(lighthearted music) >> Hey all. Welcome back to theCube's coverage of Kubecon North America '22 CloudNativeCon. We're in Detroit. We've been here all day covering day one of the event from our perspective. Three days of coverage coming at you. Lisa Martin here with John Furrier. John, a lot of buzz today. A lot of talk about the maturation of Kubernetes with different services that vendors are offering. We talked a little bit about security earlier today. One of the things that is a hot topic is national security. >> Yeah, this is a huge segment we got coming up. It really takes that all that nerd talk about Kubernetes and puts it into action. We actually see demonstrable results. This is about advanced artificial intelligence for tactical decision making at the edge to support our military operations because a lot of the deaths are because of bad technology. And this has been talked about. We've been covering Silicon Angle, we wrote a story there now on this topic. This should be a really exciting segment so I'm really looking forward to it. >> Excellent, so am I. Please welcome back one of our alumni, Nick Barcet senior director, customer led open innovation at Red Hat. Great to have you back. Greg Forrest joins us as well from Lockheed Martin Director of AI Foundations. Guys, great to have you on the program. Nick, what's been your perception before we dig into the news and break that open of KubeCon 2022? >> So, KubeCon is always a wonderful event because we can see people working with us in the community developing new stuff, people that we see virtually all year. But it's the time at which we can really establish human contact and that's wonderful. And it's also the moments where we can make big topic move forward and the topics have been plenty at this KubeCon from MicroShift to KCP, to AI, to all domains have been covered. >> Greg, you're the director of AI foundations at Lockheed Martin. Obviously well known, contractors to the military lot of intellectual property, storied history. >> Greg: Sure. >> Talk about this announcement with Red Hat 'cause I think this is really indicative of what's happening at the edge. Data, compute, industrial equipment, and people, in this case lives are in danger or to preserve peace. This is a killer story in terms of understanding what this all means. What's your take on this relationship with Red Hat? What's the secret sauce? >> Yeah, it's really important for us. So part of our 21st century security strategy as a company is to partner with companies like Red Hat and Big Tech and bring the best of the commercial world into the Department of Defense for our soldiers on the ground. And that's exactly what we announced today or Tuesday in our partnership. And so the ability to take commercial products and utilize them in theater is really important for saving lives on the ground. And so we can go through exactly what we did as part of this demonstration, but we took MicroShift at the edge and we were able to run our AI payloads on that. That provided us with the ability to do things like AI based RF sensing, so radio frequency sensing. And we were also able to do computer vision based technologies at the edge. So we went out, we had a small UAV that went out and searched for a target on the ground. It found a target using its radio frequency capabilities, the RF capabilities. Then once we're able to hone in on that target, what Red Hat device edge and MicroShift enables us to do is actually then switch sensing modalities. And then we're able to look at this target via the camera and use computer vision-based technologies to actually more accurately locate the target and then track that target in real time. So that's one of the keys to be able to actually switch modalities in real time on one platform is really important for our joint all domain operations construct. The idea of how do you actually connect all of these assets in the environment, in the battle space. >> Talk about the challenge and how hard it is to do this. The back haul, you'll go back to the central server, bring data back, connecting things. What if there's insecurity around connectivity? I mean there's a lot of things going, can you just scope the magnitude of how hard it's to actually deploy something at a tactical edge? >> It is. There's a lot of data that comes from all of these sensors, whether they're RF sensors or EO or IR. We're working across multiple domains, right? And so we want to take that data back and train on that and then redeploy to the edge. And so with MicroShift, we're able to do that in a way that's robust, that's repeatable, and that's automated. And that really instills trust in us and our customers that when we deploy new software capabilities to the edge over the air, like we did in this demonstration that they're going to run right on the target hardware. And so that's a huge advantage to what we're doing here that when we push software to the edge in real time we know it's going to run. >> And in realtime is absolutely critical. We talk about it in so many different industries. Oh, it's customers expect realtime access whether it's your banking app or whatnot. But here we're talking about literally life and death situations on the battlefield. So that realtime data access is literally life and death. >> It's paramount to what we're doing. In this case, the aircraft started with one role which was to go find a radio frequency admitter and then switch roles to then go get cameras and eyes on that. So where is that coming from? Are there people on the ground? Are there dangerous people on the ground? And it gives the end user on the ground complete situational awareness of what is actually happening. And that is key for enhanced decision making. Enhanced decision making is critical to what we're doing. And so that's really where we're advancing this technology and where we can save lives. >> I read a report from General Mattis when he was in service that a lot of the deaths are due to not having enough information really at the edge. >> Greg: Friendly fire. >> Friendly fire, a lot of stuff that goes on there. So this is really, really important. Nick, you're sitting there saying this is great. My customer's talking about the product. This is your innovation, Red Hat device edge in action. This is real. This is industrial- >> So it's more than real. Actually this type of use case is what convinced us to transform a technology we had been working on which is a small form factor of Kubernetes to transform it into a product. Because sometimes, US engineers have a tendency to invent stuff that are great on paper, but it's a solution trying to find a problem. And we need customers to work with us to make sure that do solution do solve a real problem. And Lockheed was great. Worked with us upstream on that project. Helped us prove out that the concept was actually worth it and we waited until Lockheed had tested the concept in the air. >> Okay, so Red Hat device edge and MicroShift, explain that, how that works real quick for the folks that don't know. So one of the thing we learned is that Kubernetes is great but it's only part of the journey. In order to get those workloads on those aircraft or in order to get those workloads in a factory, you also need to consider the full life cycle of the device itself. And you don't handle a device that is inside of a UAV or inside of a factory the same way you handle a server. You have to deal with those devices in a way that is much more akin to a setup box. So we had to modify how the OS was behaving to deal with devices and we reduced what we had built in real for each edge aspect and combined it with MicroShift and that's what became with that Red Hat device edge. >> We're in a low SWAP environment, space, weight and power, right? Or very limited, We're on a small UAS in this demonstration. So the ability to spool up and spool down containers and to save computing power and to do that on demand and orchestrate that with MicroShift is paramount to what we're doing. We wouldn't be able to do it without that capability. >> John: That's awesome. >> I want to get both of your opinions. Nick, we'll start with you and then Greg we'll go to you. In terms of MicroShift , what is its superpower? What differentiates it from other competing solutions in the market? >> So MicroShift is Kubernetes but reduced to the strict minimum of a runtime version of Kubernetes so that it takes a minimal footprint so that we maximize the space available for the workload in those very constraints environments. On a board where you have eight or 16 gig of RAM, if you use only two gig of that to run the infrastructure component, you leave the rest for the AI workload that you need on the drone. And that's what is really important. >> And these AI payloads, the inference that we're doing at the edge is very compute intensive. So again, the ability to manage that and orchestrate that is paramount to running on these very small board computers. These are small drones that don't have a lot of weight that don't allow a lot of space. >> John: Got to be efficient >> And be efficient with it. >> How were you guys involved? Talk about the relationship. So you guys were tightly involved. Talk about the roles you guys played together. Was it co-development? Was it customer/partner? Talk about the relationship. >> Yeah, so we started actually with satellite. So you can think of small cube sets in a very similar environment to a low powered UAV. And it started there. And then in the last, I would say year or so, Nick we have worked together to develop MicroShift. We work closely on Slack channels together like we're part of the same team. >> John: That's great. >> And hey Red Hat, this is what we need, this is what we're looking for. These are the constraints that we have. And this team has been amazing and just delivered on everything that we've asked for. >> I mean this is really an example of the innovation at the edge, industrial edge specifically. You got an operating system, you got form factor challenges, you got operating parameters. And just to having that flex, you can't just take this and put it over there. >> But it's what really is a community applied to an industrial context. So what happened there is we worked as part of the MicroShift community together with a real time communication channel, the same slack that anybody developing Kubernetes uses we've been using to identify where the problems were, how to solve them, bring new ideas and that's how we tackle these problems. >> Yeah, a true open source model I mean the Red Hat and the Lockheed teams were in it together on a daily basis communicating like we were part of the same company. And and that's really how you move these things forward. >> Yeah, and of course open source is great but also you got to lock down the security. How did you guys handle that? What's going on with the security? 'Cause you got to make sure no take over the devices. >> So the funny thing is that even though what we produce is highly inclusive of security concern, our development model is completely open. So it's not security biopurification, it's security because we apply the best practices. >> John: You see everything. >> Absolutely. >> Yes. >> And then you harden it in the joint development, there it is. >> Yeah, but what we support, what we offer as a product is the same for Lockheed or for any other customer because there is no domain where security is not important. When you control the recognition on a drone or where you control the behavior of a robot in a factory, security is paramount because you can't immobilize a country by infecting a robot the same way you could immobilize a military operation- >> Greg: That's right. >> By infecting a UAV. >> Not to change the subject, but I got to go on a tangent here cause it pops in my head. You mentioned cube set, not related to theCUBE of course. Where theCube for the video. Cube sets are very powerful. People can launch space right now very inexpensively. So it's a highly contested and congested environment. Any space activity going on around the corner with you guys? 'Cause remember the world's not around, it's edge is now in space. Mars is the edge. >> That's right. >> Our first prototype for MicroShift was actually a cube set. >> Greg: That's where it started. >> And IBM project, the project called Endurance. That's the first time we actually put MicroShift into use. And that was a very interesting project, very early version of MicroShift . And now we have talks with many other people on reproducing that at more industrial level this was more like a cool high school project. >> But to your point, the scalability across different platforms is there. If we're running on top of MicroShift on this common OS, it just eases the development. Behind the scenes, we have a whole AI factory at Lockheed Martin where we have a common ecosystem for how we actually develop and deploy these algorithms to the edge. And now we've got a common ecosystem at the edge. And so it helps that whole process to be able to do that in automated ways, repeatable ways so we can instill trust in our DRD customer that the validation of verification of this is a really important aspect. >> John: Must be a fun place to work. >> It is, it's exciting. There's endless opportunities. >> You must get a lot of young kids applying for those jobs. They're barely into the whole. I mean, AI's a hot feel and people want to get their hands on real applications. I was serious about space. Is there space activity going on with you guys or is it just now military edge, not yet military space? Or is that classified? >> Yeah, so we're working across multiple fronts, absolutely. >> That's awesome. >> What excite, oh, sorry John. What excites you most, never a dull moment with what you're doing, but just the potential to enable a safer, a more secure world, what excites you most about this partnership and the direction and the we'll say the trajectory it's going on? >> Yeah, I think, for me, the safer insecure world is paramount to what we're doing. We're here for national defense and for our allies and that's really critical to what we're doing. That's what motivates me. That's what gets me up in the morning to know that there is a soldier on the ground who will be using this technology and we will give be giving that person the situational awareness to make the right decisions at the right time. So we can go from small UAVs to larger aircraft or we can do it in a small confined edge device like a stalker UAV. We can scale this up to different products different platforms and they don't even have to be Lockheed Martin >> John: And more devices that are going to be imagined. >> More devices that we haven't even imagined yet. >> Right, that aren't even on the frontier yet. Nick, what's next from your perspective? >> In the domain we are in, next is always plenty of things. Sustainability is a huge domain right now on which we're working. We have lots of things going on in the AI space, stuff going on with Lockheed Martin. We have things going on in the radio network domain. We've been very heavily involved in telecommunication and this is constantly evolving. There is not one domain that, in terms of infrastructure Red Hat is not touching >> Well, this is the first of multiple demonstrations. The scenarios will get more complex with multiple aircraft and in the future, we're also looking at bringing a lot of the 5G work. Lockheed has put a large focus on 5G.mil for military applications and running some of those workloads on top of MicroShift as well is things to come in the future that we are already planning and looking at. >> Yeah, and it's needed in theater to have connectivity. Got to have your own connectivity. >> It's paramount, absolutely. >> Absolutely, it's paramount. It's game-changing. Guys, thank you so much for joining John and me on theCube talking about how Red Hat and Lockheed Martin are working together to leverage AI to really improve decision making and save more lives. It was a wonderful conversation. We're going to have to have you back 'cause we got to follow this. >> Yeah, of course. >> This was great, thank you so much. >> Thank you very much for having us. >> Lisa: Our pleasure, thank you. >> Greg: Really appreciate it. >> Excellent. For our guests and John Furrier, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE Live from KubeCon CloudNativeCon '22 from Detroit. Stick around. Next guest is going to join John and Savannah in just a minute. (lighthearted music)

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

>>from the Cube Studios in >>Palo Alto and Boston connecting with thought leaders all around the world. This is a cube conversation. Hi. I'm stupid, man. And welcome to a cube conversation. I'm coming to you from our Boston area studio. Happy to welcome to the program. First time guest on the program. Francis Mattis. He is the vice president of engineering at Pensando. Francis. Thanks so much for joining us. >>Thank you. Good to be here. All >>right. So, Frances, you and I actually overlapped. Ah, you know, some of the companies who work with, you know, if anybody familiar with Pensando, you have worked with some of the mpls team over the years through some of those spin ins, but for our audience, give us a little bit about your background. You know, what brought you to help and be part of the team that you started pensando? >>Sure. Yeah. Yeah. So I started my career with Advanced Micro Devices in the mid nineties, got out of school, really wanted to build micro processors. And so, Andy, being in Austin, Texas, and be going to ls you for undergrad was perfect sort of alignment. And so I got to say M. D and Austin built K five worked on that team or kind of team with K seven. And, uh, when I came out to California to help with K, and that brought me to California. And then we got into the dot com era and and being a A and B fighting intel, so to speak, seemed like a hard battle. And so, with the dot com era coming, I just saw this perfect opportunity to jump into the Internet. And so that's how we got into building Internet and data communications equipment, went to the show on systems. We talked a little bit about that earlier, and that got me into storage. From there, I got into a company called on GMO, which was building fibre channel sand equipment. So built chips there, and I got to know the Mpls team there. I always say they hired me off the street. And from that point on, while we've been together since Jews 1001 So 19 years, yeah. Yeah, and I've been building silicon with them and systems for almost 20 years now. So we had quite a journey. Yeah, it's been fun. Great >>stuff. Yeah, you know it's going back, you know, niche on talking about ice scuzzy. You know, in the networking world, you know, it's a little bit of a dark arts in general for most people, you know, understanding the networking protocols and all the various pieces and three and four letter acronyms aren't something that most people are familiar with. Pensando, I'm curious. You know what? You know, networking In general, you're like, I work on Internet stuff and we're the tubes that, you know, Things go around. So when when you describe pensando, you know how to explain that to the people that maybe aren't deep into East, west, south, over on under underlay protocols? >>Yeah, absolutely. So for me, pensando was kind of the sort of the culmination of all the things I've done in my career processing, you know, being able to build compute engines that have programmable, starting with microprocessors, being able to do storage and storage networking with Andy on no, we build a computer with druva and the virtualization layers around the Ethernet interfaces in the adapter with what was really our first smart nick, Um, in 6 4007 timeframe and then with STN in CNI, all of these elements kind of came together. These multiple different layers in the infrastructure stack, if you will, and so pensando for me. What was interesting was the explosion of scale in both space and time with the advent of, let's say, 25 gig 50 gig 100 gig to the server, the notion of very dense computing on in each rack and the need for very high scale After doing all of these technologies and seeing where silicon kind of started to fall in place, I was 16 centimeter. It seemed that bringing this kind of technology to the edge very low power with sort of an end to end security architecture and to end policy engine architecture, distributed services as we're doing all seem to naturally fit into place. And the cloud was already proving this morning when I say the cloud, I mean, the hyper scaler is like Amazon and Microsoft. We are already building these platforms. And so yeah, it dawned on me that, uh I didn't think this was possible unless you built the entire platform. We built the entire system. If you build any one piece, the market transition would take a lot longer. And I think this is true. In technology, history tends to repeat itself, starting with mainframes. When IBM built an entire computer and that built the entire computer, HP built these people. So these kinds of things, um, are important if you want to really push a market transition. And so pensando became this opportunity to take all of these things that I've done in my past life and bring them together in a way that would give a complete stack for the purposes of what I call the new computer, which is basically the data center. And so, um, you know, when my mom asks me, you know, what is it that you're doing? I said, Well, it's just imagine the computer you have right now and multiplying by thousands and thousands stacking in Iraq, and anyone can use it at any one time. And we provide the infrastructure and the mechanisms to be able to Teoh, orchestrate and control that very, very high speed layers. So I don't know if that was a long answer. >>No, no, no. It's fascinating stuff, and you know, when I look at the industry, you know cloud. Of course. Is that just make a wave? That changed the way a lot of people look at this. The way we architect things, there was this belief for a number of years. Well, you know, I'm going to go from this complicated mess that I had in my own data centers and cloud was going to be, you know, inexpensive and easy. And I don't think anybody thinks about inexpensive and easy when they look at cloud computing these days, then add edge into these environments. So I guess what I'm asking is, you know, today's environment, you know, we know I t always is additive. So I have various pieces that I need to put together. You talked about building platforms, and how can it be a complete stack? So companies like Oracle, you know, for many years said we can do everything from the silicon all the way up through your application. Amazon in many ways does the same thing they can. You can build everything on Amazon, but they built out their ecosystem. So how does Pensando fit into this? You know, multi cloud, multi dimensional multi vendor. >>So yeah, so that's a good question. so So one of the things we wanted to do is to be able to bring a systematic management layer two header Genius, beauty. And what I mean by that is in any enterprise data center, modern data center, you're gonna have multiple types of computing. You're gonna have virtual machines, you're gonna have their metal, and you're gonna have containers, or at least in the last, say, three or four years. Chances are you'll have some containers and moving there. And so what we wanted to do was be able to Brighton Infrastructure a management mechanism where all of these head Virginia's types of computing could be managed the same way with respect to policy. What I mean by policy is sort of this declarative or intent based model of I have declared what I'd like to see, whether that the network policy or and and security with data in motion and be able to plot apply it in a distributed manner. Across these different types of hetero genius elements, the cloud has the advantage that it's homogenous for the most part. I mean, they own the entire infrastructure and they can control everything on their now our systems will obviously manage the marginal systems as well, and in many ways that's easier. But bringing together these this notion of heterogeneity these types of computing with one management plane one type of interface for the operator, specifically the networking services operator, was fundamental. That and then the second thing is being able to bring the scale and speed to the edge. So a top of rack switch or something in the in the middle of the network is obviously very dense in terms of this Iot capability. So the silicon area that you spend building a high speed switch is really spent for the most part on the Iot, unless typically, 30 to 40% of the area will be Iot and the rest will be very much hardwired control protocols. We know that as we go to STN services and we want, uh, let's say software defined mechanisms in terms of what the policy looks like, what the protocols look like. The ability to change over time in the lifespan of the computer, which is 3 to 5 years, are you want that to be programmable, very difficult to apply a very dense scale in the core of the network. And so it was an obvious move to bring that to the edge where we could plug it into the server effectively, just like we did. Really? In the UCS system. Uh, no system. >>Yeah, some some really tough engineering challenges. You know, for the longest time, it was very predictable in the networking world, You know, you go from one gig to 10 gig. You know, there was a little discussion how we went the next step, whether, you know, 25 50 40 and 100 gig now. But you talk about containerized architectures. You talk about distributed systems with edge. Things change at a much smaller granular level and change much more frequently. So what are some of the design principles and challenges that you make sure that you're ready for what's happening today but also knowing that, you know, technology changes there always coming, and you need to be able to handle, You know, that next thing. Yeah, >>that's right. Yes. So, uh, I think part of the biggest challenges we have are around power with respect to design power. And then what is the usefulness of each transistor? So, um, when you you have sort of a scale of flexibility. See, views are the most flexible, obviously, but have probably the least performance in them. PG A's are pretty useful in terms of its flexibility, but not very dense in terms of its logic capability. And then you have hardwired a six, which are extremely dense, very much purpose built logic, but completely inflexible. And so the design challenge it was put in front of us is how do we find that sweet spot of extremely programmable, extremely flexible, but still having a cost profile that didn't look like an F PGA And God knows the benefits of the CPU. And and that's where this sort of this notion of domain specific processing came in, which is okay, well, if we're going to solve a few problems, we're going to solve them well. And those few problems are going to be we're gonna bring PC services. We're going to bring networking services. We're going to bring stories, services. We're gonna bring security services around the edge of the computer so that we can offload or let's say, partition correctly the computing problem in a data center. And to do that, we knew a core of sea views wasn't going to do a job that's basically borrowing from this guy to pay this other guy. Right? So what we wanted to do was bring this notion of domain specific processing, and that's where our design challenges came in, which is okay, So now we build around this language called P four, What is the most optimal way to pack? The most amount of threads are processing elements into the silicon while managing the memory bandwidth, which is obviously, you know, packet processing is it has been said to be embarrassingly parallel, which is true. However, the memory bandwidth is insane. And so how do we build a system that insurance that memory is not the bottleneck? Obviously, we're producing a lot of data or, uh, computing a lot of data. And so So these were some of our design challenges. All of that within a power envelope where this part of this device could sit at the edge inside of a computer within a typical power profiling by PC, a attached card in a modern computer. So that was a huge design challenge for us. >>Yeah, I'd love to hear, you know, it was a multi year journey toe solution. And I think of the old World. It was very much a hardware centric 18 to 24 months for design and all the tape out you need to do on this. Sounds like obviously there is still hardware, but it is more software driven. Then it would have been, you know, 10 years ago. So give us some of the ups and downs in that journey. Love to hear any. Any stories that you can share their Well, yeah, I >>think you know, good question. It's always there's always ups and downs in anything you do, especially in the start up. And I think one of the biggest challenges we we've faced is, uh, the exact hardware software boundary. So what is it that you want in hardware? What is it that you want in software And, uh, you know, one of the greatest assets and our company depends on who are the people. We have amazing software and hardware architects who work extremely well together because most of us have been together for so long. So, um, so that always helps when you start to partition the problem. We spent the first year of Pensando, which was basically 2017. The company was founded really thinking through this problem, would it for for all the problems, we wanted to solve the goals that were given to us and and security. Okay, so I want to be able to terminate TCP and initiate TLS connections. What's the right architecture for that? I want to be able to do storage off load and be able to provide encryption of data at rest data in motion. I want to be able to do compression these kinds of things. What's the right part of our software boundary for that? What do we what do we hardwire in silicon versus what we make it programmable and silicon, obviously, but still through a computing engine. And so we spent the first year of the company really thinking through those different partitioning problems, and that was definitely a challenge. And we spent a lot of time and and, uh, you helped me conference rooms and white boards figuring that out. And then 2018. The challenge there was now taking this architecture, this sort of technology substrate, if you will that we built and then executing on it, making sure that it was actually going to yield what we hope that would that we would be able to provide the services. When we talk about El four firewall at line rate, that's completely programmable. Uh, we achieved that. Can we do load balancing? And we do all of it with this before processing engine and the innovations we brought before satisfy all of these requirements we put for us. And so 2018 was really about execution. And there you always have. The challenge is in execution. In terms of, you know, things are going to go wrong. It's not. It's not. If it's when and then how do you deal with it? And so again, um, I would say the biggest challenge and execution is, uh, containing the changes. You know, it's so easy for things to change, especially when you're trying to really build a software platform right, because it's always easy to sort of kick the can and say we'll deal with that later and software. But we know that given what we're trying to do, which is build a system that is highly performance, um, you can't get that. Can you have to deal with it when it comes in. So we spend a lot of time doing performance analysis, making sure that all these applications we were building we're going t yield the right performance. And so that was quite a challenge. And then 2019 was kind of the year of shaping the product. Really lots of product design. Okay, now that we have this technology and it does these, he says that we wanted to do these pieces meaning services. What are all the different ways we can shake this product after talking to customers for, you know, months and months and months. You know, Sony is very much custom, customer driven customer centric. So we we were fortunate enough that we got to spend a lot of time with customers and then that brings us out of challenges, right? Because every customer has a unique problems and so I don't know how to reform this product around a solution that solves quite a bit of problems that really brings value. And so that was the those are the challenges in 2019 which we overcame. Now, obviously we have several releases that we've come out with already. We've got a six and the chips and the It's all there now. So now, 2020. Unfortunately, covitz here, But this is this is a year of growth. This is the year that we really bring it out into the world with our partners and our customers and show how this technology has been developed and benefit will benefit customers over over the next years. Two years. >>Frances really appreciate the insight there. Yeah, that that discussion of the hardware versus software brings back memories for May. Lots of heated debates. A CIO What? One of lines you know we've used on the Cube many times is you know, you know, software will eventually work. Hardware will eventually break. So those trade rto >>taught me something over time ago. He said that uh huh, hardware is hard to change. Software is hard to stop changing. So >>that that's a great one to All right, So you gave us through the last three years journey. Give us a little bit. Look, you know, on the next three years and where you expect pensando to be going >>Sure. Where I see pensando in the next three years as we go through this market transition is uh, both a market leader in a thought leader in terms of the next wave of data center edge computing, whether the, uh in the service provider space, whether it be in the enterprise space or whether it be in the cloud space, the hyper hyper scale of space. As I was mentioning in the beginning, we had when we were talking about, uh, the journey. Market transitions of this major really require understanding the entire stack. If you provide a piece and someone else provides a piece, you will eventually get there. But it's a matter of when, and by the time you get there, there's probably something new. So, you know, uh, time in and of itself is an innovation in this area, especially when you're dealing with the market transition like this. And so we've been fortunate enough that we're building the entire system when we go from the transistors to the rest of the FBI's way, have the entire staff. And so where I see us in three years is not only being a market leader in this space, but also being a thought leader in terms of what does domain specific processing look like at the edge. Um, you know, what are the tools? What are the techniques for? Really a z save? Democratizing the cloud bringing, bringing this technology to everyone. >>Excellent. Well, hey, Frances, That has been a pleasure to talk with you. Thank you so much. Congratulations on the journey so far and I can't wait to see you. How? Thanks for going >>forward. Yeah, we're excited, and I appreciate it. Thank you for your time to. All >>right, check out the cube dot net. We've got lots of back catalogue with pensando. Also, I'm stew minimum. And thank you for watching the Q. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

>>Live from Orlando, Florida It's the cue covering Microsoft Ignite Brought to you by Cohee City. >>Hello, everyone. And welcome to the Cubes live coverage of Microsoft Ignite. We're kicking off three days of live coverage here at the Orange County Civic Center Convention Center. Sorry, I'm your host. Rebecca Knight coasting along side of stew Minutemen. Do we have so much to cover? So many new products? So many new strategies. New Emphasis Head knew new buzzwords, tech intensity and democratization. Uh, you were here. You were in the hub. You heard Satya Nadella live on the main stage. I'd like to just get your initial impressions and initial thoughts of of his keynote, and we're gonna dig into all of >>them. Rebecca, it's great to be here second year doing it with you here. Your background, really on business. Productivity. Really enjoyed doing this one within you. Chew said Walter Wall. Three days of covered The place is just buzzing with activity. 26,000 in attendance for a show that's been called soft night for I think it's been about six years. It was tech head back in the day we talked about last year, you know, this was originally, you know, the windows and office. You know, administrators show and has really matured over time. Trust was a big topic of conversation. And you know what? With my general thing, they rearrange some of the logistics of it. I actually, you know, usually I'm sitting with the press and the analyst upfront. Actually, you know, when in the shoes of the attending here, which meant I stood in our for almost two hours waiting to be one of the 3000 out of 26,000 to go get a seat and communication was a little bit weird and we kind of move in. But I did get a nice seat. Such intel was up on front. I thought they covered a lot of ground and it ran well, logistically. For those of us that were watching from the main stage, I heard remotely, you know, as sometimes happens, you know, Internet or things that there could be some calendars. It is with all of these cloud shows that we go to you just get this barrage of so many different things, everything from you know, really interesting as your arc, which we're gonna spend a bunch of time talking about through all of the latest. Aye. Aye. And the power things that they're going on all the way down through dynamics and teams and devices and EJ and on DDE down to the browser and the search engine. So so many different things. You know, Microsoft, Of course. You know, one of the store words in technology, but clearly laying out Ah, lot of announcements, books worth of you work of all of the announcement that go out there. And you know, general, take that I get for most people is they definitely are impressed so far. And they're gonna spend all week digging in tow, learn more, >>So we're gonna We're gonna dig in right now. But But I also just want to say that setting the scene doll, this is October 25th. Microsoft was given the jet, announced it was announced it was given the jet I contract. This was a big surprise. And this is Microsoft, which is a distant number two to AWS. Did Sathya seem on a high from that still or what is your impression? >>Unless I missed it, I didn't catch anything about it. Absolutely. I've talked to some people around the show, Talk to somebody appears in the media and analyst community. That air talking about it absolutely was a big surprise. Anybody that's interested in this go check out John. For years written down on this, David Lantz has done a lot of analysis. We've been looking at this quite a bit. Amazon really had one this deal, and it went through courts and Oracle, you know, pushed against really hard to try to make for the Amazon, did it. General Mattis writes about it in his book that I think you came out recently, You know, from the president down to make sure that Amazon did not get this politics entry. The high level is it's $10 billion over 10 years, but when you look into it, number one is the minimum purchase. In the first years only like a 1,000,000. It's expected to be more like 202 150 million in the 1st 2 years, but it is a big deal. Microsoft really spent a lot of time the last couple of years going deeper into public sector, making sure they've got the governance and the compliance sergeant is Kino talked about the 54 azure regions and what they're doing. They're still work that Microsoft needs to do. They don't have the Level six security yet which Amazon does that They've been given less than a year to get that, to make sure that they can fulfill this. But a lot of pieces and there will be lots of other government contracts, but lots of intrigue there. I think it goes back to thing we mentioned trust. Can the government trust that Microsoft will allow them to do all they need to do? There's a lot of office 3 65 in the government. And, of course, Microsoft does. This other thing. There's a bunch of in the government is they use Oracle. We know that Oracle and Amazon are still butting heads. You don't expect to see Oracle on Amazon, you know, shaking hands on stage any time soon. At Oracle OpenWorld This year you saw Oracle allowing their solution to run on Azure in friendly licensing terms because you can run Oracle on AWS. But oracles gonna do everything you can to make sure that the licensing terms her onerous in that environment, they want you to do it on their infrastructure or on their environment and really opening up to Azure. Now, the government contrast that they can run it there. And for me, that trust resident. When I talk to the partner ecosystem, there definitely is some concern about Amazon's power in the marketplace and what they will do. Amazon, to their credit, has a big ecosystem there. Marketplace is phenomenal and they are open and give customers choice. But obviously, just like if you serve on amazon dot com, if it's a Amazon Basics or Amazon provider solution, they're probably going toe move that them in that way. Every company does this for, you know, Google makes sure that they optimize for their ads and everything like that. Microsoft in the past was known for optimizing their licensing revenue. Today they're more trusted. They're more open. I think Santa leaves that on the from the top. But you know so many things that they need to dig into. So Jet I not something I'd expect to spend a lot of time on this week, But thank you for bringing it up happily undertone. Because what the moral of the stories today cloud is AWS and Azure are the clear leaders. Yes, AWS still has a sizable lead. A measure is slowly eating into that lead. But as a as a user, as an enterprise, as any company out there, you can't be wrong by choosing either of those solutions. And one of Microsoft's embracing is that multi cloud environment going back to art will talk about how do I live in that multi cloud world? Eight of us still leads with their hybrid solution and use eight of us don't use other clouds. Azure is more embracing of a multi cloud world. >>So so let's talk about that now. But I just in terms of the trust at a time where there is such deep and tremendous skepticism, a big tech in government right now, the trust really is a crucial element. We're gonna We're gonna talk about that today with a lot of our guests two developments that you're most interested in. And I really want to dig into here as your ark. We're gonna start azure Arkin Power platform. But as your brand new today, uh, your thoughts, your impressions? >>Yes. So, as your ark, I can automate update with my policies across any environment, not just azure. So where I look at this and say, OK, do I manage azure with this? Absolutely. It's got kubernetes in it, so I should be able to move things around if need be. My my data center. In what? I'm putting their all of the azure stack and EJ hub all of these azure pieces in my data center. Can I manage that with us? Of course. The question is, what about if I'm using Google? Service is if I'm using A W S service is in the demo that they ran. They showed 80 was and said, Oh, we can manage that I said, That's great that they can. But will customers actually do that? There's a certain skill set. There's no way a program for it. And of course, AWS has its tooling that everybody uses their. So we've been trying to get that single pane of glass of, you know, for more than my entire career. And the techies I talked to is that pane of glass is nothing but P a. I n is the joke we always make. So it is great that they've done this by the way it's on Lee in Tech preview right now, so it's great that they have this. We've been saying for years that Microsoft, if you talk about hybrid, has the lead when you talk about thought, leadership and solutions. But really, that hybrid solution is azure and data center, and I've got my APs that live everywhere. So 03 65 or in my data center in there. What we're really hearing here is a comprehensive reimagining of hybrid, as we've been talking about it more recently is I really blur the lines between my data center, the public cloud and even the edge. So it's great to see Microsoft do this. I got a lot of friends that are at the V M World Europe Show in Barcelona this week. We've been talking about this in the V M where environment for last couple of years of the VM, where on AWS via where on Azure V M wear on Google, Oracle, IBM and more. So it's great that Microsoft has stepped up here. In some ways. It makes me really think how I thought about Microsoft because Microsoft has been, in my mind a leader and hybrid and realizing that they need to really, really make a significant change to the portfolio. To really deliver on the promise of hybrid and multi My definition of when we will have a true multi con solution is when the value that extract from the system is greater than the sum of the parts. And absolutely that's not where we are today. Microsoft has a lot of pieces. Absolutely. They have a right to be one of the leaders pulling those pieces together. And really, it is a place where you see Microsoft and IBM, where partnering, but also all going to be that leader in the management of my cloud native environment. And we're gonna spend a lot of time this week talking to the developers because that's another area that sought to spend a lot of time. Those two point 6,000,000 citizen developers, as he calls them. I'm sure you must have really loved Rebecca. 61% of job openings for developers are outside of the tech sector. >>Well, exactly, and that is that is such a huge point and that's what Sathya said. That's always been our sweet spot wear for the citizen developers and we want to democratize computing. We want to make sure that you can bring your best self to work and be your most productive self to work in. So many of the tools that they have introduced today are all about creativity, collaboration, time management, productivity, individual time productivity as well as team productivity. So there's a lot of exciting developments today. Let's talk about power platform. Speaking of the parts and pieces What what does it do? What most interests you and excites you about power platform >>boy. So you know, first, the last thing. The citizen developers. It's funny when most people do, you know, where do I start? And I started to excel. And of course, Microsoft is probably the company that most people I'm old enough now that I remember, you know, using the spreadsheets before Excel was the leader that it was there. But the power platform, The thing I've been looking at is way were here a year ago. There was no power platform. Did we talk a lot about a I Absolutely. We talk about data warehousing and business intelligence and all of these things. So I'm trying to understand how much of This is just the new umbrella. Platt, the new umbrella messaging around it and how much there's new products. I talked to a couple people that dig in straight here. I talked to a couple of Microsoft Mbps. Which way? There are lots of them here. I haven't mentioned it, Rebecca already. But the community at the show is excellent. It is welcoming. It is engaging. Diversity is front and center at this show and Microsoft Great kudos for that because it ties into that citizen developers. But when you talk about the power platform, it's about enabling the citizen developers. So a few announcements in their power automate is really there are p a solution. We've got power virtual agents, which is understanding natural language and conversations. Such actually did a cute little thing. He went toe like universal and fought the demi Gorgon from stranger things. Stranger things, fan. I thought it was really cute and everything. But, he explained, he's like, Okay, here's you know it's understanding my name and saying, Get back to me. It's understanding the movements that I'm doing and turning that into what what's happening so way. Understand that we're still relatively early into gaining the full benefits out of a I hear. But there's a lot of tooling, and from what the people I've talked to is the power platform absolutely is much more than just a rebranding. There are acquisitions that have come in. There are software launches and you know, Microsoft in the agile, continuously shipping code mode that everybody is in these days, you know, is going through a lot of veneration. So I believe that you know that the platform was announced back in the spring, and something that I've seen with Microsoft and many companies like Cisco, that air going heavily of software, a platform of software, actually could be a unifying factor forcing function between all of these groups. So rather than saying, Oh my gosh, Microsoft, you've got, you know, 1000 different software packages that I would by no, no, that's not the way you think about it. You know, they don't come on a CD or disk anymore. Instead, it's there's something that I plug into on it, cloud enabled. It's able to be, you know, purchase interruptible model. So we've got number of guests that that power platform absolutely is. You know, hearing good things in the ecosystem and absolutely, you know, you know, it is a strength of Microsoft when you talk about the leverage and use of data in a business environment, on is their legacy. >>And this is a company that is going from strength to strength right now, really firing on all four senators cylinders, azure office, 3 65 windows. We haven't talked about fortnight and the other gaming elements here, but in terms of, um, usage issues, I know there were There were a couple of hiccups last week. >>Yeah, so you know, outages or something. People are definitely worried about the cloud. There was reported last week that there was some availability and performance issues. They were throttling things back. They were saying you couldn't scale and we're like, Wait, you know, infinite compute, infinite storage on demand. That's what we need. And from some of the things I heard from the community, the gaming platforms actually were impacting this and actually gaming that run across both AWS and azure. So it definitely is a little bit of a red flag. You know, your azure, your your your microsoft, and you want to talk about that you are a leader in the face. You can trust them. We're gonna keep you going. Well, you know, cos have spent decades making sure that their data centers have the up time and reliability that we need. You know, when I talk to the big cloud providers, they have some of the same conversation we were having back in the infrastructure world, You know, 15 years ago about data availability and data loss, You know? D u D E l date on availability and data loss. It was a four letter word. You can't have it. You would have war rooms and make for the things you know. Don't go down so little bit of a red flag especially, you know, will there be any contesting of the government deal? You don't want something sitting there saying Oh, hey, wait. I have a critical you know d o d operation. That needs to happen. Wait, We can't speak out when we need it. You know that. That's a no No. >>Right. Exactly. Well, this is these air, all the topics we're going to get into and then some over the next three days, it's gonna be an action packed show. I'm looking forward to it. A lot of great guests to thanks >>so much. I can't wait. I >>hope you'll stay tuned for more of the cubes. Live coverage of Microsoft IC night coming up in just a little bit.