(bright music) >> Hi, everybody, this is Dave Vellante, welcome back to Supercloud 2. Last August, at the first Supercloud event, we invited the broader community to help further define Supercloud, we assessed its viability, and identified the critical elements and deployment models of the concept. The objectives here at Supercloud too are, first of all, to continue to tighten and test the concept, the second is, we want to get real world input from practitioners on the problems that they're facing and the viability of Supercloud in terms of applying it to their business. So on the program, we got companies like Walmart, Sachs, Western Union, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, NASDAQ, and others. And the third thing that we want to do is we want to drill into the intersection of cloud and data to project what the future looks like in the context of Supercloud. So in this segment, we want to explore the concept of data architectures and what's going to be required for Supercloud. And I'm pleased to welcome one of our Supercloud sponsors, ChaosSearch, Ed Walsh is the CEO of the company, with Thomas Hazel, who's the Founder, CTO, and Chief Scientist. Guys, good to see you again, thanks for coming into our Marlborough studio. >> Always great. >> Great to be here. >> Okay, so there's a little debate, I'm going to put you right in the spot. (Ed chuckling) A little debate going on in the community started by Bob Muglia, a former CEO of Snowflake, and he was at Microsoft for a long time, and he looked at the Supercloud definition, said, "I think you need to tighten it up a little bit." So, here's what he came up with. He said, "A Supercloud is a platform that provides a programmatically consistent set of services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers." So he's calling it a platform, not an architecture, which was kind of interesting. And so presumably the platform owner is going to be responsible for the architecture, but Dr. Nelu Mihai, who's a computer scientist behind the Cloud of Clouds Project, he chimed in and responded with the following. He said, "Cloud is a programming paradigm supporting the entire lifecycle of applications with data and logic natively distributed. Supercloud is an open architecture that integrates heterogeneous clouds in an agnostic manner." So, Ed, words matter. Is this an architecture or is it a platform? >> Put us on the spot. So, I'm sure you have concepts, I would say it's an architectural or design principle. Listen, I look at Supercloud as a mega trend, just like cloud, just like data analytics. And some companies are using the principle, design principles, to literally get dramatically ahead of everyone else. I mean, things you couldn't possibly do if you didn't use cloud principles, right? So I think it's a Supercloud effect, you're able to do things you're not able to. So I think it's more a design principle, but if you do it right, you get dramatic effect as far as customer value. >> So the conversation that we were having with Muglia, and Tristan Handy of dbt Labs, was, I'll set it up as the following, and, Thomas, would love to get your thoughts, if you have a CRM, think about applications today, it's all about forms and codifying business processes, you type a bunch of stuff into Salesforce, and all the salespeople do it, and this machine generates a forecast. What if you have this new type of data app that pulls data from the transaction system, the e-commerce, the supply chain, the partner ecosystem, et cetera, and then, without humans, actually comes up with a plan. That's their vision. And Muglia was saying, in order to do that, you need to rethink data architectures and database architectures specifically, you need to get down to the level of how the data is stored on the disc. What are your thoughts on that? Well, first of all, I'm going to cop out, I think it's actually both. I do think it's a design principle, I think it's not open technology, but open APIs, open access, and you can build a platform on that design principle architecture. Now, I'm a database person, I love solving the database problems. >> I'm waited for you to launch into this. >> Yeah, so I mean, you know, Snowflake is a database, right? It's a distributed database. And we wanted to crack those codes, because, multi-region, multi-cloud, customers wanted access to their data, and their data is in a variety of forms, all these services that you're talked about. And so what I saw as a core principle was cloud object storage, everyone streams their data to cloud object storage. From there we said, well, how about we rethink database architecture, rethink file format, so that we can take each one of these services and bring them together, whether distributively or centrally, such that customers can access and get answers, whether it's operational data, whether it's business data, AKA search, or SQL, complex distributed joins. But we had to rethink the architecture. I like to say we're not a first generation, or a second, we're a third generation distributed database on pure, pure cloud storage, no caching, no SSDs. Why? Because all that availability, the cost of time, is a struggle, and cloud object storage, we think, is the answer. >> So when you're saying no caching, so when I think about how companies are solving some, you know, pretty hairy problems, take MySQL Heatwave, everybody thought Oracle was going to just forget about MySQL, well, they come out with Heatwave. And the way they solve problems, and you see their benchmarks against Amazon, "Oh, we crush everybody," is they put it all in memory. So you said no caching? You're not getting performance through caching? How is that true, and how are you getting performance? >> Well, so five, six years ago, right? When you realize that cloud object storage is going to be everywhere, and it's going to be a core foundational, if you will, fabric, what would you do? Well, a lot of times the second generation say, "We'll take it out of cloud storage, put in SSDs or something, and put into cache." And that adds a lot of time, adds a lot of costs. But I said, what if, what if we could actually make the first read hot, the first read distributed joins and searching? And so what we went out to do was said, we can't cache, because that's adds time, that adds cost. We have to make cloud object storage high performance, like it feels like a caching SSD. That's where our patents are, that's where our technology is, and we've spent many years working towards this. So, to me, if you can crack that code, a lot of these issues we're talking about, multi-region, multicloud, different services, everybody wants to send their data to the data lake, but then they move it out, we said, "Keep it right there." >> You nailed it, the data gravity. So, Bob's right, the data's coming in, and you need to get the data from everywhere, but you need an environment that you can deal with all that different schema, all the different type of technology, but also at scale. Bob's right, you cannot use memory or SSDs to cache that, that doesn't scale, it doesn't scale cost effectively. But if you could, and what you did, is you made object storage, S3 first, but object storage, the only persistence by doing that. And then we get performance, we should talk about it, it's literally, you know, hundreds of terabytes of queries, and it's done in seconds, it's done without memory caching. We have concepts of caching, but the only caching, the only persistence, is actually when we're doing caching, we're just keeping another side-eye track of things on the S3 itself. So we're using, actually, the object storage to be a database, which is kind of where Bob was saying, we agree, but that's what you started at, people thought you were crazy. >> And maybe make it live. Don't think of it as archival or temporary space, make it live, real time streaming, operational data. What we do is make it smart, we see the data coming in, we uniquely index it such that you can get your use cases, that are search, observability, security, or backend operational. But we don't have to have this, I dunno, static, fixed, siloed type of architecture technologies that were traditionally built prior to Supercloud thinking. >> And you don't have to move everything, essentially, you can do it wherever the data lands, whatever cloud across the globe, you're able to bring it together, you get the cost effectiveness, because the only persistence is the cheapest storage persistent layer you can buy. But the key thing is you cracked the code. >> We had to crack the code, right? That was the key thing. >> That's where the plans are. >> And then once you do that, then everything else gets easier to scale, your architecture, across regions, across cloud. >> Now, it's a general purpose database, as Bob was saying, but we use that database to solve a particular issue, which is around operational data, right? So, we agree with Bob's. >> Interesting. So this brings me to this concept of data, Jimata Gan is one of our speakers, you know, we talk about data fabric, which is a NetApp, originally NetApp concept, Gartner's kind of co-opted it. But so, the basic concept is, data lives everywhere, whether it's an S3 bucket, or a SQL database, or a data lake, it's just a node on the data mesh. So in your view, how does this fit in with Supercloud? Ed, you've said that you've built, essentially, an enabler for that, for the data mesh, I think you're an enabler for the Supercloud-like principles. This is a big, chewy opportunity, and it requires, you know, a team approach. There's got to be an ecosystem, there's not going to be one Supercloud to rule them all, so where does the ecosystem fit into the discussion, and where do you fit into the ecosystem? >> Right, so we agree completely, there's not one Supercloud in effect, but we use Supercloud principles to build our platform, and then, you know, the ecosystem's going to be built on leveraging what everyone else's secret powers are, right? So our power, our superpower, based upon what we built is, we deal with, if you're having any scale, or cost effective scale issues, with data, machine generated data, like business observability or security data, we are your force multiplier, we will take that in singularly, just let it, simply put it in your object storage wherever it sits, and we give you uniformity access to that using OpenAPI access, SQL, or you know, Elasticsearch API. So, that's what we do, that's our superpower. So I'll play it into data mesh, that's a perfect, we are a node on a data mesh, but I'll play it in the soup about how, the ecosystem, we see it kind of playing, and we talked about it in just in the last couple days, how we see this kind of possibly. Short term, our superpowers, we deal with this data that's coming at these environments, people, customers, building out observability or security environments, or vendors that are selling their own Supercloud, I do observability, the Datadogs of the world, dot dot dot, the Splunks of the world, dot dot dot, and security. So what we do is we fit in naturally. What we do is a cost effective scale, just land it anywhere in the world, we deal with ingest, and it's a cost effective, an order of magnitude, or two or three order magnitudes more cost effective. Allows them, their customers are asking them to do the impossible, "Give me fast monitoring alerting. I want it snappy, but I want it to keep two years of data, (laughs) and I want it cost effective." It doesn't work. They're good at the fast monitoring alerting, we're good at the long-term retention. And yet there's some gray area between those two, but one to one is actually cheaper, so we would partner. So the first ecosystem plays, who wants to have the ability to, really, all the data's in those same environments, the security observability players, they can literally, just through API, drag our data into their point to grab. We can make it seamless for customers. Right now, we make it helpful to customers. Your Datadog, we make a button, easy go from Datadog to us for logs, save you money. Same thing with Grafana. But you can also look at ecosystem, those same vendors, it used to be a year ago it was, you know, its all about how can you grow, like it's growth at all costs, now it's about cogs. So literally we can go an environment, you supply what your customer wants, but we can help with cogs. And one-on one in a partnership is better than you trying to build on your own. >> Thomas, you were saying you make the first read fast, so you think about Snowflake. Everybody wants to talk about Snowflake and Databricks. So, Snowflake, great, but you got to get the data in there. All right, so that's, can you help with that problem? >> I mean we want simple in, right? And if you have to have structure in, you're not simple. So the idea that you have a simple in, data lake, schema read type philosophy, but schema right type performance. And so what I wanted to do, what we have done, is have that simple lake, and stream that data real time, and those access points of Search or SQL, to go after whatever business case you need, security observability, warehouse integration. But the key thing is, how do I make that click, click, click answer, and do it quickly? And so what we want to do is, that first read has to be fast. Why? 'Cause then you're going to do all this siloing, layers, complexity. If your first read's not fast, you're at a disadvantage, particularly in cost. And nobody says I want less data, but everyone has to, whether they say we're going to shorten the window, we're going to use AI to choose, but in a security moment, when you don't have that answer, you're in trouble. And that's why we are this service, this Supercloud service, if you will, providing access, well-known search, well-known SQL type access, that if you just have one access point, you're at a disadvantage. >> We actually talked about Snowflake and BigQuery, and a different platform, Data Bricks. That's kind of where we see the phase two of ecosystem. One is easy, the low-hanging fruit is observability and security firms. But the next one is, what we do, our super power is dealing with this messy data that schema is changing like night and day. Pipelines are tough, and it's changing all the time, but you want these things fast, and it's big data around the world. That's the next point, just use us alongside, or inside, one of their platforms, and now we get the best of both worlds. Our superpower is keeping this messy data as a streaming, okay, not a batch thing, allow you to do that. So, that's the second one. And then to be honest, the third one, which plays you to Supercloud, it also plays perfectly in the data mesh, is if you really go to the ultimate thing, what we have done is made object storage, S3, GCS, and blob storage, we made it a database. Put, get, complex query with big joins. You know, so back to your original thing, and Muglia teed it up perfectly, we've done that. Now imagine if that's an ecosystem, who would want that? If it's, again, it's uniform available across all the regions, across all the clouds, and it's right next to where you are building a service, or a client's trying, that's where the ecosystem, I think people are going to use Superclouds for their superpowers. We're really good at this, allows that short term. I think the Snowflakes and the Data Bricks are the medium term, you know? And then I think eventually gets to, hey, listen if you can make object storage fast, you can just go after it with simple SQL queries, or elastic. Who would want that? I think that's where people are going to leverage it. It's not going to be one Supercloud, and we leverage the super clouds. >> Our viewpoint is smart object storage can be programmable, and so we agree with Bob, but we're not saying do it here, do it here. This core, fundamental layer across regions, across clouds, that everyone has? Simple in. Right now, it's hard to get data in for access for analysis. So we said, simply, we'll automate the entire process, give you API access across regions, across clouds. And again, how do you do a distributed join that's fast? How do you do a distributed join that doesn't cost you an arm or a leg? And how do you do it at scale? And that's where we've been focused. >> So prior, the cloud object store was a niche. >> Yeah. >> S3 obviously changed that. How standard is, essentially, object store across the different cloud platforms? Is that a problem for you? Is that an easy thing to solve? >> Well, let's talk about it. I mean we've fundamentally, yeah we've extracted it, but fundamentally, cloud object storage, put, get, and list. That's why it's so scalable, 'cause it doesn't have all these other components. That complexity is where we have moved up, and provide direct analytical API access. So because of its simplicity, and costs, and security, and reliability, it can scale naturally. I mean, really, distributed object storage is easy, it's put-get anywhere, now what we've done is we put a layer of intelligence, you know, call it smart object storage, where access is simple. So whether it's multi-region, do a query across, or multicloud, do a query across, or hunting, searching. >> We've had clients doing Amazon and Google, we have some Azure, but we see Amazon and Google more, and it's a consistent service across all of them. Just literally put your data in the bucket of choice, or folder of choice, click a couple buttons, literally click that to say "that's hot," and after that, it's hot, you can see it. But we're not moving data, the data gravity issue, that's the other. That it's already natively flowing to these pools of object storage across different regions and clouds. We don't move it, we index it right there, we're spinning up stateless compute, back to the Supercloud concept. But now that allows us to do all these other things, right? >> And it's no longer just cheap and deep object storage. Right? >> Yeah, we make it the same, like you have an analytic platform regardless of where you're at, you don't have to worry about that. Yeah, we deal with that, we deal with a stateless compute coming up -- >> And make it programmable. Be able to say, "I want this bucket to provide these answers." Right, that's really the hope, the vision. And the complexity to build the entire stack, and then connect them together, we said, the fabric is cloud storage, we just provide the intelligence on top. >> Let's bring it back to the customers, and one of the things we're exploring in Supercloud too is, you know, is Supercloud a solution looking for a problem? Is a multicloud really a problem? I mean, you hear, you know, a lot of the vendor marketing says, "Oh, it's a disaster, because it's all different across the clouds." And I talked to a lot of customers even as part of Supercloud too, they're like, "Well, I solved that problem by just going mono cloud." Well, but then you're not able to take advantage of a lot of the capabilities and the primitives that, you know, like Google's data, or you like Microsoft's simplicity, their RPA, whatever it is. So what are customers telling you, what are their near term problems that they're trying to solve today, and how are they thinking about the future? >> Listen, it's a real problem. I think it started, I think this is a a mega trend, just like cloud. Just, cloud data, and I always add, analytics, are the mega trends. If you're looking at those, if you're not considering using the Supercloud principles, in other words, leveraging what I have, abstracting it out, and getting the most out of that, and then build value on top, I think you're not going to be able to keep up, In fact, no way you're going to keep up with this data volume. It's a geometric challenge, and you're trying to do linear things. So clients aren't necessarily asking, hey, for Supercloud, but they're really saying, I need to have a better mechanism to simplify this and get value across it, and how do you abstract that out to do that? And that's where they're obviously, our conversations are more amazed what we're able to do, and what they're able to do with our platform, because if you think of what we've done, the S3, or GCS, or object storage, is they can't imagine the ingest, they can't imagine how easy, time to glass, one minute, no matter where it lands in the world, querying this in seconds for hundreds of terabytes squared. People are amazed, but that's kind of, so they're not asking for that, but they are amazed. And then when you start talking on it, if you're an enterprise person, you're building a big cloud data platform, or doing data or analytics, if you're not trying to leverage the public clouds, and somehow leverage all of them, and then build on top, then I think you're missing it. So they might not be asking for it, but they're doing it. >> And they're looking for a lens, you mentioned all these different services, how do I bring those together quickly? You know, our viewpoint, our service, is I have all these streams of data, create a lens where they want to go after it via search, go after via SQL, bring them together instantly, no e-tailing out, no define this table, put into this database. We said, let's have a service that creates a lens across all these streams, and then make those connections. I want to take my CRM with my Google AdWords, and maybe my Salesforce, how do I do analysis? Maybe I want to hunt first, maybe I want to join, maybe I want to add another stream to it. And so our viewpoint is, it's so natural to get into these lake platforms and then provide lenses to get that access. >> And they don't want it separate, they don't want something different here, and different there. They want it basically -- >> So this is our industry, right? If something new comes out, remember virtualization came out, "Oh my God, this is so great, it's going to solve all these problems." And all of a sudden it just got to be this big, more complex thing. Same thing with cloud, you know? It started out with S3, and then EC2, and now hundreds and hundreds of different services. So, it's a complex matter for a lot of people, and this creates problems for customers, especially when you got divisions that are using different clouds, and you're saying that the solution, or a solution for the part of the problem, is to really allow the data to stay in place on S3, use that standard, super simple, but then give it what, Ed, you've called superpower a couple of times, to make it fast, make it inexpensive, and allow you to do that across clouds. >> Yeah, yeah. >> I'll give you guys the last word on that. >> No, listen, I think, we think Supercloud allows you to do a lot more. And for us, data, everyone says more data, more problems, more budget issue, everyone knows more data is better, and we show you how to do it cost effectively at scale. And we couldn't have done it without the design principles of we're leveraging the Supercloud to get capabilities, and because we use super, just the object storage, we're able to get these capabilities of ingest, scale, cost effectiveness, and then we built on top of this. In the end, a database is a data platform that allows you to go after everything distributed, and to get one platform for analytics, no matter where it lands, that's where we think the Supercloud concepts are perfect, that's where our clients are seeing it, and we're kind of excited about it. >> Yeah a third generation database, Supercloud database, however we want to phrase it, and make it simple, but provide the value, and make it instant. >> Guys, thanks so much for coming into the studio today, I really thank you for your support of theCUBE, and theCUBE community, it allows us to provide events like this and free content. I really appreciate it. >> Oh, thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, this is Dave Vellante for John Furrier in theCUBE community, thanks for being with us today. You're watching Supercloud 2, keep it right there for more thought provoking discussions around the future of cloud and data. (bright music)

(gentle synth music) (music ends) >> Welcome back to Supercloud 2, an open industry collaboration between technologists, consultants, analysts, and of course practitioners to help shape the future of cloud. At this event, one of the key areas we're exploring is the intersection of cloud and data. And how building value on top of hyperscale clouds and across clouds is evolving, a concept of course we call "Supercloud". And we're pleased to welcome our friends from Enterprise Technology research, Erik Bradley and Darren Brabham. Guys, thanks for joining us, great to see you. we love to bring the data into these conversations. >> Thank you for having us, Dave, I appreciate it. >> Yeah, thanks. >> You bet. And so, let me do the setup on what is Supercloud. It's a concept that we've floated, Before re:Invent 2021, based on the idea that cloud infrastructure is becoming ubiquitous, incredibly powerful, but there's a lack of standards across the big three clouds. That creates friction. So we defined over the period of time, you know, better part of a year, a set of essential elements, deployment models for so-called supercloud, which create this common experience for specific cloud services that, of course, again, span multiple clouds and even on-premise data. So Erik, with that as background, I wonder if you could add your general thoughts on the term supercloud, maybe play proxy for the CIO community, 'cause you do these round tables, you talk to these guys all the time, you gather a lot of amazing information from senior IT DMs that compliment your survey. So what are your thoughts on the term and the concept? >> Yeah, sure. I'll even go back to last year when you and I did our predictions panel, right? And we threw it out there. And to your point, you know, there's some haters. Anytime you throw out a new term, "Is it marketing buzz? Is it worth it? Why are you even doing it?" But you know, from my own perspective, and then also speaking to the IT DMs that we interview on a regular basis, this is just a natural evolution. It's something that's inevitable in enterprise tech, right? The internet was not built for what it has become. It was never intended to be the underlying infrastructure of our daily lives and work. The cloud also was not built to be what it's become. But where we're at now is, we have to figure out what the cloud is and what it needs to be to be scalable, resilient, secure, and have the governance wrapped around it. And to me that's what supercloud is. It's a way to define operantly, what the next generation, the continued iteration and evolution of the cloud and what its needs to be. And that's what the supercloud means to me. And what depends, if you want to call it metacloud, supercloud, it doesn't matter. The point is that we're trying to define the next layer, the next future of work, which is inevitable in enterprise tech. Now, from the IT DM perspective, I have two interesting call outs. One is from basically a senior developer IT architecture and DevSecOps who says he uses the term all the time. And the reason he uses the term, is that because multi-cloud has a stigma attached to it, when he is talking to his business executives. (David chuckles) the stigma is because it's complex and it's expensive. So he switched to supercloud to better explain to his business executives and his CFO and his CIO what he's trying to do. And we can get into more later about what it means to him. But the inverse of that, of course, is a good CSO friend of mine for a very large enterprise says the concern with Supercloud is the reduction of complexity. And I'll explain, he believes anything that takes the requirement of specific expertise out of the equation, even a little bit, as a CSO worries him. So as you said, David, always two sides to the coin, but I do believe supercloud is a relevant term, and it is necessary because the cloud is continuing to be defined. >> You know, that's really interesting too, 'cause you know, Darren, we use Snowflake a lot as an example, sort of early supercloud, and you think from a security standpoint, we've always pushed Amazon and, "Are you ever going to kind of abstract the complexity away from all these primitives?" and their position has always been, "Look, if we produce these primitives, and offer these primitives, we we can move as the market moves. When you abstract, then it becomes harder to peel the layers." But Darren, from a data standpoint, like I say, we use Snowflake a lot. I think of like Tim Burners-Lee when Web 2.0 came out, he said, "Well this is what the internet was always supposed to be." So in a way, you know, supercloud is maybe what multi-cloud was supposed to be. But I mean, you think about data sharing, Darren, across clouds, it's always been a challenge. Snowflake always, you know, obviously trying to solve that problem, as are others. But what are your thoughts on the concept? >> Yeah, I think the concept fits, right? It is reflective of, it's a paradigm shift, right? Things, as a pendulum have swung back and forth between needing to piece together a bunch of different tools that have specific unique use cases and they're best in breed in what they do. And then focusing on the duct tape that holds 'em all together and all the engineering complexity and skill, it shifted from that end of the pendulum all the way back to, "Let's streamline this, let's simplify it. Maybe we have budget crunches and we need to consolidate tools or eliminate tools." And so then you kind of see this back and forth over time. And with data and analytics for instance, a lot of organizations were trying to bring the data closer to the business. That's where we saw self-service analytics coming in. And tools like Snowflake, what they did was they helped point to different databases, they helped unify data, and organize it in a single place that was, you know, in a sense neutral, away from a single cloud vendor or a single database, and allowed the business to kind of be more flexible in how it brought stuff together and provided it out to the business units. So Snowflake was an example of one of those times where we pulled back from the granular, multiple points of the spear, back to a simple way to do things. And I think Snowflake has continued to kind of keep that mantle to a degree, and we see other tools trying to do that, but that's all it is. It's a paradigm shift back to this kind of meta abstraction layer that kind of simplifies what is the reality, that you need a complex multi-use case, multi-region way of doing business. And it sort of reflects the reality of that. >> And you know, to me it's a spectrum. As part of Supercloud 2, we're talking to a number of of practitioners, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, US West, we got Walmart. And it's a spectrum, right? In some cases the practitioner's saying, "You know, the way I solve multi-cloud complexity is mono-cloud, I just do one cloud." (laughs) Others like Walmart are saying, "Hey, you know, we actually are building an abstraction layer ourselves, take advantage of it." So my general question to both of you is, is this a concept, is the lack of standards across clouds, you know, really a problem, you know, or is supercloud a solution looking for a problem? Or do you hear from practitioners that "No, this is really an issue, we have to bring together a set of standards to sort of unify our cloud estates." >> Allow me to answer that at a higher level, and then we're going to hand it over to Dr. Brabham because he is a little bit more detailed on the realtime streaming analytics use cases, which I think is where we're going to get to. But to answer that question, it really depends on the size and the complexity of your business. At the very large enterprise, Dave, Yes, a hundred percent. This needs to happen. There is complexity, there is not only complexity in the compute and actually deploying the applications, but the governance and the security around them. But for lower end or, you know, business use cases, and for smaller businesses, it's a little less necessary. You certainly don't need to have all of these. Some of the things that come into mind from the interviews that Darren and I have done are, you know, financial services, if you're doing real-time trading, anything that has real-time data metrics involved in your transactions, is going to be necessary. And another use case that we hear about is in online travel agencies. So I think it is very relevant, the complexity does need to be solved, and I'll allow Darren to explain a little bit more about how that's used from an analytics perspective. >> Yeah, go for it. >> Yeah, exactly. I mean, I think any modern, you know, multinational company that's going to have a footprint in the US and Europe, in China, or works in different areas like manufacturing, where you're probably going to have on-prem instances that will stay on-prem forever, for various performance reasons. You have these complicated governance and security and regulatory issues. So inherently, I think, large multinational companies and or companies that are in certain areas like finance or in, you know, online e-commerce, or things that need real-time data, they inherently are going to have a very complex environment that's going to need to be managed in some kind of cleaner way. You know, they're looking for one door to open, one pane of glass to look at, one thing to do to manage these multi points. And, streaming's a good example of that. I mean, not every organization has a real-time streaming use case, and may not ever, but a lot of organizations do, a lot of industries do. And so there's this need to use, you know, they want to use open-source tools, they want to use Apache Kafka for instance. They want to use different megacloud vendors offerings, like Google Pub/Sub or you know, Amazon Kinesis Firehose. They have all these different pieces they want to use for different use cases at different stages of maturity or proof of concept, you name it. They're going to have to have this complexity. And I think that's why we're seeing this need, to have sort of this supercloud concept, to juggle all this, to wrangle all of it. 'Cause the reality is, it's complex and you have to simplify it somehow. >> Great, thanks you guys. All right, let's bring up the graphic, and take a look. Anybody who follows the breaking analysis, which is co-branded with ETR Cube Insights powered by ETR, knows we like to bring data to the table. ETR does amazing survey work every quarter, 1200 plus 1500 practitioners that that answer a number of questions. The vertical axis here is net score, which is ETR's proprietary methodology, which is a measure of spending momentum, spending velocity. And the horizontal axis here is overlap, but it's the presence pervasiveness, and the dataset, the ends, that table insert on the bottom right shows you how the dots are plotted, the net score and then the ends in the survey. And what we've done is we've plotted a bunch of the so-called supercloud suspects, let's start in the upper right, the cloud platforms. Without these hyperscale clouds, you can't have a supercloud. And as always, Azure and AWS, up and to the right, it's amazing we're talking about, you know, 80 plus billion dollar company in AWS. Azure's business is, if you just look at the IaaS is in the 50 billion range, I mean it's just amazing to me the net scores here. Anything above 40% we consider highly elevated. And you got Azure and you got Snowflake, Databricks, HashiCorp, we'll get to them. And you got AWS, you know, right up there at that size, it's quite amazing. With really big ends as well, you know, 700 plus ends in the survey. So, you know, kind of half the survey actually has these platforms. So my question to you guys is, what are you seeing in terms of cloud adoption within the big three cloud players? I wonder if you could could comment, maybe Erik, you could start. >> Yeah, sure. Now we're talking data, now I'm happy. So yeah, we'll get into some of it. Right now, the January, 2023 TSIS is approaching 1500 survey respondents. One caveat, it's not closed yet, it will close on Friday, but with an end that big we are over statistically significant. We also recently did a cloud survey, and there's a couple of key points on that I want to get into before we get into individual vendors. What we're seeing here, is that annual spend on cloud infrastructure is expected to grow at almost a 70% CAGR over the next three years. The percentage of those workloads for cloud infrastructure are expected to grow over 70% as three years as well. And as you mentioned, Azure and AWS are still dominant. However, we're seeing some share shift spreading around a little bit. Now to get into the individual vendors you mentioned about, yes, Azure is still number one, AWS is number two. What we're seeing, which is incredibly interesting, CloudFlare is number three. It's actually beating GCP. That's the first time we've seen it. What I do want to state, is this is on net score only, which is our measure of spending intentions. When you talk about actual pervasion in the enterprise, it's not even close. But from a spending velocity intention point of view, CloudFlare is now number three above GCP, and even Salesforce is creeping up to be at GCPs level. So what we're seeing here, is a continued domination by Azure and AWS, but some of these other players that maybe might fit into your moniker. And I definitely want to talk about CloudFlare more in a bit, but I'm going to stop there. But what we're seeing is some of these other players that fit into your Supercloud moniker, are starting to creep up, Dave. >> Yeah, I just want to clarify. So as you also know, we track IaaS and PaaS revenue and we try to extract, so AWS reports in its quarterly earnings, you know, they're just IaaS and PaaS, they don't have a SaaS play, a little bit maybe, whereas Microsoft and Google include their applications and so we extract those out and if you do that, AWS is bigger, but in the surveys, you know, customers, they see cloud, SaaS to them as cloud. So that's one of the reasons why you see, you know, Microsoft as larger in pervasion. If you bring up that survey again, Alex, the survey results, you see them further to the right and they have higher spending momentum, which is consistent with what you see in the earnings calls. Now, interesting about CloudFlare because the CEO of CloudFlare actually, and CloudFlare itself uses the term supercloud basically saying, "Hey, we're building a new type of internet." So what are your thoughts? Do you have additional information on CloudFlare, Erik that you want to share? I mean, you've seen them pop up. I mean this is a really interesting company that is pretty forward thinking and vocal about how it's disrupting the industry. >> Sure, we've been tracking 'em for a long time, and even from the disruption of just a traditional CDN where they took down Akamai and what they're doing. But for me, the definition of a true supercloud provider can't just be one instance. You have to have multiple. So it's not just the cloud, it's networking aspect on top of it, it's also security. And to me, CloudFlare is the only one that has all of it. That they actually have the ability to offer all of those things. Whereas you look at some of the other names, they're still piggybacking on the infrastructure or platform as a service of the hyperscalers. CloudFlare does not need to, they actually have the cloud, the networking, and the security all themselves. So to me that lends credibility to their own internal usage of that moniker Supercloud. And also, again, just what we're seeing right here that their net score is now creeping above AGCP really does state it. And then just one real last thing, one of the other things we do in our surveys is we track adoption and replacement reasoning. And when you look at Cloudflare's adoption rate, which is extremely high, it's based on technical capabilities, the breadth of their feature set, it's also based on what we call the ability to avoid stack alignment. So those are again, really supporting reasons that makes CloudFlare a top candidate for your moniker of supercloud. >> And they've also announced an object store (chuckles) and a database. So, you know, that's going to be, it takes a while as you well know, to get database adoption going, but you know, they're ambitious and going for it. All right, let's bring the chart back up, and I want to focus Darren in on the ecosystem now, and really, we've identified Snowflake and Databricks, it's always fun to talk about those guys, and there are a number of other, you know, data platforms out there, but we use those too as really proxies for leaders. We got a bunch of the backup guys, the data protection folks, Rubric, Cohesity, and Veeam. They're sort of in a cluster, although Rubric, you know, ahead of those guys in terms of spending momentum. And then VMware, Tanzu and Red Hat as sort of the cross cloud platform. But I want to focus, Darren, on the data piece of it. We're seeing a lot of activity around data sharing, governed data sharing. Databricks is using Delta Sharing as their sort of place, Snowflakes is sort of this walled garden like the app store. What are your thoughts on, you know, in the context of Supercloud, cross cloud capabilities for the data platforms? >> Yeah, good question. You know, I think Databricks is an interesting player because they sort of have made some interesting moves, with their Data Lakehouse technology. So they're trying to kind of complicate, or not complicate, they're trying to take away the complications of, you know, the downsides of data warehousing and data lakes, and trying to find that middle ground, where you have the benefits of a managed, governed, you know, data warehouse environment, but you have sort of the lower cost, you know, capability of a data lake. And so, you know, Databricks has become really attractive, especially by data scientists, right? We've been tracking them in the AI machine learning sector for quite some time here at ETR, attractive for a data scientist because it looks and acts like a lake, but can have some managed capabilities like a warehouse. So it's kind of the best of both worlds. So in some ways I think you've seen sort of a data science driver for the adoption of Databricks that has now become a little bit more mainstream across the business. Snowflake, maybe the other direction, you know, it's a cloud data warehouse that you know, is starting to expand its capabilities and add on new things like Streamlit is a good example in the analytics space, with apps. So you see these tools starting to branch and creep out a bit, but they offer that sort of neutrality, right? We heard one IT decision maker we recently interviewed that referred to Snowflake and Databricks as the quote unquote Switzerland of what they do. And so there's this desirability from an organization to find these tools that can solve the complex multi-headed use-case of data and analytics, which every business unit needs in different ways. And figure out a way to do that, an elegant way that's governed and centrally managed, that federated kind of best of both worlds that you get by bringing the data close to the business while having a central governed instance. So these tools are incredibly powerful and I think there's only going to be room for growth, for those two especially. I think they're going to expand and do different things and maybe, you know, join forces with others and a lot of the power of what they do well is trying to define these connections and find these partnerships with other vendors, and try to be seen as the nice add-on to your existing environment that plays nicely with everyone. So I think that's where those two tools are going, but they certainly fit this sort of label of, you know, trying to be that supercloud neutral, you know, layer that unites everything. >> Yeah, and if you bring the graphic back up, please, there's obviously big data plays in each of the cloud platforms, you know, Microsoft, big database player, AWS is, you know, 11, 12, 15, data stores. And of course, you know, BigQuery and other, you know, data platforms within Google. But you know, I'm not sure the big cloud guys are going to go hard after so-called supercloud, cross-cloud services. Although, we see Oracle getting in bed with Microsoft and Azure, with a database service that is cross-cloud, certainly Google with Anthos and you know, you never say never with with AWS. I guess what I would say guys, and I'll I'll leave you with this is that, you know, just like all players today are cloud players, I feel like anybody in the business or most companies are going to be so-called supercloud players. In other words, they're going to have a cross-cloud strategy, they're going to try to build connections if they're coming from on-prem like a Dell or an HPE, you know, or Pure or you know, many of these other companies, Cohesity is another one. They're going to try to connect to their on-premise states, of course, and create a consistent experience. It's natural that they're going to have sort of some consistency across clouds. You know, the big question is, what's that spectrum look like? I think on the one hand you're going to have some, you know, maybe some rudimentary, you know, instances of supercloud or maybe they just run on the individual clouds versus where Snowflake and others and even beyond that are trying to go with a single global instance, basically building out what I would think of as their own cloud, and importantly their own ecosystem. I'll give you guys the last thought. Maybe you could each give us, you know, closing thoughts. Maybe Darren, you could start and Erik, you could bring us home on just this entire topic, the future of cloud and data. >> Yeah, I mean I think, you know, two points to make on that is, this question of these, I guess what we'll call legacy on-prem players. These, mega vendors that have been around a long time, have big on-prem footprints and a lot of people have them for that reason. I think it's foolish to assume that a company, especially a large, mature, multinational company that's been around a long time, it's foolish to think that they can just uproot and leave on-premises entirely full scale. There will almost always be an on-prem footprint from any company that was not, you know, natively born in the cloud after 2010, right? I just don't think that's reasonable anytime soon. I think there's some industries that need on-prem, things like, you know, industrial manufacturing and so on. So I don't think on-prem is going away, and I think vendors that are going to, you know, go very cloud forward, very big on the cloud, if they neglect having at least decent connectors to on-prem legacy vendors, they're going to miss out. So I think that's something that these players need to keep in mind is that they continue to reach back to some of these players that have big footprints on-prem, and make sure that those integrations are seamless and work well, or else their customers will always have a multi-cloud or hybrid experience. And then I think a second point here about the future is, you know, we talk about the three big, you know, cloud providers, the Google, Microsoft, AWS as sort of the opposite of, or different from this new supercloud paradigm that's emerging. But I want to kind of point out that, they will always try to make a play to become that and I think, you know, we'll certainly see someone like Microsoft trying to expand their licensing and expand how they play in order to become that super cloud provider for folks. So also don't want to downplay them. I think you're going to see those three big players continue to move, and take over what players like CloudFlare are doing and try to, you know, cut them off before they get too big. So, keep an eye on them as well. >> Great points, I mean, I think you're right, the first point, if you're Dell, HPE, Cisco, IBM, your strategy should be to make your on-premise state as cloud-like as possible and you know, make those differences as minimal as possible. And you know, if you're a customer, then the business case is going to be low for you to move off of that. And I think you're right. I think the cloud guys, if this is a real problem, the cloud guys are going to play in there, and they're going to make some money at it. Erik, bring us home please. >> Yeah, I'm going to revert back to our data and this on the macro side. So to kind of support this concept of a supercloud right now, you know Dave, you and I know, we check overall spending and what we're seeing right now is total year spent is expected to only be 4.6%. We ended 2022 at 5% even though it began at almost eight and a half. So this is clearly declining and in that environment, we're seeing the top two strategies to reduce spend are actually vendor consolidation with 36% of our respondents saying they're actively seeking a way to reduce their number of vendors, and consolidate into one. That's obviously supporting a supercloud type of play. Number two is reducing excess cloud resources. So when I look at both of those combined, with a drop in the overall spending reduction, I think you're on the right thread here, Dave. You know, the overall macro view that we're seeing in the data supports this happening. And if I can real quick, couple of names we did not touch on that I do think deserve to be in this conversation, one is HashiCorp. HashiCorp is the number one player in our infrastructure sector, with a 56% net score. It does multiple things within infrastructure and it is completely agnostic to your environment. And if we're also speaking about something that's just a singular feature, we would look at Rubric for data, backup, storage, recovery. They're not going to offer you your full cloud or your networking of course, but if you are looking for your backup, recovery, and storage Rubric, also number one in that sector with a 53% net score. Two other names that deserve to be in this conversation as we watch it move and evolve. >> Great, thank you for bringing that up. Yeah, we had both of those guys in the chart and I failed to focus in on HashiCorp. And clearly a Supercloud enabler. All right guys, we got to go. Thank you so much for joining us, appreciate it. Let's keep this conversation going. >> Always enjoy talking to you Dave, thanks. >> Yeah, thanks for having us. >> All right, keep it right there for more content from Supercloud 2. This is Dave Valente for John Ferg and the entire Cube team. We'll be right back. (gentle synth music) (music fades)

(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)

>> Welcome back to SuperCloud2. This is Dave Vellante, and we're here with Jack Greenfield. He's the Vice President of Enterprise Architecture and the Chief Architect for the global technology platform at Walmart. Jack, I want to thank you for coming on the program. Really appreciate your time. >> Glad to be here, Dave. Thanks for inviting me and appreciate the opportunity to chat with you. >> Yeah, it's our pleasure. Now we call what you've built a SuperCloud. That's our term, not yours, but how would you describe the Walmart Cloud Native Platform? >> So WCNP, as the acronym goes, is essentially an implementation of Kubernetes for the Walmart ecosystem. And what that means is that we've taken Kubernetes off the shelf as open source, and we have integrated it with a number of foundational services that provide other aspects of our computational environment. So Kubernetes off the shelf doesn't do everything. It does a lot. In particular the orchestration of containers, but it delegates through API a lot of key functions. So for example, secret management, traffic management, there's a need for telemetry and observability at a scale beyond what you get from raw Kubernetes. That is to say, harvesting the metrics that are coming out of Kubernetes and processing them, storing them in time series databases, dashboarding them, and so on. There's also an angle to Kubernetes that gets a lot of attention in the daily DevOps routine, that's not really part of the open source deliverable itself, and that is the DevOps sort of CICD pipeline-oriented lifecycle. And that is something else that we've added and integrated nicely. And then one more piece of this picture is that within a Kubernetes cluster, there's a function that is critical to allowing services to discover each other and integrate with each other securely and with proper configuration provided by the concept of a service mesh. So Istio, Linkerd, these are examples of service mesh technologies. And we have gone ahead and integrated actually those two. There's more than those two, but we've integrated those two with Kubernetes. So the net effect is that when a developer within Walmart is going to build an application, they don't have to think about all those other capabilities where they come from or how they're provided. Those are already present, and the way the CICD pipelines are set up, it's already sort of in the picture, and there are configuration points that they can take advantage of in the primary YAML and a couple of other pieces of config that we supply where they can tune it. But at the end of the day, it offloads an awful lot of work for them, having to stand up and operate those services, fail them over properly, and make them robust. All of that's provided for. >> Yeah, you know, developers often complain they spend too much time wrangling and doing things that aren't productive. So I wonder if you could talk about the high level business goals of the initiative in terms of the hardcore benefits. Was the real impetus to tap into best of breed cloud services? Were you trying to cut costs? Maybe gain negotiating leverage with the cloud guys? Resiliency, you know, I know was a major theme. Maybe you could give us a sense of kind of the anatomy of the decision making process that went in. >> Sure, and in the course of answering your question, I think I'm going to introduce the concept of our triplet architecture which we haven't yet touched on in the interview here. First off, just to sort of wrap up the motivation for WCNP itself which is kind of orthogonal to the triplet architecture. It can exist with or without it. Currently does exist with it, which is key, and I'll get to that in a moment. The key drivers, business drivers for WCNP were developer productivity by offloading the kinds of concerns that we've just discussed. Number two, improving resiliency, that is to say reducing opportunity for human error. One of the challenges you tend to run into in a large enterprise is what we call snowflakes, lots of gratuitously different workloads, projects, configurations to the extent that by developing and using WCNP and continuing to evolve it as we have, we end up with cookie cutter like consistency across our workloads which is super valuable when it comes to building tools or building services to automate operations that would otherwise be manual. When everything is pretty much done the same way, that becomes much simpler. Another key motivation for WCNP was the ability to abstract from the underlying cloud provider. And this is going to lead to a discussion of our triplet architecture. At the end of the day, when one works directly with an underlying cloud provider, one ends up taking a lot of dependencies on that particular cloud provider. Those dependencies can be valuable. For example, there are best of breed services like say Cloud Spanner offered by Google or say Cosmos DB offered by Microsoft that one wants to use and one is willing to take the dependency on the cloud provider to get that functionality because it's unique and valuable. On the other hand, one doesn't want to take dependencies on a cloud provider that don't add a lot of value. And with Kubernetes, we have the opportunity, and this is a large part of how Kubernetes was designed and why it is the way it is, we have the opportunity to sort of abstract from the underlying cloud provider for stateless workloads on compute. And so what this lets us do is build container-based applications that can run without change on different cloud provider infrastructure. So the same applications can run on WCNP over Azure, WCNP over GCP, or WCNP over the Walmart private cloud. And we have a private cloud. Our private cloud is OpenStack based and it gives us some significant cost advantages as well as control advantages. So to your point, in terms of business motivation, there's a key cost driver here, which is that we can use our own private cloud when it's advantageous and then use the public cloud provider capabilities when we need to. A key place with this comes into play is with elasticity. So while the private cloud is much more cost effective for us to run and use, it isn't as elastic as what the cloud providers offer, right? We don't have essentially unlimited scale. We have large scale, but the public cloud providers are elastic in the extreme which is a very powerful capability. So what we're able to do is burst, and we use this term bursting workloads into the public cloud from the private cloud to take advantage of the elasticity they offer and then fall back into the private cloud when the traffic load diminishes to the point where we don't need that elastic capability, elastic capacity at low cost. And this is a very important paradigm that I think is going to be very commonplace ultimately as the industry evolves. Private cloud is easier to operate and less expensive, and yet the public cloud provider capabilities are difficult to match. >> And the triplet, the tri is your on-prem private cloud and the two public clouds that you mentioned, is that right? >> That is correct. And we actually have an architecture in which we operate all three of those cloud platforms in close proximity with one another in three different major regions in the US. So we have east, west, and central. And in each of those regions, we have all three cloud providers. And the way it's configured, those data centers are within 10 milliseconds of each other, meaning that it's of negligible cost to interact between them. And this allows us to be fairly agnostic to where a particular workload is running. >> Does a human make that decision, Jack or is there some intelligence in the system that determines that? >> That's a really great question, Dave. And it's a great question because we're at the cusp of that transition. So currently humans make that decision. Humans choose to deploy workloads into a particular region and a particular provider within that region. That said, we're actively developing patterns and practices that will allow us to automate the placement of the workloads for a variety of criteria. For example, if in a particular region, a particular provider is heavily overloaded and is unable to provide the level of service that's expected through our SLAs, we could choose to fail workloads over from that cloud provider to a different one within the same region. But that's manual today. We do that, but people do it. Okay, we'd like to get to where that happens automatically. In the same way, we'd like to be able to automate the failovers, both for high availability and sort of the heavier disaster recovery model between, within a region between providers and even within a provider between the availability zones that are there, but also between regions for the sort of heavier disaster recovery or maintenance driven realignment of workload placement. Today, that's all manual. So we have people moving workloads from region A to region B or data center A to data center B. It's clean because of the abstraction. The workloads don't have to know or care, but there are latency considerations that come into play, and the humans have to be cognizant of those. And automating that can help ensure that we get the best performance and the best reliability. >> But you're developing the dataset to actually, I would imagine, be able to make those decisions in an automated fashion over time anyway. Is that a fair assumption? >> It is, and that's what we're actively developing right now. So if you were to look at us today, we have these nice abstractions and APIs in place, but people run that machine, if you will, moving toward a world where that machine is fully automated. >> What exactly are you abstracting? Is it sort of the deployment model or, you know, are you able to abstract, I'm just making this up like Azure functions and GCP functions so that you can sort of run them, you know, with a consistent experience. What exactly are you abstracting and how difficult was it to achieve that objective technically? >> that's a good question. What we're abstracting is the Kubernetes node construct. That is to say a cluster of Kubernetes nodes which are typically VMs, although they can run bare metal in certain contexts, is something that typically to stand up requires knowledge of the underlying cloud provider. So for example, with GCP, you would use GKE to set up a Kubernetes cluster, and in Azure, you'd use AKS. We are actually abstracting that aspect of things so that the developers standing up applications don't have to know what the underlying cluster management provider is. They don't have to know if it's GCP, AKS or our own Walmart private cloud. Now, in terms of functions like Azure functions that you've mentioned there, we haven't done that yet. That's another piece that we have sort of on our radar screen that, we'd like to get to is serverless approach, and the Knative work from Google and the Azure functions, those are things that we see good opportunity to use for a whole variety of use cases. But right now we're not doing much with that. We're strictly container based right now, and we do have some VMs that are running in sort of more of a traditional model. So our stateful workloads are primarily VM based, but for serverless, that's an opportunity for us to take some of these stateless workloads and turn them into cloud functions. >> Well, and that's another cost lever that you can pull down the road that's going to drop right to the bottom line. Do you see a day or maybe you're doing it today, but I'd be surprised, but where you build applications that actually span multiple clouds or is there, in your view, always going to be a direct one-to-one mapping between where an application runs and the specific cloud platform? >> That's a really great question. Well, yes and no. So today, application development teams choose a cloud provider to deploy to and a location to deploy to, and they have to get involved in moving an application like we talked about today. That said, the bursting capability that I mentioned previously is something that is a step in the direction of automatic migration. That is to say we're migrating workload to different locations automatically. Currently, the prototypes we've been developing and that we think are going to eventually make their way into production are leveraging Istio to assess the load incoming on a particular cluster and start shedding that load into a different location. Right now, the configuration of that is still manual, but there's another opportunity for automation there. And I think a key piece of this is that down the road, well, that's a, sort of a small step in the direction of an application being multi provider. We expect to see really an abstraction of the fact that there is a triplet even. So the workloads are moving around according to whatever the control plane decides is necessary based on a whole variety of inputs. And at that point, you will have true multi-cloud applications, applications that are distributed across the different providers and in a way that application developers don't have to think about. >> So Walmart's been a leader, Jack, in using data for competitive advantages for decades. It's kind of been a poster child for that. You've got a mountain of IP in the form of data, tools, applications best practices that until the cloud came out was all On Prem. But I'm really interested in this idea of building a Walmart ecosystem, which obviously you have. Do you see a day or maybe you're even doing it today where you take what we call the Walmart SuperCloud, WCNP in your words, and point or turn that toward an external world or your ecosystem, you know, supporting those partners or customers that could drive new revenue streams, you know directly from the platform? >> Great questions, Dave. So there's really two things to say here. The first is that with respect to data, our data workloads are primarily VM basis. I've mentioned before some VMware, some straight open stack. But the key here is that WCNP and Kubernetes are very powerful for stateless workloads, but for stateful workloads tend to be still climbing a bit of a growth curve in the industry. So our data workloads are not primarily based on WCNP. They're VM based. Now that said, there is opportunity to make some progress there, and we are looking at ways to move things into containers that are currently running in VMs which are stateful. The other question you asked is related to how we expose data to third parties and also functionality. Right now we do have in-house, for our own use, a very robust data architecture, and we have followed the sort of domain-oriented data architecture guidance from Martin Fowler. And we have data lakes in which we collect data from all the transactional systems and which we can then use and do use to build models which are then used in our applications. But right now we're not exposing the data directly to customers as a product. That's an interesting direction that's been talked about and may happen at some point, but right now that's internal. What we are exposing to customers is applications. So we're offering our global integrated fulfillment capabilities, our order picking and curbside pickup capabilities, and our cloud powered checkout capabilities to third parties. And this means we're standing up our own internal applications as externally facing SaaS applications which can serve our partners' customers. >> Yeah, of course, Martin Fowler really first introduced to the world Zhamak Dehghani's data mesh concept and this whole idea of data products and domain oriented thinking. Zhamak Dehghani, by the way, is a speaker at our event as well. Last question I had is edge, and how you think about the edge? You know, the stores are an edge. Are you putting resources there that sort of mirror this this triplet model? Or is it better to consolidate things in the cloud? I know there are trade-offs in terms of latency. How are you thinking about that? >> All really good questions. It's a challenging area as you can imagine because edges are subject to disconnection, right? Or reduced connection. So we do place the same architecture at the edge. So WCNP runs at the edge, and an application that's designed to run at WCNP can run at the edge. That said, there are a number of very specific considerations that come up when running at the edge, such as the possibility of disconnection or degraded connectivity. And so one of the challenges we have faced and have grappled with and done a good job of I think is dealing with the fact that applications go offline and come back online and have to reconnect and resynchronize, the sort of online offline capability is something that can be quite challenging. And we have a couple of application architectures that sort of form the two core sets of patterns that we use. One is an offline/online synchronization architecture where we discover that we've come back online, and we understand the differences between the online dataset and the offline dataset and how they have to be reconciled. The other is a message-based architecture. And here in our health and wellness domain, we've developed applications that are queue based. So they're essentially business processes that consist of multiple steps where each step has its own queue. And what that allows us to do is devote whatever bandwidth we do have to those pieces of the process that are most latency sensitive and allow the queue lengths to increase in parts of the process that are not latency sensitive, knowing that they will eventually catch up when the bandwidth is restored. And to put that in a little bit of context, we have fiber lengths to all of our locations, and we have I'll just use a round number, 10-ish thousand locations. It's larger than that, but that's the ballpark, and we have fiber to all of them, but when the fiber is disconnected, When the disconnection happens, we're able to fall back to 5G and to Starlink. Starlink is preferred. It's a higher bandwidth. 5G if that fails. But in each of those cases, the bandwidth drops significantly. And so the applications have to be intelligent about throttling back the traffic that isn't essential, so that it can push the essential traffic in those lower bandwidth scenarios. >> So much technology to support this amazing business which started in the early 1960s. Jack, unfortunately, we're out of time. I would love to have you back or some members of your team and drill into how you're using open source, but really thank you so much for explaining the approach that you've taken and participating in SuperCloud2. >> You're very welcome, Dave, and we're happy to come back and talk about other aspects of what we do. For example, we could talk more about the data lakes and the data mesh that we have in place. We could talk more about the directions we might go with serverless. So please look us up again. Happy to chat. >> I'm going to take you up on that, Jack. All right. This is Dave Vellante for John Furrier and the Cube community. Keep it right there for more action from SuperCloud2. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Hello, and welcome to Supercloud2. I'm John Furrier, host of theCUBE here. We're exploring all the new Supercloud trends around multiple clouds, hyper scale gaps in their systems, new innovations, new applications, new companies, new products, new brands emerging from this big inflection point. Got a great guest who's going to unpack it with me today, Ramesh Prabagaran, who's the co-founder and CEO of Prosimo, CUBE alumni. Ramesh, legend in the industry, you've been around. You've seen many cycles. Welcome to Supercloud2. >> Thank you. You're being too kind. >> Well, you know, you guys have been a technical, great technical founding team, multiple ventures, multiple times around the track as they say, but now we're seeing something completely different. This is our second event, kind of we're doing to start the the ball rolling around unpacking this idea of Supercloud which evolved from a riff with me and Dave to now a working group paper, multiple definitions. People are saying they're Supercloud. CloudFlare says this is their version. Someone says there over there. Fitzi over there in the blog is always, you know, challenging us on our definitions, but it's, the consensus is though something's happening. >> Ramesh: Absolutely. >> And what's your take on this kind of big inflection point? >> Absolutely, so if you just look at kind of this in layers right, so you have hyper scalers that are innovating really quickly on underlying capabilities, and then you have enterprises adopting these technologies, right, there is a layer in the middle that I would say is largely missing, right? And one that addresses the gaps introduced by these new capabilities, by the hyper scalers. At the same time, one that actually spans, let's say multiple regions, multiple clouds and so forth. So that to me is kind of the Supercloud layer of sorts. One that helps enterprises adopt the underlying hyper scaler capabilities a lot faster, and at the same time brings a certain level of consistency and homogeneity also. >> What do you think the big driver of Supercloud is? Is it the industry growing up or is it the demand for new kinds of capabilities or both? Or just evolution? What's your take? >> I would say largely it depends on kind of who the entity is that you're talking about, right? And so I would say both. So if you look at one cohort here, it's adoption, right? If I have a externally facing digital presence, for example, then I'm going to scale that up and get to as many subscribers and users no matter what, right? And at that time it's a different set of problems. If you're looking at kind of traditional enterprise inward that are bringing apps into the cloud and so forth, it's a different set of care abouts, right? So both are, I would say, equally important problems to solve for. >> Well, one reality that we're definitely tracking, and it's not really a debate anymore, is hybrid. >> Ramesh: Yep >> Hybrid happened. It happened faster than most people thought. But, you know, we were talking about this in 2015 when it first got kicked around, but now you see hybrid in the cloud, on premises and the edge. This kind of forms that distributed computing paradigm that we've always been predicting. And so if that continues to play out the way it is, you're now going to have a completely distributed, connected internet and sets of systems, intra and external within companies. So again, the world is connected 100%. Everything's changing, right? >> And that introduces. >> It wasn't your grandfather's networking anymore or storage. The game is still the same, but the play, the components are acting differently. What's your take on this? >> Absolutely. No, absolutely. That's a very key important point, and it's one that we always ask our customers right at the front end, right? Because your starting assumptions matter. If you have workloads of workloads in the cloud and data center is something that you want to connect into, then you'll make decisions kind of keeping cloud in the center and then kind of bolt on technologies for what that means to extend it to the data center. If your center of gravity is in the data center, and then cloud is let's say 10% right now, but you see that growing, then what choices do you have? Right, do you want to bring your data center technologies into the cloud because you want that consistency in operations? Or do you want to start off fresh, right? So this is a really key, important question, and one that many of our customers are actually are grappling with, right? They have this notion that going cloud native is the right approach, but at the same time that means I have a bifurcation in kind of how do I operate my data center versus my cloud, right? Two different operating models, and slowly it'll shift over to one. But you're going to have to deal with dual reality for a while. >> I was talking to an old friend of mine, CIO, very experienced CIO. Big time company, large deployment, a lot of IT. I said, so what's the big trend everyone's telling me about IT's going. He goes no, not really. IT's not going away for me. It's going everywhere in the company. >> Ramesh: Exactly. >> So I need to scale my IT-like capabilities everywhere and then make it invisible. >> Ramesh: Correct. >> Which is essentially code words for saying it's going to be completely cloud native everywhere. This is what is happening. Do you agree? >> Absolutely right, and so if you look at what do enterprises care about it? The reason to go to the cloud is to get speed of operations, and it's apps, apps, apps, right? Do you ever have a conversation on networking and infrastructure first? No, that kind of gets brought into the conversation because you want to deal with users, applications and services, right? And so the end goal is essentially how do users communicate with apps and get the right experience, security and whatnot, and how do apps talk to each other and make sure that you get all of the connectivity and security requirements? Underneath the covers, what does this mean for infrastructure, networking, security and whatnot? It's actually going to be someone else's job, right? And you shouldn't have to think too much about it. So this whole notion of kind of making that transparent is real actually, right? But at the same time, us and all the guys that we talk to on the customer side, that's their job, right? Like we have to work towards making that transparent. Some are going to be in the form of capability, some are going to be driven by data, but that's really where the two worlds are going to come together. >> Lots of debates going on. We just heard from Bob Muglia here on Supercloud2. He said Supercloud's a platform that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers. So the question that's being debated is is Supercloud a platform or an architecture in your view? >> Okay, that's a tough one actually. I'm going to side on the side on kind of the platform side right, and the reason for that is architectural choices are things that you make ahead of time. And you, once you're in, there really isn't a fork in the road, right? Platforms continue to evolve. You can iterate, innovate and so on and so forth. And so I'm thinking Supercloud is more of a platform because you do have a choice. Hey, am I going AWS, Azure, GCP. You make that choice. What is my center of gravity? You make that choice. That's kind of an architectural decision, right? Once you make that, then how do I make things work consistently across like two or three clouds? That's a platform choice. >> So who's responsible for the architecture as the platform, the vendor serving the platform or is the platform vendor agnostic? >> You know, this is where you have to kind of peel the onion in layers, right? If you talk about applications, you can't go to a developer team or an app team and say I want you to operate on Google or AWS. They're like I'll pick the cloud that I want, right? Now who are we talking to? The infrastructure guys and the networking guys, right? They want to make sure that it's not bifurcated. It's like, hey, I want to make sure whatever I build for AWS I can equally use that on Azure. I can equally use that on GCP. So if you're talking to more of the application centric teams who really want infrastructure to be transparent, they'll say, okay, I want to make this choice of whether this is AWS, Azure, GCP, and stick to that. And if you come kind of down the layers of the stack into infrastructure, they are thinking a little more holistically, a little more Supercloud, a little more multicloud, and that. >> That's a good point. So that brings up the deployment question. >> Ramesh: Exactly! >> I want to ask you the next question, okay, what is the preferred deployment in your opinion for a Supercloud narrative? Is it single instance, spread it around everywhere? What's the, do you have a single global instance or do you have everything synchronized? >> So I would say first layer of that Supercloud really kind of fix the holes that have been introduced as a result of kind of adopting the hyper scaler technologies, right? So each, the hyper scalers have been really good at innovating and providing really massive scale elastic capabilities, right? But once you start to build capabilities on top of that to help serve the application, there's a few holes start to show up. So first job of Supercloud really is to plug those holes, right? Second is can I get to an operating model, so that I can replicate this not just in a single region, but across multiple regions, same cloud, and then across multiple clouds, right? And so both of those need to be solved for in order to be (cross talking). >> So is that multiple instantiations of the stack or? >> Yeah, so this again depends on kind of the capability, right? So if you take a more solution view, and so I can speak for kind of networking security combined right? There you always take a solution view. You don't ever look at, you know, what does this mean for a single instance in a single region. You take a macro view, and then you then break it down into what does this mean for region, what does it mean for instance, what does this mean for AZs? And so on and so forth. So you kind of have to go top to bottom. >> Okay, welcome you down into the trap now. Okay, synchronizing the data, latency, these are all questions. So what does the network Supercloud look like to you? Because networking is big here. >> Ramesh: Yes, absolutely. >> This is what you guys do. >> Exactly, yeah. So the different set of problems as you go up the stack, right? So if you have hundreds of workloads in a single region, the set of problems you're dealing with there are kind of app native connectivity, how do I go from kind of east/west, all of those fun things, right? Which are usually bound in terms of latency. You don't have those challenges as much, but can you build your entire enterprise application architecture in one region? No, you're going to have to create multiple instances, right? So my data lake is invariably going to be in one place. My business logic is going to be spread across a few places. What does that bring in? I need to go across regions. Am I going to put those two regions right next to each other? No, I'm not going to, right? I'm going to have places in Europe. I'm going to have APAC, and I'm going to have a North American presence, and I need to bring all these things together. So this is where, back to your point, latency really matters, right? Because I need to be able to find out not just best path but also how do I reduce the millisecond, microseconds that my application cares about, which brings in a layer of optimization and then so on and so on and so forth. So this is what we call kind of to borrow the Prosimo language full stack networking, right? Because I'm not just dealing with how do I go from one region to another because that's laws of physics. I can only control so much. But there are a few elements up the application stack in software that you can tweak to actually bring these things closer and closer. >> And on that point, you're seeing security being talked a lot more at the network layer. So how do you secure the Supercloud at the network layer? What's that look like? >> Yeah, we've been grappling with essentially is security kind of foundational, and then is the network on top. And then we had an alternative viewpoint which is kind of network and then security on top. And the answer is actually it's neither, right? It's almost like a meshed up sandwich of sorts. So you need to have networking security work really well together, right? Case in point, I mean we were talking to a customer yesterday. He said, hey, I have my data lake in one region that needs to talk to an analytics service in a completely different region of a different cloud. These two things just need to be able to talk to each other, which means I need to bring elements of networking. I need to bring elements of security, secure access, app segmentation, all of those things. Very simple, I have an analytics service that needs to contact a data lake. That's what he starts with, but then before you know it, it actually brings up a whole stack underneath, so that's. >> VMware calls that cloud chaos. >> Ramesh: Yes, exactly. >> And then that's the halfway point between cloud smart. Cloud first, cloud chaos, cloud smart, and the next thing, you can skip that whole step. But again, again, it's pick your strategy right? Again, this comes back down to your earlier point. I want to ask you from a customer standpoint, you got the hyper scalers doing very, very well. >> Ramesh: Yep, absolutely. >> And I love what their Amazon's doing. I think Microsoft again though they had a little bit of downgrade are catching up fast, and they have their installed base. So you got the land of the installed bases. >> Correct. >> First and greater, better cloud. Install base getting better, almost as good, almost as good is a gift, but close. Now you have them specializing. Silicon, special silicon. So there's gaps for other services. >> Ramesh: Correct. >> And Amazon Web Services, Adam Selipsky's a open book saying, hey, we want our ecosystem to pick up these gaps and build on them. Go ahead, go to town. >> So this is where I think choices are tough, right? Because if you had one choice, you would work with it, and you would work around it, right? Now I have five different choices. Now what do I do? Our viewpoint is there are a bunch of things that say AWS does really, really well. Use that as a foundational layer, right? Like don't reinvent the wheel on those things. Transit gateways, global accelerators and whatnot, they exist for a reason. Billions of dollars have gone into building those things. Use that foundational layer, right? But what you want to build on top of that is actually driven by the application. The requirements of a lambda application that's serverless, it's very different than a packaged application that's responding for transactions, right? Like it's just completely very, very different. And so bring in the right set of capabilities required for those set of applications, and then you go based on that. This is also where I think whether something is a regional construct versus an overall global construct really, really matters, right? Because if you start with the assumption that everything is going to be built regionally, then it's someone else's job to make sure that all of these things are connected. But if you start with kind of the global purview, then the rest of them start to (cross talking). >> What are some of the things that the enterprises might want that are gaps that are going to be filled by the, by startups like you guys and the ecosystem because we're seeing the ecosystem form into two big camps. >> Ramesh: Yep. >> ISVs, which is an old school definition of independent software vendor, aka someone who writes software. >> Ramesh: Exactly. >> SaaS app. >> Ramesh: Correct. >> And then ecosystem software players that were once ISVs now have people building on top of them. >> Ramesh: Correct. >> They're building on top of the cloud. So you have that new hyper scale effect going on. >> Ramesh: Exactly. >> You got ISVs, which is software developers, software vendors. >> Ramesh: Correct. >> And ecosystems. >> Yep. >> What's that impact of that? Cause it's a new dynamic. >> Exactly, so if you take kind of enterprises, want to make sure that that their apps and the data center migrate to the cloud, new apps are developed the right way in the cloud, right? So that's kind of table stakes. So now what choices do they have? They listen to AWS and say, okay, I have all these cloud native services. I want to be able to instantiate all that. Now comes the interesting choice that they have to make. Do I go hire a whole bunch of people and do it myself or do I go there on the platform route, right? Because I made an architectural choice. Now I have to decide whether I want to do this myself or the platform choice. DIY works great for some, but you don't know what you're getting into, and it's people involved, right? People, process, all those fun things involved, right? So we show up there and say, you don't know what you don't know, right? Like because that's the nature of it. Why don't you invest in a platform like what what we provide, and then you actually build on top of it. We will, it's our job to make sure that we keep up with the innovation happening underneath the covers. And at the same time, this is not a closed ended system. You can actually build on top of our platform, right? And so that actually gives you a good mix. Now the care abouts are interesting. Some apps care about experience. Some apps care about latency. Some apps are extremely charty and extremely data intensive, but nobody wants to pay for it, right? And so it's a interesting Jenga that you have to play between experience versus security versus cost, right? And that makes kind of head of infrastructure and cloud platform teams' life really, really, really interesting. >> And this is why I love your background, and Stu Miniman, when he was with theCUBE, and now he's at Red Hat, we used to riff about the network and how network folks are now, those concepts are now up the top of the stack because the cloud is one big network effect. >> Ramesh: Exactly, correct. >> It's a computer. >> Yep, absolutely. No, and case in point, right, like say we're in let's say in San Jose here or or Palo Alto here, and let's say my application is sitting in London, right? The cloud gives you different express lanes. I can go down to my closest pop location provided by AWS and then I can go ride that all the way up to up to London. It's going to give me better performance, low latency, but I'm going to have to incur some costs associated with it. Or I can go all the wild internet all the way from Palo Alta up to kind of the ingress point into London and then go access, but I'm spending time on the wild internet, which means all kinds of fun things happen, right? But I'm not paying much, but my experience is not going to be so great. So, and there are various degrees of shade in them, of gray in the middle, right? So how do you pick what? It all kind of is driven by the applications. >> Well, we certainly want you back for Supercloud3, our next version of this virtual/live event here in our Palo Alto studios. Really appreciate you coming on. >> Absolutely. >> While you're here, give a quick plug for the company. Next minute, we can take a minute to talk about the success of the company. >> Ramesh: Absolutely. >> I know you got a fresh financing this past year. Plenty of money in the bank, going to ride this new wave, Supercloud wave. Give us a quick plug. >> Absolutely, yeah. So three years going on to four this calendar year. So it's an interesting time for the company. We have proven that our technology, product and our initial customers are quite happy with it. Now comes essentially more of those and scale and so forth. That's kind of the interesting phase that we are in. Also heartened to see quite a few of kind of really large and dominant players in the market, partners, channels and so forth, invest in us to take this to the next set of customers. I would say there's been a dramatic shift in the conversation with our customers. The first couple of years or so of the company, we are about three years old right now, was really about us educating them. This is what you need. This is what you need. Now actually it's a lot of just pull, right? We've seen a good indication, as much as a hate RFIs, a good indication is the number of RFIs that show up at our door saying we want you to participate in this because we want to understand more, right? And so as a, I think we are at an interesting point of the, of that shift. >> RFIs always like do all this work and hope for the best. Pray for a deal. You know, you guys on the right side of history. If a customer asks with respect to Supercloud, multicloud, is that your focus? Is that the direction you guys are going into? >> Yeah, so I would say we are kind of both, right? Supercloud and multicloud because we, our customers are hybrid, multiple clouds, all of the above, right? Our main pitch and kind of value back to the customers is go embrace cloud native because that's the right approach, right? It doesn't make sense to go reinvent the wheel on that one, but then make a really good choice about whether you want to do this yourself or invest in a platform to make your life easy. Because we have seen this story play out with many many enterprises, right? They pick the right technologies. They do a simple POC overnight, and they say, yeah, I can make this work for two apps, right? And then they say, yes, I can make this work for 100. You go down a certain path. You hit a wall. You hit a wall, and it's a hard wall. It's like, no, there isn't a thing that you can go around it. >> A lot of dead bodies laying around. >> Ramesh: Exactly. >> Dead wall. >> And then they have to unravel around that, and then they come talk to us, and they say, okay, now what? Like help me, help me through this journey. So I would say to the extent that you can do this diligence ahead of time, do that, and then, and then pick the right platform. >> You've got to have the talent. And you got to be geared up. You got to know what you're getting into. >> Ramesh: Exactly. >> You got to have the staff to do this. >> And cloud talent and skillset in particular, I mean there's lots available but it's in pockets right? And if you look at kind of web three companies, they've gone and kind of amassed all those guys, right? So enterprises are not left with the cream of the crop. >> John: They might be coming back. >> Exactly, exactly, so. >> With this downturn. Ramesh, great to see you and thanks for contributing to Supercloud2, and again, love your team. Very technical team, and you're in the right side of history in this one. Congratulations. >> Ramesh: No, and thank you, thank you very much. >> Okay, this is Supercloud2. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. We'll be back right after this short break. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Okay, welcome back everyone at Supercloud 2 event, live here in Palo Alto, theCUBE Studios live stage performance, virtually syndicating it all over the world. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante here as Cube alumni, and special influencer guest, Howie Xu, VP of Machine Learning and Zscaler, also part-time as a CUBE analyst 'cause he is that good. Comes on all the time. You're basically a CUBE analyst as well. Thanks for coming on. >> Thanks for inviting me. >> John: Technically, you're not really a CUBE analyst, but you're kind of like a CUBE analyst. >> Happy New Year to everyone. >> Dave: Great to see you. >> Great to see you, Dave and John. >> John: We've been talking about ChatGPT online. You wrote a great post about it being more like Amazon, not like Google. >> Howie: More than just Google Search. >> More than Google Search. Oh, it's going to compete with Google Search, which it kind of does a little bit, but more its infrastructure. So a clever point, good segue into this conversation, because this is kind of the beginning of these kinds of next gen things we're going to see. Things where it's like an obvious next gen, it's getting real. Kind of like seeing the browser for the first time, Mosaic browser. Whoa, this internet thing's real. I think this is that moment and Supercloud like enablement is coming. So this has been a big part of the Supercloud kind of theme. >> Yeah, you talk about Supercloud, you talk about, you know, AI, ChatGPT. I really think the ChatGPT is really another Netscape moment, the browser moment. Because if you think about internet technology, right? It was brewing for 20 years before early 90s. Not until you had a, you know, browser, people realize, "Wow, this is how wonderful this technology could do." Right? You know, all the wonderful things. Then you have Yahoo and Amazon. I think we have brewing, you know, the AI technology for, you know, quite some time. Even then, you know, neural networks, deep learning. But not until ChatGPT came along, people realize, "Wow, you know, the user interface, user experience could be that great," right? So I really think, you know, if you look at the last 30 years, there is a browser moment, there is iPhone moment. I think ChatGPT moment is as big as those. >> Dave: What do you see as the intersection of things like ChatGPT and the Supercloud? Of course, the media's going to focus, journalists are going to focus on all the negatives and the privacy. Okay. You know we're going to get by that, right? Always do. Where do you see the Supercloud and sort of the distributed data fitting in with ChatGPT? Does it use that as a data source? What's the link? >> Howie: I think there are number of use cases. One of the use cases, we talked about why we even have Supercloud because of the complexity, because of the, you know, heterogeneous nature of different clouds. In order for me as a developer, in order for me to create applications, I have so many things to worry about, right? It's a complexity. But with ChatGPT, with the AI, I don't have to worry about it, right? Those kind of details will be taken care of by, you know, the underlying layer. So we have been talking about on this show, you know, over the last, what, year or so about the Supercloud, hey, defining that, you know, API layer spanning across, you know, multiple clouds. I think that will be happening. However, for a lot of the things, that will be more hidden, right? A lot of that will be automated by the bots. You know, we were just talking about it right before the show. One of the profound statement I heard from Adrian Cockcroft about 10 years ago was, "Hey Howie, you know, at Netflix, right? You know, IT is just one API call away." That's a profound statement I heard about a decade ago. I think next decade, right? You know, the IT is just one English language away, right? So when it's one English language away, it's no longer as important, API this, API that. You still need API just like hardware, right? You still need all of those things. That's going to be more hidden. The high level thing will be more, you know, English language or the language, right? Any language for that matter. >> Dave: And so through language, you'll tap services that live across the Supercloud, is what you're saying? >> Howie: You just tell what you want, what you desire, right? You know, the bots will help you to figure out where the complexity is, right? You know, like you said, a lot of criticism about, "Hey, ChatGPT doesn't do this, doesn't do that." But if you think about how to break things down, right? For instance, right, you know, ChatGPT doesn't have Microsoft stock price today, obviously, right? However, you can ask ChatGPT to write a program for you, retrieve the Microsoft stock price, (laughs) and then just run it, right? >> Dave: Yeah. >> So the thing to think about- >> John: It's only going to get better. It's only going to get better. >> The thing people kind of unfairly criticize ChatGPT is it doesn't do this. But can you not break down humans' task into smaller things and get complex things to be done by the ChatGPT? I think we are there already, you know- >> John: That to me is the real game changer. That's the assembly of atomic elements at the top of the stack, whether the interface is voice or some programmatic gesture based thing, you know, wave your hand or- >> Howie: One of the analogy I used in my blog was, you know, each person, each professional now is a quarterback. And we suddenly have, you know, a lot more linebacks or you know, any backs to work for you, right? For free even, right? You know, and then that's sort of, you should think about it. You are the quarterback of your day-to-day job, right? Your job is not to do everything manually yourself. >> Dave: You call the play- >> Yes. >> Dave: And they execute. Do your job. >> Yes, exactly. >> Yeah, all the players are there. All the elves are in the North Pole making the toys, Dave, as we say. But this is the thing, I want to get your point. This change is going to require a new kind of infrastructure software relationship, a new kind of operating runtime, a new kind of assembler, a new kind of loader link things. This very operating systems kind of concepts. >> Data intensive, right? How to process the data, how to, you know, process so gigantic data in parallel, right? That's actually a tough job, right? So if you think about ChatGPT, why OpenAI is ahead of the game, right? You know, Google may not want to acknowledge it, right? It's not necessarily they do, you know, not have enough data scientist, but the software engineering pieces, you know, behind it, right? To train the model, to actually do all those things in parallel, to do all those things in a cost effective way. So I think, you know, a lot of those still- >> Let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question because we've had this conversation privately, but I want to do it while we're on stage here. Where are all the alpha geeks and developers and creators and entrepreneurs going to gravitate to? You know, in every wave, you see it in crypto, all the alphas went into crypto. Now I think with ChatGPT, you're going to start to see, like, "Wow, it's that moment." A lot of people are going to, you know, scrum and do startups. CTOs will invent stuff. There's a lot of invention, a lot of computer science and customer requirements to figure out. That's new. Where are the alpha entrepreneurs going to go to? What do you think they're going to gravitate to? If you could point to the next layer to enable this super environment, super app environment, Supercloud. 'Cause there's a lot to do to enable what you just said. >> Howie: Right. You know, if you think about using internet as the analogy, right? You know, in the early 90s, internet came along, browser came along. You had two kind of companies, right? One is Amazon, the other one is walmart.com. And then there were company, like maybe GE or whatnot, right? Really didn't take advantage of internet that much. I think, you know, for entrepreneurs, suddenly created the Yahoo, Amazon of the ChatGPT native era. That's what we should be all excited about. But for most of the Fortune 500 companies, your job is to surviving sort of the big revolution. So you at least need to do your walmart.com sooner than later, right? (laughs) So not be like GE, right? You know, hand waving, hey, I do a lot of the internet, but you know, when you look back last 20, 30 years, what did they do much with leveraging the- >> So you think they're going to jump in, they're going to build service companies or SaaS tech companies or Supercloud companies? >> Howie: Okay, so there are two type of opportunities from that perspective. One is, you know, the OpenAI ish kind of the companies, I think the OpenAI, the game is still open, right? You know, it's really Close AI today. (laughs) >> John: There's room for competition, you mean? >> There's room for competition, right. You know, you can still spend you know, 50, $100 million to build something interesting. You know, there are company like Cohere and so on and so on. There are a bunch of companies, I think there is that. And then there are companies who's going to leverage those sort of the new AI primitives. I think, you know, we have been talking about AI forever, but finally, finally, it's no longer just good, but also super useful. I think, you know, the time is now. >> John: And if you have the cloud behind you, what do you make the Amazon do differently? 'Cause Amazon Web Services is only going to grow with this. It's not going to get smaller. There's more horsepower to handle, there's more needs. >> Howie: Well, Microsoft already showed what's the future, right? You know, you know, yes, there is a kind of the container, you know, the serverless that will continue to grow. But the future is really not about- >> John: Microsoft's shown the future? >> Well, showing that, you know, working with OpenAI, right? >> Oh okay. >> They already said that, you know, we are going to have ChatGPT service. >> $10 billion, I think they're putting it. >> $10 billion putting, and also open up the Open API services, right? You know, I actually made a prediction that Microsoft future hinges on OpenAI. I think, you know- >> John: They believe that $10 billion bet. >> Dave: Yeah. $10 billion bet. So I want to ask you a question. It's somewhat academic, but it's relevant. For a number of years, it looked like having first mover advantage wasn't an advantage. PCs, spreadsheets, the browser, right? Social media, Friendster, right? Mobile. Apple wasn't first to mobile. But that's somewhat changed. The cloud, AWS was first. You could debate whether or not, but AWS okay, they have first mover advantage. Crypto, Bitcoin, first mover advantage. Do you think OpenAI will have first mover advantage? >> It certainly has its advantage today. I think it's year two. I mean, I think the game is still out there, right? You know, we're still in the first inning, early inning of the game. So I don't think that the game is over for the rest of the players, whether the big players or the OpenAI kind of the, sort of competitors. So one of the VCs actually asked me the other day, right? "Hey, how much money do I need to spend, invest, to get, you know, another shot to the OpenAI sort of the level?" You know, I did a- (laughs) >> Line up. >> That's classic VC. "How much does it cost me to replicate?" >> I'm pretty sure he asked the question to a bunch of guys, right? >> Good luck with that. (laughs) >> So we kind of did some napkin- >> What'd you come up with? (laughs) >> $100 million is the order of magnitude that I came up with, right? You know, not a billion, not 10 million, right? So 100 million. >> John: Hundreds of millions. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. 100 million order of magnitude is what I came up with. You know, we can get into details, you know, in other sort of the time, but- >> Dave: That's actually not that much if you think about it. >> Howie: Exactly. So when he heard me articulating why is that, you know, he's thinking, right? You know, he actually, you know, asked me, "Hey, you know, there's this company. Do you happen to know this company? Can I reach out?" You know, those things. So I truly believe it's not a billion or 10 billion issue, it's more like 100. >> John: And also, your other point about referencing the internet revolution as a good comparable. The other thing there is online user population was a big driver of the growth of that. So what's the equivalent here for online user population for AI? Is it more apps, more users? I mean, we're still early on, it's first inning. >> Yeah. We're kind of the, you know- >> What's the key metric for success of this sector? Do you have a read on that? >> I think the, you know, the number of users is a good metrics, but I think it's going to be a lot of people are going to use AI services without even knowing they're using it, right? You know, I think a lot of the applications are being already built on top of OpenAI, and then they are kind of, you know, help people to do marketing, legal documents, you know, so they're already inherently OpenAI kind of the users already. So I think yeah. >> Well, Howie, we've got to wrap, but I really appreciate you coming on. I want to give you a last minute to wrap up here. In your experience, and you've seen many waves of innovation. You've even had your hands in a lot of the big waves past three inflection points. And obviously, machine learning you're doing now, you're deep end. Why is this Supercloud movement, this wave of Supercloud and the discussion of this next inflection point, why is it so important? For the folks watching, why should they be paying attention to this particular moment in time? Could you share your super clip on Supercloud? >> Howie: Right. So this is simple from my point of view. So why do you even have cloud to begin with, right? IT is too complex, too complex to operate or too expensive. So there's a newer model. There is a better model, right? Let someone else operate it, there is elasticity out of it, right? That's great. Until you have multiple vendors, right? Many vendors even, you know, we're talking about kind of how to make multiple vendors look like the same, but frankly speaking, even one vendor has, you know, thousand services. Now it's kind of getting, what Kid was talking about what, cloud chaos, right? It's the evolution. You know, the history repeats itself, right? You know, you have, you know, next great things and then too many great things, and then people need to sort of abstract this out. So it's almost that you must do this. But I think how to abstract this out is something that at this time, AI is going to help a lot, right? You know, like I mentioned, right? A lot of the abstraction, you don't have to think about API anymore. I bet 10 years from now, you know, IT is one language away, not API away. So think about that world, right? So Supercloud in, in my opinion, sure, you kind of abstract things out. You have, you know, consistent layers. But who's going to do that? Is that like we all agreed upon the model, agreed upon those APIs? Not necessary. There are certain, you know, truth in that, but there are other truths, let bots take care of, right? Whether you know, I want some X happens, whether it's going to be done by Azure, by AWS, by GCP, bots will figure out at a given time with certain contacts with your security requirement, posture requirement. I'll think that out. >> John: That's awesome. And you know, Dave, you and I have been talking about this. We think scale is the new ratification. If you have first mover advantage, I'll see the benefit, but scale is a huge thing. OpenAI, AWS. >> Howie: Yeah. Every day, we are using OpenAI. Today, we are labeling data for them. So you know, that's a little bit of the- (laughs) >> John: Yeah. >> First mover advantage that other people don't have, right? So it's kind of scary. So I'm very sure that Google is a little bit- (laughs) >> When we do our super AI event, you're definitely going to be keynoting. (laughs) >> Howie: I think, you know, we're talking about Supercloud, you know, before long, we are going to talk about super intelligent cloud. (laughs) >> I'm super excited, Howie, about this. Thanks for coming on. Great to see you, Howie Xu. Always a great analyst for us contributing to the community. VP of Machine Learning and Zscaler, industry legend and friend of theCUBE. Thanks for coming on and sharing really, really great advice and insight into what this next wave means. This Supercloud is the next wave. "If you're not on it, you're driftwood," says Pat Gelsinger. So you're going to see a lot more discussion. We'll be back more here live in Palo Alto after this short break. >> Thank you. (upbeat music)

(gentle music) >> Okay, welcome back to Supercloud 2, live here in Palo Alto, California for our live stage performance. Supercloud 2 is our second Supercloud event. We're going to get these out as fast as we can every couple months. It's our second one, you'll see two and three this year. I'm John Furrier, my co-host, Dave Vellante. A panel here to break down the Supercloud momentum, the wave, and the developer impact that we bringing back Vittorio Viarengo, who's a VP for Cross-Cloud Services at VMware. Sarbjeet Johal, industry influencer and Analyst at StackPayne, his company, Cube alumni and Influencer. Sarbjeet, great to see you. Vittorio, thanks for coming back. >> Nice to be here. >> My pleasure. >> Vittorio, you just gave a keynote where we unpacked the cross-cloud services, what VMware is doing, how you guys see it, not just from VMware's perspective, but VMware looking out broadly at the industry and developers came up and you were like, "Developers, developer, developers", kind of a goof on the Steve Ballmer famous meme that everyone's seen. This is a huge star, sorry, I mean a big piece of it. The developers are the canary in the coal mines. They're the ones who are being asked to code the digital transformation, which is fully business transformation and with the market the way it is right now in terms of the accelerated technology, every enterprise grade business model's changing. The technology is evolving, the builders are kind of, they want go faster. I'm saying they're stuck in a way, but that's my opinion, but there's a lot of growth. >> Yeah. >> The impact, they got to get released up and let it go. Those developers need to accelerate faster. It's been a big part of productivity, and the conversations we've had. So developer impact is huge in Supercloud. What's your, what do you guys think about this? We'll start with you, Sarbjeet. >> Yeah, actually, developers are the masons of the digital empires I call 'em, right? They lay every brick and build all these big empires. On the left side of the SDLC, or the, you know, when you look at the system operations, developer is number one cost from economic side of things, and from technology side of things, they are tech hungry people. They are developers for that reason because developer nights are long, hours are long, they forget about when to eat, you know, like, I've been a developer, I still code. So you want to keep them happy, you want to hug your developers. We always say that, right? Vittorio said that right earlier. The key is to, in this context, in the Supercloud context, is that developers don't mind mucking around with platforms or APIs or new languages, but they hate the infrastructure part. That's a fact. They don't want to muck around with servers. It's friction for them, it is like they don't want to muck around even with the VMs. So they want the programmability to the nth degree. They want to automate everything, so that's how they think and cloud is the programmable infrastructure, industrialization of infrastructure in many ways. So they are happy with where we are going, and we need more abstraction layers for some developers. By the way, I have this sort of thinking frame for last year or so, not all developers are same, right? So if you are a developer at an ISV, you behave differently. If you are a developer at a typical enterprise, you behave differently or you are forced to behave differently because you're not writing software.- >> Well, developers, developers have changed, I mean, Vittorio, you and I were talking earlier on the keynote, and this is kind of the key point is what is a developer these days? If everything is software enabled, I mean, even hardware interviews we do with Nvidia, and Amazon and other people building silicon, they all say the same thing, "It's software on a chip." So you're seeing the role of software up and down the stack and the role of the stack is changing. The old days of full stack developer, what does that even mean? I mean, the cloud is a half a stack kind of right there. So, you know, developers are certainly more agile, but cloud native, I mean VMware is epitome of operations, IT operations, and the Tan Zoo initiative, you guys started, you went after the developers to look at them, and ask them questions, "What do you need?", "How do you transform the Ops from virtualization?" Again, back to your point, so this hardware abstraction, what is software, what is cloud native? It's kind of messy equation these days. How do you guys grokel with that? >> I would argue that developers don't want the Supercloud. I dropped that up there, so, >> Dave: Why not? >> Because developers, they, once they get comfortable in AWS or Google, because they're doing some AI stuff, which is, you know, very trendy right now, or they are in IBM, any of the IPA scaler, professional developers, system developers, they love that stuff, right? Yeah, they don't, the infrastructure gets in the way, but they're just, the problem is, and I think the Supercloud should be driven by the operators because as we discussed, the operators have been left behind because they're busy with day-to-day jobs, and in most cases IT is centralized, developers are in the business units. >> John: Yeah. >> Right? So they get the mandate from the top, say, "Our bank, they're competing against". They gave teenagers or like young people the ability to do all these new things online, and Venmo and all this integration, where are we? "Oh yeah, we can do it", and then build it, and then deploy it, "Okay, we caught up." but now the operators are back in the private cloud trying to keep the backend system running and so I think the Supercloud is needed for the primarily, initially, for the operators to get in front of the developers, fit in the workflow, but lay the foundation so it is secure.- >> So, so I love this thinking because I love the rift, because the rift points to what is the target audience for the value proposition and if you're a developer, Supercloud enables you so you shouldn't have to deal with Supercloud. >> Exactly. >> What you're saying is get the operating environment or operating system done properly, whether it's architecture, building the platform, this comes back to architecture platform conversations. What is the future platform? Is it a vendor supplied or is it customer created platform? >> Dave: So developers want best to breed, is what you just said. >> Vittorio: Yeah. >> Right and operators, they, 'cause developers don't want to deal with governance, they don't want to deal with security, >> No. >> They don't want to deal with spinning up infrastructure. That's the role of the operator, but that's where Supercloud enables, to John's point, the developer, so to your question, is it a platform where the platform vendor is responsible for the architecture, or there is it an architectural standard that spans multiple clouds that has to emerge? Based on what you just presented earlier, Vittorio, you are the determinant of the architecture. It's got to be open, but you guys determine that, whereas the nirvana is, "Oh no, it's all open, and it just kind of works." >> Yeah, so first of all, let's all level set on one thing. You cannot tell developers what to do. >> Dave: Right, great >> At least great developers, right? Cannot tell them what to do. >> Dave: So that's what, that's the way I want to sort of, >> You can tell 'em what's possible. >> There's a bottle on that >> If you tell 'em what's possible, they'll test it, they'll look at it, but if you try to jam it down their throat, >> Yeah. >> Dave: You can't tell 'em how to do it, just like your point >> Let me answer your answer the question. >> Yeah, yeah. >> So I think we need to build an architect, help them build an architecture, but it cannot be proprietary, has to be built on what works in the cloud and so what works in the cloud today is Kubernetes, is you know, number of different open source project that you need to enable and then provide, use this, but when I first got exposed to Kubernetes, I said, "Hallelujah!" We had a runtime that works the same everywhere only to realize there are 12 different distributions. So that's where we come in, right? And other vendors come in to say, "Hey, no, we can make them all look the same. So you still use Kubernetes, but we give you a place to build, to set those operation policy once so that you don't create friction for the developers because that's the last thing you want to do." >> Yeah, actually, coming back to the same point, not all developers are same, right? So if you're ISV developer, you want to go to the lowest sort of level of the infrastructure and you want to shave off the milliseconds from to get that performance, right? If you're working at AWS, you are doing that. If you're working at scale at Facebook, you're doing that. At Twitter, you're doing that, but when you go to DMV and Kansas City, you're not doing that, right? So your developers are different in nature. They are given certain parameters to work with, certain sort of constraints on the budget side. They are educated at a different level as well. Like they don't go to that end of the degree of sort of automation, if you will. So you cannot have the broad stroking of developers. We are talking about a citizen developer these days. That's a extreme low, >> You mean Low-Code. >> Yeah, Low-Code, No-code, yeah, on the extreme side. On one side, that's citizen developers. On the left side is the professional developers, when you say developers, your mind goes to the professional developers, like the hardcore developers, they love the flexibility, you know, >> John: Well app, developers too, I mean. >> App developers, yeah. >> You're right a lot of, >> Sarbjeet: Infrastructure platform developers, app developers, yes. >> But there are a lot of customers, its a spectrum, you're saying. >> Yes, it's a spectrum >> There's a lot of customers don't want deal with that muck. >> Yeah. >> You know, like you said, AWS, Twitter, the sophisticated developers do, but there's a whole suite of developers out there >> Yeah >> That just want tools that are abstracted. >> Within a company, within a company. Like how I see the Supercloud is there shouldn't be anything which blocks the developers, like their view of the world, of the future. Like if you're blocked as a developer, like something comes in front of you, you are not developer anymore, believe me, (John laughing) so you'll go somewhere else >> John: First of all, I'm, >> You'll leave the company by the way. >> Dave: Yeah, you got to quit >> Yeah, you will quit, you will go where the action is, where there's no sort of blockage there. So like if you put in front of them like a huge amount of a distraction, they don't like it, so they don't, >> Well, the idea of a developer, >> Coming back to that >> Let's get into 'cause you mentioned platform. Get year in the term platform engineering now. >> Yeah. >> Platform developer. You know, I remember back in, and I think there's still a term used today, but when I graduated my computer science degree, we were called "Software engineers," right? Do people use that term "Software engineering", or is it "Software development", or they the same, are they different? >> Well, >> I think there's a, >> So, who's engineering what? Are they engineering or are they developing? Or both? Well, I think it the, you made a great point. There is a factor of, I had the, I was blessed to work with Adam Bosworth, that is the guy that created some of the abstraction layer, like Visual Basic and Microsoft Access and he had so, he made his whole career thinking about this layer, and he always talk about the professional developers, the developers that, you know, give him a user manual, maybe just go at the APIs, he'll build anything, right, from system engine, go down there, and then through obstruction, you get the more the procedural logic type of engineers, the people that used to be able to write procedural logic and visual basic and so on and so forth. I think those developers right now are a little cut out of the picture. There's some No-code, Low-Code environment that are maybe gain some traction, I caught up with Adam Bosworth two weeks ago in New York and I asked him "What's happening to this higher level developers?" and you know what he is told me, and he is always a little bit out there, so I'm going to use his thought process here. He says, "ChapGPT", I mean, they will get to a point where this high level procedural logic will be written by, >> John: Computers. >> Computers, and so we may not need as many at the high level, but we still need the engineers down there. The point is the operation needs to get in front of them >> But, wait, wait, you seen the ChatGPT meme, I dunno if it's a Dilbert thing where it's like, "Time to tic" >> Yeah, yeah, yeah, I did that >> "Time to develop the code >> Five minutes, time to decode", you know, to debug the codes like five hours. So you know, the whole equation >> Well, this ChatGPT is a hot wave, everyone's been talking about it because I think it illustrates something that's NextGen, feels NextGen, and it's just getting started so it's going to get better. I mean people are throwing stones at it, but I think it's amazing. It's the equivalent of me seeing the browser for the first time, you know, like, "Wow, this is really compelling." This is game-changing, it's not just keyword chat bots. It's like this is real, this is next level, and I think the Supercloud wave that people are getting behind points to that and I think the question of Ops and Dev comes up because I think if you limit the infrastructure opportunity for a developer, I think they're going to be handicapped. I mean that's a general, my opinion, the thesis is you give more aperture to developers, more choice, more capabilities, more good things could happen, policy, and that's why you're seeing the convergence of networking people, virtualization talent, operational talent, get into the conversation because I think it's an infrastructure engineering opportunity. I think this is a seminal moment in a new stack that's emerging from an infrastructure, software virtualization, low-code, no-code layer that will be completely programmable by things like the next Chat GPT or something different, but yet still the mechanics and the plumbing will still need engineering. >> Sarbjeet: Oh yeah. >> So there's still going to be more stuff coming on. >> Yeah, we have, with the cloud, we have made the infrastructure programmable and you give the programmability to the programmer, they will be very creative with that and so we are being very creative with our infrastructure now and on top of that, we are being very creative with the silicone now, right? So we talk about that. That's part of it, by the way. So you write the code to the particle's silicone now, and on the flip side, the silicone is built for certain use cases for AI Inference and all that. >> You saw this at CES? >> Yeah, I saw at CES, the scenario is this, the Bosch, I spoke to Bosch, I spoke to John Deere, I spoke to AWS guys, >> Yeah. >> They were showcasing their technology there and I was spoke to Azure guys as well. So the Bosch is a good example. So they are building, they are right now using AWS. I have that interview on camera, I will put it some sometime later on there online. So they're using AWS on the back end now, but Bosch is the number one, number one or number two depending on what day it is of the year, supplier of the componentry to the auto industry, and they are creating a platform for our auto industry, so is Qualcomm actually by the way, with the Snapdragon. So they told me that customers, their customers, BMW, Audi, all the manufacturers, they demand the diversity of the backend. Like they don't want all, they, all of them don't want to go to AWS. So they want the choice on the backend. So whatever they cook in the middle has to work, they have to sprinkle the data for the data sovereign side because they have Chinese car makers as well, and for, you know, for other reasons, competitive reasons and like use. >> People don't go to, aw, people don't go to AWS either for political reasons or like competitive reasons or specific use cases, but for the most part, generally, I haven't met anyone who hasn't gone first choice with either, but that's me personally. >> No, but they're building. >> Point is the developer wants choice at the back end is what I'm hearing, but then finish that thought. >> Their developers want the choice, they want the choice on the back end, number one, because the customers are asking for, in this case, the customers are asking for it, right? But the customers requirements actually drive, their economics drives that decision making, right? So in the middle they have to, they're forced to cook up some solution which is vendor neutral on the backend or multicloud in nature. So >> Yeah, >> Every >> I mean I think that's nirvana. I don't think, I personally don't see that happening right now. I mean, I don't see the parody with clouds. So I think that's a challenge. I mean, >> Yeah, true. >> I mean the fact of the matter is if the development teams get fragmented, we had this chat with Kit Colbert last time, I think he's going to come on and I think he's going to talk about his keynote in a few, in an hour or so, development teams is this, the cloud is heterogenous, which is great. It's complex, which is challenging. You need skilled engineering to manage these clouds. So if you're a CIO and you go all in on AWS, it's hard. Then to then go out and say, "I want to be completely multi-vendor neutral" that's a tall order on many levels and this is the multicloud challenge, right? So, the question is, what's the strategy for me, the CIO or CISO, what do I do? I mean, to me, I would go all in on one and start getting hedges and start playing and then look at some >> Crystal clear. Crystal clear to me. >> Go ahead. >> If you're a CIO today, you have to build a platform engineering team, no question. 'Cause if we agree that we cannot tell the great developers what to do, we have to create a platform engineering team that using pieces of the Supercloud can build, and let's make this very pragmatic and give examples. First you need to be able to lay down the run time, okay? So you need a way to deploy multiple different Kubernetes environment in depending on the cloud. Okay, now we got that. The second part >> That's like table stakes. >> That are table stake, right? But now what is the advantage of having a Supercloud service to do that is that now you can put a policy in one place and it gets distributed everywhere consistently. So for example, you want to say, "If anybody in this organization across all these different buildings, all these developers don't even know, build a PCI compliant microservice, They can only talk to PCI compliant microservice." Now, I sleep tight. The developers still do that. Of course they're going to get their hands slapped if they don't encrypt some messages and say, "Oh, that should have been encrypted." So number one. The second thing I want to be able to say, "This service that this developer built over there better satisfy this SLA." So if the SLA is not satisfied, boom, I automatically spin up multiple instances to certify the SLA. Developers unencumbered, they don't even know. So this for me is like, CIO build a platform engineering team using one of the many Supercloud services that allow you to do that and lay down. >> And part of that is that the vendor behavior is such, 'cause the incentive is that they don't necessarily always work together. (John chuckling) I'll give you an example, we're going to hear today from Western Union. They're AWS shop, but they want to go to Google, they want to use some of Google's AI tools 'cause they're good and maybe they're even arguably better, but they're also a Snowflake customer and what you'll hear from them is Amazon and Snowflake are working together so that SageMaker can be integrated with Snowflake but Google said, "No, you want to use our AI tools, you got to use BigQuery." >> Yeah. >> Okay. So they say, "Ah, forget it." So if you have a platform engineering team, you can maybe solve some of that vendor friction and get competitive advantage. >> I think that the future proximity concept that I talk about is like, when you're doing one thing, you want to do another thing. Where do you go to get that thing, right? So that is very important. Like your question, John, is that your point is that AWS is ahead of the pack, which is true, right? They have the >> breadth of >> Infrastructure by a lot >> infrastructure service, right? They breadth of services, right? So, how do you, When do you bring in other cloud providers, right? So I believe that you should standardize on one cloud provider, like that's your primary, and for others, bring them in on as needed basis, in the subsection or sub portfolio of your applications or your platforms, what ever you can. >> So yeah, the Google AI example >> Yeah, I mean, >> Or the Microsoft collaboration software example. I mean there's always or the M and A. >> Yeah, but- >> You're going to get to run Windows, you can run Windows on Amazon, so. >> By the way, Supercloud doesn't mean that you cannot do that. So the perfect example is say that you're using Azure because you have a SQL server intensive workload. >> Yep >> And you're using Google for ML, great. If you are using some differentiated feature of this cloud, you'll have to go somewhere and configure this widget, but what you can abstract with the Supercloud is the lifecycle manage of the service that runs on top, right? So how does the service get deployed, right? How do you monitor performance? How do you lifecycle it? How you secure it that you can abstract and that's the value and eventually value will win. So the customers will find what is the values, obstructing in making it uniform or going deeper? >> How about identity? Like take identity for instance, you know, that's an opportunity to abstract. Whether I use Microsoft Identity or Okta, and I can abstract that. >> Yeah, and then we have APIs and standards that we can use so eventually I think where there is enough pain, the right open source will emerge to solve that problem. >> Dave: Yeah, I can use abstract things like object store, right? That's pretty simple. >> But back to the engineering question though, is that developers, developers, developers, one thing about developers psychology is if something's not right, they say, "Go get fixing. I'm not touching it until you fix it." They're very sticky about, if something's not working, they're not going to do it again, right? So you got to get it right for developers. I mean, they'll maybe tolerate something new, but is the "juice worth the squeeze" as they say, right? So you can't go to direct say, "Hey, it's, what's a work in progress? We're going to get our infrastructure together and the world's going to be great for you, but just hang tight." They're going to be like, "Get your shit together then talk to me." So I think that to me is the question. It's an Ops question, but where's that value for the developer in Supercloud where the capabilities are there, there's less friction, it's simpler, it solves the complexity problem. I don't need these high skilled labor to manage Amazon. I got services exposed. >> That's what we talked about earlier. It's like the Walmart example. They basically, they took away from the developer the need to spin up infrastructure and worry about all the governance. I mean, it's not completely there yet. So the developer could focus on what he or she wanted to do. >> But there's a big, like in our industry, there's a big sort of flaw or the contention between developers and operators. Developers want to be on the cutting edge, right? And operators want to be on the stability, you know, like we want governance. >> Yeah, totally. >> Right, so they want to control, developers are like these little bratty kids, right? And they want Legos, like they want toys, right? Some of them want toys by way. They want Legos, they want to build there and they want make a mess out of it. So you got to make sure. My number one advice in this context is that do it up your application portfolio and, or your platform portfolio if you are an ISV, right? So if you are ISV you most probably, you're building a platform these days, do it up in a way that you can say this portion of our applications and our platform will adhere to what you are saying, standardization, you know, like Kubernetes, like slam dunk, you know, it works across clouds and in your data center hybrid, you know, whole nine yards, but there is some subset on the next door systems of innovation. Everybody has, it doesn't matter if you're DMV of Kansas or you are, you know, metaverse, right? Or Meta company, right, which is Facebook, they have it, they are building something new. For that, give them some freedom to choose different things like play with non-standard things. So that is the mantra for moving forward, for any enterprise. >> Do you think developers are happy with the infrastructure now or are they wanting people to get their act together? I mean, what's your reaction, or you think. >> Developers are happy as long as they can do their stuff, which is running code. They want to write code and innovate. So to me, when Ballmer said, "Developer, develop, Developer, what he meant was, all you other people get your act together so these developers can do their thing, and to me the Supercloud is the way for IT to get there and let developer be creative and go fast. Why not, without getting in trouble. >> Okay, let's wrap up this segment with a super clip. Okay, we're going to do a sound bite that we're going to make into a short video for each of you >> All right >> On you guys summarizing why Supercloud's important, why this next wave is relevant for the practitioners, for the industry and we'll turn this into an Instagram reel, YouTube short. So we'll call it a "Super clip. >> Alright, >> Sarbjeet, you want, you want some time to think about it? You want to go first? Vittorio, you want. >> I just didn't mind. (all laughing) >> No, okay, okay. >> I'll do it again. >> Go back. No, we got a fresh one. We'll going to already got that one in the can. >> I'll go. >> Sarbjeet, you go first. >> I'll go >> What's your super clip? >> In software systems, abstraction is your friend. I always say that. Abstraction is your friend, even if you're super professional developer, abstraction is your friend. We saw from the MFC library from C++ days till today. Abstract, use abstraction. Do not try to reinvent what's already being invented. Leverage cloud, leverage the platform side of the cloud. Not just infrastructure service, but platform as a service side of the cloud as well, and Supercloud is a meta platform built on top of these infrastructure services from three or four or five cloud providers. So use that and embrace the programmability, embrace the abstraction layer. That's the key actually, and developers who are true developers or professional developers as you said, they know that. >> Awesome. Great super clip. Vittorio, another shot at the plate here for super clip. Go. >> Multicloud is awesome. There's a reason why multicloud happened, is because gave our developers the ability to innovate fast and ever before. So if you are embarking on a digital transformation journey, which I call a survival journey, if you're not innovating and transforming, you're not going to be around in business three, five years from now. You have to adopt the Supercloud so the developer can be developer and keep building great, innovating digital experiences for your customers and IT can get in front of it and not get in trouble together. >> Building those super apps with Supercloud. That was a great super clip. Vittorio, thank you for sharing. >> Thanks guys. >> Sarbjeet, thanks for coming on talking about the developer impact Supercloud 2. On our next segment, coming up right now, we're going to hear from Walmart enterprise architect, how they are building and they are continuing to innovate, to build their own Supercloud. Really informative, instructive from a practitioner doing it in real time. Be right back with Walmart here in Palo Alto. Thanks for watching. (gentle music)

(gentle bright music) >> Okay, welcome back to our "Supercloud 2" event live coverage here at stage performance in Palo Alto syndicating around the world. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. We've got exclusive news and a scoop here for SiliconANGLE and theCUBE. Zhamak Dehghani, creator of data mesh has formed a new company called NextData.com NextData, she's a cube alumni and contributor to our Supercloud initiative, as well as our coverage and breaking analysis with Dave Vellante on data, the killer app for Supercloud. Zhamak, great to see you. Thank you for coming into the studio and congratulations on your newly formed venture and continued success on the data mesh. >> Thank you so much. It's great to be here. Great to see you in person. >> Dave: Yeah, finally. >> John: Wonderful. Your contributions to the data conversation has been well-documented certainly by us and others in the industry. Data mesh taking the world by storm. Some people are debating it, throwing, you know, cold water on it. Some are, I think, it's the next big thing. Tell us about the data mesh super data apps that are emerging out of cloud. >> I mean, data mesh, as you said, it's, you know, the pain point that it surfaced were universal. Everybody said, "Oh, why didn't I think of that?" You know, it was just an obvious next step and people are approaching it, implementing it. I guess the last few years, I've been involved in many of those implementations, and I guess Supercloud is somewhat a prerequisite for it because it's data mesh and building applications using data mesh is about sharing data responsibly across boundaries. And those boundaries include boundaries, organizational boundaries cloud technology boundaries and trust boundaries. >> I want to bring that up because your venture, NextData which is new, just formed. Tell us about that. What wave is that riding? What specifically are you targeting? What's the pain point? >> Zhamak: Absolutely, yes. So next data is the result of, I suppose, the pains that I suffered from implementing a database for many of the organizations. Basically, a lot of organizations that I've worked with, they want decentralized data. So they really embrace this idea of decentralized ownership of the data, but yet they want interconnectivity through standard APIs, yet they want discoverability and governance. So they want to have policies implemented, they want to govern that data, they want to be able to discover that data and yet they want to decentralize it. And we do that with a developer experience that is easy and native to a generalist developer. So we try to find, I guess, the common denominator that solves those problems and enables that developer experience for data sharing. >> John: Since you just announced the news, what's been the reaction? >> Zhamak: I just announced the news right now, so what's the reaction? >> John: But people in the industry that know you, you did a lot of work in the area. What have been some of the feedback on the new venture in terms of the approach, the customers, problem? >> Yeah, so we've been in stealth modes, so we haven't publicly talked about it, but folks that have been close to us in fact have reached out. We already have implementations of our pilot platform with early customers, which is super exciting. And we're going to have multiple of those. Of course, we're a tiny, tiny company. We can have many of those where we are going to have multiple pilots, implementations of our platform in real world. We're real global large scale organizations that have real world problems. So we're not going to build our platform in vacuum. And that's what's happening right now. >> Zhamak: When I think about your role at ThoughtWorks, you had a very wide observation space with a number of clients helping them implement data mesh and other things as well prior to your data mesh initiative. But when I look at data mesh, at least the ones that I've seen, they're very narrow. I think of JPMC, I think of HelloFresh. They're generally obviously not surprising. They don't include the big vision of inclusivity across clouds across different data stores. But it seems like people are having to go through some gymnastics to get to, you know, the organizational reality of decentralizing data, and at least pushing data ownership to the line of business. How are you approaching or are you approaching, solving that problem? Are you taking a narrow slice? What can you tell us about Next Data? >> Zhamak: Sure, yeah, absolutely. Gymnastics, the cute word to describe what the organizations have to go through. And one of those problems is that, you know, the data, as you know, resides on different platforms. It's owned by different people, it's processed by pipelines that who owns them. So there's this very disparate and disconnected set of technologies that were very useful for when we thought about data and processing as a centralized problem. But when you think about data as a decentralized problem, the cost of integration of these technologies in a cohesive developer experience is what's missing. And we want to focus on that cohesive end-to-end developer experience to share data responsibly in this autonomous units, we call them data products, I guess in data mesh, right? That constitutes computation, that governs that data policies, discoverability. So I guess, I heard this expression in the last talks that you can have your cake and eat it too. So we want people have their cakes, which is, you know, data in different places, decentralization and eat it too, which is interconnected access to it. So we start with standardizing and codifying this idea of a data product container that encapsulates data computation, APIs to get to it in a technology agnostic way, in an open way. And then, sit on top and use existing existing tech, you know, Snowflake, Databricks, whatever exists, you know, the millions of dollars of investments that companies have made, sit on top of those but create this cohesive, integrated experience where data product is a first class primitive. And that's really key here, that the language, and the modeling that we use is really native to data mesh is that I will make a data product, I'm sharing a data product, and that encapsulates on providing metadata about this. I'm providing computation that's constantly changing the data. I'm providing the API for that. So we're trying to kind of codify and create a new developer experience based on that. And developer, both from provider side and user side connected to peer-to-peer data sharing with data product as a primitive first class concept. >> Okay, so the idea would be developers would build applications leveraging those data products which are discoverable and governed. Now, today you see some companies, you know, take a snowflake for example. >> Zhamak: Yeah. >> Attempting to do that within their own little walled garden. They even, at one point, used the term, "Mesh." I dunno if they pull back on that. And then they sort of became aware of some of your work. But a lot of the things that they're doing within their little insulated environment, you know, support that, that, you know, governance, they're building out an ecosystem. What's different in your vision? >> Exactly. So we realize that, you know, and this is a reality, like you go to organizations, they have a snowflake and half of the organization happily operates on Snowflake. And on the other half, oh, we are on, you know, bare infrastructure on AWS, or we are on Databricks. This is the realities, you know, this Supercloud that's written up here. It's about working across boundaries of technology. So we try to embrace that. And even for our own technology with the way we're building it, we say, "Okay, nobody's going to use next data mesh operating system. People will have different platforms." So you have to build with openness in mind, and in case of Snowflake, I think, you know, they have I'm sure very happy customers as long as customers can be on Snowflake. But once you cross that boundary of platforms then that becomes a problem. And we try to keep that in mind in our solution. >> So, it's worth reviewing that basically, the concept of data mesh is that, whether you're a data lake or a data warehouse, an S3 bucket, an Oracle database as well, they should be inclusive inside of the data. >> We did a session with AWS on the startup showcase, data as code. And remember, I wrote a blog post in 2007 called, "Data's the new developer kit." Back then, they used to call 'em developer kits, if you remember. And that we said at that time, whoever can code data >> Zhamak: Yes. >> Will have a competitive advantage. >> Aren't there machines going to be doing that? Didn't we just hear that? >> Well we have, and you know, Hey Siri, hey Cube. Find me that best video for data mesh. There it is. I mean, this is the point, like what's happening is that, now, data has to be addressable >> Zhamak: Yes. >> For machines and for coding. >> Zhamak: Yes. >> Because as you need to call the data. So the question is, how do you manage the complexity of big things as promiscuous as possible, making it available as well as then governing it because it's a trade off. The more you make open >> Zhamak: Definitely. >> The better the machine learning. >> Zhamak: Yes. >> But yet, the governance issue, so this is the, you need an OS to handle this maybe. >> Yes, well, we call our mental model for our platform is an OS operating system. Operating systems, you know, have shown us how you can kind of abstract what's complex and take care of, you know, a lot of complexities, but yet provide an open and, you know, dynamic enough interface. So we think about it that way. We try to solve the problem of policies live with the data. An enforcement of the policies happens at the most granular level which is, in this concept, the data product. And that would happen whether you read, write, or access a data product. But we can never imagine what are these policies could be. So our thinking is, okay, we should have a open policy framework that can allow organizations write their own policy drivers, and policy definitions, and encode it and encapsulated in this data product container. But I'm not going to fool myself to say that, you know, that's going to solve the problem that you just described. I think we are in this, I don't know, if I look into my crystal ball, what I think might happen is that right now, the primitives that we work with to train machine-learning model are still bits and bites in data. They're fields, rows, columns, right? And that creates quite a large surface area, an attack area for, you know, for privacy of the data. So perhaps, one of the trends that we might see is this evolution of data APIs to become more and more computational aware to bring the compute to the data to reduce that surface area so you can really leave the control of the data to the sovereign owners of that data, right? So that data product. So I think the evolution of our data APIs perhaps will become more and more computational. So you describe what you want, and the data owner decides, you know, how to manage the- >> John: That's interesting, Dave, 'cause it's almost like we just talked about ChatGPT in the last segment with you, who's a machine learning, could really been around the industry. It's almost as if you're starting to see reason come into the data, reasoning. It's like you starting to see not just metadata, using the data to reason so that you don't have to expose the raw data. It's almost like a, I won't say curation layer, but an intelligence layer. >> Zhamak: Exactly. >> Can you share your vision on that 'cause that seems to be where the dots are connecting. >> Zhamak: Yes, this is perhaps further into the future because just from where we stand, we have to create still that bridge of familiarity between that future and present. So we are still in that bridge-making mode, however, by just the basic notion of saying, "I'm going to put an API in front of my data, and that API today might be as primitive as a level of indirection as in you tell me what you want, tell me who you are, let me go process that, all the policies and lineage, and insert all of this intelligence that need to happen. And then I will, today, I will still give you a file. But by just defining that API and standardizing it, now we have this amazing extension point that we can say, "Well, the next revision of this API, you not just tell me who you are, but you actually tell me what intelligence you're after. What's a logic that I need to go and now compute on your API?" And you can kind of evolve that, right? Now you have a point of evolution to this very futuristic, I guess, future where you just describe the question that you're asking from the chat. >> Well, this is the Supercloud, Dave. >> I have a question from a fan, I got to get it in. It's George Gilbert. And so, his question is, you're blowing away the way we synchronize data from operational systems to the data stack to applications. So the concern that he has, and he wants your feedback on this, "Is the data product app devs get exposed to more complexity with respect to moving data between data products or maybe it's attributes between data products, how do you respond to that? How do you see, is that a problem or is that something that is overstated, or do you have an answer for that?" >> Zhamak: Absolutely. So I think there's a sweet spot in getting data developers, data product developers closer to the app, but yet not burdening them with the complexity of the application and application logic, and yet reducing their cognitive load by localizing what they need to know about which is that domain where they're operating within. Because what's happening right now? what's happening right now is that data engineers, a ton of empathy for them for their high threshold of pain that they can, you know, deal with, they have been centralized, they've put into the data team, and they have been given this unbelievable task of make meaning out of data, put semantic over it, curates it, cleans it, and so on. So what we are saying is that get those folks embedded into the domain closer to the application developers, these are still separately moving units. Your app and your data products are independent but yet tightly closed with each other, tightly coupled with each other based on the context of the domain, so reduce cognitive load by localizing what they need to know about to the domain, get them closer to the application but yet have them them separate from app because app provides a very different service. Transactional data for my e-commerce transaction, data product provides a very different service, longitudinal data for the, you know, variety of this intelligent analysis that I can do on the data. But yet, it's all within the domain of e-commerce or sales or whatnot. >> So a lot of decoupling and coupling create that cohesiveness. >> Zhamak: Absolutely. >> Architecture. So I have to ask you, this is an interesting question 'cause it came up on theCUBE all last year. Back on the old server, data center days and cloud, SRE, Google coined the term, "Site Reliability Engineer" for someone to look over the hundreds of thousands of servers. We asked a question to data engineering community who have been suffering, by the way, agree. Is there an SRE-like role for data? Because in a way, data engineering, that platform engineer, they are like the SRE for data. In other words, managing the large scale to enable automation and cell service. What's your thoughts and reaction to that? >> Zhamak: Yes, exactly. So, maybe we go through that history of how SRE came to be. So we had the first DevOps movement which was, remove the wall between dev and ops and bring them together. So you have one cross-functional units of the organization that's responsible for, you build it you run it, right? So then there is no, I'm going to just shoot my application over the wall for somebody else to manage it. So we did that, and then we said, "Okay, as we decentralized and had this many microservices running around, we had to create a layer that abstracted a lot of the complexity around running now a lot or monitoring, observing and running a lot while giving autonomy to this cross-functional team." And that's where the SRE, a new generation of engineers came to exist. So I think if I just look- >> Hence Borg, hence Kubernetes. >> Hence, hence, exactly. Hence chaos engineering, hence embracing the complexity and messiness, right? And putting engineering discipline to embrace that and yet give a cohesive and high integrity experience of those systems. So I think, if we look at that evolution, perhaps something like that is happening by bringing data and apps closer and make them these domain-oriented data product teams or domain oriented cross-functional teams, full stop, and still have a very advanced maybe at the platform infrastructure level kind of operational team that they're not busy doing two jobs which is taking care of domains and the infrastructure, but they're building infrastructure that is embracing that complexity, interconnectivity of this data process. >> John: So you see similarities. >> Absolutely, but I feel like we're probably in a more early days of that movement. >> So it's a data DevOps kind of thing happening where scales happening. It's good things are happening yet. Eh, a little bit fast and loose with some complexities to clean up. >> Yes, yes. This is a different restructure. As you said we, you know, the job of this industry as a whole on architects is decompose, recompose, decompose, recomposing a new way, and now we're like decomposing centralized team, recomposing them as domains and- >> John: So is data mesh the killer app for Supercloud? >> You had to do this for me. >> Dave: Sorry, I couldn't- (John and Dave laughing) >> Zhamak: What do you want me to say, Dave? >> John: Yes. >> Zhamak: Yes of course. >> I mean Supercloud, I think it's, really the terminology's Supercloud, Opencloud. But I think, in spirits of it, this embracing of diversity and giving autonomy for people to make decisions for what's right for them and not yet lock them in. I think just embracing that is baked into how data mesh assume the world would work. >> John: Well thank you so much for coming on Supercloud too, really appreciate it. Data has driven this conversation. Your success of data mesh has really opened up the conversation and exposed the slow moving data industry. >> Dave: Been a great catalyst. (John laughs) >> John: That's now going well. We can move faster, so thanks for coming on. >> Thank you for hosting me. It was wonderful. >> Okay, Supercloud 2 live here in Palo Alto. Our stage performance, I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. We're back with more after this short break, Stay with us all day for Supercloud 2. (gentle bright 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)

(upbeat music) >> Welcome back to our Supercloud 2 event live coverage here of stage performance in Palo Alto syndicating around the world. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. We got exclusive news and a scoop here for SiliconANGLE in theCUBE. Zhamak Dehghani, creator of data mesh has formed a new company called Nextdata.com, Nextdata. She's a cube alumni and contributor to our supercloud initiative, as well as our coverage and Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante on data, the killer app for supercloud. Zhamak, great to see you. Thank you for coming into the studio and congratulations on your newly formed venture and continued success on the data mesh. >> Thank you so much. It's great to be here. Great to see you in person. >> Dave: Yeah, finally. >> Wonderful. Your contributions to the data conversation has been well documented certainly by us and others in the industry. Data mesh taking the world by storm. Some people are debating it, throwing cold water on it. Some are thinking it's the next big thing. Tell us about the data mesh, super data apps that are emerging out of cloud. >> I mean, data mesh, as you said, the pain point that it surface were universal. Everybody said, "Oh, why didn't I think of that?" It was just an obvious next step and people are approaching it, implementing it. I guess the last few years I've been involved in many of those implementations and I guess supercloud is somewhat a prerequisite for it because it's data mesh and building applications using data mesh is about sharing data responsibly across boundaries. And those boundaries include organizational boundaries, cloud technology boundaries, and trust boundaries. >> I want to bring that up because your venture, Nextdata, which is new just formed. Tell us about that. What wave is that riding? What specifically are you targeting? What's the pain point? >> Absolutely. Yes, so Nextdata is the result of, I suppose the pains that I suffered from implementing data mesh for many of the organizations. Basically a lot of organizations that I've worked with they want decentralized data. So they really embrace this idea of decentralized ownership of the data, but yet they want interconnectivity through standard APIs, yet they want discoverability and governance. So they want to have policies implemented, they want to govern that data, they want to be able to discover that data, and yet they want to decentralize it. And we do that with a developer experience that is easy and native to a generalist developer. So we try to find the, I guess the common denominator that solves those problems and enables that developer experience for data sharing. >> Since you just announced the news, what's been the reaction? >> I just announced the news right now, so what's the reaction? >> But people in the industry know you did a lot of work in the area. What have been some of the feedback on the new venture in terms of the approach, the customers, problem? >> Yeah, so we've been in stealth mode so we haven't publicly talked about it, but folks that have been close to us, in fact have reached that we already have implementations of our pilot platform with early customers, which is super exciting. And we going to have multiple of those. Of course, we're a tiny, tiny company. We can have many of those, but we are going to have multiple pilot implementations of our platform in real world where real global large scale organizations that have real world problems. So we're not going to build our platform in vacuum. And that's what's happening right now. >> Zhamak, when I think about your role at ThoughtWorks, you had a very wide observation space with a number of clients, helping them implement data mesh and other things as well prior to your data mesh initiative. But when I look at data mesh, at least the ones that I've seen, they're very narrow. I think of JPMC, I think of HelloFresh. They're generally, obviously not surprising, they don't include the big vision of inclusivity across clouds, across different data storage. But it seems like people are having to go through some gymnastics to get to the organizational reality of decentralizing data and at least pushing data ownership to the line of business. How are you approaching, or are you approaching solving that problem? Are you taking a narrow slice? What can you tell us about Nextdata? >> Yeah, absolutely. Gymnastics, the cute word to describe what the organizations have to go through. And one of those problems is that the data as you know resides on different platforms, it's owned by different people, is processed by pipelines that who knows who owns them. So there's this very disparate and disconnected set of technologies that were very useful for when we thought about data and processing as a centralized problem. But when you think about data as a decentralized problem the cost of integration of these technologies in a cohesive developer experience is what's missing. And we want to focus on that cohesive end-to-end developer experience to share data responsibly in these autonomous units. We call them data products, I guess in data mesh. That constitutes computation. That governs that data policies, discoverability. So I guess, I heard this expression in the last talks that you can have your cake and eat it too. So we want people have their cakes, which is data in different places, decentralization, and eat it too, which is interconnected access to it. So we start with standardizing and codifying this idea of a data product container that encapsulates data computation APIs to get to it in a technology agnostic way, in an open way. And then sit on top and use existing tech, Snowflake, Databricks, whatever exists, the millions of dollars of investments that companies have made, sit on top of those but create this cohesive, integrated experience where data product is a first class primitive. And that's really key here. The language and the modeling that we use is really native to data mesh, which is that I'm building a data product I'm sharing a data product, and that encapsulates I'm providing metadata about this. I'm providing computation that's constantly changing the data. I'm providing the API for that. So we we're trying to kind of codify and create a new developer experience based on that. And developer, both from provider side and user side, connected to peer-to-peer data sharing with data product as a primitive first class concept. >> So the idea would be developers would build applications leveraging those data products, which are discoverable and governed. Now today you see some companies, take a Snowflake for example, attempting to do that within their own little walled garden. They even at one point used the term mesh. I don't know if they pull back on that. And then they became aware of some of your work. But a lot of the things that they're doing within their little insulated environment support that governance, they're building out an ecosystem. What's different in your vision? >> Exactly. So we realized that, and this is a reality, like you go to organizations, they have a Snowflake and half of the organization happily operates on Snowflake. And on the other half, "oh, we are on Bare infrastructure on AWS or we are on Databricks." This is the reality. This supercloud that's written up here, it's about working across boundaries of technology. So we try to embrace that. And even for our own technology with the way we're building it, we say, "Okay, nobody's going to use Nextdata, data mesh operating system. People will have different platforms." So you have to build with openness in mind and in case of Snowflake, I think, they have very, I'm sure very happy customers as long as customers can be on Snowflake. But once you cross that boundary of platforms then that becomes a problem. And we try to keep that in mind in our solution. >> So it's worth reviewing that basically the concept of data mesh is that whether you're a data lake or a data warehouse, an S3 bucket, an Oracle database as well, they should be inclusive inside of the data. >> We did a session with AWS on the startup showcase, data as code. And remember I wrote a blog post in 2007 called "Data as the New Developer Kit" back then we used to call them developer kits if you remember. And that we said at that time, whoever can code data will have a competitive advantage. >> Aren't the machines going to be doing that? Didn't we just hear that? >> Well, we have. Hey, Siri. Hey, Cube, find me that best video for data mesh. There it is. But this is the point, like what's happening is that now data has to be addressable. for machines and for coding because as you need to call the data. So the question is how do you manage the complexity of big things as promiscuous as possible, making it available, as well as then governing it? Because it's a trade off. The more you make open, the better the machine learning. But yet the governance issue, so this is the, you need an OS to handle this maybe. >> Yes. So yes, well we call, our mental model for our platform is an OS operating system. Operating systems have shown us how you can abstract what's complex and take care of a lot of complexities, but yet provide an open and dynamic enough interface. So we think about it that way. Just, we try to solve the problem of policies live with the data, an enforcement of the policies happens at the most granular level, which is in this concept of the data product. And that would happen whether you read, write or access a data product. But we can never imagine what are these policies could be. So our thinking is we should have a policy, open policy framework that can allow organizations write their own policy drivers and policy definitions and encode it and encapsulated in this data product container. But I'm not going to fool myself to say that, that's going to solve the problem that you just described. I think we are in this, I don't know, if I look into my crystal ball, what I think might happen is that right now the primitives that we work with to train machine learning model are still bits and bytes and data. They're fields, rows, columns and that creates quite a large surface area and attack area for privacy of the data. So perhaps one of the trends that we might see is this evolution of data APIs to become more and more computational aware to bring the compute to the data to reduce that surface area. So you can really leave the control of the data to the sovereign owners of that data. So that data product. So I think that evolution of our data APIs perhaps will become more and more computational. So you describe what you want and the data owner decides how to manage. >> That's interesting, Dave, 'cause it's almost like we just talked about ChatGPT in the last segment we had with you. It was a machine learning have been around the industry. It's almost as if you're starting to see reason come into, the data reasoning is like starting to see not just metadata. Using the data to reason so that you don't have to expose the raw data. So almost like a, I won't say curation layer, but an intelligence layer. >> Zhamak: Exactly. >> Can you share your vision on that? 'Cause that seems to be where the dots are connecting. >> Yes, perhaps further into the future because just from where we stand, we have to create still that bridge of familiarity between that future and present. So we are still in that bridge making mode. However, by just the basic notion of saying, "I'm going to put an API in front of my data." And that API today might be as primitive as a level of indirection, as in you tell me what you want, tell me who you are, let me go process that, all the policies and lineage and insert all of this intelligence that need to happen. And then today, I will still give you a file. But by just defining that API and standardizing it now we have this amazing extension point that we can say, "Well, the next revision of this API, you not just tell me who you are, but you actually tell me what intelligence you're after. What's a logic that I need to go and now compute on your API?" And you can evolve that. Now you have a point of evolution to this very futuristic, I guess, future where you just described the question that you're asking from the ChatGPT. >> Well, this is the supercloud, go ahead, Dave. >> I have a question from a fan, I got to get it in. It's George Gilbert. And so his question is, you're blowing away the way we synchronize data from operational systems to the data stack to applications. So the concern that he has and he wants your feedback on this, is the data product app devs get exposed to more complexity with respect to moving data between data products or maybe it's attributes between data products? How do you respond to that? How do you see? Is that a problem? Is that something that is overstated or do you have an answer for that? >> Absolutely. So I think there's a sweet spot in getting data developers, data product developers closer to the app, but yet not overburdening them with the complexity of the application and application logic and yet reducing their cognitive load by localizing what they need to know about, which is that domain where they're operating within. Because what's happening right now? What's happening right now is that data engineers with, a ton of empathy for them for their high threshold of pain that they can deal with, they have been centralized, they've put into the data team, and they have been given this unbelievable task of make meaning out of data, put semantic over it, curate it, cleans it, and so on. So what we are saying is that get those folks embedded into the domain closer to the application developers. These are still separately moving units. Your app and your data products are independent, but yet tightly closed with each other, tightly coupled with each other based on the context of the domain. So reduce cognitive load by localizing what they need to know about to the domain, get them closer to the application, but yet have them separate from app because app provides a very different service. Transactional data for my e-commerce transaction. Data product provides a very different service. Longitudinal data for the variety of this intelligent analysis that I can do on the data. But yet it's all within the domain of e-commerce or sales or whatnot. >> It's a lot of decoupling and coupling create that cohesiveness architecture. So I have to ask you, this is an interesting question 'cause it came up on theCUBE all last year. Back on the old server data center days and cloud, SRE, Google coined the term, site reliability engineer, for someone to look over the hundreds of thousands of servers. We asked the question to data engineering community who have been suffering, by the way, I agree. Is there an SRE like role for data? Because in a way data engineering, that platform engineer, they are like the SRE for data. In other words managing the large scale to enable automation and cell service. What's your thoughts and reaction to that? >> Yes, exactly. So maybe we go through that history of how SRE came to be. So we had the first DevOps movement, which was remove the wall between dev and ops and bring them together. So you have one unit of one cross-functional units of the organization that's responsible for you build it, you run it. So then there is no, I'm going to just shoot my application over the wall for somebody else to manage it. So we did that and then we said, okay, there is a ton, as we decentralized and had these many microservices running around, we had to create a layer that abstracted a lot of the complexity around running now a lot or monitoring, observing, and running a lot while giving autonomy to this cross-functional team. And that's where the SRE, a new generation of engineers came to exist. So I think if I just look at. >> Hence, Kubernetes. >> Hence, hence, exactly. Hence, chaos engineering. Hence, embracing the complexity and messiness. And putting engineering discipline to embrace that and yet give a cohesive and high integrity experience of those systems. So I think if we look at that evolution, perhaps something like that is happening by bringing data and apps closer and make them these domain-oriented data product teams or domain-oriented cross-functional teams full stop and still have a very advanced maybe at the platform level, infrastructure level operational team that they're not busy doing two jobs, which is taking care of domains and the infrastructure, but they're building infrastructure that is embracing that complexity, interconnectivity of this data process. >> So you see similarities? >> I see, absolutely. But I feel like we're probably in a more early days of that movement. >> So it's a data DevOps kind of thing happening where scales happening. It's good things are happening, yet a little bit fast and loose with some complexities to clean up. >> Yes. This is a different restructure. As you said, the job of this industry as a whole, an architect, is decompose recompose, decompose recompose in new way and now we're like decomposing centralized team, recomposing them as domains. >> So is data mesh the killer app for supercloud? >> You had to do this to me. >> Sorry, I couldn't resist. >> I know. Of course you want me to say this. >> Yes. >> Yes, of course. I mean, supercloud, I think it's really, the terminology supercloud, open cloud, but I think in spirits of it this embracing of diversity and giving autonomy for people to make decisions for what's right for them and not yet lock them in. I think just embracing that is baked into how data mesh assume the world would work. >> Well, thank you so much for coming on Supercloud 2. We really appreciate it. Data has driven this conversation. Your success of data mesh has really opened up the conversation and exposed the slow moving data industry. >> Dave: Been a great catalyst. >> That's now going well. We can move faster. So thanks for coming on. >> Thank you for hosting me. It was wonderful. >> Supercloud 2 live here in Palo Alto, our stage performance. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. We'll back with more after this short break. Stay with us all day for Supercloud 2. (upbeat 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)

(upbeat music) >> Welcome back to Supercloud two where we're gathering a number of industry luminaries to discuss the future of cloud services. And we'll be focusing on various real world practitioners today, their challenges, their opportunities with an emphasis on data, self-service infrastructure and how organizations are evolving their data and cloud strategies to prepare for that next era of digital innovation. And we really believe that support for multiple cloud estates is a first step of any Supercloud. And in that regard Oracle surprise some folks with its Azure collaboration the Oracle database and exit database services. And to discuss the challenges of developing a mission critical Supercloud we welcome Juan Loaiza, who's the executive vice president of Mission Critical Database Technologies at Oracle. Juan, you're many time CUBE alums so welcome back to the show. Great to see you. >> Great to see you, and happy to be here with you. >> Yeah, thank you. So a lot of people felt that Oracle was resistant to multicloud strategies and preferred to really have everything run just on the Oracle cloud infrastructure, OCI and maybe that was a misperception maybe you guys were misunderstood or maybe you had to change your heart. Take us through the decision to support multiple cloud platforms >> Now we've supported multiple cloud platforms for many years, so I think that was probably a misperception. Oracle database, we partnered up with Amazon very early on in their cloud when they had kind of the the first cloud out there. And we had Oracle database running on their cloud. We have backup, we have a lot of stuff running. So, yeah, part of the philosophy of Oracle has always been we partner with every platform. We're very open we started with SQL and APIs. As we develop new technologies we push them into the SQL standard. So that's always been part of the ecosystem at Oracle. That's how we think we get an advantage by being more open. I think if we try to create this isolated little world it actually hurts us and hurts customers. So for us it's a win-win to be open across the clouds. >> So Supercloud is this concept that we put forth to describe a platform or some people think it's an architecture if you have an opinion, and I'd love to hear it but it provides a programmatically consistent set of services that hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers. And so we look at the Oracle database service for Azure as fitting within this definition. In your view, is this accurate? >> Yeah, I would broaden it. I'd see a little bit more than that. We just think that services should be available from everywhere, right? So, I mean, it's a little bit like if you go back to the pre-internet world, there was things like AOL and CompuServe and those were kind of islands. And if you were on AOL, you really didn't have access to anything on CompuServe and vice versa. And the cloud world has evolved a little bit like that. And we just think that's the wrong model. They shouldn't these clouds are part of the world and they need to be interconnected like all the rest of the world. It's been a long time with telephones internet, everything, everything's interconnected. Everything should work seamlessly together. So that's how we believe if you're running in one cloud and you're running let's say an application, one cloud you want to use a service from another cloud should be completely simple to do that. It shouldn't be, I can only use what's in AOL or CompuServe or whatever else. It should not be isolated. >> Well, we got a long way to go before that Nirvana exists but one example is the Oracle database service with Azure. So what exactly does that service provide? I'm interested in how consistent the service experience is across clouds. Did you create a purpose-built PaaS layer to achieve this common experience? Or is it off the shelf Terraform? Is there unique value in the PaaS layer? Let's dig into some of those questions. I know I just threw six at you. >> Yeah, I mean, so what this is, is what we're trying to do is very simple. Which is, for example, starting with the Oracle database we want to make that seamless to use from anywhere you're running. Whether it's on-prem, on some other cloud, anywhere else you should be able to seamlessly use the Oracle database and it should look like the internet. There's no friction. There's not a lot of hoops you got to jump just because you're trying to use a database that isn't local to you. So it's pretty straightforward. And in terms of things like Azure, it's not easy to do because all these clouds have a lot of kind of very unique technologies. So what we've done is at Oracle is we've said, "Okay we're going to make Oracle database look exactly like if it was running on Azure." That means we'll use the Azure security systems, the identity management systems, the networking, there's things like monitoring and management. So we'll push all these technologies. For example, when we have monitoring event or we have alerts we'll push those into the Azure console. So as a user, it looks to you exactly as if that Oracle database was running inside Azure. Also, the networking is a big challenge across these clouds. So we've basically made that whole thing seamless. So we create the super high bandwidth network between Azure and Oracle. We make sure that's extremely low latency, under two milliseconds round trip. It's all within the local metro region. So it's very fast, very high bandwidth, very low latency. And we take care establishing the links and making sure that it's secure and all that kind of stuff. So at a high level, it looks to you like the database is--even the look and feel of the screens. It's the Azure colors, it's the Azure buttons it's the Azure layout of the screens so it looks like you're running there and we take care of all the technical details underlying that which there's a lot which has taken a lot of work to make it work seamlessly. >> In the magic of that abstraction. Juan, does it happen at the PaaS layer? Could you take us inside that a little bit? Is there intelligence in there that helps you deal with latency or are there any kind of purpose-built functions for this service? >> You could think of it as... I mean it happens at a lot of different layers. It happens at the identity management layer, it happens at the networking layer, it happens at the database layer, it happens at the monitoring layer, at the management layer. So all those things have been integrated. So it's not one thing that you just go and do. You have to integrate all these different services together. You can access files in Azure from the Oracle database. Again, that's completely seamless. You, it's just like if it was local to our cloud you get your Azure files in your kind of S3 equivalent. So yeah, the, it's not one thing. There's a whole lot of pieces to the ecosystem. And what we've done is we've worked on each piece separately to make sure that it's completely seamless and transparent so you don't have to think about it, it just works. >> So you kind of answered my next question which is one of the technical hurdles. It sounds like the technical hurdles are that integration across the entire stack. That's the sort of architecture that you've built. What was the catalyst for this service? >> Yeah, the catalyst is just fulfilling our vision of an open cloud world. It's really like I said, Oracle, from the very beginning has been believed in open standards. Customers should be able to have choice customers should be able to use whatever they want from wherever they want. And we saw that, you know in the new world of cloud that had broken down everybody had their own authentication system management system, monitoring system networking system, configuration system. And it became very difficult. There was a lot of friction to using services across cloud. So we said, "Well, okay we can fix that." It's work, it's significant amount of work but we know how to do it and let's just go do it and make it easy for customers. >> So given Oracle is really your main focus is on mission critical workloads. You talked about this low latency network, I mean but you still have physical distances, so how are you managing that latency? What's the experience been for customers across Azure and OCI? >> Yeah, so it, it's a good point. I mean, latency can be an issue. So the good thing about clouds is we have a lot of cloud data centers. We have dozens and dozens of cloud data centers around the world. And Azure has dozens and dozens of cloud data centers. And in most cases, they're in the same metro region because there's kind of natural metro regions within each country that you want to put your cloud data centers in. So most of our data centers are actually very close to the Azure data centers. There's the kind of northern Virginia, there's London, there's Tokyo I mean, there's natural places where everybody puts their data centers Seoul et cetera. And so that's the real key. So that allows us to put a very high bandwidth and low latency network. The real problems with latency come when you're trying to go along physical distance. If you're trying to connect, you know across the Pacific or you know across the country or something like that, then you can get in trouble with latency within the same metro region. It's extremely fast. It tends to be around one, you know the highest two millisecond that's roundtrip through all the routers and connections and gateways and everything else. With everything taken into consideration, what we guarantee is it's always less than two millisecond which is a very low latency time. So that tends to not be a problem because it's extremely low latency. >> I was going to ask you less than two milliseconds. So, earlier in the program we had Jack Greenfield who runs architecture for Walmart, and he was explaining what we call their Supercloud, and it's runs across Azure, GCP, and they're on-prem. They have this thing called the triplet model. So my question to you is, are you in situations where you guaranteeing that less than two milliseconds do you have situations where you're bringing, you know Exadata Cloud, a customer on-prem to achieve that? Or is this just across clouds? >> Yeah, in this case, we're talking public cloud data center to public cloud data center. >> Oh okay. >> So add your public cloud data center to Oracle Public Cloud data center. They're in the same metro region. We set up the connections, we do all the technology to make it seamless. And from a customer point of view they don't really see the network. Also, remember that SQL is actually designed to have very low bandwidth and latency requirements. So it is a language. So you don't go to the database and say do this one little thing for me. You send it a SQL statement that can actually access lots of data while in the database. So the real latency requirement of a SQL database is within the database. So I need to access all that data fast. So I need very fast access to storage very fast access across node. That's what exit data gives you. But you send one request and that request can do a huge amount of work and then return one answer. And that's kind of the design point of SQL. So SQL is inherently low bandwidth requirements, it was used back in the eighties when we used to have 10 megabit networks and the the biggest companies in the world ran back then. So right now we're talking over hundred hundreds of gigabits. So it's really not much of a challenge. When you're designed to run on 10 megabit to say, okay I'm going to give you 10,000 times what you were designed for it's really, it's a pretty low hurdle jump. >> What about the deployment models? How do you handle this? Is it a single global instance across clouds or do you sort of instantiate in each you got exudate in Azure and exudates in OCI? What's the deployment model look like? >> It's pretty straightforward. So customer decides where they want to run their application and database. So there's natural places where people go. If you're in Tokyo, you're going to choose the local Tokyo data centers for both, you know Microsoft and Oracle. If you're in London, you're going to do that. If you're in California you're going to choose maybe San Jose, something like that. So a customer just chooses. We both have data centers in that metro region. So they create their service on Azure and then they go to our console which looks just like an Azure console and say all right create me a database. And then we choose the closest Oracle data center which is generally a few miles away, and then it it all gets created. So from a customer point of view, it's very straightforward. >> I'm always in awe about how simple you make things sound. All right what about security? You talked a little bit before about identity access how you sort of abstracting the Azure capabilities away so that you've simplified it for your customers but are there any other specific security things that you need to do? How much did you have to abstract the underlying primitives of Azure or OCI to present that common experience to customers? >> Yeah, so there's really two big things. One is the identity management. Like my name is X on Azure and I have this set of privileges. Oracle has its own identity management system, right? So what we didn't want is that you have to kind of like bridge these things yourself. It's a giant pain to do that. So we actually what we call federate across these identity managements. So you put your credentials into Azure and then they automatically get to use the exact same credentials and identity in the Oracle cloud. So again, you don't have to think about it, it just works. And then the second part is that the whole bridging the network. So within a cloud you generally have virtual network that's private to your company. And so at Oracle, we bridge the private network that you created in, for example, Azure to the private network that we create for you in Oracle. So it is still a private network without you having to do a whole bunch of work. So it's just like if you were in your own data center other people can't get into your network. So it's secured at the network level, it's secured at the identity management, and encryption level. And again we did a lot of work to make that seamless for customers and they don't have to worry about it because we did the work. That's really as simple as it gets. >> That's what's Supercloud's supposed to be all about. Alright, we were talking earlier about sort of the misperception around multicloud, your view of Open I think, which is you run the Oracle database, wherever the customer wants to run it. So you got this database service across OCI and Azure customers today, they run Oracle database in AWS. You got heat wave, MySQL, heat wave that you announced on AWS, Google touts a bare metal offering where you can run Oracle on GCP. Do you see a day when you extend an OCI Azure like situation across multiple clouds? Would that bring benefits to customers or will the world of database generally remain largely fenced with maybe a few exceptions like what you're doing with OCI and Azure? I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on egress fees as maybe one of the reasons that there is a barrier to this happening and why maybe these stove pipes, exist today and in the future. What are your thoughts on that? >> Yeah, we're very open to working with everyone else out there. Like I said, we've always been, big believers in customers should have choice and you should be able to run wherever you want. So that's been kind of a founding principle of Oracle. We have the Azure, we did a partnership with them, we're open to doing other partnerships and you're going to see other things coming down the pipe on the topic of egress. Yeah, the large egress fees, it's pretty obvious what goes on with that. Various vendors like to have large egress fees because they want to keep things kind of locked into their cloud. So it's not a very customer friendly thing to do. And I think everybody recognizes that it's really trying to kind of course or put a lot of friction on moving data out of a particular cloud. And that's not what we do. We have very, very low egress fees. So we don't really do that and we don't think anybody else should do that. But I think customers at the end of the day, will win that battle. They're going to have to go back to their vendor and say, well I have choice in clouds and if you're going to impose these limits on me, maybe I'll make a different choice. So that's ultimately how these things get resolved. >> So do you think other cloud providers are going to take a page out of what you're doing with Azure and provide similar solutions? >> Yeah, well I think customers want, I mean, I've talked to a lot of customers, this is what they want, right? I mean, there's really no doubt no customer wants to be locked into a single ecosystem. There's nobody out there that wants that. And as the competition, when they start seeing an open ecosystem evolving they're going to be like, okay, I'd rather go there than the closed ecosystem, and that's going to put pressure on the closed ecosystems. So that's the nature of competition. That's what ultimately will tip the balance on these things. >> So Juan, even though you have this capability of distributing a workload across multiple clouds as in our Supercloud premise it's still something that's relatively new. It's a big decision that maybe many people might consider somewhat of a risk. So I'm curious who's driving the decisions for your initial customers? What do they want to get out of it? What's the decision point there? >> Yeah, I mean, this is generally driven by customers that want a specific technology in a cloud. I think the risk, I haven't seen a lot of people worry too much about the risk. Everybody involved in this is a very well known, very reputable firm. I mean, Oracle's been around for 40 years. We run most of the world's largest companies. I think customers understand we're not going to build a solution that's going to put their technology and their business at risk. And the same thing with Azure and others. So I don't see customers too worried about this is a risky move because it's really not. And you know, everybody understands networking at the end the day networking works. I mean, how does the internet work? It's a known quantity. It's not like it's some brand new invention. What we're really doing is breaking down the barriers to interconnecting things. Automating 'em, making 'em easy. So there's not a whole lot of risk here for customers. And like I said, every single customer in the world loves an open ecosystem. It's just not a question. If you go to a customer would you rather put your technology or your business to run on a closed ecosystem or an open system? It's kind of not even worth asking a question. It's a no-brainer. >> All right, so we got to go. My last question. What do you think of the term "Supercloud"? You think it'll stick? >> We'll see. There's a lot of terms out there and it's always fun to see which terms stick. It's a cool term. I like it, but the decision makers are actually the public, what sticks and what doesn't. It's very hard to predict. >> Yeah well, it's been a lot of fun having you on, Juan. Really appreciate your time and always good to see you. >> All right, Dave, thanks a lot. It's always fun to talk to you. >> You bet. All right, keep it right there. More Supercloud two content from theCUBE Community Dave Vellante for John Furrier. We'll be right back. (upbeat music)

Hello and welcome back to Supercloud 2 where we examine the intersection of cloud and data in the 2020s. My name is Dave Vellante. Our Supercloud panel, our power panel is back. Maribel Lopez is the founder and principal analyst at Lopez Research. Sanjeev Mohan is former Gartner analyst and principal at Sanjeev Mohan. And Keith Townsend is the CTO advisor. Folks, welcome back and thanks for your participation today. Good to see you. >> Okay, great. >> Great to see you. >> Thanks. Let me start, Maribel, with you. Bob Muglia, we had a conversation as part of Supercloud the other day. And he said, "Dave, I like the work, you got to simplify this a little bit." So he said, quote, "A Supercloud is a platform." He said, "Think of it as a platform that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers." And then Nelu Mihai said, "Well, wait a minute. This is just going to create more stove pipes. We need more standards in an architecture," which is kind of what Berkeley Sky Computing initiative is all about. So there's a sort of a debate going on. Is supercloud an architecture, a platform? Or maybe it's just another buzzword. Maribel, do you have a thought on this? >> Well, the easy answer would be to say it's just a buzzword. And then we could just kill the conversation and be done with it. But I think the term, it's more than that, right? The term actually isn't new. You can go back to at least 2016 and find references to supercloud in Cornell University or assist in other documents. So, having said this, I think we've been talking about Supercloud for a while, so I assume it's more than just a fancy buzzword. But I think it really speaks to that undeniable trend of moving towards an abstraction layer to deal with the chaos of what we consider managing multiple public and private clouds today, right? So one definition of the technology platform speaks to a set of services that allows companies to build and run that technology smoothly without worrying about the underlying infrastructure, which really gets back to something that Bob said. And some of the question is where that lives. And you could call that an abstraction layer. You could call it cross-cloud services, hybrid cloud management. So I see momentum there, like legitimate momentum with enterprise IT buyers that are trying to deal with the fact that they have multiple clouds now. So where I think we're moving is trying to define what are the specific attributes and frameworks of that that would make it so that it could be consistent across clouds. What is that layer? And maybe that's what the supercloud is. But one of the things I struggle with with supercloud is. What are we really trying to do here? Are we trying to create differentiated services in the supercloud layer? Is a supercloud just another variant of what AWS, GCP, or others do? You spoken to Walmart about its cloud native platform, and that's an example of somebody deciding to do it themselves because they need to deal with this today and not wait for some big standards thing to happen. So whatever it is, I do think it's something. I think we're trying to maybe create an architecture out of it would be a better way of saying it so that it does get to those set of principles, but it also needs to be edge aware. I think whenever we talk about supercloud, we're always talking about like the big centralized cloud. And I think we need to think about all the distributed clouds that we're looking at in edge as well. So that might be one of the ways that supercloud evolves. >> So thank you, Maribel. Keith, Brian Gracely, Gracely's law, things kind of repeat themselves. We've seen it all before. And so what Muglia brought to the forefront is this idea of a platform where the platform provider is really responsible for the architecture. Of course, the drawback is then you get a a bunch of stove pipes architectures. But practically speaking, that's kind of the way the industry has always evolved, right? >> So if we look at this from the practitioner's perspective and we talk about platforms, traditionally vendors have provided the platforms for us, whether it's distribution of lineage managed by or provided by Red Hat, Windows, servers, .NET, databases, Oracle. We think of those as platforms, things that are fundamental we can build on top. Supercloud isn't today that. It is a framework or idea, kind of a visionary goal to get to a point that we can have a platform or a framework. But what we're seeing repeated throughout the industry in customers, whether it's the Walmarts that's kind of supersized the idea of supercloud, or if it's regular end user organizations that are coming out with platform groups, groups who normalize cloud native infrastructure, AWS multi-cloud, VMware resources to look like one thing internally to their developers. We're seeing this trend that there's a desire for a platform that provides the capabilities of a supercloud. >> Thank you for that. Sanjeev, we often use Snowflake as a supercloud example, and now would presumably would be a platform with an architecture that's determined by the vendor. Maybe Databricks is pushing for a more open architecture, maybe more of that nirvana that we were talking about before to solve for supercloud. But regardless, the practitioner discussions show. At least currently, there's not a lot of cross-cloud data sharing. I think it could be a killer use case, egress charges or a barrier. But how do you see it? Will that change? Will we hide that underlying complexity and start sharing data across cloud? Is that something that you think Snowflake or others will be able to achieve? >> So I think we are already starting to see some of that happen. Snowflake is definitely one example that gets cited a lot. But even we don't talk about MongoDB in this like, but you could have a MongoDB cluster, for instance, with nodes sitting in different cloud providers. So there are companies that are starting to do it. The advantage that these companies have, let's take Snowflake as an example, it's a centralized proprietary platform. And they are building the capabilities that are needed for supercloud. So they're building things like you can push down your data transformations. They have the entire security and privacy suite. Data ops, they're adding those capabilities. And if I'm not mistaken, it'll be very soon, we will see them offer data observability. So it's all works great as long as you are in one platform. And if you want resilience, then Snowflake, Supercloud, great example. But if your primary goal is to choose the most cost-effective service irrespective of which cloud it sits in, then things start falling sideways. For example, I may be a very big Snowflake user. And I like Snowflake's resilience. I can move from one cloud to another cloud. Snowflake does it for me. But what if I want to train a very large model? Maybe Databricks is a better platform for that. So how do I do move my workload from one platform to another platform? That tooling does not exist. So we need server hybrid, cross-cloud, data ops platform. Walmart has done a great job, but they built it by themselves. Not every company is Walmart. Like Maribel and Keith said, we need standards, we need reference architectures, we need some sort of a cost control. I was just reading recently, Accenture has been public about their AWS bill. Every time they get the bill is tens of millions of lines, tens of millions 'cause there are over thousand teams using AWS. If we have not been able to corral a usage of a single cloud, now we're talking about supercloud, we've got multiple clouds, and hybrid, on-prem, and edge. So till we've got some cross-platform tooling in place, I think this will still take quite some time for it to take shape. >> It's interesting. Maribel, Walmart would tell you that their on-prem infrastructure is cheaper to run than the stuff in the cloud. but at the same time, they want the flexibility and the resiliency of their three-legged stool model. So the point as Sanjeev was making about hybrid. It's an interesting balance, isn't it, between getting your lowest cost and at the same time having best of breed and scale? >> It's basically what you're trying to optimize for, as you said, right? And by the way, to the earlier point, not everybody is at Walmart's scale, so it's not actually cheaper for everybody to have the purchasing power to make the cloud cheaper to have it on-prem. But I think what you see almost every company, large or small, moving towards is this concept of like, where do I find the agility? And is the agility in building the infrastructure for me? And typically, the thing that gives you outside advantage as an organization is not how you constructed your cloud computing infrastructure. It might be how you structured your data analytics as an example, which cloud is related to that. But how do you marry those two things? And getting back to sort of Sanjeev's point. We're in a real struggle now where one hand we want to have best of breed services and on the other hand we want it to be really easy to manage, secure, do data governance. And those two things are really at odds with each other right now. So if you want all the knobs and switches of a service like geospatial analytics and big query, you're going to have to use Google tools, right? Whereas if you want visibility across all the clouds for your application of state and understand the security and governance of that, you're kind of looking for something that's more cross-cloud tooling at that point. But whenever you talk to somebody about cross-cloud tooling, they look at you like that's not really possible. So it's a very interesting time in the market. Now, we're kind of layering this concept of supercloud on it. And some people think supercloud's about basically multi-cloud tooling, and some people think it's about a whole new architectural stack. So we're just not there yet. But it's not all about cost. I mean, cloud has not been about cost for a very, very long time. Cloud has been about how do you really make the most of your data. And this gets back to cross-cloud services like Snowflake. Why did they even exist? They existed because we had data everywhere, but we need to treat data as a unified object so that we can analyze it and get insight from it. And so that's where some of the benefit of these cross-cloud services are moving today. Still a long way to go, though, Dave. >> Keith, I reached out to my friends at ETR given the macro headwinds, And you're right, Maribel, cloud hasn't really been about just about cost savings. But I reached out to the ETR, guys, what's your data show in terms of how customers are dealing with the economic headwinds? And they said, by far, their number one strategy to cut cost is consolidating redundant vendors. And a distant second, but still notable was optimizing cloud costs. Maybe using reserve instances, or using more volume buying. Nowhere in there. And I asked them to, "Could you go look and see if you can find it?" Do we see repatriation? And you hear this a lot. You hear people whispering as analysts, "You better look into that repatriation trend." It's pretty big. You can't find it. But some of the Walmarts in the world, maybe even not repatriating, but they maybe have better cost structure on-prem. Keith, what are you seeing from the practitioners that you talk to in terms of how they're dealing with these headwinds? >> Yeah, I just got into a conversation about this just this morning with (indistinct) who is an analyst over at GigaHome. He's reading the same headlines. Repatriation is happening at large scale. I think this is kind of, we have these quiet terms now. We have quiet quitting, we have quiet hiring. I think we have quiet repatriation. Most people haven't done away with their data centers. They're still there. Whether they're completely on-premises data centers, and they own assets, or they're partnerships with QTX, Equinix, et cetera, they have these private cloud resources. What I'm seeing practically is a rebalancing of workloads. Do I really need to pay AWS for this instance of SAP that's on 24 hours a day versus just having it on-prem, moving it back to my data center? I've talked to quite a few customers who were early on to moving their static SAP workloads onto the public cloud, and they simply moved them back. Surprising, I was at VMware Explore. And we can talk about this a little bit later on. But our customers, net new, not a lot that were born in the cloud. And they get to this point where their workloads are static. And they look at something like a Kubernetes, or a OpenShift, or VMware Tanzu. And they ask the question, "Do I need the scalability of cloud?" I might consider being a net new VMware customer to deliver this base capability. So are we seeing repatriation as the number one reason? No, I think internal IT operations are just naturally come to this realization. Hey, I have these resources on premises. The private cloud technologies have moved far along enough that I can just simply move this workload back. I'm not calling it repatriation, I'm calling it rightsizing for the operating model that I have. >> Makes sense. Yeah. >> Go ahead. >> If I missed something, Dave, why we are on this topic of repatriation. I'm actually surprised that we are talking about repatriation as a very big thing. I think repatriation is happening, no doubt, but it's such a small percentage of cloud migration that to me it's a rounding error in my opinion. I think there's a bigger problem. The problem is that people don't know where the cost is. If they knew where the cost was being wasted in the cloud, they could do something about it. But if you don't know, then the easy answer is cloud costs a lot and moving it back to on-premises. I mean, take like Capital One as an example. They got rid of all the data centers. Where are they going to repatriate to? They're all in the cloud at this point. So I think my point is that data observability is one of the places that has seen a lot of traction is because of cost. Data observability, when it first came into existence, it was all about data quality. Then it was all about data pipeline reliability. And now, the number one killer use case is FinOps. >> Maribel, you had a comment? >> Yeah, I'm kind of in violent agreement with both Sanjeev and Keith. So what are we seeing here? So the first thing that we see is that many people wildly overspent in the big public cloud. They had stranded cloud credits, so to speak. The second thing is, some of them still had infrastructure that was useful. So why not use it if you find the right workloads to what Keith was talking about, if they were more static workloads, if it was already there? So there is a balancing that's going on. And then I think fundamentally, from a trend standpoint, these things aren't binary. Everybody, for a while, everything was going to go to the public cloud and then people are like, "Oh, it's kind of expensive." Then they're like, "Oh no, they're going to bring it all on-prem 'cause it's really expensive." And it's like, "Well, that doesn't necessarily get me some of the new features and functionalities I might want for some of my new workloads." So I'm going to put the workloads that have a certain set of characteristics that require cloud in the cloud. And if I have enough capability on-prem and enough IT resources to manage certain things on site, then I'm going to do that there 'cause that's a more cost-effective thing for me to do. It's not binary. That's why we went to hybrid. And then we went to multi just to describe the fact that people added multiple public clouds. And now we're talking about super, right? So I don't look at it as a one-size-fits-all for any of this. >> A a number of practitioners leading up to Supercloud2 have told us that they're solving their cloud complexity by going in monocloud. So they're putting on the blinders. Even though across the organization, there's other groups using other clouds. You're like, "In my group, we use AWS, or my group, we use Azure. And those guys over there, they use Google. We just kind of keep it separate." Are you guys hearing this in your view? Is that risky? Are they missing out on some potential to tap best of breed? What do you guys think about that? >> Everybody thinks they're monocloud. Is anybody really monocloud? It's like a group is monocloud, right? >> Right. >> This genie is out of the bottle. We're not putting the genie back in the bottle. You might think your monocloud and you go like three doors down and figure out the guy or gal is on a fundamentally different cloud, running some analytics workload that you didn't know about. So, to Sanjeev's earlier point, they don't even know where their cloud spend is. So I think the concept of monocloud, how that's actually really realized by practitioners is primary and then secondary sources. So they have a primary cloud that they run most of their stuff on, and that they try to optimize. And we still have forked workloads. Somebody decides, "Okay, this SAP runs really well on this, or these analytics workloads run really well on that cloud." And maybe that's how they parse it. But if you really looked at it, there's very few companies, if you really peaked under the hood and did an analysis that you could find an actual monocloud structure. They just want to pull it back in and make it more manageable. And I respect that. You want to do what you can to try to streamline the complexity of that. >> Yeah, we're- >> Sorry, go ahead, Keith. >> Yeah, we're doing this thing where we review AWS service every day. Just in your inbox, learn about a new AWS service cursory. There's 238 AWS products just on the AWS cloud itself. Some of them are redundant, but you get the idea. So the concept of monocloud, I'm in filing agreement with Maribel on this that, yes, a group might say I want a primary cloud. And that primary cloud may be the AWS. But have you tried the licensed Oracle database on AWS? It is really tempting to license Oracle on Oracle Cloud, Microsoft on Microsoft. And I can't get RDS anywhere but Amazon. So while I'm driven to desire the simplicity, the reality is whether be it M&A, licensing, data sovereignty. I am forced into a multi-cloud management style. But I do agree most people kind of do this one, this primary cloud, secondary cloud. And I guarantee you're going to have a third cloud or a fourth cloud whether you want to or not via shadow IT, latency, technical reasons, et cetera. >> Thank you. Sanjeev, you had a comment? >> Yeah, so I just wanted to mention, as an organization, I'm complete agreement, no organization is monocloud, at least if it's a large organization. Large organizations use all kinds of combinations of cloud providers. But when you talk about a single workload, that's where the program arises. As Keith said, the 238 services in AWS. How in the world am I going to be an expert in AWS, but then say let me bring GCP or Azure into a single workload? And that's where I think we probably will still see monocloud as being predominant because the team has developed its expertise on a particular cloud provider, and they just don't have the time of the day to go learn yet another stack. However, there are some interesting things that are happening. For example, if you look at a multi-cloud example where Oracle and Microsoft Azure have that interconnect, so that's a beautiful thing that they've done because now in the newest iteration, it's literally a few clicks. And then behind the scene, your .NET application and your Oracle database in OCI will be configured, the identities in active directory are federated. And you can just start using a database in one cloud, which is OCI, and an application, your .NET in Azure. So till we see this kind of a solution coming out of the providers, I think it's is unrealistic to expect the end users to be able to figure out multiple clouds. >> Well, I have to share with you. I can't remember if he said this on camera or if it was off camera so I'll hold off. I won't tell you who it is, but this individual was sort of complaining a little bit saying, "With AWS, I can take their best AI tools like SageMaker and I can run them on my Snowflake." He said, "I can't do that in Google. Google forces me to go to BigQuery if I want their excellent AI tools." So he was sort of pushing, kind of tweaking a little bit. Some of the vendor talked that, "Oh yeah, we're so customer-focused." Not to pick on Google, but I mean everybody will say that. And then you say, "If you're so customer-focused, why wouldn't you do a ABC?" So it's going to be interesting to see who leads that integration and how broadly it's applied. But I digress. Keith, at our first supercloud event, that was on August 9th. And it was only a few months after Broadcom announced the VMware acquisition. A lot of people, myself included said, "All right, cuts are coming." Generally, Tanzu is probably going to be under the radar, but it's Supercloud 22 and presumably VMware Explore, the company really... Well, certainly the US touted its Tanzu capabilities. I wasn't at VMware Explore Europe, but I bet you heard similar things. Hawk Tan has been blogging and very vocal about cross-cloud services and multi-cloud, which doesn't happen without Tanzu. So what did you hear, Keith, in Europe? What's your latest thinking on VMware's prospects in cross-cloud services/supercloud? >> So I think our friend and Cube, along host still be even more offended at this statement than he was when I sat in the Cube. This was maybe five years ago. There's no company better suited to help industries or companies, cross-cloud chasm than VMware. That's not a compliment. That's a reality of the industry. This is a very difficult, almost intractable problem. What I heard that VMware Europe were customers serious about this problem, even more so than the US data sovereignty is a real problem in the EU. Try being a company in Switzerland and having the Swiss data solvency issues. And there's no local cloud presence there large enough to accommodate your data needs. They had very serious questions about this. I talked to open source project leaders. Open source project leaders were asking me, why should I use the public cloud to host Kubernetes-based workloads, my projects that are building around Kubernetes, and the CNCF infrastructure? Why should I use AWS, Google, or even Azure to host these projects when that's undifferentiated? I know how to run Kubernetes, so why not run it on-premises? I don't want to deal with the hardware problems. So again, really great questions. And then there was always the specter of the problem, I think, we all had with the acquisition of VMware by Broadcom potentially. 4.5 billion in increased profitability in three years is a unbelievable amount of money when you look at the size of the problem. So a lot of the conversation in Europe was about industry at large. How do we do what regulators are asking us to do in a practical way from a true technology sense? Is VMware cross-cloud great? >> Yeah. So, VMware, obviously, to your point. OpenStack is another way of it. Actually, OpenStack, uptake is still alive and well, especially in those regions where there may not be a public cloud, or there's public policy dictating that. Walmart's using OpenStack. As you know in IT, some things never die. Question for Sanjeev. And it relates to this new breed of data apps. And Bob Muglia and Tristan Handy from DBT Labs who are participating in this program really got us thinking about this. You got data that resides in different clouds, it maybe even on-prem. And the machine polls data from different systems. No humans involved, e-commerce, ERP, et cetera. It creates a plan, outcomes. No human involvement. Today, you're on a CRM system, you're inputting, you're doing forms, you're, you're automating processes. We're talking about a new breed of apps. What are your thoughts on this? Is it real? Is it just way off in the distance? How does machine intelligence fit in? And how does supercloud fit? >> So great point. In fact, the data apps that you're talking about, I call them data products. Data products first came into limelight in the last couple of years when Jamal Duggan started talking about data mesh. I am taking data products out of the data mesh concept because data mesh, whether data mesh happens or not is analogous to data products. Data products, basically, are taking a product management view of bringing data from different sources based on what the consumer needs. We were talking earlier today about maybe it's my vacation rentals, or it may be a retail data product, it may be an investment data product. So it's a pre-packaged extraction of data from different sources. But now I have a product that has a whole lifecycle. I can version it. I have new features that get added. And it's a very business data consumer centric. It uses machine learning. For instance, I may be able to tell whether this data product has stale data. Who is using that data? Based on the usage of the data, I may have a new data products that get allocated. I may even have the ability to take existing data products, mash them up into something that I need. So if I'm going to have that kind of power to create a data product, then having a common substrate underneath, it can be very useful. And that could be supercloud where I am making API calls. I don't care where the ERP, the CRM, the survey data, the pricing engine where they sit. For me, there's a logical abstraction. And then I'm building my data product on top of that. So I see a new breed of data products coming out. To answer your question, how early we are or is this even possible? My prediction is that in 2023, we will start seeing more of data products. And then it'll take maybe two to three years for data products to become mainstream. But it's starting this year. >> A subprime mortgages were a data product, definitely were humans involved. All right, let's talk about some of the supercloud, multi-cloud players and what their future looks like. You can kind of pick your favorites. VMware, Snowflake, Databricks, Red Hat, Cisco, Dell, HP, Hashi, IBM, CloudFlare. There's many others. cohesive rubric. Keith, I wanted to start with CloudFlare because they actually use the term supercloud. and just simplifying what they said. They look at it as taking serverless to the max. You write your code and then you can deploy it in seconds worldwide, of course, across the CloudFlare infrastructure. You don't have to spin up containers, you don't go to provision instances. CloudFlare worries about all that infrastructure. What are your thoughts on CloudFlare this approach and their chances to disrupt the current cloud landscape? >> As Larry Ellison said famously once before, the network is the computer, right? I thought that was Scott McNeley. >> It wasn't Scott McNeley. I knew it was on Oracle Align. >> Oracle owns that now, owns that line. >> By purpose or acquisition. >> They should have just called it cloud. >> Yeah, they should have just called it cloud. >> Easier. >> Get ahead. >> But if you think about the CloudFlare capability, CloudFlare in its own right is becoming a decent sized cloud provider. If you have compute out at the edge, when we talk about edge in the sense of CloudFlare and points of presence, literally across the globe, you have all of this excess computer, what do you do with it? First offering, let's disrupt data in the cloud. We can't start the conversation talking about data. When they say we're going to give you object-oriented or object storage in the cloud without egress charges, that's disruptive. That we can start to think about supercloud capability of having compute EC2 run in AWS, pushing and pulling data from CloudFlare. And now, I've disrupted this roach motel data structure, and that I'm freely giving away bandwidth, basically. Well, the next layer is not that much more difficult. And I think part of CloudFlare's serverless approach or supercloud approaches so that they don't have to commit to a certain type of compute. It is advantageous. It is a feature for me to be able to go to EC2 and pick a memory heavy model, or a compute heavy model, or a network heavy model, CloudFlare is taken away those knobs. and I'm just giving code and allowing that to run. CloudFlare has a massive network. If I can put the code closest using the CloudFlare workers, if I can put that code closest to where the data is at or residing, super compelling observation. The question is, does it scale? I don't get the 238 services. While Server List is great, I have to know what I'm going to build. I don't have a Cognito, or RDS, or all these other services that make AWS, GCP, and Azure appealing from a builder's perspective. So it is a very interesting nascent start. It's great because now they can hide compute. If they don't have the capacity, they can outsource that maybe at a cost to one of the other cloud providers, but kind of hiding the compute behind the surplus architecture is a really unique approach. >> Yeah. And they're dipping their toe in the water. And they've announced an object store and a database platform and more to come. We got to wrap. So I wonder, Sanjeev and Maribel, if you could maybe pick some of your favorites from a competitive standpoint. Sanjeev, I felt like just watching Snowflake, I said, okay, in my opinion, they had the right strategy, which was to run on all the clouds, and then try to create that abstraction layer and data sharing across clouds. Even though, let's face it, most of it might be happening across regions if it's happening, but certainly outside of an individual account. But I felt like just observing them that anybody who's traditional on-prem player moving into the clouds or anybody who's a cloud native, it just makes total sense to write to the various clouds. And to the extent that you can simplify that for users, it seems to be a logical strategy. Maybe as I said before, what multi-cloud should have been. But are there companies that you're watching that you think are ahead in the game , or ones that you think are a good model for the future? >> Yes, Snowflake, definitely. In fact, one of the things we have not touched upon very much, and Keith mentioned a little bit, was data sovereignty. Data residency rules can require that certain data should be written into certain region of a certain cloud. And if my cloud provider can abstract that or my database provider, then that's perfect for me. So right now, I see Snowflake is way ahead of this pack. I would not put MongoDB too far behind. They don't really talk about this thing. They are in a different space, but now they have a lakehouse, and they've got all of these other SQL access and new capabilities that they're announcing. So I think they would be quite good with that. Oracle is always a dark forest. Oracle seems to have revived its Cloud Mojo to some extent. And it's doing some interesting stuff. Databricks is the other one. I have not seen Databricks. They've been very focused on lakehouse, unity, data catalog, and some of those pieces. But they would be the obvious challenger. And if they come into this space of supercloud, then they may bring some open source technologies that others can rely on like Delta Lake as a table format. >> Yeah. One of these infrastructure players, Dell, HPE, Cisco, even IBM. I mean, I would be making my infrastructure as programmable and cloud friendly as possible. That seems like table stakes. But Maribel, any companies that stand out to you that we should be paying attention to? >> Well, we already mentioned a bunch of them, so maybe I'll go a slightly different route. I'm watching two companies pretty closely to see what kind of traction they get in their established companies. One we already talked about, which is VMware. And the thing that's interesting about VMware is they're everywhere. And they also have the benefit of having a foot in both camps. If you want to do it the old way, the way you've always done it with VMware, they got all that going on. If you want to try to do a more cross-cloud, multi-cloud native style thing, they're really trying to build tools for that. So I think they have really good access to buyers. And that's one of the reasons why I'm interested in them to see how they progress. The other thing, I think, could be a sleeping horse oddly enough is Google Cloud. They've spent a lot of work and time on Anthos. They really need to create a certain set of differentiators. Well, it's not necessarily in their best interest to be the best multi-cloud player. If they decide that they want to differentiate on a different layer of the stack, let's say they want to be like the person that is really transformative, they talk about transformation cloud with analytics workloads, then maybe they do spend a good deal of time trying to help people abstract all of the other underlying infrastructure and make sure that they get the sexiest, most meaningful workloads into their cloud. So those are two people that you might not have expected me to go with, but I think it's interesting to see not just on the things that might be considered, either startups or more established independent companies, but how some of the traditional providers are trying to reinvent themselves as well. >> I'm glad you brought that up because if you think about what Google's done with Kubernetes. I mean, would Google even be relevant in the cloud without Kubernetes? I could argue both sides of that. But it was quite a gift to the industry. And there's a motivation there to do something unique and different from maybe the other cloud providers. And I'd throw in Red Hat as well. They're obviously a key player and Kubernetes. And Hashi Corp seems to be becoming the standard for application deployment, and terraform, or cross-clouds, and there are many, many others. I know we're leaving lots out, but we're out of time. Folks, I got to thank you so much for your insights and your participation in Supercloud2. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> This is Dave Vellante for John Furrier and the entire Cube community. Keep it right there for more content from Supercloud2.

>> Welcome back to SuperCloud2. This is Dave Vellante, and we're here with Jack Greenfield. He's the Vice President of Enterprise Architecture and the Chief Architect for the global technology platform at Walmart. Jack, I want to thank you for coming on the program. Really appreciate your time. >> Glad to be here, Dave. Thanks for inviting me and appreciate the opportunity to chat with you. >> Yeah, it's our pleasure. Now we call what you've built a SuperCloud. That's our term, not yours, but how would you describe the Walmart Cloud Native Platform? >> So WCNP, as the acronym goes, is essentially an implementation of Kubernetes for the Walmart ecosystem. And what that means is that we've taken Kubernetes off the shelf as open source, and we have integrated it with a number of foundational services that provide other aspects of our computational environment. So Kubernetes off the shelf doesn't do everything. It does a lot. In particular the orchestration of containers, but it delegates through API a lot of key functions. So for example, secret management, traffic management, there's a need for telemetry and observability at a scale beyond what you get from raw Kubernetes. That is to say, harvesting the metrics that are coming out of Kubernetes and processing them, storing them in time series databases, dashboarding them, and so on. There's also an angle to Kubernetes that gets a lot of attention in the daily DevOps routine, that's not really part of the open source deliverable itself, and that is the DevOps sort of CICD pipeline-oriented lifecycle. And that is something else that we've added and integrated nicely. And then one more piece of this picture is that within a Kubernetes cluster, there's a function that is critical to allowing services to discover each other and integrate with each other securely and with proper configuration provided by the concept of a service mesh. So Istio, Linkerd, these are examples of service mesh technologies. And we have gone ahead and integrated actually those two. There's more than those two, but we've integrated those two with Kubernetes. So the net effect is that when a developer within Walmart is going to build an application, they don't have to think about all those other capabilities where they come from or how they're provided. Those are already present, and the way the CICD pipelines are set up, it's already sort of in the picture, and there are configuration points that they can take advantage of in the primary YAML and a couple of other pieces of config that we supply where they can tune it. But at the end of the day, it offloads an awful lot of work for them, having to stand up and operate those services, fail them over properly, and make them robust. All of that's provided for. >> Yeah, you know, developers often complain they spend too much time wrangling and doing things that aren't productive. So I wonder if you could talk about the high level business goals of the initiative in terms of the hardcore benefits. Was the real impetus to tap into best of breed cloud services? Were you trying to cut costs? Maybe gain negotiating leverage with the cloud guys? Resiliency, you know, I know was a major theme. Maybe you could give us a sense of kind of the anatomy of the decision making process that went in. >> Sure, and in the course of answering your question, I think I'm going to introduce the concept of our triplet architecture which we haven't yet touched on in the interview here. First off, just to sort of wrap up the motivation for WCNP itself which is kind of orthogonal to the triplet architecture. It can exist with or without it. Currently does exist with it, which is key, and I'll get to that in a moment. The key drivers, business drivers for WCNP were developer productivity by offloading the kinds of concerns that we've just discussed. Number two, improving resiliency, that is to say reducing opportunity for human error. One of the challenges you tend to run into in a large enterprise is what we call snowflakes, lots of gratuitously different workloads, projects, configurations to the extent that by developing and using WCNP and continuing to evolve it as we have, we end up with cookie cutter like consistency across our workloads which is super valuable when it comes to building tools or building services to automate operations that would otherwise be manual. When everything is pretty much done the same way, that becomes much simpler. Another key motivation for WCNP was the ability to abstract from the underlying cloud provider. And this is going to lead to a discussion of our triplet architecture. At the end of the day, when one works directly with an underlying cloud provider, one ends up taking a lot of dependencies on that particular cloud provider. Those dependencies can be valuable. For example, there are best of breed services like say Cloud Spanner offered by Google or say Cosmos DB offered by Microsoft that one wants to use and one is willing to take the dependency on the cloud provider to get that functionality because it's unique and valuable. On the other hand, one doesn't want to take dependencies on a cloud provider that don't add a lot of value. And with Kubernetes, we have the opportunity, and this is a large part of how Kubernetes was designed and why it is the way it is, we have the opportunity to sort of abstract from the underlying cloud provider for stateless workloads on compute. And so what this lets us do is build container-based applications that can run without change on different cloud provider infrastructure. So the same applications can run on WCNP over Azure, WCNP over GCP, or WCNP over the Walmart private cloud. And we have a private cloud. Our private cloud is OpenStack based and it gives us some significant cost advantages as well as control advantages. So to your point, in terms of business motivation, there's a key cost driver here, which is that we can use our own private cloud when it's advantageous and then use the public cloud provider capabilities when we need to. A key place with this comes into play is with elasticity. So while the private cloud is much more cost effective for us to run and use, it isn't as elastic as what the cloud providers offer, right? We don't have essentially unlimited scale. We have large scale, but the public cloud providers are elastic in the extreme which is a very powerful capability. So what we're able to do is burst, and we use this term bursting workloads into the public cloud from the private cloud to take advantage of the elasticity they offer and then fall back into the private cloud when the traffic load diminishes to the point where we don't need that elastic capability, elastic capacity at low cost. And this is a very important paradigm that I think is going to be very commonplace ultimately as the industry evolves. Private cloud is easier to operate and less expensive, and yet the public cloud provider capabilities are difficult to match. >> And the triplet, the tri is your on-prem private cloud and the two public clouds that you mentioned, is that right? >> That is correct. And we actually have an architecture in which we operate all three of those cloud platforms in close proximity with one another in three different major regions in the US. So we have east, west, and central. And in each of those regions, we have all three cloud providers. And the way it's configured, those data centers are within 10 milliseconds of each other, meaning that it's of negligible cost to interact between them. And this allows us to be fairly agnostic to where a particular workload is running. >> Does a human make that decision, Jack or is there some intelligence in the system that determines that? >> That's a really great question, Dave. And it's a great question because we're at the cusp of that transition. So currently humans make that decision. Humans choose to deploy workloads into a particular region and a particular provider within that region. That said, we're actively developing patterns and practices that will allow us to automate the placement of the workloads for a variety of criteria. For example, if in a particular region, a particular provider is heavily overloaded and is unable to provide the level of service that's expected through our SLAs, we could choose to fail workloads over from that cloud provider to a different one within the same region. But that's manual today. We do that, but people do it. Okay, we'd like to get to where that happens automatically. In the same way, we'd like to be able to automate the failovers, both for high availability and sort of the heavier disaster recovery model between, within a region between providers and even within a provider between the availability zones that are there, but also between regions for the sort of heavier disaster recovery or maintenance driven realignment of workload placement. Today, that's all manual. So we have people moving workloads from region A to region B or data center A to data center B. It's clean because of the abstraction. The workloads don't have to know or care, but there are latency considerations that come into play, and the humans have to be cognizant of those. And automating that can help ensure that we get the best performance and the best reliability. >> But you're developing the dataset to actually, I would imagine, be able to make those decisions in an automated fashion over time anyway. Is that a fair assumption? >> It is, and that's what we're actively developing right now. So if you were to look at us today, we have these nice abstractions and APIs in place, but people run that machine, if you will, moving toward a world where that machine is fully automated. >> What exactly are you abstracting? Is it sort of the deployment model or, you know, are you able to abstract, I'm just making this up like Azure functions and GCP functions so that you can sort of run them, you know, with a consistent experience. What exactly are you abstracting and how difficult was it to achieve that objective technically? >> that's a good question. What we're abstracting is the Kubernetes node construct. That is to say a cluster of Kubernetes nodes which are typically VMs, although they can run bare metal in certain contexts, is something that typically to stand up requires knowledge of the underlying cloud provider. So for example, with GCP, you would use GKE to set up a Kubernetes cluster, and in Azure, you'd use AKS. We are actually abstracting that aspect of things so that the developers standing up applications don't have to know what the underlying cluster management provider is. They don't have to know if it's GCP, AKS or our own Walmart private cloud. Now, in terms of functions like Azure functions that you've mentioned there, we haven't done that yet. That's another piece that we have sort of on our radar screen that, we'd like to get to is serverless approach, and the Knative work from Google and the Azure functions, those are things that we see good opportunity to use for a whole variety of use cases. But right now we're not doing much with that. We're strictly container based right now, and we do have some VMs that are running in sort of more of a traditional model. So our stateful workloads are primarily VM based, but for serverless, that's an opportunity for us to take some of these stateless workloads and turn them into cloud functions. >> Well, and that's another cost lever that you can pull down the road that's going to drop right to the bottom line. Do you see a day or maybe you're doing it today, but I'd be surprised, but where you build applications that actually span multiple clouds or is there, in your view, always going to be a direct one-to-one mapping between where an application runs and the specific cloud platform? >> That's a really great question. Well, yes and no. So today, application development teams choose a cloud provider to deploy to and a location to deploy to, and they have to get involved in moving an application like we talked about today. That said, the bursting capability that I mentioned previously is something that is a step in the direction of automatic migration. That is to say we're migrating workload to different locations automatically. Currently, the prototypes we've been developing and that we think are going to eventually make their way into production are leveraging Istio to assess the load incoming on a particular cluster and start shedding that load into a different location. Right now, the configuration of that is still manual, but there's another opportunity for automation there. And I think a key piece of this is that down the road, well, that's a, sort of a small step in the direction of an application being multi provider. We expect to see really an abstraction of the fact that there is a triplet even. So the workloads are moving around according to whatever the control plane decides is necessary based on a whole variety of inputs. And at that point, you will have true multi-cloud applications, applications that are distributed across the different providers and in a way that application developers don't have to think about. >> So Walmart's been a leader, Jack, in using data for competitive advantages for decades. It's kind of been a poster child for that. You've got a mountain of IP in the form of data, tools, applications best practices that until the cloud came out was all On Prem. But I'm really interested in this idea of building a Walmart ecosystem, which obviously you have. Do you see a day or maybe you're even doing it today where you take what we call the Walmart SuperCloud, WCNP in your words, and point or turn that toward an external world or your ecosystem, you know, supporting those partners or customers that could drive new revenue streams, you know directly from the platform? >> Great question, Steve. So there's really two things to say here. The first is that with respect to data, our data workloads are primarily VM basis. I've mentioned before some VMware, some straight open stack. But the key here is that WCNP and Kubernetes are very powerful for stateless workloads, but for stateful workloads tend to be still climbing a bit of a growth curve in the industry. So our data workloads are not primarily based on WCNP. They're VM based. Now that said, there is opportunity to make some progress there, and we are looking at ways to move things into containers that are currently running in VMs which are stateful. The other question you asked is related to how we expose data to third parties and also functionality. Right now we do have in-house, for our own use, a very robust data architecture, and we have followed the sort of domain-oriented data architecture guidance from Martin Fowler. And we have data lakes in which we collect data from all the transactional systems and which we can then use and do use to build models which are then used in our applications. But right now we're not exposing the data directly to customers as a product. That's an interesting direction that's been talked about and may happen at some point, but right now that's internal. What we are exposing to customers is applications. So we're offering our global integrated fulfillment capabilities, our order picking and curbside pickup capabilities, and our cloud powered checkout capabilities to third parties. And this means we're standing up our own internal applications as externally facing SaaS applications which can serve our partners' customers. >> Yeah, of course, Martin Fowler really first introduced to the world Zhamak Dehghani's data mesh concept and this whole idea of data products and domain oriented thinking. Zhamak Dehghani, by the way, is a speaker at our event as well. Last question I had is edge, and how you think about the edge? You know, the stores are an edge. Are you putting resources there that sort of mirror this this triplet model? Or is it better to consolidate things in the cloud? I know there are trade-offs in terms of latency. How are you thinking about that? >> All really good questions. It's a challenging area as you can imagine because edges are subject to disconnection, right? Or reduced connection. So we do place the same architecture at the edge. So WCNP runs at the edge, and an application that's designed to run at WCNP can run at the edge. That said, there are a number of very specific considerations that come up when running at the edge, such as the possibility of disconnection or degraded connectivity. And so one of the challenges we have faced and have grappled with and done a good job of I think is dealing with the fact that applications go offline and come back online and have to reconnect and resynchronize, the sort of online offline capability is something that can be quite challenging. And we have a couple of application architectures that sort of form the two core sets of patterns that we use. One is an offline/online synchronization architecture where we discover that we've come back online, and we understand the differences between the online dataset and the offline dataset and how they have to be reconciled. The other is a message-based architecture. And here in our health and wellness domain, we've developed applications that are queue based. So they're essentially business processes that consist of multiple steps where each step has its own queue. And what that allows us to do is devote whatever bandwidth we do have to those pieces of the process that are most latency sensitive and allow the queue lengths to increase in parts of the process that are not latency sensitive, knowing that they will eventually catch up when the bandwidth is restored. And to put that in a little bit of context, we have fiber lengths to all of our locations, and we have I'll just use a round number, 10-ish thousand locations. It's larger than that, but that's the ballpark, and we have fiber to all of them, but when the fiber is disconnected, and it does get disconnected on a regular basis. In fact, I forget the exact number, but some several dozen locations get disconnected daily just by virtue of the fact that there's construction going on and things are happening in the real world. When the disconnection happens, we're able to fall back to 5G and to Starlink. Starlink is preferred. It's a higher bandwidth. 5G if that fails. But in each of those cases, the bandwidth drops significantly. And so the applications have to be intelligent about throttling back the traffic that isn't essential, so that it can push the essential traffic in those lower bandwidth scenarios. >> So much technology to support this amazing business which started in the early 1960s. Jack, unfortunately, we're out of time. I would love to have you back or some members of your team and drill into how you're using open source, but really thank you so much for explaining the approach that you've taken and participating in SuperCloud2. >> You're very welcome, Dave, and we're happy to come back and talk about other aspects of what we do. For example, we could talk more about the data lakes and the data mesh that we have in place. We could talk more about the directions we might go with serverless. So please look us up again. Happy to chat. >> I'm going to take you up on that, Jack. All right. This is Dave Vellante for John Furrier and the Cube community. Keep it right there for more action from SuperCloud2. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Hello, everybody. This is Dave Vellante. Welcome back to Supercloud2, where we're exploring the intersection of data analytics and the future of cloud. In this segment, we're going to look at how the Supercloud will support a new class of applications, not just work that runs on multiple clouds, but rather a new breed of apps that can orchestrate things in the real world. Think Uber for many types of businesses. These applications, they're not about codifying forms or business processes. They're about orchestrating people, places, and things in a business ecosystem. And I'm pleased to welcome my colleague and friend, George Gilbert, former Gartner Analyst, Wiki Bond market analyst, former equities analyst as my co-host. And we're thrilled to have Tristan Handy, who's the founder and CEO of DBT Labs and Bob Muglia, who's the former President of Microsoft's Enterprise business and former CEO of Snowflake. Welcome all, gentlemen. Thank you for coming on the program. >> Good to be here. >> Thanks for having us. >> Hey, look, I'm going to start actually with the SuperCloud because both Tristan and Bob, you've read the definition. Thank you for doing that. And Bob, you have some really good input, some thoughts on maybe some of the drawbacks and how we can advance this. So what are your thoughts in reading that definition around SuperCloud? >> Well, I thought first of all that you did a very good job of laying out all of the characteristics of it and helping to define it overall. But I do think it can be tightened a bit, and I think it's helpful to do it in as short a way as possible. And so in the last day I've spent a little time thinking about how to take it and write a crisp definition. And here's my go at it. This is one day old, so gimme a break if it's going to change. And of course we have to follow the industry, and so that, and whatever the industry decides, but let's give this a try. So in the way I think you're defining it, what I would say is a SuperCloud is a platform that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers. >> Boom. Nice. Okay, great. I'm going to go back and read the script on that one and tighten that up a bit. Thank you for spending the time thinking about that. Tristan, would you add anything to that or what are your thoughts on the whole SuperCloud concept? >> So as I read through this, I fully realize that we need a word for this thing because I have experienced the inability to talk about it as well. But for many of us who have been living in the Confluence, Snowflake, you know, this world of like new infrastructure, this seems fairly uncontroversial. Like I read through this, and I'm just like, yeah, this is like the world I've been living in for years now. And I noticed that you called out Snowflake for being an example of this, but I think that there are like many folks, myself included, for whom this world like fully exists today. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair, I dunno if it's criticism, but people observe, well, what's the big deal here? It's just kind of what we're living in today. It reminds me of, you know, Tim Burns Lee saying, well, this is what the internet was supposed to be. It was supposed to be Web 2.0, so maybe this is what multi-cloud was supposed to be. Let's turn our attention to apps. Bob first and then go to Tristan. Bob, what are data apps to you? When people talk about data products, is that what they mean? Are we talking about something more, different? What are data apps to you? >> Well, to understand data apps, it's useful to contrast them to something, and I just use the simple term people apps. I know that's a little bit awkward, but it's clear. And almost everything we work with, almost every application that we're familiar with, be it email or Salesforce or any consumer app, those are applications that are targeted at responding to people. You know, in contrast, a data application reacts to changes in data and uses some set of analytic services to autonomously take action. So where applications that we're familiar with respond to people, data apps respond to changes in data. And they both do something, but they do it for different reasons. >> Got it. You know, George, you and I were talking about, you know, it comes back to SuperCloud, broad definition, narrow definition. Tristan, how do you see it? Do you see it the same way? Do you have a different take on data apps? >> Oh, geez. This is like a conversation that I don't know has an end. It's like been, I write a substack, and there's like this little community of people who all write substack. We argue with each other about these kinds of things. Like, you know, as many different takes on this question as you can find, but the way that I think about it is that data products are atomic units of functionality that are fundamentally data driven in nature. So a data product can be as simple as an interactive dashboard that is like actually had design thinking put into it and serves a particular user group and has like actually gone through kind of a product development life cycle. And then a data app or data application is a kind of cohesive end-to-end experience that often encompasses like many different data products. So from my perspective there, this is very, very related to the way that these things are produced, the kinds of experiences that they're provided, that like data innovates every product that we've been building in, you know, software engineering for, you know, as long as there have been computers. >> You know, Jamak Dagani oftentimes uses the, you know, she doesn't name Spotify, but I think it's Spotify as that kind of example she uses. But I wonder if we can maybe try to take some examples. If you take, like George, if you take a CRM system today, you're inputting leads, you got opportunities, it's driven by humans, they're really inputting the data, and then you got this system that kind of orchestrates the business process, like runs a forecast. But in this data driven future, are we talking about the app itself pulling data in and automatically looking at data from the transaction systems, the call center, the supply chain and then actually building a plan? George, is that how you see it? >> I go back to the example of Uber, may not be the most sophisticated data app that we build now, but it was like one of the first where you do have users interacting with their devices as riders trying to call a car or driver. But the app then looks at the location of all the drivers in proximity, and it matches a driver to a rider. It calculates an ETA to the rider. It calculates an ETA then to the destination, and it calculates a price. Those are all activities that are done sort of autonomously that don't require a human to type something into a form. The application is using changes in data to calculate an analytic product and then to operationalize that, to assign the driver to, you know, calculate a price. Those are, that's an example of what I would think of as a data app. And my question then I guess for Tristan is if we don't have all the pieces in place for sort of mainstream companies to build those sorts of apps easily yet, like how would we get started? What's the role of a semantic layer in making that easier for mainstream companies to build? And how do we get started, you know, say with metrics? How does that, how does that take us down that path? >> So what we've seen in the past, I dunno, decade or so, is that one of the most successful business models in infrastructure is taking hard things and rolling 'em up behind APIs. You take messaging, you take payments, and you all of a sudden increase the capability of kind of your median application developer. And you say, you know, previously you were spending all your time being focused on how do you accept credit cards, how do you send SMS payments, and now you can focus on your business logic, and just create the thing. One of, interestingly, 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, you know, you would imagine that the business would be able to create applications around very easily, but in fact that's not the case. It's actually quite challenging to, and involves a lot of data engineering pipeline and all this work to make these available. And so if you really want to make it very easy to create some of 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. >> So how rich can that API layer grow if you start with metric definitions that you've defined? And DBT has, you know, the metric, the dimensions, the time grain, things like that, that's a well scoped sort of API that people can work within. How much can you extend that to say non-calculated business rules or governance information like data reliability rules, things like that, or even, you know, features for an AIML feature store. In other words, it starts, you started pragmatically, but how far can you grow? >> Bob is waiting with bated breath to answer this question. I'm, just really quickly, I think that we as a company and DBT as a product tend to be very pragmatic. We try to release the simplest possible version of a thing, get it out there, and see if people use it. But the idea that, the concept of a metric is really just a first landing pad. The really, there is a physical manifestation of the data and then there's a logical manifestation of the data. And what we're trying to do here is make it very easy to access the logical manifestation of the data, and metric is a way to look at that. Maybe an entity, a customer, a user is another way to look at that. And I'm sure that there will be more kind of logical structures as well. >> So, Bob, chime in on this. You know, what's your thoughts on the right architecture behind this, and how do we get there? >> Yeah, well first of all, I think one of the ways we get there is by what companies like DBT Labs and Tristan is doing, which is incrementally taking and building on the modern data stack and extending that to add a semantic layer that describes the data. Now the way I tend to think about this is a fairly major shift in the way we think about writing applications, which is today a code first approach to moving to a world that is model driven. And I think that's what the big change will be is that where today we think about data, we think about writing code, and we use that to produce APIs as Tristan said, which encapsulates those things together in some form of services that are useful for organizations. And that idea of that encapsulation is never going to go away. It's very, that concept of an API is incredibly useful and will exist well into the future. But what I think will happen is that in the next 10 years, we're going to move to a world where organizations are defining models first of their data, but then ultimately of their business process, their entire business process. Now the concept of a model driven world is a very old concept. I mean, I first started thinking about this and playing around with some early model driven tools, probably before Tristan was born in the early 1980s. And those tools didn't work because the semantics associated with executing the model were too complex to be written in anything other than a procedural language. We're now reaching a time where that is changing, and you see it everywhere. You see it first of all in the world of machine learning and machine learning models, which are taking over more and more of what applications are doing. And I think that's an incredibly important step. And learned models are an important part of what people will do. But if you look at the world today, I will claim that we've always been modeling. Modeling has existed in computers since there have been integrated circuits and any form of computers. But what we do is what I would call implicit modeling, which means that it's the model is written on a whiteboard. It's in a bunch of Slack messages. It's on a set of napkins in conversations that happen and during Zoom. That's where the model gets defined today. It's implicit. There is one in the system. It is hard coded inside application logic that exists across many applications with humans being the glue that connects those models together. And really there is no central place you can go to understand the full attributes of the business, all of the business rules, all of the business logic, the business data. That's going to change in the next 10 years. And we'll start to have a world where we can define models about what we're doing. Now in the short run, the most important models to build are data models and to describe all of the attributes of the data and their relationships. And that's work that DBT Labs is doing. A number of other companies are doing that. We're taking steps along that way with catalogs. People are trying to build more complete ontologies associated with that. The underlying infrastructure is still super, super nascent. But what I think we'll see is this infrastructure that exists today that's building learned models in the form of machine learning programs. You know, some of these incredible machine learning programs in foundation models like GPT and DALL-E and all of the things that are happening in these global scale models, but also all of that needs to get applied to the domains that are appropriate for a business. And I think we'll see the infrastructure developing for that, that can take this concept of learned models and put it together with more explicitly defined models. And this is where the concept of knowledge graphs come in and then the technology that underlies that to actually implement and execute that, which I believe are relational knowledge graphs. >> Oh, oh wow. There's a lot to unpack there. So let me ask the Colombo question, Tristan, we've been making fun of your youth. We're just, we're just jealous. Colombo, I'll explain it offline maybe. >> I watch Colombo. >> Okay. All right, good. So but today if you think about the application stack and the data stack, which is largely an analytics pipeline. They're separate. Do they, those worlds, do they have to come together in order to achieve Bob's vision? When I talk to practitioners about that, they're like, well, I don't want to complexify the application stack cause the data stack today is so, you know, hard to manage. But but do those worlds have to come together? And you know, through that model, I guess abstraction or translation that Bob was just describing, how do you guys think about that? Who wants to take that? >> I think it's inevitable that data and AI are going to become closer together? I think that the infrastructure there has been moving in that direction for a long time. Whether you want to use the Lakehouse portmanteau or not. There's also, there's a next generation of data tech that is still in the like early stage of being developed. There's a company that I love that is essentially Cross Cloud Lambda, and it's just a wonderful abstraction for computing. So I think that, you know, people have been predicting that these worlds are going to come together for awhile. A16Z wrote a great post on this back in I think 2020, predicting this, and I've been predicting this since since 2020. But what's not clear is the timeline, but I think that this is still just as inevitable as it's been. >> Who's that that does Cross Cloud? >> Let me follow up on. >> Who's that, Tristan, that does Cross Cloud Lambda? Can you name names? >> Oh, they're called Modal Labs. >> Modal Labs, yeah, of course. All right, go ahead, George. >> Let me ask about this vision of trying to put the semantics or the code that represents the business with the data. It gets us to a world that's sort of more data centric, where data's not locked inside or behind the APIs of different applications so that we don't have silos. But at the same time, Bob, I've heard you talk about building the semantics gradually on top of, into a knowledge graph that maybe grows out of a data catalog. And the vision of getting to that point, essentially the enterprise's metadata and then the semantics you're going to add onto it are really stored in something that's separate from the underlying operational and analytic data. So at the same time then why couldn't we gradually build semantics beyond the metric definitions that DBT has today? In other words, you build more and more of the semantics in some layer that DBT defines and that sits above the data management layer, but any requests for data have to go through the DBT layer. Is that a workable alternative? Or where, what type of limitations would you face? >> Well, I think that it is the way the world will evolve is to start with the modern data stack and, you know, which is operational applications going through a data pipeline into some form of data lake, data warehouse, the Lakehouse, whatever you want to call it. And then, you know, this wide variety of analytics services that are built together. To the point that Tristan made about machine learning and data coming together, you see that in every major data cloud provider. Snowflake certainly now supports Python and Java. Databricks is of course building their data warehouse. Certainly Google, Microsoft and Amazon are doing very, very similar things in terms of building complete solutions that bring together an analytics stack that typically supports languages like Python together with the data stack and the data warehouse. I mean, all of those things are going to evolve, and they're not going to go away because that infrastructure is relatively new. It's just being deployed by companies, and it solves the problem of working with petabytes of data if you need to work with petabytes of data, and nothing will do that for a long time. What's missing is a layer that understands and can model the semantics of all of this. And if you need to, if you want to model all, if you want to talk about all the semantics of even data, you need to think about all of the relationships. You need to think about how these things connect together. And unfortunately, there really is no platform today. None of our existing platforms are ultimately sufficient for this. It was interesting, I was just talking to a customer yesterday, you know, a large financial organization that is building out these semantic layers. They're further along than many companies are. And you know, I asked what they're building it on, and you know, it's not surprising they're using a, they're using combinations of some form of search together with, you know, textual based search together with a document oriented database. In this case it was Cosmos. And that really is kind of the state of the art right now. And yet those products were not built for this. They don't really, they can't manage the complicated relationships that are required. They can't issue the queries that are required. And so a new generation of database needs to be developed. And fortunately, you know, that is happening. The world is developing a new set of relational algorithms that will be able to work with hundreds of different relations. If you look at a SQL database like Snowflake or a big query, you know, you get tens of different joins coming together, and that query is going to take a really long time. Well, fortunately, technology is evolving, and it's possible with new join algorithms, worst case, optimal join algorithms they're called, where you can join hundreds of different relations together and run semantic queries that you simply couldn't run. Now that technology is nascent, but it's really important, and I think that will be a requirement to have this semantically reach its full potential. In the meantime, Tristan can do a lot of great things by building up on what he's got today and solve some problems that are very real. But in the long run I think we'll see a new set of databases to support these models. >> So Tristan, you got to respond to that, right? You got to, so take the example of Snowflake. We know it doesn't deal well with complex joins, but they're, they've got big aspirations. They're building an ecosystem to really solve some of these problems. Tristan, you guys are part of that ecosystem, and others, but please, your thoughts on what Bob just shared. >> Bob, I'm curious if, I would have no idea what you were talking about except that you introduced me to somebody who gave me a demo of a thing and do you not want to go there right now? >> No, I can talk about it. I mean, we can talk about it. Look, the company I've been working with is Relational AI, and they're doing this work to actually first of all work across the industry with academics and research, you know, across many, many different, over 20 different research institutions across the world to develop this new set of algorithms. They're all fully published, just like SQL, the underlying algorithms that are used by SQL databases are. If you look today, every single SQL database uses a similar set of relational algorithms underneath that. And those algorithms actually go back to system R and what IBM developed in the 1970s. We're just, there's an opportunity for us to build something new that allows you to take, for example, instead of taking data and grouping it together in tables, treat all data as individual relations, you know, a key and a set of values and then be able to perform purely relational operations on it. If you go back to what, to Codd, and what he wrote, he defined two things. He defined a relational calculus and relational algebra. And essentially SQL is a query language that is translated by the query processor into relational algebra. But however, the calculus of SQL is not even close to the full semantics of the relational mathematics. And it's possible to have systems that can do everything and that can store all of the attributes of the data model or ultimately the business model in a form that is much more natural to work with. >> So here's like my short answer to this. I think that we're dealing in different time scales. I think that there is actually a tremendous amount of work to do in the semantic layer using the kind of technology that we have on the ground today. And I think that there's, I don't know, let's say five years of like really solid work that there is to do for the entire industry, if not more. But the wonderful thing about DBT is that it's independent of what the compute substrate is beneath it. And so if we develop new platforms, new capabilities to describe semantic models in more fine grain detail, more procedural, then we're going to support that too. And so I'm excited about all of it. >> Yeah, so interpreting that short answer, you're basically saying, cause Bob was just kind of pointing to you as incremental, but you're saying, yeah, okay, we're applying it for incremental use cases today, but we can accommodate a much broader set of examples in the future. Is that correct, Tristan? >> I think you're using the word incremental as if it's not good, but I think that incremental is great. We have always been about applying incremental improvement on top of what exists today, but allowing practitioners to like use different workflows to actually make use of that technology. So yeah, yeah, we are a very incremental company. We're going to continue being that way. >> Well, I think Bob was using incremental as a pejorative. I mean, I, but to your point, a lot. >> No, I don't think so. I want to stop that. No, I don't think it's pejorative at all. I think incremental, incremental is usually the most successful path. >> Yes, of course. >> In my experience. >> We agree, we agree on that. >> Having tried many, many moonshot things in my Microsoft days, I can tell you that being incremental is a good thing. And I'm a very big believer that that's the way the world's going to go. I just think that there is a need for us to build something new and that ultimately that will be the solution. Now you can argue whether it's two years, three years, five years, or 10 years, but I'd be shocked if it didn't happen in 10 years. >> Yeah, so we all agree that incremental is less disruptive. Boom, but Tristan, you're, I think I'm inferring that you believe you have the architecture to accommodate Bob's vision, and then Bob, and I'm inferring from Bob's comments that maybe you don't think that's the case, but please. >> No, no, no. I think that, so Bob, let me put words into your mouth and you tell me if you disagree, DBT is completely useless in a world where a large scale cloud data warehouse doesn't exist. We were not able to bring the power of Python to our users until these platforms started supporting Python. Like DBT is a layer on top of large scale computing platforms. And to the extent that those platforms extend their functionality to bring more capabilities, we will also service those capabilities. >> Let me try and bridge the two. >> Yeah, yeah, so Bob, Bob, Bob, do you concur with what Tristan just said? >> Absolutely, I mean there's nothing to argue with in what Tristan just said. >> I wanted. >> And it's what he's doing. It'll continue to, I believe he'll continue to do it, and I think it's a very good thing for the industry. You know, I'm just simply saying that on top of that, I would like to provide Tristan and all of those who are following similar paths to him with a new type of database that can actually solve these problems in a much more architected way. And when I talk about Cosmos with something like Mongo or Cosmos together with Elastic, you're using Elastic as the join engine, okay. That's the purpose of it. It becomes a poor man's join engine. And I kind of go, I know there's a better answer than that. I know there is, but that's kind of where we are state of the art right now. >> George, we got to wrap it. So give us the last word here. Go ahead, George. >> Okay, I just, I think there's a way to tie together what Tristan and Bob are both talking about, and I want them to validate it, which is for five years we're going to be adding or some number of years more and more semantics to the operational and analytic data that we have, starting with metric definitions. My question is for Bob, as DBT accumulates more and more of those semantics for different enterprises, can that layer not run on top of a relational knowledge graph? And what would we lose by not having, by having the knowledge graph store sort of the joins, all the complex relationships among the data, but having the semantics in the DBT layer? >> Well, I think this, okay, I think first of all that DBT will be an environment where many of these semantics are defined. The question we're asking is how are they stored and how are they processed? And what I predict will happen is that over time, as companies like DBT begin to build more and more richness into their semantic layer, they will begin to experience challenges that customers want to run queries, they want to ask questions, they want to use this for things where the underlying infrastructure becomes an obstacle. I mean, this has happened in always in the history, right? I mean, you see major advances in computer science when the data model changes. And I think we're on the verge of a very significant change in the way data is stored and structured, or at least metadata is stored and structured. Again, I'm not saying that anytime in the next 10 years, SQL is going to go away. In fact, more SQL will be written in the future than has been written in the past. And those platforms will mature to become the engines, the slicer dicers of data. I mean that's what they are today. They're incredibly powerful at working with large amounts of data, and that infrastructure is maturing very rapidly. What is not maturing is the infrastructure to handle all of the metadata and the semantics that that requires. And that's where I say knowledge graphs are what I believe will be the solution to that. >> But Tristan, bring us home here. It sounds like, let me put pause at this, is that whatever happens in the future, we're going to leverage the vast system that has become cloud that we're talking about a supercloud, sort of where data lives irrespective of physical location. We're going to have to tap that data. It's not necessarily going to be in one place, but give us your final thoughts, please. >> 100% agree. I think that the data is going to live everywhere. It is the responsibility for both the metadata systems and the data processing engines themselves to make sure that we can join data across cloud providers, that we can join data across different physical regions and that we as practitioners are going to kind of start forgetting about details like that. And we're going to start thinking more about how we want to arrange our teams, how does the tooling that we use support our team structures? And that's when data mesh I think really starts to get very, very critical as a concept. >> Guys, great conversation. It was really awesome to have you. I can't thank you enough for spending time with us. Really appreciate it. >> Thanks a lot. >> All right. This is Dave Vellante for George Gilbert, John Furrier, and the entire Cube community. Keep it right there for more content. You're watching SuperCloud2. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Welcome back to Supercloud 2 this is Dave Vellante. We're here exploring the intersection of data and analytics and the future of cloud. And in this segment, we're going to look at the evolution of cloud, and try to test some of the Supercloud concepts and assumptions with Brian Gracely, is the founder and co-host along with Aaron Delp of the popular Cloudcast program. Amazing series, if you're not already familiar with it. The Cloudcast is one of the best ways to keep up with so many things going on in our industry. Enterprise tech, platform engineering, business models, obviously, cloud developer trends, crypto, Web 3.0. Sorry Brian, I know that's a sore spot, but Brian, thanks for coming >> That's okay. >> on the program, really appreciate it. >> Yeah, great to be with you, Dave. Happy New Year, and great to be back with everybody with SiliconANGLE again this year. >> Yeah, we love having you on. We miss working with you day-to-day, but I want to start with Gracely's theorem, which basically says, I'm going to paraphrase. For the most part, nothing new gets introduced in the enterprise tech business, patterns repeat themselves, maybe get applied in new ways. And you know this industry well, when something comes out that's new, if you take virtualization, for example, been around forever with mainframes, but then VMware applied it, solve a real problem in the client service system. And then it's like, "Okay, this is awesome." We get really excited and then after a while we pushed the architecture, we break things, introduce new things to fix the things that are broken and start adding new features. And oftentimes you do that through acquisitions. So, you know, has the cloud become that sort of thing? And is Supercloud sort of same wine, new bottle, following Gracely's theorem? >> Yeah, I think there's some of both of it. I hate to be the sort of, it depends sort of answer but, I think to a certain extent, you know, obviously Cloud in and of itself was, kind of revolutionary in that, you know, it wasn't that you couldn't rent things in the past, it was just being able to do it at scale, being able to do it with such amazing self-service. And then, you know, kind of proliferation of like, look at how many services I can get from, from one cloud, whether it was Amazon or Azure or Google. And then, you know, we, we slip back into the things that we know, we go, "Oh, well, okay, now I can get computing on demand, but, now it's just computing." Or I can get database on demand and it's, you know, it's got some of the same limitations of, of say, of database, right? It's still, you know, I have to think about IOPS and I have to think about caching, and other stuff. So, I think we do go through that and then we, you know, we have these sort of next paradigms that come along. So, you know, serverless was another one of those where it was like, okay, it seems sort of new. I don't have to, again, it was another level of like, I don't have to think about anything. And I was able to do that because, you know, there was either greater bandwidth available to me, or compute got cheaper. And what's been interesting is not the sort of, that specific thing, serverless in and of itself is just another way of doing compute, but the fact that it now gets applied as, sort of a no-ops model to, you know, again, like how do I provision a database? How do I think about, you know, do I have to think about the location of a service? Does that just get taken care of for me? So I think the Supercloud concept, and I did a thing and, and you and I have talked about it, you know, behind the scenes that maybe the, maybe a better name is Super app for something like Snowflake or other, but I think we're, seeing these these sort of evolutions over and over again of what were the big bottlenecks? How do we, how do we solve those bottlenecks? And I think the big thing here is, it's never, it's very rarely that you can take the old paradigm of what the thing was, the concept was, and apply it to the new model. So, I'll just give you an example. So, you know, something like VMware, which we all know, wildly popular, wildly used, but when we apply like a Supercloud concept of VMware, the concept of VMware has always been around a cluster, right? It's some finite number of servers, you sort of manage it as a cluster. And when you apply that to the cloud and you say, okay, there's, you know, for example, VMware in the cloud, it's still the same concept of a cluster of VMware. But yet when you look at some of these other services that would fit more into the, you know, Supercloud kind of paradigm, whether it's a Snowflake or a MongoDB Atlas or maybe what CloudFlare is doing at the edge, those things get rid of some of those old paradigms. And I think that's where stuff, you start to go, "Oh, okay, this is very different than before." Yes, it's still computing or storage, or data access, but there's a whole nother level of something that we didn't carry forward from the previous days. And that really kind of breaks the paradigm. And so that's the way I think I've started to think about, are these things really brand new? Yes and no, but I think it's when you can see that big, that thing that you didn't leave behind isn't there anymore, you start to get some really interesting new innovation come out of it. >> Yeah. And that's why, you know, lift and shift is okay, when you talk to practitioners, they'll say, "You know, I really didn't change my operating model. And so I just kind of moved it into the cloud. there were some benefits, but it was maybe one zero not three zeros that I was looking for." >> Right. >> You know, we always talk about what's great about cloud, the agility, and all the other wonderful stuff that we know, what's not working in cloud, you know, tie it into multi-cloud, you know, in terms of, you hear people talk about multi-cloud by accident, okay, that's true. >> Yep. >> What's not great about cloud. And then I want to get into, you know, is multi-cloud really a problem or is it just sort of vendor hype? But, but what's not working in cloud? I mean, you mentioned serverless and serverless is kind of narrow, right, for a lot of stateless apps, right? But, what's not great about cloud? >> Well, I think there's a few things that if you ask most people they don't love about cloud. I think, we can argue whether or not sort of this consolidation around a few cloud providers has been a good thing or a bad thing. I think, regardless of that, you know, we are seeing, we are hearing more and more people that say, look, you know, the experience I used to have with cloud when I went to, for example, an Amazon and there was, you know, a dozen services, it was easy to figure out what was going on. It was easy to figure out what my billing looked like. You know, now they've become so widespread, the number of services they have, you know, the number of stories you just hear of people who went, "Oh, I started a service over in US West and I can't find it anymore 'cause it's on a different screen. And I, you know, I just got billed for it." Like, so I think the sprawl of some of the clouds has gotten, has created a user experience that a lot of people are frustrated with. I think that's one thing. And we, you know, we see people like Digital Ocean and we see others who are saying, "Hey, we're going to be that simplified version." So, there's always that yin and yang. I think people are super frustrated at network costs, right? So, you know, and that's kind of at a lot of, at the center of maybe why we do or don't see more of these Supercloud services is just, you know, in the data center as an application owner, I didn't have to think about, well where, where does this go to? Where are my users? Yes, somebody took care of it, but when those things become front and center, that's super frustrating. That's the one area that we've seen absolutely no cost savings, cost reduction. So I think that frustrates people a lot. And then I think the third piece is just, you know, we're, we went from super centralized IT organizations, which, you know, for decades was how it worked. It was part of the reason why the cloud expanded and became a thing, right? Sort of shadow IT and I can't get things done. And then, now what we've seen is sort of this proliferation of little pockets of groups that are your IT, for lack of a better thing, whether they're called platform engineering or SRE or DevOps. But we have this, expansion, explosion if you will, of groups that, if I'm an app dev team, I go, "Hey, you helped me make this stuff run, but then the team next to you has another group and they have another group." And so you see this explosion of, you know, we don't have any standards in the company anymore. And, so sort of self-service has created its own nightmare to a certain extent for a lot of larger companies. >> Yeah. Thank you for that. So, you know, I want, I want to explore this multi-cloud, you know, by accident thing and is a real problem. You hear that a lot from vendors and we've been talking about Supercloud as this unifying layer across cloud. You know, but when you talk to customers, a lot of them are saying, "Yes, we have multiple clouds in our organization, but my group, we have mono cloud, we know the security, edicts, we know how to, you know, deal with the primitives, whether it's, you know, S3 or Azure Blob or whatever it is. And we're very comfortable with this." It's, that's how we're simplifying. So, do you think this is really a problem? Does it have merit that we need that unifying layer across clouds, or is it just too early for that? >> I think, yeah, I think what you, what you've laid out is basically how the world has played out. People have picked a cloud for a specific application or a series of applications. Yeah, and I think if you talk to most companies, they would tell you, you know, holistically, yes, we're multi-cloud, not, maybe not necessarily on, I don't necessarily love the phrase where people say like, well it happened by accident. I think it happened on purpose, but we got to multi-cloud, not in the way that maybe that vendors, you know, perceived, you know, kind of laid out a map for. So it was, it was, well you will lay out this sort of Supercloud framework. We didn't call it that back then, we just called it sort of multi-cloud. Maybe it was Kubernetes or maybe it was whatever. And different groups, because central IT kind of got disbanded or got fragmented. It turned into, go pick the best cloud for your application, for what you need to do for the business. And then, you know, multiple years later it was like, "Oh, hold on, I've got 20% in Google and 50% in AWS and I've got 30% in Azure. And, you know, it's, yeah, it's been evolution. I don't know that it's, I don't know if it's a mistake. I think it's now groups trying to figure out like, should I make sense of it? You know, should I try and standardize and I backwards standardize some stuff? I think that's going to be a hard thing for, for companies to do. 'cause I think they feel okay with where the applications are. They just happen to be in multiple clouds. >> I want to run something by you, and you guys, you and Aaron have talked about this. You know, still depending on who, which keynote you listen to, small percentage of the workloads are actually in cloud. And when you were with us at Wikibon, I think we called it true private cloud, and we looked at things like Nutanix and there were a lot of other examples of companies that were trying to replicate the hyperscale experience on Prem. >> Yeah. >> And, we would evaluate that, you know, beyond virtualization, and so we sort of defined that and, but I think what's, maybe what's more interesting than Supercloud across clouds is if you include that, that on Prem estate, because that's where most of the work is being done, that's where a lot of the proprietary tools have been built, a lot of data, a lot of software. So maybe there's this concept of sending that true private cloud to true hybrid cloud. So I actually think hybrid cloud in some cases is the more interesting use case for so-called Supercloud. What are your thoughts on that? >> Yeah, I think there's a couple aspects too. I think, you know, if we were to go back five or six years even, maybe even a little further and look at like what a data center looked like, even if it was just, "Hey we're a data center that runs primarily on VMware. We use some of their automation". Versus what you can, even what you can do in your data center today. The, you know, the games that people have seen through new types of automation through Kubernetes, through get ops, and a number of these things, like they've gotten significantly further along in terms of I can provision stuff really well, I can do multi-tenancy, I can do self-service. Is it, you know, is it still hard? Yeah. Because those things are hard to do, but there's been significant progress there. I don't, you know, I still look for kind of that, that killer application, that sort of, you know, lighthouse use case of, hybrid applications, you know, between data center and between cloud. I think, you know, we see some stuff where, you know, backup is a part of it. So you use the cloud for storage, maybe you use the cloud for certain kinds of resiliency, especially on maybe front end load balancing and stuff. But I think, you know, I think what we get into is, this being hung up on hybrid cloud or multi-cloud as a term and go like, "Look, what are you trying to measure? Are you trying to measure, you know, efficiency of of of IT usage? Are you trying to measure how quickly can I give these business, you know, these application teams that are part of a line of business resources that they need?" I think if we start measuring that way, we would look at, you know, you'd go, "Wow, it used to be weeks and months. Now we got rid of these boards that have to review everything every time I want to do a change management type of thing." We've seen a lot more self-service. I think those are the things we want to measure on. And then to your point of, you know, where does, where do these Supercloud applications fit in? I think there are a bunch of instances where you go, "Look, I have a, you know, global application, I have a thing that has to span multiple regions." That's where the Supercloud concept really comes into play. We used to do it in the data center, right? We'd had all sorts of technologies to help with that, I think you can now start to do it in the cloud. >> You know, one of the other things, trying to understand, your thoughts on this, do you think that you, you again have talked about this, like I'm with you. It's like, how is it that Google's losing, you know, 3 billion dollars a year, whatever. I mean, because when you go back and look at Amazon, when they were at that level of revenue where Google is today, they were making money, you know, and they were actually growing faster, by the way. So it's kind of interesting what's happened with Google. But, the reason I bring that up is, trying to understand if you think the hyperscalers will ever be motivated to create standards across clouds, and that may be a play for Google. I mean, obviously with Kubernetes it was like a Hail Mary and kind of made them relevant. Where would Google be without Kubernetes? But then did it achieve the objectives? We could have that conversation some other time, but do you think the hyperscalers will actually say, "Okay, we're going to lean in and create these standards across clouds." Because customers would love that, I would think, but it would sub-optimize their competitive advantage. What are your thoughts? >> I think, you know, on the surface, I would say they, they probably aren't. I think if you asked 'em the question, they would say, "Well, you know, first and foremost, you know, we do deliver standards, so we deliver a, you know, standard SQL interface or a SQL you know, or a standard Kubernetes API or whatever. So, in that, from that perspective, you know, we're not locking you into, you know, an Amazon specific database, or a Google specific database." You, you can argue about that, but I think to a certain extent, like they've been very good about, "Hey, we're going to adopt the standards that people want." A lot of times the open source standards. I think the problem is, let's say they did come up with a standard for it. I think you still have the problem of the costs of migration and you know, the longer you've, I think their bet is basically the longer you've been in some cloud. And again, the more data you sort of compile there, the data gravity concept, there's just going to be a natural thing that says, okay, the hurdle to get over to say, "Look, we want to move this to another cloud", becomes so cost prohibitive that they don't really have to worry about, you know, oh, I'm going to get into a war of standards. And so far I think they sort of realize like that's the flywheel that the cloud creates. And you know, unless they want to get into a world where they just cut bandwidth costs, like it just kind of won't happen. You know, I think we've even seen, and you know, the one example I'll use, and I forget the name of it off the top of my head, but there's a, there's a Google service. I think it's like BigQuery external or something along those lines, that allows you to say, "Look, you can use BigQuery against like S3 buckets and against other stuff." And so I think the cloud providers have kind of figured out, I'm never going to get the application out of that other guy's cloud or you know, the other cloud. But maybe I'm going to have to figure out some interesting ways to sort of work with it. And, you know, it's a little bit, it's a little janky, but that might be, you know, a moderate step that sort of gets customers where they want to be. >> Yeah. Or you know, it'd be interesting if you ever see AWS for example, running its database in other clouds, you started, even Oracle is doing that with, with with Azure, which is a form of Supercloud. My last question for you is, I want to get you thinking about sort of how the future plays out. You know, think about some of the companies that we've put forth this Supercloud, and by the way, this has been a criticism of the concept. Charles Fitzer, "Everything is Supercloud!" Which if true would defeat the purpose of course. >> Right. >> And so right with the community effort, we really tried to put some guardrails down on the essential characteristics, the deployment models, you know, so for example, running across multiple clouds with a purpose build pass, creating a common experience, metadata intelligence that solves a specific problem. I mean, the example I often use is Snowflake's governed data sharing. But yeah, Snowflake, Databricks, CloudFlare, Cohesity, you know, I just mentioned Oracle and Azure, these and others, they certainly claim to have that common experience across clouds. But my question is, again, I come back to, do customers need this capability? You know, is Mono Cloud the way to solve that problem? What's your, what are your thoughts on how this plays out in the future of, I guess, PAs, apps and cloud? >> Yeah, I think a couple of things. So, from a technology perspective, I think, you know, the companies you name, the services you've named, have sort of proven that the concept is viable and it's viable at a reasonable size, right? These aren't completely niche businesses, right? They're multi-billion dollar businesses. So, I think there's a subset of applications that, you know, maybe a a bigger than a niche set of applications that are going to use these types of things. A lot of what you talked about is very data centric, and that's, that's fine. That's that layer is, figuring that out. I think we'll see messaging types of services, so like Derek Hallison's, Caya Company runs a, sort of a Supercloud for messaging applications. So I think there'll be places where it makes a ton of sense. I think, the thing that I'm not sure about, and because again, we've been now 10 plus years of sort of super low, you know, interest rates in terms of being able to do things, is a lot of these things come out of research that have been done previously. Then they get turned into maybe somewhat of an open source project, and then they can become something. You know, will we see as much investment into the next Snowflake if, you know, the interest rates are three or four times that they used to be, do we, do we see VCs doing it? So that's the part that worries me a little bit, is I think we've seen what's possible. I think, you know, we've seen companies like what those services are. I think I read yesterday Snowflake was saying like, their biggest customers are growing at 30, like 50 or 60%. Like the, value they get out of it is becoming exponential. And it's just a matter of like, will the economics allow the next big thing to happen? Because some of these things are pretty, pretty costly, you know, expensive to get started. So I'm bullish on the idea. I don't know that it becomes, I think it's okay that it's still sort of, you know, niche plus, plus in terms of the size of it. Because, you know, if we think about all of IT it's still, you know, even microservices is a small part of bigger things. But I'm still really bullish on the idea. I like that it's been proven. I'm a little wary, like a lot of people have the economics of, you know, what might slow things down a little bit. But yeah, I, think the future is going to involve Supercloud somewhere, whatever people end up calling it. And you and I discussed that. (laughs) But I don't, I don't think it goes away. I don't think it's, I don't think it's a fad. I think it is something that people see tremendous value and it's just, it's got to be, you know, for what you're trying to do, your application specific thing. >> You're making a great point on the funding of innovation and we're entering a new era of public policy as well. R and D tax credit is now is shifting. >> Yeah. >> You know, you're going to have to capitalize that over five years now. And that's something that goes back to the 1950s and many people would argue that's at least in part what has helped the United States be so, you know, competitive in tech. But Brian, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much for participating in the program. Great to see you. >> Thanks Dave, appreciate it. Good luck with the rest of the show. >> Thank you. All right, this is Dave Vellante for John Furrier, the entire Cube community. Stay tuned for more content from Supercloud2.