>> From the theCUBE studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> Welcome to this week's Wikibon, theCUBE's insights powered by ETR. As we exited the isolation economy last year, supercloud is a term that we introduced to describe something new that was happening in the world of cloud. In this Breaking Analysis, we address the 10 most frequently asked questions we get around supercloud. Okay, let's review these frequently asked questions on supercloud that we're going to try to answer today. Look at an industry that's full of hype and buzzwords. Why the hell does anyone need a new term? Aren't hyperscalers building out superclouds? We'll try to answer why the term supercloud connotes something different from hyperscale clouds. And we'll talk about the problems that superclouds solve specifically. And we'll further define the critical aspects of a supercloud architecture. We often get asked, isn't this just multi-cloud? Well, we don't think so, and we'll explain why in this Breaking Analysis. Now in an earlier episode, we introduced the notion of super PaaS. Well, isn't a plain vanilla PaaS already a super PaaS? Again, we don't think so, and we'll explain why. Who will actually build and who are the players currently building superclouds? What workloads and services will run on superclouds? And 8-A or number nine, what are some examples that we can share of supercloud? And finally, we'll answer what you can expect next from us on supercloud? Okay, let's get started. Why do we need another buzzword? Well, late last year, ahead of re:Invent, we were inspired by a post from Jerry Chen called "Castles in the Cloud." Now in that blog post, he introduced the idea that there were sub-markets emerging in cloud that presented opportunities for investors and entrepreneurs that the cloud wasn't going to suck the hyperscalers. Weren't going to suck all the value out of the industry. And so we introduced this notion of supercloud to describe what we saw as a value layer emerging above the hyperscalers CAPEX gift, we sometimes call it. Now it turns out, that we weren't the only ones using the term as both Cornell and MIT have used the phrase in somewhat similar, but different contexts. The point is something new was happening in the AWS and other ecosystems. It was more than IaaS and PaaS, and wasn't just SaaS running in the cloud. It was a new architecture that integrates infrastructure, platform and software as services to solve new problems that the cloud vendors in our view, weren't addressing by themselves. It seemed to us that the ecosystem was pursuing opportunities across clouds that went beyond conventional implementations of multi-cloud. And we felt there was a structural change going on at the industry level, the supercloud, metaphorically was highlighting. So that's the background on why we felt a new catch phrase was warranted, love it or hate it. It's memorable and it's what we chose. Now to that last point about structural industry transformation. Andy Rappaport is sometimes and often credited with identifying the shift from the vertically integrated IBM mainframe era to the fragmented PC microprocesor-based era in his HBR article in 1991. In fact, it was David Moschella, who at the time was an IDC Analyst who first introduced the concept in 1987, four years before Rappaport's article was published. Moschella saw that it was clear that Intel, Microsoft, Seagate and others would replace the system vendors, and put that forth in a graphic that looked similar to the first two on this chart. We don't have to review the shift from IBM as the center of the industry to Wintel, that's well understood. What isn't as well known or accepted is what Moschella put out in his 2018 book called "Seeing Digital" which introduced the idea of "The Matrix" that's shown on the right hand side of this chart. Moschella posited that new services were emerging built on top of the internet and hyperscale clouds that would integrate other innovations and would define the next era of computing. He used the term Matrix because the conceptual depiction included not only horizontal technology rose like the cloud and the internet, but for the first time included connected industry verticals, the columns in this chart. Moschella pointed out that whereas historically, industry verticals had a closed value chain or stack and ecosystem of R&D, and production, and manufacturing, and distribution. And if you were in that industry, the expertise within that vertical generally stayed within that vertical and was critical to success. But because of digital and data, for the first time, companies were able to traverse industries, jump across industries and compete because data enabled them to do that. Examples, Amazon and content, payments, groceries, Apple, and payments, and content, and so forth. There are many examples. Data was now this unifying enabler and this marked a change in the structure of the technology landscape. And supercloud is meant to imply more than running in hyperscale clouds, rather it's the combination of multiple technologies enabled by CloudScale with new industry participants from those verticals, financial services and healthcare, manufacturing, energy, media, and virtually all in any industry. Kind of an extension of every company is a software company. Basically, every company now has the opportunity to build their own cloud or supercloud. And we'll come back to that. Let's first address what's different about superclouds relative to hyperscale clouds? You know, this one's pretty straightforward and obvious, I think. Hyperscale clouds, they're walled gardens where they want your data in their cloud and they want to keep you there. Sure, every cloud player realizes that not all data will go to their particular cloud so they're meeting customers where their data lives with initiatives like Amazon Outposts and Azure Arc, and Google Anthos. But at the end of the day, the more homogeneous they can make their environments, the better control, security, cost, and performance they can deliver. The more complex the environment, the more difficult it is to deliver on their brand promises. And of course, the lesser margin that's left for them to capture. Will the hyperscalers get more serious about cross-cloud services? Maybe, but they have plenty of work to do within their own clouds and within enabling their own ecosystems. They had a long way to go a lot of runway. So let's talk about specifically, what problems superclouds solve? We've all seen the stats from IDC or Gartner, or whomever the customers on average use more than one cloud. You know, two clouds, three clouds, five clouds, 20 clouds. And we know these clouds operate in disconnected silos for the most part. And that's a problem because each cloud requires different skills because the development environment is different as is the operating environment. They have different APIs, different primitives, and different management tools that are optimized for each respective hyperscale cloud. Their functions and value props don't extend to their competitors' clouds for the most part. Why would they? As a result, there's friction when moving between different clouds. It's hard to share data, it's hard to move work. It's hard to secure and govern data. It's hard to enforce organizational edicts and policies across these clouds, and on-prem. Supercloud is an architecture designed to create a single environment that enables management of workloads and data across clouds in an effort to take out complexity, accelerate application development, streamline operations and share data safely, irrespective of location. It's pretty straightforward, but non-trivial, which is why I always ask a company's CEO and executives if stock buybacks and dividends will yield as much return as building out superclouds that solve really specific and hard problems, and create differential value. Okay, let's dig a bit more into the architectural aspects of supercloud. In other words, what are the salient attributes of supercloud? So first and foremost, a supercloud runs a set of specific services designed to solve a unique problem and it can do so in more than one cloud. Superclouds leverage the underlying cloud native tooling of a hyperscale cloud, but they're optimized for a specific objective that aligns with the problem that they're trying to solve. For example, supercloud might be optimized for lowest cost or lowest latency, or sharing data, or governing, or securing that data, or higher performance for networking, for example. But the point is, the collection of services that is being delivered is focused on a unique value proposition that is not being delivered by the hyperscalers across clouds. A supercloud abstracts the underlying and siloed primitives of the native PaaS layer from the hyperscale cloud and then using its own specific platform as a service tooling, creates a common experience across clouds for developers and users. And it does so in a most efficient manner, meaning it has the metadata knowledge and management capabilities that can optimize for latency, bandwidth, or recovery, or data sovereignty, or whatever unique value that supercloud is delivering for the specific use case in their domain. And a supercloud comprises a super PaaS capability that allows ecosystem partners through APIs to add incremental value on top of the supercloud platform to fill gaps, accelerate features, and of course innovate. The services can be infrastructure-related, they could be application services, they could be data services, security services, user services, et cetera, designed and packaged to bring unique value to customers. Again, that hyperscalers are not delivering across clouds or on-premises. Okay, so another common question we get is, isn't that just multi-cloud? And what we'd say to that is yes, but no. You can call it multi-cloud 2.0, if you want, if you want to use it, it's kind of a commonly used rubric. But as Dell's Chuck Whitten proclaimed at Dell Technologies World this year, multi-cloud by design, is different than multi-cloud by default. Meaning to date, multi-cloud has largely been a symptom of what we've called multi-vendor or of M&A, you buy a company and they happen to use Google Cloud, and so you bring it in. And when you look at most so-called, multi-cloud implementations, you see things like an on-prem stack, which is wrapped in a container and hosted on a specific cloud or increasingly a technology vendor has done the work of building a cloud native version of their stack and running it on a specific cloud. But historically, it's been a unique experience within each cloud with virtually no connection between the cloud silos. Supercloud sets out to build incremental value across clouds and above hyperscale CAPEX that goes beyond cloud compatibility within each cloud. So if you want to call it multi-cloud 2.0, that's fine, but we chose to call it supercloud. Okay, so at this point you may be asking, well isn't PaaS already a version of supercloud? And again, we would say no, that supercloud and its corresponding superPaaS layer which is a prerequisite, gives the freedom to store, process and manage, and secure, and connect islands of data across a continuum with a common experience across clouds. And the services offered are specific to that supercloud and will vary by each offering. Your OpenShift, for example, can be used to construct a superPaaS, but in and of itself, isn't a superPaaS, it's generic. A superPaaS might be developed to support, for instance, ultra low latency database work. It would unlikely again, taking the OpenShift example, it's unlikely that off-the-shelf OpenShift would be used to develop such a low latency superPaaS layer for ultra low latency database work. The point is supercloud and its inherent superPaaS will be optimized to solve specific problems like that low latency example for distributed databases or fast backup and recovery for data protection, and ransomware, or data sharing, or data governance. Highly specific use cases that the supercloud is designed to solve for. Okay, another question we often get is who has a supercloud today and who's building a supercloud, and who are the contenders? Well, most companies that consider themselves cloud players will, we believe, be building or are building superclouds. Here's a common ETR graphic that we like to show with Net Score or spending momentum on the Y axis and overlap or pervasiveness in the ETR surveys on the X axis. And we've randomly chosen a number of players that we think are in the supercloud mix, and we've included the hyperscalers because they are enablers. Now remember, this is a spectrum of maturity it's a maturity model and we've added some of those industry players that we see building superclouds like CapitalOne, Goldman Sachs, Walmart. This is in deference to Moschella's observation around The Matrix and the industry structural changes that are going on. This goes back to every company, being a software company and rather than pattern match an outdated SaaS model, we see new industry structures emerging where software and data, and tools, specific to an industry will lead the next wave of innovation and bring in new value that traditional technology companies aren't going to solve, and the hyperscalers aren't going to solve. You know, we've talked a lot about Snowflake's data cloud as an example of supercloud. After being at Snowflake Summit, we're more convinced than ever that they're headed in this direction. VMware is clearly going after cross-cloud services you know, perhaps creating a new category. Basically, every large company we see either pursuing supercloud initiatives or thinking about it. Dell showed project Alpine at Dell Tech World, that's a supercloud. Snowflake introducing a new application development capability based on their superPaaS, our term of course, they don't use the phrase. Mongo, Couchbase, Nutanix, Pure Storage, Veeam, CrowdStrike, Okta, Zscaler. Yeah, all of those guys. Yes, Cisco and HPE. Even though on theCUBE at HPE Discover, Fidelma Russo said on theCUBE, she wasn't a fan of cloaking mechanisms, but then we talked to HPE's Head of Storage Services, Omer Asad is clearly headed in the direction that we would consider supercloud. Again, those cross-cloud services, of course, their emphasis is connecting as well on-prem. That single experience, which traditionally has not existed with multi-cloud or hybrid. And we're seeing the emergence of companies, smaller companies like Aviatrix and Starburst, and Clumio and others that are building versions of superclouds that solve for a specific problem for their customers. Even ISVs like Adobe, ADP, we've talked to UiPath. They seem to be looking at new ways to go beyond the SaaS model and add value within their cloud ecosystem specifically, around data as part of their and their customers digital transformations. So yeah, pretty much every tech vendor with any size or momentum and new industry players are coming out of hiding, and competing. Building superclouds that look a lot like Moschella's Matrix, with machine intelligence and blockchains, and virtual realities, and gaming, all enabled by the internet and hyperscale cloud CAPEX. So it's moving fast and it's the future in our opinion. So don't get too caught up in the past or you'll be left behind. Okay, what about examples? We've given a number in the past, but let's try to be a little bit more specific. Here are a few we've selected and we're going to answer the two questions in one section here. What workloads and services will run in superclouds and what are some examples? Let's start with analytics. Our favorite example is Snowflake, it's one of the furthest along with its data cloud, in our view. It's a supercloud optimized for data sharing and governance, query performance, and security, and ecosystem enablement. When you do things inside of that data cloud, what we call a super data cloud. Again, our term, not theirs. You can do things that you could not do in a single cloud. You can't do this with Redshift, You can't do this with SQL server and they're bringing new data types now with merging analytics or at least accommodate analytics and transaction type data, and bringing open source tooling with things like Apache Iceberg. And so it ticks the boxes we laid out earlier. I would say that a company like Databricks is also in that mix doing it, coming at it from a data science perspective, trying to create that consistent experience for data scientists and data engineering across clouds. Converge databases, running transaction and analytic workloads is another example. Take a look at what Couchbase is doing with Capella and how it's enabling stretching the cloud to the edge with ARM-based platforms and optimizing for low latency across clouds, and even out to the edge. Document database workloads, look at MongoDB, a very developer-friendly platform that with the Atlas is moving toward a supercloud model running document databases very, very efficiently. How about general purpose workloads? This is where VMware comes into to play. Very clearly, there's a need to create a common operating environment across clouds and on-prem, and out to the edge. And I say VMware is hard at work on that. Managing and moving workloads, and balancing workloads, and being able to recover very quickly across clouds for everyday applications. Network routing, take a look at what Aviatrix is doing across clouds, industry workloads. We see CapitalOne, it announced its cost optimization platform for Snowflake, piggybacking on Snowflake supercloud or super data cloud. And in our view, it's very clearly going to go after other markets is going to test it out with Snowflake, running, optimizing on AWS and it's going to expand to other clouds as Snowflake's business and those other clouds grows. Walmart working with Microsoft to create an on-premed Azure experience that's seamless. Yes, that counts, on-prem counts. If you can create that seamless and continuous experience, identical experience from on-prem to a hyperscale cloud, we would include that as a supercloud. You know, we've written about what Goldman is doing. Again, connecting its on-prem data and software tooling, and other capabilities to AWS for scale. And we can bet dollars to donuts that Oracle will be building a supercloud in healthcare with its Cerner acquisition. Supercloud is everywhere you look. So I'm sorry, naysayers it's happening all around us. So what's next? Well, with all the industry buzz and debate about the future, John Furrier and I, have decided to host an event in Palo Alto, we're motivated and inspired to further this conversation. And we welcome all points of view, positive, negative, multi-cloud, supercloud, hypercloud, all welcome. So theCUBE on Supercloud is coming on August 9th, out of our Palo Alto studios, we'll be running a live program on the topic. We've reached out to a number of industry participants, VMware, Snowflake, Confluent, Sky High Security, Gee Rittenhouse's new company, HashiCorp, CloudFlare. We've hit up Red Hat and we expect many of these folks will be in our studios on August 9th. And we've invited a number of industry participants as well that we're excited to have on. From industry, from financial services, from healthcare, from retail, we're inviting analysts, thought leaders, investors. We're going to have more detail in the coming weeks, but for now, if you're interested, please reach out to me or John with how you think you can advance the discussion and we'll see if we can fit you in. So mark your calendars, stay tuned for more information. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks to Alex Myerson who handles production and manages the podcast for Breaking Analysis. And I want to thank Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight, they help get the word out on social and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor in chief over at SiliconANGLE, who does a lot of editing and appreciate you posting on SiliconANGLE, Rob. Thanks to all of you. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcast. It publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. You can email me directly at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @DVellante, or comment on my LinkedIn post. And please do check out ETR.ai for the best survey data. And the enterprise tech business will be at AWS NYC Summit next Tuesday, July 12th. So if you're there, please do stop by and say hello to theCUBE, it's at the Javits Center. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. And we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis." (bright music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vallante. >> Welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights powered by ETR. As we exited the isolation economy last year, Supercloud is a term that we introduced to describe something new that was happening in the world of cloud. In this "Breaking Analysis," we address the 10 most frequently asked questions we get around Supercloud. Okay, let's review these frequently asked questions on Supercloud that we're going to try to answer today. Look at an industry that's full of hype and buzzwords. Why the hell does anyone need a new term? Aren't hyperscalers building out Superclouds? We'll try to answer why the term Supercloud connotes something different from hyperscale clouds. And we'll talk about the problems that Superclouds solve specifically, and we'll further define the critical aspects of a Supercloud architecture. We often get asked, "Isn't this just multi-cloud?" Well, we don't think so, and we'll explain why in this "Breaking Analysis." Now, in an earlier episode, we introduced the notion of super PaaS. Well, isn't a plain vanilla PaaS already a super PaaS? Again, we don't think so, and we'll explain why. Who will actually build and who are the players currently building Superclouds? What workloads and services will run on Superclouds? And eight A or number nine, what are some examples that we can share of Supercloud? And finally, we'll answer what you can expect next from us on Supercloud. Okay, let's get started. Why do we need another buzzword? Well, late last year ahead of re:Invent, we were inspired by a post from Jerry Chen called castles in the cloud. Now, in that blog post, he introduced the idea that there were submarkets emerging in cloud that presented opportunities for investors and entrepreneurs. That the cloud wasn't going to suck the hyperscalers, weren't going to suck all the value out of the industry. And so we introduced this notion of Supercloud to describe what we saw as a value layer emerging above the hyperscalers CAPEX gift, we sometimes call it. Now, it turns out that we weren't the only ones using the term, as both Cornell and MIT, have used the phrase in somewhat similar, but different contexts. The point is, something new was happening in the AWS and other ecosystems. It was more than IS and PaaS, and wasn't just SaaS running in the cloud. It was a new architecture that integrates infrastructure, platform and software as services, to solve new problems that the cloud vendors, in our view, weren't addressing by themselves. It seemed to us that the ecosystem was pursuing opportunities across clouds that went beyond conventional implementations of multi-cloud. And we felt there was a structural change going on at the industry level. The Supercloud metaphorically was highlighting. So that's the background on why we felt a new catch phrase was warranted. Love it or hate it, it's memorable and it's what we chose. Now, to that last point about structural industry transformation. Andy Rapaport is sometimes and often credited with identifying the shift from the vertically integrated IBM mainframe era to the fragmented PC microprocesor based era in his HBR article in 1991. In fact, it was David Moschella, who at the time was an IDC analyst who first introduced the concept in 1987, four years before Rapaport's article was published. Moschella saw that it was clear that Intel, Microsoft, Seagate and others would replace the system vendors and put that forth in a graphic that looked similar to the first two on this chart. We don't have to review the shift from IBM as the center of the industry to Wintel. That's well understood. What isn't as well known or accepted is what Moschella put out in his 2018 book called "Seeing Digital" which introduced the idea of the matrix that's shown on the right hand side of this chart. Moschella posited that new services were emerging, built on top of the internet and hyperscale clouds that would integrate other innovations and would define the next era of computing. He used the term matrix, because the conceptual depiction included, not only horizontal technology rows, like the cloud and the internet, but for the first time included connected industry verticals, the columns in this chart. Moschella pointed out that, whereas historically, industry verticals had a closed value chain or stack and ecosystem of R&D and production and manufacturing and distribution. And if you were in that industry, the expertise within that vertical generally stayed within that vertical and was critical to success. But because of digital and data, for the first time, companies were able to traverse industries jump across industries and compete because data enabled them to do that. Examples, Amazon and content, payments, groceries, Apple and payments, and content and so forth. There are many examples. Data was now this unifying enabler and this marked a change in the structure of the technology landscape. And Supercloud is meant to imply more than running in hyperscale clouds. Rather, it's the combination of multiple technologies, enabled by cloud scale with new industry participants from those verticals; financial services, and healthcare, and manufacturing, energy, media, and virtually all and any industry. Kind of an extension of every company is a software company. Basically, every company now has the opportunity to build their own cloud or Supercloud. And we'll come back to that. Let's first address what's different about Superclouds relative to hyperscale clouds. Now, this one's pretty straightforward and obvious, I think. Hyperscale clouds, they're walled gardens where they want your data in their cloud and they want to keep you there. Sure, every cloud player realizes that not all data will go to their particular cloud. So they're meeting customers where their data lives with initiatives like Amazon Outposts and Azure Arc and Google Antos. But at the end of the day, the more homogeneous they can make their environments, the better control, security, costs, and performance they can deliver. The more complex the environment, the more difficult it is to deliver on their brand promises. And, of course, the less margin that's left for them to capture. Will the hyperscalers get more serious about cross cloud services? Maybe, but they have plenty of work to do within their own clouds and within enabling their own ecosystems. They have a long way to go, a lot of runway. So let's talk about specifically, what problems Superclouds solve. We've all seen the stats from IDC or Gartner or whomever, that customers on average use more than one cloud, two clouds, three clouds, five clouds, 20 clouds. And we know these clouds operate in disconnected silos for the most part. And that's a problem, because each cloud requires different skills, because the development environment is different as is the operating environment. They have different APIs, different primitives, and different management tools that are optimized for each respective hyperscale cloud. Their functions and value props don't extend to their competitors' clouds for the most part. Why would they? As a result, there's friction when moving between different clouds. It's hard to share data. It's hard to move work. It's hard to secure and govern data. It's hard to enforce organizational edicts and policies across these clouds and on-prem. Supercloud is an architecture designed to create a single environment that enables management of workloads and data across clouds in an effort to take out complexity, accelerate application development, streamline operations, and share data safely, irrespective of location. It's pretty straightforward, but non-trivial, which is why I always ask a company's CEO and executives if stock buybacks and dividends will yield as much return as building out Superclouds that solve really specific and hard problems and create differential value. Okay, let's dig a bit more into the architectural aspects of Supercloud. In other words, what are the salient attributes of Supercloud? So, first and foremost, a Supercloud runs a set of specific services designed to solve a unique problem, and it can do so in more than one cloud. Superclouds leverage the underlying cloud native tooling of a hyperscale cloud, but they're optimized for a specific objective that aligns with the problem that they're trying to solve. For example, Supercloud might be optimized for lowest cost or lowest latency or sharing data or governing or securing that data or higher performance for networking, for example. But the point is, the collection of services that is being delivered is focused on a unique value proposition that is not being delivered by the hyperscalers across clouds. A Supercloud abstracts the underlying and siloed primitives of the native PaaS layer from the hyperscale cloud, and then using its own specific platform as a service tooling, creates a common experience across clouds for developers and users. And it does so in the most efficient manner, meaning it has the metadata knowledge and management capabilities that can optimize for latency, bandwidth, or recovery or data sovereignty, or whatever unique value that Supercloud is delivering for the specific use case in their domain. And a Supercloud comprises a super PaaS capability that allows ecosystem partners through APIs to add incremental value on top of the Supercloud platform to fill gaps, accelerate features, and of course, innovate. The services can be infrastructure related, they could be application services, they could be data services, security services, user services, et cetera, designed and packaged to bring unique value to customers. Again, that hyperscalers are not delivering across clouds or on premises. Okay, so another common question we get is, "Isn't that just multi-cloud?" And what we'd say to that is yeah, "Yes, but no." You can call it multi-cloud 2.0, if you want. If you want to use, it's kind of a commonly used rubric. But as Dell's Chuck Whitten proclaimed at Dell Technologies World this year, multi-cloud, by design, is different than multi-cloud by default. Meaning, to date, multi-cloud has largely been a symptom of what we've called multi-vendor or of M&A. You buy a company and they happen to use Google cloud. And so you bring it in. And when you look at most so-called multi-cloud implementations, you see things like an on-prem stack, which is wrapped in a container and hosted on a specific cloud. Or increasingly, a technology vendor has done the work of building a cloud native version of their stack and running it on a specific cloud. But historically, it's been a unique experience within each cloud, with virtually no connection between the cloud silos. Supercloud sets out to build incremental value across clouds and above hyperscale CAPEX that goes beyond cloud compatibility within each cloud. So, if you want to call it multi-cloud 2.0, that's fine, but we chose to call it Supercloud. Okay, so at this point you may be asking, "Well isn't PaaS already a version of Supercloud?" And again, we would say, "No." That Supercloud and its corresponding super PaaS layer, which is a prerequisite, gives the freedom to store, process, and manage and secure and connect islands of data across a continuum with a common experience across clouds. And the services offered are specific to that Supercloud and will vary by each offering. OpenShift, for example, can be used to construct a super PaaS, but in and of itself, isn't a super PaaS, it's generic. A super PaaS might be developed to support, for instance, ultra low latency database work. It would unlikely, again, taking the OpenShift example, it's unlikely that off the shelf OpenShift would be used to develop such a low latency, super PaaS layer for ultra low latency database work. The point is, Supercloud and its inherent super PaaS will be optimized to solve specific problems like that low latency example for distributed databases or fast backup in recovery for data protection and ransomware, or data sharing or data governance. Highly specific use cases that the Supercloud is designed to solve for. Okay, another question we often get is, "Who has a Supercloud today and who's building a Supercloud and who are the contenders?" Well, most companies that consider themselves cloud players will, we believe, be building or are building Superclouds. Here's a common ETR graphic that we like to show with net score or spending momentum on the Y axis, and overlap or pervasiveness in the ETR surveys on the X axis. And we've randomly chosen a number of players that we think are in the Supercloud mix. And we've included the hyperscalers because they are enablers. Now, remember, this is a spectrum of maturity. It's a maturity model. And we've added some of those industry players that we see building Superclouds like Capital One, Goldman Sachs, Walmart. This is in deference to Moschella's observation around the matrix and the industry structural changes that are going on. This goes back to every company being a software company. And rather than pattern match and outdated SaaS model, we see new industry structures emerging where software and data and tools specific to an industry will lead the next wave of innovation and bring in new value that traditional technology companies aren't going to solve. And the hyperscalers aren't going to solve. We've talked a lot about Snowflake's data cloud as an example of Supercloud. After being at Snowflake Summit, we're more convinced than ever that they're headed in this direction. VMware is clearly going after cross cloud services, perhaps creating a new category. Basically, every large company we see either pursuing Supercloud initiatives or thinking about it. Dell showed Project Alpine at Dell Tech World. That's a Supercloud. Snowflake introducing a new application development capability based on their super PaaS, our term, of course. They don't use the phrase. Mongo, Couchbase, Nutanix, Pure Storage, Veeam, CrowdStrike, Okta, Zscaler. Yeah, all of those guys. Yes, Cisco and HPE. Even though on theCUBE at HPE Discover, Fidelma Russo said on theCUBE, she wasn't a fan of cloaking mechanisms. (Dave laughing) But then we talked to HPE's head of storage services, Omer Asad, and he's clearly headed in the direction that we would consider Supercloud. Again, those cross cloud services, of course, their emphasis is connecting as well on-prem. That single experience, which traditionally has not existed with multi-cloud or hybrid. And we're seeing the emergence of smaller companies like Aviatrix and Starburst and Clumio and others that are building versions of Superclouds that solve for a specific problem for their customers. Even ISVs like Adobe, ADP, we've talked to UiPath. They seem to be looking at new ways to go beyond the SaaS model and add value within their cloud ecosystem, specifically around data as part of their and their customer's digital transformations. So yeah, pretty much every tech vendor with any size or momentum, and new industry players are coming out of hiding and competing, building Superclouds that look a lot like Moschella's matrix, with machine intelligence and blockchains and virtual realities and gaming, all enabled by the internet and hyperscale cloud CAPEX. So it's moving fast and it's the future in our opinion. So don't get too caught up in the past or you'll be left behind. Okay, what about examples? We've given a number in the past but let's try to be a little bit more specific. Here are a few we've selected and we're going to answer the two questions in one section here. What workloads and services will run in Superclouds and what are some examples? Let's start with analytics. Our favorite example of Snowflake. It's one of the furthest along with its data cloud, in our view. It's a Supercloud optimized for data sharing and governance, and query performance, and security, and ecosystem enablement. When you do things inside of that data cloud, what we call a super data cloud. Again, our term, not theirs. You can do things that you could not do in a single cloud. You can't do this with Redshift. You can't do this with SQL server. And they're bringing new data types now with merging analytics or at least accommodate analytics and transaction type data and bringing open source tooling with things like Apache Iceberg. And so, it ticks the boxes we laid out earlier. I would say that a company like Databricks is also in that mix, doing it, coming at it from a data science perspective trying to create that consistent experience for data scientists and data engineering across clouds. Converge databases, running transaction and analytic workloads is another example. Take a look at what Couchbase is doing with Capella and how it's enabling stretching the cloud to the edge with arm based platforms and optimizing for low latency across clouds, and even out to the edge. Document database workloads, look at Mongo DB. A very developer friendly platform that where the Atlas is moving toward a Supercloud model, running document databases very, very efficiently. How about general purpose workloads? This is where VMware comes into play. Very clearly, there's a need to create a common operating environment across clouds and on-prem and out to the edge. And I say, VMware is hard at work on that, managing and moving workloads and balancing workloads, and being able to recover very quickly across clouds for everyday applications. Network routing, take a look at what Aviatrix is doing across clouds. Industry workloads, we see Capital One. It announced its cost optimization platform for Snowflake, piggybacking on Snowflake's Supercloud or super data cloud. And in our view, it's very clearly going to go after other markets. It's going to test it out with Snowflake, optimizing on AWS, and it's going to expand to other clouds as Snowflake's business and those other clouds grows. Walmart working with Microsoft to create an on-premed Azure experience that's seamless. Yes, that counts, on-prem counts. If you can create that seamless and continuous experience, identical experience from on-prem to a hyperscale cloud, we would include that as a Supercloud. We've written about what Goldman is doing. Again, connecting its on-prem data and software tooling, and other capabilities to AWS for scale. And you can bet dollars to donuts that Oracle will be building a Supercloud in healthcare with its Cerner acquisition. Supercloud is everywhere you look. So I'm sorry, naysayers, it's happening all around us. So what's next? Well, with all the industry buzz and debate about the future, John Furrier and I have decided to host an event in Palo Alto. We're motivated and inspired to further this conversation. And we welcome all points of view, positive, negative, multi-cloud, Supercloud, HyperCloud, all welcome. So theCUBE on Supercloud is coming on August 9th out of our Palo Alto studios. We'll be running a live program on the topic. We've reached out to a number of industry participants; VMware, Snowflake, Confluent, Skyhigh Security, G. Written House's new company, HashiCorp, CloudFlare. We've hit up Red Hat and we expect many of these folks will be in our studios on August 9th. And we've invited a number of industry participants as well that we're excited to have on. From industry, from financial services, from healthcare, from retail, we're inviting analysts, thought leaders, investors. We're going to have more detail in the coming weeks, but for now, if you're interested, please reach out to me or John with how you think you can advance the discussion, and we'll see if we can fit you in. So mark your calendars, stay tuned for more information. Okay, that's it for today. Thanks to Alex Myerson who handles production and manages the podcast for "Breaking Analysis." And I want to thank Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight. They help get the word out on social and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor in chief over at SiliconANGLE, who does a lot of editing and appreciate you posting on SiliconANGLE, Rob. Thanks to all of you. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you got to do is search, breaking analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Or you can email me directly at david.vellante@siliconangle.com. Or DM me @DVallante, or comment on my LinkedIn post. And please, do check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. We'll be at AWS NYC summit next Tuesday, July 12th. So if you're there, please do stop by and say hello to theCUBE. It's at the Javits Center. This is Dave Vallante for theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. And we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis." (slow music)

(upbeat music) >> Welcome back to theCUBE. We're covering Red Hat Summit 2022. We're going to wrap up now, Dave Vellante, Paul Gillin. We want to introduce you to Stephanie Chan, who's our new correspondent. Stephanie, one of your first events, your very first CUBE event. So welcome. >> Thank you. >> Up from NYC. Smaller event, but intimate. You got a chance to meet some folks last night at some of the after parties. What are your overall impressions? What'd you learn this week? >> So this has been my first in-person event in over two years. And even though, like you said, is on the smaller scale, roughly around 1000 attendees, versus it's usual eight to 10,000 attendees. There's so much energy, and excitement, and openness in these events and sessions. Even before and after the sessions people have been mingling and socializing and hanging out. So, I think a lot of people appreciate these in-person events and are really excited to be here. >> Cool. So, you also sat in some of the keynotes, right? Pretty technical, right? Which is kind of new to sort of your genre, right? I mean, I know you got a financial background but, so what'd you think of the keynotes? What'd you think of the format, the theater in the round? Any impressions of that? >> So, I think there's three things that are really consistent in these Red Hat Summit keynotes. There's always a history lesson. There's always, you know, emphasis in the culture of openness. And, there's also inspirational stories about how people utilize open source. And I found a lot of those examples really compelling and interesting. For instance, people use open source in (indistinct), and even in space. So I really enjoyed, you know, learning about all these different people and stories. What about you guys? What do you think were the big takeaways and the best stories that came out of the keynotes? >> Paul, want to start? >> Clearly the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 is a major rollout. They do that only about every three years. So that's a big deal to this audience. I think what they did in the area of security, with rolling out sigstore, which is a major new, I think an important new project that was sort of incubated at Red Hat. And they're trying to put in to create an open source ecosystem around that now. And the alliances. I'm usually not that much on partnerships, but the Accenture and the Microsoft partnerships do seem to be significant to the company. And, finally, the GM partnership which I think was maybe kind of the bombshell that they sort of rushed in at the last minute. But I think has the biggest potential impact on Red Hat and its partner ecosystem that is really going to anchor their edge architecture going forward. So I didn't see it so much on the product front, but the sense of Red Hat spreading its wings, and partnering with more companies, and seeing its itself as really the center of an ecosystem indicates that they are, you know, they're in a very solid position in their business. >> Yeah, and also like the pandemic has really forced us into this new normal, right? So customer demand is changing. There has been the shift to remote. There's always going to be a new normal according to Paul, and open source carries us through that. So how do you guys think Red Hat has helped its portfolio through this new normal and the shift? >> I mean, when you think of Red Hat, you think of Linux. I mean, that's where it all started. You think OpenShift which is the application development platforms. Linux is the OS. OpenShift is the application development platform for Kubernetes. And then of course, Ansible is the automation framework. And I agree with you, ecosystem is really the other piece of this. So, I mean, I think you take those three pieces and extend that into the open source community. There's a lot of innovation that's going around each of those, but ecosystems are the key. We heard from Stefanie Chiras, that fundamental, I mean, you can't do this without those gap fillers and those partnerships. And then another thing that's notable here is, you know, this was, I mean, IBM was just another brand, right? I mean, if anything it was probably a sub-brand, I mean, you didn't hear much about IBM. You certainly had no IBM presence, even though they're right across the street running Think. No Arvind present, no keynote from Arvind, no, you know, Big Blue washing. And so, I think that's a testament to Arvind himself. We heard that from Paul Cormier, he said, hey, this guy's been great, he's left us alone. And he's allowed us to continue innovating. It's good news. IBM has not polluted Red Hat. >> Yes, I think that the Red Hat was, I said at the opening, I think Red Hat is kind of the tail wagging the dog right now. And their position seems very solid in the market. Clearly the market has come to them in terms of their evangelism of open source. They've remained true to their business model. And I think that gives them credibility that, you know, a lot of other open source companies have lacked. They have stuck with the plan for over 20 years now and have really not changed it, and it's paying off. I think they're emerging as a company that you can trust to do business with. >> Now I want to throw in something else here. I thought the conversation with IDC analyst, Jim Mercer, was interesting when he said that they surveyed customers and they wanted to get the security from their platform vendor, versus having to buy these bespoke tools. And it makes a lot of sense to me. I don't think that's going to happen, right? Because you're going to have an identity specialist. You're going to have an endpoint specialist. You're going to have a threat detection specialist. And they're going to be best of breed, you know, Red Hat's never going to be all of those things. What they can do is partner with those companies through APIs, through open source integrations, they can add them in as part of the ecosystem and maybe be the steward of that. Maybe that's the answer. They're never going to be the best at all those different security disciplines. There's no way in the world, Red Hat, that's going to happen. But they could be the integration point. And that would be, that would be a simplifying layer to the equation. >> And I think it's smart. You know, they're not pretending to be an identity in access management or an anti-malware company, or even a zero trust company. They are sticking to their knitting, which is operating system and developers. Evangelizing DevSecOps, which is a good thing. And, that's what they're going to do. You know, you have to admire this company. It has never gotten outside of its swim lane. I think it's understood well really what it wants to be good at. And, you know, in the software business knowing what not to do is more important than knowing what to do. Is companies that fail are usually the ones that get overextended, this company has never overextended itself. >> What else do you want to know? >> And a term that kept popping up was multicloud, or otherwise known as metacloud. We know what the cloud is, but- >> Oh, supercloud, metacloud. >> Supercloud, yeah, here we go. We know what the cloud is but, what does metacloud mean to you guys? And why has it been so popular in these conversations? >> I'm going to boot this to Dave, because he's the expert on this. >> Well, expert or not, but I mean, again, we've coined this term supercloud. And the idea behind the supercloud or what Ashesh called metacloud, I like his name, cause it allows Web 3.0 to come into the equation. But the idea is that instead of building on each individual cloud and have compatibility with that cloud, you build a layer across clouds. So you do the hard work as a platform supplier to hide the underlying primitives and APIs from the end customer, or the end developer, they can then add value on top of that. And that abstraction layer spans on-prem, clouds, across clouds, ultimately out to the edge. And it's new, a new value layer that builds on top of the hyperscale infrastructure, or existing data center infrastructure, or emerging edge infrastructure. And the reason why that is important is because it's so damn complicated, number one. Number two, every company's becoming a software company, a technology company. They're bringing their services through digital transformation to their customers. And you've got to have a cloud to do that. You're not going to build your own data center. That's like Charles Wang says, not Charles Wang. (Paul laughing) Charles Phillips. We were just talking about CA. Charles Phillips. Friends don't let friends build data centers. So that supercloud concept, or what Ashesh calls metacloud, is this new layer that's going to be powered by ecosystems and platform companies. And I think it's real. I think it's- >> And OpenShift, OpenShift is a great, you know, key card for them or leverage for them because it is perhaps the best known Kubernetes platform. And you can see here they're really doubling down on adding features to OpenShift, security features, scalability. And they see it as potentially this metacloud, this supercloud abstraction layer. >> And what we said is, in order to have a supercloud you got to have a superpaz layer and OpenShift is that superpaz layer. >> So you had conversations with a lot of people within the past two days. Some people include companies, from Verizon, Intel, Accenture. Which conversation stood out to you the most? >> Which, I'm sorry. >> Which conversation stood out to you the most? (Paul sighs) >> The conversation with Stu Miniman was pretty interesting because we talked about culture. And really, he has a lot of credibility in that area because he's not a Red Hat. You know, he hasn't been a Red Hat forever, he's fairly new to the company. And got a sense from him that the culture there really is what they say it is. It's a culture of openness and that's, you know, that's as important as technology for a company's success. >> I mean, this was really good content. I mean, there were a lot, I mean Stefanie's awesome. Stefanie Chiras, we're talking about the ecosystem. Chris Wright, you know, digging into some of the CTO stuff. Ashesh, who coined metacloud, I love that. The whole in vehicle operating system conversation was great. The security discussion that we just had. You know, the conversations with Accenture were super thoughtful. Of course, Paul Cormier was a highlight. I think that one's going to be a well viewed interview, for sure. And, you know, I think that the customer conversations are great. Red Hat did a really good job of carrying the keynote conversations, which were abbreviated this year, to theCUBE. >> Right. >> I give 'em a lot of kudos for that. And because, theCUBE, it allows us to double click, go deeper, peel the onion a little bit, you know, all the buzz words, and cliches. But it's true. You get to clarify some of the things you heard, which were, you know, the keynotes were, were scripted, but tight. And so we had some good follow up questions. I thought it was super useful. I know I'm leaving somebody out, but- >> We're also able to interview representatives from Intel and Nvidia, which at a software conference you don't typically do. I mean, there's the assimilation, the combination of hardware and software. It's very clear that, and this came out in the keynote, that Red Hat sees hardware as matter. It matters. It's important again. And it's going to be a source of innovation in the future. That came through clearly. >> Yeah. The hardware matters theme, you know, the old days you would have an operating system and the hardware were intrinsically linked. MVS in the mainframe, VAX, VMS in the digital mini computers. DG had its own operating system. Wang had his own operating system. Prime with Prime OS. You remember these days? >> Oh my God. >> Right? (Paul laughs) And then of course Microsoft. >> And then x86, everything got abstracted. >> Right. >> Everything became x86 and now it's all atomizing again. >> Although WinTel, right? I mean, MS-DOS and Windows were intrinsically linked for many, many years with Intel x86. And it wasn't until, you know, well, and then, you know, Sun Solaris, but it wasn't until Linux kind of blew that apart. And the internet is built on the lamp stack. And of course, Linux is the fundamental foundation for Red Hat. So my point is, that the operating system and the hardware have always been very closely tied together. Whether it's security, or IO, or registries and memory management, everything controlled by the OS are very close to the hardware. And so that's why I think you've got an affinity in Red Hat to hardware. >> But Linux is breaking that bond, don't you think? >> Yes, but it still has to understand the underlying hardware. >> Right. >> You heard today, how taking advantage of Nvidia, and the AI capabilities. You're seeing that with ARM, you're seeing that with Intel. How you can optimize the operating system to take advantage of new generations of CPU, and NPU, and CPU, and PU, XPU, you know, across the board. >> Yep. >> Well, I really enjoyed this conference and it really stressed how important open source is to a lot of different industries. >> Great. Well, thanks for coming on. Paul, thank you. Great co-hosting with you. And thank you. >> Always, Dave. >> For watching theCUBE. We'll be on the road, next week we're at KubeCon in Valencia, Spain. We're at VeeamON. We got a ton of stuff going on. Check out thecube.net. Check out siliconangle.com for all the news. Wikibon.com. We publish there weekly, our breaking analysis series. Thanks for watching everybody. Dave Vellante, for Paul Gillin, and Stephanie Chan. Thanks to the crew. Shout out, Andrew, Alex, Sonya. Amazing job, Sonya. Steven, thanks you guys for coming out here. Mark, good job corresponding. Go to SiliconANGLE, Mark's written some great stuff. And thank you for watching. We'll see you next time. (calm music)

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

>> Narrator: From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto, in Boston bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> The next 10 years of cloud, they're going to differ dramatically from the past decade. The early days of cloud, deployed virtualization of standard off-the-shelf components, X86 microprocessors, disk drives et cetera, to then scale out and build a large distributed system. The coming decade is going to see a much more data-centric, real-time, intelligent, call it even hyper-decentralized cloud that will comprise on-prem, hybrid, cross-cloud and edge workloads with a services layer that will obstruct the underlying complexity of the infrastructure which will also comprise much more custom and varied components. This was a key takeaway of the guests from theCUBE on Cloud, an event hosted by SiliconANGLE on theCUBE. Welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights Powered by ETR. In this episode, we'll summarize the findings of our recent event and extract the signal from our great guests with a couple of series and comments and clips from the show. CUBE on Cloud is our very first virtual editorial event. It was designed to bring together our community in an open forum. We ran the day on our 365 software platform and had a great lineup of CEOs, CIOs, data practitioners technologists. We had cloud experts, analysts and many opinion leaders all brought together in a day long series of sessions that we developed in order to unpack the future of cloud computing in the coming decade. Let me briefly frame up the conversation and then turn it over to some of our guests. First, we put forth our view of how modern cloud has evolved and where it's headed. This graphic that we're showing here, talks about the progression of cloud innovation over time. A cloud like many innovations, it started as a novelty. When AWS announced S3 in March of 2006, nobody in the vendor or user communities really even in the trade press really paid too much attention to it. Then later that year, Amazon announced EC2 and people started to think about a new model of computing. But it was largely tire kickers, bleeding-edge developers that took notice and really leaned in. Now the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009, really created what we call a cloud awakening and it put cloud on the radar of many CFOs. Shadow IT emerged within departments that wanted to take IT in bite-sized chunks and along with the CFO wanted to take it as OPEX versus CAPEX. And then I teach transformation that really took hold. We came out of the financial crisis and we've been on an 11-year cloud boom. And it doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon, cloud has really disrupted the on-prem model as we've reported and completely transformed IT. Ironically, the pandemic hit at the beginning of this decade, and created a mandate to go digital. And so it accelerated the industry transformation that we're highlighting here, which probably would have taken several more years to mature but overnight the forced March to digital happened. And it looks like it's here to stay. Now the next wave, we think we'll be much more about business or industry transformation. We're seeing the first glimpses of that. Holger Mueller of Constellation Research summed it up at our event very well I thought, he basically said the cloud is the big winner of COVID. Of course we know that now normally we talk about seven-year economic cycles. He said he was talking about for planning and investment cycles. Now we operate in seven-day cycles. The examples he gave where do we open or close the store? How do we pivot to support remote workers without the burden of CAPEX? And we think that the things listed on this chart are going to be front and center in the coming years, data AI, a fully digitized and intelligence stack that will support next gen disruptions in autos, manufacturing, finance, farming and virtually every industry where the system will expand to the edge. And the underlying infrastructure across physical locations will be hidden. Many issues remain, not the least of which is latency which we talked about at the event in quite some detail. So let's talk about how the Big 3 cloud players are going to participate in this next era. Well, in short, the consensus from the event was that the rich get richer. Let's take a look at some data. This chart shows our most recent estimates of IaaS and PaaS spending for the Big 3. And we're going to update this after earning season but there's a couple of points stand out. First, we want to make the point that combined the Big 3 now account for almost $80 billion of infrastructure spend last year. That $80 billion, was not all incremental (laughs) No it's caused consolidation and disruption in the on-prem data center business and within IT shops companies like Dell, HPE, IBM, Oracle many others have felt the heat and have had to respond with hybrid and cross cloud strategies. Second while it's true that Azure and GCP they appear to be growing faster than AWS. We don't know really the exact numbers, of course because only AWS provides a clean view of IaaS and passwords, Microsoft and Google. They kind of hide them all ball on their numbers which by the way, I don't blame them but they do leave breadcrumbs and clues on growth rates. And we have other means of estimating through surveys and the like, but it's undeniable Azure is closing the revenue gap on AWS. The third is that I like the fact that Azure and Google are growing faster than AWS. AWS is the only company by our estimates to grow its business sequentially last quarter. And in and of itself, that's not really enough important. What is significant is that because AWS is so large now at 45 billion, even at their slower growth rates it grows much more in absolute terms than its competitors. So we think AWS is going to keep its lead for some time. We think Microsoft and AWS will continue to lead the pack. You know, they might converge maybe it will be a 200 just race in terms of who's first who's second in terms of cloud revenue and how it's counted depending on what they count in their numbers. And Google look with its balance sheet and global network. It's going to play the long game and virtually everyone else with the exception of perhaps Alibaba is going to be secondary players on these platforms. Now this next graphic underscores that reality and kind of lays out the competitive landscape. What we're showing here is survey data from ETR of more than 1400 CIOs and IT buyers and on the vertical axis is Net Score which measures spending momentum on the horizontal axis is so-called Market Share which is a measure of pervasiveness in the data set. The key points are AWS and Microsoft look at it. They stand alone so far ahead of the pack. I mean, they really literally, it would have to fall down to lose their lead high spending velocity and large share of the market or the hallmarks of these two companies. And we don't think that's going to change anytime soon. Now, Google, even though it's far behind they have the financial strength to continue to position themselves as an alternative to AWS. And of course, an analytics specialist. So it will continue to grow, but it will be challenged. We think to catch up to the leaders. Now take a look at the hybrid zone where the field is playing. These are companies that have a large on-prem presence and have been forced to initiate a coherent cloud strategy. And of course, including multicloud. And we include Google in this so pack because they're behind and they have to take a differentiated approach relative to AWS, and maybe cozy up to some of these traditional enterprise vendors to help Google get to the enterprise. And you can see from the on-prem crowd, VMware Cloud on AWS is stands out as having some, some momentum as does Red Hat OpenShift, which is it's cloudy, but it's really sort of an ingredient it's not really broad IaaS specifically but it's a component of cloud VMware cloud which includes VCF or VMware Cloud Foundation. And even Dell's cloud. We would expect HPE with its GreenLake strategy. Its financials is shoring up, should be picking up momentum in the future in terms of what the customers of this survey consider cloud. And then of course you could see IBM and Oracle you're in the game, but they don't have the spending momentum and they don't have the CAPEX chops to compete with the hyperscalers IBM's cloud revenue actually dropped 7% last quarter. So that highlights the challenges that that company facing Oracle's cloud business is growing in the single digits. It's kind of up and down, but again underscores these two companies are really about migrating their software install basis to their captive clouds and as well for IBM, for example it's launched a financial cloud as a way to differentiate and not take AWS head-on an infrastructure as a service. The bottom line is that other than the Big 3 in Alibaba the rest of the pack will be plugging into hybridizing and cross-clouding those platforms. And there are definitely opportunities there specifically related to creating that abstraction layer that we talked about earlier and hiding that underlying complexity and importantly creating incremental value good examples, snowfallLike what snowflake is doing with its data cloud, what the data protection guys are doing. A company like Loomio is headed in that direction as are others. So, you keep an eye on that and think about where the white space is and where the value can be across-clouds. That's where the opportunity is. So let's see, what is this all going to look like? How does the cube community think it's going to unfold? Let's hear from theCUBE Guests and theCUBE on Cloud speakers and some of those highlights. Now, unfortunately we don't have time to show you clips from every speaker. We are like 10-plus hours of video content but we've tried to pull together some comments that summarize the sentiment from the community. So I'm going to have John Furrier briefly explain what theCUBE on Cloud is all about and then let the guests speak for themselves. After John, Pradeep Sindhu is going to give a nice technical overview of how the cloud was built out and what's changing in the future. I'll give you a hint it has to do with data. And then speaking of data, Mai-Lan Bukovec, who heads up AWS is storage portfolio. She'll explain how she views the coming changes in cloud and how they look at storage. Again, no surprise, it's all about data. Now, one of the themes that you'll hear from guests is the notion of a distributed cloud model. And Zhamak Deghani, he was a data architect. She'll explain her view of the future of data architectures. We also have thoughts from analysts like Zeus Karavalla and Maribel Lopez, and some comments from both Microsoft and Google to compliment AWS's view of the world. In fact, we asked JG Chirapurath from Microsoft to comment on the common narrative that Microsoft products are not best-to-breed. They put out a one dot O and then they get better, or sometimes people say, well, they're just good enough. So we'll see what his response is to that. And Paul Gillin asks, Amit Zavery of Google his thoughts on the cloud leaderboard and how Google thinks about their third-place position. Dheeraj Pandey gives his perspective on how technology has progressed and been miniaturized over time. And what's coming in the future. And then Simon Crosby gives us a framework to think about the edge as the most logical opportunity to process data not necessarily a physical place. And this was echoed by John Roese, and Chris Wolf to experience CTOs who went into some great depth on this topic. Unfortunately, I don't have the clips of those two but their comments can be found on the CTO power panel the technical edge it's called that's the segment at theCUBE on Cloud events site which we'll share the URL later. Now, the highlight reel ends with CEO Joni Klippert she talks about the changes in securing the cloud from a developer angle. And finally, we wrap up with a CIO perspective, Dan Sheehan. He provides some practical advice on building on his experience as a CIO, COO and CTO specifically how do you as a business technology leader deal with the rapid pace of change and still be able to drive business results? Okay, so let's now hear from the community please run the highlights. >> Well, I think one of the things we talked about COVID is the personal impact to me but other people as well one of the things that people are craving right now is information, factual information, truth, textures that we call it. But here this event for us Dave is our first inaugural editorial event. Rob, both Kristen Nicole the entire cube team, SiliconANGLE on theCUBE we're really trying to put together more of a cadence. We're going to do more of these events where we can put out and feature the best people in our community that have great fresh voices. You know, we do interview the big names Andy Jassy, Michael Dell, the billionaires of people making things happen, but it's often the people under them that are the real Newsmakers. >> If you look at the architecture of cloud data centers the single most important invention was scale-out. Scale-out of identical or near identical servers all connected to a standard IP ethernet network. That's the architecture. Now the building blocks of this architecture is ethernet switches which make up the network, IP ethernet switches. And then the server is all built using general purpose x86 CPU's with DRAM, with SSD, with hard drives all connected to inside the CPU. Now, the fact that you scale these server nodes as they're called out was very, very important in addressing the problem of how do you build very large scale infrastructure using general purpose compute but this architecture, Dave is a compute centric architecture. And the reason it's a compute centric architecture is if you open this, is server node. What you see is a connection to the network typically with a simple network interface card. And then you have CPU's which are in the middle of the action. Not only are the CPU's processing the application workload but they're processing all of the IO workload what we call data centric workload. And so when you connect SSDs and hard drives and GPU is everything to the CPU, as well as to the network you can now imagine that the CPU is doing two functions. It's running the applications but it's also playing traffic cop for the IO. So every IO has to go to the CPU and you're executing instructions typically in the operating system. And you're interrupting the CPU many many millions of times a second. Now general purpose CPU and the architecture of the CPU's was never designed to play traffic cop because the traffic cop function is a function that requires you to be interrupted very, very frequently. So it's critical that in this new architecture where does a lot of data, a lot of these stress traffic the percentage of workload, which is data centric has gone from maybe one to 2% to 30 to 40%. >> The path to innovation is paved by data. If you don't have data, you don't have machine learning you don't have the next generation of analytics applications that helps you chart a path forward into a world that seems to be changing every week. And so in order to have that insight in order to have that predictive forecasting that every company needs, regardless of what industry that you're in today, it all starts from data. And I think the key shift that I've seen is how customers are thinking about that data, about being instantly usable. Whereas in the past, it might've been a backup. Now it's part of a data Lake. And if you can bring that data into a data lake you can have not just analytics or machine learning or auditing applications it's really what does your application do for your business and how can it take advantage of that vast amount of shared data set in your business? >> We are actually moving towards decentralization if we think today, like if it let's move data aside if we said is the only way web would work the only way we get access to various applications on the web or pages to centralize it We would laugh at that idea. But for some reason we don't question that when it comes to data, right? So I think it's time to embrace the complexity that comes with the growth of number of sources, the proliferation of sources and consumptions models, embrace the distribution of sources of data that they're not just within one part of organization. They're not just within even bounds of organizations that are beyond the bounds of organization. And then look back and say, okay, if that's the trend of our industry in general, given the fabric of compensation and data that we put in, you know, globally in place then how the architecture and technology and organizational structure incentives need to move to embrace that complexity. And to me that requires a paradigm shift a full stack from how we organize our organizations how we organize our teams, how we put a technology in place to look at it from a decentralized angle. >> I actually think we're in the midst of the transition to what's called a distributed cloud, where if you look at modernized cloud apps today they're actually made up of services from different clouds. And also distributed edge locations. And that's going to have a pretty profound impact on the way we go vast. >> We wake up every day, worrying about our customer and worrying about the customer condition and to absolutely make sure we dealt with the best in the first attempt that we do. So when you take the plethora of products we've dealt with in Azure, be it Azure SQL be it Azure cosmos DB, Synapse, Azure Databricks, which we did in partnership with Databricks Azure machine learning. And recently when we sort of offered the world's first comprehensive data governance solution and Azure overview, I would, I would humbly submit to you that we are leading the way. >> How important are rankings within the Google cloud team or are you focused mainly more on growth and just consistency? >> No, I don't think again, I'm not worried about we are not focused on ranking or any of that stuff. Typically I think we are worried about making sure customers are satisfied and the adding more and more customers. So if you look at the volume of customers we are signing up a lot of the large deals we did doing. If you look at the announcement we've made over the last year has been tremendous momentum around that. >> The thing that is really interesting about where we have been versus where we're going is we spend a lot of time talking about virtualizing hardware and moving that around. And what does that look like? And creating that as more of a software paradigm. And the thing we're talking about now is what does cloud as an operating model look like? What is the manageability of that? What is the security of that? What, you know, we've talked a lot about containers and moving into different, DevSecOps and all those different trends that we've been talking about. Like now we're doing them. So we've only gotten to the first crank of that. And I think every technology vendor we talked to now has to address how are they are going to do a highly distributed management insecurity landscape? Like, what are they going to layer on top of that? Because it's not just about, oh, I've taken a rack of something, server storage, compute, and virtualized it. I know have to create a new operating model around it in a way we're almost redoing what the OSI stack looks like and what the software and solutions are for that. >> And the whole idea of we in every recession we make things smaller. You know, in 91 we said we're going to go away from mainframes into Unix servers. And we made the unit of compute smaller. Then in the year, 2000 windows the next bubble burst and the recession afterwards we moved from Unix servers to Wintel windows and Intel x86 and eventually Linux as well. Again, we made things smaller going from million dollar servers to $5,000 servers, shorter lib servers. And that's what we did in 2008, 2009. I said, look, we don't even need to buy servers. We can do things with virtual machines which are servers that are an incarnation in the digital world. There's nothing in the physical world that actually even lives but we made it even smaller. And now with cloud in the last three, four years and what will happen in this coming decade. They're going to make it even smaller not just in space, which is size, with functions and containers and virtual machines, but also in time. >> So I think the right way to think about edges where can you reasonably process the data? And it obviously makes sense to process data at the first opportunity you have but much data is encrypted between the original device say and the application. And so edge as a place doesn't make as much sense as edge as an opportunity to decrypt and analyze it in the care. >> When I think of Shift-left, I think of that Mobius that we all look at all of the time and how we deliver and like plan, write code, deliver software, and then manage it, monitor it, right like that entire DevOps workflow. And today, when we think about where security lives, it either is a blocker to deploying production or most commonly it lives long after code has been deployed to production. And there's a security team constantly playing catch up trying to ensure that the development team whose job is to deliver value to their customers quickly, right? Deploy as fast as we can as many great customer facing features. They're then looking at it months after software has been deployed and then hurrying and trying to assess where the bugs are and trying to get that information back to software developers so that they can fix those issues. Shifting left to me means software engineers are finding those bugs as they're writing code or in the CIC CD pipeline long before code has been deployed to production. >> During this for quite a while now, it still comes down to the people. I can get the technology to do what it needs to do as long as they have the right requirements. So that goes back to people making sure we have the partnership that goes back to leadership and the people and then the change management aspects right out of the gate, you should be worrying about how this change is going to be how it's going to affect, and then the adoption and an engagement, because adoption is critical because you can go create the best thing you think from a technology perspective. But if it doesn't get used correctly, it's not worth the investment. So I agree, what is a digital transformation or innovation? It still comes down to understand the business model and injecting and utilizing technology to grow our reduce costs, grow the business or reduce costs. >> Okay, so look, there's so much other content on theCUBE on Cloud events site we'll put the link in the description below. We have other CEOs like Kathy Southwick and Ellen Nance. We have the CIO of UI path. Daniel Dienes talks about automation in the cloud and Appenzell from Anaplan. And a plan is not her company. By the way, Dave Humphrey from Bain also talks about his $750 million investment in Nutanix. Interesting, Rachel Stevens from red monk talks about the future of software development in the cloud and CTO, Hillary Hunter talks about the cloud going vertical into financial services. And of course, John Furrier and I along with special guests like Sergeant Joe Hall share our take on key trends, data and perspectives. So right here, you see the coupon cloud. There's a URL, check it out again. We'll, we'll pop this URL in the description of the video. So there's some great content there. I want to thank everybody who participated and thank you for watching this special episode of theCUBE Insights Powered by ETR. This is Dave Vellante and I'd appreciate any feedback you might have on how we can deliver better event content for you in the future. We'll be doing a number of these and we look forward to your participation and feedback. Thank you, all right, take care, we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

>> Hi, and this is theCUBE on Cloud. I'm Stu Miniman and really excited to welcome to a special Fireside Chat. CUBE Alumni has been on the program so many times. We always love talking to founders. We like talking to deep thinkers and that's why he was one of the early ones that I reached out to when we were working on this event. When we first started conversations, we were looking at how hyperscalers really were taking adoption of the brand new technologies, things like flash, things like software defined networking, and how that would invade the enterprise. That of course has had a huge impact, help create a category called hyperconverged infrastructure and I'm talking about Dheeraj Pandey. He is the founder, chairman, and CEO of Nutanix, taking HCI from hyperconverged infrastructure to hybrid cloud infrastructure. So Dheeraj, welcome to the Fireside Chat. Thank you so much for joining us. >> Thank you, Stu, and thank you for the last 10 years that we've grown together, both theCUBE and Nutanix and myself as a leader in the last 10 years. So bringing HCI from hyperconverged to hybrid cloud just reminds me of how the more things change, the more they remain the same. So looking forward to a great discussion here. >> So talk about that early discussion, what the hyperscalers were doing, how can the enterprise take advantage of that? Over time, enterprise has matured and looked a little bit more like the hyperscalers. Hybrid cloud of course is on everyone's lip, as well as we've seen the hyperscalers themselves look more and more like the enterprise. So hybrid and multicloud is where we are today. We think it'll be in the future. But give us a little bit as to how you've seen that progression today and where are we going down the road here? >> Yeah, I think I talked about this during my .NEXT keynote. And the whole idea of, in every recession, we make things smaller. In '91 we said we're going to go away from mainframes into Unix servers. And we made the unit of compute smaller. Then in the year 2000 when there was the next bubble burst and the recession afterwards, we moved from Unix servers to Wintel: Windows and Intel, x86 and eventually Linux as well. Again we made things smaller going from million dollar servers to $5,000 servers, shorter lived servers. And that's what we did in 2008/2009. I said, look, we don't even need to buy servers. We can do things with virtual machines which are servers that are an incarnation in the digital world. There is nothing in the physical world that actually went lives. But we made it even smaller. And now with cloud in the last three, four years and what will happen in this coming decade, they're going to make it even smaller, not just in space which is size with functions and containers and virtual machines, but also in time. So space and time, we're talking about hourly billing and monthly billing and a one-year term as opposed to really going and committing to five or seven years of hardware and CapEx. So I think as you make things smaller, I mean, and this is true for as consumers, we have short attention spans, things are going fast. The cycle of creative destruction of virtual machines is shrinking as well. So I think in many cases, we know we've gone and created this autonomy, massive sprawl. Like we created a massive sprawl of Intel servers back in '95 and 2005. Then we have to use virtualization to go and consolidate all of it, created beautiful data centers of Intel servers with VMware software. And then we created a massive sprawl of data centers, of consolidated data centers with one click private cloud in the last five years and hopefully in the next five too. But I think we're also now creating a proliferation of clouds. There is a sprawl, massive sprawl of cost centers and such. So we need yet another layer of software for governance to reign in on that chaos, hence the need for a new HCI, hybrid cloud infrastructure. >> Yeah, it's fascinating to kind of watch that progression over time. There was a phenomenal Atlantic article. I think it was from like the 1940s or 1950s where somebody took what was happening post-World War II and projected things out. We're talking really pre the internet, but just the miniaturization and the acceleration, kind of the Moore's law discussion. If you take things out, where it would go. When I talked to Amazon, they said the one thing that we know for sure, I'm talking to Amazon.com is that people will want it faster and cheaper in the future. I don't know which robot or drone or things that they have. But absolutely there are those certain characteristics. So from a leadership standpoint, Dheeraj, talk about these changes? We had the wave of virtualization, the wave of containerization, you talked about functions in serverless. Those are tools. But at the end of the day, it's about the outcomes and how do we take advantage of things? So how as a leader do you make sure that you know where to take the company as these technology waves and changes impact what you're doing? >> Yeah, it's a great point. I mean, we celebrate things in IT a lot, but we don't talk about what does it take? What's the underlying fabric to really use these things successfully and better than others and not just use buzzwords, because new buzzwords will come in the next three years. For example AI and ML has been a great buzzword for the last three, four years. But there's very few companies, probably less than even half a percent who know how to leverage machine learning, even understand the difference between machine learning and AI. And a lot of it comes down to a few principles. There's a culture principles, not the least of which is how you celebrate failure, because now you're doing shorter, smaller things. You've got a more agile, you'll have more velocity. Gone are the days of waterfall where you're doing yearly planning and pre-year releases and such. So as we get into this new world, not everything will be perfect, and you've got to really learn to pick yourself up and recover quickly, heal quickly and such. So that is the fundamental tenet of Silicon Valley. And we got to really go and use this more outside the Valley as well in every company out there. Whether it's East Coast company, the Midwest company that are outside the U.S. I think this idea that you will be vulnerable, more vulnerable as you go and learn to do things faster and shorter. I think product management is a term that we don't fully understand, and this is about the why before the how and the what. We quickly jump to the what: containers and functions and databases, servers, and AI, and ML, they're the what. But how do you really start with the why? You know my fascination for one of my distant mentors, Simon Sinek and how he thinks about most companies just focusing on the what, while very few actually start with why, then the how, then the what itself. And product management has to play a key role in this, which also subsumes design, thinking about simplification and elegance and reducing friction. I think again, very few companies, probably no more than 1% of the companies really understand what it means to start with design and APIs, user experience APIs for developers before you even get to writing any single line of code. So I think to me, that's leadership. When you can stay away from instant gratification of the end result, but start with the why, then the how, then the what. >> Yeah, as we know in the technology space, oftentimes the technology is the easy part. It's helping to drive that change. I think back to the early days when we were talking, it was, hyperconverge, it was a threat to storage. We're going to put you out of a job. And we'd always go and say, "Look, no, no, no. We're not putting you out of a job. We're going to free you up to do the things that you want to do. That security project that's been sitting on the shelf for six months, you can go do that. Helping build new parts of the business. Those things that you can do." It's that shifting a mindset can be so difficult. And Dheeraj, I mean, you look at 2020, everyone has had to shift their mindset for everything. I was spending half my time on the road. I don't miss the hotels. I do miss seeing lots and lots of people in person. So what's your advice for people, how they can stay malleable, be open to some change? What are you seeing out there? What advice do you give there? >> Yeah, I think, as you said, inertia is at the core of most things in our lives, including what we saw in healthcare for the last 20, 30 years. I mean, there was so much regulation. The doctor's community had to move forward, nurses had to move forward. I mean, not just providers, but insurance companies. And finally, all of a sudden, we're talking about telehealth because of the pandemic. We are talking about online learning. I mean the things that higher ed refused to do. I mean if you think about the last 20 years of what had happened with the cost of higher ed, I mean it's 200% growth when the cost of television has gone down by probably 100, 200% with more features. Healthcare, higher ed, education in general, all of a sudden is coming for this deep shock because of the pandemic. And I think it's these kind of black swan moments that really changed the world. And I know it's a cliche to say this. But I feel like we are going to be in a new normal, and we have been forced to this new change of digital. I mean, you and I are sitting and talking over the internet. It's a little awkward right now because there's a little bit of a delay in the way I'm looking at things. But I know it's going to directionally be right. I mean, we will go in a way where it just become seamless over time. So change is the only constant. And I believe that I think what we've seen in the pandemic is just the beginning of what digital will mean going forward. And I think the more people embrace it, the faster we do it. Speed is going to be the name of the game when it comes to survival and thriving in this new age. >> Dheeraj, it's interesting. We do hope, I'm a technologist. I know you're an optimist when it comes to things. So we always look at those silver linings. Like I hope healthcare and education will be able to move forward fast. Higher education costs, inequity out there for access to medicine. It would be wonderful if we could help solve some of that, despite this global pandemic. One of the other results, Dheeraj, we talked about some very shifts in the marketplace, the large tech players really have emerged in winter so far in 2020. I can't help, but watch the stock market. And Apple is bigger than ever, Amazon, Google, all ended up in front of Congress to talk about if they've gotten too big. You've partnered with Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. They are potentially a threat but also a partner. From your standpoint, have they gotten too much power? Do we have an inequity in the tech world that they are creating the universes that they will just kind of block off and limit innovation? What's your take on big tech? >> Yeah, I mean, I feel like there's always been big something. I mean, if you go back to the '90s, Amazon, not Amazon, IBM was big, and Microsoft was big, and AT&T was big. I mean, there's always been big companies because the consumer effect that they've had as well, I mean. And I think what we're seeing right now is no different. I mean, at the end of the day, the great thing about this country is that there's always disruption happening. And sometimes small is way better and way more competitive than big. Now at the same time, I do look up to the way some of them have organized themselves. Like the way Amazon has organized itself is really unique and creative with general managers and very independent, highly autonomous groups. So some of these organizations will definitely survive and thrive in scale. And yet for others, I think decision-making and staying competitive and staying scrappy will come a lot harder. So to me when I look at these big names and what Congress is talking about and such, I feel like there's no different than 20, 30, 40 years ago. I mean, we talked about Rockefeller and the oil giants back from 100 years ago. And so in many ways, I mean, the more things change, the more they remain the same. All we have to do is we have to walk over to where the customer is. And that's what we've done with the partnerships. Like in Amazon and Azure, we're saying look, we can even use your commits and credits. I mean, that is a very elegant way to go to where the customer is, rather than force them to where we are. And the public cloud is facing this too. They've come to realize in the last two years that they cannot force all of enterprise computing to come to hyperscalers data centers. They'll have to take in these bite-size smaller clouds to where the customer is, where the customer's machines are, where the customers people are, where the customers data is. That's where we also take to disperse the cloud itself. So I think there's going to be a yin yang where we'll try to walk with the customer to where we want them to be, whether it's hyperscaler data center or the notion of hybrid cloud infrastructure. But many a time, we've got to walk over to where they are. I mean, and outside the U.S, I mean, the cloud is such a nuanced word. I mean, we're talking about sovereignty, we're talking about data gravity, we're talking about economics of owning versus renting. This trifecta, the laws of the land, the laws of physics, and the laws of economics will dictate many of these things as well. So I think the big folks are also humble and vulnerable to realize that there's nothing more powerful than market forces. And I think the rest will take care of itself. >> Yeah, my quick commentary on that, Dheeraj, I think most of us look back at AT&T and felt the government got it wrong. The way they broke it up and ended up consolidating back together, it didn't necessarily help consumers. Microsoft on the other hand might've had a little bit too much power and was leveraging that against competition and really squashing innovation. So in general, it's good to see that the politics are looking at that and chore felt. The last time I watched things, they were a little bit more educated than some previous times there, where it was almost embarrassing to watch our representatives fumbling around with technology. So it's always good to question authority, question what they have. And one of the things you've brought up many times is you're open to listening and you're bringing in new ideas. I remember one conversation I had with you is there's that direction that you hold on to, but you will assess and do new data. You've made adjustments in the product portfolio and direction based on your customers, based on the ecosystem. And you've mentioned some of the, bring thoughts that you've brought into the company and you share. So you mentioned black swan that seem to head you brought to one of the European .NEXT shows. It was great to be able to see that author and read through advisors like Condoleezza Rice who you've had at the conferences a couple of times. Where are you getting some of your latest inspiration from, any new authors or podcasts that you'd be recommending to the audience? >> Yeah, I look at adjacencies, obviously Simon has been great. He was .NEXT, talked about the Infinite Game. And we'll talk about the Infinite Game with Nutanix too with respect to also my decision. But Brene Brown was been very close to Nutanix. I was just looking at her latest podcast, and she was sitting with the author of Stretch, Scott Sonnenschein, and it's a fascinating read and a great listen, by the way, I think for worth an hour, talking about scrappiness, and talking about resourcefulness. What does it mean to really be resourceful? And we need that even more so as we go through this recession, as we are sheltered in place. I think it's an adjacency to everything that Brene does. And I was just blown away by just listening to it. I'd a love for others to even have a listen and learn to understand what we can do within our families, with our budgets, with our companies, with our startups. I mean, with CUBE, I mean, what does it mean to be scrappy? And celebrate scrappiness and resourcefulness, more so than AI always need more. I think I just found it fascinating in the last week itself listening through it. >> John Farinacci talk many times that founder, startup, that being able to pull themselves up, be able to drive forward, overcome obstacles. So Dheeraj, do you tee it up? It sounds like is the next step for you. There's a transition under discussion. Bain has made an investment. There's a search for new CEO. Are you saying there's a book club in your future to be able to get things ready? Why don't you explain a little bit, 11 years took the company public, over 6,500 employees public company. So tell us a little bit about that decision-making process and what you expect to see in the future? >> Yeah, it's probably one of the hardest things as an entrepreneur is to let go, because it's a creation that you followed from scratch, from nothing. And it was a process for me to rethink about what's next for the company and then what's next for me? And me and the company were so tightly coupled that I was like, wow, at some point, this has to be a little bit more like the way Bill Gates did it with Microsoft, and there's going to be buton zone and you will then start to realize that your identity is different from the company's identity. And maybe the company is built for bigger, better things. And maybe you're built for bigger, better things. And how do you really start to first do this decoupling of the identity? And it's really hard. I mean, I'm sure that parents go through this. I mean, our children are still very young. Our eldest is nine going on 10 and our twin girls are six. I know at some point in the next 10 years, eight to 10 years, we'll have to figure out what it means to let go. And I'm already doing this with my son. I tell him you're born free. I mean, the word born free which drives my wife crazy sometimes. I say this to them, it's about independence. And I think the company is also born free to really think about a life outside of me, as well outside of founder. And that was a very important process for me as I was talking to the board for the last six, seven, eight months. And when the Bain deal came in, I thought it was a great time. We ended the fiscal really well, all things considered. We had a good quarter. The transition has been a journey of a lifetime, the business model transition I speak of. Really three years, I mean, I have aged probably 10 years in these last three years. But I think I would not replaced it for anything. Just the experience of learning what it means to change as a public company when you have short-term goals and long-term goals, we need the conviction, knowing what's right, because otherwise we would not have survived this cloud movement, all this idea of actually becoming a subscription company, changing the core of the business in the on-prem world itself. It's a king to change the wings of a plane at 40,000 feet where none of the passengers blink. It's been phenomenal ride last 11 years, but it's also been nonstop monomaniacal. I mean, I use the word marathon for this, and I figured it's a good time to say figure out a way to let go of this, and think of what's bigger better for Nutanix. And going from zero to a billion six in annual billings, and looking at billion six to 3 billion to four to five, I think it'd be great &to look at this from afar. And at the same time, I think there's vulnerability. I mean, I've made the company vulnerable. I've made myself vulnerable. We don't know who the next leader will be. And I think the next three to six months is one of the most important baton zones that I have ever experienced to be a part of. So looking forward to make sure that baton doesn't fall, redefine what good to great looks like, both for the company and for myself. And at the same time, go read more. I mean, I've been passionate about developers in the last 10 years, 11 years. I was a developer myself. This company, Nutanix, was really built by developers for IT. And I'm learning more about the developer as a consumer. How do you think about their experience? Not just the things that we throw at them from open source point of view and from cloud and technologies and AI and ML point of view, but really their lives, having them think about revenue and business and really blurring the lines between architects and product managers and developers. I think it's just an unfathomable problem we've created in IT that I would love to go and read and write more about. >> Yeah, so many important things you said there. I absolutely think that there are certain things everybody of course will think of you for a long time with Nutanix, but there is that separation between the role in the company and the person itself, and really appreciated how much you've always shared along those lines. So last question I have and you hit it up a little bit when you talked about developers. Take off your Nutanix hat for a second here, now what do we need to do to make sure that the next decade is successful in this space, cloud as a general guideline? Yes, we know we have skill gap. We know we need more people, we need more diversity. But there's so much that we need and there's so much opportunity, but what do you see and any advice areas that you think are critical for success in the future? >> Yeah, I mean, you hit up on something that I have had a passion for, probably more late in this world, more so than conspicuous, and and you hit upon it right now, diversity and inclusion. It's an unresolved problem in the developer community: the black developer, the woman developer. The idea of, I mean, we've two girls, they're twins. I'd love for them to embrace computer science and even probably do a PhD. I mean, I was a dropout. I'd love for them to do better than I did. Get, embrace things that are adjacent to biology and computer science. Go solve really hard problems. And we've not done those things. I mean, we've not looked at the community of developers and said, you know, they are the maker. And they work with managers and the maker manager world is two different worlds. How do you make this less friction? And how do you make this more delightful? And how do you think of developers as business, as if they are the folks who run the business? I think there's a lot that's missing there. And again, we throw a lot of jargons at them, and we talk a lot about automation and tools and such. But those are just things. I think the last 10, 11 years of me really just thinking about product and product portfolio and design and the fact that we have so many developers at Nutanix. I think it has been a mind-boggling experience, thinking about the why and the how and the what of the day in the life of, the month in the life of, and thinking about simple things like OKRs. I mean, we are throwing these jargons of OKRs at them: productivity, offshoring, remote work, over the zoom design sessions. It's just full of conflict and friction. So I think there is an amazing opportunity for Nutanix. There's an amazing opportunity for the industry to elevate this where the the woman developer can speak up in this world that's full of so many men. The black developer can speak up. And all of us can really think of this as something that's more structured, more productive, more revenue-driven, more customer in rather than developer out. That's really been some of the things that have been in my head, things that are still unresolved at Nutanix that I'm pretty sure at many of the places out there. That's what thinking and reading and writing about. >> Well, Dheeraj, first of all, thank you so much again for participating here. It's been great having you in theCUBE community, almost since the inception of us doing it back in 2010. Wish you the best of luck in the current transition. And absolutely look forward to talking more in the future. >> Thank you. And again, a big fan of the tremor rate of John, Dave, and you. Always learn so much from you, folks. Looking forward to be a constant student. Thank you. >> Thank you for joining us at theCUBE on Cloud. Lots more coverage here. Be sure to look throughout the site, engage in the chats, and give us your feedback. We're here to help you with the virtual events. I'm Stu Miniman as always. Thanks for watching.

>> Hi, and this is theCUBE on Cloud. I'm Stu Miniman and really excited to welcome to a special Fireside Chat. CUBE Alumni has been on the program so many times. We always love talking to founders. We like talking to deep thinkers and that's why he was one of the early ones that I reached out to when we were working on this event. When we first started conversations, we were looking at how hyperscalers really were taking adoption of the brand new technologies, things like flash, things like software defined networking, and how that would invade the enterprise. That of course has had a huge impact, help create a category called hyperconverged infrastructure and I'm talking about Dheeraj Pandey. He is the founder, chairman, and CEO of Nutanix, taking HCI from hyperconverged infrastructure to hybrid cloud infrastructure. So Dheeraj, welcome to the Fireside Chat. Thank you so much for joining us. >> Thank you, Stu, and thank you for the last 10 years that we've grown together, both theCUBE and Nutanix and myself as a leader in the last 10 years. So bringing HCI from hyperconverged to hybrid cloud just reminds me of how the more things change, the more they remain the same. So looking forward to a great discussion here. >> So talk about that early discussion, what the hyperscalers were doing, how can the enterprise take advantage of that? Over time, enterprise has matured and looked a little bit more like the hyperscalers. Hybrid cloud of course is on everyone's lip, as well as we've seen the hyperscalers themselves look more and more like the enterprise. So hybrid and multicloud is where we are today. We think it'll be in the future. But give us a little bit as to how you've seen that progression today and where are we going down the road here? >> Yeah, I think I talked about this during my .NEXT keynote. And the whole idea of, in every recession, we make things smaller. In '91 we said we're going to go away from mainframes into Unix servers. And we made the unit of compute smaller. Then in the year 2000 when there was the next bubble burst and the recession afterwards, we moved from Unix servers to Wintel: Windows and Intel, x86 and eventually Linux as well. Again we made things smaller going from million dollar servers to $5,000 servers, shorter lived servers. And that's what we did in 2008/2009. I said, look, we don't even need to buy servers. We can do things with virtual machines which are servers that are an incarnation in the digital world. There is nothing in the physical world that actually went lives. But we made it even smaller. And now with cloud in the last three, four years and what will happen in this coming decade, they're going to make it even smaller, not just in space which is size with functions and containers and virtual machines, but also in time. So space and time, we're talking about hourly billing and monthly billing and a one-year term as opposed to really going and committing to five or seven years of hardware and CapEx. So I think as you make things smaller, I mean, and this is true for as consumers, we have short retention spans, things are going fast. The cycle of creative destruction of virtual machines is shrinking as well. So I think in many cases, we know we've gone and created this autonomy, massive sprawl. Like we created a massive sprawl of Intel servers back in '95 and 2005. Then we have to use virtualization to go and consolidate all of it, created beautiful data centers of Intel servers with VMware software. And then we created a massive sprawl of data centers, of consolidated data centers with one click private cloud in the last five years and hopefully in the next five too. But I think we're also now creating a proliferation of clouds. There is a sprawl, massive sprawl of cost centers and such. So we need yet another layer of software for governance to reign in on that chaos, hence the need for a new HCI, hybrid cloud infrastructure. >> Yeah, it's fascinating to kind of watch that progression over time. There was a phenomenal Atlantic article. I think it was from like the 1940s or 1950s where somebody took what was happening post-World War II and projected things out. We're talking really pre the internet, but just the miniaturization and the acceleration, kind of the Moore's law discussion. If you take things out, where it would go. When I talked to Amazon, they said the one thing that we know for sure, I'm talking to Amazon.com is that people will want it faster and cheaper in the future. I don't know which robot or drone or things that they have. But absolutely there are those certain characteristics. So from a leadership standpoint, Dheeraj, talk about these changes? We had the wave of virtualization, the wave of containerization, you talked about functions in serverless. Those are tools. But at the end of the day, it's about the outcomes and how do we take advantage of things? So how as a leader do you make sure that you know where to take the company as these technology waves and changes impact what you're doing? >> Yeah, it's a great point. I mean, we celebrate things in IT a lot, but we don't talk about what does it take? What's the underlying fabric to really use these things successfully and better than others and not just use buzzwords, because new buzzwords will come in the next three years. For example AI and ML has been a great buzzword for the last three, four years. But there's very few companies, probably less than even half a percent who know how to leverage machine learning, even understand the difference between machine learning and AI. And a lot of it comes down to a few principles. There's a culture principles, not the least of which is how you celebrate failure, because now you're doing shorter, smaller things. You've got a more agile, you'll have more velocity. Gone are the days of waterfall where you're doing yearly planning and pre-year releases and such. So as we get into this new world, not everything will be perfect, and you've got to really learn to pick yourself up and recover quickly, heal quickly and such. So that is the fundamental tenet of Silicon Valley. And we got to really go and use this more outside the Valley as well in every company out there. Whether it's East Coast company, the Midwest company that are outside the U.S. I think this idea that you will be vulnerable, more vulnerable as you go and learn to do things faster and shorter. I think product management is a term that we don't fully understand, and this is about the why before the how and the what. We quickly jump to the what: containers and functions and databases, servers, and AI, and ML, they're the what. But how do you really start with the why? You know my fascination for one of my distant mentors, Simon Sinek and how he thinks about most companies just focusing on the what, while very few actually start with why, then the how, then the what itself. And product management has to play a key role in this, which also subsumes design, thinking about simplification and elegance and reducing friction. I think again, very few companies, probably no more than 1% of the companies really understand what it means to start with design and APIs, user experience APIs for developers before you even get to writing any single line of code. So I think to me, that's leadership. When you can stay away from instant gratification of the end result, but start with the why, then the how, then the what. >> Yeah, as we know in the technology space, oftentimes the technology is the easy part. It's helping to drive that change. I think back to the early days when we were talking, it was, hyperconverge, it was a threat to storage. We're going to put you out of a job. And we'd always go and say, "Look, no, no, no. We're not putting you out of a job. We're going to free you up to do the things that you want to do. That security project that's been sitting on the shelf for six months, you can go do that. Helping build new parts of the business. Those things that you can do." It's that shifting a mindset can be so difficult. And Dheeraj, I mean, you look at 2020, everyone has had to shift their mindset for everything. I was spending half my time on the road. I don't miss the hotels. I do miss seeing lots and lots of people in person. So what's your advice for people, how they can stay malleable, be open to some change? What are you seeing out there? What advice do you give there? >> Yeah, I think, as you said, inertia is at the core of most things in our lives, including what we saw in healthcare for the last 20, 30 years. I mean, there was so much regulation. The doctor's community had to move forward, nurses had to move forward. I mean, not just providers, but insurance companies. And finally, all of a sudden, we're talking about telehealth because of the pandemic. We are talking about online learning. I mean the things that higher ed refused to do. I mean if you think about the last 20 years of what had happened with the cost of higher ed, I mean it's 200% growth when the cost of television has gone down by probably 100, 200% with more features. Healthcare, higher ed, education in general, all of a sudden is coming for this deep shock because of the pandemic. And I think it's these kind of black swan moments that really changed the world. And I know it's a cliche to say this. But I feel like we are going to be in a new normal, and we have been forced to this new change of digital. I mean, you and I are sitting and talking over the internet. It's a little awkward right now because there's a little bit of a delay in the way I'm looking at things. But I know it's going to directionally be right. I mean, we will go in a way where it just become seamless over time. So change is the only constant. And I believe that I think what we've seen in the pandemic is just the beginning of what digital will mean going forward. And I think the more people embrace it, the faster we do it. Speed is going to be the name of the game when it comes to survival and thriving in this new age. >> Dheeraj, it's interesting. We do hope, I'm a technologist. I know you're an optimist when it comes to things. So we always look at those silver linings. Like I hope healthcare and education will be able to move forward fast. Higher education costs, inequity out there for access to medicine. It would be wonderful if we could help solve some of that, despite this global pandemic. One of the other results, Dheeraj, we talked about some very shifts in the marketplace, the large tech players really have emerged in winter so far in 2020. I can't help, but watch the stock market. And Apple is bigger than ever, Amazon, Google, all ended up in front of Congress to talk about if they've gotten too big. You've partnered with Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. They are potentially a threat but also a partner. From your standpoint, have they gotten too much power? Do we have an inequity in the tech world that they are creating the universes that they will just kind of block off and limit innovation? What's your take on big tech? >> Yeah, I mean, I feel like there's always been big something. I mean, if you go back to the '90s, Amazon, not Amazon, IBM was big, and Microsoft was big, and AT&T was big. I mean, there's always been big companies because the consumer effect that they've had as well, I mean. And I think what we're seeing right now is no different. I mean, at the end of the day, the great thing about this country is that there's always disruption happening. And sometimes small is way better and way more competitive than big. Now at the same time, I do look up to the way some of them have organized themselves. Like the way Amazon has organized itself is really unique and creative with general managers and very independent, highly autonomous groups. So some of these organizations will definitely survive and thrive in scale. And yet for others, I think decision-making and staying competitive and staying scrappy will come a lot harder. So to me when I look at these big names and what Congress is talking about and such, I feel like there's no different than 20, 30, 40 years ago. I mean, we talked about Rockefeller and the oil giants back from 100 years ago. And so in many ways, I mean, the more things change, the more they remain the same. All we have to do is we have to walk over to where the customer is. And that's what we've done with the partnerships. Like in Amazon and Azure, we're saying look, we can even use your commits and credits. I mean, that is a very elegant way to go to where the customer is, rather than force them to where we are. And the public cloud is facing this too. They've come to realize in the last two years that they cannot force all of enterprise computing to come to hyperscalers data centers. They'll have to take in these bite-size smaller clouds to where the customer is, where the customer's machines are, where the customers people are, where the customers data is. That's where we also take to disperse the cloud itself. So I think there's going to be a yin yang where we'll try to walk with the customer to where we want them to be, whether it's hyperscaler data center or the notion of hybrid cloud infrastructure. But many a time, we've got to walk over to where they are. I mean, and outside the U.S, I mean, the cloud is such a nuanced word. I mean, we're talking about sovereignty, we're talking about data gravity, we're talking about economics of owning versus renting. This trifecta, the laws of the land, the laws of physics, and the laws of economics will dictate many of these things as well. So I think the big folks are also humble and vulnerable to realize that there's nothing more powerful than market forces. And I think the rest will take care of itself. >> Yeah, my quick commentary on that, Dheeraj, I think most of us look back at AT&T and felt the government got it wrong. The way they broke it up and ended up consolidating back together, it didn't necessarily help consumers. Microsoft on the other hand might've had a little bit too much power and was leveraging that against competition and really squashing innovation. So in general, it's good to see that the politics are looking at that and chore felt. The last time I watched things, they were a little bit more educated than some previous times there, where it was almost embarrassing to watch our representatives fumbling around with technology. So it's always good to question authority, question what they have. And one of the things you've brought up many times is you're open to listening and you're bringing in new ideas. I remember one conversation I had with you is there's that direction that you hold on to, but you will assess and do new data. You've made adjustments in the product portfolio and direction based on your customers, based on the ecosystem. And you've mentioned some of the, bring thoughts that you've brought into the company and you share. So you mentioned black swan that seem to head you brought to one of the European .NEXT shows. It was great to be able to see that author and read through advisors like Condoleezza Rice who you've had at the conferences a couple of times. Where are you getting some of your latest inspiration from, any new authors or podcasts that you'd be recommending to the audience? >> Yeah, I look at adjacencies, obviously Simon has been great. He was .NEXT, talked about the Infinite Game. And we'll talk about the Infinite Game with Nutanix too with respect to also my decision. But Brene Brown was been very close to Nutanix. I was just looking at her latest podcast, and she was sitting with the author of Stretch, Scott Sonnenschein, and it's a fascinating read and a great listen, by the way, I think for worth an hour, talking about scrappiness, and talking about resourcefulness. What does it mean to really be resourceful? And we need that even more so as we go through this recession, as we are sheltered in place. I think it's an adjacency to everything that Brene does. And I was just blown away by just listening to it. I'd a love for others to even have a listen and learn to understand what we can do within our families, with our budgets, with our companies, with our startups. I mean, with CUBE, I mean, what does it mean to be scrappy? And celebrate scrappiness and resourcefulness, more so than AI always need more. I think I just found it fascinating in the last week itself listening through it. >> John Farinacci talk many times that founder, startup, that being able to pull themselves up, be able to drive forward, overcome obstacles. So Dheeraj, do you tee it up? It sounds like is the next step for you. There's a transition under discussion. Bain has made an investment. There's a search for new CEO. Are you saying there's a book club in your future to be able to get things ready? Why don't you explain a little bit, 11 years took the company public, over 6,500 employees public company. So tell us a little bit about that decision-making process and what you expect to see in the future? >> Yeah, it's probably one of the hardest things as an entrepreneur is to let go, because it's a creation that you followed from scratch, from nothing. And it was a process for me to rethink about what's next for the company and then what's next for me? And me and the company were so tightly coupled that I was like, wow, at some point, this has to be a little bit more like the way Bill Gates did it with Microsoft, and there's going to be buton zone and you will then start to realize that your identity is different from the company's identity. And maybe the company is built for bigger, better things. And maybe you're built for bigger, better things. And how do you really start to first do this decoupling of the identity? And it's really hard. I mean, I'm sure that parents go through this. I mean, our children are still very young. Our eldest is nine going on 10 and our twin girls are six. I know at some point in the next 10 years, eight to 10 years, we'll have to figure out what it means to let go. And I'm already doing this with my son. I tell him you're born free. I mean, the word born free which drives my wife crazy sometimes. I say this to them, it's about independence. And I think the company is also born free to really think about a life outside of me, as well outside of founder. And that was a very important process for me as I was talking to the board for the last six, seven, eight months. And when the Bain deal came in, I thought it was a great time. We ended the fiscal really well, all things considered. We had a good quarter. The transition has been a journey of a lifetime, the business model transition I speak of. Really three years, I mean, I have aged probably 10 years in these last three years. But I think I would not replaced it for anything. Just the experience of learning what it means to change as a public company when you have short-term goals and long-term goals, we need the conviction, knowing what's right, because otherwise we would not have survived this cloud movement, all this idea of actually becoming a subscription company, changing the core of the business in the on-prem world itself. It's a king to change the wings of a plane at 40,000 feet where none of the passengers blink. It's been phenomenal ride last 11 years, but it's also been nonstop monomaniacal. I mean, I use the word marathon for this, and I figured it's a good time to say figure out a way to let go of this, and think of what's bigger better for Nutanix. And going from zero to a billion six in annual billings, and looking at billion six to 3 billion to four to five, I think it'd be great &to look at this from afar. And at the same time, I think there's vulnerability. I mean, I've made the company vulnerable. I've made myself vulnerable. We don't know who the next leader will be. And I think the next three to six months is one of the most important baton zones that I have ever experienced to be a part of. So looking forward to make sure that baton doesn't fall, redefine what good to great looks like, both for the company and for myself. And at the same time, go read more. I mean, I've been passionate about developers in the last 10 years, 11 years. I was a developer myself. This company, Nutanix, was really built by developers for IT. And I'm learning more about the developer as a consumer. How do you think about their experience? Not just the things that we throw at them from open source point of view and from cloud and technologies and AI and ML point of view, but really their lives, having them think about revenue and business and really blurring the lines between architects and product managers and developers. I think it's just an unfathomable problem we've created in IT that I would love to go and read and write more about. >> Yeah, so many important things you said there. I absolutely think that there are certain things everybody of course will think of you for a long time with Nutanix, but there is that separation between the role in the company and the person itself, and really appreciated how much you've always shared along those lines. So last question I have and you hit it up a little bit when you talked about developers. Take off your Nutanix hat for a second here, now what do we need to do to make sure that the next decade is successful in this space, cloud as a general guideline? Yes, we know we have skill gap. We know we need more people, we need more diversity. But there's so much that we need and there's so much opportunity, but what do you see and any advice areas that you think are critical for success in the future? >> Yeah, I mean, you hit up on something that I have had a passion for, probably more late in this world, more so than conspicuous, and and you hit upon it right now, diversity and inclusion. It's an unresolved problem in the developer community: the black developer, the woman developer. The idea of, I mean, we've two girls, they're twins. I'd love for them to embrace computer science and even probably do a PhD. I mean, I was a dropout. I'd love for them to do better than I did. Get, embrace things that are adjacent to biology and computer science. Go solve really hard problems. And we've not done those things. I mean, we've not looked at the community of developers and said, you know, they are the maker. And they work with managers and the maker manager world is two different worlds. How do you make this less friction? And how do you make this more delightful? And how do you think of developers as business, as if they are the folks who run the business? I think there's a lot that's missing there. And again, we throw a lot of jargons at them, and we talk a lot about automation and tools and such. But those are just things. I think the last 10, 11 years of me really just thinking about product and product portfolio and design and the fact that we have so many developers at Nutanix. I think it has been a mind-boggling experience, thinking about the why and the how and the what of the day in the life of, the month in the life of, and thinking about simple things like OKRs. I mean, we are throwing these jargons of OKRs at them: productivity, offshoring, remote work, over the zoom design sessions. It's just full of conflict and friction. So I think there is an amazing opportunity for Nutanix. There's an amazing opportunity for the industry to elevate this where the the woman developer can speak up in this world that's full of so many men. The black developer can speak up. And all of us can really think of this as something that's more structured, more productive, more revenue-driven, more customer in rather than developer out. That's really been some of the things that have been in my head, things that are still unresolved at Nutanix that I'm pretty sure at many of the places out there. That's what thinking and reading and writing about. >> Well, Dheeraj, first of all, thank you so much again for participating here. It's been great having you in theCUBE community, almost since the inception of us doing it back in 2010. Wish you the best of luck in the current transition. And absolutely look forward to talking more in the future. >> Thank you. And again, a big fan of the tremor rate of John, Dave, and you. Always learn so much from you, folks. Looking forward to be a constant student. Thank you. >> Thank you for joining us at theCUBE on Cloud. Lots more coverage here. Be sure to look throughout the site, engage in the chats, and give us your feedback. We're here to help you with the virtual events. I'm Stu Miniman as always. Thanks for watching.

>> From the CUBE studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from the CUBE in ETR. This is breaking analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Earlier these week, the U S department of justice, along with attorneys general from 11 States filed a long expected antitrust lawsuit, accusing Google of being a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet. The suit draws on section two of the Sherman antitrust act, which makes it illegal to monopolize trade or commerce. Of course, Google is going to fight the lawsuit, but in our view, the company has to make bigger moves to diversify its business and the answer we think lies in the cloud and at the edge. Hello everyone. This is Dave Vellante and welcome to this week's Wiki Bond Cube insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we want to do two things. First we're going to review a little bit of history, according to Dave Vollante of the monopolistic power in the computer industry. And then next, we're going to look into the latest ETR data. And we're going to make the case that Google's response to the DOJ suit should be to double or triple its focus on cloud and edge computing, which we think is a multi-trillion dollar opportunity. So let's start by looking at the history of monopolies in technology. We start with IBM. In 1969 the U S government filed an antitrust lawsuit against Big Blue. At the height of its power. IBM generated about 50% of the revenue and two thirds of the profits for the entire computer industry, think about that. IBM has monopoly on a relative basis, far exceeded that of the virtual Wintel monopoly that defined the 1990s. IBM had 90% of the mainframe market and controlled the protocols to a highly vertically integrated mainframe stack, comprising semiconductors, operating systems, tools, and compatible peripherals like terminal storage and printers. Now the government's lawsuit dragged on for 13 years before it was withdrawn in 1982, IBM at one point had 200 lawyers on the case and it really took a toll on IBM and to placate the government during this time and someone after IBM made concessions such as allowing mainframe plug compatible competitors to access its code, limiting the bundling of application software in fear of more government pressure. Now the biggest mistake IBM made when it came out of antitrust was holding on to its mainframe past. And we saw this in the way it tried to recover from the mistake of handing its monopoly over to Microsoft and Intel. The virtual monopoly. What it did was you may not remember this, but it had OS/2 and Windows and it said to Microsoft, we'll keep OS/2 you take Windows. And the mistake IBM was making with sticking to the PC could be vertically integrated, like the main frame. Now let's fast forward to Microsoft. Microsoft monopoly power was earned in the 1980s and carried into the 1990s. And in 1998 the DOJ filed the lawsuit against Microsoft alleging that the company was illegally thwarting competition, which I argued at the time was the case. Now, ironically, this is the same year that Google was started in a garage. And I'll come back to that in a minute. Now, in the early days of the PC, Microsoft they were not a dominant player in desktop software, you had Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect. You had this company called Harvard Presentation Graphics. These were discreet products that competed very effectively in the market. Now in 1987, Microsoft paid $14 million for PowerPoint. And then in 1990 launched Office, which bundled Spreadsheets, Word Processing, and presentations into a single suite. And it was priced far more attractively than the some of the alternative point products. Now in 1995, Microsoft launched Internet Explorer, and began bundling its browser into windows for free. Windows had a 90% market share. Netscape was the browser leader and a high flying tech company at the time. And the company's management who pooed Microsoft bundling of IE saying, they really weren't concerned because they were moving up the stack into business software, now they later changed that position after realizing the damage that Microsoft bundling would do to its business, but it was too late. So in similar moves of ineptness, Lotus refuse to support Windows at its launch. And instead it wrote software to support the (indistinct). A mini computer that you probably have never even heard of. Novell was a leader in networking software at the time. Anyone remember NetWare. So they responded to Microsoft's move to bundle network services into its operating systems by going on a disastrous buying spree they acquired WordPerfect, Quattro Pro, which was a Spreadsheet and a Unix OS to try to compete with Microsoft, but Microsoft turned the volume and kill them. Now the difference between Microsoft and IBM is that Microsoft didn't build PC hardware rather it partnered with Intel to create a virtual monopoly and the similarities between IBM and Microsoft, however, were that it fought the DOJ hard, Okay, of course. But it made similar mistakes to IBM by hugging on to its PC software legacy. Until the company finally pivoted to the cloud under the leadership of Satya Nadella, that brings us to Google. Google has a 90% share of the internet search market. There's that magic number again. Now IBM couldn't argue that consumers weren't hurt by its tactics. Cause they were IBM was gouging mainframe customers because it could on pricing. Microsoft on the other hand could argue that consumers were actually benefiting from lower prices. Google attorneys are doing what often happens in these cases. First they're arguing that the government's case is deeply flawed. Second, they're saying the government's actions will cause higher prices because they'll have to raise prices on mobile software and hardware, Hmm. Sounds like a little bit of a threat. And of course, it's making the case that many of its services are free. Now what's different from Microsoft is Microsoft was bundling IE, that was a product which was largely considered to be crap, when it first came out, it was inferior. But because of the convenience, most users didn't bother switching. Google on the other hand has a far superior search engine and earned its rightful place at the top by having a far better product than Yahoo or Excite or Infoseek or even Alta Vista, they all wanted to build portals versus having a clean user experience with some non-intrusive of ads on the side. Hmm boy, is that part changed, regardless? What's similar in this case with, as in the case with Microsoft is the DOJ is arguing that Google and Apple are teaming up with each other to dominate the market and create a monopoly. Estimates are that Google pays Apple between eight and $11 billion annually to have its search engine embedded like a tick into Safari and Siri. That's about one third of Google's profits go into Apple. And it's obviously worth it because according to the government's lawsuit, Apple originated search accounts for 50% of Google search volume, that's incredible. Now, does the government have a case here? I don't know. I'm not qualified to give a firm opinion on this and I haven't done enough research yet, but I will say this, even in the case of IBM where the DOJ eventually dropped the lawsuit, if the U S government wants to get you, they usually take more than a pound of flesh, but the DOJ did not suggest any remedies. And the Sherman act is open to wide interpretation so we'll see. What I am suggesting is that Google should not hang too tightly on to it's search and advertising past. Yes, Google gives us amazing free services, but it has every incentive to appropriate our data. And there are innovators out there right now, trying to develop answers to that problem, where the use of blockchain and other technologies can give power back to us users. So if I'm arguing that Google shouldn't like the other great tech monopolies, hang its hat too tightly on the past, what should Google do? Well, the answer is obvious, isn't it? It's cloud and edge computing. Now let me first say that Google understandably promotes G Suite quite heavily as part of its cloud computing story, I get that. But it's time to move on and aggressively push into the areas that matters in cloud core infrastructure, database, machine intelligence containers and of course the edge. Not to say that Google isn't doing this, but there are areas of greatest growth potential that they should focus on. And the ETR data shows it. But let me start with one of our favorite graphics, which shows the breakdown of survey respondents used to derive net score. Net score remembers ETR's quarterly measurement of spending velocity. And here we show the breakdown for Google cloud. The lime green is new adoptions. The forest green is the percentage of customers increasing spending more than 5%. The gray is flat and the pinkish is decreased by 6% or more. And the bright red is we're replacing or swapping out the platform. You subtract the reds from the greens and you get a net score at 43%, which is not off the charts, but it's pretty good. And compares quite favorably to most companies, but not so favorite with AWS, which is at 51% and Microsoft which is at 49%, both AWS and Microsoft red scores are in the single digits. Whereas Google's is at 10%, look all three are down since January, thanks to COVID, but AWS and Microsoft are much larger than Google. And we'd like to see stronger across the board scores from Google. But there's good news in the numbers for Google. Take a look at this chart. It's a breakdown of Google's net scores over three survey snapshots. Now we skip January in this view and we do that to provide a year of a year context for October. But look at the all important database category. We've been watching this very closely, particularly with the snowflake momentum because big query generally is considered the other true cloud native database. And we have a lot of respect for what Google is doing in this area. Look at the areas of strength highlighted in the green. You've got machine intelligence where Google is a leader AI you've got containers. Kubernetes was an open source gift to the industry, and linchpin of Google's cloud and multi-cloud strategy. Google cloud is strong overall. We were surprised to see some deceleration in Google cloud functions at 51% net scores to be on honest with you, because if you look at AWS Lambda and Microsoft Azure functions, they're showing net scores in the mid to high 60s. But we're still elevated for Google. Now. I'm not that worried about steep declines, and Apogee and Looker because after an acquisitions things kind of get spread out around the ETR taxonomy so don't be too concerned about that. But as I said earlier, G Suite may just not that compelling relative to the opportunity in other areas. Now I won't show the data, but Google cloud is showing good momentum across almost all interest industries and sectors with the exception of consulting and small business, which is understandable, but notable deceleration in healthcare, which is a bit of a concern. Now I want to share some customer anecdotes about Google. These comments come from an ETR Venn round table. The first comment comes from an architect who says that "it's an advantage that Google is "not entrenched in the enterprise." Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with that, but anyway, I do take stock in what this person is saying about Microsoft trying to lure people away from AWS. And this person is right that Google essentially is exposed its internal cloud to the world and has ways to go, which is why I don't agree with the first statement. I think Google still has to figure out the enterprise. Now the second comment here underscores a point that we made earlier about big query customers really like the out of the box machine learning capabilities, it's quite compelling. Okay. Let's look at some of the data that we shared previously, we'll update this chart once the company's all report earnings, but here's our most recent take on the big three cloud vendors market performance. The key point here is that our data and the ETR data reflects Google's commentary in its earning statements. And the GCP is growing much faster than its overall cloud business, which includes things that are not apples to apples with AWS the same thing is true with Azure. Remember AWS is the only company that provides clear data on its cloud business. Whereas the others will make comments, but not share the data explicitly. So these are estimates based on those comments. And we also use, as I say, the ETR survey data and our own intelligence. Now, as one of the practitioners said, Google has a long ways to go as buddy an eighth of the size of AWS and about a fifth of the size of Azure. And although it's growing faster at this size, we feel that its growth should be even higher, but COVID is clear a factor here so we have to take that into consideration. Now I want to close by coming back to antitrust. Google spends a lot on R&D, these are quick estimates but let me give you some context. Google shells out about $26 billion annually on research and development. That's about 16% of revenue. Apple spends less about 16 billion, which is about 6% of revenue, Amazon 23 billion about 8% of the top line, Microsoft 19 billion or 13% of revenue and Facebook 14 billion or 20% of revenue, wow. So Google for sure spends on innovation. And I'm not even including CapEx in any of these numbers and the hype guys as you know, spend tons on CapEx building data centers. So I'm not saying Google cheaping out, they're not. And I got plenty of cash in there balance sheet. They got to run 120 billion. So I can't criticize they're roughly $9 billion in stock buybacks the way I often point fingers at what I consider IBM's overly wall street friendly use of cash, but I will say this and it was Jeff Hammerbacher, who I spoke with on the Cube in the early part of last decade at a dupe world, who said "the best minds of my generation are spending there time, "trying to figure out how to get people to click on ads." And frankly, that's where much of Google's R&D budget goes. And again, I'm not saying Google doesn't spend on cloud computing. It does, but I'm going to make a prediction. The post cookie apocalypse is coming soon, it may be here. iOS 14 makes you opt in to find out everything about you. This is why it's such a threat to Google. The days when Google was able to be the keeper of all of our data and to house it and to do whatever it likes with that data that ended with GDPR. And that was just the beginning of the end. This decade is going to see massive changes in public policy that will directly affect Google and other consumer facing technology companies. So my premise is that Google needs to step up its game and enterprise cloud and the edge much more than it's doing today. And I like what Thomas Kurian is doing, but Google's undervalued relative to some of the other big tech names. And I think it should tell wall street that our future is in enterprise cloud and edge computing. And we're going to take a hit to our profitability and go big in those areas. And I would suggest a few things, first ramp up R&D spending and acquisitions even more. Go on a mission to create cloud native fabric across all on-prem and the edge multicloud. Yes, I know this is your strategy, but step it up even more forget satisfying investors. You're getting dinged in the market anyway. So now's the time the moon wall street and attack the opportunity unless you don't see it, but it's staring you right in the face. Second, get way more cozy with the enterprise players that are scared to death of the cloud generally. And they're afraid of AWS in particular, spend the cash and go way, way deeper with the big tech players who have built the past IBM, Dell, HPE, Cisco, Oracle, SAP, and all the others. Those companies that have the go to market shops to help you win the day in enterprise cloud. Now, I know you partner with these companies already, but partner deeper identify game-changing innovations that you can co-create with these companies and fund it with your cash hoard. I'm essentially saying, do what you do with Apple. And instead of sucking up all our data and getting us to click on ads, solve really deep problems in the enterprise and the edge. It's all about actually building an on-prem to cloud across cloud, to the edge fabric and really making that a unified experience. And there's a data angle too, which I'll talk about now, the data collection methods that you've used on consumers, it's incredibly powerful if applied responsibly and correctly for IOT and edge computing. And I don't mean to trivialize the complexity at the edge. There really isn't one edge it's Telcos and factories and banks and cars. And I know you're in all these places Google because of Android, but there's a new wave of data coming from machines and cars. And it's going to dwarf people's clicks and believe me, Tesla wants to own its own data and Google needs to put forth a strategy that's a win-win. And so far you haven't done that because your head is an advertising. Get your heads out of your ads and cut partners in on the deal. Next, double down on your open source commitment. Kubernetes showed the power that you have in the industry. Ecosystems are going to be the linchpin of innovation over the next decade and transcend products and platforms use your money, your technology, and your position in the marketplace to create the next generation of technology leveraging the power of the ecosystem. Now I know Google is going to say, we agree, this is exactly what we're doing, but I'm skeptical. Now I think you see either the cloud is a tiny little piece of your business. You have to do with Satya Nadella did and completely pivot to the new opportunity, make cloud and the edge your mission bite the bullet with wall street and go dominate a multi-trillion dollar industry. Okay, well there you have it. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcasts, so please subscribe wherever you listen. I publish weekly on Wikibond.com and Siliconangle.com and I post on LinkedIn each week as well. So please comment or DM me @DVollante, or you can email me @David.Vollante @Siliconangle.com. And don't forget to check out etr.plus that's where all the survey action is. This is Dave Vollante for the Cube Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching everybody be well. And we'll see you next. (upbeat instrumental)

>> Live from Orlando, Florida. It's theCUBE. Covering Microsoft Ignite. Brought to you by Cohesity, and theCUBE's Ecosystem partners. >> Welcome back, everyone, to theCUBE's live coverage of Microsoft Ignite here in the Orange County Civic Center in Orlando, Florida. I'm your host, Rebecca Knight, along with my cohost, Stu Miniman. We are joined by Raphael Meyerowitz, he is the VP Office of the CTO at Presidio, And Jake Smith, who is the Director Data Center Solutions and Technologies at Intel. Thank you both so much for coming back on theCUBE. You're both CUBE alums. >> Thank you for having us. >> It's great to be back. >> So, I want to start by laying out for our viewers, why you're here, and if you're part of the Microsoft ecosystem: Intel, Cisco, Dell and others. Can you explain a little bit, to our viewers, the roll you play in this ecosystem. >> Well, for us, Microsoft is a long time partner. I mean, it's pretty well documented, we don't want to go there today, but at this particular event we're announcing a bunch of new product solutions. We're announcing new technology capabilities. And at four PM we're going to announce some world record results, for performance with an operating system in an application environment. So it's a very exciting time for Intel to be a part of this event. >> Well, this is quite a tease. (giggles) Can you give us a little-- >> You're going to have to wait 'til four PM. I will say, it has to do with Windows Server. It has to do with Xeon scale of a processor family. And, our future Optane products. >> Well, so, these are all great lead ins. And, before the cameras were rolling we were talking about all of these things. You want to go through, a little bit, where we are with each of those businesses? >> Yeah, at Presidio, we've mostly been partnering with Intel for a long time. And one of the things that we've seen also, is how Intel has developed their ecosystem of partners. The software, like today, if you look at today what was in our today with desktop as a service with citrix. That's something that we have been involved in, probably, for about 10 years. And now we actually seen that come to market. We're not just, the control plane is in the cloud. But, the actual, virtual desktops are in the cloud. And, we think that that's going to be a really good viable options for our customers with Office 365. >> Raph, maybe expand on that a little bit for our audience. You know, one of the things I always say is you talk in this multi-cloud heterogeneous world. You want to follow the apps. You want to follow the data. Well, you know, the desktop is part of where those applications and data live. So, how does that, you know, tie into all the cloud stuff we've been talkin' about, the last few years? >> So, for a lot of customers, one of the reasons they move to cloud is really for simplicities sake, alright. When you look at the desktop, the desktop is really not necessarily being the most simple thing in the world. Whether it's virtual, or whether it's physical desktop. By having the control plane in the virtual desktop in the cloud, where you can consume it with Office 365. And also through Microsoft. And you can buy it through a single entity. Customers are already going to see a lot of value in that. And we think it's really going to play in the market really, really well. Upper Enterprise customers and some Healthcare customers may take a little bit more time to adapt to. >> Jake, one of the things we talk, for years, we talked about people did their upgrades based on the tick-tock of the Intel fees there. >> Correct. >> Now we're talkin' about things like, you know, Windows as a service, going Evergreen. Maybe, how does that relationship, the old traditional Wintel versus the cloud era. Upgrades. You're talkin' about the new latest generation. How do we think about that? >> You know what, I'm not going to use that, the merged term, because that's, you know. The work that Windows does on Xeon scalable processor family has been amazing. But, typically, we've done a two to three year cycle on a server release. With our new road map, which we announced in August, which you were there for, so thank you. We're actually going to release a new CPU every year. We're releasing a new CPU every year because we have to deal with the fact that cloud customers, in Azure, want to have the availability to the latest and greatest technology, right now. And partners, like Presidio and Raph's team, have developed technologies, like Concierge, which he'll talk about, that give customers the ability to manage their hybrid cloud environments, both in the cloud and on premises. When you start giving customers that flexibility they want the choice to say, I want to deploy your latest Xeon scalable processor family, Skylake processors this year, and next year, I'm going to maybe skip a year before I deploy your next version. >> Yeah, thanks Jake. One of the things that we've done at Presidio, we've tried to innovate ourselves, and we listen to our customers, and we know where our customers pain points are. So, Presidio Concierge is something that we developed from the ground up, that provides both shared space applications, provides customers with the usage on their shared space applications, how they're consuming their licenses, and also provides them with an allessor sign, so the infrastructure's a service. A lot of customers, when you talk about multi cloud, it doesn't always necessarily always mean the Harper scalers, right. It could mean shared space products, as well. So, we developed this product from the ground up in combination with Intel, and it's something that our customers are starting to use a lot, and we think that there's going to be a great grow in their first product. Some of the features that we actually give to our customers are actually for free, because we know that our customers are really battling with figuring out their usage patterns, internally. >> Well, I want to hear about those pain points. What were the problems that you were trying to solve with Concierge? >> So, some of the pain points, you know, we have customers today that get invoices from some of the public cloud companies or their service providers or with their infrastructures service. And the invoices are 50 pages long. They can never actually figure out what their true costs are. So we, through a shared space platform, that we developed from the ground up, we can provide customers with all of those metrics around their licenses. Plus, also, their usage around infrastructure as a service, as well. >> And, what has demand been like? >> The demand's been really good. Actually, when we launched product about two, three months ago, we were already at 20 customers. And we've seen a lot of interest. Presidio has about 7700 customers nationally, that we call on today. And we've grown tremendously, we have about a three billion dollar infrastructure partner today that provides both on premises and public cloud services. >> Yeah, I like, you brought up the fact that customers are looking for simplicity. Unfortunately, today, cloud is no longer simple. You know, I would say if you said, okay, If I went to my server vendor of choice and wanted to configure something, versus I went to my cloud vendor of choice and try to configure something, cloud might even be more challenging for somebody to do. But, one of the areas that we're trying to help customers get some simplicity back, is if you look at solutions like Azure Stack. So, Rebecca and I interviewed Jeffrey Snover earlier today, and that was the goal they had, was to give, kind of, that operational model and even some of the services from Azure and put them in my data center. Was wondering if Intel and Presidio are both partnering with Microsoft on this. What are you seeing, what are you hearing from customers? Any proof points as to how the roll outs are going, on there? >> We at Presidio, we are one of the first Azure Stack partners. Probably, about a year and a half ago, when it was actually announced and when it went, yeah, I think it was June of last year, and we partnered with Cisco, Dell, and also HP in the space, and we seen demand from our customers creep up. Single node solutions. We've seen demand with Single node PLC solutions are being deployed today. And then, in the public sector, we're also starting to see customers that are interested in it because it will provide them with a gateway to the public cloud in the future. >> Yeah, we're seeing the exact same thing. Obviously, we've been partnering together for some time. The beauty of Azure Stack is it's optimized for Xeon scalable processor family, as well as Intel Optane technologies, both the SSDs and in the future, our persistent memory capabilities. What we like in our work that we've done on Azure Stack and Azure Stack development, is that customers have had a lot of releases to begin to determine where Azure Stack's going to fit in their overall portfolio. And that's how you really have to look at Azure Stack, is how do you manage your portfolio between the cloud and on premises. Azure Stack is a great tool for that. >> You know, leading up to the release of Azure Stack, I talked to a number of service providers that had pent up demand. Leading up to this show, I was hearing a lot of non-North American interest. Can you give us any characterization as to how the roll out's going? >> Yeah, I think when you look at non-North American interest, there's a lot of localization, that has to take place in a lot of those countries. Maybe there's not actually an Azure, a public cloud Azure in those countries today, which is something that Microsoft is building towards. So, customers want to get used to their API's, they want to keep their data local. And when they're the same API's, on premises versus in the public cloud for all of their applications. And that's why I think you see, especially in Europe, as an example, a lot of countries in Europe where actually, data sovereignty's a big issue, alright. The data's not allowed to leave the country that they're actually in. And the demand, I think will, I always say, Microsoft, version two or version three. They always get it right. I mean, we've seen this time and time again. They've proven to us, they get this right all the time. >> I want to follow up on something you were just talking about, though with, sort of, risk management being a really big, hot opportunity. The next generation of risk management and mitigation. Can you talk a little bit about what you're doing there, and what you're hearing from customers? >> Yeah, so, Presidio developed the next generation risk management framework, called NGRM. So, we found we do a lot of security with Cisco, Palo Alto. We have a lot of security vendors out there that we deal with, but what our CIO's were really looking for is they were looking for a single dashboard that could actually provide them with a scorecard: Green, Yellow, or Red. Basically saying this is where we're at in our security strategy and this is what we need to remediate right away. They can take that to their board, they can also use that internally for all of their CSO's and also all their internal IT infrastructure personnel that they have. So, it's something that we've seen customers adopt, because it provides that analysis and the remediation and it's not necessarily tied to a specific product. Again, this is a shared space platform that we developed from the ground up, because our customers are always saying, "Well, there's always security vulnerabilities. "How can we constantly check on this?" Right? And it doesn't matter whether you're running Azure, whether you have on-premises solutions, or whether you have some other cloud provider, we can provide that holistic view for customers today. >> One of the announcements that I think surprised everyone. I mean, things like Server 2019, we all expect. The open data initiative, the commentary that we had is if you talk about digital transformation. I mean, Microsoft, Adobe and SAP. Two companies at the center of it. What does it mean? When will customers see the benefits of this? And any commentary of digital transformation in general would be great. >> Well, typically, we've been involved in a lot of these open standards, and they typically take three to five years to work their way all the way through the system and build the proper ecosystem and standards. And then work their way into the product lines. I think, in this particular instance, there is a driver. We talked about the driver of cloud and why we, we Intel, are now producing chips every year, and you're not waiting for the three year release cycle. Well, the open data initiative, I think, falls into that camp. I think you're going to see an escalated transition to the open data initiative, because people have to be able to move their workloads. Presidio recognized it very early on in the process. We've been working with them for some time. But that's one of the values that they bring to customers, is their ability to do that. But, more and more customers and more and more data are being stretched and there has to be compatibility between file systems, file format, and data classification. The open data initiative is a start in that direction. >> Yeah, I mean, one of the examples that I could give you also is we always talk about IT transformation. We have a large customer that's actually a fleet truck company that underwent IT transformation, and they came to us and they said that they actually needed telematics on the trucks in the fleet of trucks. And the reason was because a lot of these trucks are breaking down and they would send it to a mechanic and the mechanic would diagnose it. So, we actually created, in partnership with Intel and with Microsoft, this telematic platform that actually can provide the customer, in real time, with what issues they actually have with the truck. And it saves the customer a lot of money. That's the type of information that customers are looking for. This customer has on premises data, plus, also in the public cloud, and I think stretching it and providing analytics around that is really important. >> And is it possible to take away the silos? I mean, you seem to be an optimist here. >> I'm very optimistic that we can take away the silos, but I'm also realistic. The only way to take away the silos is to develop new applications, new capabilities. And as my friends in Windows Server Team will tell you, we spend a lot of time trying to figure out, how do we use virtualization and container technologies to take old legacy data and carry it forward onto new modern IT infrastructure. And when you can do that, then you can extract value from the data. If you can not take it from an old, antiquated infrastructure to a new infrastructure as Presidio has done, you stranded the data. And that's where you have those silo breakdowns. So, I think we're developing the tools, but we're not all the way there. >> Yeah, you look at Windows 2019 coming out, there's Linux support in Windows 2019. Who would ever think that Microsoft would be releasing Linux support. >> Microsoft loves Linux. >> Microsoft loves Linux now, right? >> And they will in get it. >> And they'll get it now as well. Microsoft is really developed their ecosystem. Our partners also around the open API's and what they've been doing over the past few years. And I think customers are really starting to embrace that. And you look at even another feature that's coming with Windows 2019 with Storage Spaces Direct. Right, I think Microsoft, this is really going to be their entry into the Apple convert space. Customers are going to start building, they'll have to converge platform based on Windows 2019 Data Center. >> Wondering if you can give a little more color here, Raph. You and I lived through, kind of converged and hyperconvergence, when we wrote our original research at Wikibon, it was VMware is the one that's going to get everybody talking about it, but the one eventually that will be very important here is Microsoft. 'Cause, Microsoft owns the apps. They've got the operating systems, so absolutely, they can be critical in the HCI space. What are they doing and how does Presidio and partners go to market with this? >> So, I mean, when you look at Windows 2016, Windows 2016 was really the first iteration of Storage Spaces Direct. Windows 2019 has really improved upon that, and we're starting to see customers become more interested in that. The reason is because customers want a single platform that they can easily manage with a single operating system. So, there used to be the war, as you mentioned Stu, between VMware and Harper-V. ESXi and Harper-V. I don't really see that being talked about anymore. It's more around the features and the robust features that customers can actually get on as quickly as possible. I don't know if you have anymore. >> Well Raph, you're absolutely right on. I think people have taken virtualization for granted. We added virtualization technology in Xeon in 2006 and they've sort of taken it for granted. Obviously, VMware is a big partner for both Microsoft and Intel, but the reality is is that in a hyper convergent environment, you need a file system, you need an operating system, and you need apps. And Microsoft has all that capability. As you'll hear at four o'clock, we announce world record numbers and it's spectacular. And the reason for it is in our last version of Windows Server 2016, we delivered 16 million IOP's in a hyper converged environment. That got Raph and his team off the table saying, okay, you guys are legitimate. You have a legitimate platform now. But it's not good enough. We think this new instantiation that we've already started to announce in Windows 2019, and Jeff Wolsey announced it earlier today and started talking about the features in Project Honolulu. We think those kind of transitions are what it's going to take for Enterprise customers to begin to break down those silos that you discussed, and really start to look at their data holistically, build data lakes that can scale, and build frameworks that are, I don't even want to use the term convergent anymore, but hyper scalable. >> Yeah, I mean, to tie into that, right. You look at what Intel has developed around Optane and some of the storage platforms that they've come out with. 10 years ago? Intel wasn't really known as a storage company, right? But, you look at all the storage vendors out there today, they really are putting Intel aside. And when you start looking at what Storage Spaces Direct is going to deliver and some of the robustness around Optane, we really think that it's going to be something our customers are going to embrace with Windows 2019 and future versions and sequels. >> So, Raph, I got to give Presidio a lot of credit, though. We launched a program called Intel Select Solutions, and it really allowed us to take Windows and Storage Spaces Direct and create a solution that included both the CPU, the networking, the SSD's and the memory. And Presidio has led that. And so because we have these Intel Select Solutions for Storage Spaces Direct with Presidio, we have the flexibility now to give customers package solutions that are pre-configured. >> Great. Well, Jake and Raphael, thank you so much for coming on theCUBE. It was great talking to you. >> Thank you very much. >> I'm Rebecca Knight, for Stu Miniman, we will have more of theCUBE's live coverage of Microsoft Ignite coming up just in a little bit. (light tehcno music)

(upbeat techno music) >> From Union Square in downtown San Francisco, it's theCUBE, covering PagerDuty Summit '18. Now, here's Jeff Frick. >> Hey welcome back everybody, Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're at PagerDuty summit in the Westin St. Francis, Union Square, San Francisco. We're excited to have our next guest, this guy likes to get into the weeds. We'll get some into the weeds, not too far in the weeds. Armon Dagar, he's a co-founder and CTO of HashiCorp. Armon, great to see you. >> Thanks so much for having me, Jeff. >> Absolutely, so you're just coming off your session so how did the session go? What did you guys cover? >> It's super good, I mean I think what we wanted to do was sort of take a broader look and not just talk too much just about monitoring and so the talk was really about zero trust networking. Sort of the what, the how, the why. >> Right, right, so that's very important topic. Did Bitcoin come up or blockchain? Or are you able to do zero trust with no blockchain? >> We were able to get through with no blockchain, thankfully I suppose. >> Right. >> But I think kind of the gist of it when we talk about, I think that the challenge is it's still sort of at that nascent point where people are like, okay, zero trust networking I've heard of it, I don't really know what it is or what mental category to put it in. So I think what we tried to do was sort not get too far in the weeds, as you know I tend to do but sort of start high level. >> Right, right. >> And say, what's the problem, right? And I think the problem is we live in this world today of traditional flat networks where, I have a castle and moat, right? I wrap my data center in four walls, all my traffic comes over a drawbridge, and you're either on the outside and you're bad and untrusted or your on the inside and you're good and trusted. And so what happens when a bad guy gets in, right? >> Right. >> It's sort of this all or nothing model, right? >> But now we know, the bad guys are going to get in, right? It's only a function of time, right? >> Right, and I think you see it with the Target breech, the Neiman Marcus breech, the Google breech, right? The list sort of goes on, right? It's like, Equifax, right? It's a bad idea to assume they never get in. (laughing) >> If you assume they get in, so then, if you know the bad guys are going to get in, you got to bake that security in all different levels of your applications, your data, all over the place. >> Exactly. >> So what are some of the things you guys covered in the session? >> So I think the core of it is really saying how do we get to a point where we don't trust our network, where we assume the attacker will get on the network and then what? How do you design around that assumption, right? And what you really have to do is push identity everywhere, right? So every application has to say, I'm a web server and I'm connecting to a database, and is this allowed, right? Is a web server allowed to talk to the database? And that's really the crux of what Google calls Beyond Crop, what other people call sort of zero trust networking, is this idea of identity based where I'm saying it's not IP one talking to IP two, it's web server talking to database. >> Right, right, because then you've got all the role and rules and everything associated at that identity level? >> Bingo, exactly. >> Yeah. >> Exactly, and I think what's made that very hard historically is when we say, what do you have at the network? You have IPs and ports. So how do we get to a point where we know one thing is a web server and one thing's a database, right? >> Right. >> And I think the crux of the challenge there, is kind of three pieces, right? You need application identity. You have to say this is a web server, this is a database. You need to distribute certificates to them and say, you get a certificate that says you're a web server, you get a certificate that says you're a database and you have to enforce that access, right? So everyone can't just randomly talk to each other. >> Right, well then what about context too, right? Because context is another piece that maybe somebody takes advantage of and has access to the identity but is using it in way or there's an interaction that's kind of atypical to what's expected behavior, it just doesn't make sense. So context really matters quite a bit as well. >> Yeah, you're super, super right and I think this is where it gets into not only do we need to assign identity to the applications but how do we tie that back into sort of rich access controls of who's allowed to do what, audit trails of, okay it seems odd, this web server that never connects to this database suddenly out of the blue doing so, why? >> Right, right. >> And do we need to react to it? Do we need to change the rule? Do we need to investigate what's going on? >> Right. >> But you're right. It's like, that context is important of what's expected versus what's unexpected. >> Right, then you have this other X factor called shared infrastructure and hybrid cloud and I've got apps running on AWS, I've got apps running at Google, I've got apps running at Microsoft, I got apps running in the database, I've got some dev here, I've got some prod here. You know that adds another little X factor to the zero trust. (laughing) >> Yeah, I think I aptly heard it called once, we have a service mess on our hands, right? (laughing) >> Right, right. >> We have this stuff so sort of sprawled everywhere now, how do we wrangle it? How do we get our hands around it? And so as much as I think service mess is a play on sort of the language, I think this is where that emerging category of service mesh does make sense. >> Right. >> It's really looking at that and saying, okay, I'm going to have stuff in private cloud, public cloud, maybe multiple public cloud providers, how do I treat all of that in a uniform way? I want to know what's running where. I want to have rules around who can talk to who. >> Right. >> And that's a big focus for us with Console, in terms of, how do we have a consistent way of knowing what's running where a consistent set of rules around who can talk to who. >> Right. >> And do it across all these hybrid environments, right? >> Right, right, but wait, don't buy it yet, there's more. (laughing) Because then I've got all the APIs right? So now you've got all this application integration, many of which are with cloud based applications. So now you've got that complexity and you're pulling all these bits and connections from different infrastructures, different applications, some in house, some outside, so how do you bring some organization to that madness? >> No, that's a super good question. If you ever want to role change, take a look at our marketing department, you've got this down. (laughing) You know, I would say what it comes down to a heterogeneity is going to be fundamental, right? You're going to have folks that are going to operate different tools, different technologies for whatever reasons, right? Might be a historical choice, might be just they have better relations with a particular vendor. So our view has been, how do you inter op with all these things? Part of it is focus on open source. Part of it is focus on API driven. Part of it is focused on you have to do API integrations with all these systems because you're never going to get sort of the end user to standardize everything on a single platform. >> Right, right. It's funny, we were at a show talking about RPA, robotic process automation, and they, they treat those processes as employees in the fact that they give them identities. >> Right. >> So they can manage them. You hire them, you turn 'em on, they work for you for a while and then you might want to turn them off after they're done whatever doing, that you've put them in place for. But literally they were treating them as an employee. >> Right. >> Treating them with like an employee lead identity that they could have all the assigned rules and restrictions to then let the RPA do what it was supposed to do. It's like interesting concept. >> Yeah, and I think it mirrors I think what we see in a lot of different spaces which is what we were maybe managing before was the sort of very physical thing. Maybe it was we called it Robot 1234, right? Or in the same way we might say, this is server at IP 1234. >> Right. >> On our network. And so we're managing this really physical unit, whether it's an IP, a machine, a serial number. How do we take up the level of abstraction and instead say, you know actually all of these machines, whether IP one, IP two, IP three, they're a web server and whether it's robots one, two or three, they're a door attach, right? >> Right, right. >> And so now we start talking about identity and it gives us this more powerful abstraction to sort of talk about these underlying bits. >> Right. >> And I think it sort of follows the history of everything, right? Which is like how do we add new layers of abstraction that let us manage the complexity that we have? >> Right, right, so it's interesting right in Ray Kurzweil's keynote earlier today, hopefully you saw that, he talked about, basically exponential curves and that's really what we're facing so the amount of data, the amount of complexity is only going to increase dramatically. We're trying to virtualize so much of this and abstract it away but then that adds a different layer of management. At the same time, you're going to have a lot more horsepower to work with on the compute side, so is it kind of like the old Wintel, I got a faster PC, it's getting eaten up by more windows? I mean, do you see the automation being able to keep up with kind of the increasing layers of abstraction? >> Yeah, I mean I think there's a grain of that. Are we losing, just because we're getting access to more resources are we using it more efficiently? I think there's some fairness in, with each layer of abstraction we're sort of introduction additional performance cost, sort of to reduce that, but I think overall what we might be doing is increasing the amount of compute tenfold, but adding a 5% additional management fee, so it's still, I think it's still net and net we're able to do much more productive work, go to much bigger scale but only if you have the right abstractions, right? And I think that's where this kind of stuff comes in is, okay great, I'm going to have 10 times as many machines, how do I deal with the fact that my current security model barely works at my current scale? How do I go to 10x the scale? Or if I'm pointing and clicking to provision a machine, how does that work when I'm going to manage a thousand machines, right? >> Yeah. >> You have to bring in additional tooling and automation and sort of think about it at the next higher level. >> Yeah. >> And I think that's all, all part of this process of adopting cloud and sort of getting that leverage. >> It's so interesting, just the whole scale discussion because at the end of the day, right, scale wins and there's a great interview with James Hamilton from AWS, and it's old, but he's talking about kind of scale and he talks about how many server that were sold in this whatever calendar year it was, versus how many mobile phones were sold and it's many ores of magnitude different and the fact that he's thinking in terms of these types of scales as opposed to, you know, which was a big number in the service sales side, but really the scale challenge introduced by these giant clouds and Facebook and the like really changed the game fundamentally in how do you manage these things. >> Totally, totally and I think that's been our view at HashiCorp, is that when you talk about about kinds of the tidal shift of infrastructure from on premise, relatively static VMware centric to AWS, plus Azure, plus Google, plus VMware, it's not just a change of, okay it's of one server here to one server there. It's like going from one server here to 50 servers that I'm changing at every other day rather than every other year, right? >> Right, right. >> And so it's this sort of order of magnitude of scale but also an order of magnitude in terms of sort of the rate of change as well. >> Right, right. >> And I think that puts downward pressure on how do I provision? How do I secure? How do I deploy applications? How do I secure all of this stuff, right? >> Right. >> I think ever layer of the infrastructure gets hit by this change. >> Right, right, alright so you're a smart guy. You're always looking forward. What are some of the things you're working on down the road? Big challenges that you're looking forward to tackling? >> Oh, okay, that's fun. I mean I think the biggest challenge is how do we get this stuff to be simpler for people to use? Because I think what we're going through is you get this sort of see-saw effect, right? Which is okay, we're getting access to all this new hardware, all this new compute, all these new APIs, but it's not getting simpler, right? >> Right, right. >> It's getting exponentially more complicated. >> Right, right. >> And so I think part of it is how do we go back to sort of looking at what's the core of drivers here? It's like, okay well we want to make it easier for people to deliver and deploy their applications, let's go back to sort of, in some sense, the drawing board, say how do we abstract all of these new goodies that we've been given but make it consumable and easy to learn? Because otherwise, you know, what's the point? It's like, here's a catalog of 50,000 things and no one knows how to use any of it. >> Right, right, right. (laughing) Yeah it's funny, I'm waiting for that next abstraction for AWS, instead of the big giant slide that Andy shows every year. (laughing) It's just that I just want to plug in and you figure out. >> Right. >> What connects on the backend. I can't even hardly read that stuff-- >> Maybe AI will save us. >> Let's hope so. Alright Armon, well thanks for taking a few minutes out of your day and sitting down with us. >> My pleasure, thanks so much, Jeff. >> Alright, he's Armon, I'm Jeff, you're watching theCUBE, we're at PagerDuty Summit in downtown San Francisco, thanks for watching. (upbeat techno music)

(upbeat music) >> Live from San Francisco, it's theCUBE covering Google Cloud Next 2018, brought to you by Google Cloud, and it's Ecosystem Partners. >> Hello everyone, and welcome back theCUBE live coverage, here in San Francisco, the Moscone South. I'm John Furrier with the SiliconANGLE on theCube, with my cohost Dave Vellante, for next three days. Day one, wrap up of Google Next here. Google Cloud's premiere event. This is a different Google. It's a world changing event, in my opinion, of Google. Dave, I want to analyze day one as we put it in the books. Let's analyze and let's look at it, and critique and observe the moves that Google's making vis-à-vis the competition. And Diane Greene, who's on theCUBE earlier, great guest. Kind of in her comfort zone here on theCUBE because she talks, she's an engineer, she's super smart. She thinks free thoughts but she really has a good chessboard view of the landscape. My big walk away today is that she's got full command of what she wants to do, but she's in an uncomfortable position that I think she's not used to. And that is at VMworld, at VMware, she didn't have competition. First mover, changes the market. Certainly, winning at all fronts when VMware was starting. And they morphed over and then you know the history of Vmware: sold to EMC and then now the rest is history. But they really changed the category. They created a category. And were very successful in IT with virtual machines. She's got competition in Cloud. She's playing from behind. She's got the big guns. She's going to bring out the howitzers, you know? I mean she's got Spanner, BigQuery, all the Scale, Kubernetes. Which the internal name is Borg which has been running on the Google infrastructure. Provisioning services on all their applications with billions and billions of users. If she can translate that, that's key. So that's one observation. And the second one is that Google is taking a data centric view. Their competitive advantage is dealing with data. And if you look at everything that they're doing from TensorFlow for AI and all the themes here. They are positioning Google as with a place to bring your data. Okay, that is clear to me as a stake in the ground. With the large scale technical infrastructure they're going to roll out with SREs. Those two things to me are the front and center major power moves that they're making. The rest wrapping around it is Kubernetes, Istio, a service oriented architecture managing services not products and providing large scale value to their customers that don't want to be Google. They want to be like Google in the benefits of Scale, which comes in automation. And I think I head room for Google Cloud is IT operations. So that's kind of like my take. I think day one, the people we've had on from Google sharp as nails, no enterprise tech. Jennifer Lin, Deepti, Diane Greene. The list goes on and on. What's your take? >> Well so, first of all with what's goin' on here and Diane Greene, the game she's playing now. Completely different obviously than VMware. Where it was all about cutting costs. Vmware, when you think about it, sold for $635 million to EMC way back when. So, it was just a little scratch compared to what we're talkin' about now. She didn't have the resources. The IT business, you remember Nick Carr's famous piece on HBR 'Does IT Matter?' That was the sentiment back then. IT, waste of time, undifferentiated. Just cut costs. Cut, cut, cut. Perfect for Vmware. The game they're playing now is totally different. As you said they were late to the enterprise. Ironically, late to the "enterprise cloud" >> They got competition >> They got competition. Obviously the two big ones Microsoft and, of course, AWS. But so what might take away here is: the differentiation. So they're not panicking. They're obviously playing the open source card. Kubernetes, TensorFlow, etc. Giving back to the community. Data, they're definitely going to lead in AI and machine intelligence. No question about it. So they're going to play that card. The database, we had the folks from Cloud Spanner on today. Amazing technology. Where as you think about it, they're talkin' about a transaction-oriented database. We heard a customer today, talking about we replaced Oracle. Right? We got rid of Oracle, now-- >> When was the last time you heard that? Not many times. >> It's not often. No, and they're only $120 million company. But to her point was it's game changing for us. It's a 10-X value proposition. And we're getting the same quality that we're getting out of our Oracle databases. They're leading with apps on Google Cloud. Twitter is there. Spotify. They obviously have a lot of history. So that's part of it, part to focus. We on SiliconANGLE.com, there's a great article by Mark Albertson. He talked about the-- he compared the partner Ecosystem. Google's only about 13,000 partners. Amazon 100,000. Azure 70,000. So a long way to go there. Serverless, this is they're catching up on serverless. But they're still behind. Kind of still in Beta, right? &But serverless, John, I'd love your take on this. Can be as profound as virtualization was. Last to developer love. They've got juice with developers. And then the technology. Massive scale. We heard things about Spanner, the relational semantics. BigQuery, Kubernetes, TensorFlow. They have this automate or die culture. You talked about this in your article. That's a bottoms-up engineering culture. Much different than the traditional enterprise top-down "Go take that hill! "You're going to get shot at but take that hill by midnight" >> It's true. Well I mean, first of all, I think developers are in charge. I think one of the things that's happening is that it's clear is that every company, whether you're a start up or large enterprise, has to come to grips with if they're going to be a software company. And that's easy to say "Oh, that's easy. You just hire some software developers" No, it's not that easy. One, there's software developers coming out. But the way IT was built and the way people were buying IT, it's just not compatible with what software developers want to do. They want to work in a company that's actually building software. They don't want to be servicing infrastructure. So, saying that everyone's going to be a software company is one thing. That's true. And so that's the challenge. And I think Google has an opportunity. Just like Oedipus has been dominating with service-oriented approach managing services. By creating building blocks that create large Scale that allow people to write software easily. And I think that's the keyword. How do I make things common interface. You asked Diane Greene about common primitives. They're going to do the foundational work needed. It might be slower. But at a core primitive, they'll do that work. Because it'll make everything a faster. This is a different mind shift. So again, you also asked one of the guests, I forget who it was, IT moves at a very slow speeds. It's like a caravan-- >> You said glacial >> But yeah, well that used to be. But they have to move faster. So the challenge is: how do you blend the speed of technology, specifically on how modern software is being written, when you have Cloud Scale opportunities? Because this is not a cost cutting environment. People want to press the gas, not the brake. So you have a flywheel developing in technology, where if you are right on a business model observation, where you can create differentiation for a business, this is now the Cloud's customers. You know, you're a bank, you're a financial institution, you're manufacturing, you're a media company. If you can see an opportunity to create a competitive advantage, the Cloud is going to get you there really fast. So, I'm not too hung up on who has the better serverless. I look at it like a car. I want to drive the car. I always want to make sure the engine doesn't fall out or tires don't break. But so you got to look at it, this is a whole 'nother world. If you're not in the Cloud, you're basically on horse and buggy. So yeah, you're not going to have to buy hay. You don't have to deal with horses and clean up all the horse crap on the street. I mean all of that goes away. So IT, buying IT, is like horse and buggy. Cloud is like the sports car. And the question is 'Do I need air-conditioning?' 'Do I need power windows?' This is a whole new view. And people just want to get the job done. So this is about business. Future work. Making money. >> So-- >> And technology is going to facilitate that. So I think the Cloud game is going to get different very fast. >> Well I want to pick up on a couple things you said. Software, every company's becoming a software company. Take Andreessen, said 'Software is eating the world' If software's eating the world, data is eating software. So you've got to become a data company, as well as, a software company. And data has to be at the core of your business in order to compete. And data is not at the core of most company's businesses. So how do they close that gap? >> Yeah >> You've talked about the innovation sandwich. Cloud, data, and AI are sort of the cocktail that's going to drive innovation in the future. So if data is not at the core of your company, how are you going to close that AI gap? Well the way you're going to close is you're going to buy AI from companies like Google and Amazon and others. So that's one point. >> Yeah, and if you don't have an innovation sandwich, if you don't have the data, it's a wish sandwich. You wish you had some meat. >> You wish you had it right (Laughing) Wish I had some meat. You know the other thing is, you mentioned Diane Greene in her keynotes said "We provide consistency "with a common core set of primitives" And I asked her about that because it's really different than what Amazon does. So Amazon, if you think about Amazon data pipeline, and we know because were customers. We use DynamoDB, we use S3, we use all these different services in the data pipeline. Well, each of those has a different API. And you got to learn that world. What Google's doing, they're just simplifying that with a common set of primitives. Now, Diane mentioned, she said there's a trade off. It takes us longer to get to market if-- >> Yeah, but the problem is, here's the problem. Multicloud is a real dynamic. So even though they have a common set of primitives, if you go to Azure or AWS you still have different primitives over there. So the world of Multicloud isn't as simple as saying 'moving workloads' yet. So although you're startin' to see good signs within Google to say 'Oh, that's on prim, that's in the Cloud' 'Okay that's hybrid' within Google. The question is when I don't have to hire an IT staff to manage my deployments on Azure or my deployments on AWS. That's a whole different world. You still got to learn skill sets on those other-- >> That's true >> On other Clouds >> But as your pipeline, as your data pipeline grows and gets more and more complex, you've got to have skill sets that grow. And that's fine. But then it's really hard to predict where I should put data sometimes and what. Until you get the bill at the end of the month and you go "Oh I should've put that in S3 instead of Aurora" Or whatever it is. And so Google is trying to simplify that and solve that problem. Just a different philosophy. Stu Miniman asked Andy Jassy about this, and his answer on theCUBE was 'Look we want to have fine grain control over those primitives in case the market changes. We can make the change and it doesn't affect all the other APIs we have' So that was the trade off that they made. Number one. Number two is that we can get to market faster. And Diane admitted it slows us down but it simplifies things. Different philosophy. Which comes back to differentiation. If you're going to win in the enterprise you have to believe. I get the sense that these guys believe. >> Well and I think there's a belief but as an architectural decision, Amazon and Google are completely different animals. If you look at Amazon and you look at some of the decisions they make. Their client base is significantly larger. They've been in business longer. The sets of services they have dwarf Google. Google is like on the bar chart Andy Jassy puts up, it's like here, and then everyone else is down here, and Google's down here. >> Yeah and the customer references, I mean, it's just off the charts >> So Google is doing, they're picking their spots to compete in. But they're doing it in a very smart engineering way. They can bring out the big guns. And this is what I would do. I love this strategy. You got hardened large scale technology that's been used internally and you're not trying to peddle that to customers. You're tweaking it and making it consumable. Bigtable, BigQuery, Spanner. This is tech. Kubernetes. This is Google essentially being smart. Consuming the tech is not necessarily shoving it down someone's throat. Amazon, on the other hand, has more of a composability side. And some people will use some services on Amazon and not others. I wouldn't judge that right now. It's too early to tell. But these are philosophy decisions. We'll see how the bet pans out. That's a little bit longer term. >> I want to ask you about the Cisco deal. It seems like a match made in heaven. And I want to talk specifically about some of the enterprise guys, particularly Dell, Cisco, and HPE. So you got Dell, with VMware, in bed with Amazon in a big way. We were just down at DC last month, we heard all about that. And we're going to hear more about it this fall at re:Invent. Cisco today does a deal with Google. Perfect match, right? Cisco needs a cloud, Google needs an enterprise partner. Boom. Where's that leave HP? HP's got no cloud. All right, and are they trying to align? I guess Azure, right? >> Google's ascension-- >> Is that where they go? They fall to Azure? >> Well that's what habit is. That's the relationship. The Wintel. >> Right >> But back up with HP for a second. The ascension of Google Cloud into the upper echelon of players will hurt a few people. One of them's obviously Oracle, right? And they've mentioned Oracle and the Cloud Spanner thing. So I think Oracle will be flat-footed by, if Google Cloud continues the ascension. HPE has to rethink, and they kind of look bad on this, because they should be partnering with Google Cloud because they have no Cloud themselves. And the same with Dell. If I'm Dell and HP, I got to get out of the ITOps decimation that's coming. Because IT operations and the manageability piece is going to absolutely be decimated in the next five years. If you're in the ITOps business or IT management, ITOM, ITIL, it's going to get crushed. It's going to get absolutely decimated. It's going to get vaporized. The value is going to be shifted to another part of the stack. And if you're not looking at that if your HPE, you could essentially get flat-footed and get crushed. So HP's got to be thinking differently. But what Google and Amazon have, in my opinion, and you could even stretch and say Alibaba if you want a gateway to China, is that what the Wintel relationship of Windows and Intel back in the 80s and 90s that created massive innovations So I see a similar dynamic going on now, where the Cloud players, we call them Cloud native, Amazon and Google for instance, are creating that new dynamic. I didn't mention Microsoft because I don't consider them yet in the formal position to be truly enabling the kind of value that Google and Amazon will value because-- >> Really? Why not? >> Because of the tech. Well and I think Amazon is more, I mean Microsoft is more of a compatibility mode (Talking over each Other) I run Microsoft. I've got a single server. I've got Office. Azure's got good enough, I'm not really looking for 10-X improvement. So I think a lot of Microsoft's success is just holding the line. And the growth and the stock has been a function of the operating model of Cloud. And we'll see what they do at their show. But I think Microsoft has got to up their game a bit. Now they're not mailing it in. They're doing a good job. But I just think that Google and Amazon are stronger Cloud native players straight up on paper, right? And if you look up their capability. So the HPEs and the Ecosystems have to figure out who's the new partner that's going to make the market. And rising tide will float all boats. So to me, if I am at HP I'm thinking to myself "Okay, I got to manage services. "I better get out in front of the next wave "or I'm driftwood" >> Well Oracle is an interesting case too. You mentioned Oracle. And somebody said to me today 'Oracle they're really hurting' And I'm like most companies would love to be hurting that badly but-- >> Oracles not hurting >> Their strategy of same-same but it's the same Oracle stack brought into the Cloud. They're sending a message to the customers 'Look you don't have to go to another Cloud. 'We've got you covered. We're investing in R&D', which they do by the way. But it was really interesting to hear from the Cloud Spanner customer today that they got a 10-X value, 10-X reduction in costs, and a 10-X capability of scaling relative to Oracle that was powerful to hear that. >> There's no doubt in my mind. Oracle's not hurting. Oracle's got thousands and thousands of customers that do hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. And categories that people would love to have. The question on Oracle is the price pressure is an innovator's dilemma because there's no doubt that Oracle could just snap a few fingers and replicate the kind of deliverables that people are offering. The question is can they get the premium that they're used to getting. One. Number two, if everyone's a software company, are they truly delivering the value that's expected. To be a software company, to be competitive, not to make the lights run-- >> To enable >> To enable competitive-- (Talking over each other) Competitive advantage at a level, that's to me, going to be the real test of how Cloud morphs. And I question that you got to be agile and have a real top line revenue numbers where using technology at a cost benefit ratio that drives value-- >> But with Oracle-- >> If Oracle can get there then that's what we'll see >> The reason why they'll continue to win is because they move at the speed of the CIO. The CIO, and they'll say all the right things: AI-infused, block chain, and machine learning, and all that stuff. And the CIOs will eat it up because it's a safe bet. >> Well, I want to get your thoughts because I talked about this a couple years ago. Last year we started harping on it. We got it more into theCUBE conversation around Cloud being horizontally scalable yet at the top of the stack you've got vertical differentiation. That's great for data. Diane Greene in her key notes said that the vertical focus with engineering resources tied to it it's a key part of their strategy. Highlighted healthcare was their first vertical. Talked about National Institute of Health deal-- >> Retail >> NGOs, financial service, manufacturing, transportation, gaming and media. You got Fortnight on there, a customer in both Clouds. Start ups and retail. >> Yeah he had the target cities >> Vertical strategy is kind of an old enterprise play book TABE. Is that a viable one? Because now with the kind of data, if you got the data sandwich, maybe specialism and verticals can Scale. Your thoughts? >> I'll tell you why it is. I'll tell you why it's viable. Because of digital. So for years, these vertical stacks have been hardened. And the expertise and the business process and the knowledge within that vertical industry, retail, transportation, financial services, etc., has been hardened. But with digital, you're seeing it all over the place. Amazon getting into content. Apple getting into content. Amazon getting into groceries. Google getting into healthcare. So digital allows you to not only disrupt horizontally at the technology layer, but also vertically within industries. I think it's a very powerful disruption agenda. >> Analytics seems to be the killer app. That's the theme here: data. Maybe take it to the next step. That's where the specialism is. That's where the value's created. Why not have vertical specialty? >> No and >> Makes a lot of sense >> And it's a different spin. It's not the traditional-- >> Stack >> Sort of hire a bunch of people with that knowledge in that stack. No, it's really innovate and change the game and change the business model. I love it. >> That was a great surprise to me. Dave, great kicking off day one here this morning. Ending day one here with this wrap up. We got three days of wall-to-wall coverage. Go to siliconANGLE.com. We've got a great Cloud special Rob Hof, veteran chief of the team. Mark Albertson, and the rest of the crew, put some great stories together. Go to theCUBE.net and check out the video coverage there. That's where we're going to be live. And of course WIKIBAN.com for the analyst coverage from Peter Burris and his team. Check that out. Of course theCUBE here. Day one. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow

>> Announcer: From the SiliconANGLE Media office in Boston, Massachusetts, it's theCube! (bright music) Now here's your host, Dave Vellante. >> Hi everybody, welcome to this special presentation in the Marlborough offices of theCube. My name is Dave Vellante, and I'm here with a friend, a colleague, a mentor of mine, David Moschella who is an author and a Fellow at Leading Edge Forum. Dave, thanks for coming in. It's great to see you. >> Hey, great to see you again. So we're going to talk about your new book, Seeing Digital: A Visual Guide to Industries, Organizations, and Careers of the 2020s. I got it here on my laptop. Got it off of Amazon, so check it out. We're going to be unpacking what's in there today. This is your third book I believe, right? Waves of Power and... >> David: Customer-Driven IT. >> Customer-Driven IT which was under the '03 timeframe coming out of the dot-com, and to me this is your most significant work, so congratulations on that. >> Well, thank you. >> Dave: I know how much work goes into it. >> You bet. >> So what was the motivation for writing this book? >> Well it's a funny thing when books are a lot of work, and during those times you wind up asking yourself why am I (laughing) doing this because they put in so much time. But for the last seven or eight years our group, the Leading Edge Forum, we've been doing a lot of work mostly for large organizations and our clients told us that the work we've been doing in consumerization, in Cloud, in disruption, in machine intelligence was really relevant to not just them but to their wider audiences of their partners, their customers, their employees. And so people are asking can we get this to a wider audience, and really that is what the book is trying to do. >> Yeah, you guys have done some great work. I know when I can get my hands on it I consume it. For those of you who don't know, Dave originally came up with the theory of disintegration to kind of explain the shift from centralized mainframe era to the sort of open distributed competition along different lines which really defined the Wintel era. So that was kind of your work really explaining industry shifts in a way that helped people and executives really understand that. And then the nice thing about this book is you're kind of open-sourcing a decade's worth of research that yourself and your colleagues have done. So talk about the central premise of the book. We're entering a new era. We're sort of exiting the Cloud, Web 2.0 era. We're still trying to figure out what to call this. But what's the central premise of the book? >> Yeah, the central premise is that the technologies of the 2020s will indeed define a new era, and the IT era industry just evolves. We had the mainframe era, the mini era, the PC and the Internet era, the mobility era, and now we're going in this era of intelligence and automation and blockchains and speech and things that are just a entire new layer of intelligence, and that that layer to us is actually more the powerful than any of the previous layers we've seen. If you think back, the first Web was founded around technologies like search and email and surfing the Web, quite simple technologies and created tremendous companies. And then the more recently we have sort of the social era for Facebook and Salesforce. And all these companies, they sort of took advantage of the Cloud. But again, the technologies are relatively simple there. Now we're really looking at a whole wave of just fundamentally powerful technology and so trying to anticipate what that's going to mean. >> So going from sort of private networks to sort of public networks to a Cloud of remote services to now this set of interrelated digital services that are highly accessible and essentially ubiquitous is what you put forth in the book, right? >> Yeah, and we put a lot of emphasis on words. Why do words change? We had an Internet that connected computers and a Web that sort of connected pages and documents and URLs. And then we started talking about Cloud of stuff out there somewhere in cyberspace. But when we look at the world that's coming and we use those words, pervasive, embedded, aware, autonomous, these aren't words that are really associated with a Cloud. And Cloud is just a metaphor, that word, and so we're quite sure that at some point a different word will emerge because we've always had a different word for every era of change and we're going into one of those eras now. >> So a lot of people have questions about we go to these conferences and everybody talks about digital disruption and digital transformation, and it's kind of frankly lightweight a lot of times. It doesn't have a lot of substance to it. But you point out in the book that CEOs are asking the question, "How do I get digital right?" They understand that something's happening, something's changing. They don't want to get disrupted, but what are some of the questions that you get from some of your clients? >> Yeah, that first question, are we getting digital right sort of leads to almost everything. Companies look at the way that a Netflix or Amazon operates, and then they look at themselves and they see the vast difference there. And they ask themselves, "How can we be more like them? "How can we be that vast, that innovative, that efficient, "that level of simple intuitive customer service?" And one of the ways we try to define it for our clients is how do they become a digital first organization where their digital systems are their face to the marketplace? And most CEOs know that their own firm doesn't operate that way. And probably the most obvious way of seeing that is so many companies now feeling the need to appoint a Chief Digital Officer because they need to give that task to someone, and CDOs are no panacea but they speak to this need that so many companies feel now of really getting it right and having a leadership team in place that they have confidence in. And it's very hard work, and a lot of our clients, they still struggle with it. >> One of the other questions you ask in the book that is very relevant to our audience given that we have a big presence in Silicon Valley is can Silicon Valley pull off a dual disruption agenda? What do you mean by that? >> Yeah, if you look at the Valley historically you could see them essentially as arms merchants. They were selling their products and services to whoever wanted to buy them, and companies would use them as they saw fit. But today in addition to doing that they are also what we say is they're an invading army, and they are increasingly competing with the very customers they've traditionally supplied, and of course Amazon being perhaps the best example of that. So many companies dependent on AWS as a platform, but there's Amazon trying to go after them in health care or retail or grocery stores or whatever business they're in. Yeah, content, every business under the sun. And so they're wearing these two dual disruptions hats. The technologies of our time are very disruptive, machine intelligence, blockchains, virtual reality, all these things have disruptive technology. But that second disruptive agenda of how do you change insurance, how do you change health care, how do change the car industry, that's what we mean, those two different types of disruptions. And they're pursuing both at the same time. >> And because it's digital and it's data, that possibility now exists that a company, a technology company can traverse industries which historically haven't been able to be penetrated, right? >> Yeah, absolutely, in our view every industry is going to be transformed by data one way or another. Whether it is disrupted or not is a second question, but the industry'll be very different when all of these technologies come into play, and the tech companies feel like they have the expertise and the vision of it. But they also have the money, and they're going to bet heavily to pursue these areas to continue their growth agenda. >> So one of the other questions of course that IT people ask is what does it mean for my job, and maybe we can, if we have time, we can talk about that. But you answer many of these questions with a conceptual framework that you call the Matrix which is a very powerful, you said words matter, a very powerful concept. Explain the Matrix. >> Okay, yeah. If we start and go back they have this idea that every generation of technology has its own words, Internet, Web, Cloud, and now we're going to a new era, so there will be a new word. And so we use the word Matrix as our view of that, and we chose it for two reasons. Obviously there's the movie which had its machine intelligence and virtual worlds and all of that. But the real reason we chose it is this concept that a matrix as in matrix mathematics is a structure that has rows and columns. And rows and columns is sort of the fundamental dynamic of what's going on in the tech sector today, that traditionally every industry had its own sort of vertical stack of capabilities that it did and it was sort of top to bottom silo. But today those horizontal platforms, the PayPals, the AWSs, the Facebooks, they run this, Salesforce, all these horizontal services that cut across those firms. And so increasingly every industry is leveraging a common digital infrastructure, and that tension between the traditional vertical stacks and these enormously powerful horizontal technology firms is really the structural dynamic that's in play right now. >> And at the top of that Matrix you have this sort of intelligence and automation layer which is this new layer. You don't like the term artificial intelligence. You make the point in the book there's nothing really artificial about it. You use machine intelligence. But that's that top layer that you see powering the next decade. >> Absolutely, if you look at the vision that everybody tends to have, autonomous cars, personalized health care, blockchain-based accounting, digital cash, virtual education, brain implants for the media, every one of those is essentially dependent on a layer of intelligence, automation, and data that is being built right now. And so just as previous layers of technology, the Web enabled a Google or an Amazon, the Cloud enabled AWS or Salesforce, this new layer enables companies to pursue that next layer of capabilities out there to build that sort of intelligent societal infrastructure of the 2020s which will be vastly different than where we are today. >> Will the adoption of the Matrix, in your opinion, occur faster because essentially it's built on the Internet and we have the Internet, i.e. faster than say the Internet or maybe some other major innovations, or is it going to take time for a lot of reasons? >> I think the speed is actually a really interesting question because the technology of the 2020s are extremely powerful, but most of them are not going to be immediate hits. And if you look back, say, to search, when search came out it was very powerful and you could scale it massively quickly. You look at machine learning, you look at blockchains, you look at virtual realities, you look at algorithms, speech and these areas, they're tremendously powerful. But there's no scenario where those things happen overnight. And so we do not see an accelerating pace of change. In fact it might be people often overestimate the speed of change in our business and consistently do that. But what we see is a sort of fundamental transformation over time, and that's why we put a lot of emphasis on the 2020s because we do not see two years from now this stuff all being in place. >> And you have some good examples in the book going back to the early days of even telephony. So it's worth checking that out. I want to talk about, bring it back to data, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook, top five companies, public companies in terms of market cap. Actually it's not true after the Facebook fake news thing. I mean Berkshire Hathaway is slightly past Facebook. >> It'll be back (laughs). But I agree, it'll be back, but the key point there is these companies are different, they've got data at their core. When you compare that to other companies even financial services industry companies that are really data companies but the data's very bespoken, it's in silos. Can those companies, those incumbent companies, can they close that gap? Maybe you could talk about that a little bit. >> Yeah, we do a lot of work in the area of machine intelligence, artificial, whatever you want to call it. And one of the things you see immediately is this ridiculously large gap between what these leading companies do versus most traditional firms because of the talent, the data, the business model, all the things they have. So you have this widening gap there. And so the big question is is that going to widen or is it going to continue, will it narrow? And I think that the scenario for narrowing it I think is a fairly good one. And the message we say to a lot of our clients is that you will wind up buying a lot more machine intelligence than you will build because these companies will bring it to you. Machine intelligence will be in AWS. It'll be in Azure. It'll be in Salesforce. It'll be in your devices. It'll be in your user interfaces. It'll be in the speech systems. So the supply-side innovations that are happening in the giants will be sold to the incumbents, and therefore there will be a natural improvement in today's situation where a lot of incumbents are sort of basically trying to build their own stuff internally, and they're having some successes and some not. But that's a harder challenge. But the supply side will bring intelligence to the market in a quite powerful way and fairly soon. >> Won't those incumbents, though, have to sort of reorganize in a way around those new innovations given that they've got processes and procedures that are so fossilized with their existing businesses? >> Absolutely, and the word digital transformation is thrown around everywhere. But if it means anything it is having an organization that is aligned with the way technology works. And a good example of that is when you use Netflix today there's no separate sales experience, market experience, customer service, it's just one system and you have one team that builds those systems. In a typical corporation of course you have the sales organization and the marketing organization and the IT organization and the customer service organization. And those silos is not the way to build these systems. So the message we send to our clients if you really want to transform yourself you have to have more of this team approach that is more like the way the tech players do it. And that these traditional boundaries essentially go away when you go in the digital world where the customer experience is all those things at the same time. >> So if I'm hearing you correctly it's sort of a natural progression of how they're going to be doing business and the services that they're going to be procuring, but there's probably other approaches. Maybe it's force, but you're seeing maybe M&A or you're seeing joint ventures. Do you see those things as accelerating or precipitating the transformation or do you think it's futile and it really has to be led from the top and at the core? >> It's one of the toughest issues out there. And the reason people talk about transformation is because they see the need. But the difficulty is enormous. Most companies would say this is a three- or four-year process to make significant change, and this in a marketplace that changes every few months. So incumbent firms, they see where they want to go and it's very hard, and this is why this whole thing of getting digital right is so important, that people need to commit to significant change programs, and we're seeing it. And my parent company, DXC, we do a lot of this with clients and they want to embark on this program and they need people who can help them do it. And so leading a transformation agenda in most firms is really what digital leadership is these days and who's capable of doing that which requires tremendous skills in soft skills and hard skills to do right. >> Let's talk about industries and industry disruption. When you looked at the early disrupted industries whether it was publishing, advertising, music, one maybe had the tendency to think it was a bits versus atoms thing, but you point out in the book it's really not the case because you look at taxis, you look at hotels. Those are physical businesses and they've been disrupted quite substantially. Maybe you could give us some thoughts and insight there, particularly with regard to things like health care, financial services which haven't been disrupted. >> And there's a huge part of the work that I've been doing for years. And as you say, if you look at the industries that actually have been disrupted, they're all relatively low-security, low-risk businesses, music, advertising, taxis, retail. All these businesses have had tremendous changes. But the ones that haven't are all the ones where the stakes are higher, banking, insurance, health care, aerospace, defense. They've been hardly disrupted at all. And so you have this split between the low-risk industries that have changed and the high-risk ones that haven't. But what's interesting to me about that is that these technologies of the 2020s are aimed almost directly at those high-risk industries. So machine intelligence is aimed directly at health care and autonomous systems is aimed directly at defense and blockchains are aimed directly at banking and insurance. And so the technologies of the past if you look at Internet and the Web and the Cloud eras, they were not aimed at these industries. But today's are, so you now have at least a highly plausible scenario where those industries might change too. >> When to talk to companies in those industries that haven't been disrupted do you get a sense of complacency that ah well, we haven't been disrupted, We're going to wait and see, or do you see a sense of urgency? >> No, complacency is baked in for years of people saying, "We've heard all this before. "We're doing just fine. "Maybe it's their industry but not ours." >> Dave: You don't buy it. >> Or the main one is, "I'll be (laughing) retired "before any of this stuff matters for the senior execs." And the thing about all four of those is they're probably true. They have heard all this before because there was a lot of excessive hype. Many of them are doing just fine. Well the one about the other industries is a wrong one, but and many of them will be retired before the things really bite if executive's in their late in their career. So the inertia and the complacency is an enormous issue in most traditional companies. >> So let's do a little lightning round if we can. Oh, actually I just want to make a point. In the book you lay out disruption scenarios for each industry which is really worthwhile. We don't have time to go through that here, but let's do a little lightning round here, some of the questions that you ask that I'd love to get your opinion on of which of course there are no right answers but we can maybe frame it. Let's start with retail. Do you think large retail stores are going to disappear? >> Well the first I say is that disruption is never total. There are still bookstores, there are still newspapers, there are still vinyl records. >> Dave: Mainframes, saving IBM. >> (laughing) Indeed, indeed, but real disruption means that the center of gravity is just totally moved on. And when you look at retail from that point of view, absolutely. And will large ones totally disappear? No, but Wal-Mart is teetering. If you go into a large, Best Buy, a company that strong hero locally, you go into there, there's hardly anybody in there. And so those stores are in tremendous trouble. The grocery stores, the clothing stores, they'll have probably a better future, but by and large they will shrink, and the nature of malls will change quite substantially going forward. People are going to have to find other uses for those spaces, and that's actually going on right now. >> It's funny, it is, and certainly some of the more remote malls you find that they're waning. But then some of the higher-end malls, they seem, you can't find a parking space. What's your sense of that, that that's still inevitable or it's because it's more clothing or maybe jewelry? >> And there's some parts of America that have a lot of money, and therefore they fill up malls. But I think if you look at what's going on in the malls, though, they're becoming more like indoor cities full of restaurants and health clubs and movie theaters and sometimes even college courses and health care centers, daycare centers, air conditioning. Think of them as an indoor environment where you might have the traditional anchor stores but they're less necessary over time. Quite a bit less necessary. >> You mentioned college courses. Education's something we haven't talked about which is again ripe for disruption. Machines, will they make better diagnoses than doctors? >> Yeah, you see this already in image processing, anything that has to do with an image, X-rays and mammograms, cancers, anything, tissues. The machine learning progress there has been tremendous and to the point where schools now should be seriously thinking about how many radiologists do they really want to train because those people are not going to be needed as much. However they're still part of the system. They approve things, but the work itself is increasingly done by machines. And it means increasingly that it's not just done by machine, it's done by one machine somewhere else rather than every hospital setting up its own operations to do this stuff. And health care costs are crazy high in every country in the world, especially here in America. But if you're ever going to crack those costs you have to get some sort of scale, and these machine learning-based systems are the way to do it. And so it is to me not just a question of should this happen, it's that this is so what needs to happen. It's really the only sort of economic path that might work. >> You make the point that health care in particular is really ripe for disruption of all industries. The next one's really interesting to me. You talked about blockchain being sort of aimed at banking and financial services and as an industry that has not really yet been disrupted. But do you think banks will lose control of the payment systems? >> Banks have been incredibly good at keeping control through cash and paper checks and credit cards and ATM machines. They've been really good about that and perhaps they will ride this one too. But you can see countries are clearly going to, they're getting rid of cash. They're going to digital currencies. There's the need to be able to send money around as simply as we send emails around, and the banking industry is not really supporting (laughing) those changes right now. So they are at risk, but they are very good at co-opting stuff, and I wouldn't count them out. >> And the government really wants to get rid of paper money. You've made that point, and the government and the financial services-- >> Work together, and yeah. >> They always work together, they have a lot to lose. >> Yeah, and way back when Satoshi Nakamoto, whoever he or she is or it, they, whatever it is, said that bitcoin would either be very, very big or it would vanish altogether. And I think that statement is still true, and we're still in that middle world. But if bitcoin vanishes, something doing a similar thing will emerge because the concepts and the capabilities there are really what people want. >> Yeah, the killer app for blockchain is for right now it's money. (laughing) >> Yeah, it's speculation, (laughing) I mean it's, (laughing) and no one uses it to buy anything. (Dave laughing) That was the original bitcoin vision of using it to go buy pizzas and coffees. It's become gold, it's digital gold. I mean it's all it is. >> The value store... >> It's digital gold that is very good in the dark Web. >> And if anybody does transact in bitcoin they immediately convert it to fiat currency. (laughing) >> Perhaps someday we'll learn that the Russians actually built bitcoin (Dave laughing) and it's Putin's in control. (David and Dave laughing) Stranger things have happened. >> It's possible. >> Hey, why keep it anonymous? >> They are the masters of the dark Web. (Dave laughing) >> Could be Russians, could be a woman. >> David: Right, right, nobody has any idea. >> Robotic process automation is really interesting with software robots, robots. Do you see that reversing sort of offshoring, offshore manufacturing and other services? >> Not really, I think in general people looked at robotics, they looked at 3D printing and said, "Maybe we can bring all this stuff back home." But the reality is that China uses robots and 3D printing too and they're really good at it. If anything's going to bring manufacturing back home it's much more political pressures, trade strategies, and all the stuff you see going on right now because we do have crazy imbalances in the world that probably will have to change. And as Ben Stein the economist once said, "Well if something can't go on forever, it won't." And I think there will be some reversals, but I think they'll be less about technology than they will be about political pressures and trade agreements and those sort of changes. >> Because the technology's widely accessible. So how far do you think we can take machine intelligence and how far should we take machine intelligence? >> Well I make a distinction right now that I think machine intelligence for particular purposes is tremendous if you want to recognize faces or eventually talk to something or have it read something or recognize an activity or read images and do all the things it's doing, it's very good. When they talk about a more general-wise machine intelligence it's actually really poor. But to me that's not that important. And one way we look at machine intelligence, it's almost like the app industry. There'll be an app for that, there'll be a machine learning algorithm for almost every little thing that we do that involves data. And those areas will thrive mightily. And then sort of the bottom line we try to at that as who's got the best data? Facebook is good at facial recognitions because it's got the faces, and Google's good at language translation because it has the books and language pairs better than anybody else. And so if you follow the data and where there's good data machine learning will thrive. And where there isn't it won't. >> The book is called Seeing Digital: A Visual Guide to the Industries, Organizations, and Careers of the 2020s, and part of that visual guide is every single page actually has a graphic. So really a new concept that you've... >> Yeah, and thanks for bringing that in. And the reason the book is called Seeing Digital is that the book itself is a visual book, that every page has a graphic, an image, a picture, and explains itself below. And just in our own work with our own clients people tell us it's just a more impactful way of reading. So it's a different format. It's great in the ebook format because you can use colors, you can do lots of things that the printed world doesn't do so well. And so we tried to take advantage of modern technologies to bring a different sort of book to the market. >> That's great. So Google it and you'll find it easily. Dave, again, congratulations. Thanks so much for coming on theCube. >> David: Thank you, a pleasure. >> All right, and thank you for watching, everybody. We'll see you next time. (bright music)

>> Narrator: Live, from Las Vegas, it's The Cube, covering IBM Think 2018. Brought to you by IBM. >> Hello, everyone and welcome back to our day two of coverage here in Las Vegas, where IBM Think 2018's The Cube's three days of wall-to-wall coverage day two. Yesterday, we had kick-off, kind of partner day. Today's really the kick-off of the event. CEO of IBM up on stage for the keynote. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. Dave, we're doing seven years or so plus all these six shows coming down to one for IBM Think. It's a packed house; you can't even get through the hallways. Looks like they need to go to Sands Convention Center. >> Dave: (laughs) or Moscone. >> Or Moscone, or somewhere bigger, they need a bigger boat, but the keynote kicked off, Ginni Rometty was up there. Interesting, putting smart to work, quantam, blockchain, AI data and she kind of laid out the cloud strategy, you know, using data in public cloud and private. It's clear where they're going with the cloud. Your analysis of the keynote, what's your thoughts? >> Well, first of all, John, as viewers know, I mean, I'm a big fan if Ginni Rometty. I think she's been overly criticized, but I think she's a great presenter. When I compare Ginni's presentation skills with some of the other CEOs in the industry, I think she's far superior. She connects with the audience, she looks great, she's really cogent, she's well prepared, so, I really like her as a presenter and as an executive, and, you know, another women in tech, you know we love that. Yes, you're right, putting smarter to work was her theme. She's talkin' about 30 to 40,000 people at the event. There's too many people to count I guess. You can't really figure that out, and, so, it's big, it's packed. She also did a theater in the round which was different. I noticed last year ServiceNow did that. I really like that style, so that was kind of an interesting thing. Ginni talked about three exponential growth areas. So, I'll lay 'em out and then, we can talk about it. She said they come every 25 years. The first was Moore's law, and we all know what that is, and the second was Metcalfe's law, the value of the network increases exponentially if the nodes in network increase, and then, the third, which is upon us now, is data plus AI. Her supposition was that is going to usher in a next era of incremental growth, because you're going to out-learn the competition, and she used this term of incumbent disruptors, and I heard that and went okay, hold on, (Dave laughs) 'cause I don't see it that way. >> Yeah. >> I don't see the incumbents as the disruptors. So, that was my first reaction, and then, she brought up three customers, Verizon, and I'm like, "Verizon? "A big telco is a disruptor, come on! "They're gettin' a disruptor by over the top.", but the CEO came on, Lowell McAdam, talkin' about 5G, so we'll talk about that, and then, Maersk, IBM has a joint venture with Maersk, so, Michael White came up, he's the CEO of that. Now, Maersk is using blockchain, and Maersk we all know is the container company and they're attacking inefficiencies with blockchain, so I thought that was actually a really good example, and then, Royal Bank of Canada, RBC, came up. You know, banking, to me, is an industry that has not been disrupted yet, and, so, I, again, was initially negative toward this idea of incumbent disruptors, 'cause I don't think the incumbents are disruptors, and we'll talk about why I think that, but I thought IBM did a pretty good job of showing how incumbents can actually take AI and blockchain and, at least, defend against the disruptors. >> I mean, it's clear to me that she's obviously playing to the crowd with the digital debt transformation. I mean, we talk about these traditional companies, they need to transform, and she brings up Moore's law and Metcalfe's law kind of to take a view of the past, but to look forward, she's kind of saying, "Lookit, Moore's law make things smaller, faster, "cheaper, doubling every six months." That's just on the, I mean, this applies to IoT, quantum makes everything else. Metcalfe's law I think is very relevant, 'cause if you look at blockchains about decentralized internet, you're talkin' about decentralized applications, that's where blockchain will play the major enablement there, that's about network effects, so you bring network effects in with Metcalfe's law, Moore's law on the equipments on the hardware side, I like that, so, that worked for me. The disruptors, I think it's more of overplaying her hand on that, because I just haven't seen any evidence of any incumbents truly disrupting themselves. So, maybe you can talk with Microsoft, IBM's trying to transform, but at the end of the day, they got to look back and learn from the internet era. If you don't jump on these next waves, you could be driftwood, right? So, you got to surf the new waves, and I think that's what I heard her say is IBM is putting data at the center of the value proposition using AI as a front end for that, make it smarter, and then, using blockchain as an infrastructure and protocol level opportunity to take the IBM software and data plane and wrap 'em together. So, if you look at it, you got data at the center, blockchain on one side, and AI on the other, it's the innovation sandwich. That, for me, works for me, now, let's unpack that. How real is it, and that's going to be what we're going to talk about, and I think that's a good strategy. All the elements are in play. >> Well, I think the other piece of that sandwich, maybe it's the dressing on top, is the cloud, 'cause you have to have scale and network effects in order to achieve that innovation. I just want to mention, she talked about three other things that you are going to do as a customer. You're going to, one, leverage digital platforms, you're going to, two, embed learning in, virtually, every process that you do, and, three, you're going to empower humans. So, she put forth this idea of augmented intelligence, and, as I predicted yesterday, she, unlike Larry Olsen, she doesn't come right out and slam her competition, she does it in a classy way. She said, quote, "IBM is not "in conflict with your business." In other words, we're not taking your data and then, remonetizing it at the back end. That's a big deal, IBM makes a lot of noise about that. So, it's really augmenting humans, not in conflict with your business, and bringing advanced security to things like blockchain, >> Yeah. >> and cloud, and AI. >> I like her term security to the core, I like that, but that kind of gives the impression that's core to all things, but if you look at the megatrends that are impacting the incumbents and the people trying to do digital transformation, as well as the new startups, Dave, that are trying to get a new position in the landscape is clear. You got blockchain, you got decentralized apps, you got AI, but the data's critical, and she mentioned some cool things I like with the cloud which was she's saying, "Lookit, we'll make "the data a really big thing for you. "If you want it in public cloud, "you can have it in private cloud." So, she's looking at cloud as much more of a hybrid approach on private, kind of hinting at the GDPR problem that we know's out there. So, if you want to move your data around, that's a critical asset. Also, if you look at what's going on in the news today, these days, is Facebook is getting slammed because how they were hacked with the election, and other weaponization of data, this is a big deal for companies, and I think if IBM can play that card to leverage the data and have the confidence of the companies that they serve to say, "Lookit, data's got to be owned by you, "but has to be managed in a way that's dynamic, "whether it's a GDPR or some other regulatory issue.", and, believe me, blockchain's going to have some. So, you know, they could come out and get in the front of this new wave, and I think that's a good play. So, it wasn't just a recycled cloud show, it wasn't just AI Watson, I like how she put it together. >> So, just touching on a thing, you mentioned Facebook. So she talked about Moore's law ushering in this era of back office productivity. She didn't mention Wintel; I think it's still, probably, too painful for IBM to think about that. Metcalfe's law, she said ushered in, sort of, the Facebook era. I think that's fair, the network effect of Facebook, and then, she said, "Hopefully, you know, "they'll call this Watson's law." I don't know if that's going to happen, but that notion of, >> Wishful thinking. >> hey, hey, you got to be power of positive thinking, but that notion of exponential learning. I want to talk about cloud for a minute. You and I had some interesting debates yesterday in our open about cloud. Oracle announced its earnings yesterday, cloud growth 30%. I see Oracle and IBM as very similar in their cloud strategies; both companies would vehemently disagree with that, >> Yeah. >> but I think they are very similar in that sense. The street didn't like it, because Oracle cloud only grew at 30%, stock's down, okay, great, but, to me, IBM and Oracle are similar in that they're basically cloudifying their business. They're allowing their clients to onboard customers to the cloud, putting their applications portfolios, their SAS products, their middleware into the cloud, IBM putting mainframe class stuff in the cloud, they're putting power into the cloud, storage into the cloud, pretty much everything into the cloud if you want it. Now, that's not easy to do >> Yeah. >> if you've got, you know, legacy businesses, obviously, AWS has a blank sheet of paper, that was kind of your point yesterday, >> Yeah, yeah. >> but I like the differentiation that I see from the companies like IBM and Oracle, and there really aren't many others like that. >> Yeah. I mean, my point yesterday was the definition of cloud has been totally mangled, right? Like, it's different, if you're Amazon, they have a slew of services, they have more services than anyone else on the planet, and they have more people using those services, so, by that standard, Amazon is clearly kicking everyone's butt, but that's just their perspective. If you look at IBM, their services are applications, same with Oracle. So, if you look at what IBM's doing is they're taking the same approach. Services and applications are going to be IBM's view of the cloud, but IBM's taking a multicloud approach, and I think that's different, and, when you put the data as the central component of the architecture, you're basically saying, "I'm going to look "at the cloud as more of a commodity layer. "I'll let the customers decide which cloud to use.", and that's a better strategy, now, it's hard to do multicloud, so maybe they're buying some time, but I think that's a good, solid strategy to take if they're not going to be trying to push their own cloud as 100%, because not all customers will sole source cloud unless there's functionality that that cloud does. For instance, Amazon is winning the public sector business like it's nobody's business, because they have the only cloud that has the ability to do classified and non-classified cloud. Nobody else has it, so, from a log speck standpoint, they're winning everything and from the DOD, CIA, and government. What IBM has to do is go into customer requirement saying, "We're the only company that can provide this." That's a unique opportunity for IBM. I think that's a winning approach rather than going on a frontal arms race of services with Amazon, and that's what all the big guys are doing. Microsoft, Oracle, IBM are not taking on Amazon directly, because they're going to have to match feature for feature, and then, Amazon wins that game every time. >> So, I want to go back to something Sam Palmisano said when he was CEO of IBM in 2012 on his way out. HP was the hot company, Hurd was running the company, and he was asked, "Do you worry about HP?" He said, "I don't worry about HP, "'cause they don't invest in R&D. "I worry about Oracle, 'cause they invest in R&D.", and, again, what I like about Oracle and IBM, they both invest in R&D, IBM even, you know, core stuff around blockchain, certainly quantum computing and the like. So, I think that is a very positive dynamic for both of those companies. >> Well, I mean, IBM's R&D is a secret weapon, I think, for them; they don't overplay that much. They do talk about it, but we look at what blockchain potentially could be, and I think, you know, IBM's certainly doing the messaging on blockchain. It still has a bunch of ads on T.V., and they're trying to make that a kind of a global brand, but blockchain speaks to a new infrastructure, right? It's not just distributed computing, it's decentralized computing, and we were saying on the Cube and we've been reporting there is a new wave of software developers coming on the market that are going to be writing decentralized applications for token economics. The notion of tokens isn't about ICOs and those scams, although there's a lot of those going on. The notion of token economics fit with a mobile cloud decentralized architecture whether it's IoT, or end users, or applications, token economics is going to change the impact in efficiencies up and down the stat. So, to me, the developer community that's rushing into the market on the decentralized applications will be a major opportunity, but you got to nail the blockchain and that tech is just a moving train from a protocol standpoint to an infrastructure. So, to me, I like what IBM's doing with blockchain. I think that's going to be an opportunity to move the ball down the field. >> So, the exponential innovation formula, in my view of the next ten years, is going to, and you nailed it, going to combine data with artificial intelligence, or machine intelligence, and cloud economics, and there is a set of digital services emerging. >> Well, cloud and token economics, both, it's two. >> But, so, yes, but, so, and that's part of it, but there's a set of digital services emerging in this fabric, and they're not bespoke services, they're part of this integrated fabric. The extent to which people leverage those services, those digital services, to create new business models is going to determine success or failure. Data, at the core, is critical. >> Yeah, yeah. >> I think you're right on on that, but what I like is that IBM is trying to solve some hard problems with AI. >> I mean, lookit, I was tweeting yesterday all day on some highlights from my Puerto Rico trip on the cryptocurrency events we've been covering, and one thing that we reported was the killer app for blockchain and cryptocurrency and decentralized apps is money. Money is the killer app, and we see that with the hype cycle with the ICOs, but, if you look at what IBM's doing with the supply chain side of their business, perfect storm for supply chain innovation. Blockchain is about money, marketplaces, and nailing inefficient incumbents. So, if the incumbents want to be disruptive, they're going to have to disrupt themselves by removing inefficiencies out of the system. >> Well, and the Maersk example was a good one where there's inefficiencies, you know, 20% of the cost of moving containers is admin stuff. Sometimes the admin costs exceed the shipping costs. So, that was a good example, but, again, I see blockchain as one component in this fabric, in this puzzle. >> Day two, Cube here, kicking off wall-to-wall coverage. Three days of live broadcast talking to the thought leaders. Extracting the signal from the noise, the Cube, the number one leader in live tech coverage. Go to cube.net to check out all the footage and siliconangle.com to check out all of our articles. We're reporting and the team reporting all week, and that analysis of Ginni's keynote, well done, Dave. More coverage after this short break. (techno beat) >> Narrator: Robert Herjavec.

>> Narrator: Live from Las Vegas, its theCUBE. Covering Dell EMC World 2017, brought to you by Dell EMC. >> Welcome back everyone, we are here live in Las Vegas for a wrap up on day three of three days of wall-to-wall coverage with theCUBE coverage at Dell EMC World, our eighth year covering EMC World Now, first year covering Dell EMC World. It's part of the big story of Dell and EMC combining entities, forming Dell Technologies, all those brands. I'm John Furrier with SiliconANGLE. My co-hosts this week, Paul Gillin and Keith Townsend, CTO Advisor. Guys, great week, I thought I'd be wrecked at this point. But, I mean, a lot of energy here but we heard every story. We heard all the commentary, we heard the EMC people trotting in, about their customer references. We hear the executives on message. Bottom line, let's translate it for everybody. (laughing) All the messaging, pretty tight. >> Yes. >> All singing the same songs. My take away real quickly on messaging, they want to portray that this is all good. Everything's fine. No icebergs ahead. We are going to help customers try to move from speeds to feeds, a bigger message. Not getting there yet. Still speeds and feeds. 14 (mumbles), 14G, that's kind of the high level, thoughts? >> This company wants to dominate. I mean, what we heard again and again these last few days is number one, number one. They want to own the top market share in every market in which they play, and they have a broad array of products to do that. They have a huge mix of products, maybe too many products, but with some overlap, but that's okay, but they clearly are trying to blanket or carpet bomb those markets where they think they can win. Interestingly, there are some markets like big data, like software or cloud infrastructure where they are choosing not to be a big player, and that's okay too. It means they are focused. >> John: Keith, your thoughts. >> So, again, I agree with you, tight marketing. They wanted to get out this message. I think if the present analysts get together at the beginning, they emphasized 310 analysts, from analysts and press, from all over the world. They get out the message. They get these guys and gals in here to cover that message that Dell Technologies, Dell EMC, is the leader in this space. You know what? When big mergers like this happen, I can't think of one that happened well. They are usually rocky to begin with. We haven't seen those rocks at the beginning. We haven't see that at the show. It seems like the messaging has been consistent, the customers more or less get it, and that we can't detect the chinks in the armor, so I think they did a great job of getting that out there, and portraying the stress of the brand, and throughout the show. It was a great show for them. >> They have a good story. Their story better together, obviously that's the whole theme. My impression is, in weaving through all the messaging, is generally, authentically the people are pretty happy with it. I think EMC people have been trying to break out of this, we're a storage company, you know, and I won't say they had a little bit of VMware envy, but VM World events were always different than the EMC World, so those culture clashes weren't necessarily too divergent, but different. You had storage guys, and you had VMware developers, right, so I think EMC was always trying to break out and be bigger, and just couldn't get there. Dell wanted to be more enterprise, right, so I think the two together actually is better, in my opinion. Now will it work? I still think your post is still open. They merged for the right reasons, but look it, they're not done. They got a boat-load of work to do. >> I think they're aware, to Keith's point, they are aware that history is against them, that mega mergers don't work, never have worked in this industry, and so that creates a lot of pressure to make this one work, and the good thing about that for both companies is that they're aware of what went wrong in the past. I mean, we had Howard Elias on this show the first day. Howard Elias went through two of the worst tech mega mergers in history with Compaq Digital and HP Compaq, knows where a lot of those landmines are, so they seemed hyper aware of getting everyone on message, getting everyone talking positively about synergy, and as you said John, the language was consistent from the start. >> Alright, I want to ask you guys a pointed question on that point cause it kind of brings out the next question. Management team, do they have the chops, because, to your point, history's against them, okay? We sat down with Michael Dell, founder, lead entrepreneur, still at the helm. He's a billionaire. They're private, so no shot clock on the public markets. Marius Haas, he's a pro. Howard Elias, a pro. Goulden, he does his thing. On and on and on. I think they got a pretty deep bench. I mean, your thoughts guys? >> So, let's think about that. How many bad mergers has EMC gone through? Data domain >> Paul: Home run. >> Incredible. >> Paul: Home run. >> Home run. >> Paul: DSSD. >> DSSD, well, not so much, but that wasn't really that big of a merger. >> They kind of cleaned that up pretty quickly. >> Yeah, they did, what doesn't work they get it out quick, so great management team understands the complexities of mergers. VMware merger, or acquisition, probably one of the best in the history of tech, so the management team has the chops to understand where the value is added, extract that value, and expand it. >> That's a great point. And they know when to leave stuff alone too. >> John: Yeah, engineering lead but they're also, because we heard Jeff Boudreau on talking about the storage challenges. He's like, we know what to do, we took the lumps trying to, late to the game on Flash, we're not going to be late to the game in these other areas, and he is very hyper focused. But the other thing that we didn't talk about is that EMC has just been an impeccably, credible sales organization. They know how to sell, they know how to motivate sales people. They know how to tell the tell the enterprise sales motion, which is the biggest challenge in today's industry. Every company I talked to, startup to growing IPO is we need better enterprise sales. Look at Google. Look what they're doing in the cloud. They are struggling because they have great tech and horrid sales people. They are hiring young people doing phone work. Enterprise sales is a tricky game. >> Arguably the best enterprise sales force on the planet was EMC. I mean, these are the guys who would get on a plane at midnight, would charter a plane at midnight, to get to the customer's site to fix a problem, and no other company does it like that, and Dell has a lot to learn from that. If Dell can really take that knowledge and that culture and absorb it into their own enterprise sales force, they are going to have huge opportunity with their server division. >> I want to take a minute just to thank our sponsors for their awesome CUBE coverage. You guys did great. Dell EMC, Toshiba, Virtustream, Cisco, Dato, Nutanix, Druva, and VMware. Thanks to your support, we had two CUBEs covering VM World, 20 plus videos a day, for 3 straight days. All that's on youtube.com/siliconangle. Of course, siliconangle.com for all the journalism and reporting. Wikibon.com for all the great research, and also a shoutout to Keith at @CTOAdvisor. Check him out on Twitter, always part of the conversation, super influential. Guys, great job this week. Just high level marks. My take away? Hyper converge, big time focus on these guys. VMware is the glue, Hybrid Cloud, and they're defensively using Pivotal to hold the line on Amazon, so thoughts on that point? I see you rolling your eyes. >> I just got out with James Watters, the SVP within that business unit. Pivotal is a key part of this. You know Michael has stressed on theCUBE, on Twitter, how important Pivotal is to their long term success. One of Dell's challenges, Dell EMC's, and this is not just Dell EMC, it's infrastructure companies throughout the landscape, is getting out of that conversation with their VP of infrastructure, getting into the offices of the CIOs, COs, CMO, and having these business conversations, and it's going to take a Pivotal type of solution to get that done. I thought Michael made a very great point that that white glove services, that's basically their service organization, is basically the older EMC services organization that's used to getting on a flight, solving the problem. Whatever the original statement at work was, they are willing to tear that up, and get down, get dirty, and get that done. They need to translate that >> The question for you then is this, without Pivotal, they have no play for the app developers? >> Keith: None. >> Amazon would mop that up and they'd have no positions, so I would say it is certainly a placeholder, a good one, I'm not going to deny that. The question is how big is that market for them. Can they get there, can they hold the line on Pivotal and bring in some resources and cavalry to keep that going, thoughts? >> This is where VMware comes into play. VMware has the relationship with the software layer at least, and they have a great story to tell. They need to get in front of the right people and tell that story, that CrossCloud story of being able to develop using CF and then move that to any cloud using NSX. Great story, but John, to your point, they have to get into the right rooms and have the right conversations, >> Yeah. >> Keith: That's a tough thing to do. >> I also got to give them some time. I mean, this merger happened eight months ago. I think it's pretty remarkable what they have pulled off here in such a short time, and to think about the developers are probably not their first priority right now. >> Alright, so we are going to do the metadata segment of our wrap up, which I just made up since it's such a good name, metadata, in the spirit of surveillance. What metadata can you pull out of your interviews, guys, that's a tea leaf that we could read and just nuance points, I'll start. Pat Gelsinger talked about Pivotal sharing, in between the conversations kind of weaved in, yeah, we had to spin out Pivotal, but I could almost see it in his eyes, he didn't say it specifically, but he's like, we shouldn't have sold it, right? And they had to because he said he had to work on the foundational stuff, get NSX done, get that right, but you can almost see that now as, I'd like to bring that back in, although a separate company. To me, I find that a very interesting data point, that that actually makes a lot of sense to your point about VMware. That might be an interesting combination. Why take Pivotal public, roll it into VMware. >> Yeah, I think that is going to be a interesting space to watch over the next few months. VMware and Pivotal have started to once again come back together with solutions. This NSX, CrossCloud talk makes it very compelling. It's hard to predict Dell EMC being relevant long term. They understand the value short term. They have a short rope to take advantage of this cross selling between the Dell and EMC customer. They can grow this business, get revenue short term, but there will be a cliff where they need to make that transition. Cisco is trying to make that transition into a services company, a software company, and it's hard to turn down one knob and turn the other one up. We'll see if Pat, Michael Dell, and the team have the chops to get it done. >> Cisco has to endure the public markets while they are doing that, which is one advantage Dell has. >> Data point that you can extract that you take away from this? >> Synergy, synergy. I mean when two companies this big come together, you're looking at a lot of product line overlap. I came out of this, though, thinking that there really isn't that much product line overlap. You've got a company that's strong in the mid market, with the small companies, a company that's strong in the enterprise, storage, servers, not a lot of overlap there. The big question for me, so I think the synergy question is this merger makes sense from that perspective, and the big question is software, what are they going to do with those software assets, and to your point, the future is going to be, software defined everything, and that's not a story they're telling yet. >> Keith, extracted insight that you observed that was notable that you kind of picked out of the pile of the interviews. Anything notable to you? Something obscure that made you go, wow I didn't know that, oh that's a good piece of the puzzle to put together. >> You know what, just the scale of, you look at the merger, 57 billion dollars, and on paper you are like, okay that's interesting, but a lot of the numbers coming out, you know, we talked to the senior VP of marketing and he says, you know, my guys are making bank, actually that's to paraphrase him. You said that John, that they are making bank, and one of the things that I worried about was the culture, the sales culture between Dell and EMC. Dell sales culture, very web based, very, you know I had a Dell rep and there was not an awful lot of value add, EMC >> Paul: Value add. >> The value add, and those guys earned their money, and bringing those two together and making sure that customers don't miss a beat and still get that EMC value, but Dell is able to maintain that same cost structure, I thought that was a really complicated thing to do. It seems like they are executing really well on that, and I thought from a customer's perspective, you want your supplier to make money and you want it to not be too disruptive, but you know, you want to see some value. >> Great point, that was one of highlights of my take aways, Marius Haas' interview around sales and comp and structure. They are used to a lot of bank, those sales guys, and now it's like, hey we're going to give you a haircut, what? I was about to make a million dollars on commissions this year. >> This merger will not work unless the sales organization is in sync. >> Other notables for me, just that jumped out at me, that kind of made me go, that amplifies a point, that's memorable is Michael Dell's interview hits home the point of entrepreneur founder, lead guy, and there's only three left in the industry, Ellison, Dell, and Bezos, in my mind that are billionaires that are actively, not mailing it in, they are actively driving their business, have a great ethos and culture that is creating durability. I find that the key point for me, that was a moment. I think he does sell Pivotal a little too much, which gives me a little red flag, like hmm, why is he pushing Pivotal so much, what is he hiding, but that's a different story. Michael Dell, founder. Gelsinger shared some personal commentary around his personal life. 2016 was the hardest year of his life. >> Keith: That was a mean story. >> Personal and business. Almost got fired. Remember last year? >> Yeah. >> Pat Gelsinger, you're fired. So, he had a tough year, now he's kicking ass, taking names, evaluation's on the rise. That jumped out at me. And finally, the little nuance in this merger is the alliance opportunity. Dell had the Intel, wintel, Microsoft relationships from day one, that history, Intel was on stage. EMC's had it, but not at the deep level that Dell did. So I see the alliance teams really grooving here, so that's going to impact channel marketing, SIs. I think you are going to see a massive power base, to your scale point, around alliances in the industry, the ecosystem. It's either going to blow up big or blow up bad. Either way its high octane power, Intel. >> Keith: It is a big bet. >> It's a big bet. Those are my points. Anything that jumped out at you, final thoughts, interviews? >> Jeff Townsend threw off an interesting statistic, 70% of the traffic on the internet will be video by 2020. I never heard that one before, but that has some pretty interesting implications for how infrastructure has to manage it. >> Yeah, great for our business. We're doing video right now. Keith, anything that jumped out at you, anything else? >> The scale of this show compared to, I've been at Dell World, I've been to EMC World. The energy is different here. I can say that for sure, from the EMC Worlds and the Dell Worlds that I've been at. Customers, I think, are wide eyed. I've been to plenty of VM World's. It doesn't quite have the flavor of a VM World, but I think customers are starting to understand the scale of Dell EMC, the entire portfolio. You walk the show floor, you're like, wow I didn't know >> John: The relevance has increased. >> Just little bits of this larger Dell technologies that customers are picking up on, that they're keying on that there's value there. >> The 800 pound gorilla, the very relevant impact, people are taking notice. >> If you are a one product Dell customer or a one product EMC customer and you are coming to the show for the first time, I think you're a little bit wowed. >> Alright, guys, great job. Keith, great to have you host theCUBE. Great job, as always. Really appreciate you bringing the commentary to theCUBE. Great stuff. >> Always great being here. >> Paul, great editorial, great insight, great questions. Great to work with you guys. Great to the team. Thanks to our sponsors. Go to siliconangle.com, wikibon.com, and go to youtube.com/siliconeangle and check out all the videos and the playlists, more coverage, great. Thanks for watching our special coverage of Dell EMC World 2017. See you next time.

(upbeat music) >> Announcer: Live from Silicon Valley, it's theCUBE, covering Google Cloud Next '17. >> Welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of Google Next 2017, 10,000 people are in San Francisco, SiliconANGLE media, we've got reporters there, as well as the Wikibon analysts. I've been up there for the analyst's event, some of the keynotes, and we're getting thought leaders, partners, really getting lots of viewpoints as to what's happening, not just in the Google Cloud, but really the multi-Cloud world. And that's why I'm really excited to bring back a guest that we've had on the program before, Craig Mcluckie, who, four months ago, was with Google, but he's now the CEO of Heptio, and he's also one of the co-creators of Kubernetes, which anybody that's watching the event, definitely has been hearing, plenty about Kubernete so, welcome back to the program. >> Thanks for having me back. >> Yeah, absolutely, I know you were part of, a little event that kind of went before the Google Cloud event, brought in some people in the Cloud ecosystem, talk about a lot was going on. Maybe start us off with, what led you to kind of pop out of Google, what is Heptio, and how does that kind of extend what you're doing with Kubernetes when you're at Google? >> Certainly. So Heptio is a company that has been created, by my co-founder Joe and myself, to bring Kubernetes-- >> Stu: That's Joe Beda. >> Joe Beda. >> Stu: Yeah. To bring Kubernetes to enterprises, and the thing that really motivated me to start this company was the sense that there was not a unfettered Kubernetes company in existence. I spoke to a lot of organizations, that were having tremendous success with Kubernetes. It was transforming the way they approached infrastructure management. It created new levels of portability for their workloads. But they wanted to use Kubernetes on their own terms, in ways that made sense to them. And, most every other organization that is creating a Kubernetes distro, has attached it to other technologies. It's either attached to an opinionated operating system, or it's attached to a specific cloud environment, or it's attached to a Paas, and it just didn't meet the way that most of the customers I saw wanted to use the technology. I felt that a key missing part of this ecosystem, was a company that would meet the open source community where it is and help customers that just needed a little bit more help. A little more help with training, bit of documentation support, and the tools they needed to make themselves successful in the environments that they wanted to operate in. And that's what motivated Joe and I to start this company. >> Yeah, and it's interesting, cause you look at the biggest contributors, Google's there, you've got Red Hat, you've got, as you said, people that have their viewpoint as to where that fits. I think that that helps the development overall, but maybe you can help us unpack there. Why do you want, is it separate? Is there that opinionated-ness? What's inherently sub-optimal about that? (laughing) >> I think part of the key value in Kubernetes is the fact that it supports a common framework in a highly heterogonous world. Meaning you can mix together a broad variety of things, to your needs. So you could mix together, the right operating system, in the right hosting environment, with the right networking stack. And you could run general applications that are then managed and performed in a very efficient and easy to use way. And, one of the things that I think is really important, is this idea that customers should have choice, they should be picking the infrastructure based on the merits of the infrastructure. They should pick the OS that works for them, and they should be able to put together a system that operates tremendously well. And, I think it's particularly critical, at this juncture, that a layer emerges that allows customers, and service providers, to mix together the sort of things that they want to use, and consume, in a way that's agnostic to the infrastructure and the operating environment. I see the mainstream cloud providers, taking us in some ways back to the world of the mainframe. If you think about what we're starting to see, with companies like Amazon, who are spectacularly successful in the market, is this world where you have this deeply vertically integrated service provider, that provides not only the compute, but also the set of core services, and almost everything else that you need to run. And, at the end of the day, it's getting to a point where, a customer has to kind of pick their service provider. And, you know, for using IBM, but it was also sub-optimal from an ecosystem perspective. It inhibited innovation in many ways. And it was the emergence of Wintel, that sort of Windows and Intel ecosystem that really opened up the vendor ecosystem, and drove a tremendous amount of innovation and advancement. And, you know, when I think about what enterprise customers want and need today, they want that abstraction. They want a safe way to separate out the set of services that run their business, the set of technologies that they build and maintain, from the underlying infrastructure. And I think that's what driving a lot of the popularity of Kubernetes, is this idea that it is a logical infrastructure abstraction, that lets you pick the environment that you operate in, purely based on the merits of the environment. >> Yeah, it's been a struggle, I mean, I know through my entire career in IT, we've had that discussion of "do I just standardize on what we have? Cause, the enterprise today, absolutely. Every time I put a new technology in, it doesn't displace, it adds to it. So, I talked to lots of customers, still using mainframe. They're using the Wintel stuff, they using public cloud, they're using, you know, yes and and and, and therefore, managing it, orchestrating it, doing all those pieces that are difficult. The challenge when I put an abstraction layer in, and one of the big challenges is, how to really get the full value out of the pieces that I had. Sam Ramji said that, when he was at Cloud Foundry, they were trying to make it so that you really don't care which cloud, whether it's on premises or public cloud environments. And he said one of the reasons he joined Google was because he felt you couldn't make, if you went least common denominator or something, there was things Google was doing that nobody else can do. So there's always that balance of, "can I put an abstraction layer or virtualize something, and take advantage of it?" Or "do I just go all in with one vendor?" I mean, IBM back in the day, did lots of great things to make it simple, and cloud is trying to make it simple, lots of things, Amazon of course, no doubt that they're trying to vertically integrate everything they would like to do. You know, all your services. So, where do you see that balance? And, it's interesting, does it solve customers the best to be able to say "okay, you can take your mess that you have", and therefore, is this a silver bullet to help them solve it? >> I think it's a really good point. And, consistently, as I look through history, a lot of the platforms that people have pursued, that created this sort of complete decoupling, introduced this lowest common denominator problem, where you had to trade off a set of things that you really wanted with the capabilities of the platform. And, you know, I think that absolutely, in some cases, it makes a tremendous amount of sense, to invest in a vendor specific technology. So let's take an example out of Google, Cloud Spanner. Cloud Spanner has, it's literally the only, globally consistent, well right now it's regionally consistent, but it's literally the only globally consistent relational store available. There is nothing like it. The CockroachDB folks are building something that emulates some of the behavior, but without the true time API, that sort of atomic clock, you know, crazy infrastructure that Google's built. It adds very little utility. And so, in certain applications and certain workloads, if what you really want is a globally replicated, highly consistent relational data store, there is literally only one provider on the planet that would deliver it, which is Google. However, you might look at, you know, something that Amazon provides, and they may have some other service. Perhaps you've already built something on RedShift, and you want to be able to use that. Or Microsoft might offer up some other technologies that make sense to you. And, I think it's really important for enterprises to have the option. There's times when, for a given workload, it makes tremendous amount of sense, to put on a vendor, if you're looking to run something that has, deep machine learning hooks, or needs some other science fiction technology that Google's bringing to the world. It makes sense to run that on Google. For applications that are potentially integrated into a productivity suite, if you're an Office 365 user, it probably makes sense to host it on Microsoft. And then, perhaps there's some other pieces that you run on Amazon. And I don't think it's going to be pick one cloud provider and live in the static world forever. I think the landscape is constantly evolving and shifting. And, one of the things technologies like Kubernetes provide is an option. An option to move, an option to decide which specific services you want to pull through and use in which application. Recognizing that those are going to bind you to that cloud provider in perpetuity, but not necessarily pulling the entirety of your IT structure through. >> Yeah, Craig, I'm curious. When I look out as to kind of the people that commentate on this space, one of the things they say "Kubernetes is interesting, but this whole hybrid cloud thing, kill all the on premises stuff, public cloud's really where it's at." I know when I talk to most companies, they got plenty of on premises stuff, most infrastructure that is bought is still, there's a lot of it going on premises. So companies are sorting out what applications go where, what data goes where. Diane Green, suddenly 5% of the world's data really is in the public cloud today. What's your view on kind of that on premises, public cloud piece, and Kubernetes' role there? >> Yeah, I think it's a great question. And I have had some really interesting conversations with CIOS in the past. I remember in my very earliest days, pooh-poohing the idea of the private cloud, and having a really intense CIO look across the thing and he was like "you will pry my data centers from my cold, dead hands". (Stu laughing) He literally said that to me. And so, there's certainly a lot of passion in this space, and I think, at the end of the day, one has to be pragmatic. You know, first of all, one has to recognize that, if you're an organization that has bought significant data center footprint, you're probably going to want to continue to use that asset that you've acquired, and that's, you're going to want to use that in perpetuity. If you're a company, and most large companies are also naturally heterogonous, meaning as you go through an acquisition, the acquired portion of your company may have a profoundly different IT portfolio. You know, may have a different set of environments. And so, I think the world certainly benefits from an abstraction layer that allows you to train your engineers with a certain set of skills, and then be highly decoupled from the infrastructure environment you run in. And I think, again, Kubernetes is delivering some of that promise in a way that I think really resonates with customers. >> Absolutely, and even, we've been telling people for years "stop building data centers"? You know, there's very few companies that want to build data centers even, yes Google talks about their data centers, but Amazon? Gets their data center space from lots of other players there. But, if I stop building data centers today, I'm going to have em for another 25 30 years, and even it, what am I going to owe myself? I talked to plenty of the big financial guys, they're not going to move all of their information. They want to have it under their control, whether it's their own data center, a hosted managed environment there. So, we're going to be living with this multi-cloud thing for a long time. >> There is another thing that I don't think people have fully internalized yet, which is in many ways, the way that cloud provider data centers are structured is around power sources. At the end of the day, it's around cheap power and cooling. As you start looking at the dynamics of what's happening to our energy grid, it's no longer being quite as centralized as it was. And, it starts to beg the question "does it make sense to think about smaller units that are more distributed? Does it make sense to start really thinking about Edge compute capacity?" The option to deploy something really close to your customers if you need low latency and attainment scenarios. Or, the option to push a lot of capacity into your distribution center, if you're running high, heavy IoT workloads, where you just don't want to put all that data on the network. And so I think that, again, certainly, I think that people underestimate the power of the Amazon, Microsoft and Google. People that are still building data centers today, don't realize quite how remarkable the vendors at that scale are, in terms of their ability to build and run these things. But I do think that there are some interesting options, in terms of regional locality, data sovereignty, Edge latency, that legitimize, other types of deployment. >> Yeah, and you talked about IoT, Edge computing absolutely is something that comes up a lot there. At AWS Re:Invent last year, Amazon put their serverless solution using Greengrass, out at the Edge because there's tons of centers that I might not have the networking, or I can't have the latency I need to do the compute there. How does things like serverless at the Edge, and IoT play into the discussion of Kubernetes? >> I think it plays really well, insofar as, Kubernetes, it's not intrinsically magic. What it has done is created a relatively simple, and turns out, pretty reusable abstraction that lets you run a broad array of workloads. I wouldn't say it's exactly cracked the serverless paradigm in terms of event-driven, low cost of activation computing, but that's something that can certainly be built on top of it. The thing that it does do, is it provides you the ability to manage an application as if it were software as a service, in a location that is remote from you, by providing you a very principled, automated framework for operations. >> Alright, Craig, last thing I want you to do is give us an update on Heptio. How many people do you have? How are you engaging with customers? What's the business model look like for that? What can you share? >> So, we're currently 13 people. We've been in business for four months, and we've been able to hire some really amazing folks, out of the distributed systems communities. We are at a point where we're starting to provide our first supported configurations of Kubernetes. We don't position ourselves as a distribution provider, we rather like to think of ourselves as an organization that's invested in helping users get the most of the Upstream community. Right now, our focus is on training, support, and services, and over time, if we do that really well, we do aspire to provide a more robust set of product capabilities that help organizations succeed. For now, the thing that we focus most relentlessly on is helping customers manage down the cost of supporting a cluster. How do we create a better way for folks to understand what a configuration should look like? When are they likely to encounter issues? And if they do encounter those issues, helping them resolve them in the lowest friction and least painful way possible. >> Alright, and any relationships with the public cloud guys? Or what do you work with when you talk about OpenStack, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, what's the relationship and how do those work? >> So we announced the first joint quick start for Kubernetes with the Amazon folks last Tuesday. And that's been going pretty well. We're getting a lot of positive feedback around that. And we're now starting to think more broadly in terms of providing supported configurations on premises and then on Microsoft. So Amazon, for us, was the obvious starting point. It felt like an under-supported community from a Kubernetes perspective, insofar as, Microsoft had our friend Brenda Burns, who helped us build communities in the first place. And he's been doing some great work to bring Kubernetes to the Azure container service. What we really wanted to do was to make sure that Kubernetes runs well on Amazon, and that it is naturally integrated into the Amazon operating model, so cloud formation templates, and we have a really principled way to manage, maintain, upgrade and support those clusters. >> Alright, Craig Mcluckie, co-creator of Kubernetes, and CEO of Heptio. Really appreciate you coming here to our Palo Alto studio, helping us as we get towards the end of two days of live coverage of Google Cloud Next 2017. You're watching theCUBE. (upbeat music)