>> From Boston, Massachusetts, it's The Cube, covering LiveWorx '18. Brought to you by PTC. >> Welcome back to Boston, everybody. This is the LiveWorx show, hosted by PTC, and you're watching The Cube, the leader in live tech coverage. I'm Dave Vellante with my co-host, Stu Miniman, covering IoT, Blockchain, AI, the Edge, the Cloud, all kinds of crazy stuff going on. Kevin Ashton is here. He's the inventor of the term, IoT, and the creator of the Wemo Home Automation platform. You may be familiar with that, the Smart Plugs. He's also the co-founder and CEO of Zensi, which is a clean tech startup. Kevin, thank you for coming on The Cube. >> Thank you for having me. >> You're very welcome. So, impressions of LiveWorx so far? >> Oh wow! I've been to a few of these and this is the biggest one so far, I think. I mean, it's day one and the place is hopping. It's like, it's really good energy here. It's hard to believe it's a Monday. >> Well, it's interesting right? You mean, you bring a ton of stayed manufacturing world together with this, sort of, technology world and gives us this interesting cocktail. >> I think the manufacturing world was stayed in the 1900s but in the 21st century, it's kind of the thing to be doing. Yeah, and this... I guess this is, you're right. This is not what people think of when they think of manufacturing, but this is really what it looks like now. It's a digital, energetic, young, exciting, innovative space. >> Very hip. And a lot of virtual reality, augmented reality. Okay, so this term IoT, you're accredited, you're the Wikipedia. Look up Kevin, you'll see that you're accredited with inventing, creating that term. Where did it come from? >> Oh! So, IoT is the Internet of Things. And back in 1990s, I was a Junior Manager at Proctor & Gamble, consumer goods company. And we were having trouble keeping some products on the shelves, in the store, and I had this idea of putting this new technology called RFID tags. Little microchips, into all Proctor products. Gamble makes like two billion products a year or something and putting it into all of them and connecting it to this other new thing called the internet, so we'd know where our stuff was. And, yeah the challenge I faced as a young executive with a crazy idea was how to explain that to senior management. And these were guys who, in those days, they didn't even do email. You send them an email, they'd like have their secretary print it out and then hand write a reply. It would come back to you in the internal mail. I'm really not kidding. And I want to put chips in everything. Well the good news was, about 1998, they'd heard of the internet, and they'd heard that the internet was a thing you were supposed to be doing. They didn't know what it was. So I literally retitled my PowerPoint presentation, which was previously called Smart Packaging, to find a way to get the word Internet in. And the way I did it was I wrote, Internet of Things. And I got my money and I founded a research center with Proctor & Gamble's money at MIT, just up the road here. And basically took the PowerPoint presentation with me, all over the world, to convince other people to get on board. And somehow, the name stuck. So that's the story. >> Yeah, it's fascinating. I remember back. I mean, RFID was a big deal. We've been through, you know-- I studied Mechanical Engineering. So manufacturing, you saw the promise of it, but like the internet, back in the 90s, it was like, "This seems really cool. "What are you going to do with it?" >> Exactly, and it kind of worked. Now it's everywhere. But, yeah, you're exactly right. >> When you think back to those times and where we are in IoT, which I think, most of us still say, we're still relatively early in IoT, industrial internet. What you hear when people talk about it, does it still harken back to some of the things you thought? What's different, what's the same? >> So some of the big picture stuff is very much the same, I think. We had this, the fundamental idea behind the MIT research, behind the Internet of Things was, get computers to gather the relevant information. If we can do that, now we have this whole, powerful new paradigm in computing. Coz it's not about keyboards anymore, and in places like manufacturing, I mean Proctor & Gamble is a manufacturing company, they make things and they sell them. The problem in manufacturing is keyboards just don't scale as an information capture technology. You can't sit in a warehouse and type everything you have. And something goes out the door and type it again. And so, you know, in the 90s, barcodes came and then we realized that we could do much better. And that was the Internet of Things. So that big picture, wouldn't it be great if we knew wherever things was, automatically? That's come true and at times, a million, right? Some of the technologies that are doing it are very unexpected. Like in the 1990s, we were very excited about RFID, partly because vision technology, you know, cameras connected to computers, was not working at all. It looked very unpromising, with people been trying for decades to do machine vision. And it didn't work. And now it does, and so a lot of things, we thought we needed RFID for, we can now do with vision, as an example. Now, the reason vision works, by the way, is an interesting one, and I think is important for the future of Internet of Things, vision works because suddenly we had digital cameras connected to networks, mainly in smartphones, that we're enable to create this vast dataset, that could then be used to train their algorithms, right? So what is was, I've scanned in a 100 images in my lab at MIT and I'm trying to write an algorithm, machine vision was very hard to do. When you've got hundreds of, millions of images available to you easily because phones and digital cameras are uploading all the time, then suddenly you can make the software sing and dance. So, a lot of the analytical stuff we've already seen in machine vision, we'll start to see in manufacturing, supply chain, for example, as the data accumulates. >> If you go back to that time, when you were doing that PowerPoint, which was probably less than a megabyte, when you saved it, did you have any inkling of the data explosion and were you even able to envision how data models would change to accommodate, did you realize at the time that the data model, the data pipeline, the ability to store all this distributed data would have to change? Were you not thinking that way? >> It's interesting because I was the craziest guy in the room. When I came to internet bandwidth and storage ability, I was thinking in, maybe I was thinking in gigabytes, when everyone else was thinking in kilobytes, right? But I was wrong. I wasn't too crazy, I was not crazy enough. I wouldn't, quick to quote, quite go so far as to call it a regret, but my lesson for life, the next generation of innovators coming up, is you actually can't let, kind of, the average opinion in the room limit how extreme your views are. Because if it seems to make sense to you, that's all that matters, right? So, I didn't envision it, is the answer to your question, even though, I was envisioning stuff, that seemed crazy to a lot of other people. I wasn't the only crazy one, but I was one of the few. And so, we underestimated, even in our wildest dreams, we underestimated the bandwidth and memory innovation, and so we've seen in the last 25 years. >> And, I don't know. Stu, you're a technologist, I'm not, but based on what you see today, do you feel like, the technology infrastructure is there to support these great visions, or do we have to completely add quantum computing or blockchain? Are we at the doorstep, or are we decades away? >> Oh, were at the doorstep. I mean, I think the interesting thing is, a lot of Internet of Things stuff, in particular, is invisible for number of reasons, right? It's invisible because, you know, the sensors and chips are embedded in things and you don't see them, that's one. I mean, there is a billion more RFID tags made in the world, than smartphones every year. But you don't see them. You see the smartphone, someone's always looking at their smartphone. So you don't realize that's there. So that's one reason, but, I mean, the other reason is, the Internet of Things is happening places and in companies that don't have open doors and windows, they're not on the high street, right? They are, it's warehouses, it's factories, it's behind the scenes. These companies, they have no reason to talk about what they are doing because it's a trade secret or it's you know, just not something people want to write about or read about, right? So, I just gave a talk here, and one of the examples I gave was a company who'd, Heidelberger. Heidelberger makes 60% of the offset printing presses in the world. They're one of the first Internet of Things pioneers. Most people haven't heard of them, most people don't see offset printers everyday. So the hundreds of sensors they have in their hundreds of printing presses, completely invisible to most of us, right? So, it's definitely here, now. You know, will the infrastructure continue to improve? Yes. Will we see things that are unimaginable today, 20 years from today? Yes. But I don't see any massive limitations now in what the Internet of Things can become. >> We just have a quick question, your use case for that offset printing, is it predictive maintenance, or is it optimization (crosstalk). >> It is initially like, it was in 1990s, when the customer calls and says, "My printing press isn't working, help", instead of sending the guide and look at the diagnostics, have the diagnostics get sent to the guide, that was the first thing, but then gradually, that evolves to realtime monitoring, predictive maintenance, your machine seems to be less efficient than the average of all the machines. May be we can help you optimize. Now that's the other thing about all Internet of Things applications. You start with one sensor telling you one thing for one reason, and it works, you add two, and you find four things you can do and you add three, and you find nine things you can do, and the next thing you know, you're an Internet of Things company. You never meant to be. But yeah, that's how it goes. It's a little bit like viral or addictive. >> Well, it's interesting to see the reemergence, new ascendancy of PTC. I mean, heres a company in 2003, who was, you know, bouncing along the ocean's floor, and then the confluence of all this trends, some acquisitions and all of a sudden, they're like, the hot new kid on the block. >> Some of that's smart management, by the way. >> Yeah, no doubt. >> And, I don't work for PTC but navigating the change is important and I want to say, all of the other things I just talked about in my talk, but, you know, we think about these tools that companies like PTC make as design tools. But they're very quickly transitioning to mass production tools, right? So it used be, you imagined a thing on your screen and you made a blueprint of it. Somebody made it in the shop. And then it was, you didn't make it in a shop, you had a 3D printer. And you could make a little model of it and show management. Everyone was very excited about that. Well, you know, what's happening now, what will happen more is that design on the screen will be plugged right in to the production line and you push a button and you make a million. Or your customer will go to a website, tweak it a little bit, make it a different color or different shape or something, and you'll make one, on your production line that makes a million. So, there's this seamless transition happening from imagining things using software, to actually manufacturing them using software, which is very much the core of what Internet of Things is about and it's a really exciting part of the current wave of the industrial revolution. >> Yeah, so Kevin, you wrote a book which follows some of those themes, I believe, it's How to Fly A Horse. I've read plenty of books where it talks about people think that innovation is, you know, some guy sitting under a tree, it hits him in the head and he does things. But we know that, first of all, almost everybody is building on you know, the shoulders of those before us. Talk a little bit about creativity, innovation. >> Okay. Sure. >> Your thoughts on that. >> So, I have an undergraduate degree in Scandinavian studies, okay? I studied Ibsen in 19th century Norwegian, at university. And then I went to Proctor & Gamble and I did marketing for color cosmetics. And then the next thing that happened to me was I'm at MIT, right? I'm an Executive Director of this prestigious lab at MIT. And I did this at the same time that the Harry Potter books were becoming popular, right? So I already felt like, oh my God! I've gone to wizard school but nobody realizes that I'm not a wizard. I was scared of getting found out, right? I didn't feel like a wizard because anything I managed to create was like the 1000th thing I did after 999 mistakes. You know, I was like banging my head against the wall. And I didn't know what I was doing. And occasionally, I got lucky, and I was like, oh they're going to figure out, that I'm not like them, right? I don't have the magic. And actually what happened to me at MIT over four years, I figured out nobody had the magic. There is no magic, right? There were those of us who believed this story about geniuses and magic, and there were other people who were just getting on with creating and the people at MIT were the second group. So, that was my revelation that I wasn't an imposter, I was doing things the way everybody I'd ever heard of, did them. And so, I did some startups and then I wanted to write a book, like kind of correcting the record, I guess. Because it's frustrating to me, like now, I'm called the inventor of the Internet of Things. I'm not the inventor of the Internet of Things. I wrote three words on a PowerPoint slide, I'm one of a hundred thousand people that all chipped away at this problem. And probably my chips were not as big as a lot of other people's, right? So, it was really important to me to talk about that, coz I meet so many people who want to create something, but if it doesn't happen instantly, or they don't have the brilliant idea in the shower, you know, they think they must be bad at it. And the reality is all creating is a series of steps. And as I was writing the book, I researched, you know, famous stories like Newton, and then less famous stories like the African slave kid who discovered how to farm vanilla, right? And found that everybody was doing it the same way, and in every discipline. It doesn't matter if it's Kandinsky painting a painting, or some scientist curing cancer. Everybody is struggling. They're struggling to be heard, they're struggling to be understood, they're struggling to figure out what to do next. But the ones who succeed, just keep going. I mean, and the title, How To Fly A Horse is because of the Wright brothers. Coz that's how they characterized the problem they were trying to solve and there are classic example of, I mean, literally, everybody else was jumping off mountains wit wings on their back, and dying, and the Wright brothers took this gradual, step by step approach, and they were the ones who solved the problem, how to fly. >> There was no money, and no resources, and Samuel Pierpont Langley gave up. >> Yeah, exactly. The Wright brothers were bicycle guys and they just figured out how to convert what they knew into something else. So that's how you create. I mean, we're surrounded by people who know how to do that. That's the story of How To Fly A Horse. >> So what do we make of, like a Steve Jobs. Is he an anomaly, or is he just surrounded by people who, was he just surrounded by people who knew how to create? >> I talk about Steve Jobs in the book, actually, and yeah, I think the interesting thing about Jobs is defining characteristic, as I see it. And yeah, I followed the story of Apple since I was a kid, one of the first news I ever saw was an Apple. Jobs was never satisfied. He always believed things could be made better. And he was laser focused on trying to make them better, sometimes to the detriment of the people around him, but that focus on making things better, enabled him, yes, to surround himself with people who were good at doing what they did, but also then driving them to achieve things. I mean, interesting about Apple now is, Apple are sadly becoming, kind of, just another computer company now, without somebody there, who is not-- I mean, he's stand up on stage and say I've made this great thing, but what was going on in his head often was, but I wish that curve was slightly different or I wish, on the next one, I'm going to fix this problem, right? And so the minute you get satisfied with, oh, we're making billions of dollars, everything's great, that's when your innovation starts to plummet, right? So that was, I think to me, Jobs was a classic example of an innovator, because he just kept going. He kept wanting to make things better. >> Persistence. Alright, we got to go. Thank you so much. >> Thank you guys. >> For coming on The Cube. >> Great to see you. >> Great to meet you, Kevin. Alright, keep it right there buddy. Stu and I will be back with our next guest. This is The Cube. We're live from LiveWorx at Boston and we'll be right back.

>> [Narrator] Live from New York, it's theCube, covering Machine Learning Everywhere. Build your ladder to AI, brought to you by IBM. >> Welcome back here to New York City as we continue at IBM's Machine Learning Everywhere, build your ladder to AI, along with Dave Vellante, I'm John Walls. It is now a great honor of ours to have I think probably and arguably the greatest chess player of all time, Garry Kasparov now joins us. He's currently the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation, political activist in Russia as well some time ago. Thank you for joining us, we really appreciate the time, sir. >> Thank you for inviting me. >> We've been looking forward to this. Let's just, if you would, set the stage for us. Artificial Intelligence obviously quite a hot topic. The maybe not conflict, the complementary nature of human intelligence. There are people on both sides of the camp. But you see them as being very complementary to one another. >> I think that's natural development in this industry that will bring together humans and machines. Because this collaboration will produce the best results. Our abilities are complementary. The humans will bring creativity and intuition and other typical human qualities like human judgment and strategic vision while machines will add calculation, memory, and many other abilities that they have been acquiring quickly. >> So there's room for both, right? >> Yes, I think it's inevitable because no machine will ever reach 100% perfection. Machines will be coming closer and closer, 90%, 92, 94, 95. But there's still room for humans because at the end of the day even with this massive power you have guide it. You have to evaluate the results and at the end of the day the machine will never understand when it reaches the territory of diminishing returns. It's very important for humans actually to identify. So what is the task? I think it's a mistake that is made by many pundits that they automatically transfer the machine's expertise for the closed systems into the open-ended systems. Because in every closed system, whether it's the game of chess, the game of gall, video games like daughter, or anything else where humans already define the parameters of the problem, machines will perform phenomenally. But if it's an open-ended system then machine will never identify what is the sort of the right question to be asked. >> Don't hate me for this question, but it's been reported, now I don't know if it's true or not, that at one point you said that you would never lose to a machine. My question is how capable can we make machines? First of all, is that true? Did you maybe underestimate the power of computers? How capable to you think we can actually make machines? >> Look, in the 80s when the question was asked I was much more optimistic because we saw very little at that time from machines that could make me, world champion at the time, worry about machines' capability of defeating me in the real chess game. I underestimated the pace it was developing. I could see something was happening, was cooking, but I thought it would take longer for machines to catch up. As I said in my talk here is that we should simply recognize the fact that everything we do while knowing how we do that, machines will do better. Any particular task that human perform, machine will eventually surpass us. >> What I love about your story, I was telling you off-camera about when we had Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee on, you're the opposite of Samuel P. Langley to me. You know who Samuel P. Langley is? >> No, please. >> Samuel P. Langley, do you know who Samuel P. Langley is? He was the gentleman that, you guys will love this, that the government paid. I think it was $50,000 at the time, to create a flying machine. But the Wright Brothers beat him to it, so what did Samuel P. Langley do after the Wright Brothers succeeded? He quit. But after you lost to the machine you said you know what? I can beat the machine with other humans, and created what is now the best chess player in the world, is my understanding. It's not a machine, but it's a combination of machines and humans. Is that accurate? >> Yes, in chess actually, we could demonstrate how the collaboration can work. Now in many areas people rely on the lessons that have been revealed, learned from what I call advanced chess. That in this team, human plus machine, the most important element of success is not the strengths of the human expert. It's not the speed of the machine, but it's a process. It's an interface, so how you actually make them work together. In the future I think that will be the key of success because we have very powerful machine, those AIs, intelligent algorithms. All of them will require very special treatment. That's why also I use this analogy with the right fuel for Ferrari. We will have expert operators, I call them the shepherds, that will have to know exactly what are the requirements of this machine or that machine, or that group of algorithms to guarantee that we'll be able by our human input to compensate for their deficiencies. Not the other way around. >> What let you to that response? Was it your competitiveness? Was it your vision of machines and humans working together? >> I thought I could last longer as the undefeated world champion. Ironically, 1997 when you just look at the game and the quality of the game and try to evaluate the Deep Blue real strengths, I think I was objective, I was stronger. Because today you can analyze these games with much more powerful computers. I mean any chess app on your laptop. I mean you cannot really compare with Deep Blue. That's natural progress. But as I said, it's not about solving the game, it's not about objective strengths. It's about your ability to actually perform at the board. I just realized while we could compete with machines for few more years, and that's great, it did take place. I played two more matches in 2003 with German program. Not as publicized as IBM match. Both ended as a tie and I think they were probably stronger than Deep Blue, but I knew it would just be over, maybe a decade. How can we make chess relevant? For me it was very natural. I could see this immense power of calculations, brute force. On the other side I could see us having qualities that machines will never acquire. How about bringing together and using chess as a laboratory to find the most productive ways for human-machine collaboration? >> What was the difference in, I guess, processing power basically, or processing capabilities? You played the match, this is 1997. You played the match on standard time controls which allow you or a player a certain amount of time. How much time did Deep Blue, did the machine take? Or did it take its full time to make considerations as opposed to what you exercised? >> Well it's the standard time control. I think you should explain to your audience at that time it was seven hours game. It's what we call classical chess. We have rapid chess that is under one hour. Then you have blitz chess which is five to ten minutes. That was a normal time control. It's worth mentioning that other computers they were beating human players, myself included, in blitz chess. In the very fast chess. We still thought that more time was more time we could have sort of a bigger comfort zone just to contemplate the machine's plans and actually to create real problems that machine would not be able to solve. Again, more time helps humans but at the end of the day it's still about your ability not to crack under pressure because there's so many things that could take you off your balance, and machine doesn't care about it. At the end of the day machine has a steady hand, and steady hand wins. >> Emotion doesn't come into play. >> It's not about apps and strength, but it's about guaranteeing that it will play at a certain level for the entire game. While human game maybe at one point it could go a bit higher. But at the end of the day when you look at average it's still lower. I played many world championship matches and I analyze the games, games played at the highest level. I can tell you that even the best games played by humans at the highest level, they include not necessarily big mistakes, but inaccuracies that are irrelevant when humans facing humans because I make a mistake, tiny mistake, then I can expect you to return the favor. Against the machine it's just that's it. Humans cannot play at the same level throughout the whole game. The concentration, the vigilance are now required when humans face humans. Psychologically when you have a strong machine, machine's good enough to play with a steady hand, the game's over. >> I want to point out too, just so we get the record straight for people who might not be intimately familiar with your record, you were ranked number one in the world from 1986 to 2005 for all but three months. Three months, that's three decades. >> Two decades. >> Well 80s, 90s, and naughts, I'll give you that. (laughing) That's unheard of, that's phenomenal. >> Just going back to your previous question about why I just look for some new form of chess. It's one of the key lessons I learned from my childhood thanks to my mother who spent her live just helping me to become who I am, who I was after my father died when I was seven. It's about always trying to make the difference. It's not just about winning, it's about making a difference. It led me to kind of a new motto in my professional life. That is it's all about my own quality of the game. As long as I'm challenging my own excellence I will never be short of opponents. For me the defeat was just a kick, a push. So let's come up with something new. Let's find a new challenge. Let's find a way to turn this defeat, the lessons from this defeat into something more practical. >> Love it, I mean I think in your book I think, was it John Henry, the famous example. (all men speaking at once) >> He won, but he lost. >> Motivation wasn't competition, it was advancing society and creativity, so I love it. Another thing I just want, a quick aside, you mentioned performing under pressure. I think it was in the 1980s, it might have been in the opening of your book. You talked about playing multiple computers. >> [Garry] Yeah, in 1985. >> In 1985 and you were winning all of them. There was one close match, but the computer's name was Kasparov and you said I've got to beat this one because people will think that it's rigged or I'm getting paid to do this. So well done. >> It's I always mention this exhibition I played in 1985 against 32 chess-playing computers because it's not the importance of this event was not just I won all the games, but nobody was surprised. I have to admit that the fact that I could win all the games against these 32 chess-playing computers they're only chess-playing machine so they did nothing else. Probably boosted my confidence that I would never be defeated even by more powerful machines. >> Well I love it, that's why I asked the question how far can we take machines? We don't know, like you said. >> Why should we bother? I see so many new challenges that we will be able to take and challenges that we abandoned like space exploration or deep ocean exploration because they were too risky. We couldn't actually calculate all the odds. Great, now we have AI. It's all about increasing our risk because we could actually measure against this phenomenal power of AI that will help us to find the right pass. >> I want to follow up on some other commentary. Brynjolfsson and McAfee basically put forth the premise, look machines have always replaced humans. But this is the first time in history that they have replaced humans in the terms of cognitive tasks. They also posited look, there's no question that it's affecting jobs. But they put forth the prescription which I think as an optimist you would agree with, that it's about finding new opportunities. It's about bringing creativity in, complementing the machines and creating new value. As an optimist, I presume you would agree with that. >> Absolutely, I'm always saying jobs do not disappear, they evolve. It's an inevitable part of the technological progress. We come up with new ideas and every disruptive technology destroys some industries but creates new jobs. So basically we see jobs shifting from one industry to another. Like from agriculture, manufacture, from manufacture to other sectors, cognitive tasks. But now there will be something else. I think the market will change, the job market will change quite dramatically. Again I believe that we will have to look for riskier jobs. We will have to start doing things that we abandoned 30, 40 years ago because we thought they were too risky. >> Back to the book you were talking about, deep thinking or machine learning, or machine intelligence ends and human intelligence begins, you talked about courage. We need fail safes in place, but you also need that human element of courage like you said, to accept risk and take risk. >> Now it probably will be easier, but also as I said the machine's wheel will force a lot of talent actually to move into other areas that were not as attractive because there were other opportunities. There's so many what I call raw cognitive tasks that are still financially attractive. I hope and I will close many loops. We'll see talent moving into areas where we just have to open new horizons. I think it's very important just to remember it's the technological progress especially when you're talking about disruptive technology. It's more about unintended consequences. The fly to the moon was just psychologically it's important, the Space Race, the Cold War. But it was about also GPS, about so many side effects that in the 60s were not yet appreciated but eventually created the world we have now. I don't know what the consequences of us flying to Mars. Maybe something will happen, one of the asteroids will just find sort of a new substance that will replace fossil fuel. What I know, it will happen because when you look at the human history there's all this great exploration. They ended up with unintended consequences as the main result. Not what was originally planned as the number one goal. >> We've been talking about where innovation comes from today. It's a combination of a by-product out there. A combination of data plus being able to apply artificial intelligence. And of course there's cloud economics as well. Essentially, well is that reasonable? I think about something you said, I believe, in the past that you didn't have the advantage of seeing Deep Blue's moves, but it had the advantage of studying your moves. You didn't have all the data, it had the data. How does data fit into the future? >> Data is vital, data is fuel. That's why I think we need to find some of the most effective ways of collaboration between humans and machines. Machines can mine the data. For instance, it's a breakthrough in instantly mining data and human language. Now we could see even more effective tools to help us to mine the data. But at the end of the day it's why are we doing that? What's the purpose? What does matter to us, so why do we want to mine this data? Why do we want to do here and not there? It seems at first sight that the human responsibilities are shrinking. I think it's the opposite. We don't have to move too much but by the tiny shift, just you know percentage of a degree of an angle could actually make huge difference when this bullet reaches the target. The same with AI. More power actually offers opportunities to start just making tiny adjustments that could have massive consequences. >> Open up a big, that's why you like augmented intelligence. >> I think artificial is sci-fi. >> What's artificial about it, I don't understand. >> Artificial, it's an easy sell because it's sci-fi. But augmented is what it is because our intelligent machines are making us smarter. Same way as the technology in the past made us stronger and faster. >> It's not artificial horsepower. >> It's created from something. >> Exactly, it's created from something. Even if the machines can adjust their own code, fine. It still will be confined within the parameters of the tasks. They cannot go beyond that because again they can only answer questions. They can only give you answers. We provide the questions so it's very important to recognize that it is we will be in the leading role. That's why I use the term shepherds. >> How do you spend your time these days? You're obviously writing, you're speaking. >> Writing, speaking, traveling around the world because I have to show up at many conferences. The AI now is a very hot topic. Also as you mentioned I'm the Chairman of Human Rights Foundation. My responsibilities to help people who are just dissidents around the world who are fighting for their principles and for freedom. Our organization runs the largest dissident gathering in the world. It's called the Freedom Forum. We have the tenth anniversary, tenth event this May. >> It has been a pleasure. Garry Kasparov, live on theCube. Back with more from New York City right after this. (lively instrumental music)

>>The cube at IBM. Impact 2014 is brought to you by headline sponsor. IBM. Here are your hosts, John furrier and Paul Gillin. >>Hey, welcome back everyone. This is Silicon angle's the cube. It's our flagship program. We go out to the events district as soon from the noise. We're ending out day two of two days of wall to wall coverage with myself and Paul Galen. Uh, 10 to six 30 every day. I'm just, we'll take as much as we can just to get the data. Share that with you. Restrict the signal from the noise. I'm John furrier the bonus look at angle Miko is Paul Gilliam and our special guests, Holger Mueller, Mueller from constellation research analyst covering the space. Ray Wang was here earlier. You've been here for the duration. Um, we're going to break down the event. We'll do a wrap up here. Uh, we have huge impact event for 9,000 people. Uh, Paul, I want to go to you first and get your take on just the past two days. And we've got a lot of Kool-Aid injection attempts for Kool-Aid injection, but IBM people were very, very candid. I mean, I didn't find it, uh, very forceful at all from IBM. They're pragmatic. What's your thoughts on it? >>I think pragmatism is, is what I take away, John, if it gets a good, that's a good word for it. Uh, what I saw was a, uh, not a blockbuster. Uh, there was not a lot of, of, uh, of hype and overstatement about what the company was doing. I was impressed with Steve mills, but our interview with him yesterday, we asked about blockbuster acquisitions and he said basically, why, why, I mean, why should we take on a big acquisition that is going to create a headache, uh, for us in integrating into your organization? Let's focus on the spots where we have gaps and let's fill those. And that's really what they've, you know, they really have put their money where their mouth is and doing these 150 or more acquisitions over the last, uh, three or four years. Um, I think that the, the one question that I would have, I don't think there's any doubt about IBM's commitment to cloud as the future about their investment in big data analytics. They certainly have put their money where their mouth is. They're over $25 billion invested in big data analytics. One question I have coming out of this conference is about power and about the decision to exit the x86 market and really create confusion in a part of their business partners, their customers about about how they're going to fill that gap and where are they going to go for their actually needs and the power. Clearly power eight clearly is the future. It's the will fill that role in the IBM portfolio, but they've got to act fast. >>Do you think there's a ripple effect then so that that move I'll see cause a ripple effect in their ecosystem? >>Well, I was talking to a, I've talked to two IBM partners today, fairly large IBM partners and both of them have expressed that their customers are suffering some whiplash right now because all of a sudden the x86 option from IBM has gone away. And so it's frozen there. Their purchasing process and some of them are going to HP, some of them are looking at other providers. Um, I don't think IBM really has has told a coherent story to the markets yet about how >>and power's new. So they've got to prop that up. So you, so you're saying is okay, HP is going to get some new sales out of this, so frozen the for IBM and yet the power story's probably not clear. Is that what you're hearing? >>I don't think the power story is clear. I mean certainly it was news to me that IBM is taking on Intel at the, at this event and I was surprised that, that, >>that that was a surprise. Hold on, I've got to go to you because we've been sitting here the Cuban, we've been having all the execs come here and we've been getting briefed here in the cube. Shared that with the audience. You've been out on the ground, we've bumped into you guys, all, all the other analysts and all the briefings you've been in, the private sessions you've been in the rooms you've been, you've been, you've been out, out in the trenches there. What have you, what are you finding, what have you been hearing and what are the, some of the soundbites that you could share with the audience? It's not the classic God, Yemen, what are the differences? >>The Austin executives in cloud pedal, can you give me your body language? He had impact one year ago because they didn't have self layer at a time, didn't want to immediately actionable to do something involving what? A difference things. What in itself is fine, but I agree with what you said before is the messaging is they don't tell the customers, here's where we are right now. Take you by the hand. It's going to be from your door. And there's something called VMs. >>So it's very interesting. I mean I would consider IBM finalized the acquisition only last July. It's only been nine months since was acquired. Everything is software now. It leads me to think of who acquired who IBM acquired a software or did soflar actually acquire IBM because it seems to, SoftLayer is so strategic. IBM's cloud strategy going forward. >>Very strategic. I think it's probably why most transformative seemed like the Nexans agenda. And you've heard me say assault on a single thing. who makes it seven or eight weeks ago? It's moving very far. >>What do you think about the social business? Is that hanging together, that story? Hang on. It's obviously relevant direction. It's kind of a smarter planet positioning. Certainly businesses will be social. Are you seeing any meat on the bone there? On the collaboration side, >>one of the weakest parts, they have to be built again. Those again, they also have an additional for HR, which was this position, this stuff. It's definitely something which gives different change. >>I have to say, John, I was struck by the lack of discussion of social business in the opening keynote in particular a mobile mobile, big data. I mean that that came across very clear, but I've been accustomed to hearing that the social business rugby, they didn't, it didn't come out of this conference. >>Yeah. I mean my take on that was, is that >>I think it's pretty late. I don't think there's a lot of meat in the bone with the social, and I'll tell you why. I think it's like it's like the destination everyone wants to go to, but there's no really engine yet. Right. I think there's a lot of bicycle riding when they need a car. Right? So the infrastructure is just not is too embryonic, if you will. A lot of manual stuff going on. Even the analytics and you know you're seeing in the leaderboard here in the social media side and big data analytics. Certainly there are some core engine parts around IBM, but that social engine, I just don't see it happening. You risk requires a new kind of automation. It's got some real times, but I think that this is some, some nice bright spots. I love the streams. I love this zone's concept that we heard from Watson foundations. >>I think that is something that they need to pull out the war chest there and bring that front and center. I think the thinking about data as zones is really compelling and then I'll see mobile, they've got all the messaging on that and to give IBM to the benefit of the doubt. I mean they have a story now that they have a revenue generating story with cloud and with big data and social was never a revenue generating story. That's a software story. It's not big. It's not big dollars. And they've got something now that really they're really can drive. >>I'll tell you Chris Kristin from mobile first. She was very impressive and, and I'll tell you that social is being worked on. So I put the people are getting it. I mean IBM 100% gets social. I think the, the, it's not a gimmick to them. It's not like, Oh, we got some social media stuff. I think in the DNA of their soul, they, they come from that background of social. So I give them high marks on that. I just don't see the engine yet. I'm looking for analytics. I'm looking for a couple of eight cylinders. I just don't see it yet. You know, the engine, the engines, lupus and she wants to build the next generation of education. Big data, tons of mobile as the shoulder equivalent to social. I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical on Bloomix. I'll tell you why. I'm not skeptical. I shouldn't say that. >>It's going to get some plane mail for that. Okay. I'll say I'll see what's out there. I'll say it. I'm skeptical of Blumix because it could be a Wright brothers situation. Okay, look, I'm wrong guys building the wrong airplane. So the question is they might be on the wrong side of history if they don't watch the open source foundations because here's the problem. I have a blue mix, gets rushed to the market. Certainly IBM has got muscle solutions together. No doubt debting on cloud Foundry is really a risk and although people are pumping it up and it's got some momentum, they don't have a big community, they have a lot of marketing behind it and I know Jane's Wars over there is doing a great job and I'm Josh McKinsey over there with piston cloud. It'll behind it. It has all the elements of open collaboration and architecture or collaboration. However, if it's not a done deal yet in my mind, so that's a, that is a risk factor in my my mind. >>We've met a number of amazing, maybe you can help to do, to put these in order, a number of new concepts out there. We've got Bloomex the soft player, and we've got the marketplace, and these are all three concepts that approval, which is a subset of which, what's the hierarchy of these different platforms? >>That's hopefully, that's definitely at the bottom. The gives >>us visibility. You talk about the CIO and CSI all the time. Something you securities on every stupid LCO one on OCS and the marketplace. Basically naming the applications. Who would folded? IBM. IBM would have to meet opensource platform as a service. >>Well, it's not, even though it's not even open source and doing a deal with about foundries, so, so they've got, I think they're going in the middle. Where's their angle on that? But again, I like, again, the developer story's good, the people are solid. So I think it's not a fail of my, in my mind that all the messaging is great. But you know, we went to red hat summit, you know, they have a very active community, multiple generations in the data center, in the Indiana prize with Linux and, and open, you know, they're open, open shift is interesting. It's got traction and it's got legit traction. So that's one area. The other area I liked with Steve mills was he's very candid about this turf. They're staking out. Clearly the cloud game is up, is there is hardcore for them and in the IBM flavor enterprise cloud, they want to win the enterprise cloud. They clearly see Amazon, they see Amazon and its rhetoric and Grant's narrative and rhetoric against Amazon was interesting saying that there's more links on SoftLayer and Amazon. Now if you count links, then I think that number is skewed. So it's, you know, there's still a little bit of gamification going to have to dig into that. I didn't want to call him out on that, but know there's also a hosting business versus, you know, cloud parse the numbers. But what's your take on Amazon soft layer kind of comparison. >>It's, it's fundamentally different, right? Mustn't all shows everything. Why did see retailers moves is what to entirely use this software, gives them that visibility machine, this accommodation more conservatively knowing that I buy them, I can see that I can even go and physically touch that machine and I can only did the slowly into any cloud virtualization shed everything. >>Oh, Paul, I gotta say my favorite interview and I want to get your take on this. It was a Grady food. She was sat down with us and talk with us earlier today. IBM fell up, walks on water with an IBM Aussie legend in the computer industry. Just riveting conversation. I mean, it was really just getting started. I mean, it felt like we were like, you know, going into cruising altitude and then he just walked away. So they w what's your take on that conversation? >>Well, I mean, certainly he, uh, the gritty boujee interview, he gave us the best story of, of the two days, which is, uh, they're being in the hospital for open heart surgery, looking up, seeing the equipment, and it's going to be used to go into his chest and open his heart and knowing that he knows the people who program that, that equipment and they programmed it using a methodology that he invented. Uh, that, that, that's a remarkable story. But I think, uh, uh, the fact that that a great igloo can have a job at a company like IBM is a tribute to IBM. The fact that they can employ people like that who don't have a hard revenue responsibility. He's not a P. and. L, he's just, he's just a genius and he's a legend and he's an IBM to its crude, finds a place for people like that all throughout his organization. >>And that's why they never lost their soul in my opinion. You look at what HP and IBM, you know, IBM had a lot of reorganizations, a lot of pivots, so to speak, a lot of battleship that's turned this in way. But you know, for the most part they kept their R and D culture. >>But there's an interesting analogy too. Do you remember the case methodology was mutual support of them within the finance language that you mailed something because it was all about images, right? You would use this, this methodology, different vendors that were prior to the transport itself. Then I've yet to that credit, bring it together. bring and did a great service to all for software engineering. And maybe it's the same thing at the end, can play around diversity. >>You've got to give IBM process a great point. Earlier we, Steve mills made a similar reference around, it wasn't animosity, it was more of Hey, we've helped make Intel a big business, but the PC revolution, you know, where, what's in it for us? Right? You know, where's our, you know, help us out, throw us a bone. Or you know, you say you yell to Microsoft to go of course with the licensing fee with Gates, but this is the point, the unification story and with grays here, you know IBM has some real good cultural, you know industry Goodwill, you agree >>true North for IBM is the Antal quest customer. They'll do what's right where the money and the budget of the enterprise customers and press most want compatibility. They don't want to have staff, of course they want to have investment protection >>guys. I'd be able to do a good job of defining that as their cloud strategy that clearly are not going head to head with Amazon. It's a hybrid cloud strategy. They want to, they see the enterprise customers that legacy as as an asset and it's something they want to build on. Of course the risk of that is that Amazon right now is the pure play. It has all the momentum. It has all the buzz and and being tied to a legacy is not always the greatest thing in this industry, but from a practical revenue generating standpoint, it's pretty good. >>Hey guys, let's go down and wrap up here and get your final thoughts on the event. Um, and let's just go by the numbers, kind of the key things that IBM was promoting and then our kind of scorecard on kind of where they, where they kind of played out and new things that popped out of the woodwork that got your attention. You see the PO, the power systems thing was big on their messaging. Um, the big data story continues to be part of it. Blue mix central to the operations and the openness. You had a lot of open, open openness in their messaging and for the most part that's pretty much it. Um, well Watson, yeah, continue. Agents got up to Watson. >>Wow. A lot of news still to come out of Watson I think in many ways that is their, is their ACE in the hole and then that is their diamond. Any other thoughts? >>Well, what I missed is, which I think sets IBM apart from this vision, which is the idea of the API. Everybody else at that pure name stops the platform or says, I'm going to build like the org, I'm going to build you. That's a clear differentiator on the IBM side, which you still have to build part. They still have to figure out granularity surface that sets them apart that they have to give one. >>Yeah, and I think I give him an a plus on messaging. I think they're on all the right fault lines on the tectonic shifts that we're seeing. Everyone, I asked every every guest interview, what's the game changing moment? Why is it so important? And almost consistently the answers were, you know, we're living in a time of fast change data, you know, efficiency spare or you're going to be left behind. This is the confluence of all these trends, these fall lines. So I think IBM is sitting on these fall lines. Now the question is how fast can they cobbled together the tooling from the machineries that they have built over the years. Going back to the mainframe anniversary, it's out there. A lot of acquisitions, but, but so far the story and the story >>take the customer by the hand. That's the main challenge. I see. This wasn't often we do in Mexico, they want zero due to two times or they're chilling their conferences. It's the customer event and you know, and it's 9,000 people somehow have to do something to just show, right? So why is my wave from like distinguished so forth and so and so into? Well Lou mentioned, sure for the cloud, but how do we get there, right? What can we use, what am I SS and leverage? How do I call >>guys, really appreciate the commentary. Uh, this is going to be a wrap for us when just do a shout out to Matt, Greg and Patrick here doing a great job with the production here in the cube team and we have another cube team actually doing a simultaneous cube up in San Francisco service. Now you guys have done a great job here. And also shout out to Bert Latta Moore who's been doing a great job of live tweeting and help moderate the proud show, which was really a huge success and a great crowd chat this time. Hopefully we'll get some more influencers thought leaders in there for the next event and of course want to thank Paul Gillen for being an amazing cohost on this trip. Uh, I thought the questions and the and the cadence was fantastic. The guests were happy and hold there. Thank you for coming in on our wrap up. >>Really appreciate it. Constellation research. Uh, this is the cube. We are wrapping it up here at the IBM impact event here live in Las Vegas. It's the cube John furrier with Paul Gillen saying goodbye and see it. Our next event and stay tuned if it's look at angel dot DV cause we have continuous coverage of service now and tomorrow we will be broadcasting and commentating on the Facebook developer conference in San Francisco. We're running here, Mark Zuckerberg and all Facebook's developers and all their developer programs rolling out. So watch SiliconANGLE TV for that as well. Again, the cube is growing with thanks to you watching and thanks to all of our friends in the industry. Thanks for watching..

>>Hey, welcome back everyone. We're here live here in San Francisco for Amazon web services summit. This is the smaller event compared to reinvent the big conference in Vegas, which we were broadcasting live. I'm John furry, the founder's SiliconANGLE. This is the cube. Our flagship program where we go out to the events district to see live from the noise and a an Amazon show would not be complete without talking to the Amazon guys directly about what's going on under the hood. And our next guest is ADI Krishnan and Ryan Wade have run the Canisius teams. Guys, welcome to the cube. So we, Dave Vellante and I was not here unfortunately. He has another commitment but we were going Gaga over the says we'd love red shift in love with going with the data. I see glaciers really low cost options, the store stuff, but when you start adding on red shift and you know can, he says you're adding in some new features that really kind of really pointed where the market's game, which is I need to deal with real time stuff. >>I'll need to deal with a lot of data. I need to manage it effectively at a low latency across any work use case. Okay. So how the hell do you come up with an ISA? Give us the insight into how it all came together. We'd love the real time. We'd love how it's all closing the loop if you will for developer. Just take us through how it came about. What are some of the stats now post re-invent share with us will be uh, the Genesis for Canisius was trying to solve our metering problem. The metering problem inside of AWS is how do we keep track with how our customers are using our products. So every time a customer does a read out of dynamo DB or they read a file out of S3 or they do some sort of transaction with any of our products, that generates a meeting record, it's tens of millions of records per second and tens of terabytes per hour. >>So it's a big workload. And what we were trying to do is understand how to transition from being a batch oriented processing where we using large hitting clusters to process all that data to a continuous processing where we could read all of that data in real time and make decisions on that data in real time. So you basically had created an aspirin for yourself is Hey, a little pain point internally, right? Yeah. It's kind of an example of us building a product to solve some of our own problems first and then making that available to the public. Okay. So when you guys do your Amazon thing, which I've gotten to know about it a little bit, the culture there, you guys kind of break stuff, kind of the quote Zuckerberg, you guys build kind of invented that philosophy, you know stuff good. Quickly iterating fast. So you saw your own problem and then was there an aha moment like hell Dan, this is good. We can bring it out in the market. What were customers asking for at the same time was kind of a known use case. Did you bring it to the market? What happened next? >>We spend a lot of time talking to a lot of customers. I mean that was kind of the logistical, uh, we had customers from all different sorts of investigative roles. Uh, financial services, consumer online services from manufacturing conditional attic come up to us and say, we have this canonical workflow. This workflow is about getting data of all of these producers, uh, the sources of data. They didn't have a way to aggregate that data and then driving it through a variety of different crossing systems to ultimately light up different data stores. Are these data source could be native to AWS stores like S3 time would be be uh, they could be a more interesting, uh, uh, higher data warehousing services like Gretchen. But the key thing was how do we deal with all this massive amount of data that's been producing real time, ingested, reliably scale it elastically and enable continuous crossing in the data. >>Yeah, we always loved the word of last tickets. You know, a term that you guys have built your business around being elastic. You need some new means. You have a lot of flexibility and that's a key part of being agile. But I want you guys at while we're here in the queue, define Kenny SIS for the folks out there, what the hell is it? Define it for the record. Then I have some specific questions I want to ask. Uh, so Canisius is a new service for processing huge amounts of streaming data in real time. Shortens and scales elastically. So as your data volume increases or decreases the service grows with you. And so like a no JS error log or an iPhone data. This is an example of this would be example of streaming. Yeah, exactly. You can imagine that you were tailing a whole bunch of logs coming off of servers. >>You could also be watching event streams coming out of a little internet of things type devices. Um, one of our customers we're talking about here is a super cell who's capturing in gain data from their game, Pasha, the plans. So as you're playing clash of the plans, you're tapping on the screen. All of that data is captured in thesis and then processed by my super Supercell. And this is validated. I mean obviously you mentioned some of the use cases you needed of things, just a sensor network to wearable computers or whatever. Mobile phones, I'll see event data coming off machines. So you've got machine data, you've got human data, got application data. That's kind of the data sets we're seeing with Kinesis, right? Traverse set. Um, also attraction with trends like spark out of Berkeley. You seeing in memory does this kind of, is this in your wheelhouse? >>How does that all relate to, cause you guys have purpose-built SSDs now in your new ECQ instances and all this new modern gear we heard in the announcements. How does all the in-memory stuff affect the Canisius service? It's a great question. When you can imagine as Canisius is being a great service for capturing all of that data that's being generated by, you know, hundreds of thousands or millions of sources, it gets sent to Canisius where we replicated across three different availability zones. That data is then made available for applications to process those that are processing that data could be Hadoop clusters, they could be your own Kaloosas applications. And it could be a spark cluster. And so writing spark applications that are processing that data in real time is a, it's a great use case and the in memory capabilities and sparker probably ideal for being able to process data that's stored in pieces. >>Okay. So let's talk about some of the connecting the dots. So Canisius works in conjunction with what other services are you seeing that is being adopted most right now? Now see I mentioned red shift, I'm just throwing that in there. I'll see a data warehousing tool seeing a lot of business tells. So basically people are playing with data, a lot of different needs for the data. So how does connect through the stack? I think they are the number one use case we see is customers capturing all of this data and then archiving all of it right away to S3 just been difficult to capture everything. Right. And even if you did, you probably could keep it for a little while and then you had to get, do you have to get rid of it? But, uh, with the, the prices for us three being so low and Canisius being so easy to capture tiny rights, these little tiny tales of log data, they're coming out of your servers are little bits of data coming off of mobile devices capture all of that, aggregate it and put it in S3. >>That's the number one use case we see as customers are becoming more sophisticated with using Kinesis, they then begin to run real time dashboards on top of Kinesis data. So you could, there's all the data into dynamo DB where you could push all that data into even something like Redshift and run analytics on top of that. The final cases, people in doing real time decision making based on PISA. So once you've got all this data coming in, putting it into a dynamo DB or Redshift or EMR, you then process it and then start making decisions, automated decisions that take advantage of them. So essentially you're taking STEM the life life cycle of kind of like man walking the wreck at some point. Right? It's like they start small, they store the data, usually probably a developer problem just in efficiencies. Log file management is a disaster. >>We know it's a pain in the butt for developers. So step one is solve that pain triage, that next step is okay I'm dashboard, I'm starting to learn about the data and then three is more advanced like real time decision making. So like now that I've got the data coming in in real time and not going to act. Yeah, so when I want to bring that up, this is more of a theoretical kind of orthogonal conversation is where you guys are basically doing is we look, we like that Silicon angles like the point out to kind of what's weird in the market and kind of why it's important and that is the data things. There's something to do with data. It really points to a new developer. Fair enough. And I want to give you guys comments on this. No one's really come out yet and said here's a development kit or development environment for data. >>You see companies like factual doing some amazing stuff. I don't know if you know those guys just met with um, new Relic. They launched kind of this data off the application. So you seeing, you seeing what you guys are doing, you can imagine that now the developer framework is, Hey I had to deal with as a resource constraint so you haven't seen it. So I want to get your thoughts. Do you see that happening in that direction? How will data be presented to developers? Is it going to be abstracted away? Will there be development environments? Is it matter? And just organizing the data, what's your vision around? So >>that's really good person because we've got customers that come up to us and say I want to mail real time data with batch processing or I have my data that is right now lots of little data and now I want to go ahead and aggregate it to make sense of it over a longer period of time. And there's a lot of theory around how data should be modeled, how we should be represented. But the way we are taking the evolution set is really learning from our customers and customers come up and say we need the ability to capture data quickly. But then what I want to do is apply my existing Hadoop stack and tools to my data because then you won't understand that. And as a response to that classroom demand, uh, was the EMR connect. Somehow customers can use say hi queries or cascading scripts and apply that to real time data. That can means is ingesting. Another response to pass was, was the, that some customers that would really liked the, the, the stream processing construct a storm. And so on, our step over there was to say, okay, we shipped the Canisius storm spout, so now customers can bring their choice of matter Dame in and mail back with Canisius. So I think the, the short answer there right now is that, >>you know, it's crazy. It's really early, right? I would also add like, like just with, uh, as with have you, there's so many different ways to process data in the real time space. They're going to be so many different ways that people process that data. There's never going to be a single tool that you use for processing real time data. It's a lot of tools and it adapts to the way that people think about data. So this also brings us back to the dev ops culture, which you guys essentially founded Amazon early in the early days and you know I gotta give you credit for that and you guys deserve it. Dev ops was really about building from the ground good cloud, which post.com bubble. Really the thing about that's Amazon's, you've lived your own, your own world, right? To survive with lesson and help other developers. >>But that brings up a good point, right? So okay, data's early and I'm now going to be advancing slowly. Can there be a single architecture for dealing with data or is it going to be specialized systems? You're seeing Oracle made some mates look probably engineered systems. You seeing any grade stacks work? What's the take on the data equation? I'm not just going to do because of the data out the internet of things data. What is the refer architecture right now? I think what we're going to see is a set of patterns that we can do alone and people will be using those patterns for doing particular types of processing. Uh, one of the other teams that I run at is the fraud detection team and we use a set of machine learning algorithms to be able to continuously monitor usage of the cloud, to identify patterns of behavior which are indicative of fraud. >>Um, that kind of pattern of use is very different than I'm doing clickstream analysis and the kind of pattern that we use for doing that would naturally be different. I think we're going to see a canonical set of patterns. I don't know if we're going to see a very particular set of technologies. Yeah. So that brings us back to the dev ops things. So how do I want to get your take on this? Because dev ops is really about efficiencies. Software guys don't want to be hardware guys the other day. That's how it all started. I don't want to provision the network. I don't want a stack of servers. I just want to push code and then you guys have crazy, really easy ways to make that completely transparent. But now you joke about composite application development. You're saying, Hey, I'm gonna have an EMR over here for my head cluster and then a deal with, so maybe fraud detection stream data, it's going to be a different system than a Duke or could be a relational database. >>Now I need to basically composite we build an app. That's what we're talking about here. Composite construction resource. Is that kind of the new dev ops 2.0 maybe. So we'll try to tease out here's what's next after dev ops. I mean dev ops really means there's no operations. And how does a developer deal with these kinds of complex environments like fraud detection, maybe application here, a container for this bass. So is it going to be fully composite? Well, I don't know if we run the full circuit with the dev ops development models. It's a great model. It's worked really well for a number of startups. However, making it easy to be able to plug different components together. I get just a great idea. So, like as ADI mentioned just a moment ago, our ability to take data and Kinesis and pump that right into a elastic MapReduce. >>It's great. And it makes it easy for people to use their existing applications with a new system like pieces that kind of composing of applications. It's worth well for a long time. And I think you're just going to see us continuing to do more and more of that kind of work. So I'm going to ask both of you guys a question. Give me an example of when something broke internally. This is not in a sound, John, I don't go negative here, but you got your, part of your culture is, is to move fast, iterate. So when you, these important projects like Canisius give me an example of like, that was a helpful way in which I stumbled. What did you learn? What was the key pain points of the evolution of getting it out the door and what key things did you learn from media success or kind of a speed bump or a failure along the way? >>Well, I think, uh, I think one of the first things we learned right after we chipped and we were still in a limited previous and we were trying it out with our customers who are getting feedback and learning with, uh, what they wanted to change in the product. Uh, one of the first things that we learned was that the, uh, the amount of time that it took to put data into Canisius and receive a return code was too high for a lot of our customers. It was probably around a hundred milliseconds for the, that you put the data in to the time that we've replicated that data across multiple availability zones and return success to the client. Uh, that was, that was a moment for us to really think about what it meant to enable people to be pushing tons of data into pieces. And we went back a hundred milliseconds. >>That's low, no bad. But right away we went back and doubled our efforts and we came back in around, you know, somewhere between 30 and 40 milliseconds depending on your network connectivity. Hey, the old days, that was, that was the spitting disc of the art. 10, 20 Meg art. It's got a VC. That's right. Those Lotus files out, you know, seeing those windows files. So you guys improve performance. So that's an example. You guys, what's the biggest surprise that you guys have seen from a customer use case that was kind of like, wow, this is really something that we didn't see happening on a, on a larger scale that caught me by surprise. >>Uh, I is in use case it'd be a corner use case. Like, well, I'd never figured that, you know, I would say like, uh, some of the one thing that actually surprised us was how common it is for people to have multiple applications reading out of the same stream. Uh, like again, the basic use case for so many customers is I'm going to take all this data and I'm just going to throw it into S3. Uh, and we kind of envisioned that there might be a couple of different applications reading data of that stream. We have a couple of customers that actually have uh, as many as three applications that are reading that stream of events that are coming out of Kinesis. Each one of them is reading from a different position in the stream. They're able to read from different locations, process that data differently. >>But uh, but the idea that cleanses is so different from traditional queuing systems and yet provides, uh, a real time emotionality and that multiple applications can read from it. That was, that was a bit of a versa. The number one use case right now, who's adopting, can you sit there, watch folks watching out there, did the Canisius brain trust right here with an Amazon? Um, what are the killer no brainer scenarios that you're seeing on the uptake side right now that people should be aware of that they haven't really kicked the tires on Kinesis where they should be? What should they be looking at? I think the number one use case is log and ingestion. So like I'm tailing logs that are coming off of web servers, my application servers, uh, data that's just being produced continuously who grab all that data. And very easily put it into something like us through the beauty of that model is I now have all the logo that I got it off of all of my hosts as quickly as possible and I can go do log nights later if there's a problem that is the slam dunk use case for using crisis. >>Uh, there are other scenarios that are beginning to emerge as well. I don't know audio if you want to talk, that's many interesting and lots of customers are doing so already is emit data from all sorts of devices. So this is, these devices are not just your smartphones and tablets that are practically food computing machines, but also seemingly low power, seemingly dumb devices. And the design remains the same. There are millions of these out there and having the ability to capture that in a day produce in real time is, you know, I think just, uh, just to highlight that, one of things I'm hearing on the cube interviews, all the customers we talk to is the number one thing is I just got to scroll the date. I know what I want to do with it yet. Now that's a practice that's a hangover from the BI data warehouse in business of just store from a compliance reasons now, which is basically like, that's like laser as far as I'm concerned. >>Traditional business intelligence systems are like their version of Galatians chipped out somewhere and give me those reports. Five weeks later they come back. But that's different. Now you see people store that data and they realize that I need to touch it faster. I don't know yet when, that's why I'm teasing out this whole development 2.0 model because I'm just seeing more and more people want the data hanging around but not fully parked out in Malaysia or some sort of, you know, compliance storage. So there's, you know, I think, I think I kind of understand where you're going. There's a, I'm going to use a model for like how we used to do BI analytics and our own internal data warehouse. I also run the data warehouse for AWS. Um, and the classic BI model there is somebody asks a question, we go off and we just do some analysis and if it's a question that we're going to ask repeatedly, we don't, you know, a special fact table or a dimensional view or something to be able to grind through that particular view and do it very quickly. >>A Kunis is offers a different kind of data processing model, which is I'm collecting all of the data and make it easy to capture everything, but now I can start doing things like, Oh, there's, there's certain pieces of data that I want to respond to you quickly. Just like we would create dimensional views that would give us access to particular sets of data and very quick pace. We can now also respond to when those events are generated very quickly. Well, you guys are the young guns in the industry now. I'm a little bit older and the gray hair showing, we actually use the word data processing back in the day. The data processing that the DP department or the MIS department, if you remember those those days, MIS was the management information. Are we going back to those terms? I mean we're looking at look what's happening. >>Is it the software mainframe in the cloud? I mean these are some of the words you're using. Just data processing data pipeline. Well, I my S that's my work, but I mean we're back to those old school stuff but different, well and I think those kinds of very generic terms make a lot of sense for what we're doing is we, especially as we move into these brand new spaces like wow, what do I do with real time data? Like real time data processing is kind of the third type of big data processing or data warehousing was the first time I know what my data looks like. I've created indices like a pre computation of the data, uh, uh, Hadoop clusters and the MapReduce model was kind of the second wave of big data processing and realtime processing I think will be the third way. I think our process, well, I'm getting the hook here, but I got to just say, you guys are doing an amazing job. >>We're big fans of Amazon. I always say that, uh, you know, it was very rare in the history the world. We look at innovations like the printing press, the Wright brothers discover, you know, flying and things like we, Amazon with cloud. You guys have done something that's pretty amazing. But what I find fascinating is it's very rare to see a company that's commoditizing and disrupting and innovating at the same time. And it's really a unique value proposition and the competition is responding. IBM, Google. So you guys have a lot of targets painted on your back by a lot of big players. So, uh, one congratulations on your success, which means that you, you know, you're not going to go in the open field and fight the, the British if they said use the American revolution analogy. You've got to continue to compete. So what's your view of that? >>I mean, and I'm sure you don't talk about competition. You'd probably told him not to talk about it, but I mean, you got to know that all the guns are on you right now. The big guys are putting up the sea wall for your wave of innovation. How do you guys deal with that? It's just cause it's not like we, we ignore our competitors but we obsess about our customers, right? Like it's just constantly looking for what are people trying to do and how can we help them and can seem like a very simple strategy. But the strategy is built with people want and we get a lot of great feedback on how we can make our products better. And it certainly will force you to up your game when you have the competition citing on you. You've got more focused on the customer, which is cool. >>But like you guys kind of aware of like games on, I mean Amazon is at any given a little pep talk, Hey, game is on guys. Let's rock and roll. Right? You guys are aware, right? I think we're totally wearing, I think we're actually sometimes a little surprised at how long it's taken to our competitors to kind of get into this industry with us. So, uh, again, as Andy talked about earlier today, we've had eight years in the cloud computing market. It's been a great eight years and we have a lot of work to do, a lot of stuff that we're going to be almost ready for middle school. Um, final final question for you guys and give you the final word here. Share the photos on the last word is why is this show so important, right this point in time in this market. Why is this environment of the thousands of people that are here learning about Amazon, why, what should they know about why this is such an important advance? I think our summits are a great opportunity for us to share with customers how to use our AWS services. Learn firsthand from not only our hands on labs, but also our partners that are providing information about how they use AWS resources. It's, it's a great opportunity to meet a lot of people that are taking advantage of the cloud computing wave and see how to use the cloud most effectively. >>It's a great time to be in the cloud right now and the Olin's amazing services coming up. There's no better mind now of people coming together and so that's probably as good reasons. Then you guys are doing a great job disrupting change in the future. Modern enterprise and modern business, modern applications. Excited to watch it. If you guys keep focusing on your customer, but that customer base, you keep up the pace that's sick. That question, can you finish the race? That's what I always tell Dave a lot. They, I know Jay's watching Dave. Shout out to Dave Volante, who's on the mobile app right now is traveling. Guys, thanks for coming inside. Can he says great stuff. Closing the loop real time. Amazon really building it out. Thanks for coming on. If you'd be right back with our next guest after this short break. Thank you.