from the cube studios in palo alto in boston bringing you data driven insights from the cube and etr this is breaking analysis with dave vellante five publicly traded u.s based companies have market valuations over or just near a trillion dollars as of october 29th apple and microsoft topped the list each with 2.5 trillion followed by alphabet at 2 trillion amazon at 1.7 and facebook now meta at just under a trillion off from a tie of 1.1 trillion prior to its recent troubles these companies have reached extraordinary levels of success and power what if anything could disrupt their market dominance in his book seeing digital author david micheller made three key points that i want to call out first in the technology industry disruptions of the norm the waves of mainframes minis pcs mobile and the internet all saw new companies emerge and power structures that dwarfed previous eras of innovation is that dynamic changing second every industry has a disruption scenario not just the technology industry and third silicon valley broadly defined to include seattle or at least amazon has a dual disruption agenda the first being horizontally disrupting the technology industry and the second as digital disruptors in virtually any industry how relevant is that to the future power structure of the digital industry generally in amazon specifically hello and welcome to this week's wikibon cube insights powered by etr in this breaking analysis we welcome in author speaker researcher and thought leader david michela to assess what could possibly disrupt today's trillionaire companies and we're going to start with amazon dave good to see you welcome thanks dave good to see you yeah so dave approached us about a month or so ago he was working on these disruption scenarios and we agreed to make this a community research project where we're going to tap the knowledge of the cube crowd and its adjacent communities and to that end we're initiating a community survey that asks folks to rate the likelihood of seven plus one disruption scenarios so we have a slide here that sort of shows what that survey structure is going to look like and so as i say there's seven plus another one which is kind of an open open-ended and we're going to start with amazon as the disruptee so dave you've been writing about the technology industry for decades and digital disruption and china and automation and hundreds of other topics what prompted you to start this project yeah it's a great question you know as you said that the whole history of our business has been you know every decade or so you have a new set of leaders ibm digital microsoft the internet companies etc but when i started looking at it you know that seems in some ways to have actually stopped that you know microsoft is now 40 years old amazon is what 1995 is getting towards 30. you know google's been a dominant company for 20 years and you know apple of course and facebook more recently so so whatever reason this sort of longevity of these firms has been longer than we've seen in the past so i sort of say well is there anything that's going to change that so part of it and we'll get into it is what could happen to disrupt those big five but then the sort of second question was well maybe the uh disruptive energies of the of the tech business have moved elsewhere they've moved to crypto currencies or they've moved to tesla and so you start to sort of broaden your sense of disruption and when you talked about that dual disruption agenda that whole ability of tech to disrupt other sectors banking health care insurance automobiles whatever is sort of a second wave of disruption so uh we started coming out all right what sort of scenarios are we really looking at over say for the 2020s what might shake up the big five as we know them and how might disruption spread to sort of more industry specific parts of the world and that was really the the genesis of the project and really just my own thinking of all right what scenarios can i come up with and then reaching out to companies like yourselves to figure out okay how can we get more input on that how can we crowdsource it how can we get a sense of of what the community thinks of all this it's great love it and as you know we're very open to do that so we're going to crowdsource this we're going to open it up to virtually anyone and use multiple channels so let's go through some of the scenarios all of them actually and explain the reasoning behind their inclusion the first one the govern government mandated separation divestment and or limits on amazon's cloud computing retail media credit card and or in-house product groups it probably no coincidence that this was the first one you chose today but why start here well i think the government interest in doing something to get back at big tech is is pretty clear and probably one of the few things that has bipartisan support in washington these days and also government interventions have always been an enormous part of the tech industry's history the the antitrust efforts against ibm and att in particular and more recently microsoft a smaller one but it's it's always been there there's a vibe to do it now and when you look at all the big ones but particularly amazon you can see that potential divestments and breakups are sitting there right in front of you the separation of retail and aws uh perhaps breaking out credit card or music or media businesses these sorts of things are all on the surface at least relatively clean things to do and i think when you look at the formation of an alphabet or a meta those companies themselves are starting to see their own businesses as consisting of multiple firms yeah so i just want to kind of drill into the cloud piece just to emphasize the importance of aws in the context of amazon amazon announced earnings thursday night after the close aws is now a 64 billion revenue run rate company and they're growing at 39 percent year over year that's actually an accelerated growth rate from q3 2020 when the company was grew at 29 it's astounding think about a company this size moreover aws accounted for more than actually but 100 of amazon's operating profit last quarter so the aws cloud is obviously crucial as a funding vehicle and ecosystem accelerant for amazon and i just wanted to share some data points dave before we move on to these other scenarios yeah and just on that uh i think that is the fundamental point it's very easy to see aws on its own as a powerhouse but i think you know if you figure how much freedom aws money has given the retail business or the credit card business or the music businesses to launch themselves and to essentially make no money for very long periods of time uh you see that you know if you're a walmart trying to compete with amazon as a retailer well that money from aws is is an awful big problem and and so when they look at separation that's the sort of stuff people talk about right so i just want to i want to put that into context just in in terms of the the cloud business so this chart is one from our etr surveys that isolates the four hyperscale cloud providers and adds in oracle and ibm we both own public clouds but don't you know don't have nearly the the scale we don't have apple or facebook they have clouds as well and we can talk about that in a moment but the chart shows net score or spending momentum on the vertical axis and market share or pervasiveness in the survey on the horizontal axis it's it's really mentioned share not dollar market share but it's an indicator and the red line is an indicator of elevated spending momentum and you can see azure and aws they're up and to the right i mean amazon is 64 billion you know uh azure will claim larger because they're including their application business but just their their their i asked business obviously smaller than amazon's but you can see in the survey the respondents define cloud they include that sas business so they they both impressively have this high spending momentum on the vertical axis well above that 40 line despite their size google obviously well behind those to the left and then alibaba which has a small sample in the etr survey it's you know it's not as prominent in china but even though it's ias cloud businesses larger than google's by probably a couple billion dollars now the point is these four hyperscalers and there really are only four in my view anyway they have a presence that allows them to build new businesses and disrupt ecosystems and enact that dual disruption agenda should they choose to do so at least in the case of amazon oracle and ibm are not in a position to do that it's not part of their agenda they don't they don't have that scale but dave can you talk about your dual disruption scenario very clearly amazon fits in there and i would think alibaba as well but what about microsoft facebook apple google yeah i mean you know people often say what's the biggest difference between microsoft and amazon from from a cloud point of view and the answer is pretty clear that microsoft goes out of its way to assure its customers that it really doesn't have any interest in competing directly about them so you don't see microsoft going into the retail business or the banking business or the healthcare business all that seriously in contrast that's really what amazon is all about is taking its capabilities to essentially any industry it likes and therefore as one is as great as the service aws provides it's often being provided to people who amazon is actually competing with at least some degree or another and you know that's a huge part of microsoft's sales pitch and it's certainly a potential vulnerability down the road uh it's very hard in the end to be an essential supplier and a direct competitor at the same time but so far they've managed to do that yeah so we put together just another sort of aside here this little thought experiment to see what aws would look like as a separate entity and so it's a chart that looks at a number of tech companies and lays out their revenue run rate the growth rates gross margin probably should have done operating margin might have been more relevant but market cap and revenue multiple again given the size of aws at 64 billion run rate and accelerating growth trajectory it's just it's remarkable and so we we figured this out based on industry norms and today's valuations it's not inconceivable that aws could be you know in the trillionaire club or close to it so based on that discussion we had earlier amazon amazon's dual disruption agenda being funded by empowered by aws as we just discussed dave yeah and just keep in mind nothing that you or i are saying are predictions or saying that anything is going to happen they are possible scenarios of what might happen that seem to make some plausible sense so that when amazon is making the sort of profits that it's making aws naturally that's going to attract other companies because there's margin to to be had there and similarly you know look at uh you look at microsoft for all those years the profits it made in windows or in office software allowed it to do all kinds of other things and essentially that's what amazon is doing today but if a google or a microsoft could cut into those profits through some sort of aggressive pricing and perhaps we'll talk about that you know that would have a lot of impact on amazon as a whole all right so let's quickly go through the other description scenarios and maybe make some comments the next one sort of major companies increasingly choose to do their own cloud computing and or sell their products directly for competitive cost security or other reasons so dave i saw this and look at a company like walmart and others no way they're going to run their business on aws walmart as we know is building out its own cloud and maybe it doesn't have the size of a hyperscaler but it's very large it's got the technical chops it can most likely do it a lot cheaper than renting cloud space what was your thinking in this scenario yeah the broader thing here is essentially one of that computing paradigms have been proven to go in cycles you know a long time ago people shared computers and called timeshare and then people ran their own and now they're sharing again through the cloud and who knows it's possible that the cycle could shift again through some innovation and you know a lot of companies today look at the bills they're getting for cloud or for various sas services and some of them are pretty high and a lot of them will look at and say hey maybe we actually can do some of this stuff cheaper so the scenario is that essentially the the cycle shifts once again uh and it makes more sense to do stuff in-house again that's not a prediction but uh certainly something that's happened before and couldn't plausibly happen again yeah there's a lot of discussion about that in the industry of martine casado and sarah wong wrote that piece about the you know the trillion dollar basically sucking sound basically saying the the scenario was the the the premise rather was the that that sas companies their cost of goods sold are increasingly going to be you know chewed up by cloud costs and then of course mark andreessen says every company is going to be a sas company so as the sassification of business occurs that's something to consider okay next scenario is environmental policies raise costs change packaging delivery recycling rules and or consumer preferences can you comment dave on your thinking on this scenario yeah first i'll just back up a bit we're used to thinking of technology is the great disrupter and clearly that's still important but there are now other forces out there china which will talk about uh the environment uh various cultural forces and and here with the environment you see all kinds of things that could change that you know if you look at amazon and its model of very high levels of packaging lots of delivery vehicles and all the things it is doing are those necessarily the best environmentally and will there potentially be various taxes carbon metrics or things that might work against that model and tend to favor more traditional stores where people go to pick them up that seems to be a plausible scenario and i think everybody here knows that desire to do something in the in the climate environmental spaces is pretty strong and you know if you look at you know just throws aside the recycling industry itself has arguably been quite a failure in that much of what is so-called recycled is basically put in tankers and shipped to the third world which no longer wants it uh and so the backlog of packaging and concerns about packaging and uh what to do with all that you know those those issues are rising and and will be real and i i don't know whether amazon has a good answer to that they're you know they obviously are very aware of it they're working very hard to do everything they can in that space but their fundamental model of essentially packaging every good in its own little box or envelope or whatever is arguably not the greenest way of doing business got it thank you so okay so the next one is price in slash trade wars with the u.s and or china cloud and e-commerce giant so protectionism favors national players so we talking here about for example google bombing prices or alibaba or trade policy making it difficult for amazon to do business in certain parts of the world can you add some color on this one yeah all those things and i would just start with with china itself you know you could argue that covet has been the biggest disruptor of the last couple years but if you look out the next five or eight you had to look at all these things you'd probably say china the size of the chinese market the power of its vendors players like alibaba clearly can rival amazon in many different ways uh you know it's no secret that it'd be hard for amazon to they're not going to be a big success in china uh but you can see it in harder ways that you imagine across asia or other markets where alibaba is strong and you're in today's sort of environment where there's scarce goods and maybe certain products well maybe they go chinese may probably go to alibaba first and you want to buy that product well amazon doesn't have it but alibaba has it you know those sort of scenarios if you get into a sharp trade war with china or even if the current tensions continue it's quite easy to see how that could uh play some havoc with amazon's supply chains in many ways the whole amazon retail model is based on a steady flow of goods manufactured in china and that clearly is not as stable as it was right got it the next one actually caught my attention and this is a big part of the reason why we want to survey the community to see how plausible folks think this is in its its technology related scenario so that would potentially disrupt aws and by fault by default hit amazon so that's major computing innovations such as quantum edge machine machine would obsolete today's cloud architectures okay so so here what you're thinking just as aws changed the game in i.t some future innovations or new business models that we haven't conceived yet could disrupt the prevailing cloud computing model right yeah absolutely i mean you know again we'll go back to where we started that new technologies have always been the main disruptors and here we're looking at some potentially very powerful uh new technologies you know your guess is good in mind about what's gonna happen with quantum is clearly a very different way of computing quite possibly led by other vendors possibly even led by china which would be a huge issue you look at the cloud well cloud's not very good at sort of edge stuff or machine to a machine stuff or sort of near field things out cars in the highway talking to each other uh you know again amazon's totally aware of these things and they are working on it but they have a huge investment in other ways of doing things and historically that inertia that need to protect existing bases of activity and practices has made it difficult for a lot of companies to adjust to new things and so that could happen again uh and there's certainly a puzzle but yeah in all these cases so far amazon has been aware of it is trying to do it but you can still see the scenario playing out and in a truly disruptive technology it's not always possible for the incumbent to effectively cope with it okay the next scenario speaks to i think some of the work that you've done in automation and related areas software replaces centralized warehouses as delivery services are directly connected to suppliers and factories so dave this is like cut out the middle man right software and automation changes the nature of the route absolutely i mean you know in a world of ubiquitous delivery services and product standardization metrics and products being built and shipped from all over the world the concept of running them all through a centralized warehouse is at least at a minimum uh seems like something that might be uh obsoleted and replaced and you know imagine if google built a significant taxonomy of of core products that could be traced directly to where they are either manufactured supplied or brought into the country from whatever company that tries to sell them and the delivery service connected directly to that uh and so that model has always been out there i think at various times people have looked at it it hasn't happened so far and i think amazon itself is is is looking at this particularly as it gets more into food that the idea of shipping all fresh food any sort of centralized warehouse is a pretty bad idea uh and so you know that model of software essentially replacing giant automated warehouses uh is out there and and seems to me uh likely and i just say that you know alibaba for the record doesn't really use that warehouse model it uses a network of suppliers and does it that way and and there do seem to be uh some efficiencies that would likely come with that the next one is was really interesting from a historian's perspective and it's the penultimate uh scenario and that's the proverbial self-inflicted wound and you and i certainly remember ibm's you know fateful decision to outsource the microprocessor and operating system to intel and and and and and microsoft sorry ibm's decision to do that lotus you might recall it refused to allow 123 to run on windows back in the day novell buying word perfect jim barksdale a lot of young people the audience won't of course remember this but jim barksdale poo-pooing microsoft's decision to bundle internet explorer into the operating system all those were kind of self-inflicted or blind spots so this one is complacency arrogance blindness abuse of power loss of trust so much more than the examples i gave consumer and or employee backlash you're seeing some of that at facebook now and i guess this is taking their eye off the customer ball losing the day zero in amazon's case forgetting that customer obsession formula they're working backwards culture and i think this is a big reason why andy jassy was put in charge so this wouldn't happen but we've seen time and time again as the examples i just gave blind spots have absolutely killed companies haven't they dave absolutely he listed many of the most famous but perhaps my favorite of all was kennels and the founder of digital equipment corporation one of the great tech visionaries of his time who stated over and over again why would anybody want a home computer or eunuch's snake oil was his other beautiful all of those things and and so there's the blindness uh there's the area ibm who just came to the view that they and att both came to the view that they were invincible and nothing could ever crack their control of their customer base so we've seen all that i think uh more recently i think some of these things can actually go from the bottom up and you know what's happening to facebook today well they're being hurt by former employees speaking out uh you know this never really happened too much to in the ibm and t days but people calling into question amazon's work labor practices and such things is certainly a possible scenario and the whole sort of you know in the end you know people talk about a cultural backlash against technology i'm not sure i believe it'll happen but it certainly is possible that people will start to rebel against these firms you see it more likely with facebook is fairly well along there uh amazon's still popular but you know in the end and as you i think you said the the core thing that companies routinely fail on is they lose their customer focus and they get caught up in other things their financial numbers their their power inside their position of their company but they they lose track of staying close to the customer has need and terrific job of staying close to the customers over the years uh so if anyone you know was maybe less vulnerable that they they would be well along that that line but it can happen to anyone and new management is often you know one of the real tests and there's many examples of that through history when a new executive comes in will they have that same focus that same thing particularly you know as the first generation's employees get wealthy and retired in a new set of people come in you know you look at microsoft the new people who came in well they're not going to be multi-millionaires they may have missed the great runs they're there to work and and the culture of companies changes when you get to that state the m is not that there yet but you can envision that comings soon enough so you know cultural issues have always been a factor and it's hard to imagine there won't be some sort of factor going forward well and you know you talk about that the the succession of founders and ceos i mean that's what to me makes microsoft so astounding because during the bomber years it was unclear that they were ever going to become relevant again and so nadella has done a masterful job but of course they had the margins from the pc software business that allowed them to buy that time but look at intel and the troubles it's going through uh and so many other examples of companies that just sort of said all right well we're going to pack it in and either sell the company or which is again what i think makes think companies like oracle and dell which you know founder-led ceos not ceo in the case of oracle but still running the business uh so quite uh significant yeah yeah and you know we've talked a lot about things that might hurt answers but you gotta recognize how in many ways how amazing they are and most tech companies a lot of them anyways have essentially been one trick ponies i mean google still makes overwhelming amount of its money selling ads and the things it's tried to do in cars and healthcare and various things you know they've often struggled you know apple still makes the core of its money around it's it's cell phone platform amazon's one of the few that continually generates entirely new huge businesses and and you have to give them an enormous amount of credit for that you know microsoft uh was a they failed repeatedly over and over again with internet stuff and phone stuff and all these things and it really wasn't until you know satya came in and really focused on their customers and their need for enterprise services that he that he really got the company on the right track so you know amazon has always been good listeners customers and if they continue to do so it bodes well but history says other stuff comes along okay and the last scenario is open-ended dave included uh you know what did we miss is there another scenario that we haven't put forth that you could feel it could be disruptive to amazon right i mean you've got to have the at least what'd we miss yeah i mean you know these are things that me and you and i just sort of made up the top of our head these are things we see that that might happen but you know in your huge audience of people in this community every day i'm sure there are other people out there who have thoughts of what might shake things up or even doing things that might shake things up already uh and you know one of the things you do for you guys is get this sort of material out there and and see what ideas surface so hopefully people will uh participate in this and we'll see what comes out of it all right so what happens from here is we're going to publish the the link to the survey in this video description and in our posts we ask you to take the survey please tell your friends we're going to publish the results as always we do in an open and free david michelle thanks so much for putting your brain power on this and collaborating with us i'm really excited to see the results and and and run through the other giants with you as well once we see what this survey says yeah thanks david great and yeah if we can make this one work be fun to do it for for google and microsoft and facebook and apple and see where it all goes thanks a lot all right okay that's it for today remember these episodes are all available as podcasts wherever you listen just search breaking analysis podcast i publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com etr.plus is where all the cool survey data lives they just dropped their october survey with some great findings so do check that out you can reach me on twitter at d velante he's at d michelle or comment on my linkedin post or email me at david.vellante at siliconangle.com this is dave vellante for dave michelle thanks for watching thecube insights powered by etr be well and we'll see you next time

>> Live from San Francisco, California, it's theCUBE covering the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit. Brought to you by IBM. >> Hi everybody, welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of the IBM Chief Data Officer Event. We're here at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco at the Centric Hyatt Hotel. This is the 10th anniversary of IBM's Chief Data Officer Summits. In the recent years, anyway, they do one in San Francisco and one in Boston each year, and theCUBE has covered a number of them. I think this is our eighth CDO conference. I'm Dave Vellante, and theCUBE, we like to go out, especially to events like this that are intimate, there's about 140 chief data officers here. We've had the chief data officer from AstraZeneca on, even though he doesn't take that title. We've got a panel coming up later on in the day. And I want to talk about the evolution of that role. The chief data officer emerged out of kind of a wonky, back-office role. It was all about 10, 12 years ago, data quality, master data management, governance, compliance. And as the whole big data meme came into focus and people were realizing that data is the new source of competitive advantage, that data was going to be a source of innovation, what happened was that role emerged, that CDO, chief data officer role, emerged out of the back office and came right to the front and center. And the chief data officer really started to better understand and help companies understand how to monetize the data. Now monetization of data could mean more revenue. It could mean cutting costs. It could mean lowering risk. It could mean, in a hospital situation, saving lives, sort of broad definition of monetization. But it was really understanding how data contributed to value, and then finding ways to operationalize that to speed up time to value, to lower cost, to lower risk. And that required a lot of things. It required new skill sets, new training. It required a partnership with the lines of business. It required new technologies like artificial intelligence, which have just only recently come into a point where it's gone mainstream. Of course, when I started in the business several years ago, AI was the hot topic, but you didn't have the compute power. You didn't have the data, you didn't have the cloud. So we see the new innovation engine, not as Moore's Law, the doubling of transistors every 18 months, doubling of performance. Really no, we see the new innovation cocktail as data as the substrate, applying machine intelligence to that data, and then scaling it with the cloud. And through that cloud model, being able to attract startups and innovation. I come back to the chief data officer here, and IBM Chief Data Officer Summit, that's really where the chief data officer comes in. Now, the role in the organization is fuzzy. If you ask people what's a chief data officer, you'll get 20 different answers. Many answers are focused on compliance, particularly in what emerged, again, in those regulated industries: financial service, healthcare, and government. Those are the first to have chief data officers. But now CDOs have gone mainstream. So what we're seeing here from IBM is the broadening of that role and that definition and those responsibilities. Confusing things is the chief digital officer or the chief analytics officer. Those are roles that have also emerged, so there's a lot of overlap and a lot of fuzziness. To whom should the chief data officer report? Many say it should not be the CIO. Many say they should be peers. Many say the CIO's responsibility is similar to the chief data officer, getting value out of data, although I would argue that's never really been the case. The role of the CIO has largely been to make sure that the technology infrastructure works and that applications are delivered with high availability, with great performance, and are able to be developed in an agile manner. That's sort of a more recent sort of phenomenon that's come forth. And the chief digital officer is really around the company's face. What does that company's brand look like? What does that company's go-to-market look like? What does the customer see? Whereas the chief data officer's really been around the data strategy, what the sort of framework should be around compliance and governance, and, again, monetization. Not that they're responsible for the monetization, but they responsible for setting that framework and then communicating it across the company, accelerating the skill sets and the training of existing staff and complementing with new staff and really driving that framework throughout the organization in partnership with the chief digital officer, the chief analytics officer, and the chief information officer. That's how I see it anyway. Martin Schroeder, the senior vice president of IBM, came on today with Inderpal Bhandari, who is the chief data officer of IBM, the global chief data officer. Martin Schroeder used to be the CFO at IBM. He talked a lot, kind of borrowing from Ginni Rometty's themes in previous conferences, chapter one of digital which he called random acts of digital, and chapter two is how to take this mainstream. IBM makes a big deal out of the fact that it doesn't appropriate your data, particularly your personal data, to sell ads. IBM's obviously in the B2B business, so that's IBM's little back-ended shot at Google and Facebook and Amazon who obviously appropriate our data to sell ads or sell goods. IBM doesn't do that. I'm interested in IBM's opinion on big tech. There's a lot of conversations now. Elizabeth Warren wants to break up big tech. IBM was under the watchful eye of the DOJ 25 years ago, 30 years ago. IBM essentially had a monopoly in the business, and the DOJ wanted to make sure that IBM wasn't using that monopoly to hurt consumers and competitors. Now what IBM did, the DOJ ruled that IBM had to separate its applications business, actually couldn't be in the applications business. Another ruling was that they had to publish the interfaces to IBM mainframes so that competitors could actually build plug-compatible products. That was the world back then. It was all about peripherals plugging into mainframes and sort of applications being developed. So the DOJ took away IBM's power. Fast forward 30 years, now we're hearing Google, Amazon, and Facebook coming under fire from politicians. Should they break up those companies? Now those companies are probably the three leaders in AI. IBM might debate that. I think generally, at theCUBE and SiliconANGLE, we believe that those three companies are leading the charge in AI, along with China Inc: Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, et cetera, and the Chinese government. So here's the question. What would happen if you broke up big tech? I would surmise that if you break up big tech, those little techs that you break up, Amazon Web Services, WhatsApp, Instagram, those little techs would get bigger. Now, however, the government is implying that it wants to break those up because those entities have access to our data. Google's got access to all the search data. If you start splitting them up, that'll make it harder for them to leverage that data. I would argue those small techs would get bigger, number one. Number two, I would argue if you're worried about China, which clearly you're seeing President Trump is worried about China, placing tariffs on China, playing hardball with China, which is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a good thing because China has been accused, and we all know, of taking IP, stealing IP essentially, and really not putting in those IP protections. So, okay, playing hardball to try to get a quid pro quo on IP protections is a good thing. Not good for trade long term. I'd like to see those trade barriers go away, but if it's a negotiation tactic, okay. I can live with it. However, going after the three AI leaders, Amazon, Facebook, and Google, and trying to take them down or break them up, actually, if you're a nationalist, could be a bad thing. Why would you want to handcuff the AI leaders? Third point is unless they're breaking the law. So I think that should be the decision point. Are those three companies, and others, using monopoly power to thwart competition? I would argue that Microsoft actually did use its monopoly power back in the '80s and '90s, in particular in the '90s, when it put Netscape out of business, it put Lotus out of business, it put WordPerfect out of business, it put Novell out of the business. Now, maybe those are strong words, but in fact, Microsoft's bundling, its pricing practices, caught those companies off guard. Remember, Jim Barksdale, the CEO of Netscape, said we don't need the browser. He was wrong. Microsoft killed Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer into its operating system. So the DOJ stepped in, some would argue too late, and put handcuffs on Microsoft so they couldn't use that monopoly power. And I would argue that you saw from that two things. One, granted, Microsoft was overly focused on Windows. That was kind of their raison d'etre, and they missed a lot of other opportunities. But the DOJ definitely slowed them down, and I think appropriately. And if out of that myopic focus on Windows, and to a certain extent, the Department of Justice and the government, the FTC as well, you saw the emergence of internet companies. Now, Microsoft did a major pivot to the internet. They didn't do a major pivot to the cloud until Satya Nadella came in, and now Microsoft is one of those other big tech companies that is under the watchful eye. But I think Microsoft went through that and perhaps learned its lesson. We'll see what happens with Facebook, Google, and Amazon. Facebook, in particular, seems to be conflicted right now. Should we take down a video that has somewhat fake news implications or is a deep hack? Or should we just dial down? We saw this recently with Facebook. They dialed down the promotion. So you almost see Facebook trying to have its cake and eat it too, which personally, I don't think that's the right approach. I think Facebook either has to say damn the torpedoes. It's open content, we're going to promote it. Or do the right thing and take those videos down, those fake news videos. It can't have it both ways. So Facebook seems to be somewhat conflicted. They are probably under the most scrutiny now, as well as Google, who's being accused, anyway, certainly we've seen this in the EU, of promoting its own ads over its competitors' ads. So people are going to be watching that. And, of course, Amazon just having too much power. Having too much power is not necessarily an indication of abusing monopoly power, but you know the government is watching. So that bears watching. theCUBE is going to be covering that. We'll be here all day, covering the IBM CDO event. I'm Dave Vallente, you're watching theCUBE. #IBMCDO, DM us or Tweet us @theCUBE. I'm @Dvallente, keep it right there. We'll be right back right after this short break. (upbeat music)

(bright symphony music) >> Hello, I'm John Furrier, the founder of SiliconANGLE Media and co-host of theCUBE. We're here in Paulo Alto at our studio here. I'm joining with Joseph Jacks, the founder and general partner of OSS Capital. Open Source Software Capital, is what OSS stands for. He's also the founder of KubeCon which now is part of the CNCF. It's a huge conference around Kubernetes. He's a cloud guy. He knows open source. Very well respected in the industry and also a great guest and friend of theCUBE, CUBE alumni. Joseph, great to see you. Also known as JJ. JJ, good to see you. >> Thank you for having me on again, John. >> Hey, great to have you come on. I know we've talked many times on theCUBE, but you've got some exciting news. You got a new firm, OSS Capital. Open Source Software, not operational support like a telco, but this is an investment opportunity where you're making investments. Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> So I know you can't talk about some of the specifics on the funds size, but you are actually going to go out, talk to entrepreneurs, make some equity investments. Around open source software. What's the thesis? How did you get here, why did you do it? What's motivating you, and what's the thesis? >> A lot of questions in there. Yeah, I mean this is a really profoundly huge year for open source software. On a bunch of different levels. I think the biggest kind of thing everyone anchors towards is GitHub being acquired by Microsoft. Just a couple of weeks ago, we had the two huge hadoop vendors join forces. That, I think, surprised a lot of people. MuleSoft, which is a big opensource middleware company, getting acquired by Salesforce just a year after going public. Just a huge outcome. I think one observation, just to sort of like summarize the year 2018, is actually, starting in January, almost on sort of like a monthly basis, we've observed a major sort of opensource software company outcome. And sort of kicking off the year, we had CoreOS getting acquired by Red Hat. Brandon and Alex, the founders over there, built a really interesting company in the Kubernetes ecosystem. And I think in February, Al Fresco, which is an open source content portal taking privatization outcome from a private equity firm, I believe in March we had Magento getting acquired by Adobe, which an open source based CMS. PHP CMS. So just a lot of activity for significant outcomes. Multibillion dollar outcomes of commercial open source companies. And open source software is something like 20 years old. 20 years in the making. And this year in particular, I've just seen just a huge amount of large scale outcomes that have been many years in the making from companies that have taken lots of venture funding. And in a lot of cases, sort of partially focused funding from different investors that have an affinity for open source software and sort of understand the uniqueness of the open source model when it's applied to business, when it's applied to company building. But more sort of opportunistic and sort of affinity oriented, as opposed to a pure focus. So that's kind of been part of the motivation. I'd say the more authentically compelling motivation for doing this is that it just needs to exist. This is sort of a model that is happening by necessity. We're seeing more and more software companies be open source software companies. So open source first. They're built in a distributed way. They're leveraging engineers and talent around the world. They're just part of this open source kind of philosophy. And they are fundamentally kind of commercial open source software companies. We felt that if you had a firm basically designed in a way to exclusively focus on those kind of companies, and where the firmware actually backed and supported by the founders of the largest commercial open source companies in the world before sort of the last decade. That could actually deliver a lot of value. So we've been sort of blogging a little bit about this. >> And you wrote a great post on it. I read about open source monetization. But I think one of the things I'm seeing as well that supports your thesis, and I like to get your reaction to it because I think this is something that's not really talked about, but open source is still young. I mean, you go back. I remember the days when we used to have to hide in the shadows to get licenses and pirate stuff and do all those crazy stuff. But now, it's only a couple decades away. The leaders that were investing were usually entrepreneurs that've been successful. The Rob Bearns, the Amar Wadhwa, the guy that did Spring. All these different open source. Linux, obviously, great success story. But there hasn't any been any institutional. Yeah, you got benchmark, other things, done some investments. A discipline around open source. Where open source is now table stakes in all software development. Cloud is scaling, scaling out globally. There's no real foc- There's never been a firm that's been focused on- Just open source from a commercial, while maintaining the purity and ethos of open source. I mean, is that. >> You agree? >> That's true. >> 100%, yeah. That's been the big part of creating the firm is aligning and solving for a pure focused structure. And I think what I'll say abstractly is this sort of venture capital, venture style approach to funding enterprise technology companies, software companies in general, has been to kind of find great entrepreneurs and in an abstract way that can build great technology companies. Can bring them to market, can sell them, and can scale them, and so on. And either create categories, or dominate existing categories, and disrupt incumbents, and so on. And I think while that has worked for quite a while, in the venture industry overall, in the 50, 60 years of the venture industry, lots of successful firms, I think what we're starting to see is a necessary shift toward accounting for the fundamental differences of opensource software as it relates to new technology getting created and going, and new software companies kind of coming into market. So we actually fundamentally believe that commercial open source software companies are fundamentally different. Functionally in almost every way, as compared to proprietary closed source software companies of the last 30 years. And the way we've sort of designed our firm and we'll about ten people pretty soon. We're just about a month in. We're growing the team quickly, but we're sort of a small, focused team. >> A ten's not focused small, I mean, I know venture firms that have two billion in management that don't have more than 20 people. >> Well, we have portfolio partners that are focused in different functional areas where commercial open source software companies have really fundamental differences. If you were to sort of stack rank, by function, where commercial open source software companies are really fundamentally different, sort of top to bottom. Legal would be, probably, the very top of the list. Right, in terms of license compliance management, structuring all the sort of protections and provisions around how intellectual property is actually shipped to and sold to customers. The legal licensing aspects. The commercial software licensing. This is quite a polarizing hot topic these days. The second big functional area where we have a portfolio partner focused on this is finance. Finance is another area where commercial open source software companies have to sort of behaviorally orient and apply that function very, very differently as compared to proprietary software companies. So we're crazy honored and excited to have world experts and very respected leaders in those different areas sort of helping to provide sort of different pillars of wisdom to our portfolio companies, our portfolio founders, in those different functional areas. And we provide a really focused kind of structure for them. >> Well I want to ask you the kind of question that kind of bridges the old way and new way, 'cause I definitely see you guys definitely being new and different, which is good. Or as Andy Jassy would say, you can be misunderstood for a while, but as you become successful, people will start understanding what you do. And that's a great example of Amazon. The pattern with success is traditionally the same. If we kind of encapsulate the difference between open source old and new, and that is you have something of value, and you're disrupting the market and collecting rents from it. Or revenue, or profit. So that's commercial, that's how businesses run. How are you guys going to disrupt with open source software the next generation value creation? We know how value's created, certainly in software that opensource has shown a path on how to create value in writing software if code is value and functionality's value. But to commercialize and create revenue, which is people paying something for something. That's a little bit different kind of value extraction from the value creation. So open source software can create value in functionality and value product. Now you bring it to the market, you get paid for it, you have to disrupt somebody, you have to create something. How are you looking at that? What's the vision of the creation, the extraction of value, who's disrupted, is it greenfield new opportunities? What's your vision? >> A lot of nuance and complexity in that question. What I would say is- >> Well, open source is creating products. >> Well, open source is the basis for creating products in a different kind of way. I'll go back to your question around let's just sort of maybe simplify it as the value creation and the value capture dynamics, right? We've sort of written a few posts about this, and it's subtle, but it's easy to understand if you look at it from a fundamental kind of perspective. We actually believe, and we'll be publishing research on this, and maybe even sort of more principled scientific, perhaps, even ways of looking at it. And then blog posts and research. We believe that open source software will always generate or create orders of magnitude more value than any constituent can capture. Right, and that's a fundamental way of looking at it. So if you see how cloud providers are capturing value that open source creates, whether it's Elasticsearch, or Postgres, or MySQL or Hadoop. And then commercial open source software companies that capture value that open source software creates, whether it's companies like Confluent around Kafka, or Cloudera around Hadoop, or Databricks around Apache Spark. Or whether it's the creators of those projects. The creators of Spark and Hadoop and Elasticsearch, sometimes many of them are the founders of those companies I mentioned, and sometimes they're not. We just believe regardless of how that sort of value is captured by the cloud providers, the commercial vendors, or the creators, the value created relative to the value captured will always be orders and orders of magnitude greater. And this is expressed in another way, which this may be easier to understand, it's a sort of reinforcing this kind of assertion that there's orders of magnitude value created far greater than what can be captured. If you were to do a survey, which we're currently in the process of doing, and I'm happy to sort of say that publicly for the first time here, of all the commercial open source software companies that have projects with large significant adoption, whether, say for example, it's Docker, with millions of users, or Apache Hadoop. How many Hadoop deployments there are. How many customers' companies are there running Hadoop deployments. Or it may be even MySQL. How many MySQL installations are there. And then you were to sort of survey those companies and see how many end users are there relative to how many customers are paying for the usage of the project. It would probably be something like if there were a million users of a given project, the company behind that project or the cloud provider, or say the end user, the developer behind the project, is unlikely to capture more than, say, 1% or a couple percent of those end users to companies, to paying companies, to paying customers. And many times, that's high. Many times, 1% to 2% is very high. Often, what we've seen actually anecdotally, and we're doing principled research around this, and we'll have data here across a large number of companies, many times it's a fraction of 1%. Which is just sort of maybe sometimes 10% of 1%, or even smaller. >> So the practitioners will be making more money than the actual vendors? >> Absolutely right. End users and practitioners always stand to benefit far greater because of the fundamental nature of open source. It's permissionless, it's disaggregated, the value creation dynamics are untethered, and it is fundamentally freely available to use, freely available to contribute to, with different constraints based on the license. However, all those things are sort of like disaggregating the creating of technology into sort of an unbounded network. And that's really, really incredible. >> Okay, so first of all, I agree with your premise 100%. We've seen it with CUBE, where videos are free. >> And that's a good thing. All those things are good. >> And Dave Vellante says this all the time on theCUBE. And we actually pointed this out and called this in the Hadoop ecosystem in 2012. In fact, we actually said that on theCUBE, and it turned out to be true, 'cause look at Hortonworks and Cloudera had to merge because, again, the market changed very quickly >> Value Creation. >> Because value >> Was created around them in the immediate cloud, etc. So the question is, that changes the valuation mechanisms. So if this true, which we believe it is. Just say it is. Then the traditional net present value cash flow metric of the value of the firm, not your firm, but, like, if I'm an open source firm, I'm only one portion of the extraction. I'm a supplier, and I'm an enabler, the valuation on cash flow might not be as great as the real impact. So the question I have for you, have you thought about the valuation? 'Cause now you're thinking about bigger construct community network effects. These are new dynamics. I don't think anyone's actually crunched a valuation model around this. So if someone knew that, say for example, an open source project created all this value, and they weren't necessarily harvesting it from a cash flow perspective, there might be other ways to monetize it. Have you though about that, and what's your reaction to that concept? 'Cause capitalism would kind of shake down the system. 'Cause why would someone be motivated to participate if they're not capturing any value? So if the value shifts, are they still going to be able to participate? You follow the logic I'm trying to- >> I definitely do. I think what I would say to that is we expect and we encourage and we will absolutely heavily invest in more business model innovation in the area of open source. So what I mean by that is, and it's important to sort of qualify a few things there. There's a huge amount of polarization and lack of consensus, lack of industry consensus on what it actually means to have or implement an open source based business model. In fact there's a lot of people who just sort of point blankedly assert that an opensource business model does not exist. We believe that many business models for monetizing and commercializing open source exist. We've blogged and written about a few of them. Their services and training and support. There's open core, which is very effective in sort of a spectrum of ways to implement open core. Around the core, you can have a thin crust or a thick crust. There's SAS. There are hardware based distribution models, things like Sourcefire, and Cumulus Networks. And there are also network based approaches. For example, project called Storj or Stor-J. Being developed and run now by Ben Golub, who's the former CEO of Docker. >> CUBE alumni. >> Ben's really great open source veteran. This is a network, kind of decentralized network based approach of sort of right sizing the production and consumption of the resource of a storage based open source project in a decentralized network. So those are sort of four or five ways to commercializing value, however, four or five ways of commercializing value, however what we believe is that there will be more business model innovation. There will be more developments around how you can better capture more, or in different ways, the value that open source creates. However, what I will say though, is it is unrealistic to expect two things. It is unrealistic and, in fact, unfair to expect that any of those constituents will contribute back to open source proportional to the value that they received from it, or the benefit, and I'm actually paraphrasing Doug Cutting there, who tweeted this a couple of years ago. Very profoundly deep, wise tweet, which I very strongly agree with. And it is also unrealistic to expect a second thing, which is that any of those constituents can capture a material portion of the value that open source creates, which I would assert is many trillions of dollars, perhaps tens of trillions of dollars. It's really hard to quantify that. And it's not just dollars in economic sense, it's dollars in productivity time saved, new markets, new areas, and so on. >> Yeah, I think this is interesting, and I think that we'll be an open book at that. But I will say that what I've observed in looking through all these CUBE interviews, I think that business model innovation absolutely is something that is an IP. >> We need it. Well, it's now intellectual property, the business model isn't, hey I went to business school, learned this at Babson or Harvard, I learned this business model. We're going to do SAS premium. Okay, I get that. There's going to be very interesting new innovations coming, and I think that's the new IP. 'Cause open source, if it's community based, there's going to be formulas. So that's going to be really inter- Okay, so now let's get back to actual funding itself. You guys are doing early stage. Can you take us through the approach? >> We're very focused on early stage, investing, and backing teams that are, just sort of welcoming the idea of a commercial entity around their open source project. Or building a business fundamentally dependent on an open source project or maybe even more than one. The reason for that is this is really where there's a lot of structural inefficiency in supporting and backing those types of founders. >> I think one of the things with ... is with that acquisition. They were pure on the open source side, doing a great job, didn't want to push the business model too hard because the open source, let's face it, you got people like, eh, I don't want to get caught on the business side, and get revenue, perverse incentives might come up, or fear of incentives that might be different or not aligned. Was a great a value. >> I think so. >> So Red Hat got a steal on that one. But as you go forward, there's going to be certainly a lot more stuff. We're seeing a lot of it now in CNCF, for instance. I want to get your thoughts on this because, being the co founder of KubeCon, and donating it to the CNCF, Kubernetes is the hottest thing on the planet, as we talked about many years ago. What's your take on that, now? I see exciting things happening. What is the impact of Kubernetes, in your opinion, to the world, and where do you see that evolving rapidly, and where is the focus here as the people should be paying attention to? >> I think that Kubernetes replaces EC2. Kubernetes is a disaggregated API for distributed computing anywhere. And it happens to be portable and able to run on any kind of computer infrastructure, which sort of makes it like a liquid disaggregated EC2-like API. Which a lot of people have been sort of chasing and trying to implement for many years with things like OpenStack or Eucalyptus. But interestingly, Kubernetes is sort of the right abstraction for distributed computing, because it meets people where they are architecturally. It's sort of aligned with this current movement around distributed systems first designs. Microservices, packaging things in small compartmentalized units. >> Good for integrating of existing stuff. >> Absolutely, and it's very composable, un-opinionated architecturally. So you can sort of take an application and structure it in any given way, and as long as it has this sort of isolation boundary of a container, you can run it on Kubernetes without needing to sort of retrofit the architecture, which is really awesome. I think Kubernetes is a foundational part of the next kind of computing paradigm in the same way that Linux was foundational to the computing paradigm that gave rise to the internet. We had commodity hardware meeting open source based sort of cost reduction and efficiency, which really Linux enabled, and the movement toward scale out data center infrastructure that supported the Internet's sort of maturity and infrastructure. I think we're starting to see the same type of repeat effect thanks to Kubernetes basically being really well received by engineers, by the cloud providers. It's now the universal sort of standard for running container based applications on the different cloud providers. >> And think having the non-technical opinion posture, as you said, architectural posture, allows it to be compatible with a new kind of heterogeneous. >> Heterogeneity is critical. >> Heterogeneity is key, 'cause it's not just within the environment, it's also within each vendor, or customer has more heterogeneity. So, okay, now that's key. So multi cloud, I want to get your thoughts on multi cloud, because now this goes into some of things that might build on top of if Kubernetes continues to go down the road that you say it does. Then the next question is, stateful applications, service meshes. >> A lot of buzz words. A lot of buzz words in there. Stateful application's real because at a certain point in time, you have a maturity curve with critical infrastructure that starts to become appealing for stateful mission critical storage systems, which is typically where you have all the crown jewels of a given company's infrastructure, whether it's a transactional system, or reading and writing core customer, or financial service information, or whatever it is. So Kubernetes' starting to hit this maturity curve where people are migrating really serious mission critical storage workloads onto that platform. And obviously we're going to start to see even more critical work loads. We're starting to see Edge workloads because Kubernetes is a pretty low footprint system, so you can run it on Edge devices, you can even run it on microcontrollers. We're sort of past the experimental, you know, fun and games was Raspberry Pi, sort of towers, and people actually legitimately doing real world Edge kind of deployments with Kubernetes. We're absolutely starting to see multi-geo, multi-replication, multi-cloud sort of style architectures becoming real, as well. Because Kubernetes is this API that the industry's agreeing upon sufficiently. We actually have agreement around this sort of surface area for distributed system style computing that if cloud providers can actually standardize on in a way that lets application specific vendors or new types of application deployment models innovate further, then we can really unlock this sort of tight coupling of proprietary services inside cloud providers and disaggregate it. Which is really exciting, and I forget the Netscape, Jim Barksdale. Bundling, un-bundling. We're starting to see the un-bundling of proprietary cloud computing service API's. Things like Kinesis, and ALB and ELB and proprietary storage services, and these other sticky services get un-bundled because of two big things. Open source, obviously, we have open source alternative data paths. And then we have Kubernetes which allows us to sort of disaggregate things out pretty easily. >> I want to hear your thoughts, one final concept, before we break, 'cause I was having a private conversation with three people besides myself. A big time CIO of a company that if I said the name everyone would go, oh my god, that guy is huge, he's seen it all going back many, many ways. Currently done a lot of innovation. A hardcore network chip guy who knows networking, old school infrastructure. And then a cloud native application founder who knows a lot about software development and is state-of-the-art cloud native. So cloud native, all experienced, old-school, kind of about my age, a cloud native app developer, a big time CIO, and a chip networking kind of infrastructure guy. And we're talking, and one thing that came out, I want to get you thoughts on this, he says, so what's going on with DevOps, how do you see this service mesh, is a stay for (mumbles) on top of the stack, no stacks, horizontally scalable. And the comment that came out was storage and networking have had this relationship with everything since day one. Network moves a packet from point A to point B, and nothing happens in between, maybe some inspection. And storage goes from here now to the then, because you store it. He goes, that premise moves up the stacks, so then the cloud native guy goes, well that's what's happening up at the top, there's a lot of moving things around, workloads and or services, provisioning services, and then from now to then state. In real time. And what dawned on the next conversation the CIO goes, well this is exactly our challenge. We have under the hood infrastructure being programmable, >> We're having some trouble with the connection. Please try again. >> My phone's calling me. >> Programmable connections. >> So you got the programmable on the top of the stack too, so the CIO said, that's exactly the problem we're trying to solve. We're trying to solve some of these network storage concepts now at an application level. Your thoughts to that. >> Well, I think if I could tease apart everything you just said, which is profound synthesis of a lot of different things, I think we've started to see application logic leak out of application code itself into dedicated layers that are really good at doing one specific thing. So traditionally we had some crud style kind of behavioral semantics implemented around business logic. And then, inside of that, you also had libraries for doing connectivity and lookups and service discovery and locking and key management and encryption and coordination with other types of applications. And all that stuff was sort of shoved into the single big application binary. And now, we're starting to see all those language runtime specific parts of application code sort of crack or leak out into these dedicated, highly scalable, Unix philosophy oriented sort of like layers. So things like Envoy are really just built for the sort of nervous system layer of application communication fabric up and down the layer two through layer seven sort of protocol transport stack, which is really profound. We're seeing things like Vault from Hashicorp handle secure key storage persistence of application dedication, authorization, metadata and information to sort of access different systems and end points. And that's a dedicated sort of stateful layer that you can sort of fragment out and delegate sort of application specific functionality to, which is really great for scalability reasons. And on, and on, and on. So we've started to see that, and I think one way of looking at that is it's a cycle. It's the sort of bundling and un-bundling aspect. >> One of the granny level services are getting a really low level- >> Yeah, it's a sort of like bundling and un-bundling and so we've got all this un-bundling happening out of application code to these dedicated layers. The bundling back may happen. I've actually seen a few Bay Area companies go like, we're going back to the monolith 'cause it actually gives us lots of efficiencies in things that we though were trade offs before. We're actually comfortable with a big monorepo, and one or two core languages, and we're going to build everything into these big binaries, and everyone's going to sort of live in the same source code repository and break things out through folders or whatever. There's a lot of really interesting things. I don't want to say we're sort of clear on where this bundling, un-bundling is happening, but I do think that there's a lot of un-bundling happening right now. And there's a lot of opportunity there. >> And the open source, obviously, driving it. So final question for you, how many deals have you done? Can you talk a little bit about the firm? And exciting things and plans that you have going forward. >> Yeah, we're going to be making a lot of announcements over the next few months, and we're, I guess, extremely thrilled. I don't want to say overwhelmed, 'cause we're able to handle all of the volume and inquiries and inbound interest. We're really honored and thrilled by the reception over the last couple weeks from announcing the firm on the first of October, sort of before the Hortonworks Cloudera merger. The JFrog funding announcement that week. The Elastic IPO. Just a lot of really awesome things happened that week. This is obviously before Microsoft open sourced all their patents. We'll be announcing more investments that we've made. We announced our first one on the first of October as well with the announcement of the firm. We've made a good number of investments. We're not able to talk to much about our first initiative, but you'll hear more about that in the near future. >> Well, we're excited. I think it's the timing's perfect. I know you've been working on this kind of vision for a while, and I think it's really great timing. Congratulations, JJ >> Thank you so much. Thanks for having me on. >> Joesph Jacks, also known as JJ, founder and general partner of OSS Capital, Open Source Software Capital, co founder of KubeCon, which is now part of the CNCF. A real great player in the community and the ecosystem, great to have him on theCUBE, thanks for coming in. I'm John Furrier, thanks for watching. >> Thanks, John. (bright symphony music)