(upbeat music) >> Hello, and welcome to The Great Cloud Debate. I'm your moderator Rachel Dines. I'm joined by two debaters today Corey Quinn, Cloud Economist at the Duckbill Group and Stu Miniman, Senior Analyst and Host of theCube. Welcome Corey and Stu, this when you can say hello. >> Hey Rachel, great to talk to you. >> And it's better to talk to me. It's always a pleasure to talk to the fine folks over at CloudHealth at by VMware and less of the pleasure to talk to Stu. >> Smack talk is scheduled for later in the agenda gentlemen, so please keep it to a minimum now to keep us on schedule. So here's how today is going to work. I'm going to introduce a debate topic and assign Corey and Stu each to a side. Remember, their assignments are what I decide and they might not actually match their true feelings about a topic, and it definitely does not represent the feelings of their employer or my employer, importantly. Each debater is going to have two minutes to state their opening arguments, then we'll have rebuttals. And each round you the audience gets to vote of who you think is winning. And at the end of the debate, I'll announce the winner. The prize is bragging rights of course, but then also we're having each debater play to win lunch for their local hospital, which is really exciting. So Stu, which hospital are you playing for? >> Yeah, so Rachel, I'm choosing Brigham Women's Hospital. I get a little bit of a home vote for the Boston audience here and was actually my wife's first job out of school. >> Great hospital. Very, very good. All right, Corey, what about you? >> My neighbor winds up being as specialist in infectious diseases as a doctor, and that was always one of those weird things you learn over a cocktail party until this year became incredibly relevant. So I will absolutely be sending the lunch to his department. >> Wonderful! All right. Well, is everyone ready? Any last words? This is your moment for smack talk. >> I think I'll say that for once we can apply it to a specific technology area. Otherwise, it was insulting his appearance and that's too easy. >> All right, let's get going. The first topic is multicloud. Corey, you'll be arguing that companies are better off standardizing on a single cloud. While Stu, you're going to argue the companies are better off with a multicloud strategy. Corey, you're up first, two minutes on the clock and go. >> All right. As a general rule, picking a single provider and going all in leads to the better outcome. Otherwise, you're trying to build every workload to run seamlessly on other providers on a moment's notice. You don't ever actually do it and all you're giving up in return is the ability to leverage whatever your primary cloud provider is letting you build. Now you're suddenly trying to make two differently behaving load balancers work together in the same way, you're using terraform or as I like to call it multicloud formation in the worst of all possible ways. Because now you're having to only really build on one provider, but all the work you're putting in to make that scale to other providers, you might theoretically want to go to at some point, it slows you down, you're never going to be able to move as quickly trying to build for everyone as you are for one particular provider. And I don't care which provider you pick, you probably care which one you pick, I don't care which one. The point is, you've got to pick what's right for your business. And in almost every case, that means start on a single platform. And if you need to migrate down the road years from now, great, that means A you've survived that long, and B you now have the longevity as a business to understand what migrating looks like. Otherwise you're not able to take care of any of the higher level offerings these providers offer that are even slightly differentiated from each other. And even managed database services behave differently. You've got to become a master of all the different ways these things can fail and unfortunate and displeasing ways. It just leaves you in a position where you're not able to specialize, and of course, makes hiring that much harder. Stu, fight me! >> Tough words there. All right, Stu, your turn. Why are companies better off if they go with a multicloud strategy? Got two minutes? >> Yeah, well first of all Corey, I'm really glad that I didn't have to whip out the AWS guidelines, you were not sticking strictly to it and saying that you could not use the words multicloud, cross-cloud, any cloud or every cloud so thank you for saving me that argument. But I want you to kind of come into the real world a little bit. We want access to innovation, we want flexibility, and well, we used to say I would have loved to have a single provider, in the real world we understand that people end up using multiple solutions. If you look at the AI world today, there's not a provider that is a clear leader in every environment that I have. So there's a reason why I might want to use a lot of clouds. Most companies I talked to, Corey, they still have some of their own servers. They're working in a data center, we've seen huge explosion in the service provider world connecting to multiple clouds. So well, a couple of years ago, multicloud was a complete mess. Now, it's only a little bit of a mess, Corey. So absolutely, there's work that we need to do as an industry to make these solutions better. I've been pining for a couple years to say that multicloud needs to be stronger than the sum of its pieces. And we might not yet be there but limiting yourself to a single cloud is reducing your access to innovation, it's reducing your flexibility. And when you start looking at things like edge computing and AI, I'm going to need to access services from multiple providers. So single cloud is a lovely ideal, but in the real world, we understand that teams come with certain skill sets. We end up in many industries, we have mergers and acquisitions. And it's not as easy to just rip out all of your cloud, like you would have 20 years ago, if you said, "Oh, well, they have a phone system or a router "that didn't match what our corporate guidelines is." Cloud is what we're doing. There's lots of solutions out there. And therefore, multicloud is the reality today, and will be the reality going forward for many years to come. >> Strong words from you, Stu. Corey, you've got 60 seconds for rebuttal. I mostly agree with what you just said. I think that having different workloads in different clouds makes an awful lot of sense. Data gravity becomes a bit of a bear. But if you acquire a company that's running on a different cloud than the one that you've picked, you'd be ridiculous to view migrating as anything approaching a strategic priority. Now, this also gets into the question of what is cloud? Our G Suite stuff counts as cloud, but no one really views it in that way. Similarly, when you have an AI specific workload, that's great. As long as it isn't you seriously expensive to move data between providers. That workload doesn't need to live in the same place as your marketing website does. I think that the idea of having a specific cloud provider that you go all in on for every use case, well, at some point that leads to ridiculous things like pretending that Amazon WorkDocs has customers, it does not. But for things that matter to your business and looking at specific workloads, I think that you're going to find a primary provider with secondary workloads here and they're scattered elsewhere to be the strategy that people are getting at when they use the word multicloud badly. >> Time's up for you Corey, Stu we've got time for rebuttal and remember, for those of you in the audience, you can vote at any time and who you think is winning this round. Stu, 60 seconds for a rebuttal. >> Yeah, absolutely Corey. Look, you just gave the Andy Jassy of what multicloud should be 70 to 80% goes to a single provider. And it does make sense we know nobody ever said multicloud equals the same amount in multiple environments but you made a clear case as to why multicloud leveraging multi providers is likely what most companies are going to do. So thank you so much for making a clear case as to why multicloud not equal cloud, across multiple providers is the way to go. So thank you for conceding the victory. >> Last Words, Corey. >> If that's what you took from it Stu, I can't get any closer to it than you have. >> All right, let's move on to the next topic then. The next topic is serverless versus containers which technology is going to be used in, let's say, five to 10 years time? And as a reminder, I'm going to assign each of the debaters these topics, their assignments may or may not match their true feelings about this topic, and they definitely don't represent the topics of my employer, CloudHealth by VMware. Stu, you're going to argue for containers. Corey you're going to argue for start serverless. Stu, you're up first. Two minutes on the clock and go. >> All right, so with all respect to my friends in the serverless community, We need to have a reality check as to how things work. We all know that serverless is a ridiculous name because underneath we do need to worry about all of the infrastructure underneath. So containers today are the de facto building block for cloud native architectures, just as the VM defined the ecosystem for an entire generation of solutions. Containers are the way we build things today. It is the way Google has architected their entire solution and underneath it is often something that's used with serverless. So yes, if you're, building an Alexa service, serverless make what's good for you. But for the vast majority of solutions, I need to have flexibility, I need to understand how things work underneath it. We know in IT that it's great when things work, but we need to understand how to fix them when they break. So containerization gets us to that atomic level, really close to having the same thing as the application. And therefore, we saw the millions of users that deploy Docker, we saw the huge wave of container orchestration led by Kubernetes. And the entire ecosystem and millions of customers are now on board with this way of designing and architecting and breaking down the silos between the infrastructure world and the application developer world. So containers, here to stay growing fast. >> All right, Corey, what do you think? Why is serverless the future? >> I think that you're right in that containers are the way you get from where you were to something that runs effectively in a cloud environment. That is why Google is so strongly behind Kubernetes it helps get the entire industry to write code the way that Google might write code. And that's great. But if you're looking at effectively rewriting something from scratch, or building something that new, the idea of not having to think about infrastructure in the traditional sense of being able to just here, take this code and run it in a given provider that takes whatever it is that you need to do and could loose all these other services together, saves an awful lot of time. As that continues to move up the stack towards the idea of no code or low code. And suddenly, you're now able to build these applications in ways that require just a little bit of code that tie together everything else. We're closer than ever to that old trope of the only code you write is business logic. Serverless gives a much clearer shot of getting there, if you can divorce yourself from the past of legacy workloads. Legacy, of course meaning older than 18 months and makes money. >> Stu, do you have a rebuttal, 60 seconds? >> Yeah. So Corey, we've been talking about this Nirvana in many ways. It's the discussion that we had for paths for over a decade now. I want to be able to write my code once not worry about where it lives, and do all this. But sometimes, there's a reason why we keep trying the same thing over and over again, but never reaching it. So serverless is great for some application If you talked about, okay, if you're some brand new webby thing there and I don't want to have to do this team, that's awesome. I've talked to some wonderful people that don't know anything about coding that have built some cool stuff with serverless. But cool stuff isn't what most business runs on, and therefore containerization is, as you said, it's a bridge to where I need to go, it lives in these cloud environments, and it is the present and it is the future. >> Corey, your response. >> I agree that it's the present, I doubt that it's the future in quite the same way. Right now Kubernetes is really scratching a major itch, which is how all of these companies who are moving to public cloud still I can have their infrastructure teams be able to cosplay as cloud providers themselves. And over time, that becomes simpler and I think on some level, you might even see a convergence of things that are container workloads begin to look a lot more like serverless workloads. Remember, we're aiming at something that is five years away in the context of this question. I think that the serverless and container landscape will look very different. The serverless landscape will be bright and exciting and new, whereas unfortunately the container landscape is going to be represented by people like you Stu. >> Hoarse words from Corey. Stu, any last words or rebuttals? >> Yeah, and look Corey absolutely just like we don't really think about the underlying server or VM, we won't think about the containers you won't think about Kubernetes in the future, but, the question is, which technology will be used in five to 10 years, it'll still be there. It will be the fabric of our lives underneath there for containerization. So, that is what we were talking about. Serverless I think will be useful in pockets of places but will not be the predominant technology, five years from now. >> All right, tough to say who won that one? I'm glad I don't have to decide. I hope everyone out there is voting, last chance to vote on this question before we move on to the next. Next topic is cloud wars. I'm going to give a statement and then I'm going to assign each of you a pro or a con, Google will never be an actual contender in the cloud wars always a far third, we're going to have Corey arguing that Google is never going to be an actual contender. And Stu, you're going to argue that Google is eventually going to overtake the top two AWS and Azure. As a constant reminder, I'm assigning these topics, it's my decision and also they don't match the opinions of me, my employer, or likely Stu or Corey. This is all just for fun and games. But I really want to hear what everyone has to say. So Corey, you're up first two minutes. Why is Google never going to be an actual contender and go. >> The biggest problem Google has in the time of cloud is their ability to forecast longer term on anything that isn't their advertising business, and their ability to talk to human beings long enough to meet people where they are. We're replacing their entire culture is what it's going to take to succeed in the time of cloud and with respect, Thomas Kurian is a spectacular leader internally but look at where he's come from. He spent 22 years at Oracle and now has been transplanted into Google. If we take a look at Satya Nadella's cloud transformation at Microsoft, he was able to pull that off as an insider, after having known intimately every aspect of that company, and he grew organically with it and was perfectly positioned to make that change. You can't instill that kind of culture change by dropping someone externally, on top of an organization and expecting anything to go with this magic one day wake up and everything's going to work out super well. Google has a tremendous amount of strengths, and I don't see that providing common denominator cloud computing services to a number of workloads that from a Google perspective are horrifying, is necessarily in their wheelhouse. It feels like their entire focus on this is well, there's money over there. We should go get some of that too. It comes down to the traditional Google lack of focus. >> Stu, rebuttal? Why do you think Google has a shaft? >> Yeah, so first of all, Corey, I think we'd agree Google is a powerhouse in the world today. My background is networking, when they first came out with with Google Cloud, I said, Google has the best network, second to none in the world. They are ubiquitous today. If you talk about the impact they have on the world, Android phones, you mentioned Kubernetes, everybody uses G Suite maps, YouTube, and the like. That does not mean that they are necessarily going to become the clear leader in cloud but, Corey, they've got really, really smart people. If you're not familiar with that talk to them. They'll tell you how smart they are. And they have built phenomenal solutions, who's going to be able to solve, the challenge every day of, true distributed systems, that a global database that can handle the clock down to the atomic level, Google's the one that does that we've all read the white papers on that. They've set the tone for Hadoop, and various solutions that are all over the place, and their secret weapon is not the advertising, of course, that is a big concern for them, but is that if you talk about, the consumer adoption, everyone uses Google. My kids have all had Chromebooks growing up. It isn't their favorite thing, but they get, indoctrinated with Google technology. And as they go out and leverage technologies in the world, Google is one that is known. Google has the strength of technology and a lot of positioning and partnerships to move them forward. Everybody wants a strong ecosystem in cloud, we don't want a single provider. We already discussed this before, but just from a competitive nature standpoint, if there is a clear counterbalance to AWS, I would say that it is Google, not Microsoft, that is positioned to be that clear and opportune. >> Interesting, very interesting Stu. So your argument is the Gen Zers will of ultimately when they come of age become the big Google proponents. Some strong words that as well but they're the better foil to AWS, Corey rebuttal? >> I think that Stu is one t-shirt change away from a pitch perfect reenactment of Charlie Brown. In this case with Google playing the part of Lucy yanking the football away every time. We've seen it with inbox, Google Reader, Google Maps, API pricing, GKE's pricing for control plane. And when your argument comes down to a suddenly Google is going to change their entire nature and become something that it is as proven as constitutionally incapable of being, namely supporting something that its customers want that it doesn't itself enjoy working on. And to the exclusion of being able to get distracted and focused on other things. Even their own conferences called Next because Google is more interested in what they're shipping than what they're building, than what they're currently shipping. I think that it is a fantasy to pretend that that is somehow going to change without a complete cultural transformation, which again, I don't see the seeds being planted for. >> Some sick burns in there Stu, rebuttal? >> Yeah. So the final word that I'll give you on this is, one of the most important pieces of what we need today. And we need to tomorrow is our data. Now, there are some concerns when we talk about Google and data, but Google also has strong strength in data, understanding data, helping customers leverage data. So while I agree to your points about the cultural shift, they have the opportunity to take the services that they have, and enable customers to be able to take their data to move forward to the wonderful world of AI, cloud, edge computing, and all of those pieces and solve the solution with data. >> Strong words there. All right, that's a tough one. Again, I hope you're all out there voting for who you think won that round. Let's move on to the last round before we start hitting the lightning questions. I put a call out on several channels and social media for people to have questions that they want you to debate. And this one comes from Og-AWS Slack member, Angelo. Angelo asks, "What about IBM Cloud?" Stu you're pro, Corey you're con. Let's have Stu you're up first. The question is, what about IBM Cloud? >> All right, so great question, Angelo. I think when you look at the cloud providers, first of all, you have to understand that they're not all playing the same game. We talked about AWS and they are the elephant in the room that moves nimbly as a cheetah. Every other provider plays a little bit of a different game. Google has strength in data. Microsoft, of course, has their, business productivity applications. IBM has a strong legacy. Now, Corey is going to say that they are just legacy and you need to think about them but IBM has strong innovation. They are a player in really what we call chapter two of the cloud. So when we start talking about multicloud, when we start talking about living in many environments, IBM was the first one to partner with VMware for VMware cloud before the mega VMware AWS announcement, there was IBM up on stage and if I remember right, they actually have more VMware customers on IBM Cloud than they do in the AWS cloud. So over my shoulder here, there's of course, the Red Hat $34 billion to bet on that multicloud solution. So as we talk about containerization, and Kubernetes, Red Hat is strongly positioned in open-source, and flexibility. So you really need a company that understands both the infrastructure side and the application side. IBM has database, IBM has infrastructure, IBM has long been the leader in middleware, and therefore IBM has a real chance to be a strong player in this next generation of platforms. Doesn't mean that they're necessarily going to go attack Amazon, they're partnering across the board. So I think you will see a kinder, gentler IBM and they are leveraging open source and Red Hat and I think we've let the dogs out on the IBM solution. >> Indeed. >> So before Corey goes, I feel the need to remind everyone that the views expressed here are not the views of my employer nor myself, nor necessarily of Corey or Stu. I have Corey. >> I haven't even said anything yet. And you're disclaiming what I'm about to say. >> I'm just warning the audience, 'cause I can't wait to hear what you're going to say next. >> Sounds like I have to go for the high score. All right. IBM's best days are behind it. And that is pretty clear. They like to get angry when people talk about how making the jokes about a homogenous looking group of guys in blue suits as being all IBM has to offer. They say that hasn't been true since the '80s. But that was the last time people cared about IBM in any meaningful sense and no one has bothered to update the relevance since then. Now, credit where due, I am seeing an awful lot of promoted tweets from IBM into my timeline, all talking about how amazing their IBM blockchain technology is. And yes, that is absolutely the phrasing of someone who's about to turn it all around and win the game. I don't see it happening. >> Stu, rebuttal? >> Look, Corey, IBM was the company that brought us the UPC code. They understand Mac manufacturing and blockchain actually shows strong presence in supply chain management. So maybe you're not quite aware of some of the industries that IBM is an expert in. So that is one of the big strengths of IBM, they really understand verticals quite well. And, at the IBM things show, I saw a lot in the healthcare world, had very large customers that were leveraging those solutions. So while you might dismiss things when they say, Oh, well, one of the largest telecom providers in India are leveraging OpenStack and you kind of go with them, well, they've got 300 million customers, and they're thrilled with the solution that they're doing with IBM, so it is easy to scoff at them, but IBM is a reliable, trusted provider out there and still very strong financially and by the way, really excited with the new leadership in place there, Arvind Krishna knows product, Jim Whitehurst came from the Red Hat side. So don't be sleeping on IBM. >> Corey, any last words? >> I think that they're subject to massive disruption as soon as they release the AWS 400 mainframe in the cloud. And I think that before we, it's easy to forget this, but before Google was turning off Reader, IBM stopped making the model M buckling spring keyboards. Those things were masterpieces and that was one of the original disappointments that we learned that we can't fall in love with companies, because companies in turn will not love us back. IBM has demonstrated that. Lastly, I think I'm thrilled to be working with IBM is exactly the kind of statement one makes only at gunpoint. >> Hey, Corey, by the way, I think you're spending too much time looking at all titles of AWS services, 'cause you don't know the difference between your mainframe Z series and the AS/400 which of course is heavily pending. >> Also the i series. Oh yes. >> The i series. So you're conflating your system, which still do billions of dollars a year, by the way. >> Oh, absolutely. But that's not we're not seeing new banks launching and then building on top of IBM mainframe technology. I'm not disputing that mainframes were phenomenal. They were, I just don't see them as the future and I don't see a cloud story. >> Only a cloud live your mainframe related smack talk. That's the important thing that we're getting to here. All right, we move-- >> I'm hoping there's an announcement from CloudHealth by VMware that they also will now support mainframe analytics as well as traditional cloud. >> I'll look into that. >> Excellent. >> We're moving on to the lightning rounds. Each debater in this round is only going to get 60 seconds for their opening argument and then 30 seconds for a rebuttal. We're going to hit some really, really big important questions here like this first one, which is who deserves to sit on the Iron Throne at the end of "Game of Thrones?" I've been told that Corey has never seen this TV show so I'm very interested to hear him argue for Sansa. But let's Sansa Stark, let's hear Stu go first with his argument for Jon Snow. Stu one minute on the clock, go. >> All right audience let's hear it from the king of the north first of all. Nothing better than Jon Snow. He made the ultimate sacrifice. He killed his love to save Westeros from clear destruction because Khaleesi had gone mad. So Corey is going to say something like it's time for the women to do this but it was a woman she went mad. She started burning the place down and Jon Snow saved it so it only makes sense that he should have done it. Everyone knows it was a travesty that he was sent back to the Wall, and to just wander the wild. So absolutely Jon Snow vote for King of the North. >> Compelling arguments. Corey, why should Sansa Stark sit on the throne? Never having seen the show I've just heard bits and pieces about it and all involves things like bloody slaughters, for example, the AWS partner Expo right before the keynote is best known as AWS red wedding. We take a look at that across the board and not having seen it, I don't know the answer to this question, but how many of the folks who are in positions of power we're in fact mediocre white dudes and here we have Stu advocating for yet another one. Sure, this is a lightning round of a fun event but yes, we should continue to wind up selecting this mediocre white person has many parallels in terms of power, et cetera, politics, current tech industry as a whole. I think she's right we absolutely should give someone with a look like this a potential opportunity to see what they can do instead. >> Ouch, Stu 30 seconds rebuttal. >> Look, I would just give a call out to the women in the audience and say, don't you want Jon Snow to be king? >> I also think it's quite bold of Corey to say that he looks like Kit Harington. Corey, any last words? >> I think that it sad you think Stu was running for office at this point because he's become everyone's least favorite animal, a panda bear. >> Fire. All right, so on to the next question. This one also very important near and dear to my heart personally, is a hot dog a sandwich. Corey you'll be arguing no, Stu will be arguing yes. I must also add this important disclaimer that these assignments are made by me and might not reflect the actual views of the debaters here so Corey, you're up first. Why is a hot dog not a sandwich? >> Because you'll get punched in the face if you go to a deli of any renown and order a hot dog. That is not what they serve there. They wind up having these famous delicatessen in New York they have different sandwiches named after different celebrities. I shudder to think of the deadly insult that naming a hot dog after a celebrity would be to that not only celebrity in some cases also the hot dog too. If you take a look and you want to get sandwiches for lunch? Sure. What are we having catered for this event? Sandwiches. You show up and you see a hot dog, you're looking around the hot dog to find the rest of the sandwich. Now while it may check all of the boxes for a technical definition of what a sandwich is, as I'm sure Stu will boringly get into, it's not what people expect, there's a matter of checking the actual boxes, and then delivering what customers actually want. It's why you can let your product roadmap be guided by cart by customers or by Gartner but rarely both. >> Wow, that one hurts. Stu, why is the hot dog a sandwich? >> Yeah so like Corey, I'm sorry that you must not have done some decent traveling 'cause I'm glad you brought up the definition because I'm not going to bore you with yes, there's bread and there's meat and there's toppings and everything else like that but there are some phenomenal hot dogs out there. I traveled to Iceland a few years ago, and there's a little hot dog stand out there that's been there for over 40 or 50 years. And it's one of the top 10 culinary experience I put in. And I've been to Michelin star restaurants. You go to Chicago and any local will be absolutely have to try our creation. There are regional hot dogs. There are lots of solutions there and so yeah, of course you don't go to a deli. Of course if you're going to the deli for takeout and you're buying meats, they do sell hot dogs, Corey, it's just not the first thing that you're going to order on the menu. So I think you're underselling the hot dog. Whether you are a child and grew up and like eating nothing more than the mustard or ketchup, wherever you ate on it, or if you're a world traveler, and have tried some of the worst options out there. There are a lot of options for hot dogs so hot dog, sandwich, culinary delight. >> Stu, don't think we didn't hear that pun. I'm not sure if that counts for or against you, but Corey 30 seconds rebuttal. >> In the last question, you were agitating for putting a white guy back in power. Now you're sitting here arguing that, "Oh some of my best friend slash meals or hot dogs." Yeah, I think we see what you're putting down Stu and it's not pretty, it's really not pretty and I think people are just going to start having to ask some very pointed, delicate questions. >> Tough words to hear Stu. Close this out or rebuttal. >> I'm going to take the high road, Rachel and leave that where it stands. >> I think that is smart. All right, next question. Tabs versus spaces. Stu, you're going to argue for tabs, Corey, you're going to argue for spaces just to make this fun. Stu, 60 seconds on the clock, you're up first. Why are tabs the correct approach? >> First of all, my competitor here really isn't into pop culture. So he's probably not familiar with the epic Silicon Valley argument over this discussion. So, Corey, if you could explain the middle of algorithm, we will be quite impressed but since you don't, we'll just have to go with some of the technology first. Looks, developers, we want to make things simple on you. Tabs, they're faster to do they take up less memory. Yes, they aren't quite as particular as using spaces but absolutely, they get the job done and it is important to just, focus on productivity, I believe that the conversation as always, the less code you can write, the better and therefore, if you don't have to focus on exactly how many spaces and you can just simplify with the tabs, you're gona get close enough for most of the job. And it is easier to move forward and focus on the real work rather than some pedantic discussion as to whether one thing is slightly more efficient than the other. >> Great points Stu. Corey, why is your pedantic approach better? >> No one is suggesting you sit there and whack the spacebar four times or eight times you hit the Tab key, but your editor should be reasonably intelligent enough to expand that. At that point, you have now set up a precedent where in other cases, other parts of your codebase you're using spaces because everyone always does. And that winds up in turn, causing a weird dissonance you'll see a bunch of linters throwing issues if you use tabs as a direct result. Now the wrong answer is, of course, and I think Steve will agree with me both in the same line. No one is ever in favor of that. But I also want to argue with Stu over his argument about "Oh, it saves a little bit of space "is the reason one should go with tabs instead." Sorry, that argument said bye bye a long time ago, and that time was the introduction of JavaScript, where it takes many hundreds of Meg's of data to wind up building hello world. Yeah, at that point optimization around small character changes are completely irrelevant. >> Stu, rebuttal? >> Yeah, I didn't know that Corey did not try to defend that he had any idea what Silicon Valley was, or any of the references in there. So Rachel, we might have to avoid any other pop culture references. We know Corey just looks at very specific cloud services and can't have fun with some of the broader themes there. >> You're right my mistake Stu. Corey, any last words? >> It's been suggested that whole middle out seen on the whiteboard was came from a number of conversations I used to have with my co-workers as in people who were sitting in the room with me watching that episode said, Oh my God, I've been in the room while you had this debate with your friend and I will not name here because they at least still strive to remain employable. Yeah, it's, I understand the value in the picking these fights, we could have gone just as easily with vi versus Emacs, AWS versus Azure, or anything else that you really care to pick a fight with. But yeah, this is exactly the kind of pedantic fight that everyone loves to get involved with, which is why I walked a different path and pick other ridiculous arguments. >> Speaking of those ridiculous arguments that brings us to our last debate topic of the day, Corey you are probably best known for your strong feelings about the pronunciation of the acronym for Amazon Machine Image. I will not be saying how I think it is pronounced. We're going to have you argue each. Stu, you're going to argue that the acronym Amazon Machine Image should be pronounced to rhyme with butterfly. Corey, you'll be arguing that it rhymes with mommy. Stu, rhymes with butterfly. Let's hear it, 60 seconds on the clock. >> All right, well, Rachel, first of all, I wish I could go to the videotape because I have clear video evidence from a certain Corey Quinn many times arguing why AMI is the proper way to pronounce this, but it is one of these pedantic arguments, is it GIF or GIF? Sometimes you go back and you say, Okay, well, there's the way that the community did it. And the way that oh wait, the founder said it was a certain way. So the only argument against AMI, Jeff Barr, when he wrote about the history of all of the blogging that he's done from AWS said, I wish when I had launched the service that I pointed out the correct pronunciation, which I won't even deem to talk it because the community has agreed by and large that AMI is the proper way to pronounce it. And boy, the tech industry is rific on this kind of thing. Is it SQL and no SQL and you there's various ways that we butcher these constantly. So AMI, almost everyone agrees and the lead champion for this argument, of course is none other than Corey Quinn. >> Well, unfortunately today Corey needs to argue the opposite. So Corey, why does Amazon Machine Image when pronounce as an acronym rhyme with mommy? >> Because the people who built it at Amazon say that it is and an appeal to authorities generally correct when the folks built this. AWS has said repeatedly that they're willing to be misunderstood for long periods of time. And this is one of those areas in which they have been misunderstood by virtually the entire industry, but they are sticking to their guns and continuing to wind up advocating for AMI as the correct pronunciation. But I'll take it a step further. Let's take a look at the ecosystem companies. Whenever Erica Brescia, who is now the COO and GitHub, but before she wound up there, she was the founder of Bitnami. And whenever I call it Bitn AMI she looks like she is barely successfully restraining herself from punching me right in the mouth for that pronunciation of the company. Clearly, it's Bitnami named after the original source AMI, which is what the proper term pronunciation of the three letter acronym becomes. Fight me Stu. >> Interesting. Interesting argument, Stu 30 seconds, rebuttal. >> Oh, the only thing he can come up with is that, you take the word Bitnami and because it has that we know that things sound very different if you put a prefix or a suffix, if you talk to the Kubernetes founders, Kubernetes should be coop con but the people that run the conference, say it cube con so there are lots of debates between the people that create it and the community. I in general, I'm going to vote with the community most of the time. Corey, last words on this topic 'cause I know you have very strong feelings about it. >> I'm sorry, did Stu just say Kubernetes and its community as bastions of truth when it comes to pronouncing anything correctly? Half of that entire conference is correcting people's pronunciation of Kubernetes, Kubernetes, Kubernetes, Kubernetes and 15 other mispronunciations that they will of course yell at you for but somehow they're right on this one. All right. >> All right, everyone, I hope you've been voting all along for who you think is winning each round, 'cause this has been a tough call. But I would like to say that's a wrap for today. big thank you to our debaters. You've been very good sports, even when I've made you argue for against things that clearly are hurting you deep down inside, we're going to take a quick break and tally all the votes. And we're going to announce a winner up on the Zoom Q and A. So go to the top of your screen, Click on Zoom Q and A to join us and hear the winner announced and also get a couple minutes to chat live with Corey and Stu. Thanks again for attending this session. And thank you again, Corey and Stu. It's been The Great Cloud Debate. All right, so each round I will announce the winner and then we're going to announce the overall winner. Remember that Corey and Stu are playing not just for bragging rights and ownership of all of the internet for the next 24 hours, but also for lunch to be donated to their local hospital. Corey is having lunch donated to the California Pacific Medical Centre. And Stu is having lunch donated to Boston Medical Centre. All right, first up round one multicloud versus monocloud. Stu, you were arguing for multicloud, Corey, you were arguing for one cloud. Stu won that one by 64% of the vote. >> The vendor fix was in. >> Yeah, well, look, CloudHealth started all in AWS by supporting customers across those environments. So and Corey you basically conceded it because we said multicloud does not mean we evenly split things up. So you got to work on those two skills, buddy, 'cause, absolutely you just handed the victory my way. So thank you so much and thank you to the audience for understanding multicloud is where we are today, and unfortunately, it's where we're gonnao be in the future. So as a whole, we're going to try to make it better 'cause it is, as Corey and I both agree, a bit of a mess right now. >> Don't get too cocky. >> One of those days the world is going to catch up with me and realize that ad hominem is not a logical fallacy so much as it is an excellent debating skill. >> Well, yeah, I was going to say, Stu, don't get too cocky because round two serverless versus containers. Stu you argued for containers, Corey you argued for serverless. Corey you won that one with 65, 66 or most percent of the vote. >> You can't fight the future. >> Yeah, and as you know Rachel I'm a big fan of serverless. I've been to the serverless comp, I actually just published an excellent interview with Liberty Mutual and what they're doing with serverless. So love the future, it's got a lot of maturity to deliver on the promise that it has today but containers isn't going anyway or either so. >> So, you're not sad that you lost that one. Got it, good concession speech. Next one up was cloud wars specifically Google. is Google a real contender in the clouds? Stu, you were arguing yes they are. Corey, you were arguing no they aren't. Corey also won this round was 72% of the votes. >> Yeah, it's one of those things where at some point, it's sort of embarrassing if you miss a six inch pot. So it's nice that that didn't happen in this case. >> Yeah, so Corey, is this the last week that we have any competitors to AWS? Is that what we're saying? And we all accept our new overlords. Thank you so much, Corey. >> Well I hope not, my God, I don't know what to be an Amazonian monoculture anymore than I do anyone else. Competition makes all of us better. But again, we're seeing a lot of anti competitive behaviour. For example, took until this year for Microsoft to finally make calculator uninstallable and I trust concerned took a long time to work its way of course. >> Yeah, and Corey, I think everyone is listening to what you've been saying about what Google's doing with Google Meet and forcing that us when we make our pieces there. So definitely there's some things that Google culture, we'd love them to clean up. And that's one of the things that's really held back Google's enterprise budget is that advertised advertising driven culture. So we will see. We are working hand-- >> That was already opted out of Hangouts, how do we fix it? We call it something else that they haven't opted out of yet. >> Hey, but Corey, I know you're looking forward to at least two months of weekly Google live stuff starting this summer. So we'll have a lot of time to talk about google. >> Let's not kid ourselves they're going to cancel it halfway through. (Stu laughs) >> Boys, I thought we didn't have any more smack talk left in you but clearly you do. So, all right, moving on. Next slide. This is the last question that we did in the main part of the debate. IBM Cloud. What about IBM Cloud was the question, Stu, you were pro, Corey you were con. Corey, you won this one again with 62% of the vote and for the main. >> It wasn't just me, IBM Cloud also won. The problem is that competition was oxymoron of the day. >> I don't know Rachel, I thought this one had a real shot as to putting where IBM fits. I thought we had a good discussion there. It seemed like some of the early voting was going my way but it just went otherwise. >> It did. We had some last minute swings in these polls. They were going one direction they rapidly swung another it's a fickle crowd today. So right now we've got Corey with three points Stu with one but really the lightning round anyone's game. They got very close here. The next question, lightning round question one, was "Game of Thrones" who deserves to sit on the Iron Throne? Stu was arguing for Jon Snow, Corey was arguing for Sansa Stark also Corey has never seen Game of Thrones. This was shockingly close with Stu at 51.5% of the vote took the crown on this King of the North Stu. >> Well, I'm thrilled and excited that King of the North pulled things out because it would have been just a complete embarrassment if I lost to Corey on this question. >> It would. >> It was the right answer, and as you said, he had no idea what he's talking about, which, unfortunately is how he is on most of the rest of it. You just don't realize that he doesn't know what he's talking about. 'Cause he uses all those fast words and discussion points. >> Well, thank you for saying the quiet part out loud. Now, I am completely crestfallen as to the results of this question about a thing I've never seen and could not possibly care less about not going in my favor. I will someday managed to get over this. >> I'm glad you can really pull yourself together and keep on going with life, Corey it's inspiring. All right, next question. Was the lightning round question two is a hot dog a sandwich? Stu, you were arguing yes. Corey, you were arguing no. Corey landslide, you won this 75% of the vote. >> It all comes down to customer expectations. >> Yeah. >> Just disappointment. Disappointment. >> All right, next question tabs versus spaces. Another very close one. Stu, what were you arguing for Stu? >> I was voting tabs. >> Tabs, yeah. And Corey, you were arguing spaces. This did not turn out the way I expected. So Stu you lost this by slim margin Corey 53% of the vote. You won with spaces. >> Yep. And I use spaces in my day to day life. So that's a position I can actually believe in. >> See, I thought I was giving you the opposite point of view there. I mistook you for the correct answer, in my opinion, which is tabs. >> Well, it is funnier to stalk me on Twitter and look what I have to there than on GitHub where I just completely commit different kinds of atrocities. So I don't blame you. >> Caught that pun there. All right, the last rounds. Speaking of atrocities, AMI, Amazon Machine Image is it pronounced AMI or AMI? >> I better not have won this one. >> So Stu you were arguing that this is pronounced AMI rhymes with butterfly. Corey, you were arguing that it's pronounced AMI like mommy. Any guesses under who won this? >> It better be Stu. >> It was a 50, 50 split complete tie. So no points to anyone. >> For your complete and utterly failed on this because I should have won in a landslide. My entire argument was based on every discussion you've had on this. So, Corey I think they're just voting for you. So I'm really surprised-- >> I think at this point it shows I'm such a skilled debater that I could have also probably brought you to a standstill taking the position that gravity doesn't exist. >> You're a master of few things, Corey. Usually it's when you were dressed up nicely and I think they like the t-shirt. It's a nice t-shirt but not how we're usually hiding behind the attire. >> Truly >> Well. >> Clothes don't always make a demand. >> Gentlemen, I would like to say overall our winner today with five points is Corey. Congratulations, Corey. >> Thank you very much. It's always a pleasure to mop the floor with you Stu. >> Actually I was going to ask Stu to give the acceptance speech for you, Corey and, Corey, if you could give a few words of concession, >> Oh, that's a different direction. Stu, we'll start with you, I suppose. >> Yeah, well, thank you to the audience. Obviously, you voted for me without really understanding that I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm a loudmouth on Twitter. I just create a bunch of arguments out there. I'm influential for reasons I don't really understand. But once again, thank you for your votes so much. >> Yeah, it's always unfortunate to wind up losing a discussion with someone and you wouldn't consider it losing 'cause most of the time, my entire shtick is that I sit around and talk to people who know what they're talking about. And I look smart just by osmosis sitting next to them. Video has been rough on me. So I was sort of hoping that I'd be able to parlay that into something approaching a victory. But sadly, that hasn't worked out quite so well. This is just yet another production brought to you by theCube which shut down my original idea of calling it a bunch of squares. (Rachael laughs) >> All right, well, on that note, I would like to say thank you both Stu and Corey. I think we can close out officially the debate, but we can all stick around for a couple more minutes in case any fans have questions for either of them or want to get them-- >> Find us a real life? Yeah. >> Yeah, have a quick Zoom fight. So thanks, everyone, for attending. And thank you Stu, thank you Corey. This has been The Great Cloud Debate.

>> Announcer: Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE. Covering AWS re:Invent 2017. Presented by AWS, Intel and our ecosystem of partners. >> Hey, welcome back everyone. We're live here in Las Vegas. It's theCUBE's exclusive coverage of AWS. Amazon Web Services re:Invent 2017. Amazon web Services annual conference, 45,000 people here. Five years in a row for theCUBE, and we're going to be continuing to cover years and decades after, it's on a tear. I'm John Furrier, my co-host Stu Miniman. Exciting science, one of the biggest themes here is AI, IoT, data, Deep Learning, DeepLens, all the stuff that's been really trending has been really popular at the show. And the person behind that Amazon is Swami. He's the Vice President of Machine Learning at AWS, among other things, Deep Learning and data. Welcome to theCUBE. >> Stu: Good to see you. >> Excited to be here. >> Thanks for coming on. You're the star of the show. Your team put out some great announcements, congratulations. We're seeing new obstruction layers of complexity going away. You guys have made it easy to do voice, Machine Learning, all those great stuff. >> Swami: Yeah. >> What are you most excited about, so many good things? Can you pick a child? I don't want to pick my favorite child among all my children. Our goal is to actually put Machine Learning capabilities in the hands of all developers and data scientists. That's why, I mean, we want to actually provide different kinds of capabilities right from like machine developers who want to build their own Machine Learning models. That's where SageMakers and n21 platform that lets people build, train and deploy these models in a one-click fashion. It supports all popular Deep Learning frameworks. It can be TensorFlow, MXNet or PyCharm. We also not only help train but automatically tune where we use Machine Learning for Machine Learning to build these things. It's very powerful. The other thing we're excited about is the API services that you talked about, the new obstruction layer where app developers who do not want to know anything about Machine Learning but they want to transcribe their audio to convert from speech to text, or translate it or understand the text, or analyze videos. The other thing coming from academia where I'm excited about is I want to teach developers and students Machine Learning in a fun fashion, where they should be excited about Machine Learning. It's such a transformative capability. That's why actually we built a device meant for Machine Learning in a hands-on fashion that's called DeepLens. We have developers right on re:Invent where from the time they take to un-box to actually build a computer with an application to build Hotdog or Not Hotdog, they can do it in less than 10 minutes. It's an amazing time to be a developer. >> John: Yeah. >> Stu: Oh my God, Swami. I've had so many friends that have sat through that session. First of all, the people that sit through it they get like a kit. >> Swami: That's awesome. >> Stu: They're super excited. Last year it was the Ecodot and everybody with new skills. This year, DeepLens definitely seems to be the one that all the geeks are playing with, really programing stuff. There's a bunch of other things here, but definitely some huge buzz and excitement. >> That's awesome, glad to hear. >> Talk about the culture at Amazon. Because I know in covering you guys for so many years and now being intimate with a lot of the developers in your teams. You guys just don't launch products, you actually listen to customers. You brought up Machine Learning for developers. What specifically jumped out at you from talking to customers around making it easier? It was too hard, was it, or it was confined to hardcore math driven data scientists? Was it just the thirst and desire for Machine Learning? Or you're just doing this for side benefits, it's like a philanthropy project? >> No, in Amazon we don't build technology because it's cool. We build technology because that's what our customers want. Like 90 to 95% of our roadmap is influenced by listening to customers. The other 5 to 10% is us reading between the lines. One of the things I actually ... When I started playing with Machine Learning, having built a bunch of database storage and analytics products. When I started getting into Deep Learning and various things I realized there's a transformative capability of these technologies. It was too hard for developers to use it on a day to day fashion, because these models are too hard to build and train. Our data now, the right level of obstruction. That's why we actually think of it as in a multi-layered strategy where we cater to export practitioners and data scientists. For them we have SageMaker. Then for app developers who do not want to know anything about Machine Learning they say, "I'll give you an audio file, transcribe it for me," or "I'll give you text, get me insights or translate it." For them we actually we actually provide simple to use API services, so that they can actually get going without having to know anything about what is TensorFlow or PyCharm. >> TensorFlow got a lot of attention, because that really engaged the developer community in the current Machine Learning, because we're like, "Oh wow, this is cool." >> Swami: Yeah. >> Then it got, I won't say hard to use, but it was high end. Are you guys responding to TensorFlow in particular or you're responding to other forces? What was the driver? >> In amazon we have been using Machine Learning for like 20 years. Since the year of like 1995 we have been leveraging Machine Learning for recommendation engine, fulfillment center where we use robots to pick packages and then Elixir of course and Amazon Go. One of the things we actually hear is while frameworks like TensorFlow or PyCharm, MXNet or PyCharm is cool. It is just too hard for developers to make use of it. We actually don't mind, our users use Cafe or TensorFlow. We want the, to be successful where they take from idea to product shell. And when we talk to developers, this process took anywhere from 6 to 18 months and it should not be this hard. We wanted to do what AWS did to IT industry for compute storage and databases. We want to do the same for Machine Learning by making it really easy to get started and consumer does in utility. That was our intel. >> Swami, I wonder if you can tell us. We've been talking for years about the flywheel of customers for Amazon. What are the economies of scale that you get for the data that you have there. I think of all the training of all the Machine Learning, the developers. How can you leverage the economies of scale that Amazon has in all those kind of environments? >> When you look at Machine Learning, Machine Learning tends to be mostly the icing on the cake. Even when we talk to the expert professors who are the top 10 scientists in the world, the data that goes into the Machine Learning is going to be the determining factor for how good it is in terms of how well you train it and so forth. This is where data scientists keep saying the breath of storage and database and analytics offerings that exist really matter for them to build highly accurate models. When you talk about not just the data, but actually the underlying database technology and storage technology really is important. S3 is the world's most powerful data leg that exists that is highly secure, reliable, scalable and cost effective. We really wanted to make sure customers like Glacier Cloud who store high resolution satellite imagery on S3 and glacier. We wanted them to leverage ML capabilities in a really easy one-click fashion. That's important. >> I got to ask you about the roadmap, because you say customers are having input on that. I would agree with you that that would be true, because you guys have a track record there. But I got to put the dots that I'm connecting in my mind right now forward by saying, you guys ... And telegraphing here certainly heard well, Furner say it and Andy, data is key and opening up that data and we're seeing New Relic here, Sumo Logic. They're sharing anonymous data from usage, workloads really instructive. Data is instructive for the marketplace, but you got to feed the models on the data. The question for you is you guys get so much data. It's really a systems management dream it's an application performance dream. You got more use case data. Are you going to open that up and what's the vision behind it? Because it seems like you could offer more and more services. >> Actually we already have. If you look at x-rays and service that we launched last year. That is one of the coolest capabilities, even I am a developer during the weekends when I cool out. Being able to dive into specific capabilities so one of the performance insights where is the borderline. It's so important that actually we are able to do things like x-raying into an application. We are just getting started. The Cloud transformed how we are building applications. Now with Machine Learning, what is going to happen is we can even do various things like ... Which is going to be the borderline on what kind of datasets. It's just going to be such an amazing time. >> You can literally reimagine applications that are once dominant with all the data you have, if you opened it up and then let me bring my data in. Then that will open up a bigger aperture of data. Wouldn't that make the Machine Learning and then AI more effective? >> Actually, you already can do similar things with Lex. Lex, think of it as it's an automatic speech recognition natural language understanding where we are pre-trained on our data. But then to customize it for your own chat bots or voice applications, you can actually add your own intents and several things and we customize it underlying Deep Learning model specific to your data. You're leveraging the amount of data that we have trained in addition to specifically tuning for yours. It's only going to get better and better, to your point. >> It's going to happen, it's already happening. >> It's already happening, yeah. >> Swami, great slate of announcements on the Machine Learning side. We're seeing the products get all updated. I'm wondering if you can talk to us a little bit about the human side of things. Because we've seen a lot of focus, right, it's not just these tools but it's the tools and the people putting those together. How does Amazon going to help the data scientists, help retrain, help them get ready to be able to leverage and work even better with all these tools? >> Machine Learning, we have seen some amazing usage of how developers are using Machine Learning. For example, Mariness Analytics is a non-profit organization that its goal is to fight human trafficking. They use recognition which is our image processing. They do actually identify persons of interest and victims so that they can notify law enforcement officer. Like Royal National Institute of Blind. They actually are using audio text to speech to generate audio books for visually impaired. I'm really excited about all the innovative applications that we can do to simply improve our everyday lives using Machine Learning, and it's such in early days. >> Swami, the innovation is endless in my mind. But I want to get two thoughts from you, one startup and one practitioner. Because we've heard here in theCUBE, people come here and saying, "I can do so much more now. "I've got my EMR, it's so awesome. "I can do this solving problem." Obviously making it easy to use is super cool, that's one. I want to get your thoughts on where that goes next. And two, startups. We're seeing a lot of startups retooling on Cloud economics. I call it post-2013 >> Swami: Yeah. >> They don't need a lot of money, they can hit critical mass. They can get market product, market fit earlier. They can get economic value quicker. So they're changing the dynamics. But the worry is, how do I leverage the benefit of Amazon? Because we know Amazon is going to grow and all Clouds grow and just for you guys. How do I play with Amazon? Where is the white space? How do I engage, do I just ...? Once I'm on the platform, how do I become the New Relic or slunk? How can I grow my marketplace and differentiate? Because Amazon might come out with something similar. How do I stay in that cadence of growth, even a startup? >> If you see in AWS we have tens of thousands of partners of course, right from ISV, SIs and whatnot. Software industry is an amazing industry where it's not like winner take all market. For example, in the document management space, even though we have S3 and WorkDocs, it doesn't mean Dropbox and Box are not successful either, and so forth. What we provide in AWS is the same infrastructure for any startup or for my team, even though I build probably many of the underlying infrastructure. Nowadays for my AI team, it's literally like a startup except I probably stay in an AWS building, but otherwise I don't get any internal APIs, it's the same API so easy to S3. >> John: It's a level playing field. >> It's a level playing field. >> By the way, everyone should know, he wrote DynamoDB. As an intern or was that ...? (Swami laughs) And then SQS, rockstar techy here, so it's great to have. You're what we call a tech athlete. Great to have you on. No white space, just go for it. >> Innovation is the key. The key thing, what we have seen amazing startups who have done exceptionally well is they intently listen to customers and innovate and really look for what it matters for their customers and go for it. >> The biggest buzz of the show from your group. What's your biggest buzz from the show here? DeepLens? >> DeepLens has been ... Our idea was to actually come up with a fun way to learn Machine Learning. Machine Learning, it used to be, even until recently actually as well as last week, it was actually an intimate thing for developers to learn while there is, it's all the buzz. It's not really straight forward for developers to use it. We thought, "Hey, what is a fun way for developers "to get engaged and build Machine Learning?" That's why we actually can see DeepLens so that you can actually build fun applications. I talked about Hotdog, Not Hotdog. I'm personally going to be building what I call as a Bear Cam. Because I live in the suburbs of Seattle where we actually have bears visiting our backyard digging our trash. I want to actually have DeepLens with a pre-train model that I'm going to train to detect bears. That it sends me a message through SQS and SNS so I get a text. >> Here's an idea we want to do, maybe your team can build it for us. CUBE Cam, we put the DeepLens here and then as anyone goes by, if they're a Twitter follower of theCUBE they can send me a message. (John and Swami laughing) Swami, great stuff. Deep Learning again, more goodness coming. >> Swami: That's awesome. >> What are you most excited about? >> In Amazon we have a phrase called, "It's Day One." Even though we are a 22-year-old company, I jokingly tell my team that, "It's day one for us, "except we just woke up and we haven't even "had a cup of coffee yet." We have just scratched the surface with Machine Learning, there is so much stuff to do. I'm super excited about this space. >> Your goals for this year is what? What's your goals? >> Our goals for this year was to put Machine Learning capabilities in the hands of all developers of all skill levels. I think we have done pretty well so far I think. >> Well, congratulations Swami here on theCUBE. Vice president of Machine Learning and a lot more, all those applications that were announced Wednesday along with the Deep Leaning and the AI and the DeepLens all part of his innovative team here at Amazon. Changing the game is theCUBE doing our part bringing data to you, video and more coverage. Go to Siliconangle.com for all the stories, Wikibon.com for research and of course theCUBE.net. I'm John Furrier and Stu Miniman. Thanks for watching, we'll be right back.