>>Hello >>Everyone and welcome back to Dallas where we're live from, Super computing. My name is Savannah Peterson, joined with my co-host David, and we have a rocket of a show for you this afternoon. The doctors are in the house and we are joined by nasa, ladies and gentlemen. So excited. Please welcome Dr. Dan Duffy and Dr. Bill Putman. Thank you so much for being here, guys. I know this is kind of last minute. How's it to be on the show floor? What's it like being NASA here? >>What's exciting? We haven't, we haven't been here for three years, so this is actually really exciting to come back and see everybody, to see the showroom floor, see the innovations that have happened over the last three years. It's pretty exciting. >>Yeah, it's great. And, and so, because your jobs are so cool, and I don't wanna even remotely give even too little of the picture or, or not do it justice, could you give the audience a little bit of background on what you do as I think you have one of the coolest jobs ever. YouTube bill. >>I, I appreciate that. I, I, I run high Performance Computing Center at NASA Goddard for science. It's high performance information technology. So we do everything from networking to security, to high performance computing, to data sciences, artificial intelligence and machine learning is huge for us now. Yeah, large amounts of data, big data sets, but we also do scientific visualizations and then cloud and commercial cloud computing, as well as on premises cloud computing. And quite frankly, we support a lot of what Bill and his team does. >>Bill, why don't you tell us what your team >>Does? Yeah, so I'm a, I'm an earth scientist. I work as the associate chief at the global modeling assimilation office. And our job is to really, you know, maximize the use of all the observations that NASA takes from space and build that into a coherent, consistent physical system of the earth. Right? And we're focused on utilizing the HC that, that Dan and the folks at the nccs provide to us, to the best of our abilities to integrate those observations, you know, on time scales from hours, days to, to seasonal to to monthly time scales. That's, that's the essence of our focus at the GMA o >>Casual modeling, all of NASA's earth data. That, that in itself as a sentence is pretty wild. I imagine you're dealing with a ton of data. >>Oh, massive amounts of data. Yes, >>Probably, I mean, as much as one probably could, now that I'm thinking about it. I mean, and especially with how far things have to travel. Bill, sticking with you, just to open us up, what technology here excites you the most about the future and that will make your job easier? Let's put it that way. >>To me, it's the accelerator technologies, right? So there's the limited, the limiting factor for, for us as scientists is how fast we can get an answer. And if we can get our answer faster through accelerated technologies, you know, with the support of the, of the nccs and the computing centers, but also the software engineers enabling that for us, then we can do more, right. And push the questions even further, you know, so once we've gotten fast enough to do what we want to do, there's always something next that we wanna look for. So, >>I mean, at nasa you have to exercise such patience, whether that be data, coming back, images from a rover, doesn't matter what it is. Sometimes there's a lot of time, days, hours, years, depending on the situation. Right? I really, I really admire that. What about you, Dan? What's got you really excited about the future here? So >>Bill talked about the, the accelerated technology, which is absolutely true and, and, and is needed to get us not to only to the point where we have the compute resources to do the simulations that Bill wants to do, and also do it in a energy efficient way. But it's really the software frameworks that go around that and the software frameworks, the technology that dealing with how to use those in an energy efficient and and most efficient way is extremely important. And that's some of the, you know, that's what I'm really here to try to understand better about is how can I support these scientists with not just the hardware, but the software frameworks by which they can be successful. >>Yeah. We've, we've had a lot of kind of philosophical discussion about this, the difference between the quantitative increases in power in computing that we're seeing versus the question of whether or not we need truly qualitative changes moving forward. Where do you see the limits of, of, of, you know, if you, if you're looking at the ability to gather more data and process more data more quickly, what you can do with that data changes when you're getting updates every second versus every month seems pretty obvious. Is there a, is there, but is there, is there a near term target that you have specifically where once you reach that target, if you weren't thinking ahead of that target, you'd kind of be going, Okay, well we solved that problem, we're getting the data in so fast that you can, you can ask me, what is the temperature in this area? And you can go, Oh, well, huh, an hour ago the data said this. Beyond that, do you need a qualitative change in our ability to process information and tease insight into out of chaos? Or do you just need more quantity to be able to get to the point where you can do things like predict weather six months in advance? What are, what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, >>It's an interesting question, right? And, and you ended it with predicting whether six months in advance, and actually I was thinking the other way, right? I was thinking going to finer and finer scales and shorter time scales when you talk about having data more frequently, right? So one of the things that I'm excited about as a modeler is going to hire resolution and representing smaller scale processes at nasa, we're, we're interested in observations that are global. So our models are global and we'd like to push those to as fine a resolution as possible to do things like severe storm predictions and so forth. So the faster we can get the data, the more data we can have, and that area would improve our ability to do that as well. So, >>And your background is in meteorology, right? >>Yes, I'm a meteorologist. >>Excellent. Okay. Yeah, yeah, >>Yeah. So, so I have to ask a question, and I'm sure all the audience cares about this. And I went through this when I was talking about the ghost satellites as well. What, what is it about weather that makes it so hard to predict? >>Oh, it's the classic chaos problem. The, the butterfly effects problem, and it's just true. You know, you always hear the story of a butterfly in Africa flaps, its rings and wings, and the weather changes in, in New York City, and it's just, computers are an excellent example of that, right? So we have a model of the earth, we can run it two times in a row and get the exact same answer, but if we flip a bit somewhere, then the answer changes 10 days later significantly. So it's a, it's a really interesting problem. So, >>Yeah. So do you have any issue with the fact that your colleague believes that butterflies are responsible for weather? No, I does that, does that, is it responsible for climate? Does that bother you at all? >>No, it doesn't. As a matter of fact, they actually run those butterfly like experi experiments within the systems where they do actually flip some bits and see what the uncertainties are that happen out 7, 8, 9 days out in advance to understand exactly what he's saying, to understand the uncertainties, but also the sensitivity with respect to the observations that they're taking. So >>Yeah, it's fascinating. It is. >>That is fascinating. Sticking with you for a second, Dan. So you're at the Center for Climate Simulation. Is that the center that's gonna help us navigate what happens over the next decade? >>Okay, so I, no one center is gonna help us navigate what's gonna happen over the next decade or the next 50 or a hundred years, right. It's gonna be everybody together. And I think NASA's role in that is really to pioneer the, the, the models that that bill and others are doing to understand what's gonna happen in not just the seasonal sub, but we also work with G, which is the God Institute for Space Studies. Yeah. Which does the decatal and, and the century long studies. Our, our job is to really help that research, understand what's happening with the client, but then feed that back into what observations we need to make next in order to better understand and better quantify the risks that we have to better quantify the mitigations that we can make to understand how and, and, and affect how the climate is gonna go for the future. So that's really what we trying to do. We're trying to do that research to understand the climate, understand what mitigations we can have, but also feedback into what observations we can make for the future. >>Yeah. And and what's the partnership ecosystem around that? You mentioned that it's gonna take all of us, I assume you work with a lot of >>Partners, Probably both of you. I mean, obviously the, the, the federal agencies work huge amounts together. Nasa, Noah is our huge partnerships. Sgs, a huge partnerships doe we've talked to doe several times this, so this, this this week already. So there's huge partnerships that go across the federal agency. We, we work also with Europeans as much as we can given the, the, the, you know, sort of the barriers of the countries and the financials. But we do collaborate as much as we can with, And the nice thing about NASA, I would say is the, all the observations that we take are public, they're paid for by the public. They're public, everybody can down them, anybody can down around the world. So that's also, and they're global measurements as Bill said, they're not just regional. >>Do you have, do you have specific, when you think about improving your ability to gain insights from data that that's being gathered? Yeah. Do you set out specific milestones that you're looking for? Like, you know, I hope by June of next year we will have achieved a place where we are able to accomplish X. Yeah. Do you, do you, Yeah. Bill, do you put, what, >>What milestones do we have here? So, yeah, I mean, do you have >>Yeah. Are, are you, are you sort of kept track of that way? Do you think of things like that? Like very specific things? Or is it just so fluid that as long as you're making progress towards the future, you feel okay? >>No, I would say we absolutely have milestones that we like to keep in track, especially from the modeling side of things, right? So whether it's observations that exist now that we want to use in our system, milestones to getting those observations integrated in, but also thinking even further ahead to the observations that we don't have yet. So we can use the models that we have today to simulate those kind of observations that we might want in the future that can help us do things that we can do right now. So those missions are, are aided by the work that we do at the GBO and, and the nccs, but, >>Okay, so if we, if we extrapolate really to the, to the what if future is really trying to understand the entire earth system as best as we can. So all the observations coming in, like you said, in in near real time, feeding that into an earth system model and to be able to predict short term, midterm or even long term predictions with, with some degree of certainty. And that may be things like climate change or it may be even more important, shorter term effects of, of severe weather. Yeah. Which is very important. And so we are trying to work towards that high resolution, immediate impact model that we can, that we can, you know, really share with the world and share those results as best, as best we can. >>Yeah. I, I have a quick, I have a quick follow up on that. I I bet we both did. >>So, so if you think about AI and ml, artificial intelligence and machine learning, something that, you know, people, people talk about a lot. Yeah. There's the concept of teaching a machine to go look for things, call it machine learning. A lot of it's machine teaching we're saying, you know, hit, you know, hit the rack on this side with a stick or the other side with the stick to get it to, to kind of go back and forth. Do you think that humans will be able to guide these systems moving forward enough to tease out the insights that we want? Or do you think we're gonna have to rely on what people think of as artificial intelligence to be able to go in with this massive amount of information with an almost infinite amount of variables and have the AI figure out that, you know what, it was the butterfly, It really was the butterfly. We all did models with it, but, but you understand the nuance that I'm saying. It's like we, we, we think we know what all the variables are and that it's chaotic because there's so many variables and there's so much data, but maybe there's something we're not taking into >>A account. Yeah, I I, I'm, I'm, I'm sure that's absolutely the case. And I'll, I'll start and let Bill, Bill jump in here. Yeah, there's a lot of nuances with a aiml. And so the, the, the, the real approach to get to where we want to be with this earth system model approach is a combination of both AI ML train models as best as we can and as unbiased way as we can. And there's a, there's a big conversation we have around that, but also with a physics or physical based model as well, Those two combined with the humans or the experts in the loop, we're not just gonna ask the artificial intelligence to predict anything and everything. The experts need to be in the loop to guide the training in as best as we, as, as we can in an unbiased, equitable way, but also interpret the results and not just give over to the ai. But that's the combination of that earth system model that we really wanna see. The future's a combination of AI l with physics based, >>But there's, there's a, there's an obvious place for a AI and ML in the modeling world that is in the parameterizations of the estimations that we have to do in our systems, right? So when we think about the earth system and modeling the earth system, there are many things like the equations of motions and thermodynamics that have fixed equations that we know how to solve on a computer. But there's a lot of things that happen physically in the atmosphere that we don't have equations for, and we have to estimate them. And machine learning through the use of high resolution models or observations in training the models to understand and, and represent that, yeah, that that's the place where it's really useful >>For us. There's so many factors, but >>We have to, but we have to make sure that we have the physics in that machine learning in those, in those training. So physics informed training isn't very important. So we're not just gonna go and let a model go off and do whatever it wants. It has to be constrained within physical constraints that the, that the experts know. >>Yeah. And with the wild amount of variables that affect our, our earth, quite frankly. Yeah, yeah. Which is geez. Which is insane. My god. So what's, what, what technology or what advancement needs to happen for your jobs to get easier, faster for our ability to predict to be even more successful than it is currently? >>You know, I think for me, the vision that I have for the future is that at some point, you know, all data is centrally located, essentially shared. We have our applications are then services that sit around all that data. I don't have to sit as a user and worry about, oh, is this all this data in place before I run my application? It's already there, it's already ready for me. My service is prepared and I just launch it out on that service. But that coupled with the performance that I need to get the result that I want in time. And I don't know when that's gonna happen, but at some point it might, you know, I don't know rooting for you, but that's, >>So there are, there are a lot of technologies we can talk about. What I'd like to mention is, is open science. So NASA is really trying to make a push and transformation towards open science. 2023 is gonna be the year of open science for nasa. And what does that mean? It means a lot of what Bill just said is that we have equity and fairness and accessibility and you can find the data, it's findability, it's fair data, you know, a fair findability accessibility reproducibility, and I forget what the eye stands for, but these are, these are tools and, and, and things that we need to, as, as a computing centers and including all the HC centers here, as well as the scientists need to support, to be as transparent as possible with the data sets and the, and the research that we're doing. And that's where I think is gonna be the best thing is if we can get this data out there that anybody can use in an equitable way and as transparent as possible, that's gonna eliminate, in my opinion, the bias over time because mistakes will be found and mistakes will be corrected over time. >>I love that. Yeah. The open source science end of this. No, it's great. And the more people that have access people I find in the academic world, especially people don't know what's going on in the private sector and vice versa. And so I love that you just brought that up. Closing question for you, because I suspect there might be some members of our audience who maybe have fantasized about working at nasa. You've both been working there for over a decade. Is it as cool as we all think of it? It is on the outside. >>I mean, it's, it's definitely pretty cool. >>You don't have to be modest about it, you know, >>I mean, just being at Goddard and being at the center where they build the James web web telescope and you can go to that clean room and see it, it's just fascinating. So it, it's really an amazing opportunity. >>Yeah. So NASA Goddard as a, as a center has, you know, information technologist, It has engineers, it has scientists, it has support staff, support team members. We have built more things, more instruments that have flown in this space than any other place in the world. The James Lab, we were part of that, part of a huge group of people that worked on James. We and James, we came through and was assembled in our, our, our clean room. It's one of the biggest clean rooms in, in, in the world. And we all took opportunities to go over and take selfies with this as they put those loveness mirrors on them. Yeah, it was awesome. It was amazing. And to see what the James we has done in such a short amount of time, the successes that they've gone through is just incredible. Now, I'm not a, I'm not a part of the James web team, but to be a, to be at the same center, to to listen to scientists like Bill talk about their work, to listen to scientists that, that talk about James, we, that's what's inspiring. And, and we get that all the time. >>And to have the opportunity to work with the astronauts that service the, the Hubble Telescope, you know, these things are, >>That's literally giving me goosebumps right now. I'm sitting over >>Here just, just an amazing opportunity. And woo. >>Well, Dan, Bill, thank you both so much for being on the show. I know it was a bit last minute, but I can guarantee we all got a lot out of it. David and I both, I know I speak for us in the whole cube audience, so thank you. We'll have you, anytime you wanna come talk science on the cube. Thank you all for tuning into our supercomputing footage here, live in Dallas. My name is Savannah Peterson. I feel cooler having sat next to these two gentlemen for the last 15 minutes and I hope you did too. We'll see you again soon.

(digital music) >> Welcome back to VeeamON 2022. We're in the home stretch, actually, Dave Nicholson and Dave Vellante here. Daniel Fried is the general manager and senior vice president for EMEA and Worldwide Channel. Daniel, welcome to theCUBE. You got a big job. >> No, I don't have a big job. I have a job that I love. (chuckles) >> Yeah, a job you love. But seriously Veeam, all channel. I mean it has been. >> Yeah, I mean, it's something which just, just a few seconds on, on that piece here, the channel piece, it's something that I love because the ecosystem of partners, an ecosystem of partners, is something which is spending its time moving and developing and changing. You've got a lot of partners changing their roles, their missions, the type of services, type of product that they offer. They all adapt to what the market needs and all the markets around the world are very different because of all these different cultures, languages, and everything. So it's very interesting. In the middle of all that, you know, these tens of thousands of partners and you try to create and try to understand how you can organize, how you can make them happy. So this is fantastic. >> So you're a native of the continent in Europe, obviously. We heard Anton, today, who couldn't be here or chose not to be here, cause he's supporting family and friends in Ukraine. What's the climate like now? Can you share with us what's it like Europe? Just the overall climate and obviously the business climate. >> So the overall climate, the way I see it or I feel it, and obviously there may be some different opinions, that I will always appreciate as also very good opinions. My view is that it seems in Europe that there are a distinction between what people do for businesses, Their thinking for the business, which may be impacted by the situations that we know in Europe between, because of obviously the issues between Ukraine, because of Russia, let's put it this way. And then there is the personal view, which is okay. That happens from time to time, but life continues and we just continue pushing things and enjoying life, and getting the families together and so on and so forth. So, this is in most of the countries in Europe. Obviously, there are a number of countries, which are a little bit more sensitive, a little bit more impacted. All the ones who are next to Russia, or Belarus, so on and so forth. From an emotional standpoint, which is totally understandable. But overall, I'm pretty impressed by how the economy, how people, how the businesses are, you know, continue to thrive in Europe. >> Has Brexit had any...? What impact, if any, has it had? >> So for us Veeam, the impact is... So first there is an impact which is on the currencies. So all the European currencies are no, have slowed down and, and the US dollar is becoming much stronger. >> Despite its debt. >> Right. >> Shouldn't be, but yeah. >> But that doesn't impact on the business. I just... >> Yeah. Right. >> So everything which is economical, macroeconomical is impacted. We have the inflation also, which has an impact, which also has increased because of the oil, because of the gas of everything that they have been stuck, to be stuck. But people get used to it. As Veeam from a business standpoint, one of the big things is we stopped sales, selling into Russia and into Belarus and we are giving our technology, our product, our solutions for free to Ukraine. And that was a piece of the business that we were doing, within EMEA, which was non-neglectable. So it's, I would say a business hole, now that we need to try to fill with accelerating the business service in the other countries of Europe. >> I mean, okay. So thank you for that but we really didn't see it in last quarter's numbers that you guys shared with I mean, IBM. Similarly IBM said, it's noticeable, but it's not really a big impact on our business, but given the cultural ties that you had to Russia and the affinity, I mean you knew how to do business in Russia. It's quite remarkable that you're able to sort of power through that. How about privacy in, around data, in Europe, particularly versus the US? it seems like Europe is setting the trend on things like privacy, certainly on things like acquisitions, we saw the arm acquisition fail. >> Yeah. So there is a big difference. Effectively, there is a big difference between, I would say North America and the rest of the world. And I would say that EMEA, and within EMEA would say the EU is leading very much on what we call server sovereign cloud. So data privacy, which in other words, data is to as much as possible is to remain within either the EU or better within each of the countries, which means that there is again... It's I would say for in EMEA it's good, I would say for the business, for the partners, because then they have to develop around the cloud a number of functions to ensure that because of this data privacy, because of this GDPR or rules and things, all the data remains and resides in a given geographical environment. So it's, which is good because it creates a number of opportunities for the partners. It makes obviously the life of customers and their self a bit more difficult. But again, I think it's good. It's good. It's part of all the way we structure and we organize. And I think that it's going to expand because data is becoming so key, a key limit, a key asset of companies that we absolutely need to take care of it. And it is where Veeam plays a big role in that because we help paying companies managing their data and secure the data in sort of way. >> Yeah. Ransomware has been a big topic of conversation this week. Do you sense that the perception of that as a threat is universal? Are there, are there differences between North America and the EU and other parts of the world? Universal? >> Yeah, it is universal. We see that everywhere. And I think this is a good point, a good question too, is that it's very interesting because we need to get acquainted to the fact that we are going to ever. And so we are going to be attacked. No way out, no. There... Anybody the morning, is waking up, is going on emails and click clicking on an email. Too late. Was a run somewhere. What can you do against that? You know, all humans make mistakes. You can't so it'll happen, but where, where it's absolutely very important and where Veeam plays a big role and where our partners are going to play an even bigger role with our technology is that they can educate the customers to understand that, to have run somewhere is not an issue. What has, what happened is not a problem. What they have to do is to organize so that if they have run somewhere, their letter is safe. And this is where our place a big place. A couple hours back, I was, I was doing a kind of bar with something else. It's totally crazy, but that's okay. I'm going to say it. It's about the COVID. What, no, what do we do? Do we have, do we have something against COVID? No. People were going to get COVID, certainly many people still doing it, but what is important is to be capable of not being too sick. So it is the prevention, which is important. It's the same thing here. So there is this mindset we have psychologically with the partners and they have, they have to provide that services to their customers on how to organize their data using the technology of Veeam in order to be safe, if anything happens. >> So another related question, if I may. When Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA and divulged that the NSA was listening to all the phone calls, there was seemed to be at the time, as I recall, a backlash sentiment in Europe, particularly toward big tech and cloud providers and skepticism toward the cloud. Has the pandemic and the reliance on cloud and the rise of ransomware changed that sentiment? Had the sentiment changed before then? Obviously plenty of Cloud going on in Europe. But can you describe that dynamic? >> Yeah, no, I think that's... Yeah. I think that people were too... You know, as usual. It absolutely reminds me when I was at VMware, when we went from the physical boxes to the virtual machines. I remember the IT people in the company said, "No, I want to be capable of touching." Something here. When you talk about cloud, you talk about something which is virtual, but virtual outside, even outside somewhere. So there is a resistance, psychological resistance to where is my data? How do I control my data? And that is, I think that is very human. Then you need to, you know, it takes time. And again, depending on the cultures, you need to get acquainted to it. So that's what happened be before the pandemic, but then the pandemic took place. And then there was a big problem. There was nobody anymore in the data centers because they couldn't work there and then people were starting to, to work remotely. So the IT needed to be organized to compensate for all these different changes. And cloud was one of them where the data could be stored, where the data could reside, where things could happen. And that's how actually it has accelerated at least in a number of countries where people are a bit leg out to accept the adoption of cloud, cloud-based data. >> So is there a difference in terms of the level of domination by a small group of hyperscale clouds versus smaller service providers? You know, in theory, you have EU behaving in a unified way in sort of the same way that the United States behaves in sort of a federated way. Do you have that same level of domination or is there more, is there more market share available for smaller players in cloud? Any regional differences? >> Yeah. There are big differences. There are big differences again, because of this sovereignty, which is absolutely approved very much in Europe. I'm tell you, I'm going... I'm giving you an example that it was in, I think in October last year, somewhere. The French, the French administration said, "We don't want anymore. Any administration investing in Microsoft 365, because the data is in Azure. The data is out in the cloud." That's what they said. So now these last days, this last week that has changed because Microsoft, you know, introduced a number of technologies, data centers in France, and so on and so forth. So things are going to get better. But the sovereignty, the fact that the data, the privacy of data, everything has to remain in the countries is doing something like the technology of the hyperscalers is used locally wrapped by local companies like systematic writers, local systematic writers, to ensure that the sovereign is set and that the privacy of the data is for real and according to GDPR. So again, it's a value add. It makes things more complex. It doesn't mean that the Google, the Google cloud, the Azure, or the AWS are not going to exist in Europe, but there are going to be a number of layers between them and the customers in order to make sure that everything is totally brought up and that it complies with the EU regulations. >> Help us understand the numbers, Daniel. So the number of customers is mind-boggling it's over 400,000 now, is that right? >> Yeah. Correct. >> Yes. Comparable to VMware, which is again, pretty astounding and the partner ecosystem. Can you help us understand the scope of that? Part one. part two is how do you service and provide that partnership love to all those companies? >> The partners. So yeah, we have about 35,000 around the world, 35,000 partners, but again, it's 10 times less than Microsoft, by the way. So, and this is very interesting. I often have the questions, how do we manage? So first of all, we do tiering, like anybody does. >> Sure. >> We have an organization for that. And we have a two chair sales motion. That means that we use the distributors to take care of the mass, the volume of the smaller, smaller partners. We help the distributors, we help. So it's a leverage system. And we take care obviously more directly, of the large partners or the more complex partners or the ones of interest. But we don't want to forget any of those because even the small one is very important to us because he has these customers maybe in the middle of nowhere, but he's got a few of them. And again, to have a few of these customers, when you adapt, you know, it makes.. At the end, it makes a big business. You know, one plus one plus 1 million times makes, you know, makes huge things. And plus we are in the recurring business now, now that we've introduced three, four years ago, our subscription licenses, which means that it's only incremental. So it's just like the know the telephony, know the telephony business, where the number, the cell phone plans, you know, it's always grabbing as many as possible consumers in this case. So it was the same thing or I have the same, the same kind of, I do a parallel with the French, the French bakery, the French Boulangerie where I say they do their business with the baguette. And then from time to time, they sell the patisserie or they sell the cake, cookie or something, but the same of small things makes a big things. So it is important to have all these small partners everywhere that, that have their small customers or big customers, and that can serve them. So that's that's way. We segment by geography and what we do now is, it is something which is new. We segment by competencies. So it's what I call the soft segmentation. Because if not, we will have a lot of these partners competing to each other, just to sell Veeam. Veeam being number one in many countries, that is what is taking place. And we want them to be happy. We want, we don't want them to fight against each other. So what we do is we do soft segmentation and soft segmentation is this partner is competent in this field with that kind of use case doing this or this or this or this. It's just like you, when you go to the restaurant, you want the restaurant next to your place. So you click for the geography and then you want to, to go for Indian food. So you click restaurant Indian food, and then you want something. So we want to give that possibility to the customers to say, "Yeah, I think I know what I want." And then you can just click and get the partners or the list of partners, which are the most suited for, for his needs. So it's what I call the soft segmentation. The other thing which is important is the network. It's very interesting because when we look at a lot of companies, it's not the network. You've got VARs, you've got cloud and service providers. You've got SARs, you've got all the things. But if you take each of those individually, they don't have the competencies to answer all the request of the customer. So the networking is partnering with partner. That means to have the, the connection so that the partner A who has his customer, but these customer's are requests that this partner cannot fulfill because it's not its competency. That it's going to find the partners or the other partners that can feel this competency and work together. And then it's between them to have the model that they want so that together they can please the customer with their requests. >> Do you ever want to have VeeamON... I mean, I'm happy it's in the US and I like going to Europe, but you, have you ever want to have VeeamON in Europe? >> Yeah, we have VeeamON. We have many VeeamONs in Europe. >> Yeah. The mini ones. Okay. >> VeeamON tours. >> Globally. So where do you have them? >> Europe in APJ, that's what we do. Yes. >> Where do you do it in a APJ? In Japan, obviously in... >> Yeah. I don't know all the locations, tens and tens of them. >> A lot of them. Okay. >> The small ones. What we do, replicate what is done here on one day and then it goes. >> And you'll do that in UK. France, Germany. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Local. >> And also small countries in Saudi, in South Africa, in Israel, in Bulgaria, in all these countries. Because, you know, we can be virtual. That's nice. >> Oh, right. >> But I love to be having a breakfast or a lunch or drink next to a partner or a customer because you learn so much more. The informal information is so important to understand how the business and how the market develops and what the needs are of customers and so on and so forth. >> How was the European attendance this year? It must have been down. It's hard to get into US. It's actually easier to go back to Europe. >> Virtually I, don't have the numbers, but I- >> No. Virtual. I'm sure it was huge. Yeah. But physical. >> Physical here, we've got about 300, 300 Europeans. >> Yeah. Okay. Out of, do we know? What are the numbers here? Do we know? Have we heard numbers? >> I know 45 was supposed to be around 45K combined. >> That's hybrid. >> So, yeah. >> It's hard to get into the US. We're still figuring that out. So I'm not surprised, but now you... >> But it's complimentary. Yeah. >> Do you go to 'em all? >> No >> You can't. >> No. That's not possible. I cannot. I actually, I would love... >> But some, yes. >> I would love to be capable of duplicate myself, but- >> You go to the one. >> I'm unique. >> You go to the one in France, obviously. Yeah? >> Yeah. Usually in France. Well... >> Depends if you're home. >> Yeah. You know, that is interesting is, the way we organize, the way we organize in Europe is I really want the local leaders to be the ones managing the countries. I'm there to support. I'm not there to be, you know? Yeah. The big boss is coming, he showing. No. It is not that. Again, if they request me to come, if they want me to pass a message to certain type of customer partners, I'll do that. But I don't want to run the show. It's not the way I manage that. >> Yeah. I get that. You want to respect that as if you show up in France and that's your home country, it's like rat man showing up here. It's like taking over the stage. You'll be like, you know, it's our turn. >> But it's just like, you know, I give you another example. So obviously we have... It's even the headquarters, the EMEA headquarters is in France. Right? But it is the French office. And I don't go there. I try not to be there because it is the place for the French people taking care of the French market. And for the French manager, if I go there, everybody's going to come and ask me questions and ask me to make decisions and things. No, they have to run their business. >> So where do you spend, where and how do you spend your time? >> In airports and in planes. (indistinct) What are you asking? >> Of course. >> Do you have another question? >> Actually, if we have time really quickly on just on that subject of sovereignty, we are here in Nevada just across the border, California. People in California have no problem at all, replicating things here for disaster recovery, because it's in the US. Now, is there sort of a cultural sense that tearing down those borders from a sovereignty perspective within Europe would fundamentally change the business climate and maybe tilt things in favor of the AWS and GCPs of the world instead of local regional business? The joke that I heard recently from someone, I thought it was funny. I don't know if it would offend either Germans or French, but it was that it was that AWS was confused and they were planning on putting a data center in Strasbourg, because they thought it was in Germany and it was- >> A joke. >> But the point is, the point is it's like, it's a gum bear. >> Is it true? >> No. But it was a dumb American joke. This was told by a French person basically saying... >> But this person was certainly not from- >> Yes. Right. >> Tell you, because I would've been a very bad way. >> But the point is this idea that you have these mega hyper clouds coming in and saying, "Okay, boom, we're putting one here and you're going to use us regardless of the country you're in." How does that, you know... Is there a push within the EU to tear those barriers down? Or are those sovereignty walls enjoyed by the majority because of the way that it changes the business climate? Any thoughts from that perspective? >> Oh yeah. Yeah. To me, it's very simple. It is a hybrid thing. That means that these big hyperscalers are there, not going to be used but what they do is they're going to partition themselves and work with these local people. So that their big thing appears as being independent, smaller data centers. That's the only thing, you know. You build a house and then you put walls between the different, between the different rooms. That's the only thing that happens. So it's not at all, no. At all to Azures or Google cloud. No, it's not that. It just means that there is a structure and organization that has to be put in place in order that the data resides in given geographical locations using their infrastructures, their technologies. That make, does it make sense? >> Yeah. Except that it puts them in the position of having to have a physical presence in each place, which is advantageous in one way and maybe less efficient in another. >> Yeah. But there are some big markets. >> Yeah. And they eventually got to get there. Right. I mean... >> Yeah. >> They started it. One patient in the world where they restarted was in ANZ. And that's what they did. You know, what, 5, 6, 7 years ago. They put their data centers over there because they wanted to gain the Australian market and the New Zealand market. >> So build it and they will come. Daniel, thanks so much for coming to the theCUBE. Very interesting conversation. >> Pleasure. >> Appreciate it. >> Thank you very much. >> All right, we're wrapping up. Day two at VeeamON 2022. Keep it right there. Dave and I will be back right after this break. (vibrant 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. >> 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 the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas, it's the cube covering UI path forward for brought to you by >>Welcome to the cubes coverage of UI path forward for live from Las Vegas. We're here at the Bellagio. Lisa Martin, with Dave a long time, very excited to have in-person events back ish. I'll say we're going to be talking about automation as a boardroom imperative. We have two guests joining us here, James Matras here consulting principal. America's intelligent automation leader at UI and Irv. Dennis retired EA partner, and former CFO of HUD gentlemen. Welcome to the program. Exciting topic automation as a boardroom imperative, James says COO and start with you. How do you discuss the value of automation as being a key component and driver of transformation? >>That's a great question. I think what we've seen in the last couple of years is the evolution of what automation used to be. Two is going nine. And we've seen the shift from what we call generation one, which is very RPA centric type automation to more generation two, which is the combined integration of multiple technologies. It can target an intern process and it's quite important that you understand the pivotal shift because it's not enabling us to move from a task micro top agenda to a macro agenda actually impacts an organization at a strategic level. The ability to be able to look at processes more deeply to automate them in an end to end process collectively and use these different technologies in a synergistic manner truly becomes powerful because it shifts the narrative from a micro process agenda into more systemic area. >>So gen zero is an Emmanuel gen one is RPA point tools that individual maybe getting their personal productivity out. And then now you're saying gen three is across the enterprise. Where are we in terms of, you know, take your experience from your practical experience? Where do you think the world is? It's like probably between zero and one still. Right. But the advanced folks of thinking about gen three, w what's your, >>Yeah, it's a great question. And, um, when you and I, I can do the comparison being private and public sector on this because I was 37 years with E Y then went into retirement and CFL at HUD CFO. Ed was, was a HUD was nowhere. They had to just do all the intelligence digitalization, um, throughout, uh, from scratch. The private sector is probably five or six years ahead of them. But when you think about James talks about the gen one, two and three, the private sector is probably somewhere between two and three. And I know we're talking about the board in this conversation. Um, boards probably have one and two on their radar. Some boards may have three, some may not, but that's where the real strategic focus for boards needs to be is looking forward and, and getting ahead. But I think from a public sector standpoint, lot to go private sector, more to go as well. But, uh, there's a, there's a bit of a gap, but the public sector is probably only about three or four years behind the private sector >>To be okay. Let's look at the numbers, look at, look at the progress for the quarter. And now it's like discussion on cyber discussion on digital discussion on automated issue. It really changed the narrative over the last decade. >>Yeah, I think when you think of boards today, the lots of conversation on cyber that that conversation has been around for a while. A lot of conversation on ESG today, that conversation is getting, getting very popular. But I think when you think of next three, a Jen talks that bear James talks about, um, that's got to start elevating itself if it's not within the boardroom right now, because that will be the future of the company. And the way I think of it from a board's conversation is if a company doesn't think of themselves as a technology company in all aspects, no matter what you do, you are a technology company or you need to be. And if you're not thinking along that way, you're gonna, you're gonna lose market share and you're going to start falling behind your competitors. >>Well, and how much acceleration did the pandemic bring to just that organizations that weren't digital forward last year are probably gone? >>I think it certainly has shifted quite a lot. There's been a drive, the relevance of technology and hard plays for us in the modern workforce in the modern workplace has fundamentally changed the pandemic. We reimagine how we do things. Technology has progressed in itself significantly, and that made a big difference for, for all the environments as a result of that. So certainly is one of the byproducts of the pandemic has been certainly a good thing for everybody. >>Where does automation fit in the board? Virginia? You've got compensation committee. You've probably, I mean, there's somebody in charge of cyber. You got ESG now there's automation part of a broader digital agenda. Where's what's the right word. >>You know, I, I would personally put it in a enterprise risk management from a standpoint that if you're not focused on it, it's going to be a risk to the enterprise. And, um, when you think of automation and intelligent automation and RPA, uh, I think boards have a pretty good sense of how you interface with your customers and your vendors. I think a big push ought to be looking internally at your own infrastructure. You know, what are you, what are you doing in the HR space? What are you doing in a financial statement, close process? What are you doing your procurement process? I suspect there's still a lot of very routine transactions and processing within those, that infrastructure that if you just apply some RPA artificial intelligence, that data extraction techniques, you can probably eliminate a lot of man hours from the routine stuff. And, and the many man hours is probably not the right way to think of it. You could elevate people's work from being pushing numbers around to being data analyzers. And that's where the excitement is for people to see. >>It's not how it's viewed at organizations. We're not eliminating hours. Well focusing folks on much more strategic down at a test. >>Yes. I would say that that's exactly right now in the private sector, you're always going to have the efficiency play and profitability. So there will be an element of that. I know when at HUD we're, we're focused, we were not focused on eliminating hours because we needed people and we focused on creating efficiencies within the space and having people convert from, again, being Trent routine transactions, to being data analyzers and made the jobs, I'm sure. Fund for them as well. I mean, this is a lot of fun stuff. And, and if, uh, uh, companies need to be pushing this down through their entire infrastructure, not just dealing with our customers and the third parties that they deal with >>Catalyst or have been public sector. So you mentioned they may be five or six years behind, but I've seen certain public sector organizations really lean in, they learn from, from the private sector. And then even when you think about some of the military, how advanced they are absolutely. You know, the private could learn from them and if they could open it up. But >>So, yeah, I think that's, that's well said I was in this, you know, the that's the civilian part with, with the housing and urban development. I think the catalyst is, uh, bringing the expertise in, uh, I know when I, when I came, I went to HUD to elevate their financial infrastructure. It was, it was probably the worst of the cabinet agency. The financials were a mess. There was no, there was a, uh, there was not a clean audit opinion for eight years. And I was there to fix that and we fixed it through digitalization and digital transformation, as well as a financial transformation. The catalyst is just creating the education, letting people know what is, what, what technology can do. You don't have to be a programmer, but it's like driving a car. Anybody can drive a car, but we can't mechanic, you know, work as a mechanic on it. >>So I think it's creating education, letting people know what it can do. And at HUD, for example, we did a very simple, I was telling James earlier, we did a very simple RPA project on an, an, a financial statement, close process. It was 2,600 hours, six months. Once we implemented the RPA, brought that down to 70 hours, two weeks, people's eyes exploded with it. And then all of a sudden, I said, I want everyone to go back and come back with, with any manual process, any routine process that can convert to an RPA. And I got a list of a hundred, then it came then became trying to slow everything down. We're not going to do it overnight. Yeah, exactly. >>So, but it was self-funding. It was >>Self-funded. Yes. >>And, and how do you take that message to customers that it could be self-funding how how's that resonating >>Very well. And I think it was important. I always like to say, it's a point of differentiation because you look at, uh, mentioned earlier that organizations are basically technology companies. That's what they are. But now if you look across that we no longer compete at the ERP level without got SAP, Oracle, it's not a point of differentiation. We don't compete the application layer where they've got service. Now, black line, how we use them is helpful. We competed the digital layer and with automation is a major component of that. That's where your differentiation takes place. Now, if you have a point of differentiation, that is self-funding, it fundamentally changes the game. And that's why it's so important for boards to understand this, because that risk management, if you've not doing it, somebody is getting ahead of the game much faster than you are. >>Yeah. Yeah. You mentioned ERP and it, and it triggered something in my mind. Cause I, I said this 10 years ago about data. If in the nineties, you, you couldn't have picked SAP necessarily as the winner of ERP. But if you could have picked the companies that were using ERP could have made a lot of money in the stock market because they outperform their peers. And the same thing was true with data. And I think the same thing is going to be true with automation in the coming decade. >>Couldn't agree more. And I think that's exactly the point that differential acceleration happening this. And it's harder because of the Europeans. Once you knew what it was, you can put the boundaries on it. Digital, the options are infinite. It's just continuous progress as are from there. >>I've got a question for you. You talked about some great stats about how dramatically faster things were took far less time. How does that help from an adoption perspective? I know how much cultural change is very difficult for folks in any organization, but that sort of self-serving how does that help fuel adoption? >>Well, it's interesting. Um, it's, it is a, we're actually going to talk about this tomorrow. It is a framework and it's got to start at the leadership has got to start with governance. It's got to start with a detailed plan. That's executable. And it's got to start with getting buy-in from not only your, the, the organization, but the people you're dealing with outside the organization. Um, it's, it's, uh, I think that's absolutely critical. And when you bring this back to the boardroom, they are the leaders of the companies. And, and I, James, I talked about this as we're getting ready for tomorrow's session. I think the number one thing a board can do today is an own personal self assessment. Do they understand automation? Do they understand what next generation three is? Do they understand what the different components can do? And do they understand how the companies are implementing it? And if I was a board member, uh, on our boards, I say, we need to understand that or else this is nothing's going to happen. We're going to be here at the reliance of the CEO and the CFO strategy, which may or may not include or be thinking about this next three. So leadership at the top is going to drive this. And it's so critical. >>We were talking about catalyst before. And you mentioned education and expertise. I'm always curious as to what drew you to public sector because it's, yeah, I mean, very successful, you know, you're, you're with one of the global SIS directly, you can make a lot more money and that side. So what was it did, was it a desire to it's a great country? Was it >>Take one for the team and I'm going to do a selfish plug here. I just actually wrote a book in this whole thing called transforming a federal agency. What's the name of the book transforming and federal agency. And it's, uh, I spent my time at E Y for 37 years, fully retired. I wanted to give back and do meaningful work. And we lived in Columbus, Ohio, as I was talking about earlier, I was going to go teach and I got a call from the president's personnel office to see if I wanted to come. And these, the CFO at HUD with secretary Carson and change turn the agency around, uh, that took me a little while to say yes, because I wasn't sure I wanted something full time. It was a, it was in DC. So I'd be in a commuting role back and forth. My family's in Columbus. >>Um, but it was, uh, I did it and I loved it. It was, uh, I would pray, I would ask anyone that's has the ability to go into public service at any point in their career to do it. It's it was very rewarding. It was one of my favorite three years of life. And to your point, I didn't have to do it, but, uh, if I wanted to do something and give back and that met the criteria and we were very successful in turning it around with the digital transformation and a lot of stuff that we're talking about today gave me the ability to talk about it because I helped lead it >>For sharing that and did it. So did it start with the CFO's office? Because the first time I ever even heard about our RPO RPA was at a CFO conference and I started talking to him like, oh, this is going to be game changing. Is that where it started? Is that where it lands today? >>From an infrastructure standpoint, the CFO has the wonderful ability to see most processes within a company and its entire lifestyle from beginning to end. So CFO has that visibility to understand where efficiencies can happen in the process. And so the CFO plays a dramatically important role in this. And you think about a CFO's role today versus 20 years ago, it's no longer this, the bean counter rolling up numbers that become a business advisors to the board, to the CEO and to the executive suite. Um, so the CFO, I think has probably the best visibility of all the processes on a global basis. And they can see where the, the efficiencies and the implementation of automation can happen. >>So they can be catalysts and really fueling the actual >>Redesign of work. Yes, they, they, they probably need to be the catalyst. And as a board member, you want to be asking what is the CFO's strategic imperative for the next year? And if it doesn't include this, it's just got to get on the agenda. >>Well, curve ball here is his CFO question and you know, three years or two years ago, you wouldn't have even thought, I mean, let me set it up better. One of the industries that is highly automated is crypto. Yeah. You wouldn't even thought about crypto in your balance sheet a couple of years ago, but I'm not sure it's a widespread board level discussion, but as a CFO, what do you make of the trend to put Bitcoin on balance sheets? >>Yeah, I'm probably not the right person to ask because I'm a conservative guy. >>If somebody supported me and he said, Hey, why don't we put crypto on the balance sheet? >>I would get much more educated. I wouldn't shut it down. I would put it into, let's get more educated. Let's get the experts in here. Let's understand what's really happening with it. Let's understand what the risks are, what the rewards are. And can we absorb any sort of risk or reward with it? And when you say put it on the balance sheet, you can put it on in a small way to test it out. I wouldn't put the whole, I wouldn't make the whole balance sheet for Dell on day one. So that's why I would think about it. Just tell, tell me more, get me educated. How did you think about it? How can it help our business? How can I help our shareholders? How does it grow the bottom line? And then, then you start making decisions. >>Cause CFOs, let me find nature often conservative and most CFOs that I talked to just say no way, not a chance, but you're, maybe you're not as conservative as you think. Well, >>No, but I will never say go away on anything. I mean, cause I want to learn. I want to know. I mean, um, if you like all this stuff, that's new, it's easy to say go away, right? Yeah. But all of a sudden, three years later, the go away, all your competitors are doing it at a competitive advantage. So never say go away, get yourself educated before you jump into it. >>That's good advice. Yeah. In any walk of life question for you, or have you talked about the education aspect there? I'm curious from a risk mitigation perspective, especially given the last 18, 19 months, so tumultuous, so scary for all those organizations that were very digital, they're either gone or they accelerated very quickly. How much of an education do you have to provide certain industries? And are you seeing certain industries? I think healthcare manufacturing, financial services as being leaders in the uptake? >>Well, I think the financial service industries, for sure, they, they, they get this and then they need to, uh, cause they, you know, they're, they're a transaction and based, uh, industry. Uh, so they get it completely. Um, you know, I think maybe some manufacturing distribution, some of the old line businesses are, you know, they may not be thinking of this as progressively as they should. Um, but they'll get there. They're going to have to get there eventually. Um, you know, when you think about the education, my, I thought you were gonna ask a question about the education of the workforce. And I think as a board member, I would be really focused on, uh, how am I educating my workforce of the future? And do I have the workforce of the future today? Do I have to educate them to have to bring in hiring for it? Do I have to bring third-party service providers to get us there? So as a board member really focus on, do I have the right workforce to get us to this next stage? And if not, what do I need to do to get there? Because >>We'll allocate a percentage of their budgets to training and education. And the question is where do they put it >>In? Is it the right training and education, right? >>Where do they focus though? Right now we hear you iPad talking about they're a horizontal play, but James, when you and Lisa, we were asking about industry, when you go to market, are you, are you more focused on verticals? Are you thinking, >>No, it's on two things. So which often find is regardless of the sector with some nuanced variation, the back office functions are regionally the procure to pay process as the same fundamentals, regardless of the sector where the differentiation comes in at a sector of service is when you start going to the middle of the front office, I mean a mining has only one customer. They sold their product to image the retailer has an endless number of them. So when you get to the middle and front office and really start engaging with a customer and external vendors, then a differentiation is very unique and you'd have a lot of sort of customers having sector specific nuances and variations in how you use the platform. And that's where the shift now is happening as well is the back office functions that are largely driven by the CFO. If now getting good, robust value out of it, there's pivot to make it a differentiator in the market, comes in the front and middle office. And that's where we starting to say, sector specific genres solutions, nuances really come to the fall >>Deep industry expertise. Do you think digital at all changes that the reason I ask it because I see Amazon as a retail and then they're in cloud and they're in grocery other in content Apple's in, in financial services and you're seeing these internet giants with a dual agenda, they're disrupting horizontal technology and then there's disruptive industries. And my premise is it's because of data and digital. Do you ever see that industry specialization changing that value chain >>Without a doubt? And I think it's happens initially. It starts off. When people have started looking at the process, they realize there's such key dependencies on the upstream and downstream components of the value chain that they want to control it. So they actually start bridging out of what the core practices or the core business to own a broader agenda. And with digital, you can do it. You can actively interact more systemically that installs triggering, well, maybe I have a different product offering. Maybe I can own this. Could I monetize the information I had at my disposal today in a completely new line. And that really what gets truly innovative and starts creating a revenue increase as opposed as the cost saving. And that's what they're really going after. It's how do I, >>The vertical integration is not new. The plenty of ended up Koch industries, Tyson foods, but now it's digital. So presumably you can do it faster with greater greater scale >>Without a doubt. And you don't have to move your big ERP and things like that. Cause that's the only way it takes five years to move my technology backbone with digital. I can do the interaction tomorrow and we can build up enough to be able to sustain that in the short term. >>Right. And speaking of speed, unfortunately, guys, we are out of time, but thank you. Fantastic conversation automation as a board imperative guys, that's been great James or >>Thank you for your time. Thank you so much >>For Dave a long day. I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching the queue. We are live in Las Vegas at the Bellagio at UI path forward for stick around Dave and I will be right back. Okay.

(upbeat music) >> Announcer: From the CUBE studios in Palo Alto, in Boston, connecting with thought leaders all around the world. This is theCUBE Conversation. >> Hey, welcome back everybody Jeffrey Frick with theCUBE. We are getting through the COVID crisis. It continues and impacting the summer. I can't believe the summer's almost over, but there's a whole lot of things going on in terms of privacy and contact tracing and this kind of this feeling that there's this conflict between kind of personal identification and your personal privacy versus the public good around things like contact tracing. And I was in a session last week with two really fantastic experts. I wanted to bring them on the show and we're really excited to have back for I don't even know how many times Michelle has been on Michelle Dennedy, She is the former chief privacy officer at Cisco and now she's running the CEO of Identity, Michelle great to see you. >> Good to see you always Jeff >> Yeah and for the first time Dr. Ann Cavoukian and she is the executive director Global Privacy & Security By Design Center. Joining us from Toronto, worked with the government and is not short on opinions about privacy. (laughing) Ann good to see you. >> Hi Jeff thank you >> Yes, so let's jump into it cause I think one of the fundamental issues that we keep hearing is this zero-sum game. And I know and it's a big topic for you that there seems to be this trade off this either or and specifically let's just go to contact tracing. Cause that's a hot topic right now with COVID. I hear that it's like you're telling everybody where I'm going and you're sharing that with all these other people. How is this even a conversation and where do I get to choose whether I want to participate or not? >> You can't have people traced and tracked and surveil. You simply can't have it and it can't be an either or win lose model. You have to get rid of that data. Zero-sum game where only one person can win and the other one loses and it sums to a total of zero. Get rid of that, that's so yesterday. You have to have both groups winning positive sum. Meaning yes, you need public health and public safety and you need privacy. It's not one versus the other. We can do both and that's what we insist upon. So the contact term tracing app that was developed in Canada was based on the Apple Google framework, which is actually called exposure notification. It's totally privacy protective individuals choose to voluntarily download this app. And no personal information is collected whatsoever. No names, no geolocation data, nothing. It's simply notifies you. If you've been exposed to someone who is COVID-19 positive, and then you can decide on what action you wish to take. Do you want to go get tested? Do you want to go to your family doctor, whatever the decision lies with you, you have total control and that's what privacy is all about. >> Jeffrey: But what about the person who was sick? Who's feeding the top into that process and is the sick person that you're no notifying they obviously their personal information is part of that transaction. >> what the COVID alerts that we developed based on the Apple Google framework. It builds on manual contact tracing, which also take place the two to compliment each other. So the manual contact tracing is when individuals go get to get tested and they're tested as positive. So healthcare nurses will speak to that individual and say, please tell us who you've been in contact with recently, family, friends, et cetera. So the two work together and by working together, we will combat this in a much more effective manner. >> Jeffrey: So shifting over to you Michelle, you know, there's PIN and a lot of conversations all the time about personal identifiable information but right. But then medical has this whole nother class of kind of privacy restrictions and level of care. And I find it really interesting that on one hand, you know, we were trying to do the contract tracing on another hand if you know, my wife works in a public school. If they find out that one of the kids in this class has been exposed to COVID somehow they can't necessarily tell the teacher because of HIPAA restriction. So I wonder if you could share your thoughts on this kind of crossover between privacy and health information when it gets into this kind of public crisis and this inherent conflict for the public right to know and should the teacher be able to be told and it's not a really clean line with a simple answer, I don't think. >> No and Jeff, and you're also layering, you know, when you're talking about student data, you layering another layer of legal restriction. And I think what you're putting your thumb on is something that's really critical. When you talk about privacy engineering, privacy by design and ethics engineering. You can't simply start with the legal premise. So is it lawful to share HIPAA covered data. A child telling mommy I don't feel well not HIPAA covered. A child seeing a doctor for medical services and finding some sort of infection or illness covered, right? So figuring out the origin of the exact same zero one. Am I ill or not, all depends on context. So you have to first figure out, first of all let's tackle the moral issues. Have we decided that it is a moral imperative to expose certain types of data. And I separate that from ethics intentionally and with apologies to true ethicists. The moral imperative is sort of the things we find are so wrong. We don't want a list of kids who are sick or conversely once the tipping point goes the list of kids who are well. So then they are called out that's the moral choice. The ethical choice is just because you can should you, and that's a much longer conversation. Then you get to the legal imperative. Are you allowed to based on the past mistakes that we made. That's what every piece of litigation or legislation is particularly in a common law construct in the US. It's very important to understand that civil law countries like the European theater. They try to prospectively legislate for things that might go wrong. The construct is thinner in a common law economy where you do, you use test cases in the courts of law. That's why we are such a litigious society has its own baggage. But you have to now look at is that legal structure attempting to cover past harms that are so bad that we've decided as a society to punish them, is this a preventative law? And then you finally get to what I say is stage four for every evaluation is isn't viable, are the protections that you have to put on top of these restrictions. So dire that they either cannot be maintained because of culture process or cash or it just doesn't make sense anymore. So does it, is it better to just feel someone's forehead for illness rather than giving a blood assay, having it sent away for three weeks and then maybe blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. >> Right. >> You have to look at this as a system problem solving issue. >> So I want to look at it in the context of, again kind of this increased level of politicization and or, you know, kind of exposure outside of what's pretty closed. And I want to bring up AIDS and the porn industry very frankly right? Where people behaving in the behavior of the business risk a life threatening disease of which I still don't think it as a virus. So you know why, cause suddenly, you know, we can track for that and that's okay to track for that. And there's a legitimate reason to versus all of the other potential medical conditions that I may or may not have that are not necessarily brought to bear within coming to work. And we might be seeing this very soon. As you said, if people are wanting our temperatures, as we come in the door to check for symptoms. How does that play with privacy and healthcare? It's still fascinates me that certain things is kind of pop out into their own little bucket of regulation. I'm wondering if you could share your thoughts on that Ann. >> You know, whenever you make it privacy versus fill in the blank, especially in the context of healthcare. You end up turning it to a lose lose as opposed to even a win lose. Because you will have fewer people wanting to allow themselves to be tested, to be brought forward for fear of where that information may land. If it lands in the hands of your employer for example or your whoever owns your house if you're in renting, et cetera. It creates enormous problems. So regardless of what you may think of the benefits of that model. History has shown that it doesn't work well that people end up shying away from being tested or seeking treatment or any of those things. Even now with the contact tracing apps that have been developed. If you look globally the contact tracing apps for COVID-19. They have failed the ones that identify individuals in the UK, in Australia, in Western Canada that's how it started out. And they've completely dropped them because they don't work. People shy away from them. They don't use them. So they've gotten rid of that. They've replaced it with the, an app based on the Apple Google framework, which is the one that protects privacy and will encourage people to come forward and seek to be tested. If there's a problem in Germany. Germany is one of the largest privacy data protection countries in the world. Their privacy people are highly trusted in Germany. Germany based their app on the Apple Google framework. About a month ago they released it. And within 24 hours they had 6.5 million people download the app. >> Right. >> Because there is such trust there unlike the rest of the world where there's very little trust and we have to be very careful of the trust deficit. Because we want to encourage people to seek out these apps so they can attempt to be tested if there's a problem, but they're not going to use them. They're just going to shy away from them. If there is such a problem. And in fact I'll never forget. I did an interview about a month ago, three weeks ago in the US on a major major radio station that has like 54 million people followers. And I was telling them about the COVID alert the Canadian contact tracing app, actually it's called exposure notification app, which was built on the Apple Google framework. And people in hoard said they wouldn't trust anyone with it in the US. They just wouldn't trust it. So you see there's such a trust deficit. That's what we have to be careful to avoid. >> So I want to hold on the trust for just a second, but I want to go back to you Michelle and talk about the lessons that we can learn post 9/11. So the other thing right and keep going back to this over and over. It's not a zero-sum game. It's not a zero-sum game and yet that's the way it's often positioned as a way to break down existing barriers. So if you go back to 9/11 probably the highest profile thing being the Patriot Act, you know, where laws are put in place to protect us from terrorism that are going to do things that were not normally allowed to be done. I bet without checking real exhaustively that most of those things are still in place. You know, cause a lot of times laws are written. They don't go away for a long time. What can we learn from what happened after 9/11 and the Patriot Act and what should be really scared of, or careful of or wary of using that as a framework for what's happening now around COVID and privacy. >> It's a perfect, it's not even an analogy because we're feeling the shadows of the Patriot Act. Even now today, we had an agreement from the United States with the European community until recently called the Privacy Shield. And it was basically if companies and organizations that were, that fell under the Federal Trade Commissions jurisdiction, there's a bit of layering legal process here. But if they did and they agreed to supply enough protection to data about people who were present in the European Union to the same or better level than the Europeans would. Then that information could pass through this Privacy Shield unencumbered to and from the United States. That was challenged and taken down. I don't know if it's a month ago or if it's still March it's COVID time, but very recently on basis that the US government can overly and some would say indifferent nations, improperly look at European data based on some of these Patriot Act, FISA courts and other intrusive mechanisms that absolutely do apply if we were under the jurisdiction of the United States. So now companies and private actors are in the position of having to somehow prove that they will mechanize their systems and their processes to be immune from their own government intrusion before they can do digital trade with other parts of the world. We haven't yet seen the commercial disruption that will take place. So the unintended consequence of saying rather than owning the answers or the observations and the intelligence that we got out of the actual 9/11 report, which said we had the information we needed. We did not share enough between the agencies and we didn't have the decision making activity and will to take action in that particular instance. Rather than sticking to that knowledge. Instead we stuck to the Patriot Act, which was all but I believe to Congress people. When I mean, you see the hot mess. That is the US right now. When everyone but two people in the room vote for something on the quick. There's probably some sort of a psychological gun to your head. That's probably well thought out thing. We fight each other. That's part of being an American dammit. So I think having these laws that say, you've got to have this one solution because the boogeyman is coming or COVID is coming or terrorists or child pornographers are coming. There's not one solution. So you really have to break this down into an engineering problem and I don't mean technology when I say engineering. I mean looking at the culture, how much trust do you have? Who is the trusted entity? Do we trust Microsoft more than we trust the US government right now? Maybe that might be your contact. How you're going to build people, process and technology not to avoid a bad thing, but to achieve a positive objective because if you're not achieving that positive objective of understanding that safe to move about without masks on, for example, stop, just stop. >> Right, right. My favorite analogy Jeff, and I think I've said this to you in the past is we don't sit around and debate the merits of viscosity of water to protect concrete holes. We have to make sure that when you lead them to the concrete hole, there's enough water in the hole. No, you're building a swimming pool. What kind of a swimming pool do you want? Is it commercial, Is it toddlers? Is it (indistinct), then you build in correlation, protection and da da da da. But if you start looking at every problem as how to avoid hitting a concrete hole. You're really going to miss the opportunity to build and solve the problem that you want and avoid the risk that you do not want. >> Right right, and I want to go back to you on the trust thing. You got an interesting competent in that other show, talking about working for the government and not working directly for the people are voted in power, but for the kind of the larger bureaucracy and agency. I mean, the Edelman Trust Barometer is really interesting. They come out every year. I think it's their 20th year. And they break down kind of like media, government and business. And who do you trust and who do you not trust? What what's so fascinating about the time we're in today is even within the government, the direction that's coming out is completely diametrically opposed oftentimes between the Fed, the state and the local. So what does kind of this breakdown of trust when you're getting two different opinions from the same basic kind of authority due to people's ability or desire to want to participate and actually share the stuff that maybe or maybe not might get reshared. >> It leaves you with no confidence. Basically, you can't take confidence in any of this. And when I was privacy commissioner. I served for three terms, each term that was a different government, different political power in place. And before they had become the government, they were all for privacy and data protection believed in and all that. And then once they became the government all that changed and all of a sudden they wanted to control everyone's information and they wanted to be in power. No, I don't trust government. You know, people often point to the private sector as being the group you should distrust in terms of privacy. I say no, not at all. To me far worse is actually the government because everyone thinks they're there to do good job and trust them. You can't trust. You have to always look under the hood. I always say trust but verify. So unfortunately we have to be vigilant in terms of the protections we seek for privacy both with private sector and with the government, especially with the government and different levels of government. We need to ensure that people's privacy remains intact. It's preserved now and well into the future. You can't give up on it because there's some emergency a pandemic, a terrorist incident whatever of course we have to address those issues. But you have to insist upon people's privacy being preserved. Privacy forms the foundation of our freedom. You cannot have free and open societies without a solid foundation of privacy. So I'm just encouraging everyone. Don't take anything at face value, just because the government tells you something. It doesn't mean it's so always look under the hood and let us ensure the privacy is strongly protected. See emergencies come and go. The pandemic will end. What cannot end is our privacy and our freedom. >> So this is a little dark in here, but we're going to lighten it up a little bit because there's, as Michelle said, you know, if you think about building a pool versus putting up filling a hole, you know, you can take proactive steps. And there's a lot of conversation about proactive steps and I pulled Ann your thing Privacy by Design, The 7 Foundational Principles. I have the guys pull up a slide. But I think what's really interesting here is, is you're very, very specific prescriptive, proactive, right? Proactive, not reactive. Privacy is the default setting. You know, don't have to read the ULAs and I'm not going to read the, all the words we'll share it. People can find it. But what I wanted to focus on is there is an opportunity to get ahead of the curve, but you just have to be a little bit more thoughtful. >> That's right, and Privacy By Design it's a model of prevention, much like a medical model of prevention where you try to prevent the harms from arising, not just deal with them after the facts through regulatory compliance. Of course we have privacy laws and that's very important, but they usually kick in after there's been a data breach or privacy infraction. So when I was privacy commissioner obviously those laws were intact and we had to follow them, but I wanted something better. I wanted to prevent the privacy harms from arising, just like a medical model of prevention. So that's a Privacy By Design is intended to do is instantiate, embed much needed privacy protective measures into your policies, into your procedures bake it into the code so that it has a constant presence and can prevent the harms from arising. >> Jeffrey: Right right. One of the things I know you love to talk about Michelle is compliance, right? And is compliance enough. I know you like to talk about the law. And I think one of the topics that came up on your guys' prior conversation is, you know, will there be a national law, right? GDPR went through on the European side last year, the California Protection Act. A lot of people think that might become the model for more of a national type of rule. But I tell you, when you watch some of the hearings in DC, you know, I'm sure 90% of these people still print their emails and have their staff hand them to them. I mean, it's really scary that said, you know, regulation always does kind of lag probably when it needs to be put in place because people maybe abuse or go places they shouldn't go. So I wonder if you could share your thoughts on where you think legislation is going to going and how should people kind of see that kind of playing out over the next several years, I guess. >> Yeah, it's such a good question Jeff. And it's like, you know, I think even the guys in Vegas are having trouble with setting the high laws on this. Cameron said in I think it was December of 2019, which was like 15 years ago now that in the first quarter of 2020, we would see a federal law. And I participated in a hearing at the Senate banking committee, again, November, October and in the before times. I'm talking about the same thing and here we are. Will we have a comprehensive, reasonable, privacy law in the United States before the end of this president's term. No, we will not. I can say that with just such faith and fidelity. (laughing) But what does that mean? And I think Katie Porter who I'm starting to just love, she's the Congresswoman who's famous for pulling on her white board and just saying, stop fudging the numbers. Let's talk about the numbers. There's about a, what she calls the 20% legislative flip phone a caucus. So there are 20% or more on both sides of the aisle of people in the US who are in the position of writing our laws. who are still on flip phones and aren't using smart phones and other kinds of technologies. There's a generation gap. And as much as I can kind of chuckle at that a little bit and wink, wink, nudge, nudge, isn't that cute. Because you know, my dad, as you know, is very very technical and he's a senior citizen. This is hard. I hope he doesn't see that but... (laughing) But then it's not old versus young. It's not let's get a whole new group and crop and start over again. What it is instead and this is, you know, as my constant tome sort of anti compliance. I'm not anti compliance. You got to put your underwear on before your pants or it's just really hard. (laughing) And I would love to see anyone who is capable of putting their underwater on afterwards. After you've made the decision of following the process. That is so basic. It comes down to, do you want the data that describes or is donated or observed about human beings. Whether it's performance of your employees. People you would love to entice onto your show to be a guest. People you'd like to listen and consume your content. People you want to meet. People you want to marry. Private data as Ann says, does the form the foundation of our freedom, but it also forms the foundation of our commerce. So that compliance, if you have stacked the deck proactively with an ethics that people can understand and agree with and have a choice about and feel like they have some integrity. Then you will start to see the acceleration factor of privacy being something that belongs on your balance sheet. What kind of data is high quality, high nutrition in the right context. And once you've got that, you're in good shape. >> I'm laughing at privacy on the balance sheet. We just had a big conversation about data on the balance sheets. It's a whole, that's a whole another topic. So we can go for days. I have Pages and pages of notes here. But unfortunately I know we've got some time restrictions. And so, and I want to give you the last word as you look forward. You've been in this for a while. You've been in it from the private side, as well as the government side. And you mentioned lots of other scary things, kind of on the horizon. Like the kick of surveillance creep, which there's all kinds of interesting stuff. You know, what advice do you give to citizens. What advice do you give to leaders in the public sector about framing the privacy conversation >> I always want to start by telling them don't frame privacy as a negative. It's not a negative. It's something that can build so much. If you're a business, you can gain a competitive advantage by strongly protecting your customer's privacy because then it will build such loyalty and you'll gain a competitive advantage. You make it work for you. As a government you want your citizens to have faith in the government. You want to encourage them to understand that as a government you respect their privacy. Privacy is highly contextual. It's only the individual who can make determinations relating to the disclosure of his or her personal information. So make sure you build that trust both as a government and as a business, private sector entity and gain from that. It's not a negative at all, make it work for you, make it work for your citizens, for your customers, make it a plus a win win that will give you the best returns. >> Isn't it nice when doing the right thing actually provides better business outcomes too. It's like diversity of opinion and women on boards. And kind of things- >> I love that. we cover these days. >> Well ladies, thank you very very much for your time. I know you've got a hard stop, so I'm going to cut you loose or else we would go for probably another hour and a half, but thank you so much for your time. Thank you for continuing to beat the drum out there and look forward to our next conversation. Hopefully in the not too distant future. >> My pleasure Jeff. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you too. >> All right She's Michelle. >> She's Ann. I'm Jeff. You're watching theCUBE. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

>> From around the globe, it's theCUBE! With coverage of KubeCon and CloudNativeCon Europe 2020, virtual. Brought to you by Red Hat, the Cloud Native Computing Foundation, and ecosystem partners. >> Hi, I'm Stu Miniman and welcome to theCUBE's coverage of KubeCon CloudNativeCon 2020 in Europe. Of course the event this year was supposed to be in the Netherlands, I know I was very much looking forward to going to Amsterdam. This year of course it's going to be virtual, I'm really excited theCUBE's coverage, we've got some great members of the CNCF, we've got a bunch of end users, we've got some good thought leaders, and I'm also bringing a little bit of the Netherlands to help me bring in and start this keynote analysis, happy to welcome back to the program my cohost for the show, Joep Piscaer, who is an industry analyst with TLA. Thank you, Joep, so much for joining us, and we wish we could be with you in person, and check out your beautiful country. >> Absolutely, thanks for having me Stu, and I'm still a little disappointed we cannot eat the (indistinct foreign term) rijsttafel together this year. >> Oh, yeah, can we just have a segment to explain to people the wonder that is the fusion of Indonesian food and the display that you get only in the Netherlands? Rijsttafel, I seriously had checked all over the US and Canada, when I was younger, to find an equivalent, but one of my favorite culinary delights in the world, but we'll have to put a pin in that. You've had some warm weather in the Netherlands recently, and so many of the Europeans take quite a lot of time off in July and August, but we're going to talk about some hardcore tech, KubeCon, a show we love doing, the European show brings good diversity of experiences and customers from across the globe. So, let's start, the keynote, Priyanka Sharma, the new general manager of the CNCF, of course, just some really smart people that come out and talk about a lot of things. And since it's a foundation show, there's some news in there, but it's more about how they're helping corral all of these projects, of course, a theme we've talked about for a while is KubeCon was the big discussion for many years about Kubernetes, still important, and we'll talk about that, but so many different projects and everything from the sandbox, their incubation, through when they become fully, generally available, so, I guess I'll let you start and step back and say when you look at this broad ecosystem, you work with vendors, you've been from the customer side, what's top of mind for you, what's catching your attention? >> So, I guess from a cloud-native perspective, looking at the CNCF, I think you hit the nail on the head. This is not about any individual technology, isn't about just Kubernetes or just Prometheus, or just service mesh. I think the added value of the CNCF, and the way I look at it at least, looking back at my customer perspective, I would've loved to have a organization curate the technology world around me, for me. To help me out with the decisions on a technology perspective that I needed to make to kind of move forward with my IT stack, and with the requirements my customer had, or my organization had, to kind of move that into the next phase. That is where I see the CNCF come in and do their job really well, to help organizations, both on the vendor side as well as on the customer side, take that next step, see around the corner, what's new, what's coming, and also make sure that between different, maybe even competing standards, the right ones surface up and become the de facto standard for organizations to use. >> Yeah, a lot of good thoughts there, Joep, I want to walk through that stack a little bit, but before we do, big statement that Priyanka made, I thought it was a nice umbrella for her keynote, it's a foundation of doers powering end user driven open-source, so as I mentioned, you worked at a service provider, you've done strategies for some other large organizations, what's your thought on the role of how the end users engage with and contribute to open-source? One of the great findings I saw a couple years ago, as you said, it went from open-source being something that people did on the weekend to the sides, to many end users, and of course lots of vendors, have full-time people that their jobs are to contribute and participate in the open-source communities. >> Yeah, I guess that kind of signals a maturity in the market to me, where organizations are investing in open-source because they know they're going to get something out of it. So back in the day, it was not necessarily certain that if you put a lot of effort into an open-source project, for your own gain, for your own purposes, that that would work out, and that with the backing of the CNCF, as well as so many member organizations and end user organizations, I think participating in open-source becomes easier, because there's more of a guarantee that what you put in will kind of circulate, and come out and have value for you, in a different way. Because if you're working on a service mesh, some other organization might be working on Prometheus, or Kubernetes, or another project, and some organizations are now kind of helping each other with the CNCF as the gatekeeper, to move all of those technology stacks forward, instead of everyone doing it for themselves. Maybe even being forced to reinvent the wheel for some of those technology components. >> So let's walk through the stack a little bit, and the layers that are out there, so let's start with Kubernetes, the discussion has been Kubernetes won the container orchestration battles, but whose Kubernetes am I going to use? For a while it was would it be distributions, we've seen every platform basically has at least one Kubernetes option built into it, so doesn't mean you're necessarily using this, before AWS had their own flavor of Kubernetes, there was at least 15 different ways that you could run Kubernetes on top of it, but now they have ECS, they have EKS, even things like Fargate now work with EKS, so interesting innovation and adoption there. But VMware baked Kubernetes into vSphere 7. Red Hat of course, with OpenShift, has thousands of customers and has great momentum, we saw SUSE buy Rancher to help them move along and make sure that they get embedded there. One of the startups you've worked with, Spectro Cloud, helps play into the mix there, so there is no shortage of options, and then from a management standpoint, companies like Microsoft, Google, VMware, Red Hat, all, how do I manage across clusters, because it's not going to just be one Kubernetes that you're going to use, we're expecting that you're going to have multiple options out there, so it sure doesn't sound boring to me yet, or reached full maturity, Joep. What's your take, what advice do you give to people out there when they say "Hey, okay, I'm going to use Kubernetes," I've got hybrid cloud, or I probably have a couple things, how should they be approaching that and thinking about how they engage with Kubernetes? >> So that's a difficult one, because it can go so many different ways, just because, like you said, the market is maturing. Which means, we're kind of back at where we left off virtualization a couple years ago, where we had managers of managers, managing across different data centers, doing the multicloud thing before it was a cloud thing. We have automation doing day two operations, I saw one of the announcements for this week will be a vendor coming out with day two operations automation, to kind of help simplify that stack of Kubernetes in production. And so the best advice I think I have is, don't try to do it all yourself, right, so Kubernetes is still maturing, it is still fairly open, in a sense that you can change everything, which makes it fairly complex to use and configure. So don't try and do that part yourself, necessarily, either use a managed service, which there are a bunch of, Spectro Cloud, for example, as well as Platform9, even the bigger players are now having those platforms. Because in the end, Kubernetes is kind of the foundation of what you're going to do on top of it. Kubernetes itself doesn't have business value in that sense, so spending a lot of time, especially at the beginning of a project, figuring that part out, I don't think makes sense, especially if the risk and the impact of making mistakes is fairly large. Like, make a mistake in a monitoring product, and you'll be able to fix that problem more easily. But make a mistake in a Kubernetes platform, and that's much more difficult, especially because I see organizations build one cluster to rule them all, instead of leveraging what the cloud offers, which is just spin up another cluster. Even spin it up somewhere else, because we can now do the multicloud thing, we can now manage applications across Kubernetes clusters, we can manage many different clusters from a single pane of glass, so there's really no reason anymore to see that Kubernetes thing as something really difficult that you have to do yourself, hence just do it once. Instead, my recommendation would be to look at your processes and figure out, how can I figure out how to have a Kubernetes cluster for everything I do, maybe that's per team, maybe that's per application or per environment, per cloud, and they kind of work from that, because, again, Kubernetes is not the holy grail, it's not the end state, it is a means to an end, to get where we're going with applications, with developing new functionality for customers. >> Well, I think you hit on a really important point, if you look out in the social discussion, sometimes Kubernetes and multicloud get attacked, because when I talk to customers, they shouldn't have a Kubernetes strategy. They have their business strategy, and there are certain things that they're trying to, "How do I make sure everything's secure," and I'm looking at DevSecOps, I need to really have an edge computing strategy because that's going to help my business objectives, and when I look at some of the tools that are going to help and get me there, well, Kubernetes, the service meshes, some of the other tools in the CNCF are going to help me get there, and as you said, I've got managed services, cloud providers, integrators are going to help me build those solutions without me having to spend years to understand how to do that. So yeah, I'd love to hear any interesting projects you're hearing about, edge computing, the security space has gone from super important to even more important if that's possible in 2020. What are you hearing? >> Yeah, so the most interesting part for me is definitely the DevSecOps movement, where we're basically not even allowed to call it DevOps anymore. Security has finally gained a foothold, they're finally able to shift lift the security practices into the realm of developers, simplifying it in a way, and automating it in a way that, it's no longer a trivial task to integrate security. And there's a lot of companies supporting that, even from a Kubernetes perspective, integrating with Kubernetes or integrating with networking products on top of Kubernetes. And I think we finally have reached a moment in time where security is no longer something that we really need to think about. Again, because CNCF is kind of helping us select the right projects, helping us in the right direction, so that making choices in the security realm becomes easier, and becomes a no-brainer for teams, special security teams, as well as the application development teams, to integrate security. >> Well, Joep, I'm glad to hear we've solved security, we can all go home now. That's awesome. But no, in all seriousness, such an important piece, lots of companies spending time on there, and it does feel that we are starting to get the process and organization around, so that we can attack these challenges a little bit more head-on. How 'about service mesh, it's one of those things that's been a little bit contentious the last couple of years, of course ahead of the show, Google is not donating Istio to the foundation, instead, the trademark's open. I'm going to have an interview with Liz Rice to dig into that piece, in the chess moves, Microsoft is now putting out a service mesh, so as Corey Quinn says, the plural of service mesh must be service meeshes, so, it feels like Mr. Meeseeks, for any Rick and Morty fans, we just keep pressing the button and more of them appear, which may cause us more trouble, but, what's your take, do you have a service mesh coming out, Kelsey Hightower had a fun little thing on Twitter about it, what's the state of the state? >> Yeah, so I won't be publishing a service mesh, maybe I'll try and rickroll someone, but we'll see what happens. But service meshes are, they're still a hot topic, it's still one of the spaces where most discussion is kind of geared towards. There is yet to form a single standard, there is yet a single block of companies creating a front to solve that service mesh issue, and I think that's because in the end, service meshes are, from a complexity perspective, they're not mature enough to be able to commoditize into a standard. I think we still need a little while, and maybe ask me this question next year again, and we'll see what happens. But we'll still need a little while to kind of let this market shift and let this market innovate, because I don't think we've reached the end state with service meshes. Also kind of gauging from customer interest and actual production implementations, I don't think this has trickled down from the largest companies that have the most requirements into the smaller companies, the smaller markets, which is something that we do usually see, now Kubernetes is definitely doing that. So in terms of service meshes, I don't think the innovation has reached that endpoint yet, and I think we'll still need a little while, which will mean for the upcoming period, that we'll kind of see this head to head from different companies, trying to gain a foothold, trying to lead a market, introduce their own products. And I think that's okay, and I think the CNCF will continue to kind of curate that experience, up to a point where maybe somewhere in the future we will have a noncompeting standard to finally have something that's commoditized and easy to implement. >> Yeah, it's an interesting piece, one of the things I've always enjoyed when I go to the show is just wander, and the things you bump into are like "Oh my gosh, wow, look at all of these cool little projects." I don't think we are going to stop that Cambrian explosion of innovation and ideas. When you go walk around there's usually over 200 vendors there, and a lot of them are opensource projects. I would say many of them, when you have a discussion with them, I'm not sure that there's necessarily a business behind that project, and that's where you also see maturity in spaces. A year or so ago, in the observability space, open tracing helped pull together a couple of pieces. Storage is starting to mature. Doesn't mean we're going to get down to one standard, there's still a couple of storage engines out there, I have some really good discussions this week to go into that, but it goes from, "Boy, storage is a mess," to "Oh, okay, we have a couple of uses," and just like storage in the data center, there's not a box or a protocol to do anything, it's what's your use case, what performance, what clouds, what environments are you living on, and therefore you can do that. So it's good to see lots of new things added, but then they mature out and they consolidate, and as you said, the CNCF is help giving those roadmaps, those maps, the landscapes, which boy, if you go online, they have some really good tools. Go to CNCF, the website, and you can look through, Cheryl Hung put one, I'm trying to remember which, it's basically a bullseye of the ones that, here's the one that's fully baked, and here's the ones that are making its way through, and the customer feedback, and they're going to do more of those to help give guidance, because no one solution is going to fit everybody's needs, and you have these spectrums of offerings. Wild card for you, are there any interesting projects out there, new things that you're hearing about, what areas should people be poking around that might not be the top level big things? >> So, I guess for me, that's really personal because I'm still kind of an infrastructure geek in that sense. So one of the things that really surprised me was a more traditional vendor, Zerto in this case, with a fantastic solution, finally, they're doing data protection for Kubernetes. And my recommendation would be to look at companies like Zerto in the data protection space, finally making that move into containers, because even though we've completed the discussion, stateful versus stateless, there's still a lot to be said for thinking about data protection, if you're going to go all-in into containers and into Kubernetes, so that was one that really provoked my thoughts, I really was interested in seeing, "Okay, what's Zerto doing in this list of CNCF members?" And for that matter, I think other vendors like VMware, like Red Hat, like other companies that are moving into this space, with a regained trust in their solutions, is something that I think is really interesting, and absolutely worth exploring during the event, to see what those more traditional companies, to use the term, are doing to innovate with their solutions, and kind of helping the CNCF and the cloud data world, become more enterprise-ready, and that's kind of the point I'm trying to make, where for the longest time, we've had this cloud-native versus traditional, but I always thought of it like cloud-native versus enterprise-ready, or proven technology. This is kind of for the developers doing a new thing, this is for the IT operations teams, and we're kind of seeing those two groups, at least from a technology perspective, being fused into one new blood group, making their way forward and innovating with those technologies. So, I think it's interesting to look at the existing vendors and the CNCF members to see where they're innovating. >> Well, Joep, you connected a dotted line between the cloud-native insights program that I've been doing, you were actually my first guest on that. We've got a couple of months worth of episodes out there, and it is closing that gap between what the developers are doing and what the enterprise was, so absolutely, there's architectural pieces, Joep, like you, I'm an infrastructure geek, so I come from those pieces, and there was that gap between, I'm going to use VMs, and now I'm using containers, and I'm looking at things like serverless too, how do we built applications, and is it that bottom-up versus top-down, and what a company's needs, they need to be able to react fast, they need to be able to change along the way, they need to be able to take advantage of the innovation that ecosystems like this have, so, I love the emphasis CNCF has, making sure that the end users are going to have a strong voice, because as you said, the big companies have come in, not just VMware and Red Hat, but, IBM and Dell are behind those two companies, and HPE, Cisco, many others out there that the behemoths out there, not to mention of course the big hyperscale clouds that helped start this, we wouldn't have a lot of this without Google kicking off with Kubernetes, AWS front and center, and an active participant here, and if you talk to the customers, they're all leveraging it, and of course Microsoft, so it is a robust, big ecosystem, Joep, thank you so much for helping us dig into it, definitely hope we can have events back in the Netherlands in the near future, and great to see you as always. >> Thanks for having me. >> All right, stay tuned, we have, as I said, full spectrum of interviews from theCUBE, they'll be broadcasting during the three days, and of course go to theCUBE.net to catch all of what we've done this year at the show, as well as all the back history. Feel free to reach out to me, I'm @Stu on Twitter, and thank you, as always, for watching theCUBE. (calm music)

(upbeat electronic music) >> Narrator: From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto and Boston, connecting with thought leaders all around the world, this is a CUBE conversation. >> Okay, hello everyone. I'm John Furrier with theCUBE. We're here with Meet the Analysts segment Sunday morning. We've got everyone around the world here to discuss a bit of the news around the EU killing the privacy deal, striking it down, among other topics around, you know, data privacy and global commerce. We got great guests here, Ray Wang, CEO of Constellation Research. Bill Mew, founder and CEO of Cyber Crisis Management from the Firm Crisis Team. And JD, CEO of Spearhead Management. JD, I can let you say your name because I really can't pronounce it. How do I (laughs) pronounce it, doctor? >> I wouldn't even try it unless you are Dutch, otherwise it will seriously hurt your throat. (Ray laughing) So, JD works perfect for me. >> Doctor Drooghaag. >> And Sarbjeet Johal, who's obviously an influencer, a cloud awesome native expert. Great, guys. Great to have you on, appreciate it, thanks for comin' on. And Bill, thank you for initiating this, I appreciate all your tweets. >> Happy Sunday. (Bill laughing) >> You guys have been really tweeting up a storm, I want to get everyone together, kind of as an analyst, Meet the Analyst segment. Let's go through with it. The news is the EU and U.S. Privacy Shield for data struck down by the court, that's the BBC headline. Variety of news, different perspectives, you've got an American perspective and you've got an international perspective. Bill, we'll start with you. What does this news mean? I mean, basically half the people in the world probably don't know what the Privacy Shield means, so why is this ruling so important, and why should it be discussed? >> Well, thanks to sharing between Europe and America, it's based on a two-way promise that when data goes from Europe to America, the Americans promise to respect our privacy, and when data goes form America to Europe, the Europeans promise to respect the American privacy. Unfortunately, there are big cultural differences between the two blocks. The Europeans have a massive orientation around privacy as a human right. And in the U.S., there's somewhat more of a prioritization on national security, and therefore for some time there's been a mismatch here, and it could be argued that the Americans haven't been living up to their promise because they've had various different laws, and look how much talk about FISA and the Cloud Act that actually contravene European privacy and are incompatible with the promise Americans have given. That promise, first of all, was in the form of a treaty called Safe Harbor. This went to court and was struck down. It was replaced by Privacy Shield, which was pretty much the same thing really, and that has recently been to the court as well, and that has been struck down. There now is no other means of legally sharing data between Europe and America other than what are being called standard contractual clauses. This isn't a broad treaty between two nations, these are drawn by each individual country. But also in the ruling, they said that standard contractual clauses could not be used by any companies that were subject to mass surveillance. And actually in the U.S., the FISA courts enforce a level of mass surveillance through all of the major IT firms, of all major U.S. telcos, cloud firms, or indeed, social media firms. So, this means that for all of the companies out there and their clients, business should be carrying on as usual apart from if you're one of those major U.S. IT firms, or one of their clients. >> So, why did this come about? Was there like a major incident? Why now, was it in the court, stuck in the courts? Were people bitchin' and moanin' about it? Why did this go down, what's the real issue? >> For those of us who have been following this attentively, things have been getting more and more precarious for a number of years now. We've had a situation where there are different measures being taken in the U.S., that have continued to erode the different protections that there were for Europeans. FISA is an example that I've given, and that is the sort of secret courts and secret warrants that are issued to seize data without anyone's knowledge. There's the Cloud Act, which is a sort of extrajudicial law that means that warrants can be served in America to U.S. organizations, and they have to hand over data wherever that data resides, anywhere in the world. So, data could exist on a European server, if it was under the control of an American company, they'd have to hand that over. So, whilst FISA is in direct conflict with the promises that the Americans made, things like the Cloud Act are not only in controversion with the promise they've made, there's conflicting law here, because if you're a U.S. subsidiary of a big U.S. firm, and you're based in Europe, who do you obey, the European law that says you can't hand it over because of GDPR, or the American laws that says they've got extrajudicial control, and that you've got to hand it over. So, it's made things a complete mess. And to say has this stuff, hasn't really happened? No, there's been a gradual erosion, and this has been going through the courts for a number of years. And many of us have seen it coming, and now it just hit us. >> So, if I get you right in what you're saying, it's basically all this mishmash of different laws, and there's no coherency, and consistency, is that the core issue? >> On the European side you could argue there's quite a lot of consistency, because we uphold people's privacy, in theory. But there have been incidents which we could talk about with that, but in theory, we hold your rights dear, and also the rights of Europeans, so everyone's data should be safe here from the sort of mass surveillance we're seeing. In the U.S., there's more of a direct conflict between everything, including there's been a, in his first week in the White House, Donald Trump signed an executive order saying that the Privacy Act in the U.S., which had been the main protection for people in the U.S., no longer applied to non-U.S. citizens. Which was, if you wanted try and cause a storm, and if you wanted to try and undermine the treaty, there's no better way of doing it than that. >> A lot of ways, Ray, I mean simplify this for me, because I'm a startup, I'm hustlin', or I'm a big company, I don't even know who runs the servers anymore, and I've got data stored in multiple clouds, I got in regions, and Oracle just announced more regions, you got Amazon, a gazillion regions, I could be on-premise. I mean bottom line, what is this about? I mean, and -- >> Bill's right, I mean when Max Schrems, the Austrian. Bill's right, when Max Schrems the Austrian activist actually filed his case against Facebook for where data was being stored, data residency wasn't as popular. And you know, what it means for companies that are in the cloud is that you have to make sure your data's being stored in the region, and following those specific region rules, you can't skirt those rules anymore. And I think the cloud companies know that this has been coming for some time, and that's why there's been announced in a lot of regions, a lot of areas that are actually happening, so I think that's the important part. But going back to Bill's earlier point, which is important, is America is basically the Canary Islands of privacy, right? Privacy is there, but it isn't there in a very, very explicit sense, and I think we've been skirting the rules for quite some time, because a lot of our economy depends on that data, and the marketing of the data. And so we often confuse privacy with consent, and also with value exchange, and I think that's part of the problem of what's going on here. Companies that have been building their business models on free data, free private data, free personally identifiable data information are the ones that are at risk! And I think that's what's going on here. >> It's the classic Facebook issue, you're the product, and the data is your product. Well, I want to get into what this means, 'cause my personal take away, not knowing the specifics, and just following say, cyber security for instance, one of the tenets there is that data sharing is an invaluable, important ethos in the community. Now, everyone has their own privacy, or security data, they don't want to let everyone know about their exploits but, but it's well known in the security world that sharing data with each other, different companies and countries is actually a good thing. So, the question that comes in my mind, is this really about data sharing or data privacy, or both? >> I think it's about both. And actually what the ruling is saying here is, all we're asking from the European side is please stop spying on us and please give us a level of equal protection that you give to your own citizens. Because data comes from America to Europe, whatever that data belongs to, a U.S. citizen or a European citizen, it's given equal protection. It is only if data goes in the other direction, where you have secret courts, secret warrants, seizure of data on this massive scale, and also a level of lack of equivalence that has been imposed. And we're just asking that once you've sorted out a few of those things, we'd say everything's back on the table, away we go again! >> Why don't we merge the EU with the United States? Wouldn't that solve the problem? (Bill laughing) >> We just left Europe! (laughs heartily) >> Actually I always -- >> A hostile takeover of the UK maybe, the 52nd state. (Bill laughing loudly) >> I always pick on Bill, like Bill, you got all screaming loud and clear about all these concerns, but UKs trying to get out of that economic union. It is a union at the end of the day, and I think the problem is the institutional mismatch between the EU and U.S., U.S. is old democracy, bigger country, population wise, bigger economy. Whereas Europe is several countries trying to put together, band together as one entity, and the institutions are new, like you know, they're 15 years old, right? They're maturing. I think that's where the big mismatch is and -- >> Well, Ray, I want to get your thoughts on this, Ray wrote a book, I forget what year it was, this digital disruption, basically it was digital transformation before it was actually a trend. I mean to me it's like, do you do the process first and then figure out where the value extraction is, and this may be a Silicon Valley or an American thing, but go create value, then figure out how to create process or understand regulations. So, if data and entrepreneurship is going to be a new modern era of value, why wouldn't we want to create a rule based system that's open and enabling, and not restrictive? >> So, that's a great point, right? And the innovation culture means you go do it first, and you figure out the rules later, and that's been a very American way of getting things done, and very Silicon Valley in our perspective, not everyone, but I think in general that's kind of the trend. I think the challenge here is that we are trading privacy for security, privacy for convenience, privacy for personalization, right? And on the security level, it's a very different conversation than what it is on the consumer end, you know, personalization side. On the security side I think most Americans are okay with a little bit of "spying," at least on your own side, you know, to keep the country safe. We're not okay with a China level type of spying, which we're not sure exactly what that means or what's enforceable in the courts. We look like China to the Europeans in the way we treat privacy, and I think that's the perspective we need to understand because Europeans are very explicit about how privacy is being protected. And so this really comes back to a point where we actually have to get to a consent model on privacy, as to knowing what data is being shared, you have the right to say no, and when you have the right to say no. And then if you have a value exchange on that data, then it's really like sometimes it's monetary, sometimes it's non-monetary, sometimes there's other areas around consensus where you can actually put that into place. And I think that's what's missing at this point, saying, you know, "Do we pay for your data? Do we explicitly get your consent first before we use it?" And we haven't had that in place, and I think that's where we're headed towards. And you know sometimes we actually say privacy should be a human right, it is in the UN Charter, but we haven't figured out how to enforce it or talk about it in the digital age. And so I think that's the challenge. >> Okay, people, until they lose it, they don't really understand what it means. I mean, look at Americans. I have to say that we're idiots on this front, (Bill chuckling) but you know, the thing is most people don't even understand how much value's getting sucked out of their digital exhaust. Like, our kids, TikTok and whatnot. So I mean, I get that, I think there's some, there's going to be blow back for America for sure. I just worry it's going to increase the cost of doing business, and take away from the innovation for citizen value, the people, because at the end of the day, it's for the people right? I mean, at the end of the day it's like, what's my privacy mean if I lose value? >> Even before we start talking about the value of the data and the innovation that we can do through data use, you have to understand the European perspective here. For the European there's a level of double standards and an erosion of trust. There's double standards in the fact that in California you have new privacy regulations that are slightly different to GDPR, but they're very much GDPR like. And if the boot was on the other foot, to say if we were spying on Californians and looking at their personal data, and contravening CCPA, the Californians would be up in arms! Likewise if we having promised to have a level of equality, had enacted a local rule in Europe that said that when data from America's over here, actually the privacy of Americans counts for nothing, we're only going to prioritize the privacy of Europeans. Again, the Americans would be up in arms! And therefore you can see that there are real double standards here that are a massive issue, and until those addressed, we're not going to trust the Americans. And likewise, the very fact that on a number of occasions Americans have signed up to treaties and promised to protect our data as they did with Safe Harbor, as they did with Privacy Shield, and then have blatantly, blatantly failed to do so means that actually to get back to even a level playing field, where we were, you have a great deal of trust to overcome! And the thing from the perspective of the big IT firms, they've seen this coming for a long time, as Ray was saying, and they sought to try and have a presence in Europe and other things. But the way this ruling has gone is that, I'm sorry, that isn't going to be sufficient! These big IT firms based in the U.S. that have been happy to hand over data, well some of them maybe more happy than others, but they all need to hand over data to the NSA or the CIA. They've been doing this for some time now without actually respecting this data privacy agreement that has existed between the two trading blocks. And now they've been called out, and the position now is that the U.S. is no longer trusted, and neither are any of these large American technology firms. And until the snooping stops and equality is introduced, they can now no longer, even from their European operations, they can no longer use standard contractual clauses to transfer data, which is going to be a massive restriction on their business. And if they had any sense, they'd be lobbying very, very hard right now to the Senate, to the House, to try and persuade U.S. lawmakers actually to stick to some these treaties! To stop introducing really mad laws that ride roughshod over other people's privacy, and have a certain amount of respect. >> Let's let JD weigh in, 'cause he just got in, sorry on the video, I made him back on a host 'cause he dropped off. Just, Bill, real quick, I mean I think it's like when, you know, I go to Europe there's the line for Americans, there's the line for EU. Or EU and everybody else. I mean we might be there, but ultimately this has to be solved. So, JD, I want to let you weigh in, Germany has been at the beginning forefront of privacy, and they've been hardcore, and how's this all playing out in your perspective? >> Well, the first thing that we have to understand is that in Germany, there is a very strong law for regulation. Germans panic as soon as they know regulation, so they need to understand what am I allowed to do, and what am I not allowed to do. And they expect the same from the others. For the record I'm not German, but I live in Germany for some 20 years, so I got a bit of a feeling for them. And that sense of need for regulation has spread very fast throughout the European Union, because most of the European member states of the European Union consider this, that it makes sense, and then we found that Britain had already a very good framework for privacy, so GDPR itself is very largely based on what the United Kingdom already had in place with their privacy act. Moving forward, we try to find agreement and consensus with other countries, especially the United States because that's where most of the tech providers are, only to find out, and that is where it started to go really, really bad, 2014, when the mass production by Edward Snowden came out, to find out it's not data from citizens, it's surveillance programs which include companies. I joined a purchasing conference a few weeks ago where the purchase of a large European multinational, where the purchasing director explicitly stated that usage of U.S. based tech providers for sensitive data is prohibited as a result of them finding out that they have been under surveillance. So, it's not just the citizens, there's mass -- >> There you have it, guys! We did trust you! We did have agreements there that you could have abided by, but you chose not to, you chose to abuse our trust! And you're now in a position where you are no longer trusted, and unless you can lobby your own elected representatives to actually recreate a level playing field, we're not going to continue trusting you. >> So, I think really I -- >> Well I mean that, you know, innovation has to come from somewhere, and you know, has to come from America if that's the case, you guys have to get on board, right? Is that what it -- >> Innovation without trust? >> Is that the perspective? >> I don't think it's a country thing, I mean like, it's not you or them, I think everybody -- >> I'm just bustin' Bill's chops there. >> No, but I think everybody, everybody is looking for what the privacy rules are, and that's important. And you can have that innovation with consent, and I think that's really where we're going to get to. And this is why I keep pushing that issue. I mean, privacy should be a fundamental right, and how you get paid for that privacy is interesting, or how you get compensated for that privacy if you know what the explicit value exchange is. What you're talking about here is the surveillance that's going on by companies, which shouldn't be happening, right? That shouldn't be happening at the company level. At the government level I can understand that that is happening, and I think those are treaties that the governments have to agree upon as to how much they're going to impinge on our personal privacy for the trade off for security, and I don't think they've had those discussions either. Or they decided and didn't tell any of their citizens, and I think that's probably more likely the case. >> I mean, I think what's happening here, Bill, you guys were pointing out, and Ray, you articulated there on the other side, and my kind of colorful joke aside, is that we're living a first generation modern sociology problem. I mean, this is a policy challenge that extends across multiple industries, cyber security, citizen's rights, geopolitical. I mean when would look, and even when we were doing CUBE events overseas in Europe, in North American companies we'd call it abroad, we'd just recycle the American program, and we found there's so much localization value. So, Ray, this is the digital disruption, it's the virtualization of physical for digital worlds, and it's a lot of network theory, which is computer science, a lot of sociology. This is a modern challenge, and I don't think it so much has a silver bullet, it's just that we need smart people working on this. That's my take away! >> I think we can describe the ideal endpoint being somewhere we have meaningful protection alongside the maximization of economic and social value through innovation. So, that should be what we would all agree would be the ideal endpoint. But we need both, we need meaningful protection, and we need the maximization of economic and social value through innovation! >> Can I add another axis? Another axis, security as well. >> Well, I could -- >> I put meaningful protection as becoming both security and privacy. >> Well, I'll speak for the American perspective here, and I won't speak, 'cause I'm not the President of the United States, but I will say as someone who's been from Silicon Valley and the east coast as a technical person, not a political person, our lawmakers are idiots when it comes to tech, just generally. (Ray laughing) They're not really -- (Bill laughing loudly) >> They really don't understand. They really don't understand the tech at all! >> So, the problem is -- >> I'm not claiming ours are a great deal better. (laughs) >> Well, this is why I think this is a modern problem. Like, the young people I talk to are like, "Why do we have this rules?" They're all lawyers that got into these positions of Congress on the American side, and so with the American JEDI Contract you guys have been following very closely is, it's been like the old school Oracle, IBM, and then Amazon is leading with an innovative solution, and Microsoft has come in and re-pivoted. And so what you have is a fight for the digital future of citizenship! And I think what's happening is that we're in a massive societal transition, where the people in charge don't know what the hell they're talkin' about, technically. And they don't know who to tap to solve the problems, or even shape or frame the problems. Now, there's pockets of people that are workin' on it, but to me as someone who looks at this saying, it's a pretty simple solution, no one's ever seen this before. So, there's a metaphor you can draw, but it's a completely different problem space because it's, this is all digital, data's involved. >> We've got a lobbyists out there, and we've got some tech firms spending an enormous amount of lobbying. If those lobbyists aren't trying to steer their representatives in the right direction to come up with law that aren't going to massively undermine trade and data sharing between Europe and America, then they're making a big mistake, because we got here through some really dumb lawmaking in the U.S., I mean, there are none of the laws in Europe that are a problem here. 'Cause GDPR isn't a great difference, a great deal different from some of the laws that we have already in California and elsewhere. >> Bill, Bill. >> The laws that are at issue here -- >> Bill, Bill! You have to like, back up a little bit from that rhetoric that EU is perfect and U.S. is not, that's not true actually. >> I'm not saying we're perfect! >> No, no, you say that all the time. >> But I'm saying there's a massive lack of innovation. Yeah, yeah. >> I don't, I've never said it! >> Arm wrestle! >> Yes, yes. >> When I'm being critical of some of the dumb laws in the U.S, (Sarbjeet laughing) I'm not saying Europe is perfect. What we're trying to say is that in this particular instance, I said there was an equal balance here between meaningful protection and the maximization of economic and social value. On the meaningful protection side, America's got it very wrong in terms of the meaningful protection it provides to civil European data. On the maximization of economic and social value, I think Europe's got it wrong. I think there are a lot of things we could do in Europe to actually have far more innovation. >> Yeah. >> It's a cultural issue. The Germans want rules, that's what they crave for. America's the other way, we don't want rules, I mean, pretty much is a rebel society. And that's kind of the ethos of most tech companies. But I think you know, to me the media, there's two things that go on with this tech business. The company's themselves have to be checked by say, government, and I believe in not a lot of regulation, but enough to check the power of bad actors. Media so called "checking power", both of these major roles, they don't really know what they're talking about, and this is back to the education piece. The people who are in the media so called "checking power" and the government checking power assume that the companies are bad. Right, so yeah, because eight out of ten companies like Amazon, actually try to do good things. If you don't know what good is, you don't really, (laughs) you know, you're in the wrong game. So, I think media and government have a huge education opportunity to look at this because they don't even know what they're measuring. >> I support the level of innovation -- >> I think we're unreeling from the globalization. Like, we are undoing the globalization, and that these are the side effects, these conflicts are a side effect of that. >> Yeah, so all I'm saying is I support the focus on innovation in America, and that has driven an enormous amount of wealth and value. What I'm questioning here is do you really need to spy on us, your allies, in order to help that innovation? And I'm starting to, I mean, do you need mass surveillance of your allies? I mean, I can see you may want to have some surveillance of people who are a threat to you, but wait, guys, we're meant to be on your side, and you haven't been treating our privacy with a great deal of respect! >> You know, Saudi Arabia was our ally. You know, 9/11 happened because of them, their people, right? There is no ally here, and there is no enemy, in a way. We don't know where the rogue actors are sitting, like they don't know, they can be within the walls -- >> It's well understood I think, I agree, sorry. it's well understood that nation states are enabling terrorist groups to take out cyber attacks. That's well known, the source enables it. So, I think there's the privacy versus -- >> I'm not sure it's true in your case that it's Europeans that's doing this though. >> No, no, well you know, they share -- >> I'm a former officer in the Royal Navy, I've stood shoulder to shoulder with my U.S. counterparts. I put my life on the line on NATO exercises in real war zones, and I'm now a disabled ex-serviceman as a result of that. I mean, if I put my line on the line shoulder to shoulder with Americans, why is my privacy not respected? >> Hold on -- >> I feel it's, I was going to say actually that it's not that, like even the U.S., right? Part of the spying internally is we have internal actors that are behaving poorly. >> Yeah. >> Right, we have Marxist organizations posing as, you know, whatever it is, I'll leave it at that. But my point being is we've got a lot of that, every country has that, every country has actors and citizens and people in the system that are destined to try to overthrow the system. And I think that's what that surveillance is about. The question is, we don't have treaties, or we didn't have your explicit agreements. And that's why I'm pushing really hard here, like, they're separating privacy versus security, which is the national security, and privacy versus us as citizens in terms of our data being basically taken over for free, being used for free. >> John: I agree with that. >> That I think we have some agreement on. I just think that our governments haven't really had that conversation about what surveillance means. Maybe someone agreed and said, "Okay, that's fine. You guys can go do that, we won't tell anybody." And that's what it feels like. And I don't think we deliberately are saying, "Hey, we wanted to spy on your citizens." I think someone said, "Hey, there's a benefit here too." Otherwise I don't think the EU would have let this happen for that long unless Max had made that case and started this ball rolling, so, and Edward Snowden and other folks. >> Yeah, and I totally support the need for security. >> I want to enter the -- >> I mean we need to, where there are domestic terrorists, we need to stop them, and we need to have local action in UK to stop it happening here, and in America to stop it happening there. But if we're doing that, there is absolutely no need for the Americans to be spying on us. And there's absolutely no need for the Americans to say that privacy applies to U.S. citizens only, and not to Europeans, these are daft, it's just daft! >> That's a fair point. I'm sure GCHQ and everyone else has this covered, I mean I'm sure they do. (laughs) >> Oh, Bill, I know, I've been involved, I've been involved, and I know for a fact the U.S. and the UK are discussing I know a company called IronNet, which is run by General Keith Alexander, funded by C5 Capital. There's a lot of collaboration, because again, they're tryin' to get their arms around how to frame it. And they all agree that sharing data for the security side is super important, right? And I think IronNet has this thing called Iron Dome, which is essentially like they're saying, hey, we'll just consistency around the rules of shared data, and we can both, everyone can have their own little data. So, I think there's recognition at the highest levels of some smart people on both countries. (laughs) "Hey, let's work together!" The issue I have is just policy, and I think there's a lot of clustering going on. Clustered here around just getting out of their own way. That's my take on that. >> Are we a PG show? Wait, are we a PG show? I just got to remember that. (laughs) (Bill laughing) >> It's the internet, there's no regulation, there's no rules! >> There's no regulation! >> The European rules or is it the American rules? (Ray laughing) >> I would like to jump back quickly to the purpose of the surveillance, and especially when mass surveillance is done under the cover of national security and terror prevention. I worked with five clients in the past decade who all have been targeted under mass surveillance, which was revealed by Edward Snowden, and when they did their own investigation, and partially was confirmed by Edward Snowden in person, they found out that their purchasing department, their engineering department, big parts of their pricing data was targeted in mass surveillance. There's no way that anyone can explain me that that has anything to do with preventing terror attacks, or finding the bad guys. That is economical espionage, you cannot call it in any other way. And that was authorized by the same legislation that authorizes the surveillance for the right purposes. I'm all for fighting terror, and anything that can help us prevent terror from happening, I would be the first person to welcome it. But I do not welcome when that regulation is abused for a lot of other things under the cover of national interest. I understand -- >> Back to the lawmakers again. And again, America's been victim to the Chinese some of the individual properties, well documented, well known in tech circles. >> Yeah, but just 'cause the Chinese have targeted you doesn't give you free right to target us. >> I'm not saying that, but its abuse of power -- >> If the U.S. can sort out a little bit of reform, in the Senate and the House, I think that would go a long way to solving the issues that Europeans have right now, and a long way to sort of reaching a far better place from which we can all innovate and cooperate. >> Here's the challenge that I see. If you want to be instrumenting everything, you need a closed society, because if you have a free country like America and the UK, a democracy, you're open. If you're open, you can't stop everything, right? So, there has to be a trust, to your point, Bill. As to me that I'm just, I just can't get my arms around that idea of complete lockdown and data surveillance because I don't think it's gettable in the United States, like it's a free world, it's like, open. It should be open. But here we've got the grids, and we've got the critical infrastructure that should be protected. So, that's one hand. I just can't get around that, 'cause once you start getting to locking down stuff and measuring everything, that's just a series of walled gardens. >> So, to JD's point on the procurement data and pricing data, I have been involved in some of those kind of operations, and I think it's financial espionage that they're looking at, financial security, trying to figure out a way to track down capital flows and what was purchased. I hope that was it in your client's case, but I think it's trying to figure out where the money flow is going, more so than trying to understand the pricing data from competitive purposes. If it is the latter, where they're stealing the competitive information on pricing, and data's getting back to a competitor, that is definitely a no-no! But if it's really to figure out where the money trail went, which is what I think most of those financial analysts are doing, especially in the CIA, or in the FBI, that's really what that probably would have been. >> Yeah, I don't think that the CIA is selling the data to your competitors, as a company, to Microsoft or to Google, they're not selling it to each other, right? They're not giving it to each other, right? So, I think the one big problem I studied with FISA is that they get the data, but how long they can keep the data and how long they can mine the data. So, they should use that data as exhaust. Means like, they use it and just throw it away. But they don't, they keep mining that data at a later date, and FISA is only good for five years. Like, I learned that every five years we revisit that, and that's what happened this time, that we renewed it for six years this time, not five, for some reason one extra year. So, I think we revisit all these laws -- >> Could be an election cycle. >> Huh? >> Could be an election cycle maybe. (laughs) >> Yes, exactly! So, we revisit all these laws with Congress and Senate here periodically just to make sure that they are up to date, and that they're not infringing on human rights, or citizen's rights, or stuff like that. >> When you say you update to check they're not conflicting with anything, did you not support that it was conflicting with Privacy Shield and some of the promises you made to Europeans? At what point did that fail to become obvious? >> It does, because there's heightened urgency. Every big incident happens, 9/11 caused a lot of new sort of like regulations and laws coming into the picture. And then the last time, that the Russian interference in our election, that created some sort of heightened urgency. Like, "We need to do something guys here, like if some country can topple our elections, right, that's not acceptable." So, yeah -- >> And what was it that your allies did that caused you to spy on us and to downgrade our privacy? >> I'm not expert on the political systems here. I think our allies are, okay, loose on their, okay, I call it village politics. Like, world is like a village. Like it's so only few countries, it's not millions of countries, right? That's how I see it, a city versus a village, and that's how I see the countries, like village politics. Like there are two camps, like there's Russia and China camp, and then there's U.S. camp on the other side. Like, we used to have Russia and U.S., two forces, big guys, and they managed the whole world balance somehow, right? Like some people with one camp, the other with the other, right? That's how they used to work. Now that Russia has gone, hold on, let me finish, let me finish. >> Yeah. >> Russia's gone, there's this void, right? And China's trying to fill the void. Chinese are not like, acting diplomatic enough to fill that void, and there's, it's all like we're on this imbalance, I believe. And then Russia becomes a rogue actor kind of in a way, that's how I see it, and then they are funding all these bad people. You see that all along, like what happened in the Middle East and all that stuff. >> You said there are different camps. We thought we were in your camp! We didn't expect to be spied on by you, or to have our rights downgraded by you. >> No, I understand but -- >> We thought we were on your side! >> But, but you have to guys to trust us also, like in a village. Let me tell you, I come from a village, that's why I use the villager as a hashtag in my twitter also. Like in village, there are usually one or two families which keep the village intact, that's our roles. >> Right. >> Like, I don't know if you have lived in a village or not -- >> Well, Bill, you're making some great statements. Where's the evidence on the surveillance, where can people find more information on this? Can you share? >> I think there's plenty of evidence, and I can send some stuff on, and I'm a little bit shocked given the awareness of the FISA Act, the Cloud Act, the fact that these things are in existence and they're not exactly unknown. And many people have been complaining about them for years. I mean, we've had Safe Harbor overturned, we've had Privacy Shield overturned, and these weren't just on a whim! >> Yeah, what does JD have in his hand? I want to know. >> The Edward Snowden book! (laughs) >> By Edward Snowden, which gives you plenty. But it wasn't enough, and it's something that we have to keep in mind, because we can always claim that whatever Edward Snowden wrote, that he made it up. Every publication by Edward Snowden is an avalanche of technical confirmation. One of the things that he described about the Cisco switches, which Bill prefers to quote every time, which is a proven case, there were bundles of researchers saying, "I told you guys!" Nobody paid attention to those researchers, and Edward Snowden was smart enough to get the mass media representation in there. But there's one thing, a question I have for Sabjeet, because in the two parties strategy, it is interesting that you always take out the European Union as part. And the European Union is a big player, and it will continue to grow. It has a growing amount of trade agreements with a growing amount of countries, and I still hope, and I think think Bill -- >> Well, I think the number of countries is reducing, you've just lost one! >> Only one. (Bill laughing loudly) Actually though, those are four countries under one kingdom, but that's another point. (Bill chortling heartily) >> Guys, final topic, 5G impact, 'cause you mentioned Cisco, couldn't help think about -- >> Let me finish please my question, John. >> Okay, go ahead. How would you the United States respond if the European Union would now legalize to spy on everybody and every company, and every governmental institution within the United States and say, "No, no, it's our privilege, we need that." How would the United States respond? >> You can try that and see economically what happens to you, that's how the village politics work, you have to listen to the mightier than you, and we are economically mightier, that's the fact. Actually it's hard to swallow fact for, even for anybody else. >> If you guys built a great app, I would use it, and surveil all you want. >> Yeah, but so this is going to be driven by the economics. (John laughing) But the -- >> That's exactly what John said. >> This is going to be driven by the economics here. The big U.S. cloud firms are got to find this ruling enormously difficult for them, and they are inevitably going to lobby for a level of reform. And I think a level of a reform is needed. Nobody on your side is actually arguing very vociferously that the Cloud Act and the discrimination against Europeans is actually a particularly good idea. The problem is that once you've done the reform, are we going to believe you when you say, "Oh, it's all good now, we've stopped it!" Because with Crypto AG scandal in Switzerland you weren't exactly honest about what you were doing. With the FISA courts, so I mean FISA secret courts, the secret warrants, how do we know and what proof can we have that you've stopped doing all these bad things? And I think one of the challenges, A, going to be the reform, and then B, got to be able to show that you actually got your act together and you're now clean. And until you can solve those two, many of your big tech companies are going to be at a competitive disadvantage, and they're going to be screaming for this reform. >> Well, I think that, you know, General Mattis said in his book about Trump and the United states, is that you need alliances, and I think your point about trust and executing together, without alliances, it really doesn't work. So, unless there's some sort of real alliance, (laughs) like understanding that there's going to be some teamwork here, (Bill laughing) I don't think it's going to go anywhere. So, otherwise it'll continue to be siloed and network based, right? So to the village point, if TikTok can become a massively successful app, and they're surveilling, so and then we have to decide that we're going to put up with that, I mean, that's not my decision, but that's what's goin' on here. It's like, what is TikTok, is it good or bad? Amazon sent out an email, and they've retracted it, that's because it went public. I guarantee you that they're talkin' about that at Amazon, like, "Why would we want infiltration by the Chinese?" And I'm speculating, I have no data, I'm just saying, you know. They email those out, then they pull it back, "Oh, we didn't mean to send that." Really, hmm? (laughs) You know, so this kind of -- >> But the TRA Balin's good, you always want to get TRA Balin out there. >> Yeah, exactly. There's some spying going on! So, this is the reality. >> So, John, you were talking about 5G, and I think you know, the role of 5G, you know, the battle between Cisco and Huawei, you just have to look at it this way, would you rather have the U.S. spy on you, or would you rather have China? And that's really your binary choice at this moment. And you know both is happening, and so the question is which one is better. Like, the one that you're in alliance with? The one that you're not in alliance with, the one that wants to bury you, and decimate your country, and steal all your secrets and then commercialize 'em? Or the one kind of does it, but doesn't really do it explicitly? So, you've got to choose. (laughs) >> It's supposed to be -- >> Or you can say no, we're going to create our own standard for 5G and kick both out, that's an option. >> It's probably not as straightforward a question as, or an answer to that question as you say, because if we were to fast-forward 50 years, I would argue that China is going to be the largest trading nation in the world. I believe that China is going to have the upper hand on many of these technologies, and therefore why would we not want to use some of their innovation, some of their technology, why would we not actually be more orientated around trading with them than we might be with the U.S.? I think the U.S. is throwing its weight around at this moment in time, but if we were to fast-forward I think looking in the longterm, if I had to put my money on Huawei or some of its competitors, I think given its level of investments in research and whatever, I think the better longterm bet is Huawei. >> No, no, actually you guys need to pick a camp. It's a village again. You have to pick a camp, you can't be with both guys. >> Global village. >> Oh, right, so we have to go with the guys that have been spying on us? >> How do you know the Chinese haven't been spying on you? (Ray and John laughing loudly) >> I think I'm very happy, you find a backdoor in the Huawei equipment and you show it to us, we'll take them to task on it. But don't start bullying us into making decisions based on what-ifs. >> I don't think I'm, I'm not qualified to represent the U.S., but what we would want to say is that if you look at the dynamics of what's going on, China, we've been studying that as well in terms of the geopolitical aspects of what happens in technology, they have to do what they're doing right now. Because in 20 years our population dynamics go like this, right? You've got the one child policy, and they won't have the ability to go out and fight for those same resources where they are, so what they're doing makes sense from a country perspective and country policy. But I think they're going to look like Japan in 20 years, right? Because the xenophobia, the lack of immigration, the lack of inside stuff coming in, an aging population. I mean, those are all factors that slow down your economy in the long run. And the lack of bringing new people in for ideas, I mean that's part of it, they're a closed system. And so I think the longterm dynamics of every closed system is that they tend to fail versus open systems. So, I'm not sure, they may have better technology along the way. But I think a lot of us are probably in the camp now thinking that we're not going to aid and abet them, in that sense to get there. >> You're competing a country with a company, I didn't say that China had necessarily everything rosy in its future, it'll be a bigger economy, and it'll be a bigger trading partner, but it's got its problems, the one child policy and the repercussions of that. But that is not one of the things, Huawei, I think Huawei's a massively unlimited company that has got a massive lead, certainly in 5G technology, and may continue to maintain a lead into 6G and beyond. >> Oh yeah, yeah, Huawei's done a great job on the 5G side, and I don't disagree with that. And they're ahead in many aspects compared to the U.S., and they're already working on the 6G technologies as well, and the roll outs have been further ahead. So, that's definitely -- >> And they've got a great backer too, the financer, the country China. Okay guys, (Ray laughing) let's wrap up the segment. Thanks for everyone's time. Final thoughts, just each of you on this core issue of the news that we discussed and the impact that was the conversation. What's the core issue? What should people think about? What's your solution? What's your opinion of how this plays out? Just final statements. We'll start with Bill, Ray, Sarbjeet and JD. >> All I'm going to ask you is stop spying on us, treat us equally, treat us like the allies that we are, and then I think we've got to a bright future together! >> John: Ray? >> I would say that Bill's right in that aspect in terms of how security agreements work, I think that we've needed to be more explicit about those. I can't represent the U.S. government, but I think the larger issue is really how do we view privacy, and how we do trade offs between security and convenience, and you know, what's required for personalization, and companies that are built on data. So, the sooner we get to those kind of rules, an understanding of what's possible, what's a consensus between different countries and companies, I think the better off we will all be a society. >> Yeah, I believe the most important kind of independence is the economic independence. Like, economically sound parties dictate the terms, that's what U.S. is doing. And the smaller countries have to live with it or pick the other bigger player, number two in this case is China. John said earlier, I think, also what JD said is the fine balance between national security and the privacy. You can't have, you have to strike that balance, because the rogue actors are sitting in your country, and across the boundaries of the countries, right? So, it's not that FISA is being fought by Europeans only. Our internal people are fighting that too, like how when you are mining our data, like what are you using it for? Like, I get concerned too, when you can use that data against me, that you have some data against me, right? So, I think it's the fine balance between security and privacy, we have to strike that. Awesome. JD? I'll include a little fake check, fact check, at the moment China is the largest economy, the European Union is the second largest economy, followed directly by the USA, it's a very small difference, and I recommend that these two big parties behind the largest economy start to collaborate and start to do that eye to eye, because if you want to balance the economical and manufacturing power of China, you cannot do that as being number two and number three. You have to join up forces, and that starts with sticking with the treaties that you signed, and that has not happened in the past, almost four years. So, let's go back to the table, let's work on rules where from both sides the rights and the privileges are properly reflected, and then do the most important thing, stick to them! >> Yep, I think that's awesome. I think I would say that these young kids in high school and college, they need to come up and solve the problems, this is going to be a new generational shift where the geopolitical landscape will change radically, you mentioned the top three there. And new alliances, new kinds of re-imagination has to be there, and from America's standpoint I'll just say that I'd like to see lawmakers have, instead of a LinkedIn handle, a GitHub handle. You know, when they all go out on campaign talk about what code they've written. So, I think having a technical background or some sort of knowledge of computer science and how the internet works with sociology and societal impact will be critical for our citizenships to advance. So, you know rather a lawyer, right so? (laughs) Maybe get some law involved in that, I mean the critical lawyers, but today most people are lawyers in American politics, but show me a GitHub handle of that congressman, that senator, I'd be impressed. So, that's what we need. >> Thanks, good night! >> Ray, you want to say something? >> I wanted to say something, because I thought the U.S. economy was 21 trillion, the EU is sittin' at about 16, and China was sitting about 14, but okay, I don't know. >> You need to do math man. >> Hey, we went over our 30 minutes time, we can do an hour with you guys, so you're still good. (laughs) >> Can't take anymore. >> No go on, get in there, go at it when you've got something to say. >> I don't think it's immaterial the exact size of the economy, I think that we're better off collaborating on even and fair terms, we are -- >> We're all better off collaborating. >> Yeah. >> Gentlemen -- >> But the collaboration has to be on equal and fair terms, you know. (laughs) >> How do you define fair, good point. Fair and balanced, you know, we've got the new -- >> We did define fair, we struck a treaty! We absolutely defined it, absolutely! >> Yeah. >> And then one side didn't stick to it. >> We will leave it right there, and we'll follow up (Bill laughing) in a later conversation. Gentlemen, you guys are good. Thank you. (relaxing electronic music)

>> Announcer: Live, from Copenhagen, Denmark, it's theCUBE! Covering Nutanix.NEXT 2019. Brought to you by Nutanix. >> Welcome back everyone to theCUBE's live coverage of Nutanix.NEXT. We are at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark. I'm your host, Rebecca Knight, alongside of Stu Miniman, of course. We are joined by a good friend of theCUBE, Ray Wang, principal analyst and CEO of Constellation Research. Thank you so much for returning to theCUBE. >> Hey, how you doing? Good morning! >> Good morning, good morning! >> Good morning! (laughing) >> Good morning! >> I don't know. I get all my accents wrong out here. >> (laughing) So, you got a shout out on the main stage this morning, from Monica Kumar, congratulations on that. She talked about you and your research on the infinite role of computing. You also do a lot with the future of work. I know that that is really right in your wheelhouse right now. What are you hearing, what are you seeing, what kinds of conversations are you having that are interesting you? >> Yeah, so, this infinite computing option, it's one of the that we're talking about, the fact that you can scale out forever, right? And the problem that's holding us back has been technical debt, right? So all that legacy that everyone's got to figure out. It's like, my connections, my server, my disk-rack recovery, my disaster recovery, my backup, everything. It's a pain in the butt. And I'm still trying to get onto the cloud. So on that end, we're like, okay, all this stuff is holding us back, how do we get there? Now, the future of work is a little bit different. We're seeing a very very different set of work. People have talked about where we are the gig economy, but that's just one aspect of it. Everything is being decomposed into microservices. Large processes are becoming smaller and smaller microservices, they're being reusable, well our work and tasks are following the same way. We're getting smaller and smaller tasks, some are more repetitive, some are going to be automated, and it's really about where we actually find the difference between augmentation of humanity, and full automation, and that's where the next battle's going to be. >> Yeah, Ray, some of the discussions we've been having this week, is how do we really simplify the environment? The balance I hear from customers, on the one hand, they're always like, I don't have enough money, I don't have enough personnel, on the other hand, oh my gosh, that full automation sounds like you're going to put me out of a job. We know we're not putting everybody out of work in the next couple of years. There are challenges; we worry about the hollowing out of the center of the economy, but here, what Nutanix is trying to do, of course, is, I don't want to have to thrive in that complexity anymore, I want to be able to drive innovation, keep up with that, take advantage of that unlimited resources out there, so, where do you see, you've been here at the show, what are you hearing from the customers here? Anything different in Europe versus back in North America that you'd share about that journey onto the changing roles? >> Oh it's a great point. It's about simplifying everything where you can, it's about areas of automation where they make sense. Here in Europe it's slightly different because a lot of the focus in Europe has been about cost and efficiency, followed by of course regulatory. Those have been the two drivers. And they've been battling that in order to be, even they will look at some level of innovation. Where in the US, people are head on doing innovation, regulatory and operational efficiency at the same time. So that creates a very very different environment. But what we have noticed are some patterns, especially when we look at automation and AI; there are four areas out of seven where we see a lot more automation that's happening. The first one is massively repetitive tasks, those are things, yeah, got to get that out of the way, we don't do this very very well. The second one is really thinking about massive nodes of interaction. When you're connected to multiple places, multiple organizations, multiple instances, that's something where we start to get overwhelmed, and then of course, there's lots of volume. If you've got lots of volume or requests that are coming through, you can't possibly handle that, and that's a place where we see a lot of machine scale. And the last piece is really when you have to scale, humans don't scale very well. However, it's actually not a hollowing out of the middle; it's actually a hollowing out of the ends in a very, very real end, because really really simple tasks go away, super complex tasks go away, and the middle actually remains, and the middle is things that are complex that cannot be recreated by math, they're also areas that require a lot of creativity, humans make the rules, we break the rules, and then the last part is really fine motor skills and presence, the machines still aren't as good. So we still have some hope. So the middle stays, it's the hollowing out of the ends, the high end jobs and the low end jobs are the ones where we're going to see a lot of risk. >> So what does that mean? So we have, leaving the middle there, and as you said, the high end jobs and the low end jobs go away, but what does that mean in terms of the skills? In terms of what employers are looking for, in terms of what they need in their prospective applicants and hirees. >> That's a great point. Soft skills are important; it's the qualitative skills that become even more important, it's also being able to manage and orchestrate the hard skills; because you don't necessarily have to know how to do the calculation, you have to just know which algorithm to apply. >> Okay, and then also, these soft skills of managing people, I'm assuming too? Because computers are not so good at that either. >> Yes. Soft skills are managing people, but also manage the human and machine equation that's going to happen. Because we have to train the machines, the machines aren't going to know that level of intuition, and there's a large amount of training that's going to happen over time. >> All right. So, Ray, one of the things Nutanix is doing is, as they've been transforming to not only subscription, software's always been at their core, but they're starting to do not just infrastructure software, but application software. I know you live in that world quite a lot, so when you hear Nutanix talking about building databases, delivering these services, it's something that I look at, Amazon does some of that, but for the most part they're infrastructure and build on top of us. How do you think, how is Nutanix doing, what are some of the challenges for them, going up against some of the bellwethers out there in tech, and all the open source projects that are out there. >> So the challenge is always going to be, there is a one dominant player in every market. And what they're providing is an alternative to allow the orchestration of not having that, not only that dominant player, but a choice. So in every single market, they're focused on giving users choice, and giving the ability to aggregate, and bring everything into one single plane. That is tough to do, right? And the fact that they see that as their big hairy audacious goal, that's impressive. If you said they were going to do this three years ago, I wouldn't have believed them. >> Well yeah, I think back to, remember almost 10 years ago, VMware tried to get into applications, they bought Zimbra, they bought a few others. Cisco did like 26 adjacencies, they were going to take over video and do all these things, and we've seen lots of failures over the years. They refocused on their core, was a big thing that I heard, that the users seem to be excited about. Are there areas that you're find especially interesting as to where Nutanix is poking? >> So, I would say that Nutanix three years ago was a little bit sleepy. They got comfortable, they did the stuff that they did really well, and it feels like, maybe about 12 months ago, Dheeraj had a different vision. Like something snapped, something hit, he said this isn't working, we're going to change things, and we've seen a whole bunch of new talent come into play. We've also seen a huge expansion of what they're trying to do, and a cleanup of all those side projects that were all going on before. So I think they've actually honed in on, okay, if we can simplify this piece, this is a money-winning business for some time, and they're talking about 80% margins last quarter, I mean that's huge, and that's just trying to save customers money, and make their lives simpler. >> Do you think that they have the messaging right? Because, I mean, they're going to this Thoreauvian/Emersonian idea of simplify, simplify, simplify, and it does resonate, of course! What customer doesn't want a simpler computing experience? But do you think that they are reaching the right people, and they have obviously very passionate customers, but are they getting into new businesses. >> I think they're getting to the businesses that their customers are asking them to, those adjacencies are huge, I think and when you think about cleaning up technical debt, all that legacy debt that you actually have to fix, I mean, this is where you begin. It's so hard to make that cloud journey to begin with, it's even harder to carry all that legacy with you. And we're going to see a lot more of this going forward. >> All right. So, Ray, talk a little bit about, I loved an event you did last year, the people's centered digital future. Help explain to our audience what this is about, and where you're taking it again this year. >> So that event was a one-time event. We were celebrating the 70th anniversary of the United Nations founding, we were celebrating almost 50 years of the internet, and 50% of the world being connected to the internet. And part of the reason that was an important event was, we really felt that there was a need to get back to the roots of where the internet had begun, and more importantly, talk about where we are today in the world of privacy. One of the biggest challenges we have in the a digital world is that your personal data, your genomics, all this information about you is being brokered for free. And what we have to do is take that back. And by taking that back, what I mean is, we've got to make all these rights, property right. If we can make that a property right, we can leverage the existing rules and legislation that's there, and we can actually start paying people for that data through consent, and giving people that ability, on consent to data, could create lots of things, from universal basic income, to a brand new set of data economy that equalizes the playing field, while keeping the large tech giants. >> There's some of those big journeys that we went on, you talk about the internet, this year's 50th anniversary of the first walking on the moon, and you look at how entire countries rallied together, so much technology was-- >> Yeah, look at India. >> Spun off of what they've done there, it's like we need some rallying cries in today's day and age to solve some of these big day and age. Is that AI? Where are some of the big areas that you see tech needing to drive forward in the next decade? >> I think the big area's going to be around decentralization, giving individuals more empowerment. We've got large, big tech companies, that are, I'd say, imbalanced. We start companies right away, building monopolies on day one, and we don't open up those markets. And the question is, how do we create a level playing field for the individual to be to compete, to bring a new idea, and to innovate, if that's continuously stifled by big technology companies without an opportunity, we're in trouble. And so that starts by making data a property right, to the personal data. It starts by also creating marketplaces for that data, and those marketplaces have to have regulations, similar to capital market flows. The way treat exchanges, we treat marketplaces, we need to do the same thing with the way we do with data, and then the third piece, there has to be some level of a tax, that goes to all these data economies, so that they can fund the infrastructure and the watch dogs that are there. Now this is coming from a free market, I'm a free market capitalist, okay? I can't stand regulation, but I also realize that it's so important that we have a fair market. >> But do you, we know so much about how Americans are so much more cavalier about their privacy than even Europeans, what will it take to galvanize Americans to care about those little crumbs that they're leaving on the internet, that is the data that you say should be a property right, that we should be paid for? >> I think it's going to start with companies actually take, and do the right thing, where they actually give them that opportunity to monetize that information. >> Will they do that? >> I think the new set of startups are starting to do that, because they're looking at the risk that's being posed, at Facebook and Google and Amazon, on the anti-trust, DOJ, FCC, they're all coming in at the same time, the FTC, they're all wondering, do we break these companies up or not? The short answer is, I don't think they're going to, because we're competing with China, and when you're looking at that scale of data, where Amazon's transactions are only 1/10 of Ali Baba's? That's huge. So the consolidation has to happen, but we need to create a layer that actually democratizes and creates a fair trading play. >> And those startups, you think, can compete with established players? >> I think once we set the roles, and the ground rules, I think people are going to be able to do that, but once you free that data, what are we competing on now? You have to pay for my consent, you have to earn my business, you can't trade it for free, or just say, "Hey look, you are the product." That changes everything. >> Rebecca: Yeah, that's a good point. >> Ray, I know you spend a lot of time talking to, and giving advice to some of the leaders in technology, you're welcome to get into some specifics about Nutanix, or some of the cloud players, but what are some of the key themes, what are people getting right, and what are they still doing wrong? >> Okay, so theme number one, this is going to be a multicloud hybrid world for a long time. Anybody that's bucking the multicloud trend, they've missed the point, right? Because we want portability in data, there's only two or three players in every single market, if I can't move my data, my workloads, and my IO in and out, then you've actually created vendor lock-in from hell. And I think customers are going to protest against that. The second one, and you guys are probably following this trend a lot, is really about AI ethics and design principles for AI. So what is ethical AI? We've got five things that are important: The first one is make sure it's transparent. See the algorithms, see what they write. Second one, make sure it's explainable. Hey, bias is not a bad thing, so if I'm discriminating against redheads, with, left-handed, and that happened to like, I don't know, Oracle, fine. But, if that was unintended, and you're discriminating against that, then we have to get rid of that, right? And so we have to figure out how to reduce that kind of bias, if it's unwanted bias. If you discover that you're discriminating, and not being inclusive, you've got to make sure that you address that. So then the next part is, it's got to be reversible. And once you have that reversibility, we also make sure that we can train these systems over time. And then the last piece is, Musk could be right! Musk could be right, the machines might take over, but if you insert a human at the beginning of the process, and at the end of the process, you won't get taken over. >> I want to hear about what the future of work looks like for Ray Wang. You are on the road constantly, you are (laughs) you are moving your data from one place, you are everywhere, all the time. So what do you have on next, what's exciting you about your professional life? >> I think the challenge's that we are living in a world where there's too much information, too much content. And you guys say this all the time, right? Separating the signal from the noise. And people are willing to pay for that signal. But that is a very very tough job, right? It's about the analysis, the insights, and when you have that, people don't want to read through your reports. They don't want to watch through the videos. They just want to call you up and say, "Hey, what's going on?" And get the short version of it. And that's what's making it very interesting, because you would expect this would be in a chat bot, it'd be in a robo advisor, doesn't work that way. People still want the human connection, especially given all that data out there, they want the analysis and insights that you guys provide, that's very very important, but even more important right now, it's really about getting back to those relationships. I think people are very careful about the relationships they're keeping, they're also curating those relationships, and coming back to spending more time. And so we're seeing a lot more of in-person meetings, in-person events, very very small, curated conversations, and I think that's coming back. I mean that's why we do our conference every year, as well, we try to keep 200 to 300 people intimately together. >> Those human connections, not going away. (laughs) >> Nope, not going away, in an automated, AI, digital world! This is our post-digital future. >> That's excellent. Well Ray, thanks you so much for coming on theCUBE, it's always so much fun to talk to you. >> Hey, thanks a lot. >> High energy guy (laughs). >> Low energy. >> I'm Rebecca Knight for Stu Miniman, we will have more from the Bella Center at Nutanix.NEXT coming up in just a little bit. (upbeat music)

>> Narrator: Live from Copenhagen, Denmark, it's theCUBE. Covering Nutanix dot next 2019. Brought to you by Nutanix. >> Welcome back everyone to theCUBE's live coverage of Nutanix dot next. I'm your host, Rebecca Knight co-hosting along with Stu Miniman. We're joined by Christo du Raan, he is the COO IT Hardware and Infrastructure at Trustco Holdings. Thanks so much for coming on theCube. >> All right, thanks. And thanks for having me. >> Direct from Namibia. So we keep hearing there are customers from 50 countries. And you represent Namibia here. >> Yeah I come from far down in Africa. (laughs) >> So tell our viewers a little bit about Trustco, what you do down there? >> Trustco's a financial services company firstly, we look after all our Namibian customers in the insurance industry, as well as in the banking industry. We've been busy building our banking industry now for the last five years. And we're almost to that point where we can start serving people. Then we've got also educational services that we give to our customers and we've got roughly about 15,000 students, all doing distance learning, and of that 15,000 we've got about 80 to 90 percent of them that we also do finance, not just for the course material but also the technology, that we finance for them, so to give them the capabilities to do their studies through us. Then we've got also natural resources, it's quite a new business unit for us, where we dabble a little in diamond mining, we've got two mines currently, one in Namibia itself, where we produce probably one of the best diamonds in the world, clear cut diamonds, and then also in Sierra Leone we've recently acquired a mining license there as well. Then in Namibia, the other stuff that we do is in Shared Services, where we have our own radio station that we broadcast in Namibia, and then we do a little bit of in-house marketing and media and those type of things. >> Just a few things! >> Well luckily Christo, your IT staff, they have it easy, they don't have, you know, I walk through the Expo floor, it's like oh well how many verticals do you need to go to all of them, to be able to learn what you're doing. So give us if you can just, a little bit of a snapshot of your IT environment, what your team's responsible for, and if you can, kind of bring us even back before you began the journey onto Nutanix. >> So we're very centralized in Namibia, all our stuff gets run out of one data center, or one common area in our area offices, and then we expand to the six branches out in Namibia and in South Africa and now of late we'll be in Sierra Leone. IT team pretty much look after everything, we've got a saying at the office, "If it's got a plug on, it's IT's problem". (laughing) So yeah, so we do everything from the infrastructure, the networking, the servers, the storage, well, now it's Nutanix, everything is already built into one solution, so that the spurred systems have now fallen away, and we only look after it. >> Bring us back to that move to Nutanix, was there an upgrade that you were looking to do? Was there a pain point? What was the impetus to look at Nutanix? >> So our business has expanded quite quickly and the old way of doing things, with the separate SANs, separate switches, separate servers, those type of things became a little bit slumbersome, and difficult to manage because you had to have all these different kind of vendors that's got specific software solutions and specific training that you have to do and it just became a little bit too much for us and we decided that, let's step back a little bit, and see if there's any solutions out there that makes it firstly easier, that we can manage with less people and do more and at that stage hyperconvergence was just on the peak of becoming a thing, if you want to call it that, and we had done our research and found that Nutanix at that stage was the best fit for us and also the most mature in the hyperconverged space. So, that's basically where we got to the Nutanix solution, obviously like everyone else, we started with a Community Edition, dabbled our hand a little bit in there, and saw that's actually doable, it's easy and something that we can build on. >> So, you've been with them for about two years now, so still a relatively new relationship but talk about the beginning in particular and relationships are hard. Every relationship is hard. There are inevitable stumbling blocks. What were some of the challenges you faced and how did you work with Nutanix to overcome them? >> Challenges, I can say, luckily we haven't had a lot of them. Our business is not nearly as big as the Europeans and the Americans, so it is not that complex a system. We had our challenges in the beginning, hypervisor specifically, 'cause we made a huge move, we went totally 180 degrees from our Hyper-V environment, we said we going to go right over to AHV, don't want to do deal licensing, let's just jump in on AHV and go Nutanix fully. So, obviously we had a few challenges with a couple of our services and servers. But other than that, I must say, it was actually a pretty easy move for us. >> It's interesting that you say going from Hyper-V 'cause I've talked to the customers, oh there's a saving from moving from VMware, oh Microsoft, Hyper-V's all included, if you're doing Windows and you've got Hyper-V, I'm sure you've got a Windows application, so was there an application change or what was the driver to move? >> There were some of our applications that were very specific, especially on the network drivers side of things, moving from the normal Windows drivers, to the IO drivers in Linux. We had a couple of challenges with our in-house apps as well, but again, it was a reasonably painless move over to Nutanix. >> One of things we keep hearing about at this conference is how Nutanix is evolving as customer needs and demands are changing. You gave us the overview of your company, you are getting into new businesses and still continuing in established businesses, what are some of the needs that your IT is experiencing and how is Nutanix meeting those needs? >> Like I say, in the old infrastructure days, provisioning was probably the biggest hurdle, if the Dev guys wanted stuff, you first had to go and buy some more hardware, because you need to adapt to them. When we reversed over to Hyper-V eventually, it became easier, but it was still not the right fit. You still had to tweak it and play with it etc etc. So, the biggest challenge was to get our DevOp guys quicker access to what they need. And then also our customers as well. We've moved from where there's a person that needed to provision storage, needed to provision networking, needed to provision server and VMs, that's now all basically done by one person and most of those things we've already automized, so it is five, ten minutes, and then they've got what they need. I think it made us a little bit more agile because we pride ourselves on being quick thinkers, deploying stuff fast and that was always Trustco's main advantage in the Namibian market, we didn't go through all the other rigamarole that other companies have of tendering and doing things in a certain way and by the time that you get there it's not relevant anymore, now we need to do something else again. That brought us quick to market and made it so that we can deliver quicker solutions to our customers. >> So, Christo, was there any impact organizationally for rolling out Nutanix, you mentioned DevOps there, the goal of course is that they shouldn't have to worry about the infrastructure and hopefully Nutanix is delivering that, but there's some retraining or moving inside the organization, what's the impact been on your organization? >> On the customer side, none. They don't even know we've moved over. >> But from the IT side? >> From our customer side, they've not seen anything. From the IT side of things, we had a phased approach, so we started off with the Community Edition, where we basically just dabbled in it, saw what we could do on it and then also, let's call it training for the IT guys, so that they're comfortable in how the product works. So by the time that we got to deploying it in production, it was actually a very smooth transaction. We had all the kinks sorted out beforehand and made sure that everything will work, again, being in the finance industry, in the banking industry, downtime is an absolute no no, and we wanted to get to a point where we say we're not going to move over production sites, production environments, in the evenings from twelve to four in the morning because we've all got families so we'll either plan it properly ahead of time and yes we did it and actually, dare I say, in production time, we moved across almost seamlessly. We've got a lot of redundancies built in obviously so it gave us the opportunity to actually move in place if you want to call it that. >> So what does the future hold for this relationship? Where do you see your partnership with Nutanix evolving and where do you think you'll be, say, five years from now? >> So, we've got a roadmap set out with Nutanix and where we're now only in the baby phase, where we've done the infrastructure, we're happy everything is working, so now we're in the POC stage of exploring the software suite in its entirety. We've started now with Leap and Bolt ADR scenario and tested it extensively and we're now in that process, probably when I get back in Namibia, we'll have the licenses hopefully to start deploying it in our production environment. More closer to the future, in the next I would say, six to nine months, we're going to take on Frame, 'cause part of our business scenario, because we were Microsoft, was the Remote Desktop Service, and that was what kept us so lean. There are some challenges now with Remote Desktop Services where our Dev guys are moving into some Linux and there's different things coming up now where we move away from the traditional monolithic applications to more agile applications and then we'll start dabbling our hands in Frame. For us the holdback was when Frame came out, that it was only in the cloud and for us in Namibia, Africa, the internet is not as stable as we would like, so that was totally off the cards for us. Now that it moved back into on-prem and we can run Frame on-prem, that will probably be our biggest project going forward for the next year and year and a half. >> Excellent. Well thank you so much for coming on theCube Christo. It was a pleasure talking to you. >> Thank you very much. Thanks for having me. >> I'm Rebecca Knight for Stu Miniman, stay tuned for more of theCube's live coverage of dot next. [Urgent Music]

>> Live, from Orlando, Florida. It's theCUBE! Covering Enterprise Connect 2019. Brought to you by Five9. >> Welcome back to Orlando at Enterprise Connect 2019, I'm Lisa Martin with Stu Miniman. It may sound like we're at a party, this is the buzz of the event, this is day one, and we have had a great day so far of talking with lots of guests. We're welcoming back to theCUBE an alumni, Jim Lundy, see applause for you, Jim, CEO of Aragon Research, welcome back to theCUBE. >> Thank you, great to be here. [Lisa] - That was cute, by the way, so I hope we get some credit for that. >> Yeah, yeah, very cute. >> So Jim, you have been coming to Enterprise Connect since before it was even branded Enterprise Connect, back when it was VoiceCon. Tell us a little bit about your observations about the evolution, not only of the events, but also of all the collaboration and communication tools that consumers now are expecting and demanding of businesses. >> So, I think my first event was called VoiceCon in '07, and then it was all about phones. There was no software here. There was no video. There was no messaging. There was certainly no AI. And there were a lot of the players were not here, they were not in business then. So, if you actually look at some of the bigger players here today, they did not exist in 2007. So you look at the advent of Cloud, that's powered a whole new generation of services and opportunities, and it's great for buyers because there's so much more choice. So, VoiceCon almost died and they rebranded it but they've had to expand their focus. There's still a lot of voice focused stuff, but as you can see it's really shifted, we think it's shifting to communications and collaboration, we think contact center, particularly Cloud, is hot. We've got through overall Tam for communication, collaboration, contact center, by 2024, about 120 billion dollars, which makes it bigger than Enterprise secured. >> Yeah, we just had a great type-in with Blair Pleasant, and said, I'm a new channel, absolutely is where it is, but voice is still the number one preferred channel, when you talk about context center, there's lots of ways you can get in touch, but when something's wrong, I want to pick up my device and talk to a human eventually, so yeah, Cloud, and AI, and everything else, but there's still people in this center of everything going on here. >> Well, I think one of the things for contact center in particular you mentioned is the power of Cloud. So you look at some of the players here like we're in the Five9 booth, they've grown because of their Cloud focus, and Cloud is a lot of what's powering everybody here. And buyers want flexibility, so I think that's one of the big things that's changed, is there's still a lot of On Premise, and hybrid Cloud, but the power and the demand for 'I want to deploy something fast, and maybe I'm not even that big of a shop,' Cloud gives me that flexibility. >> When I look at the market as a whole, there's all those arguments about it's private Cloud, public Cloud, hybrid Cloud, multi Cloud, but if we think of Cloud as an operational model, and not a place, I want speed, I want to be able to update to my latest thing, whether that's for security or the cool new feature, and if I'm not Cloud, or Cloud-like, then I probably install something and what I do now and what I do a few years from now looks pretty close to what I did when I installed it. No? Does that resonate in this phase? >> Yeah, yeah. I think there's a couple things, also there's the operational nature of do I want to be in the server update business? Some people do, because of the nature of their business, but a lot of people don't. So then I can focus on the client experience, providing better journeys, and I think that's up the game. I think there's an awful lot of competition in this market because, really because of Cloud, but On Premise or private Cloud is not a bad word, and like I said, I think the bigger play is to be able to do a combination of things and meet the needs of the customer. The only thing I would say about the show is there's a lot of feature wars at this show and needs to be maybe a little more focused on what the customer needs versus hey, my box is better than your box. >> On that front, in terms of focusing on the customer experience, we talk a lot about that, there's a lot of the messaging and branding around the shows you were just pointing out, but something that is always interesting is where does a company balance the customer experience with the agent experience, because the customer experience is directly related to the agents being in power. >> Oh, totally! Well, you got to really do both and do both well. If the agent can't do their job, then the customer is not going to have a good experience. I do think that overall, there's been a pretty good focus on the agent, because that's where it kind of all started, and if you really look at contact center, it's really a heavy-duty application. You've got to be able to do all those things to service the inbound calls or inbound messages, and you're right, there is a lot of focus on the customer, because in some cases there is so much focus on the agent, well, we took the calls even though a lot of the calls, 10% might've gone to voicemail? Sometimes? Well, we serviced it, so. Little unknown fact is that in a lot of enterprises, marketing and the contact center group never talk. Interesting opportunity. >> Yeah, Jim, it's interesting, you talked about in tech we often get to that feature battle. Battle by power point or by product stack and oh, I've got 147 features and they only have 125 features, when you look at most customers they only know how to use three of the features they've got on there. So what differentiates from a customer standpoint, how do they choose, how do they make sure that they get something that is going to help their overall customer experience, and help their products and their marketing? >> Well, a couple things. First of all, you're right, they don't care as much about 'I've got this feature, you don't', they want to know can the provider take care of me if I buy from them? Are they reputable? Do other people, are they happy with the service? We do a lot of vender evaluations, we call them Aragon research globes and we usually spend six months working on understanding where the vender is this year, and we talk to references and things like that. So I think that sometimes when you, they read a report and they get some insight, they still want to talk to somebody versus just reading a peer review on somebody's consumer website, and really get that insight, so I think that's one lens and I think the other lens is that the smarter players are doing those things where they can provide really high touch support, I'd probably say Five9's pretty good at that, because contact center is really, really complicated, you just don't turn them on sometimes, there's things you have to do to make them work, and I think overall in this space, there are some products you can buy, maybe not contact center where you can spin them up and turn them, configure phones and go, I've actually deployed some of them, and there's some that would be such a nightmare, like who in the world would ever buy this product? So, I think it really varies a gambit and again, sometimes that doesn't always come out with an online review and again, sometimes the buyer, still buyer beware, in a lot of cases, some of the things you read online are not true. >> One of the things we were chatting with a number of the Five9 executs about today is that they have a five billion recorded customer conversations, tremendous potential there to really glean actionable insights about retaining that customer, increasing their CLV, but there's also the concern of data privacy and security in sharing, when you're talking with customers that might have this massive pull of data from which they can really expand their business and become competitive, where is the security and the privacy concerns there? >> It's a good question. There's a lot of focus on GDPR in Europe, there's a lot of focus in California on that, even though there's not been talked about in California. The rest of the US is kind of behind a little bit what Europe has done, but here's the thing. They've got ways to mass sensitive data in a recording like credit card data, that's pretty standard stuff, the big thing is data residency. I want my data in a certain country, Canadians do not want their data resident in the United States, Europeans don't either. Germans don't want their data resident in Belgium, so there's a big sensitivity in Europe about that, and even in fact, Microsoft's even gotten in trouble in Germany over that last year, because they eliminated a relationship with Doy to Telecom, sometimes you can kind of go overboard on that, but however, what I would say though is, some of the big Cloud companies have done this, brought this problem onto themselves, where they have not respected data privacy, there's even a bill now on facial recognition, because of some of the things that have gone on like IBM disclosed, they're doing something, so it is still an issue, it's always going to be an issue, I do think that there needs to be more protect, but here's the question. Who owns your data? Who owns your face, or my face? I don't think that because I upload a photo that I should give my rights away. I think we're going to catch up on that, I do think for the B-to-B though, a lot of these companies, first of all, they are certified, they have Cloud certifications, they definitely do certain things relative to privacy, and so they have to pass a lot of tests that are certified by an auditor, so I think there's a lot of things that most of the B-to-B buyers are not going to have to worry about with a lot of the people here, it's more of the personal side of things, the personal Cloud, Facebook, but usually not the kind of stuff you're dealing with here. >> So, Jim, when I look at the overall contact center market, the Cloud portion of that is still relatively small, if I saw right somewhere, 10, 15%, but it's been growing at a steady clip, where are we in their adoption, is there a plateau that it will hit that, is it take a third of a market, half the market, what do you see happening? >> I would say, we're on a journey and you're right, there is still a small part, which means the large address will market, not that much different than unified communications where it's mainly On Premise, going Cloud. We've got contact center going about 24 billion, and we think a lot of that will be eventually converted to a Cloud, except for maybe the ultra, ultra large call centers, and I think just like email migration 10 years, I've covered that, 10 years ago it was all On Premise. Today it's the opposite. It's like 90-10. So I think that eventually is going to start to happen. >> It's interesting, a lot of that was Microsoft really turned the lever, Microsoft on email, and Microsoft is like, we're going sass, you are going sass if you use Office, you are going Office 365. So I'm curious, is there a lever like that from a licensing standpoint or from a vender standpoint, that would push contact center? >> If you look at the contact center market, we've got it, growth rates around 9% overall, but then you've got people like Five9 that are growing 31%, alright? So if you starting looking at that, why is a Cloud company growing that much when the overall market, well because there's demand. They want the flexibility of Cloud, they don't want to run the servers and upgrade the servers, and I think that they've learned lessons from that, and you're right, Microsoft did do that, but Google forced them to do that. So I think that, are fast growing companies like Five9 forcing some of the bigger players to go more Cloud? And I can say absolutely yes, that a lot of the bigger players are looking over their shoulders saying, and they bought Cloud contact center players so they can keep up with some of the young startups, and Five9's not young, but they would still be considered young in the relative terms of this event. >> I'm curious, Jim, when you're talking with venders and the Aragon research that you do, companies of different sizes, whether they're born in the Cloud or they're legacy companies, where does cultural transformation come into this conversation about evolving a contact center such that an agent is empowered with the right content to deliver it through the right channel, to make a decision that really positively impacts the customer? I can imagine multiple generations, multiple countries, cultural transformation is hard. >> It is a big issue, I think there's more awareness on both the culture of the agent and the culture of the buyer, and I think there's more stuff going on relative to sentiment, sentiment analysis. I do think that's a bigger issue, I think there's more time being spent on training, the better digital companies are investing tons of money in training, so I think there's more awareness relative to cultural differences, cultural nuances, and being more sensitive to maybe things that they would say sorry, can't help you with that, since they've been trained to be maybe more sensitive, they're going to be more understanding when they're actually on a call. >> So, Jim, in your research, where's the white space? Where's the real opportunity for growth and transformation, we've had some discussions here, it's early days in AI's, at AI, or is it not the technology, is it the cultural changes, that Lisa brings up, where are some of impediments and room for growth in the industry? >> So we do think that the enterprise will become more intelligent, and that the providers are going to lead that charge, where instead of you say to AI, we call it intelligent contact center, and we think that there's going to be more of a demand for automation, and that there will be more assistance that might take care of a customer's problem before it ever gets to a human. I do think that we're not going to, that's going to be something that's never going to go away, it's just that they're going to get smarter and more supportive. We have helped clients deploy chat bots for help desk internally for customer facing help desk, I think it's still early here, that people have them, but they're more rules based than AI based. AI's coming in the next two years but there's no doubt that is going to be one of the drivers, and by the way, sometimes people be like, is this the problem we were having, is this the question you have? Yes. Here's this answer, and it's the right answer, the correct answer, that's what people really want, they want the instant gratification, we all kind of grew up, we were used to that with our phones, I need the answer, and I do think that I would probably say the demand for Cloud is going to out-strip everything, so if somebody that's an On Premise provider doesn't have a Cloud option, then I would be worried about them. But I do think AI is not going to go away, we don't think it's going to be an AI or nothing, it's going to be basically intelligent digital assistance, it can answer questions intelligently and have a conversation with you, there's some tools that do that today, but most of them are very basic question and answer, they're not high-end, it can't be like Jarvis on Iron Man, where yes, yes, Mr. Spark, I will do that for you, they're not quite there yet, but the movies glamify that whole thing. Some people expect, well, why doesn't it talk back to me? >> Any last questions, Jim, are there any industries that you see is going to be early adopters to start creating and actually deploying the intelligent contact center? >> Well, let's put it this way. Every client we've talked to in survey work said we wish we had more intelligence in our contact center. I think they're a little scared that they want to make sure they do it right, but if you do it and deploy it and test it, you'd be amazed it's for some of the basic Q&A, how rockstar stuff that is, but sometimes people rush too quickly and deploy it when it's not quite ready. I think a lot of the providers here, including Five9, are going to try to do AI the right way, and not try to rush it, but I would also say this. There's an awful lot of fud about AI, and most of it's not true. >> Lisa, final, final question for Jim here, since John Ferger's not here to ask it, Five9's gone through a lot of changes here, brought in some pretty high-profile executives, any commentary on our host here? >> Look, I knew Rowan and Jonathan Rosenberg at Cisco, they had a rockstar team there, they've even, since they've joined here brought more talent in, and so, the Five9 people I knew have been blown away by the level of talent that has come in, and I think that's just going to help them continue to grow. The question is, when did they declare how big they're going to be? And that's what we're looking for them to do. >> To be continued, Jim, thanks so much for joining Stu and me on theCUBE this afternoon. >> Thank you very much. >> For Stu Miniman, I'm Lisa Martin, you're watching theCUBE. (light beat music)

[Music] Andre one of the things that have come up is your relation with Russia as we talked about so I have to ask you a direct question do you to work with sanctioned Russian entities or Russian companies shown we and c5 we do not work with any company that's sanctioned from any country including Russia and the same applies to me we take sanctions very very seriously the one thing you don't mess with is US sanctions which has application worldwide and so you always have to stay absolutely on the right side of the law when it comes to sanctions so nothing nothing that's something that's connection nets are trying to make they're also the other connection is a guy named Victor Vail Selberg Viktor Vekselberg Vekselberg to go with the Russian names as people know what is your relationship with Viktor Vekselberg so victim Viktor Vekselberg is a is a very well known Russian businessman he's perhaps one of the best known Russian businessman in the West because he also lived in the US for a period of time it's a very well-known personality in in in Europe he's a donor for example to the Clinton Foundation and he has aggregated the largest collection of Faberge eggs in the world as part of national Russian treasure so he's a very well known business personality and of course during the course of my career which has focused heavily on also doing investigations on Russian related issues I have come across Viktor Vekselberg and I've had the opportunity to meet with him and so I know him as a as a business leader but c5 has no relationship with Viktor Vekselberg and we've never accepted any investment from him we've never asked him for an investment and our firm a venture capital firm has no ties to Viktor Vekselberg so you've worked had a relationship at some point in your career but no I wouldn't on a daily basis you don't have a deep relationship can you explain how deep that relationship is what were the interactions you had with him so clarify that point so so I know Viktor Vekselberg and I've met him on more than one occasion in different settings and as I shared with you I served on the board of a South African mining company which is black owned for a period of a year and which Renova had a minority investment alongside an Australian company called South 32 and that's the extent of the contact and exposure I've had to so casual business run-ins and interactions not like again that's correct deep joint ventures are very kind of okay let's get back to c5 for a minute cause I want to ask you it but just do just a circle just one last issue and Viktor Vekselberg Viktor Vekselberg is the chairman of scope over the Russian technology innovation park that we discussed and he became the chairman under the presidency of President Dmitry Medvedev during the time when Hillary Clinton was doing a reset on Russian relations and during that time so vekselberg have built up very effective relationships with all of the or many of the leading big US technology companies and today you can find the roster of those partners the list of those partners on the scope of our website and those nuclear drove that yes Victor drove that Victor drove that during during in the Clinton Secretary of this started the scope of our project started during the the Medvedev presidency and in the period 2010-2011 you'll find many photographs of mr. vekselberg signing partnership agreements with very well known technology companies for Skolkovo and most of those companies still in one way or another remain involved in the Skolkovo project this has been the feature the article so there are I think and I've read all the other places where they wanted to make this decision Valley of Russia correct there's a lot of Russian programmers who work for American companies I know a few of them that do so there's technology they get great programmers in Russia but certainly they have technology so oracles they're ibm's they're cisco say we talked about earlier there is US presence there are you do you have a presence there and does Amazon Web service have a presence on do you see five it and that's knowing I was alright it's well it's a warning in the wrong oh sorry about that what's the Skog Obama's called spoke over so Andres Kokomo's this has been well report it's the Silicon Valley of Russia and so a lot of American companies they're IBM Oracle Cisco you mentioned earlier I can imagine it makes sense they a lot of recruiting little labs going on we see people hire Russian engineers all the time you know c5 have a presence there and does AWS have a presence there and do you work together in a TBS in that area explain that relationship certainly c5 Amazon individually or you can't speak for Amazon but let's see if I've have there and do you work with Amazon in any way there c-5m there's no work in Russia and neither does any of our portfolio companies c5 has no relationship with the Skolkovo Technology Park and as I said the parties for this spoke of a Technology Park is a matter of record is only website anyone can take a look at it and our name is not amongst those partners and I think this was this is an issue which I which I fault the BBC report on because if the BBC report was fair and accurate they would have disclosed the fact that there's a long list of partners with a scope of our project very well known companies many of them competitors in the Jedi process but that was not the case the BBC programme in a very misleading and deceptive way created the impression that for some reason somehow c5 was involved in Skolkovo without disclosing the fact that many other companies are involved they and of course we are not involved and your only relationship with Declan Berg Viktor Vekselberg was through the c5 raiser bid three c5 no no Viktor Vekselberg was never involved in c5 raiser Petco we had Vladimir Kuznetsov as a man not as a minority investor day and when we diligence him one of our key findings was that he was acting in independent capacity and he was investing his own money as a you national aniseh Swiss resident so you if you've had no business dealings with Viktor Vekselberg other than casual working c-5 has had no business dealings with with Viktor Vekselberg in a in a personal capacity earlier before the onset of sanctions I served on the board of a black-owned South African mining company and which Renault bombs the Vekselberg company as a minority investment alongside an Australian company called South 32 and my motivation for doing so was to support African entrepreneurship because this was one of the first black owned mining companies in the country was established with a British investment in which I was involved in and I was very supportive of the work that this company does to develop manganese mining in the Kalahari Desert and your role there was advisory formal what was the role there it was an advisory role so no ownership no ownership no equity no engagement you call them to help out on a project I was asked to support the company at the crucial time when they had a dispute on royalties when they were looking at the future of the Kalahari basin and the future of the manganese reserve say and also to help the company through a transition of the black leadership the black executive leadership of the cut year is that roughly 2017 so recently okay let on the ownership of c5 can you explain who owns c5 I mean you're described as the owner if it's a venture capital firm you probably of investors so your managing director you probably have some carry of some sort and then talk about the relationship between c5 razor bidco the Russian special purpose vehicle that was created is that owning what does it fit is it a subordinate role so see my capital so Jones to start with c5 razor boot code was was never a Russian special purpose vehicle this was a British special purpose vehicle which we established for our own investment into a European enterprise software company vladimir kuznetsov later invested as an angel investor into the same company and we required him to do it through our structure because it was transparent and subject to FCA regulation there's no ties back to c5 he's been not an owner in any way of c5 no not on c5 so C fibers owned by five families who helped to establish the business and grow the business and partner in the business these are blue chip very well known European and American families it's a small transatlantic community or family investors who believe that it's important to use private capital for the greater good right history dealing with Russians can you talk about your career you mentioned your career in South Africa earlier talk about your career deal in Russia when did you start working with Russian people I was the international stage Russian Russia's that time in 90s and 2000 and now certainly has changed a lot let's talk about your history and deal with the Russians so percent of the Soviet Union I think there was a significant window for Western investment into Russia and Western investment during this time also grew very significantly during my career as an investigator I often dealt with Russian organized crime cases and in fact I established my consulting business with a former head of the Central European division of the CIA who was an expert on Russia and probably one of the world's leading experts on Russia so to get his name William Lofgren so during the course of of building this business we helped many Western investors with problems and issues related to their investments in Russia so you were working for the West I was waiting for the West so you are the good side and but when you were absolutely and when and when you do work of this kind of course you get to know a lot of people in Russia and you make Russian contacts and like in any other country as as Alexander Solzhenitsyn the great Russian dissident wrote the line that separates good and evil doesn't run between countries it runs through the hearts of people and so in this context there are there are people in Russia who crossed my path and across my professional career who were good people who were working in a constructive way for Russia's freedom and for Russia's independence and that I continue to hold in high regard and you find there's no technical security risk the United States of America with your relationship with c5 and Russia well my my investigative work that related to Russia cases are all in the past this was all done in the past as you said I was acting in the interest of Western corporations and Western governments in their relations with Russia that's documented and you'd be prepared to be transparent about that absolutely that's all those many of those cases are well documented to corporations for which my consulting firm acted are very well known very well known businesses and it's pretty much all on the on the Podesta gaiting corruption we were we were we were helping Western corporations invest into Russia in a way that that that meant that they did not get in meshed in corruption that meant they didn't get blackmailed by Russia organized crime groups which meant that their investments were sustainable and compliant with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other bribery regulation at war for everyone who I know that lives in Europe that's my age said when the EU was established there's a flight of Eastern Europeans and Russians into Western Europe and they don't have the same business practices so I'd imagine you'd run into some pretty seedy scenarios in this course of business well in drug-dealing under I mean a lot of underground stuff was going on they're different they're different government they're different economy I mean it wasn't like a structure so you probably were exposed to a lot many many post-conflict countries suffer from predatory predatory organized crime groups and I think what changed and of course of my invested investigative career was that many of these groups became digital and a lot of organized crime that was purely based in the physical world went into the into the digital world which was one of the other major reasons which led me to focus on cyber security and to invest in cyber security well gets that in a minute well that's great I may only imagine some of the things you're investigated it's easy to connect people with things when yeah things are orbiting around them so appreciate the candid response there I wanna move on to the other area I see in the stories national security risk conflict of interest in some of the stories you seeing this well is there conflict of interest this is an IT playbook I've seen over the years federal deals well you're gonna create some Fahd fear uncertainty and doubt there's always kind of accusations you know there's accusations around well are they self dealing and you know these companies or I've seen this before so I gotta ask you they're involved with you bought a company called s DB advisors it was one of the transactions that they're in I see connecting to in my research with the DoD Sally Donnelly who is Sally Donnelly why did you buy her business so I didn't buy Sonny Donnelly's business again so Sally Tony let's start with Sally darling so Sally Donny was introduced to me by Apple Mike Mullen as a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Sally served as his special advisor when he was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Apple Mullen was one of the first operating parties which we had in c5 and he continues to serve Admiral Mullen the four start yes sir okay and he continues to serve as one of operating partners to this day salad only and that will Mike worked very closely with the Duke of Westminster on one of his charitable projects which we supported and which is close to my heart which is established a new veteran rehabilitation center for Britain upgrading our facility which dates back to the Second World War which is called Headley court to a brand-new state-of-the-art facility which was a half a billion dollar public-private partnership which Duke led and in this context that Ron Mullen and Sally helped the Duke and it's team to meet some of the best experts in the US on veteran rehabilitation on veteran care and on providing for veterans at the end of the service and this was a this was a great service which it did to the to this new center which is called the defense and national rehabilitation center which opened up last summer in Britain and is a terrific asset not only for Britain but also for allies and and so the acquisition she went on to work with secretary Manus in the Department of Defense yes in February Feb 9 you through the transaction yes in February 2017 Sally decided to do public service and support of safety matters when he joined the current administration when she left her firm she sold it free and clear to a group of local Washington entrepreneurs and she had to do that very quickly because the appointment of secretary mattis wasn't expected he wasn't involved in any political campaigns he was called back to come and serve his country in the nation's interest very unexpectedly and Sally and a colleague of us Tony de Martino because of their loyalty to him and the law did to the mission followed him into public service and my understanding is it's an EAJA to sell a business in a matter of a day or two to be able to be free and clear of title and to have no compliance issues while she was in government her consulting business didn't do any work for the government it was really focused on advising corporations on working with the government and on defense and national security issues I didn't buy Sonny's business one of c-5 portfolio companies a year later acquired SPD advisors from the owner supported with a view to establishing and expanding one of our cyber advising businesses into the US market and this is part of a broader bind bolt project which is called Haven ITC secure and this was just one of several acquisitions that this platform made so just for the record c5 didn't buy her company she repeat relieved herself of any kind of conflict of interest going into the public service your portfolio company acquired the company in short order because they knew the synergies because it would be were close to it so I know it's arm's length but as a venture capitalist you have no real influence other than having an investment or board seat on these companies right so they act independent in your structure absolutely make sure I get that's exactly right John but but not much more importantly only had no influence over the Jedi contract she acted as secretary mitosis chief of staff for a period of a year and have functions as described by the Government Accounting Office was really of a ministerial nature so she was much more focused on the Secretary's diary than she was focused on any contracting issues as you know government contracting is very complex it's very technical sally has as many wonderful talents and attributes but she's never claimed to be a cloud computing expert and of equal importance was when sally joined the government in february 17 jeddah wasn't even on the radar it wasn't even conceived as a possibility why did yet I cannot just for just for the record the Jedi contract my understanding is that and I'm not an expert on one government contracting but my understanding is that the RFP the request for proposals for the July contract came out in quarter three of this year for the first time earlier this year there was a publication of an intention to put out an RFP I think that happened in at the end of quarter one five yep classic yeah and then the RFP came out and called a three bits had to go in in November and I understand a decision will be made sometime next year what's your relationship well where's she now what she still was so sunny left finished the public service and and I think February March of this year and she's since gone on to do a fellowship with a think-tank she's also reestablished her own business in her own right and although we remain to be good friends I'm in no way involved in a business or a business deal I have a lot of friends in DC I'm not a really policy wonk of any kind we have a lot of friends who are it's it's common when it administrations turnover people you know or either appointed or parked a work force they leave and they go could they go to consultancy until the next yeah until the next and frustration comes along yeah and that's pretty common that's pretty cool this is what goes on yeah and I think this whole issue of potential conflicts of interest that salad only or Tony the Martino might have had has been addressed by the Government Accounting Office in its ruling which is on the public record where the GAO very clearly state that neither of these two individuals were anywhere near the team that was writing the terms for the general contract and that their functions were really as described by the GAO as ministerial so XI salient Antonia was such a long way away from this contact there's just no way that they could have influenced it in in in any respect and their relation to c5 is advisory do they and do they both are they have relations with you now what's the current relationship since since Sally and Tony went to do public service we've had no contact with them we have no reason of course to have contact with them in any way they were doing public service they were serving the country and serving the nation and since they've come out of public service we've we've not reestablished any commercial relationship so we talked earlier about the relation with AWS there's only if have a field support two incubators its accelerator does c5 have any portfolio companies that are actually bidding or working on the Jedi contract none what Santa John not zero zero so outside of c5 having relation with Amazon and no portfolios working with a Jedi contract there's no link to c5 other than a portfolio company buying Sally Donnelly who's kind of connected to general mattis up here yeah Selleck has six degrees of separation yes I think this is a constant theme in this conspiracy theory Jonas is six degrees of separation it's it's taking relationships that that that developed in a small community in Washington and trying to draw nefarious and sinister conclusions from them instead of focusing on competing on performance competing on innovation and competing on price and perhaps that's not taking place because the companies that are trying to do this do not have the capability to do so Andre I really appreciate you coming on and answering these tough questions I want to talk about what's going on with c5 now but I got to say you know I want to ask you one more time because I think this is critical you've worked for big-time company Kroll with terminus international market very crazy time time transformation wise you've worked with the CIA in Quantico the FBI nuclei in Quantico on a collaboration you were to know you've done work for the good guys you have see if I've got multiple years operating why why are you being put as a bad guy here I mean you're gonna you know being you being put out there with if you search your name on Google it says you're a spy all these evil all these things are connecting and we're kind of digging through them they kind of don't Joan I've had the privilege of a tremendous career I've had the privilege of working with with great leaders and having had great mentors if you do anything of significance if you do anything that's helping to make a difference or to make a change you should first expect scrutiny but also expect criticism when that scrutiny and criticism are fact-based that's helpful and that's good for society and for the health of society when on the other hand it is fake news or it is the construct of elaborate conspiracy theories that's not good for the health of society it's not good for the national interest is not good for for doing good business you've been very after you're doing business for the for the credibility people questioning your credibility what do you want to tell people that are watching this about your credibility that's in question again with this stuff you've done and you're continuing to do what's the one share something to the folks that might mean something to them you can sway them or you want to say something directly what would you say the measure of a person it is his or her conduct in c-five we are continuing to build our business we continue to invest in great companies we continue to put cravat private capital to work to help drive innovation including in the US market we will continue to surround ourselves with good people and we will continue to set the highest standards for the way in which we invest and build our businesses it's common I guess I would say that I'm getting out as deep as you are in the in term over the years with looking at these patterns but the pattern that I see is very simple when bad guys get found out they leave the jurisdiction they flee they go do something else and they reinvent themselves and scam someone else you've been doing this for many many years got a great back record c5 now is still doing business continuing not skipping a beat the story comes out hopefully kind of derail this or something else will think we're gonna dig into it so than angle for sure but you still have investments you're deploying globally talk about what c5 is doing today tomorrow next few months the next year you have deals going down you're still doing business you have business out there our business has not slowed down for a moment we have the support of tremendous investors we have the support of tremendous partners in our portfolio companies we have the support of a great group of operating partners and most important of all we have a highly dedicated highly focused group of investment teams of very experienced and skilled professionals who are making profitable investments and so we are continuing to build our business we have a very full deal pipeline we will be completing more investment transactions next week and we are continue to scalar assets under management next year we will have half a billion dollars of assets under management and we continue to focus on our mission which is to use private capital to help innovate and drive a change for good after again thank you we have the story in the BBC kicked all this off the 12th no one's else picked it up I think other journals have you mentioned earlier you think this there's actually people putting this out you you call out let's got John wheeler we're going to look into him do you think there's an organized campaign right now organized to go after you go after Amazon are you just collateral damage you mentioned that earlier is there a funded effort here well Bloomberg has reported on the fact that that one of the competitors for this bit of trying to bring together a group of companies behind a concerted effort specifically to block Amazon Web Services and so we hear these reports we see this press speculation if that was the case of course that would not be good for a fair and open and competitive bidding process which is I think is the Department of Defense's intention and what is in the interests of the country at a time when national security innovation will determine not only the fate of future Wars but also the fate of a sons and daughters who are war fighters and to be fair to process having something undermine it like a paid-for dossier which I have multiple sources confirming that's happened it's kind of infiltrating the journalists and so that's kind of where I'm looking at right now is that okay the BBC story just didn't feel right to me credible outlet you work for them you did investigations for them back in the day have you talked to them yes no we are we are we are in correspondence with the BBC I think in particular we want them to address the fact that they've conflated facts in this story playing this parlor game of six degrees of separation we want them to address the important principle of the independence of the in editorial integrity at the fact that they did not disclose that they expert on this program actually has significant conflicts of interests of his own and finally we want them to disclose the fact that it's not c5 and Amazon Web Services who have had a relationship with the scope of our technology park the scope of our technology park actually has a very broad set of Western partners still highly engaged there and even in recent weeks of hosted major cloud contracts and conferences there and and all of this should have been part of the story in on the record well we're certainly going to dig into it I appreciate your answer the tough questions we're gonna certainly look into this dossier if this is true this is bad and if there's people behind it acting behind it then certainly we're gonna report on that and I know these were tough questions thanks for taking the time Andre to to answer them with us Joan thanks for doing a deep dive on us okay this is the Q exclusive conversation here in Palo Alto authority narc who's the founder of c-5 capital venture capital firm in the center of a controversy around this BBC story which we're going to dig into more this has been exclusive conversation I'm John Tory thanks for watching [Music] you

>> Live from Washington, D.C., it's theCUBE. Covering Inforum, DC 2018. Brought to you by Infor. >> We are back this afternoon here in Washington, D.C., at the Walter Washington Convention Center. As we continue our coverage here of Inforum 2018 along with Dave Vellante, I'm John Walls, and we now welcome Mr. Cormack Watters to the program today, EVP of Emea and APAC at Infor. Cormack, good to see you sir. >> Nice to be here. >> So, we're going to talk about Guinness, over in Ireland (chuckling). Cormack's from Dublin, so we had a little conversation. We're getting a primer here. >> It's actually the best conversation we should have, right? >> Right, we'll save that for the end. How about that? So, you're fairly new, right? About a year or so. >> Ten months or so, not that I'm counting it by the day >> No no no, always going forward, never backward. But a big plate you have, right, with EMEA and APAC? Different adoptions, different viewpoints, different perspectives... We've talked a lot really kind of focusing domestically here for the past couple of days. Your world's a little different than that though, right? >> It is. It is. And it's very good that you've actually recognized it because that's actually the biggest challenge that we have. To be a little bit humble about it, I think we've got world-class products and solutions. I actually fundamentally believe that. But we have lots of different languages, cultures, and localization requirements in the multiple Countries that we look after. So, it's great to have great products, but it needs to be in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Swedish, Norwegian, Finish, Arabic, which most of them are. Customers realize that we are actually international and localized for many, many markets. But now we've become an intriguing option for them, if you're a multi-national business, with subsidiaries all over the world. So, it's good that Infor is big enough to do that. We need to do a better job of letting everybody know that we've done that, if that makes any sense. >> Sure. >> So what's happening in Europe? Europe's always pockets, there's no..I mean.. Yes, EU but there's really still no one Europe. What's going on? Obviously, we have Brexit hanging over our head. I felt like U.S. markets are maybe a little bit overheated in Europe has potential upside. >> Yeah >> And it seems like others seem to agree with that. What happening on the ground? Any specific, interesting areas? Is Southern Europe still a concern? Maybe you can give us an update? >> Yeah, so Brexit is quite a dominant conversation. I am from Ireland. I live in Dublin, but I'm working all over Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Far East. So, I don't get to be at home very often, except the weekends. London is really our regional headquarters from a European perspective, and Brexit is on everybody's mind. Interestingly, when you go outside the UK, Brexit is not such a big topic because... That's Europe. And they kind of go, "Well if you don't want to be here, then you don't need to be here." Right? So it's a little bit of that, and they're saying, "Well, we'd like for them to stay, but if they don't want to stay, well, don't wait around." But in the UK, it's causing a lot of uncertainty. And the UK's one of our biggest markets. It's a lot of uncertainty, and what would be best is if we just knew what was going to happen, and then we could deal with it. And actually, once we know what's going to happen, that's going to bring a degree of change. And change, from our industry perspective means there's going to be some requirements that emerge. So, we need to be ready to serve those, which is opportunity. But the uncertainty is just slowing down investment. So, we need that to be resolved. >> So, clarity obviously is a good thing obviously a good thing in any market. Are there any hotspots? >> Yeah, actually for us, we're doing, for us the Hotspots right now, we're doing incredibly well in Germany. Which, one of our lesser known competitors is a small Company called SAP. And they're headquartered in Germany. It's quite interesting to see that we're actually taking a lot of market there in Germany, which is fantastic. That's a little bit unexpected, but it's going very well right now. We're seeing a ton of activity in the Asia Pacific, I would say that region is probably our fastest growing in all of Infor. And consistently so for several quarters and maybe past a year at this point. So Asia Pacific, Germany, U.K., and then as it happens, we are doing very well in Southern Europe, which is a combination of countries really. France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece. Hard to put it down to which particular Country is doing well, but there seems to be a general uplift in that region. Because they were hit the hardest, arguably, by the crash back in 2008. So they've definitely come out of that now. >> And when they come out, excuse me I'm sorry John, but, they come out, Cloud becomes more important to them, Right? >> Yeah, I mean, absolutely. Anyone who's been delaying investment for years, can actually leapfrog what's been happening and jump straight to what you might call the future. So lots of Companies, lots of our Customers, are trying to simplify their Business. So Cloud is a great equalizer. We believe in your, what we call Last Mile of Functionality per industry. And that should make the projects shorter, more compact more predictable and the infrastructure worries go away, because that's our responsibility to the Customers. >> We definitely so that in the U.S., 2008-2009, CFO's came in said shift to the Cloud, because we want to shift Capx to Opx, and when we came out of the downturn, they said "wow this stuff works pretty well, double down on it" and then there were other business benefits that they wanted to accelerate, and so maybe Southern Europe was a little bit behind >> I think that may be the case right, and they are picking up. And what we're seeing are a lot of other advantages. Not to make this a sale's pitch, but, I am here so >> Go for it >> You've got a microphone >> I've got a microphone and I'm Irish, so I've got to talk right? What the Cloud is actually doing is, lots of Companies have put in big ERP over the years, the decades. And then they get stuck at various points and maybe years behind, because upgrades become painful and really want to avoid them. So what they're seeing is, if they can get onto the Cloud, they never need to upgrade again. Because it's always current, because we upgrade it every week, or every month and they're never falling behind. So they want to be ready to take advantage of the innovations that they know about and those that they don't even know about. So by keeping on the latest version, that opportunities open to them. Also, there's a big issue in Europe specifically about a thing called GDPR, which is data protection. Security. So we believe that we can do a better job of providing that, than any individual Company. Because we provide it for everybody, our resources can be deployed once and then deployed many times. Where as if you're an individual customer, you've got to have that speciality and put it in place. So GDPR is a genuine issue in Europe, because, the fines are absolutely huge if a Company is found to breach it. >> It's become a template for the globe now, California's started moving in that direction, GDPR has set the frame work. >> Well and just to follow up on that, and now you're dealing with a very different regulatory climate, then certainly here in the United States. And many U.S. Companies are finding that out, as we know. Overseas right now. So how do you deal with that in terms of, this kind of balkanized approach that you have, that you know that what's working here doesn't necessarily translate to overseas, and plus you have, you know, you're serving many masters and not just one or two. >> What's happening is the guys in our RND have done very well, is they understand the requirement of, in this instance, GDPR. They look at the other regulatory requirements, lets say in Australia, which is subtly different, but it is different, and they can take, well what do we have to do? What's the most extreme we have to achieve? And if we do that across our suite into our platform suite, the N4RS, that can then be applied to all the applications. And then becomes relevant to the U.S. So it's almost like some requirement across the seas, being deployed then becoming really relevant back here because over here you do need to be aware of the data protection, as well, it's just not as formalized yet. >> It's coming >> A Brewing issue right? >> What about Asia Pacific? So you have responsibility for Japan, and China, and the rest of the region. >> Right >> Which you are sort of re-distinct... >> Really are right? There are several sub regions in the one region. The team down there, as I say, arguably the most successful team in Infor right now, so Helen and the crew. So you see Australia, New Zealand then you see Southeast Asia, then you see China, Japan and so on. So different dynamics and different markets, some more mature than others, Japan is very developed by very specific. You do need very specialized local skills to succeed. Arguably Australia, New Zealand is not that similar from say some of the European Countries. Even though there are differences and I would never dream to tell an Australian or a New Zealander that they are the same as Europeans, cuz I get it. I smile when people say "you're from the U.K and you're not from Ireland?" I understand the differentiation. (laugher) And Southeast Asia, there's a ton of local custom, local language, local business practice that needs to be catered for. We seem to be doing okay down there. As I say, fastest growing market at scale. It's not like it's growing ridiculously fast but from a small base. It's as a big market already and growing the fastest. >> And China, what's that like? You have to partner up? >> Oh yeah >> To the JV in China? >> You have to partner up, there are several of the key growth markets that it's best to go in with partners. Customers like to see we've got a presence. So that they can touch and feel that Infor entity. We can't achieve the scale we need, and the growth we want fast enough without partnering. So we have to go with partners to get us the resources that we need. >> And in the Middle East, so my business partner, Co-Host, John Furrier, is on a Twenty Hour flight to Bahrain. The Cube Bahrain. Bahrain was the first Country in the Middle East to declare Cloud first. AWS is obviously part of that story, part of your story. So what's going on over there? Is it a growing market? Is it sort of something you're still cracking? >> No, no, again it's growing. We have several key markets down there, big in hospitality in that part of the world. Hotels, tourism obviously. Shopping, very interesting markets, and Healthcare, interestingly enough. I think arguably some of the worlds best Hospitals are in that region. Definitely the best funded Hospitals. >> Probably the most comfortable. (laughter) >> So again part of our stent is the number of industries we serve, so if you can put in our platform as it were, then you could have multiple of the industry flavors applied. Because what's interesting in that part of World, there seem to be a number of, I guess we call them conglomerates. So maybe family owned, or region owned, and they have just a different array of businesses all under the one ownership. So you would have a retailer that's also doing some tourism, that's also doing some manufacturing. So we can put our platform in, and then those industry flavors they can get one solution to cover it all. Which is a little bit unusual, and works for us. >> Your scope is enormous. I mean essentially you're the head of Non-U.S. I mean is that right? >> Yeah, and Latin America as well. >> That's part of it? That's not... >> Excluding the Americas. So there's Americas and then everything else, and you're everything else. >> I missed a meeting you see so they just gave it to me >> What you raised your hand at the wrong time? >> I wasn't there (laughter) >> So how do you organize to be successful? You obviously have to have strong people in the region. >> Right. So the key is people, right. We organize somewhat differently to over here. We've gone for a regional model, so I have six sub-regions, that I worry about. So four in Europe, the Nordic Countries. Scandinavian, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark. We call Western, which is Ireland, U.K. and the Benelux. Germany is Central and East, and then Southern is the Latin Country, Spain, Portugal, Greece and so. Then we've got the Middle East, and Africa, and then we got Asia Pacific. I've got six regional teams, all headed by a regional leader, and each of them are trying to be as self contained as they can. And where we see we've got an opportunity to move into something new, we've got one team working with me directly as an incubator. For example, we're driving a specific focus on Healthcare, in our part of the world, because it's very big over here. We haven't quite cracked the code over there. When we get some scale, then it'll move into the regions, but for now that's incubating under me. >> And, what about in Country? Do you have Country Managers? One in the U.K., one in France, one in Germany. >> We have what we call local leaders, right? So in some cases it could be a sales oriented individual, it could be consulting, others it could be the local HR guy. So that's more for us to make sure we're building a sense of community within Infor. Rather than it being more customer facing. We're still trying to make sure that there is a reasonably scarcity of senior skills. So regionalizing lets us deploy across several Countries, and that works with the customer base, but for employees we need local leaders to give them a sense of feeling home and attached. >> So the regions are kind of expertise centers if you will? >> Yes >> So I was going to ask about product expertise, where does that come from? It's not parachuted in from the U.S. I presume? >> No, we're pretty much self-sufficient actually, which is great. So from both what we call solution consulting, which is the product expertise, and then consulting which is the product deployment. And we're doing more and more of our deployments with Partners. As I say, we need to really rapidly embrace that partner ecosystem to give us the growth opportunity. RND, is all over the World. That's not under my direct control. So for a major suites, take for example, LN, happens to be headquartered out of Barneveld, in the Netherlands. From a Historic perspective, which is great. And Stockholm, which is also great. But a lot of the development resource room in Nila and in India. So we work closely with the guys, even though they don't actually report to me. >> And out of the whole area, the area of your responsibility what's the best growth opportunity? We all think of China, but that's been fits and starts for a lot of people. >> Yeah, yeah I think we've got multiple opportunities, you can look at it a few ways. You can look at it geographically, and you would say China. You can look at Eastern Europe, and you can look at Africa. There's a ton of opportunity in those regions, geographically. Interestingly we are also at a point where I think the Nordics, and we've got a very solid base Historically, and so on. But we probably haven't put enough focus on there in recent times, that the opportunities are really scaled in Nordics is really quite significant. And then they can look at it from a Product Perspective. So for example, we have, what we believe to be World Leading, and actually a Company called Gartner would equally agree with us. Enterprise Asset Management, EAM, that's a product suite that can fit across all of our industries. I think that could well be the significant growth area for us across the entire six regions. And it's a huge focus for us here at the conference actually. So we can do it by product, EAM, Healthcare, or by Region. I think Eastern Europe, China, and Africa, as well as the Nordics. >> And the other big opportunity is just share gains, market share gains, particularly in Europe, I would think, with your background. >> Yup. Completely, I mean, that's why I said, it's really interesting that we are winning market share in Germany. Who'd of thought that a few years ago? That's a big market, I mean, Germany, U.K., France, Italy. They're huge. Right, I mean U.K., is what, Sixty-Five Million People? It's a big economy, so we've got many of the worlds G7, in our backyard. So we just really need to double down on those, and give them the opportunities to grow that we need. >> And just back to Japan for a second. Japan has traction, it takes a long time to crack Japan. I know it first from personal experiences. >> Yeah, Okay, Interesting. >> Yeah you just got to go many many times and meet people. >> That's it, Right. And it's a different culture, of when you think they're saying yes and you think they're there, that's just yes to the next step. (laughter) >> Alright, so it does take time to get there. We've actually cracked it to some extent, that we've now got some solid referenceability, and some good wind. We need local leaders in Japan, to really crack the code there. >> And then once you're in, you're in. >> I think that once you've proven yourself, it's a lot of word of mouth and referencing. >> Well I hope you get home this weekend. Are you headed home? >> Yes! Actually I'm lucky enough. My Wife is originally from Chicago. So she and our Daughter have come over for the weekend, to go sight seeing in Washington. So that'll be fun. So we'll be going home on Sunday. >> Your adopted home for the weekend then. >> That's exactly right. >> Well we'll talk Guinness in just a bit. Thanks for the time though, we appreciate it. >> Thank you Gentlemen. >> Good to see you, Sir. Alright, back with more here from Inforum 2018, and you're watching Live, on theCube, here in D.C. (electronic music)

>> Live from San Jose, in the heart of Silicon Valley, It's theCUBE, covering DataWorks Summit 2018. Brought to you by Hortonworks. >> Welcome back to theCUBE's live coverage of DataWorks here in San Jose, California, I'm your host, along with my cohost, James Kobielus. We're joined by Tendu Yogurtcu, she is the CTO of Syncsort. Thanks so much for coming on theCUBE, for returning to theCUBE I should say. >> Thank you Rebecca and James. It's always a pleasure to be here. >> So you've been on theCUBE before and the last time you were talking about Syncsort's growth. So can you give our viewers a company update? Where you are now? >> Absolutely, Syncsort has seen extraordinary growth within the last the last three year. We tripled our revenue, doubled our employees and expanded the product portfolio significantly. Because of this phenomenal growth that we have seen, we also embarked on a new initiative with refreshing our brand. We rebranded and this was necessitated by the fact that we have such a broad portfolio of products and we are actually showing our new brand here, articulating the value our products bring with optimizing existing infrastructure, assuring data security and availability and advancing the data by integrating into next generation analytics platforms. So it's very exciting times in terms of Syncsort's growth. >> So the last time you were on the show it was pre-GT prop PR but we were talking before the cameras were rolling and you were explaining the kinds of adoption you're seeing and what, in this new era, you're seeing from customers and hearing from customers. Can you tell our viewers a little bit about it? >> When we were discussing last time, I talked about four mega trends we are seeing and those mega trends were primarily driven by the advanced business and operation analytics. Data governance, cloud, streaming and data science, artificial intelligence. And we talked, we really made a lot of announcement and focus on the use cases around data governance. Primarily helping our customers for the GDPR Global Data Protection Regulation initiatives and how we can create that visibility in the enterprise through the data by security and lineage and delivering trust data sets. Now we are talking about cloud primarily and the keynotes, this event and our focus is around cloud, primarily driven by again the use cases, right? How the businesses are adopting to the new era. One of the challenges that we see with our enterprise customers, over 7000 customers by the way, is the ability to future-proof their applications. Because this is a very rapidly changing stack. We have seen the keynotes talking about the importance of how do you connect your existing infrastructure with the future modern, next generation platforms. How do you future-proof the platform, make a diagnostic about whether it's Amazon, Microsoft of Google Cloud. Whether it's on-premise in legacy platforms today that the data has to be available in the next generation platforms. So the challenge we are seeing is how do we keep the data fresh? How do we create that abstraction that applications are future-proofed? Because organizations, even financial services customers, banking, insurance, they now have at least one cluster running in the public cloud. And there's private implementations, hybrid becomes the new standard. So our focus and most recent announcements have been around really helping our customers with real-time resilient changes that capture, keeping the data fresh, feeding into the downstream applications with the streaming and messaging data frames, for example Kafka, Amazon Kinesis, as well as keeping the persistent stores and how to Data Lake on-premise in the cloud fresh. >> Puts you into great alignment with your partner Hortonworks so, Tendu I wonder if we are here at DataWorks, it's Hortonworks' show, if you can break out for our viewers, what is the nature, the levels of your relationship, your partnership with Hortonworks and how the Syncsort portfolio plays with HDP 3.0 with Hortonworks DataFlow and the data plan services at a high level. >> Absolutely, so we have been a longtime partner with Hortonworks and a couple of years back, we strengthened our partnership. Hortonworks is reselling Syncsort and we have actually a prescriptive solution for Hadoop and ETL onboarding in Hadoop jointly. And it's very complementary, our strategy is very complementary because what Hortonworks is trying and achieving, is creating that abstraction and future-proofing and interaction consistency around referred as this morning. Across the platform, whether it's on-premise or in the cloud or across multiple clouds. We are providing the data application layer consistency and future-proofing on top of the platform. Leveraging the tools in the platform for orchestration, integrating with HTP, certifying with Trange or HTP, all of the tools DataFlow and at last of course for lineage. >> The theme of this conference is ideas, insights and innovation and as a partner of Hortonworks, can you describe what it means for you to be at this conference? What kinds of community and deepening existing relationships, forming new ones. Can you talk about what happens here? >> This is one of the major events around data and it's DataWorks as opposed to being more specific to the Hadoop itself, right? Because stack is evolving and data challenges are evolving. For us, it means really the interactions with the customers, the organizations and the partners here. Because the dynamics of the use cases is also evolving. For example Data Lake implementations started in U.S. And we started MER European organizations moving to streaming, data streaming applications faster than U.S. >> Why is that? >> Yeah. >> Why are Europeans moving faster to streaming than we are in North America? >> I think a couple of different things might participate. The open sources really enabling organizations to move fast. When the Data Lake initiative started, we have seen a little bit slow start in Europe but more experimentation with the Open Source Stack. And by that the more transformative use cases started really evolving. Like how do I manage interactions of the users with the remote controls as they are watching live TV, type of transformative use cases became important. And as we move to the transformative use cases, streaming is also very critical because lots of data is available and being able to keep the cloud data stores as well as on-premise data stores and downstream applications with fresh data becomes important. We in fact in early June announced that Syncsort's now's a part of Microsoft One Commercial Partner Program. With that our integrate solutions with data integration and data quality are Azure gold certified and Azure ready. We are in co-sale agreement and we are helping jointly a lot of customers, moving data and workloads to Azure and keeping those data stores close to platforms in sync. >> Right. >> So lots of exciting things, I mean there's a lot happening with the application space. There's also lots still happening connected to the governance cases that we have seen. Feeding security and IT operations data into again modern day, next generation analytics platforms is key. Whether it's Splunk, whether it's Elastic, as part of the Hadoop Stack. So we are still focused on governance as part of this multi-cloud and on-premise the cloud implementations as well. We in fact launched our Ironstream for IBMI product to help customers, not just making this state available for mainframes but also from IBMI into Splunk, Elastic and other security information and event management platforms. And today we announced work flow optimization across on-premise and multi-cloud and cloud platforms. So lots of focus across to optimize, assure and integrate portfolio of products helping customers with the business use cases. That's really our focus as we innovate organically and also acquire technologies and solutions. What are the problems we are solving and how we can help our customers with the business and operation analytics, targeting those mega trends around data governance, cloud streaming and also data science. >> What is the biggest trend do you think that is sort of driving all of these changes? As you said, the data is evolving. The use cases are evolving. What is it that is keeping your customers up at night? >> Right now it's still governance, keeping them up at night, because this evolving architecture is also making governance more complex, right? If we are looking at financial services, banking, insurance, healthcare, there are lots of existing infrastructures, mission critical data stores on mainframe IBMI in addition to this gravity of data changing and lots of data with the online businesses generated in the cloud. So how to govern that also while optimizing and making those data stores available for next generation analytics, makes the governance quite complex. So that really keeps and creates a lot of opportunity for the community, right? All of us here to address those challenges. >> Because it sounds to me, I'm hearing Splunk, Advanced Machine did it, I think of the internet of things and sensor grids. I'm hearing IBM mainframes, that's transactional data, that's your customer data and so forth. It seems like much of this data that you're describing that customers are trying to cleanse and consolidate and provide strict governance on, is absolutely essential for them to drive more artificial intelligence into end applications and mobile devices that are being used to drive the customer experience. Do you see more of your customers using your tools to massage the data sets as it were than data scientists then use to build and train their models for deployment into edge applications. Is that an emerging area where your customers are deploying Syncsort? >> Thank you for asking that question. >> It's a complex question. (laughing) But thanks for impacting it... >> It is a complex question but it's very important question. Yes and in the previous discussions, we have seen, and this morning also, Rob Thomas from IBM mentioned it as well, that machine learning and artificial intelligence data science really relies on high-quality data, right? It's 1950s anonymous computer scientist says garbage in, garbage out. >> Yeah. >> When we are using artificial intelligence and machine learning, the implications, the impact of bad data multiplies. Multiplies with the training of historical data. Multiplies with the insights that we are getting out of that. So data scientists today are still spending significant time on preparing the data for the iPipeline, and the data science pipeline, that's where we shine. Because our integrate portfolio accesses the data from all enterprise data stores and cleanses and matches and prepares that in a trusted manner for use for advanced analytics with machine learning, artificial intelligence. >> Yeah 'cause the magic of machine learning for predictive analytics is that you build a statistical model based on the most valid data set for the domain of interest. If the data is junk, then you're going to be building a junk model that will not be able to do its job. So, for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost. For want of a Syncsort, (laughing) Data cleansing and you know governance tool, the whole AI superstructure will fall down. >> Yes, yes absolutely. >> Yeah, good. >> Well thank you so much Tendu for coming on theCUBE and for giving us a lot of background and information. >> Thank you for having me, thank you. >> Good to have you. >> Always a pleasure. >> I'm Rebecca Knight for James Kobielus. We will have more from theCUBE's live coverage of DataWorks 2018 just after this. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Announcer: Live from Vancouver, Canada. It's theCUBE covering OpenStack Summit North America 2018. Brought to you by Red Hat, the OpenStack Foundation, and its ecosystem partners. >> Welcome back. This is theCUBE's exclusive coverage of OpenStack Summit 2018 in Vancouver. I'm Stu Miniman with my co-host John Troyer. Happy to welcome back to the program two CUBE alums. We have Alan Clark, who's the board chair of the OpenStack Foundation and in the CTO office of SUSE. >> Yep, thank you. >> Thanks for joining us again. It's been a few years. >> It's been a while, I appreciate being back. >> And Lew Tucker, the vice chair of the OpenStack Foundation and vice president and CTO of Cisco. Lew, it's been weeks. >> Exactly right. >> All right. >> I've become a regular here. >> Yeah, absolutely. So, first of all, John Furrier sent his regard. He wishes he was here, you know. John's always like come on Lew and I, everybody, we were talking about when this Kubernetes thing started and all the conferences, so it's been a pleasure for us to be here. Six years now at this show, as well as some of the remote days and other things there. It's been fun to watch the progressions of-- >> Isn't it amazing how far we've come? >> Yeah, absolutely. Here's my first question for you, Alan. On the one hand, I want you to talk about how far we've gone. But the other thing is, people, when they learn about something, whenever they first learn about it tends to fossilize in their head, this is what it is and always will be. So I think most people know that this isn't the Amazon killer or you know it's free VMware. That we talked about years ago. Bring us a little bit of that journey. >> Well, so, you know, it started with the basic compute storage and as we've watched open-source grow and adoption of open-source grow, the demands on services grow. We're in this transformation period where everything's growing and changing very rapidly. Open-source is driving that. OpenStack could not stay static. When it started, it solved a need, but the needs continued to grow and continued to change. So it's not surprising at all that OpenStack has grown and changed and will continue to grow and change. >> So Lew, it's been fascinating for me, you know. I've worked with and all these things with Cisco and various pieces for my entire career. You're here wearing the OpenStack @ Cisco shirt. And Cisco's journey really did through that to digital transformation themselves. When I talked to Rowan at Cisco Live Barcelona, the future of Cisco is as a software company. So, help set OpenStack into that kind of broader picture. >> Sure, I think one of the aspects of that is that we're seeing now it is becoming this multi-cloud world. And that we see all of our customers are running in the public cloud. They have their own private data centers. And what they're looking for is they want their whole development model and everything else to now become targeted towards that multi-cloud world. They're going to do services in the public cloud, they still have their private data center. OpenStack is a place for them to actually meet and run all their services 'cause now you can build your environment within your data center that makes it look very much like your public cloud, so your developers don't have two completely different mindsets. They have the same one, it's extracting resources on demand. And that one, we're putting on top of that other newer technology that's coming, such as Kubernetes. We've got a real consistency between those environments. >> Yeah, please Alan. >> I was going to say, it enables you to leverage your existing infrastructure so you don't want to make them, particularly those SUSE's customers, they don't want us to come in and say throw everything away, start afresh right? But at the same time, you've got to be able to embrace what's new and what's coming. We're talking about many new technologies here in OpenStack Summit today right? Containers and all sorts of stuff. A lot of those things are still very new to our customers and they're preparing for that. As Lew said, we're building that infrastructure. >> One of the things, as I'm thinking about it, some people look at, they look at codec containers and some of these pieces outside of the OpenStack project and they're like, well what's the Foundation doing? But I believe it should be framed, and please, please, I would love your insight on this, in that multi-cloud discussion because this is, it can't just be, well, this is how you build private. It needs to be, this is how you live in this multi-cloud environment. >> That's why I think, you're beginning to see us talk about open infrastructure. And this is using open-source software to use software to manage your infrastructure and build it out instead of configuration, cabling, having guys going out, plugging in, unplugging network ports and whatever. We want software and automations to do all that, so OpenStack is one of the cloud platforms. But these other projects are now coming into the Foundation, which also expand that notion of open infrastructure, and that's why we're seeing these projects expand. >> Lew's exactly right and it goes beyond that. Back in 2017, early 2017, we recognized, as a board, that it's not going to be just about the projects within OpenStack. We have to embrace our adjacent communities and embrace those technologies. So that's why you're hearing a lot about Kubernetes and containers and networking and all sorts of projects that are not necessarily being done within OpenStack but you're seeing how we're collaborating with all those other communities. >> And codec is a perfect example of that. Codec containers came out of those clear containers. It's now combining the best of both worlds, 'cause now you get the speed of containers bringing up, but you get the security and isolation of virtual machines. That's important in the OpenStack community, in our world, because that's what we want out of our clouds. >> Well you both have just mentioned community a few times. I saw one thing coming in to this conference, I'm so impressed by the prominence of community. It's up on stage from the first minutes of the first keynote. People, the call to action, the pleas, for the folks, some of us have been here years and years, for the new folks, please come meet us right? That's really inviting, it's very clear that this is a community. >> Yeah I was surprised, actually, 'cause we saw it when we were asked when up on stage how many people were here for the first time? More than half the audience raised their hand. >> Alan: I was surprised by that as well. >> That was the real surprise. And at the same time, we're seeing, increasingly, users of OpenStack coming in as opposed the people who are in core projects. We're seeing Progressive insurance coming in. We're seeing Adobe Marketing Cloud having over 100,000 cores running OpenStack. That's in addition to what we've had with Walmart and others so the real users are coming. So our communities, not just the developers but the users of OpenStack and the operators. >> That's always an interesting intention for an open-source project right. You have the open-source contributors, and then you have the users and operators. But here at the show right? All of these different technology tracks. Part of community is identity. And so, as the technical work has been split-off, and is actually at another event, these are the users. But it does, with all these other technology conversations, I wonder what the core identity of, I'm an OpenStack member, like what does that end up meaning in a world of open infrastructure? if the projects, if the OpenStack itself is more mature, and as we get up the letters of the alphabet towards Z, How do you all want to steer what it means to be a member of the OpenStack community. >> We met on Sunday as a joint leadership. So we had, it wasn't just a board meeting, it was a meeting with the technical committee, it was a meeting with the user committee. So we're very much pushing to make sure we have those high interactions, that the use cases are getting translated into requirements and getting translated into blueprints and so forth. We're working very, very hard to make sure we have that communication open. And I think one of the things that sets the OpenStack community apart is what we call our Four Opens. We base everything on our Four Opens and one of those is communication, transparency and communication. And that's what people are finding enticing. And one of the big reasons is I think they're coming to OpenStack to do that innovation and collaboration. >> We've seen the same thing with Linux, for example. Linux is no longer just the operating system when people think about the Linux community. Linux community is the operating system and then all of these other projects associated with them. That's the same thing that we're seeing with OpenStack. That's why we're continuing to see, wherever there's a need as people are deploying OpenStack and operating it and running it, all of these other open-source components are coming into it because that's what they really were running, that conglomerate of projects around it. >> Certainly, the hype cycle, and maybe Linux went through it's own hype cycle, back in the day and I'm from Silicon Valley. I think the hype cycle outside the community and what's actually happening on the ground here actually are meshed quite well. What I saw this week, like you said, real users, big users, infrastructure built into every bank, transport, telecom in the world. That's a global necessary part of the infrastructure of our planet. So outside of investment, things like that-- >> Well I hope you can help us get the message out. Because that is, a major thing that we see and we experience the conf, people who are not here. They still, then maybe look at OpenStack the way it was, maybe, four years ago, and it was difficult to deploy, and people were struggling with it, and there was a lot of innovation happening at a very, very fast rate. Well now, it's proven, it's sort of industrial grade, it's being deployed at a very large scale across many, many industries. >> Well it's interesting. Remember, Lew, when we were talking about ethernet fabrics. We would talk about some of SDN and some of these big things. Well, look sometimes these things are over-hyped. It's like, well, there's a certain class of the market who absolutely needs this. If I'm at Telco, and I sat here a couple of years ago, and was like, okay, is it 20 or 50 companies in the world that it is going to be absolutely majorly transformative for them and that's hugely important. If I'm a mid-sized enterprise, I'm still not sure how much I'm caring about what's happening here, no offense, I'd love to hear some points there. But what it is and what it isn't with targets, absolutely, there are massive, massive clouds. Go to China, absolutely. You hear a lot about OpenStack here. Coming across the US, I don't hear a lot about it. We've known that for years. But I've talked to cloud provider in Australia, we've talked to Europeans that the @mail who's the provider for emails for certain providers around the world. It's kind of like okay, what part of the market and how do we make sure we target that because otherwise, it's this megaphone of yeah, OpenStack, well I'm not sure that was for me. >> So, yeah, what's your thought? >> We're seeing a lot of huge variety of implementations, users that are deploying OpenStack. And yeah we always think about the great big ones right? I love CERN, we love the Walmarts. We love China Mobiles, because they're huge, great examples. But I have to say we're actually seeing a whole range of deployments. They don't get the visibility 'cause they're small. Everybody goes, oh you're running on three machines or 10 machines, okay, right? Talk to me when you're the size of CERN. But that's not the case, we're seeing this whole range of deployments. They probably don't get much visibility, but they're just as important. So there's tons of use cases out there. There's tons of use cases published out there and we're seeing it. >> One of the interesting use cases with a different scale has been that edge discussion. I need a very small-- >> In fact that's a very pointed example, because they've had a ton of discussion because of that variety of needs. You get the telcos with their large-scale needs, but you've also got, you know, everybody else. >> It's OpenStack sitting at the bottom of a telephone pole. On a little blade with something embedded. >> In a retail store. >> It's in a retail store. >> Or in a coffee shop. >> Yeah. >> So this is really where we recognizing over and over again we go through these transitions that it used to be, even the fixed devices out of the edge. To change that, you have to replace that device. Instead, we want automation and we want software to do it. That's why OpenStack, moving to the edge, where it's a smaller device, much more capability, but it still computes storage and networking. And you want to have virtualized applications there so you can upgrade that, you can add new services without sending a truck out to replace that. >> Moving forward, do we expect to see more interaction between the Foundation itself and other foundations and open-source projects? And what might that look like? >> It depends on the community. It really does, we definitely have communications from at the board level from board-to-board between adjacent communities. It happens at the grassroots level, from, what we call SIGs or work groups with SIGs and work groups from those adjacent communities. >> I happen to sit on three boards, which is the OpenStack board the CNCF board, Cloud Foundry. And so what we're also seeing, though, now. For example, running Kubernetes, we just have now the cloud provider, which, OpenStack, being a cloud provider for Kubernetes similar in the open way that Amazon had the cloud provider for Kubernetes or Google is the cloud provider. So that now we're seeing the communities working together 'cause that's what our customers want. >> And now it's all driven by SIGs. >> The special interest groups, both sides getting together and saying, how do we make this happen? >> How do we make this happen? >> All right. One of the things you look at, there's a lot going on at the show. There's the OpenDev activity, there's a container track, there's an edge track. Sometimes, you know, where it gets a little unfocused, it's like let's talk about all the adjacencies, wait what about the core? I'd love to get your final takeaways, key things you've seen at the show, takeaways you want people to have when they think about OpenStack the show and OpenStack the Foundation. >> From my point of view it actually is back to where we started the conversation, is these users that are now coming out and saying, "I've been running OpenStack for the last three years, "now we're up to 100,000 or 200,000 cores." That shows the real adoption and those are the new operators. You don't think of Walmart or Progressive as being a service provider but they're delivering their service through the internet and they need a cloud platform in which to do that. So that's one part that I find particularly exciting. >> I totally agree with Lew. The one piece I would add is I think we've proven that it's the right infrastructure for the technology of the future, right? That's why we're able to have these additional discussions around edge and additional container technologies and Zuul with containers testing and deployment. It fits right in, so it's not a distraction. It's an addition to our infrastructure. >> I think the idea around, and that's why we actually broke up into these different tracks and had different keynotes around containers and around edge because those are primary use cases now. Two years ago when I think we were talking here, and like NFV and all the telcos were, and now that has succeeded because almost all the NFV deployments now are based on OpenStack. Now we're seeing it go to containers and edge, which are more application specific deployments. >> I'd love for you to connect the dots for us from the NFV stuff we were talking about a couple of years ago to the breadth of edge. There is no edge, it depends on who you are as to what the edge is, kind of like cloud was a few years ago. >> I mean, we actually have a white paper. If you go to OpenStack.org or just Google OpenStack edge white paper, I think you'll see that there are a variety of cases that are from manufacturing, retail, telco, I saw even space, remote driving vehicles and everything else like that. It's where latency really matters. So that we know that cloud computing is the fastest way to deploy and maintain, upgrade new applications, virtualize applications on a cloud. It's unfortunately too far away from many the places that have much more real-time characteristics. So if you're under 40 milliseconds or whatever, or you want to get something done in a VR environment or whatever, under five milliseconds, you can't go back to the cloud. It also, if you have an application, for example, a security monitoring application, whatever. 99% of the time, the video frames are the same and they're not interesting, don't push all that information back into the central cloud. Process it locally, now when you see frames that are changing, or whatever, you only use the bandwidth and the storage in the central cloud. So we're seeing this relationship between what do you want computed at the edge and how much computing can you do as we get more powerful there and then what do you want back in the centralized data centers. >> Daniel: While you simplify the management. >> Exactly right. >> Orchestration, policy. >> But you still need the automation, you need it to be virtualized, you need it to be managed in that way, so you can upgrade it. >> Alan Clark, Lew Tucker, always a pleasure to catch up. >> Thank you, yeah, >> Thank you so much for joining us. >> It's good to be here. >> John Troyer and I will be back with lots more coverage from OpenStack Summit 2018 here in Vancouver. Thanks for watching theCUBE. (upbeat music)