitive advantage. And Dell came out of nowhere in, you know, the hyper-converged market and just started taking share because of that relationship. So, you know, this sort I guess it's, you know, from a Dell perspective I thought it gave them a pretty big advantage that they didn't really exploit across their other properties, right? Networking and service and things like they could have given the dominance that VMware had. From an industry perspective though, I do think it's better to have them be coupled. So. >> I agree. I mean, they could. I think they could have dominated in super cloud and maybe they would become the next Oracle where everybody hates 'em, but they kick ass. But guys. We got to wrap up here. And so what I'm going to ask you is I'm going to go and reverse the order this time, you know, big takeaways from this conversation today, which guys by the way, I can't thank you enough phenomenal insights, but big takeaways, any final thoughts, any research that you're working on that you want highlight or you know, what you look for in the future? Try to keep it brief. We'll go in reverse order. Maybe Marc, you could start us off please. >> Sure, on the research front, I'm working on a total cost of ownership of an integrated database analytics machine learning versus separate services. On the other aspect that I would wanted to chat about real quickly, OPEX versus CapEx, the cloud changed the market perception of hardware in the sense that you can use hardware or buy hardware like you do software. As you use it, pay for what you use in arrears. The good thing about that is you're only paying for what you use, period. You're not for what you don't use. I mean, it's compute time, everything else. The bad side about that is you have no predictability in your bill. It's elastic, but every user I've talked to says every month it's different. And from a budgeting perspective, it's very hard to set up your budget year to year and it's causing a lot of nightmares. So it's just something to be aware of. From a CapEx perspective, you have no more CapEx if you're using that kind of base system but you lose a certain amount of control as well. So ultimately that's some of the issues. But my biggest point, my biggest takeaway from this is the biggest issue right now that everybody I talk to in some shape or form it comes down to data movement whether it be ETLs that you talked about Keith or other aspects moving it between hybrid locations, moving it within a system, moving it within a chip. All those are key issues. >> Great, thank you. Okay, CTO advisor, give us your final thoughts. >> All right. Really, really great commentary. Again, I'm going to point back to us taking the walk that our customers are taking, which is trying to do this conversion of all primary data center to a hybrid of which I have this hard earned philosophy that enterprise IT is additive. When we add a service, we rarely subtract a service. So the landscape and service area what we support has to grow. So our research focuses on taking that walk. We are taking a monolithic application, decomposing that to containers, and putting that in a public cloud, and connecting that back private data center and telling that story and walking that walk with our customers. This has been a super enlightening panel. >> Yeah, thank you. Real, real different world coming. David Nicholson, please. >> You know, it really hearkens back to the beginning of the conversation. You talked about momentum in the direction of cloud. I'm sort of spending my time under the hood, getting grease under my fingernails, focusing on where still the lions share of spend will be in coming years, which is OnPrem. And then of course, obviously data center infrastructure for cloud but really diving under the covers and helping folks understand the ramifications of movement between generations of CPU architecture. I know we all know Sapphire Rapids pushed into the future. When's the next Intel release coming? Who knows? We think, you know, in 2023. There have been a lot of people standing by from a practitioner's standpoint asking, well, what do I do between now and then? Does it make sense to upgrade bits and pieces of hardware or go from a last generation to a current generation when we know the next generation is coming? And so I've been very, very focused on looking at how these connectivity components like rate controllers and NICs. I know it's not as sexy as talking about cloud but just how these opponents completely change the game and actually can justify movement from say a 14th-generation architecture to a 15th-generation architecture today, even though gen 16 is coming, let's say 12 months from now. So that's where I am. Keep my phone number in the Rolodex. I literally reference Rolodex intentionally because like I said, I'm in there under the hood and it's not as sexy. But yeah, so that's what I'm focused on Dave. >> Well, you know, to paraphrase it, maybe derivative paraphrase of, you know, Larry Ellison's rant on what is cloud? It's operating systems and databases, et cetera. Rate controllers and NICs live inside of clouds. All right. You know, one of the reasons I love working with you guys is 'cause have such a wide observation space and Zeus Kerravala you, of all people, you know you have your fingers in a lot of pies. So give us your final thoughts. >> Yeah, I'm not a propeller heady as my chip counterparts here. (all laugh) So, you know, I look at the world a little differently and a lot of my research I'm doing now is the impact that distributed computing has on customer employee experiences, right? You talk to every business and how the experiences they deliver to their customers is really differentiating how they go to market. And so they're looking at these different ways of feeding up data and analytics and things like that in different places. And I think this is going to have a really profound impact on enterprise IT architecture. We're putting more data, more compute in more places all the way down to like little micro edges and retailers and things like that. And so we need the variety. Historically, if you think back to when I was in IT you know, pre-Y2K, we didn't have a lot of choice in things, right? We had a server that was rack mount or standup, right? And there wasn't a whole lot of, you know, differences in choice. But today we can deploy, you know, these really high-performance compute systems on little blades inside servers or inside, you know, autonomous vehicles and things. I think the world from here gets... You know, just the choice of what we have and the way hardware and software works together is really going to, I think, change the world the way we do things. We're already seeing that, like I said, in the consumer world, right? There's so many things you can do from, you know, smart home perspective, you know, natural language processing, stuff like that. And it's starting to hit businesses now. So just wait and watch the next five years. >> Yeah, totally. The computing power at the edge is just going to be mind blowing. >> It's unbelievable what you can do at the edge. >> Yeah, yeah. Hey Z, I just want to say that we know you're not a propeller head and I for one would like to thank you for having your master's thesis hanging on the wall behind you 'cause we know that you studied basket weaving. >> I was actually a physics math major, so. >> Good man. Another math major. All right, Bob O'Donnell, you're going to bring us home. I mean, we've seen the importance of semiconductors and silicon in our everyday lives, but your last thoughts please. >> Sure and just to clarify, by the way I was a great books major and this was actually for my final paper. And so I was like philosophy and all that kind of stuff and literature but I still somehow got into tech. Look, it's been a great conversation and I want to pick up a little bit on a comment Zeus made, which is this it's the combination of the hardware and the software and coming together and the manner with which that needs to happen, I think is critically important. And the other thing is because of the diversity of the chip architectures and all those different pieces and elements, it's going to be how software tools evolve to adapt to that new world. So I look at things like what Intel's trying to do with oneAPI. You know, what Nvidia has done with CUDA. What other platform companies are trying to create tools that allow them to leverage the hardware, but also embrace the variety of hardware that is there. And so as those software development environments and software development tools evolve to take advantage of these new capabilities, that's going to open up a lot of interesting opportunities that can leverage all these new chip architectures. That can leverage all these new interconnects. That can leverage all these new system architectures and figure out ways to make that all happen, I think is going to be critically important. And then finally, I'll mention the research I'm actually currently working on is on private 5g and how companies are thinking about deploying private 5g and the potential for edge applications for that. So I'm doing a survey of several hundred us companies as we speak and really looking forward to getting that done in the next couple of weeks. >> Yeah, look forward to that. Guys, again, thank you so much. Outstanding conversation. Anybody going to be at Dell tech world in a couple of weeks? Bob's going to be there. Dave Nicholson. Well drinks on me and guys I really can't thank you enough for the insights and your participation today. Really appreciate it. Okay, and thank you for watching this special power panel episode of theCube Insights powered by ETR. Remember we publish each week on Siliconangle.com and wikibon.com. All these episodes they're available as podcasts. DM me or any of these guys. I'm at DVellante. You can email me at David.Vellante@siliconangle.com. Check out etr.ai for all the data. This is Dave Vellante. We'll see you next time. (upbeat music)