(upbeat music) >> Welcome back to Supercloud 22. I'm John Furrier, your host of "The Cube." We're here for a live performance in studio bringing all the thought leaders around this concept of Supercloud, which is a consortium of the smartest people in the industry, the the Cloudaratti some say, or just people in the field building out next generation Cloud technologies for businesses, for the industry, you know, software meets infrastructure at scale and platforms. All great stuff. We have an expert here, Cube alumni and friend of ours, Howie Xu, VP of machine learning and AI at Zscaler, hugely successful company, platform, whatever you want to call it. They're definitely super clouding in their own. Howie, great to see you. Thanks for spending time with us to unpack and grock the direction of the industry that we see. We call it Supercloud. >> Hey, John, great to be back. I'm expecting a nice very educational and interesting conversation here again. >> Yeah, well, you know, one of the things I love talking with you about is you're deep on the technology side, as well as you got the historian view like we do. We've seen the movies before, we've seen the patterns, and now we're seeing structural change that has happened, that's cloud. Thank you very much, AWS. And as your GCP and others. Now we're seeing structural change happening in real time and we want to talk about it as it's happening. This is the purpose of this event. And that is that Cloud is one. Okay, great Cloud operations, on premises and Edge are emerging. Software is open source. It's the perfect storm for innovation and new things are emerging. You're seeing companies like Snowflake, and Databricks, and Zscaler all building great products. But now it's not one thing anymore. It's a lot of things going on. So what is your take on Supercloud? How do you see this evolving? What is some of the structural change that's happening in your mind? >> Yeah, so when you first reached out a few weeks ago about this event, I was like, "Hey, what is Supercloud." I know you tweeted a little bit here and there, but I never really, you know, double clicked, right. So I actually listened to some of your episodes you know, the previous conversations. You know, I would say the way you define Supercloud is it's not just the multi-cloud. The multi-Cloud is probably one aspect of it, right. You know, it's actually more beyond that, right. You know, a little bit, you know, towards past, a little bit more towards the flexibility, and then, you know, including, and also you want to include the on-prem, the edge, not just the Big 3 cloud, right. So there is a lot of the, let's say hybrid, more inclusive, right. So, the way I look at it is it's now very different from my imagination of where the Cloud would be, should be 10, 12 years ago. Because, you know, at that time it was, you know, on-prem dominant and then we say, hey, let's go cloud. I never for a second thought, you know, we would've ditch the on-prem completely, right. You know, on-prem has its own value. It's own kind of characteristics we wanted to keep, right. But the way we went for the last 10 years is, hey, Cloud, Cloud everywhere. We embrace Cloud. You know, the way I look at architecture is always very much like a pendulum, right? We swung from decentralized in the mainframe days, you know back in the days, to more distributed, right, PC, kind of a architecture, you know, servers in your own data center. And then to the now, the Cloud, the Big 3 Cloud in particular, right. I think in the next 10, 15, 20 years, it will swing back to more decentralized, more distributed architecture again. Every time you have a swing, because there is some fundamental reason behind that, we all knew the reason behind the current swing to the Cloud. It's because hey, the on-prem data center was too complex, right. You know, too expensive, right. You know, it would've take at least the six months to get any business application going, right. So compared to Cloud, a swipe a credit card, frictionless, you know, pay as you go, it's so great. But I think we are going to see more and more reason for people to say, "Hey, I need a architecture the other way around because of the decentralized the use case," right. Web3 is one example. Even though Web3 is still, you know, emerging right, very, very early days. But that could be one reason, right? You mentioned the Zscaler is kind of a Supercloud of its own, right? We always embrace public Cloud, but a lot of the workloads is actually on our own, you know, within our own data center. We take advantage of the elasticity of the public Cloud, right. But we also get a value, get a performance of our private Cloud. So I want to say a company like Zscaler taking advantage of the Supercloud already, but there will be more and more use cases taking advantage. >> And the use cases are key. Let me just go back and share something we had on the panel earlier in the day, the Cloudaratti Panel. Back in 2008, a bunch of us were getting together and we kind of were riffing, oh yeah, the future's going to be web services and Clouds will talk to each other, workloads can work across this (indistinct) abstraction layer, APIs is going to be talking to each other. A little bit early but we tried to think about it in terms of the preferred architecture. Okay, way too early. Yeah. AWS was just getting going, really kind of pumping on all cylinders there, getting that trajectory up. But it was use case driven. The nirvana never happened. I mean, we were talking Supercloud back then with the Cloudaratti group and we were thinking, okay, hey this is cool. But it was just an evolutionary thing. So I want to get your reaction. Today, the use cases are different. It's not just developers deploying on public Cloud to get all those greatness and goodness of the Cloud, to your point about Zscaler and others, there's on premises use cases and edge use cases emerging. 5g is right there. That's going to explode. So, the use cases now are all Cloud based. Again, this is an input into what we're seeing around Supercloud. How do you see that? What's your reaction to that? And how do you see that evolving so that the methodologies and all the taxonomies are in place for the right solution? >> Right, I mean, you know, some of the use cases are already here, you know, have been here for the last few years. And again, I mentioned a Zscaler, right. The reason that a Zscaler needs the on-prem version of it is because it's impossible to route all the traffic to the Big 3 Cloud, because they're still far away. Sometimes you need the presence much closer to you in order for you to get the level of the performance latency you want, right. So that's why Zscaler has, you know, so many data center of our own instead of leveraging the public Cloud, you know, for most part. However, public Cloud is still super important for Zscaler. I can tell you a story, right. You know, two years ago, you know, at the beginning of the pandemics, everyone started working from home suddenly, right. You are talking about Fortune 500 companies with 200,000 employees, suddenly having 200,000 employees working from home. Their VPN architecture is not going to support that kind of the workload, right? Even Zscaler's own architecture or the presence is not enough. So overnight we just, having so many new workloads, to support this work from home, the zero trust network for our customers, literally overnight. So it wouldn't have happened without public Cloud. So we took advantage of the public Cloud. Yet at the same time, for many, many use cases that Zscaler is paying attention to in terms of the zero trust architecture, the latency, the latency guarantee aspect, the cost is so important. So we kind of take it advantage of both. >> Yeah, definitely. >> Today you may say, hey, you know, Zscaler is one of the, not a majority of the companies in terms of the Cloud adoption or public Cloud adoption, right. But I can say that, yeah, that's because it's more infrastructure, security infrastructure. It's a little bit different for some of the communication applications, right. Why not just support everything on the public Cloud? That's doable today. However, moving forward next to 5, 10, 15 years, we expect to see Web3 kind of the use cases to grow more and more. In those kind of decentralized use cases, I can totally see that we, you know, the on-prim presence is very important. >> Yeah. One of the things we're seeing with Supercloud that we're kind of seeing clarity on is that there's a lot of seamless execution around, less friction around areas that require a PhD or hard work. And you're seeing specialty Superclouds, apps, identity data security. You're also seeing vertical clouds, Goldman Sachs doing financial applications. I'm sure there'll be some insurance. People in these verse. Building on top of the CapEx on one Cloud really fast and moving to others. So that's clearly a trend. The interesting thing I want to get your thoughts on, Howie, on an architectural basis is in Cloud, public Cloud generally, SaaS depends on IAS. So there's an interplay between SaaS and the infrastructures of service and pass as well. But SaaS and IAS, they solve a lot of the problems. You mentioned latency. How do you see the interplay of these Superclouds that utilize the SaaS IS relationship to solve technical problems? So in architecturally, that's been a tight integration on these Clouds, but now as you get more complexity with Supercloud, how do you see SaaS applications changing? >> Yeah, I view the Supercloud is actually reduced the complexity. The reason I'm saying that is, think about it in the world where you have predominantly public Cloud kind of the architecture, right? 10 years ago, AWS has probably 20 services. Now they probably have, you know, more than 1,000 services. Same thing with Azure, same thing with GCP. I mean, who can make sense out of it, right. You know, if you just consume the eyes or the Big 3 Cloud service as is. You know, you need a PhD these days to make sense all of them. So the way I think about Supercloud or where, you know it is going, is it has to provide more simplicity, a better way for people to make sense out of it, right. Cause if I'm an architecture and I have to think, hey, this is a public Cloud, this is a multi-Cloud, and by the way, certain things need to be run on the on-prem. And how do I deal with the uniform nature of it? My mind would blow up. So I need a higher level abstraction. That higher level abstraction will hide the complexity of the where it is, which vendor. It will only tell me the service level, right. You know, we always say, you know, the Cloud is like electricity. I only wanted to know is that like 110 volt or 220, 240, whatever that is. I don't really want to know more than that, right. So I want to say a key requirement for the Supercloud is it's reduced the complexity, higher level abstraction. It has to be like that. >> And operational consistencies at the bottom. Howie, we have one minute left. I want to get your thoughts. I'd like you to share what you're working on that you're excited about. It doesn't have to be with Zscaler. As you see the Supercloud trend emerging, this is the next generation Cloud, Cloud 2.0, whatever we want to call it, it's happening. It's changing. It's getting better. What are you excited about? What do you see as really key inflection point variables in this big wave? >> Yeah. One of the things I really like, what I heard from you in the past about Supercloud is a Supercloud is not just a one Cloud or one vendor. It's almost like every company should have its own Supercloud, right. You're talking about JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs of the world, that they need to have their own Supercloud. Zscaler and their security vendors, they may have their own Cloud. So I think every Fortune 500, Fortune 2,000 companies will have its own Supercloud. So I'm excited about that. So why that's important? We also say that, you know, in the next 10, 20 years, AI machine learning is going to help us a lot, right. So without Supercloud, it's very hard to do AI machine learning. 'Cause if you don't have a place that you know where the data is, and then it's pretty hard. And in the context of Supercloud, I totally foresee that the AI model will follow the data. If the data is in the cloud, it will go there. If the data is on-prem, it will go there. And then the Supercloud will hide the complexity of it. So if you ask me, my passion is leveraging AI machine learning to change the world, but Supercloud will make that easier, right. If you think about why Google, Facebook of the world, are able to leverage AI better than 99% of the rest of the world, because they figure out the Supercloud for themselves, right. And I think now it's the time for the rest of the Fortune 500, of Fortune 2,000 company to figure out its own Supercloud strategy. What is my Supercloud? I need to have my own Supercloud. Each company needs to have its own Supercloud. That's how I see it. >> Howie, always great to have you on. Thanks so much for spending the time and weighing in on this really important topic. We're going to be opening this up. It's not over. We're going to continue to watch the change as it unfolds and get an open community perspective. Thank you so much for being a great expert in our network and community. We really appreciate your time. >> Thank you for having me. >> Okay. Okay, that's it. We'll be up with more coverage here, Supercloud event, after this short break. I'm John Furrier, host of "The Cube." Thanks for watching. (upbeat music)

(upbeat jazz music) >> From our studios, in the heart of Silicon Valley, Palo Alto, California. This is a CUBEConversation. >> Hello everyone, welcome to this special CUBEConversation. I'm John Furrier in theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto, California. We're excited to have a great tech talk here with good friend Howie Xu, who's currently the Vice President of Machine Learning and AI at Zscaler. Formally an entrepreneur, which he sold his company Zscaler. Before that entrepreneur resident Greylock. Before that VMWare, a variety of other endeavors. Howie and I, we've known each other for a while. Great to have you come in and chat about-- >> Great to be here! >> The Zoom, Zscaler, these are the new breed modern era companies, SaaS business models. Really interesting and this is something that we were talking about on email and over text, is our topic. >> Yeah. >> Thanks for coming in. >> Great. >> So you've seen the waves at VMWare, you saw the rapid growth there. And now, you work for Zscaler which is experiencing rapid growth. You saw Zoom go public, and I just interviewed Michael Dell. We were commenting about that on text as well. He said these big markets that have big total addressable dollars associated with them are ripe for disruption. They used to have high barriers to entry in the old ways to look at it, but now with cloud and with SaaS, with data, there's different innovation speeds. This has become a big deal. Talk about your view on this. >> Well to me, when Zoom and then Zscaler founded, many years ago, no one believed that they would become this big, right? When Zoom founded, they were plenty of the conference, free even, software available out there. When Jay founded Zscaler people thought, "Well, there was enough security companies, security solutions." Clearly, they defied conventional wisdom and then they just fought on and they saw something that other people didn't see which is precisely what you were talking about. The SaaS is so different, right? The business model, the innovation speed, the data driven kind of the thing, it's so different. A lot of people say, "Hey what's the difference "between SaaS versus the convention? "Isn't that just moving that thing over to the cloud?" I actually used to think that way too, right? Isn't that just the virtual price, moving on to Amazon Cloud? After living and breathing in SaaS company and then also observing that in the VC industry as well. It's just totally different, day and night different. >> Well I wanted to get into this with you 'cause I think you bring some good perspective onto these insights and to the rocket success of say Zoom and Zscaler, but Zoom in particular, recent successful IPO. Among the recent class this past quarter. Zoom, Lyft, Uber. Zoom is standing out. They're getting profitable. This is video conferencing. You know in the old days if someone said, "Hey, I want to compete with video conferences." Well, the barriers are actually too high, but they took a very innovative approach. Cloud, data, simplicity, and the big 800 pound gorilla was the WebEx's of the world. Who was defined, divine for sharing slides, not so much pure video. (laughing) >> Yeah. >> They really innovated the focus, the speed of success. Unprecedented, in my opinion. I think this is a huge success of what the opportunities are for entrepreneurs. >> Yeah, I think on the surface, right? If you ask Eric he would tell you that, look the WebEx was designed for sharing slides, and then the Zoom was designed from ground up for video sharing, or the video conferencing, so it's very different and it requires different architecture. So that's very true. But I think there is a more fundamental to that. The more fundamental for that is, there are a few things. One is the product, the life cycle is very different. How do you approach the customer? The release cycle, the sort of the feedback loop, right? Much tighter feedback loop, much faster feedback loop between the customer and you. The release cost is much lower now as a SaaS product. So, innovation is just accelerated because it's SaaS, because it's a true SaaS. >> And this is a unique thing, you said before, SaaS isn't just lifting a on-premises workload and moving it to the cloud. It's a completely different mindset. Talk about this dynamic, because it affords new kinds of risk taking. You and I were talking about before we came on camera, share your insight on that. >> Well, you know, as kind of the traditional software you have a release cycle, you want it to have a release date, right? And then once the product is in customer hand, if you have a bug, if you have something, it's so costly to change it, right? But as a SaaS, the form factor, you can take a little bit more risk. You can even give that feature set to 10% of your audience. Not the entire set of the audience. You can do those kind of magic, so you can accelerate the innovation and as a shrink-wrapped software the traditional way. You have one shot, if that software is not good, then you are toast. >> So you can move quicker. You can push code, you don't have the on-premise dynamics. >> Yeah, the innovation and then risk taking are kind of correlated, right? Relatively more risk, the more you are willing to take risk, relatively you can take more innovation. So, that's the thing. >> Well, you and I were talking, and one of the key things that you have been talking about publicly, and amongst friends, is innovation speed. Everyone wants the innovation fever. "I got to win to innovate, digital transformation, rah rah." Easier said then done. Innovation speed is critical with cloud and SaaS, why? What's the formula there for innovation speed? >> Well, one thing we discussed, the release cycle. For a, not necessarily for Zoom and Zscaler, but you know for SaaS in general, its possible for you to have daily, weekly, monthly release. Traditional software, there is no way you can do that but that's just the release cycles of that. The other thing is, you can actually take a risk. You can say, "Hey I want you to try to raise 1% of the customer and then see how they are going to react to this." But in the traditional way you have product manager debating for six months, six years on whether or how to do things. Here, let's not debate, let's just see. >> Let's ship it. >> Right, ship it. >> And Reid Hoffman always says, "If he's not embarrassed by your first shipment then you're not doing it properly." Which begs the question, I want to get your thoughts on this because, again with VMware, you saw how early that worked and their transforming cloud is now here unlike when they started the company. What is the right way to do it? And what's the wrong way to do it? When you look at an entrepreneur or a friend, who's trying to get a business off the ground, SaaS business, when you look at what they're doing, and you look at their mechanisms and how they're organizing their team, their code. What jumps out at you as the wrong way, and what's the right way? >> Well, the, I think the coach is really it, right? You know, the kind of the coach of incremental success and the fast iteration is the culture for a SaaS company, right? For the traditional one, you cannot afford to do that, because once you make a small mistake, you are toast. So I think, you know, that the culture difference, you really want it to have faster iteration basically. >> And that also comes down to the team, the people, right? >> Yes. >> The people selection. >> Yes, if you are kind of used to the waterfall thing, it's pretty hard to adapt to this kind of the SaaS world. >> And what's your advice to entrepreneurs? Reset, because if you say speed is of the essence, resetting is probably something that's not hard to do, then. >> Well, I wouldn't say easy, but not easy-- >> I hate to use the word pivot, but you know, resetting means okay, stop, rebuild. >> I think one way to think about it is actually looking at it and how to build enterprise software, like the consumer sort of product way, right? If you think of Facebook or Google, the traditional Google, of course Google now has enterprise product, but the traditional sort of, the Google, Facebook, kind of the product, it's more for consumers to consume. I mean they are fast iterations. How often? What's the criteria to release a product? Enterprise product is getting towards there. You need that kind of the thing, so, if you don't know how to do it look at a Facebook, how Facebook, of course Facebook and YouTube pulled the other way around, they need to care more about the privacy, care about more stability. So I think you are seeing the the two sides of the world, the enterprise side and the consumer side. They are learning from each other. >> Well, I want to get to the enterprise talk track in a second, because I think you can give a lot of insight, so I want to stay on SaaS cloud native or cloud specifically, 'cause that's where SaaS really shines when you're really talking about cloud scale. Data, you're doing AI now, and you and I have both talked about data many times. >> Yes. >> You know I'm a data hardcore person. I love data. I think software and data, I wrote a blog post in 2007, that says data is the new developer kit. The word "developer kit" was used back then. You're now seeing where data is part of the developer's piece of their value creation. Highly addressable, available, usable, not stored in some silo unaddressable, high latency to get it. How important is the data for the SaaS piece? Because that's where to make these kind of changes you're talking about, you need the data, data's giving you insights, that's something that's near and dear to your heart. Explain your vision of the role of data. >> Yeah, I think, you touched up on it. If you want to make sense out of something, you need the data, right? And if it's not SaaS, I would go, maybe a more extreme way, but it's not clear to me the data's even useful to you 'cause you know the data may be for some large software company, they may have hundreds of thousands of customers out there, but the data is spread around. I mean how are you going to train a model with all the data spread around hundreds of thousands of locations? So the real, the correct, or the optimal way, is actually the SaaS model, you actually have the data with you and then you kind of leverage the data. So I would say this is actually another benefit of the SaaS, why SaaS is going to change the world or eat the world. It owns the data for real, right? The data may be not the private data, but it's actually could be a behavior data. How people are reacting to your features. From VMware days we wanted to know, is people even using this feature? How often people use this feature? You know people are always debating, "Hey what's the maximum policy we need to give this and that?" But in the SaaS world, no debate just look at it. We always say, "Don't listen to what customers are wanting you to do." But watch how they do things, so that you can sort of understand, what product you want to develop, right? Here you actually can really watch how customers using your product. Don't listen to them, if you listen to them you will give them a faster horse as we all knew. >> But what's important about the data discussion, because, a security person would say, "Hey if you put into one spot, I can hack it." But, it's not just people's names, it's other data. It's gesture data, it's usage data, so you're not talking about sign in data, it's data. >> It could be the behavior, it could be second order data. Do people use my product, that's my data. That's something I wanted to know, I'm not necessarily talking about peeking into people's email, no. It's actually the thing surrounding it. >> It's looking for the good things in the data. All right, let's talk about the customer alignment and customer expectations, you know customer user experience is driven by customer's expectations usually, right? As expectations change. And I think the Zoom thing jumped out at me, the Zoom IPO and their great success and were a customer as well, is that they really nailed the expectation of the user and cloud certainly helped them get that speed, but this is a key thing, if you could just deliver a great experience. >> Yeah. >> For those customers, you can actually win big part of the market. >> Yeah, if you Google, Eric. Eric doesn't speak to me as much, but if you Google Eric. >> We'll get him on theCUBE. >> What's sort of the jump? Hopefully I can help you to bring him here too. But what's going to be obvious if you Google search Eric he is sort of the notion of customer successes, my success. If customer is happy, I'm going to happy. So, my happiness hinges on the customer's happiness. So that's, kind of very important because only the SaaS model made that more natural. In traditional model, whether traditional on prime or we're not, you sort of celebrate when you have customer signing your PO and then you don't hear from the sales guy or three years, the sales guy may move on to another company, you don't know, right? But for the SaaS, it doesn't stop when sign the PO. You actually have to earn customers' happiness every single day. >> Adoption's critical. >> Yeah, customer success is important and then that's kind of the, so there is a huge alignment, very interesting alignment between customer's happiness, customer success, customer adoption of your product and you're sort of, the success, right? 'Cause you know, when I came to Zscaler, one of our first meeting is about, okay, we had a lot of customer interest us. They sign a PO. How to get them ramp up the actual first use, right? So, that kind of conversation doesn't happen in the traditional software company. You sign a PO. If the customer doesn't use your product for another 18 month which is actually quite normal, no one is going to jump up and say, "This is crazy!" Right? >> You know, we're going to do that on our Part Two, about the impact of the enterprise. But you made up a good point there, I want to just close out our last talk point is, the data driving the experience isn't like the old way of throw in, get the PO and celebrate. You got to, kind of, keep that going. The enterprise is changing and the enterprise has a tsunami of onboarding of new types of developers. In some cases they grow. We just had Cisco inside here on theCUBE this morning. They're turning network guys into programmers from CL command line prompt dudes to gals to coders. You're seeing developers now enter the enterprise to build the apps so there's now a digital transformation initiative for enterprises to be, I guess, SaaS-like. But it's hard. >> Yeah, I think that's, you know, this is part of the digital transformation. Every company, Fortune 500 or Fortune 2000 company need to do it, right? So, another interesting part is, when they do this on this journey of digitalization, you cannot possibly build all the infrastructure yourself. You will have to consume public cloud, you know sometimes private and hybrid cloud, and you are actually going to consume lots of the SaaS, right? Whether Zoom, the Zscaler, or the PagerDuty, I mean you are not going to be all those thing from scratch but you want it to have a very good, sort of the stack on top of it and how you going to take advantage of the SaaS, is a very interesting aspect. >> Well in Part Two of our chat, when we come back on our next discussion, I want to get into the enterprise. But to wrap up Part One here, innovation speed, leveraging data and the beautiful risk taking and benefits of SaaS. Large scale, fast, high value, target and developing an app or a venture. >> Yeah. >> What is your advice to entrepreneurs out there and/or someone who's doing a digital transformation? Where they want to leverage Saas, what's the playbook, what's the starting point, what's your advice? >> Well, there are a number of things. One, there are so many SaaS companies out there taking advantage of them, right? In the old days you have to hire email admins, you have to do this. Nowadays, all the SaaS, that's your kind of, you only need to worry about the business logic, you have some unique insight in the business and then just have, hire programmers to codify that and then the rest will magically happen because of the public cloud, because of the SaaS. So, be very mindful about the new environment you are in, that's number one. The second thing I want to say is, how do you look at AI technology? The older way is program something in a definitive way. I think there will be a limit for that. It has taken the software industry a long way to where we are. But, if you look at the next 20 years, I think a lot of the lift is going to be done by the AI Center. But it's not going to be easy to be done, you have to think about your data strategy, where are you going to have the massive, sustainable, unique, ideally even labeled data. If you don't have the labeled data, you have to have the strategy. How are you going to have some unique model with the data you have? So, the data strategy, right? So, essentially, how to take advantage of the cloud? How to take advantage of the data? And then on top of that you are going to do something that's solving an unmet um-- >> Customer problem. >> Customer problem. >> An acute landing spot in the market place. >> Unmet need. >> In a big market. >> In a big, well, in a big market. >> There it is. >> Even if there is already a mature solution I bet, since those mature solutions would not develop from that native cloud era, and the native AI era. You have plenty of opportunities. >> Howie, you and I are on the same page on this, I have been saying it truly believe we are living in an entrepreneurial era where, with your advice and what you just laid out, the better mousetrap can take down a big market. >> And, I'm hopeful that you will also disrupt the media business, you know we're-- >> Don't tell anyone! (laughing) We're still going to do that top secret of Silent Running. Howie, we're going to get Part Two. We're going to dig Deep into the enterprise, because the enterprise now has an opportunity in the first historic time in tech history, to use tools and technologies to completely reset and re-architect for this kind of capability. >> Absolutely. >> So, we'll hit that in Part Two. >> I'm super passionate about it too. >> Howie Xu, here inside theCUBE. Friend of theCUBE, legend in the industry. Great entrepreneur and technologist here, sharing CUBEConversation. I'm John Furrier, thanks for watching. (upbeat jazz music)

(upbeat music) >> Okay, welcome back everyone at Supercloud 2 event, live here in Palo Alto, theCUBE Studios live stage performance, virtually syndicating it all over the world. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante here as Cube alumni, and special influencer guest, Howie Xu, VP of Machine Learning and Zscaler, also part-time as a CUBE analyst 'cause he is that good. Comes on all the time. You're basically a CUBE analyst as well. Thanks for coming on. >> Thanks for inviting me. >> John: Technically, you're not really a CUBE analyst, but you're kind of like a CUBE analyst. >> Happy New Year to everyone. >> Dave: Great to see you. >> Great to see you, Dave and John. >> John: We've been talking about ChatGPT online. You wrote a great post about it being more like Amazon, not like Google. >> Howie: More than just Google Search. >> More than Google Search. Oh, it's going to compete with Google Search, which it kind of does a little bit, but more its infrastructure. So a clever point, good segue into this conversation, because this is kind of the beginning of these kinds of next gen things we're going to see. Things where it's like an obvious next gen, it's getting real. Kind of like seeing the browser for the first time, Mosaic browser. Whoa, this internet thing's real. I think this is that moment and Supercloud like enablement is coming. So this has been a big part of the Supercloud kind of theme. >> Yeah, you talk about Supercloud, you talk about, you know, AI, ChatGPT. I really think the ChatGPT is really another Netscape moment, the browser moment. Because if you think about internet technology, right? It was brewing for 20 years before early 90s. Not until you had a, you know, browser, people realize, "Wow, this is how wonderful this technology could do." Right? You know, all the wonderful things. Then you have Yahoo and Amazon. I think we have brewing, you know, the AI technology for, you know, quite some time. Even then, you know, neural networks, deep learning. But not until ChatGPT came along, people realize, "Wow, you know, the user interface, user experience could be that great," right? So I really think, you know, if you look at the last 30 years, there is a browser moment, there is iPhone moment. I think ChatGPT moment is as big as those. >> Dave: What do you see as the intersection of things like ChatGPT and the Supercloud? Of course, the media's going to focus, journalists are going to focus on all the negatives and the privacy. Okay. You know we're going to get by that, right? Always do. Where do you see the Supercloud and sort of the distributed data fitting in with ChatGPT? Does it use that as a data source? What's the link? >> Howie: I think there are number of use cases. One of the use cases, we talked about why we even have Supercloud because of the complexity, because of the, you know, heterogeneous nature of different clouds. In order for me as a developer, in order for me to create applications, I have so many things to worry about, right? It's a complexity. But with ChatGPT, with the AI, I don't have to worry about it, right? Those kind of details will be taken care of by, you know, the underlying layer. So we have been talking about on this show, you know, over the last, what, year or so about the Supercloud, hey, defining that, you know, API layer spanning across, you know, multiple clouds. I think that will be happening. However, for a lot of the things, that will be more hidden, right? A lot of that will be automated by the bots. You know, we were just talking about it right before the show. One of the profound statement I heard from Adrian Cockcroft about 10 years ago was, "Hey Howie, you know, at Netflix, right? You know, IT is just one API call away." That's a profound statement I heard about a decade ago. I think next decade, right? You know, the IT is just one English language away, right? So when it's one English language away, it's no longer as important, API this, API that. You still need API just like hardware, right? You still need all of those things. That's going to be more hidden. The high level thing will be more, you know, English language or the language, right? Any language for that matter. >> Dave: And so through language, you'll tap services that live across the Supercloud, is what you're saying? >> Howie: You just tell what you want, what you desire, right? You know, the bots will help you to figure out where the complexity is, right? You know, like you said, a lot of criticism about, "Hey, ChatGPT doesn't do this, doesn't do that." But if you think about how to break things down, right? For instance, right, you know, ChatGPT doesn't have Microsoft stock price today, obviously, right? However, you can ask ChatGPT to write a program for you, retrieve the Microsoft stock price, (laughs) and then just run it, right? >> Dave: Yeah. >> So the thing to think about- >> John: It's only going to get better. It's only going to get better. >> The thing people kind of unfairly criticize ChatGPT is it doesn't do this. But can you not break down humans' task into smaller things and get complex things to be done by the ChatGPT? I think we are there already, you know- >> John: That to me is the real game changer. That's the assembly of atomic elements at the top of the stack, whether the interface is voice or some programmatic gesture based thing, you know, wave your hand or- >> Howie: One of the analogy I used in my blog was, you know, each person, each professional now is a quarterback. And we suddenly have, you know, a lot more linebacks or you know, any backs to work for you, right? For free even, right? You know, and then that's sort of, you should think about it. You are the quarterback of your day-to-day job, right? Your job is not to do everything manually yourself. >> Dave: You call the play- >> Yes. >> Dave: And they execute. Do your job. >> Yes, exactly. >> Yeah, all the players are there. All the elves are in the North Pole making the toys, Dave, as we say. But this is the thing, I want to get your point. This change is going to require a new kind of infrastructure software relationship, a new kind of operating runtime, a new kind of assembler, a new kind of loader link things. This very operating systems kind of concepts. >> Data intensive, right? How to process the data, how to, you know, process so gigantic data in parallel, right? That's actually a tough job, right? So if you think about ChatGPT, why OpenAI is ahead of the game, right? You know, Google may not want to acknowledge it, right? It's not necessarily they do, you know, not have enough data scientist, but the software engineering pieces, you know, behind it, right? To train the model, to actually do all those things in parallel, to do all those things in a cost effective way. So I think, you know, a lot of those still- >> Let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question because we've had this conversation privately, but I want to do it while we're on stage here. Where are all the alpha geeks and developers and creators and entrepreneurs going to gravitate to? You know, in every wave, you see it in crypto, all the alphas went into crypto. Now I think with ChatGPT, you're going to start to see, like, "Wow, it's that moment." A lot of people are going to, you know, scrum and do startups. CTOs will invent stuff. There's a lot of invention, a lot of computer science and customer requirements to figure out. That's new. Where are the alpha entrepreneurs going to go to? What do you think they're going to gravitate to? If you could point to the next layer to enable this super environment, super app environment, Supercloud. 'Cause there's a lot to do to enable what you just said. >> Howie: Right. You know, if you think about using internet as the analogy, right? You know, in the early 90s, internet came along, browser came along. You had two kind of companies, right? One is Amazon, the other one is walmart.com. And then there were company, like maybe GE or whatnot, right? Really didn't take advantage of internet that much. I think, you know, for entrepreneurs, suddenly created the Yahoo, Amazon of the ChatGPT native era. That's what we should be all excited about. But for most of the Fortune 500 companies, your job is to surviving sort of the big revolution. So you at least need to do your walmart.com sooner than later, right? (laughs) So not be like GE, right? You know, hand waving, hey, I do a lot of the internet, but you know, when you look back last 20, 30 years, what did they do much with leveraging the- >> So you think they're going to jump in, they're going to build service companies or SaaS tech companies or Supercloud companies? >> Howie: Okay, so there are two type of opportunities from that perspective. One is, you know, the OpenAI ish kind of the companies, I think the OpenAI, the game is still open, right? You know, it's really Close AI today. (laughs) >> John: There's room for competition, you mean? >> There's room for competition, right. You know, you can still spend you know, 50, $100 million to build something interesting. You know, there are company like Cohere and so on and so on. There are a bunch of companies, I think there is that. And then there are companies who's going to leverage those sort of the new AI primitives. I think, you know, we have been talking about AI forever, but finally, finally, it's no longer just good, but also super useful. I think, you know, the time is now. >> John: And if you have the cloud behind you, what do you make the Amazon do differently? 'Cause Amazon Web Services is only going to grow with this. It's not going to get smaller. There's more horsepower to handle, there's more needs. >> Howie: Well, Microsoft already showed what's the future, right? You know, you know, yes, there is a kind of the container, you know, the serverless that will continue to grow. But the future is really not about- >> John: Microsoft's shown the future? >> Well, showing that, you know, working with OpenAI, right? >> Oh okay. >> They already said that, you know, we are going to have ChatGPT service. >> $10 billion, I think they're putting it. >> $10 billion putting, and also open up the Open API services, right? You know, I actually made a prediction that Microsoft future hinges on OpenAI. I think, you know- >> John: They believe that $10 billion bet. >> Dave: Yeah. $10 billion bet. So I want to ask you a question. It's somewhat academic, but it's relevant. For a number of years, it looked like having first mover advantage wasn't an advantage. PCs, spreadsheets, the browser, right? Social media, Friendster, right? Mobile. Apple wasn't first to mobile. But that's somewhat changed. The cloud, AWS was first. You could debate whether or not, but AWS okay, they have first mover advantage. Crypto, Bitcoin, first mover advantage. Do you think OpenAI will have first mover advantage? >> It certainly has its advantage today. I think it's year two. I mean, I think the game is still out there, right? You know, we're still in the first inning, early inning of the game. So I don't think that the game is over for the rest of the players, whether the big players or the OpenAI kind of the, sort of competitors. So one of the VCs actually asked me the other day, right? "Hey, how much money do I need to spend, invest, to get, you know, another shot to the OpenAI sort of the level?" You know, I did a- (laughs) >> Line up. >> That's classic VC. "How much does it cost me to replicate?" >> I'm pretty sure he asked the question to a bunch of guys, right? >> Good luck with that. (laughs) >> So we kind of did some napkin- >> What'd you come up with? (laughs) >> $100 million is the order of magnitude that I came up with, right? You know, not a billion, not 10 million, right? So 100 million. >> John: Hundreds of millions. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. 100 million order of magnitude is what I came up with. You know, we can get into details, you know, in other sort of the time, but- >> Dave: That's actually not that much if you think about it. >> Howie: Exactly. So when he heard me articulating why is that, you know, he's thinking, right? You know, he actually, you know, asked me, "Hey, you know, there's this company. Do you happen to know this company? Can I reach out?" You know, those things. So I truly believe it's not a billion or 10 billion issue, it's more like 100. >> John: And also, your other point about referencing the internet revolution as a good comparable. The other thing there is online user population was a big driver of the growth of that. So what's the equivalent here for online user population for AI? Is it more apps, more users? I mean, we're still early on, it's first inning. >> Yeah. We're kind of the, you know- >> What's the key metric for success of this sector? Do you have a read on that? >> I think the, you know, the number of users is a good metrics, but I think it's going to be a lot of people are going to use AI services without even knowing they're using it, right? You know, I think a lot of the applications are being already built on top of OpenAI, and then they are kind of, you know, help people to do marketing, legal documents, you know, so they're already inherently OpenAI kind of the users already. So I think yeah. >> Well, Howie, we've got to wrap, but I really appreciate you coming on. I want to give you a last minute to wrap up here. In your experience, and you've seen many waves of innovation. You've even had your hands in a lot of the big waves past three inflection points. And obviously, machine learning you're doing now, you're deep end. Why is this Supercloud movement, this wave of Supercloud and the discussion of this next inflection point, why is it so important? For the folks watching, why should they be paying attention to this particular moment in time? Could you share your super clip on Supercloud? >> Howie: Right. So this is simple from my point of view. So why do you even have cloud to begin with, right? IT is too complex, too complex to operate or too expensive. So there's a newer model. There is a better model, right? Let someone else operate it, there is elasticity out of it, right? That's great. Until you have multiple vendors, right? Many vendors even, you know, we're talking about kind of how to make multiple vendors look like the same, but frankly speaking, even one vendor has, you know, thousand services. Now it's kind of getting, what Kid was talking about what, cloud chaos, right? It's the evolution. You know, the history repeats itself, right? You know, you have, you know, next great things and then too many great things, and then people need to sort of abstract this out. So it's almost that you must do this. But I think how to abstract this out is something that at this time, AI is going to help a lot, right? You know, like I mentioned, right? A lot of the abstraction, you don't have to think about API anymore. I bet 10 years from now, you know, IT is one language away, not API away. So think about that world, right? So Supercloud in, in my opinion, sure, you kind of abstract things out. You have, you know, consistent layers. But who's going to do that? Is that like we all agreed upon the model, agreed upon those APIs? Not necessary. There are certain, you know, truth in that, but there are other truths, let bots take care of, right? Whether you know, I want some X happens, whether it's going to be done by Azure, by AWS, by GCP, bots will figure out at a given time with certain contacts with your security requirement, posture requirement. I'll think that out. >> John: That's awesome. And you know, Dave, you and I have been talking about this. We think scale is the new ratification. If you have first mover advantage, I'll see the benefit, but scale is a huge thing. OpenAI, AWS. >> Howie: Yeah. Every day, we are using OpenAI. Today, we are labeling data for them. So you know, that's a little bit of the- (laughs) >> John: Yeah. >> First mover advantage that other people don't have, right? So it's kind of scary. So I'm very sure that Google is a little bit- (laughs) >> When we do our super AI event, you're definitely going to be keynoting. (laughs) >> Howie: I think, you know, we're talking about Supercloud, you know, before long, we are going to talk about super intelligent cloud. (laughs) >> I'm super excited, Howie, about this. Thanks for coming on. Great to see you, Howie Xu. Always a great analyst for us contributing to the community. VP of Machine Learning and Zscaler, industry legend and friend of theCUBE. Thanks for coming on and sharing really, really great advice and insight into what this next wave means. This Supercloud is the next wave. "If you're not on it, you're driftwood," says Pat Gelsinger. So you're going to see a lot more discussion. We'll be back more here live in Palo Alto after this short break. >> Thank you. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Hello and welcome back to theCUBE. We're here in Palo Alto, California. I'm your host, John Furrier with a special guest here in the studio. As part of our Cloud Native SecurityCon Coverage we had an opportunity to bring in Jon Turow who is the partner at Madrona Venture Partners formerly with AWS and to talk about machine learning, foundational models, and how the future of AI is going to be impacted by some of the innovation around what's going on in the industry. ChatGPT has taken the world by storm. A million downloads, fastest to the million downloads there. Before some were saying it's just a gimmick. Others saying it's a game changer. Jon's here to break it down, and great to have you on. Thanks for coming in. >> Thanks John. Glad to be here. >> Thanks for coming on. So first of all, I'm glad you're here. First of all, because two things. One, you were formerly with AWS, got a lot of experience running projects at AWS. Now a partner at Madrona, a great firm doing great deals, and they had this future at modern application kind of thesis. Now you are putting out some content recently around foundational models. You're deep into computer vision. You were the IoT general manager at AWS among other things, Greengrass. So you know a lot about data. You know a lot about some of this automation, some of the edge stuff. You've been in the middle of all these kind of areas that now seem to be the next wave coming. So I wanted to ask you what your thoughts are of how the machine learning and this new automation wave is coming in, this AI tools are coming out. Is it a platform? Is it going to be smarter? What feeds AI? What's your take on this whole foundational big movement into AI? What's your general reaction to all this? >> So, thanks, Jon, again for having me here. Really excited to talk about these things. AI has been coming for a long time. It's been kind of the next big thing. Always just over the horizon for quite some time. And we've seen really compelling applications in generations before and until now. Amazon and AWS have introduced a lot of them. My firm, Madrona Venture Group has invested in some of those early players as well. But what we're seeing now is something categorically different. That's really exciting and feels like a durable change. And I can try and explain what that is. We have these really large models that are useful in a general way. They can be applied to a lot of different tasks beyond the specific task that the designers envisioned. That makes them more flexible, that makes them more useful for building applications than what we've seen before. And so that, we can talk about the depths of it, but in a nutshell, that's why I think people are really excited. >> And I think one of the things that you wrote about that jumped out at me is that this seems to be this moment where there's been a multiple decades of nerds and computer scientists and programmers and data thinkers around waiting for AI to blossom. And it's like they're scratching that itch. Every year is going to be, and it's like the bottleneck's always been compute power. And we've seen other areas, genome sequencing, all kinds of high computation things where required high forms computing. But now there's no real bottleneck to compute. You got cloud. And so you're starting to see the emergence of a massive acceleration of where AI's been and where it needs to be going. Now, it's almost like it's got a reboot. It's almost a renaissance in the AI community with a whole nother macro environmental things happening. Cloud, younger generation, applications proliferate from mobile to cloud native. It's the perfect storm for this kind of moment to switch over. Am I overreading that? Is that right? >> You're right. And it's been cooking for a cycle or two. And let me try and explain why that is. We have cloud and AWS launch in whatever it was, 2006, and offered more compute to more people than really was possible before. Initially that was about taking existing applications and running them more easily in a bigger scale. But in that period of time what's also become possible is new kinds of computation that really weren't practical or even possible without that vast amount of compute. And so one result that came of that is something called the transformer AI model architecture. And Google came out with that, published a paper in 2017. And what that says is, with a transformer model you can actually train an arbitrarily large amount of data into a model, and see what happens. That's what Google demonstrated in 2017. The what happens is the really exciting part because when you do that, what you start to see, when models exceed a certain size that we had never really seen before all of a sudden they get what we call emerging capabilities of complex reasoning and reasoning outside a domain and reasoning with data. The kinds of things that people describe as spooky when they play with something like ChatGPT. That's the underlying term. We don't as an industry quite know why it happens or how it happens, but we can measure that it does. So cloud enables new kinds of math and science. New kinds of math and science allow new kinds of experimentation. And that experimentation has led to this new generation of models. >> So one of the debates we had on theCUBE at our Supercloud event last month was, what's the barriers to entry for say OpenAI, for instance? Obviously, I weighed in aggressively and said, "The barriers for getting into cloud are high because all the CapEx." And Howie Xu formerly VMware, now at ZScaler, he's an AI machine learning guy. He was like, "Well, you can spend $100 million and replicate it." I saw a quote that set up for 180,000 I can get this other package. What's the barriers to entry? Is ChatGPT or OpenAI, does it have sustainability? Is it easy to get into? What is the market like for AI? I mean, because a lot of entrepreneurs are jumping in. I mean, I just read a story today. San Francisco's got more inbound migration because of the AI action happening, Seattle's booming, Boston with MIT's been working on neural networks for generations. That's what we've found the answer. Get off the neural network, Boston jump on the AI bus. So there's total excitement for this. People are enthusiastic around this area. >> You can think of an iPhone versus Android tension that's happening today. In the iPhone world, there are proprietary models from OpenAI who you might consider as the leader. There's Cohere, there's AI21, there's Anthropic, Google's going to have their own, and a few others. These are proprietary models that developers can build on top of, get started really quickly. They're measured to have the highest accuracy and the highest performance today. That's the proprietary side. On the other side, there is an open source part of the world. These are a proliferation of model architectures that developers and practitioners can take off the shelf and train themselves. Typically found in Hugging face. What people seem to think is that the accuracy and performance of the open source models is something like 18 to 20 months behind the accuracy and performance of the proprietary models. But on the other hand, there's infinite flexibility for teams that are capable enough. So you're going to see teams choose sides based on whether they want speed or flexibility. >> That's interesting. And that brings up a point I was talking to a startup and the debate was, do you abstract away from the hardware and be software-defined or software-led on the AI side and let the hardware side just extremely accelerate on its own, 'cause it's flywheel? So again, back to proprietary, that's with hardware kind of bundled in, bolted on. Is it accelerator or is it bolted on or is it part of it? So to me, I think that the big struggle in understanding this is that which one will end up being right. I mean, is it a beta max versus VHS kind of thing going on? Or iPhone, Android, I mean iPhone makes a lot of sense, but if you're Apple, but is there an Apple moment in the machine learning? >> In proprietary models, here does seem to be a jump ball. That there's going to be a virtuous flywheel that emerges that, for example, all these excitement about ChatGPT. What's really exciting about it is it's really easy to use. The technology isn't so different from what we've seen before even from OpenAI. You mentioned a million users in a short period of time, all providing training data for OpenAI that makes their underlying models, their next generation even better. So it's not unreasonable to guess that there's going to be power laws that emerge on the proprietary side. What I think history has shown is that iPhone, Android, Windows, Linux, there seems to be gravity towards this yin and yang. And my guess, and what other people seem to think is going to be the case is that we're going to continue to see these two poles of AI. >> So let's get into the relationship with data because I've been emerging myself with ChatGPT, fascinated by the ease of use, yes, but also the fidelity of how you query it. And I felt like when I was doing writing SQL back in the eighties and nineties where SQL was emerging. You had to be really a guru at the SQL to get the answers you wanted. It seems like the querying into ChatGPT is a good thing if you know how to talk to it. Labeling whether your input is and it does a great job if you feed it right. If you ask a generic questions like Google. It's like a Google search. It gives you great format, sounds credible, but the facts are kind of wrong. >> That's right. >> That's where general consensus is coming on. So what does that mean? That means people are on one hand saying, "Ah, it's bullshit 'cause it's wrong." But I look at, I'm like, "Wow, that's that's compelling." 'Cause if you feed it the right data, so now we're in the data modeling here, so the role of data's going to be critical. Is there a data operating system emerging? Because if this thing continues to go the way it's going you can almost imagine as you would look at companies to invest in. Who's going to be right on this? What's going to scale? What's sustainable? What could build a durable company? It might not look what like what people think it is. I mean, I remember when Google started everyone thought it was the worst search engine because it wasn't a portal. But it was the best organic search on the planet became successful. So I'm trying to figure out like, okay, how do you read this? How do you read the tea leaves? >> Yeah. There are a few different ways that companies can differentiate themselves. Teams with galactic capabilities to take an open source model and then change the architecture and retrain and go down to the silicon. They can do things that might not have been possible for other teams to do. There's a company that that we're proud to be investors in called RunwayML that provides video accelerated, sorry, AI accelerated video editing capabilities. They were used in everything, everywhere all at once and some others. In order to build RunwayML, they needed a vision of what the future was going to look like and they needed to make deep contributions to the science that was going to enable all that. But not every team has those capabilities, maybe nor should they. So as far as how other teams are going to differentiate there's a couple of things that they can do. One is called prompt engineering where they shape on behalf of their own users exactly how the prompt to get fed to the underlying model. It's not clear whether that's going to be a durable problem or whether like Google, we consumers are going to start to get more intuitive about this. That's one. The second is what's called information retrieval. How can I get information about the world outside, information from a database or a data store or whatever service into these models so they can reason about them. And the third is, this is going to sound funny, but attribution. Just like you would do in a news report or an academic paper. If you can state where your facts are coming from, the downstream consumer or the human being who has to use that information actually is going to be able to make better sense of it and rely better on it. So that's prompt engineering, that's retrieval, and that's attribution. >> So that brings me to my next point I want to dig in on is the foundational model stack that you published. And I'll start by saying that with ChatGPT, if you take out the naysayers who are like throwing cold water on it about being a gimmick or whatever, and then you got the other side, I would call the alpha nerds who are like they can see, "Wow, this is amazing." This is truly NextGen. This isn't yesterday's chatbot nonsense. They're like, they're all over it. It's that everybody's using it right now in every vertical. I heard someone using it for security logs. I heard a data center, hardware vendor using it for pushing out appsec review updates. I mean, I've heard corner cases. We're using it for theCUBE to put our metadata in. So there's a horizontal use case of value. So to me that tells me it's a market there. So when you have horizontal scalability in the use case you're going to have a stack. So you publish this stack and it has an application at the top, applications like Jasper out there. You're seeing ChatGPT. But you go after the bottom, you got silicon, cloud, foundational model operations, the foundational models themselves, tooling, sources, actions. Where'd you get this from? How'd you put this together? Did you just work backwards from the startups or was there a thesis behind this? Could you share your thoughts behind this foundational model stack? >> Sure. Well, I'm a recovering product manager and my job that I think about as a product manager is who is my customer and what problem he wants to solve. And so to put myself in the mindset of an application developer and a founder who is actually my customer as a partner at Madrona, I think about what technology and resources does she need to be really powerful, to be able to take a brilliant idea, and actually bring that to life. And if you spend time with that community, which I do and I've met with hundreds of founders now who are trying to do exactly this, you can see that the stack is emerging. In fact, we first drew it in, not in January 2023, but October 2022. And if you look at the difference between the October '22 and January '23 stacks you're going to see that holes in the stack that we identified in October around tooling and around foundation model ops and the rest are organically starting to get filled because of how much demand from the developers at the top of the stack. >> If you look at the young generation coming out and even some of the analysts, I was just reading an analyst report on who's following the whole data stacks area, Databricks, Snowflake, there's variety of analytics, realtime AI, data's hot. There's a lot of engineers coming out that were either data scientists or I would call data platform engineering folks are becoming very key resources in this area. What's the skillset emerging and what's the mindset of that entrepreneur that sees the opportunity? How does these startups come together? Is there a pattern in the formation? Is there a pattern in the competency or proficiency around the talent behind these ventures? >> Yes. I would say there's two groups. The first is a very distinct pattern, John. For the past 10 years or a little more we've seen a pattern of democratization of ML where more and more people had access to this powerful science and technology. And since about 2017, with the rise of the transformer architecture in these foundation models, that pattern has reversed. All of a sudden what has become broader access is now shrinking to a pretty small group of scientists who can actually train and manipulate the architectures of these models themselves. So that's one. And what that means is the teams who can do that have huge ability to make the future happen in ways that other people don't have access to yet. That's one. The second is there is a broader population of people who by definition has even more collective imagination 'cause there's even more people who sees what should be possible and can use things like the proprietary models, like the OpenAI models that are available off the shelf and try to create something that maybe nobody has seen before. And when they do that, Jasper AI is a great example of that. Jasper AI is a company that creates marketing copy automatically with generative models such as GPT-3. They do that and it's really useful and it's almost fun for a marketer to use that. But there are going to be questions of how they can defend that against someone else who has access to the same technology. It's a different population of founders who has to find other sources of differentiation without being able to go all the way down to the the silicon and the science. >> Yeah, and it's going to be also opportunity recognition is one thing. Building a viable venture product market fit. You got competition. And so when things get crowded you got to have some differentiation. I think that's going to be the key. And that's where I was trying to figure out and I think data with scale I think are big ones. Where's the vulnerability in the stack in terms of gaps? Where's the white space? I shouldn't say vulnerability. I should say where's the opportunity, where's the white space in the stack that you see opportunities for entrepreneurs to attack? >> I would say there's two. At the application level, there is almost infinite opportunity, John, because almost every kind of application is about to be reimagined or disrupted with a new generation that takes advantage of this really powerful new technology. And so if there is a kind of application in almost any vertical, it's hard to rule something out. Almost any vertical that a founder wishes she had created the original app in, well, now it's her time. So that's one. The second is, if you look at the tooling layer that we discussed, tooling is a really powerful way that you can provide more flexibility to app developers to get more differentiation for themselves. And the tooling layer is still forming. This is the interface between the models themselves and the applications. Tools that help bring in data, as you mentioned, connect to external actions, bring context across multiple calls, chain together multiple models. These kinds of things, there's huge opportunity there. >> Well, Jon, I really appreciate you coming in. I had a couple more questions, but I will take a minute to read some of your bios for the audience and we'll get into, I won't embarrass you, but I want to set the context. You said you were recovering product manager, 10 plus years at AWS. Obviously, recovering from AWS, which is a whole nother dimension of recovering. In all seriousness, I talked to Andy Jassy around that time and Dr. Matt Wood and it was about that time when AI was just getting on the radar when they started. So you guys started seeing the wave coming in early on. So I remember at that time as Amazon was starting to grow significantly and even just stock price and overall growth. From a tech perspective, it was pretty clear what was coming, so you were there when this tsunami hit. >> Jon: That's right. >> And you had a front row seat building tech, you were led the product teams for Computer Vision AI, Textract, AI intelligence for document processing, recognition for image and video analysis. You wrote the business product plan for AWS IoT and Greengrass, which we've covered a lot in theCUBE, which extends out to the whole edge thing. So you know a lot about AI/ML, edge computing, IOT, messaging, which I call the law of small numbers that scale become big. This is a big new thing. So as a former AWS leader who's been there and at Madrona, what's your investment thesis as you start to peruse the landscape and talk to entrepreneurs as you got the stack? What's the big picture? What are you looking for? What's the thesis? How do you see this next five years emerging? >> Five years is a really long time given some of this science is only six months out. I'll start with some, no pun intended, some foundational things. And we can talk about some implications of the technology. The basics are the same as they've always been. We want, what I like to call customers with their hair on fire. So they have problems, so urgent they'll buy half a product. The joke is if your hair is on fire you might want a bucket of cold water, but you'll take a tennis racket and you'll beat yourself over the head to put the fire out. You want those customers 'cause they'll meet you more than halfway. And when you find them, you can obsess about them and you can get better every day. So we want customers with their hair on fire. We want founders who have empathy for those customers, understand what is going to be required to serve them really well, and have what I like to call founder-market fit to be able to build the products that those customers are going to need. >> And because that's a good strategy from an emerging, not yet fully baked out requirements definition. >> Jon: That's right. >> Enough where directionally they're leaning in, more than in, they're part of the product development process. >> That's right. And when you're doing early stage development, which is where I personally spend a lot of my time at the seed and A and a little bit beyond that stage often that's going to be what you have to go on because the future is going to be so complex that you can't see the curves beyond it. But if you have customers with their hair on fire and talented founders who have the capability to serve those customers, that's got me interested. >> So if I'm an entrepreneur, I walk in and say, "I have customers that have their hair on fire." What kind of checks do you write? What's the kind of the average you're seeing for seed and series? Probably seed, seed rounds and series As. >> It can depend. I have seen seed rounds of double digit million dollars. I have seen seed rounds much smaller than that. It really depends on what is going to be the right thing for these founders to prove out the hypothesis that they're testing that says, "Look, we have this customer with her hair on fire. We think we can build at least a tennis racket that she can use to start beating herself over the head and put the fire out. And then we're going to have something really interesting that we can scale up from there and we can make the future happen. >> So it sounds like your advice to founders is go out and find some customers, show them a product, don't obsess over full completion, get some sort of vibe on fit and go from there. >> Yeah, and I think by the time founders come to me they may not have a product, they may not have a deck, but if they have a customer with her hair on fire, then I'm really interested. >> Well, I always love the professional services angle on these markets. You go in and you get some business and you understand it. Walk away if you don't like it, but you see the hair on fire, then you go in product mode. >> That's right. >> All Right, Jon, thank you for coming on theCUBE. Really appreciate you stopping by the studio and good luck on your investments. Great to see you. >> You too. >> Thanks for coming on. >> Thank you, Jon. >> CUBE coverage here at Palo Alto. I'm John Furrier, your host. More coverage with CUBE Conversations after this break. (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> OpenAI The company, and ChatGPT have taken the world by storm. Microsoft reportedly is investing an additional 10 billion dollars into the company. But in our view, while the hype around ChatGPT is justified, we don't believe OpenAI will lock up the market with its first mover advantage. Rather, we believe that success in this market will be directly proportional to the quality and quantity of data that a technology company has at its disposal, and the compute power that it could deploy to run its system. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE insights, powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we unpack the excitement around ChatGPT, and debate the premise that the company's early entry into the space may not confer winner take all advantage to OpenAI. And to do so, we welcome CUBE collaborator, alum, Sarbjeet Johal, (chuckles) and John Furrier, co-host of the Cube. Great to see you Sarbjeet, John. Really appreciate you guys coming to the program. >> Great to be on. >> Okay, so what is ChatGPT? Well, actually we asked ChatGPT, what is ChatGPT? So here's what it said. ChatGPT is a state-of-the-art language model developed by OpenAI that can generate human-like text. It could be fine tuned for a variety of language tasks, such as conversation, summarization, and language translation. So I asked it, give it to me in 50 words or less. How did it do? Anything to add? >> Yeah, think it did good. It's large language model, like previous models, but it started applying the transformers sort of mechanism to focus on what prompt you have given it to itself. And then also the what answer it gave you in the first, sort of, one sentence or two sentences, and then introspect on itself, like what I have already said to you. And so just work on that. So it it's self sort of focus if you will. It does, the transformers help the large language models to do that. >> So to your point, it's a large language model, and GPT stands for generative pre-trained transformer. >> And if you put the definition back up there again, if you put it back up on the screen, let's see it back up. Okay, it actually missed the large, word large. So one of the problems with ChatGPT, it's not always accurate. It's actually a large language model, and it says state of the art language model. And if you look at Google, Google has dominated AI for many times and they're well known as being the best at this. And apparently Google has their own large language model, LLM, in play and have been holding it back to release because of backlash on the accuracy. Like just in that example you showed is a great point. They got almost right, but they missed the key word. >> You know what's funny about that John, is I had previously asked it in my prompt to give me it in less than a hundred words, and it was too long, I said I was too long for Breaking Analysis, and there it went into the fact that it's a large language model. So it largely, it gave me a really different answer the, for both times. So, but it's still pretty amazing for those of you who haven't played with it yet. And one of the best examples that I saw was Ben Charrington from This Week In ML AI podcast. And I stumbled on this thanks to Brian Gracely, who was listening to one of his Cloudcasts. Basically what Ben did is he took, he prompted ChatGPT to interview ChatGPT, and he simply gave the system the prompts, and then he ran the questions and answers into this avatar builder and sped it up 2X so it didn't sound like a machine. And voila, it was amazing. So John is ChatGPT going to take over as a cube host? >> Well, I was thinking, we get the questions in advance sometimes from PR people. We should actually just plug it in ChatGPT, add it to our notes, and saying, "Is this good enough for you? Let's ask the real question." So I think, you know, I think there's a lot of heavy lifting that gets done. I think the ChatGPT is a phenomenal revolution. I think it highlights the use case. Like that example we showed earlier. It gets most of it right. So it's directionally correct and it feels like it's an answer, but it's not a hundred percent accurate. And I think that's where people are seeing value in it. Writing marketing, copy, brainstorming, guest list, gift list for somebody. Write me some lyrics to a song. Give me a thesis about healthcare policy in the United States. It'll do a bang up job, and then you got to go in and you can massage it. So we're going to do three quarters of the work. That's why plagiarism and schools are kind of freaking out. And that's why Microsoft put 10 billion in, because why wouldn't this be a feature of Word, or the OS to help it do stuff on behalf of the user. So linguistically it's a beautiful thing. You can input a string and get a good answer. It's not a search result. >> And we're going to get your take on on Microsoft and, but it kind of levels the playing- but ChatGPT writes better than I do, Sarbjeet, and I know you have some good examples too. You mentioned the Reed Hastings example. >> Yeah, I was listening to Reed Hastings fireside chat with ChatGPT, and the answers were coming as sort of voice, in the voice format. And it was amazing what, he was having very sort of philosophy kind of talk with the ChatGPT, the longer sentences, like he was going on, like, just like we are talking, he was talking for like almost two minutes and then ChatGPT was answering. It was not one sentence question, and then a lot of answers from ChatGPT and yeah, you're right. I, this is our ability. I've been thinking deep about this since yesterday, we talked about, like, we want to do this segment. The data is fed into the data model. It can be the current data as well, but I think that, like, models like ChatGPT, other companies will have those too. They can, they're democratizing the intelligence, but they're not creating intelligence yet, definitely yet I can say that. They will give you all the finite answers. Like, okay, how do you do this for loop in Java, versus, you know, C sharp, and as a programmer you can do that, in, but they can't tell you that, how to write a new algorithm or write a new search algorithm for you. They cannot create a secretive code for you to- >> Not yet. >> Have competitive advantage. >> Not yet, not yet. >> but you- >> Can Google do that today? >> No one really can. The reasoning side of the data is, we talked about at our Supercloud event, with Zhamak Dehghani who's was CEO of, now of Nextdata. This next wave of data intelligence is going to come from entrepreneurs that are probably cross discipline, computer science and some other discipline. But they're going to be new things, for example, data, metadata, and data. It's hard to do reasoning like a human being, so that needs more data to train itself. So I think the first gen of this training module for the large language model they have is a corpus of text. Lot of that's why blog posts are, but the facts are wrong and sometimes out of context, because that contextual reasoning takes time, it takes intelligence. So machines need to become intelligent, and so therefore they need to be trained. So you're going to start to see, I think, a lot of acceleration on training the data sets. And again, it's only as good as the data you can get. And again, proprietary data sets will be a huge winner. Anyone who's got a large corpus of content, proprietary content like theCUBE or SiliconANGLE as a publisher will benefit from this. Large FinTech companies, anyone with large proprietary data will probably be a big winner on this generative AI wave, because it just, it will eat that up, and turn that back into something better. So I think there's going to be a lot of interesting things to look at here. And certainly productivity's going to be off the charts for vanilla and the internet is going to get swarmed with vanilla content. So if you're in the content business, and you're an original content producer of any kind, you're going to be not vanilla, so you're going to be better. So I think there's so much at play Dave (indistinct). >> I think the playing field has been risen, so we- >> Risen and leveled? >> Yeah, and leveled to certain extent. So it's now like that few people as consumers, as consumers of AI, we will have a advantage and others cannot have that advantage. So it will be democratized. That's, I'm sure about that. But if you take the example of calculator, when the calculator came in, and a lot of people are, "Oh, people can't do math anymore because calculator is there." right? So it's a similar sort of moment, just like a calculator for the next level. But, again- >> I see it more like open source, Sarbjeet, because like if you think about what ChatGPT's doing, you do a query and it comes from somewhere the value of a post from ChatGPT is just a reuse of AI. The original content accent will be come from a human. So if I lay out a paragraph from ChatGPT, did some heavy lifting on some facts, I check the facts, save me about maybe- >> Yeah, it's productive. >> An hour writing, and then I write a killer two, three sentences of, like, sharp original thinking or critical analysis. I then took that body of work, open source content, and then laid something on top of it. >> And Sarbjeet's example is a good one, because like if the calculator kids don't do math as well anymore, the slide rule, remember we had slide rules as kids, remember we first started using Waze, you know, we were this minority and you had an advantage over other drivers. Now Waze is like, you know, social traffic, you know, navigation, everybody had, you know- >> All the back roads are crowded. >> They're car crowded. (group laughs) Exactly. All right, let's, let's move on. What about this notion that futurist Ray Amara put forth and really Amara's Law that we're showing here, it's, the law is we, you know, "We tend to overestimate the effect of technology in the short run and underestimate it in the long run." Is that the case, do you think, with ChatGPT? What do you think Sarbjeet? >> I think that's true actually. There's a lot of, >> We don't debate this. >> There's a lot of awe, like when people see the results from ChatGPT, they say what, what the heck? Like, it can do this? But then if you use it more and more and more, and I ask the set of similar question, not the same question, and it gives you like same answer. It's like reading from the same bucket of text in, the interior read (indistinct) where the ChatGPT, you will see that in some couple of segments. It's very, it sounds so boring that the ChatGPT is coming out the same two sentences every time. So it is kind of good, but it's not as good as people think it is right now. But we will have, go through this, you know, hype sort of cycle and get realistic with it. And then in the long term, I think it's a great thing in the short term, it's not something which will (indistinct) >> What's your counter point? You're saying it's not. >> I, no I think the question was, it's hyped up in the short term and not it's underestimated long term. That's what I think what he said, quote. >> Yes, yeah. That's what he said. >> Okay, I think that's wrong with this, because this is a unique, ChatGPT is a unique kind of impact and it's very generational. People have been comparing it, I have been comparing to the internet, like the web, web browser Mosaic and Netscape, right, Navigator. I mean, I clearly still remember the days seeing Navigator for the first time, wow. And there weren't not many sites you could go to, everyone typed in, you know, cars.com, you know. >> That (indistinct) wasn't that overestimated, the overhyped at the beginning and underestimated. >> No, it was, it was underestimated long run, people thought. >> But that Amara's law. >> That's what is. >> No, they said overestimated? >> Overestimated near term underestimated- overhyped near term, underestimated long term. I got, right I mean? >> Well, I, yeah okay, so I would then agree, okay then- >> We were off the charts about the internet in the early days, and it actually exceeded our expectations. >> Well there were people who were, like, poo-pooing it early on. So when the browser came out, people were like, "Oh, the web's a toy for kids." I mean, in 1995 the web was a joke, right? So '96, you had online populations growing, so you had structural changes going on around the browser, internet population. And then that replaced other things, direct mail, other business activities that were once analog then went to the web, kind of read only as you, as we always talk about. So I think that's a moment where the hype long term, the smart money, and the smart industry experts all get the long term. And in this case, there's more poo-pooing in the short term. "Ah, it's not a big deal, it's just AI." I've heard many people poo-pooing ChatGPT, and a lot of smart people saying, "No this is next gen, this is different and it's only going to get better." So I think people are estimating a big long game on this one. >> So you're saying it's bifurcated. There's those who say- >> Yes. >> Okay, all right, let's get to the heart of the premise, and possibly the debate for today's episode. Will OpenAI's early entry into the market confer sustainable competitive advantage for the company. And if you look at the history of tech, the technology industry, it's kind of littered with first mover failures. Altair, IBM, Tandy, Commodore, they and Apple even, they were really early in the PC game. They took a backseat to Dell who came in the scene years later with a better business model. Netscape, you were just talking about, was all the rage in Silicon Valley, with the first browser, drove up all the housing prices out here. AltaVista was the first search engine to really, you know, index full text. >> Owned by Dell, I mean DEC. >> Owned by Digital. >> Yeah, Digital Equipment >> Compaq bought it. And of course as an aside, Digital, they wanted to showcase their hardware, right? Their super computer stuff. And then so Friendster and MySpace, they came before Facebook. The iPhone certainly wasn't the first mobile device. So lots of failed examples, but there are some recent successes like AWS and cloud. >> You could say smartphone. So I mean. >> Well I know, and you can, we can parse this so we'll debate it. Now Twitter, you could argue, had first mover advantage. You kind of gave me that one John. Bitcoin and crypto clearly had first mover advantage, and sustaining that. Guys, will OpenAI make it to the list on the right with ChatGPT, what do you think? >> I think categorically as a company, it probably won't, but as a category, I think what they're doing will, so OpenAI as a company, they get funding, there's power dynamics involved. Microsoft put a billion dollars in early on, then they just pony it up. Now they're reporting 10 billion more. So, like, if the browsers, Microsoft had competitive advantage over Netscape, and used monopoly power, and convicted by the Department of Justice for killing Netscape with their monopoly, Netscape should have had won that battle, but Microsoft killed it. In this case, Microsoft's not killing it, they're buying into it. So I think the embrace extend Microsoft power here makes OpenAI vulnerable for that one vendor solution. So the AI as a company might not make the list, but the category of what this is, large language model AI, is probably will be on the right hand side. >> Okay, we're going to come back to the government intervention and maybe do some comparisons, but what are your thoughts on this premise here? That, it will basically set- put forth the premise that it, that ChatGPT, its early entry into the market will not confer competitive advantage to >> For OpenAI. >> To Open- Yeah, do you agree with that? >> I agree with that actually. It, because Google has been at it, and they have been holding back, as John said because of the scrutiny from the Fed, right, so- >> And privacy too. >> And the privacy and the accuracy as well. But I think Sam Altman and the company on those guys, right? They have put this in a hasty way out there, you know, because it makes mistakes, and there are a lot of questions around the, sort of, where the content is coming from. You saw that as your example, it just stole the content, and without your permission, you know? >> Yeah. So as quick this aside- >> And it codes on people's behalf and the, those codes are wrong. So there's a lot of, sort of, false information it's putting out there. So it's a very vulnerable thing to do what Sam Altman- >> So even though it'll get better, others will compete. >> So look, just side note, a term which Reid Hoffman used a little bit. Like he said, it's experimental launch, like, you know, it's- >> It's pretty damn good. >> It is clever because according to Sam- >> It's more than clever. It's good. >> It's awesome, if you haven't used it. I mean you write- you read what it writes and you go, "This thing writes so well, it writes so much better than you." >> The human emotion drives that too. I think that's a big thing. But- >> I Want to add one more- >> Make your last point. >> Last one. Okay. So, but he's still holding back. He's conducting quite a few interviews. If you want to get the gist of it, there's an interview with StrictlyVC interview from yesterday with Sam Altman. Listen to that one it's an eye opening what they want- where they want to take it. But my last one I want to make it on this point is that Satya Nadella yesterday did an interview with Wall Street Journal. I think he was doing- >> You were not impressed. >> I was not impressed because he was pushing it too much. So Sam Altman's holding back so there's less backlash. >> Got 10 billion reasons to push. >> I think he's almost- >> Microsoft just laid off 10000 people. Hey ChatGPT, find me a job. You know like. (group laughs) >> He's overselling it to an extent that I think it will backfire on Microsoft. And he's over promising a lot of stuff right now, I think. I don't know why he's very jittery about all these things. And he did the same thing during Ignite as well. So he said, "Oh, this AI will write code for you and this and that." Like you called him out- >> The hyperbole- >> During your- >> from Satya Nadella, he's got a lot of hyperbole. (group talks over each other) >> All right, Let's, go ahead. >> Well, can I weigh in on the whole- >> Yeah, sure. >> Microsoft thing on whether OpenAI, here's the take on this. I think it's more like the browser moment to me, because I could relate to that experience with ChatG, personally, emotionally, when I saw that, and I remember vividly- >> You mean that aha moment (indistinct). >> Like this is obviously the future. Anything else in the old world is dead, website's going to be everywhere. It was just instant dot connection for me. And a lot of other smart people who saw this. Lot of people by the way, didn't see it. Someone said the web's a toy. At the company I was worked for at the time, Hewlett Packard, they like, they could have been in, they had invented HTML, and so like all this stuff was, like, they just passed, the web was just being passed over. But at that time, the browser got better, more websites came on board. So the structural advantage there was online web usage was growing, online user population. So that was growing exponentially with the rise of the Netscape browser. So OpenAI could stay on the right side of your list as durable, if they leverage the category that they're creating, can get the scale. And if they can get the scale, just like Twitter, that failed so many times that they still hung around. So it was a product that was always successful, right? So I mean, it should have- >> You're right, it was terrible, we kept coming back. >> The fail whale, but it still grew. So OpenAI has that moment. They could do it if Microsoft doesn't meddle too much with too much power as a vendor. They could be the Netscape Navigator, without the anti-competitive behavior of somebody else. So to me, they have the pole position. So they have an opportunity. So if not, if they don't execute, then there's opportunity. There's not a lot of barriers to entry, vis-a-vis say the CapEx of say a cloud company like AWS. You can't replicate that, Many have tried, but I think you can replicate OpenAI. >> And we're going to talk about that. Okay, so real quick, I want to bring in some ETR data. This isn't an ETR heavy segment, only because this so new, you know, they haven't coverage yet, but they do cover AI. So basically what we're seeing here is a slide on the vertical axis's net score, which is a measure of spending momentum, and in the horizontal axis's is presence in the dataset. Think of it as, like, market presence. And in the insert right there, you can see how the dots are plotted, the two columns. And so, but the key point here that we want to make, there's a bunch of companies on the left, is he like, you know, DataRobot and C3 AI and some others, but the big whales, Google, AWS, Microsoft, are really dominant in this market. So that's really the key takeaway that, can we- >> I notice IBM is way low. >> Yeah, IBM's low, and actually bring that back up and you, but then you see Oracle who actually is injecting. So I guess that's the other point is, you're not necessarily going to go buy AI, and you know, build your own AI, you're going to, it's going to be there and, it, Salesforce is going to embed it into its platform, the SaaS companies, and you're going to purchase AI. You're not necessarily going to build it. But some companies obviously are. >> I mean to quote IBM's general manager Rob Thomas, "You can't have AI with IA." information architecture and David Flynn- >> You can't Have AI without IA >> without, you can't have AI without IA. You can't have, if you have an Information Architecture, you then can power AI. Yesterday David Flynn, with Hammersmith, was on our Supercloud. He was pointing out that the relationship of storage, where you store things, also impacts the data and stressablity, and Zhamak from Nextdata, she was pointing out that same thing. So the data problem factors into all this too, Dave. >> So you got the big cloud and internet giants, they're all poised to go after this opportunity. Microsoft is investing up to 10 billion. Google's code red, which was, you know, the headline in the New York Times. Of course Apple is there and several alternatives in the market today. Guys like Chinchilla, Bloom, and there's a company Jasper and several others, and then Lena Khan looms large and the government's around the world, EU, US, China, all taking notice before the market really is coalesced around a single player. You know, John, you mentioned Netscape, they kind of really, the US government was way late to that game. It was kind of game over. And Netscape, I remember Barksdale was like, "Eh, we're going to be selling software in the enterprise anyway." and then, pshew, the company just dissipated. So, but it looks like the US government, especially with Lena Khan, they're changing the definition of antitrust and what the cause is to go after people, and they're really much more aggressive. It's only what, two years ago that (indistinct). >> Yeah, the problem I have with the federal oversight is this, they're always like late to the game, and they're slow to catch up. So in other words, they're working on stuff that should have been solved a year and a half, two years ago around some of the social networks hiding behind some of the rules around open web back in the days, and I think- >> But they're like 15 years late to that. >> Yeah, and now they got this new thing on top of it. So like, I just worry about them getting their fingers. >> But there's only two years, you know, OpenAI. >> No, but the thing (indistinct). >> No, they're still fighting other battles. But the problem with government is that they're going to label Big Tech as like a evil thing like Pharma, it's like smoke- >> You know Lena Khan wants to kill Big Tech, there's no question. >> So I think Big Tech is getting a very seriously bad rap. And I think anything that the government does that shades darkness on tech, is politically motivated in most cases. You can almost look at everything, and my 80 20 rule is in play here. 80% of the government activity around tech is bullshit, it's politically motivated, and the 20% is probably relevant, but off the mark and not organized. >> Well market forces have always been the determining factor of success. The governments, you know, have been pretty much failed. I mean you look at IBM's antitrust, that, what did that do? The market ultimately beat them. You look at Microsoft back in the day, right? Windows 95 was peaking, the government came in. But you know, like you said, they missed the web, right, and >> so they were hanging on- >> There's nobody in government >> to Windows. >> that actually knows- >> And so, you, I think you're right. It's market forces that are going to determine this. But Sarbjeet, what do you make of Microsoft's big bet here, you weren't impressed with with Nadella. How do you think, where are they going to apply it? Is this going to be a Hail Mary for Bing, or is it going to be applied elsewhere? What do you think. >> They are saying that they will, sort of, weave this into their products, office products, productivity and also to write code as well, developer productivity as well. That's a big play for them. But coming back to your antitrust sort of comments, right? I believe the, your comment was like, oh, fed was late 10 years or 15 years earlier, but now they're two years. But things are moving very fast now as compared to they used to move. >> So two years is like 10 Years. >> Yeah, two years is like 10 years. Just want to make that point. (Dave laughs) This thing is going like wildfire. Any new tech which comes in that I think they're going against distribution channels. Lina Khan has commented time and again that the marketplace model is that she wants to have some grip on. Cloud marketplaces are a kind of monopolistic kind of way. >> I don't, I don't see this, I don't see a Chat AI. >> You told me it's not Bing, you had an interesting comment. >> No, no. First of all, this is great from Microsoft. If you're Microsoft- >> Why? >> Because Microsoft doesn't have the AI chops that Google has, right? Google is got so much core competency on how they run their search, how they run their backends, their cloud, even though they don't get a lot of cloud market share in the enterprise, they got a kick ass cloud cause they needed one. >> Totally. >> They've invented SRE. I mean Google's development and engineering chops are off the scales, right? Amazon's got some good chops, but Google's got like 10 times more chops than AWS in my opinion. Cloud's a whole different story. Microsoft gets AI, they get a playbook, they get a product they can render into, the not only Bing, productivity software, helping people write papers, PowerPoint, also don't forget the cloud AI can super help. We had this conversation on our Supercloud event, where AI's going to do a lot of the heavy lifting around understanding observability and managing service meshes, to managing microservices, to turning on and off applications, and or maybe writing code in real time. So there's a plethora of use cases for Microsoft to deploy this. combined with their R and D budgets, they can then turbocharge more research, build on it. So I think this gives them a car in the game, Google may have pole position with AI, but this puts Microsoft right in the game, and they already have a lot of stuff going on. But this just, I mean everything gets lifted up. Security, cloud, productivity suite, everything. >> What's under the hood at Google, and why aren't they talking about it? I mean they got to be freaked out about this. No? Or do they have kind of a magic bullet? >> I think they have the, they have the chops definitely. Magic bullet, I don't know where they are, as compared to the ChatGPT 3 or 4 models. Like they, but if you look at the online sort of activity and the videos put out there from Google folks, Google technology folks, that's account you should look at if you are looking there, they have put all these distinctions what ChatGPT 3 has used, they have been talking about for a while as well. So it's not like it's a secret thing that you cannot replicate. As you said earlier, like in the beginning of this segment, that anybody who has more data and the capacity to process that data, which Google has both, I think they will win this. >> Obviously living in Palo Alto where the Google founders are, and Google's headquarters next town over we have- >> We're so close to them. We have inside information on some of the thinking and that hasn't been reported by any outlet yet. And that is, is that, from what I'm hearing from my sources, is Google has it, they don't want to release it for many reasons. One is it might screw up their search monopoly, one, two, they're worried about the accuracy, 'cause Google will get sued. 'Cause a lot of people are jamming on this ChatGPT as, "Oh it does everything for me." when it's clearly not a hundred percent accurate all the time. >> So Lina Kahn is looming, and so Google's like be careful. >> Yeah so Google's just like, this is the third, could be a third rail. >> But the first thing you said is a concern. >> Well no. >> The disruptive (indistinct) >> What they will do is do a Waymo kind of thing, where they spin out a separate company. >> They're doing that. >> The discussions happening, they're going to spin out the separate company and put it over there, and saying, "This is AI, got search over there, don't touch that search, 'cause that's where all the revenue is." (chuckles) >> So, okay, so that's how they deal with the Clay Christensen dilemma. What's the business model here? I mean it's not advertising, right? Is it to charge you for a query? What, how do you make money at this? >> It's a good question, I mean my thinking is, first of all, it's cool to type stuff in and see a paper get written, or write a blog post, or gimme a marketing slogan for this or that or write some code. I think the API side of the business will be critical. And I think Howie Xu, I know you're going to reference some of his comments yesterday on Supercloud, I think this brings a whole 'nother user interface into technology consumption. I think the business model, not yet clear, but it will probably be some sort of either API and developer environment or just a straight up free consumer product, with some sort of freemium backend thing for business. >> And he was saying too, it's natural language is the way in which you're going to interact with these systems. >> I think it's APIs, it's APIs, APIs, APIs, because these people who are cooking up these models, and it takes a lot of compute power to train these and to, for inference as well. Somebody did the analysis on the how many cents a Google search costs to Google, and how many cents the ChatGPT query costs. It's, you know, 100x or something on that. You can take a look at that. >> A 100x on which side? >> You're saying two orders of magnitude more expensive for ChatGPT >> Much more, yeah. >> Than for Google. >> It's very expensive. >> So Google's got the data, they got the infrastructure and they got, you're saying they got the cost (indistinct) >> No actually it's a simple query as well, but they are trying to put together the answers, and they're going through a lot more data versus index data already, you know. >> Let me clarify, you're saying that Google's version of ChatGPT is more efficient? >> No, I'm, I'm saying Google search results. >> Ah, search results. >> What are used to today, but cheaper. >> But that, does that, is that going to confer advantage to Google's large language (indistinct)? >> It will, because there were deep science (indistinct). >> Google, I don't think Google search is doing a large language model on their search, it's keyword search. You know, what's the weather in Santa Cruz? Or how, what's the weather going to be? Or you know, how do I find this? Now they have done a smart job of doing some things with those queries, auto complete, re direct navigation. But it's, it's not entity. It's not like, "Hey, what's Dave Vellante thinking this week in Breaking Analysis?" ChatGPT might get that, because it'll get your Breaking Analysis, it'll synthesize it. There'll be some, maybe some clips. It'll be like, you know, I mean. >> Well I got to tell you, I asked ChatGPT to, like, I said, I'm going to enter a transcript of a discussion I had with Nir Zuk, the CTO of Palo Alto Networks, And I want you to write a 750 word blog. I never input the transcript. It wrote a 750 word blog. It attributed quotes to him, and it just pulled a bunch of stuff that, and said, okay, here it is. It talked about Supercloud, it defined Supercloud. >> It's made, it makes you- >> Wow, But it was a big lie. It was fraudulent, but still, blew me away. >> Again, vanilla content and non accurate content. So we are going to see a surge of misinformation on steroids, but I call it the vanilla content. Wow, that's just so boring, (indistinct). >> There's so many dangers. >> Make your point, cause we got to, almost out of time. >> Okay, so the consumption, like how do you consume this thing. As humans, we are consuming it and we are, like, getting a nicely, like, surprisingly shocked, you know, wow, that's cool. It's going to increase productivity and all that stuff, right? And on the danger side as well, the bad actors can take hold of it and create fake content and we have the fake sort of intelligence, if you go out there. So that's one thing. The second thing is, we are as humans are consuming this as language. Like we read that, we listen to it, whatever format we consume that is, but the ultimate usage of that will be when the machines can take that output from likes of ChatGPT, and do actions based on that. The robots can work, the robot can paint your house, we were talking about, right? Right now we can't do that. >> Data apps. >> So the data has to be ingested by the machines. It has to be digestible by the machines. And the machines cannot digest unorganized data right now, we will get better on the ingestion side as well. So we are getting better. >> Data, reasoning, insights, and action. >> I like that mall, paint my house. >> So, okay- >> By the way, that means drones that'll come in. Spray painting your house. >> Hey, it wasn't too long ago that robots couldn't climb stairs, as I like to point out. Okay, and of course it's no surprise the venture capitalists are lining up to eat at the trough, as I'd like to say. Let's hear, you'd referenced this earlier, John, let's hear what AI expert Howie Xu said at the Supercloud event, about what it takes to clone ChatGPT. Please, play the clip. >> So one of the VCs actually asked me the other day, right? "Hey, how much money do I need to spend, invest to get a, you know, another shot to the openAI sort of the level." You know, I did a (indistinct) >> Line up. >> A hundred million dollar is the order of magnitude that I came up with, right? You know, not a billion, not 10 million, right? So a hundred- >> Guys a hundred million dollars, that's an astoundingly low figure. What do you make of it? >> I was in an interview with, I was interviewing, I think he said hundred million or so, but in the hundreds of millions, not a billion right? >> You were trying to get him up, you were like "Hundreds of millions." >> Well I think, I- >> He's like, eh, not 10, not a billion. >> Well first of all, Howie Xu's an expert machine learning. He's at Zscaler, he's a machine learning AI guy. But he comes from VMware, he's got his technology pedigrees really off the chart. Great friend of theCUBE and kind of like a CUBE analyst for us. And he's smart. He's right. I think the barriers to entry from a dollar standpoint are lower than say the CapEx required to compete with AWS. Clearly, the CapEx spending to build all the tech for the run a cloud. >> And you don't need a huge sales force. >> And in some case apps too, it's the same thing. But I think it's not that hard. >> But am I right about that? You don't need a huge sales force either. It's, what, you know >> If the product's good, it will sell, this is a new era. The better mouse trap will win. This is the new economics in software, right? So- >> Because you look at the amount of money Lacework, and Snyk, Snowflake, Databrooks. Look at the amount of money they've raised. I mean it's like a billion dollars before they get to IPO or more. 'Cause they need promotion, they need go to market. You don't need (indistinct) >> OpenAI's been working on this for multiple five years plus it's, hasn't, wasn't born yesterday. Took a lot of years to get going. And Sam is depositioning all the success, because he's trying to manage expectations, To your point Sarbjeet, earlier. It's like, yeah, he's trying to "Whoa, whoa, settle down everybody, (Dave laughs) it's not that great." because he doesn't want to fall into that, you know, hero and then get taken down, so. >> It may take a 100 million or 150 or 200 million to train the model. But to, for the inference to, yeah to for the inference machine, It will take a lot more, I believe. >> Give it, so imagine, >> Because- >> Go ahead, sorry. >> Go ahead. But because it consumes a lot more compute cycles and it's certain level of storage and everything, right, which they already have. So I think to compute is different. To frame the model is a different cost. But to run the business is different, because I think 100 million can go into just fighting the Fed. >> Well there's a flywheel too. >> Oh that's (indistinct) >> (indistinct) >> We are running the business, right? >> It's an interesting number, but it's also kind of, like, context to it. So here, a hundred million spend it, you get there, but you got to factor in the fact that the ways companies win these days is critical mass scale, hitting a flywheel. If they can keep that flywheel of the value that they got going on and get better, you can almost imagine a marketplace where, hey, we have proprietary data, we're SiliconANGLE in theCUBE. We have proprietary content, CUBE videos, transcripts. Well wouldn't it be great if someone in a marketplace could sell a module for us, right? We buy that, Amazon's thing and things like that. So if they can get a marketplace going where you can apply to data sets that may be proprietary, you can start to see this become bigger. And so I think the key barriers to entry is going to be success. I'll give you an example, Reddit. Reddit is successful and it's hard to copy, not because of the software. >> They built the moat. >> Because you can, buy Reddit open source software and try To compete. >> They built the moat with their community. >> Their community, their scale, their user expectation. Twitter, we referenced earlier, that thing should have gone under the first two years, but there was such a great emotional product. People would tolerate the fail whale. And then, you know, well that was a whole 'nother thing. >> Then a plane landed in (John laughs) the Hudson and it was over. >> I think verticals, a lot of verticals will build applications using these models like for lawyers, for doctors, for scientists, for content creators, for- >> So you'll have many hundreds of millions of dollars investments that are going to be seeping out. If, all right, we got to wrap, if you had to put odds on it that that OpenAI is going to be the leader, maybe not a winner take all leader, but like you look at like Amazon and cloud, they're not winner take all, these aren't necessarily winner take all markets. It's not necessarily a zero sum game, but let's call it winner take most. What odds would you give that open AI 10 years from now will be in that position. >> If I'm 0 to 10 kind of thing? >> Yeah, it's like horse race, 3 to 1, 2 to 1, even money, 10 to 1, 50 to 1. >> Maybe 2 to 1, >> 2 to 1, that's pretty low odds. That's basically saying they're the favorite, they're the front runner. Would you agree with that? >> I'd say 4 to 1. >> Yeah, I was going to say I'm like a 5 to 1, 7 to 1 type of person, 'cause I'm a skeptic with, you know, there's so much competition, but- >> I think they're definitely the leader. I mean you got to say, I mean. >> Oh there's no question. There's no question about it. >> The question is can they execute? >> They're not Friendster, is what you're saying. >> They're not Friendster and they're more like Twitter and Reddit where they have momentum. If they can execute on the product side, and if they don't stumble on that, they will continue to have the lead. >> If they say stay neutral, as Sam is, has been saying, that, hey, Microsoft is one of our partners, if you look at their company model, how they have structured the company, then they're going to pay back to the investors, like Microsoft is the biggest one, up to certain, like by certain number of years, they're going to pay back from all the money they make, and after that, they're going to give the money back to the public, to the, I don't know who they give it to, like non-profit or something. (indistinct) >> Okay, the odds are dropping. (group talks over each other) That's a good point though >> Actually they might have done that to fend off the criticism of this. But it's really interesting to see the model they have adopted. >> The wildcard in all this, My last word on this is that, if there's a developer shift in how developers and data can come together again, we have conferences around the future of data, Supercloud and meshs versus, you know, how the data world, coding with data, how that evolves will also dictate, 'cause a wild card could be a shift in the landscape around how developers are using either machine learning or AI like techniques to code into their apps, so. >> That's fantastic insight. I can't thank you enough for your time, on the heels of Supercloud 2, really appreciate it. All right, thanks to John and Sarbjeet for the outstanding conversation today. Special thanks to the Palo Alto studio team. My goodness, Anderson, this great backdrop. You guys got it all out here, I'm jealous. And Noah, really appreciate it, Chuck, Andrew Frick and Cameron, Andrew Frick switching, Cameron on the video lake, great job. And Alex Myerson, he's on production, manages the podcast for us, Ken Schiffman as well. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and our newsletters. Rob Hof is our editor-in-chief over at SiliconANGLE, does some great editing, thanks to all. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcasts. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcast, wherever you listen. Publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Want to get in touch, email me directly, david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me at dvellante, or comment on our LinkedIn post. And by all means, check out etr.ai. They got really great survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, We'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (electronic music)

(gentle upbeat music) >> Welcome back everyone, to "theCUBE"'s live stage performance here in Palo Alto, California at "theCUBE" Studios. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante, kicking off our first inaugural Supercloud event. It's an editorial event, we wanted to bring together the best in the business, the smartest, the biggest, the up-and-coming startups, venture capitalists, everybody, to weigh in on this new Supercloud trend, this structural change in the cloud computing business. We're about to run the Ecosystem Speaks, which is a bunch of pre-recorded companies that wanted to get their voices on the record, so stay tuned for the rest of the day. We'll be replaying all that content and they're going to be having some really good commentary and hear what they have to say. I had a chance to interview and so did Dave. Dave, this is our closing segment where we kind of unpack everything or kind of digest and report. So much to kind of digest from the conversations today, a wide range of commentary from Supercloud operating system to developers who are in charge to maybe it's an ops problem or maybe Oracle's a Supercloud. I mean, that was debated. So so much discussion, lot to unpack. What was your favorite moments? >> Well, before I get to that, I think, I go back to something that happened at re:Invent last year. Nick Sturiale came up, Steve Mullaney from Aviatrix; we're going to hear from him shortly in the Ecosystem Speaks. Nick Sturiale's VC said "it's happening"! And what he was talking about is this ecosystem is exploding. They're building infrastructure or capabilities on top of the CapEx infrastructure. So, I think it is happening. I think we confirmed today that Supercloud is a thing. It's a very immature thing. And I think the other thing, John is that, it seems to me that the further you go up the stack, the weaker the business case gets for doing Supercloud. We heard from Marianna Tessel, it's like, "Eh, you know, we can- it was easier to just do it all on one cloud." This is a point that, Adrian Cockcroft just made on the panel and so I think that when you break out the pieces of the stack, I think very clearly the infrastructure layer, what we heard from Confluent and HashiCorp, and certainly VMware, there's a real problem there. There's a real need at the infrastructure layer and then even at the data layer, I think Benoit Dageville did a great job of- You know, I was peppering him with all my questions, which I basically was going through, the Supercloud definition and they ticked the box on pretty much every one of 'em as did, by the way Ali Ghodsi you know, the big difference there is the philosophy of Republicans and Democrats- got open versus closed, not to apply that to either one side, but you know what I mean! >> And the similarities are probably greater than differences. >> Berkely, I would probably put them on the- >> Yeah, we'll put them on the Democrat side we'll make Snowflake the Republicans. But so- but as we say there's a lot of similarities as well in terms of what their objectives are. So, I mean, I thought it was a great program and a really good start to, you know, an industry- You brought up the point about the industry consortium, asked Kit Colbert- >> Yep. >> If he thought that was something that was viable and what'd they say? That hyperscale should lead it? >> Yeah, they said hyperscale should lead it and there also should be an industry consortium to get the voices out there. And I think VMware is very humble in how they're putting out their white paper because I think they know that they can't do it all and that they do not have a great track record relative to cloud. And I think, but they have a great track record of loyal installed base ops people using VMware vSphere all the time. >> Yeah. >> So I think they need a catapult moment where they can catapult to the cloud native which they've been working on for years under Raghu and the team. So the question on VMware is in the light of Broadcom, okay, acquisition of VMware, this is an opportunity or it might not be an opportunity or it might be a spin-out or something, I just think VMware's got way too much engineering culture to be ignored, Dave. And I think- well, I'm going to watch this very closely because they can pull off some sort of rallying moment. I think they could. And then you hear the upstarts like Platform9, Rafay Systems and others they're all like, "Yes, we need to unify behind something. There needs to be some sort of standard". You know, we heard the argument of you know, more standards bodies type thing. So, it's interesting, maybe "theCUBE" could be that but we're going to certainly keep the conversation going. >> I thought one of the most memorable statements was Vittorio who said we- for VMware, we want our cake, we want to eat it too and we want to lose weight. So they have a lot of that aspirations there! (John laughs) >> And then I thought, Adrian Cockcroft said you know, the devs, they want to get married. They were marrying everybody, and then the ops team, they have to deal with the divorce. >> Yeah. >> And I thought that was poignant. It's like, they want consistency, they want standards, they got to be able to scale And Lori MacVittie, I'm not sure you agree with this, I'd have to think about it, but she was basically saying, all we've talked about is devs devs devs for the last 10 years, going forward we're going to be talking about ops. >> Yeah, and I think one of the things I learned from this day and looking back, and some kind of- I've been sauteing through all the interviews. If you zoom out, for me it was the epiphany of developers are still in charge. And I've said, you know, the developers are doing great, it's an ops security thing. Not sure I see that the way I was seeing before. I think what I learned was the refactoring pattern that's emerging, In Sik Rhee brought this up from Vertex Ventures with Marianna Tessel, it's a nuanced point but I think he's right on which is the pattern that's emerging is developers want ease-of-use tooling, they're driving the change and I think the developers in the devs ops ethos- it's never going to be separate. It's going to be DevOps. That means developers are driving operations and then security. So what I learned was it's not ops teams leveling up, it's devs redefining what ops is. >> Mm. And I think that to me is where Supercloud's going to be interesting- >> Forcing that. >> Yeah. >> Forcing the change because the structural change is open sources thriving, devs are still in charge and they still want more developers, Vittorio "we need more developers", right? So the developers are in charge and that's clear. Now, if that happens- if you believe that to be true the domino effect of that is going to be amazing because then everyone who gets on the wrong side of history, on the ops and security side, is going to be fighting a trend that may not be fight-able, you know, it might be inevitable. And so the winners are the ones that are refactoring their business like Snowflake. Snowflake is a data warehouse that had nothing to do with Amazon at first. It was the developers who said "I'm going to refactor data warehouse on AWS". That is a developer-driven refactorization and a business model. So I think that's the pattern I'm seeing is that this concept refactoring, patterns and the developer trajectory is critical. >> I thought there was another great comment. Maribel Lopez, her Lord of the Rings comment: "there will be no one ring to rule them all". Now at the same time, Kit Colbert, you know what we asked him straight out, "are you the- do you want to be the, the Supercloud OS?" and he basically said, "yeah, we do". Now, of course they're confined to their world, which is a pretty substantial world. I think, John, the reason why Maribel is so correct is security. I think security's a really hard problem to solve. You've got cloud as the first layer of defense and now you've got multiple clouds, multiple layers of defense, multiple shared responsibility models. You've got different tools for XDR, for identity, for governance, for privacy all within those different clouds. I mean, that really is a confusing picture. And I think the hardest- one of the hardest parts of Supercloud to solve. >> Yeah, and I thought the security founder Gee Rittenhouse, Piyush Sharrma from Accurics, which sold to Tenable, and Tony Kueh, former head of product at VMware. >> Right. >> Who's now an investor kind of looking for his next gig or what he is going to do next. He's obviously been extremely successful. They brought up the, the OS factor. Another point that they made I thought was interesting is that a lot of the things to do to solve the complexity is not doable. >> Yeah. >> It's too much work. So managed services might field the bit. So, and Chris Hoff mentioned on the Clouderati segment that the higher level services being a managed service and differentiating around the service could be the key competitive advantage for whoever does it. >> I think the other thing is Chris Hoff said "yeah, well, Web 3, metaverse, you know, DAO, Superclouds" you know, "Stupercloud" he called it and this bring up- It resonates because one of the criticisms that Charles Fitzgerald laid on us was, well, it doesn't help to throw out another term. I actually think it does help. And I think the reason it does help is because it's getting people to think. When you ask people about Supercloud, they automatically- it resonates with them. They play back what they think is the future of cloud. So Supercloud really talks to the future of cloud. There's a lot of aspects to it that need to be further defined, further thought out and we're getting to the point now where we- we can start- begin to say, okay that is Supercloud or that isn't Supercloud. >> I think that's really right on. I think Supercloud at the end of the day, for me from the simplest way to describe it is making sure that the developer experience is so good that the operations just happen. And Marianna Tessel said, she's investing in making their developer experience high velocity, very easy. So if you do that, you have to run on premise and on the cloud. So hybrid really is where Supercloud is going right now. It's not multi-cloud. Multi-cloud was- that was debunked on this session today. I thought that was clear. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think- >> It's not about multi-cloud. It's about operationally seamless operations across environments, public cloud to on-premise, basically. >> I think we got consensus across the board that multi-cloud, you know, is a symptom Chuck Whitten's thing of multi-cloud by default versus multi- multi-cloud has not been a strategy, Kit Colbert said, up until the last couple of years. Yeah, because people said, "oh we got all these multiple clouds, what do we do with it?" and we got this mess that we have to solve. Whereas, I think Supercloud is something that is a strategy and then the other nuance that I keep bringing up is it's industries that are- as part of their digital transformation, are building clouds. Now, whether or not they become superclouds, I'm not convinced. I mean, what Goldman Sachs is doing, you know, with AWS, what Walmart's doing with Azure connecting their on-prem tools to those public clouds, you know, is that a supercloud? I mean, we're going to have to go back and really look at that definition. Or is it just kind of a SAS that spans on-prem and cloud. So, as I said, the further you go up the stack, the business case seems to wane a little bit but there's no question in my mind that from an infrastructure standpoint, to your point about operations, there's a real requirement for super- what we call Supercloud. >> Well, we're going to keep the conversation going, Dave. I want to put a shout out to our founding supporters of this initiative. Again, we put this together really fast kind of like a pilot series, an inaugural event. We want to have a face-to-face event as an industry event. Want to thank the founding supporters. These are the people who donated their time, their resource to contribute content, ideas and some cash, not everyone has committed some financial contribution but we want to recognize the names here. VMware, Intuit, Red Hat, Snowflake, Aisera, Alteryx, Confluent, Couchbase, Nutanix, Rafay Systems, Skyhigh Security, Aviatrix, Zscaler, Platform9, HashiCorp, F5 and all the media partners. Without their support, this wouldn't have happened. And there are more people that wanted to weigh in. There was more demand than we could pull off. We'll certainly continue the Supercloud conversation series here on "theCUBE" and we'll add more people in. And now, after this session, the Ecosystem Speaks session, we're going to run all the videos of the big name companies. We have the Nutanix CEOs weighing in, Aviatrix to name a few. >> Yeah. Let me, let me chime in, I mean you got Couchbase talking about Edge, Platform 9's going to be on, you know, everybody, you know Insig was poopoo-ing Oracle, but you know, Oracle and Azure, what they did, two technical guys, developers are coming on, we dig into what they did. Howie Xu from Zscaler, Paula Hansen is going to talk about going to market in the multi-cloud world. You mentioned Rajiv, the CEO of Nutanix, Ramesh is going to talk about multi-cloud infrastructure. So that's going to run now for, you know, quite some time here and some of the pre-record so super excited about that and I just want to thank the crew. I hope guys, I hope you have a list of credits there's too many of you to mention, but you know, awesome jobs really appreciate the work that you did in a very short amount of time. >> Well, I'm excited. I learned a lot and my takeaway was that Supercloud's a thing, there's a kind of sense that people want to talk about it and have real conversations, not BS or FUD. They want to have real substantive conversations and we're going to enable that on "theCUBE". Dave, final thoughts for you. >> Well, I mean, as I say, we put this together very quickly. It was really a phenomenal, you know, enlightening experience. I think it confirmed a lot of the concepts and the premises that we've put forth, that David Floyer helped evolve, that a lot of these analysts have helped evolve, that even Charles Fitzgerald with his antagonism helped to really sharpen our knives. So, you know, thank you Charles. And- >> I like his blog, by the I'm a reader- >> Yeah, absolutely. And it was great to be back in Palo Alto. It was my first time back since pre-COVID, so, you know, great job. >> All right. I want to thank all the crew and everyone. Thanks for watching this first, inaugural Supercloud event. We are definitely going to be doing more of these. So stay tuned, maybe face-to-face in person. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante now for the Ecosystem chiming in, and they're going to speak and share their thoughts here with "theCUBE" our first live stage performance event in our studio. Thanks for watching. (gentle upbeat music)