>> from our studios in the heart of Silicon Valley. PALO ALTO, California It is a cute conversation, >> living welcome to this special Cuba conversation in Palo Alto, California We're here with our friends on Twitter and influences in the cloud computing edge and open source game. We have our distinguished power panel here talking about if every tech company, every company should be a tech company. And what does it mean in the air of a modern infrastructure? Police to have my kale with ct of everest dot org's from most Gatto's California Rob Hirschfeld, founder and CEO of Rock n Calling in From Where You Calling in from >> Austin, Texas. >> Austin, Texas. Good to have you and Mark Theo Who's with EJ Gravity brand New opportunity. Congratulations calling in Las Vegas. Thanks for coming in, guys. Thanks for spending the time on this cube power panel from the influencers. Always great to see you guys on Twitter with this morning. I woke up, was very active at a Crouch said earlier this morning. And Mark, you wrote a post that got my attention. So I think you hit a nerve that has been sparking around the Internets around the role of technology as couples, they're starting to rethink and building out there enterprise architectures in their businesses. And we're seeing some signals around cybersecurity. Dev Ops certainly has been kind of banging on this drum with cloud computing, and that is that the role of technology plays as a percentage of the business part of the business. And your tweet was simply put, you said every bit. If every business needs to become a tech business, it business has to decide to own its own infrastructure something of that effect, which which triggered me because it's like That's a good question. It isn't just a part of an organization supporting it. Tech is becoming much more instrumental. So I want to get your reaction. What was the motivation behind that tweet? What's your what's your What was your point around it? >> Yeah, I mean, like many of my tweets, they're poorly worded and rushed out, so you know, it's not as clear as it could have been. But the real point of the message wasn't Thio highlight that a technology company has to be all in the cloud or has to own its infrastructure, but rather as a company makes a change towards becoming a technology company. I mean, if we go back Thio you know, 1995 or 1996 when we wanted a library, we went to the library. But now we have Google. We didn't know that Google was gonna become an online the equivalent of a library. But it became a digital company before anybody asked for that solution or anybody was running that kind of solution in some sort of company format and then changed it over. But, you know, Google Facebook, Microsoft's into it. Adobe PayPal. We could go down the long list there. All I t cos in the end, whether you call the technology that they built to run their businesses engineering with a CTO or I t. Is the material. They are in fact, large giant I t organizations that do what they do to make money. And so, as more companies look to make the change as digital transformation takes hold as more efforts are presented to try to get a closer handle on customers to build loyalty with customers, create new engagement models, maybe at the edge, even in traditional application environments, then companies have to make a decision about how they're going toe oh, nightie and whether they're goingto own any portion of the infrastructure of I T. And if they're going to do that, then I don't think that there's any question that they have to own it. Atleast following a model of the way the large providers and the facebooks, et cetera have provided for us cannot continue. In other words, what I've been known to say before, we can't continue to throw more hardware and people at the problem. >> My mike, I want to get your thoughts on this because one of the things that I know you have been involved a lot with security on dhe I t. As well in security, which which is a canary in the coal mine. For a lot of these architectural decisions are all kind of looking at how they hire and build on premise in house around tech stacks. And one of the things that became apparent to me at Amazon Aws reinforce, which is their Amazons first cloud security conference, was most of the ceases. When I talk privately was saying, we don't really believe in multi cloud. We have multiple clouds, but We're investing in people on certain stacks that fit our guiding principles of what we're building as a company. And they said we then go to the suppliers and saying, Here's the AP eyes we want you to support So you start to see the shift from being hiring the general purpose software vendors to come in and supply them with I t stuff Were hardware. As Mark pointed out, too much more, the customer saying No, no, this is our spec build that we built it. And so the trend that points to the trend of a reinvestment of building tech at the core of the business, which would imply to Mark's point around their tech companies. What's your thoughts on this? >> So a nuance. My answer. I think their tech enabled companies more than tech companies like Tech is enabling, whether it's Google or into it or pay power of the other companies. Mark mentioned technologies the base of their companies stack, um, then to go into your security portion, security has to be architected and embedded into the core solutions not bolted on after the fact with vendor solutions like it is today, and I think we've proven time and time again, including the capital one issue as a day or two ago that the current approaches are not working. And, uh, I agree with whomever See says you've been talking thio like being driving a P I integrations and be consumptive of them and telling what you need to build is a much better approach. Would you want to build a custom house with that actually talking to your builder and finding out later? What? What features and pictures have been installed in your home. But what do you wanna have a hand in that from the ground up? I think that's the mischief. >> Well, I want to come back to the capital. One point that's gonna be a separate talk track. So let's hold that thought. Rob, I want to go to you. Because StarBeat Joel, whose prolific on these threads you know, posting is nice Twitter cards on their um, he said, If you know, talk about leasing out extra capacity in a private data centers question Mark, you know, teasing out the question. And then Ben Haines responded and said, Why the hell would you want to be in that business when you have a real business to run again to what Mark was saying about, You know, Tech is going to be everywhere. Why should I even be in the data center? Because I don't want to be in that business. I gotta figure out Tech for the business. So Ben kind of brings that practitioner perspective. What's your thought? Because you're in the middle of this with the devil's movement. Bare metal, big part of it, Your thoughts. >> Yeah, And that's why we really focus on fixing the bear mental problem. Andi, I want to come back to where a bear metal fits with all this because you really can't get away from bare metal. I think the first question is really is every day to send is every business in I t business. And you know, not every business is a Google and strictly a nighty business. But what we're seeing with machine learning and Internet of things and just extension of what was traditionally siloed I t or data center, I t into everyday operations. You can't get away from the fact that if you're not able to take in the data, work with the data, manipulate and understand what your customers were doing. Then you are going to be behind. That's That's how you're gonna lose. You're gonna be out of business on. So I think that what we're doing is we're redefining business into not just a product that you're selling, but understanding how your customers air interacting with that product, what value they're getting from it. We really redefined supply chain in a very transformative way compared to anything else. And that's an I T enabled transformation. >> Ben brings up a good point, but the Brent wanted Friends Point is essentially teasing out mark and yourself a bare metal. All this stuff is complicated. Cut and make investments. Ben's teasing as What the hell business do you want to be in? I think that becomes a lot of this digital transformation. Conversation is Hey, Cloud is an easy decision. We were start up 10 years ago. We don't have I t. We have 50 plus people on growing. We're all in the cloud. That's fine for us. Dropbox started in the cloud. All these guys started class. It's easy as hell to do it. No, no debate there. But as you start thinking, Maurin Maur integration as a big enterprise which wasn't born in the cloud. This is where the transformations happening is what business? What the hell they doing? What's what's the purpose of their >> visit? Yeah, but the reality of you, a cloud infrastructure and how cloud infrastructure is structured does not really take you away from owning how you operate and run that infrastructure, right Amazons than an amazing marketing job of telling everybody that they're not smart enough to run their own infrastructure. And it's just not true way definitely let operations get very lax. We built up a lot of technical debt that we we need to be able to fix. An Amazon walked in and said, This is too hard for you. Let us take it off your plate. But the reality is people using Amazon still have toe owned their operations of that infrastructure. The capital one didn't doesn't get to just get a pass and say, I used Amazon. Oh, well, Too bad. Talk to them. You still own your infrastructure. >> Technically, it wasn't Amazons fall, so let's get the capital. One is this brings up a good point. Converged infrastructure was the Holy Grail, savior for the I t If you go back when we started doing Cuba interviews, stupidity and I would talk about converged is awesome. You got Nutanix kicked ass and grew like crazy. And so then you have the converge kind of meat's maker. When it sees the cloud, it's like, OK, I got great converged infrastructure, but yet the breach on capital one had nothing to do with a W s. It was basically an s three bucket that the firewall Miss configured. So it was really Amazon was a victim of its simplicity there. I mean, there's a >> I mean, this is this is what we're talking about with. To me with this tweet is that we need to look, we need to be better at operating the infrastructure we have, whether it's Amazon or physical assets on your premises. What we've really done is we've eroded our ability to manage those pieces well and do it in a way that builds on itself. And so as soon as we can get on improvement there, I mean, this this is where I went with this threat is if we can really improve our operational efficiency with the infrastructure we have, whether it's in the cloud on premises. You create benefits there than everything you build on top of that is gonna have a nim prove mint, right. We're gonna change the way we look at infrastructure. Amazons already done that on. We think about infrastructure in cloud terms, but I don't think that what they've done is the end destination. They just taught us how to be better running infrastructure. >> Well, it brings up that it brings up the point, and I have so Mike shaking his head to get his thought and mark on this. If I is that I tease problem our operational technologies problem because the world's not as simple as it used to be. It was not. It wasn't. It's not simple. You got edge. You get externally incest cloud players now multi cloud. So information technology teams and operational technology teams whose fault is it? Who is responsible thing? Could you just had a AI bots managing the the filtering and access to history buckets that could have been automated away? What, Whose problem was it? Operations, technology or I t. >> So that I think, to touch upon what Rob was talking about. There's my chain and technology, uh, from the classic sound byte is people process and technology. The core cause of literally every security breach, including capital one is a lack of sophisticated process and the root cause being people, and there's no amount of a I currently that can fix that. So you have to start focusing on your operational supply chain processes, which has, Rob said. Amazon has really solidified, and the company should look to emulate that forces trying to emulate the cloud infrastructure and some of your processed and your people challenges first. And then you can leverage the technology. >> Great point. Totally agree with you on that one >> market. Yeah, I would agree with everything that both Mike and Rob just said, and I would just add that we we don't have any choice but to face the future. That is, I t. And in order to provide the best possible service to our customers for our applications that even haven't been built yet, we have to look at the service is that are available to us and utilize them the best way possible and then find appropriate management and, like so correctly put it supply chain processes for managing them. So I've talked to people who are building unique cloud platforms internally to solve a specific business problem in ways that the individual clouds offered by the Big Three is an example can't do or can't do as well or can't do is cheaply. And the same thing applies to customers who are just using more than one of the big cloud providers. Even for some in some cases, for workloads. That might seem similar because each of the clouds provide a different opportunity associated with that specific set of requirements. And so we don't have any choice but to manage it better. And whether it's we make a choice to use it in our data center because it's more cost effective long term. And that's our single most important driver. Or whether we decide to leverage every tool in our tool belt, which includes a handful of cloud providers. And some we do our own, um, or we put it all in one cloud. It doesn't change our responsibility for owning it correctly, right? And my simple message really was that you have to figure out how to own and I'll steal from Mike again. You have to figure out how to own that supply chain. But more lower down more base is ifs. Part of that supply chain is delivering compute into a data center or environment that you own. Then you have to find the tools capabilities to ensure that you're not making the kind of mistakes that were made with capital or >> or, if you have tools are networks and tools you don't know and look at the quotes. So called scare with the China hack from Super Micro. That's a silly why chain problems? Well, it's on the silicon. So again, back to the process, people an equation. I think that's right on this brings us kind of through the next talking track. I want to get your thoughts on, which is cloud two point. Oh, I mean, I'm putting that term out there on Lee is a provocative way. Remember, Web to point. It works so well in debating about what it what it was. If one if cloud one data was Amazon Web service is, thank you very much. Public cloud. You could say cloud two point. Oh, our second inning would be just what happens next because you're seeing now a confluence of different dynamics edge, um, security, industrial edge. And then you know this all coming into on premises, which is hybrid and public, all working together. And then you throw multi cloud in there from a complexity standpoint. Do you wanna have support Microsoft's Stack, Azure Stack, Google and Amazon? This is this is the fundamental 2.0 question. Because things are more real time. Things are data specific. This costs involved. There's really network innovation needed what you guys thoughts on cloud to point out. >> I think the basic cloud 2.0, is moving to the shared responsibility model. And we should stop blaming people for teams for breaches as architectures become much more complex, including network computing, storage and in service orchestration layers like kubernetes, no one team or individual, individual or one team and manage all of that. So you're all responsible for infrastructure, scalability, performance and security. So I think it's the cultural movement more than the technology movement at the base of >> Rob. What's your definition? Cloud 2.0, from your perspective. >> Oh boy, I've been calling it Post Cloud Is my feeling on this? Yeah, it to me. It's it's about rethinking the way we automate. Um, you know, we really learned that we had to interact with infrastructure via automation and eliminate the human risk elements of. This doesn't mean that we have an automation is foolproof either It's not, but what? What I think we've seen is that people have really understood that we have to bring the type of automation and power that we're seeing in clouding the benefits because they're very riel. But back into everything that we do. There's no doubt in my mind that infrastructure is moving back into the environment. Where is what? Which is EJ from my perspective, and we'll see computing in a much more distributed way and those benefits and getting that right in the automation. Is this necessary to run autonomous zero touch infrastructure in environmental situations. That is gonna be justice transformative, freighted that that environment makes the cloud look easy. Frankly, >> Mark, what's your take? I want to get because, you know, security houses, one element get self driving cars. You got kind of a new front end of of EJ devices, whether it's a Serie Buy Me a song on iTunes, which has to go out to a traditional system and purchase a song. But that that Siri priest is different than what? The back end? Does this simply database, Get it? Moving over self driving cars, You're seeing all kinds of EJ industrial activity. You know, the debate of moving compute to the data. You got Amazon with ground station, all these new infrastructure physical activities going on that needs software to power it. What, you're in cloud to point. It seems to be a nice place not just for analytics, but for operational thing. Your thoughts on cloud to point out >> Well, I mean you you describe the opportunity relatively well. I could certainly go in. I've spent a lot of time going into detail about what EJ might mean and what might populate edge and why people would use it. But I think from if we just look at it from a cloud 2.0, standpoint, maybe I'm oversimplifying. But I would say, you know, if you add on to what Mike and Rob already so well pointed out is that it's best fit right, it's best fit from compute location, Thio CPU type Thio platform on, and historically, for I t they've always had to make pragmatic choice is that I believe, limit their ability on Helped to create Maur you know, legacy Tech that they have to manage, um on and create overhead tech debt, as they call it on DSO. I think judo. And in my book the best case for two Dato is that I can put best fit work where I need it when I need it for as long as I need it. >> That's that's really kind of gasp originals. Well, people got to get the software stood up. That's where I think Kubernetes has shown a nice position. I want to extend this track to another thought, another topic around networking. So if you look at the three pillars of computing computing mean industry, compute storage and networking, cloud one daughter, you can say pretty much compute storage did a good job. Amazon has a C two as three. Everything went great. Networking always got taken to the wood shed. You know, networking was getting, you know, people were pissing and moaning about networking. But if you look at kind of things were just talking about networking seems to be an area that this cloud 2.0, could innovate on. So wanna get each of your thoughts on? If you could throw the magic wand out there around the network doesn't take the same track as Dev ops that gets abstracted away because you see VM wear now doing deals. All the cloud providers they got they're going after Cisco with the networking PCC Cisco trying to be relevant. The big guys you got edge, which is power and network connection. You need those things. So what is the role of the network? And two point If you guys could wave the magic wand and have something magically happen or innovate, what would it be? >> Oh, wait, it's part complaining. It's your world. You know, it's ironic that I said this Thio competitors to my most previous company. Ericsson Company was away. They asked me after an event in San everything was a cloud expo. I just got off stage and the gentleman came up to me and asked me So mark you the way you talked about Cloud. I appreciate the comments you made yada, yada, yada. But what do you think about networking? And I said Well, network big problem right now is that you can't follow cloud assumptions as faras usage characteristics and deployment characteristics with networking. When that problem is solved, will have moved light years ahead in how people can use and deploy i t. Because it doesn't matter if you can define workload opportunity in 30 minutes on an edge device somewhere or on a new set of data centers belonging to Google or 10 Cent or anybody else. If you can't treat the network with same functionality and flexibility and speed to value that, you can the cloud then, um, it's Unfortunately, you're really reducing your opportunity and needlessly lengthening the time to value for whatever activity it is. You're really >> so network, certainly critical in 2.0, terms have absolutely that Mike any any thoughts there? >> So I think you know, there's there's easy answers to this that are actually the answer. You know, I P v six was the answer from a couple years ago, and that hasn't solved in the fantasy of the solved. All the problems, just like five G is not gonna magically transform our edge infrastructure into this brilliant network. The reality is, networking is hard and it's hard because there's a ton of legacy embedded stuff that still has to keep working. You can't just, you know, install a new container on container system and say, I've now fixed networking. You have to deal with the globally interconnected MASH insistence. I think when we look at networking, we have to do it in a way that respects the legacy and figures out migration strategies. One of the biggest problems I see that a lot of our technology stacks here is that they just assume we're gonna pave over the problems of yesteryear, nor them and with network, when you don't get that benefit, what you described with cloud networking, never living up the potential, it's because cloud networking isn't club networking. It's it's, you know, early days of the Internet. Networking is still what we use today. It's not. It's not something you can just snap your fingers and disrupt. >> Well, I mean, networking had two major things that were big parts of a networking and who build networks knows you provisioned them and you have policy stuff that runs on them, right? You moving paintings from A to B, then you got networks you don't own right so that's kind of pedestrian, old thinking. But if you want to make networks programmable to me, it just seems like they just seem to be so much more there that needs to be developed, not just moving package. Well, >> you just said it's traditional. Networks were built first, and the infrastructure was then built around them or leveraging them, so you need to take like in zero. Trust paper. When Bugsy Siegel built Las Vegas, he built the town first and then put the roads around the infrastructure. So you need to take that approach with networking. You need to have the core infrastructure of first and then lay down the networking around to support it. And, as Mark said, that needs to be much more real time or programmable. So moving from ah, hardware to find to a software to find model, I think, is how you fix networking. It's not gonna be fixed by a new protocol or set of protocols or adding more policies or complexity to it, >> so you see a lot of change then, based on that, I'd take away that you see change coming to networking in a big way because Vegas we're gonna build >> our if it has to happen. The current way is not working. And that's why we need the bottlenecks. Wherever >> Mark you live in is the traffic's brutal. But, you know, still e gotta figure out, You know, they got some more roads. The bill change coming. What are your thoughts on the change coming with this networking paradigm >> show? I mean, there are a few companies in the space already. I'm going to refuse to name anyway at this point because one of them is a partner of my new company, not my new company, but the new company I work for and I don't want to leave them out of the discussion. But there are several companies in the space right now that are attempting to do just then just that from centralized locations, helping customers to more rapidly deploy network services to and from cloud or two and from other data centers in a chain of data centers. Programmatically as we've talked about. But in the long run, your ability to lay down networking from your office without having to create new firewall rules and spend months on on contract language and things like that on being able to take a slice of the network you already have and deploy it on DDE, not have to go through the complex Mpls or Or VPN set ups that are common today on defectively reroute destinations when you want to or make new connections when you need to. Is far as I'm concerned, that's vital to the success of anything we would call a cloud two point. Oh, >> well, we're gonna try tracks when he's hot startups. So you guys see anyone around this area? I love this topic. I think it's worth talking a lot more about love. Love to continue on with you guys on that another. Another time. Final five minutes. I'd love to spend with you guys talking about the the digital transformation paradox. Rob, we're talking before we came on camera. He loved this paradox because it's simply not as easy to saying Kill the old man, bringing the new and everything's gonna be hunky dorey. It's not that simple, but but it also brings up the fact that in all these major waves, the hype outlives the reality, too. So you're seeing so I want to get your thoughts on digital transformation. Each of you share your thoughts on what's come home to be realistic in digital transformation, which what hasn't showed up yet in terms of benefits and capability. >> I mean, this is this to me is one of the things that we see happen in every wave. They people jump on that bandwagon really hard, and then they tell everybody who's doing the current stuff, that they're doing it wrong. Um, and that that to me, actually does a lot more heart. What we what we've seen in places where people said, burn the boats, you know, we don't care. They have actually not managed to get traction and not create the long term sustainability that you would get if you created ways to bring things forward. Networking is a good example for that, right? Automating a firewall configuration and creating a soft firewall or virtual network function is just taking something that people understand and moving it into a much more control perspective in a lot of ways. That's what we saw with Cloud Cloud took working I t infrastructure that people understood added some change but also kept things that people 1% and so the paradox. Is that you? Is it the more you tell people, they just have to completely disrupt and break everything they've done and walk away from their no nighty infrastructure, the less actually you create these long term values. And I know there are people who really know you got totally changed everything that disrupted value. But a lot of the disrupted value comes from creating these incremental changes and then building something on top of that. So what? So >> what did what Indigenous in digital transformation, what has happened? That's positive and what hasn't happened that was supposed to happen. >> So when I look att Dev ops on what people thought we were going to do, just automate all things that turned out to be a much bigger lift than people expected. But when we started looking at pipelines and deployment pipelines and something very concrete for that which let people start in one or two places and then expand, I think I think, uh, pipelines and build deploy pipelines are transformative, right? Going from a continuously integrated system all the way to a continuously integrated data center. Yeah, that's transformative. And it's very concrete just telling people automate everything is not been as effective >> guys. Other thoughts there on the digital >> transformation dream. I agree with everything that Rob just said, and I would just add just because, you know, it's the boarding piece that someone always has to say, and nobody in Tech everyone is he here? But you know, every corporation at one point or another in its Kurt in its life span faces a transformative period of time because of product change or a new competitor that's doing things differently, or has figured out a way to do it cheaper or whatever it is. And they usually make or break that transformation not because of technology, not because of whether they have smart people, not because of whether they implemented the newest solution, but because of culture and organizational motivation and the vast majority of like Everything, Rob said doesn't just apply to I. T. A lot of the best I T frameworks around Agile and Dev ops apply to how the rest of the organization can and should react to opportunity so that if I t can be and should be really time, then it only makes sense that the business should be able to be real time in responding to what is being created through I t systems. And right now I would argue that the vast majority of the 80% of transformations that don't see the benefit that they're looking for have nothing to do with whether they could have gotten the right technology or done the technology correctly. But it has to do with institutional culture and motivation. And if you can fix that, then the only piece all add on to that. That again I vociferously, really agree with Robin is that if you want to lower the barrier to entry and you want to get more people into this market, you won't get more people to buy more of your stuff and grow what they own. Then you have to be able to show them a path to taking, getting the most value out of what they already have. There is no doubt in my mind that that's the only way forward, and that's where some of the tools that we're talking about and what we're talking about today on Twitter or so important >> Mike final stops on the >> docks >> on your thoughts on the transmission paradox, >> so the paradox that Robb describe think is set, the contact is set incorrectly by calling it digital transformation should be digital revolution, where the evolution process doesn't end. Transformation makes people think that there's some end state, which means let's burn the votes. That's let's get rid of all over all on prime infrastructure moved to cloud and we're done. And really, that's only the beginning. Which is why we're talking about Cloud two point. Oh, do you have to take that approach that you want to have continuous evolution and improvements, which Segways into what Rob said about de box and automating all the things you don't automate your tasks and processes and you're done? You want to keep improving upon them. Figuring out how to improve the process is and then change the automation five that the is, Mark said. It's a cultural and mental shift versus trying to get to this Holy Grail and state of transforming transformation. >> Awesome. Well, why I got you guys here first off. Thanks for spending the time and unpacking these big issue. Well, two more of it. I'd >> love to just get >> your thoughts real quick on just your opinion of Capital One. The breach, survivability and impact of the industry. Since it's still in the news, who wants to jump for us? We'll start with Mike. Mike, start with you will go down the line. Mike, Robin Mara. >> I mean, the good news for Capital One is I don't think any personal information was breached that hasn't already been exposed by the various other massive reaches. Like I do my so security number as a throw away at this point which never should have been used for identity. But I want All >> right, So there were Do you think >> it's recoverable is not gonna be as critical, say, Equifax, which was brutal. >> It doesn't sound like there was negligence where Equifax seemed like it was Maura negligent driven than just ah ah, bad process or bad hygiene around a user or roll account and access to a certain subset of data. >> I mean, this was someone who stumbled upon open history bucket and said, >> Well, well, look at this >> bragging about it on Twitter and the user groups. I mean, this >> was like from from what the press said, I think there's other companies that may or may not be affected by this as well, so that it's just capital one, which will probably defuse the attention on them and lessen the severity or backlash. >> Rob your thoughts on Capital One. >> Yeah, I wish it would move the needle. I think that we have become so used to the security of breach of the week or the hardware. Very. You know, it is we We need to really think through what it's really gonna take toe treat security as a primary thing, which means actually treating operations and infrastructure and the human processes piece of this, um, and slowed down a little bit. Um, and I always saw >> 11 lawmaker, one congressman's woman said, More regulation. >> Yeah, they don't want this. I don't think regulation is the right is the right thing. I don't know exactly what it is because I think >> regularly, we don't understand. That's Washington, DC, >> But but we're building a very, very, very fragile I T infrastructure. And so this is not a security problem. It's a It's a fact that we've built this Jenga tower of I t infrastructure, and we don't actually understand how it's built, Um, and that I don't see that slowing down. Unfortunately, >> unlike Las Vegas is, Mike pointed out, it's was built with purpose. They built the roads around the town. Mark, you live there now What's your thoughts on this capital? One piece ends and >> I have been said I would say that what I'm hoping sort of like when you have, ah, a lack of employees for a specific job type. Like right now in United States, it's incredibly difficult to find a truck driver if you're a trucking company, So what does that mean? But that means it's gonna accelerate automation and truck driving because that's the best alternative, right? If you can't solve it the old way, then you find a new way to solve it. And we have an enormous number of opportunity. He's from a process standpoint, but also, from a technology standpoint, did not build on this. Pardon my French crap that we have already >> they were digital. Then, when I ruled by the FCC, >> had build it the right way from the start. >> Well, you know what was soon? How about self driving security? We needed guys. Thanks for spending the time this cube talk. Keep conversation. Appreciate time. Mike, Rob mark. Thanks for kicking it off. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> You're watching Cute conversation with promote guests. Panel discussion Breaking down. How businesses should look at technology as part of their business. Cloud 2.0, security hacks and digital transformation Digital evolution. I'm John free. Thanks for watching.