(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)

(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)

>> 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)