>>Okay, welcome back. Everyone's Cube's coverage here in Las Vegas for Amazon re Mars machine learning, automation, robotics, and space out. John fir host of the queue. Got a great set of guests here talking about AI, Jason Montgomery CTO and co-founder man and Ryans CEO, founder guys. Thanks for coming on. We're just chatting, lost my train of thought. Cuz we were chatting about something else, your history with DataRobot and, and your backgrounds entrepreneurs. Welcome to the queue. Thanks >>Tur. Thanks for having >>Us. So first, before we get into the conversation, tell me about the company. You guys have a history together, multiple startups, multiple exits. What are you guys working on? Obviously AI is hot here as part of the show. M is Mars machine learning, which we all know is the basis for AI. What's the story. >>Yeah, really. We're we're here for two of the letters and Mars. We're here for the machine learning and the automation part. So at the high level, man is a no code AI application development platform. And basically anybody could log in and start making AI applications. It could be anything from just texting it with the Twilio integration to tell you that you're doing great or that you need to exercise more to integrating with zenes to get support tickets classified. >>So Jason, we were talking too about before he came on camera about the cloud and how you can spin up resources. The data world is coming together and I, and I like to see two flash points. The, I call it the 2010 big data era that began and then failed Hadoop crashed and burned. Yeah. Then out of the, out of the woodwork came data robots and the data stacks and the snowflakes >>Data break snowflake. >>And now you have that world coming back at scale. So we're now seeing a huge era of, I need to stand up infrastructure and platform to do all this heavy lifting. I don't have time to do. Right. That sounds like what you guys are doing. Is that kind of the case? >>That's absolutely correct. Yeah. Typically you would have to hire a whole team. It would take you months to sort of get the infrastructure automation in place, the dev ops DevOps pipelines together. And to do the automation to spin up, spin down, scale up scale down requires a lot of special expertise with, you know, Kubernetes. Yeah. And a lot of the other data pipelines and a lot of the AWS technologies. So we automate a lot of that. So >>If, if DevOps did what they did, infrastructure has code. Yeah. Data has code. This is kind of like that. It's not data ops per se. Is there a category? How do you see this? Cuz it's you could say data ops, but that's also it's DevOps dev. It's a lot going on. Oh yeah. It's not just seeing AI ops, right? There's a lot more, what, what would you call this? >>It's a good question. I don't know if we've quite come up with the name. I know >>It's not data ops. It's not >>Like we call it AI process automation >>SSPA instead of RPA, >>What RPA promised to be. Yes, >>Exactly. But what's the challenge. The number one problem is it's I would say not, not so much all on ever on undifferent heavy lifting. It's a lot of heavy lifting that for sure. Yes. What's involved. What's the consequences of not going this way. If I want to do it myself, can you take me through the, the pros and cons of what the scale scope, the scale of without you guys? >>Yeah. Historically you needed to curate all your data, bring it together and have some sort of data lake or something like that. And then you had to do really a lot of feature engineering and a lot of other sort of data science on the back end and automate the whole thing and deploy it and get it out there. It's a, it's a pretty rigorous and, and challenging problem that, you know, we there's a lot of automation platforms for, but they typically focus on data scientists with these large language models we're using they're pre-trained. So you've sort of taken out that whole first step of all that data collection to start out and you can basically start prototyping almost instantly because they've already got like 6 billion parameters, 10 billion parameters in them. They understand the human language really well. And a lot of other problems. I dunno if you have anything you wanna add to that, Ryan, but >>Yeah, I think the other part is we deal with a lot of organizations that don't have big it teams. Yeah. And it would be impossible quite frankly, for them to ever do something like deploy text, track as an example. Yeah. They're just not gonna do it, but now they can come to us. They know the problem they want solved. They know that they have all these invoices as an example and they wanna run it through a text track. And now with us they can just drag and drop and say, yeah, we want tech extract. Then we wanted to go through this. This is what we >>Want. Expertise is a huge problem. And the fact that it's changing too, right? Yeah. Put that out there. You guys say, you know, cybersecurity challenges. We guys do have a background on that. So you know, all the cutting edge. So this just seems to be this it, I hate to say transformation. Cause I not the word I'm looking for, I'd say stuck in the mud kind of scenario where they can't, they have to get bigger, faster. Yeah. And the scale is bigger and they don't have the people to do it. So you're seeing the rise of managed service. You mentioned Kubernetes, right? I know this young 21 year old kid, he's got a great business. He runs a managed service. Yep. Just for Kubernetes. Why? Because no, one's there to stand up the clusters. >>Yeah. >>It's a big gap. >>So this, you have these sets of services coming in now, where, where do you guys fit into that conversation? If I'm the customer? My problem is what, what is my, what is my problem that I need you guys for? What does it look like to describe my problem? >>Typically you actually, you, you kind of know that your employees are spending a lot of time, a lot of hours. So I'll just give you a real example. We have a customer that they were spending 60 hours a week just reviewing these accounts, payable, invoices, 60 hours a week on that. And they knew there had to be a better way. So manual review manual, like when we got their data, they were showing us these invoices and they had to have their people circle the total on the invoice, highlight the customer name, the >>Person who quit the next day. Right? >>No like they, they, Hey, you know, they had four people doing this, I think. And the point is, is they come to us and we say, well, you know, AI can, can just basically using something like text track can just do this. And then we can enrich those outputs from text track with the AI. So that's where the transformers come in. And when we showed them that and got them up and running in about 30 minutes, they were mind blown. Yeah. And now this is a company that doesn't have a big it department. So the >>Kind, and they had the ability to quantify the problem >>They knew. And, and in this case it was actually a business user. It was not a technical >>In is our she consequence technical it's hours. She consequences that's wasted. Manual, labor wasted. >>Exactly. Yeah. And, and to their point, it was look, we have way more high, valuable tasks that our people could be doing yeah. Than doing this AP thing. It takes 60 hours. And I think that's really important to remember about AI. What're I don't think it's gonna automate away people's jobs. Yeah. What it's going to do is it's going to free us up to focus on what really matters and focus on the high value stuff. And that's what people should >>Be doing. I know it's a cliche. I'm gonna say it again. Cause I keep saying, cause I keep saying for people to listen, the bank teller argument always was the big thing. Oh yeah. They're gonna get killed by the ATM machine. No, they're opening up more branches. That's right. That's right. So it's like, come on. People let's get, get over that. So I, I definitely agree with that. Then the question, next question is what's your secret sauce? I'm the customer I'm gonna like that value proposition. You make something go away. It's a pain relief. Then there's the growth side. Okay. You can solve from problems. Now I want this, the, the vitamin you got aspirin. And I want the vitamin. What's the growth angle for you guys with your customers. What's the big learnings. Once they get the beach head with problem solving. >>I think it, it, it it's the big one is let's say that we start with the account payable thing because it's so our platform's so approachable. They go in and then they start tinkering with the initial, we'll call it a template. So they might say, Hey, you know what, actually, in this edge case, I'm gonna play with this. And not only do I want it to go to our accounting system, but if it's this edge case, I want it to email me. So they'll just drag and drop an email block into our canvas. And now they're making it >>Their own. There is the no code, low code's situation. They're essentially building a notification engine under the covers. They have no idea what they're doing. That's >>Right. They get the, they just know that, Hey, you know what? When, when like the amount's over $10,000, I want an email. They know that's what they want. They don't, they don't know that's the notification engine. Of >>Course that's value email. Exactly. I get what I wanted. All right. So tell me about the secret sauce. What's under the covers. What's the big, big, big scale, valuable, valuable, secret sauce. >>I would say part of it. And, and honestly, the reason that we're able to do this now is transformer architecture. When the transformer papers came out and then of course the attention is all you need paper, those kind of unlocked it and made this all possible. Beyond that. I think the other secret sauce we've been doing this a long time. >>So we kind of, we know we're in the paid points. We went to those band points. Cause we weren't data scientists or ML people. >>Yeah. >>Yeah. You, you walked the snow and no shoes on in the winter. That's right. These kids now got boots on. They're all happy. You've installed machines. You've loaded OSS on, on top of rack switches. Yeah. I mean, it's unbelievable how awesome it's right now to be a developer and now a business user's doing the low code. Yep. If you have the system architecture set up, so back to the data engineering side, you guys had the experience got you here. This is a big discussion right now. We're having in, in, on the cube and many conversations like the server market, you had that go away through Amazon and Google was one of the first, obviously the board, but the idea that servers could be everywhere. So the SRE role came out the site reliability engineer, right. Which was one guy or gal and zillions of servers. Now you're seeing the same kind of role with data engineering. And then there's not a lot of people that fit the requirement of being a data engineer. It's like, yeah, it's very unique. Cause you're dealing with a system architecture, not data science. So start to see the role of this, this, this new persona, because they're taking on all the manual challenges of doing that. You guys are kind of replaced that I think. Well, do you agree with it about the data engineer? First of all? >>I think, yeah. Well and it's different cuz there's the older data engineer and then there's sort of the newer cloud aware one who knows how to use all the cloud technologies. And so when you're trying, we've tried to hire some of those and it's like, okay, you're really familiar with old database technology, but can you orchestrate that in a serverless environment with a lot of AWS technology for instance. And it's, and that's hard though. They don't, they don't, there's not a lot of people who know that space, >>So there's no real curriculum out there. That's gonna teach you how to handle, you know, ETL. And also like I got I'm on stream data from this source. Right. I'm using sequel I'm I got put all together. >>Yeah. So it's yeah, it's a lot of just not >>Data science. It's >>Figure that out. So its a large language models too. We don't have to worry about some of the data there too. It's it's already, you know, codified in the model. And then as we collect data, as people use our platform, they can then curate data. They want to annotate or enrich the model with so that it works better as it goes. So we're kind of curating, collecting the data as it's used. So as it evolves, it just gets better. >>Well, you guys obviously have a lot of experience together and congratulations on the venture. Thank you. What's going on here at re Mars. Why are you here? What's the pitch. What's the story. Where's your, you got two letters. You got the, you got the M for the machine learning and AI and you got the, a for automation. What's the ecosystem here for you? What are you doing? >>Well, I mean, I think you, you kind of said it right. We're here because the machine learning and the automation part, >>But >>More, more widely than that. I mean we work very, very closely with Amazon on a number of front things like text track, transcribe Alexa, basically all these AWS services are just integrations within our system. So you might want to hook up your AI to an Alexa so that you could say, Hey Alexa, tell me updates about my LinkedIn feed. I don't know, whatever, whatever your hearts content >>Is. Well what about this cube transcription? >>Yeah, exactly. A hundred percent. >>Yeah. We could do that. You know, feed all this in there and then we could do summarization of everything >>Here, >>Q and a extraction >>And say, Hey, these guys are >>Technicals. Yeah, >>There you go. No, they mentioned Kubernetes. We didn't say serverless chef puppet. Those are words straight, you know, and no linguistics matters right into that's a service that no one's ever gonna build. >>Well, and actually on that point, really interesting. We work with some healthcare companies and when you're basically, when people call in and they call into the insurance, they have a question about their, what like is this gonna be covered? And what they want to key in on are things like I just went to my doctor and got a cancer diagnosis. So the, the, the relevant thing here is they just got this diagnosis. And why is that important? Well, because if you just got a diagnosis, they want to start a certain triage to make you successful with your treatments. Because obviously there's an >>Incentive to do time. That time series matters and, and data exactly. And machine learning reacts to it. But also it could be fed back old data. It used to be time series to store it. Yeah. But now you could reuse it to see how to make the machine learning better. Are you guys doing anything, anything around that, how to make that machine learning smarter, look doing look backs or maybe not the right word, but because you have data, I might as well look back at it's happened. >>So part of, part of our platform and part of what we do is as people use these applications, to your point, there's lots of data that's getting generated, but we capture all that. And that becomes now a labeled data set within our platform. And you can take that label data set and do something called fine tuning, which just makes the underlying model more and more yours. It's proprietary. The more you do it. And it's more accurate. Usually the more you do it. >>So yeah, we keep all that. I wanna ask your reaction on this is a good point. The competitive advantage in the intellectual property is gonna be the workflows. And so the data is the IP. If this refinement happens, that becomes intellectual property. Yeah. That's kind of not software. It's the data modeling. It's the data itself is worth something. Are you guys seeing that? >>Yeah. And actually how we position the company is man team is a control plane and you retain ownership of the data plane. So it is your intellectual property. Yeah. It's in your system, it's in your AWS environment. >>That's not what everyone else is doing. Everyone wants to be the control plane and the data plan. We >>Don't wanna own your data. We don't, it's a compliance and security nightmare. Yeah. >>Let's be, Real's the question. What do you optimize for? Great. And I think that's a fair, a fair bet. Given the fact that clients want to be more agile with their data anyway, and the more restrictions you put on them, why would that this only gets you in trouble? Yeah. I could see that being a and plus lock. In's gonna be a huge factor. Yeah. I think this is coming fast and no one's talking about it in the press, but everyone's like run to silos, be a silo and that's not how data works. No. So the question is how do you create siloing of data for say domain specific applications while maintaining a horizontally scalable data plan or control plan that seems to be kind of disconnected everyone to lock in their data. What do you guys think about that? This industry transition we're in now because it seems people are reverting back to fourth grade, right. And to, you know, back to silos. >>Yeah. I think, well, I think the companies probably want their silo of data, their IP. And so as they refine their models and, and we give them the ability to deploy it in their own stage maker and their own VPC, they, they retain and own it. They can actually get rid of us and they still have that model. Now they may have to build, you know, a lot of pipelines and other technology to support it. But well, >>Your lock in is usability. Exactly. And value. Yeah. Value proposition is the lock in bingo. That's not counterintuitive. Exactly. Yeah. You say, Hey, more value. How do I wanna get rid of it? Valuable. I'll pay for it. Right. As long as you have multiple value, step up. And that's what cloud does. I mean, think that's the thing about cloud. That's gonna make all this work. In my opinion, the value enablement is much higher. Yeah. So good business model. Anything else here at the show that you observed that you like, that you think people would be interested in? What's the most important story coming out of the, the holistic, if you zoom up and look at re Mars, what's, what's coming out of the vibe. >>You know, one thing that I think about a lot is we're, you know, we have Artis here, humanity hopefully soon gonna be going to Mars. And I think that's really, really exciting. And I also think when we go to Mars, we're probably not gonna send a bunch of software engineers up there. >>Right. So like robots will do break fix now. So, you know, we're good. It's gone. So services are gonna be easy. >>Yeah. But I, oh, >>I left that device back at earth. I just think that's not gonna be good. Just >>Replicated it in one. I think there's like an eight >>Minute, the first monopoly on next day delivery in space. >>They'll just have a spaceship that sends out drones to Barss. Yeah. But I think that when we start going back to the moon and we go to Mars, people are gonna think, Hey, I need this application now to solve this problem that I didn't anticipate having. And in science fiction, we kind of saw this with like how, right? Like you had this AI on this computer or this, on this spaceship that could do all this stuff. We need that. And I haven't seen that here yet. >>No, it's not >>Here yet. And >>It's right now I think getting the hardware right first. Yep. But we did a lot of reporting on this with the D O D and the tactile edge, you know, military applications. It's a fundamental, I won't say it's a tech, religious argument. Like, do you believe in agile realtime data or do you believe in democratizing multi-vendor, you know, capability? I think, I think the interesting needs to sort itself out because sometimes multi vendor multi-cloud might not work for an application that needs this database or this application at the edge. >>Right. >>You know, so if you're in space, the back haul, it matters. >>It really does. Yeah. >>Yeah. Not a good time to go back and get that highly available data. You mean highly, is it highly available or there's two terms highly available, which means real time and available. Yeah. Available means it's on a dis, right? >>Yeah. >>So that's a big challenge. Well guys, thanks for coming on. Plug for the company. What are you guys up to? How much funding do you have? How old are you staff hiring? What's some of the details. >>We're about 45 people right now. We are a globally distributed team. So we hire every like from every country, pretty much we are fully remote. So if you're looking for that, hit us up, definitely always look for engineers, looking for more data scientists. We're very, very well funded as well. And yeah. So >>You guys headquarters out, you guys headquartered. >>So a lot of us live in Columbus, Ohio that's technically HQ, but like I said, we we're in pretty much every continent except in Antarctica. So >>You're for all virtual. >>Yeah. A hundred percent virtual, a hundred percent. >>Got it. Well, congratulations and love to hear that Datadog story at another time >>Or DataBot >>Yeah. I mean data, DataBot sorry. Let's get, get all confused >>Data dog data company. >>Well, thanks for coming on and congratulations for your success and thanks for sharing. Yeah. >>Thanks for having us for having >>Pleasure to be here. It's a cube here at rebars. I'm John furier host. Thanks for watching more coming back after this short break.

>> From "theCUBE" studios in Palo Alto, in Boston, bringing you data driven insights from "theCUBE" and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> There are very few political issues that get bipartisan support these days, nevermind consensus spanning geopolitical boundaries. But whether we're talking across the aisle or over the pond, there seems to be common agreement that the power of big tech firms should be regulated. But the government's track record when it comes to antitrust aimed at big tech is actually really mixed, mixed at best. History has shown that market forces rather than public policy have been much more effective at curbing monopoly power in the technology industry. Hello, and welcome to this week's "Wikibon CUBE" insights powered by ETR. In this "Breaking Analysis" we welcome in frequent "CUBE" contributor Dave Moschella, author and senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Dave, welcome, good to see you again. >> Hey, thanks Dave, good to be here. >> So you just recently published an article, we're going to bring it up here and I'll read the title, "Theory Aside, Antitrust Advocates Should Keep Their "Big Tech" Ambitions Narrow". And in this post you argue that big sweeping changes like breaking apart companies to moderate monopoly power in the tech industry have been ineffective compared to market forces, but you're not saying government shouldn't be involved rather you're suggesting that more targeted measures combined with market forces are the right answer. Can you maybe explain a little bit more the premise behind your research and some of your conclusions? >> Sure, and first let's go back to that title, when I said, theory aside, that is referring to a huge debate that's going on in global antitrust circles these days about whether antitrust should follow the traditional path of being invoked when there's real harm, demonstrable harm to consumers or a new theory that says that any sort of vast monopoly power inevitably will be bad for competition and consumers at some point, so your best to intervene now to avoid harms later. And that school, which was a very minor part of the antitrust world for many, many years is now quite ascendant and the debate goes on doesn't matter which side of that you're on the questions sort of there well, all right, well, if you're going to do something to take on big tech and clearly many politicians, regulators are sort of issuing to do something, what would you actually do? And what are the odds that that'll do more good than harm? And that was really the origins of the piece and trying to take a historical view of that. >> Yeah, I learned a new word, thank you. Neo-brandzian had to look it up, but basically you're saying that traditionally it was proving consumer harm versus being proactive about the possibility or likelihood of consumer harm. >> Correct, and that's a really big shift that a lot of traditional antitrust people strongly object to, but is now sort of the trendy and more send and view. >> Got it, okay, let's look a little deeper into the history of tech monopolies and government action and see what we can learn from that. We put together this slide that we can reference. It shows the three historical targets in the tech business and now the new ones. In 1969, the DOJ went after IBM, Big Blue and it's 13 years later, dropped its suit. And then in 1984 the government broke Ma Bell apart and in the late 1990s, went after Microsoft, I think it was 1998 in the Wintel monopoly. And recently in an interview with tech journalist, Kara Swisher, the FTC chair Lena Khan claimed that the government played a major role in moderating the power of tech giants historically. And I think she even specifically referenced Microsoft or maybe Kara did and basically said the industry and consumers from the dominance of companies like Microsoft. So Dave, let's briefly talk about and Kara by the way, didn't really challenge that, she kind of let it slide. But let's talk about each of these and test this concept a bit. Were the government actions in these instances necessary? What were the outcomes and the consequences? Maybe you could start with IBM and AT&T. >> Yeah, it's a big topic and there's a lot there and a lot of history, but I might just sort of introduce by saying for whatever reasons antitrust has been part of the entire information technology industry history from mainframe to the current period and that slide sort of gives you that. And the reasons for that are I think once that we sort of know the economies of scale, network effects, lock in safe choices, lot of things that explain it, but the good bit about that is we actually have so much history of this and we can at least see what's happened in the past and when you look at IBM and AT&T they both were massive antitrust cases. The one against IBM was dropped and it was dropped in as you say, in 1980. Well, what was going on in at that time, IBM was sort of considered invincible and unbeatable, but it was 1981 that the personal computer came around and within just a couple of years the world could see that the computing paradigm had change from main frames and minis to PCs lines client server and what have you. So IBM in just a couple of years went from being unbeatable, you can't compete with them, we have to break up with them to being incredibly vulnerable and in trouble and never fully recovered and is sort of a shell of what it once was. And so the market took care of that and no action was really necessary just by everybody thinking there was. The case of AT&T, they did act and they broke up the company and I would say, first question is, was that necessary? Well, lots of countries didn't do that and the reality is 1980 breaking it up into long distance and regional may have made some sense, but by the 1990 it was pretty clear that the telecom world was going to change dramatically from long distance and fixed wires services to internet services, data services, wireless services and all of these things that we're going to restructure the industry anyways. But AT& T one to me is very interesting because of the unintended consequences. And I would say that the main unintended consequence of that was America's competitiveness in telecommunications took a huge hit. And today, to this day telecommunications is dominated by European, Chinese and other firms. And the big American sort of players of the time AT&T which Western Electric became Lucent, Lucent is now owned by Nokia and is really out of it completely and most notably and compellingly Bell Labs, the Bell Labs once the world's most prominent research institution now also a shell of itself and as it was part of Lucent is also now owned by the Finnish company Nokia. So that restructuring greatly damaged America's core strength in telecommunications hardware and research and one can argue we've never recovered right through this 5IG today. So it's a very good example of the market taking care of, the big problem, but meddling leading to some unintended consequences that have hurt the American competitiveness and as we'll talk about, probably later, you can see some of that going on again today and in the past with Microsoft and Intel. >> Right, yeah, Bell Labs was an American gem, kind of like Xerox PARC and basically gone now. You mentioned Intel and Microsoft, Microsoft and Intel. As many people know, some young people don't, IBM unwillingly handed its monopoly to Intel and Microsoft by outsourcing the micro processor and operating system, respectively. Those two companies ended up with IBM ironically, agreeing to take OS2 which was its proprietary operating system and giving Intel, Microsoft Windows not realizing that its ability to dominate a new disruptive market like PCs and operating systems had been vaporized to your earlier point by the new Wintel ecosystem. Now Dave, the government wanted to break Microsoft apart and split its OS business from its application software, in the case of Intel, Intel only had one business. You pointed out microprocessors so it couldn't bust it up, but take us through the history here and the consequences of each. >> Well, the Microsoft one is sort of a classic because the antitrust case which was raging in the sort of mid nineties and 1998 when it finally ended, those were the very, once again, everybody said, Bill Gates was unstoppable, no one could compete with Microsoft they'd buy them, destroy them, predatory pricing, whatever they were accusing of the attacks on Netscape all these sort of things. But those the very years where it was becoming clear first that Microsoft basically missed the early big years of the internet and then again, later missed all the early years of the mobile phone business going back to BlackBerrys and pilots and all those sorts of things. So here we are the government making the case that this company is unstoppable and you can't compete with them the very moment they're entirely on the defensive. And therefore wasn't surprising that that suit eventually was dropped with some minor concessions about Microsoft making it a little bit easier for third parties to work with them and treating people a little bit more, even handling perfectly good things that they did. But again, the more market took care of the problem far more than the antitrust activities did. The Intel one is also interesting cause it's sort of like the AT& T one. On the one hand antitrust actions made Intel much more likely and in fact, required to work with AMD enough to keep that company in business and having AMD lowered prices for consumers certainly probably sped up innovation in the personal computer business and appeared to have a lot of benefits for those early years. But when you look at it from a longer point of view and particularly when look at it again from a global point of view you see that, wow, they not so clear because that very presence of AMD meant that there's a lot more pressure on Intel in terms of its pricing, its profitability, its flexibility and its volumes. All the things that have made it harder for them to A, compete with chips made in Taiwan, let alone build them in the United States and therefore that long term effect of essentially requiring Intel to allow AMD to exist has undermined Intel's position globally and arguably has undermined America's position in the long run. And certainly Intel today is far more vulnerable to an ARM and Invidia to other specialized chips to China, to Taiwan all of these things are going on out there, they're less capable of resisting that than they would've been otherwise. So, you thought we had some real benefits with AMD and lower prices for consumers, but the long term unintended consequences are arguably pretty bad. >> Yeah, that's why we recently wrote in Intel two "Strategic To Fail", we'll see, Okay. now we come to 2022 and there are five companies with anti-trust targets on their backs. Although Microsoft seems to be the least susceptible to US government ironically intervention at this this point, but maybe not and we show "The Cincos Comas Club" in a homage to Russ Hanneman of the show "Silicon Valley" Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon all with trillion dollar plus valuations. But meta briefly crossed that threshold like Mr. Hanneman lost a comma and is now well under that market cap probably around five or 600 million, sorry, billion. But under serious fire nonetheless Dave, people often don't realize the immense monopoly power that IBM had which relatively speaking when measured its percent of industry revenue or profit dwarf that of any company in tech ever, but the industry is much smaller then, no internet, no cloud. Does it call for a different approach this time around? How should we think about these five companies their market power, the implications of government action and maybe what you suggested more narrow action versus broad sweeping changes. >> Yeah, and there's a lot there. I mean, if you go back to the old days IBM had what, 70% of the computer business globally and AT&T had 90% or so of the American telecom market. So market shares that today's players can only dream of. Intel and Microsoft had 90% of the personal computer market. And then you look at today the big five and as wealthy and as incredibly successful as they've been, you sort of have almost the argument that's wrong on the face of it. How can five companies all of which compete with each other to at least some degree, how can they all be monopolies? And the reality is they're not monopolies, they're all oligopolies that are very powerful firms, but none of them have an outright monopoly on anything. There are competitors in all the spaces that they're in and increasing and probably increasingly so. And so, yeah, I think people conflate the extraordinary success of the companies with this belief that therefore they are monopolist and I think they're far less so than those in the past. >> Great, all right, I want to do a quick drill down to cloud computing, it's a key component of digital business infrastructure in his book, "Seeing Digital", Dave Moschella coined a term the matrix or the key which is really referred to the key technology platforms on which people are going to build digital businesses. Dave, we joke you should have called it the metaverse you were way ahead of your time. But I want to look at this ETR chart, we show spending momentum or net score on the vertical access market share or pervasiveness in the dataset on the horizontal axis. We show this view a lot, we put a dotted line at the 40% mark which indicates highly elevated spending. And you can sort of see Microsoft in the upper right, it's so far up to the right it's hidden behind the January 22 and AWS is right there. Those two dominate the cloud far ahead of the pack including Google Cloud. Microsoft and to a lesser extent AWS they dominate in a lot of other businesses, productivity, collaboration, database, security, video conferencing. MarTech with LinkedIn PC software et cetera, et cetera, Googles or alphabets of business of course is ads and we don't have similar spending data on Apple and Facebook, but we know these companies dominate their respective business. But just to give you a sense of the magnitude of these companies, here's some financial data that's worth looking at briefly. The table ranks companies by market cap in trillions that's the second column and everyone in the club, but meta and each has revenue well over a hundred billion dollars, Amazon approaching half a trillion dollars in revenue. The operating income and cash positions are just mind boggling and the cash equivalents are comparable or well above the revenues of highly successful tech companies like Cisco, Dell, HPE, Oracle, and Salesforce. They're extremely profitable from an operating income standpoint with the clear exception of Amazon and we'll come back to that in a moment and we show the revenue multiples in the last column, Apple, Microsoft, and Google, just insane. Dave, there are other equally important metrics, CapX is one which kind of sets the stage for future scale and there are other measures. >> Yeah, including our research and development where those companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the years. And I think it's easy to look at those numbers and just say, this doesn't seem right, how can any companies have so much and spend so much? But if you think of what they're actually doing, those companies are building out the digital infrastructure of essentially the entire world. And I remember once meeting some folks at Google, and they said, beyond AI, beyond Search, beyond Android, beyond all the specific things we do, the biggest thing we're actually doing is building a physical infrastructure that can deliver search results on any topic in microseconds and the physical capacity they built costs those sorts of money. And when people start saying, well, we should have lots and lots of smaller companies well, that sounds good, yeah, it's all right, but where are those companies going to get the money to build out what needs to be built out? And every country in the world is trying to build out its digital infrastructure and some are going to do it much better than others. >> I want to just come back to that chart on Amazon for a bit, notice their comparatively tiny operating profit as a percentage of revenue, Amazon is like Bezos giant lifestyle business, it's really never been that profitable like most retail. However, there's one other financial data point around Amazon's business that we want to share and this chart here shows Amazon's operating profit in the blue bars and AWS's in the orange. And the gray line is the percentage of Amazon's overall operating profit that comes from AWS. That's the right most access, so last quarter we were well over a hundred percent underscoring the power of AWS and the horrendous margins in retail. But AWS is essentially funding Amazon's entrance into new markets, whether it's grocery or movies, Bezos moves into space. Dave, a while back you collaborated with us and we asked our audience, what could disrupt Amazon? And we came up with your detailed help, a number of scenarios as shown here. And we asked the audience to rate the likelihood of each scenario in terms of its likelihood of disrupting Amazon with a 10 being highly likely on average the score was six with complacency, arrogance, blindness, you know, self-inflicted wounds really taking the top spot with 6.5. So Dave is breaking up Amazon the right formula in your view, why or why not? >> Yeah, there's a couple of things there. The first is sort of the irony that when people in the sort of regulatory world talk about the power of Amazon, they almost always talk about their power in consumer markets, whether it's books or retail or impact on malls or main street shops or whatever and as you say that they make very little money doing that. The interest people almost never look at the big cloud battle between Amazon, Microsoft and lesser extent Google, Alibaba others, even though that's where they're by far highest market share and pricing power and all those things are. So the regulatory focus is sort of weird, but you know, the consumer stuff obviously gets more appeal to the general public. But that survey you referred to me was interesting because one of the challenges I sort of sent myself I was like okay, well, if I'm going to say that IBM case, AT&T case, Microsoft's case in all those situations the market was the one that actually minimized the power of those firms and therefore the antitrust stuff wasn't really necessary. Well, how true is that going to be again, just cause it's been true in the past doesn't mean it's true now. So what are the possible scenarios over the 2020s that might make it all happen again? And so each of those were sort of questions that we put out to others, but the ones that to me by far are the most likely I mean, they have the traditional one of company cultures sort of getting fat and happy and all, that's always the case, but the more specific ones, first of all by far I think is China. You know, Amazon retail is a low margin business. It would be vulnerable if it didn't have the cloud profits behind it, but imagine a year from now two years from now trade tensions with China get worse and Christmas comes along and China just says, well, you know, American consumers if you want that new exercise bike or that new shoes or clothing, well, anything that we make well, actually that's not available on Amazon right now, but you can get that from Alibaba. And maybe in America that's a little more farfetched, but in many countries all over the world it's not farfetched at all. And so the retail divisions vulnerability to China just seems pretty obvious. Another possible disruption, Amazon has spent billions and billions with their warehouses and their robots and their automated inventory systems and all the efficiencies that they've done there, but you could argue that maybe someday that's not really necessary that you have Search which finds where a good is made and a logistical system that picks that up and delivers it to customers and why do you need all those warehouses anyways? So those are probably the two top one, but there are others. I mean, a lot of retailers as they get stronger online, maybe they start pulling back some of the premium products from Amazon and Amazon takes their cut of whatever 30% or so people might want to keep more of that in house. You see some of that going on today. So the idea that the Amazon is in vulnerable disruption is probably is wrong and as part of the work that I'm doing, as part of stuff that I do with Dave and SiliconANGLE is how's that true for the others too? What are the scenarios for Google or Apple or Microsoft and the scenarios are all there. And so, will these companies be disrupted as they have in the past? Well, you can't say for sure, but the scenarios are certainly plausible and I certainly wouldn't bet against it and that's what history tells us. And it could easily happen once again and therefore, the antitrust should at least be cautionary and humble and realize that maybe they don't need to act as much as they think. >> Yeah, now, one of the things that you mentioned in your piece was felt like narrow remedies, were more logical. So you're not arguing for totally Les Affaire you're pushing for remedies that are more targeted in scope. And while the EU just yesterday announced new rules to limit the power of tech companies and we showed the article, some comments here the regulators they took the social media to announce a victory and they had a press conference. I know you watched that it was sort of a back slapping fest. The comments however, that we've sort of listed here are mixed, some people applauded, but we saw many comments that were, hey, this is a horrible idea, this was rushed together. And these are going to result as you say in unintended consequences, but this is serious stuff they're talking about applying would appear to be to your point or your prescription more narrowly defined restrictions although a lot of them to any company with a market cap of more than 75 billion Euro or turnover of more than 77.5 billion Euro which is a lot of companies and imposing huge penalties for violations up to 20% of annual revenue for repeat offenders, wow. So again, you've taken a brief look at these developments, you watched the press conference, what do you make of this? This is an application of more narrow restrictions, but in your quick assessment did they get it right? >> Yeah, let's break that down a little bit, start a little bit of history again and then get to Europe because although big sweeping breakups of the type that were proposed for IBM, Microsoft and all weren't necessary that doesn't mean that the government didn't do some useful things because they did. In the case of IBM government forces in Europe and America basically required IBM to make it easier for companies to make peripherals type drives, disc drives, printers that worked with IBM mainframes. They made them un-bundle their software pricing that made it easier for database companies and others to sell their of products. With AT&T it was the government that required AT&T to actually allow other phones to connect to the network, something they argued at the time would destroy security or whatever that it was the government that required them to allow MCI the long distance carrier to connect to the AT network for local deliveries. And with that Microsoft and Intel the government required them to at least treat their suppliers more even handly in terms of pricing and policies and support and such things. So the lessons out there is the big stuff wasn't really necessary, but the little stuff actually helped a lot and I think you can see the scenarios and argue in the piece that there's little stuff that can be done today in all the cases for the big five, there are things that you might want to consider the companies aren't saints they take advantage of their power, they use it in ways that sometimes can be reigned in and make for better off overall. And so that's how it brings us to the European piece of it. And to me, the European piece is much more the bad scenario of doing too much than the wiser course of trying to be narrow and specific. What they've basically done is they have a whole long list of narrow things that they're all trying to do at once. So they want Amazon not to be able to share data about its selling partners and they want Apple to open up their app store and they don't want people Google to be able to share data across its different services, Android, Search, Mail or whatever. And they don't want Facebook to be able to, they want to force Facebook to open up to other messaging services. And they want to do all these things for all the big companies all of which are American, and they want to do all that starting next year. And to me that looks like a scenario of a lot of difficult problems done quickly all of which might have some value if done really, really well, but all of which have all kinds of risks for the unintended consequence we've talked before and therefore they seem to me being too much too soon and the sort of problems we've seen in the past and frankly to really say that, I mean, the Europeans would never have done this to the companies if they're European firms, they're doing this because they're all American firms and the sort of frustration of Americans dominance of the European tech industry has always been there going back to IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and all of them. But it's particularly strong now because the tech business is so big. And so I think the politics of this at a time where we're supposedly all this great unity of America and NATO and Europe in regards to Ukraine, having the Europeans essentially go after the most important American industry brings in the geopolitics in I think an unavoidable way. And I would think the story is going to get pretty tense over the next year or so and as you say, the Europeans think that they're taking massive actions, they think they're doing the right thing. They think this is the natural follow on to the GDPR stuff and even a bigger version of that and they think they have more to come and they see themselves as the people taming big tech not just within Europe, but for the world and absent any other rules that they may pull that off. I mean, GDPR has indeed spread despite all of its flaws. So the European thing which it doesn't necessarily get huge attention here in America is certainly getting attention around the world and I would think it would get more, even more going forward. >> And the caution there is US public policy makers, maybe they can provide, they will provide a tailwind maybe it's a blind spot for them and it could be a template like you say, just like GDPR. Okay, Dave, we got to leave it there. Thanks for coming on the program today, always appreciate your insight and your views, thank you. >> Hey, thanks a lot, Dave. >> All right, don't forget these episodes are all available as podcast, wherever you listen. All you got to do is search, "Breaking Analysis Podcast". Check out ETR website, etr.ai. We publish every week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. And you can email me david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @davevellante. Comment on my LinkedIn post. This is Dave Vellante for Dave Michelle for "theCUBE Insights" powered by ETR. Have a great week, stay safe, be well and we'll see you next time. (slow tempo music)

>> Announcer: Live, from New Orleans, Louisiana. It's theCUBE! Covering .NEXT conference 2018, brought to you by Nutanix! >> Welcome back to theCUBE! This is SiliconANGLE Media's live production of Nutanix .NEXT 2018. If you've eaten a lot of the cuisine here in New Orleans, you might want to do something to help burn those calories, and joining us for this segment, happy to welcome Sarah Robb O'Hagan, who's the CEO of Flywheel Sports and also the author of Extreme You. Sarah, welcome to our program. >> Thanks for having me! >> Tell us a little bit about your company and what brings your group to the show? >> Yeah, we're very excited to be here, this is a whole new experience for us. Flywheel is an indoor cycling business We started off as basically bricks and mortar, indoor cycling classes, and we were the first company to put technology on the bike, so have either of you done spinning before ever? >> I've seen them in a gym. >> Seen them in a gym. >> I take my bike out on the trails and get my kids out a bunch, but not indoors so much. >> So in the old days if you did a spinning class and the instructor was like turn up your resistance, you'd maybe kind of pretend but you didn't do it, whereas we put tech on the bike so it's like, oh, you have to hit this number and you've got to get this output, and so it makes it much more athletic and accountable, and then we just recently launched a streaming platform, so now you can stream the classes into one of our bikes in your home, it's for flight anywhere, so we ended up coming here 'cause I was speaking at the conference with regards to my book and we were like these are fun people, they're going to want to check out our bikes and our techs, so let's do it. >> Wait, so the tech people, do they get engaged, are they trying it out? >> Oh it's amazing, yeah. We've seen people riding to the leaderboard wearing jeans, it's fantastic. >> I'm a runner, so-- >> Yeah, me too! >> But, you know there's certain runners and there's certain cyclists that there's this built-in competition like, you know, cycling is for the hardcore folks that really like the workout, and then you have guys like me. I can't stream a app to say, hey, you know what, you need to pick up your pace and keep it moving. That is an amazing kind of innovation, especially for that market, there's an awful lot of competition. How are you differentiating yourself between the competition? >> That's a great question. So it starts with who we're serving, who we're doing it for, right, so if there's about a hundred million in America that work out maybe between zero and six times a week. Our consumers are the ones that are like five to six times a week, they are hardcore, they're intense, they like competition, they are, like, I can't let the kids win at Monopoly kind of people, and so how we differentiate is everything in the product has been designed with them in mind, so allowing them to really push their own performance in a big way and the metrics, every time you do a ride, particularly on the streaming platform, you can pace against yourself last time you rode, so you can see am I keeping up, am I doing better, so it's basically about really focusing on one kind of athlete, as we call them, and meeting their needs as best as we can. >> Digital transformation is hitting your industry hard. >> Totally. >> You're streaming now, you've been through some big brands in the past, how's this impacting? How does your company deal with the pace of change? >> Well, you know, it's funny. I have been lucky in that my career, I've journeyed through some very big iconic brands. I was at Virgin Megastores when we used to buy music, do you remember on things that went round and round from retail store, right? And then along came Napster and totally disrupted that industry. I was at Gatorade when we had to transform that, and what I've learned along the way is that you just have to commit yourself to constantly innovating and disrupting yourself. If you let the environment do it to you it's too late, and so I think that's how we think about it, like we soar not so much from the market, because certainly streaming is taking off, like health and fitness apps in the app store are always the top category on both Android and iPhone. Also boutique fitness was exploding, so that's where you do one kind of modality as opposed to going to a full service gym, and so we saw these trends happening, but then you speak to the consumer, it's like what are you looking for? And what we kept hearing was I love being at Flywheel, but I wish I could get it when I was on the road, when I'm in the hotel, when I'm, you know, and so we're like how do we bring out content to you wherever you need it at any time? So that was really what led to it. >> So, I would like to talk to you about discoverability, like as you said, go to the app store, Google fitness app, going to get 10,000 results. How do you guys rise to the top? How do you find new customers? >> Interestingly enough, we, I think, are lucky because of our existing business, so we have a footprint of 42 studios, we have 600,000 people that have ridden with Flywheel over the years, and what's neat about having that in-person experience is you really build brand evangelists, so a lot of our early sales of the streaming platform have come from those people who are telling their friends about it, who are not in communities where our studios exist, and then from obviously a paid digital ad standpoint, we can get very very specific in to look-alike types to the kinds of consumer we have because they have pretty standard typical behaviors, in terms of they happen to do a lot of marathons, they happen to do Tough Mudders and stuff like that. They're runners, they're doing strength workouts, so we can see what these kinds of people are online to really be focused on how we target them. >> So what about the monetization? You know there's the freemium models, there's all different things, how is this move impacted that? >> That's a great question. We're doing our streaming as a subscription model and actually we look for a one year commitment, 'cause we really believe that, particularly 'cause we're going after someone who's very engaged in the category. We want them to sign up and be with the program and basically get that loyalty to, not only the programming, the instructors they love, but the data, like once they've got data in the system that becomes a method of loyalty, because it keeps them wanting to know what their previous results were, so for us we're not really doing free leading in. I mean, certainly we do trial classes in our studios, but we know that people, basically, if they make a commitment, that's how they become really loyal to our brand and our category. >> So talk to us as a leader and someone who's, you know there's probably nothing more personal, more critical to me than my running data, like I completely trust it to my cloud provider, and if it was to ever go away I'd be devastated if I have a big running goal. As you pick technology partners and you have that weight like someone may look at it from the outside, oh, what's the big deal if you're cycling data is gone? That's very serious. How do you pick technology partners that help you to extend the trust that your users put in to you, to your technology partner? >> It's so profoundly important to the relationship with our consumer, that when we're picking technology partners we're always going to go for best in class, and we're always going to make sure those are the people that we know are treating the data with the same kind of importance, I guess, that we are. For example, we're actually doing a lot with Apple right now, not surprisingly with the Apple Watch because that's the kind of partner we see so many of our riders are using Apple Watches in the experience anyway, and we want to be able to take the data that's coming through that device, add it to what we're getting off the bike, and make it more meaningful for that particular consumer. It's very important to us, we would not ever go with some fly-by-night tech partner if they didn't have the kind of credentials that we were looking for. >> Alright. So Sarah, tell us about the book. Step Up, Stand Out, Kick Ass, Repeat? >> Kick ass, people. That's what it's about. So I wrote the book about a couple years ago, it's interesting how it came about, you're a runner so I think you'll appreciate this. I have three kids, and my kids were going and playing new sports, and coming home with participation trophies, and I'm like what the hell is that? Like why did you get a trophy just for showing up, you know? And then at the same time I noticed in the workforce, younger employees that were coming in who were like, where's my promotion? I'm here. It's connected, right? And so I started to do a lot of research, and I realized that for 20, 30 years we have been raising kids from a self-empowerment standpoint, to not expose them to risks and failing and all of these things, yet the most successful people in the world have gone through really tough times to get there, and so I went down this journey of interviewing some really incredible people, like from Condoleezza Rice through to Bode Miller, the skier, through to Mister Cartoon who's a tattoo artist, like all people who are top of their game at what they do. To basically weave together what were the commonalities that got them there to help educate another generation of how to do the same for themselves, and then also applied it to business, so take those themes and how do you bring that to life as a leader within your team to get the most results out of your organization. >> Well it was surprising, well I guess it's not surprising how many people in our industry that are high performers, executives, that are also extreme athletes, whether they're extreme cyclists. Ran into a group of people the other day, one of the cycler's says, "You know what "my biggest complaint about the iPhone is? "It only lasts three hours." >> Yeah, yeah, I get that. >> That same attitude extends out. One question about innovation. How do you guys consider or approach innovation in a market that, like cycling is pretty straight forward, get on a bike and you run, or if you're not directly creating equipment, how do you guys consider innovation, is it just physical, is it data, is it services, what's the approach? >> All of the above, right? And what I love about being in this category, I've been in sports and fitness for 20 years. I was at Nike, I was at Gatorade, and now I'm at Flywheel, and what I love is innovation is all about are we making the athlete better, period. And so it's such a clear filter and that may be through data that gives you insights of how you rode today versus yesterday, what did you eat, did that make the ride better or worse, or it may be, in the case of Nike and Gatorade, the products you put on your body, in your body, like they're all in service of helping you be better and I think it enables us to sort of not get distracted by the sort of, oh, this is the cool hip thing right now that everyone's doing in every category, and instead go is that helping to make an athlete better, is it motivating them, is it helping them physically, is it essentially getting them better results? >> Alright. Sarah Robb O'Hagan, thank you so much for joining us. >> It's been fun. >> We definitely have to check out your area before we wrap up. We'll be back with lots more coverage here from Nutanix .NET's 2018 in New Orleans, for Keith Townsend. I'm Stu Miniman, thanks for watching theCUBE! (light electro music)

>> Announcer: Live from San Juan, Puerto Rico. It's theCUBE, covering Block Chain Unbound, Brought to you by Blockchain Industries. >> Hello, everyone, welcome back to theCUBE's exclusive coverage in Puerto Rico for Block Chain Unbound. It's a global event, people from all around the world, from South Africa, Miami, Russia, San Francisco, New York, all around the world, talking about Blockchain cryptocurrency, the decentralized internet, and the future of Money, that's the killer app in Blockchain and cryptocurrency. I'm John Furrier, your host, my next guest is Scott Picken, who's the founder and CEO of Wealth Migrate Platform. Scott, thanks for coming on. >> Yeah, awesome John, thanks for having me. It's quite an exciting group of people here. >> We met last night, had a great conversation, I really liked some of the things that we were talking about, I wanted to bring you on because being in South Africa, where you're living and working, you have a unique perspective because you see the global landscape. So, I'm from Silicon Valley, we're here in Puerto Rico, America's got their view, the UK just announced a deal with Coinbase for essentially a license to convert funds into separate bank accounts through faster payment mechanisms, basically taking crypto and turning it into Fiat. Kind of a game changer. >> The one thing with the UK is they've been at the head of all of the different innovations over the last five to 10 years. They were right at the head in terms of crowdfunding and they're doing exactly the same in terms of now with the whole cryptospace. And it's actually quite interesting because when you take into account Brexit, they actually really need to do it because they want funds coming into the country, they want to be seen as the future of the banking market, et cetera, so it's actually really exciting. When you look around the world it's fascinating that I said this to you last night, that America really grew because Europe used to have all the controls. And so the capital basically left Europe and were in America and now it's happening 300 years later as America has all the controls and the capital's starting to go elsewhere. >> So America's turning into Europe. And so the potential is to bring, you don't have to say it, I'm an American and we're concerned about it. Americans are concerned that we don't want to be that old guard, like Europe was to America in the America days. So a new liberation's happening. UK's putting a stake in the ground, saying, "We want to get our mojo back," my words. >> Scott: sitting here in Puerto Rico. >> Yeah, they're in Puerto Rico. They're going to put a stake in the ground saying, "We're going to give you tax breaks 'til 2036." This is a money flow game right now. So you've been doing some pioneering work, what's your perspective, talk a little bit about some of the world dynamics that you see because, let's face it, this is the transfer of money, with crypto, it's happening at a massive scale, not just some underbelly boutique underground activities. This is front and center, mainstream, real money, real commerce. Your thoughts? >> I would take it a step back, actually. I think there's eight major macro trends that are all culminating at the same time. So the first one is in the education space, and the whole of education is changing, and it's really becoming gamification, and it's becoming learning while doing. So you don't learn and then go do something, you actually learn while you're doing it. The second one, for me, is the whole Blockchain. And what that's enabling people is getting democratization to wealth and access to assets, whether they're in their country or global assets, basically. The third thing that's really important is you've got the rise of the middle class. You know, a lot of people talk about the unbanked three billion, but what they don't realize is that 1.2 billion people joined the middle class. And they are primarily in the emerging world, they're in Africa, India, China. And what they want is, they want health, they want education, and they want access to wealth. Then you take into account what's happening in terms of collaborative investing. In the old days it was I do it on my own, you do it on your own, we sort of trust the financial industry. Now we're coming together, it's the power of the crowd. I could go on and on, that's just four of them, there's another four. They're all coming together and because this is happening is why we're seeing this metamorphosis and cryptocurrency is the catalyst on top of Blockchain that's allowing this to take place. >> Talk about some of the things that you've been advocating for, I know you were sharing a private story, maybe this may or may not be the right time to talk about it, but you put forth some pretty forthright concepts in memos and letters to folks, and no one will publish it. What are those views, because we've got the cameras rolling right now, share your vision. >> Again, I fundamentally believe that technology can solve grand challenges. And when you take our platform and what we're doing, we're effectively helping the 99% invest in commercial real estate like the top 1%. So what we were talking about last night was, I come from a country, South Africa, I was previously from Zimbabwe, and unfortunately for us is that in South Africa, they're talking now about taking away land without compensation. So land redistribution without compensation. Now, Einstein says that if you want to solve a problem, you can't solve it with the same reality that created the problem. And so I wrote a letter to the President, an open letter two weeks ago, and I said, listen. Why don't we do it differently? You're giving a person a piece of land in the middle of nowhere when they've never been a farmer will not help them get wealthy, I guarantee it. And if I'm wrong, let's go look at Zimbabwe. Which is a economic disaster. What about if we give them access to ownership of a good quality commercial asset that's earning a passive income? That is how you'll grow your wealth. And then add to that, Cape Town nearly became the first city, and it still could be the first city, that literally runs out of water. So why don't you go build a decent ionization plant in Cape Town with government money, allow people that you would give land to actually access to that asset and allow them to have the ownership? And that's sort of the concept, where you just think about it completely different. And you allow technology to actually give people what they want, which is wealth and prosperity for their family, and not just a farm in the middle of nowhere. >> And you're really addressing, I think, the incentive system combined with structural change. You talk about gamification earlier, this is kind of the dynamic. How important from an education standpoint, meaning educating stakeholders, old guard or existing governments, because you have this organic groundswell coming up of young people, people with vision that are older and more experienced like us, what's the formula, how do you get this ball rolling? >> So it's quite interesting, I get asked this question all the time and for us, in the first world, a lot of what we're talking about is it nice to have? It's sort of a bit of a game and if I can participate, but where I come from in the emerging world, it's a necessity. There are no other solutions. So if you live in South Africa or China or India and you want to get your money into a first world country like England, Australia, or America, it's very very difficult and virtually no one can do it. But it's a major problem, because you want world preservation, you want your Plan B, you want your children to be able to go to a first world university, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And so to answer your question, I think the way it will get solved is in communities where it's not a nice to have, it's a necessity. In terms of educating the old guard, I believe that what happens is you get groundswell, like literally when people really need a solution solved, they persuade governments and regulators to change and it's interesting, coming back to how we started the conversation, that's why smaller countries are often the ones to adopt the regulated new change and, more importantly, countries in emerging markets, whereas first world countries are trying to protect what they have and, unfortunately, the new world is about capital. And its capital flows. >> It's a choice between playing offense or defense, really in my mind it's a sports metaphor, whatever sport you like you know. We love the sports analogies. But this is what UK's doing, they're playing offense. And I think you're seeing other countries wanting to restructure themselves as digital nations because that's what the young people are expecting. So with that in mind, you have a global fabric here at this event, and it's just a microcosm of what we're seeing, which is outside the US, call it the little US bubble that we're living in, Silicon Valley, that's one case I'm wary of, but the growth outside the United States and even in Asia and south of the border, if you will, south of the equator, there's a ton of global action. What is, in your opinion, the few global things that are going on, that people should know about when it comes to how money's flowing and what they can do to take advantage of the trend rather than trying to hold it back. What do we do, is it get into the current? Ride the wave? What should people understand about the new global dynamic? >> So the first thing I would say is, I always laugh at this, but people don't understand how much innovation's going on in China. Like, go and understand WeChat to start off with. It is phenomenal, what is happening. The second thing for me is the global capital flows. When you consider how much capital is moving from the emerging world into the first world, primarily in real estate at the moment. And that's just the top 1% of the top 1%, you know, that's the people with 10, a hundred million dollars. But I've already said to you, there's 1.2 billion people coming into the emerging markets. In the middle class, they're going to want the same things. And so those capital flows are going to be going cross border. I also believe, with time, capital flows will be going from the first world into the emerging world in a safe way but wanting higher returns. >> So then the emerging world, the US has a shrinking middle class, but yet the emerging world has a growing middle class. That's going to attract new entrants. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Well, take into account China. Has China had a big impact on the global economy in the last 20 years? Yes or no? >> Yes. >> How many people are in the middle class in China? Plus or minus? >> Don't know. >> I've heard different reports from 200 million to 400 million, but whether it's 200 or 400-- >> It's more than it was 10 years ago. >> I know, but think about the impact that's had on the global economy. I'm not saying that this is 1.2 billion in the next 10 years, it's either a factor of five to eight, depending on which way you want to look at it. >> How much money, in your guesstimation, if you had to throw a dart at the board, order of magnitude, is flowing out of China with crypto into other assets? >> In the crypto space that's fascinating, because a lot of it is hard to tell, actually. In real estate last year alone, it was just short of 30 billion dollars went into commercial real estate from China. Now what's interesting is that a lot of that money is sort of gray, like no one actually knows where it's coming from, which is why China tightened it up so much. It's also why they tightened up the crypto side of things. Because a lot of people want to get their money out of the country and into first world economies, and that's why, in the emerging world, cryptocurrencies have been embraced more, actually, than in the first world. >> John: It's a faster way to move that money. >> Coming back to necessity. So in South Africa, in Zimbabwe, in China you pay more for Bitcoin than you do in America or Europe. I don't know if you know that. >> John: No, I don't know that. >> And by quite a lot. Like in Zimbabwe you pay nearly double. So a lot of people are making money by overcharging coins. They buy them in Europe, they sell them in South Africa, they sell them in Zimbabwe, they sell them in Nigeria. >> So the demand to move the money out of country is very high. >> Well, because they've got capital controls. So they have currency controls. So you're only allowed to move a certain amount of capital out of the country legally. So what happens now, you buy cryptocurrency and you can effectively invest in assets around the world. And you literally started off this conversation, right in the beginning, there's a democratization in terms of capital flows and what's happening, and people are going to put their capital where they want to. And governments, I believe, are not going to be able to control it by putting up controls, they're going to have to make their countries attractive so that the capital's flowing into the country, not out of the country. >> So what's your take on big multinational corporations that have capital structures, have equity positions, and it could be also growing venture-backed or private equity-based companies, they have capital structures, they have equity investors, in some case public, and privates, and unicorn valleys or whatnot, now moving to look at utility tokens as a way to get to a global gamification. So you have multiple securities, a utility, and in some cases a security token a real security. That seems to be a dynamic, are you seeing that on a global scale, are you seeing any activity there, we're seeing a little bit of movement around big companies trying to figure out how to play in crypto. >> From my experience, not a huge amount. I think that most people, they have a board, it's all around reputation, they got to meet the lawyers, the lawyers tell them, you're going to get crucified. And so from my experience, not a huge amount, it tends to be the small to medium enterprises that are prepared to go out and look at it. However, I will say from our personal business perspective, we built our entire company on a community. We've got shareholders all over the world and so for me, when it came to the crypto and the ICO market, that was just doing that more aggressively, effectively, and community-based companies are the future. So whether you're a Fortune 500 company or a start up, it's all about building the community, and I believe that whether it's utility token or security or a combination of the two, it provides an incredible vehicle to ultimately be the catalyst to a community. And if you're the catalyst to a community adding value, then you're going to build a company of value. >> And capture that value. So, Scott, I got to ask you about Wealth Migrate. Talk about your platform. First of all, thank you for sharing your perspective here on theCUBE. It's been fantastic to get that data out. What's your company about? Take a minute to explain what you guys are doing, your value proposition, state of the company, are you doing an ICO, have you had an ICO, what's the status of the company? >> So from Wealth Migrate's perspective, the platform went live in October, 2013, so we're a little over four years in now. We've effectively got members from 111 countries around the world and we've raised just short of 70 million dollars. All though the platform, all on Blockchain. We've facilitated real estate deals of over 485 million dollars and what I'm proudest of, actually, is that we've got a higher than 70% reinvestment rate. What we're doing is we're allowing the 99% to invest like the 1%, our minimum investment at the moment is $1,000, we're beta testing $100, and my dream is to get it to $1. You asked a little bit about the ICO. We built our platform on Blockchain not because of an ICO. Our number one challenge was trust. And ultimately Blockchain enabled us to solve the trust problem. The second thing for us is that my dream is to get it to $1 per person per investment. I want to solve the wealth gap. And I truly believe we can do it when we can allow anyone anywhere to invest in good quality assets. I can't do it with the current system, there's too many friction costs. With crypto and volume I can. >> Whether it's semantics, or education and/or hurdle rate on dollars, it's an interesting concept. You want to make the 99% invest like the 1%. Explain what that means, take a minute to explain that concept. I mean, some people are like, "Okay, I know what "the 1% is, there was a movement about that." So now you're talking about something pretty radical and interesting. What does that actually mean? I mean, empowering people to make more money? Unpack that concept. >> So let me ask you a question. Do you personally own a medical building? >> Do I own what? >> A medical building. >> No. >> Like a hospital, medical building. >> No. >> So it's 2009, I'm in Bondi Beach, Sydney and I meet two US dollar billionaires. I had helped about two and a half thousand people buy houses and apartments in England, Australia, America, and South Africa. And I sat with them and I said, "What are you investing in?" And they said, "Medical buildings." I said, "Why medical buildings?" And they said, "Well think about it. "No matter what happens in the global economy, "people need doctors." I was like, that makes sense. Secondly, they said, "Doctors never move." I was like, that makes sense. Thirdly, doctors are very good at being doctors, but they're not accountants. And so they sign long term, good, favorable leases. Now from a property perspective, real estate perspective, that's a no brainer. And I said to them, "How do I participate?" And they said it's really simple. It's for friends and family, there's eight people only, it's five million Australian dollars each. I was like, now there's the problem. That company today is over 700 million dollars, it's on the Australian Stock Exchange, and it's what I call financial exclusion. You and me don't own medical buildings. Since October 2013, we've enabled people to invest in medical buildings from $1,000. So the top 1% get wealthy by investing in better assets than the 99%. >> John: Because they have access. >> Because they've got access. >> John: And the cash. >> And the cash. But we've dropped the barriers to entry. Because you and I can participate now from $1,000 and I will get it to $1. >> So it's a combination of leveraging the asset based securitization with that opportunity by using a crowdsourcing kind of model, is that what you're thinking? >> So, effectively, and I'd suggest-- >> John: I'm oversimplifying it. >> No, no, 100%, I'd suggest everyone goes and looks up the term collaborative investing which is ultimately, it's a thing that's been going on for decades by very wealthy people on how to successfully invest. We've taken that but we've added a smart component. And why that's important is because in the past you needed 10, 50 million dollars to do collaborative investing, now you can do collaborative investing with $1,000. >> Yeah and what's beautiful is that you understand potentially whose reputation you're working with, you can move in herds, network effect kicks in, that's awesome. >> What gives me the greatest pleasure, I mean, children, my son is six years old, he's already investing. You know, most kids are playing Monopoly, he's playing real Monopoly, and so are adults. And what gives me the most pleasure and pride ever, and what I'm grateful for, is that we're changing people's lives. >> People talk about how to solve the welfare system, all kinds of things, you make people own something, or try to own something or trade, whether they make money or lose money, you learn from it, you're better for it. Here, you're providing a great service by opening the door, lowering the barriers to entry, to potentially wealth creation. >> Dude, I call it freedom. At the end of the day, if you're where you want to live, where you want to send your kids to school, how you want to retire, whether you want to donate to the church or whatever, I don't really care what you want, but I want you to have the freedom to be able to do it. And wealthy people get that freedom by investing in quality assets. And we're just allowing them to do that now. >> And the democratization is multiful, in this case you're creating a new economy model so the whole freedom, democracy aspect is in play. >> Well, I mean if you think about it, when you get into $1 per person, $1 will not change your life. But if you change your habits, you'll change your financial destiny. And so my philosophy is get it to $1, so that every single person can participate. And once you start to learn good habits around money and wealth, the rest just, it's a formula. >> It's a flywheel. Kickstand. Scott Picken, who's the founder and CEO of Wealth Migrate Platform from South Africa, formerly of Zimbabwe we learned today, great sharing the global perspective. Thanks for coming on theCUBE. Exclusive coverage from Puerto Rico, this is theCUBE, I'm John Furrier getting the signal here out of all the noise in the market, this is what we do, this is theCUBE's mission, to bring you the best content, best story from the best people, more coverage here in Puerto Rico. Day one of two days of coverage. After this short break, thanks for watching.