(bright upbeat music) >> Welcome back, everybody, to the Supercloud 2. My name is Dave Vellante. And I'm pleased to welcome Nir Zuk. He's the founder and CTO of Palo Alto Networks. Nir, good to see you again. Welcome. >> Same here. Good to see you. >> So let's start with the right security architecture in the context of today's fragmented market. You've got a lot of different tools, you've got different locations, on-prem, you've got hardware and software. Tell us about the right security architecture from your standpoint. What's that look like? >> You know, the funny thing is using the word security in architecture rarely works together. (Dave chuckles) If you ask a typical information security person to step up to a whiteboard and draw their security architecture, they will look at you as if you fell from the moon. I mean, haven't you been here in the last 25 years? There's no security architecture. The architecture today is just buying a bunch of products and dropping them into the infrastructure at some relatively random way without really any guiding architecture. And that's a huge challenge in cybersecurity. It's always been, we've always tried to find ways to put an architecture into writing blueprints, whatever you want to call it, and it's always been difficult. Luckily, two things. First, there's something called zero trust, which we can talk a little bit about more, if you want, and zero trust among other things is really a way to create a security architecture, and second, because in the cloud, in the supercloud, we're starting from scratch, we can do things differently. We don't have to follow the way we've always done cybersecurity, again, buying random products, okay, maybe not random, maybe there is some thinking going into it by buying products, one of the other, dropping them in, and doing it over 20 years and ending up with a mess in the cloud, we have an opportunity to do it differently and really have an architecture. >> You know, I love talking to founders and particularly technical founders from StartupNation. I think I saw an article, I think it was Erie Levine, one of the founders or co-founders of Waze, and he had a t-shirt on, it said, "Fall in love with the problem, not the solution." Is that how you approached architecture? You talk about zero trust, it's a relatively new term, but was that in your head when you thought about forming the company? >> Yeah, so when I started Palo Alto Networks, exactly, by the way, 17 years ago, we got funded January, 2006, January 18th, 2006. The idea behind Palo Alto Networks was to create a security platform and over time take more and more cybersecurity functions and deliver them on top of that platform, by the way, as a service, SaaS. Everybody thought we were crazy trying to combine many functions into one platform, best of breed and defense in death and putting all your eggs in the same basket and a bunch of other slogans were flying around, and also everybody thought we were crazy asking customers to send information to the cloud in order to secure themselves. Of course, step forward 17 years, everything is now different. We changed the market. Almost all of cybersecurity today is delivered as SaaS and platforms are ruling more and more the world. And so again, the idea behind the platform was to over time take more and more cybersecurity functions and deliver them together, one brain, one decision being made for each and every packet or system call or file or whatever it is that you're making the decision about and it works really, really well. As a side effect, when you combine that with zero trust and you end up with, let's not call it an architecture yet. You end up with with something where any user, any location, both geographically as well as any location in terms of branch office, headquarters, home, coffee shop, hotel, whatever, so any user, any geographical location, any location, any connectivity method, whether it is SD1 or IPsec or Client VPN or Client SVPN or proxy or browser isolation or whatever and any application deployed anywhere, public cloud, private cloud, traditional data center, SaaS, you secure the same way. That's really zero trust, right? You secure everything, no matter who the user is, no matter where they are, no matter where they go, you secure them exactly the same way. You don't make any assumptions about the user or the application or the location or whatever, just because you trust nothing. And as a side effect, when you do that, you end up with a security architecture, the security architecture I just described. The same thing is true for securing applications. If you try to really think and not just act instinctively the way we usually do in cybersecurity and you say, I'm going to secure my traditional data center applications or private cloud applications and public cloud applications and my SaaS applications the same way, I'm not going to trust something just because it's deployed in the private data center. I'm not going to trust two components of an application or two applications talking to each other just because they're deployed in the same place versus if one component is deployed in one public cloud and the other component is deployed in another public cloud or private cloud or whatever. I'm going to secure all of them the same way without making any trust assumptions. You end up with an architecture for securing your applications, which is applicable for the supercloud. >> It was very interesting. There's a debate I want to pick up on what you said because you said don't call it an architecture yet. So Bob Muglia, I dunno if you know Bob, but he sort of started the debate, said, "Supercloud, think of it as a platform, not an architecture." And there are others that are saying, "No, no, if we do that, then we're going to have a bunch of more stove pipes. So there needs to be standard, almost a purist view. There needs to be a supercloud architecture." So how do you think about it? And it's a bit academic, I know, but do you think of this idea of a supercloud, this layer of value on top of the hyperscalers, do you think of that as a platform approach that each of the individual vendors are responsible for the architecture? Or is there some kind of overriding architecture of standards that needs to emerge to enable the supercloud? >> So we can talk academically or we can talk practically. >> Yeah, let's talk practically. That's who you are. (Dave laughs) >> Practically, this world is ruled by financial interests and none of the public cloud providers, especially the bigger they are has any interest of making it easy for anyone to go multi-cloud, okay? Also, on top of that, if we want to be even more practical, each of those large cloud providers, cloud scale providers have engineers and all these engineers think they're the best in the world, which they are and they all like to do things differently. So you can't expect things in AWS and in Azure and GCP and in the other clouds like Oracle and Ali and so on to be the same. They're not going to be the same. And some things can be abstracted. Maybe cloud storage or bucket storage can be abstracted with the layer that makes them look the same no matter where you're running. And some things cannot be abstracted and unfortunately will not be abstracted because the economical interest and the way engineers work won't let it happen. We as a third party provider, cybersecurity provider, and I'm sure other providers in other areas as well are trying or we're doing our best. We're not trying, we are doing our best, and it's pretty close to being the way you describe the top of your supercloud. We're building something that abstracts the underlying cloud such that securing each of these clouds, and by the way, I would add private cloud to it as well, looks exactly the same. So we use, almost always, whenever possible, the same terminology, no matter which cloud we're securing and the same policy and the same alerts and the same information and so on. And that's also very important because when you look at the people that actually end up using the product, security engineers and more importantly, SOC, security operations center analysts, they're not going to study the details of each and every cloud. It's just going to be too much. So we need to abstract it for them. >> Yeah, we agree by the way that the supercloud definition is inclusive of on-prem, you know, what you call private cloud. And I want to pick up on something else you said. I think you're right that abstracting and making consistent across clouds something like object storage, get put, you know, whether it's an S3 bucket or an Azure Blob, relatively speaking trivial. When you now bring that supercloud concept to something more complex like security, first of all, as a technically feasible and inferring the answer there is yes, and if so, what do you see as the main technical challenges of doing so? >> So it is feasible to the extent that the different cloud provide the same functionality. Then you step into a territory where different cloud providers have different paths services and different cloud providers do things a little bit differently and they have different sets of permissions and different logging that sometimes provides all the information and sometimes it doesn't. So you end up with some differences. And then the question is, do you abstract the lowest common dominator and that's all you support? Or do you find a way to be smarter than that? And yeah, whatever can be abstracted is abstracted and whatever cannot be abstracted, you find an easy way to represent that to your users, security engineers, security analysts, and so on, which is what I believe we do. >> And you do that by what? Inventing or developing technology that presents that experience to users? Could you be more specific there? >> Yeah, so different cloud providers call their storage in different names and you use different ways to configure them and the logs come out the same. So we normalize it. I mean, the keyword is probably normalization. Normalize it. And we try to, you know, then you have to pick a winner here and to use someone's terminology or you need to invent new terminology. So we try to use the terminology of the largest cloud provider so that we have a better chance of doing that but we can't always do that because they don't support everything that other cloud providers provide, but the important thing is, with or thanks to that normalization, our customers both on the engineering side and on the user side, operations side end up having to learn one terminology in order to set policies and understand attacks and investigate incidents. >> I wonder if I could pick your brain on what you see as the ideal deployment model to achieve this supercloud experience. For example, do you think instantiating your stack in multiple regions and multiple clouds is the right way to do it? Or is building a single global instance on top of the clouds a more preferable way? Are maybe other models we should consider? What do you see as the trade off of these different deployment models and which one is ideal in your view? >> Yeah, so first, when you deploy cloud security, you have to decide whether you're going to use agents or not. By agents, I mean something working, something running inside the workload. Inside a virtual machine on the container host attached to function, serverless function and so on and I, of course, recommend using agents because that enables prevention, it enables functionality you cannot get without agents but you have to choose that. Now, of course, if you choose agent, you need to deploy AWS agents in AWS and GCP agents in GCP and Azure agents in Azure and so on. Of course, you don't do it manually. You do it through the CICD pipeline. And then the second thing that you need to do is you need to connect with the consoles. Of course, that can be done over the internet no matter where your security instances is running. You can run it on premise, you can run it in one of the other different clouds. Of course, we don't run it on premise. We prefer not to run it on premise because if you're secured in cloud, you might as well run in the cloud. And then the question is, for example, do you run a separate instance for AWS for GCP or for Azure, or you want to run one instance for all of them in one of these clouds? And there are advantages and disadvantages. I think that from a security perspective, it's always better to run in one place because then when you collect the information, you get information from all the clouds and you can start looking for cross-cloud issues, incidents, attacks, and so on. The downside of that is that you need to send all the information to one of the clouds and you probably know that sending data out of the cloud costs a lot of money versus keeping it in the cloud. So theoretically, you can build an architecture where you keep the data for AWS in AWS, Azure in Azure, GCP in GCP, and then you try to run distributed queries. When you do that, you find out you'd end up paying more for the compute to do that than you would've paid for sending all the data to a central location. So we prefer the approach of running in one place, bringing all the data there, and running all the security, the machine learning or whatever, the rules or whatever it is that you're running in one place versus trying to create a distributed deployment in order to try to save some money on the data, the network data transfers. >> Yeah, thank you for that. That makes a lot of sense. And so basically, should we think about the next layer building security data lake, if you will, and then running machine learning on top of that if I can use that term of a data lake or a lake house? Is that sort of where you're headed? >> Yeah, look, the world is headed in that direction, not just the cybersecurity world. The world is headed from being rule-based to being data-based. So cybersecurity is not different and what we used to do with rules in the past, we're now doing with machine learning. So in the past, you would define rules saying, if you see this, this, and this, it's an attack. Now you just throw the data at the machine, I mean, I'm simplifying it, but you throw data at a machine. You'll tell the machine, find the attack in the data. It's not that simple. You need to build the right machine learning models. It needs to be done by people that are both cybersecurity experts and machine learning experts. We do it mostly with ex-military offensive people that take their offensive knowledge and translate it into machine learning models. But look, the world is moving in that direction and cybersecurity is moving in that direction as well. You need to collect a lot of data. Like I said, I prefer to see all the data in one place so that the machine learning can be much more efficient, pay for transferring the data, save money on the compute. >> I think the drop the mic quote it ignite that you had was within five years, your security operation is going to be AI-powered. And so you could probably apply that to virtually any job over the next five years. >> I don't know if any job. Certainly writing essays for school is automated already as we've seen with ChatGPT and potentially other things. By the way, we need to talk at some point about ChatGPT security. I don't want to think what happens when someone spends a lot of money on creating a lot of fake content and teaches ChatGPT the wrong answer to a question. We start seeing ChatGPT as the oracle of everything. We need to figure out what to do with the security of that. But yeah, things have to be automated in cybersecurity. They have to be automated. They're just too much data to deal with and it's just not even close to being good enough to wait for an incident to happen and then going investigate the incident based on the data that we have. It's better to look at all the data all the time, millions of events per second, and find those incidents before they happen. There's no way to do that without machine learning. >> I'd love to have you back and talk about ChatGPT. I know they're trying to put in some guardrails but there are a lot of unintended consequences, aren't there? >> Look, if they're not going to have a person filtering the data, then with enough money, you can create thousands or tens of thousands of pieces of articles or whatever that look real and teach the machine something that is totally wrong. >> We were talking about the hyper skills before and I agree with you. It's very unlikely they're going to get together, band together, and create these standards. But it's not a static market. It's a moving train, if you will. So assuming you're building this cross cloud experience which you are, what do you want from the hyperscalers? What do you want them to bring to the table? What is a technology supplier like Palo Alto Networks bring? In other words, where do you see ongoing as your unique value add and that moat that you're building and how will that evolve over time vis-a-vis the hyperscaler evolution? >> Yeah, look, we need APIs. The more data we have, the more access we have to more data, the less restricted the access is and the cheaper the access is to the data because someone has to pay today for some reason for accessing that data, the more secure their customers are going to be. So we need help and are helping by the way a lot, all of them in finding easy ways for customers to deploy things in the cloud, access data, and again, a lot of data, very diversified data and do it in a cost-effective way. >> And when we talk about the edge, I presume you look at the edge as just another data center or maybe it's the reverse. Maybe the data center is just another edge location, but you're seeing specific edge security solutions come out. I'm guessing that you would say, that's not what we want. Edge should be part of that architecture that we talked about earlier. Do you agree? >> Correct, it should be part of the architecture. I would also say that the edge provides an opportunity specifically for network security, whereas traditional network security would be deployed on premise. I'm talking about internet security but half network security market, and not just network security but also the other network intelligent functions like routing and QS. We're seeing a trend of pushing those to the edge of the cloud. So what you deploy on premise is technology for bringing packets to the edge of the cloud and then you run your security at the edge, whatever that edge is, whether it's a private edge or public edge, you run it in the edge. It's called SASE, Secure Access Services Edge, pronounced SASE. >> Nir, I got to thank you so much. You're such a clear thinker. I really appreciate you participating in Supercloud 2. >> Thank you. >> All right, keep it right there for more content covering the future of cloud and data. This is Dave Vellante for John Furrier. I'll be right back. (bright upbeat music)

>> Presenter: theCUBE presents Ignite '22, brought to you by Palo Alto Networks. >> Hey guys and girls. Welcome back to theCube's live coverage at Palo Alto Ignite '22. We're live at the MGM Grand Hotel in beautiful Las Vegas. Lisa Martin here with Dave Vellante. This is day one of our coverage. We've been talking with execs from Palo Alto, Partners, but one of our most exciting things is talking with Founders day. We get to do that next. >> The thing is, it's like I wrote this weekend in my breaking analysis. Understanding the problem in cybersecurity is really easy, but figuring out how to fix it ain't so much. >> It definitely isn't. >> So I'm excited to have Nir here. >> Very excited. Nir Zuk joins us, the founder and CTO of Palo Alto Networks. Welcome, Nir. Great to have you on the program. >> Thank you. >> So Palo Alto Networks, you founded it back in 2005. It's hard to believe that's been 18 years, almost. You did something different, which I want to get into. But tell us, what was it back then? Why did you found this company? >> I thought the world needed another cybersecurity company. I thought it's because there were so many cybersecurity vendors in the world, and just didn't make any sense. This industry has evolved in a very weird way, where every time there was a new challenge, rather than existing vendors dealing with a challenge, you had new vendors dealing with it, and I thought I could put a stop to it, and I think I did. >> You did something differently back in 2005, looking at where you are now, the leader, what was different in your mind back then? >> Yeah. When you found a new company, you have really two good options. There's also a bad option, but we'll skip that. You can either disrupt an existing market, or you can create a new market. So first, I decided to disrupt an existing market, go into an existing market first, network security, then cyber security, and change it. Change the way it works. And like I said, the challenges that every problem had a new vendor, and nobody just stepped back and said, "I think I can solve it with the platform." Meaning, I think I can spend some time not solving a specific problem, but building a platform that then can be used to solve many different problems. And that's what I've done, and that's what Palo Alto Networks has done, and that's where we are today. >> So you look back, you call it now, I think you call it a next gen firewall, but nothing in 2005, can it be next gen? Do you know the Silicon Valley Show? Do you know the show Silicon Valley? >> Oh! Yeah. >> Yeah, of course. >> You got to have a box. But it was a different kind of box- >> Actually. >> Explain that. >> Actually, it's exactly the same thing. You got to have a box. So I actually wanted to call it a necessary evil. Marketing wouldn't go for that. >> No. >> And the reason I wanted to call it a necessary evil, because one of the things that we've done in order to platform our cyber security, again, first network security now, also cloud security, and security operations, is to turn it into a SaaS delivered industry. Today every cyber security professional knows that, when they buy cyber security, they buy usually a SaaS delivered service. Back then, people thought I was crazy to think that customers are going to send their data to their vendor in order to process, and they wanted everything on premise and so on, but I said, "No, customers are going to send information to us for processing, because we have much more processing power than they have." And we needed something in the infrastructure to send us the information. So that's why I wanted to call it the necessary evil. We ended up calling it next generation firewall, which was probably a better term. >> Well, even Veritas. Remember Veritas? They had the no hardware agenda. Even they have a box. So it is like you say, you got to have it. >> It's necessary. >> Okay. You did this, you started this on your own cloud, kind of like Salesforce, ServiceNow. >> Correct. >> Similar now- >> Build your own data centers. >> Build your own data center. Okay, I call it a cloud, but no. >> No, it's the same. There's no cloud, it's just someone else's computer. >> According to Larry Ellison, he was actually probably right about that. But over time, you've had this closer partnership with the public clouds. >> Correct. >> What does that bring you and your customers, and how hard was that to navigate? >> It wasn't that hard for us, because we didn't have that many services. Usually it's harder. Of course, we didn't do a lift and shift, which is their own thing to do with the cloud. We rebuild things for the cloud, and the benefits, of course, are time to market, scale, agility, and in some cases also, cost. >> Yeah, some cases. >> In some cases. >> So you have a sort of a hybrid model today. You still run your own data centers, do you not? >> Very few. >> Really? >> There are very, very few things that we have to do on hardware, like simulating malware and things that cannot be done in a virtual machine, which is pretty much the only option you have in the cloud. They provide bare metal, but doesn't serve our needs. I think that we don't view cloud, and your viewers should not be viewing cloud, as a place where they're going to save money. It's a place where they're going to make money. >> I like that. >> You make much more money, because you're more agile. >> And that's why this conversation is all about, your cost of goods sold they're going to be so high, you're going to have to come back to your own data centers. That's not on your mind right now. What's on your mind is advancing the unit, right? >> Look, my own data center would limit me in scale, would limit my agility. If you want to build something new, you don't have all the PaaS services, the platform as a service, services like database, and AI, and so on. I have to build them myself. It takes time. So yeah, it's going to be cheaper, but I'm not going to be delivering the same thing. So my revenues will be much lower. >> Less top line. What can humans do better than machines? You were talking about your keynote... I'm just going to chat a little bit. You were talking about your keynote. Basically, if you guys didn't see the keynote, that AI is going to run every soc within five years, that was a great prediction that you made. >> Correct. >> And they're going to do things that you can't do today, and then in the future, they're going to do things that you can't... Better than you can do. >> And you just have to be comfortable with that. >> So what do you think humans can do today and in the future better than machines? >> Look, humans can always do better than machines. The human mind can do things that machines cannot do. We are conscious, I don't think machines will be conscious. And you can do things... My point was not that machines can do things that humans cannot do. They can just do it better. The things that humans do today, machines can do better, once machines do that, humans will be free to do things that they don't do today, that machines cannot do. >> Like what? >> Like finding the most difficult, most covert attacks, dealing with the most difficult incidents, things that machines just can't do. Just that today, humans are consumed by finding attacks that machines can find, by dealing with incidents that machines can deal with. It's a waste of time. We leave it to the machines and go and focus on the most difficult problems, and then have the machines learn from you, so that next time or a hundred or a thousand times from now, they can do it themselves, and you focus on the even more difficult. >> Yeah, just like after 9/11, they said that we lack the creativity. That's what humans have, that machines don't, at least today. >> Machines don't. Yeah, look, every airplane has two pilots, even though airplanes have been flying themselves for 30 years now, why do you have two pilots, to do the things that machines cannot do? Like land on the Hudson, right? You always need humans to do the things that machines cannot do. But to leave the things that machines can do to the machines, they'll do it better. >> And autonomous vehicles need breaks. (indistinct) >> In your customer conversations, are customers really grappling with that, are they going, "Yeah, you're right?" >> It depends. It's hard for customers to let go of old habits. First, the habit of buying a hundred different solutions from a hundred different vendors, and you know what? Why would I trust one vendor to do everything, put all my eggs in the same basket? They have all kind of slogans as to why not to do that, even though it's been proven again and again that, doing everything in one system with one brain, versus a hundred systems with a hundred brains, work much better. So that's one thing. The second thing is, we always have the same issue that we've had, I think, since the industrial revolution, of what machines are going to take away my job. No, they're just going to make your job better. So I think that some of our customers are also grappling with that, like, "What do I do if the machines take over?" And of course, like we've said, the machines aren't taking over. They're going to do the benign work, you're going to do the interesting work. You should embrace it. >> When I think about your history as a technology pro, from Check Point, a couple of startups, one of the things that always frustrated you, is when when a larger company bought you out, you ended up getting sucked into the bureaucratic vortex. How do you avoid that at Palo Alto Networks? >> So first, you mean when we acquire company? >> Yes. >> The first thing is that, when we acquire companies, we always acquire for integration. Meaning, we don't just buy something and then leave it on the side, and try to sell it here and there. We integrate it into the core of our products. So that's very important, so that the technology lives, thrives and continues to grow as part of our bigger platform. And I think that the second thing that is very important, from past experience what we've learned, is to put the people that we acquire in key positions. Meaning, you don't buy a company and then put the leader of that company five levels below the CEO. You always put them in very senior positions. Almost always, we have the leaders of the companies that we acquire, be two levels below the CEO, so very senior in the company, so they can influence and make changes. >> So two questions related to that. One is, as you grow your team, can you be both integrated? And second part of the question, can you be both integrated and best of breed? Second part of the question is, do you even have to be? >> So I'll answer it in the third way, which is, I don't think you can be best of breed without being integrated in cybersecurity. And the reason is, again, this split brain that I've mentioned twice. When you have different products do a part of cybersecurity and they don't talk to each other, and they don't share a single brain, you always compromise. You start looking for things the wrong way. I can be a little bit technical here, but please. Take the example of, traditionally you would buy an IDS/IPS, separately from your filtering, separately from DNS security. One of the most important things we do in network security is to find combining control connections. Combining control connections where the adversaries controlling something behind your firewall and is now going around your network, is usually the key heel of the attack. That's why attacks like ransomware, that don't have a commanding control connection, are so difficult to deal with, by the way. So commanding control connections are a key seal of the attacks, and there are three different technologies that deal with it. Neural filtering for neural based commanding control, DNS security for DNS based commanding control, and IDS/IPS for general commanding control. If those are three different products, they'll be doing the wrong things. The oral filter will try to find things that it's not really good at, that the IPS really need to find, and the DN... It doesn't work. It works much better when it's one product doing everything. So I think the choice is not between best of breed and integrated. I think the only choice is integrated, because that's the only way to be best of breed. >> And behind that technology is some kind of realtime data store, I'll call it data lake, database. >> Yeah. >> Whatever. >> It's all driven by the same data. All the URLs, all the domain graph. Everything goes to one big data lake. We collect about... I think we collect about, a few petabytes per day. I don't write the exact number of data. It's all going to the same data lake, and all the intelligence is driven by that. >> So you mentioned in a cheeky comment about, why you founded the company, there weren't enough cybersecurity companies. >> Yeah. >> Clearly the term expansion strategy that Palo Alto Networks has done has been very successful. You've been, as you talked about, very focused on integration, not just from the technology perspective, but from the people perspective as well. >> Correct. >> So why are there still so many cybersecurity companies, and what are you thinking Palo Alto Networks can do to change that? >> So first, I think that there are a lot of cybersecurity companies out there, because there's a lot of money going into cybersecurity. If you look at the number of companies that have been really successful, it's a very small percentage of those cybersecurity companies. And also look, we're not going to be responsible for all the innovation in cybersecurity. We need other people to innovate. It's also... Look, always the question is, "Do you buy something or do you build it yourself?" Now we think we're the smartest people in the world. Of course, we can build everything, but it's not always true that we can build everything. Know that we're the smartest people in the world, for sure. You see, when you are a startup, you live and die by the thing that you build. Meaning if it's good, it works. If it's not good, you die. You run out of money, you shut down, and you just lost four years of your life to this, at least. >> At least. >> When you're a large company, yeah, I can go and find a hundred engineers and hire them. And especially nowadays, it becomes easier, as it became easier, and give them money, and have them go and build the same thing that the startup is building, but they're part of a bigger company, and they'll have more coffee breaks, and they'll be less incentive to go and do that, because the company will survive with or without them. So that's why startups can do things much better, sometimes than larger companies. We can do things better than startups, when it comes to being data driven because we have the data, and nobody can compete against the amount of data that we have. So we have a good combination of finding the right startups that have already built something, already proven that it works with some customers, and of course, building a lot of things internally that we cannot do outside. >> I heard you say in one of the, I dunno, dozens of videos I've listened to you talked to. The industry doesn't need or doesn't want another IoT stovepipe. Okay, I agree. So you got on-prem, AWS, Azure, Google, maybe Alibaba, IoT is going to be all over the place. So can you build, I call it the security super cloud, in other words, a consistent experience with the same policies and edicts across all my estates, irrespective of physical location? Is that technically feasible? Is it what you are trying to do? >> Certainly, what we're trying to do with Prisma Cloud, with our cloud security product, it works across all the clouds that you mentioned, and Oracle as well. It's almost entirely possible. >> Almost. >> Almost. Well, the things that... What you do is you normalize the language that the different cloud scale providers use, into one language. This cloud calls it a S3, and so, AWS calls it S3, and (indistinct) calls it GCS, and so on. So you normalize their terminology, and then build policy using a common terminology that your customers have to get used to. Of course, there are things that are different between the different cloud providers that cannot be normalized, and there, it has to be cloud specific. >> In that instance. So is that, in part, your strategy, is to actually build that? >> Of course. >> And does that necessitate running on all the major clouds? >> Of course. It's not just part of our strategy, it's a major part of our strategy. >> Compulsory. >> Look, as a standalone vendor that is not a cloud provider, we have two advantages. The first one is we're security product, security focused. So we can do much better than them when it comes to security. If you are a AWS, GCP, Azure, and so on, you're not going to put your best people on security, you're going to put them on the core business that you have. So we can do much better. Hey, that's interesting. >> Well, that's not how they talk. >> I don't care how they talk. >> Now that's interesting. >> When something is 4% of your business, you're not going to put it... You're not going to put your best people there. It's just, why would you? You put your best people on 96%. >> That's not driving their revenue. >> Look, it's simple. It's not what we- >> With all due respect. With all due respect. >> So I think we do security much better than them, and they become the good enough, and we become the premium. But certainly, the second thing that give us an advantage and the right to be a standalone security provider, is that we're multicloud, private cloud and all the major cloud providers. >> But they also have a different role. I mean, your role is not the security, the Nitro card or the Graviton chip, or is it? >> They are responsible for securing up to the operating system. We secure everything. >> They do a pretty good job of that. >> No, they do, certainly they have to. If they get bridged at that level, it's not just that one customer is going to suffer, the entire customer base. They have to spend a lot of time and money on it, and frankly, that's where they put their best security people. Securing the infrastructure, not building some cloud security feature. >> Absolutely. >> So Palo Alto Networks is, as we wrap here, on track to nearly double its revenues to nearly seven billion in FY '23, just compared to 2020, you were quoted in the press by saying, "We will be the first $100 billion cyber company." What is next for Palo Alto to achieve that? >> Yeah, so it was Nikesh, our CEO and chairman, that was quoted saying that, "We will double to a hundred billion." I don't think he gave it a timeframe, but what it takes is to double the sales, right? We're at 50 billion market cap right now, so we need to double sales. But in reality, you mentioned that we're growing the turn by doing more and more cybersecurity functions, and taking away pieces. Still, we have a relatively small, even though we're the largest cybersecurity vendor in the world, we have a very low market share that shows you how fragmented the market is. I would also like to point out something that is less known. Part of what we do with AI, is really take the part of the cybersecurity industry, which are service oriented, and that's about 50% of the cybersecurity industry services, and turn it into products. I mean, not all of it. But a good portion of what's provided today by people, and tens of billions of dollars are spent on that, can be done with products. And being one of the very, very few vendors that do that, I think we have a huge opportunity at turning those tens of billions of dollars in human services to AI. >> It's always been a good business taking human labor and translating into R and D, vendor R and D. >> Especially- >> It never fails if you do it well. >> Especially in difficult times, difficult economical times like we are probably experiencing right now around the world. We, not we, but we the world. >> Right, right. Well, congratulations. Coming up on the 18th anniversary. Tremendous amount of success. >> Thank you. >> Great vision, clear vision, STEM expansion strategy, really well underway. We are definitely going to continue to keep our eyes. >> Big company, a hundred billion, that's market capital, so that's a big company. You said you didn't want to work for a big company unless you founded it, is that... >> Unless it acts like a small company. >> There's the caveat. We'll keep our eye on that. >> Thank you very much. >> It's such a pleasure having you on. >> Thank you. >> Same here, thank you. >> All right, for our guests and for Dave Vellante, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live emerging and enterprise tech coverage. (upbeat music)

>> Announcer: Live from New York City, it's The Cube, covering IBM data science for all. Brought to you by IBM. >> Welcome back to data science for all. This is IBM's event here on the west side of Manhattan, here on The Cube. We're live, we'll be here all day, along with Dave Vallente, I'm John Walls Poor Dave had to put up with all that howling music at this hotel last night, kept him up 'til, all hours. >> Lots of fun here in the city. >> Yeah, yeah. >> All the crazies out last night. >> Yeah, but the headphones, they worked for ya. Glad to hear that. >> People are already dressed for Halloween, you know what I mean? >> John: Yes. >> In New York, you know what I mean? >> John: All year. >> All the time. >> John: All year. >> 365. >> Yeah. We have with us now the head of data science, and the VP at Galvanize, Nir Kaldero, and Nir, good to see you, sir. Thanks for being with us. We appreciate the time. >> Well of course, my pleasure. >> Tell us about Galvanize. I know you're heavily involved in education in terms of the tech community, but you've got corporate clients, you've got academic clients. You cover the waterfront, and I know data science is your baby. >> Nir: Right. >> But tell us a little bit about Galvanize and your mission there. >> Sure, so Galvanize is the learning community for technology. We provide the training in data science, data engineering, and also modern software engineering. We recently built a very large, fast growing enterprise corporate training department, where we basically help companies become digital, become nimble, and also very data driven, so they can actually go through this digital transformation, and survive in this fourth industrial revolution. We do it across all layers of the business, from the executives, to managers, to data scientists, and data analysts, and kind of transform and upscale all current skills to be modern, to be digital, so companies can actually go through this transformation. >> Hit on one of those items you talked about, data driven. >> Nir: Right. >> It seems like a no-brainer, right? That the more information you give me, the more analysis I can apply to it, the more I can put it in my business practice, the more money I make, the more my customers are happy. It's a lay up, right? >> Nir: It is. >> What is a data driven organization, then? Do you have to convince people that this is where they need to be today? >> Sometimes I need to convince them, but (laughs) anyway, so let's back up a little bit. We are in the midst of the fourth industrial revolution, and in order to survive in this fourth industrial revolution, companies need to become nimble, as I said, become agile, but most importantly become data driven, so the organization can actually best respond to all the predictions that are coming from this very sophisticated machine intelligence models. If the organization immediately can best respond to all of that, companies will be able to enhance the user experience, get insight about their customers, enhance performances, and et cetera, and we know that the winners in this revolution, in this era, will be companies who are very digital, that master the skills of becoming a data driven organization, and you know, we can talk more about the transformation, and what it consisted of. Do you want me to? >> John: Sure. >> Can I just ask you a question? This fourth wave, this is what, the cognitive machine wave? Or how would you describe it? >> Some people call it artificial intelligence. I think artificial intelligence is like big data, kind of like a buzz word. I think more appropriately, we should call it machine intelligence industrial revolution. >> Okay. I've got a lot of questions, but carry on. >> So hitting on that, so you see that as being a major era. >> Nir: It's a game changer. >> If you will, not just a chapter, but a major game changer. >> Nir: Yup. >> Why so? >> So, okay, I'll jump in again. Machines have always replaced man, people. >> John: The automation, right. >> Nir: To some extent. >> But certain machines have replaced certain human tasks, let's say that. >> Nir: Correct. >> But for the first time in history, this fourth era, machine's are replacing humans with cognitive tasks, and that scares a lot of people, because you look at the United States, the median income of the U.S. worker has dropped since 1999, from $55,000 to $52,000, and a lot of people believe it's sort of the hollowing out of that factor that we just mentioned. Education many believe is the answer. You know, Galvanize is an organization that plays a critical role in helping deal with that problem, does it not? >> So, as Mark Zuckerberg says, there is a lot of hate love relationship with A.I. People love it on one side, because they're excited about all the opportunities that can come from this utilization of machine intelligence, but many people actually are afraid from it. I read a survey a few weeks ago that says that 36% of the population thinks that A.I. will destroy humanity, and will conquer the world. That's a fact that's what people think. If I think it's going to happen? I don't think so. I highly believe that education is one of the pillars that can address this fear for machine intelligence, and you spoke a lot about jobs I talk about it forever, but just my belief is that machines can actually replace some of our responsibilities, right? Not necessarily take and replace the entire job. Let's talk about lawyers, right? Lawyers currently spend between 40% to 60% of the time writing contracts, or looking at previous cases. The machine can write a contract in two minutes, or look up millions of data points of previous cases in zero time. Why a lawyer today needs to spend 40% to 60% of the time on that? >> Billable hours, that's why. >> It is, so I don't think the machine will replace the job of the lawyer. I think in the future, the machine replaces some of the responsibilities, like auditing, or writing contracts, or looking at previous cases. >> Menial labor, if you will. >> Yes, but you know, for example, the machine is not that great right now with negotiations skills. So maybe in the future, the job of the lawyer will be mostly around negotiation skills, rather than writing contracts, et cetera, but yeah, you're absolutely right. There is a big fear in the market right now among executives, among people in the public. I think we should educate people about what is the true implications of machine intelligence in this fourth industrial revolution and era, and education is definitely one of those. >> Well, one of my favorite stories, when people bring up this topic, is when Gary Kasparov lost to the IBM super computer, Blue Jean, or whatever it's called. >> Nir: Yup. >> Instead of giving up, what he said is he started a competition, where he proved that humans and machines could beat the IBM super computer. So to this day has a competition where the best chess player in the world is a combination between humans and machines, and so it's that creativity. >> Nir: Imagination. >> Imagination, right, combinatorial effects of different technologies that education, hopefully, can help keep those either way. >> Look, I'm a big fan of neuroscience. I wish I did my PhD in neuroscience, but we are very, very far away from understanding how our brain works. Now to try to imitate the brain when we don't know how the brain works? We are very far away from being in a place where a machine can actually replicate, and really best respond like a human. We don't know how our brain works yet. So we need to do a lot of research on that before we actually really write a very strong, powerful machine intelligence model that can actually replace us as humans, and outbid us. We can speak about Jeopardy, and what's on, and we can speak about AlphaGo, it's a Google company that kind of outperformed the world champion. These are very specific tasks, right? Again, like the lawyer, the machines can write beautiful contracts with NLP, machines can look at millions and trillions of data and figure out what's the conclusion there, right? Or summarize text very fast, but not necessarily good in negotiation yet. >> So when you think about a digital business, to us a digital business is a business that uses data to differentiate, and serve customers, and maintain customers. So when you talk about data driven, it strikes me that when everybody's saying digital business, digital transformation, it's about a data transformation, how well they utilize data, and if you look at the bell curve of organizations, most are not. Everybody wants to be data driven, many say they are data driven. >> Right. >> Dave: Would you agree most are not? >> I will agree that most companies say that they are data driven, but actually they're not. I work with a lot of Fortune 500 companies on a daily basis. I meet their executives and functional leaders, and actually see their data, and business problems that they have. Most of them do tend to say that they are data driven, but truly just ask them if they put data and decisions in the same place, every time they have to make a decision, they don't do it. It's a habit that they don't yet have. Companies need to start investing in building what we say healthy data culture in order to enable and become data driven. Part of it is democratization of data, right? Currently what I see if lots of organizations actually open the data just for the analyst, or the marketers, people who kind of make decisions, that need to make decisions with data, but not throughout the entire organization. I know I always say that everyone in the organization makes decisions on a daily basis, from the barista, to the CEO, right? And the entirety of becoming data driven is that data can actually help us make better decisions on a daily basis, so how about democratizing the data to everyone? So everyone, from the barista, to the CEO, can actually make better decisions on a daily basis, and companies don't excel yet in doing it. Not every company is as digital as Amazon. Amazon, I think, is actually one of the most digital companies in the world, if you look at the digital index. Not everyone is Google or Facebook. Most companies want to be there, most companies understand that they will not be able to survive in this era if they will not become data driven, so it's a big problem. We try at Galvanize to address this problem from executive type of education, where we actually meet with the C-level executives in companies, and actually guide them through how to write their data strategy, how to think about prioritizing data investment, to actual implementation of that, and so far we are highly successful. We were able to make a big transformation in very large, important organizations. So I'm actually very proud of it. >> How long are these eras? Is it a century, or more? >> This fourth industrial? >> Yeah. >> Well it's hard to predict that, and I'm not a machine, or what's on it. (laughs) >> But certainly more than 50 years, would you say? Or maybe not, I don't know. >> I actually don't think so. I think it's going to be fast, and we're going to move to the next one pretty soon that will be even more, with more intelligence, with more data. >> So the reason I ask, is there was an article I saw and linked, and I haven't had time to read it, but it talked about the Four Horsemen, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple, and it said they will all be out of business in 50 years. Now, I don't know, I think Apple probably has 50 years of cash flow in the bank, but then they said, the one, the author said, if I had to predict one that would survive, it would be Amazon, to your point, because they are so data driven. The premise, again I didn't read the whole thing, was that some new data driven, digital upstart will disrupt them. >> Yeah, and you know, companies like Amazon, and Alibaba lately, that try kind of like in a competition with Amazon about who is becoming more data driven, utilizing more machine intelligence, are the ones that invested in these capabilities many, many years ago. It's no that they started investing in it last year, or five years ago. We speak about 15 and 20 years ago. So companies who were really a pioneer, and invested very early on, will predict actually to survive in the future, and you know, very much align. >> Yeah, I'm going to touch on something. It might be a bridge too far, I don't know, but you talk about, Dave brought it up, about replacing human capital, right? Because of artificial intelligence. >> Nir: Yup. >> Is there a reluctance, perhaps, on behalf of executives to embrace that, because they are concerned about their own price? >> Nir: You should be in the room with me. (laughing) >> You provide data, but you also provide that capability to analyze, and make the best informed decision, and therefore, eliminate the human element of a C-suite executive that maybe they're not as necessary today, or tomorrow, as they were two years ago. >> So it is absolutely true, and there is a lot of fear in the room, especially when I show them robots, they freak out typically, (John and Dave laugh) but the fact is well known. Leaders who will not embrace these skills, and understanding, and will help the organization to become agile, nimble, and data driven, will not survive. They will be replaced. So on the one hand, they're afraid from it. On the other side, they see that if they will not actually do something, and take an action today, they might be replaced in the future. >> Where should organizations start? Hey, I want to be data driven. Where do I start? >> That's a good question. So data science, machine learning, is a top down initiative. It requires a lot of funding. It requires a change in culture and habits. So it has to start from the top. The journey has to start from executive, from educating and executive about what is data science, what is machine learning, how to prioritize investments in this field, how to build data driven culture, right? When we spoke about data driven, we mainly speaks about the culture aspect here, not specifically about the technical side of it. So it has to come from the top, leaders have to incorporate it in the organization, the have to give authority and power for people, they have to put the funding at first, and then, this is how it's beautiful, that you actually see it trickles down to the organization when they have a very powerful CEO that makes a decision, and moves the organization quickly to become data driven, make executives look at data every time they make a decision, get them into the habit. When people look up to executives, they try to do the same, and if my boss is an example for me, someone who is looking at data every time he is making a decision, ask the right questions, know how to prioritize, set the right goals for me, this helps me, and helps the organization better perform. >> Follow the leader, right? >> Yup. >> Follow the leader. >> Yup, follow the leader. >> Thanks for being with us. >> Nir: Of course, it's my pleasure. >> Pinned this interesting love hate thing that we have going on. >> We should address that. >> Right, right. That's the next segment, how about that? >> Nir Kaldero from Galvanize joining us here live on The Cube. Back with more from New York in just a bit.

(upbeat music) >> Hello, everyone, and welcome to theCUBE's presentation of the "AWS Startup Showcase." This is season three, episode one. The focus of this episode is AI/ML: Top Startups Building Foundational Models, Infrastructure, and AI. It's great topics, super-relevant, and it's part of our ongoing coverage of startups in the AWS ecosystem. I'm your host, John Furrier, with theCUBE. Today, we're excited to be joined by Jay Marshall, VP of Business Development at Neural Magic. Jay, thanks for coming on theCUBE. >> Hey, John, thanks so much. Thanks for having us. >> We had a great CUBE conversation with you guys. This is very much about the company focuses. It's a feature presentation for the "Startup Showcase," and the machine learning at scale is the topic, but in general, it's more, (laughs) and we should call it "Machine Learning and AI: How to Get Started," because everybody is retooling their business. Companies that aren't retooling their business right now with AI first will be out of business, in my opinion. You're seeing massive shift. This is really truly the beginning of the next-gen machine learning AI trend. It's really seeing ChatGPT. Everyone sees that. That went mainstream. But this is just the beginning. This is scratching the surface of this next-generation AI with machine learning powering it, and with all the goodness of cloud, cloud scale, and how horizontally scalable it is. The resources are there. You got the Edge. Everything's perfect for AI 'cause data infrastructure's exploding in value. AI is just the applications. This is a super topic, so what do you guys see in this general area of opportunities right now in the headlines? And I'm sure you guys' phone must be ringing off the hook, metaphorically speaking, or emails and meetings and Zooms. What's going on over there at Neural Magic? >> No, absolutely, and you pretty much nailed most of it. I think that, you know, my background, we've seen for the last 20-plus years. Even just getting enterprise applications kind of built and delivered at scale, obviously, amazing things with AWS and the cloud to help accelerate that. And we just kind of figured out in the last five or so years how to do that productively and efficiently, kind of from an operations perspective. Got development and operations teams. We even came up with DevOps, right? But now, we kind of have this new kind of persona and new workload that developers have to talk to, and then it has to be deployed on those ITOps solutions. And so you pretty much nailed it. Folks are saying, "Well, how do I do this?" These big, generational models or foundational models, as we're calling them, they're great, but enterprises want to do that with their data, on their infrastructure, at scale, at the edge. So for us, yeah, we're helping enterprises accelerate that through optimizing models and then delivering them at scale in a more cost-effective fashion. >> Yeah, and I think one of the things, the benefits of OpenAI we saw, was not only is it open source, then you got also other models that are more proprietary, is that it shows the world that this is really happening, right? It's a whole nother level, and there's also new landscape kind of maps coming out. You got the generative AI, and you got the foundational models, large LLMs. Where do you guys fit into the landscape? Because you guys are in the middle of this. How do you talk to customers when they say, "I'm going down this road. I need help. I'm going to stand this up." This new AI infrastructure and applications, where do you guys fit in the landscape? >> Right, and really, the answer is both. I think today, when it comes to a lot of what for some folks would still be considered kind of cutting edge around computer vision and natural language processing, a lot of our optimization tools and our runtime are based around most of the common computer vision and natural language processing models. So your YOLOs, your BERTs, you know, your DistilBERTs and what have you, so we work to help optimize those, again, who've gotten great performance and great value for customers trying to get those into production. But when you get into the LLMs, and you mentioned some of the open source components there, our research teams have kind of been right in the trenches with those. So kind of the GPT open source equivalent being OPT, being able to actually take, you know, a multi-$100 billion parameter model and sparsify that or optimize that down, shaving away a ton of parameters, and being able to run it on smaller infrastructure. So I think the evolution here, you know, all this stuff came out in the last six months in terms of being turned loose into the wild, but we're staying in the trenches with folks so that we can help optimize those as well and not require, again, the heavy compute, the heavy cost, the heavy power consumption as those models evolve as well. So we're staying right in with everybody while they're being built, but trying to get folks into production today with things that help with business value today. >> Jay, I really appreciate you coming on theCUBE, and before we came on camera, you said you just were on a customer call. I know you got a lot of activity. What specific things are you helping enterprises solve? What kind of problems? Take us through the spectrum from the beginning, people jumping in the deep end of the pool, some people kind of coming in, starting out slow. What are the scale? Can you scope the kind of use cases and problems that are emerging that people are calling you for? >> Absolutely, so I think if I break it down to kind of, like, your startup, or I maybe call 'em AI native to kind of steal from cloud native years ago, that group, it's pretty much, you know, part and parcel for how that group already runs. So if you have a data science team and an ML engineering team, you're building models, you're training models, you're deploying models. You're seeing firsthand the expense of starting to try to do that at scale. So it's really just a pure operational efficiency play. They kind of speak natively to our tools, which we're doing in the open source. So it's really helping, again, with the optimization of the models they've built, and then, again, giving them an alternative to expensive proprietary hardware accelerators to have to run them. Now, on the enterprise side, it varies, right? You have some kind of AI native folks there that already have these teams, but you also have kind of, like, AI curious, right? Like, they want to do it, but they don't really know where to start, and so for there, we actually have an open source toolkit that can help you get into this optimization, and then again, that runtime, that inferencing runtime, purpose-built for CPUs. It allows you to not have to worry, again, about do I have a hardware accelerator available? How do I integrate that into my application stack? If I don't already know how to build this into my infrastructure, does my ITOps teams, do they know how to do this, and what does that runway look like? How do I cost for this? How do I plan for this? When it's just x86 compute, we've been doing that for a while, right? So it obviously still requires more, but at least it's a little bit more predictable. >> It's funny you mentioned AI native. You know, born in the cloud was a phrase that was out there. Now, you have startups that are born in AI companies. So I think you have this kind of cloud kind of vibe going on. You have lift and shift was a big discussion. Then you had cloud native, kind of in the cloud, kind of making it all work. Is there a existing set of things? People will throw on this hat, and then what's the difference between AI native and kind of providing it to existing stuff? 'Cause we're a lot of people take some of these tools and apply it to either existing stuff almost, and it's not really a lift and shift, but it's kind of like bolting on AI to something else, and then starting with AI first or native AI. >> Absolutely. It's a- >> How would you- >> It's a great question. I think that probably, where I'd probably pull back to kind of allow kind of retail-type scenarios where, you know, for five, seven, nine years or more even, a lot of these folks already have data science teams, you know? I mean, they've been doing this for quite some time. The difference is the introduction of these neural networks and deep learning, right? Those kinds of models are just a little bit of a paradigm shift. So, you know, I obviously was trying to be fun with the term AI native, but I think it's more folks that kind of came up in that neural network world, so it's a little bit more second nature, whereas I think for maybe some traditional data scientists starting to get into neural networks, you have the complexity there and the training overhead, and a lot of the aspects of getting a model finely tuned and hyperparameterization and all of these aspects of it. It just adds a layer of complexity that they're just not as used to dealing with. And so our goal is to help make that easy, and then of course, make it easier to run anywhere that you have just kind of standard infrastructure. >> Well, the other point I'd bring out, and I'd love to get your reaction to, is not only is that a neural network team, people who have been focused on that, but also, if you look at some of the DataOps lately, AIOps markets, a lot of data engineering, a lot of scale, folks who have been kind of, like, in that data tsunami cloud world are seeing, they kind of been in this, right? They're, like, been experiencing that. >> No doubt. I think it's funny the data lake concept, right? And you got data oceans now. Like, the metaphors just keep growing on us, but where it is valuable in terms of trying to shift the mindset, I've always kind of been a fan of some of the naming shift. I know with AWS, they always talk about purpose-built databases. And I always liked that because, you know, you don't have one database that can do everything. Even ones that say they can, like, you still have to do implementation detail differences. So sitting back and saying, "What is my use case, and then which database will I use it for?" I think it's kind of similar here. And when you're building those data teams, if you don't have folks that are doing data engineering, kind of that data harvesting, free processing, you got to do all that before a model's even going to care about it. So yeah, it's definitely a central piece of this as well, and again, whether or not you're going to be AI negative as you're making your way to kind of, you know, on that journey, you know, data's definitely a huge component of it. >> Yeah, you would have loved our Supercloud event we had. Talk about naming and, you know, around data meshes was talked about a lot. You're starting to see the control plane layers of data. I think that was the beginning of what I saw as that data infrastructure shift, to be horizontally scalable. So I have to ask you, with Neural Magic, when your customers and the people that are prospects for you guys, they're probably asking a lot of questions because I think the general thing that we see is, "How do I get started? Which GPU do I use?" I mean, there's a lot of things that are kind of, I won't say technical or targeted towards people who are living in that world, but, like, as the mainstream enterprises come in, they're going to need a playbook. What do you guys see, what do you guys offer your clients when they come in, and what do you recommend? >> Absolutely, and I think where we hook in specifically tends to be on the training side. So again, I've built a model. Now, I want to really optimize that model. And then on the runtime side when you want to deploy it, you know, we run that optimized model. And so that's where we're able to provide. We even have a labs offering in terms of being able to pair up our engineering teams with a customer's engineering teams, and we can actually help with most of that pipeline. So even if it is something where you have a dataset and you want some help in picking a model, you want some help training it, you want some help deploying that, we can actually help there as well. You know, there's also a great partner ecosystem out there, like a lot of folks even in the "Startup Showcase" here, that extend beyond into kind of your earlier comment around data engineering or downstream ITOps or the all-up MLOps umbrella. So we can absolutely engage with our labs, and then, of course, you know, again, partners, which are always kind of key to this. So you are spot on. I think what's happened with the kind of this, they talk about a hockey stick. This is almost like a flat wall now with the rate of innovation right now in this space. And so we do have a lot of folks wanting to go straight from curious to native. And so that's definitely where the partner ecosystem comes in so hard 'cause there just isn't anybody or any teams out there that, I literally do from, "Here's my blank database, and I want an API that does all the stuff," right? Like, that's a big chunk, but we can definitely help with the model to delivery piece. >> Well, you guys are obviously a featured company in this space. Talk about the expertise. A lot of companies are like, I won't say faking it till they make it. You can't really fake security. You can't really fake AI, right? So there's going to be a learning curve. They'll be a few startups who'll come out of the gate early. You guys are one of 'em. Talk about what you guys have as expertise as a company, why you're successful, and what problems do you solve for customers? >> No, appreciate that. Yeah, we actually, we love to tell the story of our founder, Nir Shavit. So he's a 20-year professor at MIT. Actually, he was doing a lot of work on kind of multicore processing before there were even physical multicores, and actually even did a stint in computational neurobiology in the 2010s, and the impetus for this whole technology, has a great talk on YouTube about it, where he talks about the fact that his work there, he kind of realized that the way neural networks encode and how they're executed by kind of ramming data layer by layer through these kind of HPC-style platforms, actually was not analogous to how the human brain actually works. So we're on one side, we're building neural networks, and we're trying to emulate neurons. We're not really executing them that way. So our team, which one of the co-founders, also an ex-MIT, that was kind of the birth of why can't we leverage this super-performance CPU platform, which has those really fat, fast caches attached to each core, and actually start to find a way to break that model down in a way that I can execute things in parallel, not having to do them sequentially? So it is a lot of amazing, like, talks and stuff that show kind of the magic, if you will, a part of the pun of Neural Magic, but that's kind of the foundational layer of all the engineering that we do here. And in terms of how we're able to bring it to reality for customers, I'll give one customer quote where it's a large retailer, and it's a people-counting application. So a very common application. And that customer's actually been able to show literally double the amount of cameras being run with the same amount of compute. So for a one-to-one perspective, two-to-one, business leaders usually like that math, right? So we're able to show pure cost savings, but even performance-wise, you know, we have some of the common models like your ResNets and your YOLOs, where we can actually even perform better than hardware-accelerated solutions. So we're trying to do, I need to just dumb it down to better, faster, cheaper, but from a commodity perspective, that's where we're accelerating. >> That's not a bad business model. Make things easier to use, faster, and reduce the steps it takes to do stuff. So, you know, that's always going to be a good market. Now, you guys have DeepSparse, which we've talked about on our CUBE conversation prior to this interview, delivers ML models through the software so the hardware allows for a decoupling, right? >> Yep. >> Which is going to drive probably a cost advantage. Also, it's also probably from a deployment standpoint it must be easier. Can you share the benefits? Is it a cost side? Is it more of a deployment? What are the benefits of the DeepSparse when you guys decouple the software from the hardware on the ML models? >> No you actually, you hit 'em both 'cause that really is primarily the value. Because ultimately, again, we're so early. And I came from this world in a prior life where I'm doing Java development, WebSphere, WebLogic, Tomcat open source, right? When we were trying to do innovation, we had innovation buckets, 'cause everybody wanted to be on the web and have their app and a browser, right? We got all the money we needed to build something and show, hey, look at the thing on the web, right? But when you had to get in production, that was the challenge. So to what you're speaking to here, in this situation, we're able to show we're just a Python package. So whether you just install it on the operating system itself, or we also have a containerized version you can drop on any container orchestration platform, so ECS or EKS on AWS. And so you get all the auto-scaling features. So when you think about that kind of a world where you have everything from real-time inferencing to kind of after hours batch processing inferencing, the fact that you can auto scale that hardware up and down and it's CPU based, so you're paying by the minute instead of maybe paying by the hour at a lower cost shelf, it does everything from pure cost to, again, I can have my standard IT team say, "Hey, here's the Kubernetes in the container," and it just runs on the infrastructure we're already managing. So yeah, operational, cost and again, and many times even performance. (audio warbles) CPUs if I want to. >> Yeah, so that's easier on the deployment too. And you don't have this kind of, you know, blank check kind of situation where you don't know what's on the backend on the cost side. >> Exactly. >> And you control the actual hardware and you can manage that supply chain. >> And keep in mind, exactly. Because the other thing that sometimes gets lost in the conversation, depending on where a customer is, some of these workloads, like, you know, you and I remember a world where even like the roundtrip to the cloud and back was a problem for folks, right? We're used to extremely low latency. And some of these workloads absolutely also adhere to that. But there's some workloads where the latency isn't as important. And we actually even provide the tuning. Now, if we're giving you five milliseconds of latency and you don't need that, you can tune that back. So less CPU, lower cost. Now, throughput and other things come into play. But that's the kind of configurability and flexibility we give for operations. >> All right, so why should I call you if I'm a customer or prospect Neural Magic, what problem do I have or when do I know I need you guys? When do I call you in and what does my environment look like? When do I know? What are some of the signals that would tell me that I need Neural Magic? >> No, absolutely. So I think in general, any neural network, you know, the process I mentioned before called sparcification, it's, you know, an optimization process that we specialize in. Any neural network, you know, can be sparcified. So I think if it's a deep-learning neural network type model. If you're trying to get AI into production, you have cost concerns even performance-wise. I certainly hate to be too generic and say, "Hey, we'll talk to everybody." But really in this world right now, if it's a neural network, it's something where you're trying to get into production, you know, we are definitely offering, you know, kind of an at-scale performant deployable solution for deep learning models. >> So neural network you would define as what? Just devices that are connected that need to know about each other? What's the state-of-the-art current definition of neural network for customers that may think they have a neural network or might not know they have a neural network architecture? What is that definition for neural network? >> That's a great question. So basically, machine learning models that fall under this kind of category, you hear about transformers a lot, or I mentioned about YOLO, the YOLO family of computer vision models, or natural language processing models like BERT. If you have a data science team or even developers, some even regular, I used to call myself a nine to five developer 'cause I worked in the enterprise, right? So like, hey, we found a new open source framework, you know, I used to use Spring back in the day and I had to go figure it out. There's developers that are pulling these models down and they're figuring out how to get 'em into production, okay? So I think all of those kinds of situations, you know, if it's a machine learning model of the deep learning variety that's, you know, really specifically where we shine. >> Okay, so let me pretend I'm a customer for a minute. I have all these videos, like all these transcripts, I have all these people that we've interviewed, CUBE alumnis, and I say to my team, "Let's AI-ify, sparcify theCUBE." >> Yep. >> What do I do? I mean, do I just like, my developers got to get involved and they're going to be like, "Well, how do I upload it to the cloud? Do I use a GPU?" So there's a thought process. And I think a lot of companies are going through that example of let's get on this AI, how can it help our business? >> Absolutely. >> What does that progression look like? Take me through that example. I mean, I made up theCUBE example up, but we do have a lot of data. We have large data models and we have people and connect to the internet and so we kind of seem like there's a neural network. I think every company might have a neural network in place. >> Well, and I was going to say, I think in general, you all probably do represent even the standard enterprise more than most. 'Cause even the enterprise is going to have a ton of video content, a ton of text content. So I think it's a great example. So I think that that kind of sea or I'll even go ahead and use that term data lake again, of data that you have, you're probably going to want to be setting up kind of machine learning pipelines that are going to be doing all of the pre-processing from kind of the raw data to kind of prepare it into the format that say a YOLO would actually use or let's say BERT for natural language processing. So you have all these transcripts, right? So we would do a pre-processing path where we would create that into the file format that BERT, the machine learning model would know how to train off of. So that's kind of all the pre-processing steps. And then for training itself, we actually enable what's called sparse transfer learning. So that's transfer learning is a very popular method of doing training with existing models. So we would be able to retrain that BERT model with your transcript data that we have now done the pre-processing with to get it into the proper format. And now we have a BERT natural language processing model that's been trained on your data. And now we can deploy that onto DeepSparse runtime so that now you can ask that model whatever questions, or I should say pass, you're not going to ask it those kinds of questions ChatGPT, although we can do that too. But you're going to pass text through the BERT model and it's going to give you answers back. It could be things like sentiment analysis or text classification. You just call the model, and now when you pass text through it, you get the answers better, faster or cheaper. I'll use that reference again. >> Okay, we can create a CUBE bot to give us questions on the fly from the the AI bot, you know, from our previous guests. >> Well, and I will tell you using that as an example. So I had mentioned OPT before, kind of the open source version of ChatGPT. So, you know, typically that requires multiple GPUs to run. So our research team, I may have mentioned earlier, we've been able to sparcify that over 50% already and run it on only a single GPU. And so in that situation, you could train OPT with that corpus of data and do exactly what you say. Actually we could use Alexa, we could use Alexa to actually respond back with voice. How about that? We'll do an API call and we'll actually have an interactive Alexa-enabled bot. >> Okay, we're going to be a customer, let's put it on the list. But this is a great example of what you guys call software delivered AI, a topic we chatted about on theCUBE conversation. This really means this is a developer opportunity. This really is the convergence of the data growth, the restructuring, how data is going to be horizontally scalable, meets developers. So this is an AI developer model going on right now, which is kind of unique. >> It is, John, I will tell you what's interesting. And again, folks don't always think of it this way, you know, the AI magical goodness is now getting pushed in the middle where the developers and IT are operating. And so it again, that paradigm, although for some folks seem obvious, again, if you've been around for 20 years, that whole all that plumbing is a thing, right? And so what we basically help with is when you deploy the DeepSparse runtime, we have a very rich API footprint. And so the developers can call the API, ITOps can run it, or to your point, it's developer friendly enough that you could actually deploy our off-the-shelf models. We have something called the SparseZoo where we actually publish pre-optimized or pre-sparcified models. And so developers could literally grab those right off the shelf with the training they've already had and just put 'em right into their applications and deploy them as containers. So yeah, we enable that for sure as well. >> It's interesting, DevOps was infrastructure as code and we had a last season, a series on data as code, which we kind of coined. This is data as code. This is a whole nother level of opportunity where developers just want to have programmable data and apps with AI. This is a whole new- >> Absolutely. >> Well, absolutely great, great stuff. Our news team at SiliconANGLE and theCUBE said you guys had a little bit of a launch announcement you wanted to make here on the "AWS Startup Showcase." So Jay, you have something that you want to launch here? >> Yes, and thank you John for teeing me up. So I'm going to try to put this in like, you know, the vein of like an AWS, like main stage keynote launch, okay? So we're going to try this out. So, you know, a lot of our product has obviously been built on top of x86. I've been sharing that the past 15 minutes or so. And with that, you know, we're seeing a lot of acceleration for folks wanting to run on commodity infrastructure. But we've had customers and prospects and partners tell us that, you know, ARM and all of its kind of variance are very compelling, both cost performance-wise and also obviously with Edge. And wanted to know if there was anything we could do from a runtime perspective with ARM. And so we got the work and, you know, it's a hard problem to solve 'cause the instructions set for ARM is very different than the instruction set for x86, and our deep tensor column technology has to be able to work with that lower level instruction spec. But working really hard, the engineering team's been at it and we are happy to announce here at the "AWS Startup Showcase," that DeepSparse inference now has, or inference runtime now has support for AWS Graviton instances. So it's no longer just x86, it is also ARM and that obviously also opens up the door to Edge and further out the stack so that optimize once run anywhere, we're not going to open up. So it is an early access. So if you go to neuralmagic.com/graviton, you can sign up for early access, but we're excited to now get into the ARM side of the fence as well on top of Graviton. >> That's awesome. Our news team is going to jump on that news. We'll get it right up. We get a little scoop here on the "Startup Showcase." Jay Marshall, great job. That really highlights the flexibility that you guys have when you decouple the software from the hardware. And again, we're seeing open source driving a lot more in AI ops now with with machine learning and AI. So to me, that makes a lot of sense. And congratulations on that announcement. Final minute or so we have left, give a summary of what you guys are all about. Put a plug in for the company, what you guys are looking to do. I'm sure you're probably hiring like crazy. Take the last few minutes to give a plug for the company and give a summary. >> No, I appreciate that so much. So yeah, joining us out neuralmagic.com, you know, part of what we didn't spend a lot of time here, our optimization tools, we are doing all of that in the open source. It's called SparseML and I mentioned SparseZoo briefly. So we really want the data scientists community and ML engineering community to join us out there. And again, the DeepSparse runtime, it's actually free to use for trial purposes and for personal use. So you can actually run all this on your own laptop or on an AWS instance of your choice. We are now live in the AWS marketplace. So push button, deploy, come try us out and reach out to us on neuralmagic.com. And again, sign up for the Graviton early access. >> All right, Jay Marshall, Vice President of Business Development Neural Magic here, talking about performant, cost effective machine learning at scale. This is season three, episode one, focusing on foundational models as far as building data infrastructure and AI, AI native. I'm John Furrier with theCUBE. Thanks for watching. (bright upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Welcome back everyone to Supercloud 2, live here in Palo Alto, our studio, where we're doing a live stage performance and virtually syndicating out around the world. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante, my co-host with the The Cube here. We've got Kit Colbert, the CTO of VM. We're doing a keynote on Cloud Chaos, the evolution of SuperCloud Architecture Kit. Great to see you, thanks for coming on. >> Yeah, thanks for having me back. It's great to be here for Supercloud 2. >> And so we're going to dig into it. We're going to do a Q&A. We're going to let you present. You got some slides. I really want to get this out there, it's really compelling story. Do the presentation and then we'll come back and discuss. Take it away. >> Yeah, well thank you. So, we had a great time at the original Supercloud event, since then, been talking to a lot of customers, and started to better formulate some of the thinking that we talked about last time So, let's jump into it. Just a few quick slides to sort of set the tone here. So, if we go to the the next slide, what that shows is the journey that we see customers on today, going from what we call Cloud First into this phase that many customers are stuck in, called Cloud Chaos, and where they want to get to, and this is the term customers actually use, we didn't make this up, we heard it from customers. This notion of Cloud Smart, right? How do they use cloud more effectively, more intelligently? Now, if you walk through this journey, customers start with Cloud First. They usually select a single cloud that they're going to standardize on, and when they do that, they have to build out a whole bunch of functionality around that cloud. Things you can see there on the screen, disaster recovery, security, how do they monitor it or govern it? Like, these are things that are non-negotiable, you've got to figure it out, and typically what they do is, they leverage solutions that are specific for that cloud, and that's fine when you have just one cloud. But if we build out here, what we see is that most customers are using more than just one, they're actually using multiple, not necessarily 10 or however many on the screen, but this is just as an example. And so what happens is, they have to essentially duplicate or replicate that stack they've built for each different cloud, and they do so in a kind of a siloed manner. This results in the Cloud Chaos term that that we talked about before. And this is where most businesses out there are, they're using two, maybe three public clouds. They've got some stuff on-prem and they've also got some stuff out at the edge. This is apps, data, et cetera. So, this is the situation, this is sort of that Cloud Chaos. So, the question is, how do we move from this phase to Cloud Smart? And this is where the architecture comes in. This is why architecture, I think, is so important. It's really about moving away from these single cloud services that just solve a problem for one cloud, to something we call a Cross-Cloud service. Something that can support a set of functionality across all clouds, and that means not just public clouds, but also private clouds, edge, et cetera, and when you evolve that across the board, what you get is this sort of Supercloud. This notion that we're talking about here, where you combine these cross-cloud services in many different categories. You can see some examples there on the screen. This is not meant to be a complete set of things, but just examples of what can be done. So, this is sort of the transition and transformation that we're talking about here, and I think the architecture piece comes in both for the individual cloud services as well as that Supercloud concept of how all those services come together. >> Great presentation., thanks for sharing. If you could pop back to that slide, on the Cloud Chaos one. I just want to get your thoughts on something there. This is like the layout of the stack. So, this slide here that I'm showing on the screen, that you presented, okay, take us through that complexity. This is the one where I wanted though, that looks like a spaghetti code mix. >> Yes. >> So, do you turn this into a Supercloud stack, right? Is that? >> well, I think it's, it's an evolving state that like, let's take one of these examples, like security. So, instead of implementing security individually in different ways, using different technologies, different tooling for each cloud, what you would do is say, "Hey, I want a single security solution that works across all clouds", right? A concrete example of this would be secure software supply chain. This is probably one of the top ones that I hear when I talk to customers. How do I know that the software I'm building is truly what I expect it to be, and not something that some hacker has gotten into, and polluted with malicious code? And what they do is that, typically today, their teams have gone off and created individual secure software supply chain solutions for each cloud. So, now they could say, "Hey, I can take a single implementation and just have different endpoints." It could go to Google, or AWS, or on-prem, or wherever have you, right? So, that's the sort of architectural evolution that we're talking about. >> You know, one of the things we hear, Dave, you've been on theCUBE all the time, and we, when we talk privately with customers who are asking us like, what's, what's going on? They have the same complaint, "I don't want to build a team, a dev team, for that stack." So, if you go back to that slide again, you'll see that, that illustrates the tech stack for the clouds and the clouds at the bottom. So, the number one complaint we hear, and I want to get your reaction to that, "I don't want to have a team to have to work on that. So, I'm going to pick one and then have a hedge secondary one, as a backup." Here, that's one, that's four, five, eight, ten, ten environments. >> Yeah, I got a lot. >> That's going to be the reality, so, what's the technical answer to that? >> Yeah, well first of all, let me just say, this picture is again not totally representative of reality oftentimes, because while that picture shows a solution for every cloud, oftentimes that's not the case. Oftentimes it's a line of business going off, starting to use a new cloud. They might solve one or two things, but usually not security, usually not some of these other things, right? So, I think from a technical standpoint, where you want to get to is, yes, that sort of common service, with a common operational team behind it, that is trained on that, that can work across clouds. And that's really I think the important evolution here, is that you don't need to replicate these operational teams, one for each cloud. You can actually have them more focused across all those clouds. >> Yeah, in fact, we were commenting on the opening today. Dave and I were talking about the benefits of the cloud. It's heterogeneous, which is a good thing, but it's complex. There's skill gaps and skill required, but at the end of the day, self-service of the cloud, and the elastic nature of it makes it the benefit. So, if you try to create too many common services, you lose the value of the cloud. So, what's the trade off, in your mind right now as customers start to look at okay, identity, maybe I'll have one single sign on, that's an obvious one. Other ones? What are the areas people are looking at from a combination, common set of services? Where do they start? What's the choices? What are some of the trade offs? 'Cause you can't do it everything. >> No, it's a great question. So, that's actually a really good point and as I answer your question, before I answer your question, the important point about that, as you saw here, you know, across cloud services or these set of Cross-Cloud services, the things that comprise the Supercloud, at least in my view, the point is not necessarily to completely abstract the underlying cloud. The point is to give a business optionality and choice, in terms of what it wants to abstract, and I think that gets to your question, is how much do you actually want to abstract from the underlying cloud? Now, what I find, is that typically speaking, cloud choice is driven at least from a developer or app team perspective, by the best of breed services. What higher level application type services do you need? A database or AI, you know, ML systems, for your application, and that's going to drive your choice of the cloud. So oftentimes, businesses I talk to, want to allow those services to shine through, but for other things that are not necessarily highly differentiated and yet are absolutely critical to creating a successful application, those are things that you want to standardize. Again, like things like security, the supply chain piece, cost management, like these things you need to, and you know, things like cogs become really, really important when you start operating at scale. So, those are the things in it that I see people wanting to focus on. >> So, there's a majority model. >> Yes. >> All right, and we heard of earlier from Walmart, who's fairly, you know, advanced, but at the same time their supercloud is pretty immature. So, what are you seeing in terms of supercloud momentum, crosscloud momentum? What's the starting point for customers? >> Yeah, so it's interesting, right, on that that three-tiered journey that I talked about, this Cloud Smart notion is, that is adoption of what you might call a supercloud or architecture, and most folks aren't there yet. Even the really advanced ones, even the really large ones, and I think it's because of the fact that, we as an industry are still figuring this out. We as an industry did not realize this sort of Cloud Chaos state could happen, right? We didn't, I think most folks thought they could standardize on one cloud and that'd be it, but as time has shown, that's simply not the case. As much as one might try to do that, that's not where you end up. So, I think there's two, there's two things here. Number one, for folks that are early in to the cloud, and are in this Cloud Chaos phase, we see the path out through standardization of these cross-cloud services through adoption of this sort of supercloud architecture, but the other thing I think is particularly exciting, 'cause I talked to a number of of businesses who are not yet in the Cloud Chaos phase. They're earlier on in the cloud journey, and I think the opportunity there is that they don't have to go through Cloud Chaos. They can actually skip that whole phase if they adopt this supercloud architecture from the beginning, and I think being thoughtful around that is really the key here. >> It's interesting, 'cause we're going to hear from Ionis Pharmaceuticals later, and they, yes there are multiple clouds, but the multiple clouds are largely separate, and so it's a business unit using that. So, they're not in Cloud Chaos, but they're not tapping the advantages that you could get for best of breed across those business units. So, to your point, they have an opportunity to actually build that architecture or take advantage of those cross-cloud services, prior to reaching cloud chaos. >> Well, I, actually, you know, I'd love to hear from them if, 'cause you say they're not in Cloud Chaos, but are they, I mean oftentimes I find that each BU, each line of business may feel like they're fine, in of themselves. >> Yes, exactly right, yes. >> But when you look at it from an overall company perspective, they're like, okay, things are pretty chaotic here. We don't have standardization, I don't, you know, like, again, security compliance, these things, especially in many regulated industries, become huge problems when you're trying to run applications across multiple clouds, but you don't have any of those company-wide standardizations. >> Well, this is a point. So, they have a big deal with AstraZeneca, who's got this huge ecosystem, they want to start sharing data across those ecosystem, and that's when they will, you know, that Cloud Chaos will, you know, come, come to fore, you would think. I want to get your take on something that Bob Muglia said earlier, which is, he kind of said, "Hey Dave, you guys got to tighten up your definition a little bit." So, he said a supercloud is a platform that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers. So, you know, thank you, that was nice and simple. However others in the community, we're going to hear from Dr. Nelu Mihai later, says, no, no, wait a minute, it's got to be an architecture, not a platform. Where do you land on this architecture v. platform thing? >> I look at it as, I dunno if it's, you call it maturity or just kind of a time horizon thing, but for me when I hear the word platform, I typically think of a single vendor. A single vendor provides this platform. That's kind of the beauty of a platform, is that there is a simplicity usually consistency to it. >> They did the architecture. (laughing) >> Yeah, exactly but I mean, well, there's obviously architecture behind it, has to be, but you as a customer don't necessarily need to deal with that. Now, I think one of the opportunities with Supercloud is that it's not going to be, or there is no single vendor that can solve all these problems. It's got to be the industry coming together as a community, inter-operating, working together, and so, that's why, for me, I think about it as an architecture, that there's got to be these sort of, well-defined categories of functionality. There's got to be well-defined interfaces between those categories of functionality to enable modularity, to enable businesses to be able to pick and choose the right sorts of services, and then weave those together into an overall supercloud. >> Okay, so you're not pitching, necessarily the platform, you're saying, hey, we have an architecture that's open. I go back to something that Vittorio said on August 9th, with the first Supercloud, because as well, remember we talked about abstracting, but at the same time giving developers access to those primitives. So he said, and this, I think your answer sort of confirms this. "I want to have my cake eat it too and not gain weight." >> (laughing) Right. Well and I think that's where the platform aspect can eventually come, after we've gotten aligned architecture, you're going to start to naturally see some vendors step up to take on some of the remaining complexity there. So, I do see platforms eventually emerging here, but I think where we have to start as an industry is around aligning, okay, what does this definition mean? What does that architecture look like? How do we enable interoperability? And then we can take the next step. >> Because it depends too, 'cause I would say Snowflake has a platform, and they've just defined the architecture, but we're not talking about infrastructure here, obviously, we're talking about something else. >> Well, I think that the Snowflake talks about, what he talks about, security and data, you're going to start to see the early movement around areas that are very spanning oriented, and I think that's the beginning of the trend and I think there's going to be a lot more, I think on the infrastructure side. And to your point about the platform architecture, that's actually a really good thought exercise because it actually makes you think about what you're designing in the first place, and that's why I want to get your reaction. >> Quote from- >> Well I just have to interrupt since, later on, you're going to hear from near Nir Zuk of Palo Alto Network. He says architecture and security historically, they don't go hand in hand, 'cause it's a big mess. >> It depends if you're whacking the mole or you actually proactively building something. Well Kit, I want to get your reaction from a quote from someone in our community who said about Supercloud, you know, "The Supercloud's great, there are issues around computer science rigors, and customer requirements." So, there's some issues around the science itself as well as not just listen to the customer, 'cause if that's the case, we'd have a better database, a better Oracle, right, so, but there's other, this tech involved, new tech. We need an open architecture with universal data modeling interconnecting among them, connectivity is a part of security, and then, once we get through that gate, figuring out the technical, the data, and the customer requirements, they say "Supercloud should be a loosely coupled platform with open architecture, plug and play, specialized services, ready for optimization, automation that can stand the test of time." What's your reaction to that sentiment? You like it, is that, does that sound good? >> Yeah, no, broadly aligns with my thinking, I think, and what I see from talking with customers as well. I mean, I like the, again, the, you know, listening to customer needs, prioritizing those things, focusing on some of the connective tissue networking, and data and some of these aspects talking about the open architecture, the interoperability, those are all things I think are absolutely critical. And then, yeah, like I think at the end. >> On the computer science side, do you see some science and engineering things that need to be engineered differently? We heard databases are radically going to change and that are inadequate for the new architecture. What are some of the things like that, from a science standpoint? >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some of the more academic research type things. >> More tech, or more better tech or is it? >> Yeah, look, absolutely. I mean I think that there's a bunch around, certainly around the data piece, around, you know, there's issues of data gravity, data mobility. How do you want to do that in a way that's performant? There's definitely issues around security as well. Like how do you enable like trust in these environments, there's got to be some sort of hardware rooted trusts, and you know, a whole bunch of various types of aspects there. >> So, a lot of work still be done. >> Yes, I think so. And that's why I look at this as, this is not a one year thing, or you know, it's going to be multi-years, and I think again, it's about all of us in the industry working together to come to an aligned picture of what that looks like. >> So, as the world's moved from private cloud to public cloud and now Cross-cloud services, supercloud, metacloud, whatever you want to call it, how have you sort of changed the way engineering's organized, developers sort of approached the problem? Has it changed and how? >> Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, it's funny, we at VMware, going through the same challenges as our customers and you know, any business, right? We use multiple clouds, we got a big, of course, on-prem footprint. You know, what we're doing is similar to what I see in many other customers, which, you see the evolution of a platform team, and so the platform team is really in charge of trying to develop a lot of these underlying services to allow our lines of business, our product teams, to be able to move as quickly as possible, to focus on the building, while we help with a lot of the operational overheads, right? We maintain security, compliance, all these other things. We also deal with, yeah, just making the developer's life as simple as possible. So, they do need to know some stuff about, you know, each public cloud they're using, those public cloud services, but at the same, time we can abstract a lot of the details they don't need to be in. So, I think this sort of delineation or separation, I should say, between the underlying platform team and the product teams is a very, very common pattern. >> You know, I noticed the four layers you talked about were observability, infrastructure, security and developers, on that slide, the last slide you had at the top, that was kind of the abstraction key areas that you guys at VMware are working? >> Those were just some groupings that we've come up with, but we like to debate them. >> I noticed data's in every one of them. >> Yeah, yep, data is key. >> It's not like, so, back to the data questions that security is called out as a pillar. Observability is just kind of watching everything, but it's all pretty much data driven. Of the four layers that you see, I take that as areas that you can. >> Standardize. >> Consistently rely on to have standard services. >> Yes. >> Which one do you start with? What's the, is there order of operations? >> Well, that's, I mean. >> 'Cause I think infrastructure's number one, but you had observability, you need to know what's going on. >> Yeah, well it really, it's highly dependent. Again, it depends on the business that we talk to and what, I mean, it really goes back to, what are your business priorities, right? And we have some customers who may want to get out of a data center, they want to evacuate the data center, and so what they want is then, consistent infrastructure, so they can just move those applications up to the cloud. They don't want to have to refactor them and we'll do it later, but there's an immediate and sort of urgent problem that they have. Other customers I talk to, you know, security becomes top of mind, or maybe compliance, because they're in a regulated industry. So, those are the sort of services they want to prioritize. So, I would say there is no single right answer, no one size fits all. The point about this architecture is really around the optionality of it, as it allows you as a business to decide what's most important and where you want to prioritize. >> How about the deployment models kit? Do, does a customer have that flexibility from a deployment model standpoint or do I have to, you know, approach it a specific way? Can you address that? >> Yeah, I mean deployment models, you're talking about how they how they consume? >> So, for instance, yeah, running a control plane in the cloud. >> Got it, got it. >> And communicating elsewhere or having a single global instance or instantiating that instance, and? >> So, that's a good point actually, and you know, the white paper that we released back in August, around this sort of concept, the Cross-cloud service. This is some of the stuff we need to figure out as an industry. So, you know when we talk about a Cross-cloud service, we can mean actually any of the things you just talked about. It could be a single instance that runs, let's say in one public cloud, but it supports all of 'em. Or it could be one that's multi-instance and that runs in each of the clouds, and that customers can take dependencies on whichever one, depending on what their use cases are or the, even going further than that, there's a type of Cross-cloud service that could actually be instantiated even in an air gapped or offline environment, and we have many, many businesses, especially heavily regulated ones that have that requirement, so I think, you know. >> Global don't forget global, regions, locales. >> Yeah, there's all sorts of performance latency issues that can be concerned about. So, most services today are the former, there are single sort of instance or set of instances within a single cloud that support multiple clouds, but I think what we're doing and where we're going with, you know, things like what we see with Kubernetes and service meshes and all these things, will better enable folks to hit these different types of cross-cloud service architectures. So, today, you as a customer probably wouldn't have too much choice, but where we're going, you'll see a lot more choice in the future. >> If you had to summarize for folks watching the importance of Supercloud movement, multi-cloud, cross-cloud services, as an industry in flexible, 'cause I'm always riffing on the whole old school network protocol stacks that got disrupted by TCP/IP, that's a little bit dated, we got people on the chat that are like, you know, 20 years old that weren't even born then. So, but this is a, one of those inflection points that's once in a generation inflection point, I'm sure you agree. What scoped the order of magnitude of the change and the opportunity around the marketplace, the business models, the technology, and ultimately benefits the society. >> Yeah. Wow. Getting bigger. >> You have 10 seconds, go. >> I know. Yeah. (laughing) No, look, so I think it is what we're seeing is really the next phase of what you might call cloud, right? This notion of delivering services, the way they've been packaged together, traditionally by the hyperscalers is now being challenged. and what we're seeing is really opening that up to new levels of innovation, and I think that will be huge for businesses because it'll help meet them where they are. Instead of needing to contort the businesses to, you know, make it work with the technology, the technology will support the business and where it's going. Give people more optionality, more flexibility in order to get there, and I think in the end, for us as individuals, it will just make for better experiences, right? You can get better performance, better interactivity, given that devices are so much of what we do, and so much of what we interact with all the time. This sort of flexibility and optionality will fundamentally better for us as individuals in our experiences. >> And we're seeing that with ChatGPT, everyone's talking about, just early days. There'll be more and more of things like that, that are next gen, like obviously like, wow, that's a fall out of your chair moment. >> It'll be the next wave of innovation that's unleashed. >> All right, Kit Colbert, thanks for coming on and sharing and exploring the Supercloud architecture, Cloud Chaos, the Cloud Smart, there's a transition progression happening and it's happening fast. This is the supercloud wave. If you're not on this wave, you'll be driftwood. That's a Pat Gelsinger quote on theCUBE. This is theCUBE Be right back with more Supercloud coverage, here in Palo Alto after this break. (upbeat music) (upbeat music continues)

>> Hey everyone. Welcome back to theCUBE's coverage day two of CloudNative Security CON 23. Lisa Martin here in studio in Palo Alto with John Furrier. John, we've had some great conversations. I've had a global event. This was a global event. We had Germany on yesterday. We had the Boston Studio. We had folks on the ground in Seattle. Lot of great conversations, a lot of great momentum at this event. What is your number one takeaway with this inaugural event? >> Well, first of all, our coverage with our CUBE alumni experts coming in remotely this remote event for us, I think this event as an inaugural event stood out because one, it was done very carefully and methodically from the CNCF. I think they didn't want to overplay their hand relative to breaking out from CUBE CON So Kubernetes success and CloudNative development has been such a success and that event and ecosystem is booming, right? So that's the big story is they have the breakout event and the question was, was it a good call? Was it successful? Was it going to, would the dog hunt as they say, in this case, I think the big takeaway is that it was successful by all measures. One, people enthusiastic and confident that this has the ability to stand on its own and still contribute without taking away from the benefits and growth of Kubernetes CUBE CON and CloudNative console. So that was the key. Hallway conversations, the sessions all curated and developed properly to be different and focused for that reason. So I think the big takeaway is that the CNCF did a good job on how they rolled this out. Again, it was very intimate event small reminds me of first CUBE CON in Seattle, kind of let's test it out. Let's see how it goes. Again, clearly it was people successful and they understood why they're doing it. And as we commented out in our earlier segments this is not something new. Amazon Web Services has re:Invent and re:Inforce So a lot of parallels there. I see there. So I think good call. CNCF did the right thing. I think this has legs. And then as Dave pointed out, Dave Vellante, on our last keynote analysis was the business model of the hackers is better than the business model of the industry. They're making more money, it costs less so, you know, they're playing offense and the industry playing defense. That has to change. And as Dave pointed out we have to make the cost of hacking and breaches and cybersecurity higher so that the business model crashes. And I think that's the strategic imperative. So I think the combination of the realities of the market globally and open source has to go faster. It's good to kind of decouple and be highly cohesive in the focus. So to me that's the big takeaway. And then the other one is, is that there's a lot more security problems still unresolved. The emphasis on developers productivity is at risk here, if not solved. You saw supply chain software, again, front and center and then down in the weeds outside of Kubernetes, things like BIND and DNS were brought up. You're seeing the Linux kernel. Really important things got to be paid attention to. So I think very good call, very good focus. >> I would love if for us to be able to, as the months go on talk to some of the practitioners that actually got to attend. There were 72 sessions, that's a lot of content for a small event. Obviously to your point, very well curated. We did hear from some folks yesterday who were just excited to get the community back together in person. To your point, having this dedicated focus on CloudNativesecurity is incredibly important. You talked about, you know, the offense defense, the fact that right now the industry needs to be able to pivot from being on defense to being on offense. This is a challenging thing because it is so lucrative for hackers. But this seems to be from what we've heard in the last couple days, the right community with the right focus to be able to make that pivot. >> Yeah, and I think if you look at the success of Kubernetes, 'cause again we were there at theCUBE first one CUBE CON, the end user stories really drove end user participation. Drove the birth of Kubernetes. Left some of these CloudNative early adopters early pioneers that were using cloud hyperscale really set the table for CloudNative CON. I think you're seeing that here with this CloudNative SecurityCON where I think we're see a lot more end user stories because of the security, the hairs on fire as we heard from Madrona Ventures, you know, as they as an investor you have a lot of use cases out there where customers are leaning in with getting the rolling up their sleeves, working with open source. This has to be the driver. So I'm expecting to see the next level of SecurityCON to be end user focused. Much more than vendor focused. Where CUBECON was very end user focused and then attracted all the vendors in that grew the industry. I expect the similar pattern here where end user action will be very high at the beginning and that will essentially be the rising tide for the vendors to be then participating. So I expect almost a similar trajectory to CUBECON. >> That's a good path that it needs to all be about all the end users. One of the things I'm curious if what you heard was what are some of the key factors that are going to move CloudNative Security forward? What did you hear the last two days? >> I heard that there's a lot of security problems and no one wants to kind of brag about this but there's a lot of under the hood stuff that needs to get taken care of. So if automation scales, and we heard that from one of the startups we've just interviewed. If automation and scale continues to happen and with the business model of the hackers still booming, security has to be refactored quickly and there's going to be an opportunity structurally to use the cloud for that. So I think it's a good opportunity now to get dedicated focus on fixing things like the DNS stuff old school under the hood, plumbing, networking protocols. You're going to start to see this super cloud-like environment emerge where data's involved, everything's happening and so security has to be re imagined. And I think there's a do over opportunity for the security industry with CloudNative driving that. And I think this is the big thing that I see as an opportunity to, from a story standpoint from a coverage standpoint is that it's a do-over for security. >> One of the things that we heard yesterday is that there's a lot of it, it's a pretty high percentage of organizations that either don't have a SOCK or have a very primitive SOCK. Which kind of surprised me that at this day and age the risks are there. We talked about that today's focus and the keynote was a lot about the software supply chain and what's going on there. What did you hear in terms of the appetite for organizations through the voice of the practitioner to say, you know what guys, we got to get going because there's going to be the hackers are they're here. >> I didn't hear much about that in the coverage 'cause we weren't in the hallways. But from reading the tea leaves and talking to the folks on the ground, I think there's an implied like there's an unlimited money from customers. So it's a very robust from the data infrastructure stack building we cover with the angel investor Kane you're seeing data infrastructure's going to be part of the solution here 'cause data and security go hand in hand. So everyone's got basically checkbook wide open everyone wants to have the answer. And we commented that the co-founder of Palo Alto you had on our coverage yesterday was saying that you know, there's no real platform, there's a lot of tools out there. People will buy anything. So there's still a huge appetite and spend in security but the answer's not going to more tool sprawling. It's going to more platform auto, something that enables automation, fix some of the underlying mechanisms involved and fix it fast. So to me I think it's going to be a robust monetary opportunity because of the demand on the business side. So I don't see that changing at all and I think it's going to accelerate. >> It's a great point in terms of the demand for the business side because as we know as we said yesterday, the next Log4j is out there. It's not a matter of if this happens again it's when, it's the extent, it's how frequent we know that. So organizations all the way up to the board have to be concerned about brand reputation. Nobody wants to be the next big headline in terms of breaches and customer data being given to hackers and hackers making all this money on that. That has to go all the way up to the board and there needs to be alignment between the board and the executives at the organization in terms of how they're going to deal with security, and now. This is not a conversation that can wait. Yeah, I mean I think the five C's we talked about yesterday the culture of companies, the cloud is an enabler, you've got clusters of servers and capabilities, Kubernetes clusters, you've got code and you've got all kinds of, you know, things going on there. Each one has elements that are at risk for hacking, right? So that to me is something that's super important. I think that's why the focus on security's different and important, but it's not going to fork the main event. So that's why I think the spin out was, spinout, or the new event is a good call by the CNCF. >> One of the things today that struck me they're talking a lot about software supply chain and that's been in the headlines for quite a while now. And a stat that was shared this morning during the keynote just blew my brains that there was a 742% increase in the software supply chain attacks occurring over the last three years. It's during Covid times, that is a massive increase. The threat landscape is just growing so amorphously but organizations need to help dial that down because their success and the health of the individuals and the end users is at risk. Well, Covid is an environment where everyone's kind of working at home. So there was some disruption to infrastructure. Also, when you have change like that, there's opportunities for hackers, they'll arbitrage that big time. But I think general the landscape is changing. There's no perimeter anymore. It's CloudNative, this is where it is and people who are moving from old IT to CloudNative, they're at risk. That's why there's tons of ransomware. That's why there's tons of risk. There's just hygiene, from hygiene to architecture and like Nick said from Palo Alto, the co-founder, there's not a lot of architecture in security. So yeah, people have bulked up their security teams but you're going to start to see much more holistic thinking around redoing security. I think that's the opportunity to propel CloudNative, and I think you'll see a lot more coming out of this. >> Did you hear any specific information on some of the CloudNative projects going on that really excite you in terms of these are the right people going after the right challenges to solve in the right direction? >> Well I saw the sessions and what jumped out to me at the sessions was it's a lot of extensions of what we heard at CUBECON and I think what they want to do is take out the big items and break 'em out in security. Kubescape was one we just covered. They want to get more sandbox type stuff into the security side that's very security focused but also plays well with CUBECON. So we'll hear more about how this plays out when we're in Amsterdam coming up in April for CUBECON to hear how that ecosystem, because I think it'll be kind of a relief to kind of decouple security 'cause that gives more focus to the stakeholders in CUBECON. There's a lot of issues going on there and you know service meshes and whatnot. So it's a lot of good stuff happening. >> A lot of good stuff happening. One of the things that'll be great about CUBECON is that we always get the voice of the customer. We get vendors coming on with the voice of the customer talking about and you know in that case how they're using Kubernetes to drive the business forward. But it'll be great to be able to pull in some of the security conversations that spin out of CloudNative Security CON to understand how those end users are embracing the technology. You brought up I think Nir Zuk from Palo Alto Networks, one of the themes there when Dave and I did their Ignite event in December was, of 22, was really consolidation. There are so many tools out there that organizations have to wrap their heads around and they need to be able to have the right enablement content which this event probably delivered to figure out how do we consolidate security tools effectively, efficiently in a way that helps dial down our risk profile because the risks just seem to keep growing. >> Yeah, and I love the technical nature of all that and I think this is going to be the continued focus. Chris Aniszczyk who's the CTO listed like E and BPF we covered with Liz Rice is one of the most three important points of the conference and it's just, it's very nerdy and that's what's needed. I mean it's technical. And again, there's no real standards bodies anymore. The old days developers I think are super important to be the arbiters here. And again, what I love about the CNCF is that they're developer focused and we heard developer first even in security. So you know, this is a sea change and I think, you know, developers' choice will be the standards bodies. >> Lisa: Yeah, yeah. >> They decide the future. >> Yeah. >> And I think having the sandboxing and bringing this out will hopefully accelerate more developer choice and self-service. >> You've been talking about kind of putting the developers in the driver's seat as really being the key decision makers for a while. Did you hear information over the last couple of days that validates that? >> Yeah, absolutely. It's clearly the fact that they did this was one. The other one is, is that engineering teams and dev teams and script teams, they're blending together. It's not just separate silos and the ones that are changing their team dynamics, again, back to the culture are winning. And I think this has to happen. Security has to be embedded everywhere in making it frictionless and to provide kind of the guardrail so developers don't slow down. And I think where security has become a drag or an anchor or a blocker has been just configuration of how the organization's handling it. So I think when people recognize that the developers are in charge and they're should be driving the application development you got to make sure that's secure. And so that's always going to be friction and I think whoever does it, whoever unlocks that for the developer to go faster will win. >> Right. Oh, that's what I'm sure magic to a developer's ear is the ability to go faster and be able to focus on co-development in a secure fashion. What are some of the things that you're excited about for CUBECON. Here we are in February, 2023 and CUBECON is just around the corner in April. What are some of the things that you're excited about based on the groundswell momentum that this first inaugural CloudNative Security CON is generating from a community, a culture perspective? >> I think this year's going to be very interesting 'cause we have an economic challenge globally. There's all kinds of geopolitical things happening. I think there's going to be very entrepreneurial activity this year more than ever. I think you're going to see a lot more innovative projects ideas hitting the table. I think it's going to be a lot more entrepreneurial just because the cycle we're in. And also I think the acceleration of mainstream deployments of out of the CNCF's main event CUBECON will happen. You'll see a lot more successes, scale, more clarity on where the security holes are or aren't. Where the benefits are. I think containers and microservices are continuing to surge. I think the Cloud scale hyperscale as Amazon, Azure, Google will be more aggressive. I think AI will be a big theme this year. I think you can see how data is going to infect some of the innovation thinking. I'm really excited about the data infrastructure because it powers a lot of things in the Cloud. So I think the Amazon Web Services, Azure next level gen clouds will impact what happens in the CloudNative foundation. >> Did you have any conversations yesterday or today with respect to AI and security? Was that a focus of anybody's? Talk to me about that. >> Well, I didn't hear any sessions on AI but we saw some demos on stage. But they're teasing out that this is an augmentation to their mission, right? So I think a lot of people are looking at AI as, again, like I always said there's the naysayers who think it's kind of a gimmick or nothing to see here, and then some are just going to blown away. I think the people who are alpha geeks and the industry connect the dots and understand that AI is going to be an accelerant to a lot of heavy lifting that was either manual, you know, hard to do things that was boring or muck as they say. I think that's going to be where you'll see the AI stories where it's going to accelerate either ways to make security better or make developers more confident and productive. >> Or both. >> Yeah. So definitely AI will be part of it. Yeah, definitely. One of the things too that I'm wondering if, you know, we talk about CloudNative and the goal of it, the importance of it. Do you think that this event, in terms of what we were able to see, obviously being remote the event going on in Seattle, us being here in Palo Alto and Boston and guests on from Seattle and Germany and all over, did you hear the really the validation for why CloudNative Security why CloudNative is important for organizations whether it's a bank or a hospital or a retailer? Is that validation clear and present? >> Yeah, absolutely. I think it was implied. I don't think there was like anyone's trying to debate that. I think this conference was more of it's assumed and they were really trying to push the ability to make security less defensive, more offensive and more accelerated into the solving the problems with the businesses that are out there. So clearly the CloudNative community understands where the security challenges are and where they're emerging. So having a dedicated event will help address that. And they've got great co-chairs too that put it together. So I think that's very positive. >> Yeah. Do you think, is it possible, I mean, like you said several times today so eloquently the industry's on the defense when it comes to security and the hackers are on the offense. Is it really possible to make that switch or obviously get some balances. As technology advances and industry gets to take advantage of that, so do the hackers, is that balance achievable? >> Absolutely. I mean, I think totally achievable. The question's going to be what's the environment going to be like? And I remember as context to understanding whether it's viable or not, is to look at, just go back 13 years ago, I remember in 2010 Amazon was viewed as an unsecure environment. Everyone's saying, "Oh, the cloud is not secure." And I remember interviewing Steve Schmidt at AWS and we discussed specifically how Amazon Cloud was being leveraged by hackers. They made it more complex for the hackers. And he said, "This is just the beginning." It's kind of like barbed wire on a fence. It's yeah, you're not going to climb it so people can get over it. And so since then what's happened is the Cloud has become more secure than on premises for a lot of either you know, personnel reasons, culture reasons, not updating, you know, from patches to just being insecure to be more insecure. So that to me means that the flip the script can be flipped. >> Yeah. And I think with CloudNative they can build in automation and code to solve some of these problems and make it more complex for the hacker. >> Lisa: Yes. >> And increase the cost. >> Yeah, exactly. Make it more complex. Increase the cost. That'll be in interesting journey to follow. So John, here we are early February, 2023 theCUBE starting out strong as always. What year are we in, 12? Year 12? >> 13th year >> 13! What's next for theCUBE? What's coming up that excites you? >> Well, we're going to do a lot more events. We got the theCUBE in studio that I call theCUBE Center as kind of internal code word, but like, this is more about getting the word out that we can cover events remotely as events are starting to change with hybrid, digital is going to be a big part of that. So I think you're going to see a lot more CUBE on location. We're going to do, still do theCUBE and have theCUBE cover events from the studio to get deeper perspective because we can then bring people in remote through our our studio team. We can bring our CUBE alumni in. We have a corpus of content and experts to bring to table. So I think the coverage will be increased. The expertise and data will be flowing through theCUBE and so Cube Center, CUBE CUBE Studio. >> Lisa: Love it. >> Will be a integral part of our coverage. >> I love that. And we have such great conversations with guests in person, but also virtually, digitally as well. We still get the voices of the practitioners and the customers and the vendors and the partner ecosystem really kind of lauded loud and clear through theCUBE megaphone as I would say. >> And of course getting the clips out there, getting the highlights. >> Yeah. >> Getting more stories. No stories too small for theCUBE. We can make it easy to get the best content. >> The best content. John, it's been fun covering CloudNative security CON with you with you. And Dave and our guests, thank you so much for the opportunity and looking forward to the next event. >> John: All right. We'll see you at Amsterdam. >> Yeah, I'll be there. We want to thank you so much for watching TheCUBES's two day coverage of CloudNative Security CON 23. We're live in Palo Alto. You are live wherever you are and we appreciate your time and your view of this event. For John Furrier, Dave Vellante, I'm Lisa Martin. Thanks for watching guys. We'll see you at the next show.

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

(electronic music) >> Hi everybody, welcome back to Supercloud 2. I'm Dave Vellante with my co-host John Furrier. We're here at our tricked out Palo Alto studio. We're going live wall to wall all day. We're inserting a number of pre-recorded interviews, folks like Walmart. We just heard from Nir Zuk of Palo Alto Networks, and I'm really pleased to welcome in David Flynn. David Flynn, you may know as one of the people behind Fusion-io, completely changed the way in which people think about storing data, accessing data. David Flynn now the founder and CEO of a company called Hammerspace. David, good to see you, thanks for coming on. >> David: Good to see you too. >> And Dr. Nelu Mihai is the CEO and founder of Cloud of Clouds. He's actually built a Supercloud. We're going to get into that. Nelu, thanks for coming on. >> Thank you, Happy New Year. >> Yeah, Happy New Year. So I'm going to start right off with a little debate that's going on in the community if you guys would bring out this slide. So Bob Muglia early today, he gave a definition of Supercloud. He felt like we had to tighten ours up a little bit. He said a Supercloud is a platform, underscoring platform, that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers. Now, Nelu, we have this shared doc, and you've been in there. You responded, you said, well, hold on. Supercloud really needs to be an architecture, or else we're going to have this stove pipe of stove pipes, really. And then you went on with more detail, what's the information model? What's the execution model? How are users going to interact with Supercloud? So I start with you, why architecture? The inference is that a platform, the platform provider's responsible for the architecture? Why does that not work in your view? >> No, the, it's a very interesting question. So whenever I think about platform, what's the connotation, you think about monolithic system? Yeah, I mean, I don't know whether it's true or or not, but there is this connotation of of monolithic. On the other hand, if you look at what's a problem right now with HyperClouds, from the customer perspective, they're very complex. There is a heterogeneous world where actually every single one of this HyperClouds has their own architecture. You need rocket scientists to build a cloud applications. Always there is this contradiction between cost and performance. They fight each other. And I'm quoting here a former friend of mine from Bell Labs who work at AWS who used to say "Cloud is cheap as long as you don't use it too much." (group chuckles) So clearly we need something that kind of plays from the principle point of view the role of an operating system, that seats on top of this heterogeneous HyperCloud, and there's nothing wrong by having these proprietary HyperClouds, think about processors, think about operating system and so on, so forth. But in order to build a system that is simple enough, I think we need to go deeper and understand. >> So the argument, the counterargument to that, David, is you'll never get there. You need a proprietary system to get to market sooner, to solve today's problem. Now I don't know where you stand on this platform versus architecture. I haven't asked you, but. >> I think there are aspects of both for sure. I mean it needs to be an architecture in the sense that it's broad based and open and so forth. But you know, platform, you could say as long as people can instantiate it themselves, on their own infrastructure, as long as it's something that can be deployed as, you know, software defined, you don't want the concept of platform being the monolith, you know, combined hardware and software. So it really depends on what you're focused on when you're saying platform, you know, I'd say as long as they software defined thing, to where it can literally run anywhere. I mean, because I really think what we're talking about here is the original concept of cloud computing. The ability to run anything anywhere, without having to care about the physical infrastructure. And what we have today is not that, the cloud today is a big mainframe in the sky, that just happens to be large enough that once you select which region, generally you have enough resources. But, you know, nowadays you don't even necessarily have enough resources in one region. and then you're kind of stuck. So we haven't really gotten to that utility model of computing. And you're also asked to rewrite your application, you know, to abandon the conveniences of high performance file access. You got to rewrite it to use object storage stuff. We have to get away from that. >> Okay, I want to just drill on that, 'cause I think I like that point about, there's not enough availability, but on the developer cloud, the original AWS premise was targeting developers, 'cause at that time, you have to provision a Sun box get a Cisco DSU/CSU, now you get on the cloud. But I think you're giving up the scale question, 'cause I think right now, scale is huge, enterprise grade versus cloud for developers. >> That's Right. >> Because I mean look at, Amazon, Azure, they got compute, they got storage, they got queuing, and some stuff. If you're doing a startup, you throw your app up there, localhost to cloud, no big deal. It's the scale thing that gets me- >> And you can tell by the fact that, in regions that are under high demand, right, like in London or LA, at least with the clients we work with in the median entertainment space, it costs twice as much for the exact same cloud instances that do the exact same amount of work, as somewhere out in rural Canada. So why is it you have such a cost differential, it has to do with that supply and demand, and the fact that the clouds aren't really the ability to run anything anywhere. Even within the same cloud vendor, you're stuck in a specific region. >> And that was never the original promise, right? I mean it was, we turned it into that. But the original promise was get rid of the heavy lifting of IT. >> Not have to run your own, yeah, exactly. >> And then it became, wow, okay I can run anywhere. And then you know, it's like web 2.0. You know people say why Supercloud, you and I talked about this, why do you need a name for Supercloud? It's like web 2.0. >> It's what Cloud was supposed to be. >> It's what cloud was supposed to be, (group laughing and talking) exactly, right. >> Cloud was supposed to be run anything anywhere, or at least that's what we took it as. But you're right, originally it was just, oh don't have to run your own infrastructure, and you can choose somebody else's infrastructure. >> And you did that >> But you're still bound to that. >> Dave: And People said I want more, right? >> But how do we go from here? >> That's, that's actually, that's a very good point, because indeed when the first HyperClouds were designed, were designed really focus on customers. I think Supercloud is an opportunity to design in the right way. Also having in mind the computer science rigor. And we should take advantage of that, because in fact actually, if cloud would've been designed properly from the beginning, probably wouldn't have needed Supercloud. >> David: You wouldn't have to have been asked to rewrite your application. >> That's correct. (group laughs) >> To use REST interfaces to your storage. >> Revisist history is always a good one. But look, cloud is great. I mean your point is cloud is a good thing. Don't hold it back. >> It is a very good thing. >> Let it continue. >> Let it go as as it is. >> Yeah, let that thing continue to grow. Don't impose restrictions on the cloud. Just refactor what you need to for scale or enterprise grade or availability. >> And you would agree with that, is that true or is it problem you're solving? >> Well yeah, I mean it, what the cloud is doing is absolutely necessary. What the public cloud vendors are doing is absolutely necessary. But what's been missing is how to provide a consistent interface, especially to persistent data. And have it be available across different regions, and across different clouds. 'cause data is a highly localized thing in current architecture. It only exists as rendered by the storage system that you put it in. Whether that's a legacy thing like a NetApp or an Isilon or even a cloud data service. It's localized to a specific region of the cloud in which you put that. We have to delocalize data, and provide a consistent interface to it across all sites. That's high performance, local access, but to global data. >> And so Walmart earlier today described their, what we call Supercloud, they call it the Walmart cloud native platform. And they use this triplet model. They have AWS and Azure, no, oh sorry, no AWS. They have Azure and GCP and then on-prem, where all the VMs live. When you, you know, probe, it turns out that it's only stateless in the cloud. (John laughs) So, the state stuff- >> Well let's just admit it, there is no such thing as stateless, because even the application binaries and libraries are state. >> Well I'm happy that I'm hearing that. >> Yeah, okay. >> Because actually I have a lot of debate (indistinct). If you think about no software running on a (indistinct) machine is stateless. >> David: Exactly. >> This is something that was- >> David: And that's data that needs to be distributed and provided consistently >> (indistinct) >> Across all the clouds, >> And actually, it's a nonsense, but- >> Dave: So it's an illusion, okay. (group talks over each other) >> (indistinct) you guys talk about stateless. >> Well, see, people make the confusion between state and persistent state, okay. Persistent state it's a different thing. State is a different thing. So, but anyway, I want to go back to your point, because there's a lot of debate here. People are talking about data, some people are talking about logic, some people are talking about networking. In my opinion is this triplet, which is data logic and connectivity, that has equal importance. And actually depending on the application, can have the center of gravity moving towards data, moving towards what I call execution units or workloads. And connectivity is actually the most important part of it. >> David: (indistinct). >> Some people are saying move the logic towards the data, some other people, and you are saying actually, that no, you have to build a distributed data mesh. What I'm saying is actually, you have to consider all these three variables, all these vector in order to decide, based on application, what's the most important. Because sometimes- >> John: So the application chooses >> That's correct. >> Well it it's what operating systems were in the past, was principally the thing that runs and manages the jobs, the job scheduler, and the thing that provides your persistent data (indistinct). >> Okay. So we finally got operating system into the equation, thank you. (group laughs) >> Nelu: I actually have a PhD in operating system. >> Cause what we're talking about is an operating system. So forget platform or architecture, it's an operating environment. Let's use it as a general term. >> All right. I think that's about it for me. >> All right, let's take (indistinct). Nelu, I want ask you quick, 'cause I want to give a, 'cause I believe it's an operating system. I think it's going to be a reset, refactored. You wrote to me, "The model of Supercloud has to be open theoretical, has to satisfy the rigors of computer science, and customer requirements." So unique to today, if the OS is going to be refactored, it's not going to be, may or may not be Red Hat or somebody else. This new OS, obviously requirements are for customers too but is what's the computer science that is needed? Where are we, what's the missing? Where's the science in this shift? It's not your standard OS it's not like an- (group talks over each other) >> I would beg to differ. >> (indistinct) truly an operation environment. But the, if you think about, and make analogies, what you need when you design a distributed system, well you need an information model, yeah. You need to figure out how the data is located and distributed. You need a model for the execution units, and you need a way to describe the interactions between all these objects. And it is my opinion that we need to go deeper and formalize these operations in order to make a step forward. And when we design Supercloud, and design something that is better than the current HyperClouds. And actually that is when we design something better, you make a system more efficient and it's going to be better from the cost point of view, from the performance point of view. But we need to add some math into all this customer focus centering and I really admire AWS and their executive team focusing on the customer. But now it's time to go back and see, if we apply some computer science, if you try to formalize to build a theoretical model of cloud, can we build a system that is better than existing ones? >> So David, how do you- >> this is what I'm saying. >> That's a good question >> How do You see the operating system of a, or operating environment of a decentralized cloud? >> Well I think it's layered. I mean we have operating systems that can run systems quite efficiently. Linux has sort of one in the data center, but we're talking about a layer on top of that. And I think we're seeing the emergence of that. For example, on the job scheduling side of things, Kubernetes makes a really good example. You know, you break the workload into the most granular units of compute, the containerized microservice, and then you use a declarative model to state what is needed and give the system the degrees of freedom that it can choose how to instantiate it. Because the thing about these distributed systems, is that the complexity explodes, right? Running a piece of hardware, running a single server is not a problem, even with all the many cores and everything like that. It's when you start adding in the networking, and making it so that you have many of them. And then when it's going across whole different data centers, you know, so, at that level the way you solve this is not manually (group laughs) and not procedurally. You have to change the language so it's intent based, it's a declarative model, and what you're stating is what is intended, and you're leaving it to more advanced techniques, like machine learning to decide how to instantiate that service across the cluster, which is what Kubernetes does, or how to instantiate the data across the diverse storage infrastructure. And that's what we do. >> So that's a very good point because actually what has been neglected with HyperClouds is really optimization and automation. But in order to be able to do both of these things, you need, I'm going back and I'm stubborn, you need to have a mathematical model, a theoretical model because what does automation mean? It means that we have to put machines to do the work instead of us, and machines work with what? Formula, with algorithms, they don't work with services. So I think Supercloud is an opportunity to underscore the importance of optimization and automation- >> Totally agree. >> In HyperCloud, and actually by doing that, we can also have an interesting connotation. We are also contributing to save our planet, because if you think right now. we're consuming a lot of energy on this HyperClouds and also all this AI applications, and I think we can do better and build the same kind of application using less energy. >> So yeah, great point, love that call out, the- you know, Dave and I always joke about the old, 'cause we're old, we talk about, you know, (Nelu Laughs) old history, OS/2 versus DOS, okay, OS's, OS/2 is silly better, first threaded OS, DOS never went away. So how does legacy play into this conversation? Because I buy the theoretical, I love the conversation. Okay, I think it's an OS, totally see it that way myself. What's the blocker? Is there a legacy that drags it back? Is the anchor dragging from legacy? Is there a DOS OS/2 moment? Is there an opportunity to flip the script? This is- >> I think that's a perfect example of why we need to support the existing interfaces, Operating Systems, real operating systems like Linux, understands how to present data, it's called a file system, block devices, things that that plumb in there. And by, you know, going to a REST interface and S3 and telling people they have to rewrite their applications, you can't even consume your application binaries that way, the OS doesn't know how to pull that sort of thing. So we, to get to cloud, to get to the ability to host massive numbers of tenants within a centralized infrastructure, you know, we abandoned these lower level interfaces to the OS and we have to go back to that. It's the reason why DOS ultimately won, is it had the momentum of the install base. We're seeing the same thing here. Whatever it is, it has to be a real file system and not a come down file system >> Nelu, what's your reaction, 'cause you're in the theoretical bandwagon. Let's get your reaction. >> No, I think it's a good, I'll give, you made a good analogy between OS/2 and DOS, but I'll go even farther saying, if you think about the evolution operating system didn't stop the evolution of underlying microprocessors, hardware, and so on and so forth. On the contrary, it was a catalyst for that. So because everybody could develop their own hardware, without worrying that the applications on top of operating system are going to modify. The same thing is going to happen with Supercloud. You're going to have the AWSs, you're going to have the Azure and the the GCP continue to evolve in their own way proprietary. But if we create on top of it the right interface >> The open, this is why open is important. >> That's correct, because actually you're going to see sometime ago, everybody was saying, remember venture capitals were saying, "AWS killed the world, nobody's going to come." Now you see what Oracle is doing, and then you're going to see other players. >> It's funny, Amazon's trying to be more like Microsoft. Microsoft's trying to be more like Amazon and Google- Oracle's just trying to say they have cloud. >> That's, that's correct, (group laughs) so, my point is, you're going to see a multiplication of this HyperClouds and cloud technology. So, the system has to be open in order to accommodate what it is and what is going to come. Okay, so it's open. >> So the the legacy- so legacy is an opportunity, not a blocker in your mind. And you see- >> That's correct, I think we should allow them to continue to to to be their own actually. But maybe you're going to find a way to connect with it. >> Amazon's the processor, and they're on the 80 80 80 right? >> That's correct. >> You're saying you love people trying to get put to work. >> That's a good analogy. >> But, performance levels you say good luck, right? >> Well yeah, we have to be able to take traditional applications, high performance applications, those that consume file system and persistent data. Those things have to be able to run anywhere. You need to be able to put, put them onto, you know, more elastic infrastructure. So, we have to actually get cloud to where it lives up to its billing. >> And that's what you're solving for, with Hammerspace, >> That's what we're solving for, making it possible- >> Give me the bumper sticker. >> Solving for how do you have massive quantities of unstructured file data? At the end of the day, all data ultimately is unstructured data. Have that persistent data available, across any data center, within any cloud, within any region on-prem, at the edge. And have not just the same APIs, but have the exact same data sets, and not sucked over a straw remote, but at extreme high performance, local access. So how do you have local access to globally shared distributed data? And that's what we're doing. We are orchestrating data globally across all different forms of storage infrastructure, so you have a consistent access at the highest performance levels, at the lowest level innate built into the OS, how to consume it as (indistinct) >> So are you going into the- all the clouds and natively building in there, or are you off cloud? >> So This is software that can run on cloud instances and provide high performance file within the cloud. It can take file data that's on-prem. Again, it's software, it can run in virtual or on physical servers. And it abstracts the data from the existing storage infrastructure, and makes the data visible and consumable and orchestratable across any of it. >> And what's the elevator pitch for Cloud of Cloud, give that too. >> Well, Cloud of Clouds creates a theoretical model of cloud, and it describes every single object in the cloud. Where is data, execution units, and connectivity, with one single class of very simple object. And I can, I can give you (indistinct) >> And the problem that solves is what? >> The problem that solves is, it creates this mathematical model that is necessary in order to do other interesting things, such as optimization, using sata engines, using automation, applying ML for instance. Or deep learning to automate all this clouds, if you think about in the industrial field, we know how to manage and automate huge plants. Why wouldn't it do the same thing in cloud? It's the same thing you- >> That's what you mean by theoretical model. >> Nelu: That's correct. >> Lay out the architecture, almost the bones of skeleton or something, or, and then- >> That's correct, and then on top of it you can actually build a platform, You can create your services, >> when you say math, you mean you put numbers to it, you kind of index it. >> You quantify this thing and you apply mathematical- It's really about, I can disclose this thing. It's really about describing the cloud as a knowledge graph for every single object in the graph for node, an edge is a vector. And then once you have this model, then you can apply the field theory, and linear algebra to do operation with these vectors. And it's, this creates a very interesting opportunity to let the math do this thing for us. >> Okay, so what happens with hyperscale, or it's like AWS in your model. >> So in, in my model actually, >> Are they happy with this, or they >> I'm very happy with that. >> Will they be happy with you? >> We create an interface to every single HyperCloud. We actually, we don't need to interface with the thousands of APIs, but you know, if we have the 80 20 rule, and we map these APIs into this graph, and then every single operation that is done in this graph is done from the beginning, in an optimized manner and also automation ready. >> That's going to be great. David, I want us to go back to you before we close real quick. You've had a lot of experience, multiple ventures on the front end. You talked to a lot of customers who've been innovating. Where are the classic (indistinct)? Cause you, you used to sell and invent product around the old school enterprises with storage, you know that that trajectory storage is still critical to store the data. Where's the classic enterprise grade mindset right now? Those customers that were buying, that are buying storage, they're in the cloud, they're lifting and shifting. They not yet put the throttle on DevOps. When they look at this Supercloud thing, Are they like a deer in the headlights, or are they like getting it? What's the, what's the classic enterprise look like? >> You're seeing people at different stages of adoption. Some folks are trying to get to the cloud, some folks are trying to repatriate from the cloud, because they've realized it's better to own than to rent when you use a lot of it. And so people are at very different stages of the journey. But the one thing that's constant is that there's always change. And the change here has to do with being able to change the location where you're doing your computing. So being able to support traditional workloads in the cloud, being able to run things at the edge, and being able to rationalize where the data ought to exist, and with a declarative model, intent-based, business objective-based, be able to swipe a mouse and have the data get redistributed and positioned across different vendors, across different clouds, that, we're seeing that as really top of mind right now, because everybody's at some point on this journey, trying to go somewhere, and it involves taking their data with them. (John laughs) >> Guys, great conversation. Thanks so much for coming on, for John, Dave. Stay tuned, we got a great analyst power panel coming right up. More from Palo Alto, Supercloud 2. Be right back. (bouncy music)

>> Narrator: From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is breaking analysis with Dave Vellante >> Enterprise tech practitioners, like most of us they want to make their lives easier so they can focus on delivering more value to their businesses. And to do so, they want to tap best of breed services in the public cloud, but at the same time connect their on-prem intellectual property to emerging applications which drive top line revenue and bottom line profits. But creating a consistent experience across clouds and on-prem estates has been an elusive capability for most organizations, forcing trade-offs and injecting friction into the system. The need to create seamless experiences is clear and the technology industry is starting to respond with platforms, architectures, and visions of what we've called the Supercloud. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis we give you a preview of Supercloud 2, the second event of its kind that we've had on the topic. Yes, folks that's right Supercloud 2 is here. As of this recording, it's just about four days away 33 guests, 21 sessions, combining live discussions and fireside chats from theCUBE's Palo Alto Studio with prerecorded conversations on the future of cloud and data. You can register for free at supercloud.world. And we are super excited about the Supercloud 2 lineup of guests whereas Supercloud 22 in August, was all about refining the definition of Supercloud testing its technical feasibility and understanding various deployment models. Supercloud 2 features practitioners, technologists and analysts discussing what customers need with real-world examples of Supercloud and will expose thinking around a new breed of cross-cloud apps, data apps, if you will that change the way machines and humans interact with each other. Now the example we'd use if you think about applications today, say a CRM system, sales reps, what are they doing? They're entering data into opportunities they're choosing products they're importing contacts, et cetera. And sure the machine can then take all that data and spit out a forecast by rep, by region, by product, et cetera. But today's applications are largely about filling in forms and or codifying processes. In the future, the Supercloud community sees a new breed of applications emerging where data resides on different clouds, in different data storages, databases, Lakehouse, et cetera. And the machine uses AI to inspect the e-commerce system the inventory data, supply chain information and other systems, and puts together a plan without any human intervention whatsoever. Think about a system that orchestrates people, places and things like an Uber for business. So at Supercloud 2, you'll hear about this vision along with some of today's challenges facing practitioners. Zhamak Dehghani, the founder of Data Mesh is a headliner. Kit Colbert also is headlining. He laid out at the first Supercloud an initial architecture for what that's going to look like. That was last August. And he's going to present his most current thinking on the topic. Veronika Durgin of Sachs will be featured and talk about data sharing across clouds and you know what she needs in the future. One of the main highlights of Supercloud 2 is a dive into Walmart's Supercloud. Other featured practitioners include Western Union Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Warner Media. We've got deep, deep technology dives with folks like Bob Muglia, David Flynn Tristan Handy of DBT Labs, Nir Zuk, the founder of Palo Alto Networks focused on security. Thomas Hazel, who's going to talk about a new type of database for Supercloud. It's several analysts including Keith Townsend Maribel Lopez, George Gilbert, Sanjeev Mohan and so many more guests, we don't have time to list them all. They're all up on supercloud.world with a full agenda, so you can check that out. Now let's take a look at some of the things that we're exploring in more detail starting with the Walmart Cloud native platform, they call it WCNP. We definitely see this as a Supercloud and we dig into it with Jack Greenfield. He's the head of architecture at Walmart. Here's a quote from Jack. "WCNP is an implementation of Kubernetes for the Walmart ecosystem. We've taken Kubernetes off the shelf as open source." By the way, they do the same thing with OpenStack. "And we have integrated it with a number of foundational services that provide other aspects of our computational environment. Kubernetes off the shelf doesn't do everything." And so what Walmart chose to do, they took a do-it-yourself approach to build a Supercloud for a variety of reasons that Jack will explain, along with Walmart's so-called triplet architecture connecting on-prem, Azure and GCP. No surprise, there's no Amazon at Walmart for obvious reasons. And what they do is they create a common experience for devs across clouds. Jack is going to talk about how Walmart is evolving its Supercloud in the future. You don't want to miss that. Now, next, let's take a look at how Veronica Durgin of SAKS thinks about data sharing across clouds. Data sharing we think is a potential killer use case for Supercloud. In fact, let's hear it in Veronica's own words. Please play the clip. >> How do we talk to each other? And more importantly, how do we data share? You know, I work with data, you know this is what I do. So if you know I want to get data from a company that's using, say Google, how do we share it in a smooth way where it doesn't have to be this crazy I don't know, SFTP file moving? So that's where I think Supercloud comes to me in my mind, is like practical applications. How do we create that mesh, that network that we can easily share data with each other? >> Now data mesh is a possible architectural approach that will enable more facile data sharing and the monetization of data products. You'll hear Zhamak Dehghani live in studio talking about what standards are missing to make this vision a reality across the Supercloud. Now one of the other things that we're really excited about is digging deeper into the right approach for Supercloud adoption. And we're going to share a preview of a debate that's going on right now in the community. Bob Muglia, former CEO of Snowflake and Microsoft Exec was kind enough to spend some time looking at the community's supercloud definition and he felt that it needed to be simplified. So in near real time he came up with the following definition that we're showing here. I'll read it. "A Supercloud is a platform that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers." So not only did Bob simplify the initial definition he's stressed that the Supercloud is a platform versus an architecture implying that the platform provider eg Snowflake, VMware, Databricks, Cohesity, et cetera is responsible for determining the architecture. Now interestingly in the shared Google doc that the working group uses to collaborate on the supercloud de definition, Dr. Nelu Mihai who is actually building a Supercloud responded as follows to Bob's assertion "We need to avoid creating many Supercloud platforms with their own architectures. If we do that, then we create other proprietary clouds on top of existing ones. We need to define an architecture of how Supercloud interfaces with all other clouds. What is the information model? What is the execution model and how users will interact with Supercloud?" What does this seemingly nuanced point tell us and why does it matter? Well, history suggests that de facto standards will emerge more quickly to resolve real world practitioner problems and catch on more quickly than consensus-based architectures and standards-based architectures. But in the long run, the ladder may serve customers better. So we'll be exploring this topic in more detail in Supercloud 2, and of course we'd love to hear what you think platform, architecture, both? Now one of the real technical gurus that we'll have in studio at Supercloud two is David Flynn. He's one of the people behind the the movement that enabled enterprise flash adoption, that craze. And he did that with Fusion IO and he is now working on a system to enable read write data access to any user in any application in any data center or on any cloud anywhere. So think of this company as a Supercloud enabler. Allow me to share an excerpt from a conversation David Flore and I had with David Flynn last year. He as well gave a lot of thought to the Supercloud definition and was really helpful with an opinionated point of view. He said something to us that was, we thought relevant. "What is the operating system for a decentralized cloud? The main two functions of an operating system or an operating environment are one the process scheduler and two, the file system. The strongest argument for supercloud is made when you go down to the platform layer and talk about it as an operating environment on which you can run all forms of applications." So a couple of implications here that will be exploring with David Flynn in studio. First we're inferring from his comment that he's in the platform camp where the platform owner is responsible for the architecture and there are obviously trade-offs there and benefits but we'll have to clarify that with him. And second, he's basically saying, you kill the concept the further you move up the stack. So the weak, the further you move the stack the weaker the supercloud argument becomes because it's just becoming SaaS. Now this is something we're going to explore to better understand is thinking on this, but also whether the existing notion of SaaS is changing and whether or not a new breed of Supercloud apps will emerge. Which brings us to this really interesting fellow that George Gilbert and I RIFed with ahead of Supercloud two. Tristan Handy, he's the founder and CEO of DBT Labs and he has a highly opinionated and technical mind. Here's what he said, "One of the things that we still don't know how to API-ify is concepts that live inside of your data warehouse inside of your data lake. These are core concepts that the business should be able to create applications around very easily. In fact, that's not the case because it involves a lot of data engineering pipeline and other work to make these available. So if you really want to make it easy to create these data experiences for users you need to have an ability to describe these metrics and then to turn them into APIs to make them accessible to application developers who have literally no idea how they're calculated behind the scenes and they don't need to." A lot of implications to this statement that will explore at Supercloud two versus Jamma Dani's data mesh comes into play here with her critique of hyper specialized data pipeline experts with little or no domain knowledge. Also the need for simplified self-service infrastructure which Kit Colbert is likely going to touch upon. Veronica Durgin of SAKS and her ideal state for data shearing along with Harveer Singh of Western Union. They got to deal with 200 locations around the world in data privacy issues, data sovereignty how do you share data safely? Same with Nick Taylor of Ionis Pharmaceutical. And not to blow your mind but Thomas Hazel and Bob Muglia deposit that to make data apps a reality across the Supercloud you have to rethink everything. You can't just let in memory databases and caching architectures take care of everything in a brute force manner. Rather you have to get down to really detailed levels even things like how data is laid out on disk, ie flash and think about rewriting applications for the Supercloud and the MLAI era. All of this and more at Supercloud two which wouldn't be complete without some data. So we pinged our friends from ETR Eric Bradley and Darren Bramberm to see if they had any data on Supercloud that we could tap. And so we're going to be analyzing a number of the players as well at Supercloud two. Now, many of you are familiar with this graphic here we show some of the players involved in delivering or enabling Supercloud-like capabilities. On the Y axis is spending momentum and on the horizontal accesses market presence or pervasiveness in the data. So netscore versus what they call overlap or end in the data. And the table insert shows how the dots are plotted now not to steal ETR's thunder but the first point is you really can't have supercloud without the hyperscale cloud platforms which is shown on this graphic. But the exciting aspect of Supercloud is the opportunity to build value on top of that hyperscale infrastructure. Snowflake here continues to show strong spending velocity as those Databricks, Hashi, Rubrik. VMware Tanzu, which we all put under the magnifying glass after the Broadcom announcements, is also showing momentum. Unfortunately due to a scheduling conflict we weren't able to get Red Hat on the program but they're clearly a player here. And we've put Cohesity and Veeam on the chart as well because backup is a likely use case across clouds and on-premises. And now one other call out that we drill down on at Supercloud two is CloudFlare, which actually uses the term supercloud maybe in a different way. They look at Supercloud really as you know, serverless on steroids. And so the data brains at ETR will have more to say on this topic at Supercloud two along with many others. Okay, so why should you attend Supercloud two? What's in it for me kind of thing? So first of all, if you're a practitioner and you want to understand what the possibilities are for doing cross-cloud services for monetizing data how your peers are doing data sharing, how some of your peers are actually building out a Supercloud you're going to get real world input from practitioners. If you're a technologist, you're trying to figure out various ways to solve problems around data, data sharing, cross-cloud service deployment there's going to be a number of deep technology experts that are going to share how they're doing it. We're also going to drill down with Walmart into a practical example of Supercloud with some other examples of how practitioners are dealing with cross-cloud complexity. Some of them, by the way, are kind of thrown up their hands and saying, Hey, we're going mono cloud. And we'll talk about the potential implications and dangers and risks of doing that. And also some of the benefits. You know, there's a question, right? Is Supercloud the same wine new bottle or is it truly something different that can drive substantive business value? So look, go to Supercloud.world it's January 17th at 9:00 AM Pacific. You can register for free and participate directly in the program. Okay, that's a wrap. I want to give a shout out to the Supercloud supporters. VMware has been a great partner as our anchor sponsor Chaos Search Proximo, and Alura as well. For contributing to the effort I want to thank Alex Myerson who's on production and manages the podcast. Ken Schiffman is his supporting cast as well. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight to help get the word out on social media and at our newsletters. And Rob Ho is our editor-in-chief over at Silicon Angle. Thank you all. Remember, these episodes are all available as podcast. Wherever you listen we really appreciate the support that you've given. We just saw some stats from from Buzz Sprout, we hit the top 25% we're almost at 400,000 downloads last year. So really appreciate your participation. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcast and you'll find those I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Or if you want to get ahold of me you can email me directly at David.Vellante@siliconangle.com or dm me DVellante or comment on our LinkedIn post. I want you to check out etr.ai. They've got the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next week at Supercloud two or next time on breaking analysis. (light music)

>> Narrator: theCUBE presents Ignite 22. Brought to you by Palo Alto Networks. >> Hey, welcome back to Las Vegas. Lisa Martin here with Dave Vellante. This is day two of theCUBE's coverage of Palo Alto Ignite 2022. Dave we're just talking about how many times we're in Vegas. And we were here two weeks ago with our guest who's back in Alumni. And it's a blur, right? >> It's true, I lost count. Luckily I'm not flying red eye tonight. So that's good. >> I'm impressed. >> Excited about that. >> Yeah >> I'm actually going to enjoy the, nightlife here for a period of time. And, you know, we were at re-Invent. >> Yeah. >> And what a difference. This is nice and relaxed. You have time. You're not getting bumped in the hallway. >> Right. >> A lot of time for learning. So it's been great show. >> It's been great. And one of the things that we've been talking about is the supply chain. Securing the modern software supply chain is really complicated. We've got an Alumni back with us, to talk about what Palo Alto is doing in that respect. Ankur Shah joins us. The SVP and GM of Cloud Security at Palo Alto Networks. Welcome back. >> Yeah, happy to be back. Good to see you again. Dave and Lisa. >> It's been two long weeks. >> Ankur: I know. It's been two weeks, yeah >> Dave: It's kind of crazy. I mean, ReInvent really was a blur. And it's like you had everything coming at you. And there was obviously a big chunk of security, but you. It was just so much to absorb. >> Yeah. >> Right? >> Yeah, and I couldn't get into any of the sessions versus at Ignite. I mean, you could, you could learn a lot. To your point Dave. And 70,000 people versus 3000 in change. Big difference. >> Dave: Yeah. >> Lisa: Huge difference. >> Yeah. >> Lisa: Huge difference. So we touched on the Cider acquisition. >> Ankur: Yeah. >> Which was announced the intent to acquire last month. Let's dig into a little bit more of that, and then some of the great things that had been announced. >> Ankur: Yeah. >> In the last couple of days. >> Oh, absolutely. So, this is something that we have been marinating for last nine months. Thinking about how best to secure supply chain. And this is software supply chain. The modern application software is fairly complex. You know, back in the days when I was a developer, it was a simple three tier application. Ship the code once a year, et cetera. But now with microservices, new architectures, Kubernetes Public Cloud, we talked about this. It's getting super complicated, and the customers are really worried about securing their entire supply chain. Which is nothing but the software pipeline. And so we started looking at a whole bunch of companies and Cider really stood out. I mean, they had, they were the innovators in this space. Very early days, we've seen supply chain attack. But there hasn't been a really good and strong solution in that space. And Cider just delivered that incredible team. Great technology, super excited about what that integration will look like. in the coming quarters. >> What do we need to know about them? I mean, I'll be honest with you, I wasn't familiar with Cider until I saw you guys made the announcement of the intent to acquire them. What, what should we know about them? Why Cider? What was it that attracted you to them? >> Ankur: Yeah, so, you know, we have a history of technology acquisitions as you know, over the last four years, just in the public cloud. We acquire over half a a dozen companies, small and large. And typically we are always looking for companies who have the next gen technology available. Technology that is more in tune with how application software is going to look like in future. So we're not always going after companies that are making you know, tens of hundreds of millions of dollars in a year and all. We're looking for the right tech. The future. And that's what we found in Cider. Like they have a really strong application security background. And AppSec just broadly speaking, supply chain is part of it. But application security, just broadly speaking, is right for disruption. You've got a lot of vendors, who have been around for like last two decades. Old school stuff, lots and lots of false positives. So we've been bolstering, beefing up our portfolio in the application security space. And Cider really fits right nicely into it. Because it can like I said, secure a lot of technology and tooling, that software developers use as part of their software supply chain. So, great founding team, great technology. It was a perfect fit. >> Talk about integration. We spoke with Nikesh yesterday, with Nir, with a whole bunch of folks. Lee this morning. BJ yesterday as well. And one of the things that seems to stick out at me. With all the shows that we do, is the focus that Palo Alto has on ensuring that it's making the right acquisitions. But that it's the integration, is really seems to be like leading part of the strategy. That seems to be a little bit of a differentiator to me. >> Yeah, it absolutely is. There are two ways to integrate a technology into an existing platform. And Prisma Cloud is a platform as you know. Code-to-cloud, CNAPP platform as we call it. One is just kind of slotted in, put the whole thing in a box. And that's basically making one plus one equal to two. We're looking for high leverage in integrations, whereby once that integration comes along. It makes the rest of the platform even better and superior. It makes that technology look even better. So that's why there's a lot of focus on ensuring that we're delivering the right type of integration, that delivers instant customer value. And that makes the overall platform even superior. So customers don't feel like hey, like there's just one more add-on, on top of the other thing. >> Lisa: Right, not a bolt on. >> So that's why there's a lot of focus on that. Getting the strategy nailed. Because the founding teams generally have a preconceived notion about how the world looks like. Then they understand how Prisma cloud and Palo Alto Networks think about it. And then, we sort of merge the two ideas, and build something that's incredible. So I am, we're spending a lot of time in integration. That honeymoon phase of like, let's high five acquisitions done, that's over. Now it's the grinding work of actually getting this right. And you know, getting hundreds and thousands of customers. >> Well I like how you don't have the private equity mentality. It's not about EBITDA and cashflow. We'll take care of that. >> Ankur: Yeah. >> You know, it's about getting that integration. Getting that flywheel effect, inside the platform. You know, we said one plus one equals, maybe even more than two. Can you explain Prisma Cloud Secrets Security? What is that all about? What do we need to know about that? >> Ankur: Absolutely. So, the developers, you know generally store some stuff in the code repo for their automation work to build application. And that thing, the API keys or as Secrets are stored in code repo. It shouldn't be. Or even if they are, they should be encrypted, or locked down and things of that nature. But, you know, the need for speed trumps everything else. Developers want to go fast. And sometimes they're like, okay well. I guess my application needs this particular, you know API access token or secret. I'm just going to stick it in the code. Now the challenge with that is that, if somebody gets hold of your code repo. Now not only is your code repo, which has all your sensitive data. Your code is the life and blood of a technology company. That's in trouble. But also those secrets and API access keys can be used to log into your cloud accounts. And there you may have sensitive customer data. Everything that you have as a technology company stored in that public cloud accounts. So that's the worry. It's usually the initial access for the kill chain. Because that's where the attacks start. Let me get the secret, let me get the API access key. And let me see what I can do in public cloud. So we are now giving customers the visibility into where the secrets are stored. More importantly, it just right there on developer's face. In the code repo as they're checking in the code. They say why, hey, there's a secret here. Are you sure you want to, you want to keep it like this, no? Okay, well then you can either encrypt it, or just get rid of it. So we're making, we're bringing security where the developers are in their code repo, et cetera. >> So I can see a lot of developers saying, yeah, go ahead, encrypt it. So I don't have to do anything else, you know, extra. It's almost, the analogy is a very small you know, version of this. Its like, use a password manager. You store all your passwords in your contacts on your phone, right? I mean, somebody gets a hold of your contacts, you're screwed. >> Ankur: That's exactly right. >> And so, but I could still see a lot of developers say, check in the box. Say, yeah just encrypt it, leave it there. But you're saying best practice is to not to do that, right? >> Yeah, usually you're not supposed to, you know, store all your secrets, et cetera in code repo to begin with. But if you do, you know, you use a key wall like technology to really encrypt it and store it in a secret manner, yeah. >> Dave: There's an old saying, bad user behavior trump's great security every time. >> Ankur: Every time. >> But this is an example where, we know you're going to have bad behavior. So we're going to protect the bad behavior. >> Yeah, and actually, sorry Lisa, just to that point. The bad user behavior trumps good security. The classic example, this happened three weeks ago. Three, four weeks ago, where Dropbox, one of the file sharing companies there. 120 plus code repos were exposed. And the way their attack started, was a simple social engineering attack. Bad user behavior. There was an email, hey, like your passwords are updated for your, you know, this code plugin. Can you enter the password? And boom, now you have access to the code repo. And now if you have secrets inside of it, now, you know all bets are off. >> Are there hard-coded secrets versus like, I mean, like I think like, like you were saying, Dave. Like usernames and passwords and tokens, versus like soft coded secrets. >> Ankur: It's, I think it, this is more so two forms of it, you know. The most primary one is what we call the API access keys. And this keys are used to access cloud accounts, workloads and things of that nature. But there are actually secret secrets. Could be database login passwords, et cetera. The application is using it to spin up databases. Now, you know, you have access to the data stores. Any other application, there's a login password, all of that stuff. So it's less about the user password, but more the application and databases and things of that nature. >> Dave: So again, and, again, everybody should be using password managers. But when you use a password manager, it's going to give you a long list of passwords, that are either been compromised or are weak. And you just go uh, okay. So can you help? How do you help customers identify what the high risk? You know, API, you know, access are versus those ones that they may not have to worry about. >> Ankur: Yeah, look. You know, secrets aside. Risk prioritization is one of the biggest topics that our customers have across the board, in cloud security. All the security vendors are really, really good at one thing, generating alerts. Everybody does it. They generate an alert. You know, your ring camera, if you've got one. I mean this pop up every day, like every minute rather. Well like can you prioritize it for me? What should I really look at it? So that's a number one thing. What Prisma Cloud does is, you know, contextualize it. What the real risk is? They can tell you like, hey, here's the kill chain. If this thing, you know, goes to public internet. These are the potential exposures that you have. So we provide a prioritized risk of critical alerts that customers have to take care of before they can start taking care of more hygiene type of stuff, right? So that's how we do it. Like we leverage a lot of technology. We apply a lot of context. We tell you like, hey, this code repo is not protected by multifactor authentication. And then there's a secret inside. Are you sure, you know, you don't want to fix it? So that's what we do. But it's a great question. Top of mind for all our customers. And that's how we think about it across the board. Versus generating just alerts all the time. >> Dave: Is the strategy, Because we all know phishing is the sort of most, you know obvious way to. It's the top way in which people get hacked. >> Ankur: Yeah. >> Is your strategy essentially to say. Okay we know that's going to happen, so we're going to try to protect it at the back end. How much of the, maybe it's an industry question. more so than just a Palo Alto specifically, How much emphasis is do you think the industry is taking or should be taking on stopping that, you know that those phishing attacks? Because if that's the number one problem you know, maybe that's where we should be starting. >> Yeah, it's a great question. It's typically the initial vector, for a lot of attacks to your point. But there is one thing that technology and AI cannot solve. Which is the user behavior, to your point. Like we can't get into the heads of the user. I mean, you can train them, you can do everything. You can't prevent somebody from clicking a button. Of course there's technology out there for email security that does that. But your point is, right, it's going to happen. Now what do you do? How do you protect your applications, your crown jewel? You know, whether it's in the cloud or it's in the code repo. So a lot of what we are trying to do in code security, or cloud security, or in general at Palo Alto Networks. is to protect those crown jewel. Because we can't prevent somebody from doing something. User behavior is hard to change. >> Dave: So it's almost like, okay, you left your front door open. Somebody's going to walk in, but oh, they walk into a vault. And they don't know where to go. And there's nowhere they can- >> Ankur: Yeah. >> You know, nothing they can take. They can't get to the silverware or the jewelry. >> I think that's it, yeah. >> What are some of the things, like as we look at, we're wrapping up calendar year '22 heading into '23. That customers can look to Palo Alto Networks to help them achieve? One of the things that we talked about with Nikesh and Niri yesterday, is consolidation. Like, and you guys just did a recent, survey. >> Ankur: Yeah. >> About the state of Cyber, and organizations on average have 366 apps in their environment. 31 security tools, 30 to 50 security tools. >> Ankur: Yeah. >> Consolidation is really key there. What are some of the things that you are excited about to deliver to customers where consolidation is concerned? >> Ankur: Yeah. >> Where software supply chain security is concerned in the next year? >> Yeah, absolutely. Look, there are over 3000 security vendors. And this can be, I mean you talked about average customer having 300. I was talking to a CSO, this was last year for one of the largest financial institution I go, "How many security tools do you have?" He got 120. I said, why? He goes, we have a no vendor left behind policy. >> Wow. >> It's crazy. >> Dave: What? >> Obviously he was joking, but it's crazy, right? Like that's how the CSO's are. >> Dave: I mean, he was kidding. >> Yeah. >> Dave: But recognized that. Wow. >> Yeah, and, this is the state the security industry is in. And our mission has been, and Lee and Nikesh and Niri talked about it. Is just platforms, will platforms take moonshots, things long term. And especially the, macro headwinds that we're seeing. We're hearing more and more from the customers that, look we're not going to buy point product. Then we got to buy another product that stitches it all together. We need platforms, whether it's for zero trust, Prisma SaaS, whether it's cloud. Prisma cloud or for your sock transformation. You know XIM and Cortex line of products. So I think you're going to see more and more of that in 2023. I'm confident in that. >> We heard from Lee today, the world record's 400. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> That's crazy. >> He's going for it. He's got a ways to go. 120 He's got to... >> Maybe he wasn't, that guy wasn't kidding about his no vendor left behind policy. (laughing) Do you have Ankur, a favorite customer story that really articulates the value of what Palo Alto delivers and continues to. You know, 'cause one of the things that Nikesh said in his keynote was that you know, security's a data problem. Well every company these days, in every industry has to be a data company. But really what they need to be able to be is a secured data company. >> Ankur: Yeah. >> How are you guys enabling that? >> Oh, absolutely. Look, many customer examples come to mind, but speaking of data. You know, one of, some of our largest customers who are protecting their PCI workers where they have sensitive data. They're using for example, Prisma Cloud, to ensure that malicious attacks don't happen. And those workloads are used for credit card processing. They're processing tens of thousands of credit card transactions a second. And make sure that nobody gets hold of that. And that's why they have to make sure that nobody is. No attacker is trying to get hold of the sensitive data, to your point, So we have customers across financial services, media and entertainment technology company. Where we are helping them go as fast as possible in public cloud. Go through digital transformation, by securing their applications. >> Dave: What's the T-shirt say? I see code. >> Oh yeah. >> Dave: Secure from Code to Cloud. >> Lisa: Shift Happens. >> Shift Happens, Secrets from Code to Cloud. >> I love that. I was looking at that, going back to that, what's next in cyber survey? >> Ankur: Yeah. >> It said 74% of respondents, and I believe there was 1300 CIO's, CXO's that were surveyed globally. Where they said security is slowing down DevOps. Can customers look to Palo Alto Networks to help them? >> Ankur: Be enablers? >> Yes. >> Yeah, hundred percent. Look, the conversation over the last few years have changed now. Security used to say like, oh, I don't know about these people who are building applications. The DevOps is like security slowing down. I think there's an opportunity for companies like Palo Alto Networks, to build the bridge between the two. And the way we do it is make the securities easy, simple and not super intrusive. Where developers have to do a natural thing. And one part of it, and I talked about it earlier, is bring security where the developers are. In their code repo, in their IDE. Make it super simple. Don't make them do unnatural things. And it just, this is no different from changing the behavior of our kids. Right? Like you make them do unnatural things, they're not going to do it. But if it is part of their regular, you know, day-to-day operating procedures. I think they're going to be more open to change. Yeah. So I think it's possible. And Palo Alto has a huge responsibility to bridge the divide between the apps team, or the DevOps and the security organization. >> Lisa: Lots of great stuff to come. We thank you so much for coming back, two weeks. Only being on two weeks ago. We appreciate your insights, learning more information. It's great to see you at Palo Alto Ignite. And we'll have to have you back on. 'Cause we know that there's so much more to follow with respect to what you're doing. And shifting left, shift happens. >> Awesome. Lisa, Dave, thank you so much. It's been a pleasure. >> Lisa: Thank you so much. For Ankur Shah and Dave Vellante. I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE. The leader in live and emerging tech coverage.

>> Announcer: TheCUBE presents Ignite '22, brought to you by Palo Alto Networks. >> Welcome back to Las Vegas. It's theCUBE covering Palo Alto Networks '22, from the MGM Grand, Lisa Martin with Dave Vellante. Dave, we are going to unpack in the next few minutes what we heard and saw at day one of Palo Alto Networks, Ignite. A lot of great conversations, some great guests on the program today. >> Yeah last event, CUBE event of the year. Probably last major tech event of the year. It's kind of an interesting choice of timing, two weeks after reInvent. But you know, this crowd is it's a lot of like network engineers, SecOps pros. There's not a lot of suits here. I think they were here yesterday, all the partners. >> Yeah. >> We talked to Carl Sunderland about, Hey, these, these guys want to know how do I grow my business? You know, so it was a lot of C level executives talking about their business, and how they partner with Palo Alto to grow. The crowd today is really, you know hardcore security professionals. >> Yeah. >> So we're hearing a story of consolidation. >> Yes. >> No surprise. We've talked about that and reported on it, you know, quite extensively. The one big takeaway, and I want, I came in, as you know, wanting to understand, okay, can you through m and a maintain, you know, build a suite of great, big portfolio and at the same time maintain best of breed? And the answer was consistent. We heard it from Nikesh, we heard it from Nir Zuk. The answer was you can't be best of breed without having that large portfolio, single data lake, you know? Single version of the truth, of there is such a thing. That was interesting, that in security, you have to have that visibility. I would imagine, that's true for a lot of things. Data, see what Snowflake and Databricks are both trying to do, now AWS. So to join, we heard that last week, so that was one of the big takeaways. What were your, some of your thoughts? >> Just impressed with the level of threat intelligence that Unit 42 has done. I mean, we had Wendy Whitmer on, and she was one of the alumni, great guest. The landscape has changed so dramatically. Every business, in any industry, nobody's safe. They have such great intelligence on what's going on with malware, with ransomware, with Smishing, that they're able to get, help organizations on their way to becoming cyber resilient. You know, we've been talking a lot about cyber resiliency lately. I always want to understand, well what does it mean? How do different organizations and customers define it? Can they actually really get there? And Wendy talked about yes, it is a journey, but organizations can achieve cyber resiliency. But they need to partner with Palo Alto Networks to be able to understand the landscape and ensure that they've got security established across their organization, as it's now growingly Multicloud. >> Yeah, she's a blonde-haired Wonder Woman, superhero. I always ask security pros that question. But you know, when you talk to people like Wendy Whitmore, Kevin Mandy is somebody else. And the people at AWS, or the big cloud companies, who are on the inside, looking at the threat intelligence. They have so much data, and they have so much knowledge. They can, they analyze, they could identify the fingerprints of nation states, different, you know, criminal organizations. And the the one thing, I think it was Wendy who said, maybe it was somebody else, I think it was Wendy, that they're they're tearing down and reforming, right? >> Yes. >> After they're discovered. Okay, they pack up and leave. They're like, you know, Oceans 11. >> Yep. >> Okay. And then they recruit them and bring them back in. So that was really fascinating. Nir Zuk, we'd never had him on theCUBE before. He was tremendous founder and and CTO of Palo Alto Networks, very opinionated. You know, very clear thinker, basically saying, look you're SOC is going to be run by AI >> Yeah. >> within the next five years. And machines are going to do things that humans can't do at scale, is really what he was saying. And then they're going to get better at that, and they're going to do other things that you have done well that they haven't done well, and then they're going to do well. And so, this is an interesting discussion about you know, I remember, you know we had an event with MIT. Eric Brynjolfsson and Andy McAfee, they wrote the book "Second Machine Age." And they made the point, machines have always replaced humans. This is the first time ever that machines are replacing humans in cognitive functions. So what does that mean? That means that humans have to rely on, you know, creativity. There's got to be new training, new thinking. So it's not like you're going to be out of a job, you're just going to be doing a different job. >> Right. I thought Nir Zuk did a great job of explaining that. We often hear people that are concerned with machines taking jobs. He did a great job of, and you did a great recap, of articulating the value that both bring, and the opportunities to the humans that the machines actually deliver as well. >> Yeah so, you know, we didn't, we didn't get deep into the products today. Tomorrow we're going to have a little bit more deep dive on products. We did, we had some partners on, AWS came on, talked about their ecosystem. BJ Jenkins so, you know, BJ Jenkins again I mean super senior executive. And if I were Nikesh, he's doing exactly what I would do. Putting him on a plane and saying, go meet with customers, go make rain, right? And that's what he's doing is, he's an individual who really knows how to interact with the C-suite, has driven value, you know, over the years. So they've got that angle goin', they're driving go to market. They've got the technology piece and they've, they got to build out the ecosystem. That I think is the big opportunity for them. You know, if they're going to double as a company, this ecosystem has to quadruple. >> Yeah, yeah. >> In my opinion. And I, we saw the same thing at CrowdStrike. We said the same thing about Service Now in 2013. And so, what's happened is the GSIs, the global system integrators start to get involved. They start to partner with them and then they get to get that flywheel effect. And then there's a supercloud, I think that, you know I think Nir Zuk said, Hey, we are basically building out that, he didn't use the term supercloud. But, we're building out that cross cloud capability. You don't need another stove pipe for the edge. You know, so they got on-prem, they got AWS, Azure, you said you have to, absolutely have to run on Microsoft. 'Cause I don't believe today, right? Today they run on, I heard somebody say they run on AWS and Google. >> Yeah. >> I haven't heard much about Microsoft. >> Right. >> Both AWS and Google are here. Microsoft, the bigger competitor in security, but Nir Zuk was unequivocal. Yes, of course you have to run, you got to run it on an Alibaba cloud. He didn't say that, but if you want to secure the China cloud, you got to run on Alibaba. >> Absolutely. >> And Oracle he said. Didn't mention IBM, but no reason they can't run on IBM's cloud. But unless IBM doesn't want 'em to. >> Well they're very customer focused and customer first. So it'll be interesting to see if customers take them in that direction. >> Well it's a good point, right? If customers say, Hey we want you running in this cloud, they will. And, but he did call out Oracle, which I thought was interesting. And so, Oracle's all about mission critical data, mission critical apps. So, you know, that's a good sign. You know, I mean there's so much opportunity in cyber, but so much confusion. You know, sneak had a raise today. It was a down round, no surprise there. But you know, these companies are going to start getting tight on cash, and you've seen layoffs, right? And so, I dunno who said it, I think it was Carl at the end said in a downturn, the strongest companies come out stronger. And that's generally, generally been the case. That kind of rich get richer. We see that in the last downturn? Yes and no, to a certain extent. It's still all about execution. I mean I think about EMC coming out of the last downturn. They did come out stronger and then they started to rocket, but then look what happened. They couldn't remain independent. They were just using m and a as a technique to hide the warts. You know so, what Nir Zuk said that was most interesting to me is when we acquire, we acquire with the intent of integrating. ServiceNow has a similar philosophy. I think that's why they've been somewhat successful. And Oracle, for sure, has had a similar philosophy. So, and that idea of shifting labor into vendor R and D has always been a winning formula. >> I think we heard that today. Excited for day two tomorrow. We've got some great conversations. We're going to be able to talk with some customers, the chief product officer is on. So we have more great content coming from our last live show over the year. Dave, it's been great co-hosting day one with you. Look forward to doing it tomorrow. >> Yeah, thanks for doing this. >> All right. >> All right. For Dave Vellante, I'm Lisa Martin. You've been watching theCUBE, the leader in live enterprise and emerging tech coverage. See you tomorrow. (gentle music fades)

>> Narrator: "TheCUBE" presents Ignite 22. Brought to you by Palo Alto Networks. >> Hey everyone. Welcome back to "TheCUBE's" live coverage of Palo Alto Network's Ignite 22 from the MGM Grand in beautiful Las Vegas. I am Lisa Martin here with Dave Vellante. Dave, we just had a great conversa- First of all, we got to hear the keynote, most of it. We also just had a great conversation with the CEO and chairman of Palo Alto Networks, Nikesh Arora. You know, this is a company that was founded back in 2005, he's been there four years, a lot has happened. A lot of growth, a lot of momentum in his tenure. You were saying in your breaking analysis, that they are on track to nearly double revenues from FY 20 to 23. Lots of momentum in this cloud security company. >> Yeah, I'd never met him before. I mean, I've been following a little bit. It's interesting, he came in as, sort of, a security outsider. You know, he joked today that he, the host, I forget the guy's name on the stage, what was his name? Hassan. Hassan, he said "He's the only guy in the room that knows less about security than I do." Because, normally, this is an industry that's steeped in deep expertise. He came in and I think is given a good compliment to the hardcore techies at Palo Alto Network. The company, it's really interesting. The company started out building their own data centers, they called it. Now they look back and call it cloud, but it was their own data centers, kind of like Salesforce did, it's kind of like ServiceNow. Because at the time, you really couldn't do it in the public cloud. The public cloud was a little too unknown. And so they needed that type of control. But Palo Alto's been amazing story since 2020, we wrote about this during the pandemic. So what they did, is they began to pivot to the the true cloud native public cloud, which is kind of immature still. They don't tell you that, but it's kind of still a little bit immature, but it's working. And when they were pivoting, it was around the same time, at Fortinet, who's a competitor there's like, I call 'em a poor man's Palo Alto, and Fortinet probably hates that, but it's kind of true. It's like a value play on a comprehensive platform, and you know Fortinet a little bit. And so, but what was happening is Fortinet was executing on its cloud strategy better than Palo Alto. And there was a real divergence in the valuations of these stocks. And we said at the time, we felt like Palo Alto, being the gold standard, would get through it. And they did. And what's happened is interesting, I wrote about this two weeks ago. If you go back to the pandemic, peak of the pandemic, or just before the peak, kind of in that tech bubble, if you will. Splunk's down 44% from that peak, Okta's down, sorry, not down 44%. 44% of the peak. Okta's 22% of their peak. CrowdStrike, 41%, Zscaler, 36%, Fortinet, 71%. Not so bad. Palo Altos maintained 93% of its peak value, right? So it's a combination of two things. One is, they didn't run up as much during the pandemic, and they're executing through their cloud strategy. And that's provided a sort of softer landing. And I think it's going to be interesting to see where they go from here. And you heard Nikesh, we're going to double, and then double again. So that's 7 billion, 14 billion, heading to 30 billion. >> Lisa: Yeah, yeah. He also talked about one of the things that he's done in his tenure here, as really a workforce transformation. And we talk all the time, it's not just technology and processes, it's people. They've also seemed to have done a pretty good job from a cultural transformation perspective, which is benefiting their customers. And they're also growing- The ecosystem, we talked a little bit about the ecosystem with Nikesh. We've got Google Cloud on, we've got AWS on the program today alone, talking about the partnerships. The ecosystem is expanding, as well. >> Have you ever met Nir Zuk? >> I have not, not yet. >> He's the founder and CTO. I haven't, we've never been on "theCUBE." He was supposed to come on one day down in New York City. Stu and I were going to interview him, and he cut out of the conference early, so we didn't interview him. But he's a very opinionated dude. And you're going to see, he's basically going to come on, and I mean, I hope he is as opinionated on "TheCUBE," but he'll talk about how the industry has screwed it up. And Nikesh sort of talked about that, it's a shiny new toy strategy. Oh, there's another one, here's another one. It's the best in that category. Okay, let's get, and that's how we've gotten to this point. I always use that Optive graphic, which shows the taxonomy, and shows hundreds and hundreds of suppliers in the industry. And again, it's true. Customers have 20, 30, sometimes 40 different tool sets. And so now it's going to be interesting to see. So I guess my point is, it starts at the top. The founder, he's an outspoken, smart, tough Israeli, who's like, "We're going to take this on." We're not afraid to be ambitious. And so, so to your point about people and the culture, it starts there. >> Absolutely. You know, one of the things that you've written about in your breaking analysis over the weekend, Nikesh talked about it, they want to be the consolidator. You see this as they're building out the security supercloud. Talk to me about that. What do you think? What is a security supercloud in your opinion? >> Yeah, so let me start with the consolidator. So Palo Alto obviously is executing on that strategy. CrowdStrike as well, wants to be a consolidator. I would say Zscaler wants to be a consolidator. I would say that Microsoft wants to be a consolidator, so does Cisco. So they're all coming at it from different angles. Cisco coming at it from network security, which is Palo Alto's wheelhouse, with their next gen firewalls, network security. What Palo Alto did was interesting, was they started out with kind of a hardware based firewall, but they didn't try to shove everything into it. They put the other function in there, their cloud. Zscaler. Zscaler is the one running around saying you don't need firewalls anymore. Just run everything through our cloud, our security cloud. I would think that as Zscaler expands its TAM, it's going to start to acquire, and do similar types of things. We'll see how that integrates. CrowdStrike is clearly executing on a similar portfolio strategy, but they're coming at it from endpoint, okay? They have to partner for network security. Cisco is this big and legacy, but they've done a really good job of acquiring and using services to hide some of that complexity. Microsoft is, you know, they probably hate me saying this, but it's the just good enough strategy. And that may have hurt CrowdStrike last quarter, because the SMB was a soft, we'll see. But to specifically answer your question, the opportunity, we think, is to build the security supercloud. What does that mean? That means to have a common security platform across all clouds. So irrespective of whether you're running an Amazon, whether you're running an on-prem, Google, or Azure, the security policies, and the edicts, and the way you secure your enterprise, look the same. There's a PaaS layer, super PaaS layer for developers, so that that the developers can secure their code in a common framework across cloud. So that essentially, Nikesh sort of balked at it, said, "No, no, no, we're not, we're not really building a super cloud." But essentially they kind of are headed in that direction, I think. Although, what I don't know, like CrowdStrike and Microsoft are big competitors. He mentioned AWS and Google. We run on AWS, Google, and in their own data centers. That sounds like they don't currently run a Microsoft. 'Cause Microsoft is much more competitive with the security ecosystem. They got Identity, so they compete with Okta. They got Endpoint, so they compete with CrowdStrike, and Palo Alto. So Microsoft's at war with everybody. So can you build a super cloud on top of the clouds, the hyperscalers, and not do Microsoft? I would say no. >> Right. >> But there's nothing stopping Palo Alto from running in the Microsoft cloud. I don't know if that's a strategy, we should ask them. >> Yeah. They've done a great job in our last few minutes, of really expanding their TAM in the last few years, particularly under Nikesh's leadership. What are some of the things that you heard this morning that you think, really they've done a great job of expanding that TAM. He talked a little bit about, I didn't write the number down, but he talked a little bit about the market opportunity there. What do you see them doing as being best of breed for organizations that have 30 to 50 tools and need to consolidate that? >> Well the market opportunity's enormous. >> Lisa: It is. >> I mean, we're talking about, well north of a hundred billion dollars, I mean 150, 180, depending on whose numerator you use. Gartner, IDC. Dave's, whatever, it's big. Okay, and they've got... Okay, they're headed towards 7 billion out of 180 billion, whatever, again, number you use. So they started with network security, they put most of the network function in the cloud. They moved to Endpoint, Sassy for the edge. They've done acquisitions, the Cortex acquisition, to really bring automated threat intelligence. They just bought Cider Security, which is sort of the shift left, code security, developer, assistance, if you will. That whole shift left, protect right. And so I think a lot of opportunities to continue to acquire best of breed. I liked what Nikesh said. Keep the founders on board, sell them on the mission. Let them help with that integration and putting forth the cultural aspects. And then, sort of, integrate in. So big opportunities, do they get into Endpoint and compete with Okta? I think Okta's probably the one sort of outlier. They want to be the consolidator of identity, right? And they'll probably partner with Okta, just like Okta partners with CrowdStrike. So I think that's part of the challenge of being the consolidator. You're probably not going to be the consolidator for everything, but maybe someday you'll see some kind of mega merger of these companies. CrowdStrike and Okta, or Palo Alto and Okta, or to take on Microsoft, which would be kind of cool to watch. >> That would be. We have a great lineup, Dave. Today and tomorrow, full days, two full days of cube coverage. You mentioned Nir Zuk, we already had the CEO on, founder and CTO. We've got the chief product officer coming on next. We've got chief transformation officer of customers, partners. We're going to have great conversations, and really understand how this organization is helping customers ultimately achieve their SecOps transformation, their digital transformation. And really moved the needle forward to becoming secure data companies. So I'm looking forward to the next two days. >> Yeah, and Wendy Whitmore is coming on. She heads Unit 42, which is, from what I could tell, it's pretty much the competitor to Mandiant, which Google just bought. We had Kevin Mandia on at September at the CrowdStrike event. So that's interesting. That's who I was poking Nikesh a little bit on industry collaboration. You're tight with Google, and then he had an interesting answer. He said "Hey, you start sharing data, you don't know where it's going to go." I think Snowflake could help with that problem, actually. >> Interesting. >> Yeah, little Snowflake and some of the announcements ar Reinvent with the data clean rooms. Data sharing, you know, trusted data. That's one of the other things we didn't talk about, is the real tension in between security and regulation. So the regulators in public policy saying you can't move the data out of the country. And you have to prove to me that you have a chain of custody. That when you say you deleted something, you have to show me that you not only deleted the file, then the data, but also the metadata. That's a really hard problem. So to my point, something that Palo Alto might be able to solve. >> It might be. It'll be an interesting conversation with Unit 42. And like we said, we have a great lineup of guests today and tomorrow with you, so stick around. Lisa Martin and Dave Vellante are covering Palo Alto Networks Ignite 22 for you. We look forward to seeing you in our next segment. Stick around. (light music)

>> From "theCube" Studios in Palo Alto in Boston bringing you data-driven insights from "theCube" and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> As an independent pure play company, Palo Alto Networks has earned its status as the leader in security. You can measure this in a variety of ways. Revenue, market cap, execution, ethos, and most importantly, conversations with customers generally. In CISO specifically, who consistently affirm this position. The company's on track to double its revenues in fiscal year 23 relative to fiscal year 2020. Despite macro headwinds, which are likely to carry through next year, Palo Alto owes its position to a clarity of vision and strong execution on a TAM expansion strategy through acquisitions and integration into its cloud and SaaS offerings. Hello and welcome to this week's "Wikibon Cube Insights" powered by ETR and this breaking analysis and ahead of Palo Alto Ignite the company's user conference, we bring you the next chapter on top of the last week's cybersecurity update. We're going to dig into the ETR data on Palo Alto Networks as we promised and provide a glimpse of what we're going to look for at "Ignite" and posit what Palo Alto needs to do to stay on top of the hill. Now, the challenges for cybersecurity professionals. Dead simple to understand. Solving it, not so much. This is a taxonomic eye test, if you will, from Optiv. It's one of our favorite artifacts to make the point the cybersecurity landscape is a mosaic of stovepipes. Security professionals have to work with dozens of tools many legacy combined with shiny new toys to try and keep up with the relentless pace of innovation catalyzed by the incredibly capable well-funded and motivated adversaries. Cybersecurity is an anomalous market in that the leaders have low single digit market shares. Think about that. Cisco at one point held 60% market share in the networking business and it's still deep into the 40s. Oracle captures around 30% of database market revenue. EMC and storage at its peak had more than 30% of that market. Even Dell's PC market shares, you know, in the mid 20s or even over that from a revenue standpoint. So cybersecurity from a market share standpoint is even more fragmented perhaps than the software industry. Okay, you get the point. So despite its position as the number one player Palo Alto might have maybe three maybe 4% of the total market, depending on what you use as your denominator, but just a tiny slice. So how is it that we can sit here and declare Palo Alto as the undisputed leader? Well, we probably wouldn't go that far. They probably have quite a bit of competition. But this CISO from a recent ETR round table discussion with our friend Eric Bradley, summed up Palo Alto's allure. We thought pretty well. The question was why Palo Alto Networks? Here's the answer. Because of its completeness as a platform, its ability to integrate with its own products or they acquire, integrate then rebrand them as their own. We've looked at other vendors we just didn't think they were as mature and we already had implemented some of the Palo Alto tools like the firewalls and stuff and we thought why not go holistically with the vendor a single throat to choke, if you will, if stuff goes wrong. And I think that was probably the primary driver and familiarity with the tools and the resources that they provided. Now here's another stat from ETR's Eric Bradley. He gave us a glimpse of the January survey that's in the field now. The percent of IT buyers stating that they plan to consolidate redundant vendors, it went from 34% in the October survey and now stands at 44%. So we fo we feel this bodes well for consolidators like Palo Alto networks. And the same is true from Microsoft's kind of good enough approach. It should also be true for CrowdStrike although last quarter we saw softness reported on in their SMB market, whereas interestingly MongoDB actually saw consistent strength from its SMB and its self-serve. So that's something that we're watching very closely. Now, Palo Alto Networks has held up better than most of its peers in the stock market. So let's take a look at that real quick. This chart gives you a sense of how well. It's a one year comparison of Palo Alto with the bug ETF. That's the cyber basket that we like to compare often CrowdStrike, Zscaler, and Okta. Now remember Palo Alto, they didn't run up as much as CrowdStrike, ZS and Okta during the pandemic but you can see it's now down unquote only 9% for the year. Whereas the cyber basket ETF is off 27% roughly in line with the NASDAQ. We're not showing that CrowdStrike down 44%, Zscaler down 61% and Okta off a whopping 72% in the past 12 months. Now as we've indicated, Palo Alto is making a strong case for consolidating point tools and we think it will have a much harder time getting customers to switch off of big platforms like Cisco who's another leader in network security. But based on the fragmentation in the market there's plenty of room to grow in our view. We asked breaking analysis contributor Chip Simington for his take on the technicals of the stock and he said that despite Palo Alto's leadership position it doesn't seem to make much difference these days. It's all about interest rates. And even though this name has performed better than its peers, it looks like the stock wants to keep testing its 52 week lows, but he thinks Palo Alto got oversold during the last big selloff. And the fact that the company's free cash flow is so strong probably keeps it at the one 50 level or above maybe bouncing around there for a while. If it breaks through that under to the downside it's ne next test is at that low of around one 40 level. So thanks for that, Chip. Now having get that out of the way as we said on the previous chart Palo Alto has strong opinions, it's founder and CTO, Nir Zuk, is extremely clear on that point of view. So let's take a look at how Palo Alto got to where it is today and how we think you should think about his future. The company was founded around 18 years ago as a network security company focused on what they called NextGen firewalls. Now, what Palo Alto did was different. They didn't try to stuff a bunch of functionality inside of a hardware box. Rather they layered network security functions on top of its firewalls and delivered value as a service through software running at the time in its own cloud. So pretty obvious today, but forward thinking for the time and now they've moved to a more true cloud native platform and much more activity in the public cloud. In February, 2020, right before the pandemic we reported on the divergence in market values between Palo Alto and Fort Net and we cited some challenges that Palo Alto was happening having transitioning to a cloud native model. And at the time we said we were confident that Palo Alto would make it through the knot hole. And you could see from the previous chart that it has. So the company's architectural approach was to do the heavy lifting in the cloud. And this eliminates the need for customers to deploy sensors on prem or proxies on prem or sandboxes on prem sandboxes, you know for instance are vulnerable to overwhelming attacks. Think about it, if you're a sandbox is on prem you're not going to be updating that every day. No way. You're probably not going to updated even every week or every month. And if the capacity of your sandbox is let's say 20,000 files an hour you know a hacker's just going to turn up the volume, it'll overwhelm you. They'll send a hundred thousand emails attachments into your sandbox and they'll choke you out and then they'll have the run of the house while you're trying to recover. Now the cloud doesn't completely prevent that but what it does, it definitely increases the hacker's cost. So they're going to probably hit some easier targets and that's kind of the objective of security firms. You know, increase the denominator on the ROI. All right, the next thing that Palo Alto did is start acquiring aggressively, I think we counted 17 or 18 acquisitions to expand the TAM beyond network security into endpoint CASB, PaaS security, IaaS security, container security, serverless security, incident response, SD WAN, CICD pipeline security, attack service management, supply chain security. Just recently with the acquisition of Cider Security and Palo Alto by all accounts takes the time to integrate into its cloud and SaaS platform called Prisma. Unlike many acquisitive companies in the past EMC was a really good example where you ended up with a kind of a Franken portfolio. Now all this leads us to believe that Palo Alto wants to be the consolidator and is in a good position to do so. But beyond that, as multi-cloud becomes more prevalent and more of a strategy customers tell us they want a consistent experience across clouds. And is going to be the same by the way with IoT. So of the next wave here. Customers don't want another stove pipe. So we think Palo Alto is in a good position to build what we call the security super cloud that layer above the clouds that brings a common experience for devs and operational teams. So of course the obvious question is this, can Palo Alto networks continue on this path of acquire and integrate and still maintain best of breed status? Can it? Will it? Does it even have to? As Holger Mueller of Constellation Research and I talk about all the time integrated suites seem to always beat best of breed in the long run. We'll come back to that. Now, this next graphic that we're going to show you underscores this question about portfolio. Here's a picture and I don't expect you to digest it all but it's a screen grab of Palo Alto's product and solutions portfolios, network cloud, network security rather, cloud security, Sassy, CNAP, endpoint unit 42 which is their threat intelligence platform and every imaginable security service and solution for customers. Well, maybe not every, I'm sure there's more to come like supply chain with the recent Cider acquisition and maybe more IoT beyond ZingBox and earlier acquisition but we're sure there will be more in the future both organic and inorganic. Okay, let's bring in more of the ETR survey data. For those of you who don't know ETR, they are the number one enterprise data platform surveying thousands of end customers every quarter with additional drill down surveys and customer round tables just an awesome SaaS enabled platform. And here's a view that shows net score or spending momentum on the vertical axis in provision or presence within the ETR data set on the horizontal axis. You see that red dotted line at 40%. Anything at or over that indicates a highly elevated net score. And as you can see Palo Alto is right on that line just under. And I'll give you another glimpse it looks like Palo Alto despite the macro may even just edge up a bit in the next survey based on the glimpse that Eric gave us. Now those colored bars in the bottom right corner they show the breakdown of Palo Alto's net score and underscore the methodology that ETR uses. The lime green is new customer adoptions, that's 7%. The forest green at 38% represents the percent of customers that are spending 6% or more on Palo Alto solutions. The gray is at that 40 or 8% that's flat spending plus or minus 5%. The pinkish at 5% is spending is down on Palo Alto network products by 6% or worse. And the bright red at only 2% is churn or defections. Very low single digit numbers for Palo Alto, that's a real positive. What you do is you subtract the red from the green and you get a net score of 38% which is very good for a company of Palo Alto size. And we'll note this is based on just under 400 responses in the ETR survey that are Palo Alto customers out of around 1300 in the total survey. It's a really good representation of Palo Alto. And you can see the other leading companies like CrowdStrike, Okta, Zscaler, Forte, Cisco they loom large with similar aspirations. Well maybe not so much Okta. They don't necessarily rule want to rule the world. They want to rule identity and of course the ever ubiquitous Microsoft in the upper right. Now drilling deeper into the ETR data, let's look at how Palo Alto has progressed over the last three surveys in terms of market presence in the survey. This view of the data shows provision in the data going back to October, 2021, that's the gray bars. The blue is July 22 and the yellow is the latest survey from October, 2022. Remember, the January survey is currently in the field. Now the leftmost set of data there show size a company. The middle set of data shows the industry for a select number of industries in the right most shows, geographic region. Notice anything, yes, Palo Alto up across the board relative to both this past summer and last fall. So that's pretty impressive. Palo Alto network CEO, Nikesh Aurora, stressed on the last earnings call that the company is seeing somewhat elongated deal approvals and sometimes splitting up size of deals. He's stressed that certain industries like energy, government and financial services continue to spend. But we would expect even a pullback there as companies get more conservative. But the point is that Nikesh talked about how they're hiring more sales pros to work the pipeline because they understand that they have to work harder to pull deals forward 'cause they got to get more approvals and they got to increase the volume that's coming through the pipeline to account for the possibility that certain companies are going to split up the deals, you know, large deals they want to split into to smaller bite size chunks. So they're really going hard after they go to market expansion to account for that. All right, so we're going to wrap by sharing what we expect and what we're going to probe for at Palo Alto Ignite next week, Lisa Martin and I will be hosting "theCube" and here's what we'll be looking for. First, it's a four day event at the MGM with the meat of the program on days two and three. That's day two was the big keynote. That's when we'll start our broadcasting, we're going for two days. Now our understanding is we've never done Palo Alto Ignite before but our understanding it's a pretty technically oriented crowd that's going to be eager to hear what CTO and founder Nir Zuk has to say. And as well CEO Nikesh Aurora and as in addition to longtime friend of "theCube" and current president, BJ Jenkins, he's going to be speaking. Wendy Whitmore runs Unit 42 and is going to be several other high profile Palo Alto execs, as well, Thomas Kurian from Google is a featured speaker. Lee Claridge, who is Palo Alto's, chief product officer we think is going to be giving the audience heavy doses of Prisma Cloud and Cortex enhancements. Now, Cortex, you might remember, came from an acquisition and does threat detection and attack surface management. And we're going to hear a lot about we think about security automation. So we'll be listening for how Cortex has been integrated and what kind of uptake that it's getting. We've done some, you know, modeling in from the ETR. Guys have done some modeling of cortex, you know looks like it's got a lot of upside and through the Palo Alto go to market machine, you know could really pick up momentum. That's something that we'll be probing for. Now, one of the other things that we'll be watching is pricing. We want to talk to customers about their spend optimization, their spending patterns, their vendor consolidation strategies. Look, Palo Alto is a premium offering. It charges for value. It's expensive. So we also want to understand what kind of switching costs are customers willing to absorb and how onerous they are and what's the business case look like? How are they thinking about that business case. We also want to understand and really probe on how will Palo Alto maintain best of breed as it continues to acquire and integrate to expand its TAM and appeal as that one-stop shop. You know, can it do that as we talked about before. And will it do that? There's also an interesting tension going on sort of changing subjects here in security. There's a guy named Edward Hellekey who's been in "theCube" before. He hasn't been in "theCube" in a while but he's a security pro who has educated us on the nuances of protecting data privacy, public policy, how it varies by region and how complicated it is relative to security. Because securities you technically you have to show a chain of custody that proves unequivocally, for example that data has been deleted or scrubbed or that metadata does. It doesn't include any residual private data that violates the laws, the local laws. And the tension is this, you need good data and lots of it to have good security, really the more the better. But government policy is often at odds in a major blocker to sharing data and it's getting more so. So we want to understand this tension and how companies like Palo Alto are dealing with it. Our customers testing public policy in courts we think not quite yet, our government's making exceptions and policies like GDPR that favor security over data privacy. What are the trade-offs there? And finally, one theme of this breaking analysis is what does Palo Alto have to do to stay on top? And we would sum it up with three words. Ecosystem, ecosystem, ecosystem. And we said this at CrowdStrike Falcon in September that the one concern we had was the pace of ecosystem development for CrowdStrike. Is collaboration possible with competitors? Is being adopted aggressively? Is Palo Alto being adopted aggressively by global system integrators? What's the uptake there? What about developers? Look, the hallmark of a cloud company which Palo Alto is a cloud security company is a thriving ecosystem that has entries into and exits from its platform. So we'll be looking at what that ecosystem looks like how vibrant and inclusive it is where the public clouds fit and whether Palo Alto Networks can really become the security super cloud. Okay, that's a wrap stop by next week. If you're in Vegas, say hello to "theCube" team. We have an unbelievable lineup on the program. Now if you're not there, check out our coverage on theCube.net. I want to thank Eric Bradley for sharing a glimpse on short notice of the upcoming survey from ETR and his thoughts. And as always, thanks to Chip Symington for his sharp comments. Want to thank Alex Morrison, who's on production and manages the podcast Ken Schiffman as well in our Boston studio, Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight they help get the word out on social and of course in our newsletters, Rob Hoof, is our editor in chief over at Silicon Angle who does some awesome editing, thank you to all. Remember all these episodes they're available as podcasts. Wherever you listen, all you got to do is search "Breaking Analysis" podcasts. I publish each week on wikibon.com and silicon angle.com where you can email me at david.valante@siliconangle.com or dm me at D Valante or comment on our LinkedIn post. And please do check out etr.ai. They've got the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Valante for "theCube" Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next week on "Ignite" or next time on "Breaking Analysis". (upbeat music)

>> There's a movement that's sweeping across businesses everywhere here in this country and around the world. And it's all about data. Today businesses are being inundated with data. To the tune of over two and a half million gigabytes that'll be generated in the next 60 seconds alone. What do you do with all that data? To extract insights you typically turn to a data scientist. But not necessarily anymore. At least not exclusively. Today the ability to extract value from data is becoming a shared mission. A team effort that spans the organization extending far more widely than ever before. Today, data science is being democratized. >> Data Sciences for All: It's a Whole New Game. >> Welcome everyone, I'm Katie Linendoll. I'm a technology expert writer and I love reporting on all things tech. My fascination with tech started very young. I began coding when I was 12. Received my networking certs by 18 and a degree in IT and new media from Rochester Institute of Technology. So as you can tell, technology has always been a sure passion of mine. Having grown up in the digital age, I love having a career that keeps me at the forefront of science and technology innovations. I spend equal time in the field being hands on as I do on my laptop conducting in depth research. Whether I'm diving underwater with NASA astronauts, witnessing the new ways which mobile technology can help rebuild the Philippine's economy in the wake of super typhoons, or sharing a first look at the newest iPhones on The Today Show, yesterday, I'm always on the hunt for the latest and greatest tech stories. And that's what brought me here. I'll be your host for the next hour and as we explore the new phenomenon that is taking businesses around the world by storm. And data science continues to become democratized and extends beyond the domain of the data scientist. And why there's also a mandate for all of us to become data literate. Now that data science for all drives our AI culture. And we're going to be able to take to the streets and go behind the scenes as we uncover the factors that are fueling this phenomenon and giving rise to a movement that is reshaping how businesses leverage data. And putting organizations on the road to AI. So coming up, I'll be doing interviews with data scientists. We'll see real world demos and take a look at how IBM is changing the game with an open data science platform. We'll also be joined by legendary statistician Nate Silver, founder and editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight. Who will shed light on how a data driven mindset is changing everything from business to our culture. We also have a few people who are joining us in our studio, so thank you guys for joining us. Come on, I can do better than that, right? Live studio audience, the fun stuff. And for all of you during the program, I want to remind you to join that conversation on social media using the hashtag DSforAll, it's data science for all. Share your thoughts on what data science and AI means to you and your business. And, let's dive into a whole new game of data science. Now I'd like to welcome my co-host General Manager IBM Analytics, Rob Thomas. >> Hello, Katie. >> Come on guys. >> Yeah, seriously. >> No one's allowed to be quiet during this show, okay? >> Right. >> Or, I'll start calling people out. So Rob, thank you so much. I think you know this conversation, we're calling it a data explosion happening right now. And it's nothing new. And when you and I chatted about it. You've been talking about this for years. You have to ask, is this old news at this point? >> Yeah, I mean, well first of all, the data explosion is not coming, it's here. And everybody's in the middle of it right now. What is different is the economics have changed. And the scale and complexity of the data that organizations are having to deal with has changed. And to this day, 80% of the data in the world still sits behind corporate firewalls. So, that's becoming a problem. It's becoming unmanageable. IT struggles to manage it. The business can't get everything they need. Consumers can't consume it when they want. So we have a challenge here. >> It's challenging in the world of unmanageable. Crazy complexity. If I'm sitting here as an IT manager of my business, I'm probably thinking to myself, this is incredibly frustrating. How in the world am I going to get control of all this data? And probably not just me thinking it. Many individuals here as well. >> Yeah, indeed. Everybody's thinking about how am I going to put data to work in my organization in a way I haven't done before. Look, you've got to have the right expertise, the right tools. The other thing that's happening in the market right now is clients are dealing with multi cloud environments. So data behind the firewall in private cloud, multiple public clouds. And they have to find a way. How am I going to pull meaning out of this data? And that brings us to data science and AI. That's how you get there. >> I understand the data science part but I think we're all starting to hear more about AI. And it's incredible that this buzz word is happening. How do businesses adopt to this AI growth and boom and trend that's happening in this world right now? >> Well, let me define it this way. Data science is a discipline. And machine learning is one technique. And then AI puts both machine learning into practice and applies it to the business. So this is really about how getting your business where it needs to go. And to get to an AI future, you have to lay a data foundation today. I love the phrase, "there's no AI without IA." That means you're not going to get to AI unless you have the right information architecture to start with. >> Can you elaborate though in terms of how businesses can really adopt AI and get started. >> Look, I think there's four things you have to do if you're serious about AI. One is you need a strategy for data acquisition. Two is you need a modern data architecture. Three is you need pervasive automation. And four is you got to expand job roles in the organization. >> Data acquisition. First pillar in this you just discussed. Can we start there and explain why it's so critical in this process? >> Yeah, so let's think about how data acquisition has evolved through the years. 15 years ago, data acquisition was about how do I get data in and out of my ERP system? And that was pretty much solved. Then the mobile revolution happens. And suddenly you've got structured and non-structured data. More than you've ever dealt with. And now you get to where we are today. You're talking terabytes, petabytes of data. >> [Katie] Yottabytes, I heard that word the other day. >> I heard that too. >> Didn't even know what it meant. >> You know how many zeros that is? >> I thought we were in Star Wars. >> Yeah, I think it's a lot of zeroes. >> Yodabytes, it's new. >> So, it's becoming more and more complex in terms of how you acquire data. So that's the new data landscape that every client is dealing with. And if you don't have a strategy for how you acquire that and manage it, you're not going to get to that AI future. >> So a natural segue, if you are one of these businesses, how do you build for the data landscape? >> Yeah, so the question I always hear from customers is we need to evolve our data architecture to be ready for AI. And the way I think about that is it's really about moving from static data repositories to more of a fluid data layer. >> And we continue with the architecture. New data architecture is an interesting buzz word to hear. But it's also one of the four pillars. So if you could dive in there. >> Yeah, I mean it's a new twist on what I would call some core data science concepts. For example, you have to leverage tools with a modern, centralized data warehouse. But your data warehouse can't be stagnant to just what's right there. So you need a way to federate data across different environments. You need to be able to bring your analytics to the data because it's most efficient that way. And ultimately, it's about building an optimized data platform that is designed for data science and AI. Which means it has to be a lot more flexible than what clients have had in the past. >> All right. So we've laid out what you need for driving automation. But where does the machine learning kick in? >> Machine learning is what gives you the ability to automate tasks. And I think about machine learning. It's about predicting and automating. And this will really change the roles of data professionals and IT professionals. For example, a data scientist cannot possibly know every algorithm or every model that they could use. So we can automate the process of algorithm selection. Another example is things like automated data matching. Or metadata creation. Some of these things may not be exciting but they're hugely practical. And so when you think about the real use cases that are driving return on investment today, it's things like that. It's automating the mundane tasks. >> Let's go ahead and come back to something that you mentioned earlier because it's fascinating to be talking about this AI journey, but also significant is the new job roles. And what are those other participants in the analytics pipeline? >> Yeah I think we're just at the start of this idea of new job roles. We have data scientists. We have data engineers. Now you see machine learning engineers. Application developers. What's really happening is that data scientists are no longer allowed to work in their own silo. And so the new job roles is about how does everybody have data first in their mind? And then they're using tools to automate data science, to automate building machine learning into applications. So roles are going to change dramatically in organizations. >> I think that's confusing though because we have several organizations who saying is that highly specialized roles, just for data science? Or is it applicable to everybody across the board? >> Yeah, and that's the big question, right? Cause everybody's thinking how will this apply? Do I want this to be just a small set of people in the organization that will do this? But, our view is data science has to for everybody. It's about bring data science to everybody as a shared mission across the organization. Everybody in the company has to be data literate. And participate in this journey. >> So overall, group effort, has to be a common goal, and we all need to be data literate across the board. >> Absolutely. >> Done deal. But at the end of the day, it's kind of not an easy task. >> It's not. It's not easy but it's maybe not as big of a shift as you would think. Because you have to put data in the hands of people that can do something with it. So, it's very basic. Give access to data. Data's often locked up in a lot of organizations today. Give people the right tools. Embrace the idea of choice or diversity in terms of those tools. That gets you started on this path. >> It's interesting to hear you say essentially you need to train everyone though across the board when it comes to data literacy. And I think people that are coming into the work force don't necessarily have a background or a degree in data science. So how do you manage? >> Yeah, so in many cases that's true. I will tell you some universities are doing amazing work here. One example, University of California Berkeley. They offer a course for all majors. So no matter what you're majoring in, you have a course on foundations of data science. How do you bring data science to every role? So it's starting to happen. We at IBM provide data science courses through CognitiveClass.ai. It's for everybody. It's free. And look, if you want to get your hands on code and just dive right in, you go to datascience.ibm.com. The key point is this though. It's more about attitude than it is aptitude. I think anybody can figure this out. But it's about the attitude to say we're putting data first and we're going to figure out how to make this real in our organization. >> I also have to give a shout out to my alma mater because I have heard that there is an offering in MS in data analytics. And they are always on the forefront of new technologies and new majors and on trend. And I've heard that the placement behind those jobs, people graduating with the MS is high. >> I'm sure it's very high. >> So go Tigers. All right, tangential. Let me get back to something else you touched on earlier because you mentioned that a number of customers ask you how in the world do I get started with AI? It's an overwhelming question. Where do you even begin? What do you tell them? >> Yeah, well things are moving really fast. But the good thing is most organizations I see, they're already on the path, even if they don't know it. They might have a BI practice in place. They've got data warehouses. They've got data lakes. Let me give you an example. AMC Networks. They produce a lot of the shows that I'm sure you watch Katie. >> [Katie] Yes, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, any fans? >> [Rob] Yeah, we've got a few. >> [Katie] Well you taught me something I didn't even know. Because it's amazing how we have all these different industries, but yet media in itself is impacted too. And this is a good example. >> Absolutely. So, AMC Networks, think about it. They've got ads to place. They want to track viewer behavior. What do people like? What do they dislike? So they have to optimize every aspect of their business from marketing campaigns to promotions to scheduling to ads. And their goal was transform data into business insights and really take the burden off of their IT team that was heavily burdened by obviously a huge increase in data. So their VP of BI took the approach of using machine learning to process large volumes of data. They used a platform that was designed for AI and data processing. It's the IBM analytics system where it's a data warehouse, data science tools are built in. It has in memory data processing. And just like that, they were ready for AI. And they're already seeing that impact in their business. >> Do you think a movement of that nature kind of presses other media conglomerates and organizations to say we need to be doing this too? >> I think it's inevitable that everybody, you're either going to be playing, you're either going to be leading, or you'll be playing catch up. And so, as we talk to clients we think about how do you start down this path now, even if you have to iterate over time? Because otherwise you're going to wake up and you're going to be behind. >> One thing worth noting is we've talked about analytics to the data. It's analytics first to the data, not the other way around. >> Right. So, look. We as a practice, we say you want to bring data to where the data sits. Because it's a lot more efficient that way. It gets you better outcomes in terms of how you train models and it's more efficient. And we think that leads to better outcomes. Other organization will say, "Hey move the data around." And everything becomes a big data movement exercise. But once an organization has started down this path, they're starting to get predictions, they want to do it where it's really easy. And that means analytics applied right where the data sits. >> And worth talking about the role of the data scientist in all of this. It's been called the hot job of the decade. And a Harvard Business Review even dubbed it the sexiest job of the 21st century. >> Yes. >> I want to see this on the cover of Vogue. Like I want to see the first data scientist. Female preferred, on the cover of Vogue. That would be amazing. >> Perhaps you can. >> People agree. So what changes for them? Is this challenging in terms of we talk data science for all. Where do all the data science, is it data science for everyone? And how does it change everything? >> Well, I think of it this way. AI gives software super powers. It really does. It changes the nature of software. And at the center of that is data scientists. So, a data scientist has a set of powers that they've never had before in any organization. And that's why it's a hot profession. Now, on one hand, this has been around for a while. We've had actuaries. We've had statisticians that have really transformed industries. But there are a few things that are new now. We have new tools. New languages. Broader recognition of this need. And while it's important to recognize this critical skill set, you can't just limit it to a few people. This is about scaling it across the organization. And truly making it accessible to all. >> So then do we need more data scientists? Or is this something you train like you said, across the board? >> Well, I think you want to do a little bit of both. We want more. But, we can also train more and make the ones we have more productive. The way I think about it is there's kind of two markets here. And we call it clickers and coders. >> [Katie] I like that. That's good. >> So, let's talk about what that means. So clickers are basically somebody that wants to use tools. Create models visually. It's drag and drop. Something that's very intuitive. Those are the clickers. Nothing wrong with that. It's been valuable for years. There's a new crop of data scientists. They want to code. They want to build with the latest open source tools. They want to write in Python or R. These are the coders. And both approaches are viable. Both approaches are critical. Organizations have to have a way to meet the needs of both of those types. And there's not a lot of things available today that do that. >> Well let's keep going on that. Because I hear you talking about the data scientists role and how it's critical to success, but with the new tools, data science and analytics skills can extend beyond the domain of just the data scientist. >> That's right. So look, we're unifying coders and clickers into a single platform, which we call IBM Data Science Experience. And as the demand for data science expertise grows, so does the need for these kind of tools. To bring them into the same environment. And my view is if you have the right platform, it enables the organization to collaborate. And suddenly you've changed the nature of data science from an individual sport to a team sport. >> So as somebody that, my background is in IT, the question is really is this an additional piece of what IT needs to do in 2017 and beyond? Or is it just another line item to the budget? >> So I'm afraid that some people might view it that way. As just another line item. But, I would challenge that and say data science is going to reinvent IT. It's going to change the nature of IT. And every organization needs to think about what are the skills that are critical? How do we engage a broader team to do this? Because once they get there, this is the chance to reinvent how they're performing IT. >> [Katie] Challenging or not? >> Look it's all a big challenge. Think about everything IT organizations have been through. Some of them were late to things like mobile, but then they caught up. Some were late to cloud, but then they caught up. I would just urge people, don't be late to data science. Use this as your chance to reinvent IT. Start with this notion of clickers and coders. This is a seminal moment. Much like mobile and cloud was. So don't be late. >> And I think it's critical because it could be so costly to wait. And Rob and I were even chatting earlier how data analytics is just moving into all different kinds of industries. And I can tell you even personally being effected by how important the analysis is in working in pediatric cancer for the last seven years. I personally implement virtual reality headsets to pediatric cancer hospitals across the country. And it's great. And it's working phenomenally. And the kids are amazed. And the staff is amazed. But the phase two of this project is putting in little metrics in the hardware that gather the breathing, the heart rate to show that we have data. Proof that we can hand over to the hospitals to continue making this program a success. So just in-- >> That's a great example. >> An interesting example. >> Saving lives? >> Yes. >> That's also applying a lot of what we talked about. >> Exciting stuff in the world of data science. >> Yes. Look, I just add this is an existential moment for every organization. Because what you do in this area is probably going to define how competitive you are going forward. And think about if you don't do something. What if one of your competitors goes and creates an application that's more engaging with clients? So my recommendation is start small. Experiment. Learn. Iterate on projects. Define the business outcomes. Then scale up. It's very doable. But you've got to take the first step. >> First step always critical. And now we're going to get to the fun hands on part of our story. Because in just a moment we're going to take a closer look at what data science can deliver. And where organizations are trying to get to. All right. Thank you Rob and now we've been joined by Siva Anne who is going to help us navigate this demo. First, welcome Siva. Give him a big round of applause. Yeah. All right, Rob break down what we're going to be looking at. You take over this demo. >> All right. So this is going to be pretty interesting. So Siva is going to take us through. So he's going to play the role of a financial adviser. Who wants to help better serve clients through recommendations. And I'm going to really illustrate three things. One is how do you federate data from multiple data sources? Inside the firewall, outside the firewall. How do you apply machine learning to predict and to automate? And then how do you move analytics closer to your data? So, what you're seeing here is a custom application for an investment firm. So, Siva, our financial adviser, welcome. So you can see at the top, we've got market data. We pulled that from an external source. And then we've got Siva's calendar in the middle. He's got clients on the right side. So page down, what else do you see down there Siva? >> [Siva] I can see the recent market news. And in here I can see that JP Morgan is calling for a US dollar rebound in the second half of the year. And, I have upcoming meeting with Leo Rakes. I can get-- >> [Rob] So let's go in there. Why don't you click on Leo Rakes. So, you're sitting at your desk, you're deciding how you're going to spend the day. You know you have a meeting with Leo. So you click on it. You immediately see, all right, so what do we know about him? We've got data governance implemented. So we know his age, we know his degree. We can see he's not that aggressive of a trader. Only six trades in the last few years. But then where it gets interesting is you go to the bottom. You start to see predicted industry affinity. Where did that come from? How do we have that? >> [Siva] So these green lines and red arrows here indicate the trending affinity of Leo Rakes for particular industry stocks. What we've done here is we've built machine learning models using customer's demographic data, his stock portfolios, and browsing behavior to build a model which can predict his affinity for a particular industry. >> [Rob] Interesting. So, I like to think of this, we call it celebrity experiences. So how do you treat every customer like they're a celebrity? So to some extent, we're reading his mind. Because without asking him, we know that he's going to have an affinity for auto stocks. So we go down. Now we look at his portfolio. You can see okay, he's got some different holdings. He's got Amazon, Google, Apple, and then he's got RACE, which is the ticker for Ferrari. You can see that's done incredibly well. And so, as a financial adviser, you look at this and you say, all right, we know he loves auto stocks. Ferrari's done very well. Let's create a hedge. Like what kind of security would interest him as a hedge against his position for Ferrari? Could we go figure that out? >> [Siva] Yes. Given I know that he's gotten an affinity for auto stocks, and I also see that Ferrari has got some terminus gains, I want to lock in these gains by hedging. And I want to do that by picking a auto stock which has got negative correlation with Ferrari. >> [Rob] So this is where we get to the idea of in database analytics. Cause you start clicking that and immediately we're getting instant answers of what's happening. So what did we find here? We're going to compare Ferrari and Honda. >> [Siva] I'm going to compare Ferrari with Honda. And what I see here instantly is that Honda has got a negative correlation with Ferrari, which makes it a perfect mix for his stock portfolio. Given he has an affinity for auto stocks and it correlates negatively with Ferrari. >> [Rob] These are very powerful tools at the hand of a financial adviser. You think about it. As a financial adviser, you wouldn't think about federating data, machine learning, pretty powerful. >> [Siva] Yes. So what we have seen here is that using the common SQL engine, we've been able to federate queries across multiple data sources. Db2 Warehouse in the cloud, IBM's Integrated Analytic System, and Hortonworks powered Hadoop platform for the new speeds. We've been able to use machine learning to derive innovative insights about his stock affinities. And drive the machine learning into the appliance. Closer to where the data resides to deliver high performance analytics. >> [Rob] At scale? >> [Siva] We're able to run millions of these correlations across stocks, currency, other factors. And even score hundreds of customers for their affinities on a daily basis. >> That's great. Siva, thank you for playing the role of financial adviser. So I just want to recap briefly. Cause this really powerful technology that's really simple. So we federated, we aggregated multiple data sources from all over the web and internal systems. And public cloud systems. Machine learning models were built that predicted Leo's affinity for a certain industry. In this case, automotive. And then you see when you deploy analytics next to your data, even a financial adviser, just with the click of a button is getting instant answers so they can go be more productive in their next meeting. This whole idea of celebrity experiences for your customer, that's available for everybody, if you take advantage of these types of capabilities. Katie, I'll hand it back to you. >> Good stuff. Thank you Rob. Thank you Siva. Powerful demonstration on what we've been talking about all afternoon. And thank you again to Siva for helping us navigate. Should be give him one more round of applause? We're going to be back in just a moment to look at how we operationalize all of this data. But in first, here's a message from me. If you're a part of a line of business, your main fear is disruption. You know data is the new goal that can create huge amounts of value. So does your competition. And they may be beating you to it. You're convinced there are new business models and revenue sources hidden in all the data. You just need to figure out how to leverage it. But with the scarcity of data scientists, you really can't rely solely on them. You may need more people throughout the organization that have the ability to extract value from data. And as a data science leader or data scientist, you have a lot of the same concerns. You spend way too much time looking for, prepping, and interpreting data and waiting for models to train. You know you need to operationalize the work you do to provide business value faster. What you want is an easier way to do data prep. And rapidly build models that can be easily deployed, monitored and automatically updated. So whether you're a data scientist, data science leader, or in a line of business, what's the solution? What'll it take to transform the way you work? That's what we're going to explore next. All right, now it's time to delve deeper into the nuts and bolts. The nitty gritty of operationalizing data science and creating a data driven culture. How do you actually do that? Well that's what these experts are here to share with us. I'm joined by Nir Kaldero, who's head of data science at Galvanize, which is an education and training organization. Tricia Wang, who is co-founder of Sudden Compass, a consultancy that helps companies understand people with data. And last, but certainly not least, Michael Li, founder and CEO of Data Incubator, which is a data science train company. All right guys. Shall we get right to it? >> All right. >> So data explosion happening right now. And we are seeing it across the board. I just shared an example of how it's impacting my philanthropic work in pediatric cancer. But you guys each have so many unique roles in your business life. How are you seeing it just blow up in your fields? Nir, your thing? >> Yeah, for example like in Galvanize we train many Fortune 500 companies. And just by looking at the demand of companies that wants us to help them go through this digital transformation is mind-blowing. Data point by itself. >> Okay. Well what we're seeing what's going on is that data science like as a theme, is that it's actually for everyone now. But what's happening is that it's actually meeting non technical people. But what we're seeing is that when non technical people are implementing these tools or coming at these tools without a base line of data literacy, they're often times using it in ways that distance themselves from the customer. Because they're implementing data science tools without a clear purpose, without a clear problem. And so what we do at Sudden Compass is that we work with companies to help them embrace and understand the complexity of their customers. Because often times they are misusing data science to try and flatten their understanding of the customer. As if you can just do more traditional marketing. Where you're putting people into boxes. And I think the whole ROI of data is that you can now understand people's relationships at a much more complex level at a greater scale before. But we have to do this with basic data literacy. And this has to involve technical and non technical people. >> Well you can have all the data in the world, and I think it speaks to, if you're not doing the proper movement with it, forget it. It means nothing at the same time. >> No absolutely. I mean, I think that when you look at the huge explosion in data, that comes with it a huge explosion in data experts. Right, we call them data scientists, data analysts. And sometimes they're people who are very, very talented, like the people here. But sometimes you have people who are maybe re-branding themselves, right? Trying to move up their title one notch to try to attract that higher salary. And I think that that's one of the things that customers are coming to us for, right? They're saying, hey look, there are a lot of people that call themselves data scientists, but we can't really distinguish. So, we have sort of run a fellowship where you help companies hire from a really talented group of folks, who are also truly data scientists and who know all those kind of really important data science tools. And we also help companies internally. Fortune 500 companies who are looking to grow that data science practice that they have. And we help clients like McKinsey, BCG, Bain, train up their customers, also their clients, also their workers to be more data talented. And to build up that data science capabilities. >> And Nir, this is something you work with a lot. A lot of Fortune 500 companies. And when we were speaking earlier, you were saying many of these companies can be in a panic. >> Yeah. >> Explain that. >> Yeah, so you know, not all Fortune 500 companies are fully data driven. And we know that the winners in this fourth industrial revolution, which I like to call the machine intelligence revolution, will be companies who navigate and transform their organization to unlock the power of data science and machine learning. And the companies that are not like that. Or not utilize data science and predictive power well, will pretty much get shredded. So they are in a panic. >> Tricia, companies have to deal with data behind the firewall and in the new multi cloud world. How do organizations start to become driven right to the core? >> I think the most urgent question to become data driven that companies should be asking is how do I bring the complex reality that our customers are experiencing on the ground in to a corporate office? Into the data models. So that question is critical because that's how you actually prevent any big data disasters. And that's how you leverage big data. Because when your data models are really far from your human models, that's when you're going to do things that are really far off from how, it's going to not feel right. That's when Tesco had their terrible big data disaster that they're still recovering from. And so that's why I think it's really important to understand that when you implement big data, you have to further embrace thick data. The qualitative, the emotional stuff, that is difficult to quantify. But then comes the difficult art and science that I think is the next level of data science. Which is that getting non technical and technical people together to ask how do we find those unknown nuggets of insights that are difficult to quantify? Then, how do we do the next step of figuring out how do you mathematically scale those insights into a data model? So that actually is reflective of human understanding? And then we can start making decisions at scale. But you have to have that first. >> That's absolutely right. And I think that when we think about what it means to be a data scientist, right? I always think about it in these sort of three pillars. You have the math side. You have to have that kind of stats, hardcore machine learning background. You have the programming side. You don't work with small amounts of data. You work with large amounts of data. You've got to be able to type the code to make those computers run. But then the last part is that human element. You have to understand the domain expertise. You have to understand what it is that I'm actually analyzing. What's the business proposition? And how are the clients, how are the users actually interacting with the system? That human element that you were talking about. And I think having somebody who understands all of those and not just in isolation, but is able to marry that understanding across those different topics, that's what makes a data scientist. >> But I find that we don't have people with those skill sets. And right now the way I see teams being set up inside companies is that they're creating these isolated data unicorns. These data scientists that have graduated from your programs, which are great. But, they don't involve the people who are the domain experts. They don't involve the designers, the consumer insight people, the people, the salespeople. The people who spend time with the customers day in and day out. Somehow they're left out of the room. They're consulted, but they're not a stakeholder. >> Can I actually >> Yeah, yeah please. >> Can I actually give a quick example? So for example, we at Galvanize train the executives and the managers. And then the technical people, the data scientists and the analysts. But in order to actually see all of the RY behind the data, you also have to have a creative fluid conversation between non technical and technical people. And this is a major trend now. And there's a major gap. And we need to increase awareness and kind of like create a new, kind of like environment where technical people also talks seamlessly with non technical ones. >> [Tricia] We call-- >> That's one of the things that we see a lot. Is one of the trends in-- >> A major trend. >> data science training is it's not just for the data science technical experts. It's not just for one type of person. So a lot of the training we do is sort of data engineers. People who are more on the software engineering side learning more about the stats of math. And then people who are sort of traditionally on the stat side learning more about the engineering. And then managers and people who are data analysts learning about both. >> Michael, I think you said something that was of interest too because I think we can look at IBM Watson as an example. And working in healthcare. The human component. Because often times we talk about machine learning and AI, and data and you get worried that you still need that human component. Especially in the world of healthcare. And I think that's a very strong point when it comes to the data analysis side. Is there any particular example you can speak to of that? >> So I think that there was this really excellent paper a while ago talking about all the neuro net stuff and trained on textual data. So looking at sort of different corpuses. And they found that these models were highly, highly sexist. They would read these corpuses and it's not because neuro nets themselves are sexist. It's because they're reading the things that we write. And it turns out that we write kind of sexist things. And they would sort of find all these patterns in there that were sort of latent, that had a lot of sort of things that maybe we would cringe at if we sort of saw. And I think that's one of the really important aspects of the human element, right? It's being able to come in and sort of say like, okay, I know what the biases of the system are, I know what the biases of the tools are. I need to figure out how to use that to make the tools, make the world a better place. And like another area where this comes up all the time is lending, right? So the federal government has said, and we have a lot of clients in the financial services space, so they're constantly under these kind of rules that they can't make discriminatory lending practices based on a whole set of protected categories. Race, sex, gender, things like that. But, it's very easy when you train a model on credit scores to pick that up. And then to have a model that's inadvertently sexist or racist. And that's where you need the human element to come back in and say okay, look, you're using the classic example would be zip code, you're using zip code as a variable. But when you look at it, zip codes actually highly correlated with race. And you can't do that. So you may inadvertently by sort of following the math and being a little naive about the problem, inadvertently introduce something really horrible into a model and that's where you need a human element to sort of step in and say, okay hold on. Slow things down. This isn't the right way to go. >> And the people who have -- >> I feel like, I can feel her ready to respond. >> Yes, I'm ready. >> She's like let me have at it. >> And the people here it is. And the people who are really great at providing that human intelligence are social scientists. We are trained to look for bias and to understand bias in data. Whether it's quantitative or qualitative. And I really think that we're going to have less of these kind of problems if we had more integrated teams. If it was a mandate from leadership to say no data science team should be without a social scientist, ethnographer, or qualitative researcher of some kind, to be able to help see these biases. >> The talent piece is actually the most crucial-- >> Yeah. >> one here. If you look about how to enable machine intelligence in organization there are the pillars that I have in my head which is the culture, the talent and the technology infrastructure. And I believe and I saw in working very closely with the Fortune 100 and 200 companies that the talent piece is actually the most important crucial hard to get. >> [Tricia] I totally agree. >> It's absolutely true. Yeah, no I mean I think that's sort of like how we came up with our business model. Companies were basically saying hey, I can't hire data scientists. And so we have a fellowship where we get 2,000 applicants each quarter. We take the top 2% and then we sort of train them up. And we work with hiring companies who then want to hire from that population. And so we're sort of helping them solve that problem. And the other half of it is really around training. Cause with a lot of industries, especially if you're sort of in a more regulated industry, there's a lot of nuances to what you're doing. And the fastest way to develop that data science or AI talent may not necessarily be to hire folks who are coming out of a PhD program. It may be to take folks internally who have a lot of that domain knowledge that you have and get them trained up on those data science techniques. So we've had large insurance companies come to us and say hey look, we hire three or four folks from you a quarter. That doesn't move the needle for us. What we really need is take the thousand actuaries and statisticians that we have and get all of them trained up to become a data scientist and become data literate in this new open source world. >> [Katie] Go ahead. >> All right, ladies first. >> Go ahead. >> Are you sure? >> No please, fight first. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead Nir. >> So this is actually a trend that we have been seeing in the past year or so that companies kind of like start to look how to upscale and look for talent within the organization. So they can actually move them to become more literate and navigate 'em from analyst to data scientist. And from data scientist to machine learner. So this is actually a trend that is happening already for a year or so. >> Yeah, but I also find that after they've gone through that training in getting people skilled up in data science, the next problem that I get is executives coming to say we've invested in all of this. We're still not moving the needle. We've already invested in the right tools. We've gotten the right skills. We have enough scale of people who have these skills. Why are we not moving the needle? And what I explain to them is look, you're still making decisions in the same way. And you're still not involving enough of the non technical people. Especially from marketing, which is now, the CMO's are much more responsible for driving growth in their companies now. But often times it's so hard to change the old way of marketing, which is still like very segmentation. You know, demographic variable based, and we're trying to move people to say no, you have to understand the complexity of customers and not put them in boxes. >> And I think underlying a lot of this discussion is this question of culture, right? >> Yes. >> Absolutely. >> How do you build a data driven culture? And I think that that culture question, one of the ways that comes up quite often in especially in large, Fortune 500 enterprises, is that they are very, they're not very comfortable with sort of example, open source architecture. Open source tools. And there is some sort of residual bias that that's somehow dangerous. So security vulnerability. And I think that that's part of the cultural challenge that they often have in terms of how do I build a more data driven organization? Well a lot of the talent really wants to use these kind of tools. And I mean, just to give you an example, we are partnering with one of the major cloud providers to sort of help make open source tools more user friendly on their platform. So trying to help them attract the best technologists to use their platform because they want and they understand the value of having that kind of open source technology work seamlessly on their platforms. So I think that just sort of goes to show you how important open source is in this movement. And how much large companies and Fortune 500 companies and a lot of the ones we work with have to embrace that. >> Yeah, and I'm seeing it in our work. Even when we're working with Fortune 500 companies, is that they've already gone through the first phase of data science work. Where I explain it was all about the tools and getting the right tools and architecture in place. And then companies started moving into getting the right skill set in place. Getting the right talent. And what you're talking about with culture is really where I think we're talking about the third phase of data science, which is looking at communication of these technical frameworks so that we can get non technical people really comfortable in the same room with data scientists. That is going to be the phase, that's really where I see the pain point. And that's why at Sudden Compass, we're really dedicated to working with each other to figure out how do we solve this problem now? >> And I think that communication between the technical stakeholders and management and leadership. That's a very critical piece of this. You can't have a successful data science organization without that. >> Absolutely. >> And I think that actually some of the most popular trainings we've had recently are from managers and executives who are looking to say, how do I become more data savvy? How do I figure out what is this data science thing and how do I communicate with my data scientists? >> You guys made this way too easy. I was just going to get some popcorn and watch it play out. >> Nir, last 30 seconds. I want to leave you with an opportunity to, anything you want to add to this conversation? >> I think one thing to conclude is to say that companies that are not data driven is about time to hit refresh and figure how they transition the organization to become data driven. To become agile and nimble so they can actually see what opportunities from this important industrial revolution. Otherwise, unfortunately they will have hard time to survive. >> [Katie] All agreed? >> [Tricia] Absolutely, you're right. >> Michael, Trish, Nir, thank you so much. Fascinating discussion. And thank you guys again for joining us. We will be right back with another great demo. Right after this. >> Thank you Katie. >> Once again, thank you for an excellent discussion. Weren't they great guys? And thank you for everyone who's tuning in on the live webcast. As you can hear, we have an amazing studio audience here. And we're going to keep things moving. I'm now joined by Daniel Hernandez and Siva Anne. And we're going to turn our attention to how you can deliver on what they're talking about using data science experience to do data science faster. >> Thank you Katie. Siva and I are going to spend the next 10 minutes showing you how you can deliver on what they were saying using the IBM Data Science Experience to do data science faster. We'll demonstrate through new features we introduced this week how teams can work together more effectively across the entire analytics life cycle. How you can take advantage of any and all data no matter where it is and what it is. How you could use your favorite tools from open source. And finally how you could build models anywhere and employ them close to where your data is. Remember the financial adviser app Rob showed you? To build an app like that, we needed a team of data scientists, developers, data engineers, and IT staff to collaborate. We do this in the Data Science Experience through a concept we call projects. When I create a new project, I can now use the new Github integration feature. We're doing for data science what we've been doing for developers for years. Distributed teams can work together on analytics projects. And take advantage of Github's version management and change management features. This is a huge deal. Let's explore the project we created for the financial adviser app. As you can see, our data engineer Joane, our developer Rob, and others are collaborating this project. Joane got things started by bringing together the trusted data sources we need to build the app. Taking a closer look at the data, we see that our customer and profile data is stored on our recently announced IBM Integrated Analytics System, which runs safely behind our firewall. We also needed macro economic data, which she was able to find in the Federal Reserve. And she stored it in our Db2 Warehouse on Cloud. And finally, she selected stock news data from NASDAQ.com and landed that in a Hadoop cluster, which happens to be powered by Hortonworks. We added a new feature to the Data Science Experience so that when it's installed with Hortonworks, it automatically uses a need of security and governance controls within the cluster so your data is always secure and safe. Now we want to show you the news data we stored in the Hortonworks cluster. This is the mean administrative console. It's powered by an open source project called Ambari. And here's the news data. It's in parquet files stored in HDFS, which happens to be a distributive file system. To get the data from NASDAQ into our cluster, we used IBM's BigIntegrate and BigQuality to create automatic data pipelines that acquire, cleanse, and ingest that news data. Once the data's available, we use IBM's Big SQL to query that data using SQL statements that are much like the ones we would use for any relation of data, including the data that we have in the Integrated Analytics System and Db2 Warehouse on Cloud. This and the federation capabilities that Big SQL offers dramatically simplifies data acquisition. Now we want to show you how we support a brand new tool that we're excited about. Since we launched last summer, the Data Science Experience has supported Jupyter and R for data analysis and visualization. In this week's update, we deeply integrated another great open source project called Apache Zeppelin. It's known for having great visualization support, advanced collaboration features, and is growing in popularity amongst the data science community. This is an example of Apache Zeppelin and the notebook we created through it to explore some of our data. Notice how wonderful and easy the data visualizations are. Now we want to walk you through the Jupyter notebook we created to explore our customer preference for stocks. We use notebooks to understand and explore data. To identify the features that have some predictive power. Ultimately, we're trying to assess what ultimately is driving customer stock preference. Here we did the analysis to identify the attributes of customers that are likely to purchase auto stocks. We used this understanding to build our machine learning model. For building machine learning models, we've always had tools integrated into the Data Science Experience. But sometimes you need to use tools you already invested in. Like our very own SPSS as well as SAS. Through new import feature, you can easily import those models created with those tools. This helps you avoid vendor lock-in, and simplify the development, training, deployment, and management of all your models. To build the models we used in app, we could have coded, but we prefer a visual experience. We used our customer profile data in the Integrated Analytic System. Used the Auto Data Preparation to cleanse our data. Choose the binary classification algorithms. Let the Data Science Experience evaluate between logistic regression and gradient boosted tree. It's doing the heavy work for us. As you can see here, the Data Science Experience generated performance metrics that show us that the gradient boosted tree is the best performing algorithm for the data we gave it. Once we save this model, it's automatically deployed and available for developers to use. Any application developer can take this endpoint and consume it like they would any other API inside of the apps they built. We've made training and creating machine learning models super simple. But what about the operations? A lot of companies are struggling to ensure their model performance remains high over time. In our financial adviser app, we know that customer data changes constantly, so we need to always monitor model performance and ensure that our models are retrained as is necessary. This is a dashboard that shows the performance of our models and lets our teams monitor and retrain those models so that they're always performing to our standards. So far we've been showing you the Data Science Experience available behind the firewall that we're using to build and train models. Through a new publish feature, you can build models and deploy them anywhere. In another environment, private, public, or anywhere else with just a few clicks. So here we're publishing our model to the Watson machine learning service. It happens to be in the IBM cloud. And also deeply integrated with our Data Science Experience. After publishing and switching to the Watson machine learning service, you can see that our stock affinity and model that we just published is there and ready for use. So this is incredibly important. I just want to say it again. The Data Science Experience allows you to train models behind your own firewall, take advantage of your proprietary and sensitive data, and then deploy those models wherever you want with ease. So summarize what we just showed you. First, IBM's Data Science Experience supports all teams. You saw how our data engineer populated our project with trusted data sets. Our data scientists developed, trained, and tested a machine learning model. Our developers used APIs to integrate machine learning into their apps. And how IT can use our Integrated Model Management dashboard to monitor and manage model performance. Second, we support all data. On premises, in the cloud, structured, unstructured, inside of your firewall, and outside of it. We help you bring analytics and governance to where your data is. Third, we support all tools. The data science tools that you depend on are readily available and deeply integrated. This includes capabilities from great partners like Hortonworks. And powerful tools like our very own IBM SPSS. And fourth, and finally, we support all deployments. You can build your models anywhere, and deploy them right next to where your data is. Whether that's in the public cloud, private cloud, or even on the world's most reliable transaction platform, IBM z. So see for yourself. Go to the Data Science Experience website, take us for a spin. And if you happen to be ready right now, our recently created Data Science Elite Team can help you get started and run experiments alongside you with no charge. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much Daniel. It seems like a great time to get started. And thanks to Siva for taking us through it. Rob and I will be back in just a moment to add some perspective right after this. All right, once again joined by Rob Thomas. And Rob obviously we got a lot of information here. >> Yes, we've covered a lot of ground. >> This is intense. You got to break it down for me cause I think we zoom out and see the big picture. What better data science can deliver to a business? Why is this so important? I mean we've heard it through and through. >> Yeah, well, I heard it a couple times. But it starts with businesses have to embrace a data driven culture. And it is a change. And we need to make data accessible with the right tools in a collaborative culture because we've got diverse skill sets in every organization. But data driven companies succeed when data science tools are in the hands of everyone. And I think that's a new thought. I think most companies think just get your data scientist some tools, you'll be fine. This is about tools in the hands of everyone. I think the panel did a great job of describing about how we get to data science for all. Building a data culture, making it a part of your everyday operations, and the highlights of what Daniel just showed us, that's some pretty cool features for how organizations can get to this, which is you can see IBM's Data Science Experience, how that supports all teams. You saw data analysts, data scientists, application developer, IT staff, all working together. Second, you saw how we support all tools. And your choice of tools. So the most popular data science libraries integrated into one platform. And we saw some new capabilities that help companies avoid lock-in, where you can import existing models created from specialist tools like SPSS or others. And then deploy them and manage them inside of Data Science Experience. That's pretty interesting. And lastly, you see we continue to build on this best of open tools. Partnering with companies like H2O, Hortonworks, and others. Third, you can see how you use all data no matter where it lives. That's a key challenge every organization's going to face. Private, public, federating all data sources. We announced new integration with the Hortonworks data platform where we deploy machine learning models where your data resides. That's been a key theme. Analytics where the data is. And lastly, supporting all types of deployments. Deploy them in your Hadoop cluster. Deploy them in your Integrated Analytic System. Or deploy them in z, just to name a few. A lot of different options here. But look, don't believe anything I say. Go try it for yourself. Data Science Experience, anybody can use it. Go to datascience.ibm.com and look, if you want to start right now, we just created a team that we call Data Science Elite. These are the best data scientists in the world that will come sit down with you and co-create solutions, models, and prove out a proof of concept. >> Good stuff. Thank you Rob. So you might be asking what does an organization look like that embraces data science for all? And how could it transform your role? I'm going to head back to the office and check it out. Let's start with the perspective of the line of business. What's changed? Well, now you're starting to explore new business models. You've uncovered opportunities for new revenue sources and all that hidden data. And being disrupted is no longer keeping you up at night. As a data science leader, you're beginning to collaborate with a line of business to better understand and translate the objectives into the models that are being built. Your data scientists are also starting to collaborate with the less technical team members and analysts who are working closest to the business problem. And as a data scientist, you stop feeling like you're falling behind. Open source tools are keeping you current. You're also starting to operationalize the work that you do. And you get to do more of what you love. Explore data, build models, put your models into production, and create business impact. All in all, it's not a bad scenario. Thanks. All right. We are back and coming up next, oh this is a special time right now. Cause we got a great guest speaker. New York Magazine called him the spreadsheet psychic and number crunching prodigy who went from correctly forecasting baseball games to correctly forecasting presidential elections. He even invented a proprietary algorithm called PECOTA for predicting future performance by baseball players and teams. And his New York Times bestselling book, The Signal and the Noise was named by Amazon.com as the number one best non-fiction book of 2012. He's currently the Editor in Chief of the award winning website, FiveThirtyEight and appears on ESPN as an on air commentator. Big round of applause. My pleasure to welcome Nate Silver. >> Thank you. We met backstage. >> Yes. >> It feels weird to re-shake your hand, but you know, for the audience. >> I had to give the intense firm grip. >> Definitely. >> The ninja grip. So you and I have crossed paths kind of digitally in the past, which it really interesting, is I started my career at ESPN. And I started as a production assistant, then later back on air for sports technology. And I go to you to talk about sports because-- >> Yeah. >> Wow, has ESPN upped their game in terms of understanding the importance of data and analytics. And what it brings. Not just to MLB, but across the board. >> No, it's really infused into the way they present the broadcast. You'll have win probability on the bottom line. And they'll incorporate FiveThirtyEight metrics into how they cover college football for example. So, ESPN ... Sports is maybe the perfect, if you're a data scientist, like the perfect kind of test case. And the reason being that sports consists of problems that have rules. And have structure. And when problems have rules and structure, then it's a lot easier to work with. So it's a great way to kind of improve your skills as a data scientist. Of course, there are also important real world problems that are more open ended, and those present different types of challenges. But it's such a natural fit. The teams. Think about the teams playing the World Series tonight. The Dodgers and the Astros are both like very data driven, especially Houston. Golden State Warriors, the NBA Champions, extremely data driven. New England Patriots, relative to an NFL team, it's shifted a little bit, the NFL bar is lower. But the Patriots are certainly very analytical in how they make decisions. So, you can't talk about sports without talking about analytics. >> And I was going to save the baseball question for later. Cause we are moments away from game seven. >> Yeah. >> Is everyone else watching game seven? It's been an incredible series. Probably one of the best of all time. >> Yeah, I mean-- >> You have a prediction here? >> You can mention that too. So I don't have a prediction. FiveThirtyEight has the Dodgers with a 60% chance of winning. >> [Katie] LA Fans. >> So you have two teams that are about equal. But the Dodgers pitching staff is in better shape at the moment. The end of a seven game series. And they're at home. >> But the statistics behind the two teams is pretty incredible. >> Yeah. It's like the first World Series in I think 56 years or something where you have two 100 win teams facing one another. There have been a lot of parity in baseball for a lot of years. Not that many offensive overall juggernauts. But this year, and last year with the Cubs and the Indians too really. But this year, you have really spectacular teams in the World Series. It kind of is a showcase of modern baseball. Lots of home runs. Lots of strikeouts. >> [Katie] Lots of extra innings. >> Lots of extra innings. Good defense. Lots of pitching changes. So if you love the modern baseball game, it's been about the best example that you've had. If you like a little bit more contact, and fewer strikeouts, maybe not so much. But it's been a spectacular and very exciting World Series. It's amazing to talk. MLB is huge with analysis. I mean, hands down. But across the board, if you can provide a few examples. Because there's so many teams in front offices putting such an, just a heavy intensity on the analysis side. And where the teams are going. And if you could provide any specific examples of teams that have really blown your mind. Especially over the last year or two. Because every year it gets more exciting if you will. I mean, so a big thing in baseball is defensive shifts. So if you watch tonight, you'll probably see a couple of plays where if you're used to watching baseball, a guy makes really solid contact. And there's a fielder there that you don't think should be there. But that's really very data driven where you analyze where's this guy hit the ball. That part's not so hard. But also there's game theory involved. Because you have to adjust for the fact that he knows where you're positioning the defenders. He's trying therefore to make adjustments to his own swing and so that's been a major innovation in how baseball is played. You know, how bullpens are used too. Where teams have realized that actually having a guy, across all sports pretty much, realizing the importance of rest. And of fatigue. And that you can be the best pitcher in the world, but guess what? After four or five innings, you're probably not as good as a guy who has a fresh arm necessarily. So I mean, it really is like, these are not subtle things anymore. It's not just oh, on base percentage is valuable. It really effects kind of every strategic decision in baseball. The NBA, if you watch an NBA game tonight, see how many three point shots are taken. That's in part because of data. And teams realizing hey, three points is worth more than two, once you're more than about five feet from the basket, the shooting percentage gets really flat. And so it's revolutionary, right? Like teams that will shoot almost half their shots from the three point range nowadays. Larry Bird, who wound up being one of the greatest three point shooters of all time, took only eight three pointers his first year in the NBA. It's quite noticeable if you watch baseball or basketball in particular. >> Not to focus too much on sports. One final question. In terms of Major League Soccer, and now in NFL, we're having the analysis and having wearables where it can now showcase if they wanted to on screen, heart rate and breathing and how much exertion. How much data is too much data? And when does it ruin the sport? >> So, I don't think, I mean, again, it goes sport by sport a little bit. I think in basketball you actually have a more exciting game. I think the game is more open now. You have more three pointers. You have guys getting higher assist totals. But you know, I don't know. I'm not one of those people who thinks look, if you love baseball or basketball, and you go in to work for the Astros, the Yankees or the Knicks, they probably need some help, right? You really have to be passionate about that sport. Because it's all based on what questions am I asking? As I'm a fan or I guess an employee of the team. Or a player watching the game. And there isn't really any substitute I don't think for the insight and intuition that a curious human has to kind of ask the right questions. So we can talk at great length about what tools do you then apply when you have those questions, but that still comes from people. I don't think machine learning could help with what questions do I want to ask of the data. It might help you get the answers. >> If you have a mid-fielder in a soccer game though, not exerting, only 80%, and you're seeing that on a screen as a fan, and you're saying could that person get fired at the end of the day? One day, with the data? >> So we found that actually some in soccer in particular, some of the better players are actually more still. So Leo Messi, maybe the best player in the world, doesn't move as much as other soccer players do. And the reason being that A) he kind of knows how to position himself in the first place. B) he realizes that you make a run, and you're out of position. That's quite fatiguing. And particularly soccer, like basketball, is a sport where it's incredibly fatiguing. And so, sometimes the guys who conserve their energy, that kind of old school mentality, you have to hustle at every moment. That is not helpful to the team if you're hustling on an irrelevant play. And therefore, on a critical play, can't get back on defense, for example. >> Sports, but also data is moving exponentially as we're just speaking about today. Tech, healthcare, every different industry. Is there any particular that's a favorite of yours to cover? And I imagine they're all different as well. >> I mean, I do like sports. We cover a lot of politics too. Which is different. I mean in politics I think people aren't intuitively as data driven as they might be in sports for example. It's impressive to follow the breakthroughs in artificial intelligence. It started out just as kind of playing games and playing chess and poker and Go and things like that. But you really have seen a lot of breakthroughs in the last couple of years. But yeah, it's kind of infused into everything really. >> You're known for your work in politics though. Especially presidential campaigns. >> Yeah. >> This year, in particular. Was it insanely challenging? What was the most notable thing that came out of any of your predictions? >> I mean, in some ways, looking at the polling was the easiest lens to look at it. So I think there's kind of a myth that last year's result was a big shock and it wasn't really. If you did the modeling in the right way, then you realized that number one, polls have a margin of error. And so when a candidate has a three point lead, that's not particularly safe. Number two, the outcome between different states is correlated. Meaning that it's not that much of a surprise that Clinton lost Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Ohio. You know I'm from Michigan. Have friends from all those states. Kind of the same types of people in those states. Those outcomes are all correlated. So what people thought was a big upset for the polls I think was an example of how data science done carefully and correctly where you understand probabilities, understand correlations. Our model gave Trump a 30% chance of winning. Others models gave him a 1% chance. And so that was interesting in that it showed that number one, that modeling strategies and skill do matter quite a lot. When you have someone saying 30% versus 1%. I mean, that's a very very big spread. And number two, that these aren't like solved problems necessarily. Although again, the problem with elections is that you only have one election every four years. So I can be very confident that I have a better model. Even one year of data doesn't really prove very much. Even five or 10 years doesn't really prove very much. And so, being aware of the limitations to some extent intrinsically in elections when you only get one kind of new training example every four years, there's not really any way around that. There are ways to be more robust to sparce data environments. But if you're identifying different types of business problems to solve, figuring out what's a solvable problem where I can add value with data science is a really key part of what you're doing. >> You're such a leader in this space. In data and analysis. It would be interesting to kind of peek back the curtain, understand how you operate but also how large is your team? How you're putting together information. How quickly you're putting it out. Cause I think in this right now world where everybody wants things instantly-- >> Yeah. >> There's also, you want to be first too in the world of journalism. But you don't want to be inaccurate because that's your credibility. >> We talked about this before, right? I think on average, speed is a little bit overrated in journalism. >> [Katie] I think it's a big problem in journalism. >> Yeah. >> Especially in the tech world. You have to be first. You have to be first. And it's just pumping out, pumping out. And there's got to be more time spent on stories if I can speak subjectively. >> Yeah, for sure. But at the same time, we are reacting to the news. And so we have people that come in, we hire most of our people actually from journalism. >> [Katie] How many people do you have on your team? >> About 35. But, if you get someone who comes in from an academic track for example, they might be surprised at how fast journalism is. That even though we might be slower than the average website, the fact that there's a tragic event in New York, are there things we have to say about that? A candidate drops out of the presidential race, are things we have to say about that. In periods ranging from minutes to days as opposed to kind of weeks to months to years in the academic world. The corporate world moves faster. What is a little different about journalism is that you are expected to have more precision where people notice when you make a mistake. In corporations, you have maybe less transparency. If you make 10 investments and seven of them turn out well, then you'll get a lot of profit from that, right? In journalism, it's a little different. If you make kind of seven predictions or say seven things, and seven of them are very accurate and three of them aren't, you'll still get criticized a lot for the three. Just because that's kind of the way that journalism is. And so the kind of combination of needing, not having that much tolerance for mistakes, but also needing to be fast. That is tricky. And I criticize other journalists sometimes including for not being data driven enough, but the best excuse any journalist has, this is happening really fast and it's my job to kind of figure out in real time what's going on and provide useful information to the readers. And that's really difficult. Especially in a world where literally, I'll probably get off the stage and check my phone and who knows what President Trump will have tweeted or what things will have happened. But it really is a kind of 24/7. >> Well because it's 24/7 with FiveThirtyEight, one of the most well known sites for data, are you feeling micromanagey on your people? Because you do have to hit this balance. You can't have something come out four or five days later. >> Yeah, I'm not -- >> Are you overseeing everything? >> I'm not by nature a micromanager. And so you try to hire well. You try and let people make mistakes. And the flip side of this is that if a news organization that never had any mistakes, never had any corrections, that's raw, right? You have to have some tolerance for error because you are trying to decide things in real time. And figure things out. I think transparency's a big part of that. Say here's what we think, and here's why we think it. If we have a model to say it's not just the final number, here's a lot of detail about how that's calculated. In some case we release the code and the raw data. Sometimes we don't because there's a proprietary advantage. But quite often we're saying we want you to trust us and it's so important that you trust us, here's the model. Go play around with it yourself. Here's the data. And that's also I think an important value. >> That speaks to open source. And your perspective on that in general. >> Yeah, I mean, look, I'm a big fan of open source. I worry that I think sometimes the trends are a little bit away from open source. But by the way, one thing that happens when you share your data or you share your thinking at least in lieu of the data, and you can definitely do both is that readers will catch embarrassing mistakes that you made. By the way, even having open sourceness within your team, I mean we have editors and copy editors who often save you from really embarrassing mistakes. And by the way, it's not necessarily people who have a training in data science. I would guess that of our 35 people, maybe only five to 10 have a kind of formal background in what you would call data science. >> [Katie] I think that speaks to the theme here. >> Yeah. >> [Katie] That everybody's kind of got to be data literate. >> But yeah, it is like you have a good intuition. You have a good BS detector basically. And you have a good intuition for hey, this looks a little bit out of line to me. And sometimes that can be based on domain knowledge, right? We have one of our copy editors, she's a big college football fan. And we had an algorithm we released that tries to predict what the human being selection committee will do, and she was like, why is LSU rated so high? Cause I know that LSU sucks this year. And we looked at it, and she was right. There was a bug where it had forgotten to account for their last game where they lost to Troy or something and so -- >> That also speaks to the human element as well. >> It does. In general as a rule, if you're designing a kind of regression based model, it's different in machine learning where you have more, when you kind of build in the tolerance for error. But if you're trying to do something more precise, then so much of it is just debugging. It's saying that looks wrong to me. And I'm going to investigate that. And sometimes it's not wrong. Sometimes your model actually has an insight that you didn't have yourself. But fairly often, it is. And I think kind of what you learn is like, hey if there's something that bothers me, I want to go investigate that now and debug that now. Because the last thing you want is where all of a sudden, the answer you're putting out there in the world hinges on a mistake that you made. Cause you never know if you have so to speak, 1,000 lines of code and they all perform something differently. You never know when you get in a weird edge case where this one decision you made winds up being the difference between your having a good forecast and a bad one. In a defensible position and a indefensible one. So we definitely are quite diligent and careful. But it's also kind of knowing like, hey, where is an approximation good enough and where do I need more precision? Cause you could also drive yourself crazy in the other direction where you know, it doesn't matter if the answer is 91.2 versus 90. And so you can kind of go 91.2, three, four and it's like kind of A) false precision and B) not a good use of your time. So that's where I do still spend a lot of time is thinking about which problems are "solvable" or approachable with data and which ones aren't. And when they're not by the way, you're still allowed to report on them. We are a news organization so we do traditional reporting as well. And then kind of figuring out when do you need precision versus when is being pointed in the right direction good enough? >> I would love to get inside your brain and see how you operate on just like an everyday walking to Walgreens movement. It's like oh, if I cross the street in .2-- >> It's not, I mean-- >> Is it like maddening in there? >> No, not really. I mean, I'm like-- >> This is an honest question. >> If I'm looking for airfares, I'm a little more careful. But no, part of it's like you don't want to waste time on unimportant decisions, right? I will sometimes, if I can't decide what to eat at a restaurant, I'll flip a coin. If the chicken and the pasta both sound really good-- >> That's not high tech Nate. We want better. >> But that's the point, right? It's like both the chicken and the pasta are going to be really darn good, right? So I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure it out. I'm just going to have an arbitrary way to decide. >> Serious and business, how organizations in the last three to five years have just evolved with this data boom. How are you seeing it as from a consultant point of view? Do you think it's an exciting time? Do you think it's a you must act now time? >> I mean, we do know that you definitely see a lot of talent among the younger generation now. That so FiveThirtyEight has been at ESPN for four years now. And man, the quality of the interns we get has improved so much in four years. The quality of the kind of young hires that we make straight out of college has improved so much in four years. So you definitely do see a younger generation for which this is just part of their bloodstream and part of their DNA. And also, particular fields that we're interested in. So we're interested in people who have both a data and a journalism background. We're interested in people who have a visualization and a coding background. A lot of what we do is very much interactive graphics and so forth. And so we do see those skill sets coming into play a lot more. And so the kind of shortage of talent that had I think frankly been a problem for a long time, I'm optimistic based on the young people in our office, it's a little anecdotal but you can tell that there are so many more programs that are kind of teaching students the right set of skills that maybe weren't taught as much a few years ago. >> But when you're seeing these big organizations, ESPN as perfect example, moving more towards data and analytics than ever before. >> Yeah. >> You would say that's obviously true. >> Oh for sure. >> If you're not moving that direction, you're going to fall behind quickly. >> Yeah and the thing is, if you read my book or I guess people have a copy of the book. In some ways it's saying hey, there are lot of ways to screw up when you're using data. And we've built bad models. We've had models that were bad and got good results. Good models that got bad results and everything else. But the point is that the reason to be out in front of the problem is so you give yourself more runway to make errors and mistakes. And to learn kind of what works and what doesn't and which people to put on the problem. I sometimes do worry that a company says oh we need data. And everyone kind of agrees on that now. We need data science. Then they have some big test case. And they have a failure. And they maybe have a failure because they didn't know really how to use it well enough. But learning from that and iterating on that. And so by the time that you're on the third generation of kind of a problem that you're trying to solve, and you're watching everyone else make the mistake that you made five years ago, I mean, that's really powerful. But that doesn't mean that getting invested in it now, getting invested both in technology and the human capital side is important. >> Final question for you as we run out of time. 2018 beyond, what is your biggest project in terms of data gathering that you're working on? >> There's a midterm election coming up. That's a big thing for us. We're also doing a lot of work with NBA data. So for four years now, the NBA has been collecting player tracking data. So they have 3D cameras in every arena. So they can actually kind of quantify for example how fast a fast break is, for example. Or literally where a player is and where the ball is. For every NBA game now for the past four or five years. And there hasn't really been an overall metric of player value that's taken advantage of that. The teams do it. But in the NBA, the teams are a little bit ahead of journalists and analysts. So we're trying to have a really truly next generation stat. It's a lot of data. Sometimes I now more oversee things than I once did myself. And so you're parsing through many, many, many lines of code. But yeah, so we hope to have that out at some point in the next few months. >> Anything you've personally been passionate about that you've wanted to work on and kind of solve? >> I mean, the NBA thing, I am a pretty big basketball fan. >> You can do better than that. Come on, I want something real personal that you're like I got to crunch the numbers. >> You know, we tried to figure out where the best burrito in America was a few years ago. >> I'm going to end it there. >> Okay. >> Nate, thank you so much for joining us. It's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you. >> Cool, thank you. >> I thought we were going to chat World Series, you know. Burritos, important. I want to thank everybody here in our audience. Let's give him a big round of applause. >> [Nate] Thank you everyone. >> Perfect way to end the day. And for a replay of today's program, just head on over to ibm.com/dsforall. I'm Katie Linendoll. And this has been Data Science for All: It's a Whole New Game. Test one, two. One, two, three. Hi guys, I just want to quickly let you know as you're exiting. A few heads up. Downstairs right now there's going to be a meet and greet with Nate. And we're going to be doing that with clients and customers who are interested. So I would recommend before the game starts, and you lose Nate, head on downstairs. And also the gallery is open until eight p.m. with demos and activations. And tomorrow, make sure to come back too. Because we have exciting stuff. I'll be joining you as your host. And we're kicking off at nine a.m. So bye everybody, thank you so much. >> [Announcer] Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending this evening's webcast. If you are not attending all cloud and cognitive summit tomorrow, we ask that you recycle your name badge at the registration desk. Thank you. Also, please note there are two exits on the back of the room on either side of the room. Have a good evening. Ladies and gentlemen, the meet and greet will be on stage. Thank you.

>> Narrator: Live from New York City, it's theCUBE covering IBM Data Science For All brought to you by IBM. >> Welcome back here on theCUBE. We are live in New York continuing our coverage here for Data Science for All where all things happen. Big things are happening. In fact, there's a huge event tonight I'm going to tell you about a little bit later on, but Tricia Wang who is our next guest is a part of that panel discussion that you'll want to tune in for live on ibmgo.com. 6 o'clock, but more on that a little bit later on. Along with Dave Vellante, John Walls here, and Tricia Wang now joins us. A first ever for us. How are you doing? >> Good. >> A global tech ethnographer. >> You said it correctly, yay! >> I learned a long time ago when you're not sure slow down. >> A plus already. >> Slow down and breathe. >> Slow down. >> You did a good job. Want to do it one more time? >> A global tech ethnographer. >> Tricia: Good job. >> Studying ethnography and putting ethnography into practice. How about that? >> Really great. >> That's taking on the challenge stretch. >> Now say it 10 times faster in a row. >> How about when we're done? Also co-founder of Sudden Compass. So first off, let's tell our viewers a little bit about Sudden Compass. Then I want to get into the ethnography and how that relates to tech. So let's go first off about Sudden Compass and the origins there. >> So Sudden Compass, we're a consulting firm based in New York City, and we help our partners embrace and understand the complexity of their customers. So whenever there are, wherever there's data and wherever there's people, we are there to help them make sure that they can understand their customers at the end of the day. And customers are really the most unpredictable, the most unknown, and the most difficult to quantify thing for any business. We see a lot of our partners really investing in big data data science tools and they're hiring the most amazing data scientists, but we saw them still struggling to make the right decisions, they still weren't getting their ROI, and they certainly weren't growing their customer base. And what we are helping them do is to say, "Look, you can't just rely only on data science. "You can't put it all into only the tool. "You have to think about how to operationalize that "and build a culture around it "and get the right skillsets in place, "and incorporate what we call the thick data, "which is the stuff that's very difficult to quantify, "the unknown, "and then you can figure out "how to best mathematically scale your data models "when it's actually based on real human behavior, "which is what the practice of ethnography is there to help "is to help you understand what do humans actually do, "what is unquantifiable. "And then once you find out those unquantifiable bits "you then have the art and science of figuring out "how do you scale it into a data model." >> Yeah, see that's what I find fascinating about this is that you've got hard and fast, right, data, objective, black and white, very clear, and then you've got people, you know? We all react differently. We have different influences, and different biases, and prejudices, and all that stuff, aptitudes. So you are meshing this art and science. >> Tricia: Absolutely. >> And what is that telling you then about how best to your clients and how to use data (mumbles)? >> Well, we tell our clients that because people are, there are biases, and people are not objective and there's emotions, that all ends up in the data set. To think that your data set, your quantitative data set, is free of biases and has some kind of been scrubbed of emotion is a total fallacy and it's something that needs to be corrected, because that means decision makers are making decisions based off of numbers thinking that they're objective when in fact they contain all the biases of the very complexity of the humans that they're serving. So, there is an art and science of making sure that when you capture that complexity ... We're saying, "Don't scrub it away." Traditional marketing wants to say, "Put your customers in boxes. "Put them in segments. "Use demographic variables like education, income. "Then you can just put everyone in a box, "figure out where you want to target, "figure out the right channels, "and you buy against that and you reach them." That's not how it works anymore. Customers now are moving faster than corporations. The new net worth customer of today has multiple identities is better understood when in relationship to other people. And we're not saying get rid of the data science. We're saying absolutely have it. You need to have scale. What is thick data going to offer you? Not scale, but it will offer you depth. So, that's why you need to combine both to be able to make effective decisions. >> So, I presume you work with a lot of big consumer brands. Is that a safe assumption? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. So, we work with a lot of big tech brands, like IBM and others, and they tend to move at the speed of the CIO, which tends to be really slow and really risk averse, and they're afraid to over rotate and get ahead over their skis. What do you tell folks like that? Is that a mistake being so cautious in this digital age? >> Well, I think the new CIO is on the cutting edge. I was just at Constellation Research Annual Conference in Half Moon Bay at-- >> Our friend Ray Wang. >> Yeah, Ray Wang. And I just spoke about this at their Constellation Connected Enterprise where they had the most, I would have to say the most amazing forward thinking collection of CIOs, CTOs, CDOs all in one room. And the conversation there was like, "We cannot afford to be slow anymore. "We have to be on the edge "of helping our companies push the ground." So, investing in tools is not enough. It is no longer enough to be the buyer, and to just have a relationship with your vendor and assume that they will help you deliver all the understanding. So, CIOs and CTOs need to ensure that their teams are diverse, multi-functional, and that they're totally integrated embedded into the business. And I don't mean just involve a business analyst as if that's cutting edge. I'm saying, "No, you need to make sure that every team "has qualitative people, "and that they're embedded and working closely together." The problem is we don't teach these skills. We're not graduating data scientists or ethnographers who even want to talk to each other. In fact, each side thinks the other side is useless. We're saying, "No, "we need to be able to have these skills "being taught within companies." And you don't need to hire a PhD data scientist or a PhD ethnographer. What we're saying is that these skills can be taught. We need to teach people to be data literate. You've hired the right experts, you have bought the right tools, but we now need to make sure that we're creating data literacy among decision makers so that we can turn these data into insights and then into action. >> Let's peel that a little bit. Data literate, you're talking about creativity, visualization, combining different perspectives? Where should the educational focus be? >> The educational focus should be on one storytelling. Right now, you cannot just be assuming that you can have a decision maker make a decision based on a number or some long PowerPoint report. We have to teach people how to tell compelling stories with data. And when I say data I'm talking about it needs the human component and it needs the numbers. And so one of the things that I saw, this is really close to my heart, was when I was at Nokia, and I remember I spent a decade understanding China. I really understood China. And when I finally had the insight where I was like, "Look, after spending 10 years there, "following 100 to 200 families around, "I had the insight back in 2009 that look, "your company is about to go out of business because "people don't want to buy your feature phones anymore. "They're going to want to buy smartphones." But, I only had qualitative data, and I needed to work alongside the business analysts and the data scientists. I needed access to their data sets, but I needed us to play together and to be on a team together so that I could scale my insights into quantitative models. And the problem was that, your question is, "What does that look like?" That looks like sitting on a team, having a mandate to say, "You have to play together, "and be able to tell an effective story "to the management and to leadership." But back then they were saying, "No, "we don't even consider your data set "to be worthwhile to even look at." >> We love our candy bar phone, right? It's a killer. >> Tricia: And we love our numbers. We love our surveys that tell us-- >> Market share was great. >> Market share is great. We've done all of the analysis. >> Forget the razor. >> Exactly. I'm like, "Look, of course your market share was great, "because your surveys were optimized "for your existing business model." So, big data is great if you want to optimize your supply chain or in systems that are very contained and quantifiable that's more or less fine. You can get optimization. You can get that one to two to five percent. But if you really want to grow your company and you want to ensure its longevity, you cannot just rely on your quantitative data to tell you how to do that. You actually need thick data for discovery, because you need to find the unknown. >> One of the things you talk about your passion is to understand how human perspectives shape the technology we build and how we use it. >> Tricia: Yes, you're speaking my language. >> Okay, so when you think about the development of the iPhone, it wasn't a bunch of surveys that led Steve Jobs to develop the iPhone. I guess the question is does technology lead and shape human perspectives or do human perspectives shape technology? >> Well, it's a dialectical relationship. It's like does a hamburger ... Does a bun shape the burger or does the bun shape the burger? You would never think of asking someone who loves a hamburger that question, because they both shape each other. >> Okay. (laughing) >> So, it's symbiote here, totally symbiotic. >> Surprise answer. You weren't expecting that. >> No, but it is kind of ... Okay, so you're saying it's not a chicken and egg, it's both. >> Absolutely. And the best companies are attuned to both. The best companies know that. The most powerful companies of the 21st century are obsessed with their customers and they're going to do a great job at leveraging human models to be scaled into data models, and that gap is going to be very, very narrow. You get big data. We're going to see more AI or ML disasters when their data models are really far from their actual human models. That's how we get disasters like Tesco or Target, or even when Google misidentified black people as gorillas. It's because their model of their data was so far from the understanding of humans. And the best companies of the future are going to know how to close that gap, and that means they will have the thick data and big data closely integrated. >> Who's doing that today? It seems like there are no ethics in AI. People are aggressively AI for profit and not really thinking about the human impacts and the societal impacts. >> Let's look at IBM. They're doing it. I would say that some of the most innovative projects that are happening at IBM with Watson, where people are using AI to solve meaningful social problems. I don't think that has to be-- >> Like IBM For Social Good. >> Exactly, but it's also, it's not just experimental. I think IBM is doing really great stuff using Watson to understand, identify skin cancer, or looking at the ways that people are using AI to understand eye diseases, things that you can do at scale. But also businesses are also figuring out how to use AI for actually doing better things. I think some of the most interesting ... We're going to see more examples of people using AI for solving meaningful social problems and making a profit at the same time. I think one really great example is WorkIt is they're using AI. They're actually working with Watson. Watson is who they hired to create their engine where union workers can ask questions of Watson that they may not want to ask or may be too costly to ask. So you can be like, "If I want to take one day off, "will this affect my contract or my job?" That's a very meaningful social problem that unions are now working with, and I think that's a really great example of how Watson is really pushing the edge to solve meaningful social problems at the same time. >> I worry sometimes that that's like the little device that you put in your car for the insurance company to see how you drive. >> How do you brake? How do you drive? >> Do people trust feeding that data to Watson because they're afraid Big Brother is watching? >> That's why we always have to have human intelligence working with machine intelligence. This idea of AI versus humans is a false binary, and I don't even know why we're engaging in those kinds of questions. We're not clearly, but there are people who are talking about it as if it's one or the other, and I find it to be a total waste of time. It's like clearly the best AI systems will be integrated with human intelligence, and we need the human training the data with machine learning systems. >> Alright, I'll play the yeah but. >> You're going to play the what? >> Yeah but! >> Yeah but! (crosstalk) >> That machines are replacing humans in cognitive functions. You walk into an airport and there are kiosks. People are losing jobs. >> Right, no that's real. >> So okay, so that's real. >> That is real. >> You agree with that. >> Job loss is real and job replacement is real. >> And I presume you agree that education is at least a part the answer, and training people differently than-- >> Tricia: Absolutely. >> Just straight reading, writing, and arithmetic, but thoughts on that. >> Well what I mean is that, yes, AI is replacing jobs, but the fact that we're treating AI as some kind of rogue machine that is operating on its own without human guidance, that's not happening, and that's not happening right now, and that's not happening in application. And what is more meaningful to talk about is how do we make sure that humans are more involved with the machines, that we always have a human in the loop, and that they're always making sure that they're training in a way where it's bringing up these ethical questions that are very important that you just raised. >> Right, well, and of course a lot of AI people would say is about prediction and then automation. So think about some of the brands that you serve, consult with, don't they want the machines to make certain decisions for them so that they can affect an outcome? >> I think that people want machines to surface things that is very difficult for humans to do. So if a machine can efficiently surface here is a pattern that's going on then that is very helpful. I think we have companies that are saying, "We can automate your decisions," but when you actually look at what they can automate it's in very contained, quantifiable systems. It's around systems around their supply chain or logistics. But, you really do not want your machine automating any decision when it really affects people, in particular your customers. >> Okay, so maybe changing the air pressure somewhere on a widget that's fine, but not-- >> Right, but you still need someone checking that, because will that air pressure create some unintended consequences later on? There's always some kind of human oversight. >> So I was looking at your website, and I always look for, I'm intrigued by interesting, curious thoughts. >> Tricia: Okay, I have a crazy website. >> No, it's very good, but back in your favorite quotes, "Rather have a question I can't answer "than an answer I can't question." So, how do you bring that kind of there's no fear of failure to the boardroom, to people who have to make big leaps and big decisions and enter this digital transformative world? >> I think that a lot of companies are so fearful of what's going to happen next, and that fear can oftentimes corner them into asking small questions and acting small where they're just asking how do we optimize something? That's really essentially what they're asking. "How do we optimize X? "How do we optimize this business?" What they're not really asking are the hard questions, the right questions, the discovery level questions that are very difficult to answer that no big data set can answer. And those are questions ... The questions about the unknown are the most difficult, but that's where you're going to get growth, because when something is unknown that means you have not either quantified it yet or you haven't found the relationship yet in your data set, and that's your competitive advantage. And that's where the boardroom really needs to set the mandate to say, "Look, I don't want you guys only answering "downstream, company-centric questions like, "'How do we optimize XYZ?"'" which is still important to answer. We're saying you absolutely need to pay attention to that, but you also need to ask upstream very customer-centric questions. And that's very difficult, because all day you're operating inside a company . You have to then step outside of your shoes and leave the building and see the world from a customer's perspective or from even a non existing customer's perspective, which is even more difficult. >> The whole know your customer meme has taken off in a big way right now, but I do feel like the pendulum is swinging. Well, I'm sanguined toward AI. It seems to me that ... It used to be that brands had all the power. They had all the knowledge, they knew the pricing, and the consumers knew nothing. The Internet changed all that. I feel like digital transformation and all this AI is an attempt to create that asymmetry again back in favor of the brand. I see people getting very aggressive toward, certainly you see this with Amazon, Amazon I think knows more about me than I know about myself. Should we be concerned about that and who protects the consumer, or is just maybe the benefits outweigh the risks there? >> I think that's such an important question you're asking and it's totally important. A really great TED talk just went up by Zeynep Tufekci where she talks about the most brilliant data scientists, the most brilliant minds of our day, are working on ad tech platforms that are now being created to essentially do what Kenyatta Jeez calls advertising terrorism, which is that all of this data is being collected so that advertisers have this information about us that could be used to create the future forms of surveillance. And that's why we need organizations to ask the kind of questions that you did. So two organizations that I think are doing a really great job to look at are Data & Society. Founder is Danah Boyd. Based in New York City. This is where I'm an affiliate. And they have all these programs that really look at digital privacy, identity, ramifications of all these things we're looking at with AI systems. Really great set of researchers. And then Vint Cerf (mumbles) co-founded People-Centered Internet. And I think this is another organization that we really should be looking at, it's based on the West Coast, where they're also asking similar questions of like instead of just looking at the Internet as a one-to-one model, what is the Internet doing for communities, and how do we make sure we leverage the role of communities to protect what the original founders of the Internet created? >> Right, Danah Boyd, CUBE alum. Shout out to Jeff Hammerbacher, founder of Cloudera, the originator of the greatest minds of my generation are trying to get people to click on ads. Quit Cloudera and now is working at Mount Sinai as an MD, amazing, trying to solve cancer. >> John: A lot of CUBE alums out there. >> Yeah. >> And now we have another one. >> Woo-hoo! >> Tricia, thank you for being with us. >> You're welcome. >> Fascinating stuff. >> Thanks for being on. >> It really is. >> Great questions. >> Nice to really just change the lens a little bit, look through it a different way. Tricia, by the way, part of a panel tonight with Michael Li and Nir Kaldero who we had earlier on theCUBE, 6 o'clock to 7:15 live on ibmgo.com. Nate Silver also joining the conversation, so be sure to tune in for that live tonight 6 o'clock. Back with more of theCUBE though right after this. (techno music)