(inspirational music) >> theCUBE's live coverage is made possible by funding from Dell Technologies. Creating technologies that drive human progress. (uplifting electronic music) (crowd chattering in background) >> Hi everybody. We're back at the Fira in Barcelona. Winding up our four day wall-to-wall coverage of MWC23 theCUBE has been thrilled to cover the telco transformation. Dave Vellante with Dave Nicholson. Really excited to have NTT on. Shahid Ahmed is the Group EVP of New Ventures and Innovation at NTT in from Chicago. Welcome to Barcelona. Welcome to theCUBE. >> Thank you for having me over. >> So, really interesting title. You have, you know, people might not know NTT you know, huge Japan telco but a lot of other businesses, explain your business. >> So we do a lot of things. Most of us are known for our Docomo business in Japan. We have one of the largest wireless cellular carriers in the world. We serve most of Japan. Outside of Japan, we are B2B systems, integration, professional services company. So we offer managed services. We have data centers, we have undersea cables. We offer all kinds of outsourcing services. So we're a big company. >> So there's a narrative out there that says, you know, 5G, it's a lot of hype, not a lot of adoption. Nobody's ever going to make money at 5G. You have a different point of view, I understand. You're like leaning into 5G and you've actually got some traction there. Explain that. >> So 5G can be viewed from two lenses. One is just you and I using our cell phones and we get 5G coverage over it. And the other one is for businesses to use 5G, and we call that private 5G or enterprise grade 5G. Two very separate distinct things, but it is 5G in the end. Now the big debate here in Europe and US is how to monetize 5G. As a consumer, you and I are not going to pay extra for 5G. I mean, I haven't. I just expect the carrier to offer faster, cheaper services. And so would I pay extra? Not really. I just want a reliable network from my carrier. >> Paid up for the good camera though, didn't you? >> I did. (Dave and Dave laughing) >> I'm waiting for four cameras now. >> So the carriers are in this little bit of a pickle at the moment because they've just spent billions of dollars, not only on spectrum but the infrastructure needed to upgrade to 5G, yet nobody's willing to pay extra for that 5G service. >> Oh, right. >> So what do they do? And one idea is to look at enterprises, companies, industrial companies, manufacturing companies who want to build their own 5G networks to support their own use cases. And these use cases could be anything from automating the surveyor belt to cameras with 5G in it to AGVs. These are little carts running around warehouses picking up products and goods, but they have to be connected all the time. Wifi doesn't work all the time there. And so those businesses are willing to pay for 5G. So your question is, is there a business case for 5G? Yes. I don't think it's in the consumer side. I think it's in the business side. And that's where NTT is finding success. >> So you said, you know, how they going to make money, right? You very well described the telco dilemma. We heard earlier this week, you know, well, we could tax the OTT vendors, like Netflix of course shot back and said, "Well, we spent a lot of money on content. We're driving a lot of value. Why don't you help us pay for the content development?" Which is incredibly expensive. I think I heard we're going to tax the developers for API calls on the network. I'm not sure how well that's going to work out. Look at Twitter, you know, we'll see. And then yeah, there's the B2B piece. What's your take on, we heard the Orange CEO say, "We need help." You know, maybe implying we're going to tax the OTT vendors, but we're for net neutrality, which seems like it's completely counter-posed. What's your take on, you know, fair share in the network? >> Look, we've seen this debate unfold in the US for the last 10 years. >> Yeah. >> Tom Wheeler, the FCC chairman started that debate and he made great progress and open internet and net neutrality. The thing is that if you create a lane, a tollway, where some companies have to pay toll and others don't have to, you create an environment where the innovation could be stifled. Content providers may not appear on the scene anymore. And with everything happening around AI, we may see that backfire. So creating a toll for rich companies to be able to pay that toll and get on a faster speed internet, that may work some places may backfire in others. >> It's, you know, you're bringing up a great point. It's one of those sort of unintended consequences. You got to be be careful because the little guy gets crushed in that environment, and then what? Right? Then you stifle innovation. So, okay, so you're a fan of net neutrality. You think the balance that the US model, for a change, maybe the US got it right instead of like GDPR, who sort of informed the US on privacy, maybe the opposite on net neutrality. >> I think so. I mean, look, the way the US, particularly the FCC and the FTC has mandated these rules and regulation. I think it's a nice balance. FTC is all looking at big tech at the moment, but- >> Lena Khan wants to break up big tech. I mean for, you know, you big tech, boom, break 'em up, right? So, but that's, you know- >> That's a whole different story. >> Yeah. Right. We could talk about that too, if you want. >> Right. But I think that we have a balanced approach, a measured approach. Asking the content providers or the developers to pay for your innovative creative application that's on your phone, you know, that's asking for too much in my opinion. >> You know, I think you're right though. Government did do a good job with net neutrality in the US and, I mean, I'm just going to go my high horse for a second, so forgive me. >> Go for it. >> Market forces have always done a better job at adjudicating, you know, competition. Now, if a company's a monopoly, in my view they should be, you know, regulated, or at least penalized. Yeah, but generally speaking, you know the attack on big tech, I think is perhaps misplaced. I sat through, and the reason it's relevant to Mobile World Congress or MWC, is I sat through a Nokia presentation this week and they were talking about Bell Labs when United States broke up, you know, the US telcos, >> Yeah. >> Bell Labs was a gem in the US and now it's owned by Nokia. >> Yeah. >> Right? And so you got to be careful about, you know what you wish for with breaking up big tech. You got AI, you've got, you know, competition with China- >> Yeah, but the upside to breaking up Ma Bell was not just the baby Bells and maybe the stranded orphan asset of Bell Labs, but I would argue it led to innovation. I'm old enough to remember- >> I would say it made the US less competitive. >> I know. >> You were in junior high school, but I remember as an adult, having a rotary dial phone and having to pay for that access, and there was no such- >> Yeah, but they all came back together. The baby Bells are all, they got all acquired. And the cable company, it was no different. So I don't know, do you have a perspective of this? Because you know this better than I do. >> Well, I think look at Nokia, just they announced a whole new branding strategy and new brand. >> I like the brand. >> Yeah. And- >> It looks cool. >> But guess what? It's B2B oriented. >> (laughs) Yeah. >> It's no longer consumer, >> Right, yeah. >> because they felt that Nokia brand phone was sort of misleading towards a lot of business to business work that they do. And so they've oriented themselves to B2B. Look, my point is, the carriers and the service providers, network operators, and look, I'm a network operator, too, in Japan. We need to innovate ourselves. Nobody's stopping us from coming up with a content strategy. Nobody's stopping a carrier from building a interesting, new, over-the-top app. In fact, we have better control over that because we are closer to the customer. We need to innovate, we need to be more creative. I don't think taxing the little developer that's building a very innovative application is going to help in the long run. >> NTT Japan, what do they have a content play? I, sorry, I'm not familiar with it. Are they strong in content, or competitive like Netflix-like, or? >> We have relationships with them, and you remember i-mode? >> Yeah. Oh yeah, sure. >> Remember in the old days. I mean, that was a big hit. >> Yeah, yeah, you're right. >> Right? I mean, that was actually the original app marketplace. >> Right. >> And the application store. So, of course we've evolved from that and we should, and this is an evolution and we should look at it more positively instead of looking at ways to regulate it. We should let it prosper and let it see where- >> But why do you think that telcos generally have failed at content? I mean, AT&T is sort of the exception that proves the rule. I mean, they got some great properties, obviously, CNN and HBO, but generally it's viewed as a challenging asset and others have had to diversify or, you know, sell the assets. Why do you think that telcos have had such trouble there? >> Well, Comcast owns also a lot of content. >> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. >> And I think, I think that is definitely a strategy that should be explored here in Europe. And I think that has been underexplored. I, in my opinion, I believe that every large carrier must have some sort of content strategy at some point, or else you are a pipe. >> Yeah. You lose touch with a customer. >> Yeah. And by the way, being a dump pipe is okay. >> No, it's a lucrative business. >> It's a good business. You just have to focus. And if you start to do a lot of ancillary things around it then you start to see the margins erode. But if you just focus on being a pipe, I think that's a very good business and it's very lucrative. Everybody wants bandwidth. There's insatiable demand for bandwidth all the time. >> Enjoy the monopoly, I say. >> Yeah, well, capital is like an organism in and of itself. It's going to seek a place where it can insert itself and grow. Do you think that the questions around fair share right now are having people wait in the wings to see what's going to happen? Because especially if I'm on the small end of creating content, creating services, and there's possibly a death blow to my fixed costs that could be coming down the line, I'm going to hold back and wait. Do you think that the answer is let's solve this sooner than later? What are your thoughts? >> I think in Europe the opinion has been always to go after the big tech. I mean, we've seen a lot of moves either through antitrust, or other means. >> Or the guillotine! >> That's right. (all chuckle) A guillotine. Yes. And I've heard those directly. I think, look, in the end, EU has to decide what's right for their constituents, the countries they operate, and the economy. Frankly, with where the economy is, you got recession, inflation pressures, a war, and who knows what else might come down the pipe. I would be very careful in messing with this equilibrium in this economy. Until at least we have gone through this inflation and recessionary pressure and see what happens. >> I, again, I think I come back to markets, ultimately, will adjudicate. I think what we're seeing with chatGPT is like a Netscape moment in some ways. And I can't predict what's going to happen, but I can predict that it's going to change the world. And there's going to be new disruptors that come about. That just, I don't think Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple are going to rule the world forever. They're just, I guarantee they're not, you know. They'll make it through. But there's going to be some new companies. I think it might be open AI, might not be. Give us a plug for NTT at the show. What do you guys got going here? Really appreciate you coming on. >> Thank you. So, you know, we're showing off our private 5G network for enterprises, for businesses. We see this as a huge opportunities. If you look around here you've got Rohde & Schwarz, that's the industrial company. You got Airbus here. All the big industrial companies are here. Automotive companies and private 5G. 5G inside a factory, inside a hospital, a warehouse, a mining operation. That's where the dollars are. >> Is it a meaningful business for you today? >> It is. We just started this business only a couple of years ago. We're seeing amazing growth and I think there's a lot of good opportunities there. >> Shahid Ahmed, thanks so much for coming to theCUBE. It was great to have you. Really a pleasure. >> Thanks for having me over. Great questions. >> Oh, you're welcome. All right. For David Nicholson, Dave Vellante. We'll be back, right after this short break, from the Fira in Barcelona, MWC23. You're watching theCUBE. (uplifting electronic music)

(electronic music) >> Hi everybody, welcome back to Supercloud 2. I'm Dave Vellante with my co-host John Furrier. We're here at our tricked out Palo Alto studio. We're going live wall to wall all day. We're inserting a number of pre-recorded interviews, folks like Walmart. We just heard from Nir Zuk of Palo Alto Networks, and I'm really pleased to welcome in David Flynn. David Flynn, you may know as one of the people behind Fusion-io, completely changed the way in which people think about storing data, accessing data. David Flynn now the founder and CEO of a company called Hammerspace. David, good to see you, thanks for coming on. >> David: Good to see you too. >> And Dr. Nelu Mihai is the CEO and founder of Cloud of Clouds. He's actually built a Supercloud. We're going to get into that. Nelu, thanks for coming on. >> Thank you, Happy New Year. >> Yeah, Happy New Year. So I'm going to start right off with a little debate that's going on in the community if you guys would bring out this slide. So Bob Muglia early today, he gave a definition of Supercloud. He felt like we had to tighten ours up a little bit. He said a Supercloud is a platform, underscoring platform, that provides programmatically consistent services hosted on heterogeneous cloud providers. Now, Nelu, we have this shared doc, and you've been in there. You responded, you said, well, hold on. Supercloud really needs to be an architecture, or else we're going to have this stove pipe of stove pipes, really. And then you went on with more detail, what's the information model? What's the execution model? How are users going to interact with Supercloud? So I start with you, why architecture? The inference is that a platform, the platform provider's responsible for the architecture? Why does that not work in your view? >> No, the, it's a very interesting question. So whenever I think about platform, what's the connotation, you think about monolithic system? Yeah, I mean, I don't know whether it's true or or not, but there is this connotation of of monolithic. On the other hand, if you look at what's a problem right now with HyperClouds, from the customer perspective, they're very complex. There is a heterogeneous world where actually every single one of this HyperClouds has their own architecture. You need rocket scientists to build a cloud applications. Always there is this contradiction between cost and performance. They fight each other. And I'm quoting here a former friend of mine from Bell Labs who work at AWS who used to say "Cloud is cheap as long as you don't use it too much." (group chuckles) So clearly we need something that kind of plays from the principle point of view the role of an operating system, that seats on top of this heterogeneous HyperCloud, and there's nothing wrong by having these proprietary HyperClouds, think about processors, think about operating system and so on, so forth. But in order to build a system that is simple enough, I think we need to go deeper and understand. >> So the argument, the counterargument to that, David, is you'll never get there. You need a proprietary system to get to market sooner, to solve today's problem. Now I don't know where you stand on this platform versus architecture. I haven't asked you, but. >> I think there are aspects of both for sure. I mean it needs to be an architecture in the sense that it's broad based and open and so forth. But you know, platform, you could say as long as people can instantiate it themselves, on their own infrastructure, as long as it's something that can be deployed as, you know, software defined, you don't want the concept of platform being the monolith, you know, combined hardware and software. So it really depends on what you're focused on when you're saying platform, you know, I'd say as long as they software defined thing, to where it can literally run anywhere. I mean, because I really think what we're talking about here is the original concept of cloud computing. The ability to run anything anywhere, without having to care about the physical infrastructure. And what we have today is not that, the cloud today is a big mainframe in the sky, that just happens to be large enough that once you select which region, generally you have enough resources. But, you know, nowadays you don't even necessarily have enough resources in one region. and then you're kind of stuck. So we haven't really gotten to that utility model of computing. And you're also asked to rewrite your application, you know, to abandon the conveniences of high performance file access. You got to rewrite it to use object storage stuff. We have to get away from that. >> Okay, I want to just drill on that, 'cause I think I like that point about, there's not enough availability, but on the developer cloud, the original AWS premise was targeting developers, 'cause at that time, you have to provision a Sun box get a Cisco DSU/CSU, now you get on the cloud. But I think you're giving up the scale question, 'cause I think right now, scale is huge, enterprise grade versus cloud for developers. >> That's Right. >> Because I mean look at, Amazon, Azure, they got compute, they got storage, they got queuing, and some stuff. If you're doing a startup, you throw your app up there, localhost to cloud, no big deal. It's the scale thing that gets me- >> And you can tell by the fact that, in regions that are under high demand, right, like in London or LA, at least with the clients we work with in the median entertainment space, it costs twice as much for the exact same cloud instances that do the exact same amount of work, as somewhere out in rural Canada. So why is it you have such a cost differential, it has to do with that supply and demand, and the fact that the clouds aren't really the ability to run anything anywhere. Even within the same cloud vendor, you're stuck in a specific region. >> And that was never the original promise, right? I mean it was, we turned it into that. But the original promise was get rid of the heavy lifting of IT. >> Not have to run your own, yeah, exactly. >> And then it became, wow, okay I can run anywhere. And then you know, it's like web 2.0. You know people say why Supercloud, you and I talked about this, why do you need a name for Supercloud? It's like web 2.0. >> It's what Cloud was supposed to be. >> It's what cloud was supposed to be, (group laughing and talking) exactly, right. >> Cloud was supposed to be run anything anywhere, or at least that's what we took it as. But you're right, originally it was just, oh don't have to run your own infrastructure, and you can choose somebody else's infrastructure. >> And you did that >> But you're still bound to that. >> Dave: And People said I want more, right? >> But how do we go from here? >> That's, that's actually, that's a very good point, because indeed when the first HyperClouds were designed, were designed really focus on customers. I think Supercloud is an opportunity to design in the right way. Also having in mind the computer science rigor. And we should take advantage of that, because in fact actually, if cloud would've been designed properly from the beginning, probably wouldn't have needed Supercloud. >> David: You wouldn't have to have been asked to rewrite your application. >> That's correct. (group laughs) >> To use REST interfaces to your storage. >> Revisist history is always a good one. But look, cloud is great. I mean your point is cloud is a good thing. Don't hold it back. >> It is a very good thing. >> Let it continue. >> Let it go as as it is. >> Yeah, let that thing continue to grow. Don't impose restrictions on the cloud. Just refactor what you need to for scale or enterprise grade or availability. >> And you would agree with that, is that true or is it problem you're solving? >> Well yeah, I mean it, what the cloud is doing is absolutely necessary. What the public cloud vendors are doing is absolutely necessary. But what's been missing is how to provide a consistent interface, especially to persistent data. And have it be available across different regions, and across different clouds. 'cause data is a highly localized thing in current architecture. It only exists as rendered by the storage system that you put it in. Whether that's a legacy thing like a NetApp or an Isilon or even a cloud data service. It's localized to a specific region of the cloud in which you put that. We have to delocalize data, and provide a consistent interface to it across all sites. That's high performance, local access, but to global data. >> And so Walmart earlier today described their, what we call Supercloud, they call it the Walmart cloud native platform. And they use this triplet model. They have AWS and Azure, no, oh sorry, no AWS. They have Azure and GCP and then on-prem, where all the VMs live. When you, you know, probe, it turns out that it's only stateless in the cloud. (John laughs) So, the state stuff- >> Well let's just admit it, there is no such thing as stateless, because even the application binaries and libraries are state. >> Well I'm happy that I'm hearing that. >> Yeah, okay. >> Because actually I have a lot of debate (indistinct). If you think about no software running on a (indistinct) machine is stateless. >> David: Exactly. >> This is something that was- >> David: And that's data that needs to be distributed and provided consistently >> (indistinct) >> Across all the clouds, >> And actually, it's a nonsense, but- >> Dave: So it's an illusion, okay. (group talks over each other) >> (indistinct) you guys talk about stateless. >> Well, see, people make the confusion between state and persistent state, okay. Persistent state it's a different thing. State is a different thing. So, but anyway, I want to go back to your point, because there's a lot of debate here. People are talking about data, some people are talking about logic, some people are talking about networking. In my opinion is this triplet, which is data logic and connectivity, that has equal importance. And actually depending on the application, can have the center of gravity moving towards data, moving towards what I call execution units or workloads. And connectivity is actually the most important part of it. >> David: (indistinct). >> Some people are saying move the logic towards the data, some other people, and you are saying actually, that no, you have to build a distributed data mesh. What I'm saying is actually, you have to consider all these three variables, all these vector in order to decide, based on application, what's the most important. Because sometimes- >> John: So the application chooses >> That's correct. >> Well it it's what operating systems were in the past, was principally the thing that runs and manages the jobs, the job scheduler, and the thing that provides your persistent data (indistinct). >> Okay. So we finally got operating system into the equation, thank you. (group laughs) >> Nelu: I actually have a PhD in operating system. >> Cause what we're talking about is an operating system. So forget platform or architecture, it's an operating environment. Let's use it as a general term. >> All right. I think that's about it for me. >> All right, let's take (indistinct). Nelu, I want ask you quick, 'cause I want to give a, 'cause I believe it's an operating system. I think it's going to be a reset, refactored. You wrote to me, "The model of Supercloud has to be open theoretical, has to satisfy the rigors of computer science, and customer requirements." So unique to today, if the OS is going to be refactored, it's not going to be, may or may not be Red Hat or somebody else. This new OS, obviously requirements are for customers too but is what's the computer science that is needed? Where are we, what's the missing? Where's the science in this shift? It's not your standard OS it's not like an- (group talks over each other) >> I would beg to differ. >> (indistinct) truly an operation environment. But the, if you think about, and make analogies, what you need when you design a distributed system, well you need an information model, yeah. You need to figure out how the data is located and distributed. You need a model for the execution units, and you need a way to describe the interactions between all these objects. And it is my opinion that we need to go deeper and formalize these operations in order to make a step forward. And when we design Supercloud, and design something that is better than the current HyperClouds. And actually that is when we design something better, you make a system more efficient and it's going to be better from the cost point of view, from the performance point of view. But we need to add some math into all this customer focus centering and I really admire AWS and their executive team focusing on the customer. But now it's time to go back and see, if we apply some computer science, if you try to formalize to build a theoretical model of cloud, can we build a system that is better than existing ones? >> So David, how do you- >> this is what I'm saying. >> That's a good question >> How do You see the operating system of a, or operating environment of a decentralized cloud? >> Well I think it's layered. I mean we have operating systems that can run systems quite efficiently. Linux has sort of one in the data center, but we're talking about a layer on top of that. And I think we're seeing the emergence of that. For example, on the job scheduling side of things, Kubernetes makes a really good example. You know, you break the workload into the most granular units of compute, the containerized microservice, and then you use a declarative model to state what is needed and give the system the degrees of freedom that it can choose how to instantiate it. Because the thing about these distributed systems, is that the complexity explodes, right? Running a piece of hardware, running a single server is not a problem, even with all the many cores and everything like that. It's when you start adding in the networking, and making it so that you have many of them. And then when it's going across whole different data centers, you know, so, at that level the way you solve this is not manually (group laughs) and not procedurally. You have to change the language so it's intent based, it's a declarative model, and what you're stating is what is intended, and you're leaving it to more advanced techniques, like machine learning to decide how to instantiate that service across the cluster, which is what Kubernetes does, or how to instantiate the data across the diverse storage infrastructure. And that's what we do. >> So that's a very good point because actually what has been neglected with HyperClouds is really optimization and automation. But in order to be able to do both of these things, you need, I'm going back and I'm stubborn, you need to have a mathematical model, a theoretical model because what does automation mean? It means that we have to put machines to do the work instead of us, and machines work with what? Formula, with algorithms, they don't work with services. So I think Supercloud is an opportunity to underscore the importance of optimization and automation- >> Totally agree. >> In HyperCloud, and actually by doing that, we can also have an interesting connotation. We are also contributing to save our planet, because if you think right now. we're consuming a lot of energy on this HyperClouds and also all this AI applications, and I think we can do better and build the same kind of application using less energy. >> So yeah, great point, love that call out, the- you know, Dave and I always joke about the old, 'cause we're old, we talk about, you know, (Nelu Laughs) old history, OS/2 versus DOS, okay, OS's, OS/2 is silly better, first threaded OS, DOS never went away. So how does legacy play into this conversation? Because I buy the theoretical, I love the conversation. Okay, I think it's an OS, totally see it that way myself. What's the blocker? Is there a legacy that drags it back? Is the anchor dragging from legacy? Is there a DOS OS/2 moment? Is there an opportunity to flip the script? This is- >> I think that's a perfect example of why we need to support the existing interfaces, Operating Systems, real operating systems like Linux, understands how to present data, it's called a file system, block devices, things that that plumb in there. And by, you know, going to a REST interface and S3 and telling people they have to rewrite their applications, you can't even consume your application binaries that way, the OS doesn't know how to pull that sort of thing. So we, to get to cloud, to get to the ability to host massive numbers of tenants within a centralized infrastructure, you know, we abandoned these lower level interfaces to the OS and we have to go back to that. It's the reason why DOS ultimately won, is it had the momentum of the install base. We're seeing the same thing here. Whatever it is, it has to be a real file system and not a come down file system >> Nelu, what's your reaction, 'cause you're in the theoretical bandwagon. Let's get your reaction. >> No, I think it's a good, I'll give, you made a good analogy between OS/2 and DOS, but I'll go even farther saying, if you think about the evolution operating system didn't stop the evolution of underlying microprocessors, hardware, and so on and so forth. On the contrary, it was a catalyst for that. So because everybody could develop their own hardware, without worrying that the applications on top of operating system are going to modify. The same thing is going to happen with Supercloud. You're going to have the AWSs, you're going to have the Azure and the the GCP continue to evolve in their own way proprietary. But if we create on top of it the right interface >> The open, this is why open is important. >> That's correct, because actually you're going to see sometime ago, everybody was saying, remember venture capitals were saying, "AWS killed the world, nobody's going to come." Now you see what Oracle is doing, and then you're going to see other players. >> It's funny, Amazon's trying to be more like Microsoft. Microsoft's trying to be more like Amazon and Google- Oracle's just trying to say they have cloud. >> That's, that's correct, (group laughs) so, my point is, you're going to see a multiplication of this HyperClouds and cloud technology. So, the system has to be open in order to accommodate what it is and what is going to come. Okay, so it's open. >> So the the legacy- so legacy is an opportunity, not a blocker in your mind. And you see- >> That's correct, I think we should allow them to continue to to to be their own actually. But maybe you're going to find a way to connect with it. >> Amazon's the processor, and they're on the 80 80 80 right? >> That's correct. >> You're saying you love people trying to get put to work. >> That's a good analogy. >> But, performance levels you say good luck, right? >> Well yeah, we have to be able to take traditional applications, high performance applications, those that consume file system and persistent data. Those things have to be able to run anywhere. You need to be able to put, put them onto, you know, more elastic infrastructure. So, we have to actually get cloud to where it lives up to its billing. >> And that's what you're solving for, with Hammerspace, >> That's what we're solving for, making it possible- >> Give me the bumper sticker. >> Solving for how do you have massive quantities of unstructured file data? At the end of the day, all data ultimately is unstructured data. Have that persistent data available, across any data center, within any cloud, within any region on-prem, at the edge. And have not just the same APIs, but have the exact same data sets, and not sucked over a straw remote, but at extreme high performance, local access. So how do you have local access to globally shared distributed data? And that's what we're doing. We are orchestrating data globally across all different forms of storage infrastructure, so you have a consistent access at the highest performance levels, at the lowest level innate built into the OS, how to consume it as (indistinct) >> So are you going into the- all the clouds and natively building in there, or are you off cloud? >> So This is software that can run on cloud instances and provide high performance file within the cloud. It can take file data that's on-prem. Again, it's software, it can run in virtual or on physical servers. And it abstracts the data from the existing storage infrastructure, and makes the data visible and consumable and orchestratable across any of it. >> And what's the elevator pitch for Cloud of Cloud, give that too. >> Well, Cloud of Clouds creates a theoretical model of cloud, and it describes every single object in the cloud. Where is data, execution units, and connectivity, with one single class of very simple object. And I can, I can give you (indistinct) >> And the problem that solves is what? >> The problem that solves is, it creates this mathematical model that is necessary in order to do other interesting things, such as optimization, using sata engines, using automation, applying ML for instance. Or deep learning to automate all this clouds, if you think about in the industrial field, we know how to manage and automate huge plants. Why wouldn't it do the same thing in cloud? It's the same thing you- >> That's what you mean by theoretical model. >> Nelu: That's correct. >> Lay out the architecture, almost the bones of skeleton or something, or, and then- >> That's correct, and then on top of it you can actually build a platform, You can create your services, >> when you say math, you mean you put numbers to it, you kind of index it. >> You quantify this thing and you apply mathematical- It's really about, I can disclose this thing. It's really about describing the cloud as a knowledge graph for every single object in the graph for node, an edge is a vector. And then once you have this model, then you can apply the field theory, and linear algebra to do operation with these vectors. And it's, this creates a very interesting opportunity to let the math do this thing for us. >> Okay, so what happens with hyperscale, or it's like AWS in your model. >> So in, in my model actually, >> Are they happy with this, or they >> I'm very happy with that. >> Will they be happy with you? >> We create an interface to every single HyperCloud. We actually, we don't need to interface with the thousands of APIs, but you know, if we have the 80 20 rule, and we map these APIs into this graph, and then every single operation that is done in this graph is done from the beginning, in an optimized manner and also automation ready. >> That's going to be great. David, I want us to go back to you before we close real quick. You've had a lot of experience, multiple ventures on the front end. You talked to a lot of customers who've been innovating. Where are the classic (indistinct)? Cause you, you used to sell and invent product around the old school enterprises with storage, you know that that trajectory storage is still critical to store the data. Where's the classic enterprise grade mindset right now? Those customers that were buying, that are buying storage, they're in the cloud, they're lifting and shifting. They not yet put the throttle on DevOps. When they look at this Supercloud thing, Are they like a deer in the headlights, or are they like getting it? What's the, what's the classic enterprise look like? >> You're seeing people at different stages of adoption. Some folks are trying to get to the cloud, some folks are trying to repatriate from the cloud, because they've realized it's better to own than to rent when you use a lot of it. And so people are at very different stages of the journey. But the one thing that's constant is that there's always change. And the change here has to do with being able to change the location where you're doing your computing. So being able to support traditional workloads in the cloud, being able to run things at the edge, and being able to rationalize where the data ought to exist, and with a declarative model, intent-based, business objective-based, be able to swipe a mouse and have the data get redistributed and positioned across different vendors, across different clouds, that, we're seeing that as really top of mind right now, because everybody's at some point on this journey, trying to go somewhere, and it involves taking their data with them. (John laughs) >> Guys, great conversation. Thanks so much for coming on, for John, Dave. Stay tuned, we got a great analyst power panel coming right up. More from Palo Alto, Supercloud 2. Be right back. (bouncy music)

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

>>Hello, and welcome back to the cubes coverage of coop con cloud native con 2021. We're here in person at a real event. I'm John farrier host of the cube, but Dave Nicholson, Michael has got great guests here. Two founders of brand new startup, one week old cable on ASCII and Dave Lawrence, uh, with chain guard, former Google employees, open source community members decided to start a company with five other people on total five total. Congratulations. Welcome to the cube. >>Thank you. Thank you for >>Having us. So tell us like a product, you know, we know you don't have a price. So take us through the story because this is one of those rare moments. We got great chance to chat with you guys just a week into the new forms company and the team. What's the focus, what's the vision. >>How far back do you want to go with this story >>And why you left Google? So, you know, we're a gin and tonics. We get a couple of beers I can do that. We can do that. Let's just take over the world. >>Yeah. So we both been at Google, uh, for awhile. Um, the last couple of years we've been really worried about and focused on open-source security risk and supply chain security in general and software. Um, it's been a really interesting time as you probably noticed, uh, to be in that space, but it wasn't that interesting two years ago or even a year and a half ago. Um, so we were doing a bunch of this work at Google and the open source. Nobody really understood it. People kind of looked at us funny at talks and conferences. Um, and then beginning of this year, a bunch of attacks started happening, uh, things in the headlines like solar winds, solar winds attack, like you say, it attack all these different ransomware things happening. Uh, companies and governments are getting hit with supply chain attacks. So overnight people kind of started caring and being really worried about the stuff that we've been doing for a while. So it was a pretty cool thing to be a part of. And it seemed like a good time to start a company and keep your >>Reaction to this startup. How do you honestly feel, I suppose, feeling super excited. Yeah. >>I am really excited. I was in stars before Google. So then I went to Google where there for seven, I guess, Dan, a little bit longer, but I was there for seven years on the product side. And then yeah, we, we, the open source stuff, we were really there for protecting Google and we both came from cloud before that working on enterprise product. So then sorta just saw the opportunity, you know, while these companies trying to scramble and then sort of figure out how to better secure themselves. So it seemed like a perfect, >>The start-up bug and you back in the start up, but it's the timing's perfect. I got to say, this is a big conversation supply chain from whether it's components and software now, huge attack vector, people are taking advantage of it super important. So I'm really glad you're doing it. But first explain to the folks watching what is supply chain software? What's the challenge? What is the, what is the supply chain security challenge or problem? >>Sure. Yeah, it's the metaphor of software supply chain. It's just like physical supply chain. That's where the name came from. And it, it really comes down to how the code gets from your team's keyboard, your team's fingers on those keyboards into your production environment. Um, and that's just the first level of it. Uh, cause nobody writes all of the code. They use themselves. We're here at cloud native con it's hundreds of open source vendors, hundreds of open libraries that people are reusing. So your, your trust, uh, radius and your attack radius extends to not just your own companies, your own developers, but to everyone at this conference. And then everyone that they rely on all the way out. Uh, it's quite terrifying. It's a surface, the surface area explode pretty quickly >>And people are going and the, and the targeting to, because everyone's touching the code, it's open. It's a lot of action going on. How do you solve the problem? What is the approach? What's the mindset? What's the vision on the problems solving solutions? >>Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, I think like you said, the first step is awareness. Like Dan's been laughing, he's been, he felt like a crazy guy in the corner saying, you know, stop building software underneath your desk and you know, getting companies, >>Hey, we didn't do, why don't you tell them? I was telling him for five years. >>Yeah. But, but I think one of his go-to lines was like, would you pick up a thumb drive off the side of the street and plug it into your computer? Probably not. But when you download, you know, an open source package or something, that's actually can give you more privileges and production environments and it's so it's pretty scary. Um, so I think, you know, for the last few years we've been working on a number of open source projects in this space. And so I think that's where we're going to start is we're going to look at those and then try to grow out the community. And we're, we're watching companies, even like solar winds, trying to piece these parts together, um, and really come up with a better solution for themselves. >>Are there existing community initiatives or open source efforts that are underway that you plan to participate in or you chart? Are you thinking of charting a new >>Path? >>Oh, it's that looks like, uh, Thomas. Yeah, the, the SIG store project we kicked off back in March, if you've covered that or familiar with that at all. But we kicked that off back in March of 2021 kind of officially we'd look at code for awhile before then the idea there was to kind of do what let's encrypted, uh, for browsers and Webster, um, security, but for code signing and open source security. So we've always been able to get code signing certificates, but nobody's really using them because they're expensive. They're complicated, just like less encrypted for CAS. They made a free one that was automated and easy to use for developers. And now people do without thinking about it in six stores, we tried to do the same thing for open source and just because of the headlines that were happening and all of the attacks, the momentum has just been incredible. >>Is it a problem that people just have to just get on board with a certain platform or tool or people have too many tools, they abandoned them there, their focus shifts is there. Why what's the, what's the main problem right now? >>Well, I think, you know, part of the problem is just having the tools easy enough for developers are going to want to use them and it's not going to get in our way. I think that's going to be a core piece of our company is really nailing down the developer experience and these toolings and like the co-sign part of SIG store that he was explaining, like it's literally one command line to sign, um, a package, assign a container and then one line to verify on the other side. And then these organizations can put together sort of policies around who they trust and their system like today it's completely black box. They have no idea what they're running and takes a re >>You have to vape to rethink and redo everything pretty much if they want to do it right. If they just kind of fixing the old Europe's sold next solar with basically. >>Yeah. And that's why we're here at cloud native con when people are, you know, the timing is perfect because people are already rethinking how their software gets built as they move it into containers and as they move it into Kubernetes. So it's a perfect opportunity to not just shift to Kubernetes, but to fix the way you build software from this, >>What'd you say is the most prevalent change mindset change of developers. Now, if you had to kind of, kind of look at it and say, okay, current state-of-the-art mindset of a developer versus say a few years ago, is it just that they're doing things modularly with more people? Or is it more new approaches? Is there a, is there a, >>I think it's just paying attention to your building release process and taking it seriously. This has been a theme for, since I've been in software, but you have these very fancy production data centers with physical security and all these levels of, uh, Preston prevention and making sure you can't get in there, but then you've got a Jenkins machine that's three years old under somebody's desk building the code that goes into there. >>It gets socially engineered. It gets at exactly. >>Yeah. It's like the, it's like the movies where they, uh, instead of breaking into jail, they hide in the food delivery truck. And it's, it's that, that's the metaphor that I like perfectly. The fence doesn't work. If your truck, if you open the door once a week, it doesn't matter how big defenses. Yeah. So that's >>Good Dallas funny. >>And I, I think too, like when I used to be an engineer before I joined Google, just like how easy it is to bring in a third party package or something, you know, you need like an image editing software, like just go find one off the internet. And I think, you know, developers are slowly doing a mind shift. They're like, Hey, if I introduce a new dependency, you know, there's going to be, I'm going to have to maintain this thing and understand >>It's a little bit of a decentralized view too. Also, you got a little bit of that. Hey, if you sign it, you own it. If it tracks back to you, okay, you are, your fingerprints are, if you will, or on that chain of >>Custody and custody. >>Exactly. I was going to say, when I saw chain guard at first of course, I thought that my pant leg riding a bike, but then of course the supply chain things coming in, like on a conveyor belt, conveyor, conveyor belt. But that, that whole question of chain of custody, it isn't, it isn't as simple as a process where someone grabs some code, embeds it in, what's going on, pushes it out somewhere else. That's not the final step typically. Yeah. >>So somebody else grabs that one. And does it again, 35 more times, >>The one, how do you verify that? That's yeah, it seems like an obvious issue that needs to be addressed. And yet, apparently from what you're telling us for quite a while, people thought you were a little bit in that, >>And it's not just me. I mean, not so Ken Thompson of bell labs and he wrote the book >>He wrote, yeah, it was a seatbelt that I grew >>Up on in the eighties. He gave a famous lecture called uh, reflections on trusting trust, where he pranked all of his colleagues at bell labs by putting a back door in a compiler. And that put back doors into every program that compiled. And he was so clever. He even put it in, he made that compiler put a backdoor into the disassembler to hide the back door. So he spent weeks and, you know, people just kind of gave up. And I think at that point they were just like, oh, we can't trust any software ever. And just forgot about it and kept going on and living their lives. So this is a 40 year old problem. We only care about it now. >>It's totally true. A lot of these old sacred cows. So I would have done life cycles, not really that relevant anymore because the workflows are changing. These new Bev changes. It's complete dev ops is taken over. Let's just admit it. Right. So if we have ops is taken over now, cloud native apps are hitting the scene. This is where I think there's a structural industry change, not just the community. So with that in mind, how do you guys vector into that in terms of a market entry? What's just thinking around product. Obviously you got a higher, did you guys raise some capital in process? A little bit of a capital raise five, no problem. Todd market, but product wise, you've got to come in, get the beachhead. >>I mean, we're, we're, we're casting a wide net right now and talking to as many customers like we've met a lot of these, these customer potential customers through the communities, you know, that we've been building and we did a supply chain security con helped with that event, this, this Monday to negative one event and solar winds and Citibank were there and talking about their solutions. Um, and so I think, you know, and then we'll narrow it down to like people that would make good partners to work with and figure out how they think they're solving the problem today. And really >>How do you guys feel good? You feel good? Well, we got Jerry Chen coming off from gray lock next round. He would get a term sheet, Jerry, this guy's got some action on it in >>There. Probably didn't reply to him on LinkedIn. >>He's coming out with Kronos for him. He just invested 200 million at CrossFit. So you guys should have a great time. Congratulations on the leap. I know it's comfortable to beat Google, a lot of things to work on. Um, and student startups are super fun too, but not easy. None of the female or, you know, he has done it before, so. Right. Cool. What do you think about today? Did the event here a little bit smaller, more VIP event? What's your takeaway on this? >>It's good to be back in person. Obviously we're meeting, we've been associating with folks over zoom and Google meets for a while now and meeting them in person as I go, Hey, no hard to recognize behind the mask, but yeah, we're just glad to sort of be back out in a little bit of normalization. >>Yeah. How's everything in Austin, everyone everyone's safe and good over there. >>Yeah. It's been a long, long pandemic. Lots of ups and downs, but yeah. >>Got to get the music scene back. Most of these are comes back in the house. Everything's all back to normal. >>Yeah. My hair doesn't normally look like this. I just haven't gotten a haircut since this also >>You're going to do well in this market. You got a term sheet like that. Keep the hair, just to get the money. I think I saw your LinkedIn profile and I was wondering it's like, which version are we going to get? Well, super relevant. Super great topic. Congratulations. Thanks for coming on. Sharing the story. You're in the queue. Great jumper. Dave Nicholson here on the cube date, one of three days we're back in person of course, hybrid event. Cause the cube.net for all more footage and highlights and remote interviews. So stay tuned more coverage after this short break.

(Upbeat Music) >> Commvault was an idea that incubated as a project inside of Bell Labs, one of the most prestigious research and development organizations in the world, back in the day. It became an official company in 1996, and Commvault just celebrated its 25th anniversary As such, Commvault has had to reinvent itself many times over the past two and a half decades from riding the waves of the very early PC networking era to supporting a rich set of solutions for the evolving enterprise. This includes things like cloud computing, ransomware, disaster recovery, security compliance, and pretty much all things data protection and data management. And with me to talk about the company, its vision for the future with also a voice of the customer are three great guests. Isabelle Guis is the Chief Marketing Officer of Commvault, Manoj Nair is the GM of Metallic, and Tim Carben is a Principal Systems Engineer with Mitchell International. Folks, welcome to the Commvault power panel. Come inside theCUBE. It's awesome to have you. [Isabelle] Great to be here today. >> All right. First of all, I got to congratulate you celebrating 25 years. That's a long time, not a lot of tech companies make it that far and are still successful and relevant. So Isabelle, maybe you could start off. What do you think has been the driving factor for your ability to kind of lead through the subsequent technological waves that I alluded to upfront? >> So well, 25 years is commendable but we are not counting success in number of years. We're really counting success in how many customers we've helped over those years. And I will say what has been the driving matter for us as who that, has been innovating with our customers. You know, we were there every step of the way when they migrate to hybrid cloud. And now as they go to multi-cloud in a post COVID world where they have to win gold you know, distributed workforce, different types of workloads and devices, we all there too. We assess workload as well. So the innovation keep coming in, thanks to us listening to our customer and then, adding needs that change over the last 25 years and probably for the next 25 as well. You know, we want to be here for customer was thinking that data is an asset, not a liability. And also making sure that we offer them a broad range of use cases to quote why things simple because the world is getting too complex for them. So let's take the complexity on us. >> Thank you for that. So Manoj, you've riffed on the cube before about, you know putting on the binoculars and looking at the future. So, let's talk about that. Where do you see the future for this industry? What are some of the key driving factors that matter? >> It's great to be back on theCUBE. You know, we see our industry no different than lots of other industries. The SaaS Model is rapidly being adopted. And the reason is, you know customers are looking for simplicity, simplicity not just in leveraging, you know the great technology that Commvault has built, but in the business model and the experience. So, you know, that's one of the fastest growing trends that started in consumer apps and other applications, other B to B apps. And now we're seeing it in core infrastructure like data management, data protection. They're also trying to leverage their data better. Make sure it's not fragmented. So how do you deliver more intelligent services? You know, securing the data, insights from the data, transforming the data, and that combination, you know, our ability to do that in a multi-cloud world like Isabelle said, now with increasing edge work loads. Sometimes, you know, our customers say their data centers has a new edge too. So you kind of have this, you know, data everywhere workloads everywhere, yet the desire to deliver that with a holistic experience, we call it the 'power of bank'; the ability to manage your data and leverage the data with the simple lesson without compromise. And that's really what we're seeing as part of the future. >> Okay. I don't know if all want to come back to you and double click on that, but I want to introduce Tim to the conversation here. You bring in the voice of the customer, as they say. Tim, my understanding is Mitchell has been a Commvault customer since the mid-2000s. So, tell us why Commvault, what has kept you with the company for more than 15 years? >> Yeah, we are, it was what, 2006 when we started. And really what it all boils down to it, it's just as Isabel said, innovation. At Mitchell, we're always looking to stay ahead of the trend. And, you know, just to like was mentioned earlier, data is the most important part here. Commvault provides us peace of mind to protect and manage our data. And they do data protection for all of our environments right now. We've been a partner to help in navel our digital transformation including SaaS and cloud adoption. When we start talking about the solutions we have, I mean we of course started in 2006. I mean, this was version version 6 if I remember right. This predates me at the company. Upgraded to seven, eight, nine, we brought in ten, brought in eleven, brought in HyperScale, and then moved on to bring in the Metallic. And Commvault provides the reason for this. I guess I should say is, Commvault provides a reliable backup but most importantly, recovery. Rapid recovery. That's what gives me confidence. That's what helps me sleep better at night. So when I started looking at SaaS as a differentiator to protect our 036 environments or 065 environments, Metallic was a natural choice. And the one thing I wanted to add to that is, it came out cheaper than us building it ourselves. When you take into account resources as well as compute and storage. So again, just a natural choice. >> Yeah. As the saying goes back up as one thing, recovery's everything. Isabelle. Yeah, we've seen the SaaSification of the enterprise. Particularly, you know from the app side. You came from Salesforce. So you, the company that is the poster child for SaaS. But my question is what's catalyzing this shift and why do you think data protection is ready to make the move? >> Well, there's so many good things and that's that. As you know, you remember when people started moving to the cloud and transforming their CAPEX into OPEX. Well SaaS bring yet another level of benefits. IT, we know always has to do more with less. And so SaaS allows you to, once you set up, you've got all the software upgrades automatically without you know, I think it's, why it works. You can better manage your cash flow, because you pay as you grow. And also you have a faster time to value. So all of this at help, the fast adoption and I will tell you today I don't think there is a single customer who doesn't have at least one SaaS application because they have things of value of this. Now, when it comes to backup and recovery everybody's at different stages. You still have On-Premises, you have cloud, there's SaaS, there's Workloads devices. And so what we think was the most important was to offer a broad choice of delivery model being able to support them if they want a software subscription, if they want an integrated appliance, or if they want SaaS as a service model, and also some of our partners actually delivering this in a more custom and managed way as well. So offering choice, because everybody is at a different stage on this journey. When it comes to data management and protection, I actually, you know, I think team is the example of taking full advantage of this bold choice. >> Well, you mentioned Tim that you leaned into Metallic. We have seen the SaaS everywhere. We used to have a email server, right? I mean, you know, On-Prem, that just doesn't happen anymore. But how was Mitchell International thinking about SaaS? Maybe you could share your, from your customer perch, what you're seeing. >> Well, what's interesting about this is, Mitchell is been providing SaaS for a long time. We are a technology company and we do provide solutions, SaaS solutions, to our customers. And this makes it so important to be able to embrace it because we know the value behind it. We're providing that to our customers. And when I look at what Commvault is doing I know that Commvault is doing the same thing. They're providing the SaaS Model as a value to their customers. And it's so important to go with this because we keep our environments cutting edge. As GDPR says, You need to have a cutting edge environment. And if you don't, if you cannot check that box you do not move forward. Commvault has that. And this is one less thing that I have to worry about when choosing Metallic to do my backup of O365. >> So thank you for that, Tim. So Manoj, thinking about what you just heard from Isabelle and Tim, you know, kind of fitting into a company's cloud or hybrid cloud, more importantly, strategy, you were talking before about this. "And", in other words, it's not an either or it's not a zero sum game. It's simpatico, if you will. I wonder if you could elaborate. >> Yeah, no The Power of And, Dave, I'm very proud of that. You know, when I think of The Power of And I think of actually folks like Tim, our customers and Commonwealth first, right. And, and really that, that need for choice. So for example, you know, customers on various different paths to the cloud we kind of homogenize it and say, they're on a cloud journey or they're on a digital transformation journey, but each journey looks different. And so part of that, "And", as Isabella was saying, is really the ability to meet them where they are in that journey. So for example, you know, do you, go in there and say, Hey, you know what, I'm going to be some customers 100% multi-cloud or single cloud even. And that includes SaaS applications and my infrastructure running as a service. So there's a natural fit there saying great all your data protection. You're not going to be running software appliances for that. So you've got to data protection, data management as a service that Metallic is the able to offer across the whole S state. And that's, you know, that's probably a small set of customers, but rapidly growing. Then you see a lot more customers were saying I'm going to do away as you're talking about but the emails are where I'm going to move to office 365, leverage the power of teams. And there's a Shared Responsibility Model there which is different than an On-Prem data protection use case. And so they're, they're able to just add on Metallic to the existing Commonwealth environment, whether it's a Commonwealth software or HyperScale, and connect the two. So it's a single integrated experience. And then you kind of go to the other end of the spectrum and say, great customers all in on a SaaS delivered data protection, as you know, and you hear a lot from a lot of your guests and we hear from our customers, there's still a lot of data sitting out there, you know, 90 plus percent of workloads and data centers increasing edge data workloads. And if you were to back up one of those data workloads and say that the only copy can be in the cloud, then that would take like a 10 day recovery isolation. You know, we have some competitors who say that then that's what they have. Our flexibility, our ability to kind of bring in the Hyper-Scale deployment and just, you know, dock it into Metallic, and have a local copy, instant recovery, SLA, remote, you know, backup copy in the cloud for ransomware, or your worst case scenario. That's the kind of flexibility. So all those are scenarios we're really seeing with our customers. And that's kind of really the power advantage. A very unique part of our portfolio, but, you know, companies can have portfolio products, but to have a single integrated offering with that flexibility, that kind of, depending on the use case, you can start here and grow into a different point. That's really the unique part of the power event. Yeah, 10 day RTO just doesn't cut it, but Timmy, maybe you could weigh in here. Why, What was the catalyst for you adopting Metallic and maybe you could share what was the business impact there? >> Well, the catalyst and impact, obviously two different things. The catalyst, when we look at it, there was a lot of what are we going to do with this? We have an environment, we need to back it up, and how are we going to approach this? So we looked at it from a few different standpoints, and of course, when it boils down to it, one of the major reasons was the financial. But when we started looking at everything else that we have available to us and the flexibility that Commvault has in rolling out new solutions, this really was a no brainer at this point. We are able to essentially back up new features and new products, as soon as they're available. Within our Metallic environment, we are running the activate. We are running the the self-service for the end users to where they can actually recover their own files. We are adding the teams into it to be able to recover and perform these backups for teams. And I want to step aside really quick and mentioned something about this because I'd been with, you know, Metallic for a long time and I'd been waiting for this. We've been waiting for an ability to do these backups and anyone I know Manoj knows that I've been waiting for it. And you know, Commvault came back to me a while back and they said, we just have to wait for the API. We have to wait for Microsoft releases. Well, I follow the news. I saw Microsoft released the API, and I think it may have been two days later. Good. Commvault reached out to me and said, Hey we got it available. Are you ready to do this? And that sort of turned around that sort of flexibility being on top of new applications with that, with Salesforce, that is, you know, just not necessarily the reason why I adopted Metallic but one of those things that puts a smile on my face because I adopted Metallic. >> Well, that's an interesting story. I mean, you get the SDKs and if you're a leader you get them, you know, you can put the resources on it and you're ready when, when the product, you know, comes to GA. Manoj, I wonder if we could talk about just the notion of backing up SaaS, part of the announcements today included within Metallic included backup and offerings for Dynamics 365. But my question is why support Dynamics specifically in SaaS apps generally? I mean, customers might say, doesn't my SaaS provider protect my data? Why do I need a third party? And, and the second part of that question is why Commvault? >> Dave a great question as always. I'll start with the second part of the question. It's really three words the Shared Responsibility Model. And, you know, a lot of times our customers as they go into the cloud model they really start understanding that there is something that you're getting a lot of advantages the certain things you don't have to do, but the Shared Responsibility Model is what every cloud and SaaS provider will indoctrinate in its S&As. And certainly the application data is owned by the customer. And the meaning of that is not something that, you know, some SaaS provider can understand. And so that requires specialized skills. And that's a partnership. We've done this now very successfully with Microsoft and LG 65, we've added support for Salesforce, and we see a rapid customer adoption because of that Shared Responsibility Model. If you have, some kind of, an admin issue as we have seen in the news somebody changed their team setting and then lost all their chat. And then that data is discoverable. And you, the customer is responsible for making sure that data is discoverable or ransomware attacks. Again, recovering that SaaS data is your responsibility because the attack could be coming in from your instance not from the SaaS provider. So those are the reasons. Dynamics is, you know, one of the fastest growing SaaS applications from a business applications perspective out there. And as we looked at our roadmap, and you look at at the right compliment, what is the right adjacency, we're seeing this part of Microsoft's Business Application Suite growing, you know, as millions of users out there and it's rapidly growing. And it's also integrated with the rest of the Microsoft family. So we're now, you know, proud to say that we support all three Microsoft clouds, Microsoft Azure, or 365, Dynamics. Those applications are increasingly integrated so we're seeing commonality in customer base and that's a business critical data. And so customers are looking to manage the data, have solutions that they can be sure they can leverage. It's not just protecting data from worst-case scenarios. In the case of some of the apps like Dynamics, we offer a support, like setting up the staging environment. So it's improving productivity of the application admins, and that's really kind of that the value we're bringing able to bring to the table. >> Yeah. You know, that Shared Responsibility Model. I'm glad you brought that up because I think it's oftentimes misunderstood but when you talk to CSOS, they understand it well. They'll tell you the shared responsibility is my responsibility. You know, maybe the cloud provider will secure the object storage bucket for the physical space, but it's on me. So that's really important. So thank you for that. Isabelle, last question, the roadmap, you know, how do you see Commvault's, Metallic SaaS portfolio evolving? What can you tell us? >> Oh, well, it's, it has a big strategic, you know, impact on Commvault for sure on the first portfolio first because of all of our existing customers as you mentioned earlier, 25 years, it's a lot of customers are somehow some workload as SaaS. And so the ability without, you know, adding more complexity without adding another vendor just to be able to protect them in one take, and as teams they bring a smile to his face is really important for us. The second is also a lot of customers come to Commvault for Metallic. This is the first time enter the Commvault community and Commvault family. And as they start protecting their assessed application they realize that they could leverage the same application to protect their own premised data as well. So back to The Power of And, and without writing off their past investments, you know, going to the cloud at the pace they want. So from that perspective, there is a big impact on our customer community the thing is that Metallic it brings I don't know Manoj is way too humble, but, you know, he don't go to this customer every quarter. And, you know, we have added 24 countries to the portfolio, to the product. So we see a rapid adoption. And so obviously back to your question, we see the impacts of Metallic growing and growing fast because of the market demand, because of the rapid innovation we can take the Commvault technology and put it in the SaaS model and our customers really like it. So I'm very excited. I think it's going to be, you know, a great innovation, a great positive impact for customers, and our new customers we're welcoming, which by the way I think half, Manoj correct me, but I think half of the Metallic customer at Commvault and the other half are new to our family. So, they're very bullish about this. And it's just the beginning, as you know, we are 25 years old, or sorry, 25 years young, and looking forward to the next 25. >> Well, I can confirm, you know, we have a data partner survey, partner ETR, Enterprise Technology Research, and I was looking at the Commvault data and it shows within the cloud segment, when you cut the data by cloud, you're actually accelerating, the spending momentum is accelerating. And I think it's a function of, you know, some of the acquisitions you've made, some of the moves you made in integration. So congratulations on 25 years and you know, you're riding the correct wave, Isabelle, Manoj, Tim, thanks so much for coming in theCUBE. It was great to have you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Dave. >> I really appreciate it. >> And thank you everybody for watching. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE. We'll see you next time. (Upbeat Music)

>>from around the globe. It's the Cube with digital coverage of biz ops Manifesto unveiled. Brought to you by Biz Ops Coalition. Hey, Welcome back, everybody. Jeffrey here with the Cube. We're coming to you from our Palo Alto studios. And welcome back to this event. Is the biz Opps Manifesto unveiling? So the biz Opps manifesto and the biz Opps coalition have been around for a little while, But today's the big day. That's kind of the big public unveiling are excited to have some of the foundational people that put their put their name on the dotted line, if you will, to support this initiative to talk about why that initiative is so important. And so the next guest, we're excited to have his doctor, Mick Kirsten. He is the founder and CEO of Task Top. Make great to see you coming in from Vancouver, Canada, I think. Right. >>Yes. Great to be here, Jeff. Thank you. Absolutely. >>I hope your air is a little better out there. I know you had some of the worst air of all of us a couple a couple of weeks back, so hopefully things air, uh, getting a little better. And we get those fires under control? >>Yeah, Things have cleared up now, so yeah, it's good. It's good to be close to the U. S. And it's gonna have the Arabic clean as well. >>Absolutely. So let's let's jump into it. So you you've just been an innovation guy forever Starting way back in the day and Xerox Park. I was so excited to do an event at Xerox Park for the first time last year. I mean that that to me represents along with Bell Labs and and some other, you know, kind of foundational innovation and technology centers. That's got to be one of the greatest one. So I just wonder if you could share some perspective of getting your start there at Xerox Parc. You know, some of the lessons you learn and what you've been ableto kind of carry forward from those days. >>Yeah, I was fortunate. Joined Xerox Park in the computer science lab there at a very early point in my career, and to be working on open source programming languages. So back then, and the computer science lab where some of the inventions around programming around software development names such as Object of programming and ah, lot of what we had around really modern programming levels construct. Those were the teams that had the fortune of working with and really our goal waas. And of course, there's a Z. You know, this, uh, there's just this DNA of innovation and excitement and innovation in the water. And really, it was the model that was all about changing the way that we work was looking at for how we could make it 10 times easier to write. Code like this is back in 99 we were looking at new ways of expressing especially business concerns, especially ways of enabling people who are who want to innovate for their business, to express those concerns in code and make that 10 times easier than what that would take. So we created a new open source programming language, and we saw some benefits, but not quite quite what we expected. I then went and actually joined Charles Stephanie that former chief actor Microsoft, who is responsible for I actually got a Microsoft word as a out of Xerox Parc and into Microsoft and into the hands of Bill Gates and the company I was behind the whole office suite and his vision and the one I was trying to execute with working for him was to, you know, make Power point like a programming language, make everything completely visual. And I realized none of this was really working, that there was something else fundamentally wrong that programming languages or new ways of building software like Let's try to do with Charles around intentional programming. That was not enough. >>That was not enough. So you know, the agile movement got started about 20 years ago, and we've seen the rise of Dev ops and really this kind of embracing of of, of sprints And, you know, getting away from M. R. D s and P. R. D s and these massive definitions of what we're gonna build and long billed cycles to this iterative process. And that's been going on for a little while. So what was still wrong? What was still missing? Why the Biz Ops Coalition? Why the biz ops manifesto? >>Yeah, so I basically think we nailed some of the things that the programming language levels of teams can have. Effective languages deployed softened the club easily now right and at the kind of process and collaboration and planning level agile two decades decades ago was formed. We were adopting all the all the teams I was involved with on. It's really become a solved problem. So agile tools, agile teams actually of planning are now very mature and the whole challenges when organizations try to scale that. And so what I realized is that the way that Agile was scaling across teams and really scaling from the Technology Party organization to the business was just completely flawed. The agile teams had one set of doing things. One set of metrics, one set of tools and the way that the business was working was planning was investing in technology was just completely disconnected and using a a whole different set of measures. It's pretty interesting because I think it's >>pretty clear from the software development teams in terms of what they're trying to deliver, because they've got a feature set right and they've got bugs and it's easy. It's easy to see what they deliver, but it sounds like what you're really honing in on is is disconnect on the business side in terms of, you know, is it the right investment you know. Are we getting the right business? R o I on this investment? Was that the right feature? Should we be building another feature or shall we building a completely different products? That so it sounds like it's really a core piece of this is to get the right measurement tools, the right measurement data sets so that you can make the right decisions in terms of what you're investing, you know, limited resource is you can't Nobody has unlimited resources and ultimately have to decide what to do, which means you're also deciding what not to dio. It sounds like that's a really big piece of this of this whole effort. >>Yeah, Jeff, that's exactly it. Which is the way that the adult measures their own way of working is very different from the way that you measure business outcomes. The business outcomes are in terms of how happy your customers are. Are you innovating fast enough to keep up with the pace of, ah, rapidly changing economy, rapidly changing market and those are those are all around the customer. And so what? I learned on this long journey of supporting many organizations transformations and having them trying to apply those principles vigilant develops that those are not enough. Those measures technical practices, those measures, technical excellence of bringing code to the market. They don't actually measure business outcomes. And so I realized that really was much more around having these entwined flow metrics that are customer centric and business centric and market centric where we needed to go. So I want to shift gears >>a little bit and talk about your book because you're also a best selling author project a product, and and you you brought up this concept in your book called The Flow Framework. And it's really interesting to me because I know, you know, flow on one hand is kind of a workflow in the process flow, and you know that's how things get done and and embrace the flow. On the other hand, you know, everyone now in a little higher level, existential way is trying to get into the flow right into the workflow and, you know not be interrupted and get into a state where you're kind of your highest productivity, you know, kind of your highest comfort. Which floor you talking about in your book, or is it a little bit of both. >>That's a great question, is it's not what I gotta ask very often, cause me, it's It's absolutely both. So the thing that we want to get that we've learned how toe and, uh, master individual flow, that there's this beautiful book by me Holly teachings mentality. There's a beautiful Ted talk about him as well, about how we can take control of our own flow. So my question with the book with project surprise, How can we bring that to entire teams and really entire organizations? How come we have everyone contributing to a customer outcome? And this is really what if you go to the bazaar manifesto? It says, I focus on Out comes on using data to drive, whether we're delivering those outcomes rather than a focus on proxy metrics such as How quickly did we implement this feature? And now it's really how much value did the customs of the future and how quickly did we learn? And how quickly did you use that data to drive to that next outcome? Really, that with companies like Netflix on, like Amazon, have mastered, how do we get that every large organization, every idea, organization and make everyone be a softer innovator. So it's to bring that on the concept of flow to these entering value streams. And the fascinating thing is, we've actually seen the data. We've been able to study a lot of value streams. We see when flow increases, when organizations deliver value to a customer faster developers actually become more happy. So things like that implying that promotes course rise. And we've got empirical data for this. So that beautiful thing to me is that we've actually been able thio, combine these two things and and see the results in the data that you increased flow to the customer, your development or more happy. I >>love it. I love it, right, because we're all more. We're all happier when we're in the flow and we're all more productive winner in the flow. So I that is a great melding of two concepts. But let's jump into the into the manifesto itself a little bit. And you know, I love that you know, that took this approach really of having kind of four key values, and he gets 12 key principles and I just want to read a couple these values because when you read them, it sounds pretty brain dead, right? Of course. Right. Of course, you should focus on business outcomes. Of course, you should have trust and collaboration. Of course, you should have data based decision making processes and not just intuition or, you know, whoever is the loudest person in the room on toe, learn and respond and pivot. But >>what's the >>value of actually just putting them on a piece of paper? Because again, this is not this. These are all good positive things, right? When when somebody reads these to you or tells you these or sticks it on the wall? Of course. But unfortunately, of course, isn't always enough. >>No, I think what's happened is some of these core principles originally from the agile manifested two decades ago. The whole Dev ops movement of the last decade off flow feedback and continue learning has been key. But a lot of organizations, especially the ones undergoing transformations, have actually gone a very different way, right? The way that they measure value in technology innovation is through costs For many organizations, the way that they actually are looking at at their moving to cloud is actually is a reduction in costs, whereas the right way of looking at moving the cloud is how much more quickly can we get to the value to the customer? How quickly can we learn from that? And how could quickly can we drive the next business outcome? So, really, the key thing is to move away from those old ways of doing things that funding projects and call centers to actually funding and investing in outcomes and measuring outcomes through these flow metrics, which in the end are your fast feedback for how quickly you're innovating for your customer. So these things do seem, you know, very obvious when you look at them. But the key thing is what you need to stop doing. To focus on these, you need to actually have accurate real time data off how much value your phone to the customer every week, every month, every quarter. And if you don't have that, your decisions are not given on data. If you don't know what your bottle like, it's. And this is something that in the decades of manufacturing car manufacturers, other manufacturers master. They always know where the bottom back in their production processes you ask, uh, random. See, I all want a global 500 company where the bottleneck is, and you won't get it there. Answer. Because there's not that level of understanding. So have to actually follow these principles. You need to know exactly where you follow like is because that's what's making your developers miserable and frustrated on having them context, which on thrash So it. The approach here is important, and we have to stop doing these other things right. >>There's so much. They're a pack. I love it, you know, especially the cloud conversation, because so many people look at it wrong as a cost saving device as opposed to an innovation driver, and they get stuck, they get stuck in the literal. And, you know, I think the same thing always about Moore's law, right? You know, there's a lot of interesting riel tech around Moore's law and the increasing power of microprocessors. But the real power, I think in Moore's laws, is the attitudinal change in terms of working in a world where you know that you've got all this power and what will you build and design? E think it's funny to your your comment on the flow in the bottleneck, right? Because because we know manufacturing assumes you fix one bottleneck. You move to your next one, right, You always move to your next point of failure. So if you're not fixing those things, you know you're not. You're not increasing that speed down the line unless you can identify where that bottleneck is, or no matter how Maney improvements you make to the rest of the process, it's still going to get hung up on that one spot. >>That's exactly, and you also make it sound so simple. But again, if you don't have the data driven visibility of where the bottleneck is. And but these bottlenecks are just as you said, if it's just lack, um, all right, so we need to understand is the bottleneck, because our security use air taking too long and stopping us from getting like the customer. If it's that automate that process and then you move on to the next bottleneck, which might actually be that deploy yourself through the clouds is taking too long. But if you don't take that approach of going flow first rather than again the sort of way cost production first you have taken approach of customer centric city, and you only focus on optimizing cost. Your costs will increase and your flow will slow down. And this is just one, these fascinating things. Whereas if you focus on getting back to the customer and reducing your cycles on getting value your flow time from six months to two weeks or 21 week or two event as we see with tech giants, you actually could both lower your costs and get much more value. Of course, get that learning going. So I think I've I've seen all these cloud deployments and modernizations happen that delivered almost no value because there was such a big ball next up front in the process. And actually the hosting and the AP testing was not even possible with all of those inefficiencies. So that's why going flow first rather than costs. First, there are projects versus Sochi. >>I love that and and and and it begs, repeating to that right within a subscription economy. You know you're on the hook to deliver value every single month because they're paying you every single month. So if you're not on top of how you delivering value, you're going to get sideways because it's not like, you know, they pay a big down payment and a small maintenance fee every month. But once you're in a subscription relationship, you know you have to constantly be delivering value and upgrading that value because you're constantly taking money from the customers. It's it's such a different kind of relationship, that kind of the classic, you know, Big Bang with the maintenance agreement on the back end really important. >>Yeah, and I think in terms of industry ship, that's it. That's what catalyzed this industry shift is in this SAS that subscription economy. If you're not delivering more and more value to your customers, someone else's and they're winning the business, not you. So one way we know is that divide their customers with great user experiences. Well, that really is based on how many features you delivered or how much. How about how many quality improvements or scaler performance improvements you delivered? So the problem is, and this is what the business manifesto was was the forefront of touch on is, if you can't measure how much value delivered to a customer, what are you measuring? You just back again measuring costs, and that's not a measure of value. So we have to shift quickly away from measuring costs to measuring value to survive in in the subscription economy. Mick, >>we could go for days and days and days. I want to shift gears a little bit into data and and a data driven, um, decision making a data driven organization. Because right day has been talked about for a long time. The huge big data mean with with Hadoop over over several years and data warehouses and data lakes and data, oceans and data swamps and you go on and on, it's not that easy to do right. And at the same time, the proliferation of data is growing exponentially were just around the corner from from I, O. T and five G. So now the accumulation of data at machine scale again this is gonna overwhelm, and one of the really interesting principles that I wanted to call out and get your take right is today's organizations generate mawr data than humans can process. So informed decisions must be augmented by machine learning and artificial intelligence. I wonder if you can again, you've got some great historical perspective reflect on how hard it is to get the right data to get the data in the right context and then to deliver to the decision makers and then trust the decision makers to actually make the data and move that down. You know, it's kind of this democratization process into more and more people and more and more frontline jobs, making more and more of these little decisions every day. >>Yeah, and Jeff, I think the front part of what you said are where the promises of big data have completely fallen on their face into these swamps. As you mentioned, because if you don't have the data and the right format, you can connect, collected that the right way, you're not. Model it that way the right way. You can't use human or machine learning on it effectively. And there have been the number of data, warehouses and a typical enterprise organization, and the sheer investment is tremendous. But the amount of intelligence being extracted from those is a very big problem. So the key thing that I've known this is that if you can model your value streams so you actually understand how you're innovating, how you're measuring the delivery value and how long that takes. What is your time to value through these metrics? Like for the time you can actually use both. You know the intelligence that you've got around the table and push that balance as it the assay, far as you can to the organization. But you can actually start using that those models to understand, find patterns and detect bottlenecks that might be surprising, Right? Well, you can detect interesting bottle next one you shift to work from home. We detected all sorts of interesting bottlenecks in our own organization that we're not intuitive to me that had to do with more senior people being overloaded and creating bottlenecks where they didn't exist. Whereas we thought we were actually organization. That was very good at working from home because of our open source route. So the data is highly complex. Software Valley streams are extremely complicated, and the only way to really get the proper analysts and data is to model it properly and then to leverage these machine learning and AI techniques that we have. But that front, part of what you said, is where organizations are just extremely immature in what I've seen, where they've got data from all the tools, but not modeled in the right way. >>Well, all right, so before I let you go, you know? So you get a business leader he buys in. He reads the manifesto. He signs on the dotted line. He says, Mick, how do I get started? I want to be more aligned with With the development teams, you know, I'm in a very competitive space. We need to be putting out new software features and engage with our customers. I want to be more data driven. How do I get started? Well, you know, what's the biggest inhibitor for most people to get started and get some early winds, which we know is always the key to success in any kind of a new initiative, >>right? So I think you can reach out to us through the website. Uh, on the is a manifesto, but the key thing is just it's exactly what you said, Jeff. It's to get started and get the key wins. So take a probably value stream. That's mission critical. It could be your new mobile Web experiences, or or part of your cloud modernization platform where your analysts pipeline. But take that and actually apply these principles to it and measure the entire inflow of value. Make sure you have a volumetric that everyone is on the same page on, right. The people on the development teams that people in leadership all the way up to the CEO and one of the where I encourage you to start is actually that enter and flow time, right? That is the number one metric. That is how you measure whether you're getting the benefit of your cloud modernization. That is the one metric that even Cockcroft when people I respect tremendously put in his cloud for CEOs Metric 11 way to measure innovation. So basically, take these principles, deployed them on one product value stream measure into and flow time on. Then you'll actually you well on your path to transforming and to applying the concepts of agile and develops all the way to the business to the way in your operating model. >>Well, Mick, really great tips, really fun to catch up. I look forward to a time when we can actually sit across the table and and get into this, because I just I just love the perspective. And, you know, you're very fortunate to have that foundational, that foundational base coming from Xerox parc. And it's, you know, it's a very magical place with a magical history. So the to incorporate that and to continue to spread that wealth, you know, good for you through the book and through your company. So thanks for sharing your insight with us today. >>Thanks so much for having me, Jeff. Absolutely. >>Alright. And go to the biz ops manifesto dot org's Read it. Check it out. If you want to sign it, sign it. They'd love to have you do it. Stay with us for continuing coverage of the unveiling of the business manifesto on the Cube. I'm Jeffrey. Thanks for watching. See you next time.

>> Announcer: From around the globe, it's theCUBE. Covering the UPGRADE 2020, the NTT Research Summit. Presented by NTT research. >> Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. Welcome back to our ongoing coverage of UPGRADE 2020. It's the NTT Research Labs Summit, and it's all about upgrading reality. Heavy duty basic research around a bunch of very smart topics. And we're really excited to have our next guest to kind of dive in. I promise you, it'll be the deepest conversation you have today, unless you watch a few more of these segments. So our first guest we're welcoming back Kazuhiro Gomi He's the president and CEO of NTT research, Kaza great to see you. >> Good to see you. And joining him is Yoshi Yamamoto. He is a fellow for NTT Research and also the director of the Physics and Informatics Lab. Yoshi, great to meet you as well. >> Nice to meet you. >> So I was teasing the crew earlier, Yoshi, when I was doing some background work on you and I pulled up your Wikipedia page and I was like, okay guys, read this thing and tell me what a, what Yoshi does. You that have been knee deep in quantum computing and all of the supporting things around quantum heavy duty kind of next gen computing. I wonder if you can kind of share a little bit, you know, your mission running this labs and really thinking so far in advance of what we, you know, kind of experience and what we work with today and this new kind of basic research. >> NTT started the research on quantum computing back in 1986 87. So it is already more than 30 years. So, the company invested in this field. We have accumulated a lot of sort of our ideas, knowledge, technology in this field. And probably, it is the right time to establish the connection, close connection to US academia. And in this way, we will jointly sort of advance our research capabilities towards the future. The goal is still, I think, a long way to go. But by collaborating with American universities, and students we can accelerate NTT effort in this area. >> So, you've been moving, you've been working on quantum for 30 years. I had no idea that that research has been going on for such a very long time. We hear about it in the news and we hear about it a place like IBM and iSensor has a neat little demo that they have in the new sales force period. What, what is, what makes quantum so exciting and the potential to work so hard for so long? And what is it going to eventually open up for us when we get it to commercial availability? >> The honest answer to that question is we don't know yet. Still, I think after 30 years I think of hard working on quantum Physics and Computing. Still we don't know clean applications are even, I think we feel that the current, all the current efforts, are not necessarily, I think, practical from the engineering viewpoint. So, it is still a long way to go. But the reason why NTT has been continuously working on the subject is basically the very, sort of bottom or fundamental side of the present day communication and the computing technology. There is always a quantum principle and it is very important for us to understand the quantum principles and quantum limit for communication and computing first of all. And if we are lucky, maybe we can make a breakthrough for the next generation communication and computing technology based on quantum principles. >> Right. >> But the second, is really I think just a guess, and hope, researcher's hope and nothing very solid yet. >> Right? Well, Kazu I want to go, go to you cause it really highlights the difference between, you know, kind of basic hardcore fundamental research versus building new applications or building new products or building new, you know, things that are going to be, you know, commercially viable and you can build an ROI and you can figure out what the customers are going to buy. It really reflects that this is very different. This is very, very basic with very, very long lead times and very difficult execution. So when, you know, for NTT to spend that money and invest that time and people for long, long periods of time with not necessarily a clean ROI at the end, that really, it's really an interesting statement in terms of this investment and thinking about something big like upgrading reality. >> Yeah, so that's what this, yeah, exactly that you talked about what the basic research is, and from NTT perspective, yeah, we feel like we, as Dr. Yamamoto, he just mentioned that we've been investing into 30 plus years of a time in this field and, you know, and we, well, I can talk about why this is important. And some of them is that, you know, that the current computer that everybody uses, we are certainly, well, there might be some more areas of improvement, but we will someday in, I don't know, four years, five years, 10 years down the road, there might be some big roadblock in terms of more capacity, more powers and stuff. We may run into some issues. So we need to be prepared for those kinds of things. So, yes we are in a way of fortunate that we are, we have a great team to, and a special and an expertise in this field. And, you know, we have, we can spend some resource towards that. So why not? We should just do that in preparation for that big, big wall so to speak. I guess we are expecting to kind of run into, five, 10 years down the road. So let's just looking into it, invest some resources into it. So that's where we are, we're here. And again, I I'm, from my perspective, we are very fortunate that we have all the resources that we can do. >> It's great. Right, as they give it to you. Dr. Yamamoto, I wonder if you can share what it's like in terms of the industry and academic working together. You look at the presentations that are happening here at the event. All the great academic institutions are very well represented, very deep papers. You at NTT, you spend some time at Stanford, talk about how it is working between this joint development with great academic institutions, as well as the great company. >> Traditionally in the United States, there has been always two complementary opportunities for training next generation scientists and engineers. One opportunity is junior faculty position or possible position in academia, where main emphasis is education. The other opportunity is junior researcher position in industrial lab where apparently the focus emphasis is research. And eventually we need two types of intellectual leaders from two different career paths. When they sort of work together, with a strong educational background and a strong research background, maybe we can make wonderful breakthrough I think. So it is very important to sort of connect between two institutions. However, in the recent past, particularly after Better Lab disappeared, basic research activity in industrial lab decreases substantially. And we hope MTT research can contribute to the building of fundamental science in industry side. And for that purpose cross collaboration with research Universities are very important. So the first task we have been working so far, is to build up this industry academia connection. >> Huge compliment NTT to continue to fund the basic research. Cause as you said, there's a lot of companies that were in it before and are not in it any more. And when you often read the history of, of, of computing and a lot of different things, you know, it goes back to a lot of times, some basic, some basic research. And just for everyone to know what we're talking about, I want to read a couple of, of sessions that you could attend and learn within Dr. Yamamoto space. So it's Coherent nonlinear dynamics combinatorial optimization. That's just one session. I love it. Physics successfully implements Lagrange multiplier optimization. I love it. Photonics accelerators for machine learning. I mean, it's so it's so interesting to read basic research titles because, you know, it's like a micro-focus of a subset. It's not quantum computing, it's all these little smaller pieces of the quantum computing stack. And then obviously very deep and rich. Deep dives into those, those topics. And so, again, Kazu, this is the first one that's going to run after the day, the first physics lab. But then you've got the crypto cryptography and information security lab, as well as the medical and health information lab. You started with physics and informatics. Is that the, is that the history? Is that the favorite child you can lead that day off on day two of the event. >> We did throw a straw and Dr. Yamamoto won it Just kidding (all laugh) >> (indistinct), right? It's always fair. >> But certainly this quantum, Well, all the topics certainly are focuses that the basic research, that's definitely a commonality. But I think the quantum physics is in a way kind of very symbolic to kind of show that the, what the basic research is. And many people has a many ideas associated with the term basic research. But I think that the quantum physics is certainly one of the strong candidates that many people may think of. So well, and I think this is definitely a good place to start for this session, from my perspective. >> Right. >> Well, and it almost feels like that's kind of the foundational even for the other sessions, right? So you talk about medical or you talk about cryptography in information, still at the end of the day, there's going to be compute happening to drive those processes. Whether it's looking at, at, at medical slides or trying to do diagnosis, or trying to run a bunch of analysis against huge data sets, which then goes back to, you know, ultimately algorithms and ultimately compute, and this opening up of this entirely different set of, of horsepower. But Dr. Yamamoto, I'm just curious, how did you get started down this path of, of this crazy 30 year journey on quantum computing. >> The first quantum algorithm was invented by David Deutsch back in 1985. These particular algorithm turned out later the complete failure, not useful at all. And he spent seven years, actually, to fix loophole and invented the first successful algorithm that was 1992. Even though the first algorithm was a complete failure, that paper actually created a lot of excitement among the young scientists at NTT Basic Research Lab, immediately after the paper appeared. And 1987 is actually, I think, one year later. So this paper appeared. And we, sort of agreed that maybe one of the interesting future direction is quantum information processing. And that's how it started. It's it's spontaneous sort of activity, I think among young scientists of late twenties and early thirties at the time. >> And what do you think Dr. Yamamoto that people should think about? If, if, if again, if we're at a, at a cocktail party, not with not with a bunch of, of people that, that intimately know the topic, how do you explain it to them? How, how should they think about this great opportunity around quantum that's kept you engaged for decades and decades and decades. >> The quantum is everywhere. Namely, I think this world I think is fundamentally based on and created from quantum substrate. At the very bottom of our, sort of world, consist of electrons and photons and atoms and those fundamental particles sort of behave according to quantum rule. And which is a very different from classical reality, namely the world where we are living every day. The relevant question which is also interesting is how our classical world or classical reality surfaces from the general or universal quantum substrate where our intuition never works. And that sort of a fundamental question actually opens the possibility I think by utilizing quantum principle or quantum classical sort of crossover principle, we can revolutionize the current limitation in communication and computation. That's basically the start point. We start from quantum substrate. Under classical world the surface is on top of quantum substrate exceptional case. And we build the, sort of communication and computing machine in these exceptional sort of world. But equally dig into quantum substrate, new opportunities is open for us. That's somewhat the fundamental question. >> That's great. >> Well, I'm not, yeah, we can't get too deep cause you'll lose me, you'll lose me long before, before you get to the bottom of the, of the story, but, you know, I really appreciate it. And of course back to you this is your guys' first event. It's a really bold statement, right? Upgrade reality. I just wonder if, when you look at the, at the registrant's and you look at the participation and what do you kind of anticipate, how much of the anticipation is, is kind of people in the business, you know, kind of celebrating and, and kind of catching up to the latest research and how much of it is going to be really inspirational for those next, you know, early 20 somethings who are looking to grab, you know, an exciting field to hitch their wagon to, and to come away after this, to say, wow, this is something that really hooked me and I want to get down and really kind of advance this technology a little bit, further advance this research a little bit further. >> So yeah, for, from my point of view for this event, I'm expecting, there are quite wide range of people. I'm, I'm hoping that are interested in to this event. Like you mentioned that those are the, you know, the business people who wants to know what NTT does, and then what, you know, the wider spectrum of NTT does. And then, and also, especially like today's events and onwards, very specific to each topic. And we go into very deep dive. And, and so to, to this session, especially in a lot of participants from the academia's world, for each, each subject, including students, and then some other, basically students and professors and teachers and all those people as well. So, so that's are my expectations. And then from that program arrangement perspective, that's always something in my mind that how do we address those different kind of segments of the people. And we all welcoming, by the way, for those people. So to me to, so yesterday was the general sessions where I'm kind of expecting more that the business, and then perhaps some other more and more general people who're just curious what NTT is doing. And so instead of going too much details, but just to give you the ideas that the what's that our vision is and also, you know, a little bit of fla flavor is a good word or not, but give you some ideas of what we are trying to do. And then the better from here for the next three days, obviously for the academic people, and then those who are the experts in each field, probably day one is not quite deep enough. Not quite addressing what they want to know. So day two, three, four are the days that designed for that kind of requirements and expectations. >> Right? And, and are most of the presentations built on academic research, that's been submitted to journals and other formal, you know, peer review and peer publication types of activities. So this is all very formal, very professional, and very, probably accessible to people that know where to find this information. >> Mmh. >> Yeah, it's great. >> Yeah. >> Well, I, I have learned a ton about NTT and a ton about this crazy basic research that you guys are doing, and a ton about the fact that I need to go back to school if I ever want to learn any of this stuff, because it's, it's a fascinating tale and it's it's great to know as we've seen these other basic research companies, not necessarily academic but companies kind of go away. We mentioned Xerox PARC and Bell Labs that you guys have really picked up that mantle. Not necessarily picked it up, you're already doing it yourselves. but really continuing to carry that mantle so that we can make these fundamental, basic building block breakthroughs to take us to the next generation. And as you say, upgrade the future. So again, congratulations. Thanks for sharing this story and good luck with all those presentations. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Alright, Yoshi, Kazu I'm Jeff, NTT UPGRADE 2020. We're going to upgrade the feature. Thanks for watching. See you next time. (soft music)

>> Narrator: From around the globe, it's theCUBE, covering the Upgrade 2020, the NTT Research Summit presented by NTT Research. >> Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're in Palo Alto studio for our ongoing coverage of the Upgrade 2020, it's the NTT Research conference. It's our first year covering the event, it's actually the first year for the event inaugural, a year for the events, we're really, really excited to get into this. It's basic research that drives a whole lot of innovation, and we're really excited to have our next guest. He is Kazuhiro Gomi, he is the President and CEO of NTT Research. Kazu, great to see you. >> Hi, good to see you. >> Yeah, so let's jump into it. So this event, like many events was originally scheduled I think for March at Berkeley, clearly COVID came along and you guys had to make some changes. I wonder if you can just share a little bit about your thinking in terms of having this event, getting this great information out, but having to do it in a digital way and kind of rethinking the conference strategy. >> Sure, yeah. So NTT Research, we started our operations about a year ago, July, 2019. and I always wanted to show the world that to give a update of what we have done in the areas of basic and fundamental research. So we plan to do that in March, as you mentioned, however, that the rest of it to some extent history, we needed to cancel the event and then decided to do this time of the year through virtual. Something we learned, however, not everything is bad, by doing this virtual we can certainly reach out to so many peoples around the globe at the same time. So we're taking, I think, trying to get the best out of it. >> Right, right, so you've got a terrific lineup. So let's jump into a little bit. So first thing just about NTT Research, we're all familiar, if you've been around for a little while about Bell Labs, we're fortunate to have Xerox PARC up the street here in Palo Alto, these are kind of famous institutions doing basic research. People probably aren't as familiar at least in the states around NTT basic research. But when you think about real bottom line basic research and how it contributes ultimately, it gets into products, and solutions, and health care, and all kinds of places. How should people think about basic research and its role in ultimately coming to market in products, and services, and all different things. But you're getting way down into the weeds into the really, really basic hardcore technology. >> Sure, yeah, so let me just from my perspective, define the basic research versus some other research and development. For us that the basic research means that we don't necessarily have any like a product roadmap or commercialization roadmap, we just want to look at the fundamental core technology of all things. And from the timescale perspective obviously, not that we're not looking at something new, thing, next year, next six months, that kind of thing. We are looking at five years or sometimes longer than that, potentially 10 years down the road. But you mentioned about the Bell Lab and Xerox PARC. Yeah, well, they used to be such organizations in the United States, however, well, arguably those days have kind of gone, but so that's what's going on in the United States. In Japan, NTT has have done quite a bit of basic research over the years. And so we wanted to, I think because that a lot of the cases that we can talk about the end of the Moore's laws and then the, we are kind of scary time for that. The energy consumptions on ITs We need to make some huge, big, fundamental change has to happen to sustain our long-term development of the ideas and basically for the sake of human beings. >> Right, right. >> So NTT sees that and also we've been doing quite a bit of basic research in Japan. So we recognize this is a time that the let's expand this activities and then by doing, as a part of doing so is open up the research lab in Silicon Valley, where certainly we can really work better, work easier to with that the global talents in this field. So that's how we started this endeavor, like I said, last year. And so far, it's a tremendous progress that we have made, so that's where we are. >> That's great, so just a little bit more specific. So you guys are broken down into three labs as I understand, you've got the Physics, the PHI, which is Physics and Informatics, the CIS lab Cryptography and Information Security, and the MEI lab Medical and Health Informatics, and the conference has really laid out along those same tracks, really day one is a whole lot of stuff, or excuse me, they do to run the Physics and Informatics day. The next day is really Cryptography and Information Security, and then the Medical and Health Informatics. So those are super interesting but very diverse kind of buckets of fundamental research. And you guys are attacking all three of those pillars. >> Yup, so day one, general session, is that we cover the whole, all the topics. And but just that whole general topics. I think some people, those who want to understand what NTT research is all about, joining day one will be a great day to be, to understand more holistic what we are doing. However, given the type of research topic that we are tackling, we need the deep dive conversations, very specific to each topic by the specialist and the experts in each field. Therefore we have a day two, three, and four for a specific topics that we're going to talk about. So that's a configuration of this conference. >> Right, right, and I love. I just have to read a few of the session breakout titles 'cause I think they're just amazing and I always love learning new vocabulary words. Coherent nonlinear dynamics and combinatorial optimization language multipliers, indistinguishability obfuscation from well-founded assumptions, fully deniable communications and computation. I mean, a brief history of the quasi-adaptive NIZKs, which I don't even know what that stands for. (Gomi laughing) Really some interesting topics. But the other thing that jumps out when you go through the sessions is the representation of universities and really the topflight university. So you've got people coming from MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Notre Dame, Michigan, the list goes on and on. Talk to us about the role of academic institutions and how NTT works in conjunction with academic institutions, and how at this basic research level kind of the commercial academic interests align and come together, and work together to really move this basic research down the road. >> Sure, so the working with academic, especially at the top-notch universities are crucial for us. Obviously, that's where the experts in each field of the basic research doing their super activities and we definitely need to get connected, and then we need to accelerate our activities and together with the entities researchers. So that has been kind of one of the number one priority for us to jumpstart and get some going. So as you mentioned, Jeff, that we have a lineup of professors and researchers from each top-notch universities joining to this event and talking at a generous, looking at different sessions. So I'm sure that those who are listening in to those sessions, you will learn well what's going on from the NTT's mind or NTT researchers mind to tackle each problem. But at the same time you will get to hear that top level researchers and professors in each field. So I believe this is going to be a kind of unique, certainly session that to understand what's it's like in a research field of quantum computing, encryptions, and then medical informatics of the world. >> Right. >> So that's, I am sure it's going to be a pretty great lineups. >> Oh, absolutely, a lot of information exchange. And I'm not going to ask you to pick your favorite child 'cause that would be unfair, but what I am going to do is I noticed too that you also write for the Forbes Technology Council members. So you're publishing on Forbes, and one of the articles that you publish relatively recently was about biological digital twins. And this is a topic that I'm really interested in. We used to do a lot of stuff with GE and there was always a lot of conversation about digital twins, for turbines, and motors, and kind of all this big, heavy industrial equipment so that you could get ahead of the curve in terms of anticipating maintenance and basically kind of run simulations of its lifetime. Need concept, now, and that's applied to people in biology, whether that's your heart or maybe it's a bigger system, your cardiovascular system, or the person as a whole. I mean, that just opens up so much interesting opportunities in terms of modeling people and being able to run simulations. If they do things different, I would presume, eat different, walk a little bit more, exercise a little bit more. And you wrote about it, I wonder if you could share kind of your excitement about the potential for digital twins in the medical space. >> Sure, so I think that the benefit is very clear for a lot of people, I would hope that the ones, basically, the computer system can simulate or emulate your own body, not just a generic human body, it's the body for Kazu Gomi at the age of whatever. (Jeff laughing) And so if you get that precise simulation of your body you can do a lot of things. Oh, you, meaning I think a medical professional can do a lot of thing. You can predict what's going to happen to my body in the next year, six months, whatever. Or if I'm feeling sick or whatever the reasons and then the doctor wants to prescribe a few different medicines, but you can really test it out a different kind of medicines, not to you, but to the twin, medical twin then obviously is safer to do some kind of specific medicines or whatever. So anyway, those are the kind of visions that we have. And I have to admit that there's a lot of things, technically we have to overcome, and it will take a lot of years to get there. But I think it's a pretty good goal to define, so we said we did it and I talked with a couple of different experts and I am definitely more convinced that this is a very nice goal to set. However, well, just talking about the goal, just talking about those kinds of futuristic thing, you may just end up with a science fiction. So we need to be more specific, so we have the very researchers are breaking down into different pieces, how to get there, again, it's going to be a pretty long journey, but we're starting from that, they're try to get the digital twin for the cardiovascular system, so basically the create your own heart. Again, the important part is that this model of my heart is very similar to your heart, Jeff, but it's not identical it is somehow different. >> Right, right. >> So we are looking on it and there are certainly some, we're not the only one thinking something like this, there are definitely like-minded researchers in the world. So we are gathered together with those folks and then come up with the exchanging the ideas and coming up with that, the plans, and ideas, that's where we are. But like you said, this is really a exciting goal and exciting project. >> Right, and I like the fact that you consistently in all the background material that I picked up preparing for this today, this focus on tech for good and tech for helping the human species do better down the road. In another topic, in other blog post, you talked about and specifically what are 15 amazing technologies contributing to the greater good and you highlighted cryptography. So there's a lot of interesting conversations around encryption and depending kind of commercialization of quantum computing and how that can break all the existing kind of encryption. And there's going to be this whole renaissance in cryptography, why did you pick that amongst the entire pallet of technologies you can pick from, what's special about cryptography for helping people in the future? >> Okay, so encryption, I think most of the people, just when you hear the study of the encryption, you may think what the goal of these researchers or researches, you may think that you want to make your encryption more robust and more difficult to break. That you can probably imagine that's the type of research that we are doing. >> Jeff: Right. >> And yes, yes, we are doing that, but that's not the only direction that we are working on. Our researchers are working on different kinds of encryptions and basically encryptions controls that you can just reveal, say part of the data being encrypted, or depending upon that kind of attribute of whoever has the key, the information being revealed are slightly different. Those kinds of encryption, well, it's kind of hard to explain verbally, but functional encryption they call is becoming a reality. And I believe those inherit data itself has that protection mechanism, and also controlling who has access to the information is one of the keys to address the current status. Current status, what I mean by that is, that they're more connected world we are going to have, and more information are created through IOT and all that kind of stuff, more sensors out there, I think. So it is great on the one side that we can do a lot of things, but at the same time there's a tons of concerns from the perspective of privacy, and securities, and stuff, and then how to make those things happen together while addressing the concern and the leverage or the benefit you can create super complex accessing systems. But those things, I hate to say that there are some inherently bringing in some vulnerabilities and break at some point, which we don't want to see. >> Right. >> So I think having those securities and privacy mechanism in that the file itself is I think that one of the key to address those issues, again, get the benefit of that they're connected in this, and then while maintaining the privacy and security for the future. >> Right. >> So and then that's, in the end will be the better for everyone and a better society. So I couldn't pick other (Gomi and Jeff laughing) technology but I felt like this is easier for me to explain to a lot of people. So that's mainly the reasons that I went back launching. >> Well, you keep publishing, so I'm sure you'll work your way through most of the technologies over a period of time, but it's really good to hear there's a lot of talk about security not enough about privacy. There's usually the regs and the compliance laws lag, what's kind of happening in the marketplace. So it's good to hear that's really a piece of the conversation because without the privacy the other stuff is not as attractive. And we're seeing all types of issues that are coming up and the regs are catching up. So privacy is a super important piece. But the other thing that is so neat is to be exposed not being an academic, not being in this basic research every day, but have the opportunity to really hear at this level of detail, the amount of work that's being done by big brain smart people to move these basic technologies along, we deal often in kind of higher level applications versus the stuff that's really going on under the cover. So really a great opportunity to learn more and hear from, and probably understand some, understand not all about some of these great, kind of baseline technologies, really good stuff. >> Yup. >> Yeah, so thank-you for inviting us for the first one. And we'll be excited to sit in on some sessions and I'm going to learn. What's that one phrase that I got to learn? The N-I-K-Z-T. NIZKs. (laughs) >> NIZKs. (laughs) >> Yeah, NIZKs, the brief history of quasi-adaptive NI. >> Oh, all right, yeah, yeah. (Gomi and Jeff laughing) >> All right, Kazuhiro, I give you the final word- >> You will find out, yeah. >> You've been working on this thing for over a year, I'm sure you're excited to finally kind of let it out to the world, I wonder if you have any final thoughts you want to share before we send people back off to their sessions. >> Well, let's see, I'm sure if you're watching this video, you are almost there for that actual summit. It's about to start and so hope you enjoy the summit and in a physical, well, I mentioned about the benefit of this virtual, we can reach out to many people, but obviously there's also a flip side of the coin as well. With a physical, we can get more spontaneous conversations and more in-depth discussion, certainly we can do it, perhaps not today. It's more difficult to do it, but yeah, I encourage you to, I think I encouraged my researchers NTT side as well to basic communicate with all of you potentially and hopefully then to have more in-depth, meaningful conversations just starting from here. So just feel comfortable, perhaps just feel comfortable to reach out to me and then all the other NTT folks. And then now, also that the researchers from other organizations, I'm sure they're looking for this type of interactions moving forward as well, yeah. >> Terrific, well, thank-you for that open invitation and you heard it everybody, reach out, and touch base, and communicate, and engage. And it's not quite the same as being physical in the halls, but that you can talk to a whole lot more people. So Kazu, again, thanks for inviting us. Congratulations on the event and really glad to be here covering it. >> Yeah, thank-you very much, Jeff, appreciate it. >> All right, thank-you. He's Kazu, I'm Jeff, we are at the Upgrade 2020, the NTT Research Summit. Thanks for watching, we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

from the silicon angle media office in Boston Massachusetts it's the queue now here's your host still minimun hi I'm Stu minimun and this is a cube conversation from our Boston area studio happy to welcome to the program a first-time guest on the program but from knit scout who we've been digging into the concept of visibility without borders dr. Vikram Saxena who's with the office of the CTO from the for mention net scout thank you so much for joining us thanks to it thanks for having me all right dr. Zana before we get into kind of your role why don't you go back give us a little bit about you know your background you and I have some shared background comm we both work for some of the arms of you know Ma Bell that's right back in the day yeah you work a little bit more senior and yeah you know probably a lot more patents than I have my current count is still sure happy to do that you're right I started in 82 which was two years before the breakup of Marbella so you know and then everything started happening right around that time so yeah I started in Bell Labs you know stayed there close to 20 years did lot of the early pioneering work on packet switching before the days of internet frame relay all of that happened it was a pretty exciting time I was there building up we built up the AT&T business from scratch to a billion dollars in the IP space you know in a voice company that was always challenging so and then I moved on to do startups in the broadband space the two of them moved to the Boston area and then moved on to play the CTO role and public companies sonnez networks Tellabs and then you know came to an EPS card about five years ago yeah you know I I love talking about you know some of those incubators of innovation though I you know historically speaking just you know threw off so much technology that's right been seeing so much the media lately about you know the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 that's so many things that came out of NASA Bell Labs was one of those places that helped inspire me to study engineering that's you know definitely got me on my career but here we are 2019 that's you're still you know working into with some of these telcos and how they're all you know dealing with this wave of cloud and yeah I know the constant change there so bring us inside you know what's your role inside net Scout that office of the CTO yes so net Scout is in the business of you know mining Network data and and what we excel at is extracting what we call actionable intelligence from network traffic which we use the term smart data but essentially my role is really to be the bridge between our technology group and the customers you know bring out understand the problems the challenges that our customers are facing and then work with the teams to build the right product to you know to fit in to the current environment okay one of our favorite things on the cube is you know talking to customers they're going through their transformation that's what you talk about the enterprise you know digital transformation that's what we think there's more than just the buzzword there yeah I've talked to financial institutions manufacturing you know you name it out there if it's a company that's not necessarily born in the cloud they are undergoing that digital transformation bring us inside you know your customer base that this telcos the service providers you know most of them have a heavy tech component to what they're doing but you know are they embracing digital transformation what what does it mean for them so you know as you said it's it's a big term that catches a lot of things but in one word if I described for the telcos it's all about agility if you look at the telco model historically it has been on a path where services get rolled out every six months year multiple years you know not exactly what we call an agile environment compared to today you know but when the cloud happened it changed the landscape because cloud not only created a new way of delivering services but also changed expectations on how fast things can happen and that created high expectations on the customer side which in turn started putting pressure on the on the telcos and and the service providers to become as agile as cloud providers and and and as you know the the network which is really the main asset of a service provider was built around platforms that were not really designed to be programmable you know so they came in with hardwired services and they would change at a very low timescale and building around that is the whole software layer of OS SPSS which over time became very monolithic very slow to change so coupling the network and the software layer created a very slow moving environment so this is what's really causing the change to go to a model where the networks can be programmable which essentially means moving from a hardware centric model to a software centric model where services can be programmed on-demand and created on the fly and maybe sometimes even under the control of the customers and layering on top of that changing the OS s infrastructure to make it more predictive make it more actionable and driven by advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence to make this entire environment extremely dynamic in agile so that's kind of what we are seeing in the marketplace yeah I totally agree that that agility is usually the first thing put forward I I need to be faster yeah it used to be you know faster better cheaper now like a faster faster faster I can actually help compensate for some of those other pieces there of course service riders usually you know very conscious on the cost of things there because if they can lower their cost they can usually of course make them more competitive and pass that along to their ultimate consumers you know bring us inside that you know you mentions this change to software that's going on you know there are so many waves of change going on there everything from you know you talk about IOT and edge computing yeah it's a big you know massive role at a 5g that ya even gets talked about in the general press that these days and at government states they're so you know where are you know your customers today what are some of the critical challenge they have and yeah you know where is that kind of monitoring observability that that kind of piece fit in so so good so let me give to backdrop points first of all you mentioned cost so they are always very cost-conscious trying to drive it down and the reason for that is the traditional services have been heavily commoditized you know voice texting video data they've been commoditized so the customers worn the same stuff cheaper and cheaper and cheaper all the time right so that puts a pressure on margins and reducing cost but now you the industry is at a point where I think the telcos need to grow the top line you know that's a challenge because you can always reduce cost but at some point you get to a point of diminishing returns so now I think the challenge is how do they grow their top line you know so they can become healthier again in that context and that leads to whole notion of what services they need to innovate on so it's all about once you have a programmable Network and a software that is intelligent and smart that becomes a platform for delivering new services so this is where you know you see on the enterprise side Sdn Enterprise IOT all these services are coming now using technologies of software-defined networking network function virtualization and 5g as you mentioned is the next generation of wireless technology that is coming on board right now and that opens up the possibility for the first time to new things dimensions come into play first not only a consumer centric focus which was always there but now opening it up to enterprises and businesses and IOT and secondly fixed broadband right the the the era where telcos used to either drive copper or fiber slow cumbersome takes a lot of time right and the cable guys have already done that with coaxial cable so they need to go faster and faster means use Wireless and finally with 5g you have a technology that can deliver fixed broadband which means all the high definition video voice data and other services like AR VR into the home so it's opening up a new possibility rather than having a separate fixed network and a separate wireless network for the first time they can collapse that into one common platform and go after both fixed and mobile and both consumers and enterprise force yeah we said what one of the big topics of conversation at Cisco live was at San Diego just a short time ago it was 5g and then it you know Wi-Fi six the next generation of that because I'm still going to need inside my building you know for the companies but the 5g holds the promise - give me - so much faster bandwidth so much dense for environment I guess some of the concerns I hear out there and maybe you can tell me kind of where we are and where the telcos fit in is you know 5g from a technology standpoint we understand where it is but that rollout is going to take time yes you know it's great to say you're going to have this dense and highly available thing but you know that's gonna start the same place all the previous generations all right it's the place where actually we don't have bad connectivity today it's you know it's in the urban areas it's where we have dense populations you know sometimes it's thrown out there o5g is gonna be great for edge and IOT and it's like well you know we don't have balloons and planes you know and you know the you know the towers everywhere so where are we with that rollout of 5g what side of timeframes are your customer base looking at as to where that where that goes to play so I think from what I'm seeing in the marketplace I think there is a less of a focus on building out ubiquitous coverage because you know when the focus is on consumers you need coverage because they're everywhere right but I think where they are focusing on because they want to create new revenue a new top-line growth they're focusing more on industry verticals IOT now that allows you to build out networks and pockets of air your customers are because enterprises are always focused in the top cities and you know heck top metro areas so before you make it available for consumers if you get an opportunity to build out at least in the major metropolitan area an infrastructure where you're getting paid as you're building it out because you're signing up this enterprise customers who are willing to pay for these IOT services you get paid you get to build out the infrastructure and then slowly as new applications emerge I think you can make it widely available for consumers I think the challenge on consumer side is the smart phones have been tapped out you know and and people are not going to get that excited about 5g just to use the next-gen I found right so there it has to be about new applications and services and things that people talk about always on the horizon are a are we are and think like that but they are out there they're not there today because it device has to come on board that becomes mass consumable and exciting to customers so while the industry is waiting for that to happen I think there's a great opportunity right now to turn up services for enterprise verticals in the IOT space because the devices are ready and everybody because enterprises are going through their own digital transformation they want to be in a connected world right so they're putting pressure on telcos to connect all their devices into the network and there is a monetization opportunity there so I think what the carriers are going to do is sign up verticals whether it's transportation health care so if they sign up a bunch of hospitals they're going to deploy infrastructure in that area to sign up hospitals if they're going to sign up manufacturing they're going to build their infrastructure in those areas where they're right so by that model you can build out a 5g network that is concentrated on their customer base and then get to ubiquitous coverage later when the consumer applications come yeah so I like that a lot because you know when I think back if we've learned from the sins of the past it used to be if we build it they will come let's you know dig trenches across all the highways and with as much fiber as we can and then the dot-com burst happens and we have all of this capacity that we can't give away yeah what it sounds like you're describing is really a service centric view yes I've got customers and I've got applications and I'm going to build to that and then I can build off of that yeah piece there could talk a little bit about that focus and you know where yeah where your customers are going yeah so maybe just likely before that what I want to talk about the distributed nature of the 5g network so you mentioned edge right so one of the things that are happening when you want to deliver low latency services or high bandwidth services you need to push things closer to the edge as you know when cloud started it's more in the what we call the core you know the large data centers the hyper scale data centers where applications are are being deployed now but when you demand low latency let's say sub 15 millisecond 10 millisecond latency that has to be pushed much more closer to the customer now this is what's for saying the edge cloud deployment in 5g and then what that does is it also forces you to distribute functionality you know everything is not centralized in the core but it's distributed in the edge and the code the control plane maybe in the core but the user plane moves to the edge so that changes the entire flow of traffic and services in a 5g Network they are no longer centralized which means it becomes more challenging to be able to manage and assure these services in a highly distributed telco cloud environment which has this notion of edge and core now on top of that if you say that you know this is all about top-line growth and customer satisfaction then your focus on operationalizing these services has to change from in network centric view to a service centric view because in the past as you know when we were both in Bell Labs in AT&T you know we were pretty much you know focused on the network you know focused on the data from the network the network elements the switches and the routers and all of that and making sure that the network is healthy now that is good but it's not sufficient to guarantee that the services and the service level agreements for customers are being met so what you need to do is focus at the service layer much more so than you were doing it in the past so that changes the paradigm on what data you need to use how you want to use it and how do you stitch together this view in a highly distributed environment and do it in real-time and do it all very quickly so the customers don't see the pain if anything breaks and actually be more proactive in lot of cases be more predictive and take corrective actions before the impact services so this is the challenge and and clearly from a net Scout point of view I think we are right in the center of this hurricane and you know given the history we sort of have figured out on how to do this yeah you know the networking has a long history of we've got a lot of data we've got all of these flows and things change but right exactly as you said understanding what happened at that application that is we've been really tie to make sure it's just IT sitting on the side but IT driving that business that's my application those data flows so yeah you maybe expound a little bit more net Scouts fit there yeah and you know what why it's so critical for what customers need today yeah happy to do that so so if you look at what are the sources of data that you actually can use and and what you should use so basically they fall into three buckets what I call first is what I call infrastructure data which is all about data you get from hypervisors we switches they're telling you more about how the infrastructure is behaving where you need to add more horsepower CPU is memory storage and so on so that is very infrastructure centric the second one is from network elements you know what the DNS servers give you DHCP servers what your routers and switches are giving you the firewalls are giving you and they are also in a way telling you more about what the network elements are seeing so there's a little bit of a hybrid between infrastructure and a service layer component but the problem is that data is it's very vendor dependent it's highly fragmented across there because there's no real standards how to create this data so there is telemetry data there are sis logs and they all vendors do it what they think is best for them so the challenge then becomes on the service provider side and how do you stitch together because service is an end-to-end construct or an application it starts at a at a at a user and goes to a server and you need to be able to get that holistic view n2n so the most appropriate data that net scout feels is what we call the wire data or the traffic data is actually looking at packets themselves because they give you the most direct knowledge about how the service is behaving how it's performing and not only that you can actually predict problems as opposed to react to problems because you can trend this data you can apply machine learning to this data and be able to say what might go wrong and be able to take corrective action so we feel that extracting the right contextual information relevant implicit information timely information in a vendor independent way in a way that is universally if we available from edge to core those are the attributes of wire data and we excel in processing that at the source in real-time and converting all of that into actionable intelligence that is very analytics and automation friendly so this is our strength what that allows us to do is as they are going through this transition between 4G and 5g between physical and virtual across fixed and mobile networks you know you can go through this transition if you have it stitched together end to end view that crosses these boundaries or borders as we call it visibility without borders and in this context your operations people never lose insight into what's going on with their customer applications and behavior so they can go through this migration with confidence that they will not negatively impact their user experience by using our technology yeah you know we've thrown out these terms intelligence and automation for decades yes in our industry but if you look at these hybrid environments and all of these changes come out if an operator doesn't have tools like this they can't keep up they can go so I need to have that machine learning I have to have those tools that can help me intelligently attack these pieces otherwise there's no way I can do it yeah and one point there is you know it's like garbage in garbage out if you don't get the right data you can have the most sophisticated machine learning but it's not going to predict the right answer so the quality of data is very important just as the quality of your analytics in your algorithms so we feel that the combination of right data and the right analytics is how you're going to get advantage of you know accurate predictions and automation around that whole suite okay love that right data right information right delusion why don't want to give you right analytics I want to give you the final word final takeaways for your customers today so I think we are in a very exciting time in the industry you know 5g as a technology is a probably the first generation technology which is coming on board where there is so much focus on on things like security and and new applications and so on and and I think it's an exciting time for service providers to take advantage of this platform and then be able to use it to deliver new services and ultimately see their top lines grow which we all want in the industry because if they are successful then via suppliers you know do well you know so I think it's a pretty exciting time and and vyas net scout are happy to be in this spot right now and to see and help our customers go to go through this transition alright dr. Vikram Singh Saxena thank you so much for joining us sharing with us everything that's happening in your space and it glad to see the excitement still with the journey that you've been on thank you Stu happy to be here all right and as always check out the cubed on net for all of our content I'm Stu minimun and thanks as always for watching the cube [Music]

>> Live from San Francisco. It's the cube covering IBM thing twenty nineteen brought to you by IBM. >> Welcome back to Mosconi North here in San Francisco, California. I'm student of my co host, A Volante. We're in day three of four days live. Walter. Wall coverage here at IBM think happened. Welcome back to the program. Talk about one of our favorite topics. Cube alarm. Steve Hill, who's the global head of innovation. That topic I mentioned from KPMG, Steve, welcome back to the program. >> Seems to have made good to see you. >> All right. So, you know, we know that the the only constant in our industry is change. And, you know, it's one of those things. You know, I look at my career, it's like innovation. Is it a buzz word? You know? Has innovation stalled out of the industry? But you know, you're living it. You you're you're swimming in it. Talkinto a lot of people on it. KPMG has lots of tools, so give us the update from from last year. >> Well, I think you know, we talked about several things last year, but innovation was a key theme. And and when I would share with you, is that I think across all industries, innovation as a capability has become more mature and more accepted, still not widely adopted across all industries and all competitors and all kinds of companies. But the reality is, innovation used to be kind of one person's job off in the closet today. I think a lot of organizations or realizing you have to have corporate muscle that is as engaged as in changing the status quo as the production muscle is in maintaining the status quo has >> become a cultural. >> It's become part of culture, and so I think innovation really is part of the evolution of corporate governance as far as I'm >> concerned. What one thing I worry about a little bit is, you know, I see a company like IBM. They have a long history of research that throws off innovation over the years. You know, I grew up, you know, in the backyard of Bell Labs and think about the innovation a drove today, the culture you know, faster, faster, faster and sometimes innovation. He does sit back. I need to be able to think longer, You know? How does how does an innovation culture fit into the ever changing, fast paced you? No need to deliver ninety day shot clock of reality of today. >> Well, I think innovation has to be smart, meaning you have to be able to feed the engines of growth. So your horizon one, if you will, of investments and your attention and efforts have to pay off the short term. But you also can't be strategically stupid and build yourself into an alleyway or to our corner, because you're just too short term thought through. Right? So you need to have a portfolio of what we call Horizon three blended with Horizon one and Horizon two types investment. So your short term, your middle term and your longer term needs are being met. Of course, if you think about it like a portfolio of investments, you're going tohave. Probably a smaller number of investments that air further out, more experimental and a larger proportion of them going to be helping you grow. You could say, almost tactically or sort of adjacent to where you are today, incrementally. But some of those disruptive things that you work on an H three could actually change your industry. Maybe you think about today where we are. Azan Economy intangibles are starting to creep into this notion of value ways we've never seen before. Today, the top five companies in terms of net worth all fundamentally rely on intangibles for their worth. Five years ago, it was one or two, and I would argue that the notion of intangibles, particularly data we'll drive a lot of very transformative types of investments for organizations going forward. So you've got to be careful not to starve a lot of those longer term investments, >> right? And it's almost become bromide. Large companies can innovate, but those five companies just mentioned well alluded to Amazon. Google, etcetera Facebook of Apple, Microsoft there, innovators, right? So absolutely and large companies innovate. >> Yes, clearly, yeah, but you have to have muscle, but it doesn't happen by accident, and you do put discipline and process and rigor and tools and leadership around innovation. But it's a different kind of discipline than you need in the operation, so I'll make him a ratio that makes sense. Maybe ninety five percent production, five percent innovation in an organization. That innovation engine is always challenging that ninety five percent Are you good enough? Are you relevant enough? Are you fast enough? Are you agile enough? You need that in every corporate organization in terms of governance to stay healthy and relevant overtime. >> So it's interesting. You know, I was in a session that Jack Welch talk wants, and he's like, I hear big companies can innovate is like big companies made up of people. People are the things that can innovate absolute. But, you know, I've worked in large organizations. We understand that the fossilization process and the goto market that you have, you know, will often kill, you know, those new flowers that are blooming, what separates the people that can drive innovation on DH? You know, put those positive place and kind of the also rans that, you know get left behind window disruption. >> Well, there's several. There's a couple things that I would highlight of a longer list, one of them we culture. I mean, I think innovation has been part of a culture. People in the institution have value innovation and want to be part of it. And there is, you know, a role that everyone can play. Just because you're in operations, if you will, doesn't mean you ignore change or you ignore the opportunity to improve the status quo. But you still have you get paid to operate what I find that is related to culture that gets a lot of people, you know, slow down or or roadblock is the disconnect between the operating part of the business and the innovative part of the business. If you try, if you build them to separately, what happens is you have a disconnection. And if you innovate the best idea in the world over here. But you can't scale it with production, you lose. So you have to make sure that, as as a leader overall, the entire enterprise you build those connections, rotations, leadership, You know, How do you engage the production, you know, engine into the innovation engine? It's to be very collaborative. It should be seamless. You know, everyone likes to say that, but that word, but relative seamlessness is, is heavy architecture. You've gotto build that, you know, collaboration into your model of of how you innovate >> and >> don't innovate in the vacuum. >> And it comes back to the cultural aspects we're talking about. Do you mentioned the ninety day shot? Clocks were here in the Bay Area. Silicon Valley. The most innovative place in the world. They've lived along the ninety day shot clock forever, and it seems to have not heard that so called short term thinking. Why is that? >> Well, there's so much start up here. I mean, at the end of the day, there is so much churn of new thinking and start up in V C. And there's so much activity that it's almost a microcosm, right? Not every place in the world smells, feels, looks like Silicon Valley, right? And the reason for it is in part because there's just so much innovation in what happens here. And these things change me. If you think about, uh, these unicorns that we have today. Today there's about three hundred ninety one unicorns. Just five years ago, there were one hundred sixty globally on before that. Hardly people didn't know they were hardly recognized. But that's all coming from pockets of innovation like Silicon Valley. So I'd argue that what you have here is an interesting amalgamation of culture being part of a macro environment region that that really rewards innovation and demonstrates that in in market valuations in capital raises, I mean, today one hundred million dollars capital raise is pretty common, especially for unicorns. Five, ten years ago. You never see me. It was very difficult to get a hundred million dollars capital, right? >> You mean you're seeing billion dollar companies do half a billion dollars raises today? I mean, it's >> all day, right? And some of them don't make a profit. Which is I mean, and that's kind of the irony, Which is, Are those companies? What did they get that the rest of us, you know, there was that live on Wall Street right out of in New York. What do we not see? Is that some secret that downstream there will be some massive inflow? Hard to say. I mean, look at Amazon is an example. They've used an intangible to take industries out that they were never in before they started selling books, and they leverage customer behavior data to move into other spaces. And this is kind of the intangible dynamic. And the infection >> data was the fuel for the digital disruption to travel around the world. You see that folks outside of Silicon Valley are really sort of maybe creating new innovation recipes? >> Yes. I think that what you see here is starting to go viral right on DH way that KPMG likes to share a holistic way to look at this for our clients. What is what we call the twenty first century enterprise. So the things that we used to do in the twentieth century to be successful, hire people, build more machines, right? You know, buy more assets, hard, durable assets. Those things don't necessarily give you the recipe for success in the twenty first century. And if you look at that and you think about the intangibles work that's been well written about there's there's all kinds of press on this today. You'll start to realize that the recipe for success in this new century is different, and you can't look at it in a silo to say, Okay, so I've gotta change my department or I've got a I've got to go change, You know, my widgets. What you've got to think is that your entire enterprise and so are construct called the twenty first Century prize. Looks at four things. Actually, it's five, and the fifth one is the technologies to enable change in the other four. And those technologies we talk about here and I have made him think which are, you know, cloud data, smart computers or a blockchain, etcetera. But those four pillars our first customer. How do you think about your customer experience today? How do you rethink your customer experience tomorrow? I think the customer dynamic, whether it's generational or it's technologically driven, change is happening more rapidly today than ever. And looking at that front office and the customer dementia, it is really important. The second is looking at your acid base. The value of your assets are changing, and intangibles are big category of that change. But do your do your hard assets make the difference today and forward. Or all these intangibles. Companies that don't have a date a strategy today are at peril of falling victim to competitors who will use data to come through a flank. And Amazons done that with groceries, right? The third category is as a service capabilities. So if you're growing contracting going into new markets are opening new channels. How do you build that capability to serve that? Well, there's a phenomenon today that we know is, you know, I think, very practised, but usually in functions called as a service by capability on the drink instead of going out and doing big BPO deals. Think about a pea eye's. Think about other kinds of ways of get access to build and scale very fucks Pierre your capabilities and in the last category, which actually is extremely important for any change you make elsewhere is your workforce. Um, culture is part of that, right? And a lot of organizations air bringing on chief culture officers. We and KPMG did the same thing, but that workforce is changing. It's not just people you hire into your four walls today. You've got contingent workforce. You have gig economy, workforce a lot of organizations. They're leveraging platform business models to bring on employees to either help customers with help. Dex needs or build code for problems that they like to solve for free. So when you talk about productivity, which we talked about last year and you start thinking about what's separating the leaders from a practical standpoint from the laggers from practically standpoint, a lot of those attributes of changing customer value of assets as a service growth and workforce are driving growth and productivity for that subset of our community and many injured. >> So when you look at the firm level you're seeing some real productivity gains versus just paying attention to the macro >> Correct, any macro way think proactive is relatively flat, and that's not untrue. It's because the bottom portion the laggards aren't growing. In fact, productivity is in many ways falling off, but the ones that are the frontier of those top ten percent fifteen hundred global clients we've looked at, uh, you know, you see that CD study show that they're actually driving growth and productivity substantially, and the chasm is getting larger. >> So, Steve, Steve, it's curious what this means for competition. I think about if I'm using external workforces in open source communities, you know, Cloud and I, you know, changes in the environment. A supposed toe I used to kind of have my internal innovation. Now I'm out in these communities s O You know, we're here than IBM show. You know, I think back the word Coop petition. I first heard in context of talking about how IBM works with their ecosystem. So how did those dynamics change of competition and innovation in this? You know, the gig. Economy with open source and cloud. May I? Everywhere. >> Big implications. I mean, I I think you know, and this is the funny point you made is nontraditional competitors, because I think most of our clients and ourselves recognized that we haven't incredible amount of nontraditional competitors entering our space in professional services. We have companies that are not overtly going after our space, but are creating capabilities for our clients to do for themselves what we used to do for them. Data collection, for example, is one of those areas where clients used to spend money for consultants coming in to gather data into aggregate data with tools today that's ah, a very short process, and they do it themselves. So that's a disintermediation or on bundling of our business. But every business has these types of competitive non Trish competitive threats, and what we're seeing is that those same principles that we talked about earlier of the twenty first century surprise applies, right? How are they leveraging there the base and how they leveraging their workforce? Are they? Do they have a data strategy to think through? Okay, what happens if somebody else knows more about my customers than I do? Right? What does that do to make those kinds of questions need to be asked an innovation as a capability I think is a good partner and driving that nothing I would say, is that eco systems and you made you mention that word, and I want to pick up on that. I mean, I think eco systems air becoming a force in competitive protection and competitive potential going forward. If you think about a lot of you know, household names relative Teo data, you know Amazon's one of them. They are involved in the back office in the middle ofthis have so many organizations they're in integrated in those supply chains. Value change, I think services firms, and particularly to be thinking about how do they integrate into the supply chains of their customers so that they transcend the boars of, you know, their four walls, those eco systems and IBM was We consider KPMG considers IBM to be part of our ecosystem, right? Um, as well as other technology. >> So they're one of one of the things we're hearing from IBM. Jenny talked about it yesterday, and her keynote was doubling down on trust. Essentially one. Could you be implying that trust is a barrier to ay? Ay adoption is that. Is that true? Is that what your data show? >> We we we see that very much in spades. In fact, um, you know, I I if you think about it quite frankly, our oppa has driven a lot of people to class to class three. Amalgamation czar opportunities. But what's happening is we're seeing a slowdown because the price of some of these initials were big. But trust, culture and trust are big issues. In fact, we just released recently. Aye, Aye. And control framework, which includes methods and tools assessments to help our clients that were working with the city of Amsterdam today on a system for their citizens that helped them have accountability. Make sure there's no bias in their systems. As a I systems learn and importantly, explain ability. Imagine, you know. Ah, newlywed couple going into a bank to get a house note and having the banker sit back and have his Aye, aye, driven. You know, assessment for mortgage applicability. Come up moored. Recommend air saying no. You Ugh. I can't offer you a mortgage because my data shows you guys going to be divorced, right? We don't want to tell it to a newlywed couple, right? So explain ability about why it's doing what it's doing and put it in terms that relate to customer service. I mean, that's a pretty it's a silly example, but it's a true example of the day. There's a lot of there's a lack of explain ability in terms of how a eyes coming up with some of its conclusions. Lockbox, right? So a trusted A I is a big issue. >> All right, Steve, Framework that you just talked about the twenty first century enterprise. Is there a book or their papers? So I just go to the website, Or do I need to be a client? Read more about, >> you know, absolutely. You can go to our website, kpmg dot com and you can get all the della you want on the twenty first century enterprise. It talks to how we connect our customers front to middle toe back offices. How they think about those those pillars, the technologies we can help them with. Make change happen there, etcetera. So I appreciate it that >> we'll check it out that way. Don't be left in the twentieth century. Come on. >> No, you can't use twentieth century answers to solve twenty first century challenges, right? >> Well, Steve, he'll really appreciate giving us the twenty first century update for day. Volante on student will be back with our next guest here. IBM think twenty nineteen. Thanks for watching you.

>> From the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, it's theCUBE! Covering AT&T Spark. (bubbly music) >> Hello! I'm Maribel Lopez, the Founder of Lopez Research, and I am here today at the AT&T Spark event in San Francisco and I have great pleasure and honor of interviewing Mazin Gilbert, who is the VP of Advanced Technology and Systems at AT&T. We've been talking a lot today, and welcome Mazin. >> Thank you, Maribel for having us. >> We've been talking a lot today about 5G, 5G is like the first and foremost topic on a lot of people's mind that came to the event today, but I thought we might step back for those that aren't as familiar with 5G, and maybe we could do a little 5G 101 with Mazin. What's going on with 5G? Tell us about what 5G is and why it's so important to our future. >> 5G is not another G. (Maribel laughs) It really is a transformational and a revolution really to not to what we're doing as a company, but to society and humanity in general. It would really free us to be mobile, untethered, and to explore new experiences that we've never had before. >> Do I think of this as just faster 4G? Because we had 2G, then 3G, then 4G, is 5G something different? When you say it allows us to be mobile and untethered, don't we already have that? >> No we don't. There are a lot of experiences that are not possible to do today. So imagine that having multiple teenagers experiencing virtual reality, augmented reality, all mobile, while they are in the car all in different countries; we can't have that kind of an experience today. Imagine cars as we move towards autonomous cars, we cannot do autonomous cars today without the intelligence, the speeds and the latency with 5G, so that all cars connect and talk to each other in a split of a second. >> See, I think that's one of the real benefits of this concept of 5G. So when you talk about 5G, 5G is yes more bandwidth, but also lower latency, and that's going to allow the things that you're talking about. I know that you also mention things such as telemedicine, and FirstNet network, any other examples that you're seeing that you think are really going to add a difference to peoples lives going forward as they look at 5G? >> 5G is a key enabler in terms of how these experiences are going to really be transformed. But when you bring in 5G with the edge compute. Today, think of compute, and storage, and securing everything, is sitting somewhere, and as you're talking, that something goes to some unknown place. In the 5G era, with the edge, think of computer storage as following you. And now-- >> So you're your own data center. (laughs) >> You're pretty much your own data center. Wherever you go with every corner, there's a data center following you right there. And now add to that, we're transforming our network to be programmable with our software-defined network, and add AI into that, bringing all of this diamond together, the 5G, the edge, programming the network with software-defined, and AI, and that is what the new experiences is. This is when you'll start seeing really an autonomous world. A world in which that we're able to experience drones flying and repairing cell sites, or repairing oil tanks, without us really being involved, from being in our living room watching a movie. This is a world that is extremely fascinating, a world in which that people can interact and experience family reunion, all virtually in the same room, but they're all in different countries. >> I do think there's this breakthrough power of connectivity. We've talked about it in the next generation of telemedicine, you mentioned some of the dangerous jobs that we'd be able to use drones for, not just for sort of hovering over peoples gorgeous monuments or other things that we've seen as the initial deployments, but something that's really meaningful. Now I know the other topic that has come up quite a bit, is this topic of opensource, and you're in the advanced technology group, and sometimes I think that people don't equate the concept of opensource with large established organizations, like an AT&T, but yet, you made the case that this was foundational and critical for your innovation, can you tell us a little bit more about that? >> Opensource is really part of our DNA. If you look at the inventions of the Unix, C, C++, all originated from AT&T Labs and Bell Labs, we've always been part of that opensource community. But really in the past five years, I think opensource has moved to a completely another level. Because now we're not just talking about opensource, we're talking about open platforms, we're talking about open APIs. What that means is that, we're now into-- >> A lot of open here. (laughs) >> Everything open in here. And what that really means is that we no longer as one company, no one company in the world can make it on their own. The world-- >> K, this is a big difference. >> It's a big difference. The world is getting smaller, and companies together, for us to really drive these transformational experiences companies need to collaborate and work with each other. And this is really what opensource is, is that, think of what we've done with our software-defined network, what we called ONAP in the opensource, we started as a one company, and there was another, one of the Chinese mobile companies also had a source code in there. In the past one year, we now have a hundred companies, some of the biggest brand companies, all collaborating to building open APIs. But why the opensource and open API is important, enables collaboration, expedite innovation, we've done more in the past one year than what we could've done alone for 10 years, and that's really the power of opensource and open platforms >> I totally agree with you on this one. One of the things that we've really seen happen is as newer companies, these theoretically innovative companies have come online, cloud native companies, they've been very big on this open proponent, but we're also seeing large established companies move in the same direction, and it's allowing every organization to have that deeply innovative, flexible architecture that allows them to build new services without things breaking, so I think it's very exciting to see the breadth of companies that you had on stage talking about this, and the breadth of companies that are now in that. And the other thing that's interesting about it is they're competitors as well, right? So, there's that little bit of a edgy coopetition that's happening, but it's interesting to see that everybody feels that there's room for intense innovation in that space as well. So we've talked a little bit about opensource, we've talked about 5G, you are in advanced technology, and I think we'd be remiss to not talk about the big two letter acronym that's in the room that's not 5G, which would be AI. Tell me what's going on with AI, how are you guys thinking about it, what advice do you have for other organizations that are approaching it? Because you are actually a huge developer of AI across your entire organization, so maybe you could tee up a little bit about how that works. >> AI is transformational, and fundamental for AT&T. We have always developed AI solutions, and we were the first to deploy a AI in call centers 20 years ago. >> 20 years ago, really? >> 20 years ago. >> You were doing AI 20 years ago? >> 20 years ago. >> See, just goes to show. >> 20 years ago. I mean AI really, if you go to the source of AI, it really goes in the '40s and '50s with pioneers like Shannon and others. But the first deployment in a commercial call center, not a pilot, was really by AT&T. >> An actual implementation, yeah. >> With a service, we called it how may I help you. And the reason we put that out, because our customers were annoyed with press one for this and press two for billing, they wanted to speak naturally. And so we put the system that says "How may I help you?" and how may I help you allowed the customer to tell us in their own language, in their own words, what is it that they want from us as opposed to really dictating to them what they have to say Now today, it's really very hard for you to call any company in the world, without getting a service that uses some form of speech recognition or speech understanding. >> Thankfully. (laughs) >> But where we're applying it today and have been for the past two, three years, we're finding some really amazing opportunities that we've never imagined before. AI in its essence, is nothing more than automation leveraging data. So using your data as the oil, as the foundation, and driving automation, and that automation could be complete automation of a service, or it could be helping the human to doing their job better and faster. It could be helping a doctor in finding information about patients that they couldn't have done by themselves by processing a million records all together. We're doing the same thing at AT&T. The network is the most complex project ever to be created on the planet. And it's a complex project that changes every second of the day as people move around, and they try different devices. And so to be able to optimize that experience, is really an AI problem, so we apply it today to identify where to build the next cell sites all the way to what's the right ad to show to the customer, or, how do we really make your life easier with our services without you really calling our call center, how do I diagnose and repair your setup box before you're calling us? All of that foundation is really starting to be driven by AI technologies, very exciting. >> Well I'm actually very excited to see where AI takes us, and I'm excited to hear about what you're doing in the future. Thanks for takin' the time to come here today, >> It's my pleasure. >> And be with us on theCUBE. Thank you. >> It's always a pleasure talking to you, thank you very much. >> I'm Maribel Lopez closin' out at AT&T Spark, thank you. (bubbly music)

(upbeat electronic music) >> Announcer: Live from Las Vegas, it's the CUBE. Covering Veritas Vision 2017. Brought to you by Veritas. >> Welcome back to the Aria in Las Vegas everybody. This is the CUBE, the leader is live tech coverage. And we're here covering Veritas Vision, #VtasVision. I'm Dave Vellante with Stu Miniman. Bill Coleman is here. He's the CEO of Veritas. Bill, thanks for coming on the CUBE, good to see you. >> My pleasure, thank you for hosting us. >> Well, you're very welcome. And so, hot off the keynote, how do you feel, how's the show going for you so far? >> Well, I'll tell you what. I feel verit-awesome! >> (laughs) Verit-awesome is the watchword here. Get the crowd talk of Verit-awesome. I love that you started out with a little retrospective from last year. You used the term digital twin. We love that term, and you said it's sort of grown up now. I like to think the digital twins are sort of in their adolescent or even teenage years. The data is sort of out of control. We're not hearing today a message of legacy backup. We're hearing a vision of the future. Talk about that and what that vision looks like. >> Our customers obviously need data protection. They need resiliency. They need everything they've needed in the past. But that's not what they're interested in. That's assumed, that has to work. What they're interested in is the power of information. We like to say that our mission is to harness the power of information. And it's what's called digital transformation. Being able to use all that data out on the internet with all of their data, to change how they do business. To change what their products are. To change their supply chain. It's all about machine learning, predictive analytics, and the power of information. >> So I started in this business the same year that Veritas was born. And so I saw the ascendancy of Veritas and the many different forms that the company had taken. But I used to use Veritas as an example. You want to be like Veritas, with no hardware agenda. You want to be the glue that brings things together. And I saw in the conversation today a little bit of BEA-like thinking. The binder, if you will. Binding clouds together. My term, you guys didn't use that term, but to us, that's a critical value-add, and it's all around the data. You guys talked about digital business. To us, digital business means data, and it seems like we sort of share that common belief. >> Absolutely. You know, we've called this the information age for 50 years? But it's not been about information, it's been about technology. We finally have the ability to address that information, and do it over the internet, everywhere and everything. That's really what our vision is. You know, at BEA, we saw the internet emerging. And the world had to distribute, and take advantage of all that power across the whole world. And we invented that. But the key was, when I came up with the first concept of BEA in '93, I said, "You know, by the year 2000, "the network is going to be the computer." The network needs an operating system to make it all work. Well the concept here, and the reason that I actually took this job, is looking ahead ten years. Everything's going to be about information. No organization's going to be able to exist without leveraging the power of that information. Because that's the only way they'll bring their customer the value they need. That's the only way they compete, and without it, their business is just going to go down. >> Yeah, Bill, how are customers going to leverage data? You mentioned it's about the information, it's not about the technology. But you know, I look at customers. They've had storage people, they have network people. You know, "Oh, I'm excited about containers." We spent the last 15 years focused on virtualization. Is it Chief Data Officer? Or is it some other structure that customers, how are some of the leading customers that are going to be able to adopt this, how are they changing to be able to leverage that data and information? >> Well first, you have to understand, the technology has been complex, hard to use, hard to manage. As we saw earlier in the keynotes, it's like building a Rube Goldberg device. They had 27 different software products, and 14 different hardware products to sort of work together. Well, that's all disappearing. With cloud and the internet, it's becoming like a utility. You just subscribe to it. So that goes away. Now what you have to do, what we have to do, is we have to give them the tools that they can easily, visually look at that data, determine what's in that data, be maneuvering it, move it around, like in the movie, uh-- >> Stu: Minority Report? >> Minority Report. And literally, the things we talked about today, the demos we showed can lead to that. With machine learning predictive analytics, our biggest customers are already investing billions of dollars to do that. 'Cause they know if they don't jump ahead, their competition's going to do it. It's the power of information. >> So one of the things I might take away today was not only is Veritas hardware agnostic, but in many respects, you're workload agnostic. In other words, what I mean by that is, a lot of the events that Stu and I and the CUBE goes to, the enterprise companies are talking about on prem and that's where their business is, and much of your business, of course, is on prem. But we heard a message today of, "We really don't care where it lives. "We want to be the innovator "to help you get value out of your data "no matter where it lives." Now a lot of people will say that, but you really don't care where it lives. Is that true? >> And we can't. Look at, data's not just in an enterprise's data centers anymore. They're using clouds. We've surveyed our customers. Our average enterprise customer is using three public clouds already. And they have dozens of SASS applications like Salesforce, Workday, ServiceNow. Their data's in there too. That's really complex. What we've done is we've take and build the products that run in the cloud, across the cloud, to and from the cloud all by one policy orchestration. So you don't have to think about any of that. You can discover the data, categorize the data, manage the data and analyze the data all from one interface, end to end. >> So the obvious hard question follow-up is that what give you confidence that the cloud guys, once they get that workload, aren't going to just sort of usurp that agenda? What do you have to do to maintain that customer delight? >> Well, the first thing is the cloud, the public cloud providers, are our very close partners. You know, the first month we started this, Bill Voss, who heads storage for AWS, and I worked with him and Sun, came down to us and said, "Look, our customers need backup." You know, snapshots are great, but if somebody deletes a snapshot, it's gone. Your data's gone. How are you going to protect that? How are you going to analyze that data? When we want to partner with you? So we partnered with them. But the other thing he said was, "And if we do it exclusively, "the enterprises aren't going to use us." I had the CIO of one of the top five banks in the world tell me right after I started this, "We've got to be using three clouds simultaneously. "We never want to be stuck in the cloud." So the cloud service providers know that the enterprise customers want and demand that portability. And we become their, we're the premier partner for Amazon, for Microsoft, for Google, and for IBM. >> So, it's relationships. >> Right. >> But it's also innovation. >> Absolutely. >> So talk about where you are with R & D. You're purchased by a private equity company. You might have heard the narrative beforehand. A lot of the old private equity model is to suck all the cash out. Kind of the new private equity model is to invest, grow the valuation of the company. I think that's where I see you guys going. But talk about how you're able to innovate. Talk about the R & D mojo that you guys have. >> You had several questions there. >> Yeah (laughs). >> But let me start with that, with the last one. When we carved this company out 19 months ago, it became apparent that we weren't a real player in the cloud. We weren't in some of the more modern workloads. And we had to change rapidly. So, we created a strategy that led to this whole 360 data management integrated platform, software-defined storage. Integrating it with a restful API interface. And then in one year, we built seven new products from scratch that operate in the cloud, on prem, or across cloud. Automated that entire thing. We literally took the startup mentality. Now I've been a startup guy most of my life. I spent the last five and a half years before this funding early-stage startups, and the thing is being agile, and moving fast. We can move faster than anyone around now. We're a big company. Let's take Cloudpoint. We just introduced our Cloud Snapshot. That was a thought in somebody's eye in February. We defined what we needed to do, working with our customers. We put together the team. We built a micro-service end to end archistructure, and we shipped it, supporting the major, all the major cloud snapshot capability in five months, end to end. Totally new product. Now that is a startup mentality. >> Yeah, Bill, can you explain to us a little bit some of the internal plumbing of how you've managed that. On the one hand, Veritas, trusted company, strong engineering culture, product like NetBackup, you know. 15 years, leader in it's space, versus brand new stuff, whole new spaces. What staying the same, what's changing? How do you manage some of those transitions? Because you know, typical company, it's like, "We've got 7500 employees." It's like, "Well, I've got revenue streams "and product lines that I know how to do "and can keep chugging, but I've got the new stuff too." So how do you manage that internally? >> I've have a very simple philosophy of what it takes to lead a major company. You got to have a direction to go in, you have to draw higher-grade people, and you have to organize around the first two. But the key is where are you going? Where's the puck going to be in five to 10 years? And I call that the three V's. WHat's the vision of where the market's going to be? And number two, what's the value that brings to customer? The value that will justify their switching costs. And the third is, what are the values that you build your company on, that customers and partners will be able to trust and count on. So, when you start with that, we created the vision. It has to be a compelling and urgent vision. Ten years from now, all of our products are going to be obsolete. They're going to mostly be obsolete in five years. All of our traditional products. It's all going to be a microservice. Change on the fly, customers never have to upgrade kind of environment, right? There's an urgency there. And customers want to transform. There's an urgency there. The key is, based on your values, you have to develop a culture that embodies the norms to execute your strategy. And then you keep those things and balances. The cultural change has been the most profound and the most important thing we've done in this company. And this company now has a startup, win-in-the-marketplace, customer-first culture. >> So you laid out the vision. In terms of the value to customers you said, when you talk to your CIO customers and other customers, three things came out. Cut costs, deal with governance and compliance, and then help us with the digital transformation. Help us become a digital business, essentially. >> Yeah. >> So those two are pretty clear. Talk about the values that you espouse. What are they? >> So, when you start with values have to be built around what you're providing to a customer. And there's sort of three aspects of that. I'm going to give them the best possible products. I'm going to give them the lowers possible price, or I'm going to give them the best possible service that they can count on. I'm asking our customers to bet their future. So it has to be the third. So it starts with, we produce customer value, right? Then the next aspect of it is, they have to believe that what you're doing is going to be there for them, that it's going to really work. So our next one is, we're going to do that by inventing the future, to bring them the customer value. We're not going to look back and try to add features and functions where we are. We need to help them jump ahead to where they need to be. The third part of that, the pyramid there is customers are going to rely on you. So trust, accountability, ethics, integrity. Those three things come together. Then, we're all about employees, right? So, how do you empower employees to succeed, grow, and be accountable. And you put these values together, and the values will never change. The culture will evolve as strategy moves, and keeping in balance means you're going to have to reorganize on a continual basis around where you are in your strategy. I told this company, we're going to be reorganizing continuously, at least once a year. We're about to do a pretty fundamental reorganization in parts of our company. And this is second time in six months. But you have, you know, you have to be an agile organization. >> Bill, the venture community thinks that this is a hot space. There's a whole number of startups, highly focused. Obviously they're smaller than you, don't have the breadth of products. How do you look at the marketplace? What do you say about that aspect? >> Well, as I said, I spent five and a half years in early-stage venture. >> Yeah. >> We had the highest return fund for our first fund of multiple of any venture capital company. I really love that world. Venture capital is the the center of invention, the center of innovation in this country, in the world. You know, back in the 40s, 50s and 60s, you used to have these big corporate labs. You know, Bell Labs, Sarnoff Labs, et cetera. They don't exist anymore. It's all done by these. So they're inventing the future. Now the difference between the pre-dot-com era and after is, the vast majority of startups are, well, the the vast majority have failed. >> Will fail. (laughs) The vast majority of what's left are acquired, and a few go public, right? So to me, number one, they are the laboratory. They are in the areas that we that are merging, and that we don't necessarily have a core competence, we want to look on how to do that. In BEA, in six years, I did 24 acquisitions to build the company. I never acquired anything that came to us. It was all, here's part of our strategy, we need this competency, we need this time to market. How do we make it work, right? Matter of fact, there was a joke. BEA stood for Built Entirely on Acquisitions. (hosts laugh) >> Well, people used to, Larry Elison himself used to denegrate people for writing checks, not code. And then, of course, he changed the software business with (laughs) some big checks. Well, I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about the team. So when you took over here at Veritas, you mentioned off camera, you started with the team. How did you go about that? Maybe describe, add some color to the team. >> You know, like I said, one of the three pillars of my management is hire great people. And if you're going to transform a company, if you're going to do a turnaround, it has to start with the leadership team. Period, you can't start anywhere else. But you have to have a leadership team that shares the vision, shares the drive, knows how to work hard together. And when they walk in that room, there's not one thought about my organization or my career, or my compensation. Because they all know, if we make this work, all the rest can take care of itself. Now, when you're doing these sort of things, there are certain times in certain organizations, that people's skills are optimal. You know, the group that was managing this as part of Semantec, they weren't necessarily the best people to manage it as a change in culture, change in strategy. So I had to go out, and I brought in a couple of folks that I've worked with before. We brought in some real amazing people. Mike Palmer is just unbelievable at all dimensions of product development. Scott Genereux, he knows sales back, forward. He knows every customer out there by name, and he knows how to really motivate a sales force. Well, every member of my leadership team except Todd Hauschildt, the CIO, has come in with the same vision, the same, and of course that works down the organization as you're building. And that's how you change the culture. With that, here's the vision of where we're going. Here's the values, what we are going to do. This is how we're going to lead it. >> So major objectives. Obviously you want to keep moving fast. >> I presume you're going to, >> Yeah. >> You're reorganizing frequently to support that. But what are the main objectives that we should be looking for as outside observers over the next six, nine, 12, 18 months? We are changing the agenda of the information management industry. The first place is, for digital transformation, corporations have to switch. They have to get off what they're doing today ultimately and go to something new. And in an enterprise, that can only be one platform. You can't have two platforms deleting, moving data asynchronously. So, its going to be a major transformation. Now that has to be a platform. We've put the stake in the ground. We have that platform. Now, this is our battle to lose, because the incumbents in a transformation get to win if they're good enough. You know, in the disruption, only a startup can win. That's how I won at BEA, how we won at Sun. But this isn't disruption. Nobody's going to throw away all their data centers and jump into somebody before who said, "Oh, I've managed 100 terabytes. "Give me your 50 pedabytes." (Dave laughs) You know? And no customer is going to trust them. So this is our battle to win. We're changing the entire agenda with 360 data management. What we, our number one challenge is, we have to change the positioning in our own customers' minds, because they know us as the 30 years of that legacy, backup, recovery and archiving company. And it's really working. But that's number one. That's my number one objective. 'Cause the rest will take care of itself. >> And as a private company, do you feel like you're in a more advantageous position to do that, and why? >> Well, I don't think I could do this as other than a private company. Because it changes the economics dramatically. Also, at the same time, we're switching from mostly licensed revenue, to mostly rateable avenues, we move to subscription. In a public company, that's a, "Oh, our revenue's going to go down for awhile, "and so is our profits, but trust me." >> Hang with us. (laughs) >> Yeah, hang with us. There are companies like adobe that did that flawlessly, but it's not an easy thing to do. >> Yeah, it's not easy. >> And I'll tell you, I have the best partner in the world. When I, when we started this whole carveout, and I figured out, "Whoa, we don't have the right products. "We got to build this whole thing." I went to Carlisle with the strategy and the vision of what we needed to do. And I said, "Look, because pricing pressure is so high, "We're not going to be able to grow based on your plan." How you invested. "But if you want me to do that, "I can do it, and you need to invest this much more. "But I recommend that we invest as fast as we can "to get to digital transformation." They chose the third. They chose to, we're spending 99 million more dollars in R & D and go-to-market this year than was in the original plan. I wouldn't be able to do that in the public markets. >> Yeah. >> You know? But they are the perfect partner. They build for growth. They stay in two to four years after an IPO. Their return is based on multiples of growth, and that's what, so our goals are totally aligned, and aligned with what the customers are going to need. >> Bill, great story, I know you're super busy. A lot of customers to meet. So thanks very much for taking time out and joining us on the CUBE. >> Bill: This has been a pleasure. Thank you, >> You're welcome. >> Bill: you got me all stimulated. >> All right, good deal. All right, keep it right there everybody. Stu and I will be back with our next guest. This is the CUBE. We're live from Veritas Vision 2017. We'll be right back. (electronic rhythmic music)