>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Spark became a top level Apache project in 2014, and then shortly thereafter, burst onto the big data scene. Spark, along with the cloud, transformed and in many ways, disrupted the big data market. Databricks optimized its tech stack for Spark and took advantage of the cloud to really cleverly deliver a managed service that has become a leading AI and data platform among data scientists and data engineers. However, emerging customer data requirements are shifting into a direction that will cause modern data platform players generally and Databricks, specifically, we think, to make some key directional decisions and perhaps even reinvent themselves. Hello and welcome to this week's wikibon theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we're going to do a deep dive into Databricks. We'll explore its current impressive market momentum. We're going to use some ETR survey data to show that, and then we'll lay out how customer data requirements are changing and what the ideal data platform will look like in the midterm future. We'll then evaluate core elements of the Databricks portfolio against that vision, and then we'll close with some strategic decisions that we think the company faces. And to do so, we welcome in our good friend, George Gilbert, former equities analyst, market analyst, and current Principal at TechAlpha Partners. George, good to see you. Thanks for coming on. >> Good to see you, Dave. >> All right, let me set this up. We're going to start by taking a look at where Databricks sits in the market in terms of how customers perceive the company and what it's momentum looks like. And this chart that we're showing here is data from ETS, the emerging technology survey of private companies. The N is 1,421. What we did is we cut the data on three sectors, analytics, database-data warehouse, and AI/ML. The vertical axis is a measure of customer sentiment, which evaluates an IT decision maker's awareness of the firm and the likelihood of engaging and/or purchase intent. The horizontal axis shows mindshare in the dataset, and we've highlighted Databricks, which has been a consistent high performer in this survey over the last several quarters. And as we, by the way, just as aside as we previously reported, OpenAI, which burst onto the scene this past quarter, leads all names, but Databricks is still prominent. You can see that the ETR shows some open source tools for reference, but as far as firms go, Databricks is very impressively positioned. Now, let's see how they stack up to some mainstream cohorts in the data space, against some bigger companies and sometimes public companies. This chart shows net score on the vertical axis, which is a measure of spending momentum and pervasiveness in the data set is on the horizontal axis. You can see that chart insert in the upper right, that informs how the dots are plotted, and net score against shared N. And that red dotted line at 40% indicates a highly elevated net score, anything above that we think is really, really impressive. And here we're just comparing Databricks with Snowflake, Cloudera, and Oracle. And that squiggly line leading to Databricks shows their path since 2021 by quarter. And you can see it's performing extremely well, maintaining an elevated net score and net range. Now it's comparable in the vertical axis to Snowflake, and it consistently is moving to the right and gaining share. Now, why did we choose to show Cloudera and Oracle? The reason is that Cloudera got the whole big data era started and was disrupted by Spark. And of course the cloud, Spark and Databricks and Oracle in many ways, was the target of early big data players like Cloudera. Take a listen to Cloudera CEO at the time, Mike Olson. This is back in 2010, first year of theCUBE, play the clip. >> Look, back in the day, if you had a data problem, if you needed to run business analytics, you wrote the biggest check you could to Sun Microsystems, and you bought a great big, single box, central server, and any money that was left over, you handed to Oracle for a database licenses and you installed that database on that box, and that was where you went for data. That was your temple of information. >> Okay? So Mike Olson implied that monolithic model was too expensive and inflexible, and Cloudera set out to fix that. But the best laid plans, as they say, George, what do you make of the data that we just shared? >> So where Databricks has really come up out of sort of Cloudera's tailpipe was they took big data processing, made it coherent, made it a managed service so it could run in the cloud. So it relieved customers of the operational burden. Where they're really strong and where their traditional meat and potatoes or bread and butter is the predictive and prescriptive analytics that building and training and serving machine learning models. They've tried to move into traditional business intelligence, the more traditional descriptive and diagnostic analytics, but they're less mature there. So what that means is, the reason you see Databricks and Snowflake kind of side by side is there are many, many accounts that have both Snowflake for business intelligence, Databricks for AI machine learning, where Snowflake, I'm sorry, where Databricks also did really well was in core data engineering, refining the data, the old ETL process, which kind of turned into ELT, where you loaded into the analytic repository in raw form and refine it. And so people have really used both, and each is trying to get into the other. >> Yeah, absolutely. We've reported on this quite a bit. Snowflake, kind of moving into the domain of Databricks and vice versa. And the last bit of ETR evidence that we want to share in terms of the company's momentum comes from ETR's Round Tables. They're run by Erik Bradley, and now former Gartner analyst and George, your colleague back at Gartner, Daren Brabham. And what we're going to show here is some direct quotes of IT pros in those Round Tables. There's a data science head and a CIO as well. Just make a few call outs here, we won't spend too much time on it, but starting at the top, like all of us, we can't talk about Databricks without mentioning Snowflake. Those two get us excited. Second comment zeros in on the flexibility and the robustness of Databricks from a data warehouse perspective. And then the last point is, despite competition from cloud players, Databricks has reinvented itself a couple of times over the year. And George, we're going to lay out today a scenario that perhaps calls for Databricks to do that once again. >> Their big opportunity and their big challenge for every tech company, it's managing a technology transition. The transition that we're talking about is something that's been bubbling up, but it's really epical. First time in 60 years, we're moving from an application-centric view of the world to a data-centric view, because decisions are becoming more important than automating processes. So let me let you sort of develop. >> Yeah, so let's talk about that here. We going to put up some bullets on precisely that point and the changing sort of customer environment. So you got IT stacks are shifting is George just said, from application centric silos to data centric stacks where the priority is shifting from automating processes to automating decision. You know how look at RPA and there's still a lot of automation going on, but from the focus of that application centricity and the data locked into those apps, that's changing. Data has historically been on the outskirts in silos, but organizations, you think of Amazon, think Uber, Airbnb, they're putting data at the core, and logic is increasingly being embedded in the data instead of the reverse. In other words, today, the data's locked inside the app, which is why you need to extract that data is sticking it to a data warehouse. The point, George, is we're putting forth this new vision for how data is going to be used. And you've used this Uber example to underscore the future state. Please explain? >> Okay, so this is hopefully an example everyone can relate to. The idea is first, you're automating things that are happening in the real world and decisions that make those things happen autonomously without humans in the loop all the time. So to use the Uber example on your phone, you call a car, you call a driver. Automatically, the Uber app then looks at what drivers are in the vicinity, what drivers are free, matches one, calculates an ETA to you, calculates a price, calculates an ETA to your destination, and then directs the driver once they're there. The point of this is that that cannot happen in an application-centric world very easily because all these little apps, the drivers, the riders, the routes, the fares, those call on data locked up in many different apps, but they have to sit on a layer that makes it all coherent. >> But George, so if Uber's doing this, doesn't this tech already exist? Isn't there a tech platform that does this already? >> Yes, and the mission of the entire tech industry is to build services that make it possible to compose and operate similar platforms and tools, but with the skills of mainstream developers in mainstream corporations, not the rocket scientists at Uber and Amazon. >> Okay, so we're talking about horizontally scaling across the industry, and actually giving a lot more organizations access to this technology. So by way of review, let's summarize the trend that's going on today in terms of the modern data stack that is propelling the likes of Databricks and Snowflake, which we just showed you in the ETR data and is really is a tailwind form. So the trend is toward this common repository for analytic data, that could be multiple virtual data warehouses inside of Snowflake, but you're in that Snowflake environment or Lakehouses from Databricks or multiple data lakes. And we've talked about what JP Morgan Chase is doing with the data mesh and gluing data lakes together, you've got various public clouds playing in this game, and then the data is annotated to have a common meaning. In other words, there's a semantic layer that enables applications to talk to the data elements and know that they have common and coherent meaning. So George, the good news is this approach is more effective than the legacy monolithic models that Mike Olson was talking about, so what's the problem with this in your view? >> So today's data platforms added immense value 'cause they connected the data that was previously locked up in these monolithic apps or on all these different microservices, and that supported traditional BI and AI/ML use cases. But now if we want to build apps like Uber or Amazon.com, where they've got essentially an autonomously running supply chain and e-commerce app where humans only care and feed it. But the thing is figuring out what to buy, when to buy, where to deploy it, when to ship it. We needed a semantic layer on top of the data. So that, as you were saying, the data that's coming from all those apps, the different apps that's integrated, not just connected, but it means the same. And the issue is whenever you add a new layer to a stack to support new applications, there are implications for the already existing layers, like can they support the new layer and its use cases? So for instance, if you add a semantic layer that embeds app logic with the data rather than vice versa, which we been talking about and that's been the case for 60 years, then the new data layer faces challenges that the way you manage that data, the way you analyze that data, is not supported by today's tools. >> Okay, so actually Alex, bring me up that last slide if you would, I mean, you're basically saying at the bottom here, today's repositories don't really do joins at scale. The future is you're talking about hundreds or thousands or millions of data connections, and today's systems, we're talking about, I don't know, 6, 8, 10 joins and that is the fundamental problem you're saying, is a new data error coming and existing systems won't be able to handle it? >> Yeah, one way of thinking about it is that even though we call them relational databases, when we actually want to do lots of joins or when we want to analyze data from lots of different tables, we created a whole new industry for analytic databases where you sort of mung the data together into fewer tables. So you didn't have to do as many joins because the joins are difficult and slow. And when you're going to arbitrarily join thousands, hundreds of thousands or across millions of elements, you need a new type of database. We have them, they're called graph databases, but to query them, you go back to the prerelational era in terms of their usability. >> Okay, so we're going to come back to that and talk about how you get around that problem. But let's first lay out what the ideal data platform of the future we think looks like. And again, we're going to come back to use this Uber example. In this graphic that George put together, awesome. We got three layers. The application layer is where the data products reside. The example here is drivers, rides, maps, routes, ETA, et cetera. The digital version of what we were talking about in the previous slide, people, places and things. The next layer is the data layer, that breaks down the silos and connects the data elements through semantics and everything is coherent. And then the bottom layers, the legacy operational systems feed that data layer. George, explain what's different here, the graph database element, you talk about the relational query capabilities, and why can't I just throw memory at solving this problem? >> Some of the graph databases do throw memory at the problem and maybe without naming names, some of them live entirely in memory. And what you're dealing with is a prerelational in-memory database system where you navigate between elements, and the issue with that is we've had SQL for 50 years, so we don't have to navigate, we can say what we want without how to get it. That's the core of the problem. >> Okay. So if I may, I just want to drill into this a little bit. So you're talking about the expressiveness of a graph. Alex, if you'd bring that back out, the fourth bullet, expressiveness of a graph database with the relational ease of query. Can you explain what you mean by that? >> Yeah, so graphs are great because when you can describe anything with a graph, that's why they're becoming so popular. Expressive means you can represent anything easily. They're conducive to, you might say, in a world where we now want like the metaverse, like with a 3D world, and I don't mean the Facebook metaverse, I mean like the business metaverse when we want to capture data about everything, but we want it in context, we want to build a set of digital twins that represent everything going on in the world. And Uber is a tiny example of that. Uber built a graph to represent all the drivers and riders and maps and routes. But what you need out of a database isn't just a way to store stuff and update stuff. You need to be able to ask questions of it, you need to be able to query it. And if you go back to prerelational days, you had to know how to find your way to the data. It's sort of like when you give directions to someone and they didn't have a GPS system and a mapping system, you had to give them turn by turn directions. Whereas when you have a GPS and a mapping system, which is like the relational thing, you just say where you want to go, and it spits out the turn by turn directions, which let's say, the car might follow or whoever you're directing would follow. But the point is, it's much easier in a relational database to say, "I just want to get these results. You figure out how to get it." The graph database, they have not taken over the world because in some ways, it's taking a 50 year leap backwards. >> Alright, got it. Okay. Let's take a look at how the current Databricks offerings map to that ideal state that we just laid out. So to do that, we put together this chart that looks at the key elements of the Databricks portfolio, the core capability, the weakness, and the threat that may loom. Start with the Delta Lake, that's the storage layer, which is great for files and tables. It's got true separation of compute and storage, I want you to double click on that George, as independent elements, but it's weaker for the type of low latency ingest that we see coming in the future. And some of the threats highlighted here. AWS could add transactional tables to S3, Iceberg adoption is picking up and could accelerate, that could disrupt Databricks. George, add some color here please? >> Okay, so this is the sort of a classic competitive forces where you want to look at, so what are customers demanding? What's competitive pressure? What are substitutes? Even what your suppliers might be pushing. Here, Delta Lake is at its core, a set of transactional tables that sit on an object store. So think of it in a database system, this is the storage engine. So since S3 has been getting stronger for 15 years, you could see a scenario where they add transactional tables. We have an open source alternative in Iceberg, which Snowflake and others support. But at the same time, Databricks has built an ecosystem out of tools, their own and others, that read and write to Delta tables, that's what makes the Delta Lake and ecosystem. So they have a catalog, the whole machine learning tool chain talks directly to the data here. That was their great advantage because in the past with Snowflake, you had to pull all the data out of the database before the machine learning tools could work with it, that was a major shortcoming. They fixed that. But the point here is that even before we get to the semantic layer, the core foundation is under threat. >> Yep. Got it. Okay. We got a lot of ground to cover. So we're going to take a look at the Spark Execution Engine next. Think of that as the refinery that runs really efficient batch processing. That's kind of what disrupted the DOOp in a large way, but it's not Python friendly and that's an issue because the data science and the data engineering crowd are moving in that direction, and/or they're using DBT. George, we had Tristan Handy on at Supercloud, really interesting discussion that you and I did. Explain why this is an issue for Databricks? >> So once the data lake was in place, what people did was they refined their data batch, and Spark has always had streaming support and it's gotten better. The underlying storage as we've talked about is an issue. But basically they took raw data, then they refined it into tables that were like customers and products and partners. And then they refined that again into what was like gold artifacts, which might be business intelligence metrics or dashboards, which were collections of metrics. But they were running it on the Spark Execution Engine, which it's a Java-based engine or it's running on a Java-based virtual machine, which means all the data scientists and the data engineers who want to work with Python are really working in sort of oil and water. Like if you get an error in Python, you can't tell whether the problems in Python or where it's in Spark. There's just an impedance mismatch between the two. And then at the same time, the whole world is now gravitating towards DBT because it's a very nice and simple way to compose these data processing pipelines, and people are using either SQL in DBT or Python in DBT, and that kind of is a substitute for doing it all in Spark. So it's under threat even before we get to that semantic layer, it so happens that DBT itself is becoming the authoring environment for the semantic layer with business intelligent metrics. But that's again, this is the second element that's under direct substitution and competitive threat. >> Okay, let's now move down to the third element, which is the Photon. Photon is Databricks' BI Lakehouse, which has integration with the Databricks tooling, which is very rich, it's newer. And it's also not well suited for high concurrency and low latency use cases, which we think are going to increasingly become the norm over time. George, the call out threat here is customers want to connect everything to a semantic layer. Explain your thinking here and why this is a potential threat to Databricks? >> Okay, so two issues here. What you were touching on, which is the high concurrency, low latency, when people are running like thousands of dashboards and data is streaming in, that's a problem because SQL data warehouse, the query engine, something like that matures over five to 10 years. It's one of these things, the joke that Andy Jassy makes just in general, he's really talking about Azure, but there's no compression algorithm for experience. The Snowflake guy started more than five years earlier, and for a bunch of reasons, that lead is not something that Databricks can shrink. They'll always be behind. So that's why Snowflake has transactional tables now and we can get into that in another show. But the key point is, so near term, it's struggling to keep up with the use cases that are core to business intelligence, which is highly concurrent, lots of users doing interactive query. But then when you get to a semantic layer, that's when you need to be able to query data that might have thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of joins. And that's a SQL query engine, traditional SQL query engine is just not built for that. That's the core problem of traditional relational databases. >> Now this is a quick aside. We always talk about Snowflake and Databricks in sort of the same context. We're not necessarily saying that Snowflake is in a position to tackle all these problems. We'll deal with that separately. So we don't mean to imply that, but we're just sort of laying out some of the things that Snowflake or rather Databricks customers we think, need to be thinking about and having conversations with Databricks about and we hope to have them as well. We'll come back to that in terms of sort of strategic options. But finally, when come back to the table, we have Databricks' AI/ML Tool Chain, which has been an awesome capability for the data science crowd. It's comprehensive, it's a one-stop shop solution, but the kicker here is that it's optimized for supervised model building. And the concern is that foundational models like GPT could cannibalize the current Databricks tooling, but George, can't Databricks, like other software companies, integrate foundation model capabilities into its platform? >> Okay, so the sound bite answer to that is sure, IBM 3270 terminals could call out to a graphical user interface when they're running on the XT terminal, but they're not exactly good citizens in that world. The core issue is Databricks has this wonderful end-to-end tool chain for training, deploying, monitoring, running inference on supervised models. But the paradigm there is the customer builds and trains and deploys each model for each feature or application. In a world of foundation models which are pre-trained and unsupervised, the entire tool chain is different. So it's not like Databricks can junk everything they've done and start over with all their engineers. They have to keep maintaining what they've done in the old world, but they have to build something new that's optimized for the new world. It's a classic technology transition and their mentality appears to be, "Oh, we'll support the new stuff from our old stuff." Which is suboptimal, and as we'll talk about, their biggest patron and the company that put them on the map, Microsoft, really stopped working on their old stuff three years ago so that they could build a new tool chain optimized for this new world. >> Yeah, and so let's sort of close with what we think the options are and decisions that Databricks has for its future architecture. They're smart people. I mean we've had Ali Ghodsi on many times, super impressive. I think they've got to be keenly aware of the limitations, what's going on with foundation models. But at any rate, here in this chart, we lay out sort of three scenarios. One is re-architect the platform by incrementally adopting new technologies. And example might be to layer a graph query engine on top of its stack. They could license key technologies like graph database, they could get aggressive on M&A and buy-in, relational knowledge graphs, semantic technologies, vector database technologies. George, as David Floyer always says, "A lot of ways to skin a cat." We've seen companies like, even think about EMC maintained its relevance through M&A for many, many years. George, give us your thought on each of these strategic options? >> Okay, I find this question the most challenging 'cause remember, I used to be an equity research analyst. I worked for Frank Quattrone, we were one of the top tech shops in the banking industry, although this is 20 years ago. But the M&A team was the top team in the industry and everyone wanted them on their side. And I remember going to meetings with these CEOs, where Frank and the bankers would say, "You want us for your M&A work because we can do better." And they really could do better. But in software, it's not like with EMC in hardware because with hardware, it's easier to connect different boxes. With software, the whole point of a software company is to integrate and architect the components so they fit together and reinforce each other, and that makes M&A harder. You can do it, but it takes a long time to fit the pieces together. Let me give you examples. If they put a graph query engine, let's say something like TinkerPop, on top of, I don't even know if it's possible, but let's say they put it on top of Delta Lake, then you have this graph query engine talking to their storage layer, Delta Lake. But if you want to do analysis, you got to put the data in Photon, which is not really ideal for highly connected data. If you license a graph database, then most of your data is in the Delta Lake and how do you sync it with the graph database? If you do sync it, you've got data in two places, which kind of defeats the purpose of having a unified repository. I find this semantic layer option in number three actually more promising, because that's something that you can layer on top of the storage layer that you have already. You just have to figure out then how to have your query engines talk to that. What I'm trying to highlight is, it's easy as an analyst to say, "You can buy this company or license that technology." But the really hard work is making it all work together and that is where the challenge is. >> Yeah, and well look, I thank you for laying that out. We've seen it, certainly Microsoft and Oracle. I guess you might argue that well, Microsoft had a monopoly in its desktop software and was able to throw off cash for a decade plus while it's stock was going sideways. Oracle had won the database wars and had amazing margins and cash flow to be able to do that. Databricks isn't even gone public yet, but I want to close with some of the players to watch. Alex, if you'd bring that back up, number four here. AWS, we talked about some of their options with S3 and it's not just AWS, it's blob storage, object storage. Microsoft, as you sort of alluded to, was an early go-to market channel for Databricks. We didn't address that really. So maybe in the closing comments we can. Google obviously, Snowflake of course, we're going to dissect their options in future Breaking Analysis. Dbt labs, where do they fit? Bob Muglia's company, Relational.ai, why are these players to watch George, in your opinion? >> So everyone is trying to assemble and integrate the pieces that would make building data applications, data products easy. And the critical part isn't just assembling a bunch of pieces, which is traditionally what AWS did. It's a Unix ethos, which is we give you the tools, you put 'em together, 'cause you then have the maximum choice and maximum power. So what the hyperscalers are doing is they're taking their key value stores, in the case of ASW it's DynamoDB, in the case of Azure it's Cosmos DB, and each are putting a graph query engine on top of those. So they have a unified storage and graph database engine, like all the data would be collected in the key value store. Then you have a graph database, that's how they're going to be presenting a foundation for building these data apps. Dbt labs is putting a semantic layer on top of data lakes and data warehouses and as we'll talk about, I'm sure in the future, that makes it easier to swap out the underlying data platform or swap in new ones for specialized use cases. Snowflake, what they're doing, they're so strong in data management and with their transactional tables, what they're trying to do is take in the operational data that used to be in the province of many state stores like MongoDB and say, "If you manage that data with us, it'll be connected to your analytic data without having to send it through a pipeline." And that's hugely valuable. Relational.ai is the wildcard, 'cause what they're trying to do, it's almost like a holy grail where you're trying to take the expressiveness of connecting all your data in a graph but making it as easy to query as you've always had it in a SQL database or I should say, in a relational database. And if they do that, it's sort of like, it'll be as easy to program these data apps as a spreadsheet was compared to procedural languages, like BASIC or Pascal. That's the implications of Relational.ai. >> Yeah, and again, we talked before, why can't you just throw this all in memory? We're talking in that example of really getting down to differences in how you lay the data out on disk in really, new database architecture, correct? >> Yes. And that's why it's not clear that you could take a data lake or even a Snowflake and why you can't put a relational knowledge graph on those. You could potentially put a graph database, but it'll be compromised because to really do what Relational.ai has done, which is the ease of Relational on top of the power of graph, you actually need to change how you're storing your data on disk or even in memory. So you can't, in other words, it's not like, oh we can add graph support to Snowflake, 'cause if you did that, you'd have to change, or in your data lake, you'd have to change how the data is physically laid out. And then that would break all the tools that talk to that currently. >> What in your estimation, is the timeframe where this becomes critical for a Databricks and potentially Snowflake and others? I mentioned earlier midterm, are we talking three to five years here? Are we talking end of decade? What's your radar say? >> I think something surprising is going on that's going to sort of come up the tailpipe and take everyone by storm. All the hype around business intelligence metrics, which is what we used to put in our dashboards where bookings, billings, revenue, customer, those things, those were the key artifacts that used to live in definitions in your BI tools, and DBT has basically created a standard for defining those so they live in your data pipeline or they're defined in their data pipeline and executed in the data warehouse or data lake in a shared way, so that all tools can use them. This sounds like a digression, it's not. All this stuff about data mesh, data fabric, all that's going on is we need a semantic layer and the business intelligence metrics are defining common semantics for your data. And I think we're going to find by the end of this year, that metrics are how we annotate all our analytic data to start adding common semantics to it. And we're going to find this semantic layer, it's not three to five years off, it's going to be staring us in the face by the end of this year. >> Interesting. And of course SVB today was shut down. We're seeing serious tech headwinds, and oftentimes in these sort of downturns or flat turns, which feels like this could be going on for a while, we emerge with a lot of new players and a lot of new technology. George, we got to leave it there. Thank you to George Gilbert for excellent insights and input for today's episode. I want to thank Alex Myerson who's on production and manages the podcast, of course Ken Schiffman as well. Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our EIC over at Siliconangle.com, he does some great editing. Remember all these episodes, they're available as podcasts. Wherever you listen, all you got to do is search Breaking Analysis Podcast, we publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com, or you can email me at David.Vellante@siliconangle.com, or DM me @DVellante. Comment on our LinkedIn post, and please do check out ETR.ai, great survey data, enterprise tech focus, phenomenal. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis.

(ambient music) >> Good morning, everyone. Lisa Martin with theCUBE, live at the eighth Annual Women in Data Science Conference. This is one of my absolute favorite events of the year. We engage with tons of great inspirational speakers, men and women, and what's happening with WiDS is a global movement. I've got two fabulous co-hosts with me today that you're going to be hearing and meeting. Please welcome Tracy Zhang and Hannah Freitag, who are both from the sata journalism program, master's program, at Stanford. So great to have you guys. >> So excited to be here. >> So data journalism's so interesting. Tracy, tell us a little bit about you, what you're interested in, and then Hannah we'll have you do the same thing. >> Yeah >> Yeah, definitely. I definitely think data journalism is very interesting, and in fact, I think, what is data journalism? Is definitely one of the big questions that we ask during the span of one year, which is the length of our program. And yeah, like you said, I'm in this data journalism master program, and I think coming in I just wanted to pivot from my undergrad studies, which is more like a traditional journalism, into data. We're finding stories through data, so that's why I'm also very excited about meeting these speakers for today because they're all, they have different backgrounds, but they all ended up in data science. So I think they'll be very inspirational and I can't wait to talk to them. >> Data in stories, I love that. Hannah, tell us a little bit about you. >> Yeah, so before coming to Stanford, I was a research assistant at Humboldt University in Berlin, so I was in political science research. And I love to work with data sets and data, but I figured that, for me, I don't want this story to end up in a research paper, which is only very limited in terms of the audience. And I figured, okay, data journalism is the perfect way to tell stories and use data to illustrate anecdotes, but to make it comprehensive and accessible for a broader audience. So then I found this program at Stanford and I was like, okay, that's the perfect transition from political science to journalism, and to use data to tell data-driven stories. So I'm excited to be in this program, I'm excited for the conference today and to hear from these amazing women who work in data science. >> You both brought up great points, and we were chatting earlier that there's a lot of diversity in background. >> Tracy: Definitely. >> Not everyone was in STEM as a young kid or studied computer science. Maybe some are engineering, maybe some are are philosophy or economic, it's so interesting. And what I find year after year at WiDS is it brings in so much thought diversity. And that's what being data-driven really demands. It demands that unbiased approach, that diverse, a spectrum of diverse perspectives, and we definitely get that at WiDS. There's about 350 people in person here, but as I mentioned in the opening, hundreds of thousands will engage throughout the year, tens of thousands probably today at local events going on across the globe. And it just underscores the importance of every organization, whether it's a bank or a grocer, has to be data-driven. We have that expectation as consumers in our consumer lives, and even in our business lives, that I'm going to engage with a business, whatever it is, and they're going to know about me, they're going to deliver me a personalized experience that's relevant to me and my history. And all that is powered by data science, which is I think it's fascinating. >> Yeah, and the great way is if you combine data with people. Because after all, large data sets, they oftentimes consist of stories or data that affects people. And to find these stories or advanced research in whatever fields, maybe in the financial business, or in health, as you mentioned, the variety of fields, it's very powerful, powerful tool to use. >> It's a very power, oh, go ahead Tracy. >> No, definitely. I just wanted to build off of that. It's important to put a face on data. So a dataset without a name is just some numbers, but if there's a story, then I think it means something too. And I think Margot was talking about how data science is about knowing or understanding the past, I think that's very interesting. That's a method for us to know who we are. >> Definitely. There's so many opportunities. I wanted to share some of the statistics from AnitaB.org that I was just looking at from 2022. We always talk at events like WiDS, and some of the other women in tech things, theCUBE is very much pro-women in tech, and has been for a very long, since the beginning of theCUBE. But we've seen the numbers of women technologists historically well below 25%, and we see attrition rates are high. And so we often talk about, well, what can we do? And part of that is raising the awareness. And that's one of the great things about WiDS, especially WiDS happening on International Women's Day, today, March 8th, and around event- >> Tracy: A big holiday. >> Exactly. But one of the nice things I was looking at, the AnitaB.org research, is that representation of tech women is on the rise, still below pre-pandemic levels, but it's actually nearly 27% of women in technical roles. And that's an increase, slow increase, but the needle is moving. We're seeing much more gender diversity across a lot of career levels, which is exciting. But some of the challenges remain. I mean, the representation of women technologists is growing, except at the intern level. And I thought that was really poignant. We need to be opening up that pipeline and going younger. And you'll hear a lot of those conversations today about, what are we doing to reach girls in grade school, 10 year olds, 12 year olds, those in high school? How do we help foster them through their undergrad studies- >> And excite them about science and all these fields, for sure. >> What do you think, Hannah, on that note, and I'll ask you the same question, what do you think can be done? The theme of this year's International Women's Day is Embrace Equity. What do you think can be done on that intern problem to help really dial up the volume on getting those younger kids interested, one, earlier, and two, helping them stay interested? >> Yeah. Yeah, that's a great question. I think it's important to start early, as you said, in school. Back in the day when I went to high school, we had this one day per year where we could explore as girls, explore a STEM job and go into the job for one day and see how it's like to work in a, I dunno, in IT or in data science, so that's a great first step. But as you mentioned, it's important to keep girls and women excited about this field and make them actually pursue this path. So I think conferences or networking is very powerful. Also these days with social media and technology, we have more ability and greater ways to connect. And I think we should even empower ourselves even more to pursue this path if we're interested in data science, and not be like, okay, maybe it's not for me, or maybe as a woman I have less chances. So I think it's very important to connect with other women, and this is what WiDS is great about. >> WiDS is so fantastic for that network effect, as you talked about. It's always such, as I was telling you about before we went live, I've covered five or six WiDS for theCUBE, and it's always such a day of positivity, it's a day of of inclusivity, which is exactly what Embrace Equity is really kind of about. Tracy, talk a little bit about some of the things that you see that will help with that hashtag Embrace Equity kind of pulling it, not just to tech. Because we're talking and we saw Meta was a keynote who's going to come to talk with Hannah and me in a little bit, we see Total Energies on the program today, we see Microsoft, Intuit, Boeing Air Company. What are some of the things you think that can be done to help inspire, say, little Tracy back in the day to become interested in STEM or in technology or in data? What do you think companies can and should be doing to dial up the volume for those youngsters? >> Yeah, 'cause I think somebody was talking about, one of the keynote speakers was talking about how there is a notion that girls just can't be data scientists. girls just can't do science. And I think representation definitely matters. If three year old me see on TV that all the scientists are women, I think I would definitely have the notion that, oh, this might be a career choice for me and I can definitely also be a scientist if I want. So yeah, I think representation definitely matters and that's why conference like this will just show us how these women are great in their fields. They're great data scientists that are bringing great insight to the company and even to the social good as well. So yeah, I think that's very important just to make women feel seen in this data science field and to listen to the great woman who's doing amazing work. >> Absolutely. There's a saying, you can't be what you can't see. >> Exactly. >> And I like to say, I like to flip it on its head, 'cause we can talk about some of the negatives, but there's a lot of positives and I want to share some of those in a minute, is that we need to be, that visibility that you talked about, the awareness that you talked about, it needs to be there but it needs to be sustained and maintained. And an organization like WiDS and some of the other women in tech events that happen around the valley here and globally, are all aimed at raising the profile of these women so that the younger, really, all generations can see what they can be. We all, the funny thing is, we all have this expectation whether we're transacting on Uber ride or we are on Netflix or we're buying something on Amazon, we can get it like that. They're going to know who I am, they're going to know what I want, they're going to want to know what I just bought or what I just watched. Don't serve me up something that I've already done that. >> Hannah: Yeah. >> Tracy: Yeah. >> So that expectation that everyone has is all about data, though we don't necessarily think about it like that. >> Hannah: Exactly. >> Tracy: Exactly. >> But it's all about the data that, the past data, the data science, as well as the realtime data because we want to have these experiences that are fresh, in the moment, and super relevant. So whether women recognize it or not, they're data driven too. Whether or not you're in data science, we're all driven by data and we have these expectations that every business is going to meet it. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. And circling back to young women, I think it's crucial and important to have role models. As you said, if you see someone and you're younger and you're like, oh I want to be like her. I want to follow this path, and have inspiration and a role model, someone you look up to and be like, okay, this is possible if I study the math part or do the physics, and you kind of have a goal and a vision in mind, I think that's really important to drive you. >> Having those mentors and sponsors, something that's interesting is, I always, everyone knows what a mentor is, somebody that you look up to, that can guide you, that you admire. I didn't learn what a sponsor was until a Women in Tech event a few years ago that we did on theCUBE. And I was kind of, my eyes were open but I didn't understand the difference between a mentor and a sponsor. And then it got me thinking, who are my sponsors? And I started going through LinkedIn, oh, he's a sponsor, she's a sponsor, people that help really propel you forward, your recommenders, your champions, and it's so important at every level to build that network. And we have, to your point, Hannah, there's so much potential here for data drivenness across the globe, and there's so much potential for women. One of the things I also learned recently , and I wanted to share this with you 'cause I'm not sure if you know this, ChatGPT, exploding, I was on it yesterday looking at- >> Everyone talking about it. >> What's hot in data science? And it was kind of like, and I actually asked it, what was hot in data science in 2023? And it told me that it didn't know anything prior to 2021. >> Tracy: Yes. >> Hannah: Yeah. >> So I said, Oh, I'm so sorry. But everyone's talking about ChatGPT, it is the most advanced AI chatbot ever released to the masses, it's on fire. They're likening it to the launch of the iPhone, 100 million-plus users. But did you know that the CTO of ChatGPT is a woman? >> Tracy: I did not know, but I learned that. >> I learned that a couple days ago, Mira Murati, and of course- >> I love it. >> She's been, I saw this great profile piece on her on Fast Company, but of course everything that we're hearing about with respect to ChatGPT, a lot on the CEO. But I thought we need to help dial up the profile of the CTO because she's only 35, yet she is at the helm of one of the most groundbreaking things in our lifetime we'll probably ever see. Isn't that cool? >> That is, yeah, I completely had no idea. >> I didn't either. I saw it on LinkedIn over the weekend and I thought, I have to talk about that because it's so important when we talk about some of the trends, other trends from AnitaB.org, I talked about some of those positive trends. Overall hiring has rebounded in '22 compared to pre-pandemic levels. And we see also 51% more women being hired in '22 than '21. So the data, it's all about data, is showing us things are progressing quite slowly. But one of the biggest challenges that's still persistent is attrition. So we were talking about, Hannah, what would your advice be? How would you help a woman stay in tech? We saw that attrition last year in '22 according to AnitaB.org, more than doubled. So we're seeing women getting into the field and dropping out for various reasons. And so that's still an extent concern that we have. What do you think would motivate you to stick around if you were in a technical role? Same question for you in a minute. >> Right, you were talking about how we see an increase especially in the intern level for women. And I think if, I don't know, this is a great for a start point for pushing the momentum to start growth, pushing the needle rightwards. But I think if we can see more increase in the upper level, the women representation in the upper level too, maybe that's definitely a big goal and something we should work towards to. >> Lisa: Absolutely. >> But if there's more representation up in the CTO position, like in the managing level, I think that will definitely be a great factor to keep women in data science. >> I was looking at some trends, sorry, Hannah, forgetting what this source was, so forgive me, that was showing that there was a trend in the last few years, I think it was Fast Company, of more women in executive positions, specifically chief operating officer positions. What that hasn't translated to, what they thought it might translate to, is more women going from COO to CEO and we're not seeing that. We think of, if you ask, name a female executive that you'd recognize, everyone would probably say Sheryl Sandberg. But I was shocked to learn the other day at a Women in Tech event I was doing, that there was a survey done by this organization that showed that 78% of people couldn't identify. So to your point, we need more of them in that visible role, in the executive suite. >> Tracy: Exactly. >> And there's data that show that companies that have women, companies across industries that have women in leadership positions, executive positions I should say, are actually more profitable. So it's kind of like, duh, the data is there, it's telling you this. >> Hannah: Exactly. >> Right? >> And I think also a very important point is work culture and the work environment. And as a woman, maybe if you enter and you work two or three years, and then you have to oftentimes choose, okay, do I want family or do I want my job? And I think that's one of the major tasks that companies face to make it possible for women to combine being a mother and being a great data scientist or an executive or CEO. And I think there's still a lot to be done in this regard to make it possible for women to not have to choose for one thing or the other. And I think that's also a reason why we might see more women at the entry level, but not long-term. Because they are punished if they take a couple years off if they want to have kids. >> I think that's a question we need to ask to men too. >> Absolutely. >> How to balance work and life. 'Cause we never ask that. We just ask the woman. >> No, they just get it done, probably because there's a woman on the other end whose making it happen. >> Exactly. So yeah, another thing to think about, another thing to work towards too. >> Yeah, it's a good point you're raising that we have this conversation together and not exclusively only women, but we all have to come together and talk about how we can design companies in a way that it works for everyone. >> Yeah, and no slight to men at all. A lot of my mentors and sponsors are men. They're just people that I greatly admire who saw raw potential in me 15, 18 years ago, and just added a little water to this little weed and it started to grow. In fact, theCUBE- >> Tracy: And look at you now. >> Look at me now. And theCUBE, the guys Dave Vellante and John Furrier are two of those people that are sponsors of mine. But it needs to be diverse. It needs to be diverse and gender, it needs to include non-binary people, anybody, shouldn't matter. We should be able to collectively work together to solve big problems. Like the propaganda problem that was being discussed in the keynote this morning with respect to China, or climate change. Climate change is a huge challenge. Here, we are in California, we're getting an atmospheric river tomorrow. And Californians and rain, we're not so friendly. But we know that there's massive changes going on in the climate. Data science can help really unlock a lot of the challenges and solve some of the problems and help us understand better. So there's so much real-world implication potential that being data-driven can really lead to. And I love the fact that you guys are studying data journalism. You'll have to help me understand that even more. But we're going to going to have great conversations today, I'm so excited to be co-hosting with both of you. You're going to be inspired, you're going to learn, they're going to learn from us as well. So let's just kind of think of this as a community of men, women, everything in between to really help inspire the current generations, the future generations. And to your point, let's help women feel confident to be able to stay and raise their hand for fast-tracking their careers. >> Exactly. >> What are you guys, last minute, what are you looking forward to most for today? >> Just meeting these great women, I can't wait. >> Yeah, learning from each other. Having this conversation about how we can make data science even more equitable and hear from the great ideas that all these women have. >> Excellent, girls, we're going to have a great day. We're so glad that you're here with us on theCUBE, live at Stanford University, Women in Data Science, the eighth annual conference. I'm Lisa Martin, my two co-hosts for the day, Tracy Zhang, Hannah Freitag, you're going to be seeing a lot of us, we appreciate. Stick around, our first guest joins Hannah and me in just a minute. (ambient music)

>> Announcer: theCUBE's live coverage is made possible by funding from Dell Technologies creating technologies that drive human progress. (upbeat music) >> Hey everyone, welcome back to theCube's first day of coverage of MWC 23 from Barcelona, Spain. Lisa Martin here with Dave Vellante and Dave Nicholson. I'm literally in between two Daves. We've had a great first day of coverage of the event. There's been lots of conversations, Dave, on disaggregation, on the change of mobility. I want to be able to get your perspectives from both of you on what you saw on the show floor, what you saw and heard from our guests today. So we'll start with you, Dave V. What were some of the things that were our takeaways from day one for you? >> Well, the big takeaway is the event itself. On day one, you get a feel for what this show is like. Now that we're back, face-to-face kind of pretty much full face-to-face. A lot of excitement here. 2000 plus exhibitors, I mean, planes, trains, automobiles, VR, AI, servers, software, I mean everything. I mean, everybody is here. So it's a really comprehensive show. It's not just about mobile. That's why they changed the name from Mobile World Congress. I think the other thing is from the keynotes this morning, I mean, you heard, there's a lot of, you know, action around the telcos and the transformation, but in a lot of ways they're sort of protecting their existing past from the future. And so they have to be careful about how fast they move. But at the same time if they don't move fast, they're going to get disrupted. We heard some complaints, essentially, you know, veiled complaints that the over the top guys aren't paying their fair share and Telco should be able to charge them more. We heard the chairman of Ericsson talk about how we can't let the OTTs do that again. We're going to charge directly for access through APIs to our network, to our data. We heard from Chris Lewis. Yeah. They've only got, or maybe it was San Ji Choha, how they've only got eight APIs. So, you know the developers are the ones who are going to actually build out the innovation at the edge. The telcos are going to provide the connectivity and the infrastructure companies like Dell as well. But it's really to me all about the developers. And that's where the action's going to be. And it's going to be interesting to see how the developers respond to, you know, the gun to the head. If you want access, you're going to have to pay for it. Now maybe there's so much money to be made that they'll go for it, but I feel like there's maybe a different model. And I think some of the emerging telcos are going to say, you know what, here developers, here's a platform, have at it. We're not going to charge you for all the data until you succeed. Then we're going to figure out a monetization model. >> Right. A lot of opportunity for the developer. That skillset is certainly one that's in demand here. And certainly the transformation of the telecom industry is, there's a lot of conundrums that I was hearing going on today, kind of chicken and egg scenarios. But Dave, you had a chance to walk around the show floor. We were here interviewing all day. What were some of the things that you saw that really stuck out to you? >> I think I was struck by how much attention was being paid to private 5G networks. You sort of read between the lines and it appears as though people kind of accept that the big incumbent telecom players are going to be slower to move. And this idea of things like open RAN where you're leveraging open protocols in a stack to deliver more agility and more value. So it sort of goes back to the generalized IT discussion of moving to cloud for agility. It appears as though a lot of players realize that the wild wild west, the real opportunity, is in the private sphere. So it's really interesting to see how that works, how 5G implemented into an environment with wifi how that actually works. It's really interesting. >> So it's, obviously when you talk to companies like Dell, I haven't hit HPE yet. I'm going to go over there and check out their booth. They got an analyst thing going on but it's really early days for them. I mean, they started in this business by taking an X86 box, putting a name on it, you know, that sounded like it was edged, throwing it over, you know, the wall. That's sort of how they all started in this business. And now they're, you know, but they knew they had to form partnerships. They had to build purpose-built systems. Now with 16 G out, you're seeing that. And so it's still really early days, talking about O RAN, open RAN, the open RAN alliance. You know, it's just, I mean, not even, the game hasn't even barely started yet but we heard from Dish today. They're trying to roll out a massive 5G network. Rakuten is really focused on sort of open RAN that's more reliable, you know, or as reliable as the existing networks but not as nearly as huge a scale as Dish. So it's going to take a decade for this to evolve. >> Which is surprising to the average consumer to hear that. Because as far as we know 5G has been around for a long time. We've been talking about 5G, implementing 5G, you sort of assume it's ubiquitous but the reality is it is just the beginning. >> Yeah. And you know, it's got a fake 5G too, right? I mean you see it on your phone and you're like, what's the difference here? And it's, you know, just, >> Dave N.: What does it really mean? >> Right. And so I think your point about private is interesting, the conversation Dave that we had earlier, I had throughout, hey I don't think it's a replacement for wifi. And you said, "well, why not?" I guess it comes down to economics. I mean if you can get the private network priced close enough then you're right. Why wouldn't it replace wifi? Now you got wifi six coming in. So that's a, you know, and WiFi's flexible, it's cheap, it's good for homes, good for offices, but these private networks are going to be like kickass, right? They're going to be designed to run whatever, warehouses and robots, and energy drilling facilities. And so, you know the economics I don't think are there today but maybe they can be at volume. >> Maybe at some point you sort of think of today's science experiment becoming the enterprise-grade solution in the future. I had a chance to have some conversations with folks around the show. And I think, and what I was surprised by was I was reminded, frankly, I wasn't surprised. I was reminded that when we start talking about 5G, we're talking about spectrum that is managed by government entities. Of course all broadcast, all spectrum, is managed in one way or another. But in particular, you can't simply put a SIM in every device now because there are a lot of regulatory hurdles that have to take place. So typically what these things look like today is 5G backhaul to the network, communication from that box to wifi. That's a huge improvement already. So yeah, my question about whether, you know, why not put a SIM in everything? Maybe eventually, but I think, but there are other things that I was not aware of that are standing in the way. >> Your point about spectrum's an interesting one though because private networks, you're going to be able to leverage that spectrum in different ways, and tune it essentially, use different parts of the spectrum, make it programmable so that you can apply it to that specific use case, right? So it's going to be a lot more flexible, you know, because I presume the needs spectrum needs of a hospital are going to be different than, you know, an agribusiness are going to be different than a drilling, you know, unit, offshore drilling unit. And so the ability to have the flexibility to use the spectrum in different ways and apply it to that use case, I think is going to be powerful. But I suspect it's going to be expensive initially. I think the other thing we talked about is public policy and regulation, and it's San Ji Choha brought up the point, is telcos have been highly regulated. They don't just do something and ask for permission, you know, they have to work within the confines of that regulated environment. And there's a lot of these greenfield companies and private networks that don't necessarily have to follow those rules. So that's a potential disruptive force. So at the same time, the telcos are spending what'd we hear, a billion, a trillion and a half over the next seven years? Building out 5G networks. So they got to figure out, you know how to get a payback on that. They'll get it I think on connectivity, 'cause they have a monopoly but they want more. They're greedy. They see the over, they see the Netflixes of the world and the Googles and the Amazons mopping up services and they want a piece of that action but they've never really been good at it. >> Well, I've got a question for both of you. I mean, what do you think the odds are that by the time the Shangri La of fully deployed 5G happens that we have so much data going through it that effectively it feels exactly the same as 3G? What are the odds? >> That's a good point. Well, the thing that gets me about 5G is there's so much of it on, if I go to the consumer side when we're all consumers in our daily lives so much of it's marketing hype. And, you know all the messaging about that, when it's really early innings yet they're talking about 6G. What does actual fully deployed 5G look like? What is that going to enable a hospital to achieve or an oil refinery out in the middle of the ocean? That's something that interests me is what's next for that? Are we going to hear that at this event? >> I mean, walking around, you see a fair amount of discussion of, you know, the internet of things. Edge devices, the increase in connectivity. And again, what I was surprised by was that there's very little talk about a sim card in every one of those devices at this point. It's like, no, no, no, we got wifi to handle all that but aggregating it back into a central network that's leveraging 5G. That's really interesting. That's really interesting. >> I think you, the odds of your, to go back to your question, I think the odds are even money, that by the time it's all built out there's going to be so much data and so much new capability it's going to work similarly at similar speeds as we see in the networks today. You're just going to be able to do so many more things. You know, and your video's going to look better, the graphics are going to look better. But I think over the course of history, this is what's happening. I mean, even when you go back to dial up, if you were in an AOL chat room in 1996, it was, you know, yeah it took a while. You're like, (screeches) (Lisa laughs) the modem and everything else, but once you were in there- >> Once you're there, 2400 baud. >> It was basically real time. And so you could talk to your friends and, you know, little chat room but that's all you could do. You know, if you wanted to watch a video, forget it, right? And then, you know, early days of streaming video, stop, start, stop, start, you know, look at Amazon Prime when it first started, Prime Video was not that great. It's sort of catching up to Netflix. But, so I think your point, that question is really prescient because more data, more capability, more apps means same speed. >> Well, you know, you've used the phrase over the top. And so just just so we're clear so we're talking about the same thing. Typically we're talking about, you've got, you have network providers. Outside of that, you know, Netflix, internet connection, I don't need Comcast, right? Perfect example. Well, what about the over the top that's coming from direct satellite communications with devices. There are times when I don't have a signal on my, happens to be an Apple iPhone, when I get a little SOS satellite logo because I can communicate under very limited circumstances now directly to the satellite for very limited text messaging purposes. Here at the show, I think it might be a Motorola device. It's a dongle that allows any mobile device to leverage direct satellite communication. Again, for texting back to the 2,400 baud modem, you know, days, 1200 even, 300 even, go back far enough. What's that going to look like? Is that too far in the future to think that eventually it's all going to be over the top? It's all going to be handset to satellite and we don't need these RANs anymore. It's all going to be satellite networks. >> Dave V.: I think you're going to see- >> Little too science fiction-y? (laughs) >> No, I, no, I think it's a good question and I think you're going to see fragments. I think you're going to see fragmentation of private networks. I think you're going to see fragmentation of satellites. I think you're going to see legacy incumbents kind of hanging on, you know, the cable companies. I think that's coming. I think by 2030 it'll, the picture will be much more clear. The question is, and I think it's come down to the innovation on top, which platform is going to be the most developer friendly? Right, and you know, I've not heard anything from the big carriers that they're going to be developer friendly. I've heard "we have proprietary data that we're going to charge access for and developers are going to have to pay for that." But I haven't heard them saying "Developers, developers, developers!" You know, Steve Bomber running around, like bend over backwards for developers, they're asking the developers to bend over. And so if a network can, let's say the satellite network is more developer friendly, you know, you're going to see more innovation there potentially. You know, or if a dish network says, "You know what? We're going after developers, we're going after innovation. We're not going to gouge them for all this network data. Rather we're going to make the platform open or maybe we're going to do an app store-like model where we take a piece of the action after they succeed." You know, take it out of the backend, like a Silicon Valley VC as opposed to an East Coast VC. They're not going to get you in the front end. (Lisa laughs) >> Well, you can see the sort of disruptive forces at play between open RAN and the legacy, call it proprietary stack, right? But what is the, you know, if that's sort of a horizontal disruptive model, what's the vertically disruptive model? Is it private networks coming in? Is it a private 5G network that comes in that says, "We're starting from the ground up, everything is containerized. We're going to go find people at KubeCon who are, who understand how to orchestrate with Kubernetes and use containers in microservices, and we're going to have this little 5G network that's going to deliver capabilities that you can't get from the big boys." Is there a way to monetize that? Is there a way for them to be disrupted, be disruptive, or are these private 5G networks that everybody's talking about just relegated to industrial use cases where you're just squeezing better economics out of wireless communication amongst all your devices in your factory? >> That's an interesting question. I mean, there are a lot of those smart factory industrial use cases. I mean, it's basically industry 4.0 use cases. But yeah, I don't count the cloud guys out. You know, everybody says, "oh, the narrative is, well, the latency of the cloud." Well, not if the cloud is at the edge. If you take a local zone and put storage, compute, and data right next to each other and the cloud model with the cloud APIs, and then you got an asynchronous, you know, connection back. I think that's a reasonable model. I think the cloud guys figured out developers, right? Pretty well. Certainly Microsoft and, and Amazon and Google, they know developers. I don't see any reason why they can't bring their model to the edge. So, and that's really disruptive to the legacy telco guys, you know? So they have to be careful. >> One step closer to my dream of eliminating the word "cloud" from IT lexicon. (Lisa laughs) I contend that it has always been IT, and it will always be IT. And this whole idea of cloud, what is cloud? If AWS, for example, is delivering hardware to the edge where it needs to be, is that cloud? Do we go back to the idea that cloud is an operational model and not a question of physical location? I hope we get to that point. >> Well, what's Apex and GreenLake? Apex is, you know, Dell's as a service. GreenLake is- >> HPE. >> HPE's as a service. That's outposts. >> Dave N.: Right. >> Yeah. >> That's their outpost. >> Yeah. >> Well AWS's position used to be, you know, to use them as a proxy for hyperscale cloud. We'll just, we'll grow in a very straight trajectory forever on the back of net new stuff. Forget about the old stuff. As James T. Kirk said of the Klingons, "let them die." (Lisa laughs) As far as the cloud providers were concerned just, yeah, let, let that old stuff go away. Well then they found out, there came a point in time where they realized there's a lot of friction and stickiness associated with that. So they had to deal with the reality of hybridity, if that's the word, the hybrid nature of things. So what are they doing? They're pushing stuff out to the edge, so... >> With the same operating model. >> With the same operating model. >> Similar. I mean, it's limited, right? >> So you see- >> You can't run a lot of database on outpost, you can run RES- >> You see this clash of Titans where some may have written off traditional IT infrastructure vendors, might have been written off as part of the past. Whereas hyperscale cloud providers represent the future. It seems here at this show they're coming head to head and competing evenly. >> And this is where I think a company like Dell or HPE or Cisco has some advantages in that they're not going to compete with the telcos, but the hyperscalers will. >> Lisa: Right. >> Right. You know, and they're already, Google's, how much undersea cable does Google own? A lot. Probably more than anybody. >> Well, we heard from Google and Microsoft this morning in the keynote. It'd be interesting to see if we hear from AWS and then over the next couple of days. But guys, clearly there is, this is a great wrap of day one. And the crazy thing is this is only day one. We've got three more days of coverage, more news, more information to break down and unpack on theCUBE. Look forward to doing that with you guys over the next three days. Thank you for sharing what you saw on the show floor, what you heard from our guests today as we had about 10 interviews. Appreciate your insights and your perspectives and can't wait for tomorrow. >> Right on. >> All right. For Dave Vellante and Dave Nicholson, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE's day one wrap from MWC 23. We'll see you tomorrow. (relaxing music)

(upbeat instrumental music) >> TheCUBE's live coverage is made possible by funding from Dell Technologies, creating technologies that drive human progress. (uplifting instrumental music) >> Hey everyone. Welcome to Barcelona, Spain. It's theCUBE Live at MWC '23. I'm Lisa Martin, Dave Vellante, our co-founder, our co-CEO of theCUBE, you know him, you love him. He's here as my co-host. Dave, we have a great couple of guests here to break down day one keynote. Lots of meat. I can't wait to be part of this conversation. Chris Lewis joins us, the founder and MD of Lewis Insight. And Sarbjeet Johal, one of you know him as well. He's a Cube contributor, cloud architect. Guys, welcome to the program. Thank you so much for joining Dave and me today. >> Lovely to be here. >> Thank you. >> Chris, I want to start with you. You have covered all aspects of global telecoms industries over 30 years working as an analyst. Talk about the evolution of the telecom industry that you've witnessed, and what were some of the things you heard in the keynote that excite you about the direction it's going? >> Well, as ever, MWC, there's no lack of glitz and glamour, but it's the underlying issues of the industry that are really at stake here. There's not a lot of new revenue coming into the telecom providers, but there's a lot of adjustment, readjustment of the underlying operational environment. And also, really importantly, what came out of the keynotes is the willingness and the necessity to really engage with the API community, with the developer community, people who traditionally, telecoms would never have even touched. So they're sorting out their own house, they're cleaning their own stables, getting the cost base down, but they're also now realizing they've got to engage with all the other parties. There's a lot of cloud providers here, there's a lot of other people from outside so they're realizing they cannot do it all themselves. It's quite a tough lesson for a very conservative, inward looking industry, right? So should we be spending all this money and all this glitz and glamour of MWC and all be here, or should would be out there really building for the future and making sure the services are right for yours and my needs in a business and personal lives? So a lot of new changes, a lot of realization of what's going on outside, but underlying it, we've just got to get this right this time. >> And it feels like that monetization is front and center. You mentioned developers, we've got to work with developers, but I'm hearing the latest keynote from the Ericsson CEOs, we're going to monetize through those APIs, we're going to charge the developers. I mean, first of all, Chris, am I getting that right? And Sarbjeet, as somebody who's close to the developer community, is that the right way to build bridges? But Chris, are we getting that right? >> Well, let's take the first steps first. So, Ericsson, of course, acquired Vonage, which is a massive API business so they want to make money. They expect to make money by bringing that into the mainstream telecom community. Now, whether it's the developers who pay for it, or let's face it, we are moving into a situation as the telco moves into a techco model where the techco means they're going to be selling bits of the technology to developer guys and to other application developers. So when he says he needs to charge other people for it, it's the way in which people reach in and will take going through those open APIs like the open gateway announced today, but also the way they'll reach in and take things like network slicing. So we're opening up the telecom community, the treasure chest, if you like, where developers' applications and other third parties can come in and take those chunks of technology and build them into their services. This is a complete change from the old telecom industry where everybody used to come and you say, "all right, this is my product, you've got to buy it and you're going to pay me a lot of money for it." So we are looking at a more flexible environment where the other parties can take those chunks. And we know we want collectivity built into our financial applications, into our government applications, everything, into the future of the metaverse, whatever it may be. But it requires that change in attitude of the telcos. And they do need more money 'cause they've said, the baseline of revenue is pretty static, there's not a lot of growth in there so they're looking for new revenues. It's in a B2B2X time model. And it's probably the middle man's going to pay for it rather than the customer. >> But the techco model, Sarbjeet, it looks like the telcos are getting their money on their way in. The techco company model's to get them on their way out like the app store. Go build something of value, build some kind of app or data product, and then when it takes off, we'll take a piece of the action. What are your thoughts from a developer perspective about how the telcos are approaching it? >> Yeah, I think before we came here, like I said, I did some tweets on this, that we talk about all kind of developers, like there's game developers and front end, back end, and they're all talking about like what they're building on top of cloud, but nowhere you will hear the term "telco developer," there's no API from telcos given to the developers to build IoT solutions on top of it because telco as an IoT, I think is a good sort of hand in hand there. And edge computing as well. The glimmer of hope, if you will, for telcos is the edge computing, I believe. And even in edge, I predicted, I said that many times that cloud players will dominate that market with the private 5G. You know that story, right? >> We're going to talk about that. (laughs) >> The key is this, that if you see in general where the population lives, in metros, right? That's where the world population is like flocking to and we have cloud providers covering the local zones with local like heavy duty presence from the big cloud providers and then these telcos are getting sidetracked by that. Even the V2X in cars moving the autonomous cars and all that, even in that space, telcos are getting sidetracked in many ways. What telcos have to do is to join the forces, build some standards, if not standards, some consortium sort of. They're trying to do that with the open gateway here, they have only eight APIs. And it's 2023, eight APIs is nothing, right? (laughs) So they should have started this 10 years back, I think. So, yeah, I think to entice the developers, developers need the employability, we need to train them, we need to show them some light that hey, you can build a lot on top of it. If you tell developers they can develop two things or five things, nobody will come. >> So, Chris, the cloud will dominate the edge. So A, do you buy it? B, the telcos obviously are acting like that might happen. >> Do you know I love people when they've got their heads in the clouds. (all laugh) And you're right in so many ways, but if you flip it around and think about how the customers think about this, business customers and consumers, they don't care about all this background shenanigans going on, do they? >> Lisa: No. >> So I think one of the problems we have is that this is a new territory and whether you call it the edge or whatever you call it, what we need there is we need connectivity, we need security, we need storage, we need compute, we need analytics, and we need applications. And are any of those more important than the others? It's the collective that actually drives the real value there. So we need all those things together. And of course, the people who represented at this show, whether it's the cloud guys, the telcos, the Nokia, the Ericssons of this world, they all own little bits of that. So that's why they're all talking partnerships because they need the combination, they cannot do it on their own. The cloud guys can't do it on their own. >> Well, the cloud guys own all of those things that you just talked about though. (all laugh) >> Well, they don't own the last bit of connectivity, do they? They don't own the access. >> Right, exactly. That's the one thing they don't own. So, okay, we're back to pipes, right? We're back to charging for connectivity- >> Pipes are very valuable things, right? >> Yeah, for sure. >> Never underestimate pipes. I don't know about where you live, plumbers make a lot of money where I live- >> I don't underestimate them but I'm saying can the telcos charge for more than that or are the cloud guys going to mop up the storage, the analytics, the compute, and the apps? >> They may mop it up, but I think what the telcos are doing and we've seen a lot of it here already, is they are working with all those major cloud guys already. So is it an unequal relationship? The cloud guys are global, massive global scale, the telcos are fundamentally national operators. >> Yep. >> Some have a little bit of regional, nobody has global scale. So who stitches it all together? >> Dave: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. >> Absolutely. >> I know that saying never gets old. It's true. Well, Sarbjeet, one of the things that you tweeted about, I didn't get to see the keynote but I was looking at your tweets. 46% of telcos think they won't make it to the next decade. That's a big number. Did that surprise you? >> No, actually it didn't surprise me because the competition is like closing in on them and the telcos are competing with telcos as well and the telcos are competing with cloud providers on the other side, right? So the smaller ones are getting squeezed. It's the bigger players, they can hook up the newer platforms, I think they will survive. It's like that part is like any other industry, if you will. But the key is here, I think why the pain points were sort of described on the main stage is that they're crying out loud to tell the big tech cloud providers that "hey, you pay your fair share," like we talked, right? You are not paying, you're generating so much content which reverses our networks and you are not paying for it. So they are not able to recoup the cost of laying down their networks. By the way, one thing actually I want to mention is that they said the cloud needs earth. The cloud and earth, it's like there's no physical need to cloud, you know that, right? So like, I think it's the other way around. I think the earth needs the cloud because I'm a cloud guy. (Sarbjeet and Lisa laugh) >> I think you need each other, right? >> I think so too. >> They need each other. When they said cloud needs earth, right? I think they're still in denial that the cloud is a big force. They have to partner. When you can't compete with somebody, what do you do? Partner with them. >> Chris, this is your world. Are they in denial? >> No, I think they're waking up to the pragmatism of the situation. >> Yeah. >> They're building... As we said, most of the telcos, you find have relationships with the cloud guys, I think you're right about the industry. I mean, do you think what's happened since US was '96, the big telecom act when we started breaking up all the big telcos and we had lots of competition came in, we're seeing the signs that we might start to aggregate them back up together again. So it's been an interesting experiment for like 30 years, hasn't it too? >> It made the US less competitive, I would argue, but carry on. >> Yes, I think it's true. And Europe is maybe too competitive and therefore, it's not driven the investment needed. And by the way, it's not just mobile, it's fixed as well. You saw the Orange CEO was talking about the her investment and the massive fiber investments way ahead of many other countries, way ahead of the UK or Germany. We need that fiber in the ground to carry all your cloud traffic to do this. So there is a scale issue, there is a competition issue, but the telcos are very much aware of it. They need the cloud, by the way, to improve their operational environments as well, to change that whole old IT environment to deliver you and I better service. So no, it absolutely is changing. And they're getting scale, but they're fundamentally offering the basic product, you call it pipes, I'll just say they're offering broadband to you and I and the business community. But they're stepping on dangerous ground, I think, when saying they want to charge the over the top guys for all the traffic they use. Those over the top guys now build a lot of the global networks, the backbone submarine network. They're putting a lot of money into it, and by giving us endless data for our individual usage, that cat is out the bag, I think to a large extent. >> Yeah. And Orange CEO basically said that, that they're not paying their fair share. I'm for net neutrality but the governments are going to have to fund this unless you let us charge the OTT. >> Well, I mean, we could of course renationalize. Where would that take us? (Dave laughs) That would make MWC very interesting next year, wouldn't it? To renationalize it. So, no, I think you've got to be careful what we wish for here. Creating the absolute clear product that is required to underpin all of these activities, whether it's IoT or whether it's cloud delivery or whether it's just our own communication stuff, delivering that absolutely ubiquitously high quality for business and for consumer is what we have to do. And telcos have been too conservative in the past. >> I think they need to get together and create standards around... I think they have a big opportunity. We know that the clouds are being built in silos, right? So there's Azure stack, there's AWS and there's Google. And those are three main ones and a few others, right? So that we are fighting... On the cloud side, what we are fighting is the multicloud. How do we consume that multicloud without having standards? So if these people get together and create some standards around IoT and edge computing sort of area, people will flock to them to say, "we will use you guys, your API, we don't care behind the scenes if you use AWS or Google Cloud or Azure, we will come to you." So market, actually is looking for that solution. I think it's an opportunity for these guys, for telcos. But the problem with telcos is they're nationalized, as you said Chris versus the cloud guys are still kind of national in a way, but they're global corporations. And some of the telcos are global corporations as well, BT covers so many countries and TD covers so many... DT is in US as well, so they're all over the place. >> But you know what's interesting is that the TM forum, which is one of the industry associations, they've had an open digital architecture framework for quite some years now. Google had joined that some years ago, Azure in there, AWS just joined it a couple of weeks ago. So when people said this morning, why isn't AWS on the keynote? They don't like sharing the limelight, do they? But they're getting very much in bed with the telco. So I think you'll see the marriage. And in fact, there's a really interesting statement, if you look at the IoT you mentioned, Bosch and Nokia have been working together 'cause they said, the problem we've got, you've got a connectivity network on one hand, you've got the sensor network on the other hand, you're trying to merge them together, it's a nightmare. So we are finally seeing those sort of groups talking to each other. So I think the standards are coming, the cooperation is coming, partnerships are coming, but it means that the telco can't dominate the sector like it used to. It's got to play ball with everybody else. >> I think they have to work with the regulators as well to loosen the regulation. Or you said before we started this segment, you used Chris, the analogy of sports, right? In sports, when you're playing fiercely, you commit the fouls and then ask for ref to blow the whistle. You're now looking at the ref all the time. The telcos are looking at the ref all the time. >> Dave: Yeah, can I do this? Can I do that? Is this a fair move? >> They should be looking for the space in front of the opposition. >> Yeah, they should be just on attack mode and commit these fouls, if you will, and then ask for forgiveness then- >> What do you make of that AWS not you there- >> Well, Chris just made a great point that they don't like to share the limelight 'cause I thought it was very obvious that we had Google Cloud, we had Microsoft there on day one of this 80,000 person event. A lot of people back from COVID and they weren't there. But Chris, you brought up a great point that kind of made me think, maybe you're right. Maybe they're in the afternoon keynote, they want their own time- >> You think GSMA invited them? >> I imagine so. You'd have to ask GSMA. >> I would think so. >> Get Max on here and ask that. >> I'm going to ask them, I will. >> But no, and they don't like it because I think the misconception, by the way, is that everyone says, "oh, it's AWS, it's Google Cloud and it's Azure." They're not all the same business by any stretch of the imagination. AWS has been doing loads of great work, they've been launching private network stuff over the last couple of weeks. Really interesting. Google's been playing catch up. We know that they came in readily late to the market. And Azure, they've all got slightly different angles on it. So perhaps it just wasn't right for AWS and the way they wanted to pitch things so they don't have to be there, do they? >> That's a good point. >> But the industry needs them there, that's the number one cloud. >> Dave, they're there working with the industry. >> Yeah, of course. >> They don't have to be on the keynote stage. And in fact, you think about this show and you mentioned the 80,000 people, the activity going on around in all these massive areas they're in, it's fantastic. That's where the business is done. The business isn't done up on the keynote stage. >> That's why there's the glitz and the glamour, Chris. (all laugh) >> Yeah. It's not glitz, it's espresso. It's not glamour anymore, it's just espresso. >> We need the espresso. >> Yeah. >> I think another thing is that it's interesting how an average European sees the tech market and an average North American, especially you from US, you have to see the market. Here, people are more like process oriented and they want the rules of the road already established before they can take a step- >> Chris: That's because it's your pension in the North American- >> Exactly. So unions are there and the more employee rights and everything, you can't fire people easily here or in Germany or most of the Europe is like that with the exception of UK. >> Well, but it's like I said, that Silicone Valley gets their money on the way out, you know? And that's how they do it, that's how they think it. And they don't... They ask for forgiveness. I think the east coast is more close to Europe, but in the EU, highly regulated, really focused on lifetime employment, things like that. >> But Dave, the issue is the telecom industry is brilliant, right? We keep paying every month whatever we do with it. >> It's a great business, to your point- >> It's a brilliant business model. >> Dave: It's fantastic. >> So it's about then getting the structure right behind it. And you know, we've seen a lot of stratification where people are selling off towers, Orange haven't sold their towers off, they made a big point about that. Others are selling their towers off. Some people are selling off their underlying network, Telecom Italia talking about KKR buying the whole underlying network. It's like what do you want to be in control of? It's a great business. >> But that's why they complain so much is that they're having to sell their assets because of the onerous CapEx requirements, right? >> Yeah, they've had it good, right? And dare I say, perhaps they've not planned well enough for the future. >> They're trying to protect their past from the future. I mean, that's... >> Actually, look at the... Every "n" number of years, there's a new faster network. They have to dig the ground, they have to put the fiber, they have to put this. Now, there are so many booths showing 6G now, we are not even done with 5G yet, now the next 6G you know, like then- >> 10G's coming- >> 10G, that's a different market. (Dave laughs) >> Actually, they're bogged down by the innovation, I think. >> And the generational thing is really important because we're planning for 6G in all sorts of good ways but actually what we use in our daily lives, we've gone through the barrier, we've got enough to do that. So 4G gives us enough, the fiber in the ground or even old copper gives us enough. So the question is, what are we willing to pay for more than that basic connectivity? And the answer to your point, Dave, is not a lot, right? So therefore, that's why the emphasis is on the business market on that B2B and B2B2X. >> But we'll pay for Netflix all day long. >> All day long. (all laugh) >> The one thing Chris, I don't know, I want to know your viewpoints and we have talked in the past as well, there's absence of think tanks in tech, right? So we have think tanks on the foreign policy and economic policy in every country, and we have global think tanks, but tech is becoming a huge part of the economy, global economy as well as national economies, right? But we don't have think tanks on like policy around tech. For example, this 4G is good for a lot of use cases. Then 5G is good for smaller number of use cases. And then 6G will be like, fewer people need 6G for example. Why can't we have sort of those kind of entities dictating those kind of like, okay, is this a wiser way to go about it? >> Lina Khan wants to. She wants to break up big tech- >> You're too young to remember but the IT used to have a show every four years in Geneva, there were standards around there. So I think there are bodies. I think the balance of power obviously has gone from the telecom to the west coast to the IT markets. And it's changing the balance about, it moves more quickly, right? Telecoms has never moved quickly enough. I think there is hope by the way, that telecoms now that we are moving to more softwarized environment, and God forbid, we're moving into CICD in the telecom world, right? Which is a massive change, but I think there's hopes for it to change. The mentality is changing, the culture is changing, but to change those old structured organizations from the British telecom or the France telecom into the modern world, it's a hell of a long journey. It's not an overnight journey at all. >> Well, of course the theme of the event is velocity. >> Yeah, I know that. >> And it's been interesting sitting here with the three of you talking about from a historic perspective, how slow and molasseslike telecom has been. They don't have a choice anymore. As consumers, we have this expectation we're going to get anything we want on our mobile device, 24 by seven. We don't care about how the sausage is made, we just want the end result. So do you really think, and we're only on day one guys... And Chris we'll start with you. Is the theme really velocity? Is it disruption? Are they able to move faster? >> Actually, I think invisibility is the real answer. (Lisa laughs) We want communication to be invisible, right? >> Absolutely. >> We want it to work. When we switch our phones on, we want it to work and we want to... Well, they're not even phones anymore, are they really? I mean that's the... So no, velocity, we've got... There is momentum in the industry, there's no doubt about that. The cloud guys coming in, making telecoms think about the way they run their own business, where they meet, that collision point on the edges you talked about Sarbjeet. We do have velocity, we've got momentum. There's so many interested parties. The way I think of this is that the telecom industry used to be inward looking, just design its own technology and then expect everyone else to dance to our tune. We're now flipping that 180 degrees and we are now having to work with all the different outside forces shaping us. Whether it's devices, whether it's smart cities, governments, the hosting guys, the Equinoxis, all these things. So everyone wants a piece of this telecom world so we've got to make ourselves more open. That's why you get in a more open environment. >> But you did... I just want to bring back a point you made during COVID, which was when everybody switched to work from home, started using their landlines again, telcos had to respond and nothing broke. I mean, it was pretty amazing. >> Chris: It did a good job. >> It was kind of invisible. So, props to the telcos for making that happen. >> They did a great job. >> So it really did. Now, okay, what have you done for me lately? So now they've got to deal with the future and they're talking monetization. But to me, monetization is all about data and not necessarily just the network data. Yeah, they can sell that 'cause they own that but what kind of incremental value are they going to create for the consumers that... >> Yeah, actually that's a problem. I think the problem is that they have been strangled by the regulation for a long time and they cannot look at their data. It's a lot more similar to the FinTech world, right? I used to work at Visa. And then Visa, we did trillion dollars in transactions in '96. Like we moved so much money around, but we couldn't look at these things, right? So yeah, I think regulation is a problem that holds you back, it's the antithesis of velocity, it slows you down. >> But data means everything, doesn't it? I mean, it means everything and nothing. So I think the challenge here is what data do the telcos have that is useful, valuable to me, right? So in the home environment, the fact that my broadband provider says, oh, by the way, you've got 20 gadgets on that network and 20 on that one... That's great, tell me what's on there. I probably don't know what's taking all my valuable bandwidth up. So I think there's security wrapped around that, telling me the way I'm using it if I'm getting the best out of my service. >> You pay for that? >> No, I'm saying they don't do it yet. I think- >> But would you pay for that? >> I think I would, yeah. >> Would you pay a lot for that? I would expect it to be there as part of my dashboard for my monthly fee. They're already charging me enough. >> Well, that's fine, but you pay a lot more in North America than I do in Europe, right? >> Yeah, no, that's true. >> You're really overpaying over there, right? >> Way overpaying. >> So, actually everybody's looking at these devices, right? So this is a radio operated device basically, right? And then why couldn't they benefit from this? This is like we need to like double click on this like 10 times to find out why telcos failed to leverage this device, right? But I think the problem is their reliance on regulations and their being close to the national sort of governments and local bodies and authorities, right? And in some countries, these telcos are totally controlled in very authoritarian ways, right? It's not like open, like in the west, most of the west. Like the world is bigger than five, six countries and we know that, right? But we end up talking about the major economies most of the time. >> Dave: Always. >> Chris: We have a topic we want to hit on. >> We do have a topic. Our last topic, Chris, it's for you. You guys have done an amazing job for the last 25 minutes talking about the industry, where it's going, the evolution. But Chris, you're registered blind throughout your career. You're a leading user of assertive technologies. Talk about diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, some of the things you're doing there. >> Well, we should have had 25 minutes on that and five minutes on- (all laugh) >> Lisa: You'll have to come back. >> Really interesting. So I've been looking at it. You're quite right, I've been using accessible technology on my iPhone and on my laptop for 10, 20 years now. It's amazing. And what I'm trying to get across to the industry is to think about inclusive design from day one. When you're designing an app or you're designing a service, make sure you... And telecom's a great example. In fact, there's quite a lot of sign language around here this week. If you look at all the events written, good to see that coming in. Obviously, no use to me whatsoever, but good for the hearing impaired, which by the way is the biggest category of disability in the world. Biggest chunk is hearing impaired, then vision impaired, and then cognitive and then physical. And therefore, whenever you're designing any service, my call to arms to people is think about how that's going to be used and how a blind person might use it or how a deaf person or someone with physical issues or any cognitive issues might use it. And a great example, the GSMA and I have been talking about the app they use for getting into the venue here. I downloaded it. I got the app downloaded and I'm calling my guys going, where's my badge? And he said, "it's top left." And because I work with a screen reader, they hadn't tagged it properly so I couldn't actually open my badge on my own. Now, they changed it overnight so it worked this morning, which is fantastic work by Trevor and the team. But it's those things that if you don't build it in from scratch, you really frustrate a whole group of users. And if you think about it, people with disabilities are excluded from so many services if they can't see the screen or they can't hear it. But it's also the elderly community who don't find it easy to get access to things. Smart speakers have been a real blessing in that respect 'cause you can now talk to that thing and it starts talking back to you. And then there's the people who can't afford it so we need to come down market. This event is about launching these thousand dollars plus devices. Come on, we need below a hundred dollars devices to get to the real mass market and get the next billion people in and then to educate people how to use it. And I think to go back to your previous point, I think governments are starting to realize how important this is about building the community within the countries. You've got some massive projects like NEOM in Saudi Arabia. If you have a look at that, if you get a chance, a fantastic development in the desert where they're building a new city from scratch and they're building it so anyone and everyone can get access to it. So in the past, it was all done very much by individual disability. So I used to use some very expensive, clunky blind tech stuff. I'm now using mostly mainstream. But my call to answer to say is, make sure when you develop an app, it's accessible, anyone can use it, you can talk to it, you can get whatever access you need and it will make all of our lives better. So as we age and hearing starts to go and sight starts to go and dexterity starts to go, then those things become very useful for everybody. >> That's a great point and what a great champion they have in you. Chris, Sarbjeet, Dave, thank you so much for kicking things off, analyzing day one keynote, the ecosystem day, talking about what velocity actually means, where we really are. We're going to have to have you guys back 'cause as you know, we can keep going, but we are out of time. But thank you. >> Pleasure. >> We had a very spirited, lively conversation. >> Thanks, Dave. >> Thank you very much. >> For our guests and for Dave Vellante, I'm Lisa Martin, you're watching theCUBE live in Barcelona, Spain at MWC '23. We'll be back after a short break. See you soon. (uplifting instrumental music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, this is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> While never really meant to be a consumer tech event, the rapid ascendancy of smartphones sucked much of the air out of Mobile World Congress over the years, now MWC. And while the device manufacturers continue to have a major presence at the show, the maturity of intelligent devices, longer life cycles, and the disaggregation of the network stack, have put enterprise technologies front and center in the telco business. Semiconductor manufacturers, network equipment players, infrastructure companies, cloud vendors, software providers, and a spate of startups are eyeing the trillion dollar plus communications industry as one of the next big things to watch this decade. Hello, and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights, powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we bring you part two of our ongoing coverage of MWC '23, with some new data on enterprise players specifically in large telco environments, a brief glimpse at some of the pre-announcement news and corresponding themes ahead of MWC, and some of the key announcement areas we'll be watching at the show on theCUBE. Now, last week we shared some ETR data that showed how traditional enterprise tech players were performing, specifically within the telecoms vertical. Here's a new look at that data from ETR, which isolates the same companies, but cuts the data for what ETR calls large telco. The N in this cut is 196, down from 288 last week when we included all company sizes in the dataset. Now remember the two dimensions here, on the y-axis is net score, or spending momentum, and on the x-axis is pervasiveness in the data set. The table insert in the upper left informs how the dots and companies are plotted, and that red dotted line, the horizontal line at 40%, that indicates a highly elevated net score. Now while the data are not dramatically different in terms of relative positioning, there are a couple of changes at the margin. So just going down the list and focusing on net score. Azure is comparable, but slightly lower in this sector in the large telco than it was overall. Google Cloud comes in at number two, and basically swapped places with AWS, which drops slightly in the large telco relative to overall telco. Snowflake is also slightly down by one percentage point, but maintains its position. Remember Snowflake, overall, its net score is much, much higher when measuring across all verticals. Snowflake comes down in telco, and relative to overall, a little bit down in large telco, but it's making some moves to attack this market that we'll talk about in a moment. Next are Red Hat OpenStack and Databricks. About the same in large tech telco as they were an overall telco. Then there's Dell next that has a big presence at MWC and is getting serious about driving 16G adoption, and new servers, and edge servers, and other partnerships. Cisco and Red Hat OpenShift basically swapped spots when moving from all telco to large telco, as Cisco drops and Red Hat bumps up a bit. And VMware dropped about four percentage points in large telco. Accenture moved up dramatically, about nine percentage points in big telco, large telco relative to all telco. HPE dropped a couple of percentage points. Oracle stayed about the same. And IBM surprisingly dropped by about five points. So look, I understand not a ton of change in terms of spending momentum in the large sector versus telco overall, but some deltas. The bottom line for enterprise players is one, they're just getting started in this new disruption journey that they're on as the stack disaggregates. Two, all these players have experience in delivering horizontal solutions, but now working with partners and identifying big problems to be solved, and three, many of these companies are generally not the fastest moving firms relative to smaller disruptive disruptors. Now, cloud has been an exception in fairness. But the good news for the legacy infrastructure and IT companies is that the telco transformation and the 5G buildout is going to take years. So it's moving at a pace that is very favorable to many of these companies. Okay, so looking at just some of the pre-announcement highlights that have hit the wire this week, I want to give you a glimpse of the diversity of innovation that is occurring in the telecommunication space. You got semiconductor manufacturers, device makers, network equipment players, carriers, cloud vendors, enterprise tech companies, software companies, startups. Now we've included, you'll see in this list, we've included OpeRAN, that logo, because there's so much buzz around the topic and we're going to come back to that. But suffice it to say, there's no way we can cover all the announcements from the 2000 plus exhibitors at the show. So we're going to cherry pick here and make a few call outs. Hewlett Packard Enterprise announced an acquisition of an Italian private cellular network company called AthoNet. Zeus Kerravala wrote about it on SiliconANGLE if you want more details. Now interestingly, HPE has a partnership with Solana, which also does private 5G. But according to Zeus, Solona is more of an out-of-the-box solution, whereas AthoNet is designed for the core and requires more integration. And as you'll see in a moment, there's going to be a lot of talk at the show about private network. There's going to be a lot of news there from other competitors, and we're going to be watching that closely. And while many are concerned about the P5G, private 5G, encroaching on wifi, Kerravala doesn't see it that way. Rather, he feels that these private networks are really designed for more industrial, and you know mission critical environments, like factories, and warehouses that are run by robots, et cetera. 'Cause these can justify the increased expense of private networks. Whereas wifi remains a very low cost and flexible option for, you know, whatever offices and homes. Now, over to Dell. Dell announced its intent to go hard after opening up the telco network with the announcement that in the second half of this year it's going to begin shipping its infrastructure blocks for Red Hat. Remember it's like kind of the converged infrastructure for telco with a more open ecosystem and sort of more flexible, you know, more mature engineered system. Dell has also announced a range of PowerEdge servers for a variety of use cases. A big wide line bringing forth its 16G portfolio and aiming squarely at the telco space. Dell also announced, here we go, a private wireless offering with airspan, and Expedo, and a solution with AthoNet, the company HPE announced it was purchasing. So I guess Dell and HPE are now partnering up in the private wireless space, and yes, hell is freezing over folks. We'll see where that relationship goes in the mid- to long-term. Dell also announced new lab and certification capabilities, which we said last week was going to be critical for the further adoption of open ecosystem technology. So props to Dell for, you know, putting real emphasis and investment in that. AWS also made a number of announcements in this space including private wireless solutions and associated managed services. AWS named Deutsche Telekom, Orange, T-Mobile, Telefonica, and some others as partners. And AWS announced the stepped up partnership, specifically with T-Mobile, to bring AWS services to T-Mobile's network portfolio. Snowflake, back to Snowflake, announced its telecom data cloud. Remember we showed the data earlier, it's Snowflake not as strong in the telco sector, but they're continuing to move toward this go-to market alignment within key industries, realigning their go-to market by vertical. It also announced that AT&T, and a number of other partners, are collaborating to break down data silos specifically in telco. Look, essentially, this is Snowflake taking its core value prop to the telco vertical and forming key partnerships that resonate in the space. So think simplification, breaking down silos, data sharing, eventually data monetization. Samsung previewed its future capability to allow smartphones to access satellite services, something Apple has previously done. AMD, Intel, Marvell, Qualcomm, are all in the act, all the semiconductor players. Qualcomm for example, announced along with Telefonica, and Erickson, a 5G millimeter network that will be showcased in Spain at the event this coming week using Qualcomm Snapdragon chipset platform, based on none other than Arm technology. Of course, Arm we said is going to dominate the edge, and is is clearly doing so. It's got the volume advantage over, you know, traditional Intel, you know, X86 architectures. And it's no surprise that Microsoft is touting its open AI relationship. You're going to hear a lot of AI talk at this conference as is AI is now, you know, is the now topic. All right, we could go on and on and on. There's just so much going on at Mobile World Congress or MWC, that we just wanted to give you a glimpse of some of the highlights that we've been watching. Which brings us to the key topics and issues that we'll be exploring at MWC next week. We touched on some of this last week. A big topic of conversation will of course be, you know, 5G. Is it ever going to become real? Is it, is anybody ever going to make money at 5G? There's so much excitement around and anticipation around 5G. It has not lived up to the hype, but that's because the rollout, as we've previous reported, is going to take years. And part of that rollout is going to rely on the disaggregation of the hardened telco stack, as we reported last week and in previous Breaking Analysis episodes. OpenRAN is a big component of that evolution. You know, as our RAN intelligent controllers, RICs, which essentially the brain of OpenRAN, if you will. Now as we build out 5G networks at massive scale and accommodate unprecedented volumes of data and apply compute-hungry AI to all this data, the issue of energy efficiency is going to be front and center. It has to be. Not only is it a, you know, hot political issue, the reality is that improving power efficiency is compulsory or the whole vision of telco's future is going to come crashing down. So chip manufacturers, equipment makers, cloud providers, everybody is going to be doubling down and clicking on this topic. Let's talk about AI. AI as we said, it is the hot topic right now, but it is happening not only in consumer, with things like ChatGPT. And think about the theme of this Breaking Analysis in the enterprise, AI in the enterprise cannot be ChatGPT. It cannot be error prone the way ChatGPT is. It has to be clean, reliable, governed, accurate. It's got to be ethical. It's got to be trusted. Okay, we're going to have Zeus Kerravala on the show next week and definitely want to get his take on private networks and how they're going to impact wifi. You know, will private networks cannibalize wifi? If not, why not? He wrote about this again on SiliconANGLE if you want more details, and we're going to unpack that on theCUBE this week. And finally, as always we'll be following the data flows to understand where and how telcos, cloud players, startups, software companies, disruptors, legacy companies, end customers, how are they going to make money from new data opportunities? 'Cause we often say in theCUBE, don't ever bet against data. All right, that's a wrap for today. Remember theCUBE is going to be on location at MWC 2023 next week. We got a great set. We're in the walkway in between halls four and five, right in Congress Square, stand CS-60. Look for us, we got a full schedule. If you got a great story or you have news, stop by. We're going to try to get you on the program. I'll be there with Lisa Martin, co-hosting, David Nicholson as well, and the entire CUBE crew, so don't forget to come by and see us. I want to thank Alex Myerson, who's on production and manages the podcast, and Ken Schiffman, as well, in our Boston studio. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor-in-chief over at SiliconANGLE.com. He does some great editing. Thank you. All right, remember all these episodes they are available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcasts. I publish each week on Wikibon.com and SiliconANGLE.com. All the video content is available on demand at theCUBE.net, or you can email me directly if you want to get in touch David.Vellante@SiliconANGLE.com or DM me @DVellante, or comment on our LinkedIn posts. And please do check out ETR.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next week at Mobile World Congress '23, MWC '23, or next time on Breaking Analysis. (bright music)

>> From the Cube Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from The Cube and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> The world's leading telcos are trying to shed the stigma of being monopolies lacking innovation. Telcos have been great at operational efficiency and connectivity and living off of transmission, and the costs and expenses or revenue associated with that transmission. But in a world beyond telephone poles and basic wireless and mobile services, how will telcos modernize and become more agile and monetize new opportunities brought about by 5G and private wireless and a spate of new innovations and infrastructure, cloud data and apps? Hello, and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis and ahead of Mobile World Congress or now, MWC23, we explore the evolution of the telco business and how the industry is in many ways, mimicking transformations that took place decades ago in enterprise IT. We'll model some of the traditional enterprise vendors using ETR data and investigate how they're faring in the telecommunications sector, and we'll pose some of the key issues facing the industry this decade. First, let's take a look at what the GSMA has in store for MWC23. GSMA is the host of what used to be called Mobile World Congress. They've set the theme for this year's event as "Velocity" and they've rebranded MWC to reflect the fact that mobile technology is only one part of the story. MWC has become one of the world's premier events highlighting innovations not only in Telco, mobile and 5G, but the collision between cloud, infrastructure, apps, private networks, smart industries, machine intelligence, and AI, and more. MWC comprises an enormous ecosystem of service providers, technology companies, and firms from virtually every industry including sports and entertainment. And as well, GSMA, along with its venue partner at the Fira Barcelona, have placed a major emphasis on sustainability and public and private partnerships. Virtually every industry will be represented at the event because every industry is impacted by the trends and opportunities in this space. GSMA has said it expects 80,000 attendees at MWC this year, not quite back to 2019 levels, but trending in that direction. Of course, attendance from Chinese participants has historically been very high at the show, and obviously the continued travel issues from that region are affecting the overall attendance, but still very strong. And despite these concerns, Huawei, the giant Chinese technology company. has the largest physical presence of any exhibitor at the show. And finally, GSMA estimates that more than $300 million in economic benefit will result from the event which takes place at the end of February and early March. And The Cube will be back at MWC this year with a major presence thanks to our anchor sponsor, Dell Technologies and other supporters of our content program, including Enterprise Web, ArcaOS, VMware, Snowflake, Cisco, AWS, and others. And one of the areas we're interested in exploring is the evolution of the telco stack. It's a topic that's often talked about and one that we've observed taking place in the 1990s when the vertically integrated IBM mainframe monopoly gave way to a disintegrated and horizontal industry structure. And in many ways, the same thing is happening today in telecommunications, which is shown on the left-hand side of this diagram. Historically, telcos have relied on a hardened, integrated, and incredibly reliable, and secure set of hardware and software services that have been fully vetted and tested, and certified, and relied upon for decades. And at the top of that stack on the left are the crown jewels of the telco stack, the operational support systems and the business support systems. For the OSS, we're talking about things like network management, network operations, service delivery, quality of service, fulfillment assurance, and things like that. For the BSS systems, these refer to customer-facing elements of the stack, like revenue, order management, what products they sell, billing, and customer service. And what we're seeing is telcos have been really good at operational efficiency and making money off of transport and connectivity, but they've lacked the innovation in services and applications. They own the pipes and that works well, but others, be the over-the-top content companies, or private network providers and increasingly, cloud providers have been able to bypass the telcos, reach around them, if you will, and drive innovation. And so, the right-most diagram speaks to the need to disaggregate pieces of the stack. And while the similarities to the 1990s in enterprise IT are greater than the differences, there are things that are different. For example, the granularity of hardware infrastructure will not likely be as high where competition occurred back in the 90s at every layer of the value chain with very little infrastructure integration. That of course changed in the 2010s with converged infrastructure and hyper-converged and also software defined. So, that's one difference. And the advent of cloud, containers, microservices, and AI, none of that was really a major factor in the disintegration of legacy IT. And that probably means that disruptors can move even faster than did the likes of Intel and Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, and the Seagates of the 1990s. As well, while many of the products and services will come from traditional enterprise IT names like Dell, HPE, Cisco, Red Hat, VMware, AWS, Microsoft, Google, et cetera, many of the names are going to be different and come from traditional network equipment providers. These are names like Ericsson and Huawei, and Nokia, and other names, like Wind River, and Rakuten, and Dish Networks. And there are enormous opportunities in data to help telecom companies and their competitors go beyond telemetry data into more advanced analytics and data monetization. There's also going to be an entirely new set of apps based on the workloads and use cases ranging from hospitals, sports arenas, race tracks, shipping ports, you name it. Virtually every vertical will participate in this transformation as the industry evolves its focus toward innovation, agility, and open ecosystems. Now remember, this is not a binary state. There are going to be greenfield companies disrupting the apple cart, but the incumbent telcos are going to have to continue to ensure newer systems work with their legacy infrastructure, in their OSS and BSS existing systems. And as we know, this is not going to be an overnight task. Integration is a difficult thing, transformations, migrations. So that's what makes this all so interesting because others can come in with Greenfield and potentially disrupt. There'll be interesting partnerships and ecosystems will form and coalitions will also form. Now, we mentioned that several traditional enterprise companies are or will be playing in this space. Now, ETR doesn't have a ton of data on specific telecom equipment and software providers, but it does have some interesting data that we cut for this breaking analysis. What we're showing here in this graphic is some of the names that we've followed over the years and how they're faring. Specifically, we did the cut within the telco sector. So the Y-axis here shows net score or spending velocity. And the horizontal axis, that shows the presence or pervasiveness in the data set. And that table insert in the upper left, that informs as to how the dots are plotted. You know, the two columns there, net score and the ends. And that red-dotted line, that horizontal line at 40%, that is an indicator of a highly elevated level. Anything above that, we consider quite outstanding. And what we'll do now is we'll comment on some of the cohorts and share with you how they're doing in telecommunications, and that sector, that vertical relative to their position overall in the data set. Let's start with the public cloud players. They're prominent in every industry. Telcos, telecommunications is no exception and it's quite an interesting cohort here. On the one hand, they can help telecommunication firms modernize and become more agile by eliminating the heavy lifting and you know, all the cloud, you know, value prop, data center costs, and the cloud benefits. At the same time, public cloud players are bringing their services to the edge, building out their own global networks and are a disruptive force to traditional telcos. All right, let's talk about Azure first. Their net score is basically identical to telco relative to its overall average. AWS's net score is higher in telco by just a few percentage points. Google Cloud platform is eight percentage points higher in telco with a 53% net score. So all three hyperscalers have an equal or stronger presence in telco than their average overall. Okay, let's look at the traditional enterprise hardware and software infrastructure cohort. Dell, Cisco, HPE, Red Hat, VMware, and Oracle. We've highlighted in this chart just as sort of indicators or proxies. Dell's net score's 10 percentage points higher in telco than its overall average. Interesting. Cisco's is a bit higher. HPE's is actually lower by about nine percentage points in the ETR survey, and VMware's is lower by about four percentage points. Now, Red Hat is really interesting. OpenStack, as we've previously reported is popular with telcos who want to build out their own private cloud. And the data shows that Red Hat OpenStack's net score is 15 percentage points higher in the telco sector than its overall average. OpenShift, on the other hand, has a net score that's four percentage points lower in telco than its overall average. So this to us talks to the pace of adoption of microservices and containers. You know, it's going to happen, but it's going to happen more slowly. Finally, Oracle's spending momentum is somewhat lower in the sector than its average, despite the firm having a decent telco business. IBM and Accenture, heavy services companies are both lower in this sector than their average. And real quickly, snowflake's net score is much lower by about 12 percentage points relative to its very high average net score of 62%. But we look for them to be a player in this space as telcos need to modernize their analytics stack and share data in a governed manner. Databricks' net score is also much lower than its average by about 13 points. And same, I would expect them to be a player as open architectures and cloud gains steam in telco. All right, let's close out now on what we're going to be talking about at MWC23 and some of the key issues that we'll be unpacking. We've talked about stack disaggregation in this breaking analysis, but the key here will be the pace at which it will reach the operational efficiency and reliability of closed stacks. Telcos, you know, in a large part, they're engineering heavy firms and much of their work takes place, kind of in the basement, in the dark. It's not really a big public hype machine, and they tend to move slowly and cautiously. While they understand the importance of agility, they're going to be careful because, you know, it's in their DNA. And so at the same time, if they don't move fast enough, they're going to get hurt and disrupted by competitors. So that's going to be a topic of conversation, and we'll be looking for proof points. And the other comment I'll make is around integration. Telcos because of their conservatism will benefit from better testing and those firms that can innovate on the testing front and have labs and certifications and innovate at that level, with an ecosystem are going to be in a better position. Because open sometimes means wild west. So the more players like Dell, HPE, Cisco, Red Hat, et cetera, that do that and align with their ecosystems and provide those resources, the faster adoption is going to go. So we'll be looking for, you know, who's actually doing that, Open RAN or Radio Access Networks. That fits in this discussion because O-RAN is an emerging network architecture. It essentially enables the use of open technologies from an ecosystem and over time, look at O-RAN is going to be open, but the questions, you know, a lot of questions remain as to when it will be able to deliver the operational efficiency of traditional RAN. Got some interesting dynamics going on. Rakuten is a company that's working hard on this problem, really focusing on operational efficiency. Then you got Dish Networks. They're also embracing O-RAN. They're coming at it more from service innovation. So that's something that we'll be monitoring and unpacking. We're going to look at cloud as a disruptor. On the one hand, cloud can help drive agility, as we said earlier and optionality, and innovation for incumbent telcos. But the flip side is going to also do the same for startups trying to disrupt and cloud attracts startups. While some of the telcos are actually embracing the cloud, many are being cautious. So that's going to be an interesting topic of discussion. And there's private wireless networks and 5G, and hyperlocal private networks, they're being deployed, you know, at the edge. This idea of open edge is also a really hot topic and this trend is going to accelerate. You know, the importance here is that the use cases are going to be widely varied. The needs of a hospital are going to be different than those of a sports venue are different from a remote drilling location, and energy or a concert venue. Things like real-time AI inference and data flows are going to bring new services and monetization opportunities. And many firms are going to be bypassing traditional telecommunications networks to build these out. Satellites as well, we're going to see, you know, in this decade, you're going to have, you're going to look down at Google Earth and you're going to see real-time. You know, today you see snapshots and so, lots of innovations going in that space. So how is this going to disrupt industries and traditional industry structures? Now, as always, we'll be looking at data angles, right? 'Cause it's in The Cube's DNA to follow the data and what opportunities and risks data brings. The Cube is going to be on location at MWC23 at the end of the month. We got a great set. We're in the walkway between halls four and five, right in Congress Square, it's booths CS60. So we'll have a full, they're called Stan CS60. We have a full schedule. I'm going to be there with Lisa Martin, Dave Nicholson and the entire Cube crew, so don't forget to stop by. All right, that's a wrap. I want to thank Alex Myerson, who's on production and manages the podcast, Ken Schiffman as well. Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor-in-chief over at Silicon Angle, does some great stuff for us. Thank you all. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcasts. Wherever you listen, just search "Breaking Analysis" podcasts I publish each week on wikibon.com and silicon angle.com. And all the video content is available on demand at thecube.net. You can email me directly at david.vellante@silicon angle.com. You can DM me at dvellante or comment on my LinkedIn post. Please do check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for The Cube Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching and we'll see you at Mobile World Congress, and/or at next time on "Breaking Analysis." (bright music) (bright music fades)

>> From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Confidential computing is a technology that aims to enhance data privacy and security by providing encrypted computation on sensitive data and isolating data from apps in a fenced off enclave during processing. The concept of confidential computing is gaining popularity, especially in the cloud computing space where sensitive data is often stored and of course processed. However, there are some who view confidential computing as an unnecessary technology in a marketing ploy by cloud providers aimed at calming customers who are cloud phobic. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we revisit the notion of confidential computing, and to do so, we'll invite two Google experts to the show, but before we get there, let's summarize briefly. There's not a ton of ETR data on the topic of confidential computing. I mean, it's a technology that's deeply embedded into silicon and computing architectures. But at the highest level, security remains the number one priority being addressed by IT decision makers in the coming year as shown here. And this data is pretty much across the board by industry, by region, by size of company. I mean we dug into it and the only slight deviation from the mean is in financial services. The second and third most cited priorities, cloud migration and analytics, are noticeably closer to cybersecurity in financial services than in other sectors, likely because financial services has always been hyper security conscious, but security is still a clear number one priority in that sector. The idea behind confidential computing is to better address threat models for data in execution. Protecting data at rest and data and transit have long been a focus of security approaches, but more recently, silicon manufacturers have introduced architectures that separate data and applications from the host system. Arm, Intel, AMD, Nvidia and other suppliers are all on board, as are the big cloud players. Now the argument against confidential computing is that it narrowly focuses on memory encryption and it doesn't solve the biggest problems in security. Multiple system images updates different services and the entire code flow aren't directly addressed by memory encryption, rather to truly attack these problems, many believe that OSs need to be re-engineered with the attacker and hacker in mind. There are so many variables and at the end of the day, critics say the emphasis on confidential computing made by cloud providers is overstated and largely hype. This tweet from security researcher Rodrigo Branco sums up the sentiment of many skeptics. He says, "Confidential computing is mostly a marketing campaign for memory encryption. It's not driving the industry towards the hard open problems. It is selling an illusion." Okay. Nonetheless, encrypting data in use and fencing off key components of the system isn't a bad thing, especially if it comes with the package essentially for free. There has been a lack of standardization and interoperability between different confidential computing approaches. But the confidential computing consortium was established in 2019 ostensibly to accelerate the market and influence standards. Notably, AWS is not part of the consortium, likely because the politics of the consortium were probably a conundrum for AWS because the base technology defined by the the consortium is seen as limiting by AWS. This is my guess, not AWS's words, and but I think joining the consortium would validate a definition which AWS isn't aligned with. And two, it's got a lead with this Annapurna acquisition. This was way ahead with Arm integration and so it probably doesn't feel the need to validate its competitors. Anyway, one of the premier members of the confidential computing consortium is Google, along with many high profile names including Arm, Intel, Meta, Red Hat, Microsoft, and others. And we're pleased to welcome two experts on confidential computing from Google to unpack the topic, Nelly Porter is head of product for GCP confidential computing and encryption, and Dr. Patricia Florissi is the technical director for the office of the CTO at Google Cloud. Welcome Nelly and Patricia, great to have you. >> Great to be here. >> Thank you so much for having us. >> You're very welcome. Nelly, why don't you start and then Patricia, you can weigh in. Just tell the audience a little bit about each of your roles at Google Cloud. >> So I'll start, I'm owning a lot of interesting activities in Google and again security or infrastructure securities that I usually own. And we are talking about encryption and when encryption and confidential computing is a part of portfolio in additional areas that I contribute together with my team to Google and our customers is secure software supply chain. Because you need to trust your software. Is it operate in your confidential environment to have end-to-end story about if you believe that your software and your environment doing what you expect, it's my role. >> Got it. Okay. Patricia? >> Well, I am a technical director in the office of the CTO, OCTO for short, in Google Cloud. And we are a global team. We include former CTOs like myself and senior technologists from large corporations, institutions and a lot of success, we're startups as well. And we have two main goals. First, we walk side by side with some of our largest, more strategic or most strategical customers and we help them solve complex engineering technical problems. And second, we are devise Google and Google Cloud engineering and product management and tech on there, on emerging trends and technologies to guide the trajectory of our business. We are unique group, I think, because we have created this collaborative culture with our customers. And within OCTO, I spend a lot of time collaborating with customers and the industry at large on technologies that can address privacy, security, and sovereignty of data in general. >> Excellent. Thank you for that both of you. Let's get into it. So Nelly, what is confidential computing? From Google's perspective, how do you define it? >> Confidential computing is a tool and it's still one of the tools in our toolbox. And confidential computing is a way how we would help our customers to complete this very interesting end-to-end lifecycle of the data. And when customers bring in the data to cloud and want to protect it as they ingest it to the cloud, they protect it at rest when they store data in the cloud. But what was missing for many, many years is ability for us to continue protecting data and workloads of our customers when they running them. And again, because data is not brought to cloud to have huge graveyard, we need to ensure that this data is actually indexed. Again, there is some insights driven and drawn from this data. You have to process this data and confidential computing here to help. Now we have end to end protection of our customer's data when they bring the workloads and data to cloud, thanks to confidential computing. >> Thank you for that. Okay, we're going to get into the architecture a bit, but before we do, Patricia, why do you think this topic of confidential computing is such an important technology? Can you explain, do you think it's transformative for customers and if so, why? >> Yeah, I would maybe like to use one thought, one way, one intuition behind why confidential commuting matters, because at the end of the day, it reduces more and more the customer's thresh boundaries and the attack surface. That's about reducing that periphery, the boundary in which the customer needs to mind about trust and safety. And in a way, is a natural progression that you're using encryption to secure and protect the data. In the same way that we are encrypting data in transit and at rest, now we are also encrypting data while in use. And among other beneficials, I would say one of the most transformative ones is that organizations will be able to collaborate with each other and retain the confidentiality of the data. And that is across industry, even though it's highly focused on, I wouldn't say highly focused, but very beneficial for highly regulated industries. It applies to all of industries. And if you look at financing for example, where bankers are trying to detect fraud, and specifically double finance where you are, a customer is actually trying to get a finance on an asset, let's say a boat or a house, and then it goes to another bank and gets another finance on that asset. Now bankers would be able to collaborate and detect fraud while preserving confidentiality and privacy of the data. >> Interesting. And I want to understand that a little bit more but I'm going to push you a little bit on this, Nelly, if I can because there's a narrative out there that says confidential computing is a marketing ploy, I talked about this upfront, by cloud providers that are just trying to placate people that are scared of the cloud. And I'm presuming you don't agree with that, but I'd like you to weigh in here. The argument is confidential computing is just memory encryption and it doesn't address many other problems. It is over hyped by cloud providers. What do you say to that line of thinking? >> I absolutely disagree, as you can imagine, with this statement, but the most importantly is we mixing multiple concepts, I guess. And exactly as Patricia said, we need to look at the end-to-end story, not again the mechanism how confidential computing trying to again, execute and protect a customer's data and why it's so critically important because what confidential computing was able to do, it's in addition to isolate our tenants in multi-tenant environments the cloud covering to offer additional stronger isolation. They called it cryptographic isolation. It's why customers will have more trust to customers and to other customers, the tenant that's running on the same host but also us because they don't need to worry about against threats and more malicious attempts to penetrate the environment. So what confidential computing is helping us to offer our customers, stronger isolation between tenants in this multi-tenant environment, but also incredibly important, stronger isolation of our customers, so tenants from us. We also writing code, we also software providers will also make mistakes or have some zero days. Sometimes again us introduced, sometimes introduced by our adversaries. But what I'm trying to say by creating this cryptographic layer of isolation between us and our tenants and amongst those tenants, we're really providing meaningful security to our customers and eliminate some of the worries that they have running on multi-tenant spaces or even collaborating to gather this very sensitive data knowing that this particular protection is available to them. >> Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. And I think malicious code is often a threat model missed in these narratives. Operator access, yeah, maybe I trust my clouds provider, but if I can fence off your access even better, I'll sleep better at night. Separating a code from the data, everybody's, Arm, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, others, they're all doing it. I wonder if, Nelly, if we could stay with you and bring up the slide on the architecture. What's architecturally different with confidential computing versus how operating systems and VMs have worked traditionally. We're showing a slide here with some VMs, maybe you could take us through that. >> Absolutely. And Dave, the whole idea for Google and now industry way of dealing with confidential computing is to ensure that three main property is actually preserved. Customers don't need to change the code. They can operate on those VMs exactly as they would with normal non-confidential VMs, but to give them this opportunity of lift and shift or no changing their apps and performing and having very, very, very low latency and scale as any cloud can, something that Google actually pioneer in confidential computing. I think we need to open and explain how this magic was actually done. And as I said, it's again the whole entire system have to change to be able to provide this magic. And I would start with we have this concept of root of trust and root of trust where we will ensure that this machine, when the whole entire post has integrity guarantee, means nobody changing my code on the most low level of system. And we introduce this in 2017 called Titan. It was our specific ASIC, specific, again, inch by inch system on every single motherboard that we have that ensures that your low level former, your actually system code, your kernel, the most powerful system is actually proper configured and not changed, not tampered. We do it for everybody, confidential computing included. But for confidential computing, what we have to change, we bring in AMD, or again, future silicon vendors and we have to trust their former, their way to deal with our confidential environments. And that's why we have obligation to validate integrity, not only our software and our former but also former and software of our vendors, silicon vendors. So we actually, when we booting this machine, as you can see, we validate that integrity of all of the system is in place. It means nobody touching, nobody changing, nobody modifying it. But then we have this concept of AMD secure processor, it's special ASICs, best specific things that generate a key for every single VM that our customers will run or every single node in Kubernetes or every single worker thread in our Hadoop or Spark capability. We offer all of that. And those keys are not available to us. It's the best keys ever in encryption space because when we are talking about encryption, the first question that I'm receiving all the time, where's the key, who will have access to the key? Because if you have access to the key then it doesn't matter if you encrypted or not. So, but the case in confidential computing provides so revolutionary technology, us cloud providers, who don't have access to the keys. They sitting in the hardware and they head to memory controller. And it means when hypervisors that also know about these wonderful things saying I need to get access to the memories that this particular VM trying to get access to, they do not decrypt the data, they don't have access to the key because those keys are random, ephemeral and per VM, but the most importantly, in hardware not exportable. And it means now you would be able to have this very interesting role that customers or cloud providers will not be able to get access to your memory. And what we do, again, as you can see our customers don't need to change their applications, their VMs are running exactly as it should run and what you're running in VM, you actually see your memory in clear, it's not encrypted, but God forbid is trying somebody to do it outside of my confidential box. No, no, no, no, no, they would not be able to do it. Now you'll see cyber and it's exactly what combination of these multiple hardware pieces and software pieces have to do. So OS is also modified. And OS is modified such way to provide integrity. It means even OS that you're running in your VM box is not modifiable and you, as customer, can verify. But the most interesting thing, I guess, how to ensure the super performance of this environment because you can imagine, Dave, that encrypting and it's additional performance, additional time, additional latency. So we were able to mitigate all of that by providing incredibly interesting capability in the OS itself. So our customers will get no changes needed, fantastic performance and scales as they would expect from cloud providers like Google. >> Okay, thank you. Excellent. Appreciate that explanation. So, again, the narrative on this as well, you've already given me guarantees as a cloud provider that you don't have access to my data, but this gives another level of assurance, key management as they say is key. Now humans aren't managing the keys, the machines are managing them. So Patricia, my question to you is, in addition to, let's go pre confidential computing days, what are the sort of new guarantees that these hardware-based technologies are going to provide to customers? >> So if I am a customer, I am saying I now have full guarantee of confidentiality and integrity of the data and of the code. So if you look at code and data confidentiality, the customer cares and they want to know whether their systems are protected from outside or unauthorized access, and that recovered with Nelly, that it is. Confidential computing actually ensures that the applications and data internals remain secret, right? The code is actually looking at the data, the only the memory is decrypting the data with a key that is ephemeral and per VM and generated on demand. Then you have the second point where you have code and data integrity, and now customers want to know whether their data was corrupted, tampered with or impacted by outside actors. And what confidential computing ensures is that application internals are not tampered with. So the application, the workload as we call it, that is processing the data, it's also, it has not been tampered and preserves integrity. I would also say that this is all verifiable. So you have attestation and these attestation actually generates a log trail and the log trail guarantees that, provides a proof that it was preserved. And I think that the offer's also a guarantee of what we call ceiling, this idea that the secrets have been preserved and not tampered with, confidentiality and integrity of code and data. >> Got it. Okay, thank you. Nelly, you mentioned, I think I heard you say that the applications, it's transparent, you don't have to change the application, it just comes for free essentially. And we showed some various parts of the stack before. I'm curious as to what's affected, but really more importantly, what is specifically Google's value add? How do partners participate in this, the ecosystem, or maybe said another way, how does Google ensure the compatibility of confidential computing with existing systems and applications? >> And a fantastic question by the way. And it's very difficult and definitely complicated world because to be able to provide these guarantees, actually a lot of work was done by community. Google is very much operate in open, so again, our operating system, we working with operating system repository OSs, OS vendors to ensure that all capabilities that we need is part of the kernels, are part of the releases and it's available for customers to understand and even explore if they have fun to explore a lot of code. We have also modified together with our silicon vendors a kernel, host kernel to support this capability and it means working this community to ensure that all of those patches are there. We also worked with every single silicon vendor as you've seen, and that's what I probably feel that Google contributed quite a bit in this whole, we moved our industry, our community, our vendors to understand the value of easy to use confidential computing or removing barriers. And now I don't know if you noticed, Intel is pulling the lead and also announcing their trusted domain extension, very similar architecture. And no surprise, it's, again, a lot of work done with our partners to, again, convince, work with them and make this capability available. The same with Arm this year, actually last year, Arm announced their future design for confidential computing. It's called Confidential Computing Architecture. And it's also influenced very heavily with similar ideas by Google and industry overall. So it's a lot of work in confidential computing consortiums that we are doing, for example, simply to mention, to ensure interop, as you mentioned, between different confidential environments of cloud providers. They want to ensure that they can attest to each other because when you're communicating with different environments, you need to trust them. And if it's running on different cloud providers, you need to ensure that you can trust your receiver when you are sharing your sensitive data workloads or secret with them. So we coming as a community and we have this attestation sig, the, again, the community based systems that we want to build and influence and work with Arm and every other cloud providers to ensure that we can interrupt and it means it doesn't matter where confidential workloads will be hosted, but they can exchange the data in secure, verifiable and controlled by customers way. And to do it, we need to continue what we are doing, working open, again, and contribute with our ideas and ideas of our partners to this role to become what we see confidential computing has to become, it has to become utility. It doesn't need to be so special, but it's what we want it to become. >> Let's talk about, thank you for that explanation. Let's talk about data sovereignty because when you think about data sharing, you think about data sharing across the ecosystem and different regions and then of course data sovereignty comes up. Typically public policy lags, the technology industry and sometimes is problematic. I know there's a lot of discussions about exceptions, but Patricia, we have a graphic on data sovereignty. I'm interested in how confidential computing ensures that data sovereignty and privacy edicts are adhered to, even if they're out of alignment maybe with the pace of technology. One of the frequent examples is when you delete data, can you actually prove that data is deleted with a hundred percent certainty? You got to prove that and a lot of other issues. So looking at this slide, maybe you could take us through your thinking on data sovereignty. >> Perfect. So for us, data sovereignty is only one of the three pillars of digital sovereignty. And I don't want to give the impression that confidential computing addresses it all. That's why we want to step back and say, hey, digital sovereignty includes data sovereignty where we are giving you full control and ownership of the location, encryption and access to your data. Operational sovereignty where the goal is to give our Google Cloud customers full visibility and control over the provider operations, right? So if there are any updates on hardware, software stack, any operations, there is full transparency, full visibility. And then the third pillar is around software sovereignty where the customer wants to ensure that they can run their workloads without dependency on the provider's software. So they have sometimes is often referred as survivability, that you can actually survive if you are untethered to the cloud and that you can use open source. Now let's take a deep dive on data sovereignty, which by the way is one of my favorite topics. And we typically focus on saying, hey, we need to care about data residency. We care where the data resides because where the data is at rest or in processing, it typically abides to the jurisdiction, the regulations of the jurisdiction where the data resides. And others say, hey, let's focus on data protection. We want to ensure the confidentiality and integrity and availability of the data, which confidential computing is at the heart of that data protection. But it is yet another element that people typically don't talk about when talking about data sovereignty, which is the element of user control. And here, Dave, is about what happens to the data when I give you access to my data. And this reminds me of security two decades ago, even a decade ago, where we started the security movement by putting firewall protections and login accesses. But once you were in, you were able to do everything you wanted with the data. An insider had access to all the infrastructure, the data and the code. And that's similar because with data sovereignty we care about whether it resides, where, who is operating on the data. But the moment that the data is being processed, I need to trust that the processing of the data will abide by user control, by the policies that I put in place of how my data is going to be used. And if you look at a lot of the regulation today and a lot of the initiatives around the International Data Space Association, IDSA, and Gaia-X, there is a movement of saying the two parties, the provider of the data and the receiver of the data are going to agree on a contract that describes what my data can be used for. The challenge is to ensure that once the data crosses boundaries, that the data will be used for the purposes that it was intended and specified in the contract. And if you actually bring together, and this is the exciting part, confidential computing together with policy enforcement, now the policy enforcement can guarantee that the data is only processed within the confines of a confidential computing environment, that the workload is cryptographically verified that there is the workload that was meant to process the data and that the data will be only used when abiding to the confidentiality and integrity safety of the confidential computing environment. And that's why we believe confidential computing is one necessary and essential technology that will allow us to ensure data sovereignty, especially when it comes to user control. >> Thank you for that. I mean it was a deep dive, I mean brief, but really detailed. So I appreciate that, especially the verification of the enforcement. Last question, I met you two because as part of my year end prediction post, you guys sent in some predictions and I wasn't able to get to them in the predictions post. So I'm thrilled that you were able to make the time to come on the program. How widespread do you think the adoption of confidential computing will be in 23 and what's the maturity curve look like, this decade in your opinion? Maybe each of you could give us a brief answer. >> So my prediction in five, seven years, as I started, it'll become utility. It'll become TLS as of, again, 10 years ago we couldn't believe that websites will have certificates and we will support encrypted traffic. Now we do and it's become ubiquity. It's exactly where confidential computing is getting and heading, I don't know we deserve yet. It'll take a few years of maturity for us, but we will be there. >> Thank you. And Patricia, what's your prediction? >> I will double that and say, hey, in the future, in the very near future, you will not be able to afford not having it. I believe as digital sovereignty becomes evermore top of mind with sovereign states and also for multi national organizations and for organizations that want to collaborate with each other, confidential computing will become the norm. It'll become the default, if I say, mode of operation. I like to compare that today is inconceivable. If we talk to the young technologists, it's inconceivable to think that at some point in history, and I happen to be alive that we had data at rest that was not encrypted, data in transit that was not encrypted, and I think that will be inconceivable at some point in the near future that to have unencrypted data while in use. >> And plus I think the beauty of the this industry is because there's so much competition, this essentially comes for free. I want to thank you both for spending some time on Breaking Analysis. There's so much more we could cover. I hope you'll come back to share the progress that you're making in this area and we can double click on some of these topics. Really appreciate your time. >> Anytime. >> Thank you so much. >> In summary, while confidential computing is being touted by the cloud players as a promising technology for enhancing data privacy and security, there are also those, as we said, who remain skeptical. The truth probably lies somewhere in between and it will depend on the specific implementation and the use case as to how effective confidential computing will be. Look, as with any new tech, it's important to carefully evaluate the potential benefits, the drawbacks, and make informed decisions based on the specific requirements in the situation and the constraints of each individual customer. But the bottom line is silicon manufacturers are working with cloud providers and other system companies to include confidential computing into their architectures. Competition, in our view, will moderate price hikes. And at the end of the day, this is under the covers technology that essentially will come for free. So we'll take it. I want to thank our guests today, Nelly and Patricia from Google, and thanks to Alex Myerson who's on production and manages the podcast. Ken Schiffman as well out of our Boston studio, Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our editor-in-chief over at siliconangle.com. Does some great editing for us, thank you all. Remember all these episodes are available as podcasts. Wherever you listen, just search Breaking Analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com where you can get all the news. If you want to get in touch, you can email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or dm me @DVellante. And you can also comment on my LinkedIn post. Definitely you want to check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. I know we didn't hit on a lot today, but there's some amazing data and it's always being updated, so check that out. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Confidential computing is a technology that aims to enhance data privacy and security, by providing encrypted computation on sensitive data and isolating data, and apps that are fenced off enclave during processing. The concept of, I got to start over. I fucked that up, I'm sorry. That's not right, what I said was not right. On Dave in five, four, three. Confidential computing is a technology that aims to enhance data privacy and security by providing encrypted computation on sensitive data, isolating data from apps and a fenced off enclave during processing. The concept of confidential computing is gaining popularity, especially in the cloud computing space, where sensitive data is often stored and of course processed. However, there are some who view confidential computing as an unnecessary technology in a marketing ploy by cloud providers aimed at calming customers who are cloud phobic. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we revisit the notion of confidential computing, and to do so, we'll invite two Google experts to the show. But before we get there, let's summarize briefly. There's not a ton of ETR data on the topic of confidential computing, I mean, it's a technology that's deeply embedded into silicon and computing architectures. But at the highest level, security remains the number one priority being addressed by IT decision makers in the coming year as shown here. And this data is pretty much across the board by industry, by region, by size of company. I mean we dug into it and the only slight deviation from the mean is in financial services. The second and third most cited priorities, cloud migration and analytics are noticeably closer to cybersecurity in financial services than in other sectors, likely because financial services has always been hyper security conscious, but security is still a clear number one priority in that sector. The idea behind confidential computing is to better address threat models for data in execution. Protecting data at rest and data in transit have long been a focus of security approaches, but more recently, silicon manufacturers have introduced architectures that separate data and applications from the host system, ARM, Intel, AMD, Nvidia and other suppliers are all on board, as are the big cloud players. Now, the argument against confidential computing is that it narrowly focuses on memory encryption and it doesn't solve the biggest problems in security. Multiple system images, updates, different services and the entire code flow aren't directly addressed by memory encryption. Rather to truly attack these problems, many believe that OSs need to be re-engineered with the attacker and hacker in mind. There are so many variables and at the end of the day, critics say the emphasis on confidential computing made by cloud providers is overstated and largely hype. This tweet from security researcher Rodrigo Bronco, sums up the sentiment of many skeptics. He says, "Confidential computing is mostly a marketing campaign from memory encryption. It's not driving the industry towards the hard open problems. It is selling an illusion." Okay. Nonetheless, encrypting data in use and fencing off key components of the system isn't a bad thing, especially if it comes with the package essentially for free. There has been a lack of standardization and interoperability between different confidential computing approaches. But the confidential computing consortium was established in 2019 ostensibly to accelerate the market and influence standards. Notably, AWS is not part of the consortium, likely because the politics of the consortium were probably a conundrum for AWS because the base technology defined by the consortium is seen as limiting by AWS. This is my guess, not AWS' words. But I think joining the consortium would validate a definition which AWS isn't aligned with. And two, it's got to lead with this Annapurna acquisition. It was way ahead with ARM integration, and so it's probably doesn't feel the need to validate its competitors. Anyway, one of the premier members of the confidential computing consortium is Google, along with many high profile names, including Aem, Intel, Meta, Red Hat, Microsoft, and others. And we're pleased to welcome two experts on confidential computing from Google to unpack the topic. Nelly Porter is Head of Product for GCP Confidential Computing and Encryption and Dr. Patricia Florissi is the Technical Director for the Office of the CTO at Google Cloud. Welcome Nelly and Patricia, great to have you. >> Great to be here. >> Thank you so much for having us. >> You're very welcome. Nelly, why don't you start and then Patricia, you can weigh in. Just tell the audience a little bit about each of your roles at Google Cloud. >> So I'll start, I'm owning a lot of interesting activities in Google and again, security or infrastructure securities that I usually own. And we are talking about encryption, end-to-end encryption, and confidential computing is a part of portfolio. Additional areas that I contribute to get with my team to Google and our customers is secure software supply chain because you need to trust your software. Is it operate in your confidential environment to have end-to-end security, about if you believe that your software and your environment doing what you expect, it's my role. >> Got it. Okay, Patricia? >> Well, I am a Technical Director in the Office of the CTO, OCTO for short in Google Cloud. And we are a global team, we include former CTOs like myself and senior technologies from large corporations, institutions and a lot of success for startups as well. And we have two main goals, first, we walk side by side with some of our largest, more strategic or most strategical customers and we help them solve complex engineering technical problems. And second, we advice Google and Google Cloud Engineering, product management on emerging trends and technologies to guide the trajectory of our business. We are unique group, I think, because we have created this collaborative culture with our customers. And within OCTO I spend a lot of time collaborating with customers in the industry at large on technologies that can address privacy, security, and sovereignty of data in general. >> Excellent. Thank you for that both of you. Let's get into it. So Nelly, what is confidential computing from Google's perspective? How do you define it? >> Confidential computing is a tool and one of the tools in our toolbox. And confidential computing is a way how we would help our customers to complete this very interesting end-to-end lifecycle of the data. And when customers bring in the data to cloud and want to protect it as they ingest it to the cloud, they protect it at rest when they store data in the cloud. But what was missing for many, many years is ability for us to continue protecting data and workloads of our customers when they run them. And again, because data is not brought to cloud to have huge graveyard, we need to ensure that this data is actually indexed. Again, there is some insights driven and drawn from this data. You have to process this data and confidential computing here to help. Now we have end-to-end protection of our customer's data when they bring the workloads and data to cloud thanks to confidential computing. >> Thank you for that. Okay, we're going to get into the architecture a bit, but before we do Patricia, why do you think this topic of confidential computing is such an important technology? Can you explain? Do you think it's transformative for customers and if so, why? >> Yeah, I would maybe like to use one thought, one way, one intuition behind why confidential computing matters because at the end of the day, it reduces more and more the customer's thrush boundaries and the attack surface. That's about reducing that periphery, the boundary in which the customer needs to mind about trust and safety. And in a way is a natural progression that you're using encryption to secure and protect data in the same way that we are encrypting data in transit and at rest. Now, we are also encrypting data while in the use. And among other beneficials, I would say one of the most transformative ones is that organizations will be able to collaborate with each other and retain the confidentiality of the data. And that is across industry, even though it's highly focused on, I wouldn't say highly focused but very beneficial for highly regulated industries, it applies to all of industries. And if you look at financing for example, where bankers are trying to detect fraud and specifically double finance where a customer is actually trying to get a finance on an asset, let's say a boat or a house, and then it goes to another bank and gets another finance on that asset. Now bankers would be able to collaborate and detect fraud while preserving confidentiality and privacy of the data. >> Interesting and I want to understand that a little bit more but I got to push you a little bit on this, Nellie if I can, because there's a narrative out there that says confidential computing is a marketing ploy I talked about this up front, by cloud providers that are just trying to placate people that are scared of the cloud. And I'm presuming you don't agree with that, but I'd like you to weigh in here. The argument is confidential computing is just memory encryption, it doesn't address many other problems. It is over hyped by cloud providers. What do you say to that line of thinking? >> I absolutely disagree as you can imagine Dave, with this statement. But the most importantly is we mixing a multiple concepts I guess, and exactly as Patricia said, we need to look at the end-to-end story, not again, is a mechanism. How confidential computing trying to execute and protect customer's data and why it's so critically important. Because what confidential computing was able to do, it's in addition to isolate our tenants in multi-tenant environments the cloud offering to offer additional stronger isolation, they called it cryptographic isolation. It's why customers will have more trust to customers and to other customers, the tenants running on the same host but also us because they don't need to worry about against rats and more malicious attempts to penetrate the environment. So what confidential computing is helping us to offer our customers stronger isolation between tenants in this multi-tenant environment, but also incredibly important, stronger isolation of our customers to tenants from us. We also writing code, we also software providers, we also make mistakes or have some zero days. Sometimes again us introduce, sometimes introduced by our adversaries. But what I'm trying to say by creating this cryptographic layer of isolation between us and our tenants and among those tenants, we really providing meaningful security to our customers and eliminate some of the worries that they have running on multi-tenant spaces or even collaborating together with very sensitive data knowing that this particular protection is available to them. >> Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. And I think malicious code is often a threat model missed in these narratives. You know, operator access. Yeah, maybe I trust my cloud's provider, but if I can fence off your access even better, I'll sleep better at night separating a code from the data. Everybody's ARM, Intel, AMD, Nvidia and others, they're all doing it. I wonder if Nell, if we could stay with you and bring up the slide on the architecture. What's architecturally different with confidential computing versus how operating systems and VMs have worked traditionally? We're showing a slide here with some VMs, maybe you could take us through that. >> Absolutely, and Dave, the whole idea for Google and now industry way of dealing with confidential computing is to ensure that three main property is actually preserved. Customers don't need to change the code. They can operate in those VMs exactly as they would with normal non-confidential VMs. But to give them this opportunity of lift and shift though, no changing the apps and performing and having very, very, very low latency and scale as any cloud can, some things that Google actually pioneer in confidential computing. I think we need to open and explain how this magic was actually done, and as I said, it's again the whole entire system have to change to be able to provide this magic. And I would start with we have this concept of root of trust and root of trust where we will ensure that this machine within the whole entire host has integrity guarantee, means nobody changing my code on the most low level of system, and we introduce this in 2017 called Titan. So our specific ASIC, specific inch by inch system on every single motherboard that we have that ensures that your low level former, your actually system code, your kernel, the most powerful system is actually proper configured and not changed, not tempered. We do it for everybody, confidential computing included, but for confidential computing is what we have to change, we bring in AMD or future silicon vendors and we have to trust their former, their way to deal with our confidential environments. And that's why we have obligation to validate intelligent not only our software and our former but also former and software of our vendors, silicon vendors. So we actually, when we booting this machine as you can see, we validate that integrity of all of this system is in place. It means nobody touching, nobody changing, nobody modifying it. But then we have this concept of AMD Secure Processor, it's special ASIC best specific things that generate a key for every single VM that our customers will run or every single node in Kubernetes or every single worker thread in our Hadoop spark capability. We offer all of that and those keys are not available to us. It's the best case ever in encryption space because when we are talking about encryption, the first question that I'm receiving all the time, "Where's the key? Who will have access to the key?" because if you have access to the key then it doesn't matter if you encrypted or not. So, but the case in confidential computing why it's so revolutionary technology, us cloud providers who don't have access to the keys, they're sitting in the hardware and they fed to memory controller. And it means when hypervisors that also know about this wonderful things saying I need to get access to the memories, that this particular VM I'm trying to get access to. They do not decrypt the data, they don't have access to the key because those keys are random, ephemeral and per VM, but most importantly in hardware not exportable. And it means now you will be able to have this very interesting world that customers or cloud providers will not be able to get access to your memory. And what we do, again as you can see, our customers don't need to change their applications. Their VMs are running exactly as it should run. And what you've running in VM, you actually see your memory clear, it's not encrypted. But God forbid is trying somebody to do it outside of my confidential box, no, no, no, no, no, you will now be able to do it. Now, you'll see cyber test and it's exactly what combination of these multiple hardware pieces and software pieces have to do. So OS is also modified and OS is modified such way to provide integrity. It means even OS that you're running in your VM box is not modifiable and you as customer can verify. But the most interesting thing I guess how to ensure the super performance of this environment because you can imagine Dave, that's increasing and it's additional performance, additional time, additional latency. So we're able to mitigate all of that by providing incredibly interesting capability in the OS itself. So our customers will get no changes needed, fantastic performance and scales as they would expect from cloud providers like Google. >> Okay, thank you. Excellent, appreciate that explanation. So you know again, the narrative on this is, well, you've already given me guarantees as a cloud provider that you don't have access to my data, but this gives another level of assurance, key management as they say is key. Now humans aren't managing the keys, the machines are managing them. So Patricia, my question to you is in addition to, let's go pre-confidential computing days, what are the sort of new guarantees that these hardware based technologies are going to provide to customers? >> So if I am a customer, I am saying I now have full guarantee of confidentiality and integrity of the data and of the code. So if you look at code and data confidentiality, the customer cares and they want to know whether their systems are protected from outside or unauthorized access, and that we covered with Nelly that it is. Confidential computing actually ensures that the applications and data antennas remain secret. The code is actually looking at the data, only the memory is decrypting the data with a key that is ephemeral, and per VM, and generated on demand. Then you have the second point where you have code and data integrity and now customers want to know whether their data was corrupted, tempered with or impacted by outside actors. And what confidential computing ensures is that application internals are not tempered with. So the application, the workload as we call it, that is processing the data is also has not been tempered and preserves integrity. I would also say that this is all verifiable, so you have attestation and this attestation actually generates a log trail and the log trail guarantees that provides a proof that it was preserved. And I think that the offers also a guarantee of what we call sealing, this idea that the secrets have been preserved and not tempered with, confidentiality and integrity of code and data. >> Got it. Okay, thank you. Nelly, you mentioned, I think I heard you say that the applications is transparent, you don't have to change the application, it just comes for free essentially. And we showed some various parts of the stack before, I'm curious as to what's affected, but really more importantly, what is specifically Google's value add? How do partners participate in this, the ecosystem or maybe said another way, how does Google ensure the compatibility of confidential computing with existing systems and applications? >> And a fantastic question by the way, and it's very difficult and definitely complicated world because to be able to provide these guarantees, actually a lot of work was done by community. Google is very much operate and open. So again our operating system, we working this operating system repository OS is OS vendors to ensure that all capabilities that we need is part of the kernels are part of the releases and it's available for customers to understand and even explore if they have fun to explore a lot of code. We have also modified together with our silicon vendors kernel, host kernel to support this capability and it means working this community to ensure that all of those pages are there. We also worked with every single silicon vendor as you've seen, and it's what I probably feel that Google contributed quite a bit in this world. We moved our industry, our community, our vendors to understand the value of easy to use confidential computing or removing barriers. And now I don't know if you noticed Intel is following the lead and also announcing a trusted domain extension, very similar architecture and no surprise, it's a lot of work done with our partners to convince work with them and make this capability available. The same with ARM this year, actually last year, ARM announced future design for confidential computing, it's called confidential computing architecture. And it's also influenced very heavily with similar ideas by Google and industry overall. So it's a lot of work in confidential computing consortiums that we are doing, for example, simply to mention, to ensure interop as you mentioned, between different confidential environments of cloud providers. They want to ensure that they can attest to each other because when you're communicating with different environments, you need to trust them. And if it's running on different cloud providers, you need to ensure that you can trust your receiver when you sharing your sensitive data workloads or secret with them. So we coming as a community and we have this at Station Sig, the community-based systems that we want to build, and influence, and work with ARM and every other cloud providers to ensure that they can interop. And it means it doesn't matter where confidential workloads will be hosted, but they can exchange the data in secure, verifiable and controlled by customers really. And to do it, we need to continue what we are doing, working open and contribute with our ideas and ideas of our partners to this role to become what we see confidential computing has to become, it has to become utility. It doesn't need to be so special, but it's what what we've wanted to become. >> Let's talk about, thank you for that explanation. Let's talk about data sovereignty because when you think about data sharing, you think about data sharing across the ecosystem in different regions and then of course data sovereignty comes up, typically public policy, lags, the technology industry and sometimes it's problematic. I know there's a lot of discussions about exceptions but Patricia, we have a graphic on data sovereignty. I'm interested in how confidential computing ensures that data sovereignty and privacy edicts are adhered to, even if they're out of alignment maybe with the pace of technology. One of the frequent examples is when you delete data, can you actually prove the data is deleted with a hundred percent certainty, you got to prove that and a lot of other issues. So looking at this slide, maybe you could take us through your thinking on data sovereignty. >> Perfect. So for us, data sovereignty is only one of the three pillars of digital sovereignty. And I don't want to give the impression that confidential computing addresses it at all, that's why we want to step back and say, hey, digital sovereignty includes data sovereignty where we are giving you full control and ownership of the location, encryption and access to your data. Operational sovereignty where the goal is to give our Google Cloud customers full visibility and control over the provider operations, right? So if there are any updates on hardware, software stack, any operations, there is full transparency, full visibility. And then the third pillar is around software sovereignty, where the customer wants to ensure that they can run their workloads without dependency on the provider's software. So they have sometimes is often referred as survivability that you can actually survive if you are untethered to the cloud and that you can use open source. Now, let's take a deep dive on data sovereignty, which by the way is one of my favorite topics. And we typically focus on saying, hey, we need to care about data residency. We care where the data resides because where the data is at rest or in processing need to typically abides to the jurisdiction, the regulations of the jurisdiction where the data resides. And others say, hey, let's focus on data protection, we want to ensure the confidentiality, and integrity, and availability of the data, which confidential computing is at the heart of that data protection. But it is yet another element that people typically don't talk about when talking about data sovereignty, which is the element of user control. And here Dave, is about what happens to the data when I give you access to my data, and this reminds me of security two decades ago, even a decade ago, where we started the security movement by putting firewall protections and logging accesses. But once you were in, you were able to do everything you wanted with the data. An insider had access to all the infrastructure, the data, and the code. And that's similar because with data sovereignty, we care about whether it resides, who is operating on the data, but the moment that the data is being processed, I need to trust that the processing of the data we abide by user's control, by the policies that I put in place of how my data is going to be used. And if you look at a lot of the regulation today and a lot of the initiatives around the International Data Space Association, IDSA and Gaia-X, there is a movement of saying the two parties, the provider of the data and the receiver of the data going to agree on a contract that describes what my data can be used for. The challenge is to ensure that once the data crosses boundaries, that the data will be used for the purposes that it was intended and specified in the contract. And if you actually bring together, and this is the exciting part, confidential computing together with policy enforcement. Now, the policy enforcement can guarantee that the data is only processed within the confines of a confidential computing environment, that the workload is in cryptographically verified that there is the workload that was meant to process the data and that the data will be only used when abiding to the confidentiality and integrity safety of the confidential computing environment. And that's why we believe confidential computing is one necessary and essential technology that will allow us to ensure data sovereignty, especially when it comes to user's control. >> Thank you for that. I mean it was a deep dive, I mean brief, but really detailed. So I appreciate that, especially the verification of the enforcement. Last question, I met you two because as part of my year-end prediction post, you guys sent in some predictions and I wasn't able to get to them in the predictions post, so I'm thrilled that you were able to make the time to come on the program. How widespread do you think the adoption of confidential computing will be in '23 and what's the maturity curve look like this decade in your opinion? Maybe each of you could give us a brief answer. >> So my prediction in five, seven years as I started, it will become utility, it will become TLS. As of freakin' 10 years ago, we couldn't believe that websites will have certificates and we will support encrypted traffic. Now we do, and it's become ubiquity. It's exactly where our confidential computing is heeding and heading, I don't know we deserve yet. It'll take a few years of maturity for us, but we'll do that. >> Thank you. And Patricia, what's your prediction? >> I would double that and say, hey, in the very near future, you will not be able to afford not having it. I believe as digital sovereignty becomes ever more top of mind with sovereign states and also for multinational organizations, and for organizations that want to collaborate with each other, confidential computing will become the norm, it will become the default, if I say mode of operation. I like to compare that today is inconceivable if we talk to the young technologists, it's inconceivable to think that at some point in history and I happen to be alive, that we had data at rest that was non-encrypted, data in transit that was not encrypted. And I think that we'll be inconceivable at some point in the near future that to have unencrypted data while we use. >> You know, and plus I think the beauty of the this industry is because there's so much competition, this essentially comes for free. I want to thank you both for spending some time on Breaking Analysis, there's so much more we could cover. I hope you'll come back to share the progress that you're making in this area and we can double click on some of these topics. Really appreciate your time. >> Anytime. >> Thank you so much, yeah. >> In summary, while confidential computing is being touted by the cloud players as a promising technology for enhancing data privacy and security, there are also those as we said, who remain skeptical. The truth probably lies somewhere in between and it will depend on the specific implementation and the use case as to how effective confidential computing will be. Look as with any new tech, it's important to carefully evaluate the potential benefits, the drawbacks, and make informed decisions based on the specific requirements in the situation and the constraints of each individual customer. But the bottom line is silicon manufacturers are working with cloud providers and other system companies to include confidential computing into their architectures. Competition in our view will moderate price hikes and at the end of the day, this is under-the-covers technology that essentially will come for free, so we'll take it. I want to thank our guests today, Nelly and Patricia from Google. And thanks to Alex Myerson who's on production and manages the podcast. Ken Schiffman as well out of our Boston studio. Kristin Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters, and Rob Hoof is our editor-in-chief over at siliconangle.com, does some great editing for us. Thank you all. Remember all these episodes are available as podcasts. Wherever you listen, just search Breaking Analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com where you can get all the news. If you want to get in touch, you can email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me at D Vellante, and you can also comment on my LinkedIn post. Definitely you want to check out etr.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. I know we didn't hit on a lot today, but there's some amazing data and it's always being updated, so check that out. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (subtle music)

>> From the Cube Studios in Palo Alto in Boston bringing you data-driven insights from the Cube and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> The unraveling of market enthusiasm continued in Q4 of 2022 with the earnings reports from the US hyperscalers, the big three now all in. As we said earlier this year, even the cloud is an immune from the macro headwinds and the cracks in the armor that we saw from the data that we shared last summer, they're playing out into 2023. For the most part actuals are disappointing beyond expectations including our own. It turns out that our estimates for the big three hyperscaler's revenue missed by 1.2 billion or 2.7% lower than we had forecast from even our most recent November estimates. And we expect continued decelerating growth rates for the hyperscalers through the summer of 2023 and we don't think that's going to abate until comparisons get easier. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we share our view of what's happening in cloud markets not just for the hyperscalers but other firms that have hitched a ride on the cloud. And we'll share new ETR data that shows why these trends are playing out tactics that customers are employing to deal with their cost challenges and how long the pain is likely to last. You know, riding the cloud wave, it's a two-edged sword. Let's look at the players that have gone all in on or are exposed to both the positive and negative trends of cloud. Look the cloud has been a huge tailwind for so many companies like Snowflake and Databricks, Workday, Salesforce, Mongo's move with Atlas, Red Hats Cloud strategy with OpenShift and so forth. And you know, the flip side is because cloud is elastic what comes up can also go down very easily. Here's an XY graphic from ETR that shows spending momentum or net score on the vertical axis and market presence in the dataset on the horizontal axis provision or called overlap. This is data from the January 2023 survey and that the red dotted lines show the positions of several companies that we've highlighted going back to January 2021. So let's unpack this for a bit starting with the big three hyperscalers. The first point is AWS and Azure continue to solidify their moat relative to Google Cloud platform. And we're going to get into this in a moment, but Azure and AWS revenues are five to six times that of GCP for IaaS. And at those deltas, Google should be gaining ground much faster than the big two. The second point on Google is notice the red line on GCP relative to its starting point. While it appears to be gaining ground on the horizontal axis, its net score is now below that of AWS and Azure in the survey. So despite its significantly smaller size it's just not keeping pace with the leaders in terms of market momentum. Now looking at AWS and Microsoft, what we see is basically AWS is holding serve. As we know both Google and Microsoft benefit from including SaaS in their cloud numbers. So the fact that AWS hasn't seen a huge downward momentum relative to a January 2021 position is one positive in the data. And both companies are well above that magic 40% line on the Y-axis, anything above 40% we consider to be highly elevated. But the fact remains that they're down as are most of the names on this chart. So let's take a closer look. I want to start with Snowflake and Databricks. Snowflake, as we reported from several quarters back came down to Earth, it was up in the 80% range in the Y-axis here. And it's still highly elevated in the 60% range and it continues to move to the right, which is positive but as we'll address in a moment it's customers can dial down consumption just as in any cloud. Now, Databricks is really interesting. It's not a public company, it never made it to IPO during the sort of tech bubble. So we don't have the same level of transparency that we do with other companies that did make it through. But look at how much more prominent it is on the X-axis relative to January 2021. And it's net score is basically held up over that period of time. So that's a real positive for Databricks. Next, look at Workday and Salesforce. They've held up relatively well, both inching to the right and generally holding their net scores. Same from Mongo, which is the brown dot above its name that says Elastic, it says a little gets a little crowded which Elastic's actually the blue dot above it. But generally, SaaS is harder to dial down, Workday, Salesforce, Oracles, SaaS and others. So it's harder to dial down because commitments have been made in advance, they're kind of locked in. Now, one of the discussions from last summer was as Mongo, less discretionary than analytics i.e. Snowflake. And it's an interesting debate but maybe Snowflake customers, you know, they're also generally committed to a dollar amount. So over time the spending is going to be there. But in the short term, yeah maybe Snowflake customers can dial down. Now that highlighted dotted red line, that bolded one is Datadog and you can see it's made major strides on the X-axis but its net score has decelerated quite dramatically. Openshift's momentum in the survey has dropped although IBM just announced that OpenShift has a a billion dollar ARR and I suspect what's happening there is IBM consulting is bundling OpenShift into its modernization projects. It's got a, that sort of captive base if you will. And as such it's probably not as top of mind to the respondents but I'll bet you the developers are certainly aware of it. Now the other really notable call out here is CloudFlare, We've reported on them earlier. Cloudflare's net score has held up really well since January of 2021. It really hasn't seen the downdraft of some of these others, but it's making major major moves to the right gaining market presence. We really like how CloudFlare is performing. And the last comment is on Oracle which as you can see, despite its much, much lower net score continues to gain ground in the market and thrive from a profitability standpoint. But the data pretty clearly shows that there's a downdraft in the market. Okay, so what's happening here? Let's dig deeper into this data. Here's a graphic from the most recent ETR drill down asking customers that said they were going to cut spending what technique they're using to do so. Now, as we've previously reported, consolidating redundant vendors is by far the most cited approach but there's two key points we want to make here. One is reducing excess cloud resources. As you can see in the bars is the second most cited technique and it's up from the previous polling period. The second we're not showing, you know directly but we've got some red call outs there. Reducing cloud costs jumps to 29% and 28% respectively in financial services and tech telco. And it's much closer to second. It's basically neck and neck with consolidating redundant vendors in those two industries. So they're being really aggressive about optimizing cloud cost. Okay, so as we said, cloud is great 'cause you can dial it up but it's just as easy to dial down. We've identified six factors that customers tell us are affecting their cloud consumption and there are probably more, if you got more we'd love to hear them but these are the ones that are fairly prominent that have hit our radar. First, rising mortgage rates mean banks are processing fewer loans means less cloud. The crypto crash means less trading activity and that means less cloud resources. Third lower ad spend has led companies to reduce not only you know, their ad buying but also their frequency of running their analytics and their calculations. And they're also often using less data, maybe compressing the timeframe of the corpus down to a shorter time period. Also very prominent is down to the bottom left, using lower cost compute instances. For example, Graviton from AWS or AMD chips and tiering storage to cheaper S3 or deep archived tiers. And finally, optimizing based on better pricing plans. So customers are moving from, you know, smaller companies in particular moving maybe from on demand or other larger companies that are experimenting using on demand or they're moving to spot pricing or reserved instances or optimized savings plans. That all lowers cost and that means less cloud resource consumption and less cloud revenue. Now in the days when everything was on prem CFOs, what would they do? They would freeze CapEx and IT Pros would have to try to do more with less and often that meant a lot of manual tasks. With the cloud it's much easier to move things around. It still takes some thinking and some effort but it's dramatically simpler to do so. So you can get those savings a lot faster. Now of course the other huge factor is you can cut or you can freeze. And this graphic shows data from a recent ETR survey with 159 respondents and you can see the meaningful uptick in hiring freezes, freezing new IT deployments and layoffs. And as we've been reporting, this has been trending up since earlier last year. And note the call out, this is especially prominent in retail sectors, all three of these techniques jump up in retail and that's a bit of a concern because oftentimes consumer spending helps the economy make a softer landing out of a pullback. But this is a potential canary in the coal mine. If retail firms are pulling back it's because consumers aren't spending as much. And so we're keeping a close eye on that. So let's boil this down to the market data and what this all means. So in this graphic we show our estimates for Q4 IaaS revenues compared to the "actual" IaaS revenues. And we say quote because AWS is the only one that reports, you know clean revenue and IaaS, Azure and GCP don't report actuals. Why would they? Because it would make them look even, you know smaller relative to AWS. Rather, they bury the figures in overall cloud which includes their, you know G-Suite for Google and all the Microsoft SaaS. And then they give us little tidbits about in Microsoft's case, Azure, they give growth rates. Google gives kind of relative growth of GCP. So, and we use survey data and you know, other data to try to really pinpoint and we've been covering this for, I don't know, five or six years ever since the cloud really became a thing. But looking at the data, we had AWS growing at 25% this quarter and it came in at 20%. So a significant decline relative to our expectations. AWS announced that it exited December, actually, sorry it's January data showed about a 15% mid-teens growth rate. So that's, you know, something we're watching. Azure was two points off our forecast coming in at 38% growth. It said it exited December in the 35% growth range and it said that it's expecting five points of deceleration off of that. So think 30% for Azure. GCP came in three points off our expectation coming in 35% and Alibaba has yet to report but we've shaved a bid off that forecast based on some survey data and you know what maybe 9% is even still not enough. Now for the year, the big four hyperscalers generated almost 160 billion of revenue, but that was 7 billion lower than what what we expected coming into 2022. For 2023, we're expecting 21% growth for a total of 193.3 billion. And while it's, you know, lower, you know, significantly lower than historical expectations it's still four to five times the overall spending forecast that we just shared with you in our predictions post of between 4 and 5% for the overall market. We think AWS is going to come in in around 93 billion this year with Azure closing in at over 71 billion. This is, again, we're talking IaaS here. Now, despite Amazon focusing investors on the fact that AWS's absolute dollar growth is still larger than its competitors. By our estimates Azure will come in at more than 75% of AWS's forecasted revenue. That's a significant milestone. AWS is operating margins by the way declined significantly this past quarter, dropping from 30% of revenue to 24%, 30% the year earlier to 24%. Now that's still extremely healthy and we've seen wild fluctuations like this before so I don't get too freaked out about that. But I'll say this, Microsoft has a marginal cost advantage relative to AWS because one, it has a captive cloud on which to run its massive software estate. So it can just throw software at its own cloud and two software marginal costs. Marginal economics despite AWS's awesomeness in high degrees of automation, software is just a better business. Now the upshot for AWS is the ecosystem. AWS is essentially in our view positioning very smartly as a platform for data partners like Snowflake and Databricks, security partners like CrowdStrike and Okta and Palo Alto and many others and SaaS companies. You know, Microsoft is more competitive even though AWS does have competitive products. Now of course Amazon's competitive to retail companies so that's another factor but generally speaking for tech players, Amazon is a really thriving ecosystem that is a secret weapon in our view. AWS happy to spin the meter with its partners even though it sells competitive products, you know, more so in our view than other cloud players. Microsoft, of course is, don't forget is hyping now, we're hearing a lot OpenAI and ChatGPT we reported last week in our predictions post. How OpenAI is shot up in terms of market sentiment in ETR's emerging technology company surveys and people are moving to Azure to get OpenAI and get ChatGPT that is a an interesting lever. Amazon in our view has to have a response. They have lots of AI and they're going to have to make some moves there. Meanwhile, Google is emphasizing itself as an AI first company. In fact, Google spent at least five minutes of continuous dialogue, nonstop on its AI chops during its latest earnings call. So that's an area that we're watching very closely as the buzz around large language models continues. All right, let's wrap up with some assumptions for 2023. We think SaaS players are going to continue to be sticky. They're going to be somewhat insulated from all these downdrafts because they're so tied in and customers, you know they make the commitment up front, you've got the lock in. Now having said that, we do expect some backlash over time on the onerous and generally customer unfriendly pricing models of most large SaaS companies. But that's going to play out over a longer period of time. Now for cloud generally and the hyperscalers specifically we do expect accelerating growth rates into Q3 but the amplitude of the demand swings from this rubber band economy, we expect to continue to compress and become more predictable throughout the year. Estimates are coming down, CEOs we think are going to be more cautious when the market snaps back more cautious about hiring and spending and as such a perhaps we expect a more orderly return to growth which we think will slightly accelerate in Q4 as comps get easier. Now of course the big risk to these scenarios is of course the economy, the FED, consumer spending, inflation, supply chain, energy prices, wars, geopolitics, China relations, you know, all the usual stuff. But as always with our partners at ETR and the Cube community, we're here for you. We have the data and we'll be the first to report when we see a change at the margin. Okay, that's a wrap for today. I want to thank Alex Morrison who's on production and manages the podcast, Ken Schiffman as well out of our Boston studio getting this up on LinkedIn Live. Thank you for that. Kristen Martin also and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hof is our Editor-in-Chief over at siliconangle.com. He does some great editing for us. Thank you all. Remember all these episodes are available as podcast. Wherever you listen, just search Breaking Analysis podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com, at siliconangle.com where you can see all the data and you want to get in touch. Just all you can do is email me david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me @dvellante if you if you got something interesting, I'll respond. If you don't, it's either 'cause I'm swamped or it's just not tickling me. You can comment on our LinkedIn post as well. And please check out ETR.ai for the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for the Cube Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching and we'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (gentle upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> Hey everyone and welcome to theCUBE's coverage day one of CloudNativeSecurityCon '23. Lisa Martin here with John Furrier and Dave Vellante. Dave and John, great to have you guys on the program. This is interesting. This is the first inaugural CloudNativeSecurityCon. Formally part of KubeCon, now a separate event here happening in Seattle over the next couple of days. John, I wanted to get your take on, your thoughts on this being a standalone event, the community, the impact. >> Well, this inaugural event, which is great, we love it, we want to cover all inaugural events because you never know, there might not be one next year. So we were here if it happens, we're here at creation. But I think this is a good move for the CNCF and the Linux Foundation as security becomes so important and there's so many issues to resolve that will influence many other things. Developers, machine learning, data as code, supply chain codes. So I think KubeCon, Kubernetes conference and CloudNativeCon, is all about cloud native developers. And it's a huge event and there's so much there. There's containers, there's microservices, all that infrastructure's code, the DevSecOps on that side, there's enough there and it's a huge ecosystem. Pulling it as a separate event is a first move for them. And I think there's a toe in the water kind of vibe here. Testing the waters a little bit on, does this have legs? How is it organized? Looks like they took their time, thought it out extremely well about how to craft it. And so I think this is the beginning of what will probably be a seminal event for the open source community. So let's listen to the clip from Priyanka Sharma who's a CUBE alumni and executive director of the CNCF. This is kind of a teaser- >> We will tackle issues of security together here and further on. We'll share our experiences, successes, perhaps more importantly, failures, and help with the collecting of understanding. We'll create solutions. That's right. The practitioners are leading the way. Having conversations that you need to have. That's all of you. This conference today and tomorrow is packed with 72 sessions for all levels of technologists to reflect the bottoms up, developer first nature of the conference. The co-chairs have selected these sessions and they are true blue practitioners. >> And that's a great clip right there. If you read between the lines, what she's saying there, let's unpack this. Solutions, we're going to fail, we're going to get better. Linux, the culture of iterating. But practitioners, the mention of practitioners, that was very key. Global community, 72 sessions, co-chairs, Liz Rice and experts that are crafting this program. It seems like very similar to what AWS has done with re:Invent as their core show. And then they have re:Inforce which is their cloud native security, Amazon security show. There's enough there, so to me, practitioners, that speaks to the urgency of cloud native security. So to me, I think this is the first move, and again, testing the water. I like the vibe. I think the practitioner angle is relevant. It's very nerdy, so I think this is going to have some legs. >> Yeah, the other key phrase Priyanka mentioned is bottoms up. And John, at our predictions breaking analysis, I asked you to make a prediction about events. And I think you've nailed it. You said, "Look, we're going to have many more events, but they're going to be smaller." Most large events are going to get smaller. AWS is obviously the exception, but a lot of events like this, 500, 700, 1,000 people, that is really targeted. So instead of you take a big giant event and there's events within the event, this is going to be really targeted, really intimate and focused. And that's exactly what this is. I think your prediction nailed it. >> Well, Dave, we'll call to see the event operating system really cohesive events connected together, decoupled, and I think the Linux Foundation does an amazing job of stringing these events together to have community as the focus. And I think the key to these events in the future is having, again, targeted content to distinct user groups in these communities so they can be highly cohesive because they got to be productive. And again, if you try to have a broad, big event, no one's happy. Everyone's underserved. So I think there's an industry concept and then there's pieces tied together. And I think this is going to be a very focused event, but I think it's going to grow very fast. >> 72 sessions, that's a lot of content for this small event that the practitioners are going to have a lot of opportunity to learn from. Do you guys, John, start with you and then Dave, do you think it's about time? You mentioned John, they're dipping their toe in the water. We'll see how this goes. Do you think it's about time that we have this dedicated focus out of this community on cloud native security? >> Well, I think it's definitely time, and I'll tell you there's many reasons why. On the front lines of business, there's a business model for security hackers and breaches. The economics are in favor of the hackers. That's a real reality from ransomware to any kind of breach attacks. There's corporate governance issues that's structural challenges for companies. These are real issues operationally for companies in the enterprise. And at the same time, on the tech stack side, it's been very slow movement, like glaciers in terms of security. Things like DNS, Linux kernel, there are a lot of things in the weeds in the details of the bowels of the tech world, protocol levels that just need to be refactored. And I think you're seeing a lot of that here. It was mentioned from Brian from the Linux Foundation, mentioned Dan Kaminsky who recently passed away who found that vulnerability in BIND which is a DNS construct. That was a critical linchpin. They got to fix these things and Liz Rice is talking about the Linux kernel with the extended Berkeley Packet Filtering thing. And so this is where they're going. This is stuff that needs to be paid attention to because if they don't do it, the train of automation and machine learning is going to run wild with all kinds of automation that the infrastructure just won't be set up for. So I think there's going to be root level changes, and I think ultimately a new security stack will probably be very driven by data will be emerging. So to me, I think this is definitely worth being targeted. And I think you're seeing Amazon doing the same thing. I think this is a playbook out of AWS's event focus and I think that's right. >> Dave, what are you thoughts? >> There was a lot of talk in, again, I go back to the progression here in the last decade about what's the right regime for security? Should the CISO report to the CIO or the board, et cetera, et cetera? We're way beyond that now. I think DevSecOps is being asked to do a lot, particularly DevOps. So we hear a lot about shift left, we're hearing about protecting the runtime and the ops getting much more involved and helping them do their jobs because the cloud itself has brought a lot to the table. It's like the first line of defense, but then you've really got a lot to worry about from a software defined perspective. And it's a complicated situation. Yes, there's less hardware, yes, we can rely on the cloud, but culturally you've got a lot more people that have to work together, have to share data. And you want to remove the blockers, to use an Amazon term. And the way you do that is you really, if we talked about it many times on theCUBE. Do over, you got to really rethink the way in which you approach security and it starts with culture and team. >> Well the thing, I would call it the five C's of security. Culture, you mentioned that's a good C. You got cloud, tons of issues involved in cloud. You've got access issues, identity. you've got clusters, you got Kubernetes clusters. And then you've got containers, the fourth C. And then finally is the code itself, supply chain. So all areas of cloud native, if you take out culture, it's cloud, cluster, container, and code all have levels of security risks and new things in there that need to be addressed. So there's plenty of work to get done for sure. And again, this is developer first, bottoms up, but that's where the change comes in, Dave, from a security standpoint, you always point this out. Bottoms up and then middle out for change. But absolutely, the imperative is today the business impact is real and it's urgent and you got to pedal as fast as you can here, so I think this is going to have legs. We'll see how it goes. >> Really curious to understand the cultural impact that we see being made at this event with the focus on it. John, you mentioned the four C's, five with culture. I often think that culture is probably the leading factor. Without that, without getting those teams aligned, is the rest of it set up to be as successful as possible? I think that's a question that's- >> Well to me, Dave asked Pat Gelsinger in 2014, can security be a do-over at VMWorld when he was the CEO of VMware? He said, "Yes, it has to be." And I think you're seeing that now. And Nick from the co-founder of Palo Alto Networks was quoted on theCUBE by saying, "Zero Trust is some structure to give to security, but cloud allows for the ability to do it over and get some scale going on security." So I think the best people are going to come together in this security world and they're going to work on this. So you're going to start to see more focus around these security events and initiatives. >> So I think that when you go to the, you mentioned re:Inforce a couple times. When you go to re:Inforce, there's a lot of great stuff that Amazon puts forth there. Very positive, it's not that negative. Oh, the world is falling, the sky is falling. And so I like that. However, you don't walk away with an understanding of how they're making the CISOs and the DevOps lives easier once they get beyond the cloud. Of course, it's not Amazon's responsibility. And that's where I think the CNCF really comes in and open source, that's where they pick up. Obviously the cloud's involved, but there's a real opportunity to simplify the lives of the DevSecOps teams and that's what's critical in terms of being able to solve, or at least keep up with this never ending problem. >> Yeah, there's a lot of issues involved. I took some notes here from some of the keynote you heard. Security and education, training and team structure. Detection, incidents that are happening, and how do you respond to that architecture. Identity, isolation, supply chain, and governance and compliance. These are all real things. This is not like hand-waving issues. They're mainstream and they're urgent. Literally the houses are on fire here with the enterprise, so this is going to be very, very important. >> Lisa: That's a great point. >> Some of the other things Priyanka mentioned, exposed edges and nodes. So just when you think we're starting to solve the problem, you got IOT, security's not a one and done task. We've been talking about culture. No person is an island. It's $188 billion business. Cloud native is growing at 27% a year, which just underscores the challenges, and bottom line, practitioners are leading the way. >> Last question for you guys. What are you hoping those practitioners get out of this event, this inaugural event, John? >> Well first of all, I think this inaugural event's going to be for them, but also we at theCUBE are going to be doing a lot more security events. RSA's coming up, we're going to be at re:Inforce, we're obviously going to be covering this event. We've got Black Hat, a variety of other events. We'll probably have our own security events really focused on some key areas. So I think the thing that people are going to walk away from this event is that paying attention to these security events are going to be more than just an industry thing. I think you're going to start to see group gatherings or groups convening virtually and physically around core issues. And I think you're going to start to see a community accelerate around cloud native and open source specifically to help teams get faster and better at what they do. So I think the big walkaway for the customers and the practitioners here is that there's a call to arms happening and this is, again, another signal that it's worth breaking out from the core event, but being tied to it, I think that's a good call and I think it's a well good architecture from a CNCF standpoint and a worthy effort, so I give it a thumbs up. We still don't know what it's going to look like. We'll see what day two looks like, but it seems to be experts, practitioners, deep tech, enabling technologies. These are things that tend to be good things to hear when you're at an event. I'll say the business imperative is obvious. >> The purpose of an event like this, and it aligns with theCUBE's mission, is to educate and inspire business technology pros to action. We do it in theCUBE with free content. Obviously this event is a for-pay event, but they are delivering some real value to the community that they can take back to their organizations to make change. And that's what it's all about. >> Yep, that is what it's all about. I'm looking forward to seeing over as the months unfold, the impact that this event has on the community and the impact the community has on this event going forward, and really the adoption of cloud native security. Guys, great to have you during this keynote analysis. Looking forward to hearing the conversations that we have on theCUBE today. Thanks so much for joining. And for my guests, for my co-hosts, John Furrier and Dave Vellante. I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE's day one coverage of CloudNativeSecurityCon '23. Stick around, we got great content on theCUBE coming up. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music beginning) >> From the Cube Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from the Cube and ETR, this is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> Making predictions about the future of enterprise tech is more challenging if you strive to lay down forecasts that are measurable. In other words, if you make a prediction, you should be able to look back a year later and say, with some degree of certainty, whether the prediction came true or not, with evidence to back that up. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights, powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we aim to do just that, with predictions about the macro IT spending environment, cost optimization, security, lots to talk about there, generative AI, cloud, and of course supercloud, blockchain adoption, data platforms, including commentary on Databricks, snowflake, and other key players, automation, events, and we may even have some bonus predictions around quantum computing, and perhaps some other areas. To make all this happen, we welcome back, for the third year in a row, my colleague and friend Eric Bradley from ETR. Eric, thanks for all you do for the community, and thanks for being part of this program. Again. >> I wouldn't miss it for the world. I always enjoy this one. Dave, good to see you. >> Yeah, so let me bring up this next slide and show you, actually come back to me if you would. I got to show the audience this. These are the inbounds that we got from PR firms starting in October around predictions. They know we do prediction posts. And so they'll send literally thousands and thousands of predictions from hundreds of experts in the industry, technologists, consultants, et cetera. And if you bring up the slide I can show you sort of the pattern that developed here. 40% of these thousands of predictions were from cyber. You had AI and data. If you combine those, it's still not close to cyber. Cost optimization was a big thing. Of course, cloud, some on DevOps, and software. Digital... Digital transformation got, you know, some lip service and SaaS. And then there was other, it's kind of around 2%. So quite remarkable, when you think about the focus on cyber, Eric. >> Yeah, there's two reasons why I think it makes sense, though. One, the cybersecurity companies have a lot of cash, so therefore the PR firms might be working a little bit harder for them than some of their other clients. (laughs) And then secondly, as you know, for multiple years now, when we do our macro survey, we ask, "What's your number one spending priority?" And again, it's security. It just isn't going anywhere. It just stays at the top. So I'm actually not that surprised by that little pie chart there, but I was shocked that SaaS was only 5%. You know, going back 10 years ago, that would've been the only thing anyone was talking about. >> Yeah. So true. All right, let's get into it. First prediction, we always start with kind of tech spending. Number one is tech spending increases between four and 5%. ETR has currently got it at 4.6% coming into 2023. This has been a consistently downward trend all year. We started, you know, much, much higher as we've been reporting. Bottom line is the fed is still in control. They're going to ease up on tightening, is the expectation, they're going to shoot for a soft landing. But you know, my feeling is this slingshot economy is going to continue, and it's going to continue to confound, whether it's supply chains or spending. The, the interesting thing about the ETR data, Eric, and I want you to comment on this, the largest companies are the most aggressive to cut. They're laying off, smaller firms are spending faster. They're actually growing at a much larger, faster rate as are companies in EMEA. And that's a surprise. That's outpacing the US and APAC. Chime in on this, Eric. >> Yeah, I was surprised on all of that. First on the higher level spending, we are definitely seeing it coming down, but the interesting thing here is headlines are making it worse. The huge research shop recently said 0% growth. We're coming in at 4.6%. And just so everyone knows, this is not us guessing, we asked 1,525 IT decision-makers what their budget growth will be, and they came in at 4.6%. Now there's a huge disparity, as you mentioned. The Fortune 500, global 2000, barely at 2% growth, but small, it's at 7%. So we're at a situation right now where the smaller companies are still playing a little bit of catch up on digital transformation, and they're spending money. The largest companies that have the most to lose from a recession are being more trepidatious, obviously. So they're playing a "Wait and see." And I hope we don't talk ourselves into a recession. Certainly the headlines and some of their research shops are helping it along. But another interesting comment here is, you know, energy and utilities used to be called an orphan and widow stock group, right? They are spending more than anyone, more than financials insurance, more than retail consumer. So right now it's being driven by mid, small, and energy and utilities. They're all spending like gangbusters, like nothing's happening. And it's the rest of everyone else that's being very cautious. >> Yeah, so very unpredictable right now. All right, let's go to number two. Cost optimization remains a major theme in 2023. We've been reporting on this. You've, we've shown a chart here. What's the primary method that your organization plans to use? You asked this question of those individuals that cited that they were going to reduce their spend and- >> Mhm. >> consolidating redundant vendors, you know, still leads the way, you know, far behind, cloud optimization is second, but it, but cloud continues to outpace legacy on-prem spending, no doubt. Somebody, it was, the guy's name was Alexander Feiglstorfer from Storyblok, sent in a prediction, said "All in one becomes extinct." Now, generally I would say I disagree with that because, you know, as we know over the years, suites tend to win out over, you know, individual, you know, point products. But I think what's going to happen is all in one is going to remain the norm for these larger companies that are cutting back. They want to consolidate redundant vendors, and the smaller companies are going to stick with that best of breed and be more aggressive and try to compete more effectively. What's your take on that? >> Yeah, I'm seeing much more consolidation in vendors, but also consolidation in functionality. We're seeing people building out new functionality, whether it's, we're going to talk about this later, so I don't want to steal too much of our thunder right now, but data and security also, we're seeing a functionality creep. So I think there's further consolidation happening here. I think niche solutions are going to be less likely, and platform solutions are going to be more likely in a spending environment where you want to reduce your vendors. You want to have one bill to pay, not 10. Another thing on this slide, real quick if I can before I move on, is we had a bunch of people write in and some of the answer options that aren't on this graph but did get cited a lot, unfortunately, is the obvious reduction in staff, hiring freezes, and delaying hardware, were three of the top write-ins. And another one was offshore outsourcing. So in addition to what we're seeing here, there were a lot of write-in options, and I just thought it would be important to state that, but essentially the cost optimization is by and far the highest one, and it's growing. So it's actually increased in our citations over the last year. >> And yeah, specifically consolidating redundant vendors. And so I actually thank you for bringing that other up, 'cause I had asked you, Eric, is there any evidence that repatriation is going on and we don't see it in the numbers, we don't see it even in the other, there was, I think very little or no mention of cloud repatriation, even though it might be happening in this in a smattering. >> Not a single mention, not one single mention. I went through it for you. Yep. Not one write-in. >> All right, let's move on. Number three, security leads M&A in 2023. Now you might say, "Oh, well that's a layup," but let me set this up Eric, because I didn't really do a great job with the slide. I hid the, what you've done, because you basically took, this is from the emerging technology survey with 1,181 responses from November. And what we did is we took Palo Alto and looked at the overlap in Palo Alto Networks accounts with these vendors that were showing on this chart. And Eric, I'm going to ask you to explain why we put a circle around OneTrust, but let me just set it up, and then have you comment on the slide and take, give us more detail. We're seeing private company valuations are off, you know, 10 to 40%. We saw a sneak, do a down round, but pretty good actually only down 12%. We've seen much higher down rounds. Palo Alto Networks we think is going to get busy. Again, they're an inquisitive company, they've been sort of quiet lately, and we think CrowdStrike, Cisco, Microsoft, Zscaler, we're predicting all of those will make some acquisitions and we're thinking that the targets are somewhere in this mess of security taxonomy. Other thing we're predicting AI meets cyber big time in 2023, we're going to probably going to see some acquisitions of those companies that are leaning into AI. We've seen some of that with Palo Alto. And then, you know, your comment to me, Eric, was "The RSA conference is going to be insane, hopping mad, "crazy this April," (Eric laughing) but give us your take on this data, and why the red circle around OneTrust? Take us back to that slide if you would, Alex. >> Sure. There's a few things here. First, let me explain what we're looking at. So because we separate the public companies and the private companies into two separate surveys, this allows us the ability to cross-reference that data. So what we're doing here is in our public survey, the tesis, everyone who cited some spending with Palo Alto, meaning they're a Palo Alto customer, we then cross-reference that with the private tech companies. Who also are they spending with? So what you're seeing here is an overlap. These companies that we have circled are doing the best in Palo Alto's accounts. Now, Palo Alto went and bought Twistlock a few years ago, which this data slide predicted, to be quite honest. And so I don't know if they necessarily are going to go after Snyk. Snyk, sorry. They already have something in that space. What they do need, however, is more on the authentication space. So I'm looking at OneTrust, with a 45% overlap in their overall net sentiment. That is a company that's already existing in their accounts and could be very synergistic to them. BeyondTrust as well, authentication identity. This is something that Palo needs to do to move more down that zero trust path. Now why did I pick Palo first? Because usually they're very inquisitive. They've been a little quiet lately. Secondly, if you look at the backdrop in the markets, the IPO freeze isn't going to last forever. Sooner or later, the IPO markets are going to open up, and some of these private companies are going to tap into public equity. In the meantime, however, cash funding on the private side is drying up. If they need another round, they're not going to get it, and they're certainly not going to get it at the valuations they were getting. So we're seeing valuations maybe come down where they're a touch more attractive, and Palo knows this isn't going to last forever. Cisco knows that, CrowdStrike, Zscaler, all these companies that are trying to make a push to become that vendor that you're consolidating in, around, they have a chance now, they have a window where they need to go make some acquisitions. And that's why I believe leading up to RSA, we're going to see some movement. I think it's going to pretty, a really exciting time in security right now. >> Awesome. Thank you. Great explanation. All right, let's go on the next one. Number four is, it relates to security. Let's stay there. Zero trust moves from hype to reality in 2023. Now again, you might say, "Oh yeah, that's a layup." A lot of these inbounds that we got are very, you know, kind of self-serving, but we always try to put some meat in the bone. So first thing we do is we pull out some commentary from, Eric, your roundtable, your insights roundtable. And we have a CISO from a global hospitality firm says, "For me that's the highest priority." He's talking about zero trust because it's the best ROI, it's the most forward-looking, and it enables a lot of the business transformation activities that we want to do. CISOs tell me that they actually can drive forward transformation projects that have zero trust, and because they can accelerate them, because they don't have to go through the hurdle of, you know, getting, making sure that it's secure. Second comment, zero trust closes that last mile where once you're authenticated, they open up the resource to you in a zero trust way. That's a CISO of a, and a managing director of a cyber risk services enterprise. Your thoughts on this? >> I can be here all day, so I'm going to try to be quick on this one. This is not a fluff piece on this one. There's a couple of other reasons this is happening. One, the board finally gets it. Zero trust at first was just a marketing hype term. Now the board understands it, and that's why CISOs are able to push through it. And what they finally did was redefine what it means. Zero trust simply means moving away from hardware security, moving towards software-defined security, with authentication as its base. The board finally gets that, and now they understand that this is necessary and it's being moved forward. The other reason it's happening now is hybrid work is here to stay. We weren't really sure at first, large companies were still trying to push people back to the office, and it's going to happen. The pendulum will swing back, but hybrid work's not going anywhere. By basically on our own data, we're seeing that 69% of companies expect remote and hybrid to be permanent, with only 30% permanent in office. Zero trust works for a hybrid environment. So all of that is the reason why this is happening right now. And going back to our previous prediction, this is why we're picking Palo, this is why we're picking Zscaler to make these acquisitions. Palo Alto needs to be better on the authentication side, and so does Zscaler. They're both fantastic on zero trust network access, but they need the authentication software defined aspect, and that's why we think this is going to happen. One last thing, in that CISO round table, I also had somebody say, "Listen, Zscaler is incredible. "They're doing incredibly well pervading the enterprise, "but their pricing's getting a little high," and they actually think Palo Alto is well-suited to start taking some of that share, if Palo can make one move. >> Yeah, Palo Alto's consolidation story is very strong. Here's my question and challenge. Do you and me, so I'm always hardcore about, okay, you've got to have evidence. I want to look back at these things a year from now and say, "Did we get it right? Yes or no?" If we got it wrong, we'll tell you we got it wrong. So how are we going to measure this? I'd say a couple things, and you can chime in. One is just the number of vendors talking about it. That's, but the marketing always leads the reality. So the second part of that is we got to get evidence from the buying community. Can you help us with that? >> (laughs) Luckily, that's what I do. I have a data company that asks thousands of IT decision-makers what they're adopting and what they're increasing spend on, as well as what they're decreasing spend on and what they're replacing. So I have snapshots in time over the last 11 years where I can go ahead and compare and contrast whether this adoption is happening or not. So come back to me in 12 months and I'll let you know. >> Now, you know, I will. Okay, let's bring up the next one. Number five, generative AI hits where the Metaverse missed. Of course everybody's talking about ChatGPT, we just wrote last week in a breaking analysis with John Furrier and Sarjeet Joha our take on that. We think 2023 does mark a pivot point as natural language processing really infiltrates enterprise tech just as Amazon turned the data center into an API. We think going forward, you're going to be interacting with technology through natural language, through English commands or other, you know, foreign language commands, and investors are lining up, all the VCs are getting excited about creating something competitive to ChatGPT, according to (indistinct) a hundred million dollars gets you a seat at the table, gets you into the game. (laughing) That's before you have to start doing promotion. But he thinks that's what it takes to actually create a clone or something equivalent. We've seen stuff from, you know, the head of Facebook's, you know, AI saying, "Oh, it's really not that sophisticated, ChatGPT, "it's kind of like IBM Watson, it's great engineering, "but you know, we've got more advanced technology." We know Google's working on some really interesting stuff. But here's the thing. ETR just launched this survey for the February survey. It's in the field now. We circle open AI in this category. They weren't even in the survey, Eric, last quarter. So 52% of the ETR survey respondents indicated a positive sentiment toward open AI. I added up all the sort of different bars, we could double click on that. And then I got this inbound from Scott Stevenson of Deep Graham. He said "AI is recession-proof." I don't know if that's the case, but it's a good quote. So bring this back up and take us through this. Explain this chart for us, if you would. >> First of all, I like Scott's quote better than the Facebook one. I think that's some sour grapes. Meta just spent an insane amount of money on the Metaverse and that's a dud. Microsoft just spent money on open AI and it is hot, undoubtedly hot. We've only been in the field with our current ETS survey for a week. So my caveat is it's preliminary data, but I don't care if it's preliminary data. (laughing) We're getting a sneak peek here at what is the number one net sentiment and mindshare leader in the entire machine-learning AI sector within a week. It's beating Data- >> 600. 600 in. >> It's beating Databricks. And we all know Databricks is a huge established enterprise company, not only in machine-learning AI, but it's in the top 10 in the entire survey. We have over 400 vendors in this survey. It's number eight overall, already. In a week. This is not hype. This is real. And I could go on the NLP stuff for a while. Not only here are we seeing it in open AI and machine-learning and AI, but we're seeing NLP in security. It's huge in email security. It's completely transforming that area. It's one of the reasons I thought Palo might take Abnormal out. They're doing such a great job with NLP in this email side, and also in the data prep tools. NLP is going to take out data prep tools. If we have time, I'll discuss that later. But yeah, this is, to me this is a no-brainer, and we're already seeing it in the data. >> Yeah, John Furrier called, you know, the ChatGPT introduction. He said it reminded him of the Netscape moment, when we all first saw Netscape Navigator and went, "Wow, it really could be transformative." All right, number six, the cloud expands to supercloud as edge computing accelerates and CloudFlare is a big winner in 2023. We've reported obviously on cloud, multi-cloud, supercloud and CloudFlare, basically saying what multi-cloud should have been. We pulled this quote from Atif Kahn, who is the founder and CTO of Alkira, thanks, one of the inbounds, thank you. "In 2023, highly distributed IT environments "will become more the norm "as organizations increasingly deploy hybrid cloud, "multi-cloud and edge settings..." Eric, from one of your round tables, "If my sources from edge computing are coming "from the cloud, that means I have my workloads "running in the cloud. "There is no one better than CloudFlare," That's a senior director of IT architecture at a huge financial firm. And then your analysis shows CloudFlare really growing in pervasion, that sort of market presence in the dataset, dramatically, to near 20%, leading, I think you had told me that they're even ahead of Google Cloud in terms of momentum right now. >> That was probably the biggest shock to me in our January 2023 tesis, which covers the public companies in the cloud computing sector. CloudFlare has now overtaken GCP in overall spending, and I was shocked by that. It's already extremely pervasive in networking, of course, for the edge networking side, and also in security. This is the number one leader in SaaSi, web access firewall, DDoS, bot protection, by your definition of supercloud, which we just did a couple of weeks ago, and I really enjoyed that by the way Dave, I think CloudFlare is the one that fits your definition best, because it's bringing all of these aspects together, and most importantly, it's cloud agnostic. It does not need to rely on Azure or AWS to do this. It has its own cloud. So I just think it's, when we look at your definition of supercloud, CloudFlare is the poster child. >> You know, what's interesting about that too, is a lot of people are poo-pooing CloudFlare, "Ah, it's, you know, really kind of not that sophisticated." "You don't have as many tools," but to your point, you're can have those tools in the cloud, Cloudflare's doing serverless on steroids, trying to keep things really simple, doing a phenomenal job at, you know, various locations around the world. And they're definitely one to watch. Somebody put them on my radar (laughing) a while ago and said, "Dave, you got to do a breaking analysis on CloudFlare." And so I want to thank that person. I can't really name them, 'cause they work inside of a giant hyperscaler. But- (Eric laughing) (Dave chuckling) >> Real quickly, if I can from a competitive perspective too, who else is there? They've already taken share from Akamai, and Fastly is their really only other direct comp, and they're not there. And these guys are in poll position and they're the only game in town right now. I just, I don't see it slowing down. >> I thought one of your comments from your roundtable I was reading, one of the folks said, you know, CloudFlare, if my workloads are in the cloud, they are, you know, dominant, they said not as strong with on-prem. And so Akamai is doing better there. I'm like, "Okay, where would you want to be?" (laughing) >> Yeah, which one of those two would you rather be? >> Right? Anyway, all right, let's move on. Number seven, blockchain continues to look for a home in the enterprise, but devs will slowly begin to adopt in 2023. You know, blockchains have got a lot of buzz, obviously crypto is, you know, the killer app for blockchain. Senior IT architect in financial services from your, one of your insight roundtables said quote, "For enterprises to adopt a new technology, "there have to be proven turnkey solutions. "My experience in talking with my peers are, "blockchain is still an open-source component "where you have to build around it." Now I want to thank Ravi Mayuram, who's the CTO of Couchbase sent in, you know, one of the predictions, he said, "DevOps will adopt blockchain, specifically Ethereum." And he referenced actually in his email to me, Solidity, which is the programming language for Ethereum, "will be in every DevOps pro's playbook, "mirroring the boom in machine-learning. "Newer programming languages like Solidity "will enter the toolkits of devs." His point there, you know, Solidity for those of you don't know, you know, Bitcoin is not programmable. Solidity, you know, came out and that was their whole shtick, and they've been improving that, and so forth. But it, Eric, it's true, it really hasn't found its home despite, you know, the potential for smart contracts. IBM's pushing it, VMware has had announcements, and others, really hasn't found its way in the enterprise yet. >> Yeah, and I got to be honest, I don't think it's going to, either. So when we did our top trends series, this was basically chosen as an anti-prediction, I would guess, that it just continues to not gain hold. And the reason why was that first comment, right? It's very much a niche solution that requires a ton of custom work around it. You can't just plug and play it. And at the end of the day, let's be very real what this technology is, it's a database ledger, and we already have database ledgers in the enterprise. So why is this a priority to move to a different database ledger? It's going to be very niche cases. I like the CTO comment from Couchbase about it being adopted by DevOps. I agree with that, but it has to be a DevOps in a very specific use case, and a very sophisticated use case in financial services, most likely. And that's not across the entire enterprise. So I just think it's still going to struggle to get its foothold for a little bit longer, if ever. >> Great, thanks. Okay, let's move on. Number eight, AWS Databricks, Google Snowflake lead the data charge with Microsoft. Keeping it simple. So let's unpack this a little bit. This is the shared accounts peer position for, I pulled data platforms in for analytics, machine-learning and AI and database. So I could grab all these accounts or these vendors and see how they compare in those three sectors. Analytics, machine-learning and database. Snowflake and Databricks, you know, they're on a crash course, as you and I have talked about. They're battling to be the single source of truth in analytics. They're, there's going to be a big focus. They're already started. It's going to be accelerated in 2023 on open formats. Iceberg, Python, you know, they're all the rage. We heard about Iceberg at Snowflake Summit, last summer or last June. Not a lot of people had heard of it, but of course the Databricks crowd, who knows it well. A lot of other open source tooling. There's a company called DBT Labs, which you're going to talk about in a minute. George Gilbert put them on our radar. We just had Tristan Handy, the CEO of DBT labs, on at supercloud last week. They are a new disruptor in data that's, they're essentially making, they're API-ifying, if you will, KPIs inside the data warehouse and dramatically simplifying that whole data pipeline. So really, you know, the ETL guys should be shaking in their boots with them. Coming back to the slide. Google really remains focused on BigQuery adoption. Customers have complained to me that they would like to use Snowflake with Google's AI tools, but they're being forced to go to BigQuery. I got to ask Google about that. AWS continues to stitch together its bespoke data stores, that's gone down that "Right tool for the right job" path. David Foyer two years ago said, "AWS absolutely is going to have to solve that problem." We saw them start to do it in, at Reinvent, bringing together NoETL between Aurora and Redshift, and really trying to simplify those worlds. There's going to be more of that. And then Microsoft, they're just making it cheap and easy to use their stuff, you know, despite some of the complaints that we hear in the community, you know, about things like Cosmos, but Eric, your take? >> Yeah, my concern here is that Snowflake and Databricks are fighting each other, and it's allowing AWS and Microsoft to kind of catch up against them, and I don't know if that's the right move for either of those two companies individually, Azure and AWS are building out functionality. Are they as good? No they're not. The other thing to remember too is that AWS and Azure get paid anyway, because both Databricks and Snowflake run on top of 'em. So (laughing) they're basically collecting their toll, while these two fight it out with each other, and they build out functionality. I think they need to stop focusing on each other, a little bit, and think about the overall strategy. Now for Databricks, we know they came out first as a machine-learning AI tool. They were known better for that spot, and now they're really trying to play catch-up on that data storage compute spot, and inversely for Snowflake, they were killing it with the compute separation from storage, and now they're trying to get into the MLAI spot. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see them make some sort of acquisition. Frank Slootman has been a little bit quiet, in my opinion there. The other thing to mention is your comment about DBT Labs. If we look at our emerging technology survey, last survey when this came out, DBT labs, number one leader in that data integration space, I'm going to just pull it up real quickly. It looks like they had a 33% overall net sentiment to lead data analytics integration. So they are clearly growing, it's fourth straight survey consecutively that they've grown. The other name we're seeing there a little bit is Cribl, but DBT labs is by far the number one player in this space. >> All right. Okay, cool. Moving on, let's go to number nine. With Automation mixer resurgence in 2023, we're showing again data. The x axis is overlap or presence in the dataset, and the vertical axis is shared net score. Net score is a measure of spending momentum. As always, you've seen UI path and Microsoft Power Automate up until the right, that red line, that 40% line is generally considered elevated. UI path is really separating, creating some distance from Automation Anywhere, they, you know, previous quarters they were much closer. Microsoft Power Automate came on the scene in a big way, they loom large with this "Good enough" approach. I will say this, I, somebody sent me a results of a (indistinct) survey, which showed UiPath actually had more mentions than Power Automate, which was surprising, but I think that's not been the case in the ETR data set. We're definitely seeing a shift from back office to front soft office kind of workloads. Having said that, software testing is emerging as a mainstream use case, we're seeing ML and AI become embedded in end-to-end automations, and low-code is serving the line of business. And so this, we think, is going to increasingly have appeal to organizations in the coming year, who want to automate as much as possible and not necessarily, we've seen a lot of layoffs in tech, and people... You're going to have to fill the gaps with automation. That's a trend that's going to continue. >> Yep, agreed. At first that comment about Microsoft Power Automate having less citations than UiPath, that's shocking to me. I'm looking at my chart right here where Microsoft Power Automate was cited by over 60% of our entire survey takers, and UiPath at around 38%. Now don't get me wrong, 38% pervasion's fantastic, but you know you're not going to beat an entrenched Microsoft. So I don't really know where that comment came from. So UiPath, looking at it alone, it's doing incredibly well. It had a huge rebound in its net score this last survey. It had dropped going through the back half of 2022, but we saw a big spike in the last one. So it's got a net score of over 55%. A lot of people citing adoption and increasing. So that's really what you want to see for a name like this. The problem is that just Microsoft is doing its playbook. At the end of the day, I'm going to do a POC, why am I going to pay more for UiPath, or even take on another separate bill, when we know everyone's consolidating vendors, if my license already includes Microsoft Power Automate? It might not be perfect, it might not be as good, but what I'm hearing all the time is it's good enough, and I really don't want another invoice. >> Right. So how does UiPath, you know, and Automation Anywhere, how do they compete with that? Well, the way they compete with it is they got to have a better product. They got a product that's 10 times better. You know, they- >> Right. >> they're not going to compete based on where the lowest cost, Microsoft's got that locked up, or where the easiest to, you know, Microsoft basically give it away for free, and that's their playbook. So that's, you know, up to UiPath. UiPath brought on Rob Ensslin, I've interviewed him. Very, very capable individual, is now Co-CEO. So he's kind of bringing that adult supervision in, and really tightening up the go to market. So, you know, we know this company has been a rocket ship, and so getting some control on that and really getting focused like a laser, you know, could be good things ahead there for that company. Okay. >> One of the problems, if I could real quick Dave, is what the use cases are. When we first came out with RPA, everyone was super excited about like, "No, UiPath is going to be great for super powerful "projects, use cases." That's not what RPA is being used for. As you mentioned, it's being used for mundane tasks, so it's not automating complex things, which I think UiPath was built for. So if you were going to get UiPath, and choose that over Microsoft, it's going to be 'cause you're doing it for more powerful use case, where it is better. But the problem is that's not where the enterprise is using it. The enterprise are using this for base rote tasks, and simply, Microsoft Power Automate can do that. >> Yeah, it's interesting. I've had people on theCube that are both Microsoft Power Automate customers and UiPath customers, and I've asked them, "Well you know, "how do you differentiate between the two?" And they've said to me, "Look, our users and personal productivity users, "they like Power Automate, "they can use it themselves, and you know, "it doesn't take a lot of, you know, support on our end." The flip side is you could do that with UiPath, but like you said, there's more of a focus now on end-to-end enterprise automation and building out those capabilities. So it's increasingly a value play, and that's going to be obviously the challenge going forward. Okay, my last one, and then I think you've got some bonus ones. Number 10, hybrid events are the new category. Look it, if I can get a thousand inbounds that are largely self-serving, I can do my own here, 'cause we're in the events business. (Eric chuckling) Here's the prediction though, and this is a trend we're seeing, the number of physical events is going to dramatically increase. That might surprise people, but most of the big giant events are going to get smaller. The exception is AWS with Reinvent, I think Snowflake's going to continue to grow. So there are examples of physical events that are growing, but generally, most of the big ones are getting smaller, and there's going to be many more smaller intimate regional events and road shows. These micro-events, they're going to be stitched together. Digital is becoming a first class citizen, so people really got to get their digital acts together, and brands are prioritizing earned media, and they're beginning to build their own news networks, going direct to their customers. And so that's a trend we see, and I, you know, we're right in the middle of it, Eric, so you know we're going to, you mentioned RSA, I think that's perhaps going to be one of those crazy ones that continues to grow. It's shrunk, and then it, you know, 'cause last year- >> Yeah, it did shrink. >> right, it was the last one before the pandemic, and then they sort of made another run at it last year. It was smaller but it was very vibrant, and I think this year's going to be huge. Global World Congress is another one, we're going to be there end of Feb. That's obviously a big big show, but in general, the brands and the technology vendors, even Oracle is going to scale down. I don't know about Salesforce. We'll see. You had a couple of bonus predictions. Quantum and maybe some others? Bring us home. >> Yeah, sure. I got a few more. I think we touched upon one, but I definitely think the data prep tools are facing extinction, unfortunately, you know, the Talons Informatica is some of those names. The problem there is that the BI tools are kind of including data prep into it already. You know, an example of that is Tableau Prep Builder, and then in addition, Advanced NLP is being worked in as well. ThoughtSpot, Intelius, both often say that as their selling point, Tableau has Ask Data, Click has Insight Bot, so you don't have to really be intelligent on data prep anymore. A regular business user can just self-query, using either the search bar, or even just speaking into what it needs, and these tools are kind of doing the data prep for it. I don't think that's a, you know, an out in left field type of prediction, but it's the time is nigh. The other one I would also state is that I think knowledge graphs are going to break through this year. Neo4j in our survey is growing in pervasion in Mindshare. So more and more people are citing it, AWS Neptune's getting its act together, and we're seeing that spending intentions are growing there. Tiger Graph is also growing in our survey sample. I just think that the time is now for knowledge graphs to break through, and if I had to do one more, I'd say real-time streaming analytics moves from the very, very rich big enterprises to downstream, to more people are actually going to be moving towards real-time streaming, again, because the data prep tools and the data pipelines have gotten easier to use, and I think the ROI on real-time streaming is obviously there. So those are three that didn't make the cut, but I thought deserved an honorable mention. >> Yeah, I'm glad you did. Several weeks ago, we did an analyst prediction roundtable, if you will, a cube session power panel with a number of data analysts and that, you know, streaming, real-time streaming was top of mind. So glad you brought that up. Eric, as always, thank you very much. I appreciate the time you put in beforehand. I know it's been crazy, because you guys are wrapping up, you know, the last quarter survey in- >> Been a nuts three weeks for us. (laughing) >> job. I love the fact that you're doing, you know, the ETS survey now, I think it's quarterly now, right? Is that right? >> Yep. >> Yep. So that's phenomenal. >> Four times a year. I'll be happy to jump on with you when we get that done. I know you were really impressed with that last time. >> It's unbelievable. This is so much data at ETR. Okay. Hey, that's a wrap. Thanks again. >> Take care Dave. Good seeing you. >> All right, many thanks to our team here, Alex Myerson as production, he manages the podcast force. Ken Schiffman as well is a critical component of our East Coast studio. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and in our newsletters. And Rob Hoof is our editor-in-chief. He's at siliconangle.com. He's just a great editing for us. Thank you all. Remember all these episodes that are available as podcasts, wherever you listen, podcast is doing great. Just search "Breaking analysis podcast." Really appreciate you guys listening. I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com, or you can email me directly if you want to get in touch, david.vellante@siliconangle.com. That's how I got all these. I really appreciate it. I went through every single one with a yellow highlighter. It took some time, (laughing) but I appreciate it. You could DM me at dvellante, or comment on our LinkedIn post and please check out etr.ai. Its data is amazing. Best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCube Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis." (upbeat music beginning) (upbeat music ending)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> OpenAI The company, and ChatGPT have taken the world by storm. Microsoft reportedly is investing an additional 10 billion dollars into the company. But in our view, while the hype around ChatGPT is justified, we don't believe OpenAI will lock up the market with its first mover advantage. Rather, we believe that success in this market will be directly proportional to the quality and quantity of data that a technology company has at its disposal, and the compute power that it could deploy to run its system. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE insights, powered by ETR. In this Breaking Analysis, we unpack the excitement around ChatGPT, and debate the premise that the company's early entry into the space may not confer winner take all advantage to OpenAI. And to do so, we welcome CUBE collaborator, alum, Sarbjeet Johal, (chuckles) and John Furrier, co-host of the Cube. Great to see you Sarbjeet, John. Really appreciate you guys coming to the program. >> Great to be on. >> Okay, so what is ChatGPT? Well, actually we asked ChatGPT, what is ChatGPT? So here's what it said. ChatGPT is a state-of-the-art language model developed by OpenAI that can generate human-like text. It could be fine tuned for a variety of language tasks, such as conversation, summarization, and language translation. So I asked it, give it to me in 50 words or less. How did it do? Anything to add? >> Yeah, think it did good. It's large language model, like previous models, but it started applying the transformers sort of mechanism to focus on what prompt you have given it to itself. And then also the what answer it gave you in the first, sort of, one sentence or two sentences, and then introspect on itself, like what I have already said to you. And so just work on that. So it it's self sort of focus if you will. It does, the transformers help the large language models to do that. >> So to your point, it's a large language model, and GPT stands for generative pre-trained transformer. >> And if you put the definition back up there again, if you put it back up on the screen, let's see it back up. Okay, it actually missed the large, word large. So one of the problems with ChatGPT, it's not always accurate. It's actually a large language model, and it says state of the art language model. And if you look at Google, Google has dominated AI for many times and they're well known as being the best at this. And apparently Google has their own large language model, LLM, in play and have been holding it back to release because of backlash on the accuracy. Like just in that example you showed is a great point. They got almost right, but they missed the key word. >> You know what's funny about that John, is I had previously asked it in my prompt to give me it in less than a hundred words, and it was too long, I said I was too long for Breaking Analysis, and there it went into the fact that it's a large language model. So it largely, it gave me a really different answer the, for both times. So, but it's still pretty amazing for those of you who haven't played with it yet. And one of the best examples that I saw was Ben Charrington from This Week In ML AI podcast. And I stumbled on this thanks to Brian Gracely, who was listening to one of his Cloudcasts. Basically what Ben did is he took, he prompted ChatGPT to interview ChatGPT, and he simply gave the system the prompts, and then he ran the questions and answers into this avatar builder and sped it up 2X so it didn't sound like a machine. And voila, it was amazing. So John is ChatGPT going to take over as a cube host? >> Well, I was thinking, we get the questions in advance sometimes from PR people. We should actually just plug it in ChatGPT, add it to our notes, and saying, "Is this good enough for you? Let's ask the real question." So I think, you know, I think there's a lot of heavy lifting that gets done. I think the ChatGPT is a phenomenal revolution. I think it highlights the use case. Like that example we showed earlier. It gets most of it right. So it's directionally correct and it feels like it's an answer, but it's not a hundred percent accurate. And I think that's where people are seeing value in it. Writing marketing, copy, brainstorming, guest list, gift list for somebody. Write me some lyrics to a song. Give me a thesis about healthcare policy in the United States. It'll do a bang up job, and then you got to go in and you can massage it. So we're going to do three quarters of the work. That's why plagiarism and schools are kind of freaking out. And that's why Microsoft put 10 billion in, because why wouldn't this be a feature of Word, or the OS to help it do stuff on behalf of the user. So linguistically it's a beautiful thing. You can input a string and get a good answer. It's not a search result. >> And we're going to get your take on on Microsoft and, but it kind of levels the playing- but ChatGPT writes better than I do, Sarbjeet, and I know you have some good examples too. You mentioned the Reed Hastings example. >> Yeah, I was listening to Reed Hastings fireside chat with ChatGPT, and the answers were coming as sort of voice, in the voice format. And it was amazing what, he was having very sort of philosophy kind of talk with the ChatGPT, the longer sentences, like he was going on, like, just like we are talking, he was talking for like almost two minutes and then ChatGPT was answering. It was not one sentence question, and then a lot of answers from ChatGPT and yeah, you're right. I, this is our ability. I've been thinking deep about this since yesterday, we talked about, like, we want to do this segment. The data is fed into the data model. It can be the current data as well, but I think that, like, models like ChatGPT, other companies will have those too. They can, they're democratizing the intelligence, but they're not creating intelligence yet, definitely yet I can say that. They will give you all the finite answers. Like, okay, how do you do this for loop in Java, versus, you know, C sharp, and as a programmer you can do that, in, but they can't tell you that, how to write a new algorithm or write a new search algorithm for you. They cannot create a secretive code for you to- >> Not yet. >> Have competitive advantage. >> Not yet, not yet. >> but you- >> Can Google do that today? >> No one really can. The reasoning side of the data is, we talked about at our Supercloud event, with Zhamak Dehghani who's was CEO of, now of Nextdata. This next wave of data intelligence is going to come from entrepreneurs that are probably cross discipline, computer science and some other discipline. But they're going to be new things, for example, data, metadata, and data. It's hard to do reasoning like a human being, so that needs more data to train itself. So I think the first gen of this training module for the large language model they have is a corpus of text. Lot of that's why blog posts are, but the facts are wrong and sometimes out of context, because that contextual reasoning takes time, it takes intelligence. So machines need to become intelligent, and so therefore they need to be trained. So you're going to start to see, I think, a lot of acceleration on training the data sets. And again, it's only as good as the data you can get. And again, proprietary data sets will be a huge winner. Anyone who's got a large corpus of content, proprietary content like theCUBE or SiliconANGLE as a publisher will benefit from this. Large FinTech companies, anyone with large proprietary data will probably be a big winner on this generative AI wave, because it just, it will eat that up, and turn that back into something better. So I think there's going to be a lot of interesting things to look at here. And certainly productivity's going to be off the charts for vanilla and the internet is going to get swarmed with vanilla content. So if you're in the content business, and you're an original content producer of any kind, you're going to be not vanilla, so you're going to be better. So I think there's so much at play Dave (indistinct). >> I think the playing field has been risen, so we- >> Risen and leveled? >> Yeah, and leveled to certain extent. So it's now like that few people as consumers, as consumers of AI, we will have a advantage and others cannot have that advantage. So it will be democratized. That's, I'm sure about that. But if you take the example of calculator, when the calculator came in, and a lot of people are, "Oh, people can't do math anymore because calculator is there." right? So it's a similar sort of moment, just like a calculator for the next level. But, again- >> I see it more like open source, Sarbjeet, because like if you think about what ChatGPT's doing, you do a query and it comes from somewhere the value of a post from ChatGPT is just a reuse of AI. The original content accent will be come from a human. So if I lay out a paragraph from ChatGPT, did some heavy lifting on some facts, I check the facts, save me about maybe- >> Yeah, it's productive. >> An hour writing, and then I write a killer two, three sentences of, like, sharp original thinking or critical analysis. I then took that body of work, open source content, and then laid something on top of it. >> And Sarbjeet's example is a good one, because like if the calculator kids don't do math as well anymore, the slide rule, remember we had slide rules as kids, remember we first started using Waze, you know, we were this minority and you had an advantage over other drivers. Now Waze is like, you know, social traffic, you know, navigation, everybody had, you know- >> All the back roads are crowded. >> They're car crowded. (group laughs) Exactly. All right, let's, let's move on. What about this notion that futurist Ray Amara put forth and really Amara's Law that we're showing here, it's, the law is we, you know, "We tend to overestimate the effect of technology in the short run and underestimate it in the long run." Is that the case, do you think, with ChatGPT? What do you think Sarbjeet? >> I think that's true actually. There's a lot of, >> We don't debate this. >> There's a lot of awe, like when people see the results from ChatGPT, they say what, what the heck? Like, it can do this? But then if you use it more and more and more, and I ask the set of similar question, not the same question, and it gives you like same answer. It's like reading from the same bucket of text in, the interior read (indistinct) where the ChatGPT, you will see that in some couple of segments. It's very, it sounds so boring that the ChatGPT is coming out the same two sentences every time. So it is kind of good, but it's not as good as people think it is right now. But we will have, go through this, you know, hype sort of cycle and get realistic with it. And then in the long term, I think it's a great thing in the short term, it's not something which will (indistinct) >> What's your counter point? You're saying it's not. >> I, no I think the question was, it's hyped up in the short term and not it's underestimated long term. That's what I think what he said, quote. >> Yes, yeah. That's what he said. >> Okay, I think that's wrong with this, because this is a unique, ChatGPT is a unique kind of impact and it's very generational. People have been comparing it, I have been comparing to the internet, like the web, web browser Mosaic and Netscape, right, Navigator. I mean, I clearly still remember the days seeing Navigator for the first time, wow. And there weren't not many sites you could go to, everyone typed in, you know, cars.com, you know. >> That (indistinct) wasn't that overestimated, the overhyped at the beginning and underestimated. >> No, it was, it was underestimated long run, people thought. >> But that Amara's law. >> That's what is. >> No, they said overestimated? >> Overestimated near term underestimated- overhyped near term, underestimated long term. I got, right I mean? >> Well, I, yeah okay, so I would then agree, okay then- >> We were off the charts about the internet in the early days, and it actually exceeded our expectations. >> Well there were people who were, like, poo-pooing it early on. So when the browser came out, people were like, "Oh, the web's a toy for kids." I mean, in 1995 the web was a joke, right? So '96, you had online populations growing, so you had structural changes going on around the browser, internet population. And then that replaced other things, direct mail, other business activities that were once analog then went to the web, kind of read only as you, as we always talk about. So I think that's a moment where the hype long term, the smart money, and the smart industry experts all get the long term. And in this case, there's more poo-pooing in the short term. "Ah, it's not a big deal, it's just AI." I've heard many people poo-pooing ChatGPT, and a lot of smart people saying, "No this is next gen, this is different and it's only going to get better." So I think people are estimating a big long game on this one. >> So you're saying it's bifurcated. There's those who say- >> Yes. >> Okay, all right, let's get to the heart of the premise, and possibly the debate for today's episode. Will OpenAI's early entry into the market confer sustainable competitive advantage for the company. And if you look at the history of tech, the technology industry, it's kind of littered with first mover failures. Altair, IBM, Tandy, Commodore, they and Apple even, they were really early in the PC game. They took a backseat to Dell who came in the scene years later with a better business model. Netscape, you were just talking about, was all the rage in Silicon Valley, with the first browser, drove up all the housing prices out here. AltaVista was the first search engine to really, you know, index full text. >> Owned by Dell, I mean DEC. >> Owned by Digital. >> Yeah, Digital Equipment >> Compaq bought it. And of course as an aside, Digital, they wanted to showcase their hardware, right? Their super computer stuff. And then so Friendster and MySpace, they came before Facebook. The iPhone certainly wasn't the first mobile device. So lots of failed examples, but there are some recent successes like AWS and cloud. >> You could say smartphone. So I mean. >> Well I know, and you can, we can parse this so we'll debate it. Now Twitter, you could argue, had first mover advantage. You kind of gave me that one John. Bitcoin and crypto clearly had first mover advantage, and sustaining that. Guys, will OpenAI make it to the list on the right with ChatGPT, what do you think? >> I think categorically as a company, it probably won't, but as a category, I think what they're doing will, so OpenAI as a company, they get funding, there's power dynamics involved. Microsoft put a billion dollars in early on, then they just pony it up. Now they're reporting 10 billion more. So, like, if the browsers, Microsoft had competitive advantage over Netscape, and used monopoly power, and convicted by the Department of Justice for killing Netscape with their monopoly, Netscape should have had won that battle, but Microsoft killed it. In this case, Microsoft's not killing it, they're buying into it. So I think the embrace extend Microsoft power here makes OpenAI vulnerable for that one vendor solution. So the AI as a company might not make the list, but the category of what this is, large language model AI, is probably will be on the right hand side. >> Okay, we're going to come back to the government intervention and maybe do some comparisons, but what are your thoughts on this premise here? That, it will basically set- put forth the premise that it, that ChatGPT, its early entry into the market will not confer competitive advantage to >> For OpenAI. >> To Open- Yeah, do you agree with that? >> I agree with that actually. It, because Google has been at it, and they have been holding back, as John said because of the scrutiny from the Fed, right, so- >> And privacy too. >> And the privacy and the accuracy as well. But I think Sam Altman and the company on those guys, right? They have put this in a hasty way out there, you know, because it makes mistakes, and there are a lot of questions around the, sort of, where the content is coming from. You saw that as your example, it just stole the content, and without your permission, you know? >> Yeah. So as quick this aside- >> And it codes on people's behalf and the, those codes are wrong. So there's a lot of, sort of, false information it's putting out there. So it's a very vulnerable thing to do what Sam Altman- >> So even though it'll get better, others will compete. >> So look, just side note, a term which Reid Hoffman used a little bit. Like he said, it's experimental launch, like, you know, it's- >> It's pretty damn good. >> It is clever because according to Sam- >> It's more than clever. It's good. >> It's awesome, if you haven't used it. I mean you write- you read what it writes and you go, "This thing writes so well, it writes so much better than you." >> The human emotion drives that too. I think that's a big thing. But- >> I Want to add one more- >> Make your last point. >> Last one. Okay. So, but he's still holding back. He's conducting quite a few interviews. If you want to get the gist of it, there's an interview with StrictlyVC interview from yesterday with Sam Altman. Listen to that one it's an eye opening what they want- where they want to take it. But my last one I want to make it on this point is that Satya Nadella yesterday did an interview with Wall Street Journal. I think he was doing- >> You were not impressed. >> I was not impressed because he was pushing it too much. So Sam Altman's holding back so there's less backlash. >> Got 10 billion reasons to push. >> I think he's almost- >> Microsoft just laid off 10000 people. Hey ChatGPT, find me a job. You know like. (group laughs) >> He's overselling it to an extent that I think it will backfire on Microsoft. And he's over promising a lot of stuff right now, I think. I don't know why he's very jittery about all these things. And he did the same thing during Ignite as well. So he said, "Oh, this AI will write code for you and this and that." Like you called him out- >> The hyperbole- >> During your- >> from Satya Nadella, he's got a lot of hyperbole. (group talks over each other) >> All right, Let's, go ahead. >> Well, can I weigh in on the whole- >> Yeah, sure. >> Microsoft thing on whether OpenAI, here's the take on this. I think it's more like the browser moment to me, because I could relate to that experience with ChatG, personally, emotionally, when I saw that, and I remember vividly- >> You mean that aha moment (indistinct). >> Like this is obviously the future. Anything else in the old world is dead, website's going to be everywhere. It was just instant dot connection for me. And a lot of other smart people who saw this. Lot of people by the way, didn't see it. Someone said the web's a toy. At the company I was worked for at the time, Hewlett Packard, they like, they could have been in, they had invented HTML, and so like all this stuff was, like, they just passed, the web was just being passed over. But at that time, the browser got better, more websites came on board. So the structural advantage there was online web usage was growing, online user population. So that was growing exponentially with the rise of the Netscape browser. So OpenAI could stay on the right side of your list as durable, if they leverage the category that they're creating, can get the scale. And if they can get the scale, just like Twitter, that failed so many times that they still hung around. So it was a product that was always successful, right? So I mean, it should have- >> You're right, it was terrible, we kept coming back. >> The fail whale, but it still grew. So OpenAI has that moment. They could do it if Microsoft doesn't meddle too much with too much power as a vendor. They could be the Netscape Navigator, without the anti-competitive behavior of somebody else. So to me, they have the pole position. So they have an opportunity. So if not, if they don't execute, then there's opportunity. There's not a lot of barriers to entry, vis-a-vis say the CapEx of say a cloud company like AWS. You can't replicate that, Many have tried, but I think you can replicate OpenAI. >> And we're going to talk about that. Okay, so real quick, I want to bring in some ETR data. This isn't an ETR heavy segment, only because this so new, you know, they haven't coverage yet, but they do cover AI. So basically what we're seeing here is a slide on the vertical axis's net score, which is a measure of spending momentum, and in the horizontal axis's is presence in the dataset. Think of it as, like, market presence. And in the insert right there, you can see how the dots are plotted, the two columns. And so, but the key point here that we want to make, there's a bunch of companies on the left, is he like, you know, DataRobot and C3 AI and some others, but the big whales, Google, AWS, Microsoft, are really dominant in this market. So that's really the key takeaway that, can we- >> I notice IBM is way low. >> Yeah, IBM's low, and actually bring that back up and you, but then you see Oracle who actually is injecting. So I guess that's the other point is, you're not necessarily going to go buy AI, and you know, build your own AI, you're going to, it's going to be there and, it, Salesforce is going to embed it into its platform, the SaaS companies, and you're going to purchase AI. You're not necessarily going to build it. But some companies obviously are. >> I mean to quote IBM's general manager Rob Thomas, "You can't have AI with IA." information architecture and David Flynn- >> You can't Have AI without IA >> without, you can't have AI without IA. You can't have, if you have an Information Architecture, you then can power AI. Yesterday David Flynn, with Hammersmith, was on our Supercloud. He was pointing out that the relationship of storage, where you store things, also impacts the data and stressablity, and Zhamak from Nextdata, she was pointing out that same thing. So the data problem factors into all this too, Dave. >> So you got the big cloud and internet giants, they're all poised to go after this opportunity. Microsoft is investing up to 10 billion. Google's code red, which was, you know, the headline in the New York Times. Of course Apple is there and several alternatives in the market today. Guys like Chinchilla, Bloom, and there's a company Jasper and several others, and then Lena Khan looms large and the government's around the world, EU, US, China, all taking notice before the market really is coalesced around a single player. You know, John, you mentioned Netscape, they kind of really, the US government was way late to that game. It was kind of game over. And Netscape, I remember Barksdale was like, "Eh, we're going to be selling software in the enterprise anyway." and then, pshew, the company just dissipated. So, but it looks like the US government, especially with Lena Khan, they're changing the definition of antitrust and what the cause is to go after people, and they're really much more aggressive. It's only what, two years ago that (indistinct). >> Yeah, the problem I have with the federal oversight is this, they're always like late to the game, and they're slow to catch up. So in other words, they're working on stuff that should have been solved a year and a half, two years ago around some of the social networks hiding behind some of the rules around open web back in the days, and I think- >> But they're like 15 years late to that. >> Yeah, and now they got this new thing on top of it. So like, I just worry about them getting their fingers. >> But there's only two years, you know, OpenAI. >> No, but the thing (indistinct). >> No, they're still fighting other battles. But the problem with government is that they're going to label Big Tech as like a evil thing like Pharma, it's like smoke- >> You know Lena Khan wants to kill Big Tech, there's no question. >> So I think Big Tech is getting a very seriously bad rap. And I think anything that the government does that shades darkness on tech, is politically motivated in most cases. You can almost look at everything, and my 80 20 rule is in play here. 80% of the government activity around tech is bullshit, it's politically motivated, and the 20% is probably relevant, but off the mark and not organized. >> Well market forces have always been the determining factor of success. The governments, you know, have been pretty much failed. I mean you look at IBM's antitrust, that, what did that do? The market ultimately beat them. You look at Microsoft back in the day, right? Windows 95 was peaking, the government came in. But you know, like you said, they missed the web, right, and >> so they were hanging on- >> There's nobody in government >> to Windows. >> that actually knows- >> And so, you, I think you're right. It's market forces that are going to determine this. But Sarbjeet, what do you make of Microsoft's big bet here, you weren't impressed with with Nadella. How do you think, where are they going to apply it? Is this going to be a Hail Mary for Bing, or is it going to be applied elsewhere? What do you think. >> They are saying that they will, sort of, weave this into their products, office products, productivity and also to write code as well, developer productivity as well. That's a big play for them. But coming back to your antitrust sort of comments, right? I believe the, your comment was like, oh, fed was late 10 years or 15 years earlier, but now they're two years. But things are moving very fast now as compared to they used to move. >> So two years is like 10 Years. >> Yeah, two years is like 10 years. Just want to make that point. (Dave laughs) This thing is going like wildfire. Any new tech which comes in that I think they're going against distribution channels. Lina Khan has commented time and again that the marketplace model is that she wants to have some grip on. Cloud marketplaces are a kind of monopolistic kind of way. >> I don't, I don't see this, I don't see a Chat AI. >> You told me it's not Bing, you had an interesting comment. >> No, no. First of all, this is great from Microsoft. If you're Microsoft- >> Why? >> Because Microsoft doesn't have the AI chops that Google has, right? Google is got so much core competency on how they run their search, how they run their backends, their cloud, even though they don't get a lot of cloud market share in the enterprise, they got a kick ass cloud cause they needed one. >> Totally. >> They've invented SRE. I mean Google's development and engineering chops are off the scales, right? Amazon's got some good chops, but Google's got like 10 times more chops than AWS in my opinion. Cloud's a whole different story. Microsoft gets AI, they get a playbook, they get a product they can render into, the not only Bing, productivity software, helping people write papers, PowerPoint, also don't forget the cloud AI can super help. We had this conversation on our Supercloud event, where AI's going to do a lot of the heavy lifting around understanding observability and managing service meshes, to managing microservices, to turning on and off applications, and or maybe writing code in real time. So there's a plethora of use cases for Microsoft to deploy this. combined with their R and D budgets, they can then turbocharge more research, build on it. So I think this gives them a car in the game, Google may have pole position with AI, but this puts Microsoft right in the game, and they already have a lot of stuff going on. But this just, I mean everything gets lifted up. Security, cloud, productivity suite, everything. >> What's under the hood at Google, and why aren't they talking about it? I mean they got to be freaked out about this. No? Or do they have kind of a magic bullet? >> I think they have the, they have the chops definitely. Magic bullet, I don't know where they are, as compared to the ChatGPT 3 or 4 models. Like they, but if you look at the online sort of activity and the videos put out there from Google folks, Google technology folks, that's account you should look at if you are looking there, they have put all these distinctions what ChatGPT 3 has used, they have been talking about for a while as well. So it's not like it's a secret thing that you cannot replicate. As you said earlier, like in the beginning of this segment, that anybody who has more data and the capacity to process that data, which Google has both, I think they will win this. >> Obviously living in Palo Alto where the Google founders are, and Google's headquarters next town over we have- >> We're so close to them. We have inside information on some of the thinking and that hasn't been reported by any outlet yet. And that is, is that, from what I'm hearing from my sources, is Google has it, they don't want to release it for many reasons. One is it might screw up their search monopoly, one, two, they're worried about the accuracy, 'cause Google will get sued. 'Cause a lot of people are jamming on this ChatGPT as, "Oh it does everything for me." when it's clearly not a hundred percent accurate all the time. >> So Lina Kahn is looming, and so Google's like be careful. >> Yeah so Google's just like, this is the third, could be a third rail. >> But the first thing you said is a concern. >> Well no. >> The disruptive (indistinct) >> What they will do is do a Waymo kind of thing, where they spin out a separate company. >> They're doing that. >> The discussions happening, they're going to spin out the separate company and put it over there, and saying, "This is AI, got search over there, don't touch that search, 'cause that's where all the revenue is." (chuckles) >> So, okay, so that's how they deal with the Clay Christensen dilemma. What's the business model here? I mean it's not advertising, right? Is it to charge you for a query? What, how do you make money at this? >> It's a good question, I mean my thinking is, first of all, it's cool to type stuff in and see a paper get written, or write a blog post, or gimme a marketing slogan for this or that or write some code. I think the API side of the business will be critical. And I think Howie Xu, I know you're going to reference some of his comments yesterday on Supercloud, I think this brings a whole 'nother user interface into technology consumption. I think the business model, not yet clear, but it will probably be some sort of either API and developer environment or just a straight up free consumer product, with some sort of freemium backend thing for business. >> And he was saying too, it's natural language is the way in which you're going to interact with these systems. >> I think it's APIs, it's APIs, APIs, APIs, because these people who are cooking up these models, and it takes a lot of compute power to train these and to, for inference as well. Somebody did the analysis on the how many cents a Google search costs to Google, and how many cents the ChatGPT query costs. It's, you know, 100x or something on that. You can take a look at that. >> A 100x on which side? >> You're saying two orders of magnitude more expensive for ChatGPT >> Much more, yeah. >> Than for Google. >> It's very expensive. >> So Google's got the data, they got the infrastructure and they got, you're saying they got the cost (indistinct) >> No actually it's a simple query as well, but they are trying to put together the answers, and they're going through a lot more data versus index data already, you know. >> Let me clarify, you're saying that Google's version of ChatGPT is more efficient? >> No, I'm, I'm saying Google search results. >> Ah, search results. >> What are used to today, but cheaper. >> But that, does that, is that going to confer advantage to Google's large language (indistinct)? >> It will, because there were deep science (indistinct). >> Google, I don't think Google search is doing a large language model on their search, it's keyword search. You know, what's the weather in Santa Cruz? Or how, what's the weather going to be? Or you know, how do I find this? Now they have done a smart job of doing some things with those queries, auto complete, re direct navigation. But it's, it's not entity. It's not like, "Hey, what's Dave Vellante thinking this week in Breaking Analysis?" ChatGPT might get that, because it'll get your Breaking Analysis, it'll synthesize it. There'll be some, maybe some clips. It'll be like, you know, I mean. >> Well I got to tell you, I asked ChatGPT to, like, I said, I'm going to enter a transcript of a discussion I had with Nir Zuk, the CTO of Palo Alto Networks, And I want you to write a 750 word blog. I never input the transcript. It wrote a 750 word blog. It attributed quotes to him, and it just pulled a bunch of stuff that, and said, okay, here it is. It talked about Supercloud, it defined Supercloud. >> It's made, it makes you- >> Wow, But it was a big lie. It was fraudulent, but still, blew me away. >> Again, vanilla content and non accurate content. So we are going to see a surge of misinformation on steroids, but I call it the vanilla content. Wow, that's just so boring, (indistinct). >> There's so many dangers. >> Make your point, cause we got to, almost out of time. >> Okay, so the consumption, like how do you consume this thing. As humans, we are consuming it and we are, like, getting a nicely, like, surprisingly shocked, you know, wow, that's cool. It's going to increase productivity and all that stuff, right? And on the danger side as well, the bad actors can take hold of it and create fake content and we have the fake sort of intelligence, if you go out there. So that's one thing. The second thing is, we are as humans are consuming this as language. Like we read that, we listen to it, whatever format we consume that is, but the ultimate usage of that will be when the machines can take that output from likes of ChatGPT, and do actions based on that. The robots can work, the robot can paint your house, we were talking about, right? Right now we can't do that. >> Data apps. >> So the data has to be ingested by the machines. It has to be digestible by the machines. And the machines cannot digest unorganized data right now, we will get better on the ingestion side as well. So we are getting better. >> Data, reasoning, insights, and action. >> I like that mall, paint my house. >> So, okay- >> By the way, that means drones that'll come in. Spray painting your house. >> Hey, it wasn't too long ago that robots couldn't climb stairs, as I like to point out. Okay, and of course it's no surprise the venture capitalists are lining up to eat at the trough, as I'd like to say. Let's hear, you'd referenced this earlier, John, let's hear what AI expert Howie Xu said at the Supercloud event, about what it takes to clone ChatGPT. Please, play the clip. >> So one of the VCs actually asked me the other day, right? "Hey, how much money do I need to spend, invest to get a, you know, another shot to the openAI sort of the level." You know, I did a (indistinct) >> Line up. >> A hundred million dollar is the order of magnitude that I came up with, right? You know, not a billion, not 10 million, right? So a hundred- >> Guys a hundred million dollars, that's an astoundingly low figure. What do you make of it? >> I was in an interview with, I was interviewing, I think he said hundred million or so, but in the hundreds of millions, not a billion right? >> You were trying to get him up, you were like "Hundreds of millions." >> Well I think, I- >> He's like, eh, not 10, not a billion. >> Well first of all, Howie Xu's an expert machine learning. He's at Zscaler, he's a machine learning AI guy. But he comes from VMware, he's got his technology pedigrees really off the chart. Great friend of theCUBE and kind of like a CUBE analyst for us. And he's smart. He's right. I think the barriers to entry from a dollar standpoint are lower than say the CapEx required to compete with AWS. Clearly, the CapEx spending to build all the tech for the run a cloud. >> And you don't need a huge sales force. >> And in some case apps too, it's the same thing. But I think it's not that hard. >> But am I right about that? You don't need a huge sales force either. It's, what, you know >> If the product's good, it will sell, this is a new era. The better mouse trap will win. This is the new economics in software, right? So- >> Because you look at the amount of money Lacework, and Snyk, Snowflake, Databrooks. Look at the amount of money they've raised. I mean it's like a billion dollars before they get to IPO or more. 'Cause they need promotion, they need go to market. You don't need (indistinct) >> OpenAI's been working on this for multiple five years plus it's, hasn't, wasn't born yesterday. Took a lot of years to get going. And Sam is depositioning all the success, because he's trying to manage expectations, To your point Sarbjeet, earlier. It's like, yeah, he's trying to "Whoa, whoa, settle down everybody, (Dave laughs) it's not that great." because he doesn't want to fall into that, you know, hero and then get taken down, so. >> It may take a 100 million or 150 or 200 million to train the model. But to, for the inference to, yeah to for the inference machine, It will take a lot more, I believe. >> Give it, so imagine, >> Because- >> Go ahead, sorry. >> Go ahead. But because it consumes a lot more compute cycles and it's certain level of storage and everything, right, which they already have. So I think to compute is different. To frame the model is a different cost. But to run the business is different, because I think 100 million can go into just fighting the Fed. >> Well there's a flywheel too. >> Oh that's (indistinct) >> (indistinct) >> We are running the business, right? >> It's an interesting number, but it's also kind of, like, context to it. So here, a hundred million spend it, you get there, but you got to factor in the fact that the ways companies win these days is critical mass scale, hitting a flywheel. If they can keep that flywheel of the value that they got going on and get better, you can almost imagine a marketplace where, hey, we have proprietary data, we're SiliconANGLE in theCUBE. We have proprietary content, CUBE videos, transcripts. Well wouldn't it be great if someone in a marketplace could sell a module for us, right? We buy that, Amazon's thing and things like that. So if they can get a marketplace going where you can apply to data sets that may be proprietary, you can start to see this become bigger. And so I think the key barriers to entry is going to be success. I'll give you an example, Reddit. Reddit is successful and it's hard to copy, not because of the software. >> They built the moat. >> Because you can, buy Reddit open source software and try To compete. >> They built the moat with their community. >> Their community, their scale, their user expectation. Twitter, we referenced earlier, that thing should have gone under the first two years, but there was such a great emotional product. People would tolerate the fail whale. And then, you know, well that was a whole 'nother thing. >> Then a plane landed in (John laughs) the Hudson and it was over. >> I think verticals, a lot of verticals will build applications using these models like for lawyers, for doctors, for scientists, for content creators, for- >> So you'll have many hundreds of millions of dollars investments that are going to be seeping out. If, all right, we got to wrap, if you had to put odds on it that that OpenAI is going to be the leader, maybe not a winner take all leader, but like you look at like Amazon and cloud, they're not winner take all, these aren't necessarily winner take all markets. It's not necessarily a zero sum game, but let's call it winner take most. What odds would you give that open AI 10 years from now will be in that position. >> If I'm 0 to 10 kind of thing? >> Yeah, it's like horse race, 3 to 1, 2 to 1, even money, 10 to 1, 50 to 1. >> Maybe 2 to 1, >> 2 to 1, that's pretty low odds. That's basically saying they're the favorite, they're the front runner. Would you agree with that? >> I'd say 4 to 1. >> Yeah, I was going to say I'm like a 5 to 1, 7 to 1 type of person, 'cause I'm a skeptic with, you know, there's so much competition, but- >> I think they're definitely the leader. I mean you got to say, I mean. >> Oh there's no question. There's no question about it. >> The question is can they execute? >> They're not Friendster, is what you're saying. >> They're not Friendster and they're more like Twitter and Reddit where they have momentum. If they can execute on the product side, and if they don't stumble on that, they will continue to have the lead. >> If they say stay neutral, as Sam is, has been saying, that, hey, Microsoft is one of our partners, if you look at their company model, how they have structured the company, then they're going to pay back to the investors, like Microsoft is the biggest one, up to certain, like by certain number of years, they're going to pay back from all the money they make, and after that, they're going to give the money back to the public, to the, I don't know who they give it to, like non-profit or something. (indistinct) >> Okay, the odds are dropping. (group talks over each other) That's a good point though >> Actually they might have done that to fend off the criticism of this. But it's really interesting to see the model they have adopted. >> The wildcard in all this, My last word on this is that, if there's a developer shift in how developers and data can come together again, we have conferences around the future of data, Supercloud and meshs versus, you know, how the data world, coding with data, how that evolves will also dictate, 'cause a wild card could be a shift in the landscape around how developers are using either machine learning or AI like techniques to code into their apps, so. >> That's fantastic insight. I can't thank you enough for your time, on the heels of Supercloud 2, really appreciate it. All right, thanks to John and Sarbjeet for the outstanding conversation today. Special thanks to the Palo Alto studio team. My goodness, Anderson, this great backdrop. You guys got it all out here, I'm jealous. And Noah, really appreciate it, Chuck, Andrew Frick and Cameron, Andrew Frick switching, Cameron on the video lake, great job. And Alex Myerson, he's on production, manages the podcast for us, Ken Schiffman as well. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight help get the word out on social media and our newsletters. Rob Hof is our editor-in-chief over at SiliconANGLE, does some great editing, thanks to all. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcasts. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcast, wherever you listen. Publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Want to get in touch, email me directly, david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me at dvellante, or comment on our LinkedIn post. And by all means, check out etr.ai. They got really great survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, We'll see you next time on Breaking Analysis. (electronic music)

>> Narrator: From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is breaking analysis with Dave Vellante >> Enterprise tech practitioners, like most of us they want to make their lives easier so they can focus on delivering more value to their businesses. And to do so, they want to tap best of breed services in the public cloud, but at the same time connect their on-prem intellectual property to emerging applications which drive top line revenue and bottom line profits. But creating a consistent experience across clouds and on-prem estates has been an elusive capability for most organizations, forcing trade-offs and injecting friction into the system. The need to create seamless experiences is clear and the technology industry is starting to respond with platforms, architectures, and visions of what we've called the Supercloud. Hello and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis we give you a preview of Supercloud 2, the second event of its kind that we've had on the topic. Yes, folks that's right Supercloud 2 is here. As of this recording, it's just about four days away 33 guests, 21 sessions, combining live discussions and fireside chats from theCUBE's Palo Alto Studio with prerecorded conversations on the future of cloud and data. You can register for free at supercloud.world. And we are super excited about the Supercloud 2 lineup of guests whereas Supercloud 22 in August, was all about refining the definition of Supercloud testing its technical feasibility and understanding various deployment models. Supercloud 2 features practitioners, technologists and analysts discussing what customers need with real-world examples of Supercloud and will expose thinking around a new breed of cross-cloud apps, data apps, if you will that change the way machines and humans interact with each other. Now the example we'd use if you think about applications today, say a CRM system, sales reps, what are they doing? They're entering data into opportunities they're choosing products they're importing contacts, et cetera. And sure the machine can then take all that data and spit out a forecast by rep, by region, by product, et cetera. But today's applications are largely about filling in forms and or codifying processes. In the future, the Supercloud community sees a new breed of applications emerging where data resides on different clouds, in different data storages, databases, Lakehouse, et cetera. And the machine uses AI to inspect the e-commerce system the inventory data, supply chain information and other systems, and puts together a plan without any human intervention whatsoever. Think about a system that orchestrates people, places and things like an Uber for business. So at Supercloud 2, you'll hear about this vision along with some of today's challenges facing practitioners. Zhamak Dehghani, the founder of Data Mesh is a headliner. Kit Colbert also is headlining. He laid out at the first Supercloud an initial architecture for what that's going to look like. That was last August. And he's going to present his most current thinking on the topic. Veronika Durgin of Sachs will be featured and talk about data sharing across clouds and you know what she needs in the future. One of the main highlights of Supercloud 2 is a dive into Walmart's Supercloud. Other featured practitioners include Western Union Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Warner Media. We've got deep, deep technology dives with folks like Bob Muglia, David Flynn Tristan Handy of DBT Labs, Nir Zuk, the founder of Palo Alto Networks focused on security. Thomas Hazel, who's going to talk about a new type of database for Supercloud. It's several analysts including Keith Townsend Maribel Lopez, George Gilbert, Sanjeev Mohan and so many more guests, we don't have time to list them all. They're all up on supercloud.world with a full agenda, so you can check that out. Now let's take a look at some of the things that we're exploring in more detail starting with the Walmart Cloud native platform, they call it WCNP. We definitely see this as a Supercloud and we dig into it with Jack Greenfield. He's the head of architecture at Walmart. Here's a quote from Jack. "WCNP is an implementation of Kubernetes for the Walmart ecosystem. We've taken Kubernetes off the shelf as open source." By the way, they do the same thing with OpenStack. "And we have integrated it with a number of foundational services that provide other aspects of our computational environment. Kubernetes off the shelf doesn't do everything." And so what Walmart chose to do, they took a do-it-yourself approach to build a Supercloud for a variety of reasons that Jack will explain, along with Walmart's so-called triplet architecture connecting on-prem, Azure and GCP. No surprise, there's no Amazon at Walmart for obvious reasons. And what they do is they create a common experience for devs across clouds. Jack is going to talk about how Walmart is evolving its Supercloud in the future. You don't want to miss that. Now, next, let's take a look at how Veronica Durgin of SAKS thinks about data sharing across clouds. Data sharing we think is a potential killer use case for Supercloud. In fact, let's hear it in Veronica's own words. Please play the clip. >> How do we talk to each other? And more importantly, how do we data share? You know, I work with data, you know this is what I do. So if you know I want to get data from a company that's using, say Google, how do we share it in a smooth way where it doesn't have to be this crazy I don't know, SFTP file moving? So that's where I think Supercloud comes to me in my mind, is like practical applications. How do we create that mesh, that network that we can easily share data with each other? >> Now data mesh is a possible architectural approach that will enable more facile data sharing and the monetization of data products. You'll hear Zhamak Dehghani live in studio talking about what standards are missing to make this vision a reality across the Supercloud. Now one of the other things that we're really excited about is digging deeper into the right approach for Supercloud adoption. And we're going to share a preview of a debate that's going on right now in the community. Bob Muglia, former CEO of Snowflake and Microsoft Exec was kind enough to spend some time looking at the community's supercloud definition and he felt that it needed to be simplified. So in near real time he came up with the following definition that we're showing here. I'll read it. "A Supercloud is a platform that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers." So not only did Bob simplify the initial definition he's stressed that the Supercloud is a platform versus an architecture implying that the platform provider eg Snowflake, VMware, Databricks, Cohesity, et cetera is responsible for determining the architecture. Now interestingly in the shared Google doc that the working group uses to collaborate on the supercloud de definition, Dr. Nelu Mihai who is actually building a Supercloud responded as follows to Bob's assertion "We need to avoid creating many Supercloud platforms with their own architectures. If we do that, then we create other proprietary clouds on top of existing ones. We need to define an architecture of how Supercloud interfaces with all other clouds. What is the information model? What is the execution model and how users will interact with Supercloud?" What does this seemingly nuanced point tell us and why does it matter? Well, history suggests that de facto standards will emerge more quickly to resolve real world practitioner problems and catch on more quickly than consensus-based architectures and standards-based architectures. But in the long run, the ladder may serve customers better. So we'll be exploring this topic in more detail in Supercloud 2, and of course we'd love to hear what you think platform, architecture, both? Now one of the real technical gurus that we'll have in studio at Supercloud two is David Flynn. He's one of the people behind the the movement that enabled enterprise flash adoption, that craze. And he did that with Fusion IO and he is now working on a system to enable read write data access to any user in any application in any data center or on any cloud anywhere. So think of this company as a Supercloud enabler. Allow me to share an excerpt from a conversation David Flore and I had with David Flynn last year. He as well gave a lot of thought to the Supercloud definition and was really helpful with an opinionated point of view. He said something to us that was, we thought relevant. "What is the operating system for a decentralized cloud? The main two functions of an operating system or an operating environment are one the process scheduler and two, the file system. The strongest argument for supercloud is made when you go down to the platform layer and talk about it as an operating environment on which you can run all forms of applications." So a couple of implications here that will be exploring with David Flynn in studio. First we're inferring from his comment that he's in the platform camp where the platform owner is responsible for the architecture and there are obviously trade-offs there and benefits but we'll have to clarify that with him. And second, he's basically saying, you kill the concept the further you move up the stack. So the weak, the further you move the stack the weaker the supercloud argument becomes because it's just becoming SaaS. Now this is something we're going to explore to better understand is thinking on this, but also whether the existing notion of SaaS is changing and whether or not a new breed of Supercloud apps will emerge. Which brings us to this really interesting fellow that George Gilbert and I RIFed with ahead of Supercloud two. Tristan Handy, he's the founder and CEO of DBT Labs and he has a highly opinionated and technical mind. Here's what he said, "One of the things that we still don't know how to API-ify is concepts that live inside of your data warehouse inside of your data lake. These are core concepts that the business should be able to create applications around very easily. In fact, that's not the case because it involves a lot of data engineering pipeline and other work to make these available. So if you really want to make it easy to create these data experiences for users you need to have an ability to describe these metrics and then to turn them into APIs to make them accessible to application developers who have literally no idea how they're calculated behind the scenes and they don't need to." A lot of implications to this statement that will explore at Supercloud two versus Jamma Dani's data mesh comes into play here with her critique of hyper specialized data pipeline experts with little or no domain knowledge. Also the need for simplified self-service infrastructure which Kit Colbert is likely going to touch upon. Veronica Durgin of SAKS and her ideal state for data shearing along with Harveer Singh of Western Union. They got to deal with 200 locations around the world in data privacy issues, data sovereignty how do you share data safely? Same with Nick Taylor of Ionis Pharmaceutical. And not to blow your mind but Thomas Hazel and Bob Muglia deposit that to make data apps a reality across the Supercloud you have to rethink everything. You can't just let in memory databases and caching architectures take care of everything in a brute force manner. Rather you have to get down to really detailed levels even things like how data is laid out on disk, ie flash and think about rewriting applications for the Supercloud and the MLAI era. All of this and more at Supercloud two which wouldn't be complete without some data. So we pinged our friends from ETR Eric Bradley and Darren Bramberm to see if they had any data on Supercloud that we could tap. And so we're going to be analyzing a number of the players as well at Supercloud two. Now, many of you are familiar with this graphic here we show some of the players involved in delivering or enabling Supercloud-like capabilities. On the Y axis is spending momentum and on the horizontal accesses market presence or pervasiveness in the data. So netscore versus what they call overlap or end in the data. And the table insert shows how the dots are plotted now not to steal ETR's thunder but the first point is you really can't have supercloud without the hyperscale cloud platforms which is shown on this graphic. But the exciting aspect of Supercloud is the opportunity to build value on top of that hyperscale infrastructure. Snowflake here continues to show strong spending velocity as those Databricks, Hashi, Rubrik. VMware Tanzu, which we all put under the magnifying glass after the Broadcom announcements, is also showing momentum. Unfortunately due to a scheduling conflict we weren't able to get Red Hat on the program but they're clearly a player here. And we've put Cohesity and Veeam on the chart as well because backup is a likely use case across clouds and on-premises. And now one other call out that we drill down on at Supercloud two is CloudFlare, which actually uses the term supercloud maybe in a different way. They look at Supercloud really as you know, serverless on steroids. And so the data brains at ETR will have more to say on this topic at Supercloud two along with many others. Okay, so why should you attend Supercloud two? What's in it for me kind of thing? So first of all, if you're a practitioner and you want to understand what the possibilities are for doing cross-cloud services for monetizing data how your peers are doing data sharing, how some of your peers are actually building out a Supercloud you're going to get real world input from practitioners. If you're a technologist, you're trying to figure out various ways to solve problems around data, data sharing, cross-cloud service deployment there's going to be a number of deep technology experts that are going to share how they're doing it. We're also going to drill down with Walmart into a practical example of Supercloud with some other examples of how practitioners are dealing with cross-cloud complexity. Some of them, by the way, are kind of thrown up their hands and saying, Hey, we're going mono cloud. And we'll talk about the potential implications and dangers and risks of doing that. And also some of the benefits. You know, there's a question, right? Is Supercloud the same wine new bottle or is it truly something different that can drive substantive business value? So look, go to Supercloud.world it's January 17th at 9:00 AM Pacific. You can register for free and participate directly in the program. Okay, that's a wrap. I want to give a shout out to the Supercloud supporters. VMware has been a great partner as our anchor sponsor Chaos Search Proximo, and Alura as well. For contributing to the effort I want to thank Alex Myerson who's on production and manages the podcast. Ken Schiffman is his supporting cast as well. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight to help get the word out on social media and at our newsletters. And Rob Ho is our editor-in-chief over at Silicon Angle. Thank you all. Remember, these episodes are all available as podcast. Wherever you listen we really appreciate the support that you've given. We just saw some stats from from Buzz Sprout, we hit the top 25% we're almost at 400,000 downloads last year. So really appreciate your participation. All you got to do is search Breaking Analysis podcast and you'll find those I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. Or if you want to get ahold of me you can email me directly at David.Vellante@siliconangle.com or dm me DVellante or comment on our LinkedIn post. I want you to check out etr.ai. They've got the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights, powered by ETR. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next week at Supercloud two or next time on breaking analysis. (light music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> Recent conversations with IT decision makers show a stark contrast between exiting 2023 versus the mindset when we were leaving 2022. CIOs are generally funding new initiatives by pushing off or cutting lower priority items, while security efforts are still being funded. Those that enable business initiatives that generate revenue or taking priority over cleaning up legacy technical debt. The bottom line is, for the moment, at least, the mindset is not cut everything, rather, it's put a pause on cleaning up legacy hairballs and fund monetization. Hello, and welcome to this week's Wikibon Cube Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we tap recent discussions from two primary sources, year-end ETR roundtables with IT decision makers, and CUBE conversations with data, cloud, and IT architecture practitioners. The sources of data for this breaking analysis come from the following areas. Eric Bradley's recent ETR year end panel featured a financial services DevOps and SRE manager, a CSO in a large hospitality firm, a director of IT for a big tech company, the head of IT infrastructure for a financial firm, and a CTO for global travel enterprise, and for our upcoming Supercloud2 conference on January 17th, which you can register free by the way, at supercloud.world, we've had CUBE conversations with data and cloud practitioners, specifically, heads of data in retail and financial services, a cloud architect and a biotech firm, the director of cloud and data at a large media firm, and the director of engineering at a financial services company. Now we've curated commentary from these sources and now we share them with you today as anecdotal evidence supporting what we've been reporting on in the marketplace for these last couple of quarters. On this program, we've likened the economy to the slingshot effect when you're driving, when you're cruising along at full speed on the highway, and suddenly you see red brake lights up ahead, so, you tap your own brakes and then you speed up again, and traffic is moving along at full speed, so, you think nothing of it, and then, all of a sudden, the same thing happens. You slow down to a crawl and you start wondering, "What the heck is happening?" And you become a lot more cautious about the rate of acceleration when you start moving again. Well, that's the trend in IT spend right now. Back in June, we reported that despite the macro headwinds, CIOs were still expecting 6% to 7% spending growth for 2022. Now that was down from 8%, which we reported at the beginning of 2022. That was before Ukraine, and Fed tightening, but given those two factors, you know that that seemed pretty robust, but throughout the fall, we began reporting consistently declining expectations where CIOs are now saying Q4 will come in at around 3% growth relative to last year, and they're expecting, or should we say hoping that it pops back up in 2023 to 4% to 5%. The recent ETR panelists, when they heard this, are saying based on their businesses and discussions with their peers, they could see low single digit growth for 2023, so, 1%, 2%, 3%, so, this sort of slingshotting, or sometimes we call it a seesaw economy, has caught everyone off guard. Amazon is a good example of this, and there are others, but Amazon entered the pandemic with around 800,000 employees. It doubled that workforce during the pandemic. Now, right before Thanksgiving in 2022, Amazon announced that it was laying off 10,000 employees, and, Jassy, the CEO of Amazon, just last week announced that number is now going to grow to 18,000. Now look, this is a rounding error at Amazon from a headcount standpoint and their headcount remains far above 2019 levels. Its stock price, however, does not and it's back down to 2019 levels. The point is that visibility is very poor right now and it's reflected in that uncertainty. We've seen a lot of layoffs, obviously, the stock market's choppy, et cetera. Now importantly, not everything is on hold, and this downturn is different from previous tech pullbacks in that the speed at which new initiatives can be rolled out is much greater thanks to the cloud, and if you can show a fast return, you're going to get funding. Organizations are pausing on the cleanup of technical debt, unless it's driving fast business value. They're holding off on modernization projects. Those business enablement initiatives are still getting funded. CIOs are finding the money by consolidating redundant vendors, and they're stealing from other pockets of budget, so, it's not surprising that cybersecurity remains the number one technology priority in 2023. We've been reporting that for quite some time now. It's specifically cloud, cloud native security container and API security. That's where all the action is, because there's still holes to plug from that forced march to digital that occurred during COVID. Cloud migration, kind of showing here on number two on this chart, still a high priority, while optimizing cloud spend is definitely a strategy that organizations are taking to cut costs. It's behind consolidating redundant vendors by a long shot. There's very little evidence that cloud repatriation, i.e., moving workloads back on prem is a major cost cutting trend. The data just doesn't show it. What is a trend is getting more real time with analytics, so, companies can do faster and more accurate customer targeting, and they're really prioritizing that, obviously, in this down economy. Real time, we sometimes lose it, what's real time? Real time, we sometimes define as before you lose the customer. Now in the hiring front, customers tell us they're still having a hard time finding qualified site reliability engineers, SREs, Kubernetes expertise, and deep analytics pros. These job markets remain very tight. Let's stay with security for just a moment. We said many times that, prior to COVID, zero trust was this undefined buzzword, and the joke, of course, is, if you ask three people, "What is zero trust?" You're going to get three different answers, but the truth is that virtually every security company that was resisting taking a position on zero trust in an attempt to avoid... They didn't want to get caught up in the buzzword vortex, but they're now really being forced to go there by CISOs, so, there are some good quotes here on cyber that we want to share that came out of the recent conversations that we cited up front. The first one, "Zero trust is the highest ROI, because it enables business transformation." In other words, if I can have good security, I can move fast, it's not a blocker anymore. Second quote here, "ZTA," zero trust architecture, "Is more than securing the perimeter. It encompasses strong authentication and multiple identity layers. It requires taking a software approach to security instead of a hardware focus." The next one, "I'd love to have a security data lake that I could apply to asset management, vulnerability management, incident management, incident response, and all aspects for my security team. I see huge promise in that space," and the last one, I see NLP, natural language processing, as the foundation for email security, so, instead of searching for IP addresses, you can now read emails at light speed and identify phishing threats, so, look at, this is a small snapshot of the mindset around security, but I'll add, when you talk to the likes of CrowdStrike, and Zscaler, and Okta, and Palo Alto Networks, and many other security firms, they're listening to these narratives around zero trust. I'm confident they're working hard on skating to this puck, if you will. A good example is this idea of a security data lake and using analytics to improve security. We're hearing a lot about that. We're hearing architectures, there's acquisitions in that regard, and so, that's becoming real, and there are many other examples, because data is at the heart of digital business. This is the next area that we want to talk about. It's obvious that data, as a topic, gets a lot of mind share amongst practitioners, but getting data right is still really hard. It's a challenge for most organizations to get ROI and expected return out of data. Most companies still put data at the periphery of their businesses. It's not at the core. Data lives within silos or different business units, different clouds, it's on-prem, and increasingly it's at the edge, and it seems like the problem is getting worse before it gets better, so, here are some instructive comments from our recent conversations. The first one, "We're publishing events onto Kafka, having those events be processed by Dataproc." Dataproc is a Google managed service to run Hadoop, and Spark, and Flank, and Presto, and a bunch of other open source tools. We're putting them into the appropriate storage models within Google, and then normalize the data into BigQuery, and only then can you take advantage of tools like ThoughtSpot, so, here's a company like ThoughtSpot, and they're all about simplifying data, democratizing data, but to get there, you have to go through some pretty complex processes, so, this is a good example. All right, another comment. "In order to use Google's AI tools, we have to put the data into BigQuery. They haven't integrated in the way AWS and Snowflake have with SageMaker. Moving the data is too expensive, time consuming, and risky," so, I'll just say this, sharing data is a killer super cloud use case, and firms like Snowflake are on top of it, but it's still not pretty across clouds, and Google's posture seems to be, "We're going to let our database product competitiveness drive the strategy first, and the ecosystem is going to take a backseat." Now, in a way, I get it, owning the database is critical, and Google doesn't want to capitulate on that front. Look, BigQuery is really good and competitive, but you can't help but roll your eyes when a CEO stands up, and look, I'm not calling out Thomas Kurian, every CEO does this, and talks about how important their customers are, and they'll do whatever is right by the customer, so, look, I'm telling you, I'm rolling my eyes on that. Now let me also comment, AWS has figured this out. They're killing it in database. If you take Redshift for example, it's still growing, as is Aurora, really fast growing services and other data stores, but AWS realizes it can make more money in the long-term partnering with the Snowflakes and Databricks of the world, and other ecosystem vendors versus sub optimizing their relationships with partners and customers in order to sell more of their own homegrown tools. I get it. It's hard not to feature your own product. IBM chose OS/2 over Windows, and tried for years to popularize it. It failed. Lotus, go back way back to Lotus 1, 2, and 3, they refused to run on Windows when it first came out. They were running on DEC VAX. Many of you young people in the United States have never even heard of DEC VAX. IBM wanted to run every everything only in its cloud, the same with Oracle, originally. VMware, as you might recall, tried to build its own cloud, but, eventually, when the market speaks and reveals what seems to be obvious to analysts, years before, the vendors come around, they face reality, and they stop wasting money, fighting a losing battle. "The trend is your friend," as the saying goes. All right, last pull quote on data, "The hardest part is transformations, moving traditional Informatica, Teradata, or Oracle infrastructure to something more modern and real time, and that's why people still run apps in COBOL. In IT, we rarely get rid of stuff, rather we add on another coat of paint until the wood rots out or the roof is going to cave in. All right, the last key finding we want to highlight is going to bring us back to the cloud repatriation myth. Followers of this program know it's a real sore spot with us. We've heard the stories about repatriation, we've read the thoughtful articles from VCs on the subject, we've been whispered to by vendors that you should investigate this trend. It's really happening, but the data simply doesn't support it. Here's the question that was posed to these practitioners. If you had unlimited budget and the economy miraculously flipped, what initiatives would you tackle first? Where would you really lean into? The first answer, "I'd rip out legacy on-prem infrastructure and move to the cloud even faster," so, the thing here is, look, maybe renting infrastructure is more expensive than owning, maybe, but if I can optimize my rental with better utilization, turn off compute, use things like serverless, get on a steeper and higher performance over time, and lower cost Silicon curve with things like Graviton, tap best of breed tools in AI, and other areas that make my business more competitive. Move faster, fail faster, experiment more quickly, and cheaply, what's that worth? Even the most hard-o CFOs understand the business benefits far outweigh the possible added cost per gigabyte, and, again, I stress "possible." Okay, other interesting comments from practitioners. "I'd hire 50 more data engineers and accelerate our real-time data capabilities to better target customers." Real-time is becoming a thing. AI is being injected into data and apps to make faster decisions, perhaps, with less or even no human involvement. That's on the rise. Next quote, "I'd like to focus on resolving the concerns around cloud data compliance," so, again, despite the risks of data being spread out in different clouds, organizations realize cloud is a given, and they want to find ways to make it work better, not move away from it. The same thing in the next one, "I would automate the data analytics pipeline and focus on a safer way to share data across the states without moving it," and, finally, "The way I'm addressing complexity is to standardize on a single cloud." MonoCloud is actually a thing. We're hearing this more and more. Yes, my company has multiple clouds, but in my group, we've standardized on a single cloud to simplify things, and this is a somewhat dangerous trend, because it's creating even more silos and it's an opportunity that needs to be addressed, and that's why we've been talking so much about supercloud is a cross-cloud, unifying, architectural framework, or, perhaps, it's a platform. In fact, that's a question that we will be exploring later this month at Supercloud2 live from our Palo Alto Studios. Is supercloud an architecture or is it a platform? And in this program, we're featuring technologists, analysts, practitioners to explore the intersection between data and cloud and the future of cloud computing, so, you don't want to miss this opportunity. Go to supercloud.world. You can register for free and participate in the event directly. All right, thanks for listening. That's a wrap. I'd like to thank Alex Myerson, who's on production and manages our podcast, Ken Schiffman as well, Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight, they helped get the word out on social media, and in our newsletters, and Rob Hof is our editor-in-chief over at siliconangle.com. He does some great editing. Thank you, all. Remember, all these episodes are available as podcasts wherever you listen. All you've got to do is search "breaking analysis podcasts." I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com where you can email me directly at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or DM me, @Dante, or comment on our LinkedIn posts. By all means, check out etr.ai. They get the best survey data in the enterprise tech business. We'll be doing our annual predictions post in a few weeks, once the data comes out from the January survey. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, everybody, and we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis." (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, this is "Breaking Analysis" with Dave Vellante. >> A decade of big data investments combined with cloud scale, the rise of much more cost effective processing power. And the introduction of advanced tooling has catapulted machine intelligence to the forefront of technology investments. No matter what job you have, your operation will be AI powered within five years and machines may actually even be doing your job. Artificial intelligence is being infused into applications, infrastructure, equipment, and virtually every aspect of our lives. AI is proving to be extremely helpful at things like controlling vehicles, speeding up medical diagnoses, processing language, advancing science, and generally raising the stakes on what it means to apply technology for business advantage. But business value realization has been a challenge for most organizations due to lack of skills, complexity of programming models, immature technology integration, sizable upfront investments, ethical concerns, and lack of business alignment. Mastering AI technology will not be a requirement for success in our view. However, figuring out how and where to apply AI to your business will be crucial. That means understanding the business case, picking the right technology partner, experimenting in bite-sized chunks, and quickly identifying winners to double down on from an investment standpoint. Hello and welcome to this week's Wiki-bond CUBE Insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis, we update you on the state of AI and what it means for the competition. And to do so, we invite into our studios Andy Thurai of Constellation Research. Andy covers AI deeply. He knows the players, he knows the pitfalls of AI investment, and he's a collaborator. Andy, great to have you on the program. Thanks for coming into our CUBE studios. >> Thanks for having me on. >> You're very welcome. Okay, let's set the table with a premise and a series of assertions we want to test with Andy. I'm going to lay 'em out. And then Andy, I'd love for you to comment. So, first of all, according to McKinsey, AI adoption has more than doubled since 2017, but only 10% of organizations report seeing significant ROI. That's a BCG and MIT study. And part of that challenge of AI is it requires data, is requires good data, data proficiency, which is not trivial, as you know. Firms that can master both data and AI, we believe are going to have a competitive advantage this decade. Hyperscalers, as we show you dominate AI and ML. We'll show you some data on that. And having said that, there's plenty of room for specialists. They need to partner with the cloud vendors for go to market productivity. And finally, organizations increasingly have to put data and AI at the center of their enterprises. And to do that, most are going to rely on vendor R&D to leverage AI and ML. In other words, Andy, they're going to buy it and apply it as opposed to build it. What are your thoughts on that setup and that premise? >> Yeah, I see that a lot happening in the field, right? So first of all, the only 10% of realizing a return on investment. That's so true because we talked about this earlier, the most companies are still in the innovation cycle. So they're trying to innovate and see what they can do to apply. A lot of these times when you look at the solutions, what they come up with or the models they create, the experimentation they do, most times they don't even have a good business case to solve, right? So they just experiment and then they figure it out, "Oh my God, this model is working. Can we do something to solve it?" So it's like you found a hammer and then you're trying to find the needle kind of thing, right? That never works. >> 'Cause it's cool or whatever it is. >> It is, right? So that's why, I always advise, when they come to me and ask me things like, "Hey, what's the right way to do it? What is the secret sauce?" And, we talked about this. The first thing I tell them is, "Find out what is the business case that's having the most amount of problems, that that can be solved using some of the AI use cases," right? Not all of them can be solved. Even after you experiment, do the whole nine yards, spend millions of dollars on that, right? And later on you make it efficient only by saving maybe $50,000 for the company or a $100,000 for the company, is it really even worth the experiment, right? So you got to start with the saying that, you know, where's the base for this happening? Where's the need? What's a business use case? It doesn't have to be about cost efficient and saving money in the existing processes. It could be a new thing. You want to bring in a new revenue stream, but figure out what is a business use case, how much money potentially I can make off of that. The same way that start-ups go after. Right? >> Yeah. Pretty straightforward. All right, let's take a look at where ML and AI fit relative to the other hot sectors of the ETR dataset. This XY graph shows net score spending velocity in the vertical axis and presence in the survey, they call it sector perversion for the October survey, the January survey's in the field. Then that squiggly line on ML/AI represents the progression. Since the January 21 survey, you can see the downward trajectory. And we position ML and AI relative to the other big four hot sectors or big three, including, ML/AI is four. Containers, cloud and RPA. These have consistently performed above that magic 40% red dotted line for most of the past two years. Anything above 40%, we think is highly elevated. And we've just included analytics and big data for context and relevant adjacentness, if you will. Now note that green arrow moving toward, you know, the 40% mark on ML/AI. I got a glimpse of the January survey, which is in the field. It's got more than a thousand responses already, and it's trending up for the current survey. So Andy, what do you make of this downward trajectory over the past seven quarters and the presumed uptick in the coming months? >> So one of the things you have to keep in mind is when the pandemic happened, it's about survival mode, right? So when somebody's in a survival mode, what happens, the luxury and the innovations get cut. That's what happens. And this is exactly what happened in the situation. So as you can see in the last seven quarters, which is almost dating back close to pandemic, everybody was trying to keep their operations alive, especially digital operations. How do I keep the lights on? That's the most important thing for them. So while the numbers spent on AI, ML is less overall, I still think the AI ML to spend to sort of like a employee experience or the IT ops, AI ops, ML ops, as we talked about, some of those areas actually went up. There are companies, we talked about it, Atlassian had a lot of platform issues till the amount of money people are spending on that is exorbitant and simply because they are offering the solution that was not available other way. So there are companies out there, you can take AoPS or incident management for that matter, right? A lot of companies have a digital insurance, they don't know how to properly manage it. How do you find an intern solve it immediately? That's all using AI ML and some of those areas actually growing unbelievable, the companies in that area. >> So this is a really good point. If you can you bring up that chart again, what Andy's saying is a lot of the companies in the ETR taxonomy that are doing things with AI might not necessarily show up in a granular fashion. And I think the other point I would make is, these are still highly elevated numbers. If you put on like storage and servers, they would read way, way down the list. And, look in the pandemic, we had to deal with work from home, we had to re-architect the network, we had to worry about security. So those are really good points that you made there. Let's, unpack this a little bit and look at the ML AI sector and the ETR data and specifically at the players and get Andy to comment on this. This chart here shows the same x y dimensions, and it just notes some of the players that are specifically have services and products that people spend money on, that CIOs and IT buyers can comment on. So the table insert shows how the companies are plotted, it's net score, and then the ends in the survey. And Andy, the hyperscalers are dominant, as you can see. You see Databricks there showing strong as a specialist, and then you got to pack a six or seven in there. And then Oracle and IBM, kind of the big whales of yester year are in the mix. And to your point, companies like Salesforce that you mentioned to me offline aren't in that mix, but they do a lot in AI. But what are your takeaways from that data? >> If you could put the slide back on please. I want to make quick comments on a couple of those. So the first one is, it's surprising other hyperscalers, right? As you and I talked about this earlier, AWS is more about logo blocks. We discussed that, right? >> Like what? Like a SageMaker as an example. >> We'll give you all the components what do you need. Whether it's MLOps component or whether it's, CodeWhisperer that we talked about, or a oral platform or data or data, whatever you want. They'll give you the blocks and then you'll build things on top of it, right? But Google took a different way. Matter of fact, if we did those numbers a few years ago, Google would've been number one because they did a lot of work with their acquisition of DeepMind and other things. They're way ahead of the pack when it comes to AI for longest time. Now, I think Microsoft's move of partnering and taking a huge competitor out would open the eyes is unbelievable. You saw that everybody is talking about chat GPI, right? And the open AI tool and ChatGPT rather. Remember as Warren Buffet is saying that, when my laundry lady comes and talk to me about stock market, it's heated up. So that's how it's heated up. Everybody's using ChatGPT. What that means is at the end of the day is they're creating, it's still in beta, keep in mind. It's not fully... >> Can you play with it a little bit? >> I have a little bit. >> I have, but it's good and it's not good. You know what I mean? >> Look, so at the end of the day, you take the massive text of all the available text in the world today, mass them all together. And then you ask a question, it's going to basically search through that and figure it out and answer that back. Yes, it's good. But again, as we discussed, if there's no business use case of what problem you're going to solve. This is building hype. But then eventually they'll figure out, for example, all your chats, online chats, could be aided by your AI chat bots, which is already there, which is not there at that level. This could build help that, right? Or the other thing we talked about is one of the areas where I'm more concerned about is that it is able to produce equal enough original text at the level that humans can produce, for example, ChatGPT or the equal enough, the large language transformer can help you write stories as of Shakespeare wrote it. Pretty close to it. It'll learn from that. So when it comes down to it, talk about creating messages, articles, blogs, especially during political seasons, not necessarily just in US, but anywhere for that matter. If people are able to produce at the emission speed and throw it at the consumers and confuse them, the elections can be won, the governments can be toppled. >> Because to your point about chatbots is chatbots have obviously, reduced the number of bodies that you need to support chat. But they haven't solved the problem of serving consumers. Most of the chat bots are conditioned response, which of the following best describes your problem? >> The current chatbot. >> Yeah. Hey, did we solve your problem? No. Is the answer. So that has some real potential. But if you could bring up that slide again, Ken, I mean you've got the hyperscalers that are dominant. You talked about Google and Microsoft is ubiquitous, they seem to be dominant in every ETR category. But then you have these other specialists. How do those guys compete? And maybe you could even, cite some of the guys that you know, how do they compete with the hyperscalers? What's the key there for like a C3 ai or some of the others that are on there? >> So I've spoken with at least two of the CEOs of the smaller companies that you have on the list. One of the things they're worried about is that if they continue to operate independently without being part of hyperscaler, either the hyperscalers will develop something to compete against them full scale, or they'll become irrelevant. Because at the end of the day, look, cloud is dominant. Not many companies are going to do like AI modeling and training and deployment the whole nine yards by independent by themselves. They're going to depend on one of the clouds, right? So if they're already going to be in the cloud, by taking them out to come to you, it's going to be extremely difficult issue to solve. So all these companies are going and saying, "You know what? We need to be in hyperscalers." For example, you could have looked at DataRobot recently, they made announcements, Google and AWS, and they are all over the place. So you need to go where the customers are. Right? >> All right, before we go on, I want to share some other data from ETR and why people adopt AI and get your feedback. So the data historically shows that feature breadth and technical capabilities were the main decision points for AI adoption, historically. What says to me that it's too much focus on technology. In your view, is that changing? Does it have to change? Will it change? >> Yes. Simple answer is yes. So here's the thing. The data you're speaking from is from previous years. >> Yes >> I can guarantee you, if you look at the latest data that's coming in now, those two will be a secondary and tertiary points. The number one would be about ROI. And how do I achieve? I've spent ton of money on all of my experiments. This is the same thing theme I'm seeing across when talking to everybody who's spending money on AI. I've spent so much money on it. When can I get it live in production? How much, how can I quickly get it? Because you know, the board is breathing down their neck. You already spend this much money. Show me something that's valuable. So the ROI is going to become, take it from me, I'm predicting this for 2023, that's going to become number one. >> Yeah, and if people focus on it, they'll figure it out. Okay. Let's take a look at some of the top players that won, some of the names we just looked at and double click on that and break down their spending profile. So the chart here shows the net score, how net score is calculated. So pay attention to the second set of bars that Databricks, who was pretty prominent on the previous chart. And we've annotated the colors. The lime green is, we're bringing the platform in new. The forest green is, we're going to spend 6% or more relative to last year. And the gray is flat spending. The pinkish is our spending's going to be down on AI and ML, 6% or worse. And the red is churn. So you don't want big red. You subtract the reds from the greens and you get net score, which is shown by those blue dots that you see there. So AWS has the highest net score and very little churn. I mean, single low single digit churn. But notably, you see Databricks and DataRobot are next in line within Microsoft and Google also, they've got very low churn. Andy, what are your thoughts on this data? >> So a couple of things that stands out to me. Most of them are in line with my conversation with customers. Couple of them stood out to me on how bad IBM Watson is doing. >> Yeah, bring that back up if you would. Let's take a look at that. IBM Watson is the far right and the red, that bright red is churning and again, you want low red here. Why do you think that is? >> Well, so look, IBM has been in the forefront of innovating things for many, many years now, right? And over the course of years we talked about this, they moved from a product innovation centric company into more of a services company. And over the years they were making, as at one point, you know that they were making about majority of that money from services. Now things have changed Arvind has taken over, he came from research. So he's doing a great job of trying to reinvent themselves as a company. But it's going to have a long way to catch up. IBM Watson, if you think about it, that played what, jeopardy and chess years ago, like 15 years ago? >> It was jaw dropping when you first saw it. And then they weren't able to commercialize that. >> Yeah. >> And you're making a good point. When Gerstner took over IBM at the time, John Akers wanted to split the company up. He wanted to have a database company, he wanted to have a storage company. Because that's where the industry trend was, Gerstner said no, he came from AMEX, right? He came from American Express. He said, "No, we're going to have a single throat to choke for the customer." They bought PWC for relatively short money. I think it was $15 billion, completely transformed and I would argue saved IBM. But the trade off was, it sort of took them out of product leadership. And so from Gerstner to Palmisano to Remedi, it was really a services led company. And I think Arvind is really bringing it back to a product company with strong consulting. I mean, that's one of the pillars. And so I think that's, they've got a strong story in data and AI. They just got to sort of bring it together and better. Bring that chart up one more time. I want to, the other point is Oracle, Oracle sort of has the dominant lock-in for mission critical database and they're sort of applying AI there. But to your point, they're really not an AI company in the sense that they're taking unstructured data and doing sort of new things. It's really about how to make Oracle better, right? >> Well, you got to remember, Oracle is about database for the structure data. So in yesterday's world, they were dominant database. But you know, if you are to start storing like videos and texts and audio and other things, and then start doing search of vector search and all that, Oracle is not necessarily the database company of choice. And they're strongest thing being apps and building AI into the apps? They are kind of surviving in that area. But again, I wouldn't name them as an AI company, right? But the other thing that that surprised me in that list, what you showed me is yes, AWS is number one. >> Bring that back up if you would, Ken. >> AWS is number one as you, it should be. But what what actually caught me by surprise is how DataRobot is holding, you know? I mean, look at that. The either net new addition and or expansion, DataRobot seem to be doing equally well, even better than Microsoft and Google. That surprises me. >> DataRobot's, and again, this is a function of spending momentum. So remember from the previous chart that Microsoft and Google, much, much larger than DataRobot. DataRobot more niche. But with spending velocity and has always had strong spending velocity, despite some of the recent challenges, organizational challenges. And then you see these other specialists, H2O.ai, Anaconda, dataiku, little bit of red showing there C3.ai. But these again, to stress are the sort of specialists other than obviously the hyperscalers. These are the specialists in AI. All right, so we hit the bigger names in the sector. Now let's take a look at the emerging technology companies. And one of the gems of the ETR dataset is the emerging technology survey. It's called ETS. They used to just do it like twice a year. It's now run four times a year. I just discovered it kind of mid-2022. And it's exclusively focused on private companies that are potential disruptors, they might be M&A candidates and if they've raised enough money, they could be acquirers of companies as well. So Databricks would be an example. They've made a number of investments in companies. SNEAK would be another good example. Companies that are private, but they're buyers, they hope to go IPO at some point in time. So this chart here, shows the emerging companies in the ML AI sector of the ETR dataset. So the dimensions of this are similar, they're net sentiment on the Y axis and mind share on the X axis. Basically, the ETS study measures awareness on the x axis and intent to do something with, evaluate or implement or not, on that vertical axis. So it's like net score on the vertical where negatives are subtracted from the positives. And again, mind share is vendor awareness. That's the horizontal axis. Now that inserted table shows net sentiment and the ends in the survey, which informs the position of the dots. And you'll notice we're plotting TensorFlow as well. We know that's not a company, but it's there for reference as open source tooling is an option for customers. And ETR sometimes like to show that as a reference point. Now we've also drawn a line for Databricks to show how relatively dominant they've become in the past 10 ETS surveys and sort of mind share going back to late 2018. And you can see a dozen or so other emerging tech vendors. So Andy, I want you to share your thoughts on these players, who were the ones to watch, name some names. We'll bring that data back up as you as you comment. >> So Databricks, as you said, remember we talked about how Oracle is not necessarily the database of the choice, you know? So Databricks is kind of trying to solve some of the issue for AI/ML workloads, right? And the problem is also there is no one company that could solve all of the problems. For example, if you look at the names in here, some of them are database names, some of them are platform names, some of them are like MLOps companies like, DataRobot (indistinct) and others. And some of them are like future based companies like, you know, the Techton and stuff. >> So it's a mix of those sub sectors? >> It's a mix of those companies. >> We'll talk to ETR about that. They'd be interested in your input on how to make this more granular and these sub-sectors. You got Hugging Face in here, >> Which is NLP, yeah. >> Okay. So your take, are these companies going to get acquired? Are they going to go IPO? Are they going to merge? >> Well, most of them going to get acquired. My prediction would be most of them will get acquired because look, at the end of the day, hyperscalers need these capabilities, right? So they're going to either create their own, AWS is very good at doing that. They have done a lot of those things. But the other ones, like for particularly Azure, they're going to look at it and saying that, "You know what, it's going to take time for me to build this. Why don't I just go and buy you?" Right? Or or even the smaller players like Oracle or IBM Cloud, this will exist. They might even take a look at them, right? So at the end of the day, a lot of these companies are going to get acquired or merged with others. >> Yeah. All right, let's wrap with some final thoughts. I'm going to make some comments Andy, and then ask you to dig in here. Look, despite the challenge of leveraging AI, you know, Ken, if you could bring up the next chart. We're not repeating, we're not predicting the AI winter of the 1990s. Machine intelligence. It's a superpower that's going to permeate every aspect of the technology industry. AI and data strategies have to be connected. Leveraging first party data is going to increase AI competitiveness and shorten time to value. Andy, I'd love your thoughts on that. I know you've got some thoughts on governance and AI ethics. You know, we talked about ChatGBT, Deepfakes, help us unpack all these trends. >> So there's so much information packed up there, right? The AI and data strategy, that's very, very, very important. If you don't have a proper data, people don't realize that AI is, your AI is the morals that you built on, it's predominantly based on the data what you have. It's not, AI cannot predict something that's going to happen without knowing what it is. It need to be trained, it need to understand what is it you're talking about. So 99% of the time you got to have a good data for you to train. So this where I mentioned to you, the problem is a lot of these companies can't afford to collect the real world data because it takes too long, it's too expensive. So a lot of these companies are trying to do the synthetic data way. It has its own set of issues because you can't use all... >> What's that synthetic data? Explain that. >> Synthetic data is basically not a real world data, but it's a created or simulated data equal and based on real data. It looks, feels, smells, taste like a real data, but it's not exactly real data, right? This is particularly useful in the financial and healthcare industry for world. So you don't have to, at the end of the day, if you have real data about your and my medical history data, if you redact it, you can still reverse this. It's fairly easy, right? >> Yeah, yeah. >> So by creating a synthetic data, there is no correlation between the real data and the synthetic data. >> So that's part of AI ethics and privacy and, okay. >> So the synthetic data, the issue with that is that when you're trying to commingle that with that, you can't create models based on just on synthetic data because synthetic data, as I said is artificial data. So basically you're creating artificial models, so you got to blend in properly that that blend is the problem. And you know how much of real data, how much of synthetic data you could use. You got to use judgment between efficiency cost and the time duration stuff. So that's one-- >> And risk >> And the risk involved with that. And the secondary issues which we talked about is that when you're creating, okay, you take a business use case, okay, you think about investing things, you build the whole thing out and you're trying to put it out into the market. Most companies that I talk to don't have a proper governance in place. They don't have ethics standards in place. They don't worry about the biases in data, they just go on trying to solve a business case >> It's wild west. >> 'Cause that's what they start. It's a wild west! And then at the end of the day when they are close to some legal litigation action or something or something else happens and that's when the Oh Shit! moments happens, right? And then they come in and say, "You know what, how do I fix this?" The governance, security and all of those things, ethics bias, data bias, de-biasing, none of them can be an afterthought. It got to start with the, from the get-go. So you got to start at the beginning saying that, "You know what, I'm going to do all of those AI programs, but before we get into this, we got to set some framework for doing all these things properly." Right? And then the-- >> Yeah. So let's go back to the key points. I want to bring up the cloud again. Because you got to get cloud right. Getting that right matters in AI to the points that you were making earlier. You can't just be out on an island and hyperscalers, they're going to obviously continue to do well. They get more and more data's going into the cloud and they have the native tools. To your point, in the case of AWS, Microsoft's obviously ubiquitous. Google's got great capabilities here. They've got integrated ecosystems partners that are going to continue to strengthen through the decade. What are your thoughts here? >> So a couple of things. One is the last mile ML or last mile AI that nobody's talking about. So that need to be attended to. There are lot of players in the market that coming up, when I talk about last mile, I'm talking about after you're done with the experimentation of the model, how fast and quickly and efficiently can you get it to production? So that's production being-- >> Compressing that time is going to put dollars in your pocket. >> Exactly. Right. >> So once, >> If you got it right. >> If you get it right, of course. So there are, there are a couple of issues with that. Once you figure out that model is working, that's perfect. People don't realize, the moment you decide that moment when the decision is made, it's like a new car. After you purchase the value decreases on a minute basis. Same thing with the models. Once the model is created, you need to be in production right away because it starts losing it value on a seconds minute basis. So issue number one, how fast can I get it over there? So your deployment, you are inferencing efficiently at the edge locations, your optimization, your security, all of this is at issue. But you know what is more important than that in the last mile? You keep the model up, you continue to work on, again, going back to the car analogy, at one point you got to figure out your car is costing more than to operate. So you got to get a new car, right? And that's the same thing with the models as well. If your model has reached a stage, it is actually a potential risk for your operation. To give you an idea, if Uber has a model, the first time when you get a car from going from point A to B cost you $60. If the model decayed the next time I might give you a $40 rate, I would take it definitely. But it's lost for the company. The business risk associated with operating on a bad model, you should realize it immediately, pull the model out, retrain it, redeploy it. That's is key. >> And that's got to be huge in security model recency and security to the extent that you can get real time is big. I mean you, you see Palo Alto, CrowdStrike, a lot of other security companies are injecting AI. Again, they won't show up in the ETR ML/AI taxonomy per se as a pure play. But ServiceNow is another company that you have have mentioned to me, offline. AI is just getting embedded everywhere. >> Yep. >> And then I'm glad you brought up, kind of real-time inferencing 'cause a lot of the modeling, if we can go back to the last point that we're going to make, a lot of the AI today is modeling done in the cloud. The last point we wanted to make here, I'd love to get your thoughts on this, is real-time AI inferencing for instance at the edge is going to become increasingly important for us. It's going to usher in new economics, new types of silicon, particularly arm-based. We've covered that a lot on "Breaking Analysis", new tooling, new companies and that could disrupt the sort of cloud model if new economics emerge. 'Cause cloud obviously very centralized, they're trying to decentralize it. But over the course of this decade we could see some real disruption there. Andy, give us your final thoughts on that. >> Yes and no. I mean at the end of the day, cloud is kind of centralized now, but a lot of this companies including, AWS is kind of trying to decentralize that by putting their own sub-centers and edge locations. >> Local zones, outposts. >> Yeah, exactly. Particularly the outpost concept. And if it can even become like a micro center and stuff, it won't go to the localized level of, I go to a single IOT level. But again, the cloud extends itself to that level. So if there is an opportunity need for it, the hyperscalers will figure out a way to fit that model. So I wouldn't too much worry about that, about deployment and where to have it and what to do with that. But you know, figure out the right business use case, get the right data, get the ethics and governance place and make sure they get it to production and make sure you pull the model out when it's not operating well. >> Excellent advice. Andy, I got to thank you for coming into the studio today, helping us with this "Breaking Analysis" segment. Outstanding collaboration and insights and input in today's episode. Hope we can do more. >> Thank you. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. >> You're very welcome. All right. I want to thank Alex Marson who's on production and manages the podcast. Ken Schiffman as well. Kristen Martin and Cheryl Knight helped get the word out on social media and our newsletters. And Rob Hoof is our editor-in-chief over at Silicon Angle. He does some great editing for us. Thank you all. Remember all these episodes are available as podcast. Wherever you listen, all you got to do is search "Breaking Analysis" podcast. I publish each week on wikibon.com and silicon angle.com or you can email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com to get in touch, or DM me at dvellante or comment on our LinkedIn posts. Please check out ETR.AI for the best survey data and the enterprise tech business, Constellation Research. Andy publishes there some awesome information on AI and data. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE Insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching everybody and we'll see you next time on "Breaking Analysis". (gentle closing tune plays)